Author: Dieter

Certain Fury

  By

★★★★
“When child stars grow up”

Child actors have a difficult challenge facing them when the reach adulthood. They are not the sweet kids anymore that everyone loves and wants to cuddle with. They can’t rely on the cuteness factor anymore that made them once so successful. That can lead to tragedy. How many former kid stars became drug addicts or committed suicide because they couldn’t return to that time anymore, when in a way the world was theirs? Others were smart enough to leave film business behind them and start a new career e. g. Shirley Temple. But a few of them are indeed lucky. they stay calm amidst all the thunderstorms of early successes and puberty, manage to stay relevant to audiences and even find a new footing and grown-up roles, that cement their careers as everlasting film stars. Actresses like Sophie Marceau or Jodie Foster come to mind.

The latter is a particular success story, making the transition from child actor to grown-up movie star. In the 70s she was the regular tomboy in Disney family comedies and at one point was even under consideration to play a young Princess Leia in what would become the first Star Wars movie. Her constant competitor in tomboy roles was Tatum O’Neal. the youngest ever to win an Oscar, for her performance in Peter Bogdanovich’s beautiful tragic-comedy Paper Moon (1973), next to her father. She also played a tomboy in The Bad News Bears as Walter Matthau’s daughter. Coincidentally, Paper Moon became a TV series in which Jodie Foster played O’Neal’s role! Unfortunately, O’Neal went through the usual teen-phase, then slowly disappeared from the screen. Later she made headlines for her troubled marriage and addiction. Just a couple of years ago again when she was taken in by police because she wanted to buy some drugs.

Why this long introduction? It’s because I think it’s kind of unjust how her career went – though everyone is responsible for their own decisions and you never really can plan to be in “successful movies“. But contrast the career of Foster who had a similar basis, but persevered after making some less interesting movies for much of the 1980’s. Her second career in films began with the Oscar for Accused (1988) and then moved on from there to bigger things. It just shows that you may have talent and get credit for some time in Hollywood. But if the right movie and role doesn’t come along, and you make some bad decisions, anyone’s promising movie career can just evaporate in front of your eyes.

There are movies that are crossroads that can lead to other – maybe better – things or open up a new role type for you, maybe an entire new genre. My feeling is that Certain Fury (title in German cinemas: “In the heat of New York”) could maybe have been that for O’Neal. It just wasn’t to be.

From 1985, it checks all the boxes for a typical 80’s action buddy movie, beginning with the story. At a mass trial of young girls, responsible for different criminal acts, two prostitutes start a shoot-out in the courtroom that has to be seen to be believed. A remarkable act of violence which you hardly would ever find in a modern action movie of today where everything is usually very neat and clean. Scarlet (O’Neal) who has killed a man – in self-defence as we find out later – and Tracey (Cara, who won an Oscar herself for her song in Flashdance shortly before; the title song here is also by her) are among those who take their chances in the ensuing chaos. They run from the court building into the streets, chased by the police.

They are more fortunate than one of the prostitutes, who gets shot into the back. Really, this movie could only exist in the 80’s, and would be unthinkable for today’s Hollywood. The pair make it into the sewers, and survive an underground explosion, caused by a cop’s lit cigarette igniting sewer gas. They eventually meet one of Scarlet’s lovers named Sniffer (Nicholas Campbell) who is an especially disgusting creature. He obviously makes porn and after Scarlet has left, tries to rape Tracey in the shower. While not a particularly graphic scene, it might well work against the possibility of the film being released in the US again. 

Scarlet tries her best to get help from another former lover, the arrogant, rich, criminal Rodney, who turns out to be played by Peter Fonda. Did he ever get an Oscar for one of his movies? I don’t think so. [Jim: no, just nominated for Ulee’s Gold] It’s so strange because he’s the most well-known actor in this movie. But he likes her as lttle as her other ex, and cuts her cheek with a knife. She just returns right on time to escape with Tracey before Rodney’s men arrive to get her after he made a deal with the police. Scarlet has taken some of Sniffer’s drugs and manage to sell them in what looks like a giant derelict house in the slums. It really is a movie from Reagan era! ;-)) Her persecutor arrives on the scene, injects Tracey with drugs, sets fire to the house and has a final fight with Scarlet before meeting a fiery death.

Police inspector Lt. Speier (Murdock) is meanwhile trying to find the girls, together with Tracey’s father, Dr. Freeman (Moses Gunn, e. g. a gangster boss in Shaft). The theme of Black and White working together is repeated in these characters, as in the girls themselves. This is a very positive, uplifting message but – unlike today where many movies have become a lesson about racism and discrimination – it’s not a lecture, it’s inherent in the movie’s story and characters. It makes this much more palatable for me than modern movies who lose the entertainment aspect in the background, while putting their lessons in your face.

As the two girls are believed to be dead (Tracey reads it in the newspapers; Scarlet can’t read) they consider a new life together, free in the mountains. But Scarlet doesn’t believe it’s possible, and in her brusque manner tosses Tracey away from her. When the police arrive, Scarlet still keeps on walking on a bridge, so they shoot her in the back. But the last shot shows Scarlet being hold by Tracey and Dr. Freeman saying it is not so serious, and was only into the shoulder. Guess that’s a happy ending… or something like that!

It’s all tough stuff. Certain Fury isn’t an “important” movie; indeed, you could even argue whether or not it is a “good” movie. As a matter of fact, I had a strong feeling when watching this movie that Charles Bronson might come around the corner any moment to “clean up the slums of New York“. It really looks like one of those cheap Cannon flicks that were such guilty pleasures in the video stores of the 80s (and might be even more now!). And, indeed, just a short time later, Cannon had Charlie handcuffed to a snotty teen, and sent on a similar road trip through gangster-land in Murphy’s Law (1986). Though that movie more or less dropped any social issues of the O’Neal-Cara-film and concentrated on the bloody action of Bronson versus the rest of the criminal underworld.

I note also obvious similarities to the Stanley Kramer-classic The Defiant Ones (1958) with Tony Curtis and Sidney Poitier. Scarlet is not nice and understanding, she is street-wise, prone to anger and absolutely insulting. Heck, she even drops the N-word to Tracey. So the inspiration is arguably there. And who knows, maybe it wasn’t an accident that a year after this movie, The Defiant Ones got an update in a 1986 television movie with Robert Urich and Carl Weathers (also a very watchable movie). [Jim: there’s also Black Mama, White Mama, in which Pam Grier and Margaret Markov are another inter-racial pairing, who escape from prison handcuffed together]

While I mainly saw and enjoyed Certain Fury for what it was – enjoyable over-the-top action trash – the movie nevertheless put some fingers into social issues that may be as relevant today in America, as they were almost 40 years ago. Racism, social class differences, uncontrollable no-go areas, criminality, poverty, drugs and – yes – even police brutality can be witnessed in this movie. Though after the bloody mass shoot-out in the courtroom at the beginning, where hardly anyone is left alive, you can maybe understand the over-reaction of the police! I don’t think this  almost forgotten little movie offers any solutions to these myriad of problems. But it at least suggests that even very different people can understand and support each other, even if it needs an extreme emergency to do so. It’s a theme also mirrored in the very different duo of the white police inspector and the black surgeon.

Now, I wouldn’t recommend the movie if you want a high-quality social drama: too much Charles Bronson in it, if you ask me. But it’s enjoyable action trash, and interesting that at one point Tatum O’Neal could have become an action or thriller star. The latter genre was, after all, the one in which Jodie Foster found her greatest commercial success. O’Neal’s acting is very good, I think; there’s nothing left of that little brat she embodied in the 70s. Her Scarlet is an interesting character of the “hard shell, soft core” variety. She could maybe have continued in this manner; who knows? Instead of that she chose to marry tennis player John McEnroe, which obviously wasn’t the best move for her in any way.

Here’s a little confession: I feel a certain emotional connection to this movie as I discovered the trailer online and then suggested it to a German DVD label who promptly released the movie on DVD here in Germany (even with an audio commentary of two film historians!) – I think my ego is going to explode! ;-) And an interesting final tidbit: In the German-language version Tatum O’Neal is played by the voice artist who regularly dubs… Jodie Foster!

Dir: Stephen Gyllenhaal
Star: Tatum O’Neal, Irene Cara, Nicholas Campbell, George Murdock

Akame ga kill

  By

★★★
“Game of Thrones meets Japanese anime humour”

“Akame ga kill” can be translated as “Akame kills by slashing” and yes, she and her comrades do that and much more! Though, strangely enough Akame is not really the main character of the series, but young teen boy Tatsumi. Honestly, I wonder why the title character is not at the center of a show. But who cares as long as the show is good? And there is certainly no shortage of action heroines to be found therein.

Let’s start with the plot of this fantasy anime series from 2014. Young Tatsumi (Saitô) comes into the capital of the Empire. Hoping to work his way up the  ranks in the army, and send earnings back to his poor village, he’s quickly disillusioned when he’s tricked out of his money. A wealthy girl and her family offers him shelter, but in the night the infamous rebel group “Night Raid” attacks and kills all of the inhabitants of the house. They give Tatsumi a choice: join them, or die! Tatsumi is hesitant, until they show him that the two friends with whom he started out from his village, were tortured and slain by rich perverts for pleasure.

The truth of the country is then revealed. The young king is manipulated by an evil advisor, and the government is corrupt and consists of a rich elite who exploit the poor by taxes or by torturing them. Night Raid is a group of people, mostly unknown to the authorities, who want to overthrow the government. The advantage the group have is possession of so-called “Imperial Arms”, magical weapons that can do wonders. Each has its own special ability, and can typically be used only by a carrier to whom it responds emotionally. Unfortunately, their opponents also have these kind of weaponry. They are a newly formed group of the Empire called the “Jaegers” (“Jäger” is the German word for “hunter(s)”), under the leadership of the gruesome General Esdeath.

Let battle commence! For Akame ga kill is essentially a Battle Royale-esque anime version of Game of Thrones – though with every one of the main characters carrying Imperial Arms, all parties have an equal chance. And in common with Thrones, there are a lot of strong female characters on both sides, to the extent that they largely overshadow the male characters.

On the side of the rebels, you’ll find the thief Leone (Asakawa) who can turn into a feline beast with incredible regeneration abilities; the pink-haired Mine who wields a very big gun, triggered by the power of her own emotions; the socially awkward Sheele who uses giant scissors (it’s not as ridiculous as it sounds); and a restrained assassin, the title-giving Akame (Amamiya), as well as two male characters. All of them guided by Najenda, a former general of the empire, with a mechanical arm and an eye patch. Later on, they are joined by Chelsea, a saucy girl who is able to turn into anyone from a little cat to a two-metre man thanks to her magical make-up. Don’t ask, just go with it…

The other side responds, among the male characters, with fanatic guard Seryu Ubiquitous, who plays judge and hang(wo)man in one, and is probably the least likable character of the show. She owns a little magical dog that can become a giant beast, eat opponents and turn her body members into weapons. Then there’s Kurome, the little sister of Akame, who can command up to six dead people to do her bidding. And all of them are led by the sadistic General Esdeath. Imagine Elsa from Frozen having grown up to become a Nazi with very big… ahem… eyes… In the last quarter, also introduced are the so-called Rakshasa demons who have no magical weapons, but are specially trained assassins, although they don’t get any backstory.

There are a lot of fights between the characters on these two sides. The series follows the GoT model of killing off main characters one by one, be they good or bad; you start wondering if any one will still be alive for the final fights. But rest assured, there will be some, Surprisingly – attention: spoiler – Tatsumi is not the big winner in the end, despite being the center of the story. Obviously the writers of the show eventually remembered that the show’s title had Akame in it, so the big final duel is fought between Akame and General Esdeath.

Though… young Tatsumi is really favoured by the ladies, it has to be said: While feline Leone hardly made any effort to conceal that she had the hots for him, also Mine fell in love with him, clumsy Sheele connected with him, Akame seems to be touched by him, Najenda liked him and even the otherwise cold-hearted General Esdeath decided, after just having a glimpse, that she was in love with him. Cut to her half-naked with him in her bedroom!

The big problem I have with this series is that it is morally very dubious. Both sides kill with a similar lack of mercy, and don’t really care if you are just a normal guy without their powers. If you are on the wrong side, you basically deserve to die. It reminds me of something my chemistry teacher once jokingly said: “I cannot see any difference between right- and left-wing radicals because they don’t show any difference in the way they react!” [Jim: Ah, GirlsWithGuns.org. Come for the girls with guns, stay for the chemistry jokes!]

In my judgement, “Night Raid” don’t come off as better than the “Jaegers”. Everyone seems just too eager to kill the other side. Even sisters Akame and Kurome think it’s necessary to kill the other despite their family love. General Esdeath commands their squad, if they should come across Tatsume, to capture him alive – as long as it is possible, because the mission comes first. Their motivations – justice (or what Seryu thinks justice is), revenge, loyalty to the empire – may differ but their methods do not. And I have to say, I couldn’t avoid the impression that the series enjoyed showing the graphic violence happening to all the characters, a little bit too much.

Honestly, I do have a big problem identifying with any of the dramatis personae. Their morality is up for grabs; even Tatsumi is too ready to kill those he doesn’t know to “free the people”. Actually, I don’t see the average Joe or Jane suffering very much from the “evil” regime. The normal people in the cities or at the market seem mainly to go about their business; I don’t hear them complaining about supression or the excessive taxes.

In the end, I was left with the impression we witnessed a feud between two powerful groups. who just fight for power. Equally distracting, the “evil guys” are depicted with some sympathy; in Wave, the Jaegers have a character that’s essentially their Tatsumi. Good or bad, the survivors always mourn the friends and comrades they lose in battle, and some on the “wrong” side even survive to build a better world. I guess my issue is, none of the characters ever question what they are doing. Yes, they may regret losing people and admit that they are killers. But they always seem to think that the purpose justifies the means – an attitude with which I have a basic philosophical problem.

Also, the combination of Game of Thrones grimdark and goriness with awkward Japanese anime humour does not really go well together IMHO. It’s really up to you if you can live with quirky character behaviour, in the midst of a dark and serious fantasy setting. The ending must rank among the most down-beat endings of any anime series. The reason may be due to another parallel with Game of Thrones: the studio ran out of the manga to turn into anime episodes, and had to invent its own ending.

So, a fan of the story can decide between two different ones.  Spoilers. The manga eventually had Tatsumi marrying Mine with whom he was – to quote Shakespeare – in “a merry war” and had two babies with her. The anime ends with him dying in battle, in the arms of Akame. She fights Esdeath, who then encloses herself, to die with her beloved Tatsumi in an ice block that she shatters. The choice is yours. But after the final end title, is a little postscript to shows Akame will continue her assassin work among the lawless, quite probably the last survivor of “Night Raid” and this story.

Dir: Tomoki Kobayashi
Star (voice): Sora Amamiya. Sôma Saitô, Yu Asakawa, Risa Mizuno

Burst Angel

  By

★★★
“Jo…just Jo. Forget about the rest!”

A couple of years ago when I wanted to rekindle my interest in anime, I stumbled over this series. Having been spoiled by the high quality of the GWG-anime Black Lagoon, I watched a couple of episodes of Burst Angel online, then left it and later couldn’t find it anymore. But also I didn’t bother, as the Youtube reviews I found painted a very dismal picture. According to one reviewer the series would later become stale, and always repeat the plot twist of the character of Meg being kidnapped and rescued by action girl Jo. Another – female – reviewer complained about the characters being sexually fetishized and getting bigger breasts in the inevitable “beach episode” (a standard in anime series which always gives a reason for some good-natured laughter).

Flash forward to today when – after having consumed around 40-50 more anime shows – I rediscovered the show on the German amazon.prime. I have now seen the entire 24 episode run and can definitely revise my ill-informed opinion.

The story so far. Time: The future. Young student and upcoming cook Kyohei (Ueda) starts a new job, becoming cook to four girls of different ages. They all live in a very comfortable and large-sized  mega-mobile home and also command a giant mecha. Financed by the mysterious organization “Bailan”, the four are always getting into action, after they get a (paid?) mission to fight monsters, giant robots or other strange creatures that suddenly appear.

Usually that means that tough grey-haired red-eyed Jo (Watanabe) gets into the mecha-armour and beats the opponent, until it stops moving. Who is behind these action usually stays unresolved. The other girls are Amy, a very young computer nerd; useless but obviously absolutely possessive Megan; and the older, leader of the team, Chinese girl Sei. Named after the characters in Little Woman (no, really!), they all assist and support Jo. And of course there’s Kyohei who is… just there. Which is strange, as it seemed in the beginning, he would be the main character – or that the story would at least be told from his perspective. But the series quickly all but forgets about him.

But to be honest, most of the characters don’t serve much purpose. The action usually centers almost all around Jo. Jo is a tough cooky from the street. As told in a short manga series, she and Megan originally formed a duo that would take on any job, before they formed a team with the other two girls. As a matter of fact, one episode even depicts how Jo meets Meg and her gang for the first time. Strangely, Meg appears in this episode much more grown-up and tougher than the rather infantile cry-baby she is depicted as, throughout most of the series.

The series is certainly not so uninspired or repetitive as one of the Youtube reviewers claimed it would be. It tells a range of stores stories, and also brings new elements into its narrative over its course. Every girl gets an episode where she can shine. So we see young Amy fight against robots in the Cyberworld, or Sei being confronted with a renegade faction within Bailan who wants to take over the organization by getting in possession of a powerful seal.

But the most interesting character is naturally the super-cool, calm Jo. Originally, my interest in the series grew because I thought she would be similar to Revy from “Black Lagoon”. Well, that might be a bit toi much of a compliment. While Revy is a three-dimensional character, Jo appears one-dimensional, almost a cliche, in comparison. The series gets its act together in the last few episodes when we discover Jo is one of two survivors from a biological weapon program run by an evil organization, who lost her memory. The show ends with her having to win her final fight, against the other, superior combatant spawned by the program.

This means lots of tears for Meg, as she clearly has to grow up now! ;-) In any way, while the series had a clear (and satisfying) ending, I amn’t so sure that things are quite as they seem, or that the dissolved team will never come together again. Though I hope the friendly Kyohei – whom I really wanted to see get a girl-friend – will find a better, or at least, more peaceful workplace in the future!

My personal judgement: Burst Angel is a good, solid and entertaining girls with guns show. There might be some improvements that could/should have been made but overall it’s good entertainment. Yes: stupid, sometimes downright silly Meg gets kidnapped more than once, though it didn’t bother me too much, and it’s not as apparent as you might think. I have much more an issue with the general uselessness of the character, though even she had an arc where she could do something, going undercover in a girl’s boarding school.

Concerning “sexually fetishization”… yeah, right. This is an anime show, what do you expect? But honestly, in comparison to other series – now I’ve got the experience to make a balanced judgement – the teasing is very limited. You want sexually fetishization? Watch “High School of the Dead” and then come back to the discussion. I’ve no problems with that, at least not in Burst Angel. You also don’t complain about Superman having a large chest or Batman wearing black latex and leather, do you?

Overall: A good show, though in the genre segment covering science fiction/fantasy action girls with guns, there are better shows with more developed characters. But as I said: I had a lot of mindless fun.

Dir: Koichi Ohata
Star: Akeno Watanabe, Megumi Toyoguchi, Rie Tanaka, Yūji Ueda 

Wait Until Dark

  By

★★★★★
“The missing link between Psycho and Halloween?”

I’m quite serious about the above. In 1959, Hitchcock’s classic psycho-thriller, which gave an entire genre its name, showed a normal, self-confident woman falling prey to a psychotic serial killer, while John Carpenter’s Halloween, also now a classic, had its heroine fighting off menace Michael Myers. In between these two iconic movies, there is not much that is worth mentioning. Some final girls in Italian gialli maybe managed to survive, I guess – but there’s nothing in big screen thrillers that the average Joe or Jane would be able to name.  Except… This movie, in which blind heroine Susy Hendrix (Hepburn) is able to see through the ruses of three gangsters, fight them off, and even win in a final confrontation against evil-as-evil-can-be psycho Mr. Roat (a very young Arkin – gosh, this guy is now 86 at the time of writing).

The story: gangsters Talman (Crenna – best known as Rambo’s boss) and Carlino (Jack Weston) meet the gangster Roat, previously unknown to them, in an empty apartment. Roat is obviously working for – or may even be the boss of – a drug-smuggling ring. A doll that was used to smuggle drugs had been given, for later collection, by their colleague Lisa (Samantha Jones) to an innocent photographer Sam Hendrix (Zimbalist). Sam lives in this apartment, with his blind wife Suzy (Hepburn). As a quick inspection of the flat didn’t lead to the doll, Roat recruits, or more accurately. blackmails the two men into helping him.

As Sam is away for the week-end, the three men are going to put on a kind of play for Suzy. The intention is making her believe Sam is suspected of murder of (the already dead) Lisa, putting psychological pressure on Suzy to reveal the whereabouts of the doll. Fortunately, Suzy may be blind but she is not stupid. Very soon, she notices little things in the behaviour of the men that suggest something else is going on. With help from a young girl who lives in the flat above (Julie Herrod), her suspicions are confirmed and she suddenly realizes she is on her own against three men. The worst of whom is Roat, not just a normal criminal, but who enjoys killing – and from the get-go had planned to kill everyone off, once he gets what he wanted.

Oh, my… ! This movie was (and IMHO still is) a real nail-biter. Based on a play by Frederick Knott who also provided the basis for Hitchcock’s Dial M for Murder (1953), the movie very much breathes Hitchcock’s air and makes good use of the master’s famous “suspense” techniques, in which the audience knows more than the movie’s protagonist. By this method, very special tension arises, as the viewer constantly wonders what will happen when the hero/ine finds out, and how s/he will escape the situation. Of course, this works much better when you have real danger imperilling the central character, so you can worry about them, and get caught up in the web of “suspense”.

For this to work, you need a character the audience likes, feels for and identifies with. In a Hitchcock movie, that might be your average, normal guys like James Stewart or Cary Grant, or later, much less lucky female characters like Janet Leigh or Tippi Hedren. There is no doubt that Audrey Hepburn’s casting here was a stroke of genius; she was at that time probably the most likable and beloved Hollywood star. Having her play a blind woman even contributed to the sympathy and fear felt for her, in a movie that was a very unusual genre for Hepburn.

Until then, she had been seen mainly in sweet love stories like Roman Holiday (1953) and Sabrina (1954), or comedy-thrillers like Charade (1963) with Cary Grant, or How to Steal a million (1966) with Peter O’Toole. She had broken through as a serious actress with The Nun’s Story (1959) and Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1961). She had even been cast by Hitchcock in an adaptation of Henry Cecil’s novel, No Bail for the Judge. But other commitments, qualms about a rape scene in the script, and a pregnancy combined to scupper her involvement and, eventually, the movie itself, which infuriated the master of suspense. So Hepburn had never previously played in a movie like this one.

Wait Until Dark is a dark, almost nihilistic thriller. This time, Hepburn’s heroine is all on her own, and if she isn’t able to put the puzzle pieces together and use her own wits, she will end up dead like poor Suzy in her cupboard. There is no Cary Grant or George Peppard coming to the heroine’s rescue. Even the not unsympathetic Crenna isn’t able to help. The gloves are truly off this time. It was kind of a gamble. There is a tradition of blind people in thrillers now; to name just some, Jennifer 8 (1992), Blink (1993), In Darkness (2018), or home-invasion thrillers e. g. Jodie Foster in Panic Room (2002). But these genres are relatively new, and not that often used then: 23 Paces To Baker Street (1956) and The Spiral Staircase (1945) with its deaf-mute heroine come to mind.

Also, would fans of Hepburn accept her in such a role? A cold, chilling thriller? Her husband, and producer of the movie, Mel Ferrer (himself a former film star whose fame was fading, though he stayed in the business as a successful producer) wasn’t quite sure it would work. But he convinced Audrey, who wasn’t nearly as confident as many believed her to be, to accept the part. But it worked really well. Director Terence Young was a great admirer of Hitchcock’s techniques and had already successful applied them to his James Bond movies Dr. No (1962), From Russia with Love (1963) and Thunderball as well as WWII thriller Triple Cross (1966). Together with Henry Mancini’s highly effective soundtrack, the movie creates an atmosphere of claustrophobic doom around the sympathetic heroine.

In a way, the film somewhat ended the career of Hepburn, as at the same time it started the career of Arkin – though he had some way to go before achieving the status he has nowadays. After this movie, the already rocky marriage between Hepburn and Ferrer came to a quick, unhappy ending. She stayed away from movies for the next eight years until she played opposite Sean Connery in Robin and Marian (1976). But none of her later movies would achieve the iconic status of the string of classics she did in the 1950’s and ’60’s.

She plays Suzy as a sympathetic, sweet woman who tries to be the best she can, even though she complains to her husband about whether she really has to be “the queen of the blind”. It’s nice to see a movie where a man isn’t the big saviour of the damsel in distress, but instead supports her in doing things by herself. Suzy is not without flaws; she insults and hurts the girl neighbour, though more by lashing out, regretted the next moment. It’s a more modern version of the classic Hepburn film persona. But Arkin leaves the strongest impression. His Roat comes off as evil incarnate. Wearing dark glasses throughout – you don’t see his eyes until the finale – and with the typical ‘bowl’ haircut of the time, he looks like an evil version of one of the Beatles! His cold, precise speaking style and efficient, smart handling of things give us the feeling that guy is a terrible wild-card.

The film was a great success. On a budget of $3 million, it made $17 million at the North American box office alone, and earned Audrey Hepburn her fifth and final Academy Award nomination. The plot may seem overly complicated, in how much trouble the gangsters go through for a few grams of drugs, knowing on what scale drug-dealing is executed today (I refer you to the James Bond movie Licence to Kill). But the film is extremely effective, delivering the kind of Hitchcockian experience that, at the end of the decade, Hitchcock himself wasn’t able to provide anymore, experiencing a creative trough at that time.

Arkin was watching the movie at the time with a studio executive and when the audience jumped out of their seats at the final moments of the film, when he came out of the shadows, the exec leaned over to him and said: “Do you realize that’s because of you? You scared them to death!” I think I rest my case there. Wait Until Dark makes a fine link between Psycho and Halloween, making Hepburn probably the most famous “final girl” of all!

Dir: Terence Young
Star: Audrey Hepburn, Alan Arkin, Richard Crenna, Efrem Zimbalist Jr.

The New Mutants

  By

★★★½
“The end of an era”

We live in a strange world in which Wonder Woman ’84 gets delayed again while The New Mutants is suddenly getting its release. Over the years, the story surrounding this movie has become more interesting than the one it tells. Originally, the film was scheduled for 2018 but didn’t find much luck. Director Josh Boone (The Fate in Our Stars) had the interesting idea of doing a Breakfast Club-type movie set in the Horror genre. After initial enthusiasm from the studio, execs pulled back, wanting to make the film more accessible, less horrific. Than the studio head at 20th Century Fox left, which led to changes at the script.

Originally, the film was supposed to play in the 80s (after X-Men: Apocalypse) and would have included Professor X and Storm. The script at hand seemed to depict the caretakers of the New Mutants in a very negative way. This is apparent when you see the character of Dr. Reyes (Alice Braga), the replacement for Storm. As the original X-men characters were always the heroes of the franchise, their appearances were skipped. But the success of the first part of Stephen King adaptation It (2017), led to a rethink, that the film should not abandon its scarier elements. The next thing to happen was the acquisition of 20th Century Fox studio by Disney (is there anything the House of Mouse doesn’t already own?) which meant that Dark Phoenix as well as The New Mutants were now Disney’s to deal with.

And obviously Disney didn’t care too much for Fox’s leftovers. Dark Phoenix went into cinemas last year with little fanfare, remaking a storyline that had already been told (and according to many, much better) in X-Men: The Last Stand (2006). The remake was a box-office failure – and this time the often overly negative criticism of fans, which I usually explain as Marvel fans who can’t stand that there is any competition for their beloved Disney films, might have been justified. I don’t know, because even I didn’t bother to watch the movie – and the X-Men movies were my entry into the Marvel universe. Why pay again to watch a story I saw 13 years ago, and own on DVD?

It seems to me that cinemagoers are tired of always seeing movies following the same old formula they have been watching, repeated again and again. That you can be successful by being different is proven by movies like Deadpool or Venom. The New Mutants tries to do something similar, but unfortunately, the caravan has moved on. After It and Netflix’s Stranger Things, the concept of the movie is nowhere near as original as it might have been a few years ago.

Based on Chris Claremont’s comic series from the 80s – at that time Marvel’s successful attempt to create a successful competing series to DC’s Teen Titans – New Mutants is about five misfits with the usual unusual abilities you know from the X-Men universe. Dani Moonstar (Blu Hunt) survives a catastrophe that killed her entire tribe, and wakes up in a hospital (which actually looks more like a nunnery!).

There, Dr. Reyes is trying therapy on four other mutants: Rahne Sinclair (Maisie Williams) who can turn into a were-wolf; Illyana Rasputin (Anya Taylor-Joy), Colossus’s little sister, who is able to jump in and out of the alternate dimension Limbo and can manifest a soulsword; Sam Guthrie (Charlie Heaton), who can move extremely quickly in the air and creating so extreme energy while being invulnerable in this situation; and Roberto da Costa (Henry Zaga), who can create when being excited solar energy, so he becomes actually burning hot. In the comics these characters are also known with their usual other names which are Wolfsbane, Magik, Cannonball and Sunspot but the movie never mentions these names.

Dr. Reyes intentions are to teach these young disturbed teens how to deal with their abilities and not hurt other people. It’s suggested by Reyes, they might then go to a school for gifted youngsters (hint, hint). Unfortunately, not all is as it seems and very soon the teenagers have to face their own anxieties and traumas. The evil power that killed off Dani’s people arrives at the facility and they are forced to work together to save Dani as well as defend their own lives and freedom.

Basically, this movie tries to go for a smaller scale, after a succession of X-Men movies that seemed to increase constantly in size. It’s a nice idea, and one I respect. This was even seen as the potential start of a new trilogy – although, which film nowadays isn’t? And I have to give the filmmakers this: at least they tried to do something different. That’s worth a lot in my book, considering we live in a time when Disney’s Marvel movies seem to be written and directed almost on autopilot (exception: The Avengers). Once a film series gets too big, the next logical step is to scale down. It can be a successful move: look at the James Bond movies, which seem to do so at regular intervals. However, it needs an audience that still cares. Unfortunately, I think that boat has sailed long ago for the X-Men. For most people, Logan (2017), Hugh Jackman’s final appearance in the role of Wolverine, was the last hurrah and end of the series.

There are a lot of good elements here. A darker, more sombre and psychological variation on the X-Men theme, it feels like Chris Carter’s TV series Millennium compared to his warmer, more sympathetic X-Files. This comparison is particularly appropriate, since The New Mutants was filmed in Vancouver, Canada, where the first few seasons of The X-Files were produced and here, too, the composer is Mark Snow.

The first half of the (fortunately not-too-long) movie – I really, really hate the lengthy running time of blockbuster movies today – focuses on the five misfits, their pasts and their relationship building. The second is when the action and the CGI comes into play, though is more restrained than you may be used to in these movies. The New Mutants really feels like the intimate stage-play of X-Men films. The main inspirations, apart from those already mentioned, seem to be the psychological drama Girl, Interrupted (1999) with Winona Ryder and Angelina Jolie, as well as Buffy the Vampire Slayer – the latter is watched by the mutants a couple of times, and seems to correspond with things we see later. But, while I said that the new movie is more psychological, don’t think it’s deep, beyond “Well, I’ve got these superpowers, didn’t know how to control them, killed some people and now I’m kind of a wreck.”

But still… I kind of liked that this went a different route than the usual overblown extravaganzas. Anya Taylor-Joy as Illyana Rasputin, a.k.a. “Magik”, leaves a particular impression. Though I have to wonder why those in power found it necessary to change the backstories: Rahne (Williams) and Dani seem to be moving towards a lesbian relationship while the film subtly indicates that Illyana might have created the “limbus” (her magical world) due to sexual abuse as a child. Neither of this has any basis in the comics, it’s just Josh Boone overwriting existing lore, perhaps to make the characters more “realistic”. I don’t know why people do that. Is being kidnapped by a devil-like demon and being transported in some kind of hellish dimension not terrifying enough anymore? On the other side, the story of “Magik” has hardly been touched, so the possibility of a solo film that could dive deeper into the lore of the character still exists. Though I guess, we’ll never see this at all.

I stayed until the end titles were over. For, while the movie was not the best of the series (though far from the worst), I felt a little sad realizing this was finally, officially and really the end of 20th Century Fox’s X-Men films. The first X-Men, in 2000, ushered in a new era of comic book movies and introduced me to Marvel superheroes. And while we have seen all sorts of similar films since, I always had a liking for this franchise. They tried out new things, and wanted to be different from that what Disney/Marvel did. Sometimes they succeeded, sometimes they failed – sometimes they succeeded and the result was still not that great. It’s always easy to do the safe, secure thing and laugh all the way to the bank. It’s less easy to constantly try to reinvent oneself.

Regardless of what their respective qualities or flaws were, I guess I’ll miss them.

Dir:  Josh Boone
Star: Maisie Williams, Anya Taylor-Joy, Charlie Heaton, Alice Braga

The Courier

  By

★★★ [plus an extra ½ for hardness!]
“The night Olga decided to paint a British parking garage red”

For one reason or another, in the last few years Great Britain has become the place to go for medium-budget action thrillers. Examples include the Pierce Brosnan-Milla Jovovich-actioner Survivor (2015) or the Noomi Rapace agent movie Unlocked (2017). Maybe this has to do with the “action-thriller” as a general genre, seeming to die out slowly in North America, where the comic book superhero genre appears largely to have replaced it. Be that as it may, The Courier belongs to that “dinosaur” genre. Released at the end of last year, it was not well-received by critics, though one has to ask: why?

No one expects profound thoughts on human nature or the state of society from an action movie. At least, I don’t. What I want to see when watching one, is a more or less well-connected story, nice visuals and definitely convincing action scenes. And though this may have several plot holes, that if you think about them, make the whole story fall down like a card house, it delivers on all of the above-mentioned elements. So I just can’t agree with the many critics who seemed intent on tearing down the movie for no reason at all. This isn;t to say the film hasn’t its problems: The movie opens with music over several photos and headlines of newspapers, and is all over a little bit too quickly, before you can realize this is the backstory (though later, the film uses flashbacks to explain certain things). I was also initially a bit clueless about who would be the main character, as she had not appeared yet.

Crime lord Ezekiel Mannings (Gary Oldman) is taken into police custody while sitting in an American church. As he is under arrest, he can’t do anything against witness Nick Murch (Amit Shah) who is going to testify against him, via internet live feed while sitting in a British safe-house. So it’s up to his daughter Alys (Calli Taylor) to make the necessary arrangements. Unfortunately for Nick, these are for a courier who will deliver a package, supposedly with equipment needed for the online interrogation. But they will unknowingly deliver a device that will release cyanide, killing off the witness and his guards – as well as the courier, who will be made to look like the murderer. [This part reminded me a bit of Unlocked]

Unfortunately for the bad guys, said courier is played by Olga Kurylenko. Kurylenko has made a moderate name as a regular in action movies and thrillers, since she first was seen by a large audience as the Bond girl next to Daniel Craig in Quantum of Solace (2008). In the past she could be seen in genre movies such as Hitman (2007), Centurion (2010), Oblivion (2013), The November Man (2014) or Momentum (2015). Here, dressed in black skin-tight leather and on a motorbike, she evokes visual memories of Lisbeth Salander or maybe Milla Jovovich in Ultraviolet (2006). Personally, I think she is not such a good actress and a little expressionless. But in the context of an action movie, that might have starred Bruce Willis in the 80s, she works perfectly well. There is some good-natured banter between her and Shah (who’s cursing is not entirely convincing), that is funny without becoming ridiculous.

Naturally, it goes without saying that the involuntary heroine has to rescue Nick. Equally naturally, that won’t be easy, for Mannings’ daughter has already called in the heavyweights to finish the mission. Mayhem with fatal consequences ensues. 😉 The movie is R-rated in Germany, and I think that’s justified, with the fights and kills more graphic than we’re used to in an average action thriller today. There is quite a bit of bloodshed, and also remarkable inventiveness, the Courier’s opponents using anything from snipers to drones to master that merciless woman. Meanwhile, she herself has a computer-equipped motor-helmet that could be right out of Tony Stark’s workshop.

If Kurylenko’s character never reveals her name, at least some backstory is given as to why she is such a badass fighter. She used to be an Ukrainian soldier, part of a special forces battalion in Syria. After the death of her brother, she deserted and went to ground, taking menial jobs like this one. So for once we’ve got an explanation, as to why a smaller woman can take on big men who are professional killers. The fact that she is not just throwing them over her shoulder to the wall – like, let’s say, Angelina Jolie in Salt (2010) – adds a more realistic feel to the fights. We regularly see Kurylenko bleed, or even get overwhelmed. When she wins, it’s usually due to her quick thinking, using whatever the situation offers to kill off her opponents, or her army experience.

Some critics have called this the worst performance of Gary Oldman’s career and I just wonder how they came to this assessment. This is a solid, toned-down villainous portrayal by Oldman. You wanna see over-the-top Oldman? Go and watch Léon: The Professional (1994), The Fifth Element (1997) or Lost in Space (1998)! For me, it seems like “evil Oldman” has settled down and mellowed a bit with age. I find it more regrettable his character doesn’t have much to do, due to his house arrest. He mainly sits around, drinks whisky and listens to music – including the Diva Plavalaguna song from The Fifth Element, a nice inside gag.

There’s definitely a desire for some visual beauty and style. For example, when we see at the beginning the courier driving alone on a motorway while drenched in blue light, or flashbacks that pop up in black and white, and sometimes slow-motion. Director Adler has put more effort into this movie than other action directors usually do. Also, the very good soundtrack is worth mentioning. Though the end feels a bit abrupt, after someone turns out to be on the pay list of Mannings, only to run into a trap set by the courier and Nick.

While this might not be anything special or groundbreaking, in my personal opinion, the movie has been judged very unfairly by the critics. It doesn’t blow the feminist trumpet, where you have to point out, like an idiot and a thousand times, that this is a woman who wins against men. Oh, and have I already mentioned THIS CHARACTER IS A FEMALE? But it is a good, mindless bit of fun, of the gorier variety. There are moments in life when you are not in the mood for Bergman, Fellini or Bunuel films and just want to see some well-done bloody action. By that standard, the movie delivers, and should be judged on what it promises to be. If you were expecting something else? That’s your problem, not the movie’s.

Dir: Zackary Adler
Star: Olga Kurylenko, Gary Oldman, Amit Shah, Alicia Agneson

Dragon Age: Dawn of the Seeker

  By

★★★
“A polit-thriller in Fantasy-land”

I have to start off with an important confession: I am not a gamer. I’ve never really been one. I might have played… two computer games in my entire life: “Tomb Raider 2” and “No-one Lives Forever 2”. That very special thing computer gamers experience when in front of the consoles? I’ve never felt it, it never got me. But then, I was born in the mid-70s, and this could be the territory of another generation. So maybe I’m not even qualified to evaluate a movie which was based on a computer game. On the other hand, I’m not reviewing a game here, but a film – and I think I know a fair bit about them! Hopefully, I get the details right.

Dragon Age: Dawn of the Seeker is based on the fantasy computer game franchise by Canadian computer game label BioWare. The series started in 2009. In 2012 – to probably the surprise of everyone – it received a movie version. Released in the West and co-produced by American anime label Funimation, it tells a separate story that ties in with the second released game “Dragon Age 2” (2011).

The story takes place in a land called Ferelden, where knights secure the freedom and which is governed by a religious organisation known as “the Chantry”. This is similar to a medieval church with, for want of a better description, a female Pope called “the Divine” at the top. Among the knights are the Seekers; they seem to be the superiors of the knights and hold a special place, reporting directly to the Chantry. There are tensions between the knights and blood magicians who seem to follow (as far as I understand this universe!) their own agenda.

When one of the knights, Byron, leaves the castle with a girl that the Seekers had just rescued from mages, his young colleague Cassandra (Kuriyama) gets in his way, demanding an explanation. Byron is her mentor and a father figure to her, but shortly after he gets killed in an attack. Before dying, he is able to tell Cassandra there is intrigue brewing in the Chantry, and that this was the reason he wanted to secure the girl, who obviously has magical abilities (she looks very much like an elf to me).

Regalyan D’Marcall (Tanihara), a mage whom Cassandra finds on the scene, turns out to be an ally of Byron who wanted to help him expose the intrigue. But having previously lost her brother to mages (there was a decapitation incident), Cassandra is suspicious of him. Still, together, the unlikely duo search out who’s behind all of what’s going on, and in the nick of time, also prevent an assassination attempt (with a dragon!) on the Divine at a jubilee celebration.

First off, the story moves quite quickly and never gets boring, coming in at a viewer-friendly runtime of 90 minutes. Personally, I am really happy to see, once in a while, a fantasy movie that sticks to the length I had been used to in the 80s, before all these Lord of the Rings, Hobbit and Harry Potter movies with their 2½-hour running times. The visual style is something the viewer will have to make up their own mind about. You will either like it or you won’t. It’s not total CGI. It looks as if people were acting, then motion-captured into the computer and their image re-worked. It looks similar to the science fiction movie Vexille that the same director had made earlier. For my personal tastes, I didn’t really embrace this style. Also, I thought for much of the time the movie looked too dark with regard to its colour palette.  But then, fantasy seems to be going through a “dark phase” right now, so maybe it’s unfair to count this as a real negative.

The story was smarter than I thought it would be, having ordered the used DVD to a low price, and knowing virtually nothing about the “Dragon Age” universe. To be honest, I still don’t know much about it – but you don’t need to be Albert Einstein to figure out the basics. Interestingly, I believe the character of Cassandra Pentaghast was a side character in the second computer game but was such a well-received badass, the developers decided to make her the main character in the first movie. (Also in 2011, there was another, live-action movie put together from a series of webisodes with the title Dragon Age: Redemption, about an Elvish assassin Tallis, starring Felicia Day. I haven’t seen it, as it’s too difficult/expensive to get here in Germany.)

Some changes in the game character were made to make Cassandra look a bit more feminine, e. g. she gets longer hair here. They also give her a backstory about why she hates mages so much, explaining why she treats the mage Regalyan with strong suspicion. He has to earn her trust: while that underlying subplot doesn’t make the story Shakespeare, it gives the characters enough emotional layers to come across as more than just one-dimensional. That doesn’t lead to a big love story, as would typically have been the cast. but lightens what could otherwise have been a very bare storyline, and leads to a satisfying end. At least he gets a little kiss on the cheek for helping her. Obviously, she is becoming soft, considering how quickly she has been drawing her sword over the entire movie! 😉

There are some surprises along the way, though I wouldn’t call them earth-shattering. There are steady, regularly appearing action sequences, between escape and investigation scenes and a grand finale showing that, while a female knight may not alone be able to prevent an assassination, she can at least deal with a gigantic dragon. But we all need a little help from our friends, right? There are some gory scenes, so this is not for kids, though nothing really shocked me. Admittedly, 8 seasons of Game of Thrones may have desensitized me in regard to the depiction of bloody fantasy violence. If you need them, they’re in here; if you don’t like gore, there aren’t too many to distract you from an otherwise entertaining enough, and comparatively short, fantasy movie.

The end seems to indicate another story will follow. But if that happened, it was probably in the form of another computer game, as the movie didn’t get a sequel. Overall, I think it’s safe to say that the movie can serve as a quick fantasy fix, if there is nothing else for you out there right now. Entertaining enough without being extraordinary, it has some nice developments and the main character is layered enough so that she doesn’t bore you. I give it 3 stars for acceptable, though hardly ground-breaking, solid fantasy entertainment. A fan of the franchise may value it higher or lower; as I’m not in the know about an extended universe that also features several books and comics, I will not presume to decide that for them!

Dir: Fumihiko Sori
Star (voice): Chiaki Kuriyama, Shōsuke Tanihara, Hiroshi Iwasaki, Kaya Matsutani 

Underwater

  By

★★★
“Beneath the sea, no one can hear you scream…”

You know the story: A team of experts in a closed contained space, having to deal with ugly monsters and struggling to survive. The blue-print of this variation on Agatha Christie’s And Then There Were None (better known as: Ten Little Indians) was obviously the classic Alien (1979) that introduced us to one of the defining girls with guns, Ellen Ripley. This format was then repeated endlessly by Hollywood, as well as anyone else.

A special sort of subgenre of this story formed in the late 80s, when studios came to the idea of exchanging outer space for the inner space of the (deep) sea. That resulted in usually trashy but mostly entertaining movies such as Deep Star Six, Leviathan, Virus, Sphere or Deep Rising. Heck, even AlienS director James Cameron created a more positive version of the usual underwater interaction, with friendly aliens, in “The Abyss” (1989). But as far as I can see this genre faded with the 90’s. Recent watery efforts were more shark- or crocodile-focused!

The Alien franchise seemd to be stuck in the hands of Ridley Scott, who wasn’t willing to give anyone else a shot at the series, He said, before Alien: Covenant and about Prometheus, “I thought we should move on. I thought the aliens were done.” Well, if what you deliver is worse than what we got before, why bother? And if you think like that, maybe you shouldn’t cling on to ownership of the franchise. Audiences usually wont the same experience they had last time and if you don’t deliver, will be disappointed. Here’s another pearl of wisdom: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it! So 20th Century Fox came up with the idea of resurrecting this subgenre under water. And it has to be said, while Underwater is hardly original, and definitely derivative if you know the Alien movies, it is better and certainly more entertaining than the last two Alien entries from Scott. It never drags, and the “idiocy level” that too often comes with this genre and its tropes, is credibly low.

The story in brief: Deep sea engineers are faced with a sudden accident, after water has flooded their facilities, destroying a large amount of the installation and probably killing off many of the workers who didn’t manage to get to the escape pods. A couple of survivors who find each other must go on an obstacle course deep, well… under water to reach these pods. Okay, that plot probably wouldn’t trouble a match-box, but that does not necessarily have to be a negative. I’ve found in the past, that very often those movies with a simpler, more straighforward premise are the ones which are the most efficient in delivering the goods.

So it proves with this. Yes, we all have seen it before – but not necessarily better. When I look at the list above of “underwater horror movies”, most of them were not good at all. And what the Alien franchise itself delivered, starting probably with David Fincher’s life-less Alien 3 (1992) and ending with Scott’s efforts “to move in a new direction,” was also not very satisfying. Considering that, Underwater is actually quite decent. There is no long build-up with character presentations that have tended to fall flat in recent films of this ilk. The movie goes into action almost immediately, hardly giving Kristen Stewart (with her short-cut blonde hair bearing a strange similarity to 90’s Lori Petty) the chance to finish brushing her teeth.

And it continues at quite a brisk pace, within an economic and more restrained than usual running-time of 95 minutes. We get action, tension, deep sea monsters attacking and reducing the crew, some decent character interaction, a tiny droplet of blood and rather too much of T. J. Miller joking and Jessica Henwick screaming while running around. I’ve seen worse. Much worse, and recently. Indeed, if you are just looking for some good horror survival action and a distraction from your daily routine, this film may do it for you.

Stewart herself seems to have some bad luck. After years making indie-movies in a post-Twilight wilderness, the hope was obviously to return to big Hollywood movies. But this seems to be even more of a financial failure at the box-office than her recent “woke” Charlie’s Angels remake. Though this is actually good entertainment, and free of the usual agenda that has sadly become commonplace nowadays in Hollywood movies. That may have to do with the fact that the movie was already finished – like the upcoming The New Mutants from Fox – in 2017! For reasons I don’t know it was kept back. Did Scott exercise some power to distance it from Alien: Covenant, which also came out in 2017? Did they want to wait until Covenant had squeezed out all possible financial revenues?

Whatever the reason, it became part of Disney when the mega-conglomerate bought 20th Century Fox. And obviously, Disney didn’t really care for the welfare of this movie, so they just threw it out there, with what felt like hardly any marketing. Which is a pity, because it’s a nice bigger-budget horror movie that could have attracted more people in cinemas. I personally guess it might get a second life on Netflix or the new Disney online streaming service later.

The film also stars Vincent Cassel who was the only other actor I knew of the underwater crew, apart from Stewart. Mind you, you are not spending much screen time with most of them. Nevertheless there are some interactions that, if not really going deep, give enough of an emotional connection at least to wish they will get out of this unfortunate situation alive. But mainly it’s a showcase for Kristen Stewart who – and I really have to stress I don’t typically care for her much at all – gives a good and credible performance here.Though you’ll have to deal with the fact that she is playing a deep sea rig engineer here, a role I would probably have associated with a muscle-bound man!

I personally wish the last two Alien films by Scott would have been something like this. It could have been a lot more satisfying than the time we had to spend with David, the Fassbender-android. That said the Alien formula – like the Terminator one – seems to have had its day, thanks to having been exploited what feels like a few hundred times. It’s really time for Hollywood to come out with some new ideas. Therefore only 3 stars from me, albeit well-earned ones!

Dir: William Eubank
Star: Kristen Stewart, Vincent Cassel, Jessica Henwick, John Gallagher Jr.

Crawl

  By

★★★★
“The shark was otherwise engaged, torturing Blake Lively…”

I have to say, I’m neither an expert on that strange sub-genre of “animal horror,” nor am I a particular fan of it. I’m mainly looking for a movie that can give me a suspenseful time in the cinemas. This is becoming more and more difficult. Partly because in by my time of live, I have has seen quite a lot of movies, of all sorts; but also because I feel modern film makers have forgotten how to create real suspense and a feeling of slowly rising and constant terror in movies.

Mostly we are left with nonsensical pictures of man-killing animals that seem to have supernatural abilities. Usually it’s played for laughs because of all the silliness that comes with these kind of movies. That’s a pity. Sure, as a cinema-goer you can’t expect the greatness of classics like Hitchcock’s The Birds (1963) or Spielberg’s Jaws (1975) an ymore. But is it really that difficult? Create a modicum of interest for the main characters; introduce the predator; put the future victims in an isolated spot with the animals; and play with the ambiguity of the question as to whether said territory is safe at the moment – or not! That’s not rocket science, folks!

But for that you have to take the movie and the characters of your story seriously and the timing of every scene is essential: You’ve got to know where you set up your “beats”. How long can you ratchet up suspense before you’ve got to deliver? Where do you put the shocks, without which you can’t do a good horror movie? Do you put in a little bit of humor and to what degree? When is it time to give some relief to the audience, e. g. with character or relationship moments which seem obligatory background for these kind of stories? Whom do you kill? Whom do you have survive? And should you kill off the family dog or not? 😉

Alexandre Aja is a French film-maker who has got to show his talents across very different horror movies. His great High Tension, a psycho-thriller produced by Luc Besson, was followed by a The Hills Have Eyes remake, the good but not great Kiefer Sutherland vehicle Mirrors and later the (consciously) ridiculous Piranha 3-D. After a good start, in recent years it seemed as if he had lost “it” a bit. So, the offer from producer Sam Raimi to film an original story by Michael and Shawn Rasmussen came at the right time.

While the script has a few humorous moments (if you’re looking for them), it plays its story straight and Aja also focuses on creating genuine suspense and danger. Yet he also delivers in the important categories of shock and gore – something not really that evident from the trailers. That makes sense: you won’t show your climaxes in a trailer of an action movie. I’ve to say my expectations were pretty low when going into the movie. As a fan you know the score, so can a film still get you? To my surprise and delight, this was not only able to do that but also surpassed my expectations by far. But let’s start with some background info on what I want in such a movie.

Though you never expect a character study, I’m always happy if the characters get enough backstory or character traits, that they don’t appear as totally bland, two-dimensional audience stand-ins. That’s definitively true for Crawl‘s main actors Kaya Scodelario and Barry Pepper. Neither had that much luck with past roles: Scodelario, I remember from the Maze Runner movies but hardly seemed to register anywhere else much. I think I saw Pepper last with a supporting villain role in the True Grit remake (2010). I also need predators I like and respect. Some animals won’t really work for me, e. g. bears are simply too sympathetic. But for my money reptiles of all sizes always deliver the goods. And I’ve got an enormous respect for crocodiles or alligators.

Next, the simple but effective story in a nutshell. Florida, hurricane time. Swimmer Haley Keller (Scodelario), who just failed in a swimming competition, receives a phone call from her sister She’s worried because she couldn’t reach their dad. Neither sister has had much contact with him, since their mother and father divorced; he was Haley’s former trainer, leaving their relationship no on the best of terms. The streets are beiing closed due to the dangers of the approaching hurricane and the rising water levels.

After finding her father’s house abandoned, save for his dog, Haley drives on to their former family house which he was renovating. Following the sound of a radio, she descends into the derelict cellar where she finds Dave, her wounded father (Pepper), who tells her that two alligators have entered the cellar through the drain. While they have some sanctuary in the cellar, they have to make an escape, due to the rising water that is coming up through openings in the cellar floor…

This may sound maybe a bit dry (pun not intended). But, believe me, the screenwriters and Aja have used every trick in the book to push and pull us, the audience, emotionally through our seats, in the same way the alligators push and pull the two likable yet imperfect protagonists through their surroundings. I was very pleasantly surprised about the high level of suspense and tension here. But also how the important ingredients mentioned above were perfectly blended together. The movie really creates suspense and grisly anticipation – yet also doesn’t forget that audiences need moments of relaxation so they can breathe a little, before the next furious attack or moment of extreme danger arrive. It’s a very well-written and executed entertainment, showcasing a kind of story-telling we don’t see much any more.

That said, the movie doesn’t reinvent the wheel. I personally wouldn’t be surprised if the Rasmussens saw two other recent animal horror movies with female leads: Burning Bright (2010) told the story of a young woman, locked together with her autistic brother in a house with a wild tiger by her evil uncle during a hurricane. And, of course The Shallows (2016, is it really already that long ago? It feels as if I saw the film just a couple of weeks ago…), which showed us Blake Lively on a rock in the rising water off an unknown beach while a blood-thirsty shark circles. As a matter of fact, both of these movies would make for a good triple-bill with this. And once Crawl comes out on DVD, it will find its place directly next to them on my shelves!

What is it about all those young women fighting predators with large pointy teeth? I’m no psycho-analyst but I guess it has something to do with the re-integration of certain character traits into the female psyche. Whatever these may be. I do remember an early trailer when The Shallows came out that had a voice-over of what sounded like a life coach trainer, encouraging the Blake Lively character. I wonder if the idea of the father who trained his daughter to extraordinary achievements was inspired by that trailer?

Actually, this movie goes a different way from some recent action-heroine movies, that looked to discredit father figures or put them in a negative light. Haley may have felt betrayed by her parents divorce and her father “abandoning” her. Yet during the course of the story, she finds out that her parents were not as happy as she thought and that her dad, who always loved her and believed in her, is just a normal guy. [Though I must credit him for absolutely convincing me how every household needs a utility belt for hand tools!] Having to survive and fight for what is left of her family, with the support of her father makes Haley overcome her own anxieties, through facing more than one deadly situation. Certainly, crawling through the drain by which the reptiles came into the house evokes quite distressing birth trauma… That’s a very positive message. After so many negative portrayals of father figures and “family values”, I found this a highly sympathetic and, for 2019, unusually traditional depiction.

But it only has to work – and it does that very well. We are not immediately tossed into shock-infested seas, there’s a nice build-up, so when the gators appear they evoke the desired audience reaction.Haley and her father have enough back story that you are on their side and want them to survive, while at the same time worrying if they will make it. Despite being just that just 90 minutes, the movie is full of ideas of how the imprisoned father-daughter couple could get help from outside (which leads to an unpleasant looter-reptile encounter) or escape the cellar and the house. It really plays with giving you hope, just to take it away again. One of my favourite moments is when Haley and Dave make it to an escape boat outside, when the levees break and a wave of water throws them back into their house – only one floor higher. Well-timed elements of humor, such as Haley’s reaction when normal house spiders fall on her face, help make for very satisfying entertainment.

A fascinating side-fact is that the movie was shot in Belgrade, Serbia, which doubles for Florida perfectly. And a little “tidbit”: Scodelario’s and Pepper’s family name in the movie is “Keller”. For German cinema-goers that’s extremely funny as “Keller” is the German word for “cellar”. But one last question: will the dog survive? Watch the movie to find out! It gets four well-earned stars from me. Your mileage may vary, but honestly I think it’s on the same level as The Shallows, which also scored highly with me. So, if you enjoyed that, this should be right up your (flooded) street.

Dir: Alexandre Aja
Star:  Kaya Scodelario, Barry Pepper

Anna

  By

★★★★
“Luc Besson’s Greatest Hits”

Before getting to the film, we probably have to address the elephant in the room: the rape accusations against Luc Besson. Though police investigations have finished, with the allegations unproven, they definitely have damaged Besson’s reputation. While in Europe, the basic rule remains “Innocent until proven guilty”, in Hollywood a mere accusation in a newspaper headline or online can potentially destroy a man’s career these days. And while some people are guilty of the crimes of which they were accused, I personally strongly doubt that the small, overweight, apparently introverted Frenchman is a serial rapist.

Honestly, if I go by what I heard about countless actors and directors working in Hollywood today, I probably wouldn’t be able to watch any movie. The logical thing for me is to separate a creator and what you know about them (or perhaps, think you know) from their work. Beethoven is said to have been a terrible, unsympathetic misogynist but his music is great. Klaus Kinski was one of the most controversial actors of the 20th century, with a reputation for unpleasantness at best; yet there is no doubt of his acting genius that shines through almost any movie he made in his life.

Right now though, a whiff of suspicion, and you are already dead to Hollywood. Besson might be slightly safer, as he is not part of the business there, and lives in Europe. But I wonder if the allegations may have led to some kind of semi-sabotage by his distributor in the US. For hardly any cinemagoer seemed to have known about his new movie, Anna. Even though I was told the film got some TV spots on cable channels and a trailer in cinemas, it seemed marketing was seriously toned down, and the movie rushed out of cinemas shortly after release.

[Note from Jim. I can confirm this. We were on holiday in Scotland when it came out. By the time we returned to Arizona and got over the jet-lag, it was basically gone. Anna opened in 2,114 screens. Three weeks later, it was on… 92. I still haven’t seen it, which is why I was glad Dieter stepped in with a review]

There seems almost to be some kind of unspoken agreement just to bury this movie quietly. Heck, even here in Germany the film wasn’t advertised apart, from the online trailer. I definitely didn’t see a trailer for it at the cinema, or big posters for it anywhere. If I had not consciously looked out for this movie, due to being a fan of Luc Bessons work over the last 36 years, I probably wouldn’t even have known about it.

But to put things in a more objective perspective: over his entire career Besson has had only two real successes in the US: One was Leon (1994), which made Jean Reno a big star and started the career of Nathalie Portman; the other was Lucy (2014), the break-through film for Scarlett Johannson, now the highest-paid actress in Hollywood. Heck, even now-loved cult movie The Fifth Element (1997) (originally supposed to be a two-parter!) was considered a flop in America at the time of release. What has always been Besson’s bread and butter is the rest of the world. Though in the beginning he had some detractors in his own country for a style which was seen as “Americanized” and “not really French enough”.

Nevertheless, it seems kind of strange when looking at the box-office numbers of Besson’s movies in the last few years. Lucy was an international success, that in the US alone made $126 million, while Anna closed with takings of under $8 million.  It’s easy to create conspiracy theories looking at these numbers. But in between came Valerian and the City of the 1000 Planets (2017). Despite being the most expensive European movie ever, with a budget of about $178 million, took a disappointing $41 million in the US (though made its costs back in the rest of the world). And yes, some of his movies never were commercial successes – regardless of their quality – such as Adele Blanc-Sec (2010), The Lady (2011) or the sequels to his Arthur and the Invisibles animated movie.

Why do I mention all of the above? I guess, because I think that Anna may be a turning point in Besson’s career – perhaps more than you may think. Valerian seemed to have cost his French Eurocorp studio money, despite pre-sales and – according to Besson – only a small financial investment by Eurocorp itself. It seems that about two-thirds of the company are now in the hands of foreign investors, and they don’t want Besson to continue in the chairman’s seat of his own company. With Valerian under-performing, and Anna a theatrical flop despite a modest budget (reportedly around $35 million), we could be looking at the last big movie of Luc Besson.

Sure, he has always shown that he can make effective and very good movies with small budgets such as his debut movie, The Last Battle (1983) or Angel-A (2005). Indeed, maybe the quality of his movies increases, as his budget decreases. But the big question is if the 60-year old director really wants to start again from the ground up, especially given his age. He’s not the youthful punk he started as. In Europe (or at least France) he is what Spielberg might have been in mid-90s Hollywood. But then Spielberg grew up and matured; can Besson do that? Does he even want to? I also think you can compare him with contemporary James Cameron, a famous director who now mostly has others direct his productions. Certainly, I don’t think Besson has to prove anything to anyone, anymore.

With all that said, how is Anna? Answer: surprisingly good. I went into this movie not expecting much at all (going from the quasi non-existent marketing). Yes, it’s true, it’s not one of the “greats” of Besson, and he also doesn’t re-invent the genre wheel with this. If you have seen his classic Nikita (1990) which has been exploited by Hollywood ad infinitum, and her spiritual successors Atomic Blonde (2017) and Red Sparrow (2018), you know the story. And knowing these kind of movies, you’ll be familiar with a story arc, you can figure out from the very beginning.

But then, I don’t hear anyone complaining about the 1000th Marvel movie following the same paths of its superhero predecessors. In the end, the question is how the cook combines the ingredients to bake his cake. And this cake tastes good – but definitely not great. While the DNA of Nikita is everywhere, it never reaches the fine and poetic quality of that movie. It feels like a modernized remake, with Besson obviously having seen Sparrow and Blonde too, and saying to himself: “I can do better!”

And I think, subjectively, he mainly succeeds. Red Sparrow was a very heavy, slow-burning spy movie without what I would really call action scenes. Atomic Blonde had impressive action choreography, which Besson definitely tried to top here – up to the individual viewer, whether or not he succeeded. But Blonde also had, at least for me, a strange, difficult to figure-out ending, and characters which were all cool, to the point of emotionless. My feeling is that Besson took the best elements of all these movies – the intrigue of Sparrow; the action of Blonde – and combined it with his own style.

What I always notice when watching one of his movies, is that Besson can be an incredibly visual director if he wants. He knows how to do great mise-en-scéne, how to give his movies a lot of kinetic energy. The scenes are not too long, but also not so short you can’t invest yourself into them emotionally. He inserts moments of genuinely funny humor and sometimes almost kitschy emotional scenes, that are a component of his own unique style – and, unfortunately, usually not to be found in American action movies. And when he gets playful, the editing and the music of his “house composer”, Eric Serra (Nikita, Leon, The Fifth Element, and many others), join each other in a perfect marriage that’s just incredible fun to watch.

Do I sound too enthusiastic? I don’t think so. Besson is an excellent director. This doesn’t exclude him from creating flawed movies or average scripts; yet even his failures are – at least for me – still more satisfying and interesting than an average “successful” conveyor-belt Hollywood movie. He is an almost classic storyteller, telling his very own stories, depending on what he focuses his current interest on in the moment. One quality I think I haven’t seen mentioned anywhere, is his ability to lead actors. All of the performances here, including Evans, Murphy and Mirren are very good. But the one that really impressed me is supermodel-turned-actress Sasha Luss, who previously played a smaller role as an alien in Valerian.

She’s not perfect: Luss playing a poor Moscow-wife selling “matroshkas” on the market, can’t disguise what a beauty she is. Compare that to Anne Parillaud’s ugly punk-girl-duckling in Nikita who only turns into a beautiful swan later in the movie. Still, Luss comes across as very charismatic, believable as a model (not a stretch!) and seductress, as well as a murderous killer for the KGB. Honestly, I was really impressed: for me, she gives a better performance than the enigmatic but also somewhat bland Jennifer Lawrence in Red Sparrow.

But then a talent of Besson is being able to insert some “emotionality” into his characters. This adds just enough to make them appear more believable than many similar characters in Hollywood movies. Here, he even manages to make Helen Mirren’s role, playing a cold-hearted merciless KGB trainer and mentor of Anna, comparable to Lotte Lenya in From Russia with Love and Charlotte Rampling in Red Sparrow, into an oddly likable character.

What seemed a problem for some cinema-goers was the non-linear storytelling of the movie. The film jumps a couple of years ahead, a few months back, another year forward and so on, allowing it to surprise the audience with some unexpected revelations. I personally had no problems with that – but some people don’t like to use their brains at all when watching a movie. Their loss. :) Where I’d say Besson fails is in what I call the “model photo shooting scenes”. Here, he overdoes it so much, to the point you wonder if he intended to make a satire about haute couture. These scenes come across as exaggerated and almost cringe-worthy. Fortunately, they don’t occupy too much of the film’s running-time.

The basic story is of a trained secret agent who works for one side, becomes a double agent, then is essentially only working to get back their personal liberty, and isn’t a new one. This plot goes back at least as far as Triple Cross (1966), a WWII-spy movie from Bond director Terence Young, with Christopher Plummer, Romy Schneider, Gert Fröbe and many others. The comparisons to Nikita really write themselves. There are many similarities to the movie that, 29 years ago, more or less signified Besson’s breakthrough out of arthouse cineaste circles. Despite this, they are different, probably due to a different contemporary zeitgeist, which made the movie an interesting viewing experience for me.

Gone is the girl who never had a choice, as Anna originally applied to work for the KGB by herself – though ends in a situation where she can’t quit. This makes for a different dynamic to Parillaud in Nikita, although I also don’t really buy the emotional and psychological interest in being a killer for the state here. Nikita was a desperate girl, slowly breaking apart through having to follow the orders of her handler while wanting a normal life with her boyfriend. Anna comes across as a hard professional: she is not just Nikita but also “Victor, nettoyeur” in one person, andcomes off as remarkably cold-blooded.

In one scene, a not unsympathetic, shy Russian who is an illegal arms trader confesses his love for her; she kills him in the moment she has the relevant information. Then there is that scene in a restaurant, which makes the similar scene in Nikita look like a Disney movie in comparison. Anna leaves a room full of bloody corpses behind her; the word “overkill” sprang immediately into my mind! A normal “relationship” with her girlfriend seems possible; but Anna hardly seems to care for her, since said friend is mainly a cover. At the same time she has passionate sex with Evans and Murphy, and calls them her family. But is this just another deception? You never know if she cares for anyone at all, or if she is just manipulating everyone around her emotionally and sexually, for use later in her intricate plan.

That may be the weakest point in Anna’s character. She is just bigger than life, out-fighting, out-manipulating, out-smarting and out-sexing anyone. Somehow, Nikita seemed much more grounded in reality, and more believable because of that human character. Anna is purely professional, always ahead of the game, even when you think: “Well, now she is done!” You wonder why she needs all these complicated components of her plan, when she seems quite capable off killing off half an army of KGB-employees [And you definitely don’t want to play chess with her!]

Other aspects: It’s nice to have actual Russians speaking real Russian in a movie. I had a hard time when watching Red Sparrow with all these Hollywood actors speaking English with Russian accents. It just sounded fake. The solution here is much better: You have Russian actors speaking Russian, maybe the main actors say a thing or two in Russian, then you change to the “normal” language. I didn’t feel that it broke the illusion, since it was well enough established that the characters were Russian. Kudos also to Alexander Petrov, who plays Anna’s original Russian criminal “boy-friend”, Piotr, an especially unsympathetic human being. It’s an important and effective role, letting the film establish a feeling of reality before it shifts into the more fantastic spy genre we know and love. John le Carré it ain’t!

Some production credits stood out for me. Shanna Besson, one of Luc’s daughters did the stills photography for the movie, and his wife Virginie Besson-Silla seems to have been involved in some capacity. Responsible for the car stunts is David Julienne, who has worked for some Besson productions already in the past. I suspect he is related to Remy Julienne, the famous driver responsible for all the great car chases in the Bond movies of the 80s and also some Jean-Paul Belmondo films. [There was a major issue between Remy and Europacorp, after a stunt went wrong during the filming of Taxi 2]  As mentioned, the music of Eric Serra, is as remarkable as ever, and I had a big smile on my face when in one specific scene he directly referenced a melody from his own Nikita soundtrack. I notice and appreciate little things like that.

Visually the film is – as can be expected from a Besson movie – stunning and top-notch. There are some beautiful shots of cities and once again Besson reminds us why people love Paris so much. Unlike so many modern secret agent and action movies, Anna leaves you with a real sense Besson and crew jetted around half the world to capture as many beautiful images as possible for this movie. The end titles included thank-yous to the cities of Moscow, Belgrade, Guadalupe, Milan and – of course – the studios of Paris. 

Unfortunately, Anna is a commercial flop right now. Sure, the film is less than subtle, and Nikita stays unchallenged as a genre icon. We might have seen this kind of story a bit too often recently – and probably will again next year when Marvel’s Black Widow comes out. But among the modern entries in the genre, it is easily one of the best. Besson doesn’t quite reach the quality of his formative years as a director, and I doubt he ever will. But as typical genre fare, even if exaggerated in the depiction of its female main character, this is solid entertainment, and should be enjoyed as such.

I just hope this isn’t Besson’s last movie, since he is still better than most of those trying to walk in his footsteps. We’ll see!

Dir: Luc Besson
Star: Sasha Luss, Luke Evans, Cillian Murphy, Helen Mirren