Frenzy (1972)

  

In modern-day London, a sex criminal known as the Necktie Murderer has the police on alert, and in typical Hitchcock fashion, the trail is leading to an innocent man, who must now elude the law and prove his innocence by finding the real murderer.  Jon Finch, Alec McCowen and Barry Foster head this British cast in the thriller that alternates suspense scenes with moments of Hitchcock’s distinctive black humour.

Returning to England after a dry spell in the States that put his reputation in real danger, Alfred Hitchcock went back to basics and found his mojo alive and well residing in Covent Garden, London, site of the famous market where much of this story would play out and where his own father worked years before. I don’t think he had lost anything, but he came to London with his blood up and something to prove, and prove it he did, because Frenzy is a fantastic, dark thriller, full of vigour. On the thorough documentary, Peter Bogdanovitch comments that Hitch is “firing on all cylinders”, and quotes Truffaut as saying to Hitchcock, that Frenzy is “a young man’s film”.

It’s a straight telling of a serial killer, even naive (this being before profiling was so hip), but this helps the fabric of the story and modern thrillers would do well to consider not to take so much for granted. It recalls more of Hitchcock’s roots from his silent film, The Lodger, and is as much a film about London as anything else, an affectionate if warts and all story that could only have been set there, the environment is so engrained. Identity was a key part of a good Hitchcock film, like Vertigo being entwined in San Francisco. I liked the other latterly missed Hitchcock motif; two gentlemen in a pub discuss the murders with relish, similar to the morbid curiosity of Shadow of a Doubt. One says that people come to London expecting to see “carved up whores”. Is he referring to us? After the opening scene of Londoners (including the director!) gawping at a “Necktie Killer” victim floating naked in the Thames, it’s a great start for the no nonsense story and Hitchcock has made his intentions clear from the off.

This is easily Hitchcock’s most violent film, not just in events, but it permeates the atmosphere. Not that it is unremittingly so, because it is possibly his most passionate and raw as well, full of humour and great characters. It one moment, Anna Massey strides out of the pub where she works, telling the landlord to “balls!”, in the films typically raw and real dialogue; it’s almost as if all the characters have an “up yours!” attitude, and so does Hitch.

Anna is just one of a uniformly solid cast, again like Topaz, not the mega-stars he normally uses, but this time just good actors at least. Jon Finch is the Hitchcock staple of the wrongfully accused and he’s especially good in that he isn’t a likeable character, yet he keeps the viewers sympathy. Barry Foster (Van Der Valk himself!) has great fun in a stylish performance as the suave fruit seller and proves what a marvellous actor he is. And a special mention for Barbara Leigh-Hunt who suffers the horrible signature rape and murder in the story and the key thing that makes people remember this as Hitchcock’s darkest hour. A very clever piece of writing by Anthony Shaffer (from a book by Arthur La Bern) means it’s actually the only one on-screen, despite it being a plot about a very active killer.

The horror is implied elsewhere in several stand-out moments of technical audacity, played with such confidence it’s almost rude, such as the famous shot coming down the stairs from the scene of a murder we aren’t privy too (but cleverly will see in flashback), or the bravely long static shot ending in a scream. My favourite though is the subtle moment right after Massey said “balls!” where the sounds drops right down just for a moment. Then there is the potato truck sequence, which is indulgently hilarious and awful in equal measure as the killer wrestles with a corpse, kind of summing up the whole film! But even outside the bravura moments, just basic composition and editing works every scene to the maximum.

Another reason I’ve marked this so high is that it is so full of things that weren’t necessary, yet add layers to the plot. And they’re all character moments too, mocking the criticism that even at his best, Hitchcock was all about the visuals. There’s the detective with the hilarious sub-plot of dealing with his wife’s cooking (cleverly disguising exposition while giving us by far the most disgusting scene) or Mrs. Blaney’s secretary, Jean Marsh and her barbed sneers about men. Apparently she was a victim in the original book, but not so in the film. Her repressed performance is wonderful and would have been ruined by making her a corpse.

The film feels like one of Hitchcock’s most real and organic and is a fine British film in its own right. It is nasty, but its simplicity is key. Hitchcock chose to do something easy that will have no expectations, but he did it the hard way to make it look easy! It doesn’t matter if that’s confusing. Just dive in and have a ball, because the triumphant director clearly did.

Topaz (1969)

  

A French intelligence agent becomes embroiled in the Cold War politics first with uncovering the events leading up to the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, and then back to France to break up an international Russian spy ring.

It’s easy to look at Alfred Hitchcock’s last few films and come to the conclusion that he lost his touch, but while it’s true they are not as entertaining or as audacious as his best work, there is still a sense of a potent power at work. Just a few key details are missing and in the case of Topaz, almost completely cripple the production.

For one thing, was Topaz made for the right reasons? I’ve been banging on about Hitchcock possibly being an influence on Bond and I wonder if he had a sense of pride to indulge, seeing as that franchise was now fully underway. In his first true espionage thriller since Foreign Correspondent, the plot concerns a suave spy [albeit French] investigating Russians at the height of the Cold War, which could easily have been a Fleming story. There’s even a Q type character in Cuba! Additionally, Hitch uses another of his favourite themes as Topaz turns out to be a secret organisation in the upper echelons of France’s Government, echoing the Fifth Columnists of Saboteur.

Unfortunately, it’s far too long, ponderously slow, has an uneven tone and doesn’t know how to end. A victim of test screenings, it was changed twice (alternate versions are on the DVD), although the original ending was absurd and needed Hitchcock at his cheeky best to sell it so it would never have worked. In retrospect though, key scenes show the director was still a force to be reckoned with. A superlative sequence in New York is an absolute stand-out and much better than an average Bond any day. Similarly, the Cuban set scenes with the tortured Resistance are powerful and visually stunning (look out for a shocking, sudden murder on a tile floor; easy to see how it was achieved, but not to be underestimated). The brilliant opening scene with the Russian defector narrowly escaping capture with his family and the New York segment, also demonstrate his cleverness with narrative, hiding exposition like he did in The Man Who Knew Too Much remake (we see characters talking about key points, but can’t hear them!), yet lingering on character moments. No-one handled the MacGuffin better, before or since. Even this sub-par effort has enough “how did he do that?” moments to make today’s directors feel inadequate.

A big problem though is surely that the story was told after the fact, undermining the tension. Released in 1969, the Cuban Missile Crisis was over, while his WWII thrillers worked all the better for being released during WWII, especially the clever, shifting tone of Foreign Correspondent that ended with a poignant scene that could send a shiver down the spine, even now.

Timing aside, the film lives and dies on its cast and unfortunately it’s no accident that the best moments are driven by the supporting characters; John Vernon as Cuban Rico Para is a tangible threat and Karin Dor as the beautiful Juanita makes you feel it, along with her Resistance fighters (awful moment in a cell, that I’m guessing Eli Roth would have handled very differently!). Roscoe Lee Browne is a live wire in New York and you’ll hold your breath as his operation hinges on nervy Don Randolph. Quieter, but solid support also comes from John Forsythe (better here than in The Trouble With Harry), but the lead character is Andre Devereaux (Frederick Stafford) and while he has the look of Connery, he can’t convince as a likable bastard. He’s just a bastard, and we’re stuck with him for two hours! I commented that Torn Curtain suffered from not focusing on one character, so clearly, I’m never happy. It isn’t all Stafford’s fault (his wife, Dany Robin, is annoying as well, for a start) as actually he is never given anything to do. In a better received film, I’d see him as a sharp parody of James Bond, all style and no substance, letting the Resistance do the work, while he gets the credit. A plot point concerning his adultery and another that puts his son-in-law in terrible danger because of him proves irony was surely the intention, and even in the deleted original ending, he gets off without doing anything. But he is a wet blanket when the film was barely smouldering anyway. At least Paul Newman was under threat in Torn Curtain.

Of course, even in retrospect, it’s easy to see that the film suffers without the megastars Hitchcock was known for. A well placed Cary Grant can turn any film into a classic, but before you accept the obvious, bear in mind Grant, Stewart and Bergman were all superb actors as well, who worked brilliantly with the director. If the rather frustrating lead characters in Topaz were played by very good unknowns, I think it would have worked, or even someone not very good, but easily manipulated by Hitch, like Tippi Hedren. Torn Curtain managed to scrape by with disenchanted movie stars because they could do engaging performances in their sleep.

So no, Alfred Hitchcock had not lost his touch, it was everyone else! In fact, as Achim said, this was a brave film in some respects. But after all is said and done, was the world’s greatest director even relevant any more when this film was released? There’s a curious sense of isolation while watching these last few films (even the talking head documentaries are missing from the DVDs! Did no-one want to talk about Topaz, apart from a passionate, defensive Leonard Maitlin?). The studio system had collapsed and while you’d think someone like Hitchcock would thrive, maybe he needed something to fight to generate his most focused work. He’d failed to work well with new stars on Torn Curtain, lost key collaborators (Maurice Jarre, Lawrence of Arabia composer, nevertheless proves to be no replacement for Herrmann and his score makes Topaz feel like a TV Movie of the Week) and even in retrospect, the tone of Marnie through Topaz is out-of-date considering this is the era of the independent director approaching. This was a brave new world and the Western, period and urban, was making a revisionist comeback. There was no place in American film for Hitchcock any more. Maybe it was time to go back to his roots?

Kick-Ass

  

Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson) is a comic book geek who wonders why no-one tries to be like the heroes he reads about. He soon finds out the painful truth when he decides to try, as Kick-Ass, and ends up with vicious crime boss Frank D’Amico (Mark Strong) out for his head.

Since the superhero genre revolution took off properly with Spider-Man, mainstream cinema seems to have been aimed purely at kids, with even Die Hard 4.0 and Terminator: Salvation retooling once adult franchises for teens. Maybe 2010 will see that put right with The Losers, The Expendables and The A-Team all to look forward to and hopefully not pulling punches. The irony is the bar has already been set by a superhero movie! Kick-Ass, based on Mark Millar’s hilarious comic, is astonishingly violent and ready-made to cause some healthy controversy. Yet it is equally entertaining and has bags of substance. Despite being a parody of superheroes, it feels fresh and original throughout. This is Shaun of the Dead for costumed freaks and similarly destined to be a modern geek classic. The trailer sets you up without revealing just how layered the film is.

It starts like a typical teen superhero story, with Dave and his friends wondering why no-one tries to be a super-hero. One more mugging later, Dave is determined to prove it can be done and so dresses up to go out and make a difference. He is quickly brought down to earth with a shocking failure in his first half-arsed attempt to stop car thieves. Nevertheless, he ends up with dead nerve-endings and a metal pins (Wolverine?) throughout his body meaning he can take a beating. So he can’t resist trying again and through no small amount of blind luck, ends up on the Internet as Kick-Ass, in the first of several sharp digs at modern media (later a TV news report has to end a live broadcast because it is too shocking, despite it being uncensored on the web!). Fame and cheap merchandising quickly follow, despite him being nothing more than an enthusiastic idiot.

That brings him to the fascinated attention of a two proper, highly skilled heroes who keep a low profile at odds with their costumes. Big Daddy is a Batman figure, possibly harder actually, while his 12 year old highly trained daughter Hit Girl is simply like nothing you have ever seen before. Your jaw will drop at the petite foul-mouthed killer who can clear a room of thugs without breaking a sweat! Her fight scenes are incredibly inventive and bloody, without resorting to the silliness of Wanted, also based on a Mark Millar comic, and the finale is simply glorious, introduced by Elvis Presley no less on the cool soundtrack. Matthew Vaughn brilliantly handles all the threads with an inventive and confident style, featuring an animated comic sequence and one fantastic moment from a first person shooter perspective, yet never loses focus of the central theme.

While it is very funny, the witty story, full of comic book references, also has a conscience and a clear sense of mortality and bears comparison with Alan Moore’s Watchmen. The violence isn’t really gratuitous (well, not much!) because it forces both Dave and the audience to realise the sobering cost of what he’s trying to do. This is supported by a great cast of well defined characters, anchored by Mark Strong’s Frank and Nicholas Cage. Normally he brings a dose of insanity to relatively normal characters, but here he softens Big Daddy, who is clearly nuts, with subtle honesty. Cage has been turning into a self-parody for years, but he is superb here and gracious in his performance alongside sparky Chloe Moretz as Hit Girl. That Superbad’s McLovin, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, as Red Mist and Aaron Johnson as Dave aren’t lost in the mix is testament to both their performances and the finely balanced plot. There’s even room for a sub-plot as Dave pretends to be gay to get close to dream girl, Lyndsey Fonseca.

For me the defining superhero films are Superman, The Dark Knight and The Incredibles. Kick-Ass can easily sit alongside them. I’m just not sure that the teenagers are going to be happy settling for Tony Stark, because Iron Man 2 is already looking dated!

Torn Curtain (1966)

  

Paul Newman and Julie Andrews star in this classic tale of international espionage set behind the Iron Curtain. Newman plays world-famous scientist Michael Armstrong, who goes to an international congress of physics in Copenhagen with his fiancée/assistant Sarah Sherman (Andrews). While there, she mistakenly picks up a message meant for him and discovers that he is defecting to East Germany. Or is he? As Armstrong goes undercover to glean top-secret information, the couple are swept up in a heart-pounding chase by enemy agents in this action-packed Cold War thriller.

Torn Curtain is not a bad film, but it’s definitely a compromised and a messy one to begin with. There’s an interesting documentary on the disc that suggests there were some problems with casting, the script was rushed and Bernard Herrmann was fired(!). Following the deaths of other long time collaborators, cinematographer Robert Burkes and editor George Tomasini, clearly this was a difficult period following the failure of Marnie.

Still, like I say, it is not a bad film and it has some marvellous sequences. It’s really just the confused first act that struggles. Paul Newman, excellent as always, is clearly hiding something from his wife, Julie Andrews. It asks a lot of the viewer to keep up with shifting emotions when the usual claustrophobic attention to one characters point of view is missing. It seems to switch between the two when we are supposed to be in Julie’s shoes and her character is short-changed because of it (imagine if Psycho kept cutting away from Marion to see what other characters were up to). By the time she, and us, are in on the plot though, the film has found its feet and picks up pace. Once both Newman and Andrews are properly together and dealing with the situation, it’s a properly exciting suspense thriller. Julie Andrews proves to be typecast when it comes to trying to escape Germans! Otherwise she does well in a fairly underwritten role.

There are many stand-out moments, like Newman dealing with Ludwig Donath’s professor, frustrating him into revealing the MucGuffin out of pride! The murder of Gromek is also absolutely superb. That isn’t a spoiler (well I don’t think so! What is in a Hitchcock film?), but it’s an incredible moment that has to be mentioned as Hitch shows us just how tough it is to take a life. Gromek is a great character as well, smoothly played by Wolfgang Keiling. All the supporting characters are memorable actually (there’s literally a bus full of them!) and there’s a cute running joke with a snubbed ballerina. She becomes very important during the climax at a theatre. Once again, Hitch plays with the idea of a sequence played with an audience and it is brilliant.

Repeat viewings might smooth out the problems with the film (understanding what Newman’s Professor is trying to do adds a great deal of gravitas to his cold treatment of his fiancé) , but the overall problem is that there isn’t a solid, intriguing hook of a premise like usual. It was clearly rushed, because I really believe it could have been polished into something marvellous. As the documentary suggests, what if Herrmann could have completed his work at least? John Addison is an able replacement, but Herrmann created scores that wove into the fabric of the film.

Marnie (1964)

  

The Master of Suspense, Alfred Hitchcock creates a spellbinding portrait of a disturbed woman, and the man who tries to save her, in this unrelenting psychological thriller. ‘Tippi’ Hedren is Marnie, a compulsive thief and liar who goes to work for Mark Rutland (Sean Connery), then attempts to rob him. Mark impulsively marries the troubled beauty and attempts to discover the reasons for her obsessive behavior. When a terrible accident pushes his wife to the edge, Mark forces Marnie to confront her terrors and her past in a shattering, inescapable conclusion.

I had not seen Marnie for many years and perhaps never properly, so this has been a pleasant surprise because it’s not a fondly remembered film from Hitchcock’s career, but I found it to be an engrossing and powerful film that recalls Vertigo and Spellbound in its mentally flawed lead characters.

The film seems very old-fashioned and the credit sequence feels like it’s from the 40s. So do the characters, with a story somewhat based on class conflict (Mark would be high society in any other time) and that infuriatingly outdated view of marriage, although it is part of the plot this time at least. He adopted a nostalgic style for Psycho to deliver a very modern narrative and this is similar, but the old-time feel is more sustained so can be a detriment too. Still, he’s making the sex thriller he couldn’t possibly have made before, so probably the creaky techniques amuse him more than anything. Certainly there is nothing as inventive as you would find in Vertigo.

It’s daring in its delivery and fools the viewer somewhat. The start could be a breezy caper, like To Catch a Thief, but as with Vertigo it quickly takes a dark turn and digs in for the duration. While it can be dry and talky, it is a fascinating study of psychology, which Hitchcock has dealt with before. For the first time, the typical Hitchcock romance is the primary plot.

Marnie is a troubled woman and her light-fingered habits are a symptom of something more disturbing. Sean Connery is perfect as Mark, obviously turned on by Marnie’s problems, making him pretty unstable too! He is a great character, supremely confident and charming, exactly what Cary Grant used to do (Hitchcock pretty much invented Bond, now gets to use him), now with him a manipulative sexual predator, taming the frigid Marnie by unravelling her mysterious past which is acting as a chastity belt!  It makes for a suffocating effective chemistry between the leads, with an early uncomfortable peak as Mark pretty much rapes her. That is nasty, but for the most part there is a lot of fun to be had between Connery and Hedren as they toy effectively with one another.

Apparently Mark wasn’t an accomplished psychiatrist in the book or early screenplay draft. Instead he sent Marnie to see one. It takes a small contrivance explain how he can pull this off, but the plot benefits ten-fold. Another character would have interrupted the dynamic between them. Another change is the character of Mark’s sister-in-law, Lil (Diane Baker). Often Hitchcock romances involve two men for one woman and “Lil” was the other man in the book, so ready-made for the director it seemed. Except having her fighting for Mark’s affections is much more interesting, especially as it is never explored fully and just adds to the enigma that is Mark.

This isn’t outwardly ambitious visually for Hitchcock, which could be surprising given the work that went into Vertigo. Instead it’s a simply effective, with key scenes that linger. The stark rape scene for one; Marnie’s silent robbery in another; a heartbreaking conclusion to the hunt; and a superb flashback, which is very unusual (he did one for I Confess, but this is could have been a cul-de-sac for the plot, so he brilliantly takes it head on).

Much of the films unfair reputation may be down to the fact it was adapted specifically for Grace Kelly, but she had to refuse. After The Birds, Hitchcock was sure he had found a suitable replacement in the earthy Hedren, but she would always be in the shadow of a Princess. That’s a cruel twist though because Hedren is good enough in a role probably very different from the one offered Kelly considering the changes, and is she really the lead, considering how passive and smothered the character is?

Marnie isn’t for everyone. It can be uneven and may disturb as much as entertain, but go in with the right frame of mind and you’ll reap its rewards. It deserves a re-evaluation.

It’s A Wonderful Life

  

Light up your Christmas this year, with this timeless classic starring the unforgettable James Stewart as George Bailey and featuring a superb ensemble cast including Donna Reed and Lionel Barrymore.

Whenever the perennial subject of The Greatest Film Ever Made rears its head, I always turn into a smart-arse and confidently explain that such a thing is not possible to find. How can you possibly begin to compare Citizen Kane with The Godfather, or Jaws? It’s absurd!

So why is it, every time I see It’s A Wonderful Life I am absolutely convinced that it is The Greatest Film Ever Made?

Maybe it’s because it is truly a film everyone can love and no-one has to think of it as a guilty pleasure. The modern equivalent seems to be The Shawshank Redemption, but even that has a violence enough to shock your granny. It’s A Wonderful Life should be cloyingly sentimental, but it was always Capra’s skill to offset his films with enough irony and honesty so it was easier to sell and identify with. Indeed, in this case everyone talks about Clarence the befuddled angel, rescuing George from a suicide attempt which does sound twee, but actually, that is the last act. The story is about how he gets to that point, so if you have it in your head that it is a fairy-story for fairies, well it’s not. It’s a good hearted drama. The frequent scenes with Lionel Barrymore are testament to that, especially where Thomas Mitchell as Uncle Billy makes his terrible error. I always thought how brilliant it is that mistake should be left unresolved too and the plot doesn’t contrive some neat resolution, but continues to subscribe to the idea that when pushed into a corner, people will ultimately just deal with it and do the right thing.

It is the perfect Capra film and I do think it is his best work. He and the cast, working from as sharp and witty screenplay as they come, play their roles with such deft subtlety, that the pacing is utterly perfect. There isn’t a note out of place. As an example, I always think of the scene where George returns home on Christmas Eve, at the end of his tether and hiding his shame by lashing out at his family. It is a sublime scene of pacing, acting and… ‘mise en scene’. It isn’t often I use that term, but this is a most apt moment to which it should be applied. Perhaps the kids will jar with their pleas to “Daddy”, but if you think that then you’re a cold hearted git…

James Stewart was never better than here as George Bailey. Possibly Vertigo or another Capra, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but again, in a film so easily dismissed, there are layers to George you may not expect to find. Mitchell and Barrymore are both excellent too, but even the bit-parts like Ward Bond have their moments and all make a mark. Donna Reed may be the most inspired casting though. She is wonderful. Who wouldn’t consider spending their whole lives in the same place if she was there too? And finally there is Clarence of course, played by Henry Travers. A relatively small part, but ubiquitous to the story.

I watched this on the recently released Blu-Ray, which includes a colourised version. A dreadful idea, but very well done all the same. I wouldn’t watch it, but if it finds the film a new generation then maybe I shouldn’t sneer at its existence. Still, new viewers should be ashamed for needing such persuasion in the first place.

In any form, it isn’t the greatest film, of course. Such a notion is absurd. But it is at least in the top one.

State Of Play

  

Congressman Stephen Collins (Ben Affleck) is the rising star of his political party – until his research assistant/mistress is murdered, and buried secrets come tumbling out. Investigative journalist, Cal McCaffrey (Russell Crowe) has the dubious fortune of both an old friendship with Collins and a ruthless editor, Cameron (Helen Mirren), who assigns him to the story. As Cal and his partner Della (Rachel McAdams) step into a cover-up that threatens to shake the nation’s power structures, they discover one truth – when billions of dollars are at stake, no-one’s integrity, love or life is ever safe.

Director Kevin MacDonald follows his well-written, but flawed Last King of Scotland with the well-written, but flawed State Of Play. There’s a detail and intimacy in his direction that gives it an air of authenticity, but despite the witty dialogue and excellent plot, it seems to lose credibility in the final act, which is a real shame.

Still, this is a welcome thriller in more ways than one and provides anti-programming of substance to all the popcorn rubbish. There is the thorny issue of it being a remake of a superb British mini-series, but actually it relocates to Washington very well. It draws comparisons with All The Presidents Men too, with which it pales, but there hasn’t been anything like this for quite some time, apart from Grisham adaptations which have become almost self-parodies.

Maybe I’m biased, but I’ve always enjoyed pot-boilers like this. They always follow a similar track; a seemingly innocuous if vulgar crime soon leads to the political high ranks and much intrigue follows, with very little action but for the obligatory black ops assassin. Really the plots rely on who is doing the plotting and this cast are excellent.

Russell Crowe inhabits all his roles so well and this is a pretty straight-forward one for him (scruffy journalist) so he is the films reliable anchor and is barely off-screen. Rachel McAdams does well in an under-written, but long overdue dramatic part. It’s surprising how well she fits in, given that her character is so utterly pointless, except for a cliché of a sub-plot about bringing Crowes caveman of a journalist up-to-date (she does the on-line gossip column for the paper). It works because ironically, she keeps getting ignored in the story, so that’s mirrored by the plot! I was glad to see Ben Affleck climbing another rung on the comeback ladder. He gets far more flak than he deserves and has several scenes with Crowe in which he more than holds his own so I found him convincing and affecting as the senator getting embroiled in the scandal. Robin Wright-Penn as Affleck’s scorned wife is also very good, though I wasn’t convinced of the relationship between the two. Perhaps that was the point, given his infidelity and her past with Crowe’s character.

If Crowe is the films anchor, then Helen Mirren is its mothership. She never leaves the office and it’s like the film returns to her every time in needs a kick up the arse, which she duly delivers time and time again. She is quietly magnificent.

It’s well worth getting lost in. It avoids the black and white world of Grisham for the most part and you may feel by the end it sells-out, but MacDonald’s solid direction and equally solid cast make for an engrossing story.

Ghost In The Shell

  

The year is 2029, the world is made borderless by the net; augmented humans who live in virtual environments. Watched over by law enforcement agents that are able to download themselves into super-powered, crime busting mecha. The ultimate secret agent of the future is not human, has no physical body and can travel freely through the information highways of the world. Hacking and manipulating whatever, whomever and whenever required…

In my recent review for Akira, I claimed that it set a sci-fi benchmark that Hollywood has failed to match. It wasn’t a one-off though and it is a point anime has continued to prove, especially with Ghost In The Shell to the point of a specific example. Released in 1995, the theme of the story bears some resemblance to 1999′s The Matrix. And so this film has always been my favourite stick to beat the overrated Wachowski’s with! If you like pure action, there are few films better than The Matrix, but a lot of people held it up as brilliant sci-fi to rival Bladerunner, especially as the producers weren’t shy about Ghost being an influence. Actually, in comparison to the challenging and sublime Ghost, The Matrix is nothing more than a clumsy gimmick.

It’s a political story, with perhaps very vague echoes of Robocop. The main character, Major Kusanagi is a cyborg and a brilliantly effective agent, but she contemplates the possibility of having a soul, or a “ghost” and worries how much of her is natural or just a result of AI programming. She works for Section Nine who are investigating The Puppet Master. Although they argue about how it’s possible, it is likely he is just a ghost with no physical form himself, hacking into various shells and networks as a form of cyber terrorism.

While it isn’t as epic as the ambitious Akira, nor animated quite so brilliantly (it does have its moments though), it does share that earlier films skill for balancing gorgeous, wide open cinematic action with an incisive sci-fi plot. In fact, this focused, tightly plotted story is arguably better. It has a nostalgic poignancy that gives the film a soul, smartly mirroring the story of cyborgs wrestling with a conscience. The haunting theme adds another layer. And I was being picky about the animation only to demonstrate the difference with Akira, but actually the attention to detail is incredible, something only recently matched by people like Pixar.

It can’t match Akira‘s confident pacing. A couple of scenes are a bit talky and suffer from the static anime style Akira avoided, but there are several moments that are achingly beautiful. Especially when the Major goes diving and drifts weightlessly to the surface, embodying the emotional struggle she has with being whatever it is she is. Another example is the frequent nudity from the Major or even the damaged cyborg “shell” they find. It sounds strange to point it out, but it’s done with a tasteful obvious quality that live action could never pull off and it suits the story without being in any way gratuitous (the Major’s partner, also almost all cyborg, claims he doesn’t understand why she wishes to do things like diving, but then ironically catches himself staring at her body, revealing his own very human qualities).

It is very difficult to describe the atmosphere of this brilliant film and give it justice. It amused me when I watched this again that there is a quote from James Cameron on the sleeve, rightly praising Ghost for its “literary excellence” and another from the original Empire magazine review, saying that this is “the kind of film Cameron would make if Disney let him” (indeed he has often mentioned another manga, Battle Angel Alita, on his wishlist). Ironic that now, some years later, Cameron’s Avatar is The Matrix of its day with most people agreeing the story is derivative. Sounds exactly like the film Disney would have made! I wonder if Avatar‘s Japanese poster has got quotes from Mamoru Oshii on it?

Avoid the Blu-Ray, “2.0″ version. Although the transfer is superb, they have gone as far as replacing some key sequences with cgi and it looks horrible and jars. Strangely, you are far better sticking with the DVD.

Akira

  

In 1988, the landmark Anime film Akira, by director Katsuhiro Otomo, defined the cutting edge of Anime around the world. By today’s standards, Akira remains a landmark achievement in cell animation and retains the explosive impact of its highly detailed animation and its intensely violent saga of power and corruption. Pioneer Entertainment proudly presents this classic film, completely restored and digitally re-mastered. Childhood friends Tetsuo and Kaneda’s motorcycle gang encounters a military operation to retrieve an escaped experimental subject. The military captures Tetsuo and conducts experiments on him that unleash his latent psychic ability, but when these new powers rage out of control, Tetsuo lashes out at the world that has oppressed him!

Akira is the film that introduced me, along with thousands of other naive Westerners, to Anime. It’s been the favoured poster boy of Manga ever since and still stands today as one of the finest examples of animation, Japanese or otherwise. The opening scene of warring motorcycle gangs colliding with a revolutionary plot and wrinkly psychic kids is still a top favourite movie moment for me. I remember when I first saw it; after being brought up on nice, safe Disney, I think it blew my mind and I’ve never quite recovered! Thank goodness.

That scene sets the balance for the rest of the film which is a dizzying clash of plots. You have the cool, irreverent, often violent action provided by Kaneda’s bike gang as they look for their friend Tetsuo, who has been taken by the military after an accident. The military in turn are dealing with politicians and revolutionaries alike in a powerful sub-plot, while a girl from the revolution is tolerating Kaneda, as they have a mutual interest in finding Tetsuo. He is the heart of the story, struggling to come to terms with strange powers that are quickly getting out of hand. The wrinkly kids are also very powerful and are trying to keep him in check for his own sake, especially as he is learning about Akira. Who or what Akira was is left ambiguous throughout, but whatever is left of “him” is buried deep under the city and Tetsuo is determined to get at it. The last act of the film is all the various factions converging on one point for an epic, breathtaking finale.

The various plots are wound together with an assured attention to detail, never at the cost of pace and all the elements balance each other perfectly. For instance, the kids attacking Tetsuo disguised as huge toys that bleed milk would be unbearably disturbing but for the next scene of cathartic, wanton destruction or a wisecrack from Kaneda. The sci-fi plot is deep and philosophical, concerning human evolution. If there is a complaint, it’s possible only the surface of potential was scratched. Certainly the original manga, also by director Katsuhiro Otomo, is much larger. This is really picky though and newbies won’t notice because they will be too busy trying not to fall off the edge of their seat!

The quality of animation is astonishingly detailed, fluid and cinematic (some Anime has a tendency to be stilted), and the sound design and bonkers score match it throughout. This DVD release is getting on for 10 years old, but it’s a fantastic transfer. Also the 5.1 is only available in English dubbed, but it’s unusually good. I did have the dubbed VHS first, then VideoCD and remember the latter subtitled version being a big improvement, but this dubbing is excellent.

It is a very modern and dynamic piece of film-making and a benchmark for the sci-fi genre, a benchmark Hollywood has consistently failed to match. It treats the viewer with intelligence and doesn’t compromise the story at all. If you enjoy the genre, but are wary of watching “kids cartoons”, I urge you to try this. You owe it to yourself.

A Time to Kill

  

John Grisham’s best seller A Time to Kill hits the screen with incendiary force, directed by Joel Schumacher (The Client). Sandra Bullock, Samuel L. Jackson, Matthew McConaughey and Kevin Spacey play the principals in a murder trial that brings a small Mississippi town’s racial tensions to the fiashpoint. Amid activist marches, Klan terror, media clamor and brutal riots, an unseasoned but idealistic attorney mounts a stirring courtroom battle for justice. The superb ensemble also includes Brenda Fricker, Oliver Platt, Charles S. Dutton, Ashley Judd, Patrick McGoohan, Chris Cooper and both Donald and Kiefer Sutherland.

This gets your right-wing juices flowing! I love courtroom thrillers and thought this one of the best Grisham adaptations. Well, it could be, but the more I see it, the clearer it is that the story is shamefully manipulative and unambitious. Everything is painted so very broad and some scenes are almost farcical and childish. There is nothing original in the plot and in fact, some of it, like McConaughey and Judd’s marriage heading for the rocks, is very lazily handled. I don’t think there is even a structure to speak of. You expect certain things to happen, in a certain order, and they do. Just a shame there’s no subtlety.

I expect if they were to film it again today, it would be more powerful, with a well-played irony. Maybe something like Crash or Changeling. One thing you can be sure of, no way would it be so entertaining! These sort of films always pull great casts and this is one of, if not the best. Some like Matthew McConaughey and Sandra Bullock are at their best, despite being fed sub-par characters, others already so good, they wrap their tonsils around the killer lines with ease (Kevin Spacey, Donald Sutherland, Brenda Fricker, Patrick McGoohan). There wasn’t a weak point in the cast, except maybe whatever-happened-to-Ashley Judd, but whatever-happened-to-Oliver Platt makes it balance just by turning up. This is back in the days when Samuel L. Jackson would keep his shouty quotable lines to minimum (Lakeview Terrace is a recent return to form). “Yes, they deserve to die and I hope they burn in hell!” is a classic to rival Jack Nicholson barking “You can’t handle the truth!” at little Tommy Cruise.

That line sums up exactly how director Joel Schumacher wants you the viewer to feel and you probably will despite yourself because it is such a great cast and the plot is so exaggerated. We don’t just get racists, we get a specially formed brand new charter of the Klan, no less! You’ll boil at the injustice! Punch the air when McConaughey sneakily punches the would be bomber! And cheer when it turns out the dog survived! Well of course he was going to survive, but that’s what I mean. You can’t help yourself. And what’s wrong with a bit of eye-for-an-eye vigilantism anyway?

It’s absolute bollocks, but bollocks of the highest quality and a monument to the outrageous style Schumacher had before he disappeared up his own arse and found Batman and Robin. He finally produced the excellent Tigerland, but this is more memorable for all the very wrong and grimy reasons.