Valkyrie

Director: Bryan Singer
Starring: Tom Cruise, Kenneth Branagh & Bill Nighy

An enjoyable drama/thriller about the last attempt, by Germans, to assassinate Adolf Hitler in 1944 that, while possessing some tense and thrilling scenes during the attempt itself, but doesn’t quite delve deep enough into the mindset of those that planned it.

Given Hollywood’s tendency to demonize Germany when depicting its population in WWII-era films, painting most as Nazis or Nazi-sympathizers, it means that sometimes a reminder is necessary that not all of the population supported Hitler and some changed their minds about him enough that they attempted to kill Hitler, 15 times. Of course, as Hitler’s famous suicide in his bunker tells you, none of those assassination attempts succeeded but Valkyrie tells the story of Operation Valkyrie, the last and possibly most ambitious attempt to, not only assassinate Hitler, but to also wrestle back control of Germany from his supporters.

The message of Valkyrie is hammered home quite memorably early in the film by Kenneth Branagh’s Major Tresckow when he says: “We have to show the world that not all of us are like him. Otherwise, this will always be Hitler's Germany.” In this, Valkyrie does succeed quite well. The lengths that Tom Cruise’s Colonel Stauffenberg and his colleagues go to too achieve their goals and the risks they take are clearly on show. All can be executed for treason if caught and Stauffenberg’s family is at risk if he fails. The risks at stake mean, quite understandably, that once the decision to launch Operation: Valkyrie is made; the tension rises dramatically over whether Stauffenberg will succeed as unforeseen obstacles come into play to prevent success. An early attempt to assassinate Hitler with a bomb in a briefcase leads to a tense moment as Stauffenberg must wait for confirmation from his group over whether to proceed, all the time his enemies are stood nearby and, of course, the main event itself is tense when Stauffenberg is forced to flee the scene of a blast to enact the next stage of Operation: Valkyrie without being able to confirm whether the blast has killed Hitler whilst also unaware that his allies, having not had confirmation either, are putting the plan at risk by waiting. These scenes and the eventual Coup are well executed, in particular the moments featuring those unaware of Stauffenberg’s betrayal of Hitler such as the Commander of the Reserve Army being deployed by Stauffenberg and the control room operators receiving contradictory orders from both Stauffenberg’s people and Hitler’s.

While Valkyrie is successful in thrilling audiences in its latter half, earlier scenes where Stauffenberg is brought into the plot against Hitler, lack the same energy. More satisfied in allowing the fact that these men are plotting against Hitler to set them apart from other Nazis, the film rarely attempts to explore their true motivations especially as some dialogue in scenes reveals that some only doubt Hitler because the war efforts are failing. That no mention is made of the atrocities committed by the Nazis or our plotter’s feeling about them, feels odd. As such, the early, preparatory scenes for the plot lack the tension of later scenes which is somewhat disappointing when debate can be as tense and exciting as action.

Performances in Valkyrie are pretty good. Cruise is efficient enough as Stauffenberg, wearing and eye-patch and missing a hand, and he carries the film quite well even though the role never challenges Cruise to really explore any deep emotion. Supporting Cruise at Stauffenberg’s fellow conspirators is an impressive cast of British Actors including Kenneth Branagh, Terrance Stamp, Bill Nighy, Tom Wilkinson, Eddie Izzard and Jamie Parker. While the cast is impressive, most actors play to type, rarely getting any really memorable moments: Stamp is the distinguished gentleman throughout, Nighy is the reluctant General afraid to make important decisions without proper support and Wilkinson is the Colonel General who is ambitious but willing to side with whoever is the victor. The most impressive and memorable performances, go to the lesser known members of the cast. Jamie Parker plays the loyal aide to Stauffenberg, willing to believe in the cause and risk his life if necessary, Christian Berkel is an explosives expert who serves as the films and his fellow conspirators’ conscience and Eddie Izzard also impresses with a rare serious role.

Overall, while never delving as deep into the reason’s behind these men’s actions or truly why we should support them beyond the fact that they were trying to kill Hitler, Valkyrie still succeeds as a thriller in its later scenes and the performances, while not outstanding, are certainly worthwhile. In its attempts to prove that not all Germans were like Hitler at that time, Valkyrie succeeds and entertains.

Rating: 3/5

Milk

Director: Gus Van Sant
Starring: Sean Penn, James Franco & Josh Brolin

A strong drama from Gus Van Sant detailing the life of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man to be elected to government office featuring an impressive performance from Sean Penn as Harvey Milk.

On January 8th 1978, Harvey Milk, an openly gay man, was elected to become a member of the board of supervisors for the city of San Francisco. Harvey Milk was the first openly gay man to be elected into a government position. On November 27th 1978, Harvey Milk, along with Mayor Moscone were shot and killed by a former colleague, Dan White. In spite of his brief tenure on the board, Harvey was a hugely influential figure in the Gay Rights Movement and his election, in addition to his earlier efforts to champion for Gay Rights. Gus Van Sant, well-known for tackling subject matter such as homosexuality in his films, including the acclaimed My Own Private Idaho, is also openly gay. His own life experiences and his previous work have made him the ideal director for bringing the life of Harvey Milk to the cinema screen and has resulted in success. Milk is a very well-made, very emotional, very personal drama that highlights Harvey Milk’s humanity and that of those around him and highlights the struggles they faced that also doesn’t shy away from its subject matter.

Despite opening with news footage reporting of Harvey Milk’s assassination and having Sean Penn, as Milk, narrate the events of his life leading up his death as he records his memoirs, Milk never feels like a film doomed by the inevitable conclusion to Harvey Milk’s story as we go back to 1970 where the beginnings of Harvey Milk’s legacy to the Gay Rights Movement lay. Upon moving to San Francisco with his partner Scott Smith (James Franco), Milk becomes involved in the development of an area known as ‘The Castro’ into a gay-friendly neighborhood and to then, become involved, on several occasions, to be elected to public office to both improve the district in which he lives and to fight for equal rights for Gay people. Despite facing threats and criticisms, Milk succeeds to further his cause and the successes, no matter how small, alongside Milk’s continued optimism and drive, make his story and the film enjoyable. Milk also never demonizes those that opposed the Gay Rights Movement. Known opponents of Gay Rights are rarely seen in the film, most only seen through actual news footage included in the film. A similar approach is used to represent the era as Van Sant wisely avoids relying upon music or pop culture references to remind us of the era and focusing on the characters and their story allowing their interactions to generate a believable sense of community.

Milk also features several strong performances. Sean Penn, well known for playing serious dramatic roles, but also for playing them with a heavy sense of drama, is a revelation here. The smiling, cheery, optimistic attitude of Harvey Milk has been captured effectively and impresses even more as it is a character and performance so unlike those Penn’s has played recently. There are subtle gestures in the performance that do show the weight and pain that Harvey Milk had suffered and still suffered but with the character’s warmth still prevalent. In addition to Penn are strong turns from James Franco as Milk’s partner Scott, Emile Hirsch as a young, frequent contributor to Milk’s campaigns and also from Josh Brolin as Dan White, Milk’s colleague and the man who would kill him. Brolin’s performance is impressive here. Dan White could have easily been represented as a monster but here he is a frustrated man who reaches out to Milk for support but their opposing political views prevent Milk from providing him the political support White desired. White blames Milk for his own failures leading to the tragic deaths of Milk and Mayor Moscone after White loses his job. While Dan White’s actions are not excused, he is still a somewhat tragic figure also making the eventual climax of the film, Milk’s death and its aftermath even more emotionally powerful.

Overall Milk is an excellent drama and worth watching. The performances are strong and the handling of the subject matter will hopefully open some eyes to the struggle of a, still poorly treated, minority and generate sympathy and Penn’s performance as Harvey Milk is genuinely impressive.

Rating: 4/5

The Wrestler

Director: Darren Aronofsky
Starring: Mickey Rourke, Marisa Tomei & Evan Rachel Wood

An excellent drama featuring an Oscar worthy performance from Mickey Rourke in, perhaps, the finest role of his career.

A man, once a star in the 1980s, is now, 20 years later, washed up, beaten up, his fame fading into obscurity, his life lived by whatever work he can get and rejected by his family. On the surface, the story of The Wrestler mimics that of, actor, Mickey Rourke’s own career so closely you’d be forgiven for thinking the film took inspiration from Rourke’s career almost directly. Rourke, once hailed as a promising star, and potential Marlon Brando in the 1980s with performances in films like Diner, Rumblefish and Angel Heart, Rourke then went onto to one bad film choice after another. His acting career failing, he returned to boxing, a career he held in his earlier years, suffering from failures there too leaving him in receipt of frequent injuries resulting in numerous operations that were unable to restore the good looks with which he possessed in his earlier years. Returning to acting, Rourke has since struggled to make an impression with little more than supporting roles, the exception being a starring role in Sin City, albeit one that required heavy make up leaving him unrecognizable. In The Wrestler, and the role of Randy ‘The Ram’ Robinson, Rourke has finally achieved a role, and delivered a performance, worthy of all that potential he displayed 20 years prior and one that will hopefully, finally restore him to prominence.

The Wrestler tells the story of Randy ‘The Ram’ Robinson, a professional wrestler who, while a big star in the 1980s and early 90s, found his career on the wane as he grew older. With his looks reduced through injuries sustained in the ring and having to rely on steroids to give him the strength to compete in his later years, he still relishes the ring, the cheer of the crowds but finds himself reduced to performing smaller events, or matches involving actual violence on the amateur circuit just to provide him with the income to pay for his trailer, keep him in steroids and allow him time with the only person he feels shows him respect, a local stripper who is in a similar position to Randy in finding herself unable to compete with younger colleagues. When a heart attack forces him into a position where he must give up wrestling altogether, Randy tries to build a normal life, start a relationship with the stripper he cares for and reconnect to the daughter he neglected by focusing on his wrestling career. The story of The Wrestler appears to fairly traditional, however it is the execution that elevates the story into the gripping character study that it is. Rourke infuses Randy with a weary sadness that can be assumed is something Rourke himself has felt before yet there is optimism too. His attempts to court Cassidy (Tomei), the stripper with whom he feels he shares a connection, generates warmth even if his attempts seem futile. The same can be said of his attempts to reconcile with his daughter (Wood) and in his interactions with his fellow wrestlers before and after performing a show. In spite of all Randy’s failures and weaknesses, he remains a sympathetic character and one whom you hope succeeds in finding happiness again.

Aronofsky, in addition to the excellent casting choices of Rourke and Tomei, makes many smart directing decisions in his portrayal of Randy’s story and the world of wrestling in which he inhabits. While fully aware of the falsehoods within most professional wrestling matches, in that the fights are staged, choreographed, Aronofsky smartly chooses not to ridicule the sport (aptly now called sports-entertainment) showing genuine camaraderie between wrestlers that lies beneath the in-the-ring rivalries put on display to the fans. There is also moments that highlight some of the actual violence that can occur in wrestling from accidents in the ring to amateur/underground matches where wrestlers engage in actual acts of violence as part of their performance as seen in one particularly brutal scene where Randy’s post-fight treatment is inter-cut with moments from the match showing how each injury was sustained. Also, in addition to a suitably moody score by Clint Mansell, Aronosfky subtly works the cry of the crowds into Randy’s life most notably used as Randy, now working a deli counter in a supermarket, imagine the roar of fans as he approaches the shop floor only for everything to, this time, go silent upon stepping out onto the stage/floor. Mixing sadness with hope throughout the film, The Wrestler concludes with one last chance to return to the ring and perform once more. With echoes of Rocky the finale is also bittersweet with an ending that be as easily interpreted as a happy ending as it could a sad one.

Overall, The Wrestler is a gripping, stirring drama. It achieves what should be impossible, in generating true sympathy for a man down on his luck, restoring to prominence an actor who bears much in common with his role whilst also highlighting the humanity of an much adored, if mocked, American sport. A truly satisfying and rewarding film.

Rating: 5/5

Defiance

Director: Edward Zwick
Starring: Daniel Craig, Live Schreiber & Jamie Bell

A decent WWII period drama about a group of Jewish brothers who protected Jewish refugees from German soldiers in Eastern Poland.

As the plot might suggest, Defiance is a serious film and its director, Edward Zwick, is a man well-known for making serious films with messages promoting fighting for worthy cause. Defiance certainly does not disappoint these expectations. Beginning in 1941 Poland, Defiance tells the story, based on actual events, of the Bielski brothers: Tuvia (Daniel Craig), Zus (Liev Schreiber), Asael (Jamie Bell) and Aron (George MacKay). When German forces invading Poland began rounding up the Jewish population to place in ghettos and concentration camps, the Bielski brothers went into hiding within the forests of Eastern Poland/Western Belarus where, upon finding other Jews fleeing capture built a community and fought German forces to protect it.

Defiance manages to tell its story fairly well. There is plenty of tension between the brothers to be told, particular between Tuvia and Zus, the latter of which leaves the community to fight German’s more directly as part of a Russian force which leaves Tuvia to lead, reluctantly, the remaining survivors and protect them from attacks, starvation, disease and the winter. Frequently though, the seriousness of the situation these survivors have to face, threatens to overwhelm the atmosphere of the film with despair and there is very little hope. Even a wedding is no cause for celebration as the scene is inter-cut with scenes of Zus involved in a Russian attack on a German squadron (the manner of which recalls a similar, more effectively managed, sequence from The Godfather) and a birth in the camp comes with the reminder of the circumstances that allowed it, the rape of a Jewish woman by a German soldier. An overlong middle section involves frequent scenes of people suffering from illness, starvation and the cold as all-too-frequent reminders that these are serious events. Fortunately there are more effective scenes within Defiance as, in addition to scenes dealing directly with each of the Bielski brother’s reactions to events, the presence of two, self-described, “intellectuals” allows for moments where they debate their purpose, how they should proceed to survive and the pros and cons of armed combat. While not subtle, these moments serve to provoke the consideration of the audience as much as the characters on events.

Performances in Defiance are also decent and also very serious. Playing their roles deadly-straight, Craig, Schreiber and Bell play the three older Bielski brothers fairly well though the performances are somewhat distracted by the actors attempts at speaking in Eastern European accents. All three actors are very capable of showing anger, pain and displaying moments of deep thought over their actions both recent and forthcoming though little hints at any deeper personality is seen outside of Bell’s interaction with the woman whom he later marries. The female cast get to display a wider range of emotions though their roles are limited to those of love interests to the Bielski brothers.

Defiance is most watchable though when its characters are involved in combat. A veteran of filming combat with films such as Glory and The Last Samurai, Zwick handles the combat sequences very well in Defiance. While battles in Defiance are smaller in scale to those of his other films, Zwick is still able to choreograph effective action conveying danger and thrills and even with occasional moments of visual inventiveness such as an assault on a Police Station when the Bielski brothers seek medical supplies where the action is filmed in staggered motion with blurs of action and the film’s finale involving an air raid and infantry assault on the Bielski camp that forces the group out of the woods, through swampland to another confrontation with soldiers is similarly well-executed.

Overall, Defiance, while managing to convey an adequate sense of the struggle the Bielski brothers and the people they saved had to endure, the film is overlong with too many heavy-handed sequences threatening to overpower the story with their seriousness and, while possessing some good battle sequences, is also told in so traditional a manner that there a frequent moments where the executions feels all too familiar including a speech made by Tuvia (Craig) on horseback that feels too derivative of Braveheart to fully rouse feeling. A decent film, but little more.

Rating: 3/5

Slumdog Millionaire

Director: Danny Boyle
Starring: Dev Patel, Anil Kapoor & Freida Pinto

A highly enjoyable and rewarding rags to riches tale featuring a strong cast, impressive cinematography and an inventive and gripping story.

After successful attempts at working with the horror and sci-fi genres with 28 Days Later and Sunshine, Danny Boyle returns with this charming, rags to riches tale and using the energy and inventiveness of Trainspotting that has only briefly been seen in his later films. Slumdog Millionaire, based on the novel Q&A, is the tale of Jamal, a boy who grew up in the slums of Mumbai and whose life-experiences seem destined to provide him with the all the answers to achieving riches he couldn’t imagine by winning India’s version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire? Of course, the show runner’s cannot accept that a boy like Jamal could possibly have all the answers without cheating; he is taken by police and interrogated. It is here that the story begins as, through extended flashbacks, Jamal tells the tale of his life and how each major incident provided him with the answers he needed to win.

While the plot might seem somewhat contrived, every question asked of Jamal on the show seemingly relating to a significant life experience, the execution of the story by Boyle, the performances of its cast and its hyper-kinetic cinematography make Slumdog Millionaire such a joy to watch that any concerns over the overwhelming coincidences you are asked to accept are accepted and willingly so. Living in the slums of Mumbai, with his life involving losing his mother, being taken in by a group of child slavers, living on the streets and always by his wits, Jamal’s story and that of his brother Salim and love-interest Latika, might feel like the kind of story that should be shocking and depressing and some scenes are shocking and heart-breaking to witness. However, Slumdog Millionaire is also infused with hope and warmth.

Jamal, played by three actors at different places in his life, all portray him as a character with optimism, with conviction that he’ll find what he’s looking for and that involves a life with Latika, the young girl of which he is separated from and reunited with several times. An early scene from his childhood speaks volumes about his character and the journey in which he is to embark upon when, locked in outdoor toilet in the slums of Mumbai (easily worse than “The Worst Toilet in Scotland” scene from Trainspotting), he leaps into human waste as his only hope for escape and manages to get through a crowd of people gathered around his childhood hero, a famous actor, and secure an autograph with a cry of success. Jamal’s success, despite the sacrifices he had to take to achieve it, and the happiness he feels regardless of the cost gives the audience a sense that no matter how tragic Jamal’s story might sometimes become, he is destined for success and happiness by the film’s end. Less hopeful is the role of Salim, Jamal’s older brother whose envy of Jamal’s attitude and rewards leads him down a darker path of crime but who is still to redeem himself for life and his treatment of Jamal and Latika. In addition to the fine casting of the three child leads, Dev Patel in particular that plays the present day Jamal telling us his story, are also several adult roles. Anil Kapoor plays a somewhat slimy role in India’s answer to Chris Tarrant as his TV presenter is one whose motives remain murky yet hides them in public with a smile and a cheer. Also interesting is the role of the police inspector played by Irrfan Khan, who despite engaging in unpleasant methods to get answers from Jamal in early scenes manages to present his character as someone who is also reasonable and open to hearing Jamal’s tale.

As well as the strong acting performances and a gripping script, Danny Boyle’s direction of the events is impressive. With the aid of a pulse-pounding score by A. R. Rahman, Boyle’s directing style here is his most inventive and hyper-kinetic since Trainspotting. Inter-cutting moments between present day events, Jamal’s story and brief glimpses back and forth of other glimpses like brief, fleeting memories mixed into recollections and with the use of whip-pan camera moves with handheld, in the midst of the action feel, Slumdog Millionaire also keeps you as much on your toes with its camera work and beautiful scenery, capturing the growth of a country as well as the growth of a boy, as it does with its story.

Overall, Slumdog Millionaire is highly entertaining. Great to look at with story, mood and characters that both grip and warm you, the film deserves is hype as a feel-good film and also marks Boyle’s most impressive work since Trainspotting hailed him as the future of British filmmaking in 1996. A must see film.

Rating: 5/5

Role Models

Director: David Wain
Starring: Paul Rudd, Seann William Scott & Christopher Mintz-Plasse

A very enjoyable comedy that, in spite of its predictable adults learn life and responsibility plot direction is elevated by funny and sharp dialogue and impressively strong performances from its lead actors.

On paper, Role Models sounds like it has the potential to be little more than an average comedy: The plot follows a standard storyline of two adults learning life lessons and coming away better people. Also, on the surface, the casting would seem average starring Paul Rudd, funny but usually filling the parts of supporting roles; Seann William Scott, still seen as little more than his American Pie character Stifler 10 years later; and Christopher Mintz-Plasse, following his breakout role as McLovin in 2007’s Superbad. That, in spite of any expectations of mediocrity, Role Models actually succeeds in being incredibly funny and not letting the conventions of its plot prevent it back from being entertaining or even insightful is very impressive. Additionally, all the actors involved manage to impress with strong performances and excellent comic timing fulfilling potential that had yet to be fully realized.

Considering the plot of Role Models, adults learning life lessons by looking after children, the film becomes saccharine in the handling of its subject matter. Rather than exploit the troubled backgrounds of either of its child leads for an easy emotional moment, Role Models instead addresses their issues and those of its adult leads by forcing them all to interact, unwillingly, in as many awkward situations as is realistically possible and watching them squirm and even explode. The adults, forced to become child mentors to avoid a prison term, are represented by Danny (Rudd) a cynical loner whose criticisms of everyone around him has driven away his friends and his girlfriend and Wheeler (Scott), a guy who never grew up, living for fun without ever wanting anything permanent or worthwhile. The children are represented by Augie (Mintz-Plasse), a boy with no social life outside of a fantasy-based role playing group he meets but with no interaction with real world situations and Ronnie (Bobb’e J. Thompson), a young, black child who acts tough and keeps everyone at a distance with his foul language and even resorting to using racial differences as a weapon to keep people away. Danny finds Augie’s hobbies uninteresting, initially ignoring their importance to Augie and offending Augie through his own bitterness while Wheeler, unfamiliar with responsibility is kept off guard by Ronnie and left trying to appeal to him through their mutual interest in women. Ultimately failing to help the children with their refusal to fully take their roles as mentors or the children’s need seriously, Danny and Wheeler are then left with the task of rebuilding their trust and in accepting that their own selfishness needs to change to better, not only the children’s lives, but also their own.

Enhancing the otherwise straight forward story and characters, is the excellent performances of the cast. Rudd’s performance as Danny is the film’s most enjoyable using his deadpan delivery to give Danny’s cynicism additional bitterness and making his quick wit additionally scathing whilst also allowing for Danny to slowly, and believably accept that he isn’t as smart as he sometimes believes and that he is missing out on life through his cynicism. Scott also impresses as Wheeler who, while seeming to be another version of his Stifler persona, is actually far more restrained and with Scott infusing the role with an unexpected, yet satisfying, level of sweetness to an otherwise hedonistic individual. Mintz-Plasse follows his nerd persona of McLovin with another nerdy role here, but rather than repeating the same performance, Mintz-Plasse buries the annoying, eager-to-impress nature of the McLovin persona for a far more introverted performance as Augie’s socially-deprived teen. Also impressive is Thompson as Ronnie, who delivers his foul mouthed dialogue with much energy and despite fulfilling a classic troubled child role, is nevertheless charming especially in his interactions with Scott. Rounding out the rest of the cast are entertaining turns from Jane Lynch as the former drug-addict turned group leader of the mentoring program, Ken Leong as one of Augie’s fellow fantasy-game players and Elizabeth Banks in a warm, if underwritten, role as Danny’s former girlfriend.

Overall, Role Models succeeds in being very funny, featuring excellent timing and overall performances from its cast in addition to sharp, acerbic dialogue and truly entertaining set pieces particularly those involving the fantasy-gaming events that pre-occupy Augie’s spare time. Paul Rudd also, successfully, steps up from being a supporting actor to comic lead with ease while Scott shows, more visibly than before, than he is more than that loud-mouthed guy from American Pie. A very entertaining, very satisfying comedy.

Rating: 4/5

Frost/Nixon

Director: Ron Howard
Starring: Michael Sheen, Frank Langella & Sam Rockwell

A gripping drama retelling the events of, and events surrounding, the television interview between David Frost and Richard Nixon of 1977 in which Nixon finally admitted his guilt in the events surrounding the Watergate Scandal.

Based on the stage play of the same name and based on events of which the actual interview footage is readily available for viewing, you could wonder whether Frost/Nixon the film is entirely necessary. Such considerations though quickly fall aside once the film begins though. Bringing the story behind the infamous 1977 interview of, former President, Richard Nixon by David Frost to the big screen, Frost/Nixon attempts to build upon the events documented on tape by showing us how it felt for those involved in the events as they occurred. Frost/Nixon is very successful in this regard as, while also adding some soap opera elements, features some strong performances, particularly from Michael Sheen as Frost and Frank Langella as Nixon whilst also filmed in a faux-documentary style that helps enhance the feeling of actually being present during the events.

In between showing us events leading up to and during the interviews, Frost/Nixon’s storyline is inter-cut with documentary style scenes featuring interviews with people involved in the events relating their accounts of what occurred and how they felt after Frost/Nixon has shown them. These interview segments, also featuring the characters still being portrayed by the actors that play them during the main scenes, are effective in adding a believability to the scenes we see in Frost/Nixon in the same way that actual news interviews occasionally feature actors to help protect the identities of the interviewees. These scenes, in addition to the actual interview scenes between Frost and Nixon (of which the original broadcasts are available to compare against those in Frost/Nixon) help in enhancing the drama of Frost/Nixon in a more efficient manner than some of the more soap opera style drama also on display. Scenes featuring Frost’s attempts to find funding for the interviews and Frost contemplating failure from his hotel room do add some additional drama, showing what Frost had at stake if the interviews were unsuccessful but nevertheless, distract somewhat from the true drama of the Frost/Nixon interviews themselves.

That Michael Sheen and Frank Langella give strong performances as David Frost and Richard Nixon helps in keeping the film gripping even when the film strays towards melodrama. Sheen effectively portrays Frost as a man who is realizing the limits of his own reputation and also realizing that Nixon is a more formidable subject than he expected, showing Frost that he’d allowed his previous successes to make him overconfident. Frank Langella’s performance as Nixon is similarly layered, avoiding the overtly villainous characterizations of previous portrayals such as Anthony Hopkins’ performance in Oliver Stone’s Nixon and instead showing Richard Nixon as a man who had so pushed to deny any wrongdoing that he had come to believe his own denials yet then had to come to terms with what he had done. Langella’s performance effectively portrays Nixon as the beaten man that had been seen on television by the end of the interviews. It is a performance that humanizes, rather than demonizes Nixon yet also manages not to exonerate the man or justify his actions.

In addition to Sheen and Langella, Frost/Nixon also benefits from a strong supporting cast with particularly strong performances from Sam Rockwell, a writer assigned to help Frost dig up details on Watergate who comes across as sympathetically idealistic, representing the people that felt most betrayed by Nixon and also a strong performance from Kevin Bacon as Nixon’s aide Jack Brennan, a Nixon supporter who wants to believe in Nixon’s innocence as much as Nixon himself. Filling out the rest of the cast are Oliver Platt, Matthew Macfadyen, Rebecca Hall and Toby Jones.

Overall, Frost/Nixon is an excellent drama. The occasional trip into the forced dramatics of soap opera style melodrama means the film lacks the punch of 2005’s Good Night & Good Luck, but still gives a generally believable and entertaining account of the events portrayed thanks to its lead performances and moments of faux-documentary scenes whilst also serving as a reminder that broadcast journalism can still be a powerful tool for truth.

Rating: 4/5

The Spirit

Director: Frank Miller
Starring: Gabriel Macht, Samuel L. Jackson & Eva Mendes

An example of style over substance, The Spirit is a comic book adaptation that is visually appealing but lacks similar appeal in its story, its characters or in the performances of its stars, all of which are thinner than the paper its source material was originally printed on.

Frank Miller, the director of The Spirit, is a legend within the comic book industry. Miller helped revitalize superhero comics in the 1980s with The Dark Knight Returns, a tale of Batman’s final days that was dark and gritty in tone and, alongside Alan Moore’s Watchmen, was a significant work in bringing a mature, adult tone to superhero comics and in demonstrating to the world at large that comics were a medium that was greater than the stereotypes of them being just for children had suggested. In addition to The Dark Knight Returns, Miller revitalized Daredevil for Marvel Comics (also creating the character of Elektra) and then the series of acclaimed Crime Noir comics dubbed Sin City throughout the 1990s. With the success of a film adaptation of Sin City in 2005, in which Frank Miller moved onto film direction alongside Robert Rodriguez, and the successful adaptation of another Miller work in 300 in 2007, Frank Miller has found himself in the position to further change the way comic-to-film adaptations are made and received as he once had the opportunity to do with comics themselves in the 1980s and 90s. However, if The Spirit, which is Miller’s first solo directorial effort, is any indication then Miller’s career in film is off to a poor start.

Adapting the, Will Eisner created, character of The Spirit for the big screen, Miller’s biggest flaw is that instead of capturing the tone and style of the actual comics, he instead adapts the comics in his own style, as seen in the adaptations of Sin City and even 300 with the use of entirely CGI created environments and the presentation of the casts as caricatures rather than as characters. From gruff hero, over-sexualized Femme Fatales and a villain whose every action is evil, The Spirit is a film that is dominated by cliché after cliché. Only rarely though, do any of the cliché’s result in worthwhile entertainment. A tongue-in-cheek approach to the conventions of Film Noir does result in some, momentarily entertaining sequences. Macht’s performance as The Spirit, playing it straight, works quite well as the character interacts with the Police Commissioner or other Policemen, though the performance suffers when Macht is in the presence of a more OTT performance such as Samuel L. Jackson’s as the villain The Octopus. The approach to female characters too, while often bordering offensive in their portrayal of women as sexualized fantasy figures, can also sometimes results in fun moments such as a gung-ho rookie cop named Morgenstern who is a joy to watch and the occasional pun offered at the right moment (a “perfect ass” comment during a scene with a photocopier) being funny in spite of its obviousness.

Unfortunately, despite the tongue-in-cheek approach occasionally making the overuse of cliché acceptable, it fails to redeem the performance of Samuel L. Jackson or the portrayal of his character The Octopus. The Octopus in the comic books was a villain that was never seen, always lurking in the background and manipulating events from a distance. In The Spirit film though, Miller decides to bring the villain out into the forefront and, as with his portrayal of the film’s hero and its female cast, he resorts to stereotype in the portrayal of this villain but with far more excess than is seen elsewhere in the film. Jackson’s performance fits the definition of OTT with glee, speaking as loudly as possible as often as possible whilst delivering dialogue suitable of a pantomime villain. Whether this performance is due to Jackson or Miller’s wishes is unknown but the result is that, the usually entertaining Jackson is the weakest element in a film that is already lacking depth or originality.

Overall, while visually interesting, using the same visual style used for Sin City focusing on thick shadows, and heavy use of black, white and red (The Spirit’s red tie being a visually appealing element) and also The Spirit occasionally succeeding in entertaining with its tongue-in-cheek manner, the film generally fails to deliver satisfaction in its actor’s performances, in their characterization or in its plot. Should Miller have the opportunity to direct further films, he could do well to remember that style is rarely an adequate substitute for substance.

Rating: 2/5

Che - Parts One & Two

Director: Steven Soderbergh
Starring: Benicio del Toro, Demian Bichir & Rodrigo Santoro

Two well made, well acted and ambitious films by Steven Soderbergh that show the rise, and fall, of the man known as ‘Che’ Guevara which, while light on giving us personal insights into the mind of ‘Che’, nevertheless present to us his actions and his legacy very well.

Part One:

Soderbergh’s first film dealing with the life of Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara is likely the stronger of the two films. Dealing with Che’s more well known period, that of his role in the 26th of July Movement in Cuba and the Revolution that put Fidel Castro in power, it was also the period where Ernesto Guevara became known as ‘Che’ and developed much of the ideology and skills as a Guerilla, that would serve him throughout the remainder of his life.

More experimental in its narrative (in keeping with the style of storytelling Soderbergh has been known for in previous films like Out of Sight, The Limey and Solaris), we get Che’s involvement in the Cuban Revolution through flashback, and in color, while giving an interview to reporter Lisa Howard (Julia Ormond) whilst in the US to speak before the United Nations with these scenes told in black & white. Portraying Che as an enigmatic character throughout is move that seems somewhat risky yet makes for a stronger portrayal as it avoids the trap of editorializing Che’s actions by assuming his thoughts and feelings instead portraying his actions and words as seen by those around him. Benicio del Toro delivers a strong, restrained performance as Che also. Keeping Che’s feelings hidden by deciding not to assume the emotions he may have felt and putting them in into his performance, del Toro instead portrays Che as slightly distant allowing Che’s words to speak for him.

The decisions made by Soderbergh and del Toro might not result in a film that grips on emotional level in terms of its characters, but it nevertheless grips through its portrayal of Che’s actions and of the events of the Cuban Revolution. From the initial meeting of Che and Fidel Castro in Mexico and the decision to stage a revolution, through the early skirmishes on Cuba and Che’s role as a surgeon and trainer and his development into a leader of men is gripping. The cinematography is excellent, capturing the scope of the country and of the conflicts but maintaining a gritty, handheld feel that often puts the audience into the action, results in some intense and well choreographed battle sequences. The conflicts between Castro and Che’s army and those of Batista, the dictator at the time, build up in size and scale as the Revolution gains strength with victory after victory culminating in a large, extended battle sequence set in Santa Clara involving conflicts in the streets, on rooftops, with tanks and the derailment of a train that both impresses in the effectiveness of how the conflict is portrayed within the film but also in how it demonstrates the efficiency of the Revolution, and Che’s ability to stage a successful campaign against the Cuban military.

Culminating with the Revolution, and Che’s biggest victory, Che Part One is a film of optimism, showing the rise of a man who would forever be idolized as a symbol for revolution against oppression.

Part Two:

The second film in Soderbergh’s portrayal of the life of Che is an altogether different affair. Forgoing much of the narrative experimentation shown in Che Part One, Part Two takes a more straightforward approach starting several years after the success of the Cuban Revolution and following Che as he departs Cuba and begins attempts to stage a similar revolution in Bolivia.

Che Part Two is a harder film to watch. Part of this is due to Che’s period in Bolivia, his post-Cuba years, being less publicized, less well-known than his successes in Cuba and also because the attempted revolution in Bolivia failed, leading to the capture and execution of Che. As such, the optimism present in Part One is absent here as Che discovers more resistance to his ideas amongst the people of Bolivia, due to infighting between Communist Party members over the way a revolution in Bolivia should be handled and also due to the intervention of the US in aiding the Bolivian Government in tracking and stopping Che’s soldiers.

Continuing to portray Che from a distance in Part Two also succeeds less in giving us insight into Che than it did in Part One. Where we saw Che grow through his experience, his actions and his words in Part One, the failures he faces in Bolivia, the struggles and the frustration that comes with it are only hinted at in the portrayal of Che himself. One scene in particular where a sick, and frustrated, Che struggles to get his horse to cooperate leading him to attack the animal is intense in its portrayal of a man struggling with failure but such scenes are infrequent and the toll on Che himself is left mostly unexplored. The decision to also start the film several years after Part One’s conclusion also means that Che’s period as a family man, a father and husband, are left unseen outside of his farewells to them which like later scenes in the film where Che loses his temper, hint at the sacrifice he is making by leaving but again is left unexplored and thus not allowing audiences to see aspects of Che’s life outside of his role as a Guerilla.

The conflicts and their presentation in Part Two remain well told and effective in conveying the intended tone of the film. Where in Part One we saw victories and an ever expending army for the cause of Castro and Che, leading to bigger conflicts and bigger victories, the conflicts in Part Two are less successful leading to smaller skirmishes, frequent failures and an ever decreasing force as soldiers die but support for the cause diminishes resulting in fewer recruits. The feeling of hopelessness faced by Che and his soldiers is keenly felt in Part Two and is effective in generating sympathy for the man and for the people of Bolivia that he tries to help.

Overall, Part Two is a less satisfying film than Part One. It might be effective in its portrayal of the conflicts within Bolivia and the struggle faced by Che’s movement but it is somewhat less successful in portraying the effects upon Che himself. Also, where as the casting of del Toro as Che is effective as is the casting of, mostly, unknowns as his fellow soldiers works well in adding believability to the performances, Part Two does feature a brief but distracting appearance by Matt Damon in a non-English speaking role that, however brief, in an distracting reminder that this is a film. However, stability to the tone of the film is soon restored and the film’s ending with the capture and execution of Che is well handled and certainly difficult to witness as it is intended to be.

In conclusion, Che Parts One & Two are both very good films standing well together as one larger film but able to stand together individually. Part One is the much stronger picture of the two with the methods of portraying the events in Che’s life as well as Che himself benefiting the film more than it does in Part Two. Part Two is certainly intense and more difficult to like than Part One but in its role in portraying the fall of an icon and in balancing the optimism in his rise throughout Part One, it succeeds. The distant nature of its portrayal of Che may not please some audiences but it nevertheless effectively portrays the actions of the man leaving much of the decision over whether he was a good man in addition to a good leader and soldier up to the audience to decide.

Rating: Part One – 5/5, Part Two – 3/5. Overall Rating: 4/5