The Hateful Eight – Agatha Christie in an abattoir

This is an Agatha Christie chamber piece crossed with the Evil Dead. It’s Slow Cinema crossed with Grand Guignol. It’s as if Sam Peckinpah  joined the “Dogme 95” movement and filmed his version of Festen then reverted to the Wild Bunch.

It starts out very (very) slowly with an opening shot that pans around a crucifix as a stagecoach appears out of a snow covered horizon (Tarantino’s version of Omar Sharif appearing out of the desert in Lawrence?) and that scene very deliberately sets the tone, “settle in everyone, we’re taking our time”.

There are scenes of utter beauty and scenes where you have to avert your eyes from the abattoir-esque carnage.

It’s a bible-black crow-black comedy western. As usual Tarantino plays fast and loose with the music.

There’s a fabulous Ennio Morricone original score – his first in over a decade, coupled with songs by Jack White and Roy Orbison. Tarantino also sneaks in Morricone music from The Exorcise II and The Thing.
There’s a brilliant scene with Bruce Dern and Samuel L Jackson to a one-handed piano accompaniment of Silent Night (surely revenge for what Dern famously did to John Wayne in The Cowboys).

Great performances all round from Dern, Walton Goggins, Tim Roth and Michael Madsen.

Kurt Russell is tremendous as The Hangman John Ruth. But the standout pair are Samuel L Jackson and Jennifer Jason Leigh.

Leigh has rightfully received an Oscar nomination for her portrayal of Daisy Domergue but Jackson has been (shamefully) overlooked.
For her troubles Leigh is punched, elbowed, pistol-whipped, barfed-upon, offal-showered, shot and ultimately… well that would be a spoiler.

“But is it any good?” I hear you ask.
As you might have guessed – I absolutely loved it. But my missus fell asleep three times (yes it’s that long) – so you pays your money and makes your choice 😉

For me at least – highly recommended!

Star Wars – The Force Awakens

I’ve tried to write a spoiler-free review but there are plot points and character descriptions in what follows so if you really really don’t want any pre-knowledge of the movie before seeing it then I’ll just say that I absolutely loved it. Now go see it then come back and read this afterwards and tell me what you think. Otherwise , read on Macduff…

I recently re-watched The Phantom Menace (well, the anti-cheese fanboy edit on YouTube – can anyone sit through the full movie?) and by midway through the opening crawl (taxation of trade routes is in dispute FFS) I was already bored.

So compared to any of George Lucas’s trilogy of prequels The Force Awakens is Citizen Kane and any of my
criticism of Force Awakens should be taken with this in mind.

On that note let’s get my moans out of the way first. The biggest (SPOILER ALERT) is that it’s basically a remake of the original Star Wars movie.

I realise this has been done for the same reason that Marvel continually re-hashes origin stories (because the studios want to draw in new viewers whilst not alienating existing devotees and what better way than by re-imagining the story that got everyone hooked in the first instance), it just felt a wee bit lazy.

My second bugbear is that you have to forget or ignore some pretty big plotlines from the original films. Mainly that The Return of the Jedi wrapped up the original tale with a big bow but also that the storm troopers were a clone army cast in the image of Jango Fett.

Now I’m sure the sequels will fill in the backstory and explain how these came to be but it felt a little unsatisfactory to my fanboy sensibilities that I now need to accept that the Empire is as dominant as ever and the resistance even further under the heel.

I also don’t think that some of the newer characters are particularly well drawn.

Screen writer, scion of Hollywood royalty and regular contributor to the Youtube movie crit channel “Trailers From Hell” Max Landis (above) has accused one of the main protagonists Rey of being a Mary Sue character –

or in other words that’s she’s a poorly developed result of the author’s wish-fulfillment . On reflection it’s an argument I agree with. For example she can fix (and fly) the  Millennium Falcon without any prior knowledge. Compare that with the utterly butterfingered incompetence of the pre-enlightenment Luke in the original and you’ll get my drift.  Having said that it’s not such a big deal that it in any way spoils the film. And on the positive side it’s very heartening to see a female role that’s so pivotal. I just think maybe JJ Abram’s idea of a strong female character was a bit too literal.
Also, along with other Abrams’ movies (think Star Trek, Super Eight, MI3) to me the film is destined to be very fondly remembered whilst never becoming a classic. BUT as I’ve already mentioned, after the disastrous trilogy of prequels it’s more than enough to be going on with.

That’s it on the moaning front (promise) because the film is such enormous fun I can forgive it any number of flaws. It looks like a classic Star Wars film with desert planet and snow planet scenes, giant space stations, death rays, light sabers and silly bar scenes.

Also I saw the film in 3G but I don’t think that added much except a sense of vertigo in some of the vertiginous scenes involving Rey.

The tie-fighter dog-fight scenes definitely benefit from being staged near the planet surface rather than in outer-space as it gives a greater feeling of speed and peril.

The movie takes its cue from Guardians of the Galaxy and even Firefly and recaptures the spirit of the original film as a western in outer space. The movie also references snow scenes of Christopher Nolan’s Inception.

There’s thankfully more emphasis on physical SFX but where used the CGI is excellent.

I loved the mix of sci-fi tech and old artefacts like the wooden box the light saber is kept in. I loved the nods to the originals like Luke’s battle-ball being sat on by Finn, the old hologram chess set coming back to life and of course the re-animated Millennium Falcon and the superannuated original cast.

The music was spot on (someone has been watching Where Eagles Dare as the rousing ascending musical motif of Ron Goodwin’s music is very much in evidence –  no complaints from me as that is my all time favorite adventure theme)

The film is studded throughout with stunning locations – none more so than
Skellig Michael which looks so astonishing I’ve added it to my list other reasons for doing a tour of Ireland as soon as possible

The film is packed full of stunning set pieces and jaw-dropping design work. The Yanick Dusseault designed rally of the Empire storm troopers

takes its blueprint from Nazi rallys at the 1936 Olympics  for example is a masterpiece.

And the wreckage of the Imperial star destroyer is awe-inspiring.

Check out this Buzzfeed article for more on the concept art for the movie.
My inner geek is desperately seeking justification to buy the concept-art book but hasn’t yet managed to come up with a convincing argument

Some copacetic new characters are introduced. I thought Adam Driver was outstanding giving real emotion to what could have been a pretty two-dimensional character.

And I loved the bro-mance between Oscar Isaac and John Boyega.

The ‘droid BB8 of course becomes the new must have Christmas figure

I loved the way the older characters are reintroduced and the script thankfully brings back the humour of the original trilogy. Han Solo’s twinkle is still in his eye and the relationship between Solo and Leia is very well drawn and surprisingly moving.
Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher are head and shoulders the best thing about the film

To sum up then, a film that’s not quite the sum of its parts but what parts they are! Brilliant, stunning fun. Very very enjoyable – and, not to damn with faint praise, a huge relief after the three awful prequels.
The forever saga is back on course – go see it.
Highly recommended

Spectre

Bond is back – dang da da da dang da da da dang da da da dang ….

It’s the first Daniel Craig outing since 2012’s Skyfall.
I loved every minute of Skyfall whereas the friend I watched it with in the cinema (let’s call him “Richard”) hated it with a passion normally reserved for Marmite or Manchester United.
For me it took the Bond genre and tilted it slightly on its axis to brilliant effect.  For “Richard” – without silly quips, outrageous gadgets and lots of Bond girls it just wasn’t Bond. So I guess that film either thrilled or infuriated you depending on what you expect from a Bond film.
Well I can promise you one thing – whatever you expect from a Bond film – Spectre has it.
Gadget filled Aston Martin? Check. Softly spoken Bond villain with fluffy cat? Check. Bond girls galore? Check (although disappointingly none called Fanny Bangs as I was previously and as it turns out mischievously informed), evil hidden megalomaniac lair? Check. Train fight with bullet-headed Robert Shaw-alike baddy? Check. Speaking of which there were any number of nods to previous Bond tropes (a-la the Robert Shaw fight from “From Russia With Love”) and indeed to other movies. The opening Mexico City set day-of-the-dead scene was an obvious and loving homage by director Sam Mendes to Orson Welles’ three minute single camera opening sequence from his classic “Touch of Evil”.

Did I mention the casual throwaway quips – bucket loads.
There’s even a board-room meeting of evil characters where an evil Dr Evil type sits at the head of the table orchestrating the nefarious activities in his evil way. And they even squeeze in a “No Mr Bond, I expect you to die” type moment.

Craig once again does a fine job portraying an ex-military, SAS-type gliding through the daily grind, coming to life only when everything is on the line (loved the “it’s called a life James – you should get one” line – spoken to Bond as he races wheel to skidding wheel along the River Tiber against a stone-killer – played to excellent metal-thumbed effect by Guardians of the Galaxy’s Dave Battista Jr). However I found his romantic scenes far less convincing – especially those with the gorgeous but criminally under-used Monica Belluci.

My favorite Bond is still Connery of course, an actor who could manage the full gamut of emotions from A to B with utmost ease. But Daniel Craig runs him a very close second, and anyone who knows of my Bond/Connery childhood fixation will know that counts as very high praise indeed.
(I realise now that I only hold Connery in such esteem  because he was Bond in my formative years. Watching them now his Bond films are largely unwatchable whereas back in the day they felt like un-reproachable cinematic gems).
“Richard” believes Roger Moore to be the best Bond – which shows exactly how deluded he is on the entire subject.

Snow chase, cable car, helicopter fight, parachute, ejector seat, exploding wrist-wear, irascible M, geeky Q…all present and correct.
The scenery and set pieces are fabulous. Mexico looks amazing, Tangier stunningly exotic and The Alps imperious. Rome is the killer location in this Bond movie though – looking so good I was longing for a return trip before the film was over.

I can’t finish the review without mentioning the clothes.
Bond’s Tom Ford designed outfits are snugly-fitting almost-too-tight elegance personified and epitomize Bond’s buttoned-down, barely-hidden violence perfectly. Like watching Colin Firth strutting his stuff in A Single Man but with added close-quarter combat and explosions. Even the Bond villain gets a distinctive look with collarless Nehru jacket and no socks – never trust a man wearing a suit without socks.

Throw in Monica Bellucci in basque and teeter-tottering stilettos and Léa Seydoux in clinging silk-satin dress – and it’s “oh my word” as Dan Maskell might have breathlessly said.

So…a Bond movie that has it all.
Cliched retread or thoroughly enjoyable?
A Bond too far or did I enjoy every second of it ?

Of course I did! It was bloody marvelous. I can’t see where Craig and Mendes can take Bond from here to be honest. They’ve done origin stories, full-on Bond action genre and seem to have given their take in every possible classic Bond set-piece so I’m not surprised at all to hear Craig say he wants to move on. But this film is more than enough to be going on with.

Classic Bond then and very highly recommended

Everest

A few years back I read a couple of books by an American author named  Jon Krakauer. The first, “Into the Wild“, was the story of a young man seemingly from an “all-American family” who essentially dropped out of society and became a drifter, eventually moving to Alaska slipping off the radar off “normal”life to try to survive on his wits in one of the last remaining wilderness. The book tackles some deep themes in an interesting way. In particular it’s about what motivates people to behave in the way that they do.
Around the same time I read a book by Joe Simpson called “Touching The Void” which is an amazing true story of human resilience, of suffering horrible injuries whilst climbing but surviving against seemingly impossible odds.

“Into Thin Air” by Krakauer seemed to promise a combination of both of these books.

Krakauer, at the time a writer for Outside magazine, actually joined an Everest ascent team in 1996 in order to experience and write about an attempt at the summit. The trip went disastrously wrong resulting in the deaths of several climbers.  Krakauer survived to write a long article for Outside and then later this book. It’s a book that discusses what motivates people to spend huge sums of money to climb the highest mountain on the planet. A mountain where, for every second spent in the “death zone” the body is literally dying. And about how  the climbers react when things go south in a seriously big way.About how one reacts when you have to make decisions on helping others or helping yourself, decisions which have consequences that may haunt you for the rest of you life or alternatively that may cause your own death.
Discussions on big themes then and all handled extremely well. I remember being quite troubled by the book. A lot is made of the “dead zone” and also of how at particular stages of the climb it is and must be every man for himself. How a struggling climber has to be abandoned to his fate or else be the cause of two deaths instead of one. I remember feeling that much of the book was a self-justification on Krakauer’s part for his actions on the climb. By his own admission he has suffered PTSD and survivors guilt ever since. He says the climb is the biggest regret of his life and if he had his time over he would not have gone.

The film Everest documents the same events but the screenplay draws from several accounts and is not directly based on Krakauer’s book. In fact Krakauer has gone as far as to describe the film as “total bull“.

The film is spectacular and grim in turn with Everest looking stunning from aerial shots (although suspiciously CGI’d) and ferociously cruel up close. Even the relatively comfy base-camp scenes look like camping in a barren rock strewn hell – the Jake Gyllenhaal/Scott Fischer character unconvincingly kicking back in studied cool amongst viscous looking pointy volcanic boulders.
I’ve often facetiously said that scaling Everest is not climbing but the hardest hike you could every take on and I was amused to see Krakauer’s opinions chime with this describing it as “rich peoples climbing“. One scene involving Beck Weathers where a delay caused by queuing for another climbing party in crossing a crevasse almost leads to disaster is prescient as Beck equates his unhappy experience to the $60,000 cost of the trip. As much as the trip leader/organiser Rob Hall tries to make it about the experience and the inner-journey at the end of the day many of the climbers were expecting to get a smooth experience that their big bucks had paid for.
A great cast (Gyllenhaal, Emily Watson – outstanding as usual,
Josh Brolin, Jason Clarke, John Hawkes) do well to keep it real and for the most part to avoid any mawkishness all apart from a couple of scenes involving Ikea (oops Keara) Knightley. A fair script which leaves a few dangling ends – mention is made of the South-African team causing discontent, novice climbers who can’t even out on crampons and of simmering rivalry between Sherpas – these storylines, quite central to the book, go nowhere in the film. Too much soaring violin on the soundtrack – but then that’s standard for Hollywood fare. And some stunning shots of the mountain all in all add up to a thoroughly enjoyable film if not quite up to asking the questions posed by the book.
Recommended