365 Days, 100 Films #21 - Laputa - Castle in the Sky (1986)

Laputa - Castle in the Sky, 1986.

Written and directed by Hayao Miyazaki.
Featuring the voice talents of Anna Paquin, James Van Der Beek, Mark Hamill, Cloris Leachman and Jim Cummings.


SYNOPSIS:

A young boy and girl race against pirates and foreign agents in the search for a legendary floating castle.


People call Studio Ghibli the Eastern Walt Disney. I couldn’t say which people exactly, but that seems to be Wikipedia’s general consensus. That they make animated children’s films is the most obvious reason for comparison, but there’s something more intangible about the similarity. They both share a sense of ‘magic’. Cringe away.

Laputa – Castle in the Sky was the first film the studio released in 1986, which places it within the last classic age of Disney from Fox and the Hound (1980) to The Lion King (1994). To further show the two studios’ affinity, Disney currently holds the Studio Ghibli’s distribution rights in the west.

It follows the sprawling adventure of Sheeta and Pazu in the seas of the sky. Everyone is after Sheeta because she possesses something they all want – a strange stone held in a necklace, inherited it from her mother just before she died. The film opens with Sheeta under military protection, or rather, ‘imprisonment’. But the people in Laputa don’t travel by roads; they voyage on vast airships that surf the clouds as though they’re waves. They’re shaped like giant boats tweaked with wings and propellers to keep them in the air, with a gloss of steampunk seasoning.

The main delight is in the film’s mythology. It places you, along with Sheeta and Pazu, in the middle of a much grander story of which Laputa is merely a chapter. None of us know why the stone floats Sheeta gently down to the mine where Pazu works when she falls overboard from one of the ships, nor why it is so sought after. As their adventure develops, and they encounter other, more knowledgeable characters, the legacy of Laputa is slowly disclosed. Many centuries ago there were races of people who lived in floating cities of their own invention, the grandest of which being the castle of Laputa. In time, these sky people moved to the earth and their history was consigned to legend. Pazu’s father, a pilot, once saw Laputa half obscured by a torrent of windy clouds, but everyone thought him crazy when he spoke of it. Sheeta’s ties to the castle are a little stronger. Such an epic story, spanning thousands of years, invests you in an entirely different world full of its unique history and myth.

The secondary delight is the film’s quirk. It possesses a surreal sense of humour, and you should expect nothing less from a film so imaginative. Pay attention to the background because everyone has something to do. Henchmen struggle with the simplest of tasks whilst others bicker. Most trip or fall.

Perhaps a little too long overall, but Laputa has such a rich tapestry of story and background detail that it’s hard to complain.

Oli Davis

365 Days, 100 Films

Movie Review Archive

Hayao Miyazaki: Drawn to Anime

Michael Mann Retrospective - Ali (2001)

Ali, 2001.

Directed by Michael Mann.
Starring Will Smith, Jon Voight, Jamie Foxx, Mario Van Peebles, Ron Silver, Jeffrey Wright, Jada Pinkett Smith and Mykelti Williamson.


SYNOPSIS:

The movie depicts a decade in the life of Muhammad Ali, beginning with the legendary athlete’s defeat of Sonny Liston in 1964 and concluding with his 1974 'Rumble in Jungle' comeback fight against George Foreman.


Following the critical acclaim of The Insider, director Michael Mann chose an international boxing icon as the subject of his 2001 film. “I think the reason is that Ali’s life is so extraordinary,” he explained. “It’s so dramatic that it has such extreme dynamics of sacrifice. What was actually intimidating about his life was how do you find one piece of it that would authentically do justice to any one part of it?” The solution for Mann was to focus on the tumultuous period in American history when Civil Rights marches and Vietnam War protests dominated the news headlines; it was midst this domestic unrest that the Lousiville, Kentucky native transformed himself from the unknown Cassius Clay to the global phenomenon Muhammad Ali.

With boxing serving as an integral part of the story, a lot of preparation was required to make sure the fight scenes appeared to be authentic. “Will became a fighter,” remarked the Chicago-born filmmaker of his leading actor Will Smith. “He boxed every Thursday, and worked out six hours a day five days a week. He actually trained with [Ali trainer] Angelo Dundee.” Mann went on to add. “Everybody who plays a boxer in the film is a boxer. We didn't use stunt coordinators or stuntmen. Michael Bentt, who plays Sonny Liston, was a WBO heavyweight world champion. James Toney plays Frasier. Charles Shufford [who plays George Foreman] fought [Wladimir] Klitschko on HBO.”

As for portraying the ethnic discrimination which the athlete had to endure both in and out of the boxing arena, Michael Mann wanted to stay away from melodrama. “The racism that Ali experienced growing up in Louisville was subtle,” observed the moviemaker. “I didn't want to show the typical scene of Ali walking into a restaurant in Rome after winning the Olympic gold medal and they won't serve him. That's real movie-of-the-week, made-up stuff and I don't find it potent.”

When it came to filming the famous boxing match held in Zaire, the filmmaker was influenced by the renowned documentary When We Were Kings which recorded the historic event. “Leon Gast [Kings director] gave us 17 hours of outtakes from his film; he was incredibly generous,” said Michael Mann. In order to give movie audiences a ringside seat, the director experimented, placing cameras on helmets, and boxing gloves; however, what worked the best was the invention of a low-res VHS camera about the size of matchbook, which enabled him to simultaneously shoot the left and right sides of the action.

The movie’s title character, Muhammad Ali, paid the Hollywood production a visit. “I knew he [Ali] was anticipating us shooting,” revealed Mann, “but when he was actually walking around these sets, the three-dimensional reality was a little hard for him. But, you know, the man is absolutely devoid of self-pity, the world's worst candidate for clinical depression. No matter what the obstacle, he reaches down and comes back. He's a huge guy, much bigger than in pictures; he weighs about 255 now. When he rises from a chair and wobbles a little bit, if you reach out to try to help him, he'll smack your hand away. He doesn't take help; that's how Ali connects to people.”

In regards to what Michael Mann thinks of boxers, the director replied, “There might be some anxiety before a fight, but if he's prepared, his feelings have to be that he can't wait to get into that ring. Boxing is something that requires a commitment of courage, but it's highly strategic and highly tactical. It really is an art.” As for the corruption associated with the sport, the moviemaker believes there are moments where “It [boxing] also elevates itself sometimes to become almost mystic.”

To ensure an accurate performance by Will Smith, both the actor and his director conducted extensive research, which involved the use of a dialect coach and the viewing of various interview clips. “Will and I spent a lot of time looking for footage of Ali in repose,” stated Michael Mann, “but he never stops talking or rapping or doing something. His ideas come to him in a very fast, gestalt way. His life story is a function of the way he was in the ring, always switching strategies and coming to conclusions very quickly. The closest thing we could find [that showed an inner, private Ali] was the way he holds his hands, always protected, resting on his chest. When he points, he uses a bent finger. When he shakes hands, his hands are always limp. He protects his hands like a pianist would, and it betrays a little softness or vulnerability not usually seen.”

Despite all the care taken to make a true-to-life portrayal, the story oddly enough lacks the cocky playful spirit which made Muhammad Ali such a compelling individual. For his effort portraying the charismatic and candid heavyweight boxing icon, Will Smith was rewarded with an Oscar nomination, along with his co-star Jon Voight.

Ali trailer:


Mann Handled: A Michael Mann Profile

Trevor Hogg is a freelance video editor and writer who currently resides in Canada.

Second Opinion - Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011)

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, 2011.



Directed by Rob Marshall.

Starring Johnny Depp, Penélope Cruz, Ian McShane, Geoffrey Rush, Kevin McNally, Richard Griffiths, Stephen Graham, Judi Dench, Greg Ellis, Damian O’Hare, Gemma Ward, Roger Allam and Keith Richards.





SYNOPSIS:



Captain Jack Sparrow crosses paths with Black Beard (Ian McShane) and his enigmatic daughter Angelica (Penelope Cruz) on a quest to find the Fountain of Youth.





Part four and counting, Walt Disney Pictures continues its one time trilogy into a, for now, quartet of a film franchise. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides returns to the screen with basically some of its original, cheery-eyed cast intact. Usuals and choice favorites, Orland Bloom & Keira Knightley, chose not to reprise their roles. But everyone’s lovable and normally deceitful captain sailed his way back onto the theater. Johnny Depp as Jack Sparrow, excuse me, Captain Jack Sparrow is with new direction this time. Rob Marshall picks up directing duties from the franchises normal head, Gore Verbinksi.



When we last found Captain Sparrow (Johnny Depp) he had set sail in a tiny dinghy in the direction of the Fountain of Youth. By now, four years later, you would think that maybe he has found it. You would be incorrect because movie time has never quite equaled real-life time. Not only has he not yet found these legendary waters but we find his first mate, Mr. Gibbs (Kevin McNally), on trial with the court believing that he is in fact Sparrow. After exchanging some dazzling pleasantries with the King of England’s superior guards, with them in pursuit of him, Sparrow crosses paths with someone from his past. Enter the still very beautiful Penelope Cruz as Angelica, yet another female that the womanizing Sparrow has “loved and left”.



After having some very choice words for him, Angelica sort of recruits Jack for her ship to help her crew and captain search for the Fountain so that they may claim it as their own. Her captain proves to be no ordinary pirate as Jack discovers that the ship he has been attached to is headed by none other than the infamous evil pirate Black Beard (Ian McShane). They then all find themselves in a race against the English as well as the Spanish, who were the first ones to learn of the whereabouts of the Fountain, to delight in the wonders that the mystical waters from the Fountain will bring them.



Writing duo, Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio, also make a return to pen the screenplay for this latest chapter as they did the first three. Disney has got a real franchise here on their hands and Elliot and Rossio among others get to reap the benefits. I think it’s safe to say that it is time for me to sit down and write out some kind of a screenplay. Before going to see this film, I felt that the absence of Bloom and Knightley’s characters would yield a hole in the story and provide a lack of screen presence. I find my theory to be both right and wrong after seeing it.



The movie and story packs enough substance to carry it all the way through without losing the audience’s attention. But at times, the lack of their appearances might be missed. The other characters did receive plenty of time on screen due to this. Some points felt like it was too much but it did a good job of turning your attention to some other aspect within the plot as not to over saturate the film with just one dimension.



As usual, the action and stunt sequences were enjoyable. Packed with quick movements, sword fights, plenty of banter and that famous Pirates score that I enjoy so much. Depp did pull plenty of action duty where it would have normally gone to Orlando Bloom attempting to fight his way out of a jam wielding his sword. Even Cruz had her stunt and sword play moments. I couldn’t really complain about the film in that department. Can’t complain about any of the films in that department now that I think about it. They’ve done a pretty good job being consistent in that aspect.



Black Beard played the film’s main antagonist, showing no mercy where normal men would. With his steady hand and control of his ship, Queen Anne’s Revenge, you can tell that he is definitely one pirate that you do not want to mess with. This Pirates was different in the fact that it was filmed primarily in Hawaiian waters as opposed to the usual Caribbean where the previous three were shot. Still, the tropical back drop and clear waters served their purpose providing an ideal environment for pirating all the same.



I did not see this one in 3D, it being the first Pirates film that I’ve actually seen in theaters, but still enjoyed it nonetheless. It is reported that there is a fifth one which already has a script finished in the works. This last one, as the others have, definitely left a medium sized window open for another sequel. I give Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides “4 zombie-fied pirates & killer mermaids out of 5”



“I wish to agree with the missionary’s position”

Sean Guard

Follow me on Twitter @SilentScribbler



Movie Review Archive

365 Days, 100 Films #20 - Fertile Ground (2010)

Fertile Ground, 2010.

Directed by Adam Gierasch.
Starring Gale Harold, Leisha Hailey and Chelcie Ross.


SYNOPSIS:

A couple that has recently experienced a miscarriage move into an isolated house with a dark history.


‘Fertile Ground’ sounds like it should be a romantic comedy, probably starring Jennifer Aniston as a clumsy, single gardener. From there you can go two ways: the Adam Sandler route where they join forces to win the local ‘hedge trimming championship’; or cast Channing Tatum as an expert, but unhappily engaged, gardener who teaches Aniston the wonders of nature. The film writes itself.

Or it could go in the ‘haunted house’ direction. Emily (Leisha Hailey) and Nate Weaver (Gale Harold) are a loving couple who experience a (very bloody) miscarriage in the film’s opening scene. It comes from nowhere, during a dinner party celebrating the pregnancy, and is effectively shocking. Afterwards, they both decide to move out of the city and into Nate’s “great-great-great-great…he was old” uncle’s house to help Emily recover. That’s the haunted one, by the way.

[Rant begin]

It’s a good, creepy house. The exterior is a cold white and the barren road stretches off emptily into both horizons. The rooms inside are large, the windows are rickety and it has a basement. But then why is the house itself never scary? Why must the film rely on ghostly apparitions jumping into shot for its frights? It isn’t the house’s fault.

Over-exposure. Horror is most effective when it is unseen or unknowable, but here, at night, everything is visible in the moon’s cool blue half-light. Not only does it destroy the mystique, but it also draws unwanted attention to the background. The lighting’s focus should be on Emily’s terrified face, yet distracting objects litter the view behind her.

You have to be brave to embrace the darkness. It’s more expressionistic, and therefore not as safe. Unfortunately, Fertile Ground’s makers are adverse to such risks, and thus the film’s appearance looks more suited for daytime television.

The generic music and dissolve transitions between scenes only accentuate this impression. The film is also inexplicably, and uselessly, separated into sections by title-cards in the most annoying “scribbled-on-a-blackboard” font: “Starting Over”, “Moving In”, “New Life”, “Old Secrets”, “Strange Happening”, “The Gathering”, “Revelations” - at best these are insufferably cheesy, at worst they are patronising to the viewer.

[Back to the plot]

The two start to uncover dark “Old Secrets” about the house. They find a 150-year-old skull in the front garden (it was interfering with the plumbing) and a trip to the local historian reveals that many a (female) murder have occurred within their walls. It’s probably ok though, consoles the historian, the last death was in the 60s.

This starts to send Emily a bit barmy, tapping into her already fragile, post-miscarriage psyche. Nate, too, becomes angrier and obsessive. Their relationship deteriorates as Emily begins to see more and more strange occurrences; the door is oddly ajar, a bloodstained woman passes through the corridor, her nightmares intensify. All the usual things you’d expect of a haunted house film, and just as formulaic as the most boring within the sub-genre.

Oli Davis

365 Days, 100 Films

Movie Review Archive

DVD Review - Max Schmeling: Fist of the Reich (2010)

Max Schmeling: Fist of the Reich, 2010.

Directed by Uwe Boll.
Starring Henry Maske, Susanne Wuest, Heino Ferch, Vladimir Weigl and Yoan Pablo Hernández.


SYNOPSIS:

A biopic of the German boxer and heavyweight champion Max Schmeling.


Nazi Germany is a historical setting we are all familiar with. Films set within the Third Reich often have similarities; good natured people trying to help persecuted Jewish neighbours, informers, political intimidation, concentration camps and the striking red background of the swastika. Equally there are areas often overlooked. The boxing rings for example.

Max Schmeling is a German film directed by Uwe Boll which tells the story of one of the 20th century’s greatest boxers. He became world champion in the early 1930s, getting his big break by beating the title holder by default after an illegal “low blow” from his opponent. The film begins by following Max as a paratrooper for the German army in Crete, where everyone seems to know his name. During a conversation with a British prisoner he recalls how his fame started, flashing back to his regret at being denied the world championship outright. The rest of his career became a struggle to prove he deserved that title.

Schmeling wanted to prove himself outside of Germany as well as within it. He wanted to be the best in the world. He was already a national hero but he wanted to win other countries over with his ability. He frequently flew to America for huge matches at iconic venues such as Madison Square Garden. He was beginning to win admiration around the globe until his task became a lot harder with the rise of the Nazi party. As Germany’s image was soured so was Schmeling’s. One of the interesting themes in this film is that Schmeling saw himself as a boxer first and a German second. And that Nazism would simply pass as though it were an adolescent phase.

Hitler wanted Schmeling to be a symbol of the Aryan race and Germany’s might. As Schmeling sought to arrange fights with the formidable black American boxer Joe Louis, an opponent with an unbeaten record and extraordinary number of KOs that would enhance his boxing credentials should he somehow beat him, the Nazis tried to portray the clash as a battle between races and ideologies. Schmeling was naive in one sense but extremely brave in another, to carry on regardless of this manipulation and insist it was just a boxing match. Through his honour he simultaneously became a political pawn by refusing to recognise the wider significance, and rose above the Nazis by continuing with his dream.

So this film is an epic historical drama, encompassing wide areas of German life before and after the Nazis took power. We see both the glitz of the Weimar era and the race riots of Kristallnacht on the streets of Berlin, when Jewish shops and residents were viciously attacked. The period detail, particularly the costumes, and the variety of locations, are impressive. It is also a story of the rise of a sporting great, with Rocky-style montages as Schmeling trains for his big fights and moments of tactical deliberation. And there is a love story, when Schmeling meets his soul mate in actress Anny Ondra and manages to marry her.

The love story gives this film something extra. There are, as I said, a lot of stories set in Nazi Germany, often with romances, sometimes with sporting heroes trying to avoid the control of the regime. But this romance is particularly convincing. Henry Maske gives an Arnie-esque performance, as a simple man falling for a beautiful woman. And Susanne Wuest is believable as first a teasing woman suspicious of a brute pursuing her affections and finally an actress frightened by what the Nazis are doing to her profession.

A short but enlightening “Making of” feature on the DVD reveals the reason for the authenticity of this relationship on screen; Maske is not an actor but a boxer. Therefore, as Wuest puts it in an interview, we have a boxer playing a boxer and an actress playing an actress. Director Boll was impressed with Maske’s performance and put it down to his ability to effectively play himself, identifying with Schmeling to inhabit the character.

Overall this might not be the most original film experience but it is immensely enjoyable. All of its various elements are superbly executed, from the production standards to the acting, from the music to the exciting and raw boxing matches themselves. This feels like an incredibly real snapshot of history and it’s a story that deserves to be well told about a remarkable man.

Liam Trim (follow me on Twitter)

Movie Review Archive

Movie Review - Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011)

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, 2011.



Directed by Rob Marshall.

Starring Johnny Depp, Penélope Cruz, Ian McShane, Geoffrey Rush, Kevin McNally, Richard Griffiths, Stephen Graham, Judi Dench, Greg Ellis, Damian O’Hare, Gemma Ward, Roger Allam and Keith Richards.





SYNOPSIS:



Captain Jack Sparrow embarks on an adventure to find the fabled Fountain of Youth.





You can rely on Disney’s well known Pirates franchise for one of the universal laws of cinema. As sure as night follows day and the tide washes in and out, each successive film in the Pirates of the Caribbean series will be worse than the last. Like a basket of juicy fruit left to rot on a sunny beach, the individual ingredients that made the first film so fun gradually lose their enjoyment. You can also bet your house that in increasingly more desperate attempts to recapture the magic of the Black Pearl’s virgin voyage, the plots will acquire more baffling layers with each new instalment. And this film’s ending proves once again that there will always be room for yet another adventure.



However this film does break some new ground. For example for the first time ever, the title is as confusing and vague as the many competing strands of the story. The tides are certainly no more or less important than before and there is nothing strange about the film; within Captain Jack’s world at least mermaids and myths are pretty standard fare.



Things get off to a familiar but promising start. Our beloved scallywag Jack Sparrow is in London to rescue sidekick Mr Gibbs from a trial, which would be swiftly followed by a hanging if the bloodthirsty crowd had their way. After some costumed shenanigans and typically camp stalking about, Jack and Gibbs find themselves at the King’s palace. The crown wish to find the fountain of youth before the crafty Catholics in Spain and they’ve heard Sparrow knows the way.



Jack gets an audience with the King in a sumptuous room and Depp gets ample opportunity to showcase the physical comedy and wordplay audiences have come to love. The King is played by Richard Griffiths in a delightful cameo. Needless to say Jack manages an escape. Later in the film Geoffrey Rush’s Barbossa takes the time to mentally plan an escape route, presuming that’s what Depp’s madcap Sparrow does, only for Jack to reply that he sometimes “improvises”. The running and jumping through an impressive CGI London in the film’s opening segment, is ad hoc Jack Sparrow action at its best.



Sadly, the film simply cannot maintain the entertainment levels as chase follows chase and sword fight follows sword fight. Most of the action is surprisingly inventive, especially since we’ve had three films already but at times even Jack’s luck over judgment leaps of faith enter ridiculous territory. The stunts become monotonous by the end because of the film’s relentless opening barrage, tarnishing the drama of the finale. There are no explosive cannon battles for those who love their ships and nautical duels. Instead of boarding we get an awful lot of trekking through the jungle.



Having said this, two standout scenes are exciting and engaging. I’ve already mentioned Captain Jack prancing his way around London but the first mermaid attack scene is also terrific. Only the Pirates franchise could deliver such a scene. It’s got frights and bites, fangs and bangs. The mermaids are less interesting by the end, but here they are introduced in a lengthy scene as seductive and dangerous. The attack comes as a real shock and well managed change in pace after they are lured in to enchant some pirates left as bait.



The mermaid battle is an epic, long scene and the film is so long that it loses much of its epic feel. Sub plots like a half formed romance between a mermaid and clergy man could have been slimmed considerably or dropped altogether .The runtime is literally bladder bursting, as a friend of mine dashed from the room as soon as the credits rolled. I was content to sit and watch the names of the cast fly at me in 3D however, because of Hans Zimmer’s magnificent music, which remains the best thing about the Pirates of the Caribbean. There are some nice variations and new additions to the main theme in this instalment but I can’t help feeling it’s time he focused his talents on new projects, rather than continually recycling one stunning track.



Hang on though; surely this is still worth seeing just for another outing from Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow? Isn’t he the single most important pillar upon which the blockbusters are based? I always assumed, like many critics, that the romantic pairing of Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley in the previous films was holding back Depp’s brilliance. But having seen On Stranger Tides, in which Depp must mostly steer proceedings alone, his performance is somehow less effective without them.



He is at his best in this film when dancing around other characters, making light of them. Penelope Cruz is suitably sassy and sexy as a pirate, albeit with an unrealistically attractive cleavage for a hardened sailor, and she and Depp have some fun exchanges, but putting Sparrow at the heart of a love story doesn’t work. Even the filmmakers realise this by backing out of it somewhat at the end. Captain Jack Sparrow is not the emotional type. And what made him so attractive to audiences, was the way he mocked the clichéd relationship between Bloom and Knightley. Making him part of the conventional storyline robs his performance of some of its power.



Depp is still fantastic fun at points though, rising above an overcomplicated script with a bizarre fascination for throwing in random and rubbish rhymes. This film may just go through the motions and it may be far too long, but it’s undeniably grand and fairly pleasing despite the odd yawn.



Rather than fork out for its occasional 3D gimmicks of a sword jutting out of the screen though, I would recommend ditching the high seas for inner city London and Joe Cornish’s critically acclaimed directorial debut, Attack the Block. I saw this just hours before Pirates 4 and without adding anything new to the chorus of praise around it, I will just say go and see it. It is funnier and more thrilling than Rob Marshall’s blockbuster and doesn’t deserve to sink.

Liam Trim (follow me on Twitter)



Movie Review Archive

Blu-ray Review - Buried (2010)

Buried, 2010.



Directed by Rodrigo Cortés.

Starring Ryan Reynolds.





SYNOPSIS:



An American contractor working in Iraq finds himself buried alive inside a coffin.





Being buried alive is up there with drowning and burning to death on the commonly accepted list of the worst ways to snuff it. Cinema has a long history of exploring and exploiting these fears for our viewing pleasure and pain. Certainly there are countless films about infernos or choking on salt water. There are classic scenes in tunnels with dust and dirt threatening to submerge our heroes. But never before has a film been quite so confined beneath the earth as Buried is.



Buried opens, after a slick titles sequence that gives the impression of descending through the soil, with a completely pitch black screen, affording me an opportunity to discover and enjoy high definition darkness. Paul Conroy, a civilian truck driver in Iraq, wakes up in a box below ground before our eyes in this nothingness. This is Buried’s only location, a wooden coffin. It therefore might not seem the best film to enjoy on Blu-Ray, as there are no luscious visuals and locales to gasp in wonder at. The ever so slightly sharper picture and sound quality does truly allow you to appreciate the astounding technical achievement of Buried though.



The textures of the sand and the splintered wood feel real enough to touch at such intimate proximity. Conroy’s face, along with all the varied expressions it shifts through, looks incredibly lifelike. The excellent soundtrack, along with Conroy’s rasping breathing, is crisp and clear. The flame from a lighter looks vivid and dazzling in the sparseness of the coffin.



And the additional special features that come with a Blu-Ray disc are worth a look for once. As Ryan Reynolds, who plays Conroy, says in an interview, realising such a concept from a good script was a feat of engineering as well as filmmaking. Director Rodrigo Cortes explains that seven different coffins, each used for different types of shots, were used to make the 90 minutes or so of film. The variety of camera angles and techniques is incredibly impressive, with Reynolds highlighting that unlike a lot of films the same shot was scarcely used twice here. Most of the shots are entirely realistic, placing you firmly in Conroy’s shoes, with just a couple of exceptions, zooming out and away from him to really emphasise his isolation and loneliness.



One of the crew members interviewed says that if Hitchcock were alive today this is the sort of thing he’d be doing. There is undoubtedly the sense that new ground is being broken, in terms of storytelling and filmmaking. The majority of mainstream releases these days are miles away from the level of audience immersion on show in Buried. Even on an ordinary TV screen in a comfortable living room you feel Conroy’s claustrophobia and live his rollercoaster of emotions. This is as much down to Reynolds’ captivating performance as the fine detail and execution of the production team.



Reynolds copes with everything the script asks of him with very little to work with. He takes us from panic to paranoia, from despair to determination and back again. He deals equally well with anger and heartbreak, often conveying an emotion simply through breathing or a look in his eye. He is helped by some good voice performances by those he interacts with on the phone, his one real lifeline, its battery constantly withering away. Particularly good is Brit hostage negotiator Dan Brenner, played by Robert Paterson, who is convincingly professional and genuinely sympathetic. He managed to calm me down as well as Conroy.



Somehow Buried contains what I can only describe as an action scene, in which both the acting of Reynolds and the inventive wizardry of the director, combine with unbelievable effect. Without giving too much away, there is a snake involved. I was literally on the edge of my seat. And the reason this scene was so scary, gripping and exciting, was how well established the character and situation is beforehand.



As well as inexplicably pulling off a believable and enthralling thriller in a box, Cortes’ directing and Chris Sparling’s script also manages some thought provoking dialogue on major issues of our time. The way these topics are explored is seamlessly part of the action and not forced. During the course of Conroy’s phone conversations we explore not just the depths of his character, but the limits and immorality of bureaucracy and the subjective nature of the word “terrorist”. Buried therefore also has political credentials, without ever leaning too far to one side of the debate.



With similar limitations to Danny Boyle’s 127 Hours, Buried is a film reliant on its lead actor. Whilst James Franco was good, Reynolds is even better. In fact Buried is better full stop. For the moving climax alone, that will have you unable to look away through confused tears, it is worth watching. Buried delivers a master class in acting, cinematography, dialogue and political comment. It is a unique and bruising ride of a story. And a must see film experience.

Liam Trim (follow me on Twitter)



Movie Review Archive

365 Days, 100 Films #19 - 13 Assassins (2010)

13 Assassins (Jûsan-nin no shikaku), 2010.



Directed by Takashi Miike.

Starring Koji Yakusho, Takayuki Yamada and Yuseke Iseya.





SYNOPSIS:



Feudal Japan is in a time of peace, but the sadistic Lord Naritsugu is next in line for the Shogun’s rule. 12 samurai, and one scavenger, are under orders to assassinate Naritsugu to avoid such a political catastrophe.





You know what’s missing from cinema these days? Really good villains. I don’t mean, like, a ‘good’ villain as in a bad-guy who sees the errors of his ways (confusing word order: noted); I mean some detestable sonofabitch that you can’t wait to get their comeuppance. Films that are blessed with such antagonists can build their whole plot around their eventual, humiliating (hopefully bloody) demise. 13 Assassins does so masterfully.



There’s a cheap trick in storytelling called ‘kicking the puppy’. It’s where you have your bad guy commit a bad deed that is separate from his relationship with the hero. These acts should be indefensible and, because they do not concern the ‘good guy’ in any way, will show the villain as an objectively evil person. He isn’t just driven by an accidental wrong the protagonist committed (see: Iron Man 2), but is wicked to the core. So you show a guy kicking a puppy onscreen, or something in a similarly provocative range, and it’s established in your viewer’s mind that he is a villain. It whets the appetite for retribution.



13 Assassins, being a Takeshi Miike film, takes its sweet, graphic time over this. Lord Naritsugu (Goro Inagaki) is the Shogun’s sadistic half-brother, and next in line to the de facto throne of 18th century Feudal Japan. He kicks a whole lotta puppies. In the film’s opening 20 minutes, Naritsugu has already been shown raping a clan leader’s daughter-in-law, then beheading (after three failed attempts, like some demented lumberjack) her husband, and using a tied-up peasant family (who seems to be comprised entirely of women and children, the most sympathetic of puppies) as bow-and-arrow target practice in his garden. Most horrifically, though, is the aftermath of one of his hideous pastimes. A young lady sits weeping in a cloak; her eyes appear black and the tears they leak are a dark crimson. She had been found dumped by a road near Naritsugu’s palace, apparently after he’d grown bored of her. To demonstrate the need for action, one of the Shogun’s advisers, Sir Doi (Mikijiro Hira), is showing an old samurai, Shinzaemon (Koji Yakusho), this example of Lord Naritsugu wickedness. He asks someone to take off the girl’s cloak. It reveals a writhing, limbless torso. “What happened to her family?”, Shinzaemon asks, appalled, but the girl can only speak in cries because Naritsugu had taken her tongue as well. She writes her answer instead on a scroll laid out on the floor. Her red tears stain parts of the paper. An aide holds up the Japanese characters to Sir Dou and Shinzaemon. The white subtitles below read: “Total Massacre”.



The whole sequence is like punting a puppy across a football pitch, and its augmented by those onscreen sharing in the disgust. This is a time of peace in Japan. The Shogun has managed the various clans’ relationships well, and the days of the Samurai are nearing an end. Sir Doi secretly recruits Shinzaemon (“The Shinzaemon?”, everybody seems to ask when he introduces himself, hinting at a glorious past) to assassinate Naritsugu. Shinzaemon’s sword hasn’t been in battle for years. Times of peace aren’t that great for samurai. He dreams of an honourable death, as do the 12 other samurai he recruits for the task. This may be their last opportunity for one.



When you meet a few of the other samurai, you can tell they’re just there for the stuffing, like the red-shirts on a Star Trek away team. You have your loyal one, your joker one, one doing it for the money - it’s all very cute, but they’re never given any time to develop, not like in Seven Samurai. But it’s never really about the 13 assassins. It’s all about Naritsugu getting what he deserves.



Like in Seven Samurai, the 13 men fortify a town. It’s on Naritsugu’s route home, and it is where they will strike. This is what 13 Assassins builds up to. The opening 30 minutes details Naritsugu and the politics of trying to be rid of him. The following 50 minutes show the 13 men being brought together and fortifying the town. It’s paced calmly and with restraint. There’s only a brief flash of swords in the first hour and 20 minutes. Then Naritsugu’s troop arrive at the town. Shinzaemon had prepared to face 70 men. Naritsugu has brought 200. The odds get longer and the body count higher.



What follows is an epic and exhausting 40-minute battle sequence. The cinema frequently gasped at the set pieces, and the chap next to me even punched his fist and said “Yeah!” under his breath at one point. It’s exciting, but because of its immense length, it becomes something of an endurance test. As the assassins tire, so do you. You’ve battled hard with them, and it shows how desensitising and wearing battles really are. And then comes the final showdown. Naritsugu vs Shinzaemon. You’d be hard pressed to find a pay-off sweeter.



Rating: ****

Oli Davis



365 Days, 100 Films



Movie Review Archive

Michael Mann Retrospective - The Insider (1999)

The Insider, 1999.

Directed by Michael Mann.
Starring Al Pacino, Russell Crowe, Christopher Plummer, Diane Venora, Roger Bart, Rip Torn, Bruce McGill, Michael Gambon, Gina Gershon, Philip Baker Hall and Paul Perri.


SYNOPSIS:

The airing of an exclusive 60 Minutes interview with a tobacco industry insider is cancelled because of corporate pressure.


Despite the praise for Heat, it was not until 1999 that Michael Mann had his Academy Awards coming-out party; The Insider was nominated for seven Oscars including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Actor (Russell Crowe). The film retells a notorious CBS affair; the subject of a corporate takeover and a major lawsuit launched by tobacco manufacturer Brown & Williamson, the television network scuttles an exclusive 60 Minutes investigative report. The piece details how B & W is manipulating ingredients to improve upon the addictive quality of cigarettes. Russell Crowe produces his finest performance as the seriously flawed whistleblower, Jeffrey Wigand, who along with crusading segment producer Lowell Bergman (an equally engaging Al Pacino) helped to galvanize Americans against the unethical business practices of Big Tobacco.

“What was important to Eric Roth [co-screenwriter] and myself from the outset was that there be nothing didactic or patronizing about this film.” stated Mann. “I would be offended if somebody had the arrogance and the presumption to tell me what I ought to do in my life. This film is not about you all ought not to smoke or you all ought to smoke. That's an individual choice.” He went on to explain, “What this film is about is corporate power and malfeasance. And huge businesses that are highly profitable, that are really in a drug trade. From their point of view, they have a wonderful business -- they have a market addicted to their product.”

“In the movie we view what they do from the perspective of Jeffrey Wigand,” remarked the Chicago born filmmaker. “And now we're getting into the reason to make the film -- the chance to explore the experience of a man who, like all of us, is far from some ideal of perfection. Jeffrey is a normally flawed, inconsistent human being whose personality is somewhat atonal. To him, life is not about who you are, it's about what you do. Jeffrey knew that if he went forward and spoke to 60 Minutes and testified against tobacco, the sky would fall. And indeed it did.”

Recognizing that audiences would find it easier to sympathize with Lowell Bergman than Wigand, Mann observed, “People think Lowell comes out very well in this film, but you can argue that Jeffrey comes out better. Jeffrey attacks Lowell bitterly in a couple of scenes. ‘What is it that you do? What is the function? You gonna inform people and that's gonna change things? Maybe that's just something you tell yourself to justify the status of your position. Maybe this is all infotainment, and people have nothing better to do on Sunday night.’ It was our intent that these questions would resound later on through the film. Because when Lowell hits a crisis, it's after things have turned around for him in terms of the story -- that's when he truly has some critical decisions to make.”

As to what drew him to recount the real life event, the moviemaker replied, “What attracted me was the way Lowell and Jeffrey were such opposites -- if they met each other in a social context, I don't think one would see much of anything in the other. But here were these two men thrown together with only one element in common. Both of them are not living inside the circumscribed "I" of just sheer gratification in careers; both of them recognize that there's something else in life. They both have superegos that tell you ‘you ought to be this way’ or ‘you ought to do this somehow,’ and they do have a sort of respect for each other's actions, character and principles. That there's nothing else in common was great, because it brings into higher relief their sole common component.”

Lowell Bergman was not unknown to Michael Mann for the two of them were at one point discussing doing a couple of projects together. “When I was in post-production on Heat, in the fall of '95,” stated the director, “Lowell was going through all this. I was one of about 10 or 12 people that he would call up to discuss these issues. He'd say, ‘You'll never guess what Don Hewitt said to me today. I don't believe what's happening here. I have relations with people and all of a sudden I'm walking through like a pariah; as I walk past them their eyes make it seem like I'm not there.’"

Unlike Heat which had action sequences punctuated by automatic gunfire, Mann had to improvise and focus the story on the characters. “My anticipation of the film was not to do an elegant, somewhat distant docudrama. I had zero interest in doing that. I want you to feel that you are underneath the skin of Jeffrey Wigand. I want you to step into Lowell Bergman's shoes. I did not want even to attempt to tell the story if I couldn't take you there, because that's the real experience to have. I'd be so disappointed in myself if I couldn't do that. The picture is two hours and 32 minutes of talking. Everything is dialogue. On the one hand you could view it as a horrible restriction; on the other hand you could view it as this great adventure. I mean, someone asked me early on, ‘How do you feel about filming all these phone calls?’ And I said, great -- you get to have two people talking in two different places. We shoot Jeffrey in his bedroom making a phone call, and where does he get Lowell? He gets him at a crime scene in New Orleans, with a dead body and a street full of mounted police, because Lowell's working on a story about the New Orleans P.D.”

The person who fascinated Michael Mann was the one portrayed by Russell Crowe. “Wigand as a character and a man is so human to me,” he remarked, “and, I found, so powerfully emotional, because he isn't a two-dimensional invention of fictive imagination. You would never sit in a room, by yourself, and imagine a scene in which he goes to New York for an interview and does not find it possible to bring himself to tell his wife. And yet, when it happens, you know that in the nanosecond before she trips to it, he is in agony, because of course he realizes it is inevitable that she'll have to know. He just couldn't tell her. And that's life, man -- that's what happens in life.”

As for trading fiction for fact, Mann answered, “It's a challenge to deal with these true-to-life issues. That's what made the material so exciting.”


The Insider trailer:


Mann Handled: A Michael Mann Profile

Trevor Hogg is a freelance video editor and writer who currently resides in Canada.

365 Days, 100 Films #18 - Hanna (2011)

Hanna, 2011.



Directed by Joe Wright.

Starring Saoirse Ronan, Eric Bana, Tom Hollander, Olivia Williams, Jason Flemyng and Cate Blanchett.





SYNOPSIS:



Hanna is an abnormally strong and gifted, 14 year-old killing machine, and there are a few people out there who want her for themselves.





Joe Wright can sure pull off a decent long take. He had that extended, mind-boggling shot in Atonement, gliding over and across a beach of celebrating World War II Allied soldiers. The longer it went on, the more excited and tense you became, your unbelief compounding at every extra event in shot, scared that someone might break character or miss their cue and they’d have to go again from the beginning. Joe Wright’s latest, Hanna, possesses similar shots, but their impact is lessened somewhat by their number and the occasional betrayal of a CGI pixel (those odd, jerky movements in fight scenes). You can tell where they’ve stitched two takes together too, usually when the sun’s flare burns out the screen entire. They’re still very impressive though - if not for Atonement’s effort and mastery, then for sheer imagination and zest.



In all other respects, however, Hanna is quite different from Atonement. They share an actor in Saoirse Ronan (Hanna in Hanna, Briony in Atonement), but that and the long takes are about it. Hanna is a very special girl. She has extraordinary strength and reflexes, and has been groomed by her father, Erik (Eric Bana), into a survival machine from a very early age. They live in isolation in a wintry forest, heated by fire and hunting deer for food. She’s still very sweet, though. Her face is softly mouse-like, and a book of Grimm’s fairytales lies underneath her pillow alongside a photo of her murdered mother. But who murdered her mother? Why do they live like hermits? How is Hanna so strong?



These questions are slowly answered as the film progresses, but the enemy is established right from the start. Erik looks his daughter in the eye just before this wintry prelude is over and explains that a woman, Marissa (a red-haired Cate Blanchett), will not rest, or tire, until Hanna is dead.



The film is rich with quirky characters. They need their quirks otherwise they’d drown in the cast-list. There’s the manically camp German hitman, Isaacs (Tom Hollander). He whistles sinisterly and wears a full-body matching tracksuit. Constantly beside him are his two Dr. Marten’s-wearing, Ben-Sherman-shirt adorning skinhead henchman. Marissa, who employs the help of Isaacs, shows her obsessive character not in dialogue or intense stares to camera, but by the immaculately stored selection of high-heeled shoes in her room, and the way she brushes her teeth until her gums bleed. One character, Hanna’s grandmother, we only meet very briefly, yet her personality is stored within a few minute actions. As she sits opposite Marissa in her apartment room, knowing that death shortly awaits, she carefully sweeps a few crumbs on the table into her cupped hand to place them neatly on a plate. This woman’s last thoughts are to tidy up breakfast. You show, you don’t tell. It’s a good rule for Directors to go by.



The film’s visual metaphors are heavy, but they work in a post-modern comic book way. One scene shows Erik walking through an airport. It’s one of those extended, single take shots, and the longer it goes on, the more people we realise are tracking him. As Erik becomes aware of his shadows, he passes a few sunglasses billboards on the walls behind him that show five-foot high eyes. It’s giddily self-conscious. There’s probably a lot more of those tucked away in the film. Second viewings should be recommended somewhere on your receipts.



The Chemical Brothers provide the film’s dub-steppy musical score, which works well with the underground comic book mood. The sound design overall, in fact, is sublime. The crackling heat of a waffle iron, and the muffled voices in a room next door could set up a scene with your eyes closed.



You can compare Hanna with Kill Bill and Leon, but really you’re only making a list of female assassin films. In tone and stylistics, Hanna is far more similar to Run, Lola, Run. They share a fondness for the same neon coloured hair and ridiculous editing pace, only that 90s, VHS fuzz is replaced with a much crisper lens. Perhaps the film could have done with more of a climax, and its release of information could have been handled better, but everything is far too fun and absurd for anyone to seriously complain.

Oli Davis



365 Days, 100 Films



Movie Review Archive

DVD Review - Winter's Bone (2010)

Winter's Bone, 2010.



Directed by Debra Granik.

Starring Jennifer Lawrence, John Hawkes, Lauren Sweetser, Garret Dillahunt, Dale Dickey and Shelley Waggener.





SYNOPSIS:



A teenage girl embarks on a mission to find her father in the stark and hostile landscape of the Ozark Woods, Missouri.





Isn’t it helpful when reviews compare a new film to something you’ve previously seen? Lots of writers have something resembling a “if you liked that you’ll like this” feature. It’s impossible to keep constantly clued up so to find out Pirates of the Caribbean 4 is a lot like Pirates of the Caribbean 3 is a real time saver.



Seriously though what about when those comparisons are technically true but grossly misleading? It’s not really constructive to recommend Pixar’s Cars to someone who liked the revving, neon lighting and cheerleaders of The Fast and the Furious. Black Swan and Step Up are both about dancing but poles apart. Forced similarities are far from enlightening.



Bear that in mind when I tell you Winter’s Bone is like Hot Fuzz. It’s set in a close knit rural community. It’s about crime. It turns out that all the locals are part of a sinister conspiracy to protect the “greater good”, covering up murder most foul. The police are dodgy and probably in on it. A few characters have “great big bushy beards”.



Things happen in Hot Fuzz though. Apart from the above similarities, which made me long for Pegg and Frost blowing Wells to bits, Winter’s Bone is Hot Fuzz’s complete opposite in tone, style and substance. There is not a single laugh in it. Instead of explosions and comical supermarket shootouts, we get moody trudging through woods and a drug dealing lumberjack casually smashing in a windscreen with an axe. Instead of Nick Frost pretending to stab himself in the eye we get sombre, faultless acting.



Winter’s Bone is arty and managed to get enough critics gushing to earn Oscar nominations. It’s beautifully shot, showcasing one of the faces of America rarely given an outing at the multiplex; a bleak, rough and timber strewn existence. We follow Ree, convincingly played by Jennifer Lawrence, on her mostly far from fruitful quest to find her meth cooking Dad, who has skipped bail, jeopardising the family home. She stalks about a neighbourhood dependent on nature, trekking through the crunchy undergrowth to have uninformative conversations with an assortment of stripy shirted chaps playing earthy music. Her walking about the place is almost like a mind blowing and oh so subtle metaphor for her struggle through social convention for the truth and justice.



This is a film that will delight a certain audience, whilst sending others into a coma. I fell somewhere between the two views, partially numbed by the pedestrian pace but appreciative of the acting and cinematography. The drama is always of the dreary variety, except for one harrowing and emotional scene. I will try to avoid spoilers, but up until this point Ree appeared to be hardened beyond her years and unattached to her fugitive father. When she’s asked to carry out a gruesome task no daughter should ever have to do (relating to the film’s title) we see that she is merely a brave child underneath it all, scraping by.



Unfortunately Winter’s Bone doesn’t have enough of these genuinely moving moments to be engaging. It is atmospheric and pretty in its own way. Some will think sunbeams of quality shine from its every orifice. But I’d rather watch something less pretentious. Give me the silly satire of narrow minded communities in Hot Fuzz any day.

Liam Trim (follow me on Twitter)



Movie Review Archive

DVD Review - Biutiful (2010)

Biutiful, 2010.



Directed by Alejandro González Iñárritu.

Starring Javier Bardem, Marciel Álvarez, Hanaa Bouchaib, Guillermo Estrella, Diaryatou Daff and Cheng Tai Shen.





SYNOPSIS:



A single father, who struggles with love, fatherhood and his business in the underworld of Barcelona, is diagnosed with terminal cancer. He must also deal with his bi-polar wife and a large group of illegal immigrants.





Films about a life of crime always tend to focus on the rise and fall of a young man with big ideas being completely crippled by the baseball bat of corruption. It’s almost like they follow a moral code that says all people who dive into the underworld must drown at the end. After a while, you find yourself asking for a little more forgivingness in these affairs. Or at least let us see a man who genuinely kind, despite his illegal behaviour. Alejandro González Iñárritu’s newest release has given me a new type of crime drama.



Alright, so it’s not a crime drama primarily, but it does deal with a lot of the criminal underworld in Barcelona. Javier Bardem is Uxbal, a single father with two children and a bi-polar ex-(ish) wife, who is also working in various illegal projects. Not only is having Bardem play the lead in this a great idea in its own right, but the characterization is a whole string of fantastic ideas. Uxbal is a charming father figure who just happens to be involved with an underground empire with his brother Tito and a Chinese crime boss called Hai. But he has a good heart.



As well as being one of the most loving fathers I’ve seen outside of the work of Dickens, he is generally nice to those that surround him, despite the shady activities. One part of his empire is an illegal Chinese sweatshop, but he goes out of his way to make sure conditions are at least adequate for the workers. Ok, that’s not exactly a perfect thing to hear, but it compliments his character as a caring person in a world of corruption. Which is why the plot pivot couldn’t be at a better place.



Towards the end of the first act of the film, Uxbal is diagnosed with terminal cancer with a couple of months to live. So begins his redemption and to secure a better future for his children. His bi-polar (sort of) wife is the biggest obstacle to cross. Drinking, smoking and swearing at the kids, the thought of leaving them with her is a frightening one indeed. At times it feels like a pretty extreme episode of Eastenders, but with real actors. Also, he puts himself at risk to make sure the illegal immigrants under his *ahem* ‘employment’ aren’t deported back to their countries, even to the point of paying rent for some of the luckier ones.



The approach of the film feels very similar to the style of a Darren Aronofsky in the way that the camera is allergic to tripods and everything looks grimy. I’m serious. I wouldn’t be surprised if they hired someone to smear the walls with a dead chicken before sneezing over everything. Yes, it really looks like a dump. The lightening helps to make it look more depressing than it really should be, as well. But the optimism and charm from the characters throughout the film provides a good juxtaposition against the filthy background of Barcelona’s underworld.



Biutiful deserved the notice it received at the Academy Awards and it’s a bleeding shame that it lost out on winning anything there. Bardem is fantastic to watch on screen at all times and the narrative swings into so many unexpected shocks that will grip you until your arms go red. It’s a subtle epic that doesn’t outstay its welcome.

Will Preston is a student at the University of Portsmouth. He writes for various blogs (including his own website), presents a weekly radio show on PURE FM and makes various short films.



Movie Review Archive

DVD Review - Jean Claude Van Damme: Behind Closed Doors (2011)

Jean Claude Van Damme: Behind Closed Doors, 2011.

Directed by Jared White.
Starring Jean Claude Van Damme.
Narrated by Jason Flemyng.


SYNOPSIS:

A reality show giving unprecedented access into the life of action star Jean Claude Van Damme.


In the mid-80’s, a young, and buffedly (yes, I just invented that word!) goofy looking young Belgian, crossed paths with (somewhat) pioneering action movie producer Menahem Golan. At the time the action flick business was hitting full swing with the likes of Sly, Arnold, Chuck and Charles leading the pack. Jean Claude Van Damme entered the fray and roundhouse kicked his way firstly into the video market in a big way, then onto the big screen. Jean C has starred in many cult favourites amongst genre enthusiasts, in particular his breakout movie Bloodsport and then the likes of Kickboxer, Lionheart (AWOL), Double Impact, Universal Soldier, Timecop and Hard Target. Oh and Derailed of course, which was, I believe, nominated for six Oscars (it wasn’t really, just in case you fell for that). Van Damme has hit the headiest heights, and experienced a lot of lows. Like many in Hollywood he’s fallen into some of the pitfalls that come with such a glamorous lifestyle, notably drug addiction.

In Behind Closed Doors, Van Damme allows a film crew unhindered access to his life for 5 months, spanning from late 2010 to early 2011. He bares his soul here totally, much like he did in his critically acclaimed movie JCVD. Van Damme is a truly fascinating guy. A bipolar sufferer, Jean Claude’s temperament fluctuates wildly and this documentary illustrates this. His moods shift erratically from bouncingly happy with almost childish glee, to doom and gloom fits of anger and sadness. He’s a guy whose mind is an explosion of thoughts and ideas (okay that might seem hard to believe to some). He’s always analysing, be it himself, his surroundings or philosophical ponderings. Not only is he deeply thoughtful, but he’s also incredibly passionate at times. Notable is his love of dogs. Van Damme seems to have a genuine kinship with K-9 folk. Particularly he admires their ability to love, loyalty and their simplicity. It is with great passion as well as real distress that Van Damme also talks about the environment on several occasions during the filming. He feels as if the human race is irreversibly damaging the planet.

The main focus here is Van Damme the family man, and also his decision to step into the ring against a terrifyingly hard as nails Muay Thai kickboxing fighter, 12 years his junior. There’s not much structure during the shows, if only because there’s not too much structure in Van Damme’s life. It’s frantic and full on and he jet-sets like a mad-man. The idea of one time World Champ, Van Damme returning to the ring aged 50, 30 years after his last competitive bout, is interesting, if inconceivable. Some watching this doc, may be disappointed that the shows don’t build up to the actual fight as a finale. In fact it’s structureless nature means that each episode doesn’t require the one previous or following on. From episode one, right through to eight, this doesn’t build up to anything. It’s merely a chunk of Van Damme’s life.

Amongst pondering the nature of humanity and the environment, Van Damme is seen on movie sets, at fashion shows, at his doggy sanctuary, or at one of his many homes. He parties, he indulges, he pumps iron and above all…he cries. Boy does he cry! Jean Claude is quite the softy it seems. Highlights of the show include Van Damme beating up stunt guys during his film shoots, due to his want to use some contact in his choreographed smackdowns, or meeting his daughter’s boyfriend, or suffering a severe case of the grumps during a birthday party in his honour. Then there’s his struggle with self-funded personal film project, The Eagle Path, which JC feels is a failure. At times JC plays up for the cameras, but the show is really at its best when he’s at his most vulnerable and we get to see the real man. Certain moments in his life stay with him and haunt him, such as having to leave behind his favourite pets in his youth to move to America with nothing to become a star and returning to find they had died during and in part because of, his time away. It’s very poignant, as is his relationship with wife Gladys, who has been through the mill having been twice married to Van Damme following dark years apart in the mid 90’s because of his playing away and drug abuse. At times she acts like his mother, but there’s real heartfelt regret from Van Damme regarding his behaviour in the past towards Gladys, and he’s whole-heartedly grateful she’s with him.

As for the rest of the family, son Kristopher could easily be the missing Brady. He’s a cheesy young man indeed, but at the same time comes across as genuinely nice. Daughter Bianca seems to have led a somewhat sheltered life and both kids hold strong values, despite being a little bit detached from reality sometimes, only in the sense that they’ve grown up outside of the real world and in Jean Claude world. Regardless of that, they’ve been well raised by (one would assume, predominantly) Gladys. In addition many of Van Damme's personal friends appear, such as assistant Max, as well as long-time friend, writer/director Sheldon Lettich (Double Impact). Bolo Yeung also makes an appearance too, which for Bloodsport and Double Impact fans, is a treat.

The production of the show is fairly routine. Jason Flemyng provides an efficient commentary. Neither inspiring, nor overwhelming, he does the job as required. The writing isn’t great, nor is the propensity for repetition. The editing is by the numbers, while much like the commentary the material runs over familier ground too often. But on the whole, this does offer enough interesting insight into a genuinely fascinating individual. In comparison to Steven Seagal’s fly on the wall offering, Lawman, this show is far more interesting. It feels far more genuine and less put on than Seagal’s show, whilst there’s also a sense with Seagal that he’s got a constant guard up and a continual front. I never felt I’d seen enough of himself personally, where-as Van Damme is incredibly open and honest.

Fans will appreciate the insight into their hero, and perhaps his complexity. Though it’s not an earth shatteringly important documentary, and very much in the light entertainment field, casual viewers will possibly appreciate Van Damme’s emotional soul baring. Then again, as Van Damme himself states during the show, “People are gonna love me or hate me.” His constant mood and attitude shifts make for interesting viewing, but perhaps alienate some audience from standing in his corner. One second he’ll talk about how much he loves his wife, and the next he’s ogling models 25 years his junior. Or he’ll follow up a heartfelt discussion about the nature of man and the environment, by dancing like a clown in a club, drunk as a skunk. But like him or not, that’s Jean Claude Van Damme for you.

Tom Jolliffe

Movie Review Archive