Vidocq

So there is a lot of conflicting concepts and ideas going on with how this movie is both advertised as well as some of the core concepts of the movie. Most of the information I had gotten about Vidocq (for some reason, most US releases I have seen around have renamed it Dark Portals... I've seen it and still don't understand that) beforehand had been that it's a very good Steampunk movie, something I haven't really seen done well to date. Then I find out that Eugène François Vidocq was a real person and probable inspiration for the character of Sherlock Holmes. So I've already got a little bit of cognitive dissonance going into this movie and I haven't even seen frame one yet.

So the opening of this movie gives us Gérard Depardieu as the titular character stalking someone through a dark, crowded, fiery place leading to a quick fight with a Mirror Masked individual which ends with Vidocq's apparent death. End of movie I guess. But no, a young man claiming to be Vidocq's biographer arrives and begins investigating Vidocq's murder to avenge him and so we get to watch as the intrepid reporter tracks Vidocq's movements, followed by flashbacks to Vidocq's movements tracking down the nebulous and sinister Alchemist. And in a shocking twist that no one saw coming, at least you wouldn't have seen it coming if you weren't paying any attention whatsoever, Vidocq did not die in the fire hole he fell into at the beginning of the film and our intrepid reporter is, in fact, our nefarious villain. Oooooh. Big mirror fight and the villain is stabbed with a big glass shard, thrown out a window to fall some ridiculous height into the river below to die... or does he?

So this isn't quite as bad as it sounds. Sure the overall structure of the story is pretty standard and there's no real surprise to the ending whatsoever, but there are some interesting character tweaks and villainous foibles which are kind of interesting and stupid at the same time. Like the villains mask. Stylewise it's an absolute win, but then they go and make it a magic mirror mask that sucks people's souls in when they die and it gets a little ridiculous. And Gérard Depardieu. The character of Vidocq is actually kind of interesting and I don't think I've seen a grumpy, bitter Depardieu before and I think if they had made this more of a Depardieu centric movie it might have possibly been better for it. But then we see them try and film an action sequence with an easily 300+ lb. actor and his not so robust fight double and it's just a little silly.

But the one thing that annoyed me the most was the director Pitof. Pitof served as the visual effects supervisor for most of director Jean-Pierre Jeunet's best films (Delicatessen, City of Lost Children) and that comes through loud and clear with the way that this movie looks and feels. It viscerally dirty but at the same time you get these fantastic and otherworldly panorama shots and the two blend from one scene to the next so seamlessly that it's like your visual cortex is relaxing on ocean waves. And then we see the camera work and direction for any scene that requires tension or even a little bit of action and you are subjected to hyper-close-ups that are disorienting and impossible to follow sucking any drama that those scenes were supposed to instill. Overall, it's interesting but I'd love to see another director tackle the character.

Rating: C-

 

BMX Bandits

BMX's can go ANYWHERE!

I don't think I'm alone when I get intrigued over early works from stars before they really hit it big, no matter how bad they look. Of note, Arnold Schwarzenegger in Hercules in New York, George Clooney in Return to Horror High, and our entry for today, Nicole Kidman in BMX Bandits. BMX Bandits is not much of a movie: 50 minutes of two bumbling crooks chasing around three BMX aficionados sandwich by 20 minute segments of flimsy plot. The most unbelievable part of this is the idea that three teens could ride a bike for fifty minutes in a chase scenario with no gear ratio is absolutely bonkers.

This is the simple story of a young girl in love with BMX and her attempts to get said BMX by selling walkie-talkies that she and her friends found in the harbor. Of course, those walkies belonged to a violent and well organized group of bank robbers who need them to steal a large payroll van. And the chase is on... for literally the next 50 minutes of screen time, during which time the criminals who were at first well organized and effective, become bumbling, cartoonish characters who can't even run down a couple of kids on BMX bikes. After escaping the crooks though, the brave BMX Bandits (y'see they got shirts to commemorate their outlaw bicycling ways) lure the crooks into a trap to get the reward for their capture so they can open up a BMX track for the local kids who all love BMX.

Whose idea was it to
coordinate our outfits?

So, this isn't actually that bad a movie as long as you ignore most of the acting, anything related to BMX, and the Australians. But there is one moment, when they are being chased through the graveyard where you can see the potential in Nicole Kidman. It's just a fleeting glimpse of the actress she will become, but it's there. Doesn't make the movie worth watching, but it is fascinating to see the early promise of talent.

Rating: D

Bronson

Now that's entertainment!

This film chronicles the life and times of the "most violent prisoner in Britain", one Michael Peterson aka Charles Bronson. It's an interesting biopic starring Tom Hardy as the thuggish yet entertaining Bronson casting the character in the light of a showman telling his story in a sort of one man show before an imaginary audience.

Michael Peterson was a Welsh born hooligan who ran afoul of the law and was imprisoned in 1974 for armed robbery. He received a sentence of seven years but that was extended multiple times due to his constant assaults on guards. During his stay as a guest of Her Majesty's Prison Service, he was transferred over 120 different times leading to his institutionalization at Broadmore Maximum Security Hospital where he took several hostages and held a 47-hour long standoff with police from the roof of the hospital, causing more than £750,000 worth of damage to the hospital making him the most expensive prisoner Britain had ever hosted. So they certified him sane and released him. For the next sixty-nine days, Peterson took up with a former inmate who promoted illegal, bare-knuckle fights and Peterson changed his name to Charles Bronson to improve his image in the fights but was imprisoned again after he robbed a jewelry store to impress a woman. And except for another brief period of freedom in 1992, he has remained behind bars, much of that time in solitary confinement because of his combative nature.

The amazing thing about this film is not the basic character of Charles Bronson, but rather how they go about crafting a narrative around the individual, where the style of the storytelling is more impressive than the story itself. There are scenes where Hardy is dressed in a beautiful suit, painted up in pancake make-up and black paint before a theater full of tuxedoed and evening gowned spectators with classical music playing and those scenes are absolutely beautiful in a mad sort of way. I mean, there is nothing all that likable about Bronson from a surface value, and yet this is an absolute joy to watch.

Blitz

Ken Bruen is Ireland's answer to James Patterson with his crime novels following the exploits of the same character through multiple novels and the outlandish exploits that they experience, Blitz being the film adaptation of the 4th novel dealing with London's Detective Sergeant Brandt. That may be why the character, played by Statham, feels like we should already be familiar with him and doesn't really develop him for the viewer as much as I would like. But let's hold the criticism for just a bit, shall we?

Blitz is the story of a serial killer targeting police officers in London's South East district and Detective Sergeant Brandt's attempts to stop the killer. It starts off a little choppily dealing with Brandt's cop-on-the-edge antics which lead him into hot water before we even get the first murder and starts throwing things at you without really giving you any context for why they are happening or what their significance is. Brandt's feelings of burn out, a colleague dealing with the loss of his wife (with no explanation who the colleague is to Brandt), and yet another colleague who is trying to get back into the swing of police work after going through rehab. There is no context for any of these things and it starts to get tiresome but then a police woman is shot dead and things do start to pick up. The second act of this story is actually compelling as the killer, calling himself 'The Blitz', is one step ahead of everyone from the police all the way to the snitch who is selling his identity to the tabloid press. And then 'The Blitz' is arrested, but because he's been so clever and because the police have been pretty crap at their job, he walks free. That's where the story sort of falls apart relying on clichéd one liners and our supposed protagonist doing something completely illegal and getting away with murder. Literal, shot in the face, murder.

Whoever decided that you should not
take off your shirt should be beaten.

Most of the problem with this movie is the script. It relies too much on the assumption that we have read the three previous novels and already knows and loves the irascible DS Brandt, but I wasn't. A careful screenwriter could have crafted a standalone story from the material at hand, but it feels like someone tried to translate the book directly into the film. But there is one other problem with this movie and that is Jason Statham. Jason, don't you know by now that what people want to see is you running around shirtless beating people up? It worked so well in The Transporter. And Transporter 2. And of course Transporter 3: Transportier. It's sort of what we all expect from you, so it's a little disappointing when you don't deliver.

Rating: C-

I Love You Philip Morris

This is one of those movies where the phrase "don't judge a book by its cover" really applies since the trailers I saw truly buried the lead. The trailers would have you believe that this is a movie about a zany, prison love affair between the characters portrayed by Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor, and yes, that is a large part of the film. What the movie is really about is the life of Stephen Jay Russell, a confidence man in the vein of Frank Abagnale Jr., who has escaped from Texas prisons so many times that, my opinion is that he's been sentenced out of spite, he is currently serving a prison sentence set to end on July 12th, 2140. And while there are amusing bits to the story, it is not as madcap as the trailers would lead you to believe.

Biographical films are always so hard to summarize since they cover such a large expanse of time and like to touch on several self-contained anecdotes of a person's life. And this one is no different except that the story touches on multiple scams, prison escapes, and gaming the system to free a lover that the pace is pretty frenetic but handled exquisitely giving you a developing picture of an interesting individual. And it is a very likeable picture which is something I generally don't find with bio-pics of criminals because, at the end of the day, they are criminals and it is at times difficult to empathize with a self-centered character that is only out for themselves. And perhaps that is why Stephen Russell is so likeable. Most of the crimes he committed later in his career were for the man he loved, and I don't care about the politics of it, a good love story is still a good love story.

Rating: B+

Wild Target

It's the time old story of boy meets girl, boy falls in love with girl, classic misunderstanding and then they all live happily ever after. Except that here the boy is hired to kill the girl after she cons £900,000 off a real-estate tycoon with a fake Rembrandt. So not your standard romcom fare, but it's a nice twist on an old tale.

I'll be honest, the reason I watched this was because of the cast, and it's especially nice to see Bill Nighy in a leading role. And the cast works beautifully together. Nighy's Victor Maynard is understandably emotionally damaged considering not only his profession, but the fact that he is the latest in a line of assassins, and you can see and understand his almost immediate attraction to Emily Blunt's character Rose. Add in Rupert Grint as Tony and Victor can step into his own little nuclear family, giving him the human connection he so obviously is lacking. And as ridiculous as the premise looks on paper, it unfolds so organically that the suspension of disbelief was something that happened in the background of my enjoyment of the story.
 

The other thing about this that I really enjoyed was the "misunderstanding", that moment in almost every other romcom where one of the parties involved finds out that the other is not who they say they are. I hate the "misunderstanding". I always have because it never makes sense considering how much the two characters are supposed to be in love (I'm looking at you Katherine Heigle). But at least here, if Rose is wrong, she will be murdered, so I will let it slide. The ending does get a little formulaic, telegraphing its moves to the audience but overall the resolution works for me.

Martin Freeman's teeth are absolutely terrifying.

This is actually a remake of an older french film Cible Emouvante which I have not had a chance to watch yet as I can't find a copy, but if I ever do, I will revisit.
Rating: A-

High Life

High Life is interesting because it's not really what you expect it to be. You expect a dopey crew of pot smoking losers trying to pull off a ridiculous heist. What you get is a slightly funnier version of Trainspotting where we replace heroin with morphine and Ewan McGregor with Timothy Olyphant.

I see I have your attention.

High Life takes place in the long ago time of 1983 and is the story of Dick, played by Timothy Olyphant, a morphine junkie who loses his job after his former cellmate Bug comes to visit him at work after getting out of jail. In no time the two are planning a rather well reasoned and fairly simple plan to rob newfangled Automatic Teller Machines. And as one would guess, things go wrong. There you have a simple heist movie laid out for you, and yet it's so much more.

There really is nothing bad about this movie. The actors are perfect playing deeply flawed and selfish characters, but also very human in their own ways. The story flows beautifully from scene to scene, each piece fitting together perfectly. The only fault I can find with this film is that it is based on a play and at times it feels like it, where the dialogue doesn't quite feel right in its own skin.

My opinion: with acting and storytelling of this calibre, it should definitely be on your list of movies to see.