Child 44.

While browsing movies on Letterboxd, I found:

Child 44 (2015).

A movie set in The Soviet Union starring Tom Hardy and Gary Oldman sounded amazing so I sat down and gave it a go.

The story with mild, mild spoilers is this: Leo Demidov (Tom Hardy), hero of WWII is an officer in the MGB, the pre-precursor of the KGB. He is married to the love of his life Raisa (Noomi Rapace), and he is good at his job. A child is found dead, clearly murdered, but Soviet doctrine states that there are no murders in paradise, and that serial killers are a product of capitalism, so the verdict is accidental death. Shortly thereafter Leo falls from grace and is sent to a small industrial town with Raisa. Another kid turns up dead, and he just can't ignore it anymore, state or no state.

If that sounds familiar, the story is inspired by the hunt for real life serial killer Chikatilo.

I was really hesitant to even write about this movie. Child 44 is an interesting mix of quality and problems. The actors are amazing. Tom Hardy, Gary Oldman, Charles Dance (one scene only), Vincent Cassel and more is a great cast. No complaints there, they knock it out of the park.

Visually, Child 44 is amazing. The props department outdid themselves. Everything looks amazing. Sure there are some errors, but unless you are an expert, you really can't tell. Full points here.

The script? Now we're in trouble. The movie is 137 minutes long and it wastes so much time. The initial setup is good, the introduction of Leo and his colleagues is good, but then it goes off the rails a lot. Child 44 is based on a novel with the same name by Tom Rob Smith and I saw a reviewer claim that they took a real page turner and made a clunky, slow and boring movie. I don't agree with that statement, but I can see where that person is coming from.

My biggest problem with the story, is focus. It should be about catching a depraved serial killer in a land where that can't happen, but that is almost a side note when you look at what they spent time on. In the end the inhumanity of the Soviet system is far worse than a person who kills children, bizarre a statement as it is.

Child 44 goes back and forth seemingly unsure of that to do. There are scenes that are really good, and I love Raisa who goes from an unhappy wife to an equal partner essential to the story. But on the other hand they set up things that go nowhere, and other things aren't explained at all.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes and no. I'm still very conflicted. The good parts are really good, but that bad parts come so close to taking over. I do not regret watching Child 44 but it should have been so much better than what we got. I also can't help compare it to Citizen X (1995) which is about the real life hunt for Chikatilo, and is a better movie. In the end you should watch it if the subject matter interests you, otherwise give it a miss.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

The Third Man

This week I watched:

The Third Man (1949).

Holly Martens (Joseph Cotten), an out of work author of western novels, arrives in bombed out Vienna on the invitation of his childhood friend Harry Lime (Orson Welles). Harry has offered him a job, but upon arrival, Martens learns that Lime is dead, having been hit by a car. At the funeral, he meets Harry's girlfriend Anna Schmidt (Alida Valli) and becomes smitten by her. He also runs into the British military police as Vienna is split into four zones administered by the British, the US, the French and the Soviets respectively. The police really wants him to go home, but shocked and saddened by his friends death, Martens starts to ask questions and soon discovers that the story of the accident varies depending on who's describing it. He meets some of Harry's shady friends and things start to take a very sinister turn. He discovers that some saw a third man at the scene of the accident and he becomes obsessed with finding him.

The Third Man was directed by Sir Carol Reed with a young Guy Hamilton as assistant director. Some rumors claimed that Orson Welles shadow directed the movie, but that has been debunked.

The plot and the setting in The Third Man are both good. Finding out what happened to a dead friend is hardly new but it works well especially when married to the paranoid setting of post war Vienna. The movie is rife with people looking suspicious and furtive. Since the black market was not just prevalent but a necessity for the survival of so many, it makes sense that no one wants to answer questions about anything, especially not when asked by a stranger who is also a foreigner. This heightens the sense of paranoia enormously.

The cinematography is amazing, absolutely first class. Some scenes were shot in a studio, but the majority was shot on location in the actual ruined Vienna. Reed used a lot of Dutch angles which when combined with the suspicious atmosphere mentioned above really pushes the fear and uncertainty to new levels. For me, this is the main star of the movie.

Speaking of stars, the actors range from solid to great. Being a thriller/noir from '49 it is natural that the method of acting feels a bit alien to a modern viewer, but once your brain adjusts you can really sit back and enjoy yourself.

The one big issue for me is the music. For the absolute majority of the movie your ears are assailed by jaunty zither music. Nothing bad by itself but the melody is too circus-y meaning that it works well for the few comedic scenes but clashes horribly when the tension surges. A man running for his life should not be accompanied by a happy tune. Audiences back then might have thought it appropriate, but I did not like it.

So, do I recommend this movie? Absolutely! It is a bit slow, but from beginning to end it was a joy to watch. The Third Man is of course a product of its time, but what a product! If you like or can at least stomach black and white movies, do yourself a solid and watch The Third Man.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

Johnny Handsome

Quite by accident, I stumbled across a movie that had completely gone under my radar:

Johnny Handsome (1989).

Johnny (Mickey Rourke) is a career criminal whose face has been severely deformed since birth. His best friend is hard up for money and begs Johnny to plan a heist, something he's really good at. Two others are brought in for the job, Rafe (Lance Henriksen) and Sunny (Ellen Barkin). The job goes wrong and Johnny ends up in prison. There he is put in a program that gives him plastic surgery as a way to rehabilitate him. Police Lieutenant Drones (Morgan Freeman) does not believe Johnny has turned over a new leaf, and the question is, has he?

On paper, Johnny Handsome should be a slam dunk. Apart from the actors I listed above, we also get Forest Whitaker, Elizabeth McGovern and quite a few other faces I've seen before, but there is a fundamental flaw I can't put my finger on. Don't get me wrong, Johnny Handsome is not a bad movie at all, but it is lacking something. Once I was done with it, I went to IMDB like always and saw that Al Pacino was originally slated to play Johnny but despite several rewrites he dropped out feeling that the script would never be able to rise above B-movie status, and he was right. There is of course nothing wrong with B-movies, but unless you set out to make one, something has gone wrong.

The story is pretty good, the actors are by themselves excellent and the cinematography is decent. The dialogue isn't exactly inspired, but this isn't the kind of movie that should have Tarantino style memorable one liners. It's more somber and serious than that.

As I'm writing this, I think the major problem sits in Johnny Handsome himself. We spend quite a lot of time in the prison hospital, yet we don't really know much about him as a person besides his deformed face (excellent make up work btw). His struggle between going straight and dating McGovern, or going back to his old life becomes too shallow. I do think the story is good, but the movies doesn't have enough time to really explore it. I would have liked to see more of Rafe, but he is a shallow and pretty baseline villain who seems to be allergic to sleeves. Sunny is more interesting, and Barkin said she loved that character because she got to be as bad as she wanted without some lame excuse why this poor girl turned out wrong. She's bad and she loves it.

Initially I was disappointed with Johnny Handsome, but it did stay with me. One part of my dissatisfaction is my own fault. It takes place in New Orleans and was made two years after Angel Heart which is one of my all time favorite movies. I subconsciously expected Johnny Handsome to be a bit more like Angel Heart which is dumb. They have nothing in common except location and Mickey Rourke. With that realization I had to rethink it and so I'm writing this.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes, but you need to be realistic with what it is. Johnny Handsome is a solid movie about choice and consequence. It sadly isn't as good as it could have been, but that is neither here no there. It is the movie it is, and you can certainly do much worse than watching Johnny Handsome.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

Secrets of History

It is no secret that I love history, and history is full of famous people, people with secrets.

Today I want to highlight the History Expose channel on Youtube. The videos are 15-20 minutes and each features an individual with something to hide, from J. Edgar Hoover to Eva Peròn, from Emily Bronte to Thomas Jefferson. I've seen a couple of videos and I hope the rest are just as good. Of course one has to keep a skeptical mindset but if this sort of thing interests you, this is a good place to start. 

Link: https://www.youtube.com/@TheHistoryExpose/videos

But that's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

Sea Fever

Quite by accident as I was reading Reddit, I found:

Sea Fever (2019).

We meet Siobhán (Hermione Corfield), a young marine biologist working on her doctorate. As a part of the doctorate studies she has to go on a field trip on the ocean, including a scuba dive. The problem is her personality. There are introverts, there are those who are anti-social and then there is Siobhán. She doesn't even want to eat birthday cake with her colleagues, she's that withdrawn.

A husband and wife team, Gerard and Freya own and run a fishing boat and have agreed to take Siobhán along for a fee they badly need since times are tough and they are broke. They owe their crew unpaid wages, so any money is welcome. In their financial desperation, they sail to an exclusion zone knowing there won't be any other fishing boats in the area. This is where things take a turn for not only the worse, but for the catastrophic.

Sea Fever is a the second Irish horror movie I know I've seen. It's directed by Neasa Hardiman, a veteran director, and I think it shows. Making a movie in a cramped trawler isn't easy, studio or not, but she makes it work.

Story wise, Sea Fever isn't all that special, a seasoned horror fan will have seen it all before in some variety, but the sum of the parts works well. There are a couple of minor issues though. First off, they make a big deal about how Siobhán dislikes company but that goes away pretty easily and is never an issue again, so why even include it? The worst part is when things go wrong. The hull of the boat is affected and a greenish-blue slime is leaking through. What does Siobhán do? She pokes it with her naked finger... A marine biologist should know how many things in the ocean are poisonous, and if it can leak through treated wood, you shouldn't poke it with your finger!

The cast is excellent, absolutely no complaints there, and I was engrossed enough to not even remember if there was any music, so that is actually a good thing. I loved the overall atmosphere on the cramped trawler out on the gray ocean, having a sense of claustrophobia on the open sea is a pretty cool concept. The special effects are good, quite up to par, and the science is faulty, but what horror movie doesn't have shaky science?

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes, Sea Fever is a competent horror movie throughout. I'd say it works best for those who only watch horror casually since it will feel fresh to them, or to horror fans who want to watch it all. I found this movie from a Lovecraft subreddit, and sure I can see why that connection fits, but it's Cthulhu light at best. Sea Fever combines elements of Alien, The Thing and a few other isolation horror sources in a way that produces a film worth watching. Not a masterpiece but absolutely good enough.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

Sleuth

During a discussion about Michael Caine, a friend recommended:

Sleuth (1972),

so that is what I watched.

Andrew Wyke (Laurence Olivier), a rich and celebrated author of murder mysteries (think Agatha Christie) invites Milo Tindle (Michael Caine) to his country manor for a chat. Turns out that Milo is having a relationship with Andrew's wife, Marguerite. Andrew isn't opposed to this affair as he has a girlfriend of his own, but he is concerned that Milo isn't rich, and can't afford Marguerite's expensive lifestyle. The last thing Andrew wants is for Marguerite to come back once he's finally rid of her. Andrew has a plan, and this plan is dangerous.

Sleuth is directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz who amongst many works co-wrote and co-directed Cleopatra (1963). This was his last film as he was both ill and suffered an accident on set confining him to a wheelchair.

Wyke's expansive manor is the sole set of Sleuth and it is a magnificent setting. The large old manor is filled with not only games of all sorts but also automata that move and make noise. Personally I wouldn't stay a day in a house filled with those soulless staring horrors, but I'm not an eccentric author.

The core of Sleuth are Olivier and Caine. Caine was the third choice for the role and was ecstatic to play against the great Olivier. When they met Caine asked how he was supposed to address Olivier. He answered: "Well, I am the Lord Olivier and you are Mr. Michael Caine. Of course, that's only for the first time you address me. After that I am Larry, and you are Mike."

Later on after an emotional scene Olivier told Caine "I thought I had an assistant, Michael. I see I have a partner." Caine said this was the greatest compliment he had gotten as an actor. High praise indeed.

I am doing my damnedest to avoid spoilers but it is hard. The dialogue is superb, and both Olivier and Caine are perfect. In fact, I can't say anything about the score as the only music I even noticed was when Olivier plays “Anything Goes” at full volume. This is how engrossed I got.

So, do I recommended this movie? Absolutely! Sleuth is an amazing movie from beginning to end. I do need to point out that it is 168 minutes and you have to pay attention throughout. If you are screwing around on your phone you're going to miss everything, but it so worth it. I wanted to watch a really good movie and I wasn't the least bit disappointed. Sleuth is a bizarre masterpiece worth every second of your time, but do try to watch it without looking it up. This movie doesn't deserve any spoilers.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

Two Richard's and a Roger.

Quite by chance I saw a movie clip with Roger Moore, Richard Harris and Richard Burton, so I sat down and watched:

The Wild Geese (1978).

A wealthy banker hires an unscrupulous mercenary, Colonel Faulkner (Burton) to put together a team in order to rescue Julius Limbani, the president of an unnamed African country. There has been a coup and Limbani is being held by the new dictator. Faulkner gets in touch with his old friends Captain Janders (Harris) and Lieutenant Fynn (Moore) and together they assemble a team of veterans who although highly experienced are a bit long in the tooth.

A simple synopsis, but to avoid spoilers I'll keep that short. The Wild Geese is a bit over two hours long, so I'm sure you can guess things don't go entirely smoothly for the mercenaries. We do spend a lot of time on the setup, the planning and the execution, but that only eats up half the run time.

I have no technical complaints, it is a very nicely put together film, although it has the typical over-powered grenades that fling bodies around like rag dolls. There is an odd part where they plan to hit the compound where Limbani is held at predawn, but the raid happens when the sun is high. My other and bigger complaint is the scene on the bridge. In a nutshell, the mercenaries are attacked while crossing a bridge and instead of getting off the bridge they just stand there, something experienced soldiers wouldn't do. Then as the team becomes separated as the bridge is out of order, they shout plans as where to meet up again, but there is no water! The river bed is completely dry and it would have taken them ten minutes tops to cross. Very silly and some frustratingly bad writing in an otherwise good movie.

It is the actors that are the biggest draw here. Burton, Harris and Moore in one movie is a real treat. Burton especially is showing his age, but he still has his old steel here, which goes a long way to sell the character. Moore, who was in the middle of his Bond career adds the charm and Harris the heart. A really good trio and apparently they all worked well together. Moore did request fewer lines when acting with the two others and explained the request with: "You don't seriously expect me to act against these guys?"

The rest of the actors are good, again no complaints although everyone else is overshadowed by the trio, even though a few are given quite a lot of screen time.

Still trying to avoid spoilers, I feel I should point out that this is not a fun movie. It is very grim at times even though the soundtrack is trying to sound upbeat with an almost comedic tone. Being a movie about mercenaries it is also pretty bloody, but it doesn't wallow in gore in any way. It is a kind of classy brutality if that makes sense.

Beyond what you see on screen it is also almost miraculous that they managed to keep both Harris and Burton sober during the shoot. Both were heavy, and I do mean heavy drinkers, but they stayed sober the entire time with the help of copious amounts of soda and jumping around. According to IMDB Harris told Burton: “"Whenever you feel like a drink, do like I do, jump up and down." For the rest of the production, both men were seen daily in all sorts of unlikely situations hopping like kangaroos”.

So, do I recommend this movie? Absolutely. The Wild Geese is one of those movies that is grim and violent, but it is also really good. It's not a feel good adventure but a lesson in how cold and brutal the world can be and why being a mercenary is not a fun job. The movie does telegraph some things that happen if you're paying attention, but it is done very well.

That 's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!