The Quarantine Collection: Week 1

To help while away the languid hours of self-isolation here is a weekly round up of the films and occasional television shows I have been watching from Friday 20th to Friday 27th. 

Fri. 20th : Layer Cake (2004) 

Netflix.

Before Bond Daniel Craig can be found as the lead in this British crime caper that bears a striking resemblance to Snatch and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. Alongside Craig there is Michael Gambon, a very young Tom Hardy, two EastEnders actors and Sienna Miller and Sally Hawkins. Directed by Matthew Vaughn (he of Kingsman and Kick-Ass fame), it is a familiar but entertaining enough slice of cinema, though I cannot really remember much of it a week later.

Also check out: The Gentleman (2019)

Sat. 21st : The Lost City of Z (2016)

Blu-ray.

Pronounced "Zed", this 'adventure' film is a smouldering slow-burn about one of Britian's most overlooked explorers, Percy Fawcett, here played by a serious Charlie Hunnam. There is solid support from a bearded Robert Pattinson, Tom Holland and Ian McDiarmid (Palpatine). Having impressed me with Ad Astra, I was eager to see what else director James Gray could do and it is clear he shines when focusing on a man on a mission. There is adventure here, as our protagonists explore the Amazon for a lost civilisation, but at its centre the film explores the familial sacrifice required for such an undertaking, and how those bonds evolve over time. 

I watched the Blu-ray with my dad, and despite the PlayStation choking on the disc for ten minutes halfway through, we were both gripped by the crisp photography and slightly unsettling tone. It's closing shot is one for the ages. 

Also check out: Ad Astra (2019)

Sun. 22nd : The Lady Vanishes (1938)

BBC 2.

It has been an awfully long time since I have seen a film on free-view telly but having eyed this up on the paper, I was ready to enjoy an advert-less old classic. The last film Alfred Hitchcock made in Britain before his Hollywood career kicked off, this black and white gem is immensely entertaining. The plot is simple: an assortment of characters get on a train including a woman named Iris. She is joined by an elderly lady, Miss Froy,  who subsequently vanishes. As the train journeys across Europe Iris attempts to uncover this perplexing mystery. It is a perfect Sunday afternoon film: light hearted yet thrilling, political but not overwhelming. It is also worth watching just for the cantankerous British duo who are obsessed with cricket; a prime example of comic relief characters used perfectly but who, when the time comes, can be serious and useful. This an old film that you shouldn't have to psych yourself up ready to watch. 

Also check out: Strangers on a Train (1951)

Mon. 23rd : McCabe and Mrs Miller (1971)

Blu-ray. 

For me, this is a masterpiece of the Western genre. For a great deal of other people, it is probably a bleak, overly serious and bland film. And I can see that. Perhaps the only reason I was so enthralled with this picture is that I have seen a considerable number of Westerns and, at the risk of sounding too pretentious and intolerable, I have studied this section of film history. Because McCabe and Mrs Miller is barely a Western at all: it may be set on the frontier but rather than being driven by such narrative thrusts as revenge, justice or duty (the usual hallmarks), McCabe is driven by economics. The main character is an aspiring businessman who is also cowardly. He can only kill people by shooting them in the back. It is a totally, wonderfully subversive film that, because of its authentic production design and detail, probably gives us the screen's best look at what frontier life was actually like. And the snow capped scenery is always to a Western's advantage, not just because blood on snow looks aesthetically pleasing, but it also fits the theme of violence removing purity. The rich photography, Leonard Cohen music and strong title characters makes for compelling viewing. Just watch a handful of Westerns before.

Also check out: The Grand Silence (1968)

Tues. 24th : The Man Who Would Be King (1975)

DVD. 

Rudyard Kipling is best known for The Jungle Book, but this is an adaptation of one of his other popular stories of the same name. Before Michael Caine was talking about a ruby the size of a tangerine to Batman, he was holding one the size of two tangerines in The Man Who Would Be King. Cockney Caine makes up half of a terrific double act; the other half? Only the well-whiskered Sean Connery, the titular man. The two of them are ex-British military in 1890s India. They plan to take rifles north to Afghanistan in the hopes of becoming kings over the warring tribes there. Naturally, friction is generated between their friendship once Connery starts to be treated as a god by the locals. Directed by John Huston (best known for The Maltese Falcon and The African Queen) and also starring Christopher Plummer as Rudyard Kipling, this is a riveting piece of grandad cinema. It's old school, slightly politically incorrect but ultimately charming. It is the kind of adventure film I will be watching aged 75 and still be chuckling along to Caine's dry wit. 

Also check out: A Passage to India (1984)

Wed. 25th : Band of Brothers, Episodes 1-2 (2001)

DVD (charity shop).

A vastly revered television series, I was fortunate to discover the set in a nice tin case for £3 at a British Heart Foundation. I brought it back home and my dad was eager to watch it, if only because it says "Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks present" on the cover. The first episode is a solid start, with the at first jarring arrival of Friends' David Schwimmer as the dickhead army commander soon leading to some terrific drama. The ever stoic Damien Lewis is the Lieutenant of Easy Company on the eve of the Normany invasion, leading a group of young but familiar British faces: Simon Pegg, Stephen Graham, Andrew Scott and even James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender briefly show their faces. The first episode details the intensive training for the Airborne Division and culminates with the planes heading to France. The second episode opens like an aerial Saving Private Ryan, a horrifying sequence that retains some serious weight despite the dated visual effects. Amidst the chaos of the landing, Lewis gradually reunites with his men as they take a German gunning emplacement. Not a lot happens in the second episode due to the action, but the constant reminders that bookend each episode that this is true lends the show the emotional weight needed to neutralise the intense violence. I look forward to the next two episodes (my dad won't binge).

Also check out: Flags of our Fathers / Letters from Iwo Jima (2006)

Thu. 26th : Doctor Zhivago (1965)

Blu-ray.

Adjusted for inflation this is one of the top grossing films of all time, yet is barely in the film conversation. Capping off the incredible run of The Bridge on the River Kwai, Lawrence of Arabia and then this, director David Lean meticulously crafts another screen epic in all senses of the word. The visuals and photography are stunning, all underpinned by another frequently repeated Maurice Jarre musical score. The 3 hour 20 minute long story is set in Russia before and during WW1, and then into the Feb / Oct Revolutions and Russian Civil War. It is a heavily romantic odyssey about Zhivago and Lara, two Russians thrown together and repeatedly separated by the turbulent political era. The cast is vast: Rod Steiger, Omar Sharif, Julie Christie and, being Lean, Alec Guiness as the man narrating the events. The twinkly eyed Sharif makes for a compelling Zhivago and Julie Christie is a revelation as Lara, largely because I have only seen her with a Cockney accent in McCabe and Mrs Miller. Yes the length is formidable (20 minutes shorter than Lawrence though!) but it is hard not to get swept up in it all. Do not come for a history lesson because you aren't going to get one. Do not come for big scale action because that is sparse. Come to see a master director working with a monolithic canvas and how titanic spectacle can be created without computer effects.

Also check out: Brief Encounter (1945)

Environmentalists in Cinema: Why are they always the baddies?

As Covid 19 sweeps the globe and halts the world's economy, now is probably not the best time to watch films where the villain is an environmentalist. As devastating as this virus is, I am still of the mindset that it was needed. We have always seen the biggest threat to the human race being other humans but nature has stepped in to prove that we are not as invincible as we thought, and the rampant interconnectedness between countries has only shown our vulnerable we are. The excessive consumption of resources and heavy pollution is depleting our planet and radicalising our climate. And so comes along the coronavirus; a respiratory pandemic that has halted Earth. The lack of flights and travel has lowered carbon dioxide emissions drastically whilst animals are returning to habitats that previously were off-limits due to the heavy sound and land / water pollution (dolphins in Italy etc.) There is no denying that, in the grand scheme of things, the virus has lessened the human impact of climate change for the better.  And yet this mindset, combined with the belief that there are simply too many people inhabiting this planet and are consuming too much, leads to the labeling of one as a super villain. But why? And why is Hollywood, home of the super villain, so bad at misrepresenting extreme environmentalists? 

The need to preserve a natural order has been illustrated in numerous films from Princess Mononoke to Avatar. But they are also relatively people-centric. In the last five or so years the aim to restore a natural order to things are predominantly found in antagonists. 

In 2015's Kingsman: The Secret Service, spies Taron Egerton and Colin Firth are tasked with stopping Samuel L Jackson's Richmond Valentine, who uses SIM cards to kill millions of people with the dream of ridding the planet of as much of the human race as possible. "Mankind ith a viruth. And I'm the cure," he states. Climate change is addressed in the film, with Firth's Harry saying that it is past remedy. But surely Valentine gets points for trying, even if it is grossly immoral? In spy movie fashion, our heroes win and the human race is saved. Except the planet is not. 

In 2018 we had perhaps the most popular example of it yet in the almighty Thanos, the antagonist (or protoganist if you look at the film's structure) of Avengers Infinity War. Thanos' backstory is this: his homeworld Titan was once plentiful, but his people overconsumed and it led to famine and chaos. Thanos proposed killing half the inhabitants so that there were more resources and space to go around, thereby preserving the planet and his people. He was ignored, and his people died. Not wanting this to be the future of the universe, the Mad Titan seeks the Infinity Stones so he can eliminate half of all life forms on every planet ever. The genius of Infinity War is that he succeeds. In the final few minutes we see 50% of people dissolving into nothing painlessly before Thanos sits alone at peace. Not only is he correct in the problems of consuming too much and growing too quickly, but his execution is pretty spot on too: it is random and fair. But the problem comes with Avengers Endgame in 2019 which inevitably retcons all the death, bringing everyone back. The problem? They are brought back to a universe five years on. If you imagine a husband dissolving and leaving his wife alone, and then in that five year gap the wife finds a new man and has children with him, when the original husband and maybe a child or two are brought back, you suddenly have more people than when you started. So the irony in this film is that whilst the heroes succeeded, they actually contributed to the resources and population problem that started Thanos' journey.

And finally, 2018's ridiculous Aquaman also alerts its audiences to the mass pollution of the oceans by humans; namely the fuel and plastic that are mercilessly dumped into the waters. The villain wants to rise up from the sea and take out humanity because of this whilst our half human, half Atlantean titular hero comes along as a representation of the bridge that can be made between the two sides. Aquaman becomes King of Atlantis at the end and we are supposed to be happy. Is there an environmental message to the film beyond pointing things out? No. And it isn't hard either. 

Take Black Panther for instance. The antagonist, Kilmonger, is outraged that black people are repressed around the world whilst Wakanda's technological and financial power remains hidden from the world; assets that could change African American fortunes. But Kilmonger wants to use that power to conquer, meaning he has to be stopped. However, T'Challa the Black Panther takes this on board at the film's conclusion: he does open up to the world and offers his resources because he has learnt a lesson from his antagonist and by ignoring that plight, it opens the doorway for more Kilmongers to come. All it took was a little scene. 

Now I wouldn't overwhelmingly change any of those films' plot points, but they all required just one scene at the end to show that the heroes did listen and are aware of some of these environmental concerns. Blockbusters, especially superhero films, have huge family audiences that are ripe to be educated and informed. Our heroes need to be as associated with environmentalism as the bad guys, and then some. Maybe it is because those in Hollywood don't see their own wealth and consumption as bad and are therefore ignorant to such plights or maybe it is because the writers are too scared to propose softer solutions to the aforementioned issues, but either way if you are going to raise topics and problems that affect the modern world, you need to have an answer for them. And extreme environmentalism should not be always linked to megalomaniacs. 

The Tony Scott x Gene Hackman Double Bill I Didn't Know I Needed

It is hard to find a better feeling than monging out on a sofa or bed, Stella Artois in hand, a bowl of Pringles in your lap and smiling to yourself as you watch an incredibly entertaining film that you are fully invested in. I had these back to back this weekend with two films that beautifully compliment one another.

The first is Crimson Tide, directed by Tony Scott. This not only solidified 1995 as a blooming entertaining year but also how much I enjoy Scott's style. Whilst his brother Ridley favours more precise, money-shot based photography as well as balancing philosophical or literary themes, Tony goes for sensation. His camera is quick and the pacing rapid, offering repeated adrenaline rushes. True Romance is a fantastically re-watchable blast and Top Gun is pure cheese, but Crimson Tide goes for sheer thrills and atmosphere. Denzel Washington (Scott's muse) is Ron Hunter, the second in command of a nuclear submarine. He is cautious and crew-orientated. His captain is Gene Hackman's Frank Ramsey, the polar opposite. Orders are final, morale comes second and his pet Jack Russell is everything. Inevitably the two personalities repeatedly clash as nuclear orders come through, but then are followed by a half-intercepted message that could either say launch or not launch. It not only creates sizzling tension among the crew but also makes the audience decide on the best course of action. The two men get so wrapped up in it that there is a look in Gene Hackman's eyes that shows how he wants to launch the nuclear weaponry just to prove Hunter wrong. The claustrophobia of a submarine is palpable; trapped low in the sea with hot heads and world ending missiles. The torpedo sequences are as exhilarating as the mutinies and arguments, whilst pre-Aragorn Viggo Mortenson gets a particularly tense dilemma towards the climax. Washington and Hackman are superb. Hackman does the angry, self-assured leader so well that though it may be type-casting sometimes, its welcome type-casting. And as Hans Zimmer's score swells throughout (with a whiff of Pirates of the Caribbean) it is impossible to not be fully *ahem* on board with it. Blockbusters with an eye for character and character conflict as well as awesome action are just a joy. 

With the beer refilled and my lips tingling from excessive salt and vinegar, I followed swiftly with my next Tony Scott 90s film: Enemy of the State. This 1998 thriller sees Will Smith at the peak of his powers and, again, Gene Hackman as the other half in a duo that takes an hour to form. Paying homage to 1974's The Conversation (a more contained Hackman performance), Enemy of the State sees Will Smith's lawyer caught up in a National Security Agency chase when an incriminating tape ends up in his possession. Ostracised through a smear campaign, Smith's Robert Dean teams up with seasoned surveillance man Brill Lyle (Hackman) to clear himself and expose the villainous government officials led by Jon Voight and including Jack Black. It is filled with satellite and CCTV photography, as well as all the 80s and 90s techie dialogue you would expect. Scott crafts a great sense of paranoia and government ubiquity and despite how much movement across Washington DC there is, it feels very claustrophobic because of this. This is why the companionship with Crimson Tide works: the tight geography of a submarine evolves into the tight geographical of the city where the powers that be always have eyes on everyone. There is no escape in either. Smith is ultra charismatic and believable, stammering his way through buying lingerie etc. Hackman takes a while to show up but, in a referential or continual performance of his Conversation character he is excellent. Their argumentative chemistry is a joy, and Hackman drops f-bombs with relish. It is less an angry role and more a tough and wizened role. He is likable and clever, but can also be a dick. And in the sequences set away from government eyes and ears there is brief catharsis; a blip in the otherwise perpetual paranoia. Another complimentary comparison between the two is that Hackman's Jack Russell in Crimson Tide becomes a cute ginger cat in Enemy of the State. Yes, the latter raises questions on surveillance, privacy and civil rights and is ahead of its time in that regard, but it is pure escapism and fun. Scott is a kinetic director interested in giving audiences a thrilling time and with a belly full of hops and crisps, these are two quintessential Friday night films. 

The Decline of Superhero Cinema: Is it on?

Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) was released in cinemas a few weeks ago, to a very weak box office. It accumulated $33 million in the US in its opening; the kind of numbers you expect from a mid-budget, well received film rather than a tentpole superhero film. And whilst Birds of Prey may have a much smaller budget than most others in the genre, it was undoubtedly a dismaying figure for the Warner Bros. executives. It raises that controversial topic whether superhero and comic book movies are in decline or if there is 'supehero fatigue'. 

Perhaps I am writing this prematurely, because the critical and commercial success of superhero films this year will be the deciding answer. The 2010s will go down as THE decade for comic book films. Whilst the 00s laid the groundwork for special effects, storytelling and tone, the last ten years cranked it all up. Audiences witnessed shared universes, characters referencing other characters, superhero films in the guise of heist, spy and comedy films and admittedly it was satisfying to see a lot of these elements come together well. 2019 saw Avengers: Endgame smash its way to becoming the highest grossing film of all time, ending eleven years of storytelling and pay off with a fan-friendly epic. It waved goodbye to two of the decades most quintessential characters (Iron Man and Captain America) and effectively left a clean slate. The last MCU film released was Spider-man: Far From Home in July 2019. It cracked a billion worldwide with ease and was largely well reviewed. But the marketing of that film labelled it as an epilogue; a final chapter in the story that had to be seen. It was clever marketing on Marvel's part and in many ways it did close the Tony Stark arc. The next Marvel picture is Black Widow in May. It is hard to predict how well this film will do because it suffers from a basic problem: the story is set before Infinity War and Endgame and the lead character was last seen dead in the latter film. It begs the question: what is the point of seeing this film? If it was worthwhile to the character and overall story one would have thought that Kevin Feige would have cranked this one out sooner rather then delaying it so that it now feels like an apology for all the fans who demanded Black Widow's own film since the first Avengers. There is an online apathy towards it; a sort of 'I will catch it on Blu-ray / Disney +'  due to the fact it cannot exactly be spoiled. I would be surprised if it broke past $800 million worldwide. 

The second Marvel film of the year is The Eternals in November. There is no trailer for it as yet and it is an unknown property so it is impossible to comment on it other than to the general audience, there is no awareness of it. This will be the interesting one; the first MCU film set properly after Endgame (Spider-man was directly affected by that movie's events). It raises the question of where the film series will head next: what the new goal is. Because this is where the franchise could struggle; the Infinity Saga had clear momentum and direction with nearly all the films being billed as important to the overarching threads. Not having this could cause the MCU to collapse with audiences only going to see the characters they are familiar with. In an age where getting people to go to the cinema is proving increasingly hard, Feige and co need a strategy. And with nothing big to lead up to, the ticket buyers will just be asking 'what is the point then?' With The Eternals it is even more impossible to gage how well it will do: will it break out through word of mouth like Guardians of the Galaxy? Or will it have big Civil War level drop offs? 

If we move away from the MCU and focus on the other big superhero pictures of the year, then the argument that superhero cinema is declining continues to be more apparent. The DCEU launches its hopes with Wonder Woman 1984 in June. The delayed sequel to the very successful 2017 hit is looking like one of the summer's biggest hits, by default of it being a weak looking year. The first one received a big boost from the media making it out as a socially groundbreaking film due to its female lead. It also benefited from its lack of connections to other superhero films, operating firmly as its own story. It crossed $800 million worldwide with half of that from America. Anticipation seems reasonably high; the trailer was well received and the character is always the strongest part of each film she has starred in. But again, where is it leading? The DCEU established a universe where the characters all met up, but now is doing its best to undo that and focus on solo stories. And whilst Wonder Woman and Aquaman proved wildly successful, you have to ask how long can they go on for until they have to start pairing the characters up again. 

Then there is the X-Men. 20th Century Fox launched X-men in 2000 and the series has largely stayed alive for twenty years, even if the majority are pretty weak films. The high point for the main series was the deftly handled Days of Future Past (2014) and then 2017's Logan earned its place at the top end of most loved superhero films. It was an emotional sendoff to an iconic character that remained grounded, heartfelt and earned. But then came along Deadpool with the R rating, universal audience acclaim and satirical tone. It kept Fox's X-men films alive by taking the piss out of them. But now that seems under threat due to Disney's acquisition of Fox. The chances of another R rated Deadpool film seem slim, and the thought of adding Ryan Reynolds to a PG-13 Marvel superhero film is akin to putting John Wick in a Pixar film: you lose what is great. Last year saw Dark Phoenix become a catastrophic bomb, ending the series on an abysmal note. In April we are at long last treated to The New Mutants, a film that  I think I saw a trailer for back in October 2017. This is not going to make much money and it will either be good or awful. So I think it is fair to say that the X-Men brand is dead. The Gambit film will never happen and maybe X-Force might not happen. A franchise that endured for twenty years has been lost. 

A fourth studio/series is Sony. Sony has two films this year: Morbius with Jared Leto and Venom 2. The weak trailer and lack of interest in the character of Morbius points to disappointing box office receipts already (as well as the post-Joker dislike towards Jared Leto). Venom 2 I do think could work. If they focus on an R rating and fix the problems the first film had then they could be onto something. Woody Harrelson is Carnage and Andy Serkis is directing so there is room for much improvement. But where is this new series leading to? A Tom Holland Spidey vs Tom Hardy Venom would be pretty cool to witness but there is no sign as to what Sony is scheming. 

Ultimately it may come down to a weak year for tentpole superhero films and 2021 (with Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, Doctor Strange 2, Spider-man 3, The Suicide Squad, Thor 3 and THE BATMAN all coming out) may perhaps be a better year to reflect on due to the bigger brands being released. My hope is on The Batman. 

But on the flip side, if the box office of superhero films take a hit this year, and if the more ambitious and original projects like Tenet, Dune, The French Dispatch and Soul do really well, we could be treated to more original movies again. So maybe the likes of Marvel and DC should quit whilst they are ahead (well Marvel anyway).