Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Miami Vice (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In 1984 a show arrived on NBC that instantly became a media sensation and set new standards for television dramas, as well as for music and fashion as it soon became a cultural icon.
The show was Miami Vice, and up until the final episode in 1989, legions of viewers tuned in every Friday night for a heady mix of action, music, color, and sex making series stars Philip Michael Thomas and Don Johnson some of the most identified and emulated celebrities in the world.
As time passed, the fickle television audience cooled on the show and it passed to television history, but not before leaving an indelible mark upon pop culture as to this day, the mere mention of the show unleashes a flood of memories and images from fans the world over.
Now close to two decades after the show went off the air, the creative talent behind the show, Michael Mann, has unleashed a cinematic version of his hit series, and it has arrived awash in the trademark neon colors, action, and style that made the series such a hit.
This time out, Oscar winner Jaime Foxx and Colin Farrell are Tubs and Crockett respectively, and they soon find themselves deep undercover posing as drug runners while trying to get to the bottom of a leak inside one of the law enforcement agencies. As troublesome as the leak, is, the fact that leaked information caused the deaths of undercover agents, by suspected white supremacists armed with the latest in high tech weaponry.
The deadly game of cloak and dagger unfolds as Tubbs and Crockett find themselves deep into a major criminal organization, and to add to the tension, Crockett finds himself drawn to an attractive member of the organization (Li Gong), who “belongs” to the head of the criminal plot.
As the plot unfolds, the danger of being discovered as well as becoming lost in the parts they are playing becomes a growing danger for Tubbs and Crockett, as they not only battle to keep their cover, but to stay alive and protect those closest to them.
The film has a plot that is a bit muddled at first, but like the world in which Tubbs and Crockett find themselves, there are not always clearly defines parameters as well as individuals. As simplistic as the basic plot may seem, the varying layers of characters, locales, and motivations keeps Miami Vice, a changing mystery, yet one that is lacking tension and deep drama.
The first hour of the film plods along with plenty of sex and setup, but surprisingly little action. I noted that there were five scenes of sex, and at least two more implied sex scenes before one of the lead characters even fired a weapon, which surprisingly came at 1 Hour and 40 minutes into the film.
While the film may take a while to get to the action, when it does come, it is surprisingly effective without falling victim to the usual Hollywood Traps of numerous gigantic explosions, car chases, stunts, and an abundance of C.G.I.
The violence in the film is also very graphic as there are numerous headshots, as well as splatter moments and gaping exit wounds. Despite this, it does not seem gratuitous but rather realistic as it portrays the brutality of the characters as well as the world in which they live and work.
The surprisingly effective finale confrontation satisfies and like any good director, Mann knows when to pull back, and when to go full out, without letting the action dominate the characters and the story.
Farrell and Foxx do a solid job with their characters without having the luxury of a deep back story. Mann’s script takes the approach that the viewers will know the characters and their history and omits things like Crockett’s ex wife, son, houseboat and pet alligator Elvis.
While this may seem trivial for a film that is over two hours in length, it does provide viewers with a better understanding of the characters and their actions and motivations, which I hope will be fully explored should a second film in the series be made.
That being said, despite the long setup, and a somewhat muddles plot, Miami Vice is a stylish and refreshing film, that should entertain fans of the original show.
The show was Miami Vice, and up until the final episode in 1989, legions of viewers tuned in every Friday night for a heady mix of action, music, color, and sex making series stars Philip Michael Thomas and Don Johnson some of the most identified and emulated celebrities in the world.
As time passed, the fickle television audience cooled on the show and it passed to television history, but not before leaving an indelible mark upon pop culture as to this day, the mere mention of the show unleashes a flood of memories and images from fans the world over.
Now close to two decades after the show went off the air, the creative talent behind the show, Michael Mann, has unleashed a cinematic version of his hit series, and it has arrived awash in the trademark neon colors, action, and style that made the series such a hit.
This time out, Oscar winner Jaime Foxx and Colin Farrell are Tubs and Crockett respectively, and they soon find themselves deep undercover posing as drug runners while trying to get to the bottom of a leak inside one of the law enforcement agencies. As troublesome as the leak, is, the fact that leaked information caused the deaths of undercover agents, by suspected white supremacists armed with the latest in high tech weaponry.
The deadly game of cloak and dagger unfolds as Tubbs and Crockett find themselves deep into a major criminal organization, and to add to the tension, Crockett finds himself drawn to an attractive member of the organization (Li Gong), who “belongs” to the head of the criminal plot.
As the plot unfolds, the danger of being discovered as well as becoming lost in the parts they are playing becomes a growing danger for Tubbs and Crockett, as they not only battle to keep their cover, but to stay alive and protect those closest to them.
The film has a plot that is a bit muddled at first, but like the world in which Tubbs and Crockett find themselves, there are not always clearly defines parameters as well as individuals. As simplistic as the basic plot may seem, the varying layers of characters, locales, and motivations keeps Miami Vice, a changing mystery, yet one that is lacking tension and deep drama.
The first hour of the film plods along with plenty of sex and setup, but surprisingly little action. I noted that there were five scenes of sex, and at least two more implied sex scenes before one of the lead characters even fired a weapon, which surprisingly came at 1 Hour and 40 minutes into the film.
While the film may take a while to get to the action, when it does come, it is surprisingly effective without falling victim to the usual Hollywood Traps of numerous gigantic explosions, car chases, stunts, and an abundance of C.G.I.
The violence in the film is also very graphic as there are numerous headshots, as well as splatter moments and gaping exit wounds. Despite this, it does not seem gratuitous but rather realistic as it portrays the brutality of the characters as well as the world in which they live and work.
The surprisingly effective finale confrontation satisfies and like any good director, Mann knows when to pull back, and when to go full out, without letting the action dominate the characters and the story.
Farrell and Foxx do a solid job with their characters without having the luxury of a deep back story. Mann’s script takes the approach that the viewers will know the characters and their history and omits things like Crockett’s ex wife, son, houseboat and pet alligator Elvis.
While this may seem trivial for a film that is over two hours in length, it does provide viewers with a better understanding of the characters and their actions and motivations, which I hope will be fully explored should a second film in the series be made.
That being said, despite the long setup, and a somewhat muddles plot, Miami Vice is a stylish and refreshing film, that should entertain fans of the original show.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Book Club (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A book club without a spine.
Let’s be clear before we start; I am NOT in the demographic that this film is aimed at. And judging from the general reactions of the cinema audience I shared this with – 90%+ of who were women aged over 50 – my views are NOT going to necessarily reflect the general view, since there seemed to be quite a few satisfied customers in the audience. But my personal view would be, if you’re going to make a light-hearted comedy aimed at the lucrative silver pound, then at least make it a good one. For this – for me – felt like 50 shades of lame.
The action – if we can stretch the use of English that far – revolves around the four middle-class white ladies (this film challenges neither class nor racial divides) who meet periodically with copious quantities of wine and goat-cheese stuffed tomatoes to discuss a book. Hotel owner Vivian (Jane Fonda, “Klute”, “On Golden Pond”) is making lots of love but is reluctant to commit to it herself; Diane (Diane Keaton, “”Annie Hall”, “Something’s Gotta Give”) is recently widowed and struggling against being pigeon-holed as an ‘old duffer’ by her two daughters; Sharon (Candice Bergen, “Soldier Blue”, “Miss Congeniality”) has devoted her life to her career as a high court judge at the expense of a physical relationship (“What happens to a vagina that hasn’t been used in 18 years?!”); and Carol (Mary Steenburgen (“Back to the Future Part III”) is in a sexless marriage with her recently retired husband Bruce (Craig T Nelson, “Get Hard“, “Poltergeist”).
Vivian introduces the book club to “50 Shades of Grey” and the book influences everyone’s lives in different ways.
What ensues is 100 minutes of double entendres (“You have a lethargic pussy” says a veterinarian… you get the level) as the four separate stories (bump and) grind towards their separate conclusions. There are one or too laugh-out-loud moments but the majority of the screenplay is merely smile-worthy: “Mostly harmless” as Douglas Adams would have said.
What IS good, which is the reason my rating won’t have a “1” in it, is that it does give a reason to see some of our more senior actors and actresses strut their stuff again on the main stage.
In terms of the lead performances, while Steenburgen is good, it is Candice Bergen who impresses most as a fine comic actress. More please! Fonda and Don Johnson (“Miami Vice”) were supposed to be a hot couple, but their acting to me appeared false and their chemistry non-existent: did they have a fight outside the trailer every morning? And Diane Keaton was… well… Diane Keaton: the ditzy old hippy shtick wore a bit thin for me by the end.
We also have appearances from the great Andy Garcia (“The Godfather Part III”, “Oceans 11”), Wallace Shawn (just SOOooo good as the sleazy mob lawyer in “The Good Wife/Fight”) and (best of all) Richard Dreyfuss (“Jaws”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”). Dreyfuss has merely a cameo, but I was just longing for more of his character.
Alicia Silverstone (“Clueless”, “Batman & Robin”) even turns up, but her character (together with her sister played by Katie Aselton) is so annoying and vacuous that it’s not easy to warm to her.
A standout – but not in a good way – is the special effects, with some of the dodgiest green screen work I’ve seen in many a year. Think “North by Northwest” quality….. but that’s nearly 60 years old!
So, it’s not a film I would run to see again, but I’m not going to pan it completely, since if you are of the demographic that enjoys such films, you may really enjoy this one. It reminds me somewhat of “It’s Complicated” – and that’s one of my wife’s personal favourites! It also addresses some key topics that will be of relevance to a senior audience, not normally addressed by movies: male impotence resulting from self-doubt; the need to keep a young and ever-inquiring mind; and the good times to be had by getting out and back in the game again after bereavement (yes, you know who you are and you know I’m addressing YOU here!).
The action – if we can stretch the use of English that far – revolves around the four middle-class white ladies (this film challenges neither class nor racial divides) who meet periodically with copious quantities of wine and goat-cheese stuffed tomatoes to discuss a book. Hotel owner Vivian (Jane Fonda, “Klute”, “On Golden Pond”) is making lots of love but is reluctant to commit to it herself; Diane (Diane Keaton, “”Annie Hall”, “Something’s Gotta Give”) is recently widowed and struggling against being pigeon-holed as an ‘old duffer’ by her two daughters; Sharon (Candice Bergen, “Soldier Blue”, “Miss Congeniality”) has devoted her life to her career as a high court judge at the expense of a physical relationship (“What happens to a vagina that hasn’t been used in 18 years?!”); and Carol (Mary Steenburgen (“Back to the Future Part III”) is in a sexless marriage with her recently retired husband Bruce (Craig T Nelson, “Get Hard“, “Poltergeist”).
Vivian introduces the book club to “50 Shades of Grey” and the book influences everyone’s lives in different ways.
What ensues is 100 minutes of double entendres (“You have a lethargic pussy” says a veterinarian… you get the level) as the four separate stories (bump and) grind towards their separate conclusions. There are one or too laugh-out-loud moments but the majority of the screenplay is merely smile-worthy: “Mostly harmless” as Douglas Adams would have said.
What IS good, which is the reason my rating won’t have a “1” in it, is that it does give a reason to see some of our more senior actors and actresses strut their stuff again on the main stage.
In terms of the lead performances, while Steenburgen is good, it is Candice Bergen who impresses most as a fine comic actress. More please! Fonda and Don Johnson (“Miami Vice”) were supposed to be a hot couple, but their acting to me appeared false and their chemistry non-existent: did they have a fight outside the trailer every morning? And Diane Keaton was… well… Diane Keaton: the ditzy old hippy shtick wore a bit thin for me by the end.
We also have appearances from the great Andy Garcia (“The Godfather Part III”, “Oceans 11”), Wallace Shawn (just SOOooo good as the sleazy mob lawyer in “The Good Wife/Fight”) and (best of all) Richard Dreyfuss (“Jaws”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”). Dreyfuss has merely a cameo, but I was just longing for more of his character.
Alicia Silverstone (“Clueless”, “Batman & Robin”) even turns up, but her character (together with her sister played by Katie Aselton) is so annoying and vacuous that it’s not easy to warm to her.
A standout – but not in a good way – is the special effects, with some of the dodgiest green screen work I’ve seen in many a year. Think “North by Northwest” quality….. but that’s nearly 60 years old!
So, it’s not a film I would run to see again, but I’m not going to pan it completely, since if you are of the demographic that enjoys such films, you may really enjoy this one. It reminds me somewhat of “It’s Complicated” – and that’s one of my wife’s personal favourites! It also addresses some key topics that will be of relevance to a senior audience, not normally addressed by movies: male impotence resulting from self-doubt; the need to keep a young and ever-inquiring mind; and the good times to be had by getting out and back in the game again after bereavement (yes, you know who you are and you know I’m addressing YOU here!).
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Django Unchained (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Writer-director Quentin Tarantino has returned in a big way with “Django Unchained” his homage to spaghetti Westerns. The film stars Jamie Foxx as a slave named Django who is part of a convoy of slaves being transported through Texas two years before the start of the Civil War. Django is unaware that his life is about to take a monumental turn when his caravan encounters Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) one dark evening. Schultz wishes to purchase Django, and when his current owners make the mistake of threatening the good doctor, he quickly turns the table on them and sets Django and his fellow slaves free. Schultz reveals to Django that he is in fact a bounty hunter and needs him to help identify three potential targets. Since Django last lived at the plantation where the three targets worked as overseers, he is essential to Schultz’s hunt. Schultz offers to free Django and pay him $75.00 for his assistance and the duo set off on their mission.
Some truly action-packed and hysterical scenes later, Schultz realizes that Django is an absolute natural for the business and decides to take him on for the winter as an assistant, even going so far as to offer to share one third of his bounties with them. In return, Schultz also offers to help Django reclaim his wife who was sold to a plantation somewhere in Tennessee. Schultz rationalizes that to show up now would be extremely dangerous, therefore the duo must wait out the winter earning money before embarking on their rescue mission.
The hard work of the team pays off and they learn that Django’s wife has been sold to one of the largest plantations under the ownership of Calvin Candie (Leonardo di Caprio), a despotic plantation owner who is as greedy as he is cruel. Despite having more money than he could ever use, Calvin likes to force certain members of his slaves to fight to the death. Schultz and Django decide to use this angle as their chance to get close to Calvin so they can verify that Django’s wife is indeed at the plantation and determine what it will take to buy or obtain her freedom. This proves to be no easy task as not only is Calvin surrounded by an army hired guns, but he also has a very surly and suspicious head of a household named Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson), eyeing every move that the strangers make and questioning their actions.
What follows is a hyperkinetic storm of violence, fury, music, and color in the true Tarantino style. The director is never one to shy away from blood and violence and there are tons of it in the film. The amazing thing about it is despite being graphic and, in some cases, borderline gratuitous, it does not distract from the enjoyment of the film and its characters. The performances were absolutely amazing, especially the work of Waltz, Foxx, and diCaprio. Jackson also does very solid supporting work as does Don Johnson in his appearance as an uber-racist plantation owner. Waltz worked previously with Tarantino on “Inglorious Bastards”, and this is where the Austrian actor really gained notice by Hollywood. This time out he gives a captivating performance as the complex killer with a heart of gold.
While I understand Tarantino’s style is not for everybody, it’s hard not to be impressed with the way he is able to paint a picture, fill it with interesting and quirky characters, and quickly tear it all apart as things descend into utter chaos and destruction. You alternate between laughing, cheering, and being shocked all the way through the film’s nearly three-hour runtime. Yet rarely did the film ever seem to drag on unnecessarily. There was some loss of pacing as the characters converged on Calvin’s plantation, and some may question some of the character changes or gaps in logic in the film’s finale.
I believe this film is one of the best films of the year. It captured so much of what an action film and drama should have: interesting, complex and well-acted characters, a good story, and plenty of action. Those who are easily offended will want to take note that the language in the film is extremely rough and there is frequent uses of racials lurs, as well is derogatory comments made about the black characters in the film. While this is intended to show the mindset and lifestyle of the 1860s in which the film is set, some may find it unsettling if they go in unprepared.
That being said I can honestly say that this was the most enjoyable Tarantino film I have ever seen and could be his best work to date.
Some truly action-packed and hysterical scenes later, Schultz realizes that Django is an absolute natural for the business and decides to take him on for the winter as an assistant, even going so far as to offer to share one third of his bounties with them. In return, Schultz also offers to help Django reclaim his wife who was sold to a plantation somewhere in Tennessee. Schultz rationalizes that to show up now would be extremely dangerous, therefore the duo must wait out the winter earning money before embarking on their rescue mission.
The hard work of the team pays off and they learn that Django’s wife has been sold to one of the largest plantations under the ownership of Calvin Candie (Leonardo di Caprio), a despotic plantation owner who is as greedy as he is cruel. Despite having more money than he could ever use, Calvin likes to force certain members of his slaves to fight to the death. Schultz and Django decide to use this angle as their chance to get close to Calvin so they can verify that Django’s wife is indeed at the plantation and determine what it will take to buy or obtain her freedom. This proves to be no easy task as not only is Calvin surrounded by an army hired guns, but he also has a very surly and suspicious head of a household named Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson), eyeing every move that the strangers make and questioning their actions.
What follows is a hyperkinetic storm of violence, fury, music, and color in the true Tarantino style. The director is never one to shy away from blood and violence and there are tons of it in the film. The amazing thing about it is despite being graphic and, in some cases, borderline gratuitous, it does not distract from the enjoyment of the film and its characters. The performances were absolutely amazing, especially the work of Waltz, Foxx, and diCaprio. Jackson also does very solid supporting work as does Don Johnson in his appearance as an uber-racist plantation owner. Waltz worked previously with Tarantino on “Inglorious Bastards”, and this is where the Austrian actor really gained notice by Hollywood. This time out he gives a captivating performance as the complex killer with a heart of gold.
While I understand Tarantino’s style is not for everybody, it’s hard not to be impressed with the way he is able to paint a picture, fill it with interesting and quirky characters, and quickly tear it all apart as things descend into utter chaos and destruction. You alternate between laughing, cheering, and being shocked all the way through the film’s nearly three-hour runtime. Yet rarely did the film ever seem to drag on unnecessarily. There was some loss of pacing as the characters converged on Calvin’s plantation, and some may question some of the character changes or gaps in logic in the film’s finale.
I believe this film is one of the best films of the year. It captured so much of what an action film and drama should have: interesting, complex and well-acted characters, a good story, and plenty of action. Those who are easily offended will want to take note that the language in the film is extremely rough and there is frequent uses of racials lurs, as well is derogatory comments made about the black characters in the film. While this is intended to show the mindset and lifestyle of the 1860s in which the film is set, some may find it unsettling if they go in unprepared.
That being said I can honestly say that this was the most enjoyable Tarantino film I have ever seen and could be his best work to date.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Knives Out (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Murder mystery films tend to be more fun in theory and anticipation than they are to watch. It’s a genre that I very much enjoy and have indulged in over the years. Yet, if I look back in detail at it, I find that it is the books, especially those of Agatha Christie, that I like much more than anything lasting a couple of hours on the screen. There’s something about the mystery being rushed and squeezed into the cinema artform that is usually anti-climactic or even a full on let down.
Perhaps my favourite of the entire genre is a film that refuses to take itself seriously and is at once a pastiche of the multiple cliches that have accumulated over the years. And that film is, of course, the wonderfully camp, funny and charming 1985 romp Clue, starring Tim Curry and a slough of 80s B stars having the time of their lives. It isn’t a “good” film, it is a cult film, it’s joy being in its absolute lack of pretension or moral judgement. Like the board game that inspired it, it isn’t overly complicated or long, but has just enough cleverness, mirth and ambiance about it to always be a winner.
Rian Johnson’s take on the genre, Knives Out, is aware of these elements at all times, being above all things colourful, playful, arch and glib, but never convoluted or cerebral in an alienating way. He is something of a master at subverting a genre and wringing new life into it; take the invention of the teen noir in Brick, or the blend of assassin time travel sci-fi in Looper. He even gave an entire franchise a new breath of life by re-examining the use of humour and self referencing in Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
All of those previous films have as many detractors as mega fans, proving his style is devisive, for its audacity and its irreverence towards any idea of purism within an established model. And Knives Out is no exception to that. However, it may be the film of his that most people can agree on that they enjoyed, for one reason or another. I think it’s as interesting to ask why that is as it is to talk about the film itself… so, I will. At least, I’ll try to do both without losing my train of thought.
Firstly, it looks stunning; the palate of rich colours used in the poster and all marketing just make it look like something you want to immerse yourself in – every jacket, tie, dress, or piece of furniture is designed to precision, and it works like a dream of the genre you may have once had, as if it had been plucked directly from your subconscious. As in all good murder mysteries, the location, props and costumes should hold as much character as the actors, and the stately home of the Thrombey family certainly provides plenty of atmosphere in every texture and material on display.
Of course, the cast of characters is wonderfully put together with some inspired casting of familiar faces and actors you trust, such as Toni Collette and Michael Shannon, together with a few we don’t see enough of these days, such as Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson, who both manage to create something as memorable as anything they did in their golden days. Add to the mix two bone fide action film superstars in Daniel Craig and Chris Evans, who leave the baggage of their most famous characters far behind and manage to convince you they are real actors again, the former with the aide of a jarring but hilarious Southern drawl, that grates at first but is a perfect choice on reflection.
Then there are the two lynchpins of this film’s ultimate success and joy: the exceptional legendary gravitas of 90 year old Christopher Plummer as the patriarch and victim at the centre of the intrigue, and the quite glorious revelation of Ana de Armas, whose charisma, beauty and skill in this delicately balanced role was the most impressive thing for me about the whole production. It may be Craig who is the ever present focus, as the detective tasked with solving the “crime”, but it is de Armas that you will remember most long after the credits roll.
As for the plot, well… I obviously can’t talk about it without ruining the whole thing. But, I can say that it isn’t far into the intricate web of motives, alibis and secrets before you start to sense this is going somewhere different, even unique. The examination of the relationships and personalities, and the extent to which they each demonstrate greed and selfishness is fascinating, superceding the crime that exists on the surface with a swamp of far seedier and unpleasant goings-on. Craig’s suave Benoit Blanc isn’t so much a detective here as a family therapist, or perhaps a supernatural presence in the style of the old classic, An Inspector Calls. Perhaps, it is suggested, no one completely escapes guilt and shame here… or do they? Are we looking for a murderer, or the only morally good person amidst a pack of dogs?
Another key element is how modern and unstuffy it feels, despite the country house and riches this is no play of manners, quite the opposite – no one here is on their best behaviour for the sake of decorum, and being upper class is an idea played with rather than enforced. The tea and cakes of the classic Christie, such as Murder on the Orient Express is replaced by smartphones and similar trappings, that identify it as definitely 2019 and no period piece. The concerns and themes are very much rooted in our present problems, and for that it engages and resonates in ways a costume drama just can’t do.
Upon finishing it for the first time, you may be thinking “sure, OK, I enjoyed that… but I’m not blown away here”. Then, as it sinks in over coming weeks, you find yourself recommending it to people, and thinking about how good it is in ways you didn’t initially think about. And that is surely why it was so embraced by the critics and paying public alike; it is a likeable, fun film, that can also stand some artistic scrutiny. It isn’t the smartest, or prettiest, or most meaningful film ever made, but it is enough of all three to make it an instant mini-classic, in my opinion.
I feel like there is maybe more to say about it, which is always a good sign, but that will do for now. I’d be happy to discuss it with anyone that feels the need. Or hear from anyone that didn’t like it! It would be interesting to hear that side of it, because I haven’t heard many negative comments on it at all. I don’t think I would defend it as a masterpiece to the end of the Earth, ‘cos it ain’t that good. I’m just hard pressed to find a serious fault. And it’s great when one of those sneaks up on you!
Perhaps my favourite of the entire genre is a film that refuses to take itself seriously and is at once a pastiche of the multiple cliches that have accumulated over the years. And that film is, of course, the wonderfully camp, funny and charming 1985 romp Clue, starring Tim Curry and a slough of 80s B stars having the time of their lives. It isn’t a “good” film, it is a cult film, it’s joy being in its absolute lack of pretension or moral judgement. Like the board game that inspired it, it isn’t overly complicated or long, but has just enough cleverness, mirth and ambiance about it to always be a winner.
Rian Johnson’s take on the genre, Knives Out, is aware of these elements at all times, being above all things colourful, playful, arch and glib, but never convoluted or cerebral in an alienating way. He is something of a master at subverting a genre and wringing new life into it; take the invention of the teen noir in Brick, or the blend of assassin time travel sci-fi in Looper. He even gave an entire franchise a new breath of life by re-examining the use of humour and self referencing in Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
All of those previous films have as many detractors as mega fans, proving his style is devisive, for its audacity and its irreverence towards any idea of purism within an established model. And Knives Out is no exception to that. However, it may be the film of his that most people can agree on that they enjoyed, for one reason or another. I think it’s as interesting to ask why that is as it is to talk about the film itself… so, I will. At least, I’ll try to do both without losing my train of thought.
Firstly, it looks stunning; the palate of rich colours used in the poster and all marketing just make it look like something you want to immerse yourself in – every jacket, tie, dress, or piece of furniture is designed to precision, and it works like a dream of the genre you may have once had, as if it had been plucked directly from your subconscious. As in all good murder mysteries, the location, props and costumes should hold as much character as the actors, and the stately home of the Thrombey family certainly provides plenty of atmosphere in every texture and material on display.
Of course, the cast of characters is wonderfully put together with some inspired casting of familiar faces and actors you trust, such as Toni Collette and Michael Shannon, together with a few we don’t see enough of these days, such as Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson, who both manage to create something as memorable as anything they did in their golden days. Add to the mix two bone fide action film superstars in Daniel Craig and Chris Evans, who leave the baggage of their most famous characters far behind and manage to convince you they are real actors again, the former with the aide of a jarring but hilarious Southern drawl, that grates at first but is a perfect choice on reflection.
Then there are the two lynchpins of this film’s ultimate success and joy: the exceptional legendary gravitas of 90 year old Christopher Plummer as the patriarch and victim at the centre of the intrigue, and the quite glorious revelation of Ana de Armas, whose charisma, beauty and skill in this delicately balanced role was the most impressive thing for me about the whole production. It may be Craig who is the ever present focus, as the detective tasked with solving the “crime”, but it is de Armas that you will remember most long after the credits roll.
As for the plot, well… I obviously can’t talk about it without ruining the whole thing. But, I can say that it isn’t far into the intricate web of motives, alibis and secrets before you start to sense this is going somewhere different, even unique. The examination of the relationships and personalities, and the extent to which they each demonstrate greed and selfishness is fascinating, superceding the crime that exists on the surface with a swamp of far seedier and unpleasant goings-on. Craig’s suave Benoit Blanc isn’t so much a detective here as a family therapist, or perhaps a supernatural presence in the style of the old classic, An Inspector Calls. Perhaps, it is suggested, no one completely escapes guilt and shame here… or do they? Are we looking for a murderer, or the only morally good person amidst a pack of dogs?
Another key element is how modern and unstuffy it feels, despite the country house and riches this is no play of manners, quite the opposite – no one here is on their best behaviour for the sake of decorum, and being upper class is an idea played with rather than enforced. The tea and cakes of the classic Christie, such as Murder on the Orient Express is replaced by smartphones and similar trappings, that identify it as definitely 2019 and no period piece. The concerns and themes are very much rooted in our present problems, and for that it engages and resonates in ways a costume drama just can’t do.
Upon finishing it for the first time, you may be thinking “sure, OK, I enjoyed that… but I’m not blown away here”. Then, as it sinks in over coming weeks, you find yourself recommending it to people, and thinking about how good it is in ways you didn’t initially think about. And that is surely why it was so embraced by the critics and paying public alike; it is a likeable, fun film, that can also stand some artistic scrutiny. It isn’t the smartest, or prettiest, or most meaningful film ever made, but it is enough of all three to make it an instant mini-classic, in my opinion.
I feel like there is maybe more to say about it, which is always a good sign, but that will do for now. I’d be happy to discuss it with anyone that feels the need. Or hear from anyone that didn’t like it! It would be interesting to hear that side of it, because I haven’t heard many negative comments on it at all. I don’t think I would defend it as a masterpiece to the end of the Earth, ‘cos it ain’t that good. I’m just hard pressed to find a serious fault. And it’s great when one of those sneaks up on you!