Review of The Ghost Writer

The Ghost Writer is a return to those ‘old-style’ thrillers where tension is heightened through off-camera threats, moody landscapes, evocative music and suspicious characters rather than special effects and fast-paced action. Ewan McGregor plays ‘The Ghost,’ purposely never named throughout the movie as a method of emphasizing his particular role. He is a man without a past and true identity who is paid to write about the lives of others who have too much past and overpowering, self-absorbed identities.

The Ghost is hired to rewrite the autobiography of Adam Lang (Pierce Brosnan), a former British Prime Minister who is holed up in Martha’s Vineyard as part of a lecture tour with his politically smart and somewhat bitter wife, Ruth. The Lang’s are so obviously based upon Tony and Cherie Blair that it almost bores me to have to mention it. The Ghost has been hired to take over the work of the former ghost writer who washed up dead on a beach near Martha’s Vineyard through apparent alcohol abuse and subsequent drowning. Just as the new Ghost starts his work, Lang is accused by his former foreign minister of ordering the kidnapping and torture of ‘terror’ suspects. The World Court in Haig prepares to place Lang on trial meaning his presence anywhere other than on U.S. soil would be risky. Due to the immense pressure his client is placed under, the Ghost is left to his own devices much of the time, where he becomes increasingly suspicious about the manner of his predecessors death: did the first ghost die for discovering too much about Adam Lang?

I won’t give away too much of the plot other than that, but I will say that director Roman Polanski did a first rate job on the atmospherics. He works with a striking palette of inky blacks and wintry grays. The rain-washed landscapes evoke a world with sinister undertones and much to hide. The same is done with some of the characters where Brosnan’s Adam Lang is charmingly scary, and away from the public glare it is all too obvious he has a dark side. Olivia Williams as Ruth Lang is difficult to get a handle on, but is obviously intertwined with her husband in some of the murkier details of their past. Tom Wilkinson as Professor Paul Emmett does not have much screen time, but manages to create a character this is almost Hitchcock-ian in his palpable menace hidden behind an affable veneer. Even minor characters such as the housekeeper and gardener manage to contribute to the overall tension of the movie by looking so dangerously suspicious. In fact, this kind of attention to detail along with the slow-burning tension, off-camera suggestive violence, moody colour palette, strong acting, and subtle humour are all vintage Alfred Hitchcock.

Whereas the film (based on the book by Robert Harris) is all-too obviously a dig at the Blairs, it also seems somewhat self-introspective for Polanski who is similarly limited to being able to visit certain countries, and is awaiting news on whether he will be extradited to the United States for allegedly sleeping with a 13 year old girl in 1977. You cannot help but feel at least some of this movie is addressing Polanski’s own personal 'ghosts', and I hope for his own sake that he manages to grasp his own moral.

However, all the excellent work of the film is somewhat undone by a few major flaws. The plot itself has several leaps of credibility (nothing which I can give away without spoiling it for you), as well as a serious miscasting in placing Kim Cattrell as Emelia Bligh, who is a long-term member of Lang’s admin team and apparently 'very' close to her boss, yet unable to consistently effect a British accent.

In terms of meaning, this movie has much to say about personal identity. It seems that not one of the main protagonists has an identity that has not been somewhat engineered by society and circumstances beyond themselves. It is a sharp reminder of how easily we can lose ourselves and be swept away by forces beyond our control unless we more firmly understand exactly who it is that we are, and who it is that we have been created to be.

The flaws in an otherwise excellent movie mean that I cannot award it more than 3 (and a half) stars out of 5. It is, however, entirely worth watching. Be warned that there is some adult content, including brief nudity, strong language and some violence.

Review of Robin Hood

Robin Hood is the kind of movie that you walk out of feeling a little dumber than you were before, and a little less entertained.

A lot of effort went into making this reworking of the Robin Hood legend as gritty and gloomy as possible. Historians cannot seem to agree whether a real Robin Hood actually existed or not, but what is known is that the stories and poems of his exploits and adventures go back as far as the 14th century. One of the common themes in the numerous retellings of this story is that they are essentially light hearted in nature – they are after all stories of how the poor and downtrodden win over the oppressive powers-that-be by being shrewder; quicker of thought and of hand. The whole point of stories like this is that they are told and retold by people in other times and places who also feel downtrodden as a form of social release. By laughing at these tales they somehow share in its victories and gain hope for their own situations.

While in this movie, Robin Hood’s men do their best to be ‘merry’ and bring some levity to the tale, Russell Crowe seems as if he is suffering severe toothache. Seriously, what do they have to pay the guy to actually smile on camera? To be honest, this revisionist retelling of the Robin Hood origins story feels far more like a reworking of Gladiator than it does Robin Hood. Well, surprise, surprise because both the director and lead actor of Gladiator (Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe respectively) take on the exact same roles in this offering.

While Gladiator’s General Maximus had every reason to be gloomy, with his wife and son being savagely murdered while the nation he had served for so long and with such success coldly betrayed him. The character Crowe plays in this movie has no such motivation because Robin Hood actually enjoys tremendous fortune throughout most of the movie, where several twists of fate result in him becoming rich, riding the kings own horse and winning the heart of a noble lady several rungs above him in the social ladder. Yet, still Crowe mopes his way through scene after scene, all the while taking himself far too seriously in a role that for centuries has been far more light-hearted and adventurous.

But wait, I am not finished moping myself because I have a few more complaints to outline. The movies promoters made a big deal about historical accuracy. It is almost as if they thought: “right let’s make the towns as muddy and dirty as possible – check; let’s make King Richard I die at the beginning instead of appearing at the end – check; let’s give the characters awful ‘medieval-type’ teeth – check! Right then, our nod to history is done so let’s move on.”

C’mon how dumb do they think we are? What about the pagan style cremation done without a priest in sight? In an age where people’s religious imaginations were entirely dominated by the church? In an age where the Pope strode the political stage like a colossus, and whole kings and nations trembled in their boots in fear of him. (The antagonist in this story, King John, was himself forced to back down over in a dispute with the Pope when he was threatened with excommunication).

And what about the proto-feminist Marion (Cate Blanchett) who rides into battle wearing armour and commanding legions of orphan outlaws? Seriously? While, Blanchett played her role quite well, it must also be said that the romance between her and Robin was utterly lacking in chemistry. Finally, did you know that apparently Robin (well his father actually) was the originator of the Freedom Charter, or the Magna Carta? - a document which limited kingly power in England which King John was eventually forced to stamp his seal on in 1215. Not only that, but Robin ends up leading the English army to victory over the French with hordes of soldiers chanting his name, and then when King John declares him outlawed, we are expected to believe he meekly disbands his massive militia only to hide out in the forest with a couple of mates and a bunch of orphans. Yeah, right.

Look, I know I am being harsh because this is just a movie, a story after all? Well, perhaps my irritation is because I grew up loving these tales and feel this ‘revision’ is more of a remaking in the image and ego of the director and lead actor, than it is an attempt to locate it in its likeliest historical context.

In terms of meaning, I suppose one could pull out stuff about loyalty, commitment to the truth and support for the oppressed. These are all worthy topics that deserve time and space, it is just that many other movies have done them far better. I would not waste my time and money going to see this if I was you. Be warned that there is some sexual content, and also some rather gruesome violence. One out of five for this Robin Hood origins tale which takes itself far too seriously.

Review of Mother and Child

The wife double-whammied me for this movie. An unbeatable combo of Mother’s day and her birthday meant there was no way I could successfully argue for a second viewing of Iron Man 2 over going to see Mother and Child. I have to confess that the blanket objection I have to all intensely serious dramas is not for the normal manly reasons, but frankly, because I cry so easily and it gets embarrassing walking out of a movie theatre with red-rimmed eyes (plus it makes my popcorn all soggy).

Director Rodrigo García has made a name for himself by producing work that focuses on the innate strengths and qualities of women, and he continues this trend in Mother and Child. All too rarely are Hollywood’s actresses given an opportunity to command centre stage in films, as they are normally left to play out supporting roles. Mother and Child lends an opportunity to three remarkable actresses to strut their stuff which they do with considerable aplomb. The story focuses on three different women whose lives have been challenged and shaped by the loss and grief associated with maternal relationships.

The film begins with Karen (Annette Bening) writing a letter to her daughter, who is essentially an imaginary figure to her because she was forced by her own mother to give up her child after an accidental teen pregnancy. Her life has been deeply marked by this loss, meaning she has never been able to forgive her mother and the resulting bitterness has made her virtually unapproachable and impossible to relate to.

While Karen can only dream about who her daughter has grown up to become, the viewer is privileged to be given an insight into Elizabeth (Naomi Watts) as we follow her storyline as well. She is now 37 and because she was given up for adoption and then did not have a close relationship with her adoptive parents, has also developed a very hard and unapproachable exterior. She has excelled in her career as a high powered attorney and manages her sexual affairs with total and ruthless control. Elizabeth is involved in an affair with her boss (who would have thought we would see Samuel L. Jackson being dominated!), and also her ‘happily-married’ neighbor.

The last woman in this list is Lucy (Kerry Washington) who first appears with her husband in a rather desperate and neurotic meeting with an adoption agency. She details her four year struggle to fall pregnant and is clearly deeply struggling with this issue. Although, it is not immediately obvious you begin to notice as her storyline develops how her pain is also isolating her from people, most noticeably her husband who is having second thoughts about adopting.

Through the process of this movie, each of these characters undergoes transformative and growing experiences, and they all end up becoming far more open and vulnerable to others. All three actresses portray their characters with remarkable depth and emotive insight. However, despite the excellent acting, there are some quite marked weaknesses. Firstly, while this movie takes itself a little too seriously, at some points it starts to feel like a looong episode of ‘Days of our Lives’. Secondly, while I understand the whole point is that the males play supportive and background roles, their characters were so passive they seemed a little unrealistic. Ironically for all the emphasis on cross-cultural relationships, the men came across as a little colourless. Thirdly, this movie also makes some quite jarring jumps in the story line process with Karen moving from a bitter and impossible to relate to harridan to a happily and sweetly married woman in next to no time at all. Finally, there is also a major soap-opera kind of continuity gaffe because the birth mother of the baby that Lucy is waiting for, already 6 months pregnant even before Elizabeth conceives still has not given birth by the time Elizabeth’s baby arrives.

Another major criticism could also be directed towards the overall message of the movie, which as I understand it was to credit the strength of variou women as they face emotional and relational difficulties. However, the movie itself seems to suggest that women emotively grow and find peace solely through successfully having children. All three characters leave behind their hard shells because of the children which enter their lives. If this is intending to portray a great truth for all women then it is more than a little condescending and short-sighted. There is far more to women than their ability to reproduce and nurture children. However, if García was not attempting to make some great moral point, and was just telling the story of these three particular women in their own contexts, then the whole premise becomes far more realistic. Certainly, it could be that for those three particular women that they managed to ‘find themselves’ and their true womanhood by connecting with their children.

Be warned that there is strong language and adult sexual content throughout. I would definitely recommend seeing Mother and Child because it does have something good to say, and while it might make you cry a little, it will also make you smile more than once. Don’t wait for the wife’s birthday, take her anyway! 3 (and a half) out of 5 for Mother and Child.

Review of Iron Man II

What do you get when you cross the irrepressible Robert Downey Jnr with amazing special effects, a fast-paced plot and great support actors? A bit of a disappointment actually. It’s weird because you would think a movie that compromises all the above would be thoroughly enjoyable, but Iron Man 2 falls a little short of the standard set by the first Iron Man (2008). Downey Jnr WAS excellent, the special effects WERE stunning, the support actors WERE a whole lot of fun, but still something was missing. Wait, I know, what about an interesting plot?

Unfortunately, although not boring by any means, the main plot of the story is very average. It is the age-old ‘ghosts-from-the-past-revenge’ schtick, and it seems that the plot itself was just a handy vehicle to display Downey’s magnetism in the Stark role and the witty banter between the heavyweight support staff (Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Mickey Rourke, Scarlett Johansson, Samuel L. Jackson and Sam Rockwell).

Now don’t get me wrong, I really enjoyed the movie! But then I am far too easily distracted by special effects and fast pacing. It was only after leaving that I got the feeling it was a little light-weight, primarily because its plot didn’t move us on a great deal from the first movie. It just delivered more of the same for there seemed to be no progression in Stark’s life at all, which is a classic mistake made by many sequels.

The first movie captured the irony of being Iron Man superbly. Tony Stark was always a broken and wounded figure, a scientific genius whose invulnerable metal suit hid a very fragile soul. Downey Jnr played this role superbly, perhaps in part because his own great acting talent has for so long played second fiddle to a wounded and vulnerable inner being. The movie carried an important message that it is possible for anyone to rise above their brokenness and become an ‘angel of mercy’ whose presence inspires others to be more.

This is a great message that was thoughtfully crafted into a very enjoyable movie to watch the first time round. In Iron Man 2 the exact same message is presented, with Stark’s vulnerability now presented as a life threatening blood toxicity caused by the invention he wears to prevent shrapnel entering his heart (see the first Iron Man to learn more). Stark refuses to share his technology with the American military, and this combined with his excessive narcissism means he bites off far more than he can chew. Iron Man is all that stands between the entire world and those who would destroy it, and that is a heck of a burden for one man to carry. “I have successfully privatized world peace,” Stark quips at one stage. Weighed down by this and the pressure of his terminal illness, Stark starts to unravel, which concerns not only those closest to him but also the entire world, (for with great power comes great responsibility remember!).

Iron Man is also under threat from a jealous rival billionaire weapons developer, Justin Hammer (amusingly played by Sam Rockwell), and his ghost-from-the-past Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), the son of a Russian scientist betrayed by Stark’s father, and who also just happens to be a scientific genius capable of rivaling Stark’s own inventions.

Look, the movie is a whole lot of fun and I would warmly recommend it as a fantastic bit of escapism. It is just that it seems as if there wasn’t any real effort to better the first movie (as Dark Knight did with the Batman franchise) but rather to reproduce more of what worked before. And a photocopy, no matter how well done … never quite comes across as good as the original does it?

3 (and a half) out of 5 for Iron Man 2.

Review of Food Inc

“You'll never look at dinner the same way again.”

You may find yourself quietly dumping your popcorn at some point during this movie. There are a number of compelling reasons for this. Firstly because there are one or two fairly disturbing scenes of animal violence (especially if you have a sensitive stomach). Secondly, because once you learn just how dodgy the big food processing companies are, you can’t help but spend the rest of the movie wondering just what the heck went into the popcorn you were so blithely popping into your mouth.

Directed by Robert Kenner, Food Inc is yet another of the very popular movie documentaries produced lately that have addressed varied issues of concern such as fast food (Super Size Me), the environment (An Inconvenient Truth) and animal cruelty (The Cove). All of these movies have played important roles in cleverly creating awareness while educating the public. Food Inc is a little Ameri-centric because it focuses on the shady ethics applied by major food processing companies operating in the States, but the principals of business they challenge would really apply to any capitalist country.

Food Inc investigates how the food industry in America has become dominated by huge companies in recent years. It exposes some of what has been going on behind closed doors such as how the farmers are controlled by becoming economically indebted to the companies; and also how many animals are now farmed and slaughtered in very inhumane ways in order to cut costs. Some of these farming practices (such as feeding cattle only on corn instead of grass) have been scientifically proven to have adverse health effects on the human population as well.

Certain scenes in Food Inc are highly disturbing – no meat eater actually wants to see how animals are produced and killed to support their diets. There is also a very sad story of a mother who lost her young son to E.coli poisoning from eating a hamburger because the food companies have become powerful enough to subversively control their own quality control programs. You also learn how obesity is a greater problem amongst the poor because processed food is much cheaper to produce that healthy food.

However, the viewer should keep in mind that this film is hugely one-sided. In terms of filming quality and story arc, it is a definite step down from the The Cove, but also you cannot help but feel you are hearing one half of a discussion. While I would wholeheartedly endorse eating organic food and more humane farming practices, you are still never offered another point of view. At least Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth dealt with some of his detractors arguments, while Food Inc makes no attempt to do this whatsoever.

Still the overall message is an important one to engage with and Food Inc is a fairly well made documentary even if is it a step down from some of its more illustrious predecessors. A healthily organic 3 out of 5 for the overall viewing and educational experience of this film.

Review of The Messenger

Being thoroughly sick of American war movies, the only reason I went to see The Messenger so soon after The Hurt Locker was because it came highly recommended. Sadly, this movie did not live up to those recommendations at all, and was a major disappointment.

The Messenger is about Staff Sgt. Will Montgomery (Ben Foster), a decorated war hero, who is assigned to work for the Casualty Notification Office. His immediate superior, Captain Tony Stone (Woody Harrelson) shows him the ropes of one of the worst jobs on record. The two Army officers have to arrive on the doorsteps of bereaved next of kin (before they hear about it on the news), and recite a scripted message from the secretary of the Army breaking the bad news before beating a hasty retreat.

Stone is a recovering alcoholic and lifer in the military but takes his work very seriously. He has honed the protocol of this work to the point where he can remain as emotionally disconnected as possible. Montgomery, on the other hand, has returned from his tour of duty to find that his ex-girlfriend is engaged to be married. This news, coupled with the fact that his war-time experiences have emotionally stripped him, means that he struggles to come grips with his new assignment. The emotional disconnection encouraged by Stone is an anathema to someone so desperate to learn to connect meaningfully with others again.

This results not only in tension between the two, but also in a very creepy relationship that develops between Montgomery and a newly widowed Army wife (Samantha Morton). His desperation leads to him crossing lines not only of army protocol but also of basic human morality. Montgomery’s struggles are mirrored by Stone whose has intimacy issues of his own as reflected in his alcoholism and numerous one night stands. The Messenger revolves around whether or not these two broken messengers of death can possibly find inner healing in a line of work that would seem to only encourage further emotional disconnectedness.

While the plot sounds promising, and could really have had something profound and moving to say to a situation that many people struggle with, it ultimately falls between too many stools. Thrown into the whole notification process is not only the creepy love story mentioned already, but also a standard-issue buddy movie between Stone and Montgomery. Their cringingly embarrassing bonding rituals dominate the second half of the movie to the point that the overall message remains thoroughly unresolved. While unresolved messages are often employed and can prove effective, The Messenger takes such a looong and winding road around its message that it ends up not actually satisfactorily engaging with it at all. Up in the Air (with George Clooney) had a similar theme with a somewhat unresolved ending and yet seemed to engage more fully with the whole issue.

So despite average to good performances from Foster and Harrelson, it is difficult to escape the feeling that by the end, director Oren Moverman has let a potentially good film slip through his grasp. This means I cannot award The Messenger more than 2 stars out of 5. Please be warned that The Messenger fully justifies its 16 age restriction with fairly strong language, nudity and sexual content.

Review of The Cove

The Cove throws a lot of things into one hat. It is part political and eco-activism, part investigative journalism and even part espionage thriller. Yet, at its core, The Cove is a true-life story about one man’s crusade to redeem his past mistakes. Ric O’Barry was one of the dolphin trainers on the landmark TV show Flipper (popular in the States before TV even arrived in South Africa). According to O’Barry, Flipper played a major role in kick-starting the now multi-billion dollar domesticated dolphin industry, but it was O’Barry’s experience in working so closely with his TV star dolphins that led him to believe that keeping dolphins in activity was both harmful and abusive to them.

Eager to atone for his mistakes, a remorseful O’Barry has since spent his life in actively working to free and protect dolphins. The Cove tells the story of how O’Barry has uncovered a dark secret in a small lagoon near a town called Taiji off the Japanese coast. Behind a wall of barbed wire and a plethora of “Keep Out” signs, and under the cover of night and intimidating guards, it is here that the fishermen of Taiji engage in an unseen hunt for thousands of dolphins. Prevented from seeing what is really happening in “the cove,” O’Barry and a group of activists led by the movie’s director Louie Psihoyos, embark on a covert mission to penetrate its barriers and in so doing they succeed in uncovering horrifying instances of animal abuse and also fairly serious threats to human health.

Although a documentary, The Cove is so expertly done that it manages to keep you on the edge of your seat throughout. Although it makes some difficult to prove assertions about dolphins such as their committing suicide when depressed or having self-awareness, it is still advocacy filmmaking at its best. O’Barry and his team use state-of-the-art equipment (including cameras cleverly disguised as rocks by George Lucas’ Industrial Light and Magic), and they form a kind of “Ocean’s 11” team of experts who use espionage techniques to get at the truth. And when they do, the truth is quite simply terrifying, not only in the cruelty that is displayed to these wonderful animals but also the threat this particular fishing industry has for human health. In selling dolphin meat disguised as whale meat they are exposing people to record levels of mercury poisoning.

The Cove also includes a great many facts about the toothless International Whaling Commission which is failing to protect dolphins properly. It shows how Japan is funding the fishing campaigns of many poorer companies and thereby buying their support in rolling back legislation that does actually protect whales.

All in all, The Cove is full value for winning an Oscar for best documentary. I cannot recommend too highly that you go to see it as soon as you can. The intention of The Cove is clear in that it seeks to expose you to some horrifying details of humanities cruelty and short-sightedness and thereby spurring you into action. I certainly hope The Cove exceeds its own expectations in this regard. Christians have been mandated by Scripture to care for and protect creation, and so getting involved in projects like this is a vital expression of our own faith.

Go and see this movie! 5 stars out of 5 for this absolutely brilliant eco-documentary!

Amongst numerous other awards, The Cove was awarded the IKEA Green Prize at the Rome International Film Festival. Here's a statement from the Jury on why The Cove was chosen for this award:

“for re-writing the documentary genre, transforming it into a cleverly edited film that packs an emotional punch with fast-paced action, scientific analysis and a story of personal redemption. The use of thermal camera shots, meta-language, video-reality and archive footage means this work transcends the glossy image of the natural history documentary. The original, hitherto unexplored theme informs us about a horror perpetrated in a bay in Japan that has repercussions around the world, a global horror that lays bare the cultural consumerism behind live animal shows, coupled with issues surrounding food safety and governmental corruption in the war to control the seas. We left the cinema with the feeling we could do something to dismantle all the bays of horror. Taking on the mantle of responsibility, we shout: No More Coves”