Tag: Movie Review

The Northman (2022)

Posted on by fenrisfil

 

So this is one I have been looking forward to for a long time. Those that know me, know that I have a keen interesting in Norse Mythology, legends, stories and history. I wouldn’t claim to be an expert on the topic but I probably know more than most viewers of this film do and I know enough to be picky about accuracy with the genre (For example I never got on with the TV show “Vikings”). So I greeted the news of this movies production with both excitement and trepidation. T

he trailer however looked fantastic and the movies director, Richard Eggers has a reputation for painstaking historical accuracy, so I ended up cautiously optimistic. I am happy to say the movie far surpassed my expectations.

Outrageous Fortune.

Interestingly this movie probably only happened due to a chance meeting between Eggers and Icelandic singer Bjork of all people. To some that may seem strange, but the singer was always very passionate about her homeland and it’s history so I’m not surprised that some of that enthusiasm rubbed off on Eggers.

The key player though is actually Bjork’s long time musical collaborator Sigurjón Birgir Sigurðsson (Aka “Sjón”), who was introduced to Eggers via Bjork. It seems the two hit it off and Sjón ended up co-writer of the movie. The final piece of the puzzle was actor Alexander Skarsgård who had himself been seeking a viking themed project for a while, so when he met up with Eggers to discuss possibly working together the discussion quickly turned to making a Viking Epic. 

Though This Be Madness, Yet There Is Method In’t.

Fans of Shakespeare may find the plot of the film familiar since it’s source is the legend of Amleth as written by Saxo Grammaticus, the same source as Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”. However while the stories may share a similar synopsis they are very different in execution. The goal here was to create a film that reflected the tone of the Icelandic Sagas and in my opinion the succeeded in that goal. It’s worth noting though that it isn’t the kind of story telling modern audiences are used to and as such a lot of the mainstream movie goers may find this not to their pallett. 

Joining Skarsgård’s “Amleth” is Anya Taylor-Joy as “Olga” an enslaved Slavic Sorceress. Anya had worked with Eggers previously on The Witch and is definitely a name to watch in the future (Indeed she has been cast as the new “Furiosa” for the Mad Max spin off of the same name). Claes Bang, who played Dracula in the BBC’s 2020 adaptation of that story take on the role as primary antagonist “Fjölnir”, Amleth’s treacherous uncle. Nicole Kidman plays Amleth’s mother “Gudrún” and with supporting roles are Ethan Hawke (as Amleth’s father) and Willem Dafoe (as a Heimir the Fool). Dafoe, is obviously a favourite of Eggers and rightly so (and is earmarked to play Count Orlock is Eggers proposed Nosferatu remake, a role he is perfectly suited for having already sort of played the character in “Shadow of the Vampire”).

One May Smile, And Smile, And Be A Villain.

For those unfamiliar with Norse legends the movie may seem dark and more than a little subversive. But those that are familiar know exactly what to expect. Much like with one of my other passions Film Noir, there is a major thread of fatalism within these epic tales and the characters tend to be deeply flawed. These stories are not the traditional heroes journey instead each one is more of a tragedy.

There are stories such as “Njáls saga” that tells of multi-generational blood fueds in which ultimately no one wins. Then there is Egil’s saga about a family who would often be so consumed with rage they would kill their own allies and are often portrayed as cruel and selfish. The expectations of a saga are that things will end badly, that destiny is unavoidable and that life is unrelentingly cruel. The Northman delivers this in spades. 

There Is Nothing Either Good Or Bad But Thinking Makes It So.

Amleth is a character driven almost entirely by his sense of an inescapable fate, one which he only briefly tries to flee from but ultimately fails. The betrayal he suffers early in the movie has more to it than it first seems and the depth of that betrayal goes further than expected. In his journey to vengeance he loses everything but his desire for vengeance… at least for the most part. He does find some redemption through his relationship with Olga and ultimately tries to make things right for at least someone if not for himself and those tied in to his vengeance. 

Like many of the saga’s this story isn’t about glorifying violence but instead an examination of the darker side of human nature, the cruelty of the age in which it was set and the complexity of the people that had to live in that time. This was a very conscious decision from Sjon and Eggers and it’s one that improves the film but may potentially put off viewers unfamiliar with this kind of storytelling. Then again earlier seasons of Game of Thrones weren’t that different to this, but that series was a soap opera by comparison. Here you don’t always know the motivations behind a betrayal. There’s no long walks in a garden discussing it. It just happens.

For Who Would Bear The Whips And Scorns Of Time.

The authenticity doesn’t end with the story though. Eggers is somewhat obsessed with accuracy and that paid off well with his previous two movies “The Witch” and “The Lighthouse”. The amount of effort that went into finding the perfect locations and building accurate sets perhaps go some way to explain this films high budget. Carvings built in India and sent over form the basis of temples, entire towns built out of northing to convert coastal Ireland into the land of the Rus in Eastern Europe and of course the variosu sets in Iceland itself.

The rain in Ireland was relentless but this was only to the benefit of this production. Mud was everywhere and some of the most impressive sets were built only to burn to the ground. No expense was spared and it shows in the end result. This is a beautiful looking movie and when the journey moves to Iceland it does a great job of selling the unique marvel of that countries landscapes. Where Ice and Fire walk hand in hand and you can believe the giants of Niflheim and Muspelheim could arrive at any time to crush mankind. 

To Thine Own Self Be True.

Speaking of Norse mythology, it is worth noting that Eggers masterfully works the mystical into the gritty realism of the movie. The director seems to enjoy presenting a fantasy but in such a way that you know it is in the perception of his characters and not necessarily something physically happening. This is most notable with Amleths battle with the Draugr (Undead) that guards the sword of the same name. We see the scene twice, one baring more fantastical elements and the other more realistic.

We also see Olga through Amleths eyes as a great Valkyrie ready to take him to Vallhalla. Perhaps the best element though is one where the myth crosses most into the real world and that is in the path of the Berserkers and Ulfhednar. Amleth seems to be a hybrid of the two and he and his fellow warriors channel their rage making them ferocious and unstoppable in battle. This is done brilliantly and believably, showing the rituals and concoction they use to go into rage before battle. 

To Sleep, Perchance To Dream.

As for the acting, the boy playing young Amleth and a few of the minor roles were unconvincing in places, but it didn’t take anything from the movie and the kid was compelling enough when he needed to be. All the major parts however were performed convincingly. Skarsgård puts in a career best performance here and it really was the role he was destined for. I also want to give special credit to Bang and Kidman, both excelled in their roles. Kidman’s part doesn’t really come into it’s own until late in the movie, but when it reaches that point her performance was explosive. Bang meanwhile managed to really humanize the movies the movies primary antagonist.

Avante Garde composers  Sebastian Gainsborough (A.K.A. “Vessel”) and Robin Carolan (of Tri Angle Records) provide an effectively ominous soundtrack that fits thematically providing a constant dark tension while also reminding us of the Norse setting. At at it’s weakest it sounds like Skyrim (Which is itself a pretty good soundtrack) at it’s best it’s up there with the soundtracks of the top fantasy/historic epics. It may not be in the running for the best soundtrack ever but it is definitely a positive for this movie. 

What Dreams May Come.

Overall this is a superb movie. Eggers obsession with authenticity gels well with Sjón’s deep knowledge and SkaaSkarsgård’s passion.  You simply won’t find a more authentic representation of the sagas. This is what the writers of those sagas would have pictured them as. You can almost smell the blood and feel the heat of the fires. It is beautiful, brutal and passionate.

Sadly though between the movies very high budget and what seems like generally poor distribution and marketing the movie is almost certainly going to end up a major bomb. I can only hope that it earns the respect it deserves retrospectively, like such past financial failures as “Blade Runner” and “The Thing” (Also two of my favourite movies). This movie won’t be for everyone, but for me it’s a 8.5/10.

Rating: 8.5 out of 10.

The Batman (2022)

Posted on by fenrisfil

The latest offering from Warner/DC in the Superhero genre is 2022’s “The Batman”, a movie that seems to have been a long time in the coming and that was probably greenlit by a very different team than is now in charge at Warner. The original intention for the movie was to be a vehicle for Ben Affleck’s Batman but this changed fairly early on and the idea became to launch a Batman shared universe separate from the DCEU. Already a very questionable idea, however if any DC hero can bare the weight of their own shared universe it is Batman. The question is though, does this film provide a good launching point for it? Let’s dig in.

In Bloom.

Matt Reeves directs the movie, having replaced Affleck during pre-production and is an old hand at coming on on other peoples franchises. His work includes directing JJ Abrams brainchild “Cloverfield” (2008), then in 2010 making the American remake of 2008’s “Let The Right One In”, title simply “Let Me In”. Following that he took up the reigns of the Planet of the Apes reboot series from Rupert Wyatt, making the two weaker films of the trilogy.  Now he has replaced Ben affleck helming this franchise and it seems unlikely much remains of the original concept for the movie with Reeves taking the opportunity to tell his kind of Batman story. The characters role as a “The Worlds Greatest Detective” would appear to be the focus of this version, with Reeves taking influence from Film Noir and stories such as “The Long Halloween”. Perhaps unsurprisingly there would also be a push to make this the darkest and grittiest Batman yet. 

Scentless Apprentice.

Robert Pattinson plays the title character, a casting choice that would prove highly divisive amongst Batman fans, perhaps unfairly due to his role in the “Twilight” film series. Pattinson is a pretty good actor, so for me it was all going to depend on the script. What did surprise me with the casting through was the sheer number of Batman characters that seemed to be involved in the film. Zoey Kravitz took the role of Catwoman, Colin Farrell was cast as The Penguin and John Turturro as Carmine Falcone. There was even talk of some Joker casting. But it was Paul Dano as The Riddler that would be the main villain of the story. The rogues would be joined by Andy Serkis as Alfred and Jeffrey Wright as Gordon. My concern was the story was starting to look unnecessarily cluttered but there were certainly a few names in there that had my interest.

Something in the Way.

A few things immediately come to mind while watching “The Batman”. The cinematography is actually pretty good and the darker grittier vision of Gotham this time does take a very Noir like form. It almost is a shame it is in colour. The soundtrack however is far less impressive. In interviews promoting the film Reeves talked about how he took influence for Batman from Kurt Cobain and his music. This seemed odd at the time, but in practice it becomes a sort of sonic worshipping of one particular Nirvana song: “Something in the Way”. A strange choice given it is effectively a song about being homeless and sleeping under a bridge and not really something I would attribute to a Billionaire superhero. But the piece is not just something played once, but the entire core of the soundtrack as the two chords the build that song are used throughout and unfortunately make most of the sound track reminiscent of “The Imperial March” from Star Wars. The only sections of music that don’t appear to be built around Nirvana are the recurring performances of “Ava Maria”, which also becomes somewhat tedious over time.

Like many modern movies the themes are far from subtle and designed to smack the viewer across the face in the most on the nose ways possible. Character development is spelled out in dialogue instead of demonstrated through action, with Batman declaring himself as “Vengeance” early on but then in a voice over in the final act deciding he needs to be more than vengeance moving forward. The voice over would be fine had I felt that Batman actually went through an emotional journey to get to that conclusion.

Heart-Shaped Box.

Part of the problem with this set up is it relied on Batman not having learned the lessons of his own origin story. Bruce would have had an entire emotional journey between the death of his parents and becoming Batman and this movie is set in his second year in the role. This is all very similar to what the Sony/Disney did to MCU Spider-Man, skipping showing the characters origin but also skipping that core character development that comes with it (In the case of Spider-Man, it was the impact of Uncle Ben’s death). For Batman it is that journey from orphaned child to the physical and mental peak of humanity. A journey that was shown to us so perfectly in Nolan’s “Batman Begins” (2005). Instead here we have a character that has the physical capabilities of Batman, but pairs that psychological makeup of a freshy orphaned child. 

Bruce Wayne, as we know him, is largely absent here too and when he does show up he comes across like a depressed teenager. The suggestion seems to be that he is yet to learn to wear that mask in public, but this brings with it the issue of it being obvious who Batman is. A situation not helped by a plot constantly teases the idea that his secret is going to be revealed. Of course it’s not like superhero movies of old haven’t had questionable secret identity issues (like the Clark Kent glasses situation), but this is like deciding to do Clarke Kent without the glasses and still expecting the audience to buy no one has figured it out. 

Negative Creep.

A major part of “The Batman” is the focus on Batman as a detective., an aspect of Batman that while not absent in past on screen incarnations was not specifically the focus. On paper this was an interesting change and one I was looking forward to seeing. Sadly though, this too ended up being a negative because ultimately this Batman is frankly terrible at it. He is a step behind, not just the Riddler but often everyone else as well. One of Batman’s accolades/titles is “The World’s Greatest Detective”. If you want Batman to be at all true to his comic roots his skills should be more like a Sherlock Holmes than a generic FBI Agent from a random TV procedurals. True, the Riddler is perhaps the best foil for him as a detective , but their battle of the wits should be more akin to Holmes and Moriarty and this was not even close. Batman was an embarrassment in this department and pretty much failed at every turn. It is really more the illusion of detective work than actual detective work. Batman does have a nice gadget in his surveillance contact lenses, but that doesn’t make up for his inability to figure out the central riddle.

Come As You Are.

So that’s Batman covered, what about everyone else? Well much as I feared when I saw all the cast the movie is unnecessarily bloated. It’s true you can have multiple Batman villains in a movie and have it work, The Nolan trilogy demonstrated that, but to varying degrees of success. It’s interesting to note that the longest of the Nolan movies is also the weakest and the one that utilised it’s three rogues the least successfully. Here both Penguin and Catwoman were unnecessary to the story being told and both added significantly to the movies run time. Selina does play a role in the main story, but it’s not a role that actually required or even benefited from being that character specifically, it could just as easily have been any other female character, even a wholly original one. Her role in the story has nothing to do with her skills as a thief or in combat, both of which are basically there without explanation (Much like Batman’s). They don’t even really deal with the cat gimmick outside of showing she has a few strays (Which she shows very little actual affection for). The cats don’t feel part of Selina’s personality and are just sort of there. As for Zoey Kravitz herself, she is okay in the role but hardly ground breaking.

Pennyroyal Tea.

The Penguin is a real mixed bag. Colin Farrell is superb in the role and the make up work to change him into the notorious character is incredibly well done. However, Oswald’s role in the story is even less relevant than Selina and his entire story arc could have been dropped with the only impact being they would probably have had to change one of the riddles. Given that riddle was the worst one and the one that made Batman look incompetent as a detective, that would not have been a bad thing. I would estimate that between the Oswald and Selina arcs you have about 20-40 unnecessary minutes trimmed from the story in a way that would have tightened up and improved the rest of the plot. Because of this I’m going to have to mark both down as a failure. However, seeing more of this Penguin in the future would be a good thing.

Big Cheese.

The third character from the rogues gallery is gangster boss Carmine Falcone and this is a character that actually should have had more of a focus on him. Not only is he important to the plot, he is played superbly by John Turturro and the underuse of the character does a lot to diminish the impact of a number of reveals later on in the film. The character would have been a perfect enemy for this grittier neo-noir type Batman in his second year of operation in the role, but when you clutter the movie up with Penguin and Catwoman Falcone ends up largely just in the background.

Drain You.

The final and most important member of the rogues gallery is the primary antagonist of the film, The Riddler. Played well by Paul Dano, but the character somewhat falls apart in the final act. As I mentioned earlier, The Riddler is the ideal foil for Batman as a detective, however just as this Batman is not an especially smart detective, neither is the Riddler especially smart as an antagonist and once the veil is lifted on his motivation he really comes across as quite a pathetic, naive character. Not that a pathetic character can’t be a villain but it does lead the end of the film to somewhat fizzle out (despite the attempt at a big set piece action ending). Overall though, I’m marking this one down as a positive.

Serve the Servants.

On the other side of the playing field you have Jeffrey Wright as James Gordon and Andy Serkis as Alfred. Both somewhat fell flat for me as the plot seemed to assume the characters relationship with the lead without really showing it on screen. Neither reallys seemed to have much chemistry with Pattinson and the Gordon/Batman scenes were some of the weakest of the movie due to the pair apparently trying to out mumble/whisper each other. Andy Serkis’ role in the movie felt small, like they didn’t really want to deal with the fact Batman has such a close ally and confidant, especially one that is also his butler. These are sadly both negatives.

Lithium.

Overall, there is some hope for the franchise going forward. Pattinson wasn’t terrible and nothing was broken beyond repair by this movie. Indeed some characters such as Penguin I absolutely look forward to seeing more of. However, they do need to learn from their mistakes if they want to build a worthwhile trilogy (or longer series). The next movie needs to be more focused and they need to vastly improve the character work and stop trying to push current day politics onto a character created in the 30’s that is meant to be timeless.

Milk It.

On a personal note I have to say I am tired of “Darker, gritier” batman movies. The Nolan trilogy was for me as dark and gritty as Batman should get. This movie pushes things so much further in that direction that to me it feels more like an “Elseworld” Batman (i.e. a one off novelty) than something trying to be comic true. That would be fine, but it’s also not quite unique enough to push that novelty. As you will know from this blog, I love Film Noir, so you’d think a Neo-Noir Batman would be right up my alley. Sadly though while the movie attempts to push that vibe, it feels artificial, like yet another attempt at a Noir that fails to understand the genre in the first place. A full on elseworlds Noir Batman, perhaps even in black and white could certainly be interesting, but I doubt Warner would ever greenlight something that radical.

Stay Away.

I would actually much rather see a Batman movie embrace the characters gothic side again like Tim Burton’s movies did 30 years. Indeed if we’re talking about doing an “Elseworld” Batman I would love to see a “Gaslight” universe set in victorian times that not only gave us Jack The Ripper, but also re-imagined some of the rogues gallery in a more gothic style and perhaps even had a bit of Batman Vs Dracula in the mix (I’m talking over several films or a series here). Maybe that’s just me, but I’d find that more interesting than yet another darker and grittier version. Of course they could also just try and put the character and the stories from the comic actually on the screen without interpretation and re-imagining. I know, crazy idea right?

Rating: 5 out of 10.

Morbius (2022)

Posted on by fenrisfil

For tonight’s feature I viewed Sony’s new release from their “Venomverse” universe, “Morbius” (2022). This marks Sony’s first addition to the Venomverse and as such the movie the finally turns that world from  a playground for Symbiotes into a true shared universe. Not that this has any cross over material outside of a throw away line and an awkward post credit scene, but it is an important milestone for Sony and one you’d think would be important to them. Then again they made so much money off Spider-Man maybe they no longer care.

Blood, Sweat, Tears and more Blood.

The movie is helmed by director Daniel Espinosa, who obviously has some horror experience from making the Alien-esque “life” (2017) and I assume this is why he was picked for the movie. The movies writers, Matt Sazama and Burke Sharpless have a string of genre movies to their name but it’s worth noting their highest IMDB score is for Dracula Untold (A movie I did enjoy) which hits the heady heights of 6.2/10. The rest of their movies are in the fives and that probably explains a lot about this one.

Jared Leto stars as the eponymous Doctor Michael Morbius and is joined by Matt Smith’s Milo/Lucien, Adria Arjona as Martine Bancroft and Jared Harris as Dr. Emil Nicholas. There are also a number of minor roles that appear to have been reduced to bare bones in the edit room including Tyrese Gibson as a race swapped Simon Stroud, who in the comics is actually a superhero himself but apparently his entire arc was cut, reducing the role to just a chasing FBI agent that seems a little more competent than his colleagues. Apparently there were whole scenes featuring his cyborg arm, but neither those nor the arm itself made the theatrical release. Still, he has more presence than Michael Keaton’s Adrian Toomes who appears to have had his entire role reduced from something worthy of inclusion in the trailer, to just a confusing mid credits cameo.

Vampire Interrupted.

Speaking of Keaton, let’s address the elephant in the room. This movie was originally due to be released in July 2020, but with Covid delaying things both Sony and Disney shuffled their Marvel deck and this had a knock on effect to a lot of the movies and the continuity between them. There was also a new deal signed between Sony and Disney in relation to Spider-Man’s on screen presence. Through all this there ended up being a need for extensive reshoots and a key change to the movie that removed all references to anything MCU, until the mid credits. At this point I think Morbius ended up a gutted husk of the movie that Espinosa originally intended, though it is hard to tell. What is clear is that Keaton definitely had a bigger role as the scene from the first trailer is completely absent. Also absent is the Spider-Man “Murderer” graffiti that was present in the trailer. Apparently this was added by the studio without the directors knowledge.

Best of Enemies?

One can speculate on what was meant to be, but ultimately we can only deal with what is. So let’s dig into that. The first thing to note is this film feels very small. There are effectively only four characters with any importance to the story and Jared Harris is used sparsely. Adria Arjona has a bit more of a role but even that feels like it is missing some key character moments. The movie instead focuses on Smith and Leto. In itself that’s not a bad move but if you are going to focus so heavily on a pair of friends that become enemies there should really be more of an emotional connection between them. Instead while both actors do their best for their role ultimately every decision either character makes is entirely done to drive the plot. None of it feels particularly natural. There’s very little emotional ambivalence and when they inevitably face off it doesn’t really feel like two life long friends that have gone past the point of no return.

Living Vampire or Dying Franchise?

The plot is itself simple and largely predictable. There is no more to it than what you would read in a synopsis. I would say there is nothing more to the movie than you see in the trailer, but actually there is more in the trailer! This is a bare bones story that has promise and had they found an angle to focus on or expand it could actually have been good. But alas, there is no such angle. The movie just ploughs through a series of events from start to end with almost no character growth, world building or plot complexities (outside of some obvious “twists”). 

Ultimately what is there is absolutely fine. The actors performances were solid, the action sequences mostly work, there are a few cool visuals and there are no overbearing politics or modern clichés that made me especially dislike it The problem is there just isn’t much to the film at all. One day maybe there will be an Espinosa cut or at least some kind of explanation about why the end result appears so different to what was promised in that first trailer. That should make for an interesting story, in the meantime though this movie does not. 

Rating: 4.5 out of 10.

House on Haunted Hill (1959)

Posted on by fenrisfil

For tonight’s horror viewings I have “House on Haunted Hill”. Directed by William Castle and written by Robb White. The pair would later make the infamous gimmick horrors “The Tingler” and “13 Ghosts” that tried to encourage audience participation in the movies. Castle would also be the man behind getting Rosemary’s Baby made into a film, though he didn’t direct it (Which was a requirement of getting the rights, likely to avoid “Tingler” like gimmicks). The movie was remade in 1999, to minimal acclaim though that movie did spawn a sequel.

Vincent Price

The Set up

In this movie though, Vincent Price stars as Frederick Loren an eccentric millionaire that has challenged five people to spend the night in a haunted house for the prize of $10,000 if they survive (about $100k in today’s money). They are joined in the house by Frederick and his cynical unhappy wife Annabelle (Carol Ohmart). Our five strangers are the heroic Lance Schroeder (Richard Long), the level headed Dr. Trent (Alan Marshall), the neurotic Nora Manning (Carolyn Craig), journalist Ruth Bridges (Julie Mitchum) and the houses traumatized owner Watson Pritchard (Elisha Cook Jr.).

The door are to be locked at midnight trapping whomever is inside until morning. Things begin with a few frights and a lot of cynicism and it becomes clear that it may not be the ghosts that people need to be afraid of in this house (I mean they are locked in a house with Vincent Price, what do you expect). The only guest that really believes in the ghosts is Pritchard, who was traumatized by staying there previously (and the often underrated Elisha does an excellent job here of selling the supernatural aspects to the audience in the face of everyone else’s cynicism). Nora though is certainly afraid and is the victim of a campaign of terror. The truth is though she is not the real focus, but merely a pawn in a cunning plan.

Not the scariest

The Execution

So this movie is really more of a macabre murder mystery than an actual haunted house movie and as such it’s worth noting that it isn’t at all scary. The haunting aspects are basically just goofy, Carolyn Craig sells her terror well enough but I doubt even in the day the audience really believed the ghosts were the problem. As a murder mystery it’s not the most complicated but it is definitely satisfactory and has some good twists. Vincent Price is of course a joy to watch in this kind of role and he plays it about half way between his serious roles and his more over the top ones (Such as the classic Dr.Phibes). The music and sound design is very 1950’s and so feels dated but fitting for the kind of movie it is and I loved the use of the Theremin.

Overall, this movie lacks rewatchability and frankly is not scary, however largely thanks to Vincent Price it is still entertaining in a campy sort of way.

Rating: 5.5 out of 10.

Nightmare Alley: 1947 Vs 2021

Posted on by fenrisfil

I’m going to do something a little different with this review and review and compare two movies. Both adaptations of the same source material, “Nightmare Alley” by William Lindsay Gresham, published in 1946. The first movie was adapted from the story one year later in 1947; Directed by Edmund Goulding and starring Tyrone Power as “Stanton Carlisle” it is considered a Film Noir classic (Hence why it seemed fitting to review both given my passion for Film Noir). The second movie is the latest from visionary filmmaker Guillermo del Toro and features an all star cast including Bradley Cooper (as “Carlisle”), Cate Blanchett (As Dr. Lilith Ritter), Willem DaFoe and Ron Perlman (the last two in minor roles).

Remake or new take on the same source?

Though Del Toro initially claimed his movie is not a remake of the Film Noir, the ending of the movie and the inclusion of a key line added for the 1947 movie suggests otherwise. It seems the truth is Del Toro’s movie falls somewhere between the source and it’s first adaptation. That said, as far as I can tell (Having not read the novel itself) the first movie was pretty close to the source material already so it is hard to tell where Del Toro is following the novel and where he is following the Noir. One notable difference though is that the 1947 movie adds some story to the end (which was not present in the book) while the 2021 film adds a little to the start. The bulk of the story is however the same.

Framing changes everything.

What makes the new versions distinct however (aside from being in colour of course) is some framing of the events and the personalities. In the 1947 version Tyrone Power’s “Carlisle” is competent and confident throughout. He is a clever man always on the lookout for angles. Ultimately he goes one scheme too far and becomes a victim to his own hubris. But he’s not totally irredeemable. In this version he sidesteps the fate laid out for him in the novel but ends up instead repeating the fate of the toxic relationship between his two Mentalist mentors in his early days at the carnival. So the ending is bitter sweet.

The Life and Times of Stanton Carlisle

Cooper’s Carlisle though has a much darker soul, while not without some positive qualities (For instance showing some empathy towards the Carnivals “Geek”) he has a bitter and violent side to him. Unlike Power’s version he is not a natural grifter swayed into darkness, instead the film lets us know he already has a taint on his soul, a dark act that follows him around and perhaps a hatred in his heart. This Carlisle learns the grift directly from the Carnies and with Cooper I always felt he was lying as much to himself as those he deceived.

The most notable difference between the two is how they act when things fall apart. Power’s character has become dislikable and yet I still felt some sympathy for him. He is ultimately destroyed by his two great strengths, his confidence and ability to read people. The former lead him to ignore the latter when it involved those closest to him. Cooper’s version while also a victim of his own hubris, reveals his true colours the moment things fell apart and at that point I knew his fate was sealed. It is difficult to decide which of those approaches I prefer.

For the majority of the film I would have to give it to Tyrone Power, whose performance was intense and believable, however I always felt the last act of the film where things fell apart seemed out of place for someone as together as Power’s Carlisle. Bradley Cooper’s version while I had difficulty buying his progress to the top, his fall felt both real and inevitable. The line taken from the earlier movie that has Carlisle acknowledge his own destiny seems all the more fitting in Del Toro’s movie because of this.

The Primordial She-Demon

As far as the supporting cast goes, the main other player in this story is the psychoanalyst Dr. Lilith Ritter, played by Helen Walker in the earlier movie and Cate Blanchett in Del Toro’s movie. She’s not actually in most of the movie, but her role is pivotal. In the battle of these actresses Blanchett easily wins. I always found the characters betrayal somewhat out of place in the earlier movie, sure she gets to profit financially but as a high paid psychoanalyst I felt like she should have had more to her motivation. But much like with Cooper’s Carlisle, Blanchett’s Ritter is as a far darker version of the character, bitter and twisted and holding a personal grudge against Carlisle for publicly showing her up when they first met (Even though she was trying to show him up).

She doesn’t even care about the money, she just wants to see Carlisle destroyed. What comes into question is did she plan for Carlisle’s scheme to fail all along or would this betrayal have happened further down the line anyway. It is hard to say, but either way Blanchett’s Dr. Ritter is a sociopath. It’s worth noting that as the character escapes punishment, the Motion Picture Production Code that was in play in 1974 would probably have prevented the character being portrayed in quite such a negative light for the earlier movie. Even as her role as a Noir Femme Fatale she is pushing those boundaries. It is clearly no coincidence that her name is “Lilith” (Which for those that don’t know is the name of the primordial she-demon and first wife to Adam, effectively the original Femme Fatale). Maybe it’s a little on the nose, but she earns the name for sure.

The Burden of a Good Woman

The rest of the cast is a mixed bag. Molly, Carlisle’s primary love interest has more of an elevated role in the Film Noir than Del Toro’s movie. She is the “Good Woman” character that was pretty common in the 1940’s and used in Film Noir to contrast with the Femme Fatale. She is loyal, dependable and good at heart. Because of this she is often the voice of conscience to Carlisle. It is ultimately her good nature and principles that leads to Stanton’s fall but also provides the opportunity for redemption. Ultimately the biggest failure of the grifter was to predict the actions of a good woman. While she plays essentially the same role in Del Toro’s movie she feels somewhat removed from the story until she is required to throw a spanner in the works. It seems in this darker world a “Good woman” would seem a bit too out of place, plus the trope isn’t a popular one with modern writers. So the end result is she is just kind of there.

Carnival of Lost Souls

Conversely however the other Carnies are a lot more fleshed out in Del Toro’s vision and rather unsurprisingly Willem DaFoe puts in a top notch performance to his role as Carnie boss Clem Hoatley. The Mentalist couple, Zena and Pete, that take Carlisle under their wing in the Carnival seem a lot more fleshed out too, but then Stanton has a lot more to learn about the trade in the 2021 version so they had to be. Not that they were ignored in the 1947 version, indeed their relationship provides the template for where Stanton and Molly’s ends up and because of this Pete is depicted as far more of a washed up hasbeen, with little indication to his past glories. Last of all Molly’s romantic partner at the start of the movie is significantly different between films with it being a Strong Man in the original (and not a great performance) and the carnivals Dwarf in the modern version. I couldn’t say which is closer to the novel though (If you know, feel free to tell me in the comments). The Dwarf however is backed up by Ron Perlman’s Bruno so Carlisle still get’s punched for his indiscretions. 

Speaking of the Carnival, one of the most notable differences between versions is what the movies chose to show and what they chose to imply. The most obvious thing here being the carnivals “Geek”, which to those unfamiliar with the use of the work in this context, a carnival “Geek Show” features an apparently crazy man that chases around live chickens and eventually bites their heads off. The 1947 version shows only the audience reaction to this, but never shows it. Del Toro however directly depicts it. Of course they likely couldn’t show that in 1947, but still the implied spectacle was always pretty effective in film noir so that makes the approach a difficult comparison.

The Final Verdict

It’s not just the Geek that is given a more graphic spin, Del Toro also adds in a disturbing mutated baby in a jar (shown above) that also provides the film it’s final shot. None of this is really a surprise from Del Toro who always embraced the visually macabre. Of course Film Noir has its own visual style and Nightmare Alley is no exception, though it is not the best cinematography of the era. But then the 2021 version is not Del Toro’s best visual work either (Which is probably still “Pan’s Labyrinth”). Ultimately though I do have to give this one to the newer movie. One of the key elements of Film Noir is fatalism and it is actually the later movie that truly embodies that more than the first. The truth is the story here is a dark and twisted tale about not just human nature but about the dark side of the entertainment industry and it is fitting that the newer movie is so brutal in its approach. In my opinion however, this is not a great story in itself and so both versions surpassed the limitations of the source material to provide something truly entertaining.

Nightmare Alley (1947)

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

Nightmare Alley (2021)

Rating: 7 out of 10.

The Spiral Staircase (1946)

Posted on by fenrisfil

From director Robert Siodmak, whose work includes the excellent Film Noir’s “The Killers” and “Phantom Lady” this is 1946’s “The Spiral Staircase”, a serial killer movie, where the killer stalks and kills women with various afflictions, though most of it takes place in an old house on a stormy night so multiple tick boxes here.

The movie technically stars Dorothy McGuire as the Mute Helen, but despite being the protagonist, because she is mute the dialogue is all taken by other actors. Helen became a mute after witnessing her parents die in a fire when she was younger and has not spoken a word since. The supporting cast includes Kent Smith as Dr. Parry, George Brent as Professor Warren, Gordon Oliver as Steve Warren and Ethel Barrymore as the bed ridden Mrs. Warren.

 

The Twisted Path.

In the hands of a less capable director and with a less capable lead this would have been a very mediocre movie. The plot is unremarkable and most of the actors are likewise. However, Siodmak with his heavy influence from German Expressionism brings a fantastic eye to the camera and provides some beautiful imagery, mostly involving the use of shadows, rain and of course the Spiral Staircase itself along with some great glimpses of the killers eye (an eye provided by Siodmak himself) and an interesting daydream sequence.

Also raising the quality of the movie is McGuire and given she isn’t allowed to speak any dialogue has to convey to the audience all her emotions purely through her movements and expressions. Of course this movie is only 17 years after the end of the silent film era so perhaps this was less impressive in the day, but none the less she played her role perfectly. The killer however, once revealed wasn’t particularly imposing, which is a real shame because I know Siodmak can give us a great killer as the one in his “Phantom Lady” was actually very intimidating and had some great dialogue.

 

The Ever Decreasing Circles.

The music is typical of what you’d hear in the period in a Film Noir, but this is blended with a nice bit of Theremin. It works well enough but doesn’t really add anything. The problem with this film is simply that as a horror it’s not really scary or unsettling. I feel sympathy for Helen’s plight as a mute but that’s it really. The killer isn’t revealed until quite late on and while we see glimpses it doesn’t really build any terror. Really this plays more like a Film Noir, which also makes the visuals seem less unique as those techniques are all over that genre. Ultimately this isn’t Siodmak’s best work but it has it’s moments none the less.

Rating: 5.5 out of 10.

Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021)

Posted on by fenrisfil

The sequel to 2018’s “Venom”, starring Tom Hardy as Eddie Brock, a down and out journalist Eddie Brock that stumbles upon an alien Symbiote and together they become Marvel Comics anti-hero “Venom”. This instalment introduces Venom’s arch Nemesis (Well, other than Spider-Man) Cletus Kassady/Carnage, played here by Woody Harrelson. The movie also sees Hardy gain a writing credit and has a change in the directors seat with Andy Serkis replacing Ruben Fleischer.

Despite the changes the movie isn’t that different to the last one and much like that the plot and pacing is reminiscent of 90’s Superhero movies. The action mostly takes place in the final act and the plot is kept very simple. The comedy however is very much keeping with the MCU style (Very character based on focused around the hero) and of course humour is always very subjective so those jokes may not land for everyone. For me it was about 50/50. The other element that dates this as a modern movie instead of something from the 90’s is the dominant focus on themes over plot or characterisations. Everything here is driven by the themes of personal relationships but the focus on specific relationships actually undermines a number of the characters and elements of the plot.

Eddie are you okay?

The main relationship focus of course is Eddie and Venom, (which also provides the vast majority of the comedic elements) and this is really just an expansion of the first movie. A lot of this plays out like a buddy cop movie where two mismatched personalities have to learn to get on to bring in a serial killer. Venom is the loose canon, while Eddie is the by the book guy (Well, compared to Venom anyway). There are basically two issues on the surface for the pair. The first is that Venom basically wants to be a Superhero and as part of this wants to eat a few heads. Eddie on the other hand isn’t interested in that and doesn’t want Venom going around killing people.

This isn’t especially dissimilar to their conflict in the previous movie. What is new though is their relationship with Anne (Michelle Williams), or rather the lack of it since they have gone their separate ways since the previous movie. If you recall at the end of that movie Eddie decided to keep Venom’s survival a secret from her, but it seems sharing a body with an alien symbiote may have been too much of a distraction for him. Venom, having previously bonded with her for a while too is naturally fond of her and sees Eddie as a failure for letting her go. It’s worth noting Eddies relationship with Anne is quite underplayed in favour of focusing on his one with the symbiote. 

Out of the Black into the… Red?

Then there is Cletus’ relationships with his Carnage symbiote, with Brock and his love interest Shriek. These relationships sadly feel a lot more superficial. But then as a psychopath it’s not a surprise that most of his relationships are based on what others can do for him. He first sees Eddie as a means to enhance his notoriety, but when that backfires he sees him as a rival and a target for vengeance. When he bonds with the Carnage symbiote it’s pretty obvious what he is getting out of it and while on the surface the pair seem on the same page they never really have any affection for each other. Both are intent on using the other. 

A key element of the story is compatibility and how first impressions don’t determine who is compatible and who is not. So while Venom and Eddie seem at odds, they actually care about each other and underneath are actually compatible while the Cletus and Carnage are basically the opposite. The problem here is this feels artificial. It is an arc that fit better in the first film and which really wasn’t the case in the comics, so here they had to find a way to artificially drive the two agents of chaos apart and this wedge is Shriek, the aforementioned love interest and easily the weakest character in the movie.

Make some noise!

Now in the comics Shriek does become an ally of Carnage, but the love story is new for this movie and significantly changes Cletus’ personality making him significantly less scary and more human, which wouldn’t be so bad except this isn’t really reflected in the actors performances and Shriek especially has very little to do in practice other drive the plot forward. It’s worth noting that this is a character with literally nothing to her outside of story elements directly related to events in this film. Outside of her relationship with Cassidy the only thing that drives her is the need for vengeance against a completely random cop that happened to shoot her after she tried to kill him, of course this cop happens to be Detective Mulligan, the one cop that is also investigate Brock and Cassidy. Outside of this she has no past, no drive and no personality. Ironically as they randomly decided to race swap the character, that meant taking away her pale goth girl look, which while not a substitute for personality would have at least made her more memorable. They did a similar thing with Domino in Deadpool 2 but that character had enough on screen personality to make her interesting without her iconic look.

Ask Not For Whom The Bell Tolls.

The action when it finally happens is solid too and though I know some have said the CGI wasn’t good, it looked perfectly fine for me. The church location for the finale leads to a number of cool visuals and set pieces and the two symbiotes certainly go at it! There’s also a number of cool visuals prior to the confrontation. There is a mid and post credits scene as is the tradition for Marvel movies these days. One lays the groundwork for Venom 3, while the other will no doubt get viewers excited… until they find out it basically leads nowhere. This one is basically a Marvel One Shot in two parts split between mid-credits scenes in two movies. In itself it is fun, but it teases a lot more than it delivers. One last thing about the credits… damn that music is awful. Really awful. Made it hard to stick through the credits for those scenes. 

Anyway, key thing I think in all regards here is that if you liked the first movie you will probably like this. The movie is definitely entertaining, but given the importance of Carnage to the Venom story in the comics and the excellent casting of Harrelson in that role, this does feel a bit of a waste.

Rating: 6 out of 10.

Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021)

Posted on by fenrisfil

.

This is a tricky movie to review without any kind of spoiler so I have decided that this review will avoid plot spoilers only, but WILL reveal who is actually in the movie because I don’t think this can be properly reviewed without this and I feel like the surprise (or disappointment) is something people would want to know about in advance and does not ruin the film. Plus it is easiest to do a review here that avoids plot spoilers by focusing on the characters as this is very much a character movie.

You have been warned! I won’t be revealing this off the bat however and I’ll give you plenty of warning before I make the reveal.

So first up let’s go over the basics. This is the third MCU Spider-Man movie, the sixth MCU movie with Spider-Man in, the Eighth live action Spider-Man movie in general and the eleventh live action superhero movie with the character. For those keeping track, Batman has only nine, ten if you include his cameo in Suicide Squad and Eleven if you also include the 60’s TV movie. Suffice to say Spider-Man has quite the on screen legacy and unlike Batman all those movies are within the last 20 years.

Say No Go.

All incarnations of Peter Parker have been successful on screen and have had their own uniqueness to them. Tom Holland’s version of the character is no exception and his movies tend to hit the billion dollar mark. Not a huge shock given that Spider-Man is the most popular hero globally (WIthin the US Batman probably still takes that honour, but not by much and the only other hero near either of them is Superman). He is also my favourite hero and probably the one I have read the most of in the comics. MCU Spider-Man does attract a lot of well deserved criticism however due to how different he has become from the comics. It doesn’t help that his supporting cast is almost unrecognisable, but probably the biggest issue is his origin and I don’t mean the spider bite, I mean Uncle Ben.

See the MCU’s Parker doesn’t have an Uncle Ben, or at least if he did the man died before Peter gained his powers. He also has a considerably younger and well protected Aunt May that he doesn’t have to spend time worrying about too much. Instead of this as motivation he was given an attachment to Tony Stark as a mentor and felt that loss strongly. It was good character advancement but it made this Peter considerably different. I bring this up because it is probably the number one criticism that MCU Spider-Man gets and it does get somewhat addressed in this movie. There is definitely an element of course correction here.

Can U Keep a Secret?

Jon Watts is at the reins again with this instalment showing that Marvel is clearly happy with what he brings to the table and I think most fans are too. It’s worth noting he is attached for the MCU’s Fantastic Four movie so maybe there is reason to be hopeful. Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers also return as writers. Tom Holland of course returns as does his regular supporting cast including the not-so-popular Flash Thompson interpretation played by Tony Revolori who is basically just there to be the butt of a few jokes and Angourie Rice’s Betty Brant that does actually get a nice nod to her comic book counterpart in her brief cameo. Jon Favreau has a cameo but is less involved than in “Far from Home”. Zendaya, Jacob Batalon and Marisa Tomei however all play major parts in the story.

Joining the regulars is Benedict Cumberbatch’s Doctor Strange who plays a pivotal role (as seen in the trailer, Peter wants him to make people forget his secret identity), but actually isn’t in that much of the movie. First thing to bring up here is that he is not as irresponsible about the whole thing as he appeared in the trailer. Which is good because the Sorcerer Supreme shouldn’t be a reckless fool. If he is indeed the Sorcerer Supreme, which is something that seems to be up for debate. At the end of this movie they show a trailer for Doctor Strange and the Multiverse of Madness and I have to say I wasn’t sold on that. However he is treated fairly respectfully here and his interactions with Peter are actually really cool.

Ghetto Thang.

His interaction with Michelle Jones is not so good thanks to that annoying “Please” line from the trailer. But as I usually find with with these movies Zendaya was far better in the movie itself than the trailer. For some reason they always seem to pick her smuggest, snarkiest lines in the trailers instead of any of her human moments which is something that doesn’t help to sell the character to people (and given the whole “MJ” bit, they do need to sell her). On a side note here, they did awkwardly force into dialogue randomly that her full name is Michelle Jones-Watson… yeah they totally didn’t need to do that and it had no bearing on anything (so I don’t regard it a spoiler) but I guess someone, somewhere is celebrating. She is actually fine though.

Ned Leeds is a trickier one to judge since he is part of an annoying plot contrivance. But to be fair that contrivance allowed him to do something other than just comic relief (Which lets face it is totally redundant in an MCU Spider-Man film. However they even turn that into comic relief so it’s not great and they missed a chance to give Ned a not to his comic book counterpart. He’s not terrible though so it’s fine.

Me Myself and I.

So the most important thing here is Peter Parker. As I mentioned above there is a very clear course correction going on in this film. It’s not perfect, but you couldn’t do this correction perfectly in Peter’s sixth MCU appearance. He’s got too much history. But I feel like they did this as well as they possibly could and I don’t say that lightly. It feels like the writers and director and maybe Marvel/Sony producers took on board the criticism and tried to adjust for this and I have to say I am impressed by Marvel actually listening to fans for a change.

The way the course adjustment is done is entirely through the story and Peter’s character development in the story. Sam Raimi once said his approach to the Spider-Man films was “What can Peter learn in this movie” and this really felt like it was the approach to this. By the end of the film Peter has changed from being “Iron Boy Junior” to genuinely feeling like Spider-Man and I could not be happier about that. Of course they can still mess this up later but we will see.

Okay, minor character spoilers ahead for the villains (these are all in the trailer, so no surprises).

Potholes in My Lawn.

All the villains you see in the trailer are the actual villains from their respective Spider-Man universes. This is important because they all manage to retain consistent characterisations from those movies. They really feel like direct continuations of the same characters. Even more impressively most of them actually get character development! So perhaps unsurprisingly Alfred Molina’s Doc Ock and Willem Dafoe’s Green Goblin/Norman Osborn are the stand outs and as perhaps the two favourite villains from past movies they do justice to their previous appearances and characters and add to those movies instead of detract from them which was always the danger.

Jamie Foxx’s electro gets some redemption here too. Sadly Amazing Spider-Man 2 will probably go down in history as the worst Spider-Man movie, but here he is improved and he gets almost as much focus as the other two. Sandman (Thomas Haden Church) too gets some redemption though his part in Spider-Man 3 was generally considered the best bit anyway. Sadly though while he starts off consistent to his personality from that movie they seem to forget about that a bit in the middle. He and Lizard were always going to be the minor players in this but he did okay. Lizard on the other hand gets very little screen time and doesn’t add that much to the movie. He doesn’t detract from it either so there is that at least

So before we hit the reveal there is one other major cameo I’m not going to reveal because it is just one scene early in the film and you can probably guess it anyway. Suffice to say it was satisfying. I will tell you one cameo you will almost certainly miss though: Nicholas Hammond, the original live action Spider-Man from the 70’s TV series is in this movie. I’m not going to tell you where though!

CHARACTER SPOILER TIME!!!!!!!

The magic number.

The music for the films end credits is itself a spoiler for those characters. It is “The Magic Number” by De La Soul (At least I think it was the De La Soul track, it may have been another version of it or the original material used for the samples). Yep, the rumours were true Tobey and Andrew are both in this movie.

So I’m not going to talk too much about how they are involved but I will say they are key parts of the entire third act and all get both character and action moments. Each one is consistent to their past characters, but developed past the end of their final movies. Andrew-Spidey was of course deeply impacted by the death of Gwen Stacy and went somewhat to a dark place after that. He’s still got the wisecracking though that made many people call him the best Spider-Man (though they usually pair that with “Worst Peter Parker”).

Tobey-Spidey however seems to have found a good element of balance and happiness to his life and though he doesn’t talk about it (so it’s not a spoiler) they really seem to hint that he may well be happily married to Mary Jane much like he was in the comics before the dreaded “One More Day” storyline messed that up. Tobey as the older Spider-Man is getting a little worn physically but he can still get the job done.

Buddy!

One of the best things here is the interaction between the three Peter’s. It’s respectful of each, though also acknowledges basically all the fan criticism. That in one place felt a bit like they were dumping on the AMS films but they restrained the mocking to things most people mocked and remained respectful of Andrew’s Spider-Man. They also talked about Tobey not needing web shooters, which turned into a fun moment. As far as Tom-Spidey goes they were careful not to diminish him too much by throwing in the other two (Especially with Tobey being such a fan favourite). They acknowledged Tom’s strengths and how his experience working with the Avengers makes him unique (Who have only worked solo, or briefly with one other)..

Perhaps the best bit though is that Tobey and Andrew both get on screen character development too and in ways that reference their own past and things that would have weighed on their consciences. This is the strength of this movie in general. All the main characters (The three Peters and three main villains) all get character arcs that really work for them. I also have to give Andrew dues for putting in a really good performance, giving him a lot of vindication for having to suffer through the bad writing on his solo outings.

3 Feet High and Rising.

Okay so while this movie is strong for character development, it actually isn’t especially outstanding on the action front. It’s not bad as such, but there isn’t really anything outstanding or ground breaking here, just lots of what you’ve seen before and in actual fact less impressive action than a lot of previous films. There are some great spectacles that no doubt make great screen shots (such as the one above), but it definitely suffers from the messy style of a lot of modern action where things are fast and hard to follow. To me though this didn’t really impact the film, this is a character movie with action and that is fine. What I will say is when you have all three Spider-Men involved in the action it can get a little confusing at times as to which is which. 

Rating this movie is a tricky one. I don’t want to get too drawn in to nostalgia here, but as of right now I feel this is a solid 7.5. If you are a Spider-Man fan of ANY of the previous instalments, you will likely enjoy this movie. One final thought though: As I mentioned this movie has a lot of course corrections for the character, but I would just like to point out that if they hadn’t chosen to skip Peter’s origin story and the character development he has from that origin they wouldn’t have needed to spend three solo movies and three team movies to get Peter to a position he would have been in his first movie, had they shown that origin. So in future, maybe don’t be so fast to applaud skipping superhero origins. Remember it’s not important what made someone powerful, but it is important what made them a hero.

Rating: 7.5 out of 10.

The Changeling (1980)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Another review from my October Horrorthon, this time “The Changeling” from 1980. The movie is directed by Peter Medak (“The Krays”) and stars George C. Scott (“Dr. Strangelove”, “Patton”) as John Russel with support from Melvyn Douglas and Trish Van Devere.

John Russel, is a music professor, grieving the loss of his wife and daughter in a traffic accident. To get a clean start he moves to Seattle where he rents out a Victorian Mansion from an agent of the local history society, Claire Norman (Van Devere). It turns out the property has been vacant for twelve years and it appears to be haunted. After a number of unexplained events within the house John brings in some specialist in hauntings to try and communicate with the spectral presence that turns out to be the ghost of a young boy.

The first act is a pretty solid haunted house affair, with a nice steady build up to the discovery of a hidden attic bedroom and a music box that plays the same tune which John had previously “composed” earlier in the movie (under the influence of the house). Things change drastically though for the middle act which is more of a mystery thriller as John delves into the story of the child and the house and uncovers the dark secret of the Mansions former owner. The vengeful spirit gets back involved though in the final act where things are ramped up in a suitable fashion (and we get a few deaths to boot). As a horror the middle act breaks the tension a little too much, but it does allow for a far more interesting ghost story.

John is an interesting character with a very personal motivation for investigating ghosts and it gets even more personal when a séance (involving some ghost writing and EVP) reveals that the ghost is that of a murdered child. The problem though is that John as a little too calm about the whole thing while the vengeful spirit, despite the odd temper tantrum is focused solely on finding justice for what was done to him. For most of the film they are on the same page so once the mystery is in motion I never really felt John was in any danger in the house. The mystery surrounding the house and ghost however is very compelling and it is refreshing to see a haunting with a more complicated and nuanced story behind it. 

This is a different kind of ghost story with the focus on the mystery instead of the horror and while the haunting elements do have their moments (Especially the child’s wheelchair moving itself around the house and a few things in the final act that I won’t spoil for you) it’s not especially scary or unsettling. The central mystery is directly linked to the name of the film and certainly provides a dramatic George C. Scott does a solid job in the lead role (especially as this is a movie very focused on it’s lead), but I would have liked to have seen a bit more made out of loss and how that relates to the plot of the film on an emotional and introspectional level. Overall though, this was an enjoyable movie. 

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTzgXVosQOU

Sweet Smell of Success (1957)

Posted on by fenrisfil

My final November Noir is a big one that I am long overdue for watching. This is “Sweet Smell of Success” from 1957. Adapted from Ernest Lehman’s novelette of the same name, this is a Noir Drama and one of those that may not be obvious as a Noir just from the synopsis but themes and style are very much in the genre.

Directed by Alexander Mackendrick (of Ealing Studios fame, having directed such movies as The Man in the White Suit (1951) and The Ladykillers (1955)), with double Oscar winning cinematographer James Wong Howe seeing to the visuals the legendary Elmer Bernstein providing the score. Add to that Tony Curtis and Burt Lancaster and this was always going to be a good one.

Curtis takes the lead as morally bankrupt press agent Sidney Falco, with Lancaster as the overbearing columnist J.J. Hunsecker, support is given by the beautiful Susan Harrison as Hunsecker’s sister Susan and Martin Milner as her love interest, Jazz guitarist Steve Dallas.

Sweet Sound of Success

The first thing that hits you right out of the gate is soundtrack that manages to be both explosive and sleazy at once with an instantly recognisable hook. This is a Bernstein soundtrack more along the line of “The Man with the Golden Arm” (1955) than his later work and it fits perfectly for this movie.

It’s worth noting the music for this movie isn’t entirely Bernstein as the film also featured music by the Chico Hamilton Quintet, itself quite a ground-breaking group as it featured Cello as a lead instrument. Though here much of the focus is the guitar due to it being the instrument of choice for key character Steve Dallas. This was the first movie to have two separate soundtrack releases one for Bernstein’s score and the other for the Quintets (Something that is commonplace today).

Sweet Look of Success

Accompanying the soundtrack in the intro are some fantastic bits of cinematography which lets the viewer know they are in for a treat as we briefly follow a newspaper run straight off the print, into trucks and to it’s final destination to the hands of Sidney Falco (Curtis).

This is a late period Noir and has a lot more polish than a lot of the genre, but it doesn’t move away from the classic shadow play. James Wong Howe’s style is certainly smoother and less claustrophobic than a lot of the genre but it works beautifully for this movie. Of particular note are the wide cityscapes that really capture Manhattan in the late 50’s.

Sweet Plot of Success

The premise is pretty straight forward on the surface. Falco has been asked by columnist J.J. Hunsecker to derail the romance of his younger sister that he is over protective of. Having failed to do so by the start of the movie Hunsecker has frozen him out of his column, which has cost him one of his clients. Hunsecker gives him a second chance, which allows Falco to come up with a scheme to manipulate the couple into ending their romance. The plan involves smearing the guitar player and forcing a confrontation between him and J.J. that paints Hunsecker as the injured party and forces his sister to stop seeing him. Of course things are never that straight forward.

What follows is a web of manipulation where morality and integrity become both a weakness to exploit and an obstacle to overcome. Falco stoops ever lower to achieve the bullying Hunsecker’s demands and eventually his ability to read and manipulate people fails him causing the whole web to unravel.

Sweet Themes of Success

This is a story about morality and how far people are willing to go to achieve their goals. But it’s also about denial and how people delude themselves that they aren’t being immoral. As Falco’s morality becomes more and more flexible he also becomes more and more defensive of his own motivations, most notably when he whores out a “friend” as a form of bribe and seems to be justifying it to himself more than her that it is for her good.

His plan to break up the couple hinges on using Dallas’ morality against him, but while he reads the guitarist like a book he fails to read either of the Hunsecker’s reaction to situation and between them his fate is sealed. By the movies conclusion he is well aware of how far he has fallen but yet doesn’t seem willing to accept any of the blame himself. Rest assured though this is the 50’s so naturally he won’t escape punishment.

While Falco is still descending in his morality, Lancaster’s Hunsecker has already reached the point where he can no longer tell how far he has fallen. Indeed after having achieved his goals he is so insulted by being called out for what he really is by Dallas that he pushes his luck just a little too far. Indeed he sees the attack on his moral fibre to be an attack on his readers. He has bought into his own hype, he sees his view as moral and Steve’s as immoral. Really, this is a very accurate portrayal of Journalist. On one side willing to stoop to any depth to achieve his ends but on the other seeing himself as a true pillar of the community.

All told this is a superb movie. Curtis and Lancaster nail their roles, the dialogue is superb, the plot appears simple on the surface but sees it’s share of twists and turns, the themes are strong throughout, the characters believable and compelling and the movie looks and sounds great. Definitely well worth seeing.

Rating: 8 out of 10.