The Bridge at Remagen (1969)

There's something pure about war movies made before all special effects were CGI. Not very environmental, though. So many gasoline bombs...

The premise is quite simple: Ze Germans are to destroy a bridge to prevent the allied forces from crossing the Rhine and setting foot on German soil. 

The build-up is slow and doesn't always seem to have much of a point to it. The problem is that while some films have done a great job portraying the tediousness and waiting games of war, this doesn't really do that either. Things just seem to happen here and there to fill the time, not really relevant to the plot as it is, nor to any visible development of the characters. 

Ze German officers are portrayed as weary and realistic, which was a nice change of pace at this point. Robert Vaughn and Peter van Eyck provide us with very nice American nazis. The former's desperation and disbelief as to the chaos created by Hitler's refusal to accept defeat, and his generals' subsequent failure to report a truthful and correct number of troops, growing throughout. In itself, this film gives a very interesting insight into that particular area.

None are as weary and cynical as George Segal, however. A gruff, but effective man, regularly promoted by the untimely deaths of others. Segal even looks tired in his motions, and his patience is growing thinner as we move towards the climax. His lack of trust towards the excellent and irreverent Ben Gazzara the best chemistry on screen. 

"The Bridge at Remagen" does have it subtle point eventually, as we can feel the fatigue and hopelessness on both sides as we (literally) crawl towards the end. 

So it's not a classic, and not among the best war movies of its time either. It lacks a bit both in suspense, story (apart from the plot itself) and characters. But it's a decent flick, and has marvellous performance by aforementioned Segal and Vaughn. So not bad either

6/10

Stan & Ollie (2018)

I remember Laurel & Hardy from some old shows my grandfather had on VCR, and I adore John C. Reilly, so this should be a treat. 

One must marvel at the nostalgic feeling from the studio scenes. It's always a treat seeing that kind of attention to detail and mood. Perhaps the perfect example is at the final performance. An anticipating crowd in glee over the memories from their youth by the mere theme the pair were so known for, The Dance of the Cuckoos. 

The directing is mostly quite brilliant as Baird knows the strength of both his actors and the source material. One could argue that he could have used a few more sketches, rather than repeat the same 3, but then you would also miss the point of the repetitiveness of theatre comedy work.

Where this film really has a home-run, is in the acting of its to stars. Reilly is predictably excellent as the whimsical has-been that fully depends on his partner for jokes, logistics and life-advice (that he doesn't take very often). His fear of conflict, his pride, his gambling and his lack of self-control, making him in many ways a lesser husband, friend and man. It's later in the film he truly stars though, showing how underappreciated his dramatic talents are as Hardy's health deteriorates and everything becomes very real.

Shockingly, however, it's Coogan who still finds a way to steal the show. His razor-sharp wit, whether for humour or verbal malice is pitch perfect, as are his constant facial antics whether on stage, or waiting for a meeting in a lobby, making random eye contact with a stranger. Coogan also manages to portray the tired, ageing Laurel that's well past his prime in fame and money. But unlike his partner, he has long since realised how washed-up their careers are. Thus he protects his partner from bad news throughout, letting him live in his childlike hopefulness. Though it was never necessary.

And so they go about their business of  illusory rejuvenation. Until their wives show up and present their hatred towards each other, as vented by their husbands over decades to them over dinners and late evenings. From that point, nothing can be the same. Speaking of the wives, for a piece of sheer art, observe their faces at the last performance of their husbands. One in utter joy over her man's performance and the revival of his genius. The other, panic-stricken and scared to death, fearing hers will fall dead on stage at any given moment. 

The old sketches still work a charm, Coogan and Reilly delivering perfectly as the old cooks knowing their routines in and out (Laurel in particular), but still doing them with pride and gusto. Cuter still is how they both keep up parts of their personas in their private lives when communicating with each other. 

As the drama increases, naturally the comedy eludes director Jon Baird. Though it's hard to avoid, I still feel it makes this film a bit more of a "game of two halves" than necessary. 

But it's still nostalgic, funny, heart-warming, and very, very good.

8/10

Death at a Funeral (2007)

You know there's going to be personal drama, when the entire intro is about the characters' petty problems and neuroses. But are they fun, or at least original? Well... The plot of the drug taken by mistake, is a piss poor approach to that question. Now they'll have to work harder to convince me.

Let's start with some good news. Peter Vaughan as Uncle Alfie is fun, though not in an original way. Matthew McFadyan is decent as the calm and collected amongst the gang of neurotic wankers, until he finds his limit. The Peter Dinklage angle, is though obvious from the start, quite original and funny for a very limited time. I pity Alan Tudyk though. Such a versatile actor. He tries to do his best with the aforementioned unoriginal drugmix-story, but the writing of it is just so unoriginal and daft, that he can only keep it going for a few minutes. After that, it's endlessly excruciating to watch. In every conceivable way. Then they actually make someone else take the drugs by mistake. And a third time (though the third time isn't half bad).

They really have a great cast for a repressed family, thinking more of themselves than they should. With the friends to match. The problem is there is not a single likeable character, and no real plot to speak of. Just a random series of events, egotistical morons galore, and a general lack of good gags. There is a great scene (involving Vaughan and poo, naturally), that had me in stitches. And the late increase in pace really does wonders for the film, due to the aforementioned problem with all characters.

The eulogy really is brilliant and self-aware, considering its contents vis-a-vis the tiresome characters.

So is it original? Hell no. Is it funny? Mostly not. But it has a couple of good moments, and a small piece of genius, so I suppose it could have been a lot worse.

5/10

The Ipcress File (1965)

Just after there was James Bond, there was Harry Palmer. Your down to earth agent, who has no glitz nor glamour what so ever. And that's not the only thing that separates Len Deighton's involuntary, impertinent and insolent agent with his small flat and his boring stake-outs, from the most suave of them all.

Whereas Bond's adventures usually start off with some huge chase and a female with huge... ehrm. Well anyhow, this film starts with Palmer struggling to find his glasses before getting out of bed, taking his sweet time making perfect coffee, and walking from his at best mediocre apartment to an even worse one, to replace his colleague at aforementioned stakeout.

Brilliantly, this flick plays to the secret agent as an employee of the government. Mundane bureaucracy, long hours and low pay are amongst the very everyday grievances our hero must endure. Alongside an endless array of brown and grey office buildings. It gives it a kind of credibility as a spy story, that Bond never had. Thus making it entertaining in a wholly different way.

The plot is somewhat more fantastical as 17 top scientists all seem to quit for no reason. Without wanting to spoil too much, I will limit myself to saying the plot is optimistic as to the effectiveness of hypnotism. Since this is an old film with a stellar script from a great book, Palmer actually has to do some most clever detective work, based on observation and deduction. Always a treat.

Of all the things done well here, nothing is quite as good as the dialogues. Caine, Green and Doleman are all on exceptional form, and whatever combination of those three director Sidney Furie decides to bestow upon us, is pure class. The scene of the two latter in the park a pure feast of British implicitness and understatement in dialogue. 

The filming is at times experimental for its decade, but quite sublime, and never overdoes it. As an example two of the key scenes to a side plot, are shot through different kinds of glass as they both pertain to the same character. Subtle, cool and smart. Ipcress makes no excuses for knowing it's smart and making a point of it. One really most love the British arrogance of it all when it's so meticulous.

Even Palmer's incarceration and eventual torture is long and slow, and as there is an absurd form of realism to most of it, it holds up wonderfully in modern age. Thanks in no small part to the quality of Caine's acting skills as well as Furie's ability to not overdo anything.

Another reason it works a treat, is due to famous Bond-composer John Barry's utterly genius score. Barry's score to Ipcress is one of his most jazz-loyal, and one of his very best. Never downplaying that Palmer is a doing a grunt's job, he leaves the fanfares and big horns at home. Instead he opts for simple, haunting and often repetitive tones. 

To add to that, the endgame is riveting as the three main characters face off in a verbal game to the death. In a dark warehouse at night, under a single lightbulb so the director can play with shadows. Fantastic. 

9/10

Bumblebee (2018)

A Transformers-flick (almost; he is producing) devoid of Michael Bay! Count me in!

At least that means this time they have written a story-line. "Bumblebee" has a secondary angle, as it is a film about friendship and trust. Since the film actually has a side-story of interest, it's miles above the previous instalments, which don't really have any other agenda than to blow shit up and sell tickets. And as you actually care for the characters, you actually care what happens to them. For the first Transformers-film ever.

A perfect example is the scene in which Steinfeld meets Bumblebee. Travis Knight is simply better than Bay at things that don't explode, and uses the necessary time and angles to make the scenes between explosions worth watching.

The humour is better as well, particularly the scene where Bumblebee discovers what music he hates. Though I wish he hated something worse.

Having a director that isn't so driven towards shit, makes for a huge improvement on the music as well. Particularly the introduction of Steinfeld to the tunes of "Bigmouth strikes again" is pleasing, as well as Oingo Boingo of course. The soundtrack is 80's only (until some horrid piece during the credits, for some reason), and they didn't stop there. They even found room for some olden, goldies among the actors. Remember Fred Dryer? Didn't think so.

Speaking of actors, John Cena isn't exactly Oscar-material and proves as much here. Though the casting is hardly totally off. As a bad-ass soldier, he kind of fits the bill, regardless of limitations. Unfortunately his part is rather large, making the film suffer greatly. Another poor choice is the casting as Dylan O'Brien as the voice of Bumblebee, making the robot sound like a nerdy teen before his voice change. Thankfully, Bumblebee is mute for most of this film. A better piece of casting is aforementioned Hailee Steinfeld as the main character. Without the foot-in-mouth-direction of Bay, she is actually allowed to be charming and use some facial expressions, at which she is much better than Shia.

Knight doesn't really know how to balance his different parts though, and at times this film actually lacks a bit of action, until there is a bit too long a sequence towards the end. But hey! He doesn't rotate the camera, so this time you actually get to see the robots fight.

The biggest problem is that there isn't a shred of original thought anywhere in the film. The protagonist is of course an outcast that doesn't care much to fit in, but has a super-special skill (2 actually). And naturally, her dad is dead, thus (supposedly) making us care more. Well, people less cynical than me at least. And you can pretty much guess everything that's going to happen.

So this is infinitely better than any of the putrid instalments before it. Still, you can't help to think that the Marketing department has been involved too heavily in some of the decisions here, making it a bit more stupid than it had to be.

6/10

Joker (2019)

So, the most important social commentary in years? Oh hell no. Don't believe that hype. It is, however, a very good film.

And make no mistake. For better or worse, this is Joaquin Phoenix' film from start to finish. For better or worse. Mostly better, as it is an absolutely astonish performance. And written with an Oscar in mind, no doubt. The Academy loves a malnourished, skinny actor playing a psychopath with everyday struggles. Phoenix has both the nuance and the sheer crazy. It's painful to watch his awkward interaction with society, with or without his involuntary laughter. His feet are always in motion, whether dancing, running or frenetically moving them as he sits by the television. You can feel his loneliness as he sits in a club taking notes for his own stand-up, while laughing at all the wrong places,without ever realizing why. He balances everything perfectly. Making you feel enough for him to feel interested, but never enough to understand him. Nicely summed up on a piece of paper early in the film

As for the other actors, who mostly work as extras, there is special mention for Brian Tyree Henry and Frank Wood, who both have very short scenes, but really make a lasting impression.

The film is very slow in pace, lingering, making you anticipate and dread scenes. Like Arthur's first appearance as a comedian in front of an audience. You know it's coming, you know it will be gruelling. So you dread it. Rightly. Then director Phillips does it again. With such a slow pace, Phoenix is allowed all the space and time he needs. More importantly, the violence feels particularly shocking when it appears. It's a very uncomfortable film to watch, and not because of the violence. It's all about the moods, the dystopia and the bleakness. There isn't much humour here, but it is dark. Phillips has his tricks as a storyteller too, and make no mistake: The novice will be fooled. The cynic perhaps also.

So to the claim that this is an important outlook as to how a society creates a villain. It's certainly done rather well, but there's nothing new here. Gotham was always a bleak city, with a divided society. It was touched by Burton and rammed into the ground by Nolan. The fact that this film doesn't have a hero, doesn't make the story nor concept original in that respect. In some ways, it's almost a homage, as there are so many films referenced indirectly here. At least 3 of the previous Batman-films from the Burton-films until now, V for Vendetta, King of Comedy, Taxi Driver etc.

It's worth noting that Arthur is so invested in being a clown, that even when he runs in his civilian clothes, he runs as if he had his giant shoes on. A further fantastic detail, is the development of his laugh. Throughout the film it's either forced by his medical condition, or by his compulsion to adapt to his society. But towards the end, his laugh towards the TV-audience is in total control, sarcastic and maniacal. The odd one out finally finding his way

A sigh of exasperation: Had they ended the film 3 minutes earlier, with an amazing scene sending shivers down all spines, I would have rated it even higher.

8/10

Thirteen Days (2000)

A 145 minute film about the Cuba Missile Crisis... Surely this has all the hallmarks of tediousness and overly obvious morals?

Costner seems to have a proclivity to films where his character has a family that he can love and worry alongside as the main plot evolves. At times these scenes seem unnecessary, but him telling his wife that he will be evacuated with the President, not joining her and the children in the event of war, is very good. He does excel at playing the smart man with a temper just around the corner, though. And you can fell his anger as he keeps his composure among the brass as they attempt to force the President's hand.

Greenwood is brilliant as JFK, even notching up an award for his work. A bigger surprise is Steven Culp as the cockier, more aggressive and hands-on Robert Kennedy. Always with a complete understanding of any situation, and a way to implement. The brilliant and ruthless one to a tee.

As there is no youth here, this is an opportunity for mature character actors to shine. That makes for a stellar cast. Special mention goes to Dylan Baker and Michael Fairman for memorable interpretations of Robert McNamara and Adlai Stevenson. Baker is front and centre of the films most suspenseful scene (a wonderful nail-biter as the a Russian ship has broken the blockade) and is pitch perfect. Fairman is brilliant as the cautious Stevenson, teetering on the brink of his career, but as all seem to have lost faith in him, and he needs to step up, he has a weary little gem: "I'm an old political cat, Kenny. But I've got one life left". A sublime, understated performance.

The men in dark suits with serious faces work a treat and show you don't need to flash people to get a point across. A few lines, spoken with certainty, with shivering consequences obvious, and the heartbreaking calls Costner has to make as a result, are among the films most memorable scenes. Director Donaldson does an excellent job at portraying the pressure Kennedy was under by his military advisers to launch a full-scale invasion of Cuba instead of a more cautious blockade. Albeit, I do feel he overstates it a bit for simplicity and to make Kennedy shine even more.

There is suspense galore, despite most of it being conversations in dark room between men in even darker suits, with lingering close-ups of very serious politicians and diplomats. The humour is naturally very dry and very clever. Quite perfect. As for the running time it is perfectly viable, until the last few minutes, which are most unnecessary drivel.


Best enjoyed with a large whisky. No ice. Just for the mood.

8/10