JUROR #2****

I am not exactly sure why JUROR #2 slipped from view and made poor returns but it is a good old-fashioned, handsomely made, twisty courtroom drama. 

Nicholas Hoult (NOSFERATU) stars as Justin - a recovering alcoholic with a heavily pregnant wife.  Early into a criminal trial for murder Justin realises that the man on the stand is innocent of brutally bludgeoning his partner because it was actually Justin who was returning from a bar, having nearly relapsed, and thought he had hit a deer. He did get out of the car to investigate, but not finding anything, drove off.

So what should he do? Should he confess, knowing his history of DUIs will make his testimony unreliable? Should he agitate in the jury room for a mistrial?  And what of the prosecutor (Toni Colette), who needs a conviction for her re-election campaign?

The film works as a backward-induced whodunnit. Is the jury going to figure out what really happened?  It also works as case study of moral code, much as SMALL THINGS LIKE THESE will. How far has Justin truly reformed? 

As I said, there's nothing particularly new or inventive here, but the script was clever and tight, the performances solid, and I was thoroughly engaged throughout. It's kind of amazing that nonagenarian Clint Eastwood can still churn these things out.  It feels like a film that we used to make in the 80s - intelligent smart thrillers for adults. Maybe that's why it couldn't find its place at the Box Office.

JUROR #2 is rated PG-13 and has a running time of 114 minutes. It was released last month.

THE 15:17 TO PARIS

Remember back in 2015 when that terrorist nutter tried to cause chaos on a high speed train to Paris, but an Englishman a Frenchman and some Americans took him out?  Well, Clint Eastwood has made a film about the attack, taking the interesting angle of looking at how the three Americans grew up, in order to cast some light on why they took that courageous decision to have a go.  Eastwood is even more experimental - shockingly so - in that he casts the three real life men - Anthony Sadler, Alek Skarlatos, and Spencer Stone - to play themselves. The result is a film that is disarmingly simple, direct, authentic and surprisingly affecting. 

As the film opens we see the three men as kids, getting into scrapes at school, being split up as one leaves for school in another town.  You get the feeling that they're just normal boys, albeit boys brought up with strong mothers and for one of them at least strong faith and a strong sense of (military) service.  There's a kind of simplicity to their basic human decency and - at the same time - their almost moronic banality. They sound like most twenty something friends, when they're ordering beers and food in a Dutch bar with a raging hangover. To be sure they can't act - but that's kind of the point. That extraordinary things can happen to ordinary people.  But not all ordinary people react in the way these boys did.  Military training helps. Knowing your way around a gun probably does help, as much I hate to say it. And having strong moral values that compel you to insert yourself into the situation probably helps.

To be sure, Eastwood's brand of folksy patriotism and family values will grate on some viewers. I found myself having to detach myself for the allegory that could be made to a kind of interventionist military pro-gun policy.  But it's hard to be cynical when faced with such common decency and bravery. And as much as I was irritated by the lack of focus given to the French and British men who also fought back, I guess that's just the nature of the beast. And after all, Eastwood does give the final most emotional speech to a real life Francois Hollande. And I honestly did shed a tear when he spoke about humanity countering terror. 

THE 15:17 TO PARIS is rated PG-13 and has a running time of 94 minutes. It is available to rent and own.

AMERICAN SNIPER

You can listen to a podcast review of this film here or subscribe to Bina007 Movie Reviews in iTunes:



When people like Matt Taibbi get angry at AMERICAN SNIPER I think what they're really angry about is the Iraqi war.   I don't believe my country should've gone to war in Iraq after 9-11 but that doesn't have anything to do with AMERICAN SNIPER. This film is not pro-war propaganda nor is it mindlessly racist.  Maybe the real Chris Kyle was all of these things are more.  I don't care.  What I care about when I'm reviewing a film is what I see on screen. And what I saw was a beautifully made, superbly acted film that had the courage to show the flaws and delusions of a simple patriot, and the grave toll that war takes on everyone involved in it. It's an intelligent and sensitive film and I wish people could just watch it on its own terms.

J. EDGAR - A Love Story

J Edgar Hoover is perhaps one of the most significant figures in twentieth century US history. He near invented the FBI; ran it and its predecessor for 50 years; held presidents and public figures in fear of his blackmail material; used the resources of the FBI to pursue personal vendettas and prejudices - against "reds" and civil rights activists - and forever damaged the balance between personal liberty and security.  Hoover was involved in the crackdown on prohibition era gangsters; the Linbergh baby kidnapping; the McCarthy witch-hunts, "Cointelpro" and all the Cold War and anti-civil rights movement paranoia that followed. It is no exaggeration to say that he shaped US history.  He did all this, but remained himself an enigma - unmarried, but with a suspiciously close relationship with his professional sidekick Clyde Tolson. Hoover was a man capable of viciously hounding public figures but also capable of inspiring such personal loyalty that his long-time secretary Helen Gandy destroyed all his personal files after his death before Nixon could get his hands on them.

The odd thing about Clint Eastwood's new biopic is that it seems utterly unconcerned with Hoover's political and institutional significance.  Presidents come and go, the Lindbergh case is used to enhance the bureau's power, but all this is merely grist for Hoover's emotional mill. McCarthy isn't mentioned - neither is Cointelpro.  There is a brief scene where Hoover is trying to pressure Dr King, but nothing is fully explored.  One leaves the film knowing no more about his real significance than when one enters the cinema. That emptiness and confusion is exacerbated by the film's structure - which cuts between a linear re-telling of Hoover's career highlights as he narrates a self-serving autobiography from the 1970s.

Rather than create a biopic, Eastwood and screenwriter Dustin Lance Black (MILK) have decided to create a movie about a repressed love that just happens to involve famous historical figures.  To that end, this is less JFK or W. than BRIEF ENCOUNTER. In Black's thesis, Hoover suffered his whole life from severe emotional repression. He fell in love with Clyde Tolson at first sight, but couldn't return his love physically because his domineering mother had so inculcated her shame at having a gay son.  Even after her death, the relationship remained chaste - a love that was hidden in private as well as in public.  This is, to be sure, a deeply tragic story, and I was genuinely moved by it.  The scenes between Tolson and Hoover - a pivotal and rare emotional outburst at a hotel - the final scene together - are incredibly touching.  But, unfortunately, that wasn't the movie I had been sold, and wading through the hours of running time - of famous politicians lifted up and cast aside - to get to these few emotional scenes - was just utterly dreary.

The movie is a similarly mixed bag when it comes to the technical specs. Lensing by long-time Eastwood collaborator Tom Stern is straightforward, but the film is desaturated to within an inch of its life, leading to a distancing effect that is as artificial as Armie Hammer's make-up as the ageing Tolson (diCaprio has a far more convincing make-up job as the ageing Hoover).  The period costumes and set are sumptuous - as one would expect from a big budget affair, but it all feels as deadened and manicured as Hoover's inner life. In terms of performances - diCaprio is typically impressive, but the real breakthrough is Armie Hammer - the emotional heart of the film, who even manages to move us through his terrible make-up - and Judi Dench as Hoover's grandiose, truly horrifying mother. I would love to see both get Best Performing nods, but I suspect that it's diCaprio who will take the glory come the Oscars.

J. EDGAR played the AFI Fest 2011. It is on release in the US and Canada. It opens on January 6th in Greece, the Netherlands, Singapore, Italy and Norway; on January 11th in Belgium and France; on January 20th in Denmark, Sweden and the UK; on January 26th in Australia, Portugal, Brazil, Spain and Japan; on February 16th in Germany; on March 1st in the Czech Republic and on March 2nd in Turkey.

INVICTUS - A Sports film by Basil Exposition

INVICTUS is a superficial, schmaltzy, by-the-numbers sports movie in which Clint Eastwood dumbs down the social and political history of South Africa, and completely fails to capture the excitement and brilliance of the 1995 Rugby World Cup. As you can tell, I'm pretty pissed off at having to have sat through two hours and fifteen minutes of this earnest but ham-fisted bilge. I will do my best to structure my anger into something like a meaningful review.

The plot is basic. It is 1995 in South Africa. Nelson Mandela is President of a nation still riven with racial tensions. He decides that he will, against all odds, unite the nation behind the South African rugby team, the Springboks, despite the fact that they are an icon of Apartheid. The Springbok captain, Francois Pienaar, responds to Mandela's faith in him, and through rigourous training, the team triumphs and wins the World Cup, against all odds.

The issues are complex. Mandela wants to unite his nation, but this is no hippie vegetarian love-in. He needs white South Africans to feel invested enough in the new South Africa to make it economically and socially viable. He may portray himself as a wise sage, forgiving all and inspiring all, but he is, after all, a former terrorist (no matter how righteous the cause), addressed by his followers as Comrade. Mandela has an interest in creating the image of the wise harmless old statesman that we see given back to us in this film. A better film would have portrayed a more complicated man.

The simplicity of the screenplay is even more evident in the handling of Chester Williams, the only black South African in the squad. He is a smiling docile sort of chap who ignores politics in the one line he is given. Did he really ignore it or was he forced to? How did he feel about the pressure put upon him? How did he feel to be injured in the opening game? We never know.

And what of the attitude of the white South Africans? In this film, they are portrayed as low-level racists - a bit pissed off - a bit disenfranchised - but basically willing to throw it all up for an inspiring Mandela speech and some free world cup tickets. The Francois Pienaar character barely has to move at all - he seems ripe for conversion to Mandela's rainbow nation cause. At one point, I thought the film might delve into the issue of race in the relationship between Pienaar and his more surly players - the players who refuse to sing the former ANC hymn, Nkosi sikelele Africa. But no, Pienaar asks them to sing the anthem; they refuse; game over. Nowhere do we see actual argument or soul searching or character development. All we get are some speeches from Mandela and a magical transformation into a nation united behind the team. The worst the opposition can muster are some pissed off looks.

In Eastwood's "exploration" of the new South Africa, deep social and racial issues are reduced to a pissed-off stand-off in the playground.

Enough for the conceptual weakness. What of the production? This is, basically piss-poor. Locations in Jo'burg and Cape Town are mixed up. Morgan Freeman can't do a South African accent. Matt Damon makes a better attempt but looks like a midget compared to the real Pienaar. Not trusting the innate tension of the sporting events, Eastwood tries to inject a weak thriller element into his film by having Mandela's security guards worry about an assassination attempt. Not trusting the intelligence of the audience, he has characters explain the significance of every single action three times over. The dialogue is hammy: the security guard literally says "Not on my watch." The style is ham-fisted: we see a little black kid trying to listen to the match on the white copper's car radio. And yes, sure enough, by the end of the match, the copper is holding the kid ahoist. And they all lived happily ever after.

Basically, as a cinema-goer you have to decide what you want the movies you watch to do for you. If you want film to skate over the surface of the difficulties in life, and to tell soothing stories - if you want cinema to be as bland and as obvious and as Mickey Mouse simplistic as a mug of Ovaltine, go ahead and watch INVICTUS. But you do have a choice. If you want to be challenged - if you want to think radical thoughts about the racial issues really present in South Africa, watch DISGRACE instead.

Finally, one last point. There are certain moments that you do not cut away from. You just leave the camera standing and let the power of the shot mesmerise the audience. The nine minute rape scene with Monica Bellucci in IRREVERSIBLE is one. The first solo dance scene with John Travolta in SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER is another. You do NOT cut away from the Haka. You just let the All Blacks scare the shit out of you. That's the power - that's the thing that tells the audience that the Bokke are really up against it. Unless of course you are Clint Eastwood and you have no appreciation of rugby history and are merely shoe-horning a famous match into a schmaltzy sports flick genre picture.

INVICTUS is on global release.

MIDNIGHT IN THE GARDEN OF GOOD AND EVIL - a flabby film

Clint Eastwood's adaptation of the fabulously popular true-life fiction novel is a baggy, flabby affair that fails to truly capture the weirdness and sinister eccentricity of the original. The light is too bright, the situation too contemporary and recognisable, and some of the acting risible.

The story is simple. In 1980s Savannah, not the most hospitable environment for a rich white man to come out of the closet, a young hustler (Jude Law entirely failing to pull off a Southern accent) is murdered in the lavish house of a wealthy art dealer (Kevin Spacey). The resulting court case is covered by an out-of-town journalist (John Cusack). The problem is that he looses all objectivity and is drawn into the gothic world of voo-doo, secrets and a charismatic transvestite called Lady Chablis (playing herself).

The resulting movie doesn't know whether it wants to be a John Grisham style courtroom drama or a voyeuristic look at a bunch of eccentrics. Either way, it is dull, long and bland - something the novel never was. I never fully felt the scandal of tawdry sex invading genteel upper class surroundings. I never had chills running down my spine as we lingered in cemeteries at midnight with a voodoo priestess. The comedy wasn't dark and subversive but gentle and inclusive. A great disappointment.

MIDNIGHT IN THE GARDEN OF GOOD AND EVIL was released in 1997 and 1998. It is available on iTunes and on DVD.

GRAN TORINO - Dirty Harry Meets The Karate Kid

GRAN TORINO is a mediocre flick that has, bizarrely, garnered a lot of praise, not least for Clint Eastwood's performance. Bizarre because Clint Eastwood always seems to play the same character - no nonsense, grizzly Real Men, who know their way around a gun but have conflicted relationships with their families. The only thing that's different in this flick is that Clint chooses to give his character, Walt Kowalski, the same ludicrously gravelly voice as Christian Bale foisted on Batman, complete with an unintentionally comedic penchant for growling like a pissed-off rottweiler whenever someone does something that disappoints him.

This is a common occurrence. Walt Kowalski is a retired auto-worker, traumatised Korean war vet, widower and bigot. The first third of the movie laboriously establishes that he hates his spoiled children. He hates that his neighbourhood has been taken over by Asian immigrants. He hates the local priest. Frankly, you could started the movie twenty minutes in with no loss to your understanding of Walt's character.

The movie is, then, about Walt's transformation from insular bitterness to caring mentor to the bullied kid who lives next door. Walt's still casually racist, but he genuinely cares - building up Thao's confidence with girls, teaching him a trade, getting him a job - even lending him his sweet mint condition 1972 sports car. I swear that the middle section of this movie felt just like THE KARATE KID. It was positively saccharine and fairly hard to watch given the stilted acting of the amateur Hmongs and Christopher Carley as Father Janovich.

The surprisingly light-weight middle section also jars with the sombre tone of the final half hour of the movie. The tragedy and highly emotional ending are undeserved. The result is a well-intentioned, nicely shot, but fundamentally flawed film, skewered by weak performances in the supporting cast, odd choices on the part of Clint Eastwood and a jarringly uneven tone.

GRAN TORINO was released last year in the USA and is currently on release in Australia, New Zealand, the UK, the Philippines and Russia. It opens next week in Belgium, France, Croatia, Greece and Israel. It opens on March 6th in Argentina, Germany, Iceland and Spain and on March 12th in the Netherlands, Italy and Sweden, It opens on March 19th in South Korea, Brazil and Norway and on March 26th in Singapore and Poland. It opens on April 3rd in Estonia and Finland; on April 9th in Slovakia; on April 1th in the Czech Republic and Romania. Finally, it opens on April 2th in Japan.

CHANGELING - plays like a highly polished TV melodrama

I just don't see what's so amazing about the much-hyped new Clint Eastwood flick, CHANGELING. Sure, it's a handsomely designed period piece set in 1920s LA. Sure, Clint Eastwood knows how to light and frame a shot. Sure, Angelina Jolie is convincing as the destraught mother of an abducted child. But frankly, this movie played like one of those afternoon tele-dramas - all mawkish score and glycerine tears. The first hour is dull. Jolie plays Christine Collins as meek and mild - a veritable weeping Madonna. She cries when her son goes missing. She cries when the LAPD - keen for some good publicity - foist another kid on her - forcing her to accept him as her lost son. "He's not my son!" "He's not my son!" The only punctuation: John Malkovich with another irritatingly mannered performance as a political activist and Jeffrey Donovan as a caricatured corrupt cop.

After an hour of this banal suffering we are introduced to the story of what really happened to Walter Collins. Turns out he was abducted by a serial killer. We get two compelling performances from the relative unknowns in the cast. Jonathan Butler Harner is fantastic as the killer, Gordon Northcott - but even he is upstaged by a kid called Eddie Alderson who plays Northcott's nephew and forced accomplice. It's a bravura performance - the real bravura performance of the film - and it's a shame it's getting overlooked in all the hype about Jolie.

It may sound facetious but the problem with CHANGELING is the story. It's too much and not enough at the same time. Even though it IS a true story, it still feels absurd and hammy. I mean, I'm perfectly willing to believe in a venal LAPD, but having policeman be so damn stupid just brings me out of the movie. I was begging for the screenwriter to move away from the real history and add some kind of gray areas to the characterisation because these slimeballs had all the depth of the Wicked Stepmother. It's also too much insofar as it goes on and on and on. The movie has more endings that LORD OF THE RINGS: RETURN OF THE KING! Christine Collins wins her tribunal against the LAPD! Then the serial killer is arrested! And there's still a good half hour to go. Enough already! I get that she is condemned to a life without closure - that she chooses that life - and that, to use Eastwood's rather heavy-handed imagery, she will always be imprisoned by the search for her son.

At the same time, the story just isn't enough. Because of all the hype, we all know what the story is when we go into the cinema. Some film-makers are still able to create tension even when we know the outcome. A classic example is Kevin MacDonald's documentary ONE DAY IN SEPTEMBER, where I was on the edge of my seat during the rescue attempts even though I knew the tragic ending of the Munich Olympics hostage crisis. CHANGELING doesn't attempt to create an air of mystery or tension. Eastwood isn't playing it for the Sommersby moment - is the kid really her son or not? No. He's really interested in how ordinary people get trampled by corrupt institutions. And if that's your game - you'd do far better to check out LA CONFIDENTIAL or CHINATOWN, true stories or not.

CHANGELING played Cannes 2008 and is currently on release in the US, Belgium, France, Switzerland, Italy, the UK, Ireland, Greece, Israel and the Netherlands. It opens on December 19th in Spain and on January 8th in the Czech Republic, Hong KOng, Finland, Iceland and Sweden. It opens on January 15th in Singapore, Denmark and Estonia and on January 22nd in Argentina, Chile and Germany. It opens on January 30th in Norway and Turkey; on February 6th in Brazil and Poland. It opens on January 12th in Hungary and on February 21st in Japan.

LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA deserves its critical acclaim

To my mind, LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA is a far more successful film than its companion piece, FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS. In the latter, director Clint Eastwood relies on an overly complicated non-linear plot to make an essentially simple point. It is an important point but not especially emotionally engaging. By contrast, LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA has a simple narrative structure. Its power lies in telling a story that we have not seen before through engaging characters and evocative photography.

The action of IWO JIMA takes place largely on the infamous island. We see the soldier digging pill-boxes on the beaches in anticipation of the American invasion. Much like the Americans in FLAGS, the Japanese soldiers realise that they are up against great odds, especially given that they can expect no support from air or sea forces. Added to their tactical difficulties is a literally suicidal factionalism within the high command. Ken Watanabe plays a General whose common sense rationale will not see scarce troops commit "honourable suicide", but who knows that the battle is essentially a suicide mission writ large. But he faces opposition from the old guard who demand death rather than escape to fight another day. And make no mistake, Eastwood does not shy away from showing us the extreme brutality of such actions on the ordinary soldiers tunnelled into the mountains.

In short, LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA makes for uncomfortable viewing, as it should. But it is essential viewing all the same.

LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA was released in Japan and the US in 2006 and played Berlin 2007. It is on release in Greece, the Netherlands, Finland, Iceland, Italy, Mexico, Spain, Belgium, France, Australia, Canada, Germany, Israel, Singapore, Austria, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Norway, Turkey and the UK. It opens in the Philippines, Hong Kong, Hungary and Brazil next weekend and in Brazil on March 9th, Sweden on March 9th, Russia on March 15th and the Czech Republic on March 29th.

FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS - gilt-edged

FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS is a film that spends a long time making a simple but important point: winning a war takes money, and raising money from the public takes a PR offensive and a PR offensive needs a good story of heroism and victory against all odds, the truth be damned. In this particular case, the war is against the Japanese and the PR men are three US marines who apparently helped hoist the US flag on a Japanese island called Iwo Jima.

There are many aspects of the film that deserve our time and our admiration. Director Clint Eastwood has created an intelligent film that looks with pained realism at the way in which war is carried out and the cost for all concerned. Unlike Spielberg, while he has a great deal of respect for the serving military and creates an authentic 1940s feel to the movie, Eastwood never slips into cheap sentimentality. Even more admirable is the fact that he does not descend into cheap cynicism either. When Ryan Philippe’s young Marine tells a grieving mother than her son is the soldier furthest to the right in the infamous picture, he knows it’s an out-an-out lie. But what would you do in the same circumstances? Rob a mother of her only comfort? After all, her son was there at the battle. This scene is typical of a film that does not rush to judge but presents each decision in its full moral complexity.

FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS is also to be admired for its superb ensemble cast, its convincing production design and its cinematography. The battle scenes in particular are deeply affecting: cast in grey-scale that has been almost entirely drained of colour. The framing of each shot is considered and effective – not least the fear-inducing shots from the point-of-view of the anonymous Japanese sharp-shooter hidden in pill-boxes above the landing beach.

My criticism of the film lies in its lack of emotional pull. To that end, its restraint and emotional discipline in comparison to, say, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, is also its downfall. The point that the film makes is important and true and needs to be told – especially to a Hollywood studio audience used to the schmaltz of your typical war movie. However, I doubt that such a simple message needed such a long run-time. Nonetheless, Eastwood has created an important film that deserves all the critical acclaim it has received.

FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS is on release in the US, Belgium, France, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Philippines, Greece, Italy, Israel, Finland, the Netherlands, Singapore, Denmark, Finland, Venezuala, Turkey, the UK, Iceland, Norway, and Portugal. It opens in Spain on January 3rd, in Hong Kong on January 11th and in Germany on the 18th. It opens in Brazil and Estonia on February 2nd and in Russia on February 15th 2007.