Jason Bourne (2016)

Paul Greengrass is a good filmmaker and has a stylish command of the visual vocabulary of film — he’s done great work on the two previous instalments of this spy series, not least. It’s just that other pesky vocabulary — which is to say, the words the characters speak, their motivations, that sort of thing — which seems to elude him here somewhat. Coming after a previous non-Damon outing with Jeremy Renner, I never found this latest instalment of the Bourne series boring, but it’s very silly, and the very quality that is supposed to differentiate Bourne, of being recognisably grounded in our world, seems to slip away. Granted we get a few mentions of Edward Snowden, but otherwise characters do the same stupid things they do in countless other spy thrillers, like hacking into networks where covert operations are held in a file folder on the CIA mainframe called “BLACK OPS”, calling out to “ENHANCE!” grainy photos, saying “Let’s use SQL to hack into their system!” Computers do all kinds of whizzy things that just don’t ring true at any level, and character motivations seem flimsy at best, though at least some of the other details of setting have a certain feeling of authenticity, not least the opening sequence at an Athens anti-austerity protest. Moving from this, we get the usual Bourne stuff of whizzing about from location to world location, making deals, stabbing and backstabbing, running and shooting, and all that stuff. It’s all done fine on screen — as I said initially, with plenty of visual flair — it’s just a pity it had to be so stupid.

Jason Bourne film posterCREDITS
Director Paul Greengrass; Writers Greengrass and Christopher Rouse; Cinematographer Barry Ackroyd; Starring Matt Damon, Alicia Vikander, Tommy Lee Jones, Vincent Cassel, Julia Stiles; Length 123 minutes.
Seen at Cineworld Wood Green, London, Wednesday 27 July 2016.

Advertisements

Two Short Reviews of Recent Films Set in the 19th Century: Mr. Turner and The Homesman (both 2014)

Two more short reviews of films I just haven’t been able to summon up the enthusiasm to think about at great length. Not that either of them is bad, mind.


Mr. Turner (2014)

This latest by Mike Leigh seems to have divided audiences and critics, though by most metrics it has done very well at the box office, a fine feat considering its length. Presumably it appeals to the heritage crowd, what with being a period film, and at that it does very well, conjuring a good sense of 19th century London, with its galleries and its fine houses, as well as its muck and dirt, not to mention the failings of medicine (Dorothy Atkinson’s servant gets progressively more blighted by psoriasis as the film goes on). At the film’s heart is Timothy Spall’s JMW Turner, a painter of some of the finest works of English art, who here is a gruffly monosyllabic grouch who communicates more in coughs and splutters than with words (Spall’s performance is in fact second only this year to Gérard Depardieu’s in Welcome to New York for guttural grunting). Yet it’s an oddly disjointed film, which moves along in vignettes — Turner at the Royal Academy disputing with his fellow painters, Turner at home, Turner on holiday in Margate, this kind of thing. To be fair, this gives it the sense of a series of (moving) paintings, much like Turner’s work, and like his work a lot of the film is very beautifully shot. However, even the most artfully composed film could never approach the breathtaking vistas of Turner’s later paintings, so perhaps my point of comparison is just unfair in the first place.

Mr. Turner film posterCREDITS
Director/Writer Mike Leigh; Cinematographer Dick Pope; Starring Timothy Spall, Marion Bailey, Dorothy Atkinson; Length 149 minutes.
Seen at Cineworld Haymarket, London, Tuesday 4 November 2014.


Hilary Swank and Tommy Lee Jones in The Homesman

The Homesman (2014)

Another film set in the 19th century — in fact, covering many of the same years as Mr. Turner, albeit on another side of the Atlantic — is this film by actor turned writer/director Tommy Lee Jones. His debut film as director was the wonderful and underrated The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada (2005), a film with a great feeling for border territories, and this new film is again set on a frontier of sorts. I’m tempted to call it a Western, though it’s not set in the west but rather in Nebraska, and it deals with a sturdy frontierswoman, Mary Bee Cuddy (played capably by Hilary Swank), who for various reasons has to accompany three mad women back to civilisation, where they can be (more) properly cared for. She soon picks up Tommy Lee’s disreputable George Briggs to help her, and thus begins their journey. It’s all very ably and attractively shot by veteran DoP Rodrigo Prieto, and in the two central roles Jones and Swank make for a fine odd couple. But things take a turn later on which is both unexpected and abrupt, though undoubtedly it suggests (and, more widely, the film does capture well) a sense of the difficulties attendant on life in this era and location. In which respect, of course, the roles for the mad women are rather thankless, amounting to little more than gurning and groaning at times. Yet, while it’s a film that feels as if it has two distinct parts, it certainly also has its virtues.

The Homesman film posterCREDITS
Director Tommy Lee Jones; Writers Jones, Kieran Fitzgerald and Wesley Oliver (based on the novel by Glendon Swarthout); Cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto; Starring Hilary Swank, Tommy Lee Jones; Length 122 minutes.
Seen at Cineworld West India Quay, London, Tuesday 25 November 2014.

Lincoln (2012)

I was talking in my last post about how Argo fits into one manifestation of the ‘Oscar-baiting film’ subgenre. Well Lincoln is an example of the other type of Oscar film: the big, portentous, historical epic. As far as such films go, however, this is a good example, both of the form’s strengths — top-notch character acting from the supporting cast, a firm grasp of the period, and a fine performance by Daniel Day Lewis (who has previous with this kind of project and is always dependable) — as well as its weaknesses. However, aside from that general sense of being shown something ‘important’, the main weakness for me was the big, clanging John Williams score that underlines every significant decision and emotion.

For the most part we are given a well-focused story of Lincoln’s struggle to have the 13th Amendment to the US constitution passed (regarding the abolition of slavery). There’s plenty of detail about the political machinations and processes that went into this, culminating in a lengthy sequence whereby members of the Congress individually vote on whether to pass the amendment. For all that minute focus, it remains gripping over its 150 minutes, though I found distracting the scenes featuring Lincoln’s family (Sally Field as his wife, Joseph Gordon-Levitt as his son). It also avoids hagiography for the most part, though a scene near the end when Lincoln leaves his home while being watched admiringly by a black servant is probably taking it a little far.

This film will no doubt enjoy a long afterlife as an educational film in history classes, but for all that, it’s still an enjoyable film, worth sitting down with.


© 20th Century Fox

NEW RELEASE FILM REVIEW
Director Steven Spielberg | Writer Tony Kushner | Cinematographer Janusz Kaminski | Starring Daniel Day-Lewis, Tommy Lee Jones, David Strathairn, Sally Field | Length 150 minutes || Seen at Cineworld Haymarket, London, Monday 11 February 2013

My Rating 3 stars good