Film Pairings — Gambling As A Means To A Bad End, Or Not

When I propose these double features, I’m not necessarily recommending them — at least not for every one. I mention this now because I have vey mixed feelings about both Killer Joe and Rounders. Both have fine casts; reason enough to see them, perhaps. The directors are experienced, and the story premises are promising.

However, Killer Joe, with its perfect noir plot, is nonetheless filled with gratuitous violence and prolonged humiliation. I felt this way before I read about director William Friedkin’s battle to keep it from getting the dreaded NC17 rating.  He lost that battle and a similar one in the U.K.  In the end, Friedkin did not make the cuts that would have made the film an “R’ and more profitable in general release.  Good for him.  But while I wholeheartedly support the director’s refusal to give in to censorship, I found myself censoring it on my own by fast-forwarding through scenes when the camera lingered far too long on scenes of little more than torture. Without spoiling the artful twists in plot, here’s the story: A sleazy, mentally disturbed Houston cop, Matthew McConaughey, is hired to kill a woman by the woman’s son, daughter and ex-husband. The son, Emile Hirsch, has a crushing gambling debt and is mere days from extinction.  He has exhausted all alternatives, except the one that brings Joe into their dysfunctional family.  With a common purpose — killing mom — gives family members reason to unite.  Juno Temple, Gina Gershon and Thomas Hayden Church, who brings depth to the depthless, make the characters and story all too real.

John Malkovich and Matt Damon

If Killer Joe suffers from some horribly misplaced exuberance, Rounders may be flawed by too much restraint.  John Dahl, director of one of my favorite, darkly comedic films — The Last Seduction — focuses on a promising young gambler played by Matt Damon in Rounders.  The problem for our protagonist in this film, like Killer Joe, is that when you gamble, sometimes you lose and sometimes you lose to the wrong people.  We spend most of the film as bystanders to poker games as Damon tries to climb out of deep debt the way he got into it — by gambling some more. Even for a poor poker player like me, this was more interesting than I would have imagined.  Each game brings with it its own drama.  However the central drama is the choice Damon’s character must make.  Should he, a smart law student, go straight or, as the devil on his shoulder, Edward Norton, counsels, “go pro” in the exciting world of high-stakes poker.  I stayed with the film for its promise.  Here was John Turturro, John Malkovich and Martin Landau. With all these great characters and the danger hovering over Damon’s genuinely decent character, what great surprise, what profound irony are we going to experience?  I have no idea.  He makes a choice.  If that’s it, it’s not enough.

This is definitely a beer night — the cheaper the better.

Film Pairing — The Expectations Game, A Hit And A Miss

Bourne IV, lots of action, but more plot

I went to see The Bourne Legacy because I had seen the first three Bournes and enjoyed them. I went see the first three because Matt Damon was in them, because the formula was entertaining, and because it grabbed me at minute one and didn’t let go until the credits.  I love vacations.  I had lowered expectations for The Bourne Legacy.  I was pretty sure it would be the last gasp, that the people who owned the rights were squeezing the last bit of toothpaste from the tube, that the story would be forced.  Not so.  While the action slowed a tiny bit, the story was richer and than its predecessors.  While Jeremy Renner is no Matt Damon, he didn’t have to nor did he try to be.  He created a separate, perhaps more believable character with clear motivation in a believable story (well as much as they can be in these super-hero movies).  Fine performances by Rachel Weisz, Edward Norton and Albert Finney contributed to the high quality of this half-removed sequel. Congratulations go to director Tony Gilroy and to Eric Van Lustbader who picked up the Bourne series after creator Robert Ludlum’s death.

A Must See for Christopher Walken Fans

I went to see Seven Psychopaths because it was directed by Martin McDonagh, who directed one of my favorite films, In Bruges, and because Christopher Walken was in it.    What could go wrong?  For many, I read, not a lot went wrong.  Madmen chatting and arguing in between bloody murders, with moments of dark, deapan humor.  Unlike The Bourne Legacy where I expected little and got a lot, with Seven Psychopaths I expected a lot, and got a disjointed story with spotty humor and no one, save Walken, to care for.  Frankly, I didn’t even like the dog.  The film has a highly regarded cast.  In addition to Walken, we get a wonderfully quirky (I mean this in a good way) and talented cast: Colin Farrell, Sam Rockwell, Woody Harrelson, Tom Waits and Harry Dean Stanton.  For me, that wasn’t enough.  It didn’t hold together. Sometimes this happens when the director is also the producer and the writer.  There’s nobody there to say, “wait a minute.”  On the other hand, there are those who believe that under the surface silliness and confusion, there is a sendup of psychopath killer-based Hollywood films.  Maybe, I missed something.  But I think Kill Bill already did that.

Both movies are in the theaters now.  And certainly The Bourne Legacy is well worth seeing on the biggest screen possible.  Seven Psychopaths is entertaining enough — the actors are fun to watch — for a rental or a download.

To accompany the films, one might have a few sips of brandy to take the chill off the opening of Legacy and then switch to beer for Seven Psychopaths as you pal around with Colin Farrell’s character, a writer keeping track of the psychos who is never without a bottle in his hand.

Film Pairing — Autophilia, And When Remakes Are Justified

I don’t know how many times I’ve heard folks lament the remake of a good film. “Can’t they leave well enough alone?” They are remaking The Thin Man for example and that seems to have insulted a number of people. It is one of my favorite films and yet I don’t think one displaces another. Sometimes it is one film honoring another. Of course, as a writer, I wish they would make a first movie out of one of my books rather than a second or third out of someone else’s work. But I just recently saw Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. A few months ago I rented the PBS series from Netflix and thoroughly enjoyed it. Alec Guinness for heaven’s sake. Six parts. Fantastic. And yet there is a new version with Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, John Hurt, and Benedict Cumberbatch (the modern Sherlock). It is brilliant. The cinematography is masterful. The editing is immaculate. The acting is the best possible. The new movie doesn’t cancel the impact of the PBS series. However, it is extraordinary and worthwhile all on its own.

I say all of this to come to lesser dramas to be sure, but two that will make an entertaining, escapist evening. Unlike the LeCarré-inspired pieces that require you pay careful attention, these two films require only that you relax and have fun. You will not be intellectually challenged. If, in fact, you are not prepared for a little silliness or are unwilling to abandon any craving for reality-based drama, you might want to skip both these films. The first is The Italian Job, the British version made in 1969. The second is The Italian Job, the American remake, made in 2003.

The silliness is vastly more present in the original, British version of The Italian Job. If you have doubts about the purposeful absurdity of this heist movie, think of the casting: Michael Caine, Benny Hill, Rossano Brazzi and Noël Coward. Anyone who thinks this is going to be a gritty, noir-inspired film needs to…well…do something about his or her own unrealistic expectations. The real stars of this film and even more so for its remake are the automobiles. Great cars. Great chases. American audiences most likely received their first glimpse of Mini-Coopers when they took center stage as part of the ingenious robbery of ill-gotten gold in the Italian town of Turin. Fun, suspense, action and a travelogue.

For the American version we move initially to Venice for a clever plot to steal a safe. A canal-bound chase (we’ve seen them in James Bond films and in the recent mildly entertaining The Tourist). But the gondola-spilling is only a mild tease. The high-profile cast is perfect for this more muscular film. Mark Wahlberg, Jason Statham, Mos Def, Edward Norton play significant roles. So do Donald Sutherland, Charlize Theron and, for comic relief, Seth Green. When our favorite criminals are betrayed, we witness the careful planning and brilliantly choreographed execution in, however, the less glamorous setting of L.A. The new and improved version of the Mini-Cooper is given a starring role (word is that sales of the baby Beamers went up by 22 percent. Talk about product placement). The addition of Theron and the revenge factor provide a dimension the original didn’t have. Also, entering the age of special effects, the cinematography renders this version much more visually exciting.

There has been discussion of a third film, a sequel to the American version called The Brazilian Job. But a search for information about the film suggested I was actually snipe hunting.

For drinks, let’s think Italian. Something light and not too serious. How about turning up the heat and pretending you’re in sunny Italy. Pop the cork on a chilled bottle of Prosecco.

Film Pairing — Stone And Under Suspicion, Actors Shine

I’m embarrassed to admit that I’m drawn to the sport of boxing. I know it is a brutal, brain-bruising sport. But there’s something about it that few other sports can claim. Unlike football, for example, another constant concussion sport, boxing is one on one — one person’s fitness, endurance and strategy against another’s. There’s no way anyone can say, “we’d have won if we had a better quarterback.” One body and one brain engaged in a primal battle. It may be wrong and reflect the worst of human nature, or nature itself; but it is about as pure as it can get.

On the other hand, I’m not at all embarrassed to admit that I admire British actors and actresses more, generally speaking, than their American counterparts. I buy into the process of repertory experience, which usually means that actors develop considerable skills before celebrity is bestowed.

Bearing both of these thoughts in mind as I considered this double bill — Stone and Under Suspicion — I’m not necessarily saying these are among the best crime films ever made. They aren’t. But they meet two very important criteria worth noting. Each film is, at its core, a singular battle between two individuals, and these four characters are portrayed by American actors every bit equal to the best Britain has to offer.

The first, Stone (2010), is a claustrophobic little film. Even though Robert De Niro is one of the stars, I’d never heard of it. That he could effectively portray anyone was never in question. Here, he is a flawed bureaucrat in the criminal justice system trying hard to suppress his own demons while trying to cast out or at least sort out demons in others. We watch and appreciate. What was pleasantly surprising is the phenomenal job Edward Norton did portraying a kind of pure evil. The battle between the two as the convicted arsonist Norton attempts to convince De Niro, that he should be paroled is fascinating. Snake charming. Or a dance. The dance, as in Ali and Frazier, is everything. Milla Jovovich also stars.

Under Suspicion (2000) is less concerned about philosophy. The dance that turns out to be largely between Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman is simpler in the sense that there appears to be no larger truths involved. It is simply cat and mouse. Hackman plays a wealthy, powerful and talented lawyer in Puerto Rico, who is implicated in the murder of a young girl. Freeman, the top cop, calls him in to, of course, “clear up some details.” And just as most of the drama in Stone takes place in De Niro’s office inside a prison, most of Under Suspicion takes place in the Freeman’s office inside the police station. Though the film is essentially about the two men, actress Monica Bullucci, plays a significant role.

As I mentioned earlier I find these films especially interesting less because they have successfully realized the overall goal, but more because of the performances of the actors. The chance to see the cream of the American crop of actors in roles that allow them to show the depth of their talent isn’t as frequent as it ought to be.

To sip or not to sip: I’d watch the first film spirit free. But to cap off your evening in Puerto Rico — and you do get glances of it here and there — try my standby, rum and tonic with a twist of lemon. Not lime. Lemon. Well, lime if you must.