Review: A Hijacking

Year: 2013
Director: Tobias Lindholm
Screenplay: Tobias Lindholm
Starring: Søren Malling, Pilou Asbaek, Abdihakin Asgar

Synopsis is here

I must admit it’s a little unexpected to write about two Somalian hijacking films in the same year. It’s not really the type of subject you expect people to pull focus on. But it seems that 2013 quietly became the year of the pirates.*

Hollywood typically nabbed some top class British talent, a massive movie star and gave us the everyman over adversity narrative that the studios do so well. While Captain Phillips is the kind of physical, slap in the face affair you’d expect from its makers, A Hijacking is a more distilled creature that creeps up on a willing viewer. Like Chinese water torture, it’s a slow and quiet decent into various dimensions of torment. The film shows just how destabilising a long running hostage crisis could be. At first I questioned the need for title cards counting the days. Once we start to reach treble figures, it becomes near impossible to comprehend the pressure.

We see the complex strains of the shipping company’s relationships from the get go. The first scene captures the ships cook, Mikkel (Malling) already feeling the burden of being so far from his wife and child. He has to inform her that he’ll be away for a while longer. Meanwhile; miles away on land, the companies CEO; Peter (Asbaek), is on shaky ground conducting tough business affairs with an Asian office. It’s clear he can play hard ball, but possibly not as strongly as he hopes. Once hijacking occurs (off screen), the reason why become evident. It’s important to note that these opening moments are more economic and effective in their execution than the more perfunctory opening act of Captain Phillips. More already feels at stake.  

The strength of A Hijacking stems from how it deals with the politics of the situation. We observe tired men putting their bargaining expertises to the maximum. The crew struggle to keep on an even keel, while the kidnaper’s turn the screw with psychological war ware.   The translator and lead negotiator; Omar (Asgar), is an insidious beast, who claims he’s just as under the cosh as the shipmates, yet as the only portal their home life, his restrictions on the most basic of necessities become intolerable. There’s hardly any psychical violence and there doesn’t need to be, as the emotion of fear runs rife through the victims involved.

Back home; the clinical offices become secondary homesteads and pressure soon rises to boiling point. These sequences become vital as Peter tackles not only the worried families of those at sea, but the stern uncaring faces of those higher than him. As the situation drags on, both parties ask when things will be resolved, for two entirely different reasons. The film’s mean strength becomes a slight weakness as we’re forced to believe that Peter as a CEO is as caring about his crew as he is. Considering our real life political issues right now, one could feel that Peter’s unwavering stance could feel false. So much so it loses some of its complexity.

Never the less, A Hijacking wins us over with a succession of scenes that plough us through the wringer. The performances never miss a beat and the unpretentious direction only enhances the urgency and reality of the piece.  The film never loses its sombre tone and while quieter than Captain Phillips, A Hijacking holds scenes that penetrate the nerves like a slow acting poison. By the end of the film, we need little reminding that the scars still remain. When looking back at the films strongest scenes, it’s then we noticed just how distressing the filmmakers made singing happy birthday.  But that’s what makes A Hijakcing so effective. Without the Hollywood muscle and the Navy brawn, we get something a lot colder. The title sinisterly tells us that this isn’t just a physical undertaking, but an emotional one.

*Pirates that do not impersonate rock stars

Review: The Lone Ranger

Year: 2013

Director: Gore Verbinski

Screenplay: Justin Haythe, Ted Elliott, Terry Rossio

Starring: Johnny Depp, Armie Hammer, William Fichtner, Tom Wilkinson, Barry Pepper, James Badge Dale, Helena Bonham Carter

Synopsis is here:

I often dislike when film-makers and actors “defend” their movie, by attacking critical responses. I’ve often said that critics can do little to affect blockbusters like these. Any proud causal film-goer will say: “I’ll make up my own mind” or “I don’t need to be told what to watch” and it’s a somewhat true point.  That said, The Lone Ranger is a bit of an anomaly in this age of comic book branded blockbusters. Originally a radio play, the franchise’s most popular period was in the forties. Since then; a few cinematic and television adaptations have been tried, none have been successful.

The fact is, modern day westerns are not known for their financial potential, while the character of The Lone Ranger is not well known to those who fall into that golden age bracket that all studios are aiming for. The film-makers must have known what a risk they were taking. A $200+ million film in a genre which has had its fair share of problems in the modern age (find me five truly profitable westerns in the last 20 years); in a packed holiday season with better “known” franchises and characters. Of course...it’s easy to blame the writers.

However, I must say that the amount of venom over The Lone Ranger is; in my eyes, quite bemusing. Gore Verbinski has never been a director I’d line up around the block for and The Lone Ranger was never on my list of must sees, especially after the muddlesome Pirate sequels. Yet The Lone Ranger, for all its production and budgetary issues, is far more entertaining than it should be. Much like the much maligned John Carter, we have a film with its heart in the right place. It’s just a pity that said heart is hidden by the silver spoon that’s placed in its mouth.

Much of this is due to the film’s director, Gore Verbinski. Despite my misgivings about quite a few of his movies, Verbinski is craftsman who not only feels comfortable with large scale projects, but someone who enjoys that old fashioned flair of the films of yesteryear. The Lone Ranger continues Verbinski’s affinity for the traditional with a film that lovingly touches on the Westerns of the past. The films of John Ford and Sergio Leone are tactfully acknowledged while the story themes noted should remind fans of some of the time honoured classics that have come before.

Ironically, the oft mentioned budget is better handled than you may think. Not only is The Lone Ranger is at times beautifully crafted in its design, but it holds a type physicality that can only stem from a long list of stunt men as opposed to a large team of CGI designers. The film nearly turns itself into Meta commentary as many of the films elements become a metaphor of mainstream film making itself. The rise and fall build of the films thrilling action sequences and their practicality, its wholehearted lead and the genre itself are slowly becoming as mystical as the old west.  Much like John Carter (and Captain America for that matter), this is the kind of Sunday afternoon film that is slowly being replaced with the angst-ridden, constantly destructive, semi-anti heroes that are now more popular.

That said, those heroes often have better scripts and The Lone Ranger’s fussy plot and uneven pacing cause it to constantly trip over itself. Things like Tonto’s backstory and framing device (involving an aged Tonto telling the Rangers story to a child) are more thoughtful than you’d expect, touching upon the sad plight of the Native American against white America’s own desires. One of the film’s opening moments has an aged Tonto spooking the child. Watch the kid’s first reaction.  However; such moments are often too few and far between, and the films first hour is slow and extraneous. The needless double crosses of the pirate films are happily nowhere to be seen, but the films running time in contrast with the narrative content is at odds. Sorry to sound like a Total Film web list but I don’t believe the film needs to be as long as it is.

Such aspects take away from the fact that Armie Hammer is a more engaging straight man than Orlando Bloom and that Jonny Depp’s shtick isn’t too bad here.  Arguments about the films graphic content are understandable but seem minor in comparison to more successful material that have played with the edge far worse. There’s brevity about The Lone Ranger that makes it far more interesting than the external arguments about its cost. As annoying is it is seeing its stars blast critics for not “getting it”, I must say I can see why they’re mad. No one seemed to want to note the ambition. But then again, DVD’s haven’t left us yet. So there’s still time for the home audience.

Review: Pirates Of The Carribean: On Stranger Tides

Year: 2011
Director: Rob Marshall
Screenplay: Ted Elliott, Terry Rossio
Starring: Johnny Depp, Geoffrey Rush, Penelope Cruz, Sam Claflin, Astrid Berges-Frisbey

Synopsis is here

I haven't fought the urge to walk out of a cinema as badly as I did today during POTC 4. Was it really that bad? In a way no. I've seen films way worse than this. This isn't bad from a technical standpoint like the films of Ed Wood or Troll 2, nor is it as shockingly appalling as something like Lesbian Vampire Killers. No, the reason behind such an urge to leave was the searing apathy this feature brings with it. It is a lazy laborious bore. To hate it would be to have something to feel towards it. Pirates 4 doesn't try to bring anything to the table. I felt no joy, no pain, no hate, no nothing. The film has a vapid emptiness so substantial that I actually asked myself "what's the point?"

Pirates 4 reminds me very much of how I felt about The Omen remake, in the grand scheme of things it isn't the worst film ever made, as that's a stupid claim. However, this film is so transparent in its purpose (to make money) it doesn't even try and mask its reason of being with anything approaching solid entertainment. I 've always considered the pirates franchise to be one of diminishing returns. However I despite my disappointment of the installments as the series went on there was always something to be had from them. Gore Verbinski doesn't come anywhere near my fave directors list but you could never say that his approach to the material lack energy. Even through the overcomplicated plots overdone double crosses, at least there was a set piece to take something from or a moment of humor or two.

Pirates 4 offers nothing to hang a hat on. It is a lackadaisical Pirates-lite retread full of sub-plot-points which go nowhere (Blackbeard's magic, the mermaids physiology) , eye rolling attempts at humour (cracker joke bad) and "fresh" characters who are nowhere near as appealing as those who have left us. It also contains the fear that bothered me the most, Jack Sparrow as the lead and not the comic foil. This is Depp playing a caricature with nothing to do and no one to bounce off of. You would think that "bouncer" would be Penelope Cruz but unfortunately the screenwriters decided to leave her character at home.  Here Sparrow claims love to this new character but does little in terms of action to prove it. There is one moment that tries to salvage some sort of chemistry, unfortunately it's too little too late. But then this is what you get when you have a film that has a first half of merely introducing characters with no character. Yes Worlds end and Dead Man's Chest were overstuffed with plot, but leaving us with hardly anything doesn't restore the faith.

Other reviews have lamented at the loss of Will Turner and Elizabeth Swan and I have to agree as while Orlando Bloom and Kiera Knightly weren't a romance that would set hearts a flame, but at least it was there. You could sense an attraction even if you didn't think it was the best. Their flat performances can always be attributed to being the "straight men" and in a round about way it worked. On Stranger Tides shoehorns in a weak substitute in a Priest (Claflin) and a Mermaid (Berges-Frisbey) but their need within the movie is superfluous and poorly executed.

Even the action within the movie suffers; with nothing coming close to the final fight in Worlds End, the endless wheel sword sequence of Dead Man's Chest or you know the whole first movie. None of the events carry any weight or risk, but nor do they bring any inventiveness either. Action happens, but you can almost forget it in a blink of an eye. Verbinski gave a cartoonish verve to proceedings before. What does Marshall bring? But then again when Rob Marshall brought to us two very uninspiring modern musicals before this what did I expect?

Acting wise, what we get is beyond flat. Depp trots out Sparrow again but this is forth time and the well is clearly running dry. But then how could Depp still be as entertaining whenhe goes up against a villain as flavourless as this installments Blackbeard? Ian McShane plays the legendary pirate as a grumpy Lovejoy with little wish to inject any animation within the portrayal. You could say that all the scenery chewing is left to Geffory Rush's Barbossa, however Rush is so sidelined he makes Owen Hargraves look like he played for more than ten minutes last season. Penelope Cruz sleepwalks through scenes with one eye on her baby and one eye on the next time she can hook up with a director like Woody Allen again.

So what do we get? We get a bland retread, but it's worse than that as it's step down. It does nothing to suggest that money was the only reason this forth film even existed. Now lets not get things mixed up here. I enjoy the fruits of capitalism (check my DVD collection) and I'm well aware that it's called show business for a reason. But when you are given a film that simply doesn't try in any aspects of creating a sense of fun, that's when things become frustrating. I do not write this to get a rise out of fans of the franchise. Why should I? I'm sure there's films I love, that they probably despise. However,this is cinema as commerce at its worse, trading in on the fact that it has that Hans Zimmer score and Johnny Depp merely being on screen to give the belief of real enjoyment. 2003 is almost 10 years ago. Marshall's film help remind us that the fresh air of that year would clearly be stale now.