Three Films Make A Post: They're all alone in this together.

The Holdovers (2023): It’s not generally a great sign to someone of my tastes when basically every single review about a film describes it as “heart-warming”, but then not too many movies manage to be heart-warming without becoming kitsch, so this isn’t completely my failing. Alexander Payne’s The Holdovers the kitsch by an insistence on all that’s crappy in life existing for its characters as well; its uplifting quality lies in saying “all this is true, but still…” and finding the positive in the small yet life-changing things. All the while, the humour runs a perfect line of sarcasm of the kind that’s quotable and will still be funny after you’ve quoted it a hundred times. The performances of the core trio of actors – Paul Giamatti, Da’Vine Joy Randolph and Dominic Sessa – are point perfect, and Payne directs like someone putting himself completely in the service of the story he is trying to tell (which is a difficult thing if you’re also going to tell it well).

Lot No. 249 (2023): For 2023’s Ghost Story for Christmas, Mark Gatiss went to the Arthur Conan Doyle well. This is probably one of the Gatiss era’s lesser offerings, but I say that rather regularly about these things and then find myself returning to them with great joy later on, so ask me again about its greatness or lesserness in a couple of years.

What’s definitely fine here is a surprising performance by Kit Harington, a cameo by not-Sherlock Holmes quite a few people not me apparently found annoying, and subtext about gayness, (self-)repression and the arrogance of Empire that has lost all of the sub.

The Childe aka Sad Tropics aka 귀공자 (2022): This South Korean action film by Park Hoon-jung concerns the misadventures of a young man looking for his father who learns that some fathers are better not found. A violent three-way-tugging match about with him as the rope ensues. The film features some fun, sometimes – the climax! - brilliant, action set pieces and a handful of performances so cartoonish, one will either find them very fun or very annoying, and very little else worth talking about. Enjoyable, the film certainly is, and I’m not against cartoons in any way, shape or form.

Confidence (2003)

A dead man (Edward Burns, who really does act with all the expressiveness of a dead man throughout) tells a man with a gun to his head the story of his recent travails.

A successful con turns sour on con artiste Jake Vig (our dead man) and his team (Paul Giamatti, Brian van Holt and Louis Lombardi), when they realize their mark was working for a crazy, polymorphously perverse gangster boss who likes to be called The King (Dustin Hoffman). Even worse, the mark was paying them with the King’s money. After an unfortunate killing of a member of the team, Jake offers the King to work a con for him, to make up for their little differences, on the victim of the King’s choice. The King’s not going to make things easy, so the victim is one Morgan Price (Robert Forster), a man as difficult to get at as possible.

Still, Jake’s ego and those needs that must cook up a plan that might even work. He pretty randomly recruits hot pickpocket Lily (Rachel Weisz), because the film really needs a romance between two actors with zero chemistry (or rather, between a usually brilliant actress trying to get any emotional reaction from what might very well be a well-groomed rock) as well as the inevitable romantic betrayal.

Obviously, there will be twists as well, or did anybody expect the first person narrator of a movie about con artists to be telling the truth, and all of it?

Which does lead us neatly into Confidence’s main problem: a script that simply isn’t as smart as it believes to be, and so copies the surface level elements of other movies about cons, and a lot of the in 2003 inevitable Tarantino-moves without ever thinking about what they are actually good for in general or could be useful for in its own specific case.

But then, Confidence very much lacks in specificity as a whole. In part, this is the fault of very bland character writing where some verbal tics stand in for even the most basic of characterization, so much so that even great actors like Rachel Weisz and Andy Garcia can’t do much more than look sexy or wear weird clothes, respectively, while Dustin Hoffman simply pretends to be in a Tarantino film, alas not one with Tarantino’s hand for getting unexpected performances out of his actors. It does not help here at all that our viewpoint character as embodied by Edward Burns is quite so bland and lacking in personality; other characters tell us incessantly how cool he is, but assumed traits really don’t stick to a surface that boring.

In other ways, Confidence is nearly painfully of its precise point in time. James Foley’s direction is certainly slick, but it is slick in the manner of something shot with a “filmmaking styles of 2003” handbook in one hand. The score is exactly the sort of mutated Hip Hop Beat stuff you’d expect as well, the editing seems obsessed with having scenes ending on a quip or a one-liner (reaction shots are for losers, apparently) as if this were a TV show dragging us into an ad break, and so on and so forth. Everything here simply manages to be at once completely of its time and perfectly generic – one might call that an achievement, if one’s lifetime weren’t finite.

Past Misdeeds: Ironclad (2011)

Through the transformation of the glorious WTF-Films into the even more glorious Exploder Button and the ensuing server changes, some of my old columns for the site have gone the way of all things internet. I’m going to repost them here in irregular intervals in addition to my usual ramblings.

Please keep in mind these are the old posts presented with only  basic re-writes and improvements. Furthermore, many of these pieces were written years ago, so if you feel offended or need to violently disagree with me in the comments, you can be pretty sure I won’t know why I wrote what I wrote anymore anyhow.

Warning: if you need the movies you watch not to run roughshod over actual history, you'll probably need to keep away from Ironclad, or die of annoyance.

It's 1215 in the Kingdom of England, and King John (Paul Giamatti chewing scenery like a true champ) is quite displeased by having been pressed into signing the Magna Carta. So displeased, in fact, he imports a group of Danes under their Captain Tiberius (Vladimir Kulich) into the country to help him take the baronies he just made peace with truly back into his loving arms.

But a small part of the former rebels led by Baron William D'Aubigny (Brian Cox) and Archbishop Langton (Charles Dance) are willing to even hand the crown of England to the French king Louis to keep John out of power. The French, however, will take their time. Who wants a crown delivered on a silver plate, right? Because of the French dithering, their cause could be lost before it even truly begins if John and the Danes are able to take the strategically important castle of Rochester, which controls access to large parts of England.

Our rebels are a bit low on bodies at the moment, so it falls to D'Aubigny to take a troop of seven men he gathers in the traditional manner of such films, and who are played by people like Jason Flemyng and Mackenzie Crook, to the castle to help protect it together with the minor garrison its actual lord Reginald de Cornhill (Derek Jacobi) can - not exactly happily - muster. D'Aubigny's trump card, though, will be Templar Thomas Marshal (James Purefoy!), a man who may have been traumatized by the Crusades but who is still the best at what he does (which, as you can assume, isn't very nice).

Soon, John and his Danes arrive at Rochester and a siege ensues. The fighting and screaming and nearly dying of hunger is only interrupted by various discussions about the worth of faith and oaths, as well as the mandatory love story: Marshal and Reginald's wife Isabel (Kate Mara) - a woman too independent to be happy in her time and place - fall for each other hard.

As I already warned, if you go into Jonathan English's (a rather ironic director name taken in this context) Ironclad hoping for respect for historical facts, you'll be struck down with some kind of fit sooner or later; this is, after all, a film taking place in 1215 that ends with the French king Louis (who was actually a prince by the time anyway) holding the crown of England, which is not a thing that happened, and, curiously enough, also not really a historical fact that needed changing for the film's story to work at all. Though it has to be said that the film does, on the other hand, show an interest in a degree of historical veracity beyond historical fact, so the middle ages in Ironclad's England are appropriately poor, cold, muddy, and the populace's education leaves something to be desired. I think the easiest way to ignore the film's historical failings is to treat it as a - rather excellent - sword and sorcery film without the sorcery. Just pretend this takes place in Engelund, and the king's name is Jim, and all problems are solved.

If you are one of those people unable to do that, though, you'll probably also be quite annoyed by the film's treatment of its characters. Everyone's psychology works more or less like that of people in a movie made in 2012, with little regard taken for what we today assume to be the specifics of the medieval mind. Personally, I don't mind this too much. I'm generally doubtful when a film turns historical figures into aliens, because I doubt human psychological and emotional needs have changed all that much during the course of history, but rather our consciousness of them and our way to express them has.

Anyway, the film's rather open approach to history also results in something I find rather believable, and definitely one of the three elements I like most about it. Namely, Ironclad's willingness to treat its female lead as an actual human being with a degree of agency. The film is never confusing Isabel's position and meagre rights in life with her actual inner life and her capabilities. Isabel is still, alas, neither hero nor actual centrepiece of the film, yet Ironclad shows a respect for her and interest in her that can't be taken for granted in this sort of historical adventure movie, particularly not a contemporary one where stating historical veracity often rather seems to mean "putting the women in their places".

The second element of Ironclad I find particularly noteworthy is of course James Purefoy, for James Purefoy is an actor who is evidently improbably awesome in whatever role he is cast in, putting charisma and effort in whether a film and script deserve them or not. What is true in general is also true here. Actually, the rest of the cast of predominantly British character actors are no slouches either (particularly Kate Mara and Paul Giamatti), but, you know, James Purefoy!


Finally, Ironclad is also just very, very good at the main thing it sets out to do, creating gory, exciting and slightly repellent battle scenes which from time to time feature a bit too much of the old shaky cam but make up for that by their sheer blood-spattering power. These scenes are quite a thing to behold and are in fact so convincing they leave no doubt in a viewer's mind that twenty men can hold off one thousand enemies in a siege. Which is exactly the sort of thing I like to take away from my medieval adventure movies. Hail King Louis of England!

On Exploder Button: Ironclad (2011)

Remember how eeeeevil King John lost the English throne to Louis of France in 1215? Well it sure happened in someone's Crusader Kings 2 game, so it might as well make its way into a historical adventure movie.

But fret not, friends of medieval people with swords, and of James Purefoy, if you can ignore silly little things like historical fact, Ironclad has a lot of good to offer. What kind of good, I'll relate in my column over at Exploder Button.

Technorati-Markierungen: british movies,american movies,german movies,reviews,adventure,action,james purefoy,brian cox,kate mara,derek jacobi,paul giamatti,other places