April In Film

 The Super Mario Bros Movie

My grandad bought me a Super Nintendo Entertainment System when I was very young. I sulked, as I wanted a Sega Megadrive, having heard a lot about a blue hedgehog who seemed pretty cool. About five minutes into playing Super Mario All Stars (a remastered collection of the first three Mario games originally released on the Nintendo Entertainment System), I realised that he had chosen wisely. Nintendo has been a part of my life ever since and in the world of pop culture, perhaps only The Simpsons has had a greater impact on me. Three decades since the last and frankly risible attempt to make a Super Mario film, Nintendo are back with the assistance of Illumination for another go.

Mario is the most famous video game character of all time for a reason. A moustachioed everyman motivated by nothing more than a desire to defeat the evil Bowser to save Princess Peach, he’s the perfect avatar for the player to project themselves into. What makes him a great video game character does not however make him a great screen presence and that’s the central problem that this film has. The film sensibly drops Princess Peach’s “damsel in distress” conceit prevalent in the games, but doing so gives Mario something of an identity crisis. There’s very little character development, or stakes or genuine peril here. The film is arguably stolen by Lumalee, a talking star whose nihilistic pronouncements frequently amused. I was looking for more of that sort of weirdness from the movie, which often feels a bit too polished.

On the plus side, the film looks fantastic and the Mushroom Kingdom in particular is beautifully rendered. There are a few enjoyable action sequences including one probably best described as “Mad Mario: Rainbow Road”. A good deal of effort and care has gone into references and easter eggs for the fans and I did greatly enjoy the orchestral takes on music from the series. Overall, it’s a fun but insubstantial 90 minutes. It’s proven to be a box office smash so more films will certainly follow. I’m just not certain whether there’s enough here to sustain a franchise.

John Wick Chapter 4

Not for the first time recently, I am jumping into a film franchise at precisely the wrong point. Fortunately, the John Wick franchise is forgiving to those later to the party. Wick needs to earn his freedom from a shadowy covert global operation from getting from A to B to C to D using as little dialogue and as much violence as possible. What strikes you while watching is that Keanu Reeves is really rather good at this sort of thing, bringing a sort of balletic quality to many of the fight scenes. This is particularly evident during a sequence in Osaka where he and Caine (a blind assassin played by Donnie Yen) excel.

The final act of the film, in part inspired by the film The Warriors, sees Wick seemingly attempting to fight every assassin in the world in Paris whilst also trying to evade being struck by traffic at the Arc de Triomphe, all to get to Sacré-Cœur for sunrise to duel for his life. “A man fends off attackers whilst attempting to ascend a staircase” is an accurate description of this section of the movie but it’s very stylish, highly entertaining and amusing in a farcical sort of way. A swooping overhead shot of Wick wreaking havoc in a Parisian apartment block is particularly skilfully done.

High art it isn’t. There’s one too many instances of a man’s genitals being fatally compromised by a dog for that. But what it is is an action film done very well.

Superman

For the avoidance of confusion, this is the original 1978 version of Superman. It came as a timely reminder that your superhero movie does not need to be drenched in CGI if it has characters and a story that the audience cares about. There is genuine heart here along with genuine peril. I enjoyed it hugely. Did I truly believe a man could fly? Well, I came close.

I don’t think I’d ever seen Christopher Reeve act before this. I mostly knew him as the butt of several mean-spirited jokes concerning his unfortunate accident and subsequent paralysis. He is excellent here. Broad shouldered, handsome, human but also not human, it’s a brilliant performance. It’s so striking in fact that you almost buy into the ludicrous conceit that Lois Lane (Margot Kidder) doesn’t recognise him as Clark Kent. The scene in which Superman appears on her balcony and conducts an impromptu interview for The Daily Planet has a genuine sense of chemistry and sexual tension absent from most modern films.

The two are supported by a delightfully villainous performance by Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor, who is a very American capitalist sort of adversary, with a few laughs provided by Ned Beattie as Luthor’s bungling sidekick Otis. The film ends rather too abruptly with a few untied narrative threads but that’s pretty much my only criticism. I used the word “terrific” too often in last month’s blog but make no apologies for doing so here. It’s terrific. I’ll be seeking out the sequels.

Raging Bull

There are several holes in my film education that I have started to remedy by attending the “Throwback” screenings at my local Everyman. I watched Goodfellas for the first time last year, another Scorsese film starring Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci. It seemed strange to watch Raging Bull afterwards, as you get the sense that the latter greatly informed the former with the Mafia looming heavily over proceedings.

I am still coming to terms with the fact that De Niro used to be an incredible actor, rather than the tired old man who agreed to appear in Meet The Fockers, Bad Grampa and The Roast of Alec Baldwin. His Oscar winning performance here as the uncompromising brawler Jake LaMotta is an extraordinary one, even if it has resulted in periodically hearing “You fuck my wife?” in my brain at random intervals. Pesci too is a fantastic screen presence. I’m not sure that there’s anyone else in the history of cinema I’d rather see repeatedly slam a man’s head in a car door.

It's a violent, visceral movie. It’s been nearly three weeks since I saw it and can still vividly picture the ring ropes dripping with blood. LaMotta claimed to see his memories in monochrome influencing Scorsese’s decision to film in black and white, a direction that makes the film even more striking and distinctive. He doesn’t flinch when depicting the nasty, ugly sides of LaMotta’s character and it is thoroughly unpleasant to watch in places but also absolutely compelling.

Renfield

There’s an interesting idea at the centre of this film. What if Renfield, the put upon servant/familiar of Dracula, survived to the modern day and used modern day therapy techniques to get to the heart of his co-dependent relationship with the count? Unfortunately, it’s not a concept that can sustain a 90-minute movie, as much as I like Nicholas Hoult as the titular Renfield and Nicolas Cage engages in some moderately entertaining Nicholas Cage-style weirdness as Dracula, though I shudder to think how long he was in the makeup chair on this one. There are a handful of funny scenes here, as Renfield attempts to describe his supernatural problems to his local support group and they run with his peculiar uses of language.

However, the comedic potential of the idea is exhausted pretty quickly, though I did like Dracula’s very specific demands for fresh, untainted blood (“a handful of nuns, or a coach load of cheerleaders”, whilst vehemently denying that this request is “a sex thing”). What we’re left with is a tonally odd action film with cartoonishly gruesome violence that is somewhat reminiscent of The Kingsman series, as Renfield intervenes to help an underappreciated cop named Rebecca (Awkwafina) take down a crime family responsible for her father’s death. Said crime family features Ben Schwartz, providing an evil take on his privileged “mommy’s boy” character from Parks and Recreation. I didn’t begrudge the time I spent with the movie, but it won’t live long in the memory. It's the sort of thing you might pick up on streaming somewhere down the line.

Dungeons and Dragons: Honour Among Thieves

I had taken against this film, mainly due to the aggressive promotional campaign for it at my local Everyman that seemed to go on for at least six weeks. Fortunately, it proved to be another of this month’s pleasant surprises, an action film with irreverent and amusing moments that generally gets the tone right. There are portions that I assumed were nods to the original game but fortunately the movie won’t leave you out in the cold if you have zero prior knowledge. For someone who left any lingering interest they had in trolls, wizards and magic at the Bromley Odeon after a screening of The Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers in 2002, I found it thoroughly enjoyable.

The central ensemble of Chris Pine, Michelle Rodriguez, Justice Smith and Sophia Lillis have a nice back and forth chemistry together. However, the whole film is arguably stolen by Rege Jean-Page in the first performance I’ve seen from him* as the virtuous paladin Xenk Yendar beloved by all, to the irritation of Pine’s character Edgin Darvis. He is frankly an exceedingly handsome man and a hugely charismatic screen presence. Meanwhile, Hugh Grant seems to be settling into a latter-day career pattern of entertaining villainy, a bit like his role in Paddington 2 but less pantomimey. I would thoroughly welcome a sequel which now seems inevitable, but it would be folly to not have Jean-Page signed on for it.

*I know he’s in Bridgerton. But I’m never going to watch Bridgerton.

Bridget Jones’ Diary

Having seen a disproportionately high number of romcoms so far this year, I can’t say that there is much to recommend in revisiting the first of Bridget Jones’ on-screen adventures. We start off by being asked to believe that Renee Zellweger is somehow dumpy, unattractive and undateable and it goes downhill from there. Eventually she is charged with choosing between two bastards, Dan Cleaver (Hugh Grant), Bridget’s boss and sleazy lothario and Mark Darcy (Colin Firth) who is a bastard in a much more subtle Tory sort of way. I will concede that there was a moderate amount of pleasure in watching two of our nation’s most distinguished actors flailing around in the snow during their fight scene.

We are supposed to believe that it’s a wonderful and touching romantic finale when Bridget and Mark get together at the end of the film. This of course breezily overlooks Mark’s pre-existing engagement with his fiancée. She is snooty and rude towards Bridget, but that scarcely seems like justification for Mark’s actions. Likewise, I was desperate for Bridget’s father (Jim Broadbent) to tell her cheating mother where to go rather than feebly acquiescing to a reunion. Still, everything that Richard Curtis is involved in seems to have a skewed sense of morality. Thank goodness that there’s a much better Broadbent film to come this month.

I was somewhat surprised that I hated it so much as I remember seeing the recent Bridget Jones’ Baby and thoroughly enjoying it*. So perhaps check that out instead.

*I thought this was recent. A quick Google reveals it was SEVEN YEARS AGO.

Exhibition on Screen: Vermeer- The Blockbuster Exhibition

Something of a change of pace for me here. This is the first time I’ve watched something from the “Exhibition on Screen” series, which brings exhibitions from galleries and museums around the world to the big screen. This edition concerns the exhibition of the largest ever collection of Johannes Vermeer’s paintings at the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. At the time of writing, the exhibition still has a month left to run but sold out of tickets three months ago, such was the level of demand. Fortunately, this film makes it accessible to people who would not otherwise get the opportunity to see it and that is certainly no bad thing.

Much of my admiration of art comes down to the craft of it and the patience and skill required to turn small brush strokes into something meaningful on canvas. For that reason, the sections where the museum’s curators analyse the works to assess what they might have looked like at different stages of development were particularly interesting.

As I expected, the film features a lot of effusive talking heads saying things like “Vermeer’s work shows us what it is to be human”. Whilst I admire their passion, it is not a sentiment that I can get on board with, though the Dutchman certainly had an aptitude for depicting people in everyday life, as works like “Girl With A Pearl Earring” demonstrate. As a viewing experience, it may not be particularly cinematic but this 90-minute film is solidly put together, informative and gives excellent insight into Vermeer’s work.

Air

This is the story of the rookie basketball player Michael Jordan’s decision to sign a contract to endorse Nike shoes, fending off stiff competition from Adidas and Converse. The rest as they say, is history. It turned round the fortunes of the beleaguered Oregon company and made both parties exceedingly wealthy. You will probably already know based on the above whether this is a movie that you’re keen on. As someone who is both interested in sport and the business/commercial side of sport, it was right up my street.

It’s an interesting story competently told and Matt Damon (the plucky dreamer willing to risk it all to seal the deal) and Ben Affleck (the gruff CEO unconvinced that this audacious plan will work) are solid if unremarkable. Jordan’s authorisation to make the movie was apparently contingent on securing Viola Davis to play his mother and she brings an understated gravitas to proceedings. My lingering affection for the original series of Arrested Development means I’m always happy to see Jason Bateman, one of comedy’s great straight men using his talents for bewilderment to good effect here. Notable also is the return of Chris Tucker after a long absence from Hollywood, who brings a toned-down version of the wild-eyed energy of some of his previous roles. Chris Messina meanwhile provides a rather over the top depiction of Jordan’s hardnosed agent.

It’s an enjoyable drama if like me, you’re particularly interested in the subject matter. If not, it may be a harder sell.

The Unexpected Pilgrimage Of Harold Fry

On the face of it, this seems like one of those uplifting British movies starring elderly household names that come round once or twice a year. But it would be wrong to dismiss it as another one of those. “Perhaps this is what the world needs right now. A little less sense and a bit more faith”, a hospice nurse tells Harold Fry (Jim Broadbent) when informing him that his old friend Queenie Hennessey has responded well to the news that he is travelling the length of Britain on foot to see her. I rather think this is the opposite of what the world needs right now, but I enjoyed this film just the same.

It’s essentially about a man going on a Proclaimers-esque journey to walk 500 miles (an unavoidable comparison that receives a background reference here) from Devon to Berwick-upon-Tweed and relying on the kindness of strangers he meets along the way. What we get is a rather touching examination of love, loss, regret and redemption with a moving performance from Broadbent at the centre, with strong support from Penelope Wilton as Harold’s wife Maureen, stoic but heartbroken, bearing the scars of a long and difficult marriage. One of the film’s subplots isn’t entirely well explained and doesn’t quite hang together, while there’s at least one section that requires a sizable suspension of disbelief. Nonetheless, there’s a lot for the viewer to get their teeth into from a thematic point of view and it resonated strongly with me. I’d like to see it again.