Today's Review: Howards End

Tussen alle ophef die momenteel heerst in het EYE Filmmuseum rond het Scorsese-retrospectief en het Cinema Erotica-evenement zou je het bijna over het hoofd zien, maar er verschijnt deze maand ook een 'reguliere' klassieker in een glanzend nieuw jasje. Howards End verjaart anno 2017 voor alweer de 25ste keer, wat reden genoeg is voor EYE om een fraai gerestaureerde kopie in roulatie te brengen. Geen slechte keus, want de door James Ivory weelderig geregisseerde registratie van een bikkelharde klassenstrijd die sluimert onder typisch Engelse deftigheid mag zich nog steeds scharen onder de fraaiste Britse kostuumdrama's.

Liefhebbers zullen Ivory herkennen als de man die in de jaren tachtig en negentig van de vorige eeuw een specialisatie voor het kostuumdrama ontwikkelde en de ene na de andere geslaagde toevoeging aan het genre regisseerde. Het werk van schrijver en landgenoot E.M. Forster vormde daarbij een dankbare bron, die met Howards End leidde tot Ivory's beste werk. Het meeslepende romantische drama bleek goed voor negen Oscarnominaties, waarvan er drie verzilverd werden. Desondanks is de algemene kennis over Ivory's klassieker, zo niet zijn hele oeuvre, sterk naar de achtergrond verplaatst. Tijd om Ivory's goede oude tijd weer eens te doen herleven, dachten ze bij EYE ongetwijfeld.

In Howards End neemt Ivory ons mee terug naar het Edwardiaanse tijdperk, zo rond de eeuwwisseling. Een tijdperk vol verandering en sociale onrust, waar de regisseur meermaals dankbaar gebruik van maakte in zijn werk, waarin de standenstrijd een doorlopend thema vormt. Dat geschil wordt in deze film belicht vanuit het standpunt van twee families, de welgestelde Wilcoxes en de ruimdenkende Schlegels uit de middenklasse. Inzet is het Howards End uit de titel, een schitterend landhuis dat toebehoort aan de stervende Ruth Wilcox. De oude vrouw sluit in haar laatste maanden een onwaarschijnlijke vriendschap met de vrijgevochten Margaret Schlegel (de rol waarvoor Emma Thompson terecht haar Oscar verdiende) en schenkt haar op haar doodsbed het huis. Dit tot woede van haar familie, die al het bewijs van de overdracht vernietigt. Maar het lot neemt een frappante wending als de weduwnaar Henry Wilcox Margaret tot ieders verrassing ten huwelijk vraagt. Een onwaarschijnlijk verbond tussen een conservatieve oudere zakenman en een intellectuele jongere dame, goed voor dramatische dynamiek en sociaal vuurwerk tussen de diverse maatschappelijke standen.

EYE heeft puik werk verricht met het oppoetsen van Howards End, want de wereld van de overdadig formele Britse high society spettert als nooit tevoren van het scherm. Toch is de beeldkwaliteit niet zo gladjes scherp als bij sommige digitale verfraaiingsbeurten in 4K. De soms wat merkwaardige scèneovergangen zijn gebleven en de film heeft visueel de onmiskenbare esthetiek van de vroege jaren negentig behouden. Howards End mag gerust zijn leeftijd verraden. Dat was hoe dan ook onvermijdelijk als we de jongere versies van de crème de la crème van de Britse acteerwereld met groot genoegen terugzien. De jeugdige Emma Thompson en Helena Bonham Carter schitteren wederom als de vooruitstrevende zusters Schlegel, die zich in een haat-liefdeverhouding geplaatst zien met de onwrikbare zakenman Henry, waarvoor Anthony Hopkins heerlijk heen en weer schmiert tussen vilein en sympathiek. Dat alles in een onweerstaanbare setting vol bruisende jurken en stijlvolle maatpakken, weelderige sets en de mooiste vroege automobielen ooit op het witte doek. Maar feitelijk slechts allemaal decor in Ivory's vertelling van een conflict tussen de lagere standen en de rijke klasse, die van geen wijken wil weten ondanks de voortschrijdende modernisering. Zelfs niet in een letterlijk verstandshuwelijk.

Zo theatraal als Howards End worden kostuumdrama's vandaag de dag amper nog gemaakt. Of het moet voor de televisie zijn, met vergelijkbare waar als Downton Abbey, dat Ivory's werk meer dan waarschijnlijk als inspiratiebron benutte. Maar in de bioscoop lijken 'period films' die in vrijwel elke zin een 'heavens' of een 'jolly' laten vallen helaas hoe langer hoe meer een uitstervende soort. Dat is jammer in een wereld waarin de verschillen tussen arm en rijk, tussen progressief en conservatief en tussen ruimdenkende en beperkte wereldbeelden met de dag weer meer aan de orde lijken te zijn. Hoewel een zekere mate van oubolligheid Howards End niet ontzegd kan worden, blijkt maar weer dat Ivory's standenstrijd nog lang niet tot een einde is gekomen. Een Ivory-retrospectief is misschien ook niet zo'n slecht idee.

Today's Triple News: Comic-Con comes but once a year

With Comic-Con currently in progression, there's bits of news to post online almost every minute. Of course, not everything is breaking news, and I can't post it all by myself. But I post whatever I can whenever I can, like these few bits of news:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156653/eerste_fotos_en_poster_derde_hobbit

Now that's a damn spectacular teaser poster! While many teaser posters tend to take a rather minimalist (though often inventive) approach to get audiences aware of the impending arrival of the movie in question, this one goes straight for one of the highlights in the movie. It can afford too, since the scene in question, though of major importance and containing some hefty spoilers for those who haven't read the books, takes place early in the movie, with most of the story, including the titular battle, following in its wake. It doesn't give away the outcome of this particular fight - Bard the Bowman versus the humongous dragon Smaug - but makes the inquisitive viewer, especially those who have seen both previous installments, want to see how it ends. Of course, it would seem unlikely Bard stands a chance, but there's been enough small bits of information feeded to audiences in The Desolation of Smaug to let us know even this giant dragon is not wholly invincible. In the meantime, Lake Town burns, just as Smaug promised. That will have consequences, naturally. And that's when the story of this third Hobbit movie really kicks into gear. So expect another three-hour epic fantasy flick in typical Peter Jackson style, laced with neat-o effects and some lovely acting interspersed throughout. As for the first two stills also released here, they aren't nearly as eye catching, but examination of the characters suggests shifting alliances, which might cause them to contain more story information than this poster. It's just not brought in as exciting a manner.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156651/anthony_hopkins_in_hbos_westworld

Another major A-list actor has been added to HBO's repertoire. I'm not talking about Evan Rachel Wood, though I don't mean to negatively critique her fine abilities to act. But hey, she already was an HBO alum thanks to her role in True Blood as a spoiled and childish vampire queen. But Hopkins, one of the greatest and most distinguished British actors ever, a 'Sir' nonetheless... you can't get much better than that for any role, be it on TV or on the big screen. Ten years ago, nobody would have believed someone of such stature would ever bother doing TV. It signifies just how much television has changed in respect as a medium. TV is where the best writing and the best acting is found nowadays, few people will disagree. Hopkins sure wouldn't, considering the praise he put into a letter to Bryan Cranston, telling him how thoroughly impressed he was by his performance on Breaking Bad and admiring the series high quality overall. It seems Hopkins himself caught the television bug as well afterwards. Good for us, as grand actors are never a bad thing in any medium, plus it might balance J.J. Abrams' input on HBO's Westworld. Hopkins is playing a bad guy, something he does even better than anything else he plays (cannibal or otherwise). Wood however gets to play a sympathetic character, and an abused artificial one at that. I am hesitant about the love plot written in for her, but at least it adds a dynamic not seen in the original Westworld, a good but dated Sci-Fi movie in itself. The stakes just got raised for HBO. Fortunately there's money to spare soon, now that both True Blood and Boardwalk Empire are coming to an end. All good things must be replaced by other good things after all.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156689/comic-con_meer_concept_art_voor_avengers_2

No Comic-Con without a comic book movie, preferably one from Marvel. They call this 'concept art', but from the looks of it, all the concepts found in this poster had already been accepted into the movie as a whole. As we have seen in the various behind-the-scenes stills and official photos for Avengers: Age of Ultron, all the Avengers seen on this eight panel picture look almost exactly as they will in the film. With the possible exception of the Vision, as this is the first glimpse of that character we're offered. They stuck close to his looks in the comics, it would appear, though at this angle it's hard to say for sure. The overall shape and colour scheme sure seem to fit. By comparison, Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch don't look nearly as trite-but-true to their comic book counterparts, though that's done to make them feel a little more realistic. This Quicksilver looks a heck of a lot different from the one seen in X-Men: Days of Future Past so as to minimize confusion between both incarnations. It's gonna be a hard act to outrun the previous take on Quicksilver, though the presence of his sister (and her eventual husband, artificial and all) will surely be helpful in that regard. As is the suggestion this poster gives this Quicksilver will be much more involved into the superhero action, fighting nasty robots and such. The X-Men Quicksilver just bailed out on that one and let his fellow mutants handle those Sentinels all by themselves...

Today's Mini-Review: Thor: The Dark World

The Odinson returns in his second solo venture, more grandiose than the last, but still very close in narrative make-up to its predecessor, despite a change of director. Kenneth Branagh declined the offer to helm this second installment while female director Patty Jenkins was fired early on, at which point Game of Thrones director Alan Taylor took over the reins, and quite successfully so. The Shakespearean overtones are nevertheless kept in, only enlarged by his Martinian experience with grand halls, epic battles and conniving siblings, all too similar in nature to the subject matter so far. After leaving the Avengers and returning home with his captive brother Loki, Thor (Chris Hemsworth more beefed up than ever) has been kept busy for two years fighting rampaging marauders and other dangers to cosmic stability across the Nine Realms. Meanwhile, his human love Jane (Natalie Portman) also hasn't taken time off in search for her divine boytoy by using every scientific means at her disposal. On investigation in Britain, she stumbles upon a portal to another place where she is infected by the Aether, a dangerous, ancient material that is the key energy source of the largely extinct Dark Elves that once battled the Asgardians for dominance in times immemorial, and lost. Sensing the Aether has awoken, the few remaining members of this shadowy race prepare for another shot at universal power grabbing under the leadership of the wrathful Malekith (Christopher Eccleston wearing creepy make-up). When they unexpectedly assault Asgard and kill Thor's mother, the distraught wielder of the powerful hammer Mjölnir disobeys his heavenly father's commands and recruits his untrustworthy brother Loki (an impeccable Tom Hiddleston, again playing the trickster god with the usual vigour that makes him the most fascinating Marvel villain of them all) to defeat the Dark Elves before their nefarious plans for Jane and the universe are brought to their catastrophic conclusion. The only bond that shares them at this point in their overly tumultuous relationship is the mutual love for their mother's memory: otherwise there is no trust or love lost between them. Will Thor manage to save his girlfriend and everything else, without ending with a knife in his back at the hands of his seemingly imbalanced brother, or crushed by the ever stronger Malekith? It will remain to be seen during a bombastic battle in the British capital (instead of set in the States, as has been usual in Marvel movies thus far).

The problem audiences might have with Thor: The Dark World is the fact it doesn't dare to leave its established comfort zone and therefore sticks suspiciously close to what we have already seen in the previous film. Though Thor's cosmic portion of the Marvel Universe is certainly expanded in terms of scope and story, thematically speaking there's little to be found that feels new. The nature of heroism, the love for a mortal woman, the rivalry between brothers: it has all been done before, but at least The Dark World doesn't do it badly. In terms of style Asgard has never looked so glorious to behold: a sharp contrast to the dreadful dead soil of the barren world of Svartalfheim that had to be conquered and annihilated for the Norse gods to rise to power – which makes you rethink how much of 'the good guys' they really claim to be – as we are told in a fabulous prologue that feels a lot like the opening of a certain Peter Jackson fantasy blockbuster. Apart from the many predictable but entertaining scenes of supernatural action The Dark World provides, also ever present is the level of humour that reminds us we ought not to take any of this too seriously, as well as keeping us from forgetting we're watching a comic book adaptation. Key in this is a reversal of the dynamics between Jane and Thor seen previously, where he was cast out of his world in order to come to terms with a “lesser state” of existence for his own good. This time it's Jane's turn to be a stranger in a strange land as she's swept to Asgard where her Earthly unsophisticatedness causes many a merry moment: not because she's overwhelmed by it all, but due to her impulse to make scientific sense of her new environment, which startles the Asgardian natives somewhat. Those who hoped for more Asgardian style dialogue, as present in the comics, will find themselves disappointed though, as the gods unfortunately speak as much of a contemporary language as our own. Thor and Jane make a decent on-screen couple, but it's the supporting cast that succeeds the most in keeping us engaged, with Hiddleston worthy of most praise. It is often said a movie is only as good as its bad guy, which should have made The Dark World a very good movie, but Loki is forced by the plot to be submissive in terms of villainy to Malekith, despite the fact Loki far exceeds this new villain in being interesting (no criticism on Eccleston's performance it must be stated), mostly thanks to his almost heartfelt loss of his mother, which for a moment makes you think he genuinely wants to help Thor in exacting revenge. And by pulling that off convincingly, Hiddleston again reveals why he was such a good choice for this loveable rogue. Dark or not, it's Loki's world, and we would do well never to underestimate him as everyone else does.

And be sure to stick with the credits a while longer to witness a largely unrelated but neverthless hugely intriguing typical Marvel 'bridge' to next year's Guardians of the Galaxy, which will expand the cosmic corner of the Marvel Cinematic Universe even further. It stars Benicio Del Toro with a funny accent and a silly hairdo, so you have no valid reason to miss out on it, really.

Today's Mini-Reviews: oldies packing some punch

The Lone Ranger: ***/*****, or 6/10

Big budget remake of the classic radio play and television series appropriates the success formula formerly applied to the Pirates of the Caribbean films, which is not surprising considering the same people and studio that made those swashbucklers are behind this project. Produced by Jerry Bruckheimer for Disney and directed by Gore Verbinski, The Lone Ranger once again makes ample use of Johnny Depp's uncanny talent for playing weird, seemingly mentally unbalanced outcasts, considered a main audience draw for which Depp as usual received top billing, even though he does not play the titular character (in that regard it's Alice in Wonderland all over again). This time Depp assumes the mantle of the Lone Ranger's iconic Indian sidekick, Tonto, who recalls his adventures with the movie's actual hero at extreme old age, stuck in a sideshow tour as a noble savage. This framing of a tale within a tale is rather annoying as the movie tends to swivel from one version of Tonto to the other at moments where such distraction is not at all warranted and takes the pace out of the piece. Armie Hammer (The Social Network) plays John Reid, an overly morally righteous lawyer who must cope with the fact that the rules of law simply don't apply in the Wild West, especially when those in power make their own law. As a result, his valiant brother is killed and he himself is left for dead, until Tonto “resurrects” him and helps him get in shape as a masked Ranger who fights for justice and protects the weak from those who would corrupt the law for their own nefarious purposes. Enter an unscrupulous railroad tycoon and his sinister henchman with a taste for excessive violence (the ever eerie William Fichtner), who mean to instigate a war with the Indians in order to move in on their territory that contains huge silver deposits. Reid and Tonto, who is also an outcast amongst his own tribe for being a supposed nutcase, must find a way to expose the plot as well as save Reid's sweet sister-in-law and her young son.

This results in the usual action driven plot, moving from setpiece to setpiece through all the old Western locales, including a whorehouse run by Helena Bonham Carter (equipped with an ivory faux leg of large calibre), Native American teepee villages and the indispensable classic Fordian landscapes of canyons and unusual rock formations no Western ought to do without. Except from the climactic train chase, which admittedly is one of the finest and funniest ever put on film, most action scenes cannot escape a sense of staleness. Depp does his usual thing on autopilot, playing Tonto as a psychologically ambiguous character that gets into trouble regularly but always manages to pull himself out, more with luck than through his wits as he stumbles into one Keaton-esque gag after the other, while the naive but handsome Reid follows the predictable path from idealistic city boy to genuine Western hero. As was the case with the Pirates movies, there is a distinct supernatural flavor to the story which both feels confusing and often out of place, though adding to Tonto's mystique but also to his establishment as a totally silly character. And what's the deal with having Fichtner cut out and consume the hearts of his adversaries while he's clearly a stupendously terifying character already? Despite Depp's presence, The Lone Ranger couldn't connect with American audiences and ended up a domestic flop, though at the moment of writing it's too early to tell whether the same is true from an international perspective. For this failure producers and actors, in an odd moment of anger made public, blamed the critics who according to them panned the movie for its numerous production troubles, but that's a wholly nonsensical notion since due to the ever growing advent of opinionated online writing about movies critics just aren't heeded to as they once used to be: also, many movies critics regard as bad continue to do well regardless (Transformers, Scary Movie, etc.). Apparently the people that made this movie just didn't see both the lack of creative quality in their own project – though it's not as bad as some would have you believe, it's definitely not a grand and memorable blockbuster flick either – and the overuse of Disney's formulaic line of thinking that already started to backfire on the Pirates movies. Incidentally, those that follow the current TV-series Hell on Wheels, that largely delves into the same historic and thematic material as this film, will find little in here that that show didn't do before (and better). Except for the train chase of course.

Red 2: ***/*****, or 7/10

Sequel to Red (2010) (Retired: Extremely Dangerous), based on the graphic novels by Warren Ellis, continues the simple tradition its predecessor so successfully kicked off, delightfully combining well respected grand actors with dynamic action sequences and any number of nifty explosions. Bruce Willis, John Malkovich and Helen Mirren reunite as a band of retired government agents, all still extremely accomplished killers nevertheless. Morgan Freeman has been traded in for Anthony Hopkins and David Thewlis, which is not the worst deal imaginable though Freeman's charming character is still sorely missed (but even in an over-the-top action franchise like this, dead is dead). Living a quiet, everyday life with his new girlfriend Sarah (Mary-Louise Parker), ex-CIA operative Frank Moses (Willis) has no intention of getting mixed up with gunfights and conspiracies again, but such things tend to find him regardless. When his paranoid, mentally unhinged pal Marvin resorts to faking his own death, Moses finds himself sucked into another plot revolving around a portable nuclear bomb hidden in the Kremlin, something he is rumoured to be involved in. As was the case in the previous film, it's necessary for him and his friends to travel around the globe in order to piece together the puzzle, which brings them to exotic (or close to), luxurious locales including Moscow and Paris, a staple of spy films but delivered with ample fervour not to get noticed. Thrown in the mix are Hopkins as an unbalanced inventor of weapons of mass destruction who has spend 20 years in a looney bin, Thewlis as a shady information dealer who much prefers the good things in life (like hideously expensive rare wines) over gunplay and gratuitous violence, Catherine Zeta-Jones as a foxy agent sharing a history with Moses and out to seduce him once more, and, as before, Brian Cox as a former Russian KGB-officer and hopeless romantic who appreciates the sight of his beloved Helen Mirren offing people over all else. As the merry band of aging killers shoots and bombs its way through the plot, Moses must also come to terms with his younger and inexperienced girlfriend, who now considers this sort of bloody adventure a neat holiday trip and bonding experience, and takes as much points as she can in the art of mayhem, much to his chagrin (and a far cry from the not quite so enthusiastic Sarah from the first film). Suffice to say, if you're not a fan of guns and other assorted weaponry, this movie is definitely not recommended to you. However, like the first Red, this successor is nothing but a highly entertaining action flick that appropriates the huge talents of the renowned actors it has brought together to great effect, clearly enabling the ensemble to have a blast itself. Though the movie is otherwise devoid of narrative surprises, the high levels of good fun and a decent number of high paced action scenes make for a decent way to spend your two hours.

Today's Mini-Reviews

Hitchcock: ****/*****, or 8/10

Fascinating take on the production of Alfred Hitchcock's (in)famous masterpiece Psycho (1960). Of course, we all know how well that ended up, so there's little suspense about this particular film on the Master of Suspense, but there is a lot of love for his work and his persona to be found in this terrific 'film about film'. In the late Fifties, director Hitchcock (another grand role on the already hugely impressive resumé of master-actor Anthony Hopkins) is bored with repeating himself as the audience seems to desire. After releasing yet another spy film – North by Northwest, another legendary movie in his oeuvre – Hitch decides to do something else and finds just that in the novel Psycho, based on the heinous crimes committed by serial killer Ed Gein. Ridiculed by friends and colleagues alike for adapting what is considered a trashy, sensationalist pulp novel, Hitch proves undeterred and sets out in making this movie that is bound to shock the nation. However, his stubbornness soon threatens his marriage to his beloved wife and partner Alma Reville (the current 'grand dame' of British actors, Helen Mirren) who feels neglected and starts off on her own search for professional happiness. Director Sacha Gervasi clearly did not mean for this movie to be seen as a true biopic and thanks to the many instances of black humour, sometimes completely over the top, it's hard to consider it as such. Nevertheless, he convincingly captures the sense of pressure and discomfort the real Hitchcock might have experienced during this production, considered his most tasking and laborious shoot. Gervasi brilliantly showcases Hitch's emotional troubles by having him engage in inner dialogue with his darker self in the shape of the murderer Gein (the ever alarming Michael Wincott), at which point all doubt is taken away: Hitchcock is not an attempt at historical accuracy, but a loving fictional reconstruction of the turmoil that might very well have plagued the corpulent director himself during his most trying production. The whole is interspersed with many references to classic film lore for movie buffs to enjoy, as well as a number of fine actors portraying key people involved in making Psycho the shock ride of a thriller it ended up being, including Scarlett Johansson as Janet Leigh, Michael Stuhlbarg (Boardwalk Empire) as Lew Wasserman and James D'Arcy (Cloud Atlas) as Anthony Perkins. For all those who loved Psycho, Hitchcock ought to be required viewing.

Broken: ****/*****, or 7/10

Harrowing and depressing British social drama about a young girl named Skunk (wonderful debutante Eloise Laurence) whose cheerful life is shattered when she witnesses a brutal case of violence in her street. Sadly for her and everyone else in her neighbourhood, it's only just the start of a series of disturbing events that spiral ever more out of control until all hope for a peaceful resolution seems lost. The cause for all the trouble is an increasingly anti-social single parent household run by a father with severe anger issues (you can't really blame him) and his three teenage daughters, one more loathsome and dislikable than the other (great acting but rarely do you encounter characters you wish would die a horrible death so badly!). Despite Skunk's caring father (Tim Roth playing a good guy for a change, succeeding in making him look sympathetic despite failing to contain the situation and protecting his daughter) and her uplifting relationship with a young teacher (Cillian Murphy), things go ever more awry with deadly consequences. Romantic involvements break down, the innocence of youth is destroyed and everyday life soon turns lethal. But hey, if you read the newspapers you'll find this sort of thing happens on a daily basis: this can basically happen to everybody, including children. With Broken, director Rufus Norris has made a gripping and thought provoking drama, but its contents are so disheartening it's hard to sit through it all. To his credit it sticks with you for longer than you would expect, but that's not necessarily a positive thing, considering all the bleakness he serves. Even though it's meant as a serious study into the deterioration of everyday life in an average neighbourhood following a single, at first seemingly isolated, violent event and the distressing repercussions it has on those involved, some notion of hope would have been most welcome. One cannot, and should not, deny that Broken is a thoroughly engaging film experience regarding a relevant social topic, but it would not be a bad idea to let people know in advance what realistic horrors they will need to endure.

Beowulf

Rating: ****/*****, or 7/10

Second foray of Robert Zemeckis into the realm of 'performance capture' (the first being The Polar Express (2004), allowing digital artists to record the motions of actors in blue suits on stage, especially their facial movements for maximum emotional impact, and filling in everything else via the computer afterwards. This time Zemeckis appropriated this technique for telling the epic tale of the medieval hero Beowulf (Ray Winstone), a valiant but arrogant warrior who comes to the aid of a king (Anthony Hopkins) who is plagued by the hideous monster Grendel (Crispin Glover). Beowulf fights the monster successfully, but must than deal with his seductive mother (Angelina Jolie) who promises him fame and riches in return for him giving her a new son. Beowulf accepts, but finds he made a deal with the devil: though he gets what was promised it makes him feel empty and alone. When his son returns as a dragon and lays waste to his kingdom, Beowulf gets one last chance to set things right and be a genuine hero again. Plenty of good action and amazing visuals, but the digital technique just didn't prove able to convincingly breathe life into the pixelized cast, making them feel eerily artificial and soulless. It did prove effective for getting Angelina Jolie stark naked though. Zemeckis, not one to give up on an evolving means of effects, applied performance capture a third time to his take on A Christmas Carol (2009). Beowulf was the first film I ever watched in (IMAX) 3D, and still one of the very few I feel made effective use of the 3D process (just before the 3D craze got a hold of Hollywood and most blockbusters used it to squeeze more bucks out of the audience without delivering the promised goods): the way those giant sea serpents alone came at you made the movie quite spectacular, despite its digital shortcomings. Overall, a good version of the old English poem, effectively combining the very old with the very new.

Starring: Ray Winstone, Anthony Hopkins, Angelina Jolie

Directed by Robert Zemeckis

USA: Paramount Pictures, 2007

Red Dragon

Rating: ***/*****, or 6/10

Hannibal op herhaling

Een getraumatiseerde FBI-agent jaagt op een geslepen seriemoordenaar met de bijnaam 'de Tooth Fairy', die twee families uitgemoord heeft. Hiervoor heeft hij de hulp nodig van een andere psychopaat die een levenslange gevangenisstraf uitzit en zich aan kannibalisme schuldig heeft gemaakt, ondanks zijn briljante geest. Tussen agent en gevangene ontvouwt zich een mentaal kat-en-muisspel, met als inzet het stoppen van de moordenaar, voordat hij opnieuw slachtoffers maakt. Ziehier de premisse van Red Dragon, de meest recente verfilming van een boek van Thomas Harris.

Wat zegt U? Dit plot klinkt U bekend in de oren? Dat kan goed kloppen, want zestien jaar geleden is Harris' boek al eerder verfilmd, destijds onder de titel Manhunter. Mooifilmer Michael Mann maakte de eerdere versie en gaf het verhaal een stilistisch geslaagde vorm zonder de diepgang van het boek tekort te doen. Voor Red Dragon werd Brett Rattner aangenomen, de man die ons twee delen Rush Hour gaf, films die het meer van grappen en grollen moesten hebben dan van een gelaagd plot of emotionele diepgang. Rattner leek een verkeerde keus, maar gelukkig blijkt zijn versie niet de gevreesde totale mislukking, hoewel het niveau van Mann's werk niet gehaald wordt. Ratter laat merken voldoende in huis te hebben om tenminste een redelijke thriller in elkaar te zetten, waarbij het leeuwendeel van de prestatie echter door twee topacteurs geleverd wordt in hun rol van het duo psychopaten.

Troef is uiteraard Anthony Hopkins, wiens fantastisch gespeelde Hannibal Lecter de hele reden van de herverfilming van Harris' roman vormt. Manhunter was het eerste deel in een reeks films rond de charmante kannibaal, die toen gespeeld werd door Brian Cox. Diens Lecter had een betrekkelijk kleine rol, terwijl Hopkins' Lecter in Red Dragon aanzienlijk vaker in beeld is. Hopkins speelde de rol het eerst in The Silence of the Lambs van regisseur Jonathan Demme, een meesterlijke thriller die binnen korte tijd tot een schoolvoorbeeld in het genre gerekend werd en bovendien vijf Oscars in de wacht sleepte, waaronder één voor Hopkins zelf. Tien jaar later volgde Ridley Scott's Hannibal, waarin Hopkins opnieuw tekeer mocht gaan als de menseneter, in een macabere film voorzien van een barokke stijl en meer gore dan we tot dan toe van Lecter gewend waren. Desondanks haalde de film een flinke opbrengst binnen, waardoor een remake van Manhunter, nu met Hopkins in plaats van Cox, een logische keuze bleek. Als zodanig ontstaat er nu een Lecter-trilogie rond Hopkins' rol waarin het meest recente deel een prequel voor de beide anderen vormt: Manhunter wordt nu tot een buitenbeentje gereduceerd.

Om het verband tussen Red Dragon en de beide andere “echte” Lecter-films te benadrukken is Lecter's rol flink opgeschroefd, inclusief een introductie van het personage welke ontbrak in Manhunter, alsmede een opzet voor The Silence of The Lambs aan het eind van de film. Zodoende krijgt de kijker meer dan genoeg informatie over de plaats van Rattner's versie in de tijdlijn van de trilogie, ook al zal dit overbodig zijn voor het merendeel van het publiek.

Bij aanvang van de film is Lecter nog op vrije voeten en werkt hij samen met agent Will Graham (Edward Norton, Fight Club) om een moordenaar op te sporen, die hij zelf blijkt te zijn. Graham is aan hem gewaagd en weet Lecter te ontmaskeren, wat echter beide mannen haast het leven kost. Het resultaat: Lecter krijgt levenslang, terwijl Graham wegens het ontstane trauma de FBI verlaat. Zodra de Tooth Fairy echter toeslaat wordt hij te hulp geroepen, maar daarvoor moet hij opnieuw met Lecter samenwerken en diens hersenspinsels in zijn geest toelaten. Norton zet een adequate ex-agent neer, getroebleerd door het trauma rond zijn bijna fatale eerdere aanvaring met Lecter, geplaagd door schuldgevoel over het gevaar voor zijn eigen gezin in dit nieuwe conflict met een slachter van families, en geobsedeerd om de geest van de maniak te begrijpen voordat deze opnieuw toeslaat.

Echter, Norton's Graham steekt schril af bij Hopkins' Lecter, die opnieuw een weergaloze prestatie levert in zijn vertolking van het gekke genie: alweer is hij charmant, gestoord, en mateloos intrigerend in elke scène. Vanuit zijn cel lijkt hij de touwtjes stevig in handen te hebben en te spelen met zowel Graham als de Tooth Fairy, zonder duidelijk te maken aan wiens kant hij precies staat. Waar Norton een minder overtuigend spel aflevert dan Hopkins, geldt dat niet voor Ralph Fiennes (The English Patient), die zich uit mag leven als de waanzinnige Tooth Fairy. Fiennes zet hem uitstekend neer als een sobere, schuchtere man geplaagd door een jeugd vol pijn en misbruik, die wenst te transformeren tot een hogere macht en moord daarvoor niet schuwt. Hoewel Fiennes en Hopkins het scherm nooit delen zijn ze aan elkaar gewaagd, ieder in hun eigen variatie op het thema van de megalomane moordenaar. Bovendien is het goed te zien dat de film niet per se inzakt als Hopkins niet in beeld is.

Ondanks het sterke acteerwerk van zowel Hopkins als Fiennes komt Red Dragon niet helemaal uit de verf. De film voelt teveel als een herhalingsoefening, niet alleen omdat het om een al eerder verfilmd werk gaat maar ook omdat het plot wel erg grote overeenkomsten vertoont met The Silence of the Lambs, waarin ook een agent een seriemoordenaar moest vangen met Lecter's hulp. Bovendien ontbeert Red Dragon zowel de finesse van die film als de geslaagde, macabere stijl van Hannibal. Met zijn rechttoe rechtaan manier van werken toont Rattner zich geen meesterregisseur als Demme of Scott. Zoals het geval was met zijn vorige films voert hij zijn vak capabel genoeg uit en levert hij een onderhoudend product af, maar van diepgang en stijl heeft hij geen kaas gegeten.

Red Dragon is redelijk geslaagd als een bij vlagen spannende thriller, maar deze status is hoofdzakelijk te danken aan de topacteurs die zich in de rol van psychopaat verdienstelijk maken. In andere opzichten is het slechts een “Silence light”, alweer een film met Lecter die volgens het bekende stramien zijn kwade genie botviert op een gespannen agent in diens zoektocht naar de zoveelste enge psychopaat.

Amistad

Rating ***/*****, or 7/10

Spielberg's testimonial against the nineteenth-century African slavery industry. On the slaver vessel La Amistad in 1839, a group of slaves revolted, after which the ship was steered towards the USA, where a lengthy string of courtroom sessions controlled the mutineers' fate. Spielberg unfortunately lets the courtroom scenes dominate the film too much, which makes for a rather static and lengthy view that often fails to compel its audience, but the flashback scenes that illustrate the deplorable suffering of Africans aboard slaver ships fully underscores the horrors they underwent and the issues at stake for the Amistad slaves, and feels like a fist punch in the face of viewers who might otherwise have fallen asleep. The various parties involved, including the Southern and Northern American states, the British Navy and the Spanish royalty provide for an historically intriguing but narratively chaotic overall plot line. Spielberg made this film with the best intentions, but it's obviously not as much his cup of tea as the Second World War or the Holocaust proved to be. The movie does include some powerful performances though, both by veteran actors the likes of Anthony Hopkins and Morgan Freeman, as well as relative newcomers Matthew McConaughey and Djimon Hounsou.

Starring: Morgan Freeman, Djimon Hounsou, Anthony Hopkins

Directed by Steven Spielberg

USA: Dreamworks SKG, 1997