Today's Triple News: bad guy, bad guy, bad directing choice?

Another threesome of news updates I posted on MS, one of them less than two hours old:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154135/nederlandse_regisseur_voor_remake_the_birds

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154127/donofrio_speelt_schurk_jurassic_world

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154091/adam_driver_in_beeld_als_star_wars_schurk

Two bits of news appear almost identical except for the difference in names. Two bad guys cast (one close, at least) for major tentpole movies, and one director hired to direct a much dreaded remake of a much loved classic film. A Dutch director redoing a genre classic sounds eerily familiar to The Thing fiasco from only a few years back, where a rookie Dutchman (Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.) with hardly any directing experience got to direct a movie few people were looking forward to anyway. Needles to say that movie flopped: in fact, it lasted only two weeks in Dutch theaters. Was it the director or was it the idea of the remake on its own that made people opt for screening different fare? Probably a combination of both. Nevertheless, history now seems to be repeating itself, except the movie being remade is an even bigger classic from a truly legendary director. The project had been in the work for many years but nobody really dared to get it fired up until now. I'm not surprised, considering the producers involved. Michael Bay for instance, whose name alone should make people think twice about this film (will the birds explode?). Two other producers attached have been involved with nearly all of the recent remakes of various Eighties' horror franchises (A Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre), all exercises in blatant redundancy. That's also not a good sign, considering The Birds is not that kind of horror flick, despite retaining a certain horrific element that does have the potential for bloody mayhem. Van Rooijen seems sure to take on more than he can handle, but unlike Van Heijningen, he does have more credits under his belt. Creating and directing the acclaimed Dutch TV series Penoza is probably his best card to play (I wouldn't know whether it's any good because I rarely watch Dutch series), though he has also done a few moody thrillers in the same vein as The Birds. Nevertheless, in all other respects he seems like yet another example of a foreign director being hired to direct an unneccessary, unwanted remake of a well remembered film that American directors won't touch for obvious reasons (José Padilha's RoboCop serves as the most recent adequate comparison). Time will tell whether Van Rooijen will do any better than those that went to Hollywood before him and came back with their tails tucked between their legs, instead of merrily continuing to exploit their success on home soil.

Two villains cast. One to battle dinosaurs (or is it vice versa?) and one to tackle Jedi. I cannot recall Adam Driver from seeing him in Lincoln (it was only a small part), but he certainly has a distinctive face. Comparing his upcoming role to the iconic Darth Vader is total studio rubbish of course, since nobody will ever come close to that again. They shouldn't even try and just go in their own direction, but that's not something I consider J.J. Abrams capable of doing. And when Abrams says Driver was his first choice, I tend togo in 'I don't care mode' straight away. Turning down great actors like Hugo Weaving and Michael Fassbender in favor of this guy is yet another telltale sign of Abrams' rampant mental instability. But admittedly I might just not have seen enough of Driver's past performances to make a balanced decision on whether he's right for joining the Dark Side. I am very likely clouded by my strong dislike for Abrams, who after raping Star Trek and shamelessly getting away with it does not feel like the best choice for the Galaxy Far, Far Away in my mind. Maybe Driver just happens to actually be a good actor and as such a decent choice for whatever this villain role is going to be. It's hard to deny he has a sinister face. Yes, you might justifiably accuse me of calling him ugly, sorry.

Now Vincent D'Onofrio I know at least. He's played a memorable villain before in one of my childhood favorites, Men in Black, where he played the grotesquely big bug in the Edgar-suit. That was one baddie that freaked me out as a kid! Also knowing his talents from playing Orson Welles in Ed Wood, I can say I know D'Onofrio has a rather diverse range as an actor, so I'm sure he can pull off playing a character of a similarly savoury nature in Jurassic World. I hate to resort to the term 'villain' when JP is concerned, as so far the Jurassic Park movies haven't featured true villains yet, only regular human beings driven by greed and profits. Of course, those are the true villains of our time, but compared to the regular notion of a movie villain they're just as human as the rest of us. The nature of D'Onofrio's part is still kept secret as most things JW are, most notably the dinosaur casting. A human rogue is good as a secondary element, but it's the dinosaurs the audience craves to see endangering the protagonists. I'll definitely not use the term 'villain' in connection with dinosaurs, as they are supposed to be animals acting natural (insofar as we think they might have done) or lashing out because they're driven to acts of aggression by human indecency. The only exception might be the Velociraptors, who, due to their supposed superior intelligence, are capable of making a seemingly rational choice between acting as villains or sticking to being mere animals instead. Whether such philosoraptors are again thrown in the mix in the case of Jurassic World remains to be seen, as rumours are going around their niche will soon be filled with Troodon instead, an even smarter species of small, pack-hunting predatory dinosaurs. I'm sure T-Rex will again return triumphantly though, for sure. Whatever choices of dino-casting director Colin Trevorrow makes, I'm positive 'safety is not guaranteed' (pun!) for D'Onofrio's character. That's what you get for playing a bad guy I suppose.

Today's Mini-Review: Dial M for Murder 3D

Dial M for Murder 3D: ****/*****, or 8/10

If you think the contemporary 3D craze is a new phenomenon, think again. Though the current output of 3D movies far surpasses those of bygone eras, there have been two previous waves in cinema featuring the addition of a third dimension to draw audiences away from their television sets – first from the sets themselves, the second time from the choices offered by VCR technology: these days it's a combination of high quality television production, the relatively large size of the home cinema screen and the ease in digital technology for users to watch whatever they fancy that threatens audience attendance – the previous one during the Eighties, the very first one in the Fifties. Then, like today, some high profile directors, fascinated by the narrative and visual possibilities offered by the three-dimensional aspect, tinkered with the technology to see what it could accomplish and add to the overall viewing experience. During the short lived fad of the Fifties, the most notable director to explore the new dimension was Alfred Hitchcock, who used it only once, for his 1954 crime thriller Dial M for Murder. Though its 3D release was almost as brief as the interest in 3D technology itself in that decade, it cannot be denied the 3D version of this classic film still makes for a fascinating watch, both with regards to the use of the third dimension and the story itself. Thanks to the EYE Filmmuseum in Amsterdam, I got the opportunity to experience this film as Hitchcock shot it, in a beautifully restored print that utilizes the modern 3D techniques, which also benefits the vividly rich Fifties' colour palette that would have been absent in the original 3D print with its notorious red & green glasses.

It's clear upon watching the film Hitchcock made ample use of the added layers of depth 3D offered, as we get a clear sense of persons and objects in the foreground, the middle and the background of the frame, the depth perception shifting as another person or object moves into frame prominently on a closer layer. Considering most of this Kammerspiel type film takes place in a single room, 3D actually comes in quite handy to make the environment feel more alive and diverse than it otherwise would have felt. Especially notable is the scene where two characters are in mid-conversation and a vase enters the shot, basically right in our faces as we see the two men continue to talk behind it, though separated (both visually and in terms of their narrative interests) by the vase which is positioned in the middle of the shot composition. Of course, a few more typical in-your-face shots are also present, and these work far better than the ones we have grown used to, outstretched arms feeling almost tangible as they seem to hover right in front of us. Also charming to behold is the blue matte lines that appear around characters as they are in motion: the modern 'high frame rate' technology might have been of benefit to avoid such visual oddities, but in this case it makes the movie feel even more historically intriguing from a technological viewpoint. Nevertheless, after the first hour it seems Hitchcock was running out of ideas as no particularly noteworthy new use of 3D is witnessed and the novelty of its sensations wears off. Until that point, this film makes some of the finest use of 3D to this day. The incomparable Grace Kelly never looked more beautiful than she does in all three dimensions in this remastered 3D print.

In terms of story Dial M for Murder is simply a little outdated, through no fault of its own. The problem is it has been emulated, copied and parodied for almost sixty years. Though Hitchcock's famous mastery of suspense and the delivery and timing of his actors' dialogue is still of the highest order, it cannot help but make the movie feel like its dragging its feet just a little too long. The moment police inspector Hubbard (John Williams; not that one) enters the crime scene and displays just how brilliantly deductive the mind of a British inspector works as he spends the next 30 minutes explaining the details of the murder attempt for longer than we care to hear it (we got the point!), while occasionally touching his moustache in every conceivable clichéd manner, the movie drones on a little too much. Until that time though, the exciting plot offered by a man (Ray Milland) who means to murder his wife (Kelly) by blackmailing a former schoolmate who has fallen on hard times (Anthony Dawson), only to have the assassination gone horribly awry, makes for s striking crime drama of the highest order, good for many a scene of emotional tension like only Hitchcock managed to deliver. 1954 proved a good year for Hitchcock, as the celebrated director released his even more highly acclaimed (and superior) suspense masterpiece Rear Window – also starring Grace Kelly – only a few months later.

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.