W. (2008) - Oliver Stone

History was made in the last month for two reasons. The first saw the election of the first black man to the seat of President of the United States. The other reason was the beginning of the end of George W. Bush’s tenure as president. He remains the most controversial president since Nixon and arguably one of the worst presidents in US history. But this isn’t a political discussion. It’s a review of Oliver Stone’s biopic of the man, W.

W. is released at a strange time. It’s too far into the Bush’s last term to have any impact on his legacy. And it’s too soon to fully judge Bush’s impact. However, the film attempts to understand Bush’s motivations by looking at some of the key moments in his life that made him the man he is now. Starting while Bush is in college, we trace his life, through the many jobs he held until he became governor of Texas, helped get his father, George H.W. Bush elected as President of the United States and then W.’s own election to the same office.



It’d be very easy to label George W. Bush as an idiot and fool who was, and is a front for big oil and similar shady interests. And while I’m sure that’s not entirely inaccurate, there’s no denying that it takes some brains to get to be president. It doesn’t just happen. And despite these assumptions that a lot of people have about Bush, Stone’s film is somewhat gentle on the guy. The easy thing would have been to make a complete farcical comedy about Bush. There’s enough footage of Bush gaffing to make a pretty funny comedy that is steeped in reality. But Oliver Stone instead looks at Bush as a man who’s constantly living in the shadow of his father. It’s somewhere he despises being. He wants to out-do his father while making his individual mark on the world. And in an attempt at being fair to Bush, you can’t help feeling that there’s also something missing from the film.

The performances are pretty good for the most part. Josh Brolin is excellent as George W. Bush. Stone’s film creates a Bush with a lot of charisma, and Brolin carries this across very well. It’s difficult to watch a film like this without seeing some of the performances as charicatures. And is some cases, this is true. Thandie Newton’s Condaleeza Rice does seem like it stepped out of a Saturday Night Live sketch. Yet in other cases, particularly Richard Dreyfuss as Dick Chaney and James Cromwell as George H.W. Bush, the performances are spot on. But over-all, the performances are generally pretty entertaining.



There are some funny moments in W. A few of the famous Bush-isms are featured, although they are shifted in context to fit in with the drama of the film. One particularly outstanding scene is set in the ‘war room’ where Bush and his cabinet discuss the strategy of Iraq before the conflict begins. It’s like a cross between high-drama and Dr. Strangelove-esqe satire. As a document and comment of Bush’s time as President of the United States, Stone’s Bush isn’t that type of film. Subjects like that are more suited to documentary. But as a character drama, W. is quite entertaining. It does, however, feel unfinished. Had the film been made five, or even a year from now, I’d imagine it would have been quite different in many ways.


7/10

Controversy much?

Oliver Stone has courted controversy in the past. But his latest film, a biography of one of the worst presidents of the USA, W. stands to be his most controversial. Much could be said about the film at this point, but it will be better to let the outstanding trailer speak for the film.

W.

IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH (2007) - Paul Haggis

The Iraq war continues to provide filmmakers with difficult subject matter. Sure, there are many excellent documentaries that provide insight into the conflict which is perpetually in the news. But when it comes to drama, the conflict is rarely tackled head on. We’ve seen films that deal with the war on terror, films that deal with how the Coalition handles suspects in this war. And in In The Valley Of Elah, we have a film that deals, somewhat, with soldiers returning from the war.

Tommy Lee Jones plays Hank Deerfield, a retired military investigator who’s son returns from Iraq, only to go AWOL days later. Deerfield takes it upon himself to investigate his son’s disappearance. It is very unlike his son Mike to take off without letting his parents know where he is. Hank tries to enlist the help of the police only to be told it is a military matter and he should seek help from military police. But eager to keep his son out of trouble, Hank looks for help from Detective Emily Sanders, a single mom fighting for recognition in a job dominated by men. When a body turns up that is revealed to be Mike, Hank and Emily begin the search for Mike’s murderers.



I’ve never been a huge fan of Paul Haggis’ work. While Crash was an interesting if unremarkable drama, I’ve found when Haggis gets behind the camera, the films he produce are a little dull. Haggis is a better writer on other peoples’ films than he is a director, and this is evident in In The Valley Of Elah. At face value, In The Valley Of Elah is a crime drama. A crime has been committed, and Tommy Lee Jones is determined to get to the bottom of it. Underpinning this drama are a bunch of morality statements about what happens to the soldiers sent to fight in Iraq. These two elements provide two different problems with the film. The first, the drama isn’t particularly engaging or compelling. You know the mystery will be solved, but it’s a bit of a long haul getting to the reveal. The second problem lies with Haggis’ determination to drive a point home.

Haggis’ screenplays are packed with morality and life lessons. The problem is though, he’s as subtle as a rusty chainsaw in how he delivers his little lessons. When he works with other directors, the morality is reeled in a little. But when Haggis goes it alone, his morality is incredibly ham-fisted. The closing moments of In The Valley Of Elah are so blunt in their delivery of morality that I found myself actually angered at the approach Haggis took. I felt like screaming ‘OKAY PAUL, I GET IT ALREADY!’ It’s one thing to teach a lesson in a film. It’s another thing
entirely to ram the point down someone’s throat.



The performances are very good in the film. Tommy Lee Jones is on top form as Hank Deerfield, a life-long military man who finds himself questioning something he’s stood for his entire life. Jones is at his best at the moment, and while his character’s development during the film could feel like too much too soon, Jones handles it well enough that it doesn’t seem that way. Charlize Theron is in Oscar mode as Detective Emily Sanders. She’s dressed down and glum looking. But it’s a shame her character is such a cliché to prevent her from really shining. The single mom fighting prejudice in the workplace? It was entirely unnecessary to write the character in such a way, and seems ridiculous in the context of the film. Susan Sarandon has what amounts to little more than a cameo as Hank’s wife.

The problems with In The Valley Of Elah prevent from becoming a great film. The dullness of the mystery added to the ham-fisted approach to lessons prevent it from becoming the film Haggis desperately wants it to be. The film is beautifully shot by Coens-regular, Roger Deakins, but it takes more that beautifully shot film to make a film interesting. Perhaps in the hands of another, more talented director and without the clichéd aspects to Detective Emily Sanders’ character, it would have been a better film. But as it is, it’s only just mediocre.


6/10

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN (2007) - Ethan and Joel Coen

It’s been a long time coming, but the Coen Brothers have finally found a return to the brilliant form the cinema audience had come to expect from them. After such brilliant films as Raising Arizona, Fargo and The Big Lebowski, the Coens seemed to hit a creative wall in the early 2000s after The Man Who Wasn’t There. Intolerable Cruelty and the remake of The Ladykillers saw the Coens produce films that, while not terrible, weren’t as good as the rest of their body of work. But with the release of No Country For Old Men, they have given us another outstanding film, and what some are calling the finest film they have made.

No Country For Old Men follows three men, who are on a path that will see their destinies cross. Firstly, we are introduced to Anton Chigurh, a ruthless and merciless bounty hunter. Within a few minutes of being introduced to this character, it is clear that he is not somebody to be trifled with. Even when in handcuffs, he is incredibly dangerous. He’s single-minded, and will kill pretty much anybody he encounters, with a few having a lucky escape thanks to the toss of a coin. Llewelyn Moss is a welder who, while hunting the plains of Texas, stumbles across a drug deal gone bad. Everyone involved with the deal is either dead or dying. Moss finds thousands of pounds of heroin and a case containing two million dollars, which he takes for himself. It’s a decision that leads him down a dangerous and potentially deadly path. And finally, we meet Sheriff Ed Tom Bell, the Texas sheriff who is hunting for the killer of a policeman, and who’s jurisdiction the failed drug deal has come under.



The film is adapted from Cormac McCarthy’s 2005 novel of the same name. The story deals with chance and predestination, with the paths of the three men being able to be traced back to one decision. Chigurh, mentions to one character how the coin and he have travelled a road that has led to that moment in time. He is the character who seems the most in tune with the idea of predestination. In one particularly chilling scene, he plays a game of chance with a gas station attendant, and it becomes clear from this not only that he is obsessed with chance, but also how cold blooded he can be.

It’s Javier Bardem’s performance as Anton Chigurh that really is the highlight of the film. Aside from his bizarre hairstyle, which only adds to the character, Chigurh’s almost expressionless face only ever cracks into a smirk when he’s about to do something particularly nasty. It’s a totally compelling performance, and in time will probably be viewed as one of cinema’s great villains. Tommy Lee Jones brings his dry wit to the role of Sherriff Ed Tom Bell. He’s the character who is most uncomfortable with how things just ‘ain’t how they used to be.’ He’s been around a long time, and is decidedly uncomfortable with how society and the landscape aren’t the same as when he first became a Sherriff. It’s a pretty comfortable role for Jones to play, but that’s not to take away from his excellent performance.



Josh Brolin plays Llewelyn Moss. Brolin’s career is going through somewhat of a resurgence in the last year with two excellent performances in this, and American Gangster. Contrasting his villainous role in American Gangster, in No Country For Old Men, he’s the hero of the piece. He’s a Vietnam veteran (the film is set in 1980) and life has had it’s affect on him. But the discovery of the money and the problems it brings, brings some life back to him, and he becomes quite an interesting character. Kelly Macdonald puts in a career-making performance as Llewelyn’s wife, Carla Jean. While it isn’t a huge role, Macdonald seems completely at home with the southern drawl and her performance should see a great many more roles being offered to her. Woody Harrelson also turns up in a great cameo as Carson Wells, a rival bounty hunter to Chigurh.

The cinematography in the film is stunning. Roger Deakins, who shoots his second western since the beautiful The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford, once again captures the vast emptiness of the west. While there was an almost golden sheen to The Assassination... his cinematography in No Country For Old Men captures the starkness of the modern western and the emptiness of the desert perfectly.

I haven’t read McCarthy’s novel, but from what I’ve been reliably informed, the Coens have presented an almost perfect adaptation. The ending of the film, which divided some audiences remains in tact, and is not a comfortable ending. Nothing really seems to wrap up neatly, and this is one of the strengths of the film. It would be all too easy to end things with dramatic logic, but I would have felt somewhat cheated. This isn’t a conventional film, and it doesn’t really warrant a conventional ending. That isn’t to say it’s not satisfying. It totally makes sense in the context of the story.

Like I’ve said, it’s been a long time since we’ve gotten a great Coen brothers film. But No Country For Old Men changes that. Is it their best film? It’s certainly arguable that it is. It’s not my favourite, that’s reserved for The Big Lebowski. But it’s certainly their most accomplished film. It leads this year’s Academy Awards with There Will Be Blood, both with eight nominations each. And with Bardem deservedly in contention for best supporting actor, it should prove for an interesting (if pointless, really) competition with Paul Thomas Anderson’s apparently amazing fifth film (something I’ve yet to see).


9/10

AMERICAN GANGSTER (2007) - Ridley Scott

There’s no doubt of the appeal of films like Goodfellas and The Godfather, or television’s The Sopranos. Everybody loves to take a glimpse into the criminal underworld where there are no rules, and life is cheap, but the rewards for the ruthless are attractive. The criminals are often charismatic sociopaths, while the cops are flawed heroes. We all have seen these types of films, we’ve all enjoyed them. So with the release of Ridley Scott’s American Gangster, you’d expect more of the same. Which might sound repetitive, but with heavyweights like Russell Crowe and Denzel Washington on board, there’s no doubt there’ll be something special about the movie.

American Gangster is a true story, based on Harlem gangster, Frank Lucas, a drug dealer who managed to fool the authorities and create a massive New York drug empire, and Richie Roberts, the New Jersey police officer who made it his goal to bring Lucas down.
Lucas started his criminal career as driver and collector for Harlem godfather and father-figure for Lucas, Ellsworth "Bumpy" Johnson. After Johnson’s death, Lucas took on his mentor’s business. But Lucas saw the power in heroin. But rather than being merely a pusher, Lucas went straight to the source in South East Asia. Using military planes bringing dead soldiers home to the US from Vietnam, Lucas was able to sell better quality heroin at a cheaper price, making enemies of rival gangs and eventually attracting the attention of the police.
Meanwhile, Richie Roberts is one of those rare things (at least in the movies)- an honest cop. Roberts stumbles on one million dollars, but rather than taking the money and running, he hands the money in. In the process, he makes himself a pariah. But recognising his honesty, Roberts is made the head of the new narcotics taskforce, charged with cleaning the streets of heroin. Eventually, he is made aware of Frank Lucas, and makes it his job to bring the drug kingpin to justice.



There are inevitable comparisons that will be made between American Gangster and the films that are similar to it. Certainly, Ridley Scott has taken inspiration from many of the great crime films. However, Scott’s technical brilliance as a director elevates American Gangster to a level a less talented director would never be able to achieve. The film is set in the late sixties and early seventies, and there is not one moment that isn’t steeped in the era. Not one second goes by where you don’t believe that New York is in the seventies. The soundtrack lends itself to achieving this, and is as good as anything Scorsese could have put together. This, coupled with the acting chops of the two leads are clearly the strengths of the film.

I’ve found Ridley Scott’s recent films to be a mixed bag of mediocrity and disappointment. Which in itself is a disappointment since Blade Runner and Alien are two of cinema’s great films. However, there is no doubting Scott’s technical ability, and it’s great to have a film from him that I was so impressed by in the cinemas again. The acting, not just from Russell Crowe and Denzel Washington is almost perfect, but it is the two leads who are the key to the film. It would be pretty easy to make either character the most interesting for the audience, but Scott gives both Lucas and Roberts ample screen time, to make you interested in both. It’s a similar structure to Michael Mann’s Heat, where both stories intercut, but you know that both characters will eventually have a showdown. And while Crowe and Washington do not share screen time for the majority of the film, when they do eventually meet, the ‘showdown’ is compelling.



The film is long. One hundred and fifty seven minutes long. And at moments, it does drag. However, it is an epic film, and the story justifies the length. With it’s technical brilliance, and two excellent performances, American Gangster is one of the best films of the year. It’s not a classic, but an extremely solid crime film.


8/10