A tribute to How Did This Get Made?

This post could have just been a chance to rhapsodise over the comedic talents of that Hellenic love god Jason of Mantzoukas. But more on that later.

If you like podcasts that make you laugh, you cannot go wrong with How Did This Get Made? In terms of belly laughs, this one is the most consistent of the lot. Made by a trio of veteran US comedians, the show is based around dissecting bad movies. Now, by their very nature bad movies are funny -- but under the expert stewardship of co-hosts Paul Scheer, June Diane Raphael and Jason Mantzoukas, even minor cinematic fumbles like Fair Game or The Tourist can be elevated into unintentional comic gold.

The interplay between Paul, June and Jason is what makes the show. No matter what train wreck they are reviewing, Paul, June and Jason provide all the laughs. And while the home shows are good, the live shows give them a chance to really strut. Jason is always willing to cross any line of taste, and June possesses an uncanny ability to use the most minor of problems to launch off into a gloriously nonsensical tangent (for a prime example, check out her rant on the rights of animal actors in the Monkey Shines episode). Somehow, Paul manages to rise above it all and keep the show on course (although when the show hits a pot hole, as in the A View To A Kill episode, their inability to work out of it can provide some of their best bits).

While the hosts are great, added value comes from the roster of guests they bring on. The guests cover a wide spectrum, from veteran comedians and writers like Nick Kroll, Paul F. Tompkins,  Chelsea Peretti, Adam Scott and Kevin Smith. They each bring their own flavour to the HDTGM gumbo -- primarily using the cinematic shit heaps the team has forced them to watch as a launching pad for depraved hypotheticals about the behind-the-scenes drama which led to the film in the first place. For a good taster of these skits, check out any episode involving the cinematic canon of Sly Stallone (or, if you want to hear Jason's awesomely brutal takedown of Steven Seagal, the Glimmer Man episode).

Still going strong after 5 years, Paul, June and Jason have only scratched the surface of how these movies get made. Long may their quest for answers continue.

Face/Off: A look at Georges Franju's EYES WITHOUT A FACE (1960)

This post concludes my trilogy of Auckland Film Society reviews. As with the previous films in the troika (Purple Noon and The Servant), I chose a classic film which I had never seen before.

This was something else. I mean, I enjoyed the other AFS screenings, but this movie is on an entirely different level. Since I have never seen it before, it was nice to get a chance to see it on the big screen.

"This time I must try removing a larger section. In one piece..."

After his daughter's face is destroyed in a horrific car accident, a deranged surgeon (Pierre Brasseur) attempts to find a new face for his daughter (Edith Scob) by transplanting the faces of kidnapped women. While he goes about this quest, he keeps his daughter locked up in his house wearing an eerie white mask to cover her scars.

Riding the line between surrealism and documentary-like realism, Georges Franju's Eyes Without a Face is regarded as a unique masterpiece within the pantheon of classic horror cinema. And I can see why.

The first thing to say about this movie is that it is just beautiful to look at. Shot in glistening monochrome by Eugen Schufftan, the brilliant cinematographer behind Fritz Lang's Metropolis, the photography is sharp and clear, with atmospheric location footage (especially during the night scenes). The musical score is one of the first major works by future Oscar winner Maurice Jarre, and it is... interesting. He gives every major character a specific theme, which is normal practice, but what makes his work here interesting is that each of these themes feel like they come from completely different movies, and yet somehow this disjunction works with the film's off-kilter sensibility.

The film was written by the team of Boileau-Narcejac, novelists who today are more well known for the films based off their thrillers, the twisted, bleak Les Diaboliques directed by Henri-Georges Clouzot and Alfred Hitchcock's equally brilliant Vertigo. With their shared theme of men attempting to control the minds and bodies of women, these films share more than a little DNA with Eyes without a Face.

While it does not really have traditional scares, the film has a weird, unsettling atmosphere that is unlike anything I've seen before. There is something so unique about the way Franju is able to pull no punches and yet not dip into outright sleaze. There are points where it felt like I was watching a fairytale, and other sequences which felt like a very disturbing surgical documentary.

This review is incredibly vague, but I want to hold back on spoilers. There's a creepy sequence in which we get to see what happens to one of the daughter's new faces, and a basement full of dogs. Their constant howls and barks are insanely creepy, but then everything in this movie is creepy.

Enough rambling. If you have seen Pedro Amoldovar's recent The Skin I Live In, John Woo's Face/Off or the second half of Martyrs, then some of the imagery might feel a tad familiar, but the films are so different in tone and execution (no pun intended) that Eyes without a Face still manages to stand apart from its progeny over 50 years after its release.

License revoked?: A look back at Quantum of Solace

Before Quantum of Solace came out, I was so excited. Casino Royale had been a breath of fresh air after the last few Bond movies, and remains one of my favourite action movies. Like a lot of people, I left its sequel feeling let down. While I did not hate the movie, it just felt underwhelming -- it had a bunch of good ideas but lacked a fully fleshed-out story. What was most disappointing is that you could feel there was a good movie in there trying to get out. While Skyfall has restored 007's mojo critically and in terms of box office, it still bugs me that Craig's second movie ended up the way it did. I would have preferred the dud to come at the end of his tenure.

Since it came out, I've re-watched QoS a few times. Every time I hear somebody say something positive about QoS, I take another look to see if my opinion has improved. Overall, my feelings remain the same. The direction is too berserk, the script too threadbare and the tone too dour. However, upon re-viewing, while I cannot say I enjoy the movie as a whole, there are lots of things to like about QoS, and a few that I reckon should have been carried over into future films.

Since I'm so split on this movie, I'm going to break this review into two sections, starting with:

The bad stuff

The Action scenes 

This is my major beef with the movie. One, there is way too much shaky cam. It just does not suit a Bond movie to me. And two, it does it badly. Combined with a frenetic editing style, the action sequences in QoS lack the impact of its predecessor. Casino Royale is often lumped in with the post-Bourne action glut, however there is very little shaky camera work in the film - it manages to convey a sense of immediacy and visceral impact while also maintaining a clear sense of geography. QoS goes the full hog, and its action sequences come off as either confusing or dull. While it seems like a creative decision, there are moments where it feels like lazy filmmaking. The opening car chase, the boat chase and the airplane chase especially are extremely conventional and lack real stakes. By contrast, the action sequences in Casino Royale were distinctive, and tied to the story and the character's motivations. There were stakes in those scenes, which are not as present in QoS. When you break them down, the choice to go with shaky cam appears to be an attempt to make the action sequences seem more exciting, rather than making sure the scenes were inherently exciting.

Editing  
Director Marc Forster has said that he set out to make the shortest Bond film ever, and wanted to make the movie move as quickly as possible. This cart-before-the-horse approach is ultimately detrimental to the film, since he often makes numerous, unnecessary cuts during sequences which do not need them. Apart from ruining the action, this approach results in confusing continuity, fumbled exposition and a lack of tension.

The Script 
This is at the root of the movie's faults. Before its release, there were rumours of production problems, mostly centred around the lack of a finished script. Quantum of Solace was one of the biggest casualties of the 2007-08 writer's strike, with screenwriter Paul Haggis delivering a draft hours before the strike began. Numerous hands, including Daniel Craig and director Marc Foster, worked on the script during production but ultimately the movie suffers.

Making the movie a direct sequel to Casino Royale works against the movie dramatically, since the villains of QoS only work if you have seen their dirty work in the previous movie. Since so much of the movie's set-up is provided in the previous film, the main villain Dominic Greene is introduced without a distinctive sense of what kind of threat he is. While he is suitably odious in the part, Matthieu Amalric does not get a signature moment to make his case as a threat that needs to be expunged. Casino Royale's villain Le Chiffre is similarly callous, but we get to see what he gets up to -- gambling with money that is not his to make more money off the deaths of hundreds of innocent people. Greene's plan -- to take over Bolivia's water supply -- is suitably evil, but it feels too abstract. There are no real stakes here.

The good stuff

The villains

As a stand-in for perennial foes SPECTRE, Quantum are good antagonists, even if their chief muscle is not that distinctive.

And even though he does not get much to do, Mathieu Amalric is actually really good as Greene. He does not have any of the scars or other cosmetic trappings of previous Bond baddies. Instead, he gets to play a more subtle, unsettling nemesis. In his few good moments (having a witness shot, or trying to kill his mistress in the middle of a party), Greene comes across as a childlike psychopath with poor impulse control and little regard for human life. This is especially clear at the climax where he finally gets to unleash his Id and goes after Bond with an axe. He makes up for a lack of combat skills with a suitcase full of batshit crazy, and it's great.

As secondary villain General Medrano, Joaquin Cosio is equally unpleasant. As Kim Newman points out, he's probably the closest thing to a Fleming-style villain the series has had in a long time. Ultimately, the problem with Medrano and Greene is lack of screen time, rather than quality of (potential) knavery.

Specific scenes

While I have major problems with the film, there are specific sequences which manage to emerge as strong, despite the editing and camerawork. The opera sequence may be the film's best set piece. It also contains the best moment for recurring nemesis Mr. White (Jesper Christensen). While his compatriots scurry for the exits (allowing Bond to identify them), Mr. White just removes his earwig and sits back to enjoy the show. Boss. I also enjoy this sequence at the hotel, which has a certain dark wit that the rest of the movie could have used more of. Taking the place of the usual conflagration Bond's opponents endure,  Greene's death is a nasty shift in gear that feels akin to Moore kicking Locque's car off a cliff in For Your Eyes Only or Dalton's 'compliments of Sharky' gambit from Licence to Kill.  It defines just desserts.

If there is one scene which really shows how much the movie suffers from the lack of a strong script, it is the ending. A nice, quiet contrast to the explosive finale, Bond's confrontation with the Quantum agent who turned Vesper should pack a sense of satisfaction and resolution that is just not there. It's a great scene neutered by lack of build-up.

The humour  

This is one of the chief casualties of Forster's editing. While it is not as packed with gags as other Bond films, there are subtle visual jokes and dark barbs which are easy to miss. While the sequence where Bond changes hotels is an obvious highlight, it is actually a setup for a punchline that Forster completely short-changes and which I never picked up: in their review, the hosts of the James Bonding podcast pointed out that the shitty hotel Bond turns down is the same hotel that Felix Leiter and the other CIA agents are forced to stay in. It's a great joke that is completely lost. 

Set design

One of the hallmarks of classic Bond is the production design by Ken Adam. Through the 60s and 70s, he provided a series of iconic, over-the-top sets which helped define the series. However after Adam was replaced by Peter Lamont in the 80s, one of the things which the series has missed is great set design. In contrast to Adam, Lamont's style was far more realistic and location-based. While his work was always good, I always felt it lacked a certain flair. 

Quantum of Solace marks a return to the over-the-top production design of yore. Lamont's successor Dennis Gassner brings just the right touch of retro-futurism to the proceedings. The MI6 offices, Bond's Bolivian hotel room and the Perla des las Lunas interiors are all great, and pop in a way that Bond sets have not in ages. It gets lost with the editing, but, for me, the sets for Quantum may be the best in the series since Ken Adam's work on The Spy Who Loved Me. 

Title sequence

Alicia Keys and Jack White's song 'Another Way to Die' is one of the worst songs I've ever heard, period. What makes it even more disappointing is that the title sequence itself is one of the best in the series. Created by MK12, it is a weird, psychedelic mixture of sand, girls and Craig's baby blues. Magic. 

Style

It's a shame that the editing is so loathsome, because it obscures how good Roberto Schaefer's photography is, and the great enter-titles by MK12 which introduce each location. It's a small touch, but I wished they kept it for Skyfall.

And thus concludes the 5-6 minutes you wasted reading my ramblings. Catch you next time.

MISS BALA: A new star is born

Drug cartels and beauty pageants. It sounds like the longline for Miss Congeniality 3. Instead, it is the subject matter of this Mexican thriller from 2011. I remember hearing good things about it when it was on the festival circuit. I finally managed to watch it, so here's my review.

Laura Guerrero (Sigman) is a young woman who wants to win the Miss Baja  California beauty pageant. The night before the competition, she goes to a party which is gatecrashed by a cartel hit squad. She manages to escape, but the friend she was with disappears. Desperate to find her friend, she goes to the police. Of course, the officer she talks to drops her off at the drug cartel's base. And then the movie gets DARK.

This movie is really brutal and gritty. The story veers in unexpected directions, and has a queasy immediacy that hooks you in from the beginning. There are so many twists to this plot, and so many rug-pulling moments that prevent this lo-fi effort from turning into a familiar thriller. This narrative unpredictability is matched by Gerardo Naranjo's direction. He shoots every suspense and action sequence with an on-the-run intensity that feels even more lo-fi than the faux-doc realism of the Bourne movies. It feels like a home movie -- if a home movie included homicidal drug dealers.

If I had any quibbles, it was that there were a few turns that felt a tad repetitive, and there were a few dead spots in the second act. The final few twists feel a little excessive -- almost like the filmmakers did not know how to reach the story's ending. But these are small gripes.

If there is one factor that holds Miss Bala together, it is Stephanie Sigman's naturalistic, charismatic performance as Laura. So much of the movie is dependant on her reactions, on her character's journey, that a less capable actress would have destroyed the film's sense of realism. She gives the film a humanity its other characters lack.

Overall, I would recommend the movie. It's pretty strong stuff, but if you can stand the brutality, it is worth a look -- especially for Sigman's performance.

Top Secret!: The funniest movie you've never heard of

Top Secret! is one of the funniest movies I've ever seen. Sadly, it is a film that the unwashed masses have never seen. The brainchild of Jim Abrams, David and Jerry Zucker (known collectively as ZAZ, they are the writing-directing trio behind Airplane! and The Naked Gun), it is the missing link between Airplane! and the Police Squad movies.

A big bomb on its original release, ZAZ's underrated follow-up to Airplane! is finally getting the respect it deserves. While it's more scattershot than Airplane!, it has more great gags and flat-out bizarre ideas than most comedies.

The story for this one is kind of complicated. Basically, it is a parody of both World War II movies and Elvis movies. Music star Nick Rivers (Val Kilmer, brilliant) goes on a tour of East Germany and gets caught up in a complicated scheme involving the Stasi (who are dressed like Nazis) and the resistance (who are French).

This movie is bananas. It starts out as a parody of pre-Brit Invasion rock and roll, with Kilmer doing a killer variation on Presley's meat head persona. As soon as Nick crosses over into East Germany, the movie seems to time warp back into a deranged World War II movie featuring train stations on wheels, a suave secret agent (Omar Sharif) who has been fused with the wreckage of his car, and a commando force disguised as a cow.

There are too many great gags to run through, but Top Secret is one of the most inspired comedies of the last half century. There are jokes about Elvis, Nazis, movie cliches, surf rock, Mel Torme, Tarzan, forced perspective, blaxploitation movies and Swedish. It's no wonder that ZAZ ran out of steam -- they threw every idea they had into Top Secret!

With its simple plot and stronger characterisation, Airplane! will always have a leg-up over its successor, but Top Secret! is far from the failure it is made out to be.

You may think the jokes I have listed are spoilers, but I have barely scratched the surface. The gag rate in this movie is truly jaw-dropping, and I cannot recommend Top Secret! enough. This movie will shatter your funny bone.

Film Fest Finale

This is the end. My only friend, the end...

This is the last post of my festival viewing. And I have to say, it finished strong.

Iris

Going in, this felt like a companion piece to the Peggy Guggenheim documentary I reviewed a couple posts back. The last work by the late Albert Maysles (Gimme Shelter, Grey Gardens), this fly-on-the-wall documentary chronicles the life and work of Iris Apfel. Iris is a world-renowned figure in the worlds of fashion and interior design. She has travelled the world in a constant search for new fabrics, styles and colours, combining the cheap, the exotic and the expensive to create her own sense of 'style'. She is so famous, she even acted as interior decorator for the White House.

Fascinating, charismatic and utterly grounded, Iris acts as her own guide to her life story. Both commentator and comic relief, she is the lynchpin of the whole enterprise, and Maysles wisely keeps his camera firmly on Iris and her 100-year old husband and collaborator Carl. Both still sharp as a tack, their easy rapport is one of the joys of this warm, intimate portrait.

A modest, but enjoyable tribute to an intriguing woman, and a fine conclusion to Maysles's illustrious career.


Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief

Man, talk about a real 'rogue nation'!

Illuminating, scary and (occasionally) blackly comic, Alex Gibney's hot button doc is one of the highlights of the festival. I'm glad I caught it before the festival ended.

Charting the history of Scientology from its bizarre origins under founder/visionary L. Ron Hubbard, to its current status as a multi-billion dollar enterprise, Going Clear is must-see cinema. The film is very slick and well made. It feels more like a conspiracy thriller than a documentary. Combining expert testimony from the organisation's now-ostracised hatchet men and former members (including screenwriter Paul Haggis), the film is very tense and unnerving.

If the film has a Big Bad, it is Hubbard's self-appointed successor David Miscavige. He comes off like a cross between Gordon Gecko, Jim Jones and Dr. Evil. He's been a part of Scientology since he was a child, which makes him far more unsettling than Hubbard -- he's a true believer to the extreme.

Apart from his antics, the movie is filled with other disturbing stuff. Former members show self-shot footage of Scientology members watching (and filming) their homes, and talk about harassment, black mail and worse. The film was so effective, about midway through the screening I started to get paranoid about undercover Scientologists hiding in the audience. Based on the evidence in the documentary, I don't think my fears were unfounded.

As has been noted elsewhere, celebrity members like John Travolta and Tom Cruise do not come out well (no pun intended). The episode involving David Miscavige trying to placate a post-divorce Cruise with a new girlfriend is really, really creepy. Actually everything involving Cruise is creepy.

I didn't know much about Scientology going in, and Gibney has constructed a really detailed history. It does not paint a pretty picture, but it is damn good cinema.

Well, that's it folks. Hope you enjoyed my incoherent musings and half-baked analysis of the New Zealand International Film Festival 2015. I'm going to try and do it again next year.

Check in soon I'll be back with more reviews of some really cool movies.

Why Roger Moore is the most important actor to play Bond

This premise might sound like sacrilege. Why Moore and not Connery? Well, let me explain. In simple terms, while Connery created the icon, Moore gave the character longevity.

First, a bit of context. Moore assumed the role of Bond at a point when the series was considered moribund and outdated. George Lazenby, Connery's original successor, had been rejected. Connery had come back on a one-off basis to resuscitate the series with Diamonds Are Forever, which provided only a brief reprieve.    

Why did Moore succeed where Lazenby had not? Partially this has to do with the relative talents of the actors, but more crucially this has to do with the material they were given. While the movie is one of the best in the series, the filmmakers behind On Her Majesty's Secret Service failed their inexperienced leading man. They tried to wedge poor George into Connery's shoes and in that unequal contest the poor guy could not help but come off second best. As the first man through the door, Lazenby's 'sacrifice' would help the Bond producers figure out a way to re-cast the character. Roger Moore wound up as the first recipient of this new approach.

With Moore, the production team made the decision to tailor the role to the actor rather than the other way around (as with Lazenby). Rather than merely imitate Connery's sophisticated thug, Moore's Bond was a killer comedian, with a penchant for Cuban cigars, puns and a Lotus Esprit as his vehicle of choice. Where Connery was more comfortable beating the hell out of anyone who got in his way, Moore relied more heavily on gadgets and wit to get out of jams.

While his tenure has become a parlour joke, and a certain section of the fanbase think his self-parody destroyed the character, Moore's importance should not be underestimated. Not only did he give the series a second wind, he proved that the character of Bond could live beyond Connery's portrayal. Most significantly, while the argument could be made that he 'destroyed' the idea of who and what Bond was, he also opened up the character to re-invention -- a key factor in the series's continued success. 

 Moore's interpretation expanded the character's horizons to virtually limitless variations -- now Bond could be camp and silly, or cold and gritty; he could beat a guy up in an elevator, go into outer space, drive a car underwater or chase a free runner across a construction site. Simply put, without Moore, there is no Dalton, no Brosnan, and no Craig. All of Moore's successors have played very different versions of Bond, and that would not be possible if Moore's iteration had not worked. Love him or hate him, Moore's re-invention of Bond ensured the series would continue, and paved the way for all of the character's future permutations.