Change Your Image
Davros-4
Reviews
Tmavomodrý svet (2001)
Emotional realism on the ground, physical realism in the air
Expectation is a terrible thing - and in cinema it can distort perception to such an extent, that a good film becomes a complete disappointment simply because one expects that it should be better. The Czechoslovakian writing and directing team of Zdenek and Jan Sverak, the creative force behind the Academy Award winning "Kolya", must have felt the terrible burden of expectation on their backs The pressure to follow up one triumph with another has broken many a distinguished filmmaker, just ask Michael Cimino or Quentin Tarantino, but others have relished the challenge and delivered a second tour de force. So it is with "Dark Blue World", the brilliant new Czech film from father and son team Zdenek and Jan Sverak. Like "Kolya" before it, "Dark Blue World" explores how humans bond under difficult and sometimes extreme circumstances using a crucial period of Czech history to frame the story. Where "Kolya" was set as the Communist's departed in 1991 and focused on the relationship between an old man and a young boy, this new film is set as the communists arrive, during and after the Second World War, using two young pilots of the Czech Air Force as its centre. The opening scenes of "Dark Blue World" find Czech Air Force pilot Frantisek Slama (the remarkable actor Ondrej Vetchy) imprisoned in his homeland under the communist regime in 1950. A subtitle tells us that, after the Second World War, the communists imprisoned all pilots who had flown for the Allies against the Nazis lest they seek to fight for freedom once more. Franta is forced to endure hard labour instead of enjoying the freedom he fought for in the war. Suffering fever in prison, Franta recounts his wartime exploits to his doctor, himself a former SS officer, as they both now suffer under a regime they indirectly fought to establish and destroy respectively. In 1939, Franta and a small band of Czech pilots, feeling betrayed by their government who have let Hitler take their country without a shot being fired, set off to Poland to take up the fight against the Nazis. Finally arriving in England at the time of the Battle of Britain in 1940, the pilots undergo humiliating training as the British fail to see their potential as combat pilots, and treat them like children. As Karel (Krystof Hadek) becomes frustrated and storms out of his English language training, the prim, bookish matron informs him: "I am fighting the Germans by teaching you English. I won't let you sabotage my war effort." The pilots seem destined to fight the Royal Air Force's prejudices before they will ever get a chance to fight the Nazis who are daily bombarding the country. Indeed, when they are finally ordered to "scramble" and take off for their first action against the enemy, it's not before Franta shouts "that's us, you idiots" that they finally realise they are being ordered to take to the air and fight. Afterwards, shell shocked at losing two aircraft and one of his comrades in the frenetic fight, Karel is told by Wing Commander Bentley (a juicy cameo from Charles Dance) to move his Spitfire that he has only just managed to fly back in one piece because he's "in England now, keep off the bloody grass!" The movie follows the friendship of Karel and Franta as they fly together and, subsequently, fall in love with same woman, a young English widow called Susan (Tara Fitzgerald). These themes have been explored thousands of times in movies from all over the world and by now the emphasis lies in not showing the audience something new, but in showing the audience something real. Contrived Hollywood romances with this kind of love-triangle situation, the worst of which was seen this year in "Pearl Harbor", are a dime a dozen, but films like "Dark Blue World" that offer emotional realism in situations like this are rare and as precious as diamonds. The aerial sequences in this film, some seamlessly lifted from the 1969 United Artists film "The Battle of Britain" and the 1990 film "Memphis Belle", are as real as any I have seen committed to celluloid and make an absolute mockery of similar scenes in "Pearl Harbor". They are thrilling, horrifying, and necessary all at the same time. They are also beautifully filmed - the Supermarine Spitfire has never looked so graceful, the Messerschmitt 109 never so menacing. In less capable hands, this film could have degenerated into sub-Meg Ryan fare, extolling all the clichés we have come to expect from World War Two set dramas, but the family Sverak have crafted a beautiful, intelligent, and thought provoking film. This is illustrated in a scene where the inmates of the prison in which Franta is imprisoned in 1950 notice their guard has fallen asleep. In an American film, Franta would have led his fellow captives in a daring escape attempt, but in this film, Franta leads his fellow inmates into a pool of sunlight that has infiltrated the dank workshop. For a moment at least, they are free as birds.
Human Nature (2001)
Hollywood's inhumanity to audiences
When I was passed a test screening ticket for "Human Nature" by a furtive young man in a painfully unfashionable anorak in a slightly disreputable part of London, I could be forgiven for thinking I was being invited to the screening of a film of immoral virtue. When I finally stumbled into the night after watching it, I wished it had been pornography I had been watching, not the absolute insult to celluloid manufacturers everywhere that is "Human Nature". To say I was disappointed is the biggest understatement since the pilot of the Hindenberg told reporters he'd never quite got the hang of landing. The film stars Tim Robbins, Patricia Arquette, Rhys Ifans, and Miranda Otto and I think I could have been forgiven for thinking that this cast alone gave the film more potential than "Cannonball Run II" and I was actually looking forward to seeing it. Tim Robbins can act the pants of most other actors around; Patricia Arquette is an adequate actress and can be convincing when she needs to be; Miranda Otto is riding the new wave of Antipodean talent in Hollywood; and although Rhys Ifans will be in any film, anywhere, any time for the price of a biscuit and a cup of tea, he is a talented comic performer. So what went wrong? Well, the easier question to answer would be what went right? The answer is nothing went right - the film is a complete mess of unexplored themes and unfinished thoughts giving it what feels to the viewer like an identity crisis. Just what is this film trying to be? It tells the story of several people with challenges (not least the director Michel Gondry who had the unenviable task of filming this dross, but I digress). Robbins plays a behavioural scientist (with a small penis and a confidence problem) named Nathan Bronfman, Arquette plays a writer with a hormone problem which makes her grow hair allover her body named Lila, and Ifans is a man brought up in the woods as an ape. Bronfman and Lila discover the apeboy while hiking, and decide to use him to further their experiments in behavioural science. They will turn this wild, untamed man into a pillar of modern society - a startlingly original concept (see "California Man", "Tarzan in New York", George of the Jungle", and countless other movies). The story jumps around flashing forward and backward, even utilising a dead person as a narrator (has that EVER worked in a film?) as it tries to flesh out the story of human nature and how it is repressed or exploited by the modern world. At least that is what I think it is about - the film never decides what it wants to say, do or be. It tries for undergraduate "gross out" humour, as well as attempting deep moments of pathos, and also even chances some drama. Usually when a film tries to be several things at once, you get the impression if it had chosen one identity, it would have been better for it - the thing is, with this film, I don't think it would have succeeded on any of the levels it attempts to visit. "Human Nature" looks like it got halfway through production as a serious movie before someone seeing the rushes announced it wasn't working and that they were going to have to play it for laughs. The result is a film which has a scene of intended dramatic pathos where Arquette, in a hysterical fit of self loathing shaves herself of all of her hair, cutting herself bloody in the process, right next to a scene of Ifans humping the leg of a waitress in a trendy New York restaurant.
Not dramatic, and not funny. The film stumbles along for 90 minutes and then falls over itself in rushing to an ending, mirroring the chaos in the aisles as the audience rushed for the exit. It is astounding to note that the writer (Charlie Kaufman) and producer (Spike Jonze) of this drivel are the men who gave the world "Being John Malkovich". If the creators of something so original, so inventive, and so good can turn around and deliver this piece of shambolic nonsense next time around, what hope is there for human nature? To err is human, to force this rubbish upon your fellow humans is unforgivable.
The Pledge (2001)
This is a remake, no?
This is a remake of a Richard E Grant film called "In the Cold Light of Day" and one done well. When I originally saw the Grant version I thought it had great potential. Thank God Sean Penn has delivered. It's amazing: a remake that is better than the original. Astounding!
Enigma (2001)
Hardly "Boring".
Enigma is one of those films that restores my faith in the ability of producers, writers and directors to not underestimate the mental agility of 21st Century audiences. For too long we have been spoon fed Hollywood "thrillers" which fail to thrill, dramas which fail to engage, and epics with the feel of tinpot 1950's B-Movies. Enigma is a thriller in the tradition of films like The 39 Steps, The Third Man, and The Secret Agent - movies that do not assume those in the theatre will have their hands full ordering from the candy bar let alone deciphering a straight forward plot structure. It isn't convoluted, just intriguing, and grabs your attention before building the suspense gradually, inevitably drawing you into its power before bringing the story together in a satisfying and telling climax. Hitchcock would have been proud.
Play Dirty (1969)
A young Michael Caine at his best.
"Play Dirty" is one of those rare films that reassures you that some filmmakers are willing to try something different with a tired genre. The World War Two epic has been done a thousand times, but this one is different. Michael Caine is his brilliant self, supported ably by Nigel Davenport and Nigel Green in this film which has drawn comparisons to the "Dirty Dozen" but, I believe, strikes ground of its own. Andre de Toth directs with a style that was well before its time, giving this film something others lack - longevity. A top flick worth seeing. *Three and a half stars*