Directed by Oliver Hirschbiegel
Starring Bruno Ganz, Alexandra Maria Lara, Ulrich Matthes
Der Untergang, or Downfall, is the first foreign-language film I have reviewed on this website. It catches the attention not with moments of melodrama but it is remarkably understated, the camera washed with grey, bleak overtones. A retelling of Hitler's final days in the bunker underneath Berlin, it is not as judgemental of the man as you might expect - Hirschbiegel subtly avoids much of the potential controversy surrounding the subject matter and gives a gripping account of the dictator.
Surprisingly, and perhaps wisely, Hitler himself is not the primary focus of this film - Alexandra Maria Lara, playing Hitler's secretary, Traudl Junge, is the storyteller, and, as such, is not forgotten. However, her subtle performance is overshadowed by the towering Bruno Ganz in a show-stopping turn as Hitler, a performance that could have so easily fallen into comic extravagance after so many parodies. Ganz has truly terrifying moments when he resembles the Hitler that the public see - the rage etched on his face, the similar tics that we see in grainy footage of his speeches. But this is matched with delicate subtlety as Hitler's front crumbles while the Russians march closer to his bunker - his imminent death is reflected in his shaking hands and sweat on his brow. Ganz portrays a man on the edge who has risked everything - this is not the devil-incarnate we expect Hitler to be, not the bellowing tyrant he appears.
The supporting cast is just as solid, and it is in the cast that the film finds its strength. Ulrich Matthes is an uncanny resemblance of Josef Goebbels, and captures the eerie efficiency of the man who embodies Nazism. Thomas Kretschmann, possibly the only actor familiar to most mainstream audiences, is strong as one of Hitler's betrayers. Juliane Kohler is frankly unnerving as Eva Braun, who practically worshipped Hitler.
Hirschbiegel's direction is bleak - the claustrophic atmosphere of the bunker is perfectly captured by the suffocating sets, with white and greyish walls. Only towards the end, after Hitler's death and the end of the battle for Berlin, do we see hints of sunshine and greenery breaking through the grey. The film is not a biopic of one man as you might expect, but a portrayal of innocents under the grip of a regime beginning to crumble.
A bold, powerful film, capped with outstanding performances and suitably gritty direction. Bruno Ganz was robbed of an Oscar - never have I seen an actor so transform an historical figure into life. Hitler becomes a human figure.
Rating: 9/10.
Tuesday 31 March 2009
Monday 30 March 2009
From Russia With Love (1963)
Directed by Terence Young
Starring Sean Connery, Daniela Bianchi, Pedro Armendariz, Robert Shaw.
From Russia With Love is only the second film in the James Bond series, coming a year after Dr No. But already the classic formula was there before it became tired and repetitive. The film has an international thrilling premise that few Bond films have matched since, and effectively builds on the atmosphere of the time, at the height of the Cold War.
As such, it is a cracking Cold War thriller as well as ticking the boxes for a classic Bond movie. Exotic locale (Turkey and the Orient Express) - check. Gadgets (a non too subtle briefcase) - check. A silent henchman of an evil organisation - check. The greatness of the film is in its balance of the outrageous Bond hallmarks and the low-key subtlety of any great spy thriller.
The direction, by Terence Young (who also oversaw Dr No and Thunderball) is possibly the best in the series, keeping the pace of the film short and snappy, with only brief hints of the drama. This is complemented by Connery's role, perfected after his relatively clipped, impassive performance of Dr No. His Bond shows brief moments of comedy and suavity but is lethal in others - his callous attitude after he murders Red Grant (Shaw), the burst of emotion kept in check by the British stiff upper lip after the death of his friend, Kerim Bey (Armendariz). His Bond gives the impression of a man who would kill without hesitation, and those who think the franchise was founded on slapstick comedy, overblown gadgets and Bond's effortless charm are greatly mistaken. He was the cold, silent assassin forty years before Daniel Craig.
Connery is assisted by a shining supporting cast, particularly Robert Shaw. Shaw, who would go on to worldwide fame as the half-mad Quint in Jaws, is a believeable opponent for Bond as Red Grant, a Russian spy who could easily be stated as Bond's equal. He is similarly professional and detached, but without Bond's glint of humour and sophistication. The entire opening sequence is built to enhance his reputation as a killer who could conceivably beat 007 himself. Pedro Armendariz, meanwhile, is one of Bond's most memorable allies as the friendly, welcoming Kerim Bey. It is remarkable and saddening to think that this charismatic performance is overshadowed by the fact that the actor himself was suffering from cancer during filming - this in turn makes his performance all the more impressive.
Not much more to say about this film - I feel the rating speaks for itself. It is one of the few thrillers that has genuinely found a balance between action and espionage, with one of the most wonderfully staged fight scenes in the entire series (the famous battle between Bond and Grant on the train). It also contains a surprisingly human portrayal of Bond with a subtle performance by Connery, before he changed into the all-invincible superhero he would become in future films. If only all the Bond movies had been this good.
Rating: 9/10.
Starring Sean Connery, Daniela Bianchi, Pedro Armendariz, Robert Shaw.
From Russia With Love is only the second film in the James Bond series, coming a year after Dr No. But already the classic formula was there before it became tired and repetitive. The film has an international thrilling premise that few Bond films have matched since, and effectively builds on the atmosphere of the time, at the height of the Cold War.
As such, it is a cracking Cold War thriller as well as ticking the boxes for a classic Bond movie. Exotic locale (Turkey and the Orient Express) - check. Gadgets (a non too subtle briefcase) - check. A silent henchman of an evil organisation - check. The greatness of the film is in its balance of the outrageous Bond hallmarks and the low-key subtlety of any great spy thriller.
The direction, by Terence Young (who also oversaw Dr No and Thunderball) is possibly the best in the series, keeping the pace of the film short and snappy, with only brief hints of the drama. This is complemented by Connery's role, perfected after his relatively clipped, impassive performance of Dr No. His Bond shows brief moments of comedy and suavity but is lethal in others - his callous attitude after he murders Red Grant (Shaw), the burst of emotion kept in check by the British stiff upper lip after the death of his friend, Kerim Bey (Armendariz). His Bond gives the impression of a man who would kill without hesitation, and those who think the franchise was founded on slapstick comedy, overblown gadgets and Bond's effortless charm are greatly mistaken. He was the cold, silent assassin forty years before Daniel Craig.
Connery is assisted by a shining supporting cast, particularly Robert Shaw. Shaw, who would go on to worldwide fame as the half-mad Quint in Jaws, is a believeable opponent for Bond as Red Grant, a Russian spy who could easily be stated as Bond's equal. He is similarly professional and detached, but without Bond's glint of humour and sophistication. The entire opening sequence is built to enhance his reputation as a killer who could conceivably beat 007 himself. Pedro Armendariz, meanwhile, is one of Bond's most memorable allies as the friendly, welcoming Kerim Bey. It is remarkable and saddening to think that this charismatic performance is overshadowed by the fact that the actor himself was suffering from cancer during filming - this in turn makes his performance all the more impressive.
Not much more to say about this film - I feel the rating speaks for itself. It is one of the few thrillers that has genuinely found a balance between action and espionage, with one of the most wonderfully staged fight scenes in the entire series (the famous battle between Bond and Grant on the train). It also contains a surprisingly human portrayal of Bond with a subtle performance by Connery, before he changed into the all-invincible superhero he would become in future films. If only all the Bond movies had been this good.
Rating: 9/10.
X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)
Director: Brett Ratner
Starring Hugh Jackman, Halle Berry, Ian McKellen, Patrick Stewart.
The X-Men trilogy broke new ground for superhero films - while Wesley Snipes' Blade arguably began the reinvention of comic book movies in Hollywood, X-Men was the first, well, promising film. The massive potential hinted at in the first was expanded on in the second, with inspiring action sequences and an intelligent storyline - at least for a blockbuster. The third should have been the film to round off the trilogy in spectacular style . . . and ultimately fails completely.
The first two films, despite dealing with massive expectation of legions of loyal comic-book fans, held up with the strength of its ensemble cast. Each actor performed to their best and were balanced evenly. Unfortunately, the ensemble cast is the crucial weakness of The Last Stand. For a film clocking in at just over an hour and a half, most characters are used so sparingly they have little more than cameos. Fan favourites such as Iceman, Cyclops, Angel, Colossus, Rogue (who had a principal storyline in the first two films) and Shadowcat barely get a look in, while Vinnie Jones is cringingly awful as the 'cock-er-ney' Juggernaut.
The film is packed with references to characters that don't deserve to be there or are too good for such a random cameo. You may spot a character who can sprout quills out of his skin like a porcupine. In a film where some are indestructible, some can throw fire from their hands, one can mangle bridges with his mind and others can control people through telepathy, is there really room for a character who can kill only by hugging someone and sprouting those bloody quills? Some characters are just too useless to bother even referring to, but Ratner ignores the potential of some and maximises the pointlessness of others.
In some parts, it seems that the script was written by several people. Understandable, given that the film had three different directors at various points of production (Bryan Singer, Matthew Vaughan and Ratner). Still, is it necessary to include such remarkable, momentous wit as "Who's hiding, dickhead?" The performances themselves are a mixed bag to say the very least. James Marsden, playing Cyclops, looked finally set to have a lead role after the death of his wife, Jean, in the second film. He has ultimately two minutes of screentime - we see his angst by the fact that he hasn't shaved for several days - before he is killed off. Hugh Jackman has the Wolverine routine nailed down after two films, and at least is solid. Halle Berry, due to outrageous demands of increased screentime and more pay, is about as charismatic as cardboard.
There are good points, believe it or not. Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart have a remarkable ability to make reading a telephone directory sound Shakespearean, and they are as good as ever. Stewart, in particular, has one of the best moments in the film with his death scene, and it is a lesser film without his gravitas and presence. Kelsey Grammer is a simply inspired casting choice for Beast. The special effects are all solid, particularly towards the end, though the final battle is disappointingly short and not as powerful as it could have been. Ultimately, this film suffers from a case of 'too many cooks'. What it could have done with a better script, no Halle Berry and an extra half hour.
Rating: 4/10.
Starring Hugh Jackman, Halle Berry, Ian McKellen, Patrick Stewart.
The X-Men trilogy broke new ground for superhero films - while Wesley Snipes' Blade arguably began the reinvention of comic book movies in Hollywood, X-Men was the first, well, promising film. The massive potential hinted at in the first was expanded on in the second, with inspiring action sequences and an intelligent storyline - at least for a blockbuster. The third should have been the film to round off the trilogy in spectacular style . . . and ultimately fails completely.
The first two films, despite dealing with massive expectation of legions of loyal comic-book fans, held up with the strength of its ensemble cast. Each actor performed to their best and were balanced evenly. Unfortunately, the ensemble cast is the crucial weakness of The Last Stand. For a film clocking in at just over an hour and a half, most characters are used so sparingly they have little more than cameos. Fan favourites such as Iceman, Cyclops, Angel, Colossus, Rogue (who had a principal storyline in the first two films) and Shadowcat barely get a look in, while Vinnie Jones is cringingly awful as the 'cock-er-ney' Juggernaut.
The film is packed with references to characters that don't deserve to be there or are too good for such a random cameo. You may spot a character who can sprout quills out of his skin like a porcupine. In a film where some are indestructible, some can throw fire from their hands, one can mangle bridges with his mind and others can control people through telepathy, is there really room for a character who can kill only by hugging someone and sprouting those bloody quills? Some characters are just too useless to bother even referring to, but Ratner ignores the potential of some and maximises the pointlessness of others.
In some parts, it seems that the script was written by several people. Understandable, given that the film had three different directors at various points of production (Bryan Singer, Matthew Vaughan and Ratner). Still, is it necessary to include such remarkable, momentous wit as "Who's hiding, dickhead?" The performances themselves are a mixed bag to say the very least. James Marsden, playing Cyclops, looked finally set to have a lead role after the death of his wife, Jean, in the second film. He has ultimately two minutes of screentime - we see his angst by the fact that he hasn't shaved for several days - before he is killed off. Hugh Jackman has the Wolverine routine nailed down after two films, and at least is solid. Halle Berry, due to outrageous demands of increased screentime and more pay, is about as charismatic as cardboard.
There are good points, believe it or not. Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart have a remarkable ability to make reading a telephone directory sound Shakespearean, and they are as good as ever. Stewart, in particular, has one of the best moments in the film with his death scene, and it is a lesser film without his gravitas and presence. Kelsey Grammer is a simply inspired casting choice for Beast. The special effects are all solid, particularly towards the end, though the final battle is disappointingly short and not as powerful as it could have been. Ultimately, this film suffers from a case of 'too many cooks'. What it could have done with a better script, no Halle Berry and an extra half hour.
Rating: 4/10.
Monday 2 March 2009
Scarface (1983)
Director: Brian De Palma
Starring Al Pacino, Steven Bauer, Michelle Pfieffer.
Scarface, on so many levels, should not work. It has the cheesy 1980s decor, hammy, extravagant acting, indulgent direction and a script that could have possibly been scrawled on a napkin in ten minutes. There's no hugely intelligent dialogue.
But it does work. It's the gangster film of the 1980s, the pinnacle of excess and corruption, perfectly capturing Miami and the seedy underworld that dominates it. It's a thrilling picture, charting a Cuban druglord's rise to power from the streets, a rise that admittedly happens too quickly within the film - it takes around forty-five minutes from him working in a fast food stall to running the most powerful gang in Miami. But that it what makes the film - it is lean and quick. De Palma cuts out every unnecessary scene like fat from a chunk of meat. There is no padding to be found and the pacing and editing work is truly excellent.
Pacino himself, while turning in possibly the most scenery-chewing, hammy performance of his career, is perfect within the context of the film. His dodgy Cuban accent matches with the decadence of the surroundings. His hyperactive gnashing is in tone with a film in which men are gored by chainsaws during a simple drug deal, Tony Montana (Pacino) snorts a mountain of cocaine on his desk. Indeed, Pacino's performance is a force of nature, a whirlwind that the film depends on and is paid back in spades. He makes the film far more than any mere title character. It explains why Tony Montana is still such an iconic character of cinema today.
Unfortunately, as Pacino rips through the film like a hurricane, supporting characters barely make a breeze. Robert Loggia is solid as Montana's mentor and enemy. Steven Bauer's character is sorely underdeveloped and could have been as equally interesting as Montana. Pfieffer sounds half-asleep and never has any real dramatic impact. It appears she was cast more for her name than her acting ability.
The cinematography works effectively - the bright neon lights of Miami reflect perfectly the seediness of the place. The audience is at once entranced and disgusted by the self-indulgence and depravity of Tony Montana's world. The film is quintessentially a 1980s picture, and could not have worked in any other time period.
As the film wears on, you might laugh at the dated sets and scenery, the extravagance of Pacino's performance. But it is after the film that the impact sets in - it displays effectively how young turks like Montana with a drunk sense of power very quickly meet their end. The final shootout is explosive, hitting the audience with the force of a sledgehammer and one of the most memorable scenes in cinema.
A memorable, thrilling gangster film that, despite showing its age, perfectly demonstrates the decadence of the time period with a volatile, showstopping turn by Pacino.
Rating: 8/10.
Starring Al Pacino, Steven Bauer, Michelle Pfieffer.
Scarface, on so many levels, should not work. It has the cheesy 1980s decor, hammy, extravagant acting, indulgent direction and a script that could have possibly been scrawled on a napkin in ten minutes. There's no hugely intelligent dialogue.
But it does work. It's the gangster film of the 1980s, the pinnacle of excess and corruption, perfectly capturing Miami and the seedy underworld that dominates it. It's a thrilling picture, charting a Cuban druglord's rise to power from the streets, a rise that admittedly happens too quickly within the film - it takes around forty-five minutes from him working in a fast food stall to running the most powerful gang in Miami. But that it what makes the film - it is lean and quick. De Palma cuts out every unnecessary scene like fat from a chunk of meat. There is no padding to be found and the pacing and editing work is truly excellent.
Pacino himself, while turning in possibly the most scenery-chewing, hammy performance of his career, is perfect within the context of the film. His dodgy Cuban accent matches with the decadence of the surroundings. His hyperactive gnashing is in tone with a film in which men are gored by chainsaws during a simple drug deal, Tony Montana (Pacino) snorts a mountain of cocaine on his desk. Indeed, Pacino's performance is a force of nature, a whirlwind that the film depends on and is paid back in spades. He makes the film far more than any mere title character. It explains why Tony Montana is still such an iconic character of cinema today.
Unfortunately, as Pacino rips through the film like a hurricane, supporting characters barely make a breeze. Robert Loggia is solid as Montana's mentor and enemy. Steven Bauer's character is sorely underdeveloped and could have been as equally interesting as Montana. Pfieffer sounds half-asleep and never has any real dramatic impact. It appears she was cast more for her name than her acting ability.
The cinematography works effectively - the bright neon lights of Miami reflect perfectly the seediness of the place. The audience is at once entranced and disgusted by the self-indulgence and depravity of Tony Montana's world. The film is quintessentially a 1980s picture, and could not have worked in any other time period.
As the film wears on, you might laugh at the dated sets and scenery, the extravagance of Pacino's performance. But it is after the film that the impact sets in - it displays effectively how young turks like Montana with a drunk sense of power very quickly meet their end. The final shootout is explosive, hitting the audience with the force of a sledgehammer and one of the most memorable scenes in cinema.
A memorable, thrilling gangster film that, despite showing its age, perfectly demonstrates the decadence of the time period with a volatile, showstopping turn by Pacino.
Rating: 8/10.
Sunday 1 March 2009
Amadeus (1984)
Director: Milos Forman
Starring F. Murray Abraham, Tom Hulce, Elizabeth Berridge.
Amadeus clocks in at two hours forty minutes long approximately. It felt like less than an hour. A wonderful film of Shakespearean proportions, mixed with dashes of intrigue, mystery and operatic turns were not what I was expecting. I was expecting a relatively entertaining, if rather lifeless biopic of the composer. Amadeus delivers on such a greater level than that.
Milos Forman, director of One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, manages to find the careful balance that so many recent biopics have failed by - he treats his subject matter with respect and dignity, but still finds enough material to create a thoroughly entertaining, meaningful film. The first aspect you may notice, within the first half hour or so, is despite the film's title character, Amadeus Mozart (Hulce), it seems to focus on a fellow composer, Salieri (Abraham). Thus is where the real innovation of Amadeus lies, telling the story of Mozart through the eyes of a composer who idolised and envied him bitterly.
Salieri, the court composer of Vienna, is competent at his work - music he has worked all his life to perfect. However, he finds himself being upstaged by a brash, infantile Mozart, a young composer who recently arrived in Vienna, who is already twice the composer Salieri is, and years younger. The film's base is on Salieri. The title is a lie. Salieri becomes jealous of Mozart's abilities, while at the same time, being his greatest admirer, and one of the few who can truly understand and appreciate his work.
Salieri is played magnificently by F. Murray Abraham. Tom Hulce might have the more noticeable role as the foppish Mozart, and make no mistake, Hulce is very impressive. But Abraham quietly steals the show with an understated, remarkably restrained performance. It would have been easy to allow himself to slip into extravagance to match Hulce, and he never does. It is so easy to believe Salieri's bitterness and deep rooted rage. The twist of Amadeus is that Salieri, who would normally be considered as the 'villain' of the piece, is a far more sympathetic and human character than Mozart himself. From his perspective, it is easy for the audience to understand - I doubt anyone has never been jealous of another's superior talent or possessions. Mozart's apparent invincibility as a composer only make Salieri all the more human, and somehow, likeable. His despicable deeds to undermine Mozart gain sympathy because of Abraham's quiet desperation.
The setting of the film itself is operatic - Prague, standing in for Vienna, is beautifully captured by the marvellous attention to detail - the costume design and makeup is lavish and sumptuous for the age. The supporting cast is solid, but never overwhelms the duel/duet (however you see it) of Abraham and Hulce.
The film is a tragedy - Salieri begins to respect and admire Mozart but far too late to prevent the consequences of his actions. The final hour is laden with irony that only Salieri seems to appreciate - he is the controlling factor of the entire film, and we learn far more about him than we do about Mozart. He is slowly driven insane with the thought of his own mediocrity and mortality, morally ambiguous, and disturbingly human. I think very few audience members would be completely disgusted with Salieri's actions by the end - indeed, it might ring all too true for some.
A wonderful, remarkable period piece without the dryness of usual biopics.
Rating: 9/10.
Starring F. Murray Abraham, Tom Hulce, Elizabeth Berridge.
Amadeus clocks in at two hours forty minutes long approximately. It felt like less than an hour. A wonderful film of Shakespearean proportions, mixed with dashes of intrigue, mystery and operatic turns were not what I was expecting. I was expecting a relatively entertaining, if rather lifeless biopic of the composer. Amadeus delivers on such a greater level than that.
Milos Forman, director of One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, manages to find the careful balance that so many recent biopics have failed by - he treats his subject matter with respect and dignity, but still finds enough material to create a thoroughly entertaining, meaningful film. The first aspect you may notice, within the first half hour or so, is despite the film's title character, Amadeus Mozart (Hulce), it seems to focus on a fellow composer, Salieri (Abraham). Thus is where the real innovation of Amadeus lies, telling the story of Mozart through the eyes of a composer who idolised and envied him bitterly.
Salieri, the court composer of Vienna, is competent at his work - music he has worked all his life to perfect. However, he finds himself being upstaged by a brash, infantile Mozart, a young composer who recently arrived in Vienna, who is already twice the composer Salieri is, and years younger. The film's base is on Salieri. The title is a lie. Salieri becomes jealous of Mozart's abilities, while at the same time, being his greatest admirer, and one of the few who can truly understand and appreciate his work.
Salieri is played magnificently by F. Murray Abraham. Tom Hulce might have the more noticeable role as the foppish Mozart, and make no mistake, Hulce is very impressive. But Abraham quietly steals the show with an understated, remarkably restrained performance. It would have been easy to allow himself to slip into extravagance to match Hulce, and he never does. It is so easy to believe Salieri's bitterness and deep rooted rage. The twist of Amadeus is that Salieri, who would normally be considered as the 'villain' of the piece, is a far more sympathetic and human character than Mozart himself. From his perspective, it is easy for the audience to understand - I doubt anyone has never been jealous of another's superior talent or possessions. Mozart's apparent invincibility as a composer only make Salieri all the more human, and somehow, likeable. His despicable deeds to undermine Mozart gain sympathy because of Abraham's quiet desperation.
The setting of the film itself is operatic - Prague, standing in for Vienna, is beautifully captured by the marvellous attention to detail - the costume design and makeup is lavish and sumptuous for the age. The supporting cast is solid, but never overwhelms the duel/duet (however you see it) of Abraham and Hulce.
The film is a tragedy - Salieri begins to respect and admire Mozart but far too late to prevent the consequences of his actions. The final hour is laden with irony that only Salieri seems to appreciate - he is the controlling factor of the entire film, and we learn far more about him than we do about Mozart. He is slowly driven insane with the thought of his own mediocrity and mortality, morally ambiguous, and disturbingly human. I think very few audience members would be completely disgusted with Salieri's actions by the end - indeed, it might ring all too true for some.
A wonderful, remarkable period piece without the dryness of usual biopics.
Rating: 9/10.
Gran Torino (2008)
Director: Clint Eastwood
Starring Clint Eastwood, Christopher Carley, Bee Vang, Ahney Her.
Gran Torino is a film of two halves. It bears all the traditional hallmarks of a Clint Eastwood movie – an underdog protecting a group of disadvantaged people from thugs or bullies. This is Unforgiven updated to the 21st century, and being a huge Eastwood fan, I really wanted it to work. Walt Kowalski, a grizzled Korean War veteran, is typical of Eastwood’s characters. So typical, he is a stereotype. You’ve seen it all before, he’s done it all before – the film is like a Clint Greatest Hits collection. The silent showdowns of the Man With No Name, the growling voice of Dirty Harry, the avenging angel that is the Preacher. Eastwood unsuccessfully attempts to create a strange amalgamation of all of these characters, to the point that only several times in the film do we see a flash of something new and interesting.
The first half is disappointing – repetition rules the first twenty minutes as we see Eastwood’s grumpy Kowalski brush aside every offer of help or friendship from the local priest (Carley, totally unsuitable in what should have been a crucial role.) The racist slurs are thrown left and right, as Eastwood, on and off screen, tries a little too hard to show what vultures his family are, how grizzled Kowalski is and how much he hates the ‘gooks’ next door. Eastwood’s cantankerous, ill-tempered characterisation already is a cliché – he makes it even more so in the first forty-five minutes. By the time the second half begins, it is difficult to take the film seriously, as I was left with an uneasy feeling – is it supposed to be unintentionally funny or are we supposed to see humour in an 80 year old man beating up thugs a quarter of his age?
While the first half builds up an unrealistic world of 80 year old men being intimidating, no matter how much they resemble Clint Eastwood, the second half tears this down. Eastwood has tremendous rapport with Sue (Ahney Her, remarkable in a debut role) but little with Thao, the principal supporting character and the young man he takes under his wing. This relationship, which should have been essential to the film, is weak. Only until Sue is brutally raped do we see a side to Eastwood that should have been present from the beginning – he becomes a very human character. He cries in the dark, smashes tables and cabinets in anger, and goes looking for vengeance. This sudden injection of realism contrasts with everything in the film before, and cripples Torino because of it.
The ending is the standout piece, an unusual, interesting twist on the Eastwood film legend. He wins, but there is a tremendous sacrifice that has to be made for it. Only then do we truly care for the character, but it comes far too late, and I am left wondering what a magnificent film this could have been had it ditched the stereotype, inexperienced actors and 2D characters in the beginning. The ending clashes with the remainder of the film, as in one move, Eastwood rejects the violence that has defined his career, while only an hour earlier, he revels in it. Unforgiven would have been a far better swansong for a beloved, respected actor and director.
Rating: 6/10.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
