Thursday, 23 February 2017

TV Series: Agent Carter

Today I finally began to watch Marvel's series, "Agent Carter", and I was instantly hooked. It's about a strong woman who manages to come out on top in a man's world. I like stories like that. I've already watched three episodes, and I'll continue to binge.

Unfortunately, the series shares the lack of detail typical to so many television series. Look at the screenshot above, taken from the first episode. The newspaper is dated Wednesday, June 24th 1946. That's a silly mistake. June 24th was a Monday. Apart from that, check out the newspaper article. It's not completely clear, but you can make out some of the details if you click to enlarge it. The first paragraph begins with "There was every imaginable pressure". The second paragraoh begins with "Negotiations will continue through the day". These two paragraphs are repeated in the next column. And how does the article on the left begin, barely legible beneath Peggy Carter's thumb? "Negotiations will continue through the day". That's sloppy.

Order from
Order from
Order from

Tuesday, 21 February 2017

The Space Between Us (4 Stars)

"The Martian" showed the technical difficulties of life on Mars. "The Space Between Us" shows problems in human relationships that result from colonising another planet.

In the near future a team of seven astronauts travels to Mars to build a small colony that will be enlarged over the year to come. If you pay close attention you'll see that the space rocket leaves the Earth in January 2018. That's very optimistic! The first group of astronauts aren't intended to be permanent residents, they're just on a four-year mission to make things comfortable for those who come after them.

Technically, the mission is a success. The astronauts arrive safely on Mars and set up an artificial environment where they begin to plant vegetables and create a steady water supply. The unexpected problem is that one of the astronauts was pregnant before leaving Earth, which wasn't discovered until it was too late to abort the mission. The woman has her baby two days after arriving on Mars, but she dies in childbirth. There are complications with the environment, and none of the other astronauts were trained for matters like this. To avoid a scandal that might result in the cut of government funding, the head of the Mars program, Dr. Nathaniel Shepard, decides to keep the birth and the death secret. The boy has to stay on Mars. The other six astronauts are sworn to secrecy, and when the other colonists arrive a few years later very few of them are told where the boy came from.

16 years later the boy, Gardner Elliot, has grown up with several physical anomalies from his body adapting to life on a planet with less gravity and air pressure. I don't know whether these anomalies are scientifically feasible, but I assume the screenwriter asked for advice before writing. Gardner has thin bones and an enlarged heart. The new colonists are all adults, so he has no friends of his own age. His closest friend is a girl called Tulsa that he meets in an Internet chat room. They begin an online romance, but he doesn't tell her where he lives.

Finally he is returned to Earth. He's supposed to remain in hospital for his adaptation to life on Earth to be monitored, but he runs away to be with Tulsa. But that isn't the end of his journey. He also wants to find his father. It's a race against time while his health is rapidly deteriorating.

This is a beautifully touching love story. There's something about love between teenagers that is more moving than love between adults. There's a naive innocence and the belief that everything will work out right as long as the two love one another. There's also an urgency to young love that I remember from my own youth. Everything has to be done immediately, because tomorrow is too late.

The chasm between the opions of the critics and the public could hardly be greater. The Rotten Tomatoes rating, based on the opinions of critics, is 16%, i.e. a very bad film. The Cinemascope rating, based on the opinions of moviegoers, is A-, i.e. a very good film. Film critics have long lost track of what the public likes. They sit with stone hearts making notes of every small fault in the plot or supposed scientific inaccuracy, while the cinema audiences sit with tears in their eyes, deeply moved by the emotional intensity.

I don't know why I even bother checking what critics say. They have no idea what they're talking about. This is a film worth watching, especially if you like love stories.

Monday, 20 February 2017

Chinese Zodiac (3½ Stars)

This film is based loosely on historical events. The Summer Palace was built in Beijing in 1750. It was filled with marvellous treasures, in particular bronze statues of the 12 animals of the Chinese zodiac. In 1860 the palace was plundered by French and British troops. The statues were too heavy to carry away, so the heads were removed and transported back to Europe. They found their way into the hands of private collectors, and over the next 150 years they were sold and resold, individually or in groups, for ever increasing sums of money. For instance, in 2009 two of the statues (or rather their separated heads) were sold for 28 million Euros. The Chinese government considers the artefacts to be stolen and demands that they be returned to China free of charge, but after this length of time there are practical problems. The original thieves are dead, and the current owners paid a lot of money to acquire the statues. Anyone who has paid millions of dollars for a work of art will be understandably reluctant to give it away for free.

So much is the truth behind the story. In the film a large company called MP is attempting to collect all 12 bronze heads with the intention of selling them for profit. They're actually more devious. They intend to create fakes of the statues and sell the fakes. The company has an underground lair with dozens of highly skilled artists faking all sorts of paintings and other items, aided by modern technologies. The owner boasts that his fakes have fooled experts and are displayed in art galleries all over the world, while he owns the originals.

The company already has eight of the heads. They hire JC, an experienced thief, to steal the remaining four. JC is played by Jackie Chan, in case you couldn't guess. This time he isn't a good guy, although he slowly develops a conscience as the film progresses. He allies himself with a Chinese activist group in Paris that wants to steal the heads to return them to China. They don't realise that when he gets them he'll give them to MP instead.

This isn't one of Jackie Chan's better films. The action sequences are too exaggerated to be credible. For instance, in one scene he jumps out of a plane with three other men and fights them in free fall before they open their parachutes. That seems so unrealistic. Skydiving is difficult anyway, but fighting in the air and still keeping control, jumping from one opponent to another to fight all three?

The best parts of the film are when Jackie fights normally, as we're used to him from his other films. There's a beautiful 15-minute fight scene half way though. If it had all been that good I would have awarded five stars.The film's first hour is boring, with too many superfluous subplots adding unnecessary confusion. If you're a Jackie Chan fan like me I'm sure you'll want to watch the film at least once, but you'll probably only want to rewatch the outstanding fight scenes, of which there aren't enough.

There are 12 film posters portraying the 12 Chinese zodiac signs. I'm including them here for reference purposes. You can click on them to enlarge them.

Overall the film reminds me in its subject matter and style of the television series "Relic Hunter", which was broadcast from 1999 to 2002. I don't mean that as a compliment. The series starred Tia Carrere, one of America's sexiest actresses, but the series managed to make her look exceedingly unsexy from week to week. The action scenes looked cheap and unrealistic. The first hour of "Chinese Zodiac" looked like an episode of "Relic Hunter". It started to pick up in the second hour, but it was too late to save the film.

Order from
Order from
Order from

Saturday, 18 February 2017

Spy (4½ Stars)

If ever a film has screamed "Sequel" this is it. Despite a few small criticisms, which I'll go into below, it's an almost perfect comedy spy thriller. If Austin Powers was the comedy spy of the 20th Century, Susan Cooper (Melissa McCarthy) is the comedy spy of the 21st Century.

Susan Cooper has been working in a basement office of the CIA supporting field agents for ten years. After the murder of an agent while on a mission she's given her first field job. She's only supposed to observe and report back, but she rushes into action, making direct contact with Rayna Boyanov, a woman selling a nuclear bomb on the black market.

Melissa McCarthy plays a comically incompetent spy. My only complaint about the film is that other members of the CIA also make mistakes. Jude Law plays a suave super spy who accidentally shoots a captive because he sneezes. The CIA in Langley suffers from vermin in the basement. I would have found it better to see the CIA running as an efficient organisation with only Melissa making mistakes.

I love the retro film poster for "Spy". Up until the 1950's it was usual for film posters to be drawn by artists. In the 1960's this practise was slowly phased out in favour of photo collages.

Check out this photo taken at the film premiere. Miranda Hart (6'1") doesn't just tower over Melissa McCarthy (5'1") but also over Jason Statham (5'9"). The director Paul Feig, on the right, is also slightly shorter than her, only 6'0", but he seems taller in the photo. My guess is that he wore shoes with high heels because he felt intimidated.

The film briefly shows a classified CIA document about Rayna Boyanov's dating habits and sexual preferences. Here's a full transcript of the document.

Memorandum on Rayna Boyanov's Dating Habits

Ms. Boyanov has a habit of engaging in sexual congress with a number of celebrities and political figures along with a cornucopia of underworld elite. The former groups are disconcerting. Great effort must be taken to verify the complicity or lack therof of these partners in her criminal activities. With intimate access to luminaries, both men and women, one can assume that at the least she has garnered intelligence and at the worst embroiled these prominent figures in her schemes.

It is also worthy of note that many of her sexual partners suffer injuries as she is a violent and cruel lover. She regularly engages in sadistic dominatrix behavior, both dishing out pain as well as receiving it - often in an embarrassing fashion. We can presume that this not only pleases her, but provides blackmail fodder.

Agents should be directed to covertly discover as much as they can about Boyanov's past and current relationships. When necessary and feasible, agents should engage as many of her past partners as possible in an effort to determine what secrets or level of indoctrinations to which they have fallen both victim and prey.

Boyanov is reputed to be a fan of various fringe sex acts including Dirty Sanchez, Angry Pirate, Hot Lunch, Angry Dragon and her favorite - the Rusty Trombone.

If you don't know what these sexual acts are you're not alone. I had to do a web search as well. I've lived a sheltered life. Even after reading what they are I have no wish to indulge.

Order from
Order from
Order from

Police Story: Lockdown (4 Stars)

"Police Story: Lockdown", known in some countries as "Police Story 2013", is sometimes called the sixth film in the Police Story film series, sometimes a reboot of the Police Story series. It's neither, whatever the infallible contributors to Wikipedia write. The only thing that's consistent from film to film is that Jackie Chan plays the lead role. The first four films (1985-1996) can be considered a series, because he plays the Hong Kong police officer Chan Ka-Kui. In the fifth film (2004) he plays Chan Kwok-Wing, and in this film (2013) he plays Zhong Wen. The last two films have "Police Story" in the title just to fool people into thinking they are continuations that they need to watch. That's silly. "Police Story: Lockdown" is a film that's worth watching in its own right.

Zhong Wen is a successful but under-appreciated cop. He does his job, risking his own life day by day, because it's the right thing to do. One evening when he's off duty his daughter invites him to see her at a night club called the Wu Bar. It's not the sort of place he would normally go to, but he hasn't seen her for five years. She introduces him to her boyfriend, Wu Jiang, the club's owner. Zhong doesn't trust him, and his instincts are correct. He's knocked unconscious, and when he wakes up he's tied to a chair. Zhong and 20 other hostages are being held prisoner. Wu's only demand is that an imprisoned murderer, Wei Xiaofu, should be delivered to the club.

As the night progresses it becomes obvious that the 21 hostages (including Zhong) aren't random strangers. They are all people important to Wu who were sent special invitations to gather them on this evening.

This is a taut psychological thriller, not as light-hearted as Jackie Chan's usual comedy romps. Zhong Wen has to fight for his life while trying to solve the mystery behind Wu's motives.

Jackie Chan carries the film, as is to be expected, but special mention needs to be made of Jing Tian, who plays his daughter Miao Miao. After "Great Wall" this is only the second film I've seen her in, but I find her performance very impressive. I look forward to seeing more of her.

Order from
Order from
Order from

Thursday, 16 February 2017

Zodiac (4 Stars)

After knowing about this film for many years I finally decided to watch it today. Even so, it took me half the day to get started. As the film started I saw that it was 162 minutes long, so I stopped it and asked myself whether I really wanted to sit through a murder mystery for three hours. I went about my daily chores, I took a nap, and finally, hours later, I sat down to watch it.

All I needed to do was get over the start hurdle. After the first few minutes I was hooked.

The film is a true story about a serial killer who murdered several people in California from 1968 to 1970. He was unlike other serial killers in several respects. He didn't have a consistent modus operandi. The killings didn't resemble one another, so it was difficult to tie them together. He wrote letters to newspapers boasting about what he had done. Most unusually, he stopped killing. Supposedly, killers get a taste for blood and carry on.

How many people did he kill? Five murders were attributed to him, but in his letters he claimed to have killed twelve. The police never discovered who the other victims were.

It seems that the man, who called himself Zodiac, was more interested in fame than in the killing itself. He remained in touch with a newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle, for years after his last murder. He was teasing the press (and indirectly the police), saying he was too clever to be caught. He was right. He was never caught, and the case is still open today, even though the murderer is probably dead.

The main character in the film is Robert Graysmith, a cartoonist at the San Francisco Chronicle. The film itself is based on a book he wrote claiming to have identified the killer, though there was insufficient evidence for the police to take action. Robert wasn't a reporter, even less an investigative reporter, but he was fascinated by the case and devoted his life to solving it. He continued even though it put his life at risk. He received repeated anonymous phone calls from someone who was probably the killer. Those were the old days before it was easy to trace phone calls.

The film moves slowly, ploddingly, but it's never boring. The top rate acting of the lead characters kept my interest throughout. I kept on hoping that the killer would finally be caught, right up to the end, but I was disappointed. That's the difference between real life and fiction. In real life the good guys don't always win.

Order from
Order from
Order from

Wednesday, 15 February 2017

John Wick (4 Stars)

"You killed my dog".

I pulled this off my shelf today to watch it in preparation for seeing "John Wick 2" in the cinema next week. For a film with so little of a plot it's remarkably good.

John Wick is a retired assassin, a killer-for-hire. He decided to settle down and enjoy married life. Things didn't work out. His wife died of cancer. As a farewell gift she gave him a dog to keep him company. The son of a Russian mafia boss kills the dog when he goes to steal John's car. This sets John off on a roaring rampage of revenge. He roars, and he rampages, and he gets bloody satisfaction.

I was wondering when I watched it today how many people he kills. Online I found two web sites. One claims it's 76, the other 84. Next time I watch it I'll sit and count.

Order from
Order from
Order from

Tuesday, 14 February 2017

Moonrise Kingdom (4 Stars)

This is a film that I would never have watched under normal circumstances. Nothing about it appealed to me. However, a friend of mine gave it me as a gift last year. It's been lying on my shelf ever since, and I wasn't sure whether I would watch it or not. I'm glad I did. I'm also glad that I watched it on Valentine's Day. However, I'm still not sure I understand what I've just watched. It's a film that is somehow surreal, and I'm sure that that the director wants to give us a message, but I have no idea what it is. Maybe I should watch the Blu-ray extra features to hunt for clues.

The film takes place in 1965 on a fictional island off the coast of New England called New Penzance Island. A group of boy scouts is camping. One of the boys disappears, and it turns out that he's run away with a local girl. Both of them are 12 years old, and both are social outcasts.

The romance between Sam and Suzy is poignant and quaint, but painfully awkward. Isn't 12 too young for a couple to elope? Anything under 14 is hard for me to take seriously. Even when I was 14 I wouldn't have run away with a girl, I would just have sneaked away with her for a few kisses in private.

Eventually the couple are found. That's when the film gets really strange. Sam is an orphan, and after his escapade his foster parents don't want him back, so he's told that he'll be put in an orphanage. Due to his alleged violent tendencies he's threatened with electric shock treatment. Even though he's always been unpopular among his fellow scouts they rally behind him to protect him. One of the scoutmasters performs a marriage ceremony, although he warns the couple that the marriage might not be recognised in most American states. I could have guessed that myself.

So the couple go on the run again, this time with the assistance of the boy scout community.

I was never a member of the boy scouts, so I have to ask: are they really such a well disciplined group? The scout camps seem like paramilitary organisations.

This is a sweet film, even though I don't really understand it. The colour contrasts are typical for Wes Anderson's films, and the high quality supporting cast make the film even more enjoyable.

Order from
Order from
Order from