R.E.D

reviewed by guest lecturer Will Tooke

Another month brings out another comic book adaption. The playful, immersive odyssey of Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World and the subversive, ultra violent thrill ride of Kick-Ass are still fresh in my mind, I went to see RED with high hopes – after all, with an incredible cast of Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, John Malkovich and your Grans favourite, Helen Mirren, what could possibly go wrong? Err, well, quite a lot actually.

Based on the DC comic written by Warren Ellis and the unfortunately named Cully Hamner, this movie version of RED is similar in name only. A cursory Google (I hadn’t heard of RED before either…) revealed that the scriptwriters had changed quite a bit. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a purist – one of the greatest things about good movie adaptation of novels or books is how the screenwriter handles the source material. Think of 2001s About A Boy based on Nick Hornby’s novel. Gone – thank God – is the heavy handed, zeitgeisty sub-plot to do with Kurt Kobain’s death, a reason why it stands as an example where the film is better than the book. Of course, film adaptations don’t always work out for the best – 2009s Watchmen suffered terribly from an overlong script, and the fact that for some reason it never quite managed to live up to the spirit of the dystopian epic that is Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons’ 1986 graphic novel. Yes, screenwriting – particularly adapting works – is a difficult game indeed, one that demands subtlety in approach if not content.

The fact then that screenwriters Jon and Erich Hoeber take great big blundering axe chops to the original is a bad sign. Bruce Willis’ character, ex-CIA agent Frank Moses, survives from the original lineup. The rest are all new additions. Whereas the comic is apparently a darker, straighter story of murky political intrigue and shady secret service dealings, on celluloid RED is a much lighter, family friendly affair. It is, after all a 12 A, and I can’t help wonder if somewhere in the ether floats a grittier, original script, more faithful to the original, before the studio talked it down from an 18 or a 15 to a 12 certificate. It’s a real shame actually, because the core idea is a good one – old spooks come out of retirement to kick some butt after someone or other tries to have them killed. The cheap and easy way to make this family friendly of course is to a) have curiously bloodless fight scenes and b) add some humour.

Oh sweet Jesus, the humour.

In a big loud dumb action movies, there is nothing wrong with a few jokes. Brucie’s own Die Hard quadrilogy is the stronger for them, and cheesy jokes and lazy innuendo pretty much substituted plot for much of Roger Moore’s stint as Bond. But in RED, the cheesy jokes are ladled on like fondue. And it just gets incredibly annoying, right up to a silly pre-credits scene that sees Brucie wheeling John Malkovich through a Moldovan minefield in a wheelbarrow, whilst the latter clutches a nuclear bomb. Typing that out, it sounds pretty funny, like something out of under rated Cold War farce Top Secret! (Seriously, you must see it before you die), but after a few hours of cutesy posturing, my sense of humour failure was borderline terminal.

And even if the awful jokes had been exorcised from RED, I’m not so sure it’d have worked, either. The plot has more flabby twists than Ann Widdecombe’s routines on Strictly Come Dancing: to the extent that it’s unforgivably hard to follow, which is why I haven’t mentioned what happens so much. ‘So wait, now that guy isn’t a baddie?’ one little boy sat near me in the cinema said out loud, to no one in particular. His guess is as good as mine, frankly.  The story circles around something about the covering up of something bad that the now Vice President of the United States (perhaps?) did in Guatemala in 1981 whilst he was in the army. Now bearing in mind said V.P is played by Nip Tuck’s Julian McMahon, this is particularly hard to swallow seeing as McMahon would have been 13 in 1981. Yup, that particular plot hole bugged me so much, I looked up an actor’s actual birthday, just to give me something else to complain about.

I suppose I should provide a bit of a balance by saying that parts of the film are OK – the sight of Helen Mirren firing a huge machine is funny for a bit, and the whole thing is filmed well, each shot framed like a comic book pane. Bruce Willis does his trusty trademark ‘McClane smirk’ – the same facial expression since the good old days of Die Hard, back when Brucey had hair. The same smirk Brucey has done in pretty much every film he’s been in since 1986. If Bella Lugosi was cinema’s Man of a Thousand Faces, then Willis has become cinema’s Man of Just One Smirk. I’m being harsh on Brucey, he does the hand-to-hand combat fights very well, and as a protagonist he’s hard not to like. It’s just I can’t remember the last time he was truly stretched in a role. Perhaps in The Sixth Sense? Which was also the last time M. Night Shyamalan made a decent film. And that was a long, long time ago. In any case, the few good points don’t make up for the whole – in the same way that the excellent German motorway system doesn’t excuse the regime that created them.

I suppose the biggest crime is that this is perhaps the greatest example of recent cinema of a truly brilliant cast who are truly wasted. In the opening credits, there is literally not one actors name that popped up that I didn’t recognize and who isn’t good. Alongside the main four stars are Brian Cox, Karl Urban – two veterans of the Bourne Trilogy, as well as James Remar from TVs Dexter, Mary-Louise Parker from Weeds, Richard Dreyfuss, and the 93 year old Ernest Borgnine. I can only presume they were very well paid or just don’t care anymore.

Degree-2.2 If you like your films with lots bullets that pass in slow motion making a

WOOOSH noise, explosions that seemingly compete with plot holes

to see which one can be the biggest, then you’ll love this.  Otherwise you should probably

just stay away.

It narrowly escaped a third solely because Helen Mirren fires a big loud machine gun.

(If you are confused about the rating system please click on the ‘About This Blog Page’ which will explain it all)

 

The Shawshank Redemption

The Shawshank Redemption is the original dark, yet feel-good film based on Stephen King’s famous short story. From the starting court scene to the phenomenal ending the film shows the audience every aspect of the human character, both good and bad; it’s an engaging and touching journey. It is unfortunate that this great was released in the same year as Tom Hank’s ‘Forest Gump’ and Quentin Tarantino’s ‘Pulp Fiction’. These big names stole the limelight at the box office so Shawshank only made $18 million and lost out on all seven of the academy awards it was nominated for. However it has since grossed a huge DVD and VHS following and been ranked deservedly higher in the list of greatest films of all time.

The film centres on former banker Andy Dufresne, played by Tim Robbins, who is on trial for the murder of his wife and her golf-pro lover. Although Dufresne protests his innocence, his icy manner fails to convince either the jury or the audience and he is sentenced to two consecutive life sentences. He is sent to Shawshank Prison and behind these high stone walls are where almost all the film takes place. Robbins plays the intelligent and calculating Andy Dufresne perfectly; so much so that some critics have faulted him, claiming he never truly connects with the audience.  This distance however is simply as a powerful example of how Dufresne is distant from everyone around him. He is an island and Robbins plays him as such.

All the characters that Dufresne meets in Shawshank are richly filled out and layered: from the hypocritical warden Mr Norton, who is as flawed as the men he keeps locked up, to Brooks the institutionalised crook who will bring tears to your eyes. Each character grows organically during the film’s gentle unfolding. Within this great cast the stand out performance is easily Morgan Freeman. He plays Red, a man who can get you anything you need for a 20% mark up. Freeman’s portrayal of Red is raw, human and real; Freeman thoroughly deserved his Oscar nomination.  Freeman is also the film’s narrator; his silky voice is certainly music to the ears and gives a good insight into the emotions and psychology of a prisoner. It allows the audience to really understand what each character is going through.

When all is said and done, beneath Freeman’s silky voice and the country amble pace this is still a prison movie and like ‘Midnight Express’ before it, includes some horrible scenes that make you think twice about ending up there. From the guards’ verbal insults and physical assaults to the inmates deaths and the food they have to eat the film does not let up in showing us how truly awful people can be. The beating and rape of Dufresne by a group of prisoners called ‘The Sisters’ was particularly nasty and distressing to watch. But it is not these dark scenes that make ‘The Shawshank Redemption’ one of the 50 films Film4 say you must see before you die how these men rise above these obstacles is the true genius of the film. Throughout all he endures Dufresne never loses his creativity, generosity or integrity. The bond of companionship he forms with the other inmates is inspirational and the lengths he goes to in order to hang onto hope are incredible. The end of the film leaves you dumbstruck, in awe at what we are all capable of and determined to make sure you fulfil your own potential.

Degree: 1^st.

The film of a generation and one that has finally become recognised for the masterpiece it is.

Films since then, such as ‘Slumdog Millionaire’, have clearly drawn inspiration from it.

Get busy living, get busy seeing this film.

R.E.D

Dame Helen Mirren with a machine gun? This will spike anyone’s interest. When asked why she chose to do the film, Mirren’s first response was ‘It’s not the Queen’ and she is certainly right about that. With the great veteran cast Morgan Freeman, Bruce Willis and John Malkovich Mirren is in very good company.