Frost / Nixon

This was the Orange Wednesday film my friends went to see, and the last in the current round that I was eager to watch. That was, until I read the reviews of Milk.

Unlike most of the people watching this, I actually have a pretty good impression about what Watergate was about, which wasn't as helpful as I'd thought it would be. The opening sequence consists of a montage of news-reel clips about the Watergate scandal, cut with excerpts from Frank Langella as Nixon giving his resignation speech live on television. What is conveyed well in these opening moments is the anger of the American people towards a president who was not going to be held to account for his criminal actions.

How much of the plot is factual and how much is embellished is always going to be hard to tell. Initially Frost is only interested in interviewing the former president as he would interview anyone else. A chat show interview. He has no intention of eliciting an apology or confession from him. But the appearance fee he needs to pay Nixon means that for various reasons, no network will buy the show he is producing and slowly he comes round to the idea from his team that the interview must give Nixon the trial he never had. Nixon looks on the interview as a means to rebuild his reputation, regain the public trust and move back into politics. However the historical accuracy is largely irrelevant. This film may be about a historical event, but it is not a documentary. It's a character biopic. Both Frank Langella and Michael Sheen repeat the roles they created on the stage play. Ron Howard said he would only agree to direct if the studio would allow both actors to appear in the film version. Sheen, better known to most as Tony Blair in The Queen, shows that he really can get a person's inflections and mannerisms down to a tee. And Langella's performance as Nixon is so convincing, it's chilling. The two actors kept up their character even between filming, so as to maintain the rivalry between them.

One of the lasting themes is the differences and similarities between Frost and Nixon. Both want accolades that may be forever beyond their grasp, yet while David Frost is shown as constantly attending parties and galas and Richard Nixon is shown as a private man surrounded by only a few friends and colleagues, they are both portrayed rather excellently as lonely men. There's a beautiful contrast between an opening shot of Nixon boarding Marine One as Frost watches on television and sees the smile for the cameras fade as he turns away, and a similar falling smile on David's face later in the film.

In many ways, this is like a boxing film between two fading champions. Both want to destroy the opposition, both want a comeback, but only one of them can win.

Ultimately, it is possible to leave the cinema feeling pity for both men. Nixon's realisation that he can never regain what he lost and Frost knowing that he may never achieve anything this historic again.

There is also a mention at the end, overplayed on a close-up of Nixon's face in the interview, that while television is used as an entertainment tool for the masses it can, if used correctly, accomplish something that no journalist, no prosecutor could ever manage. To show a man in complete defeat, ravaged by loneliness and self-loathing in defeat. It's a message that comes across in another of my favourite films Good Night, and Good Luck and that, if nothing else, would be reason enough to add it to my DVD shelf.

Score: A

OQ:
David Frost: It wasn't that bad....
James Reston: Wasn't that bad?!? I overheard two crew in there saying they hadn't voted for Nixon but if he was running for office today, they'd vote for him!

Seven Pounds

*Contains emotionally intense scenes. They're not kidding. I was bawling my eyes out at the end.

Some fabulous performances from Will Smith, Rosario Dawson and a rather under-used Woody Harrelson.

OQ: It's time.
Score: A+

Defiance

This was the finale of my marathon film weekend and the second to feature World War II. Actually I wasn't going to see it this weekend, but as I was leaving Seven Pounds on Sunday, I bumped into a couple of friends who were on their way in to this, and I decided to take full advantage of my Unlimited card and not return home to play XBox as I had originally intended.

It's a fantastic story, made all the more amazing for being true. A group of Belorussian Jews flee the German death squads and set up camp in a forest. I found the story does focus more on one of the brothers, played by Daniel Craig, to the detriment of the other brother's story.

The only downside to the film is that because it is mostly shot in a forest, there are parts of the film that end up looking like they were done on the cheap. The ending is a little bit Hollywood, but then I can't say with any confidence that's not what actually happened.

Score: B-
OQ: Every day is like an act of faith.

Valkyrie

The first in what turned out to be another marathon film weekend.

Saturday, and what turned out to be a very popular Tom Cruise film. The queue to get in was enormous! It was out the bloody door!

For what seems like a long time Cruise's films have suffered from what has affectionately been termed the "Tom Cruise Effect". This usually results in people not liking the film and giving it bad reviews simply because Tom Cruise is in it. It's an effect I first found out about when I wrote a review of War of the Worlds.

However, Cruise has finally found a way around this in Valkyrie. People aren't giving it bad reviews because Tom Cruise is in it. They're giving it bad reviews because it's historically inaccurate!

Not that most people will probably realise this. The few parts of the assassination plot that I remembered from school were all present. In any case, historical accuracy is all a matter of perspective and balance. Completely accurate historical films are called documentaries. Almost any other film has to, at some point, deviate from the historical record in order to tell the story well.

What was more interesting was the performances from Cruise, Bill Nighly, Tom Wilkinson, Eddie Izzard and Terence Stamp. The story of how small details built up into unsurmountable obstacles.

OK, so half the time you can tell that Tom has just shoved one hand up his sleeve and is folding two fingers into his palm to play the injured Stauffenberg. But a film that held a minutes silence before every day's shooting in his memory isn't going to take massive liberties with the truth.

Score: B-
OQ: We have to show the world that not all of us are like him.
Trivia: The June 20th assassination plot was the last of the fifteen known attempts on Hitler's life.
You'd think he'd get the hint after the first five or so, wouldn't you?

The Wrestler

Hmm...

I think my comments to my sister as we were leaving summed this up. I'm glad I saw it, but I can't say I enjoyed it.

The talent on display is quite impressive. I was a little worried by the marketing blurb that Mickey Rourke gives the performance of his career, since it's a little like saying Aaron Eckart's performance in The Dark Knight was better than in The Core. It's not saying much. Cheese left out in the sun for three days gives a better performance that Aaron Eckart did in The Core. The phrase can be interpreted in different ways.

The trailer leads you to believe that it's a "Man screws up in the past, then gets his life back together" movie. It's not.

Still, it was very emotive. Powerful performances from many of the cast, and Mickey Rourke does a very good job portraying his character. He conveys the emotions superbly.

A little squeamish in places, and with an odd mixture of camera styles. Sometimes it's very documentary with the camera following a character and all you see is their back, other times it's very cinematic, panning around and showing the characters in a landscape.

Totally impossible to score on the Saxon Film Scale, and not one that I can think of a suitable quote for.

The Spirit

I suppose if I'd ever read any of the comics graphic novels beforehand then this might have made more sense to me. As it was, I had to piece together the back-story as I went along. This is no bad thing, it avoids the dreaded "info dump" that so many films use to let the audience know where the hero comes from, but I felt that without this meticulous piecing together of back-story and motiviations for hero and villain that the film would have been much, much shorter. The basic story boiling down to

1. Bad guy wants something.
2. There's an accidental complication.
3. Bad guy gets thing.
4. Hero thwarts him.

While Samuel L. Jackson isn't half bad as the villain, and certainly better than he was in Jumper, I can't help but feel this is mostly because of the well written script and the tight direction of Frank Miller.

The graphic novel touches are easy to spot. Not just the occasional decent into black and while with a splash of red tie, but also in the visual metaphors, like Eva Mendes' locket being a symbol that she still remembers her roots and her love for the hero.

Overall I can't really fault it, it's a comic book come to life. The visuals are very stylish and the acting is decent, but there's nothing desperately new to see and the plot's been done a thousand times before.

Score: A disappointing C+