Johnny Simmons

Red sets itself up to be an action comedy. I admitted in my review of Knight & Day a few months back that the concept is easier pitched than executed even though I did end up being somewhat fond of the Cruise/Diaz comedy of sorts. Hypothetically Red sets itself up for more. I have generally no feelings for Bruce Willis, but Helen Mirren, John Malkovich and Morgan Freeman easily rank as three of my favourite actors and Mary Louise Parker is more often than not right on the money. As usually my tendency to not see trailers might have made me anticpate something different for Red – I don’t know. It’s a plot we may or may not have seen before, a retired spy of sorts is thrown back into the game to save himself from death or some other crises. Only this time the spy in question (Willis) is being helped by a trio culminating in an odd foursome which turns into a quintet when his almost-girlfriend (Parker) becomes involved in the machinations of the spies. That’s the basic plot of Red, and though it sounds decidedly hackneyed it seems to have potential to be at least diverting. In actuality, it’s not.

It’s weird how the year has flew by, and I still feel I haven’t seen a significant number of films (though I suppose thirty is not an awful number). I’ve been reticent about passing judgements on what I think of 2010 so far because anything I say will be inconclusive, but Red just seems like another nail in the coffin. The year is going abysmally. It’s not that Red couldn’t have worked – because really it should. Its attempts at toeing the line between sophisticated humour and light bantering are not completely terrible (in theory) but the results are exasperating. Red is a tedious film, and it’s not so much that I didn’t find myself laughing – the humour never went anywhere, all seeming so decidedly insular and yet oddly vague. And it’s not the actors are awful, true Freeman does come off the worse. His brand of deadpan only makes the film more turgid, but Willis seems competent, Mirren has moments (few as they may be, moments still) of brilliance, Parker seems to be trying hard and Malkovich antics are the closest things to humour but it doesn’t work. It just doesn’t.

In the end, I blame the writing. Hoeber and Schwentke seems to be hoping that his actors can save his stilted mess, but it’s sort of beyond the point of not return. It’s more than the flat characterisations, sometimes they tend to work in this genre, but it’s so thoroughly uninteresting that the name Red – acrononym, though it may be – becomes even more ironic because there’s nothing passionate about this. Count Red as another colossal waste of time at the movies this year....

        

People always lament the state of 1994 because Pulp Fiction lost to Forrest Gump. You know me well enough to discern that I’m not too hot on Tarantino (even if I will admit that Pulp Fiction is one of his more tempered pieces). The thing is, neither of the two was the best film that year so it’s really an argument to no end. Morgan Freeman is a bit of an anomaly as far as I’m concerned. I genuinely like the man, and he’d be somewhere in my top 100 perhaps even my top 50 actors but I’m never particularly fond of his performances. Time after time, he just seems to be on autopilot. Still, I can let these moments of autopilot pass because there is one Morgan performance that never fails to impress; his enviable performance in The Shawshank Redemption. It’s a brilliant performance that stands out in an ensemble. Incidentally, the same can be said for Dianne Wiest in Bullets Over Broadway, the other juggernaut from 1994. Woody has always had a thing for big casts, and in Bullets Over Broadway (though not his best film) he found his most expansive and talented cast. It’s a bit of a tug-of-war for me when I think of 1994. On one hand lies the sedate and poignant Shawshank Redemption and on the other hand Woody’s atypical comedy of show business Bullets Over Broadway.

                

The two films could shake hands when it comes to their heroes. Tim Robbins has gone on to win an Oscar, but he and John Cusack have much in common. Both have thing for playing the innocuous heroes, and in both The Shawshank Redemption and Bullets Over Broadway they’re surrounding by a group of zany characters. I suppose the similarities stop there. Andy’s incarceration at Shawshank is a far cry from David’s predicaments in New York. It’s weird, though, that Shawshank Redemption made a mere 25 million at the box-office, but it’s even more ridiculous when you realise that Bullets Over Broadway made just about half of that. What’s the reason? The films are conversely different, each playing to different emotions and yet neither found (immediate) success with the audiences. I like to think of Bullets Over Broadway as Woody’s most structured film. It’s not my favourite of his, but it’s easily the tightest (it’s just below 100 minutes), and the script is just so quick-paced. The Shawshank Redemption goes on for well over two hours, and though it’s based on a novella, it never drags. Presentation is everything, really. The quickness of Bullets Over Broadway is as essential to the joie de vivre of New York as the meticulous detail is necessary to the jail at Shawshank.

                 

Darabont makes The Shawshank Redemption sneak up on you, a little. I always seem to forget that it’s such an ensemble piece until after I’ve seen it. It’s the opposite with Bullets Over Broadway. It’s so short, and it’s not really about everybody, but it seems so. Sure Morgan Freeman and Dianne Wiest each seem to think that they’re the leads in their respective piece, though. Morgan...I like him much, but I like few of his performances. Still, I won’t argue with the brilliance that is him in The Shawshank Redemption. It was the perfect opportunity to give him that Oscar, but at least Dianne got hers. On the subject of Oscars, though. It’s so weird that neither Tim nor John went nominated. As brilliant as Morgan is, Shawshank depends completely on Tim he easily trumps the majority of that sorry actor lineup, so does John actually – and three of his co-stars were nominated. Both films actually went home empty handed for the most part, between the two of them they racked up 14 nominations and the only one was for Ms. Wiest. They should have at least won their respective screenplay categories, but why am I lamenting on the fickle Oscars?

                 

The Shawshank Redemption is a brilliant ensemble drama, a poignant tale and a story worthy of remembrance. I know three people who are very fond of this film – Emma, M. Carter and The Mad Hatter. Three people whose opinions are valuable, and they’re not wrong. The Shawshank Redemption is that good. Unfortunately, Bullets Over Broadway doesn’t seem to have as many people championing it, but it’s just as good. The Shawshank Redemption ranks at #43 on my list of favourites and Bullets Over Broadway at #35.

Someone I read, I can't recall whom, recently remarked of a film It didn't need to be made. And that got me thinking. What films don't need to be adapted to bet put on screen. I think I may have found the answer with Invictus. It's a story about Nelson Mandela [Morgan Freeman]. He's the new president of South Africa, a nation divided. Through his ingenuity he hopes to reconcile the country with sports and the help of the rugby team captain played by Matt Damon.

           

Now would be the ideal time to reveal by hatred apathy towards Clint Eastwood. I'm just not a fan. That being said, I can't say that Invictus is like anything he's done before. But still, I'm essentially unmoved. It's not that biographical films shouldn't be made. But when we make a biography, something like The Aviator, or Schindler's List or Raging Bull or The Hours [and it's inexhaustive] something fresh is added. Sometimes, history is rewritten like in The Aviator, but there is that ecelctic feeling that this story must be told. As heartwarming as Invictus may try to be, I don't get that feeling from it.

The rugby that is so important to the film is never explained to the audience. What of those who don't play rugby? There isn't even a smidgen of explanation as to what's going on, and the cuts away from the actual game don't help.The first third of the film seems unsure of where it's heading, the second third seems unsure of why it's there and the last third is so predictable that you just aren't that invested anymore. I like Morgan Freeman a whole lot actually, but he does nothing for me here. It's the perfect example of an actor phoning it in, and the accent which comes and goes does not help. Actually, Matt Damon is the one who emerges as impressive here, in a stock role albeit. Where everyone is obviously acting I truly believe his performance.

              

Invictus main problem is its writing, but the direction and the action don't particularly help it's cause. I'm no fan of Clint, but this is a particularly underwhelming piece.