LAST NIGHT (2010, Massy Tadjedin)

 

* * 

This couple really don’t trust each other. Either of them may or may not be having or at some point have had an affair.

Starring  Keira Knightley, Sam Worthington, Eva Mendes, Guillaume Canet

Written by  Massy Tadjedin

Produced by  Sidonie Dumas, Massy Tadjedin, Nick Wechsler  

Duration  92 minutes

 

Oh, shit. Right. Huh.

So, I thought I was reviewing the other LAST NIGHT. You know the one. Or not. Probably not. 

It was a 1998 ensemble final-day-on-Earth flick, one of those low-budget ones that are about relationships rather than special effects. Canadian, featuring one of David Cronenberg's rare acting gigs. A couple of other names were in it too, like Sandra Oh (pre-Grey's Anatomy) and Genevieve Bujold (post-Cronenberg's DEAD RINGERS). And Sarah Polley, like all Canadian movies.

No, the film I actually ended up watching for this review was made 12 years later, starred a couple of non-Canadians (Brit Keira Knightly and Aussie Sam Worthington) and wasn't about a pending apocalypse at all.

Before digging into the Knightly/Worthington LAST NIGHT, let's zoom out to the macro issue here. What are some other unrelated movies that happen to share a name?

Here's a selection, along with a handy guide to how you can tell which is which.

– If you're watching James Spader having unconventional sex with a badly injured Rosanna Arquette in the back of a car, it's CRASH (1996). If it's a heavy-handed ensemble drama about racism directed by the guy who created Due South, you're watching CRASH (2004).

– If there's a lot of slow-motion, two-handed gunplay and bonding between a rogue cop and an assassin with a moral code, you're watching THE KILLER (1989). But you're watching THE KILLER (2023) if Michael Fassbender is playing the assassin, delivering a lot of voiceover as he meticulously preparing for jobs while listening to Smiths songs.

–  If you're watching Robert Pattison looking awfully pale, Kirsten Stewart gaping lustily at him with her mouth half-open, and Taylor Lautner acting by concentrating really hard on remembering his lines, it's TWILIGHT. (2008). If it's an aged Paul Newman playing private eye and uncovering an ultimately rather low-key mystery involving Susan Sarandon, Gene Hackman, James Garner, Reese Witherspoon, Stockard Channing, Giancarlo Esposito, Liev Schreiber, John Spencer, M Emmet Walsh, Jason Clarke and holy shit they got a lot of people to be in this dull movie ... you're watching TWILIGHT (1998).

–  If it's Naomi Watts in the CIA getting into hot water and being double/triple crossed all over the shop, you're watching FAIR GAME (2010). But you're watching FAIR GAME (1995) if it's Cindy Crawford in the lead, a Baldwin brother as the cop protecting her and the whole thing is much more enjoyable than its reputation suggests, with an unpretentious mid-'90s mid-budget action vibe.

–  If you're watching two sitcom stars bantering their way through what is the big break for both them and their fresh-from-MTV director, it's BAD BOYS (1995). If it's a baby-faced Sean Penn acting tough in a reform school drama directed by the guy who made HALLOWEEN II, you're watching BAD BOYS (1983).

–  If it's a neo-noir with Gene Hackman as a burned-out private investigator, featuring a young James Woods and an even younger Melanie Griffith, you're watching NIGHT MOVES (1975). But you're watching NIGHT MOVES (2013) if it's environmentalist Jesse Eisenberg and his eco-pals trying to blow up a dam.

–  If you're watching De Niro and Pacino on opposite sides of the law in Michael Mann's second-best film after MANHUNTER, it's HEAT (1995). If it's a Burt Reynolds vehicle but not one of those like CANNIBAL RUN where he's mostly in a vehicle, you're watching HEAT (1986).

–  If it's a more mainstream but still spooky offering from Sam Raimi, with a psychic white-trashy Cate Blanchet, you're watching THE GIFT (2000). But you're watching THE GIFT (2015) if it's a solid directorial debut from Aussie actor Joel Edgerton, also starring alongside an atypically assholish Jason Bateman.

–  If you're watching Tommy Lee Jones with a wobbly Irish accent running around Boston planting bombs while listening to U2 (because he's Irish, you see), it’s BLOWN AWAY (1994). If it's Coreys Haim and Feldman co-starring in yet another feature, this time an erotic (albeit not homoerotic) thriller, you're watching BLOWN AWAY (1992).

–  If it's Britney Spears delivering pretty much her entire acting career in one burst of coming-of-age road movie, you're watching CROSSROADS (2002). But you're watching CROSSROADS (1986) if it's Ralph Macchio putting his fast hands to use with blues guitar-playing instead of the Miyagi-do karate for which he's better known.

I think that's enough of those now.

I haven't watched the 1998 LAST NIGHT ... so far! But who knows what the future holds for Last Movie Reviews? Which means, I can't make a comparison in this case. But actually, the movie I would most readily compare LAST NIGHT 2010 to is ABOUT LAST NIGHT – in that it's concerned with what happened the previous evening, as opposed to what happens on the final evening ever.

(I had a vague memory of Kiera Knightly also starring in a movie that was like that, and it turns out I was right: SEEKING A FRIEND FOR THE END OF THE WORLD, with Steve Carell.)

Anyway, what happened last night in LAST NIGHT was that Keira and husband Sam seemed to be a happy couple: going to an event together, having fun. But both flirted with other guests and came home scowling. Then instead of going to bed happily, they had a fight. 

But the next day they wake up OK again. Sam goes away on business and bumps into his ex, who is at the same conference or whatever. Meanwhile, Keira bumps into her own ex back at home and goes out for dinner with him. The whole thing is kind of like those episodes of Love Island where the contestants' old flames are introduced to stir things up.

We spend the movie intercutting between the two pairs of former lovers. Will they? Won't they? Will one but not the other? Will neither and then the exes get together instead? Will everyone take a vow of celibacy, leading to an asexual anti-climax?

This tedium ... I mean, this tension is strung out through basically the entire runtime. Both Kiera and Sam do end up cheating, but neither confesses. And in the end they stay together and you know what? It's not the end of the world. It really isn't.

But the poor viewer ends up wishing that it had been.

Two stars out of five.

 

Valid use of the word ‘last’?  As well as being lazily similar to the Rob Lowe/Demi Moore movie mentioned above, it actually takes place over a couple of nights, not just one. Poor show, guys.

What would a movie called FIRST NIGHT be about?  Maybe call it FIRST M NIGHT and make it a documentary about Shyamalan’s forgotten debut movie, PRAYING WITH ANGER.

 

Previously:  THE LAST JOURNEY

Next time:  THE LAST ANGRY MAN

Check out my books:  Jonathanlastauthor.com

THE LAST JOURNEY (1936, Bernard Vorhaus)

 

* * 

A train driver is forced into early retirement, so decides to give his final passengers a journey they will never forget.

Starring  Godfrey Tearle, Hugh Williams, Judy Gunn, Mickey Brantford 

Written by  John Soutar, H Fowler Mear, Joseph Jefferson Farjeon

Produced by  Julius Hagen

Duration  66 minutes   

 

I don't know about you, but when I look up a new movie I always check out its running time.

This information creates certain expectations, and may even influence whether I watch it or not. In my younger days, I used to be against shorter flicks, feeling they offered less value. 

But I later came to respect a quickie, especially if it was the product of judicious editing and focused storytelling. And these days, there's more reason to be cynical about long movies, such as bloated summer blockbusters and overlong superhero movies.

As far as I'm concerned, these are the kinds of movies that should have certain lengths:

– 75-90 minutes = Low budget debuts, comedies and horrors. Examples: PRIMER, FOLLOWING, THIS IS SPINAL TAP, THE EVIL DEAD.

– 90-105 minutes = Still comedies and horrors, also tightly wound thrillers. Examples: ANNIE HALL, HALLOWEEN, SHALLOW GRAVE.

– 105-120 minutes = Fast-paced action movies, quirkier comedies, crowd-pleasing sci-fi, slower-burn horror. Examples: THE LAST BOY SCOUT, BEING JOHN MALKOVICH, PLANET OF THE APES (1968), THE SHINING.

– 120-135 minutes = More ambitious action movies, comedy dramas, procedural thrillers. Examples: LAST ACTION HERO, SIDEWAYS, MANHUNTER.

– 135-150 minutes = True crime tales, big-idea sci-fi, decades-spanning dramas, stories with multiple strands, mind-fuck dramas. Examples: GOODFELLAS, INCEPTION, ZODIAC, TRAFFIC, MULHOLLAND DRIVE.

– 150-175 minutes = Rise-and-fall character studies, crime epics, cerebral sci-fi, war movies. Examples: SCARFACE, HEAT, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN.

– 175-190 minutes = Proper, bum-numbing epics. Examples: THE DEER HUNTER, DANCES WITH WOLVES, TITANIC, BRAVEHEART.

– 190 minutes plus = You gotta be kidding me! Examples: LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA, BEN-HUR, KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON.

But wait, here we have THE LAST JOURNEY and it's only 66 minutes. I never anticipated that.

And hey, what actually qualifies as feature-film length, anyway? Gary Oldman-starring THE FIRM (the football hooligan one from 1989) was only 70 minutes, but that was a TV movie. 

Before that, you also had David Cronenberg's early efforts STEREO (1969) and CRIMES OF THE FUTURE (from 1970, not his unrelated 2022 one), running at 65 and 63 minutes respectively. But they are labelled as 'experimental', so does that count? Plus they feel at least twice as long when you actually try to sit through them (and this is coming from a Cronenberg fan).

According to Screenwritng.io:

 

A modern feature is typically between 80 and 180 minutes long, but different groups have different minimum lengths to be considered a feature.

The Screen Actors Guild definition sets the minimum length at 80 minutes, while AFI and BFI’s definitions call any film longer than 40 minutes a feature.

The Academy also uses the 40-minute benchmark to determine if a film is a feature or a short. The Sundance Film Festival sets the line at 50 minutes.

 

Alright, I guess that's cleared that up then? Thus onto THE LAST JOURNEY.

Firing the movie up, I expected one of two things to come to pass: either it would feel like a longer film condensed and rushed, or a short film dragged out too far and therefore sluggish.

It turned out to be something else, which I'll get to presently.

Bob the train driver is retiring, but is agitated and surly. He doesn't want to retire, but his railway bosses are making him.

His wife urges him to look on the bright side: he'll get to spend more time with her! "Never mind dear," she consoles him. "This is your home."

"My home is manning an engine," Bob grumbles.

Bob's final shift is tomorrow and he tosses and turns all night, muttering to himself about not being "finished" and that someone named 'Charlie' is "a fool".

Then it's morning and we meet a load of other characters, from all round London (zooming in and out of a map to show exactly where they are, in a nice touch). A young couple, con artists escaping one grift and planning their next; another couple just signing their marriage certificate; a doctor experimenting with hypnotism, who is called away to perform an urgent operation. All mention needing to catch the train – and no prizes for guessing who will be their driver as they leave Liverpool Street Station.

It started to feel like the start of a disaster movie: meeting the ensemble cast, getting to know and care about each one before tragedy strikes. Then trying to guess who will die first and in what way. Here, I surmised, it would have to be an out of control train, like a more populated version of Tony Scott's UNSTOPPABLE, or a 1930's version of LAST PASSENGER.

Well, it turns out I was right. Although no one actually dies.

The catalyst for the disaster is Bob. It turns out that this Charlie from his nightmares is his co-driver, with whom his wife has been having an affair while Bob's been neglecting her for a life on the rails. While meanwhile, his marriage has been going off the rails. Bob's finally clocked the truth and we see that he's brought a concealed revolver on board!

That introduces a bit of tension, but then the film gets distracted by several groups of passengers, swapping between them in their various train compartments. As well as the ones we met before boarding, there's also a sozzled Yorkshireman; a carriage full of unruly children; a stuttering elderly chap; a woman handing out flyers warning against the evils of drink; and a hypochondriac old lady. Some seem to know each other already, while others are not what they first appear. Oh, and the honeymooning bride's ex is chasing after the train across the country by car, determined to warn her that her new husband is not all he seems.

Meanwhile, Bob simmers with rage and barks allegations at Charlie, pushing the train beyond regulation speed and failing to stop at Filby, Great Yarmouth altogether. When he finally gets the truth out of his former friend, Bob declares that this is going to be the last journey for everyone. But, you know, I already mentioned that no one dies, so don't worry about it too much.

Structurally, what the movie does by being about a third shorter than is standard is to condense the conventional three movie acts into two. Specifically, it skips having a second act altogether. We get plenty of build-up and introductions, but instead of a succession of twists and turns, challenges and obstacles, and character development (otherwise known as 'the middle'), all the plot strands start getting tied up all of a sudden and the movie hurtles towards its abrupt end like a ... oh, I don't know, like an out-of-control train or something?

So, THE LAST JOURNEY ends up feeling a bit underdeveloped. It's missing something important in its centre, like an Oreo without the cream. Still nice enough, but ultimately lacking the full enjoyment that you know it should be giving you.

Two stars out of five.

 

Valid use of the word ‘last’?  In a remarkably pat ending, Bob has learnt to accept that his time on the trains is over and settles down into a nice quiet retirement with the wife. With, apparently, zero consequences for his dangerous rampage.

What would a movie called THE FIRST JOURNEY be about?  Bob has worked on the trains for 40 years, so it would have to be his first day on the job, which would be back in … holy shit, 1896. Way to straddle the centuries, Bob.

 

Previously:  THE LAST CASTLE

Next time:  LAST NIGHT

Check out my books:  Jonathanlastauthor.com