THE LAST AMERICAN HERO (1973, Lamont Johnson)

 

* * 

A man can drive cars real good. According to this movie, that is a heroic act.

Starring  Jeff Bridges, Valerie Perrine, Geraldine Fitzgerald, Gary Busey

Written by  William Roberts, William Kerby

Produced by  William Roberts, John Cutts

Duration  95 minutes

If I had been born with the surname 'American', which movies would I be reviewing for this blog?

Let's see, there's American ULTRA, GANGSTER, PIE (plus sequels), GRAFFITI, SNIPER, HUSTLER, BEAUTY, PSYCHO, DREAMZ, BUFFALO, HAUNTING, WET HOT SUMMER, GIGOLO, HISTORY X, NINJA (plus sequels), PRESIDENT, SPLENDOR ...

Or what about 'America' instead? I wonder if former Ugly Betty star America Ferrera needs a hobby? She could line up things like COMING TO AMERICA, MADE IN AMERICA, ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA ...

Of course, when a movie has a title like THE LAST AMERICAN HERO, using both 'last' and 'American', the point is moot. It's even happened once already.

One thing to get out the way is I don't approve of our current normalisation of the word 'hero', either in society or in movies. It's like the abuse of the word 'awesome'. Sunsets are awesome, the unfathomable hugeness of the universe is awesome. A new range of McDonald's burgers is not awesome. Neither is Jack Black voicing a panda who learns kung-fu. 

So, how is this movie using the word 'hero'? Is it sincere or is it sarcastic? Maybe it dodges the issue altogether?

Well, I can sum up its position in a word: driving. We open with Jeff Bridges driving – fast. Hurtling from the police like he's robbed a bank, but actually just because he likes to go very fast and since he's being chased is accelerating even faster to escape. Jeff's heading home to his cranky mama; he also has a brother, who's played by a young Gary Busey (aged 29; Bridges was a mere pup at 24). And right after pulling up at their ramshackle shack, having successfully outmaneuvered the copper, he's chirping at his family about 'supercharging' the thing that enables his driving: his car.

Now, I am not a car person. If heroism is going to be attributed to the ability to successfully manipulate an automobile, then I am unlikely to be impressed. And so it follows that I was not.

Next, there's driving. Yes, driving – more driving. And skidding! Though the woods, away from another cop car, at dusk (I think - it could have just been poorly lit). Jeff driving really fast while singing along to country music. There's more bloody driving even than in Bridges' other car movie, Francis Ford Coppola's TUCKER: THE MAN AND HIS DREAM. Vroom-vroom.

Now, THE LAST AMERICAN HERO is based on an article by Tom Wolfe, about real-life speed-freak Junior Jackson. It was Wolfe who dubbed Jackson an 'American hero'. (Although it could have been a hyperbolic sub-editor.) And having now sat through the whole film, I'm still struggling to pin down what it is that makes this brash moron a hero, however thin the definition of the word may be today.

Beyond the automobile action, there is a plot. Jackson's papa gets banged up for distilling moonshine. Junior then stumbles into supporting the family with his four-wheeled talents: first in a demolition derby, then by winning races against other cars going around in a big circle while spectators stand on the roofs of their trailers hollering, formally known as NASCAR.

Look, it's definitely good that he goes off to earn money for the family, what with their breadwinner locked up and all. But wouldn't it have helped even more if he'd already been gainfully employed before disaster struck? I do think that heroism takes a little more than supporting your loved ones with your income. That's just called 'earning a living' and 'being a responsible adult'.

But actual displays of heroism? I was kept waiting. Would he drive his car into a burning building to rescue the inhabitants? Would he donate his winnings to rebuild an orphanage that was bombed during a genocide?

No. Nothing like that. He just wins a couple of races.

It's strange seeing actors like Bridges and Busey, now so firmly ingrained as cranky old guys, as 20-somethings. Then again, some actors seem like they were never young in the first place: your Gene Hackmans and Morgan Freemans and Lance Henricksens. But beyond that mild point of interest, and a few amusing putdowns uttered by Junior to various dimwitted hicks (usually prefixed or suffixed with the word 'boy'), THE LAST AMERICAN SO-CALLED HERO never gripped me – or, I guess I should say, got under my bonnet or injected my fuel or ... whatever.

And as far as movies based on magazine articles go, I prefer TOP GUN, BOOGIE NIGHTS, DOG DAY AFTERNOON, THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS, THE INSIDER ... Even THE BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES (also from the writings of Tom Wolfe) boasted one of those great extended Brian de Palma takes.

Two stars out of five.

Valid use of the word ‘last’?  Hard to quantify, since I'm disputing the use of the word 'hero' altogether.

What would a movie called THE FIRST AMERICAN HERO be about?  George Washington?

Previously:  HITLER: THE LAST TEN DAYS

Next time:  THE LAST SHIFT

Check out my books:  Jonathanlastauthor.com

HITLER: THE LAST TEN DAYS (1973, Ennio De Concini)

 

* * 

It's time to hunker in the Führerbunker. The end is nigh and Adolf's facing it 30 feet underground.

Starring  Alec Guinness, Simon Ward, Adolfo Celi, Diane Cilento, Gabriele Ferzetti

Written by  Gerhard Boldt, Ennio De Concini, Maria Pia Fusco, Ivan Moffat, Wolfgang Reinhardt   

Produced by  Wolfgang Reinhardt

Duration  105 minutes   

 

I don’t know about you, but when I watch a movie about an historical figure, I'm hoping to find something out about them. Which, sure enough, invariably happens. But not always to a satisfactory degree.

Biopics can be notoriously loose with the ol' facts. A common inaccuracy is to skim over less savoury aspects of the subject's life so as to paint them in a better light. This sometimes comes at the behest of surviving family members – look out for a familiar surname in the credits. Or the truth may have been bent for purely narrative reasons: conflating events, combining characters, fiddling with the timeline, that sort of thing.

This of course assumes that you are covering the person's whole life, like in a GANDHI or a RAY – an approach so memorably parodied in WALK HARD: THE DEWEY COX STORY. With such a long period to trawl though, it's no surprise that these kinds of projects end up relying heavily on montages. But sometimes they go too far, making the whole movie seem like a trailer, only giving shallow insight into the subject matter. I'm thinking of Baz Luhrmann's off-puttingly hyperactive ELVIS, which frustrated me to the point of actually turning it off. (A rare movie that feels like a feature-length trailer but actually pulls it off is GOODFELLAS.)

A more popular biopic tactic in recent years has been to home in on a significant event in the protagonist's life, like with Winston Churchill in THE DARKEST HOUR. Churchill's refusal to seek a peace treaty with the Nazis in 1940 was a microcosm of his overall character, making sense as a focus for the man at large.

And so to the movie we have here, concerning Winston's old WWII adversary. Judging by that title, HITLER: THE LAST TEN DAYS is clearly going to be taking the snapshot approach. And you've got to think: well, of course that's what they did. What else could they have done? A cradle-to-grave examination inevitably humanises the subject by looking at the childhood reasons behind an adult's actions. Has there ever been a Hitler movie like this? Could (or indeed should) there ever be?

Many an actor has played him, but no one to my knowledge has given Adolf the straight-up, decades-spanning, warts-and-all Mahatma Gandhi/Ray Charles treatment.

Let's see, there's been:

Charlie Chaplin – THE GREAT DICTATOR (1940): A parody, in which Chaplin calls himself 'Adenoid Hynkel'. Also, it was released when the Second World War was still raging on (just like CASABLANCA was).

Anthony Hopkins – THE BUNKER (1981): Seemingly shares the exact same concept as LAST TEN DAYS.

Ian McKellen – COUNTDOWN TO WAR (1989): Recounts the events between the Nazis invading Czechoslovakia and the UK declaring war on Germany. So, another contained period, albeit longer (six months) and earlier (the start of the war, instead of the end).

Steven Berkoff – War and Remembrance (TV) (1989): Starts in December 1941 and ends in August 1945, so spanning four years. But Hitler isn't the focus; he just pops up here and there while we follow the fortunes of an American family during the war.

Robert Carlyle – Hitler: The Rise of Evil (TV) (2003): Would seem to be the one exception here, starting as it does in 1899 with Adolf as barely a (Hitler) youth. However, it ends in 1934, when he's just come to power, stopping short of showing what he ends up actually doing with that power.

Bruno Ganz – DOWNFALL (2004): This one definitely has the exact same setup as LAST TEN DAYS – and I've actually seen it! Plus we've all seen the meme-worthy clips of Ganz' ranting performance.

Taika Waititi – JOJO RABBIT (2019): Another parody. I would have watched this one too, if Waititi hadn't irritated me so much in FREE GUY that I've avoided him ever since.

So then, here we have THE LAST TEN DAYS. Do we learn much about Hitler this time round? Well, not really, I'm afraid.

Playing the famous dictator this time is Sir Alec Guinness. He still has that familiar STAR WARS/BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI voice – this is one of those movies where everyone speaks in English and with their native accent.

We do get a bit of general backstory at the beginning, for anyone who was asleep during GCSE History. Hitler's rise to power, National Socialism, WWII, Germany's ultimate defeat. The expository voiceover is by someone who sounds like Guinness, which is a little confusing, as I don't think it's supposed to be Adolf reminiscing from beyond the grave. 

Then we're swiftly down into the Führerbunker, where we stay for the duration.

Now, one imagines being stuck underground in the 1940s would be kind of dull. And so it proves, with LAST TEN DAYS failing to make the tedium in any way compelling. I was reminded of Sam Mendes's JARHEAD. That was a war film about soldiers who don't see any action and so get bored and frustrated; unfortunately, Mendes made the experience of watching this happening very boring and frustrating.

What happens down in the bunker? Well, the Nazis have regular meetings where they confirm that the Allies are still moving closer and so they are pretty much fucked.

Adolf celebrates his 56th birthday, and we are treated to the tyrant grinning with glee as a parade of deferential soldiers and womenfolk hand him gifts. There are children down in this bunker, but der Führer is the biggest kid of all. Bless.

There are lots of scenes of people talking about battles going on elsewhere, out of sight. Which, again: kind of boring. The guy who plays the caretaker in THE SHINING and the dad in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE is in there; so is Joss Ackland of LETHAL WEAPON 2 and BILL AND TED'S BOGUS JOURNEY fame. So that's nice.

And of course Adolf rants and raves now and again, like he's still at the Nuremberg rally. He also reveals a humbler side, declaring, "I'm not Jesus Christ," before swiftly adding, "a genius yes – but Christ? Not quite."

My verdict for if you want to find out about the real character or life of Adolf Hitler? Stick to The History Channel or whatever.

Two out of five stars.

Valid use of the word ‘last’?  Can't argue on this occasion, although the glacial pace makes it feel like 100 days rather than only a week and a half.

What would a movie called HITLER: THE FIRST TEN DAYS be about? Unless he was some kind of blatantly evil, Damian-from-THE-OMEN devil-child, probably nothing very interesting. 

Previously:  INSIDIOUS: THE LAST KEY

Next time:  THE LAST AMERICAN HERO

Check out my books:  Jonathanlastauthor.com

INSIDIOUS: THE LAST KEY (2018, Adam Robitel)

 

* * * 

Medium Elise Rainier lends her particular set of skills to another poltergeist scenario – and gets maximum trouble for her efforts.

Starring  Lin Shaye, Angus Sampson, Leigh Whannell, Spencer Locke, Caitlin Gerard, Bruce Davison

Written by  Leigh Whannell   

Produced by  Jason Blum, Oren Peli, James Wan, Leigh Whannell

Duration  104 minutes

 

Sometime in 2026 will see the release of THREAD: AN INSIDIOUS TALE, a spin-off of the INSIDIOUS film series. Meanwhile, a crossover of INSIDIOUS and SINISTER, both properties of Blumhouse Productions, has long been rumoured.

I can't help thinking that spinning-off or crossing-over (over-crossing?) has, over the years, tended to be more of a TV thing. The most famous small screen example has to be Frasier, coming from Cheers. But the tradition goes back a lot further. Happy Days, for example, birthed no less than six other shows, to varying degrees of success. Indeed, the spin-off matching the popularity of its originator is far from guaranteed: hit Friends begat dud Joey; Baywatch Nights was no Baywatch. And then of course you have all the myriad incarnations of CSI and NCIS – the latter already being a spin-off of Naval drama JAG.

Movie spin-offs used to be less common, although of course are increasingly so these days, owing to the superhero boom. 1978's SUPERMAN led (eventually) to SUPERGIRL in 1984, but the less said about that the better. More recently, FURIOSA was "a MAD MAX saga"; THIS IS 40 served as only a "sort-of sequel" to KNOCKED UP; US MARSHALLS followed the antagonist from THE FUGITIVE, rather than the hero; the CREED movies spawned off from ROCKY.

Crossovers, meanwhile, have historically tended to be Universal/Hammer horror pictures, with various monsters or monster hunters popping up in each other's films. GODZILLA and KING KONG are keeping this tradition alive today, as FREDDY VS JASON did with a two different monsters a couple of decades ago.

Meanwhile, what we have here is actually the fourth film in the 'main' INSIDIOUS series. Although, wait a sec, it's actually the second chronologically, since the third one was a prequel to the second one, and so THE LAST KEY takes place somewhere between the third and first ones. Glad we cleared that up. Hey, at least it's not as complicated as those CONJURING movies, which have so many instalments and spin-offs (the NUN films, the ANNABELLE films) that they've earned the term 'shared universe', previously only the domain of comic book movies.

Anyway, THE LAST KEY opens on a creepy prison in 1950s' New Mexico. Creepier still is a little girl, Elise, daughter of the warden – the family live in a house onsite, like caretakers in a school, or that Nazi family in THE ZONE OF INTEREST. Elise knows when someone's getting a blast from the electric chair next door, and not through the lights blinking on and off like you'd expect – early points for not using that hackneyed trope, by the way.

Her mother recognises that Elise has a gift and reassures her; pop is less open-minded, preferring the approach of beating her and locking her in the cellar. But Mom doesn't realise the extent of the girl's abilities: Elise doesn't just sense that a criminal has passed, she's actually then visited by their ghost. And boy do they love to congregate in that basement and make themselves known to the poor, terrified girl.

Such childhood trauma shapes Elise into eventually becoming seventy-something Lin Shaye – this franchise's MVP, having appeared in every instalment. Shaye is the one who can genuinely see spirits in a paranormal investigation team that also comprises two whacky, nerdy colleagues: Tucker (Angus Sampson, long hair and beard) and Specs (Leigh Whannell, wearer of specs, and also sometime INSIDIOUS director and/or writer).

When the team are summoned to Elise's old home by the current owner to deal with some demons, it's Elise who has to confront her own demons – from her past. (She also has to confront plenty of current demons, too; by which of course I mean those who are currently haunting the house in the present day.)

Now, I had seen this movie before. Also definitely the first two, and probably the third – I can't be sure, but it seems inconceivable that I would skip an entry. Anyway, I remember liking it well enough, but there's since been a fifth, THE RED DOOR, directed by early franchise star Patrick Wilson, and it hasn't crossed my radar to watch that one. I couldn't remember why I'd bowed out at this stage of the franchise, but rewatching THE LAST KEY it soon became clear.

"She's psychic; we're sidekicks," is how Tucker introduces the team to their new client, with a rehearsed delivery modelled on one of those melodramatic movie trailer voiceovers. It of course falls flat; just another zany quirk from the goofy geeks who lug around all the infrared cameras and sound equipment. They also embarrass themselves in their attempts to flirt with the local girls, exchange cringeworthy banter while studying grainy monitors in the dark, etc.

Yes, this is one of those horror movies that feels it must balance the scares with some shoe-horned in comic relief. This tends to be a huge turn-off for me: I felt that Joran Peele's universally lauded GET OUT was derailed by Daniel Kaluuya's comedy best friend's efforts to track him down. Similarly, David Gordon Green's HALLOWEEN trilogy too often undercut its tension with cheap laughs. And what do these two films have in common? Filmmakers with a background in comedy.

Director Adam Robitel doesn't have that excuse here. But, in fact, I was pleasantly surprised when watching this time to find that the film actually survives its tonal mishmash. Our pals Tucker and Specs don't manage to fatally unbalance the creepiness, and the sincere efforts of classy veteran Shaye stop it from ever wobbling completely off the tracks.

INSIDIOUS: THE LAST KEY ends up being a spooky good time. If you ever come across it on a late-night streaming browse, you could do much worse. And if I'm ever flicking through one of those same lists and coming across part five, I can see myself hitting 'OK' on the remote. Probably.

Three stars out of five. 

 

Valid use of the word ‘last’?  It’s less about a key, more a demon called ‘Keyface’. Which is scarier than it sounds. Also, the house is in Five Keys, Mexico. So I guess, technically … no?

What would a movie called THE FIRST KEY be about?  “Theodorus of Samos in the 6th century BC invented the first key, according to Pliny the Elder.” So says City Security (“The magazine to improve your security know-how”) – and who are we to disagree with them? Or, indeed, your man Pliny?

 

Previously:  THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND

Next time:  HITLER: THE LAST TEN DAYS

Check out my books:  Jonathanlastauthor.com

THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND (2006, Kevin Macdonald)

 

* * * * 

When a restless young Scottish doctor takes a job in Uganda, he finds himself embroiled in the reign of dictator Idi Amin.

Starring  Forest Whitaker, James McAvoy, Kerry Washington, Simon McBurney, Gillian Anderson  

Written by  Peter Morgan, Jeremy Brock

Produced by  Charles Steel, Lisa Bryer, Andrea Calderwood   

Duration  123 minutes   

 

William Friedkin (THE EXORCIST, THE FRENCH CONNECTION) and Paul Greengrass (THE BOURNE SUPREMACY, CAPTAIN PHILIPS) started out directing documentaries, before pivoting to features. Martin Scorsese and Werner Herzog are thought of as narrative guys first and foremost, but still make docus as well.

Some directors, meanwhile, like to blend documentary and fiction at the same time, overlaying a story onto the real lives of non-actors. Steven Soderbergh tried this with BUBBLE; other filmmakers make it their modus operandi, like Harmony Korine (GUMMO, BABY INVASION), Chloe Zhao (THE RIDER, NOMADLAND) and many of recent ANORA Oscar-winner Sean Baker's movies: famously THE FLORIDA PROJECT and RED ROCKET, but also his early efforts like TAKE OUT and PRINCE OF BROOKLYN.

Todd Haynes is an interesting one. He made I’M NOT THERE, ostensibly a biopic of Bob Dylan, but one that cast six multi-gendered actors to portray the musician. Before that, Haynes had made VELVET GOLDMINE, set in glam rock's heyday but following fictional rockers, rather than the Velvet Underground themselves. And then, 20 years later, he went and made a straight-up documentary named THE VELVET UNDERGROUND, which was explicitly about the band!

Then you have those filmmakers who are making pure fiction, but want it to be as realistic as possible. Like the abovementioned Greengrass or Michael Mann (in particular with THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS.)

All of this is to say that the lines between fiction and real life, between depiction and dramatization, and between biopic and inspiration, can be pretty vague.

THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND's Kevin Macdonald is one of those director who started out in non-fiction and then pivoted to feature narratives (although, like Scorsese and Herzog, he does dip his toe back into the documentary waters from time to time). When he moved into narrative feature-making, it was with TOUCHING THE VOID, a docudrama about the near-fatal exploits of two mountain climbers. Now, let’s look a little closer at that genre classification, 'docudrama'. It’s a documentary, and it’s also a drama. It’s a reconstruction, but is it also a dramatization? Inevitably to a degree, but presumably drama-ed up as little as possible.

Interestingly, TOUCHING THE VOID has no screenplay credit. It mentions Joe Simpson, the climber who wrote the book that inspired the film, but not with an adaptation credit, just a mention of him being the book's author. Suggesting that there was no screenplay! But surely Macdonald didn’t drag hundreds of cast and crew up a mountain with a copy of the paperback and then flick through the pages telling them to act bits out on the spot?

What's irrefutable is that the goal with VOID was authenticity – to put us alongside the climbers as if we were there during their ordeal. However, when it came to Macdonald’s next film, THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND, things got a little more complicated.

Here, we have another true story. At least, kind of. The central figure is real-life Ugandan army commander Idi Amin, who did indeed overthrow the president in a 1971 coup d’etat. Amin was the subject of a 1998 novel of the same name by journalist Giles Foden, who was not in Uganda at the time. The novel was then adapted by acclaimed screenwriters Peter Morgan and Jeremy Brock, both of whom have CVs littered with fictionalized accounts of real-life people: THE QUEEN, FROST/NIXON and THE DAMNED UNITED, and MRS BROWN, I AM A SLAVE and DIANA AND I, respectively. To further complicate matters, their screenplay is described as 'considerably different' to its literary source.

THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND isn’t a biopic of Amin; he’s not even the main character. An early caption tells us "This film is inspired by real people and events", and then we open with our actual protagonist: James McAvoy as newly qualified doctor Nicholas. It's 1970 and his dad wants him to practice at home in boring old Scotland, but instead eager-for-adventure Nicholas spins his bedside globe and pokes his finger on Uganda.

He jumps on a plane to East Africa to join up with another white doctor and his wife, played by Gillian Anderson – trying out her Mrs Thatcher English accent years before The Crown. Before long, Nicholas is doling out injections to the villagers, playing street football in the dust, that sort of thing.  "You've certainly come at an interesting time," Anderson remarks: Amin's coup has literally just taken place. And soon the new prez is visiting their village, proving to be a charming and popular figure, orating a lot of propaganda about what he's going to do for Uganda. Anderson is sceptical, since the deposed president said the same things  – and turned out to be totally corrupt. Ominous.

Nicholas soon gets a chance to find out first-hand the truth behind the rhetoric. During a chance encounter on the road, Amin is impressed both by the medical assistance he receives from Nicholas and by how the young man grabs his handgun and pumps two .45 calibre rounds into a dying cow. Plus he has a thing for Scots, for some reason. And so the usurping general invites Nicholas be his personal physician.

This is a 'seduced by charismatic evil' movie. Nicholas is taken under Amin's wing, and is at first happy about his swanky apartment, vintage company car and elevated status. He defends Amin against people who doubt his benevolence, such as Simon McBurney's English Foreign Office correspondent. But Nicholas soon realises that his new boss is, in fact, a paranoid, philandering despot, with a hair-trigger temper from which even those closest to him aren't safe. Nicholas's life in Uganda spirals out of control, to the point that it comes down to kill or be killed. So, worse even than the streets of 1970s Glasgow.

Forest Whitaker famously won a Best Actor Oscar for playing Amid, in a rare case of award recognition for an established character actor. It was well-deserved, and Whitaker's ably matched by McAvoy, who puts in a star-making turn as the idealist hardened and changed by harsh reality.

However close THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND may be to what really happened in Uganda 50 years ago, it tells a story that's well worth your two hours. And that's the only kind of truth necessary, as far as I'm concerned.

Four stars out of five.

Valid use of the word ‘last’?  The actual last monarch of Scotland, as opposed to Great Britain as a whole, was Queen Anne (1702 to 1707).

What would a movie called THE FIRST KING OF SCOTLAND be about?  BRAVEHEART? I reckon?

 

Previously:  THE LAST ANGRY MAN

Next time:  INSIDIOUS: THE LAST KEY

Check out my books:  Jonathanlastauthor.com

THE LAST ANGRY MAN (1959, Daniel Mann)

 

* * * * 

A cantankerous New York City doctor unwittingly becomes the first ever reality TV star.

Starring  Paul Muni, David Wayne, Betsy Palmer, Luther Adler, Claudia McNeil, Joby Baker

Written by  Gerald Green

Produced by  Fred Kohlmar

Duration  100 minutes

 

 

In 1998, a new sitcom aired on BBC 2 called The Royle Family. Written by two of its stars, it centred around the everyday lives of a 'normal' working class family in the North of England.

This sitcom was a little different. Not only did the action mostly take place in the Royles' house, we hardly ever left the living room, where the family would chat while lounging around watching television.

Critics rounded on the concept. Who on Earth is going to sit watching their telly when all it's showing is people sat watching their own telly? Nevertheless, The Royle Family was a big hit. Being well-written, funny and having a talented cast certainly helped.

Fast-forward to 2013. Channel 4 introduces a new reality show named Gogglebox (an antiquated British term for the television). In this show, which is still going strong today, 'normal' people sit around watching TV and making comments while we watch them from the television's POV. Much like The Royle Family, the viewer feels like a fly on the wall; or, more accurately, a fly that's landed on the TV screen and sits there staring out at the viewers.

But there are three key differences between The Royle Family and Gogglebox. The first is that we cut between clips of the shows (or movies or documentaries or news broadcasts) they've been watching and the goggleboxers' quippy, allegedly spontaneous reactions. Secondly, we visit multiple households, as if we ourselves are channel surfing. (Which is a good thing to start doing whenever Gogglebox comes on, but I digress.)

It's the third difference that's the most crucial. Gogglebox is not well-written or funny and the people on it are not gifted comedic actors. They're obnoxious, witless and charmless, offering only banal and trite observations, delivering these non-insights in ways that seem designed to be as annoying as possible.

Gogglebox is a clear low point in popular culture. Its existence suggests a reverse-evolution theory for the human race. Obviously, reality TV is always garbage. But Googlebox is garbage that's been left out in the sun for several weeks.

But what kicked off the journey that led us to this nadir of nadirs? I don't mean what was the first reality show; that was probably MTV's The Real World in 1992. I mean, who was the first to speculate that perhaps there could even be a beast as hideous as reality TV?

Previously, I'd believed that it was Albert Brooks, with his brilliant 1979 satire REAL LIFE. But now I'm thinking that maybe the first artistic work to propose the reality concept was actually 1959's THE LAST ANGRY MAN.

In his final screen performance, former SCARFACE Paul Muni plays grouchy but dedicated neighbourhood GP Dr Sam Abelman. A pair of local hoodlums trust him enough to drop their injured ladyfriend on the doorstep of his Brooklyn brownstone in the early hours one morning. The neighbours get out of bed to watch the doc be surly ("You still owe me for your father's hernia operation!") while at the same time acting as the beating heart of the community. He clearly cares for all who cross his threshold – no matter the hour, affliction or the patient's capacity to pay.

The next day, we meet a television producer with the painful-sounding name of Woody Thrasher (David Wayne, THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN). Woody is desperate to thrash out a fresh angle for the TV show he's been pitching to his higher ups, and is intrigued when he reads an article doc Abelman's reporter nephew has published about last night's doorstep drama.

He tracks the good doctor down and proposes that he be the subject of a new programme. "Live television, from your house!" Thrasher gushes. "We'd visit with you – your family, your patients."

In the best hero's journey refusal-of-the-call tradition, Abelman won't play ball. But luckily, his enterprising nephew can better smell the opportunity and is determined to make a TV show with his 'Uncle Doc' happen.

Back in the TV station's offices, we get a flavour of how Thrasher wants his show – named Americans, USA – to play out. "Real people doing real things," he tells his boss. "Useful, dramatic lives! People whose every waking minute is drama!"

Ol' Thrash is a career man, but he seems honest enough. He's drawn to Abelman's passion, the man's integrity and dedication. He genuinely thinks that this physician will make great TV. But his paymasters, the studio's sponsor Gattling Pharmaceutical, instead see a chance to peddle their drugs using the eccentric but trusted medicine man as a vessel. Thrasher feels uneasy, but is pragmatic and moves forward with the plan.

So into Doc Abelman's home come the director and his crew, along with their '50s-era cameras and audio equipment. Thrasher has to explain to the family and sick people that they aren't playing parts or expected to act, but that they should just be who they are and do what they usually do. This is definitely an alien concept for everyone involved – including the movie's 1950s audience. 

As a result, and through no fault of its own, THE LAST ANGRY MAN is pretty slow and laboured in its set-up. It reminded me of when you read a classic novel like Dracula or The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde and have to patiently wade though pages of people speculating about exactly what this strange new creature could possibly be.

When they get to the actual filming, it doesn't look much different to a standard TV programme. There's blocking, sound checks, multiple cameras, retakes ... it's really more like a news broadcast. There's little attempt to lead the subject, and a presenter fronts the action, interviewing Abelman and then talking straight to camera. They don't just start rolling and let the events unfurl. But at the same time, there isn't any of the selective editing or participant manipulation that we've come to expect from the modern reality genre.

Anyway, Americans, USA has barely been on air five minutes before the good doctor is going off script and badmouthing the pharmaceutical companies he's supposed to be praising, calling them peddlers of unnecessary medicines who are only concerned with lining their own pockets. Which doesn't go down well. Gattling Pharmaceutical wanted someone on TV who's 'real'; Dr Abelman is just too damn real!

And when Thrasher's conscience catches up with him and he warns the doc to change his tune or the network pulls the plug, which would deny Abelman the spoils coming his way (the network promised him a new house as payment), the principled GP tells the TV man to stuff his programme, and the same to all the 'galoots' who are behind it.

The movie turns out not to be a satire, which of course I never expected – how can you satirise reality TV before it's even been established? In the end, THE LAST ANGRY MAN is less about reality vs fiction and the mechanics of television than it is a two-hander between Muni and Wayne, playing a pair of very different men who learn a lot from each other and both grow as a consequence. I liked it.

Which is just as well, because if I'd've come away having drawn a direct line between it and Gogglebox, we'd be talking about Last Movie Reviews' first zero-star verdict. Maybe minus stars.

Four stars out of five.

Valid use of the word ‘last’?  Our principled doc does seem to represent a dying breed, in the face of the unethical standards of TV and his fame-hungry nephew. So, he's the last something.

What would a movie called THE FIRST ANGRY MAN be about?  In terms of the most angry man, also in a movie that's also about television, you'd have to go for Peter Finch as derenged broadcaster Howard Beale in NETWORK (1976).

 

Previously:  LAST NIGHT

Next time:  THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND 

Check out my books:  Jonathanlastauthor.com

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