LAST DANCE (1996, Bruce Beresford)

 

* * * 

A woman on death row sees a chance for clemency when a new lawyer takes on her case.

Starring  Sharon Stone, Rob Morrow, Randy Quaid, Peter Gallagher, Jack Thompson

Written by  Steven Haft, Ron Koslow

Produced by  Steven Haft

Duration  103 minutes  

 

Watching LAST DANCE forces the viewer to confront a question cinephiles have grappled with for three decades. Is Sharon Stone a good actor?

Stone seemed to burst out of nowhere, aged 33, when she played Catherine Tramell in BASIC INSTINCT (1992). But really she'd been around for ages, beavering away in movies of varying quality until getting her big break.

There was Wes Craven's Hittite horror DEADLY BLESSING (1981); Drew Barrymore emancipation drama IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES (1984); INDIANA JONES knock-off KING SOLOMON'S MINES (1985) (and its sequel); POLICE ACADEMY 4: CITIZENS ON PATROL (1987), which was so bad it pushed Steve Guttenberg out of the franchise; ABOVE THE LAW (1988), which made Steven Seagal a star; and ACTION JACKSON (also 1988), which failed to do the same for Carl Weathers.

Then BASIC INSTINCT made Stone big; so big that the makers of 1994's THE FLINTSTONES movie wrote a part for her called 'Sharon Stone'. She turned this prehistoric payday down, perhaps not wanting to become a parody of herself, although she hadn't minded popping up as Tramell in LAST ACTION HERO.

Reflecting on casting the part that made her famous, director Paul Verhoeven noted Stone's ability to turn on a dime from vulnerable to vixen, citing her performance for him as the duplicitous fake-wife in TOTAL RECALL. Personally, I love BASIC INSTINCT, with all its sleazy insanity and mile-wide plot holes (two words: forensic evidence). It's the ultra-graphic version of FRENZY Alfred Hitchcock wishes he'd been allowed to make. And I especially value it for Stone, who gives one of the most underrated performances of the 1990s. But was it a one-off?

Unfortunately, Stone is often only remembered for that legs-uncrossing scene. And it's likely that this overt sexuality has taken attention away from her craft. For instance, when she got Oscar-nominated for 1995's CASINO, her achievement was rarely referenced without mention of all the glitzy outfits she adorned throughout the three-hour Vegas mob epic. (To be fair, the colourful suits Robert De Niro wore were also often commented upon.)

But nevertheless, Stone never again reached the heights of her Verhoeven or Scorsese pictures. Other than in those, it's fair to say she's been pretty forgettable. And occasionally, downright regrettable – I'm thinking of the ill-judged BASIC INSTINCT 2: RISK ADDICTION, or her unintentionally hilarious fat-suited turn in ALPHA DOG.

LAST DANCE, meanwhile, is most remembered (if it's remembered at all, which I'm sure it's not) as wilting in the awards-lavished shadow of the similar DEAD MAN WALKING. In fact, it made even less money than the death penalty movie that came straight after it, John Grisham adaptation THE CHAMBER.

But despite the box office underperformance, could it be that LAST DANCE is Sharon Stone's overlooked masterpiece of cinematic acting?

The movie was her follow-up to CASINO and a clear attempt to 'de-glam', after not only that film but other sexy roles like SLIVER, THE SPECIALIST and DIABOLIQUE.

In this one, Stone's Cindy Liggett is spoken about for a good 15 minutes before she's even shown in the flesh. We just get photos in Cindy's case file, and not only of her but of her crime: she's on death row for a brutal double murder.

Our entry into Cindy's world comes via Rob Morrow's inexperienced lawyer. Morrow, fresh from six moose-bothering seasons of Northern Exposure, receives Stone as a by-the-numbers case, scheduled for lethal injection in 30 days, no interest in parole from either the state or herself.

But the more Morrow burrows, the more he becomes convinced that Cindy is ... not innocent, but the victim of a mishandled case that has left her unfairly facing the chair. (I'm aware that they don't actually use the electric chair anymore, but presumably when they lethally inject you, they're nice enough to let you sit down?) But his bosses don't want him to dig too deep and pressure him to leave well alone.

Stone is definitely as unglamorous as we've ever seen her. It's the hair, a dirty copper-brown. It's the accent, from somewhere deep south. It's the lack of makeup and baggy prison clothes. And especially it's her blunt, charmless character. Granted, she's not quite Charlize Theron in MONSTER. But it's close.

As well as presenting an un-glitzed version of its leading lady, LAST DANCE grapples with issues. Are some people on death row who shouldn't be? Should there be a death row? Why is it even called a 'row'? Some or possibly none of these matters are explored during the film's running time.

To be honest – and stop me if you can tell – LAST DANCE never really gripped me. I don't remember much about DEAD MAN WALKING, but I'm sure it was better than this. (THE CHAMBER I can't recall whether I've seen or not, although I did read the book and thought it a lesser Grisham, certainly no Rainmaker or Firm or Time To Kill.) There's not much wrong with LAST DANCE, it's just kind of ... there.

Mid-movie, I started to wonder whether this should have been the actual BASIC INSTINCT 2. Catherine Tramell has been caught and convicted, awaiting corporal punishment for her multiple homicides. Stone could do her black widow thing on Morrow, manipulating him into busting her out. But then when they go on the run together (stopping off now and then for kinky motel-room romps), he can't be sure if she's going to stab him with an icepick next. But he keeps on shagging her silly all the same. It could even feature Michael Douglas's character from the first one in a cameo, giving evidence via video link from a home for retired sex-addicted cops.

As to the issue of Sharon Stone's acting talent? The jury's still out. But the appeal has been lodged. And the court is in session. And, um ... well, you get the idea with that one.

Three stars out of five.

 

 

Valid use of the word ‘last’?  She ain't dancing no more – tango or otherwise. Oh, and it turns out they have you lying down when they administer the lethal injection, not sitting in a chair. But 'get the gurney' doesn't have the same ring to it.

What would a movie called FIRST DANCE be about?  Maybe yet another alternate universe BASIC INSTINCT sequel. It begins with a wedding, but ends ... with a massacre!

 

Previously:  THE LAST DAYS ON MARS

Next time:  THE LAST MOVIE

Check out my books:  Jonathanlastauthor.com

THE LAST SHIFT (2020, Andrew Cohn)

 

* * * 

Old meets young across the griddle; burgers are served and lessons are learned.

Starring  Richard Jenkins, Shane Paul McGhie, Da’Vine Joy Randolph, Ed O’Neill

Written by  Andrew Cohn

Produced by  Albert Berger, Ron Yerxa, Sam Bisbee, Alex Lipschultz, Bert Kern  

Duration  90 minutes

THE LAST SHIFT stars Richard Jenkins. Films do not usually star Richard Jenkins. This is despite Jenkins being a professional actor who mostly acts in feature films. 

Have you ever recognised an actor from multiple films whose name escapes you? That's a character actor. 'That guy from' or 'that woman who was in'.

Sometimes, character actors do get leading roles. Two of the greatest, Paul Giamatti and Jeffrey Wright, were nominated in the Best Actor category (rather than Supporting) at the 2024 Academy Awards, for THE HOLDOVERS and AMERICAN FICTION. In the end, OPPENHEIMER's Cillian Murphy went home with the statue – not usually a headliner himself, unless you count the overrated Peaky Blinders on TV. And back in 2007, undisputed supporting player royalty Forest Whitaker also won as a headliner.

So what happens when character actors get leading success? Do they see it as an opportunity to break out, or are they happy to go right back to low billings? Is character acting a choice or were they forced into it because they aren't 'traditional leading material' – AKA not good looking enough? Conversely, some conventionally attractive performers have been described as character actors in a lead actor's skin. They mostly skew the usual romcoms or action hero parts for quirkier fare, more stretching roles, working with auteur directors. Brad Pitt comes to mind, as does Robert Pattinson.

Richard Jenkins, meanwhile, may be the ultimate character actor. The male example, at least – Bojack Horseman made a compelling case for recurring guest star 'Character Actress Margo Martindale'.

Jenkins is certainly one of my favourite character actors. Being lesser-known doesn't mean these performers can't have memorable roles; take Jenkins' sad-sack gym manager in BURN AFTER READING. As the only likable person among a gang of selfish oddballs, his unrequited pining for the vacuous Frances McDormand is particularly heart-breaking amongst the movie's nihilistic zaniness.

In THE LAST SHIFT, Jenkins' role is one all character actors end up with eventually: the elderly mentor. Having worked most of his life at a 24-hour fast-food joint, his Stanley is finally on his way out, due to retire down to Florida to take care of his ailing mother.

Into Stanley's life comes Shane Paul McGhie's 20-something Jevon, recently paroled and trying to get back on the straight and narrow to support his new-born baby and exasperated girlfriend.

Stan is proud to have held down his job for 40 years, no matter how menial a life flipping burgers may have been. Jevon, in contrast, has bounced from job to job but is no layabout: he's a writer who dwells on workers' rights, race, privilege and more besides. As they spend the long night shifts chatting away, these two opposites start to get to know – and appreciate – each other.

It sounds corny and the film is admittedly slight. But it works as a drama, light on cliché and strong on performance. Not just Jenkins (natch) but also McGhie as his young foil.

THE LAST SHIFT is not subtle about portraying Jenkins as a loser in time-honoured movie terms. He takes the bus to work, because using public transportation means you are a failure; and when he does finally get a car, it's not even a 'cool car' – for shame! And he works in the service industry, the kind of career you quickly walk away from, not one you aspire to stay in. And he talks about his mother a lot, which ever since PSYCHO has been a big red flag. Not that he goes on a killing spree while dressed in her clothes or anything like that.

That's pretty much all I've got to say about THE LAST SHIFT. So, in closing, here are 12 films that you may not have realised Richard Jenkins is in:

SPOTLIGHT (2015) – as Richard Sipe

WHITE HOUSE DOWN (2013) – as Raphelson

THE KINGDOM (2007) – as Robert Grace

I HEART HUCKABEES (2004) – as Mr Hooten

THE CORE (2003) – as General Purcell

THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY (1998) – as a psychiatrist

ABSOLUTE POWER (1997) – as Michael McCarty

BLUE STEEL (1990) – as Attorney Mel Dawson

SEA OF LOVE (1989) – as Gruber

THE WITCHES OF EASTWICK (1987) – as Clyde Alden

HANNAH AND HER SISTERS (1986) – as Dr Wilkes

SILVERADO (1986) – as Kelly

Three stars out of five.

 

Valid use of the word ‘last’?  Technically, the narrative revolves around several of Stanley's shifts up until the actual last one, but we'll give it a pass.

What would a movie called THE FIRST SHIFT be about?  They could CGI Jenkins to look 40 years younger, like De Niro and Pacino in THE IRISHMAN. That would be cool.

 

Previously:  THE LAST AMERICAN HERO

Next time:  THE LAST DAYS OF DISCO

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 CASTLE (2001, Rod Lurie)

 

* * * 

In a tough military prison, one inmate leads a rebellion against the corrupt warden. 

Starring  Robert Redford, James Gandolfini, Mark Ruffalo, Clifton Collins Jr, Delroy Lindo 

Written by  David Scarpa, Graham Yost 

Produced by  Robert Lawrence 

Duration  132 minutes

Separating art from the artist. Some people really struggle with it. Since I think that a rational, intelligent person, one who can tell fantasy from reality, should have no problem, I try my best. 

I'll still watch a Woody Allen movie (well, I haven't bothered with most of the newer ones; I'm talking about his mid-70s to mid-90s peak). As an example from a different medium, I remember how when I was at school, many people said they hated Oasis because they couldn’t stand the Gallagher brothers; personally, I wasn't dwelling on their personalities when I was belting along to 'Live Forever' or 'Supersonic'.

But I do struggle sometimes. Specifically, with two actors. One is Kevin Spacey; that's a strange one for me, though. Rather than boycotting the movies he's in, I actually find that his reputation now enhances his performances, since most of his characters are unsavoury and/or predatory types anyway (heartfelt attempts like PLAY IT FORWARD were never going to work, let's face it.)

The other actor is Robert Redford. I was always a little suspicious of his golden boy looks and megawatt smile, exacerbated with INDECENT PROPOSAL, where he plays an all-time sleazeball with a billionaire's arrogant lack of accountability.

But it was reading Peter Biskind's Down and Dirty Pictures that left me never being able to look at Redford the same way again. 

The book is pretty much the '90s version of Biskind's more famous Easy Riders, Raging Bulls, which was about the '70s movie brats (Scorsese, Friedkin, De Palma, Spielberg, etc). Pictures covers the independent movie scene of the late 20th Century. Included are Quentin Tarantino, Kevin Smith, Steven Soderbergh, Paul Thomas Anderson, David O Russell ... and, rather regrettably, Miramax, AKA the Weinstein brothers. 

And it has many chapters on the Sundance Film Festival, founded by one Charles Robert Redford Jr. Biskind portrays Redford as unreliable and full of himself; woefully under-committed to his own institution, forever breaking promises and failing to turn up. Now, the author does admit to having a vendetta against Redford, for reasons that remain vague, and the actor/director doesn't seem to have this reputation anywhere else. Yet the description stuck with me, and I haven't been able to view Butch Cassidy's pal in the same light since.

Redford is a charisma actor: more charm than talent. And that can work; hell, it usually does, that's kind of the point. But not all viewers can be won over. I have a friend, for instance, who doesn't like George Clooney, finding him smarmy and smug. And while I can see his point, my own heart melted 30 years ago watching salt and pepper-haired Dr Doug Ross every Thursday night on ER, and he's had a hold on me ever since.

Redford's THE LAST CASTLE co-star James Gandolfini was another charisma actor, albeit also a supremely talented performer overall. Here, however, he plays your archetypal sadistic warden. (More on Gandolfini in a minute.)

Yes, this is a prison movie – a military prison movie, but I don't think that makes much of a difference. As such, the first thing the modern viewer does is compare the film to modern titan of the genre THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION. And it starts similarly, with new prisoners arriving and the current inmates (including a young Mark Ruffalo) placing bets on who won't last the first night. But it soon takes its own path.

Redford's character, one of those newbies, is spoken about in revered, awed tones before he even appears onscreen. He's a highly decorated general, who turns up to this prison (nicknamed 'the castle') in full uniform and medals, although he's down to his vest after checking into his cell – still looking good at 65, Bob!

Adapting to life inside, General Redford mostly keeps himself to himself. He just wants to quietly do his time while absorbing people telling him things like "you are a great man, you've done so much for your country!" and "my father said you kept him alive in Hanoi!" Sometimes, he breaks things up by delivering inspirational speeches, most notably to a stammering Clifton Collins Jr. 

(If it's ever revealed what this saint among men did to end up behind bars, I missed it. Something about disobeying a direct order, I think. Was probably one of those morally murky ones.)

Warden Gandolfini, meanwhile, keeps himself amused with stunts like confiscating the inmates' basketballs and gleefully watching the resultant brawl from a window in his ivory tower. He lets the fighting go on until he gets bored, and then tells the guards to shoot some prisoners at random.

And Redford's soon running afoul of the warden's tyranny, when the prison boss decides to knock Mr War Hero down a peg or two. He's punished for standing up for the other prisoners and forced to arbitrarily carry heavy rocks from one side of the yard to the other. For this, we upgrade from vest to a shirtless Redford, curly ginger chest hair and all. 

Next, he starts persuading these thieves and murderers and whatever else to rebuild a broken wall, as a symbolic act of loyalty and companionship. And from there, it's a battle of wits to the end, with Redford deciding that it's going to be him who runs this penal establishment, not the onetime Tony Soprano. By the end, the former is leading a full-on prison escape/battle which, as per the whole 'castle' motif, resembles the final stretch of ROBIN HOOD: PRINCE OF THIEVES, with Gandolfini even eyeing up a ceremonial sword he has displayed in his office as an option to charge into battle with.

I also wanted to mention Delroy Lindo, who turns up as Redford's ex-colleague and advocate. Only because a) Lindo was such a beloved staple of '90s cinema (THE HARD WAY, CONGO, GET SHORTY [also with Gandolfini], BROKEN ARROW, RANSOM, A LIFE LESS ORDINARY, etc); and b) while ostensibly from the USA, he actually spent his early childhood in the London borough of Lewisham. Respect due.

As for THE LAST CASTLE itself ... it's fine. Redford won't annoy most people and, to be fair, he's likable enough here. Biskind was probably wrong ... probably. It's not among the greatest prison movies (SHAWSHANK, ESCAPE FROM ALCATRAZ, that part in FACE/OFF) and is a little too rah-rah flag-waving for this non-American. I mean, the Goddamn climax is a bullet-ridden Redford hoisting up the stars and stripes, with the flag then filling the screen as the movie fades to black over triumphant music.

But if you like stories about men behind bars overcoming adversity, then it'll do fine. Plus at one point Ruffalo pilots a helicopter and destroys a guard tower with its tail rotor. That's something Morgan Freeman's crusty lifer Red never got to do, at least.

Three stars out of five.

Additional: Another point in Redford's favour is his 1980 directorial debut, ORDINARY PEOPLE, which I happened to watch recently. What a great movie! It definitely takes the title of most forgotten '80s Best Picture winner away from THE LAST EMPEROR. Only, you know, undeservedly forgotten in this case.

Valid use of the word ‘last’? I guess it’s supposed to be some kind of metaphor for changing times, or maybe the overcoming the ‘last castle’ in all of us? 

What would a movie called THE FIRST CASTLE be about?  An hilarious and charming coming of age story about two young brothers who both enter a sandcastle building competition. 

Previously:  THE LAST FACE

Next time:  THE LAST JOURNEY

Check out my books:  Jonathanlastauthor.com

THE LAST TREE (2019, Shola Amoo)

 

* * * 

A young man faces challenges growing up in London, having been suddenly transplanted there from his idyllic countryside adolescence.

Starring  Sam Adewunmi, Gbemisola Ikumelo, Denise Black, Tai Golding, Ruthxjiah Bellenea

Written by  Shola Amoo

Produced by  Myf Hopkins, Lee Thomas

Duration  99 minutes

 

Trees are important. Everyone knows that: the whole taking in carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen thing. As the Woodland Trust says, “Trees are our lungs. Trees are our guardians. Trees are our health service and wildlife champions.”

But what about trees in movies? Most of the time, they get a bad rap. If they do feature, they tend to be lumped together as a collective and portrayed negatively. They're often the scene of spooky woods (think THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT), or a place where teens run to escape a maniac (countless slashers), or an isolated location for a mob hit and subsequent burial (MILLER’S CROSSING). In THE EVIL DEAD, a tree even takes the worst possible advantage of a young lady who's staying in a cabin nearby. Not nice.

But sometimes, movie trees are the good guys. ROBIN HOOD: PRINCE OF THIEVES comes to mind. You could even call it a 'tree film', all in all, what with the Merry Men’s elaborate village high up in Sherwood Forest. Plus, all the fight scenes use arrows, which of course are made from trees.

But more than that, the 1991 movie featured one particular tree that became legendary: the Sycamore Gap next to Hadrian's Wall in Northumberland. Early on in the movie, Kevin Costner’s Robin of Locksley and his pal Azeem (Morgan Freeman) pass the tree as they approach Nottingham (which in real life is nowhere near, but anyway). It came to be known as ‘the Robin Hood tree’ and was a popular tourist site. Then, early one morning in September 2023, it was found cut down, devastating millions of fans. Even the film’s director Kevin Reynolds chipped in, telling the BBC, “This is the second loss PRINCE OF THIEVES has suffered in the last couple of years – first Alan Rickman and now this." (Not reported: what the Rickman family made of this statement.)

The Robin Hood tree also featured in the music video for Bryan Adams' ‘(Everything I Do) I Do It for You’, a song that spent a record 16 consecutive weeks at number one in the UK Singles Chart. As such, you might expect me to hate it, but in fact I find it to be a superb power ballad that won't let go of the ’80s – in all the best possible ways. So there.

So, this brings us to THE LAST TREE. Is it truly another 'tree movie', beyond the somewhat cryptic title? There was little hint from the synopsis I read of how exactly trees would feature. The protagonist is moving from the countryside to The Big City, so I guess an environment where there are fewer trees? (Even if in reality London has loads of parks, but I digress.) Does he miss trees in general? Was there a special tree that had come to symbolize the innocent youth he is torn away from, possibly one that he carved his name into? Or is the whole tree thing purely allegorical?

Something that was clear from what I'd read about THE LAST TREE is that this is another ‘moving to scary London’ story, and I wasn’t too keen on the last ‘last’ film about that. My hope going in was that this one would be a little more nuanced, a little less melodramatic, and much keener to acknowledge that the Capital is more than a square mile of tourist-friendly shops, restaurants and West End post-production places.

Well, the London our protagonist Femi ends up in is Walworth, sandwiched between Camberwell and Elephant & Castle. Which is fine, although I object to the south of the river being represented as gang-infested crime-hole, yet again.

Much more appreciated was that Femi is into stuff like New Order and The Cure, despite this apparently not being a period piece (they use mobile phones). When his pal asks him what he's listening to through his headphones, Femi tells him "Tupac – 'Hit 'em Up', innit?" So clearly there's a bucking of social expectations here.

But the trees! What about the trees? I decided to keep a tally of whenever they appeared and in what quantity. (Please note that many of these are estimates.)

 – Opening sequence of 10-year-old Femi and pals playing outside during magic hour, tree count: 2

– Femi plays football in the park with his mates: 12

– Femi storms off down the road after learning he has to go to Evil London to live with his birth mother: 4

– Femi in the garden for a farewell party: 3

– Montage of Femi travelling to the airport: 10

– Femi walking to his first day of school: 2

– Femi runs away from his mother after she chastises him for getting into a fight at school after a boy makes fun of his name: 3 – and a tree stump is framed prominently in the foreground!

– Femi, now a teenager who's got in with the wrong crowd, heads to school with his pals: 7

– Femi watches some fellow youths kicking a football to each other around a housing estate: 4

– Femi goes along with his mates' bullying of a girl at school, while privately disapproving: 1

 

Then there are very few trees for quite a while, as the film becomes more set at night, with Femi getting involved in drug deals, turf wars, etc. But then:

 – Femi goes back to the countryside to visit the lady who raised him, travelling by train during a contemplative montage: 20

– Femi sits with the aforementioned lady in her garden: 4

– Back in London, Femi gets the shit kicked out of him by the dealers who he thought were his friends, then staggers home with the camera strapped to him pointing at his face, like that bit in MEAN STREETS when Harvey Keitel is staggering around the bar, or in any number of Spike Lee movies: 7

– Femi and his mum visit her home country of Nigeria, travelling to a posh home through a rural area: 5

– They then go to a spiritual retreat in the outskirts of Lagos: 16, and the final instance of trees in the film.

Approximate number of trees across the whole of THE LAST TREE: 101

So, what does it all mean? Does the specific number of trees matter? Was any one in particular more significant than the others? What was the meaning behind focusing on that stump? And – most crucially – which tree was the 'last'?

Let me assure you that I've ruminated over these questions long and hard and have failed to come up with any answers.

Film was OK, though.

Three stars out of five.

 

Valid use of the word ‘last’?  See review.

What would a movie called THE FIRST TREE be about?  It's tempting to say the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but that was definitely not the first to sprout up in the Garden of Eden. First famous one, though.

Previously:  I STILL KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER

Next time:  THE LAST MAN

Check out my books:  Jonathanlastauthor.com

AND WHEN DID YOU LAST SEE YOUR FATHER? (2007, Anand Tucker)

 * * * 

A writer reflects on growing up with his domineering, now-dying father.

Starring  Jim Broadbent, Colin Firth, Juliet Stevenson

Written by  David Nicholls

Produced by  Elizabeth Karlsen, Stephen Woolley

Duration  92 minutes

From the dawn of artistic expression, stories have dealt with Daddy Issues. Ancient Greek tragedian Sophocles threw patricide into Oedipus Rex; Hamlet’s dad came back from the grave to kick off the whole revenge plot; Henrik Ibsen explored 'the sins of the fathers' in his play Ghosts.

And movies dealing with angst toward a male parent or authority figure are too numerous to count. Just off the top of my head: TOP GUN, THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS, THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, ON THE ROCKS, GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY, BEGINNERS, THE SAVAGES, THE FATHER, BLAME IT ON RIO, THIS BOY’S LIFE, THE SHINING, AD ASTRA, INTERSTELLAR, SOMEWHERE, ABOUT A BOY, BEAUTIFUL BOY, KRAMER VS KRAMER, NEBRASKA, THERE WILL BE BLOOD… (OK, some of those weren’t off the top of my head; Google was invented for a reason, people.)

Most of the above focus on the child coming to terms with living up to the expectations/reputation of the pater familias. But here are some rarely (if ever) explored twists on the topic that I for one would like to see:

– The father struggles to emulate the child, whose success has overtaken his own.

– The child is more interested in emulating their mother, much to their father's chagrin.

– The child suffers an existential crisis when they realise that they actually have no desire to emulate their father at all.

– The child finds out that their famous father is in fact a fake, but ironically the intricacy of the deception makes the child start respecting him for the first time.

– Excessively focusing on their intergenerational strife distracts the parent and child so much that neither achieves anything in life and they both die miserable.

AND WHEN DID YOU LAST SEE YOUR FATHER?, meanwhile, goes for the old 'we've always had a complicated relationship, Dad, but because you're nearing death now we’re finally incentivised to reconcile' angle.

As the father of the title, Jim Broadbent is established in Firth's sepia-tinted childhood flashbacks as a blagger, grifting his way into a horse track's members' enclosure on a family outing. He's a self-important, pompous blowhard – not a typical role for the usually cuddly Broadbent, more reminiscent of his earlier work as cocky bent copper Roy Slater in the sitcom Only Fools and Horses. Despite the man's flaws, the juvenile Firth idolises his dad, opining in voiceover "My father was a hero... I thought he'd live forever."

Back in the present ('London, 1989'), adult Firth is a writer, accepting a literary prize at a lavish ceremony. "Two words are all I'd like: 'well' and 'done'," he laments to his wife, while holding the award flimsily and looking forlornly across at his old man, who is going around the posh do quaffing free booze and drawing attention away from his son.

Then: the bad news that we all knew was coming. The doctor who delivers it has a bedside manner that's ham-fisted to the point of being humorous, like the scene is a relic from an earlier script draft when this was a comedy. "Your father's going to die," he blurts out. "Of course, we all die sooner or later - but in his case, it's going to be sooner rather than later." It's not even as if he's a bumbling intern or anything.

From frame one, WHEN DID YOU LAST feels like it must have been based on a book... which it was, but it's a little more complicated than that. When I saw David Nicholls’ name among the writers' credits on IMDb, I assumed that this was adapted from one of his weepy novels (like One Day or Us) – but actually he was the one doing the adapting. Turns out Firth is playing real-life poet Blake Morrison, and Nicholls fashioned a screenplay out of Morrison's memoirs. 

I'd never heard of Blake Morrison, since my knowledge of his chosen medium pretty much begins and ends with doing Carol Ann Duffy poems at school. I also remember the odd random line from other people's work, like "pick a corner in that charnel house" (turns out that was 'Vultures' by Chinua Achebe) and a dying mouse that "curls in agony big as itself" (Gillian Clarke – 'The Field Mouse'). Anyway, while I respect poetry, I've come to accept that it's one of those things I just don't get on with – like rugby, or watermelon... or musicals.

Anyway, following Dad's diagnosis, the film's structure settles into switching back and forth between more soft-focus flashbacks to an idyllic childhood (possibly apocryphal?), then back to Firth in the present trying to have serious chats with the ailing Broadbent, who was always a reluctant communicator at the best of times. The past bits get more interesting when they move on to Morrison as a teenager, circa 1962 – as signified by the Cuban Missile Crisis being all over the radio. His memories of those times alone with his father include rain-sodden camping trips, driving lessons in a vintage Alvis convertible on a deserted beach, and Dad regularly calling him 'fat-head'. Oh, and he remembers suspecting the notorious lothario of having an affair, or affairs plural, possibly even siring some bastard offspring.

AND WHEN DID YOU LAST SEE YOUR FATHER? is professionally done and classily played - maybe a bit too classy, to be honest. The whole thing is all rather nice, in a Sunday-afternoon tea-time kind of way, albeit with a little bit of sex and the odd F-word thrown in.

Nonetheless, when the inevitable tear-jerking ending arrives and Morrison completes his journey to accepting his dad as a flawed but ultimately caring man, it does feel earned. I've only ever cried twice at movies (the blindly crawling around fruitlessly ending of THE KILLER [1989] and Sarah Conner finally telling John that she loves him in TERMINATOR 2), but this came close to being number three. Good show.

Three stars out of five.



Valid use of the word ‘last’? Yes, this last time is pretty definitive. 

What would a movie called AND WHEN DID YOU FIRST SEE YOUR FATHER? be about?  These days, usually he comes into view immediately after the doctor. In times gone by, though, he would have been nowhere near the maternity ward, instead probably camped down the pub anxiously awaiting a phone call from the hospital.

 

Previously:  THE TOXIC AVENGER PART III: THE LAST TEMPTATION OF TOXIE

Next time:  LAST CHRISTMAS

Check out my books:  Jonathanlastauthor.com

THE LAST EXORCISM (2010, Daniel Stamm)

 

* * * 

A phony exorcist is out of his depth when he takes on a case that may be the real deal.

Starring  Patrick Fabian, Ashley Bell, Iris Bahr, Louis Herthum, Caleb Landry Jones

Written by  Huck Botko, Andrew Gurland   

Produced by  Eric Newman, Eli Roth, Marc Abraham, Thomas A Bliss   

Duration  87 minutes   

There are certain types of movie which have that one shining example that’s just so definitive, so representative, so brilliant, that filmmakers are on a hiding to nothing if they try to take a fresh stab at it.

Disaster movies, for instance. No one’s ever really topped THE POSIDON ADVENTURE (1972). THE TOWERING INFERNO (1974) came close, and from the ’90s resurgence, INDEPENDENCE DAY will always be up there. But you can’t beat the rugged reliability of ’70s Gene Hackman and the smirk of Ernest Borgnine, backed up by Shelley Winter’s hysteria and Roddy McDowall's preening.

Forbidden love? It’s never been depicted more heartbreakingly than in BRIEF ENCOUNTER (1945). Especially Celia Johnson's voiceover, where she confides to us that her husband would actually get along with the man who is tempting her – while knowing that the three of them all becoming friends is impossible.

Gangster rise and fall? The 1982 SCARFACE is the final word. How do you match the definitive over-the-top Pacino performance in a career defined by them? Or Oliver Stone’s highly quotable script, set to Georgio Moroder's moody synth-dread score?

And here’s one more for ya: THE EXORCIST.

There have already been various poor sequels to cinema’s seminal work about possession (although number three wasn’t bad) and, recently, David Gordon Green’s reboot (which I’m yet to see, but is supposed to be awful). The exorcism sub-genre has been dragged through the mud somewhat, the nadir being 1990 satire REPOSSESSED, which brought back original demon host Linda Blair and paired her with spoof king Leslie Nielsen.

Nonetheless, the makers of THE LAST EXORCISM decided to give it a go – possibly emboldened by a turn in the fortunes of exorcism movies in more recent years. THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE was a success five years before, and similar efforts like THE HAUNTING IN CONNECTICUT (2009) had also done well.

But while I don't personally love the original EXORCIST as much as some people do (notably critic Mark Kermode), the cultural impact of that 1973 hit is such that no number of similarly-themed efforts will ever be able to swerve the comparison.

Nevertheless, I myself will conduct this review with complete objectivity and not mention THE EXORCIST again. So, alright then: is THE LAST EXORCISM any cop?

At first, when a pre-BETTER CALL SAUL Patrick Fabian (AKA Howard Hamlin) is being videotaped at home, the movie appears to be found footage. OK, that's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's definitely a choice that elicits caution in the viewer.

But wait! An establishing shot? Title cards? It’s not found footage at all, it’s a mockumentary! In the great tradition of THIS IS SPINAL TAP, the BORAT movies, and the first part of DISTRICT 9, before they gave up on the idea. Plus, in 2010 the US Office was still on and Parks and Recreation had just started, so I guess mockumentaries were currently in vogue.

This aesthetic decision is especially interesting when you consider that the director of THE EXORCIST himself, William Friedkin, started out making actual documentaries – including THE PEOPLE VS PAUL CRUMP (1962), about a death row convict who Friedkin believes is innocent. Obviously, THE EXORCIST is not a docu or a mocku, but nevertheless the clinical, unfussy style Friedkin developed from his days with non-fiction helped give that classic its raw power.

Shit. Three paragraphs later and already I'm back making comparisons to THE EXORCIST.

Well, anyway, in LAST EXORCISM, your man Fabian plays our documentary subject, a flamboyant preacher who comea from a long line of them. And it turns out his is also a family of exorcists, with demon-extraction being something else he has followed ‘Daddy’ (this is Louisiana) into, as he tells us while proudly showing off the clipping "Aged 10, local boy delivers first exorcism". And LAST EXORCISM not only uses the ‘E’ word in its title, but even positions itself in a world where that famous film exists. "It's not just the Catholics who perform them," Fabian explains, "but, you know, they got the movie, so ..."

And soon, we get the revelation that our so-called man of God doesn’t even believe in the spirit world; that he has gone through with however many so-called exorcisms without seeing any actual evidence. Thus, the point of him partaking in this documentary: he's heading out to families who've written to him about ghosts they need busted, the idea being he'll show the docu filmmakers how truly bollocks the whole thing is.

So on the road we go, to rural Texas, where a farmer claims that his daughter has been romping around at night and slaughtering the cattle, in a state of not being all herself. And would you believe it? Cocky old Fabian’s charlatan antics end up colliding with his first ever genuine paranormal incident!

(Beyond plot predictability, casting the creepy Caleb Landry Jones as the girl’s brother is an immediate red flag. See also ANTIVIRAL, HEAVEN KNOWS WHAT, GET OUT ...)

But flippancy aside, it’s not a criticism to call the direction the story takes unsurprising – that would be like chastising an action movie for having fights and car chases and explosions. The skill is in the execution.

And it’s pretty good! There are creepy performances and startling images; Fabian gets increasingly out of his depth as the family’s unseemly past comes to light; the documentary crew come out from behind the camera and get involved; and it all reaches a suitably bonkers climax, reminiscent of the brilliant KILL LIST, released the year after.

So, I ended up being glad that director Daniel Stamm refused to be over-awed by history and gave his own vision a go. Watch this space to see whether the confusingly titled sequel, THE LAST EXORCISM: PART II, warrants the same praise ...   

Valid use of the word ‘last’?  If anything, discovering a real case of possession will mean that the exorcisms are gonna just keep on coming.

What would a movie called THE FIRST EXORCISM be about?  Friedkin passed away in 2023, so that’s a good excuse to check out the original movie. And might I also suggest THE GUARDIAN (1990), his return to horror and a masterpiece of so-bad-it’s-goodness?  

Three stars out of five.

Previously:  LAST RIDE 

Next time:  TRANSFORMERS: THE LAST KNIGHT 

Check out my books:  Jonathanlastauthor.com