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

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 FACE (2016, Sean Penn)

 * 

They were two people in love, during a war. The war was brutal. But just as brutal … was their love.

Starring  Charlize Theron, Javier Bardem, Adèle Exarchopoulos, Jean Reno

Written by  Erin Dignam   

Produced by  Bill Gerber, Matt Palmieri, Bill Pohlad

Duration  132 minutes

 

 

THE LAST FACE reminds me of SUPERMAN III. Bear with me a minute.

It would be so easy to get the wrong idea about an actor if you only knew them from one film, and if that role turned out to be atypical.

Imagine if the only Bruce Willis movie you'd ever seen was DEATH BECOMES HER, where he plays a hen-pecked, nerdy plastic surgeon. Or if for Tom Hanks it was as an enforcer for the Irish mafia in ROAD TO PERDITION. Or Cameron Diaz as a mousey spinster in BEING JOHN MALKOVICH. Or what about nice guys playing villains: Albert Brooks in DRIVE, Steve Carrell in FOXCATCHER, Tom Cruise in COLLATERAL or MAGNOLIA, Stanley Tucci in THE LOVELY BONES, Henry Fonda in ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST …

For me, it's Richard Pryor. Watching the Christopher Reeve Superman movies growing up, the one that made the biggest impression on me was the much-maligned SUPERMAN III (although it’s not as maligned as film number four, nuclear disarmament propaganda THE QUEST FOR PEACE). The movie exists for me as a succession of memories: the chemical factory fire, with its bubbling jars of acid and Supes freezing a nearby lake to use for water; the Man of Steel getting drunk and picking a junkyard fight with his physically manifested bespectacled alter ego; the female villain being restrained by wires while a supercomputer builds her into a terrifying, metal-eyed robot lady.

All that, and also Richard Pryor. Bumbling, wisecracking, downtrodden, seduced by bad influences for a taste of success – but actually a harmless goof. Pryor had played this type on screen before and would again, but only after first having burned himself into the public’s consciousness as a no-holds-barred stand-up comedian. The family-friendly comedies and collaborations with Gene Wilder only came later, and for most people those were a departure from the edginess they had come to know. But pre-teenage me had no idea about Pryor being a brilliant deliverer of hilarious and profanity-leaden monologues about contemporary America.

Now, as evidenced by the list above, a casting aberration is often when someone who is usually virtuous becomes a baddie, or the usually glamorous plays dowdy. And there is, of course, a tradition of comedians segueing into dramatic roles. Robin Williams is a good example, going back and forth throughout his career. But while the ultimately feelgood GOOD WILL HUNTING or AWAKENINGS or WHAT DREAMS MAY COME are one thing, if all you’d seen is ONE HOUR PHOTO (stalker) or INSOMNIA (murderer) or AUGUST RUSH (child exploiter) or DEAD AGAIN (disgraced psychiatrist) or DEATH TO SMOOCHY (alcoholic children’s entertainer), you’d have a far different impression of the former Mork from Ork – despite the fact that clearly he always wanted to stretch himself with a range of roles.

All of this brings us to the director of THE LAST FACE. Sean Penn has to be the most humourless person to ever get his break playing a comedic role; or indeed to have ever given such an inaccurate first impression of how his career would end up. Penn's first major part was as archetypal stoner Jeff Spicoli in FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH: long blond hair, “woah, dude!” surfer talk, Vans trainers, hilarious teacher-baiting stunts like ordering pizza to the classroom – basically, nothing like the Penn we would come to know and … um, to know. And sure enough, only one year later he was headlining uncompromising juvie flick BAD BOYS, forging a career path of dourness and self-seriousness (his cameo in Friends notwithstanding).

Now, with THE LAST FACE, we aren't dealing with Penn the actor; I know that. But his natural sensibility transfers to his work behind the camera – and that is entirely evident in this, his fifth feature and surely his worst (for the record, I really liked his one before, INTO THE WILD).

No one can claim that Penn doesn't have good intentions. He certainly wanted to highlight some serious issues, judging by the opening salvo (white text over an outline of Africa, in a graphic style that bizarrely recalls the opening of ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK):

 

Ten years apart, the Liberian civil war of 2003 and the ongoing conflict with South Sudan today share a singular brutality of corrupted innocence.

Heavy. OK, but then straight after we get this, which turns out to be a grim portent of the quality of movie coming up:

 

A corruption of innocence only known to the West by any remotely common degree ... through the brutality of an impossible love ... shared by a man ... and a woman ...

Um, what?

Then we're into a cosy domestic scene of our impossibly gorgeous stars, Charlize Theron and Javier Bardem, whispering sweet nothings to each other in soft-focus close ups. So, I guess this is the love between the man and the woman that is going to be both brutal and impossible, to the extent that it is the only way that Westerners such as us (and them – although Charlize is actually South African) can 'know' a pair of years-apart but comparable African wars?

It's pretty confusing, and kind of an odd premise for an ostensibly sincere project. And pretty tasteless, too, right? Wouldn't it have been better to highlight the plight of the Liberians and Sudanese by, you know, focusing on the actual people from those countries?

And as we follow this allegorical love story over 132 tedious minutes, as Charlize lobbies stuffy men in stuffy rooms and Javier plunges arm deep into bloody corpses in hospital tents, the awkwardness of the movie's conceit never lets us go.

It's there in the predictable, sub-romcom ups and downs of their relationship. It's there in the cheesy dialogue, overblown speeches and forced emotion. It's there in the marginalising of talented co-stars like Jean Reno, Adèle Exarchopoulos and Jared Harris. And it's definitely there in the swelling Hans Zimmer score, one of his rare paint-by-numbers jobs that lets no melodramatic moment pass by without mining it for maximum melodrama.

THE LAST FACE got booed at its premiere at the Cannes Film Festival. You hear that now and then about a movie, and usually it turns out to be not so bad in the end.

This isn't one of those occasions.

Come back, Jeff Spicoli, all is forgiven! Pizzas all round!

One star out of five.

 

Valid use of the word ‘last’?  I have no idea what this movie’s title means. The last face you see before you die? Is it Javier's? Charlize's? ... Sean Penn's?!

What would a movie called THE FIRST FACE be about?  “In the early 11th century, Ibn al-Haytham's Maqala fi al-Binkam described a mechanical water clock that, for the first time in history, accurately measures time in hours and minutes. To represent the hours and minutes, Ibn al-Haytham invented ... a clock face.” I want to see that as a movie, History Wiki!

Previously:  THE LAST MAN

Next time:  THE LAST CASTLE

Check out my books:  Jonathanlastauthor.com

THE LAST MAN (2019, Rodrigo H Vila)

 

* 

It’s the end of the world as we know it, and I feel … like it’s yet another post-apocalypse movie, this time with a lot of brooding, murky visuals and Hayden Christensen.

Starring  Hayden Christensen, Harvey Keitel, Marco Leonardi, Liz Solari, Justin Kelly, Rafael Spregelburd

Written by  Rodrigo H Vila, Gustavo Lencina   

Produced by  Gustavo Lencina, Rodrigo H Vila

Duration  100 minutes   

 

(Ring ring, ring ring)

 

“Hello?”

 

“Hi, um, is that Mr Keitel?”

 

“No, Mr Keitel is my father.”

 

“Oh … um, but …”

 

“And also me. I’m just teasing you, son.”

 

“Right …”

 

“What can I do for you?”

 

“Sorry to call so late … it’s Hayden.”

 

“I’m sorry … who?”

 

“Hayden Christensen.”

 

“From the contractor? Ah, I’m glad you called, son. I needed to talk to you about windows. Now, my wife, she thinks we should be getting the oak frames, but me, well …”

 

“No, sorry, I’m not calling about your, uh, about your windows.”

 

“Oh, I apologise. So, who did you say you were?”

 

“Christensen, Hayden Christensen.”

 

“Hmm.”

 

“From the STAR WARS prequels?”

 

“Oh, you were the little kid, from that space race?”

 

“No, that was Jake Lloyd. Look, Mr Keitel–”

 

“Harvey.”

 

“Harvey, I’m Hayden Christensen. We’re gonna be in this movie together, THE LAST MAN?”

 

“Oh, right! Now I remember. And son, I was right the first time.”

 

“What do you mean?”

 

“Well, I’m only doing that movie so I can get us a sunroom in the Malibu place. Or a solarium, whatever you call it. So, in a way, you were calling me about that.”

 

“... Right.”

 

“So, what’s on your mind, Hayden? Young Padawan?”

 

“Well, Mr … Harvey. It’s just that … I’m having second thoughts about the movie.”

 

“Oh? Can’t your agent negotiate a better fee?”

 

“No, it’s not the money … although … no, that’s the thing. I’m not doing it just for the money.”

 

“Of course you’re not. You’re young.”

 

“Well, I’m 37 now …”

 

“Really? Jeez, those STAR WARS movies were a while ago now, huh?”

 

“Tell me about it.”

 

“So, OK, you’re relatively young. You still have a career ahead of you.”

 

“Well …”

 

“But me, I’ve been doing this for 50 years! I don’t have to care about what the actual movie is. If I decide – or, more usually, the old lady decides – that it’s time for a new conservatory, then so long as they pay me enough to cover the costs, you better believe that I’m getting that conservatory.”

 

“OK, but it’s different for me.”

 

“Of course it is, Hayden. That’s what I’m trying to tell you.”

 

“So, what I really wanted to know was–”

 

“You wanted to know if I think that you should do this film.”

 

“Yes! If you don’t mind.”

 

“You’d like some advice from someone who’s been around the block once or twice.”

 

“Exactly.”

 

“Or three or four times.”

 

“Right.”

 

“Hmm. Well, what is it that’s giving you doubts, son?”

 

“OK. Well, look. You’ve read the script, right?”

 

“Why in the hell would I do that?”

“Right, OK, sorry. Um, but you do know that it’s kind of a grim, dystopian, vaguely futuristic type deal?”

 

“I had a vague inkling.”

“I start off with a beard, losing my mind, in a hellhole. Flashbacks to a war where I'm a soldier.”

“Mmm …”

“I have a lot of voiceover exposition at the start ... it's set in a world the sounds like Blade Runner but on a ten-dollar budget. I describe it as being ‘the end of the world’.”

“OK …”

“I get the shit kicked out of me by a skinhead gang in the rain about 10 pages in. Then, at 15 pages, I hold a gun to my head but can't pull the trigger.”

“Right …”

“I can't really work out what happened in the backstory in my narration: the economy collapses, millions dead, I think there was some kind of ecological disaster? Then you show up on TV, talking about ‘a storm coming’, but I can't work out of if you're speaking about an actual storm or if it's just a metaphor.”

“Oh, that’s right. Like you, I have a beard in this one. So, I'm going to play the character as a spiritual successor to Jacob in FROM DUSK TILL DAWN, where I also had a beard. Except my beard is going to be longer this time.”

“Right. Um, so I also meet some creepy kid, or he may just be a manifestation of my own insanity or my guilt or something like that. Then about 25 pages in I decide I need some money for ... something, so I get a job. It's not clear what this job entails, but I'm interviewed in an office by a man in a suit. Then after about 30 pages, an old army buddy of mine turns up at my apartment, and I at first pull out a gun on him not trusting that he's real, but then he does seem to be ... Harvey, I hate to admit it, but I’m completely lost with this script! There's just so little cohesion between scenes. Nothing makes any sense.”

"OK, let's pull things back a little. Do you get to do anything heroic?"

“Well, I turn the tables on the skinheads after about 40 pages, grabbing one of their guns and shooting them.”

"Anything else?"

“I kind of just skim-read it after that. I think I have an affair with my new boss's daughter, and towards the end I'm locked up in a cell, not sure why ... there's a kind of Mexican standoff at the climax, me with a shotgun facing down two other guys with handguns.”

"Like me at the end of RESERVOIR DOGS! ... Except, no shotguns."

“I guess …”

“Hmm.”

“So … what do you think?”

“Hayden, son?”

“Yes, Harvey?”

“I have four rules for my career. Or at least I did, you know, when I was your age.”

“OK …”

“Would you like me to tell you them?”

“Yes please.”

“The first one is, find a high-class director and stick to him like glue. Now, I did five films with Marty Scorsese and yes, he ended up making Bobby D his go-to guy instead. Which is fine, I’m over it now. But I knew Marty was good, and he knew how to use me. Now, you had the right idea with George Lucas …”

“I thought so at the time …”

“But we’re talking about a man who obviously does not like to direct motion pictures. So, find yourself a new guy who's a bit more prolific.”

“OK.”

“Next rule: Show your vulnerable side. You’ve seen BAD LIEUTENANT? The scene in the church? Or when I’m cradling Tim Roth at the end of DOGS? Or my scene alone with Jodie Foster in TAXI DRIVER? Or basically any time I’m on screen in THE PIANO?”

“Yes! All brilliant work, Harvey.”

“Aw, thanks. The point is, kid, you can be the tough guy, but if you wanna win ‘em round, you gotta make ‘em cry.”

“Got it.”

“The third rule is, you can’t just be vulnerable on the inside. You gotta show what you’re worth underneath, behind all the bullshit we protect ourselves with.”

“Wait, are you talking about–”

“Yes, Hayden. You gotta go nude. You gotta let ‘em see Little Hayden.”

“Um …”

“I have appeared naked in seven motion pictures. Can Bobby DeNiro say that? Can Pacino say that? Did Marlon or Jack or Paul Newman ever do that? I don’t think so!”

“I see.”

“One final rule, kid.”

 “Hit me, Harvey.”

 “Cops. You gotta play cops.”

 “OK.”

“COPKILLER, MORTAL THOUGHTS, THELMA & LOUISE, BAD LIEUTENANT (of course), RISING SUN, THE YOUNG AMERICANS, CLOCKERS, COP LAND, RED DRAGON, NATIONAL TREASURE and its sequel … and those are just the ones I can remember.”

“Wow.”

“You betcha. So: latch onto a hot director, be vulnerable, give your johnson some air, and hold a badge. Nothing to it.”

“Got it. Thanks for the advice, Harvey.”

“No problem kid. See you on set – and hey, would it be OK if I showed you a few catalogues between setups? Because, I gotta tell you, oak frames are OK, but I'm leaning towards mahogany, or maybe pine. Or even accoya, whatever the hell that is ..."

“Sure, Harvey. It'd be my pleasure.”

“Thanks, kid. See ya.”

“Bye.”

(Click)

 

One star out of five.

 

 

Valid use of the word ‘last’?  Who the fuck knows.

What would a movie called THE FIRST MAN be about?  In 2016, if his wife had won the election, that would have been Bill Clinton.

 

Previously:  THE LAST TREE

Next time:  THE LAST FACE

Check out my books:  Jonathanlastauthor.com