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

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