THE IRON GIANT

US, 1999, 86 minutes, Colour.
Voices of: Jennifer Aniston, Harry Connick Jr, Vin Diesel, James Gammon, Cloris Leachman, Christopher Mc Donald, John Mahoney, Eli Marienthal, M. Emmet Walsh.
Directed by Brad Bird.

The Iron Giant is based on a story by English poet and poet laureate, Ted Hughes.

The story for the film was adapted by Brad Bird who went on to direct such films as The Incredibles and Ratatouille as well as Mission Impossible 4: Ghost Protocol. The screenplay was written by Tim McCanlies?, the creator of Smallville and director of some films like Secondhand Lions.

The film has a very strong voice cast including Jennifer Aniston as the mother, Eli Marienthal as the little boy, Harry Connick Jr as the artist and Vin Diesel as the Iron Giant himself.

The story is set in 1957, the Eisenhower era, the fear of nuclear disaster and the atmosphere of the Cold War. The film shows an ordinary American town – and the inhabitants thinking that they saw a flying saucer or some UFO. However, it is the Iron Giant who lands, but has forgotten where he came from, despite the ability to repair himself. He also has a diet only of iron and begins to munch up some of the ironwork in factories and buildings in the town. He is encountered by Hogarth Hughes, a young adventurous boy who lives with his mother (voiced by Jennifer Aniston). He befriends the giant.

However, the locals have rung government authorities and a very officious agent (voiced by Christopher McDonald) arrives and fosters a conspiracy theory as he tries to find out what actually happened. Eventually, the army is called in, and the giant is seen as a terrifying enemy by a paranoid society. However, the giant is not destroyed – and he escapes into the air, landing in Iceland.

The animation style is different from the familiar Disney work – though Brad Bird was to move to Pixar after this.

The film is entertaining both for adults and for children, recreates the paranoia of a period, shows family difficulties in a small town, shows the fear of the unknown – but the possibility of friendship and affirmation.

1. A 1990s perspective on the 1950s? The Cold War, the atomic era, Russia and fear, paranoia, agents and the army?

2. The story by poet Ted Hughes? Adapted for the screen? Director Brad Bird and his subsequent career? The voice talent for the film?

3. The animation style, the landscapes, the town, humans, the giant? The musical score?

4. Hogarth and his energy, his pets and his mother’s forbidding them, the squirrel in the diner, in Dean’s pants? The mother, her work, concern for her son? The absent father? Home, renting the room? The difficulties?

5. Hogarth and the upset at the diner, meeting Dean? At home, watching the television, the horror film about the brain? The antenna going, on the roof, finding the bites, discovering the giant, his fear, running away, calming down, talking to the giant, the giant’s friendly gestures, the giant mimicking Hogarth, playing? Chomping up the iron?

6. The picture of the town, the workers, the UFO, reporting to the government? Dean, his artwork with the scrap iron, considered something of a hippy?

7. Hogarth and his gun, Agent Kent finding it, returning it? Dean taking away the scrap? Hogarth persuading him to become involved, Dean’s caution, getting to know the giant, sharing the artwork?

8. Kent, officious, coming to the house, sceptical, working on behalf of the authorities, suspicious of Hogarth, boarding at the house, the meals, Hogarth and his grace? Pushing the giant out of the upstairs room – and the toilet misinterpretation? Kent discovering Hogarth’s photos and the image of the giant?

9. Hogarth telling his mother about the giant? The friendship with the giant, the giant repairing himself, eating, the scrapyard, Hogarth diving into the pool, the giant diving in and causing a tsunami, Dean caught in the flood?

10. Kent calling in the army, the general, the tactics, the ideas?

11. The giant, having to cope, attacked, battle?

12. The giant escaping, the farewell, flying away, the more benign response?

13. Hogarth in his room – and the piece of the machine still there, the farewell?

14. The giant and his landing in Iceland – the land for the Frankenstein monster?

15. An entertaining allegory of attitudes in the 1950s? Relevant to the 1990s, later?

THE EXPENDABLES 2

US, 2012, 102 minutes, Colour.
Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Bruce Willis, Jean- Claude Van Damme, Liam Hemsworth, Chuck Norris, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Terry Crewes, Randy Couture, Nan Yu..
Directed by Simon West

The two Expendable movies have a niche audience – macho, action-oriented fans, many of whom have developed a computer-games sensibility, kill or be killed. For those who want first hand testimonies from these fans, check out the blogging for the film on the Internet Movie Database (over 200 already). And, The Expendables 3 has been announced!

So, what is there to say except that it achieves what it sets out to do – the question is whether that was worthwhile in the first place. Early in the piece, Bruce Willis’ character refers to the Expendable squad as ‘psychotic muts’. He later joins them of course in their major skill – mowing down adversaries instantly, in great numbers, and with great satisfaction.

It is all pretty much over-the-top and pretty brutal – cancel that: ugly brutal.

As with the first film, there is a prologue to introduce the group, Stallone (looking his mid-60s age) as leader, Jason Statham as his best-friend lieutenant, Terry Crews, Randy Couture and, looking older and more haggard as well, Dolph Lundgren. The action is in Nepal – which doesn’t leave alive a great number of the militia which has kidnapped a Chinese businessman. And Jet Li is there for a minute or two – as is Arnold Schwarzenegger, who says he will be back and is. (Being Governor has not really honed the Terminator’s acting skills; he is still into clunky recitation of lines which works best when he is being deadpan funny).

The rest of the action is in an ugly remote area of Bulgaria where they are pursuing arch-villain (Jean- Claude Van Damme rather enjoying himself as nonchalently sinister) who is digging up some tons of buried plutonium from Cold War days. Oh, when they are in dire straits, who should turn up (with a fanfare from the Good, the Bad and the Ugly theme) but Chuck Norris (looking better than his age)!

There is an improbably gung-ho climax in a local airport.

Avoiding the accusation that this is all too macho, a female computer expert who is handy with guns as well (Nan Yu) becomes a key member of the group. One performer who comes off fairly well is Liam Hemsworth as a young warrior who brings a bit of emotion into the film (and into Stallone himself).

Watching the mayhem become repetitive, one’s mind wanders to the implausibility of so much of the plot. One way of understanding what is going on (how do they move from being stranded into flying in their plane? how do they get from here to there in their truck without explanation?) is that it is like a comic strip: key scenes sketched in and you have to use your imagination to supply the links.

Corny conclusion: if you are making a list of must-see movies, this one is expendable.

THE HUNT FOR THE I-5 KILLER

US, 2011, 90 minutes, Colour.
John Corbett, Sara Canning, Tygh Runyan, Bo Derek.
Directed by Allan Kroeker.

The hunt for the I-5 Killer is a Lifetime Telemovie, filmed in British Columbia. It is based on a true story.

The focus is on killer who assaults women, robbing some, raping others, killing a number of his victims. The detective in charge is played by John Corbett who has returned from overseas service and is eager for a strong case to investigate. This case is more than he anticipated and for a long time he is unable to make progress in solving the mystery. One of the survivors of an attack, played by Sara Canning, becomes dependent on him and he wants to be her saviour. This puts some strains on his marriage.

Halfway through the film, the murderer is introduced. He is played by Tygh Runyan. He is a vengeful type – and also a personal charmer who wants to talk his way out of every difficult situation.

There is an effective cameo by Bo Derek (John Corbett’s real-life companion) as a policewoman who is very unsympathetic and uncooperative.

The film was directed by Allan Kroeker, a veteran of many television series from the mid-80s.

The film is interesting in its presentation of an actual case, the investigation – with some violent sequences introduced (perhaps too often for some tastes) to indicate the horror of the serial killer and the violence on his victims.

1. An interesting American telemovie? An actual police case? Serial killer and crime? Investigation?

2. The Canadian settings for the US? The I-5 and its going up the west coast of the United States from California to Washington State?

3. The photography, the locations, the authentic feel? The I-5 itself – the various towns, the diners, factories, offices, homes? The locations for the crimes?

4. Dave Kominek, his war background, his commenting about needing a strong case? The introduction to the serial killer? Beth and her surviving the attack? His concern? His promises to her? His collaboration with the other police in his town? With other police forces up and down the I-5? The range of investigations, following the clues? The killer and his leaving very few clues? His exasperation? His irritability? Beth’s dependence on him? The concern of his wife?

5. The introduction of the killer, his friend, their travelling? His working as a barman? His smug attitude? At the boarding house? His indicating that his friend was the killer?

6. The reality of the crimes? In the coat, the hood, the plaster over his nose – which he thought would avoid identification? His ruthlessness? His motivations? His anti-women? His friendship with Angie, the proposal, saying that she had changed his life? Her visit to him in prison, her disappointment and his resentment?

7. The range of victims, the scenes of the crimes, at the diners, the young women, at service stations? The mother and daughter at home? Indiscriminate?

8. The local policewoman, her lack of collaboration with Komenik, not providing the warrant? Her attitude and his exasperation?

9. The range of police, detection, the roadblocks, going to homes? Local police following their hunches?

10. The final confrontation, Komenik with Woodfield? At his home, the search, his destroying the evidence? In prison? Getting Beth to come to identify him, the line-up, her picking him out, her feeling relieved and not in danger?

11. Komenik and his success – a telemovie for the average audience, dramatising, perhaps overdramatising the violence in the case? Nevertheless showing what was needed for a thorough investigation and arrest?

FRANKENSTEIN

US, 1910, 13 minutes, Black and white.
Mary Fuller, Charles Ogle, Augustus Phillips.
Directed by J. Searle Dawley.

Frankenstein is the first film version of Mary Shelley’s novel. With its short running time, typical of the films of famous novels at this time, compressed because of the technology of camera, film stock and projectors, it has only the outline of the story.

The film is interesting to see as an example of adaptations for novels for the short running time on the screen.

The film shows several selections from the Frankenstein story – with captions indicating what is to happen. The film shows the young scientist leaving home, farewelled by his family. It then moves to his laboratory, his discovery of live. What follows then is the scientific and science fantasy part of the film, his recreating the monster, a giant oven, the monster coming to life – albeit in blurred fashion.

The film moves on to the scientist’s horror at what he has created, a monster rather than full life. When he returns home for his wedding, the monster follows him. He is welcomed back home, has discussions with his fiancée – but then the monster appears, jealous of Frankenstein and his love for Elizabeth.

The film moves to a conclusion with the monster threatening Frankenstein, finding his reflection in a mirror and being horrified. He threatens Elizabeth. However, in seeing his image, he is disgusted with the evil and disappears. Frankenstein then comes into the room, sees the monster in the mirror, goes up and touches the mirror – which then transforms into his own image. There is a happy ending.

The film was previously lost with only a few frames of the monster available. However, it has been discovered, restored – and an opportunity to see how the film tradition of Frankenstein began, twenty years before the famous Boris Karloff version.

CHECKERED FLAG (CRASH. CROSS COUNTRY WRECKERS)

US, 1977, 95 minutes, Colour.
Joe Don Baker, Susan Sarandon, Larry Hagman, Alan Vint, Parnelli Jones.
Directed by Alan Gibson.

Checkered Flag (Crash, Cross- Country Wreckers) is another of the many popular drive-in actioners involving racing cars. This time it is off-road racing – and, though the setting is the US, was filmed in the Philippines. Joe Don Baker, action hero at this time (especially for his Walking Tall films as Buford Pusser) is a natural as Walkaway Madden. It is a surprise to see Susan Sarandon in this film. Larry Hagman also appears, doing a variation on his Dallas J.R. character. Driver Parnelli Jones appears as himself.

The film was directed by Alan Gibson who went more upmarket in succeeding years with the television film of A Woman Called Golda with Ingrid Bergman and Judy Davis as Golda Meir, a remake of Witness for the Prosecution with Deborah Kerr.

1. Significance and tone of the title, audience expectations? The original American title was "Crash". For what audience was the film made? For what effect? How successful?

2. Audience interest in and response to the world of cars, their power, dangers and risks, the spectacular nature of crashes and wrecks?

3. The basic idea of the film for the rally? The structure of the film, introducing, the characters in the context of the rally, the progress of the rally and its risks and dangers, achievement? Audience involvement via the structure?

4. The initial introduction to cars and bikes? The importance of machines in the twentieth century, skill with machines, driving them, making demands on them? Success and failure with machines and the effect on the skilled people?

5. The importance of the terrain for the rally, the Philippines, jungle terrain, rivers, roads? The nature of the challenge? To what purpose?

6. Comment on the various accidents and the effect on the audience, the effect on the characters?

7. The pros and cons of such rallies? The personalities involved, the attitudes of danger and risk, the business world and the money-backers and the money risks? The importance of the organizers risking people's lives and playing with people's lives?

8. How important was the presentation of Cochrane in this regard? His busy personality, frantic pace, organization, the initial encounter with C.C.? His stock car background, his explanation of his never being a winner yet having a dream? His money risks, its helicopter supervision? His realisation of the danger with the flood, with the alternate route? The lies and playing with people’s lives? What values did he stand for?

9. How interesting and engaging a hero was Madden? His nickname of ‘Walk Away’? As hero, tough? his attitudes towards the rally and driving, towards C.C.’s presence? The way that he got rid of her? His attitude towards Doc? His skill and his finishing the rally? Did he have the right to run such risks? How real a character was he?

10. The contrast with the character of Doc? His ability with machines, motives for being in the rally, clash with Madden, friendship with C.C.? His not finishing the rally?

11. How real a character was C.C.? How interesting? As a reporter, as a woman, responding to similar dangers? Her observations on the rally? Her presence and her being left? What attitude did she have towards the various people involved? Towards Doc? her comments on life when she was left in the middle of the Philippines?

12. How well delineated were the other characters, in terms of the rally, relationships - the touch on sexuality?

13. How much reflection went into the film? For example, C.C.’s remarks when she was taping? Was the film anything more than a presentation and even an exploitation of machines and risks and dangers?

CHRONICLE

US, 2012, 84 minutes, Colour.
Dane De Haan, Alex Russell, Michael B. Jordan, Michael Kelly, Ashley Hinshaw.
Directed by Josh Trank.

Chronicle sounds a fairly straightforward title – though the film runs for only 84 minutes, rather a short time for a chronicle.

This is another hand-held camera story, allegedly using footage taken by Andrew (Dane de Haan), the central character, with his new camera. In the latter part of the film, other alleged footage from surveillance cameras and other sources is edited in. So, we are in the Blair Witch tradition, though the story takes us in quite a different direction.

All seems rather domestic at first: Andrew’s room, his alcoholic father, his ailing mother, school where he is put down all the time, a party where he irritates people by filming. His main friend is his cousin Matthew (Alex Russell) who tries to put the brakes on all the filming, hoping Andrew will get a life. He does, but the most hoped-for.

Matthew is joined by class president, Steve (Michael B. Jordan) as they explore a mysterious hole in the ground and ask Andrew to film. Something in the hole exercises a strange power and they become telekinetic as well as finding they can soar into the air.

Strong change of pace at this juncture.

What first seems something jokey and a bit of horseplay becomes something dangerous, fatal for one of the group. And Andrew seems to be taken over by the power, becoming extremely vindictive, cruel to friends and his many foes, ultimately becoming, not a superhero, but a supervillain. He could have become a Spiderman type for good but turns into the Green Goblin and the other evil characters from the Spiderman films.

The film becomes rather spectacular by the end as Andrew wreaks his revenge as well being destructive just because he can. He rationalizes his attitudes with theories of evolution and survival of the fittest, rather Nietschean (though Schopenhauer and Plato are quoted), an evil super-man beyond morality.

Chronicle was filmed in South Africa with quite some interesting special effects – South Africa did a very good job with District 9 and its effects some years ago.

Younger audiences will identify with the characters and the situations and then be challenged by Andrew’s behaviour. This one has proven popular and may be on its way to cult movie status.

1. Favourable reviews? The film becoming a cult success? Science fiction? The slant on superheroes? Struggle between good and evil?

2. South Africa standing in for Seattle? The stunt work, the effects? The musical score?

3. The Blair Witch tradition, handheld camera, incorporated footage from other cameras, the editing?

4. The establishing of the style of the film, the handheld camera, Andrew and his holding it, attention to detail, his editing it? Intruding? The addition of surveillance and other material?

5. Andrew as the nerd, at school, bullied, his father and his criticisms, his mother ill, the girlfriend and her blog? His bond with Matthew, his cousin?

6. Going to the party, his being persuaded, the camera, his intrusiveness, the bullies? Matt and Steve, their being at the party, urging Andrew on, telling him about the hole?

7. The hole, filming it, going into it, the tunnel, the stone and its superhuman powers? The effect on the three?

8. The consequences, kinetic powers, experimenting with them, the lifting of the cars, their soaring into the air? Playing jokes?

9. Matt and his caution, his care for Andrew?

10. Andrew, the power, the effect, his wanting to control more and more, the evil side, his philosophy of the superman, beyond morality? Vengeance?

11. Steve, the jokes, his death? Matt’s reaction?

12. Matt, his response to Andrew, his sense of responsibility?

13. The fight, the destruction of evil?

14. The spectacular finale, in the sky, the clash, the special effects?

15. Andrew and his potential for becoming a power for good like Spider-Man?...? The opposite choices – and his opting for evil? A moral fable?

CHERRY

US, 2012, 97 minutes, Colour.
Ashley Hinshaw, James Franco, Heather Graham, Dev Patel, Diane Farr, Lili Taylor.
Directed by Stephen Elliott.

It depends on your point of view whether you think that this, kind of paperback version, story of Angelina from Los Angeles is a downhill story or an achievement tale.

Model Ashley Winshaw is Angelina, an attractive young woman, whose mother drinks (Lili Taylor), who has a brutal father and a vulnerable younger sister, as well as a platonic friendship with Indian, Andrew (Dev Patel, the Slumdog Millionaire). What will life offer her? Actually, she is not backward in grasping what turns out to be a sleazy life does offer.
She goes somewhat coyly to a photo-session and discovers something of the exhibitionist in herself. Soon, she sneaks off to San Francisco with the ever-devoted Andrew – he will accuse her later, rightly, of treating him like a pet. Before you can say Strip Club, she is a hostess, being advised she ought to be a dancer. But, soon, as Cherry, she auditions for Margaret (Heather Graham) for some lesbian porn clips and is into the business. A complication arises when her mother and sister come for a visit and leave with some cash and disillusionment. Another is her affair with a wealthy former artist who spends his money on drugs (James Franco).

Let’s say that she ends up materially successful.

Former sex worker, Stephen Elliott, says he wanted to tell a story about the industry he and fellow writer, Lorelei Lee (probably about as real as Cherry for a name) have known well. They have collected quite a number of reputable actors. But, the treatment is mainly surface with a few moments of angst – though most of the angst comes in the subplot about Margaret and her possessive partner.

There are a few sex scenes as expected though most are not nearly as explicit as one finds in other films.

1. A film of Los Angeles and San Francisco? Young people? Work? Photography? Pornography?

2. The presentation of the cities, ordinary, the nightclubs, the studios, apartments? The musical score?

3. Angelina’s story, at eighteen, her life, her family, her parents, her mother’s drinking, her father’s abusiveness, JoJo? and her age, care? Her relationship with Bobby? His taking her to Vaughn, the photographic session, Angelina becoming more exhibitionistic? The money? Andrew as her friend, the way she treated him, his driving her round? Her decision to leave Los Angeles, lying to her mother, Andrew driving her to San Francisco?

4. Andrew, his Indian and British background, devoted, saying that Angelina treated him like a pet? His driving her everywhere, his jobs? Going to San Francisco, sharing the room, going to the club, his getting work at the bookshop, his talking to Angelina, his advice, his disillusionment, disagreement with her work, leaving?

5. The San Francisco house, the gay man in charge, Angelina sharing? Her getting a job quickly, hostess at the club, relationship with the girls, the encounter with Francis and his friend, Francis coming to visit, taking a liking to Angelina?

6. With Francis, going to the art gallery, the party, his story, art, the law, his drugs? His patron? His not coming to meet Angelina’s mother and sister, his later apology, his break with Angelina?

7. The interviews for the job, the questions, seemingly matter-of-fact? Her answering the questions, agreeing to the work? Her audition, Margaret and the filming, the fetish films, pretending to be a schoolgirl, the sexual talk? The background of the studio, the crew, the women in makeup, the camerawoman?

8. The clips, pornography, the director, the actor? Francis discovering the truth and expressing his disgust? Breaking with her?

9. Margaret and her companion, the tension between them, each with their different jobs, going out, the party? Margaret and her fascination with Cherry? Watching the clips? Going to the bar, continuing to watch? The argument between the two women, the frank sexual encounter, Margaret leaving?

10. Margaret and Angelina, together, repeating the pattern of the past? Time passing?

11. Angelina, directing in the same way that Margaret did? The client? The continuation of the cycle?

12. The film made from the inside by the director and writer, their work in the sex industry? A film of insights or not?

LA VIERGE, LES COPTS ET MOI... (THE VIRGIN, THE COPTS AND ME…)

France, 2011, 85 minutes, Colour.
Siham Abdel Messeeh, Namir Abdel Messeeh.
Directed by Namir Abdel Messeeh.

Quite a crowd-pleasing documentary.

The director engages his audience by showing his quest to get his film made - and by featuring his mother, a strong-minded and mouthed lady to say the least, whom he has in tow throughout the film. Come to think of it, she really has him in tow.

The family is Coptic having moved from Egypt to France in the early 1970s. Though he is not a believer, he has become fascinated by reports of apparitions of Mary in Cairo in 2010. He then hears of apparitions in 1968. So, he decides to find out what Copts believe, their piety and devotion, how much popular superstition is at work. He thinks it will give him some insights into Egypt. His globetrotting producer is puzzled as to the direction of the film and asks whether it is about the Virgin Mary, Egypt or himself. Why not all three? Hence the title of the film.

There is a lot of location photography, especially in Cairo. There are many interviews ranging from the skeptical to the very devout. The Copts take their religion seriously and are aware of their minority status and persecution.

Eventually, the director decides to re-enact an apparition to show what it is like and how people react. He uses his extended family (bossed about by his mother who has declared herself production manager). There are auditions for Mary, rehearsals for reactions, a lot of family banter and interactions - and, finally, the film of the apparition.

1. The tone of the film? Serious documentary? Light? Comic? The touch of mockumentary?

2. The director and his interests – and the combination in the title? The opinion of his producer?

3. France, the family, their life in France, the French perspective, the background of the Egyptian perspective? Coptic Christianity?

4. The Copts in Egypt, the statistic, their place in Egyptian society, the experience of persecution?

5. The Egyptian heritage – and the change in 2011?

6. The issues of religion, Coptic Christianity, the visuals, the icons and churches, the clergy, the authority? Piety, devotions? Superstitions? The history of apparitions of Mary – and their influence?

7. The information about the apparition of 2010? Watching the video, the light, what seen – and what not seen? Different perspectives? The mother’s comments about faith, piety and perspectives? The information about the apparitions in 1968, the records? Copts and Muslims both claiming to have seen Mary?

8. The director going to Egypt, his attitude, the humorous touch, his skills, the issue of the budget? The theme?

9. His family in France, his mother and her presence, dominating, religious, managing and taking over production manager, dealing with people, fulfilling favours, offering exceptions? Exasperating her son?

10. The interviews, the range in Cairo, in the streets, with the family, the various opinions about the apparitions?

11. Going to the family, the introductions, the auditions, the proposal about the film? The strong sense of religion and the response to the director?

12. The rehearsals? Why a re-enactment of the apparitions? The motive? The mockumentary style in making the film? The making of...?

13. The fields, the older people, their expressions, shouting, amazement?

14. The girls being auditioned for Mary – the final choice, her being lifted up, as appearing in the final film?

15. The green screen, Mary lifted up, the lights, the people?

16. The story testing people’s belief and responses? The family and their delight in seeing themselves on screen?

17. The title – and what the director learnt? What the audience learnt?

BEL AMI

UK, 2012, 102 minutes, Colour.
Robert Pattinson, Uma Thurman, Christina Ricci, Kristin Scott Thomas, Holliday Grainger, Colm Meaney, Philip Glenister, Pip Torrens.
Directed by Declan Donnellan and Nick Ormerod.

The story of a cad. Based on the story by Guy de Maupassant, and filmed in the 1940s with George Sanders in the title role, this is a film set in La Belle Epoque, Paris in the 1890s.

Georges Du Roy comes from a poor and illiterate family and has just spent five years as a soldier in Algeria. We see him looking in from the outside on the wine, women and song culture of the period. He is envious. However, out he goes and encounters, by chance, a fellow soldier who is now a journalist for a prominent Paris newspaper. He offers Georges an opportunity at a meal at his house. He meets the editor but he also meets three wives – and we know that his intentions are not honourable.

Georges is played by Robert Pattinson, which proves a contemporary difficulty, disengaging his character from Twilight’s Edward. The other difficulty is that Georges is a callow young man (empty as one of the women will later accuse him). He has a certain charm, a smiling charm, but his self-centred opportunism is not attractive at all. With the help of his benefactor’s wife, Madeleine (Uma Thurman), who dictates his first article, he succeeds at the newspaper but his laziness threatens to lose him his position and income.

In the meantime, he has taken up with one of the wives, Collette (CristinaRicci), bored with her husband and delighted to have an affair, and pay for a love nest, with Georges. He charms her young daughter who nicknames him Bel Ami, which is taken up by other characters. When Madeleine’s husband dies, he determines to marry her and does. Her enthusiasm for news research and reporting and the editor’s aim to bring down the government means that Georges is now contributing to the political action in Paris.

But, he is treated as a boy. His revenge is to seduce Virginie (Kristin Scott Thomas), the editor’s wife. She becomes besotted by him. He also takes up with Collette again.

When a political situation occurs, which means corruption and exploitation, Madeleine turns against him. In terms of the drama, this is hard to accept as Madeleine is drawn as a strong character with convictions, not likely to enter into easy dalliance or betray her principles.

But Bel Ami is not done yet and the final image is of the smug face of the complete cad who has manipulated his success.

Think in the vein of Dangerous Liaisons and Cheri.

1. The classic story? Guy de Maupassant? Previous versions?

2. The 1890s in Paris, La Belle Epoque, wealth and poverty, clubs, the nightlife and the social life, homes and apartments, the newspaper offices, the world of politics? Liaisons and morality? Sets, costumes, decor? The score?

3. The story of Georges? The background of his family, his father’s illiteracy, Georges going into the army, serving in Africa? The years in Africa? What to show for it? his looking in from the outside? Envy? His dingy apartment, getting dressed and going out, going into the club? The encounter with Charles? The drink? The invitation to dinner? Georges and his spending the money with the prostitute, later insulting her by ignoring her at the club? The dinner, meeting all the guests, not knowing what cutlery to use? The condescending attitude towards him? Opening up new worlds? How much luck? How much plan? The discussion about the article and the suggestion that he write about Africa and the war?

4. Madeleine, her personality, enthusiasm, relationship with her husband, the enthusiasm about the article, dictating the story? Its success? His getting money?

5. Madeleine’s advice about his relationships with women? Visiting Clotilde, playing with her little girl, the little girl calling him Bel Ami? The suggestion by Clotilde that they have a love nest? The effect? His love for Clotilde – or not? How self-centred? His laziness, not writing the article, the editor and the taunts, the reaction of the staff?

6. Charles and his illness, Georges being there when he died? His decision about Madeleine? His marrying her? As a couple, her enthusiasm, research, the political issues, the invasion of Morocco? Her dictating, his writing? His theory about the moustache – as a gimmick for articles? The editor and his accepting Georges, encouraging him? Georges’ success at the paper?

7. The parties, the cards, the editor not remembering his name, meeting Larouche? His involvement in the war? The politics?

8. The paper, the editor and his wanting to bring down the government? The use of Larouche and his information? The new government, Larouche as the minister for defence? The editor and his musings – that he brought the government down, Georges saying that they were not his words?

9. Virginie, her relationship with her husband? Her attraction to George? The gift of the pears? Chatting with the ladies? The long years of marriage? Going to the church? Georges and his seduction, taking her to the love nest, her passion? The affair and its effect? Her growing more desperate? Her giving Georges the information about the mines, the money, the invasion of Morocco, Larouche and the editor exploiting the situation?

10. Madeleine, the count, his visits on Tuesdays, Georges’ jealousy, despite his own double standards? The death of the count, the will, the conditions, Madeleine not wanting the money, Georges and his rationalising about the property and propriety?

11. Virginie and the information about Larouche and the editor? Their making money? His going to Madeleine? His attack on her – and her attack on him, calling him an empty man?

12. The continued relationship with Clotilde, his ability to tell the truth to Clotilde? Her tolerance?

13. Madeleine and her accepting the money, her relationship with Larouche – how consistent with the principles that she expressed earlier in the film? Her arrest and being held for adultery?

14. Georges and his decision to get revenge on the editor? His abducting Suzanne – and her going willingly? No sexual encounter? His return, his hold over the editor, Virginie and her being crushed? His persuading them to allow him to marry Suzanne?

15. The wedding ceremony – and everybody there, their judgment on him after their experiences with him? His final smile, smug, a cad and a libertine? And successful?

MAN ON A LEDGE

US, 2012, 102 minutes, Colour.
Sam Worthington, Elizabeth Banks, Jamie Bell, Ed Harris, Edward Burns, Anthony Mackie, Genesis Rodriguez, Titus Welliver.
Directed by Asger Leth.

Far-fetched (one hopes) but eminently watchable.

Sam Worthington (rather uncharismatically strong) spends a great deal of the film on a ledge of the Roosevelt Hotel in Manhattan. But, first, we see him in prison, serving a 25 year sentence for stealing a very valuable diamond from building entrepreneur, Ed Harris. He is allowed out for his father’s funeral where he clashes with his brother, Jamie Bell – and then escapes. Which leads him on to the ledge.

It soon emerges why he is on the ledge – but that is part of the cleverness of the plot, quite intricate in its way, with more than an effective climax and a pleasing twist at the end. But, probably, best for an audience to find this out for themselves rather than read about the plot development in a review.

Worthington has appeared in Avatar and The Debt. Jamie Bell has been playing a number of character rather than leading roles and is building himself an effective career. Elizabeth Banks usually plays feisty roles. Here she is the expert on talking down would-be suicides, though she is haunted by a recent failure and her suspicions that this case is not ‘normal’ at all. Ed Burns is her associate on the scene – wary of a woman in the advisory role. Ed Harris plays the millionaire with great gusto, a narcissistic megalomaniac.

There is obviously much more to the robbery of the diamond and we suspect police corruption – and we are right. This means that getting the man down from the ledge (where a crowd has gathered, many urging him to jump) is far more complicated than we might have first imagined. It does involve his brother and his fiancée doing a lot of stunt work.

Right will out at the end and vindications where necessary – and a nice, tongue-in-cheek ending with the bell-hop of the hotel.

Paperback action, but entertaining.

1. A good thriller? Mystery? Conspiracy story?

2. A New York story, the focus on the hotel, the ledge, the streets below, the crowds, the police? Offices? The structure behind the offices and behind the scenes? The interiors? The ledge and the roof? The musical score?

3. The situation, Nick, his role in the police, his partner? His being accused, twenty-five years’ sentence? The robbery? The problems in the jail, the parole officer? His father’s death, the funeral, the escort, burying the father, the clash with Joe, Angie present? The fight, turning the tables on the escort, getting the gun, his escape?

4. Going to the hotel, the bellhop, the meal, going out on the ledge? Jack Dougherty and the other police? Asking for Lydia Mercer? Nick’s behaviour on the ledge, playing to the crowd, his earpiece, the revelation of contact with Joe, directing him in getting into the safe, the importance of the timing, the details of the plan, recovering the diamond – and vindication?

5. Lydia and waking, her job, her sense of past failure, working in a man’s world? The looking down on Lydia? Interactions with Doughertey? Talking with Nick, forming a bond with him, the puzzle about his attitude and behaviour? Getting more information, his identity, the fingerprints – and the timing for this information? Trying to persuade him to come down? Her control of Doughertey? Her leadership? Mike Ackerman, the scenes with Nick in the prison, close partnership, Ackerman coming into the room, the lockout? Lydia believing him, going out on the ledge herself?

6. Joe and Angie, the plan, the detail, the timing, getting inside, getting through security, the lifts, the ladders, the heat surveillance, substitute photos for the video surveillance? Nick directing everything? Getting into the office, the safe, the diamond, taking the diamond – and being caught?

7. David Englander, Ed Harris’s style? Businessman, the robbery, his super-confidence, his plans for the building, his contacts with the police? The PR and the press? His catching Joe, the confrontation, the secret safe? Taking the diamond, confronting Nick?

8. Nick and his jumping, caught, pursuing Englander, the switching of the diamond, Joe and the bellhop and their participation? His catching Englander? Offering the diamond as proof?

9. The vindication, Mike Ackerman and the shooting? The confrontation on the roof, Dante Marcus, corrupt, the shootings? Lydia on the roof?

10. The media, Suzie Morales, her intervening, her broadcasts, switching audience attention to different details, switching audience attitudes? Her comeuppance?

11. The final scene at the pub, the revelation about the bellhop being the father, not dead? Joe and his ring for Angie? The conclusion of a watchable thriller?