THE MAN FROM NOWHERE

Korea, 2010, 119 minutes, Colour.
Bin Won.
Directed by Jeong-beom Lee.

In the early years of the 20th century the Korean film industry built on the foundations from the 1990s with many action dramas, especially crime dramas.

This is an interesting variation on the themes, the tough hero who might be considered something of a Korean Dirty Harry. While there are drug themes and trafficking in human organs, there are also some humane themes, especially the background of the man from nowhere, the death of his pregnant wife and his motivations, his sympathies for a little girl, daughter of an addicted mother who steals drugs from the bosses and suffers accordingly.

It emerges that the man from nowhere has disappeared for eight years from official records, being a special agent of the government and trained in attack and defence skills. He is quietly running a pawnshop, a neighbour of the woman and her daughter. His compassion for the daughter leads him to come out of obscurity and confront the thugs. Which leads to a great deal of action, a great deal of fighting.

While this kind of drama, sometimes bloodsoaked, may not have a wide appeal, it will be appreciated by audiences like who like strong action and the administration of justice.

1. Korean action and crime drama? Police drama? Individual heroics? Drug trade? Human organs trade?

2. The settings, the Korean city, drug dealers, bosses and thugs? The police, surveillance, action, headquarters, interrogations? The cabaret and nightclubs? The streets, apartments, the pawn shop, other shops? An authentic feel? The musical score?

3. The action sequences and special effects? Martial arts skills? Defence skills?

4. The title, the introduction to the man from nowhere, at home, the little girl, the meals, shielding her from her mother? His owning the pawn shop? The bag with the drugs? The gradual revelation of who he was, special agent, training, his disappearance for several years, special missions? The documentation reserved? The flashbacks, the death of his pregnant wife? Her grave? The thugs arriving and confronting the mother of the little girl, taking the girl? His becoming involved?

5. The surveillance, the drug deal, the nightclub, the dancer, her taking the drugs and escaping? The portrait of the bosses, the Korean connections, Chinese connections? International? The various thugs and connections? The failure of the police sting?

6. The man from nowhere, his interventions, the reasons for his actions? The police puzzled? His being taken in, their investigations in finding out the truth?

7. His greater involvement, swift movements, confronting the villains, their attacking him in his wounds? The removal of the bullet? His friend giving him advice? His motivations, his dead wife and her pregnancy? His concern for the little girl?

8. The thugs, the mother, taking her, her death? Trading in organs? Their taking the little girl, the other children, the organs? The threat of taking the little girl’s eyes, the container and the taunting of the man from nowhere?

9. The action sequences, the stunt work, interrogations, torture, fights?

10. The anger of the hero, the kind of Dirty Harry persona and action? His becoming involved with the little girl, thinking that she had been killed? His contemplating suicide? Her surviving, the embrace, her gratitude that he had come for her, his sending her away to a better life?

11. The combination of action and humane themes?

SCHOOL LIFE

Ireland, 2016, 99 minutes, Colour.
John and Amanda Leyden,
Directed by Neasa Ni Chianain, David Rane.

There is great deal of human interest in this documentary which has won a number of awards citing it has a pleasant experience about education.

Interestingly, the original title was the Latin, In Loco Parentis – in place of the parents.

The setting is Headfort School in an 18th-century estate and mention in County Meath, the last boarding school in Ireland for primary students. The student group is quite select, many of them having ambitions to get into prestigious schools in Ireland or, especially, Harrow and Eton in the United Kingdom.

While there is a great deal of emphasis on the students and some of them do become central to the story and action, especially the awkwardly dyslexic Ted, the silent Eliza, we recognise the students by their faces and behaviour rather than by their names.

However, the central focus is on two veteran teachers, John and Amanda Leyden. The film opens in their home, having a quiet breakfast smoke and conversation. They have been at the school many years – and John later tells a student that they were married in 1972, which puts him at the school for almost 45 years, married for almost 45 years. They have dedicated their life to the school. The current principal, Dermot Dix, was also a student there.

The number of students is comparatively small as is the number of staff. These are glimpsed, sometimes in conversation, sometimes with the children, but the principal focus is on the work of the Leydens. In appearance, John looks something of a rebel, very casually dressed, long hair askew, a touch of the cynical and the critical in his dealing with the students, yet very concerned about them. Amanda looks something of a dowdy grandmother. But they are deeply concerned about the students, do their best to form them in their studies and as persons. At home, the couple have conversations about the students, discussing their concerns and what they might do.

Amanda is principally concerned with literature. We see her in the library recommending books. We see her in the classroom. We also see her directing some scenes from Hamlet, intriguing to see the primary school students and their rehearsals, the extensive make up, the nervousness, the performance, especially of Ted as the ghost and of Hamlet. Amanda shares their anxiety as well as their exhilaration.

On the other hand, while John teaches maths and Latin, he is also interested (more interested?) in music. He is an old-time rock ‘n’ roller and there are various posters and indications of his fondness for David Bowie and Jimi Hendrix. He encourages the children to sing whatever they can and whatever they like. He is also interested in the instruments, he himself playing the piano. Some play the guitar. And there is a young girl, Florie, who arrives in the school, having been a model but with some low self-esteem, who plays the drums. Ultimately, there is a performance for the parents at which the students excel.

There are some staff meetings, interesting to hear the principal and his assessment of the students and the ethos of the school.

At the end of the year, some of the students are overjoyed they get into their preferred schools. And there is a ceremony in local awards with the untalkative Eliza winning several awards and beginning to talk – and talk and talk.

There is no voice-over for this documentary. Rather, the audience is introduced to John and Amanda, seeing the range of students at meetings, out in the grounds, in classes, in discussions, music practice, theatre, cricket.

The director and the editor have chosen particular scenes, seemingly at random, to build up the kind of piecemeal jigsaw rather than any set piece.

By the end of the film, the audience has experienced a perspective on education of primary school children. The film will, of course, be of particular interest to teachers and parents if their children are in primary school.

THE 36th CHAMBER OF SHAOLIN

Hong Kong, 1978, 115 minutes, Colour.
Chia Hui Liu, Lieh Lo.
Directed by Chia Liang Liu.

This film was released early in the world popularity of martial arts films, especially, of Kung Fu. It appeared in 1978, some years after the death of Bruce Lee and the increasing world interest in his films.

The film was directed by veteran Chinese director Chia Liang Liu. While it narrates a basic story, the main intention of the film, as indicated by the credit sequences which are totally devoted to a warrior illustrating martial arts movements, was to indicate the detail of the training for expertise in Kung Fu, physical well-being, physical control, mental control. In the Buddhist temple, there are 35 Chambers. The hero eager to learn kung fu opts to go to chamber 35 but finds himself out of his depth. He returns to the beginning, taking years to move through the variety of chambers, learning balance, physical strength, holistic well-being.

Eventually he is to establish Chamber 36. However, the Abbott of the monastery finds that the warrior has been insolent and sends him outside for punishment – where, he will lead rebels in their attacks.

The film opens with a story about a Tartar invasion and the response of the authorities as well as of rebels. There are various confrontations, autocratic influence by the rulers, sadistic manifestations by the underlings in their trying to take control. In the meantime, there is also a school with young students, the students eager to fight for their country. When the authorities clamp down, especially killing the father of the hero and closing the school, he and a friend leave in disguise into the countryside, are pursued, the friend taken, but the hero determined to go on a journey to find the Shaolin Temple.

As has been said, the bulk of the film shows the training – beautifully photographed, well edited, a sense of atmosphere. It can be noted that this film and the trends of the 70s and 80s were of straightforward martial arts and practice. It was only in the late 90s and with such films as Crouching Dragon that the magical realism, stunt work and effects, became a staple of the martial arts films and fantasies.

This film could be seen, more or less, as the archetypal basic martial arts film and so is interesting historically for the movement as well as the films of the Shaw Brothers in the 1970s.

BETTER WATCH OUT


Australia/US, 2016, 89 minutes, Colour.
Olivia De Jonge, Levi Miller, Ed Oxenbould, Alex Mikic, Dacre Montgomery, Patrick Warburton, Virginia Madsen.
Directed by Chris Peckover.

You'd better watch out
You'd better not cry
You'd better not pout
I'm telling you why
Santa Claus is coming to town.

Yes, this is a Christmas film but it is best to note only the first line of the lyrics because Santa Claus is definitely not coming to town here.

This is a film which will appeal almost solely to horror fans. Others can just merely note this review. And, for horror fans, a warning to give this film 10 minutes, at least, because it focuses on two 12 year olds having puberty -like conversations which may seem something of a turnoff. Then there is a twist. But, this also might sound like familiar material, an intruder in the house. But, give the film another 10 minutes and there is more than a twist!

The film was the work of an American director and an American writer. However, apart from some street scenes, an American Street with Christmas decorations and snow, the film was actually made in Sydney. And, apart from Patrick Warburton and Virginia Madsen who have cameos at the beginning and end of the film as the central character’s parents, the five key roles are played by Australians, honing their American accents.

At the centre is the rather shy, sometimes awkward, Luke. He is played very effectively by Levi Miller who was Peter in Pan and then made this film before he appeared in Red Dog, True Blue as well as Jasper Jones. His performance in this film will be a substantial contribution to his CV. His best friend, Garrett, is played by Ed Oxenbould who was central to the fine children’s film, Paper Planes, but knows how to do an American accent from his roles in Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible Day, No Good, Very Bad Day and In M. Night Shyamalan’s eerie film, The Visit.

Co-starring in The Visit was Olivia De Jonge who plays Luke’s babysitter, Ashley. She has a boyfriend, Ricky, Alex Mikic, who turns up during the night while she is babysitting as well as Jeremy, Dacre Montgomery (Stranger Things) who also comes to visit.

It is Christmas so there are lots of American Street decorations, many Santa Claus figures who appear momentarily menacing and Carol singers at the door with their repertoire.

It is what happens indoors (as well as a grim scene in the backyard) that is what will intrigue audiences. Unless the audience is skilled in pre-guessing outcomes, they will be rather surprised at all that happens inside, getting more gruesome as the film goes on, some uncontrolled psychopathic behaviour which becomes more and more unpredictable.

In fact, we see a portrait here of an ultra-psychopathic psychopath.

Probably best not to say anything more about the plot. It can be said that the performances of the young actors are better than one might expect. The plot is eerie and should make something of a hit with all but the most jaded horror fans.

1. A Christmas horror story? The title, the song – but Santa Claus not coming to town? Variation on Christmas horror themes?

2. The American setting, the locations streets, the filming of the interiors in Australia? The Australian cast? The American parents? American director and writer?

3. The setting, the American home, the street, the decorations? The house and the interiors, downstairs and upstairs, the attic? The grounds? The musical score – and the Christmas songs, the Christmas carols for atmosphere?

4. The introduction to Luke and Garrett? Age 12, almost 13? The evening, the bedroom and their discussions, the talk about Ashley, the sexual talk? Innuendo? Young age, puberty – but suggestions of something more?

5. The parents, the blunt talk, the wife and her criticisms, some gay behaviour, criticisms of ties, the relationship with Luke, protective, his sleepwalking? Ashley arriving, the babysitter? Leaving for the night out? The return home, the shock, protective of Luke? And the potential for shock afterwards?

6. Ashley, age, in plans for leaving the city, her relationship with Ricky, the past with Jeremy? Friendship with Luke in babysitting him in the past? Preparing for the evening? Her phone calls? The television on, horror films? Garrett, his going home?

7. Luke and Garrett, their friendship, the story of the hamster, the deliberate killing and the lies? Luke and Garrett, their chatter? Garrett going? Luke, his drinking the champagne, indications of something more with him? Ashley’s reaction, her drinking, the deal about not telling? Watching the horror film? Luke snuggling, the attempted kiss, Ashley’s reaction? The discussions about the past, Ricky and Jeremy?

8. Ashley, the spider and her being scared? The moving of the Santa outside? The pizza man arriving? Hearing sounds in the house?

9. The burglar in the house, masked, the fears, going upstairs, hiding, the pursuit, the torch? Going into the attic, Ashley falling on the stairs? Luke and his getting his father’s gun? Ashley defying the burglar – and it being Garrett? Luke and Garrett planning this, to frighten Ashley, the amorous intentions? Garrett going outside, the tripwire?

10. Ashley and the interactions with Luke? Luke gradually unmasking? Garrett coming back? The plans, the intentions? Garrett and his being manipulated, Ashley telling him? The death of the hamster? Garrett and his doing Luke’s will?

11. Ricky arriving, bravado, coming in, searching for Ashley, Luke with the baseball bat? Blood? Tying him up? Tying Ashley up? The duct tape? On and off? The swinging box? Ricky in its aim? His death? The shock for Ashley, for Garrett?

12. The phone call to Jeremy, his arriving, outside, Luke forcing him to write the note about his love and repentance? The noose, hanging him? Covering up with the tractor, a suicide – leaving the note and later putting the rifle there?

13. Ashley, getting free, urging Garrett to the truth? His fears, being found out, prison? Confronting Luke, Luke killing him?

14. Ashley, the attempted escape, the tripwire is, the Carol singers not seeing her, Luke catching her, tying her up with the Christmas lights? His vengeful attitude, the knife and stabbing her?

15. Tidying everything up, the blood, the hanging, the timing and the reindeer slipping on the roof, falling? Returning the gun? Getting back into bed, the sound of the ocean? His parents arguing, the screen, his lying in bed, his mother comforting him?

16. Ashley, his asking to go to hospital – then hearing that she was alive, and her giving him the finger as she was put in the ambulance?

17. Luke, ultra-psychopathic psychopath? His future?

THOR: THE DARK WORLD

US, 2013, 112 minutes, Colour.
Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Christopher Eccleston, Jaimie Alexander, Zachary Levi, Ray Stevenson, Idris Elba, René Russo, Adewale Akinnuoue- Agbaje, Kat Dennings, Stellan Slarsgaard, Alice Kriege, Clive Russell, Chris O' Dowd, Stan Lee.
Directed by Alan Taylor.

A venerable film reviewer often used a phrase to indicate that he thought a film was rather silly: ‘a load of codswallop’. Thor: The Dark World probably deserves this epithet, though in a kindly way. It is an enjoyable, though not great, Marvel Comics entertainment. But the plot is rather silly and the screenplay does not want to take the proceedings too seriously. There are quite a number of deadpan lines and some sending up of the heroes and villains. As with other Marvel Comics films, it is best to wait to see the inserted trailer of a film to come, this time featuring The Collector. And, better still to wait until the very end of the long credits where there is another minute of the plot, with the happiest of endings as well as a tongue-in-cheek joke.

Once again, Chris Hemsworth is the hero, Thor. He is more confident than ever, deep-voiced, vocally articulate, full of swagger. As before, he has to defy his father Odin (Anthony Hopkins more rhetorical than ever), grieve the death of his mother (Rene Russo), who is given a Viking funeral. He has to confront sinister and evil powers, deal with his brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston relishing the role again), going back and forth between Asgard and Earth, teaming up with scientist Jane (Natalie Portman). In this sense, the story is not full of surprises as was the original film.

And, once again, there is an evil race, led by Christopher Eccleston, who have discovered the Aether, which they need to possess in order to take world domination, especially at the time of the configuration of the nine elements. This means that there are many sinister scenes and battles, especially to introduce the story. Meanwhile, on earth, scientist Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgaard), has gone berserk running around Stonehenge with his equipment butt naked, landing in in a mental institution. Jane is still doing her work but goes out to lunch with a co-worker, a cameo by Chris O’ Dowd. Her assistant Darcy, Kat Jennings, is still sardonic, but has a naff intern, Ian (Jonathan Howard). And then Thor turns up on earth after two years’ absence, with Jane angry at him.

However, with the threats of the enemy, Jane is taken up to Asgard and later abducted with Thor rescuing her as she becomes a victim of the enemy, wanting to take her life-force. Loki is imprisoned before Thor takes the risk, with conditions, for Loki to help him in his mission. But the climax is to be held on earth, in London for a change instead of New York or an American City, specifically at Greenwich where it will be meantime in more senses than one.

More battles, more heroics, more romance.

One of the advantages of the sequel is that there is a good deal of attention given to Loki, the fans having appreciated him in the original film as well as in The Avengers. He has quite a few amusing comments and ironic remarks, which audibly pleased the preview audience a great deal. Since the screenplay, serious, does not always take itself too seriously, there are some amusing moments which make the codswallop acceptable.

1. The popularity of superhero films? The universe of Marvel Comics? From comics to films? The place of Thor in this universe?

2. The planet of Asgard, the variety of planets, the Frost Giants? The special effects for the galaxies? Action for battle sequences? The contrast with Earth, New Mexico, ordinary, the scientists, the investigations? The musical score?

3. Chris Hemsworth as Thor, his appearance, voice, in action? The contrast with Loki, Tom Hiddleston, Black in clothes and heart? Anthony Hopkins as Odin, the patriarch? René Russo as his wife? Life in Asgard, in the Viking era, in the present? The bridge and portal between Asgard and earth? The guardian?

4. This film as a sequel? The characters, situations? Developments?

5. The background story of the Dark Elves? Malikith as leader? The past, Borl, father of Odin, and his clash with them? The issue of the Aether? Malikith and the threat, the battle, defeat? The Aether taken, preserved by the column? The creatures in suspended animation?

6. The action in the present? Loki in prison? His crimes, on earth? Thor and his three Warriors? The Rainbow Bridge? The Guardian? Connection once more to Earth?

7. The action in London, Jane and Darcy, the science, their work, going to the factory, the portholes? Jane and her being transported, the victim of the Aether? The role of the Guardian? Going to Thor, his search for Jane, taking her to Asgard? Odin and his disapproval? Threats?

8. Malikith and his allies, the attack? Frigga and her protecting Jane, her death? The reaction of Odin? Loki, the information, his being a lure for Malekith? The issues of vengeance?

9. Loki, fighting, his death? Malikith possessed by the Aether?

10. London, Jane and Darcy? Finding Erik, the background of the effect of the previous encounter, in the institution, getting out?

11. London, Greenwich, the Convergence, the time? Malikith and the Dark Elves? The battles, the portals, the interchanges between the different planets? Malikith and his ship
and his death?

12. The revelation about Loki, impersonating Odin? Continually a trickster?

13. The credits sequences, the Collector, his role? Jane and Thor and the releasing of the monster?

LUCKY

US, 2017, 88 minutes, Colour.
Harry Dean Stanton, David Lynch, Ron Livingston, Ed Begley Jr, Tom Skerritt, Beth Grant, James Darren, Barry Shabaka Henley, Yvonne Huff, Hugo Armstrong.
Directed by John Carroll Lynch.

It is not everyone who has the opportunity to make a film of their epitaph. But, this is the case with Harry Dean Stanton, his last film, drawing on aspects of his own life, something of an epitaph portrait.

It is also an elegy for Harry Dean Stanton, his career, his way of life, his screen images – and, before he walks along the desert road the end of the film, he actually does look straight into the camera and, rather gently, smiles.

While there are narrative aspects of the screenplay, the film is more of a character portrait, perhaps too slow for those who have action compulsions, but rewarding for those who are able to stay quietly with Lucky and the inevitability of his moving towards death. The tagline for the film is “the spiritual journey of an atheist�. While this is basically true, Lucky is not a rabid atheist but, rather, a Texan humanist.

Harry Dean Stanton has appeared in a number of films over many decades, something of a figurehead for many independent films, including those of David Lynch. However, he is best known for his lead role in the 1984 Wim Wenders film, Paris, Texas. Interesting to note that in the final song in the film (and there are a number of songs whose lyrics contemplate death, life, darkness…), The Moonshine Man, there is mention of Stanton by name and also a reference to Paris, Texas.

The location of this film doesn’t seem to be all that far from Paris, Texas. It is a small town in the south-west, and in the desert (with opportunities for some fine desert scenery). Lucky, his nickname because of his job in the Navy during World War II, lives alone, never married, in a modern enough house. We see him get up in the morning, turn on the radio, light a cigarette (he is most definitely a smoker, defending it though sacked from a restaurant job for lighting up while working there). He does exercises, gets dressed, walks/shuffles to a diner for breakfast where he is friendly with the manager and the assistant, chatting, being quiet, doing word puzzles and reflecting on the meaning of “realism�. He later declares his belief in ‘truth’ as a thing.

He wanders around the town, buy some milk for his fridge (the only thing there) and is friendly with the shopkeeper who later invites him to the fiesta, many Hispanics in the town, for her son’s 10th birthday. In the background, frequently there is The Red River Valley on a harmonica.

At night he goes to the bar, drinks, talks to friends, is quiet, listens to the barkeeper (Hugo Armstrong) who has a long sequence of explaining the mechanism of Deal No Deal which Lucky doesn’t think much of. The proprietor is Elaine, Beth Grant, who has some raucous stories of her own but who is very fond of her long-time partner, Paulie, star of the past, James Darren, and, especially, his friend, Howard, who is lamenting the loss of his pet tortoise, President Roosevelt. He is played by David Lynch, making a tribute to Stanton by appearing in the film, and has a very fine speech about loneliness and his devotion to his tortoise.

There is a bitter moment when an insurance salesman, Bob (Ron Livingston), is putting pressure on Howard and is attacked with Lucky’s disapproval. But, there are moments of redemption, with Bob later visiting the town, getting Lucky’s cold and silent treatment but taking the initiative, breaking through, telling some stories about himself and his daughter with Lucky responding well. A Marine veteran (Tom Skerritt), stops for a drink and shares a poignantly reminiscing chat with Lucky about their war service, in Asia, in the Philippines. Happiness and regrets.

But, Lucky has a blackout and fall, goes to the doctor, Ed Begley Jr, gets advice but realises he has to prepare for death, which, for him, is simply a void, the end of everything.

Speaking of redemption, there is a wonderful sequence when Lucky goes to the fiesta, is welcomed by the mother and her son, the woman introducing him to her mother who does not speak much English. A Mariachi band plays and, suddenly and unexpectedly, Lucky breaks into a plaintive song in Spanish, a beautiful moment revealing the humanity of Lucky.

It is not surprising to find that Lucky won the Ecumenical Award at the 2017 Locarno Film Festival.

1. The title? Lucky’s war service? The familiar name around the town?

2. A character of Southwest Texas, of the town? The streets, the diner, the bar, shops, the buildings, homes? The interiors? The countryside, the desert, dry, cactus, mountains and rocks?

3. The songs, the refrain of the Red River Valley, the harmonica? The songs of life and its meaning, of darkness? The finale with Moonshine Man and the reference to Harry Dean Stanton and Paris, Texas.

4. Harry Dean Stanton, his age, career, Kentucky origins, Navy service? Acting? His music? The range of characters? His look at 90, scrawny and gaunt? His face, close-ups and expressiveness? His hair, clothes?

5. Harry Dean Stanton as Lucky? Drawing on his own life? The film as an epitaph for him? An elegy and his swansong?

6. The humanity of the film, the spiritual journey of an atheist? His approach to life, death, the end and emptiness? Approaching death? Asking who we are, nothing, the prospective void, yet living? Smoking and his surviving? His exploration of “realism�, “truth�? Loving, but not marrying? The Navy commitment and action, the reminiscing with the visiting Marine, the story of his smoking at the restaurant and being sacked, his swearing every time he passed? Yet benign at the end?

7. His routine, waking, the radio, the exercise, the cigarettes, dressing, the drink of milk, going for breakfast at the diner, wandering, watering the plants, going to the shop to buy the milk? Smoking?

8. The gallery of friends:

• Vincent: the bartender, friendliness, chatting, the explanation of Deal or No Deal?

• Elaine, the owner, tough, the telling stories, relationship with Paulie, forbidding Lucky to smoke, his challenging her, listening to his stories about the meaning of life, bewildered, finally lenient?

• Paulie, seeing himself as nothing, looking in the mirror and seeing his face, being rescued by Elaine, her accepting him as he was, their partnership, the long time, friendly, chatting in the bar, wanting peace, stopping Lucky fighting the insurance man? The strange sequence of his walking into the red light red bar area?

• The assistant at the diner, friendly, her background, visiting him at home, her concern, she and Lucky smoking pot together?

• The shopkeeper, buying the milk, the chat, letting her keep the change, the photo of her son, the invitation to the fiesta?

• The Marine, friendly, the chat, the reminiscences about the service, in Asia?

• Howard, David Lynch, his pet tortoise, President Roosevelt, the lost tortoise, his talk in the bar, lonely, Lucky challenging him about the insurance man, his speech about life, death, loneliness and the importance of the tortoise?

• The insurance man, his discussion with Howard, Lucky attacking him, wanting to fight? His not wanting to fight? His return, Lucky silent, asking to sit with Lucky, telling the story about his daughter, the gesture, Lucky mellowing?

9. The symbol of the tortoise, in the desert at the opening, at the end and its crawl? A symbol of age, life, survival?

10. Lucky, his fall, going to the doctor, the discussion, care, impending death, cheerful? In the bar, drinking, his aggression, calming down – and the surreal dream of the little regret and the entry, his waking?

11. Going to the fiesta, his being welcomed, the mother and her son, the Mariachi band, standing on the side, being introduced to the mother, her not speaking English? Lucky’s singing, the emotion, the effect, the response? A symbol, joy and beauty?

12. The bar, the argument about his being sacked, the cigarettes? His swearing at the other restaurant, passing it later in peace?

13. His looking into the camera and smiling, and walking away?

JUNGLE

Australia, 2017, 115 minutes, Colour.
Daniel Radcliffe, Thomas Kretschmann, Alex Russell, Joel Jackson, Lily Sullivan, John Bluthal, Jacek Koman, Angie Milliken.
Directed by Greg Mc Lean.

Jungle is definitely not a misleading title. Most of the action takes place in the Bolivian jungle – though filmed in Colombia and around Mount Tambourine, Queensland.

This is the story of Yossi Ghinsberg, an Israeli man who left his home and family in Israel to find himself, working in Alaska, in New York, in Bolivia and invited to join an expedition into the jungle, to experience nature, to find tribes, perhaps gold in the rivers, and to find himself. In so many ways, he does. But it is a matter of survival in the jungle. And the final credits indicate that after these experiences, he moved back to Bolivia, into the jungle to contribute to ecology and prosperity, where he still is.

Interesting that Daniel Radcliffe plays Yossi Ghinsberg. In the years after Harry Potter, Daniel Radcliffe has chosen quite a wide range of roles, recently an undercover FBI agent in Imperium, Igor in Victor Frankenstein, the corpse in Swiss Army Man. Compared with the other main characters in this film, his companions in the trek into the jungle, Thomas Kretschmann as Karl, the ambiguous adventurer who leads them, Alex Russell as Kevin, the American photographer, Joel Jackson as Marcus, the Swiss teacher, he is definitely pint -sized. (Alex Russell and Joel Jackson Australian actors.) However, as ever, he has a strength of presence the persuades the audience of his character’s credibility.

The film has been directed by Greg Mc Lean, still best known for the two Wolf Creek films as well as the television series, for his crocodile film, Rogue, and the intense intra--offices gladiatorial survival film, The Belko Experiment. He knows how to draw intensity from his characters, from desperate situations which, in this case, are particularly visceral, a kind of intense physicality in threatening and survival situations which are reminiscent of films like Deliverance.

As the group trek into the jungle, the audience is drawn into sharing the journey with them, a strong identification of curiosity, of fear, challenge, of discovery. There is exhilaration in the beauty of the photography, mountains and jungle, close-ups as the group machetes its way, as well as beautiful aerial vistas.

The second half of the film takes place after Karl and Marcus trek through the jungle instead of continuing downriver on a raft which is what Kevin and Yossi do. If the audience ever wanted to know what it was like to raft through rapids, this may be as close as it will ever get! But, after the raft disaster, Yossi has to make his way through the jungle, surviving, becoming emaciated, having hallucinations, consoled by flashbacks, yet determined to continue, almost for three weeks before being found.

There is a religious dimension, Yossi’s Jewish background and the gift of a text from his uncle which reminds him of the divine as he survives.

In many ways, this film is not for the fainthearted who quail at the presentation of physical pain and suffering. The audience has to be prepared to share this demanding journey through the jungle.

1. The title? The focus on the Bolivian jungle? Endurance and survival in the jungle?

2. The location photography, Colombia standing in for Bolivia? Southwest Queensland? The beauty of the photography, the city of La Paz, the mountains, rivers and jungle, aerial views, close-ups? The musical score?

3. A true story? Yossi Ghinsburg and his experiences? As a young man in Israel? The flashbacks to his parents, his ordinary life in Israel, girls, his severe father and cutting him off, the gift from his uncle, the text? Working in Alaska? In New York City? Finding himself in Latin America?

4. The visual nature of the film, physical, pain and endurance, making a path through the jungle, insects, threats of animals, the rapids, the wreck of the raft, survival in the mountains, water, food, shelter? Memories? Hallucinations?

5. Yossi and his meeting with Marcus, Marcus and his friendliness, talking, his experiences? The meeting with Kevin? Photography background? His work in South America, and Africa? The bonding?

6. Karl, his background, befriending the group, proposing the trip? His self-confidence? The goals, the jungle, tribes, gold in the river, appreciation of nature, rugged experiences? Yossi and his being attracted? Kevin and the opportunities for photography? Marcus being persuaded? The map, the clarification of the destinations, the time to be taken? Before the rainy season?

7. The initial trek, the excitement, the experience, Karl going ahead and the group feeling lost, the farmer with the cattle, pointing the way? Karl and his free attitude? The beginning of the difficulties, Marcus and the wounds on his feet? Walking and stumbling? The river, panning for gold? Kevin and photographs?

8. The difficulties of continuing, building the raft, the water, Karl unable to swim? The decision to go by foot for Karl and Marcus? Yossi and the discussions, manipulating Marcus to walk? The raft, Kevin and Yossi? The rapids, on the rock, Yossi hanging on, dislodged, going downstream? Not knowing whether Kevin was saved? Yossi and his walking, rescuing his bag?

9. The long days walking through the jungle, by himself, difficulties with food, water, foot injuries? His becoming emaciated? Rain, his covering? Shelter? The experience with the young woman, real or imagined? Helping her, her disappearance? Marcus appearing to him? Searching for Kevin and shouting? The insertion of the flashbacks? Flashbacks and hallucinations?

10. The religious overtones, Yossi and his memories of Israel, the devout family, bar mitzvah, gift of the book? Finding the book after the raft wreck? His reading it? Awareness of God? Looking to the heavens?

11. The transition to Kevin, rescue, in the town, searching for Yossi? The police, the helicopter searching, unable to find Yossi? The recommendation of the man with the boat, his reluctance, saying that Yossi could not survive so many days? Their going out on the boat? Yossi, in the shelter, hearing the noise, too weak to shout, standing, fearing the worst? Kevin seeing him, the rescue?

12. Yossi, recovery, his decision to return to Bolivia and stay there, his eco-building? Businesses and tourists?

13. The information and the photos at the end? Kevin and his photography career? The disappearance of Karl and Marcus?

14. An intensely physical and visual experience of survival in the jungle?

SKIPTRACE

China/Hong Kong/US, 2016, 107 minutes, Colour.
Jackie Chan, Johnny Knoxville, Bingbing Fan, Eric Tsang, Winston Chao, Shi Shi.
Directed by Renny Harlin.


This is a film for Jackie Chan fans and those who enjoy films with a lot of action, martial arts and fights, always with a touch of the comic. When it was released, some of the fans expressed their disappointment, failing to take account of Jackie Chan inevitably getting older, somewhat slower. Yet, he is still full of action, a genial on-screen presence even when he is portraying a character who is rather serious. At the same time, he made the Britain and Northern Ireland based thriller with Pierce Brosnan, The Foreigner.

In the 1980s, there was a celebrated comedy-drama, Midnight Run, with Charles Grodin as a criminal who had to be brought in by a bail-bond officer, Robert De Niro. It was a cross-country journey movie. Skiptrace is in the same vein – although the journey incorporates Hong Kong, Siberia, Mongolia, China and back to Hong Kong.

Jackie Chan portrays a Hong Kong police officer. At the opening, he is trying to help his partner who has a timebomb attached. It is too late and the partner pushes Jackie Chan’s Benny to safety and dies. Audiences will find the twist at the end of the film a bit hard to comprehend, Benny’s years-long quest to unmask the criminal controlling crime and drug trafficking in Hong Kong – only for it to be his partner! The partner had asked Benny to care for his daughter, Samantha, who becomes involved in police work, infiltrating the crime company, working in a Macau casino.

The other central character is an American conman, played by Johnny Knoxville – not always the most persuasive, a kind of crooked smile, comedy touches, but reminiscent of his daredevil performances in the Jackass series.

The American is under threat in Siberia after taking a holiday in Macau and being a witness to the murder of a woman with an incriminating phone which the criminals are after. As she is killed, she gives him the phone. He is then tracked down by the Siberian Russians, owing money, but also seemingly having impregnated the daughter of the chief.

When Samantha is in trouble, Benny tracks down the American, goes to Siberia to get him and bring him back to testify. The journey is the rest of the film – with the Russians turning up at various stages, especially a rather fierce female fighter. At the end, they come in to save the day!

There is a lot of action, a lot of action. Some of the sequences, including an initial rescue, go on for 10 minutes or more. There is a long chase as the American avoids the criminal thugs in Macau, only to be taken by the Russians. There is a big fight when Benny turns up in Siberia. And, along the way, many, many occasions for Benny and his unwilling partner to go into action, at one stage complicated by Benny’s inability to swim and his having to be rescued. Their getting all kinds of vehicles for their journey including train, antique car, horses, tracking through the Gobi desert, fights at the Chinese border and, of course, slam bang for the finale at a Hong Kong wharf.

One of the great advantages of the film is the variety of locations and lots of very attractive colour photography. There is the beauty of the Siberian town as well is its drab industrial areas. There is the Russian countryside and the steppes. A lot of the film takes place in Mongolia, in the cities, out in the desert, and the two taken by a group to participate in a Mongolian Festival. There are mountains. There are rapids. And there is the beauty of quite a range of the Chinese countryside. And, as always, there is Macau and Hong Kong.

There is a cheerfulness underlying the seriousness, the tensions between the policeman and his associate, quoting of Chinese proverbs, taking opportunities of crises, lies and broken promises, partnership – with Benny finally being arrested and jailed and his friend posing as his lawyer, visiting him in prison, and then participating in the finale. The suspected syndicate leader is not the one expected and there is the revelation of who it actually is – and Samantha trapped in rising water on a boat and her father doing the right thing, unexpectedly, to save her and give his life for her.

And there is a touch of romance, even for Jackie Chan at 60, with one of the experts in the police force attracted to him and the American probably teaming up with Samantha.

The film was directed by Renny Harlin, an expert in all kinds of action films from Cliffhanger through The Long Kiss Goodnight to Hercules.

THOR

US, 2011, 115 minutes, Colour.
Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Stellan Skarsgaard, Kat Dennings, Clark Gregg, Colm Feore, Idris Elba, Ray Stevenson, René Russo, Adriana Barraza.
Directed by Kenneth Branagh.

Thor? Marvel Comics? Kenneth Branagh? Shakespeare it ain’t. But, it’s a reasonably enjoyable, quite expensive, matinee show in 3D.

A bit puzzling at the beginning if we are not familiar with the comic. We find ourselves both in the Viking times and in the modern era – we are told later, and shown, that there is a rainbow bridge between the two worlds (and many references to Einstein).

In the present world, we meet Jane (Natalie Portman), her co-scientist, Erik (Stellan Skarsgaard who, fortunately, comes from Scandinavia and is able to quickly fill in some Norse mythology background) and assistant, (Kat Dennings). They are investigating strange phenomena in the heavens in New Mexico (and speaking of alien visits, where else!).

Back in the mythological days, we see a huge battle and lots of close-up hand-to-hand combat as King Odin (Anthony Hopkins in full rhetorical style) is battling the evil frost-giants. He has two sons, Thor and Loki. They grow up as peace is restored and Thor (Melbourne’s Chris Hemsworth) is to become king. Loki (Tom Hiddleston) assures all that he is loyal (of course not). When Thor presumptuously leads an expedition against the frost-giants against his father’s wishes, he is banished – and, like Crocodile Dundee in New York – he turns up, puzzled by modern life, in New Mexico in the middle of a huge storm.

So, we have two plots for the price of one.

In the present, Thor, with some Viking gravitas and a fine, articulate baritone voice, is a mixture of courtesy, puzzlement, and enterprise, who can adapt to 21st century American idiom pretty quickly but who wants his emblem of strength, his hammer, back. A bit difficult because, the men in black (not so agreeable as Smith and Jones in this version) have confiscated all Jane’s equipment and papers and have sealed off Thor’s landing site. And Loki turns up in suit and tie to mock Thor and lie about their father’s illness.

Then we are informed, which is quite an interesting explanation, that Odin, Thor and Loki were real characters (from distant and cultivated planets) whom the Vikings took to be gods.

In the galaxies, Loki is up to mischief with the frost-giants. Odin is in coma. Thor’s warrior friends are finding loyalty to Loki impossible as he is now a despotic king, offending his mother (Rene Russo). So, the warriors cross the bridge and take on the Men in Black.

Don’t forget the romance as Jane falls for Thor.

The film may not have the oomph of some of the other Marvel Comics films, but it is exotic enough to be rather fascinating in a mythical kind of way, and amusing to watch as Thor becomes an earthling. There is a lot of action as Thor defies the American authorities.

It looks as though Kenneth Branagh was taking a sabbatical from Shakespeare and more serious ventures and enjoying the opportunity to direct a mega-budget American enterprise. He has a very accomplished cast. And Chris Hemsworth (take a bit of Brad Pitt, a little Heath Ledger and some Russell Crowe and stir) is a strong screen presence with a bigger career ahead of him. In fact, if you wait after the end credits there is a minute or so more with Samuel L. Jackson and Stellan Skarsgaard indicating that there is more Thor and more Marvel Comics in The Avengers, already filming.

1. The popularity of superhero films? The universe of Marvel Comics? From comics to films? The place of Thor in this universe?

2. The planet of Asgard, the variety of planets, the Frost Giants? The special effects for the galaxies? Action for battle sequences? The contrast with Earth, New Mexico, ordinary, the scientists, the investigations? The musical score?

3. Chris Hemsworth as Thor, his appearance, voice, in action? The contrast with Loki, Tom Hiddleston, Black in clothes and heart? Anthony Hopkins as Odin, the patriarch? René Russo as his wife? Life in Asgard, in the Viking era, in the present? The bridge and portal between Asgard and earth? The guardian?

4. New Mexico, the town, the ordinary detail, the familiar American small town, shops, streets, hoardings? Cafes? The contrast with the landing site, the scientists, the accommodation? The agents for S.H.I.E.L.D? The confiscation of the scientific material?

5. Jane, scientist, her role with the group? The puzzle about the Wormhole? Erik, from Scandinavia, explaining the mythological background? His role in the work? Darcy, assistant, her relationship with the scientists?

6. The initial war, the Frost Giants? The Casket of Ancient Winters?

7. The present, Thor and his wanting to rule? Going to the confrontation with the Frost Giants? Thor and the confrontation with Laufey? Accompanied by Loki, with the three warriors? The personalities and style? Battles? Odin having to intervene? Thor and his arrogance? Sentenced to Earth? Without his hammer?

8. New Mexico, the scientist, the S.H.I.E.L.D agent, the wormhole, security and information? The work of the scientists? The hammer and the puzzle? Thor, wanting to get back, Erik’s help?

9. The romance with Jane, Thor adapting to contemporary clothes, American life, manners, language? The ordinary sequences, restaurants et cetera? Thor and his humour?

10. Loki, son of Laufey, Odin adopting him? The betrayal, Odin in the coma? The rebels, contact with Heimdall, the portal and the gate and bridge to Earth?

11. Loki, coming to Earth, as a 21st-century ordinary man? His behaviour, betrayal?

12. Loki, the Destroyer, the combat? Thor’s return, with the warrior friends? His willingness to self-sacrifice? Recovering his hammer and strength?

13. Loki and his killing his father, the setup, to rule in Asgard, to destroy, the breaking of the bridge, the abyss?

14. Thor battling Loki, Odin waking, intervening, saving Thor, Loki falling into the abyss?

15. On Earth, Jane wanting to open the portal? The post-credits sequence, SH.I.E.L.D, Erik, the box, collaboration with Nick Fury? Loki and his invisibility, urging Erik? The
audience ready for sequels?

HUMOR ME

US, 2017, 90 minutes, Colour.
Jemaine Clement, Elliot Gould, Ingrid Michaelson, Maria Dizzia, Priscilla Lopez, Joey Slotnick, Willie C.Carpenter,Le Clanche du Rand, Rosemary Prinz, Annie Potts, Erich Bergen, Bebe Nieuwirth, Cade Lappin.
Directed by Sam Hoffman.

Jewish jokes!

This is a brief humorous story but also a portrait of a desperate middle-aged man. The middle-aged man is played by New Zealander Jemaine Clement, his father being played by Elliot Gould.

The film opens with him at a play reading, but he is not satisfied, and is actually fired by the producer, Bebe Nieuwirth. At this stage, his wife tells him that she is leaving with a billionaire and going to the Riviera with their son. The playwright is desperate, tries to get some accommodation with his very successful real-estate agent brother, finally having go to go to the retirement village where his rather happy-go-lucky father lives.

At the opening of the film, in black and white, there is a dramatisation of a Jewish joke – and this recurs, with the same character as the butt of the jokes in black-and-white sequences throughout the film. Bob, the father, also has a propensity for telling Jewish jokes, his old friends lapping them up, his son rather wary.

The son has to get a job at the village, menial jobs like folding sheets and sweeping. His father wants him to get some kind of responsibility. The difficulty between father and son is that the father, with his jokes, has not really mourned the death of his wife. The son is still very affected by his mother.

All works out well in a satisfying kind of way. The son is asked by the ladies (some eccentric performances here) to direct them in a performance of Three Little Girls from School from The Mikado. The eventual performance also includes some rather raucous Jewish jokes. The son also discover that his father has in storage all the mementos from his wife – including a statue from a Pompeii which serves as an inspiration for the son to write a new play, aided by the drug-addict piano player at the centre who is getting her life back and supports him.

His wife is dumped by the wealthy man and returns to the US with their son, finalising a divorce but, amicably.

A light Jewish film with a lot of serious undertones.

1. The title, old men, jokes, Jewish jokes, jokemakers?

2. An American story? American Jewish story? Traditions?

3. The theatre world, homes and apartments, New Jersey and the village for the elderly, the grounds, the interiors, suites, dining room, theatre? The contrast with the Riviera, the musical score?

4. The opening joke, Bob Kroll and his telling it, its being visualised? The recurring of the visualising of the jokes? The Jewish tone? The kind of humour? And incorporating these jokes for the three young maids from school in The Mikado?

5. Nate Kroll’s story? His play, the rehearsals, the producer and her being present, disapproving? His relationship with his father and mother, incorporating them in the play, his mother’s death and grieving, the title, Crack in the Clouds? The video copy and later seeing scenes from it? The audience reaction, and Bob? His new play not finished? The producer breaking the connection? Going home, his wife, leaving him, his relationship with his son? Going to the Riviera with a millionaire?

6. His being stranded, his age, ringing his brother, the estate agent, ringing friends? Nowhere to stay? And willing to go to his father, going to the village, the first meeting, the tensions, his room, going out for food, not having enough money? His father’s friends, their company, giving him work, folding sheets, mopping floors? The effect on him?

7. Bob Kroll and his vitality, his jokes, yet reticent about emotion, memories of his wife, distancing his grief by extraversion, joking with friends? No mementos – but the discovery of all the mementos in storage? His relationship with Connie, going out with her, her staying? The common sense, companionship, helping Nate? Bob’s happy life?

8. Nate and his encounter with Allison, playing the piano? Spectacles and the unexpected story of cocaine and drugs? The dominant mother and criticisms? Inviting Nate to dinner? Playing the piano, The Mikado, helping Nate, reading his play? The bond between the two?

9. The elderly ladies and their participating as the three young maids from school? Helen, age, presence and charm, talking about courtesans, her life, the invitation for Nate to visit, his coming, her stories? Ellis and his jealousy? Her discovering that Ellis had a passion for her? Dee, commonsense, bright, co-operative? The contrast with Gertie, the rehearsals, not singing? The relationship to the producer? The rehearsals? The performance and her actually singing? Nate and his explanation behind the Mikado – but just letting it play? The best? The performance, the introduction of the jokes, the elderly ladies and the raucous tone of the audience appreciative? The producer and her presence and acknowledgement?

10. Bob, his collapse, Connie’s concern, in the hospital, the visits? Telling the jokes to Bob? His recuperation?

11. Nate’s phone calls to his wife and son? Their experiences on the Riviera? His wife being dumped for another woman? Her selling the artwork? The return, discussions, the
agreement about the divorce? Her regarding him in a better light? Nate and his love for his son?

12. The statue from Pompeii, his father’s reaction, finding it in the storage, explaining it to his brother? Writing the new play? Performance, success – and hope for him?