Dead Ringers (1988) Review

28 04 2011

Copyright 1988 Morgan Creek Productions

★ ★ ★

Let me start off by saying that his is one hauntingly strange film.  The mood and atmosphere of the entire piece have an almost dream-like quality.  The story follows the lives of two twin gynecologists, Elliot and Beverly Mantle (both played by Jeremy Irons), who are identical in every way outside of personality.  They share a physician’s practice, an apartment and even lovers.

Elliot is outspoken, charismatic and debonaire, whereas Beverly is soft spoken and mild mannered.  When actress Claire Niveau (Genevieve Bujold) visits their practice for an examination, Elliot sets up a date with her and eventually sleeps with her under the assumption that he is Beverly.  As is custom in the brother’s relationship, Beverly shows up in future meetings and sleeps with her as well.  They switch off many times without Claire knowing, but over time, Beverly begins to actually love her.  Claire, thinking Beverly doesn’t have a brother, finds out about Elliot and breaks the relationship off harshly; however, they eventually rekindle the romance.  Over time, Claire, a drug addict, hooks Beverly on barbiturates.  The remainder of the film is a bizarre, psychological examination of the bond between the two brothers, drug use and psychosis.

Like I said earlier, this a bizarre film.  David Cronenberg directs with a script by himself and Norman Snider, based upon the book “Twins” by Bari Wood and Jack Geasland.  The source book, in turn, is loosely based on the true life story of brothers Stewart and Cyril Marcus, gynecologists who shared an apartment in Manhattan, who were found dead together in 1975 from barbiturate withdrawal.

Jeremy Irons plays both the characters of Elliot and Beverly with the help of some meticulous camerawork and very early computer generated traveling mattes.  Let me just say this – Irons is brilliant, brilliant, brilliant in this role.  Each of the twins has their own nuances and personalities that he plays with precision.  At first, you are thrown off by knowing it is Irons playing both parts, but after about 10 minutes you start to forget this.  By the end, you don’t even realize that these brilliant performances in the same scene interacting with each other are the same guy!  Very, very impressive work on his part; many say his Oscar for Reversal of Fortune was a makeup for not being nominated for this role(s).  Bujold is really the only other primary actor in the film, of which, I was not very impressed.  She wasn’t bad, but it was nothing worth making special note of.

The film, overall, is bizarre, strange and a little tedious in parts.  Iron’s performance is the real crux of the picture here and, in my opinion, it is the sole reason to take the time to watch this film.





How to Get Ahead in Advertising (1989) Review

26 04 2011

Copyright 1989 Handmade Films

★ ★ ★

Withnail and I possibly ranks in my top 10 favorite comedies of all-time and definitely in my top 20; this film is the movie writer/director Bruce Robinson made after Withnail and I.  As much as I wanted to absolutely love this movie, I just couldn’t.  It’s not bad, but it’s not nearly the caliber of film his debut effort was.

The film stars Richard E. Grant (from Withnail) as advertising executive Denis Bagley.  In working to come up with a good campaign for a pimple cream, he develops a boil on his shoulder that grows into having a mind and personality of it’s own.  The boil is presented like a devil on the shoulder, whereas Bagley himself begins to develop into the angelic counterpart who begins to have deeply rooted concerns in the wrongdoings of his career.  Eventually, the boil takes over and his head shrinks to the size of a boil, allowing the dark side to take over completely.

Obviously, this film is quite surreal and deeply rooted in dark comedy as well.  It’s also a plain out attack, quite heavy handedly at times, on the advertising industry.  I have agree with some of the points the film makes, but it definitely gets preachy at times for a movie that is supposed to be labeled as entertainment.  As for the story structure, it’s pretty loose.  There are some amazingly funny scenes within the film, but as a whole, it feels disjointed in many ways.

Richard E. Grant, as always, does a great job in the excessively neurotic role as Bagley.  I’ve not seen Grant in much other than this film and Withnail and I, but he definitely has a penchant for playing eccentric characters.  The only other primary character in the film is his wife, who is played by Rachel Ward; she does an acceptable job in the role as a concerned houeswife dealing with her husband’s bizarre eccentricities and rants.

I don’t want to mislead completely, this isn’t a bad film.  However, if you come to this after watching Withnail and I and expect the same level of greatness, then you will be let down.  You have to watch this as a stand alone film and not try to make any comparisons to Robinson’s previous work.  In my opinion, the film is worth watching for Grant’s performance, some of the well-written comedic scenes and, if you hate advertisers, then some of the apocalyptic rants on the evils of advertising.





Deathtrap (1982) Review

23 04 2011

Copyright 1982 Warner Brothers Pictures

★ ★ ★ 1/2

Much apologies on the long amount of time between posts.  I have to admit that Twin Peaks has taken over my life (for the second time) since its coming onto Netflix Instant Watch.  I am happy to report that Maddie and I are currently on episode 18 or 30, so it will free its hold over me quite soon.  Yesterday, however, I took an evening break from the series with this film.

Last night’s viewing was my second time seeing the movie in addition to having once before seen the stage play many years ago at The Little Theatre in Winston Salem.  Directed by the late Sidney Lumet, this film is based on Ira Levin’s stageplay of the same name.  Washed up playwright, Sidney Bruhl (Michael Caine), hasn’t had a hit in years.  He has had to live off his wealthy wife (Dyan Cannon), who has a heart condition, to survive.  When a spec play entitled Deathtrap comes to his house from a seminar student, Clifford Anderson (Christopher Reeve), Bruhl realizes an amazing opportunity to make a comeback.  However, is a comeback worth murder?

If you have seen Sleuth (1972), which as a side note is an amazingly good film, then you will like this film.  They share many similarities in, not only character, but also plot twists, reversals, etc.  Being a stage play to begin with, the majority of the plot takes place in one location – Bruhl’s East Hampton estate.  An almost two hour movie being limited to one location can be daunting, but Lumet does a great job at keeping the location interesting with a series of dolly, crane and other camera movements.

All of the actors do a fine job, particularly Caine and Reeve; Cannon can be a bit melodramatic, but it works for the part.  I really can’t say much more without giving certain plot points away and, in honesty, that is why you would want to watch this film.  Everything here is plot centric because of the nature of the work; it is a murder mystery in two acts.

It’s not as good to me as the original (there was a remake with Caine and Jude Law which is average) Sleuth with Michael Caine and Laurence Olivier, but it is a fun watch and keeps you interested.  My only complaint is that it grows a bit long in the second act, but this again I think is due to the complications of adapting from the stage to film.





The Tourist (2010) Review

27 03 2011

Copyright Sony Pictures Entertainment 2010

★ ★ ★

The Tourist is the sophomore effort of German director Florian Henckel von Donnersmark.  His debut film, Das Leben der Anderen (The Lives of Others), in 2006 was one of the best films of that year and won countless awards including the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film.  Needless to say, I think anyone anticipating this movie had high hopes.  It was a chance for this brilliant director to work with two of the world’s foremost leading actors and with a budget 50 times that of his debut film.  Unfortunately, it seems that something was lost in translation.

The film focuses on the girlfriend  (Angelina Jolie) of a man named Alexander Pierce, whom has stolen several billion dollars from an English gangster (Steven Berkoff).  Law enforcement organizations from all over the world are trying to locate him for back taxes in the neighborhood of $800 million, primarily the British government.  So, in hopes he will make contact with Jolie’s character, they keep a very close watch on her at all times.  As a diversion, she pawns the Interpol official into thinking unsuspecting American math teacher Frank Tupelo (Johnny Depp) is Pierce (as Pierce has supposedly had a multi-million dollar facial reconstruction recently).  Without giving too much away, the plot goes back and forth in much the manner of a Cary Grant vehicle such as Charade. While trying to keep action and suspense high, there are the ever-present moments of comedic effort and surprise.

The problem is, however, that Depp’s character doesn’t sell the same charisma that Grant was able to pull off and, in turn, Jolie doesn’t have the same cool style that Audrey Hepburn exuded in similar roles.  I really appreciate the ode to those wonderful films of the 1950s and 1960s and The Tourist has some really interesting parts to it, but the execution just doesn’t work.

I know this sounds like a pretty bad review, but I wouldn’t say that the film is not worth watching.  It’s not a terrible film by any means, it’s just with the talent involved, the script and the budget accompanying, I feel like a much better product should have come out in the end.  Every major director has their hits and misses, so I don’t want to lambast Donnersmark much for making a film that didn’t live up to my expectations.  I hope his next effort is closer to the glory of Das Leben Der Anderen, but in reality, I think any director would be happy to have just one film of that caliber to their name in an entire career and Donnersmark, at 37, can’t complain with his current track record.