Conviction

Real life stories by their very nature, face an uphill struggle with just how invested audiences are going to be with the tale. Most of the time, we all know how these types of films are going to end up. Recent examples like "127 Hours" offered us existential questions not only about our protagonist, but also our own lives to side step this problem. "The King's Speech" offered a delectably told story about the friendship between two very different men under the heavy shadow of World War II. They also had endings that anyone with access to a library or computer could discover very easily. It was about how they told their stories rather than the outcome. Simply put, with films such as these, it's the journey that counts, not the destination. Shame then that "Conviction" falls into the narrative trap. If we all know how the film is going to turn out, then why should we spend two hours getting there? To be fair the true life story "Conviction" is based on is extraordinary in itself. It was simply begging to be turned into film material. If this is going to be the case then, it must offer the audience more substantial meat to chew on. Unfortunately for"Conviction" it very easily finds itself falling into 'TV movie-of-the-week' territory.

In 1983, smalltown trouble maker Kenny Waters (Sam Rockwell) was wrongfully convicted of the murder of elderly woman Katharina Brow. Kenny had no where to turn for help. With a corrupt officer out to get him, no money to defend himself in court and a history of volatile behaviour, he was sent to prison for life. His loving sister Betty Anne (Hilary Swank), seemingly the only one left fighting for his innocence then took it upon herself to defend her brother. Over the course of twenty or so years, Betty put herself through school and college to earn her GED, her bachelors, her masters and eventually her degree from law school. Her support and duty to her brother was stunning, but even after straining every relationship in her life to achieve this, she still had to find the evidence in order to prove her brothers innocence. As the siblings our two leads are unfaltering. Swank shows unreserved courage and dignity in her determination at setting her brother right, when everyone else has turned against him. Her vulnerability is touching at times, especially in a later scene asking her two sons would they do the same for each other. The real Betty Anne of course did something many of us would have to think long and hard before ever undertaking. With so much going against her, her almost entirely unwavering obligation to her brother is very inspiring and Swank conveys this very well. As Kenny the never less than reliable Rockwell delivers another nuanced performance, as is typical of him. His range knows no bounds, and with any role he finds himself perfectly at home there. I am an unashamed fan of his and would gladly watch any film featuring just him and him alone, as the classic in the making "Moon" ably demonstrated a few short years ago. The supporting cast also add nice touches to the film. Driver who I have not seen in anything for quite some time brings an understated and much needed dose of humour and spark to proceedings. Melissa Leo, carving out a very respectable career for herself as a reliable character actor, again delivers as the officer with a grudge to Rockwells character. However out of them all, it is surprisingly Juliette Lewis who impresses most as the woman who may or may not hold the key to Kennys innocence. In just two short scenes she leaves a lasting impression on proceedings and easily walks away with them.

Yet again, the main problem however falls mainly down to the director and script writer. Director Tony Goldwyn, who some might recognise as a very decent character actor in his own right, unfortunately does not grasp the material as immediately as he should. Events carry a flatness and never really shoulder the dramatic weight that they should. Worse still, the script only accentuates these problems. The real life story, being as strong as it is thankfully keeps proceedings on the rails, but it never seems willing to delve further into the darker implications a life wasted and a life given can have. Worse still, a very tragic and shocking accident that happened six months after the film ends is completely excised and not once mentioned in order to achieve a happy ending. Surely with the films many shifts in chronology such an important fact could have been worked into proceedings. I won't spoil what it is here, but the fact that it might render a 'what was that all for?' reaction in the audience might count as a reason but surely a better handling of the material could have found a way to make it work.

Verdict: 58%

Two leads impress as always and the real life story the film is based on is far too incredible and dramatic in its own right to ever render the film fully 'boring'. But the lack of focus on characters as opposed to plot ends up conveying the same reaction you could get from reading an article about Betty Anne and Kenny, and in far less time. Nice but insubstantial TV movie fodder.

"Conviction" Trailer

Green Zone

When it was announced that neither Paul Greengrass nor Matt Damon would be continuing the 'Bourne' franchise, I surprisingly breathed a sigh of relief. Greengrass had, in my mind successfully completed an incredible trilogy. Adeptly begun by Doug Limon, Greengrass then took the remaining two Bourne's: 'Supremacy' and 'Ultimatum' and turned them into two of the best thrillers of the new millenium. Obviously the new and improved Bond films have a lot to owe to him, but almost every other action thriller took a page out of Greengrass' book and created intelligent, yet down and dirty spills to go with their popcorn thrills; gritty movies for gritty times. So they simply could not top them, I thought. 'Ultimatum' was resolved perfectly and to continue the character would reek of cashing in and selling out. Then 'Green Zone' was announced and with that, the reuniting of director and star. We saw the trailers and everyone assumed the same: Greengrass has gone and made his sequel anyway; 'Bourne goes to Iraq'. On seeing the film however, and it is plainly obvious that Greengrass, while retaining his style and technique that is unmistakingly his, has not sequelised his illustrious spy. Greengrass is too smart and talented for that. However, who could have predicted that a film released only a few short months before would be the one in which Green Zone shares so much in common? Can it come out of the mighty shadow of 'The Hurt Locker' and estabish itself, in its own right, as a decent piece of intelligent action cinema, while commentating on the effects of the War in Iraq?

Set in 2003, the film stars Damon as Chief Sgt Miller. He has been actively and loyally been looking for WMD's with his team. Out of three missions they are coming up with nothing to show for it. Questions are being raised and none are being answered. Miller decides to dig deep into this potential cover-up, whatever the cost may be. Along the way he is aided and hindered by both US and Iraqi Officials and one US Journalist, seeking the truth. One thing the story thrives on, is confusion. No one fully seems to know any answers no matter who Miller asks. Is the enemy closer to home than Miller may have initially expected....? Of course, this perfectly suits Greengrass' style. Initial combat scenes and tense exchanges thrive on his trademark docu-style. The camera shakes and rattles with every gun fired or Army Official bellowed and threatened. The fraught, high-end, kinetic style perfectly punctuates and moulds our surroundings-as what Greengrass wants, we are with Miller, every step of the way. We are there. Damon is nicely joined by Greg Kinnear, and our own Brendan Gleeson, as two competing American Intelligence officials adding to the twisting, turning plot. Amy Ryan plays the Wall Street Journalist trying to expose the truth, and villain for hire Jason Isaacs plays a gruff Special Forces Officer, who, from his characters introduction, you do not want to piss off. Unfortunately, despite a good cast, and the fact that they are all very capable in their roles, they all seem slightly wasted. Motives for each character are never given and we never get true insight into how things went down. Of course, the film is fictitious, but is inspired by the book 'Imperial Life in the Emerald City'. Greengrass nicely beefs up the books action and popcorn element, while still attempting to retain it's political drama inner structure. But therein lies another problem. Everybody knows how this turned out. So when the main 'plot twist' comes along, it doesn't provoke gasps or shocks; we were waiting for it to happen all along.

When 'The Hurt Locker' walked home with its many awards on that night on March 7th, a lot of people had not, very surprisingly seen it. The Iraq War does not usually good cinema make. No one wants to be lectured about things that, for the majority are all still going on in the world right now. Why go to the cinema when they could just watch the news? However 'The Hurt Locker' wisely didn't make its politics its center focus. At it's heart was an unbearably tense character study of one man, unfortunate enough to be great at his job and to become addicted to the rush it provides. Despite the fact that not many people initially saw it, it was quite an accesseble movie and a stunning piece of action cinema. Green Zone unfortunately is going to be compared, especially in light of The Hurt Locker's win only a few weeks ago. It can't possibly stand up to it. Especially when it's not the 'man' that Green Zone focuses on, but the war itself. It simply is not dated enough for this piece to seem all that relevant at heart. The best War Movies are those that show us the effects. While Green Zone does successfully and realistically ground us on the streets of an action packed Baghdad, this thrill can only last so long, and it is only a matter of time that the film gets bogged down in its own politics. We lose focus of the man, and his motives. Bourne had a relateable mission and a clear cut goal. While very commendable, what actually motivates Miller to do the things he does?

The film is however, intelligent and entertaining and there are far worse ways to spend a night at the movies. Greengrass has created a very nice companion piece to his terrifying 'United 93', from a few years ago. Greengrass's style is unique to him as befits his background in documentaries and is, in its initial stages quite well handled here. That the film shares the same cinematographer as 'The Hurt Locker', (Barry Ackroyd) shows that we are in experienced and deft hands (but further adding to comparisons). It is only in the films climax that it lets us down; things become simply too shaky and dark for us to keep up with the action. It never carries the immediacy of its early scenes.

This is all nitpicking however. Greengrass is an excellent director. He, despite initial concerns, has not remade Bourne, and Damon, has not re-engaged his amnesiac spy for another adventure. They have created a nicely entertaining Iraqi War thriller. A little more work and focus on characters and it could have stood up to Bourne. We are left then, in the towering shadow of 'The Hurt Locker'. The action crackles with energy and through Damons charisma we are kept intrigued. Pity that Greengrass lets his politics, rather than his heart overtake the proceedings.

Verdict: 66%

A very nice and tidy wartime thriller. Lack of focus on characters and waiting for plot developments that we already know are gonna happen slightly spoil things. It is a clever and fun night out that will certainly divert you for a few hours. The Greengrass/Damon engine doesn't seem to be running out of steam just yet.

Trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSX7LaFtwIU

Edge of Darkness

"Say what you want about Mel Gibson, but the son of a bitch knows story structure!" says ‘ South Park ’. Has Mel Gibson been really gone 8 years from our screens? Since 2002’s ‘Signs’, he has taken a self imposed break from acting, deciding instead to direct a few violent, subtitled yarns and drunkenly comit the odd hate crime. Has it been that long since he has not been seen in front of a lens? Apart from his mug shot that is? Well folks, fret no more as the anti mullet, Anti-Semitist is back, with this, quite possibly the most pedestrian of thrillers seen in a while. Even South Park, it seems can get it wrong sometimes.

We open on a haggered, familiar face in a crowd. Yes, he looks slightly older, yes, his hair is slightly greying and yes, despite the various scrapes and dust ups it is soon to endure, it does retain its beautiful shape, but folks make no mistake, Mel Gibson is back. So after collecting his daughter and a not very convincing reunion it is not long before a violent attack on her own doorstep that she is left lying in a pool of her own blood as her father (Gibson) looks helplessly on. Bad move bad guys, Gibson here is a Boston Police Detective, and VERY pissed off. What follows is ‘Taken’-lite, as Gibson’s Tom Craven, attempts to take down everyone and anyone involved in the death and cover up of it, from assassins, fellow police officers, senators, and some multi millionaire businessmen. Craven ‘just doesn’t give a shit anymore’! Along the way we meet the always welcome sights of Danny Huston, who may or may not be a corrupt businessman, and Ray Winstone as…..wait, what does Winstone actually do during this movie? Some unexpected and nasty deaths included, with Gibson going from ‘sad’ to ‘mad’ and we have a movie that’s not so much ‘bad’, as just……. ‘meh’. Martin Campbell, the man who reinvented James Bond twice, with ‘Goldeneye’ and ‘Casino Royale’ directs here like he couldn’t care less. All the more surprising as it was he who directed the British Mid 80’s Programme that the movie is based on. So was this a labour of love for the people involved? Why else would Gibson come back from his hiatus, or Campbell return to his roots? Wow, something must have really gone wrong along the way. Robert DeNiro, it seems had the most sense he’s had in a few years when he walked off the project after a few days…..

The movie is not as clever as it may think. In fact, it plods along from one incidental episode to the next, without ever seeming like its going anywhere. Everything is obvious from 30 minutes or so into it, so all that’s left for the audience is patiently waiting for Gibson to get his information, or get angry or upset at someone. To be fair, when things seem to be skewering off the rails, it is Gibson that keeps you watching. No one does 'wild eyed, scarily crazy unhinged man', quite like him. It was nice to see him on the screen again, and it actually made me miss him. My God, what I would do to see him get some sense, reunite with George Miller and strap on the leather boots one last time as Max Rockatansky. Danny Huston seems to be making a name for himself playing shady businessmen, and Ray Winstone has literally the most pointless part to a movie I have seen in quite some time, so what does it all add up to? Well it’s no travesty, by any stretch. In fact it’s far too routine and safe to be completely shite, but what’s surprising about it, is that no one here really seems to care about the film. As a result, the film is completely forgettable; perhaps it seemed fun when you were hungover, but in the cold hard light of day it can’t possibly stand up to scratch.

Result: 39%

So Mels grand return to acting equals a pointless thriller. Although your enjoyment of it depends on how you find a scene that pretty much plays out as follows-Inspector Chief: ’You can’t work this case on the death of your daughter, you’re too close to it!’ Detective Gibson: ‘I have to, I’m the best Officer here.’ Inspector Chief: ‘Oh yeah, OK, you’re back on the case!’ Oh, and your Dad will love it.

Film Trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvRdGKxsmD8