Professor Marston and the Wonder Women (2017)

 

If you were to look up psychologist William Moulton Marston on Wikipedia or some similar reference work, you'd read that he is known for three things:

• inventing a prototype lie detector;
• inventing Wonder Woman; and
• spending the last 22 years of his life in a polyamorous triad with his wife, Elizabeth Holloway, and their one-time research assistant Olive Byrne, both of whom bore him children.

In the real world, though, few things are ever actually invented by a single person working alone.  Just as Marston could not be in a polyamorous triad without Holloway and Byrne being in it with him, he did not invent either the lie detector or Diana of Themyscira in isolation.  In fact, Holloway and Byrne were as important to these achievements as they were to his romantic life.

That truth is skilfully though fairly subtly illuminated in this film, though as you might expect, a whole lot of the script's attention focuses on the last of the three items, exploring the questions of 'just how did this three-way relationship come about, and how did it work?'

And I think it is important to note that it was a three-way relationship, not a case of a man with two lovers.  Holloway and Byrne considered themselves just as much each others partners as they were Marston's, and continued to live together until Byrne's death forty years later.

One risk of exploring subject matter like this is that the film succumbs to the temptation toward prurience and shock factor.  I'm pleased to say that in the deft hands of director Angela Robinson, there is no such issue here.  The film absolutely acknowledges the physical side of the relationship - including some depiction of bondage, which the trio frequently explored - but it is sensual and erotic without being hugely explicit.  There is some nudity, but less than you might expect, and a lot of time and effort is put into developing a strong sense of emotional connection between the characters.

The result is a very convincing portrayal of a successful three-way romantic relationship.  I don't believe a polyamorous relationship would work for me (or just as importantly, for my wife), but I do believe that it worked for these three people.

The film is definitely helped in this regard by the strong performances from the central trio of cast members.  I particularly liked Rebecca Hall's performance as Elizabeth Holloway, who comes across as strong, dedicated and intelligent.  Not to mention ultimately considerably more practical than her somewhat idealistic, occasionally naïve husband.

If the subject matter doesn't put you off, this is a well-written, well-directed, well-acted, convincing biographical film.

Europa Report (2013)

 

Dr. Samantha Unger, CEO of Europa Ventures, narrates the story of the Europa One mission, in which six astronauts embark on a privately funded mission to Jupiter's moon Europa to find potential sources of life.

The mission suffers tragedy even before it makes it to Europa, and only five somewhat demoralised astronauts reach the moon.  Things don't get much better during their landing: first they miss their target zone, then a probe they release is damaged and lost.

Tensions mount over the setbacks, which show that Europa is even more dangerous and difficult an environment than expected.  Worse, the crew cannot be sure they can trust each other.  At least one of their number is clearly still traumatised from what happened during the journey, and it's entirely possible that all of them are at less than their best; just hiding it better than he is.

Despite their skills and determination, this mission may be doomed ...

Europa Report is a 'found footage' disaster-thriller in space. The film has a kind of docu-drama structure to it, interspersing 'after the event' interviews in between segments of footage beamed back by the mission itself.  

The script deliberately presents information in a non-sequential manner so as to build mystery. Or 'mystery'. I don't think there are any major surprises here for anyone who has seen a found footage film, before.

These kind of structural games can irk me, as they're fairly transparent ploys to build tension that would not otherwise exist, but they can be effective when used well and I think the purpose and execution here is solid. The film is able to get moving faster this way, and while it never really does anything unexpected, it does create some interest in seeing exactly how the fairly obvious destination will be reached.

Almost every found footage film I have ever seen has shared the same problem: a point in the movie where I am scowling at the screen and loudly asking "why is this person still filming?".  This is an endemic problem of the form, and a key reason I never see such movies at the cinema.  I'm pleased to say, however, that Europa Report has no such moment. The cameras used are almost always automated feeds not under the control of the person in shot, and where they aren't, they are being used in safe environments.  Big thumbs up for never actively jarring me out of my suspension of disbelief.

I also like that that film manages to find something triumphant and uplifting in what could easily have been yet another 'rocks fall, everyone dies' found footage scenario.  It's a pretty smart bit of writing.

Probably the biggest weakness of the film is the mission itself: there is almost no change our first mission to land on Europa will have a human crew; it is vastly more dangerous and expensive to send people that far than it is to send a robotic probe.  There's nothing that this mission seems to have planned that requires a human presence: the tests could all have been conducted by probes like the Curiosity Rover we sent to Mars.

But of course this is a movie and we need some human characters on screen to care about, and to be fair to the film, the cast are talented - and also quite a bit more recognisable than you might expect of a low budget science fiction offering than this.

Europa Report may be a little low key for some, and a bit bleak for others, but I rather enjoyed this comparatively thoughtful SF thriller.

The Last Witch Hunter (2015)

 

Eight hundred years ago, the evil Witch Queen unleashed the Black Plague to wipe out humanity. A band of knights, including a man named Kaulder, stormed her lair and defeated her. But before dying, the Witch Queen cursed Kaulder with eternal life.

In the present day, a secret truce exists between humans and witches.  Witches who break the terms of that truce are hunted down and either killed or - if taken alive - interned in a magical prison.  Kaulder, still alive due to the Witch Queen's curse, is the primary hunter responsible for bringing these witches to justice.

Kaulder is aided in his task by a priest called "Dolan", a ceremonial name that has been passed down through the generations.  When the 36th Dolan is murdered by a witch, Kaulder and the newly appointed 37th Dolan set out to find the culprit.

But there are schemes within schemes here, and the mastermind behind this crime is one that Kaulder could not have anticipated, and whom he may not be able to defeat ...

Outside of a side-line in voice acting, Vin Diesel has largely anchored his cinematic career on big, spectacular action films that prioritise epic stunt sequences over any real narrative strength.  He's enjoyed some considerable success with this model; the Fast and Furious franchise has ultimately become one of the most successful in the world; but he's also had plenty of films that I'd consider misfires, such as the lacklustre Babylon A.D. or the self-indulgent, self-aggrandising mediocrity of The Chronicles of Riddick. 

This film very much joins the latter list.  Diesel seems to be simply going through the gravelly-voiced motions here, showing a baffling lack of interest Kaulder, despite the fact that the witch hunter was apparently based on one of his very own Dungeons & Dragons characters.

Perhaps Diesel couldn't be bothered to commit too much because he's read the script.  It's not a good one, lacking an interesting antagonist, or indeed much of anything but a tenuous collection of set pieces.  Characters shuffle in and out of the narrative with little rhyme or reason, committing betrayals and revealing new abilities with an almost metronymic regularity. "Oh, it's been ten minutes since someone betrayed Kaulder, better have somebody do that now, then, regardless of whether it makes any sense".  The result is dour and grim and honestly, just not very fun.

Perhaps the biggest crime of the film, though, is the way it wastes its supporting cast.  It has both Michael Caine and Elijah Wood on hand, and it does pretty much nothing interesting with either of their characters.  I can accept that Caine was in his 80s and might have had limits to what he was capable of offering, but Wood's a fine actor in the prime of his career.  The 37th Dolan could have been a really interesting new entry in that career, providing him a chance to do something different and show his abilities in a new light ... but instead the film squanders him in anemic fashion.  Very disappointing.

The Last Witch Hunter is empty spectacle without heart or joy.

The Man Who Killed Hitler and then Bigfoot (2018)

 

1987.  Calvin Barr is an old man living his last days in his quiet hometown with his dog.  His daily routine involves such highlights as visiting his brother's barber-shop and stopping in at the local bar for a quiet drink.

But Barr's life wasn't always so quiet, nor so routine.  In World War 2 he was a special services operative who was sent into the heart of the Third Reich: his mission, to assassinate Adolf Hitler himself.

Despite what the history books say, Barr succeeded in that mission, and even if he is a bit older and slower now, he's nearly as deadly and resourceful as he ever was.  Which is why the government selects him for a mission even more clandestine and secret than the one he completed in World War 2.  They need him to hunt down and kill Bigfoot itself!

So yes, this film's title is literal, not figurative.  The main character really does kill Hitler and Bigfoot ... but the movie is not the gonzo comedy-action you might expect of that conceit. Which is not to say it entirely lacks in gonzo elements.  It does have wackiness like ... well like bigfoot and killing Hitler ... and also nonsense like wristwatches where the hands are replaced with a swastika.  I'm not sure how you would you even tell the time with that!  But overall the film's tone is much more serious: this is a movie where the primary atmosphere is one of melancholy; of quiet but deeply felt grief; than of chutzpah and over-the-top action.

Because while you definitely would not guess it from the title, this is a thoughtful, melancholic review of the competing impulses of duty and happiness, and the harm that the former can wreak on the latter.

It's a surprisingly thoughtful film.  And despite the goofy conceits that give its name, it's a film that's at its strongest in its more serious moments.  Its meditations on the personal cost of war and violence are perhaps not especially novel or surprising, but they feel authentic.

Sam Elliott's performance in the central role is key to this, I think.  Few people can so thoroughly embody weary tenacity as he can, and Elliott's certainly good at conveying the quieter, melancholic air that this role requires.  He's perhaps not quite so convincing in the more action-oriented scenes, but he does a pretty good job for a man well into his 70s.

If I were to make any complaint about the film, it would be the flashback-heavy structure of the script.  Flashbacks can be effective when used sparingly and well, but they can also be a cheap crutch to try and manufacture tension or excitement that the film has not really earned.  I'm not sure why so many were used here; the outcome of Calvin's World War 2 mission is right there in the movie's title, so it's not like we can't see what's going on.  Are we not supposed to realise that the supposed German officer is actually the young Calvin?

Overall though, this is a pretty small issue.  While The Man Who Killed Hitler and then Bigfoot was not the movie I expected it to be, it was an interesting watch and I am glad I saw it.

Inception (2010)

 

Cobb and Arthur are "extractors"; they perform corporate espionage using experimental dream-sharing technology to infiltrate their targets' subconscious and extract information. Their latest target, Saito, is impressed with Cobb's ability to layer multiple dreams within each other. He offers to hire Cobb for the supposedly impossible job of implanting an idea into a person's subconscious; performing "inception" on Robert, the son of Saito's competitor Maurice Fischer, with the idea to dissolve his father's company. In return, Saito promises to clear Cobb's criminal status, allowing him to return home to his children.

Cobb accepts the offer and assembles his team: a forger named Eames, a chemist named Yusuf, and a college student named Ariadne. Ariadne is tasked with designing the dream's architecture, something Cobb himself can no longer do: his previous experiments with "inception" have had dangerous side effects that would almost certainly sabotage the mission.

Though of course, even with someone else designing the dream, I doubt it will surprise you to learn that Cobb's past will play a major role in complicating the job ...

Inception is essentially a heist movie with the added complication that the heist is occurring across multiple layers of a dream. The multiple dreamscape setting has a couple of interesting impacts.  As you might expect, events in the real world can affect the top-level dream, but so too events in the top-level dream can impact the one below it, and so on.  This creates some interesting opportunities for unusual environments and memorable action sequences.  The "hotel hallway fight" is a prime example of this, as the events of one dream cause the appearance of rapidly shifting gravity in the layer below.

Another side-effect of the multiple layers of dream is that time moves at escalating rates within each dream; a hour in dream 3 might be only a minute in dream 2, and a single second in dream 1, for instance.  This time dilation is a useful mechanism for the script to build tension, as events in lower level dreams are impacted by those above.  While I do think there are definitely times where the film stretched this time dilation on a little too long, it's overall a clever and effective mechanism.

The film is directed by Christopher Nolan.  I must confess to having seen only a little of this work: his first 2 Batman films, which I didn't much rate, and Memento, which I liked.  I'm pleased to say that my reaction to Inception much more in the vein of Momento.  And the two movies seem to have more in common than that.  Inception sees Nolan exploring with some similar themes to those he explored in the earlier film: firstly that you can't always trust what your eyes tell you; and secondly in playing with non-standard passage of time within the movie.  Memento more or less happened backwards, while as mentioned above, this film has multiple simultaneous sequences where time passes at different rates.

Overall, I think Inception is a pretty effective and entertaining film.  It's definitely helped in that regard by a fine cast who all do good work, though I would single out Tom Hardy in particular as he manages to stand-out even in this crowded field of talent.

I had a good time with this film, but if I had to offer one word of caution, it would be to note that Inception does feature a deliberately ambiguous ending.  I was okay with it as it didn't really damp the experience for me; but it may annoy some viewers.

Destroy All Monsters (1968)

 

The year is 1999, and all of the Earth's kaiju have been collected and confined in a special reserve known as Monster Island. Under the island lies a control centre where United Nations scientists continuously study the monster for research purposes, while also monitoring the reserve to ensure that the monsters remain secured.

After communications with Monster Island are suddenly and mysteriously severed, all of the monsters begin attacking world capitals.  Captain Yamabe and the crew of his spaceship, Moonlight SY-3, are sent to to investigate the research centre.  There, they discover that the attacks are the work of an alien race identifying themselves as the Kilaaks, who demand that the human race surrender, or face total annihilation.

Humanity reacts to this ultimatum with defiance, but unless the Kilaaks' control of the monsters is interrupted, this defiance is futile bravado.  Captain Yamabe and his crew must find a way to restore freedom to the monsters of the Earth, or they will destroy us all.

I reviewed almost all the Japanese Godzilla films back in 2014 and 2015, but a few entries in the franchise eluded me, as they were not included in the box sets I owned.  Among the movies that were MIA was this, the ninth Godzilla film. Fortunately, streaming services have finally allowed me to see it.  The question is, was it worth tracking down?

Overall, I think the answer is a qualified 'yes'.  Certainly, if you're a kaiju fan, there are far worse Big G outings you could sit through.

But lets dig down into the details and unpack what's notable about Destroy All Monsters, which - as its title suggests - is one of the franchise's "let's use a whole bunch of kaiju in the same film" offerings.

My first impression of the film was that it had a very Thunderbirds look to its miniature sets and vehicles.  We see quite a lot of these at the start of the movie, as the film introduces us to the UN base on Monster Island.  Was someone on the production a Gerry Anderson fan, or is this 'look' merely an artefact of the technology in use at the time?  I'm not sufficiently informed to be able to say, but if you're familiar with his work, I expect you'll notice the similarity as well.

The opening of the film - at least in the Englishy language dub - also  introduces us to the phenomenon I dubbed "Breathless Narrator Man".  I found his bombastic enthusiasm and gushing 'rah rah' delivery to be quite entertaining. It reminded me of those "gee whiz modern science!" TV commercials of the 50s, in which the virtues of washing machines and other modern conveniences were gushingly extolled.

After the pleasingly fast-paced intro and neat miniatures, the film quickly dives into the real meat of its premise, which is throwing lots of monsters on screen and letting them do their thing.  On the whole, this is actually pretty successfully done.  The multi-monster rampage in Tokyo is a particular highlight of entertaining destruction.  I think it helps that the kaiju are all operating individually and doing their own thing.  Fight choreography can often be a weakness of kaiju films because it's hard to move smoothly and dextrously in those big suits, and the action often looks stilted as a result.  Not having the monsters interact with each other much reduces that problem.

Of course, eventually a fight must happen, and the film's climactic battle  of the "Earth monsters" against perennial villain King Ghidorah is honestly a bit of a let-down.  The technical limitations of "people in heavy suits pretend to fight" definitely inhibit the flow of the scene.  Little of the contact between enemies seems to carry much weight, and there's a definite sense of the various participants "waiting their turn" to do their bits.

Those technical limitations are absolutely something that a kaiju fan should be well familiar with, however, and the movie is blessedly free of obnoxious "cute" kids and other such blights.

Overall, this is one of the more fun 60s Godzilla offerings.

Jungle Cruise (2021)

 

Somewhere in South America lies the Lágrimas de Cristal Tree, whose flowers cure illness, heal injuries, and lift curses.  In the height of the Great War, finding the tree would be a massive strategic advantage.  On that basis, Dr Lily Houghton and her brother seek access to the archives of the Royal Society, which contain an artefact they believe will help the locate it.

This request is denied because (a) the Society considers the tree a myth, and (b) sexism.

Lily is not easily dissuaded, however.  She steals the artefact, narrowly snatching it from the grasp of Prince Joachim Franz Humbert of Prussia, who also seeks the tree.

Lily and her brother head to Brazil.  There, the Houghtons meet Frank Wolff, a down-at-heel ship's captain.  Despite his own pressing monetary problems, Wolff initially refuses their offer of employment, but changes his mind when he sees the arrowhead.

Surviving the journey to the tree will be no easy task, however.  Spanish conquistadors gave the local tribes little reason to trust outsiders, and the far better funded and equipped Prince Joachim is hot on their heels.  But the most dangerous threat of all is one that the Houghtons could never have anticipated ...

Jungle Cruise was originally planned for release in 2020, but became one of the many movies impacted by the COVID pandemic.  It eventually saw simultaneous release to theatres and streaming in July 2021, earning mixed reviews and gross worldwide revenue of just under $300 million.  Given the film's production budget was $200 million, this was presumably something of a disappointment.  

Despite the mixed critical and commercial fortunes of the film, a sequel is reportedly in development.  Of course, that sequel isn't the topic at hand: the original film is our subject matter today.  Specifically: do I recommend that you watch it?

Fundamentally, I think the answer to that question depends very much on how you feel about (former?) professional wrestler turned movie action hero, Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson.  Jungle Cruise is a very Dwayne Johnson kind of film, and Frank Wolff is a very Dwayne Johnson kind of character.  If you're on board with Johnson's schtick, you'll probably have a decent time.

You certainly won't be let down by the rest of the cast: Emily Blunt is as dependable as always in the role of Lily, while Jack Whitehall and Jesse Plemons are fun, if not exactly asked to show much range or nuance, in their supporting roles as Lily's brother, and the wicked Prince Joachim, respectively.

And if you're mostly here for the stunts and visuals, then you'll be well-served.  There are numerous fun action sequences, and the set and costume design is strong.  I especially liked the undead conquistadors who emerge as the film's most tenacious adversaries.  They are suitably gross and menacing, and each has their own strong individual theme to make them readily distinguishable.

On the other hand, the script is something of a weakness.  I've already mentioned that the supporting roles lack much nuance: Jack Whitehall's basically just being asked to reprise John Hannah's role from The Mummy, except his character is explicitly gay, instead of just foppish, while all the villains are pretty much one-dimensional in their depiction.

"Like The Mummy, except" is actually something of a theme for the film as a whole, really.  Johnson and Blunt's characters map pretty closely to those of Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz in the earlier movie, and while there are certainly lots of different specific plot beats and revelations, the overall feel of the two projects is quite similar.  

Whether the "Mummy vibes" are a weakness, an advantage, or a non-issue is likely a matter of personal taste.  I'm in the last camp, myself.  But one aspect of the sceipt that I definitely put in the 'weakness' column is that the film is a bit longer than its plot requires.  I think this is mostly due to the inclusion of many, many extravagant action scenes, which - while individually well-crafted and impressive - do rather accumulate to the point where I felt they weighed the film down a bit.

Ultimately, I found Jungle Cruise to be an entertaining excursion, but not very deep or memorable.