What have you watched recently? 3D!

Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949)

Oof. That moment I had finally adjusted my headspace and accepted the archaic, somewhat regressive cultural tone ... then pulled a spit-take upon multiple, casual uses of the N word. Big Yikes. 

Beyond the sometimes suffocatingly stagey and aggressively uncinematic presentation of the whole thing (existing as it did only a handful of years after Citizen Kane), this was still a fabulously dark tale of mannerly murder. One whose final shot was a perfect mic-drop, that it might challenge our modern over-reliance on endless codas. The film's subsequent cultural footprint may rightly centre on it being one where one of its stars played multiple roles, but it never felt like that conceit was the whole point - never being suffocated with excess or affectation. I will admit though, I found the humour so dry & arch, it was hard to know exactly how I was meant to feel about its central schemer. Dennis Price's performance was itself stellar: that of a politely embittered ladder-climber out for revenge; but his constant contempt for his lowly status - and those sharing it - left me a little confused if the audience was meant to share with, or reject, his character's narrated disdain for ordinary folk. His victims certainly weren't terrible people mind you, merely disconnected from reality in that way the old Landed Gentry tended to be; so that seemed like a clue we weren't meant to cheer his murders.

An interesting surprise lay in Alec Guinness' famous, eight separate performances though. Especially now when this type of concept is found mostly in comedies, there's a tendency to overplay multiple roles to easier differentiate the characters' personalities (step forward Mike Myers). That, plus given how acting from that era hadn't yet shaken off its theatrical roots, I was bracing myself for a loud and flamboyantly affected performances. No so: instead, Guinness gave each variation more subtly and naturalism than many subsequent attempts would ever try. Indeed, I had to check his age because being then in his mid-30s, Guinness managed to convey an utterly convincing set of older gentlemen - right down to how each held themselves. 

Equal surprise really there has never been so much as a hint towards a remake: a modern adaptation, fully free of those constraining 1940s moral & class deferences, could be quite entertaining and really sharpen the dark, satirical edges from the original. Not sure who might make for an appropriate actor to play the various family members. That'd be an interesting thought experiment.

2010: The Year We Made Contact (1984)

There was probably more dialogue in a single voiceover from this, than across the entire runtime of 2001.

I am a total sucker for that deeply analog era of late 70s, early 80s science fiction; where the sole digital presence might be some hokey wireframes on CRT monitors, the screens surrounded by a plethora of buttons with clicky haptic feedback. The bridges of spaceships like some messy amalgamation of an airline cockpit and Cold War tank. 

I know nothing of the background of this movie, beyond a suspicion it was a cash-grab by MGM; but there was something oddly ballsy that a redundant sequel to one of the key pillars of cinematic history would be so brazenly, aggressively artless: the silent enigmas of the original now spoken and explained; hard cuts between disconnected scenes; really clumsy blocking during other moments; hamfisted exposition through voiceover; and overall, just a total disinterest in any kind of tonal or thematic consistency with the prior classic. It was as if Peter Hyams knew he was always on a hiding to nothing, so never tried pretending he was Kubrick - or even Kubrick adjacent. And when iconography from the 1968 movie inevitably did appear, it was all framed and composed with almost zero showiness, a total lack of scale or majesty towards those immortal Douglas Trumbull designs. The iconic monolith never lacked so much grandeur.

However ... if that all sounds like criticism? It kinda isn't. The actual movie, the actual story itself, was quite enjoyable once I consciously decided to simply allow it to exist as its own piece of post Alien, post Star Wars "hard" Sci-Fi. In fact, in some respects it had the feel of a prototypical For All Mankind, that under-appreciated TV show of an alternative past where the Soviets reached the moon first. Here too was an attempt to draw space travel as something exacting, procedural and scientific; both productions engaging with their now historical-but-alternate setting involving a still-active Cold War and joint Soviet & American mission. And if this film had one thing over the Apple TV show, it had fewer Mrs. Robinson subplots - and more dolphins living as housepets

I just love how the vision of 2010 includes dolphins sharing your living room like a houseshare. Forget flying cars, where are these in-house pools with dolphins? 🐬

But yes I know what you mean. The overt geopolitical landscape has aged the film - but so too did the FX. I dunno if it was a lack of money, time or talent but 2010's optical effects were sometimes really distractingly poor, compared to the original movie 15+ years older.

But it's funny how with an era of the "legacy sequel" this sequel didn't feel in awe of the original film - doubly amusing given the original in this case was one of the Greatest films ever made.

Collateral (2004)

20 years later, 60 years old and yet this film remains the only time we've been able to visualise Tom Cruise with grey hair - even if it (presumably) required hair-dye. I gotta say, he looked good; maybe it's time to put the bottle away.

Perhaps Mann's most mainstream entity - at least relative to when he became a director of note? As stories go, it was a very straightforward Elevator Pitch thriller, all elements raised by the director's vision and themes repeated throughout his career, discreetly threaded through the increasing carnage. Not that that simplicity is a criticism, but this was a script that could have existed as a more conventional production from that era without seeming out of place; but as with many things in cinema, the difference was the execution and mood. It was also - I believe? - Mann's first dalliance with digital; something he'd increasingly lean into from here onwards - its zenith arguably the film after this one, the deeply meditative and arresting Miami Vice.

It was one of those films that tapped into the subtle artificiality of "Tom Cruise, Celebrity"; maybe by accident, perhaps it was intentional but Mann really galvanised that sometimes unsettling, almost crocodilian aspect to Cruise's charisma - though I'll be first to admit I may be projecting bias on that front. Either way, Cruise was an arresting villain, and it has been a shame he hasn't played more antagonists. There was a charm to his character that rang hollow, false even; the occasions he seemed to genuinely rouse Jamie Foxx's character from his passivity suddenly punctuated with open hostility. It was manipulative and psychotic - but oddly magnetic, all held together by Cruise's intensity. But Foxx himself was an excellent foil, doing a lot of good work stuck behind the wheel of a car, emanating a certain frustrated vulnerability as the assassin pushed him out of his emotional comfort zone. And to circle back to the notion of a more conventional approach, you could see how a more standard treatment of the script might have leaned further into a "Buddy" structure, added more patter and comedy in the dialogue.