Apocalypto
The problem with being a movie ‘buff’, and having
watched an exhaustive number of many different movies over
a period of 50 years, is that there is nothing much which
I haven’t already seen. All the film genres have been
well and truly explored, and there is basically nothing new
in contemporary cinema. Most present day movies are actually
based on pre-existing models. This is the case with Mel Gibson’s
new movie extravaganza ‘Apocalypto’. Although
it is probably not promoted, much of the film finds its inspiration
in a low-budget, 1966, African epic called ‘The Naked
Prey’, which was directed by and starred Cornel Wilde.
The similarities are too blatant to ignore. The rest of Mel
Gibson’s film is chock-a-block full of familiar movie
references. Therefore, this rather derivative style of film-making
can lend the movie to various interpretations. Because the
film utilizes an immense amount of familiar cinematic quotations,
it is possible to derive a semiotic reading from the movie,
which implies a mythological narrative in-which the viewer
supplies the missing links from their own memory data-bank
of pre-existing cinema icons, signs and narratives. The storyline
is familiar, relieving the viewer of the burden of following
the plot. We can sit back and enjoy the movie for what it
is, an extremely well-made piece of cinema entertainment.
Gibson’s movie is a dazzling display of camerawork,
editing and sumptuous staging. Another side-effect of Gibson’s
directorial style is that he can dispense with a lot of dialogue,
and create a movie which is almost a throw back to the silent
cinema, conveying its plot in a pure form of cinematic visual
story-telling. However, it is also feasible to read into Gibson’s
film a cynical exploitation of ‘popular’ themes,
such as the handsome hero, the ugly villain, and the beautiful
heroine in distress, all of which are standard cinematic ploys
intended to evoke as much emotional response from the viewer
as possible. This is not to say that the film is bad. Far
from it. The film is extremely good. It is a cinematic roller-coaster
ride that will have you absorbed from beginning to end. Just
be aware, though, that as a member of the audience you are
being manipulated by Mel Gibson for his own highly personal
priorities. Nevertheless, if Mel Gibson can write, produce
and direct movies like this, why should he ever bother to
act again!
Deja Vu
Stephen Hawking is England’s resident genius. He is
regarded as the most creative mind in physics since Albert
Einstein. In 1988 he wrote a run-away best-seller entitled
‘A Brief History of Time’. Like everybody else
I bought and read the book, and, like everybody else, I didn’t
really understand it. However, I did get the general idea
that time was a continuum. That time could fold and bend and
overlap on itself, creating ‘wormholes’, through
which it could be theoretically possible to travel. An intriguing
idea. But, who would ever have thought that it would be possible
to make a movie out of Hawking’s theories. Screen-writer
Bill Marsilii condenses Hawking’s thoughts for public
consumption, and presents them in director Tony Scott’s
extraordinary sci-fi futuristic action thriller, ‘Deja
Vu’. Being a ‘thriller’ I am not going to
tell you too much about it. If I did, you would have nothing
to be ‘thrilled’ about, but, be assured that it
is a fabulous and captivating movie. Except, maybe, for the
last five minutes, in-which Hollywood has to create its standard
‘happy ending’. Forget that though, and just concentrate
on the exceptional plot, which sees a federal agent traveling
through time to apprehend a crazed terrorist before he commits
a disaster, which has already occurred. Tony Scott never lets
up on the momentum, and he has a lot of fun playing with the
time continuum in a very visible and mesmerizing manner. The
movie stars Denzel Washington. He doesn’t do very much,
but, he is Denzel Washington after all, and he doesn’t
really have to try. What he lacks in characterization, he
more than adequately makes up with his phenomenal screen persona
and presence. Denzel is a great ‘movie star’.
He imparts an air of authority to anything he undertakes.
This is another film that will have you riveted to the edge
of your seat, but, unfortunately, not to the very end.
Archangel
It is obvious that Jon Jones’ political thriller, ‘Archangel’,
finds its roots in literature, and, indeed, it does, seeing
as how it is based on a best selling novel by Robert Harris.
Director Jon Jones doesn’t impart much style into his
movie. He seems content to present the story in a standard
cinematic narrative form, for he appears not to want cinema
tricks to get in the way of telling a damn good tale. Apparently,
shortly before his death, Joseph Stalin squirreled away a
private journal, that, with its discovery, could have a devastating
effect on modern-day Russia. A visiting British academic gets
wind of this prize, and as he travels across the tundra, to
the isolated northern city of Archangel, where the journal
is supposedly hidden, he is tagged by a collection of Russian
secret-service officers, the agents of a corrupt politician,
and the muscle-men of the Russian Mafia. All of whom desire
the journal for their own nefarious needs. The movie is conventional,
but, Jon Jones subtly increases the suspense and tension all
the way through to its powerful finale. The story he tells
is a shocker, and it would have disturbing consequences if
it was true. Just be thankful that this is a movie fantasy
and not a depiction of reality. The new James Bond, Daniel
Craig, stars in the movie, and, as the academic, with a flair
for the adventurous, he appears more relaxed and at ease with
this role than in his lackluster ‘turn’ as 007.
It seems that there will be a future for Daniel Craig after
‘Casino Royale’ if this film is anything to judge
by. Okay, the movie is not the most fantastic film ever produced,
but, for audiences who like a bit of mayhem and murder mixed-in
with their politics, they will be more than satisfied.
