jump to navigation

Movie Review: Boy A (2007) 11 January 2009

Posted by The Flightpath in Movie Reviews.
Tags:
add a comment

Part coming-of-age story, part social commentary, Boy A is a little-known film that premiered at the Toronto Film Festival, and starred several lesser-known and budding actors including Andrew Garfield, Katie Lyons, and Peter Mullan. The film opens on a prison interrogation room where Terry (Mullan), a social worker, is meeting with his charge (Garfield). The young prisoner is being released, and Terry is making sure that he is aware of all of the restrictions that are conditions of his freedom. His first task is to choose a name.

The story evolves from there, as “Jack” re-enters the world after being locked away for the safety of society.  Vivid flashbacks of his past and crime serve as a poignant counterpoint to his attempts to start his life anew.  As the tabloids print articles about “evil coming of age”, men who look like an age-enhanced photo of his mug-shot are lynched, and the posting of a £20,000 internet bounty for information as to his whereabouts, Jack struggles to keep his past a secret from his coworkers, friends, and girlfriend (Lyons).

Ultimately, the choice is not his to make, and no matter how much he claims “I am not that boy,” Jack is forced to face the harsh reality of a world that cannot forget what he did as a child.

The soft-spoken, eager, shy Jack Burridge presented by director John Crowley is so far from the usual tough-as-nails ex-cons of modern cinema that it causes the viewer immediately to sit up and take note. When we first meet Jack, he is not “Jack” at all — he is a nameless young man, asked to pick a name for himself. It is very hard for him to make a decision; after all, for the past ten or more years he has been institutionalized told exactly what to do and when.

The big-ness of the world terrifies Jack, though Terry is quick to reassure him that it’ll get smaller right quick. He doesn’t know how to act around his co-workers or the beautiful young dispatcher Michelle who immediately catches his eye. And when two men begin to pick on one of his friends and coworkers, the angry young boy who was no stranger to violence and who had found it within himself to kill a girl, rises up within him to step in and beat at the thugs.

But at the same time, Jack is haunted by flashbacks of the world he came from. The world where his mother was dying of cancer, he was bullied every day, and where he found a friend in an abused young boy named Phillip. Phillip, who beat up the bullies, skived off of school with him, helped him steal candy and soda, and who built fishing poles out of sticks and string. Phillip, who was ruthless and angry, and who dragged their final victim under the bridge, calling for Jack to hurry up and come along.

As he slowly works his way back into society, easing his way into being “Jack” rather than a murderer, the urge to tell those closest to him the truth about his past becomes stronger and stronger. But society has not forgotten the horrible thing those two young boys did all those years ago, and the tabloids begin printing articles asking about his whereabouts. “EVIL COMES OF AGE” reads one headline, along with an age-enhanced image based on his mugshot. Somewhere in the country a man is severely beaten and his house set on fire in a case of mistaken identity. A £20,000 bounty is placed on the internet for information as to his location.

And when his secret is finally revealed, no one can see past the crime of his childhood. Jack’s claims that “I am not that boy” remain unheard. The good he has done since his release, including the heroic rescue of a young girl from a traffic accident, is all for naught. Even his friends and coworkers, once they realize who he really is, turn their backs on him.

The movie highlights a number of important social and moral issues, including the imprisonment of children and the effect that growing up institutionalized has on their mental and social development,  society’s inability to let bygones be bygones, “second chances,” and ex-convicts’ rehabilitation and reintegration with society. By presenting Jack as a sympathetic character, a former convict who is genuinely remorseful and wishes to re-enter society and start anew, the film speaks out against societal prejudices against criminals and supports the idea that criminals, even murderers, can be rehabilitated successfully. Though it provides a very moving and emotional position in regards to Jack’s successful institutionalization and rehabilitation, it does little to present information about convicts’ predilections to violence and the “cycle of violence” in which previous offenders offend repeatedly.

“Boy A” is a well-written, beautifully produced, and emotionally moving film about a sensitive and politically relevant subject matter. As an independently produced film, it escapes the usual Hollywood cliches and downfalls (sex, violence, gratuitous explosions and fx, and little plot) while still producing a seamless whole.

The Fives

Top Five

  1. The ambiguity of the ending made it altogether more poignant.
  2. Andrew Garfield’s portrayal of Jack is nothing short of masterful. His shy, quiet eagerness to become a new, good person makes the counterpoint of society’s inability to forget all the more painful.
  3. The filming locations. When Jack’s secret is finally discovered and he flees his apartment, the stark, grey streets of Manchester reflect beautifully the bleak turmoil going on inside him.
  4. The juxtaposition of flashbacks with reality. The troubles of Jack’s delinquent childhood, culminating in the horror of his ultimate crime, shown alongside the utter normalness of his current life and his abnormal courage in rescuing a young girl from a car crash.
  5. Jack’s telephoned suicide note(s).

Bottom Five

  1. At the end of the movie, Jack takes the train to the very end of the line and then wanders down to the boardwalk. He turns around and — bam! — there’s Michelle. They just so happened to both take the train to the end of the line and meet up at the same boardwalk? Right.
    Or, on second though… Was that just his imagination?
  2. Michelle calls in sick the day before the tabloids print all the stuff about Jack previous identity. How did she know before the fact? Did she just figure it out on her own?
  3. Terry would have found out earlier than he did in the movie. And it took him forever to track down his phone. How can a social worker as dedicated as him not freak out at having “misplaced” it?
  4. The “flashback” that involves the prisoners killing Phillip. Is that an actual flashback or is that a dream? I wasn’t quite sure of the significance of that one.
  5. The sex scenes were a bit much. The result of them, ex. Jack’s breakdown, was important. It just took an awful lot of buildup to get there.

Links:

Movie Review: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) 1 June 2008

Posted by The Flightpath in Movie Reviews.
Tags: ,
add a comment

I didn’t really have very many expectations for this movie. After all, it was Indiana Jones, who was born in, like, the Stone Ages or something. Dude, he’s older than my parents.

But unlike some other movies which try to have you believe that, yes this ancient skeleton of the super-hero you remember is in fact the same one just a few days later, they had a pretty good backstory. The movie takes place in 1957, well after the other pre-WWII Indy adventures. Right smack dab in the middle of the red scare, too.

So just as I was getting excited, I see on the credits whose concept it was: George Lucas. My expectations suddenly experience a severe drop and I seriously consider going into the next theater and watching Sex and the City.

But to Lucas’s credit, there were relatively few truly corny moments. My sister only managed to guess what line came next, oh maybe two dozen times. I mean what is cheesier than this?

Love Interest (who broke up with Indy 20 years ago): I’m sure there’ve been plenty of other women
Indiana Jones: None of them were you.

I almost facepalmed. No, wait — I think I did. Hmm.

But what made me crack up was the “I am your father moment.” I swear, can that man ever make a movie that does not have this happen? Honestly.

Now, the “fives”:

Top Five Features

1. It’s Indiana Jones back on the big screen. He’s older, sure, but he’s still got it (for the most part).

2. The scene where Indy and Mutt go through the library on the motorcycle. Though unbelievable, it was still pretty funny.

3. There were alot of bits of history that were just shown casually as if it were an everyday thing — which back then it was. Stuff like the Red Scare, KGB agents, nuclear test towns, greasers, and so on are all things I learned about in history class, but only now was getting to see “for real.”

4. The scene with the red ants building the living tower to get to Colonel Spalko. I’m sure the majority of viewers didn’t realize that this is actually something that these ants do.

5. It’s a very pretty movie. If nothing else, George Lucas knows how to put on a good show.

Worst Five Features

1. Predictable dialogue, very à la George Lucas. The predictability made it rather bland.

2. The “I am your father” scene, also courtesy of Mr. Lucas.

3. Unbelievable scenes, such as:

  • Indy is walking through the desert and just so happens to walk into a nuclear test town which just so happens to be only 1 minutes from detonation (and of course the army had made no prior announcements and of course they didn’t bother checking the surrounding area beforehand) and survive the blast by hiding in a lead-lined refrigerator which just so happens to be there. OK, so he survives, then immediately after the blast he climbs out and doesn’t get sick at all from the fallout or anything. Right.
  • Mutt doing the Tarzan thing with a horde of monkeys. I half expected them to tell us that the monkeys weren’t really monkeys at all, but failed adventurers who had succumbed to the madness of the Skull… or something like that.
  • When the red ants attack the Soviet fellow who had been having a fistfight with Indy, he lays there covered in ants screaming for a good 30 seconds. It takes the ants a full 2 minutes to carry him down into their lair, and he only stops wiggling at the very end. If I remember correctly: a.) the ants pretty much ate the flesh from your bones where you lay and b.) it was all over insanely fast.
  • So there’s this ancient hidden city at the top of this mountain thing surrounded by waterfalls. Are you telling me that with the Cold War in full blast and the Soviets and the US sending their spy planes all over kingdom come, nobody noticed it?
  • That Mac had so little sense of self-preservation that he lets go of Indy’s whip on purpose and dies. Wasn’t the whole movie about how greedy he was that he’d pretty much work for the highest bidder? I mean, given the choice of getting out with the gold in your pockets or dying, wouldn’t the logical choice be to fricking get out?
  • At the very end, during the wedding scene, the wind suddenly blows open the door of the church with a loud bang and blows Indy’s hat to rest at Mutt’s feet. Of course, nobody notices. Not the people standing outside, talking about the weather, neither their jackets nor their hats in danger of blowing away. Not the people inside the church, who don’t even flinch at the loud bang.
  • And many others, but I have another list to write….

4. Unexplained phenomena, such as:

  • Who was that weird monkey-like native “guarding” the ruins of the church where they find the Spanish explorers?
  • For that matter, why were there so many skulls lying around?
  • And furthermore, why had nobody found the bodies? Obviously people had come grave-robbing, since the sign warned against it. What — had nobody bothered to venture into the ruins in 500 years??
  • Why did the red ants submit to the “power” of the Skull?
  • Why did the FBI, who already considered Jones a person of interest, let him out of the country?
  • For that matter, why did the FBI, who claimed to be keeping a close eye on Jones, not interfere when the KGB was chasing him across Connecticut?
  • We see the red ants build a living tower to get to Colonel Spalko, who is hanging from a tree. One hops onto her boot and she kills it. Right. What about the rest of them? Next thing we know, she’s walking around normally. In the time the ants had to build the tower, why didn’t they just climb the tree and swarm down her arms?
  • Why didn’t Indy succumb to the “madness” of the Skull? And why did Ox snap out of it at such a random moment?
  • If Mutt grew up in England, why does he speak with an American accent?

5. The aliens.

Movie Review: The Kingdom (2007) 5 October 2007

Posted by The Flightpath in Movie Reviews.
Tags: ,
add a comment

“The Kingdom” is not a date movie. It’s an action movie, with plenty of guns and explosions, along with a very focused plot that you have to concentrate on constantly. It also gives a unique insight into the culture of Saudi Arabia, as well as a view of Muslims who are not gun-toting, ultra-conservative Jihadists.

Based on the Khobar Tower bombings in May 2003, “The Kingdom” focuses on the terrorist bombing of a softball game at a Riyadh complex for foreign workers. The FBI wants to investigate, but the American bureacracy makes it increasingly difficult for them. After a bit of gratuitous and ultimately unbelievable blackmail, four FBI agents get themselves sent to Saudi Arabia to investigate.

I’m not going to go much further into the plot, because I don’t want to spoil it for anyone. But I want to point out a number of things that rather impressed me.

First, the introduction. The movie is introduced with a stylized, artistic timeline of important events in Saudi-American relations. It’s fascinating to have it all laid out right before you. The timeline doesn’t gloss over the American fascination with oil, or Saudi involvement with terrorism and hardline jihadist clerics, or any other bits of “distasteful” history. Though the timeline is by no means complete, it contains a decent amount of fascinating information that, if you pay attention to it, definitely improves your experience for the rest of the movie.

Secondly, one of the main characters is an Arab who is not a terrorist, American-hater, bin Laden sympathizer, ruthless or amoral soldier, or jihadist. Colonel Faris Al-Ghazi is an good, honorable man who wants to do his job well, bring the perpetrators of the horrible attack to justice, and be the best father he can be for his children. It’s refreshing to see the an Arab portrayed favorably, because there are many wonderful people of Arabic descent who are consistently villified for their backgrounds and beliefs.

Finally, the movie pays spectacular attention to detail. The average American, who, I’m rather embarrassed to say, has very little knowledge of Saudi traditions or Islam, will probably miss many of the little details. Even I, who studied the Middle East extensively in my World History classes, found myself having moments of clarity five minutes or so after seeing something, in which I realized what was actually going on. How many Americans will realize that Jews are not allowed into Saudi Arabia, which is why the customs officials had issues with Agent Leavitt’s having Israeli stamps in his passport?

Ultimately, The Kingdom was a really fun movie not only for the action and because everything exploded (always a plus in my book), but also because it was educational. Maybe it didn’t start out trying to teach anything, but it ended up teaching me a lot about Islamic traditions and Saudi culture. By showing the “good” Arab alongside the “bad” Arab, the movie tries to distinguish the terrorist from the everyday Saudi,trying to prove that they’re not all the monsters the media makes them out to be. Everything’s not all rosy and wonderful, but it’s a step in the right direction.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.