Prime Time: The Client (1994)

Susan Sarandon, Tommy Lee Jones, Brad Renfro, Mary-Louise Parker, Anthony LaPaglia, J. T. Walsh, Anthony Edwards, Will Patton, Bradley Whitford, Anthony Heald, Kim Coates, William H. Macy, Ossie Davis, William Sanderson, and Dan Castellaneta. That list of names covers almost everyone you might recognise in yet another John Grisham adaptation making use of a stacked cast and a star director. The star director this time around is Joel Schumacher, which allows The Client to feel like a pleasingly different beast to the Grisham-based blockbusters of the previous year.

Brad Renfro plays Mark Sway, a young boy who ends up in the wrong place at the wrong time. There's a man about to kill himself, but he decides to confess one or two disturbing details to Mark before he does the deed. This puts Mark in a very difficult position when the DA figures that they can use his testimony to take down a powerful crime family. Trying to figure out how to avoid getting his family, and himself, killed, as well as avoiding any charges himself for obstruction of justice or perjury, Mark ends up hiring an attorney named Reggie Love (Sarandon). Reggie wants to do her best by Mark, but Mark expects all attorneys to be untrustworthy and manipulative. Like the team headed up by Roy Foltrigg (Tommy Lee Jones).

Adapted from page to screen by Akiva Goldsman and Robert Getchell, The Client is a decent mix of legalese and standard thrills, especially in the second half. The premise is very familiar, but the fact that the main witness is a street-smart kid who automatically distrusts most adults helps to make it a bit more compelling than many other films in the same vein. It also helps that Renfro is so good in his first film role (and he would build up one hell of an interesting filmography before his untimely death in 2008).

It's easy to forget how good Schumacher could be at the old directing lark, especially when his more memorable works aren't always memorable for the right reasons, but, like it or not, he would often let his directing style be dictated by the material. This is a restrained and straightforward tale (well . . . compared to some other Schumacher films anyway) and he treats it just so.

LaPaglia isn't restrained though. Neither are Coates or Patton. They're almost ridiculous in how the act around the young lead at times, but that adds some fun to what could have otherwise been a bit too dull and earnest. The heart of the film is Renfro and Sarandon, and both work so well together that they make it hard to be critical of the fact that Jones, Parker, Edwards, Davis, and a number of other great talents have relatively little screentime. That's not really a problem for Jones anyway, who can make use of the smallest amount of screentime to create an unforgettably strong impression, and every one of the supporting players benefits from the glow reflected from the stars shining as brightly as possible.

I wouldn't be disappointed if I never watched The Client again, but I certainly wasn't disappointed to spend a couple of hours rewatching it this week. All I could remember about it were the leads and how well they worked together, which turns out to still be the most memorable thing about it. It's a perfectly enjoyable and polished thriller, but it doesn't do enough to be anything more than that.

7/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Angels & Demons (2009)

The pope must die . . . in order to kickstart the proceedings of this, the second cinematic adaptation of the implausible adventures of Robert Langdon. It’s a rip-roaring “treasure hunt” through Vatican City, and holds up as an equal to the first film.

Langdon (Tom Hanks) is called to Vatican City after a plan is put in motion that involves killing potential new Popes (I cannot recall the name of the ceremony, they really should just call it Pope Idol by now) in a manner tied to the four elements, branding bodies with special writing that may signify the work of the Illuminati, and having everyone do their damnedest to track down a vial of anti-matter that has been set to explode in mere hours.

With Hanks back in the lead role, Howard back in the big chair, and Akiva Goldsman back on writing duties (this time alongside David Koepp), Angels & Demons is very much a happy reunion for people who clearly enjoyed doing such a great job of things the first time around. While you could continue to complain about to the disparity between popular entertainment and great art (and the common ground), the source material from Dan Brown certainly stands high in the former camp, and both Howard and Hanks are used to delivering to people what they want.

The only downside of this film is the female thrown alongside Langdon for this particular escapade. Ayelet Zurer plays Dr. Vittoria Vetra, but she’s really not given much to do. Compared to the other onscreen allies that Langdon has been paired with, this woman is sorely undeveloped and redundant, for the most part (which is really saying something, considering how consistently weak Brown is when it comes to visiting the same well over and over for his stock of supporting characters).

Hanks is comfortable reprising the famous symbologist, Ewan McGregor is a treat, playing someone who was close to the previous Pope, and believes the church should attempt to be even more progressive, and Stellan Skarsgård is as dependable as ever, here playing a stubborn, no-nonsense, head of the Swiss Guard.

The end may become a bit too ridiculous (which you could arguably say about all Dan Brown tales), but this feels a bit more intense than The Da Vinci Code, and makes absolutely fantastic use of the gorgeous environment of Vatican City. For slick mainstream thrills, I think this is top-notch stuff.

8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

The Da Vinci Code (2006)

Dan Brown is not Charles Dickens. He's no Brontë. No Stephen King. Even when it comes to thrillers, he's not as good as the likes of Patricia Cornwell, Lee Child, or even (when he's on form) Dean Koontz. But that's not to say that his writing is terrible. He has amassed a huge fanbase over the years, and a lot of that stems from the success of The Da Vinci Code, a thriller that blended some fact with a whole lot of fiction in a way that intrigued readers and made them feel as if they were becoming a bit smarter while the plot became dumber and dumber. That kind of success is very easy to turn your nose up at (especially when you recognise the formula that Brown has used in almost every one of his books, and I have read, and enjoyed,  Deception Point, Digital Fortress, and three of his Langdon adventures, the ones that have so far been adapted into movies), but it also happens for a reason.  Brown knows how to thread together ludicrous plot points into something that is entertaining and thrilling.

You could say the same of director Ron Howard, who has been at the helm of numerous hit movies throughout his career. It's also easy to turn your nose up at many of his works, but they're often hugely popular for similar reasons. Howard is a pro when it comes to the technical side of things, and when it comes to crafting moments of cinematic emotional manipulation. Has he made any absolute classics? You can be the judge of that, but if he's not made one movie that you would always enjoy if you caught it randomly on the TV then I'd be very surprised.

So Howard directing the cinematic adaptation of the book that really made Dan Brown a household name was surely always a guarantee of a blockbuster hit. Put Tom Hanks in the role of Robert Langdon and what could possibly go wrong? Not much, actually, not much at all.

It's a simple enough premise, a straightforward journey complicated by numerous obstacles and twists. Langdon is called to a murder scene inside the Louvre, and that sets him on a quest to both clear his name and find the Holy Grail, which seems to have had its location hidden away in a number of coded messages over the years. Langdon is accompanied by Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou), and hopes to enlist the help of and old friend, Sir Leigh Teabing (Ian McKellen), as he tries to continue evading Captain Fache (Jean Reno), a self-flagellating albino monk named Silas (Paul Bettany), and others who are in hot pursuit.

Although Howard is in the big chair for this, a lot of the credit should be shared by everyone involved. This is a film that makes it clear just how much care and attention has gone into every department, from the props and design to the casting, and it's also got a gorgeous score by Hans Zimmer. Brown came up with the source material, but Akiva Goldsman does a superb job of making things more cinematic. The twists and turns are nicely handled, the exposition delivered in ways that don't let the film feel as if it has come grinding to a halt, and Hanks and Tautou are a winning pairing in the lead roles.

The supporting cast aren't half bad either. Reno works with an ambiguous character who may have an agenda of his own while he tracks our hero, McKellen has fun with a character who is oh-so-English that it's positively precious, and Bettany is an intriguing presence. Alfred Molina and Jürgen Prochnow also have good parts to play, with the latter involved in a set-piece that emphasises how silly some of the plotting can be, which doesn't necessarily make things any less fun.

It's very easy to mock and dismiss the Dan Brown books. It's also very easy to mock and dismiss the movies based on his books (and I know many complained at the time that Tautou seemed a bit wasted in her role, I think she remains a plus, thanks to her sheer screen presence). Maybe try to see how many positives there are, and simply accept the fact that being a crowd-pleasing work of art is almost always far removed from being the best work of art, but isn't any less worthy when it comes to having made people feel happy and entertained.

8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Lost In Space (1998)

When I was a young lad I became a big fan of Lost In Space, a TV show that was given a Sunday morning/afternoon timeslot on British TV and made for perfect viewing on a lazy day. The show may have been from a previous generation but when it was repeated in the 1980s it was just as entertaining and enjoyable (I always did prefer it to the other show that usurped its timeslot, Land Of The Giants). So when I heard that they were making a movie version of the show in the late 1990s, with a cast including Gary Oldman, William Hurt and Heather Graham, I was pretty damn excited.

I'm not sure if the movie was considered a flop when it was released in cinemas but it certainly didn't live up to expectations, in both a financial sense and in the treatment of the material that the fans wanted to see. I didn't get to see the movie in the cinema but I bought it on video and enjoyed it for what it was. In fact, I spent years defending the movie against those who claimed it was complete rubbish. Sadly, after a gap of many years, I have now revisited the film and found that I was wrong for many years. It IS rubbish. It's dull, it's cheesy and it takes a great TV show and makes it into nothing more than a visual FX showcase with numerous videogame moments taking up time that could have been given over to the few really interesting aspects of the plot.

The plot is summed up by the title and is, essentially, the same as it was in the TV show. The Robinson family (William Hurt as the father, Mimi Rogers as the mother, Lacey Chabert and Heather Graham as the daughters and Jack Johnson as young Will) head off into space and get a bit lost. They also have a stowaway on board in the shape of the devious and cowardly Dr. Zachary Smith (Gary Oldman), a large robot that could be a major asset or a major threat and a brave pilot (Matt LeBlanc) who isn't at all happy about being given what he sees as a babysitting gig. There are some decent special effects throughout, some dangerous space spiders and a third act that has the potential to be exciting and interesting before throwing away all potential in a mess of dull cliches that we've seen a hundred times before.

But when the end credits roll we get this fantastic tune from Apollo Four Forty. Which turns out to be one of the few highlights of the movie.

It's frustratingly easy to see the many small ways in which Lost In Space flounders and becomes a big mess. William Hurt does very well, as usual, and Gary Oldman is a delight whenever he's onscreen (playing the best character of the lot, so wonderfully played by Jonathan Harris in the TV show) but most of the other cast members are ill-served by the script. Heather Graham shines as she usually does, though even she is stuck with a number of super-lame moments, and Jared Harris does quite well with his small amount of screentime but Lacey Chabert is just annoying 95% of the time, Mimi Rogers is pretty much just there for the sake of being there and young Jack Johnson tries his best but is stuck with playing Will Robinson, who always struck me as a bit too much of a smartass to be a likeable kid. The least said about Matt LeBlanc the better, sadly, as he gets all of the worst lines and delivers them with no conviction or gusto.

Director Stephen Hopkins tries to distract you with pretty visuals but it's not enough when none of the action sequences excite, the chemistry between the characters fails to fizz and the whole thing starts to feel more and more pointless as it goes on. Akiva Goldsman, given the scripting duties, can get a lot of the blame but he's not left on his own. So many wrong decisions are made here - from the choice of plot to go with to the casting to the lack of intelligence or wit or style - that it's only fair to blame everyone equally. Apart from maybe Hurt and Goldman.

There are a few moments that entertain, and it's nice to see cameos from some of the original cast members and to hear that familiar robotic voice exclaiming "danger, Will Robinson", but there's just no way that this film does enough to warrant even an average rating in the grand scheme of things.

4/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lost-Space-Blu-ray-Region-Free/dp/B003IHVKRE