The Imitation Game: Is A Great Film!

11th March, 2015.

It has to be said, I was going to open this post with the line, “I’m a sucker for a good film.”

Which — in a sense — is true.

I like watching good films.

But it struck me that opening with that line?

Was that opening with “I’m a sucker for a good film” would possibly be just a bit too glib.

Too superficial … shallow … 

Too … 

Yeah … I think you get my point.

That opener was way to shallow an opening.   Too shallow … 

Given the fact I wanted to tell you about a serious movie: one I know I’ve just been wanting to catch, ever since I heard of its making.

And release, last year.

The 2014, WW2 era drama, Morten Tyldum directed, The Imitation Game.

And wow … 

I think it’s been worth the wait.

~≈†≈~

Body of Lies: Nobody’s Innocent …

Hmmm …

I don’t know if we’ve seen a good film, or not.

As you know, myself and whoever else wants to come along, have been watching a few movies, over the past few months.

Tonight’s film was a bit of a novelty for me; the Ridley Scott directed “Body of Lies”.

Which is … good …

I think.

Although not usually something that would — out of the box — grab my attention.

Normally, about the only time I’m guaranteed to to catch a spy thriller is if it’s a Bond movie; and the political thriller sub-genre usually

Body of Lies is a bit of a novelty for me, although I know Adrian goes for them more than I do.   It’s a film that — for me — doesn’t necessarily convince me to watch others in the genre, although I did find myself entertained.

Especially by Mark Strong’s performance as Jordanian intelligence chief, Hani Salaam.

Body of Lies is riveting to watch, for his performance alone.

Have you sometimes read a book, and thought that such and such an actor would be perfect as one of the characters in it?

There’s a scene , early in Body of Lies where Strong, as Salaam, is … persuading … a minor character to work as an undercover plant for Jordanian intelligence, to demonstrate to Leonardo DiCaprio’s character how these things should be done.

And doesn’t do it by threats.

Or bribery.

No.

He sets up the  character’s mother in a new flat.

TV, an indoor toilet, all the mod cons; and makes sure the character in question knows that his mother has her dutiful son to thank.

Salaam makes it very clear what’ll happen, if the job offer isn’t taken up …

My first thought was “Ooh, NASTY!”.

My second was of a Terry Pratchett character, called Lord Havelock Vetinari, who is the ruler of the Disc’s largest city state.

And much like a benevolent version of the Doges of Venice, Nicolò Machiavelli, and Cesare Borgia.   

Cunning, in other words.

What got me thinking that way, was part of Vetinari’s backstory.

When he took over as ruler, he legalised the various thieves guilds, and cut down crime overnight.   

Then got all the crime guild leaders together to gently remind them that he knew where they lived.

Where their children went to school.

Where their wives had their hair done …

Now, as Adrian pointed out, this scene could well be put down to the film’s highlighting  Western cultural values are very different to Arabic ones.

Scott shows us by contrasting Strong’s character with Russell Crowe’s; DiCaprio’s boss, Ed Hoffman, who I found reminiscent of  certain former US president.

Which it does, and quite nicely, too.

But I’d’ve not necessarily watched it, just by going by the box …

If I’d seen that clip, though … 

Rock N Rolla — Modern Times Rock and Roll

Or perhaps I should say Modern Times “RockNRolla”, perhaps, considering tonight’s movie was the Guy Ritchie directed flick; – one largely penned by him, as well.

And certainly up to Mr Ritchie’s usual standard.

Or formula, I should say.

It’s definitely formulaic.

And, to the point, Guy Ritchie maybe needs to widen his horizons, a little.

After all, myself, Adrian and Allison were all sitting there spotting thing’s he’d done before, or had lifted from elsewhere – paralleling Bricktop’s “Pig” monologue in “Snatch”, with a speech from Lenny, about crayfish being a good example of the former.   And as for the painting …

But that characteristic London based cast is there, although not the usual Ritchie rep company.

It did feature some competent performances: Toby Kebbell did rather well as the dysfunctional AWOL rock-star, Johnny Quid, “The Long Firms” Mark Strong giving a solid performance as Archie, and I’ve got to give Thandiwe* Newton credit as Stella, here, as the token female character.   Ms Newton put in a sterling performance as a dodgy accountant, but I personally think the character, or the actress, wasn’t necessarily used to the fullest; – women in Guy Ritchie films are usually strong, but only briefly seen, and it struck me that either the script or the actress was struggling to make an impact.

Gerald Butler, Tom Hardy, and Idris Elba as 1-2, Handsome Bob and Mumbles, on the other hand, formed the basis of most of the humour of the film, and much of the central action: most of a third of the film is about them working for the Thandiwe Newton character, and what happens as a result.

Which is complicated, but boils down to a property scam run by the Tom Wilkinson character, Lenny Cole.   I won’t go into too much detail, here, but for me, it does make it worth watching, again.   I’d be able to appreciate it, a little better.

One thing I’m sure of, though, is that it seem there’s a sequel planned.   Whether it’ll be up to the standards of some of Guy Ritchie’s earlier work remains to be seen.

After all, as entertaining and funny as I found this, it could have done with a bit more work.   It was competent, rather than the riveting stuff we know “Lock, Stock…” and “Snatch” to be.

One thing I feel sure of, is that it’s possibly the Guy Ritchie equivalent to the tax album.

He does have alimony to pay off, after all …

*        Ms Newton’s reverted to the Shona spelling of her name.