Something about crime drama set in Britain just irks me.
Adapted from the 1970s television show of the same name, The Sweeney follows two of the more unconventional police officers in Britain, whose lack of regard for authority has them running out of allies while hunting down a devious criminal.
The film is a classic cops-and-robbers scenario but with a twist; our heroes are not the clean cut, law abiding officers. They use any means necessary to catch criminals, and their commanding officer Jack Regan (Ray Winstone) sees no problem in how his unit operates. But the higher ups look to undermine him at every turn, and his dogged nature means he won't quit.
Ultimately this is the meat of the show, but unfortunately the film doesn't provide any great sustenance for the characters. The villains are unremarkable and cardboard, while Ray Winstone... well... I imagine he is playing himself here! Certainly if you have a problem with Winstone's past performances I recommend you avoid The Sweeney; this is very much his film.
... I don't know who wanted to see him on the big screen in his boxers, not once but twice, but I know I didn't ask for it...
The gun battles that run consistently through the film aren't shabby, the music isn't bad either and the action is shot nicely so you can see what's happening, but it doesn't feel like it escalates. It feels as though the film has one setting; gruff and dogged, and it doesn't do anything else (a bit like Winstone himself really)
I don't know, it didn't grab my attention, and looking back at it I wish there was more backing to the characters and their personalities, especially with Ben "Plan B" Drew's character George. His character could have had an interesting arc but we don't get to see his origin; it is explained in rushed exposition instead.
Maybe if you knew the original television show there might be more comprehension, but as it stands The Sweeney isn't memorable and remains very average in my eyes.
Additional Marshmallows: Also, I cannot help but be reminded of UK television's Top Gear having a humorous episode shot around the filming of The Sweeney and thinking how that was better.
The first film I've seen that was directed by Robert Redford, Quiz Show is rightfully regarded as one of his best.
Based off a true story, the film follows the ethical minefield of a quiz show at the advent of television that encouraged its contestants to cheat by giving them the answers ahead of time. While the dramatization made it a huge hit for audiences, when one contestant is told to lose so that a new winner can replace him, an investigator sets to work in uncovering the conspiracy.
It is a very simple concept; the film's backbone is following several unique and powerfully represented characters as they make morally shady decisions and how they cope under the pressures of being found out.
A lot of the film's weight comes from Ralph Fiennes and John Turturro's performances as two of the quiz show's champions, as well as the production and set design of the film, very much set in the late 1950s (I'm always happy to see Turturro legitimately acting outside of the Transformer films!)
As I have said, the morality of the characters' choices are in a very grey area, being offered huge amounts of money by cheating in such a undetectable manner would be hard to refuse, that and how the show made money by it and the audience loved it. This is the film's core; television's ability to turn honest people into quite infantile liars and yet have us, the viewer, feel sympathy.
There is a rather insidious quality that lurks inside the film's core when considering today's heavily dramatized, staged "reality" television that we are subjected to constantly!
It is a simple, short film that doesn't drag or outstay its welcome. I wouldn't say I was completely captured by it; there are many dialogue scenes that are inhuman with heavy question-and-answer sessions, deliberately showing the characters are "extremely intelligent people" and little else. But, Fiennes and Turturro are strong enough to make even gimmicky scenes like these effective for what they needed to be.
I know next to nothing about Batman Beyond, but I have been fortunately watching through Batman The Animated Series recently, discovering the surprisingly rich devotion the character has been given. Truly the dark knight is one of the most timeless comic book heroes to date.
No better example of this than the Return of the Joker animated feature. While it is short, less grand in its music and has an awkward twist, it definitely feels like a fitting epilogue to the wonderfully dark children's show that I am only just discovering (sadly).
Batman Beyond is set in the heady future of Gotham (lasers, hover cars, everything) a new Batman protects the innocent, Terry McGinnis, and an ageing Bruce Wayne mentors him (voiced by Kevin Conroy). This feature unveils the Joker's return to this futuristic world to terrorise the duo, and dig up the dark secrets of Wayne's past.
If this wasn't enough, the feature cements Mark Hamill's ongoing performance as the Joker. Truly the man has delved deep for such an unsettling, cruel-yet-entertaining character, and the feature relishes in his presence. Hamill should be recognised as one of the greatest Jokers; his own spin on the multi-faceted character is unique.
If you followed the Animated Show to its conclusion, I sense that this feature is definitely worth your time. It feels like a conclusion to an era, a bridging of generations and proof that the Dark Knight will last for a long time yet.
With Dark Knight Rises approaching, I am swatting up on my Batman movies! That will be a long and interesting Cinema Cocoa post.
So having just watched the unique film by Duncan Jones, and wrote a glowing review of it last night (it is easily in my top 10 for this year) I come to learn they are making a television show!
CBC has claimed the rights to the movie... and I just realised I cannot discuss much in detail without spoiling the mystery of the movie to those unfamiliar!
However the idea of turning small, underrated movies into television shows appears to be Hollywood's newest trick. Both Taken and The Transporter have been considered for small-screen productions. The latter (as awful as the sequels were) is slightly more realistic than Taken; I can't imagine the mental scarring from someone's daughter being kidnapped on a weekly basis!
I jest.
But is it a good move, turning popular often cult movies into TV shows? I think it certainly could be worse, we could get awful sequels that tarnish the name of the original film by being parodies (Source Code 2: This Time its Personal) whereas a television show needs to expand what has been laid down in order to fill a whole season's story arc.
A prime example (ironically as I have also discussed this already!) is Terminator 3 versus The Sarah Connor Chronicles. Now lets ignore the raging Arnold fans who will defend to the death T3's superiority and consider this. SCC had more than a few similarities with T3, yet without the weight of Terminator 2 on its shoulders, and the requirement of a storyline larger than "Must Kill John Connor", the television show was the stronger piece. Sure it was flawed, but it was unique. Plus if you don't like the show, you aren't obligated to register it (unlike if it were part of the same canon or saga).
Ultimately, a television show of Source Code could well be a good move. And while it may be Quantum Leap in disguise (highlight if you are okay with slight spoiler material), I think it's better than a network simply remaking that show instead!
We lose out on an unsightly movie sequel, and stop a remake... Win-Win?
Source Code the TV show is due to arrive in 2012.
