Body of Lies

After a spate of spate of middle-east based failures released by Hollywood over the past 12 months, you have to approach yet another one with some trepidation, even if it comes from an acclaimed director and has the one-two punch of Crowe and Di Caprio above the title. It's been met with a muted response from critics - Body of Lies currently polls a mediocre 50% on rottentomatoes, which means half of those critics polled would class this as a failure, putting it behind the likes of Zack and Miri Make a Porno, Quantum of Solace, and, incredibly, RocknRolla. Point me out the raving lunatic that thinks Guy Ritchie has done anything in the last 10 years that comes anywhere close to the quality of this film and I'll beat him to death with a big black rubber sex toy. To be fair, that memorable scene actually came from the one film that Guy Ritchie has ever done that was any good, but I digress.

Body of Lies opens with a skilfully directed action sequence set in Manchester and then another in the Middle East involving Roger Ferris (Di Caprio), a covert Arabic speaking CIA agent specialising in counter terrorist work. After almost single-handedly dispatching a terrorist cell he is given a promotion of sorts to work out of the US embassy in Jordan. After quickly putting his predecessor in his place over the half arsed job he and his team have been doing, Di Caprio approaches the Jordanian head of security (Mark Strong) with whom he sets up an uneasy alliance - one where they clearly prefer the tag of friendship than enmity but where neither has the confidence to share classified information with each other. The film explores Ferris' attempts to root out terror in Jordan with the ultimate goal of capturing Al-Saleem, the man responsible for the Manchester bombing as well as others throughout Europe.

Critics have said this is a very Tony Scott film, and it is true that this is the most technologically up to date film of the Ridley's career, and the most action heavy piece since Black Hawk Down. Ridley's younger brother hasn't really done anything of note since Enemy of the State, but that particular film is genuinely great in my opinion and, like this, was technologically savvy and covered much ground quickly.

Body of Lies though is a completely different beast. It has a smart script penned from the David Ignatius novel and adapted by Oscar winner William Monahan, with whom Scott work on Kingdom of Heaven. Perhaps a perceived lack of focus hurt the film in terms of critical reception, and it is true that there is a lot going on here. We only settle into the meat of the plot half way into the second act, but the build up to that point has been so satisfying that you almost didn't need a clearly defined goal, although when it comes it is a strength of the film. Ferris hatches a clever plan to entrap Al-Saleem by setting up a rival terrorist cell and getting Saleem curious enough to initiate contact. The way Ferrris goes about setting it up is smart and brilliantly executed and could easily have merited its own 2 hour picture.

However I wouldn't fault the structure of this film at all and it was extremely entertaining to be plunged into the hi-tech world of counter-terrorism. Di Caprio is once again on top form in a film in which he probably should have got sole billing. That honour was shared by Russell Crowe who, despite being one of the finest actors working today, I have yet to mention. That's because he really is a secondary player to Di Caprio and has very little to do other than speak on the phone to his man in the field. If Di Caprio is a bit like Jack Bauer, Crowe is a bit like a one man CTU - someone who phones in advice and instruction from Washington and a man capable of making extremely tough calls instantly, and without giving them a second though. Crowe carrying an extra few pounds and in the Jeffrey Wigand build from The Insider, plays his small role perfectly and is possibly the star of the show, although it's a close run thing between him and relative newcomer Mark Strong. Strong plays the Jordanian minister with a quiet gravitas that has you completely convinced that the guy is extremely powerful. Oozing charisma and authority in his role, Strong really should get a significant career boost from his impressive performance here.

Body of Lies is far far better than critics will tell you. Whilst it wont go down as a home run in the Ridley Scott canon, it a film I would unhesitatingly recommend. The strong performances and the wonderful visual flair that you a guaranteed with Ridley, make it worth the price of admission alone.

B+

Kingdom of Heaven: The Director's Cut

-- Before I lose it, I will burn it to the ground. Your holy places - ours. Every last thing in Jerusalem that drives men mad.

-- I wonder if it would not be better if you did.

There's much in Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven that may be seen to portend to modern day struggles. Scott's film is set during the time between the 2nd and 3rd crusades, when Christians have seized Jerusalem as their own and Muslims fought to reclaim it. Its existence as troubled then as it is now, with battles fought with equal conviction and righteousness on either side. William Monahan's script never preaches but instead offers a few wry observations about Jerusalem and religious conflict that very clearly could equally apply today. It cleverly eschews the temptation to present one side as good and the other as evil. This is a film that, whilst features a fictitious main character, presents a balanced portrayal of a number of historical characters and events.

While other movies could so easily have portrayed the Muslims as religious fanatics, Kingdom of Heaven instead presents them as arguably the more sympathetic race. This is helped, in part, by the impeccable performances of Ghassan Massoud and Alexander Siddig. Massoud in particular, as the Muslim military leader Saladin, excels in a role that he plays with understatement. His Saladin is compassionate and thoughtful; a man who speaks with authority and intelligence. William Monahan's script nicely reveals more about his character in subtle touches like Saladin's picking up a fallen Christian cross before placing it carefully upright. One simple action does not tell us that Saladin understands more about Jerusalem, religious conflict, or humanity than anyone else, but it does reveal how Saladin is both moderate and considerate.

The Christian's are led by the dying King Baldwin (an uncredited Edward Norton) who is hidden by bandages and a mask because of his advanced rabies. Power struggles between the various Christian Knights, Lords and Templars undermine Baldwin's truce with the Muslims, a truce that is completely vanquished upon Baldwin's death. His death heralds an epic battle in which the Muslims attempt to recapture Jerusalem, which comes to be is defended by a peasant blacksmith, Balian, who only came to Jerusalem to beg forgiveness for an act of rage inthe opening minutes of the film.

This is a Ridley Scott film, so it goes without saying (though I'll say it anyway) that it is exquisitely shot. Scott handles everything from the close ups to the battle scenes with style and this director's cut unquestionably enhances the film. The theatrical release ran 145 minutes, but this 194 minute cut gives more context to some of the conflicts in the film. This is not some self-gratifying extended version that puts in a couple of reels of film we could have done without. They're essential to the story and to the film. Monahan's final draft apparently ran an incredible 260 pages - equating to over 4 hours of film. This is simply not a story that can be adequately told in just over 2 hours. We learn more about the politics, the struggles and the relationships of the principles. Motivations become clearer; people's actions are more understood because we can see the consequences.

However, there are a couple of serious flaws that not even a director's cut can overcome. I'm sorry to say that one of the things that held me back from raving about this film as much as I do Scott's other work, was the performance of Orlando Bloom. I'm afraid that it isn't any better in this extended version. He simply has not got the standing required to pull off the role. He is so badly miscast that I just can't understand how Scott could get it so wrong. This is nothing against Bloom, who seems like a thoroughly decent guy - anyone who starred in Ricky Gervais' Extras gets some large brownie points in my book, but he is badly out of his depth here.

In these sword and sandal epics, there comes a point in the film where our hero delivers a rousing speech to rally the troops. Bloom just cannot convince as someone who will light a fire that burns inside you. He doesn't strike me as someone who can inspire or motivate someone to accomplish magnificent achievements. He just has not got the gravitas for a role like this, and it doesn't matter whether he has buffed up or not. Everything else, from the voice to the delivery, is all wrong. It's not as bad as Brad Pitt's effort in Troy, but it pales into complete insignificance if stacked alongside Russell Crowe's performance in Gladiator. Comparisons may be unfair but if you are aiming for greatness, you have to put yourself up against the best. I'm afraid Bloom falls a long way short.

There are other flaws, though none as damaging. Eva Green is not particularly effective in her role as Baldwin's sister, although she fares better in the director's cut, enjoying a number of scenes that were originally left on the cutting room floor that actually (and I come back to a word I used earlier) give her character more context. Yet in the longer version she's still not very memorable and again I'll (probably unfairly) compare her to her Gladiator counterpart - and in so doing you have to say she is completely out-acted by the stunning Connie Nielsen, in a not too dissimilar role.

I've mentioned Gladiator twice now but comparisons are perfectly valid since this a genre that Scott himself reinvigorated - in fact he practically reinvented it. Gladiator is a brilliant piece of filmmaking - something beyond doubt, even if it's not a film you particularly enjoyed. Scott's directorial accomplishment on that film was magnificent but he has created a rod for his own back since it is his own film that'll be held up as the torch-bearer for any future such epic. Well Scott has made another very good film here, but one that just doesn't compare that well to its superior predecessor.

Director's Cut: B+
Theatrical Cut: B-

American Gangster

Another week another A- film, in what is the now comprehensively the best year since 2002. If this continues we'll have another 1999 on our hands.

American Gangster is of course Ridley Scott's latest. A Ridley Scott film is something that would probably go to the top of my start of the year 'top 10 films I'm most looking forward to' list, were I sad enough to make such a thing, which I hasten to add I'm not - in fact I can hand on heart say I've never made such a list.*

Scott is quite simply the best visual director of his, and indeed maybe any, generation. His stunning visual style help realise worlds in diverse arenas such as outer space, war torn Somalia and ancient Rome. You know a few things in advance of a Ridley Scott film. You know every single millimeter of film will be lovingly assembled. Every single frame of celluloid postcard quality crafted by a director that manages to elicit Oscar worthy cinematography in every film he directs. But Scott's films are not empty vessels that are only spectacular to look at. He has managed to direct some of the greatest performances in recent times. Russell Crowe and Oliver Reed in Gladiator. Giancarlo Giannini and Gary Oldman in Hannibal. Sigourney Weaver in Alien. These are absolutely first rate acting masterclasses and it is testament to Scott's ability as a director that he gets the best out of the actors he works with.

One of those is Russell Crowe. This is the third time they've teamed up, following the critically acclaimed Gladiator and the not so critically acclaimed A Good Year (which I'm yet to see.) They will also be working again in Nottingham, a intriguing sounding revisionist take on Robin Hood.Crowe has a reputation for being difficult to work with but I've no idea how fair that is. Certainly it never seems to come across in his work since he's good value in pretty much everything he's ever been in. He was terrific in both The Insider and Gladiator, pitch perfect in Master and Commander, wonderful earlier this year in 3:10 to Yuma and was even good in the atrocious A Beautiful Mind. He has to be one of the best actors working today. Here he teams up with Denzel Washington for the first time in his career and it's a great bit of twin casting. Both these guys are magnetic, dominating screen presences and in a tale such as American Gangster it was essential to cast both roles to actors that carry equal gravitas on screen. Whoever pulled off that masterstroke in this deserves credit. There's some fine casting in supporting roles as well with the likes of Chjwetel Ejiofor, Josh Brolin, Ted Levine and Ruby Lee adding quality to every scene they're in.


Washington plays Frank Lucas, a genuine American Gangster, responsible for bringing in millions, if not billions of dollars worth of cocaine into America in the 70s, and organising its distribution throughout New York. He was the king pin - indeed the only pin in his organisation. Despite being such a dominant figure in the crime world, Lucas went undetected by law enforcement for an unbelievably long time. Eventually Richie Roberts, played by Crowe, comes on the scene and Lucas belatedly comes under investigation. Roberts slowly realises the significance of Lucas within the New York crime world and from there pursues his arrest with vigour.

Scott's American Gangster is as handsome as you would expect. It is brilliantly shot as always and the set design is impeccable - you genuinely feel like your watching a movie made on location in 70s New York. What makes this rank amongst his best work however is the brilliance of Steven Zallian's script. This is a cop vs bad guy movie with a difference. There's no expansive cat and mouse chase, there's no elaborate action sequences where Crowe and Washington go toe to toe. In fact for a large chunk of the running time they are not even aware of each other's existence. That's the beauty of American Gangster and what sets it apart from other movies in this genre.

Washington seems to have few moral qualms about the life he leads and openly murders one of his rivals on the streets of Harlem. Crowe on the other hand is a completely straight shooter, one who discovers 1 million dollars in unmarked bills, and hands them over without thinking about it. Such polar morals may suggest these two are completely different but it's fascinating to see that they're not actually that far apart at all. Crowe's social life reveals his own deep flaws, whilst Washington's seems to reflect a fine upstanding family man. Scott and Zallian have crafted a film that takes it's time in introducing us to two brilliantly realised characters. Lucas and Roberts have so much in common you wonder whether if their upbringings had been reversed they may both have found themselves on opposite side of the law. A film featuring just one terrific character study would be worth watching but this features two.

Scott's Gangster is return to form for both he and Crowe after their disappointment with A Good Year. It should get Scott back on the Ocsar map and he's certainly overdue a Best Director Oscar having been passed over twice whenhe should have been the logical choice. Alien in 1979 and Gladiator, which absurdly managed to win Best Picture, but still Crowe couldn't get Best Director. Gladiator is a film that relies on its brilliant direction and even single handedly reviving a dead genre couldn't get him ythe prize he desetved. I suspect he won't win this year either but it would be nice to see him nominated. Heck Scorsese was nominated and won for the far inferior The Departed. I'd love to think they'll see fit to reward Scott this year.

American Gangster is not the perfect movie. If I had a criticism I'd say at 2 hours 37 minutes it's a little short. Things are wrapped up a little too quickly for my liking in the third act. There are some brilliant sequences that echo great films such as The Godfather and Goodfellas but come the end of the running time, I just felt it had been a little rushed in places but that's as much praise as criticism. I could have easily gone another half an hour and how many times can you come out of a 160 minute film and say that?

A-

*look out for my top 10 most anticipated films in January