Inside Man: Episode 4

 "How does anyone ever get murdered? There's so much admin!"

There so much about this episode that's great. The above line and, indeed, most of Mary's dialogue, which straddles that line between humour and horror. The way a random woman gingerly steps over the trail of blood after Mary is run over. Mary's desperate and almost comical confrontation with Beth. Poor Ben, Harry becoming increasingly unhinged. Grieff's slow acceptance of his fate. That surprising coda with Janice asking Grieff to help her to murder her husband.

But, surprisingly, we aren't told why Grieff killed his wife. Sequel hunting, or a statement that some things are unknowable, as Grieff tells Harry his usual monologue about how all of us, given sufficient desperation, are potential murderers? Probably the latter., as Grieff is, by his own admission, somewhat pressed for time.

This is a satisfying, entertaining finale, with exquisite performances from, in particular, Lyndsey Marshal, Stanley Tucci and David Tennant. Most of all, it's satisfying, in this final episode, to see how Steven Moffat can write himself seemingly into a corner and then seamlessly out of it. Good stuff.

Inside Man: Episode 3

 "Much be so much easier."

"What must?"

"Not believing in Hell."

This is the hardest decision I've had to make for a quote for ages. That says a lot. 

There's a lot of quotable, philosophical dialogue here. But it all emerges from the characters. Harry's police interview is so very cringe. But it exposes Harry. He's a bad man, and a good man. He acted with dselfish desperation towards Edgar, and did not, as he tried to claim, protect him. Yet Edgar watched, and thus funds, child porn. And, let's face it, that suicide note wasa spiteful act of vindictiveness aimed, unknowingly yet culpably, at an innocent teenage boy.

Beth is interrogated, too, on the ethics of her trade as a voyeuristically morbid crime journalist by hardened criminal Morag- who adopts the moral high ground. And Grieff, faced with an actual execution date, reacts not with dignity but with an unexpected desperation. He wants to live, after all. And, despite the fact he mutilated his wife's corpse, apparently the retrieval of her head will explain things. Hmm.

This is building up for a huge finale, with Janice's very justifuable mind games and the horrifying cliffhanger, with Ben locked in the cellar with Janice as the carbon monoxide slowly kills them... and it was Harry who did this, so his wife would not. Because he loves hisfamily so much that he would take their place in Hell. That he would actually download child porn- an evl act in itself, funding more child abuse- to save his son.

This is deep, clever, fascinating. And memory sticks are indestructible, right?

Inside Man: Episode 1

 "Anyone can wind up in this place..."

One might say, in some ways, that there is much we might have expected from Steven Moffat in this, his long-awaited new drama.There's a character- Jefferson Grieff- who is superficially similar to Sherlock in how he solves crimes. Paul McGuigan directs. It's all very clever, with different plot strands interconnecting at various points. David Tennant star as Harry, our likeable vicar protagonist. Lydia West and Dolly Wells are well known for starring in work by Moffat and his mate RTD.over-complex.

Yet this is not, as no doubt some are saying, just Moffat doing his usual tropes. It is not, as no doubt some are saying, confusing and over-complex. Just pay attention. It's all there. And it's much more than a puzzle box, this is about something.

Harry is a good man, a husband, a father, a lynchpin of his community. So when his verger, with his overbearing (and violent) mother asks him to take from him a drive with "porn", he sees this as a trivial matter. And yet-this being the central premise- a good man can become a murderer, given the right circumstances.

We have a parallel in Jefferson, who seems to have murdered his wife and believes he deserves his upcoming execution. As various conversations hint, he was also a good man who made a wrong decision, and somehow became a murderer. He accepts his fate, and whiles away his time in Death Row solving crimes. Yet the Sherlocking is superficial. The point is that this is a man who has done something evil, though not an evil man. And he accepts the consequences with integrity. Not just death, but to be hated. He actively dissuades Beth from ewriting about him positively. His ideas of "moral worth" are fascinating.

Janice, too, is clever and highly principled, as we see in the opening train scene. And so the terrible misunderstanding is set up, where she finds the verger's child porn, believing it to belong to Harry's son. Harry panics, handles things badly... and Janice ends up locked in the cellar. This is brilliant writing, and acting.

And so we face the consequences. Harry's horrified wife. And the confrontation with Janice, who fully realises the only possible fate for her is to be murdered as Harry, though a good man, has no other way out. But she will not make it easy...

And Beth is on the case. This is superb stuff.

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

“Where do all these guys come from?”

The critics didn’t like this film; I went in knowing that. So I’m left wondering what parts low expectations had in what I made of the film, but I liked it; perhaps more so than Spider-Man 2, and that certainly isn’t what you’re supposed to think.

We’re told this film is an overcrowded mess with too many villains. Well, it isn’t. Both Sandman and Venon are tied in well to Peter Parker’s character development and play important roles, as does Harry Osbourne.  Gwen  Stacy plays an important role too; the film packs a lot in but doesn’t feel rushed. Instead, it actually justifies its long running time.

The core of the film is, of course, the symbiote as a symbolic representation of Peter’s dark side- the arrogance, the selfishness, the temptations that lurk within us all. From a situation of seeming perfection at the start of the film- things are going well for Peter in his love life, studies, work and Spider-Man is insanely popular- we immediately know that the bubble is bound to burst and, importantly, Peter starts to show some neglect for MJ’s work problems before the symbiote even affects him, but as soon as he puts in the dark costume (it’s a shame they didn’t use the proper version of the costume, as Benom looks pretty similar, but heigh-ho...)

Yes, Venon gets relatively little screen time, but a version of Eddie Brock is well used, Harry (whine, conveniently, we already know) is well used and Flink Marco (Sandman) is given a tragic backstory and an important role into being (rather crudely) retconned into Ben Parker’s killer. He’s well portrayed by Thomas Gaden Church and, while both he and Venom have limited screen time, I liked the way both were used. This isn’t a Joel Schumacher Batman film; all the characters are properly developed, however minor, including May, Jonah and the rest of the supporting cast.

So ignore the criticisms; this is a fine film. It also has a top cameo by Bruce Campbell as a snooty French maitre d’, and the CGI with both Sandman and Venom deserves an awful lot of praise. It’s sad that this is the last of the Sam Raimi films; I wish they had more of a wisecracking Spidey, but the trilogy is excellent on the whole, and ends on a high.

Spider-Man 2 (2004)

"And it rides up in the crotch a little bit too."

Hmm. Still not entirely enamoured with Sam Raimi's take on Spider-Man in spite of having to admit that it has to be considered, objectively, as a very good couple of films so far. It's stylish, well-directed and acted, a faithful recreation of the style of the early comics from Stan Lee and Steve Ditko with a student Peter Parker. And yet... where are Spidey's funny quips?

At least this is the sequel and therefore not another bloody origin story; it's nice how scenes from the first film are used during the opening titles but this is a film which is, yes, about Doctor Octopus (Alfred Molina is very good casting), but really about both Peter's roller-coaster relationship with MJ and the increasing disintegration of Harry Osborne- and the fact that Peter may be a hero but he and his Aunt May are struggling with very real poverty, which is brave to show. It's 2004, but Peter must use a pay phone because he has no mobile. We even get a funny cameo from Sam Raimi perennial Bruce Campbell and, of course, a blink-and-you-miss-it appearance from Stan Lee. And, indeed, a minor role for Daniel Dad Kim, who plays Gavin Park in Angel. J. Jonah Jameson is awesome ("Guy names Otto Octavius ends up with eight limbs. What are the odds?") to the point that J.K. Simmons was surely born to play him.

Ok, it's a good film. Very good, in fact. The central romance is brilliant and, yes, it's faithful in many ways to the source material. Not being an origin story allows this film to breathe and grow, and it lacks a lot in without ever feeling too long. But... where are those quips?

Hide and Seek (2005)

“I don’t wanna play with Charlie any more!”

There are two points to make before I begin. One, this film is based around one massive great big revelation so, y’ know, THERE BE SPOILERS. Two, this is the ninety-third film I’ve reviewed for this blog but only the first to feature Robert de Niro. How on Earth did that happen?

De Niro gives an extraordinary performance in a role which absolutely requires one. Like a certain part in The Usual Suspects which I shan’t spoil for those of you who haven’t seen it, it requires two performances in one. De Niro has to convince as David, the well-meaning bereaved father who’s trying to do the right thing, and as Charlie. The film structures itself around the revelation well; I, for one, didn’t guess, and was shocked. I have my doubts about basing a film so thoroughly around one big twist, if you guess the twist, the film is ruined for you. That wasn’t the case for me, though, and like all good twists I felt that the clues had been there.

The film moulds itself well around the twist, even to the point of having a character, Mr Haskins, who exists only to fulfil the role of red herring, almost to the point of parody. Aside from De Niro, though, the standout performance is from a very young Dakota Fanning, who fulfils the trope of the creepy kid with aplomb.  

The climax, in which De Niro, as Charlie, chases his daughter through the house with an axe, may be clichéd, but it was the only place to go after the revelation. And the final scene, in which one of Emily’s drawings seems to suggest that she too may have multiple personality disorder (Hollywood thriller version) is delicious.

It’s weird seeing this so soon after Drop Dead Fred; for a while, it appears as though we’re getting a very different spin on the concept of imaginary friends! It isn’t quite up there with the best, relying as it does on that one big twist, but it’s a good film nonetheless, and De Niro is superb.