The Founder (2016)

 "You know,contracts are like hearts.They're made to be broken."

This is not, by any means, the sort of film I'd naturally gravitate to watching- the origin story of a major corporation. Yet, as a drama, this is quietly brilliant, both in terms of characterisation and what it has to say about business, morality, and the chimera that is the "American dream".

We're introduced to Ray Croc, a struggling salesman, viuaa straight to camera sales pitch, a device that, rather cleverly, gets us rooting for this underdog... only later pulling the rug out from under us and show that hehas, all this time, been not only a deeply driven go-getter but a callous dick with no morals or integrity, a terribe husband and utterly amoral. Michael Keaton, whose career seems to have had a real renaissance over the last decade, captures this superbly.

The contrast with the McDonald brothers is instructive. They are business geniuses, introducing thbe methods of Henry Ford to the burger bar, but still with a core of morals and integrity. And, while Kroc genuinely deserves credit for the success of the franchise model, he turns out to be an amoral parasite.

And there is, I think, something deeper here... the cruel concept of the American dream, that anyone can make it if they work hard enough. This is an ideology that crassly ignores the fact that we do not all start out from the same position- poverty, illness and discrimination exist as barriers for many. Capitalism goes hand in hand with a social safety net, making it safe to take risks. And ethics must be enforced by laws. Without such things... we won't have real, creative entrepreneurs like the McDonald brothers. We'll have the world of Ray Kroc.

Aquaman (2018)

”Show off... I could have just peed on it."

Unusually for a superhero movie, I'm going in blind. For once I know pretty much naff all about the superhero in question and his supporting cast. What I do know, though, is that DC Universe movies, to the extent that's still a thing, have been decidedly mixed. Fortunately, the gods be praised, this is a Wonder Woman and not a Justice League.

Some of the typical DC sins are found here as well, mind; CGI abounds and, certainly, it makes for a visually impressive and rather awesome set of scenes in Atlantis with Atlanteans riding sharks and giant turtles as beasts of burden, but we also get CGI countryside, de-wrinkled faces and all sorts of unnecessary nonsense.

I know nothing of DC’s Atlantis (I’m a Sub-Mariner kind of guy) but we get a real exploration of its history, fantastic though it seems- an ancient technological civilisation (are they Minoans? Is Atlantis in the Med? They seem a bit Greek to me, culturally) which sank because of hubris and where there are now various different kingdoms which are disunited and where, in spite of only a few thousand years presumably passing, people have evolved very differently- one kingdom is of met-people.

In spite of visually following the unfortunate DC house style, though, this film is warm and human, and solidly entertaining. It helps that Jason Momoa’s Aquaman is likeable- humble, bloke USA and fun-loving, a hero you could have a pint with. And the plot is a solid little quest narrative as Aquaman follows a series of tasks to retain a weapon which can be lifted only by the one true king and which shows his right to rule- no surprise he happens to be called Arthur. He also knows his early Roman history, which is a plus.

The cast is superb, too, although the appearance of Amber Heard leads to the same awkwardness as appearances by Johnny Depp- one of them is a domestic abuser, and we know not which. But it’s great to see the great Dolph Lundgren, Willem Dafoe, and even Nicole Kidman is actually pretty good. This is a good old-fashioned blockbuster, and fun with it.

Watchmen (2009)

"Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon.

Never have I been so favourably surprised by a film. Yes, Alan Moore refused to be associated with it for the usual (understandable) reasons and yes, Watchmen is as much about its form as its content, and form doesn't translate to other media. But that doesn't make it unfilmable, and I'd say this is the best possible cinematic version of Watchmen. The characters, the plot, the aesthetic- barring a major departure for the ending of the film it's an extremely faithful adaptation.

The cast, none of whom are huge stars, are perfect with the exception of Matthew  Goode, whose American accent is deeply unconvincing- and I'm a Brit. Jackie Earle Haley, so rubbish as Freddy Krueger in the remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street, is a revelation as Rorschach, seemingly born to play the role.

I won't comment on the plot other than to urge people to read the original, but the film made me ponder the contrast between the Comedian and Rorschach, both dangerous Far Right borderline Nazis but very different. Not only is the Comedian a completely amoral bastard but we're further alienated from him by the fact that his place in the narrative is to be seen and understood through other characters, not on his own terms: we see his exterior actions, and subjective versions at that. It's quite a contrast from the way we are made privy, through the device of the diary, to Rirschach's interior monologue. Both are psychopaths but we are made privy to Rorschach's poor and unpleasant upbringing, while his misogyny and distrust of sex strongly imply that he is, definitely unlike Edward Blake, a virgin. And yet... both are equally reactionary and equally psychopathic. So why does Moore allow us to, if not like Rorschach, feel empathy for him, and accept him in the narrative space of the hero? I suspect it's because of the gulf in terms of social class and status between the two.

On a more prosaic note, the shifting patterns on Rorschach's face look amazing. As does the whole film, brilliantly realising Dave Gibbon's visual aesthetic. It doesn't quite have the depth of the original- that would be unfair to expect-but there's still so much to say about authoritarianism, about misogyny, about nuclear weapons, about poverty, about how superheroes in real life would be Nietzchean Supermen, not a liberal wish fulfilment figure dreamed up by two Jewish creators in the year of Kristallnacht, sadly.

This is easily the best superhero film I've ever seen, but then, the source material is sublime.

Hard Candy (2005)

“Does your mother know you cut off men’s balls?”

That Ellen Page is a bloody good actress, ain’t she? She was superb in Juno and she’s just as superlative here. I suppose that in both cases she’s playing smart, eccentric characters, but look beyond the superficial and they’re two very different parts. She also seems to be good at choosing scripts. Both of the films I’ve seen so far in which she’s starred have been bloody good. So, obviously, I bloody love this film, in spite of the disturbing subject matter. And, it must be said, the castration scene is somewhat intense, especially for those of us burdened with a Y chromosome.

This is a low-budget film, utilising limited sets and very little location filming; this script could be performed in a theatre with minimal alteration. It’s a two-hander; aside from Ellen Page as Hayley, a very clever fourteen year old girl, and Patrick Wilson as Jeff. It’s a few minutes into the film, after we see their online flirting and the first few minutes of their date, that we learn her age, and realise that Jeff is a paedophile. Not for the last time, the film subverts our expectations uncomfortably.

Hayley is highly intelligent, extremely well-read and exhibits a quirkiness that both fits with and draws attention from the big revelation: yes, Jeff has lured her to his home for sick and disgusting purposes, but she’s no helpless damsel in distress. She, not he, is the predator, and the bulk of the film consists of her discussing his sick proclivities, with extraordinary psychological insight, as she slowly tortures and kills him. The dialogue is what makes this a great film. There’s an extremely good scene in which Jeff tries to insist that, yes, he may be a paedo, but he’s also done work for environmental causes, much as Jimmy Savile did an awful lot for charity. Hayley may probably be insane, but I like her. I’m sure she was lying about liking Coldplay, too, so I won’t hold that against her.

This film has an awful lot to say about the subversion of gender roles in popular culture, about the male gaze, and about power. What’s particularly nice is that Jeff has to reveal all sorts of deep, dark secrets to Hayley, but he (and the viewer) ends up knowing nothing about her- not her motives, the whereabouts of her parents, or even her name. Hard Candy starts out seeming like another version of the old trope of men objectifying women- or, in this case, girls- but ends up subverting that; all along it’s Hayley, not Jeff, who has the agency.

I suppose the film could be criticised for promoting vigilantism and capital punishment, both of which I passionately oppose, but I think that would be overly harsh. This is a thriller, and genres have conventions. I recommend this film highly. It’s just the thing for Christmas Eve.