IT the 2017 remake – my thoughts

Let’s talk a bit about the remake of Stephen King’s (massive) novel: IT. Because, even though the movie only just started shooting there is already a lot to talk about. Let me start with the story and go from there…

The story

IT is about a group of Children living in Derry, Maine who call themselves ‘The losers club’. The reason for that name is simple; they don’t fit in with any of the other children.

Then, one day various children are found murdered by the hands of a being that takes on the form of a frightening clown called Pennywise. The ‘losers’ decide to battle this clown they dubbed ‘IT’.

That’s the story in a nutshell. There is, of course, a lot more to tell. For instance, the fact that the members of the ‘Losers club’ grow up and after twenty-seven years decide to battle ‘IT’ again when a new cycle of murders starts. However, the upcoming remake is only going to focus on the child-storyline. The adult-storyline is for the second installment that should come out a year later.

Which automatically brings me to the original 1990 mini-series (twenty-seven years ago).  Because the series used the same template: part one was about the kids. Part two was about the adults. And it is a common consensus that the children’s chapter of that movie is far superior than the adult chapter (even though it has its charms. But it is ruined by the ending).

I think that cutting up the book into two distinct parts was such a stroke of brilliance in 1990 that it feels obvious the moviemakers decided to use this template again this time ‘round. The only true ‘on the page’ difference between the 1990 version and this upcoming 2017 version is going to be the time setting. The children’s- chapter in the 1990 version took place in the 1950s. This new version is going to set the events in the 1980s.

It is rather interesting to see this current nostalgic revival of the 80s. Stranger Things, Super 8, and now IT. Every once in a while Hollywood decides to revisit a bygone decade (and it follows rather chronologically – in the early 2000’s there was a small revival of the 70s – take Boogie Nights for instance). I guess it has to do with the fact that those people who were kids in that decade are now nostalgic consumers and adults working in Hollywood.

I’m not sure what to think about it this change of ‘50s to ‘80s. It could work. It could also cause scriptural (plot hole) problems with the adult chapter wherein (for instance) mobile phones and instant Internet are now common place. We’ll just have to see.

At least the current prognosis is that it’s going to get an R rating which, for a horror-film, is a very good thing.

The director

The IT-remake didn’t happen without some big hurdles along the way. Originally Cary Fukunaga was hired to make the movie. And, to be honest, after his massively successful True Detective the Internet-fans had high hopes. However, a (very) short time before shooting would start Fukunaga dropped the project due to ‘creative differences’.

He claimed that he wanted to create a ‘new kind of horror’ (to paraphrase). Whereas the studio preferred a more direct adaptation of the original novel.

 Though I seriously doubt that ‘that scene’ near the end of the novel is going to be in the movie. You know the one I’m talking about: The what-drugs-was-Stephen-on-when-he-wrote-that-?-scene.

I’m just writing this here because I suspect that, in a year’s time all kinds of websites are going to  mention this scene in one of those ten things you didn’t know about Stephen King’s IT-sort of lists. So let’s just get it out of the way quickly and never mention it again.

So a new director was hired: Andrés Muschietti (Mama). And if there’s one thing he’s doing right so far it has to be promoting the movie through social media. Every once in a while he tweets a set-picture that has all of us movie buffs intrigued.

I mean, I’m actually writing this piece here because of his constant open/teasing approach to telling the audience what he’s working on. And I’m not the kind of person who tents to let himself get caught up in any hype without staying critical.

Which brings me to the question I want to answer: Would Fukunaga’s version be better than Muschietti’s? Which I think can be answered somewhat if we look at studio involvement.

Studio involvement.

Studio involvement is a tricky subject. Last year’s Fantastic Four was utterly ruined by studio involvement. So was the Avengers in 1998. And numerous other examples.

However there are also movies that benefitted from studio involvement. The Lord of the rings-trilogy (three movies instead of two). Alien (the added character of Ash). The little shop of horrors (I don’t really like the original planned ending). Or Final Destination; that originally took itself far too seriously (with an amazingly annoying original ending).

Or simple abandonment of the movie as happened to Life of Brian.

And then there are the movies that fall in between. The Shawshank Redemption, for instance, was supposed to end with Morgan Freeman’s character Red sitting on the bus with his voiceover uttering “I hope.” It was decided to add the beach scene afterwards to bring closure to the storyline of the two characters Red and Andy.

I don’t think the beach-scene was needed. But then again, it doesn’t annoy me either. So to me the scene is neither bad, nor good. The movie is already great anyhow.

So studio-involvement could go either way. 

But don't forget the director-element to consider. There are only a handful movie directors working today that have never made a ‘bad’ movie (‘bad’, of course, being an opinion). Christopher Nolan is one – even though some consider his third Batman-outing the weaker of the bunch. But even great directors like Spielberg and Scorsese (1941 and Bringing out the dead, respectively) made a ‘stinker’ once in a while.

So even though Cary Fukunaga is standing high on a pedestal that doesn’t mean that his version of IT would have been a good one. Who knows, maybe the studio suspected another Howard the Duck.

This is something to keep in mind when reading about a director change. It could very well be studio involvement in the negative sense. Limiting creative freedom as it were. But studio involvement could also be ‘read’ in a positive light. Protecting the director from him/herself or whatnot. 

Remember: Hollywood’s main goal is to make money by making movies. And the best way to do this is by actually making a good movie (even the Twilight-movies are well made movies –just not my cup of tea). Trust the studios, they’ve been doing that for a very long time – they are good at it. Sometimes it is healthy to give a studio the benefit of the doubt by accepting that it knows what it’s talking about. 

The clown

Ah….the clown. This was going to be divisive from the get go. On the one hand this new actor had some massive shoes to fill; since Tim Curry’s original Pennywise was practically perfect in every way.

And on the other hand the look of the clown. This balance between ‘scary’ and ‘approachable’ that the Pennywise-character is.

In short people online were going to complain about Pennywise no matter what.

So the actor playing him: Bill Skarsgård. I have no idea what his take is going to be about. Nor have I seen this actor in enough of his other works to make up any kind of idea of his acting range.

Somebody on the Internet colored him in for us.

Will Poulter was originally cast in Fukunaga’s version and I’ve seen this lad in enough movies to know what he’s capable of. He would have been a great fit. Maybe a bit young for such a timeless creature as Pennywise (his casting came a bit out the left field). But at least the acting skill-set and the expressive powers of this young actor would have suited the character perfectly.

In this sense I suspect Skarsgård to do great as well. But there’s no way I can say for certain (I suspect that the movie will withhold showing Pennywise in motion for a very long time – you don’t show the shark from Jaws right in the first trailer).

Then there’s the costume. A few weeks ago Entertainment Weekly released this photo of Pennywise. And one immediate though struck me: ‘that clown is scary as F…, H… (ehm) …nightmare fuel’. But immediately people started complaining online that the clown was too scary. And they do have a bit of a point there.

One of my favorite scenes from the 1990 mini-series is the early scene in which little Georgie meets Pennywise. The boy loses his paper boat in the drain and there, in the drain, suddenly appears Pennywise offering to give the boat back if only the boy reaches out his hand.

The strength of this scene resides in the duality. Tim Curry plays Pennywise as a very approachable and friendly clown (at the start of the scene at least). You are watching this scene. Knowing full well that this movie is about a dangerous clown. And you see this charming person who happens to be standing in a drain at the time.
This is a prime example of this afore mentioned balance between ‘approachable’ and ‘scary’. The whole setting and context is scary but the clown is played approachable. Much like Anthony Hopkin’s Hannibal Lector in The silence of the Lambs; a charming fellow but don’t let him get near you.

In the original novel Georgie gets his arm ripped off. I wonder how far this upcoming movie will go with this. Hollywood and killing child-characters, always tricky.

So the big question is how charming is Skarsgård’s Pennywise going to be? I mean, the whole reason why the being Pennywise takes on the form of a clown is to attract children. But again this is something that has to come out in the performance.

One last note though; a lot of people complain about the way Pennywise is dressed. I don’t. Pennywise has been around for centuries so naturally his costume is derived from various bits and pieces. And besides, IT's face and his scary teeth are the main attraction anyway.

The kids

As a final note the kids. A nice little guessing game was going on here. One of the first photos released was this one.

Those who knew the story could already fill in some of the parts: the girl was obviously going to play Beverly. The African-American boy was playing Mike. The (err…), rather physical present boy was playing Ben. Which leaves us with three boys we didn’t knew who they were going to play yet.

Finn Wolfhard (yes, we all chuckle at his wonderful name) and Jaeden Lieberher (If you speak German that’s another chuckle) are the biggest names in there because of their recent rise to stardom due to Stranger Things and Midnight Special respectively. So who would play Bill, Stanley and Richie?

A few weeks later the director ended speculation as he tweeted this picture (below) depicting Wolfhard as (“beep, beep”) Richie. Meaning that Lieberher would be Bill.

Which I rather like for the boys. The only thing I know about Wolfhard is his role in Stranger Things. There he plays calm, rather collected and brave kid willing to do anything for his friends.
 IT’s Richie; however, is a fast-talking, nerdy, joker with a slight bit of ADHD thrown in the mix. So a completely different character to play. 
 

The same goes for Lieberher who now has to take on a rather difficult role of a guilt-ridden grieving brother with a speech impediment.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out. Because, to be honest, there aren’t a lot of divers parts in movies. Especially child parts (they usually only have to be cute).
 

Just remember -Jack Nicolson pretty much plays Jack Nicolson in all his movies. And Brian Bonsall played the same kid in Blank Check and Mikey with the one distinction that Mikey was a tween serial-killer.

So now that we know who the kids play, will they be any good? Again there are some massive shoes to fill. Like Tim Curry’s take on Pennywise it were the child-actors of the 1990 miniseries that are considered the strength of the show.

and rather difficult to work with according to the audio-commentary of the director. ’Tsk… Tsk… children – behave’.

But I think they’ll do fine. The casting people aren’t stupid. They know what they look for in a young actor and besides (again) Hollywood has been making movies with children for such a long time by now they know every trick to pull.

So, to summarize: I’m rather intrigued. The upcoming IT-remake had a bit of a false start but by now it is starting to look rather good. I might be utterly wrong about my prediction. But at least, what I tried to do with this article is, I think; proclaim a healthier and positive view on Hollywood for a change. They are the makers of dreams and sometimes they might actually be good in their job.

Time will tell. Sleep well. And remember:

“They float! They all float!” (I had to do this one hadn’t I?)

Random musings 3.

Just some random thoughts about popular movies for which I'm too lazy to write whole articles around.

Pixel art: Jacky Brown

Here is my first, ever, attempt at pixel art. I guess it's like a midlife-crisis everybody has a go at it at some point.  Now it took me the entirety of The great escape to complete this (I work during my movies). But I kinda like the result. So enjoy. More attempts are on the way in due time.

Why didn't I open a Deviantart-account or something? Because I don't want to be a Picasso next to a Rembrandt.

Blackhat

I will lose any discussion with Michael Mann fan(boy)s. Each and every single one of his movies are well shot, greatly edited and with a cinematographic dream of a color pallet.

However, his later movies have been lacking a bit on script (and Mann has never been the greatest actor director - combine this with the fact that he prefers alpha-male protagonists).

As I said often before I'm a script junkie. I can appreciate visual movies like Man with a movie camera (to name the classic) but the moment there is even the smallest hint of a story my primary focus goes to the script.

So -considering Mann's later efforts- I see a badly written movie with great visuals instead of a great (visual) movie with a badly written script (Keep in mind Mann writes most of his own movies -not always but often).

Now I can't wait for Mann to get back with a greatly written script because he has the visual side of directing down to a key. I just bothers me that whenever Mann's work is discussed you either have to completely fall in love with the visual side and ignore the script or vice versa. Can't we do both? Accept that Blackhat (for instance) was a good looking movie but not very well written?

Silent Hill movie documentary

Videogame movies are hard. Like the comic book movies before Marvel there appears to be a curse on the material. Until now videogames haven't been adapted in a universal satisfactory way. In laments terms: most videogame movies are rather terrible. But, thankfully there are a few gems in there. The big one is Mortal Kombat. Cheezy fun, highly quotable and: fights. The second on is without a doubt Silent Hill (the first one, Silent Hill: Revelation shouldn't/ doesn't exist).

I love the first three games to bits (the fourth one is very okay). So I'm definitely biased when I say that I love the movie as well. But I do. The atmosphere is perfectly keyed to the game. The story is a more simplified version of the game -but that's fine.

I think the only problem with this movie comes from the change of the main character from male to female. It's understandable; and it works in the movie. But -as the story goes- since the original script didn't include any male characters, and therefore the producers demanded/asked to include the male character played by Sean Bean, the story becomes unbalanced. Now we have a second storyline that doesn't lead anywhere. A storyline that takes the viewer away from the main plot. But, again, my love for the games could easily survive that.

Now recently I found this behind-the-scenes documentary. Usually I loathe these very positive 'selling documentaries' but this one is actually quite interesting. If you are a movie buff I advise you to spent an hour watching this. But be advised that you watch the movie first since a lot of stuff is spoiled of course. 

Interesting to note here, by the way, that throughout this documentary there is no footage shown from the original game. Something about the rights? 

If you love Silent Hill 3 by the way you should watch this video too.

Innerspace – where does Tuck Pendelton travel?

I don’t know why I made this. One minute I had the idea and by the end of Big Hero 6 it was finished. This is just me having a hobby.

If you ever wanted to know how –in the 1987 film Innerspace- Tuck Pendleton travels through Jack Putter’s body (and out again). This is the map for you.

Oh, and by the way; Yes, Jack Putter is technically a cannibal by the end of the movie.

Stranger Things: map of Hawkins 1.8

UPDATE: MAP 2.0 is here. 

I was feeling creative once again.

I love fantasy maps. The real ones are interesting as well, don't get me wrong. It's just that; -let me explain it like this: those old medieval maps had a certain charm because the monsters scribbled in the corners were considered real.

Anyway, I enjoy making my own maps from time to time, just as a hobby and then I watched Stranger Things.

This TV shows mentions fictional roads throughout: "Meet me at Elms". "Go to Maple and Dearheart", et cetera. The show actually shows a map of Hawkings halfway through. So I had a basic outline and a few street names. Time for me to get puzzling.

Naturally this map of mine is terribly incomplete and probable wrong at several places so consider this both a bit of fan-art and a work in progress. In the next version I’ll probably work on inserting sidewalks, smaller houses and more location-names. Anyway, it’s a fun little project.

The full version is HERE. 

Full disclosure demands me to say that I borrowed the whole design and concept basics from the famous Silent Hill-map by Damian Christensen (just google “Silent Hill-map”).

Update 1.8.

Okay so here is my second version of the Hawkins map. As I promised myself I added sidewalks. I put in smaller houses. And I added an odd street here and there. But I also took a moment to get my facts straight.

A fan art map is great and all. But wouldn't I be better if it was actually accurate? So I returned to my notes and -surprise surprise- I noticed that I was pretty much wrong about every little thing. In short, I had to do a complete overhaul of my original map.

This time I made sure that every little fact seen on screen is accurate. Naturally I still can't be sure about everything. Of course not.
-And I’m not using the original map of the town where the show was filmed (Jackson, Butts county) because that would be cheating.-
But every little detail that I noticed I've put in here and I can back them all up with arguments.
 

Talking about details - the moment Eleven enters the Big Buy store there's a 'missing' poster of Will Byers in the top-right corner of the screen. Did you notice that?

Naturally there are still some issues left. For instance: why Barbara would stop her car three blocks from Steve’s house if –according to my findings- Nancy and Steve actually live quite close to each other.

Or, if Will lives in the south-east corner of the map – how can one scene show him cycling past the laboratory-fence from the right side of the screen to the left. That would place the lab in the east. But then, why is his bike found all the way to the west?
There’s probably a lot of ‘artistic freedom’ at work and that’s fine. That’s part of the fun.

The full version is HERE.

UPDATE: MAP 2.0 is here.

Stranger Things – my thoughts, questions and musings.

Spoilers obviously.

I like TV-shows (and movies, books, games and whatnot) that keep me thinking. So Lost, for instance, as a famous example, made me go all nerdy with time-travel theory, inter dimensional travel and Foulcault’s pendulum.

Stranger Things made me go all nerdy once again as I tried to imagine what the second season might bring. Or, more to the point, what I’d like to see happen in the second season. So in a kind of top-ten-list sort of way I’m just going to throw my predictions, thoughts and wishes out there.

Did I mention that this article is rather spoiler heavy?

It is!

Smaller things.

 

Barbara’s legacy.
Barbara is dead. We know that now. But I do wish that the show would focus a bit on the fallout of her death. Who knows maybe a (previously unmentioned) brother is out for revenge (a direct plotpoint from a famous 80s Jamie Lee Curtis slasher). After the first season I couldn’t help myself but feeling that the tragedy of her demise was merely glanced at. A bit more of a ripple effect would be nice. The same kind of goes for the kind restaurant proprietor and the other disappearances.

The love triangle.
The love triangle between Jonathan, Nancy and Steve. I liked how Steve became a good guy at the end. But still my fanfiction mind was feeling slightly broken hearted (*sob*). So maybe, next season we can either get Nancy and Jonathan together or; get Jonathan a girlfriend of his own (who he can photograph all he wants).

Steve’s friends.
Then there are Steve’s evil friends. I really want those bastards to get hurt in some way or another (they are THAT good at being despicable). So, I hope the show brings them back just so they can get eaten by some monster. 

Bigger things.

Eleven’s fate.
The big question. And I think the most obvious one to answer. Eleven is alive and well living in the forest. Why else would sheriff Hopper go out there and put those waffles in the box?
No, the questions are rather: ‘where’ is she? Is she in our world or the upside down world? And ‘how’ is she. I mean, she and the Demogorgon did defragment – so maybe she’s some kind of ghost-being.

There isn’t anything to go on on that matter so we’ll just have to wait and see. What I do hope that will happen in the next season is for Eleven to be a bit more of a victim. Hear me out on this one:
Throughout season one Eleven was the girl who arrived just in time to help the boys. She helped them with the bullies, she helped them escape the evil-men-with-guns, she even went to the dark-place to find their missing friend. And what did she get in return? Nothing tangible, only friendship.
So I would like, in the next season, for the boys to make an effort for them to earn her friendship. She helped them out numerous times. Now, it’s time for them to help her out.

One small note here: Eleven did kill several people! Usually, people who commit murder die themselves in a bit of ‘Hollywood karma’. So I do wonder what Eleven will be put through in the next season to level this out.

Will’s fate.
The other big question: What in-the-name-of-Kermit is wrong with Will? Here we have a boy puking slimy worms (Just like that deliciously uncomfortable scene in Neil Gaiman’s The ocean at the end of the lane) –that’s not healthy.
What I like about Will is that he’s pretty much been absent for most of the first season. So we –the audience- got to know all the other kids and characters. But we don’t really know anything about Will. There’s still a distance. We got a few snippets here and there. He appears to be intelligent, (extremely) caring and creative –that’s what we got sofar.

So it’s interesting to see how this ‘unknown’ character plays out in the new season. And what this secret of his might steer him into. Who knows maybe caring Will is slowly becoming a villain. Wouldn’t that be cool? A superpowered Will versus Eleven.

The sheriff’s fate.
One smaller question is of course the Sheriff’s current allegiance. Some men in suits ordered him in the car in one scene. And in the next he’s putting waffles and Tupperware Christmas dinner in a box in the woods.
The most obvious answer is that the Sheriff has taken on the dual role of protector (father figure) of Eleven and the intermediary for the government organization. Which will be interesting to see how this plays out. Especially since the show made such a point of the fact that he has lost his own daughter –and still hasn’t really gotten over it (I doubt anybody could). Eleven can fill the ‘hole in his heart’ as it were. But I do wonder what the evil government guys feel about that?

Dr. Brenner’s fate. (Please don’t let him be dead!)
I loved this cold and calculated villain (‘Jippy, my daughter just killed two guards…it’s Christmas!’). So why shoehorn in a new government representative next season if we already got this wonderful bastard?
But, I can understand if Dr. Brenner is truly dead. Apart from the undeniable fact that a close encounter with the monster usually doesn’t bode well for any long-term health plans. I can also understand that, because he’s the one who caused the ‘rip’ in the dimensional fabric, taking this character out of the equation solves any lingering story strands on responsibility and accountability.

I do, however, wish to find out if he truly was Eleven’s “Papa”. I think he was. And I think there are more secrets in his past that could prove interesting. So with him (probably) dead and eaten -you can’t ask him anymore- time to find out what else Dr. Brenner was cooking up in that military compound. For starters what happened with the ten children before Eleven?

The bully’s fate.
So let’s see if I got this right: In an attempt to murder somebody with a switchblade, while ordering somebody else to (basically) commit suicide by jumping off a cliff, you get your arm broken. Your next order of business is to go to the police to get your own back.
That boy was lucky that Sheriff Hopper had other things on his mind at that time because I wouldn’t be so kind.
Now, I want the kid back next season and this time helping out a bit, making amends. But I think chances are very likely that, if he is returning, his fate is going to be a bit darker that a mere broken arm. 

Stranger things.

The monster’s fate.
The monster is dead. We know that. But Sheriff Hopper also found an egg in the upside-down world. So how many eggs are there left? And, more importantly: where is mommy? Are there more monsters coming? I do hope so because ‘flowerhead’ (as I lovely call him) was a doozy.

One thought that crossed my mind as I watched the show - when we learned that the monster is attracted to blood. If I remember Japanese culture correctly: if a boy spies on a girl in a not-so-gentleman fashion he gets a nosebleed. Since taking pictures of half-naked girls isn’t very gentleman-like, in Japan, poor Jonathan would have been screwed.

The upside-down world.
I love how the show handled the idea of a parallel dimension. I don’t know whether it’s intentional or accidental –anyway, it works beautifully. Because the big problems with these world encompassing things is that the show makers have to bring it down to a small level.

So person of interest, for instance, has a world controlling supercomputer but only shows what takes place in New York. The Strain, as another example, deals with a worldwide vampire apocalypse but, again, only focuses on New York. And this is where the difference lies between those shows and Stranger Things. In person of interest and the Strain the show makers force themselves to focus on that small part of the big picture.
In Stranger Things, however, it’s the other way around. Because the interdimensional gate is set in (Stephen?) Hawkins Indiana there is no point of showing the upside-down world in Tokio Japan.
So even though we can assume that the upside-down world is global the story is helpfully constrained to that little town in the USA because that’s where the only door is. 

Some things.

So what’s my prediction for the next season? I’m assuming that a new monster will pop up. And since the monster can make its own gateways –its hunting ground might become a bit bigger. So there’s going to be a lot more upside-down world travels and some weird Lovecraftian encounters. It’s going to be a fun (for me the viewer – I don’t think the characters will like it) ride to explore.
So there you have it. My musings about the next season of Stranger Things. In a year time I’ll find out whether I was right about any of these (wishful) thinkings.

Mixed tape movies - Thick as thieves

In the eighties it was the-thing-to-do to make a mixed tape (like a mp3 but touchable, always in need of a pencil and most definitely cooler). On it you would make a little playlist of all the cool songs. Now the trick was to make each song correspond with the rest of the tape. In this post I will try to do the same with movies.

Every once in a while I will select a general topic and select movies to accompany it. As you can see the more child-friendly movies are at the start of the day, but  when night falls: ‘here be monsters’. Please feel free to give suggestions of other unknown movies.

One rule though: Auteur themes like ‘Shakespeare’ or ‘James Bond’ are not allowed. ‘Spy-movies’, naturally, are.

Theme: Thieves.

Thieves. Everybody likes a good crime caper movie once in a while. Preferably with a happy ending.  And Hollywood has kindly provided us with numerous ingenious scenarios in which crime pays. I’ll focus on the more lighthearted crime movies here. So I’ll leave Joe Pesci swinging a baseball bat at Robert de Niro for another time (yes – I made an intentional mistake here).

08:00-10:00

Three fugitives: A great remake that –to me- is even better than the French original. I especially liked the scene in which Martin Short rescues his daughter from the orphanage. This bumbling buffoon of a character regularly stumbles over his own shoelaces. But when his daughter is in danger he suddenly becomes frighteningly focused. A nice little additional layer to his character. Oh and the three main leads have great chemistry together.

10:00-12:00

Ruthless People: One of my favorite quotes is in this one: “This could very well be the stupidest person on the face of the earth. Perhaps we should shoot him.”

The story is what you can expect from a crime-comedy. You take a crime (any crime) and turn it on its head. So like Weekend at Bernie's –where the hitman keeps on killing Bernie; thinking he’s alive. In Ruthless People; Danny DeVito -as the husband of a kidnapped Bette Midler -refuses to pay the ransom, hoping that the kidnappers will in fact kill his wife. A slightly dark comedy but hilariously executed.

12:00-14:00

Disorganized Crime: A professional bank robber calls a group of professionals together to do a job. But, unfortunately, this mastermind gets arrested before the boys arrive. When they do they have to try to work together and rob a bank. It might not be riddled with jokes but the charm of the characters and the fun story makes it one of my all time favorite movies.

14:00-16:00

The thief who came to dinner: A computer engineer (in the 70s mind you) decides to throw his life in a different direction and becomes the ‘chess playing burglar’. Naturally the papers notice and they come up with a competition  between the burglar and a chess genius. If the genius wins the burglar is to give himself up.

This is just a small part of a fun movie wherein the main hero is the crook. It might be a bit outdated by today’s standards (why doesn’t he use gloves?). But it’s the fun and the charm of the chase that’s at the core of this movie.

16:00-18:00

Quick Change: Again a remake of a French movie (What’s up with the French and bank robberies?). I was very young when I first saw this movie and I thought –and still think- that the main plan was brilliant. The getaway-plan however, not so much.

It’s almost like crime in real life – stealing a million bucks can be easy but how do you launder it?

18:00-20:00

How to steal a million: Which brings me to this movie. How does one steal a million? A smart plan set in motion in the last act. Great chemistry between Hepburn and O’Tool (I think he was sober in this one). An overall classic crime caper movie.

20:00-22:00

The real McCoy: Hollywood’s attempt at bringing girl-power to the heist movies. And I must say Kim Basinger fares quite well as the ‘former thief forced to do one last job’. The movie ticks all the boxes but that doesn’t take away any of the fun.

It is fun to mention that one of the main reasons people remember this movie is because of Terence Stamp’s hardcore-don’t-mess-with-me villain role. The kind of guy that keeps tigers as pets. The next role he took on after this? Playing a sweetheart transgender in Pricilla: Queen of the desert.

22:00-00:00

Topkapi: The big one had to be on the list. I still think that Mission Impossible’s take on the whole caper scene can’t hold a candle to this original (though Rififi should be mentioned here). Every actor is great in this (Ustinov won his Oscar). And, though some people disagree, I still feel that Melina Mercouri’s character is one of the strongest female protagonists ever to grace the silver screen.

00:00-02:00

Who is Cletis Tout?: A crime movie made for movie buffs. Count me in!
A guy gets captured by a hit-man who loves classic movies. To talk his way out of it he tells a crime story, with some romance and danger and, of course, a classic fourth act. If you like crime capers it’s a great movie. If you know your American cinema from the 50s it’s a fantastic movie.

02:00-04:00

Snatch: The Stratham is great as an action star, but he is even better as a fast-talking conman. This movie is Guy Ritchie at his best. The movie is fast moving, has interesting characters and a plot that conects all the dots nicely in the end.
I originally wanted to put the Dutch movie Black Out on this spot. But since Black Out owes so much to this classic…

Watch it for Del Toro’s Yiddish, Pitt’s Gibberish and Sherbedgia’s famous final words “Not yet!”.

Honorable mentions:

There are of course many other movies to mention here. Maybe I’ll do a sequel in due time.

The diamond fleece: A great crime caper (with some annoying rap half-way through). It's a fun movie with a twist/reveal that I actually didn’t see coming first time through (usually I’m rather good at those things).

Black Out: The Dutch Snatch. It’s hardcore and awesomely over the top –something the Dutch are actually rather good at. Two examples:  1. Two beautiful sister hit-girls swinging an axe and a cricket bat. 2. Just one quote of many: “You should stop sucking d*ck, you’re talking bollocks!”. No this isn’t a PG movie. 

Grand Slam: Both a classic crime movie and a movie with a final twist. This twist has been copied so often during the years that it’s hardly original anymore. But in Grand Slam -in its original form- the twist still works.

The league of Gentlemen: This movie is a lot like Topkapi in a way. That’s why I left it out. But it’s a great crime movie, no doubt.

The first great train robbery: A brilliant movie with a great soundtrack. But halfway through the movie makes two big mistakes at once. Not only does it take a massive departure from a lighthearted tone to dark and sinister. But it also drops a character in out of nowhere.

The Italian job: Avoid the remake. It has a hilarious ending.

Foolproof: Ryan Reynolds being all charming and David Suchet (Yes Mr. Poirot himself!) being a dastardly villain. The final twist is a bit too obvious – but that doesn’t take away any of the fun.

The art of the steal: A movie that deserves more attention than I’m currently giving it. It has Kurt Russell and Terence Stamp (again!) in it stealing a priceless book. Not very original perhaps but, in a classic sense, the way a crime caper comedy should be made.

The green room – a review

Story: A small punk-rock band plays a gig at a bar run by white supremists. On their way out they see something they shouldn’t have. Now the group of neo-Nazis try to control the situation by taking out the witnesses.

Neo-Nazi’s as villains. What a charming notion. Now; what thirty-odd years of life has taught me is that extreme right-winged people aren’t (overall) the cleverest of the bunch except (and this is important!), the spokes person.

Suppose a political party, the person doing the talking is a wizard with words. This is the kind of guy (usually a guy) who realizes the evil he is telling and knows the reactions he can get. So he learned to sell his story like it is the absolute truth without resorting to discrimination or, even, bad mouthing. So that, when he finished his monologue you have to grab you mind together- usually it takes a minute or two for you to realize that every sugarcoated word he told you is just topping on the vilest dehumanizing filth of a cake he is trying for you to swallow- before you can retort.

Neo-Nazis are dangerous because the lower classed ones commit all the violence and the hatred whilst the spokes people sugarcoat it.

The biggest name in the green room is Patrick Stewart who plays such a sweet talking monster of a person. I’m saying biggest name but we must not forget that the main actor Anton Yelchin, who plays Pat, the ‘good guy’-as it were, died tragically a few weeks back in a freak accident. In some post-mortem way this (always solid) actor become a full celebrity after his death.

On point though: even though his family and loved ones have my utmost respect and sincere condolences, I do wonder why news networks decided to spent thirty seconds of coverage on Anton Yelchin and no coverage at all, two days later, on Bud Spencer who died the same week of old age. A freak accident versus an European legend. I suspect the journalists figured they had a story…anyway I digress.

Patrick Stewart is brilliant in the way that his character tries to control the situation. I believe I never heard him say a single anti-Semite thing yet he is an absolute villain. But, now that I think about it, his character also didn’t shy away from the massive swastika-flag hanging in the office –so he’s a villain from the get go. But, there –to me- lies the problem. The swastika is just set-decoration.

When you get down to the basics of this movie it is really a tale about a group of people wanting to escape and a group of villains wanting to kill them; That’s it! The neo-Nazi element and the dangers these people possess when it comes to words and negotiation are like: ‘fairy dust’ –to quote Matthew McConaughey in the Wolf of Wall Street- to make it more interesting.

And on that level the movie fails for me. The ‘fairy dust’ IS interesting. The way one of those Nazis cares for his killer dogs is both intriguing and resentful. But, unfortunately, that’s where it stays. It stays outside of the main plot. Even Macon Blair’s character as one of the more level-headed neo-Nazi’s doesn’t really overcomplicate the main plot which –once again- involves people wanting to get out, whilst people try to kill them.

Then there’s the ‘good group’ who make one illogical decision after the other. Which, at the start, is understandable. But the minute they realize what’s going on they should be better prepared. They are not and they fall like flies. Only in the endgame the tension rises lightly because the ‘good guys’ finally decide to strike back.  But by then, to me –the guy who has seen more than enough similar movies (e.g. Straw Dogs)- it’s already too late. You can see the ending coming.

Patrick Stewart’s character makes a nice twist in the end but the ending expected stays the same leaving you with a movie that you could have written with crayons.

Is it a bad movie? Of course not. It’s a solid thriller! It is well shot (especially considering the economical budget) and the acting is very good. But it could have been far better if it wasn’t so predictable. If the heroes of the tale didn’t have such a death wish. If only the movie focused on the true dangers of neo-Nazism instead of using them as a coat rack for danger.

We might have had an interesting tale. Now we basically have the ‘serial killer roaming outside’-plot in which said killer is a bit more interesting.