TV series - "Andor Season 2" (2025) ***

 Random thoughts:

- some knock out episodes. Suspenseful ones like the massacre of civilians and getting Mon Mothma away.

- characters blended in. I'm sure the show runners and stuff could explain how they're different. But did Blix have much of a character? Did Stellan S's sidekick. Revolutionaries were ruthless. Fascists were fanatical.

- loved the ending where the brilliant fascist was punished for her maverick nature and put in prison. This felt very real.

- some stuff too Hollywood and dump. Like when they're walking out of the institution and they click on an explosion and don't look just walk on being cool. I think that's what annoyed me about it. It was a movie moment. Not a real moment. And to do rape again. Sigh.

Sorry I just got a bit tired and negative about it. 

TV series - "Andor" (2022) ****

 Some good Star Wars! Takes it seriously. Plays it politically. Drags a little in spots but very compelling. Brilliant prison break.

Script review - "Proof of Life" by Tony Gilroy

 The film wasn't a bit hit but I remember it fondly- how well cast was Russell Crowe and David Caruso, how miscast was Meg Ryan. She gives a good performance but she was too big a star for the role who is just willowy really. Needed an Ingrid Bergman passive type "I can't make up my mind".

The script is fun to read, a page turner, interesting world, romantic center, the K and R blokes are funny. Terry and Alice sleep together in this version - apparently that ws filmed. Good to cut. The kidnapped American is a bit obnoxious yelling at his kidnappers.

Script review - "Duplicity" by Tony Gilroy (warning: spoilers)

 A joy to read because of Gilroy's style, it's use of double dashes, short paragraphs, snappy dialogue, non-linear presentation, cleverness and terrific star parts. It's maybe too clever - I didn't quite get what was going on after a while.

I got to admit I didn't like it that they got played at the end. I wanted them to triumph. Ending was a downer.

Script review - "The Cutting Edge" by Tony Gilroy

 Simple, well done sports movie romance. It was a solid high concept - high class posh gal and working class ice hockey player team to be figure skaters. They have the "thing" they do, a triple, like in Trapeze, a Russian coach, a driven father. There's some homophobia from the hero which hasn't aged well but the conflict is solid and it just works.

Script review - "Nightcrawler" by Dan Gilroy

I held off seeing/reading this in part because it was Dan Gilroy not Tony (Tony helped produce it) and also I wasn't that thrilled about another "ooh the media is out of control" story. But really it's not so much about the media as the story of a sociopath who finds a niche, uses modern business speak to construct this thoughts, and follows everything logically to its end result.

The script is done in sparse haiku-ish style not far from Tony Gilroy's. It's a memorable character study - no wonder Jake Gyllenhaul went for it in a big way, with some excellent support parts.

Movie review - "Beiruit" (2018) ***1/2

Throwback to smart intelligent filmmaking for adults which had pretty much morphed entirely to television. It's from an older script by Tony Gilroy which has fortunately come back to life focusing on a period of history which was a big deal at the time but now isn't very well known... the troubles in Lebanon in the early 1980s just before the Israel Invasion.

I presume Jon Hamm was the one who pushed this through - it's a great role and he's very good as the negotiator who suffers (alcoholic, doomed) and runs around Beiruit trying to get a friend released. I don't feel this is a white saviour movie - it's about Americans trying to rescue an American in Beirut. The Arab characters are sketchy.

I wasn't familiar with much of director Brad Anderson's work but he does a very good job. Loved that 70s/80s feel - the smoking and jackets.

Script review - "The Bourne Supremacy" (2003) by Tony Gilroy and Brian Hegeland

Pulsating, gripping action script - not just by Gilroy, apparently, but a few hands. This one ends with Bourne captured - then he escapes. Did that happen in the novel? I can't remember if it did. The bit where Bourne does a mea culpa to the girl whose parents he killed seemed to work better on the page than it did in the movie, from memory... though my memory is hazy. Love the descriptions of things and the way it's put together. It really is one long chase though, with some stock twists (OMG the baddy is the head baddy, etc)

Script review - "The Bourne Identity" by Tony Gilroy

A superb action script - stripped back, full blooded, realistic. The making of this film may have been a punish including the writing but it reads like a dream - spanks along, working logically, taking a hoary old device and doing it at tremendous pace. Some interesting differences to the final film - no shoot out at the farm house for instance -but the hard work has been done.

Script review - "Michael Clayton" by Tony Gilroy

As ever this was a joy to read (re-read, rather) - Gilroy has such a wonderfully lively writing style. You can actually enjoy reading his stuff in script form. Lots of dashes, and terrific descriptions, and lively dialogue.

This movie helped popularise the idea of the "fixer" - leading to Ray Donovan, Hail Ceasar and so on. We don't see Clayton do that much fixing - he has a few chats on the phone. In that great scene where he deals with the hit and run guy he basically says "get a local lawyer". He lets Alan escape, and is pretty much behind the eight ball much of the running time - it's Karen and Alan who drive the action really, Alan going crazy and rebelling against his firm (and later arranging for photocopies of the memo to be paid which is how Clayton finds out as opposed to Clayton himself doing much detective work) and Karen arranging for him and then Clayton to be killed.

It all feels real - you sense a larger world going on. The script included scenes which didn't make the final movie - Clayton sleeping with a younger lawyer, scenes with his wife. Good cuts, I think.

Fantastic dialogue, it really moves.

Movie review - "The Great Wall" (2016) **

A film which caused controversy on release out of fear of bringing in a "white saviour" - Matt Damon was going to star in a Chinese story about the Chinese fighting off evil serpents at the great wall. Well he's not really a white saviour - it's the Chinese who drive the action and have the stakes.

Indeed part of the film's problem is that Damon could be cut out of the film and there'd be no real difference. The same problem happened with Keanu Reeves in 47 Ronin - he wasn't necessary for the story, the stakes weren't about him.

I got the feeling this wasn't an issue for Richard Chamberlain in Shogun - I could be wrong it had been a long time since I saw it. But it felt like there were stakes on Chamberlain - he was always at risk of being killed, he fell for a local girl which could've gotten them killed.

Damon didn't have much of a character to play. Come to think of it no one had a great character - the girl general (the actor playing her didn't feel convincing) isn't much of a character, nor was the Emperor. Damon's sidekick wasn't funny or even particularly treacherous. Willem Dafoe looked as though he was going to do something interesting but didn't.

Some impressive production values and decent action sequences. But it felt undercooked. The determination to not offend I think hurt this.

How would you do it? Maybe make the battle more personal for Damon. Have his offsider be his brother - his brother fights for the baddies. Have more treacherous humans (they can ally with the baddies). Have Damon constantly at risk of being killed. Give him a romance instead of just a respectful friendship.

Movie review - "Jason Bourne" (2016) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)

The Bourne films set the agenda for modern day spy movies with their sense of realism and fast pace, and the first four movies were strong, but this one is a disappointment despite the return of Matt Damon and Paul Greengrass.

Technically it's fine - it looks polished, the action is solid. I think the biggest problem is the story - there's nothing new about it. So much of it feels familiar - the head baddy behind a headset following Bourne (Tommy Lee Jones instead of Chris Cooper, David Strathairn, Ed Norton) who clashes with a female (Alicia Vikander instead of Joan Allen), a girl who likes him being killed in the opening sequence (Julia Stiles instead of Fanka Potente), Bourne being chased by a super assassin (Victor Cassell instead of Clive Owen), Bourne forcing a woman to drive, a sequence where Bourne meets someone in London who winds up killed.

I was excited by the idea of Bourne learning more about his past but we just learn that his father started Treadstone and was killed... it just gives him an excuse to go an kill people). The stuff about government oversight into privacy on line is boring. Why do spy movies try to get political? I really wish they'd tied it in to events of the fourth movie - a Jeremy Renner/Matt Damon cross over would've been awesome.

It lacks emotion and boldness - there was really no reason to make this film except money. I know you could've said that about all of them, but the first three sequels all tried  in places to be different and this doesn't.

Movie review - "Rogue One" (2016) ****

The first two thirds of this are a little wonky - the film never seems to get in a groove. I mean it's got a bright central idea - about the architect of the Death Star, and his daughter who is used by the rebellion. I liked all the various misfits who get together - the Japanese couple, the hardened rebel officer, etc.

But it never seems to get a fix on the characters - they don't seem to use Felicity Jones' rebelliousness. Also some things felt extraneous - she gets a video from dad and then goes and rescues dad?

But the final act is magnificent - it has integrity, gravitas, and I totally got wrapped up with it. War is serious.

Some random observations:
* didn't feel it was necessary for the rebellion to go "we're not going on the final mission" and then changing their mind;
* the recreation of Peter Cushing worked I felt - but Carrie Fisher felt wrong;
* David Prowse's physical presence was missed.

There's a brilliant "Honest Trailers" on this... "setting up the Stormtroopers' weakness against sticks".

Movie review - "Proof of Life" (2000) ***

Lots of good things about this movie - the location shooting the performance of Russell Crowe in the lead, the interesting "world" of kidnapping and ransom (remember the good old days when Latin America, not the Middle East, was the kidnapping capital of the world?), David Caruso's lively support performance.

Meg Ryan kind of wrecks it. She throws the movie off balance, not just with her uninspiring performance but also her sheer star quality. She's a good actor but feels too light weight and all wrong for what is basically the Ingrid Bergman in Casablanca role. You didn't need Meg Ryan you just needed someone attractive, who lusted after Crowe nobly, while the focus was on Crowe trying to get huer husband back.

Meg Ryan's casting pulls focus - you're drawn to her, which is actually a mistake dramatically because the character is so passive. All she does is lie to a politician - the rest of the time she makes cups of tea and hangs around Crowe.

The film flounders in some other spots it should be strong - like the opening sequence of Russell kicking arse (intercut with him talking about it thus robbing the piece of suspense) and the sequence of Morse being kidnapped. I also hate it how they got Morse to be tough and yell at his kidnappers BECAUSE HE'S AN AMERICAN - why didn't they just play it truthfully, in that you'd suck up and be nice.

So a flawed film. But like all movies written by Tony Gilroy, worth watching. Russell Crowe is very well cast and has a great last scene.

Movie review - "Caprice" (1967) **

Silly, over the top Bond spoof with Doris Day not entirely well cast in the lead - ditto Richard Harris as her love interest. I enjoy both actors and Frank Tashlin if in the mood - I'm not sure all three work together.

But it has the charm of a period piece. It's very groovy, with skirts and boots and spies trying to kill each other while skiing, and script has plenty of twists and turns with characters being one thing and then another - it's a lot like Charade. There's Edward Mulhaire and Jack Kruschen as tycoons, Ray Walston as a mad scientist, lots of bright colours and heavy handed satire of the fashion industry. It is fun to see Day in something so different.

The movie was clearly an influence on Duplicity, with its two stars constantly turning on each other, working for two tycoons and industrial espionage background - indeed, at times I began to wonder if the latter film was a remake.

Movie review - "The Bourne Legacy" (2012) ****

Terrific action film, very smart and exciting. It took me a while to get into Jeremy Renner as an action hero - he's really not good looking or charismatic enough - but he does have a sad eyed quality which works for the role and he grew on me. As if to compensate he is given very strong support: Rachel Weisz is beautiful and does wonderful things with a role that isn't that deep; Ed Norton is reliable as ever as a very believable baddy (motivated by a desire to clean up mess rather than world domination).

Some top ideas - the pills Renner needs to take to keep smart, a work place massacre - and others not so good - a key baddy introduced too late in the day, an ending that lacked a comeuppance for the baddies - plus some thrilling action scenes.

Movie review – “Duplicity” (2009) *** (warning: spoilers)

Very smart and very clever, terrific star roles, an interesting “world” (industrial espionage), lots of twists and turns, solid support cast… but something about it doesn’t quite work. Clive Owen, who is a great star in brooding parts, is never quite 100% effective in a part seemingly written for George Clooney or Cary Grant, and there’s something distracting about Julia Roberts’ lips (not in a good way). Also the final twist – which I genuinely didn’t pick, because it breaks narrative rules – makes you feel a little flat and let down at the end emotionally.

Movie review – “Extreme Measures” (1996) ***

Entirely decent thriller which performed poorly at the box office, mostly because Hugh Grant never seems comfortably cast. There’s nothing wrong with his performance, he’s obviously trying – it’s just he’s Hugh Grant, and he doesn’t seem right in the role. It needs a Richard Gere or Michael Douglas or something. But Tony Gilroy is a good writer (apparently William Goldman did some doctoring as well) and the story moves along with a few decent twists, and genuinely interesting moral point, and some decent actors in support, like Gene Hackman, David Morse (evil rather than cuddly) and Sarah Jessica Parker.

Book review – “Which Lie Did I Tell?”, “Hype and Glory”, “The Big Picture” and “Adventures in the Screen Trade” by William Goldman

These are Goldman’s non fiction works on the movie industry. Adventures in the Screen Trade is the acknowledged classic, spawning the famous line “nobody knows anything.” Packed full of great stuff about stars and directors, and funny stories about Goldman’s own career, with a final section where Goldman adapts his own short story. Quite brilliant – I’ve read this book (or at least bits of it) over twenty times (OK I admit I don’t read the last bit that often). I wish I could read his script for The Right Stuff.

Not that many film buffs are familiar with Hype and Glory, Goldman’s tale of judging the Miss America contest and being a jury member at the Cannes Film Festival. His take on movies is always worth reading (esp his précis of films like Pelle the Conquerer and Bird). Sometimes though the book is full of rich person problems – “my apartment in London was messy when I got there”, and “I was having trouble finding studs for a wedding”, and “my guidebook gave me incorrect visa advice”. The Miss American stuff is OK – Atlantic City is well evoked – but not as good as the film stuff. This book is a bit more personally revealing that Adventures – he talks about his then-recent divorce especially.

Which Lie Did I Tell is a follow up to Adventures. Although it’s not as good, it’s enormously enjoyable – I only wish there’d be chapters on Heat and The Chamber. This fills a bit less disciplined: Goldman goes off on tangents a few times, talking about stuff on the internet and women faking orgasms. And he liked Robert McKee! (Maybe he’s attracted to McKee’s brusqueness). Snaps to Goldman, though, for allowing everyone to see a still-in-development screenplay of his, The Big A (which doesn’t read very well). Fascinating to see writers’ give their feedback – Tony Gilroy shot up immeasurably in my estimation after the job he did (it was like the one George Roy Hill did on da Vinci in Adventures). As an aside, I’d argue that Year of the Comet didn’t fail due to being about red wine, it was because of slack pacing, inadequate stars and a silly finale. But he’s allowed to twist it that way he wants.

The Big Picture is a collection of essays Goldman has written over the years. Very fun, though a few too many of them are about which ones are going to win the Oscars. My faves were the ones where he quoted movie execs on films – these comments are brilliant.

Movie review - "Michael Clayton" (2007) ***

Tony Gilroy is one of my favourite screenwriters and its great to see him making an assured directorial debut. George Clooney is the title character, a "fixer" at a law firm. He hates it, but you know having worked in a law firm I'd have thought being a fixer was a pretty interesting job - every day a bit different, full of unusual challenges,and you'd have a dirt file that would ensure you had a healthy retirement fund. But Cloons becomes disillusioned, though not as disillusioned as Tom Wilkinson, who flips out in one of those "movie cases" (big evil law firm representing chemical company being sued by poor-and-dying-but-honest farmers) making Cloons re-evaluate life. Very strong performances, including Tilda Swinton as a sympathetic baddie(maybe that should be "empathetic"), Wilkinson (what a great post-Full Monty career he's having), and Sydney Pollack (no wonder Pollack is such a good director he has such presence you'd do whatever he tells you to do).

You know how in conspiracy movies they don't normally show how people are killed so their dead body turns up mysteriously as a supposed suicide? Well, this film shows how you go about it - contacting the necessary men, giving the orders, how the break in and kill someone to make it look like suicide. Its very educational. In fact, the two hired goons in this film are a lot more effective "fixers" than Clooney, who in his two big fixing scenes is pretty useless (to a client who's run over someone he says "get a lawyer"; sent to get Wilkinson, Wilkinson escapes). Around the two-thirds mark this started to lose its way,mostly I'm guessing because Clooney becomes passively caught up in events. I think the final shot, holding on Clooney over the end credits, works.