INTOLERABLE CRUELTY
Friday 7 November 2003
UGC West India Quay, London E14 VISIT

If ever there was a film genre staggering on its last legs, it has to be the romantic comedy. There have been so many woeful inadequate specimens that I have managed to avoid over the last year, with one in particular I am told, Le Divorce, especially appalling. It’s not just they’re not a patch on the great romantic comedies of the 1940s, like His Girl Friday or Bringing Up Baby. It’s just that films like Le Divorce are usually not particularly funny. Or remotely romantic.

So after consistent brilliance with films like Fargo, O Brother Where Art Thou and Millers Crossing, a romantic comedy seems a strange choice for the Coen brothers’ eccentric brand of writing and directing. But the now familiar hallmarks of their earlier films – the snappy dialogue, the moments of unexpected weirdness – are not the only reasons why ‘Intolerable Cruelty’ turns out to be one of the most enjoyable films of the year. There’s also the confirmation that George Clooney has become the undisputed heir to Cary Grant, the star of the golden age of screwball romantic comedies.

Clooney plays Miles Massey, a brilliant, amoral but bored divorce lawyer and the creator of the “Massey pre-nup”, a prenuptial agreement so watertight it has “an entire semester at Harvard” devoted to it. Tired of the apparent inevitability of matrimonial law, Massey relishes the rare opportunity not to settle but to win everything for his adulterous client Rex Rexroth, caught on camera by a private eye hired by wife Marilyn (Catherine Zeta-Jones). The Rexroths’ day in court, one of many highpoints in the film, is absolutely hilarious, especially the outrageously camp ‘Baron’ who reveals Marilyn as a gold digger who sought out a ‘stupid man’ to marry and to fleece. But even though Massey wins, leaving Marilyn with nothing, he is still not satisfied, not least because he has fallen in love with her. So when months later Marilyn appears in his office with a new fiancé, Billy Bob Thornton’s Texan oil millionaire, requesting a Massey pre-nup for her and her prospective husband, Massey is even more confused. What is this new angle that Marilyn is playing?

To say anymore would be to give away too much, but there are twists aplenty, more very funny scenes involving an asthmatic hitman called Wheezy Joe and Gus the private detective, whose catchphrase “I’m gonna nail your ass” runs throughout the film. As well as the excellent supporting cast, Catherine Zeta-Jones is great, both poised and natural, but Clooney is exceptional, displaying not only effortless charm but also a real talent for comic timing. There are also numerous odd ‘Coen’ moments, such as the terrifying boss of Massey’s law firm whose office has copies of ‘Living Without Intestines’ lying around, or the strange Scottish-themed wedding chapel in Las Vegas. These add enormously to the fun and are a reminder that, although ‘Intolerable Cruelty’ may be the Coen brothers’ most obviously commercial film and perhaps does not have the depth or visual set-pieces of, say, O Brother Where Art Thou, it is still streets ahead of other comedies.

I can’t recommend ‘Intolerable Cruelty’ highly enough – it was a great film to mark my half-century of films watched this year. Make a point of seeing it.

MATRIX: REVOLUTIONS
Wednesday 5 November 2003
Stratford Picture House, London E15 VISIT

And so, after directors the Wachowski brothers tantalised us with their broader and more complex vision of their creation, the Matrix, earlier this year, the trilogy is finally at an end. Whether you liked Matrix Reloaded or felt it was an impossible attempt to match the sparkling originality of the original, there was never any doubt that this year’s two films would have to be judged together - and the final episode had an obligation to deliver. What exactly ‘Matrix Revolutions’ was supposed to deliver – a conclusion, perhaps, or at the very least explanation – was less obvious, but leaving the audience as confused as many were back in May 2003 simply wasn’t an option.

On that level, ‘Matrix Revolutions’ succeeds reasonably well. It plays fewer mind games than Matrix Reloaded because it has to draw so many elements together. The earlier film became increasingly intriguing (some say incomprehensible) with its clever ideas about warring rogue software programs and the notion that Keanu Reeve’s character Neo, ‘The One’ destined to rescue humanity, is not the first, but part of a cycle of destruction and renewal. The story this time is far more straightforward. Essentially, Neo must save Zion before the machines destroy it, aided by the intervention of the Oracle, who seeks to alter the fate of his predecessors, and the presence of Agent Smith, the flaw in the system, Neo’s dark opposite, the ying to his yang. Only the introduction of the Trainman, a new character that is barely developed, looks back to some of the cod philosophy that dominated Matrix Reloaded.

Much of the rest of the film concerns the defence of Zion and the final battle between humans and machines is entertaining, if occasionally burdened by the same mawkish sentimentality that blighted the earlier film. Neo’s big fight with Agent Smith is less impressive, however, and with much of the action largely outside of the Matrix itself, there is a greater reliance of computer generated effects than on intricate fight scenes or gravity defying stunts. In this respect at least, the ‘machines’ clearly win out. As for the ending, it doesn’t quite tie up all the loose threads but at least (and I’m not giving too much away here), it doesn’t have what we might call a Star Wars ending, with our heroes brought together to take a bow before a grateful throng. That would have been too obvious for a trilogy that has embraced so much doom-laden quasi-religious imagery. However, what the final scenes do allow is the annoying possibility of yet another instalment, which after two films in one year seems like overkill, the mark of a cynical eye for future prospects of making even more money.

So overall, I enjoyed ‘Matrix Revolutions’ but still wonder whether there was really a need to add to the first film, which is still by far the best of the three. Let us hope that the no one is tempted to keep going – the lame Star Wars prequels and the less than impressive Animatrix cartoons show the dangers inherent in that particular course.

21 GRAMS
Saturday 1 November 2003
Odeon West End, London W1 VISIT

Showing as part of the 47th Times bfi London Film Festival, ’21 Grams’ tells a terrific and utterly engrossing story that in essence is very simple: the connection between three people whose lives are changed by one terrible accident. Born-again Christian and former convict Jack (Benicio Del Toro) kills the husband and children of Christina (Naomi Watts) in a car accident, providing the opportunity for a heart transplant to a critically ill mathematics professor Paul (Sean Penn). Delivered from death, Paul is compelled to find out who has provided him with a second chance of life but, devastated by the circumstances that have done so, feels he must help the distraught Christina, who seeks vengeance for the death of her family. And why ‘21 Grams’? Because apparently, there is a (scientifically discredited) theory that the body loses twenty-one grams in weight when we die.

But be warned. The tagline on the publicity posters – ’21 Grams: How much does revenge weigh?’ – is utterly misleading, suggesting this is in essence a revenge film, when a far more complex and interesting narrative is unveiled. It is more a meditation on life, death and especially on guilt: Paul’s guilt on the circumstances that have given him new life, Jack’s for the crime he has committed and Christina’s guilt that she lives when her family does not – and that she can no longer even enter her daughters’ bedroom. There is also that felt by Paul’s formerly estranged girlfriend Mary, who has returned to nurse him while he waits for a heart transplant but who seeks redemption for the abortion she had when they separated. Her desperation for a child is later matched by Paul’s desire to exact the vengeance that Christina craves before his body rejects completely his new heart.

The story unfolds beautifully in a non-linear way, much as the director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu’s previous film Amores Perros did, and early on, there are four scenes back to back, each involving Sean Penn’s character at different periods in the story. At first it seems confusing, but the way the plot is gradually revealed is very satisfying, giving hints to the way the story will be resolved (just as the film Memento accomplished so well). And it is a film full of ideas, on regret, love, lust, religion and redemption, beautifully intertwined in three excellent central performances. Naomi Watts is particularly good as the grieving Christina, although all the actors contribute wonderfully to an intense, emotionally draining experience.

After two hours I did not want this film to end, it was that good, and the same feeling seemed true of the rest of the packed cinema. There are just so many small moments that stand out and are completely gripping. One that sticks in my mind shows a teenager, the last person to see Christina’s family alive, clearing fallen leaves from a yard whilst the audience watches and waits for the car accident that we know is about to occur off camera. As Jack’s car suddenly races past, there seems to be an endless wait before the inevitable screech of tyres. It’s devastatingly effective. If only more directors respected our intelligence enough to allow us to imagine the drama of what we never actually see.

If there is any justice at all, this film will surely be featuring highly on next year’s Oscar nominations list, with Watts in particular a strong candidate for Best Actress. Definitely see this film when it comes out on general release next year.