The Mind of Mr. Soames

Well, it's been awhile since I've used this intro so let's dust it off. I watch way more movies than I probably should to the point I feel like I've kinda run out of older, good movies. I can find plenty of bad ones! But use that old sticktuitiveness (that's a word, right?) and keep looking. You will find some gems out there, some forgotten classics, or at least something mildly entertaining. That was 1970's The Mind of Mr. Soames for me, a movie I'd never even remotely heard of but ending up enjoying a lot.

At an isolated English manor, an extremely risky medical procedure is about to be performed, something that has never seemingly been done before safely. During its birth some 30 years earlier, damage was done to an infant boy's brain, putting him into a coma he never awoke from. Now, that man, John Soames (Terence Stamp), is just turning 30 and two doctors, Bergen (Robert Vaughn) and Maitland (Nigel Davenport), intend to wake him up. The risky procedure works, but that's only the start of things. Soames never had a chance to grow up even though he has the body of a full-grown adult. What to do? Well, Soames exhibits all the characteristics of an infant so Doctors Bergen and Maitland have to teach him literally how to be a person. Their methods differ though and threaten to cause a riff. How do you teach a 30-year old man about...well, everything? Their work is cut out for them, and nothing will come easily.

What a cool, interesting movie. And yes, to reiterate, I'd never heard of it in the least. Aired recently on Turner Classic Movies a few weeks ago as part of a Robert Vaughn-themed night, I gave it a shot. I'm glad I did although I will say I was heading into a different movie than I got. Just looking at the cast and watching the first few minutes of the flick, I thought I'd stumbled into a horror thriller from Hammer Films. I was wrong. From director Alan Cooke, 'Soames' is far more of a low-key thriller early on that morphs into a darker, more sinister psychological thriller in its second half. Definitely worth seeking out though.

For starters, the trio at the top pulled me in here, Vaughn, Stamp and Davenport. By 1970, Vaughn was the most established star by far in both film and television, Davenport was a recognizable face and a very reliable character actor and Stamp the up and coming star. These are three incredibly interesting performances, all for different reasons. Vaughn and Davenport get to play off each other and do it incredibly well. We've got two incredibly gifted, talented doctors who are also convinced of their own methods. Vaughn's Bergen is more sympathetic, wanting the infant 30-year old to grow up and learn in a nurturing, more natural environment. Davenport's Maitland is more rigid, wanting Soames to learn, learn and LEARN and then maybe have some fun. The script pretty obviously shows which one they think is right (cough Vaughn cough Davenport is always evil cough), but the two actors do a good job bringing that friction to life.

And then there's that third guy, Terence Stamp. Still a relative newcomer to feature films, Stamp had starred in a handful of movies since making his screen debut in 1962's Billy Budd and Term of Trial. Here, it's just a quality, intriguing and interesting performance. As is usually the case with roles similar to this (disabilities of any sort, mental or physical), there's always the potential to be over the top, ridiculous, forced, even hammy. Stamp manages to avoid all of those potential disasters. He's believable, sympathetic and is always interesting. The range of the character goes from an infant who can't speak and has absolutely no concept of the world to a young boy, maybe four or five who can speak and is slowly beginning to grasp things. Still, how do you explain the entire world to an individual who's 30 years behind? An emotionally effective performance, one that balances the drama and some laughs mixed in as Soames "grows up" in some sorts.

Also look for Christian Roberts as the TV personality who with a crew is taping the first few months of Soames' life for a TV special and Donal Donnelly as Allan, another doctor at the manor in the English countryside working with Soames and maybe the one who's closest to the childlike 30-year old.

As I watched 'Soames,' all I could think of was how similar at times it is to 1968's Charly, starring Cliff Robertson in an Academy Award-winning role. Both films take similar outlooks on life, stories about people deemed "different" because they aren't cookie-cutter in appearance or personality or behavior. It was cool to read then that the same studio that made 'Soames' had previously tried to buy the rights for Flowers for Algernon, the novel that became Charly. As for our movie here, I liked it a lot, intriguing to the end. I thought I had the ending pegged but I was off in the finale-predicting department. What could have been an absolute whopper of an ending is still pretty good but it taps the brakes a bit rather than going for a knockout blow. Still, an excellent, little-known flick that is definitely worth tracking down.

The Mind of Mr. Soames (1970): ***/****

The Art of the Steal

Here's a trend that's been developing over the last 10-15 years in Hollywood, one I see popping up more and more in recent years. Well, basically since The Sixth Sense first appeared in 1999. Movies aren't just interested in pulling a fast one on you with a great twist. They're obsessed with doing it. That's all fine and good until it becomes so ridiculously forced that said twist almost ruins the process of getting there. Case in point, 2013's The Art of the Steal, one I'm still mulling over.

Working with a small crew that includes his brother, Nicky (Matt Dillon), longtime thief and getaway driver Crunch Calhoun (Kurt Russell) has pulled off another job at a Polish art museum, getting away with an authentic Gauguin. Well....almost. Nicky gets picked up by the police and facing a stiff sentence if he's found guilty, turns Crunch in. Crunch serves five-plus years in prison, getting out and becoming a stunt motorcycle driver, that is until he's forced to team up with Nicky and the old crew again for one very lucrative job. One of the first books by Johannes Gutenberg has been stolen in Europe and is now just sitting at a border station in Canada, just waiting to be transported into the United States. Can Crunch, Nicky and the crew pull off the job? They've only got a couple days, an art expert coming to verify the book in just a few days. The job is one thing, but can Crunch trust Nicky?

Have you heard of this movie? Yeah, me neither. I don't believe it got any theatrical release in the U.S., but I found it on Netflix and here we sit. I love a good heist movie, and the cast seemed pretty promising for a movie that got little to no release, director Jonathan Sobol also writing the screenplay. It's nothing hugely special or out of this world, but I was entertained throughout. The style borrows here and there from other better, far better known heist flicks, especially the Ocean's movies. We get on-screen graphics telling us where we are -- Quebec City, Detroit (Yeah, not as glamorous) -- and narration laying the groundwork for everything, including giving the crew cute nicknames like the Idea Man, the Forger and others. You get the idea. If you like heist movies, you'll get some enjoyment out of it. How much? That's up to you.

The basic premise is pretty straightforward, playing on the all-too-familiar "one last big job." Russell's Crunch quickly knocks that myth out, stating there's no such thing....well, sorta. Give some background, introduce the personalities and some conflict, lay out the impossible objective to rob and let the hijinks begin. Nothing too crazy there. 'Art' does a good job in that department, following the formula and usually letting the tone stay pretty light. There's some genuinely good laughs sprinkled throughout the fast-moving 90-minute feature. That comes from, not surprisingly, the cast.

You know what? Kurt Russell is really cool. It's one of those things I knew, I was aware of, but it's nice to get a reminder sometimes. His last major studio release was 2007's Death Proof (he's currently filming Fast and Furious 7) so even in a smaller-scale story like this, it's cool to see him do his cool, smooth anti-hero type. Dillon is Dillon, the treacherous me-first brother who just know is up to no good. He pickpockets a young Asian girl for goodness sake!!! As for the rest of the crew, also look for Jay Baruchel as Francie, Crunch's young protege who hasn't been involved in a heist before, Kenneth Welsh as Paddy McCarthy, the smooth Irishman who knows everybody and everything, Chris Diamantopoulos as Guy, the smooth French forger, and Katheryn Winnick as Lola, Crunch's younger girlfriend. Some fun characters, some recognizable names, all of them looking like they're having fun with the stylish caper.

Also worth mentioning is Terence Stamp as Samuel Winter, an infamous thief in his own right, now working with Interpol to earn an early release on his very, very long prison sentence. Stamp shows off his subtle comedic chops as he works with Jason Jones' Interpol Agent Bick. He has little use for the driven Bick, his underplayed digs and insults providing some of the biggest laughs in 'Art' as well as his scene with Russell's Crunch.

And yes, then there's that twist. No, that's not spot-on. TwistSSSSSSSS. Movies aren't content anymore with just one twist or even two. They've got to blow you out of the water with one out of left field twist after another until it becomes indecipherable. Who's that? What's happening? What's going on? It's a heist movie. You know, just know, there is a twist coming, but here the entire last 30 minutes is one new revelation on top of another to the point it just becomes overkill. It doesn't ruin the movie, but the non-stop revelations and twists to get to be a little much. A better movie than I was expecting overall but enough is enough at a certain point. Worth recommending though for sure. A solid, enjoyable heist/caper flick.

The Art of the Steal (2013): ** 1/2 /****

The Limey

Maybe getting old isn't half as bad as it is made out to be.  Just look at movie stars who well into their 60s and past that are still as cool as ever...if not more so. Think Robert Redford, Michael Caine, Sean Connery, Christopher Plummer. With the exception of Redford, they are all British.  Hmmm, might be something to that, but that's for another review. One of those actors who everyone is aware of but can't always place him, British actor Terence Stamp is for the lack of a better description cool, especially in 1999's The Limey, one of his best roles in a career dating back to the early 1960s.

This taut little thriller -- clocking in at just 89 minutes -- is an oddity among the revenge/vigilante picture. Without explaining the whole review and movie in one sentence, all I can say is that it is different, but for all the right reasons.  Director Steven Soderbergh does not settle for the status quo with a story that has been seen before and will be seen again. It would have been easy for 'Limey' to stay in that safe middle ground, and the movie would have been acceptably entertaining. But Soderbergh puts his own unique style on the revenge flick, and the movie is the better for it.

Just released after serving a nine-year sentence for a failed robbery, aging British crook Wilson (Stamp) heads to Los Angeles in search of answers after finding out his daughter died in a car crash. He doesn't believe the story for a second, getting help from a friend of his daughter's, Eduardo (Luis Guzman), who helps him get around the city and meet the people he needs to see. It doesn't take long for Wilson to start piecing things together with all the evidence from his daughter's death pointing at Terry Valentine (Peter Fonda), a high-end music promoter who is mixed up in some shady business dealings. A fish out of water with nothing but revenge driving him, Wilson starts gunning for him, ready to do whatever it takes to get revenge for his daughter's supposed accidental death.

I am most familiar with Soderbergh's work in the form of the Ocean's movies, starting with 2001's Ocean's Eleven and continuing since with two more sequels.  As a director, Soderbergh has a knack for the highly stylized without sacrificing story. Some of his other films include Traffic, The Good German, Che, and Erin Brockovich so he obviously knows what he's doing in making a reputation for himself.  With 'Limey,' there is something difficult to explain why the movie works. It was filmed on a relatively low budget (under $10 million) and has a somewhat cheap, renegade film-making look to it. The story wastes little time with anything unnecessary, boasting a confidence in getting where it wants when it wants. That's the movie in a nutshell. Different? Yes, but it is comfortable in its own skin, content to be different for entertainment value, not for the sake of being different.

Soderbergh's directing style can get in the way at times with his fast-paced thriller/mystery.  The editing is never an 'in your face, aggressive, look at me!' style, but it treads that fine line.  Dialogue between characters is quick cut and edited with shots from before and after being seen while the words play over the images. We see images that seemingly have little or no effect on what we're actually seeing, but in the end they all come together. SPOILER ALERT We're actually seeing part of the ending throughout the movie except we're not aware of it at times. END OF SPOILER  It's not until the end that everything fits together with a non-linear storyline that doesn't have everything in order, forcing us to piece things together at a certain point. In Soderbergh's hands, the gimmick works, but in a lesser film or working with a less talented director, this could have been a mess.

Style aside and eccentricities in storytelling aside, the main reason to see this movie is Terence Stamp's performance as Wilson, the aging British crook looking for answers concerning his daughter's death.  From the description I read, the main character sounded like any number of other normal men turned vigilante heroes. Nothing about the character though is commonplace, Stamp putting his own spin on the stock character. He's extremely capable and doesn't care much what happens to him, but he has this darkly comic edge to him, providing laughs with his Cockney sayings that he has to explain to anyone he's talking with. His pants are a size too small, giving him an oddly human edge as he goes about his investigations. Most of all though, I genuinely liked Wilson, especially the revelation he has and the changes he makes as he sees his faults as a father. A great performance overall, one that carries the movie.

Joining Stamp in a part that pokes fun at himself is Fonda as Terry Valentine, high-powered music promoter who finds himself up to his knees in trouble.  His character shot to the top in the 1960s -- much like Fonda did -- and to a point he still is and belongs in the long-since gone decade.  One of my favorite character actors, Guzman is subtle in hitting all the right notes as Eduardo, Wilson's unofficial sidekick. Lesley Ann Warren plays Elaine, a friend of Wilson's daughter, while Barry Newman plays the straight villain, Valentine's security and all-around shady dude, Avery. Also look for Nicky Katt as Stacy, a thug and hired killer who provides some surprisingly funny moments in his outlook on the Hollywood lifestyle and Amelia Heinle as Adhara, Valentine's much-younger girlfriend. 

As I review this movie, the description that keeps coming to mind was how pleasantly surprised I was, how much I enjoyed the movie from start to finish. It just isn't what you would expect from reading the description, but in a good way, not bad. An underrated gem.

The Limey <---trailer (1999): ***/****

The Adjustment Bureau

You forget your keys somewhere and are therefore a couple minutes late to wherever you were going. Driving to work, you take a different route and as a result avoid a horrific car accident. You take one road instead of another, and some how, some way, cancer is cured. Free will. Predestination. Are we supposed to do something in our lives or is it up to us? Do we control our own fate? It's a question based in personal beliefs, convictions, principles, religion, and so much more.

In an age of mindless action movies and thrillers, I'm glad to see movies like 2011's The Adjustment Bureau. It is based off a short story titled Adjustment Team that was originally published in 1954 by science fiction master Philip K. Dick. This is an atypical mainstream movie. It is a thriller, but one without gunplay, explosions and random nudity. For the most part, it is a smart thriller. It is unique and at times thought-provoking in its discussion of free will and destiny. No doubt it will divide people, and the ending certainly leaves something to be desired, but taken on the whole it is a good movie.

A politician on the rise in the state of New York, David Norris (Matt Damon) is on the fast track to bigger and better things. He has risen up from a checkered background as a kid to become the youngest Congressman ever, and now stands poised to become a U.S. Senator. For David though, he has gone off his supposed life plan when he meets Elise (Emily Blunt), a beautiful young dancer with whom he clicks with immediately. David was not supposed to meet Elise because his interactions with her will divert him from his supposed path. When he sees this going on -- mysterious men in suits and hats altering his life and those around him -- David doesn't believe what he sees. It's just too ludicrous, too out of this world. These men will stop at nothing though to get David back on his right path.

The idea behind the Adjustment Bureau -- the actual team of men altering people's lives, not the actual movie -- is one of the most original, unique concepts I can think of in any cultural form; film, television, literature.  What makes it work is that it is never spelled out exactly what's going on. The Bureau is headed by someone called the Chairman who has these agents who look after people, making sure they stay on their paths and avoiding detours. Are they guardian angels? Are they human at all?  They aren't killers or murderers, and for the most part their methods are peaceful if obviously a bit invasive.  The agents have some sort of other-worldly ability and face certain limitations. All things considered though, they get people to do what they should in life, often making them forsake (unknowingly) what they want to do or at least think they want to do.

This movie from director George Nolfi (making his directorial debut) reminded me of last summer's huge hit Inception. It is smart, well-written, and thought-provoking. Criticize it for whatever you want, but I thought at its best it shows that you can make a smart movie without resorting to lowest common denominators. Chicago Tribune film critic Michael Phillips -- who I don't always agree with -- made a great point in his review. There are no guns, no explosions, nothing BIG in this movie. It is personal and emotional, letting the drama we're watching on-screen fill in for any loss of pyrotechnics. I'm not wording this as nicely, smoothly or efficiently as I'd like to here so hopefully I'm getting my message across.

On screen relationships can make or break a movie, simple as that. For 'Bureau,' Matt Damon and Emily Blunt are a match made in heaven. Their chemistry in every single scene is tangible. You feel this connection between these two people.  The dilemma here is that their characters are not supposed to be together in any way. Damon's David is supposed to do huge things that won't happen if he stays with Blunt's Elise who similarly will see her hopes and dreams dashed if she stays with him. Thrillers so often lack any heart, any real reason for us to support or root for characters. That's definitely not the case here.  And as it goes bringing up interesting questions, what is more important? Living up to your potential, your supposed plan? Or should you be happy with someone you love?  It is a decision so many have to make at some point in their life. Any criticism I have with this movie (the big one's coming up in the next paragraph), Damon and Blunt are immune. Together, they are about as perfect as an on-screen couple can be.

I don't remember when I started thinking like this about movies, but it hits me more and more over the last couple years. I'm sitting there enjoying a movie -- in this case thinking should I go 3.5 stars or bust out 4? -- and I begin to wonder....how are they going to wrap this up? How will this movie end?  The build-up is near perfect, but the end reveal disappoints in a big way. I suspect this movie didn't have the balls to do a downer ending (I'm talking rrrrrrrrreal downer of an ending), but the route they went felt like a cop-out to me.  It is just too simplistic with the background and explanation we've been offered in the past.  It isn't a movie killer, but it does take it down a notch overall.  It is too contrite, too happy.

It is hard to judge here the members of the Adjustment Bureau because we know little to nothing about them, even in the end when everything has been resolved more or less.  Mad Men star John Slattery plays Richardson, Terence Stamp is Thompson, the long-time vet of the Bureau called in to deal with the Norris case, and Anthony Mackie is Harry, Norris' personal agent/angel/bodyguard/overseeer. Mackie is the best of the group as Harry, someone who is torn by what he's been taught to do and done for years with his beliefs of what is right and what is wrong.  Mackie is an actor destined for stardom it seems, and this is another strong part for the 33-year old actor. Also watch for Michael Kelly as Charlie, David's friend, co-worker and campaign manager.

I go back and forth with movies like this. Do I want everything explained to me? A little bit. The explanation almost always disappoints though, letting you down because it doesn't make any sense.  The other end of the spectrum can be as equally frustrating when a movie leaves it up to the viewer to figure things out for themselves.  Adjustment Bureau falls in the middle, doing a little of both. Some questions are answered, others are not. I guess that's the best we're going to get.  A really good movie that could have been great with a few tweaks, especially that ending.

The Adjustment Bureau <---trailer (2011): ***/****