Guest Review: George On Looper

James A. George, Eyewear film critic on  Looper

In my reviews for Eyewear I try to discuss plot as little as possible. I strongly believe that the purest and most fulfilling experience had in the cinema is when the viewer has avoided as much media concerning the film as possible in this world of constant in-your-face advertising. To discuss Looper at all the following must be revealed; there’s time travel and there’s telekinesis, both of which are revealed right at the start. The latter feels extremely tacked on so that the plot structure works but (along with one flying motorcycle) feels out of place in what is a thoroughly realised and believable future.

Time travel is messy, and one could dissect the plot and raise logistics questions but Looper pushes this aside by moving along rapidly and entering human consciousness into the mix. I can’t claim to be a sci-fi expert outside of the medium of film, but at least in film this is a fairly unexplored formula. The dark experiments of memory and physicality concerning time travel conducted by characters are unique and result in a lot of answers to “what if” questions you probably hadn’t but wish you had considered. Alongside all this sci-fi excellence are a haunting depiction of age, young and old, and an elegant study on destiny.

The script is beautifully written and the combination of direction, cinematography and editing breaks away from boring Hollywood convention. The violence is graphic but kept on a leash – skipped straight to the aftermath, or even highlighted in one long take or in distorted slow motion if necessary. The camera work is effective, moving only when it adds to the atmosphere. The framing is composed to explore the comedic undertones and simultaneous harsh reality of such a gritty story. The weight of the dystopian setting is kept at a distance as not to dilute the finely crafted film but is paid enough attention as evident in the cinemagoers I heard talking tirelessly about the film.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Bruce Willis play the same character, Joe, at different ages. Many don’t dwell on Bruce’s acting talents but this is a good example of his range and subtlety. I did wonder if there was some element of method acting when the two share the screen when Willis declares how strange it is to look into the eyes of his younger self; considering the eerie yet sweepingly realistic makeover teamed with Gordon-Levitt’s impeccable impersonation of Willis. The careful flash-forwards and flashbacks, the engaging montage sequence and a key exchange in a diner result in three-dimensional characters that could have otherwise been tough guys with cool guns. Emily Blunt as countryside farmer and mother, Sara, trying to avoid the polarized wealth of the city for the sake of her son is strong and compelling. None of the characters in this film are angelic and although there is a clear line drawn between the protagonists and antagonists, they’re all as enthralling as the other and right up to the startling conclusion I was itching to see all the paths play out and enjoy every moment en route.

Guest Review: George On Untouchable

James A. George On Untouchable

Last year this was the second biggest box office success in France ever and voted the cultural event of 2011 in France with 52% of the votes in a poll. Untouchable is a rare laugh-ou- loud gem among the predictably crude Hollywood comedies this year (and years past).  Francois Cluzet (my personal favourite contemporary French actor) plays Philippe, quadriplegic busy millionaire businessman that loves classical music and visits to the opera but under his hard shell is very lonely. He takes on Driss, played by comedian Omar Sy, as his new carer, due to the young man’s lack of compassion and sympathy. Driss is impulsive, flirtatious, weed-smoking and loves dancing to Kool & the Gang. The stereotypes are ripe throughout and the cold, dull cinematography of Driss’ flat compared to the lavish home of Philippe shines colourfully, ultimately however it never crosses into offensive territory and remains just problematic comedic formula.

The familiar buddy movie formula follows the typically crafted structure; the two men learn from one another, become friends, face struggles within themselves and their environment. What makes this version fresh is the way they bond, via marijuana and deliberately starting police chases to name a couple of incidents. Among the somewhat ignored socioeconomic inequalities and clichéd events are these two central performances that really make this movie gold. I completely believed in the acting and felt like I was witnessing a deep, genuine connection. It is in what is not said as much as what is said, and I feel this subtlety is what some American critics have missed, and perhaps what made it so popular with the French. It avoids sentimentally and hits truer emotional notes in the process.

I was lucky enough to see this on French DVD months back but from merely writing my thoughts on the film I have decided I must see this in cinemas here before a shameful Hollywood remake appears (which is already in the works). It may have some cinema textbook flaws but with such compelling performances and fine dialogue it often transcends the rigid story we’ve seen over and over. Untouchable is probably the most feel-good film this year, and more so when during the credits we see photos of real-life quadriplegic Philippe Pozzo di Borgo and his carer Abdel Sellou. Not just a fairytale.

Untouchable opens Friday in UK cinemas.

Guest Review: George On Lawless

James A. George, our film critic, on Lawless

Wettest County in the World. The Bondurant brothers run a moonshine bootlegging operation in Franklin County, Virginia. Adapted from Matt Bondurant's 2008 novel The Wettest County in the World about his grandfather and great-uncles is the last collaboration between director John Hillcoat and part-time screenwriter Nick Cave. This collaboration resulted in the most outstanding western of recent decades, The Proposition in 2005. Along with Warren Ellis, Cave is also responsible for Hillcoat’s soundtracks and hence the most interesting sound and vision marriage in art that somehow stares the bleakest subjects in the eye and makes them compelling.

Hillcoat is an artist that really loves the canvas he gets to work with. Every inch of the widescreen is used carefully and often characters will appear a lot nearer to the edge of the frame than is standard, allowing the audience to take in a lot of information at once and yet feel uneasy about the odd composition. The heartfelt technicality of cinematography, production, costume and acting is astute and precise with detail. The cast in fact is so enthralling that it would serve as an ideal time capsule of the current crème de la crème of American acting.

Tom Hardy plays Forrest, keeping his hands in his grandma-esque cardigan pockets and grunts awkwardly when presented with a naked woman yet the brooding living legend stands hunches over nonchalantly when confronted with the law. He knows he need not inspire fear, he is fully aware of his status as a local living legend. What could’ve been a risky take on the character is done as Tom Hardy could, and as an impressive an acting feat mirrored in the editing that juxtaposes horrific violence with gorgeous countryside. Shia Labeouf as the main protagonist Jack has almost redeemed his vacuous presence on screen yet doesn’t shine convincingly enough among the calibre of Guy Pearce and Gary Oldman.

The female characters portrayed by Mia Wasikowska and Jessica Chastain are unfortunately under served and their stories seem equally interesting yet unexplored. The element of mystery surrounding Chastain’s Maggie aid the character somewhat and the story that exists is interesting enough and it is far from the actresses’ fault as they deliver, but rather the two actresses don’t get nearly enough screen time.  Before the hectic last few scenes, all the characters seem violent and malcontent and all gangland hierarchy seems to collapse, perhaps fitting with how the last battle unfolds. What originally defines the brothers is the fear surrounding them and the horrific violence they can create, but by the end of the film it seems that everyone is capable of this. The only difference is the prohibition law, and as it is explained in the film, only years later does the alcohol ban get lifted.

Whether this is intentional or not, the ending gives the impression Hillcoat and Cave were either reigned in by Hollywood or aimed for the mainstream. To their credit, many times the events I thought I had predicted would take a sudden twist I did not see coming.The film is very good but considering how interesting an artist Nick Cave is and the master class in filmmaking Hillcoat presents us with, it just doesn’t quite pay off. I felt distant and never quite passionate enough about what was unfolding in front of me. The story is all a little murky and the stakes are never realized. It is most certainly flawed but still an accomplished work and as mentioned before, Hillcoat is truly a filmmaker deserving of large canvas and cinema projection is the ideal way to see this wild ride.

Guest Review: George On The Imposter

James A. George, Eyewear's film critic, weights in on The Imposter

The Imposter is a new documentary from Bart Layton about a young boy found in a phone box in Europe. Soon after, he is returned to his grieving family in Texas that lost him three years prior. A miracle, or too good to be true? The less known about this documentary the better, that is all you should know.

Even writing the words documentary to describe this film is a weird sensation. At points it is easy to forget you are watching a documentary at all, not only due to the shocking jolts and turns in the story that seem so unlikely you could be mistaken for thinking you were watching a hastily scribbled action movie. But due also to the creative cinematography. Far from recreating scenes the strange history in a crimewatch style, the scenes are dramatised with actors and shot to show the multiple point of views of the events as they unfold; be it the police, the family or the imposter.  Bart Layton and his action-movie editor toy with the idea of subjectivity through shifts in point of view visually and narratively. Many documentaries are simply voice over with archive footage and result in an ultimately informative yet not particularly filmic and rather lecturing, whereas the methods described before result in gripping cinema entertainment as well as a revelatory factual documentary.

The themes of manipulation, belief, truths and trust are not only embedded in the story and plot. Layton’s almost absent authorisation of the film, yet expert storytelling, manipulates the viewer and makes them question everyone presented to them as well as the viewers own thoughts. Information is trickled out craftily and different interviews juxtapose one another’s stories. By the time local Texan private detective gets involved, the whole thing becomes so wild, unpredictable and deceptive that it is as darkly funny as it is enjoyable.

In the tiny cinema I saw this in there was a mixture of dropped jaws, withheld sniggering and outright shrieking with words like “liar” or “nutcase” lingering around. It is without doubt one of the best films of the year and deserves all the worldwide praise it has been getting. While this review may seem rather vague (which it is vital to the true enjoyment of this film) I cannot make clear enough how fascinating, fulfilling and shocking this documentary is. See it in the cinema if you can, the visual construction definitely warrants it, as do the voices of others in the cinema. You may think you know what is coming, but you certainly do not.

Gone: a brief comment

Gone, a recent thriller, was a box office flop, and a critical car crash.  This is a pity.  I feel it was entirely misread as a film.  Instead of seeing it as a generic serial killer / girl in peril movie, consider the subtext as the text.  And the subtext is complex and refreshing and disturbing - for the heroes of the film are not the bumbling and patronising male cops, boyfriends, or even killer, or false (female) therapist or co-worker - but two sisters - one a recovering alcoholic, the other a former mental patient.  Because of their love, and intelligence, they manage to survive one day's ordeal, and dispatch the evil that threatens them.  The screenplay is both mythic and rather glumly local (in a Joycean way) - for Portland is a small place, and even the car chases are low-key.

Girl, Completed

The best part of the film is how Amanda Seyfried's feisty, haunted (and yes, sexy) heroine lies to everyone she meets, as she does her best Nancy Drew, "five-foot-four, blonde, blue eyes, armed and dangerous" to outwit the yokels and disbelieving adult world beyond her night terrors.  Her hiding out in plain sight with some teen girls is hilarious and sweet.  There is no twist in the movie - mad love prevails (she throws away her pills and any rational limits) over law and disorder - but a great sense of catharsis.  I have never seen such a positive depiction of a young mentally ill woman - this is like Girl, Interrupted, without the interruption.  It is Girl, Completed.  In time, I believe this will come to be seen as a classic of its genre.

Guest Review: George on Bourne

James A. George reviews

The Bourne Legacy

The Bourne trilogy set a new benchmark for the Hollywood action film. Intrigue, mystery and more sophisticated crafting with its action scenes propelled Matt Damon’s Jason Bourne into pop-culture. The last two of the trilogy, directed by Paul Greengrass, took on a looser form than the original but kept the audience sympathetic to Bourne. Looser in terms of keeping to the script too. And perhaps for the best.

The screenwriter for the Bourne films, based on the novels of Robert Ludlum, is Tony Gilroy, now director of The Bourne Legacy. Tony Gilroy made his first big splash however with Michael Clayton, one of the very best political thrillers to ever hit the cinema and rightfully won a great many awards. However, this movie is built up of intense moments touching on a variety of serious issues that never seem to connect or add up. The films subplot explores the dangers and hidden agendas of pharmaceutical companies, but you’d be forgiven for thinking it’s only a problem if you’re a jet-setting super spy.

With Matt Damon not wanting to do a sequel without his previous director, we are provided with Aaron Cross, number five of a military program who has memory and with it some personality. Jeremy Renner gives us glimpses of a real human being that will get angry or make jokes, be selfish or be considerate. Rachel Weisz is always pretty watchable but seems to undergo a rather unexplored case of Stockholm syndrome.

I do appreciate the lack of a typical Hollywood three-act structure and attempt to crescendo to a climax, but a heavy lull at the beginning and pathetic attempts to tie it in to the previous trilogy didn’t let it pay off. It goes to show what a dire state Hollywood is in. A fantastic cast and crew produce some really great moments yet a needless concern to keep as many old characters and weave in previous Bourne plot points needlessly hinder this film so drastically. It is somehow both under-constructed and over-plotted.

I would honestly like to say a lot more about the film but I really can’t. The acting is solid but the incoherence of the plot plays like intervals between the action, the production is good but the shaky-cam close ups don’t highlight it and often hinders the spectacle of the actions scenes that is so vital to a film like this. The moral is, watch Michael Clayton.

Guest Review: George On The Dark Knight

James A. George eyes movies for Eyewear

Eyewear's Film Critic

James A. George

on The Dark Knight Rises (12A)

Christopher Nolan is a rare gem. The last in his Batman trilogy is similar to his previous hits The Dark Knight and Inception, in that he creates entertaining blockbusters that are both art films in disguise and intelligent. Rather than regurgitate the same old Hollywood tricks, Nolan believes his audience are as smart as him, that appreciate complexity and room to contemplate and reach their own conclusions – and with the financial figures from these movies it seems fair to agree with his enlightened vision for Hollywood.

Collaborating with brother, Jonathan Nolan, The Dark Knight Rises is a spectacular work and subsequently one of the most sublime end of trilogy ever filmed. Politics, economics, psychology; it all weaves through the plot effortlessly. The scale has been amped up, it needed to be after Heath Ledger’s iconic performance in the predecessor. Although the presence of the Joker is sorely missed, what is lacking in the new villain Bane is almost made up for with a more calculated and physically terrifying rival. Tom Hardy does not tackle this role but becomes it. With merely his voice and his eyes, due to a H. R. Giger like mask strapped to his face, Tom Hardy portrays Bane with a tightrope balance of beast and genius.

Christian Bale reprises his role as Bruce Wayne. I say Bruce Wayne rather than alter ego Batman since Bale portrays a truly tragic human hero. After the events of the second film in this Batman series, he has been psychologically and physically beaten down. An example of Nolan’s command over the end cut of this film is evident in the sheer amount of time it takes for Bruce Wayne to regain his strength. A real sense of fear surrounds the hero, and unlike other action films one is really left wondering whether Batman will survive this last outing. Hence we are rooting for Batman and not for the $280 million visual spectacle (rather, that is the icing on the cake).

The powerhouse combination of Nolan and cinematographer Wally Pfister shine again. Every shot is both beautiful and tells a story, whether it is non-CGI aeroplane stunt sequence or a close-up. There are too many characters to go through in a review and too many new ones for the final part of a trilogy. The story becomes murky at points and a couple scenes rely on coincidence and superbly convincing acting to carry an occasionally clunky script. Cat Woman is the strongest female we’ve seen from Nolan and superbly played by Anne Hathaway who has shaken off her Disney image. On a side note, it is important that we realize how sexy and powerful her character is and yet never objectified like other Hollywood films. Her attitude, intelligence and wit make her sexy and there is not a single mischievous close up of her tight leather clad body.

As far as film roles are concerned, Joseph Gordon-Levitt seems to have transformed from boyish charmer to a complex man of ideals without anyone in mainstream cinema realising. It has always been there of course, but with this film hopefully everyone will recognise his greatness. Michael Caine has a few standout scenes as Bruce Wayne’s surrogate father and butler Alfred. There is one short shot of him that really blew me away and is perhaps the most spellbinding single shot, and performance within that shot, of the year.

The Dark Knight Rises is a very long movie yet engaging throughout. It falls short of the masterpiece of The Dark Knight, but is equally as unexpected and expertly conceived. It does bring something new to the table however, perhaps even new to Nolan’s entire catalogue, emotion. The final scenes are incredible if a little overly sentimental, but there was a definite sense of catharsis in the eruption of applause and bittersweet smiles amongst the quivering fans as they left the auditorium simultaneously cheering and tearing up. Not many films can evoke such reaction. Despite its flaws, largely which are forgotten by the time the gripping final act takes place, it is a strong contender for film of the year.

James A. George on The Amazing Spider-Man

Bad day at the office?

The Amazing Spider-Man (12A)

Is there anyone who saw the original Spider-Man film at the cinema ten years ago and is now thinking, time for a reboot? Not to forget the two sequels as well. Whether it is necessary or not, at least this time it is more pensive and generally fun. Peter Parker is a school kid who hasn’t had the most fortunate childhood. Our sympathies go to him in a very genuine way, due in part to the fantastic performance from Andrew Garfield.

The wise-cracking hero goes on a journey of discovery in a lovingly created comic book-like world: from the everyday boy overcoming a bully named ‘Flash’, to swinging across New York. We all know how Peter becomes Spider-Man and it is around this part of the film that interest dips with only love interest Gwen Stacey redeeming the plot. We see a lot of Peter Parker without his mask and the confidence he gains from inventing it. This Spider-Man movie is less about the people and the city around him needing a hero and more about what Spider-Man means to our troubled teenager.

Gwen Stacey is one of Peter’s true friends and on a script basis has not a lot going for her. Luckily she’s given a warmth and surprising amount of depth, particularly towards the end, by the always-brilliant Emma Stone. Sally Field and Martin Sheen portray Peter’s aunt and uncle respectively.  Again, prize performances help what is at points a shambles of a plot, and these multi-layered characters really make this a family drama-action film. Unfortunately the villain of the movie portrayed by Rhys Ifans generates neither sympathy or fear. As Dr. Curt Connors we see not nearly enough of him and nor does he really have much affect on the protagonist. When transformed in to a lizard he lacks any real menace until very late on when an ending is hastily constructed.

With fantastical heroes and villains CGI was always going to be a must; here, Marc Webb’s direction is spot on. Webb knows that the action scenes must be carefully composed and special effects just slow enough so that it can be effortlessly followed. It is also important to remember that Webb is responsible on some level for bringing out the performances and thus deserves credit.

The reboot of the Batman franchise may be a tired comparison, but it is a fair one. With the Dark Knight, the heroes and villains both symbolise states of the human psyche and explore contemporary themes and issues of western society without diluting what is essentially an action thriller. It is this submerged layer beneath a twisting and turning plot that has captivated audiences. Spider-Man however is far less engaging. It may be ambitious, and a trilogy is planned, but painful plot holes and an unclear target audience prevent Spider-Man from achieving greatness. But perhaps some of these issues can be addressed by the desire for spectacle and huge scale that one comes to expect with superhero movies these days, and not the film itself.

It is ultimately flawed and may not stick with you once leaving the cinema but as a series it shows potential. The highlight for me was a scene in which Spider-Man must save a child from a falling car. The scene itself was great, but the few children in the screening erupting in to cheer at Spidey’s success, were priceless, and proved there are some that will love this.

James A. George is a born and raised Londoner. As an aspiring film writer and director, James is studying creative writing with film studies at Kingston University

Avengers Assemble (The Avengers) Film Classic

It is clear that writer-director Joss Whedon knew he was making an American film classic when he wrote The Avengers (2012), if only because Captain America recognises the reference to The Wizard of Oz, on which it is partly based.  Then again, Whedon's brilliant film mind has assembled a half-dozen other canonical film templates, including Citizen Kane, the Magnificent Seven, and Hidden Fortress/Star Wars.  The assembling of the reluctant heroes to save a beleaguered community (New York/Earth) is pure Western; the screwball comedy of the eccentric playboy millionaire is all Kane before the downfall; and Nick Fury is Dorothy, trying to make heroes of his motley crew - or is Natasha Dorothy, lost in a world of monsters and magic, seeking a redemptive home?

But this is mainly comedy as art.  Indeed, there is as much Bringing Up Baby here as there is The Wrath of Khan.  What has to be said is that Whedon has written and directed the most intelligent, dramatic, and purely entertaining family action film since he worked on Toy Story - but probably the best since Indiana Jones outran the big boulder.  I actually thing The Avengers is an instant great film.  The pure cinema moments of hilarity (normally caused by The Hulk), balanced by Shakespearean issues relating to kings, family, and the gods, derive partly from Stan Lee and the Marvel mythos, but are here enhanced in a way that other film versions of Marvel comics have not achieved.  The attention to the NYC cops, and the citizens on the ground in peril, is very touching.  The best lines belong, oddly, to Captain America, whose Christian virtue plays well off of Stark's Casablanca go-it-aloneness.  Of course, as with Rick, Stark chooses sacrifice over the woman (Pepper).  That this film holds up to these greats is what this post is about.  See this one on the big screen.

Sight & Sound's Best Film of 2011

Good news.  The Tree of Life has been chosen by Sight & Sound's critics poll as the top art house film of 2011.  Eyewear saw it this summer and loved it.

Bad Ides

MAJOR SPOILER ALERT.


George Clooney has directed another film.  The Ides of March, based on an American play about the men (and they are men, alas) who run political campaigns, and the grubby deals they do, is by far the most over-rated film of 2011.  Don't get me wrong, it has a dream cast, including my favourite rising star, Ryan Gosling, and the Humpty-Dumpty of character-actor sad-sackdom Oscar royalty, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Paul Giamatti.  The plot is lacking, for me, valid revelationary power, or any credibility historically.  One recalls the scene in Casablanca, where the astounded police chief feigns surprise at discovering gambling in his favourite den.  On what planet do innocent young men working as "the best media mind in politics" not know that Democratic politicians, especially handsome ones, sleep with women on the campaign trail.  Do the names Kennedy, Clinton, or Edwards not mean anything?

Indeed, so vanilla is the supposed dalliance that the Clooney character has engaged in, relatively speaking (he has cheated on his wife with a beautiful, intelligent 20-year-old intern and she has become pregnant - this is not Watergate) that it seems astonishing this could be seriously held against him by one of his key allies.  Nor is it, for a minute, believable that said young woman would, weeks into her pregnancy, be unable to secure the $900 for an abortion, and need to get it from the Governor-father; nor is it likely she would be likely to enter another romantic entanglement (with Gosling) while still courting Clooney; one minute, she is a sexy, empowered predator, the next, she is a suicide case (for an unclear reason).

Nor is it likely that Gosling, a mastermind, could be so easily ensnared in such a flimsy web.  The way in which these hardened campaigners, masters of the dark arts of spin, manage to destroy themselves over a weekend, running from one bespectacled New York Times reporter, is laughable.  Clooney is unsubtle, also, in his mis-en-scene.  Scenes of bowed heads in silhouette, framed by massive American flags, may summon up a false sense of patriotism, or may be merely visually portentous.  I'd vote with my feet, and avoid this one.

Film: Drive

Drive, the new Ryan Gosling film, whose director won at Cannes this year, is one of the most purely satisfying big screen experiences of this century - a movie so stylishly aware of its intertextual tire tracks, each shot, each scene, is writerly bliss.  From the neon pink, garish titles, and robo-Moroder soundtrack, to the 80s-noir "erotic thriller" blue lighting and slat-shadows, this LA-set Car Opera is just Shane updated, by way of American Gigolo, Scarface, and To Live and Die In L.A. - in short, it is a Western updated via several layers of homage and pastiche.

Indeed, the major scenes are pure Shane - the monosyllabic outsider entering the endangered family of father, mother, and son, and, despite the love of the wife and son, heroically using his latent, concealed dark abilities (gun play, car play) to defeat the bad guys, sloping off mortally (?) wounded into the sunset, slouched on his horse/in his car.  Even the toothpick is pure cowboy.

There is also a Gatsby ending (he drives to a green light; and earlier we have an Eyewear sign).  But then, this movie is pure metatext - constantly reminding us that the hero is only a stunt double (down to grotesque mask) - and that this is a movie.  Indeed, the motel scene is a jolt of Psycho, for the hell of it; just as Driver's side-kick grease-monkey is purely out of Kiss Me Deadly.

I loved it.  I loved the set-up of the meet-cute, the romance by the fetid quasi-edenic dappled sewer pond; the sense of doom; the reversals of fortune; the leather gloves; the use of key actors from two of TV's best-ever shows, Breaking Bad, and Mad Men, and the cinematography by the man who gave us The Usual Suspects.  Finally, though Gosling and Mulligan are excellent, the show is stolen by a soothingly sleazy Albert Brooks, in his least comic role to date.  Indeed, the key to this film's manifest pleasures is that it resists irony, and comedy, and deploys itself with seriousness - unlike Tarantino, whose equally violent offerings are always mediated by comedy.

Finally, let us reflect on the title - 'Drive'.  Immediately, one thinks of that Ur-80s song, by The Cars.  "You can't go on/ Thinking nothing's wrong ..."  One also thinks of what "drives" all the characters.  Our anti-hero is a cypher, of course, though the blaring title song reminds us he wants to be a "hero" and a "real human being".  All the villains and minor characters are driven by money - they don't have enough of it, and they want more; secondarily, they are each driven by a fear of being killed.  Though there is a sexual background, decadent wallpaper, no sex is shown (just a kiss), and the sex drive is mainly in reverse (asexual).  The Driver is as innocent as the other two in the film's holy trinity, of mother, son, and saviour - each is only capable of love.  Indeed, Mulligan doesn't want the Standard, she wants a "Deluxe" model - a love supreme.  The Driver, Gosling, hangs up his rather small-time low-rent dreams, for the love of a good woman, and the dream of a nuclear family (the same which haunts James Dean in Rebel Without A Cause, another car and knife slice of Americana); indeed, Gosling slouches in doorways like Dean/Hud/Ladd.  

Karla What You Ask For: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

Eyewear could hardly have asked for a better film.  The Le Carre adaptation, best known as the vintage Alec Guinness slow-burner from television, Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, divides its times (before and after John Hurt as Control) simply by the glasses that Smiley (Gary Oldman) wears - the past is more owlish and horn-rimmed, the present (1970s Wimpys-era Britain) Bakelite rims.

The director, Tomas Alfredson, is an emerging master of mood and nuance - his masterwork was Let The Right One In, the subtle vampire story.  Perhaps because Oldman has played Dracula, he seemed right for the part.  Smiley is a sort of husk, a prematurely stooped, stiff, pale, bespectacled spook.  Oldman is hidden in the role, a sort of mole inside his own character.  A few flashes of his eyes, a few small gestures.  He barely moves.  He is the spy as spider, waiting for the fly.

The film is ravishingly retro, a Larkin-landscape of all that was crummy about the 70s in London.  Britain seems no less disconsolate than behind the Iron Curtain (Budapest).  Except for a few tense set-pieces, the film is like watching paint dry - which is half the point.  Some paint.  Like Munich, Spielberg's thriller, without the thrills, or The Day of the Jackal, without the rushing around, the movie proceeds like the chess game it is a simulacrum of.  The pawns are the lower echelon spies that Karla and Smiley move.  The Queen is Smiley's wife, who, in 1955, during a failed turning exercise, Smiley hands over, as it were.  Smiley's wound is that his deadly enemy knows his weak point, his love of a woman, and uses it mercilessly.

The film, funniest when an owl makes a Potterish and explosive appearance, is about love and hate.  Love of nation, hate of enemy.  Love of friends, co-workers, and hate of the same.  It is a queer world, with numerous bisexual and gay affairs.  Only Smiley, it appears, is actually able to love one woman, without having her killed, and he is of course a cuckold.  Indeed, a subtext of the film is the misogyny of the spy game: built by men for men, women are bit parts, used for sex or "treasure".

This movie is the most beautiful English-language film I have seen since, perhaps The Constant Gardener, another Le Carre filmed by a foreign film director.  There is a level of composure and delicacy here, in the palette and style, that is close to genius.  Just don't expect more than a bat squeak of adrenaline.  Suffused with melancholy, the final vision is of Smiley's stare, begging the question: what does he really see in all this?