Like a Sniper Lining Up His Shot (2010)

Snipercover

What a downer.

Well, wait, I guess Like a Sniper Lining Up His Shot is more of a measured downer. Tardi, adapting a novel, is decidedly distant from his characters. The finish might be tragic, but if the reader remembers he or she isn’t supposed to have cared particularly much for the characters in the first place… the tragedy is measured.

There’s also a big style shift in Sniper, which gets overshadowed by the far more active second half. In the first half, Tardi seems to be including either large sections of narration from the novel or using long narration in the same style. That approach lets Tardi jump around in time–showing the protagonist’s past–but it leads to a lot of tense confusion. And Tardi also uses it to transition scenes, which fails.

The second half of the book is relatively straightforward, with a lot of unexpected turns. Sniper is about an assassin who wants to retire but, every time he thinks he gets out, they keep pulling him back in. In other words, it’s hard to be inventive in such a familiar genre. But Tardi (and the source novel by Jean-Patrick Manchette, manage to come up with some nice twists.

Unfortunately, the dispassionate first half and the melodramatic ending bring Sniper down. While Tardi has some great art, he doesn’t relish in anything. The story takes place in the seventies, but there’s no enthusiasm for the period.

It’s masterful comic storytelling… but not a good story.

Like a Sniper Lining Up His Shot (2010)

What a downer.

It’s masterful comic storytelling… but not a good story.

The Ghost and the Darkness (1996, Stephen Hopkins)

There are two significant problems with The Ghost and the Darkness. Its other primary problem corrects itself over time.

The score–from Jerry Goldsmith–is awful (he basically repeats his terrible Congo score). It makes the film silly, like a commercial. A great deal of the film is about the wonderment of Africa, something Hopkins and cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond certainly capture… only to have Goldsmith ruin it.

Second, writer William Goldman thinks it needs narration. It doesn’t. Goldman’s able to get away with a dream sequence here (Hopkins and Val Kilmer sell it) but the narration’s too much. It brings the viewer out of the film, especially at the end; the credits are a disconnect from the film’s final narration.

The third problem is Michael Douglas. When he shows up, he’s basically doing Romancing the Stone, only with an occasional Southern accent. He gets better, but it takes about fifteen minutes and some of it is rough going.

The real draw–besides Hopkins and Zsigmond–is Kilmer (he never screws up his accent). He has an epic character arc in this film and his performance is brilliant. It’s especially interesting to see how he acts opposite Douglas, whose initially bombastic, silly presence should derail Kilmer’s performance. But it doesn’t. Again, some of it has to do with Hopkins, who knows how to shoot these scenes.

Good supporting turns from Tom Wilkinson, John Kani and Om Puri.

The film has some problems, but they don’t come close to overshadowing its achievements.

It’s a Gift (1923, Hugh Fay)

It’s a Gift has such a great plot, it’s impossible it’s going to succeed. There’s a gasoline crisis so the losing oil companies decide to get rid of petroleum all together and instead use a synthetic.

The oil barons approach ‘Snub’ Pollard, an inventor.

The inventions are Gift‘s primary appeal. There are all sorts of contraptions to make regular life (waking, breakfast, dressing) easier. But the space is also conserved by items suiting dual purpose. Part of the pleasure is discovering those purposes.

Because, otherwise, Gift has little to recommend it. Director Fay handles the eventual manic action quite well, but leading man Pollard is lifeless. He’s not convincing as an absent-minded professor.

The script’s lazy and contrived, though there is one scene where Pollard almost gets someone drowned before running off. It’s easily the most exciting scene.

Gift is short, which helps a little. But not much.

1/3 Not Recommended

CREDITS

Directed by Hugh Fay; produced by Hal Roach; released by Pathé Exchange.

Starring ‘Snub’ Pollard (Inventor Pollard), Marie Mosquini (The Girl), William Gillespie (Weller Pump, oil executive), Wallace Howe (Customer) and Mark Jones (Swindler).


RELATED

OTHER 1923 RELEASES

Swamp Thing 64 (September 1987)

One could, if so inclined, sit and try to figure out who drew what–Alcala’s such a unifying inker on Swamp Thing, it’s hard to tell Bissette and Veitch apart. Yeates I could easily identify, just because of the startling photorealism.

For his last issue, Moore avoids sentimentality. His plotting is gradual, relaxed. Much of the issue is spent with Swamp Thing thinking about the state of the world and his place in it. The big decisions in the issue are rather small. He and Abby decide to retreat from the world for a while.

Moore is putting his characters–he owns them in this incarnation–up off the floor for a while, in a lovely treehouse to stay safe.

It almost feels like Swamp Thing can’t go on; not because Moore’s shut off narrative possibilities, but because there’s no point.

Moore’s writing is gentle. His finale is nearly precious.

Swamp Thing (1985) #62

Swamp Thing 62

Veitch fills in as writer for Swamp Thing’s adventure with Metron and all the New Gods stuff. He does fairly well, but it’s an easy issue. Most of it is from Metron’s perspective and writing an egotistical know-it-all probably isn’t too hard.

But the issue is easy because it’s a fill-in. Veitch spends most of the issue either exploring the DC cosmic or going through Metron’s 2001-like observations of the universe. It’s a very limited universe, as it turns out. Metron mostly just looks at Earth, which might be fun for the reader, but not likely in the mind of a galactic explorer.

Veitch relegates Swamp Thing’s importance, if there is any, to the end. And instead of providing insight into the character, Veitch just foreshadows all the upcoming events in the series (post-Moore).

It’s okay, with good art to make it work, but insignificant.

Swamp Thing 63 (August 1987)

I don’t get teary-eyed at a lot of comics. The format really isn’t conducive to it–the writers and artists can’t really control the reader’s pace, which is important for being so emotional the reader has to react.

But Moore and Veitch manage it here and in only a couple pages. Oh, Moore had been laying the groundwork since the first or second page of the issue, with Abby going to visit Matt in the hospital. Then Chester’s quest to find her–he runs into Liz, he runs into another repeat character–lays some roots for it too.

Oh, and the issue’s story is called, “Loose Ends (Reprise).” “Loose Ends” was Moore’s first issue; “(Reprise)” is his second to last.

Even if it didn’t get me teary-eyed, it’d still be a great issue. Moore juxtaposes Swampy’s revenge against Abby’s mourning. There’s some wit in the former.

It’s great.

Willow (1988, Ron Howard)

I wonder if Willow’s lack of popularity has anything to do with the protagonist not fitting the regular sci-fi and fantasy and magic standard. Not because Warwick Davis is a dwarf, but because his character is so non-traditional. He’s not an idealistic youth, or a hidden prince… he’s a farmer with a wife, two kids and money problems. He’s some normal guy. It (along with the physical characteristics) block some of the idealizing.

Unrelated, Willow’s not very good. There’s a lot of blame to go around and, if the film weren’t from George Lucas’s conception, the responsibility would fall on screenwriter Bob Dolman. The dialogue is bad and he doesn’t have many good characters (only three, in fact). He doesn’t have any good villains—actually, they’re all quiet bad—and the action is poorly spread out. The biggest action sequence comes before the finale.

However, it’s a Lucas production (and he’s credited with the story), so I imagine many of those problems are Lucas’s fault.

But director Ron Howard isn’t without reproach. His composition is okay, but his direction of actors is terrible. He’s lucky to have Val Kilmer (in the Han Solo part) because Kilmer’s at least able to have fun without direction. Joanne Whalley is good (before she disappears) and Jean Marsh is an effective villain. But the acting’s otherwise mediocre or lame.

Another problem is the special effects. They’re too ambitious for composite shots, even with masterful stop motion.

Still, Willow’s not an abject failure.

0/4 ⓏⒺⓇⓄ

CREDITS

Directed by Ron Howard; screenplay by Bob Dolman, based on a story by George Lucas; director of photography, Adrian Biddle; edited by Daniel P. Hanley, Mike Hill and Richard Hiscott; music by James Horner; production designer, Allan Cameron; produced by Nigel Wooll; released by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.

Starring Warwick Davis (Willow Ufgood), Val Kilmer (Madmartigan), Joanne Whalley (Sorsha), Jean Marsh (Queen Bavmorda), Patricia Hayes (Fin Raziel), Billy Barty (High Aldwin), Pat Roach (Gen. Kael), Gavan O’Herlihy (Airk Thaughbaer), Kevin Pollak (Rool), Rick Overton (Franjean), David Steinberg (Meegosh), Mark Northover (Burglekutt), Phil Fondacaro (Vohnkar) and Julie Peters (Kiaya Ufgood).


RELATED

OTHER FILMS DIRECTED BY RON HOWARD
OTHER 1988 RELEASES

Swamp Thing 62 (July 1987)

It’s okay, with good art to make it work, but insignificant.

Swamp Thing 61 (June 1987)

Poor Adam Strange… Moore closes the issue making a joke about him. I get the reasoning–it’s a heavy issue–and it does give Strange a momentary spotlight, which he surely desires–but it’s odd.

This issue is partially about high sci-fi ideas–a planet where the plant life became sentient instead of the animals and what Swamp Thing’s presence would mean to it. But it’s more about the characters, which Moore brilliantly introduces. Though plants, it’s all human interest.

There’s the married couple unexpectedly given insight into each other’s thoughts, there’s the successful artist who’s isolated by success and, finally, there’s the aging Green Lantern.

It’s very much about that aging Green Lantern, down to the political problems on Oa; mostly it’s about his dealing with loss.

And Swamp Thing. He’s there too.

Moore packs the issue with fantastical action and quiet emotion. It’s a great comic book.