This Revenge Fantasy is no Bull

 

Nearly no critics did not like this grueling, Django Unchained style film. And what's not to like, unless you are even a little bit squeamish. Then you should probably avoid this Paul Andrew Williams entry. Because it starts violent and gory, and goes downhill from there.

The basic plot is almost too simple to lay out. The story of a brutal Mob Enforcer betrayed and seemingly murdered by the same mob, then miraculously returning to wreak vengeance is so simple, it is, itself a Trope. As many have observed, Neil Maskell is impossible to turn away from as the titular Bull (think DeNiro in Taxi Driver) , and David Hayman is almost better as the "ruthless Mob boss" from Central Casting.

If their great tradition of Mob Cinema is to be believed, the Brits are about the scariest Organized Criminals on the Planet - with the exception of Bratva. I soooo don't want to ever cross Bratva. Nope.

But Bull is not about the acting, or the direction or photography, all of which are first rate. It is about the lean, spare almost anorexic efficiency of how Williams tells the story. This efficiency is enhanced by a great narrative technique: the back-story of how Bull "dies" is told in flashbacks, chronologically, as the main story moves forward. Again, nothing particularly new here, but the technique is used so well it fits perfectly with the films overall manic purpose.

Clocking in at 88 minutes, Bull is a full speed freight train that starts fast and shifts into super high gear, never letting up until its curious Ending.

Yes, about the Ending. WTF? Is Bull actually a Demon from Hell (a la the excellent Nicholas Gage film Drive Angry)? Is this all a fever dream of a slowly dying Bull, who has been lit on fire and shot with a shotgun? We may never know. And that is probably very OK.

The Cinematic "prose" is Lean (Ha ha)

While I am a lifelong member of the David Lean Marching and Shouting Society, I had actually never heard of this minor jewel. Glad I checked it out.

In an earlier review I praised Lean's masterpiece, "Great Expectations" for remaining true to the spirit of the Dickens classic, while creating something new, as films so often do. "Madeleine" has more of a challenge, being based on a sensational True Crime story from the 19th Century.

Quick summary, daughter of a upper middle class family in 19th Century Glasgow has fallen in love with a smoldering French Lothario, while her by the books Christian Father desires that she matches with a some what milquetoast-y fellow who probably has 100 quid a year, or more. The story does involve murder, but I won't spoil it by saying much more.

Ann Todd, at the time the wife of David Lean is solid as the tortured daughter, and the cast as a whole is quite good. What Lean and screenwriters Stanley Haynes and Nicholas Phipps do so well is to spin the real-life story into something combining Henry James with Daphne Du Maurier, with a hint of Noir. This is 1950, mind you, for some the very height of the genre.

Like Stanley Kubrick, Lean's film-making is robust, meaty and always artistic. An example of this is a scene part way through the film where Madeleine and her Lothario are on a hillside above the Scottish resort town of Rohr (don't know the spelling) and hear music coming from the Pub down in the town. M starts dancing, and tries to get her man to join in.

Dancing, of course, post Hays code and pre- nudity in films is a metaphor for Sex, and as the camera deftly cuts back and forth between the townspeople dancing sweatily, and our two Lovers doing so more sedately. There is that classic cut where, it is assumed, they have had sex but they are completely dressed. They might as well be smoking cigarettes, the implication is so clear,

Much else about Madeleine is to be praised, including the Score, and of course Art Direction and Cinematography. I don't think there are a lot of Lean detractors, but they probably exist. If you like or love Lean, and haven't seen this one, Amazon has the excellent Criterion Collection version: Restored Film digitally transferred - presumably first for DVD. Streamed on a decent HD TV the film looks exquisite.

I don't usually compare the book to the movie, but...

 

I had seen this solid Carl Franklin thriller a few years ago. I recently read the book, and have fallen in love with Walter Mosley. I'm a big fan of Noir, Crime Thrillers, and trying to expand my reading of BIPOC authors.

Anyway, I did really like this, the second time. Only thing, I felt the book did do a better job of capturing the spirit of racisim that existed in post-war LA, especially from the point of view of the main character, Ezekiel "Easy" Rawlins. I will literally watch anything that has Denzel Washington in it, and here he is smooth, savvy self-assured as Mosley's GI Bill homeowner-turned-factory worker. What we don't know as that in this, the first Easy Rawlins mystery, Easy is learning to be what he will become in future books, a Private Detective. Or "Private Dick" as Jennifer Beals's Daphne Monet almost spits out when she first meets our hero.

The direction is assured, the screenplay sometimes a bit creaky, but largely true to Mosely's novel. Some reviewers have pointed out that the film takes a bit of a left turn in the Third Reel. I kept waiting for a crucial scene in a remote hideaway (won't spoil it, read the book) but that is morphed into a shootout in a Malibu house.

Cast here is top-notch. I would say, perhaps, Tom Sizemore as the sleazy gangster Albright may be best. He kind of inhabits the role. Beals is just OK as Daphne. I suppose the issue I had was with her hair and makeup - and costume. I kept thinking they dressed and made up Faye Dunaway way better in Chinatown. Not sure what to make of the minor characters, as they mostly seem a bit cardboard. Was expecting more from Don Cheadle as Mouse. Mouse is a crucial character in the book, albeit one who, although talked about a lot only appears in person in the second half. Cheadle seems to be thoroughly enjoying the role, but I don't think he ever nails it. Perhaps I was distracted by the Gold implants in his teeth.

Overall, taken separately from the book, "Devil" is a good film. Enjoyable, and breezy. A great slice of post-war LA. If you read the book, or plan to, perhaps watch the film first. Must my suggestion.