Displaying items by tag: Colin Hanks

NUREMBERG

US, 2025, 148 minutes, Colour.

Russell Crowe, Rami Malek, Michael Shannon, Leo Woodall, John Slattery, Richard E.Grant, Colin Hanks, Lydia Peckham, Ben Miles, Lotte Verbeek, Mark O'Brien, Andreas Pietschmann.

Directed by James Vanderbilt.

80 years after the end of World War II, the name Nuremberg still evokes memories of the Nazi regime, the rallies in the 1930s, Lottie Riefenstahl is film Triumph of the Will, the location for the proclamation of anti-Semitic laws, and after World War II, the trials.

Cinemagoers and television viewers will have memories of the 1961 classic, Judgement at Nuremberg, and the 2000 television series, Nuremberg, with Brian Cox as Herman Goering. Here is a new take on the trials, focusing particularly on Goering and the American psychiatrists brought in to gauge the mental states of those accused, Douglas Kelly. There is also a focus on Justice Robert Jackson, his role in promoting the trials even though there were no legal precedents, the combining of Britain, France, the Soviet Union and the US to sit in legal judgements on these Nazi war criminals. The screenplay by writer-director, James Vanderbilt, draws on documentation and verbatims of speeches during the trials.

With the focus on Goering, a large man in real life, Russell Crowe fully embodies him (and Crowe, 25 years after Gladiator and his Oscar, can still dominate the screen). Physically, he is quite a contrast to the psychiatrist, Douglas Kelly, played by Oscar-winner Rami Malek. At the centre is a battle of wits, Goering able to combine charm with ruthlessness in his hyper-narcissistic personality, Kelly with psychiatric shrewdness but, in many ways, succumbing to the domination of Goering, an ambiguous friendship, bonding with Goering’s wife and daughter, but a final disillusionment.

Along with this focus on the two central characters, the screenplay provides the background to the raising of such issues as an international court, no legal precedent. And the need for international collaboration with Britain, France and the Soviet Union. At the centre is Justice Robert Jackson, a seriously sombre performance by Michael Shannon, earnest, committed – and with a surprising sequence where he goes to persuade Pius XII to support the trials, using the Pope’s concordat with the Nazi regime in 1933 as a persuasive point of power to gain the Pope’s assent.

Each of the central characters has powerfully dramatic moments. As do two of the supporting characters, standing out is Leo Woodall’s performance as Howie  Triest, Kelly’s translator, but revealing at the end his Jewish background and an impassioned narration of his persecuted life and his American commitment. And, Richard E.Grant also has a significantly dramatic scene, a short but cumulatively effective interrogation of Goering on the stand, brutally making Goering admit his continuing Nazi loyalties.

Older audiences will be familiar with so many of the details but, for later audiences, the device is used in the screenplay to have characters explain situations that they were discovering in 1945. And, the film here uses newsreel footage, re-enacted black-and-white footage. And, there is quite extensive footage, screened in Nuremberg at the trials, the horror of the prisoners in the concentration camps, the starvation and torture, the mounds of dead bodies, the bulldozers clearing… 80 years later still profoundly shocking.

With its focus on Goering and Kelly, Nuremberg is not the last war trials story but it does bring the past back to life – and, some of the speeches at the trial and an epilogue with Douglas Kelly in a radio program proclaiming that fascist groups and individuals can still flourish even if the neo-Nazis are not wearing uniforms. Today we know how true this is.

1. The title, expectations, memories of Nuremberg, the Nazi rallies, vast rally building, the post-war trials, significance in crimes against humanity? International collaboration?
2. Audience knowledge of the war, the Nazi regime, Hitler, Goering as his second-in-command, the concentration camps, the Holocaust, ideology, anti-Semitism, power? The explanations in the dialogue of the film to explain to the characters of the time and their new awareness, for later film audiences?
3. The film as drama, relying on documentation from the court case, the book about the psychiatrist and his encounters with the accused, the focus on Goering and the psychiatrist? The use of black and white news footage, re-created footage, especially the concentration camps?
4. The extensive scenes of the concentration camps, the dead, the bodies, the survivors, the bulldozers… The impact 80 years later?
5. The strong cast, the musical score?
6. Goering story, World War I, his wounds, commitment to Hitler, the 1920s into the 1930s, his role of command, his decisions, legislation, anti-Semitic, final solution, complete and total solution? Interactions with the other members of the Nazi regime? His plan for surrender, in the car with his wife and daughter, prison? His plan for control, to be centre-stage, to make his statement? The disappearance of his wife and daughter?
7. Douglas Kelly, psychiatrist, reputation, military, invited to deal with the war criminals, his personality, his shrewdness, analysis, knowing that Goering spoke English, the discussions with Howie, the translations, perceptions of Goering, narcissistic, control? Writing his notes, the plan for the book? The range of meetings with Goering, Howie present, alone with Goering, the letters, his decision to visit his wife and daughter, the letters, the return? The attachment, later visits, the daughter and the piano? And the personal discussions with Goering?
8. Justice Jackson, his personality, legal background, Supreme Court, his assistant, discussions about bringing the criminals to trial, the assistant and her legal arguments, no precedent, the need for International collaboration, not just America prosecuting in another country? The background of the discussions, Roosevelt and his stances, the Congress, variety of legal opinion, the socials and discussions? The visit to Pius XII, asking for support, quoting 1933, the Vatican and the concordat with the Nazis, the experience of the war, Pius XII and his reputation, the respectful discussion, the political blackmail? The support?
9. The preparations in Nuremberg, rebuilding the hall, preparations, the international judges, the media?
10. Colonel Andrus, in charge, his personality, the touch abrasive, not approving of Kelly, his attitude towards the prisoners? In Switzerland, the transfer to Nuremberg? The cells, no amenities, the beds, mattress, toilets, to prevent suicides? Goering is, that they were German built?
11. Jackson, coming to Nuremberg, the audience contemplating the issues through him, his speeches, the meeting with Maxwell Fyfe? The support of his assistant?
12. The other accused, the presentation of who they were, their background, war crimes, anti-Semitism, their personalities? The reaction to imprisonment, assertion? The arrival of Hess, his salute, claiming amnesia, the time in Scotland? Interactions with Goering, pretending not to know him? Kelly using Goering to get information about Hesse? Using the letters as persuasion?
13. Kelly, on the train, the magic, the card tricks, the journalist, meeting her, his drinking, the interview with her, the headlines, the colonel dismissing him? At the station, returning home, Howie at the station, the powerful scene with Howie, explanation of his past, German, Jewish, escape, the United States, enlisting, wanting to bring down the criminals? The influence on Kelly, accused of not doing anything, his book, giving it to Jackson to prepare the case? His coming to the court?
14. Kelly and his interaction with the various criminals, discussions, the Rorschach tests, the responses and indications of their psychology, especially Kelly’s comments on Goering’s responses?
15. The arrival of Dr Gilbert, brash style, clashes with Kelly, suggesting writing a book together, the blonde information to Goering about his wife and daughter being taken, the fight with Dr Gilbert?
16. The trial opening, the accused, Goering delaying in standing and sitting, centre of attention? Jackson, his speeches, his interrogation of Goering, verbal fencing, accuracy, precision of dates, quibbling about translations? Jackson and his sense of failing (and not being appointed to the Supreme Court)? Maxwell Fyfe, his asking the question, the powerful sequence of his interrogation, Goering’s responses, going through the history of the Third Reich, Goering accepting it, the final question about still being loyal to Hitler? The defeat of Goering?
17. Kelly, the final visit to Goering, and the background of the magic trick, Goering and the cyanide pill, his suicide?
18. The hour for the executions, sudden, not letting the accused is one, no drugs, the test case, tantrum, Howie dressing him, escorting him to the gallows, Howie and the personal antagonism towards the accused, the hanging?
19. Kelly, the radio interviews, his book, drinking, assertions, the reactions? And the final sequence of him walking along the corridor, drunk, and his depression and suicide, cyanide pill?
20. The final information, the consequence of the Nuremberg trials, new standards for Justice and the law for crimes against humanity?

NOBODY 2

US, 2025, 90 minutes, Colour.

Bob Odenkirk, Connie Neilson, Christopher Lloyd, John Ortiz, RZA, Sharon Stone, Colin Hanks, Gage Munroe, Paisley Cadorath, Colin Salmon.

Directed by Timo Tjahjanto.

Bob Odenkirk was in the public eye with the very popular series, Better Call Saul. He moved into movies with the blend of violence and comedy, Nobody. So, for those of us who might have been wondering what happened to his character, Hutch, in the years after Nobody, here is an answer. And one of the parts of the answer is, much as he was doing before!

For those coming to Nobody 2 without preparation, there is an enjoyable, if very improbable, recap of Hutch’s career as a killer. He is financially indebted to a boss, The Barber (British Colin is one) and so goes out on mission, the filmmakers offering slam bang confrontations with several groups of thugs, Hutch, despite advancing age, demonstrating multi martial arts tactics and style, very much tongue-in-cheek, expecting the audiences to put their tongues in their cheeks as well for what will follow.

Hutch wants a rest. His children, from the previous film, same cast, would like a bit of attention from him. And, his wife, Connie Neilson from the first film also, is getting more exasperated with his erratic comings and goings. So, what better that that go to a resort that he enjoyed when he was young, a centre with an extraordinarily lively funfair. And, his dad from the previous film, veteran Christopher Lloyd, bringing his kind of wry humour to all the and tumble.

It all should have gone very smoothly but a local boy confronts his children, Hutch being absolutely touchy, weighing in violently – and off the plot goes. The aggressive boy is the son of the local boss of the resort, played by John Ortiz. And his firm has become involved in drug running – especially from the local master drug Lord, or rather Lady, played with enthusiastic venom by Sharon Stone. The other villain in the piece is the local sheriff played by an absolutely smug Colin Hanks.

It’s not a particularly sophisticated plot! Rather, if we have identified with Hutch, off we go, fights galore, traps, the grandfather in on the action, wife getting her violent moment, supported by the kids, making allies with the local boss rebelling against the villain, using to advantage the entertainments at the funfair, bringing plenty of adrenaline rushes even as, as mentioned, our tongues are in our cheeks.

Nobody 2 does not take itself very seriously at all, just there for some comedy and some violence, relishing going over the top, entertaining the audience and particularly staying in the memory except that it was an enjoyable action show.

1. The popularity of the original film? The popularity of Bob Odenkirk? And the entertainment blend of family life and issues as well as of hired killers and international crime?
2. The regrouping of the original cast? And adding Sharon Stone as the main villain? And Colin Hanks as the lesser villain? And the plot is a variation on the first film?
3. Audience response to the character of Hutch? His background as a killer, violent? Yet the marriage, bond with his wife, with the children, and with his father? The background of the burning of the money, The Barber and his hold over Hutch to repay the debt with various jobs?
4. The framework of the film, the police interrogation of Hutch? The story as a flashback an explanation? With The Barber, the financial situation, the job, to collect the key, the visualising of the mission, in the elevator, the mayhem, then the succession of other groups attacking Hutch, the brutality of the fights, and his emerging victorious?
5. The family tensions, his wife and her being at home, the kids growing up and being out, her exasperation, her job and estate agent? The children, teenagers and their attitudes? Their absent father? And the role of the grandfather and his character? (In the flashbacks during the film of Hutch and Harry and their father’s behaviour and attitude?
6. The decision to go on a holiday, the promise, the return to the resort of his childhood, for happy memories? At the resort, the rooms, the grandfather and his cabin? Everything set for an enjoyable week? The nature of the resort, food, carnival atmosphere and highlights?
7. The situation, the sheriff, lording it over people, the encounter with Wyatt Martin, memories father, building up the town? The revelation of his being indebted to Landina? The factory, the cash, drugs and gold?
8. The situation, the challenge to Brady and the taunts, touching Samantha’s head? Tearing up her toy? Hutch and his reactions, the mayhem?
9. The sheriff, the interrogation, threats? Hutch putting the family on the Duck boat? The deputy sheriff and the toughs, the fights?
10. Landina, her empire, her personal manner, the poodle, ruthless in destroying people? Her hold over Wyatt? The highly exaggerated manner, and Sharon Stone in the role?
11. Hutch, going to the factory, the confrontation, the abduction of Wyatt’s son? The sheriff, the henchmen? The all-out fight, the ballistics, the money in flames, the range of explosions? The rescue of the boy? Taking him to his father’s? On the phone call to Harry, memories of the past, Harry arriving?
12. The buildup to the siege, grandfather with the kids, Hutch’s wife to getting the rifle and going into action, the reconciliation between the two boys, Wyatt and the collaboration with Hutch, the elaborate reading of the funfair? Expectations?

AND MRS

UK, 2024, 111 minutes, Colour.

Aisling Bea, Billy Lourd, Susan Wokoma, Harriet Walter, Sinead Cusack, Peter Egan, Omari Douglas, Samuel Barnett, Paul Kaye, Elizabeth McGovern, Colin Hanks.

Directed by Daniel Reisinger.

Most of us may have to look twice at the title. Is there a misprint? An omission? No, in fact the title is quite accurate. And, if one were looking for a smart title, we might suggest A Post-mortem Romantic Comedy.

While the film is British, the writer is an Australian playwright living in London. And, the director is also Australian. Some audiences may sense a somewhat Australian sardonic tone, the humour in the seriousness.

This is Gemma’s story. She is played by Aising Bear. She is in a relationship with an American, Nathan, played by Colin Hanks. He has proposed. And while she has accepted, the engagement is still on something of an emotional long finger.

There is quite an early twist of the plot, something which advertising and trailers may quickly indicate. However, this review will take the reticent stance.

We spend a lot of time in London, with Gemma, with her close friends, happy flashbacks with Nathan and scenes of a sense of his presence with her all the time, with her parents, who are supportive of her engagement to Nathan and are eager for a happy resolution of the engagement despite Gemma’s hesitations.

Also in the picture are Nathan’s relations, the visit to London from his somewhat wacky sister, Audrey (Billy Lourd, Carrie Fisher’s daughter, in fact) and a visit to the United States to visit their mother, Elizabeth McGovern, a long way from Downton Abbey.

There are some legal difficulties which are pursued throughout the film, especially in approaches to the Chief Justice for various permissions required. And, as a bonus for audiences of British films and television, she is played by Harriet Walter.

Ultimately, there is a happy ending, a wedding ceremony, and we realise what the title means.

1. Curiosity about the title? The explanation, engagement, the wedding?
2. The British setting, Australian writer and director, humorous tone, satiric tones, romantic tones?
3. The structure of the film, the present, the range of flashbacks, building up the picture of Nathan and his relationship with Gemma? His appearances in her imagination?
4. A romantic comedy, a post-mortem romantic comedy, marriage and commitment to a dead’s powers? In terms of realism? In terms of imagination and comedy? The background of legal issues and precedents in the UK and France?
5. Gemma’s story, her relationship with Nathan, his American background, her life, work, exercises, returning to find Nathan has died? The impact on her, grief, surprise? Her reliance on her best friend, flight attendant with her stories, consolation and support? The response of her parents, their understanding, discussions?
6. The issue of the funeral, the arrangements, the messages for Audrey, not picking up her phone, Nathan’s sister, arrival in the UK, thinking it a joke, the reality, vomiting into the Prada bag? Her personality, erratic? Her stories about their mother? Abandoning them? The later visit by Gemma to their mother, her life, conversations, Audrey outside, eventually coming in, the mother’s hard stands, not consenting to the wedding, the later scenes of rethinking, the photo, change of heart?
7. The funeral, the speaker, the parody of this kind of speech, Audrey and her attack, ousting him? The effect on everyone?
8. The idea of the wedding, the research, the approach to the Chief Justice, the impersonation of the court, sitting in on the prostitution case, the farcical aspects? The application, the letter, the return, the discussions with the Chief Justice, the eager assistant supporting the idea, the continued meetings, her turning down the issue, the legal precedents, her own life? The final meeting, the eventual persuasion, and her seeing herself in a good light?
9. Manager of the restaurant for the wedding, his criticisms of Nathan and online rules, the confrontation with Gemma? Agreeing to hold the reception? The final sequence in the middle of the credits at the reception?
10. Nathan’s best friend, arriving, no refund for the ticket, his attraction to Gemma’s best friend, together, talking, dancing?
11. The gay friend, his support, is officiating at the wedding? Attracted to the Chief Justices assistant?
12. The film showing Gemma’s moods, frame of mind, the reappearance is of Nathan, her imagining him, reassessing the engagement, the flashback to the proposal, the reasons for acceptance, her not having the opportunity to explain her commitment to Nathan, the urgency of the quest, the interviews with the Chief Justice, with Nathan’s mother (and going to America with the comedy of the best friend having to go through security so many times)?
13. The ultimate ceremony, her hesitations, her mother absent for the moment, the deep commitment, the ceremony, the aftermath and the celebrations and support?
14. An offbeat idea, a post-mortem romcom?