FOUR LIONS (2010)

Country: U.K.

Genre(s): Comedy / Drama

Director: Christopher Morris

Cast: Riz Ahmed / Nigel Lindsay / Kayvan Novak

Plot

Four British Muslims plot to martyr themselves in a coordinated suicide bomb attack.  Their only problem is that they’re all idiots.

What I Liked

There’s no getting around it; the movie’s damn funny.  When one first hears/reads that the film is about terrorist plotting a suicide bombing, comedy isn’t the fight genre that might come to mind.  In fact, when one learns it is a comedy, one might take offense.  After all, most would agree that mass killing is no laughing matter.  “Four Lions” will make you laugh out loud, despite yourself.  The film presents the quite plausible hypothesis that most terrorists are far from the mysterious, mad geniuses or even the devout religious fanatics they are often portrayed as being in film; they’re dumbasses who can’t get themselves organized, constantly screw up at every endeavor, and could care less about the Koran.

However this is no bare-bones “Three Stooges” serving of buffoonery (Don’t get me wrong, I love the Stooges).  Despite their imbecility, the characters in “Four Lions” are never allowed to become simply caricatures; they are very well fleshed-out characters both emotionally and psychologically and thus seem entirely believable.  Which is where the film is truly frightening.  Every laugh comes with a twinge of fear, yet the laughs are unavoidable.

What I Didn’t Like

Of course, as I mentioned previously, there is often an uncomfortable feeling one gets due to the subject matter of the movie; but that’s part of the films point and part of what makes it so funny.  Just know that it’s there.

While this film is terrifically funny, part of its humor relies upon the very shock of taking people who are regarded as such devious villains in popular culture and turning all of that on its head with pure silliness.  Much of the comedy that takes place on screen wouldn’t be so funny if it wasn’t making fun of aspiring mass murderers.  Take away the novelty of the subject matter, and the film would be about half as funny.

Most Memorable Scene

You can see some of these gags coming long before they happen, but they’re executed so well that the laughs never suffer.  The one involving a bazooka being shot at a U.S. drone has been done countless times on film and television, but still had me in stitches.  Funniest moment of the movie.

My Rating: 3 out of 5

THINGS TO COME (1936)

Country: U.K.

Genre(s): Science Fiction

Director: William Cameron Menzies

Cast: Raymond Massey / Ralph Richardson / Margaretta Scott

Plot

A hypothetical future for mankind is traced from the prediction of a second World War through to a 21^st century utopia.

What I Liked

Conceptually, “Things to Come” is a compelling future history of mankind in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, laying out H.G. Wells’ prediction for the course of civilization to come with technical mastery and visual flair.  Scripted by Wells himself from his own book “The Shape of Things to Come,” the movie is more about philosophy and ideas than drama.  He may have gotten many of the details of what would actually happen incorrect, but he was certainly correct about the philosophical conflicts that would pervade political, ethical, and theoretical debate today.  Of course many of those conflicts were the same conflicts which had dominated human discourse for millennia by 1936, but Wells and the filmmakers successfully transport the themes of man’s history into the future by interpreting their relevance through illustrations of the unprecedented power technology has to annihilate or enhance civilization.  As the film draws to a close, the ethical questions become easier to recognize until finally we are given Wells’ answer to those dilemmas through the parting words of progressive dictator Oswald Cabal.

While the concepts are what linger the longest in the viewer’s mind after its conclusion, during the actual viewing experience it is the visual design of the film that most impresses.  Using a vast arsenal of established special effects tricks and probably a few that were brand new, the filmmakers bring us dystopian landscapes, frightening war machines, flying fortresses, massive machines, futuristic factories, giant space guns, and underground metropolises, most of which remains passable here in the future the film tries to predict.  Most intriguing of all is the set design and cinematography, which bestow upon those sets and props an intimidating yet exciting vastness.  Even movie theater signs have a titanic boldness.  It is its sheer look that would prove the most influential element of the film, more-so than its messages or effects.

What I Didn’t Like

The movie is based on a Wells book that was more of a treatise on man’s greatness and folly than it was a novel and, like the book, the movie lacks the necessary structure to make for effective storytelling.  To accommodate for the century of time the movie intends to cover in less than two hours’ time, the story jumps ahead through the decades, stopping at key points for dramatic vignettes.  At each stop we are introduced to new characters, though some of the older ones sometimes remain.  But we never stay long enough to feel any emotional connection to the characters or their conflicts.  The viewer is unable to get involved in the movie on anything more than an intellectual level because of the overly ambitious enormity of the narrative.  It is unfortunately a glaring shortcoming that ultimately weakens the impact of the messages Wells and the filmmakers try to convey.

Most Memorable Scene

Once the movie jumps into the twenty-first century the viewer is treated to a montage of special effects meant to introduce us to the utopian civilization that has finally arisen out of the earlier dark ages brought on by war and disease.  It is a world dominated by technology, science, and sterility.  The use of various effects, often multiple techniques in the same shot, allows this moment of the movie to retain some of its original “wow” factor.

My Rating: 2.5 out of 5