CJ Amazing's Cinematic Escapades

Dr. Green, how can you diagnose someone as an obsessive compulsive disorder, and then act like I have some choice about barging in here?

2011-11-08T14:53:00.000-08:00

No 140 - As Good as it Gets

Director - James L Brooks

Jack Nicholson is a crazy old man isn't he. He's always been a crazy old man.

And he's a crazy old man here in the 90's too

He is also fascinating to watch. Something about his face. His eyebrows and his teeny tiny eyes and his ENORMOUS creepy grin.

His, is a face you can look at forever because he manages act with parts of your head which shouldn't be acting:

In this film, Nicholson plays a grumpy old curmudgeon and the film is set in a weird tone, begin with some brilliant dog-based toilet humour, but also factoring in some uncomfortable (hilariously uncomfortable at times) homophobia and racism towards his neighbours.

Of course, this is Hollywood and grumpy old curmudgeons can't stay grumpy forever. So, after a surprisingly brutal scene, Nicholson is left looking after the stupidest dog in the world!

Now - it turns out the dog is a Brussels Griffon.... but look at its doggy face. It is the stupidest dog in the world....

That is a stupid face.

And so, looking at my notes, I seem to have become fixated with the dog. I even drew sketches of the dog.

I think the reason was that I didn't want to focus on the main story.

The main story sees Nicholson soften into a nicer more likeable guy as he goes on a roadtrip with Helen Hunt's waitress (what he fancies) and his gay neighbour (or Gaybour) played by Greg Kinnear.

In this, the typical happens.

Now call me naive, but I sort of hoped that Nicholson's character would see the good that he was doing. Would see the relationships he was helping to form and this would soften his character. He'd leave with two new friends and a changed outlook on the world.

But no... THERE HAS TO BE A FUCKING LOVE ANGLE DESPITE THE FACT THAT NICHOLSON IS 26 YEARS OLDER THAN HUNT.... this is never mentioned. He is old enough to be her dad and he is horrible.... and yet Hunt fancies him right up.

At one point, Nicholson's character meets Hunt's mother.... I thought that would lead to romance.... an interesting (and fitting) relationship.

There are also interesting moments which are downplayed - Greg Kinnear's artist finds his muse in Helen Hunt's character. This gives us one scene of cheeky nudity and hunt-boob, but very little in the way of story or character notes.

you see....

its all bumped out of the way for this

And this cheapens the whole film for me. I like the idea of Nicholson curing (or at least controlling) his OCDs - I like the idea of him becoming a nicer person.

But I'd much rather it was friendship which changed him. Or even a silly little dog.

Because those changes become much less poignant when the motivation is clear:

Jack just wants to stick his Nicholson in to Helen's Hunt.

I've done a lot of bad things, Joey. Maybe it's comin' back to me. Who knows? I'm a jinx maybe. Who the hell knows?

2011-11-08T14:16:00.000-08:00

No 11 - Raging Bull

Director - Martin Scorsese

Oh Blog.... I've neglected you. I'm like an absent husband taking advantage of you as you wait for me, scared of what I might do next....

Which dovetails nicely to RAGING BULL - the story of a horrible shit of man who is in no way likeable throughout the film.

Seriously - Jake La Motta is a horrible bastard of a man. Now... I'm not necessarily talking about HIM personally (never insult a boxer) - but certainly his character in this film. Bastard.

I don't want to dwell on this too much as it would just be a list of character flaws and violent outbreaks - also, I saw this film ages ago and lost all my notes - but this is a man who mixes dangerous levels of paranoia and arrogance. He is quick to temper, and quick to get violent. He leaves his wife for a girl of 15 and continues to abuse and bash her around anyway.

He is a nasty piece of work. But the film never shies away from it. It gets right in there. Sticks close to the screaming and the flying crockery. Clinging to the fiery Mediterranean outbursts of rage. It is close up, hyper real and ugly.

The perfect counterpoint the boxing scenes.

Scorsese films the boxing scenes in a similar way to the scenes of domesticity - the camera is up close, in the face of the violent. But the image seems softer, the movements more dreamy. Often the scene's sound is faded out and replaced with music.

As soon as La Motta steps into the ring, the film takes a fantasy twist. It becomes beautiful to watch.

Just look a the silent moments of confrontation in this video between Sugar Ray and Jake La Motta. The cinematography is brilliant.... from the stark use of Red in the opening credits

to the final sequence in which a fatter, older La Motta memorises a speech - talking to his reflection in an awkward monotone delivery: It all looks amazing.

Which brings us to the other of the film's key strengths.... De Niro.

De Niro's transformation throughout this film is phenomenal. It is a tour de force, not only in acting as he creates a rounded, deep, flawed and layered character from someone who could easily be a 1 dimensional fucker, but also in the physical dedication. As the film progresses, we see La Motta gain weight, as he loses the will to fight and just gets lazy with his riches. It is impressive because it happens over the course of the film, but it is more impressive because it sneaks up on you.... you don't notice it at first, until he's parading around topless on the beach. It makes it much more striking than the films which just cut to a point where the protagonist is super skinny or fatter.

The slow creep of fat is similar to the majority of the film. The film's knockout punches are the fights. Amazing shots which have become iconic and which are frequently paid homage to in films where punches are thrown.

The rest of the film is more of a creeper. Growing on you, slowly, and horribly.... getting under your skin as you watch the rise and fall of a cruel cruel man...

My name's Forrest Gump. People call me Forrest Gump.

2011-10-06T01:08:00.000-07:00

No 240 - Forrest Gump

Director - Robert Zemeckis

This was the film that won 'Best Film' in 1994, beating both Pulp Fiction and The Shawshank Redemption, two films which can be described as gritty fantasy (whether the fantasy comes from Tarantino's sense of myth or from the uplifting suspension of disbelief which is there in King's story)

So does it deserve it?

Short answer is no....

But that isn't to say that Forrest Gump is a bad film - in fact I've been looking forward to having the excuse to rewatch it, because I have fond memories of the film - and it is very clever, and really quite enjoyable. It is also drowning in saccharine, self importance and sentimentalism.

But what works?

This is a complex story - it is the story of America during a messed up time, where they were dealing with paranoia, racism, wars and protests. The aspirations of the country are muddled and the way the country goes about it is messy. Yet we are anchored with Gump. Forrest is a simple man - both in mental capacity and in needs. He doesn't seem to want anything (except maybe for Jenny to be happy) and he just bumbles through life and yet through him we experience so much.

It seems that Gump (or at the very least Gump's family) are directly involved in important moments of history. There are the small moments (his influences on popular culture - from Elvis through to 'Shit Happens' via 'Imagine' are all sublime) and then there are the big moments.

The CGI is becoming a bit more noticeable now, as they manipulate the mouths of old stock footage, but still.... kudos to Zemeckis for USING old stock footage and then tweaking and cheating with CGI. Scenes like this still amuse and still look pretty impressive (even if the voices aren't always 100%)

This tweaking with CGI and with American history also helps create my next point:

The film may really stay in 3 areas (Alabama, Washington and 'Nam) - but the sense of scale is massive. From the explosions and helicopters whooshing past in Vietnam through to the massive rally you see in the picture above and the hurricane which affects Gump's shrimping business - This is a large story, and whilst it is told on a small, one person scale - the film remembers that the large scale shenanigans need to be shown, even if in the background.

I wish to end on a point of characters. I, personally, find Forrest really grating. His slow southern drawl (mixed with the fact that he is slightly retarded) just makes everything he says ponderous and dull... but because he is surrounded by so many interesting moments, you forget. The real star of the show is:

Dan Taylor has the greatest character arc. A brilliant character arc... The Vietnam officer who is stripped of everything and has to learn again what life is about. We see him at his very lowest, we see him happy (for several different reasons). He's important, because with the exception of maybe death, I don't think Gump ever truly realises that bad things happen to people.... Lt Dan is there to be the man that had to rebuild his life, and climb out of his own self destructive descent.

And on the topic of Self Destructive Descent

Now.... I understand the point of Jenny, she is an interesting and pivotal plot point. She provides the motivation for a lot of Gump's actions, and her character (particularly her sexual awareness and drug use) is a great dichotomy to Gump's utter naivety throughout.

The thing is.... I only cared about Jenny when she was a little girl and at the hands of her abusive father. The character is one who is drawn to the safety of Gump and his incredibly loving and busy household....

But as soon as she becomes Robin Wright I just lost interest... I never felt anything for Jenny. She was moving from one terrible decision to another (the direct opposite of Gump's life) but I never felt for her the way that Zemeckis wanted me to.

And that... brings me to the real issue of the film.

For all the interesting moments, for all the nice nuances which have been brought to the story - the film is too eager to thrust mawkish sentimentality and over-sincere characters at you. And the freaky robot child that is Haley Joel Osmond.

I could do with fewer tearful speeches around gravestones, and more of the story of America...

And that's all I really have to say about that.

Today I saw a slave become more powerful than the Emperor of Rome.

2011-09-26T13:59:00.000-07:00

No 151 - Gladiator

Director - Ridley Scott

CONTESTANTS RRRRRRRRRRRREADY

Only joking.... I'm talking about different gladiators. The Roman ones.

Rome was a long time ago - this must be the case because Gladiator begins with all the studio logos appearing in sepia tones. So we're talking OLD.

The Roman empire was a tough time, and being Caesar was particularly tough. You had to make sure everything was correct. You had to stop the marauding hordes. And frequently actors would thesbianically lament that the Gods were angry. Caesar 3 was a tough game - but here old man Richard Harris seems to nail the whole God Emperor thing. He is popular. He is powerful. He is doomed.

This is the story of one of Caesar's friends and officers and how he is plunged into big old shit - losing his power, his status, his family and his freedom. The thing that I forgot though was just how bloody dark and bleak and gloomy it is.

11 years had passed since I last saw it, and over time nostalgia had tinged the film as being more fun. The blood and sand and fightings had taken over and meant that I remembered the film to be a bit more of a romp.

It is not a romp at all.

It is in fact

And the horrors of the age (particularly the death of Maximus' family - which leads him to his Gladiator role) - jar with the more cinematic deaths of the battleground.

The battles in the arena are not glorified. This isn't 300 - this is proper 'this shit is real' fighting - with dirty brown sand stained with blood. The audience's celebrations, aren't echoes in the cinematography. The film doesn't want you to relish in the battle. Just witness the plight.

- I say that.... but actually, the more famous Maximus becomes, the more the film seems to forget that. I mean - the tigers don't do much do they? They just look cool?

The fights are impressive - they're violent but not KERRAZY VIOLENT. And they all help to lead Maximus to meet Joaquin Phoenix's ridiculous Emperor Commodus. A man who is trying so hard to do every bad thing. He's like the pantomime villains off The Crow - and he ticks all the boxes of being a bit of a bugger. Specially to his family - what with all that incest and patricide going on.... Phoenix plays him beautifully. In fact, its Commodus' snivelly pathetic neediness that makes him more horrible. It is his motivation which is the real shocker. Not the actual acts....

After all Rome was a tough old place, and that kinda shit happened.

The film's ending suffers from being a little too Po-faced - but there are some beautiful shots (I particularly like Maximus gliding over the desert) - and it leads the story to the only logical resolution....

I just wish they'd had the balls to do Nick Cave's sequel for it. Because it is so bat-shit bonkers, it could have been amazing.

Forget my blog - just read this if you've never read it before. Naturally there will be stuff in it that spoils the first film, if you've not seen it.

All in all - Gladiator is a great film, full of marvellous actors (famous, of course, as the bloody legend Oliver Reed's last film) and visually incredible.

I think it just takes itself too seriously at times.

So.... in conclusion.

My favourite Gladiator was Jet

The time has come for someone to put his foot down. And that foot is me.

2011-09-15T14:32:00.000-07:00

No 279 - National Lampoon's Animal House

Director - John Landis

I don't understand a lot of American culture. Especially university culture. Like I don't understand Frat houses or what they really are. I could do some basic research. Read this Wikipedia entry that took me literally seconds to find. But I won't. I refuse to. It will all remain a mystery of people being weird and getting spanked.

A strange homoerotic one-upmanship that just creeps up in films every now and then. But which I just don't get. I especially don't understand why their so important.

Anyway, they are important and Delta house is painted as the fuck-up house. And yet, when we're introduced to the houses at the start of the film, Delta house looks like the place that is actually fun. A party. Rather than an awkward parade of self-importance.

Anyway.... Animal house has been the stepping stone for almost every College gross-out comedy since. It has been parodied by everything. It was essentially an entire episode of The Simpsons

cough cough look over here

There is swearing, there is sex, there is a LOT of female nudity.

And there are some true comic gems. There is some visual humour which is inspired. John Belushi shuffling about on a ladder..... one of the funniest things I've ever seen.

Even the 'zit' moment is still funny. And that is a clip on Scene it and I've 'seen it' about a gajillion times.

Lets move on and just discuss the big bag of awesome. The true legend of the film. D-Day....

And I just learnt something amazing about D-Day.

For a good half of the film, I thought D-Day was ACTUALLY a lecturer at the uni who then became a bit of a badass and hung out in the Frat house. I'd even created a back story for him.

Anyway then I assumed that Sutherland had enjoyed the script so much that he wanted to play two roles. Like Jack Nicholson in Mars Attacks!

But NO!!!! Donald Sutherland is only playing the lecturer. The legend that is D-Day is played by Bruce McGill... Who has appeared in lots of stuff but nothing that stood out.

So my entire speech about the awesomeness of Donald Sutherland has been wasted.

BUT.... D-Day is still amazing, from his entry as he rides a motorbike up some stairs to his finale in the car of destruction he pimps out...

He is great.

Its a weird film in that it inspired an entire genre really. And whilst nothing in it feels particularly NEW anymore (a side effect of its material being borrowed by so many sources) - it does feel like a quality piece of comedy.

There is a really high gag rate.

There were some genuine LOLZ

what more do you need?

So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people - greedy, barbarous, and cruel, as you are.

2011-09-05T02:32:00.000-07:00

No 57 - Lawrence of Arabia

Director - David Lean

I cleared my diary and set myself an evening to sit down with a true gargantuan epic. From the little disclaimer before the film telling me there'd be moments of score with no visual accompaniment, I knew I was going to enjoy the film. This is a director with a vision. A proper true vision.

And he has a freaking awesome score.

"Listen" He seems to say "This score is so fucking amazeballs, that I want you to really get your chops around it before I sully it with beautiful beautiful imagery. Lets just appreciate it first you cinematic heathens."

I am not one to go against Mr Lean. So - before you read this meandering blog post, make sure you listen to the score and get all goosepimply and that.

Beee-autiful

I have recently read the fabulous book Hellraisers by Robert Sellers and had learnt magnificent stories of amazing drunkardness. All it did was cement Peter O'Toole as a complete legend. I've always thought he was aces. But I've also always thought he was old. Which is a completely idiotic thought to have.... but O'Toole just seems old. He seems a randy old bugger. Like in that weirdly depressing and utterly disturbing film Venus.... So to see him so young and striking kind of threw me off course.

Young O'Toole isn't really a handsome man, but he does have striking eyes, a beautifully soft spoken voice and a caddish charm - all of which is carried across to Lawrence making him somebody which you immediately route for in the stuffiness and stiff upper lip of the British armed forces.

Throughout the film, Lawrence's intentions are never clearly explained.... especially at the beginning it is difficult to see what is motivating him - however, here is the benefit of such a slow and ponderous film playing over 4 hours. As we are surrounded by lavish and insanely beautiful pictures of the desert, we begin to understand Lawrence's feelings. When he finally declares his love for the country, it comes as no surprise. This is man who has taken the harsh and inhospitable world to heart. Who treats the people as equals and who wishes to be treated as an equal by the people. A massive difference from the cries of "Wog" which eminate from the other bigoted soldiers and officers.

Whilst I'm on the topic of casual racism... let me just mention the one aspect which sullied what is an otherwise beautiful and engrossing film:

Alec Guinness shouldn't be all blacked up in order to play an Arab.

I am aware it was common in those days, and there is no denying that Guinness plays the part with passion and creates a rich and detailed character. However, it always snaps me out of the film: whether it is Olivier in Othello or Jean Simmons in Black Narcissus - it just feels a bit icky. Nowadays we can only have it done for jokes. And it only really works if it addresses the joke directly... Kirk Lazarus' dedication to method acting is a great 'blacking up' joke as well as mostly being a massive pisstake of 'The Method' and role immersion.... Eddie Murphy's Mr Wong in Norbit is as horrible and icky as Mickey Rooney's Mr Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany's, 40 years earlier.

Right - I got sidetracked there with a little link-heavy rant about racism. The important thing is that this is just a small glitch in a beautiful, rich and truly epic story about (ironically) race relations.

The film isn't afraid to tackle dark topics and manages to paint the Arab nation as a bunch of squabbling violent tribes in a way that doesn't belittle them. The film is about accepting that there are different cultures, and whilst some of these cultures may need an outsider to see them and amend them in order to move things on - we shouldn't just stick OUR cultures on top. That remains as true now, as it did then.

It is a bit too long (I was flagging by the end) but you stay interested and rooting for Lawrence. He is a good man. He is brilliantly played by O'Toole.

A great film.

If I know Mary as well as I think I do, she'll invite us right in for tea and strumpets.

2011-09-05T01:34:00.000-07:00

No 445 - Dumb and Dumber

Director - Peter Farrelly

So. I planned to sit down and watch Lawrence of Arabia. But no one had warned me it was a billion hours long. So I sat down to watch that other classic of cinema:

Hoozah!

I think I had watched it once before, many a year ago - but didn't really have much knowledge of it. I'm not a massive fan of Jim Carrey's early gurning phase (with the exception of the Mask, which is absolute genius) so had always just seen this as a film which was ok, but nothing special.

On rewatching, I was surprised by the depth. Particularly the depth of Lloyd's character. Harry seemed too whacked out to be really paying attention to the world. But Lloyd is just desperate for affection. The entire film is based around the ridiculous lengths one man is willing to go in order to try and impress a woman.

The thing is (and I've always felt this) - The Farrelly brothers try too hard. They ruin the film with their insistence on toilet humour (which is by far the weaker jokes), and when they do dare to do a subtler joke it is usually much ore triumphant than their more obvious jokes.

For example I found the line "I fell off the jetway again" much funnier than the entire sequence of events which happened before, leading to Lloyd falling.

I suppose asking for intelligent humour in a film like Dumb and Dumber is a bit redundant. But it is these small moments which show me what could have been.

There were some pleasent surprises in the film - there are some great cuts, most famously that great boobs/headlight cut - that, as well as the dog-car, are moments of the brilliant visual humour which are interspersed throughout the film.

I think, really this is a film of brilliantly funny moments and great concepts. But in trying to make a film, it resorts too often to cheap humour which stops it from being truly remarkable.

But at times it is truly painfully funny!

PS - I just found out from IMDB that Nic Cage and Gary Oldman were the first choices to play Harry and Lloyd. That would have essentially made this the most unhinged film of geniusness ever.

Such a shame.... don't get me wrong, Daniels and Carrey are good. But.... NIC CAGE AND GARY OLDMAN?! Fuck....a.....duck

The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant doesn't even have to open his mouth. That's in the Constitution.

2011-09-05T00:55:00.000-07:00

No 72 - 12 Angry Men

Director - Sidney Lumet

Well bloody hell.... life catches up with you doesn't? Between doing the Edinburgh Fringe, flying to Spain and then flying to India (I'm quite a big deal) - I haven't really had the time to do anything. Certainly not been at a laptop long enough to blog.

Though I did catch a lot of quite good films on the Planes. Hanna is pretty awesome isn't it.

But what about the actual list film? Well.... I saw it almost a month ago so I'm going to have to resort pretty heavily on my notes rather than on any clear memories.

The first thing that I really noticed is that the film is very stark. From the way that it opens without pre-film credits (which you don't see that often in films of this age) through to openly bigoted characters, none of which are named, and complete lack of momentum. This is a film which is unashamed about its minimalism. There are no set pieces. No real drama. Just a lot of talk and some ever shortening nerves.

The entire film takes place in one room, and the film enjoys letting the audience savour the claustrophobia. The jury is too hot, the room is too noisy, stifling and there is the inherent racism that probably did simmer in the minds of people in 50's America.

What the film does exceptionally well is watch the journey of these jurors. I have never had to do jury duty, but I don't think it would be as complex or as demanding as the full analysis which occurs in this film.

At no point do they ever say the nameless kid is INNOCENT of his crime. They are just debating whether there is enough evidence to sentence him to death without qualms. This means a hefty breakdown of all the facts, changing the minds of some.... and further infuriating others who just want to get out, get home and get back to their lives.

The more that people discuss the facts, the more the jurors get irritated. I particularly love the quote

I'm sick and tired of facts! You can twist 'em anyway you like, you know what I mean?

Which for me sums up the whole temperament of some of these jurors. They don't really care about the facts. They just want to hang the no-goodnic (and there is no question that he is a bad kid, just maybe not a murderer) and go watch their ball game.

It also makes me think of this small moment of genius.

Really, the film doesn't have much to it. But as a tense character study of 12 people. As a deft analysis of the human psyche. It works splendidly.

It is, in a strange way, quite similar to the Social Network as it is a superbly written piece which manages to make legal procedure and a bunch of people bickering in a room a massively entertaining and captivating film.

Where 12 Angry Men is even more impressive, is that it does it in one room. Without ever resorting to flashbacks or anything.

A triumph of a film from a very skilled director.

Honey, we all got to go sometime, reason or no reason. Dyin's as natural as livin'. The man who's too afraid to die is too afraid to live.

2011-08-02T14:09:00.000-07:00

No 207 - The Misfits

Director - John Huston

I was tricked. Duped even. I thought the Misfits was going to be a knockabout comedy... My hero Clark Gable and the impossible cartoon of sexiness that is Marilyn Monroe. There would be quips and sparring and maybe some hilarious mistaken identities and farcical moments.

BUT NO!

This is a serious film... with a lot of sad faces and a the two aforementioned actors cracking out their last feature length films before they die.

The Misfits is an odd film - as it seems to be one which is structured on disappointment and compromise. Nearly every character is coming out of a relationship - mostly through divorce but a couple are widows and widowers. They're then settling into this harsh cold world and trying to find any comfort to help them through. It isn't pretty. Most of the characters appear to be drunk about 90% of the time. I'd be quite interested in playing a The Misfits Drinking Game - because there is a fair amount of Whiskey getting polished off throughout.

So when a pretty little Widow like Monroe's Roslyn comes into the equation, a fierce competition happens. Everyone vies for her attention. Everyone tries to woo her. Everyone seems to get seriously fucked up when they realise they can't have her.

This is a film in which Clark Gable, Montgomery Clift and Eli Wallach are constantly backstabbing each other to get (a NEWLY DIVORCED) Marilyn Monroe into bed.... ethics are all over the shop.

The film then takes a strange existential angle. Looking at the value of life, and the way that the world has changed. Clark Gable's beat up old cow boy is tragic, a man who hasn't quite come to grips with how the world has modernised and changed around him. But all 3 men are equally as bad... they're men who's wartime experiences have seen them desensitized to life and death. They're men who refuse to see the way the world changes and who hang on to old values.

Monroe may come off as a bit hysterical throughout the film - but they need that... they need that to realise that times have changed. That you have to work. That the world is cruel. That you can't always get what you want....

Maybe I just watched this film in a glum mood (and I did) hoping to be cheered up... but that's what I got out of it. That life is a challenge, and the truly brave people are the people who rise to that challenge and be the better man.

Then you can be haggard and worn down (and hilariously called Gay) and still sleep with Marilyn Monroe....

I want to see what love looks like when it's triumphant. I haven't had a good laugh in a week.

2011-08-02T13:36:00.000-07:00

No 297 – It Happened One Night
Director – Frank Capra

Hello…. My name is Clark Gable and I am utterly awesome in every way…. From my brill-creamed hair to the tips of my beautiful brogues – and don’t forget my moustache. It’s a very good moustache

Oh yes…. Everyone loves me, from olden day womens to trendy electro-hipsters.

The Postal Service - Clark Gable

So basically – all this film does is point out the Clark Gable may be the single greatest human being to have ever graced the Earth… from his unsubtle entrance (a motley crew of drunks parade him around whilst declaring ‘Long Live The King’) - He then spends the majority of the film being a cocky little shit, utterly hilarious and generally awesome. He even looks awesome in PJs.

But this film wasn’t just about me developing a severe man-crush on Clark Gable, it is also a great little fast paced romp about relationships changing and love and that. We follow Ellie - who is glamorous in that 20's/30's way in which people can only aspire to nowadays, she is an heiress and engaged to wed some chap who is generally regarded as a chump. Now, this is despite there being no actual evidence of his chumpishness... however, nobody likes him and Ellie and Gable's Peter do develop a genuine rapport throughout.

This is important, because I feel uncomfortable watching films like His Girl Friday - where the central pair bicker and ight all film and then she leaves her husband for him, just because he's Cary Grant. Just doesn't feel fair.

But here, the relationship is genuine, the banter is top notch and the film whizzes by, wittily and entertainingly.

To be honest... I watched this film ages ago but have only just got round to writing it.... My notes are nothing but 3 pages of "Clark Gable is Awesome!". I remember enjoying the film and finding it witty and inoffensive.....

Go and watch it, but remember this one thing:

Death and honor are thought to be the same, but today I have learned that sometimes they are not.

2011-08-02T13:11:00.000-07:00

No 131 – The Last of the Mohicans
Director – Michael Mann

So I’m back… July has been manic, but I have been really busy:

Cough Cough *CLICK ON THE LINK* Cough Cough

So deal with it… anyway, here are some bloggles for you to gawp at:

I expected this to be another story from the ‘Outsider is taken in by tribe of natives and then fights with them’ genre… and whilst TECHNICALLY it is (as Daniel Day Lewis could never be passed off as an actual Native American), the act of being initiated into the society happens many years before the film starts – so it isn’t really part of the plot.

The plot is about revenge, double crossing and war – and whilst that may sound really juicy, the film also manages to be really fucking dull. How dull? Well I stopped the film several times. Once to make myself some dinner, and once to answer the phone and have a little chat. I didn’t even pull that shit with Tree of Wooden Clogs.

This film is not as dull as Tree of Wooden Clogs.

But lets talk about the good bits first…. It was lovely to have a film in which the Native Americans and the American settlers live together amicably. I’m so used to it all being cowboys ‘n’ injuns that it felt refreshing to see a new villain, though ‘villain’ seems the wrong word. This film triumphs in painting everything with shades of grey… so morality is never black and white. The baddies are really all that bad. The goodies aren’t really all that good. It feels realistic.

It is also worth recording this one description of the French:

They’d rather eat and make love with their faces than fight

AMEN! Never before have I been so proud of my duel nationality.

So, the film plods along as Daniel Day Lewis and his Mohican friends escort a British army chap and his ladies off to see the ladies’ dad – who is in a camp. Meanwhile the American settlers are tricked and bullied and there is talk of sedition and King and Country and yada yada.

There is a love triangle… people act like cocks…. People then see the error of the ways and get all noble. Everything in the film is pretty standard and is very well executed, I just couldn’t connect with a single character. I just didn’t give a shit about their plights or anything…. I can’t pin point what was wrong with the film… but something was definitely wrong when the only element of the film that piques my interest are the beautiful beautiful military uniforms.

I would love to enter a society where we could start wearing tri-corner hats again.

So… as the title implies – which means it can’t be a spoiler (but if you don’t want to know how this film ends just stop reading)… shit goes down and leaves only ONE MOHICAN…. The last of them…. And just look at the Mohican army:

Tough battle….

But that last Mohican isn’t Daniel Day Lewis… oh no, even though he lived all his life with that tribe, they don’t want his honky ass polluting their blood stream. So even though he has a lady by the end and they can have all the babies, the Mohican tribe dies out due to one man’s racism.

Or at least that’s what I took away from it all….

She knew everyone that mattered. Everyone loved her

2011-07-10T08:42:00.000-07:00

No 318 - Rebecca

Director - Alfred Hitchcock

I have not read the original novel and only had the most basic understanding of the plot.... basically, I knew enough to know that the sketch 2:30 into the video below was based on Rebecca:

you may as well watch it all because Big Train is amazing

But I couldn't have told you what actually happens in the story. I think this is the best way to view the film, because it really heightens the fantastic series of twists and turns.

The story (which has apparently been sanitised slightly from the book which is even more morbid) follows a protagonist who is never given a first name (creating a weird distance and sense of formality between her and the viewer) as she marries above her station and is permanently belittled by the memory of his ex wife. Joan Fontaine is wonderful in this role. She manages to have a whole load of small town charm and elegance. However, she is also very much out of her comfort zone and frequently stressed and upset. You really sympathise with the character and want things to sort out for her.

The story starts fairly mundanely, as a film it is very much of its period and has dated quite badly in places (I particularly enjoyed the condescending attitude to those 'silly little women') and the scenes in Monte Carlo move quite slowly. However, Hitchcock's skill has always been tension and once the action moves away from the courting and into the stately home of Manderlay, the film really picks up.

There are secrets and mysteries which have not been explained, and Max De Winter's first wife Rebecca is at the heart of it all - her legacy clear not only in the sheer magnitude of objects with a monogrammed R, but also in the attitude of the servants. The most notable, and brilliant, is the creepy character of Mrs Danvers. A solemn figure who seems lurking behind all of Mrs De Winter's social faux pas and embarrassments. She is clearly a nasty piece of work, but might there be more to her?

And thats where I want to end it really.... Because the final act of the film is just an incredible barrage of twists, revelations and dramatic moments. None of which I really saw coming. They are also timed to perfection, so just as you recover from one game-changing statement, the next one hits you.

Accept that the film will begin slowly and pompously, and you're in for a treat. A complex and rewarding mystery that is explained in a third act which moves at an oddly breakneck pace after the first two far slower acts.

I haven't felt this awful since we saw that Ronald Reagan film.

2011-07-09T06:46:00.000-07:00

No 368 - Airplane!

Director - Jim Abrahams, Jerry Zucker and David Zucker

You have to give this film a fair bit of credit.... it really goes in all guns blazing and for just under 90 minutes we're subjected to an almost ceaseless barrage of gags. Airplane!'s real triumph though is the sheer breadth of these jokes. Desperate to be funny to everyone, the pulls out all the stops with an amazing range of jokes: from visual to verbal, surreal, cheap or very intelligent, there really is something for everyone.

The film plays with all the cliches of 1950's disaster films, as a passenger has to land a crashing jumbo jet. Liberal use of flashbacks allows the tone to flick away from the Disaster movie genre and give the gag writers a bit more leeway.

The film is the epitome of hit and miss, and it is really quite dated now - especially in the way the film treats other races, women and homosexuals. There is a bit of a nasty streak through some of the humour which I didn't entirely like, but most of the time the film just revels in being silly.

I don't really know what else to say. I will always find the scenes in the cockpit hilarious. Either the misunderstandings based on names, or Kareem Abdul-Jabbar breaking character or the creepy paedophilic subtext of Captain Oveur. However there are also little gags which rest too much on cliche and lazy preconceptions. The OTT camp Johnny seems too weird, and his frequent outbursts just began to piss me off really.

I don't want to sound too preachy, I fucking LOVE Airplane. I've seen it a fair few times and it still makes me properly laugh out loud in moments - and you have to respect it for one major discovery.

The man who moved from being all serious to becoming the king of pissing about on film. A bloody hero really.

And Airplane sort of led the way for film parody and scattergun humour being let off all over the place.

Which means we have it to blame for the inexplicable rise of Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer.

which is a shame

"You who swallowed a falling star, o' heartless man, your heart shall soon be mine." That can't be good for the table.

2011-07-09T01:48:00.000-07:00

No 230 - Hauru no Ugoku Shiro (Howl's Moving Castle)

Director - Hayao Miyazaki

If there is one thing you can confidently say about Studio Ghibli it is that they make beautiful looking films. Whether it is the masses of fish swimming about in Ponyo or the spirits which mill about in Spirited Away, their films look amazing, deep and layered with gloriously populated and immensely imaginative worlds. It is the same with Howl's Moving Castle, particularly the titular castle itself. From the first time we watch it clanking through the countryside, I was entranced. It is the attention to detail with all the individual moving components which make it so refreshing to watch:

Watch the trailer's opening sequence (also the film's opening sequence) as the castle emerges from the fog.

Just beautiful.

Every frame of the film could be printed off and stuck on your wall. Glorious.

Unfortunately, the rest of the film isn't as strong as the excellent visuals. The film sort of plods along with a story that manages to be vague and far too complex. Sophie's curse (at the heart of the story) is clear enough, but it is interwoven with something about a war and wizards turning into birds and Howl's heart and having to hide from the witch of the waste. It is, really, nonsense and I spent large moments of the film not understanding what was going. This is on my 4th viewing. I don't expect new people to get it at all.

The story isn't moved along by the characters either. It doesn't bode well that the films most likable character is a silent scarecrow with a fixed stupid grin and little to no movement. Everyone else is grumpy, rude or just plain non-eventful.

Howl is the guiltiest, he seems rude, shallow, sulky and really really boring. He is also barely in the film - more of a presence in the background of proceedings who occasionally swooshes in during his Black Swan birdman moments. He doesn't really show any compassion until one big move in the film's final act. But by then, Sophie has fallen in love with him, it is a romance which is used to explain a lot of their actions but which is itself, not that clearly explained. Much like many of the plot points in this film, they just happen. Deal with it.

It is a shame that the story is so lacking, because the film is a pleasure to watch, you just have to entirely disconnect your ears and watch it as a purely visual aesthetic set in a delightful steam punky world. A steam punky world with WIZARDS! Surely the best kind of steam punk world.

But yeah, much like Howl himself, the film looks good, but the intentions and details are muddled or just dull.

Mrs. MacNeil, the problem with your daughter is not her bed; it's her brain.

2011-07-02T02:39:00.000-07:00

No 206 - The Exorcist

Director - William Friedkin

The first time I watched The Exorcist was at university and I was drunk... We watched it in a gang on VHS at about midnight. I didn't find it that scary, but I put it down to being drunk and rowdy students. After all... this is:

But... is it? I think the film splits nicely down the middle. The defining moment being where they catch young Regan masturbating with a bloody crucifix. Before that moment the film is genuinely unsettling, following a young girl who is traumatised by a series of strange events. I like that there are these moments (such as the prologue which I'd forgotten about) which begin to paint the paranormal elements, and which create the unsettling tone. One of the greatest shots is when Father Merrin is facing a statue of the Devil in Iraq as dogs fight in the distance. The growling gets louder and more distorted until I'm sure there was a voice hidden in it. Its a great moment, creepy without relying on hokey effects and brilliantly countered by the fact that the next hour is bogged down in doctors, suburbia and the little practical intricacies of life.

The exact reason as to WHY Regan gets possessed is never explained, but it is hinted at with the discovery of a Ouija Board and Regan's conversations with Captain Howdy (I love a fictional Captain) - The possession is much scarier when it is in the realms of believability. Perhaps it is because I have an epileptic sister, but for me the real horrific moments are the vacant looks on Regan's face or the moments of fitting. There is something quite chilling about horribly thing happening to a young child and the persistent series of tests and Xrays which reveal nothing. For me the most shocking moments of the film are the dark scowling looks Linda Blair pulls off, that seem so alien and other-worldly.

So, this seems like a good time to talk about Linda Blair's performance. It is spigging incredible, easily the best thing in the film. Blair was only around 11 or 12 when she made this and not only is she covering some heavy and disturbing themes (makes you rethink all the Hit Girl controversy when you see some of the stuff Regan says and does - whilst her possessed voice is a voice over, she is still acting and saying those things) but she is also putting across a very nuanced and layered performance. Not only is she flitting between identities but also she is trapped in her own body and silently screaming desperately for help and escape. The transformation is an incredible performance and during the slower quieter moments 'possessed Regan' is truly freaky - thanks to the wicked grins and mannerisms Blair puts across.

It is just a shame that the film also descends into silly ridiculous. Whilst the neck spinning and pea soup are famous moments, they're hardly scary. They're just a bit silly. That's the problem, I actually found myself laughing at the Devil more often than not, either because of the ridiculousness of the situation, or because there are some genuinely funny lines. Kudos especially to the term "Your cunting daughter" - I don't think that word gets used as an adjective often enough.

So, in summary, when we are dealing with an unknown force assaulting a small girl we have a film which explores the paranormal without accepting it. The film's horror stems from the world's rationalism and watching it crumble against the events that happen. However, once it all breaks into the scratched faced insanity it becomes silly and loses a lot of the fear. I also find the ending (which I won't spoil) as a bit of an anticlimax. Though I like that, once again, the paranormal isn't resolved and the demon (or devil) is never really truly vanquished.

A person doesn't change just because you find out more.

2011-06-27T13:45:00.000-07:00

No 21 - The Third Man

Director - Carol Reed

The film noir. The Murder Mystery. A great framework for a film, and one that is done amazingly well. The story is the simple tale of a suspicious death and a man's journey to get to the bottom of it, yet it is a story made all the richer by the surroundings it is in. The weird oppression and military nightmare of post-war Vienna makes this film a lot more tense, a lot more paranoid. Paranoia which is brilliantly depicted through the use of camera angles. Maybe they filmed a lot on hills. Or maybe the tripod's third man was a bit too short....

I don't mean to sound like I'm belittling it... the camera work is probably the most impressive thing in the whole film. Either in the angles and shot or in the transitions. There are some amazing fades or some great early examples of quick editing which help make the film feel a lot more ominous and shady throughout. The mystery of Harry Lime is rich and captivating, so much so that some of the peripheral characters feel like a nuisance, they're important to the main plot, but their sub-plots are just getting in the way of the real story. Yeah... I'm talking to you Anna Schmidt.

The film is really waiting for Orson Welles to appear and explain the mystery of Harry Lime. Welles is a delight throughout this film, for a lot of the film he has this permanent arrogant smirk as if he's just pissing himself in his glorified cameo. But actually, despite his brief appearances (both in number of times, and how long he's on screen) he manages to fill Harry with a lot of complex nuances. I love watching the arc of emotion Welles portrays. Particularly the moments when he feels betrayed or worried. In fact, as the net tightens and Harry gets progressively ruffled you see his fall from grace. The cocky smirker becomes bug eyed, gasping and crawling through a sewer. Its a remarkable journey and you can see what attracted Orson Welles to the part.

The camera also seems to love Welles, with loads of wonderful lingering shots over the enigmatic Harry Lime. But nothing will ever beat the character's introduction. As a light is cast over Lime's smiling face it seems like a two-tiered TA DAH. Firstly... at last! We get to see Harry Lime, the man we've heard so much. But secondly... at last! I was wondering when Orson Welles was appearing. Just look at that moment... he's either channelling some serious smugness with Harry Lime or he knows that he is pretty much the shit.

But the final point, which I'm repeating from earlier, is that even with great acting and a super story, the film's real triumph is how it looks. This is a beautifully shot film. This is not a spoilery scene... but watch the framing in the film's last shot, as Anna Schmidt walks out of the protagonist's life forever....

Beautiful

Have you been drinking?

2011-06-27T13:19:00.000-07:00

No 270 - Moartea Domnului Lazarescu (The Death of Mr Lazarescu)

Director - Cristi Puiu

My knowledge of Romania is not massive, and mainly stems to a 10 day holiday romance with a girl called Jo which I had on a school trip to France aged 17 and a bottle of homebrew which I drank on the same school trip. It looked like Ribena and tasted like meths. The man that gave it to me delivered it with the greatest quote ever.

In our country we drink this in winter to stay warm....
and we drink it in summer.... to stay warm.

Jo taught me that Romanian is surprisingly similar to Italian (enough that she was able to translate an Italian play for me) - that homebrew taught me that Romanians drink savage savage shit. And it is that point which is at the heart of The Death of Mr Lazarescu.

This film is classed as a comedy, and if you get your chuckles from watching an old man slowly die, you are in for a treat! There are some little moments which made me smile (mainly down to the few bearable members of medical staff) but most of this film frustrated me. An old man (older than his years) is ill and is caught in some kind of bureaucratic nightmare as he moved from hospital to hospital and from unit to unit.

Some of these doctors are nice. I particularly like the couple who seem to be involved in the second hospital. I like their shameless and borderline unprofessional flirting and how they get distracted having little domestics. They are a sweet couple and (most importantly) they are worried about Mr Lazarescu. Whereas other hospitals are wrapped up in admin or refuse to treat him as he has alcohol on his lips....

It does paint the Romanian health service in a terrifying light, as it seems very easy for people to just die. Just die.

Now.... I don't want to focus on how much the story annoyed me and how much I wanted to punch some of the doctors throughout. I presume that that was kind of the point. What I wanted to highlight was the amazing performance from Ion Fiscuteanu as the titular Mr Lazarescu. From the start of the film you can see the depth and layers within the character. Here is a man who is clearly unhappy and clearly lonely. He isn't that close to anyone (he has some kind of strained relationship with his brother in law as witnessed in a phone call) apart from the stray cats which he takes in.

But the really impressive nature is that as the film progresses, Lazarescu's health massively deteriorates. What starts as him being obnoxious, becomes a tired, confused and scared man before finally he is just gone. No longer understanding the questions asked of him nor understanding where he is.

This is not a comfortable watch, and despite the occasional smile-inducing moment, there is no way I'd call it a comedy, or even a comedy-drama. It is really a bleak look at bullying doctors, bullshit bureaucracy and the dangers of drinking too much alcohol.

Perfect film for a nice summer's day.

If I could find a souvenir, just to prove the world was here.

2011-06-27T13:01:00.000-07:00

No 294 - Le Ballon Rouge (The Red Balloon)

Director - Albert Lamorisse

This is a short little fantasy tale about a boy who befriends a red balloon and the journey the two go on. Not to be mistaken with Billy's balloon, which was my only prior source of information on this kind of subject.

The relationship with Pascal and his balloon is much sweeter. The boy untangles the balloon from a lamp-post and the balloon subsequently follows Pascal around - much to the annoyance of the adults and jealousy of his peers.

The balloon is an incredible character (and believe me, it is a character) - Firstly, the colour.... compared to the drab greyness of post-war Paris, the balloon seems unreal. A redness so bright that it appears almost CGI. Of course, that's impossible, so it is an impressive feat on the behalf of the film makers. I don't think it is down to lenses either, I just think Paris was a lot greyer back then.

The balloon also seems to emote (certainly, it acts much better than some of the smaller roles throughout) - you get to see a happy balloon, an interested balloon, a scared balloon, a yearning balloon.

It really helps to make a rich relationship between Pascal and his balloon, which means you care about their fate. So the persecution of the balloon becomes really sad to watch.

The film's ending is bittersweet, but after focusing on this beautiful relationship and as it reaches its natural conclusion, we get the final shot. An impressive and utterly beautiful final shot.

So beautiful, that I don't want to ruin it by showing you it. But you can click here to see it.

Zed's dead, baby. Zed's dead

2011-06-19T06:45:00.000-07:00

No 9 - Pulp Fiction

Director - Quentin Tarantino

This is the film that really showcases Tarantino's dialogue (and it is his dialogue which is his true strength). He is very good in situations where he has several stories going on at once - this is a classic example of a successful use of chapter based storytelling, accompanied by incredible performances and a totally boss soundtrack.

If you have to find a central point to the film, it probably falls on Vincent Vega (John Travolta) and Jules Winnfield (Samuel L Jackson) - 2 heavies who work for a mobster called Marsellus Wallace (Ving Rhames). They might not be the protagonist for every chapter (Bruce Willis' boxer Butch also takes the spotlight at times) appear in all of the stories and are pivotal to the tale.

I'm not going to go into detail on all of these chapters, as they have all been assessed to the hilt. However, I just want to talk about a few factors of the film.

This film drips with effortless cool. So effortless that it seems lazy. The film manages to be cool without really trying. This is probably helped by the music throughout (after all - anything would look cool when paired with Neil Diamond.... even though its actually a cover by Urge Overkill in the film). But what is impressive is that elements that shouldn't work at all, end up working. Just look at the picture of John Travolta above - taken from the film's single coolest moment: the twist competition at Jack Rabbit Slims. Firstly, he has lank and greasy slicked back hair and secondly he has the most 90's suit ever seen.... and yet he remains cool.

Same with Jackson, he appears wearing a bloody PERM and yet he still looks too badass for words.

As I've already mentioned, the film's coolest moment is the Twist scene... It manages to be almost nonchalant in the dance, a very cool scene which is now iconic. The nonchalance is important. There are a lot of films out there which are self conscious in their drive to be cool. Obviously Tarantino tries hard to make sure his movies come out as stylish, but it never feels forced. That is an impressive feat and ties me into my next part.

Tarantino has always been lauded for his dialogue, and throughout the film you can see why. The casual conversation occurring through out scenes was pretty revolutionary at the time. Whilst most people discuss the famous Royale with Cheese conversation, I'm much more impressed by Tim Roth and Amanda Plummer's conversation about the intricacies of bank robbery. It is all discussed in a matter of fact and straightforward manner. He also manages to make believable characters with distinctive voices.

Whether it is Fabienne's stilted dialogue with her adorable use of words or L Jackson and Rhames speaking with distinctively 'black' dialogue (whatever the hell that means). He also knows how to lift his quotes. Is there anything more chilling then L Jackson quoting the bible?(then again, he can say anything and sound badass)

There are some moments which don't quite work (Christopher Walken will never be a convincing kindly child friendly character), but the worst is Tarantino himself with his character of Jimmy. A man who grates throughout (I'm not a fan of Tarantino's voice or delivery and find him jarring in every one of his cameos) but who mainly makes me feel uncomfortable through his excessive use of the N word (a word which is liberally used throughout the film, but notably only by black characters). By having Jimmy use it so casually (rather than as a racist insult) it leaves a strange taste in my mouth and is the only part of the film which draws me out of the world.

This is a dark film. A film which successfully shows drug use (and subsequent overdose). Shows an awful lot of violence and an awful lot of abuse. Yet, The Simpsons decide to parody a dark film's darkest moment. Where two men are gagged and bound in order to be subsequently tortured, raped and (it is hinted) killed by a redneck, Dorien Tyrell and a gimp.

It is such an odd choice for a Simpsons reference. What the fuck?!

Throughout the film we spend time with Wallace, the true central crux of the film and a mysterious (and possibly paranormal?) thread throughout it all. After all.... why has Wallace got a plaster on the back of his neck? What is in the suitcase?

Quite the mystery...

A fabulous fabulous film.

What happened between Mrs. Robinson and me was nothing. It didn't mean anything. We might just as well have been shaking hands.

2011-06-11T08:11:00.000-07:00

No 62 - The Graduate

Director - Mike Nichols

I give up trying to apologise for the recent lax behaviour on this blog. My life has got distressingly hectic and LoveFilm are sending me all sorts of fascinating films which are decidedly NON-LIST. But I'm keeping at it.... and will continue here. Have no fear.

There are a lot of nice little bits I wish to talk about in The Graduate. The beautiful soundtrack, for example and that I really love The Sound of Silence, even after hearing a hundred times over the film.

The Sound of Silence by Simon and Garfunkle - just beautiful

Then there is the great acting. Namely, the two central roles.

I am a massive fan of Dustin Hoffman. He pretty much makes every thing he is in better. Whether its a serious role, what seems like a cash in, or just a cheeky cameo.... he is brilliant. No exception here. Ben is a great character. A bundle of nerves and angst, filled with worry and self loathing. He stays utterly fascinating and believable throughout. Not only that, but as you watch his mannerisms, and listen to how he speaks, you realise that he may have been influential to a certain long lasting comedy:

Hoffman's Ben works brilliantly against the icy cool Mrs Robinson, played marvellously (and at times terrifyingly) by Anne Bancroft. At its heart is a story of love, lust, emptiness, confusion and self loathing. All of these emotions are made brilliant clear through the work of one man:

Surtees, as cinematographer, managed to shoot the film in a way that makes every frame a screen shot. Shots which convey loneliness far more elegantly than any monologue could. From the beautiful, simple title sequence through to the end, each shot is a delight. Shots which show anger, passion, betrayal, despair and shots which are just incredibly iconic.

A film which is just beautiful to look at.

You want to explain the math of this to me? I mean, where's the sense in risking the lives of the eight of us to save one guy?

2011-05-31T07:10:00.000-07:00

No 156 - Saving Private Ryan

Director - Steven Spielberg

Saving Private Ryan is known (and really, is remembered) for one thing. One epic battle on the shores of Omaha Beach in Normandy. It is so ingrained as THE memory of the film that it eclipses everything else. I was so convinced that this was how the film truly began that I was surprised to see a little old James Ryan shuffle along to the Normandy American cemetery and Memorial. But it is old Ryan which bookends the film (indeed the fade out at the end from young Ryan to old is masterful) before we hit the full horrors of war.

The opening sequence is incredible. Shaky cameras which seem to be documenting evidence rather than filming fiction, mud, blood, entrails and futility are all captured on screen. It is deliberately chaotic, the camera almost seems like an additional character as it looks around the beach trying to find moments of action to focus in on. Throughout this mess we lose track of characters and can barely hear what is being shouted over the bombs and blasts. But that is not the point. This is not there to boost a character arc or to progress the plot. This is there for one reason. It shows you that war is a horrible brutal place and it shows you just how fragile and fleeting life can be. In that job, it succeeds triumphantly. It is a tough and painful bit of cinema - incredibly visceral, and unnerving in how 'in your face' it all is. It stands alone (and it is, really, separate from the rest of the film) and should be watched. Or.... experienced.

Only after subjecting us to a good 15 minutes of brutal warfare do we begin to actually mention the plot and the strange ruling which sees Tom Hanks and a small unit sent to rescue Private James Ryan (a point which is contested throughout the film) - during this, the group coincide with other groups performing their own missions and we get to see a barrage of familiar faces. Spielberg putting together a marvellous (and somewhat surreally diverse) cast.

Ted Danson?!

Daniel from Lost?

Vin Diesel in a role written specifically for him?!

The main focus though (and the drive of the film) is the relationship between the soldiers as they suffer in a horrible situation - a theme Spielberg continues to explore in Band of Brothers and The Pacific. The film really allows the characters to breathe and shows a depth and three-dimensional nature which still isn't massively common in films. See the way they struggle with their morality and their hatred of the Nazis. Rather big themes are lightly touched as parts of the war, rather than parts of the story. I for one found the scene in which Goldberg's Stanley Mellish declares his Jewish faith to the German POWs very powerful. For him, this is more than just a job. This is a battle against people which have persecuted and vilified everything that he stands for. This is a moral quest for justice. Yet, the film never expands on it... it is just part of the day to day nature of the war.

The film continues in this way.... setting up minor events which test and explore the group's characters until we come to the major event of meeting the titular James Ryan and one last big action scene. It is a film which doesn't shy away from death but which also tackles some interesting, and far tougher, themes such as survivors guilt.

A big and powerful film, which I'm going to undermine by linking to an Adam and Joe sketch:

Blessed be the one who sits down.

2011-05-23T08:23:00.000-07:00

No 213 - Songs from the Second Floor

Director - Roy Andersson

It takes a good 30 minutes before anything bordering a narrative structure creeps into Songs from the Second Floor. Initially it seems that we're dealing with sketches. Returning characters with their own returning issues. Weird little middle aged members of middle management and their weird little life problems. The scenes don't seem particularly linked. We watch a magician fail to saw a man in half and that man subsequently be rushed to hospital. We see a man get fired and beg for his job. We see a man get viciously attacked as he searches for someone. The scenes seem barely interlinked, ranging from the weird staccato delivery of Lynch at his most inaccessible to the weirdness of Monty Python.

And yet, as the film progresses, you realise that there is something happening. It may not be a story in any shape or form, but it is still a cinematic study and something very beautiful. There are scenes which are massively symbolic, The traffic which hasn't moved for hours as everyone is going the same way (and later the mass of people struggling with their baggage) is a sign of our own progress, likewise the old people sacrificing youth and still not getting what they want... it all seems to have a massive message of the futility and shallowness of our own times. How our common quest for progress leaves us standing still. How we destroy the young to get something... some gain.

How we sell hope and beliefs for a cheap buck.

Whilst this sounds very bleak, bare in mind that this is only MY interpretations, and the film itself is darkly funny and at times incredibly beautiful. Songs from the Second Floor revels in the mundanity in which these surreal exchanges and events take place. A suburban dystopian nightmare. But ones where there are moments of utter beauty.

I want to focus on two moments - both of which are musical. Its the music which really makes these moments shine. But it is also the simple, understated way in which they're presented. For me, the most incredible moment was the 'Silent Song' - an operatic frame within a commuter train service.

It is just a lovely moment. The second moment is when one of the characters plays the recorder with his girlfriend. Again... it is simple, and beautiful.

The film claims to be a filmic representation of poetry by César Vallejo - and there is much talk of poetry, and many repeated lines throughout. I have to admit, I don't know the fella's poems so I can't really comment. What I can say is that the film is haunting, beautiful, at times hilarious and always always perplexing.

Basically this is everything I hoped The Temptation of St Tony was going to be when I sat down to watch it. I was severely disappointed by old Tones. So this was a welcome joy when it comes to surrealist cinema.

Do you even know why you're supposed to kill me? Look at us. Look at what they make you give.

2011-05-18T01:44:00.000-07:00

No 234 - The Bourne Ultimatum

Director - Paul Greengrass

Yes... we've reached Bourne Three, thus allowing me to start the blog on an EXCELLENT musical pun. Thank you.

Much in the same way that Bond always begins straight in the middle of the action, with a mission that's not been followed from the start, so to does this Bourne adventure begin straight in the middle of a pursuit.

You have to feel sorry for Bourne. All he wants is to live a quiet life and slowly piece his identity together and he's always being chased. It doesn't even matter how many shady government agencies he topples - he remains on the most wanted list of almost every police force in the world. So here he is - broken, battered and bruised - on the run from the police. Same old, same old. Somehow he escapes and he makes it to lovely old London.

So, what is it causing the shit to hit the fan this time? Its none other than Paddy Considine. This time we get our third mysterious government program - Blackbriar, and it seems that the Bourne trilogy has finally got to the centre of what happened to its protagonist. There are lots of little touches within this film that also show how Bourne has developed. He has always been a badass, destroying squads of police with nothing but a biro. But here, he is navigating the entire CCTV system of London Waterloo as well as protecting a civilian from an entire crack squad of government agents working for Blackbriar - the big bad, the heart of all Black Ops.

It is otherwise business as usual for the film. We get a lot of running around. We get a car chase and many a fight scene and we get a look at a government agency that can essentially access and manipulate anything in the world. It is a conspiracy theorist dream.

However, there is a new addition to the film - and it is something that seems to have become a legal requirement for modern action films. Ever since Parkour exploded into the UK, it has appeared in almost every film. A foot chase isn't a foot chase unless you're leaping off walls, through windows and landing on perilous little ledges. Action sequences don't count unless you've got people jumping off buildings these days

Ultimatum mostly takes place between the penultimate and final scenes of Supremacy... building around the idea of Bourne finding his real name and remembering everything. It is the film where (at last.....) Bourne gets a bit of support as previous characters realise that maybe he isn't hunting them down. Maybe they should help him.

There are echoes of the first two films which sit nicely within the film and don't take the audience out of the story. The question asked in this blog's title is asked by Bourne but was initially a statement from Clive Owen's The Professor. Albert Finney takes on Brian Cox's mantle of the crotchety old man at the heart of the operation and the final shot is a glorious subversion of the first film's opening shot.

Even Moby has been tweaked about and reissued when we fade out to Moby

Incidentally.... there is talk of a 4th film. The Bourne Legacy. It will be starring Jeremy Renner and it wouldn't actually feature Bourne. This sounds like risky business if ever I've seen it.

The moment you got into her car. The moment you entered her life, she was dead.

2011-05-18T00:59:00.000-07:00

No 454 - The Bourne Supremacy

Director - Paul Greengrass

Things ended on a happy ending for Bourne.... but this is a trilogy of paranoid action thrillers, and so despite the BIG BAD being resolved at the end of Identity, it is time for a new government agency to be out hunting Bourne.

This time, Bourne is tackling a far bigger problem. Not only is he still trying to piece together his memories and sense of self (though warped and blurry flashbacks show he's beginning to remember) - but he's also been framed for a fair amount of murder.

So we're back on familiar ground. As Bourne runs away confused, chased by an agency who think Bourne is after them. When really all he wants is a quiet life.

The first thing that's clear from this sequel is that there is a new director on board. Gone are the slower more paranoid shots and in are quick edits, jittery cameras and a state of CONSTANT FUCKING TENSION

This new visual style makes for a far more frantic film and is the style which became a staple of how to make a modern, exciting, action film. Other - more established - action franchises duly took note. However, the issue which stems from is that action sequences become a lot more difficult to follow. Gone are the long lingering shots of Matt Damon stalking Clive Owen through the grass, and instead we get split second shots which change before you can fully register whats going on. It makes the whole experience of watching a film far more tiring. But, saying that,

the car chase where Bourne is in a taxi is probably one of the most dramatic and exhilarating car chases I have seen in a film.

So what else is there to comment on? Well lets look at the good news. Julia Stiles is back and she ACTUALLY HAS SOMETHING TO DO! Yes, this time Nicky is dragged back into action and she gets to actually do stuff as well as get right in the thick of a very tense interview with Bourne.

But there is more, because hidden in the shadows of the new agency (fronted by Joan Allen in fabulous 'no shit important person' mode as Pamela Landy) is none other than Michelle Monaghan. She may have very little to do in this film, but it is always a delight to see her in a film.

At the core of this film though is a man who realises he has done terrible things in his past. He is trying to write those wrongs, whilst the government he worked for still believe he is as ruthless and as deadly as he ever was. There are some touching moments, when Bourne goes to visit the children of his former victims to apologise.

Whilst the first film was all about the paranoia of not knowing who you are, this film is more about trying to right your past misdeeds. It allows Damon to relax into the role and helps create richer, more rounded characters.

Hell... by the end we even know Bourne's real name.

Fade out to Moby

You're a malfunctioning $30 million weapon. You're a total goddamn catastrophe, and by God, if it kills me, you're going to tell me how this happened.

2011-05-17T01:37:00.001-07:00

No 365 - The Bourne Identity

Director - Doug Liman

The concept of an unreliable protagonist, one with amnesia, is nothing new. It runs the risk of feeling a bit like a lazy plot development in order to hide things from the viewer. However, when done well it allows the film to explore themes of identity, of self and of ethics. Which sounds pretty deep for a bash people up action film.

When we meet Bourne he is left for dead and has no memory of who or what he is. And so the film sets a wonderful little mystery as Bourne tries to figure out his name and his identity through a series of clues and chases.

Throughout this we have a dodgy secret agency run by Brian Cox's Ward Abbott but mainly managed by Chris Cooper's Conklin. They believe that Bourne knows everything and is trying to punish them for their past misdeeds (past misdeeds which remain hidden from us and from Bourne). They believe Bourne must be killed.

We also have Bourne's former quarry, Adewale Akinnouye-Agbaje (or Mr Eko as he will remain to me) out to get vengeance on the failed assassination attempt. It all sets up a messy series of chases, fight scenes and shootouts.

The film embraces this sense of being constantly followed and creates a really paranoid atmosphere. The camera hangs around for fairly long takes, or sticks close to Bourne. Meaning we don't always get to see the whole picture and are forever looking for the hitmen which are just out of shot. Saying that.... the hitmen out to get Bourne are barely subtle.

It is alluded that Bourne is the best of the best and as we watch him effortlessly take down whole teams of lesser foes armed with nothing but a biro, it does certainly feel that way. And yet, Bourne's assassins just leap around blazing machine guns and smashing through windows. Hardly subtle.

No wonder Bourne permanently eludes them.

There is one exception to the rule... The Professor - an agent, much like Bourne, played by Clive Owen. Their fight is played in long grass with a gentle questioning camera which searches the landscape for anything unusual, anything moving. The whole scene is incredibly tense, but mainly because we're waiting for something to happen, for one of these two deadly assassins to slip up. It's a great bit of cinema.

Its also good that Clive Owen has something to actually do. For most of the film he is just seen standing around, silent. Much the same fate belies Julia Stiles, who here gets to show off her full range of standing around AND sitting at a computer. But doesn't really get to do all that much. I'm not sure if they knew that there'd be sequels by then, or that Stile's character Nicky would have more to do.... if not then its a bit of a shit role for Stiles.

There are some great themes being played here, but the one at the heart of the film seems to be the (quite paranoid) idea that there are massive American agencies which can access everything and which can seriously fuck you up. In fact, the most chilling part of the whole film is how Cox's Abbott manages to dismiss the entire project (including the serious repercussions) to his management. He dismisses it as a training experiment deemed to costly for use and everyone nods and lets it go.

Forgetting the dozens (or potentially hundreds) of corpses which are left, and forgetting one seriously pissed off super-assassin

Fade out to Moby....

Now here come two words for you: Shut the fuck up.

2011-05-15T04:48:00.000-07:00

No 317 - Midnight Run

Director - Martin Brest

I have decided I don't like having a job anymore. Specially not one which goes mental busy for 2 or 3 weeks at a time. 2011 has been pretty shocking when it comes to film watching and blog updating. I promise to rectify this as much as I can.

Lets crack on

Midnight Run had me hooked from the moment the awesome score and '90's sitcom' style title credits came up (about 2min30 through here) - but then, it grabbed me either further, with music by Danny Elfman. But this music is different to the standard Danny Elfman fare (which stems from his Tim Burton work but is now in most of the scores that he does). I mean just listen to it!

Danny Elfman - Midnight Run Score Suite

So, we have something which sounds zippy and funky (from an unexpected source) and which sets the tone for this film. A film which is really both a buddy movie and an utterly farcical chase. This was back in the 80's when De Niro could be really funny without falling into terrible self parody:

Here, he plays on familiar ground. His Jack is a pent up aggressive wise guy with a dirty dirty poop mouth - playing the role with the same intensity that is there in his more serious films, but allowing the smart alec within Jack to really shine.

His character manages to share some great scenes and there is some excellent dialogue shared with Yaphet Kotto's FBI agent or with Joe Pantoliano's fabulously '80's Eddie Moscone.

The plot is simple. Jack has 5 days to retrieve a fugitive and bring him back to LA. Over the course of these 5 days, an ever growing and ever confusing list of other parties try and also get the fugitive.

This means we end up with manic chase sequences, moving from planes, trains and automobiles. It sets up some excellent set pieces and makes for a film which is really quite amusing. But where it shines are the little moments which change tone. After all, if this was just a madcap chase movie we'd end up with a far inferior product.... What we also get, is a pretty deep buddy relationship.

De Niro's Jack spends most of the film handcuffed to Grodin's John Mardukas. Despite Jack being in the top 3 bounty hunters I've seen, he clearly has issues, he clearly needs help from the far more peaceful Mardukas. As Jack tries to get his money, John seems to try and better Jack's complicated (and pretty sad) life.

Its those more sober moments, when the two genuinely bond, which are the film's strength. These moments of tenderness and the gentle unchipping of Jack's tough rough persona lie at the heart of everything, and make the complex tying up of plot strings into something really satisfying. Without ruining the awesome fun of the madcap moments throughout it all.

Bloody good film

They say that the best weapon is the one you never have to fire. I respectfully disagree. I prefer the weapon you only have to fire once.

2011-04-27T00:56:00.000-07:00

No 406 - Iron Man

Director - John Favreau

Let us begin with the clear cold facts. Robert Downey Jr is perfect as Tony Stark. He is a great character, with superb dialogue and he manages to get cracking performances from the cast around him.

The film zips along and the dialogue crackles and the whole thing leaves me with a massive smile on my face. This is Downey Jr at his most wise ass and his most ego - inflated.

Look at him, he's one second away from declaring himself the Messiah. And that's why he's so fun to watch. He is a hard drinking, hard partying, beast of a man. Who has come from a world where he isn't held responsible for anything he does.

If I could do anything, as a job, I would opt to be a billionaire playboy. So Stark makes excellent viewing.

Which brings us to the first major problem with this Iron Man film. Large chunks of the film (though not as large as the sequel) have Robert Downey Jr replaced with a clinking clunking piece of CGI. This is the rare superhero film, where the superhero is infinitely more dull than the hidden identity.

Thankfully, this film is the first one - so, as an origin story we get a lot of Stark. From his initial, terribly arrogant, terribly fab, introduction in the Middle East - to his LOLtastic shaky video tests of his Iron Man gear.

But we also get the film's second massive flaw. The film's tone is all over the place. Stark is hilarious, and the Iron Man tone is campy and fun and flamboyant, as is Marvel's wont (whilst both films deal with Billionaire playboys using ridiculous gadgets to counter their lack of powers, this is as far from Nolan's Batman as you can possibly get whilst in the same genre) - however, there are some really dark elements.

The film's pre-title sequence brilliantly (and edgily) introduces Stark as a smooth talking bastard and then sees him kidnapped by anonymous Middle Eastern terrorists. It is a shock ending to the scene and it works brilliantly, Stark's happy world is quickly shattered. It is not an easy trick to pull off. And we see this because the film fails to pull it off ever again. The scenes of torture, massacre and corruption jar massively with the superhero theatrics and tech fetishism which happens throughout the rest of the film.

In one sequence we watch families get ripped apart and roadside executions, which ends with some 'oooh ah' theatrics and a bit of 'cool guys don't look at explosions'

And while I'm a fan of both edgy drama and shameless popcorn entertainment, I don't think they sit that well together in the same film. Let alone the same scene.

My final point is the burden of most Superhero origin films - the villain. The film is focusing so much on the origin, that the villain feels like an after thought. In Iron Man's defence, this is not really the case. Jeff Bridges' Obadiah Stane is a fabulous corrupt business man. He has some great scenes where he seems to be enjoying chewing the scenery with malice and intent. What we had was the potential for an interesting film about redemption. Stark discovers the underhand dealings of his company and fights against his corrupt CEO whilst using the Iron Man equipment to right the wrongs which are being acted out in his name, with his weaponry.

That would have controversially pushed Iron man into a side plot, but would have allowed two amazing actors to spar off one another (and every scene Downey Jr shares with Bridges is a delight) instead of replacing them with boring CGI robots.

My final points

Jarvis is amazing! If I was programming an omnipresent computer butler - I would definitely make him camp and English (not saying that Bettany is particularly camp... but Jarvis sure the hell is).
SHIELD and Agent Coulson are in this film just the right amount (ie - hardly at all)
The Hugh Heffner joke is the best Stan Lee cameo yet.
Gwyneth Paltrow's performance (as the insanely named Pepper Potts) is also brilliant but didn't fit into the general ranting of this blog.

It's hard for many people to believe that there are extraordinary things inside themselves, as well as others. I hope you can keep an open mind.

2011-04-26T13:47:00.000-07:00

No 452 - Unbreakable

Director - M Night Shyamalan

I'M BACK!!!

I'm so sorry people. I've been busy. Bloody busy. Caught up on all those award winning films that I missed and was also introduced to Indian cinema (not Bollywood though....)

IMPORTANT BREAK BEFORE UNBREAKABLE POST

Watch ROBOT..... it is insane

It is genius.

So....

Unbreakable. Think back to when Shyamalan was fresh and exciting. Here he has given us a wonderful idea. Placing the superhero concept into the real world. Only, PROPERLY in the real world. We're not talking about Batman Begins.... we're not talking about Kick Ass... we're talking about the actual real world, where a superhero probably wouldn't even realise they had special powers.

The film follows that journey of discovery as Willis' David Dunn slowly learns what his powers are. The moments of discovery are almost all universally great. Whether the grand scale of the train crash at the heart of it, or the subtlety of Dunn's realisation that he's never been ill. They're beautifully underplayed. Subtle and elegant (a characteristic which is lost in later Shyamalan films.... though I do have a soft spot for Lady in the Water). The highlight, for me, being the moment he is with his son - bench pressing and simultaneously learning of his strength. It has a joyful playfulness throughout and the way that the initial concern fades to delight.

The journey has pitfalls throughout, and there are some really tense scenes which I don't want to spoil - but the hero worship from Dunn's son, and the problems which arise, are very powerful cinematic moments.

Despite this journey of discovery being the crux of the film, Dunn seems like a very one dimensional character. Only a one dimensional character with cool powers. The real focus, should be on Samuel L Jackson's Elijah Price. Brittle boned, bitter and the film's link to the comic book world which inspired it.

His character is fleshed out through flashbacks. It is his persistence and his research which drives Dunn's journey and therefore you need to know what makes him tick. As the film progresses (and reaches the traditional SHOCK reveal), that understanding and knowledge becomes all the more important.

The other thing that's important to notice is that despite everything (and Price is a bitter, sulky, grumpy little crippled man) - Samuel L Jackson still comes off looking like a total badass.

Seriously.... I think that man is impervious to uncool.

The film is at its best when Jackson is there. Manipulating events and forcing Dunn to question himself, and for the most part, he keeps the film fresh and fascinating.

However, the film isn't ALL about discovery.... once the action kicks in it does lose its ways a bit, but there are still the same nice touches which have been throughout. It could have just done with being about 20min shorter.

Right - I'm going to watch more films with The Superstar Rajni now.... The man is like a God out there.

All I need to make a comedy is a park, a policeman and a pretty girl.

2011-04-02T01:52:00.000-07:00

No 342 - The Gold Rush

Director - Charles Chaplin

This is the 1942 re-release of the 1925 original (seriously.... 1925! This film is 86 years old!!!) - and so rather than being fully silent we have an updated musical score (which includes Tchaikovsky's Sleeping Beauty - which confused me) and an OTT and plumby narration from Chaplin himself. In fact, Chaplin is a one man force of creation, writing the script as well as most of the music, producing, directing, starring and editing the film.

Whilst the narration does get a bit annoying at times, it doesn't stop what is a very enjoyable and incredibly sweet film.

The physical comedy is nowhere near as dangerous as the stunts performed by Keaton or by Lloyd - but where Chaplin really triumphs is in the amazing way he emotes. His facial expressions are beautiful. For the first half, it is primarily a sort of blissful ignorance, whether famously eating a shoe - or whether in great peril. The comedy is more subtle - Though there are moment in which the physicality of the time comes into play. Particularly during the time where the house is blown away.... but also when they start going mad and hallucinating...

But there is more to the Gold Rush than mere LOLS. I want to look at another famous scene from the film - the bread roll dance. Taken out of context, it may seem funny - but in the film it is a moment in which he is wooing the girl he loves. There is a lot more to it.

The delivery of that odd little dance is superb. The way that it is carried off with a casual nonchalance. But, for me, the real power is the yearning in his eyes. Whether it is supposed to be a part of the dance, or whether it is an attempt to get the recognition he craves from the girl he loves, I'm not sure... but it makes that routine both incredible and heartbreaking.

I suppose that's the thing about Chaplin. He was famously soppy, and this film is unforgivingly sentimental - and at the same time there is a bitter sadness throughout the whole thing.

But it does have an uncomfortable moral that Women will only want to be with you if you're minted

I always thought the joy of reading a book is not knowing what happens next.

2011-04-02T01:18:00.000-07:00

No 173 - Memento

Director - Christopher Nolan

I know that I have waxed lyrical about Christopher Nolan before - but I do think he has a very impressive track record of creating intelligent (and financially successful) films - we need more directors to play that line between success and intelligence. After all the cinematic market is based around rehashing the same ideas (watch this INCREDIBLE video by Kirby Ferguson - then check out his incredible site), so any new ideas should be embraced and celebrated. This is a film that is going to be hard to describe without ruining it. And I really don't want to ruin it.... however, it is also a film full of joyous moments.

Whats more impressive is how simple these moments are - even the simplicity of opening the film with a death, in reverse, is a glorious, beautiful WTF moment.

The entire story is then told in snapshots, working backwards, to tell the story of how Leonard got to this point.

It is a clever concept and it works really well. Of course, it should go without saying that ALL IS NOT AS IT SEEMS!

What is interesting is that we have a film in which character arcs and standard progression are all subverted, the things that make use relate to a character, or enjoy a film, are twisted and turned. It's as if Nolan is deliberately mocking our need for identification with the fictional characters in front of us. Not only is the film told backwards (meaning we meet people at the end of their narrative arc and watch them regress rather than progress) - but the film's hero doesn't have an arc. He can never have an arc as he can't remember anything - therefore his character can hardly evolve.

the only exception to this is the story of Sammy Jankis (played by the wonderful Stephen Tobolowsky) who appears in flashbacks, and who's story is told in a linear pattern. Sammy's story has to make sense as he suffers the same illness as our hero. Understanding Sammy's condition means that we'll understand Leonard.

Leonard becomes even easier to understand when we realise that he has his entire motivation (hell, the entire film's plot) - inked onto his body.

These tattoos are constant reminders of what is happening and what he needs to do. I find this kind of thing fascinating. Using tattoos to help you form a plan - its like series 1 of Prison Break, before it tried to get bigger and weirder and not about the initial plan anymore:

What's really interesting, is how easy it is for these things to be distorted, to be manipulated. Leonard discusses the problem with memories:

Memory can change the shape of a room; it can change the color of a car. And memories can be distorted. They're just an interpretation, they're not a record, and they're irrelevant if you have the facts.

But he suffers from the exact same issue. If he can't remember, he relies on notes - and notes, whether on temporary and on paper or permanently scarred on your body, can be manipulated. That is probably the message at the heart of the film.

And on that note I best end. I won't talk about the happy Matrix reunion between Trinity and Cypher - or the glorious inclusion of Callum Keith Rennie - because I already fear I'm getting too close to spoiler territory.

So go watch it, and prepare to be surprised by some great revelations.

Then, once you've seen it, find the special feature that lets you watch it in chronological order, and prepare for one of the most hopeless examinations on the futility of progress and the hopelessness of life.

Those girls... those girls don't wanna go messin' round no old house!

2011-04-02T00:22:00.000-07:00

No 199 - The Texas Chainsaw Massacre

Director - Tobe Hooper

The best way to understand the tone of this film is to have the DVD menu on loop for a while as you try and make a phone conversation. Eventually, the discordant tones and horrible noise will make you so unnerved that you have to stop talking and actually watch the film. Just to make the menu stop...

This is a film which celebrates making the viewer feel wrong. A film which shows plenty of violence, but little to no gore, and a film which implies the majority of its cruelty - and yet, despite the fairly tame actions which actually take place on scree, it manages to make you feel very uncomfortable.

I thought it was a wonderful film. Mesmerising. But I will gladly never watch it again.

The film's strength is in the villains, and indeed for the first part of the film, as we follow our victims... sorry, heroes, the film does drag. We have the usual mix of pretty people (though they are delightfully 70's, and a whining man in a wheelchair who seems almost as sinister as the people they're running from).

As this is up there with Halloween and Psycho as one of the earliest slasher movies (even taking the same source as Psycho for inspiration) - it is amazing how many traits of the film are now cliches (though saying that, the one survivor only breaks one of the rules of surviving horror movies) - the group pick up hitchhikers and wander from one creepy abandoned looking house to the next.

It is only a matter of time before they is killed.

Where the film shines is with Leatherface. Far from being the unstoppable one dimensional force of other slasher villains, here our villain is drenched in story, in character and in an amazing amount of pathos. There is something much scarier about the fact that Leatherface is clearly mentally unstable and being manipulated by other, more evil, brothers. It reminds me of another great cinematic family in which a strong simpleton is manipulated by his brothers.

However, Leatherface never gets his moment of rebellion - and probably lacks the strength to escape the clutches of his family too much.

I'm not trying to paint him as a complete innocent, wrapped up with a bad bunch, not at all - but there are moments which show how difficult it must be for Leatherface. Particularly the moment where he goes and sits by himself after killing the first two victims. Their deaths were messy, violent and somewhat horrific - and he performs them with a clinical accuracy, but his reaction to it is one of pained fear. He is upset that people keep wandering into his home and interrupting his (admittedly twisted) way of life - he isn't murdering just for fun, he is protecting his home and his own way of life.

I'm not sure what happens with the sequels, and how badly the remake fucks it up, but certainly in this film it paints Leatherface as a far deeper and more interesting villain.

The film's best moments all take place in Leatherface's home. A palace of death. The invention and the design behind it all is so impressive. It also shows how you can easily make something very very disturbing on a low budget - just with a shit load of well placed bones.

The film's most disturbing moment comes when Sally is captured and introduced to the rest of Leatherface's family over dinner. This includes his two brothers (both at different points on the descent to full whacked insanity) and their nearly dead grandfather - surely inspiration for the costumes of Trash humpers.

Again, nothing really HAPPENS on screen - in fact the whole scene is built on the grandfather being too weak to be able to kill anymore.... however, the tension and the atmosphere in the scene is unbearable. Sally's screams mix with the laughs of the family - on top of that the industrial sound design continues for far too long. By the end the audience is begging for anything - even the death of the protagonist - to stop the tortuous scene unfolding.

And THAT is the sign of a successful horror film.

Don't talk to me unless you speak American!

2011-03-24T15:48:00.000-07:00

No 460 - Crash

Director - Paul Haggis

I think this film is trying to tell us something.... however, it was so subtle I couldn't figure it out!

HAHA

I made a joke.....

So.... Paul Haggis has toyed with the concepts of moving to America before, and whilst he might not have gone in as much detail in the past. He was certainly more subtle and more enjoyable.

Now... don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily think Crash is a bad film. Neither do I want to belittle its message - the inherent racism in people is an important topic to tackle... Just that it is far too po faced and heavy handed.

It meant that some of the messages got lost. One of the main victims of this was Anthony, played by Ludacris. His tirades about racism were SO serious that it felt farcical.

It meant that although I was hearing this:

Look around! You couldn't find a whiter, safer or better lit part of this city. But this white woman sees two black guys, who look like UCLA students, strolling down the sidewalk and her reaction is blind fear. I mean, look at us! Are we dressed like gang-bangers? Huh? No. Do we look threatening? No. Fact, if anybody should be scared around here, it's us: We're the only two black faces surrounded by a sea of over-caffeinated white people, patrolled by the triggerhappy LAPD. So you tell me, why aren't we scared?

All I could really see was this:

Which I doubt is what Paul Haggis had in mind.

It is also a shame that so many of the characters seem quite one dimensional. Its a double shame because the film has such an immense cast who are essentially squandered on very slight characters handling weighty themes.

The issue is compounded when Haggis uses such immense Deus Ex Machina to try and resolve these issues or show redemption for the characters.

Some work.... Sandra Bullock's slow realisation of herself is well played and quite moving. Whilst some, like Matt Dillon's redemption, smack of a script leaning too much on coincidence.

And I love Michael Peña's story line, but most because it panders to the sickeningly saccharine romantic hiding underneath my bitter exterior. My only issue is that his strand directly involves Shaun Toub's shop keeper, a man who I found infuriating throughout (I suppose that was the point).

There are just too many stories and they don't slot together with the neatness of... say... Magnolia.

I feel bad criticising the film, because I do think that what it is saying is true. That deep down we are all a bit mistrusting of people different to ourselves, no matter how much we know it is wrong or unjustified.

However, watching this film feels a bit like you have been repeatedly hit round the head with a placard stating that fact.

When you could just listen to this.....

It does the same, and it's funnier.

We're not a respectable network. We're a whorehouse network, and we have to take whatever we can get.

2011-03-24T15:16:00.000-07:00

No 100 - Network

Director - Sidney Lumet

Bloody hell, one entry a week! I'm being rubbish beyond belief at the mo! Must pick up the pace here or I'll never finish the list.

Network is an interesting film - It is probably one of the blackest of black comedies I have ever seen, to the extent that for a lot of it I wasn't sure whether it WAS a comedy or not.... I have also lost my notes for it so will go from what i remember.

What I mostly remember is Peter Finch's incredible performance as Howard Beale. A man who's complete mental breakdown is manipulated and broadcast to the masses. It seems strangely topical, as I couldn't help but watch his impassioned rants without thinking how eerily reminiscent it was of similar situation happening right now:

Beale remains an amazing and captivating character. His rants are amazing and clearly the highlight of the film.

All of the film's great moments stem from these rants. We see the TV companies not knowing how to react. On one level he is breaking all the rules of the TV Network... on the other hand he is getting ratings. Massive ratings.

And this is where the dark comedy comes into play. As one man's life, and fragile mental state, is massively abused and manipulated just for ratings.

The show gets more elaborate, the show's budget gets higher.... but the rants stay the same. And it is that performance that keeps us watching.

Oh sure.... there are some other things.

Robert Duvall is a bad man who plays god over TV

William Holden has an affair with Faye Dunaway - a character who is hilariously unable to view anything without putting it into a TV Synopsis

There is some political thing going on that seems pointless for most of the film and still only feels like it was a tacked on subplot to make the ending work.

But if you compare them to the central story of Beale.... they just merge into annoying distractions keeping Peter Finch off the screen.

For a film which manages to paint a brilliant, scathing picture of Television. And for one of the best breakdowns I've seen in film, Network is DEFINITELY worth a watch

"In this world, Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant." Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. You may quote me

2011-03-16T14:20:00.000-07:00

No 129 - Harvey

Director - Henry Koster

Never before has a blog quote basically explained the whole film. Because James Steward's Elwood is one of the nicest human beings ever put on film.

He seems to glide through life in a beautiful naive and friendly haze. He manages to be utterly unassuming, utterly approachable and yet bulletproof. No one seems to be able to take advantage of this man's delightful demeanour.

What I found most interesting (besides Frank Skinner doing the music.... not the same one I presume) was the ambiguousness with which they portray Harvey.

There are some little touches which are played near the start, which help to keep it hidden whether he is real or not - I noticed near the start a lovely moment as the scene cuts just before Elwood and Harvey pick up their drinks.

So we never know whether 1 or 2 drinks are drunk. Incidentally, I love that they sit in little old man pubs and drink martinis. It is such a weird juxtaposition. Or maybe it was a more common drink in the '50's.

Gradually as the film progresses, it becomes clearer whether Harvey is a figment of Elwood's imagination or whether he is 'real' (the explanation Elwood gives is that Harvey is a Pooka).

However... despite Elwood's questionable sanity, he remains the straight man in a film which embodies the classic farce structure and which is filled with mistakes, misdirection and mistaken identities. It also seems entirely populated by frantic and hysterical nutjobs. Special mention has to go to Elwood's sister Veta. A woman so annoying and so utterly selfish and stubborn (she basically wants Elwood institutionalised so she can have parties without him embarrassing her) that I spent the whole film wanting her to get her comeuppance. However this is a nice film and has to end happily, but in the hurry to end thusly, I found Veta's change of heart a bit rushed.

To be honest, most of the subplots feel quite slight and rushed - the romances in particular, just seem to happen with no real explanation (although at least Dr Sanderson and Nurse Kelly get a back story hinted at).

Luckily though, old Jimmy Stewart is fantastic. his performance is so delightfully light and frothy and perfectly, hysterically, timed. It really feels like he has a sparkling dialogue going on, even though we can only hear one side of the conversation.

Whilst Stewart is effortless to watch, where he really shines is where he begins to talk about his relationship with Harvey, and where - for one brief moment - that happy go lucky veneer fades away and you see a man who is quite sad. Either with himself, or with the state of the world.

Harvey and I sit in the bars... have a drink or two... play the juke box. And soon the faces of all the other people they turn toward mine and they smile. And they're saying, "We don't know your name, mister, but you're a very nice fella." Harvey and I warm ourselves in all these golden moments. We've entered as strangers - soon we have friends. And they come over... and they sit with us... and they drink with us... and they talk to us. They tell about the big terrible things they've done and the big wonderful things they'll do. Their hopes, and their regrets, and their loves, and their hates. All very large, because nobody ever brings anything small into a bar. And then I introduce them to Harvey... and he's bigger and grander than anything they offer me. And when they leave, they leave impressed. The same people seldom come back; but that's envy, my dear. There's a little bit of envy in the best of us.

As he sits down, his face becomes more sombre, and it is just a lovely piece of acting. Just wonderful to watch.

In fact, the film manages to take a much sadder tone than I was expecting, made even more prominent when you realise just how madcap and farcical the rest of the film is. The institution offers to give Elwood an injection that will stop him seeing the spirit/imaginary Harvey. The final scenes all hinge on whether this injection will take place, and when asked why he should do it, Elwood is given the reason that he has to stop seeing the fantasy. Start seeing his duties and responsibilities.

And if that isn't the most poignant and depressing metaphor for growing up I don't know what is.

Mozart! Mozart, forgive your assassin! I confess, I killed you...

2011-03-16T10:26:00.000-07:00

No 136 - Amadeus

Director - Peter Shaffer

Right, first things first...

Sorry - that has been in my head for hours. HOURS

But, on to the film itself.... as we learn the life of Mozart. However, this review is going to be shallow as a puddle in a drought. I mean we've already begun it with Falco, but I also want to discuss just how much I love the Georgian period. Everything from my hero to the town I currently live in was made brilliant by the Georgian period.

The clothes. The decor. The sheer opulence of it all. I wish, beyond wish that I was a rich Georgian man.

Amadeus is probably the most beautiful and sumptuous film I have watched on this list since Russian Ark - and whilst Mozart's wig seems a bit too bouffant or a bit too '80's - it is all countered out by the occasional moments of sheer sartorial genius. I mean just look at Jeffrey Jones, hero of the 80's and 90's (though definitely NOT a current day hero - such a crushing shame when legends become involved in bad and horrible things) and Emperor of Vienna. His opera suit is particularly boss.

However, as we move on, what I found was a film which manages to zip along at a pace which defies the fact it is close to 3 hours long. I think it is helped by the fact that it is a series of events interspersed by performances of Mozart's operas. There are enough changes of tone and changes of style to keep the film fresh and interesting.

I think this is important as Tom Hulce plays Mozart perfectly as an obnoxious and arrogant ass with the single most grating laugh in the world. If we spent too long following him we would go mad. As mad as Salieri ends up going over the course of the film... It means we can never trust Hulce's performance, it isn't accurate. It isn't supposed to be an accurate portrayal of Mozart. This is the legend told by a man who despised him. Respected him massively. But grudgingly.

All the performances are perfect, spinning a rich and wonderful story of two composers declining, one physically and one mentally. Not even the frankly cack handed shonky accent work manages to spoil the entertainment.

However, for me.... the real joy were the moments of opera. I understand the personal irony in this, because I hate opera. I have sat through many (including bloody CLASSICS) and I have never really enjoyed them. Yet, as we watch the performances in Amadeus I find my self utterly captivated. Maybe it is the opulence of the set or maybe it is just the extra nuances that cinema is able to add to the occasion.

This film finally made me sit up and take notice of Mozart's music. Has to be said.... it is beautiful.

I have picked this as my highlight

I am a sucker for big choral epic pieces of music.

You see... whilst the story and acting is superb, this is really a film for the eyes and ears. The music sounds beautiful... and it looks an absolute treat.

Surely... those two shallow reasons are good enough a recommendation for ANYONE.

Choose your next witticism carefully Mr. Bond, it may be your last.

2011-03-13T11:55:00.000-07:00

No 166 - Goldfinger

Director - Guy Hamilton

I have been following the excellent Blogalongabond since its inception, and now as they reach their third month, they have finally come to a Bond film which makes my list... therefore I can jump onto The Incredible Suit's coat-tails and try to explain why Goldfinger is such an important film for the Bond canon; why it's the film in which Bond finally seems to find his voice...

The first two films in the Bond canon create a world of action and adventure - but they are still very much spy films, not necessarily obvious 'Bond films' compared to the structure which becomes so key to future episodes. And many of the elements which are now famous and integral to Bond tradition stem from this film.

This is the film where Bond becomes a lot wittier, dropping one liners and innuendo all over the place (though it would be 35 years before the undisputed peak of Bond's smutty rubbish puns). It is the film where we finally meet Q branch - a circus of destruction and organised chaos, overseen by the arch-eyebrowed genius of Desmond Llewelyn's Q - which is barely even hinted at when Q delivers a suitcase in From Russia with Love. Not only that, but a suitcase (even one with gas and hidden money) is nothing compared to the gadgets and gizmos which creep out of Q branch post-Goldfinger. The film's big toy is another Bond staple - The Aston Martin DB5; a car which will forever be linked to the Bond franchise.

Goldfinger secures the Bond tradition so tightly that it is still, after all these years, the go-to film for Bond parodies (You Only Live Twice being perhaps the only competition).

It is also so confident that it manages to give us the entirety of the new Bond structure in a mini adventure before the opening credits.

We don't get to see all of Bond's missions here. After all, they're not all as dramatic and dangerous as those that make it to film. So instead, we get to see one of Bond's missions which seems to go effortlessly. It is also here that we see how dangerous and how efficient Bond is as he whizzes through a series of events which include fights, visual humour, explosions, women, one liners and generally looking suave as hell. Everything that makes Bond Bond. Everything that is set up throughout the film. Everything which is now synonymous with Bond. It's all there in the 4 or 5 minutes before the credits roll and the film begins...

It is incredible... and yet before you have time to really appreciate it, you're hit by something else. Something all the more incredible:

Goldfinger is one of the most incredible songs. Not just an incredible Bond theme - one that has never been matched (though I do love Live and Let Die and would rank it a strong #2) - but an incredible song, a pinnacle of not just Bassey, but British pop. Full stop.

The following instalments have all tried to capture the passion, romance, seduction and danger which trembles so effortlessly throughout it. If the marvellous Bond film doesn't give you goosebumps, this song alone will.

It is just brilliant. A faultless bit of music.

Now I realise that I've spoken LOADS about this film without even getting into the main story, but hopefully what's clear is that to discuss Goldfinger, you discuss everything that is right about the Bond franchise - creating a unique entity in the spy genre but keeping it restrained enough that it doesn't ever become parody.

There are further elements of the film which I wish to discuss, but first:

An Intermission

Erno Goldfinger was an architect, a founding member of the modernist movement. He created a lot of cuboid concrete buildings. Those ugly buildings that are characteristic of 60's architecture. I appreciate design, but these aren't the nicest or most exciting buildings.

The issue arose when he wanted to create his own home, 2 Willow Road. In order to do so Goldfinger had to demolish some old cottages which stood on the grounds.

There were a lot of protesters who were against this. One of these people was none other than Ian Fleming. He was so outraged that he named his villain after the architect as a mark of his displeasure. Erno successfully sued and was paid damages and given six free books. As a final mark of anger, Fleming threatened to rename the character Goldprick...

You can still visit 2 Willow Road as it is owned by the National Trust. The perfect place for a Blogalongabond family day out.

End Of Intermission

The reason I gave Goldfinger such an excellent intermission is that, in the film, he isn't that great a villain. He isn't a terrifying physical presence (though he is a big man) and he isn't the Machiavellian plotter of say Blofeld... He is just an utterly ruthless and very intelligent businessman.

No, there is but one real star when it comes to the villains:

Oddjob has a lot of useful characteristics. Of course the main one is that if he is kneeling, most people can't see him in multi-player Goldeneye... but believe it or not, his skills go even further than that.

Firstly he is super iconic, mainly due to his weaponised bowler. Now, I like a villain to stay sharply dressed - but considering that his bowler hat is weighted enough to chop the heads off marble statues, it must be fucking heavy.

Oddjob must have one hell of a sore neck.

Overall, he's just cool - he's a cracking butler and a fabulous villain. But his main triumph is being instantly recognisable; a sharp suited Korean who can kill you with a bowler hat. A smaller angry Jeeves.

Goldfinger manages to produce a lot of iconic images. Whether with Villains or with Bond girls, they are recognisable and immediately linked to Bond.

All in all, there are a fine variety of women on offer here. But I'm not going to talk about the Mastersons (after all, there is nothing more to add to Jill's character that hasn't been said in the above picture, and Tilly is hardly exciting) - instead we're going to talk about one of the most famous Bondgirls, and the first to really start the trend of ridiculously sexual, barely double-entendre names. Pussy Galore (seriously, who would name their child Pussy Galore?!)

Pussy is an interesting character for several reasons. Firstly, she is in a position of power, armed with her own air force of sexy jump-suited blondes. Secondly (and most importantly) - she has the weakest character arc ever.

Watch the sequence in the barn. This is the turning point, where Pussy goes from assisting Goldfinger in his villainous schemes to helping Bond.

You don't even need to watch the scene. Just look at the freezeframe Youtube provides. Bond's powers of seductions are, um, RAPE. It doesn't matter that Pussy learns to love it, and that they later have more willing parachute sex. This is just not a good set up.

I'm sorry to say this, and I know Bond has always been famed for his misogynistic views, but here he is frankly a borderline rapist....

Which kind of ends the blog on a sour note.

So let's lighten the mood, eh James?

To a new world of gods and monsters!

2011-03-07T13:48:00.000-08:00

No 204 - The Bride of Frankenstein

Director - James Whale

There is not much I can say about this film that hasn't already been discussed in the amazing 'History of Horror with Mark Gatiss' - it was on tv a while ago. You missed it.... but its all on here in little sections. Not ideal, but its worth watching.

Episode 1 is about the 30's and the classic Univeral horror era - a genre and era which I know woefully little. So I sat down to enjoy this Universal classic and enjoy two of Universal Studio's classic monsters.

But before that we get an odd little recap. For those watching Bride who may not have seen the original film. So we get Keats (in the most ludicrous tights and with the most preposterous accent) recapping Mary Shelley's original story before she goes on with the new tale.

For a film of such short length (75 minutes), which includes a preamble recapping the last film, it moves with a surprising gentle pace.

Frankenstein is weary and weak. Bedridden as he prepares for his wedding. Meanwhile the monster is ambling around all grunty and confused. He is also the victim of a terrible curse, as who ever he gets close to WILL FALL OVER. This falling over will lead to one of two things. Drowning, or burning. Everyone seems to accidentally drown or burn themselves. Karloff is amazing, and you can see why this is the role which he is iconically known for - his monster flits between the wild, crazed, destructive force and the simpleton child. His hoots of pleasure seem joyfully ape like.

He just is Frankenstein's Monster.... His performance and the iconic make up from Jack Pierce has rippled through subculture to just utterly embody the character. Nobody will ever replace that. Not Johnny Lee Miller, Not Benedict Cumberbatch, Not Robert De Niro. It doesn't matter that Karloff doesn't really look like he's made out of dead people. His performance is incredible and his appearance is infamous.

I'm not even going to linger on the fact that the monster seems to learn a full grasp of perfect English in 2 or 3 days.... because it is a minor irk in an excellent portrayal.

So for most of the film he stumbles around and is persecuted - by comedy 'poor people' such as Una O'Connor's excellent Minnie. Who just seems to be in exactly the right place everytime so she can squeal and screech and be all chucklesome:

But noone is more chucklesome than Dr Pretorious. The saving grace of this film (for, with the exception of the Monster, all of the other characters are quite painfully dull) - Ernest Thesinger camps around with arched eyebrows, looking down his nose. He also gets the film's most preposterous moment as he showcases his collection of tiny homegrown people. The special effects are immense for 1935, but the scene is absurdly comic in a film that is largely serious (and at the time, I should imagine, quite scary).

The speech is in Italian, but deal with it - you're only staring at the little tiny people in jars anyway.

However.... the film's most surprising element is that the Bride herself doesn't actually appear until the final 5 minutes, which is pretty rude considering she is both titular and pretty big on the advertising...

However her performance in those final snatched moments manages to be both etherially creepy and depressingly pathetic.

It all builds up to a bleak as bleak ending that couldn't possibly leave the franchise open for a sequel....

....only.... it did

What would you do if you were stuck in one place and every day was exactly the same, and nothing that you did mattered?

2011-02-28T03:41:00.000-08:00

No 259 - Groundhog Day

Director - Harold Ramis

Let me begin by saying MAN I LOVE BILL MURRAY!

I don't think I can state that enough. He is someone who is so intensely brilliant in just about everything he does. He lifts the energy of a scene into something that bubbles and zings with comedy, whilst he himself can remain droll and deadpan throughout. This is a man who's minorest cameo can move a film from being pretty good, to being properly chucklesome.

I'm aware I've said this a lot....but he is great.

It is however, necessary for the lead to be as charismatic and as joyous to watch as Murray, because he is up against the very energy sapping nothingness that is Andie McDowell.... a women so dull she makes Hugh Grant look exciting in 4 Weddings...

So, it is to Murray's credit that he manages to keep the film going along, but also make McDowell's character seem less of a wet blanket than she makes herself look...

But, onwards to the film.

Let me begin by saying MAN I LOVE BILL MURRAY!

I don't think I can state that enough. He is someone who is so intensely brilliant in just about everything he does...... HA HA HA HA HA HA Do you see what I did there?! I am a comedy GENIUS

Anyway, seriously..... Groundhog day has an incredible central premise - in which a man is forced to live out the same day over and over and over again. Whats brilliant is that this is never explained, and that when it does, eventually, resolve itself... no one knows what it is he did differently.

It seems that the cosmos is trying definitely to get Murray's cranky weatherman Phil laid with the right girl. As it is only once she stays over for the night that he moves on to February 3rd.... but to be honest. He manages so much in that one day that it is hard to know what one thing causes it to move on.

I love that it is never explained... I love that it is just not important.

But mostly.... I love that you don't know quite how long he is there. Repeating the same day.

We see a lot of repetition.... but that's only what the film chooses to tell us. Throwaway lines indicate he has spent 6 months learning solely how to throw cards into a hat. On top of this he has learnt a lot:

That's not including the years he spends seducing women, going crazy and committing suicide. In fact far geekier people than I have sat down and worked it out.... ignoring the fact the Harold Ramis has given several (contrasting) answers....

It is a great film, which works as both a nice romantic comedy but also something far deeper, far stranger. There are little moments that try to build tension (such as the homeless man dying) but it doesn't really matter when everything resets at 6am

However.... the film's real grace is Bill Murray. The amazing joy of watching his character evolve from being a grumpy old bastard to the epitome of small town kindness. Murray is always a great watch, and in this film he just shines.

The 'No one will ever believe you' urban myth....

Specially because he recently admitted it to be true.

Man I love him

Lions, and tigers, and bears! Oh, my!

2011-02-24T00:20:00.000-08:00

No 172 - The Wizard of Oz

Director - Victor Fleming

My.... what a visually beautiful film. It is amazing how even after 72 years, this film can look so crisp, so sharp. A lot of it is due to the beautiful magic of Technicolor, but that's not all of it, as even the sepia moments look crisp. The film has aged splendidly.

What I didn't remember was just how long the Sepia moment is, as we're introduced to everyone before we meet their Oz alternatives. The film just rambles along, letting us settle into the world of Kansas and get accustomed to Judy Garland's whining wide eyed Dorothy.

The film settles you in nicely enough, so that when you finally step into the glorious technicolor splendour of Oz, it is a proper breathtaking moment. Sure, it all looks like a set..... but it looks like a splendid enchanting set.

The world of Oz is enchanting - I want to talk about the little treats I'd forgotten about such as the talking trees. I also want to talk about two remarkable performances. Maybe it comes from my unashamed love of pratfalling.... but Ray Bolger's Scarecrow really shines throughout the film. His performance is both the warmest and funniest of the companions and his fluid movement is remarkable to watch. He is.... after all.... playing a character with no skeleton, nothing to hold him up, and as he flips and flops and falls around he is just a joy to behold.

The other performance which has to be mentioned is Margaret Hamilton's joyous performance as the bitter, cackling Wicked Witch of the West. She is hamming it up so much, but she is clearly having a lot of fun as she stomps around stealing scenes and being a bit ridiculous.

However.... it is with the arrival of the Wicked Witch of the West that we have a problem.... I think the film, or at least Oz, is racist towards green folk.

I mean.... besides her evil looking appearance, what has the Wicked Witch of the West done to be viewed so dimly. Her motive throughout the film is pretty understandable. I mean a stranger murders her sister and there is no trial. Not even a funeral. Instead there is just the longest munchkin song ever.... And as she comes to claim the one remnant of her sister - the slippers - they are stolen by that same murderer.

If that happened to me, and I had an army and flying monkeys, I would dispatch them to make the murdering thief's life living hell..... It only makes sense. I agree with Douglas Smith's view of the whole thing.

In fact, the Wicked Witch of the West gets a rum deal as everyone tries to kill her. However..... here is a little tip for anyone in a similar predicament.

But these are minor foibles when compared to the glorious nostalgic joy of the film. After a meandering start, it zips along and has a jolly dream like nonsense running through it.

As the film ends and we realise it was all a dream (or was it)..... one question remains unanswered though. There is still a sheriff summon saying that Toto has to be put down. Just because Toto ran away doesn't mean he escaped the law!

But I presume all is fine - because Toto is still about in the frankly terrifying Return to Oz....

You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom

2011-02-23T23:34:00.000-08:00

No 320 - Braveheart

Director - Mel Gibson

I have to say, that the initial outlook for this film was not good. As it began with Wallace's childhood I found it pretty shit.... quite contrived in its set up. I looked down at the DVD....

Great....

Luckily, Brian Cox comes and interrupts proceedings with his crazy one eye and then we skip to the future and to Gibbo himself playing Braveheart. In a role which probably eclipses all his other roles. Even What Women Want

So times are heard. And despite the Scottish having perfect teeth times are tough. The English seem very rapey, and the Scots are just supposed to lie back and take it. This is all thanks to King Edward Longshanks who comes off as a cruel and merciless tyrant. Cracking out savage laws like Primae Noctis (never used by the ACTUAL King Edward) and coming out with some marvellously cutting one-liners:

Arrows cost money. Use up the Irish. The dead cost nothing.

Harsh....

Whilst Edward I is painted as a cruel bastard, his son is painted as a bit of a useless fop.... and the film heavily implies some kind of gay subtext. Particularly with Philip - Edward II's high councillor. But hey... its in Wikipedia too, so it must be true. These two men use their respective cowardice and tyranny to leave Scotland a dangerous and cruel place to live.

It isn't long before the Scots have had enough and William Wallace begins to lead a revolution.

Finally..... we get to the film's bread and butter. The fighting. It seems (if we look at his directorial career) that Mel Gibson has a lot of interest in violence and punishment. Both The Passion and Apocalypto having some savage scenes. Here it is a lot more restrained, and a lot more joyous as limbs are hacked, throats cut and bodies impaled. But it is all happening to those bastardy dastardly English.... so its ok!

The violence is handled really well, the fights are visceral and the battles feel real. You also begin to see Wallace's tactical mind. How it was tactics which helped, rather than strength. In fact, even when we get to the end, and a 10 - 12 minute long torture scene.... most of it happens off camera. Instead we focus on Wallace's face and the searing pain.

There are some moments that don't fit with the tone of the film. Mainly to do with the French. Princess Isabella's infatuation and relationship with Wallace just feels wrong and unnatural throughout.... it also didn't happen. Likewise Isabella's handmaiden just turns up to make saucy French Jokes.

LOL! Cunnilingus Humour!

Robert the Bruce also comes out looking like a bit of a whiney pathetic coward for most of the film. Scared of his psoriasis addled father and gullible to the end. Again, that didn't seem right...

It just felt that other strong characters were being weakened so that Mel Gibson good look better as Wallace and that women had to fall in love with Wallace so that Gibson could his end away.

For all its triumphs (and it is a very enjoyable film) - it just felt too much like a vanity project to me.

Saying that - Brendan Gleeson's Hamish is a fucking bear of a legend throughout

You think you're God Almighty, but you know what you are? You're a cheap, lousy, dirty, stinkin' mug! And I'm glad what I done to you, ya hear that?

2011-02-23T09:01:00.000-08:00

No 46 - On the Waterfront

Director - Elia Kazan

I only really knew one thing about this film...

So I was interested to know what the rest of the film was like.... as even the crappest films can have a brilliant iconic line.

The film is set during tough times when people are scrabbling for work and where the mobs control the streets. This is a film about that mob losing their control, as things fall apart around them.

For the most part, Brando is quite underplayed, his tough boy attitude makes him seem cold and expressionless.... so for a long time I didn't really find myself warming to him. Especially as he is utterly overshadowed by the fiery passion of Father Barry, played with energetic and feisty zeal by Karl Malden.

He is a force to be reckoned with, his every scene not only benefiting from the passion in his performance but also in the tension that trickles out amongst everybody else. Malden's performance seems to cause everybody else to up there came. So as Barry speak, the (often silent) reactions from those around him show a close knit death-dumb society. There is a fear of speaking up and there is a pride in not being a grass.

Because, at the heart of it, this is a film about pride. It is Johnny Friendly's pride and arrogance which help his fall. Brando's Terry Malloy is proud of his skills and feel that his boxing career was robbed from him.... but mostly, it is the danger of a society too proud to ask for help. And how that pride can create a dangerous and tense environment.

This is something that the film does very well. It is dark, far darker than I'd assumed.... and the

tension in the film is palpable, a lot of it done with sound. Firstly there is the fabulous score which managers to offer real tension but remains subtle throughout, It doesn't fall into the Inception style trap of BIG BOOMING NOISES GETTING LOUDER AND FASTER

Symphonic Suite by Bernstein

Then there are just some amazing uses of background noise, such as the moment where everything changes for Terry, the moment of his confession to Fr Barry. The way that the background noises eclipse everything that is being said at moment where he confesses. You can see the gravity of the confession without having to hear the horrors for yourself. It is something which has been used and parodied many a time... Despite this, it doesn't lose any of the power when it is done seriously.

And now.... as the film draws into the final act we finally see Brando at his best... at his most powerful.

There are several moments where Brando's simmering undercurrent of power has been hinted at - The 'I could have been a contender' line being a famous example, but it is the guilt behind Terry which is so incredible. The fact that he is so haunted by the guilt of his former actions, a guilt which then causes him to do something about it, to attack the mob.

The determination and ferocity in his performance suddenly moves the film up a notch - and Fr Barry has been keeping the film pretty fierce throughout - so that the moments of post-court showdown, make for some deeply disturbing but massively moving cinema. A violent, bloody but ultimately noble redemption for Terry and payback on Friendly's mob

The film is really carried by the presence of Malden and Brando, but when those two actors have such incredible presence, it can hardly be seen as a bad thing.

I'm just afraid that you're going to burn in Hell for all this.

2011-02-13T05:46:00.000-08:00

No 168 - Tootsie

Director - Sydney Pollack

I had never seen this film - and my initial thought was that it was going to be something that I'd already seen before.....

Well.... I was wrong and a half!

So, the marvellous and utterly superb Dustin Hoffman plays Michael Dorsey - an actor who gets into drag so to help him get a part as a female character in a soap, because no one will hire him as himself.

"Aha!" You all say "I know where this is going!"

And.... Whilst Dorothy Michaels is closer to Josephine and Daphne than she is to Mrs Doubtfire, and whilst there are some parallels (the male character falls in lover with a female coworker who only knows him as his female counterpart) Tootsie tells a very different and very interesting story.

For all the farce. For all the camp. For all the comedy genius (it has Bill Murray in it - it must be comedy genius) the film tackles a pretty serious issue. It is a film essentially about feminism. About equality in the workplace. About men's reactions to women.

Yes... it is hilarious to watch a dragged up Dustin Hoffman fight off an ever growing collecting of aging suitors, but what is more interesting is watching him unable to cope with the degrading way women are treated in the TV Show.

Its important because Michael Dorsey is not a good guy.... He spends most of the film leading his friend Sandy along after they've slept together. But slowly - by witnessing what women go through he becomes a better person.

But it doesn't hammer that message home - it is really quite a sweet film. A sweet film about discovery and worth and being a better person.

It is a film that also shows Dustin Hoffman's INCREDIBLE ACTING SKILLZ as he faultlessly switches gender (and also in several scenes, deconstructs the acting profession.... almost like he is trying to explain to us just how good he is)...

Just a really fun and uplifting film which has a pretty powerful message.

It's awfully easy to lie when you know that you're trusted implicitly. So very easy, and so very degrading.

2011-02-13T05:09:00.000-08:00

No 171 - Brief Encounter

Director - David Lean

Never forget.... This is Noel Coward's film. Noel Coward's Brief Encounter. Never Ever Forget (the film likes to make sure you know that it comes from a Noel Coward pedigree)

What I like about this story is that it throws you in at the end of a very brief (as the name implies) but intense relationship. When we meet Alec and Laura they are both distant, clipped, restrained. We then have to listen to Laura's friend natter on and on and on as Laura becomes increasingly distant.

It is a weird opening move because it means that I couldn't really connect to Laura. I couldn't relate to her. The film didn't try and get me to empathise. Instead she is just quiet. Quiet and distant. She goes home to her dull but seemingly lovely husband and her freaky freaky children (I find children in old films very odd. They are far too clipped and proper).

But then.... we go into flashback and we begin to see the relationship between Alec and Laura. And it is built up gloriously. From chance meetings and happy coincidences, to a small friendship, to full blown love. It doesn't feel rushed or false. It feels real. It feels forbidden.

I think this is helped by the fact that the film is very very 'stiff upper lip' - so these moments of passion between the two characters are amplified and made to feel even more daring and romantic and wild. It also made more passionate by the time in which is set. Nowadays two people in love could divorce and just get on with it.... but in the film world it is an impossibility. And a tragedy. This is a product of a former time - a time when people could say 'he made me feel gay' and when marriage was a lot more permanent.

The whole film is subtle - there are only a few moments where they kiss, and certainly no sexy times - but yet it is full of lust. And pain. Such understated acting showing exactly the quandary they're in - just a glorious thing to watch.

So by the time we return to the end of the relationship, and the film's first scene - we now know why the characters are so aloof, so quiet. And Laura's friend becomes even more annoying...

As all of this is told in flashback we eventually return to Laura's front room where she has been in a semi-doze.

And it is here that Fred shows the briefest crack of emotion in a heart breaking moment of tenderness. It is a simple line which questions whether he knew or suspected anything and which shows how important it is that Laura didn't leave him for Alec. There is still a lot of love in her marriage.

Watch the last scene.... See the marvellous depression on Alec and Laura's faces. See the fabulous bit of presentation with the whistling and tilted camera as it all gets too much for Laura. And see the show stealing heart breaking subtlety of Fred's last line.

Also.....

This film taught me that Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto number 2 (the main theme for this film) has the main theme used in All by Myself.... so I found myself singing along to the sad moments of the film.

Madam, you are a cock-eyed liar!

2011-02-13T04:39:00.000-08:00

No 58 - His Girl Friday

Director - Howard Hawks

I am so so so sorry. I have been neglecting this blog something rotten. Still watching the films but only coming on here sporadically to binge post.

So here is my latest glut. Starting with this very odd little comedy.

This is a story set around a murder being reported by a bunch of papers. For the most part, this feels very strange as the murder itself (and the darkness and desperation around it) doesn't gel with the scenes set in the newspaper. However, by the end of the film it all seems to settle out into a full story.

The elements of the murder, and the moments in which Hildy (the reporter) is trying to best her competitors are the film's down moments.

Hildy herself is quite a complex character with her drive and passion going against her gloriously unfeminist ideas of 'just being seen as a woman' settling down with her dull fiancée and having some kids. However, she comes off as a bit of a non-character for a lot of the film. With one key exception. Whenever her ex-husband and roguish editor Walter (Cary Grant) her character becomes glorious.

Cary Grant makes this film a thousand times better. Every time he comes on screen, the pace picks up, the energy lifts and the dialogue becomes glorious.

His girl Friday used to be a play, and you can see its routes in every witty back and forth between the central bickering couple of Hildy and Walter. Walter is comedy gold. He is a mix of arrogant idiocy and nefarious double crossing. He is a joy to behold.

Walter is very much the crux of the film. Not only are his scenes the best scenes. Not only does he bring out the best in his co-stars (Rosalind Russell's Hildy never sparkles as much as when she is pissed off by Walter) but he also uses all his conniving skills to get the best news story but also to attempt to break up Hildy's engagement.

And as these two plots get more complicated, so the film gets more farcical. As more elements come into play (Hildy's fiancee and future mother in law, Walters henchman Louis, a prostitute, counterfeit money etc) the film gets more frenzied, there are more unexpected twists and it becomes a glorious piece of nonsense.

The film zips along, the dialogue gets quicker and more ridiculous. It is a joy to watch.

It is just a shame that the film ends the way it does. The ending goes against everything that the film has built up and just seems to happen... with no build up or character arc.

It is a shame as it ends the film on a sour note. And whilst the film is in no way perfect (it flits in tone too frequently) it is - for the most part - very jolly and fun to watch. So its a shame that the final denouement left me a bit angry.

But Cary Grant is just about awesome enough to get me not to mind.

"Now there's a school that self-destructed, not because society didn't care, but because the school was society." Now that's deep

2011-02-05T04:24:00.000-08:00

No 412 - Heathers

Director - Michael Lehmann

So.... another film which I've never seen and which is hyped (subliminally, every day) by a filmy person what I massively respect... This time the excellent Blog Your Turn Heather.

This is the pitchest of black comedies in the most ludicrous of '80's get ups. I mean seriously, seriously 80's

It is a story which has been echoed time and time again (the most obvious example is Mean Girls... which is also excellent, but which borrows an awful lot from Heathers) - however, whilst we get the same old story of the popular kids and the people who subsequently become popular.... whilst we learn that power corrupts.... we get another little element

MURDER!

In order to pull these multiple murders off they're covered as suicides and fortunately happen in the most accepting and glib town ever. No one really seems to bat an eyelid as people die left right and centre... the glibness runs through everyone, not just the children... but even the priest is glib about it.

However of course the funerals will be glib - the priest at these funerals is Glenn Shadix (who, I just discovered, tragically died last year aged only 58) - A man who seemed to be king of the 80's and early 90's bit parts and who was also in the weird and underrated Carnivale, and the man who is pretty much the king of being glib and bitchy.

And.... we have some withering put downs throughout...This is the film to check out if you like sharp and withering put downs or general smart alec comments.

But, the thing that I really wanted to comment on (because I don't want to go into too much detail on the deaths or the quotes - it'll cheapen the enjoyment of the film) is the IMPOSSIBLE YOUTH of the cast.

Look at them

I mean.... I know that Winona Ryder has been in films since the dawn of time and has always looked essentially the same.... And I know that Christian Slater is another smooth skinned freak... however in this film - they are breathtakingly beautiful.... the pair of them. Slater's JD also has this weirdly eloquent way of speaking that makes the gradual reveal of his homicidal insanity all the more impressive.... by the end they may be soot and blood smeared messes.... but they're still beautiful.

Wickedly funny and shockingly cruel.

A marvellous marvellous film.

I barely recognize this country anymore. The government's got us seeing Communists in our soup

2011-01-29T10:46:00.000-08:00

No 453 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Director - Steven Spielberg

So 20 years have past since Indiana Jones rode away from Petra... and the question that some people might have been asking is "What is he up to now?"

Well.... turns out he's still up to the same old shenanigans.

This is a difficult film to analyse because all the pieces are there, everything SHOULD work, and yet.... somehow.... it doesn't. I don't want to turn this into a purist rant about how the trilogy didn't need to be revisited, but I will talk about the things that did work and (in my opinion) the things that didn't work.

Before I go on.... I want to say, I don't mind the Aliens - sorry, Pan-Dimensional Beings. I don't really see how they are any more unbelievable or ridiculous than the sheer bonkers nonsense that is the old old old man guarding the holy grail.

The first one of these is that it really feels like it is trying too hard to appease fans.... and I think that this may be something to do with Mr Lucas. Who has shown time and time (with both the Star Wars Prequel trilogies and the re-cgi'd relaunches) that he just loves throwing as much shit as possible into a story and as many nods as he can to previous films.

So the opening action sequence upsets me for three reasons.... firstly, the Russians are lazy villains... they're just the Nazis with different accents. However, they fade in comparison with the other two issue (which are linked) and it all stems from having a massive scene in the mysterious warehouse of mystery.... which kinda means it loses some of that mystery. It is no longer a hushed up secret that we barely glimpsed. We're now following flying gunpowder on an official tour.

But worst of all.... during the battle scene they decide to show us the Ark of the Covenant.... in case we forgot. Completely unnecessary.

However, whilst the sequence does annoy me, there is one shining light. Cate Blanchett is hamming it up with a marvellous level of gusto and with the wobbliest accent which flipflops from Eastern European to English with alarming speed. But Blanchett does open the floodgates for a cavalcade of marvellous actors sticking their heads in. Probably because it'd be dead fun to be in an Indy film.

At the top of the list, most worthy of note are the two British legends Mr John Hurt and Mr Jim Broadbent. Both are (naturally) wonderful and fit into the lovely 1950's world of adventure. At the bottom of the list is Shia 'The Beef' LeBeouf in his role of Mutt (hoho he picked his name to be a dog's name like what Indiana did)

He is a very bland character and whilst he does get the coolest and most preposterous action sequence.... he also gets one so cringeworthy it makes me want to cry.

And whilst I don't want to pin all of the film's failings on Shia LeBeouf, he is central to the flaw... which is the family dynamic. Even the sheer excitement of Marion returning is numbed when they spend large amounts of time being boring and talking about the family. Marion shines when the action sequences begin and she is allowed to forget the 25 years of history and just be reckless, driving trucks off cliffs.

She doesn't deserve to have her brilliance lessened, the way it is by this film.

And I suppose thats the main problem.... what we have is a film which is much much less than the sum of its parts. That doesn't quite feel like an Indiana Jones romp.

It may be that CGI has cheapened action - now that ANYTHING is possible, it just doesn't impress as much as it used to - now it has to be an unbelievable stunt which is also PRESENTED in an unbelievable way.

It may just be that we've sort of done the 'Indy as a dad' thing with Short Round and we've sort of done the 'Indy's issues with family' with Henry Jones Snr - so this film feels redundant. Its sad.... but true.

And of course, that moment where Mutt picks up the hat and no one is sure whether this means he'll be continuing the franchise (because I wouldn't put ANYTHING past moneyeyes Lucas)... well, that's the scariest thing in the entire of Indiana Jones history. Fuck the Thuggee.

However. What we do learn, is the sheer enduring power of Indiana Jones. Because whether he is portrayed in silhouette or just 2 key props on a box. He is unmistakable. And he is a hero.

Just don't make anymore....

The quest for the grail is not archeology, it's a race against evil.

2011-01-29T08:00:00.000-08:00

No 306 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

Director Steven Spielberg

When watching the films as a set in succession (as I have just done) - the qualities of this film (which I always remembered as the weakest of the original trilogy) really shine through. After the darkness of face melting and nightmare tribes, the far more jokey vibe of this film seem a lot more appropriate. There is a lot of good in The Last Crusade.... lets check it out.

Really - what we're doing with the trilogy is building and then - to a certain degree - deconstructing a legend. So where Raiders of the Lost Ark gave us the hero and a romantic foil who is his equal, the sequels begin to look at how he behaves with people less suited to his adventurous lifestyle. Whether they be children and civilians (Short Round shows Indy's paternal streak far more beautifully than his relationship with Mutt... but I'm jumping forward a film) or whether they be his own estranged family.

The films show us just enough to understand Indiana (or, as we learn from this film Henry Jones Junior) without cheapening the myth or removing the enigma.

The film begins by firstly showing Indy as a child - always a risk as it can cheapen the character, but thankfully here played by the marvellous River Phoenix. And whilst we never needed to know why Indy is scared of snakes or why he decided to carry a whip (a weapon which proves to be endlessly versatile throughout the franchise) or why he has a fedora, it IS nice to know that he was always a badass with an unshaking loyalty to things belonging in museums.

Fast forward and we go on Indy's most bonkers quest to date. The holy grail. I'm not sure why I find it so preposterous, but there is something inherently surreal about a 900 year old man, much more than a face melting ark or some Sankara stones of mass destruction... however, the ridiculousness of the film doesn't matter because it is so fun - and this plays almost entirely down to the fizzing and sparkling chemistry between two men who (whilst often quipping) aren't renown for their comedy sensibilities.

Connery and Ford are marvellous on screen together... Indy's resentment to his father crackles throughout and Connery manages to pull the most fabulous unimpressed faces. There is something quite delicious about an adrenaline fuelled action adventure ending with a withering look from one's father.

Connery takes the film and makes it something more than an enjoyable romp. He makes it wonderful.... mixing comedy - see him an Ford bickering over women (Elsa is -at last - a fabulous female character complete with fab moral grey areas) - and actual emotion (I think that as Henry realises his son may have died, we get on of Connery's finest acting moments).

The film zips along and really benefits from having the Nazis as villains. Because, you can make the Nazis appear bumbling fools without really offending anyone.... whereas an Indian cult (even an Evil one) has the dangerous tightrope of racism. This film clearly relishes in scuppering the Nazis' plans (however - as I learnt from Lego Indiana Jones, the Nazis love to over complicate things) and even fit in a Hitler sight gag.

There are other things to enjoy in this film... for example, with the Brotherhood of the Cruciform Sword (are they baddies? really?) we get Indy's best dressed combatants. We get the return of Sallah - I don't think I mentioned it in Raiders.... but I bloody love John Rhys-Davies in these films, but he just helps to build a near faultless entourage aiding Indy on this brilliant romp.

And I think - almost more so than the two before it - romp is the key word for this film. As it travels to far flung destinations, castles and ancient wonders and as the peril is kept fairly light hearted it means there is no trauma.

This is a happy little adventure.... and we are happy to see Indy and his entourage walk off into the sunset.

Fortune and glory, kid. Fortune and glory

2011-01-29T07:33:00.000-08:00

No 233 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom

Director - Steven Spielberg

Well... Whilst the sight of a Nazi's face melting off may be a dark ending to Raiders of the Lost Ark, it is nothing compared to the outright horror that makes up Temple of Doom.... We are in for some rough times in our PG rating. Some tough times indeed.

However, firstly, Spielberg lulls us into a false sense of security by offering what must be the campest introduction in all of his career:

So... we're in the fab 30's before war has broken out and before Raiders has taken place... And Indy is getting himself into trouble - and after an awesome little shoot out we are saddled with Indy's new sidekicks for the film....

and this is where Temple of Doom falters. After the excellent double bill of Sallah and Marion, leaving us with Willie and Short Round feels like a punishment. Especially as most of their character seems built around screaming.

In fact about 95% of Willie's screen time is scream time. That pun is gold!.

Short Round at least has some redeeming features, I particularly like the sheer idolisation with which Jonathan 'Booby Traps' Ke Quan plays towards Indy. The little moments that they share and which aren't shouting are quite gentle.

It creates a father son relationship of sorts, which plays nicely with the ladies man which was painted in film 1.

However, what I really want to talk about are the Thuggee - again we are plunged head first into an interesting tale of folklore and mythology, kept entertained by disgusting meals, sexual farcery and rollicking mine carts.... The set pieces are huge and audacious, but they all pale to the sheer horror of the villains.

The Thuggee are a genuine old Hindu cult, and whilst Wikipedia does describe some of their actions and beliefs - nothing prepares me for the horrors in this.... A FAMILY FILM.

If we ignore the torture and child abuse which runs rampant throughout this - the scenes involving human sacrifice are probably the scariest thing I've ever seen in a PG which doesn't involve Skeksis!

The film rattles on at a marvellous pace, and tells a great story. The set pieces are large and bombastic, but for me - everything is just slightly outweighed by the annoyance of Willie (who really does very little of use) and by the nightmarish qualities of the film.

Professor of Archeology, expert on the occult, and how does one say it... obtainer of rare antiquities

2011-01-29T06:30:00.000-08:00

No 2 - Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark

Director - Steven Spielberg

A hand brushes through the jungle. The brim of a fedora throws a strong jaw into shadow. A leather jacket is seen through the dense foliage. A gun is produced and then WHIP CRACK we see our hero...

Much like the introduction of James Bond (something I know a lot about now thanks to BlogalongaBond) - Spielberg teases the audience before finally unveiling his hero. It is that subtle and masterful presentation (and a fucking cool crack of the whip) that makes a star. And Indy is a star. And... lets be honest... Harrison Ford is the kind of awesome that means you can fully imagine his classrooms filled with dreamy eyed girls going all gooey over him and his brainy tweed and spectacles. - I also like the Superman-esque imagery of it all. How by donning glasses, he can put on a disguise of academia and mask the fact that he is a globe trotting bad ass.

And yet a bad ass who is prone to mistakes (which is important - Ford's matinee heroes are never perfect... look at Han Solo) - after all if he hadn't removed that handful of sand, he may never have triggered the sensors in the opening temple, and subsequently we wouldn't get this amazing and oft parodied action scene.

So, the opening gambit show that Indiana is a hero... and we can therefore believe that federal agents would rope him into finding a seemingly impossible artifact. The Ark of the Covenant. Because... apparently Hitler was an obsessive of the Paranormal (as I've been told in both this and Hellboy... so it must be true).

However... it is here that there is a problem. People have been searching for the Ark for 3,000 years... Now, even though the Nazis have made a lot of necessary headway, Indy finds the thing in 20 minutes! How hard have they been looking for the last 3,000 bloody years?! The rest of the film is just Nazis stealing it and him stealing it back.... like a slapstick back and forth.

SLAPSTICK BACK AND FORTH:

But this might be because of his handy gang of awesome awesome friends. Firstly Sallah knows everyone and has an amazing voice which appears to have inspired Peter Serafinowicz in Running Wilde.

And then we have Marion.... ah Marion. She is just the most fabulous foil to Indy. Because she is even more reckless, even more temperamental, even more.... drunk... than Indy will ever be - their relationship is brilliant built around bickering and petty one up manship - so when we finally get the romance element, it turns out that a simple kissing scene becomes very steamy indeed...

Really... this is a film that has everything, even a Nazi monkey. It has action, adventure, romance and quite a lot of real horror.

The Indiana franchise is quite keen on littering sets with corpses.... but the real horror here comes from the shocking face melting finale...

How is that PG?

England. Typical. Even drug dealers don't work weekends.

2011-01-29T05:05:00.000-08:00

No 276 - Layer Cake

Director - Matthew Vaughn

Layer Cake is the film which bridged Vaughn's 2 careers. Moving away from the go-to producer for London gangster films (though he does still have his hand in them) to become....

Layer Cake might still be in the genre which Vaughn was most familiar with, but - for a first film - it highlights a lot of style and prowess. And yet, you can see that he has learnt from the directors he has been around, and whilst his films are stylish and visually impressive, they lack the gimmicky feel that is present in Guy Ritchie's gangland films. Instead he lets the occasional visual flourish wrap itself around a twisty turny story of deals gone wrong, double crossing, crossed wires and other 'heist gone wrong' cliches. In fact, the only real constant I can think of in Vaughn's films is the casting of Jason Flemyng in tiny tiny roles.

Where this film really blossoms, is in the cast. There are some excellent turns in this and there was one real star. Now, whilst I enjoyed watching Owen Harper off Torchwood and Kingsley Shacklebolt and Nathan's Dad off Misfits - for me every second of his screentime was stolen by the might Michael Gambon. There is just something about old British actors and their old British voices that make them so hypnotic.... and he was amazing. He is menacing (but nowhere near the menace he puts into Farmer Bean) and yet you kind of understand him and his motivation.

And yet, the film's real perk is the excellent role from Daniel Craig.... playing the every-man and yet still showing a little bit of his pre-Bond bad-ass ness.... And yet, despite being a bad ass he still gets the shit constantly kicked out of him, which shows that there are always badder asses in the world....

And of course - he takes his top off so he can show off his muscley muscles.

Whilst I'm on the subject of Bond I want to talk about something which COULD BE CONSIDERED A SPOILER.

So if you don't want to know about endings and stuff.... stop reading now and be safe in the knowledge that I enjoyed this film.

However.... (and I did bloody warn you) - As Daniel Craig's nameless protagonist dies on the steps, following a cocky pun about his name... I couldn't help thinking of how it was almost a glorious reversal of the ending to Casino Royale... XXXX's death at the hands of the man who's girlfriend he 'stole' is a rather fitting echo of Bond killing the agent (even in a similar place, the steps of a grand house) for what the agents did to Vespa.

Deep man

We've gone on holiday by mistake.

2011-01-17T09:51:00.000-08:00

No 118 - Withnail and I

Director - Bruce Robinson

Oh dear oh dear oh dear

My notes for this film include such gems as:

I am very drunk.... this is a good thing for this I think

Eggs and things. Thay are food

(sic)

The next day I awoke to this:

We didn't play the Withnail and I drinking game.... Thank God. But we did take to the spirit of the film.

So we have a film about a relationship. One that feels true and real. One that is utterly self destructive and one that needs to change.

By the end, I think it does a bit. But until that point we get to see the glorious excesses of alcohol. Withnail could drink Bernard Black under the table without breaking a sweat....

It is infamously quotable and it celebrates a very middle class squalor of struggling actors and whacked out drug dealers who return in Wayne's World and who managed to get a friend of mine a job on the tellybox.

The film manages to glorify the dangerous excess of Withnail and Marwood (the titular I) without sugar coating it. Their life is a horrific mess of comedowns, danger, paranoia and falling over. Yet, the entire film has a filthy joi de vivre running through its emotional core. It means that they still remain aspirational.

Every person who has ever had a bottle of Merlot for breakfast does so because they have a romanticised vision of Withnail in their mind's eye. Which doesn't make sense considering he is a prick for almost the entirety of the film

Outside of the central couple we get some excellent supporting roles, the most important of which is the ever fabulous Richard Griffiths as the worryingly perverse and gloriously queeny Uncle Monty. A character who I have been described as on a disappointingly high number of times. Monty is a necessary addition because, whilst he is in no way adept to do anything, without him the protagonists would die.

I think the film ends with a certain amount of redemption from Marwood. I think he realises that he can't really continue to live this way.... but I can't really remember for the life of me. However, Withnail shows no such emotion. He has no arc. He is just a whirl of dangerous stinking anarchy.

So pull up a drink(s cabinet) and enjoy an amazing British celebration of everything that is right and wrong (often at the same time) with the spurned middle class world of wasters. Shout the catchphrases and get wasted. This film is not a film for spectators.... it is a horrible glorious squalid little film begging for participants.

I wish I were big

2011-01-17T08:31:00.000-08:00

No 190 - Big

Director - Penny Marshall

I have been in Canada.... but I got better and I'm back back BACK.

On the plane I sat through one of the most harrowing (but excellent) double bills ever - and then found a list film amongst all the new rom com nonsense.

Big....

It is a magical film (complete with Zoltar - the terrifying plaything of SATAN) - and it is a brilliant performance from Hanks who manages to be massively likable and beautifully naive throughout the whole thing. For most of the film you really believe him to be a slightly geeky 13 year old kid - and there is a small moment of toy piano tomfoolery which is not only glorious, but which has become a staple of FAO Schwartz toy shop's daily routine.

It is great to watch.

The magic in the film does mean you can overlook how easily Josh makes his way up the corporate ladder of business. How he can be come a company executive just by saying he likes toys...

At times, he comes of as a bit simple... at other times he could pass as autistic. And yet, people see past this - they flock to them, they promote him, they seduce him. It is so stupid it comes off as charming.

However.... there are two massive points which need to be addressed. They are massive and they sort of soured the film for me:

So yeah....

Josh has been magicked into a 30 year old and off he goes for a rollicking adventure. Throughout this film you get little hints at what is happening at home. And it is horrifying. To the extent of Josh's parent's knowledge:

If you think I'm over-reacting, go and watch that film again. Listen to the genuine trauma in Josh's mother's voice when she speaks to him... It is every parent's worse nightmare. Glossed up as a charmingly 80's bit of nonsense.

But there is another disturbing element....

Elizabeth Perkins fucks a child.

There is no way to sugar coat it. I don't care whether he's turned into Tom Hanks or not... HE IS A CHILD! And.... THEY HAVE SEX.

At the point where she is told and finally realises, I hope she is a bit sick in her mouth. It is not cool... Not cool at all. It makes the romantic scenes really uncomfortable and totally detracts from any chemistry the pair may have.

This child/adult romance theme is one of the (many) reasons I can't watch Jack.

I used to talk to you all the time, even though I was alone. I walked around for months talking to you. Now I don't know what to say.

2011-01-04T11:57:00.000-08:00

No 392 - Paris, Texas

Director - Wim Wenders

I began my journey with this film as a mildly confused man, I thought I had a basic idea of what the film was about, but that didn't connect to LOVEFiLM's categorisation of this as a documentary. But then I saw that the film starred Dean Stockwell, so I cheered up and settled in.

Well, firstly it very much isn't a documentary. Secondly, it doesn't really star Dean Stockwell either.

The film really stars Harry Dean Stanton, as Dean Stockwell's brother. A man who has lost his memory and goes on a journey which helps him rediscover his family but also himself. Whilst that mind sound a little unimpressive, please accept that I'm being deliberately vague. This is a beautiful film, and it is through the simple journey which we get to have some real powerful emotion. However, before I speak about that (as it is the end of the film) I want to speak about the film's palette.

As the name implies, this film has large sections set in Texas, and therefore large sections set in desert country. It means that once again we get to marvel in the glory of Orange and Teal, creating bleak, hospitable and enormous vistas. However, even outside the desert, the framing is beautiful - Robby Müller manages to find really exciting ways to paint the most potentially mundane moments. I can't find them anywhere to link to, but his use of colour and lighting during the two brothers' drive is beautiful, and the framing is near perfect.

What I can talk about is the moment Travis (Dean Stanton) meets up with his estranged wife. Again, it benefits from the same beautiful use of colour - however this time we're in a much deeper blues. It does show Müller's excellent eye for framing though:

But here, not only do we get the power of the visuals - we get the power from the fact that this is the film's climax. This is what everything has been building to. I don't want to talk about it in too much detail because I don't want to dull the impact to anyone who hasn't seen it. But the final half hour is one of the most emotional and powerful things I've ever seen put on film.

There is something about the visuals, the story and the lazy guitar score (of which you heard some in the video above) that just mix to make a very slow, very gentle film with an truly surprising and powerful end.

that mix meant Paris, Texas became one of a very few films which have caused me to cry.

My name is Dances with Wolves. I will not talk to you anymore. You are not worth talking to.

2011-01-03T03:46:00.000-08:00

No 137 - Dances With Wolves

Director - Kevin Costner

I thought this was going to be another Avatar film, and to a certain degree it is... man becomes ingrained with the indigenous people and fights against his own kind. However, where it differs is that the fight scenes are so brief, they are merely moments in a story which follows one man's journey. It is not a journey leading to a battle - it is a journey which happens to feature a couple of battles in it.

So, the American army isn't painted as all out evil, but they're certainly not painted in a good light. I think they're mostly shown as strange strange hicks. And a lot of them may be certified insane. One of the film's weirdest moments is one Costner's John Dumbar (before he has his new native moniker) is sent to his post by Major Fambrough.... Something seems to be wrong with Fambrough.... he represents the sheer loneliness of the Frontier - he represents what could have happened to Dunbar (and what probably would've happened if he didn't meet the Sioux tribe).

So there is a gradual set up as Dunbar goes to his isolated post and slowly - oh so slowly - gets to know the nearby tribe.

It is here that you realise quite how painfully sad the plight of the native Americans was. It isn't helped that the older westerns show them as savages and killers and not as what they were - people desperately trying to protect their world. It is the same across the world... be it the Zulu the Aboriginals or the Maori, we did seem to stomp about and ruin things for people.

However, there is one thing that Wolves misses from the old Western-times. Technicolor. I bloody love Technicolor, and when it comes to vast western vistas of orange and teal you want something that will make it pop from the screen.

The vistas in Dances with Wolves are great and moments like the buffalo stampede are genuinely incredible - but the colour palette leaves them feeling muted. We need the fake colour of technicolor to make it super-bright.

I mean, I think what surprised me most about this is how NICE it is - it is essentially a story about human relationships, about gaining trust and - eventually - about love. It is a real heartwarming tale.

Unfortunately, all of that is bollocksed up by the final text which is heart breakingly sad:

Well, it's a doo-bah-dee-doo, yes, it's a doo-bah-dee-doo, I mean a doo-bee, doo-bee, doo-bee, doo-bee, doo-bee-dee-doo

2011-01-03T02:58:00.000-08:00

No 406 - The Jungle Book

Director - Wolfgang Reitherman

I think I need to work through my Disney back catalogue, I'm rubbish with the early ones.... did they ALL start with books? Luckily... I can easily check this what with it being 2011. Anyway, welcome to the jungle, we've got fun and games and (so it seems) shit loads of Jazz. This is one jazzy jungle.

The story is the classic Rudyard Kipling tale - of a boy raised in the jungle by wolves. He manages to make a dashing pair of red pants somehow and goes off on adventures. But then a bad tiger wants to kill him and really he should go home to his race.... Many misadventures ensue with hilarious consequences.

The film's triumph is in creating some fantastically bizarre and entertaining characters. Colonel Hathi's Elephant parade is just weird (I think Disney liked weird elephants) and creates a great slapstick interlude as well as showcasing the pomposity of the British Empire and folks what were in In-Jah in those days. Kaa is basically there to be a shit villain and be constantly outfoxed and provide comic pain and then there are the vultures, the weird Beatles vultures... a by-product of it being made in the 60's and just a slightly illusion-breaking addition to the film.

However there are two characters which are the heroes of the film. Who carry this film into brilliance and who are Jazz wonders.

Lets start with Phil Harris.... He comes in and is AMAZING as Baloo - so good that he returns as Little John in Robin Hood.... a role which is almost exactly the same as Baloo - almost criminally lifted (or at least mercilessly recycled - there is a lot of recycling in Disney though). Baloo's laid back style and joi de vivre makes him an intoxicating character, a great figure to watch and a man who meets his natural foil with another ridiculous Jazz great. Louis Prima is a force to be reckoned with as King Louis - and whilst the Bare Necessities may be the best lesson to get from the film, King of the Swingers is the anarchic toe tapping number which sticks with you forever. It is a wonderful thing and a constantly classic piece of music.

So when Baloo and Louis join forces it is not only one of the highlights of the film, it is one of the best bits of Disney.... full stop.

The action later on is interesting (the fire in later scenes seems almost like OIL painting over the animation) but the film is at its best during the jazzy dancing bonkers bonanza.

However, events unfold to a necessary ending as Mowgli returns to the man village - and it isn't until we meet the oddly sexually precocious love interest (lets remember, when you look at her wide come to bed eyes.... THEY ARE 10) that we realise that the whole film was a man village.... it is just a big old sausage fest in the jungle.

But it is a jolly wee film.

We are dressed in our best and are prepared to go down as gentlemen. But, we would like a brandy.

2011-01-02T09:47:00.000-08:00

No 336 - Titanic

Director - James Cameron

This is the only time I ever went to the cinema, where the film had an interval... I hadn't seen it since I saw it at the cinema, and much to my surprise, it was far better than I had ever given it credit for. I think the problem was the HYPE around the film.... and the general girlyness. To an 11 or 12 year old boy, it didn't hold much appeal. But....second time round, it deserves a bit more praise.

However.....

When I talk about James Cameron, I feel like in recent years (or, his last 2 motion pictures, over a decade apart) he has become more about scale and spectacle than the actual story.

I mean, Avatar really doesn't deserve the heaps of praise which has been piled onto it. Yes, it is beautiful.... yes, the CGI is incredible and yes Pandora is a brilliantly well designed world which felt real, living and breathing and marvellous.... but the story is basically just Ferngully. Cameron's interests (and indeed his triumph) was in designing a living breathing ecosystem. A planet, which despite the utter ludicrous nature of it... felt real. It it the Art of Avatar which is the real triumph.

And so it is the same with Titanic. Lets be honest... the story is tosh and the acting is largely rubbish. But the SPECTACLE is epic. Mainly down to the fact that Cameron spent about 12 bazillion pounds making a replica Titanic just for his own chuckles.

The film is really split into two parts (well 3 if we include the bookends with the spritliest 100 year old in the world - Gloria Stuart actually managed to live to 100 too RIP) - A lurve story for the ladies and a disaster film for the chaps (that, at least, is how I imagine it was marketed). The love story is there to build the relationships but it just shows how poor the acting is, with maybe the exception of a fiendishly young looking DiCaprio who shows he can act really. It does have an IMDB-checking bonanza of recognisable faces though.

Also can we point out Ioan Gruffud - who shows himself as a TRUE HERO in this film, despite him having very little to do for most of it.

And of course Billy Zane being an utter evil git. Hoorah.

So we can watch lots of people walk about in the stifled restrictions of class.... There is some rumpy pumpy and there is some nudity (quite controversial in a 12 I'd imagine, but maybe not - I do think Winslett is a bit of a naughty anyway...). However during this, Bernard Hill (playing Captain Birdseye - the face of this blog) walks around looking stern and for the next 2 hours or so we watch the ship very slowly sink.

Generally, this film is:

too long
unexcitingly plotted
badly acted
badly scripted
has the most annoyingly saccharine 'dying' coda in a film ever

and yet, it is almost all forgiven for the sheer scale of his creation. Whether we're travelling through the fully functioning Titanic going from 1st class to boiler room, or whether we're watching his creation sink and crumble, it is an impressive feat. It allows Cameron to make some truly remarkable imagery and it allows him to show the full impact of what is a terrible tragic disaster.

But.... the film isn't really that good. And I was mainly excited about watching this awesome Leo Mash Up again.... any excuse to promote it.