That's what I'm trying to prove mother. Rod didn't kill Tina and he didn't hang himself. There's this guy. He's after us in our dreams.

No 162 - A Nightmare on Elm Street
Director - Wes Craven

One, two, Freddy's coming for you.
Three, four, better lock your door.
Five, six, grab your crucifix.
Seven, eight, better stay awake.
Nine, ten, never sleep again.

Everything is scarier when it is accompanied by a rhyme. There is something about an innocent children's rhyme that just makes scary things scarier. I think it is the cruel cruel juxtaposition. It is like the Gentlemen - they were the SCARIEST Buffy villains, and that was probably helped by the accompanying chilling rhyme.

The thing that I find disappointing about this film is that it just fails to live up to the premise. The idea of a homicidal maniac with phenomenal God like powers terrorising you through your dreams is a genuinely terrifying concept, and yet it never lives up to its full potential. I think this is partly down to the special effects. As this is a film which relies a lot on special effects, the fact that they're dated does make the film feel slightly hokey.
And yet, that is what is all the more disappointing about the remake. Even though they have better special effects, they still haven't grasped the FUN you could have with such a concept. Almost endless fun.

And whilst Nightmare is slightly flawed as a horror, it is a wonderfully fun piece of film. Freddy Krueger is a genuinely chilling villain in the fact that he seems to just be really enjoying what he does. The gleeful way he torments his victims is both horrifically cruel but wonderfully joyous - his cackling face as the teenagers claw at him for freedom. He does also seem to have a slightly masochistic personality. Just before he uses his claw hands (such an amazing, instantly iconic, weapon) he likes to show off how sharp they are - cutting off fingers or slicing into his own skin. He just enjoys a bit of self mutilation before he attacks.
The fact that Freddy Krueger was a child killer is unimportant. The fact that he is clearly stark raving MAD is what makes him a dangerous villain. Just really not a scary one. I was going to say that he is like a clown trying to kill you - but that is terrifying... Freddy just isn't scary. Dead Tina is scary, wrapped in her bloodied sheets, but he isn't.
However, his character does allow for some amazing visual moments. Stairs which collapse and melt in crumbling squidgy marshmallow, individual flaming footprints and tongues which creep out of the phone receiver to lick your face...
And the deaths are phenomenal! An echo back to the 70's and the ridiculous over the top deaths of Dario Argento. Fountains of bright bright red blood shower out as limbs are severed and blood flies everywhere. It is gloriously over the top. It all helps to make sure you're never drawn into the film too much - it is all so absurd.

Another thing that keeps you from falling too far in are the number of recognisable faces looking so young... Look at young little Johnny Depp. Look at Lin Shaye playing the teacher (best known to me as Magda in Something About Mary or (even better) Mrs Bruce in the awesomely bad Detroit Rock City). And who is playing the doctor? Why it is the man I find infuriating... the voice of Roger Rabbit himself Charles Fleischer (I dunno why, I just find him REALLY annoying). All of these people rip me out of the story, but allow me to enjoy it for the camp violent stupidity of it all. And that is a good thing.

This is a film that for all its violence and gore, feels cosy. There is something jolly and fun about it, which is quite a feat considering it touches on some dark topics. It is a horror romp, but it is one which manages a wonderfully surprising ending that leaves you with a little buzz of adrenaline.

Great.

I've had it! I've had it with wobbly-legged, rum-soaked pirates!

No 475 - Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
Director - Gore Verbinski

Oh, it starts so well. Beautifully in fact. The opening shot of rain pouring into overflowing tea cups is not only gorgeous cinematography, it is the most openly English shot I have ever seen in my life. There is some wonderful slow motion running about and we're introduced to the new big bad... well little bad.. Lord Bennett, representing the East India Trading Company and representing something else, something important. This is, after all, the time in which the East India Trading Company got massive. When I was reading up on Tea (as one does) I began to get an idea of how massive the company was, but this film makes it instantly clear - it is big. Bigger and more powerful than an island's Governor. He has warrants for the arrest of everyone who aided Captain Jack.
So Elizabeth, Will and even Norrington are pulled back in to Captain Jack Sparrow's mad little world.

In fact this film manages to crowbar in a lot of returns from the first film. Sadly, the most annoying ones being the return of Pintel and Regatti as the 'comic relief'. I loe Mackenzie Crooke, but when you are blessed with Captain Jack, you do not need comic relief... let everyone else live their weird and slightly straight laced live and let Captain Jack flounce around.
This trilogy gets progressively more muddled. One of the reasons that the third part isn't in this list is that by then, the franchise was a bit of a mess, trying to fit more and more layers of extravagance and myth into an already bloated story. Here is hoping that with Pirates 4 it all gets stripped back down to its part one origins.
Here, we can see the beginning of this fascination with pouring myth over myth over myth. However, the story is pretty damned good. Jack made a deal with Davy Jones to get his ship back. In return, he gives Davy Jones his soul (after an allotted time). The time is up and Jones wants his soul. So we have a sea pursuit with Jack against Bill Nighy's Davy Jones.

Jones is an incredible creation. To this day I think he is probably the best CGI in a film. You just can't tell where prosthetics end and CGI begins in his constantly moving tentacular face. It probably shines best in his organ playing scene. There is something remarkable about the scene. The independent tentacles sweeping across the keys and the genuine performance of pain and despair on Davy Jones' face. What is remarkable is that even though it is hidden behind masses of digital and prosthetic make up, even though it is delivered with a completely different (to his usual voice) Scottish brogue, it is still recognisably Bill Nighy. Something about the eyes.

So the new characters are largely brilliant. The links to the original film are quite clever (we get to meet Will's pirate father Bootstrap Bill and we learn more about Captain Jack's unusual compass) but the film suffers from trying to out stage the first.
So the scenes of over choreographed swashbuckling - complete with flips and leaps and tumbles - have become further over choreographed. So now we have a (genuinely excellent) fight with three combatants sharing two swords (a lot of throwing swords between each other) and the utterly bonkers fight between Captain Jack, Will Turner and Norrington. Not enough to have them fight in a three way duel (already quite unusual) - they have to do it on top of the giant water wheel as it rolls through the jungles of the island.

It is utterly preposterous. Whilst it does look cool, it just shows what happened to the franchise. By film 3, POTC was so conscious of set pieces and moments that the plot severely suffered. However, this is not the franchise's biggest crime.

The next bit of my blog is a bit of a rant about how the film ends. There will be spoilers in. I will also dole out some spoilers on the Matrix trilogy (because it illustrates my ranty point) - so let it be warned.... If you don't want to know things about these films don't read it. Let me say that the Pirates of the Caribbean films have an excellent score and move on. End of Blog.

Otherwise.... let me bitch and moan.

I HATE IT when films don't end properly. It is lazy and insulting to the audience. It also means that we're expected to shell out twice as much to know how a story ends. Now I don't mind when a story continues into the next film. Lets look at Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. They have an overall arc but each film is structure. The general plot of that film is concluded by the end of the film. I don't mind that. I just don't like ending mid plot. Kill Bill did it - splitting up the film into two halves, when with tighter editing it could have been one, better, film.
But for me the biggest criminals are The Matrix and Pirates of the Caribbean. In both of these films, all we have is a second film acting like a trailer for the third and final film. It is all just set up. The Matrix even ends on a DUN DUN DUN 'to be continued' panel. No! This isn't a TV show! This isn't fucking Lost! I want my resolution. I paid for a story.

It is the same with Pirates. The two plot elements in this story are as follows: Jack has to honour his debt to Davy Jones and William Turner wants to rescue his father from the Flying Dutchman. Whilst Jack's Story is sort of finished - the debt is paid when they RELEASE THE KRAKEN which subsequently devours the Black Pearl, captain included. But Will's story is barely touched on... just leave it for the third film. Hell the final act is just setting up subsequent plot elements for the third film.
Again, like Pirates it even ends with a DUN DUN DUNNNN moment as the recently revived Barbossa struts down the steps of the voodoo lady to rescue Jack from the afterlife.

By all means give us a trilogy. Link the stories together. But don't end midway through the plot! That is why we watch TV.... grr

When you marooned me on that god forsaken spit of land, you forgot one very important thing, mate: I'm Captain Jack Sparrow

No 371 - Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl
Director - Gore Verbinski

It is a brave move to base a film on a funfair ride. It is not the most common of occurrences, I can only think of one other attempt. So thank goodness that this ended up much better than The Haunted Mansion.
But where Disney's ghost train had a plot of sorts (a tragic tale of possession on a wedding night) Pirates of the Caribbean didn't. It was a series of tableaux... showing Pirate towns and battles and the weird skeletal shipwreck. POTC took elements of those visuals and made a really interesting story. Keeping enough little nods (the dog with keys, the skeleton pirates and the excellent jaunty song) to merit the film's link to the ride without forcing a structure which doesn't work

The story is wonderful, set in the 17th (or maybe early 18th) century as the cliches of piracy are shown. After all these are proper grimacing rum swilling pirates who go out and kidnap governors' daughters. Whilst they may be cliche they have fallen foul of a curse on some Aztec gold (again, another cliche) and have been punished by a decade of becoming skeletons in the moonlight. This is the nice touch and is beautifully presented and intelligently applied.... the pirates are trying to cancel out the curse and move on with being general no-good-nics but throughout this they also get embroiled with Elizabeth Swann, the local Blacksmith who loves her and the Pirate clan's former captain.

Let us begin with our protagonists..... Kiera Knightly and Orlando Bloom are not the most exciting of actors, they're quite insipid, especially when compared to the bonkers world which Pirates inhibits.
Luckily, the film introduces one of the greatest show stealing supporting characters of recent times. Captain Jack Sparrow. The man has already become an iconic cult hero. He worked wonders on Johnny Depp, finally thrusting him into the proper A list where he belongs and he made pirates cool again (though the child part of me likes to think that pirates were always cool). Captain Jack is a preposterous human being. He sways and swaggers. He is drunk. He is a rock star. At one point they hint that actually he got brain damage from heat stroke.... but I think that is just the way it works.

So whilst Elizabeth Swann just wants to get home and Will Turner wants to rescue Elizabeth. Whilst the Pirates need to return all the stolen gold as well as a blood sacrifice... Jack just wants his ship back. He wishes to steal the Black Pearl from his mutineering cursed former crew.
Jack's selfishness makes him a fascinating character. He twists and turns. He lies. He double and triple crosses. He changes allegiances so often that it is hard to know what his motivation really is. But, at the heart of it all he is a nice chap. He wants to do the right thing, as long as the right thing sees him in a better position than he was prior to it. This film sees Jack as very much a supporting role.... His story flits and swerves (much like him) through the duller protagonists' stories. The issue with it being that Depp was a resounding success and so future films begin to focus more and more on him and make him wilder and wilder. Whereas here, from the second he steps off his sinking ship, he is the perfect foil to the stiffness and formality of our two leads. At least Orlando Bloom seems to start enjoying himself once he becomes a Pirate.

Jack's appearance also makes other characters more interesting. I think Depp's insanity put them on edge and caused them to up their game. Now there are some great actors in this. Namely the wonderful Jonathan Pryce as Governer Swann and Jack Davenport makes an excellently rigid Naval commodore - full of pomp and arrogance. However, whilst the scenes between these two and the two protagonists are beautiful to look at (and they are.... I would give anything to have been aristocracy in that age, such beautiful beautiful wonderful clothes) they are just dull. Whereas you throw in Captain Jack to the fold and the scenes become more interesting.
It helps that they usually involve a mildly ridiculous set piece and swashbuckling. SWASHBUCKLING! What a wonderful thing to have back on our screens. And yes it has now been sexxed up and people leap and get flipped and perform acrobatics but at the very heart of it there are buckles and they're being swashed. However, even with spurts of action or insanity, the best scenes come from the Pirates.

Whether in the raucous violent pirate towns (how awesome does Tortuga look?) or in the crews themselves - they're excellent. Jack's crew includes the most bonkers group of misfits (a trained parrot who speaks on behalf of a tongueless man, a surly midget) and rising star of 2009 Zoe Saldana. They also have Kevin McNally as Gibbs.... the first mate (I guess....) who has an interesting story which was never told. In that, the first time we meet him he works for the Navy, then he becomes a pirate.... Incidentally did anyone ever watch a really shit sitcom called Dad? Because that is how I knew Kevin McNally.... was really weird to see him in the cinema.

The villainous pirates (or... more villainous as none of them are exactly law abiding citizens) are led by the fabulous Geoffrey Rush as Barbossa. He is an elegant man, dressed in pirate chic and sporting a horrible mousey beard. I like pirate Chic, and Barbossa is far more realistic than... say... Hook (though I'd love to dress like Hook). He beautifully straddles charm and menace, his character is the type of person you could easily imaging leading cut throats. Most of the pirates are also proper savage. Growling evil murderers who are either all out aggressive or really rather mad. Either way, they're the right level of scary.... Especially when they transform.

I love the transformations.... that is the film's real skill... the seamless and elegant way that the pirates turn from human to zombie as they pass through moonlight. It is so smoothly done and the first time you see it properly (rather than a fleeting arm) is a tour de force. A dizzying race through the ship. The camera twisting and turning and leaving the viewer as confused as Elizabeth must be.
The whole scene is great.... from the quiet beginnings of Barbossa's dining room through to the ship in all its moonlit glory.

One thing the POTC franchise has always succeeded in was their depiction of cursed crews.

It is not a perfect film. Some of the important characters are dull beyond belief. However, there are so many inventive flashes of inspiration masterfully done that this is a joy to watch. It feels like a proper matinee film. Mixing romance and comedy and horror with the derring do and sense of adventure.
It is, essentially, pure escapism. But isn't that really the concept of cinema?

I did also watch Part 2 but I'll blog it in the am....

No matter what, Edward will always be special.

No 66 - Edward Scissorhands
Director - Tim Burton

Recently, I have been to the cinema to see Alice in Wonderland in both spectacular 3D and in more traditional 2D (Which, oddly, I enjoyed more). It got me thinking about the work of Tim Burton, a director who I really admire and am quick to defend.
So, in order for me to shameless crowbar in my thoughts on Alice, I decided to watch a Tim Burton film.

It seems to me that Burton's films have always been about outsiders which don't fit into their world. However, even then, the films can be split into two types. Films in which a Burtonesque main character struggles to fit into the real world, or films in which a character from the real world finds themselves in a strange Burtonesque world.
The only exceptions I can think of are his 2 period pieces. Although both Sleepy Hollow and Sweeney Todd have nightmare figures which stalk and terrorise an otherwise regular (if not normal) English surrounding.
Oh and Big Fish, in which it sort of flits between the two styles depending on the narrative.

The films in which we're plunged into Burton's world seem less successful than those in which it happens the other way round. They're almost too overwhelming. Charlie Bucket's voyage is a dazzle of colour and noise. It is fun and entertaining but hardly substantial. Likewise, Alice's adventure (there is no reason for that film to be called Alice in Wonderland) is an exciting and entertaining jaunt with excellent voice cameos (and the best role(s) I've ever seen Matt Lucas in), yet it fails to be as captivating as the 'inspired by' source material.
Even Burton's own story of Victor's journey to the afterlife pales in comparison with Selick's story of Jack Skellington messing up our beloved holiday.

My thinking is thus: Burton is used to being the weird outsider. He saw the real world or American suburbia as unusual and didn't feel comfortable there. He was the strange outsider who didn't fit in with normality. To quote Lydia in another of Burton's films "'live people ignore the strange and unusual. I, myself, am strange and unusual".
His films celebrate strangeness and their jarring juxtaposition with the norm. As soon as strangeness becomes the norm, Burton seems to get a little carried away and the film becomes more about the visual opulence and unusual set pieces and less about the characters. However when our story is set in the 'real' world (be it chocolate box suburbia or the Gothic grime of cities and history) we get wonderful characters.
Look at the reverence in which Burton treats Edward, Beetlejuice, Ed Wood and even Batman (though it is clear that his favourite is Oswald Cobblepot). Tim Burton loves the freaks. So if everyone is a freak, he doesn't know where to lavish his attention. He doesn't know where to focus the beauty.

I'm glad I've said all that because Edward Scissorhands is probably the epitome of Burton's 'outsider in the real world' work. It is his most beautiful, touching and emotional story and it has some wonderful characterisation. I think it is because this is one of his most personal stories. Certainly the most personal original story (Big Fish is an adaptation he took on in tribute to his father). Edward even looks a bit like Burton, with his big messy mop of hair. He is an outsider, naive and wondrous at the world. A world in which he can make great art, but a world in which he feels like he can't touch anyone without hurting them. It is a really poignant story and a really beautiful one.
However before I start to look at the story I want to begin with the characters.

Let us start with the titular Edward. Johnny Depp is an amazing actor. He is one of those few people who can completely change themselves and embody the character. Even in the crappest of films he is a joy to watch. It was only a matter of time till he made it big and when Disney unveiled him to the world he became not only a star, but a sensation. He had always enjoyed playing oddballs and freaks and Disney played to this by gradually making Captain Jack Sparrow weirder and weirder, less and less hinged.
Even Burton began to play up to the typecasting.
Kooky Depp. Mad Depp.
But with Edward, Depp shows us how good he is with restraint. Of course the idea of the character is strange, he is a Pinocchio with scissors for hands. But the character itself is very restrained. He is almost emotionless at times, a vacant, bemused, wondering child who experiences the strangeness of the real world after an undisclosed length of time in isolation. For all his Gothic freakery, Edward is quite a normal person. Just a very sheltered person. His character is all about restraint and reaction.
Even Burton shows restraint. Journies into Edward's past may be a window to the madcap and Gothic, complete with a wonderful turn from Vincent Price (a hero of Tim Burton's) but they're brief and they have a point. They show that once, potentially decades ago (Price dresses like a Victorian aristocrat, but it could just be that Price dresses like a Victorian aristocrat) he was a normal part of his world. Then his world 'didn't wake up'.

So from the cobwebby world of Vincent Price's castle, Edward travels to the pastel pinks and yellows of a very 50's themed suburbia. Here he meets Kim, the young daughter of his hosts, and he falls instantly in love.
To be fair, Winona Ryder is beautiful in this film, mixing teenage sass with a wonderful naivety, it is obvious why Edward falls for her. Also, does Winona Ryder sleep in Tupperware? She seems to have the same impishly young face from as far as I remember. Edward's infatuation with Kim is at the centre of the film's downward spiral. That, and her jealous boyfriend Jim - who, in an amazing piece of counter casting is played by Anthony Michael Hall! I only noticed it on this viewing but what a beautiful change in teenage credentials.

Kim's family take Edward into their home and the entire gossiping street flock to her home to meet the new guest. Edward has some mad skills with his scissors and quickly moves from trimming hedges to dog grooming to hair styling and all the community loves him. Incidentally, whilst the topiary is outstanding, the dogs and women look ridiculous in their hairstyles.
Throughout this journey we see Edward become more confident with his place in society. Dressed in 'normal' clothes he looks into get a salon and becoming a member of society. Naturally things go wrong and Edward ends up an outcast again.
It is interesting that Edward's outfit becomes more and more tattered as he becomes more of an outcast. They black leather and buckles of his 'freak' self glistening through the cracks in his outwards outfit.

The story really is that simple - outsider is accepted and then rejected and chased out by their community. The story is not the important element of the film, it is the characters and the relationship between the characters.
In that respect it is Burton at his finest, most subtle and most beautiful. I don't think he has ever shot a moment as beautiful as the Ice Dance - moment which may not be 'Burtonesque' but which captures the fairytale element he always puts on film.

You see - it is this one final fact that makes me love the film. For all the doomed romance, Pinocchio twists and Beauty and the Beast homages... it is actually a story about why it snows in that town.

And there is something truly beautiful behind the melancholy of the tale.

There's a hole in the world like a great black pit and it's filled with people who are filled with shit! And the vermin of the world inhabit it...

No 490 - Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
Director - Tim Burton


Tim Burton has created a nice little niche for himself. I love the man, I love his films, I love his style and I love his directorial vision but he does have a very distinctive style. Gothic fairytale with aspects of horror. Which is usually delivered in a style which isn't too horrific. Burton's full on Gothic nightmares are few and far between. The only other one I can really think of is Sleepy Hollow. This is the first one which revels in the gore and pain and torture. This is Burton at his darkest and most intense.
This is also a far more complex musical than Corpse Bride. I am a massive fan of Danny Elfman (another very distinctive artist with a very recognisable theme), however he cannot compete with the richness and complicated styles of Sondheim. The songs in this are a beast to play and an utter nightmare to sing.

Yet, despite these challenges the film is a quintessential Burton film, and drips with familiarity. Take the opening titles. In fact, take the opening titles of any Tim Burton film. They all convey a journey. Seriously. Go and watch one, they really do.
In this film we follow the trail of blood from the barber's chair to the Thames.
The only difference is that in this journey we're not accompanied by Danny Elfman's scores. Instead we have the epic instrumental of The Tale of Sweeney Todd. This makes me a bit sad because it is my favourite song in the play (full of pomp and OTT operatics) but did not fit the world that Burton had created.

The world of the film is savage. I have seen the film a few times and have been fortunate enough to see a couple of different stage versions, however I'm still surprised how dark the tale is.
With theatre it is subverted, you cannot show. You mostly imply. Cinema does not have these limitations.
The film has a very muted palette, dirty greys and muddy sepia tones. Broken only by the vibrant red of blood. The blood is so bright and so red that it never looks real. It is just an over exaggerated version of the horror. And oh what horror.

The characters themselves are all horrible, but almost all of them are fantastic to watch. I wish to begin with the exception. Anthony and Joanna - the young love interest. It seems almost traditional that the love interest will have the weakest songs. But it also has the weakest characters. Anthony is a massive wet drip, considering he is a sailor you'd think he was a tougher person. Not only that but Jamie Campbell Bower seems far too young to play the part. He is a very baby faced 19 year old. Joanna doesn't have much to do in this film besides get locked away in places (bedrooms, asylums, chests). The two are not very interesting. Contrary to that is the fabulous cameo character of Pirelli.
Sacha Baron Cohen truly shines as the exaggerated idiot of an Italian. But it plays to his strengths, and he is genuinely witty and a primping showboating joy to watch. It takes a lot to steal the show in a film so laden with talent that the mighty Anthony Stewart Head only gets one line, but steal the show he does.
Moving on to a trio of death eaters who also shine in this film. Starting with the baddies. The Beadle, played by Timothy Spall with a horrible sleazy, cowardly, vermin style which seems to characterise his more recent cinema outings. He is fabulous, his every movement almost dripping - he is so gloriously hateable. Moving on to Judge Turpin. Whilst not so outwardly and aesthetically repulsive (his wardrobe alone makes me wish I was a wealthy Victorian), the film takes great pains to illustrate just how cruel and perverse he is. A rapist, a bully, a sexual deviant. He is not a nice man.
On the other hand, Alan Rickman is a genius and plays the character with such subtlety. He comes off as bitter and tired and self centred. Whereas he could have come off as a cliche villain. But that is because Alan Rickman is brilliant. I hope you all love Alan Rickman.

We come to the last of our Harry Potter trio and to the beginning of the central pairing. Helena Bonham Carter always seems to get stick for her roles in her husband's films. As if she hasn't earned them. She is wonderful in this (again I think she is wonderful in a lot of things - one of the real highlights of Harry Potter) and her character is beautifully complex. The mix of wanting to make things better for Sweeney, but also trying to seduce him. The strange sensual, pitiful, grimy quality of her character. Watching her character blossom throughout the film. See By The Sea, for a rare splash of vibrant colour (plus Burton favourite of black and white stripes) and for Mrs Lovett's characterisation coming out in full.
She is a wonderful character and her death is the most horrific of all.

This film benefits from the fabulous cast (and the fabulous deaths). I've spoken about most of them but need to mention the most familiar part of any Tim Burton film, the mighty Johnny Depp. Depp is a formidable actor, and initially I was worried that he might be going a bit too Jack Sparrah in his role as Todd, but that was a massively misplaced fear - based on nothing but a cockney accent.
However Todd's character is beautifully displayed. I don't want to sit and recite the entire plot, but you have to accept that no one in this film has a good time, it is nothing but tragedy and woe. There are some amazingly sad single moments (such as the part where Todd is reunited with his wife and daughter without realising) but the true tragedy is Todd's descent.
With the exception of the flashbacks, Todd is never truly happy. He begins the film bitter and angry and hellbent on revenge, a surly ashen man with a lot on his mind. Gradually he lets the blood lust over come him. By the point he kills Mrs Lovett he is almost a demon, his blood smeared face glistening in the roaring fire.

The horror does not come from the (almost caricature) blood.
The horror comes from Todd's insanity.