Wow, who would've guessed that the Kiwis had more in them then the Finn brothers and a Phantom-loving dog? This was a brilliant and unique film (at the time of it's release, anyway), and gave the world a home-grown insight into New Zealand's native people and the changing cultural landscape they still find themselves facing. It's also the film that kindled my love for New Zealand films!
Bleak, uncompromising, funny, realistic, brutal... Once Were Warriors portrays it's world in all the colours of life, bringing across a believable picture of a decaying culture and the fight to preserve the past whilst struggling against a tide of urban modernism. The film follows the Heke family, headed by the hard-as-nails, wife-beating 'loveable chap' Jake-The-Muss (Temuera Morrison, in a role he will probably never match), an indelible character at once charismatic and repulsive, eating up the viewer's attention whenever he appears. He is flanked by his long-suffering wife Beth (Rena Owen), a victim with enough flaws to drive home the reality of the situation portrayed. The film traces the collapse of the family from Jake's laying-off onwards, we watch each member succumb to a chain-reaction of unfortunate actions like a house of cards slowly falling apart.
Once Were Warriors is full of expertly-constructed iconic moments, powerful and memorable thanks to good direction and good writing. The film plays out a tradition vs. modern world motif; the corrosion of the land and people of New Zealand. Alcohol corrodes Jake, and the character of Nig is drawn into a twisted street-perversion of Maori tribal culture, whilst young Gracie relates stories of the past amongst an urban wasteland of burnt-out car shells, junk and graffiti. It's somewhat telling that even amongst the decay of the outside world Gracie is safe, but her own tragedy comes from within her home. It's an entertaining and strong film, with powerful themes at work underneath. Worth seeing.
HIGHLIGHTS: Watch out for the decor of the kids' room; it's adorned by various film posters of black guy/white guy American films, EG. Lethal Weapon, White Men Can't Jump, etc... suggesting a fictionalised cohesion between races.
TRIVIA: Followed by a sequel, What Becomes of the Broken-Hearted? Both are based on novels of the same name, and there is also a third novel, Jake's Long Shadow.
In the last decade or so it seems that 'kids' movies have really increased in quality (EG. Harry Potter, PIXAR's various releases, etc, etc.), even to such an extent that they're watchable by people over the age of 12 (Shock! Horror!) Thunderpants is a brilliantly crude yet heart-warming British film seemingly aimed at the kiddos that I (someone significantly older than your average ‘kiddo’) found extremely enjoyable.
Patrick Smash is a child with a problem; he, quote, "Cannot control his arse". This leads to all manner of social ostracizations, until he eventually turns to his only friend - 'genius' Alan A. Allen (another misfit child, played by Rupert Grint) to help him solve his problems so he can fulfil his dream and become an astronaut. This leads to the creation of 'thunderpants'.
The story veers in all manner of exciting and unexpected directions from here, employing a winning mixture of fantasy, child-pleasing gross-out gags and feel-good adventure, along with some colourful characters and an inventive story. It's every bit as unsuitably bizarre, macabre and grotesque as the best books written by Roald Dahl, and it also features some surprising and hilarious homages to Ghostbusters and 2001, amongst other things.
The cast is filled out by various familiar faces... Ned Beatty and Paul Giamatti representing the Americans, and Stephen Fry and Simon Callow going in to bat for the Brits. Newcomer Bruce Cook is refreshingly docile and pudgy as the hapless protagonist, whilst Rupert Grint is unfortunately barely understandable with his horribly put-on lisping and pretty much gives an extremely annoying performance throughout. The various effects are great, hell - almost everything about the film is great. Hugely entertaining and childishly indulgent, what more could I have wanted? (Answer: Not much more at all!)
HIGHLIGHTS: The hilarious dialogue. The DVD also contains a pretty good slog of deleted scenes - including a disturbingly inappropriate gas chamber scene that amused me greatly.
I'm not sure if this is a highlight, but everything in the film is green for some reason...
TRIVIA: 'Thunderpants' is almost a Harry Potter spinoff, featuring Rupert Grint (Ron) and Joshua Herdman (Goyle) both playing key roles, and Leslie Phillips (the voice of the Sorting Hat) also turns up as a Judge.
Keira Knightley briefly cameos as a nerdy music student.
This doesn't really qualify as trivia because I can't prove it, but I swear Robert De Niro has a cameo as a frenchman in one scene.
Dedicated to the 'gallant french' for all the lives they gave to save a bunch of paintings from the Nazis, this sharp, black&white war actioner is one of director John Frankenheimer's babies from a rising age of cinematic realism. Frankenheimer was a somewhat undersung stalwart of thrillers and action-dramas, probably most well-known for The Birdman of Alcatraz and the original Manchurian Candidate. He died in 2002 and was still directing right up until his death. The Train is the kind of dependable war potboiler you can find in most shops now for $10 or so, gaining a second life due to the DVD boom.
Burt Lancaster does his stern, 100% manly hero routine here, playing Paul Labiche - the kind of rogue who finds himself falling in with the French Resistance against his better judgement. The train of the title is a train filled with art masterpieces that belong to the French. Sensing that the war will soon end, the local Nazi - Colonel Von Waldheim - is trying to loot all he can. These two men pull this train back and forth... the Nazi powered by greed and a perceived sense of higher culture, the Frenchman fighting for his country's legacy. It's a struggle not so much about art but more about morale, dignity and preserving one's cultural identity in the face of the horrors of war.
Von Waldheim is played by Paul Schofield (an esteemed theatrical player who appeared in far too few films), and he is probably the most interesting thing in the film. His desperation to hold onto these works of art becomes symbolic of Germany's flailing at the end of the war. His cultured demeanour and arrogance plays off well against Lancaster's own self-assured everyman persona. Their eventual showdown at the end is an extremely effective scene.
Whilst slow in some parts and a little too wrapped up in the finer details of the true story it's based on (it's adapted from a book by French Resistance leader Rose Valland), The Train is a worthy tale of courage and the war's end in France. The film's crisp cinematography and gritty tension is also indicative of the growing wave of realism that directors like Frankenheimer began to employ in their films around this era, so if you like war films this is definitely one to check out.
The greatest goddamn action film of all time! I could watch Point Break over and over again... everything in it is so rad - the dialogue, the stunts, the characters, the ending. It's all tops. I would deadset say that of all the action films I have ever seen, and will ever see, this is the best. It doesn't matter how crazy the stunts get in future action films (or how much ridiculous CGI they employ), nothing will ever top the adrenalin rush, fun times and tragic undertones of this film.
Keanu Reeves plays the appropriately monikered Johnny Utah, an ex-football player turned FBI agent, who must go undercover as a gnarly surfer in order to infiltrate a bank-robbing gang of adrenalin junkies. Keanu Reeves has often been accused of being pretty crappy when it comes to acting, but if there was ever a role he was perfectly suited to (outside of the Bill and Ted movies) then this is it. His older, more experienced partner is the crusty and amusing FBI Agent Angelo Pappas (Gary Busey). Throw in Patrick Swayze as the guru/gang leader Bodhi (proof that Swayze was never a one-trick pony), Lori Petty as surf-moll Tyler, and a whole range of sandy-haired 'rad dudes' (including Red Hot Chilli Peppers frontman Anthony Kiedis), and you have the makings of an extremely entertaining film.
Often the powers-that-be try to make a film that is 'hip' and 'on the pulse'. More often than not they fail spectacularly, due to the fact that these Hollywood types are huge arseholes. This film is one of the few films that actually manages to get it right, even down to the bittersweet ending. Like I said, I could watch this film again and again, everything fits together so well. Kudos to director Kathryn Bigelow.
TRIVIA: Point Break briefly started a sky-diving craze in the movies. This begun and ended with the film Drop Zone.
Watch out for Anthony Kiedis moving his arms around as he speaks like he's still on stage with the Chilli Peppers.
Every now and then a foreign film comes along; a foreign film in a video case glossy enough for me to think 'this might not be so boring'. Sometimes I regret picking up some films, some times I don't. The Cup is a Tibetan film (filmed and set in Bhutan out of political necessity) about monks and soccer. Not your average Hollywood fare, I admit, but I guess that's what makes it all the more appealing.
It's a quiet and gentle film, centreing of the life of young Tibetan monks. It's realistic in it's depiction of the mischievousness of teenage boys, and it lets the non-Buddhist-monk part of the world know that devoting yourself to religion isn't as dull as we might think. The young monks featured here are soccer fans. They sneak out to watch games on a local black-and-white television, put posters up on their walls, and discuss their favourite players and teams - all whilst dodging their teacher and master, Geko, who is always out to catch them skiving on their studies.
It's not as frivolous and light-hearted as it sounds. The current political struggles of Tibet are not ignored, though they aren't particularly an agenda to be forced down our throats either - the film simply represents the reality of the situation that exiled Tibetan Buddhists face. I found myself so absorbed by the simplistic nature of the story, in particular the oddities of east-meets-west culture, that I was smiling along with the characters from beginning to end.
You'll find it hard to pick a more joyous film than this. It defines the term 'good-natured', and is as entertaining as it is unique. TRIVIA: No professional actors took part in this film, all the monks are played by real monks. It cost virtually nothing to make, being almost a documentary in terms of location/sets/actors.
The Cup, made in 1999, was the first film to ever be made by the all-Buddhist nation of Bhutan. They have made about 10 more films since.
Just recently I reviewed another Sidney Poitier race relations-heavy film, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, a well-meaning film that time has not been very kind to. This effort, In The Heat of the Night, stands up a lot better in today's day and age, being as the film-makers decided to let the racial aspects of the script co-exist with an actual story. It would be fair to say that racism and prejudice is an important part of this story, but that it's not all that this film is about. It also happens to be a whodunnit.
This film is a classic deep-south racists vs. the law drama that sees Sidney Poitier team up with a dodgy redneck sheriff (Rod Steiger, in his Oscar-winning role). The plot itself isn't really much, but the crunch of the story is in the interplay between Poitier and Steiger. There's a seething prejudice bubbling under Steiger's portrayal, but such is the character's arrogance that he rarely feels the need to show it. It's a kind of subtlety that serves the film well and has ensured it hasn't dated as much as it might have, and Steiger's seemingly laid-back performance was well deserving of it's award.
In The Heat of the Night was very much ahead of it's times as far as it's contemporaries were concerned... just compare this and the similarly liberal-minded Guess Who's Coming to Dinner for proof. Better yet, compare this film to any other thriller from the mid-60s - it was a rare film in it's day just for having a black actor in the lead role. What was perhaps even more forward-thinking was that his offsider is white. That the partnership is layered over with the aforementioned bigotry (and a growing sense of professional respect) is probably the biggest part of the film's charm. It certainly goes a long way to making this a must-see .
TRIVIA: In The Heat of the Night was such a breath of fresh air that it eventually spawned a TV series as well as two sequels starring Poitier.
Whilst his co-star was nominated for (and won) the Academy Award for Best Actor, Poitier himself failed to get a nomination for his work here... which is strange, considering it is probably one of his best and most memorable performances. Whilst the Academy was fine with previously nominating Poitier for less threatening roles, they probably baulked at the idea of drawing attention to such an assertive and defiant character as Poitier's Virgil Tibbs.
Galaxy Quest is, without a doubt, a parody of Star Trek and it's various knockoffs. Despite what one might initially think though, it's quite gentle in it's mocking, and anyone even mildly familiar with Star Trek (particularly the original series) will find it's cleverness and good humour infectious.
The story concerns the has-been actors of a now-cancelled science-fiction show, the eponymous Galaxy Quest, who find themselves pulled away from their nerdy fans and into a real-life alien war. I don't really want to give away any of the jokes, but the characters are a scream (particularly Alan Rickman as the jobless classical actor forever typecast as the proud alien warrior, and Tony Shalhoub as the near-comatose engineer who seems to be unaware of all the strangeness around him).
Check it out if you haven't already done so, even if you aren't a Star Trek fan or anything like that, you'll be pleasantly surprised.
HIGHLIGHTS: Tim Allen's character must do battle with a 'pig-dog', or so he thinks...
TRIVIA: This is most likely the only good movie Tim Allen will ever make.
This is the 'enlightened' 1960s version of the oft-filmed tale, and probably the most lavish and epic attempt to turn the infamous mutiny into the stuff of movie legend. Mutiny of the Bounty also marks the start of Marlon Brando's fall from grace as an actor, with critics ridiculing his chipper British accent and flippant interpretation of the character of Fletcher Christian. It's certainly the last big 'event' movie he would be invited to be a part of for quite some time. This version of Mutiny on the Bounty is also notable for having the least sympathetic portrayal of Captain Bligh, and it also features Richard Harris in an early semi-leading role.
For anyone unfamiliar with the story behind Mutiny on the Bounty, it concerns first-time British naval captain, William Bligh (Trevor Martin) - a man of working class origins put in charge of an important botanic mission to Tahiti on the other side of the world. Due to the ill-timed nature of the voyage his arrival in Tahiti ends up being a much longer stay than he intended... add to this his own difficult personality and his ongoing attempts to rule the crew through fear and you get the perfect recipe for a mutiny, led here by the jolly and easygoing noble-born first mate, Fletcher Christian (Brando).
Running at nearly three hours, Mutiny on the Bounty is big on spectacle but light on facts. Bligh is shown to purposefully rule through fear, a harsh man and the very picture of a tyrant. It's heavily implied that he's self-conscious of his lack of class, and Martin portays him as monomaniacal to the point of irresponsibility. Whilst this examination of Bligh is fascinating and not without historical merit, it also smacks heavily of the need for Hollywood to impose a stereotypical villain onto a film that would've been better served by presenting a more even-handed picture. This version of the movie is also quaintly and initially told from the point-of-view of the ship's gardener and resident breadfruit-expert, suggesting a version of events filtered through an objective viewpoint, but by the end of the film we're taken full blown into the realms of fiction with a climactic end sequence featuring an inexplicably heroic Fletcher Christian crusading his way onto the Bounty as it burns it's way to complete destruction.
Despite the film's reputation, Brando is actually quite good as Christian. The film clearly wants to paint him as the hero of the piece, and Brando resists this until the very last moments by mostly portraying the first mate as an amiable but somewhat foppish and superficial man of leisure and adventure. It's pertinently clear that Christian doesn't take the substance of his mission very seriously, and he's even seen to be grinning rather inanely in the face of fatal weather as the ship dangerously navigates it's way around the Cape of Good Hope. At the end of the day though, Brando's performance is perhaps a little at odds with the film's intentions... on the surface it seems to be a more realistic version of Christian than the square-jawed portrayal Clark Gable gave in the previous version, but the film reigns Brando in enough to bend the character beyond the facts for the bizarrely incorrect yet cliched ending and the charactisation ends up feeling a little disjointed as a result.
I guess you could call this a flawed but accomplished movie. Aside from the liberties taken with the characters and events, it's actually quite a good film and features some very impressive location work and extensive use of over 1000 Tahitian extras. There are also more than a few surprising moments of tongue-in-cheek humour (witness the musical cue of 'Rule Britannia' as Fletcher Christian goes off to screw a beautiful Tahitian woman for the sake of King and Country). Richard Harris is also very good as John Mills, who represents the ship's men and acts as the dissenting voice for the sake of the narrative. I would rank this version as on an equal footing with the better-acted but less-spectacular 1935 version, and a lot more entertaining than the more historically accurate 1980s version, The Bounty.
The Great Gatsby... this was one of those books I didn't get to read in school, though everyone else seemed to. I finally got around to reading it a few weeks ago and I tell ya... it sure was short for a classic! I like it. More short classics please. Less Tolstoy.
Published in 1925, while the twenties were still a-roaring and the Great Depression was a good five years away, this book is an ideal representation of post-industrial America in all it's debauched and bourgeois glory. We are introduced to East Coast American society via Nick, a newly-arrived bond-dealer from the west who has come to New York to have a go at making a fortune. Upon arrival he hears about an elusive and ulra-rich playboy, Jay Gatsby, who turns out to be his neighbour. The two become friends, but Nick can't help but wonder at Gatsby's shady past and motives towards his friend Daisy. To talk of the plot any further would spoil the novel ...don't laugh! I know it's over 80 years old and people talk about it in classrooms all over the world but I didn't have the slightest clue about it's plot until I read the book for myself just recently, so maybe others out there are just as much in the dark as I was, and so I don't want to spoil it for anyone.
Anyway, it's a good book. It's tight and there's not a wasted sentence. F. Scott Fitzgerald felt that it was his best book at the time of writing, and I guess he was right as it is commonly held to be one of the greatest American novels of all time. The corruption of the American dream is an especially spooky theme when you consider that the American dream was about to end for millions not too long after the book was published, with the Great Depression and World War II just around the corner.
Actually, it's quite surprising thatThe Great Gatsby hasn't dated more. Despite coming straight out of the 20s it doesn't shy away from the more decrepit facets of society and it feels quite modern. I found it's style fairly easy to follow and enjoyable to read - like I said earlier, it's a short book as far as 'classics' go. I can certainly see why it's taught in schools, I think it's digestability goes a long way towards it's effectiveness and it's no wonder it's so rock solid.
The Great Gatsby has been adapted for film three times, once as a silent film just after it's initial publication, again in the late 40s (starring Alan Ladd) and once again in the 70s (the Robert Redford/Mia Farrow version).
It's become a bit of a tradition now... if you want to gain recognition for your 'acting' and how far you'll take your talent then all you have to do is gain some weight. It could be your breakthrough. If you're already famous, it could even be your ticket to an Oscar. Here are some of the actors and actresses who have gorged themselves to success...
Robert De Niro's porking up for Raging Bull is probably the most famous example. Taking method-acting to such extremes was unheard of prior to this. Actors had put on weight for roles before, but never to this extent. De Niro put on around 27 kilograms. He would gain weight for a role again about 6 years later, to play Al Capone in The Untouchables, but it wouldn't be anywhere near as drastic as his 'fat section' of Raging Bull.
Ray Liotta put on 10 kilos to play the intimidating Henry Oak in Narc.
Vincent d'Onofrio put on around 32 kilograms to portray Private Pyle in Full Metal Jacket. At 6' 4" he is considerably taller than De Niro and hence doesn't look as fat despite having put more on. Our boy Vincent here currently holds the record for the most weight put on for a role.
Jared Leto recently bulked up to play John Lennon's killer Mark Chapman in the forgettable film Chapter 27. He put on about 28 kilos. After filming he switched to an all liquid diet and lost nearly 10 kilos in 10 days. He got gout as a result. The film wasn't much of a hit either, and Leto understandably regrets his hastiness to pork up.
Renee Zellweger put on weight for her role as Bridget Jones, twice. It was much publicised and praised... women won't usually put on weight if they can help it! She put on 10 kilos to play Bridget, which is the girl equivelent of about 20 kilos. I don't think 10 kilos on Zellweger is really all that noticeable, drastic, or unattractive in the slightest either.
The normally waif-like Toni Collette did what no other actress in Australia would do, and put on nearly 20 kilos to play the title character in Muriel's Wedding. It ended up being her ticket to fame.
Eric Bana put on 14 kilos to play Australian criminal icon Chopper in the film of the same name. Manly. It remains his best work in film.
Stallone gained 15 kilos to play the timid, overweight sheriff of a small town in Copland. He thought it would lead him to being taken seriously again but his performance was virtually ignored by the critics. Stallone regretted damaging his muscular figure, which is a shame because his acting in Copland is amongst his best.
Others...
- Russell Crowe put on 18 kilos to help make himself look older for The Insider... it worked, he gained his first Oscar nomination.
- Sean Astin put on 15 kilos to play Samwise Gamgee in the Lord of the Rings films. When Peter Jackson called for reshoots he had lost most of the weight and was distraught to learn he had to put it back on again.
- George Clooney put on 15 kilos for his Oscar-winning role in Syriana.
- Minnie Driver put on 10 kilos for her breakthrough role in Circle of Friends.
- Matt Damon put on around 13 kilos for The Informant.
There has been a long tradition (though not as much lately) of the American TV show Saturday Night-Live spinning off it's sketchs into full length comedy movies. This is a somewhat lesser-known and less successful one, I have to admit to being largely unfamiliar with the writer and star Tim Meadows (though he does have a small but highly amusing part in the more recent film Semi-Pro).
The Ladies Man is Leon Phelps (Meadows), a 70s-leftover who gives inappropriate love advice on radio. Eventually his mouth gets him kicked off the air and he and his producer find themselves looking for a new job. Along the way they hang out with some winos and Phelps' prolific sexlife leads him to trouble.
It's not a classic like Waynes World and it certainly wasn't anywhere near as funny as I expected it to be. It has a few genuinely side-splitting moments but it isn't afraid to resort to the cliched staples of Saturday Night-Live-spawned films. The supporting actors are better than usual and Meadows showcases his hilarious creation rather well. Unfortunately though, I didn't find myself smiling enough to give this the complete thumbs up.
HIGHLIGHTS: Watch for a surprising cameo when Leon Phelps meets up with an old lover, a clown.
This is one of those films that I used to watch over and over when I was a kid. I'm always surprised to find that hardly anyone I talk to these days has even heard of it. It's a good film, dammit!
The always dependable Dennis Quaid plays Davidge, a human starfighter pilot. It's the 21st century and Earth is locked in an intersteller war of colonial acquisition with the Dracs, a reptillian breed of aliens. Davidge manages to get into a dogfight with one of the Dracs (Lou Gossett Jr), and they both crashland on a remote planet. What ensues is a story of survival and prejudice as the two must learn to co-exist in this harsh new environment of brutal storms and giant ant-lion-like monsters.
Unlike a lot of popular sci-fi films of the 1980s, Enemy Mine has somewhat more philosophical themes driving the plot. It's more about the hatred that feeds off difference and a friendship formed against the odds. It's an unusually touching and moving story, but never boring. The harsh climate of the planet and the eventual contact that the survivors make with 'civilisation' ensures plenty of action-packed sequences.
The story is the kind of story that will remain timeless, even if the special effects are dated or the science-fiction aspects of the story become quaint and objects of curiosity. It's central themes are universal and this film will continue to be relevant to our world and society while any form of prejudice or culture-based hatred exists. It's just a shame that this film doesn't get wider exposure.
TRIVIA: Apparently the film was originally shot in it's entirety in Iceland, only to be completely scrapped due to that old bugbear - "creative differences". The film was reshot by a new director (Wolfgang Peterson - better known for Das Boot and more recently Troy) in a new location in the Canary Islands.
Producers originally wanted to add a subplot involving an actual mine as they were worried that audiences would be confused by the title.
Enemy Mine was a book before it was a film, written by Barry B. Longyear in 1980. The book won both the Hugo and the Nebula awards - quite a sweep for a sci-fi book!
It was said that Breakfast at Tiffanys, Truman Capote's bestselling novella of a mysteriously lonesome and luminous callgirl who hooks up with an unemployed writer, was unfilmable. Capote himself was said to be rather unhappy with the eventual changes that were made to the story during it's transition from book to film. It's sanitization was, however, typical of Hollywood at the time and was no doubt facilitated in part by the film-makers in order to match the film to Audrey Hepburn's screen image. Even with all this in mind, I doubt anyone could argue that both the book and film aren't classics in their own right. And if it weren't for Hepburn's involvement, the film would probably shine a little less than it has in the many years that have passed since it's conception.
The improbably named Holly Golightly (Hepburn) is a woman perpetually on the run from her past. She flits from life to life, always ready to move on if things get too close for her to handle, and she lives in a twilight of parties and wealthy shady 'businessmen'. Holly's neighbour, Paul Varjak (George Peppard), is a struggling writer who finds himself entranced by her. What ensues is the stuff of romantic-comedic legend.
The supporting cast is filled out by a few notable faces... Oscar-winners Patricia Neal and Martin Balsam add some character-class to the proceedings. Mickey Rooney (made up in some rather poor prosthetics) plays an appallingly-dated racist caricature of a comically-complaining Japanese man, and remains the films sole weak point in this more politically-correct age.I was surprised by how much I enjoyed this film, it was really quite funny in parts. I loved the party scene near the film's beginning, and Hepburn's singing of the film's famous signature tune, Moon River, isn't bad at all. I have to admit that Audrey Hepburn makes up for her so-so acting by having a very pretty face. A nice movie.
The Match is one of those 'quaint' U.K. films set in the countryside and filled with an odd assortment of characters. Taking it's lead from the sub-genre of British films spawned by The Full Monty, it's makes use of the 'man against the odds' formula.
So, we know it's good then.
There are two pubs in the Scottish town featured here, Benny's Bar and L'Bistro. 100 years ago, the two owners had a falling out and L'Bistro bet Benny's Bar that their soccer team would beat Benny's for every match for 100 years. If Benny's team couldn't win 1 single match, L'Bistro would win his bar, or vice-versa (if Benny’s team actually managed to win once). Of course, as it happens, the film focuses on the 100th match and our heroes - the motley assortment of barflies who make up Benny's Bar's soccer-team, and the local milkman who must coach them. This is a team who have lost 99 years in a row. Characters to watch out for include 'Buffalo', an ex-U.S. soldier and now the local drunk (Tom Sizemore, in fine form), Gorgeous Gus, the slimey owner of L'Bistro (Richard E. Grant, doing his usual schtick), Piss-Off, the ex-pro who hates everyone (Neil Morrissey, from TV's Men Behaving Badly), the town Mechanic - a bizarre character that I can't really describe (David O'Hara, recently cast in the next Harry Potter movie) - and of course, the rest of the soccer team; a collection of slobs, psychos and drunks.
Anyway, there's not much else to say about this film. I like it. If you're looking for a laugh, and like a bit of British-styled drama/comedy, then this is for you too.
Generally considered as one of the greatest westerns ever made, this cattle-hauling epic sees John Wayne play outside his usual parameters as an ageing father-figure to Montgomery Clift. The film is basically a western remake (sort of) of Mutiny on the Bounty, with Clift forced to betray his mentor (Wayne) for the good of the cattle and the team, only for Wayne to swear death upon him and hunt him down.
It's sometimes said that John Wayne, whilst a prolific actor, only actually made a handful of films worth watching. When you take into account a lot of his earlier work in the 30s (hour-long serial-like westerns of an exceptionally low quality) well, you'd be hard pressed to argue that anything less than 50% of Wayne's overall output is of a substandard in terms of critical worth. In short, Wayne made about 180 films, and at least half of them probably aren't worth watching unless you're a diehard Wayne fan.
So if you had to narrow down Wayne's more favourable output to a Top 10, then Red River would definitely be in it. If you had to narrow it down to just one film, then this might even just be it. Even if you were to narrow down all Western films to a Top 10, Red River would probably be in it. And just as a film, outside of genre classifications, it stands as an astonishing piece of work as well.
Howard Hawks, along with John Ford, stands as one of the America's pioneer home-grown auteurs. His direction here is nothing short of exemplary and his use of panoramas and deft characterisation lend the film a mythic air that is almost impossible to create in today's age of CGI and post-modern winks to the audience. Red River tells a simple story of revenge, loyalty and common-sense against the epic backdrop of the new frontiers of the old west. It's a father-son style relationship played out in near-Shakespearean proportions.
Of course, it all culminates in a showdown between the two principals. The fist-fight at the end is surprisingly brutal and excellently filmed, and Clift (in one of his first major film roles) manages to hold his own against the mighty John Wayne. In fact, the overall dynamic between the two actors is rather affecting and well-orchestrated... Wayne, of the old guard and (at the time) fastly emerging as one of the biggest box office draws of the era, and Clift, a fresh talent and of the rising school of method acting, stand opposite one another in more ways than one.
This is a real gem of a film and should be enjoyed by anyone who likes a good story and good film-making.
TRIVIA: Gary Cooper turned down the role of Dunson as he felt the character was too harsh and ruthless.
Hawks intended for Cary Grant to play the role of Cherry Valance (a gunslinger)... when Grant turned down the role it was given to John Ireland and the part was greatly reduced in the script.
Wayne initially didn't want to play Dunson as the character was somewhat older than he was. His friend and director, John Ford, convinced him that the part would be good for his career. Indeed, it remains one of Wayne's best acting efforts - way ahead of his Oscar-winning work in True Grit.
I was understandably wary of watching the Twilight movie, it hasn't exactly got a good rep with film fans, and it seems to only really appeal to people without a Y chromosome. As someone who has worked in bookstores for the last 6 years or so, I've been following the amazing popularity of this merchandising empire. It seems to have single-handedly kickstarted a massive vampire craze that has spawned literally scores of copycat book series and reprints... there are now also Twilight board games, bookmarks, bags, t-shirts, multiple editions of the actual books (including box sets, hard cover versions, deluxe hard cover versions, regular softback versions, red-edged budget softback versions, etc, etc) and various other items. To put it quite simply - it's getting pretty hard to ignore. A lot of people would take this as their cue to express annoyance and hatred towards the Twilight film without even having seen it, but I've never been one to follow that illogical, elitist path of thinking. I watched Titanic, I read The Da Vinci Code... sometimes you just have to check these things out for yourself!
I actually went into this not really knowing all that much about the plot or characters. I knew it featured a teen heartthrob vampire called Edward (Robert Pattinson - that's RPattz to the ladies), but that was about it. Twilight takes place in a northerly and frozen American small town called Forks. Bella (the boyish Kristin Stewart, also recently featured in similarly angsty roles in What Just Happened and Adventureland) is an awkward 17 year old girl who moves to this town to live with her father, the local chief of police. At her new school she notices Edward Cullen - one of five insular and pasty-faced children adopted by a local doctor, Carlisle Cullen (Peter Fancinelli) - and her and Edward find themselves irrevocably drawn to one another. Of course, Edward is a vampire, so he resists the passionate bond that grows between them in order to protect Bella. Soon some complications arise that will make it even harder for them to be apart though.
There's a dimension to Twilight that reeks of unashamed pap. The romance between Edward and Bella is built up to be something of Romeo & Juliet-like proportions, but it just comes across as melodrammatic due to the high school-setting and deadpan acting of the two leads. Another factor that doesn't work in the film's favour is the dialogue, sometimes verging on the outright corny - especially whenever the non-vampire schoolkid characters open their mouths to spout something supposedly hip and cringe-inducing (Clueless and Joss Whedon, this aint). And whilst Bella's voiceover probably ensures a certain closeness to the film's book-origins, it comes off as mostly unneccessary and more than a little clumsy.
But now that I've got the bad points out of the way I'd like to say that I actually liked Twilight a lot. It had more depth to it then I suspected, mainly in the way that Bella and Edward's unusual relationship exists as wider metaphor for teenage love itself. Edward wants Bella but he can't control himself... Bella knows what he's capable of, but trusts him anyway. It could be about sex just as much as it's about Edward's lust for blood, and his frustration at not being about to read Bella's mind is a literal embodiment of the frustration felt by teenage boys (and men) everywhere. Bella also worries if Edward's family will accept her, something that works as another extension of the real-life dramas experienced by teenagers in love. Of course, it's all not as brilliant as it might be when you consider that the TV show Buffy the Vampire Slayer explored these very same themes in a similar way some twelve years previously - but sometimes a great story just needs to be retold for a new generation, and Twilight has succeeded at this enough to capture the imagination of a much wider audience.
The other thing I liked about Twilight is the way it works with a new American mythology in respect to vampires and werewolves, drawing on native american folklore and inventing new rules and boundaries. I'm interested in watching the following films just for the development of these aspects. Also, the film's colour design is inspired and well-matched to the cold setting, and makes a nice change to the usual dark palettes used for vampire films.
I'm sorry film fans, I actually liked Twilight!
TRIVIA: The studio guys behind Twilight are (understandably) worried that the craze could end at any moment, so they actually denied the director the opportunity to work on the sequel, New Moon. This was so they could start production of the sequel whilst the first movie was still being finished up, and hence ensured a speedy release. This meant that New Moon was released roughly only a year after Twilight, and that the third movie - Eclipse - is slated for release in June/July, meaning it will come out only seven or eight months after the previous movie!
When people talk about the late, great stars of golden era Hollywood genre films they usually mention James Cagney, Humphrey Bogart or Edward G. Robinson. One actor that seems less remembered today is the infinitely more diverse Paul Muni, six-times nominated for the Best Actor Oscar and the originator of the lead role in Scarface. In Angel on My Shoulder, Muni plays the twin roles of lookalikes Eddie Kagle and Frederick Parker - two men who couldn't be more further apart. Kagle is a no-good scumbag gangster and Parker is a godfearing judge who walks a certain moral high ground. And thanks to Kagle's untimely death, and some assistance from the devil, their 'lives' are about to collide in a big way.
Kagle is killed very early on the film and (as you might expect) goes straight to hell. Once there he meets Nick (AKA the Devil, played by Claude Rains) who decides to strike a deal with him. If Kagle agrees to take control of the do-gooding judge's life and derail his campaign to become governor, Nick will allow him to take revenge on the man who killed him. It's an interesting premise and is actually quite funny at times, surprisingly so for a film that was made more than 60 years ago. Most of the comedy comes from the central performances of Muni and Rains. Muni taps into his previous work as the dimwitted but aggressive gangster Tony in Scarface, and plays it here in a completely different way - almost wholly for sympathy and laughs. The equally underrated Claude Rains is also great as Nick, incredibly droll and long-suffering as a distillation of the Devil pretty far removed from the cliched depictions we tend to get nowadays.
I think I was mainly impressed with this movie because it didn't go in a very predictable direction, and I found it hard to secondguess it as a result. Of course, a good part of this movie is about the possible redemption of a man who should be, by rights, unredeemable. If Angel on My Shoulder had been made today it would've been a lot more formulaic, and I can all too clearly imagine the kind of ending it would've had. Thankfully this film was made before such things became set in stone, and is very entertaining as a result.
Signs was the third major/mainstream film by then-rising director M. Night Shymalan. Following on the heels of the worldwide box office smash The Sixth Sense and the unique and inspiring film Unbreakable, Signs was going to have to work hard to at least stand up to it's predecessors.
Like the aforementioned films, Signs heavily features child-actors, uses a supernatural theme to form the crux of it's story, and makes dazzling use of slow sweeping, mesmeric camera angles - each one meticulous and meaningful in it's construction. It's a film on two levels (at least)... on one level it examines an alien invasion in microcosm, following one family over the course of such events and portraying their actions and reactions pertaining to it. On another level, the film explores faith - a theme perhaps more important to the overall picture than the latter.
Mel Gibson is solid and nuanced in his turn as the fallen priest, making good use of his trademark charm by displaying an absence of it to good effect when the script calls for it. Joaquin Phoenix provides the backbone of the cast, playing the more traditional hero role to offset Gibson's anti-hero. Phoenix does so with such good humour that it only serves to remind me that he is not nearly in enough films. The child actors are better than usual in these sorts of films and you can't help but feel that Shymalan has some sort of hidden talent here - in that the children are so believable and natural in their roles (though perhaps Rory Culkin is a little too wooden sometimes). Many people have taken great delight in pointing out various flaws in the film, most of them of the so-called 'factual' variety. I'm not denying that these flaws exist, but I think anyone who fixates on these sorts of things is missing the point of this film - it's theme of faith is paramount. Signs is such a strong film because the alien invasion part of the plot is almost a sub-plot, the characters are more important, and whatever flaws may be apparent in the motives of the aliens are unprovable at best and irrelevant at least.
Watch this film. I think it's better than The Sixth Sense, it certainly stands up to more rewatching, and doesn't rely on any sort of gimmicky plot-twist ending. Unfortunately M. Night Shymalan appears to be on a downward slide at the moment (Lady in the Water, The Happening), and if he gets anywhere near this movie again he’ll be doing well.
This is a fairly forgotten gem from the mid-80s, based on the classic and tragic novel of the same name. The film is also the legendary John Huston's third last movie as a director. Taking place in Mexico during the fetival known as the Day of the Dead, the film also works against a backdrop of the early days of WWII, and explores the fragmented love triangle between a former British diplomat (Albert Finney), his estranged wife (Jacqueline Bisset), and his adventurous journalist brother (Anthony Andrews).
Under the Volcano starts out slowly, following the corpse-like wandering of retired diplomat Geoffrey Firmin as he explores the Day of the Dead and seeks out booze to feed his alcoholism. We're given various clues as to what has left him in such a sodden and rambling state, and we learn that his wife divorced him from abroad. Geoffrey proceeds to drink himself into oblivion, and into the fray enters his erstwhile wife Yvonne... testing the waters as it were for a possible reconciliation. Geoffrey's brother Hugh, recently returned from the Spanish civil war, is at a loss as to where he fits in with regards to their relationship, and also in regards to the world itself. The three decide to take a day trip out of town, with Yvonne and Hugh unsure of where Geoffrey's health and state of mind will literally lead them.
This film is a rambling, elegaic swansong to suntouched dreams fortified by alcohol. These three people try to outrun their demons and replace their mistakes with hollow new plans - Yvonne hopes to start her life anew, but Geoffrey's disgracefully drunken state makes him an unpredictable quantity to bank on, especially in regards to whether he can forgive her for the adultery that left him in such a state. Geoffrey tells a story at one point about a colonial named Blackstone, a man who turned native and disliked the puritans who tried to save him so much that he simply just disappeared into the wilderness. There's obviously something about this story that appeals to Geoffrey as he seems to identify with Blackstone so much that he later tells strangers that it's his name, and you can't help but feel that this is the only solution to the problems at hand that he can truly grasp at. Bubbling underneath the surface of the film all this time is a slowly building sense of doom highlighted by the coming of WWII, the ominous woodwind score, and the film's title itself. Geoffrey alludes to a horrific war story at several points, drawing comparisons with the 30s horror film Mad Love (referred to here as The Hands of Orlac) with his belief that "Some things you can't apologise for", and this quote echoes throughout the film whenever the main characters are forced to come face to face with each other's mistakes.
This won't be a film to everyone's taste, it starts out as something approaching a travel-drama but kind of mutates into outright tragedy in it's second half. At the core of Under the Volcano is a staggering performance from Albert Finney as the drunken diplomat. Finney was more than rightfully nominated for a Best Actor Academy Award for his realistic depiction of the life of a hopeless drunk... full of whimsy and cheer and rambling anecdotes, treading a fine line between absolute tankdom and lucidness, and tapping into all kinds of ambivalent emotions that would be far too challenging to a less complex and accomplished actor. Too often the drunk in film is shown as either a figure for comedy, fear or tragedy, but never are they shown as realistically as Finney's characterisation here. I could see shades of every pathetic and hilarious drunk I've ever met at a pub or a party in Under the Volcano's Geoffrey Firmin, and the film makes no compromises whatsoever in showing this for what it is. One of the best performances in film.
HIGHLIGHTS: There's nothing quite like a sinister Mexican dwarf grinning while he makes obscene gestures with his hands. I found this bit to be quite offputting and creepy.
Following on from the dynamic and successful Natural Born Killers, and drawing on the historical tapestry that fed JFK, Oliver Stone turned his conspiratorial sights on former U.S. President Richard Nixon... with surprising results. Instead of damning a target as easy as Nixon (played here by Anthony Hopkins), Stone instead chose to portray the fallen President's eventful story as a tragedy. Keen to remind us of what Nixon did for America (and, as a byproduct, the rest of the world), but equally keen to push our faces right into the controversy and grit of the administration, the film gives us a fairly balanced and moving account of the Watergate scandal and the man’s career leading up to it.
From the start the film's style is uncompromisingly fast, tracking back and forth between different points in Nixon's life, and using different film stocks to portray a sense of history and it's coverage by the ever-watchful eyes of the media. This somewhat flashy style, coupled with a creepy replication of the period's paranoia (an atmosphere that permeates almost every scene) and a good dramatic score, does well to pull the audience through it's 3 hours-plus quite effortlessly.
Nixon is portrayed as a man who takes the hits but keeps on going regardless of whether he's going to win or lose (as exemplified in a football flashback). Here we are given the unlikely tragedy of an unlikeable man - and it works. We see a man who scapegoated himself on the world stage of history only to see his one true 'friend' Henry Kissinger (Paul Sorvino, barely unrecognisable under a false nose and perfectly replicated voice) sell him out and walk away with all the credit for the better results of the Nixon administration. Stone doesn't let this, or any other single thread, drive the film though - he knows better than to oversimplify things, and he expertly introduces each of the major players of the era through recognisable faces and well-constructed scenes (witness Bob Hoskins' introduction as FBI chief Hoover, via a horse track - here we see a man who pulls strings and plays games for gain, not caring for the cost of pawns).
As, perhaps, evidenced above - Stone is not one for being too subtle either, he is always keen to get his message across as clear as possible, as we see in a rather telling scene where Nixon accidentally pulls a doorknob off and remarks that the White House is literally 'falling apart'. I'm afraid I can't really fault this, as obvious as some of his nods to the audience might be, there is more than enough in his films to warrant him abandoning subtlety altogether.
Anthony Hopkins seems a rather strange choice to play Nixon, and he never really quite looks the part, but his performance is powerful and nuanced enough to break your attention from this. It was good to see Hoskins, Sorvino, James Wood, etc, etc, filling out the lesser roles (all of which play a very second fiddle to the lead, which is always the case in biopics I suppose). I'd always felt Nixon was quite despicable, but by the end of the movie I felt quite sorry for him! It really got right under the skin of it's subject.
TRIVIA: Anthony Hopkins got himself another Best Actor Academy Award nomination for his efforts here.
This a fairly standard Frederick Forsyth-esque conspiracy thriller that sees the two Oscar-refusers (Marlon Brando and George C. Scott) go head to head. Basically, the film is about a top secret formula for a new synthetic energy source that the Nazis developed in WWII. George C. Scott plays Barney Caine, a Los Angeles police detective investigating the suspicious death of an old friend. He finds that the trail leads towards Germany and several other suspicious deaths and before he knows it he soon finds himself implicated in a conspiracy to bury said formula so that the petrol and oil industry can continue without competition.
Brando plays Adam Steiffel, a racist Texan oil magnate with a silver combover and a frog-like upper lip. His part is barely more than an extended cameo, he only really features in three scenes but you still feel his presence throughout. Strangely, Brando seems to have put a lot of effort into this role despite his comparatively small screen time - he modifies his look and voice just as differently as he did for The Godfather, and he's probably the film's only saving grace as a result. George C. Scott carries the rest of the film but beyond a few cantankerous moments he never really becomes anything more than a two-dimensional cypher to base the plot around. Marthe Keller is interesting as Scott's German contact, suggesting a new Germany built on the bones of it's victims, but this angle isn't really developed enough to be of any real consequence.
The plot itself is overly complicated and amounts to a lot of endless trail-chasing, eventually giving way to a cliched and cynical ending that leaves the viewer feeling unsatisfied (if they haven't lost interest by that point). More offensively, the film manages to twist a very real problem (the oil conspiracy) into an anti-American conspiracy, and depicts a jingoistic and unrealistic version of late 70s Germany, complete with Nazi paraphenalia and WWII nostalgia. Also, a more direct criticism of the film would be it's habit of telling us key plot points rather than showing them - EG. At one point a suspect is blown up in a car, but it happens offscreen and we only hear about it afterwards. This isn't the only example either, another major character dies offscreen as well. More embarrassing is the way that George C. Scott's character keeps going on about how important his young son is to him in the early parts of the film - what is the point of this detail? It never comes into play later on, it just feels like a hollow attempt to add depth to his character. Actually, while we're on that point, why do so many Hollywood films feature world-saving heroes who are forced to let their children down by not having time for them? Is it a projection of the issues of Hollywood producers themselves - IE. They don't have time for their kids because they're too busy making movies, ergo they're suffering for their art. Talk about having an inflated view of yourself. The Formula is not art, it's pulp of the most mediocre order.
HIGHLIGHTS: Aside from Brando, there was actually one other nice bit in the movie - a dissolve of a blood-filled spa into a night-time cityscape. I thought that was pretty well done.
Also, I almost forgot, look out for a scene-chewing cameo from Sir John Gielguld as an old Nazi scientist.
TRIVIA: Brando apparently suggested to director John G. Avildsen (Rocky) that he saw his character as barefoot in a straw hat and watering cacti, as Adam lived in the desert. It's possible that Brando was joking, as he laughed and told Avildsen he was just testing him when the director disagreed, but having seen other films where Brando was allowed to take control of the character it's highly possible that this is what might've happened if Avildsen hadn't taken spoken up. Avildsen saw Adam as the sort of 3-piece suit guy you see on the front of Time magazine, and Brando seems to have taken this on board with his look.
Writer Steve Shagan (who also wrote the similarly downbeat Save the Tiger) originally wanted Gene Hackman for the role played by George C. Scott.
Brando used an earpiece and cue cards in order to remember his lines, and had his dialogue pre-taped and played back to him via a tape recorder he taped to his stomach.
The scene where Brando scoops the frog out of his pool was written at the last minute to take advantage of some extra time he was still contracted for. A couple of Brando's jokier adlibbed lines were also later cut out at the insistence of one of the studio heads.
There's not much you can say about a new Tarantino movie that hasn't already been said by a million other reviewers, such is the saturation of interest he still manages to attract. I'm almost tempted to just say that I enjoyed it and leave it at that, but I won't. I guess it's my own fault for coming to the party so late. Anyway, here are some of the thoughts I had about Inglorious Basterds...
The five-chapter structure of the movie brought to mind Tarantino's previous opus Kill Bill, and I think that there's definitely a similar vein of plotting and character work that runs through the two films. Tarantino had apparently worked on the script for Inglorious Basterds for over 10 years, and it feels like it's part of a much larger story as a result - as if he's refined his script so much that it now just plays like a greatest hits package of scenes and character-interactions. This isn't a bad thing, it's actually a nice way of doing it as it cuts out a lot of boring crap that we probably didn't really need to see anyway.
I was a little surprised to find that the 'basterds' of the title (the ones so heavily featured in the film's promotional material) really only feature in about half of the film. Of the eight Jewish-American soldiers Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) recruits we only really get to know one of them (the 'Bear Jew', played by Eli Roth). I also found that there was surprisingly little in the way of actual Nazi-brutalizing, I kind of expected the movie to play like an endless revenge orgy. I'm glad it didn't, the film benefited from having more of a plot than I expected. I think Tarantino might be getting a bit soft in his old age though, I really expected the violence to be as relentless as Kill Bill Volume 1.
Does anyone use music as effectively as Tarantino? His use of pre-recorded music suggests to me that he knows what the soundtrack will be before he even starts filming, which gives him an edge in being able to match his pacing up to music that has already been finished. Sergio Leone (director of The Good, The Bad and The Ugly and a handful of other great films) did this too, and I think there's a similarity between the two in terms of how they use their soundtrack. I also liked the way that Tarantino made a big part of this film about the Nazi film industry, even down to the point of making references to a disgraced golden era actor like Emil Jannings. The co-opting of the German film industry by Goebbels is an interesting aspect of WWII that tends to get overlooked in favour of less trivial Nazi conquests, and I loved the film-within-a-film aspect of Nation's Pride - a fictional film about a German sniper who kills some 300 enemy soldiers (perfect imagined fodder for the Nazi propaganda machine).
I sense that this review is starting to get a bit long so I'll just quickly mention four more aspects that got my attention...
- Tarantino is starting to become a real master of tension, most evident in the opening scene featuring Colonel Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) interrogating a French farmer as to the whereabouts of the Jewish Dreyfuss family. Another great scene was a similarly tense standoff in a German bar.
- Tarantino manages to work his creepy foot fetish into the film as a vital plot point of the script. It's starting to get a little weird, with female foot scenes now being featured in nearly all of his films.
- The controversial and much-talked about ending made me feel a little disturbed, but I still liked it anyway. It was as if sixty plus years of historical and narrative-based frustration at a lack of direct vengeance on Adolf Hitler had suddenly come to the boil, exploding on the screen with a sadistic release that's both hard to take and satisfying in the daring and base closure it provides. Some people will be fundamentally unable to like the film at all in light of the way it ends, but I dare say these aren't the sort of people who watch films with an open mind.
- Chrisoph Waltz as Colonel Landa, 'The Jew Hunter', is very good and at least deserves a best supporting actor nomination at the upcoming Oscars. He effectively conveys casual self-assurance, charm, absolute menace and unmeasurable cunning almost all at once in most of his scenes - tenaciously worrying at any and all prospective prey, and constantly forcing the audience to try and second-guess him.Before I finish, I just wanted to address the fact that Tarantino tends to get mentioned a lot in reviews of his films - probably more than most directors. I think this is down to the fact that he's probably the highest profile director today that also happens to write his own films (mostly) from scratch. Film fans love to beat him up for ripping off genre b-movies in a wholesale fashion, but his films are undeniably Event Movies - he doesn't do things small, and he also manages to keep his films glossy and accessible without following mainstream rules of plotting or character development. I can't help but enjoy his films, and if these movies point people towards the half-forgotten genre movies they rip off - is that such a bad thing?
