...Although it's difficult to place exactly where and when.
It seems equally inspired by older older sci-fi classics, as it seems to have inspired others that came after...
...From the off, this tale of city populated mainly by robots who are eliminated when they step out of their allocated zone, gives very heavy Blade Runner vibes, as does the depiction of a grimy, beaten up, decrepit looking cityscape, albeit through some truly stunning background art, as well as use of the old-time jazz score, interspersed with a more frenetic noodly, avant-garde jazz... It even ends with a head-scratching, yet wonderfully effective use of the Ray Charles song: "I Can't Stop Loving You".
And all this seems couched in a broader context of a Fritz Lang Metropolis social commentary and world design, with the grimy futurist industrial layers and zones of social hierarchy, from the highest level, or zone, where some robots intermix with human society, before gradually going deeper underground to progressively more slave robot exclusive levels. There also seems to be a little of the old Sam Spade detective trope in there too.
On top, and indeed, even beneath this, there is a lofty human political faction battle for the rule of the city and the world, while down below, a robot uprising threatens at any moment to break out... and through all this, the adopted jealous, and zealous human son of Duke Red, head of one of the political factions, relentlessly hunts down his adoptive father's greatest creation: A Robot designed to save the world, by taking the throne of the city.
And although the world depicted is grimy looking, it is also, by turns, lurid, neon, and eye popping to look at.. I can strongly feel The Fifth Element in this regard, both in the vibrant look, but also that weird jazzy score, as well as the general eccentricity and eclecticism of the designs.
This is a really bizarre mix of earlier CGI animation, overlayed with traditional animation of a seeming mix of styles, form Tin-Tin-ish basic animation, to more Akira-Manga style, through to Ghibli.
It is not exactly pacy, more meandering and bobbing and weaving in the story telling, but it certainly is engrossing, captivating even, and you eventually fall into it's world, and immerse yourself in the mood and vibe. All of which, would have gotten a rating of about a seven from me, but for the last half hour, where it really pays off, tying all those threads together, and raising it's game to a degree where it is bordering on brilliant, worthy of the eight.
It's like a Sci-fi smoothie: Little bits of everything chucked in there, blended up, and what comes out, shouldn't really work on it's own, but does.
Rated 7/10The other half of that Grindhouse double feature, along with Tarantino's "Death Proof"...
...I didn't really go much on that one, it being a little too creepy and tedious for me.
And while this still is creepy (In light of the whole We----ein / McGowan thing), it is, at least, bags more fun.
A great, super gross-out, gory, absurd, ridiculous slapstick-ish zombie action festival, following the best tropes of the old Romero Dawn / Day Of The Dead, and some cool practical effects like in The Thing, and so on.
And more a great sequel to From Dusk Till Dawn than it is a companion to Death Proof.
Rated 8/10One of those that I'd always put off watching, because it was always around.
(If that makes any sense)
...Which is to say, that what with a mountain of movies to be seen, some, I see, seem always to be on TV or turning up on DVD etc. so I get to prioritise others, and never seem to get around to this one, which is perpetually knocked to the back of the queue.
So anyway, I finally decided to bite the bullitt... er sorry, I meant bullet (chuckle), and give it a watch.
And it turns out it's a brilliant prime slice of ultra-cool McQueen-ery, every bit the equal of Bullitt.
Very groovy split-screen late sixties set up credits, with cool jazz score and the immortal "Windmills of your mind" song, which then gives way to the tale of the bored millionaire playboy type (McQueen) who knocks over banks purely for kicks, being hunted by, not only pretty sharp police detective, but also the ultra-sharp, and super seductive bank insurance investigator (Dunaway), who quickly takes up with him, and a tale of cat and mouse ensues.
...But which is the cat, and which the mouse?
It's essentially what every super-cool hustle / heist movie since has clearly been inspired by (Ocean's 11, etc.), except this is has more of an effortless cool about it, as well as the sexiest game of chess ever committed to screen.
Rated 6/10The world's longest set up for a movie that never plays.
This is another I picked up from the charity shop on the basis of having a somewhat bad reputation that put me off, but intrigue compelled me to see for myself.
It seems to be Ridley Scott's venture into the kind of tonal world that Sicario, or No Country For Old Men conjures, or inhabits... A simultaneously seedy, yet sophisticatedly lo-fi awfulness world of cartels and too highly polished, deluded sophisticates being too coolly criminal for their own good.
Michael Fassbender's "Councelor" is involved with some distinctly nefarious types, and wants a piece of action on the side for himself, to set himself up with new fiancé (Penelope Cruz) involving him with yet more seedy characters, and of course, a downward spiral into the quagmire ensues.
I could also mention movies like Scarface, or any Michael Mann style movie, to give you an idea of what this intends to be, but there is something distinctly lacking here... it's too monotone, too dull, even. And on top of that, it's too subtextual for it's own good. I usually appreciate, and pick up on such things well, but this is way too abstract, and many, if not most, will get to the end thinking like I was: "I think I got it at one point, but then.. no. In fact, what the hell just happened?!"
It feels like some of those aforementioned movies where there's lots of threads set up at the start that you don't get, and are not really supposed to, in order to be bowled over by the gradual unfolding of the plot by way of little deposits of key information, leading to s sequence, or even one revelatory twist that leaves you breathless... except, here it never arrives, like the movie after this, if it were made, would be what this were leading to.
It's not a bad movie, as as such, it just ain't great, or even really good.
The plot, as said is too abstract, like an in-joke that all the characters are in on, but being an outsider as a viewer, you feel like: "...What?", and Ridley is too tuned into the more naval gazing aspects of the story to worry about the audience. Much of the more philosophical leanings are a bit much to be expected in reality from such low life characters, and feel a bit naïve from a director who doesn't get this kind of world. I suspect, as this is based on a Cormac McCarthy novel (Much as with Elmore Leonard), the more subtle stylings and subtextual elements would be more apparent in the reading, or rendered by some other director as a movie, but here, it just feels obscure, and lacking the kind of charisma that say, a Tarantino would offer.
It's a shame, as the performances from all the central cast are excellent (if you can get over Bardem's hair!), especially Cameron Diaz's suitably convincing icy snake-lady, and they are all doing their best, it just doesn't really come together the way those others do.
An intriguing, at times fascinating watch, even engaging at times, just a bit too random, and dull to really hit home.
I have not seen this since I was made to go and see it at the cinema with my mum's co-worker, who took me and her - as it turned out - not only sickly, but terminally ill son when it came out...
(Let's see... I would have been nine years old at the time)
... And as if this fact was not bummer enough, there are some emotionally stretching moments here that for children of that age, as anyone already familiar with this movie will know, can be devastating to younger hearts and minds.
And for both of these reasons, I've wilfully avoided watching it since.
But now, as the nights draw in, and I feel exhausted watching new (to me, at least) movies, I feel I'm in the season where I need a little nostalgia, and something cosy and familiar, as well as being prompted by the urge to see if itwould still "get me" the way it it did first time around.
And while I do come to this now, with adult mind and soul, a little more objectively, this wonderful, magical fable of the relationship between fantasy and reality has lost none of it's imaginative potency, and still elicited a tear or two... or maybe there was just something in my eye.
While one particularly devastating scene (You know the one!) didn't quite reduce me to a blubbering mess the way it did when I was nine, it still made me go: "Ooh, that's a bit heavy to handle for kids!".
But the tale of a magical book, discovered by a bullied child who has lost his mother, and can't connect, or be sympathised with by his matter of fact father, and which causes him to escape into the world of magical fantasy still resonates to this day... more so, perhaps, in such all too real times as these.
Great practical effects, animatronics, and puppetry, well shot, and the story well told, in the finest traditions of the most earnest, un-cynical and non-meta fairy-tales of old, and time immemorial, still help to push aside the self referential, cynical , or all too real times in which we live.
So if, like me, you may be older now, or not having seen this for a good long spell, or think, even, that maybe you've grown out of this kind of thing a long time since... I'd urge you to revisit it again, perhaps for old time's sake, or even Auld Lang Sine.
Consider it a guilty pleasure, or even a much needed, long neglected treat.
Those of us in the UK who were only familiar with Michael Winner being on the telly often, and principally known only (it seemed) for those God-awful Death Wish films, would never suspect he was capable of making anything like this!
This, on first impressions, seems like it's going to be pretty standard western fare... a vehicle for established Hollywood star to be the hero... roll into town, clean up the bad guys, before riding off into the sunset after a job well done...
...Except here, they've turned the whole thing on it's head, the titular "Lawman" is more the bad guy than the supposed baddies. Subsequent research reveals that the inspiration for the script for this was a quy read a quote to the effect that: "The only real hired killers in the west were the Lawmen" (paraphrased / misremembered), and that they often caused more trouble than they solved, if not actually were the source of the trouble in the first place.
It jumps straight in with the incident that causes all the hoo-ha from then on, as a bunch of cowboys get drunk in a town, shooting all over, as is the common trope and an old man gets accidentally killed during this incident.
But then we get to the ranch owner played thoughtfully, meditatively, even philosophically by Lee J. Cobb, who contrary to the usual pure evil overlord type you see in this role, is perfectly willing to make reparations to the townsfolk, for what his ranch-hands have done, as are the, again, counter-to-trope cowboys in his employ - all fully fleshed out characters, and proper humans, as opposed to the ye-ha! types we usually see here, and it even seems the townsfolk are willing to go along with it to.
All very reasonable, so far.
...Except, then Burt Lancaster, who gives an excellent performance as a coldly indifferent "lawman" shows up to see the law has it's pound of flesh. - He is all, and exclusively duty, and by the book, and is deaf to all other considerations, even if it would defuse this whole situation from the outset, and he is constantly advised to do so by all and sundry, but nothing is going to dissuade him.
The whole thing spirals out of control, with the Townsfolk deciding to do something about him administering the law, even at the expense of justice, and even the local Marshal (Played brilliantly by Robert Ryan) tries to talk him out of making a mess by pursuing this course, but Burt ain't having none of it... he's almost like the Anti-Terminator, fighting for what he sees as the good, ruthlessly relentlessly, and without a grain of compromise.
In the end, it's a tragedy, of how being too "by the book", and un-merciful can see justice, in the true sense, fall by the wayside.
Rated 9/10A movie with a bad reputation, for all the wrong reasons.
One I've been meaning to see for some years, mainly to see what all the fuss was about. General, common cultural consciousness will hold this in a place of infamy due to proclaimed obscenity, and lately, a controversy over one of it's most infamous scenes, and the making of that scene. And while I find myself on that side of the fence where if I know something icky has happened on the set during the making of it, it colours my view of the movie as a whole, in this case, and quite in spite of myself, I come out the other side if this convinced it's a masterpiece.. as a movie, and as a piece of storytelling.
The story of a lost man who's wife has recently committed suicide, for reasons he can't understand, leaving him broken, confused, and kind of in freefall, meeting a much younger woman / girl in a flat, as she is looking for a place, and setting in motion almost instantly a questionable, and purely sexual relationship is, it seems, now that I have seen it, wholly misinterpreted, and the reputation it has for "obscene" scenes wildly over-exaggerated.
Admittedly, the opening scene of their meeting and first sexual encounter would surely be considered rape, as would the scene with the butter stick (I'll say nay more on that!), as well as the scene when she sticks her fingers up Brando's ass, but as with the shower scene in Psycho, it's more about what we know is going on, than what it actually shows...
(The girl is frequently nude, but only ,mostly from the waist up, and you only get the brief glimpse of Brando's flabby ass, but not in any sexual context)
In fact, the movie is deeper than that, and the sexual element is only a cipher for deeper meanings, concerning loss and tragedy, the broken-ness and desolation of a person when their world falls apart. A refuge, you might say, when nothing seems to matter any more.
It seems a bit shonky and third rate at the beginning, camera-work, directing, the whole shebang, but thoroughly engrossing as it goes along, and not for those sexual reasons.
The last half hour or so are positively brilliant, as, after a key scene where Brando visits, and has a stunning monologue at the bedside of the corpse of his dead wife, as she lies in state (Tom Cruise's best performance in Magnolia is a straight lift of this scene) , the tone suddenly lifts, like he's got something off his shoulders, and it becomes quite a charismatic affair, full of life and zest, even optimism...
...For him, at least.
And having raised you up in such a way, it abruptly drops you emotionally down a metaphorical elevator shaft right at the end.
Seriously, I don't think a creeping grin has dropped so suddenly from my face in any movie.
breathtakingly tragic.
You can feel the influence of this movie in many modern movies, like Blue Is The Warmest Colour, and one scene is shot where (Now) Elliot Page's dream architect does that thing with the mirrors under the viaduct in Inception (I bet Nolan just wanted to film there because of the aesthetic from this).
So if you can get over the reputation and disturbing elements of the movie's production, you have a brilliant move here.
Rated 6/10MGM tries to do Disney, and misses the mark, somewhat.
Fans of James Herbert's novels will acknowledge this, while not being his greatest novel, does hold a place of deep affection in their hearts... as it is, not his usual horror fare, but more of a poetically tragic tale of a man who, once he dies after a tragic car accident, is resurrected as a puppy, born to a stray, and form there, haunted by memories of his former life as a man, tries to find his way back to his human family.
Already you can see this is a little too heavy for what the DVD cover here suggests.
That seems to present the idea of a more: "Turner and Hooch", or "Beethoven" style "Awww!"-fest. And I think that was what MGM was aiming for: That those kinds of movies were killing it at the box office at the time, tuned in superficially to this novel, as "being in the ballpark" of that kind of story, and so went with it. But while it may be among the more earnest, even tragically sentimental of Herbert's work, it really isn't Disney material, and a little strong and odd for kids.
I made the mistake of watching with headphones on, so all I could see in my head while the voice overs for the real dog's thought dialogue was the image of Samuel L. Jackson in a booth, with fag on the go and a glass of whiskey while he phoned in this afternoon's work for a fat paycheck / paycheque (as you will)... That really breaks the illusion.
(Still better than a modern CGI talking dog effect though... at least it's honest!)
It does engage you more in the last twenty minutes or so though, and is, on occasion there, touching... but that's due to James Herbert's story, rather than the mis-matched Disney style movie presentation, which even that, could not entirely dispel.
I would therefore encourage people to give the movie a miss perhaps - or go into it with no expectations at least - and instead, read the book... It's pretty lo-key great.
Rated 3/10This is a deeply weird and and unpleasant movie.
It aims for the kind of black humour that War of the Roses had, but it's aim is wildly off. Imagine The Farelly brothers trying to do a Tarantino movie, and creating only a mess.
Greatest of respect to John Goodman (Legend), but I do not need the thought of him lusting after Liv Tyler in my head, let alone having sex with her... And that's basically what this movie is: Three guys scraping their knuckles after Liv Tyler, while she plays them to get what she wants, but she is essentially exploited for her sexuality at this time, and fetish-ising her, and dressing her up in various sexual fantasy wardrobe choices for horny teens.
Now this would be ok, if the movie was at all funny, but it isn't.
It produced only two mild chuckles from me, which isn't enough to forgive the movie's trying too hard, but failing too hard awfulness.
The only good things in this movie are Michael Douglas's "hair" (a wonder to behold!), and Reba McEntire... Everything else is a cringe-fest.
Acquired a annotated script for this from 1968. Oddly it is sub titled The Garnett Saga, which wouldnt be used until the 1972 film. Has names of extras in pay on certain days ( looks like it was the script more or less issued for the last shooting day ) and has basic script plus paperclipped changes. Will sell for a substantial donation to charity