Rated 8/10Still a wonderful, charming and magical family movie, with a great plot, fantastic, evocative score.
The essential plot centres around a knight, in who's charge is a young prince, son of a medieval tyrant king... The king is killed in the opening scenes by the local oppressed peasantry when they rise up against him. This leaves the young Prince - Einon - king, but he is also mortally wounded in the battle, so his mother, accompanied by the knight, take him to a dragon, to get healed, by taking half the dragon's heart, also in the hope that the purity of the dragon heart will purify the young Einon's soul, and make him a more merciful and benevolent king for the people than his father was.
... Alas, it doesn't work out that way, and the knight, blind to Einon's fundamentally bad nature, blames the dragon for corrupting his young charge, and vows to hunt him down and kill him.
It pitches the tale well in a pseudo-medieval "historical"/ mythical Celtic world, and captures the sense of wonder people now have for that period, even though it is a pretty generalised confection... Inspired by that time, rather than trying to replicate it in any sort of historically accurate way... And it does so through excellent locations selection, and broad mix of English and American casting, great cinematography, a light yet evocative Celtic adventure score, and an early CGI dragon which, although a little dated in it's effectiveness, still holds up well enough to convey a sense of character.
A couple of inspired casting choices too round this out, in the shape of the distinctive Sean Connery as the dragon, and Julie Christie as Einon's trapped and rueful mother, and friend of the dragon (she really brings a note of gravitas to proceedings).
But overall, it's a very warm, joyous, swashbuckling adventure yarn made of the best bits of everything from stories of times if yore, and it was a pleasant, and unexpected surprise at time if release, and still holds a place in my heart, principally by virtue of it's aspiring to virtue, if the old fashioned, knightly kind.
If you've not seen it yet, but like, say: The Princess Bride, or some of the old eighties children's fantasy movies, you'll love this too.
... In fact, watching this for the first time after many years, this screams Event Horizon inspiration through and through.
I just remember this scared the crap out of me as a kid...
(In fact, it's amazing how many movies if my formative years did that very thing)
... Very disturbing for a young mind, very... Off, very... Not Disney!
Imagine a hybrid Frankenstein, Dracula, zombie movie set in space, next to a black hole, on board a giant Cadillac/green house/ Victorian gothic mansion/space ship, narratively working it's way towards a William Blake style vision of heaven and hell, and you have to double take to see the Disney name on the label.
The casting is inspired, principally in the choice of Norman bates as slightly creepy idealist scientist, the effects are still hugely impressive, as much now as it was then, as well as the production design, robot design and especially cinematography.
... In fact, it's more than just Event Horizon this has inspired... As you can see this movie has undoubtedly had a huge claim to inventing the sub-gene of sci-fi horror, which many movies of the type have been influenced by.
Still too much for younger kids, and certainly still quite chilling for adults, in site of the limitations of the times, as it has in many respects, aged quite well, if not in others...
... A lovely thing though, that this even exists, testament that even Disney could colour outside it's own lines once in a while.
One of the most powerful films I've ever watched. I 'only' gave it a rating of 10 (because there is no 11). I've read the book of the film previously but the film is MUCH more intense.
Seeing this after all these years, and having watched it back in the day at least a hundred times, I had wondered if it would hold up, or if perhaps, being a comedy variation on the buddy cop genre, the humour might have dated a little...
...Fortunately, the light bubbly wit and humour is still good fun, with nothing really that would date it, or make it cringe worthy to modern eyes and ears.
Indeed, the story of a couple of Chicago cops chasing down a local drug lord, and getting embroiled in a game of cat and mouse with him is still hugely entertaining, and the story and dialogue is first rate - Jimmy Smits gives a good performance as a stock villain / bad guy, and the ever reliable Joe Pantoliano has a small but memorable supporting role...
...But it's the brilliant camaraderie, repartee, and flat out chemistry between Gregory Hines and Billy Crystal that is the heart of this story, and what gives this movie huge personality, and charisma. In fact, the movie, in essence, is the back and forth banter between them with a detective / action story on top, which mostly serves to showcase their relationship.
But there is a problem here I've noticed, and it consists in how I watched it, in contrast to how I originally watched it, which detracts somewhat from it - and it's quite an odd thing too:
I originally watched this, first of course, on TV, then on my overworked VHS copy, in 4:3 ratio, so it was a fairly meat and potatoes movie with a kind of dingy look and feel, in how it presented the Chicago city-scape of the time, which the VHS and ratio only served to highlight, and feed into, in terms of look and feel of the production design etc.
...What hit me immediately, when I set my newly acquired DVD copy of it playing, was that the aspect ratio was 16:9, and this revealed a truly startling fact: The cinematography is stunning, and the production is incredible to look at this way... But that's a problem (for me, at least).
Being shot, and presented like a more upscale movie, like The Godfather, or a Kubrick work f cinematic art, doesn't chime with the character and personality I spoke of earlier, it seems, in fact to make the comedy banter (heart of the story) out of place a tad, smaller, and diminished a little, like those warnings you used to get on CDs, to the effect of: "CDs can reveal the shortcomings of the original recordings...etc.", and also put me in mind of the whole Mono / Stereo debate in music, whereby some original music sounds better in mono, as the music was recorded with the intention of maintaining that mono focus, and to have that kind of impact, and where stereo versions of such music can sound... off, or just plain wrong for what you're hearing. Here, the interaction between Hines and Crystal, is the focus, and the addition of all this extra screen, and sharper, more modern DVD quality only serves to distract, dilute a little, and draw away that focus.
Well, that's me, anyway. Objectively, if you have not been conditioned to see it this way, you might feel differently, but still find a movie to enjoy here...
(Does make me wonder though, if original screenings in this (presumably) original aspect ratio may have negatively coloured some critics view of it, in the manner I suggest, whereby, they may well have had a better opinion of it had they seen a 4:3 VHS copy later, it being more at home that way, and having that greater emphasis on the central pairing's comedy duo.
I'm glad to have a DVD copy, but honestly, I think 4:3 VHS is the one for me, so I'm going to make a point of getting one of those, as it does seem to impact on substance of the movie, and my impression of it.
Rated 7/10I'd forgotten how much fun this movie was!
A straight-up, meat and potatoes, mid-nineties action flick, notable for being one of the movies after Pulp Fiction that helped continue the revival of John Travolta's career (Here cast well as a baddie) and casting, seemingly against type, Christian Slater as an action hero... And all under the very stylised whip-crack direction of John Woo.
John Woo's stylisation often goes way overboard for me, into the realms of the cartoonish, but it works well here.
Basic plot:
Two bomber co-pilots come to blows when one of them tries to steal the two live nuclear weapons they happen to be carrying on a training flight...
(Dear God, I hope they don't actually do this in real life!)
...Leaving the other to try and stop him.
..And bang! that's it, off it goes from there at a very brisk pace as a modern military style western showdown action adventure.
Not reinventing the wheel, in terms of plot or anything, it's just a great example of it's kind being done well... hugely entertaining.
Rated 10/10Pretty amazing film this! Jessie Buckley's performance is just eye-wateringly on it the whole way through. Seemingly hell-bent on self-destruction AND self-empowerment at the same time, she owns every scene to the point of it being almost a one-woman show. And that is before we even get to her singing talent!
OK, so I'm afraid I'm ging to have to be "that guy" who doesn't like this movie... or rather, I do, but against my will, or better judgement.
The reason is, in the initial instance, I grew up watching the original, first Terminator on TV, who's atmosphere, tone, concept, and story totally entranced me, fitting nicely in with the lower budget, performing miracles on a shoestring movie making ethos that John Carpenter made, along with others who made such sci-fi on meagre budgets because this genre was more marginalised back in the day - not so much main stream - and as such, you'd only catch these kinds of movies - Scanners, Terminator, Brainstorm, and others - late at night, on one of those secondary tv channels, so it felt like you'd slipped into some twilight netherworld of your own when watching them...
(I had a 14" colour TV next to my bed then, my second tv, after my Dad's 10" black and white portable one)
...The glow from these small, curious movies being the only light illuminating the room, and drawing me in in such a truly immersive way that no amount of modern big screen TVs, 3D, Imax, and all that jazz could ever hope to match subsequently.
...And along comes this, when I was in my teens, early movie-going years...
...Already dubious, as Arnie already looked too old to play a Terminator - they shouldn't age, surely! - and much less forbidding, formidable, and scary than he did in the first, somewhat detracting from the concept of this character before I'd even set foot in the cinema - and the movie "production values" and budget, had obviously been vastly upscaled, thereby removing most of the things I loved about the first one... this was just too slick.
And then, we get into all the reasons I really dislike this one, as it has a whole lot to answer for!
...Firstly, the addition of "personalitly" to the Terminator, killed that character stone dead for me, and then adding some throw-away cheesy humour got me really disliking it.
I'll admit, Seeing that opening sequence, with the Robot Terminator head looming through the flames on the big screen then is a movie going experience indelibly etched in my mind, and truly brilliant.. along with the development of Sarah Connor's character, and of course, a brilliant performance by Robert Patrick, now deservingly Iconic, and many other details besides, but all of the cons I've mentioned, plus the truly insufferable, obnoxious hysterical squeaky teen John Connor really set me against it in a big way.
The final insult, which is beyond cheese - but which seems to get everyone else emotionally - and is a total deal breaker for me, is shall we say.. a total Thumbs Down!
I personally trace everything that I consider wrong in modern cinema to this movie: Self referential, treating your own world building lightly, and buggering about with it, over commercialization due to mega budget bastardisation of something previously good, that had it's own integrity - "rebooting" and the beginning of the age of flogging a once live horse beyond dead, until it's all but fragments... this movie seems to show the way to that, due to it's massive commercial success, and set the trends we now have to suffer.
Objectively, I suppose, it's a very good film, and exceptionally well made, and all that, but it's a bit like that thing people have with rock stars - if you knew them before they were famous, and accepted, it's very difficult to look at them as the icon they have become, especially, with the compromises they have made to get there.
Rated 5/10Not a bad film per se, despite often being featured on many worst films lists.
Mackenzie Astin plays Dodger a young lad who is constantly picked on by bullies who are considerably older for unknown reasons. He works in Manzinis antique shop for Captain Manzini, a fantastic Anthony Newley who manages to come across as likeable, fatherly and avoids all the creepy dirty old man tropes that plague some father figures in family friendly films. We also never see Dodger's parents or him go to school. Is he orphaned? Is it bank holiday? Is his name a reference to street urchin, the artful dodger? I've no idea.
The Garbage Pail Kids are little people with animatronic masks and they look pretty decent. Sadly the film suffers from the repetition of unfunny fart, vomit and pee jokes. Kids love gross out humour, but there's no wit to it. The bullying scenes are also unnecessarily mean with no charisma to any of the bad dudes. Compared to Hank and Marv in Home Alone who are not only funny and likeable but also menacingly enough to be a threat. In GPK Dodger just comes across as being abused by 20 year olds which is just plain weird. Gorgeous B-movie actress Katie Barberi plays older love interest Tangerine. It's sort of difficult to like the character, money obsessed and as much of a bully as the other gang. Phil Fondacaro who plays Greaser Greg is kind of fun clearly modelled on the Fonz and possibly Andrew Dice Clay.
I don't think the film is unsuitable for children, but the bullying scenes are downright mean spirited. With something like Karate Kid or Monster Squad or Diary of a Wimpy Kid it works as there is more heart to it. Who knows with a better script, some hilarious jokes and some better plotting we could have had something special. What we ended up with was a strange curio that obtained cult status by accident. Real disappointment is just how much better Gremlins, Ghostbusters and Legend are at doing something which is cute but scary while maintaining a broad appeal.
Rated 6/10Grim, Bleak, overly absurd at times, and largely bland, in comparison to others who have done this kind of movie better.
It's a comically surreal look at the mundane lives of apparently ordinary people, or perhaps a mundane look at the comically surreal mundanity of their lives... Coming form the same sort of place as Magnolia, or American Beauty, in showing lots of broken people, who are outwardly normal or fine, occasionally giving a Woody Allen movie vibe, and is therefore a very "actorly" piece, which probably got actors of the time excited about the script in how daring, shocking, and meaty it was, but it does go too far over the line with one specific element, or character thread of the ensemble story, that of a family man / predatory Paedophile, which is frankly stomach churning, as well as profoundly uncomfortable to watch -
- I frequently grimaced, and even looked away from the screen, even though it's not graphic, just nauseating in it's study of this character, and there's no on screen come-uppance for him, or resolution, which leaves a bad feeling for this movie -
The occasional interesting parts of the story, those following other characters, which even make you chuckle on occasion, are completely overwhelmed by this thread, as you are constantly dreading that part coming back on the screen and having to find out what happens next.
If you are in any way sensitive to this topic, avoid like the plague.
Rated 9/10Are you shifting uncomfortably in your seats? Good, then I'll begin...
Wow, what a movie!
...Don't even know how to begin to review it properly at the moment, as there's so much in there, both explicit and implied, that I haven't fully gotten my head around yet, but to find yourself sympathising with, even empathising with, let alone rooting for a serial killer is quite a feat of film-making!
(Must emphasise though that it's not the serial killer, or his activities you root for, but the man, who is as much a victim, not least of himself, as anyone here)
I think this is probably the principal reason this seems to have drawn all the vitriol from the critics I've been hearing about, as, especially in this time when it was made (straight laced fifties - although released in 1960) this was asking questions of an audience we'd be uncomfortable with today! - perhaps the critics didn't like being made to recognise certain things about themselves, as much as anything.
>The old: Damn it to hell, and make it go away, that way, we can keep on pretending all is rosy in our respective gardens, and nothing will disturb this illusion.<
It's beautifully shot, in a kind of technicolour of the time, that looks like a contemporary rom-com, Hollywood might make (made me think of Breakfast at Tiffany's in this regard), but with a normal every day quality - but the visuals exceed even this.
There's lots in it as social commentary about voyeurism, of course, media, art, psychology, and movie-making in general, especially media and what it is to make a film, as well as us, as an audience.
All deftly, and sublimely handled, without whacking you over the head with obvious explanations, so asks you to think, to what extent you want or can, about what it is showing you.
(I think only Taratnino's Inglorious Basterds, recently, has been this profound about turning the camera, and the gaze of the audience on itself, and like that, this is doomed, to a great extent, to be severely misunderstood - seldom doth the subtle wit prevail, when all about you weep and wail!)
You can see the influence of this on everything from horror, to thriller for years after.
Needs a rewatch, and a further ponder or two every now and then, I think.
Rated 7/10Not into "martial arts" movies in general, but this popped into my head again after all these years the other week, and I remembered it being a little better than the standard fare, so ordered a cheapo second hand copy on Amaznonia...
...And in some ways, it still is, but it does have the odd issue on second viewing:
The story of a Cop from China coming to collaborate with the French police in a sting on a Chinese drug lord operating in Paris, only to discover the French head cop and his crew are bent, and looking to take over the operation themselves, leaving a trail of bodies in the process, and our cop: Mr Li, alone, hunted, and fending for himself in the city after they try to pin it all on him, is a great premise for a story, as is the conflict he feels between getting himself out of the situation, and the impulse to help an American woman (Bridget Fonda), trapped in servitude to Tchéky Karyo's menacing (occasionally cartoonish) villain head cop as a prostitute, recover her daughter from him, whom he is using as the leverage to keep Fonda in line.
It is, as it looks and feels, a Luc Besson scripted and produced movie, so has that edge to it, and there are some good fight sequences from peak Jet Li (Who's story idea this is), but without being wholly at the expense of drama, and the story.
The one gripe I really had, is that the look of this film, in how it was shot, is largely dark, dingy, and grimy, which doesn't really help you in seeing what is going on in these action / fight sequences, but a minor quibble.
Burt Kwouk also has a small, but significant role as the owner of a small noodle shop in Paris, who is Li's contact, and gives solid stoic performance.
I hate the two extremes filmmakers try to do with legendary / mythological figures these days:
Either they try to "update" the figure for a modern audeince, without even attempting to evoke the spirit and essence of the times: modern haircuts, clothes, vernacular and modes of speech, because they think modern audiences (especially the younger ones) won't "understand" or get into the movie - which in itself, is profoundly insulting, not only to the source material, but also to the intended audience: "You're thick, and can only understand something equivalent to the world in which you now live" - makes me want to wretch!
(I'm looking at you Guy Ritchie!)
...Or, they try to place a figure of legend and myth in "history", in order to make them "real" people who actually might have lived - historians, and other egotistical asshats of this ilk are primarily responsible for this: "Well, if such and such a figure actually existed, in this time, he / she would probably have worn this, and said that, been just so..."
Completely wrong on both counts!
The whole point of these characters / figures is that don't or might not have existed, and at the very least, not been numbered among normal men, living normal lives, as normal bods - that is their power, and the point of their existence, as symbols to inspire, and who's ambiguity is the very instrument by which they do so, and why they have endured.
When you do either of the above things to such figures, you diminish this, and dilute that power, as well as displaying to everyone you do not understand the source material, or have respect for it.
A good Robin Hood movie, therefore, should go with the spirit of the character - swashbuckling adventure, engaging, larger than life, even preposterous, and fun (remember that word?)
Anyway, gripe over :)
It should be required that everyone should watch this for Alan Rickman's villain alone.
(Costner deserves credit too, for not trying to compete with him in acting, as he'd have been blown off the screen, and looked a tool into the bargain)
He did choose a good career trajectory, rather than simply falling into "Hollywood icon / heartthrob" role it seems was wanted for him, and he has a more interesting body of work as a result.
I've only really seen this and Ghost Dog by Jim Jarmusch, but love his vibe, and way of bringing art films into mainstream-ish territory - will look out for others of his now :)
(I did find Coffee And Cigarettes on DVD last year, but - rookie error! - I got it home to discover no disc inside the case :(
Of all the John Hughes era "Brat pack" movies, this one has aged the worst I think, as these people are mostly obnoxious, and do not have the excuse of highschool naiveté as those in other movies of this time have.
(Still a key part of my growing up, so still a slight affection for it, but it is painful to watch in places).
Rated 7/10Not as good as I thought it was going to be, but better than I thought it was when I was watching it.
I think the reason I expected so much is because of the obvious comparisons it drew to the classic: The Wicker Man...
(Original - not the other nonsense with Nicolas Cage)
...And also, it our man Ari at the helm of an A24 film, which, after seeing the quite singular: Hereditary, made me expect great things.
...But that also turns out to to be the baggage this cannot quite live up to... This is slow, and a lot of the plot devices are contrived, so as to make the story move the way Ari wants it to, even though 99% of humanity, at multiple occasions in this story, would have acted to the contrary without thinking about it:
...Go to Swedish "commune" way out in the sticks?
Hell no!
...Upon arriving, seeing this lot prancing about in the field around buildings you are not allowed to go in:
Goodbye!
And everything therein and thereafter, at almost every point:
Not on your nelly chum!
It has a couple of disturbing concepts, and few (quite weak) gross horror effects, but I didn't really feel it was excessively graphic, in comparison to many other horror films - in fact, quite tame (I even laughed out loud at a particular scene involving a mallet - which was not the intended effect they wished to have on an audience!).
The group of friends traveling to this woodland based am-dram pantomime, in true horror style, are a bunch of boneheads: smart enough to go to university, but not smart enough to see where this is heading from the outset, apparently - so I didn't really care to what end any of them came.
And all the while, at the back of my head, watching this, was the overly large shadow of The Wicker Man, and the expectation created by Hereditary - it lived up to neither.
It is, only on reflection, the central, and to a great degree, subtextual story of Ms Pugh's grief, that is the story, and the only element of this story that really is it's own, but it sags under the weight of those comparisons.
So in the end...yeah, it's OK, even quite good, but not anything like the classic it promised to be, and I don't feel the need to see it again.
I'd convinced myself that I had seen this... even heard of it before, but I think I was lying to myself.
...Anyway, now I have done both, and as anyone who has seen this, could not help but be taken aback by this dazzling monochrome hallucinatory journey onto some kind of western based mystical underworld...
(Not entirely black and white, as there are very light blues, which mess with your head when viewed next to the greys, and make the mind see pinks on occasion)
...And having looked a little online after, seeing Jarmusch himself describe it as a psychedelic western, I'm inclined to agree.
it's shot in this black white blue monochrome in an almost documentary looking style, and is loaded with short cameos and appearances from an incredible array of well known figures, from actors to Iggy Pop!
As Johnny Depp's character: William Blake journeys into a town called Machine to get a job that isn't there, then gets into trouble with the company's boss and flees, setting forth thereafter on this Odyssey into an almost "up-river" journey onto the heart of darkness or light affair, guided for extended sequences by a Native American shaman like character who goes by the name of: Nobody... All the while, pursued by gang of three ruthless, yet hapless bounty hunters / killers.
"Nobody" believes Depp's character is the reincarnation of the English poet and namesake: William Blake, and seeks to help him get to where his spirit truly belongs.
You'll not see nothing like this.
(Neil Young provides big solo grungy guitar soundtrack to this trip too :)
Another one difficult to find on streaming services (although he sequel is not) - a little hazy as to whether it is available anywhere at all, but certainly is not easy to find I think.