So I finally caved in on this one, as it just wasn't turning up in the charity shops, and decided to just stream it, to round out the trilogy.
Got to say I was dreading it, as I didn't want to spoil the magic of the first two, as I kind of had a hunch that reality would come crashing in at some point, and here it is.
However, the reality, is a well considered one, and is just as well written as the others, this has not just been tacked on to finish the trilogy...indeed these may be among the finest screenplays ever written, the kind that I should image any actor would hack off a limb to be a part of...
...And from this perspective, this may be the best written, and possibly best acted of the three, due to the actual drama and contention that now exists between the two lead characters, now living together with twin daughters, and on holiday in Greece... and the tension of unspoken, and as yet unsaid acknowledgement of trouble having grown in paradise over the intervening years... Jesse, torn between a desire to have deeper relationship with his son from his previous marriage, and being with the love of his life, and their daughters in that new life, while Celine doesn't feel how "present" he has been in their lives because of this, leading to her stifling the complaint she justly has about this...
...A storm is brewing, and the tension will surely cause it to break at some point.
What these movies do well, is the unspoken things, as well as the spoken, and what lies behind them, as the first two thirds of the movie seems to be moving along ok. with the idyllic life, with only apparent minor "quibbles", which only in the final third, you find out that what they were both really thinking about the situation, and everything they did prior to this section of the film, was not what they were saying, or how they were acting or behaving at the time.
So, quite masterfully, the scenes later, lend a new context, and meaning on what you saw before, and call to mind those previous scenes and make you reflect on them while you watch.
...But also, this applies to the trilogy of films as a whole, as there are both overt, direct references to their previous experiences in those other films, as well as subtle allusions... "easter eggs" which those who have seen them will understand, and so feel the poignancy of.
In fact, rather than simply ruin our daydream of that first, perfect romance, this, I feel, may have the effect of shedding a new light on the other two... knowing what is to come, may add to the power of the experiences of the first movie, and the second, just as each of those has a very powerful affect on how you view this one, which, if you didn't know the romantic past they share, may casue you to view this as a more purely bitter experience - there is, therefore, a kind of cross-chatter between the movies in this trilogy, as you recall events previous as you watch this, and as said, I expect may affect the I view the others in future when I watch them again... giving, together, a "God's eye view" of a whole relationship, and complete working diagram of love, and how it changes over time.... for better, and worse.
This, like the others, is also constructed around the prolonged set piece conversations between them, as they by turns, talk in a car for a good twenty minutes, talk at a dinner party table with friends for another twenty odd minutes, then talk while walking through the local town and surrounding landscape, before the final scene in a small hotel room. So it has all the familiar look and feel, and makes a perfect circle of movies.
Whether you like this one or not, will very much depend on what kind of person you are, and your own appreciation of the experiences they have, based on your own, as well as if, like the two protagonists, are idealistic, cynic, or realist, or any of those things (sometimes together) at different times.
I'm pleased this exists, and it does add a lot, to make this one of the all time great trilogies, as well as each part having a claim to being among the best romantic movies ever made...
But...
Once I've watched the three together in sequence once again, I will mostly only watching the first two (especially the first ) in future... I guess I just want to believe in the romance more than the reality. :)
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.
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.
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 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.
...For some reason, this is not available on streaming services anywhere, although the sequel is.
And for this reason, the DVD / Blu-rays are the only place to get this reasonably popular movie
(It's quite good too! :)
...And as such, although not really "rare" in the true sense for a physical copy, it does carry a slightly higher price on ebay and Amazon (although not much).
Reasonably sought after therefore, although I wonder if it would be so if readily available on streaming services?
(If I may borrow an apt title from an Echobelly song)
As this, quite cheap, TV looking production by one of the masters of the wholesome family horror movie: Joe Dante (Who I consider in this vein along with Tim Burton), sets out as a fairly standard new family of mum and two sons moving into new house with something not altogether natural in the basement... But towards the end becomes more of an exercise in therapy for those brought up in a home with an abusive parent.
,,,After all, where's "dad" in this family equation?...hmmmmmm...
As I said, the production looks more TV than cinema, like an episode of a creepy Twilight Zone type series, but that's not to say it doesn't look good by that standard... just lower budget.
However, everyone here klnows exactly how to get the most out of what they've got to work with, and the story is spot on, the script tight, light and lively, and the visuals are in the best tradition of Tim Burton style weirdness, appropriate for the subconscious dreamscape themes, brilliantly designed and executed, so as to have an almost archetypical power.
Without offering any further info for those who want to watch it, which I recommend, all I'll say is that one of the features of this experience is of a small toy jester / clown, which may be one of the most creepy things I've seen in recent years :), and an almost Ringu style little girl ghostie, so a couple of elements which are going to give younger viewers night horrors (perhaps a couple of adults too!).
But I thought this was a great little film, which I'd made a mental note of to see when it came out, but forgot about it until I found the DVD the other week, and it exceeded my expectations.
Well this is a sticky one for physical media / home video...
...I found the original theatrical version on DVD the other week, and it's one of those: "Flip the disc" issues, where only a little over half the movie is on one side, with the remainder on the other side (1hr 38 on side one - 58 mins side two) - what a pain in the crack!
...And it gets worse:
A more recent issue has the whole movie on one side, but from this point on, only the "Director's cut" is available this way, and even - form what I can find - the blu ray etc. are "director's cuts" editions.
The director's cut, in my opinion, kills the dramatic impact of the movie, by disrupting the "flow" of the film, and only serves to make the film drag, spoiling all the, um... cinematic poetry of the experience.
So it seems the only way to get the theatrical version of the movie all in one go (on one side of any media format) is to seek out the original VHS, which is now a goal I've set myself.
(Sometimes, although you'd, on the whole, prefer the studio to butt out, and let the director give us the intended experience, I'm finding, ever more frequently, that actually, the studio / powers that be, are in the right to give the director a light metaphorical slap, when such requests are made, and say: "No! - you'll kill the thing!").
...They don't come much more overly acted, hammy and lovey than this wildly melodramatic cringe-fest.
Not seen it since way back when, and had only a vague memory, or impression of it, and it has aged very badly indeed.
A good idea at heart, of a man inviting his old school type friends to his mansion over new years, having not seen them in ten years, and seeing how all their lives have changed - mostly for worse, each with their own brand of baggage...
...But the acting, script, and characters are all obnoxious in the extreme, as they portray a ludicrous series of scenes as this "drama" unfolds.
The excessive use of pop songs of the time is grating, especially through the first two thirds of the film, and the only saving graces are the (almost) good-ish final ten minutes, when everybody dials it down a little, and the peripheral character of Vera, the housemaid / cook, who is the only solid character, played with the only solid acting in this movie.
Finally, after all these years, I got around to watching this...
...And several things struck me about it, that were opposed to the idea of what I thought this movie was going to be:
Firstly, I thought it was just going to a straight up meat and potatoes western, shot, and presented in the usual fashion - sweeping scores, dramatic / epic set piece hero shots, and the kind of bore-fest I expect from the genre (A lot of these bore me to tears, so this explains why I avoided this...
...Then the story, I thought was just a fun buddy movie with lots of laughs and capers and such... fluff.
On both of these counts, I was wholly wrong, as this rather glacial "modern" western is, but for the Bacharach song, and another piece over the ingenious segment of a narrative sequence sepia stills showing the pair's transitional phase between their American life and that in Bolivia, is devoid of music altogether, having only the ambient sounds of what's in frame at any given time...
...And what cinematography!
Possibly some of the best I've ever seen.
Rather than the sun drenched romantic western-scapes I'd predicted, the washed out, "thin" colour palettes, the sepia / murky brown segment at the beginning, and the woodland scenes are nothing short of art.
And all to tell the story of two, only superficially breezy and sparky individuals' deeper tragic nature, and sense of fate, as the world is changing, and there ain't no place for them anymore.
It occurred to me also - that is struck me quite a lot, actually, that most of my preconceptions came from the fact that whenever scenes from this are shown in any videos, discussions of great movies etc. it's only ever the scene with the bicycle and Bacharach song, or their jump of the cliff into the river... no other scenes that I can recall ever get shown, or talked about, and so I think this gave me a very false notion of what to expect.
You'd think I'd learn by now not to go by what others say about a movie, but take the time to sit and experience these things for myself... lesson learnt! :)
I got around to watching my VHS of this last night, and was actually blown away by it!
...Not so much for any great acting performances, or dialogue especially, although it's very good on these points... No, the thing that got me was just how prescient this work is - point for point, beat for beat, it's almost uncanny how accurately this predicts the world we live in now, the problems we face, and in particular, the obstacles to solving them, politically, socially, and economically.
Steve McQueen's Dr. Stockmann is the local doctor / general science bod on a small aspiring township, and he has noticed that a new local business is causing the water to be contaminated, which could be, or soon will, poisoning the local population, and so, after sending samples off to a University for testing, and receiving the results confirming his suspicions, compiles a report for the local council to consider, along with his strong advocacy that changes, at least, be made to how this business interacts with the local water supply, and that the whole water pipe system needs to be ripped out and replaced.
...And all for the public good.
Unfortunately, his brother, The Mayor, sees only the expense, and is put out by the bad publicity this would cause, and the effects on the local economy (as well as other vested interests) and very rapidly turns on him, using political power and position to denounce him, and turn the public against him, which they duly do.
...To add to his woes, the local "radicals" / revolutionaries (code word for Socialists), who run a newspaper, seek to exploit him by weaponizing by him, and his report for political advantage over the establishment, as represented by the local council, and it's Mayor (his brother).
Of course, this all blows back on him, as he is now trapped between the denouncements and persecutions of the establishment, on the one hand, the exploitations of radical revolutionaries on the other, both of whom are using the populist opinions of a largely scientifically ignorant public as the instruments of his persecution.
As the doctor tries to maintain his integrity, in the face of this, advocating only the facts, from a scientific standpoint, his nobility, and scientific attitude stand as a profound disadvantage, as it is this, that makes him breathtakingly naïve, and therefore ill equipped to deal with those aspects of social life he knows not of: Political and social snakery, in using "democracy" itself
as a weapon of denunciation, to marginalise him, and push him in to the long grass, as the townsfolk do not want to hear what he has to say - not if it costs them materially, even if it could save their lives.
On his own, the Doctor could well weather the storm, but he has a home, and family to think of too, who have to live here, among the townsfolk.
I thought, while watching this, of the Ecological issues of recent years, as reflected in the public debate, I thought of a certain Dr. David Kelly with regards to WMDs (look him up), as well as a recent phrase from UK politics, to the effect of: "People are tired of experts".
"We're doomed!" :)
Ibsen Schmibsen
This is, of course, an adaptation of an Ibsen play (always meant to get around to reading some his work, and this has only made me want to read him more!) by Arthur Miller, and this is the strength of the whole movie - all the actors are good, and even Monotone McQueen gives a solid performance under all that hair and spectacles (Steve McQueen was never really required to act in reality, after all, just be Steve McQueen - and that's enough, I suppose)).
Perhaps it is either fitting, or Ironic, that the absolute failure and disappearance of this most relevant (certainly now, more than ever) movie is almost an exact replica of the plot.
This movie needs to be seen again, by as many modern eyes as can be laid upon it, and has a claim to be considered one that ought to be regarded alongside the likes of 12 Angry Men, as more than just a movie... It's a treatise, and an education.
(Can't pretend I'm not proud of myself for that review headline :)
Sometimes, whether you think a movie is good or bad can simply be a question of timing...
...And so it was, and is, for me with this movie, as back at the time of release, my friends and I are into action / martial arts / superhero fans, getting into Bruce Lee and Jean Claude Van Damme and all that... maybe a dash of Batman etc.
So I, for one, was more than a little disappointed with this, as it is less a martial arts action movie, more a gothic / romantic revenge thriller / drama / mood piece.
(My soft little brain at the time could not compute this for what it was)
...And certainly, I'd take issue with the concept of this being a "Superhero" movie, as "The Crow" is not one, he is more a vengeful zombie angel out to avenge the wrongs done to him and his fiancé by a gang of mega-turds before the film even has begun.
Rather, this is a supernatural revenge movie, framed in the brilliantly conceived concept of a wronged soul being ferried back from the dead to balance the books by a crow, his constant companion once back in the land of the living, and darkness of the city night; This is an idea that taps directly into the finest traditions of folklore and supernatural tales people may be familiar with from time immemorial.
"The Crow" himself, seems, now that I rewatch after all these years, and finally "get it", to be what you would get if you smashed together The Joker and Batman into one coherent unity of character...
(Maybe this is the nineties, post-Tim Burton Batman movie we should have got instead?)
... and all centred around the pangs of grief, and tragic, gothic romance worthy of a vampire movie.
So it seems I now see the light (or maybe the dark?) with this one.
All that remains is to mention both the brilliant score, and even more astonishing Soundtrack, featuring, among others: The Cure, Stone Temple Pilots, Rage Against The Machine etc.
...Not to mention this absolutely breathtaking show-stopper, over the end credits:
Having been totally absorbed by this one, I shall be seeking out house of the devil, for a similar experience...
Oddly, not as concerned with if it's a great movie or not, so much as finding a movie that puts me in a particular time and place, by way of it's mood and tone.
Some of my favourite movies are the shittiest :)
(Indeed, if I had the talent to be a great director, it would be my ambition to one day make a deliberately shit movie - " keep the big bucks boss, I want less budget than it takes to hire a hand cranked hundred year old camera and a couple of bags of potato chips... The rest we'll leave to pure invention and ingenuity!"
Rated 10/10"I like New York in June... How about you?"
(Nope, never been to New York myself, but that tune certainly gets stuck in your head, especially when sung by a chorus of the homeless, or the mentally ill :)
This is one for all the romantic crazies out there... a zany, magical tale of homelessness, mental illness, guilt, forgiveness, redemption, and profoundly socially awkward romance.
Imagine, if you will, a man who makes his living at the top of the social tree by mindlessly saying the most provocative, shocking and awful things, not because they are necessarily true, but because they provoke a shocked fascination with what he says, like observing a car crash, and that keeps him in his position of power and splendour...
...Imagine then, there are consequences; Someone takes what he says to heart, and commits an atrocity on the strength of it, walking into a bar one night with a shotgun, and opening fire.
No... this man is not a "politician".
This man is Jeff Bridges' "shock-jock" Radio DJ: Jack, who's life crashes after this opening event, and he finds himself taken in by the wonderful Anne (Played breathtakingly well by Mercedes Ruehl, who justly, won just about everything in sight for this role), and making acquaintance with a very disturbed homeless man played by Robin Williams: Parry, who saves Bridges one night form having wandered into the wrong area of town in a drunken stupor and getting beaten and almost set on fire by local "kids" who hate the homeless.
Jack is grateful, and guilt ridden, and in profound need of redemption, so luckily, Parry, being a knight, tasks him with a quest that may redeem him:
Recover the "Holy Grail".
Once the nature of Jack and Parry's relationship is discovered, Jack further tries to help Parry, by match-making with the hilariously socially awkward object of his affection: Lydia, who Parry has admired from afar (In a totally non-stalker-ish way, of course! :)
In this, the help of both Anne, and the truly singular Michael Jeter (Who steals every scene he's in) is required, and so they set about helping Parry to woo her.
>The scene with the Grand Central Station waltz may be the most magical moment in cinema history!<
So this is a Terry Gilliam film, with Robin Williams, Jeff Bridges, Mercedes Ruehl, Amanda Plummer, Michael Jeter, Tom Waits, and the Holy Grail...
...And yes, it is as good as that sentence suggests.