A philosophy of love...

...And relationships, and how they change.

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. :)

1 person found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Still 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.

✔︎ Helpful Review?

Event horizon... For kids!

... 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.

If only they were still as brave!

✔︎ Helpful Review?

Still good fun... but with a twist.

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.

✔︎ Helpful Review?

I'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.

✔︎ Helpful Review?

Pretty 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!

2 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

The movie I hate to love.

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.

1 person found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Not 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.

1 person found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Independent review :read:

✔︎ Helpful Review?

You don't have to be stoned to enjoy this pocket-change budgeted movie... but it helps! :)

3 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Grim, 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.

4 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Independent review :read:

✔︎ Helpful Review?

Are 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.

3 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Not 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.

✔︎ Helpful Review?

Apex eighties melodrama.

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).

2 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Not 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.

2 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Weird and brilliant.

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 :)

4 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Independent review :read:

✔︎ Helpful Review?

Dark therapy.

(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.

Great creepy fun!

✔︎ Helpful Review?

If you enjoyed the riddle that was Cronenberg's "Crash" you should get the same sort of enjoyment from Poor Things. Everything seems to be some kind of a metaphor, around the nature of love, control, and ageing. As in Crash there is a lot of "strong sex" throughout the story but non is pornographic, it is there to serve some intellectual purpose.
No spoilers, but the final dénouement is amusing enough, though probably not worth sitting through the previous two hours for.

2 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Nobody's finest hour.

Ouch...

...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.

Otherwise, just awful.

1 person found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Not what I thought it was going to be.

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! :)

✔︎ Helpful Review?

"The majority is always wrong!"

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.

2 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Just go with the crow.

(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:

[YouTube Video]

✔︎ Helpful Review?

"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.

(No wonder I wore my old VHS tape of this out!)

1 person found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

The strength of a good story is in the telling...

...And this is a potentially great story, told badly.

I remember this being a movie with a lot of buzz around it at the time of release, Mainly, due the "involvement" of Quentin Tarantino - of which much is made on the DVD cover and poster, but is in reality only a production credit, being written and directed instead, by Roger Avary.

That buzz being a mixed bag of good to bad reviews. I never got around to seeing it then, as it was also one of those "mayfly" movies, that appear to be everywhere for a short spell, before evidently disappearing entirely from public consciousness - in short, I forgot it existed.

But now I can see why the reviews are mixed, and why this isn't thought more of, as well as the movie within it, which could have been every bit the equal of a Tarantino "proper" movie, had one key decision been made differently:

Specifically, if this had been restructured in the narrative, cut and edited differently so as the actual bank robbery was the centre of the story, and the two key relationships given in pre-amble were told in flashback from key moments in the robbery, rather than in linear fashion as it is, this would have been an altogether different animal.

As it is, Stoltz (Zed) arrives in France (this has a very contemporary European movie look and feel - as opposed to a Hollywood, or Tarantino one) to meet with Anglade (Eric), in order to embark on this bank robbery with him, but while waiting for Eric, he hooks up with Delpy (Zoe), call girl / student in his hotel room, and a relationship develops, before Eric bursts in and boots her out (before it turns out she is present at the bank they rob).

All of this, and the next two thirds of the film of Zed and Eric doing the town in Paris, is very languid on it's own, even draggy, and boring, and even the beginning of the robbery is somewhat underwhelming, due to a lack of pace you might have expected from this movie...

...But really, that's the real story here, The relationship between Stoltz and Anglade, versus the relationship between him and Delpy, which puts Stoltz in a bind.

If we had come in cold straight into the robbery, then at key points, flashed back, or told those other snippets of story as reveals, the nature of his relationship with each would have unfolded the nature of these, as well as unfolding to the audience the nature of the circumstances, changing our perception of the scenario as we go towards the climax.

This, so rendered, would possibly have been a 9 or a 10 rating for me, but getting to the bank job in linear narrative fashion takes an eternity, and I found I didn't have much interest / energy for the last twenty minutes.

So it's another one, that I wonder, if some talented individual out there were to take this existing material, and "re-cut" it, or reorder and restructure the narrative through this means (maybe making it available to view somewhere - ahem :) - everyone would see what a great film was actually here all along, and even the critics may reappraise it to a much higher degree.

1 person found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

One of those I'd been hearing a lot about, and usually such movies don't disappoint...

(As with the "Before" movies)

...But this one lacked the magic for me.

That said, it's the last ten to fifteen minutes that kicks it up a few notches in terms of wrenching the tears from my head; Those last few minutes between James Garner and Gena Rowlands a straight up square kick in the guts.

Of course, romance = tragedy (otherwise, it's a fairy-tale, or misplaced optimism :), and it's easy to see where this is going from the off, but the majority of the narrative being centred around Gosling and McAdams in what is little more than a pretty standard Hallmark romance tale of hoity-toity (haven't heard that expression in a while, I bet !?!! :) well-to -do girl meets boy from wrong side of the tracks whom family do not approve didn't exactly blow my bolts to be honest, and it doesn't really prepare you for just how affecting those last minutes are.

Straight up tragedy I'd say, more than romantic , movie, of the kind to settle in with and enjoy.

Difficult not to forewarn of spoilers here, but anyone who has dementia in the family needs to have a heads up on this, as it might just knock you sideways a bit, in a way you were not expecting from a romantic movie.

Gosling's good, McAdams is excellent, Garner and Rowlands are better still.

Pretty good movie overall, just not sure it is all that reputation would have you believe though, with regards to the common standard of romantic / rom - com movies.

1 person found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Unfortunately, nobody can be told what Mulholland Drive is... You have to see it for yourself.

...Oh, sorry, that's the Matrix, isn't it?!!

(That said, that line in The Matrix always bugged me - clever marketing though it was - as you decidedly can tell someone what it is, if you sit down for five minutes and explain to poor Neo, rather than making him jump straight in... not to mention the fact that Morpheus then proceeds to spend fifteen minutes or so of the movie doing just that.. after Neo has committed. Bastard!)

((But I digress! :))

Actually, that is certainly applicable tot his movie, as the reputation it has is a mix of: It's the greatest movie ever made, or conversely: It's the worst movie ever made... A streaming pile of incoherent sh.....

The truth is, it's both, and deliberately so, I divined, from watching it the other day for the first time, and that is what may make this a work of genius.

To explain:

Although, exactly what this film is about, and the meaning of it may be open to many an interpretation, and perhaps no definitive point can be arrived at (I have my own thoughts, for later :), how it does it... goes about telling this story, whatever it is, is a little clearer on reflection.

For, from the opening, this is reeking with Twin Peaks look and feel, like it was made for TV in the early nineties (I had to check the date of the movie to remind myself of the real date because of this)... only worse.

Shonky, jittery soft-ish focus, amateurish camera work with a forced, contrived script, with forced, contrived dialogue, played by the most wooden, artificial performances from a collection of the most wooden, artificial actors Lynch could find.

It feels like a cross between low budget 70s porn acting and staging, and early nineties television pilots with ridiculous melodramatic plotting and absurd coincidental events.

You think, from the off: man, "this is the most shit movie I have ever seen!" (And what a shame it's Lynch too!)

I can see this movie losing 90% of it's audience in the first ten minutes, because of this.. who could just take no more, and would in reality, or metaphorically, stand up, and walk out of the theatre (Or change channels).

But this is a mistake!

As this is purposely done, and in a key scene, where Watts "character" as a young, freshly arrived starlet in Hollywood seeking fame and stardom, auditions for a role in a soap, you get the most real, and naturalistic acting from her you could get.

"Aha!... I get it now, this is about perception in media versus reality to some extent"

(thinks I)

People are more real in fictions than in their "real lives", seems what this story says.

And from here, the camera, imperceptibly, and by degrees, straightens up, the production gradually acquiring cinema quality, as does the acting, and the script, and you, the audience member, doesn't consciously perceive it happening. You see the earlier style was a deliberate choice, that says something about.... something.

I spite of the Noir-ish ("neo", or otherwise) style and themes (mystery, hallucinatory, oblique symbol heavy, metaphorical affair) I think this actually transcends this, and should rather be regarded as a kind of art installation, or a work of art of some description.

I would personally hazard a guess that this is a kind of subconscious, poetic eulogy of sorts to the kind of tragic figure that an Amalgam of Marilyn Monroe and Princess Diana would represent to David Lynch, set against obscure, dark, and sinister, background forces that controls her fate.

This hall of mirrors, has at least a couple of characters who may well be the same person, (maybe more!), but is captivating, and quite brilliant if you can persevere through the opening half, so then you later see the brilliance of what you thought, at the beginning, was shit.

Not sure I'd hurry back to watch it again immediately - for fun - but once it's rattled about at the back of my brain a while, I think I'd like to revisit it... Meantime, I'll file it away as an impenetrable piece of possible genius right next to 2001: A Space Odyssey, where it belongs :)

✔︎ Helpful Review?

Ketchup with chocolate... (?)

Things that don't go well together, although you like them on their own, or each with something else.

That's basically what this movie is:

Several things that don't sit well together made to do so in an attempt (admirably, perhaps) to create something new... except this misses the mark, and these weird juxtapositions make this movie feel rather... odd.

It wants, it seems, to be a "Neo-Noir" in style, look and tone, but frequently uses, by means especially of the narrative framing actual Film-Noir references (It's a bit like Sunset Boulevard in this sense) and this is undermined entirely by comedy element, which undercuts the tone, specifically by opting for the more zany, fizzy whipcrack / wisecrack humour, which rattles along like a attempt at an Aaron Sorkin style script dialogue - it moves fast and is difficult to keep up with, rather producing a mumbling effervescent quality that is almost trance inducing - not good if you also have one of the most convoluted (and preposterous) murder mystery plots out there...

(The plot feels like a pastiche / satire of / homage to one of the more credulity stretching episodes of Columbo)

...So it's also trying to tap into the L.A. Confidential / Chinatown mood, but that humour doesn't go well, as I said, and when coupled with the black humour slapstick action elements, makes you think: "What the hell is this movie?"

(When they occur - I thought, from the title and poster, this was going to be more in the style of a Lethal Weapon / Bad Boys type of action flick - which it ain't - being a much more pedestrian monotone paced, "talky" movie).

It seems also, through the self deprecating, self referential, self undermining script, to be aiming at a higher state of meta-wit, while at the same time apologising for itself as it does so, before finally embracing entirely the elements it is seeking to mock.... It doesn't have the courage of it's convictions.

Pick a lane dude!

I was almost two thirds of the way through, wondering when it would get to the second act, and realising that there really was none, and this tone continues throughout, coming from nowhere in particular, going nowhere, and taking it's long meandering time getting there.

Although the last twenty minutes does pick up the pace slightly, I was already mostly bored by then, and had tuned out, which, given the ludicrous complexity of the absurd plot, made this make no real sense whatsoever.

Improbable, and highly unlikely coincidences to allow the finale to happen, even though the narration explicitly mock such Hollywood practices through the first half, and while I understand that may have been Shane Black's intention when writing this, it's not clear if he's doing so with a nod and a wink, perhaps even a wry smile to audience, or if he's just given up on the meta nature of the movie.

It does have a couple of points of note though - firstly, Michelle Monaghan is excellent in her role, Val Kilmer gives a fairly understated stoic (Although the character is barely there) performance, and it seems this is where you see an early prototype of the witty, wisecracking Tony Stark character Downey Jr. would go on to patent in Iron Man.

But on thing is clear: Shane Black is almost unparalleled as a scriptwriter, but an accomplished director / film-maker, he isn't.

(Better to have handed this off to someone else, who could have knocked it into shape)

1 person found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

More than meets the eye?

I have only just gotten around to watching this, after all these years, and I know exactly the reason why:

It's that thing which often occurs in movie world, where a "pair" of movies are released at, or around the same time, concerning the same subject matter, and to the naked eye (according to judgements made about the trailers before having watched them) appear to be essentially the same movie, with two studios evidently racing to get their take on it out first...

Armageddon and Deep Impact, or indeed, this, and of course: The Truman Show.

(there can be only one! :)

As such, that latter pretty much blew this clean out of the water, as a movie about a man who's life becomes the object of national, or global attention through the, then emerging format of dreaded "Reality Television" phenomenon, and how it was poised to fundamentally alter the cultural landscape at that time, as well as distorting the very concept of "reality"...

...Some pretty heavy stuff, and tremendously fertile ground for film-makers to explore in anticipation of those burgeoning events, and perhaps with a ready audience, eager to explore through movies like EdTV and The Truman Show, the possible implications, as well as their own anxieties about what was to come.

But I'm disappointed with myself that I didn't give this due attention at the time, as it does have very much it's own story, and concepts to play with, as well as having a lot of key distinctions in the story it tells, and how it tells it:

Truman is the subject from birth, and doesn't know he's a participant, Ed is already a grown man, and is entirely conscious of what is happening, having volunteered to be the star of his own show, for one... which show a different facet of the phenomena and tells a different story:

How does fame alter "reality", both the reality he experiences as opposed to previously, and how does it, in turn, alter him, and affect those around him?

It deals more directly with the issue of the rights of that individual when he pushes back, and has other sub-textual themes equally important (and today, much more prominent than when this was released!): The intelligent and enterprising female TV exec, who creates the show, is marginalised and pushed aside once it becomes successful by the Male TV big boss who assumes the credit.

But aside form these weighty concepts, this is very entertaining, and gets more so as it goes... Rob Reiner is great as the overbearing insufferable TV exec, but in particular: Martin Landau as the wheelchair bound step-father has some of the most killer - funny lines in the movie, and he delivers them with razor sharp perfection:

"I need a pee...

(scoots off to the toilet in mobility scooter)

....wish me luck"

:)

Solid 7 rating, pushing toward and 8.

✔︎ Helpful Review?