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.

4 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?

A solid slice of genuine sci-fi.

There is a difference (to me, at least), between "sci-fi", as generally understood, and proper sci-fi...

...The difference lies in the the basic story idea.

It's not enough just to have some twinkly flashing lights, a fair piece of action, and some: "kerpow!", "Blam!", or other whizz-bang visual wizardry; You've got to have a good idea, that says something about something that could not otherwise have been said but for the fictional science element, or that the use of which, says it more directly, explicitly, and succinctly than could otherwise have been done.

(For this reason, in it's original form, sci-fi was termed as: "speculative fiction")

This is happily one of the latter.

The truly great concept here is nothing less than:

Time is money... literally.

This is a world where everyone from birth has a clock installed in their arms, which counts down to zero, and then the clock, and indeed, your life, expires.

...You can trade time, purchase with time, and spend time in exchange with others.

From this simple, elegant concept (perhaps not a startling new idea, but certainly excellently conceived and executed here) all the implications of this are played out and explored on the substance of the story, and drama:

There are the rich - the very rich - who have time to burn, and then there are the poor, who scrape by on minutes, often living by bouncing from hour to hour, day by day, with barely enough to survive on, and from this, there is a social divide, of time-rich districts, where the millionaires live, and the slums, where the time-poor eek out a living.

And so the social commentary, philosophy all naturally flows through he story from this.

As one, day, a time rich man, who feels he has lived too long, makes his way to the wrong side of the tracks, and donates, or "gifts" a huge block of time to Justin Timberlake's character, before "timing himself out"... This leaves our Justin in a huge quandary, as he is at once made a target for envy and theft by any means by his contemporaries on the slum in which he lives, but also the rich, from the other district, who want that time back in order to preserve the social order "norms", and the excellent Cillian Murphy's "Time Keeper" (cop) is sent to hunt him down.

Justin decides to use the time to escape into the rich district, live a little, and maybe upset the clock a little.

Here he meets the big bad millionaire, who basically has all, or most of the time in the world, he falls in with the guy's daughter, and after essentially kidnapping her in order to make his escape, they turn into a time based Bonnie and Clyde / Robin Hood style duo.

A very powerful concept executed with great clarity, who's implications are well explored.

I think this movie has kind of drifted from general consciousness over time (sorry time puns are essentially unavoidable here! :) and as I recall, was only really slightly regarded at the time... it generally blended in with a plethora of similar such movies around when this was...

(A lot of which, like this, could probably do with some re-appraisal, as many are good on their own right too!)

...Possibly adding to this lack of being taken seriously was the presence of Timberlake and even Seyfried: She the supernaturally beautiful starlet of Mean Girls fame. and he, the ubiquitous boy-band superstar of the time, it may have seemed that this was just a concocted star vehicle movie, rather than the good movie it actually is.

(Both are actually pretty good in this, and deserve more credit)

Worth your time.

1 person found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

This might just be brilliant.

This is actually a really impressive slice of American folk-horror, which exceeded all expectations I had, having pretty much brushed it aside at time of release, and filed it away in my brain as another cheap, shoddy, ultra-low budget schlock horror...

...But this has a few points of great distinction, which, although it does seem to be low budget, by any standard, elevate this above it's peers:

Firstly, the acting is pretty darn good, given that you usually get Andy and Annie Amateur in this kind of thing, who are so wooden you could carve a totem pole out of their performances, but everyone here seems quite naturalistic, and very good.

Secondly, the premise is a great idea, tapping into - as alluded to earlier - that very particular brand of "Folk Horror" that suits the American cultural identity with regards horror: That is, unlike the "old world" European superstitions, which have an age old continuity and provenance of sorts, as we've grown alongside them from time immemorial - there's this thing in American cultural superstions that seems to tap into the idea of something ancient, and pre-dating the arrival of those people who would become Americans, and they have inadvertently "woken up".

Here, the father of a child killed in an accident, is driven by grief to invoke some creature who is the spirit of vengeance to exact revenge on the hapless perpetrators...

...But here, it also becomes a great morality tale, as he sees blindness caused by his grief has made him act in error, and so tries to stop the creature he has unleashed - the creature being a living manifestation of his implacable, blind desire for revenge caused by his pain.

No good will come of it!

Quite slow through the first half, but picks up and moves briskly to it's compelling (and poignant) conclusion. And it's this quality of the story that raises this way above the average low budget horror movie.

And finally, the creature, naturally enough, being a Stan Winston project, is breathtakingly good - whether it's animatronic, a dude in a suit, miniatures, or a combination of all three, the naturalistic and organic movement is stunning - especially for a movie of this time.

Should not be just a "cult" classic, but a benchmark in movies in general, not just horror - of what can be achieved with scant resources.

✔︎ Helpful Review?

Levinson's folly.

This is a weird, and deeply strange movie, and only half in a good way.

I had only vague recollection of it from it's time of release, except my friends and I's (<Is that grammatically correct?), nonplussed, frowny expressions of bemusement, which I think was shared by the whole of the western world...

For on the face of it, the cover, the idea, and the presence of Robin Williams in this kind of movie makes you think it's going to be a Willy Wonka style, magical, cautionary tale for kids, regarding the corruption of innocence by the big meanie serious minded military types looking to convert the childlike toy factory inherited by Williams and "sister" into a a more "war toy" oriented concern... (The father looks younger than Williams - his brother, the militarista General, and brother of said father, is Improbably played by Michael Gambon)

...And this topic has, I would assert, hit the mark with it's target audience with the excellent: Small Soldiers, but here, everything seems off, to some degree, to produce a surreal, unsettling hallucinatory "bad cheese" experience of a movie, that isn't for kids at all, and is too perplexing for anyone else.

So what's up with this movie?

Firstly, the prime asset here is, of course, or should have been Williams himself, in this kind of premise, you would have expected him to chew this thing up for dinner, and yet, he is strangely muted, lacking energy and his usual pizazz, leaving the way clear for Gambon to consume the scenery in it's entirety, in a role way too odd, and dark for the setting. The thing you can't escape is the wild contradiction, of, on the one hand, the extraordinarily imaginative, and brilliantly conceived set designs, costumes, and general setups, but rendered in a really cheap, almost 90's tv standard of photography, which feels, when it comes through the screen, like it's in a studio, and artlessly shot, and captured.

(Everyone involved in this must have been pulsing with excitement at the premise, script, and the involvement of Williams, and only heightened when they walked on the sets, and saw the eye popping scenery, only to be crushed at what came out the other end.)

Then we have a typical weird, spooky, eccentric soundtrack from Tori Amos (the natural choice a film like this?) which is a good thing in her own back yard, but when in the context of this movie seems bizarre in the extreme, and an early-ish Hans Zimmer score that sounds like a hangover from eighties pop synth-ery, and already dated... only occassionaly blossoming into something good.

The first half of the movie is slow and, again, I use the word: hallucinatory, in the style of a fever dream or acid trip, and then the finale just degenerates into an attempt at a standard action flick, which only serves to undermine that first half, and it's aims.

There are more than a couple of things that would certainly give kids nightmares, especially the toy tanks with robot heads with helmets, and giant, green glowing eyes that move terrifyingly through the darkness (Felt quite perturbed myself! :(

And so, having watched it again after all these years, I see now what this movie was, or attempting to be: Not a kids film, in any traditional sense, but aiming more for the rarefied sensibility of a Tim Burton movie, with his off kilter movie making sense, or maybe even a Terry Gilliam movie. In todays currency, you might say that directors like Wes Anderson are what it would be aspiring to achieve...

...The problem is, Barry Levinson, great director and film-maker though he is, just isn't born with that kind of ability, or sensibility, and so, that narrowest of targets, of what you'd be aiming for in a movie like this, which a fraction out either way would make such an odd, and off movie, is only to be ventured on by those rare directors, such as those aforementioned maestros with their specific way of looking at things who know what that target is, as well as how to hit the mark. Barry has bitten off more than he can chew, and wandered onto territory he doesn't understand, and it shows.

Better, I think, having conceived of such a promising idea, to have handed it off to one of those other directors, who's name I previously mentioned. Burton or Gilliam would have made this something to behold! (Oddly, the name: Stanley Kubrick comes to mind here too, for me, and had he been asked to make this, it might even have left 2001: A Space Odyssey, in the dust!)

But, for all that, I am, in some sense, pleased this exists, as it stands as a testament of a once adventurous, risk taking movie industry, that could, in order to open the door to the possibility of something new and exciting, who's influence may be felt for decades, be experimental, and accept the possibility of what this movie may come to represent:

An indulgence, a folly, and a glorious monument to the idea of the spectacular failure.

1 person found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

"You're so cool... You're so cool... You're so cool..."

I think this is actually one of my favourite "Tarantino" movies now, definitely my favourite Tony Scott movie, and certainly one of the top ten nineties movies for me.

I've watched it so many times since release, and it just keeps getting better every time.

Of course, at least half of this would be "cancelled" according to today's standards of social acceptability, especially the sublime Walken / Hopper scene, but that's where the authenticity of the characters lies.

Not sure if this is one that Tarantino has now "disowned" (not being 100% him), but I believe he is still pretty pissed about Natural Born Killers, in any case, far be it for me to advise a movie making God on movie taste, but he would be dead wrong on both counts.

For his brilliant, and uniquely Tarantino style, shone through the prism of Scott and Stone's (respective) directorial, and movie making talents offers something unique, and a more magical mixture than he alone could achieve, in this case. I know he wanted the story structure for this to be different, in order to leave questions that are only later, more progressively revealed as the movie goes on, but this linear structure works just fine for me.

Following Clarence and Alabama (Slater and Arquette) as they meet, and fall in love after a whirlwind "Romance" (Clarence aptly Surnamed: Worley) and marriage, which opens a mafia / drug world / gangland sized can of worms, before venturing off on on a road trip / scam / gambit, and meeting a brilliant array of characters along the way, is an absolutely exhilarating ride, and a joy to behold.

And as well as the hauntingly memorable theme by Hans Zimmer, which sweetens the the whole affair, there's an excellent Chris Isaak tune on the end credits to send you away happy: Two Hearts.

(This song is now burned into the most difficult to reach parts of my brain at present, having watched it again! :)

A stunner... And a must see.

1 person found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Oh dear God!

I remember seeing this when very young and thinking it was the most awesome movie ever!

...Bruce Lee, JCVD, and incredible fight choreography.

Sadly not.

Having found it again on DVD, and smiled at the prospect of watching it again after all these years, I watched mostly from the off, open mouthed at just how awful this is.

Van Damme is only in it about three minutes at the start, and the final ten minute finale, giving a truly terrible performance (other than the fighting) as the broadest, identikit cold war Russian evil terminator type adversary, the acting by absolutely everyone is cringeworthy to an unfathomable degree, things happen for no reason I can figure in the story, such as the sensei at the beginning turns out to be the kids father... eh? he moves half way up the country, then suddenly makes friend instantly, who is a break0dancer for some reason, whom also has a fat shamed nemesis for reasons that are never explained, he acquires a girlfriend / love interest out of the clear blue sky, with precisely zero introduction, the Bruce Lee spirit thing is brief and vague at best, it's choppy in the edit, dialogue is awful, script... worse, and is truly stunningly awful.

There are two things, however, that did make me laugh out loud: Firstly, he brings a wrapped present to this "girlfriend" that seems more than casually handled, and turns out to have a live rabbit, as a gift inside (Seriously, I was in tears of laughter at this!

...Secondly, imagine if you will, a "training montage", where our young protagonist is stretched between a bench and another piece of park furniture, suspended between each by only his neck at one end, and his ankles at the other, and he is bending at the waist, then straightening thus... which would be impressive on it's own, except for the fact that his new chum is sat where his intimate parts are, so this rhythmic bending and straightening, and therefore lifting of said chum around his... er... pivot, is quite possibly the most hilariously suggestive spectacle a human could witness :D - I almost died of laughter at this!

The fight scenes are comedically sped up too.

All of which makes for perhaps the most spectacularly bad movie I have possibly ever seen.

You may have to watch it just to bear witness to just how terrible it really is.

✔︎ Helpful Review?

Still a stone cold classic!

...And from the period right before Independence Day, when Emmerich still had to earn his lunch, and so had some restraint, and made excellent movies like this, and Stargate - just the right side of bonkers, and great iconic fun.

(I hate the populist, jingoistic, "Am-e-ric-eeer" (<Team America reference for you there :) pander-fest of independence day, and everything he has done since, as it seems the success of that meant he could do whatever he wanted, and spend as much as he wanted, and so did... and made all those God-awful, paint by numbers, schlock movies he is now most known for. A wild horse of a director like him, and others are at their best when a tight rein is kept on them - budgetary constraints or editorial / studio supervision... otherwise they go barmy, and run you straight of the nearest cliff).

Never bothered with the sequels, as it is just franchise building crud, but this is firmly a fave, if not a guilty pleasure :)

>Also of special note, is Dolph Lundgren's completely unhinged performance here, which steals the entire show! :) <

✔︎ Helpful Review?

A study in nobility.

Finally watched this, having found the DVD in the charity shop, having always been somewhat put off by it, based on what I could glean from impressions and reputation...

(It always just seemed a rather bland prospect, of nothing in particular - Kubrick, oddly deciding to do a period piece - quite against what I would expect of him - but therein lies the fascination and intrigue!)

... And it is, of course, all those things I'd heard about it: Sumptuously shot, long (three hours - with Intermission!), and very slow moving. But it is, once you let it go along a while, a film with a point...

(After all, someone like Kubrick wouldn't make a movie of this kind unless there was a reason to do so, would he?!!!)

...And the point (it seems to me), is this: This is a study of a man, with certain inherent qualities, which you might describe as "noble", or gentlemanly, but born to low social status, and is somewhat out of kilter with the plebs and peasants he finds himself dwelling among, so seeks to find his proper place in the world (as he believes it to be) - among the upper "nobility", where the forms and manners to be found there more closely approximate what he feels himself to be: A Gentleman.

The thrust is, as we follow him on this journey to become "noble", is that he must do ignoble things to get there, and in seeking honour, must be increasingly dishonourable.

The portrait painted here is of a man, who once he achieves his aim, he has effectively compromised himself to such an extent, that almost none of that inherent gentlemanliness, honour and true nobility, remains.

The higher he climbs, the worse he gets.

For as this movie shows, "nobility", as with honour, and the condition of being a gentleman, is not something a man can "achieve", acquire, purchase, or can be bestowed, or conferred on someone... It is not a title, but a condition of being, and the substance of one's character.

There are many times Barry (Redmond Barry) Lyndon, displays the polar opposite characteristics almost at the same time, where he does things truly despicable, then almost immediately displays a moment of extraordinary grace, and honour... he is a walking contradiction by the end, with this inner conflict playing out in his contrary behaviour, and in his regard for himself, and others.

The final scene, in this sense, seems to be an analogy for the entire movie - he presents himself to satisfy the honour of another, because of his dishonourable conduct, then does something truly gentlemanly, honourable and indeed, noble.

(It may. also, be him in such despair at himself, that he is presenting himself for his own final destruction, as if this is no more than he deserves.)

The question that lingers after, is has he achieved some kind of redemption.

But although it is long, slow, and all the rest, it is engrossing, fascinating, and very ponderable.

Pleased I've watched it at last, and very much enjoyed it.

Not sure it's as truly great as everyone makes it out to be, or whether that's as much because it has that magical moniker: Kubrick, attached to it. But very very good, nonetheless.

2 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

This is a wonderful, beautiful movie.

To characterise it, it is like a beautifully shot, slow-burn, lo-fi, poetic, and non-violent (relatively speaking) / pacifist John Wick.

Man in woods with truffle pig has said pig stolen, in a violent raid one night, so he sets out to get it back, with the aid of his young flashy truffle buying entrepreneur associate.

Given how prolific Nicolas Cage is these days, and how a certain amount of stereotyping, and therefore self-perpetuating type-casting means he more often than not turns up in the nuttier end of the movie spectrum, and being nutty and extreme in his performances... You forget he is capable of this kind of deep, understated, subtlety in his acting, which here, is sublime.

...He really captures the essence of a man who has been alone too long in the woods, without much, if any human contact, and so has become a little glacial and non-communicative, or at the very least, non-expressive.

(So the polar opposite of what you have come to expect from him - Needs to do more of this kind of role!)

But the movie, and the story itself, is brilliantly told, starting, as it does, with that Wickian style of simple motivating factor, to set the man in motion, and by degrees, as he goes back into society, and we see him and the character he has become, now set in stark contrast against the world he left behind long ago, and also, the revelations that this brings, as he goes... We learn who he once was, and how and why he went wild in the first place.

The story, therefore, is not about the pig, it's about him.

(The pig is just the reason for him to continue to exist)

And other than the obvious Wick set up, for some reason, Jack And The Beanstalk popped in to my head, as if the Giant succeeded in coming down to earth to retrieve his goose that laid the golden eggs... so a slight suggestion of this being a fable, or modern Neo-Noir (as they call this kind of mood movie these days) fairy tale.

But this is a very artistically shot and made movie, that would probably, in terms of texture, and tone, sit happily alongside something like Drive, or You Were Never Really Here.

Brilliant, and I shall certainly be watching this one again.

1 person found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Disgusting, depraved, tragic... Brilliant.

1 person found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Ilford Recorder review :read:

✔︎ Helpful Review?