Aberlass Reviews

Snow Cake (2006)

Captivating - a Unique and Delicious Masterpiece

[10/10 · 21 January 2009]

How often do you encounter a film that you want to watch again as soon as you have just finished watching it? How often does a film about the range of human interaction, including the 'disability' of unconventional communication, not become a hindrance to enjoyment? How often do we get the opportunity to see an eclectic gathering of some of the most iconic actors ('Alien', 'Harry Potter', 'The Matrix) of our time in an art-house, 'minority' movie about philosophical issues, instead of big-budget Hollywood-studio stereotypical scenarios? What happens if you make an intelligent, optimistic, puzzle film, encompassing every emotion, plus with a heart, but omit bias, moralising and lecturing? Is such a film possible?

Wow! If you have never even thought to ask these questions you will be amazed by this film, and if you have asked these questions, then this film is the reward that other people thought them too and knew how to manifest them perfectly!

Total respect to all responsible for this unique and delicious masterpiece. :)

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

Hackneyed Pantomime and The Graceless, ostentatious Foray!

[7/10 · 18 November 2005]

'The Goblet of Fire' is the most traditionally exciting (a maze, dragons, mermaids, flying horses) of all the Harry Potter books, so expectations for this film are greater than for the other films. I expected to see Screen magic. Once Mike Newell had decided which plots to omit completely he should have made up for loss of comedy (Dursleys, House Elves), proved to be a success in the other films, but he didn't. The result is reminiscent of Director Chris Columbus's handling of the 1st film, 'The Philosopher's Stone', which was almost impossible to follow unless having read the book first. Of the three Directors to make the Harry Potter films, it was the Director whose first language was not English, who made the most complete and professional film - what does this mean?

The Worst Bits: Newell has not understood the heart/pulse of 'The Goblet of Fire' and treats it as a Pantomime of Goodies and Baddies! What? It is a Theme that is utterly annoying and destroys credibility: the constant, unrelenting flicking of tongues (like a snake), which signify the Baddies. This is too immature a device for a film of this calibre and it's shocking the actors did not know better, nor the Editor! But it's the music that kills the audience's relationship with the film. Patrick Doyle's replacement music for the much over-used John Williams is irritating, intrusive and antiquated; all wrong for the images it is meant to support. The combination of annoying music, bits of stories, lacklustre makeup, boring costumes and minimal comedy is an odd mess. Moreover, there are Veela (alluring Beauxbatton Sirens) in this film and only once was this utilised, mainly there are lots of provocative images of boys (poor Harry in the bath)! You'd never guess that Newell went to an all-boys school (sarcasm)! It's like a bad 'Tom Brown's School Days' Opera Video! It is time a female Director took charge of the franchise to stop the films becoming a Tim Burton issues retrospective; after all, a woman created Harry Potter! Is Nora Ephron available?

The Best Bits: The special effects were better than in previous films, but isolated, unexplained (my audience laughed when the Durmstrang boat submerged "Look, it's sunk!" someone shouted). The Quiddich World Cup and the Yule Ball looked wonderful, so it was sad that nothing was shown, not even the outfits (apart from Hermione's)! The only redeeming aspect of this film (which makes it worth watching) is the acting; in particular: - Emma Watson, Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, Frances de la Tour and Oliver & James Phelps. These six actors carry the whole film in a way that they never have in the previous Potter films, because this time they under-acted, using emotion as a tool of radiance. Plus, Rickman gives the impression of knowing what will happen to Snape in book seven (he didn't flick his tongue)! Newell will go down in history as The One who spoiled the Final Book for everyone!

My Rating: Film/Movie 7/10, Special Effects 9/10, Acting 9/10, Makeup & Costume 4/10, Music 2/10, Directing 5/10, Editing 3/10, Screenplay 7/10, Cinematography 6/10.

Certification: UK Law states that scenes of children being stabbed, with blood evident must make this a 12A. Everything else in the film children will probably have seen before. This film is nowhere near as horrific as 12A 'The Brothers Grimm' (parents removed their little children when they saw how sick this film is). The main reason that 'Goblet of Fire' is unsuitable for under 12yrs old is because they will be bored (in my Cinema, little ones running about playing, not watching film)!

Why See This Film: Because you love Harry Potter or always watch fantasy films or because you like to see Special Effects on the Big Screen. Preferably read the book, so you can follow the story (bits in film not explained by end, but are in the book), and then don't compare the film to the book! If you want a rewarding Harry Potter film, then see 'Prisoner of Azkaban'.

The Island (2005)

Think Outside the Box - Then Re-examine the Box!

[9/10 · 25 August 2005]

A superb 'thinker' of a film, if you look beyond the obvious. It is the remodelled version of Cult 70's philosophical movie "Logan's Run" and not a remake. The difference between a movie remake and a movie remodel can be worlds apart, as the excitement and innovation of this film proves and unlike remakes where comparisons are obtrusive (e.g "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", 2005). Remodels are much more rewarding.

SYNOPSIS (Non-Spoiler)– An institute full of cloned people kept as spares for people in the real world is the superficial, advertised plot (because it's not the point!). The hidden themes are more complex; slavery, ethnic rights, exploitation of women, class, territory rights (religions uprooted from homeland), vivisection, abortion, and all the other shades of moral and ethical questions. All explored in one film!

WHO SHOULD SEE THIS FILM? – There are two main audiences; 1) The Action type who loves fast thrills 2) The Analytical type who loves decoding hidden ideas. Both, plus others, will love this film. It is so well made. It is like traditional European cinema with its fast assumptions, tight ideas, lack of 'actual' explanation, and group/comrade characterisation. This film is unique in its current field, thus deeply misunderstood, but in the future will be a Cult Classic.

MY RATING – It is unusually difficult to rate or certificate this film, because it's so much fun and so mind expanding, yet deeply violent; not for children, yet great for teaching older children to really look and find meaning (if watched with an adult prompting). 9/10 for philosophy. 8/10 for presentation. 10/10 for Editing. 9/10 for Directing. 3/10 for cover story/superficial plot. 5/10 for comedy. 9/10 for Cinematography. 10/10 for cinematic experience!

WHY SEE THIS FILM? – It may not look awesome on a small TV at home, but this film is the hottest thing on a big cinema screen right now, because it's BIG; thinks, feels, kicks ass and has a soul (unlike other movies just now that just contain one of the above). The advantage of the DVD/Video is the chance to join-the-dots = explore the hidden motifs and find the hidden meanings. Plus the chance to watch again and again Ewan McGregor versus himself, who is comically (accent and hobbies relevant) and erotically exciting, and Scarlett Johansson who is behaviour perfect and cinematic. This is the start of great things, this Director, Michael Bay, will be the next James Cameron or Steven Spielberg, he totally understands audience needs. Dig deep into the 'ology' and enjoy this film.

The Aviator (2004)

The Emperor's New Clothes

[1/10 · 20 January 2005]

The Emperor's New Clothes is a Hans Christian Anderson fable about tailors who convince everyone that only a fool wouldn't be able to see the suit they make for the Emperor. One small boy has the guts to speak out that there is no suit, the Emperor is naked. This sums up this film perfectly: A-list stars, A-list Director, A-list budget = fabulous outfit, but there's nothing there. It is a con.

The Problem: the actors behave as if it's a talent show to be the best impressionist, thus focus on themselves resulting in an inability to accommodate interaction with other actors. The characters are separate, exaggerated caricatures of memories. The only actors to mimic effectively and have awareness of others were Jude Law and Kate Beckinsale, who gave connected performances. Watching Di Caprio manically overtly acting a tortured soul, who was upstaged by the make-up department, was not only soullessly stupid to watch, but embarrassing for him because he thinks he is being different from his usual roles. He had not built any humanity into the previous scenes, hence there was nothing for the audience to grasp and care about when he was ill. His performance makes Russell Crowe look like a genius in Beautiful Mind and Martin Scorsese's directing makes Ron Howard look like the master of biopics. This film is a completely disjointed, arrogant, pretentious pile of meaningless images with no depth, understanding, feeling, narrative direction, believability, nor entertainment value. Knowledge and interest in aeroplane technology did not help me like this film, because it did not show any passion or insight into this subject matter! The film is so boring it hurts.

Question: why is this film nominated for 14 Oscars? My Rating: 1/10. The worst three hours incarcerated in a cinema ever. I was boiling with anger at being conned into watching such rubbish. Of the thousands of films I have seen (of all Nationalities and eras), this was the worst at all levels. The interesting musical score was the only reason I sometimes stayed awake.

Why see this film: because you are in love Leo Di Caprio and Martin Scorsese, or because you can see the Emperor's New Clothes.

Super Size Me (2004)

More than what it seems

[10/10 · 2 October 2004]

This film is not just about what you would think (over eating). If you look closely you will see the conscious attempt to edit objectively to present, for the 1st time ever, a range of new/candid opinions from experts. This is the real shock and what sets it apart from anything Michael Moore has tried to rock the world with (his work can be subjective and forcefully moralistic).

When you look at the categories presented in 'Super Size Me' (represented by clown paintings), you glimpse a personal opinion, then the following footage shows simple images that can be linked with the caption, without forcing any ideas. He never preaches, which is refreshing and startling, as it leaves you wanting to know more after the film has ended.

This film is a gem because it lets you think what you want from an array of tasty choices. The audience I was with all responded with laughing, gasps, choking, coughing, and squeaks at different sequences, as well as some of the same. This is unusual for cinema, since films are normally engineered to make audiences react in the same way to the same stimulus, but not this one.

Depending on who you are, what stage in life and what your personal battle is, you will see what is relevant to you. It has a fortune cookie ability to gift you what you need, right now. It's more about fast insight, than fast food.

My Rating: 10/10 at every level. The editing, especially, displays superior understanding of psychology.

Who should see this film? Everyone! Even people who don't eat fast food, because of the presentation, it can be seen as metaphorical for other issues (personal and social) that need addressing. But... there are discussions directly relating to sex, so it may be unsuitable for younger children.

Why should you see this film? You will know why, once you have seen it!

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)

Chaplinesque

[22 May 2004]

It took this film student rather to long to realise what this film is - physical narrative. Yep, we haven't seen anything like this since Charlie Chaplin. A pure visual narrative, where dialogue is derived from physical action and not spoken word.

Why should you see this film? Because you like challenge & don't care about endings or structure.

What Age is this film aimed at? 30+ Anyone below this age has not had enough time to create a sculpture of what a relationship looks like and then break it down into components.

Why do the critics think this film is brilliant? Because it tells a story in a manner that no one else has told it for the past 70yrs. A story told through behaviour and not dialogue.

Why Jim Carrey & Kate Winslett? To challenge us. We associate these actors with a certain style. To see them in this film is to not only realise that we can't type-caste them, but to realise the importance a script plays in controlling our expectations. The image is so powerful that we forget Jim & Kate & see their characters only.

Why see this film? Because you want to see unconventional ideas. You feel emotionally brave enough. You feel able to handle change. You are ready to see the behaviour of relationship without the comfort of language. Dialogue is used as punctuation to accentuate change in thought, it is not the end in its self as is customary in modern cinema. If you want a challenge that is intelligent & fun, then this film evokes emotions that we have no names for because we are not used to physically driven narratives. A unique experience, a true, scary ‘ride'.

The Ring (2002)

Cinema Fun Fright

[23 May 2003]

See this film alone in the front row of the cinema to get the full effect. Well worth it.

It is a roller-coaster of emotion. No point seeing it on tv with friends. It works in the same way as 'Scream' it gives false endings & makes you conclude an ending, then gives you a different one. Very rewarding as a ride. This film is a unique reminder of why we need cinema & not DVD or video, this film in the cinema makes us 'feel' emotion against our will. It is never about plot or resolution it is always about making us have emotion against our will. Skill.

Rating - 8/10. The only thing stopping this being 10/10 is that the Japanese version is superior.

Who should see this film - Any adult who enjoys cinema for the ride & the thrill. This film is not big or clever or deep, but you will appreciate the artistry involved in making you 'feel' or gasp. To make a tree look scary & to make the audience scared by it, takes great skill. A great funfair ride, well worth the entry price, considering it's simplicity. Traditional film making at its best.

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

Reloaded? No, these are the Answers to a School Quiz.

[23 May 2003]

This story does not make sense as a film. It reminds me of 'Lord of the Rings' 1 - unless you are a fan of the Lord of the Rings it means nothing as it's all just special effects, then ends without ending. The dilemma I faced was that I am a fan of Matrix 1, so how couldn't I love Matrix 2?

I finally realized what Matrix 2's very serious flaw is: filmic codes. All films must (whether we know or not) must contain the black & white, in other-words - opposites. This means a brilliant film must make us feel passionately about what is a good belief & what is a bad belief. It must make us care & there must be moments of comedy. Name (or imagine) villain/rival in matrix 1 (he was bad & we hated what he did), then in Matrix 2 (who?). See the difference? Matrix 2 only hinted, even saving it for the last frame. Emotionally an audience needs more than this, we need to fixate & hate, so we can appreciate the hero & his suffering/'quest'.

Matrix 2's theme is; 'replication' (sexual, cloned or virus)- Agent Smith (plural), Zee's love dance, Neo's love scene, the Twins, the Keymaster, etc, all represent perpetuity, continuity of life. With such strong 'Order'/Rules we also need equally strong Chaos represented. No believable challenge is presented! This is the very serious flaw in this film - the audience is lectured to, but never given anything to care about. We can see the message, but the adversary or adversity is so diluted (over several 'cameo' baddies) that we are not given a central hate target to pit Neo's meagre team against.

Matrix 2 is not a complete film & ends in the wrong place. Where it does end is a cliffhanger, fair enough, but a 'tv' one, not a cinematic one. Ideally it should end after Neo saves Trinity. That way we are left wondering about everyones fate in a natural climactic manner, where we are on a high because he saved her. Strangely, this is the 1st question of the whole film, unlike Matrix 1 where scene 1 raised the 1st question, not the last one!!! When Matrix 2 ends on a 'baddie' it highlights the fact that there haven't been any in the film (no real threat), hence exaggerates this significant exclusion, which leaves us definitely dissatisfied.

'The Brothers' must have thought they were doing us a favour by answering our questions in Matrix 2, but then ask any wisoned parent & they will tell you that kids never thank them for imparting their wisdom. 'The brothers' should have got to the next chapter of their own lives before making the next 2 films, because then they would know that the answer is always a question & never a lecture.

My Rating - FX = 10/10, Plot = 2/10, Comparison to Matrix 1 5/10

Who should see this film - People who like to be told what to think & enjoy a strong musical score to their thinking. Respect the certification. This is NOT Matrix 1, it has no benefit for kids. If it says for 15yrs old it means it. This film is confusing & will take several viewings, plus film 3 to make full sense. You do not need to see this film if you love Matrix 1 (no new philosophy/spirituality). This film needed new questions to keep it real, but there are none.

End of story.

The Birth of a Nation (1915)

Timeless Propaganda

[13 March 2003]

Prior to seeing this film on a 20ft screen, the University Lecturer warned us that we would be changed after seeing it. We did not believe him. How could some ancient B&W oldie affect us, the hardened FX generation? We have seen everything, so nothing as old as this could possibly touch us?

This film should be called 'The Birth of Racism'. A story about a moment in America's history when North & South battled it out to free/oppress slaves. BUT... from the viewpoint of why Blacks are inferior & should always be treated as subnormal! A time when the Ku Klux Klan were the superheroes! This film was designed at all levels of sensory attuning to propagate a specific view of Blacks as bad. It is the only film in history to be able to effect this with such emotiveness (the music makes you feel against your will) that the audience is left gasping for the truth (which is never revealed). This film's xenophobia is spellbinding. Morally the audience is screaming "No!", but inside the film, it's purist skill claims the unconscious like a Succubus.

The University Lecturer was right, we were profoundly effected or in some cases damaged by this film. We presumed he had the antidote, but he didn't, he was just there to prove a point - good film making = a viewer changed for ever. It may be a brilliant piece of film making, but if it causes damaged minds, is it worth it?

I do not recommend this film to anyone. This film is far nastier than anything made today.

Only see this film if you know that you are unaffected by visual & audio prompts and are prepared to keep the sound/music turned off! Only see this film if you have to. It is too clever a film for it's own good. Do NOT see this film and NEVER show it to children.

The Singing Ringing Tree (1957)

Aesthetic Pantomime

[8/10 · 12 March 2003]

The essence of childhood. All moral codes, conduct and courtesy as standard. Language no barrier the visual story is timeless. A must for all children. The German version of 'Beauty & the Beast' (a French tale).

As a small child I saw the broken up dubbed version in the late 1970's over a 5 day period on BBC tv. It cast a spell, which I never ever forgot and spent my life searching for. Now in my early 30's I tracked down a subtitled copy of the 1957 71ms film. Not what I remembered, but far more beautiful and artistically adventurous than I could have appreciated as a child.

As an adult the hard hitting message is obvious, as are the lack of special effects, so this film's use of theatrical staging (scale models) is slightly overt in modern context. This film is perfect for young children who are not yet desensitized by modern graphics, yet can still be touched by moral lessons. Nostalgic adults will love this film, but anyone who has never experienced 50's, 60's European Fantasy cinema will find this film too primitive.

This film is a story book come to life. Be it Hans Christian Anderson or the Brothers Grimm, it is pure 50's Technicolor magic. Very moral and sound, yet beautiful to look at time and time again forever. Moving Art.

It may not live up to my childhood memory of it, but I am so glad to have found the tape, purely because it is such a superior piece of film making that I know I will enjoy watching it over and over again. So much art in it to appreciate. In my extensive movie collection I have no other film that is Directed, Produced & shot quite like it. It is a valuable asset to the film collector. I fully intend to acquire other films in the 'Tales From Europe' series, as I detect that they are highly collectible. This is a big tip! Enjoy! :)

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)

The Chamber of Secrets has been opened at long last!!!!

[8/10 · 8 November 2002]

Lessons learned since the 1st film! Clearly this film was edited at script stage rather than the cutting room floor stage!! This story reads as film narrative, rather than a book illustration, which was the big mistake of the 1st film. Anyone can watch this film and follow it without knowing the book. The 1st hour is pure laugh out loud fun (the adults in my Cinema audience were shouting with laughter!). The last hour is scary, wand dropping tension.

The problem is: how do we convince muggles put-off by the 1st film to go see this one? Why should they give this one a chance? Answer: If you know someone who likes Fun, make them see this film! This film is not about 'Oscars' & Acting, despite the fabulous performances by all the adults, it is about enjoying the overall effect of the film, this being to give the viewer a long lasting buzz. Brilliant! The staging is very theatrical in it's minimalism, yet extravagantly arty in visual specifics. In the not to distant future I see fans going to a regular weekend slot at their local cinema for Audience Participation fun. Wands, swords, sorting hat, spiders, mandrakes & crucial ear muffs as standard props! Lots of gaps for us to shout out funny quips. A Rocky Horror Show Audience Participation Show for kids! Long overdue.

My Rating: 8/10. Not a masterpiece of cinematic potential, but such jolly good fun that no one should be denied the joy of a "Bloody Marvelous" frolic. A film for the child within us adults. Go see it with a predominantly adult audience if you want to experience the real buzz of unfettered emotion. Only three children were present at the Preview I witnessed and they were silently spellbound whereas the adults evoked emotion noisily throughout and then stood up, cheered and applauded at the end! I shall never forget this truly magical experience.

Richard Harris you can not be replaced, you will always be Dumbledore, and hence Omnipresent. Thank you for the fantastic finale to a wonderful life that you gave us. Thank you. And Thank you JK & Chris. You did it, the Chamber is well & truly open now!

Manchild (2002–2003)

Boy to Man to Boy to Man with bells on!

[31 July 2002]

Superb. Unique. Long awaited. Much needed. Something for the lads, something for the non-teeny set, something for someone older than 30! There are millions of shows that cover every corner of girlhood and womanhood, so at long last - something for older men and women who love them or at least have to put up with them!

They may be very 40+ or even 50+, but the script, dialogue, imagery and inspired scenarios read like real fantasy life set to comedy lyric music. Superb. Ladies will love it too because the narrative is explored in a format that is uniquely female owned, hence relatable. It is revealing to see men dialoguing in such a female 'type' format, but also deeply endearing. Men will love it, because at long last they have their own show where they get to 'win' even when they are loosing!

Why has it taken so long to create this masterpiece? Superb writing, superb realization, superb acting, superb characterization, superb exploration of themes, superb comedy writing. A pure joy, even when tackling the most human flaws revealingly it's rawness is embarrassing yet joyful and real! We need this male comedy realism. More! More! More! Superb!

Shrek (2001)

Modern reality in parable at last!!!

[9/10 · 10 July 2001]

Take your children to see this film! We have waited a very, very, long time to see such a simple reality. To see reality portrayed as a children's parable voiced by the myth that is Cameron Diaz is irony beyond any standard I would have thought possible of American cinema! At last commercial cinema has found a back bone compatible with a sense of humour! By modern standards there may be little action, but the humour is spine-chillingly precise!

This is not a flashy, violent, traditional, standard film, in fact it parodies the traditional narrative, but it does it with a class & style unparelled in children's story telling. Adults will be able to guess the conclusion, but children will not, yet both will leave the cinema satisfied & at peace! This film evokes a very, very rare ageless equalibrium. A film for the whole family where everyone is truely satisfied. It is the 1st real children's fable since the brothers Grimm or Hans Anderson, it is the 1st story since then to really make a statement to children in their own language, yet mentally stimulating enough to make adults marvel at it's wisdom & wish they had been told this tale at bedtime. This story is a gem.

The Sound of Music (1965)

It Is!

[10/10 · 2 January 2001]

Plot: Every subject possible. Austria as it enters WW2. A Nun as she enters a seven child, motherless, family. Life as it changes from traditional to modern. A family as they escape the Nazis. Based on a true story, but greatly changed from the real truth to create the best modern fairy tale for 200 years. This story will make you feel every emotion possible. It is the most perfect use of cinematography ever. Andrews & Plummer's performances are so perfect that they will have you guessing for the rest of your life.

Who should see this film: Everyone. Children (8yrs upwards) must see this film, it is a total education, but huge fun with it. Adults must see this film to get in touch with the joy & point of the purpose of life. Afterwards you can read the Von Trapp book & compare film with reality & be totally amazed!! Both are so different, yet work!! Why?

Rating: 10/10. Film does not get better than this. It has love, war, romance, tension, hate, youth, age, religion, music, singing, tradition, excitement, fear, brilliant props, fantastic Real scenic locations, hope & genuine talent.

Why should you see this film: You must see this to 'get' what the point & scope & range of film is. This is the ultimate film, nothing compares to it. You must watch this, for the same reason that everyone must read Shakespeare. You do it because you want to know what everyone is talking about or to be enlightened in a media field & to gain from it's treasures. You can watch this film a thousand times & never 'see' every frame of it!!! It is a filmic treasure, pure Gold. For fun, you can try to guess what became of the child stars & what films did they end up in? We are privilaged to be able to experience the wonder of this film at all it's levels (some are rather deep or political). Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein II I thank you, you are perfection. We mourn the current absence of your genius. Cinema is lost without you, sadly, it has not been able to emulate your intelligence. But, at least we have this film to realise how great cinema should be.

102 Dalmatians (2000)

Children's Fun Film

[16 December 2000]

Plot Summary: Successfull Pavlovian experiment, Cruella De Ville, comes undone before our eyes. She was bad, was made good, then reverts to bad. This also sums the film up!! The dogs are incidental!

Who should watch this film: Glen Close fans! She is the film. She is superb. What a star! Anyone who loves Pantomime or Bawdy comedies will enjoy this. Children will be gripped with excitement. A great family treat.

Personal comment: I enjoyed this film initially, but it was very, very basic. I fell asleep during the most exciting sequence near the end (I never fall asleep during films I have paid for!!). All the actors were good & facialy interesting, so it must have been the script that was weak. This film could have been an animation, as it was beautiful to look at, but it's plot was that flimsy it wasn't worth paying actors. I enjoyed this film purely because of Glen Close & the puppy, Oddball, and because children with me were loving it. I certainly would resent the waste of ticket money if I had viewed with a group of adults. It is not a thinking film, it's a Christmas chocolate box film (when you finish the chocolates they are very finished!!).

Poltergeist III (1988)

An end to an era...

[12 November 2000]

It is heartbreakingly sad that Heather did not outlive this, her final movie. It is worth watching to witness her proffessionalism alone. She made this film despite being in frightening pain, she is the perfect actress, as her suffering does not show. How many adult actors have performed so flawlessly when actually dying?

Who should see this film: This film is for people who want a bit of scaryness, but don't want to be freaked out of their skin. It is perfect if you want formulaic scary bits, but also want a happy ending. It is quite a 'fun' horror film because many expectations are met. It is not inivative or new or origional, but it is a fun time-passer. It is also has less annoying cliches & characters than the origional, but the adult casting is a severe disopointment. Ignore the adults, look at Heather & Lara Flynn Boyle's characters and in Heather's case see a potentialy brilliant actress who never had the chance to fullfil what would have been a brilliant career.

Tips: View this movie as you would a dream. Get into the imagery & symbolism, ignore the bad adult acting & direction and just look at what Carol Anne went through. The idea of 'Alice through the looking glass' is explored through the horror genre to 3D psychological terror. This is a subtle philosophical film & not a mainstream 'easy digestible' horror. The viewer is meant to consider their role as voyeur & not in the 'Hammer House of Horror' sense. This film challenges how we 'look' at film in general. It makes us question what we truelly want to happen & whether this makes us 'sick' or not. This film deserves more credit than it got upon release, because it has not been understood. The ending does ruin the deepness of the philosophical content, so ignore the ending & question the main sequences that deal exclusively with 'reflextion' & reflecting/projection of us & expectations. The middle of the film is reflective of what the great Trauffaut tried to achieve, but never quite could - the projection of self in others. It is a very intelligent film that has been badly edited, unlike the previous films that weren't very intelligent, but cleverly edited! I hope we get a 'Director's cut', as it may offer an ending to compliment the content.

This film is the last of it's kind in the horror genre, a straight narrative, with formulaic structure. It gives you the popcorn that you expect. It is no Wes Craven psychiatric epic. But, if you look, it gives you more, as it's actualy more rewatchable than Poltergeist 1. It's a film that you can watch over & over & still not understand all that is possible, unlike the previous films. It is not nearly as scary as the previous films, so you can rewatch it to contemplate the philosophy behind it. It's very clever idea, but badly constructed. There are many loose ends not resolved by the end, such as the demonic teenagers. It is this that ultimately proves the editing to be at fault. This film needs re-editing. Don't see this film if you want a quick fix & flawless viewing. Well worth watching if you love 'reading' or studying a film.

The Experts (1989)

An entertaining piece of frolics.

[10/10 · 18 August 2000]

Essentially: Keach & Travolta are inhouse comic perfection. Preston gamely holds her own, despite the four main guys powerful presences, which, actually is a rewarding set of dynamics to watch. One of Preston's more successful performances, just as it's probably the last 'fun' performance from Travolta before he became a typecast, formulaic, 'serious' actor. Keach's enigmatic, but playful role is sheer bewildering joy, as you guess he's making fun of Hollywood, but exactly who, is ambiguous. It's a sad loss to satire that he hasn't directed more films. We really need more films like this to remind us why 'opiate of the masses' was coined & that we do need/crave this kind of pleasure sometimes.

The Experts is a 20th Century fable based on the 'comedy of errors' tradition. Mistaken identities, predjudice, politics, romance, explosions, American 'Apple Pie' and a memorable Travolta & Preston dance scene that beats anything seen in 'Grease' or 'Saturday Night Fever' or even 'Dirty Dancing'!! It's the hottest! What more could you want from a fantasy! If Preston & Travolta are capable of such chemistry, why has no one capitalised on this since, unless there isn't a director up to the challenge? Bottling & exhibiting the pheromones is proof that this is a brilliant, vital film.

My Rating: 7/10 as a filmic experience, but 10/10 for escapism. If you fancy every form of visual & literary humour, plus some deliberately strong moral undertones, laced with sarcasm and all this wrapped up in highly energised performances, then this film is perfect.

Who should watch this film? The guns, army inferences, planes and 'Starsky & Hutch' buddy aspects will appeal to guys and the sexual electricity & electrical appliance jokes will appeal to females! It revels in traditional sex bias roles. This film was born to be decadently enjoyed, like chocolate, it's wonderfully sweet & addictive.

Gotham (1988 TV Movie)

Brain teasing lies and dark seduction.

[7/10 · 25 June 2000]

Q: What do you get if you put a naturaly gifted actress with powerful screen presence, together centre stage with an actor who exudes raw, truthful bearing? A: An extremely interesting and tantilising mind game. Sadly, too few films, since the 1940's, allow both the male & female leads to both shine absolutely equaly, profiting the end result. The culmination of Jones & Madsen's performances is a retro work of art. The casting & editing is vibrant, but this narrative should have been directed by an Art House impresario, because lost in mainstream tv it becomes merely a taxing jigsaw.

PLOT: The two titles are part of the puzzle aspect to this film. For 'Gotham', read as - Goth-ham or Gothic 'ham', as in a noir spoof, or if you equate Gotham with Batman, then evolve this to the catchphrase 'the dynamic duo' and you have the Madsen & Jones chemistry. For 'The Dead Can't Lie', read as - why tell us, unless they can, therefore is this a single or double bluff? These are clues, but they could be a 'red herring'. It's a dark tale about lies within lies and whether there is any point in unraveling them. There are repeated motifs in the dialogue that are inconsistant, so it probably isnt possible to assert the truth, since each character is potentially lieing! Even the music is designed to deliberately mislead!

RATEING: 7/10 as a film, but 9/10 as a brain teaser.

WHO should watch this film?: Adults only, because of content. Women will enjoy the exuberantly feminine power of Madsen, whereas men will enjoy looking at it in action! Watch out for the 'Rubik's Cube', as it's a barometer of Jones' confusion and ours! If you like doing puzzles and can cope if you dont solve them, you will love & watch this film repeatedly.

The General's Daughter (1999)

An Ugly Painting set to emotive music...

[8/10 · 17 June 2000]

A surprisingly stylised and artistic approach to an old theme. The smoky yellow colour tints, especially during graphic violence are very beautiful, therefore the subject matter is even more disturbing. The colour is sumptuous throughout which holds the viewers attention, even in the more routine sequences. The actors performances are rather mismatched, because some are realistic, Cromwell, & interesting, Woods, and others are plastic, Stowe, or complacent, Travolta. The plot is a traditional tale of integration and violating those the established dont want integrated, resulting in retrobution. Despite the clashes in acting style & limitations of plot, this film works! I cannot explain why, maybe a magnificent cinematographer is all a film needs, but it is riveting viewing.

My Rating: 7/10 When I had just seen this film I said 8/10, but over time I digested it and realised that the performances irritated me too much to maintain my initial opinion. The main problem is Travolta, his trademark being - wonderful charisma, which some films need, but this film did not need that, I prepose that he was wrongly cast in this film. It is this aspect that dulls it's memory. But I do recommend that you see this film if you like instantaneous impact & buzz and dont care who the actors are.

Who Should Watch this Film? This is an 18 Certificate, UK, you do need to be over 18yrs to understand it. There are a few behaviours regarding 'Ms Campbell' that only maturity will reveal any understanding about. Basically, men & women get the same package here, there are no subplots or romances or shoot-em-ups, it's a serious narrative. It's a film about army rape. Women will cope with the subject material because it's shot exquisitly & is very respectful towards women, and men will cope with it because problems are worked through and are solvable. If you can handle the basic premiss of the plot, then you will be surprised by the colour & sound of the film. It has the most stunning soundtrack I have encountered for a long time. The traditional African songs will blow your mind, because they do not match the visuals. I am recommending this film for the music & colour alone. It is this that will really make you think deeply.

Titanic (1997)

Words can not convey the depth of this Experience

[9/10 · 18 March 2000]

This is not really a story about two lovers & a big ship. This is an experience that you can dive into at any stage of life & find a buried treasure. Forget Cameron & his plagirism of previous 'Titanic' films or indeed his own films like the 'Abyss'. He is a true artist, as he learns from previous work & evolves it, nothing is wasted. Like many 19th Century painters & novelists, I doubt he knows or can appreciate the independent life of his creation. If he were to understand the magic (the essence of his directorial inspiration that drives actors performances) it would become formulaic & worthless.

Sit close to the screen, with music at maximum & feel the experience. You will find yourself in a metaphorical world that will always be relevant & will always mean something. There is an intangible quality that sucks you in against your will.

Consider Kate Winslet's recent comment that she was in the middle of nowhere in a remote country yet an old man approached her & knew she had been in Titanic. This highlights the magic that is interwoven in the actors performances that touches people regardless of the film's context or theme. The appeal is nothing to do with a ship, it is about the essence of human spirit & the motivation to live a full life. Kate should have won an Oscar, because her performance is perfection personified. I hope that in time all the actors will come to value (without needing awards to validate their worth) the quality of the art that they were fundamental in instrumenting.

Words can not do justice to the priceless value of emotional & spiritual experience that this film evokes. But be warned, the experience this film offers can be addictive, as you will always be searching for the Holy Grail that is at it's core.

The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975)

Raw, Childish, Adult Fun at it's very Best!

[10/10 · 22 May 1999]

This film is pure adult fantasy fun. It is escapism at it's ultimate best. If viewed with an open mind & a sense of fun, one can lose all sense of self & worries. You have to allow yourself to feel the joi de vivre which Richard O'Brien intended. He encompasses a nostalgic journey through 1930-50's sci-fi with the philosophy of "don't dream it, be it", in other words, realise life & live it to maximum enjoyment. Enhanced by powerful, life affirming music & dialogue. If you can understand this, then it is obvious why audiences have embraced this film & want to physically interact with it. It liberates the inner child & motivates the future adult. Powerful stuff, if you let it in.

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)

A visual meal

[8/10 · 22 May 1999]

This film does for the eyes what punk did for the ears. Dr Caligari through one medium stimulates all the senses. The images are so overtly stimulating that one is either entranced or else is switched off. By literally transposing the essence of German Expressionism to frame every scene, one is aware of voyeurism at it's most intrusive. The ending is the best ever, since it forces one to watch the whole film again to try to reconcile truth from fantasy. No film in history can match the stimulus created by Wiene in this film. This is a start to finish meal for the eyes and brain.

S.O.S. Titanic (1979 TV Movie)

Realism meets fantasy seemlessly.

[8/10 · 15 May 1999]

This is a very underrated film. If you look unbiasedly at it you can see where James Cameron got his inspiration, as some scenes of his Titanic are identical to this version. This is a well crafted film that tries to tightly stick to the point. It is very interesting that David Warner features prominantly in this version & in Cameron's. Why??? This film is very atmospheric & authentic, but unlike Cameron's version, it doesn't have the emotive sentimentality & glamour. Overall, this is an intelligent informative family film, for people who appreciate qualities other than special effects.