This wonderful adaptation of Eric Knight's "Lassie Come Home" is not only the best film version but also the best British Family film since the early seventies (Lionel Jefferies' wonderful duo of "The Railway Children" (1970) and "The Amazing Mr Blunden" (1972)). It is blessed with a great cast without a dud performance between them. Particularly worthy of mention are the two wonderful child actors Jonathan Mason and Hester Odgers as well as a charming performance from Peter O'Toole as the crusty Duke who thankfully does not turn out to be the cliché villain that he initially appears. Along with gorgeous photography by Howard Atherton and a script by director Charles Sturridge that mixes enough grit into the story to stop it from becoming too twee, this truly great family film should have become better known than it is. For those of us that have been lucky to discover it, it is an instant classic.
Reviews
27 Reviews
True Grit
(2010)
Hugely disappointing!!
12 February 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Okay, I admit it. I have never had that much love for the Coen Brothers' films. Even "No Country for Old Men", which I did enjoy, was marred by its botched ending. Plus the original "True Grit" remains one of my favourite westerns. So you can probably already guess where this review is going. I'm sorry but once again I cannot square all the praise this film has received and its subsequent Oscar nominations against the film that I actually saw today.
To be sure, there are some good things in it. Hailee Steinfeld is excellent as Mattie Ross and looks nearer the age of the character in the Charles Portis novel (if perhaps a trifle too young). British cinematographer Roger Deakins provides his customarily excellent photography (perhaps he will finally win the Oscar that he is long overdue - his work on the 1993 version of "The Secret Garden" is stunning). The fact that Mattie loses her arm as the result of the rattlesnake bite (as per the novel) is more believable than the 1969 John Wayne version (although the Coens' handling of the snake pit sequence is stunningly inept and robs the scene of the tension it should have contained - as with any other things, the combination of the Elmer Bernstein's music and the editing make the 1969 handling of the same scene far more exciting).
I realise many people have a lot of passionate love for the Coens and their films and I may be a lone voice crying in the wilderness but I'm sorry, this has to be said. The Coen brothers are the cinematic equivalent of the Emperor's clothes. They are one of the most overrated filmmakers working today and the films they actually make do not merit all the lavish praise given to them. Jeff Bridges is a great actor but his interpretation of Rooster Cogburn does not hold a candle to John Wayne's (indeed the strong accent he gives the character makes it difficult to understand half the dialogue he utters). Matt Damon, another good actor, similarly suffers. It is hard to believe that in all the publicity for the film, the makers and stars have either claimed not to seen the 1969 version or claimed that the Wayne version was not very good. I'm sorry but you have to be kidding. The 1969 version is a classic film that will long outlast this "re-imagining". Still, in its own right, it's not a bad film and at least it isn't "The Ladykillers". But if this had been the film made in 1969, I'm not sure we'd still be talking about "True Grit" today.
To be sure, there are some good things in it. Hailee Steinfeld is excellent as Mattie Ross and looks nearer the age of the character in the Charles Portis novel (if perhaps a trifle too young). British cinematographer Roger Deakins provides his customarily excellent photography (perhaps he will finally win the Oscar that he is long overdue - his work on the 1993 version of "The Secret Garden" is stunning). The fact that Mattie loses her arm as the result of the rattlesnake bite (as per the novel) is more believable than the 1969 John Wayne version (although the Coens' handling of the snake pit sequence is stunningly inept and robs the scene of the tension it should have contained - as with any other things, the combination of the Elmer Bernstein's music and the editing make the 1969 handling of the same scene far more exciting).
I realise many people have a lot of passionate love for the Coens and their films and I may be a lone voice crying in the wilderness but I'm sorry, this has to be said. The Coen brothers are the cinematic equivalent of the Emperor's clothes. They are one of the most overrated filmmakers working today and the films they actually make do not merit all the lavish praise given to them. Jeff Bridges is a great actor but his interpretation of Rooster Cogburn does not hold a candle to John Wayne's (indeed the strong accent he gives the character makes it difficult to understand half the dialogue he utters). Matt Damon, another good actor, similarly suffers. It is hard to believe that in all the publicity for the film, the makers and stars have either claimed not to seen the 1969 version or claimed that the Wayne version was not very good. I'm sorry but you have to be kidding. The 1969 version is a classic film that will long outlast this "re-imagining". Still, in its own right, it's not a bad film and at least it isn't "The Ladykillers". But if this had been the film made in 1969, I'm not sure we'd still be talking about "True Grit" today.
The Amazing Mr. Blunden
(1972)
A wonderful film that deserves to be re-discovered!
31 December 2010
I first saw this film at the cinema when I was 9 years old when it was originally released (which gives you a clue as to how old I am now). I have never forgotten this film and while "The Railway Children" has justly taken its place in British cinema as a classic family film, this film deserves some love too. Everyone associated with this film is at the top of their game. Behind the camera, Lionel Jefferies provides a great script (adapted from Antonia Barber's original book "The Ghosts") and great direction too. Great atmosphere is provided courtesy of Wilfred Shingleton's production design, Gerry Fisher's excellent photography and one of Hollywood regular Elmer Bernstein's greatest scores (for what was a small British film - who'd have guessed?).
In front of the camera, the talent is equally impressive and it is sign of Lionel Jefferies unrecognised talent as a director that he draws some great performances from his cast, some of whom have never been better than they are here. Diana Dors shows a rare talent as a character actress and there are also good performances from David Lodge, James Villiers, Madeline Smith, Deddie Davies, Laurence Naismith, Graham Crowden, Garry Miller, Dorothy Alison and Rosalyn Landor.
And for the ill-fated Lynne Frederick who has given a number of poor performances in bit parts over the years before her death and who was unfortunately better known for her chaotic personal life and the unpleasant aftermath to her marriage to Peter Sellers, her appearance here is a revelation. I disagree with one of the previous posts that says that she is slightly too old for the role. To me she seems absolutely right and if she is too old, then so too are Jenny Agutter and Sally Thomsett in "The Railway Children". It is a tragedy that Lynne Frederick did not go on to fulfil the promise that she showed in this film and if she really was a mediocre actress, then Lionel Jefferies deserves even more credit for drawing such a great performance from her for this film as she is excellent here (especially during the scenes in which Langley Park burns at the end). It's a shame what happened to her in real life but instead of remembering her as the bloated alcoholic drug-addicted wreck that she became, I prefer to remember the Lynne Frederick forever immortalised on film here - a beautiful young woman who had so much promise.
By the way, when is someone going to release Elmer Bernstein's wonderful score to this film on CD?
In front of the camera, the talent is equally impressive and it is sign of Lionel Jefferies unrecognised talent as a director that he draws some great performances from his cast, some of whom have never been better than they are here. Diana Dors shows a rare talent as a character actress and there are also good performances from David Lodge, James Villiers, Madeline Smith, Deddie Davies, Laurence Naismith, Graham Crowden, Garry Miller, Dorothy Alison and Rosalyn Landor.
And for the ill-fated Lynne Frederick who has given a number of poor performances in bit parts over the years before her death and who was unfortunately better known for her chaotic personal life and the unpleasant aftermath to her marriage to Peter Sellers, her appearance here is a revelation. I disagree with one of the previous posts that says that she is slightly too old for the role. To me she seems absolutely right and if she is too old, then so too are Jenny Agutter and Sally Thomsett in "The Railway Children". It is a tragedy that Lynne Frederick did not go on to fulfil the promise that she showed in this film and if she really was a mediocre actress, then Lionel Jefferies deserves even more credit for drawing such a great performance from her for this film as she is excellent here (especially during the scenes in which Langley Park burns at the end). It's a shame what happened to her in real life but instead of remembering her as the bloated alcoholic drug-addicted wreck that she became, I prefer to remember the Lynne Frederick forever immortalised on film here - a beautiful young woman who had so much promise.
By the way, when is someone going to release Elmer Bernstein's wonderful score to this film on CD?
The Boat That Rocked
(2009)
The Boat That Sucked (a.k.a. Carry on Broadcasting)
9 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
"The Boat That Rocked" should have been a great movie, given its subject matter but unfortunately writer/director Richard Curtis has provided a poor script that really should have had a number of rewrites before it was put into production. Unfortunately Curtis has really has lost his way in the last few years since he wrote and directed "Love Actually", which was a good film, actually. But whilst he has undoubtedly done good work in the past, he clearly needs a director who can tell him what works and what doesn't. It is telling that he has reportedly credited director Mike Newell for the success of "Four Weddings and a Funeral" in steering his script towards a general story arc rather than a collection of comic set-pieces. Unfortunately this film could have done with Newell's input: it is nearly all comic set-pieces (most of which are not that funny). Curtis is clearly not the best director of his own material and if he ever gets to make another film for Working Title, one hopes that Tim Bevan and Eric Fellner will hire someone other than Curtis to direct it.
Some of the actors in this film fare better than others. Philip Seymour Hoffman is excellent as The Count (obviously based on Emperor Rosko), proving that acting quality can make up for a lot. Bill Nighy plays Bill Nighy excellently and Rhys Ifans, Ralph Brown, Nick Frost and Chris O'Dowd do a lot with what they are given. However newcomer Tom Sturridge, the son of "Brideshead Revisited" director Charles Sturridge, is lumbered with the Hugh Grant role, complete with "ums" and "ers" and the floppy hair style while Tom Brooke, playing Thick Kevin, gets saddled with dialogue that is clearly stale Baldrick leftovers from "Blackadder". Recycling is a good thing to be sure but it shouldn't extend to recycling characters from films/television programmes that you may have written in the past. Feel free at this point to rearrange the words "trick", "one" and "pony" into a well-known phrase.
As for the female actresses, they suffer a worse fate. The talented Gemma Arterton and Tallulah Riley both get cough and spit roles that mainly consist of taking their clothes off and getting into bed with Nick Frost (at least I can see what attracted Nick Frost to this film). January Jones (from "American Pie: The Wedding" and Curtis' "Love Actually") turns up long enough to marry Chris O'Dowd before running off with Rhys Ifans 17 hours later and Emma Thompson as Sturridge's mother is depicted as a slut ("a sexual legend"). Doesn't Curtis realise how sexist his portrayal of women is in this film? Only the lesbian character portrayed by Katherine Parkinson is treated with any sympathy, more I suspect due to the diktats of political correctness than how a lesbian would really have been treated on a boat full of sex-starved men in the Sixties. As for the token coloured character, don't even get me started on that. This is wish fulfilment stuff of the worst kind and completely unbelievable).
However, the two actors who get the rawest deal of all are Kenneth Branagh and Jack Davenport. Branagh plays the film's main villain, Dormandy, a stereotypical portrayal of a repressed Tory determined to clear the airwaves of anything except for classical music. In case we haven't already twigged that Branagh is the villain of the film, he is always seen wearing a suit, his hair slicked back and sporting a moustache that makes him look like the mutant off-spring of Adolf Hitler and Blakey from "On the Buses". The only surprise is that his moustache is not the twirly type beloved of Victorian melodrama. As his henchman, Jack Davenport's character rejoices in the name of Twatt (the sound you can hear at this point is the sound of the barrel being scraped in the search of a very cheap laugh). Naturally Branagh gets to address the unfortunate Twatt by his name at every possible opportunity as if this constant repetition will make it funnier. Memo to Curtis: No it doesn't. Given that these two work in a vacuum from everyone else in the film, it really would have been a good idea to get rid of them altogether and cut down the film's indulgent running time. They would not be missed.
However, despite all this, at around the 105 minute mark, something very strange happens to this film. It's the equivalent of jump-starting a car that has a flat battery. Just when you think this particular boat is holed below the waterline and is about sink with all hands, taking the careers of a number of very good people with it, the boat itself starts taking on water and sinks (just as happened with the Radio Caroline ship on which this film is based). And this last 30 minutes of the film is great. It's everything the previous 105 minutes should have been and wasn't. Okay, so some shots in this sequence have clearly been "inspired" by "Titanic" (including the plates falling off the shelves in slow motion, here replaced by records) but as this segment of the film is so well done, I'm prepared to cut Curtis any slack I can at this point. The juxtaposition of some great music with some memorable images is particularly well done and the special effects shots are astonishing (this really looks as if it was done for real even though it can't possibly have been – just like the climbing race between Rhys Ifans and Philip Seymour Hoffman earlier on).
So if you get lured to the cinema (or video shop) to see this film on the strength of Richard Curtis' name and the great films with which he has been associated previously, start off at the 105 minute mark and just watch the last half an hour of "The Boat that Rocked". Because, trust me, it isn't going to get any better than that.
Some of the actors in this film fare better than others. Philip Seymour Hoffman is excellent as The Count (obviously based on Emperor Rosko), proving that acting quality can make up for a lot. Bill Nighy plays Bill Nighy excellently and Rhys Ifans, Ralph Brown, Nick Frost and Chris O'Dowd do a lot with what they are given. However newcomer Tom Sturridge, the son of "Brideshead Revisited" director Charles Sturridge, is lumbered with the Hugh Grant role, complete with "ums" and "ers" and the floppy hair style while Tom Brooke, playing Thick Kevin, gets saddled with dialogue that is clearly stale Baldrick leftovers from "Blackadder". Recycling is a good thing to be sure but it shouldn't extend to recycling characters from films/television programmes that you may have written in the past. Feel free at this point to rearrange the words "trick", "one" and "pony" into a well-known phrase.
As for the female actresses, they suffer a worse fate. The talented Gemma Arterton and Tallulah Riley both get cough and spit roles that mainly consist of taking their clothes off and getting into bed with Nick Frost (at least I can see what attracted Nick Frost to this film). January Jones (from "American Pie: The Wedding" and Curtis' "Love Actually") turns up long enough to marry Chris O'Dowd before running off with Rhys Ifans 17 hours later and Emma Thompson as Sturridge's mother is depicted as a slut ("a sexual legend"). Doesn't Curtis realise how sexist his portrayal of women is in this film? Only the lesbian character portrayed by Katherine Parkinson is treated with any sympathy, more I suspect due to the diktats of political correctness than how a lesbian would really have been treated on a boat full of sex-starved men in the Sixties. As for the token coloured character, don't even get me started on that. This is wish fulfilment stuff of the worst kind and completely unbelievable).
However, the two actors who get the rawest deal of all are Kenneth Branagh and Jack Davenport. Branagh plays the film's main villain, Dormandy, a stereotypical portrayal of a repressed Tory determined to clear the airwaves of anything except for classical music. In case we haven't already twigged that Branagh is the villain of the film, he is always seen wearing a suit, his hair slicked back and sporting a moustache that makes him look like the mutant off-spring of Adolf Hitler and Blakey from "On the Buses". The only surprise is that his moustache is not the twirly type beloved of Victorian melodrama. As his henchman, Jack Davenport's character rejoices in the name of Twatt (the sound you can hear at this point is the sound of the barrel being scraped in the search of a very cheap laugh). Naturally Branagh gets to address the unfortunate Twatt by his name at every possible opportunity as if this constant repetition will make it funnier. Memo to Curtis: No it doesn't. Given that these two work in a vacuum from everyone else in the film, it really would have been a good idea to get rid of them altogether and cut down the film's indulgent running time. They would not be missed.
However, despite all this, at around the 105 minute mark, something very strange happens to this film. It's the equivalent of jump-starting a car that has a flat battery. Just when you think this particular boat is holed below the waterline and is about sink with all hands, taking the careers of a number of very good people with it, the boat itself starts taking on water and sinks (just as happened with the Radio Caroline ship on which this film is based). And this last 30 minutes of the film is great. It's everything the previous 105 minutes should have been and wasn't. Okay, so some shots in this sequence have clearly been "inspired" by "Titanic" (including the plates falling off the shelves in slow motion, here replaced by records) but as this segment of the film is so well done, I'm prepared to cut Curtis any slack I can at this point. The juxtaposition of some great music with some memorable images is particularly well done and the special effects shots are astonishing (this really looks as if it was done for real even though it can't possibly have been – just like the climbing race between Rhys Ifans and Philip Seymour Hoffman earlier on).
So if you get lured to the cinema (or video shop) to see this film on the strength of Richard Curtis' name and the great films with which he has been associated previously, start off at the 105 minute mark and just watch the last half an hour of "The Boat that Rocked". Because, trust me, it isn't going to get any better than that.
Stunning! Simply Stunning!!!
13 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
There have been more than a few films on the subject of the Holocaust, possibly the daddy of them all being Steven Spielberg's "Schindler's List" based on the book "Schindler's Ark" by Thomas Keneally. Much better, however, in my mind is Costa-Gavras' "Amen" based on Rolf Hochhuth's play "Le Vicaire". Now Mark Herman's "The Boy in the Striped Pajamas", itself based on John Boyne's novel, is fit to mentioned alongside these two great films.
I was initially doubtful at the premise of this film since my knowledge of Holocaust history suggested that 8 year old boys would have been sent straight to the gas chambers on arrival rather than set to work in a camp (obviously I am happy to be set straight on this point if I am wrong). And having seen the film, I also doubt that the boy in the camp (Shmuel, well played by Jack Scanlon) would be able to sit at the camp fence undetected long enough to meet and talk to Bruno, the camp Commandant's son (an astonishingly assured performance by newcomer Asa Butterfield).
There has also been some criticism of the fact that all the actors speak in Received Pronounciation English accents (even American actress Vera Farmiga, whose English accent is completely faultless). This is true, although to be completely accurate, all the actors would have to speak in German and the film would have had to be subtitled as a result.
In truth, however, none of these criticisms actually matters a damn. For even though all of the above is undeniably true, the film still works. And my, how it works. When it finished, I sat in my seat stunned (I had the same reaction after watching "Disaster Movie" last week, but most definitely not for the same reason, I assure you).
The Holocaust as seen through the prism of 8 year old German boy is a novel approach and although we all know what is happening at the camp nearby, at the beginning, he does not. And every step he takes, he gets closer to discovering the truth, losing his childhood innocence in the process.
What I liked about this film is the sophisticated and multi-layered portrayal of the German characters. None of them are one dimensional wholly evil characters but nor are they wholly good either (not even Bruno who tells lies on several occasions, one occasion which results in brutal punishment for one of the prisoners as a consequence).
With good performances from Asa Butterfield as Bruno, Amber Beattie as his sister, David Thewlis as his father, Vera Farmiga as his mother and Jack Scanlon as Shmuel, this may not be the first film about the loss of childhood innocence in the Holocaust (Roberto Benigni beat Herman to it with "Life is Beautiful" and whilst Benigni's film has a powerful end of its own, even that does not compare to the powerful shattering ending which this film possesses) but it is the best and most effective to date.
With restrained direction by Mark Herman and a similarly restrained score from James Horner, if this film does not win the hat full of Oscars next year that it surely deserves, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will have shown itself to be completely irrelevant.
I was initially doubtful at the premise of this film since my knowledge of Holocaust history suggested that 8 year old boys would have been sent straight to the gas chambers on arrival rather than set to work in a camp (obviously I am happy to be set straight on this point if I am wrong). And having seen the film, I also doubt that the boy in the camp (Shmuel, well played by Jack Scanlon) would be able to sit at the camp fence undetected long enough to meet and talk to Bruno, the camp Commandant's son (an astonishingly assured performance by newcomer Asa Butterfield).
There has also been some criticism of the fact that all the actors speak in Received Pronounciation English accents (even American actress Vera Farmiga, whose English accent is completely faultless). This is true, although to be completely accurate, all the actors would have to speak in German and the film would have had to be subtitled as a result.
In truth, however, none of these criticisms actually matters a damn. For even though all of the above is undeniably true, the film still works. And my, how it works. When it finished, I sat in my seat stunned (I had the same reaction after watching "Disaster Movie" last week, but most definitely not for the same reason, I assure you).
The Holocaust as seen through the prism of 8 year old German boy is a novel approach and although we all know what is happening at the camp nearby, at the beginning, he does not. And every step he takes, he gets closer to discovering the truth, losing his childhood innocence in the process.
What I liked about this film is the sophisticated and multi-layered portrayal of the German characters. None of them are one dimensional wholly evil characters but nor are they wholly good either (not even Bruno who tells lies on several occasions, one occasion which results in brutal punishment for one of the prisoners as a consequence).
With good performances from Asa Butterfield as Bruno, Amber Beattie as his sister, David Thewlis as his father, Vera Farmiga as his mother and Jack Scanlon as Shmuel, this may not be the first film about the loss of childhood innocence in the Holocaust (Roberto Benigni beat Herman to it with "Life is Beautiful" and whilst Benigni's film has a powerful end of its own, even that does not compare to the powerful shattering ending which this film possesses) but it is the best and most effective to date.
With restrained direction by Mark Herman and a similarly restrained score from James Horner, if this film does not win the hat full of Oscars next year that it surely deserves, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will have shown itself to be completely irrelevant.
The Legend of Robin Hood
(1975)
This is the definitive Robin Hood!
1 September 2007
I have recently been enjoying this on DVD, not having seen it since it was first shown on BBC 1 when I was 12 (you do the math). I was pleasantly surprised at how well it stands up after all this time. It may look a little dated (as much as anything set in the 12th Century can look dated) but what it loses in technical quality compared to the polished productions of today, it more than makes up with how well it treats its subject. As a legend and with no definitive source material, who is to say what is the correct version. But this is probably the closest to what is generally accepted to be the story of Robin Hood, eschewing the mysticism that made the later Michael Praed/Jason Connery version an interesting interpretation. Whatever else, it is certainly better than the most recent BBC version which managed the feat of making the story seem silly and boring at the same time (especially with Keith Allen as a low rent Alan Rickman wannabe).
Martin Potter is good as Robin (although I must have missed the scene which explains how he suddenly adopts the name Robin Hood) and it is a mystery how he never became any better known after this. Diane Keen makes a beautiful and feisty Marion and it was interesting to see Paul Darrow as The Sheriff of Nottingham several years before his star-making turn as Avon in "Blake's Seven". Thankfully Darrow resists the temptation to ham it up in the way that Alan Rickman did in the role years later which unbalanced "Robin Hood - Prince of Thieves" (even though it was entertaining). I have to disagree, however, with those posters who complained that Michael J. Jackson's King Richard was a camp interpretation. It is nothing of the kind and Jackson brings great dignity to the part which is usually only a cameo walk-on appearance.
However, where I would agree with other comments already made on here is about the theme music to this series by Stanley Myers. Like them, I too remembered this theme long after my other memories of this series had faded and it is good to hear it once again.
Accept no substitutes, this is the real deal and now it is on DVD, hopefully others will get to discover what a hidden gem this series is.
Martin Potter is good as Robin (although I must have missed the scene which explains how he suddenly adopts the name Robin Hood) and it is a mystery how he never became any better known after this. Diane Keen makes a beautiful and feisty Marion and it was interesting to see Paul Darrow as The Sheriff of Nottingham several years before his star-making turn as Avon in "Blake's Seven". Thankfully Darrow resists the temptation to ham it up in the way that Alan Rickman did in the role years later which unbalanced "Robin Hood - Prince of Thieves" (even though it was entertaining). I have to disagree, however, with those posters who complained that Michael J. Jackson's King Richard was a camp interpretation. It is nothing of the kind and Jackson brings great dignity to the part which is usually only a cameo walk-on appearance.
However, where I would agree with other comments already made on here is about the theme music to this series by Stanley Myers. Like them, I too remembered this theme long after my other memories of this series had faded and it is good to hear it once again.
Accept no substitutes, this is the real deal and now it is on DVD, hopefully others will get to discover what a hidden gem this series is.
Return to Me
(2000)
Deserves to be much better known than it is!!!
1 September 2007
Mention this film's title to most people and they won't have heard of it. Tell people the basic plot line (a man's wife dies and her heart is transplanted into another woman who the man promptly meets and falls in love with without realising that she has his wife's heart inside her) and it sounds bizarre. And yet for my money this has to be the most enjoyable romantic comedy I have ever seen, even if the emphasis is more on romance than comedy. Certainly this is one of the few films in my DVD collection that I never tire of seeing, even now that I know the plot inside out. But then surprise is never a big element of romantic comedies since the ending is never in doubt (and who would want it any other way?). The journey is the thing and the elements that make up this film are what make this so special.
Kudos first to Bonnie Hunt for being able to take such a bizarre-sounding plot line and make it not only tasteful but moving. Even if you do not ascribe to the belief that the heart is the repository of physical feelings and that a transplanted heart would retain those feelings when placed in another person (and I'm not sure I do), the story still works. Bob and Grace still have a connection because of his wife's heart beating inside her and Minnie Driver plays Grace so delightfully that it is entirely believable that David Duchovny's Bob would fall in love with her anyway.
The cast are great. Not only is Minnie Driver wonderful in this film (maybe finally with "The Riches" she is getting her due recognition) but David Duchovny is a revelation. Miles away from the character of Mulder in "The X-Files", it turns out he can play light comedy (who knew). And the scene in which he breaks down after his wife's death is heart-breaking. He is another actor in this film who should have gone on to better things (perhaps it was because his character in this film is Bob the Builder). Bonnie Hunt and James Belushi give great support and are entertaining enough in their own right. Joely Richardson does very well given the inevitably short number of scenes she has as Bob's wife, managing to establish with economy why Bob would be in love with her to begin with.
If I was to quibble, I'd say that perhaps Bonnie Hunt includes a little bit too much of the four old men talking, given that the film should really focus on Bob and Grace. However, I can forgive Bonnie Hunt's indulgence as the four old men are great characters on their own. Robert Loggia and Carroll O'Connor are especially colourful (O'Connor played the wonderfully gung-ho general in "Kelly's Heroes").
The music is great (not just the selection of songs but Nicholas Pike's score) and the last scenes in Italy (as shot by the late Laszlo Kovacs) are a welcome diversion (When writing the script with Don Lake, Bonnie Hunt clearly remembered her trip to Italy when she played the best friend role once before in Norman Jewison's "Only You").
A great film. If you haven't yet seen it, do yourself a favour and find out what you've been missing.
Kudos first to Bonnie Hunt for being able to take such a bizarre-sounding plot line and make it not only tasteful but moving. Even if you do not ascribe to the belief that the heart is the repository of physical feelings and that a transplanted heart would retain those feelings when placed in another person (and I'm not sure I do), the story still works. Bob and Grace still have a connection because of his wife's heart beating inside her and Minnie Driver plays Grace so delightfully that it is entirely believable that David Duchovny's Bob would fall in love with her anyway.
The cast are great. Not only is Minnie Driver wonderful in this film (maybe finally with "The Riches" she is getting her due recognition) but David Duchovny is a revelation. Miles away from the character of Mulder in "The X-Files", it turns out he can play light comedy (who knew). And the scene in which he breaks down after his wife's death is heart-breaking. He is another actor in this film who should have gone on to better things (perhaps it was because his character in this film is Bob the Builder). Bonnie Hunt and James Belushi give great support and are entertaining enough in their own right. Joely Richardson does very well given the inevitably short number of scenes she has as Bob's wife, managing to establish with economy why Bob would be in love with her to begin with.
If I was to quibble, I'd say that perhaps Bonnie Hunt includes a little bit too much of the four old men talking, given that the film should really focus on Bob and Grace. However, I can forgive Bonnie Hunt's indulgence as the four old men are great characters on their own. Robert Loggia and Carroll O'Connor are especially colourful (O'Connor played the wonderfully gung-ho general in "Kelly's Heroes").
The music is great (not just the selection of songs but Nicholas Pike's score) and the last scenes in Italy (as shot by the late Laszlo Kovacs) are a welcome diversion (When writing the script with Don Lake, Bonnie Hunt clearly remembered her trip to Italy when she played the best friend role once before in Norman Jewison's "Only You").
A great film. If you haven't yet seen it, do yourself a favour and find out what you've been missing.
The Bourne Ultimatum
(2007)
Bourne Again: The Return of the Shaky Cam
17 August 2007
Jason Bourne is back in what may prove to be the final film in the Bourne Franchise. If so, what a way to go out. Unlike many of this summer's three-quels, this film delivers the goods. This is a 115 minute roller-coaster ride that barely lets up from start to finish. However, in a world of leaden imitations, this unfortunately isn't quite the 24 carat gold classic that the two previous films were. Don't get me wrong, this is still one of the best films I have seen this year and most films would kill to be this good. Unfortunately both "The Bourne Identity" and "The Bourne Supremacy" (especially the latter) set the barrier so high that unfortunately this film doesn't quite measure up in comparison.
First the good stuff. Matt Damon is great as usual and it is good to see that Julia Stiles is given more to do this time round. Her character especially is an appealing mix of ability and vulnerability. Whilst she doesn't get as good a scene as the one in the previous film where Bourne threatened to kill her, the hints that she may have had a relationship with Bourne that he now doesn't remember is an interesting twist and it is a shame that her character drops out of the film over halfway through. The great Joan Allen gives good support and David Strathairn makes a good replacement for Brian Cox as the man to hate. However most of the kudos should go to Paul Greengrass and his editor Christopher Rouse. Greengrass has become a great director since Universal took a chance on him to direct "The Bourne Supremacy". His so-called "shaky cam" style which has been criticised by many on this site is the reason why this film works so well. The Waterloo station scene in particular should become a masterclass study in editing (in addition, the fight scene between Bourne and the CIA "asset" in a small room in Tangier is a terrific piece of action editing that ought to win Christopher Rouse an Oscar if there is any justice in this world, reminiscent though it is of the fight scene between Bourne and one of his German contemporaries in the previous film - which Rouse helped to edit). Even though there are a few flaws in this film, they are down to the script and not to Paul Greengrass's direction which is arguably better here than in the previous film (he was also criminally robbed of an Oscar for "United 93" earlier this year - as good as "The Departed" was, Scorsese's Oscar was a compensation prize for his earlier work where he really should have won).
So why is this film only 23½ carat gold grade? Mainly because of the script. I yield to no one in my respect and admiration of Tony Gilroy who has written a number of great films over the years aside from the Bourne films but there are a few flaws here that stick out like a sore thumb. Since other hands are involved here as well (Scott Burns and George Nolfi), I am prepared to give Gilroy the benefit of the doubt and trust he wasn't responsible (since Nolfi wrote "Timeline", "Ocean's Twelve" and "The Sentinel", guess who my money is on). So what's the problem? Well for a start, the Simon Ross character is meant to be a security correspondent with The Guardian newspaper and yet makes the mistake of mentioning the word "Blackbriar" on the telephone. Surely a security correspondent at The Guardian whose job consists of studying the Security Services and their methods would be aware of the ability of the National Security Agency to harvest key words from all the telephone conversations that take place around the world. Are Guardian journalists really that stupid? (well, okay, perhaps they are) Of course, the problem for the film is that without the NSA and the CIA latching onto Ross at the start of the film, there would be no way of them finding Bourne. Another problem is the way in which Bourne happens to discover he is the subject of an article by Ross by coincidentally picking up a copy of The Guardian and reading it. Pretty unlikely (especially as Bourne hardly strikes me as the sort of person who would read The Guardian anyway) but without Bourne reading the article, he would have no reason to contact Ross and start the plot rolling. This sort of lazy writing to cut plot corners affects a film where credibility and believability are important (more so than a Bond film where you can readily suspend your disbelief given the usually fantastic nature of the plots). Also the plot timeline is a bit confusing because it follows immediately after Bourne's car chase in Moscow at the end of the last film, seemingly forgetting about the final telephone conversation between Bourne and Pamela Landy which came after that (although this is explained later on in the film, it was a bit confusing at first). My last complaint is the updated version of Extreme Ways over the closing titles. It's awful and if Moby isn't responsible, he should sue. The original version is a classic and this bastardized version is the aural equivalent of painting a moustache on the Mona Lisa (if we don't complain now, who knows what we'll get to hear next? Madonna singing the theme tune to a Bond film?)
Still, small gripes for a film that still manages to beat the opposition hands down (including, dare I say it, "Casino Royale"). Perhaps better to finish the franchise there though rather than risk ruining it with a fourth film.
First the good stuff. Matt Damon is great as usual and it is good to see that Julia Stiles is given more to do this time round. Her character especially is an appealing mix of ability and vulnerability. Whilst she doesn't get as good a scene as the one in the previous film where Bourne threatened to kill her, the hints that she may have had a relationship with Bourne that he now doesn't remember is an interesting twist and it is a shame that her character drops out of the film over halfway through. The great Joan Allen gives good support and David Strathairn makes a good replacement for Brian Cox as the man to hate. However most of the kudos should go to Paul Greengrass and his editor Christopher Rouse. Greengrass has become a great director since Universal took a chance on him to direct "The Bourne Supremacy". His so-called "shaky cam" style which has been criticised by many on this site is the reason why this film works so well. The Waterloo station scene in particular should become a masterclass study in editing (in addition, the fight scene between Bourne and the CIA "asset" in a small room in Tangier is a terrific piece of action editing that ought to win Christopher Rouse an Oscar if there is any justice in this world, reminiscent though it is of the fight scene between Bourne and one of his German contemporaries in the previous film - which Rouse helped to edit). Even though there are a few flaws in this film, they are down to the script and not to Paul Greengrass's direction which is arguably better here than in the previous film (he was also criminally robbed of an Oscar for "United 93" earlier this year - as good as "The Departed" was, Scorsese's Oscar was a compensation prize for his earlier work where he really should have won).
So why is this film only 23½ carat gold grade? Mainly because of the script. I yield to no one in my respect and admiration of Tony Gilroy who has written a number of great films over the years aside from the Bourne films but there are a few flaws here that stick out like a sore thumb. Since other hands are involved here as well (Scott Burns and George Nolfi), I am prepared to give Gilroy the benefit of the doubt and trust he wasn't responsible (since Nolfi wrote "Timeline", "Ocean's Twelve" and "The Sentinel", guess who my money is on). So what's the problem? Well for a start, the Simon Ross character is meant to be a security correspondent with The Guardian newspaper and yet makes the mistake of mentioning the word "Blackbriar" on the telephone. Surely a security correspondent at The Guardian whose job consists of studying the Security Services and their methods would be aware of the ability of the National Security Agency to harvest key words from all the telephone conversations that take place around the world. Are Guardian journalists really that stupid? (well, okay, perhaps they are) Of course, the problem for the film is that without the NSA and the CIA latching onto Ross at the start of the film, there would be no way of them finding Bourne. Another problem is the way in which Bourne happens to discover he is the subject of an article by Ross by coincidentally picking up a copy of The Guardian and reading it. Pretty unlikely (especially as Bourne hardly strikes me as the sort of person who would read The Guardian anyway) but without Bourne reading the article, he would have no reason to contact Ross and start the plot rolling. This sort of lazy writing to cut plot corners affects a film where credibility and believability are important (more so than a Bond film where you can readily suspend your disbelief given the usually fantastic nature of the plots). Also the plot timeline is a bit confusing because it follows immediately after Bourne's car chase in Moscow at the end of the last film, seemingly forgetting about the final telephone conversation between Bourne and Pamela Landy which came after that (although this is explained later on in the film, it was a bit confusing at first). My last complaint is the updated version of Extreme Ways over the closing titles. It's awful and if Moby isn't responsible, he should sue. The original version is a classic and this bastardized version is the aural equivalent of painting a moustache on the Mona Lisa (if we don't complain now, who knows what we'll get to hear next? Madonna singing the theme tune to a Bond film?)
Still, small gripes for a film that still manages to beat the opposition hands down (including, dare I say it, "Casino Royale"). Perhaps better to finish the franchise there though rather than risk ruining it with a fourth film.
The Satanic Rites of Dracula
(1973)
Not the usual Hammer Dracula but I like it anyway
29 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I yield to no one in my liking for the standard Hammer Gothic horror set in the Mittel Europe Carpathian mountains complete with villagers who refuse to go near to Castle Dracula unless armed with flaming torches to burn the place down. But every so often, Hammer tried something different, with varying degrees of success. "The Devil Rides Out" was set in 1930s England and is generally regarded by many (including me) as being one of Hammer's very best films. Others such as "Dracula A.D. 72" (often known unofficially as Dracula meets the hippies) and this one, "The Satanic Rites of Dracula", which drag Dracula into modern seventies London, were less critically regarded.
Any film set in present day will always date quicker than a film set in the past. "Dracula A.D. 72" suffers in this respect more than "The Satanic Rites of Dracula" as the former features a supposedly wild gang of hippies who are in fact nothing of the kind (one of which includes a very young Michael Kitchen, years before "Foyle's War"). "The Satanic Rites" of Dracula", however, largely escapes this fate (apart from the motorcycle hit men with a dodgy preference for fur-lined waist coats and long sideburns). I still enjoy "Dracula A.D. 72" nonetheless even though I would class it as very much a guilty pleasure. The "Satanic Rites of Dracula" is literally another story however.
One of the highpoints of "Dracula A.D. 72" however is the stylish direction of Canadian director Alan Gibson and Hammer brought him back to helm this final Hammer Dracula (unless you count (sorry) Dracula's cameo appearance in "The Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires"). Thanks to Gibson, several scenes here work wonderfully (the scene in which Joanna Lumley is menaced in the cellar by the female vampires is particularly well done and the scene in which William Franklyn's character is shot in slow motion was obviously Gibson's idea of an homage to Sam Peckinpah which I promise you you will never see in another Hammer film).
In fact, this film is different from nearly all the other Hammer films in a number of ways. It's probably one of the best photographed of all the Hammer films, thanks to cameraman Brian Probyn who had photographed some of Terence Malick's seminal masterpiece "Badlands". The film has a glossy look the belies the small amount of money that was probably spent on making it. In fact, the whole style of the film is different. One of the previous posters here has likened it to an episode of "The Avengers" (rather appropriate as Joanna Lumley, here playing Peter Cushing's granddaughter, Jessica Van Helsing, would go on to play Purdey in "The New Avengers" just a few years later). I'd agree with that and as a result the story plays more as a thriller rather than the standard Hammer Gothic horror. I always thought that bringing Dracula into the present day is a spectacularly bad idea, but if you are going to do it, then the way it is done here works fine. The idea of presenting Dracula as a present day Howard Hughes, hardly seen by anyone is a good idea (a real bloodsucking businessman, that has to be a first). And John Cacavas' music is effective, even though it is completely different to Hammer regular James Bernard's usual style (then again so was Mike Vickers' music in "Dracula A.D. 72").
Acting wise, Lee and Cushing are the usual class acts (Lee as usual has little to do other than quote a few lines from Stoker's original when given the chance). Michael Coles, William Franklyn, Freddie Jones and Joanna Lumley are good in support (even though Lumley's responsible character of Jessica Van Helsing seems to have changed radically from Stephanie Beacham's rebellious portrayal in "Dracula A.D. 72" - still perhaps nearly falling victim to a vampire does that to a girl). And Valerie Van Ost makes a great vampire (once she takes those glasses off, she's beautiful - who knew?) If you approach this film as a thriller rather than the traditional Hammer fare, I think you will enjoy it. Just as long as you don't expect any villagers with torches to turn up in the third act (although Pelham House does go up in flames anyway - unlike certain vampires, some traditions never die).
Any film set in present day will always date quicker than a film set in the past. "Dracula A.D. 72" suffers in this respect more than "The Satanic Rites of Dracula" as the former features a supposedly wild gang of hippies who are in fact nothing of the kind (one of which includes a very young Michael Kitchen, years before "Foyle's War"). "The Satanic Rites" of Dracula", however, largely escapes this fate (apart from the motorcycle hit men with a dodgy preference for fur-lined waist coats and long sideburns). I still enjoy "Dracula A.D. 72" nonetheless even though I would class it as very much a guilty pleasure. The "Satanic Rites of Dracula" is literally another story however.
One of the highpoints of "Dracula A.D. 72" however is the stylish direction of Canadian director Alan Gibson and Hammer brought him back to helm this final Hammer Dracula (unless you count (sorry) Dracula's cameo appearance in "The Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires"). Thanks to Gibson, several scenes here work wonderfully (the scene in which Joanna Lumley is menaced in the cellar by the female vampires is particularly well done and the scene in which William Franklyn's character is shot in slow motion was obviously Gibson's idea of an homage to Sam Peckinpah which I promise you you will never see in another Hammer film).
In fact, this film is different from nearly all the other Hammer films in a number of ways. It's probably one of the best photographed of all the Hammer films, thanks to cameraman Brian Probyn who had photographed some of Terence Malick's seminal masterpiece "Badlands". The film has a glossy look the belies the small amount of money that was probably spent on making it. In fact, the whole style of the film is different. One of the previous posters here has likened it to an episode of "The Avengers" (rather appropriate as Joanna Lumley, here playing Peter Cushing's granddaughter, Jessica Van Helsing, would go on to play Purdey in "The New Avengers" just a few years later). I'd agree with that and as a result the story plays more as a thriller rather than the standard Hammer Gothic horror. I always thought that bringing Dracula into the present day is a spectacularly bad idea, but if you are going to do it, then the way it is done here works fine. The idea of presenting Dracula as a present day Howard Hughes, hardly seen by anyone is a good idea (a real bloodsucking businessman, that has to be a first). And John Cacavas' music is effective, even though it is completely different to Hammer regular James Bernard's usual style (then again so was Mike Vickers' music in "Dracula A.D. 72").
Acting wise, Lee and Cushing are the usual class acts (Lee as usual has little to do other than quote a few lines from Stoker's original when given the chance). Michael Coles, William Franklyn, Freddie Jones and Joanna Lumley are good in support (even though Lumley's responsible character of Jessica Van Helsing seems to have changed radically from Stephanie Beacham's rebellious portrayal in "Dracula A.D. 72" - still perhaps nearly falling victim to a vampire does that to a girl). And Valerie Van Ost makes a great vampire (once she takes those glasses off, she's beautiful - who knew?) If you approach this film as a thriller rather than the traditional Hammer fare, I think you will enjoy it. Just as long as you don't expect any villagers with torches to turn up in the third act (although Pelham House does go up in flames anyway - unlike certain vampires, some traditions never die).
Flushed Away
(2006)
Best animated film this year!!
2 December 2006
Aardman Animations are best known for Creature Comforts and, of course, Wallace and Gromit. After they joined forces with DreamWorks to produce features films, they came up with Chicken Run and last year's Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit. And now we have their first CGI animated film, Flushed Away. Well it isn't as good as The Curse of the Were-Rabbit: It's better. Much as I liked the inventiveness which Nick Park has brought to Wallace and Gromit, the Curse of the Were-Rabbit dragged in a few places, despite its short running time. It seems as Wallace and Gromit are best suited to a short film rather than a full-length feature.
Flushed Away, however, does not make that mistake. All the visual inventiveness and Aardman "look" are all present and correct but aided by a script by Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais amongst others which means better lines and better gags. Toilet humour is almost a given considering the location of the story but crudity is kept to a minimum and this is definitely a film the whole family can enjoy, with adults and children able to find different things in it to enjoy. Hugh Jackman, Kate Winslet, Ian McKellen and Jean Reno give good voice and the whole thing zips by as quick as a flash. And despite the U.S. money and the fact it was made in L.A., it's a refreshing change to see a CGI film that has an English slant on things and clearly made by English people rather than an American's quaint and outdated view of England.
And wisely, the result of the England v Germany World Cup Final, against the background of which the finale is set, sees England beaten on penalties. Quite right too. I'm prepared to accept talking rats and dancing frogs and a miniature city in the sewers but England beating Germany in the World Cup Final? Some things stretch credibility just that bit too far.
It's a shame the critics have been so negative about this film. Aardman isn't just Wallace and Gromit and whilst this may not look as technically polished as Pixar's films, this is as easily as entertaining as the best of them. So ignore the bad reviews and go and see this for yourself. I think you'll enjoy it as much as I did.
Flushed Away, however, does not make that mistake. All the visual inventiveness and Aardman "look" are all present and correct but aided by a script by Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais amongst others which means better lines and better gags. Toilet humour is almost a given considering the location of the story but crudity is kept to a minimum and this is definitely a film the whole family can enjoy, with adults and children able to find different things in it to enjoy. Hugh Jackman, Kate Winslet, Ian McKellen and Jean Reno give good voice and the whole thing zips by as quick as a flash. And despite the U.S. money and the fact it was made in L.A., it's a refreshing change to see a CGI film that has an English slant on things and clearly made by English people rather than an American's quaint and outdated view of England.
And wisely, the result of the England v Germany World Cup Final, against the background of which the finale is set, sees England beaten on penalties. Quite right too. I'm prepared to accept talking rats and dancing frogs and a miniature city in the sewers but England beating Germany in the World Cup Final? Some things stretch credibility just that bit too far.
It's a shame the critics have been so negative about this film. Aardman isn't just Wallace and Gromit and whilst this may not look as technically polished as Pixar's films, this is as easily as entertaining as the best of them. So ignore the bad reviews and go and see this for yourself. I think you'll enjoy it as much as I did.
Between the Lines
(1992–1994)
There has been no better police series since!!
1 December 2006
It seems unlikely anyone would be able to make a series like this in today's television climate, given the preference today for light drama with happy endings, which this series eschewed almost constantly, almost masochistically so. Yet no series made since this one ever felt as real and believable as this did. The second series moved away from police complaints to the increasing involvement of MI5 and managed to be even better. Certainly the portrayal of Box 500 here seemed much more real and convincing than "Spooks". Indeed this is the series that "Spooks" wishes it was and the plot lines featured were much more gripping and believable than "Spooks" managed without having to resort to our heroes saving London and/or the world every week. Even the maligned third series, where Clark, Naylor and Connell go private, is still better than most dramas today. The producers had the good sense to call it a day after the third series and at least every episode ever made is preserved for posterity on DVD to be savoured again and again. When will something of the quality of this series ever get made again? Not for a long time, if ever, I fear.
The Wicker Man
(2006)
A remake guaranteed to upset the purists
3 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Every once in a while a remake of a classic film actually manages to improve on the original. This isn't one of those films. Like many remakes, this is a film that didn't need to be made. Neil La Bute has taken Robin Hardy's 1973 original and updated Anthony Shaffer's script and added several new elements which are both unnecessary and serve to dilute the original ingredients that remain. A masterpiece of British Cinema has been toned down and turned into an anti-feminist tract. Those that complained that the original dwelt somewhat lasciviously on the bodies of the various naked women on display would be surprised to discover that although the nudity has been dispensed with this time round, the film manages to be even more offensive to women (especially in its several scenes of violence against women by its leading male character).
Summerisle has now become Summersisle, a commune on an island dominated almost entirely by women and headed by Sister Summersisle (Ellen Burstyn). The presence of men is tolerated only for the purposes of breeding and the number of pregnant women attests to the potency of its few male inhabitants in stark contrast to the failure of the recent crop of honey that is the island's lifeblood. As a result, Edward Malus (Nicolas Cage) is lured to the island on the pretext of searching for the missing daughter of an ex-fiancée (the fact it never occurs to him to ask his ex-fiancée right at the beginning if the missing girl could be his daughter is one of the many logical improbabilities that La Bute saddles himself with in making changes to Anthony Shaffer's original screenplay).
Malus is a tortured character, suffering from nightmares after a traffic accident at the beginning of the film which means we are bludgeoned over the head with constant flashbacks to the accident to remind us that this is a man seeking redemption. We get it, even though the accident is clearly that and not the result of a character defect on Malus's part that requires him to make amends (unless you consider doing a good deed as a character defect). If the story really needed to be about a man seeking redemption (which Anthony Shaffer clearly thought it didn't), then Cage's character should have made some form of mistake for which he feels the need to atone. The reason that La Bute presents us with doesn't cut it and if the character motivation doesn't work, then the whole plot doesn't work (and it doesn't).
La Bute manages to botch the ending that was so powerful in the original. In order to get a 12A (PG-13 in the U.S.), not only has all the nudity gone (which was relevant in the original in order to highlight Woodward's distaste at the sexually free world in which he found himself), the violence has had to be toned down as well. Which means that the moment in which Cage has his legs broken is done to a black screen with Cage screaming "Aaarggh, my legs!", so we know what has happened. This renders the scene laughable and ruins any tension which has built up. Completely unnecessary since Anthony Shaffer did not see the need to make Woodward's character suffer the same fate in the original.
Still, it's not all bad. Leelee Sobieski is a welcome presence in any film and the very last scene in the film is a neat conceit even though it is another of La Bute's additions. And the few in-jokes are amusing enough (a photograph on the wall in the police station shows Edward Woodward as he looked in the original underneath the caption "Wanted". Plus the fact that Cage's character's first name is Edward and the surname of his fiancée and daughter is Woodward). Nevetheless, this is yet another pointless remake (not as bad as "Rollerball" perhaps, but that's not saying much). Still I have high hopes for the recently announced remake of "The Dambusters". With Peter Jackson at the helm, I think this film may do the subject justice and be at least one remake good enough to take its place alongside the original.
Summerisle has now become Summersisle, a commune on an island dominated almost entirely by women and headed by Sister Summersisle (Ellen Burstyn). The presence of men is tolerated only for the purposes of breeding and the number of pregnant women attests to the potency of its few male inhabitants in stark contrast to the failure of the recent crop of honey that is the island's lifeblood. As a result, Edward Malus (Nicolas Cage) is lured to the island on the pretext of searching for the missing daughter of an ex-fiancée (the fact it never occurs to him to ask his ex-fiancée right at the beginning if the missing girl could be his daughter is one of the many logical improbabilities that La Bute saddles himself with in making changes to Anthony Shaffer's original screenplay).
Malus is a tortured character, suffering from nightmares after a traffic accident at the beginning of the film which means we are bludgeoned over the head with constant flashbacks to the accident to remind us that this is a man seeking redemption. We get it, even though the accident is clearly that and not the result of a character defect on Malus's part that requires him to make amends (unless you consider doing a good deed as a character defect). If the story really needed to be about a man seeking redemption (which Anthony Shaffer clearly thought it didn't), then Cage's character should have made some form of mistake for which he feels the need to atone. The reason that La Bute presents us with doesn't cut it and if the character motivation doesn't work, then the whole plot doesn't work (and it doesn't).
La Bute manages to botch the ending that was so powerful in the original. In order to get a 12A (PG-13 in the U.S.), not only has all the nudity gone (which was relevant in the original in order to highlight Woodward's distaste at the sexually free world in which he found himself), the violence has had to be toned down as well. Which means that the moment in which Cage has his legs broken is done to a black screen with Cage screaming "Aaarggh, my legs!", so we know what has happened. This renders the scene laughable and ruins any tension which has built up. Completely unnecessary since Anthony Shaffer did not see the need to make Woodward's character suffer the same fate in the original.
Still, it's not all bad. Leelee Sobieski is a welcome presence in any film and the very last scene in the film is a neat conceit even though it is another of La Bute's additions. And the few in-jokes are amusing enough (a photograph on the wall in the police station shows Edward Woodward as he looked in the original underneath the caption "Wanted". Plus the fact that Cage's character's first name is Edward and the surname of his fiancée and daughter is Woodward). Nevetheless, this is yet another pointless remake (not as bad as "Rollerball" perhaps, but that's not saying much). Still I have high hopes for the recently announced remake of "The Dambusters". With Peter Jackson at the helm, I think this film may do the subject justice and be at least one remake good enough to take its place alongside the original.
The Omen
(2006)
Disappointing!!
16 June 2006
I had high hopes for this remake given the quality of the cast but this is a disappointment. I don't have a problems with remakes of classic films per se (The remake of The Thomas Crown Affair was better than the original, which was pretty good in its own right, and director John Moore's remake of The Flight of the Phoenix was as equally enjoyable as its 1965 predecessor). The good news with the remake of The Omen is the story is the same as the 1976 version. But the bad news is that the story is the same as the 1976 version. So while it remains faithful to the original, if you've seen the 1976 version, you don't need to see this one. And I would recommend the 1976 version over this remake in almost every respect.
Whilst this version bears a script by David Seltzer (who wrote the previous version), the story seems much less persuasive this time round. Whilst the story is far-fetched, the 1976 version made it seem believable whilst this version seems to almost highlight the plot's flaws and lack of believability. Liev Schreiber and Julia Stiles are okay but the usually reliable Michael Gambon and Pete Postlethwaite chew the scenery. Mia Farrow, however, is a great replacement for Billie Whitelaw and both she and David Thewlis win any of the acting honours going (Thewlis' death scene is the one moment that is a big improvement over the previous version). And while the music score for the new version references a few moments from Jerry Goldsmith's Oscar-winning original score, it just simply isn't in the same league. The sadly-missed Jerry Goldsmith was always a class act even in some of his lesser scores: At the time he composed The Omen, however, he was at the top of his game and the score that resulted was one of his absolute best and one of the many reasons why the original was that so much more effective than its recent remake (The Ave Satanis theme in the original was particularly effective and added immeasurably to the mood that the original evoked that is sorely lacking from the new film).
However, it is in the last scene that this new version really drops the ball. In the 1976 version, Gregory Peck's Thorn carries Damien into the church to kill him on the altar with the seven knives. Just as Thorn is about to use the first knife, Damien, who has barely spoken a word throughout the whole film, calls out to him, begging him to stop "No Daddy No". At the moment when it matters, this hitherto sullen (and silent) little boy who has been responsible for the deaths of all those who threatened to expose him, suddenly seems to be nothing more than a normal child begging his father not to hurt him. You can see Peck hesitate for a moment. Is his son really the spawn of evil that he has come to believe or has he been driven to the edge of insanity by the death of his wife? Then the police marksman tell him to put the knife down. He hesitates, then decides, raises his knife and the police marksman fires. In this new version, Damien talks all the way through the film so there is no surprise when he suddenly speaks at the end to beg for his life. As a result, the scene has been robbed of all its impact. Plus the boy playing Damien this time round (Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick) just doesn't seem as evil as Harvey Stephen's Damien from the 1976 version.
Ultimately, despite the improved special effects, this was just not a remake that needed to be made. Better to remake a film that tanked the first time and put right those features of the old film that needed improvement. But who in Hollywood has the guts to do that? (apart from Steven Soderbergh and "Ocean's Eleven")
Whilst this version bears a script by David Seltzer (who wrote the previous version), the story seems much less persuasive this time round. Whilst the story is far-fetched, the 1976 version made it seem believable whilst this version seems to almost highlight the plot's flaws and lack of believability. Liev Schreiber and Julia Stiles are okay but the usually reliable Michael Gambon and Pete Postlethwaite chew the scenery. Mia Farrow, however, is a great replacement for Billie Whitelaw and both she and David Thewlis win any of the acting honours going (Thewlis' death scene is the one moment that is a big improvement over the previous version). And while the music score for the new version references a few moments from Jerry Goldsmith's Oscar-winning original score, it just simply isn't in the same league. The sadly-missed Jerry Goldsmith was always a class act even in some of his lesser scores: At the time he composed The Omen, however, he was at the top of his game and the score that resulted was one of his absolute best and one of the many reasons why the original was that so much more effective than its recent remake (The Ave Satanis theme in the original was particularly effective and added immeasurably to the mood that the original evoked that is sorely lacking from the new film).
However, it is in the last scene that this new version really drops the ball. In the 1976 version, Gregory Peck's Thorn carries Damien into the church to kill him on the altar with the seven knives. Just as Thorn is about to use the first knife, Damien, who has barely spoken a word throughout the whole film, calls out to him, begging him to stop "No Daddy No". At the moment when it matters, this hitherto sullen (and silent) little boy who has been responsible for the deaths of all those who threatened to expose him, suddenly seems to be nothing more than a normal child begging his father not to hurt him. You can see Peck hesitate for a moment. Is his son really the spawn of evil that he has come to believe or has he been driven to the edge of insanity by the death of his wife? Then the police marksman tell him to put the knife down. He hesitates, then decides, raises his knife and the police marksman fires. In this new version, Damien talks all the way through the film so there is no surprise when he suddenly speaks at the end to beg for his life. As a result, the scene has been robbed of all its impact. Plus the boy playing Damien this time round (Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick) just doesn't seem as evil as Harvey Stephen's Damien from the 1976 version.
Ultimately, despite the improved special effects, this was just not a remake that needed to be made. Better to remake a film that tanked the first time and put right those features of the old film that needed improvement. But who in Hollywood has the guts to do that? (apart from Steven Soderbergh and "Ocean's Eleven")
The Pink Panther
(2006)
Not as bad as I expected
25 March 2006
Okay, let's get the obvious stuff out of the way first. This is not a good film. This is not the edgy Steve Martin who did "The Jerk" or "The Man with Two Brains" (neither of which I am a fan of, incidentally) or the more conventional Steve Martin who did "Roxanne" and "Father of the Bride" (which I did enjoy). This is a bizarre performance by Martin that has to be seen to be believed. Okay, so he's not Sellers. That much is obvious. I'm not sure what he is though. He's not that funny, that's for sure. And the lisp certainly doesn't work (and if Martin does after this, it'll be a miracle). Kevin Kline isn't much better either. He can do comedy as anyone who has seen "A Fish Called Wanda" will testify. And even his turn as a Frenchman with a suspect accent in "French Kiss" was better than this. True that both Martin and Kline are tasked with the impossible: bettering Peter Sellers and Herbert Lom. But even so, both should have been funnier than this.
Strangely enough it's the supporting players who fare better in this road crash of a film, principally Jean Reno and Emily Mortimer, both of whom play it straight, demonstrating the truism that trying to be funny never works, something that Messrs Martin and Kline could take a lesson from (I wonder what Reno, one of the few authentic French people in the cast, thought of Martin's French accent, which is more pheuny than feunny). Neither does Beyoncé disgrace herself (although giving her such prominent billing on the posters is naughty considering she is not in the film a great deal). As for Clive Owen's uncredited appearance as agent 006, he confirms in my opinion why he would have been the best man to replace Pierce Brosnan as James Bond (although I have high hopes for Daniel Craig but that's another story).
The absolute nadir of the film is the scene in which Martin rails against American culture in general and hamburgers in particular, before biting into one and being instantly converted. Since this is not funny in its own right, is the film trying to say that French people only complain about American culture because they have never experienced it and if they did, they'd be instantly converted? A more crass example of America hyping its own cultural superiority would be hard to find.
So, as I said, this is not a good film. But then the makers were on a hiding to nothing to begin with. Although this has been billed as another instalment in the series rather than a remake of the original, they have tampered with the tried and trusted ingredients of the original that defeats the point of making it in the first place. And they have proved how key the original actors were in making the films work. Although the new film credits Blake Edwards for creating "The Pink Panther", it makes no mention of Peter Sellers whose performance as Clouseau stole the first film from under the nose of its star, David Niven. And when all is said and done, Steve Martin is no Peter Sellers. And Kevin Kline is no Herbert Lom. And why replace Burt Kwouk's Cato with Reno's Gilbert Ponton? Even in this era of political correctness, would today's audience really have been offended by the sight of a Chinese actor engaged in a series of fights with Clouseau? At least Cato was played by a genuine Chinese actor (Kwouk was born in Britain but raised in Shanghai) and not a Western actor in make-up (unlike Mickey Rooney's offensive turn in Edwards' "Breakfast at Tiffanys"). The original actors were part of what made the series so memorable. Did they not learn from the last time they did this? (back in 1968 with the great Alan Arkin floundering embarrassingly as Clouseau, although Martin has since succeeded in making Arkin's effort looking great by comparison).
So I hated this film, right? Well, not quite. What many people seem to forget is that while the original "Pink Panther" and its sequel "A Shot in the Dark" contained their share of funny moments, it was not until Sellers and Edwards re-united for "The Return of the Pink Panther" and "The Pink Panther Strikes Again" that the series really hit its stride. It then started downhill with "Revenge of the Pink Panther", "Trail of the Pink Panther" was in suspect taste due to its use of old outtakes after Sellers died (and the appearance of David Niven looking painfully ill with the Parkinson's disease that would kill him shortly after), "Curse of the Pink Panther" was worse and with Roberto Benigni in the spectacularly unfunny "Son of the Pink Panther", the series was truly D.O.A. Although it may sound like damning the new film with faint praise, Steve Martin's version looks like "Citizen Kane" against Benigni's version which did not contain one funny moment in its entire length and which was directed by Blake Edwards (comparing the Martin film with "The Return of the Pink Panther", however, is an entirely different matter). And although Martin and Kline are bad, the film does at least contain a few good pratfalls and sight gags which made me laugh and which would not have disgraced the Sellers films in their heyday (especially the gag with the vase and the antique table, which is very funny). And whatever faults the film does possess, any film with the lovely Emily Mortimer in it cannot be all bad (even with a suspect French accent of her own). If there is a sequel, which other people on here have already said is going to happen in view of the film's surprise success in America, then at least get Emily Mortimer back for it.
Strangely enough it's the supporting players who fare better in this road crash of a film, principally Jean Reno and Emily Mortimer, both of whom play it straight, demonstrating the truism that trying to be funny never works, something that Messrs Martin and Kline could take a lesson from (I wonder what Reno, one of the few authentic French people in the cast, thought of Martin's French accent, which is more pheuny than feunny). Neither does Beyoncé disgrace herself (although giving her such prominent billing on the posters is naughty considering she is not in the film a great deal). As for Clive Owen's uncredited appearance as agent 006, he confirms in my opinion why he would have been the best man to replace Pierce Brosnan as James Bond (although I have high hopes for Daniel Craig but that's another story).
The absolute nadir of the film is the scene in which Martin rails against American culture in general and hamburgers in particular, before biting into one and being instantly converted. Since this is not funny in its own right, is the film trying to say that French people only complain about American culture because they have never experienced it and if they did, they'd be instantly converted? A more crass example of America hyping its own cultural superiority would be hard to find.
So, as I said, this is not a good film. But then the makers were on a hiding to nothing to begin with. Although this has been billed as another instalment in the series rather than a remake of the original, they have tampered with the tried and trusted ingredients of the original that defeats the point of making it in the first place. And they have proved how key the original actors were in making the films work. Although the new film credits Blake Edwards for creating "The Pink Panther", it makes no mention of Peter Sellers whose performance as Clouseau stole the first film from under the nose of its star, David Niven. And when all is said and done, Steve Martin is no Peter Sellers. And Kevin Kline is no Herbert Lom. And why replace Burt Kwouk's Cato with Reno's Gilbert Ponton? Even in this era of political correctness, would today's audience really have been offended by the sight of a Chinese actor engaged in a series of fights with Clouseau? At least Cato was played by a genuine Chinese actor (Kwouk was born in Britain but raised in Shanghai) and not a Western actor in make-up (unlike Mickey Rooney's offensive turn in Edwards' "Breakfast at Tiffanys"). The original actors were part of what made the series so memorable. Did they not learn from the last time they did this? (back in 1968 with the great Alan Arkin floundering embarrassingly as Clouseau, although Martin has since succeeded in making Arkin's effort looking great by comparison).
So I hated this film, right? Well, not quite. What many people seem to forget is that while the original "Pink Panther" and its sequel "A Shot in the Dark" contained their share of funny moments, it was not until Sellers and Edwards re-united for "The Return of the Pink Panther" and "The Pink Panther Strikes Again" that the series really hit its stride. It then started downhill with "Revenge of the Pink Panther", "Trail of the Pink Panther" was in suspect taste due to its use of old outtakes after Sellers died (and the appearance of David Niven looking painfully ill with the Parkinson's disease that would kill him shortly after), "Curse of the Pink Panther" was worse and with Roberto Benigni in the spectacularly unfunny "Son of the Pink Panther", the series was truly D.O.A. Although it may sound like damning the new film with faint praise, Steve Martin's version looks like "Citizen Kane" against Benigni's version which did not contain one funny moment in its entire length and which was directed by Blake Edwards (comparing the Martin film with "The Return of the Pink Panther", however, is an entirely different matter). And although Martin and Kline are bad, the film does at least contain a few good pratfalls and sight gags which made me laugh and which would not have disgraced the Sellers films in their heyday (especially the gag with the vase and the antique table, which is very funny). And whatever faults the film does possess, any film with the lovely Emily Mortimer in it cannot be all bad (even with a suspect French accent of her own). If there is a sequel, which other people on here have already said is going to happen in view of the film's surprise success in America, then at least get Emily Mortimer back for it.
Executive Decision
(1996)
Underrated action thriller that was ahead of its time
28 December 2005
Why "Executive Decision" is not better known is a mystery in itself since it is easily the equal of the other top examples in the action thriller genre such as "Die Hard" and "Speed". Furthermore, since its release in 1996, events have overtaken it so that once what was seen as unlikely Hollywood fiction has taken on a different complexion since the events of 9/11. In fact a film which features a suicide bomber in a restaurant in London and a plot to crash a 747 into Washington D.C. with enough nerve gas to wipe out the Eastern seaboard of the United States would be unlikely to be made today, so closely does it resemble recent current events.
However, this alone is not the only reason for recommending this film from start to finish. The film itself is a class act both in front and behind the camera. There are good performances from the entire cast, including Kurt Russell, Halle Berry, John Leguizamo, B.D. Wong, Joe Morton, Oliver Platt (who never gives a bad performance), David Suchet (refreshingly underplaying his villain in the same way that Alan Rickman did in "Die Hard") and even Steven Seagal rises to the occasion here. Behind the camera, editor Stuart Baird succeeds in his directorial debut in making a tense thriller that relies on suspense rather than being a simple shoot-em-up. Baird is one of the best editors working today and it is a shame that none of his subsequent efforts as director have matched this one. With a great script from Jim and John Thomas (a surprise considering their previous hit, "Predator"), an excellent score from the always brilliant (and sadly missed) Jerry Goldsmith (who manages to excel himself here - no mean feat given the quality of much of his previous work), great editing from Baird, "Die Hard" editor Frank Urioste and Dallas Puett, some classy camera-work from the great British cameraman Alex Thomson and a great 747 set from production designer Terence Marsh, the whole film is an example of what happens when you get a good team of people together and let them do what they do best.
Sadly only the end lets this film down. It is obvious from the very beginning that Kurt Russell will have to fly the plane at the film's end and the sequence in which he has to fly the plane while Halle Berry reads from the manual is silly, further let down by some lame special effects (which is a shame because a majority of the film's effects are excellent). A lesser film might have got away with this but the sequence jars so badly here only because the rest of the film is so good by comparison. Nevertheless this is still a throughly recommended film that deserves to be better known than it is.
However, this alone is not the only reason for recommending this film from start to finish. The film itself is a class act both in front and behind the camera. There are good performances from the entire cast, including Kurt Russell, Halle Berry, John Leguizamo, B.D. Wong, Joe Morton, Oliver Platt (who never gives a bad performance), David Suchet (refreshingly underplaying his villain in the same way that Alan Rickman did in "Die Hard") and even Steven Seagal rises to the occasion here. Behind the camera, editor Stuart Baird succeeds in his directorial debut in making a tense thriller that relies on suspense rather than being a simple shoot-em-up. Baird is one of the best editors working today and it is a shame that none of his subsequent efforts as director have matched this one. With a great script from Jim and John Thomas (a surprise considering their previous hit, "Predator"), an excellent score from the always brilliant (and sadly missed) Jerry Goldsmith (who manages to excel himself here - no mean feat given the quality of much of his previous work), great editing from Baird, "Die Hard" editor Frank Urioste and Dallas Puett, some classy camera-work from the great British cameraman Alex Thomson and a great 747 set from production designer Terence Marsh, the whole film is an example of what happens when you get a good team of people together and let them do what they do best.
Sadly only the end lets this film down. It is obvious from the very beginning that Kurt Russell will have to fly the plane at the film's end and the sequence in which he has to fly the plane while Halle Berry reads from the manual is silly, further let down by some lame special effects (which is a shame because a majority of the film's effects are excellent). A lesser film might have got away with this but the sequence jars so badly here only because the rest of the film is so good by comparison. Nevertheless this is still a throughly recommended film that deserves to be better known than it is.
Wimbledon
(2004)
Or perhaps we should call it "Love all, Actually"
25 September 2004
A lot of people seem to be getting bent out of shape about the number of errors in this film (mostly tennis related despite the presence of Pat Cash as a technical adviser). Why? This is Wimbledon the movie, not Wimbledon the documentary. All I care about is if this film succeeds as entertainment and on that basis, it most assuredly does.
Yes, there are mistakes if you want to look for them (for instance, the lead character drives down the Mall to Trafalgar Square in order to get to the Dorchester in Park Lane, which is in the opposite direction and completely the wrong route to take unless you are going by cab, but conveniently allows the filmmakers to feature Buckingham Palace and Nelson's Column to make sure everybody (i.e. Americans) know we are in London). But since the story centres on a British player winning the men's singles final, this is hardly based in the realm of reality anyway and therefore any further criticism over accuracy is pointless. As it is, to this non-tennis-playing viewer, the tennis scenes seem convincing enough and since the majority of the story is set off-court, I think the film's producers made the right decision in casting actors in the lead roles rather than tennis players.
Paul Bettany adds yet another fine performance to his list of credits (which include a great turn as Geoffrey Chaucer in Brian Helgeland's gloriously anachronistic "A Knight's Tale", "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World", "A Beautiful Mind" and "Gangster No. 1") and Kirsten Dunst is equally up to the task, despite having the harder job as her role is somewhat underwritten and gives her less to work with. Her top billing is for marketing reasons as Bettany's character, Peter Colt, is the main character in this film, not hers but Dunst's name is bigger at the box-office, especially after the "Spider-man" films. Still, the two manage to make their characters likable enough for you to care about them and to want them to win through at the end (plus any film in which Kirsten Dunst's first scene sees her emerging from the shower gets my vote). There are also good supporting performances from Sam Neill, Bernard Hill, Eleanor Bron and James McAvoy which help.
Behind the camera, Richard Loncraine provides some stylish directorial flourishes and thanks to the extremely talented cinematographer Darius Khondji, both London and Brighton have never looked lovelier.
This film is the latest from Tim Bevan and Eric Fellner's Working Title company and adheres closely to the formula which has worked well for them in the past in such films as "Four Weddings and a Funeral", "Notting Hill", "Bridget Jones' Diary" and "Love Actually" and as such should be another smash hit for them which should help make up for the disappointing performance of the much (and unfairly) maligned "Thunderbirds".
Yes, there are mistakes if you want to look for them (for instance, the lead character drives down the Mall to Trafalgar Square in order to get to the Dorchester in Park Lane, which is in the opposite direction and completely the wrong route to take unless you are going by cab, but conveniently allows the filmmakers to feature Buckingham Palace and Nelson's Column to make sure everybody (i.e. Americans) know we are in London). But since the story centres on a British player winning the men's singles final, this is hardly based in the realm of reality anyway and therefore any further criticism over accuracy is pointless. As it is, to this non-tennis-playing viewer, the tennis scenes seem convincing enough and since the majority of the story is set off-court, I think the film's producers made the right decision in casting actors in the lead roles rather than tennis players.
Paul Bettany adds yet another fine performance to his list of credits (which include a great turn as Geoffrey Chaucer in Brian Helgeland's gloriously anachronistic "A Knight's Tale", "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World", "A Beautiful Mind" and "Gangster No. 1") and Kirsten Dunst is equally up to the task, despite having the harder job as her role is somewhat underwritten and gives her less to work with. Her top billing is for marketing reasons as Bettany's character, Peter Colt, is the main character in this film, not hers but Dunst's name is bigger at the box-office, especially after the "Spider-man" films. Still, the two manage to make their characters likable enough for you to care about them and to want them to win through at the end (plus any film in which Kirsten Dunst's first scene sees her emerging from the shower gets my vote). There are also good supporting performances from Sam Neill, Bernard Hill, Eleanor Bron and James McAvoy which help.
Behind the camera, Richard Loncraine provides some stylish directorial flourishes and thanks to the extremely talented cinematographer Darius Khondji, both London and Brighton have never looked lovelier.
This film is the latest from Tim Bevan and Eric Fellner's Working Title company and adheres closely to the formula which has worked well for them in the past in such films as "Four Weddings and a Funeral", "Notting Hill", "Bridget Jones' Diary" and "Love Actually" and as such should be another smash hit for them which should help make up for the disappointing performance of the much (and unfairly) maligned "Thunderbirds".
Billion Dollar Brain
(1967)
The Black Sheep of the Harry Palmer canon
8 September 2004
This film is often seen as the black sheep of the Harry Palmer series of films (apart from the two misguided 90's films which I am still trying to forget). Actually, this film is easily the most entertaining of all three. Whilst I very much enjoyed "The Ipcress File" complete with its lop-sided camera-work and John Barry's great score, "Billion Dollar Brain" is much more inventive, albeit that it moves back towards the James Bond territory and away from the pseudo-realism that Bond producer Harry Saltzman had been striving for with the "Ipcress File". Given the "Cold War" that was going on in the 60's when this film was made, it certainly is unusual that a major Hollywood Studio bankrolled a big budget film in which the Russians are portrayed more sympathetically than the Americans (a stance no doubt influenced by the left-wing playright John McGrath who adapted Len Deighton's book for the screen). It is very unlikely that such a film would be made in today's climate (Warren Beatty's "Reds" is the only other film that springs immediately to mind and that was back in 1981).
Like John McGrath, Ken Russell was a bizarre choice for this film and yet his influence is clearly stamped all over it, especially in the stunning photography by Billy Williams (a Russell regular with "Women in Love" and "The Rainbow" and a later Oscar winner with "Gandhi") and the beautiful score by Richard Rodney Bennett (the use of the ondes martinot is particularly effective). The score and the photography combined help give great character and atmosphere to the chilly Finnish hinterland on evidence here. Syd Cain's art direction is inspired and the Midwinter logo MW is carefully shown in a design meant to look similar to the swastika which the Nazis appropriated in the 1930's. The highlight scene at the end of the film in which Midwinter's army comes to grief on the ice floes of the Baltic in a scene clearly inspired by Sergei Eisenstein's "Alexander Nevsky" is a classic Russell moment and is beautifully shot. Thankfully, in one of Russell's more commercial films, scenes of naked nuns stripping to Stravinsky are noticeably absent.
However, in addition to the talent behind the camera, there is a great deal of talent in front of the camera. Caine gives his customarily excellent performance and is given good support by Karl Malden and Françoise Dorleac (who was never better than she is here and had a great future ahead of her which was tragically cut short by the car accident just after she finished making this film. I think she would have come to be regarded in the way her sister Catherine Deneuve is today). Oscar Homolka reprises his charming performance as Colonel Stok and Ed Begley provides a memorable megalomaniac in his portrayal of General Midwinter. Susan George and Donald Sutherland can be spotted in the background in early supporting roles.
A great film and justly given a Region 2 DVD release at long last.
Like John McGrath, Ken Russell was a bizarre choice for this film and yet his influence is clearly stamped all over it, especially in the stunning photography by Billy Williams (a Russell regular with "Women in Love" and "The Rainbow" and a later Oscar winner with "Gandhi") and the beautiful score by Richard Rodney Bennett (the use of the ondes martinot is particularly effective). The score and the photography combined help give great character and atmosphere to the chilly Finnish hinterland on evidence here. Syd Cain's art direction is inspired and the Midwinter logo MW is carefully shown in a design meant to look similar to the swastika which the Nazis appropriated in the 1930's. The highlight scene at the end of the film in which Midwinter's army comes to grief on the ice floes of the Baltic in a scene clearly inspired by Sergei Eisenstein's "Alexander Nevsky" is a classic Russell moment and is beautifully shot. Thankfully, in one of Russell's more commercial films, scenes of naked nuns stripping to Stravinsky are noticeably absent.
However, in addition to the talent behind the camera, there is a great deal of talent in front of the camera. Caine gives his customarily excellent performance and is given good support by Karl Malden and Françoise Dorleac (who was never better than she is here and had a great future ahead of her which was tragically cut short by the car accident just after she finished making this film. I think she would have come to be regarded in the way her sister Catherine Deneuve is today). Oscar Homolka reprises his charming performance as Colonel Stok and Ed Begley provides a memorable megalomaniac in his portrayal of General Midwinter. Susan George and Donald Sutherland can be spotted in the background in early supporting roles.
A great film and justly given a Region 2 DVD release at long last.
The Bourne Supremacy
(2004)
Ignore the critics - the shaky camera-work is great!!
13 August 2004
Hollywood is finally beginning to discover the knack of making great sequels to great original films, invariably making them even better. This summer we've had "Shrek 2" and "Spiderman 2" to prove this rule and now we have "The Bourne Supremacy".
I went into this hoping that it would be at least as good as "The Bourne Identity" (for my money one of the best films of 2002). I was a bit dubious about the choice of Paul Greengrass for this type of film. I've seen "Theory of Flight", "The Murder of Stephen Lawrence" and "Bloody Sunday" and enjoyed them all, with "The Murder of Stephen Lawrence" being particularly impressive in its use of grainy hand-held camera-work to help suggest that what you were watching was in fact a documentary rather than a drama. But these were serious films with serious themes and Greengrass would have been my last choice for an expensive Hollywood sequel to a blockbusting action film.
Well I'm glad to say I was wrong. Greengrass has managed to improve on Doug Liman's excellent original in almost every way. The fight scenes are well shot and edited in a way I haven't seen since "On Her Majesty's Secret Service". The choice of hand-held camera is very effective here and ably puts across how a fight would seem in real life rather than a static camera watching two people throw punches at each other. If you're caught up in such a fight, it is chaotic and you can't always tell what is happening. The same can be said for the car chases (although I think the car chase has the slight edge in the first film, it is still effectively presented here and is still miles better than most car chases portrayed in films in recent years). Needless to say, I didn't suffer from any motion sickness. Quite the reverse, the camera-work and the editing really pull you into this film.
The acting is good with a great quality cast even in the minor roles (all of which help Matt Damon look even better than than he is - and he is good here). And whilst it may seem to some who have commented here already that Julia Stiles is particularly wasted in such a tiny role and whilst I would have liked to see more of her, at least the character wasn't there solely as a new romantic interest for Matt Damon (which I feared she was shaping up to be). And the scene in which Damon terrorises her with a gun is terrific with Stiles seemingly in genuine terror of what Damon might do to her (a risky scene as Bourne does come across as unsympathetic here). As she usually plays such strong characters, it was a change to see her do something different and do it so well. A great piece of acting from a great actress. She makes every one of her few scenes count and I hope they find a way to bring her back for the inevitable third film ("The Bourne Franchise" perhaps?)
The story itself is a bit convoluted and I'm not sure I fully understood the back story (this is from someone who managed to understand what was going on in the Tom Cruise/Brian De Palma version of "Mission Impossible"). But in truth it doesn't really matter. If you saw the first film then you know that Damon's Jason Bourne is a contract killer working for the CIA who has suffered from amnesia and can't remember most of his past life (even his real name). The actual plot about the Russian mafia is merely what Hitchcock called a "McGuffin", just an excuse to see Bourne framed for something he didn't do and for the CIA to pursue him all over again while Bourne has his own agenda as he struggles to regain his memory.
In a film chock full of great moments, Tony Gilroy's intelligent script leaves the very best scene to the end when Bourne confronts the daughter of a man he has killed to tell her the truth and ask for her forgiveness. This is a scene of great humanity and elevates the film into another dimension entirely, proving that not all Hollywood blockbusters have to be completely brain dead to be successful. It also proves that Matt Damon can be a good actor when given the opportunity, especially since the scene features little dialogue, requiring Damon to act with his face. He is matched in an equally excellent performance from Russian actress Oksana Akinshina in her English debut performance (she was in Lilya 4-ever). In just a few minutes screen time, she manages to make her mark to such an extent that I will never forget the look on her face as she discovers the truth about the death of her parents. Although there is not a single weak link in the acting stakes in this film, her performance is the one I will remember and she deserves to go onto bigger things in the future.
The last great touch to this great film is the welcome reprise of Moby's "Extreme Ways" over the closing credits. Brilliant!!
Bring on the next instalment. Now!!
I went into this hoping that it would be at least as good as "The Bourne Identity" (for my money one of the best films of 2002). I was a bit dubious about the choice of Paul Greengrass for this type of film. I've seen "Theory of Flight", "The Murder of Stephen Lawrence" and "Bloody Sunday" and enjoyed them all, with "The Murder of Stephen Lawrence" being particularly impressive in its use of grainy hand-held camera-work to help suggest that what you were watching was in fact a documentary rather than a drama. But these were serious films with serious themes and Greengrass would have been my last choice for an expensive Hollywood sequel to a blockbusting action film.
Well I'm glad to say I was wrong. Greengrass has managed to improve on Doug Liman's excellent original in almost every way. The fight scenes are well shot and edited in a way I haven't seen since "On Her Majesty's Secret Service". The choice of hand-held camera is very effective here and ably puts across how a fight would seem in real life rather than a static camera watching two people throw punches at each other. If you're caught up in such a fight, it is chaotic and you can't always tell what is happening. The same can be said for the car chases (although I think the car chase has the slight edge in the first film, it is still effectively presented here and is still miles better than most car chases portrayed in films in recent years). Needless to say, I didn't suffer from any motion sickness. Quite the reverse, the camera-work and the editing really pull you into this film.
The acting is good with a great quality cast even in the minor roles (all of which help Matt Damon look even better than than he is - and he is good here). And whilst it may seem to some who have commented here already that Julia Stiles is particularly wasted in such a tiny role and whilst I would have liked to see more of her, at least the character wasn't there solely as a new romantic interest for Matt Damon (which I feared she was shaping up to be). And the scene in which Damon terrorises her with a gun is terrific with Stiles seemingly in genuine terror of what Damon might do to her (a risky scene as Bourne does come across as unsympathetic here). As she usually plays such strong characters, it was a change to see her do something different and do it so well. A great piece of acting from a great actress. She makes every one of her few scenes count and I hope they find a way to bring her back for the inevitable third film ("The Bourne Franchise" perhaps?)
The story itself is a bit convoluted and I'm not sure I fully understood the back story (this is from someone who managed to understand what was going on in the Tom Cruise/Brian De Palma version of "Mission Impossible"). But in truth it doesn't really matter. If you saw the first film then you know that Damon's Jason Bourne is a contract killer working for the CIA who has suffered from amnesia and can't remember most of his past life (even his real name). The actual plot about the Russian mafia is merely what Hitchcock called a "McGuffin", just an excuse to see Bourne framed for something he didn't do and for the CIA to pursue him all over again while Bourne has his own agenda as he struggles to regain his memory.
In a film chock full of great moments, Tony Gilroy's intelligent script leaves the very best scene to the end when Bourne confronts the daughter of a man he has killed to tell her the truth and ask for her forgiveness. This is a scene of great humanity and elevates the film into another dimension entirely, proving that not all Hollywood blockbusters have to be completely brain dead to be successful. It also proves that Matt Damon can be a good actor when given the opportunity, especially since the scene features little dialogue, requiring Damon to act with his face. He is matched in an equally excellent performance from Russian actress Oksana Akinshina in her English debut performance (she was in Lilya 4-ever). In just a few minutes screen time, she manages to make her mark to such an extent that I will never forget the look on her face as she discovers the truth about the death of her parents. Although there is not a single weak link in the acting stakes in this film, her performance is the one I will remember and she deserves to go onto bigger things in the future.
The last great touch to this great film is the welcome reprise of Moby's "Extreme Ways" over the closing credits. Brilliant!!
Bring on the next instalment. Now!!
55 Degrees North
(2004–2005)
Better than I expected
11 August 2004
I had absolutely zero interest in seeing this when it first started. Not another cop show, I thought. Just what the world needs. But I was persuaded to try it by my mother who lent me the first episode on video. And I glad I made the effort to see it. Because this is actually one of the best cop series of recent years. Okay, so it's not "Between the Lines" but that was a series of such brilliance that it would be a miracle if the BBC managed to produce a series like that again, especially given the current obsession with reality shows.
Don Gilet, an actor I've been unfamiliar with hitherto, makes Nicky Cole an engaging and sympathetic hero and the inevitable racism he faces is not ladled on with a trowel as I feared it might. You know it's there but it's not always an issue. Contrary to some of the comments made by others on here, although Cole is perhaps too good to be true, he isn't infallible. He makes mistakes and doesn't always manage to wrap up the story neatly in 60 minutes. Something which makes a refreshing change. The plots hold the attention and the grandfather/son dynamic adds an interesting dimension as well.
It's certainly not perfect by any means though (why is Cole's rank just plain Detective? Surely that's an Americanism. It should be something like Detective Sergeant or Detective Inspector or something. And why the reference to John Doe and Jane Doe instead of IC1 or IC3 or something - another Americanism). Most unforgivable of all though is the waste of Dervla Kerwan. I assume that the intention, as others here have already said, is that Cole and Dervla Kerwan's character are supposed to get together at some point in the future, thus providing some good old UST (Unresolved Sexual Tension). But it isn't working people. Kerwan is a good actress but the role is grievously underwritten and the net result is that you don't care about the character at all (Kerwan should sue her agent for persuading her to take such a nothing part - it does absolutely nothing for her). Personally, I'd like to see Cole get it together with Sgt Brookes (Emma Cleasby). For a supposed supporting role, it seems that Cleasby gets more screen time than Kerwan (either that or she manages to make a bigger impact with what she has been given). Certainly, the few scenes between her and Don Gilet sizzle with the sort of UST that I suspect the producers were hoping would happen with Kerwan's character. This is the relationship I would like to see developed further in the next series (if there is one).
So if there is going to be a series 2 (and I hope there will be), then here's my advice to the BBC. Save your money, get rid of the Kerwan character (who's name I can't even remember, which gives you an idea of the little impact it has made on me) and promote Brookes to be the main female character before Emma Cleasby gets snapped up by Hollywood like Catherine Zeta-Jones and Minnie Driver before her. Because on the strength of the talent she shows here, trust me people, one day it's gonna happen.
Don Gilet, an actor I've been unfamiliar with hitherto, makes Nicky Cole an engaging and sympathetic hero and the inevitable racism he faces is not ladled on with a trowel as I feared it might. You know it's there but it's not always an issue. Contrary to some of the comments made by others on here, although Cole is perhaps too good to be true, he isn't infallible. He makes mistakes and doesn't always manage to wrap up the story neatly in 60 minutes. Something which makes a refreshing change. The plots hold the attention and the grandfather/son dynamic adds an interesting dimension as well.
It's certainly not perfect by any means though (why is Cole's rank just plain Detective? Surely that's an Americanism. It should be something like Detective Sergeant or Detective Inspector or something. And why the reference to John Doe and Jane Doe instead of IC1 or IC3 or something - another Americanism). Most unforgivable of all though is the waste of Dervla Kerwan. I assume that the intention, as others here have already said, is that Cole and Dervla Kerwan's character are supposed to get together at some point in the future, thus providing some good old UST (Unresolved Sexual Tension). But it isn't working people. Kerwan is a good actress but the role is grievously underwritten and the net result is that you don't care about the character at all (Kerwan should sue her agent for persuading her to take such a nothing part - it does absolutely nothing for her). Personally, I'd like to see Cole get it together with Sgt Brookes (Emma Cleasby). For a supposed supporting role, it seems that Cleasby gets more screen time than Kerwan (either that or she manages to make a bigger impact with what she has been given). Certainly, the few scenes between her and Don Gilet sizzle with the sort of UST that I suspect the producers were hoping would happen with Kerwan's character. This is the relationship I would like to see developed further in the next series (if there is one).
So if there is going to be a series 2 (and I hope there will be), then here's my advice to the BBC. Save your money, get rid of the Kerwan character (who's name I can't even remember, which gives you an idea of the little impact it has made on me) and promote Brookes to be the main female character before Emma Cleasby gets snapped up by Hollywood like Catherine Zeta-Jones and Minnie Driver before her. Because on the strength of the talent she shows here, trust me people, one day it's gonna happen.
55 Degrees North
(2004–2005)
Much better than I expected
10 August 2004
I didn't even bother to watch this when it first started. Not another cop show, I thought. Just what the world needs. But after my mother said she'd seen it and said it was good, I thought I'd give it a try. Thankfully they don't make such a big deal of the racism issue although you know it is there. And whilst I agree that Nicky Cole is perhaps somewhat too good to be true, he isn't flawless. He makes mistakes and although he means well, he doesn't always manage to do the right thing. The one area where the series does fall down is the development of the Dervla Kerwan character, who is given too little to do. Perhaps the possibility of a relationship between her character and Don Gilet's was too obvious and a cliché as someone has already mentioned. Frankly, they could get rid of her character and it would make no difference to the show at all, so little impact she has made. This is no reflection on Dervla Kerwan, who is a good actress but she should get rid of her agent for making her take the part as it does nothing for her, especially as she is wiped off screen by Emma Cleasby's Sgt Brookes who is a much more vibrant character and is given probably more screen time to boot. Cleasby makes a great impact here and should be promoted to the leading female role next time round as she and Gilet have much better chemistry together.
Thunderbirds
(2004)
Not bad if you forget the original
29 July 2004
As a fan of the original series since my childhood, I approached this film with some trepidation (especially after all the reports of how it had been updated). Perhaps with such low expectations, I have to say that I found the finished product better than I expected. Okay, that might not be saying much, but it still could have been much much worse.
Obviously to enjoy this film, you have to forget the original entirely. Otherwise, you will spend the whole film asking lots of awkward questions. Like why do most of the Tracy brothers spend most of the film marooned in space? Why are Alan and Lady Penelope so much younger? Why has the Hood acquired some incompetent sidekicks (hoodlums??)? Why does Kyrano look like Oddjob's older brother? And so on.
But!!!! If you can forget that the original series ever existed and that this is an original film, then it is quite enjoyable in a Spy Kids sort of way (although the way everyone refers to the team as the Thunderbirds rather than International Rescue still rankles).
The special effects are pretty good (shots of Thunderbird 3 taking off into space are great), Brendan Galvin's photography is appropriately colourful and production designer John Beard's re-imagining of the Thunderbird craft are appropriately respectful to the original. The slightly jazzed up version of Barry Gray's theme tune over the main title was a nice touch even though the rest of Hans Zimmer's score is forgettable.
The three leading young actors do what's required and are all not bad. Ben Kingsley makes a great Hood and is a great casting choice. Anthony Edwards is better than he had any right to be in what seemed bizarre casting as Brains (the scene where he does a puppet walk while under the Hood's control is hilarious - along with the Hood's comment "Like a puppet on a string"). Ron Cook is great as Parker in what seemed another strange casting choice (I'd have gone for Bob Hoskins). Sadly Bill Paxton as Jeff Tracy is miscast and the remaining Tracy brothers have little chance to make an impact. But the star of this film is Sophia Myles as Lady Penelope. Even though she is much too young compared to the original (my choice would have been Joanna Lumley), this is a truly star making performance and if you see this film, I promise you, this is the one person who you will remember (not least of which because she looks completely gorgeous). The combination of the cut glass English accent and such understated lines as "otherwise I shall get very cross" or "Let's give them a thrashing" is brilliant and if there is a sequel, there should definitely be more Lady Penelope (if they can afford Sophia Myles' fee by then - unless they have had the sense to sign her to any sequels already).
As for the previous poster who found Transom strangely attractive, you're not alone. But then poor old Rose Keegan was saddled with a pair of hideous buck teeth (which are not hers, I hasten to add, as she is much more attractive in real life) and a rather bizarre costume (she should change her agent) but despite all that still manages to shine. That's star quality for you and she deserves a bigger role in the sequel (if there one). Hers is another name you will hear more of in the future (she was in "Hearts and Bones" on the BBC and once went out with Chris Noth from "Sex in the City").
Obviously to enjoy this film, you have to forget the original entirely. Otherwise, you will spend the whole film asking lots of awkward questions. Like why do most of the Tracy brothers spend most of the film marooned in space? Why are Alan and Lady Penelope so much younger? Why has the Hood acquired some incompetent sidekicks (hoodlums??)? Why does Kyrano look like Oddjob's older brother? And so on.
But!!!! If you can forget that the original series ever existed and that this is an original film, then it is quite enjoyable in a Spy Kids sort of way (although the way everyone refers to the team as the Thunderbirds rather than International Rescue still rankles).
The special effects are pretty good (shots of Thunderbird 3 taking off into space are great), Brendan Galvin's photography is appropriately colourful and production designer John Beard's re-imagining of the Thunderbird craft are appropriately respectful to the original. The slightly jazzed up version of Barry Gray's theme tune over the main title was a nice touch even though the rest of Hans Zimmer's score is forgettable.
The three leading young actors do what's required and are all not bad. Ben Kingsley makes a great Hood and is a great casting choice. Anthony Edwards is better than he had any right to be in what seemed bizarre casting as Brains (the scene where he does a puppet walk while under the Hood's control is hilarious - along with the Hood's comment "Like a puppet on a string"). Ron Cook is great as Parker in what seemed another strange casting choice (I'd have gone for Bob Hoskins). Sadly Bill Paxton as Jeff Tracy is miscast and the remaining Tracy brothers have little chance to make an impact. But the star of this film is Sophia Myles as Lady Penelope. Even though she is much too young compared to the original (my choice would have been Joanna Lumley), this is a truly star making performance and if you see this film, I promise you, this is the one person who you will remember (not least of which because she looks completely gorgeous). The combination of the cut glass English accent and such understated lines as "otherwise I shall get very cross" or "Let's give them a thrashing" is brilliant and if there is a sequel, there should definitely be more Lady Penelope (if they can afford Sophia Myles' fee by then - unless they have had the sense to sign her to any sequels already).
As for the previous poster who found Transom strangely attractive, you're not alone. But then poor old Rose Keegan was saddled with a pair of hideous buck teeth (which are not hers, I hasten to add, as she is much more attractive in real life) and a rather bizarre costume (she should change her agent) but despite all that still manages to shine. That's star quality for you and she deserves a bigger role in the sequel (if there one). Hers is another name you will hear more of in the future (she was in "Hearts and Bones" on the BBC and once went out with Chris Noth from "Sex in the City").
Boy does this suck!!!
21 March 2004
I was lucky to get a free preview ticket for this ahead of its official U.K. release. Lucky in that I didn't have to pay to see this film. Because it sucks big time. We are talking hungry anteaters here, people. This film should have been called "Cody Banks Franchise: Destination Oblivion". And this is someone who thoroughly enjoyed the original film. But everything that that film got right, this one manages to get wrong. The great joke in the original film where a teenage secret agent has to get close to a professor's daughter but proves to be completely clueless around women has been junked here and all we are left with is the standard teenage secret agent story. That wouldn't matter so much if we had a great story and great characters but we don't.
Setting it in London would have been a great idea if they had bothered to look beyond the standard cliché English eccentric characters but they don't. This is lazy writing of the highest order (yes, Don Rhymer, I mean you) and throws away every opportunity the setting gives for the story. Why not some cultural misunderstanding between Cody and the English, for instance? Or their disbelief that he is a secret agent. I know this isn't supposed to be taken seriously but this could have been a lot funnier than it is. Instead we get the typical English eccentrics so beloved of Hollywood.
Still, I must confess that the revelation during the concert at Buckingham Palace at the film's finale that Tony Blair is under mind control from an evil mastermind did make me laugh, even though it takes the film dangerously close to realism, something that doesn't occur again throughout the rest of the film (the Blair look-a-like (and sound-a-like) is great though - give that man a medal. For a minute, I was thinking it was the real thing. After his appearance in "The Simpsons", I was beginning to think that maybe Blair was starting to line up a new career for himself for when he gets kicked out of Downing Street).
And if I say that the only person not to disgrace themselves in this film is Hannah Spearritt, then you may some clue about how bad the performances are. Paul Kaye (a.k.a. Dennis Pennis) gives a career-truncating performance as an eccentric Q-type character while Anna Chancellor gets stuck with another posh English woman role after her turn in "What a Girl Wants" (What has this poor woman done to upset her agent? That's what I want to know), Anthony Anderson manages to make his previous performance in "Kangaroo Jack" look a masterpiece of subtlety by comparison and David Kelly is embarrassing as an eccentric butler (a shame as he's usually quite good, as anyone who's seen "Waking Ned" will testify). As for Hannah Spearritt, she makes an appealing easy on-the-eye replacement for Hilary Duff and isn't half bad as the flautist/covert agent, especially given the paucity of the material she was to work with. Given a decent script, she might find herself a career outside of S-Club 7 but after this and the S-Club 7 movie "Seeing Double", like Anna Chancellor, she needs to get herself a new agent first (perhaps she shares the same one as Anna Chancellor). To think this travesty was directed by an Englishman (Kevin Allen) defies belief (what was he thinking of? The pay cheque?). Avoid (like the plague), I beg you!!!
Setting it in London would have been a great idea if they had bothered to look beyond the standard cliché English eccentric characters but they don't. This is lazy writing of the highest order (yes, Don Rhymer, I mean you) and throws away every opportunity the setting gives for the story. Why not some cultural misunderstanding between Cody and the English, for instance? Or their disbelief that he is a secret agent. I know this isn't supposed to be taken seriously but this could have been a lot funnier than it is. Instead we get the typical English eccentrics so beloved of Hollywood.
Still, I must confess that the revelation during the concert at Buckingham Palace at the film's finale that Tony Blair is under mind control from an evil mastermind did make me laugh, even though it takes the film dangerously close to realism, something that doesn't occur again throughout the rest of the film (the Blair look-a-like (and sound-a-like) is great though - give that man a medal. For a minute, I was thinking it was the real thing. After his appearance in "The Simpsons", I was beginning to think that maybe Blair was starting to line up a new career for himself for when he gets kicked out of Downing Street).
And if I say that the only person not to disgrace themselves in this film is Hannah Spearritt, then you may some clue about how bad the performances are. Paul Kaye (a.k.a. Dennis Pennis) gives a career-truncating performance as an eccentric Q-type character while Anna Chancellor gets stuck with another posh English woman role after her turn in "What a Girl Wants" (What has this poor woman done to upset her agent? That's what I want to know), Anthony Anderson manages to make his previous performance in "Kangaroo Jack" look a masterpiece of subtlety by comparison and David Kelly is embarrassing as an eccentric butler (a shame as he's usually quite good, as anyone who's seen "Waking Ned" will testify). As for Hannah Spearritt, she makes an appealing easy on-the-eye replacement for Hilary Duff and isn't half bad as the flautist/covert agent, especially given the paucity of the material she was to work with. Given a decent script, she might find herself a career outside of S-Club 7 but after this and the S-Club 7 movie "Seeing Double", like Anna Chancellor, she needs to get herself a new agent first (perhaps she shares the same one as Anna Chancellor). To think this travesty was directed by an Englishman (Kevin Allen) defies belief (what was he thinking of? The pay cheque?). Avoid (like the plague), I beg you!!!
Hannibal Brooks
(1969)
Michael Winner is another Orson Welles!!
14 March 2004
That got your attention, didn't it? The words "Michael Winner" and "Orson Welles" in the same sentence. And I don't just mean because of their fondness for wine and good food. No, the fact is, that like, Orson Welles, Michael Winner made all his best films at the start of his career ("The Jokers", "The Games" and this film). After the first "Death Wish", he was starting to go downhill professionally (although "A Chorus of Disapproval" was not bad). If you see any of his most recent films, you'll find it hard to believe that this was the same man that made such a class act as "Hannibal Brooks" back in 1968. In fact, his films don't get released any more, they escape. "Dirty Weekend" is a case in point, executed so crassly and seemingly assembled by some clueless chimp who has no idea about film-making.
Anyway, back to "Hannibal Brooks" and the days when Winner made films for the family that didn't involve women being raped and tortured. The story of a British P.O.W. in 1944 helping to lead an elephant over the Alps to freedom in Switzerland was devised by Winner and former P.O.W. Tom Wright and blessed by a great script full of quotable lines by "Likely Lads" Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais. Reed is great, although the film is stolen by Michael J. Pollard, who has never been better than he is in this film. With great picture postcard photography of Austria (by Robert Paynter) and a terrific score by "Love Story" composer Francis Lai, this is great entertainment and deserves a DVD release now.
Anyway, back to "Hannibal Brooks" and the days when Winner made films for the family that didn't involve women being raped and tortured. The story of a British P.O.W. in 1944 helping to lead an elephant over the Alps to freedom in Switzerland was devised by Winner and former P.O.W. Tom Wright and blessed by a great script full of quotable lines by "Likely Lads" Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais. Reed is great, although the film is stolen by Michael J. Pollard, who has never been better than he is in this film. With great picture postcard photography of Austria (by Robert Paynter) and a terrific score by "Love Story" composer Francis Lai, this is great entertainment and deserves a DVD release now.
Casualties of War
(1989)
Michael J. Fox's finest hour!!! (and one of DePalma's best too)
25 January 2004
This stunning film is unquestionably Michael J. Fox's finest hour and proved there was more to him than Marty McFly. His scene with the chaplain when he tells him that he had helped kidnap the Vietnamese girl from the village and stood by while his comrades raped her is especially heartbreaking. Sean Penn, always a great actor, provides another good performance here as the sneering Meserve, instigator of the rape. The film's other "star" is former model Thuy Thu Le, who without the benefit of any dialogue manages to convey the horror and anguish of the situation she is in and in fact the film would be that much less effective without it. With Brian DePalma still at the height of his powers here (this probably being one of the very best films he has ever done, ranking alongside "The Untouchables", "Blow Out", "Carlito's Way" and "Obsession", and just before the debacle that was "The Bonfire of the Vanities"), this is also arguably the best Vietnam film ever made (definitely better than the overrated "Deer Hunter" and "Platoon" and certainly the equal of "Apocalypse Now"), certainly the most moving. Ennio Morricone's grand sweeping score (complete with pan pipes) is also a big contributor to the film's emotional heart. With early roles for Ving Rhames, John Leguizamo and John C. Reilly and the customary excellent photography from DePalma regular Stephen Burum, this is a film not to be missed!!
Murder by Decree
(1979)
This is the definitive Jack the Ripper Movie
30 December 2003
I am surprised at some of the negative comments already posted about this film. Whilst the more recent Hughes Brothers film 'From Hell' (based on Alan Moore's graphic novel) has covered the same ground with the real-life Inspector Abberline taking centre stage, ironically it is this earlier version featuring the fictional Sherlock Holmes that is the real deal.
Irrespective of whether you believe this to be the 'solution' to the Ripper mystery (based on Stephen Knight's book 'The Final Solution'), this film is the best version of the Ripper story to date in covering most of the established facts as well as setting the story in the context of the concern in Victorian England at the time with the rise of the Radicals. This is down to the intelligent screenplay by John Hopkins (whose script for Sidney Lumet's 'The Offence' was one of Sean Connery's best films) who cleverly makes sure that every scene conveys at least one piece of information to help set the story in its proper context.
If that isn't enough, this film also possesses a wonderful eerie atmosphere by the bucketloads thanks to Harry Pottle's sets, Judy Moorcroft's costumes, Carl Zittrer and Paul Zaza's music and Reg Morris's photography (especially the distorted wide angle shots portraying the first person view of the Ripper). Of course anyone who has seen Bob Clark's earlier 'Black Christmas' will recognise the same directorial flourishes which Clark uses here. It is hard to believe that Clark's later career was marked by such films as 'Porky's' and its ilk as he shows such a great touch here that he should have continued to make films like this rather than the teen comedies which he is best known for. The sense of unease which the music and the camera-work in particular bring to this film is seldom seen elsewhere (the aforementioned 'Black Christmas' and Bernard Rose's 'Candyman' are the only examples that come to mind that I am aware of) which make for genuinely uncomfortable viewing.
If it wasn't for Jeremy Brett and Edward Hardwicke's great television portrayal of Holmes and Watson, I would argue that Christopher Plummer and James Mason also manage to create the definitive portrayal of the great detective and his trusty assistant. Certainly theirs is the best film portrayal (although I retain a great fondness for Robert Stephens and Colin Blakely in Billy Wilder's 'The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes' which is a slightly more comic tale). Mason in particular avoids the trap of making Watson the cretinous sidekick which certain other versions have essayed (particular the Basil Rathbone versions which I can't believe are regarded as definitive by so many people). The warm friendship between the two is a particular highlight of this version.
Praise be to Anchor Bay who have released the Region 1 DVD of this great film with a 124 minute version which seems to feature extended scenes which I have not seen previously.
Don't listen to the detractors. This is a truly great film which I doubt will ever be surpassed in its portrayal of the Jack the Ripper murders or as a Sherlock Holmes mystery.
Irrespective of whether you believe this to be the 'solution' to the Ripper mystery (based on Stephen Knight's book 'The Final Solution'), this film is the best version of the Ripper story to date in covering most of the established facts as well as setting the story in the context of the concern in Victorian England at the time with the rise of the Radicals. This is down to the intelligent screenplay by John Hopkins (whose script for Sidney Lumet's 'The Offence' was one of Sean Connery's best films) who cleverly makes sure that every scene conveys at least one piece of information to help set the story in its proper context.
If that isn't enough, this film also possesses a wonderful eerie atmosphere by the bucketloads thanks to Harry Pottle's sets, Judy Moorcroft's costumes, Carl Zittrer and Paul Zaza's music and Reg Morris's photography (especially the distorted wide angle shots portraying the first person view of the Ripper). Of course anyone who has seen Bob Clark's earlier 'Black Christmas' will recognise the same directorial flourishes which Clark uses here. It is hard to believe that Clark's later career was marked by such films as 'Porky's' and its ilk as he shows such a great touch here that he should have continued to make films like this rather than the teen comedies which he is best known for. The sense of unease which the music and the camera-work in particular bring to this film is seldom seen elsewhere (the aforementioned 'Black Christmas' and Bernard Rose's 'Candyman' are the only examples that come to mind that I am aware of) which make for genuinely uncomfortable viewing.
If it wasn't for Jeremy Brett and Edward Hardwicke's great television portrayal of Holmes and Watson, I would argue that Christopher Plummer and James Mason also manage to create the definitive portrayal of the great detective and his trusty assistant. Certainly theirs is the best film portrayal (although I retain a great fondness for Robert Stephens and Colin Blakely in Billy Wilder's 'The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes' which is a slightly more comic tale). Mason in particular avoids the trap of making Watson the cretinous sidekick which certain other versions have essayed (particular the Basil Rathbone versions which I can't believe are regarded as definitive by so many people). The warm friendship between the two is a particular highlight of this version.
Praise be to Anchor Bay who have released the Region 1 DVD of this great film with a 124 minute version which seems to feature extended scenes which I have not seen previously.
Don't listen to the detractors. This is a truly great film which I doubt will ever be surpassed in its portrayal of the Jack the Ripper murders or as a Sherlock Holmes mystery.
Tell Your Friends