hitchs Reviews

Jason and the Argonauts (1963)

Harryhausen's Masterpiece - no question mark

[8/10 · 5 August 2016]

Okay, you simply can't rate it by 21st century standards - that would make no sense. Okay, it has a cheeky, cheesy quality that would look bad in today's films, but that's part of its magic. I must have seen thousands of movies since that glorious today in 1963 (or was it 1964, I wasn't into dates at that age) and I've probably forgotten at least ninety-five percent of them, but this one is burned into my memory.

Obviously, Ray Harryhausen is the one reason for its greatness. I'm so glad the DVD came with an interview with the great man. This is one of those films that launched a thousand imitations, but none of them could touch it.

God's Not Dead 2 (2016)

Must be the most disputed movie of all time

[8/10 · 10 May 2016]

I had mixed feelings about the movie, but I have decided to go with an 8 because it is really good once it gets going, and also because of the large number of people who "reviewed" the film without saying anything at all about it. The direction and production values generally are quite strong for an indie film, and the main actors do a very good job. Melissa Joan Hart (playing against her best-known type) and Jesse Metcalfe are excellent in the lead roles, though I think Ernie Hudson was the stand-out performer.

I am not qualified to judge the truthfulness of the accusations at the heart of the film, but they seem to be on par with other anti-Christian judgments that have made it into the news.

As an aside, I think it is very sad when people use a review column to download their own gripes about issues, especially when the issues are extraneous to the film.

Something Wicked This Way Comes (1983)

Should have been a much better film

[6/10 · 12 February 2016]

Bradbury's Something Wicked This Way Comes is a classic, and possibly his best work. This film should have been a great success, with a good cast, and especially with Bradbury himself writing the script from his own novel, but alas, it was not.

Several reviewers have suggested that it should be remade with modern special effects. This may be a good idea, but the effects were generally pretty good for the early '80's, and in my opinion the major problem lies elsewhere.

Ultimately, this is a suspense film with very little suspense. This is particularly obvious in the climactic scenes in the library, which should have dripped with suspense, but actually felt flat. Which presumably points to the director and perhaps the editors.

This is surprising, as Jack Clayton had a fairly high reputation and made some very good movies, but perhaps he was just no good in the suspense genre.

Whatever the reason, this was a reasonably good movie which should have been much better.

Kuru: The Science and the Sorcery (2010)

A brilliant and horrifying depiction of a hideous disease

[9/10 · 28 May 2013]

I find it incredible that such a marvellous documentary should have such an absurdly low rating. Kuru: The Science and the Sorcery is at once a great piece of anthropological documentary, an exciting medical detective story, and a shocking and extremely moving piece of human tragedy. It is difficult to see how it could have been better made. It is also an important piece of medical speculation, given the relevance of the discoveries about kuru to the ongoing problems prompted by the British Government's shocking mismanagement of the "mad cow disease" epidemic and the very real risk that new victims of that sorry incident will continue to come to light.

The "review" by Mr Zigas is very scornful of the fact that his father's work was ignored by the film-makers. I can understand Mr Zigas feeling so hurt by their failure to even mention the doctor's work, but it is usual for documentary producers, working on a limited budget and limited run-time, to cut out anything not directly relevant to their main theme, which in this case was the work of Professor Alpers. It certainly does not imply that they were intending to slight Dr Zigas. It is a great pity that Mr Zigas himself says almost nothing about his father's work and how much he discovered, so the significance of his complaints is difficult to gauge. It is interesting to note that Professor Alpers gave considerable credit to Dr Zigas in his published article "The epidemiology of kuru", so it is most unlikely that he is to blame for the omission.

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)

This movie has not aged well

[6/10 · 2 January 2007]

Watching Temple of Doom again after all these years was probably not a good idea. Apart from the final chase sequence, which is brilliant, I am not quite sure what I saw in this movie in the first place. It starts with a ridiculously over-the-top and quite illogical sequence set in Shanghai, aka Macau (why would a gangster bother to offer Indy a genuine poison antidote when he has no intention of giving it to him? For that matter, if he finds Indy so useful as a supplier of valuable artifacts, why kill him?), followed by one of the most absurd Hollywood clichés ever, when a plane with an empty fuel tank hits a wall and bursts into flame.

After that, it doesn't get much better, with many more clichés and the excruciatingly bad performance by Kate Capshaw (though, to be fair to her, who could possibly perform well with such appalling lines?) Then the grotesque absurdity of a man pulling out another man's heart with his bare hand (apparently without encountering a ribcage on the way) and the heartless victim continuing to scream for a couple of minutes before being lowered into a cliché burning pit.

The only reason I kept watching was knowing that the chase sequence was coming up - and even that wasn't as good as I remembered.

Bruiser (2000)

Has Romero really fallen this far?

[1/10 · 6 October 2005]

This has to be one of the worst movies ever made; I know that's a cliché, but I can't remember a more pointless, stupid film than this. The story is just dumb. The dialogue is appalling. The direction is, at best, erratic. The only notable performance is Peter Stormare's, and that is only memorable because it is so absurdly over-the-top. Any possible credibility the movie would have had went out the window when we were expected to believe that a magazine could be even published, let alone successful, with this idiot in charge. The Living Dead movies are horror classics because they show originality, intelligence and directorial flair, as well as being genuinely scary - all qualities that are conspicuously absent from Bruiser.

Mother Teresa (2003 TV Movie)

Could have been so much better

[8/10 · 30 April 2005]

Making a film about a religious figure is a perilous enterprise, particularly if the person involved is still alive or recently dead, and even more so when she is one of the outstanding personalities of the twentieth century.

Happily this movie has managed to steer very effectively between the opposing dangers of cynicism and over-the-top enthusiasm which are the hallmarks of most religious movies. They have stuck very firmly to the facts, while allowing the personality of Mother Teresa to shine through, effectively revealing her powerful faith, her amazing strength, her heroic charity and self-sacrifice, but also her moments of doubt, weakness and vulnerability.

There are few really great religious movies. This could have been one of them.

The production is superb, the direction and the acting excellent, and Olivia Hussey does a magnificent job in a very difficult role. What spoils it is the structure: a series of excellent parts which do not really make a very coherent whole. The producers have tried to do too much, to include too many incidents, and as a result the storyline is sadly lacking in continuity.

I see from the IMDb notes that the Italian running time is 180 minutes, almost 40% longer than the English language version. Perhaps the problem lies with the editing, and the longer version does a much better job. All I can say is that they should have opted for doing some bits of Mother Teresa's story extremely well rather than attempting the whole thing and botching it.

We Were Soldiers (2002)

One of the best war films ever.

[9/10 · 8 July 2004]

I find it hard to believe the incredible amount of hostility to this movie and the many criticisms of it, most of which are either absurdly nit-picking or just plain false.

It is easy to say, with the benefit of hindsight, that America's whole involvement in Vietnam was a huge mistake, but the victory of the North caused a tremendous amount of suffering, unhappiness and loss of freedom, and still does. I'm not going to comment on the politics or history of the war, because obviously a lot of other people know much more about these issues than I do. But as a piece of cinema, and as a comment on war in general, the film is superb.

Certainly the battle scenes were some of the most gruesome ever filmed. Perhaps they were over the top, but surely they are more true than the old movies where everybody died cleanly, with a minimum of pain, and frequently had time to speak their last will and testament before they signed out by closing their eyes.

What I loved was the human dimension. Some critics have complained about the depiction of men having babies just before they go to war and get killed, but the fact is that it happened. After all, these were young men, many of them were married, and it was the time of the baby boom. I loved the intercutting between the battle field and the women back home. Sure it was excessively emotional, but if you can't get emotional about the waste of lives in war, then I think you have a serious problem. It was also great to see them humanise the enemy, particularly in the bit about the man who was killed after writing a letter to his wife or girlfriend. Is this racist? Don't be absurd.

Is it propaganda? Well, it seems that if you disagree with the views expressed in a book or film, it is propaganda, while if you agree, it is honest, probing, important, etc. I certainly didn't agree with all the opinions expressed in We Were Soldiers. I think the policy of sending men to their deaths in order to bring back the bodies of those already dead is insanity, and I don't believe the use of napalm is ever justified. But this movie is not in any sense propaganda. It is possibly unrealistic in the sense that it is dramatised, not documentary, but it is a very honest portrayal of real men and women trying to cope with a real, ghastly situation.

The Passion of the Christ (2004)

It's all there

[10/10 · 28 February 2004]

It is almost amusing to see the attempts to find the hidden subtexts, devious pretexts, cynical motives and religious-political machinations behind this movie, when there has never been a film so transparently open about what it is attempting to do. The key lies in the opening quote from Isaiah: `He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities.' The motive, the passion behind The Passion, is the traditional Christian intent to help people appreciate what Jesus suffered for them and to lead them to repentance for the transgressions and iniquities that made the passion necessary.

To speak of this as the definitive portrayal of the redemption of mankind would probably be to undervalue the massive qualitative difference between this and every previous attempt to depict the life of Christ. Speaking as a believer, I cannot hope to appreciate its impact on unbelievers; I can only speak of its profoundly moving effect on me and on those who saw it with me. It is, both in watching and in retrospect, the most emotionally powerful film I have ever seen.

Some parts of the movie may possibly have been a little overdone – there is actually no way of knowing for sure – but the most-criticised aspect, the scourging, appears to be absolutely true to life. The shroud of Turin, for example, shows blood traces from at least 50 separate strokes of the lash, and there would probably have been many other strokes which did not draw blood. It really was that bad. (And for those who choose to believe that the carbon 14 tests reveal the shroud as a 14th century fake, please try to explain the following: how could a 14th artist manage to create a technology so advanced that every attempt to reproduce it has failed miserably and even 21st century science cannot work out how it was done, a technology so sophisticated that, unlike every picture ever painted, it can produce 3-dimensional images on a computerised image analyser? and why, having invented this unbelievable technology, would the artist use it only once, anonymously, to create an image which would not be properly appreciated until the invention of photography five hundred years in the future?)

As for the absurd accusations of anti-Semitism, there is far more anti-German sentiment in the average World War II movie than anti-Jewish in this one. The script makes a point of showing that Jesus himself did not hold the Jewish leaders totally responsible for what they were doing, and Mel Gibson showed graphically that he held himself personally responsible for the crucifixion by wielding the hammer that smashed the nails into Christ's hands.

The Time Guardian (1987)

Incredibly disappointing

[2/10 · 18 July 2003]

John Baxter is an absolutely brilliant short story writer and apparently a life-long student of films, so I was very interested to see what his only screenplay was like. I simply could not believe that he came up with such a piece of total crap. There is nothing to recommend in this film.

Under Suspicion (2000)

Good movie, worst ending ever

[22 February 2003]

I notice that the credits list two screenwriters, one of whom (W. Peter Iliff) did the script for Patriot Games, while the other seems to have done nothing else worthy of note. So it is tempting to think that the producers employed a good screenwriter for the bulk of the script and a total moron to write the ending. Not that I think it really happened that way, but how else can you explain it? Not having seen the original movie or the book on which this film was based, I don't know how much blame the present writers should take.

Most of the movie is really good. Ignore those who talk about poor acting and direction. The direction is a bit quirky, but it is certainly competent. The concept of the movie is very restricting, as almost all the action takes place in two adjacent rooms, a technique that is perhaps better suited to the stage than to the screen, so I think the director's decision to place the actors in scenes as they discuss them, while rather confusing at first, helps to relieve the pressure on the audience. And the main actors: Gene Hackman does a very sleazy job of playing a very sleazy character, and Morgan Freeman is always good - his worst performance is better than most actors' best.

At one stage the Gene Hackman character refers to being unwrapped like an onion, and that is exactly what the movie is: one character unwrapping another to reveal the core of emptiness within. As a piece of psychological detective work, it is excellent.

But the ending. I have seen plenty of movies with bad endings: endings that reveal nothing, go nowhere, make no sense, even detract from the rest of the movie. But this is the first time I've seen an ending that absolutely makes a mockery of everything that has happened before and makes the whole thing seem pointless.

I'd like to be able to recommend this movie - but I can't.

Reckless Kelly (1993)

Embarrassing

[2/10 · 7 October 2002]

This was so bad I felt embarrassed watching it. Young Einstein looked very amateurish, but Serious seems to have regressed a long way since then. The jokes are exactly what you would expect from a teenager's home movie. What is Hugo Weaving doing in a film like this?

Red Planet (2000)

Reaches unmatched depths of inaccuracy

[2/10 · 20 July 2002]

Red Planet seems to be based on the premise that it's science fiction, so we don't need any science facts. I've seen some pretty stupid sf movies before, but this one outdoes them all. Did the producers deliberately try to make it as scientifically inaccurate as possible, or did they just not try at all? I mean, we're not dealing with difficult concepts here. They only had to pick up a basic biology textbook to find that the bases in DNA are A,T,C and G. Any sort of dictionary would have shown how totally absurd the label "nematode" is for the arthropod-like creatures shown. And surely such an important mission, built by a technology so advanced that they can afford to waste ship space on things like showers, would have anticipated possible problems and included some fairly sophisticated landing gear (not to mention teaching the team members proper CPR techniques). And a massive solar flare all the way out near Mars? Etc, etc, etc.

After establishing its credibility at somewhere well below zero and having practically no plot (just a compilation of cliches), the film then fails to have any sort of point. Particularly puzzling was all the congratulations at the end for accomplishing the mission. What exactly did they accomplish? I give up.

Horizon: The Race for the Double Helix (1987) Season Unknown, Episode Unknown

Good scientific history

[7/10 · 9 May 2002]

Not the world's best piece of film making, perhaps, but this is one of the most historically accurate movies ever made about science. As a biology teacher, I found it a great way to cover a rather difficult part of the syllabus. I'm sorry all those other biology students found it so boring; I can only hope that if their teachers had explained what was going on a bit better they would have found more to enjoy. This is a particularly good portrayal of the often bizarre and non-linear way in which science works, in contrast to the typical unrealistic expositions about the scientific method. The discovery of the structure of DNA was one of the most ground-breaking advances in 20th Century science, and one which is still having and will continue to have an enormous impact on our lives, so the value of the film as a depiction of history is very significant.

The only things that annoyed me were Jeff Goldblum's usual failure to speak clearly (made even worse in some scenes by talking with his mouth full of food) and all the rather puerile digressions (accurate though they may have been) about James Watson's tastes in girls.

Vanity Fair (1998)

Brilliant portrayal of a psychopath

[8/10 · 12 April 2002]

There has been a ridiculous number of movies about psychopathic killers - Silence of the Lambs, Se7en, Copycat, The Cell, etc, etc - and yet for a realistic depiction of a psychopath, this mini-series leaves them all far behind. If you want to see what the average psychopath is like (or perhaps I should say above average, because there is nothing average about Becky Sharp), this is far more true to life than all the others. The reality is that for every Hannibal Lecter in the world, there are a thousand Becky Sharps, and together they do far more damage than all the serial killers. I can only think that Thackeray must have known someone like her, because you can't get this close to reality by sheer imagination, and I don't know of any literary examples he could have copied from.

Of course, the novel, and the series, are about far more than one character - they are in fact about Vanity Fair, the world that Thackerary knew and didn't particularly love, the society which was so warped and hypocritical (rather like ours today, in fact) that it allowed characters like Becky Sharp to prosper.

This is not nearly as pleasant as the usual BBC mini-series, but it is compulsively watchable; the depiction is almost flawless and Natasha Little does a brilliant job portraying the woman we love to hate. The rest of the cast is also excellent, including Nathaniel Parker as Rawdon, the principal victim of his wife's intrigues, Philip Glenister as the lovable but awfully clumsy Dobbin and David Bradley as the appalling baronet Sir Pitt Crawley.

Rules of Engagement (2000)

Not bad at all

[7/10 · 22 February 2002]

CAUTION: CONTAINS LOTS OF SPOILERS! Rules of Engagement is not a great film, and it does contain some bits which should have been thought through better, but overall it's very competent and very... well, engaging. I can't understand why so many people are so passionately and irrationally opposed to it.

Ignoring the many reviewers who have completely misinterpreted the film and quite honestly don't know what they're talking about, let's look at the more serious criticisms. For instance, why do so many people call it predictable? The predictable thing would have been for the Ambassador (or, more likely, his wife) to have qualms of conscience and come in and save the day at the last minute, or else to prove in court that he was lying and the National Security Advisor was blackmailing him. The predictable thing would have been for the captain being interviewed to admit that he was under such heavy fire that he couldn't tell where the bullets were coming from. The predictable thing would have been to have the video tape magically appear, or for Tommy Lee Jones to come in with such a convincing defense that all charges would be squashed, or to make a dozen other obvious changes. As it is, yes it's obvious that Jackson's character won't fry, but apart from that the movie keeps us guessing the whole way. Predictable? Come on.

And then, why do they say that the trial scenes were boring? I know boredom is only a matter of opinion, but the trial had me on the edge of my seat a lot of the time.

And then, there are the people who find it all ridiculous and unbelievable. Unbelievable that a trouble-maker might try to stir up feeling against Americans? That a hate-filled protest could get completely out of hand? That somewhere in the Middle East, women and children could possibly be armed? Unbelievable that a Government official could possibly destroy evidence? At least the film didn't depict anything completely ridiculous, like terrorists hijacking American planes and using them to kill thousands of American civilians. Then it really would have been unbelievable.

The Field (1990)

Stunning and unforgettable

[9/10 · 18 February 2002]

I had never heard of The Field before, and I could hardly believe how good it is. What a shame that it is so little known. The story starts out slowly but builds up to a climax that is perfectly logical, totally based on character, and awesome in its intensity.

The script is superb, particularly in that use of language at which the best Irish writers are unsurpassed. But the real strength of the movie lies in the amazing performance of Richard Harris, surely one of the all-time great movie performances. He should easily have won the Oscar over Jeremy Irons in Reversal of Fortune, brilliant though Irons is; perhaps Irons only won because too few people had seen The Field. Bull McCabe is a great character who is being torn apart by conflicting emotions: his love for the land, his love for his son, his love for God and for the Church, and his frustration at never being able to achieve what is important to him. His devastation at the end reminded me a lot of King Lear, and indeed this movie has a power like one of the best of Shakespeare's tragedies. As one reviewer has already noted, the only weakness is the poorly-sketched character of the American and its lack of a believable motivation. Even with that weakness, it rises far above most of what passes for serious drama these days.

You've Got Mail (1998)

Underrated

[8/10 · 2 February 2002]

I usually dislike romantic comedies (couldn't stand When Harry Met Sally, which is more about sex than romance anyway), but this one is so far superior to the usual, and so full of subtleties, that it is worth seeing again and again. I'm surprised that so many people find it simplistic or shallow, because it is neither. Rather than the all-too-common scenario in which two people start out hating each other and then realise what they have in common and fall in love, this one uses the device of an email relationship to allow the two people to influence each other subtly so that both of them come to realise their inadequacies. I was particularly impressed by the way Tom Hanks's character, being forced to look at a situation from two entirely different perspectives, gradually comes to a realisation of what is wrong with his treatment of other people and begins to change his own behaviour. The result is thus far more believable than the usual sudden or unexplained changes in these movies. (I thought this was managed far better here than in Shop Around the Corner.)

The dialogue is also very good, so the inevitable romantic ending manages to rise above the cliches. Of course, Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan both do a brilliant job. And I have to admit I loved the music, especially all the old Harry Nilsson songs).

The only thing I didn't like was the assumption, so common in movies these days, that marriage is almost non-existent but people just move in together (especially in New York City). This is so false, and it is especially disturbing in a movie that should be suitable for children. Statistics show that many thousands of New Yorkers get married every year.

The Good Son (1993)

Some excellent bits

[11 January 2002]

An interesting idea: parents having to deal with a psychopathic child. Believe it or not, such a situation is not uncommon. And Culkin does an excellent job. His coolness, his sudden changes of approach without any apparent shifting of gears, his complete lack of emotional reaction - which have been interpreted by some reviewers as poor acting - are actually very realistic. Personally, I find his calm and apparently effortless demeanour more frightening than the ravings of the lunatics in many other horror films.

Unfortunately, the plot lacks all credibility. Certainly psychopaths are excellent con-men (in fact, they are the most typical con-men) but it is absurd to believe that a child like this could have covered his tracks so well that his parents do not even suspect that there is something wrong with him. Even more ridiculous is that his behaviour towards his little sister - whom he hates enough to try to kill her - has been so good in the past that she trusts him completely. The cliches of the over-dramatic ending are also a bit much. A pity, because there is much of value in the film.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

Transcends the hype

[10/10 · 26 December 2001]

There has been talk of a Lord of the Rings movie since the 1960s, but until now there was only Bakshi's rather pathetic effort in 1978. I'm glad to say that the waiting has been worth it. Not that the movie is perfect, but it is better than I dared to hope.

Visually, it is incomparable. It was well worth the price just to see the depictions of Isengard, Mordor, Rivendell and Moria. There were many regrettable omissions and changes to the story, but they can almost all be justified on the basis of length and number of characters. I was only really disappointed that the relationships were so sketchily drawn, particularly the relationship between Legolas and Gimli. The main problem is that the movie is too short. They would have needed 6 films to do justice to the book. Who would have thought Peter Jackson could have produced something this great? Nothing else in his career could even remotely suggest it.

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

One of the great love stories

[10/10 · 30 September 2001]

When I look at the IMDB Top 250 list, I am generally dismayed by both the films that are missing and those that should not be there. However, I am delighted to see The Shawshank Redemption right up at number 2. This movie is absolutely superb, far surpassing the story on which it was based. The plot is brilliant, and once again it shows Morgan Freeman to be one of the greatest actors of all time; it amazes me that he has been given so few awards.

When Tim Robbins was interviewed, he called this a "love story", and that is exactly what it is - a story of a wonderful (and completely non-sexual) love between two men, a love that is born in an incredible hell-hole and helps to raise them out of it. It's the sort of movie you can watch over and over again and never get tired of it.

Instinct (1999)

Somehow it works

[7/10 · 22 September 2001]

This is possibly the most multi-derivative movie ever made - a sort of Gorillas in the Mist meets Shawshank Redemption and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, with a guest appearance by Hannibal Lecter and multiple references to other movies. Incredibly, it works - well, apart from the rather ridiculous transformation of Hopkins from a raving, wild, bestial madman who never speaks to a loquacious character with a deeply philosophical frame of mind. After that, it looks like heading for the rocks of eco-cliche about how civilization has destroyed our beautiful symbiosis with the natural world, but cleverly avoids this and all other extremes and actually creates some original ideas out of the pastiche. It comes off as a very good character study of two arrogant men, each of whom thinks he has nothing to learn from the other, who eventually come to a mutually uplifting understanding. The main strengths of the movie are the two leads, with Gooding doing a good job and Hopkins being brilliant (as he usually is) even making his ridiculous character change almost believable. The end of the film looks like settling for an in-again mode, a bit like Sling Blade, but suddenly and convincingly reverts to Cuckoo's Nest. It is not wholly satisfactory, but a lot more thought-provoking than the average film.

Species (1995)

Dreadful

[2/10 · 7 September 2001]

What on earth is Ben Kingsley, that tremendously talented actor, doing in this piece of garbage? Species is put together on the principle that if you have enough violence, sex and nudity, you do not need a coherent story line. There is not even a pretense of making sense. I have not seen and will not see Species II, but apparently that's even worse.

Maverick (1994)

Simply brilliant

[9/10 · 7 September 2001]

This is one of those rare movies you can watch over and over again without getting tired of it. Forget what some people have said about Jodie Foster, she is absolutely perfect as the apparently-dumb-but-smarter-than-she-looks blonde, and the chemistry between her and Mel Gibson is superb. Also perfect are James Garner as the marshal, Graham Greene as the harassed native chief, and Alfred Molina (the Englishman who is so good as an Iranian in Not Without My Daughter and a Cuban in The Perez family) as the "Spaniard". The writing is simply brilliant, one of William Goldman's best - how anyone could describe it as "virtually plotless" just staggers the imagination. The direction and cinematography are superb. A special treat is the Lethal Weapon reprise with Danny Glover.

Lord of the Flies (1990)

Not bad

[6 September 2001]

This movie is neither as good nor as bad as most reviewers are saying. As an adaptation of a great novel, it is fair. It suffers from the usual problems of movies about kids: there is no way that child actors could portray the range of feelings, thoughts and experiences described in the book. The psychological dimension of the story is generally ignored, and the changes - the Americanisation of the characters, the addition of up-to-date bad language and slang - do not help. There is too little characterisation, and the direction is disjointed. Nevertheless, there are some moments (eg the scene where Simon is killed) where it captures the mood of the book very well. It's a long time since I saw the original movie, but from memory, I thought this one was better.