seveb-25179 Reviews

Arctic Blue (1993)

Alaska Blue

[7/10 · 17 May 2024]

One of Rutger Hauer's better movies, where he plays a nuanced "villain" who is not all bad.

It has the feel of having a decent budget, good cast and competent direction, generating some tension and suspense, and also succeeds in creating a strong sense of place, including slow pan shots of impressive Alaskan mountain scenery and a plot that incorporates nice details of wilderness "trade craft" that remind the viewer of the unforgiving environment the characters are living in.

I found the town characters to be interesting and quirky and as developed as they needed to be for this type of movie, but the villains were another story, as I found it hard to accept that hard core Mountain men might sit around discussing whether one of them had self-esteem issue, which accounted for his overly aggressive behaviour, or what his gun might symbolise. The character of Lemalle was a bit over the top to be credible to me, in any situation his attitude was always ultra-aggressive, brandishing his rifle and threating to kill everyone (although, in retrospect, I don't recall that he actually directly killed anyone, just shot up vehicles and other inanimate objects, which I consider a point in favour of the movies realism).

Where it gets tricky, in terms of the morality portrayed, is around the actions of Rutgers character and how the audience may feel about him, which is the core of the movie, as it should be, and will determine the success or otherwise of the film in the mind of the viewer. In the initial encounter with Eric Desmond, Lemalle the crazy-man is restrained by Rutger. Then, in the confrontation with the amateur hunters, Lemalle the crazy-man provokes the violence, but it is knife throwing Rutger who does the killing, albeit in self-defence (or rather to defend Lemalle). All good so far

However, later, Rutger accidentally kills the loveable old sheriff, while attempting to escape, and this is where some (including me) may have a problem. When it comes what happens at the end of the movie. I'll also take the opportunity here to address another reviewers mystification over the body hung up in the tree. As Desmond had decided to keep the death of the old Sheriff a secret for the time being, in order to avoid Rutgers trapper allies from gaining any additional information as to what was going on which might help them to rescue him, he needed to store the body. The reason for hauling the body up into a tree was in order to try and prevent it from being mutilated or eaten by wolves or bears.

The other moment which causes a problem for me is when Rutger throws the pick axe one handed and kills... Lemalle!. And also from finding that the distance he throws the axe stretches my credibility beyond breaking point (as this is not the sort of movie where the audience expects that the laws of physics will been thrown out the window). Now, while I understand how the writers found they had painted themselves into a corner, with Rutgers brother being the only trapper left in potentially realistic working order (anyone in an action movie can quickly shake off a fall), but not being an acceptable candidate to be killed with the pickaxe. So they left him behind with a final quip about it "not being his year", re-activated evil Lemalle from his hot tub and had him somehow find the energy to walk all the way up to the factory, despite having been shot in the chest. I know movies have a long tradition of villain's apparently rising from the grave to provide an additional twist, but in this case I found it a bit confusing. The juxtaposition of the brother with the sudden re-appearance of Lemalle bamboozled me at the time into thinking it was the brother that Rutger had killed with the pickaxe, and wondering how he could do that and show no emotion afterwards. I admit they did included a shot of the empty hot tub simmering, to imply he had got out, but at the time it just confused me further.

So for me the movie unravels a bit at that point, and later when Desmond decides to allow wounded Rutger to go off and (probably) die, on his own terms in the wintery wilderness. I was conflicted by thoughts of the loveable old Sheriff and whether Rutger deserved such consideration. But I guess that ambiguity is part of the purpose of the story.

Legend (I) (2015)

Krayzy About The Boys

[8/10 · 16 May 2024]

I think this is probably about as good a movie as will ever be made about the Krays, the colourful gangster twins of 1960s London.

Tom Hardy plays both brothers, psychopath Ronnie and wide-boy Reggie, and does an impressive job. For me Hardy is a wonderful actor when he is able to immerse himself in a deep impersonation, but lacks the innate personal charisma that makes a true movie "star". This film plays to his strength.

I've read comments in some reviews about other gangsters of the time, who claim that the Krays were not as significant as they are made out to be in the movie, that other gangsters were more "powerful" and that the Krays were about to be eliminated by other gangsters anyway, if the Police hadn't got to them first. I've read quite a bit of gangster literature myself, much of it related to New York and Chicago, and one of the common threads is that whatever a gangster says needs to be taken with a grain of salt, as they all try to magnify their own place in events and disparage the role of their rivals.

Whether or not the Krays were the most "powerful" gangsters in London can be debated, but what cannot be disputed is that they were the most "colourful", and that is why we remember them. It is the fact that they were twins and that one of them was mentally unbalanced and prone to bizarre fantasies and outrageous acts and the other tried to mitigate and clean up after him, while also being engaged in organised crime at a high level, which gives them their fascination.

I once read a book by an experienced US Mafia hitman who had also spent time in the UK, and he explained why UK gangsters never attained the level of power and influence that some US gangsters have. Firstly there was never prohibition in the UK, something which provided a huge boost to US gangsters in terms of financial leverage and status within the political system. Secondly two of the main grass roots revenue streams for gangsters, gambling and prostitution, can be conducted legally in the UK and therefore the vast majority of revenue is not controlled by gangsters. (Which only leaves loansharking.)

There is another very significant revenue stream for US gangsters, which is extortion and protection rackets that to my knowledge does not appear to be a big factor in the UK, but I don't have any knowledge as to why. Perhaps it is just a cultural difference? In the US Socialism has always been a dirty word and US Big Business freely hired gangsters to break Union strikes. In turn the Unions hired gangsters to battle the strike breakers. This put the gangsters in the middle and they soon recognised that they could play one off against the other and profit from both. Over time the Mafia penetrated many of the important American Unions, in construction, waste collection, clothing manufacture, "teamsters" etc and managed to get their own representatives appointed to official positions on control. For some reason this pattern was not followed in the UK, where political ideology has continued to be the main driver of Union activity.

The Gray Man (2022)

50 Shades Of Gray Man

[7/10 · 11 February 2024]

Another would-be action franchise starter from Netflix, likely to be successful.

I think this is pretty decent, better than many a Jason Statham movie. Ryan Gosling, Chris Evans and Rege-Jean Page all do a great job in their roles and those who wanted to see more of Ana de Armas as a secret agent, after her performance in James Bond "No Time To Die", get their wish.

Lots of well-choreographed action and attractive panning & trucking shots of exotic locations, but frustratingly punctuated by occasional sloppy errors and roll your eyes moments.

For example

The original recruitment of the Gray Man is a big problem for me. Eventually we find out that he killed his father in order to save his brother's life, after both had suffered years of physical abuse at the hands of the parent. A deeply personal and emotional reason, which would in no way make him a likely or suitable candidate for recruitment as a cold, clinical, professional assassin for the CIA. Plus a person who has committed a single crime of passion hardly has any "skill set" to speak of, nor is killing someone for self-preservation or to save another indicative of "limited morality". On the other hand, if he had been a true sociopath it would have been difficult to make his character sympathetic and relatable for the audience. Thus the creators end up falling between two stools.

The movie always foreshadows each exotic location by showing its name in block letters on the screen, followed by a slow pan or trucking shot of the scenery, however after telling us we are in "Monaco", tax haven of the rich and famous, all we get is a dingy torture room, never any glamorous outdoor sequence, talk about cheap. Made me laugh, when I should have been contemplating the evil of Chris Evan character.

Then, when our hero is tricked into standing over a trap door and falls into a empty circular stone lined well, for some reason there is a large water pipe at the bottom which he can use to unleash a torrent of water to assist in his escape. Not just the mouth of a pipe to feed the water in, but a whole length of pipe running across the bottom of the pit, so that our hero can loosen nuts and bolts. I know it's just a movie...

Later, on a third floor of an ancient apartment building, there is another trapdoor in the floor, which allows access into a secret under floor area that has enough head room for Ryan to stand up in, when the outside shot of the building indicates there is no room for such a space to exist. I know it's a just a movie but juxtaposing shots of this fallacy makes it harder to ignore. (Plus the secret passage in the wall is traditional for the upper floors of buildings)

Unfortunately the usual modern Hollywood misconception of criminals being able to operate successfully when they show no loyalty or trustworthiness at all is perpetuated. Chris Evans character casually shoots the guy who has trapped Ryan Gosling in the well, rather than paying him off as agreed. Later he also shoots the Indian assassin rather than paying him. This is not how real criminals behave, whether they work for a government agency or not. Even sociopaths understand that casual betrayal is not a viable strategy for sustainable success or survival.

They use the "trusted old mentor blowing themselves (and some bad guys) up to buy time for the hero" plot device twice in the same movie.

The Indian assassin suddenly develops a conscience when Chris Evans says he is going to kill the young girl, after previously killing a number of Czech police officers, who were just doing their job, leaving their wives widows and their children without fathers.

Ryan Gosling does the same thing in the final scene, killing a number of CIA agents who are only doing their job, guarding the girl as they have been requested to, not trying to kill her. Acceptable collateral damage? Cue uplifting vintage 1970s pop music.

The Old Guard (2020)

The X Guard

[7/10 · 11 February 2024]

Another would-be action franchise starter from Netflix, apparently successful this time.

From one perspective this is an entry in the female action movie genre, from its most convincing contender, in my opinion, Charlize Theron, who has already given us Mad Max Fury Road (where she made more of an impression on me than the bland Tom Hardy in the title role), Atomic Blond and a recurring character in the Fast & Furious franchise. In this one she underplays convincingly and the action is well choreographed, apart from several instances of shooting someone and then judo flipping them (as far I can see, once you've shoot someone dead there is not much point)

From another angle it is a variation on the X-Men, where a small group of people with unusual qualities are pursued by those who wish to exploit them for good or ill. In this case, when they are killed they self-repair and come back within minutes. Charlize and her pals have been around for centuries fighting for debatable causes, rather than lying low and enjoying life. Later some of Charlize good deeds are revealed by an ex CIA operative who has been studying her from a far, but on the other hand two of her companions, who are now gay lovers, own up to having fought on opposite sides during the Crusades and apparently killed each other numerous times. How or why did all this come about? They don't know themselves.

The acting is good, and, note to Michael Bay, we are introduced to the characters via some scenes which demonstrate that there is camaraderie and friendship amongst the group. They like each other and show why we could also like them.

The PC casting boxes are ticked, our band of heroes includes a Belgian man with a thick accent, along with the aforementioned gay couple, who have been cleverly selected, because they are both of mixed race and can appeal to multiple racial demographics at once, a black American woman and an Asian woman (although her part is small in this edition, the hopeful teaser at the end suggests she will be far more prominent in the next.) Meanwhile, the villains are the customary nerdy white male billionaire (but he's Big Pharma rather than Big Tech this time around and has previous form as a villain from the Harry Potter franchise), the former CIA operative (black, male) and an amoral East European Doctor (white, female).

All present and politically correct then, although I could have done without the lengthy declaration of gay love from one character when the two of them are being held prisoner in the back of the bad guys truck, and I'm sure, in real life, the bigoted guard would have interrupted this speech with a rifle butt to the head long before it was completed.

There is plenty of decent action and the plot is serviceable, although I'm not sure how much further you can go with a group of un-killable self-repairing characters before it becomes boring. However by the end of the film Charlize has lost her regenerative powers and is now vulnerable. The forshadowed sequel is in the works, so we will find out in due course.

6 Underground (2019)

7 Underdone

[5/10 · 2 February 2024]

Failed attempt to kick start a franchise.

I noted one liners referring to the "Fast and Furious" franchise (we are not a family), and the "Ocean's" franchise (lets rob a casino next time, because it's much easier), also James Bond. And who knows, there may well have been others, relating to "Mission Impossible" or "The Expendables", which I missed in the blizzard of quick cutting, shaky cam and fast panning assaulting my senses.

To sum up the "High Concept", Ryan Reynolds, playing his customary stock "Dead Pool" wiseass character, is a tech billionaire who became a hands on philanthropist. While delivering aid to some suffering masses, Ryan is caught up in an attack on those same hapless civilians, by the evil totalitarian Dictator of the country. Feeling that the powers that be are not going to be able to do anything about it, Ryan decides to take matters into his own hands, by faking his own death and going off the grid, then recruiting a team of specialists to help him carry out a regime change, replacing the Dictator with his conveniently saintly brother. These specialists who also fake their own deaths and go off the grid, becoming metaphorical "Ghosts". I think this is a perfectly sound concept, so the problem is in the execution.

Michael Bay is a very successful director of action movies loved by those who don't care about plot logic or depth of character development. A poster boy for the quick cut, fast pan, shaky cam generation of Hollywood directors that came up in the late 90s early 2000s. Your enjoyment level depends on how much of your brain you are prepared to switch off for the sake of undiluted eye candy.

Here he starts off by hitting the audience with a 15 minute chase action sequence, which while spectacular, somewhat overstays its welcome. But the main problem is that the audience's introduction to "the team" is via the constant angry bickering carried on during the chase. With no previous knowledge or connection to these characters, we are given no reason to like them as they don't even appear to like each other.

The team call each other by numbers, rather than given names, and consist of the Money, the Driver, the Doctor (although she is also an ass-kicker), the Hit-man, the Skywalker (i.e. The wall climbing, rope swinging, cat burglar type) and the ex-CIA agent. The Driver gets killed at the end of the opening chase scene and they recruit a sniper as his replacement... Yes, they replace a specialist "driver" with a "sniper" when they already have a "hit-man" and a CIA agent on the team... go figure. All part of the logic gap the audience are either expected to ignore or be not yet mentally developed enough to notice. By the by, "the Driver" is played by recognisable face Dave Franco, so his surprise death is reminiscent of Emilio Estevez surprise death early in Mission Impossible 1.

Bay now proceeds to try and introduce the characters and back stories to us via a series of flash backs. Now I have nothing against using flashbacks as a useful tool for this purpose, however I would suggest that trying to do it for seven characters in one movie is far too many, and made it hard to build any momentum or cohesion in the first half of the movie, as the present tense of the story was constantly being interrupted by one flashback or another. Secondly flashbacks work best when accompanied by appropriate, emotionally resonant, music and sadly Michael Bay had no equivalent of Ennio Morricone to assist him here. Even then, flashbacks are no substitute for some actual character development dialogue scenes, which also help by providing a counterpoint to the action. The only characters who even slightly progress beyond being one dimensional in this film are Reynolds and Corey Hawkins, with their interactions around loyalty and humanity.

With the flashbacks finally out of the way I found the second half of the movie flows better and is much easier to follow. Reynolds reveals his "High Concept" master plan, mainly for the benefit of the new guy, but also for the audience.

Firstly weaken the regime by killing four prominent generals, who are all partying together in Las Vegas... That's right, all four of the leading military strongmen (of what appears to be a Moslem country, as far as we can tell) are debauching together in the entertainment capital of the Great Satan at the same time. The team despatch them in lurid blood spattering fashion, but without the director generating any tension or suspense or sense of danger or uncertainty. The villains are just cannon fodder, devoid of menace or threat. Here, as throughout the movie, they are merely bags of blood who continually run out into the open firing their automatic weapons and get mown down.

Next the team rescue the good brother who is imprisoned at the top of a high rise penthouse apartment in... Hong Kong. Yes, that's what I said, the Dictator of a Middle Asian 'Stan keeps his brother under house arrest in middle of Hong Kong, rather than in the dungeon of a fortress in the middle of a desert wasteland or on an isolated island. Brain dead script writing.

Cue more spectacular action and carnage above the city. This time however there is a moral dilemma to be faced, when the Skywalker gets into trouble and Reynolds's character considers him expendable, while newby Hawkins does not. This should be a moment of tension and suspense, but, as the Skywalker's character has accumulated no cache of goodwill in the mind of the audience up to this point, few will care if he lives or dies. He's just another obnoxious punk in a team of obnoxious punks. Worse the Hit-man takes to repeatedly beating on the good brother, punching him in the face over and over and over (and over), while Reynolds nags him not to. Is this meant to be amusing banter and buddy building byplay?

Finally it's time for the finale, the revolution in Turgistan ("Turgid" being a word that could describe the whole movie, boom, boom! Sorry, I couldn't resist). The team take over the radio and TV broadcasting facilities of the country and light the spark of revolution, inciting and inspiring the oppressed citizens with a cliché ridden speech from the good brother and a blast Western pop music (believe me, Middle Eastern folk have little liking for Western pop music and have never rocked the Kasbah)

An embarrassing, shallow and insensitive take on global politics and human suffering.

Somehow the team seem to have planted explosives all over the place and the Dictator flees to his luxury yacht to escape. Cue more shoot 'em up action and poorly choreographed fight scenes (I recommend Michael Bay watch a few Scott Adkins movies and get some tips on how to handle that aspect of an action movie competently)

Many bullets later and after some improbable fun with micro magnets (the source of Reynolds great wealth), the poor old Skywalker is getting the living daylights beaten out of him again (when he could have avoided it by just jumping over the side of the ship into the water), however this time Reynolds decides to save him, rather than try to prevent the Dictator from escaping in his tender, a sign of his great personal emotional growth.

But actually, it doesn't matter anyway, because when the Dictator later transfers to his large helicopter, it turns out the team are somehow all there ahead of him crewing the chopper. I guess this is what passes for a surprise twist?

The Dictator is dropped off at the nearest refugee camp to be ripped to pieces by an angry mob. Nasty

The final scenes sees the director trying to claim a level of depth and emotional resonance for his under-developed characters that he has not earned

"I am one, but not done" say Reynolds character just before the credits role...

Wrong again Green Lantern!

Kenka karate kyokushin burai ken (1975)

Karate Man-in-Bear-suit Fighter

[5/10 · 31 January 2024]

Sonny Chiba once again recycling plot elements from The Samurai Trilogy in this sequel to "Karate Bull Fighter", the second edition of "The Oyama Trilogy".

For example, near the climax of the movie, Sonny faces an opponent armed with a small scythe in one hand, while whirling a long chain, with a spiked metal ball on the end of it, in the other, just as Toshiro Mufune did early on in the second Samurai Trilogy film. Later the final one on one takes place on a beach, just as the final climactic duel in the Samurai Trilogy did, and involves running and splashing along the water's edge. Sonny's character becomes entwined in the life of a small boy, just as Mifune's character did, etc.

The disappointing aspect of this movie is that they choose to reuse much of the same action footage from the ambush scene from the first movie in this one.

Unlike the bull from the first movie, the bear is this battle is not real, but I thought the fight scene with the man in the bear suit was cleverly shot and assembled, so by "fake bear fight" scene standards, it was quite effective.

In this one Sonny's character does actually appear to learn some life lessons as he goes along, shows some friendly feeling for others and does a few good deeds, but in the end he leaves them all behind and, this time, walks off into the falling snow.

He encounters the woman he raped in the first movie and she still harbours inexplicable feelings of love toward him, but nothing comes of it, the boy is left running along behind the train Sonny is leaving town on, calling out his name, like the kid in the Western "Shane". The Japanese just don't seem to be into happy endings?

Note - in real life, Oyama married a Japanese woman, Oyako Chiyako in 1946, when he was 23, and had three children with her. In the late 1960s, Oyama and Chiyako decided to separate, and Chiyako, who did not want her husband to start seeing other women, arranged for a Korean woman and family friend named Sun-ho Hong to become Oyama's companion. With Hong, Oyama had three more children and he would remain romantically involved with both Hong and Chiyako until the end of his life.

Champion of Death (1975)

Karate Bulldust?

[7/10 · 31 January 2024]

Abundant martial arts action for fans of Sonny Chiba guaranteed here.

1974 was the year of "The Street Fighter", which made Sonny Chiba an international name in the Martial Arts genre. Chiba made three "Street Fighter" films along with two "The Executioner" comedy action movies as a similar character. 1975 was the year when Sonny said goodbye to "Street Fighter Chiba" and hello to "Karate Master Chiba", who featured in "The Killing Machine" and "The "Oyama Trilogy". "Street Fighter Chiba" was a modern 1970s character, while "Karate Master Chiba" operates in post war, American occupation era Japan 1945-52, even if many of the villains still seem to be wearing 1970s fashion styles (Finally we know who to blame, it was all the fault of the post war Yakuza!). Both characters are still loners with a dubious moral compass, however the Karate Master character shows faint and irregular signs of possible reform.

This is the first of the three Oyama films, based on a Manga series, which in turn was loosely based on the life of Karate master Masutatsu Oyama, although the first two movies in the series mainly seem to borrow plot elements from the classic "Samurai Trilogy", starring Toshiro Mifune, which was based on the life of Samurai Musashi Miyamoto, which I have also watched recently. Or perhaps in both cases they are just universal, recurring themes of the Japanese action tradition?

Sonny makes his entrance in typical fashion, looking like a raggedly dressed vagrant, but displaying a defiant, aggressive attitude, munching negligently on a piece of fruit, a more modern version of Toshiro Mifune's iconic scruffy Ronin from "Yojimbo".

He gate-crashes the solemn and orderly ceremony of the National Karate tournament, proceeds to demonstrate his power by breaking a pile of roof tiles, then defeats the tournament champion. He is offered a position as an instructor but instead insolently disparages the tournaments low contact approach to Karate as "dancing" and leaves with the trophy, which he later throws away down some steps, breaking it into pieces.

Next we come to that moment in every Sonny Chiba movie, where the Western viewer is confronted with some form of heinous behaviour by Sonny's character which makes it very hard, if not impossible, to like him, or root for him, during the rest of the movie.

In this case outcaste Sonny is working as a rick-shaw driver when, while waiting for a fare outside a nightclub, he sees an American officer accompanied by a pretty Japanese girl leaving the premises. He recognises the girl. Cue flashback of the girl about to be attacked and raped by three Japanese thugs, only to be saved by Sonny, who kicks their asses for them instead (all good so far...)

Back in the present, the couple get in the rickshaw and Sonny proceeds to take them to a secluded spot, roughs up the officer and chases him off, then rapes the girl...

Afterwards Sonny tells her he was offended that she repaid his earlier rescue by becoming a prostitute for Americans. She explains that, until Sonny raped her, she was still a virgin and only working as an interpreter for the Americans. Sonny is remorseful and falls to his knees begging forgiveness...

The next day Sonny asks her to marry him, telling her that the real reason he raped her was because he loved her...not surprisingly she turns him down. However later she inexplicably relents and spends the rest of the movie trailing around after him, waiting patiently for him to give up his wandering Karate ways, which never happens. This is also very reminiscent of the Samurai trilogy, where, across the three films, a number of women fall for the sexually repressed Toshiro Mifune character without ever getting any real satisfaction from him. Mifune's character never goes further than trying to steal a kiss (unsuccessfully), but maybe that was all that was allowed to be shown in a 1950s Samurai flick and the rest is implied?

Anyhoo, the uncouth Americans capture him, and as punishment for roughing up one of their officers Sonny is forced to fight a big black American soldier, which he does, before beating up the rest in a mass brawl and escaping, all despite being handcuffed the whole time.

He eventually takes on an enthusiastic student and later is rescued from an uncomfortable romantic encounter by an emergency call to save the village from an angry bull. The discussion involved talk of such excruciating topics as "personal feelings" and "love", which Sonny's character is relieved to have any excuse to abandon, even if it means taking on a rampaging adolescent bull (which he succeeds in killing with only his bare hands)

Publicity leads to notoriety, and some Karate academy students question the veracity of the bull fight story within in earshot of Sonny's loyal student, who takes offense and kicks their doubting asses. A chase ensues and eventually he is shot to death before Sonny can intervene.

Which brings us to the second event where Eastern and Western attitudes may diverge. Sonny retreats to a seedy nightclub to drink himself stupid mourning for of his lost disciple. The sleazy club owner attempts to schmooze him, but Sonny is having none of it. Then a bigger meaner gangster, who has just got out of jail, arrives with his henchmen and tells the club owner they are taking over. A fight ensues and the interlopers win, but unfortunately, in the process, one of them spills Sonny's sake... Mayhem ensues, with Sonny taking them all down, climaxing with the head gangster pulling a knife and trying to kill Sonny and instead getting killed himself. (all good so far...)

It's a case of self-defence, so the Police are ready to release Sonny, but the gangster's widow and son are not so forgiving and complain noisily. Sonny is remorseful and falls to his knees begging forgiveness... Now I'm not suggesting that it isn't sad that the lady has been left a widow and her son without a father but, her husband was a scumbag who would probably have been killed or put back in prison sooner or later anyway, and Sonny killed him in self-defence, so I don't see why Sonny's character should feel any great guilt.

As penance, Sonny goes to find them and toils on their subsistence farm to create a productive field for crops that can support the family. Again this is reminiscent of the Samurai Trilogy, where Mifune's character goes to a village and works in the fields in order to acquire a better appreciation of ordinary peasant life. He learns to understand that there is more of value in life, and worthy of respect, other than purely Samurai sword skills. Part of the process which sees him become a truly worthy and honourable Samurai by the third film. Not sure what Sonny learns, based on the carnage he continues to create during the rest of the movie. True there is one scene where Sonny refuses to fight the former Karate Champion who is seeking a revenge rematch, a sign of moral progress, but thereafter he is soon drawn back into the cycle of violence by his old adversaries.

He encounters a mysterious assassin, who calls himself "Kenki - the Messenger from Hell", and despatches him, then answers the challenge of the boss of the Karate school he offended, kills him, plus his top henchman, and then battles their massed followers to escape from an ambush, and finally grants the Karate Champion his "to the death" rematch and defeats him again, before ignoring the pleading of the woman he raped to stay and walking off into the sunset...

Again these are all plot elements lifted from the "Samurai Trilogy", not the life of Oyama. Toshiro Mifune's Samurai is drawn into an ambush and fights his way out, the final duel with the Karate Master reaches its climax at the edge of a body of water, reminiscent of the final duel on the beach in the Samurai Trilogy, and Sonny leaves alone, as Mifune does in various ways at the end of each movie in the Samurai Trilogy. So apart from his being a proponent of full contact Karate and the dubious legend about fighting bulls (wrestling adolescent bulls to the ground, yes, chopping a horn off with karate blows, not so much) none of the "Oyama Trilogy" films contains much that reflects any actual events of Oyama's life.

The internet says "Oyama greatly credited his reading of The Book of Five Rings by Miyamoto Musashi (a famous Japanese swordsman) for changing his life completely. He recounts this book as being his only reading material during his mountain training years."

Interestingly Sonny Chiba was a student of Oyama, and Oyama himself actually appears in the first two films of the trilogy.

Live Like a Cop, Die Like a Man (1976)

Live Like A Vigilante... Let The Bad Guys Do The Dying

[8/10 · 12 January 2024]

Can best be summed up as the "Spaghetti Starsky & Hutch" but with better car chases, more sex (and sexism) and more violence. Prime 1970s Poliziotteschi up there with the best of Franco Nero, Fabio Testi or Mauricio Merli

'Nuff said, but apparently not enough for an imdb review, so I will continue...

Ray Lovelock looks like another refugee Americano actor following the path most famously trodden by Clint Eastwood, Charles Bronson, Lee van Cleef and his friend Tomas Milian, but in fact he was born in Italy of an Italian mother and English father. He is blond and plays the "Hutch" role.

Marc Porel was born in Switzerland, but his parents were both French actors. He is dark and plays the "Starsky" role.

Adolfo Celi plays the "Captain Dobey" role, his face will be familiar from numerous character parts in post war Hollywood and across European cinema, most notably as supervillain "Emilio Largo" in the James Bond classic "Thunderball"

Silvia Dionisio plays the feisty modern woman who cheerfully puts up with the lads crude sexist banter and gives as good as she gets in the repartee department

Sofia Dionisio gets her kit off.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 (2023)

The Galaxy of Dr Moreau

[8/10 · 14 August 2023]

Wow, great movie, rare that someone pulls off a trilogy without running out of steam or losing their way. This is basically a riff on HG Wells' timeless classic, "the Island of Dr Moreau". Top notch story telling with humour, action and heart.

What I like most about it Major characters are put in deadly peril without feeling the need to kill any of them off for shock effect, "Game of Thrones" style.

Characters are developed and go on an emotional journey, without betraying the essence of who they were designed to be, unlike what happened Iron Man, Captain America, The Hulk and Thor by the end of "Avengers - End Game"(1)

It has a great villain who is irredeemably evil, rather than being portrayed as some unfortunate victim of nature or nurture, to be pitied and rehabilitated, as happened in "Spider-Man No Way Home" (2)

One who has a diabolical scheme and a plan of action which actually makes some sense, unlike the half-baked efforts of Thanos in the Avengers movie series (3)

And with a dreadful motivation on a suitably grand scale, unlike the Scarlet Witch, who causes a ridiculously disproportionate amount of damage in pursuit of her mundane dream of an idyllic suburban family life.

Others in the Superhero movie business could learn a lot from the director of this franchise.

NB - Funnily enough when posting this I read another review which said that this movie had no big supervillain... A scientist who creates and destroys entire civilisations in his search for perfection isn't a "big supervillain"? It seems we humans can't agree on anything, it's a wonder we made it this far and there isn't a snowballs chance in hell we will ever unite in an effort to prevent man made climate change...

(1)- By the conclusion of "End Game" Marvel seem to be telling us that being a Superhero just isn't worth the hassle. Steve Rogers wishes he had never become a Superhero and goes to live in the past, Thor no-longer wants to be the ruler of Asgaard. Iron Man puts his personal need to live on through his widow and daughter ahead of 5 years of pain and suffering for everyone else in the whole Universe. And Hulk is no-longer the Hulk we know and love, he has become more like a combination of Reed Richards and the Thing in one body. In other words each of these characters is no longer who they were "designed" to be. I say designed because they are fictional characters created to fulfil a particular purpose and should only develop within those boundaries, otherwise they can no-longer perform their function and cease to be relevant. Where do they go from here? To the lame "Disney-fied" incarnation of Thor we saw in "Love & Thunder" that's where...

(2)-The message SMNWH is that every criminal can be cured using drugs, which is just simplistic, lazy story telling.

(3) - Thanos plan was to wipe out half the population of the Universe because it was "overcrowded". The world's population now is more than three times larger than it was in the mid-twentieth century. In 1800, there were only one billion people. Today there are more than 8 billion of us. If Thanos were to decide the earth was "overcrowded" and wipe out half the population, how long would it take before it was "overcrowded" again? Only the blink of an eye in historical terms, which makes his plan idiotic.

Copshop (2021)

B for Butler

[6/10 · 30 July 2023]

Personally I thought this was a cut above the usual for this genre, which is to say a B movie action / thriller rather than an A movie action / thriller. So on that basis, armed with reasonably low expectations, this is pretty decent with a solid premise, plenty of shoot'em up action and some good dark humour.

Humour is something where it is hard to get the right balance in this type of movie, but here I thought they found that balance. The key credit for that must go to Toby Huss, because his character is the one who had to deliver the kind of unhinged craziness which can easily derail this type of movie, tip over the edge and become too silly, in which case he would lose his credibility and cease to be a menacing threat.

Although Gerard Butler is top of the bill and Frank Grillo is next to him, Alexis Louder plays the main character, the one the audience can best identify with, or live vicariously through her point of view. She is the likeable fresh faced young cop, bursting with integrity and visions of enforcing the law in the manner of a sheriff out the old West. However I found her additional medical skills a bit hard to swallow, performing some sort of tricky surgery on a guy who had sustained life threatening damage to his throat and treating significant bullet wounds on more than one occasion, including one to herself, quite some time after everyone else had told her she was in danger of bleeding out. Being a very skinny lady, it was surprising she could last that long, let alone still be sufficiently compos mentis to treat herself.

As for Butler, I'm not sure what he thought was in this movie for him, as he plays a sociopathic / psychopathic person with no likeable qualities. Butler's character claims that he is just a "professional" doing a job, and I assume the Toby Huss character is included for contrast, to illustrate the difference. If that was the case, then it was an epic fail. Being a sociopath / psychopath has nothing to do with acting like a looney tune -

"Sociopathy, is a mental health condition in which a person consistently shows no regard for right and wrong and ignores the rights and feelings of others."

"Psychopathy is a mental health condition characterized by persistent antisocial behaviour, impaired empathy and remorse, and bold, disinhibited, and egotistical traits."

Butler's character will kill anyone for money, without giving any consideration to whether they deserve it or not, or to any collateral damage to casual bystanders. As it happens the guy he's sharing a cell with is a punk, who probably deserves to be put in his place, however Butler deliberately baits him into a fight and then goes far beyond what is necessary to teach him a lesson, breaking the guys trachea and leaving him spasming on the floor in order to create a diversion to serve his own purposes. Later he takes sadistic pleasure in shooting Toby Huss character in the knees and then applying pepper spray to the wounds and finally, returns to chop his head off in order to collect a reward from a Mafia boss. This is the behaviour of a sociopath / psychopath, no matter how deserving the recipient was. At the end of the movie they attempt to redeem his character by having him save Alexis Louder, when all seems lost, and help her to safety, but for me it's far too late for that.

Grillo also plays a thoroughly disreputable, but underdeveloped, character, who is never given enough to work with to make anyone care what happens to him one way or the other. He apparently cares about his wife, or girlfriend, and kid, but he never manages to get through to them on the phone and it turns out they have been killed off screen by the Huss character. The scene where he reveals his back story is poorly handled, he comes across as bland, neither charmingly slippery nor particularly evil. It's just a nothing part.

However the movie does invest quite a bit of time developing several other minor police officer characters, the stereotypical Grumpy Guy in charge (who swears far too much to be credible), a fresh faced token Hispanic and several other "red shirts", only to kill them off surprisingly quickly for little emotional payoff.

Tracey Bonners character is a bit of a mystery, she only appears briefly on a couple of occasions and the only purpose of her crooked cop character seems to be as stop gap to fill in some plot holes. One function she has is to help with the provision of a surprise twist ending when she suddenly pops up out of nowhere at the climax of the final shootout. This also provides an opportunity to rehabilitate Butler's character, who can now save the day, however, as he was apparently shot by Grillo earlier, it becomes an inexplicable problem as to how he comes to still be around. (Because if Grillo didn't shoot him why did that confrontation not continue at the time?) Trying to be too clever with twist endings, that end up undermining the rest of the film, is a common fault in B action / thrillers these days.

Her other purpose could be to balance out the racial profile of the villains, as the other three main ones are all white (Sorry, but I can't help but include Butler as a villain, despite what the Director might wish). To continue on the obvious level of modern PC influence evident in this film, I find it interesting that while there are ample African American actors included in this story, there is only one minor Hispanic part... in a movie set in Texas!

Finally, with regard to women in action movies in general, although I usually don't find them credible, Alexis Louder won me over with her performance, that wisely didn't include any fist fights, which could only have appeared ridiculous, given her physique. However I will say this, in my experience women generally do not want to watch Action movies, and I don't know any who would willingly watch this one. I would also suggest that men who enjoy action movies, generally do not want to see women in the lead good guy role. I identify more easily with men because I am one, and I want to be able to imagine myself as the lead. So why does Hollywood keep trying to force a product onto the market which neither men nor women really want to see?

I have enjoyed Sigourney Weaver as Ripley and Jody Foster in a number of "Action" roles, although they emphasise brain over brawn. Angelina Jolie and Jessica Chastain keep trying, but although they are a good actresses, their physique lets them down when it comes to fight credibility, and this is true of most actresses, they just don't look convincing in a prolonged physical confrontation. If Hollywood insists on continuing down this path they should go and hire Amanda Nunes or Becky Lynch and send them to acting classes.

God Was in the West, Too, at One Time (1968)

Between God, the Devil and Gilbert Roland

[6/10 · 26 July 2023]

One of several Spaghetti Westerns featuring Gilbert Roland in the 1960s, and here he is the pivotal figure in the story, rather than being more of a sidekick, along to assist a younger hero. This one is a loose adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson's "Treasure Island" with Gilbert in the "Long John Silver" role.

As usual, having an already "market tested" quality plot to build around is a big plus in a Spaghetti Western, and I have a hunch the longer European version of this (if such a thing ever existed) could well be a minor classic. However I watched the 98 minute American cut, which turns much of the final third into montages, in order move the story along quickly and fit the hour and a half running time preferred by distributors in America back in the 1960s and 70s. This sudden change in approach is quite jarring and serves to dissipate much of the films potential for drama and excitement. I'm imagining that a two hour version could have maintained a more consistent tone and allowed the story and characters to develop better (That's my theory anyway).

The first third is very good, with plenty of colourful rogues and scoundrels, along with the enchanting Dominique Boschero. As others have mentioned it's sad to see her bow out so soon. There is no significant girl in Treasure Island either, but, within a "Western" genre setting, I think she could easily have been accommodated, riding along in one of the wagons, causing manly blood to simmer.

Gilbert Roland arrives and easily dominates the screen with his typical roguish charm. As an Hispanic actor he was never allowed to achieve his full potential in Hollywood, so it is nice to see him getting some decent Spaghetti roles late in the day and enjoying an "Indian Summer" of sorts.

Richard Harrison is pretty underwhelming, possibly because he isn't given a lot to work with. Playing a former soldier turned priest who refuses to use a gun is not the ideal part to have in a non-comedy Spaghetti Western!

The second third is not quite as good as the first, with some poor and or illogical plot development, but still moves along adequately until the characters take refuge in an abandoned Inn (the equivalent of the stockade in Treasure Island). However about the time Richard Harrison heads out to look for supplies the montage scenes begin to kick in and sap the films momentum.

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with what happens in the final third, the expected fights and shootouts and double crosses are all there in the appropriate places, it's just the execution falls flat, it feels rushed, outlined and painted with a broad brush and lacking in emotional content (as Bruce Lee would have put it). Not that it's really bad or anything, just that it felt to me like it could have delivered a bit more than it did.

Still a very nice movie for fans of Gilbert Roland to enjoy

To the reviewer who wrote "My advice to fans killing time watching low-grade Italian genre crap: take some time to watch the hundreds of masterworks from Italy - you might learn something about the human condition from the artists and craftsmen ranging all the way from Antonioni through Zurlini."

In reply I say "I live with the human condition every day and I watch Spaghetti Westerns in order to take my mind off such things."

Seven Seas to Calais (1962)

Rod Taylor Does A Swashbuckler

[7/10 · 22 July 2023]

A better than usual 1960s Spaghetti-wood adventure movie that is superior to many Hollywood efforts in some ways.

Firstly all the leading actors are top notch, Rod Taylor makes an excellent Francis Drake, a brash man of the World on the make, Irene Worth provides the charismatic performance expected from a QE1, Keith Michell provides just the right mix of brave and naïve, as Drakes apprentice hero, who is very willing, but has much to learn from his more experienced mentor, Edy Vessel makes an ethereal love interest for the younger hero and seeing Terrence Hill before he became "Terrence Hill"... makes for an interesting curiosity.

Then there is the script, which, while not exactly "historically accurate" is at least soundly constructed around a framework of broadly authentic events, rather than being completely made up. The "potato" incident is not one of them, but as it's only there to provide comic relief, I'll give it a pass.

The costumes and indoor sets are suitably colourful and impressive, and those who know about such things suggest that the musical score is too.

The film starts with a hiss and a roar, with several decent sword fights, but then momentum starts to slip away the longer the voyage goes on. Here is where the budget limitations begin to become apparent. The producers appear to have obtained two life size "ships", but are they real ships or merely facsimiles constructed on top of shallow bottomed barges or rafts? The thing is they are only ever shown on millpond smooth water and although the sails are up they are not moving, or healing over, like a real ship would (or even a decent model). Drake manages to sail around the infamously stormy Cape Horn without a single wave troubling the surface of the ocean.

Next Drake and co decide to go ashore and encounter some sleeping Portuguese and then some dozy Spaniards, at a Spanish mine. This is another impressive indoor set, which looks like a leftover from a "Swords and Sandals" epic. More sword fighting ensues. Next Drake and co arrive near a harbour and capture two Spanish ships, more by subterfuge than swashbuckling, and acquire the requisite treasure. The only problem with this is that the ships they capture look suspiciously like their own (because, due to budget constraints of course, they probably are). The water is again millpond smooth and there is little sword play and no ship to ship action, which is disappointing. Then it's off to rest up and enjoy some comic relief (cue potatoes) with a tribe of relatively friendly South American natives, before heading for home.

Back to England in time to foil an attempt to replace QE1 with Mary Queen of Scots (another occasion which would have benefitted from a more extensive sword fighting scene), followed by the approach of the Spanish Armada. Now the director makes use of some model ships or perhaps footage from a previous movie, which show ships that are actually sailing, with the waves and the moving and the wind ruffling the sails. But, sadly, even that previous movie had its own budget constraints, so it suddenly becomes night, in order to disguise the fact that there is not actually an Armada or an English fleet (or perhaps it's from a different movie or a different part of the same movie?) The combining of the stock footage, with new close-up work of Drake and co spliced in, is quite skilfully done without being entirely convincing.

Definitely worth a watch for fans of the Swashbuckler genre.

PS - Apparently, during filming, Rod Taylor was dating Anita Ekberg, now that explains everything!

That Lucky Touch (1975)

No Lucky Touch Here

[3/10 · 18 July 2023]

Another Roger Moore movie that can't make up its mind whether it's meant to be serious or humorous and which also left me lamenting that Roger Moore didn't manage to appear in more com-coms instead of a string of half-baked action movies. Type-caste as the Saint / James Bond I suppose, even though such rare acting praise as he did receive is generally for his affable charm rather than for his steely resolve.

Coming in cold I found it hard to work out what sort of movie this was trying to be, at first it seemed like it might be a political thriller, as Roger tests weapons in the darkness at some deserted spot and makes deals to purchase more. Shady Arab characters pop up from time to time, without ever being involved directly with any of the other characters. Meanwhile there is another thread involving a crusading investigative reporter (and solo mum) Susannah York, who is in town to cause mischief at a NATO exercise. General Lee J Cobb and wife Shelley Winters appear to be there for comic relief, which is all well and good. Also scattered through the movie are otherwise irrelevant scenes of Roger watching horses win bets for him at the races and Roger winning at poker, in order to provide some ephemeral connection to the title of the film.

By this time the audience is wondering how Roger and Susannah fit into the same picture, when suddenly we find out, as it turns out they are living on the same floor of a palatial apartment building and later she manages to lock herself out just as Roger arrives home. Here is where the movie comes alive, now that we are in familiar rom-com territory, and remain there for an extended period. Although the script is pretty ropey, the charm of the two leads almost carries the day in this middle phase of the film, which manages to be mildly amusing. Watching Roger operate in this setting is to see a performer clearly in his element and is what made me ponder how he didn't get more Cary Grant / Rock Hudson style opportunities. I guess one reason would be that this movie was a failure.

The fundamental underlying problem with the whole premise is that Roger is an arms dealer, a profession which is never likely to win over an audience's sympathy. Now I can comprehend that in the real World even the good guys make use of arms dealers, but it's a hard sell, and an even harder sell in the context of a rom-com, and probably an impossible sell when the other side of the equation is an anti-war investigative journalist.

Unfortunately, all too soon we return to the other main plot thread of the movie, events relating to the NATO exercise. Just why General Cobb is so tolerant of Susannah the anti-War reporter is eventually explained, but far too late in the day and even then remains unconvincing. The rest of the film decends into half baked farce, which makes less and less sense as it unravels. More importantly it also failed to engender any laughs on my part.

In the end Roger decides not to sell arms to the Arab gentlemen, who have been hanging around throughout the movie without a line of dialogue, someone mentions this to Susannah, who then decides that Roger isn't such an unprincipled scoundrel after all, that it's ok to fall for him, and they walk off into the airport travellator sunset.

So Roger gets to display his natural talent for comedic acting, Susannah York is vivacious, Lee J Cobb, Shelley Winters, Raf Vallone and Donald Sindon all ham it up (in a good way), in fact all the performers do their best with a poor script and unimaginative direction, but it's just not enough to save the film from being a disappointing debacle.

Johnny Hamlet (1968)

Johnny Hamlet aka That Dirty Story In The West

[8/10 · 14 July 2023]

I'm going to rank this the 6th best Spaghetti Western of all time, behind only the five Sergio Leoni classics (because personally I find Sergio Corbucci's most renowned efforts too gothic and depressing for my taste)

Enzo Castellani has studied the SL playbook and does a great job of framing his shots to maximise the value of the scenery and uses zooms and close-ups to build tension and help mitigate the limited acting skills of some of the cast.

Most Spaghetti Westerns use generic semi-arid Spanish scenery to stand in for the West of the United States, making no attempt to match the scenic grandeur achieved by John Ford, in his use of Monument Valley as a backdrop, or Anthony Mann's use of the Rocky Mountains, and fair enough too as the genre is mainly one of B movies with small budgets. However great background scenery doesn't have to cost more money, and here they make extensive use of the picturesque rock formations of "Cuidad Encantada" near the equally picturesque town of Cuenca in Spain.

The script is decent and draws some added zest from elements borrowed from Shakespeare's famous play "Hamlet", however don't expect to carry that analogy too far, as there are not nearly enough fights and shootouts in a Shakespearian play to satisfy the intended audience of a Spaghetti Western. Castellani knows this and ensures that there is plenty of action to be found here, accompanied by thuds and whacks which even exceed the usual level of impact, with each blow sounding as if a door or wall had been demolished to provide it.

I also found the choreography of the fight scenes to be above average, with fights incorporating some imaginative use of flips, throws and tumbles to season the usual diet of punches and broken furniture.

As for the acting, it's up to the expected level for a Spaghetti Western, some memorably fruity villains, a very attractive but somewhat wooden hero and female eye candy, and a single Hollywood has been, hoping to follow in Clint Eastwood's footsteps and get a career boost. In this case it is the redoubtable Gilbert Roland, who once did a shift as the Cisco Kid in B Movies of the 1940s, and he brings his customary assured macho charisma to the role of experienced friend of the hero, who steps in to save him whenever he gets in over his head, which in this movie is pretty much constantly.

Highly recommended to fans of the genre.

Spenser Confidential (2020)

Marky Mark Familiar

[7/10 · 7 July 2023]

This may be the best Charles Bronson / Steven Segal / JCVD picture Mark Wahlberg has managed so far. By that I mean this is the kind of role those guys would have jumped at the chance to play. For me it's not a "Comedy Action" film, it's a solid "Action" movie with comedy elements, which many modern action movies miss, but there is also some serious drama and characters suffering loss depicted in a meaningful fashion.

The lead character is played by Mark Wahlberg doing Mark Wahlberg, not as Spenser from either the books or the TV series, but as "Mark Wahlberg movie star", with his angry pixie face and feisty banter. Guaranteed to remove his shirt at some point, in order to show off his guns and six pack for the ladies, as well as to both distract us from his ageless adolescent appearance and remind us that he is a tougher than he looks.

So they didn't buy the rights in order to use the character or the title, but for the plot, which is definitely a good idea, given the threadbare wads of tissue paper passing for scripts in many modern action movies these days.

Supporting actors all doing a top notch job, including Alan Arkin who died only a few days before I watched this, so more meaningful to me than it would have been otherwise.

Recommended for Action movie fans and fans of Marky-Mark.

The King (I) (2019)

The King (Who Never Was)

[7/10 · 7 July 2023]

There is a good single combat scene and a good mass battle scene, but apart from that I could go on ad infinitum about how historically inaccurate this movie is. Now, I can put up with plenty historical inaccuracy in the interests of telling a good story, as long as there is no socio-political agenda involved, but in this case there is, which is what I find impossible to accept.

Henry V was not a man of peace who was duped into making war on France by his advisers, as portrayed in this film. This is just an example of someone trying to rewrite history to make Henry more palatable to modern PC morality by fundamentally changing his character. In fact, one of the reasons Henry fell out with his father was because he always wanted to make war on France. Henry was a typical medieval King, which means he was always open to the opportunity of increasing his power or the size of his realm. This doesn't preclude him from also being an effective and efficient ruler of England.

So, unlike the way it is shown in the scene with the clerics, Henry was perfectly happy to reuse Edward III's claim to the French throne to further justify his own personal ambitions. Internal divisions within France, which had a mentally ill King and powerful feuding noble families, provided suitable conditions for him to take advantage of, and he came closer to achieving the goal of ruling France than any other English Monarch. If you are not prepared to acknowledge and accept the central fact of his whole life, why bother making a movie about this particular King?

Examples of what I don't mind so much and could accept as artistic license, are things like;-

Robert Pattinson, who does an effective job as the creepy Dauphin, although he is certainly played as a pantomime villain and was not even present at Agincourt.

There was never any question of Henry not becoming King on his father death and Thomas was a loyal and effective supporter of both his father and later his brother, not a petulant, immature weakling, as depicted in the film.

Henry's only solution to any military problem here seems to be to challenge his opponent to engage in single combat, supposedly in order to save lives. However in reality he did not fight and kill Harry Hotspur in this manner and was, in fact, seriously wounded by an arrow in that battle. Nor did he challenge or engage the Dauphin in this way.

Medieval Kings and Dauphins do not go unattended or lightly guarded into the camp of their opponent to deliver ultimatums and threats, nor do desperate hand to hand battles suddenly stop so that everyone can stand around and watch the two leaders engage in single combat. Nor do leaders suddenly turn up in the thick of it when the battle is already lost, in order to challenge their opponent to single combat, and if they did they are certainly not killed, if at all possible, but are instead captured for the purposes of ransom.

Also it appears that this movie would have you believe that only women are trust worthy and to be relied upon to tell you the truth. Henry's sister warns him and later his French bride speaks truth to power. The only trustworthy man shown is John Falstaff, his old drinking buddy, who single-handedly devises the inspired tactics which lead to victory at Agincourt (Yeah, right)

Etcetera etcetera ad nauseam...

Outlaw King (2018)

A Man Who Would Be King

[7/10 · 7 July 2023]

Very enjoyable, good battle scene at the end A straight forward telling of the story of Robert de Bruce, without trying to impose too much modern morality or controvercial revisionist interpretation, apart from a bit of feminism, but they didn't try to push that aspect too far.

However for the sake of historical perspective I'll raise a few points of interest.

Bruce married his second wife when she was only 13 years old, which I guess would be too much for a modern audience to be expected to cope with...

Edward 1 was nicknamed "Longshanks" because he was tall, but in this movie he was shorter than many around him, however, other than that, I thought the portrail of him as an down to earth experienced king, rather than a pantomine villain, struck a good balance.

The giant Trebuchet they showed being fired at Stirling Castle was a real thing he had constructed on site during one of the wars, and although the castle offerred to surrender before it was completed, he decided that having spent all that time and effort on building the thing, it would be a waste not see it in action.

The portrayal of Edward 2 is very different to that in Braveheart, where he was shown as weak and effeminate. Here he is the pantomine villain, raging and screaming but stupid. Both movies are over the top in that regard. Edward 2 just wasn't a very successful king, the talent skipped a generation, as it often does, and Edward 3 was much more effective, twice invading France with considerable success.

The most controvercial moment in Bruce's life is the murder of Red Comyn, his main rival for the throne. They agreed to meet unarmed in a church, but it is thought that Bruce had a concealed dagger and either always intended to murder Comyn, or took it as a precaution and used it after the two men both lost their tempers during the meeting. It took Bruce along time to live that down, and much public repentance and ritual penance for violating the sanctity of the church. In the movie they take the violent argument option but it appears that after the argument starts Bruce draws the dagger from Comyn's own belt, which I think is unlikely

Aymer de Valance was a relative of Comyn, so his feeling that Bruce acted dishonourably toward his relative mitigates his own treachery in attacking Bruce's camp after dark (or in fact, at dusk, according to Wikipedia)

The Bruce family played both sides as far as they could during the wars, Bruce the elder remaining loyal to Edward in order to preserve the families English lands, while Bruce the younger became a rebel, to preserve the families claim to the Scottish crown, and was based in their Scottish lands around Galloway. However when it became clear that Bruce the elder was going to die soon, their bluff was called and Bruce the younger had to change sides and seek forgiveness from Edward in order to preserve the families English lands, which could more easily be lost for good if Edward chose to reallocate them.

The Executioner II: Karate Inferno (1974)

The Excruciator!

[5/10 · 4 July 2023]

10% Karate movie, 20% Caper movie, 70% low slapstick comedy. If grown men continually trying to look up lady's dress is your idea of sophisticated humour, then this is the movie for you...

The usual suspects from "The Executioner" are brought back together for another mission, the retired Police Chief, his comely daughter, the wily veteran assassin, the pointless idiot and Sonny. However the idiotic character seemed to lack some of the verve he showed in the previous film, as if resigned to his fate.

There are jewels that may or may not have been stolen, a billion yen insurance pay-out (or fraud), a kid-knapped child and another billion yen in ransom. It's never entirely clear who is double crossing who, when and why, but that is of no real importance in this type of movie.

The robbery caper devised is elaborate and implausible, as to be expected, but sadly the makers didn't have budget to deliver the spectacle envisioned in a convincing way on screen. By over reaching themselves they draw attentions to this shortcoming, but, on the other hand, as this is predominantly a comedic outing so it's not a deal breaker.

What is a deal breaker is that there are too many overlong stretches of lame comedy and caper planning in-between the karate battles and the "excecution" of the capers (you see what I did there?), which drag the movie down.

In fact the fight scenes are very good when taken on their own, although the final showdown seems to arrive almost out of nowhere, with every character, good and bad, suddenly turning up for the battle royal, and Sonny delivering a sort of greatest hits of "Streetfighter" mayhem, knocking out a mouthful of teeth here, ripping out a heart there, and breaking one thugs neck by revolving his head 360 degrees with a series of chops, a-la the Exorcist. Even the infamous fishnet arm from the first film makes a surprise encore appearance, apropos of nothing, and I suddenly had a flash of insight into what it's practical purpose was this time;-apparently it may be able to deflect bullets!

I also had a feeling I may have been watching a cut version of the film, because there seemed to be far less female nudity than was foreshadowed in the opening credits, which was made up of what I assumed was a montage of highlights from later in the film, many of which didn't appear to eventuate. Perhaps the lack of puerile soft porn content also contributes to making this edition less enjoyable than the first?

So no "Karate Inferno" here, instead easily Sonny's least convincing effort from his halcyon year of 1974.

Karate for Life (1977)

The Streetfighters Last Stand?

[7/10 · 2 July 2023]

In 1974 Sonny Chiba made the first of his classic martial arts movies, and here, only 4 years later in 1977, he made his last. Don't get me wrong, he still had many entertaining Action and Samurai movies yet to come, but they would no longer be martial arts oriented.

"Karate For Life" is also the third in the trilogy loosely based on the career of real life martial arts master Mas Oyama, however in this case the connection is really only made in order to take advantage of name recognition at the box office, rather than including any events that actually occurred in Oyama's life. In the same way that the third instalment of the Streetfighter trilogy has less connection with the previous editions, as the black clad nihilist of the first two films becomes more of a Japanese James Bond style character, who even dons a tuxedo at one point. However that is not a criticism, as we are all here to see Chiba kick some ass, not get a history lesson.

The good news is that this movie kicks off with the greatest extended fight sequence of Sonny's career, bar none, where he takes on a whole dojo full of opponents single handed (Fist Of Fury style), before a final face-off with the Sensei. Part of the massed battle involves slippery oil on the floor, which may have served as the inspiration for a memorable action sequence in Jason Statham's movie "The Transporter". Outstanding!

The bad news is that we are immediately faced with the usual amoral dilemma, that contradiction we must confront in most Sonny Chiba movies, namely the fact that his character is often just a senseless school yard bully who does not deserve to be respected and is hard to root for. Often in old school martial arts movies it seems we are expected to admire the protagonist purely because he is tough and a skilled fighter, even if he is a selfish childish basket. However Sonny's characters often learn as they go along so we'll see if he does this time...

So the dojo members are going through their drills, bothering non-one, when Sonny makes his entrance, looking super cool in a long coat with the collar up. We have been told he has been working as a bouncer for the local Yakuza (disappointing), but still likes to keep his Karate skills sharp, which he does by going around challenging local martial arts teachers to single combat. These being people who are just minding their own business, not criminals, but men teaching others the skills or martial arts and hopefully the underlying philosophy that goes with it i.e. That martial arts should be seen as an expression of valour, chivalry, and self-sacrifice. Philosophy which stresses that people should live in peace and harmony. However Sonny seems to have missed out on that part, maybe he was sick that day? The Sensei tries to explain this too him, but gets only childish abuse in return. He foolishly orders his class to teach Sonny a lesson and they proceed to get dismantled in detail. Eventually the Sensei is forced to face Chiba alone and ends up losing an eye (Yay?).

Next Sonny and his gangster friends turn up at a local bar. They bully patrons out of their seats to make way for them, and push the staff around when reminded that they haven't paid their large tab... (Yay?) Sonny then gets an offer from a dodgy character with cotton wool up one nostril to go and fight professionally in Okinawa, which, of course, he takes. He is then teamed with two other fighters to go up against various professional wrestlers for the entertainment of American troops stationed there. (Apparently these were actual pro-wrestlers of the time, which the movie audience would have recognised) However what they haven't told him is that he is supposed to lose, which, being Sonny, he can't bring himself to do. The local Yakuza are displeased with the result and Sonny and co are invited to get out of town and return to the mainland.

Then, while wondering aimlessly around town, Sonny has his money and belongings stolen by street urchins, and later while hanging around a graveyard, he prevents a girl from committing suicide and comes to know and care about her. At this point the movie starts to follow the plot of "Killing Machine". The girl has become a prostitute out of necessity rather than inclination, and later it turns out the urchin who stole Sonny's stuff is her little brother. This is revealed after Sonny gets a second shot at chasing the street kid, following a separate bag snatch which he happens to witness. These sequences show us a more human side of Sonny's character (Sonny the actor has a charisma which can be as warm as it can be fearsome), he befriends the homeless orphan kids and joins their gang in a paternal way, tries to bring the sister and brother back together and then cares for the sister who has advanced pneumonia and needs penicillin. However that is in short supply and expensive in post war Japan. (Things are looking up then.)

So Sonny goes to the Yakuza and obtains forgiveness, agreeing to throw fights in return for enough money to get the penicillin, in order to save the girl. (Yay Sonny!) But, being Sonny, he can't help himself, wins the fight instead and goes on the run. The Yakuza torture and kill the girl trying to find him, then torture the boy and do find him, then one of Sonny's pals dies during the resulting mayhem, after which Sonny finds out about how the girl died and vows to exact empty revenge. (But does he ever recognise that her death etc. Is all his own selfish fault?)

Sonny buries the girl, in sand on the top of a large rocky outcrop at a beach she told him about ,and then he and his remaining friend attack the villain's lair for the climactic battle royal, which includes the return of the one eyed Sensei from the first act, after his own revenge, and a confrontation in a "hall of mirrors" scene, lifted from "Enter The Dragon".

A fitting screen farewell to an always ambiguous martial arts legend

NB IMO the classic Sonny Chiba period covers Streetfighter 1, 2, 3, The Executioner 1 (1974), Killing Machine, Champion of Death, Karate Bear Fighter (1975), Karate Warriors (1976), Karate For Life (1977) and perhaps The Bodyguard TV series (1974)

The Protectors (1964)

Solid Early 60s Stuff

[6/10 · 21 June 2023]

IMO This series has about the same production values as the early series of the Avengers, i.e. Scenes are shot inside a studio, rather than on location. The action / fight scenes are also on a par with early Avengers, i.e. Reasonably well concieved, but shot in one take with no second chances.

However I disagree with the other reviewer about the quality of the actiing, I don't find it wooden at all, but I do agree that no-one in this show has that X factor of star level charisma, as supplied by Patrick McNee (Stead) or Honor Blackman (Mrs Gale) in the Avengers.

The swinging 60s didn't really kick-off in the mass conciousness until around 1965/66, so it's no surprise not to find much evidence of it here. The Avengers was ahead of the curve in that regard, which is part of the reason why it is considered a classic while this series is almost forgotten.

But if you enjoy Cathy Gale era Avengers you will probably find some entertainment value in this.

Glass Onion (2022)

Mona Lisa Mayhem!

[1/10 · 7 February 2023]

I was really enjoying Knives Out - Glass Onion, just as much as the first edition of Knives Out, but then the ending ruined the whole experience for me

Note to Hollywood;- even if Hitler himself had loved the Mona Lisa and had it hanging on his wall in the Eagles Nest at Berchtesgaden, that would not justify purposely destroying such an important artifact of human achievement.

We have enough trouble these days with fanatics who believe that their particular cause can somehow be furthered by throwing paint or food on priceless (and harmless) works of art, without Hollywood offering additional encouragement.

To suggest that a desire for personal revenge on another individual is sufficient excuse for the deliberate destruction of a significant (and innocent) piece of World heritage is morally bankrupt and a disgrace.

What were they thinking? (Answer - they weren't)

The Mechanic (1972)

Charles Bronson Is "The Mechanic"

[8/10 · 14 October 2022]

Arguably Charles Bronson's masterpiece

However, when I first watched this film I had a negative attitude to it, after all, why should I feel sympathetic towards a cold-blooded assassin who is indifferent to normal standards morality?

But I enjoy Charles Bronson, so after a while I gave it another viewing and began to appreciate it, as a very interesting examination and analysis of the life, and nature, of a professional assassin. For a while after that, each time I watched it again, I found another interesting facet of the character to ponder. It's either a movie of unusual depth or I'm just a bit slow on the uptake (probably the latter lol)

First without making use of any dialogue or voiceover, the director shows us Bishop / Bronson at work, his professionalism and attention to the minutest detail (even though the plan he devises is probably far more elaborate than anything a real assassin would bother with)

Then we see Bishop at home, enjoying the fruits of his labour;- he has a flash modern house in a style reminiscent of Frank Lloyd Wright, perched on a hillside with glass walls that make you feel as if you are living up in the tree canopy, while other parts of the house are dimly lit, the walls crowded with fine art, rooms filled with leather and carved dark wood furniture, tables and shelves crowded with elaborate antique lamps, statuettes and other object d'art, which Bishop contemplates while listening to classical music on his stereo and sipping fine wine or brandy. He also has an indoor pool and a Ford Mustang muscle car in the carport... so he seems to be living the dream then? Or at least the public's ideal of the Hollywood "James Bond" assassin's high risk, high reward lifestyle.

But there was one important ingredient missing from the recipe I just described, so we also see him visit the apartment of a beautiful woman. They make small talk, have a drink, make love, so now the picture is complete, except it turns out she is only a high-class hooker paid to play a part for him. She asks if he was happy with the dialogue she made up for their fake relationship and he compliments her performance. The part of the call-girl is played by Bronson's real-life wife, Jill Ireland, who is very attractive to look at, but a poor actress. However, in playing the part of someone who is not an actress, but is trying to play a part, she is probably more believable for just that reason. It turns out that, in his personal life, Bishop is alone in the World, unable to share his life or trust anyone due to nature of his profession.

Bishop also visits a doctor in order to deal with the effects of the stress caused by his chosen profession, the cumulative effects of which, are beginning to take a toll and manifest themselves in his physical health as well. If it's such high price to pay, why does he do it? That side of things is mainly dealt with in his conversations with the good-looking, rebellious son of an older criminal associate (acquaintance? Friend?). Bronson explains to the curious younger man that, in his mind, he became an assassin to achieve freedom from the constraints of normal society. However, as the movie progresses, he comes to realise that this was only self delusion, he is not really free at all, he has only exchanged one set of constraints for another. This realisation is brought home to him in the scene where he visits one of the heads of the organisation, who puts him in his place, and is, not so subtly, symbolised by the pet leopard that the boss keeps chained up in the garden.

He is asked to kill off the old criminal associate and does so (once again using a highly unlikely and over-elaborate plan). He attends the funeral and begins to spend more and more time in the company of the man's son. Is it because he feels guilty about deceiving and killing someone who was as close to being a friend as he seems to have? Or to try and make up for depriving the younger man of his father? Or is it that his loneliness is finally getting the better of him and he just needs some honest human interaction? Or is he trying to find some relief from the stress by sharing his burden with another? Or a mixture of all these things, and any others I haven't considered?

On the other hand, does the younger man already suspect Bishop was responsible for his father's death or does that realisation come later, as they spend more time together? He is bored with his pampered life of ease, which has caused him to develop a distain for others, and which is, perhaps, a different motivation from Bishop's own. It may be a fine distinction to make, but it seems Bishop will only kill for money, or what having money represents to him, but not for the pleasure of the act itself. On the other hand, the younger man might kill someone just to experience of how it felt. The money has no meaning for him, as he has never been without it. Is that the difference between a sociopath / psychopath and a soldier / assassin who kills for a cause, even if that cause is only money? I see this as the ultimate question at the heart of the movie. You may draw your own conclusion

In any case Bishop takes him on as an "apprentice" and then carries out an assignment with him (during which the unlikely and over-elaborate plan goes awry for once), without the permission of the organisation, which makes them unhappy and question whether he is losing it. Further action and double dealing ensues. There is a great double twist ending, which is another aspect which makes this a classic of the genre.

"If you read this, it means you've broken a filament controlling a 13-second delay trigger. End of game. Bang! You're dead."

NB - Movies about ruthless assassins seem to be more popular than ever these days, and most of them are very one dimensional. The Mechanic storyline is intended to be an examination of what it's like to be a professional assassin, the implications and effects of that lifestyle on the human condition and an attempt to understand what makes that kind of person tick. However the whole premise starts from a flawed perspective, which may lead the viewer to draw invalid conclusions as a result.

Hollywood likes to see assassins are sociopathic loners who find it difficult to have normal relationships, or who choose not to have normal relationships because of they are secretive about their profession, but having read about some real-life killers, I have seen that they can have normal social lives, complete with friends, wives and children. Of course, most of their friends are usually other criminals, who do not judge them by the standards of normal society. My only point being, one size does not fit all.

Nor are they always haunted by the accumulated guilt of what they have done. Having read about real life mafia hit men I can say that they are perfectly capable of comparmentalising what they do. They rationalise their actions in such a way as to justify their actions in their own minds. The guy they killed was a bum and deserved what he got. All criminals must do it, and, in fact, all humans do it at times. We all occasionally do things that the little voice in the back of our minds reminds us was not quite right. As with most human behaviour, it is a matter of degree. Many people who do bad things are not mentally ill, they have just developed bad habits. The eternal nature v nurture discussion.

$ (1971)

Warren & Goldie Do A Heist Movie

[7/10 · 13 October 2022]

An underrated Euro-American hybrid heist movie starring Warren Beatty and Goldie Hawn

Outside security consultant Warren is the inside man who has a cunning plan, which involves cleaning out the safety deposit boxes of villains only, who he has identified via a network of female friends in low places. It's a pretty nifty plan and things go well, however, although the villains may not be able to go crying to the Police about the loss of their ill-gotten gains, it doesn't mean they have to take things lying down. Previously they have been given ample opportunity to demonstrate their nasty credentials during the first act, in true 1970s cinematic tradition, so when they come after Warren and Goldie, the audience can take the threat very seriously. Exciting chases ensue.

The heist sequence is nicely handled, with enough things not quite going to plan to keep the tension level up. The chases are also well filmed for the most part and the villains meet suitably nasty ends. There is also an interesting sub plot involving champagne.

The movie is spiced up with some "European" styling, unusual soundtrack noises and funky camera angles, which are needed, as Hamburg is a rather dull setting, seemingly always overcast and dank looking. Because its winter of course, but why? Perhaps it was just the only time Warren had free in his calendar that year? Actually, to be fair, the winter setting does come in very handy later, when it's comes time to off one of the main villains (fisty-cuffs and gunplay not being one of Warren's strengths), but most of the time it's just a bit of a downer. And why Hamburg? Maybe the City council chipped in some tax breaks or something? They do make some use of the Reeperbahn, but a similar location could have been found in any major city.

Warren's 1970s Hollywood playboy haircut looks jarringly out of place sitting on top of a security advisers suit in a conservative German bank. As if he and Goldie just walked in from the set of "Shampoo" to Hamburg, but in fact it they were filmed the other way around. Goldie is still in "Laugh In" mode, relying mainly on her cuteness factor, big eyes and giggly charm. Gert "Goldfinger" Frobe is perfect as the baffoonish bank manager, while Arthur Brauss and Scott Brady are both excellent in their different ways, as the main villains.

Little Richard contributes sporadic musical snippits, mainly in the night club scenes, which also feature sporadic nudity.

The Hot Rock (1972)

Robert & George Do A Heist Movie

[6/10 · 13 October 2022]

A decent Heist movie with Robert Redford and George Segal.

After the success of "The Pink Panther" in 1963 and "Topkapi" in 1964, Caper films were in vogue and everyone who was anyone wanted to try their hand. Shirley MacLaine & Michael Caine did "Gambit" (1966), Audrey Hepburn & Peter O'Toole did "How To Steal a Million" (1966), James Coburn did "Dead Heat On A Merry-go-round (1966), Steve McQueen & Fay Dunaway did "The Thomas Crown Affair" (1968) Michael Caine was at it again in "The Italian Job" (1968), Warren Beatty and Goldie Hawn did "Dollars" (1972), and many more.

In this one, unlike many heist movies, little time is spent on showing the meticulous planning phase, the careful observation of routines and the acquisition of special equipment, commonly used to help build anticipation and tension before the main event. Here we move quickly to the execution phase, but the plan goes awry. Further planning and additional capering ensues.

Robert Redford's character is the planner, but his dialogue is focused more around describing his philosophy on planning a heist, rather than the details relating to any particular plan. These we only get to see as the heist and other related capers are actually enacted. Some will prefer this approach, of getting to the action sooner, while others may miss seeing more of the preparation phase.

Like most heist movies it mixes comedic and thriller elements, and for me demonstrates Robert Redford's limitations as a comedic actor. I guess he falls into the category of "method" actor, someone who underplays and aims for realism, but comedy generally works better with a degree of over-acting. In that regard George Segal is more at home, as he is an outstanding comedic actor, as well as being an underrated serious actor, in my opinion. The other supporting actors also strike the right balance, but they can't quite make up for Robert's lack of comedic spark. I think the likes of Steve McQueen and Paul Newman are other examples of actors who can both underplay and overact when required, and who would have suited the role and got more out of the part than Bob was able to.

I also find the final method employed to achieve a successful resolution of the caper to be rather weak (it involves the use of a hypnotist)

All in all then, the movie is only good when perhaps it could have been very good.

The Nutty Professor (1996)

Eddie Love

[7/10 · 12 October 2022]

Something of a "comeback" for Eddie Murphy, although, to be honest, most comedians tend to have a pretty patchy, up and down movie careers, as comedy is hard to sustain over the hour and a half length expected of a movie.

This one, if you don't know already, is a remake of an old Jerry Lewis movie. In the Lewis version the nerdy professor comes up with a potion that gives him self-confidence, Eddie's version makes him fat as well, with the potion making him thin, thus automatically raising his self-esteem through the roof. Now, as then, the PC among us will be offended, only more so. However, putting such moral misgivings to one side, for me, the only real criteria to judge a comedy by is - "does it make me laugh", and the answer in this case is - yes. It's very broad comedy but competently handled, so as to be able to have its cake and eat it too (i.e. Laugh at fat people while also showing sympathy for their plight, so as to hopefully defuse the worst of the PC backlash).

Apart from wearing the fat suit as the Professor, Eddie also puts on the makeup to play the Professor's Mother, Father, Grandmother and Brother. Now I have often read "serious" movie critics question why someone like Eddie, or Peter Sellers etc, often play multiple characters in their movies for "no good reason", so I will answer that for them now. The "good reason" is that it forms an important part of their comedy. It's something they do well and part of what the audience enjoys seeing from them. Sometimes with comedy the movie can primarily be a vehicle for showing off the different facets a particular performers talent, with the story being of secondary importance. That can be its main purpose and there is nothing wrong with that in my eyes. I often lament that the likes of Robin Williams or Dean Martin rarely appeared in movies that allowed them to show their full range of comedic talent. Instead, they usually ended up playing parts that many others, even non-comedians, could have played just as well.

So, to sum up, Eddie also generates plenty of low brow laughs as the other members of his family, Jada Pinkett is petite and charming as Miss Purdie, Larry Miller is ideal in the archetypal Evil Dean role, Jon Ailes as the requisite bespectacled, shaggy haired assistant, while Dave Chappelle cameos as the offensive comedian who gets his comeuppance.