Darren-12's Reviews

Ghost World (2001)

7/10

10 December 2004

**** SPOILERS CONTAINED HEREIN ***

There were a lot of things I liked about this movie: the humour and the characters, but it was basically Thora Birch that carried it - the character of Enid was terrific, reminding me a lot of Daria (who I also like).

The movie itself reminded me of "The Graduate", with the main point being the search by the main character for a direction in life, and the final scene being a bus-ride out of town. The interest was held by wondering what Enid WOULD ACTUALLY DO, as she didn't seem to like any of her options.

It fell down in a number of ways though: I really disliked the 2-dimensional way in which the character of Enid's father was treated - it seemed like a really cynical way of ruling out the "family" option. The ending was a complete cop-out - her simply skipping town on a bus is NOT A CHOICE. Even the people who like the movie don't like the ending, and have come up with various "mystical" or suicidal interpretations to excuse it.

The main problem is that there is a PERFECTLY OBVIOUS solution to Enid's "problems", which is that she should GO TO COLLEGE. She would have another few years to grow up and develop proper social skills. This is what college is for. At least in "The Graduate" Dustin Hoffman was a COLLEGE graduate, so his struggles were more grounded in adult sensitivities.

Anyway, I think I'm making this sound worse than it was. I did really like it for the most part, but felt that it lost it's way a little, and ended badly. 7/10.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Barton Fink (1991)

8/10

Look Upon Me And I'll Show You The Life Of The Mind

25 June 2004

Warning: Spoilers

WARNING! SPOILERS BELOW!

Even the people who like this film either don't pretend to know (or care!) what it's about, or disagree about it's interpretation, so it's not really surprising that there are also a large number of people who really loathe it. I fall somewhere in between - I like a lot of things about the movie: the acting of John Goodman and Michael Lerner (although not so much John Turturro), the surreal feel of all the scenes (not just the ones in the hotel), and the way you are given lots of clues as to what might be going on which ALMOST seem to coalesce into a "proper" explanation. This helps keep the attention during the first 1.5 hours during which not much actually happens, and I don't really mind "mood" movies rather than "plot" movies.

There seem to be two strands to the movie: the surface plot about the East Coast writer getting writer's block in Hollywood, and the "Life Of The Mind" of Barton Fink himself, which takes the main focus. The classic phrase that comes to mind is "wrestling with one's inner demons" (namely Chet and especially Charlie).

The Hotel Earle is clearly meant to be some sort of Hell, but my take on it is that it is a hybrid of Fink's own personal hell and his mind itself. I don't think we can take any of the scenes in the hotel in any way literally (especially the murder of Audrey and the subsequent police investigation and apocalyptic final scenes). The whole movie can be interpreted simply as a surreal representation of Fink's mental processes.

I would've been happy for the movie to end at the point where Fink breaks down crying in his room - thus completing the cycle whereby he heard sobbing just after he first entered the Hotel: the Hellish curse having been "passed on". However, I really enjoyed the actual ending where Fink replies "I don't know" to the two questions "What's in the box?" and "Is it yours?". The box is a really nice device, reminiscent of the Schroedinger's Cat paradox, the point being that you can't find out what's inside by opening it (drat!).

What I see as the major problem, however, is that this could have been done in a MUCH less cryptic way. The film could still have been surreal, wacky and funny without being so opaque. I don't think the "point" of the movie is weighty enough to warrant this kind of "think deeply about it yourselves later" approach.

2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Two-Lane Blacktop (1971)

9/10

How Good Is This Film?

25 March 2004

This is either the best film I've ever seen, or just an interesting exercise in film-making that is ultimately of little value. The problem is that I can't decide which! No film has ever given me as much trouble in terms of my deciding where to place it in my personal Top 250 list. I mean, I know it's difficult to compare the relative merits of movies from different genres (e.g. "Schindler's List" vs "Monty Python And The Holy Grail"), but this movie is so unlike almost any others that I still don't know what to make of it.

I tried listening to the DVD commentary for some help, but Monte Hellman and Gary Kurtz had obviously pre-decided that they wouldn't talk about any aspect of the "meaning" or intent of the movie, preferring to concentrate on technical aspects such as pre-production, casting, locations, logistics, acting, lighting, sound, camera-work etc. I kind of respect them for this - leaving Joe Public to use his/her own brain in order to decide what the movie is all about.

One of the people in a featurette on the DVD said that "people haven't begun to realise how good Two-Lane Blacktop is" and I think that's right - the more I think about it, the better this film becomes in my estimation.

My take on the movie is that it's basically a contrast of the two extremes of human behaviour, as characterised by the brash, noisy "GTO" played by Warren Oates and the quiet, understated-to-the-point-of-lifelessness "Driver" and "Mechanic" - their personalities perfectly mirrored in their choice of cars. Most people's personalities lie somewhere in between, but by juxtaposing the extremes it forces one to think about one's place in that spectrum. "The Girl" is mainly a plot device to create a little bit of dramatic tension, as blokes left to themselves tend to go with the status quo. But we only want a little bit of drama, because that's not really the point, and too much drama would distract from the underlying theme.

I really love the "space" in this movie: the long takes, the long silences, the wide-open scenery, the fact that nobody SAYS anything (Warren Oates talks a lot, but never SAYS much). In modern life in general, I think people talk too much - try sitting still and shutting up for 103 minutes while watching this movie.

Not that I suppose anyone is interested, but I eventually rated this at about #70 in my Top 250, but next time I watch it I may move it up to #1 or drop it out of the 250 entirely...

51 out of 70 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Three Colors: Red (1994)

9/10

What Lies Beneath

1 July 2003

Moviegoers really have no right to expect that a film this good should exist. Kieslowsky has created a work of art here. Where do I start? On the surface, this is a rather strange idea for movie: a young woman hits a dog with her car and goes to see the dog's owner and, er..., that's more or less it! Irene Jacob (as the model), and Jean-Louis Trintignant (as the retired judge) both turn in superb acting performances, which are necessary to keep their unusual relationship believable.

Beneath the surface (of the movie, not the plot), there is more dense layering than I've ever come across in any other movie. Every sentence in every conversation shimmers with alternative meaning: meaning for the speaker, meaning for the listener, meaning in the context of the film's plot, meaning in the context of the film's intent and, not least of all, meaning for the viewer. All these meanings are also mirrored in all the things that go UN-said.

Most of the important themes of human existence are touched upon: love, trust, loss, meaning (there's that word again!), fate, friendship and brotherhood (as in the interconnectedness and interdependence of ALL human beings). This is all done without any reference to religion, politics or even children, keeping the focus purely on human nature.

Kieslowsky manages to achieve the rare feat of producing a movie which is light and simple on the surface, yet is thoroughly compelling, thought-provoking and so rich in content that I could happily re-watch it time and time again...

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Heavenly Creatures (1994)

8/10

Beautifully Crafted

1 July 2003

Deceptively good film, this. Could've ended up like any of dozens of forgettable made-for-tv-real-life-dramas, but hits all it's targets spot-on. Although based on real diary entries, and hence episodic in nature, the director (Peter Jackson) manages to make each scene flow effortlessly into the next and hold the attention of the viewer with a great, economical script, superb acting, lovely shot composition (see it in 2.35:1 "letterbox" aspect ratio), and, most of all, the fascination of the bizarre fantasy world that the girls inhabit. Pauline (Melanie Lynskey) and Juliet (Kate Winslet) are highly unusual characters (to say the least!), but their performances never lapse into caracature or the grotesque - they remain highly believable and sympathetic, making the grisly ending all the more shocking. My favourite sequence is the one accompanied by the singing of Mario Lanza which shows the beginning of the girls' friendship - superbly edited and visually captivating. What stays with you though, is the gradual erosion of a happy, healthy friendship, and the accompanying slide into tragedy.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Stalker (1979)

8/10

Even Heisenberg Would've Loved This Movie!

1 July 2003

Dream-like story of a mystical room within a cordoned-off wasteland at the heart of run-down society. The room is supposed to fulfill the wishes of anyone who goes there, but is very difficult to approach and requires a guide (or "stalker") to help reach it. The film follows the progress of one stalker and his two latest customers (a scientist and a writer) during a day's journey through "the zone". Deeply philosophical themes of human desire and meaning are addressed, leaving the viewer with a LOT to think about, both during and after the movie.

Tarkowsky was apparently obsessional about every single tiny detail of what appeared in every shot, and this resulted in the most visually perfect film I've ever seen: the stark black/white "real" world contrasting with the lush colours of the wild vegetation and crumbling buildings in the zone. The mood is set by the opening scene where the camera, VERY slowly, tracks into a bedroom, towards a chair being used as a bedside table, and then across the faces of a sleeping woman and child and then a man who is awake and looking back across the bed... so the camera tracks back the other way so you can re-view the scene in the knowledge that it is also being observed by the man. This is the only example I can think of in cinema of an attempt to address Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle! And this is only the first scene! There are so many other stunning scenes, but one that stands out in my mind is the slow close-up tracking shot of discarded objects and debris in the bottom of a very shallow, slow-flowing stream of water - a microcosm of the whole film, and of human life in general - this is a scene that only Tarkowsky would ever have thought of doing.

This is a "proper" film, a work of art, that will still be watched and appreciated in a thousand years' time.

6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Suspiria (1977)

5/10

Dog's Breakfast

1 July 2003

Warning: Spoilers

Warning! Spoilers contained in this review...!

This film is a prime example of how important the PLOT is. Argento apparently gets his ideas from writing down his own nightmares, but he could have gone to the trouble of ADAPTING this particular nightmare. To be fair, the ending is tied up as far as the usual "baddies identified & killed (& building destroyed for good measure)" type of ending, but it was never made apparent exactly WHAT the coven of witches had been doing. The only "bad" acts committed were the murders of people who "knew too much", but it was never explained whether all they knew about was the EXISTENCE of the coven, or WHAT IT WAS THEY WERE ACTUALLY DOING. The only clue we are given is when the paranormal "expert" professor says that the aim of witches is to accumulate wealth (which not only is news to me, but never figured in the movie). He also said that a coven had a "head-witch" and was helpless once the leader was killed (this also is news to me). Why is there a need to invent conventions about witches, when there is plenty of perfectly cinematic and plotworthy mythology in existence. There is a suggestion that the hearts were removed from the bodies of two of the murder victims, but, again, this was never made clear or followed up on.

There were so many other things wrong that I can hardly be bothered to list them all but... What was done to the blind pianist's guide-dog when it was first approached (never explained)? The murder of the pianist was actually quite well done, but WHY did they murder him? They accused his dog of having bitten the boy (never clear whether this was true) and sacked him, then he muttered about having "heard things" (WHAT things? WHEN WAS THIS?). Having proved that the coven could kill from afar by hidden means (the pianist), how come the first murder of the runaway girl was so messy and dramatic? Multiple stabbing seemed unnecessary, plus the subsequent dropping of the corpse from a great height with a rope tied around the neck was surely likely to draw the attention of the police. Oh, and her head would have come off if dropped from that height. The third death was a bit odd as well: was that barbed wire or razor wire that she fell into? Is just looked like plain wire to me, and she didn't seem to get any extra cuts or scratches from it, and even if she did, can you die from that? Oh, and what was all that with the maggots falling from the ceiling and all the girls then having to sleep together in the main hall? WHAT WAS THE POINT? Just so that the girls could hear the head-witch's wheezy breathing? Or so that the witches could be close to the girls for some reason? Nothing explained, again. Oh, and why did they keep drugging the main girl every night? Why just her? Did they have a special plan for her? If so, WHAT? Oh, and what was that bat in aid of? Was it just a coincidental real bat? Or was it a supernatural bat (sent to do WHAT EXACTLY?).

The only definitely supernatural things that happened were: 1) The head-witch's longevity (woop-de-doo!). 2) The head-witch's appearance at the window of the first victim (teleportation? broomstick? changed into a bat? leg-up?). 3) The mind-control over the dog (nice surprise, but how was this achieved? Maybe a mysterious shot suggesting the coven "in session" would have been nice here? Or at any other point in the film?). 4) The head-witch's invisibility (again, woop-de-doo! and why did she just carry on sitting in the same place she had last been seen? DUH!). 5) The "spell" cast on Susie via the "flashing blade" in the hallway (which just made her have a bit of a funny turn). Oh yes, "a masterpiece of the supernatural" this.

I thought this was going to be one of those films where everything seemed very confusing, but you carry on watching it anyway (even though the acting is pretty poor) because it looks/sounds good, and because you assume everything (or at least SOME THINGS) will be explained at the end, but, be warned, IT ISN'T!

On the plus side, Argento's shot-composition, lighting and use of colour are rather splendid, but that's really not enough to make up for the above shortcomings. Er... oh, and the soundtrack is excellent (no really!). 5/10.

0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Light Sleeper (1992)

10/10

Schrader's Finest Film

6 November 2001

Paul Schrader's finest film to date, and firmly lodged in my top 10, this is a surprisingly overlooked and underrated gem. Often touted as a "modern noir" movie, I really don't consider it in that genre at all.

The heart of the film is a reworking of the themes embodied in Schrader's earlier film "American Gigolo", where a man is forced to confront the fact that the life he is leading is fundamentally unsatisfying, reassess what he wants to do, find out who his real friends are and ultimately get redeemed through love.

Willem Dafoe's character Le Tour's journey is a slow but inevitable one, as his drug-dealing days are numbered due to his boss Susan Sarandon (also splendid) "going straight". Most of the scenes take place at night (hence the noir tag), but this is partly a consequence of the drug-dealing aspect and partly to capture the unreal mood of a man who doesn't know where he fits in to "normal" life. The device whereby Le Tour spends many hours writing his thoughts in an exercise book, throwing it away when he fills it, then starting another one, is so strong and startling that I put aside my usual dislike of narration. The soundtrack is also excellent and fits and expands the mood very well.

The best scene is probably the one in the hospital cafeteria, where Le Tour has a conversation with his ex-girlfriend that he hasn't seen for a long time - immaculately acted, tremendously understated with so many things going unsaid... The final scene, although Schrader nicked it from a French film, and used it before in "Gigolo", is still very powerful, based on the idea that whether a man is in prison or not is completely unrelated to whether he is free.

27 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Killing (1956)

9/10

Runs Like Clockwork...

6 November 2001

One of the qualities of any good film is pacing - the way in which one scene captures the attention and draws the viewer onwards into the next scene, and so on. This is akin to the "page-turner" quality of a book. Very few films have ever been made with such perfect pacing as "The Killing" (off the top of my head, I can only think of "Goodfellas" and Hitchcock's "39 Steps").

This is the story of an immaculately planned robbery of a racetrack, and the "run-like-clockwork" theme is echoed in Kubrick's masterful direction, the compact structure, the spot-on casting and word-perfect script. Sterling Hayden is perfect in the lead role as the smart-but-tough leader of the gang, Johnny Clay. Elisha Cook Jr. turns in a splendid performance as the little man pushed too far, and Marie Windsor comes close to stealing the movie as the heartless dame.

Also a highly influential movie (e.g. imagine Tarantino trying to make "Reservoir Dogs" without having seen this first) - if I had to try to explain to somebody why I thought Kubrick was such a great director, this is the film I would use as an example.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Vanishing (1988)

8/10

Haunting and thought-provoking.

9 February 2001

Most discussion around this film centres on the ending (which I'm not going to give away, don't worry!), but, to me, this is far from being the focal point. True, I do like non-Hollywood endings (see "The Wicker Man"), but I think this movie simply MUST end the way it does. It is the logical conclusion, as all the themes in the story are pulled together.

Two key themes are those of coincidence and predestination: The series of events that conspire to ensure that Saskia becomes the victim, causes us to ponder the fragile nature of all human existence; The key scene in the film is the flashback to when, as a child, Raymond jumped from a balcony simply to prove that his free-will could overcome predestination or the rules of conventional behaviour. This is sociopathic behaviour, rather than psychopathic, but potentially just as dangerous. This leads on to what I think is the main theme of the movie, namely the almost limitless capacity of human beings to perform extraordinary acts. Whether they be motivated by passion, obsession or cold-blooded decision.

The screenplay is adapted from a story called "The Golden Egg", and the literary origin is reflected in the fractured time line in the narrative, and the slow, sparse nature of many of the scenes, including lots of silence (a staggeringly effective device, which Hollywood seems to have completely forgotten about), in which to ponder the abovementioned themes. This is about as far as it is possible to get from an action-packed, score-driven, star-name-laden blockbuster - like a cool, green oasis in a featureless desert.

The three main characters are all splendidly acted, particularly Saskia, which is a shame since she doesn't feature that much. Bernard-Pierre Donnadieu as the frighteningly ordinary Raymond, creates a most memorable and believable villain. The scene in which Raymond finally initiates his abduction by chloroforming Saskia, with the camera fixed on her face as realisation, panic and despair appear in her eyes, is the most chilling and horrific thing I've ever seen on a movie screen. A haunting, thought-provoking and original masterpiece.

P.S. Goodness only knows what possessed George Sluizer when agreeing to direct the remake - presumably a VAST amount of money, but it would've been nice to think that there was still such a thing as artistic integrity or, at least, personal dignity (the same question arises with Robert Rodriguez's remaking of "El Mariachi").

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Barry Lyndon (1975)

8/10

Most Beautiful Film Ever Made

23 January 2001

Many factors contribute to what makes a good movie. Occasionally, a movie stands out so much in one particular area that it outweighs it's shortcomings in others. Shot-composition, lighting and costume-design combine to make this the most beautiful movie ever made. Many, if not most, scenes could be displayed in art galleries as old masters and no-one would notice. At just over three hours long, the pace rarely seems to drag, because the viewer is so caught up in the mind-boggling beauty being paraded before his/her eyes.

From the Thackeray novel of an Irish lad's adventures, rise in society and ultimate demise, Kubrick plays it as a tragi-comedy of manners, which fits well with the narration from the novel and the stagey visuals, but I found myself wishing for better rounded characters: Marisa Berenson should have been a key character, but she is hardly even given a line; Ryan O'Neal is actually rather good, but I'm sure he could have done even better with more script to work with. But characterisation has never been what Kubrick is about anyway, so I guess he was playing to his strengths. A monumental achievement that deserves to be more widely appreciated.

2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Rashomon (1950)

9/10

Amazing

23 January 2001

Warning: Spoilers

The more I watch and re-watch Kurosawa's films, the more I am sure that he will be remembered as the greatest director of the 20th century. Although I prefer "Ran" and "The Seven Samurai" for reasons of personal taste, I don't think I would argue very much with anyone who proposed that "Rashomon" was his best film. Made in 1950, it is so unusual and so far ahead of it's time that it takes your breath away.

The story itself deserves a mention: A husband & wife travelling through woods are attacked by a thief, who ties up the husband and rapes the wife. This is as much of the story as we can be sure of. The husband ends up dead of a stab wound. How did he die? Who was responsible? Each of the three give their accounts before a court (the dead husband through a medium!), and each account is entirely different. A woodcutter who witnessed the events gives a fourth, entirely different, account.

Each flashback is an absolute gem in itself, and lives long in the mind. Toshiro Mifune as the thief exudes more raw masculinity and charisma that I think I have ever seen in ANY movie, and creates a totally believeable character. Machiko Kyo as the wife is superb in what are essentially four different roles, her own version being the highlight. The husband's character is the least well developed, but since he spends a lot of the time either tied up or dead, that's not really surprising.

Because the viewer knows that each flashback is highly personal to the teller, a vast amount of brainpower and concentration are required if you are going to try to work out what actually DID happen. Alternatively, watch the film twice back-to-back, once for the visuals and acting, and once for the detective work and philosophical implications.

My favourite shot in the movie is one which starts with the husband and wife kneeling, facing each other, a view of the wife over the shoulder of the husband; the camera then moves round to the side and simultaneously zooms in on the wife's profile; then pulls back behind the wife, ending with a view of the husband's face over the shoulder of the wife - a mirror image of the initial shot in the sequence. Absolutely awesome! And dating from 1950! Unbelievable!

I normally try to keep my reviews a LOT shorter than this, but I make no apologies in this case. Indeed, there are lots of other points I would like to make (I haven't even mentioned the central importance of the dagger, or the relevance of the Rashomon gate itself). I could go on and on and on... however, a better use of your time would be to seek out and watch this film...NOW!

56 out of 77 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Life Is Sweet (1990)

9/10

Extra-ordinary

23 November 2000

I often fantasise about directing a movie (yes, I know I'm sad!), and I would like to think that my movies would come out like Mike Leigh's: affectionate without being sentimental, funny without crossing over into out-and-out comedy, realistic without being bleak or depressing.

This portrayal of an "ordinary" English family is everything a film ought to be. Great acting - Alison Steadman in particular - her character's relentless optimism and cheerfulness interspersed with knowing when a situation needs to be treated more seriously; Jim Broadbent as the day-dreaming father and Jane Horrocks as the anorexic Nicola. All the characters are beautifully drawn, including the minor characters (Timothy Spall as doomed chef Aubrey, Stephen Rea as dodgy-dealer Patsy, David Thewlis as Nicola's unnamed lover).

Some typical Leigh scenes include the excellently framed shot of the burger-van in the scrapyard (which could almost be a painting!), and the panning shot along the back of the row of houses (implying that similar dramas are unfolding in everyone's lives).

Not much actually happens, but that's part of the point - it takes in themes of happiness, hopes and dreams, friendship and family ties. Clearly a precursor to "Secrets And Lies", this is a simpler, purer film, but with the same message of ultimate optimism.

17 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974)

9/10

Diamond In The Dust.

18 April 2000

Absolute gem of a movie. Could so easily have been just another so-so seventies crime thriller that came over like a hyped-up episode of Starsky and Hutch (like Bullit or The French Connection), but stands out on almost every level possible.

Excellent story (adapted from a novel) about the hijacking of a subway train, is superbly cast, scripted and paced. Walter Matthau's puts in a superb performance as the subway controller - a lovely mix of hard-nosed, determined professional with a side-order of his usual laconic comedic style. Robert Shaw is convincing as the ruthless leader of the gang. The contrast between the maniacal action at street level as the ransom money is raised and transported, intercut with the dark, quiet, nerve-tingling suspense down in the subway car, is the main directorial coup.

My favourite scene is where the flu-ridden mayor is told about what is going on and closes with the line "S**t, F**k, P**s!" - the only time I every recall hearing this line in a movie, but how often does it get used in real life?

1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Dersu Uzala (1975)

10/10

Haunting Work Of Art.

15 February 2000

Think of Kurosawa, and, most likely, you will think first of his Samurai epics. However, his genius stands apart from any particular genre, and this film is a stunning case in point.

Faced with such unpromising material as a story about the friendship between a Russian army officer and an aging hunter, set in Siberia in the early 1900's, most film-makers would run screaming for cover. Kurosawa revels in the story, and creates a true cinematic masterpiece.

While the heart of the film is the human relationship between the "Capitan" and Dersu, the main star of the film is the Siberian wilderness itself. Rarely can such loving care have been lavished on ensuring that the natural beauty of a location comes through onto the celluloid. Some of the scenes have to be seen to be believed: the group round the campfire with the river in the background and the wind whipping up; the sequence where the captain and Dersu have to cut reeds to make a shelter as night falls and a storm approaches; the night-time scene (I kid you not!) of the group dragging a sledge across an icy waste.

The simple story of exploration, man versus nature, and the evolution of a true friendship is both thought-provoking and deeply touching. The tiny Maksim Munzuk is superb as the title character and Yuri Solomin is a study of restraint in the role of Captain Vladimir Arseniev (upon whose actual journals the story is based).

This is one of those rare films that you can watch twice back-to-back, or at any time to restore your belief that, in addition to being a means of mass entertainment, movies really can be an art form as well.

14 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Raising Arizona (1987)

10/10

God Bless The Coen Brothers!

12 January 2000

Much as I love Fargo and The Big Lebowski, I would have to plump for Raising Arizona if asked to name my favourite Coen brothers' movie. The opening sequence leading up to the opening credits is as near perfect a bit of film-making as you will ever see - explaining the recent history of Hi (Nicolas Cage) and Ed (Holly Hunter) in a series of visually stunning scenes with the laconic, rolling narration of H.I. himself... then the film starts!

Love-story, kidnapping, prison escape, car-chases, bank robbery, cute babies, gunfights, The Biker Of The Apocalypse - no-one but the Coen brothers would have even attempted to make a film like this. Holly Hunter is superb, and Nicolas Cage pitches his performance perfectly to undercut the mass over-acting going on around him and serve as the eye of the storm for the story. Beautifully shot - it must be seen in wide-screen to appreciate fully. God bless the Coen brothers!

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Keep (1983)

9/10

Visually captivating & extraordinary.

15 December 1999

This is one of the most visually captivating films that I have ever seen. Michael Mann excels himself with the imagery, especially the mystical, mythical setting of the Romanian village and the Keep itself (all filmed in slate-mines in North Wales, I believe!). Practically every scene sticks in the mind's eye: the slow-motion entry of the German soldiers into the village; the floodlit boat setting out into the rising sun; the motorbike ride along the dark forest road; the scenes of devastation near the end of the film; etc. etc. It also contains the most amazing pull-back shot I've ever seen (which must have been special-effect enhanced, surely?!) from a man on a ledge down into the interior of the Keep. Scott Glenn and Jurgen Prochnow were probably cast for their physical appearance and fit in perfectly with the mood of the film. The actual story is a bit weak (regular Good vs Evil/Eternal Champion type stuff), but you don't really notice. The atmospheric soundtrack is provided by Tangerine Dream (whom Mann also used on another of his films, "Thief") and covers every mood from dreamy to nerve-jangling. Overall, a highly unusual and haunting film.

2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Ran (1985)

10/10

Perfection At Every Level.

11 October 1999

This is one of the few "perfect" films that I have ever seen. It is staggeringly good on whichever level you choose. Taking the best aspects of the Shakespeare sub-structure, but perfectly satisfying in its own right; Cataclysmic, cast-of-thousands (well, hundreds!) battle scenes; big issues of loyalty, betrayal, revenge, man's destiny to struggle and suffer in a godless universe; intensely personal, immaculately acted scenes to point up character and motivation; exquisite imagery and cinematography (making the sky the real star of the film!).

Mieko Harada (playing Lady Kaede) dominates the screen whenever she appears. Her character is so ruthless it almost defies belief. The scene in which she pulls a knife on Lord Jiro is one that gives me goosebumps whenever I think of it, and one of my top 3 scenes in any film.

This is a film that treats the viewer as an intelligent adult, and has the density of content to repeatedly reward. This is why we keep going to the cinema: the hope of finding another film this good.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977)

6/10

Watch Solaris instead!

18 August 1999

I watched this for the first time in years recently, and was hugely disappointed.

The acting is abysmal - it would've been better to go over the top and ham it up, as in a film like in Flash Gordon. The script couldn't possibly have taken longer than 20 minutes to write: I know it's supposed to be a "simple tale of good and evil", but that's no excuse for completely omitting a plot.

To give it some credit, some of the sets look good (especially the interior of the death-star) and Darth Vader livens things up a bit whenever he's on screen.

How this film has taken on the aura that it has is one of the many phenomena of modern life that beggar belief (like the popularity of mobile phones).

Incidentally, I was a 13 year old boy when the film came out in 1977 (a perfect age for being hooked, you would think), but I don't remember liking it much then either.

1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

12 Monkeys (1995)

10/10

Gilliam, Willis and Pitt at their best.

28 July 1999

Time-travel is always a tricky (ridiculous?) element in a film's plot, but, if you don't think about that aspect too much, this film is immensely rewarding.You'll have to concentrate while watching it and probably see it at least twice.

This is easily Bruce Willis' best role: he struggles his way through having a thoroughly miserable time, getting beaten up at regular intervals and alternating between bewildered and driven the rest of the time. Brad Pitt is superb as the m-m-mad son-of-a-biologist: he creates a totally believable set of speech and hand-movement tics, and manages to be funny and sympathetic.

The switch two-thirds of the way in when Madelaine Stowe starts to believe that Bruce Willis is sane, but he becomes convinced that he's crazy provides extra impetus to keep us thinking (remember when you used to do that while watching a film?) and propel us towards the finale.

The ending is thoroughly satisfying, Gilliam's visuals are spot-on (as usual) and the viewer is treated like an adult (hoorah!).

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Scarface (1983)

9/10

Typical De Palma, Typical Pacino

21 July 1999

Bit of a flawed masterpiece, this. Sticking with the flaws first: De Palma's handling (or non-handling) of female roles is apparent, with Elvira and Gina being little more than scantily-clad cardboard cut-outs. The soundtrack is also typical De Palma - tacky. The overall plot is very thin (you can make a lot of money out of drug-dealing, and you'll probably end up dead). However, De Palma's instinct for excess works well in this film, with the tracking-shots and the rich colours being ideally suited to the decadence resulting from having so much cash that you need machines to count it and helpers to carry it in to the bank. It's really Al Pacino that carries the film, though (how often have we said that?). His accent is a bit dodgy but apart from that he does a magnificent job in a multi-faceted role: charismatic male-buddy, charming ladies-man, street-smart operator, vicious tough-guy with a heart. You imagine what a great life he could've led if only he'd picked a different career! The scene in the restaurant where he rants at the 'straight' people is really the closest we get to the message of the film - it's just a shame that he had to be stoned: imagine what a speech he could've made if his mind was clear! I still prefer The Godfather(I & II) and Dog Day Afternoon, but we'll make this Al's 3rd-best performance.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Get Carter (1971)

10/10

Should be in everyone's Top 20

21 July 1999

This is a definite Top-20 film in anyone's book, surely. I love Michael Caine, and this must be his best film (although I have a soft-spot for The Man Who Would Be King, as well). It always reminds me of The Terminator - a ruthless, unstoppable force that is not to be messed with. Also echoes of Clint Eastwood in High Plains Drifter - unflappable, self-assured to the nth degree. Everything fits together beautifully: plot, action, soundtrack, acting and shot-composition (it has a reputation for being a grimy, grey-looking film, but there is a lot of glorious 70's colour in it as well) - what more do you want from a film? Seems to be better appreciated in Britain - spread the word across the pond there guys! The US film-poster is interesting too, as it gives away the ending of the film!

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Bad Lieutenant (1992)

8/10

Biblical Parable On Celluloid

16 March 1999

Stark and frighteningly convincing modern-day parable of redemption.Even the lowest of the low retains a spark of humanity (although I've never seen a spark this small before!). Nobody but Harvey Keitel could've pulled off this role. Abel Ferrara keeps the story taut and compact, which is wise considering that very little actually happens. The scene of revelation in the church is worth seeing the film for on its own, and would lose all its impact if not viewed against what has gone before. Don't bother watching this film if you want Hollywood entertainment, but if you like films to be challenging and thought-provoking then this is a must-see. Stays with you.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Wicker Man (1973)

8/10

Prepare To Meet The Wicker Man!

19 February 1999

I love films with non-Hollywood endings and this one is surely one of the best endings to any film (along with the original version of 'The Vanishing'). The rest of the film is pretty darned splendid as well.

Poor old Edward Woodward is the policeman investigating the disappearance of a girl on a remote Scottish island. We, and he, get drawn into the strange, heathen lifestyle of the entire population of the island, culminating in the superb May Day parade sequence leading up to the aforementioned ending.

Excellent performances by Woodward and also Christopher Lee as the Lord of the island (he even gets to dress up as a woman and still look menacing!). Oh, and let's not forget Britt Ekland dancing naked! A genuinely original, thought-provoking and ultimately disturbing film.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

True Grit (1969)

9/10

Pure Western Delight

13 January 1999

Surely one of the purest westerns ever made, a simple tale of a lawman tracking down an outlaw. This film is raised way above the norm in almost all respects: The photography is superb, with the hills, mountains, valleys and forests being the real stars; the acting is first rate, with not a weak performance in sight from even the lowliest minor character; the direction is well paced as we ride along with the 3-person-posse through the landscape and experience the minor twists of the actual hunt, as well as the evolution of the relationships between the group. The episode in which they take over a cabin by a stream and then ambush the following villains is even better than the well known finale.

Why this film hasn't had more votes and a higher rating in imdb is a complete mystery to me. I'm English, and I always thought the Americans really loved their westerns and John Wayne in particular. Can anyone explain please?

120 out of 147 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Darren-12

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed