Reviews

I've only read two Stephen King novels - CARRIE and IT. Whereas the book of CARRIE is good and the film a classic; the doorstep-sized novel IT is much superior to this disappointing TV movie. Tommy Lee Wallace, a veteren of inferior Stephen King adaptations makes a hash of adapting one of King's most terrifying stories - that of a group of school friends who are reunited in their childhood town of Derry to battle the evil presence that plagued their adolescence. The evil takes the form of Pennywise (an excellent Tim Curry), who specialises in murdering children, and has back after thirty years to feed (comparisons with JEEPERS CREEPERS notwithstanding). The cast handle the clunky script in a professional manner, but their performances are rather stiff and wooden. Curry, on the other hand, relishes his role and creates a monster that is truly horrible.

The first time I saw this, I was much younger and it scared half to death. However, as an adult, it all now seems rather lame. The bland directing and B-movie special effects don't help, and neither to the seemingly constant walking-about-and-discussing-absolute-rubbish - time which could have been used to build up atmosphere or tension. Lee Wallace does not take advantage of the 'creepy old town,' in a way that nearly all good directors would (IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS; TWIN PEAKS; CHILDREN OF THE DAMNED).

The final nail in the coffin is the pathetic 'end of the level boss,' which replaces the great ending of the novel. The result is a lame, unintentionally amusing, and occasionally dull horror film - whereas it should have been unnerving and sleep-with-the-lights-on scary.

After non-events, such as the disappointing HARD TARGET and the fun-but-insignicant BROKEN ARROW, John Woo finally achieved his potential for making great action movies with Hollywood's money.

Using an amusingly improbable plot, Woo fleshes the bones of the script with some truly amazing action sequences, such as the speedboat chase and the apartment shoot-out. Woo shines as bright in the West that he did in the East, with films like THE KILLER and HARD-BOILED. Starting with a scene that most films would be happy to climax with, a jumbo-jet and chopper chase, notorious villain Castor Troy (snarling Nicholas Cage) is comatose. All is said done, until anti-terrorist agent Sean Archer (John Travolta) discovers that Troy has planted a bomb somewhere in downtown LA, to go off any time soon. So, through the wonders of medical science, Archer swaps faces with Troy, to infiltrate a high security prison and get the location of the bomb off Troy's weedy brother. But problems begin when the real Castor Troy wakes up, sans mug, and decides to get his own back by nicking Archer's. Roles are reversed, in a very Grecian way.

Travolta and Cage bounce off each other fantastically well, and it is good two potentially brilliant actors working in unison so well. Supporting cast, such as Joan Allen, the delicious Domanique Swain, and the ever reliable CCH Pounder add good back-up. The story could not be more implausible if Dolph Lundgren played Travolta's wife, or if suddenly Charles Bronson turned up in a blonde wig as his daughter, but you can forgive that for the sheer breakneck speed Woo goes at, and the fact that how original the plot actually is. One of the truly great action thrillers of the '90s, this breathed new life into a genre dominated by yet more LETHAL WEAPONs, Arnie, and Stallone. A new, interesting variation on the old Good vs. Evil theme, with a neat schizophrenic twist in its tale. If you haven't it already, I urge you too now - it's the best movie John Woo will ever make in the West, espcially if you've seen (groan) M:I-2 and WINDTALKERS. Go, see, now.

John Woo had pretty much failed in making a mark in Hollywood, after his hugely disappointing Western debut, HARD TARGET, which only proved one thing - you can get one of the best action directors in the world, but you still can't make a good Van Damme flick. In a sort of trial run for the outstanding FACE/OFF 2 years later, Woo made this unbelievably dumb but greatly enjoyable action-thriller, with then comeback king John Travolta and Jack Nicholson-lookalike Christian Slater.

The plot is about how a demented US airforce captain (Travolta) steals the nuclear weapons he's carrying on his stealth bomber jet with young 'un Slater. However, after crash landing, Slater teams up with a bewildered park ranger, Samantha Mathis, to track down the bombs. The script has it's moments, none of them to do with great characterisation or inspiring dialogue (although Travolta's 'Ain't that cool' inspired an entire website), but the action scenes, however mundane they are, are handled well by maestro Woo. Travolta hams it up to the point that he looks like Vincent Price with a machine gun, and the whole silliness of the film does have a certain overpowering effect on the viewer. It's a shame that Slater, a brilliant actor of his generation, cannot quite pull off the hunky action hero role, whilst Mathis just looks totally lost throughout the movie. This is not a missed opportunity, because there was never any real potential to make a fantastic movie, but it does exactly what it says on the tin: brainless, action-packed, and utterly watchable. A good little movie to kick-off Friday night's viewing.

BLADE was released in 1998, and although the original comic book may have been very popular in the US, most British audiences replied to trailers by going 'Who? What? Blade?' BLADE was not famous over here, unlike BATMAN, SUPERMAN, SPIDERMAN, X-MEN, or the upcoming THE HULK. However, it did very well over here, probably due to a comic-book-virgin-friendly screenplay and kinetic, epilespy-inducing fight scenes. Of course, a sequel was inevitable.

This time round, British director Stephen Norrington (helmer of upcoming flick LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMAN, with Sean Connery) has been replaced by Spanish horror maestro Del Toro. The script is still by David S. Goyer, and is still on the flimsy, light side. Wesley Snipes returns in all trenchcoat-flowing, shade-wearing style as Blade the vampire hunter - half-human, half-vampire, all hero...and so on and so forth. The story is that a new breed of bloodsuckers, led by Nomak (ex-pop star Luke Goss) are causing havoc in the underground world of the supernatural, and so Blade has to ally with the A-team of the fanged universe, and whup some ass. Which he does rather well. Goyer does try and make the plot at least partly coherent, but what you really want to see from a film such as this, is Snipes and co slicing, dicing, slashing, punching, shooting, kicking, and blowing-up as many long-toothed villians as possible. The film certainly delivers above par, with some truly impressive fight scenes, even enough to beat the jaw-dropping club massacre which opened the first film so brilliantly.

Del Toro has created an entirely new atomsphere to this movie, making it darker, broodier, and ten times as bloody. The comic-book stylings of the original have been dropped in favour of a colder, harder look, which works fantastically. Del Toro evidently wants to make this 'Blade the horror-action movie; not Blade the comic book sequel.' He makes it his own.

Snipes is great as the hero, moody and ruthless, like a hyper-up Batman. BLADE II is as superficial as movies get - it is the popcorn munching machine on hyper-drive, but is as enjoyable as any other action flick released in 2002, and actually a far deal better than xXx or disappointing 20th 007 movie, DIE ANOTHER DAY. In a world of comic-book movies with McDonalds-friendly tie-ins and 12A certificates, it is so nice to a hero cutting a baddie in half length-ways, and hearing cringeworthy dialogue like 'I feel like hammered sh*t!' Despite a few hitches, such as the awful techno-babble ('Administer the neuro detox!') and a couple of plot gaps, this is perfect Friday night entertainment.

There are no stars in Hollywood that could ever lay claim to making a career, comprised of only Good movies. The career of Arnie looked indestructible, until someone handed him the script of LAST ACTION HERO. Tom Cruise is one such star. He has made some great movies - TOP GUN, MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE, MINORITY REPORT - but for every TOP GUN, there is a DAYS OF THUNDER. After the huge success of the first M:I film, made in 1995 and seen by audiences far too young to actually remember the original '60s series, a sequel was inevitable, unless presumably, Cruise was suddenly killed in a freak accident. After much speculation about plot, writers, co-stars, and directors (including, shudder, Oliver Stone), John Woo was chosen to sit in the shouting chair. Woo seemed the perfect choice. He had breathed new life in the tired Western action genre with FACE/OFF, and his Hong Kong movies are jaw-dropping to say the least. A partnership with Woo, Cruise, and a hundred million dollars seemed like heaven. Shame it didn't work. Learning the lesson from the first film, writer Robert Towne (CHINATOWN), doesn't make the plot too complex. Was I the only one left in the cinema after the Brian de Palma original, scratching my head and wondering who was alive and who was dead and who was the double-agent and who was... However, the story is still pretty complicated. It involves a deadly man-made virus, which rogue MIF agent Sean Ambrose (Dougary Scott) wants to steal. Our floppy-haired hero Ethan Hawke (Cruise) is sent on his trail by a heart-attack inducing cameo by Anthony Hopkins. Hawke decides to infiltrate Ambrose's gang, by planting the villain's ex, Nya (Thandie Newton) by his side. Of course, the plot is just a skeleton for Woo and his special effects team to flesh some supposedly eye-popping action scenes on. There are some scenes which had great potential - the lab. shoot out in particular, but nothing quite hits the mark, mainly due to the frustrating amount of times slo-mo is used - we all know this (and doves) are Woo's signatures, but this time he really grinds it in the ground and in fact loses much of the drama because of it. The opening cliff-scaling venture is well done, and the duel to the death on the beach is exciting, but none of them have the rewatchability of, say, FACE/OFF or THE KILLER. Cruise's mullet is irritating to the point of hurling a petrol bomb at the screen, and although both Scott and Newton are good, there are seriously wasted. The script is dreadful - it is hard to believe that it was written by the same guy who wrote the classic CHINATOWN, but that's Hollywood, eh? This redefines the term 'missed opportunity.' A great director, a charismatic star, and a brilliant writer still could not make a passable movie. It is not that M:I-2 is woefully bad, like THE AVENGERS, but it is not a mark on the 1995 film, which wasn't perfect by a long chalk. M:I-2 is the worst a movie can ever be - mediocre. It will never rise to fame because of its ghastliness, and yet it will never be hailed as a cinema milestone.

Turgid, bloated and as disappointing as cinema has ever been, this must rank among HANNIBAL and THE MATRIX RELOADED as films that could have had everything, but chickened out at the last minute.

Last year, the first MESSIAH was shown on BBC 1. Adapted from the excellent novel by Boris Starling, it was a chilling, London-set tale of murder, religion, and gallons of blood. This year round, we get the sequel - VENGEANCE IS MINE. After a teasing set of trailers, shown after nearly every single programme after seven o'clock, turned me into an excitable bundle of anticipation, and after six months of waiting (it was postponed from August 2002, after the events in Soham), we get the best damn British thriller in years. Ken Stott returns as grumpy DSI Red Metcalfe, a man haunted by his own dark past, and trying to track down the killer of his brother Eric. The plot really starts moving when a man is found bound and buried alive on Wimbledon Common, in the same fashion as another man several years ago. Are we talking about a copycat killer? Is this revenge? As the bodycount rises, so does the tension, as Red and his team (including Neil Dudgeon and Frances Grey) race against time to find the next target before the killer does. In the first MESSIAH, the serial killer was bumping off the 12 disciples in the particulary gruesome ways that are depicted in the Bible; but this time, it is more a outright guessing game, a true murder mystery. Some of the deaths are extremely inventive and horrible (although not quite as grisly as last time, when we had flaying alive, beheading, and sawing in half). Stott, Dudgeon, Grey are terrific, and are well supported by Art Malik, Emily Joyce and Vincent Regan. The direction is such a high-point in this, because it is sutiably moody, castign huge shadows and cold blues against the London back-drop, and the waves of blood. At times the direction can be quite distant, but it is always tight, always focused, and never strays from the downright thrilling. This was shown in two parts, over a Saturday and Sunday, and I can tell you that the 24 hours between Part 1 and Part 2 was agonising, absolutely agonising. The first MESSIAH was unfairly compared to SE7EN (mainly because of it's religious content), but I actually think both the first one and this MESSIAH are miles better. Perhaps this is because I know London very well and I can relate to that, but I think that the acting, the direction, and the script are all so much better. Plus, this is a more traditional mystery: at least we actually get a chance of guessing who the killer is, instead of having to wait for some nobody to turn up, like in SE7EN. The mark of a good horror story is that it should stay with you. And this. As you lie in the dark, pushing yourself deeper into the matress, close your eyes. . .and you'll see men being buried alive, hearts cut out. . .rivers of blood. . . Essentially, this is a fairy-tale for adults; we all like to be terrified in the safety our armchairs, but it's a bloody good one. I hope they do a MESSIAH 3, because this truly was the highlight of the year (and it's only January). Lizzie Mickery's script is so brilliant, the characters and the plot so deep, and the deaths so imaginitive. This is fantastic.

Before going on to much worse things (ie. RESIDENT EVIL), Paul W.S. Anderson (formerly just Paul Anderson, but he changed due to confusion with P.T. Anderson, director of MAGNOLIA, the British director made this, he second venture into Hollywood. After the dreadful MORTAL KOMBAT, Mr. Anderson took on a multi-million dollar sci-fi horror movie: this.

Scripted by reative unknown Philip Eisner, it's that same-old-story of a space-crew coming across an abandoned vessel, only to find that something is still there. . . Laurence Fishburne is an effective Captain Miller, backed up by a whole sack of cliches; Sean Pertwee's cocky pilot, Joely Richardson's sturn professional, Jack Noseworthy's wide-eyed rookie, and Sam Neill's mad scientist. The plot consists of Fishburne's crew teaming up with Neill to find his space-ship of the title, which went missing 4 years ago. When they enter it, all they find are hideously mutilated corpses and a lot of blood.. .plus a particulary disturbing ship's log, which would make Captain Picard turn positively green with disgust. We soon find out that the Event Horizon can open some gateway and travel through the universe, defying the laws of physics because. . .oh just see it and find out, but it's brought something from it's last travels. . .to Hell.

Turning from a rather rum episode of BLAKE'S 7, into a twisted space-slasher was an innotive move from Anderson, and although it doesn't live up to his expectations ('The Shining in Space' was his promise, but it's more like SCREAM among the stars). More like THE HAUNTING (the original not the crap Jan de Bont remake) than ALIEN, this replaces the creepy old house with a creepy old space-ship and it certainly works a treat. The acting is not bad (for a scu-fi movie, anyway), whilst the special-effects and the ever-increasing gore and prosthetics are very impressive. So it's rather sad that isn't actually that scary. There are a couple jumps and frights, but nothing very substantial.

This is a case of an idea being brilliant of paper, but not quite working in practice. Eisner's script is good, but there are too many plot-holes and not enough charactrisation. Despite it being buffed up by Andrew Kevin Walker (responsible for SE7EN and, er, 8MM), the horror scenes are gruesome, but none of them stay with you in the same way that the murders in SE7EN do. Although the Spanish Inquisition-style torture chambers are a nice touch.

Anderson handles the action reasonbly well, much better than in RESIDENT EVIL, but it is the actual Event Horizon, a labyrinth of steel corridors and large spikey-rooms, which steals the show.

EVENT HORIZON is the perfect movie for a Friday night in: pulp sci-fi with buckets (and quite literally, waves) of blood. In the first sitting it was creepy, but in repeated watching, it lacks the rewatchability of other horror movies which continue being frightening as many times as you see them (THE THING, HALLOWEEN).

Paul W.S. Anderson does a far better job on this, than on RESIDENT EVIL (which he scripted himself, so perhaps there lies the problem), and is his best film to date. Mind you, that's not much of an achievement as his other movies include SHOPPING and SOLDIER (shudder).

EVENT HORIZON has become something of a modern cult-clag movie, and it's fun to watch people being hacked and sliced to pieces, but like all of Anderson's films, they are fatally superficial. 3 out of 5

Albert Pyun is the writer and director of many a straight-to-video action movie (just look on the bottom shelf of your local video store). Generally dreadful, his films are cocktails of bigger, better ones, but this one does stand out from the crowd. I first rented this a couple of years ago, and I actually quite enjoyed it. It's about Alex (body-builder Sue Price) who was adopted by a tribe in Northern Africa, after her mother was killed by theives. Raised by the way of the warrior, she's a tough kind of cross between 'Alien slayer' Ripley and 'cyborg dodger' Sarah Connor. However, she's completely human either. She is in fact genetically modified (as explained in an introductory voice-over) and can jump and run and fight much better than anybody else. So, when a cyborg (the Nebula of the title) is sent back from the future to kill, she has her work cut out. Yes, it is like T2; yes, the cybergenetic villain is basically the PREDATOR; and yes, the budget was about £2.50. But, it is very entertaining in a half-drunk, don't-quite-know-what's-going-on state of mind.

The action scenes are a tad flat, and of course there is a whole encyclopedia of cliches, but if you except if for a low-budget action movie, which it most definitely is, then you just sit back and enjoy it.

It's crap, but it's good crap, and at least it can admit it.

Satire is the the hardest art of all to pull off, because you have to balance the surrealism and absurdity of what you are satirising with enough humour and gravitas to make it accessible. Just ask Dean Swift, Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, Monty Python, Peter Sellers and Christopher Morris. Satire is meant to show the absurd extremities of life, and here in NBK, Oliver Stone is trying to reveal how the media (and indeed, the public) are obsessed with serial killers, but sadly it does not work.

Taken from an original screenplay from Quentin Tarantino (he later disowned it after Stone and David Veloz - among others - changed it beyond recognition), it follows 'Natural born killers' Mickey and Mallory Knox (Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis), as they speed across midwest America on a multicoloured killing spree. The first half of teh movie has them committing genocide over several states; whilst the second half has them in a maximum security prison, governed by uber-sadistic warden (is there any else?) Tommy Lee Jones. The film certainly has an all-star cast: there's Rodney Dangerfield's abusive dad; Tom Sizemore's psycho cop; Robert Downey Jr's egocentric TV presenter; and cameos by Ashley Judd and Denis Leary. However, they are all wasted, for this resembles little more than a garish, ultraviolent cartoon. Stone mixes a variety of film techniques and film-stock, to produce a trippy, eyeball-spinning experience, and it definitely is unique. But after a while, all the flashy colours and shouting and screaming gets rather wearisome and you just want to tell Harrelson and Lewis to shut the bloody hell up. As for characterisation, there's a large void in the script where that should be, and we never get a very deep insight into what makes these people kill. The film also flits between reality and fantasy; for instance a mock comedy TV show with Mallory and her family as the stars, explains how she met Mickey. We also switch back and forth, from extreme violence to Downey Jr.'s tacky programme about serial killers and his growing interest in Mickey and Mallory (perhaps he represents us). Apart from the heavy-handed switches to dream and nightmare-scapes, there is very little to get a hold of here. Watching it for the first time is a thrill, mainly because of the controversy and the hype. However, on repeated viewings, this falls short of being a proper, mature satire and instead turns into a rehash of much better movies, like BADLANDS and BONNIE & CLYDE.

Cram-packed full of unlikeable, and mainly uninteresting characters, NBK is a major disappointment. Visually, it's impressive, but scratch away the shiny surface, and it reveals a wholly unpleasant, and dirty-feeling movie.

But here comes the hypocrasy: NBK is a well made film. Although the script is lacking in any character detail, it is an enjoyable movie first time round. Indeed, the first time I saw it, I thought it was good, innotive and fresh. Reviewed as a satire, this fails; reviewed as a crazy, bloody road-movie, then it is watchable. NBK is full of hypocrasy. Just as you feel repulsed by an act of violence, and are ready to turn off, there is a seen of disturbing humour and pitch-black comedy. I want to hate this film because of the constant sadism and nastiness, yet I strangely quite like it. It's a major disappointment in the fact that it does not live up to it's hype - it's not all that frightening, or disturbing, or sickening. And, ok, Harrelson and Lewis get genuinely irritating towards the end, and despite it not actually being a very good satire (it in fact turns into what's satirising); it is a film we should all watch, if not just for curiousity, then for cultural interest. This is not the 'next' CLOCKWORK ORANGE, but it will live on in infamy, as the film you want to loathe and despise, but you just can't bring yourself to call it sick. RATING: I love it and I hate it, but it's worth 7/10.