Reviews

'Reds' is one of the finest American films ever made- it is the film that Beatty worked towards from 'Bonnie & Clyde'; tellingly he would not make another film until the excerable 'Ishtar' (which was probably more fun to make than watch).

This film feels like a cross between David Lean ('Dr Zhivago' & 'Lawrence of Arabia' from his oeuvre) and Oliver Stone (in 'Nixon' mode). As with 'Bonnie & Clyde' the right music has been picked for the soundtrack- 'The Internationale' & Keaton's take of '...In my Yard' standout (though the score is taken from Sondheim, with contributions by 'Graduate'-composer Dave Gruisin). The film is brilliantly shot by the great Vittorio Storaro- who uses the same huge talent as he did on Bertolucci's 'Il Conformista' & Coppola's 'Apocalypse Now Redux'. Trevor Griffiths co-wrote this film- though there were contributions from a variety of historians- most notably Robert Rosenstone.

Fans of the film should consult Rosenstone's biography of John Reed ('Romantic Revolutionary') and his chapter on his involvement with and objections to elements in 'Reds' in the book 'Visions of the Past'. This Biopic is an interpretation of a life- as with films like 'Patton' it takes a rather small period of the protaganists total life experience- running from roughly 1914 to Reed's death from typhus in 1920. The film charts Reed's major experiences- his coverage of the First World War and the Mexican War of 1916 is shown- though the major achievments are his ventures into the complexities of American Socialism and American-Communism and his eventual experience in Russia/Soviet Union. The main aspect, the stalwart element throughout the film is his love affair with Louise Bryant- which is where the film begins and ends. Rosenstone believes this may have been a concession to Hollywood audience- but I think it puts the human and greater-backdrop into context.

'Visions of the Past' censures much of Beatty's "twists of truth" and the filmic conventions of compression and dramatic-symbolistic interpretation. This is not a documentary and this is not the actual John Reed. This is a biopic film, starring Warren Beatty playing 'John Reed'. If you want to read about the real thing- try 'Romantic Revolutionary' and Reed's masterpiece 'Ten Days That Shook the World' (which, ironically, came in for criticism regarding Reed's fictionalisation of the events of the Russian Revolution!- see the introduction to the Penguin edition by AJP Taylor). Remember historians have a vested interest in their interpretation- which by placing into lineal order in a history (non-fiction) book they are placing into a narrative form.

Beatty and Keaton are great in this film- with brilliant support from Gene Hackman,Jack Nicholson, Paul Sorvino & Maureen Stapleton. We see the John Reed on-screen move from Jack Reed journalist to John Reed idealist- the only American to be buried within the walls of the Kremlin.

Various anti-commies have objected to this film as it depicts Communism- well, at the time, this development from Marx/Engels 1848 Manifesto seemed liberating. Many intellectuals pondered on a new collective, non-Capitalist world- which was sadly a utopia that was unattainable. The Russian experiment failed- Beatty alludes to the flaws and Stalinism in the speech which the Party retranslate towards their own ends towards the end of the film. The Russian Revolution was an ideal- the workers of the world uniting- which considering the treatement meted out by the likes of Henry Ford was a good thing. This message is still relevant- as 'free market Capitalism' means market dominance for Superpowers, poverty for others- the persistence of a constant underclass and the eradication of Union Rights. There are as many flawed ethics to Capitalism as Communism- the arms trade (Reagan/Bush to Hussain, the US-sponsored coup in Chile-Cambodia-El Salvador- a policy which continues up to the failed one last week in Venezuala). Beatty takes the socialist ideals which 'Shampoo' alluded to and which he continued in the satirical 'Bulworth'.

Unlike Attenborough's 'Gandhi', this is not a biopic that is too reverent to its focus- many times Reed is shown to be a clown and it is Bryant's character who undergoes the vaster change- giving this film a strong feminist element. The other stroke of genius is the use of the witnesses- who provide a commentary on the film that sometimes contradict each other- alluding to a multiplicity of truths that overlap (as with Stone's alternate scenarios in 'JFK' & 'Nixon'- they themselves are not true but point out that the truth is relative and the accepted historist take may not be any more "real").

The Oscar people exhibited their usual poor taste again- choosing the yawnworthy 'Chariots of Fire' over this for best picture (well, the year before they chose 'Ordinary People' over 'Raging Bull'- and to this day mediocrity wins that coveted award: 'Forrest Gump', 'Schindler's List', 'Gladiator', 'Braveheart', 'Titanic'). This film has an epic scope- that the worthy Oscar winner 'The English Patient' also exhibited- though both show influence from David Lean. This was a time when Hollywood had ambition and made some great films that may not have set the box-office on fire a la 'Jaws' or 'Star Wars' but made some great works for posterity: 'The Deer Hunter', 'New York New York', 'Raging Bull', 'Heavens Gate' and this. 'Reds' is a masterpiece that should be seen by everyone and desrves to take its place alongside classic works by directors such as John Ford, Howard Hawks and Orson Welles.

This is probably not the best Scorsese film- 'Goodfellas', 'Mean Streets' & 'Taxi Driver' I think are better films. It is one of his more personal works and so ranks next to films like 'Italian-American','Kundun' & 'Raging Bull'. It was a project that was started when Barbara Hershey gave Scorsese a copy of 'The Last Temptation' on the set of the Corman-exploitation film 'Boxcar Bertha' (which is also memorable only for the Crucifixion scene at the end, which prefigures the work here or the Christ-pose the young Henry Hill is frozen in as he blows up the cars in 'Goodfellas'). The film was in production and out of- for a series of years following 'Raging Bull', Scorsese made the dark 'The King of Comedy', the odd 'Afterhours' and the misguided sequel to 'The Hustler': 'The Color of Money'. This gave producers the impetus to produce this film- one of his most personal works.

Paul Schrader gets the writing credit on this film, as he did on 'Raging Bull' & 'Taxi Driver' (though rewrites were made); as he says in 'Schrader on Schrader': "Taxi Driver was for me, Raging Bull was for De Niro and Last Temptation was for Marty".

Oh, almost forgot for a second about the controversy, the cries of blasphemy and a philistine intolerance displayed towards this film by those who hadn't seen it. In my school in 1988 the acting-head urged us to not watch this film (despite the fact it had been awarded an 18 certificate- which still confuses me)and told us to watch a rush-released Christ movie that had been delivered to counter the threat of Scorsese's film. A few years later, I was catching up on films I hadn;t seen (having been lost in an abyss of hedonism for a few years) and he told me he thought it was a brilliant film. So, I went to my local video shop and rented it; it is not a film I've forgotten.

I've finally watched it again and I believe it has resonated at a higher level this time round; I believe it is one of Scorsese's masterpieces. On a technical level Fassbinder's cameraman, Michael Ballhaus and long-time editor Thelma Schoonmaker contribute heavily- as does Peter Gabriel with his wonderful soundtrack featuring the late Nusrat Fateh Ali-Khan. Can't people see the integrity behind the urge to make this film?

Many people overlook (or haven't seen)the opening inter-title which states that this film is NOT based on The Gospels (even though they contradict each other in places and the etymology of The Bible alludes to the mythic revision of following generations)- this is important. The film is exploring what the novel set out to render- to depict Christ as a man and show the gravity of his sacrifice in becoming the Messiah. It is not a pious, impotent Christ as given in 'The Greatest Story Ever Told' or 'Jesus of Nazareth'.

There are literary relations- the alternate Christ sections in Mikhail Bulgakov's 'The Master & Margarita', Jim Crace's 'Quarantine' (which I feel is very influenced by this) and Dennis Potter's play 'Son of Man' (which also incurred the wrath of Mary Whitehouse and her righteous cause). Parts of this film remind me of Veronese's painting 'Les Noces de Cana'- which shows Christ in a very human world. The strongest precedent and a definite influence is Pasolini's 'The Gospel According to St Matthew'- which subverted the Gospel by presenting a dark-Christ (rather than the caucasian-European depiction) & used songs like 'Motherless Child'. Pasolini was given a prison sentence for his earlier short 'La Ricotta'- which depicted the Crucifixion; 'The Gospel...' was given a Papal blessing in 1999 (which is odd considering how much Pasolini was reviled). Scorsese has stated that 'The Gospel...' was an influence on this film- and like Pasolini, he personalizes the material (giving character's New York accents, the murder of Lazarus not being dissimilar to a Mob murder- such as Tommy's in 'Goodfellas'). He explores what the material meant to him.

The acting is brilliant- Dafoe, Hershey and Keitel stand out- though Harry Dean Stanton is wonderful,as ever. The world is rendered in a much more foreign manner than other depictions (excepting Pasolini) would expect.And for anyone who thinks this looks like Monty Python's 'Life of Brian'- right- both were influenced by Pasolini's depiction of period detail (see 'Gospel', 'Medea').

The world music of Gabriel and Khan help evoke the Middle East of the time- a world without white Europeans; there is a more universal feeling given to the figure of Christ here- rather than one that just reiterates faith. As writers such as Nick Cave and Dennis Potter have noted- Christ was a carpenter by trade (the latter has him building his own crucifix) and that notion is perfectly rendered here. The "miracles" are not flashy tricks, they seem the work of a man- which I think is part of the point. The 'last temptation' itself is brilliant and confirms the path Christ could have taken if he had not believed he was the Messiah- to me it confirms the symbolism of the Crucifixion and Christ himself. This film will lead you to the source novel, to the Gospels and to 'Passion' (Gabriel's score).

I find it bizarre that people don't believe their faith is strong enough to view this film- there are some very odd reviews here (such as the one that talks up Pious VII- is that the one who traded gold with the Nazi's, refused to denounce the Holocaust and aided the Fascist Government headed by Mussolini?). The reaction to this film was almost on the same level as that meted out to 'The Satanic Verses' a year later- whatever happened to an open mind? While I don't subscibe to a religion, I believe in higher forces and believe all are represented by the multitude of faiths (Buddhism,Islam et al)- so I can relate to this film in a non-prejudiced way (because something doesn't agree with your faith does not mean it is wrong). The casting out of the money-changers is something that has strong resonance for this material culture we live in now- this is a film that should be shown in schools, to show that there is a higher spirituality attainable for man. Christ here is shown to be a man, with all his flaws and to be more than a man (and I don't mean Nietzsche;s ubermensch). This is a brilliant film that I think everyone should see, regardless of beliefs and one that I know I will come back to again in the future. Finally, the final shot of the camera running out of film at Golgotha is one of the most magical I have seen in cinema- simple mistake,maybe- but as great as any shot in any Cocteau.

This is a film that I went to see for two reasons: the depiction of nostalgia and the state of British cinema- I thought it depicted the former brilliantly but confirmed the problem with British films that afflict our times. 'Me Without You- like most British films ('A Room for Romeo Brass', 'Bend it Like Beckham') would be more suited to TV- a BBC or Channel 4 film in the mode of 'Play for Today'- one-offs that aren't soap operas. Though I do admire the scope this film aims for- which should have been on a scale of TV-show 'Our Friends in the North'- i.e. hours of TV.

The film has a pretty great soundtrack- Cabaret Voltaire, The Normal, Only Ones, Scritti Politti and good performances from Anna Friel and Kyle Maclachlan. The best thing here is the acting of Michelle Williams- as with Katie Holmes she doesn't seem to be bothered by on-screen nudity. This is a European approach typified by actresses like Monica Belluci, Emanuelle Beart and Romane Bohringer- it's the character who is naked. And, let's face it- when you're in bed with someone you usually are naked! The punk bit was OK- not far from the book 'The Rachel Papers'- the other side of life from suburbia; the Brighton Uni bit was even better (though I felt the unrequited/requited love throughout was a bit hokey!). There is a terrible postmodern line spoken by Williams character to Maclachlan's on Tarkovsky- in 1982 sher states "My favourite is 'Nostalgia' "- released in 1983: the postmodern loop of nostalgia...I do think this film says a lot about friendship and the passage of time- for that reason alone it will find a receptive audience in the future (I had some 'Speak,Memory' moments...)The end of the film is quite unsatisfactory- Friel's character being quite irritating and the will they/won't they? question answered in a rather boring manner. The final scene is rubbish- daughters who we have never seen before are meant to reference the circular nature of 'growing up' as typified by the opening scenes of Friel/Williams as young girls playing in the garden?

I think this film captures that English suburban thing well- more 'Lawn Dogs' or 'Secrets & Lies' than 'American Beauty'- and I don't think it is close to 'Mina Tannenbaum'. It's much better than the recent Elton John produced film with Helena Bonham Carter and Mel Smiths excerable offerring with Minnie Driver. This film will work on video much better- as it's closer to TV than the language of cinema. Still it is very touching, does offer allusions to Derrida,Dostoyevsky & 'The Sweetest Girl' and it does linger in the memory long after seeing it. Despite its flaws, it's much closer to where British film should be than dross like 'Snatch' and a nice feminine companion to '24 Hour Party People'. At the end of the day though, this theme has been done much better in films like 'Beautiful Girls',I Vitteloni', 'Jules et Jim'& 'Summer with Monika'- which if you like this, I urge you to see.

As with films like 'A Room for Romeo Brass' & 'Mike Bassett: England Manager' this is more suited to British Television. Problem is British TV is becoming more concerned with digital futures and wall to wall soap-operas. Focus group market research probably reveals that a film like 'Bend it like Beckham' isn't a soap or a lazy reality show or 'Who wants to be a millionaire'. So it goes to the limited world of British cinema. The title alone demonstrates the populist intentions of the films marketing; what was the original title? Add to this the obligatory third-rate celebrity cameos-we get Gary Linekar- this is another tactic that Brit-flicks like 'Mike Bassett' & 'Spice World' use. Again,it's out of fear that the audience will find the work 'unfamiliar'.

British cinema is in a poor state- it only makes a few kind of films: the Polygram-Tarantino copy (Guy Ritchie, Danny Boyle), the costume/heritage ('Sense & Sensibility' et al), the quarter-written lottery funded script ('Shooting Fish'),the anti-Thatcher polemic feelgood comedy ten years too late ('Brassed Off'; 'Full Monty'),the sub-Mike Leigh or sub-'Kes' type ('A Room for Romeo Brass'; 'Ratcatcher') and the talented child truimphs adversity ('Billy Eliot'; that one with Robert Carlyle & Ray Winstone). It wishes it was making American-funded pseudo-British films whose vast profits rturn to Hollywood- 'Harry Potter', 'Bridget Jones Diary', 'Notting Hill'. Instead we have to settle for works deliberately made to appeal to a vague populist notion of audiences- such as this film. This might make fine Sunday night TV- but does not compete with films like 'Memento' (directed in America by a Brit!), 'Eloge de l'amour', 'Amelie', 'Mulholland Drive', 'The Piano Teacher', 'The Devils Backbone', 'Amorros Peros' & 'The Believer'- which have all won critcial acclaim & found an audience- whilst possessing a degree of originality and something to say cinematically. Will people watch 'Bend it like Beckham' for its editing?, its structure? or its ambience?

Problem is producers are scared of arthouse- like the idea of 'Lord of the Rings' or 'Star Wars' level profits & the cinema cartel who distribute films tend to plump for US-films (usually so they can get the blockbusters like 'Gladiator'). 85% of films made in this country don't get a cinematic release- 'Bend it like Beckham' does achieve that- but I feel that a more original work like 'Christie Malry's Own Double-Entry' deserves distribution & support (make that deserve,past-tense). 'Bend it like Beckham' is a TV-movie & demonstration that the UK cannot look beyond its limited concept of what passes for cinema. I'm with Emma Thompson on the notion of the British film industry...

'Human Traffic', as with the unfunny ode to repressed homosexuality 'Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels', was critically lauded. So, in the presence of time I watched both- and found nothing but the Polygram-'Trainspotting' approach. That is, when Quentin Tarantino has made it big with 'Pulp Fiction' & 'Reservoir Dogs', mimic it with a safe imitation and similar marketing: the soundtrack albums, the post-modern intertextual reference to previous film-makers. Except Tarantino has seen lots of films- so we get refs to 'Band a Part', 'Slam Dance' etc. 'Trainspotting' made ref to 'Pulp Fiction' and Scorsese's 'Goodfellas' (despite the freeze-frame thing coming from 'Jules et Jim'). 'Lock, Stock' was just packed full of Scorsese imitations- any semblance of originality extracted. 'Human Traffic' is more of this empty, demograph marketed emptiness- which makes lazy references to 'Star Wars'...The acting is probably not that bad- it is hard to act with an abysmal script that ponders such depths as maintaining an erection and sitting round in a pub talking about nothing (for no particlular reason). This is generation zero...The soundtrack is mediocre drivel- out of date as the film came out and why do we get reference to the 'jilted generation' rioting against the Government restrictions forced onto them? I s'pose the director saw 'La Haine'- how these people from the early 90's rave scene (I was there)- who has open minds and were into eclectism relate to the steretotypes offered up as characters in the film is perplexing...John Simm's character has the embarrassing sub-plot involving his prostitute-mother (it is quite funny...) and we have stupid fantasy-scenes where he is in the car with one of his mothers suitors. Terrible- look to 'Last Exit to Brooklyn' or 'Requiem for a Dream' for how this should be done; or even 'Belle du Jour'...The gang of empty heteros spend a typical weekender night in Cardiff- but it could be any British city. They're all the same, apart from the accents: overpriced lager that tastes like piss, bouncers who believe they have significance, girls & the boys all dressed the same who speak the same lines and have the same ambition of shagging etc. So, they sit around in a pub thinking they are very smart-arse,a bloke from 'This Life' pops up and we have a sub-Annie Hall comment on how we behave etc- to fill up time on-screen. Then, after drinking corporate bottled lager etc. they go clubbing, neck 'e's and we have the inevitable uniform camerawork & editing. Then the come down and the tedious love-story/shagging scene (which is very 'Trainspotting'). Then, oh, it's Sunday morning and back to normality- where I come from Monday morning is back to reality!...So, an excerable example of so-called British cinema- the director with the follow-up 'SW9' (marketed as 'Pulp Fiction' meets 'Trainspotting' on posters!) proves he has an absence of ideas (as does Guy Ritchie- making two mediocre Cockney-wanka flicks back to back!). This is neither a comment on the music scene of the UK- '24 Hour Party People' is more likely to succeed- taking us to the Hacienda, 'Voodoo Ray' etc- where it progressed from the mid/late 80's to the hardcore/jungle meltdown of the mid 90's (when everyone began to listen to so-called real music again- Oasis, Blur etc. Porridge rock). This film just shows ciphers when clubbing is about as revolutionary and interesting as going down the disco in the late 70's/early 80's...Read 'Energy Flash' and watch Flowered Up's 'Weekender' to get a glimpse at the world 'Human Traffic' completely fails to capture.

I thought 'Happiness' was severely over-rated- though it had some good moments and ideas. It was not close to the excellent 'Welcome to the Dollhouse'- which was up there with films like 'Kids', 'Gummo' & 'River's Edge'...With 'Storytelling', Solondz runs out of ideas.

He writes a film that is a dead end- the (yawn) relationship between fiction and non-fiction, art & life. For this you're probably better off watching Woody Allen films- or '8 1/2'. Or, even better- reading 'Immortality' by Milan Kundera, 'The Information' by Martin Amis or 'Ravelstein'/'It All Add's Up' by Saul Bellow.

The topic isn't suited to cinema- or, it is not given a decent treatment. Where is the projected third-part, which featured James Van Der Beek (Dawson's Creek;Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back) in a homosexual situation? Where is the projected Solondz styled deconstruction of the teen movie? Where is the epilogue? Why is this film only 87 minutes long?- could it just have been a TV movie instead? Or a sketch on 'Saturday Night Live'?

The first, brief story 'Fiction' is supposedly set in 1985. Solondz, as with 'Happiness' pushes taboos to shock the audience. We get a disabled person having sex with Selma Blair- who is attracted by his state. We get a harsh Pulitzer Prize writer who is lethal on his creative writing class- the campus story has been done better by Don DeLillo, Denis Johnson and Bret Easton Ellis. We get a laboured premise for Blair's character to sleep with the African-American lecturer- using, in a supposedly challenging manner, the phrase "f*** me nigger". Edgy! This kind of thing seems really dated now- do we still have hang ups and jealousies about 'The Negro'? Solondz may as well have said he was well hung and added the stereotypes of the 'Mandingo' the fiction in 'Fiction' talks about. And if you think this is shocking- try and watch something that isn't Miramax-style corporate Indie film- perhaps Lars Von Trier's 'Breaking the Waves' & 'The Idiots'? Or Mike Leigh's 'Naked', David Lynch's 'Blue Velvet' or Michael Haneke's 'The Piano Teacher'...It gets worse- we get a second-tedious section 'Non-fiction', where an aspiring film-maker does a documentary on the 'American family'. This portrait of suburbia is well worn ground for Solondz considering his previous two films- and others such as 'Lawn Dogs', 'American Beauty' & 'Magnolia'. This section takes the p*** out of 'American Beauty'- as Mendes apparently dissed Solondz- what's wrong with AB accentuating the positive? (though I don't know how a murder, an affair, beating your child and lying about your virginal status are particularly upbeast). Is Solondz 'real' because he has ejaculate and child abuse in his films? Is this not 'American Pie' with Bergman'Silence' pretensions?...John Goodman is really fat, Julie Hagerty is really thin. They live in a big house in suburbia and have an immigrant servant. And some irritating spoilt brat children- one of whom might be gay because he listens to early Elton John. Pass the stereotype! What follows is extremely boring- and bears little relation to the previous section: both are fiction! The one saving grace is the music of Belle & Sebastian. A house is burnt down, one of the children goes into a coma- which I was close to doing myself. It ends leaving the audience with a sense of what? A misanthropic mess? Oh yeah, life sucks and stuff. We get the idea Solondz thinks he's superior to the people who populate his films- because he's doing films about the ancient relationship between art and life? That the characters are formless ciphers, merely there so Solondz can 'provoke' with babyish-taboos. That and his creative redundance. The dialogue is flat, the cutting lines so not there- what is the point in watching a film where what is the point? Avoid.

'Moulin Rouge!' is an abysmal cover-version of John Huston's film of the same name from the fourties. The word of mouth was good- whereas the songs I'd heard on the radio were not- out of curiosity I paid my ££'s and experienced the film.

Never have I been so bored and embarrassed- I was close to walking out- which is not a very British thing to do, as we have a thing about 'things we've paid for'. So, endure I did.

This film is nothing like a decent musical- I'll direct you to 'All That Jazz', 'Cabaret', 'An American in Paris', 'On the Town' & 'Singin in the Rain' to see what one is like. Even a recent episode of 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' attempted (and succeeded) with original songs & dances that advance the characters and storyline. 'Dancer in the Dark' re-used 'The Sound of Music' to give Bjork's character the location to escape to- and sing & dance her original songs. This film, on the other hand, just uses lazy 20th century songs & references. Lazy post-modernity that academics will discuss with undergraduates, as they did with the over-rated 'Romeo & Juliet'.

What gets me is the dearth of originality- Nicole Kidman sings 'Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend', with a snatch of Madonna's 'Material Girl'- whose video made reference to 'Gentlemen Prefer Blondes', in which Monroe sang 'Diamonds are...'. How wacky. At least when 'A Clockwork Orange' & Morecombe/Wise re-used 'Singin in the Rain' it was with an original twist. The can-can song is abysmal; worse is the 'Teen Spirit' cover. The whole point of the original was for the band to sing to the audience "Here we are now/entertain us" as an ironic inversion of the traditional r'ship between audience and performer. It was ironic and very early 90's- this is tragic and says absolutely NOTHING. Other horrors await, Lamb's 'Goreki' is ruined- as is 'Your Song'- though the Queen song has always been an atrocity...We get a p***-poor story- half-arsed 'A Mad World, My Masters' territory. Deeply irritating camerawork; sub-'Querelle'-sets (the film does feel like the work of a heterosexual Fassbinder). McGregor is miscast and woefully underwritten, the love story is too rapid- a concession to the audience? Kidman has that special kind of consumption- where she still looks angelic. The depiction of Toulouse La Trec& Fin de Siecle Paris is deeply flawed- diluted in a late 90's/early zeroes kinda way- we get the dawn of the 20th century- seemingly just for the sake of it. The 'Bollywood'-bit is alright- but you could get that by watching the real thing or Basement Jaxx's 'Romeo'-video. What kind of writer is McGregor's character meant to be? Why don't we have absinthe related phantasmagoria? Why do we get the ironic use of Kylie? Why did people rave over this film?

It offers zero great songs- like Rodgers & Hammerstien etc- and the choreography is rather ordinary compared to something like Bjork's 'It's Oh So Quiet'. Heck, even Coppola's 'One From The Heart' tried (and mostly failed); to see a great musical moment on screen- check out 'Llorando' in 'Mulholland Dr' or Teresa Salgueiro in Wim Wenders 'The Lisbon Story'. Or Isabella Rossellini in 'Blue Velvet', the Swing-scene in 'Swingers', the Neil Diamond moment in 'Beautiful Girls', THAT dance-scene in 'Bande a part' (ripped off for 'Pulp Fiction')or the 'Memo from Turner'-sequence in 'Performance'.Or Woody Allen's 'Everyone Says I Love You'.Not forgetting 'Tommy'!

'Moulin Rouge!' is MOR postmodernism for the multiplex masses at its most funtional. It quite rightly got overlooked for the Oscars- not that they're worth much more than audience ratings and a short-term love affair with the studios. I object to such a lazy film being deemed a musical- and the notion that the youth of today thinks this is what a musical is like. This relates to the problem at the root of Western (well, American) cinema- where people used to watch Bergman, Fellini, Kurosawa et al, they now watch 'Star Wars', 'Pulp Fiction', 'Trainspotting', 'Bridget Jones'. Populism has won out- the artistic notion is governed by the ethics of mass-marketing to a monocultural cartel. People who are going into cinema and film studies have no concept of any history, no depth of knowledge. Call me a snob- but where would Martin Scorsese or Woody Allen (or most film-makers) be without watching significant examples of cinema? 'Moulin Rouge!' is a mediocre slab of populism aimed at the TV-babies than anyone with any sense of cinematic lineage.

'Dawson's Creek' was initially refreshing when it first hit the screens- being much better than the silly 'Party of Five' and the closest thing to the cancelled classic 'My So Called Life'. I take it the creator, Kevin Williamson- whose intertextuality and post-modern practice is becoming tedious with the march of time- was thinking of 'Dawson's Landing' from Mark Twain's 'Puddn'head Wilson'?

The first series was a quite charming look at a teenage utopia- why teens in the late 1990's would be hung up on John Hughes films like 'The Breakfast Club' & '16 Candles' in the same way as Jay & Silent Bob is confusing. Or is it just the writers, no doubt in their late 20's/early 30's vicariously reliving their youth through this utopic vision? This might be why I liked it...The best episode in the 1st series was the one where Pacey secretly scoped Joey getting changed- setting groundwork for their liason to come...The second series was better- the darkness of Andie's mental disorder and the accidental death surrounding a crashing & burning Jen made this the grittiest thing since MSCL. We'll forget about the laboured refs to 'The Last Picture Show' & the utopia of Capeside. It got worse- the horrible episode where they applauded their 'framed' teacher. Kerr Smith's character being a diluted take of a homosexual- not as 'dangerous' as MSCL's Ricky. Dawson's parents split up, divorce & get back together. Dawson becomes the most unlikeable lead character since 'Caroline in the City'...Things improved with the charming love affair between Pacey and Joey- the programme's best assets; Michelle Williams is great- why not give her a storyline? (The 'Henry'-subplot thang was desperate). And why have the missing half-sister of Jen turn up, add a bit of sauce to proceedings and then vanish? In fact, the whole programme took a step back- as the teen characters spoke in words more suited to a Woody Allen film, to a backdrop of luxury with Western woes this became an increasingly tedious show. This clashed with the eight-year old approach to sex- obviously the shows makers didn't want to have the plug pulled on them a la MSCL. So we get a mix of Aryan utopians, who resemble a cross between 'Up with People' and 'True Love Waits'. Horrible. Though it is nice to note that cast members extra curricular filmwork is edgy- James Van Der Beek appearing in 'Jay & Silent Bob strike Back' & being cut from a homosexual story in 'Storytelling', while Michelle Williams is in 'Prozac Nation' and Katie Holmes did some wonderful European style acting in 'The Gift' & 'The Ice Storm' (on-screen nudity is a good thing!)...By the time we get to series four, the programme is dead- Joey & Pacey are together (though not having sex. Very likely!) and we get a tedious pro-life take on abortion. Plus the excerable 'E'-episode. Apparently Jen was really wild before she came to Capeside- when she was about 12 or 13 then? She did 'X'. Andie decides to take it up. The awful new resident supplies her. We cut to a rave- very unconvincing, unlike 'Go' or 'Clubbed to Death'. They play 'Block Rockin Beats' (from 1997) constantly. Andie whites out etc...This programme is like 'Just Say No'- the 'moral' lesson of each episode is nauseating- at least MSCL rang true. This is a wet dream of todays kids. Still, I suppose they'll grow out of it- like I did...Pity, cos American drama can be good- and it would be nice to see something that captures the truth about the teenage years. Heck, it makes John Hughes films seem like 'I Vitteloni'!

'Black Hawk Down', as with 'Hannibal', is extremely well-made. But do Ridley Scott's camera techniques and the advantages of digital-editing etc. make up for this hollow piece of American propaganda?...

That Scott uses US-military advisors says it all. How can Scott go on record as saying he was "without politics"? A similar comment is made by one of the faceless, characterless soldiers in the film- if you are without politics when it comes down to the actualities of confrontation- then why are you wearing a US-uniform and obeying US-directives? The film is terribly one-sided, the Somalians etc all go down in single bursts of fire- like a video game, CNN footage of smart-bombs and 'Total Recall'. The Americans die in lots of body horror gore, or medical pornography- such as the search for an arterial vein. One soldier has the bottom part of his body blown to smithereens, but still has time to say g'bye to his wife & kids, like a good American. Ditto the lingering death of the arterial bleeding guy (sorry, the characters aren't distinguished- apart from Euan McGregor's, who likes coffee)- who's final words are to his mother, to let her know he fougt as best as he could. This makes death into a banal, naive act- you may as well watch 40's WWII films or 'The Green Berets'.Not being American,I can't play the victim card and buy into the good-feeling offerred by jingoism. Why does the film want me to pretend to be naive & simplistic about the act of war? As with 'Behind Enemy Lines' & 'Collatoral Damage' we see the exploitation/meeting of mannichean demand post September 11th...That the 1000 or so Somalians are sidelined for the 18 dead Americans says it all- let's not forget the Americans were arming Sayid (the Yanks like to arm people like Noriega, Pol Pot, Bin Laden, those who committed the massacre in Srebeniza)at a point where he was losing power and that the Americans bombed peace talks between the warring factions, killing 54 people and uniting the Somalians against them in the process...This film is bizarre to watch in the light of recent anti-war films like 'The Thin Red Line' and 'Three Kings'. Moreso when you consider the anti-war sentiments of 'The Deer Hunter', 'Catch 22', 'MASH', 'Apocalypse Now!', 'Coming Home', 'Born on the 4th of July', 'Platoon', 'Salvador' etc. Or Kubrick's depiction of the machine-like Marine mentality in 'Full Metal Jacket'- which uses his blacker than any comedy. 'Black Hawk Down' expects us to take this tale of good-evil seriously; that the 1993 mission was in fact some sort of success? This film shares simplistic aspirations towards war, with the likes of 'Saving Private Ryan' and 'Schindler's List'. This may be positive towards getting an audience- but is dishonest to the actualities of war. This film is dangerous and insulting- do we really believe the versimiltude of on-screen carnage suggests anything relating to a truth? The film this most resembles, though without the ironic-subversive underscore, is 'Rambo: First Blood Part II'. John Rambo asks his mentor, "Do we get to win this time?". The answer with this film is a simple, forceful, with us or against us, "Yes Son!".

By chance I saw 'Open Your Eyes' just a month or so ago- and was rather nonplussed as I had been with 'The Others'. Not a bad idea, but nothing compared to 'Eraserhead', 'Lost Highway', 'Memento', 'The Matrix','Videodrome', 'Existenz' or 'Mulholland Drive' (which i saw at the Birmingham film festival a few weeks prior). Someone mentioned 'Total Recall'- this is right- in that it is Philip K. Dick. 'Total Recall' emanates from 'We Can Remember it for You Wholesale'- which shares many themes of Dick's fiction concering the reality of reality. Such books as 'Now Wait for Last Year', 'Ubik', 'A Scanner Darkly' & 'Valis' do this thing much more eloquently. Ditto the works of William's Burroughs and Gibson on a similar theme.

So, a remake of an average original by Cameron Crowe- a good rock writer and a talented film-maker- should he really be doing a sf-thriller when he is most famous for romantic-comedies? Did Alfred Hitchcock make 'Two Lane Blacktop'?

The advert looked great- a mixture of 'A Clockwork Orange' and the ideas for the original with a stellar cast. The film was, in actuality, a ponderous 2 1/2 hour affair. There was too much music- some of it worked: Radiohead's 'Everything...', the Sigur Ros. Though why was Jeff Buckley's 'Last Goodbye' only slightly played at the point of David & Sofia's last goodbye (well, not actually) prior to the car crash? This film has too much of a budget, the talked-up Times Square sequence was not the visual overload I was expecting. The everything is available ethos of Aames character is equally applicable to Crowe's film; the Coltrane illusion made me want to vomit. It is unlikely that Aames would leave Diaz's character for the underwritten love-epiphany with Sofia (Penelope Cruz, looking somewhat cosmetically enhanced from her appearance in the original and films like 'Jamon Jamon' and 'All About My Mother')...The 'Jules et Jim' references are tedious and don't quite fit- I take it the freeze-frame love scene is meant to be an allusion to the classic Truffaut film? The Dylan cover thing was quite intelligent, though 'Almost Famous' did a similar thing with the cover to Neil Young's 'Time Fades Away'...The supporting cast is good- Timothy Spall, Kurt Russell, Noah Taylor, Tilda Swinton. Though the use of the divine Alicia Witt as a mere receptionist is depressing- she would have made a great Sofia! The Spielberg cameo was another irritating facet- did he carry a poster for 'Minority Report'? (the upcoming Philip K Dick adaptation with Cruise)...This film was overlong, poorly rewritten and ultimately ponderous. Crowe should get back to making films like 'Almost Famous', 'Jerry MaGuire' and 'Singles'. Cruise should forget about attempting to make arthouse films and consider 'MI 3'...What could have been one of the films of the year is a big, big letdown- and chucking multiple examples of pop culture at the screen won't save it.

Uli Edel ('Christiane F.') directed this adaption of Hubert Selby Jr.'s classic collection of intersected short-stories set in Brooklyn in the early Fifties...The film, which as Darren Aronofsky's recent 'Requiem for a Dream', captures Selby's harsh worldview- and his compassion for his characters no matter how low they sink...The film takes the separate stories, 'Another Day, Another Dollar', 'The Queen is Dead', 'Strike', 'Tralala' et al and weaves them together. This manages to yoke the disparate elements together in a cohesive whole (though an approach similar to Kieslowski's 'Dekalog'- where characters from other episodes appear in the background- would have been interesting)...This film is harsh, the previous comments on 'Last Exit' seem to be shocked at the film's content- what did the viewer think a film by the director of 'Christiane F' of a novel by Hubert Selby Jr. would be like????...To believe that Georgette would be mourned by his/her friends- they aren't friends- they just occupy the same zone...And to complain there is no end- well, it's simple- there is no end for the occupants of this slum. This is their last exit. If it's nice rounded, mannichean stories you want (replete with closure)- check out a Tv-movie or 'Star Wars' or some Disney. This film, as the book doesn't intend to give closure; it is not entertainment...The performances are great- Stephen Lang and Jennifer Jason Leigh especially (note also a cameo by Hubert Selby Jr. as the taxi driver who runs over Georgette- he also cameos as a prison guard taunting Tyrone in 'Requiem for a Dream'). The film visually is amazing, capturing a slum life of tenements that recall 'The Tin Drum' and 'Once Upon a Time in America'. Despite the period detail, this could be seen as any slum in any time period in any country. The soundtrack by Mark Knopfler is his best work, though his 'Cal' and 'Local Hero' scores were also very good...Uli Edel takes a novel in the modernist mode of John Dos Passos ('The Big Money') and James Joyce ('Ulysses') that uses a technique all-seeing and very cinematic in itself. It takes the dialogue and sentiments of Selby's book and translates it succesfully into cinematic form. As with Cronenberg's 'Naked Lunch' & 'Crash' and Kubrick's 'Lolita', it takes a controversial text that has been 'banned' in some countries and deemed 'unfilmable' and proved the opposite to be the case...When has cinema ever been designed to be 'uplifting'?- read The Bible or a self-help book if that's what you want. The film/story may be bleak- but it is truthful. Unfortunately the protaganist's lives are not 'all a dream' and the actuality of the nightmare is inescapble. To be a rounded-individual, one must consider the other side of life. The characters aren't 'bad'- they just 'are'. There is very little written on this film or Selby Jr., hopefully in time both will escape lazy cult classification.