Change Your Image
christinekay
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Hollywoodland (2006)
Flawed but has its moments
I first heard of George Reeves' death in Kenneth Anger's "Hollywood Babylon". Although just a short article, the basic facts surrounding the case intrigued me. I was therefore very keen to see the film which I hoped would clarify the strange goings on which led to his demise.
Unfortunately, the film didn't quite make the impact I hoped. The private eye (played by Adrien Brody) who is investigating the case has a bit too much going on in his own personal life, which I found rather distracting (let's focus more on the facts here). The flashbacks tend to break up the dramatic impact and it was hard to feel any involvement with the drama as it unfolded. The whole film from that point of view was rather unsatisfactory. And yet ...
If we view the film as a critique on fame and the nature of fame, it works far better. Ben Affleck does a fine job of portraying Reeves as a flawed human being rather than a remote superstar actor. His career was grinding to a halt before he took on the Superman role (on TV), and the film makes clear that, although it did bring him fame, the downside was that he could not progress from that role to anything more. Superman made him almost too famous - the two were entangled together and audiences could not separate the man from the myth. The obvious irony here is someone did indeed kill Superman ....
Gojira (1954)
Gojira's up there with the best of them
"Gojira" is the best-known of the Japanese monster movies, which spawned a mini-industry in themselves with several sequels, not to mention the far inferior American version of 1998.
It's interesting to compare the film to its famous US counterparts "King Kong", "Jurassic Park" and "Cloverfield". As with Kong, Gojira has a near-mythical status, with some of the cast dismissing him as a mere fiction, while others claim he is real. A notable aspect of the early scenes in the film is the revelation that a girl would be sacrificed to Gojira to keep him away from the islands, and we also see a native dance serving as a ritual in this regard. The parallels between these scenes and those in "King Kong" is very evident, as is the incident when the Tokyo train is derailed (just like the commuter train in the earlier film).
Gojira's arrival is announced by a loud - and ominous - series of thuds, which prefigure those of the T Rex in "Jurassic Park". The use of electricity to ward off Gojira (unsuccessfully) again looks forward to the electric fence in the Jurassic Park complex which features heavily in the film.
Moving forward to the unnamed monster in "Cloverfield", both monsters have a lack of any sign of humanity which makes us emphasise with the mission to destroy them. Kong had a humanity evidenced by his obsession with Fay Wray which, despite the destruction he caused, did evince sympathy at his demise. We did feel a certain liking for at least some of the "Jurassic Park" monsters as well, but Gojira is totally merciless and we cannot agree with the Professor that the creature should be kept alive.
However, there are moments in the film which stand alone from the others mentioned. "Gojira" underlines the sheer destruction of Tokyo by lingering on the devastation the monster has caused and also the human cost: we see several shots of the wounded being cared for by nursing staff. In one scene, a girl refers to having survived Nagasaki - the Japanese in their post-WW2 world would have been well-acquainted not only with the effects of "ordinary" warfare, but also the total devastation of cities like Hiroshima.
It is also interesting to see the television pictures of the Japanese schoolgirls singing their hymn for peace in the face of Gojira's violent annihilation of the city, which provides a moment of strong emotion and sadness rare to see in a monster film (it's hard to imagine anything similar in the American remake!).
It's easy now to criticise the monster itself for being just "a man in a suit", but - stating the obvious - technology has moved on since the 1950's and it has to be said that he does make a very impressive monster. Let's face it - he's far more frightening than his US counterpart of the 1990's, who seems like a comedy figure in comparison.
Gojira can hold his own in the monster elite.
Cloverfield (2008)
Cloverfield - not your average monster movie
"Cloverfield" features a gigantic monster that terrorises New York, and the military seem powerless to prevent it rampaging through the streets. If this seems a familiar plot, then it is - it is a basic horror/fantasy theme that has featured in "King Kong", "Godzilla", "The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms", and no doubt countless other productions.
However, a look at the film will show that this takes a different stance: with the use of the hand-held camera throughout, this is, as far as I know, the first to show what it would actually be like to be caught up in an attack by such a creature. Most monster films have a buildup that shows the monster beforehand (ie Kong in his natural habitat before his capture and arrival in NYC, or the creation of the various dinosaurs in "Jurassic Park"). As frightening as these films are, we are at least prepared for what we are going to see: we can find some comfort in knowing what these monsters are, and we are not exactly surprised when they go on the rampage. "Cloverfield" takes a different stance. We are watching what seems a rather tedious party, when we hear noises - are they explosions? Fireworks? Gunfire? We don't know and are as puzzled as the actors themselves. We feel unnerved, and are glad to have our curiosity at least partly satisfied when someone turns on the TV (our source of immediate information) and find the news that a tanker has gone down in NY harbour. At least we now know what has happened .... or do we? When the head of the Statue of Liberty lands in the street, then we realise that this is something far worse than an accident . We are as helpless as the partygoers: what to do? Stay in the apartment or get out? Eventually, there is the sighting of something so awful, we cannot describe it. Our instinct is to flee to a safe place, of course, but this is not your normal emergency. There is the obvious panic and hysteria, and sheer inability to comprehend what is happening, and it is the fear of not knowing what to do, of being in a totally alien world, that scares us, for we the audience, are right there with those involved.
"Cloverfield" has been criticised by some critics for not giving enough definition to the leading characters, yet I do not feel this is entirely fair. We do care about them - after all, if they feel safe, we feel safe. It's also important to remember that they are characters following a very basic human need: that of keeping themselves alive at all costs. You cannot expect wisecracks or eloquent speeches on the future of mankind in a situation like this - your focus will be on finding that elusive place of safety.
Many have also made reference to the film and its parallels with 9/11 - the unknown enemy that threatens us. This is certainly a valid point, and yet I feel that the film would still have succeeded in its aims even without that analogy. "Cloverfield" shows us the human race in danger from the unknown, be it flying saucers from the 1950's, or the Spanish flu epidemic of the 1910's, or the atom bombs of the Cold War. There is always something out there to scare us and it is up to us to confront it.
Carnival of Souls (1962)
Low Budget Masterpiece
It's often the case with horror films that the best ones are those that rely on the power of suggestion rather than gallons of fake blood and impersonal computer-generated special effects - think of the work of Val Lewton, for example, which showed a rare intelligence for a much-maligned genre.
"Carnival of Souls" was shot on a budget with no big-name stars, and yet succeeds in unsettling the viewer to a degree that goes far beyond many of its mega-budget rivals. A young woman, Mary Henry, survives a plunge off a bridge in her friend's car and, seemingly unscathed, travels to a new town to start work as a church organist. There is something cold and unfeeling about her, despite her apparent lack of injuries, and she eventually upsets and unsettles those around her, including the church minister and her creepy fellow lodger, Mr Linden.
In turn, Mary feels cut off from the world around her, especially as she experiences episodes where she seems to be ignored by everyone. There is also the strange matter of the zombie-like figure she keeps seeing, and the deserted fairground which somehow draws her to it ....
"Carnival of Souls" could be viewed as a horror film purely on the main story (girl pursued by zombies), and is a success on that level: however, the film's power is due to the psychological aspects underlying the plot. Mary experiences a type of disconnection with society, at one point exclaiming "I don't belong in the world", and it is this disorientation which affects the viewer most strongly. She is ignored in a department store: when she tries to get the attention of the shop assistants, she feels as if she is not there - and haven't we felt that way ourselves at times, when no-one appears to acknowledge that we need attention and service. However, the problem goes deeper: Mary also finds that her supposedly sympathetic doctor seems unaware of her when she is discussing her problems - it's like the teenager saying to their parents "You just don't listen!"
And what of the fairground? A building which usually brings back happy childhood memories, somewhere to have fun and laughter, and yet this fairground has a sinister fascination for Mary. It simultaneously repels and attracts her, and she discovers the truth when she pays it a final visit.
"Carnival of Souls" can be seen as a powerful horror film, but its subconscious level is the device that lifts it into a masterpiece. Mary's crisis that of the adolescent, who feels cut off from the world, unable to make society listen to her, and unable to find any more solace in the things that made childhood so enjoyable (ie the fairground). Ultimately, she has to mature, to seek the company of the opposite sex to provide an adult relationship, to acknowledge the world around her just as she wants it to acknowledge her. Does Mary succeed in doing this - or is this transition from teen to adult literally the death of her?
Jane Eyre (1934)
So bad it's not funny
I have long held "Jane Eyre" as one of the best classics in the English language, and felt that even an average production of the novel would be fairly enjoyable. If the director stuck to the story, it would be impossible to make a bad version ... unfortunately, this film proved me wrong.
The original novel showed the trials of the eponymous heroine as she escapes a traumatic childhood both with her aunt and later at the notorious Lowood school. She ultimately goes to work as a governess at Thornfield where she falls in love with the owner, Mr Rochester, a man far above her in social class. Will they manage to declare their love for either other? If so, how? And what about the strange woman in the attic?
The sexual and social tensions in the novel create a tense and dramatic atmosphere - not to mention the Gothic elements of the woman in the attic - and most directors would, you feel, jump at the chance to make a film of "Jane Eyre" for those very reasons. It is acceptable to change certain aspects of a story for adaptation for cinematic reasons if these assist in telling the story, but this version makes so many changes that the original plot and all the subsequent tension is completely lost.
Jane's relationship with Mr Rochester is extremely cordial, and he seems almost like the boy next door in his dealings with her. In reality, this would never have taken place in the England of the time: governesses were strictly "below stairs", and no employer would have behaved in such a familiar and friendly way with her. The idea of any tension between them has completely disappeared. Likewise, the revelation of the identity of the madwoman in the attic is not dealt with as in the novel (which would have made a highly dramatic scene for cinema audiences), but is given a completely different treatment, which is considerably weaker and lacks virtually any impact. In fact, I wonder if the scriptwriter had actually read the Charlotte Bronte novel, as these changes to the original plot have effectively destroyed all that was of interest in the story.
Colin Clive is a fine actor and could have been a far more effective Rochester than the script allowed him here. Virginia Bruce is rather too pretty for the title role and, again, not given the chance to handle the role in the proper way.
The Orson Welles/Joan Fontaine version of "Jane Eyre" remains the standard for me, despite certain reservations: it is certainly far better than this film, which should never have been made.
Dead of Night (1945)
"Christmas Party" Episode
Many of the reviews I've read over the years of "Dead of Night" seem to sideline the "Christmas Party" episode as being less successful and effective than the other stories involved. At first, I tended to agree with them; however, after a while it dawned on me that there was something rather unusual about the sequence that I couldn't quite place my finger on. Normally, in a ghost story, any part of the story containing the appearance of the ghost looks rather unreal in comparison with the everyday part to underline the supernatural aspect of the spectre's apparition. However, in this particular story, it's the (real) children's party that looks unreal, and the (supernatural) ghost that looks real. The party shows a massive house, with a roaring log fire, loads of toys, food, etc, and the children enjoying themselves enormously, without any adults present. It has the look of a fantasy of the perfect party any child would want. However, the meeting with the young boy seems more rooted in reality, and this is the irony of the story - that Constance Kent, the sister he mentions, actually did exist and did admit to killing her younger brother. In real life, the boy was actually a baby when he was murdered, but his age has obviously been changed so that Sally could talk to him. This gives an extra poignancy to the story, in that he likes Sally and presumably would have wanted her for his real sister, but instead had Constance, who killed him - the worst crime she could have committed against a helpless child.
I think it would be wrong to overlook this sequence as unworthy of comment, and reassess its value in "Dead of Night". It may not be as frightening as the famed ventriloquist story, but it does carry an emotional power which is perhaps its strongest point.
The Magdalene Sisters (2002)
The real laundries - and a strange choice of film from the Bishop
I've seen this film twice now, and noticed one of the criticisms made is that the laundry seemed too awful to be true and the nuns extremely cruel. I read a number of articles shortly after the film's release concerning women who had actually been in the laundries themselves, and they said that the true picture of life in there was in fact worse than depicted: there were no "nice" nuns - they were all vicious women who seemed to get a kick out of bullying the girls. The film shows the girls talking in the dorm late at night but even this wasn't allowed in real life. Likewise, there were a number of suicides in the laundries but, for obvious reasons, these were hushed up by the nuns who didn't let on to the girls what had happened.
On a second viewing of the film, it struck me as ironic that the Bishop should choose a showing of the picture "The Bells of St Mary's" for the girls and the nuns to watch. The film starred Ingrid Bergman as a nun, which seemed ideal casting at the time: however, Bergman was later to scandalise society by having an affair with the film director Roberto Rossellini and giving birth to his baby out of wedlock - had she been a young woman living in Ireland then, she might well have been sent to the laundry herself.