Change Your Image
UnlovedSeason
I realise my ignore list is vast; I'm easily bored by children.
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987)
Nowhere near as bad as people seem to think
I have watched this recently (early 2011) on the Deluxe DVD – picked up very cheaply to complete my set – I think for the first time since it came out. As a teenager, I am sure I enjoyed it as a piece of typical escapism, but I have come back to it now – screening a season for myself of all five Superman films – aware that people seem to think it's an all-time turkey. Well I am here to say that this really isn't fair.
As with so many things, it's all a matter of context – yes, alongside a modern equivalent superhero sequel, e.g. The Dark Knight or any of the X-Men follow-ups, it's pretty dire. But then alongside a contemporary equivalent – say, Highlander II: The Quickening or Ghostbusters 2 – it's almost sublime! (But then compared to Highlander II, nuclear war sounds like a pleasant diversion.)
Anyway, I am prepared to say that this is not even the worst Superman film! It's worthy of re-evaluation and it's genuinely worth seeing as part of the series.
Firstly, it's VERY 1980s when you watch it now. Big-hair-tastic and shoulder-pad-mungous. But this is comparable to any other film from that era, such as Robocop or Working Girl. And yes, infamously there are some extremely dodgy effects in the mix – but some of them are actually very good. This odd contrast is not so different from the previous films in the series, especially the first from 1978. And remember that Ghostbusters – released the previous year and winning an Oscar for its effects, no less – has some risible shots when you look at it now.
The real problem with Superman IV is that it's clearly been compromised in the making, ultimately put together without all the footage the director had planned to shoot. The infamous budget slashing by the studio is obvious in various scenes. While, jarringly, elsewhere you can see the money up on screen – the result being an uneven whole that's sadly less than the sum of its parts.
I shall have to check out the deleted scenes some time to see what potential was there. But as it is, there are so many plus points trying to save this film:
Gene Hackman is great as Lex Luthor again, with lots of good lines and villainous charm. he was shamefully wasted in Superman II, as was Kevin Spacey in this role in the turgid and unengaging Superman Returns. Hijacking the airwaves to lure Superman, Luthor signs off with V-for-victory signs and an ironic "Peace!" and I love the subsequent scene where he has his say/exercises his ego before our endlessly patient hero, constantly on the move and fixing himself a drink of champagne to toast the demise of his arch-enemy. (It's clear, too, that the film-makers decided to try to top his wonderful subterranean lair from the original film by having his new hideout a big Art Deco set for the top of Metropolis' equivalent of the Empire State Building.)
The rest of the returning cast all do a solid job and, of course, Christopher Reeve is excellent. As the clutzy Clark Kent, he mistimes his aerobics (so 80s again!) but slyly gets back at a bully, bumbles around the capable Margot Kidder's Lois Lane and compliments his new love interest on her dress – badly and only at Lois' prompting. And then, as the earnest Superman, wrestling with his conscience and making then-oh-so-valid points about the Cold War arms race and human frailties, he gives the film a weighty centre. A scene at the now deserted Kent farm is touching and there is even the revelation that, without his parents, he now seems to be in the habit of revealing his identity to Lois for some love and advice, then mind-wiping her (again) with a super-snog! She is not, it is strongly suggested, entirely unaware of this arrangement...
Lastly, Sidney J Furie is a very capable director and his work shines in certain scenes... while elsewhere you are left musing sadly on what might (should) have been. The double date is superbly handled – for example, there's a lovely shot where Clark quick-changes into Superman through a car parked outside revolving doors. And dare I say that the sequences where the 'Nuclear Man' goes on the rampage, around the world and then on the streets of Metropolis, are actually better handled, with more sense of scale and jeopardy than the three Kryptonian villains' not dissimilar activities in Superman II. Then there is the careful way Superman's famed all-American persona is, in this film (only, out of the five), balanced against a sense of him actually being an international figure, fluent in all languages and looking at the planet and the human race as one whole. In the opening scene we are presented with some Soviet cosmonauts who are shown to be 'just like you and me', neatly setting up the film's entire premise – which is eventually tied up with even the defeated Luthor asking an Eisenhower-quoting Superman if the Earth will be vapourised in WWIII and being told that, as always, the planet is "on the brink with good fighting evil".
So in conclusion: It's nowhere near as good as the original, epic Superman, nor does it work with anything like the brio of Superman III, which is pure entertainment in my book. But it scores over Superman II, which for me feels like it was too old-fashioned even upon its initial release and seems even more compromised in its mix of what works and what jars. While in last place I am afraid I must put the disappointingly wet and unimaginative Superman Returns.
The Golden Compass (2007)
Very disappointing
The Golden Compass (bad title!) is visually captivating, surprisingly well cast and undeniably entertaining on a basic level, but it could and should have been SO much better.
The curse of modern film editing strikes again as, clearly, masses more material was shot only to be stripped down to achieve a specified (surprisingly short) running time. Consequently, the plot seems very rushed irritatingly so for the first half, before settling down later to a better storytelling pace. Characters disappear from a location without explanation, or else ignore things that would surely be commented upon, presumably because these scenes have been pruned and cut together so ruthlessly. And some early scenes end so abruptly it's obvious that someone was desperate to keep them in, but felt they couldn't have them at full length. They'd have been better excised altogether and the time used elsewhere, or else the film simply allowed to be longer.
The total bloodlessness throughout is frankly offensive to the intelligence and to modern sensibilities. I have a problem with violence being included but portrayed so unrealistically. No-one expected (or wanted) to see the extreme goriness of the novel in a movie that very young children would see, but it is surely more damaging to include these fights to the death and all-out warfare without giving across some idea of consequences and the realities of life and death. (Compare this with the BBC's brilliant modern, yet whole-family appealing Doctor Who.) The all-smiles WE WON! moment amid a corpse-strewn yet ridiculously unmessy battlefield I found disturbing. What a far cry from the novel, Northern Lights. Philip Pullman may be accused of many things, but his fantasy is concerned with matters of the human condition where this film consistently shies away.
Lack of consequences and maturity, motivation and character is the main problem with this movie, I think. The screenplay seems to have been recollected by someone who read the book as a kid but missed much of the point and has forgotten all the subtlety while remembering that there were talking animals and flying machines. Nicole Kidman (and Derek Jacobi, too) does well to convey the important central message that nothing is more frightening than a person who absolutely believes they are right, but that's all you get of Pullman's provocative vision.
The fact that the film ends on such an unexpected damp squib is the final straw and really astounded me, it actually left everyone in the cinema notably deflated. I'd be interested to know if non-book-readers found it odd, or whether it worked provided you weren't still hoping Compass would redeem itself as an adaptation of Lights. As it is, the story is short of all the vital final scenes where we get an explanation for the Magisterium's attitude towards Dust (the book, if you don't know, is set in an alternative history where the terrible Inquisition of the C.15th-17th has never ended), Lord Asriel's darker nature is made clear and there's that wonderfully exciting cliffhanger. Removing ALL the theology is one (bad) thing; emasculating the actual story is quite another.
Oh, and lastly, the constant zooming into the alethiometer for some Dust-sprinkly SFXs was, for me, the precise WRONG way to convey its work and interpretation. I found this directorial choice clumsy, and was desperate to actually see the thing itself (an impressive prop, but tantalisingly glimpsed), and it and the truth-reader's thought process working illustrated for me in a more imaginative way.
A sequel looks fairly unlikely. Certainly, I feel, it would not work as an adaptation of the far more complex and thought-provoking novel, The Subtle Knife, if similarly treated.
V for Vendetta (2005)
Visionary
Some of us read the book by Alan Moore many years ago. Some of us regard it as at least as good as his oft-lauded opus, Watchmen. Some of us were very wary indeed when we heard there was to be a film version... and even more so when it transpired that Moore himself had refused to have anything to do with it... to be credited, even.
Some of us went to see it anyway and are so very glad we did. What an amazing film. In an unusual climate of heavy political movie-making comes this: a fantasy thriller with all the adventure, action and, well, silliness you could want, but nevertheless a political message you cannot ignore to boot. If anything, Moore's strident left-wing opinions are given even more weight than his own original work carries now that the reader must find them a quarter of a century out of date. Surely, he must be proud of this film and the ingenious way it has updated his ideas to reflect the current political situation?
You can pick holes, of course. I got used to Portman's imperfect accent a lot more quickly than I did the Wachowski brothers' occasionally overcooked outsider's take on scripting English characters, though. And V's introduction all 'v'-word alliteration is badly misconceived and had me worrying for a minute or two. But things soon settle down and though it's been a few years, I can say that almost all the major examples of Moore's brilliance that I could recall and was hoping would have been translated from the page are here on screen - meaning moments of considerable shock and horror, beauty, emotion and profundity. The double-barred-cross softening of the fascist-church imagery is a tiny niggle in the face of scenes such as: the padeophile Bishop; Evey facing her fear; the whole Valerie / The Salt Flats story; the bedside chat - victim and villain reversed; and the daring (in light of all-too-recent horrendous real-world events) inclusion of the London tube bomb, exactly as in the original.
Better still, the additional/extrapolated material lots of stuff about the Koran and Muslims being persecuted, the 'formerly United States', bird flu etc. and the whole subplot involving Stephen Fry's character (ultimately harrowing in the extreme) are actually improvements on Moore's anti- Thatcher polemic. This story could scarcely be more relevant in the now. Sue Perkins, reviewing the film on ITV, was annoyed that the future fascist British government is depicted as having come out of the Conservative Party - fearing the film- makers had missed a trick, but in fact, herself, completely missing the subtler point that our current Labour administration (which she is not alone in deploring certain actions of), in moving the 'centre' further to the right, is indeed undermining the left-wing alternative for our democracy and making it more likely that a far-right movement such as is depicted in the film could feasibly emerge (the gods forbid). Where else would it come out of? The distopia shown in the film is precisely what the worst subset of Tory supporters specifically Daily Mail readers want for our country!
Another critic who got it wrong was Jonathan Ross (on the BBC's Film programme). He absolutely hated V for Vendetta and urged his viewers to give it a miss. Thank goodness I didn't listen fortunately, he'd mentioned that he found Moore's comic 'overrated', so I was able to add another 'wary' to my expectations but on the other side of the balance. That balance is now tipping the film magazines are awarding 3 and 4 stars out of 5, and the mixed audience I sat with on a Sunday afternoon were certainly gripped from start to finish. Don't miss it!
Up in Town (2002)
Sublime
Up in Town is a masterpiece. Brilliantly conceived and written, and astoundingly performed by national treasure Joanna Lumley. These 10-minute monologues are among the best television I have ever seen. I could wax lyrical about subtlety, subtext and the fine line between pathos and comedy, but you really need to see it to appreciate the sublime intelligence of Hugo Blick's creation and the compelling performance of his quite brilliant solo star. This is an actress at the height of her powers after decades in the business. So, I can't imagine why the programme has been hidden away, unheralded in the (BBC2) schedules both recently (early 2006) and when it was originally shown a couple of years ago. I happened upon the last episode back then and was blown away, so I'm delighted to have been able to at last enjoy more insights into sad but strong Maddie, and learn about her life, loves and losses. I laughed and I cried. More like this, please.
Dead Man Weds (2005)
Involving, witty, surprising, hilarious 7/10
I say involving, because there is a staggering number of (colourful) characters to keep track of in this well-realised six-part comedy series. And yet, each is given a distinctive character and an extraordinary degree of development over the course of the story, through a plethora of inventive incident and credible interaction. The cast (lots of familiar faces) are uniformly excellent and you very quickly get to know everyone in Fogburrow, a town almost as odd as Royston Vasey (from The League of Gentlemen) but a country mile more attractive.
I say witty, because the pin-sharp dialogue fires off the jokes thick and fast. Perhaps a bit too fast - this programme would stand up to repeat viewing. 'Northern humour' (as some insist on calling it) is big these days on British TV. I'm talking about character-led, sarcastic, well-observed and inventive humour. For me, it scarcely comes better than this (and I'm from Hampshire). As well as the general cleverness and depth of character, there's some slapstick and a streak of the ridiculous in the mix. It reminded me of Paul Whitehouse's brilliant Happiness as much as it did Phoenix Nights or Craig Cash's sublime Early Doors (no-one called happiness 'Southern humour', incidentally).
And I say surprising, because who'd have thought a sitcom set in the office of a provincial newspaper would turn out to be a science-fiction drama as well? And one making a bit of a timely political point, at that. I don't know why people elsewhere have called this 'dark' comedy, either; it's not, it's warm and accessible if, in places, adult fare.
Anyone who's ever worked in the parochial press knows that finding things to publish week in week out can be a bit of a chore. Dave Spikey, fairly fresh from his hugely successful turn starring as Gerry 'The Saint' StClair in Peter Kay's Phoenix Nights - which Spikey also co- wrote - takes the old (actually offensive) cliché that 'nothing ever happens in small towns' and runs with it. Although the story is actually fairly straightforward when you look back over it, the sheer amount of invention along the way kept this viewer watching and laughing along - despite ITV moving the last episode to a different slot. If that betrayed a loss of confidence in the programme, then I hope this doesn't mean we won't be returning to Fogburrow. That would be a shame, as although the story was all told and the resolution highly satisfactory - and although I am sure Spikey will be inventing many more amusing characters and scenarios in the years ahead - there is definitely more mileage to be had in the loveably optimistic Lewis (Duncan) Donat (Johnny Vegas on fine form), forthright if overwrought Gordon Garden (Spikey), Paul, surely the world's worst pub landlord (Tim Healy) and the rest - from the method-acting no-hoper to the obscene-caller appreciator and everyone else getting, er, legless in the Douglas Bader tavern playing increasingly insane contests.
Paging the talented Mr Spikey: More of the same please!
Hellboy (2004)
A hell of a lot of fun
A thoroughly enjoyable fantasy adventure romp with a good deal of humour and fun amid the spectacle, and a decent if fairly uncomplicated plot.
The characters are terrific well defined and developed, both heroes and villains. This is where the film's complexity comes in. I feel that those who've read the comics will get a lot more out of the titbits of back story we are offered, but this is not a criticism. To the uninitiated (me), it all comes over as very intriguing and colourful; a pleasing degree of subtext absent in too many movies these days (Van Helsing, anyone?). The script, then, is good, with much wit and surprisingly little of the OTT melodrama that characterises the genre the eponymous Hellboy's amusingly down-to-earth attitude punctures a lot of that.
The actors almost all perform extremely well and the visuals are always interesting and often astounding; the effects are exemplary, but then that's expected these days. Some diverting scenes (a chat on the roof and a moment of temper; how to light a cigar) come as a pleasing surprise; you can tell it's not a mainstream Hollywood director.
The film's faults are to do with editing and pace. All too often in action movies, it's clear where cuts have been made (possibly late in the day) presumably for overall timing reasons and in order to get onto the next big visual moment, but at the expense of much-needed exposition and pacing. **SPOILERS** Particularly jarring are the lack of an aftermath to the destruction of the mental hospital (hundreds must have died, but this wasn't even mentioned, never mind lamented) and the subsequent bringing back into the fold of Liz one line about a taxi and this major plot point is suddenly dealt with. Similarly, at the end, Hellboy and Liz do the fire thing and burn up the monsters and their eggs, then suddenly she's 'dead' on an altar and our heroes are chained up.
Eh? When did the villains even confront them? Did all three just pass out or something? Once again, audiences are left short-changed and wondering if there might be an extended DVD release
Grrr!
Quibbles aside, I really enjoyed this film and can recommend it to fans of sci-fi/fantasy action epics
Something's Gotta Give (2003)
Mixed messages
I feel that this film failed not because it was too long and had too
few laughs, but because its message was so confused. Am I
wrong or was the point being made that True Love comes along
unexpectedly and you have to go for it, even if this is despite
yourself your heart must be allowed to overrule your head.
(Hardly the first time we've had that from Hollywood!) So, we have
two people very set in their ways, because they're getting on a bit
and have created a self-image that they now believe in
themselves. And we have love coming a-knocking and them
having to challenge their self-preconceptions. Thus Keaton has to
accept that she can be attractive and enjoy sex again etc. and
Nicholson has to face the fact that he can after all have a
meaningful relationship with someone his own age. HOWEVER,
we have the split with Keaton's daughter being handled without
sound in a distance shot talk about too easy and then at the
end we have the secondary major love story of the film not even
dealt with at all. Reeves' character has his heart broken i.e. does
the decent thing for the purposes of the dear-gods-we-saw-it-coming-three-hours-ago happy ending off
screen!!! His character was totally in love, so how does not even
dealing with that in the film square with the message we're
otherwise given? (Maybe they filmed more scenes but his acting
was just too characteristically execrable for them to be used.)
Love Actually (2003)
If only...
This film is fun if inconsequential, full of good performances (but
then it IS quite a cast) and, to be very generous indeed, just
basically directed by first-timer, writer Richard Curtis. It certainly
isn't deserving of all the vitriol that' s being chucked about here.
Even if the huge box office receipts seem similarly undeserved.
The network of (yes, too many) characters holds together pretty
neatly (some have said they lost track, but you won't if you're really
paying attention). It is very funny in places, though not perhaps
funny enough, and there is, laudably, some less-than totally fluffy
content. Curtis decides he's done paraplegic and deaf, so now it's
time to tackle mental illness and quite effectively, too (certainly
more effective that a squirm-inducing opening reference to the
11/9/01 atrocities). And his big political message no more of
successive UK Governments kowtowing to America (Blair and
Thatcher both get sly mentions) is not subtle and might be
considered out of place here, but I thought it was a point well
made (via Hugh Grant's carefully not-party-positioned PM). In
addition to that, the film itself seems to pander less to the US
market than have Curtis' own previous efforts (and most British
films these days) with references and cameos he cannot imagine
that Stateside audiences will appreciate.
Curtis' main message, though, requires a LOT of belief-suspension: Love, apparently, really is all around. Every
character in the film falls deeply in love (nothing else in life seems
to matter nearly so much) and ha! all they have to do is reveal
their love and they will find that the other person is equally in love
with them! Not all the film's stories' endings are happy, despite
this, but the point is clearly made: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS
UNREQUITED LOVE!! Well, call me a cynic, but (to put it politely)
what a load of old tosh that is! Still, this is a romcom and you're
supposed to step out of reality into an ideal world... If only.
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
I have a new favourite film
and this is it. I was outrageously fortunate to attend last night's London premiere of King and, though I don't say such things lightly, this goes straight into the list of candidates for best film ever made. Rest assured, fans, less liberties are taken with the source material than was the case with Towers. But never mind the literary roots - this is CINEMA at its best. Spectacle to put Ben Hur or the Star Wars films to shame; emotion and the human dimension to rival American Beauty or even Casablanca; settings and cinematography that make you want to sell your flat tomorrow to get New Zealand air tickets; and, of course, astonishing performances. So, who to give the Oscars to? Besides Best Picture, Best Director for Peter Jackson and Best Score for Howard Shore - those I take as given. Surely Sean Astin for Samwise - and make that Best Actor in a Starring Role. It's a large main-character cast, so how do you define the star? Put simply, he provides the emotional core, the heart of the story and the summation of its message about fighting for what you believe in, about courage, friendship and love - and he does it SO well. Besides, the Supporting Oscar belongs to Andy Serkis for Smeagol / Gollum. OK, I'm finished, now. I'll leave writing a proper review to others this time; my gush will have to do, as I don't want to include any spoilers and I haven't time to do this sublime film justice. I'll just say: Go and see it. Repeatedly. And buy the DVD - extended again, please! (Though what else needs including besides Christopher Lee's seven minutes, I'm not sure.) Enjoy!
The Matrix Revolutions (2003)
Loved Reloaded, but...
**** MAJOR SPOILERS **** I have to say I was disappointed by The Matrix Revolutions. It was
certainly very entertaining, but a bit of a letdown after such an
excellent middle chapter and its reinvigoration of the stand-alone
first film's style and concepts (not everyone agrees, but I thought
Reloaded was one of the best sequels ever). I just thought it was a
shame it all came down to a rather too gooey love story, too basic
good vs evil (life and choice vs Smith's death and purpose no
more convincing motivation than that) and the fact that Neo really
was the One. Boo! A logical and romantic, rather than mystical and
romantic, conclusion was what I was hoping for. Promising
characters such as the Merovingian and Persephone and the
Twins were given little or no follow-up; instead we had new
characters (the Trainman, Sati) to use up 'their' screen time (and
needlessly confuse matters). I particularly think that the whole,
mind-blowing Architect confrontation from Reloaded being totally
dismissed (quite literally, by the Oracle just saying, 'Oh, please!')
was such a shame actually, it was a viewer-disrespecting bloody
great cheat! It had all seemed really promising when we came out
of Reloaded and excitedly talked through all our theories as to
meanings and possibilities... I'd hoped the twists would be
something as clever as a second layer to the Matrix (i.e. Zion),
Smith being a part of the machines' purpose, despite his own
desires and beliefs as it had seemed Neo was and/or Neo
being just an ordinary man (albeit a talented programmer) after all.
Instead, it all got heavily messianic (What? So he was Christ 'dying
on the cross' at the end, there?) and more than a bit too
melodramatic. The sense of the ridiculous in the first two films'
more dramatic sequences was just about kept balanced with
humour and knowing geekiness (and helped by the in-your-face
techno music that said: 'Whoah! Isn't this a cool film?!'), but here
we had only the odd glib line for comfort and too few really
meaningful exchanges (and a high-drama orchestral score that
said: 'Aww! Isn't this deep, heart-rending stuff?'). Anyway, a
perfectly fine, even thrilling action film I especially liked the Bane
confrontation and, of course, the Zion battles but not the end to
this brilliant trilogy that I would have written.
Dune (2000)
This is a shame
Seemingly making a fetish out of pronouncing everything differently
to that heard in David Lynch's version and this earlier reader's
mind (did Herbert leave a definitive guide, à la Tolkien?), this
mini-series based on the seminal novel nevertheless draws
heavily on the 1984 film. Beyond the borrowing of musical cues
and much of Lynch's distinctive visual realisation, there is a sense
that the producers of this loved the earlier interpretation (as do I),
but felt that it could have been so much better with certain changes
and a longer running time. This is a shame, as an entirely fresh
perspective would have been far more interesting. Instead, we
have here an adaptation that's actually no more faithful, but does
cover many scenes and themes necessarily cut from the running
time of a feature film. The only real improvement is its sticking to
the conclusion of the book (the rain / Paul *is* a god ending to the
film was misjudged). Unnecessary plot changes aside, what really
lets this version down are its production values (due to budgetary
constraints, I assume) some wholly unconvincing 'exteriors' and
sets (while some others, oddly, are very good), egregious
costume design throughout and, worst of all, execrable acting
make this hard to watch at times. A real pity, as it means that the
extended version of the 1984 film despite it's letterbox imagery
being cut to 4x3, its variable picture quality and its being disowned
by Lynch remains the definitive adaptation to date.
Adaptation. (2002)
Bonkers a one-off
SPOILER ALERT!
Basically, this is a film about a screenwriter struggling to adapt a
non-fiction book into a movie. OK so far. Except that we're watching
that very movie. Also, the book (though not all of its revealed
content), its author, the eccentric guy who's the subject of her book
and the commission to adapt it are all real. A real-life
screenwriting guru appears, too, but they're none of them played
by the actual people (though one *character* insists he gets to
play himself 'in the movie' and that *actor* got an Oscar for the
part!)
Add excellent performances throughout, some horrific shocks and
a big list of movie-script clichés that Nic Cage brilliantly
portraying very different identical twins insists in the first scenes
that he will *not* end up writing into the film(!) and you have a truly
mind-bending couple of hours. For the most part engaging, in
places hilarious, but, overall, just very clever-clever.
As a neat footnote, Adaptation's BAFTA award and Oscar
nomination for best script adaptation (though it's not really but
then, given the premise, how could they include it in an 'original
screenplay' category?!) were shared by the real screenwriter who
has fictionalised himself and his fictional twin from the film, while
Cage was Oscar-nominated for playing them both.
The Hours (2002)
Worthy, so appallingly worthy
A big 'Sorry' to everyone else your Oscar dreams have just been
shot down in flames. This year's across-the-board winner has
been launched; an Academy-seeking missile of a film that has
been so precisely targeted that no one else stands a chance.
Technically, this is exceptionally well-made stuff. It's got a
tremendous cast; the performances are, pretty much without
exception, faultless. The script has been expertly crafted in order to
trigger a two-hour-long emotional response. And the music, most
especially, is relentless: heavy, heavy drama music, all
descending piano chords pounding the audience into submission.
None of this worked on me. I thought this was a terrible film an
ordeal for all the wrong reasons.
The themes depression, suicide, abandonment, terminal
disease, fundamental dissatisfaction with one's lot are all so
appallingly worthy. Yet I found it impossible to relate to, to bring
myself to get involved in the stories of any of these pitiable but
pitiful people. Clinical depression is something we do not properly
understand. Some advocate medical diagnosis and drug treatment while others believe it's all a matter of self-analysis and
therapy. The debate remains unaddressed here. This film has
nothing to say except that people suffering from the condition fail to
ever explain to even those closest to them. How depressing!
Maybe I missed something. Perhaps it helps to read the book.
Perhaps I'm just too 'blokey' with my wanting-to-scream-'Get a
grip!' attitude. I have been being seriously moved in the past by
films as diverse as Dead Poet's Society, Schindler's List and The
Piano. Hell, I was emotionally strung-out through much of The Two
Towers! This just made me want to leave the cinema. Maybe it's
not blokes such as myself that are the real cynics. Maybe it's the
filmmakers behind predeterminative award-winners such as this.
Doctor Who (1996)
It didn't stop there
Though this very successful 1996 TV Movie, separately listed by
the IMDb from the previous 30-plus-year TV series, proved that
there was much life in the concept, it inexplicably failed to launch a
new series.
Or did it?
I cannot recommend enough the BBC-licensed CD audio adventures that have followed this film. Paul McGann has now
starred in a further 19 adventures of generally exceptional quality
(produced by a company called Big Finish; and no, I don't work for
them).
Die Another Day (2002)
A game of two halves
Die Another Day purports to offer something for everyone. The first half is far more like a Fleming novel that we are used to; gritty in the extreme and departing radically from the Bond film formula. Even the traditional opening titles are effectively sacrificed to this startling new direction. But as the plot progresses, the familiar movie-series elements begin to take over. When I say take over, I mean overwhelm - by the halfway point, Fleming is spinning in his grave and purists will be howling in protest. In the early sections of the film, we see Bond as we have never seen him before: fallible; even - gasp - a victim. He loses his cool, he loses his looks and, well, for the first time he really loses. This makes his reasserting himself and regaining control all the more enjoyable. Soon enough, we get Bond the ruthless professional, Bond the truly resourceful lone wolf and Bond the believable spy. Around about the first appearance of Halle Berry's Jinx, though, believability packs its bags and leaves the film. From here on in, the science and technology, the plot and even the action sequences become, frankly, ludicrous. To my mind, Die Another Day takes a step too far for the Bond films - despite many redeeming features. The characters are uniformly great and there are - of course - many brilliant moments, clever twists and bits and pieces of script. The fight at Blades club and the car chase are terrific. Zao, once you accept him at face value (ahem) is a marvellous creation. Don't believe all the hype about Jinx, though - we've had tough Bond girls for decades and this one's required to be the maiden in distress just like all the rest! In the end, though, this game of two halves is less than the sum of its parts. Tamahori's direction, with its undercranking judders and flashes, is just too pop-video. Bond aside, there's little or no character depth or development. The celebrated Bond cinematography isn't given a chance. The keenest loss, though, is the stunt tradition. Essentially, Bond films always 'did it for real'. Here, stuntwork is all too often eschewed in favour of special effects. And, in an era where CGI is still not ever totally convincing, some of this work falls well short even of the lowest modern standards. And when a film makes use of CGI for a jump off a cliff, you know you're in trouble. Bond films have been fantastical in the past; this is one of those films. Although it offers nods to all the previous entries in the series, in many ways Die Another Day is a remake of Diamonds Are Forever (1971) - and, in the end, quite as silly. It doesn't even take its science as seriously as did Moonraker (1979). After the excesses of that film, the series was reined in - to great effect. I hope that can happen again. I'm not sure, though, as Moonraker (a smash hit with audiences) was greeted with derision by the critics - who seem to be loving this. Finally, I'll say that purists will be especially shocked by one particular, very late gag - though it will bring the house down every time. It is hilarious - but utterly sacrilegious! All in all, I'm left wondering where on Earth (or more likely off it) the producers will take the series after this. A final going over of the script by someone new to it (call me!) - to insert more funnies as well as to restore credulity - and a less indulgent director, and this could have been a far better film.
The League of Gentlemen (1999)
Series 3: is nothing sacred? Of course not!
With the third series of their inspired cult sitcom/psychodrama, the disturbed-yet-all-too-well-balanced quartet ring the changes and take everything off in a brilliant new direction. The established style of two series is jettisoned as we get a totally different, up-tempo version of the theme music and a new look for the titles (shades of "Red Dwarf"). Also, the studio laughter track that previously allowed viewers to kid themselves they were somehow still in the mainstream is gone. I think the first series at least would not have worked without it, but I suspect I'm in a minority there. Anyway, good riddance to it now; supply your own (nervous) laughter and enjoy the LoG experience without a safety net. There are far more than just cosmetic changes, though. While the essential vignettes-and-grotesques formula and complex plotting remain, we have a new structure that sees each episode climaxing at the same point, but seen from a different angle - and being taken a little further each time. This incremental story arc works brilliantly, both as an ongoing hook for the viewer and as a complement to the self-contained stories that run through each episode. And what stories they are; given even further licence to shock, the boys have pulled out all the stops and taken everything to new heights of absurdity - and new depths of depravity! By the end of the series, a huge number of new characters have made their mark (often in their own blood). But rest assured that the old favourites have not been neglected. In many cases they've been expanded upon. Elsewhere, satisfyingly, they've been seen fleetingly or referenced in the same subtle way the programme has always referenced diverse elements of popular culture. And then there are those characters that have been dispatched in spectacular - but fitting - fashion. The new styling and, especially, the series' opening moments may appal some, but only those, I suggest, who don't get the central ethos. All boundaries are crossed. All rules are broken. Nothing is sacred. If you don't understand that you're just not local!
Possession (2002)
The English are all, of course, rude to Americans. yawn
It is not impossible to enjoy this film. The story is suitably involving (don't be put off by the apparently dry subject matter) and the performances are first-class. The direction is workmanlike, however; all extreme close-ups for exposition and a few clever but very familiar tricks. What lets it down, though, as with so many films (especially adaptations), is the patronising American take on the whole thing. Least affected, the historical segments work best; the characters here are by far the more interesting. But the main story set in the modern day crams in all the usual clichés and stereotypes. The English are all, of course, rude to Americans. yawn. They're pompous buffoons (some well-meaning, some self-serving) or else they're eccentric aristocrats (who even say things such as 'Get orff my land!'). Isn't it time audiences - especially American audiences - were treated with some respect?
Since seeing the film, I have learned that the novel is about the class differences persisting in England, despite the gap of years between the two narratives. Here, we have a stock, perpetually unshaven American protagonist (replacing the book's working-class Londoner.) and the archetypal - yawn - uptight English rose (with trademark faultless, and soulless, Paltrow accent). So, yet another transatlantic exercise in the former thawing the latter. Sigh.
Oh, and if one is filming inside the British Museum, with characters improbably nipping past the likes of the Elgin Marbles en route to the next scene(!), why not use as a background somewhere the fabulously cinematic Great Court and Reading Room? One wasted opportunity among many.