Change Your Image
vanhelsing19
Reviews
A Bridge Too Far (1977)
Historical, accurate and engaging - watch it
This was an enormous adaptation by director Richard Attenborough 0f Cornelius Ryan's novel and it features one the largest all-star casts in cinematic history. The film explains the rendering of a daring, but ultimately disastrous, raid behind enemy lines in Holland during the Second World War, what became known as 'Operation Market Garden'. In an effort to end the war sooner, the Allied High Command plans an attack that will drop thousands of paratroopers behind enemy lines and then send the armour (XXX CORPS) in to meet up with them and secure several strategic bridges.
The film boasts an excellent cast full of big name stars such as Dirk Bogarde, James Caan, Michael Caine, Sean Connery, Edward Fox, Elliott Gould, Gene Hackman, Anthony Hopkins, Hardy Kruger, Laurence Olivier, Ryan O'Neal, Robert Redford, Maximilian Schell and Liv Ullmann – just the top line. It secured good reviews at the time and was a modest success at the box office (competing with Star Wars!!). Lord Attenborough however can still look back and know that it was a worthwhile project despite the lack of obvious peer accolades. The film has been criticised by reviewers because has so many stars and, despite runtime, limited character development. I'm sorry but I just can't agree. I found myself easily getting attached to Connery, Caine, Hackman and Hopkins characters.
All the players do a brilliant job – for a film packed with big name stars it has to be said there were no – 'look at me I'm the best' performances – perhaps because they were dealing with such as serious subject. Yet comedy still plays a large part, mostly British 'stiff upper lip stuff' that non brits will not readily identify with. Examples would be Connery's response when asked if he wants a cup of tea or Hopkins batman wondering why he'll need a dinner jacket.
Edward Fox gets a lovely opportunity to show why he's such a good actor with a great speech to his officers (that really occurred). Redford leads a boat crossing reminiscent the charge of the light bridge (but a little more successful) and Connery steals every shot he's in, making you really believe he is Major General Urquhart. Lord Olivier plays a Dutch doctor (well he also has a Danish Knighthood) extremely well and with great sensitivity.
I have to say that it is small details that makes the movie for me, the blood dripping onto the blood beside the child, the brave paratrooper recovering the canister and Liv Ullmann reading to the dying soldier. Beautifully shot with reasonable pace and the increasing sense that this one may unravel means that, at least for this writer, the 3 hours flies by. The sense of hopelessness is nicely described by one of Connery adjutants when he states 'it's hard to stop tanks with rifles and machine guns' after they learnt they've landed on top of two SS Panzer divisions.
There is also a great deal of humour in the movie (most of it slightly off kilter and terribly British). The contrast between Caine and Goulds character, Major Wells with his umbrella, Sean Connerys comment about God being a Scotsman. There are lovely and tragic moments scattered throughout the film which give careful insight into the humour sometimes discovered in combat situations.
A finally note should be made of Attenborough's attention to historical detail. From the weapons they use such as the Piat against the tanks, to the type of house to house street fighting, Major Gen Urquhart getting cut off and the Germans finding the allied plans. Seldom have I know a film that claims to follow a true story that has such rigorous attention to historical events. In order to achieve this they pulled in lots of military and technical advisor's (if you've watched the film you may know some of these names): Frost, Gavin, Gregg, Horrocks, Morgan, Ryan, Urquhart, Vandeleur, Van Eijk.
There is a lovely vignette that during the shooting of Hopkins run between buildings Johnny Frost who retired as a Major General said at one point:
'No no dear boy I don't run like that'
They re-shot the scene twice with Hopkins being covered each time up debris from the explosions. Eventually they kept the original take as the most believable! John Addison's music score will have you humming along for a number of days and the CD is well worth buying. Oh and the Special Edition DVD is out.
A Man for All Seasons (1966)
At what price betrayal?
Zinnemann's adaptation of the Robert Bolt play remains an all time masterpiece. He tells a quiet story of faith, courage and steadfastness that is so missing today. It portrays the life and death of Sir Thomas More, a prominent member of the court of English King Henry VIII. Grounded in historical fact, this movie vividly tells the story of More's stand against the king's betrayal of the law of God.
When the Catholic King Henry VIII sought to divorce his wife, Catherine of Aragon, so he could instead marry Anne Boleyn, his will was opposed by the Roman papacy as being repugnant to the clear teachings of scripture. Rather than submit, Henry chose to rebel by having Parliament pass a law to establish the Church of England and declare Henry the head of it. In order to legitimise his claim to this new title, however, Henry needed the support of his members of state, not the least of which was Thomas More.
In a brilliant performance, Paul Scofield depicts Thomas in his steadfast assertion of integrity and conscience toward the law of God. His chief accusers are repeatedly confounded at Thomas' evasion of their clever snares and manipulations, designed at first to gain More's cooperation but later to get him to incriminate himself.
Films such as this are rare today; 'A Man for All Seasons' turns not on action sequences, battles past or present or on a love affair. It is neither a comedy nor a tragedy in the classic sense. In a word, it would seem to have little to recommend it - however, it is one of the best film ever produced. The director Fred Zimmermann resisted the urge to provide orchestral music as a background to many of the scenes; indeed, through much of the film, there is no music at all, as the drama itself carries the weight of the narrative and atmosphere. The cinematographer, Ted Moore, as well as the director received Academy Awards for their work.
This is an actor's film, the force of the drama being driven by their performances. Exceptional acting by John Hurt, Leo McKern, Nigel Davenport and Robert Shaw enhance lead actor Paul Scofield's Oscar-winning portrayal. Robert Shaw's Henry VIII presents the mood swings and apparent callousness toward human values reflecting the common judgement of his reign in traditional history. Shaw displays a fine villain, but can touch only lightly the complexity of Henry's position in Reformation England. Bolt's screenplay denies Shaw the scope he might have used in depicting Henry's burdens.
Hurt and McKern portray Richard Rich and Thomas Cromwell, schemers and social climbers of which royal courts were always full. The roles of More's wife Alice (Wendy Hiller) and daughter Meg (Susannah York) are admirably played. Alice as the illiterate yet intelligent wife of More is concerned for the family's well-being; Meg as the educated daughter (More's experimental school practised, generations ahead of its time, gender equality in education) almost steals the scene from Shaw at one point.
The message is unmistakable - that in an age of moral and ethical relativism, sometimes one must gamble all, even one's life, to cling to integrity - and ultimately one's own soul. This parable is sorely needed in our own day.
The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
Jolly good show, jolly jolly good show...
The film is set in 1943, in a POW camp in Burma, along the route of a rail line the Japanese were building between Malaysia and Rangoon. Seen through the eyes of Colonel Nicholson (Alec Guinness), commanding officer of a battalion of British war prisoners, the war narrows to a single task, building a bridge across the Kwai. The film then focuses on exactly what the viewer considers to be mad.
Nicholson and Saito, the commandant, are quickly involved in a face off. Saito wants all of the British to work on the bridge. Nicholson says the Geneva Convention states officers may not be forced to perform manual labour. He even produces a copy of the document, which Saito uses to whip him across the face, drawing blood. Nicholson is prepared to die rather than bend on principle, and eventually, in one of the film's best-known sequences, he's locked inside 'the Oven', a corrugated iron hut that stands in the sun.
The story in the jungle moves ahead neatly, economically and powerfully. Holden is extremely good as the malingerer and unlikely hero – you see his character come full circle as the film ends. Note should be made of Hawkins brilliant, perhaps his finest role, as the focused British commando. With all Hawkins military characters you really have faith that he is who he plays. The long march where he refuses to be carried is a good example of the stiff upper lipism that he carries so well. He and Holden handle the British humour well with Hawkins providing lines such as 'Jolly good show' to which Holden replies 'yes jolly good show, jolly jolly good
good hunting' in perhaps the most humorous moment of the film. The film's central relationship is between Saito and Nicholson, a professional soldier approaching his 28th anniversary of army service 'I don't suppose I've been at home more than 10 months in all that time'.
The Japanese colonel is not a professional soldier, but he is a rigidly dutiful officer. We see him weeping privately with humiliation because Nicholson is a stronger willed man – a great insult to a Japanese officer. Most war movies are either for or against their wars. This film is one of the few that focuses not on rights and wrongs but on the individuals. Like Robert Graves' World War I memoir 'Goodbye to All That' it shows men grimly hanging onto military discipline and pride in their units as a way of clinging to sanity. By the end of the film we are less interested in who wins than in how individual characters will behave.
The scenes in the jungle are crisply told. We see the bridge being built, and we watch the standoff between the two colonels. Hayakawa and Guinness make a good match as they create two disciplined officers who never bend, but nevertheless quietly share the vision of completing the bridge.
The obsession is with building a better bridge, and finishing it on time. The story's great irony is that once Nicholson successfully stands up to Saito, he immediately devotes himself to Saito's project as if it is his own. He suggests a better site for the bridge, he offers blueprints and timetables, and he even enters Clipton's hospital hut in search of more workers, and marches out at the head of a column of the sick and the lame.
Liptons final words are perhaps a suitable epitaph for the film...
The 39 Steps (1935)
A classic and you've got to see it!!
An absolute marvel which has been remade a couple of times – only really to show how good the original was. Alfred Hitchcock had received a contract to create spy thriller and this he did and then some
This film was the marker which established his reputation as the master of suspense, something which remained unchallenged throughout the remainder of his career.
There are also several Hitchcock hallmarks that would recur in his later films - the innocent man being suddenly catapulted by accident into the sinister world of spies and secret agents is very much like his later 'North By Northwest'. There's a train journey as there are in many Hitchcock films, and of course, the icy, mysterious blonde, in this case the excellent Madeleine Carroll. The director cites this as one of his favourite films of all time – it contains all the requisite elements – pace, noir and at times black humour.
The film is in essence a spy story, with man, Richard Hannay, accused of murder right from the outset. At one point of the movie he is handcuffed to a beautiful girl but this gives the film its extra sexual edge and also Hitchcock the territory to exploit desperate situations for humour. Note should be taken of the risqué 'stockings scene' if I can call it that. Carroll removes her stockings whilst she is still handcuffed to Donat in a bedroom – by today's standards I'm sure it's laughable but not in 1935.
There are two criticisms commonly made of this film. The first is that there are logical imperfections in the story. This is true of almost all Hitchcock films (as well as those of most other directors). The second criticism is that this film, whilst based on John Buchan's novel of the same name, departs very considerably from the story in the book. Few films very closely follow the original book – simply because they are different mediums.
The script fairly crackles and the pace is nearly relentless until the protagonists arrive at the inn for the night. It's jumping from trains, man hunts across the moors and enemy agents turning up everywhere. The dialogue is sexy by 1930's standards, reminiscent somehow of Bacall and Bogart in The Big Sleep - the electricity between Carroll and Donat is a joy to watch. It's all innuendo, of course, which is far steamier than being explicit about things - but I bet it initially troubled the censors all the same. The acting too is top-notch and some mention should be made of Dame Peggy Ashcroft (looking sexier than Carroll in my view) in an early role. Donat is superb as a kind of proto-type James Bond, all debonair and very, very English.
The film may not have the budget or the scale of some of Hitchcock's later work but there's no doubting his way with a story. We have to remember than this movie was made 70 years ago and in context is full of violence sex and a roller coaster ride! We are right into the thick of the story within about three minutes of the opening titles and it never lets up.
28 Days Later... (2002)
Tense, scary and no it's NOT a zombie movie
28 Days Later is not a zombie film, well it is sort of...OK it's not... It takes a clever twist on the traditional Romero films and instead of the dead coming back from hell (because there's no more space) instead these fellows are filled with rage
Think traffic jam on a hot day and the air con is broken or you're married to Lena Headey (only to wake up and realise it was just a dream). Anyway
Beautifully directed by Danny Boyle in essence it's a survivalist tale with some gruesome scenes and Lord of the Files morality. The landscape of England is a brutally scared and this disturbing setting for the film is shot gloriously with digital hand held cameras. Boyle also chooses to strip some of the colour out of some shots and enhance it in others. Indeed, the film boasts some startling imagery - most notably Jim on a deserted Westminster Bridge at rush hour, Jim wandering London's City and West End, the group driving up an empty M6 and greeted by a burning Manchester (Boyle's home town). If by that particular scene Boyle hasn't managed to drown you with a tangible sense of hopeless and bleakness you're probably already dead
The story revolves around several survivors of the virus (which is passed by fluids)and their attempt to find shelter and safety in the ravaged landscape of Britain. I don't want to spoil it too much for you but the plot ticks along nicely within various vignettes along the way. The highlight is the ending with John Murphy's amazing piece of music 'In the house – in a heartbeat' which you will recognise no doubt without me even describing it to you. The final scene in the house ranks in my top 20 film scenes of all time.
Cillian Murphy, looking disturbingly sickly and pale, plays Jim, the hero to the story. Murphy is terrific in this role because he is very believable and human – clearly there was no temptation to cast him as some action hero – in fact for most of the film just the opposite – a superb decision by Boyle. Naomie Harris plays Selena, another survivor who ends up teamed up with Jim after saving his life. Megan Burns plays the young girl and Brendan Gleeson is her father Frank; they make up the small band of survivors. Mention to should be made of Christopher Eccleston (as an army major) who appears towards the latter 1/3 and is chillingly competent.
Oh yes and less we forget 'the infected' which are beautifully made up and move with a grace that reminded me of how James Cameron had the Aliens move. Very different from Romeros zombies; rem these aren't Zombies? but the infected can move quickly, if a little randomly and occasionally spurt blood ala The Exorcist. It's not without a couple of minor flaws but the film is a very good British horror film – yanks might wonder 'why don't they all have guns' or 'why is there no scary build up music to tell us when something is going to happen' but that is because this is a British film and not a Hollywood one...
Salem's Lot (1979)
Terrifying, terrifying, terrifying...
Watched this film whilst I was small - got me scared of vampires I can tell you. Even watching it 30 years later the suspense that it generates and the raw fear you feel is palpable. How on earth it gets mid 6s here whilst utter crap like Braveheart gets 8.4 - seriously.
Some of the acting is a little below par but I resent the flack that David Soul got on it - 'no atheists in foxholes' was a particularly believable line. David Mason clearly never ceases to impress and Lew Ayres does a lovely line as the old schoolteacher.
If you're lucky enough never to have seen this, GET THE FULL VERSION, watch them back to back, late at night and have a stiff drink with you. Far superior to the remake 'Look at me teacher...' VH
Mutant Chronicles (2008)
Schoolboy action indeed...but GREAT action
I enjoyed this film - don't let some of the critics here put you off. It wasn't at Cannes for a reason! If you're looking for something deep, avoid it. But if it's fairly pointless action and a reasonably pacey script - give it a whirl. It is as someone else mentioned a kind of steam punkish movie - so if you're at all interested in that genre then it's defo worth seeing.
I have to admit that sometimes you think that you're in a video game - but if you were it would be a bloody great one...
Certainly doesn't deserve the score it has received on IMDb. Oh and I thought that Jane was fine...
Arn: Tempelriddaren (2007)
Loved it - let down by small mistakes - but watch the movie
OK so I read the reviews and decided to have a look at it myself. As opposed to going into a long and probably boring review:)
For
lovely scenery believable acting good music good values (rare these days)
Against
Suffered from it being too short (should have been an epic and used the other 30mins) Not enough budget (battle scenes fairly poor) Wandered a little at times
At that said - great movie - lovely to see the templars getting a reasonable treatment as they're easy targets some times:)
Go watch it and see for yourself