Inherent Vice (2015)

By

-

2015-02-11

Phoenix reacted strangely when he confirmed how much he was being paid for this venture.

Twitter Plot Summary: PI Doc Sportello gets involved in an onion layered investigation that on the face of it doesn’t make much sense.

Well now, this one is a bit of a head trip. Spread out over a languorous 2.5 hours, Inherent Vice is not a film where the particulars of the story are all that important. What you need to know is Private Investigator Doc Sportello is tasked by his ex-girlfriend Shasta Fay Hepworth (Katherine Waterston) to stop her current lover, the wealthy Eric Roberts, from being committed to an insane asylum by his wife and her lover. Confused yet? Well you’ve not seen anything yet. Matters are not helped thanks to Doc’s dependency on drugs, smoking and snorting his way through the case in a haze of smoke and confused perceptions.

Joaquin Phoenix is Doc, sporting epic mutton chops and a mane of hair that totally fit the film’s setting of 1970. He is totally invested in the character, alternating between drug-induced paranoia and the very occasional moments of clarity. One part serious crime drama, one part comedy, the script allows Phoenix to play it just one notch away from being completely over the top, more often than not staring at the people and the world around him with barely concealed confusion and puzzlement. The joy of it is that we don’t have to rely on him as the narrator, as that duty is provided by Sortilège, an almost incidental character in the overall narrative but is certainly in a position to be a more reliable narrator than Doc.

To take the edge off, you can even enjoy a number of extended cameo appearances from a smorgasbord of Hollywood talent. The likes of Owen Wilson, Benicio del Toro, Reese Witherspoon, Jena Malone and Josh Brolin (and still more) all show up and ply their wares. Brolin in particular, as the conflicted cop Bjornsen, is the one who gets the most development from start to finish, and it’s a much more nuanced performance than he gave us in the Oldboy remake.

"Why is that camera pointed at me? Am I tripping again?" — “Why is that camera pointed at me? Am I tripping again?”

The story isn’t all that important in the grand scheme of things, but the characters and setting are what make it what it is, alongside some typically perfect direction from Paul Thomas Anderson. Instead we move from sequence to sequence, not quite sure what’s going on but hopefully willing to see things through to the end, such is its labyrinthine insanity. By all accounts adapting the works of Thomas Pynchon is no easy task, and again by all accounts Anderson has made a solid attempt at doing so. But ignoring the adaptation side of things, does Inherent Vice work as a film in its own right? Public opinion may sway on this point, but yes, it does. When you have characters as rich and varied as this, any misconceptions about the need for clear storytelling are lost in favour of superb characterisation and performances. It’s not so much a film as a live action piece of art.

If you can complain about anything, it’s that it could be considered as being a good 20 minutes to half an hour longer than it perhaps needs to be, however if you’re in the right mindset for some drug-fuelled crime investigations and you’ve got no place to go then Inherent Vice is the film for you.

Score: 4.5/5

Before Dawn (2012)

By

Simon Prior

-

2015-02-10

0

"Why did I agree to be in this film?!" *sobs uncontrollably, coughs up a lung* — “Why did I agree to be in this film?!” *sobs uncontrollably, coughs up a lung*

Twitter Plot Summary: A couple head off on a holiday to repair their relationship. But then the zombie apocalypse happens. Of all the luck, eh?

Starring and directed by that chap who played Paddy in Emmerdale (Dominic Brunt), Before Dawn is the story of a couple who go on holiday in a bid to save their relationship, but their plans are put on hold when the zombie apocalypse takes place. Except… there aren’t really that many zombies. Who makes a feature length zombie film with only half a dozen zombies? Once again, despite what were no doubt the best intentions of all involved, what we have here is another low budget horror film that lacks any solid justification for its existence. It’s a thematic void and light on zombie action, so fails to satisfy on either story or gore levels.

For some reason much of the dialogue appears to have been badly dubbed on afterwards – either they couldn’t afford to record live sound on the day or the outdoor locations used were too windy for the dialogue to be heard cleanly – it was shot in the wilderness that is Yorkshire after all. In any case, that sheer amount of ADR does eventually start to get irritate and becomes all the more noticeable the longer it goes on.

We’re supposed to believe that these characters were once in a caring and loving relationship, but we barely see that in the film itself. These are seemingly two people who are polar opposites and are clear proof that having nothing in common means it’s probably not going to work out, kids or no kids. There are at best flashes of their former relationship, but there’s no investment in fleshing that out – no pun intended.

"Say it: this film will be AWESOME! SAY IT! ...please say it." — “Say it: this film will be AWESOME! SAY IT!
…please say it.”

The zombies are the rage infected type, and look awful. Rather than looking dead they appear to have dipped their faces in a bag of flour which has caused a bit of irritation in their eyes. The very, very brief moments of violence are also spoiled by excessive use of shaky-cam, to the point where it’s not exciting, it’s nausea inducing. Dominic Brunt, meanwhile, spends much of his time mouth agape and staring into the middle distance. Not an attractive look at the best of times, but its frequent recurrence – in particular in a key scene which is supposed to be emotionally engaging – it does little else but cause a few unwanted chuckles.

Things pick up a little with the arrival of the mustachioed man known as Stephen (Nicky Evans), but only because he provides some context to what’s going on in the outside world and helps shake things up a little. But by the time he appears we’ve had two poorly staged zombie attacks and not much else, and there’s not much time left at that point for the film to redeem itself. It goes without saying that it doesn’t achieve this, although the odd moment of gore is as good as it gets.

The end result is that it’s not very good. Not very good at all. A shame that, as there is real opportunity for a good story using this template. In this case they clearly haven’t achieved what they originally set out to. It might have been better off taking setting the zombie apocalypse loose on an episode of Emmerdale, that would have at least proven to be entertaining.

Score: 1.5/5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODrE0TD5Sz0

The Blood On Satan’s Claw (1971)

By

Simon Prior

-

2015-02-09

0

"Look at this tree; it will stop you staring at my eyebrows." — “Look at this tree; it will stop you staring at my eyebrows.”

Twitter Plot Summary: Strange goings on in rural England lead to a small village going a little bit mad.

A strange deformed skull in the soil is the first odd discovery in a chilling series of events set in 17th century England. Shortly thereafter everyone starts to go a little bit crazy, hacking off their own limbs, being apparently possessed by the devil, and getting naked for the local priest (no change there then). It is potentially a Satanic influence being exerted over the locals, so it’s understandable that the visiting Judge is soon returning to London to get the hell out dodge, as it were. It soon transpires that it’s primarily the youngsters in the village who are falling under Satan’s influence, and bear his mark with patches of Satan’s skin (a far more appropriate title as well, it has to be said) on their bodies – these are surprisingly hairy, it has to be said. After much violence and puzzlement, this all leads to a finale that is heavy in pagan imagery and a final battle between good and evil. Although as both sides are representative of the Christian faith, perhaps we all lose. The Judge and his almost secular stance on everything is clearly the chap we should be rooting for.

Among all the screaming and people being slapped round the face, the creepy goings on are well directed and portrayed in the typically serious tone of the era, although there isn’t any hint of Hammer Horror style camp here. There is clear intent to shock the audience as frequently as possible, be it random nudity, bloodletting or just through an unsettling smile from one or more of the characters. The sheer number of different shock tactics is impressive, although in hindsight it could have perhaps done with focusing a bit more on one or two elements and then expanding on them instead of throwing everything at the wall and seeing what stuck.

But then this multitude of shocks and scares no doubt stems from the film’s originally proposed anthology format. If you look closely you can see that the story is clearly split into three sections, later combined into one narrative. At times this proves to be a problem as it detracts from what would otherwise be clear storytelling.

There aren’t many big names in the cast, but we do have Robert Wymark as The Judge, a man whose most notable performance elsewhere is as the traitorous general in Where Eagles Dare. Linda Hayden is also a notable presence as Angel Blake, although she’s mostly known for her good looks and nudity in other horror films of the era. It goes without saying that gender equality was never a consideration at this point in history, so the only nudity comes from naive young women who probably didn’t know any better. It may shock, but it ultimately serves no purpose.

The Blood on Satan’s Claw has oft been described in conjunction with The Wicker Man thanks to its folk horror style, although the latter is clearly the better of the two. With that said, the folk scares and performances in this particular film are on par with The Wicker Man, however by revealing its hand too early The Blood on Satan’s Claw lacks the gut punch of its folk horror relation. In any case, it does at least represent a thoroughly British interpretation of horror, and is all the better for it.

Score: 3.5/5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkWYY2w02m0

Replicant (2001)

By

Simon Prior

-

2015-02-08

0

"The poo in the corner? Wasn't me. Honest." — “The poo in the corner? Wasn’t me. Honest.”

Twitter Plot Summary: Van Damme is two characters. One sets fire to things and people, the other is a genetic clone. Yeah, it’s stupid. Just go with it.

Jean Claude Van Damme is The Torch, a killer who targets women who have not demonstrated good parenting skills. His method of choice for dispatching said women? By burning them to little more than charred remains, of course. Michael Rooker is the cop who has spent three years trying to catch The Torch but without success. He chooses to retire, which is exactly the point where some chap in a suit rocks up and advises that there may be another way of stopping the killer.

In a plot point that must have taken five minutes of brainstorming at the very first production meeting, they choose to clone the killer and hope to use the clone’s memories in order to stop the killer from bumping off yet another single mother. Riiiight… Clearly when this was cooked up there was no thought given to making even this outrageous plot point logical in the film world, let alone for an audience looking in from the outside. It never makes sense and you’re probably best just forgetting or ignoring much of this part of the narrative if you’re going to enjoy the film.

Van Damme is back on dual role duties, as both the killer and his youthful/simple minded clone. Is this because he gets paid twice for every film like this, or is he just a glutton for punishment? In any case, he’s solid enough as both characters and manages to clearly distinguish each of them besides the fact the only physical difference is that they have different hairstyles. Michael Rooker is his usual dependable self, even if the material he’s working with isn’t the strongest he’s ever been given.

Meanwhile clone Van Damme has to contend with the violent prejudice of his handler Michael Rooker, who treats him very much like a dog in order to curb his potentially homicidal tendencies. His gradual change from harsh taskmaster to friendly face isn’t one that sits too well – what are his reasons for coming to like this man who represents all of his failures over the last 3 years?

This incredulity extends to the overall story. The science fiction plot is given no explanation – we’re shown the “birth” of the clone and it’s left at that. No reason is given for their shared memories and psychic link either – again, perhaps best left for another, better film. There are more plot inconsistencies as events progress, in particular a hooker who wants to protect clone Van Damme despite the fact he tries to rape her and almost succeeds. It’s one instance (of many) in film where solid female characterisation is non-existent.

Still, we’re not here for plot, we’re here for some canny action sequences. Van Damme is still an athletic presence – and yes, he does his trademark splits for no apparent reason – and even when fighting himself the fights are still nicely choreographed to use body doubles in place of expensive CGI. There’s probably not enough of it to justify the cost of entry, but what we do get is of reasonable quality.

Score: 2.5/5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky1ibUzkCmE

Trick or Treat (1986)

By

Simon Prior

-

2015-02-07

0

"Hey, I'm the kid who likes heavy metal." — “Hey, I’m the kid who likes heavy metal.”

Twitter Plot Summary: A heavy metal fan has to stop the manifestation of his dead hero from killing everyone. In other words, a standard Saturday night.

The 1980s, era of anthemic hair metal, hair spray and dodgy acting performances from… well, almost everyone. Trick or Treat is your typical 80s piece, a world in which metal fans are ostracised for their faith in The Metal. Sadly as recent events have indicated, in particular the murder of Sophie Lancaster a few years ago, it remains something which is a relevant today as it was in the 80s. The ironic thing is that, despite their often extreme appearances, metal fans are some of the most lovely people you could ever hope to meet. So it goes.

Marc Price is the metal loving outcast Eddie who undergoes the metalhead equivalent of a crisis of faith when his rock hero Sammi Curr dies in a hotel fire. Meanwhile he’s being bullied by a group of jocks in his school but soon discovers a hidden message when one of his records skips and plays backwards. Before long his dead idol is manifesting himself back in the real world, and despite his frankly awesome hair is intent on wreaking havoc with his freaky control over electricity. It’s clearly a concept derived from the incident where two teenagers apparently noted subliminal messages within the songs of Judas Priest, which then led to the controversial and ultimately ridiculous court case in 1989 where the band had to defend themselves against the accusation that the subliminal message had been included intentionally.

Ozzy Osbourne’s cameo as a disgusted reverend does actually provide a few chuckles, but mostly because it’s Ozzy and his acting skills leave plenty to be desired. Gene Simmons, thankfully, isn’t too bad in a brief cameo as radio DJ Nuke. In fact, it might have been far better had Gene and Ozzy swapped roles. Or, even better, Ozzy had not been in it at all. Price is okay as the lead character, even if the script doesn’t call for him to do all that much apart from look angry most of the time. The popular kids who give him stick at school are so generic it’s difficult to analyse them without lapsing into stereotype.

"Please don't make me watch Ozzy acting again! PLEASE!" — “Please don’t make me watch Ozzy acting again! PLEASE!”

Besides those cameos and the Heavy Metal vibe, it’s almost exactly the same story as seen in most teen horror/slasher flicks of the era, with the Freddie Krueger character replaced by a demonic rock singer. Starting with an initially comedic tone, it gradually loses its sense of fun and degrades into much more serious territory. This is further emphasised by the slow reduction in rock songs on the soundtrack and into more traditional film score territory.

The special effects may be resolutely cheap and cheerful, but they’re appropriate and don’t overstay their welcome. Much more galling is Sammi Curr’s awful lip-synched performance at the Halloween bash. At least he only does that for the one song, any more and it might have been a less enjoyable film. As it is, most of its story beats are taken directly from the Freddy Krueger school of slasher horror plotting, and for the most part is no different to many other horror films of the era.

Score: 3/5

Stake Land (2011)

By

Simon Prior

-

2015-02-06

0

"Hmm... vampires or Canada?" — “Hmm… vampires or Canada?”

Twitter Plot Summary: A road movie that takes place after vampires have spread across the world, zombie style.

Stake Land is an intriguing one. Combining the best elements of the vampire and zombie genres it has created something that is equally as good as the best both genres have to offer whilst branching out and putting something slightly different on the table. Like the still-beating heart of its victim, or something along those lines. Kali Ma!

The story takes place in a post-apocalypse setting which will be familiar to anybody who has ever enjoyed a George Romero zombie film. This time however it’s not that particular type of undead that has spread across the globe, but feral vampires. In many respects this is not too dissimilar to any other movie that features running zombies, but the feral vampires are slightly different to your common sprinting undead. As you might expect, it’s not just the vampires that our characters need to be wary of, and Stake Land proves to be another solid example of horror films exploring the human condition and how we would react in the face of our current society being thrown out of the window.

It’s a road movie that has no other purpose for the characters than to survive and find a place of safety – harder than it might sound when you have religious extremists dotted around the country and trying to enforce their intolerant hate spiel on all the non-believers they meet. Stake Land portrays this particular post-apocalypse setting as a godless mess, a hive of immorality where the worst aspects of human nature are given free reign to be explored. So, in other words, just like any other post-apocalyptic setting. The Brotherhood are an interesting example of the usual religious extremist depicted in film, notable for their logo which looks a lot like the face paint used by the Ultimate Warrior in the WWF/WWE.

There isn’t time to explore every secondary character’s past and motivations, but that’s fine because we do get an intriguing father/son relationship between the mysterious man known as Mister (Nick Damici) who rescues a boy called Martin (Connor Paolo) after his family are torn apart by vampires. Mister shows Martin all the tricks of the trade in order to protect himself from vampires and the living, giving him the skills to survive when the day eventually comes where Mister is not there to protect him. Much of their relationship is conveyed through scenes without dialogue, and is all the better for it.

For once the vampire and gore effects are excellent, clearly some serious thought was put into the effects budget. Likewise the cinematography and tone are moody and atmospheric. Thankfully it’s always clear where we are at all times despite the frequent lack of light. There is never the urge to keep the camera too close to the action either, so sequences such as where vampires are dropped from helicopters onto unsuspecting victims below have much more impact. No pun intended.

In many respects it’s a story that has been seen time and time again elsewhere, but there’s enough originality and twists on established tropes to maintain interest.

Score: 3.5/5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNC2HwAaWWE

Häxan: Witchcraft Through The Ages (1922)

By

Simon Prior

-

2015-02-05

0

Twitter Plot Summary: A documentary about the history of witchcraft. The Devil is the best character by a long distance.

Released in 1922, Benjamin Christensen’s silent horror documentary about the history of witchcraft is a stunning effort that belies the era it was made in, and proves that you don’t need dialogue or “modern” production techniques to make a film that is compelling and has a powerful premise. Whilst this is a documentary, it is made up primarily of sequences performed by actors. Apparently The Devil wasn’t available for filming that day, and Dave Grohl wouldn’t be born for another 40-odd years.

The film opens with a pictorial history of belief through the ages, and how witches came to be believed as an evil presence due to their affiliation with The Devil himself. As the film progresses, we experience several further sections discussing witchcraft, covering everything from medieval superstitions to mental health problems to how terribly evil old women really are. Or rather, that’s what Häxan would want you to think.

It’s easy to understand why it caused so much outrage at the time of release. Most notably is its apparent glorification of witchcraft and Hell, which would not have gone down well in the religious furore of the era. Then there are scenes such as where the witch rips off a corpse’s finger to add it to her potion, and the Devil appearing to sway people away from the light. The depictions of torture and sexual perversion are hardly explicit, but again, if you look at it from the perspective of somebody seeing it for the first time in 1922, you can see why it caused so much outrage.

But then by modern standards it almost feels quaint, a representation of a much more innocent time. The Devil is frequently and unintentionally amusing, waggling his tongue and scaring old women while he makes potentially rude gestures. In fact he stands out as the most memorable character in the whole film, but that might be more to do with his frankly outrageous attempts at bedeviling people rather than anything more sinister.

She wouldn't get away with that in the Nunnery. — She wouldn’t get away with that in the Nunnery.

But this unintentional humour is balanced out by some impressive special effects for the time – witches flying over the rooftops is a particular highlight, as are the costumes worn by the demons who engage in the ritualistic sacrifice of babies. Christensen’s direction is hardly extravagant, but then it doesn’t need to be. It tells a great story with no dialogue, and the performances, whilst very typical of the era, are still engaging to this day.

The most powerful aspect of the whole production is its final moments which discuss how the superstitions of the past led to what were innocent yet sick people being victimised and killed. Even by the early 1920s various psychological illnesses had been identified, and it’s this which Christensen focuses on. Were these people accused of witchcraft merely people with mental health problems? It stands a good chance, and it makes you grateful that even by 1922 we had transitioned into a slightly more enlightened era. Now, if only there was something we could do about homeopathy.

Score: 4/5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYTv7mIBfdY

American Sniper (2015)

By

Simon Prior

-

2015-02-04

0

Just a few more seconds and he'd have caught that wascally wabbit! — Just a few more seconds and he’d have caught that wascally wabbit!

Twitter Plot Summary: Clint Eastwood directs! Bradley Cooper stars! Sienna Miller cries! Somebody holds a fake baby! Lots of people get shot and die!

American Sniper opens with Chris Kyle, America’s most prolific sniper with 160 confirmed kills, in the Middle East watching over a military convoy as it is approached by a young boy and his mother, who are carrying what appears to be a bomb. As he decides whether or not to take the shot, we flash back to his pre-military days, where he proves himself to be a tough nut kid who happens to be an excellent shot with a rifle and, later, a rodeo master. He then realises, thanks to 9/11, that his destiny lies in the military and before long he’s undergoing Navy SEAL training and heading into the war zone.

The latest film from Clint Eastwood, Bradley Cooper stars as the all-American Chris Kyle, and we get to watch him kill wave after wave of terrorists interspersed with quieter moments in his private life… or is it the other way around? No, that’s definitely the right way around. Sienna Miller plays wife Taya, although she’s only here to act as a counterpoint to the violence of war. Beyond that there is almost no depth to her character and exists primarily to alternate between moaning at Kyle and sobbing down the telephone. Cooper is really the only other leg on which the film stands, and thankfully he is as dependable as ever otherwise this would have been far less interesting.

Shot in Eastwood’s typically sparse style, additional conflict is presented by a rival sniper in a plot point that plays off like a far inferior version of the sniper versus sniper battle in Enemy At The Gates. Their long game of cat and mouse doesn’t add much, mostly because there’s no emotional investment in their less than personal conflict, and because they have no interaction other than the odd sniper bullet aimed in each other’s direction. It doesn’t feel like it’s necessary to the story despite playing a rather large part of it.

"Has he called 'Cut' yet?" — “Has he called ‘Cut’ yet?”

So what is American Sniper really about? A flag waving exercise, praising American military authority and efficiency at the expense of the “barbaric” residents in the Middle East? The physical and mental effects of war on combatants, and the knock-on effects on friends and family? The fact that this man is celebrated almost exclusively for being very good at killing lots of people?

It’s a mixture of all of these points, yet never truly excelling at any of them. With that said, it is solidly made, looks good and features an array of solid performances. But then at the same time it is rife with jingoistic cliche, an expected yet still unnecessarily one-sided perspective of the Muslim world, and a story that never feels comfortable in Eastwood’s interpretation of events.

Is it justified to receive Academy recognition? Perhaps, perhaps not. It may try to cover big meaty themes but it handles them in such a way that it doesn’t seem sure what kind of film it wants to be. Plus, trying to ignore the fake baby is like trying to ignore Keith Lemon. Sadly impossible.

Score: 3/5

Big Hero 6 (2015)

By

Simon Prior

-

2015-02-03

0

It was nice to have a backup if the heating ever went down.

Twitter Plot Summary: A boy genius seeks to defeat a Kabuki mask-wearing villain who stole his invention with a group of friends and Baymax the vinyl med-robot.

For those seeing the film at the cinema there is a bonus animated short before the main feature called Feast. This is a charming story about a dog, Winston, and his owner presented in a superb cel-shaded style. In brief, the dog receives all sorts of junk food until his owner meets a woman. The food soon becomes healthier until the relationship sours, and then it’s up to Winston to intervene and pull his owner out of his depression. It’s a typically great Disney short and conveys a lot with almost no dialogue.

Now, for the main feature. Big Hero 6 is the latest Disney film and the first in their animated line to draw influence from their acquisition of the Marvel stable of characters. That will no doubt come as a surprise to many, as the Big Hero 6 are hardly one of the better known Marvel comics. Heck, there’s probably more people out there who know about Squirrel Girl than the Big Hero 6. Until now, that is.

Hiro is a 13 year old boy living in San Fransokyo (yes, it is a very silly name) who despite being a boy genius is heading down the wrong path by taking part in illegal robot fights. His older brother Tadashi steps in and points him towards a more productive path, that of robot design. Hiro designs a potentially world-changing microbot, but a personal tragedy then strikes and he is only roused back into action by Baymax and the discovery that his invention is being used for evil. He recruits a group of friends who each have distinctive powers and they set out to become superheroes.

The action is well handled, although they are frequently less powerful than the moments of humour, of which there are plenty. The animation too is incredibly detailed with every frame bustling with action and movement. It’s amazing the level of detail we can get in animated films these days, especially when you consider them against the original Toy Story.

In terms of the villain, the Kabuki mask dude looks the part but doesn’t have all that much to do in the grand scheme of things. His Stargate-style weapon is hardly original, although his reasons for being slightly evil do have believable origins. Likewise, Hiro’s friends are poorly sketched and are little more than an array of varying skills rather than defined personalities. It’s the one main area in which Big Hero 6 doesn’t quite fire on all cylinders, but it gets things spot on between Hiro and Baymax. The former is jaded and angry, the latter a big, huggable vinyl bundle of joy. Whether he’s petting a cat and calling it a hairy baby, proving himself incapable of punching down a door, or acting like he’s had a few too many to drink when his batteries run low, he is a constant delight and toy sales will no doubt go through the roof.

The plot may be in slightly too much of a rush to get to the finale, but the emotional journey of Hiro and his relationship with Baymax is the thing that will keep you coming back for repeat viewings. That and the desire to own your own Baymax. Just because.

Score: 4/5

The Three Musketeers (1993)

By

Simon Prior

-

2015-02-02

0

"Hey guys, have any of you seen my blue tabard?" — “Hey guys, have any of you seen my blue tabard?”

Twitter Plot Summary: The Three Musketeers gets a Brat Pack shine and oodles of Tim Curry awesomeness in this 1993 adaptation of the novel by Alexandre Dumas.

So the Musketeers get another adaptation, this time at the hands of Disney no less. And you know what? It’s really good fun. By focusing on the jokey, wisecracking side of the characters whilst developing an appropriately dramatic narrative, director Stephen Herek found the perfect tone to tell the story of these characters. And there are a lot of jokes, it has to be said. The original story is tweaked slightly so that the Musketeers are disbanded before D’Artagnan can join them, which in turn sets off the remainder of the plot, but it does work in this particular context. It also helps mix things up when you most likely already know how it will conclude.

So what that it is a mostly blood free affair, never mind how many people are killed and bumped off? It is evident that it was a lavish production – it had a budget half that of Jurassic Park and $8 million more than Spielberg’s other film that year, Schindler’s List. Not only is it obvious on screen that a fair bit of money was spent, the production also used some great locations which add realism and atmosphere in equal measure.

"How dare you point that at me! I'm Tim Ruddy Curry!" — “How dare you point that at me! I’m Tim Ruddy Curry!”

The cast is pure gold. Not only do we have the Brat Pack essence of Kiefer Sutherland and Charlie Sheen as Athos and Aramis respectively, joined with able presence by Oliver Platt as Porthos and Chris O’Donnell as D’Artagnan – who emulates Michael York by not being completely irritating – but on villain duties there is Paul McGann (in two roles, no less – excellent in both even if they are sketched rather thin), and a piece of casting genius by placing Tim Curry as Cardinal Richelieu. Curry is reliably good in almost everything, but to give him a meaty role such as this is one that just works on every level. Sneering, insidious charm, and clearly targeting a role above his current position, Curry is a tour de force of cinematic villainy. He’s supported by an equally villainous turn by Michael Wincott as Rochefort, he of gravelly voice and main bad guy duty in The Crow. On the female front, we have the ever reliable Julie Delpy as Constance, and another delightful turn by Rebecca De Mornay as the traitorous Countess D’Winter.

Plus what’s not to like about the song, All For Love, that plays over the end credits? Who can argue against the trifecta that is Bryan Adams, Sting and Rod Stewart? Well Seal for one – he should’ve been added to the mix just for the sake of it. Between him and the trio on this recording they sewed up the movie ballad market in the 90s. It might very well be a hip and typically early 90s adaptation of Alexandre Dumas’ original novel, but for once it does work in the film’s favour. Drama, jokes, derring do and cracking performances all add up to something that is surprisingly more than you might have initially expected. In that respect it’s a shame a sequel never followed.

Score: 3.5/5

SIMONPRIOR.COM