The Devil’s Rain (1975)

By

-

2014-11-13

Twitter Plot Summary: William Shatner gets involved in some face melting occult madness.

It was a dark and stormy night, and William Shatner emerges from the darkness having been unable to locate his father in the bad weather. Just a few moments later his father returns, albeit with a melty face and a sinister warning in Latin. It seems that a malevolent Satanist known as Corbis (an always welcome Ernest Borgnine) is responsible for this state of affairs – his cult are capable somehow of making people melt down into nothing. Welcome to The Devil’s Rain

It’s an odd one to be sure – nobody seems all that bothered when folks die/melt right in front of them for one, although Shatner does have a couple of moments which no doubt fed into his infamous “KHAN!” scream in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Still, over time there is the opportunity for Shatner to take his top off and use his Star Trek skills to really sell being hurt by the cult. Borgnine meanwhile owns every scene he appears in, varying between unsettling and pantomime villainy depending on the juiciness of the dialogue given to him. Tom Skerritt has the straight role as the man investigating the cult, and Travolta has only a couple of scenes without dialogue in what was his feature film debut. Bathed in shadow, he’s only recognisable by his chin. Suffice to say he’s not a selling point for this production.

All of this takes places with little explanation – the writer clearly took the mantra of starting the story partway through almost too literally. Matters are given explanation eventually, but the opening is a little too sudden, leaving the second half too exposition heavy for the whole production to have any balance.

This is William Shatner's real face. About as convincing as his serious acting. — This is William Shatner’s real face. About as convincing as his serious acting.

The effects are very impressive, so impressive in fact that they seem to have been given top billing alongside the desolate landscape the film is set in rather than the cast. One sequence labours for minutes on the melting faces and bodies of members of the cult, almost excessively so. Okay, we get it, you’ve spent a fair bit of money on the melting face effect, there’s no need to labour that point for quite as long as you do. An obligatory twist ending – apparently for the sake of it – just confuses matters rather than settling the narrative. It is at least a better effort than a Paul WS Anderson cliffhanger.

The real selling point here is the film’s cast. Okay so it’s mid-70s horror fare, but otherwise how can you go wrong with the likes of William Shatner, Ernest Borgnine, John Travolta and Tom Skerritt showing up? Even today, given that they’re all much older nowadays, and ignoring the fact Borgnine is dead, it’s still a cast you’d want to see in practically anything, no matter the actual quality of the film. Without these names in the fast list, The Devil’s Rain would rightly be relegated to late night television or buried somewhere at the bottom of a budget DVD bucket. Even with this cast in place it’s hard pressed to offer much else of interest.

Score: 2/5

Son of the Pink Panther (1993)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-11-12

0

Something funny might be about to happen, but given the quality of the jokes here, I doubt it.

Twitter Plot Summary: Another attempt at resurrecting the Pink Panther franchise, this time with Roberto Benigni as Clouseau’s son.

Son of the Pink Panther marks the final film in the series that began with The Pink Panther in 1963, and the third film to take place in that universe following the death of franchise star Peter Sellers. It goes without saying that it isn’t very good, a couple of amusing moments surrounded by tedium. In fact this whole perspective is most clearly defined by the intro sequence, with the animated Pink Panther interacting with a live action setting and the classic theme tarnished by Bobby McFerrin.

Besides this initial indignation, this is a a world where people get shot by a machine gun and there’s no sign of blood, so you know you’re in for trouble. It’s another tonal mess, the occasional great joke ruined by an increasingly dull story that is more interested in revealing a character’s lineage and paying homage to the best bits of days gone by than branching off and existing as a separate entity in its own right.

Once more the saving grace is Herbert Lom as the now promoted Commissioner Dreyfus. He had expected to be free from Clouseau after his “death” 10 years previously (we know of course that he instead became Roger Moore in Curse of The Pink Panther), however he encounters a police officer with remarkable similarities to Clouseau and soon discovers that the officer is in fact Clouseau’s son. Dreyfus’ misfortune in each film, particularly in the last three entries in the series, are almost your only reason for tuning in. With this in mind, it’s worth pointing out that his near apoplectic rage is best demonstrated in the Sellers movies rather than in these poor imitations of former glories.

Hospital. Something vaguely amusing will happen there, surely?

At least Roberto Benigni is a large distance better than Ted Wass proved to be in Curse of the Pink Panther, but then Benigni is an incredibly competent acting presence. Even despite this, his character is poorly defined and, other than doing an impression of Peter Sellers, is left with little to do besides some rather fun moments of slapstick. These moments are sadly too few and far between, and we’re left waiting for something more interesting and/or amusing to take place.

Robert Davi is the villain here, and feels like he got lost somewhere between his role in Licence To Kill and The Goonies. He’s also a thankless villain, with very little to do beyond the usual stuff of looking evil. His involvement in a kidnapping plot only serves the purpose of getting Gambelli involved in events, nothing more.

After this travesty it’s a good thing that a spinoff series starring Benigni did not get off the ground. One can only imagine how much worse things could have become if this had performed well. Instead it should be seen as what it is, the final nail in the coffin, a desperate attempt to reclaim success from a franchise that had its last solid entry 15 years previously. If the message hadn’t gotten through before, it’s time to move along people, this ship has sailed.

Score: 1/5

Oldboy (2013)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-11-11

0

Twitter Plot Summary: Spike Lee remakes the Korean original, this time with added exposition, Elizabeth Olsen and Sharlto Copley with a weird accent.

Rather than appreciate films in their original language, it is often the responsibility of the American film industry to adapt those films for the English speaking audience. In some instances this works very well – Matt Reeves’ remake of Swedish vampire horror Let The Right One In being the most notable. In others it’s a mixture of good and bad elements rather than being out and out terrible, and that is where Spike Lee’s 2013 remake of Oldboy lies.

There are certain amendments that are appropriate updates to the original – the depiction of violence and Spike Lee’s direction are both on top form, the violence clearly staged and well choreographed, and Lee’s direction demonstrating his handle on style and storytelling. As in the original it is an incredibly dark story, one which would prove unfortunate to spoil. Suffice to say, the narrative has the same level of twists and turns as the original, albeit often with a Westernised edge. The same gut-punch ending is presented with its own original twist, and is as equally as valid as the 2003 film whilst being entirely different and very cleverly structured.

The casting represents everything a modern American movie needs – big name stars add gravitas to the darkness. Josh Brolin provides a strong central lead when he’s beating people up and directed to stare stoically into the middle distance, but when he has to deliver exposition or emote he’s ill-suited for the role. Indie sensibility is provided by Elizabeth Olsen as Marie, a nurse who finds herself helping Joseph. Samuel L Jackson rocks up with a funky hairstyle and plays himself for a couple of scenes, no more. Michael Imperioli is a reliable face, but he’s also not given much to work with.

Samuel L Jackson in Yet Another New Hairstyle.

Unlike the original, however, there are many elements that push it from serious drama and into self parody. Most notably is Sharlto Copley as the man who imprisoned Joseph, an uppity English-accented villain with a deliberately chiselled beard and immaculate dress sense. His past and motivations are interesting, however his presentation as a sub-par Austin Powers-esque Englishman is more than a little suspect. You half expect him to say “Groovy, baby” at any given moment, not a good thing for creating tension. Meanwhile the opening features Brolin muttering to himself in an expository manner and it is this section in particular that doesn’t work at all. It feels forced and at odds with the rest of the film, a sequence that seems determined to do something a little different to the original and as a result loses all focus.

On its own merits this remake is a moderately competent action thriller, albeit one that is in far too much of a rush to get to the big finale. It would have perhaps worked better had Lee been permitted to release his extended edit rather than this all too brisk 100 minute cut. Secondary characters would have had more opportunity to breathe, and Joseph’s story arc would have had more impact on reaching the final act. As it is, whilst some areas are improvements over the 2003 original, there are many more that aren’t.

Score: 3/5

Oldboy (2003)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-11-10

1

Smile and say "imprisonment!" — Smile and say “imprisonment!”

Twitter Plot Summary: A man seeks revenge on the one who imprisoned him for 15 years. He has 5 days to find out why. Twists abound.

What most people focus on when discussing Chan-wook Park’s Oldboy is the scene where Min-sik Choi, playing the recently released Dae-su Oh, eats a live squid in a restaurant. It’s particularly shocking from a Western perspective but not too out of the ordinary for the culture in which it is based. In the grand scheme of things this one scene, whilst a little grotesque and likely to upset a few stomachs along the way, it’s not the most noteworthy aspect of the film, not by a long shot.

Dae-su is a drunken man who wakes one day to find himself imprisoned in what has been made to look like a shabby motel room. 15 years pass, during which time he watches a lot of television and makes several attempts to take his own life before switching things around, shadow boxing the wall and starting to tunnel his way out to freedom. Then without warning he is released and set a challenge of locating the man who imprisoned him. This does not prove too difficult as the man in question wants to be found. What follows is essentially a cat and mouse thriller, where it’s never clear as to who is the cat and who is the mouse.

Strong depictions of violence are the norm in Korean cinema, and Oldboy is no different. Where Oldboy contrasts when compared with the likes of excessively violent films such as Ichi The Killer or even The Human Centipede is that it has a strong emotional story at its core. There’s much more going on here than people simply dishing out horrific levels of violence against others – each violent act in Oldboy has a purpose, a point to be made, a reason for being included.

Whether it be a well choreographed corridor fight where Dae-su fights alone against 10 or more thugs (despite having a knife in his back), or when he rushes to the rescue of Mi-do (Kang Hye-Jung) a young woman who finds herself being assaulted by a group of ne’er-do-wells thanks to her choosing to support Dae-su, there is always a purpose for events, no matter how many shades of light and dark that exist between them.

With that said, the tone varies quite considerably from scene to scene. There are moments that are clearly intended to be black comedy in order to diffuse the out and out unpleasantness that dominates much of the narrative. It’s not much in the way of levity by all accounts, but if you’re attuned to some darker humour then Oldboy has you covered.

The finale remains a cinematic gut punch, providing a twist that is hard to foresee and yet makes perfect sense when you consider the rest of the film. Spoilers will not be provided of course, but this, along with a final scene which allows you to make your own mind up as to the ultimate resolution of the story, is a powerful finale to a simply fantastic movie.

Score: 5/5

Why Dystopia Is A Great Setting For Storytelling

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-11-09

0

There’s a very good reason for dystopia being a more prolific genre in fiction than utopia, in fact there are many good reasons. Dystopia is darker by design, a shadowed reflection of what could easily be the subconscious desires of the audience. Put simply, dystopia allows great scope for the exploration of human nature and generates sufficient amounts of conflict in order to get the punters into cinemas or buying a copy of the film to watch in the comfort of their own homes. Let’s face facts – would you rather pay good money to watch Mad Max beat up some tattooed thugs in the desert, or would you prefer to watch someone sitting at home, sipping Earl Grey in a world where nothing bad or even vaguely interesting ever happens?

As a comparison, utopian society is a safe and potentially dramatically boring notion, where everything has worked out as it was supposed to and there is little that could be amended in order to make things even better. This opinion about utopian fiction is of course a very blinkered perspective to take. Just because death and disease has been eradicated, let’s say, doesn’t mean there isn’t scope for some dramatically fulfilling stories. Just take a look at Star Trek: The Next Generation. The Federation are a peaceful society with little in terms of internal conflict or resource troubles. In that instance, with a few exceptions, conflict is provided by external sources that are opposed to their mostly non-violent methods. But it is still possible to have a perfect utopian society in fiction and ask valid questions about existence that are dramatically satisfying. Was the journey towards utopia a worthwhile one? Were shortcuts followed that might lead to it crumbling sooner rather than later? There are still many opportunities for gripping stories to be told, you just need to know what angle to approach it from.

On the other hand it is also a clear indication that as a species we are never happy unless we have something to complain about. Whether it’s a zombie apocalypse that established the dystopian setting, an ecological disaster, the expansion of big business conglomerates that absorb much of the economy, or even simply humanity’s hubris and being the cause of our own downfall, there are many, many avenues to explore, each offering a unique perspective on how people react to these settings. More often than not, it is admittedly an excuse to show the darker side of human nature – just take a look at films like The Road, a world in which there is almost nothing left and where most people have taken a turn towards the dark side – yet there is still some goodness to be found in people despite the bleak circumstances they find themselves in.

I for one will always be a fan of dystopian storytelling. When done well it poses an interesting “What If?” question, asking the audience to step into that situation and think about what they would do if they were faced with the same circumstances as the film’s protagonist. More often than not, I’m sure the answer would be an entirely selfish one.

Interstellar (2014)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-11-08

0

McConaughey didn't like the thought of a baked bean eating contest while they were in the ship. — McConaughey didn’t like the thought of a baked bean eating contest while they were in the ship.

Twitter Plot Summary: Matthew McConaughey heads out into space in order to find a habitable planet for humanity after Earth starts falling apart.

He’s been putting out quality films since day one, but it took the release of his Batman trilogy for Christopher Nolan to hit the big time and start making thought-provoking science fiction films for a wide audience. Interstellar is not a film that exists without reference to the lauded history of science fiction cinema. Contact, 2001 A Space Odyssey, Silent Running, and many, many more. Indeed, it often embraces the history of big concept science fiction whilst branching off and being its own thing.

Never one to do things by halves, Nolan and his team limited the amount of green screen work and went to the effort of both building extensive sets and miniatures, but also to display the things taking place outside the ship’s windows on set rather than compositing them in afterwards. This leads to a very tangible feeling to every action, you can almost feel the bumps, the bruises, the effects of gravity and time on the characters. Gravity and time prove to be central to the narrative and are important concepts discussed at length.

The near-three hour running time flies by, engaging you from start to finish. Nolan has an uncanny ability to generate tension in his movies, and Interstellar is no different. There will no doubt be times where you find yourself unconsciously gripping the arms of your seat, the outcome of that particular scene probably obvious but that’s besides the point. Hard science is hardly the most engaging of subjects for a general audience, but here it’s handled deftly and, some logical inconsistencies aside (such as explaining to the pilot how wormholes work mere moments before they fly into it) it’s frequently boiled down to basics and therefore makes perfect sense. Of course, let’s not dwell on the pods the crew freeze themselves in to make the long journey – that way madness lies.

That was one impressive burst pipe situation.

But not all of it works quite as well. Casey Affleck is criminally underused, his character popping up for a couple of sequences as a stubborn farmer and never given the opportunity to develop. The story, too, is one that will never be considered as original, plot points being easily telegraphed in advance. The narrative is typical of the Nolan brothers, offering a tale that loops round and answers some of its own questions without being overly convoluted. It lacks the depth and nuance of the likes of Inception but is carried by the family story that lies at its centre. This is in no small thanks to Matthew McConaughey and Jessica Chastain who are excellent as always, bringing emotional depth to the character’s motivations that is, sadly, lacking from much of the rest of the production. Anne Hathaway has a few moments to make her own, but this is really the story of a father and daughter separated by time and space. The robots, for once, don’t fall into the conceit that in science fiction they are always evil – TARS and CASE are excellent additions and are a particular highlight. And as for Michael Caine, much like Anne Hathaway he gets a couple of solid scenes to call his own, but otherwise doesn’t have all that much to do.

It’s perhaps not Nolan’s best film as a result, but all of his trademark touches are there and if you are a fan of his previous works then Interstellar will still hit the spot.

Score: 4/5

Drive (2011)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-11-07

0

Probably fifteen minutes of the film's running time spent on this one shot alone. Maybe. — Probably fifteen minutes of the film’s running time spent on this one shot alone. Maybe.

Twitter Plot Summary: In very few words, Ryan Gosling drives getaway vehicles but soon finds himself having to protect his neighbour and her young son.

Very rarely do the constituent elements of a film combine to form something far superior than if they were considered individually. Sure, a lot of films find a nice balance between the director’s style, the choice of soundtrack, performances and the story, but it’s less frequent that they all coalesce as effortlessly as those found in Drive.

It may come as a surprise to some, but despite how 80s the soundtrack feels it is actually a selection of more recent artists borrowing the retro vibe. The selections perfectly match Winding Refn’s slow, near-dreamlike direction, frequent use of slow motion used as a stylistic choice rather than a desperate attempt at padding out a relatively short novella into a feature length film.

Drive is a film that is low on dialogue, but don’t hold that against it as this proves to be yet another stylistic choice that benefits the whole. It’s based on the novella from author James Sallis, and with a few exceptions is practically a direct adaptation of the text. The violence is frequent, surprising and graphic, made all the more shocking by the moments of slow motion. Characters appear with the expectation that they will be involved for some time, before being unceremoniously bumped off. The overall story arc is one that doesn’t hold much in the way of surprises, but much drama is eked out of the various power plays and desire for huge amounts of cash – a desire not shared by the Driver of course, he’s involved for entirely emotional and personal reasons.

The Driver had a nice surprise waiting for Mr Lovely Gunman.

The story is a simple one: Ryan Gosling plays Driver, a stunt driver in the movies and a mechanic of sorts working for Bryan Cranston’s Shannon, a former stunt driver whose involved to an extent with some bad mafia-like guys. Driver also acts as a getaway driver for criminals on the side, his abilities such that most pay top dollar for his experience. There is a catch to his services however – he’s only available for the first five minutes, after that his passengers are on their own and he’ll slip away into the night. Matters get complicated when he takes on a job in support of his neighbour Irene’s husband, which is precisely where it all starts to go wrong.

Performances are solid across the board. Gosling is mean, moody and practically silent as Driver; Cranston is effortlessly enjoyable as Shannon; Carey Mulligan as neighbour and love interest Irene demonstrates resilience in the face of adversity. In slightly lesser roles are Oscar Isaac as a man in over his head (and Irene’s husband), and Christina Hendricks as an accomplice at one robbery.

On the other side of the fence are Albert Brooks as Bernie, constantly with a look of coldness in his eyes and, for a change, a man who is not concerned about getting his hands dirty. There’s also the ever reliable Ron Perlman as Nino, a Jewish pizzeria owner and generally unlikeable chap. This happens to be just about the right number of characters for the story, and each is developed sufficiently to suit the narrative without going overboard.

Winding Refn may be a director who easily manages to split opinions, but even if you ignore his other efforts in Drive we have a perfect example of how to successfully adapt a novella for the screen, and have the gall to do it seemingly without effort.

Score: 5/5

The Babadook (2014)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-11-06

1

"RED RUUUM! REEED RUUUUMMM!!!!" — “RED RUUUM! REEED RUUUUMMM!!!!”

Twitter Plot Summary: A mother and her young son are terrorised by a spectral menace pulled from the pages of a creepy children’s book.

“If it’s in a word, or if it’s in a look, you can’t get rid of The Babadook.” It’s with these innocuous words from a mysterious children’s story book that perhaps this year’s best horror film introduces us to one of the genre’s creepiest spectres. Coming from the Antipodean shores, The Babadook is a simple story of a mother and her son, Amelia and Samuel, as a the titular Babadook appears and threatens to kill them both.

It seems that in The Babadook we have returned to a style of horror film that was once thought lost, and it oozes style and subtext in every frame, every choice of shot, every aspect of the performances. Some elements are left disconcertingly vague, but this can be attributed to the dreamlike style applied by writer and director Jennifer Kent.

It carries a sense of unease, the feeling of the unfamiliar in a familiar setting. In this respect it’s much like genre classic The Wicker Man, which itself carried a sense of foreboding that built to a shocking finale. The final act of The Babadook is perhaps less defined and impactful as The Wicker Man, but the rest of the film clearly shares similar DNA in terms of its structure and fear of The Other – that which is strange and/or different. The colour palette adds to this sense of unease, everything bathed in a swathe of blacks, greys and browns – even the eyes and eyebags of the police officer Amelia speaks to.

They looked in all the obvious places for The Babadook, but crucially not inside themselves. Whoa. That's deep. — They looked in all the obvious places for The Babadook, but crucially not inside themselves. Whoa. That’s deep.

The Babadook is a well-realised spectral menace, prone to appearing when you least expect it and never fully emerging from the shadows – all the more powerful as a concept rather than appearing as a visible killer. The conceit that he draws more power the more you deny his existence is a strong one, and creates its own fair share of potential nightmares for the audience. The top hat and clawed fingers, beautifully realised as if from a child’s mind, seal the deal.

And this is all perfectly balanced with an astounding performance from Essie Davis as Amelia, and the initially irritating Noah Wiseman as Samuel. Their relationship is well defined and makes The Babadook’s threat all the more chilling as his powers increase. The Babadook itself is a clear metaphor for the sorrow of loss, the helplessness that follows an unexpected death, even if he does show up nearly a decade after said events. Amelia is emotionally scarred following the death of her husband, and much of her resentment for his death is aimed at Samuel simply because the accident that took her husband away occurred on their way to the hospital. Amelia is simultaneously loathe to fully embrace her son, yet is pushed by her maternal instincts to look after him and give him the best possible start in life. This is not helped through Samuel’s antisocial behaviour, a troublesome child when we first meet him yet slowly developing into the innocent child he really is.

It’s a tour de force of how a horror film should be structured, and is a more than pleasant antidote to the James Wan approach of quiet moments followed by a loud noise. It just goes to show that you don’t have to be lazy with your scares in order to be effective, and there is still a lot of scope within the genre for doing some new and, if not original, at the very least innovative.

Score: 4.5/5

The Conjuring (2013)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-11-05

0

He didn't have a very good eye for detail. Or dead bodies. — He didn’t have a very good eye for detail. Or dead bodies.

Twitter Plot Summary: Paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren try to help a family who are targeted by some nasty spirits. Like cheap vodka.

Once more a family find themselves under threat from something supernatural and unknown in this 1970s set horror film. It does take some time for things to really get going – there are the usual false alarms and sense of unease just to get things moving, but when things start to get seriously spooky – like being dragged from your bed by an invisible being – it’s time to call in the professionals. Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga are husband and wife ghost hunters Ed and Lorraine Warren, and The Conjuring is purportedly based on a true story from the archive of the real life Warrens. When we meet them they’re undergoing a few problems following an exorcism that affected Lorraine. As for the family, led by Lili Taylor and Ron Livingston as Carolyn and Roger Perron, she’s acquiring bruises like nobody’s business – not the result of domestic violence – and their daughters are all experiencing strange occurrences which may or may not be simple flatulence. There’s a bit of a smell, you see.

James Wan is on directorial duties, he of Saw and Insidious fame, and Fast 7 which is due in 2015. It’s another typical example of his work, a definitive article of the modern tradition of “quiet LOUD” horror cinema. This is perhaps the biggest complaint about The Conjuring, as the scares are deliberately placed to elicit the biggest jump from its mainstream audience. It can’t be described as a film that a long time fan of horror movies would appreciate, but it does its job reasonably well. Wan can at least construct a decent narrative and his style of direction is one that pays homage to the past yet has its own modern edge. Despite what you might think about his abilities as a director, he is at least capable of pulling as much tension as possible out of a situation merely from some deliberate pacing and cunning camera placement. The fact this is yet another example of jump scare cinema shouldn’t be held against it, just don’t go in expecting anything more than surface level chills.

Help, this woman is trapped under a sheet!" — Help, this woman is trapped under a sheet!”

It lacks the interesting twist that made the Insidious films as entertaining (if slightly mad) as they are, but otherwise The Conjuring is enjoyably creepy and the scares are effective if not particularly original. It’s further sold by the earnest performances from everyone in the cast, in particular Taylor as the harassed mother and a straight-faced, genuinely sincere performance from Wilson and Farmiga. The husband and most of the kids have little else to define them besides the fact they care for each other and are scared of what’s going on, but that’s all they get. The same goes for Drew and Brad, the men assisting the Warrens in their spooky investigations. In another world they would have been played by Leigh Whannell and Angus Sampson.

It may not have all of the elements that long time fans of horror movies want to see, but The Conjuring does at least popularise the genre and maybe, just maybe, some of these new inductees to the world of horror films may go off and gain an appreciation for some of the classics the genre has to offer. It’s got to be a better option than sitting in the cinema shrieking and behaving like a child in any case.

Score: 3/5

Hudson Hawk (1991)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-11-04

0

Willis was incredulous. About everything.

Twitter Plot Summary: A cat burglar gets involved in matters above and beyond his usual capers and invites bad guys to slurp his butt.

Someone somewhere clearly thought that this was a good idea. Combining the disparate worlds of slapstick humour with what would otherwise be a serious crime adventure isn’t quite the sort of film you expect to receive, especially when you take into consideration that this stars a post-Die Hard Bruce Willis as the titular Hudson Hawk. Hawk is released from prison after several years inside, and despite claiming to want to go straight he quickly finds himself sneaking into a museum to steal a valuable piece of art, putting his skills as cat burglar and safe cracker to good use. Or rather, bad use.

Surreal moments follow, including at least one instance of Willis singing a duet with Danny Aiello whilst they rob the gallery, singing to time their heist to perfection. Moments such as this are fine in isolation, they’re fun, the banter between characters has spark to it, and it’s fun family adventure territory. Then the more adult aspects of the story creep in, and it’s all downhill from there.

It’s a real shame because slapstick is usually a sure thing, guaranteed to entertain and amuse. The key ingredients for a fun film are all there too – a generally likeable lead, his amusing friend, a love interest, and villainous roles that both the actors and the audience can sink their teeth into. There are a wide number of goons who are clearly designed to provide amusement, and an evil sister (Sandra Bernhard) who wears the trousers in the relationship with her brother, played with anarchic and enthusiastic vim by Richard E Grant. Until this film it’s hard to imagine anybody chewing the scenery with this much energy, yet Richard E Grant does so, and does it well.

Richard E Grant's efforts at wooing the ladies were horribly inappropriate. — Richard E Grant’s efforts at wooing the ladies were horribly inappropriate.

But again, it just doesn’t work. Whilst the slapstick humour is on the whole quite amusing, the tonal imbalance of occasional blood loss and violence doesn’t gel. There is a reckless amount of swearing, yet rather than go full John McClane, at one point Hudson invites a villain to “slurp (his) butt”. Seriously. Matters would have improved had the Die Hard clause been invoked, at least then it would have been worth seeing. The frustration Hudson experiences when trying to get his first sip of cappuccino in seven years is felt by the audience, but for all the wrong reasons.

The intro sequence, whilst intended to add context to the heist that is due to take place later, leads you to think that you’ve started watching the wrong film. Set in the workshop of Leonardo Di Vinci, it’s an elaborate sequence that has a few decent jokes, and indicates that perhaps the film would have been better had it just stuck to this time period rather than jumping forward to the present day and becoming the mess it is.

And therein lies the problem with Hudson Hawk – its tightrope balancing act between family friendly slapstick and serious crime adventure film results in it flying headfirst into the abyss, never to return. Farewell Hudson Hawk, we barely knew you. It’s probably for the best. You can slurp my butt.

Score: 1.5/5

SIMONPRIOR.COM