1. Man kills tiny dog. If that opening doesn’t shock you, you’ll be fine.
2. Easiest. Riddle. Ever.
3. That’s a lot of milk…
4. They’ve broken the fourth wall! ANARCHY!
5. Strange motorcycle sounds coming from her private parts? Very odd.
If you’ve seen Ichi The Killer then you know what to expect from director Takashi Miike, a mix of extreme violence and surreal moments. Rest assured, if you weren’t a fan of the extreme violence in Ichi The Killer then Gozu doesn’t reach the same levels. What it is though is incredibly weird, so tonally at least they’re on par with one another.
Gozu breaks so many rules it’s difficult to know where to start. Early on the screen flickers as if the film stock has been damaged, and it’s at this point we dip into surreal territory. Dialogue is non-sensical, the fourth wall is broken, and a potent mix of surreal imagery is the dish of the day. A group of transvestite waiters? Done. A man with a ladle sticking out of his bum? Sure, it’s a Takeshi Miike film, that’s normal.
There’s certainly an air of experiencing a waking dream about the whole thing, in particular everything after the point the Yakuza chap vanishes. Somewhere in the middle of all the insanity a normal love story is trying to break into the foreground, yet just as you think it might actually take centre stage, it gets weird. Before that, first and foremost, it’s almost a bromance type affair with Minami, our main character, tasked with taking his boss/friend Ozaki to be disposed of. Minami is reluctant to kill the man who once saved his life. Unfortunately Ozaki has gone a little off the deep end, even taking umbrage at a small dog in the film’s opening moments. If you’re shocked by that opening, then you ain’t seen nothing yet. Minami proceeds to try and find Ozaki with the help of a guy who has a partially albino face. Ozaki could be dead or he might be alive and well, but him going missing early on, despite being dead/catatonic, sets off a string of events that builds to a doozy of a third act.
“Excuse me, do you have any grey poupon?”
It’s a tough one to categorise, just because it’s so deeply strange. And if you think the rest of the film is weird, wait until you get to the final fifteen minutes. It’s completely off the page, horrific, disturbing and surprisingly funny in equal measure. Talk about your basic oedipal complex and fear of childbirth. Jeez… To say any more would spoil it, but brace yourself, because I’m not sure cinema can get any more peculiar than this.
I could probably spend page after page discussing the symbolism, the imagery, the surreal aspects, the sheer insanity of the whole thing, but that would probably not make any difference in helping you decide if you want to see it or not. That and I doubt I would be anywhere close to knowing what’s actually going on. Fans of Miike’s other films will lap it up. Anybody not familiar with his films are probably best served starting with something else, something a little more sane. It’s not an easy film to get into, and I can imagine a fair few people will switch off after 20 minutes of nonsensical story. A curio, then, but a very good one.
Favourite scene: The final few scenes. Very weird, even for Japanese cinema.
Quote: “Once I put her in a bath, she recovered.”
Silly Moment: The encounter with the Minotaur. A very cheap looking Minotaur. In Y-Fronts.
Twitter Plot Summary: Uncle Fester returns after 25 years in the wilderness – but is he really Uncle Fester? Well yeah, he is.
Genre: Comedy/Fantasy
Director: Barry Sonnenfeld
Key Cast: Raul Julia, Angelica Huston, Christina Ricci, Christopher Lloyd, Dan Hedaya, Dana Ivey, Carel Struycken, Jimmy Workman, Judith Malina.
Five Point Summary:
1. Even 20+ years later, Thing looks fantastic.
2. Fester with hair. That’s just weird.
3. That is an elaborate method of protecting your money.
4. A normal, ordinary school play. How terrifying.
5. Hurricane Irene. A fitting end.
The creepy, kooky, altogether spooky Addams Family, they of cult 60s sitcom of the same name get the big screen treatment and, shock horror, it’s not an unmitigated disaster. It’s nothing special either, but at least you can sit through the whole thing without wanting to rip out your eyes. Which, given the film’s subject, would be an appropriate gesture.
The Addams Family are already established, no origin story required. This pleases me. Rather than waste half the film saying why they’re so odd, seeing the family form and so on, we just jump straight in. I would think that half of the reasoning for this is because the characters were established decades previously, so unless wholesale changes to the family are intended, it’s easy for an audience to pick things up within the first 5-10 minutes. What is missing however is Uncle Fester, brother to Gomez Addams and who has been missing for decades. As luck would have it, one of the crooked accountants maintaining the Addams family fortune happens to encounter the adopted son of his loan shark, who looks a lot like the missing Uncle Fester. They hatch a plan to present him as the long lost Fester and steal the vast fortune hidden away in the Addams’ vaults.
Wholesome fun for all the family.
In my opinion you can’t fault the majority of the casting. Raul Julia is perfect as Gomez, Angelica Huston is sufficiently vampy as Morticia. Apparently Cher wanted the role but I doubt it would have worked anywhere near as well. And then there’s Christina Ricci as Wednesday Addams, in an excellent and early breakout role. Her deadpan delivery is perfect and a highlight of the film. If there’s one actor that doesn’t sit quite right, it’s Christopher Lloyd as Uncle Fester. I’m not quite sure why he doesn’t seem to fit the role, and in all honesty I can’t suggest anybody else to replace him off the top of my head. I think maybe he’s too outward with the performance, a little over the top. Admittedly Raul Julia gleefully hams it up, but that fits with the character. Fester needs to be
It’s Barry Sonnenfeld’s first movie, yet it could easily have been a Tim Burton movie based on the visual aesthetic. It’s probably for the best that Burton didn’t get his gothic paws on this one, it would have been all style and no substance. Most will remember the film for Thing, the sentient hand that wanders around the house and arguably has more personality than the rest of the kooky family. Even today, 22 years later at the time of writing, the effects still look great. That’s not just for Thing either, overall it’s impressive work.
The film’s at its best when placing the Addams’ into a normal setting, in this instance a school play which is given a typical Addams Family slant, to the delight of the Addams’ and to the chagrin and horror of everybody else in the school theatre audience. It’s funny and the script offers nice twists on the expected happy family concept, giving it a much welcome slant towards the macabre. Yet the laughs are not as frequent as they should be, and the story is a little too thin for my tastes. Still, it’s entertaining and subverts many expected tropes by being delightfully dark, and that’s what matters.
Favourite scene: Wednesday and Pugsley performing a sword fight and spraying the audience with fake blood.
Quote: “Don’t torture yourself, Gomez. That’s my job.”
Twitter Plot Summary: The Transformers encounter their biggest threat ever – Unicron, a giant planet-eating Transformer. And he’s heading for Cybertron…
Genre: Animation/Action/Adventure/Family/Sci-Fi
Director: Nelson Shin
Key Cast: Norman Alden, Jack Angel, Michael Bell, Gregg Berger, Susan Blu, Arthur Burghardt, Corey Burton, Roger C Carmel, Victor Caroli, Regis Cordic, Scatman Crothers, Peter Cullen, Bud Davis, Paul Eiding, Ed Gilbert, Dan Gilvezan, Eric Idle, Buster Jones, Stan Jones, Casey Kasem, Chris Latta, David Mendenhall, Don Messick, John Moschitta Jr, Judd Nelson, Leonard Nimoy, Hal Rayle, Clive Revill, Neil Ross, Robert Stack. Lionel Stander, Frank Welker, Orson Welles.
Five Point Summary:
1. Attack on the shuttle and Autobot City, lots of old toys bumped off there… 2. The final battle between Optimus Prime and Megatron. Goosebumps mode: enabled. 3. Prime turns grey and dies. Sad moment for all fans. At the time anyway. 4. The Quintessons and Wheelie are introduced. That’s Season 3’s narrative set up then.
5. Unicron attacks Cybertron, Hot Rod realises his potential. The narrative circle is complete.
I’m already biased from the start as far as this movie is concerned, as it’s one of my all time favourite films. It’s no masterpiece of cinema to be sure, but I was a massive Transformers fan when I was younger and I watched my VHS copy over and over again, to the point where the tape doesn’t work particularly well any more and the cover is horribly ripped. Just to give some indication as to how much I treasure this film, I own it on every format except for Blu-Ray (yes, I even have the UMD version for the Sony PSP), and the only reason I don’t have the Blu-Ray yet is because it’s been deleted. One day though. One day…
Transformers The Movie spun out from the 1984 cartoon about shape-changing robots from an alien planet that, in the midst of an ongoing civil war, go searching for new energy sources and end up crashing on Earth millions of years in our past. They’re awoken in the mid-80s and assume that vehicles are the dominant life on the planet. Thus, they scan a number of said vehicles and use them as their alternate modes in order to blend in with the local populace. The cartoon then established two seasons of episodic adventures as the warring factions of the Autobots and Decepticons continued their mission of seizing energy to support their fight. Whilst some humans are happy to align themselves with one side or the other, the majority are scared of these alien invaders and the show was as much about the Autobots proving they weren’t there to enslave humanity as it was about big transforming robots fighting each other. The movie takes place after Season 2 of the show and jumps forward 20 years to the year 2005. By 2005 the Autobots have managed to get the Decepticons away from Earth and have established a base there, cunningly named Autobot City. Meanwhile the Decepticons have reclaimed Cybertron and the Autobots maintain bases on two of Cybertron’s moons.
That’s another season 1 toy for the scrapheap.
Into this mix we get Unicron, a gas giant-sized Transformer who eats other planets. He just so happens to be heading towards Cybertron and this epic sized threat goes some way to make the film stand out from its TV cartoon origins. Within this epically sized epic story is the journey of Hot Rod, a “turbo revvin’ young punk” who goes on a journey of responsibility. It also marks a tonal change for the TV series as Season 3 kicks off shortly after the end of the movie and becomes a full-blown space opera. Narratively the series also moved away from episodic storytelling and into a continuous story. The episodic narrative was still there to an extent, but more effort was taken to depict characterisation and their development over time. In fact this movie acts as a starting point for many of the storylines featured in Season 3 – the Quintessons and their bid to retake control of Cybertron, the ongoing efforts of Unicron to take over the galaxy, Hot Rod/Rodimus Prime struggling with the responsibilities of power, and the resurrection of Optimus Prime.
Yes, that whole chestnut. Again related to the need to sell more toys, Hasbro decided to kill off many of the older characters and introduced a number of new ones. And by “kill off” I do actually mean that, literally. It’s not that graphic, after all they’re transforming robots, but a number of characters (many of them fan favourites) are indiscriminately bumped off including the previous central pairing of Optimus Prime and Megatron. Thankfully unlike some other characters (sorry, Wheeljack) Prime and Megatron get a final showdown that does the characters justice. Despite being a few months shy of hitting my 30s at the time of writing, Prime’s assault on the near-victorious Decepticons in Autobot City still gives me goosebumps to this day.
On the subject of Prime’s death, as audiences reacted so badly to it they re-wrote a similar scene in GI Joe The Movie which originally saw Duke being killed. The animation remains the same however the dialogue was changed to him being in a coma. Much less emotionally engaging than the originally planned death, but it at least meant the fans didn’t burst into tears over it. Unfortunately because TFTM didn’t perform too well at the cinema Hasbro pulled GI Joe The Movie from a cinema run and released it direct to video.
Because production on the movie was occurring at the same time as production of Season 2, a lot of new characters introduced in the TV show at that time don’t appear in the film. Imagine the possibilities – in the movie we get Devastator, a gestalt giant robot made up from 5/6 individuals, in this case the Constructicons. Several other gestalts were introduced in Season 2 which would have had potential to set up some excellent alternate stories for the movie, or even possible sequel films which obviously never happened. As a cynical ploy to sell more toys, the film does its job admirably. A mixture of old and new characters are presented, yet it doesn’t feel like the new characters are there arbitrarily. It’s assumed that the audience watching the film will know who the original series characters are, and gives just enough time to establish the new bunch. Depending on which version of the film you have, you may also have an extra bit of exposition at the start as a Star Wars-esque scroll fills in the history and why Unicron is such a menace.
Let this be a lesson: don’t mess with the Transformers!
It’s also amazing how the producers managed to get so many high profile voice actors to play a part – other than the regular cartoon voice actors who all return, there’s also the likes of Leonard Nimoy, Robert Stack, Judd Nelson, Eric Idle and Orson Welles. Transformers isn’t exactly Shakespeare is it? Sadly the celebrity voices didn’t return for Season 3 of the cartoon, but then that shouldn’t have been expected back in 1986. Today it might be a different story.
Unfortunately the movie is responsible for giving us Wheelie, the most irritating Transformers character ever created. Talking in rhyme and serving no real purpose, Wheelie is a bane of the Transformers universe and somehow he went on to be a regular character in not only Season 3 of the cartoon but also the first season of Headmasters in Japan. If there is one change I would make, it’s to get rid of him. Thankfully I can forget about Wheelie when I listen to the soundtrack – it’s one of my favourites that I can listen to separately to the movie, a mixture of hair metal, Stan Bush and Vince DiCola’s synth keyboard score.
So there are animation flubs all over the place (keep an eye on the number of Dinobots in a few scenes), the story has been done before and it borrows a lot of tropes from other, larger science fiction properties, but it’s a cult classic and a testament of how you adapt a cartoon for the big screen. It has been a favourite of mine since a young age and despite its many flaws it will always have a special place in my film collection.
Favourite scene: Optimus Prime taking out all of the Decepticons attacking Autobot City. Single handed. Now that’s leadership.
Quote: “Megatron must be stopped, no matter the cost.” and “For a time I considered sparing your wretched little planet of Cybertron. But now you must witness… it’s DISMEMBERMENT!”
Silly Moment: The Dinobots attacking Unicron and Grimlock, attacking the buttock area of Unicron, says “Me Grimlock kick butt.”
Twitter Plot Summary: The story of Liberace’s romance with Scott Thorson, based on the latter’s memoirs.
Genre: Biography/Drama/Romance
Director: Steven Soderbergh
Key Cast: Michael Douglas, Matt Damon, Scott Bakula, Rob Lowe, Dan Aykroyd, Debbie Reynolds, Tom Papa, Nicky Katt, Cheyenne Jackson, Paul Reiser, Boyd Holbrook, David Koechner.
Five Point Summary:
1. Hey, it’s Scott Bakula! Win! 2. Hey look, it’s a guy that looks 3. Rob Lowe. Best cameo ever. 4. Things are not going to end well, that much is obvious. 5. Not that you needed to know, but AIDS is bad mmkay?
The last person I’d expect to play Liberace in a film would be Michael Douglas. Actually, that’s a lie. Arnold Schwarzenegger as Liberace would probably be the most surprising piece of casting ever seen. In any case you get my point – Michael Douglas is a perennial alpha male, as seen in the likes of Romancing The Stone and Fatal Attraction. It’s refreshing to have an actor thus pigeonholed taking on a role that’s about as opposite as it gets. If nothing else it’s a talking point before you’ve even seen the film. Thankfully this excellent piece of casting is just the first in a long line of positive points in what director Steven Soderbergh is saying will be his last film.
Telling the story of Liberace’s relationship with Scott Thorson (and based on Thorson’s memoir of said events), we see their relationship go from the early giddy heights of new love to the slow decay of overfamiliarity and the contempt that often ensues. Michael Douglas and Matt Damon are excellent as Liberace and Thorson, making the relationship believable despite being straight in the real world. Liberace is portrayed as an extremely complex character – he has deference for his elderly mother but hasn’t told her that he’s gay. He makes a number of promises to Thorson that ultimately prove to be untrue, yet Thorson is the one he calls when he discovers that he’s dying from AIDS. Clearly despite the later animosity there was deep feelings shared between the two of them. Thorson meanwhile is swept away by the glamour, the lifestyle and by Liberace’s winning, flirtatious personality. And, possibly, Scott Bakula’s moustache.
Why plastic surgery is a bad idea.
My screening of the film was mostly populated by old people and women, as if the target audience was likely to be anybody else. Ignoring cinephiles like myself, at face value there’s very little to recommend it to a male audience. At least we got a cinema release for it though – when it came to the US release of the film it didn’t even get a cinema run, instead it only aired on television. I think that says a lot about American audiences when a drama about a gay performer, and not even an explicit drama at that, can’t even get into cinemas. Admittedly it was always seen as a TV movie anyway thanks to HBO financing the project, but even so – if the international market gets a cinema run then why not give it the same treatment back home? Even a limited, small scale run just to test the waters perhaps?
Liberace had a thing for changing his young lovers to look like himself (the psychoanalytical subtext there is phenomenal), which eventually leads to them growing apart as Liberace starts visiting adult theatres and suggests they start seeing other people. It’s at this point that the story takes a slight dive in quality – the breakdown of their relationship, fine, there’s drama there. Seeing two men argue about their extravagant possessions is somewhat less engaging. As an audience we have a good idea within the first five minutes that thing won’t turn out perfectly for them. When Liberace first meets Thorson, he already has an “assistant” who has had excessive plastic surgery and is now the equivalent of an old toy, to be disposed of. As Thorson slowly starts to resemble this earlier assistant, we see the writing on the wall.
If there was an awards category for best cameo appearance in a movie then Rob Lowe would be the winner. His plastic surgeon is hilarious, his mouth pulled back into a permanent creepy smile thanks to an excessive amount of plastic surgery. Surely taking one look at him should have put both Liberace and Thorson off from seeking plastic surgery. Other smaller appearances from the likes of Dan Aykroyd and Scott Bakula help give it a bigger budget feel without distracting from the central story.
Based on his previous credits I would be very disappointed if Soderbergh doesn’t get behind the camera again. Few directors could balance the various elements that the film requires – Liberace and his homosexuality is treated respectfully, and at no point does it shy away from the lifestyle that he followed. Soderbergh is one of those directors who has been incredibly prolific in the last 25 years, releasing an average of at least 1 film or documentary a year since 1989, yet the quality has never diminished. If this is his final film then he’s leaving on a high, but a return to the industry when he’s good and ready would be gleefully welcomed by many, myself included.
Favourite scene: Meeting Rob Lowe. Genius.
Quote: “I want to be everything to you, Scott. I want to be father, brother, lover, best friend.”
Silly Moment: Liberace’s plastic surgery means he sleeps with his eyes open.
“Today we’re going to learn about slitting throats. Or something equally violent.”
Twitter Plot Summary: A group of school kids are forced to fight to the death on a remote island.
Genre: Adventure/Sci-Fi/Thriller
Director: Kinju Fukasaku
Key Cast: Tatsuya Fujiwara, Aki Maeda, Taro Yamamoto, Takeshi Kitano, Chiaki Kuriyama, Sosuke Takaoka, Takashi Tsukamoto, Aki Inoue.
Five Point Summary:
1. Let’s just set the stall out nice and early shall we… 2. Collars with bombs in them. Like badly treated pets. 3. That orientation video is far too cheerful… 4. Violence! Explosions! Death! Oh my! 5. …is he dead? What about now? Now? How about now?!
It’s taken me a few years to watch Battle Royale, and I’m glad I finally got round to it, even if my opinion of it has now been tainted somewhat by The Hunger Games. After a mass walkout of students leads to the introduction of the BR Act in Japan, a class of students are gassed, knocked out and taken to a remote island where they are advised, in a cheerful orientation video, that they must spend the next three days trying to kill each other – the last student alive will be declared the winner. Explosive collars are placed on each of them, preventing escape and adding another element of danger to proceedings – if they decide not to partake in the fight or accidentally enter one of the danger zones on the island, the collar will explode.
What’s interesting as a viewer, other than the violence of course, is how each of the students chooses to survive – some form alliances, others go it alone. Some attempt to subvert the requirement to kill other students whilst others start gunning their fellow students down with reckless abandon. From a scripting perspective it helps to differentiate the various students from each other via their different methods of surviving, but ultimately ends up with some very one dimensional characters. That’s fine though because we’re here to see people fight and kill each other – it’s not a deep character study and the bare minimum of personality for each of our protagonists, central character or otherwise, is all that is needed.
For a second, they all thought they could see Godzilla. Turns out it was just a tree.
It does look rather cheap and shot on low quality film stock, but then this is counterbalanced by the violence and the story, youth being subjugated by their elders and rebelling against the established order, albeit to more extreme lengths than would normally be expected. Ironically, whilst rebelling against the establishment they’re all wearing identical school uniforms, go figure. As I find typical of Japanese cinema it’s violent and shocking seemingly just because it can be. I’m sure that this preoccupation with extreme cinematic violence is an ongoing reaction to the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of WW2, much like the Godzilla films in that respect. It’s a theme that has permeated Japanese cinema for decades and I can’t see it abating any time soon.
In hindsight as well, despite Suzanne Collins previously stating that she’d never heard of Battle Royale (either the film or the original novel) before writing The Hunger Games, it’s clear that the two are inextricably linked. I’ll discuss that film when I get round to reviewing it, but the parallels between the two are very clear.
Whilst Battle Royale is excellent, I’m more interested in seeing the politics behind the decision to hold such an event. Having nearly a million school kids walk out in protest is one thing, but is forcing a bunch of them to fight to the death on a remote island a proportionate response? Well, in Japan perhaps it is, but as an extreme social commentary there are few films that can beat it.
Favourite scene: The introduction to the hunger ga… sorry, the Battle Royale. A couple of kids are bumped off before it even gets started!
Quote: “So today’s lesson is, you kill each other off till there’s only one left. Nothing’s against the rules.”
Silly Moment: Without dipping into spoilers, the final scene. Echoes of Austin Powers’ line “Why won’t you die?!”
Twitter Plot Summary: Riddick’s been left for dead on a hostile planet. To escape he has to activate a beacon that draws in two mercenary groups.
Genre: Action/Sci-Fi/Thriller
Director: David Twohy
Key Cast: Vin Diesel, Jordi Molla, Matt Nable, Katee Sackhoff, Dave Bautista, Bokeem Woodbine, Raoul Trujillo, Conrad Pla, Danny Blanco Hall, Noah Danby, Neil Napier, Nolan Gerard Funk, Karl Urban, Andreas Apergis, Keri Hilson.
Five Point Summary:
1. Karl Urban. Nice make-up pal.
2. Is that a golf ball?
3. Ahh, obligatory misogyny. Of course. No women allowed and all that.
4. Aha, a reference to Fast and the Furious. Very clever…
5. Hmm, shades of Pitch Black there…
I really enjoyed Pitch Black, it had that B-movie, independent schlock sci-fi vibe to it. I was less keen on Chronicles of Riddick which was heavy on universe building, but had higher hopes for this belated second sequel as it appeared that it would get back to basics and have Riddick fighting to survive on a world out to get him. That is mostly true, but it still lacks that killer punch that made Pitch Black such a great little film. Lots of individually good elements that are spoilt by rampant misogyny and a story that’s not quite sure what direction it wants to go in other than that “hard-R’ rating that is oft-missed in today’s cinematic climate. That’s a 15 rating in the UK, by the way.
We pick up after the events of The Chronicles of Riddick. The main man himself is tempted away from his responsibilities by the possibility of visiting his home of Furya and left to rot on a planet that… well, isn’t Furya. Here he decides to get back to basics as the accompanying voiceover gets all self-referential and starts babbling about losing his way and so on. Soon he realises that there’s a lot of nasty creatures on this inhospitable world and, after discovering a mercenary shack in the desert, activates the beacon inside which calls in two teams of mercenaries, determined to take him in dead or alive.
The humour went down well, on the whole. The banter between Santana’s crew is typical “working man” level compared to the more professional attitudes of Johns’ team. Spoilers for anybody who’s watched Pitch Black, by the way – Johns has a very specific reason for being on the planet – the clue’s in the name. On the other end of the spectrum is Santana (Molla), who intends on taking Riddick’s head home in a box, like a gruesome packed lunch. He’s the most misogynist of them all, drooling over Dahl (Sackhoff) who isn’t adverse to just punching him in the face.
What a lovely xenomorph.
It needed a lot less misogyny, it has to be said. Sackhoff’s Dahl only seems to exist to act as an object of lust for all of the other characters, despite initially appearing to be a strong and entirely plausible character. An altogether gratuitous and, dare I say it, pointless, topless scene further cements this blinkered view of women. Once that scene’s out of the way she has almost nothing else to do and is relegated to face in the background, as if the male-centric audience this is aimed at won’t have any interest in her now that they’ve seen the money shot, as it were. A real opportunity wasted there. What could’ve been a modern Ripley ends up being another one for the bonfire. Don’t even get me started on the treatment of Santana’s prisoner either – yeah, we get it, these are bad guys, but there are better ways of making this point.
On the “surprisingly good” list is Dave Bautista. I doubt many would have had marked him down as being an impressive acting talent given his previous history of being a pro wrestler, but he’s actually very good. Remarkably good in fact, to the point where he doesn’t seem like a pro wrestler who’s arbitrarily switched jobs. Vin Diesel is, of course, his usual droling self, although if his voice gets any deeper we’re at risk of losing any hope of understanding what he’s saying.
Those hoping for a return to something more like Pitch Black get what they wanted, to an extent at least. It’s a movie of three parts – Riddick surviving on an inhospitable world, Riddick playing cat and mouse with the two mercenary teams looking for him, and a third act that replicates Pitch Black. The key difference here is the creatures that are after Riddick. It’s explained why they’re on his tail, but not in enough detail for my liking. The build-up to this Pitch Black-lite story is rather good, though. Riddick learning how to survive on the planet is a good introduction to the character for people who might not have seen the previous two films and emphasises how nasty this place is. The next section with the two mercenary groups is equally good, with Riddick standing in for the Predator and lurking on the edges of the frame (not literally, that would be weird) and picking them off. Then night falls and, knowing what’s coming, Riddick links up with the survivors and things get nasty. Rated R nasty. And just a little bit more misogynistic.
I think I was perhaps expecting a bit more from it, especially given how much the trailers seemed to imply a return to Pitch Black’s roots (thanks for that, trailer). The clear three act structure also works well, creating an episodic feel and evoking the style (but certainly not the tone) of the old Flash Gordon/Buck Rogers serials. It fails in terms of the misogyny. I know films are, on the whole, male-centric, but it adds nothing to the story and just glorifies bad attitudes towards women. As discussed above, Dahl had potential from the off and this wore off as soon as her sexual preferences are established (other women, as it happens) and she becomes a lust object for everybody else. If we can lose all of that women-hating nonsense, or at the very least tone it down considerably, then I’d be happy to see another film following Riddick. Somehow I doubt we’ll ever get a Riddick film without some form of terrible gender bias, so I guess it’s a case of liking it or lumping it. I like it (the film, that is), but only just.
Favourite scene: Riddick getting back to basics and taking down a giant scorpion thing.
Quote: “Somewhere along the way I lost a step, got sloppy, dulled my own edge. Maybe I went and did the worst crime of all: I got civilized.”
Silly Moment: Riddick’s threat to kill Santana is realised. It might be silly, but it’s also a highlight of the film.
“I’m sorry doctor, but I have released a malodorous stench. Please forgive me.” “That’s okay, Lady Diana. It’s nothing compared to the script for this movie.”
Twitter Plot Summary: The tale of the last two years of Diana’s life, focusing on her relationship with heart surgeon Hasnat Khan.
Genre: Biography/Drama
Director: Oliver Hirschbiegel
Key Cast: Naomi Watts, Naveen Andrews, Douglas Hodge, Geraldine James, Charles Edwards, Daniel Pirrie, Cas Anvar, Juliet Stevenson.
Five Point Summary:
1. A long series of shots where we don’t see her face, it’s a good start.
2. A picture of a heart in Gray’s Anatomy. Subtle? Nah.
3. Some funnies from Diana’s security detail. More of that would’ve been good.
4. Is that Benedict Cumberbatch playing Sonia? Nope, it’s still Juliet Stevenson.
5. Blimey, Dodi Al Fayed doesn’t get much to do. It’s a conspiracy!
Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear. I’d heard from a few sources that this film was terrible, yet curiosity got the better of me and I duly trudged off to the cinema to experience what I fully expected to be a train wreck. After seeing it though I can’t call it a train wreck, but “mundane” would be more appropriate. It starts in turgid territory and doesn’t escape from Channel 5/Hallmark Channel levels of quality.
Hamstrung by a poor script, there’s only so much the cast can do with what they’re given. Watts and Andrews are earnest in their portrayals of Diana and heart surgeon Hasnat Khan, but when the dialogue is primarily clunky romantic clichés that don’t let up, if you have any sense in your body you quickly lose interest. One chap even walked out of my cinema viewing after 20 minutes. This surprised me more because he had a huge carrier bag full of sweets and snacks, so he clearly intended to be in there for the long haul yet something made him just get up and walk out. I think the display of protest occurred when Diana opens Gray’s Anatomy and the book falls open on a picture of the heart. Because, you know, that’s what the film is all about, matters of the heart. Not subtle enough for you? Well how about the fact there’s only one heart on that page, perhaps a hint of subtext that loneliness plays a part in said love-related matters? Perhaps it’s a metaphor for Diana’s loneliness following all the Prince Charles/Camilla business? Perhaps I’m reading too much into it again?
That brings me onto my biggest gripe – she’s so desperate to be with this man that she absorbs all of his hobbies and interests like she’s the creature from The Thing, yet he doesn’t reciprocate. She cooks for him (or tries to), takes an interest in surgery and jazz, puts wigs on so she can meet him in public, and he gives back almost nothing other than a constant stream of “I wish I knew how to quit you!” type platitudes. The difference here being that Brokeback Mountain is Oscar-winning cinema and – shock horror – is both compelling and entertaining.
It gets worse. If you could sit through all two hours of it (and it’s a painful two hours) and laugh at how silly it is, then fine. Alternatively, which I’m sure was supposed to be the plan, to sit through the whole thing and be utterly enthralled by the drama and enjoy it on the same level as something like The Queen. Neither happens. It is neither so bad it’s good, nor is it a possible Oscar contender. It just sits around the mediocre line with almost no discernible appeal.
“I was in Lost and played an expert in torture. I know seventeen ways of killing you using just my little finger.”
Diana apologists or the Daily Express can cool their heels – there’s nothing actually inflammatory about this portrayal of her life. In fact, the most inflammatory aspect is how it treats Dodi Al Fayed. He gets a few minutes of screen time and only seems to exist so Diana can make Khan (KHAAAAAAAAANNNNNN!!!!! Sorry, had to get that out of my system) jealous. I don’t know the exact circumstances, but I’m sure there was more to it than that in reality. Perhaps tellingly the film doesn’t make me want to care about this at all. Diana’s relationship with the media is also played upon, although her attempts at controlling it are ultimately futile and the implication from the film is that she didn’t have a clue what she was doing, perhaps even ultimately leading to those fateful events on the night of 31 August 1997? I’m hypothesising again, sorry. Meanwhile, KHAAAAAANNNN!!!!! Sits at home in London, smoking a lot and staring out of his window. It’s a struggle to get through to the end credits. If any of it had been remotely compelling then I wouldn’t mind the romance story at all. It’s ham-fisted, no doubt about it. The chap who walked out after 20 minutes clearly knew where it was heading and chose to save his evening rather than experience a level of boredom only reserved for the mentally unhinged. Fair play, that man.
Ultimately, when the only emotional resonance in a film is seeing the general public laying flowers outside Diana’s residence after the accident (should I be calling it a Road Traffic Collision seeing as accident implies blame? Thanks, Hot Fuzz. Sorry, I’ve gone off on a tangent)… er, where was I? Oh yeah, emotional resonance. Ahem. When the only emotional residence is people paying their respects right at the very end of the film, it’s clear that something hasn’t worked. It’s a shame too, because Oliver Hirschbiegel is the director of the frankly excellent Downfall so we know he is capable of quality. I don’t have any problems with the fact that a film has been made about Diana, in fact in the right hands it has potential to be a gripping story, full of melodrama and relationship-related intrigue. Given how good Downfall was, I expected more from Hirschbiegel, and that’s probably the biggest letdown of all.
My wish to have Naveen Andrews torture somebody for information didn’t come to pass. It might have been a vast departure from actual events, but it would have at least made the film interesting. Very disappointed that this didn’t come to pass. And Naomi Watts doesn’t really look like Diana. There, I said it. Now move along, there is literally nothing to see here. Literally nothing.
Favourite scene: Oh dear… erm… look over there, something interesting is happening in a DIFFERENT film! (runs away)
Quote: “STOP. THE CAR!” That full stop was deliberate, by the way. It gets recognition for being my quote for this film just because, in context, it’s almost hilarious. The best quote is from the security
Silly Moment: Diana, emotional and romantically distraught, runs home to play Bach on the piano.
Twitter Plot Summary: When an angry fisherman blows up a Great White Shark, it returns in ghostly form to seek revenge on humanity. Yeah…
Genre: Horror
Director: Griff Furst
Key Cast: Mackenzie Rosman, Dave Randolph-Mayhem Davis, Sloane Coe, Jaren Mitchell, Richard Moll, Lucky Johnson, Tim Taylor, Shawn C. Phillips, Thomas Francis Murphy
Five Point Summary:
1. Rednecks on a boat. Bad idea. Awesome concept for a film, though.
2. The Jaws perspective shot right there… And the Chief Martin crash contrazoom… Kind of.
3. They keep saying it’s a shark, and the very black man (golly!) doesn’t believe them.
4. No, don’t wash that car! Don’t use that water slide! Don’t fix that sink! The ghost shark’ll get you!
5. The mayor goes out to sea to get the shark. This will no doubt end badly.
Once again we’re in familiar territory. Kind of. A shark is terrorising the small coastal town of Smallpoint and bumping off the locals. The difference here is that the shark is a supernatural creature, a ghost if you will. The reason why it’s a ghost? Because it was killed by rednecks on a boat and found its way into a cave which has mystical daubings on its walls, of course. Somehow, despite having no corporeal form it still has the ability to kill people yet can only manifest in water. Nobody really explains how or why, which is probably for the best. Cue a number of ridiculous situations where if the smallest amount of water is present, the shark can appear and wreak havoc. So what kind of silly situations have we got? Kids playing on a water slide, girls in bikinis washing a car, even a guy fixing a kitchen sink, the ghost shark can go anywhere there’s water. Let’s ignore the fact that humans are essentially made of water, otherwise the shark could literally appear from anywhere. Possible idea for a sequel right there.
The CGI looks bad, but the fact we’re dealing with a ghost shark makes it almost tolerable. Some of the gore effects, whilst terrible, don’t look as out of place as some other SyFy TV movie efforts, in fact they add to the cheese factor. When you see a girl in a bikini disappearing into a bucket, being devoured by a spectral fish, or a man foolishly drinking a cup of water and then being split in twain, you can either laugh or groan. I suggest laughing, it’s better for the soul.
Who’da thought this carefree activity could be so dangerous?
Our core cast feature the obligatory “hunk” who’s actually more a geeky, “works at Google” type, two sisters in their teens/early 20s (whose dad is the fisherman killed in the opening scene), the gruff old man who apparently knows how to stop the attacks, and the obligatory black teenager and equally obligatory fat white teenager. There’s also the mayor, who almost talks in jive and doesn’t believe the reports about the shark attacks until it’s too late. Throwing in all the Jaws-related cliches it’s scripting by the numbers. Er, ignoring the fact it’s about a ghostly shark, of course – that little element does permit a certain element of fun to the type of situations that can elicit a shark attack. On the positive side, Richard Moll gets to partake in some fine angry acting, screaming and shouting in an acting style clearly borrowed from the William Shatner School for Hammy Acting.
Unlike Sharknado it lacks most of the self awareness that made the said tornado-featuring movie so much fun. Both are played completely straight, but it’s like the difference between Robin Hood: Men In Tights and Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. That’s probably a bad comparison come to think of it, but in any case, one is intentionally funny and the other is accidentally funny (Brian Blessed and Alan Rickman in one film? Kevin Costner’s American accent as Robin Hood? Yeah, right). Ghost Shark mostly falls into the “accidentally funny” camp – it’s po-faced and serious until people die, then the silliness kicks in. With a core concept this ridiculous the filmmakers need to be as in on the joke as the audience, and on the whole I don’t think director Griff Furst manages to get that across, he seems stuck halfway between trying to rip off Jaws and trying to amuse the audience. As a result it suffers from tonal inconsistency and is isn’t quite the cheese-fest you might have been expecting. Still, despite the fact it’s mostly mundane and the whole effort to explain why the shark came back as a vengeful spirit is pointless, there are a few redeeming qualities. Enjoy on a bad film night, in those simple terms it’s a cracker.
Favourite scene: The shark manifests in the pipes connecting a kitchen sink and eats the plumber fixing it. Daft.
Quote: “Revenge? You think I’m worried ’bout revenge? I don’t want revenge, I want justice.” And another classic – “In order to kill it, you gotta be willin’ to dahhh!”
Silly Moment: It’s a film about a ghostly shark, the whole film is silly.
“My Grud… it’s a blank piece of A5 paper! And it’s 80gsm! My favourite!”
Twitter Plot Summary: A penniless American is offered a £1 million loan in a single bank note and tasked with living off it for a month without spending a penny.
Genre: Comedy/Romance
Director: Ronald Neame
Key Cast: Gregory Peck, Jane Griffiths, Ronald Squire, Joyce Grenfell, Maurice Denham,
Five Point Summary:
1. Two servings of steak with all the trimmings? You wild man.
2. Oh no, a sharp gust of wind! And a doomsayer with a bundle of leaflets!
3. She wants to meet him on the balcony. Alone. To discuss charity. Of course.
4. Stock market gag. Hilarious.
5. People are stupid. Really, really stupid. Mob mentality never wins.
Based on a short story by Mark Twain, The Million Pound Note is a tale of perceived wealth and either getting everything you desire despite being otherwise penniless, or that the extreme value of the note would render it worthless as nobody would be in a position to offer you change should it be cashed. Typical of the era there’s very little preamble before Gregory Peck’s Henry Adams, a penniless American stuck in London, is pulled off the streets by a pair of rich brothers and handed, in a sealed envelope which he is to open at 2pm, a bank note for £1 million. They set him a challenge of living off the note and returning it to them undamaged after 30 days, unspent. Now, a million is a lot of money today, but in the early 20th century it would have been worth much, much more in comparison to today’s prices. As such, it’s not hard to believe that people would react the way they do in the film, albeit compressed into a shorter time frame than would occur in reality for the sake of telling the story as succinctly as possible. By just showing people the note it opens up a vast number of doors and, as expected by one of the rich brothers, he doesn’t have to spend a penny. Before he knows it, Adams has food in his belly, a plethora of suits, an expensive hotel suite and the ear of every well-off family or businessman in the city.
Of course, it wouldn’t be a 1950s comedy without introducing a romantic element. As the rich and upper classes of Britain are drawn in by his money and, to a lesser extent, his engaging personality, Adams is drawn in by Portia Landsdowne (Griffiths) who is not only interested in him and his wealth, but specifically in his ability to make charitable donations to the good causes close to her heart. It later transpires that she’s interested in him, money or not. Nice sentiment, but quite unlikely in the real world in my opinion. I also find it amusing that this eligible bachelor type is given the bridal suite in the hotel. A sign of things to come, or a commentary on attitudes towards relationships? By hiring out the bridal suite to single men, it’s complicit that having excessive amounts of money is detrimental to the possibility of maintaining a relationship, that it becomes a greater focus than trying to impress the opposite sex. Or the same sex, depends on the person I suppose… Either way, you decide if that’s an intentional point or not.
“I’m a dandy, and don’t you forget about it!”
Despite the humorous setup, the real message underlying the film is that whilst money can be a force for good, it can also cause its own fair share of problems. Money can be useful but it’s not a pre-requisite for happiness. Just as quickly as he gains all the privileges of wealth, they’re just as quickly taken away and through exactly the same superficial means he acquired them. And then given back again, almost arbitrarily. People put so much emphasis on the perceived value of money that it can make or break an economy if the slightest thing changes. Case in point, Adams’ name is linked to a gold mine deal, to which people hastily invest, then when Adams temporarily misplaces the note (a joke played by the former resident in Adams’ hotel suite – also male, and elderly to boot) the value of the stock plummets. It’s a valuable lesson to take away from the film, one that is as relevant to our economy now as it was in 1954.
I would assume that it was a nightmare trying to frame Gregory Peck with other actors and actresses seeing as he was so stupendously tall, comparatively. There are clearly moments where the supporting cast are either on a step so they’re near his eye level, or the decision was made to sit him down at a desk or similar so the perspective doesn’t look off. If they hadn’t done so he would have looked incredibly out of place at least a handful of times. There’s one scene also where he wears a long coat and, due to the style of the era, it looks ridiculous on him, like a big bed sheet with buttons. Better leaving him in a tailored suit, it just works better.
It’s a silly idea for a film, but a tradition that was followed by the likes of Brewsters Millions and Life Stinks, and as I’ve previously enjoyed both of those films it stands to reason that I would enjoy this one too. And yes, I did enjoy it, very much so. It’s a simple story told with the usual style of 1950s cinema, all whimsy and well spoken acting.
Favourite scene: Adams is thrown out of the stock exchange. Physically.
Quote: “Serve him Horace, but don’t spare the gristle!”
Silly Moment: A circus strong man is mistaken for Henry Adams, despite being squat and mute.
Twitter Plot Summary: Based on the real life Operation Crossbow, Allied spies go behind enemy lines to sabotage German V-2 rocket production.
Genre: Action/Drama/War
Director: Michael Anderson
Key Cast: George Peppard, Sophia Loren, Trevor Howard, John Mills, RIchard Johnson, Tom Courtenay, Jeremy Kemp, Anthony Quayle, Paul Henreid, Helmut Dantine, Richard Todd, Sylvia Syms, Barbara Rueting,
Five Point Summary:
1. Those dastardly Germans are using rockets to attack London! The cads! 2. Sophia Loren: obligatory female character. 3. Didn’t see that death coming… 4. The odds are stacked against them, naturally. 5. Well that didn’t work out too well for him, did it?
Yep, another war film, this time with Hannibal Smith himself – George Peppard. It’s not available on DVD or Blu-Ray in the UK at the time of writing which is a shame, but you can get a copy imported from Spain if you feel the need to see it. Please note that if you do import a region 2 copy you can either get it in English with no subtitles when the Germans speak (handy), or you can have it all in Spanish and then subtitled in English, which whilst amusing isn’t the way to watch an English language movie. It seems the same problem blights the iTunes version of the film as well, so be warned, if you can’t understand German then you’re probably better off waiting for them to release a version of the film in Region 2 with subtitles. Either that or buy the Region 1 edition which I understand works perfectly.
Now that little rant is out of the way, the film itself. Set in 1944, the Germans are working on their V-1 and V-2 bombs/rockets which are targeting London. The Allies decide to send a team in to sabotage the plant, so they choose three of the best – George Peppard, Tom Courtenay and Jeremy Kemp. Each of them can speak fluent German and are qualified engineers, thus cementing their cover and enable them to get into the German base without experiencing any problems. Or at least, that’s the plan – one of the engineers interviewed by the British secret service is actually a double agent for the Germans, which creates an additional layer of concern for our trio.
“You have a little girly plaster on your head.”
Set design looks fantastic and adds to the feeling of real location, subtly enhancing the story at play. Yet again however the female characters are given short shrift – Sophia Loren turns up in a cameo role (yet gets top billing), very briefly, and was clearly only added to the project in a bid to sell more tickets. Her presence is arbitrary and adds little to the story. Either create a meaningful role or don’t bother.
Despite my issues with the Region 2 DVD, I like that the German forces all spoke in their native tongue. Whilst the story is a vastly fictionalised version of actual events, the language barrier helps create a sense of authenticity to the film and clearly delineate the differences between the Allies and the Axis. Apart from this it’s a typical 60s war thriller, the good guys have a job to do against overwhelming odds and it’s likely to be a suicide mission. Yet they push on and do the job regardless, because that’s just what you do in war, old chap.
The final few scenes when the action revs up aren’t too bad, but on the whole I think they could have done a lot more with the core concept. It’s a relatively fun adventure romp with plenty of intrigue and excitement, however I would have preferred to see something more in line with the real story. It might not make as entertaining an adventure, but it would at least be a taut thriller. This is one of the better war films released during the era, although bearing in mind this was released in the same year as Thunderball, Von Ryan’s Express and The Flight of the Phoenix, it feels somewhat quaint by comparison.
Favourite scene: The finale – it all builds to an explosive end.
Quote: “We’ll never win the war unless we are prepared to take risks. Sometimes great risks.”
Silly Moment: The fact that MGM had to rename the film The Great Spy Mission so people didn’t think Operation Crossbow was about Robin Hood. Ugh.
