Murph-24 Reviews

Tin Cup (1996)

Please stop churning out this sort of rubbish.

[8 August 1999]

Let me get this straight. In order to enjoy a film, I like it to either have a new slant on a subject, have something deep to say, or at least have some good acting. This film had none of these said attributes.

It is simply a string of uninspiring scenes involving stupid golfing shots. Don't get me wrong, I am all in favour of watching films that dabble in acts of improbability, but only when they are done in an amusing manner. In my opinion this was the equivalent of the as yet unmade "Earnest plays golf", but without anyone funny and less of a love interest. The all-conquering Happy Gilmore released in the same year was almost based along the same lines but was immeasurably funnier, thrilling and dramatic.

This was indeed an example of how to make a big budget film and leave it with almost no redeeming features. This sort of film is always along the same lines. We get to see events through the eyes off the main character who has a clearly defined adversary from the very start. Glory will fall into the hands of either the person that we are seeing events through (the "good" guy), or to his main rival (the "bad" guy). It is never a case of them both being thoroughly good blokes of unquestionable moral integrity. It never falls into the hands of a third, unmentioned party. If the film is from the ranks of Hollywood then it is almost certain that victory will go to this supposedly "good" guy. There is no need to get excited at the end when the victor is to be decided.

If you are a golf fan and want to watch an unfunny dramatisation of your sport, then you've found the right film. If, however, you just want to watch an amusing golf film, then go for Caddy Shack or Happy Gilmore, even if you have seen them 100 times before.

Please, avoid watching this banal and cliché-laden offering UNLESS you are of the type that: actively avoids thinking; watches soap operas; listens with your mouth open and writes with your tongue sticking out.

Hero (I) (1992)

Accidental Film

[8 August 1999]

If you try to forget the fact that you are actually watching Hoffman then you can enjoy certain parts of this film. It is disappointing to see a man who performed admirably in such great pictures as "The Graduate", "Papillon" and "Rainman" stoop so low as to accept a part in this second rate script.

There are lots of parts that I found un-enjoyable, including Davis' harangues and Hoffman's more than lame character, but it does have one or two saving graces. I like the many scenes with Hoffman that are not related to him being a hero, including steeling money from his lawyer, claiming that the homeless play the stock exchange, advising his son to "keep a low profile" and his many other moral philosophies on life. It is probably worth watching for these bits alone, in much the same way as it was worth watching "Conspiracy Theory" not for the main story, but for hearing Gibson's theories and seeing his lifestyle.

The main theme of the film does, however, get very old very fast. We know from the beginning that he wont get credit for his endeavour, but we find out that the guy who did is a far better bloke, so it is hard to feel sorry for Hoffman. It portrays the American public as being a stupid bunch of easily persuaded unimaginative sheep when it comes to role models, so I suppose that there is a message in it. Aside from the dialogue that he gets, we can see that Hoffman struggles to keep the film going, and the hollow script is barely enough to sustain the near 2-hour running time.

The Chevy Chase cameo, and seeing that guy "Bing" from Groundhog Day were mildly amusing, but really this film was of an largely banal nature. Possibly worth watching once, but that is about as strongly as I could recommend it.

Pi (1998)

A chilling story of the way mathematics corrupts

[6 August 1999]

I had the distinct pleasure of being able to watch this film in the theatre with a bona fide mathematician. His faith in this chosen discipline was flagging however, and he believed that seeing this film would strengthen his resolve. It did at first, as the maths equations and diagrams flowed out accompanied by thumping music to captivating effect. I heard him cry out "Maths is cool", but I believe that by the end he was nonplussed as his newfound enthusiasm had been stifled.

Described by someone, whose name I know not, as being the best maths based Jewish horror film of the year. This puts it into a category of film in which there are no rivals (me thinks), which is absolutely fair. I have never come across a film anything like it before, and its originality it thoroughly refreshing. Certainly one to talk about, and works in the opposite way to Good Will Hunting (both films are about boffins), in that it dissuades the viewer from thinking that it would be good to be so intelligent. Shares similar attributes to Clerks in that it was about the same budget, filmed in black and white and had a great original soundtrack. Though not as good a screenplay as Clerks, the adventurous camera work, a larger cast and more challenging subject matter mean that his film is deserving of a great deal of praise.

You all know the story, so I shan't bore you with that, but it has to be said that Max, together with his "personal notes" makes an intriguing, though largely shallow character. Bearing in mind that the entire film centres around, and is about, him, we are left feeling that we haven't actually discovered so much about him by the end. This could be attributable to the fact that there can't really be that much to know about a maths obsessed loner obsessed with patterns. Perhaps, but it still would have been nice for there to have been something interesting to discover to sustain the film for the duration. It does indeed run out of steam too far from the end as his mind ebbs further away.

The other characters in the film, though interesting in their own way, are ultimately too shallow to sustain interest for long. For example Max's tutor-cum-father-figure tells him a few anecdotes about past maths discoveries. This is all very well, but the anecdotes that he tells aren't exactly unknown by us, the general public, so I see little chance that Max would bear to sit through another telling. There are also many questions left unresolved at the end of the film, and we never really discover what Max's ultimate fate was, but I suppose that these are all the same elements that kept interest levels high in this surprisingly fast-paced flick.

Basically, if you don't like venturing much from standard Hollywood issue then you certainly wont enjoy this film, but if you are prepared to try something new then you could well enjoy it. Also, fans of art-house films will almost certainly enjoy this, as it is an excellent example of creative low budget independent filming.

Incidentally, did anyone else out there that has seen the film manage to catch the Chemical Brothers' UK tour? There is a distinct similarity between the introduction to the film and a certain video that is projected at the concert (I think it was during Hey Boy, Hey Girl).

Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)

Better than the prequel, though not as good

[6 August 1999]

OK, it doesn't really need to be said, but the first film was better even though it was eclipsed in almost every way by this one.

The stunts were bigger, the dramatics improved upon, the music used to more effect, but it still had the feel of a sequel which can't be good. An original will almost always be better than its sequel.

The special effects and action scenes were greatly improved in content and in execution. The chase scene with the lorry is quite remarkable and is a good way of introducing the main players in the film. Some great scenes in the mental asylum and a good (though repeated) end location really manages to give a good feel to the film. However, special effects aside, we do get the feeling that it is just a makeover of the first film with a bigger budget, though that isn't a particularly bad thing.

Though the original terminator never betrayed his mechanical instincts and thorough programming and ruthlessly killed anyone claiming to be Sarah Conner, the return of the terminator sees models that have inconsistent (and less ruthless) characters. T101 compromises tries to learn humanistic character traits, loosely veiled under the guise of fitting in (and encouraged by his young master) which could be excused, but the failure of T1000 to successfully complete his mission could not. Though he killed John's foster parents and dog with extreme prejudice near the beginning of the film, he failed to pull off a similar stunt with Sarah near the end. He seemed to be exhibiting some very bad human traits in wanting to see her suffer. Flaws like this simply weren't present in the original film. The original model showed himself to be so inhuman at the end that he was stripped of all flesh, while the return sees a terminator that is willing to make a joke at the end. Add this to the fact that T1000 had no reason to look like Robert Patrick at the end when his cover had been blown, meaning that he could take on a different and more effective shape (like a long serrated blade with barbed ends), and several more plot flaws are revealed.

Despite this, Patrick does play a far more effective and menacing terminator in practice, and without having to dress up like a thug or have big bulging muscles. As far as playing an artificial human is concerned, he fulfils the role far more convincingly than Arnie. His face changes from being expressionless to conveying some kind of empathy, and back, in a mere moment. He isn't built up, which is probably because the people that he emulates weren't big, but it seems more realistic than Arnie's Herculean body structure. Let's face it; in a post apocalyptic earth Mr. Universes are not going to blend in too well. Something else that was (naturally) missing was the feeling of innocence that was being violated. Here we see a beefed up Sarah and a well keyed up John teaming up with the Terminator as if he was an old friend.

Aside from this, the suspense, effects and amusing scenes make this well worth watching even if it isn't as dark and moody as the original. A very enjoyable film that improves upon many elements of the original but suffers from the sequel-plot syndrome.

High Plains Drifter (1973)

The best "Clint film", but not the best film that Clint is in

[5 August 1999]

Perhaps some explanation is required here. Drifter is indeed the best Clint film, because it is the finest example of a film that could be fairly described as being a "Clint film". Clint directs and stars through a plot that concentrates almost entirely on him. The "acts" in which he is not the main focus of attention could be counted on only two fingers (if memory serves). Other examples of "Clint films" include "Dirty Harry", "The Outlaw Josey Wales", "Pale Rider", "Honkytonk Man", "The Unforgiven", "Every Which Way But Loose" et al. The indisputably finest film that Clint is in must be "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly" wherein Clint had to share the credit with the infallible Lee Van Cleef, an inspired performance from Eli Wallach and of course the renowned directing by Sergio Leonne.

Featuring one of the most moody and atmospheric openings in any film (a feat made all the more commendable considering that it was filmed in broad daylight) and managing to convey instantly The Stranger's dislike of the town. For an excellent example of perfect timing you need look no further than the first five lines of dialogue, where it is quite clear who has the upper hand and who is running scared (while standing still). This is Clint at his very best. Comparable only with Sabata in ability, The Stranger goes on to display his Herculean talents time and time again in the ill fated Lago as he razes it to the ground.

As he goes about his systematic destruction of the town, The Stranger displays again and again, with an acerbic wit, his hatred of all things Lago: a sneer here, a toss of the match there. Perfect. Funny in a very clever way yet still able to maintain its integrity as it conveys this jaundiced view of the old west. We see the town's residents being portrayed as a group of deceitful and cowardly egotists. The Preacher is a hypocrite, the Sheriff a coward, Lewis Belding is a traitor, his wife an open adulterer and the barman is just plain stupid. The only member of the town who we like is Mordecai and that is simply because his diminutive stature has left him out of favour among the other residents, which perhaps leads him to see this stranger in a different light (he lights Clint's cigars from the very beginning even after he has witnessed the rape).

Meanwhile, as this picture is being built up we also see Clint acting in a less than saintly fashion. He himself is depicted as being a drinking womaniser (though the women supposedly come round to enjoying the time he spends with them). And why does he hate the residents so much? They had him killed because he refused to back down after discovering that their mine was on Government land. Fair enough. Turning them into the Government for that would have ruined them though, and he should have understood the danger that he was in. And what of the men who had killed him, and had then been arrested under false pretences, something that he didn't seem to approve of? Well sure enough, they had been arrested for something that they didn't do, but they were bad cookies, so what was the quibble. Sure enough, what Lago did to him was not right, but he must have been pretty stupid to let himself get killed over such a thing. I can imagine it now, the classic "I'm telling on you" scene, immediately followed by the "Oh no you wont" scene.

These minor flaws aside, the picture includes a great wealth of varied characters, and very interesting events. Though the film has a slow feel to it, with Clint's slow drawl, a surprising amount happens. Almost everyone in the town is made to appear like a real person, and this creates a good feel for this unfortunate town stuck in the middle of the desert. As the plot develops we really do become curious as to what exactly will happen if and when Marshall Duncan's killers return. This itself is handled quite well, though it is not the films strongest point. The best bits are where Clint lets himself roam free to just "be Clint".

An excellent movie and possibly one of the funniest westerns out there, while not sacrificing anything as a serious film in it's own right. It does upset me though when people watch this film and fail to see the humour because it is too subtle for them.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)

Definitely among the funniest films of all time

[10/10 · 4 August 1999]

When you sit down to watch a film with someone who hasn't seen it before and you find yourself saying to them "this is the best bit" at nearly every scene, you have to acknowledge that it fulfills the criterion necessary to be labeled "a masterpiece". This film makes that grade and as such joins an elite of less than a dozen films.

Everything that could possibly have gone right with this film did, from the ingenious opening to the laughable ending. One set of hilarious sketches after another including jokes about the monarchy, foreign nationals, troy, fabled mythical beasts, the constitution of the knights and God himself. The ending was perfect in my opinion because there never was a story in the first place. It was simply Monty Python at it's very best acting out a set of themed sketches with no real direction. To finish that with a proper "ending" would be to disrespect the film, themselves and the viewer.

Encompasing a wide and varied range of knowledge, from Greek Myth to Arthurian Legend, and from Political Philosophy to botany and zoology, this film displays the vast depth of knowledge of it's creators. It never fails to amuse and is, among a wide section of the British populace, communally quoteable.

I wouldn't hasten to recommend this film to anyone, and if you don't like it at least a bit then there surely must be something wrong with you. Not that it is my place to judge.

WATCH IT

The Sting (1973)

An excellent screnplay, and some top notch acting.

[4 August 1999]

A great story about the big con, with some delightful background music and settings that help to create an excellent feel for thirties America.

Jumping from one scene to another, this film races along at a good speed while still maintaining a good feel for "the players". The many twists in the plot are well accommodated without spoiling the flow in development, and still allowing plenty of space for character development.

Loveable rogue Redford and father-like Newman are great as the main characters offering depth and diversity in their roles. The conversation never gets tiresome as they switch from one location to another. The film's clearly structured formula is adhered to rigidly in order to methodically go through the plot, creating a rewarding experience. Films with less twists than this have often become hopelessly confused during their development. One of the most complex yet ordered screenplays ever seen.

All in all, it would be hard to fault this film if one is to be fair to it. Keeping the gore and cuss words down to a minimum while dealing with some decidedly dodgy material means that yet more commendations must go to the writers. It would have been too easy to have let a film of this nature rely on things other than good timing and ingenuity. Thoroughly enjoyable.

The Big Lebowski (1998)

The best bowling comedy of 1998

[10/10 · 3 August 1999]

At a Conservative Party ccktail function sometime last year, after a few drinks the subject naturally got onto best films. The general concensus was that "Withnail & I" had that title of funniest, and of that there was little genuine argument. However, there was a small contingent of persons present who claimed that the Coen brothers with Lebowski, a then, recent offering, could possibly wrest the title from Robinson's hitherto safe hands. Though I should add that they voiced this opinion in a humble and respectful manner.

An investigation ensued, and within a week I had located an establishment that was to play it, and set to my task, viz. a comparison with studious meticulousisity.

To take the film as it stands would be the only way to treat it fairly because, to be fair to it, it is completely different to Withnail. It is a totally different kind of humour, and style of filming. Whereas Withnail features a kind of low budget dark, earthy and realistic humour, Lebowski has a certain elaborate feel to it, from the expensive sets and abstract scenes to the wealth of locations and Hollywood feel. But enough of the comparisons, I'm supposed to be writing about Lebowski here, so no more Withnail. But let it be said, they are both titled on names and concentrate on bums (or a bum).

Lebowski tends to rely on seemingly obvious jokes and repeated lines and styles,(such as "shut the F***K UP Donny", "I'll suck your c**k for a thousand dollars" and "Am I wrong?") combined with a rewarding subtle blend of character-based humour, (such as Lebowski never finishing his lines, Donny never getting to say anything, Brandt's nervous mannerisms, and numerous self referential statements). Some people from the Dumb and Dumber school of comedy appreciation will "get" very little of Lebowski, and will not rate it. These are largely the same kind of people who thought that Mallrats was better than Clerks.

The introduction to the film and, most importantly, to Lebowski is utterly perfect. The look at this supposed bum, and then at the till girl to put things in perspective, creates good empathy with the inner workings of the protagonist. He took his choice, others take theirs. Great camera work and combination with Dylan provides the perfect setting to the bowling hall, and hence, the backdrop to the film. This style of filming is the Coen brothers at their very best, and blending of the title sequence into the story is done as well as anyone could do.

This film is made of a combination of straightforward camera shots and dialogue with very little action (aside from bowling or driving). This is then juxtaposed with some very abstract scenes such as dream sequences and slow motion footage of (questionably) real situations. This technique often creates a very effective result though sometimes can become tiresome. The main crux of the film is set in the real world and revolves around The Dude attempting to repatriate his living room with a rug. This is largely done in a very ordinary fashion but with a great wealth of humorous conversation. Goodman provides many memorable sayings. Where the film goes at a tangent to this, but with immediate purpose in mind, it works very well. The best examples of this are the introductory bowling scene (as stated), and the introduction of the loveable Jesus. When these scenes are not so welcome is when they actively distract from the flow of the story and serve only to break it up in an undesirable manner. Still, without this experimentation we would have been without some of the film's most impressive moments.

As The Dude's main opponent is The Big Lebowski, a disabled veteran with a personal achievement complex. He is acted out brilliantly by Huddleston, has an excellent vocabulary ( including micturate) and is a very aggressive character, especially towards The Dude. Looking after him is his faithful servant Brandt who has some delightful nervous mannerisms and peculiar gaits which work well with his characters speaking parts.

The blend of humour is mostly based around slight subtlety on the part of some characters, and outright over-the-top acting on the part of others. Add this to some great visuals, though not over the top, and the result is a finely crafted humorous product. In all, though not as good as the all conquering Withnail, Lebowski does manage to better Fargo, and is certainly one of the funniest films in recent years.

The Italian Job (1969)

There isn't a bad bit in it.

[10/10 · 3 August 1999]

What a smash. A whopper even. Fantasticly enjoyable, endlessly quotable and terrifyingly realistic. It's the attention to the little details of this marvelous screenplay that make the movie shine. A film that really can be viewed again and again.

Caine's charismatic criminal protagonist, Coward's compelling performance as the magnanimous crime magnate and Hill's hilarious rendition of a computer nerd with a fat fetish compliment each other brilliantly with stunning, near shocking effect.

Capturing themes and passions that transcend generations, this film had easily stood the test of time, fending off many challengers for it's elusive title of "funniest British film set in Italy". The dialogue is still razor sharp, the comedy remains ingenious, and the car chases have perhaps only been bettered by "The Blues Brothers".

Some viewers did not find this film to their liking the first time, but I can assure you that if you give it some space and take it with an open mind, then it will prove to be a thoroughly enjoyable experience.

Thank you Martin.

eXistenZ (1999)

I'm just glad that I didn't actually pay to see this remake of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang

[2/10 · 1 August 1999]

Yes, thankful was I that I managed to see it without having to suffer the indignity of having to pay directly for the privilege. There was very little to to amuse the audience in Cronenberg's latest work. Luckily for us it was relatively early in the day and the volume was quite loud or I may well have dozed off before Law got his plug fitted. I haven't fallen asleep in the cinema since Super Mario Bros.

Firstly, it broke the golden rule of cinema, which is to avoid mentioning the name of the film in corny circumstances if at all possible. It broke this one as soon as the shoddy (and boring) title sequence had ended. To exacerbate this already dire situation, the title was uttered by someone who desperately needed to blow their nose.

Secondly, the heist pulled by the chap with the organic gun was as predictable as it was uninteresting. We all knew that something would happen, and when it did, it wasn't particularly exhilarating. It must also go down as one of the lamest assassination attempts in recent memory.

Thirdly, after the "excitement" in the beginning we are treated to late night made-for-TV acting for at least half an hour before anything else happens. An empty car journey, filled with banal dialogue and some less-than-clever moves by Law's flawed character. We very nearly walked out. Which would have left the cinema empty.

Oh, then eventually, after we are sick to death of these two sappy weaklings we get introduced to another "character" who seems to be based on a certain long running playstation advert theme. Nothing original there. Oh, so in the future we go to garages in the middle of nowhere in the dead of night to get cattle prodded in the back by some meat head with a penchant for amateur surgery. Oh really. And meanwhile outside there are silly little bird type latex hybrid reptiles. Are these supposed to help us to become emersed in an imaginary world? I don't know, perhaps this film is just too clever for me.

Finally, we get to the part of the film that this hectic introduction had been building up to. THE GAME. She doesn't know what it is, and she made it, he doesn't know what it is, and he's a moron, and we don't know what it is, and we don't care. Great, another computer game, but this one is the basis of a film that has had audiences across America baffled. They obviously never saw Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. They go into game A, get put into game B, they come out of that one and go into another, then they kill everyone and go into another game and win it by killing everyone else. But was that last one a game or real life? Neither, it is a film. And we were well aware of that, so we didn't much care whether they were in it or out of it because either way they were in a film. Something that we were made painfully aware of throughout. If you can't work out whether they were in a game or not is because you weren't supposed to be able to work it out because that was the aim of the film. This movie doesn't answer any questions, as has been suggested, it merely prompts another one: "why am i watching this?"

Put simply, this is the poor mans remake of CCBB but without the intrigue or the cunning story line, without any real empathy, or attempt to make an involving film leading up to a reality-questioning end. The parallels between the two films are many: from the way it puts us into the fantasy world; the way it takes us out; the way that there is a moment of helplessness for the main characters as they are taken over; the way that characters and events from the supposed real beginning are reused in the make-believe world; and the way that we are shocked when we find out that what we witnessed may or may not be "real".

I was one of the first in England to see this film, and have actively voiced the following advice to friends ever since: to avoid seeing it as it is merely a cheap and unconvincing attempt to fool the audience into caring about whether or not what they are seeing is inthe actual world. At the end of the day it is not real, and there has to be more point in seeing a film than to simply desipher whether or not the end is in an "imaginary" world.

Return of Sabata (1971)

A brutal and cutting but ultimately enjoyable insight into the heart of the wild west

[9/10 · 1 August 1999]

Van Cleef lays another solid gold egg. Clearly putting in a better performance than as Angel Eyes in The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, Cleef is the perfect man to play this terrific character.

As much a poignant lament on the wrongs of high taxation and social injustice as it was a fascinating and marvelous journey into the real cost of civil war, this film will delight the open minded viewer throughout.

Acerbic complexity and deep spiritual symbolism are just two ways in which this film stands high among some of the finest films of the seventies. Consistent acting and fluid plot development combine to make this one of the top 5 westerns of all time.

The casual viewer will find this film hard to follow as he struggles to keep his mind up to speed while we race through a series of dramatic events and cutting dialogue, but with applied concentration and perhaps three or four viewings he should find it a deeply rewarding experience.

Now, altogether: "If you wanna make money. If you wanna get rich...."

Saving Private Ryan (1998)

Shell-shocking visuals, but we could have done without the cheese

[20 July 1999]

"Writing an anti war book is like writing an anti glacier book." -a (sort of) quote from Slaughterhouse 5

Commendable for it's use of realistic ground level shaky camera angles in the beginning and end battle scenes, this film really does bring the horrors of war home. The depiction of the unfair randomness of the conflict, and the gruesome results, are truly superb. On a par with certain scenes in Hamburger Hill and Stalingrad in it's ability to discourage volunteering for military service. I defy anyone to leave the theatre after seeing this film and not feel as though someone has really spoken out to them.

However, this graphic depiction of war does come with a fair amount of Hollywood baggage. Noteworthy scenes include the ones with the present day Private Ryan, Officers back in America and the bit where Hanks says "saving-Private-Ryan" which I objected to on general principles. Despite these scenes, this film still has to rank up there with some of the best executed anti war films around. I would personally recommend Stalingrad more strongly if only because it had the same "shock factor" and came without the cheese.

The Faculty (1998)

Dire and Tripe

[1/10 · 19 July 1999]

After directing two such masterpieces as Mariachi and Desperado, we see that Robert Rodriguez has to let his standards slip with choice of script. I know that one has to do something to earn a crust, but this is ridiculous. Not that I would say that there was anything wrong with the directing, but the plot was absolutely terrible. I'm not sure about what emotion one was supposed to feel for the main characters in this film but I, for one would quite liked to have seen most or (preferably) all of them dead. The idea of introducing characters into any film is surely to provoke an emotion from the viewer. We are supposed to connect with them. To feel for them. Especially if they are the supposed "heroes" in the film. In this effort the only emotion that I felt was of dislike. I didn't particularly want any of them to survive, so I felt betrayed. Humbug.

The film that comes closest in concept to the Faculty is probably The Thing. A masterpiece. Excellent dialogue complete with compelling performances and a wonderful ending make this the definitive alien invasion film of choice. It was sad, therefore, to have to trawl through this muck in a vague effort to find something positively noteworthy. It seems that Hollywood will buy any old rope these days.

Lets hope that the current trend for these teenage-based horror flicks is short lived and that the movie going public rescinds it's support. The Faculty aka Scream, aka I Know What You Did Last Summer, etcetera..

Hackers (1995)

What is there to like?

[19 July 1999]

How anyone who is able to log onto the internet can swallow this terrible waste of film is beyond my comprehension. I can't believe that anyone saw fit to score this "film" above a 2 unless they were making fun of themselves and the basic concept of voting. The average mark of a 6 is an insult to the entire notion of idea sharing and to common decency. Be ashamed. Be very ashamed. Unpalatable. Unjustifiable and inhuman.

What, indeed, was there to like? Very little. And what there is is most probably spurious.

I urge anyone who is still reading to avoid watching Hackers, and to persuade others to avoid it in the interest of the common good.

Thank you

Spanking the Monkey (1994)

A snarling nineties remake of the Oedipus tale

[19 July 1999]

It's simply another one of the Greek myths retold in a modern setting. Those Greeks really knew how to write a cunning tale that cuts close to the bone. They wrote straight from human experience and feeling. Incest crept up on the young hero of the film with terrifying inevitability. They both knew what they were getting into, and went ahead even though they knew that they would subsequently experience "decision regret". A very enjoyable film that magically captures the passion of a summer holiday gone badly wrong.

Copying a tried and tested tale from the past is always a successful recipe for a good modern film, as Lucas has shown with borrowing from Homer's "The Iliad". This film is certainly capable of provoking strong emotion from the viewer, and I think that most of us would have a hard time resisting sexual advances in those circumstances if the woman in question was such a fox.

A compelling tale, made all the more sickening for it's overt basis in human experience.

Not one to watch with your mum (unless you fancy her!).

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

It'll make a lot of money, but so does the mafia

[18 July 1999]

Okay, so Lucas was under intense self-inflicted pressure to make the latest episode of his sci-fi epic transcend the previous offerings, but it is my opinion that he went about it in the wrong way relied too heavily on special FX. Added to that, he once again left gaping plot flaws and inconsistencies in what turned out to be a disappointing script. Unbalanced and flawed.

One of the joys of watching a film is not knowing what is going to happen, and even if you are pretty sure of what will happen through inductive reasoning. Though we may have all been fairly confident that Luke would play a pretty major role in the destruction of the first death star, we didn't actually know. With some level of disbelief-suspension we are able to let go and enjoy the battle that ensues during the mission. Han blasts in, Luke `uses the force' and the audience is happy. I had no doubt at any stage during the race scene in TPM that Anakin was going to win his race with the vessel that he built with his own slave-hands. Good for him, but I found the whole scene a trifle tiring and pointless. If Qui-Gon Jin can leap into a passing aircraft to evade danger, and can hold his own against Maul for a while, then surely he could have used Jedi mind powers on Anakin's enslaver. No need for mummy to carry on living a life of depravity, or for the young lad to be separated from her. Perhaps, if he had been kept under her wing until he was really ready he wouldn't have become an emotional retard.

I suffered from a distinct lack of ability to believe all of the ridiculous and largely irrelevant situations that were being presented to me in this film. The light sabre is supposedly a pure energy blade with no mass, while the electromagnetically generated arc wave creates a strong gyroscopic effect that is surprisingly difficult to handle. OK. So how come Maul can handle a double-ended one and stave off two apparently talented opponents simultaneously? (I know Obi-Wan was a junior, but he did have some talents) Queen Amidala seemed to change from one magnificent gown to another continually through the film (not at all like the simple pithy garments that her `subjects' wore) applying fresh make-up and moaning about her own ineffectualness. Apparently she was an elected queen. Why did her subjects elect her? Because she had a proven track record for dealing with economy and international relations? Or was it for her superfluous fashionable magnanimity? Beats me. And how is it that technology levels are so much higher in this episode than in Star Wars? Don't give me that `there is a really big war in episode 3' rubbish. It is a known fact that technology levels do not recede as a result of war, but they actually improve somewhat. Especially for the winning side. Oh, and could someone please tell me why Darth Maul was given virtually no speaking parts? Aside from the fight scenes, he was more an extra than a player and I found this deeply disappointing. This film needed a main proponent of the opposition's cause.

We could bang on about plot flaws all day, but for now it seems to me that there is a far more important shortcoming in this movie that Star Wars certainly didn't have, and that is likeable characters. A generation of people have grown up wanting to be/dress up as Princess Leia, Han Solo, Darth Vader, a Storm Trooper, an Imperial Guard, Boba Fett, one of the Catina musicians or Chewie. We could see them out in force at the opening of TPM in queues around the world. Aside from Queen Amidala and Darth Maul what new costumes will people be wearing in the next set of opening queues? A Battle Droid or Jar Jar? Me thinks not. There were very few things to really like about this set of characters, most particularly their pathetic names. They were not emotionally provoking enough. Computer animation is a far cry from getting a guy to dress up in a really good suite. Animation encourages alienation. Star Wars was so popular because of the great costumes that the Imperial forces got to wear. Computer animation sequences may be great for ease-of use but they do tend to promote a certain kind of distancing from the action at hand, and the blue screen doesn't exactly help actors to act.

In all, though I enjoyed the first three I couldn't say that I enjoyed the first three movies a considerable amount more than this one. However, I'm not 10 years old any more (I'm 20). I do feel that it isn't a patch on the previous offerings, and I hated the special effects. They're great, but `eye candy' should only be used to enhance something that is already there, and not to try to create it from thin air. All in all a disappointing affair, but I wouldn't discourage anyone from seeing it.

From Dusk Till Dawn (1996)

What a shame.

[18 July 1999]

I was really enjoying this film even though Cloony's fast and stupid mouth was beginning to grate at my nerves. I had settled down for a standard Tarantino affair from the outset and had been pleased by it all. Then the vampires came out of the closet. From then on i found this film plainly offensive. There was no further character development, and the fighting scenes were plainly incongruous nee ridiculous. It was nothing more than i would have expected from some cheap horror flick circa 1980.

Did no one else get their senses aroused when the store was trashed at the beginning, or when the poor woman was killed after about 20 minutes? I did. Did you then also feel a lack of empathy for either the vampires or the slayers towards the end of the film? I did, and i felt that it was a blatant waste of a perfectly good build up in a film. Poor and disappointing.

Batman (1989)

Bat-tastic

[18 July 1999]

"I wouldn't mind making a dark film for a change" thought Burton. `It'll have to have Keaton in on it, before he goes off the ropes and resumes making dire films again' he concluded `and I'm pretty sure he'll still work with me after Beetlejuice.'

`I liked Batman stuff Frank Miller did a few years back. As I recall, he wasn't wearing tights which was good for a change' he pondered. `Perhaps that would make good material for a film. We couldn't have Superman in it though, someone else owns the rights to that one, but everyone knows the Joker, and he was always my favourite' he surmised. `Oh, Nicholson hasn't done anything for a while, he would probably be up for it. Great.' What a fantastic opportunity Burton had set before him. When Miller reinvented Batman in 1986 it was only a matter of time before someone came along and put his dark images on the silver screen. This film certainly owes more to Millers dark realisation than to the 60's tights and bat-shark-repellent era and Bob Kane's original images.

The result is a fabulously well executed film, with compelling performances by both of the main proponents. Clearly the best comic book conversion to date, and far better than the sequels though the series has not got much life left in it because of the trend for killing the bad guys; something that rarely happens in the comic world because of the plot problems that it creates. The feel for Gotham is captured excellently. Locations are brilliant and effects are kept at just the right level to provide a backdrop for some delightful storytelling. It puts the other films in the series to shame, and questions the morality of making them in the first place. Possibly should have had more focus on the inner workings of Wayne and Napier, but the balance was roughly fair nonetheless. 8/10

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998)

Exactly the same as the book - which is a good thing

[10/10 · 6 July 1999]

I wasn't expecting much as I sat down to watch it. A friend had told me that it was OK, but not brilliant. But it had been his suggestion to see it again. There must be more to it, I thought.

I laughed and laughed.

That is it, quite simply. An incredibly funny drug-taking and vegas-trashing film. You feel as if you are actually there on the road with Duke and Gonzo. Of course, I've never actually been out on a bender with them, but if I did then I would probably be pretty well prepared for what to expect. Captures the feeling of a session gone wrong very well.

About those of you who say the most predictable and boring thing that anyone can ever say about a film of a book "It's not as good as the book", well forget about it. Let's get this straight. THE FILM IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE BOOK. OK so there are a couple of scenes that are different, and there is a bit more inner dialogue in the book, but hey, forget about it. If there will ever be a book-film conversion this good again then I simply wouldn't believe it. This is a carbon-copy if ever there was one. Depp is perfect, Del Toro is more than perfect and the whole thing is tied together perfectly with some of the most crisp directing I've seen for a while.

A thoroughly enjoyable film? You bet.

The Faculty (1998)

Dire and Tripe

[1/10 · 4 July 1999]

After directing two such masterpieces as Mariachi and Desperado, we see that Robert Rodriguez has to let his standards slip with choice of script. I know that one has to do something to earn a crust, but this is ridiculous. Not that I would say that there was anything wrong with the directing, but the plot was absolutely terrible. I'm not sure about what emotion one was supposed to feel for the main characters in this film but I, for one would quite liked to have seen most or (preferably) all of them dead. The idea of introducing characters into any film is surely to provoke an emotion from the viewer. We are supposed to connect with them. To feel for them. Especially if they are the supposed "heroes" in the film. In this effort the only emotion that I felt was of dislike. I didn't particularly want any of them to survive, so I felt betrayed. Humbug.

The film that comes closest in concept to the Faculty is probably The Thing. A masterpiece. Excellent dialogue complete with compelling performances and a wonderful ending make this the definitive alien invasion film of choice. It was sad, therefore, to have to trawl through this muck in a vague effort to find something positively noteworthy. It seems that Hollywood will buy any old rope these days.

Lets hope that the current trend for these teenage-based horror flicks is short lived and that the movie going public rescinds it's support. The Faculty a.k.a. Scream, a.k.a. I Know What You Did Last Summer etcetera..

Clerks (1994)

Don't bother renting it. Buy it.

[10/10 · 4 July 1999]

Absolute pure genius. A cutting insight into the everyday lives of the plebs. From the moment the film opens, and we are introduced to Dante's strange world, we get swallowed up in it all. A world where right is often wrong and up is sometimes down. We get a chilling insight into the lives that ordinary people lead. Their hopes. Their dreams. The way they deal with other people and themselves. How they struggle to battle their inner demons on a daily basis in some zany effort to stay in control of their own microcosm. All in the name of feeding the monkey.

If you have ever been in a shop then you should really enjoy this film.

If you have ever worked in a shop then you will really connect with it. Bond with it.

Captain Ron (1992)

A modern day swashbuckling Caribbean adventure

[10/10 · 4 July 1999]

One of the things that never ceases to amaze me about Captain Ron is the way that it can be watched continuously for periods of up to 60 hours without the need for sleep. This film makes me buzz. It is so full of life, passion and inspiration for myself and many other Merchant Bankers. Every time that I see this film there is something completely new that is revealed, displaying either great directorial skill or great performing by Messrs Russel and Short. The swagger, the way he says "swab" and the unbelievable shenanigans that this motley crew get up to. The way that this film is shot that I found it hard to believe that it is actually a documentary. Yes. It is true.

Perhaps Kurt Russell's finest hour. Certainly his funniest.

Problem Child 2 (1991)

OK, so the acting isn't exactly Al Pacino, and the...

[6/10 · 4 July 1999]

OK, so the acting isn't exactly Al Pacino, and the jokes aren't quite as funny as in Ernie goes to Camp, but that doesn't mean that you have to slate it. I haven't seen this film in years but I still smile when I remember the hilarious scene where everyone is sick, and the bit in which Junior fills the jug with "lemonade". It made me laugh at least, which is a lot more than Shawshank Redemption managed to achieve.

U2: Rattle and Hum (1988)

"It's a musical journey"

[8/10 · 4 July 1999]

Well, at first i wasn't too sure. The acting was a bit wooden, and the plot was almost negligible. But what a soundtrack! Excellent. Those boys from Ireland can really wail. I would have given it 10, but for the lack of actual story, so i ended up giving it 8.

The Thing (1982)

How on earth could it have been improved upon?

[10/10 · 4 July 1999]

It couldn't.

From the cutting dialogue to the super special effects this film was a joy to behold throughout. The immediate feel for the bitterness of the antarctic, the affinity for the characters that is built up at the base level before the real action heats up and the cunning finale combine to make this one of the most memorable and enjoyable films around.

Up against a long list of films that have attempted to exploit the theme of visitors from another planet, The Thing comes out on top and laughing. Who can forget the perfectly timed dialogue and the chilling special effects? Special effects that are a lot more impressive than the computer generated images that we get to see today. I for one found some of the most enjoyable aspects of the film to be the way that we were introduced slowly to each member of the crew, and the way that they all had some distinctive character traits. This wasn't just a senseless bloodbath-come-slasher-horror flick. This film had feeling. Emotion.

I truly can't recommend this film highly enough. I have yet to see anything in it's class that comes anywhere near to matching, let alone bettering, the near perfect acting and timing utilised in this cunning polymesmeric feat of cinema.