Change Your Image
Flash19
Reviews
My New Gun (1992)
A suntle, underrated, and misunderstood midnight classic
This movie is quirky and will not appeal to most people. It's does not contain much in the way of action, there are no special FX, and the plot is down to earth. The film is also mistakenly billed as a comedy and this tends to throw people expecting funny hah hah as in Meet the Parents. This is a subtle black comedy. It's more funny in the same vein as After Hours. In fact anyone that liked After Hours a lot will probably like this too.
There are 2 central characters in the story. Diane Lane plays Debbie Bender a sexy youngish woman married to a stuffy slightly older doctor. I use the term youngish because her character appears to be in that strange zone that is the twilight of youth. Her husband although only slightly older has fully completed to transition to adulthood, is very materialistic, does not respect or acknowledge his wife's intelligence and views her as some sort of a possession / servant.
Jame LeGros plays Skippy a neighbour whos a sort of mid 20s James Dean crossed with Peter Pan type character slightly younger than Debbie... but not much. He's also rebellious - the aging neighbourghood bad boy stuck in a menial job and and still living with his mother obstensibly because he's too broke to get a place of his own but secretly because he has to look after her. Amusingly the Benders both perceive themselves to be much older than Skippy and treat him like the a neighbourhood kid, although deep down you can tell that Debbie perhaps identifies more with Skippy than her husband...
There's a hugely surreal aspect to the film although not as blatant as say Twin Peaks, this is presented is a voyueristic way letting you catch various characters with their guard down and seeing how they behave when they think nobody is watching.
The best part of the film is the sexual tension between Debbie and Skippy as they become thrown together by their vaguely and intentionally hum-drum adventure.
If you like films about the more interesting an amusing parts of real life while exposing some of the quirkier aspects of the human condition and with a crackling of sexual tension then you need to get hold of this.
Great soundtrack too!
To Live and Die in L.A. (1985)
Not a typical 80s Thriller
This flick is not typical 80s material. For starters nobody in it would qualify as a "*** M O V I E S T A R ***". Thta's not a bad thing because back then every second action thriller starred Stallion, Schwartzenposer, Van Dammed, Segull, etc (sic)...
Instead we get real actors for this one.
Second difference is that this is not a flag waving good guys vs bad guys, good guys win plot. No in this one there is a pretty fine line between good and bad with plenty of crossover. And you start to get that unusual feeling (that you don't often get with US films) of uncertainty as to who will come out on top.
Third difference is that the characters are flawed. They make mistakes. Serious ones. Pretty much every character in the film screws up in some way. Think 52 pickup or ransome, only with most of the mistakes perpretated by the good guys. It's not because they are clumsy, just that they are human. This makes the viewer empathise with them.
Fourth difference, the good guys do one very big no-no. You'll see what I mean.
Fifth difference, this comes about 15mins from the end. You'll know it when you see it. You'll think - no, surely that was the other guy. It's fast and sudden, and you are in disbelief for most of the rest of the film... ...that sixth difference goes on another 10 mins after you think it should have ended.
If you like Arnie films then you won't like this. That's probably why it din't do so wll back then. It's doing a lot better now.
I rate it the finest cop type thriller of it's day. It has more in common with James Ellroy that Jerry Brickhammer (sic).
Oh - and the directionis excellent. I give it a 10, and that's on effort alone!
Flash
To Live and Die in L.A. (1985)
Not a typical 80s Thriller
This flick is not typical 80s material. For starters nobody in it would qualify as a "*** M O V I E S T A R ***". Thta's not a bad thing because back then every second action thriller starred Stallion, Schwartzenposer, Van Dammed, Segull, etc (sic)...
Instead we get real actors for this one.
Second difference is that this is not a flag waving good guys vs bad guys, good guys win plot. No in this one there is a pretty fine line between good and bad with plenty of crossover. And you start to get that unusual feeling (that you don't often get with US films) of uncertainty as to who will come out on top.
Third difference is that the characters are flawed. They make mistakes. Serious ones. Pretty much every character in the film screws up in some way. Think 52 pickup or ransome, only with most of the mistakes perpretated by the good guys. It's not because they are clumsy, just that they are human. This makes the viewer empathise with them.
Fourth difference, the good guys do one very big no-no. You'll see what I mean.
Fifth difference, this comes about 15mins from the end. You'll know it when you see it. You'll think - no, surely that was the other guy. It's fast and sudden, and you are in disbelief for most of the rest of the film... ...that sixth difference goes on another 10 mins after you think it should have ended.
If you like Arnie films then you won't like this. That's probably why it din't do so wll back then. It's doing a lot better now.
I rate it the finest cop type thriller of it's day. It has more in common with James Ellroy that Jerry Brickhammer (sic).
Oh - and the directionis excellent. I give it a 10, and that's on effort alone!
Flash
Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998)
Remember that story about the Emporers new clothes?..
...that could be a metaphor for the hype surrounding this - it's the worst British film since 'Big Zapper'. The only time I have been more disappointed was when I rented 'Driller Killer'.
If you locked me in a room with Guy Ritchie, Abel Ferrara, a gun and only one bullet, then afterwards you'd find Guy Ritchie beaten to death :)
After Hours (1985)
We've all had nights like this. Only not quite as bad. It makes you grateful that you are an actual person and not a fictional character!
I must have seen this film over a dozen times. Every time I get something else from it. It's the little touches that do it for me...
...like when Paul is resigning himself into seeking sanctuary with Julie, so he goes to the gents to wash his face, and there on the wall, like a sign from God, is a drawing of a shark eating a mans dick.
There is a big play on sods law, that leaves the viewer empathising with Paul, thinking yes - that did/could/almost happen(ed) to me!
It just keeps on getting blacker and blacker. The rule in general is that everything that can go wrong will and therefore does - only much worse than you anticipated. Even Paul begins to sense this and falls to his knees in the street crying "What do you want from me God, I'm just a Word Processor for Christ's sake!".
Watch what's going on the the background closely (tip - never look away from the screen) the director even does a brief Hitchcock type appearance.
This film is best watched in the dark, the whole atmosphere is similar to the night time sequences in 'Taxi Driver' with the street lights reflecting in the puddles etc.
One of the key points is that the action takes place over a 12-16 hour period, reminiscent of 'Bad Day at Black Rock'. This keeps it tightly paced, and it feels longer than it actually is, but never ever dull!
I can't think of another film that is similar, the only thing that remotely springs to mind is 'American Werewolf in London'.
Not everyone will like this film - and you don't have to like Scorsese films to like this, it's 'Scorsese light'. I personally rate it as the best black comedy I've ever watched, and therefore give it 10/10.