joshbaileynch Reviews

The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel (2017–2023)

Far from Marvelous

[4/10 · 21 March 2023]

I get that I'm in the minority here, but I found this show incredibly irritating and rarely funny. The idea of focusing on a woman trying to break into the male dominated world of stand-up in late '50s/early '60s New York is a perfectly good one, but the writing and central performance are simply not good enough.

The show clearly thinks its presenting us with a hilarious central character, but in fact she's simply irritating and the only laughs in the show tend to come from the secondary characters surrounding her. The writing is just not good enough, relying on naughty words for punchlines rather than well-worked jokes and Brosnahan (so excellent in 'House of Cards') seems all at sea here - relying on a weird rat-a-tat delivery of lines reminiscent of '30s/'40s screwball comedies, but without the timing or wit of Katherine Hepburn of Cary Grant.

The Jewish family backdrop also feels incredibly lazy, presenting us with a series of tired old stereotypes (the overweening and borderline hysterical Jewish mother; the self-absorbed and martyred Jewish father...). To me the characters were so crudely drawn they felt like they bordered on antisemitic.

Admittedly the production values are sumptuous; the show looks beautiful and must have cost a fortune to realise, but this is nowhere near enough to make up for the deficiencies.

A real shame because there is the seed of a really good idea here.

Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022)

Messy, Reactionary, but Good in Parts

[5/10 · 2 February 2023]

This really is a film of two halves. The first half is great fun - the cast are excellent, there is plenty of visual flair in the direction and some excellent gags are delivered along the way, but beyond its mid-point the narrative discipline disintegrates and the film spirals into a disappointing mess. There's also a real problem with how reactionary this film appears to be in terms of how it represents women.

Part of the problem is simply with the writing. The central conceit of the narrative proves too complex in its implications for the screenwriter to really make any sense of it. Essentially the central character finds herself skipping between alternate realities in a multiverse of infinite possibilities, where she is able to connect to alternate versions of herself in order to tap into skills (martial arts, gymnastics...) developed by her alter egos, and thus fight off a supervillain bent on the destruction of the whole multiverse (or something like that). The mechanics of this process are utterly confused, however. Initially she connects to alternate realities with the aid of a computer operated by allies in parallel world, but when they are wiped out she continues with this power even though the mechanism that makes it possible has apparently been destroyed, leaving us in a world where anything can happen as long as it serves the narrative, Whether it actually follows the narrative rules or not seems to no longer matter. All this is very frustrating - you can't establish rules in a fantasy narrative like this and then show so little concern for them as the narrative develops; its just lazy writing!

Another issue that emerges is the mawkish direction the plotline takes. The second half of the film becomes largely focussed on fixing the dysfunctional relationship between the central character and her husband and estranged daughter. The reconstruction of the divided family is such a tired old trope in cinema and the way they handle it here feels incredibly sentimental, predictable and hugely at odds with the cine-literate wit and invention of the film's first half.

All that is irksome enough, but what bothered me most about the film was its attitudes to gender. Superficially it might seem pretty empowering to have a female protagonist and antagonist as the focus, but this soon unravels to reveal a worryingly traditional/sexist world view. Michelle Yeoh's character is a dissatisfied mother and wife running a traditionally "feminine" business - a laundromat. These traditional limitations on a woman's potential and aspiration are clearly felt as exactly this by the central character, but unlike a film like 'Desperately Seeking Susan' (where resolution is delivered when the heroine rejects and escapes her patriarchal constraints), 'Everything, Everywhere, All at Once' delivers the opposite conclusion/message. Here we celebrate a woman coming to see her desire to break free of the domestic sphere as an unhealthy and unhelpful fantasy. Instead we see her giving up on all her dreams, rejecting her instinct that she could be more, and learning to settle for the very things she is so unhappy with at the start of the film. Is it just me, or is it like the feminist movement never happened?

Certainly worth a watch for the hilarious Jamie Leigh-Curtis and all the fun and invention of the opening forty or fifty minutes, but beyond that don't expect too much and prepare to be at least a little offended.

The Offer (2022)

Don't believe the critics - it's great

[9/10 · 27 August 2022]

For some unfathomable reason the critics seem to have largely hated this miniseries from Paramount. In papers and magazines it has been accused of being empty, cliched, badly written and pointless. Nothing could be further from the truth. The show is beautifully made and the entire cast sparkle - especially Juno Temple and Matthew Goode, whose portrayal of the legendary producer/studio boss Robert Evans is electrifying. It's true that at times the characters speak in cliches, but that's the point, not a failure. The show is, amongst other things, about the dominance of superficial surfaces in Hollywood and a running theme is the idea of how performance is not simply an aspect of cinema/acting, but is part of how all of us deal with the world around us. The fact that characters talk in movie soundbites a lot of the time is simply a reflection of where they are drawing their performances from.

That said, to expect this to be a profound exploration of deep themes and ideas is to misunderstand the point of the show. More than anything this is a joyful romp about arguably the most exciting decade in Hollywood's history - the New Hollywood era when the great studios had ceased to operate as independent companies and became part of large corporations that had no real understanding of the businesses they had added to their port-folios. As a result a slew of great, challenging and very risky films were produced by studio heads like Evans, who ran circles around their corporate bosses and started greenlighting the kinds of films that major studios would hardly ever get behind either before or after.

The series is a kind of love letter to this period. Sure, it plays a little fast and loose with the facts at times, and clearly it's a highly subjective take on events. It's based almost entirely on "Albert Ruddy's experiences" and the show flags this up very clearly at the beginning of each episode, so it's hardly as if anyone is trying to pull the wool over the audience's eyes.

The series was developed by Michael Tolkin, who wrote the book and screenplay for the fantastic 'The Player' - Altman's great and brutal satire about Hollywood in the late 80s/early 90s, so the show's pedigree is pretty impressive.

Trust the audience ratings on this one - it's a joy to watch.

War for the Planet of the Apes (2017)

A Damp Squib

[5/10 · 17 July 2017]

This film starts with a fantastic action set-piece as humans battle apes in a Vietnam-War-movie-style jungle fire-fight. There's real tension in the build-up and then a genuinely exciting burst of action which sets up huge expectations for what will follow. Sadly, this is the film's high-point and from then on the narrative descends into a remarkably sentimental monkey soap opera.

The CGI is certainly extraordinary, especially in the close ups of CG characters - in tight framings the apes really do have a photographic realism to them. The performances are generally good too, whether live action or as a product of performance capture.

It seems a real shame, then, that the narrative slips into such clichéd mawkishness - something particularly evident in the action linked to 'Nova' - a mute human child adopted by the apes to demonstrate (rather clumsily) that the simians are a lot more forgiving and unprejudiced than the horrible human race. There's also the inexplicable introduction of a weird kind of Gollum-monkey; a grey, alopecia- ridden, wide-eyed gumby of a chimp that appears to be there mainly for laughs, though you'd be forgiven for not getting the joke most of the time. One can't help feeling that Andy Serkis (whose Imaginarium Studios were behind the CGI performances) just can't shake off his Lord-of-the- Rings days.

Ultimately, though, the biggest flaw in the film is its failure to deliver on the title's promise. This is far more jaw-jaw than war- war and the film tends to lack the punch and grit that it needs.

Having said all that, there are things to like here and if you enjoyed the first two instalments, then I would certainly suggest you give this a go; just don't believe the hype claiming this is the best in the trilogy - in fact that accolade still belongs to the first in the franchise.

Game of Thrones (2011–2019)

Over-hyped nonsense

[2/10 · 18 June 2014]

Firstly a confession - I hated this TV series so much that I only made it to the end of episode 6 before I gave up - I figured if I couldn't be won over in six hours it was probably never going to happen. Given this fact the reader should be aware that some amazing transformation may have taken place later which make this series far better than I am giving it credit for - though everyone I've spoken to who likes the series thought it was great from the start so I'm guessing the quality (or lack of it) is pretty consistent throughout. My objections? Firstly the writing is terrible - characters speak in this strange and special 'fantasy genre' dialogue which is stiff and comic (when it's not supposed to be) - the series looks cheap and nasty too - sets are often clearly studio bound with weak design, poor lighting and a strangely dated feel - it looks like a 1970/80s BBC Shakespeare production a lot of the time. The series also takes itself far too seriously - the whole thing has a portentous quality and apparently fails utterly to recognise its own silliness. I have absolutely nothing against the fantasy genre - the LOTR books and films are great - but this is a weak addition and I'd recommend avoiding it.

Gravity (2013)

Technically a masterpiece but ultimately a trite story

[7/10 · 13 March 2014]

'Gravity; scores 7 out of 10 purely because cinematically it is such an extraordinary experience. Cuaron and the SFX houses that created the film fully deserve the enormous praise that has been heaped upon them and the slew of awards the film has received are generally well-deserved. It is also worth pointing out that as a 3D experience this film must rank as one of the most successful - I cannot think of an example of a film that has gained more from the use of 3D effects. All this being said, the narrative itself is ultimately a great disappointment. The central plot line about characters trying to survive in apparently impossible circumstances is fine in itself and the action is all very gripping and at times pretty terrifying. The real problems begin to emerge in the last third of the film. Once again we are landed with a wave of Hollywood clichés in terms of character motivation and narrative resolution. Bullock's character is ultimately defined through her role as a grieving mother and as such becomes yet one more example of mainstream cinema's inability to understand women outside traditional domestic and maternal roles. The 'lost child' subplot also leads to the film veering into an only too familiar mawkishness in its final stages - when we should be dealing with interesting themes and action instead we begin to wallow in sentimental clichés that never develop into anything meaningful. This is especially frustrating given that up to this point the film feels like it is beginning to develop a really interesting discussion about death and how we choose to confront our own mortality and insignificance. Sadly the film ultimately does not have the courage of its convictions and we end with a cop-out happy ending in which our bereaved astronaut makes it back to earth, emerging from her womblike spacecraft a woman reborn, shot in low angle and backlit by the sun like some reimagined scene from 'Attack of the Fifty Foot Woman'. In a moment everything that seemed interesting about the film is lost in ludicrously over-played and clichéd imagery and the audience is left with a bad taste in its mouth. Frankly it would have been far better if the film had killed off the character and really confronted death as an inevitable and universal human experience. All this set aside, this is still a film I would strongly recommend - the first two thirds are breathtaking in visual terms - just don't expect much gravity (sorry).

Prometheus (I) (2012)

Stylishly unsatisfying

[5/10 · 11 June 2012]

Let's start with the positives - the production design of this film is absolutely beautiful (as one expects in a Ridley Scott film) and the performances are generally very good. Theron is excellent as the corporate ice-woman, Fassbinder plays David (the robot crew member) with a nice sinister edge (though he's not nearly as worrying as Ian Holme's android in the original 'Alien') and Rapace works well as a far more sympathetic heroine than the one she played in 'Girl with a Dragon Tattoo'. The first half/third of the film works well in building slowly and generating a good deal of eager anticipation in the audience, but in a way this is where the film's problem lies. The film's second half/two thirds lacks the careful pacing and development of its opening section and we veer from something that feels character driven, to a narrative that descends into frantic plot delivery. The 17 man/woman crew of the ship provides too many characters for significant or convincing development and pretty soon characters are making drastic decisions with little real sense of what motivates them. Theron's character is a good case in point - initially she seems an interesting mystery but there is little done to resolve the huge number of questions we might have about her; why is she so hardened? What is her relationship with the corporation? What lies behind her relationship with her father? How come she's so willing to burn a lead member of her crew to a crisp? All these questions are raised, yet none are answered in any convincing or satisfying way. Similar problems emerge with David (Fassbinder) - while Holm's android had a clear set of reasons for his actions in Alien, there is little real sense of this in 'Prometheus'. In short - characters do an awful lot in this film; but don't expect to be given much understanding as to why they do these things other than because the plot wouldn't move on if they didn't.

There's also a real problem with the rather unresolved plot-line which offers an explanation of where the aliens came from in the first place. Giant, albino humanoids apparently have created them as a biological weapon to destroy humanity, but quite why they have done this and how characters in the film arrive at this conclusion is difficult to discern. There's also a dangerously ludicrous ending to the film which may remind some viewers of the frankly ridiculous ending of 'Mission to Mars'.

It's worth checking this film out for the visuals alone, but its no 'Alien', or 'Aliens' for that matter. Personally I'd have preferred a far simpler plot which did not feel the need to explain where the aliens came from in the first place; after all the mystery surrounding their origin is one of the things that makes them frightening

The Secret in Their Eyes (2009)

An allegorical detective story

[15 July 2011]

'The Secret in their Eyes' is, on the whole, a very well constructed film. The direction has real visual flare at times (especially noticeable in the dream-like flash-back that opens the film) and the performances are generally excellent. If one were to be hyper-critical then one might point out the rather invasive use of a highly melodramatic musical score at times, or odd moments where the plot feels clichéd and unbelievable (for instance getting a confession from a rapist by insulting him about the size of his manhood until he becomes so enraged that he forgets himself and admits what he has done). Where the film works best is as an allegory for a troubling Argentinian past. Set in the late 90s, the narrative deals with a man attempting to understand and come to terms with a brutal rape and murder that he was involved in investigating in the early/mid 1970s. This was the time during which the Peron government was over-thrown in Argentina and replaced by a brutal regime which embarked on the "dirty war" against its own people - a time of government sanctioned murder, torture and disappearances. It is easy to see the rape/murder victim as emblematic of both the state and its people during the 1970s. The crime is en expression of the way in which innocence and trust (it is significant that the murderer is in fact known to his victim) were violated and destroyed by a government which betrayed its own population. The film emphasises this by tracing the way in which the legal system itself becomes increasingly corrupted and obstructive of justice with the regime change that came in the '70s. Our liberal and morally decent/responsible hero finds himself increasingly frustrated by judges who attempt to block his investigation and who ultimately free the murderer in order for the government to use him as an assassin in the "dirty war".

All of this is set against the recurring theme of memory and the need to find some kind of catharsis and redemption through exploring and resolving past horrors/trauma. The hero's decision to return to the case twenty five years after the murder suggests a nation that needs to return to its own past in order to put things in their place. This said, the films message is ultimately a positive one - the hero learns the need to not only confront the past, but also to find some accommodation with it so he can move on with his life, which has been held in a kind of limbo (perhaps much like Argentinian society) since the murder took place. This progress is particularly marked by the way in which, at the end of the narrative, he finally takes the plunge and begins a romantic relationship with the woman he has been in love with since his days working on the case in the DA's office. It seems that he (Argentina) can only move on and progress towards more healthy and happy times if he (it) can first confront and recognise the nature of the past; something that is apparently impossible for the victims husband who takes another path - one in which he remains trapped in the horror of the past and whose life effectively ends with the death of his beautiful young wife in the 1970s.

Inception (2010)

Don't believe the hype

[2/10 · 20 July 2010]

Clumsy, derivative, lazily scripted and massively over-long. I know this isn't what most people are saying about Inception but I'm afraid this is the cruel truth about the film. There is simply nothing new here, despite the "originality" everyone has credited the film with. If you've seen The Matrix, Dreamscape, Total Recall, Blade Runner, or Johnny Mnemonic (to name but a few) then there is going to be little here to surprise you. The opening half hour of the film spends its time frantically throwing complex and very clunky exposition at you in a desperate attempt to explain the highly contrived rules of the dreamworlds which provide the backdrop for much of the narrative. The action is there, but as always, Nolan struggles to film it in an exciting way, generally pushing the camera so close to his subject that it is impossible to really make out what is going on. Even the dream worlds in the film are remarkably bland and unimaginative - apparently we all dream as if we are in a Hollywood high-concept film dominated by CGI. The small scale nature of most dreams is nowhere to be found here and nor is any of the fascinating strangeness and mystery associated with dreaming; apparently the subconscious only really expresses itself in our dreams by manifesting itself as a lot of rather tetchy people who try to beat up anyone who invades the dreamer's mind (sound at all like the agents in The Matrix?). There are of course some impressive visual effects along the way (for instance at one point Paris suddenly folds back on itself so that streets run vertically and upside down like something from an M C Escher picture) but these are calculated simply for spectacle and Nolan really misses a trick in picking up the potentially genuinely fascinating subject of dreams and the way in which they link to the fantasy world of films. I'm sure this will be popular with a lot of teenage boys who might be impressed with the cod-philosophy of the film, but if you've seen any of the films listed in the first few lines of this review or if you've read novels by Philip K Dick or William Gibson, you aren't going to find much to engage with here. Massively over-rated, incredibly tedious and a waste of an excellent cast who, in fairness, do the best they can with the dreadful screenplay they were handed.

There Will Be Blood (2007)

Anderson's best film since Hard Eight

[9/10 · 8 July 2008]

If many of the comments here are to be believed then "There Will Be Blood" is an over-long and purposeless mess, but in fact nothing could be further from the truth. The story of Daniel Plainview's rise to power as an oil magnate in the early part of the 20th Century and his running conflict with the tub-thumping preacher Eli Sunday is a timely and incisive examination of one of the battle's that lie at the heart of modern America and exerts a strong influence to this day over the way that nation shapes both itself and the world around it. Essentially what the film examines is the battle between capitalism and the church for influence and power. Plainview represents the oil industry/capitalism and the obsessive greed and Darwinian competition that drives that system. His name is in fact at odds with his personality. On the surface he certainly seems a reasonable - even charming man - who tells it the way it is, but this masks the fact that he is actually little more than driven sociopath and exploiter of both his workers and the penniless farmers he buys his oil rich land from. He is motivated not by a regard for people (whom he admits to his "brother" he hates) or even family (his own son is discarded when his deafness undermines his usefulness and the arrival of Plainview's brother seems to provide a more viable familial substitute) - instead it is the desire to succeed and make money at the expense of others that really drives him. Indeed when offered a the chance to become a millionaire by speculators who wish to buy his operation Plainview refuses because he would not know what to do if he did not have his business to run. The search for profit is for him an existential issue - the thing that makes him what he is - and yet his inability to see any use beyond his business for that profit hints at a kind of built in madness in his brand of capitalism/the American Dream - an ultimate lack of deeper purpose bound to lead to pain and self destruction. In the hands of men like Plainview big business is a ravening beast caught in a blind and vicious circle of consumption, exploitation and expansion.

On some levels the film's title seems to refer to the inevitability of this man (and the system he symbolises) committing horrible acts of violence. Certainly Day-Lewis presents Plainview as a man constantly struggling with his own psychopathic tendencies - his performance is run through with a terrifying undercurrent of violence and rage which seems to bubble just beneath the surface. The main question in the audience's mind here is not whether this man will become a killer, but when this will happen. Indeed, the film's ending confirms this by offering closure at the point that Plainview brutally murders Eli Sunday with bowling paraphernalia - his and the film's final line being "I'm, finished." Like the title it is a loaded phrase - Plainview's/Anderson's narrative is at an end, Plainview's life may well be over when the murder is discovered, but perhaps most significantly the line hints at the idea that Plainview is now completed - has finished his journey by becoming the brutal killer that he has threatened to be throughout the film.

Of course if one looks beyond the surface character then the film offers a wealth of less than flattering commentary on the nature of the capitalist system Plainview embodies. Through the character a portrait is painted of an utterly brutal and self-serving system which sacrifices humanity for cold hard cash - and as such is itself sociopathic and utterly lost in moral terms.

The church fares little better through its representative - Eli Sunday whose crazed rantings before his congregation of desperate and poverty stricken parishioners do little to endear him to the audience. He is also depicted as utterly greedy and exploitative himself. Throughout the film he seeks to use his connections with Plainview as a way to extract money from him - ostensibly for his church but, we feel, really for him. Indeed it is this greed - the sense that in fact the Christian church in the US is itself more motivated by devotion to Mamon than Christ - which ultimately leads to Sunday's demise at the hands of Plainview as he returns to the oil magnate in an attempt to wring more money from him and get him to pay up for the $5000 which Plainview has owed him for what must be decades. The film's bleak ending leaves us with the sense that if anyone has won the battle at the heart of the film (America) it is capitalism, but in the process it has become difficult to distinguish business from church. Both seem motivated by greed are led by mad men and operate on a kind of blind faith which has resulted in them completely losing their way in human terms.

Given we live in a world where oil and religion are two of the biggest forces shaping our world (and hardly for the better given current realities) "There Will Be Blood" has to be one of the most relevant films around.

I Am Legend (2007)

A Wasted Opportunity

[4/10 · 30 June 2008]

Given the post 9/11 currency of stories about a besieged America (Americans) - Cloverfield, The Happening, Diary of the Dead, War of the Worlds etc. etc. - producing a new version of "I Am Legend" (which had already been filmed as "The Last Man on Earth" and "The Omega Man") seemed to present a real chance to do something interesting and relevant. Sadly this interpretation of the excellent source novel really fails to get to grips with the potential relevance of the film's central premise. The film starts well enough with Will Smith's Robert Neville struggling to survive and retain his sanity in an abandoned New York over-run by escaped zoo animals. The first half hour works really well in building the atmosphere of terrifying isolation in a setting normally so associated with the hustle and bustle of 21st Century urban life. Things start to go horribly wrong, though, as the film begins to expose Neville's back story - his failure to save his own wife and daughter from the carnage leading to the apparent extinction of humanity and his struggle to deal with the emotional baggage this heaps on him. There is a trite and mawkish quality to the way in which the character's "personal issues" are set up which is made worse when we are introduced to the zombie style infected who lurk in the dark recesses of the city until night descends. The choice to use CGI for these monsters is a huge mistake - especially given the fantastic quality of special effect make-up these days - and smacks of a laziness so common in Hollywood's more High Concept production these days. Instead of believable and frightening villains we end up with cartoonish creatures reminiscent of the way in which Ang Lee's completely ludicrous Hulk was rendered. What's more the introduction of the mother and child who turn up on Neville's doorstep feels like a simple convenience of plotting which allows him to make the ultimate sacrifice at the end to save them - so exorcising his own culpability for the loss of his wife and child and setting up a tacked on up-beat ending which feels completely out of place against the general atmosphere that the film seems to be trying to establish for the rest of the narrative.

Apart from the opening deer-hunting sequence (where in fairness GCI is actually used to great effect) this film really has only one other thing to recommend it which is the great performance from Neville's German Shepherd. Lassie eat your heart out.

The Kite Runner (2007)

Don't believe the hype

[4/10 · 11 June 2008]

This really is a film of two halves. The first detailing the lives and friendship of two boys (one a privileged Pashtun and the other a down-trodden Hazara) in late 70s Afghanistan before the invasion by the USSR works extremely well. The young actors turn in convincing performances and seeing Afghanistan as it once was throws the present situation there into stark relief.

The real problem comes when we move into the later phase of the story where we join the Pashtun as a man living in America. Ancient debts to his young friend lead him to return to his homeland and it is really at this point that things break down. The central adult character is clearly supposed to be sympathetic, but in fact comes across as wimpish and wallowing in self pity. It is hard to really care for him and one cannot help but feel that the really interesting story is the one we do not get to see - that of his boyhood friend.

Once he returns to Afghanistan the narrative becomes bogged down in a series of highly contrived coincidences. Most remarkably he manages to come across his childhood enemy after all these years almost immediately (even though he is not looking for him), despite the chaos that has since consumed the country. This enables him to confront past demons in a way that is simply too convenient to be credible. The resolution of the narrative is also run through with an awful, mawkish sentimentality which undermines any really serious points the film may be trying to make.

Although it is possible to start seeing characters and the abuses of their lives as symbols of a state which has been torn apart by world politics it is hard to really see this as a film which engages with any wider political discussion. Instead the narrative becomes reduced to one character's emotional journey of self discovery and healing. Unfortunately this character is so dull and wrapped up in himself that it is hard to really become engaged in his story, while opportunities to make a really interesting film about Afghanistan itself are wasted.

The Baby (1973)

Weirdly Wonderful

[7/10 · 6 June 2008]

How can you go too far wrong with a film that centres much of its action around a fully grown man in a nappy!

On many levels this is a mess, and yet it's still utterly fascinating, shocking and very very funny. Could be read as an early feminist backlash film given the way that women feature as utterly exploitative and controlling figures who seem to want to do nothing other than mother and infantalise men. Ted Post's direction is typically rough and ready, though you can see a little of the influence of Peckinpah (for who Post was a regular cinematographer) in the over-blown, lurid quality of the film and the way it tends to handle female characters. It also owes a fair bit to Russ Meyers and other exploitation film makers of the late 60s and early 70s. I highly recommend it - I promise you will never have seen anything quite like this before and you certainly won't see it's like again.

The Sugarland Express (1974)

Spielberg's Forgotten First Film

[9/10 · 6 June 2008]

After the success of Duel (which was really a TV movie) Sugarland Express (Spielberg's first feature film) flopped at the box office, though it received a reasonably warm critical response. In fact this is a great little movie for all kinds of reasons.

If you're interested in Spielberg as a director this is fascinating as it begins to lay out most of the themes that have driven his work ever since - family (especially divided and dysfunctional families), childhood, parenthood, outsiders, America and Americana etc. It's also a really interesting piece in terms of his developing style. This is the first Hollywood film in which panaflex cameras were used allowing Spielberg to produce fantastically elaborate and fluid shots even in the confines of a car (see the superb 360 pan fixed on Ben Johnson's car when he first talks to the Poplins)- a kind of cinematography that has become a hall mark of Spielberg's, as have the rising crane shots and extended tracking shots that pepper the film. Spielberg skies and "God Light" (his term for shafts of light in mist/at night) also feature heavily.

It's also a really interesting if somewhat unrecognised influence on films like Thelma and Louise which seems to lift its basic structure and characters right out of this film. The way Ben Johnson's Captain Tanner equates to Harvey Keitel's police officer in Ridley Scott's film seems particularly close.

Fantastic performances all round too. Johnson, Horne and Atherton (a much under-used actor who has been largely wasted since, playing roles like the self serving journalist in the Die Hard films)particularly shine.

It's also very funny, sad and engaging from beginning to end. Can't recommend this one enough - especially if you're a Spielberg fan.

The Chronicles of Riddick (2004)

A sprawling, incoherent mess

[3/10 · 6 June 2008]

Get's a vote of three because admittedly the production design is very beautiful, but otherwise this film is a huge disappointment. Where Pitch Black (to which it is a sequel) was a simple, taut and highly effective little low budget sci fi horror this is a sprawling incoherent mess. Twohy clearly works far better when limited by a smaller budget. Here he just does not seem to know where he's going. The narrative is muddled and episodic with very little clear sense of how one scene links to the next. The performances are generally wooden with many of the cast simply looking rather embarrassed by the clunking pseudo mythic dialogue they have to spout. You'd need to be a real sci-fi fanatic to get much out of this one (other than a strong sense of irritation).