Change Your Image
cspschofield
Reviews
Shootfighter: Fight to the Death (1993)
A likable film, for what it is.
Shootfighter (and its sequel Shootfighter II) can claim only one real distinction; it gives Bolo Yeung a chance to play a good-guy for a change. I happen to like that. Otherwise it is a not- bad example of the 'no-rules tournament' school of martial arts film. The music strikes me as above average, and the acting isn't actually painful, but this isn't deep, significant, or an undiscovered gem of film history. It's a "B" film; an exploitation gig - what Roger Corman would do if he was into punch and kick operas.
Jet Li does this better, and so does Chuck Norris sometimes. Otherwise, you could do a LOT worse.
The Pirates of Penzance (1983)
A great film, but beware!
Gilbert and Sullivan titles, like Shakespeare, are far too easy to do badly. They can fall into 'traditional' ruts that rapidly drain all the life out of them. This is why THIS Pirates of Penzance is such a treat. The production team obviously recognized that the whole story is absurd, and so they had fun with it. They took their work seriously, but not (the kiss of death) pompously. The result is wonderful.
HOWEVER: be warned that there IS a DVD of Pirates of Penzance with ALMOST the same cast. It was filmed/taped on Broadway as part of an archival project while the production that inspired the movie was on stage. IT IS SIMPLY AWFUL!
It may well serve its original purpose as a reference for professionals, but the camera work is so bad as to be almost unwatchable. It totally spoils what looks like it may well have been a charming production - at least I assume it was; it inspired a wonderful film, but you just can't tell from the DVD.
The Lion in Winter (2003)
A pity.
It's a pity that this was made AFTER the film, rather than before it. As a television production of a stage play it holds up reasonably well. As a remake of a classic - and not really very old - film, it constitutes a serious disappointment.
I do not automatically hate remakes. The classic Bela Lugosi Dracula was a remake. So was Charlton Hestion's Ben Hur. The remake of Ocean's Eleven is better than the original, because the stars of the original were goofing off. However, a remake should offer something new over the original. Sound. Color. Special Effects. A great star who has a new interpretation of the old role. Ideally, a remake should have more than one of these things, and - sadly - this one doesn't.
Patrick Stewart does have a new take on Henry ... at least a little. His Henry is less compulsive, more comfortable, less driven. Had Glen Close shifted her Elanor to match the results might have been interesting. Unfortunately Ms. Close gives the impression that she has been watching the original for some months, nonstop. She not so much plays Elanor of Aquitane as she plays Katherine Hepburn playing Elanor. One of the other reviews here remarked that at times you could imagine that Elanor's lines were being spoken by Ms. Hepburn, and that's true but it isn't a plus. Ms. Close delivers her lines very much as Ms. Hepburn did, and if Mr. Stewart had played Henry the way Mr. O'Toole did it might have worked. Since Stewart is not playing Henry in the same way that O'Toole did, the result is somewhat jarring at times.
As for the rest; the young man playing Phillip cannot begin to match the young Timothy Dalton, nor the remake's Richard come close to Hopkins's interpretation. John is a mess, but John is written as a mess in the play, so it is hard to say who to blame. Lastly, Geoffrey lacks the sardonic power of the original. It's too bad.
Sunset (1988)
A Great Fable
'Sunset' is one of Blake Edwards's best; far better than the later Pink Panther films, which documented Peter Sellers's descent into self-parody. It is also, despite some complaints, reasonably accurate, for what it is - an entertainment with some roots in history, for color. Marshal Wyatt Earp did spend some of his last years in Hollywood, and was friends with several silver screen cowboys, including Tom Mix. Mix, in fact, was on of the pall bearers at Earps's funeral.
And Charlie Chaplin, the obvious model for the villain of the film, was a sonuvabitch. He was often gratuitously cruel to people around him, became physically violent with the women in his life on more than one occasion, and eventually had to flee the country for a variety of reasons including his propensity for (slightly) underage girls. He was certainly not a complete psychopath, like the character in the movie, but there is a basis for the fable...just as there is for most of the other points in the film.
People who cannot bear to see 'Chaplin' in any but the most flattering of lights should avoid Sunset....but they should also avoid passing judgment on it. The film succeeds amply at what it sets out to do; tell a thrilling and often funny story about a make believe land called Hollywood in a time when Legends walked the earth.