A young genius (or so we told) wishes to win the science fair by building an atomic bomb. The music swells up, the military are the bad guys and the youth of today is at the rescue. It's well acted, has John Lightgow (which is always a plus), competently directed and never boring or original. The one problem: the film's core idea. Are we really expected to sympathise with an adolescent and a nuclear device as a toy? Even a dim brain would have thought this was the mother of all bad ideas. Screenwriter/director Marshal Brickman must have realised this half way though and all of a sudden our little genius turns his irresponsible idea into an anti-nuclear stance. As a result, he comes across as a self righteous prat. Mind you, he's only young. But imagine what kind of man he'll grow up to be...
Reviews
15 Reviews
The Manhattan Project
(1986)
An atomic bomb at the science fair. What could possibly go wrong.
19 December 2021
The Cable Guy
(1996)
Misunderstood half-thriller
4 March 2013
Steven Kovacks (Matthew Broderick), a designer who just separated from his girlfriend, has cable installed to his new apartment. Enters the quirky and slightly deranged cable guy (Jim Carey) whom then never exits...
A rather simple plot which became in 1996 a very odd and yet pleasurable film indeed. Although following a pretty straight forward structure, the script provides enough background to Jim Carey's character to make of him a lot more than just a run-of-the-mill weirdo while Matthew Broderick aptly counterbalance the excessive title role by a fair performance of the without-a-glitch nice guy of the piece. The constant referencing to TV culture also makes it an entertaining and strangely enough somewhat nostalgic experience. It is quite obvious that a fair amount of improvisation was incorporated to the piece to sometimes great effect (the "Silence of the Lamb" episode anyone?) which I suppose is probably the most effective way to work with someone such as Jim Carey. Curiously however, the main asset of the film also becomes at some point its main shortcoming. This was to Jim Carey what 1994's "The Good Son" was to Macauley Culkin: a departure from their comedic roots to more darker territories, but as opposed to Joseph Ruben's thriller, "The Cable Guy" seems to always hesitate to boldly go as far as its story would allow it to. In Jim Carey's work this is certainly darker than anything he had done up to that point but if this was also supposed to be a thriller then it felt a little bland, the star's antics sometimes overshadowing the actual depth of the story.
Still, don't let this put you off for "The Cable Guy", playfully directed by Ben Stiller, is one of these misunderstood films that are really worth watching for its clever take on the media in general and the hidden harm you find it does to people's mind once stripped off the apparent sense of comfort it is supposed to bring. It might have been done a little too light-heartedly maybe but at least it was done at all. And decently done too. This is a more serious film than it looks at first glance and that alone makes it an interesting one. No masterpiece mind you, but then again, it never pretended to be one. Like many films of that ilk, it was generally trashed upon by critics back then, in this case for its lack of downright slapstick-laugh-out-loud moments (Carey's salary the true reason for the furore) although they also criticized "Ace Ventura: when natures call" for being completely empty, the previous year. Oh well, sometimes one can never win...
A rather simple plot which became in 1996 a very odd and yet pleasurable film indeed. Although following a pretty straight forward structure, the script provides enough background to Jim Carey's character to make of him a lot more than just a run-of-the-mill weirdo while Matthew Broderick aptly counterbalance the excessive title role by a fair performance of the without-a-glitch nice guy of the piece. The constant referencing to TV culture also makes it an entertaining and strangely enough somewhat nostalgic experience. It is quite obvious that a fair amount of improvisation was incorporated to the piece to sometimes great effect (the "Silence of the Lamb" episode anyone?) which I suppose is probably the most effective way to work with someone such as Jim Carey. Curiously however, the main asset of the film also becomes at some point its main shortcoming. This was to Jim Carey what 1994's "The Good Son" was to Macauley Culkin: a departure from their comedic roots to more darker territories, but as opposed to Joseph Ruben's thriller, "The Cable Guy" seems to always hesitate to boldly go as far as its story would allow it to. In Jim Carey's work this is certainly darker than anything he had done up to that point but if this was also supposed to be a thriller then it felt a little bland, the star's antics sometimes overshadowing the actual depth of the story.
Still, don't let this put you off for "The Cable Guy", playfully directed by Ben Stiller, is one of these misunderstood films that are really worth watching for its clever take on the media in general and the hidden harm you find it does to people's mind once stripped off the apparent sense of comfort it is supposed to bring. It might have been done a little too light-heartedly maybe but at least it was done at all. And decently done too. This is a more serious film than it looks at first glance and that alone makes it an interesting one. No masterpiece mind you, but then again, it never pretended to be one. Like many films of that ilk, it was generally trashed upon by critics back then, in this case for its lack of downright slapstick-laugh-out-loud moments (Carey's salary the true reason for the furore) although they also criticized "Ace Ventura: when natures call" for being completely empty, the previous year. Oh well, sometimes one can never win...
Catwoman
(2004)
"What a puuuuuurfect idea!" I'm sorry, come again?
3 March 2013
It's got to take a lot of cheese for DC Comics to discreetly distance itself from one of its if not main then certainly most iconic characters. It took Michelle Pfeiffer's equally iconic portrayal of the Selina Kyle/Cat Woman character in Tim Burton's excellent "Batman Returns" to bring the idea of a Cat Woman film to the forefront. What might have sound like an appealing proposition back in 1992 somehow didn't feel as relevant more than a decade later. And for good reason...
The shy Patience Phillips stumbles upon the dirty secrets of her employer and gets killed for it. Not to worry though since she's brought back to life by some cat/deity of some kind and is reborn as the ballsy Catwoman so she can get an hair do, go shopping, do a bit of clubbing and incidentally find out who killed her and why... Oh and then she meets some generically good looking cop along the way... Vengeance and impossible love story ensues. The end. No, I mean it: the end.
Everything about "Catwoman" smells like left overs, the remains of a Sunday dinner stretched into a Monday casserole, exhausted from having been tried and done so many times before and bloated out of all proportions with stupidity and pointlessness so the script would be slightly thicker than a RSPCA leaflet. It would be very difficult to single out one particularly bad aspect of "Catwoman" from another as they are effectively interwoven into a complete disaster. This is such a formulaic Hollywood product that everything about its story (or lack of thereof) mired with plot holes the size of Australia is already known to whoever has ever watched a film before. Worse of all, it is so stereotypically marketed (even through its soundtrack) that all that was missing was Halle Berry snapping her fingers while saying to Sharon Stone "huh huh! No you don't girlfriend!". The performances of its cast is made of sheer non-commitment, an acute disaffection that is both understandable judging by the overall bêtise of the piece and insulting considering that people had to pay to see it. Last but certainly not least, the faux gloss of its CGI effects and the posturing of most of its camera works all conspire to hide the general lack of depth but actually manage to raise the bar of ugliness to brand new heights. So much so that it would be difficult to believe that it was all accidental.
It boggles the mind to think that Halle Berry could have ever thought "Catwoman" to be a good career move. Witnessing her, dressed for the oldest profession, struggling to act through this aimless debacle, the word "trapped" springs to mind. Was this some contractual obligations? What is certain here is that artistic integrity took a back seat after enough zeros were laid down on a cheque.
The shy Patience Phillips stumbles upon the dirty secrets of her employer and gets killed for it. Not to worry though since she's brought back to life by some cat/deity of some kind and is reborn as the ballsy Catwoman so she can get an hair do, go shopping, do a bit of clubbing and incidentally find out who killed her and why... Oh and then she meets some generically good looking cop along the way... Vengeance and impossible love story ensues. The end. No, I mean it: the end.
Everything about "Catwoman" smells like left overs, the remains of a Sunday dinner stretched into a Monday casserole, exhausted from having been tried and done so many times before and bloated out of all proportions with stupidity and pointlessness so the script would be slightly thicker than a RSPCA leaflet. It would be very difficult to single out one particularly bad aspect of "Catwoman" from another as they are effectively interwoven into a complete disaster. This is such a formulaic Hollywood product that everything about its story (or lack of thereof) mired with plot holes the size of Australia is already known to whoever has ever watched a film before. Worse of all, it is so stereotypically marketed (even through its soundtrack) that all that was missing was Halle Berry snapping her fingers while saying to Sharon Stone "huh huh! No you don't girlfriend!". The performances of its cast is made of sheer non-commitment, an acute disaffection that is both understandable judging by the overall bêtise of the piece and insulting considering that people had to pay to see it. Last but certainly not least, the faux gloss of its CGI effects and the posturing of most of its camera works all conspire to hide the general lack of depth but actually manage to raise the bar of ugliness to brand new heights. So much so that it would be difficult to believe that it was all accidental.
It boggles the mind to think that Halle Berry could have ever thought "Catwoman" to be a good career move. Witnessing her, dressed for the oldest profession, struggling to act through this aimless debacle, the word "trapped" springs to mind. Was this some contractual obligations? What is certain here is that artistic integrity took a back seat after enough zeros were laid down on a cheque.
The Room
(2003)
"I DID NAAAAGHT! Oh hi, Mark."
28 January 2013
Johnny, a man thanks to whom a bank makes lots of money, did not get his promotion but he's way too busy trying to be American by throwing footballs around at any given opportunity to really mind that. And he's also about to get married to Lisa who's in some computer business of some kind but she's having an affair with Mark, Johnny's best friend, who does not want to hurt Johnny but clearly can't help himself. Danny, Johnny and Lisa's young sexually confused neighbour who has problems of his own somewhat related to drugs and football fetching, doesn't suspect a thing although he's always hovering about and is also in love with Lisa but would rather watch Lisa and Johnny in bed when he's not fetching Johnny's balls. The only person who knows what is afoot between Johnny and Lisa is Lisa's mother who begs her daughter to come to her senses but in vain since no one listens to her and... she's dying... since she DEFINITELY has breast cancer (which is okay since "they're curing people everyday"). Confused? Well don't be...
And welcome to the wondrous world of "The Room". This is a world from the breathtaking lack of imagination of Tommy Wiseau, the least appealing man ever to walk this Earth; a world where people play football in tuxedo, have the same conversations again and again due to their 5 minutes memory, make babies by humping belly buttons in the middle of rose petals and finally enter and exit places without any other reason than to do just that.
Indeed, this is probably one of the worst film ever made but as opposed to any other cinematic turd, this one is hardly ever dull (except for the "sex" scenes maybe), the aimless plot driven through one stupidity to the other by the on-par grammar-school writing delivering gems galore ("I'm so happy I have you as my best friend and I love Lisa so much", "I'm tired. I'm wasted. I love you darling"), the final broth served by inept performances (for want of a better word) from its cast. This is truly the most inspired disaster ever committed to screen.
But what I find the most interesting about the "The Room" is its maker Tommy Wiseau. "The Room" is a window into his confused psyche because make no mistake folks: Tommy IS Johnny. And what are we told about Johnny? Well that "he's very caring about the people in his life", provides for his girlfriend, "is very sensitive", "doesn't drink", "has a very secure situation" and has nice pecs. Quite a catch wouldn't you say ladies? On paper possibly... Because everything about his persona seems phoney: his accent which is a mix of anyone's that ever walk this planet whom couldn't speak English, his over-sized suit, his dark, long and way too greasy hair, his geriatric body posture, his re-shaped and re-muddled face and, above all, his completely dry and humourless laughter (and not in a sarcastic way either). Such a penchant for dissimulation is downright creepy and I must admit, the physical repulsion he exerts on me is the stuff fascination is made of.
The fact that "The Room" has gathered such a cult following is no surprise. In the oh-so jaded times we're living in, celebrating the mediocre, talentless and pointless have become all the rage with the recipient of the mockery confusing infamy with fame. There is something both pathetic and a little unsettling about how Tommy Wiseau regards the cynical interests his movie has attracted for a genuine recognition of his talent.
Mind you, I suppose Mr Wiseau can take pride in the fact that "The Room" will go down in Cinema history. But as what?
And welcome to the wondrous world of "The Room". This is a world from the breathtaking lack of imagination of Tommy Wiseau, the least appealing man ever to walk this Earth; a world where people play football in tuxedo, have the same conversations again and again due to their 5 minutes memory, make babies by humping belly buttons in the middle of rose petals and finally enter and exit places without any other reason than to do just that.
Indeed, this is probably one of the worst film ever made but as opposed to any other cinematic turd, this one is hardly ever dull (except for the "sex" scenes maybe), the aimless plot driven through one stupidity to the other by the on-par grammar-school writing delivering gems galore ("I'm so happy I have you as my best friend and I love Lisa so much", "I'm tired. I'm wasted. I love you darling"), the final broth served by inept performances (for want of a better word) from its cast. This is truly the most inspired disaster ever committed to screen.
But what I find the most interesting about the "The Room" is its maker Tommy Wiseau. "The Room" is a window into his confused psyche because make no mistake folks: Tommy IS Johnny. And what are we told about Johnny? Well that "he's very caring about the people in his life", provides for his girlfriend, "is very sensitive", "doesn't drink", "has a very secure situation" and has nice pecs. Quite a catch wouldn't you say ladies? On paper possibly... Because everything about his persona seems phoney: his accent which is a mix of anyone's that ever walk this planet whom couldn't speak English, his over-sized suit, his dark, long and way too greasy hair, his geriatric body posture, his re-shaped and re-muddled face and, above all, his completely dry and humourless laughter (and not in a sarcastic way either). Such a penchant for dissimulation is downright creepy and I must admit, the physical repulsion he exerts on me is the stuff fascination is made of.
The fact that "The Room" has gathered such a cult following is no surprise. In the oh-so jaded times we're living in, celebrating the mediocre, talentless and pointless have become all the rage with the recipient of the mockery confusing infamy with fame. There is something both pathetic and a little unsettling about how Tommy Wiseau regards the cynical interests his movie has attracted for a genuine recognition of his talent.
Mind you, I suppose Mr Wiseau can take pride in the fact that "The Room" will go down in Cinema history. But as what?
Drive
(I) (2011)
Quite a ride
26 January 2013
I've avoided "Drive" for as long as I could. Although most of the reviews I've read or what I've heard from friends were unanimously positive, they often mentioned in passing, almost as an afterthought, its rather graphic violence. For a horror movie buff, I have turned rather squeamish of realistic violence in my mature days and "Drive"'s brutal reputation had made me quite apprehensive about it. After incessant recommendations from my friend Rory (a movie buff by my own heart), claiming loud and clear that it was possibly one of the best films of 2011 and that I was bound to love it, I eventually surrendered, took a deep breath, sat down and watched it...
The Driver (Ryan Gosling), stuntman, mechanic and driver to stickups (not necessarily in that order) gets in serious trouble (read Mafia type of serious trouble) when helping the recently released from prison husband of his beautiful neighbour (Carey Mulligan) with whom he just fell in love.
Considering the genre its story belongs to, "Drive" defies all expectations. This film has a very broody quality, dreamlike almost, with its languid slow motion sequences and elegant but never demonstrative camera work, the proceedings soaked with a beautifully contemplative soundtrack. Although unusual for that specific genre, the style of this film no longer surprised me when I realised that director Nicolas Winding Refn was also at the helm of 2003 psychological thriller "Fear X", equally gorgeous and ruminative in its execution.
The oh-so-dreaded violence is indeed rather graphic and all the more startling as it irrupts, usually unannounced, in the otherwise narcotised tone of the film. But the violence is never superfluous as it is a necessary part of the plot nor it is glamorised in any way as it casts away our anti-hero from the only person he truly cares about. It did however make me wince a couple of time so be warned.
Ryan Gosling is very good as a man who is all introverted emotions and consequently deeply out of touch with the world around, his calm demeanour belying the brutality he's capable of. By contrast Carey Mulligan brings delicate beauty and restrained suffering to her character and the scenes she and Gosling share are tender and discreetly moving, which is to say without being naive nor syrupy.
All in all, "Drive" was indeed a hell of a ride. And this is a ride I wouldn't mind taking again.
Damn! Rory was right!
The Driver (Ryan Gosling), stuntman, mechanic and driver to stickups (not necessarily in that order) gets in serious trouble (read Mafia type of serious trouble) when helping the recently released from prison husband of his beautiful neighbour (Carey Mulligan) with whom he just fell in love.
Considering the genre its story belongs to, "Drive" defies all expectations. This film has a very broody quality, dreamlike almost, with its languid slow motion sequences and elegant but never demonstrative camera work, the proceedings soaked with a beautifully contemplative soundtrack. Although unusual for that specific genre, the style of this film no longer surprised me when I realised that director Nicolas Winding Refn was also at the helm of 2003 psychological thriller "Fear X", equally gorgeous and ruminative in its execution.
The oh-so-dreaded violence is indeed rather graphic and all the more startling as it irrupts, usually unannounced, in the otherwise narcotised tone of the film. But the violence is never superfluous as it is a necessary part of the plot nor it is glamorised in any way as it casts away our anti-hero from the only person he truly cares about. It did however make me wince a couple of time so be warned.
Ryan Gosling is very good as a man who is all introverted emotions and consequently deeply out of touch with the world around, his calm demeanour belying the brutality he's capable of. By contrast Carey Mulligan brings delicate beauty and restrained suffering to her character and the scenes she and Gosling share are tender and discreetly moving, which is to say without being naive nor syrupy.
All in all, "Drive" was indeed a hell of a ride. And this is a ride I wouldn't mind taking again.
Damn! Rory was right!
Being There
(1979)
The last performance
21 January 2013
Long before Forrest Gump there was another simple man who changed the world he lived in. Not by design of course but by simply being there. Written by Jerzy Kozinski from his own novel and beautifully directed by Hal Ashby "Being There" tells the story of Chance, a simpleton gardener who has never been allowed out of the house in which he has lived in and worked for all his life. When the "old man" who owns the house passes away, Chance is then forced to leave and face the outside world where his innocence and simplicity are mistaken for financial savvy and wisdom with a penchant for gardening metaphors.
Hal Ashby, one of the most underestimated director of the New Hollywood period delivered in its tail end (1979) this little gem which I watched, caught between bouts of laughter and consternation; each and every single cringe induced not by Chance but the inability of the people who meet him to see the man for what he truly is. Chance never claims (quite literally) to be anything is not and only people's assumptions propel this film from one absurdity to the next, and in the midst of all this, Chance strolls along, innocent, detached and somewhat weightless, to a quiet conclusion where the world keeps on guessing and plotting.
And so, Hal Ashby pokes gentle fun at the establishment through his characters' delusions and, for some, the frenzy they get themselves into but he and Kozinski never let any political stance overshadow a story which in nature is both heart-warming and melancholic. What the film boils down to is however jaded and so-called sophisticated people are, in their heart of hardened hearts, they all are ultimately attracted, in some way or the other, to the simplicity, the kindness and the innocence of Chance the gardener.
Needless to say Peter Sellers' performance is absolutely incredible given the fact that it is so subdued, delicate and seemingly effortless. This was his last performance and it is truly the stuff of legend. Shirley McLaine is equally amazing in her comedic timing as a wife soon to be widow finding solace and romance in Chance's soft approach to life in general.
In the end, this is both an emotional comedy and a light-hearted drama. This defies labels. This is a work of sheer brilliance from Hal Ashby, and an astounding conclusion to Peter Sellers' incredible career.
Hal Ashby, one of the most underestimated director of the New Hollywood period delivered in its tail end (1979) this little gem which I watched, caught between bouts of laughter and consternation; each and every single cringe induced not by Chance but the inability of the people who meet him to see the man for what he truly is. Chance never claims (quite literally) to be anything is not and only people's assumptions propel this film from one absurdity to the next, and in the midst of all this, Chance strolls along, innocent, detached and somewhat weightless, to a quiet conclusion where the world keeps on guessing and plotting.
And so, Hal Ashby pokes gentle fun at the establishment through his characters' delusions and, for some, the frenzy they get themselves into but he and Kozinski never let any political stance overshadow a story which in nature is both heart-warming and melancholic. What the film boils down to is however jaded and so-called sophisticated people are, in their heart of hardened hearts, they all are ultimately attracted, in some way or the other, to the simplicity, the kindness and the innocence of Chance the gardener.
Needless to say Peter Sellers' performance is absolutely incredible given the fact that it is so subdued, delicate and seemingly effortless. This was his last performance and it is truly the stuff of legend. Shirley McLaine is equally amazing in her comedic timing as a wife soon to be widow finding solace and romance in Chance's soft approach to life in general.
In the end, this is both an emotional comedy and a light-hearted drama. This defies labels. This is a work of sheer brilliance from Hal Ashby, and an astounding conclusion to Peter Sellers' incredible career.
Starship Troopers: Invasion
(2012)
And one more entry...
12 January 2013
There is here very little added to Paul Verhoeven's misunderstood masterpiece. In fact the Johnny Rico, Carmen Ibanez and Carl Jenkins characters and even Basil Poledouris's theme tune are all back to join in a new group of tough-as-nail marines sent to rescue the survivors of Fort Casey and destroy the bug hive upon which the fort has been built. I won't be revealing too much by saying that things won't go according to plan and they'll end up trying to prevent a bug invasion on Earth.
This Japanese take on Robert A. Heinlein mythology more or less try to replicate Verhoeven's 1994 blockbuster with mixed results. It is action packed, standing proudly shoulders to shoulders with the crazy Dutchman in terms of violence, and with barely no slowing down in the pace. Needless to say, the notion of characterization is here merely academic which I don't think was the point of the film to begin with so that can be excused I suppose. However this makes this movie a confusing experience at times for so many male characters actually looking very much alike while sharing a similar type of voice.
But for me, the main let down however reside in the fact that I couldn't shake the impression of watching a video game with its many levels: a very brief explanation of the mission is followed by a shooting session to the next brief explanation of the next mission and so on and so forth, making the feeble attempts of humanization of its synthetic characters laughable.
In the end, the resulting piece becomes a series of interchangeable battles devoid of any emotional impact. At best, it might entertain a certain target audience for a short while but I wage it will certainly be quickly forgotten by almost everyone.
This Japanese take on Robert A. Heinlein mythology more or less try to replicate Verhoeven's 1994 blockbuster with mixed results. It is action packed, standing proudly shoulders to shoulders with the crazy Dutchman in terms of violence, and with barely no slowing down in the pace. Needless to say, the notion of characterization is here merely academic which I don't think was the point of the film to begin with so that can be excused I suppose. However this makes this movie a confusing experience at times for so many male characters actually looking very much alike while sharing a similar type of voice.
But for me, the main let down however reside in the fact that I couldn't shake the impression of watching a video game with its many levels: a very brief explanation of the mission is followed by a shooting session to the next brief explanation of the next mission and so on and so forth, making the feeble attempts of humanization of its synthetic characters laughable.
In the end, the resulting piece becomes a series of interchangeable battles devoid of any emotional impact. At best, it might entertain a certain target audience for a short while but I wage it will certainly be quickly forgotten by almost everyone.
North
(1994)
Reiner's runt
11 January 2013
North (Elijah Wood), a bright and talented eleven year old boy (or so we're told) who clearly never had to go hungry but whose parents are so preoccupied with their career that they don't let him speak at the dinner table to dispense the wisdom his many gifts have bequeathed him (speaking of child-abuse), decide to "divorce" them and find himself a new set of parents more appreciative of his talents. Consequently, he meets a bunch of wannabe quirky characters who all desperately want to adopt him and is being helped along the way by his "guardian angel" (Bruce Willis).
I've never really been one to join in on a mob. Crowds generally make me nervous and I usually regard any gathering of any kind with a healthy dose of suspicion. So jumping on any bandwagon just isn't me. Furthermore, I've always had a soft spot for the underdog, the ugly duckling, the universally vilified, always finding redeeming features to features that usually can't be redeemed. So obviously, when I heard of "North", the 1994 comedy from director Rob Reiner, with its stellar cast and very bad reputation, I was intrigued. Reiner has always been a director with a rather good track record, his movies usually ranging from decent to excellent. So how bad could "North" be? Or more accurately put: how does a bad Rob Reiner film look like?
Well... "North" is a film that constantly struggles to find its audience and eventually fails to find any. As a film for adults, the "philosophical" narration provided by Bruce Willis never succeeds to soften the absurdity of the plot and as a film for children the whole thing is riddled with off-colour jokes and somewhat waspish clichés that make this spectacle quite inappropriate for that particular target audience. But where "North" really goes south is that failing to have a single joke that work, the film goes for the jugular and turns downright crass (the Hawaiian episode springs to mind, in that respect).
Of course, one could argue that the film has its heart beating at the right place (like any other Rob Reiner film) and was simply a misguided effort but not quite. The fact of the matter is that "North" is never funny (which in itself is pure torture for a so-called comedy) but offensive and ultimately mean-spirited through its boring stereotypes and its attempts at poking fun at somewhat dodgy subjects, going as far as insulting the audience's intelligence with truck loads of ludicrous and stupid characters, the main villain here chief suspect among these, deserving of a good spanking before being sent to bed without dessert... for life.
I so wanted to like this film, if only for the fact that it was generally reviled by everyone, which I admit is rather obnoxious of me. But I simply can't and must add my voice to the sound of the crowd as the song goes. Is "North" the worse film ever made? Well, I've certainly seen a lot worse. But somehow, thinking of it I feel like punching something. So that can't be good...
I've never really been one to join in on a mob. Crowds generally make me nervous and I usually regard any gathering of any kind with a healthy dose of suspicion. So jumping on any bandwagon just isn't me. Furthermore, I've always had a soft spot for the underdog, the ugly duckling, the universally vilified, always finding redeeming features to features that usually can't be redeemed. So obviously, when I heard of "North", the 1994 comedy from director Rob Reiner, with its stellar cast and very bad reputation, I was intrigued. Reiner has always been a director with a rather good track record, his movies usually ranging from decent to excellent. So how bad could "North" be? Or more accurately put: how does a bad Rob Reiner film look like?
Well... "North" is a film that constantly struggles to find its audience and eventually fails to find any. As a film for adults, the "philosophical" narration provided by Bruce Willis never succeeds to soften the absurdity of the plot and as a film for children the whole thing is riddled with off-colour jokes and somewhat waspish clichés that make this spectacle quite inappropriate for that particular target audience. But where "North" really goes south is that failing to have a single joke that work, the film goes for the jugular and turns downright crass (the Hawaiian episode springs to mind, in that respect).
Of course, one could argue that the film has its heart beating at the right place (like any other Rob Reiner film) and was simply a misguided effort but not quite. The fact of the matter is that "North" is never funny (which in itself is pure torture for a so-called comedy) but offensive and ultimately mean-spirited through its boring stereotypes and its attempts at poking fun at somewhat dodgy subjects, going as far as insulting the audience's intelligence with truck loads of ludicrous and stupid characters, the main villain here chief suspect among these, deserving of a good spanking before being sent to bed without dessert... for life.
I so wanted to like this film, if only for the fact that it was generally reviled by everyone, which I admit is rather obnoxious of me. But I simply can't and must add my voice to the sound of the crowd as the song goes. Is "North" the worse film ever made? Well, I've certainly seen a lot worse. But somehow, thinking of it I feel like punching something. So that can't be good...
Deadly Eyes
(1982)
Old grounds worth treading once.
19 December 2012
A pack of rats get very large, super-vicious and smart(er?) after eating a load of corn ready for shipment but somehow laced with steroids. Teacher, single father and lady magnet Paul Harris (Sam Groom) pairs up in all sense of the term with health official, independent woman and man eater entrepreneur Kelly Leonard (Sara Botsford) to save the city.
Very loosely based on James Herbert's first novel, "The Rats" also known under the daft moniker "Deadly Eyes" is a simple yet adroitly crafted horror b movie. There are very little surprises here: the black token character (Scatman Crothers in an all too brief appearance sadly), the stupid canon-fodder teenagers, the old guy who knows about the threat in question are all present in the mix.
But that doesn't mean it's all bad, mind you. In fact, there's plenty to keep an 80's horror fan entertained. First and foremost the acting is actually pretty decent although the characters are under developed. The gore ratio is adequate; the attack of the cinema set piece (replacing the novel's horrific attack of the train) throwing some serious punches in that regard. The rats themselves (dogs in rat suits as you probably already know) are a bit of a mixed bag, being equally odd, creepy and grotesque.
It is fair to assume that the film got better with time, its 80's origins giving it THAT particular lustre which current horror films often try to replicate (or so they claim) but hardly ever achieve. It certainly isn't earth shattering work and should be avoided by James Herbert's hard core fans at all cost. But if, like my little self, you're an 80's horror film buff then this could be a worthy addition to your collection (if you manage to get your hand on it, that is).
Very loosely based on James Herbert's first novel, "The Rats" also known under the daft moniker "Deadly Eyes" is a simple yet adroitly crafted horror b movie. There are very little surprises here: the black token character (Scatman Crothers in an all too brief appearance sadly), the stupid canon-fodder teenagers, the old guy who knows about the threat in question are all present in the mix.
But that doesn't mean it's all bad, mind you. In fact, there's plenty to keep an 80's horror fan entertained. First and foremost the acting is actually pretty decent although the characters are under developed. The gore ratio is adequate; the attack of the cinema set piece (replacing the novel's horrific attack of the train) throwing some serious punches in that regard. The rats themselves (dogs in rat suits as you probably already know) are a bit of a mixed bag, being equally odd, creepy and grotesque.
It is fair to assume that the film got better with time, its 80's origins giving it THAT particular lustre which current horror films often try to replicate (or so they claim) but hardly ever achieve. It certainly isn't earth shattering work and should be avoided by James Herbert's hard core fans at all cost. But if, like my little self, you're an 80's horror film buff then this could be a worthy addition to your collection (if you manage to get your hand on it, that is).
Private Dicks: Men Exposed
(1999 TV Movie)
Decent documentary
13 July 2011
Saying that penises are no longer such a big deal might be true but for a man to talk about his own penis, its ups and downs (no pun intended... wait! on second thought...) and his own relationship with it, now that's a different ball game all together. The very subject of this documentary is still very taboo among men and finding such a candid, fun, mature and, well, enlightening take on it is down right refreshing. Each and everyone interviewed has his own perception on the subject. Therefore this documentary offered a wide spectrum of stand points which highlights one conclusion: there is no right or wrong answers. Every men could relate to their own opinions/self here and many women/men could recognise their own husbands/lovers too. This may not be Earth shattering work but it certainly deserves some attention and in fact could potentially be quite helpful to some. Once again HBO dared...
Dune
(1984)
So what about a director's cut?
9 July 2009
I read "Dune" in 1984, prior to watching David Lynch's adaptation but with his film's visuals in mind (thanks to the magazines of the time). I fell in love with the book (of course) and soon after with the movie.
Problems during the course of its production, unwise (if not poor) decisions regarding its visual effects and the pressure of condensing a very complex material in 2 hours mark all conspired against the quality of the piece, the main victims here being the story telling (which is really not great) and the pace (which is somewhat unbalanced and even clumsy).
But despite of all its major flaws, I believe that David Lynch's film remains a unique piece of cinema for which a major re-assessment is long overdue and much needed.
Lynch is a creator-director renowned for its vivid and otherworldly imageries and "Dune" is no exception. In fact the film is full of striking moments (Princess Irulan's opening sequence, the visit of the 3rd stage Navigator to the Emperor, the Harkonnens first introduction, the Atreides ships entering the immense Guild high liners etc...).
Its design in general makes it a fascinating picture to watch. The sets were sumptuous (even by today's standards), the costumes superb and varied, Freddie Francis's photography outstanding and the extraordinary all-star ensemble cast provided some wonderful and memorable performances.
"Dune" might not be flashy and "futuristically" demonstrative (quite the contrary in fact) which actually add to its charms but it is all gravitas and nobility, unconventional, challenging, strange and... (well okay, granted:) intellectual. These were some of the reasons why the movie was almost universally paned upon its release (ironically by the very same critics that would complain about the formulaic and predictable nature of Hollywood films).
The movie simply fell victim of the expectations as it did not come out as the pop-corn blockbuster some quarters have expected back then (which in itself is very strange considering the tone of the original material and the very nature of the director).
Whether one love(d) or loathe(d) this film, "Dune" could hardly be accused of being banal or clichéd now, could it? For its defence the film main merit is to exist at all. "Dune" is a book that cannot be adapted effectively (as proved years later by its somewhat insipid TV adaptation) and yet the film is there in all its beauty and relative failure.
As noted in some other reviews on here, the TV version of the film which was atrociously re-cut and CRIMINALLY re-framed, boasts however some never seen before footages and scenes that could have benefited the movie if only producer Dino de Laurentiis had agreed to release a three hours epic.
Hey! There's an idea! Wouldn't that be cool if David Lynch was granted a director's cut? I know that would sure make me a happy bunny. And I also know that there are some of you out there that would agree...
Problems during the course of its production, unwise (if not poor) decisions regarding its visual effects and the pressure of condensing a very complex material in 2 hours mark all conspired against the quality of the piece, the main victims here being the story telling (which is really not great) and the pace (which is somewhat unbalanced and even clumsy).
But despite of all its major flaws, I believe that David Lynch's film remains a unique piece of cinema for which a major re-assessment is long overdue and much needed.
Lynch is a creator-director renowned for its vivid and otherworldly imageries and "Dune" is no exception. In fact the film is full of striking moments (Princess Irulan's opening sequence, the visit of the 3rd stage Navigator to the Emperor, the Harkonnens first introduction, the Atreides ships entering the immense Guild high liners etc...).
Its design in general makes it a fascinating picture to watch. The sets were sumptuous (even by today's standards), the costumes superb and varied, Freddie Francis's photography outstanding and the extraordinary all-star ensemble cast provided some wonderful and memorable performances.
"Dune" might not be flashy and "futuristically" demonstrative (quite the contrary in fact) which actually add to its charms but it is all gravitas and nobility, unconventional, challenging, strange and... (well okay, granted:) intellectual. These were some of the reasons why the movie was almost universally paned upon its release (ironically by the very same critics that would complain about the formulaic and predictable nature of Hollywood films).
The movie simply fell victim of the expectations as it did not come out as the pop-corn blockbuster some quarters have expected back then (which in itself is very strange considering the tone of the original material and the very nature of the director).
Whether one love(d) or loathe(d) this film, "Dune" could hardly be accused of being banal or clichéd now, could it? For its defence the film main merit is to exist at all. "Dune" is a book that cannot be adapted effectively (as proved years later by its somewhat insipid TV adaptation) and yet the film is there in all its beauty and relative failure.
As noted in some other reviews on here, the TV version of the film which was atrociously re-cut and CRIMINALLY re-framed, boasts however some never seen before footages and scenes that could have benefited the movie if only producer Dino de Laurentiis had agreed to release a three hours epic.
Hey! There's an idea! Wouldn't that be cool if David Lynch was granted a director's cut? I know that would sure make me a happy bunny. And I also know that there are some of you out there that would agree...
The Gathering
(2002)
Has Christina been forced to do it?
21 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I found my copy of "The Gathering" in a shop in Amsterdam (as the movie was not available in the U.K. at the time) and was truly excited by the prospect of finally watching it comfortably sat at home. Why? Because of the quite exciting premise of course!
A church from the 1st century depicting the crucifixion through an unusual angle (from behind) is uncovered in the English West country. Simultaneously, Cassie Grant, an American drifter gets hit by a car and looses her memory. Settling down temporally with the car driver, her husband and two children, Cassie is assaulted by a series of visions and nightmares while being quite obviously watched by strangers; strangers bearing strong resemblance to the bas-reliefs on the walls of the newly uncovered church. Soon, Cassie discovers that those strangers are The Gathering, willing witnesses of the human tragedies and miseries
Now how's that for promising? And sadly that is where the excitement ends, pretty much.
Where "The Gathering" could have benefited from a more punchy direction, Brian Gilbert, obviously inexperienced in the genre, blandly illustrates his script without much of a spark of passion for its interesting concept.
The results turns what could have been an exciting and unique horror movie into a somewhat run of the mill supernatural thriller (as directors like to call their films when embarrassed by the "horror" tag).
Anne Dudley's score is pretty decent although flirting too much with Jerry Goldsmith's partition for "Basic Instinct" at times.
The whole cast is doing a pretty good job except for Christina Ricci and there lies the main problem. The movie would have definitely benefited from being an all around British production rather than a simple vehicle for its lead actress. Therefore, exit any possibility of subversive or challenging ideas (and considering its original concept there could have been plenty) since the movie is just and ONLY a commercial venture.
In that respect, the final scene where Christina's redeeming her character through that "little-girl-that-once-witnessed-something-terrible" little story is down right ridicule.
Actually, it wouldn't have been that terrible if she had seemed to care about it at all. But Ricci SO obviously doesn't that it quickly becomes embarrassing watching her insipid performance all throughout.
Either that or she's actually not that a good actress.
A church from the 1st century depicting the crucifixion through an unusual angle (from behind) is uncovered in the English West country. Simultaneously, Cassie Grant, an American drifter gets hit by a car and looses her memory. Settling down temporally with the car driver, her husband and two children, Cassie is assaulted by a series of visions and nightmares while being quite obviously watched by strangers; strangers bearing strong resemblance to the bas-reliefs on the walls of the newly uncovered church. Soon, Cassie discovers that those strangers are The Gathering, willing witnesses of the human tragedies and miseries
Now how's that for promising? And sadly that is where the excitement ends, pretty much.
Where "The Gathering" could have benefited from a more punchy direction, Brian Gilbert, obviously inexperienced in the genre, blandly illustrates his script without much of a spark of passion for its interesting concept.
The results turns what could have been an exciting and unique horror movie into a somewhat run of the mill supernatural thriller (as directors like to call their films when embarrassed by the "horror" tag).
Anne Dudley's score is pretty decent although flirting too much with Jerry Goldsmith's partition for "Basic Instinct" at times.
The whole cast is doing a pretty good job except for Christina Ricci and there lies the main problem. The movie would have definitely benefited from being an all around British production rather than a simple vehicle for its lead actress. Therefore, exit any possibility of subversive or challenging ideas (and considering its original concept there could have been plenty) since the movie is just and ONLY a commercial venture.
In that respect, the final scene where Christina's redeeming her character through that "little-girl-that-once-witnessed-something-terrible" little story is down right ridicule.
Actually, it wouldn't have been that terrible if she had seemed to care about it at all. But Ricci SO obviously doesn't that it quickly becomes embarrassing watching her insipid performance all throughout.
Either that or she's actually not that a good actress.
Children of the Corn
(1984)
And a child shall lead them...
20 September 2007
This is the tale of a young couple (Peter Horton and Linda Hamilton) stranded in the deserted little town of Gatlin, Nebraska and stalked by a pack of adult killing children worshipping a demon living in the surrounding cornfields.
This very atmospheric piece is a rather humble b-movie that boasts an unusual and interesting premise (thanks to a pretty good short story by Stephen King) and delivers some decent performances from its cast (which is rare with children in general).
Although soft in its depiction of violence, the movie offers some creepy moments (especially in the still effective opening sequence). John Franklin, excellent as the child-preacher Isaac, makes for one odd and creepy looking kid and Courtney Gains inhabits his psychopathic Malachai character with obvious delight.
The cornfields are beautifully shot and the overall is boosted by a pretty efficient score by Jonathan Ellias. And to top this all up, R.G. Armstrong makes here an appearance (albeit a too short one) as a recluse gas station owner.
Don't be fooled though. The movie is far to be a masterpiece. At leading endlessly its main characters around cornfields and then through the deserted town (direct effect of superficially expanding a short story to feature film length), the movie ends up suffering from its slow pace ("Things just aren't happening fast enough" even says Horton at some point) with the characters taking what seems like an improbable amount of time to realise what is afoot.
The danger of young and impressionable minds blindly following extremist religious leaders is certainly an interesting theme but is here barely tapped into.
Finally the climatic sequence, with the manifestation of the collieflower looking "He Who Walks Behind The Rows", is a bit of a let down to say the least.
Those (not so minor) details however are not enough to warrant the bad press the movie gathered upon release (and Stephen King's severe criticisms). "Children of the Corn" is a well performed little soft core horror b-movie that surprisingly enough spawned a franchise and still provides eerie ambiance and creepiness that even, at times, make the few cheap scares work.
This very atmospheric piece is a rather humble b-movie that boasts an unusual and interesting premise (thanks to a pretty good short story by Stephen King) and delivers some decent performances from its cast (which is rare with children in general).
Although soft in its depiction of violence, the movie offers some creepy moments (especially in the still effective opening sequence). John Franklin, excellent as the child-preacher Isaac, makes for one odd and creepy looking kid and Courtney Gains inhabits his psychopathic Malachai character with obvious delight.
The cornfields are beautifully shot and the overall is boosted by a pretty efficient score by Jonathan Ellias. And to top this all up, R.G. Armstrong makes here an appearance (albeit a too short one) as a recluse gas station owner.
Don't be fooled though. The movie is far to be a masterpiece. At leading endlessly its main characters around cornfields and then through the deserted town (direct effect of superficially expanding a short story to feature film length), the movie ends up suffering from its slow pace ("Things just aren't happening fast enough" even says Horton at some point) with the characters taking what seems like an improbable amount of time to realise what is afoot.
The danger of young and impressionable minds blindly following extremist religious leaders is certainly an interesting theme but is here barely tapped into.
Finally the climatic sequence, with the manifestation of the collieflower looking "He Who Walks Behind The Rows", is a bit of a let down to say the least.
Those (not so minor) details however are not enough to warrant the bad press the movie gathered upon release (and Stephen King's severe criticisms). "Children of the Corn" is a well performed little soft core horror b-movie that surprisingly enough spawned a franchise and still provides eerie ambiance and creepiness that even, at times, make the few cheap scares work.
Hellbent
(2004)
Honest slasher.
11 November 2006
Four gay men are out for a night of fun at the infamous West Hollywood Halloween Carnival but make the big mistake to moon at a muscular fella wearing a horny mask. Little do they know they just provoked a serial killer who can truly hold a grudge...
Make no mistake, this is classic slasher territory. The film opens with the murder of a couple making out in a car parked in the woods and from there, well I'm sure you can fill the gap.
The originality here of course lies in the characters and for once, thank God, they are not the clichés one could have expected and feared. They are fun loving young men celebrating who they are (as opposed to so many miserable gay characters of the past struggling with their sexuality) and witty as hell, which makes for some funny lines here and there.
Don't get me wrong though. "Hellbent" doesn't play the self referential game that most modern slashers do. At times, the movie is tense and, I must admit, the last part got me on the edge of my seat. The characters are sympathetic and humane, albeit not quite fleshed out. The movie is well shot, the acting is convincing and some death scenes are quite impressive.
Sure, the plot is a bit thin but then again: it's only a slasher (hardly rocket science). Far from redefining the genre or breaking new grounds, the movie is at least honest in its intentions.
"Hellbent" is actually less of a gay movie for a strictly gay audience than it is a pure pop-corn movie for any open-minded movie goer looking for a genuine good time.
Make no mistake, this is classic slasher territory. The film opens with the murder of a couple making out in a car parked in the woods and from there, well I'm sure you can fill the gap.
The originality here of course lies in the characters and for once, thank God, they are not the clichés one could have expected and feared. They are fun loving young men celebrating who they are (as opposed to so many miserable gay characters of the past struggling with their sexuality) and witty as hell, which makes for some funny lines here and there.
Don't get me wrong though. "Hellbent" doesn't play the self referential game that most modern slashers do. At times, the movie is tense and, I must admit, the last part got me on the edge of my seat. The characters are sympathetic and humane, albeit not quite fleshed out. The movie is well shot, the acting is convincing and some death scenes are quite impressive.
Sure, the plot is a bit thin but then again: it's only a slasher (hardly rocket science). Far from redefining the genre or breaking new grounds, the movie is at least honest in its intentions.
"Hellbent" is actually less of a gay movie for a strictly gay audience than it is a pure pop-corn movie for any open-minded movie goer looking for a genuine good time.
Jason Goes to Hell
(1993)
Good Friday
24 October 2006
Would have I ever been surprised by a Friday the 13th movie? Well, let's see
Take a bunch of retarded teenagers, isolate them in Crystal Lake (preferably) and let the countdown begin. The lovers will get it because they doin'it, the stoners will get it because they smokin'it, the rockers will get it because they like rock n'roll (and are badly dressed) and the nerd will get it because huh he's a nerd (and also badly dressed) The prude and pure will survive from The Ultimate Bad Ass Meathead incarnate: Jason Voorhees. Until the next film that is. Et voila! I just wrote a brand new Friday the 13th! So the answer is obviously no. There's nothing more predictable than a Friday the 13th flick.
"Jason Goes To Hell, The Final Friday" however is another beast. The film finally took the series away from its bloody routine (as if we've been waiting for it to happen ) by making Jason a parasite going from one body to another ("Hidden" anyone?) allowing him to carry on what he does best. And he does it alright! With panache! The deaths are inventive and fun, the FX are good qualities and the acting is decent.
The plot feels a tiny bit far fetched but at least there's a plot of some sort (which is much more than you could ever say from any other Friday). Why this movie suffers from the well deserved bad rating of the other movies is mystery to me.
Sure it's still the same slice and dice game all over but the efforts to keep this 9th instalment different and entertaining should have been taken into consideration.
This "Final Friday" is not as much a Friday the 13th as it is a good old b movie in its own right. Director Adam Marcus and screenwriters Dean Lorey and Jay Huguely deserve respect for transcending an almost non-existent original material into something a tad more potent.
Take a bunch of retarded teenagers, isolate them in Crystal Lake (preferably) and let the countdown begin. The lovers will get it because they doin'it, the stoners will get it because they smokin'it, the rockers will get it because they like rock n'roll (and are badly dressed) and the nerd will get it because huh he's a nerd (and also badly dressed) The prude and pure will survive from The Ultimate Bad Ass Meathead incarnate: Jason Voorhees. Until the next film that is. Et voila! I just wrote a brand new Friday the 13th! So the answer is obviously no. There's nothing more predictable than a Friday the 13th flick.
"Jason Goes To Hell, The Final Friday" however is another beast. The film finally took the series away from its bloody routine (as if we've been waiting for it to happen ) by making Jason a parasite going from one body to another ("Hidden" anyone?) allowing him to carry on what he does best. And he does it alright! With panache! The deaths are inventive and fun, the FX are good qualities and the acting is decent.
The plot feels a tiny bit far fetched but at least there's a plot of some sort (which is much more than you could ever say from any other Friday). Why this movie suffers from the well deserved bad rating of the other movies is mystery to me.
Sure it's still the same slice and dice game all over but the efforts to keep this 9th instalment different and entertaining should have been taken into consideration.
This "Final Friday" is not as much a Friday the 13th as it is a good old b movie in its own right. Director Adam Marcus and screenwriters Dean Lorey and Jay Huguely deserve respect for transcending an almost non-existent original material into something a tad more potent.
Tell Your Friends