Change Your Image
B_a_S_t_A_r_D
Reviews
Det sjunde inseglet (1957)
A Work of Art
From the very first frame of 'The Seventh Seal', it is extremely clear that this is a film that successfully strives to be beautiful. The film opens with a brilliant shot of the bleak sky, accompanied by appropriately despairing choral music. The iconography gets better from there. Every single frame is a work of art in itself; from the image of two black horses standing in a wild sea, to the now immortal side shot of Antonius the Knight engaged in a game of chess with Death.
'The Seventh Seal', beyond its visual seamlessness, is a profound and incredibly rich narrative. The doomed protagonists are placed in a bleak, death-ridden environment crawling with the plague and religious extremism. Here, director Ingmar Bergman pits them against the metaphysical; Max Von Sydow's Antonius questions the silence of God in a world which needs him more than ever, Jof the actor witnesses biblical imagery whilst remaining secure as part of the most likable, optimistic family ever faced with such relentless misery, and Antonius' squire dryly and humorously provides a commentary on death and the plague-ridden environment.
This film is quite literally a masterpiece, both visually and philosophically. It boasts imagery that will forever be synonymous with classic cinema and some of the best performances an audience will ever have the privilege to witness.
Solaris (2002)
No Progression
This comment is on behalf of everyone who has watched Soderbergh's "Solaris", didn't like it and were told they didn't like it because they haven't read the book or seen the original.
I have not read the book or seen the original, and I didn't like it. A movie, even one intended to provoke thought and debate, shouldn't rely on its basis for enjoyment. I had never read Clockwork Orange, a Batman comic or Ring, but I enjoyed all those movies a great deal.
It must be said that the ideologies presented in this film were immense. The notions of regret, second chances and fear of the unknown were skillfully put forward, especially the philosophy that a physical manifestation of an object or being, no matter how accurate, isn't necessarily the object it represents. Rheya questioning this and Chris' refusal to debate it due to his scientific values was the highlight. Unfortunately, outside of this scene, Solaris lacks anything. Character, progression and empathy. Chris is almost emotionless and this renders his character (a low point for Clooney) isolated from empathy. There is no spark between him and the audience. Rheya is dull and undesirable, hence uncomfortable to watch for too long. There is no standout performance in Solaris. The idea of regret and second chance in a science fiction film (the deepest and most thought provoking genre) seems dangerously trivial in comparison to values in Bladerunner, 2001, Invasion of the Bodysnatchers among others. Overall, Solaris is a huge disappointment. There is no climax and the film is far too slow moving to incite any interest. The values and debates are terrific, it is just a shame that there isn't a great narrative or performance to go with them.
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994)
Underwhelming
Branagh's Frankenstein, for all of its flaws and imperfections, is undeniably interesting. Given Branagh's history and Shakespearian background, it is surprising that his adaptation of Mary Shelley's pioneering sci fi horror is orchestrated the way it has been. Infamous for his incredibly accurate and rear-numbingly long interpretation of "Hamlet," Kenneth Branagh isn't a name usually associated with making changes and taking dramatic liberties with film adaptations of classic works. In "Frankenstein," this is exactly what he has done. Some of the changes are indeed welcome. Victor Frankenstein's obsession with his "project" is well played out by Branagh, and the addition of a strain on his relationship with Elizabeth is a dramatic necessity. Most of Shelley's formal, almost poetic dialogue has been discarded in favour of a more realistic sounding script, unfortunately likely to cater for the less literature - orientated of audiences. Nevertheless, this works well and compliments the late eighteenth century set piece to a high degree. It makes the film more believable and the characters more susceptible to empathy whereas a direct script may not have worked in a film for mainstream audiences. Whilst these and other changes are minor and do not harm the adaptation with artistic license, there are too many key omissions and additions that do just that. In the sequence wherein Robert De Niro's "Creature" begins learning human abilities such as reading, communication and emotion, the ever so relevant works of literature which he reads in the novel are absent. In Shelley's text, the Creature reads "Paradise Lost," a novel telling the story of Adam and Eve's struggle upon leaving Eden into the imperfect real world. The parallels between Adam from "Paradise Lost" and "Frankenstein's" Creature are many. Both have been forced into the world by a creator who has turned his back on them, Frankenstein in the eponymous novel, and God in "Paradise Lost". Both must learn to adapt to this new world whilst struggling to come to terms with their harsh dismissal from that of their birth givers. While not essential to the plot, a nod to that work of literature would have been welcome. Also missing, and far more damaging to Branagh's doomed movie, is the tremendous sense of loss and loneliness that drives the novel. In Shelley's text, Victor often reflects on the passing of a better life and the doom and gloom that his failed experiment has brought him. He loses all his cherished loved ones in such a short time and it completely destroys his spirits. Branagh made a fatal error in omitting this, one which renders the character of Victor as less amiable than he could have been and ultimately severs the emotion this film creates. Whilst (despite the dismissal of certain themes and sub plots) "Frankenstein" is somewhat a faithful adaptation, the "Wedding Night" sequence takes huge liberties and is completely unnecessary. Victor barely mourns his wife's death (which, prior to the reanimation, is extremely faithful to the book) before chopping her to pieces in order to bring her to life. This scene, completely absent from Shelley's novel, is clearly done for no other reason than to shock audiences. The idea that Victor would spend his life married to a living corpse is repulsive. Shelley's Victor would not consider this, seeing as he regards his creation as a "Demon." It is an utterly ridiculous ending, although it does highlight the issue of who the real evil is. Surely Victor cannot assume his creation is evil if he is willing to marry a similar creation. Ridiculous ending aside, the film could have been saved by strong performances from its lead players. Unfortunately, excluding Branagh, these are not present. Tom Hulce is almost emotionless and undesirable as Henry Clerval, who Shelley intended as an optimistic and joy bringing presence whose death (again completely left out in this interpretation) utterly cripples Victor emotionally. Helena Bonham Carter's Elizabeth is also unconvincing, failing to strike empathy and sympathy into audiences, whilst De Niro's curiously Italian - American Creature is underwhelming and gives the impression that De Niro is having as much fun playing the creature as we are watching him. Overall, "Frankenstein's" under-performing leads, glaring omissions and unnecessary additions (not to mention atrocious lighting and a ridiculously out of place soundtrack) make this film almost impossible to enjoy or indeed take seriously. Unfortunately, seriousness is exactly what makes the Novel so impacting.
A Clockwork Orange (1971)
The Relevance Will Never Go Away
One must consider that, for a film made in the very early 1970s, the uniquely bleak vision of a futuristic Britain in "A Clockwork Orange" is wonderfully impressive, even by today's standards. Anthony Burgess' adapted neo Shakespearian dialect, combined with Kubrick's inimitable use of imagery conjure up a post apocalyptic world that is not our own and has not yet been.
"A Clockwork Orange" has not yet lost its edge as a brutally disturbing and unconventionally humorous piece of film-making after thirty five years and is highly unlikely to. In fact, one could argue that its message has always been relevant and apt in any age or society. The film predicted the rash and uncompromising Thatcher era in its second act, and horribly violent street crime, which is at its very peak at the time of writing, in its first.
Combine these ever appropriate values to a film that can be both savage and hilarious in the same minute, and you have before you yet another work of sheer excellence from Stanley Kubrick. "A Clockwork Orange" presents Kubrick at his best. No fan of his work will be left disappointed, as every last one of his trademark camera tricks - the slow rolling cam, the iconic, lengthy close up, the sinister face staring right through the screen at you (it is this frequent break of the fourth wall that makes Malcolm McDowell's performance so captivating) - are all here.
Minor faults aside (the unconventional script begins to lose its edge and uniqueness towards the end), "A Clockwork Orange" is excellent. The prevailing sense of dread and imminent fear that made "The Shining" so effective begins in "A Clockwork Orange", via the unique use of the camera, as is a memorable use of iconography not dissimilar to "2001: A Space Odyssey." Kubrick is on form, as is McDowell (the two of them became great friends during shooting - this undoubtedly paid off through their unmistakable chemistry) as the severely iconic anti hero Alex. The scenes of immense violence and sexual assault will shock you unlike anything else, the dialogue between Alex and his "droogs" will have you laughing out loud, the well placed music and the unfortunate and inevitable outcome of Alex's brainwashing and homecoming is hard hitting. "A Clockwork Orange" is a work of genius that every adult should experience.
Batman Begins (2005)
Frighteningly superb
After an excellent film, a great film and two diabolical films, there is finally a brilliant Batman film. Tim Burton's Batman offerings were undeniably superb and eclipsed their follow ups in greatness, but even then there were severe weaknesses in the Batman franchise's transfer from page to the big screen. Burton didn't manage to fully shake Batman's unfortunate "camp crusader" persona that the Dark Knight picked up from the terrible 1960s TV series. Though considerably darker, the high camp, pop art undertones that were never intended in the Batman comics were still present in Burton's films. Then of course, "Batman Forever" and "Batman and Robin" took that to an incredibly unnecessary extreme. Batman was lost. Thank heavens for Christopher Nolan. Obviously as disillusioned with the failing franchise as most of the disgruntled comic book fans, Nolan has managed to not only restore the dark, Gothic ambiance of the comics, but also take Batman to new heights, and "Batman Begins" is far more than a comic book adaptation. For the first time in a Batman movie, Bruce Wayne's introduction and character foundation is so fascinating and emotionally charged, that you are not merely waiting for him to put the Bat suit on for the first time. Being the first chapter chronologically in the Batman saga, Wayne's character pre - bat is essential to the success of the narrative. His motive for wanting to fight injustice and his childhood traumas are told so beautifully that the movie would almost work well enough if the Batman alter ego never came into play. But, of course, when he does, Batman really begins. Christian Bale is quite simply the best Batman audiences have ever had the privilege of viewing. For the first time, Batman really is a symbol of fear, as was the comic's intention. This is all thanks to Bale's flawless performance as the dark Knight. Criminals and do-gooders alike fear Batman. But, frightening as he is, he is just another Superhero in terms of fear when it comes to Cillian Murphy's Scarecrow. With the genius use of hallucinogens to enhance the fear, Scarecrow might just be the most frightening antagonist since "The Exorcist's" demon. The point of view shots from his victims are a more effective alternative to his character than just giving him superpowers. That way, Nolan manages to hold onto the film's overall sense of reality and drama. The film's most effective aspect is the darkness. The stunning set piece creates a nightmarish world that is pure fear incarnate, and with fear being the film's driving force, the darkness is perfectly placed. All of the supporting actors, bar none, are without imperfections in this movie, particularly Katie Holmes, who proves that she is more than a tabloid friendly teen idol. Its just a great shame that her performance in "Batman Begins" was very much overshadowed by her bizarre relationship with Tom Cruise. Michael Caine is severely amiable as Alfred, and the eternally impressive Gary Oldman delivers yet another excellent performance. But of course, it is Bale who steals the show. Obviously relishing the role, Bale makes Batman a character we've never had the privilege of meeting before. More than a straight talking superhero armed with one liners. Batman, thanks to Bale, is now an emotionally unstable, fear inducing warrior. Batman Begins is free from superhero cliché and camp humour. It is, finally, a real Batman movie. The dreaded prison break scene is no less than amazing, and the subsequent parade of justice and optimism, combined with a considerate reference to a legendary Batman enemy, make this film perfect from start to finish.
Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (2001)
Hilarious Dialogue
In "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back", director Kevin Smith manages a better "Scream" spoof than any of the "Scary Movie" films, more references to "Star Wars" than a Star Wars film, and a better performance by Ben Affleck than any other film he has starred in. What's even more amazing is that each of these triumphs are no more than a scene each. What this goes to show is that Kevin Smith is as witty and sharp as ever. On the Surface, "Jay and Silent Bob..." may look like a brainless parade of coarse language and silly facial expressions, but it is far more intelligent than that. The film is a clever parade of View Askew in jokes, movie references and a complete bashing of Hollywood. The pairing of Jay and Silent Bob is stronger than it has been in any of Smith's previous films, and their relationship is pure classic comedy, which is amazing considering that one of them barely speaks. After the controversial but brilliant "Dogma," Smith wanted to make a controversy free caper starring the most prominent characters of his franchise, at the same time burying the characters of Jay and Silent Bob. This film is the first chance that Jason Mewes, after years of criticism by movie distributors, gets to display what he is capable of to full effect. There is very little dialogue of his that isn't hilarious at the very least. The clever narrative makes for a wonderful comic caper, with the hilarious slapstick of a more extreme Laurel and Hardy or Blazing Saddles. "Jay and Silent Bob's" most enjoyable scene is the self - berating Matt Damon and Ben Affleck making a sequel to "Good Will Hunting," whilst criticising each other's films between takes. It is Hollywood spoofs like this, with big names like Ben and Matt, Jason Biggs and even Wes Craven playfully making jokes of their own work, that makes "Jay and Silent Bob..." an impeccable piece of film making from Smith. The performances by Jason Mewes, Will Ferrel and Chris Rock are some of the funniest you'll ever see, and to top it all off, the return of Clerk's Randall and Dante, and Jason Lee's character from Mallrats make for charming nostalgia. Thank God Jay and Silent Bob are back for Clerks 2!
Nightmare (1981)
The most bizarre video nasty of them all
"Nightmare In A Damaged Brain" really interested me, but perhaps not in the way that the distributors would have liked it to. This early eighties "video nasty" is considerably different from others of its genre because of its incredibly strange tone. The very first scene depicts a screaming George gazing upon a woman's severed head at the foot of his bed, and it doesn't get any less psychotic from there. The plot is full of holes and is so disjointed that it isn't just the constant scenes of violence that make for uncomfortable viewing at all. Considering that "Nightmare" seemingly attempts to have a medical/psychological feel to it, there isn't a lot explained about the character of George by the two psychologist characters. The medical scenes are the weaker parts of the film. Although it is far less of a cliché than many of the video nasty craze, Nightmare's downfall is its attempts to be intelligent and iconic. The medics are shallow and unintelligent, one even ridiculously explaining that George is "Simply not dangerous" when he very brutally murdered his parents as a child. Among the weak aspects of the film is its fickle direction. Rarely have I seen a film maker try as hard as Romano Scavolini to master so many sub genres of horror. The suspense/stalker theme is perhaps the one he pulls off most effectively, while others are all to no avail and come across too clearly as blatant ripoffs. Even people who haven't seen The Shining will sneer at the door chopping scene, whilst the children running and hiding from the masked George is essentially a frame by frame remake of the climax of "Halloween". There are even hints of "The Omen" in places. "Nightmare" is not quite a slasher movie, not quite a psychological thriller and has an incredibly weak screenplay, but it is not a lost cause. Fans of shock horror won't be disappointed by the intense graphic scenes and there is even a credible twist at the end, whilst the comparison between the young George and CJ is nicely told and could easily have been a subplot from a more sophisticated thriller. The shocking end sequence which shows George's childhood flashback in full is deeply disturbing. Overall, Nightmares In A Damaged Brain is watchable, but its impact is curbed by the frustratingly frequent shift in tone.
Doom (2005)
Where is the hell?
To cut a long story short, "Doom" is an extremely disappointing movie. As a huge fan of the games I could hardly wait to see the film. In all honesty, the track record of disappointing video game movies (Tomb Raider, Mario Brothers, Resident Evil) did put me in a lot of doubt and, upon seeing the movie, justified that "Doom" was just another in a long line of quick money making spin-offs. Fans of the game can not possibly like this film. First of all, one of the unique selling points of the game is the theme of hell and extreme, constant violence. Hell, other than in the occasional cheesy one liner ("go to hell" and the like), is a complete no show. Violence and nightmarish imagery is sparse. There are no dystopian flaming skies and deserted, blackened cities, no twenty - foot demonic pentagrams, no bloodied, impaled corpses lining the corridors. Overall, this movie does not look or feel like Doom. Once you've gotten over the completely misinterpreted mise en scene and uninspired set piece (a small laboratory full of white lab coated doctors instead of the fiery shores of hell?), there is the huge problem of the script and acting. Neither benefits the other, and the fact that more than one person "wrote" this film is utterly embarrassing. Casting the Rock in any move is a mistake from the outset. He can't act. His awful one liners are more horrifying than the "Zombies". Speaking of which, the fact that Doom is focused more on the Zombie threat than the obscure demons of the game is another disappointment. This is where it begins to feel like another Resident Evil movie. With the game there was a gallery of brilliantly detailed, terrifying mutants and demons that would really have put a shock or two into the movie. The only ones that feature are the Imp (quite rightly, but where are the trademark fireballs?) and the Pinky demon. Perhaps the writers could argue that they are trying to do something different by almost alienating the film from the game series, but different is something Doom is not. It is just a Zombie movie without the wit or originality of a George A Romero film. There are a small number of saving graces in "Doom", the most obvious being the first person sequence, which was the only time throughout the film that I felt like I was watching "Doom", though they could have done more with it. The inclusion of the aforementioned demons, the BFG 9000 and the chainsaw are also much welcomed. Unfortunately, these things do not save a Doomed film. The unoriginal script, wooden acting and severe miscasting, along with the non existence of a classic set piece prevent this film from being able to hold a torch to the Doom game series. As far as I am concerned, "Aliens" is the closest we'll have to a Doom film for the time being.
Doug (1991)
The greatest kids show of all time
On Nickelodeon today, or rather its spin off channel "Nicktoons" (yes Nickelodeon has to set up an extra channel for all the decent shows that it doesn't show anymore) "Doug" is shown at 6am everyday. The rest of the day is dedicated to shows like "Fairly odd parents" or "Spongebob square pants", each given four or five slots in a row.
I, like many others who long for the return of the golden age of Nicktoons, think that shows like "Doug", "Real Monsters" and "Ren and Stimpy" should be brought back to Nickelodeon to replace these over-repeated, poor modern day excuses for cartoons.
The reason shows like "Fairly odd parents" and "All grown up" will not be spoken of in ten to fifteen years (like Doug is) is because they are far too obscure. They are not art forms like "Doug", which originated from a comic book called "Doug's new shoes". They are just in - store creations to try and fill up time slots.
Another reason as that right now, the best cartoons around are the ones that are aimed at late teens/early adults such as "The Simpsons", "Family guy" and "South Park". I genuinely believe that Doug could quite easily be transformed into one of these shows. My reason is that the audience Doug once entertained, like myself, are all aged around 18 - 20 years old now. Most of the children that currently watch nickelodeon probably haven't even heard of Doug, so they wont feel left out if was resurrected as an adult cartoon.
What made Doug the greatest children's cartoon now and then was his age. At the time, Doug was older than his target audience, and now he is younger. In the height of Dougs popularity, his adventures and exploits were a message and a lesson to children on how to cope with teenage life and high school. Now, Doug is something adults can look at and reminisce about their own high school days. Doug is almost an animated teen movie like "American Pie" or "Ferris Beuller's Day Off", without the language and sexual exploits.
What made Doug the character so great was his cynicism. He was virtually a victim of bullying but he dealt with it in a perfect, relaxed way. Of course he was geeky and paranoid much of the time, but this was outweighed by his responses to Roger Klotz's pranks. Doug was the perfect middle man, who just wanted a quiet life and would have it if it weren't for his clumsiness. The slight dynamic of Doug is that he is in no way the series' most interesting character. In most other shows he would just be a supporting character. Could you imagine "The Simpsons" if Karl was the main character? Exactly.
The stories were excellent too because they were so simple. No other show has ever dedicated an entire narrative to, say, getting a haircut or a cookery lesson. A show has never been as brilliantly simple as Doug.
Finally, there is the excellent Billy West. Another reason I think Doug would make an excellent adult cartoon show is the fact that Billy West is also the voice of Fry in "Futurama." He should get more work than he does. Doug is West's greatest character (closely followed by Fry).
Bring back Doug! Save it from early morning limbo!
Exorcist: The Beginning (2004)
The first satisfying Exorcist film outside of the original
Renny Harlin directs the second prequel to the brilliant "The Exorcist", after Paul Schrader's initial attempt was deemed not scary (or gory) enough by producers. Concerning the abandonment of his faith before the events of "The Exorcist", "Exorcist: The Beginning" is at most largely different in tone to its chronological follow up. At a glance, the film would seem more suited to the "Omen" saga, with the director using legitimate biblical events to establish Lancaster Merrin's relationship with the demon Pazuzu. The weaker points of the movie include the casting of Alan Ford as Jeffries. His character seems unusually vacant from the plot and insignificant to the story whilst Ford makes no attempt of playing Jeffries as anything other than Brick Top from "Snatch", a performance that stands out uncomfortably in a bleak horror film set in the late forties. Meanwhile, whilst Stellan Skarsgard's performance as Lancaster Merrin is convincing and well acted, he is not playing the same Merrin as Max Von Sydow, an advantage to Skarsgard's ability, but it weakens the sense of continuity within the character. It does not feel like the viewer is watching the same person, whereas, in a similar case, Ewan McGregor's portrayal of Obi Wan Kenobi in the "Star Wars" prequels compliments Alec Guiness' in the earlier films. These weaknesses are very much outweighed by the positive elements in the film. Whilst the tone is different, the shock value is still there and there are many shocking "Exorcist" elements that reinforce the fact that this is the same evil the viewer endured in the 1973 film. Much like "The Exorcist," "Exorcist: The beginning" introduces the viewer to a wealth of uneasy psychological tension (aswell as the most shocking child - related accident ever put on film) before unleashing unrestrained shock and vulgarity, at some points even more unsettling than the original film.... lets just say Reagan was strapped safely to a bed. Although there are numerous flaws that prevent this from holding the torch to the original, "Exorcist: The beginning" is a worthy foundation for the demonic saga and casts a triumphant shadow over previous sequels and the climactic encounter is a nostalgic treat, whilst Merrin's rediscovery of his faith can not fail to raise a smile in an otherwise bleak situation.