JayDee's Movie Musings [Archive] - Page 5

JayDee

07-18-13, 06:09 PM

mirror mirror

Year of release
1988

Directed by
Graham Baker

Written by
Rockne S. O'Bannon

Starring
James Caan
Mandy Patinkin
Terrence Stamp
Leslie Bevis
Kevyn Major Howard

Alien Nation

3.5 +

Plot - 1991. Three years ago a massive flying saucer landed on Earth carrying 300,000 enslaved aliens, who would come to be known as Newcomers. Following a period of quarantine the aliens start to become integrated into human society, but face a great deal of discrimination. When Newcomer police officer, Sam Francisco (Patinkin), becomes the first alien to make the rank of detective he is assigned a new partner in the form of Matthew Sykes (Caan). Sykes is an admitted bigot and alien-hater, and the only reason he volunteers to take Francisco on as his partner is because his previous partner was just killed by a Newcomer, and Sykes wants to exploit Francisco's knowledge and experience. Together they investigate the seedy underworld of the Newcomer community, all the way up to successful Newcomer businessman, William Harcourt (Stamp)

The plot of Alien Nation is certainly a story that we've seen before, just given an extraterrestrial twist to it. Just as Neill Blomkamp would do a couple of decades later with District 9, Alien Nation tells a story which addresses racism but places an alien face on it. In the film, the aliens, or Newcomers, are just another ethnic minority here on Earth. And in particular they act as an outer space equivalent of African Americans, with a heavy does of social commentary thrown in. It's not a particularly subtle allegory but it works. The Newcomers have apparently been 'accepted' into society and even though a lot of people talk a good game about relations between our peoples, they are treated with disrespect, disgust and pure hatred by most. They are frequently addressed by the derogatory term of 'slag' and are spoken down to in a demeaning manner; it's only a surprise they aren't referred to as 'boy' at any instance. There's a really nice bit of dialogue that Patinkin utters on this phenomenon - "You humans are very curious to us. You invite us to live among you in an atmosphere of equality that we've never known before. You give us ownership of our own lives for the first time, and you ask no more of us than you do of yourselves. I hope you understand how special your world is. I hope you understand how unique a people you humans are. Which is why it is all the more painful and confusing to us that so few of you seem capable of living up to the ideals you set for yourselves."

The large majority of the aliens are resigned to ghetto-like neighbourhoods which humans refer to as 'slagtowns.' Any Newcomer that manages to ascend to a respectable and important position is met with a great degree of resentment. While on this front there is also a question of affirmative action; when Mandy Patinkin's Sam Francisco makes it to the rank of detective after just three years on the force it breeds a real sense of hostility amongst his fellow officers about how quickly he has managed to achieve the rank, with most human officers taking seven years to achieve the same level of success. While the film also plays into the drugs problem that plagues run-down inner cities and its residents, except that in the place of drugs like heroin, cocaine and crack, the aliens have Jabroka; a drug from their past that was used to pacify and enslave them before they found their way to Earth. It's a drug that Francisco describes as a nightmare, which will destroy the lives of countless Newcomers. The plot itself is something I could easily imagine could have featured in more than one blaxploitation flick over the decades. You've got powerful businessmen orchestrating the flow of drugs into the problem area, hoping to control the populous. In fact it's not a million miles away from the plot of blaxploitation spoof, Black Dynamite.

Viewers may be slightly disappointed at the minimal amount of design and make-up work that went into creating the Newcomers. However I think it serves a purpose, again playing into the racial subtext of the film. The only thing that differentiates the aliens from their human counterparts is the top of their head, larger than a human head and covered in coloured markings. That's it! Just as the only difference between an African American individual and a Caucasian is the colour of their skin. All other features are exactly the same, and yet just because of one small difference we can't get along, or in the film's case the humans and aliens can't get along. And just as is the stereotypical case with all other races, whether it be black or Asian or whatever, to the bigoted humans the Newcomers all look the same, they can't tell them apart. And despite the minimal amount of work perhaps required, the make-up provided by the Stan Winston company is still impressive, maintaining a natural look for the Newcomers.

Film Trivia Snippets - In the film, Mandy Patinkin's alien character was given the name of Samuel 'Sam' Francisco by the people in charge of providing names for the Newcomers. However a different name was originally envisaged for the character, that of George Jetson from the classic Jetsons cartoon. Hanna-Barbera however would not allow the filmmakers the rights to the name. James Caan calling Patinkin's character George however was kept as a little in-joke. /// The October 1987 draft of the screenplay credited a rewrite to James Cameron. He is not credit in the final film however. /// It turns out that it's not just Terrence Stamp who should be credited as playing the villainous William Harcourt. Following the character's drug-induced transformation, that is no longer Stamp in the role. He refused to wear the more elaborate make-up required. After we've been introduced to the idea of alien beings and gotten over the initial adjustment period, the film then settles very quickly into a pretty classic buddy cop routine. If you've seen at least one buddy cop flick in your life then you can probably plot the film out itself, with Alien Nation featuring many of the clichéd scenes you commonly find in the genre. Though while it may not hold many surprises in store it remains entertaining all the same. Having started on very fractious terms and divided by their respective races, we know that by film's end Sykes and Francisco are going to end up putting aside those differences and personal problems, and form a friendship built on a foundation of respect. This will come about as a result of them winding up on a case which will require them to combine the unique talents and experiences they each possess if they are to solve it. Oh and at least one of them will save the life of the other. It's just how this thing is done. We saw it in the previous year's Lethal Weapon, perhaps the definitive buddy movie. And to tie it more into the race aspect of the film we saw a similar dynamic in 48 Hrs. and in the classic In the Heat of the Night. And it's also clear right from the first moment that we meet Terrence Stamp's Newcomer business mogul, William Harcourt, that he is going to be the villain. How do I know this? Because his introduction comes at a large ceremony where he is accepting an award for his humanitarian work. As has been proven in numerous other films, that's as sure a sign of a man's nefarious ways as you're ever likely to see.

Fulfilling that 'seen it all before' buddy cop relationship are the film's two stars, James Caan and Mandy Patinkin, who play it out in fine fashion. James Caan may have appeared in many better films than this, and given many better performances, but that doesn't stop him from turning in a solid, entertaining showing here. He does a very nice job in the classic mould of a cop obsessed with his job to the detriment of his family, who unsurprisingly is quite the hothead and a bit of a slob at home. In the role of Newcomer Sam Francisco, Mandy Patinkin is also very impressive, ironically giving quite a down-to-earth nature to his performance. He just makes Francisco an immensely likeable figure, showing a great strength and resolve in the face of adversity. He's even able to add in some nice nuances and mannerisms despite the make-up and costuming that he is hidden under. The amusing and charming interplay and chemistry they share goes a long way to carrying the film through some of its more stolid moments. They have a lot of little scenes together which while not bringing huge laughs, brought a smile to my face. Moments such as Caan's attempts at explaining Earth humour and getting Francisco to understand the concept of a joke.

Alien Nation may be a bit cheap and cheesy quite often but I just found it a lot of fun. It's got some nice cinematography and I enjoyed a lot of the little touches and character quirks the film gives to the Newcomers. Instead of alcohol what they get drunk on is sour milk, leading to a scene where Francisco drinks a disgustingly lumpy glass of the stuff and ends up with the mother of all hangovers because he is “so milked over.” Another fun little addition is the human names given to the aliens when they arrived on Earth. Those responsible clearly decided to have a bit of a p*ss-take with the aliens, doling out such names as Rudyard Kipling, Harley Davidson, Humphrey Bogart and of course Patinkin's Samuel 'Sam' Francisco. Though there is a nice little spin put on that because the Newcomers likewise find Caan's Sykes to have a highly amusing name, sounding as it does like two words from their language; ss'ai and k'ss, which when translated mean excrement and cranium respectively. Or s*ithead if you will! :D

Conclusion – As long as you don't go into this one expecting anything especially creative or innovative then I think you could find a lot to like here. Essentially Alien Nation really is one of those classic action comedies that were so prevalent throughout the 80s and early 90s, just given the little twist that one of the characters is an alien. And while it may not explore the possibilities that it opens up to its fullest, it's an enjoyable flick with a couple of engaging performances.

gandalf26

07-18-13, 06:13 PM

Jaydee you are spamming your own thread:).

Never even heard of that one I don't think.

The Gunslinger45

07-18-13, 07:14 PM

I was only aware of the Alien Nation TV show back on the sci fi channel. I never knew there was a movie. Go figure. Excellent review dude.

As for Lars and the Real Girl, I saw a documentary about people who buy those giant sex dolls, and I found some of the people in the documentary to be rather sad and pathetic. It was depressing at times. Kind of put me off.

TylerDurden99

07-18-13, 07:28 PM

Great reviews, Jaydee! :up:

I love Road House, and The Hidden and Alien Nation are two films I have wanted to see for a long time.

honeykid

07-18-13, 09:00 PM

Great review, JD... But then, you already knew that. ;)

I've not seen Alien Nation for a long time, but I used to really like it. Better than the tv series is spawned, obviously, though I liked that, too. :o I don't know if my VHS copy is the only copy I have, so I'm going to have to go through my recorded dvd's to see if I have it there.

Judging by Yahoo images, Alien Nation was a much bigger deal in the US than it was here, where it was strictly Sky fodder.

"And still it fits?":D

cricket

07-18-13, 09:45 PM

Wtf I've been wondering where this thread was! It's not a thread under movie reviews? I just clicked to the right where it said last post and got here but I didn't see it otherwise?

cricket

07-18-13, 09:49 PM

I just saw where to find this thread; I have a lot of reading to do now.

nebbit

07-19-13, 12:17 AM

Nebbit!!! http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/back_hug_zpsb9dcd26f.gif I wondered where you'd been hiding yourself sweetie. Great news that you're back.

By the way you were a fan of Kiss Kiss Bang Bang weren't you? Or am I getting that wrong? When I posted my review of that a few weeks back I was disappointed about the lack of reaction to it. Was hoping to get a lot of people agreeing that it's a hugely underrated flick.
I am a fan of :kiss: :kiss: bang bang :yup: i own it :yup: thanks for the hug :love:

JayDee

07-20-13, 11:13 AM

Great reviews, Jaydee! :up:

I love Road House, and The Hidden and Alien Nation are two films I have wanted to see for a long time.

Hey Tyler. Nice to see you popping in. I imagine it's been a while since I'd spotted your name either posting or repping. And after watching The Hidden I actually thought of you (though I often do ;) :p) as I thought it would be your kind of flick.

"And still it fits?":D

Oh yeah I forgot about that little bit. :D

I just saw where to find this thread; I have a lot of reading to do now.

Hey cricket. Nice to see that you finally found your way here. :up: And yeah a little bit of reading, just the 51 pages and 168 reviews! :p

I had actually been thinking of contacting some people who seem to enjoy reading reviews in case they weren't aware of my thread but I thought with my growing reputation as a rep whore that may be just a step too far into desperation! :p Anyway you had been one of the people I was thinking of.

I am a fan of :kiss: :kiss: bang bang :yup: i own it :yup: thanks for the hug :love:

Great to hear it. And you're welcome. I can give you a lot more than that if you like :randy:

I'm sorry about that. You're way to lovely a person to be treated with so little class. :D

cricket

07-20-13, 09:55 PM

I've gone back a few pages and all of your reviews are exceptional. The movies you choose are a great mix; many favorites and hidden gems.

JayDee

07-21-13, 08:47 PM

I've gone back a few pages and all of your reviews are exceptional. The movies you choose are a great mix; many favorites and hidden gems.

Thank you very much man. :up: Nice of you to say. I thought you might enjoy reading through them as I think I remember from your top 200 list that

And thanks for the massive glut of rep! :D Although I'm curious how many (if any) you actually read! :p

cricket

07-22-13, 12:17 AM

Thank you very much man. :up: Nice of you to say. I thought you might enjoy reading through them as I think I remember from your top 200 list that

And thanks for the massive glut of rep! :D Although I'm curious how many (if any) you actually read! :p

I didn't read Lars and the Real Girl

Deadite

07-22-13, 12:25 AM

I haven't watched Alien Nation (show or movies) in a long time but I used to be into it and remember enjoying the film well enough.

JayDee

07-22-13, 05:52 PM

As a result of public demand (well one person enquired! :p) I've switched the order around to deliver my Miller's Crossing review just now

mirror mirror

Year of release
1990

Directed by
Joel Coen

Written by
Joel and Ethan Coen

Starring
Gabriel Byrne
Albert Finney
Jon Polito
Marcia Gay Harden
John Turturro

Miller's Crossing

4

Plot - In an unnamed town in the Prohibition era 1930s, a gang war threatens to tear the city apart. Tom Reagan (Byrne) is an advisor to the big crime boss of the city, Leo O'Bannon (Finney). When Leo refuses a request from one of his rivals, Johnny Caspar (Polito), the disagreement soon escalates into an all-out feud between the respective clans with Tom, who was pushing for Leo to acquiesce to the demand, caught in the middle. Attempting to maintain a peace between the families, Tom instead finds himself thrown out of Leo's mob when it's discovered he has been fooling around with Leo's girl. With nowhere else to go he joins up with Caspar but not is all as it seems. Tom continues to plot and manoeuvre individuals all over the place like a chess master. He seems to have everything worked out, but will he live long enough to benefit from his planning?

As has frequently been the case throughout their career, the Coen brothers take on a genre that has definitive tropes and boundaries and put their very distinctive stamp on it. This time out they take the gangster flick and place it firmly in the territory of neo-noir, while at the same time weaving a light and occasionally cartoonish thread through it, complete with a little dash of their usual quirk.

To start with the film is just glorious to look at, its direction and cinematography making just about every scene a treat to look at. It's wonderfully directed and the compositions that the Coens create are captured beautifully by the lens of Barry Sonnenfeld. While the whole film is tremendous to look at, there are a couple of particular scenes I'd like to highlight. In the scene where Tom has been taken out to Miller's Crossing with the intention of bumping off Bernie, I love the image of the men standing against the car with the road and the trees seemingly stretching off in to infinity. While Tom's white knuckle walk through that forest in the search of Bernie's body is a tremendously nerve-shredding piece of cinema. However I think my absolute favourite scene would have to be the attempted assassination of Albert Finney's Leo in his home. It's a great scene of ironic juxtaposition as we find Leo relaxing in his bed, smoking a cigar and listening to the evocative strains of 'Danny Boy', when two faceless gangsters enter his home with the intent of wiping him out. Cutting back and forth between Leo lying on his bed and his would-be killers its a beautifully executed little piece of storytelling told merely through its visuals. It seems deceptively simple but its a delightfully deft working of direction and editing to convey the events as Leo begins to suspect something is up. The killers remain faceless; all we glimpse are shots of their shoes and the barrels of their guns, as Leo spots smoke wafting up between the floorboards and realised something is up. Looking at Finney's face you can just see the cogs in his mind working. The scene then unleashes itself into an unflinching assault of violence while the poignant 'Danny Boy' continues to underscore the action. The film then descends into something almost cartoonish as Leo releases an apparently never-ending amount of bullets into the hitmen. Indeed at one point I think one of the men may have been doing the distress signal from Team America! :D

The Coens deliver a fantastic script, crafting a dense intricate plot and layering on hard-boiled dialogue that just sings. It's a thrilling and intelligent story, brimming with twists, turns, double crosses, triple crosses and even the odd quadruple cross! It really does keep you on your toes as you attempt to follow the constantly switching allegiances, made all the more difficult by Byrne's icy, detached nature which meant I was never entirely sure of his intentions. And as you would have a right to expect from a Coen brothers film, the dialogue is superb. It bounces around between the funny and quirky, the harsh and hard-boiled, the creative and rapid-fire. The dialogue has an almost lyrical quality to it which lulls you into a bit of a trance-like state, making the occasional bursts of violence (the shovel to Dane's face) all the more jolting. While it's so well crafted that even words that were completely alien to me I was immediately able to assign the correct meaning to.

Film Trivia Snippets - As a result of trying to tackle the film's intricate plot, the Coens suffered writer's block while working on the script. They took a break from Miller's Crossing, during which they knocked out the script for Barton Fink (about a writer with writer's block) in just three weeks before return to Miller's. The brothers subsequently introduced a few references to Barton Fink. Tom's residence is called 'The Barton Arms' while a newspaper article talks of 'seven dying in a hotel fire.' /// The character of Leo was actually written for Trey Wilson. Wilson, who portrayed Nathan Arizona Sr. in Raising Arizona, died shortly before production began however, and Albert Finney was drafted in to take over. /// Originally Jon Polito was offered the role of Eddie Dane, but he successfully campaigned to take on the role of Caspar. The film is impeccably acted by its ensemble. As I alluded to earlier Byrne is one stony-faced, hard-boiled motherf*cker! With ice in his veins and a quip constantly on the tip of his tongue he is quite an enigmatic, brooding character and an absolute definition of an anti-hero. I admire the Coen brothers for treating the audience with enough respect that they don't try and make him relatable, or soften his character to try and make him seem more sympathetic or likeable. There's a great contrast between the two mob bosses that Tom finds himself caught between. Albert Finney is magnetic as the stoic Leo, a man of great resolve; while Jon Polito's performance is a mile away. He's wild, chaotic and damn eccentric. He gives a sense that he's not particularly in control of his emotions and that doesn't really know what he's going to do next. That makes him quite a scary prospect. It's impossible to predict what he's going to do if he himself doesn't seem sure. He's fantastic. As Bernie Bernbaum, the catalyst for the whole fiasco, John Turturro is quite electrifying as a manic character who really is all over the map. He does do a bit of fine scenery chewing, particularly in the scene where he is begging for his life in the woods. At the time I felt it was a bit too over-the-top but when you find out later that it actually was all an act, it works in the context. And as a result when he tries to squirm out a second time it is nowhere near as convincing. Initially he seems a bit of a bumbling fool, and it was a bit of a shock when he turns things around and reveals himself to be quite the vile little sociopath.

Miller's Crossing also features a really quite gorgeous score courtesy of Carter Burwell; composed of haunting, profound and stirring notes. In particular the music that both plays over the opening titles and that closes out the film is just phenomenal; a truly emotional, heart-stirring piece. It perfectly equates to the film. I was able to close my eyes and just listen to the music, and in my mind it created the same sort of autumnal aesthetic of browns and greens that the film itself has. The music stuck with me long after the credits had finished rolling, and to play into one of film's quotes, Carter Burwell 'put one in my brain' so to speak. High marks too for those responsible for creating the film's period detail, which not only sets out the world in a stylish manner but actually manages to flesh out and give depth to its characters.

If I were to level any criticisms at the film it's that I perhaps found the majority of its pleasures to be largely of a technical nature. As a result of it perhaps being a bit of an exercise in style over substance, that it's occasionally a little too self-aware and clever for its own good, and that it's tough to take any of the characters to heart, I struggled to really form a strong emotional attachment with it. But that could just be on the first viewing. I watched it over two separate stretches and in the first it wasn't doing anything for me at all really, but when I picked it back up I found myself becoming more and more invested in it. Perhaps returning to it I would feel the same for the whole film. I could definitely see my score rising in the future.

Conclusion - Back in 1990 the Coen brothers crafted a compelling, lyrically shot film with Miller's Crossing. On a technical level it really is hard for me to find a single fault; the acting, directing, writing, cinematography, score...just everything is top notch. In my personal ranking of the Coen brothers flicks this would probably land around the no. 4 spot at the moment I think. In terms of just the overall quality of their films though, this might be right up there at the top.

donniedarko

07-22-13, 06:03 PM

Great film and a great review. Glad you enjoyed it.

Daniel M

07-22-13, 06:08 PM

Slight spoilers for those who haven't watched the film here.

Awesome review JayDee, Miller's Crossing is one of my very favourite films and is absolutely beautiful, at times like you say it does seem a little cold and calculated - just like Tommy :D There's just so much I love about the film, you cover basically everything, Byrne and Turturro are absolutely fantastic, with the former like you say being a character whose intentions are never fully revealed into the films end - we're constantly trying to work out his character and at first we kind of suspect he may be motivated by his love for Verna, but it seems he is far more intelligent and has planned ahead to a much greater extent in order to benefit himself.

Another scene that I love (I was first alluded to thanks to Jim Emerson's great and really interesting review (http://www.cinepad.com/reviews/millersx.htm)) is when Tommy meets Mink, it's just a small chance encounter seemingly without meaning but when you look back at it it sets everything in motion.

Edit: You spelt Coen wrong in the pre-review credits you do by the way :)

Deadite

07-22-13, 06:38 PM

John Turturro is such a weasel in that. Love it.

mark f

07-22-13, 07:11 PM

Nice review, JayDee. I'm not sure that you can accept that things worked out the way that Tom intended, no matter what he says or what's implied.

Carter Burwell is one of my favorite film composers. He's most well-known for his scores for the Coen Bros. and Spike Jonze, but even his scores for the most mundane films make them move along much easier. Some of my faves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3zmF48Aaw8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfCrj7hxLY8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5tgL6TIsEA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNcC0Bw9qy0

cricket

07-22-13, 08:55 PM

Haven't seen Miller's Crossing yet; looking forward to it.

MovieFan31

07-22-13, 08:59 PM

Haven't seen Miller's Crossing yet; looking forward to it.

Not a bad movie! Enjoy! :D

The Gunslinger45

07-22-13, 09:16 PM

Millers Crossing is a great movie. Excellent review as always!

Masterman

07-23-13, 08:50 AM

Hey Jaydee, if there is ever an 80's countdown list you should put your name forward. You put so much time and effort into everything. I bet it would look awesome.

JayDee

07-23-13, 05:23 PM

As a little treat here's another 90s flick

mirror mirror

Year of release
1997

Directed by
Mike Newell

Written by
Paul Attanasio (script)
Joseph D. Pistone (book)
Richard Woodley (book)

Starring
Johnny Depp
Al Pacino
Michael Madsen
Anne Heche
Bruno Kirby

Donnie Brasco

4 +

Plot - Donnie Brasco (Depp) meets and befriends Benjamin 'Lefty' Ruggiero (Pacino), earning himself a route into the New York mafia. As time goes on, the relationship between the two men grows closer and closer. Which is all fine except for the fact that Donnie Brasco doesn't really exist, he is merely the undercover persona of FBI agent Joe Pistone. The longer he is undercover however, the more that Pistone seems to be getting dragged into the world. As a result his marriage begins to fall apart, and when he doesn't report to his handlers for an extended period of time questions begin to arise about whether he has gone off the reservation or not. Based on a true story.

As a general rule, gangster films are not a great draw for me. I've just never found a massive appeal in watching the inner workings of the mob, and am often turned off by the apparent glorification of such individuals that many films seem to descend to. I found Donnie Brasco however to be a very compelling exception to that rule, largely as a result of two terrific central performances from Al Pacino and Johnny Depp.

Depp is absolutely electric as the titular Donnie Brasco (aka Joseph Pistone), wonderfully portraying the ever decreasing divide between the two disparate personalities. He breezes through the film with a great charisma and a real harshness to him. There's such a fantastic fire to him throughout the film, particularly in moments where his secret is threatened. The scene at a Japanese restaurant is thrillingly intense. I'd certainly rank this up with the likes of Ed Wood as one of Depp's best performances. I'll admit that Al Pacino can be a bit hit or miss for me. There's no doubt I have seen him give some fantastic performances (Godfather, Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon etc) but I'm not so fond of him when he goes a bit bigger than normal; when he breaks out the loud voice and the bulging eyes. Just stop shouting Al! I just feel his mother should be on set to remind him, “inside voices Alfredo.” Here however he is excellent as he reigns in such eccentricities to play a much more down to earth, cynical, world weary character. The role very much plays into his own career from his gangster days (Godfather) to his own turn as an informant in Serpico. There's a tangible sadness to his character, haunted by the problems of his son and resentful about his treatment within the corporation. Despite his choice of profession I actually came to like Lefty, just as Donnie does. He tackles his job with such honour and respect. We may not admire what he does, but we admire how he does it. Pacino imbues Lefty with a real pathos but also a really dry humour. Together the two men share a great macho chemistry, and any time that they are given the screen to themselves, away from the rest of the cast, the sparks really do fly. Also strong in supporting roles are Michael Madsen and Anne Heche. Madsen may not deliver a performance that we haven't seen from him several times before, but when you're so damn effective at playing such a cold-hearted, menacing b*stard then why change anything? He proves to be suitably fearsome as the loose cannon, Sonny Black. Also quite impressive I felt was Anne Heche as Jo's beleaguered wife even if it's a bit of a thankless role at times.

In a rare and unexpected move, Donnie Brasco turned out to be a gangster film with a surprising amount of heart at its core. This arises from the relationship that develops between Lefty and Donnie. With Lefty acting as a mentor it initially has a teacher-student dynamic to it. But as they get closer, and as we find out about the problems that Lefty's own kid has, it develops into something more akin to a father/son like bond. There really is a great degree of love that is formed between the two men. For all its gangsters and stings and informants, Donnie Brasco is actually a film about friendship. It's a sharp, fascinating character study about these two men. And the dynamic between the two is compelling. Donnie grows closer and closer to Lefty, all the while in the knowledge that it's Lefty who will eventually pay the price for his deception. And I found the respective endings for both characters to be very poignant and quite moving. Having vouched for Donnie, Lefty knows that it is most likely the end of the road for him. He doesn't fight it however. He has too much respect for the rules of the game, and doesn't want to put his family in danger. The moment where he removes everything of value and leaves it in a drawer so that his family will benefit from it I found to be really quite touching. It's an excellent little scene. While after all that Donnie has done all he gets is a shiny medal and a check for a measly $500. All that time, all that risk, possibly destroying his family life forever, sealing the fate of Lefty….all of that for so little. He gets a half-assed presentation from a group of individuals who can't seem to get out of there fast enough.

Film Trivia Snippets - In an interview with the real Joseph Pistone, he revealed that he was never allowed to go home to see his family as is depicted in the movie. In fact Pistone didn't see his family for at least two years while he was working undercover. /// At various stages of the production Tom Cruise, John Travolate and Andy Garcia were all attached to star. /// Near the end of the film there is a rather perfunctory scene of Joe practicing his shooting at the FBI's firing range. This was inserted merely to appease the studio who wanted a shot of Depp firing a gun that they could use for the film's trailer. /// Despite the man still being in protective custody, Johnny Depp was actually able to meet with Joseph Pistone on a number of occasions to help craft the role. Depp also took shooting lessons from the FBI.As gangster flicks go, Donnie Brasco is actually quite minimal in terms of its violence. And it's probably a pretty smart move as the film needs both our sympathies to lie with the characters, and for us to understand how Depp could have so much admiration for Lefty. It's hard to do either of those if they are constantly blowing guys away. The violence may be spare, but what there is remains visceral and shocking. The scene where Depp and co. are sawing dead bodies into chunks was quite something. What I felt the film was very successful in achieving was recreating the sense of uncertainty and anxiety that must have plagued Donnie's life for every moment of every day. Throughout the film there were numerous occasions where I felt the tensions rise as I thought that they were on to him, and that he was about to get whacked. I just cannot for the life of me imagine living such an existence.

The film is blessed with the good fortune that it is based on a true story, and has the first hand account from Joe Pistone himself as its source. As a result the events, the dialogue and the characters all feel authentic. Even with such a great aid though the film's writer, Paul Attanasio, still deserves great credit for taking the story and crafting a fine screenplay from it. It's dialogue is sharply observed and heavy on Mafia code, and really presents a showcase for its cast to shine. Also impressing is the film's director, Mike Newell. Given that to this point his most notable work had been Four Wedding & a Funeral he may not exactly have seemed like an obvious choice. Given the film's lack of violence however, and the importance placed on the dialogue and the performances of its cast, he actually proves a very suitable choice. He does a fine job creating such a tense, suspicious atmosphere.

So is Donnie Brasco a great film? Well what can I say but, “Forget about it!”

Conclusion - Donnie Brasco had all the ingredients to be a fine film, but it's certainly elevated to greater heights as a result of the performances from Depp and Pacino. Both men are fantastic. Outside of that though it is also a strongly written and directed piece, with commendable back-up from its supporting cast. I've often heard this film be described as one of the most underrated films of the 90s, and on this evidence I may be inclined to agree.

PS - There's one question I had about the film that someone can maybe answer for me. Or at least give me their theory. Towards the end of the film the FBI actually goes to the Mafia and reveals the truth about Donnie to them. Initially I thought he was being sold out but that obviously wasn't the case. So why exactly do they do it?

Daniel M

07-23-13, 05:31 PM

Frightened Inmate No. 2

07-23-13, 05:43 PM

I loved Donnie Brasco. Great review.

gandalf26

07-23-13, 06:18 PM

PS - There's one question I had about the film that someone can maybe answer for me. Or at least give me their theory. Towards the end of the film the FBI actually goes to the Mafia and reveals the truth about Donnie to them. Initially I thought he was being sold out but that obviously wasn't the case. So why exactly do they do it?

As Daniel M put it , to me it looks like the FBI just going in to brag about it. As if to say "You Mafia guys think you're so smart, well check this out".

or maybe if they really did something like that it would be a way to get some of the crew to flip and become witness against the Mafia.

Though I think they put it in the film just to get the scene where Lefty is being sent for. If there wasn't a scene where Donnie is revealed to be an FBI agent it provides a bit of a continuity error from the Boat arrest scene > being sent for scene. You have to put something in the middle there.

honeykid

07-23-13, 07:41 PM

As you know, this is a favourite of mine. A friend of mine, if you will. ;) Very pleased to see you liked it so much. :)

cricket

07-23-13, 08:23 PM

Great review of a great movie. Like you said, the 2 leads were excellent and I wish Depp would do more movies like this. If anything, I was a little underwhelmed with Michael Madsen. He played a great character in Reservoir Dogs, but overall, I think he's kind of a crap actor. I didn't believe him as any type of mob guy with power.

JayDee

07-25-13, 11:55 AM

Thanks to all the people who praised my last couple of reviews - donnie, Daniel, Gunslinger, Frightened Inmate, cricket etc. Much appreciated. :up:

As you know, this is a favourite of mine. A friend of mine, if you will. ;)

Ah I see what you did there. Nicely done. :yup:

Hey Jaydee, if there is ever an 80's countdown list you should put your name forward. You put so much time and effort into everything. I bet it would look awesome.

And be the subject of constant bitching and harassing? I think not! :D Harry can keep it!

I didn't read Lars and the Real Girl

Surely that's not the only one? You must have left rep for 30/40 movies, surely you didn't read all of them did you?

Nice review, JayDee.

Carter Burwell is one of my favorite film composers. He's most well-known for his scores for the Coen Bros. and Spike Jonze, but even his scores for the most mundane films make them move along much easier. Some of my faves.

Thanks Mark. :up: Forget everyone else. They all pale in comparison to getting praise from you. :p

I've got to admit his name isn't one I was at all familiar with really. But I'll certainly be keeping an eye out for him now

or maybe if they really did something like that it would be a way to get some of the crew to flip and become witness against the Mafia.

That's what I kind of thought. They were telling them to try and scare them into either making a mistake or getting one of them to testify. Letting them know they were completely screwed so they may as well help the FBI.

Had a look on the film's imdb board and found a thread about it. Apparently a common interpretation is that they told the mob to try and protect his life. If they thought he was just a rat informant they would have tried to kill him, but knowing he's an FBI agent they'd be too worried to go after him.

nebbit

07-25-13, 10:03 PM

Thanks Mark. :up: Forget everyone else. They all pale in comparison to getting praise from you. :p.

Suckface :kiss:

Godoggo

07-26-13, 01:49 AM

JayDee

07-26-13, 08:30 PM

I've got some catching up with this thread to do. Reading your Donnie Brasco review makes me think I should like it more than I do because I do agree with a lot of what you say but I've always just been lukewarm about it. :shrug:

Damn right you do! :D And I totally get what you mean about Brasco. Sometimes you get a film where you can admire a lot of it but for whatever reason it just doesn't generate any passion in you.

Will be back with another 90s movie tomorrow

JayDee

07-27-13, 06:35 PM

Onto next page

JayDee

07-27-13, 06:37 PM

Another 90s flick, although this time I'm not entirely happy with the review. It was one of those that I have every so often where I seem to write a lot without really getting to the point of what I'm trying to say.

mirror mirror

Year of release
1993

Directed by
Joel Schumacher

Written by
Ebbe Roe Smith

Starring
Michael Douglas
Robert Duvall
Barbara Hershey
Rachel Ticotin
Tuesday Weld

Falling Down

4 +

Plot - William Foster (Douglas), also known as D-FENS, is an unemployed and divorced ex-engineer for the defence industry. On this particular day all he wants is to make it home to see his daughter on her birthday, but obstacles continue to crop up in his path, eventually pushing him over the edge. When he finds himself gridlocked in LA traffic, his frustration becomes so much that he abandons his car where he sits and sets off on foot. As he tries to make his way home, numerous examples of modern society and everyday injustices continue to beset him. D-Fens responds by going on a streak of violence, one that nobody can put together except for Detective Prendergast (Duvall), a retiring cop. Prendergast follows D-Fens' trail all the way to Venice, and a final face-off.

A powerful, incendiary film. It takes the structure of a classic vigilante flick but it takes the story off into much deeper and thoughtful territory. This is certainly no entry in the Death Wish series. Douglas' vigilante does not respond to merely criminal acts, he confronts the annoyances and rudeness of society. Falling Down is no simple revenge fantasy, it's much too downbeat for that. The film dances back and forth between being a social commentary and the absolute blackest of comedies.

If you want just one reason as to why you should see this film it's Michael Douglas. He is on absolutely dynamic form in this, delivering a real powder-keg of a character in D-Fens. The basis for that name by the way comes from the man's licence plate, D-FENS; inspired by his previous job at a nuclear defence facility, where in his own words he was helping to “protect America.”. I don;'t think it's any mistake that it takes us a while to find out his name or that he is rarely addressed with it. He feels so obsolete now that he doesn't feel people even notice him anymore, or pay him the respect he deserves. So why do we need to know his name? Douglas switches so easily from making D-Fens seem like a pathetic loser one minute, to being truly unnerving as a psychotic madman. While he may be extremely unsettling, there is also something darkly hypnotic about Douglas' performance. There's a real sadness and sense of sympathy about the man. He no longer feels valued in this world and all he wants to do is go home but people keep getting in his way.

Opposite him you have his life paralleled by Robert Duvall's L.A.P.D. detective. On the verge of retiring he is another apparently redundant individual. And Duvall also happens to deliver an excellent performance as the put-upon Pendergast. Set to no longer be a cop he is obsolete; he seems impotent to the whims of his wife that are forcing him to retire and still crushed by the death of his young daughter. His captain even tells him to his face that he think he's a coward and is sick of him. Life has given him a bit of a kicking. And yet whereas D-Fens has snapped under the pressures that society has forced upon him, Duvall's Pendergast is somehow managing to hold it all together. It is unavoidable that Pendergast's scenes may seem a bit lifeless compared to the intensity of D-Fens' thread, but Duvall's performance ensures that they remain engaging. While the story predictably build to a final face-off between the two men.

Film Trivia Snippets – Iron Maiden's song, “Man on the Edge”, is inspired by this movie. /// Of all the films he's been in, Michael Douglas considers this to be his favourite performance that he has ever produced. /// Perhaps unsurprisingly given its subject matter, Ebbe Roe Smith's script was turned down by every studio in Hollywood. It was only when Michael Douglas stumbled upon the script and called it one of the best he'd ever read that things started to get moving. /// Falling Down was filmed throughout Los Angeles, and during the filming the 1992 LA riots broke out. The riots, sparked by the acquittal of the police officers in the Rodney King case, highlighted many of the racial, social and economical tensions that the film itself was portraying. Falling Down is interesting in that it doesn't really come to an obvious, clear conclusion. At least not in my eyes. Throughout the film I was going back and forth about how I was meant to feel about this guy. I mean has he just completely lost it and he's an evil scumbug? Or is he the only one who can see the truth and is willing to do something about it? Perhaps his glasses have a similar effect to Roddy Piper's sunglasses in They Live; they allow him to see what is really going on all around us. When he is confronted at the film's finale by Duvall's cop, rather taken aback D-Fens earnestly asks,“Am I the bad guy?” It's a good question. And one we may ask ourselves on occasion throughout the film. Perhaps revealing something about our own character. He's worked hard throughout his life doing an honourable job, had a family and had never caused any trouble and this is how he's been rewarded. After all it's not hard to picture anyone else doing the same, had they put in many years of hard work just to be told you were no longer required; that you were irrelevant. It could easily breed a depression that would fester into madness. Ok so perhaps he is the villain of the piece, but he is also a victim. We are shown the kind of societal elements that have contributed to his descent into madness. As a result we have a degree of pity for this man, even if we never reach the level of condoning his actions. A large part of the uncertainty certainly arises due to Douglas' tremendous performance which gives the character such depth that we may just be in danger of liking him.

Along the path of his Homer's Odyssey-style travels, D-Fens comes across numerous situations and issues - Racism. Bigotry. Gangs. Violence on the streets. Unemployment. Commercialism. Capitalism. Inflation. Immigration. Oppression under the Establishment. Corporations sucking the humanity from its employees - Wait a minute.......have I been transported back in time to 1993? It wouldn't be an entirely unreasonable assumption to come to given how closely our current climate of recessions and layoffs mirrors that of the film. Falling Down indites society as whole as being flawed in terms of its social and economical ways, from the small individual to the large conglomerate, with D-Fens' targets including violent gangs, an overcharging Korean shopkeeper, rude drivers, obstructive fast-food workers who are sticklers to the rules instead of taking the people into account, rich golf-course snobs and most memorably a neo-Nazi shop-owner played to chilling effect by Frederick Forrest. They are all largely caricatures, standing in for elements of society as a whole.

Dressed in a short-sleeved white shirt and tie, wearing slacks and glassses, and carrying a briefcase, D-Fens is the epitome of the generic white male professional, and eventually act as a symbol of the 'angry white male' phenomenon. I imagine that it in the picket-fenced world of the 1950s he's the kind of individual who would have prospered and been treated with a great deal of respect. But times have moved on and he's been left to mourn the loss of the classic American way. And that deterioration of American society can be evidenced everywhere throughout the film; from its crumbling infrastructure and graffiti-covered property, to the level of customer service and the liars on the street who try to fleece you of your money rather than do a honest day's work. At every stop along his journey, D-Fens is confronted by the downfall of society. Indeed D-Fens does not even set out with any evil intentions, things just happen to him and escalate. In fact he doesn't even have a weapon. It's only along the way, with society being what it is, that weapons find their ways into his hands. He begins by taking the baseball bat from the Korean store owner and from there on he acquires an ever-escalating arsenal, from a switchblade to a gun, to a whole bag of guns.

For all its biting satire, social commentary and occasionally tense, grim interludes Schumacher keeps the story accessible by including a sizeable amount of humour (even if it mostly veers towards the very dark) and largely just keeps it an entertaining experience, very much in the tradition of your average crime/action flick when it focuses on the police side of the story, right down to the cliché of Duvall's cop who is one day away from retirement; with the film playing into this notion as his fellow officers tease him about how he's going to get killed because it's his final day. The film is quite impressively directed by Schumacher throughout, particularly its opening sequence which is apparently an homage to Fellini's 8 ½. It sees Douglas' D-Fens stuck in a horrific traffic jam, going nowhere, and Schumacher really piles on the agony. We can really get a palpable sense of the stifling heat, the discomfort and the fury that is building up within the character as lots of tiny little irritations of life begin to pile up one on top of another until it becomes unbearable. Ebbe Roe Smith's brave, provocative script also deserves a lot of credit.

Conclusion - It's hard to believe that Falling Down comes from the same man that just four years later would inflict Batman & Robin upon the world. If you've already set your judgement of Schumacher in stone as result of that debacle you may want to give this one a shot. It may just change your mind. It's a compelling, thought-provoking film featuring a colossal showing from Michael Douglas as a man mired in despair and desperation.

gandalf26

07-27-13, 06:47 PM

Cool review JD. I really love Falling Down. So many great scenes, especially where DFenz is actually in the right a lot of the time walking around the City pointing out the wrongs and exacting his own justice. The Fast Food breakfast scene springs to mind.

seanc

07-27-13, 08:09 PM

I have not seen this movie in a long time. Prob since its VHS release. I remember liking it. With all the talk about it around here recently I should rewatch.

Daniel M

07-27-13, 09:30 PM

Did you watch that on Sky Movies JayDee? I actually recorded it on there the other night as I am looking out for 90s films, looking forward to it :)

Frightened Inmate No. 2

07-27-13, 11:55 PM

Sounds interesting. I'm still skeptical of it, given that it's a Schumacher, but I did like The Client, so I might give it a try sometime.

EDIT: I just realized that I had already put this on my Criticker wishlist at some point, but I had completely forgotten about it.

Miss Vicky

07-27-13, 11:58 PM

Falling Down is an awesome movie and one that doesn't seem to get as much recognition as it deserves.

honeykid

07-28-13, 12:21 AM

Falling Down is a great 90's movie, partly because it feels like a very definite break from the 80's. It's not happy and shiny. D-FENS, having done what he's been told to do and act how he was told to act, finds that he doesn't have any of the promises he'd been made. It's was very much of its time but, I'm guessing, still feels relevant today.

Godoggo

07-28-13, 01:20 AM

The Gunslinger45

07-28-13, 12:52 PM

Excellent review dude! Except for the part where you said Rodney King was killed. He was not killed, he just got the crap kicked out of him.

But aside from that, I love Falling Down! Set in 90's LA, hot muggy, a madman ready to blow, it is practically a GTA movie!

mark f

07-28-13, 01:14 PM

The riots referred to were "caused" by the Rodney King police trial acquittals.

Godoggo

07-28-13, 01:28 PM

Excellent review dude! Except for the part where you said Rodney King was killed. He was not killed, he just got the crap kicked out of him.

Yeah, he actually died a few years ago. He was on Celebrity Rehab and seemed like a really nice guy. I was rooting for him but sadly he ultimately went back to drugs and alcohol.

Sexy Celebrity

07-28-13, 01:33 PM

That sounds interesting and I like Michael Douglas and Joel Schumacher. Never really knew about that film.

The Gunslinger45

07-28-13, 02:23 PM

Yeah, he actually died a few years ago. He was on Celebrity Rehab and seemed like a really nice guy. I was rooting for him but sadly he ultimately went back to drugs and alcohol.

That is sad. I knew he had a history of substance abuse, but I did not know he died from it.

The Gunslinger45

07-28-13, 02:28 PM

The riots referred to were "caused" by the Rodney King police trial acquittals.

Indeed.

cricket

07-28-13, 02:50 PM

I liked Falling Down but not as much as I hoped I would.

JayDee

07-28-13, 06:18 PM

Did you watch that on Sky Movies JayDee? I actually recorded it on there the other night as I am looking out for 90s films, looking forward to it :)

No that's just a coincidence. I picked up the DVD for a couple of pounds a few years back and had just never got round to it. Hope you enjoy it.

Falling Down is an awesome movie and one that doesn't seem to get as much recognition as it deserves.

Welcome to the thread Vicky, nice of you to drop by. (At least I think it's your first appearance)

Excellent review dude! Except for the part where you said Rodney King was killed. He was not killed, he just got the crap kicked out of him.

I love my customary "excellent review dude" compliment. :D And thanks for that. I was even copying it from imdb trivia and somehow still got it wrong, a real brain fart there.

honeykid

07-28-13, 06:53 PM

That sounds interesting and I like Michael Douglas and Joel Schumacher. Never really knew about that film.
This is why you don't recognise the 90's list as it stands.

The Gunslinger45

07-28-13, 08:02 PM

No that's just a coincidence. I picked up the DVD for a couple of pounds a few years back and had just never got round to it. Hope you enjoy it.

Welcome to the thread Vicky, nice of you to drop by. (At least I think it's your first appearance)

I love my customary "excellent review dude" compliment. :D And thanks for that. I was even copying it from imdb trivia and somehow still got it wrong, a real brain fart there.

So IMDB is to blame! The fools! Srsly though the review was good, and the movie is excellent!

Miss Vicky

07-28-13, 08:15 PM

Welcome to the thread Vicky, nice of you to drop by. (At least I think it's your first appearance).

Thanks for the welcome.

I was looking over your alphabetized list of reviews and noticed there's one letter that's missing: Q.

I can think of a couple of "Q" films I'd suggest watching. ;)

ETA: Okay there are a few letters missing. But Q's the one that matters.

honeykid

07-28-13, 08:17 PM

Take about 10 years to see it, JD, MV loves that. :D

Miss Vicky

07-28-13, 08:21 PM

Hey it only took me 4 years to get you to see it, hk. Maybe I can get JD to do it in 3 or fewer. :p

Sexy Celebrity

07-28-13, 10:27 PM

This is why you don't recognise the 90's list as it stands.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mc4kd5mIGd1qg4blro1_500.gif

JayDee

07-30-13, 05:59 PM

Another review from my season of 90s films, although I am definitely struggling with my reviews at the moment. This was a tough one to write. I really do seem to have hit the wall at the moment; in a slump; in a funk; burnt out; got writer's block etc etc. At least I have a whole bunch of reviews in the bank which can see me through the next while until my touch hopefully comes back.

mirror mirror

Year of release
1995

Directed by
Ron Howard

Written by
Al Reinert
William Broyles Jr.

Starring
Tom Hanks
Kevin Bacon
Bill Paxton
Ed Harris
Gary Sinise

Apollo 13

3.5

Plot - The true story of the ill-fated Apollo 13 space mission. In 1970, NASA has scheduled its third lunar landing on the moon. The crew selected are astronauts Jim Lovell (Hanks), Ken Mattingly (Sinise) and Fred Haise (Paxton). When Mattingly is removed by the flight surgeon after being exposed to measles, he is replaced by back-up Jack Swigert (Bacon). The initial shuttle launch is successful but a mechanical fault causes an explosion which leaves their mission scrubbed and their hopes of returning home slim. Back at Mission Control, Mattingly, flight director Gene Kranz (Harris) and the ground crew pull out all the stops to ensure the men can return home. A mission which was almost completely ignored by the American public suddenly becomes the biggest story in the world.

Ron Howard brings history to life with this commendable film. The whole event is remarkably recreated, particularly taking into account the fact that there is not a single piece of documentary or archival footage to be found in Apollo 13. This is all original material. So the special effects; the models, CGI etc that go into recreating the events, especially the shuttle launch itself are highly effective. With some sweeping camerawork and a stirring piece of music it's quite a grand, triumphant scene. While to recreate the effects of zero gravity the actors were flown in an airplane which can create the sensation of being weightless for 23 seconds at a time. And with Howard really concentrating on the minutiae of the whole operation the film really does have quite a docudrama feel to it.

The acting is very solid across the board. Though as a result of what is required of the characters I didn't feel there were really any big, attention-grabbing performances. Taking its cue from the real events which unfolded they are never really asked to perform in a showy or grandstanding manner. If this were a piece of fiction I imagine that the film would have given them ample occasions to show off; characters panicking and freaking out, fights between the crew etc. So while they are admirable in their own ways it's not a great surprise that none of the cast portraying members of the shuttle crew were nominated for any awards at the time. And as a result perhaps the most impressive aspect of the acting on show is the chemistry and camaraderie that the performers build between the cabin crew. Star turn amongst them for me would still belong to Tom Hanks however. And I think that's largely down to just what a perfect piece of casting it is. To become an astronaut has got to be just about the most American of pursuits, so who better to cast than Tom Hanks; the all-American everyman, the man of the people. Also very impressive to me were Gary Sinise, Ed Harris and Kathleen Quinlan as Lovell's wife.

Film Trivia Snippets - NASA regulations dictate that Tom Hanks could not actually become an astronaut in real life. The maximum height for an astronaut if exactly six feet, while Tom Hanks is 6'1”. /// Due to his portrayal of Jim Lovell in the film, Tom Hanks was honoured by having an asteroid named after him; “12818 Tomhanks” /// Before Tom Hanks came on board John Travolate turned down the role of Lovell, while Brad Pitt also turned down an offer to star in the film to make Se7en instead. /// There's a scene in the film where the NASA engineers are challenged to come up with an improvised solution to a problem on the shuttle using only items that the astronauts have on board. This scene proved the inspiration for Cathy Rogers to create the TV shows Scrapheap Challenge and Junkyard Wars. I felt that the film accomplished a few nuances rather nicely. I think it captured the boyish sense of wonder very well when it comes to space and astronauts, the moon etc. There's a great little moment just after the shuttle has been launched and they've entered zero gravity. The crew begin to remove pieces of their equipment and allow them to float around the cabin, knocking them up into the air and laughing, really taken by the whole childlike novelty of it. Another thing I felt it handled well was the apathy that quickly set in when it came to space exploration. I think I touched on this a while back when I reviewed Capricorn One, but I'm absolutely amazed at how quickly people, particularly Americans, got bored with NASA and the moon and space shuttles etc. In 1969 when man landed on the moon it was one of the biggest events the world had ever seen. And yet just one year later and the launch of Apollo 13 generated barely no interest whatsoever, at least not until it was in peril that is. In the film, even one of the employees at NASA is more interested in watching a baseball game on the TV than experiencing the adventure of the crew. After I watched and reviewed the film I had a little look around at some other reviews for the film and really loved this little bit that Roger Ebert wrote on this phenomenon of indifference - “When I was a kid, they used to predict that by the year 2000, you'd be able to go to the moon. Nobody ever thought to predict that you'd be able to, but nobody would bother.”

The film really does help you to understand just how heroic these guys were, and perhaps just how insane they were! At one point Tom Hanks' character extols the computer at NASA which “fits in one room”; a computer which probably had the same amount of power as this little laptop I'm typing away on right this moment. And then there's the makeshift, ramshackle repairs that the men have to implicate if they are to make it home alive. It's like a damn arts and craft project from primary school. To willingly volunteer to take part in such an undertaking is an incredible feat of bravery and derring-do; really pioneering stuff.

While I admired the numerous qualities of the film it struggled to really involve me to a great degree. I think the fact it's such an enclosed and contained story certainly played a part in that, giving the film quite a stuffy atmosphere. As a result the scenes set in Mission Control or at Lovell's home provide a nice break. It's also a touch on the patriotic and sentimental side of things which you'd probably expect given the subject and Howard's involvement, but it does a decent job of just about keeping it in check.

Conclusion - This is certainly a prime example of fine film-making when it comes to creating a crowd pleaser, but one that just did not quite get my juices flowing like I hoped it would. With an excellent story as its source it had the potential to be something special, but personally I just felt that it was sabotaged a touch by its sentimental side and occasionally too obvious sense of storytelling. Though I do feel I'm perhaps being a touch harsh on it. Perhaps I was in a bit of a grumpy mood when I watched it. It wouldn't exactly be a rare occurrence. :D

seanc

07-30-13, 06:05 PM

Good review JayDee though I hold it in higher esteem than you I certainly understand your criticisms. One of my 100 faves 4.5

honeykid

07-30-13, 06:13 PM

I can understand having problems with a review of Apollo 13 because it's a film that does absolutely everything really well. But that's it. It's not a criticism, but it makes finding an 'in' into a review difficult, I'm sure.

JayDee

07-30-13, 08:12 PM

Good review JayDee though I hold it in higher esteem than you I certainly understand your criticisms. One of my 100 faves 4.5

Aww just good? :( Is that because I dared to level any criticisms at one your absolute favourites. :p

And I can see why someone could love it. As I said it is very well made and if you form a real connection on top of that then I can see loving it

I can understand having problems with a review of Apollo 13

It's not just the Apollo 13 review though, in general I'm just struggling at the moment. Been watching a lot of 90s flicks and most of them unable to come up with a review; struggling even for micro musings.

As I said however I've got a huge backload of reviews which will keep me going for a good while.

honeykid

07-30-13, 08:41 PM

Take a break and start with the backlog, JD. Just watch for fun until you feel it again. :)

Sexy Celebrity

07-30-13, 08:43 PM

Not every movie "wants" to be written up and reviewed. That's how I feel with movie reviews. Maybe you need to watch it again some other time first.

Sexy Celebrity

07-30-13, 08:44 PM

Or just write a bitchier movie review. Pleasantries get too boring.

cricket

07-30-13, 09:01 PM

I have never seen this film so I just read your conclusion. Your conclusion is really what I expected of this film and the reason I never went out of my way to watch it.

The Gunslinger45

07-30-13, 09:26 PM

I can see why a review of Apollo 13 would be tough. Certain films are easier to talk about. Especially the movies you love, and the movies you hate. An excellent review regardless. Feel free to take a break if you need to dude. :)

Camo

07-31-13, 07:37 PM

I think I'm just about getting there.

mirror

Brick

4+

A slick, stylish, almost unbearably cool film. An absorbing mystery which is littered with incredible, creative, hardboiled dialogue. Taking the classic film noir template of gangs, drug kingpins, a murder mystery, femme fatales etc and transposing it into a high school setting it really is a bit original this one.

With a convoluted, twisting story you really need to have your wits about you to enjoy this film. And perhaps with the virtue of repeat viewings you will enjoy and appreciate it ever more. The film has a lovely distinctive appearance and is directed with aplomb by first time director Rian Johnson. Throw in a powerful performance by Joseph Gordon-Levitt and you have a unique, intriguing film.

mirrorMonkey Business

4

This is a ridiculously riotous film. I just found it to be a very, very funny film. A true example of the 'screwball comedy'. The reason it works so well is due to the fact that Cary Grant and Ginger Rogers both really throw themselves into it. If they had tried to keep any dignity about themselves it wouldn't have worked, so thankfully they don't seem worried about looking daft.

Favourite moments include Gary Grant leading a group of young boys on a scalping mission against a man he thinks is interested in his wife and Rogers' character having a bit of a breakdown at the hotel where they went on their honeymoon. The film also stars Marilyn Monroe, and while her screentime isn't much she makes the most of it with a charming, entertaining turn.

Just great fun.

mirror
Cruel Intentions

4

I think this is a wildly sexy and darkly funny movie. A dark romantic (of a sort) comedy which reminded me a touch of Heathers.

All of the young actors put in charismatic performances. I've never been a fan of Sarah Michelle Gellar (despite loving the show Buffy, she was always my least favourite element of it) but think she's terrifically entertaining here. I also think with her brunette hair she looks sexier than I've ever seen her. Her character is just devilishly delightful, a character of almost pure evil. And while it's never acknowledged I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out her character was actually a sociopath.

Surprisingly (and perhaps strangely) I found the courtship between Reese Witherspoon and Ryan Phillipe to be one of the more engaging and touching relationships I've seen in a while. A lot of this is down to Phillippe's performance. We really see the change that the character goes through, going from a complete douche to being someone we can actually care about and root for.

At times it's rather daft and over the top but done so glossily that it's really entertaining.

mirror

Blood Simple

4

The Coen's debut film is an absolute triumph. While I wouldn't say it's close to Hitchcock's masterpieces, it is a film worthy of the comparison that is often made. It's an excellent, intricately weaved story that leads the characters and the viewer down one alley after another. Intelligently written it pits characters against each other, each believing the other is the one guilty of murder

While it is a very dark, grim film it also has some wonderful black humour splashed throughout. You can certainly see glimpses of those touches which would become trademarks for the Coen brothers.

mirror

The Rocketeer

3.5++

This is a film that's been on my radar for a long while but which I still hadn't watched. With Joe Johnston's Captain America quickly approaching I thought it was the perfect time to see one of the main reasons he was given the job.

And on this evidence you can certainly see why he was given the job, as it appears both films will feature many of the same elements – action, adventure, fantasy, romance, special effects, World War II setting (well it's just on the horizon here) and a Nazi menace. If he is able to match this film Captain America should be a very enjoyable ride. If he surpasses it we could have a real cracker on our hands.

It really is just a wonderfully fun movie. It's very daft but in a really sweet, winning kind of way. Bill Campbell and Jennifer Connelly are solid although their romance is probably the weakest aspect for me personally. Alan Arkin is very good and Timothy Dalton is extremely entertaining as the dashing screen hero who is anything but a hero in real life. As he has also shown recently in Chuck Dalton makes for a pretty great villain. And the film has a very impressive finale as our hero battles the Nazis on top of a blimp.

mirror

An Education

3.5++

I found this to be a really engaging film, mostly down to the incredible central performance and the performances of the supporting cast.

Carey Mulligan is absolutely incredible as Jenny. She creates a character that I just fell completely in love with. Peter Sarsgaard is excellent as David, the sophisticated man who grabs her attentions. You can fully understand why Jenny and her parents are hooked in by him. He gives an incredibly charming performance, I found myself buying into what he was selling. Alfred Molina is...well Alfred Molina! Which means you are always going to get a solid, reliable performance from him; he's a terrific actor. And Rosamund Pike delivers quite a few laughs in her Marilyn Monroe-like role as a ditzy blonde.

The film is helped out by a very well written script by Nick Hornby. Each character is developed into a believable character in their own right, and some of the language in dialogue heavy scenes is very well done.

By the end I just found that I had become completely caught up in the story, just hoping for everything to turn out ok

mirror

The Concert

3.5+

A very sweet film this. It tells a fantastic, albeit slightly implausible, tale about these people who have their dreams crushed but have them revived through their passion and love for music. It's certainly one of the best films I've seen in a while in terms of getting across the magic of music. It has moments that are touching and moving but also rather humorous.

The acting throughout is impressive, especially from the two central characters, that just helps to make the film all that more engaging. This is a film I could really see myself growing to love over time and multiple viewings, so perhaps a little gem in the making.

mirror
The Sting

3

While I was certainly able to appreciate the quality of this film I didn't find myself loving it. The 30s period is excellently recreated, every detail giving it a truly authentic, classy feel. And Redford and Newman are both very impressive and charismatic in the lead roles. While the cast is filled out by a lot of other talented performers

The film is very stylised, perhaps overly so for me. I usually find stories about cons are similar to those about jewel thiefs; they are usually very adventurous, romantic stories. But I didn't get that feeling from this. I think it was just so slick that it came off feeling a little cold to me.

mirror

Marnie

3

Really broody, intriguing film. It kept me strongly interested throughout, trying to figure out how it was all going to work out. What had happened in Marnie's past that made her how she was now, and why was Sean Connery's character so desperate to help her

Unlike the true classics that Hitchcock produced however I'm not sure the film is good enough that it will hold up to repeat viewings now that the mystery will no longer be there. It's quite daft and cheesy to be honest when it comes to the story and the psychological element that it tries to portray. But fairly fun all the same

Great reviews Jaydee, sorry for replying to your thread this late. As i said i'm only at the start of your thread and you probably don't remember making these reviews, that i have responded to . :D . +1 for page 4 Brick,Cruel Intentions and An Education. Great movies :)

JayDee

07-31-13, 09:01 PM

4 reps for Apollo 13 people?!!! That's disgraceful! Falling Down had 10 in the same timeframe. Just not good enough. I'm going to hold the rest of my reviews hostage until it gets sorted out! :p

I was actually going to post a little batch of micro musings but photobucket is acting up for me so can't get the posters at the moment

Or just write a bitchier movie review. Pleasantries get too boring.

Oh there's little point in me trying that Sexy. My bitchiness pales in comparison to yours. :D

Great reviews Jaydee, sorry for replying to your thread this late. As i said i'm only at the start of your thread and you probably don't remember making these reviews, that i have responded to . :D . +1 for page 4 Brick,Cruel Intentions and An Education. Great movies :)

Thanks Camo. :up: We'll see you when you've caught up in about a year or two! :D

honeykid

07-31-13, 09:09 PM

I can understand that, JD. After watching Apollo 13, how interested in reading a review of it would be you? I only skimmed it and read the conclusion and I only did that because it's you. :)

JayDee

08-01-13, 07:08 PM

After watching Apollo 13, how interested in reading a review of it would be you?

If it's written by me a hell of a lot! :D

I only did that because it's you. :)

Awww HK! That's so nice of you. :bawling: Don't worry, those are happy tears

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/tumblr_mefhro4xSH1qhcemj_zps7df470d8.gif (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/tumblr_mefhro4xSH1qhcemj_zps7df470d8.gif.html)

JayDee

08-01-13, 08:39 PM

Micro Musings

mirror mirror

Year of relase
1971

Directed by
Richard C. Sarafian

Starring
Barry Newman
Cleavon Little
Dean Jagger
Timothy Scott

Vanishing Point

3 -

This one wasn't really what I was expecting, and as such it took me a long while to get into it. Part of that was done to the style the film unfolded in. Since the advent of the talkies has there ever been a film whose main character said less than Kowalski? He hardly utters a word throughout the whole film so it's hard to identify with him, at least initially. Instead it is left to a series of informative flashbacks to flesh out the character as we witness the dark times of his past. While to fill the void of silence Kowalski creates, there is a radio DJ who details the journey of the character in a move similar to Lynne Thigpen's character in The Warriors. The film's minimal plot (if you can even call it that) is basically a device to explore American society at the time, the movements and sentiments that were prevailing. Through his meetings with various individuals we are given insights into the drug culture, the hippie movement and religion at the time, whilst also detailing troubles the country faced such as racism. The film also feels very reminiscent of Dog Day Afternoon in that the public rally behind Kowalski, seeing him as an example of taking on 'the man.' Very much playing into the anti-establishment emotions of the 60s and 70s that I frequently came across during my 70s thriller season. The film also features some beautiful, expansive cinematography of America's backroads and some fantastic stunt driving. While the film goes quite deep and existential as it nears its conclusion. As I said it really wasn't what I was expecting (and I'm not sure I fully 'got it') but one that I will definitely need to give a rewatch to someday.

mirror mirror

Year of release
1996

Directed by
Robert Rodriguez

Starring
George Clooney
Quentin Tarantino
Harvey Keitel
Juliette Lewis
Ernest Liu

From Dusk Till Dawn

2.5 ++

This was certainly a film of two halves. I've got to say that for the first half I really struggled to care about the film whatsoever, finding it a bit dull. However the film just explodes into life when the first set of pointed teeth are revealed. When the vampires show up the film turns into a cheesy splatterfest, with numerous creative deaths and awesomely schlocky effects. And the human guitar has got to be one of the greatest things I've ever seen! It's actually got quite a few strong performances. Clooney is very cool in an edgier and more lurid role than he is normally seen in. While as his brother and partner in crime, even Tarantino is pretty decent for once. While Harvey Keitel is a tower of strength as you would expect. Star performer however would have to be Juliette Lewis, really cool in the role of Keitel's daughter. I think the ideal situation would have been to watch this film completely oblivious to its plot and the direction it was going to take. Maybe I will enjoy it more on a rewatch. Perhaps I slightly sabotaged the first half by just waiting for the vampires to turn up. After that it became quite a delightfully nasty little treat of creatures and gore.

mirror mirror

Year of release
2007

Directed by
Robert Rodriguez

Starring
Rose McGowan
Freddy Rodriguez
Josh Brolin
Marley Shelton
Michael Biehn

Planet Terror

3 ++

Given that neither Death Proof or From Dusk Till Dawn exactly rocked my world I've got to say I was surprised at just how much I enjoyed this one. I just found it to be really good, trashy fun. There were quite a lot of vibrant performances from the cast who just seemed to be having an absolute blast making something so ridiculous. Freddy Rodriguez and Rose McGowan in particular are both pretty bad ass, and I enjoyed the relationship banter they shared even as the whole world was going to hell all around them. There were a lot of fun running gags, from Cherry's missing leg dilemma to Dakota's useless hands and J.T.'s secret sauce. The film's gory effects brought me a good few ghoulish laughs. And for some reason the same techniques that didn't work for me in Death Proof, I enjoyed here; the scratches, the rough condition of the film etc. And I loved the missing reel gag. One thing I was left wondering was how exactly does Cherry fire the gun that is attached to her as a makeshift leg. Look at me, looking for logic in a film like Planet Terror! :D Going on the words of honeykid (who is more knowledgable on the subject) perhaps Death Proof is a more fitting tribute to the grindhouse genre, but I found this to be a lot more trashily enjoyable.

mirror mirror

Year of release
1973

Directed by
Philip D'Antoni

Starring
Roy Scheider
Victor Arnold
Tony Lo Bianco
Larry Haines
Jerry Leon

The Seven-Ups

3

While it may be a B-level cop thriller when compared with all of the other classics of that genre from the 70s this is still an extremely solid film, and one that almost feels like a French Connection sequel minus Gene Hackman. It's well acted (particularly in the case of Scheider), has a decent enough gritty character and some impressive action. The director, D'Antoni, was a producer on both The French Connection and Bullitt and uses very much the same template as those films. As a result this film features a suitably thrilling car chase which ends in abrupt and brutal fashion. Another chase certainly deserving of being classed as one of the best put on screen. Not one of the must-see cop thrillers of the 70s but worth catching if you've already seen most of those that would fall into that category.

honeykid

08-01-13, 08:55 PM

I think the ideal situation would have been to watch this film completely oblivious to its plot and the direction it was going to take.
This is exactly how my friend first saw it. We used to go to the cinema most weekends and I'd usually pick the film, as he really didn't care too much. We saw this on the Friday night, midnight showing. Had a great time, the place was only about a quarter full, if that, and on the ride home it became apparent that he had no idea WTF had happened. I remember his words being something like, "... and then they all became vampires and I thought, "Oh, ok then." and watched the film it became." He loved it, but he didn't know anything about it. Not even that there were vampires.

Going on the words of honeykid (who is more knowledgable on the subject) perhaps Death Proof is a more fitting tribute to the grindhouse genre, but I found this to be a lot more trashily enjoyable.
I'm not sure it's a more fitting tribute, but I do think it's much more like a run-of-the-mill grindhouse film, whereas Planet Terror is a neo-grindhouse film and feels more like a 'best of' compilation.

Oh, and I'm really pleased you liked Vanishing Point. I've only seen it once or twice, but I really liked it.

cricket

08-02-13, 01:12 AM

I actually liked the first half of From Dusk Till Dawn better; it went a little downhill for me the second Hayek's fangs came out. Planet Terror was cool.

The Gunslinger45

08-02-13, 03:02 AM

JayDee I could not agree with you more on From Dusk til Dawn! The first half drags, but once they get to the bar the fun begins! Excellent micro musings!

Gabrielle947

08-02-13, 03:08 AM

I actually liked the first half of From Dusk Till Dawn better; it went a little downhill for me the second Hayek's fangs came out.
yep,same with me :up:

JayDee

08-02-13, 02:56 PM

Well as it turns out I've been inspired to write a couple of reviews over the last day or two so I can continue my 90s catch-up season. Though as Gunslinger said, right now it's just films I'm really liking/loving that I'm finding easy to write about. Films I don't like, think are just pretty good or that did nothing for me either way I'm struggling with just now. And I'm guessing HK should be pretty happy with this one. :D

mirror mirror

Year of release
1991

Directed by
Oliver Stone

Written by
Zachary Sklar
Oliver Stone

Starring
Kevin Costner
Tommy Lee Jones
Gary Oldman
Kevin Bacon
Joe Pesci
Sissy Spacek

JFK

4.5

Plot - November 22nd 1963. United States president John F. Kennedy is shot and killed in Dallas, Texas. Shortly thereafter Lee Harvey Oswald is caught and arrested for his murder. While in police custody however Oswald is himself shot and killed by Jack Ruby. With JFK's killer dead the case is closed. Except that it wasn't. Questions about the assassination lingered and were not even put to rest with the release of the Warren report into the incident. This film details the efforts of New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison to uncover the true story behind Kennedy's death.

Man I love me a good conspiracy theory! Aliens at Roswell. The moon landing being faked. 9/11. Pearl Harbour. Elvis is still alive etc. I love a mystery and the various theories that get spouted out in their wake. Even when I don't believe whatsoever in the theories being put forward I still find them to be very interesting and a lot of fun. And of all the conspiracy theories out there, arguably none is larger than the assassination of John F. Kennedy. It's a doozy. It's been 50 years since it happened and still huge questions hang over it. Was Lee Harvey Oswald really the man responsible? And if not was it the mob? The CIA? The FBI? Castro? Sadly we don't know for sure. And about the only thing that most people agree on is that they don't believe the story of a lone gunman that their own government has put out as gospel. This film explores the inconsistencies in the story and focuses on some of the theories about what really did happen.

As a film JFK is actually quite a strange, unique exercise in terms of its structure, its story and its characters. It doesn't follow the established template for a movie whatsoever. It doesn't really have a classic three-act structure. There's little to no characterisation or character arcs to be found, and hardly anything in the way of relationships between characters. And we know going in that at the end of the film Garrison is doomed to failure with his cause. And it's whole set-up doesn't sound like it should be all that interesting. The film is almost continuous dialogue for its entire running time. What you basically have is 180 minutes of exposition. And yet with all of this going against it, I still found it to be one of the most engaging and engrossing films I've watched in a long time. While the story and the theories that provide the film's foundation obviously help a lot, great credit must also be paid to both Oliver Stone and the fantastic ensemble that he assembled.

Film Trivia - Unsurprisingly the film generated quite a lot of controversy upon its release. Even before its release actually. After George Lardner, national security correspondent for the Washington Post, showed up during shooting he wrote a scathing article attacking the film. He did so after reading the first draft of the script. Many other major newspapers followed his example when the movie did hit cinemas, attacking Stone for playing fast and loose with the facts. Even those who were just fans of the film had a tough time. Pat Dowell, veteran movie critic for The Washingtonian, had her 34 word capsule review rejected by its editor, John Limpert. Limpert was a known opponent of the film, which he considered treacherous. Dowell resigned in protest. Even a legend like Roger Ebert wasn't safe. After his rave review and four star rating for the film, Walter Cronkie berated Ebert for praising it, with Cronkite adamant that there was not a shred of truth to the whole film. In response to the many attacks about him fabricating the facts, Stone published an annotated version of the script, in which he justified every claim made in the film. It really does have to be one of the most impressive ensemble casts ever put together. I mean even in the most minor roles you've got guys like Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau; absolute f*cking legends! Now I know he may not exactly be a darling of many movie fans, but I have to say that I've always really liked Kevin Costner. I've loved a lot of his films (Field of Dreams, No Way Out, Dances With Wolves, Bull Durham etc) and really hope he makes a huge comeback someday. He may not have the talent or range of Tom Hanks but I'd say he's pretty close in terms of embodying that all-American everyman character that harkens back to the 30s and 40s. And I think he does a great job here of leading the sizeable and impressive cast. His Garrison is a stately but passionate seeker of the truth. He proves to be particularly impressive down the film's closing stretch as the pressure begins to get to him and cracks begin to appear both in his personal and professional life. And then I felt he did a great job in the trial scenes which close out the film, delivering the lengthy monologues about magic bullets and how JFK went “back and to the left, back and to the left...” in a thrilling fashion.

Garrison's team are made up of a series of very talented character actors including Michael Rooker, Wayne Knight and Jay O. Sanders. Most of whom all get a moment or two to shine and prove capable of grabbing it. Outside of these more straight-laced characters, there are a series of supporting characters who provide a great deal of colour and life to the film, mostly in the form of potential witnesses. Joe Pesci as the ridiculously eyebrowed David Ferrie, Kevin Bacon as male prostitute Willie O'Keefe, John Candy as an eccentric lawyer and Donald Sutherland as Mr. X, a Washington insider who tantalises Garrison with a slew of information, all make an impact. I thought that Kevin Bacon in particular was pretty damn great. The absolute stand-out however amongst these supporting characters would have to be Tommy Lee Jones as Clay Shaw, aka Clay Bertrand. He is terrifically sleezy as the shadowy Clay, extremely haughty and condescending; well worth his Academy Award nomination for best supporting actor.

For a film where at least 90% of its running time is dedicated to characters either standing or sitting around just talking, you would imagine that Oliver Stone may not have much opportunity to really make a mark on the film in a visual sense. And for that 90% you may be right. However when it comes to presenting recreations of the events that happened in the lead up to and on that fateful day, Stone certainly does put his stamp on the film. Presented in black and white and frequently edited in a maniacally frenetic fashion they are vivid and invigorating flashes that integrate archival footage, recreated sequences and hypothetical scenes. Stone also makes great use of the genuine, shocking video footage and photos that exist of the actual incident and its aftermath.

Film Trivia Snippets - In Bull Durham, released three years earlier, Kevin Costner's character has a large monologue about what he believes in, and actually states that “I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone”; the exact opposite stance taken by his character in JFK. /// Originally Mel Gibson and Harrison Ford were Oliver Stone's first two choices for the role of Jim Garrison. Jeff Bridges and Nick Nolte also came into consideration but were rejected; Bridges for not being a major draw at the box-office, and Nolte for being deemed too old. While Don Johnson petitioned very hard for the role, but was turned down by Stone and the producers as they felt Johnson's own public image would make him a hard sell as Garrison. /// To alter Dealey Plaza so that it mirrored how it looked in 1963 took $4 million to accomplish. JFK is a wonderfully crafted film. The editing throughout the film is fantastic, but so is its writing, use of music and its cinematography; all of which are top notch. Together they create an excellent piece of storytelling that is somehow able to coral a wealth of information and a massive assembly of characters into not only a coherent but a thrilling narrative. A narrative which achieves its aim triumphantly. Oliver Stone doesn't set out to provide an answer to what happened on the 22nd November in 1963, he couldn't possibly. What he does do however is help to breed the anger and indignity that many people have over Kennedy's assassination, showing how unlikely, or hell impossible, the 'official' story is. He presents a film that makes you want to get up at the end and do something about it. To find out the truth. And beyond that its just a cracking story, one that would seem highly contrived and cliched where it not based on actual events given all of the shadowy characters involved, witnesses who fall one after the other like flies, the number of 'coincidences' that enabled the event to occur etc. Yes Stone may take some liberties with historical facts, using creative licence here and there, but to paint a plausible theory of what may have happened it's an exhilarating experience.

The only problem with a great conspiracy theory or mystery is how desperate I become for answers. I want to know what happened to Amelia Earhart. I want to know where Jimmy Hoffa is. I want to know if the Royal Family are really lizards. And I want to know what really happened to JFK. I always hope for some answers to be found, with deathbed confessions and truths outed by ill health always being a prime source, as in the cast of Deep Throat, whose identity was finally revealed a few years back. So perhaps one day we will find out the truth about the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy; until then we have this terrific film which presents a counter argument to the Warren report; an argument that is both enticing and worryingly believable.

Conclusion - Whatever you think of Stone and the fashion in which he tackled the story of Kennedy's assassination I don't think there's any denying that he assembled a fantastic jigsaw puzzle of a film with JFK. It's a great technical showpiece of editing, writing, photography etc which is splendidly played by its enormous cast. Even if you don't buy into what Stone is selling, or any of the conspiracy talk whatsoever, this can still be enjoyed as an intelligent, high class thriller. As someone who does believe that something fishy went on that day however, JFK acts as a great call to arms to search out the truth.

honeykid

08-02-13, 03:56 PM

That's a great review of a film you know I love dearly.

Have you seen 13 Days, JD? Very different film, obviously, but it has a similar feel and works in a similar way.

Frightened Inmate No. 2

08-02-13, 04:31 PM

Great review. Really the only reason I didn't love this movie was because the beginning was very dull and uninteresting. Their was no real point in there being characters, and I didn't see any reason why it couldn't just be a documentary. However, once the Donald Sutherland scene came around, every scene after that was pretty great.

The Gunslinger45

08-02-13, 07:02 PM

Excellent review! Now I admit I have never actually seen this movie. I am just not that big a fan of Oliver Stone (I hated Natural Born Killers). But your review does make me curious to see the movie.

Fun fact, I have been to the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas, and the building has been turned into a JFK museum. Worth a trip to see if you visit the area. There is even a great big sign that says grassy knoll on it.

gandalf26

08-02-13, 07:20 PM

George H.W.Bush was rumoured to be either running or part of the assassination team in Dallas that day.

Amazingly he claims he "doesn't remember" where he was when he heard JFK was shot".

Just think about that for a minute, how do you not remember where you were on one of the most important days of the century?

Film Trivia - Unsurprisingly the film generated quite a lot of controversy upon its release. Even before its release actually. After George Lardner, national security correspondent for the Washington Post, showed up during shooting he wrote a scathing article attacking the film. He did so after reading the first draft of the script. Many other major newspapers followed his example when the movie did hit cinemas, attacking Stone for playing fast and loose with the facts. Even those who were just fans of the film had a tough time. Pat Dowell, veteran movie critic for The Washingtonian, had her 34 word capsule review rejected by its editor, John Limpert. Limpert was a known opponent of the film, which he considered treacherous. Dowell resigned in protest. Even a legend like Roger Ebert wasn't safe. After his rave review and four star rating for the film, Walter Cronkie berated Ebert for praising it, with Cronkite adamant that there was not a shred of truth to the whole film. In response to the many attacks about him fabricating the facts, Stone published an annotated version of the script, in which he justified every claim made in the film.

“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years......It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.”
― David Rockefeller (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/9951.David_Rockefeller)

The Gunslinger45

08-02-13, 07:31 PM

gandalf26

08-02-13, 07:34 PM

Yea and don't forget he made best friends with Elvis.

The Gunslinger45

08-02-13, 07:35 PM

Yea and don't forget he made best friends with Elvis.

I never forget that he became best buds with Elvis! :D

JayDee

08-03-13, 05:46 PM

Thanks to Gunslinger and Inmate for the compliments. :up: And I had actually included a reference to Bubba Ho-Tep but for some reason removed it.

Have you seen 13 Days, JD? Very different film, obviously, but it has a similar feel and works in a similar way.

No I haven't but I've been interested in it for a long while. Got it taped somewhere and have been meaning to look it out since watching JFK.

JayDee

08-04-13, 07:40 PM

mirror mirror

Year of release
1990

Directed by
Rob Reiner

Written by
William Goldman
Stephen King (novel)

Starring
Kathy Bates
James Caan
Richard Farnsworth
Frances Sternhagen
Lauren Bacall

Misery

4

Plot - Paul Sheldon (Caan) is a hugely popular and successful writer, with much of his success arising as a result of his series of books featuring the character of Misery Chastain. Despite the wealth and fame they have brought him, Sheldon has no real passion or pride for them. Setting out to write something more serious and substantial he makes the decision to kill the character off and instead writes a new unrelated novel. He always writes his novels in a secluded lodge in Colorado before heading back to the city to give the finished manuscript to his editor (Bacall). Except that this time when he attempts to leave after completing the novel, he does so in a wild blizzard and crashes his car. He is critically injured and would surely have died there and then but is instead rescued by Annie Wilkes (Bates), a former nurse and as it turns out Paul's number one fan. She takes Paul back to her remote house to recuperate from his numerous broken bones. Except that she doesn't inform anyone of this. As it turns out Annie is also just a little bit unstable. When she discovers that Paul has killed off her beloved Misery, Annie becomes furious, holding Paul captive and forcing him to write a new Misery story which brings her back to life.

There's no doubt that the prime reason Misery is so much fun to watch is down to Kathy Bates' terrific performance as the unhinged Annie Wilkes. It almost feels like Bates should have been given dual credits for the film as she pretty much portrays two completely different characters. For much of the film's first act she appears to be the nicest, sweetest person you could ever wish to meet, full of homespun expressions and rustic, country girl wisdom. She may come across as a little odd and eccentric perhaps, but it would be easy to just put that down to the isolated state from society which she has created for herself. However we eventually begin to see the other side of Annie Wilkes, the terrifying and monstrous side of this deranged super-fan. And Bates is absolutely captivating in these scenes of transformation. The contrast that her cheery, sunny disposition flags up playing against the sadistic monster proves to be very humorous. Though she isn't quite the despicable monster I had expected with Bates giving the character a sense of depth and empathy. In the scene where she acknowledges how Sheldon will be wanting to leave soon I felt genuine sympathy for the character.

While it is Bates that really makes this film it would be unfair however to overlook James Caan's contribution to the film. Despite the fact that he is restricted either to a bed or a wheelchair for the large majority of the film, Caan does not allow that to detract from his performance. His Sheldon is quite an interesting creation, not acting in the typical way you might expect. He doesn't appear as terrified or defeated as would be normal, giving Sheldon a dry wit and a penchant for caustic remarks. It's fun watching their cat and mouse relationship unfold as Paul tries to outwit Annie by playing along with and even sympathising with her. Though in a way it doesn't seem like a completely negative experience for him, he seems to find it rather interesting and even motivational in regards to his writing. Perhaps he even thinks this is him getting his just desserts for the meagre work he has put out into the world. Caan also does a fine job portraying the levels of excruciating pain he is in. And while Misery is basically a two-hander between Bates and Caan the film also provides some fun little departures in the form of back and forths between the local sheriff and his wife/deputy. Played winningly by Richard Farnsworth and Frances Sternhagen, they share a very entertainingly cranky rapport and provide a few good laughs.

Prior to Misery, Rob Reiner's previous three films as a director had been When Harry Met Sally, The Princess Bride and Stand by Me. When you take into consideration just how large a departure Misery is from the light-hearted, romantic and nostalgic nature of those films I think Reiner deserves a good deal of credit for how he handles this drastic change of pace. You could say that the structure of the film may not require a great deal of work on his behalf but I feel he does an effective job of directing events throughout, particularly the moments of extreme suspense. With Caan confined to his bed for large stretches Reiner really makes the most of the occasions where Sheldon is able to escape from his one-room prison, ratcheting up the tension. I loved the sequence which depicts Sheldon's first foray out of his dungeon like existence. As he drags himself out of bed we can really feel the immense discomfort and pain the character is suffering, and Reiner than cross cuts back and forth between Sheldon exploring the house and Annie returning to the house. It may be a pretty typical 'race against time' scene, nothing particularly innovative, but it is nicely done. Reiner frequently films much of the movie from a low camera angle to give us Sheldon's point of view, placing us in his position. Such an approach also allows Reiner to frame Bates in an imposing and formidable light, mimicking the way in she towers over Caan's prone body. It's a very effective move at covering up for Bates' rather slight frame; she is actually only 5'3” but as she looms over us she appears to be giant.

Film Trivia Snippets - It might seem quite amazing when you take into account the likes of Stand by Me, The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile, but Misery is actually the only Stephen King adaptation to receive an Academy Award; Kathy Bates' Best Actress win. /// The role of Paul Sheldon took a long time to find its way down to James Caan. Before he got it the role had been offered to and turned down by William Hurt, Kevin Kline, Michael Douglas, Harrison Ford, Dustin Hoffman, Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, Richard Dreyfuss, Gene Hackman, Robert Redford and Warren Beatty. /// While the role of Annie Wilkes was initially offered to Anjelic Huston. Despite being interested Huston had to turn it down due to her commitment to The Grifters. Bette Midler also declined the role before it went to Bates. /// A scene that was left on the cutting room floor saw Annie kill a young police officer by repeatedly rolling over him with a lawnmower. Bates was reported to be very disappointed at its omission, but Rob Reiner took the decision as he was concerned the audience would find it funny.
Misery has some interesting issues at its heart as it tackles obsession, celebrity worship and an artist's love/hate relationship with thier own work. Annie Wilkes has become so infatuated with Sheldon and his series of books concerning the character of Misery Chastain that they are no longer just something she enjoys, her whole existence has become tied to them. So when she discovers that Sheldon has killed off her beloved Misery it pushes her over the edge. It also highlights that fascinating and unique thing about celebrities; that it's the people who really love and worship them that sometimes need to be most feared. Even though it's the celebrity giving entertainment to the public, by supporting them and making them a success some people seem to believe that the celebrity in turn owes them something. And that if they try to do something different they see it as a betrayal. Misery makes sure that the phrase, “I'm your no. 1 fan”, has never been so chilling. The source inspiration for the film of course comes from Stephen King's original novel, and I just wonder how many letters and confrontations he has had with such fans that may have inspired such a story.

It's also easy to see the events of Misery as a metaphor for conflicted artists all over the world. The Misery Chastaine novels that Sheldon writes are utter hokum but they find a wide audience and as a result are a great cash-in opportunity for him. But it doesn't make him happy. When he tries to write something actually worthwhile for once however, something of substance and close to his heart, he finds his work being censored by Annie in the form of her burning his work. She is the embodiment of the completely evil editor who will not allow you to showcase your talents, but wants you to keep churning out the same old stuff because its a dependable money-maker. I'm sure it's the life story of many a writer, film-maker, singer etc.

While Misery may most likely be placed in the horror genre it is never a particularly scary film; it seems a lot more concerned with being darkly funny and luridly entertaining. It may become a classic game of cat and mouse between the two individuals but the film never really throws any twists or shock surprises our way. Instead it provides its kicks of adrenaline as a result of sudden bursts of startling violence, the most obvious of course being the famous sledgehammer scene which really did elicit quite the wince and audible reaction from me. Great scene. Great film.

Conclusion - I went into this one expecting something rather dark and grim. Instead I was delighted to find that Misery was an extremely entertaining flick, full of dark humour and a fantastic turn from Kathy Bates. It takes the subject of an everyday horror and proves to be just a lot of fun.

honeykid

08-04-13, 08:14 PM

Maybe I'll have to take another look at Misery, as I remember it as a really good film I didn't want to see again, as I found it quite unnerving.

MovieFan31

08-04-13, 08:16 PM

Maybe I'll have to take another look at Misery, as I remember it as a really good film I didn't want to see again, as I found it quite unnerving.

One of my favourites - I'm easily unnerved but know where those moments are now. ;)

cricket

08-04-13, 08:20 PM

Misery is just a really good film, carried by great performances from the two leads.

gandalf26

08-04-13, 08:28 PM

Nice review JD. I've heard people say the book is way better than the film. Kathy Bates is awesome.

The Gunslinger45

08-04-13, 08:43 PM

A movie I want to see but have neglected seeing for quite a while. Excellent review! I know need to see this movie!

JayDee

08-05-13, 08:42 PM

Hey it only took me 4 years to get you to see it, hk. Maybe I can get JD to do it in 3 or fewer. :p

Well seeing as it took you 2+ years just to find my thread, I'd say at least 3 years for Quills sounds about right! :D

I actually liked the first half of From Dusk Till Dawn better; it went a little downhill for me the second Hayek's fangs came out. Planet Terror was cool.

Wow really? I thought the vampires were the whole point/appeal of From Dusk Till Dawn.

Maybe I'll have to take another look at Misery, as I remember it as a really good film I didn't want to see again, as I found it quite unnerving.

Wow really? So often I've seen you talk about how you didn't find a film scary, disturbing, shocking etc when other people did, that it's a surprise to hear you found Misery rather unnerving.

Nice review JD. I've heard people say the book is way better than the film. Kathy Bates is awesome.

Thanks gandy. :up: And yeah she kind of is. I actually need to look out my 3rd Rock from the Sun DVDs as I seem to remember her appearing in that in a role that very much parodied her Annie Wilkes character.

The Rodent

08-05-13, 08:46 PM

I didn't see you'd reviewed Misery until now...

Excellent film, Bates made into my Top 40 Villains list, definitely her best role too.

Great review :D

Sexy Celebrity

08-05-13, 08:52 PM

Bates made into my Top 40 Villains list

Where is this?

honeykid

08-05-13, 08:59 PM

Wow really? So often I've seen you talk about how you didn't find a film scary, disturbing, shocking etc when other people did, that it's a surprise to hear you found Misery rather unnerving.
That's how I remember Misery. Along with that, Jack The Bear made me so angry that I cried, Pinocchio scared me and I turned it off and haven't watched it since, while The Entity was the only film I can think of which actually scared me long after I'd seen it and worried me. I think that's the lot. :D I was a bit spooked on the walk home from watching A Nightmare On Elm Street and, for some reason, The Curse of the Werewolf, starring Oliver Reed.

The Rodent

08-05-13, 09:04 PM

Where is this?

Have a look in my signature bar...

There's two lists in there, the second one is the right one, I made a mistake on the first.

The Rodent

08-05-13, 09:06 PM

That's how I remember Misery. Along with that, Jack The Bear made me so angry that I cried, Pinocchio scared me and I turned it off and haven't watched it since, while The Entity was the only film I can think of which actually scared me long after I'd seen it and worried me. I think that's the lot. :D I was a bit spooked on the walk home from watching A Nightmare On Elm Street and, for some reason, The Curse of the Werewolf, starring Oliver Reed.

Maybe you should keep away from The Thing

Sexy Celebrity

08-05-13, 10:18 PM

I found it, Sweetness. Thanks.

Skepsis93

08-05-13, 10:25 PM

I liked Misery quite a bit, though unfortunately reminders of that damn Family Guy parody softened it up a little in the scariness stakes. I don't know if that's a completely separate thing or a critique of my experience with film for not being immersive enough.

honeykid

08-05-13, 11:48 PM

Maybe you should keep away from The Thing
lol... I think I was 10 or 11 when I first saw The Thing. That's an HK 100 film and it's never been scary, though it's masterful at creating an atmosphere.

nebbit

08-06-13, 07:55 AM

Maybe I'll have to take another look at Misery, as I remember it as a really good film I didn't want to see again, as I found it quite unnerving.
Me too :yup: but I did watch it again this year :eek: I own it and thought I shouldn't leave it on the shelf with only one outing :goof:

honeykid

08-06-13, 09:37 PM

I have it on VHS, so it's there when I get around to it... Like the rest of my collection. :D

JayDee

08-08-13, 05:43 PM

mirror mirror

Year of release
1993

Directed by
Steven Spielberg

Written by
Steven Zaillian
Thomas Keneally (novel - Schindler's Ark)

Starring
Liam Neeson
Ben Kingsley
Ralph Fiennes
Caroline Goodall
Embeth Davidtz

Schindler's List

This review is going to be a touch different from the norm. As I'm sure the more observant amongst you will have noticed I have not included the customary rating for this review of Schindler's List. The reason being that I have no real clue how to rate it. As I've said on a number of occasions previously, my ratings are generally brought around by a combination of how much I enjoyed the film and how good I felt it was technically, though it mostly leans towards the former. And there's really no way I could say that I 'liked' Schindler's List. Though in general I don't suppose that many people like or enjoy the film in the traditional manner of the words. What I did do however was greatly admire the film. But seeing as I usually rate on entertainment to try and come up with a number to define this film felt a bit tacky and inappropriate. Therefore I'm not giving one just now. I'm just going to write out a few thoughts and let them stand for themselves.

Steven Spielberg is one of the most popular and celebrated directors in the history of cinema. He has received numerous accolades and acclaim over his five decade career. One thing he has never really been accredited with however is a sense of subtlety or a reserved nature when it comes to his film output. If anything its the opposite which is more likely to be true. He is renowned and sometimes criticised for making large, blockbusting 'event' movies; movies which frequently arrive with a great deal of emotion and sentimentality; emotions that arise from the trite writing, manipulative direction and frequently overblown scores. If you listen to his critics that is. Here however he displays a restraint and a dignity that many people would not associate him with, or perhaps even believe he was capable of. Indeed if you watched this film without the knowledge that he was its director I imagine you may have a tough time deciphering that fact. When you compare it with much of his other work his direction here seems very unshowy, almost capturing a near documentary look for the film. A look which is just heightened by Janusz Kamiński's gorgeous, sharp black and white photography. The documentary feel is particularly true in the moments where the camera focuses close up on the faces of the Jewish people either waiting in line or when they're on the trains.

The only really 'cinematic' touches that Spielberg utilises occur when he adds glimpses of colour into this predominantly black and white movie. The most obvious is of course the girl in the red coat. It his her demise more than anything that really seems to have an effect on Schindler and prompts the change in him. The red highlights her importance to the character and story, while also making it easier for us to identify her. The only other option to make it clear would have been a close-up, likely accompanied by very dramatic music. This proves to be a much more subtle and touching choice by Spielberg. The other touch of colour can be found in candles both at the start and end of the film. Schinlder's List opens with a Jewish family observing Shabbat; the scene and in particular the candle present appears in colour. As we focus on the candle however the colour begins to drain from the screen as we go back to the dark times of the people, where smoke was more identified with the burning of bodies. Only towards the end when Schindler allows his workers to once again observe Shabbat do we get a glimmer of light in the flame, highlighting a little glint of hope.

Now I mentioned Spielberg's predilection for sentimentality and I'm sure there are some people who perhaps feel that he falls back to such a level with the film's ending; finding it too trite and happy an ending for such a story. However I think it's a very touching moment that is representative of how the people must have felt. Yes their life may still be a tough road ahead but after everything they've been through it must feel like a great release for the war to be over; a really freeing experience. And personally after sitting through three hours of near unrelenting bleakness and horror I think the audience needs a little moment of relief and hope. Now free, we see the large swath of Jews walk from the darkness and into the light, from black and white into colour as a stirring Jewish song accompanies the scene. And then I thought the closing images of the real people that Schindler helped visiting his grave was a very moving and appropriate close; allowing us to see all of the people who were still alive thanks to his efforts, and all of the descendants who would otherwise never have existed. In fact that is something I've always thought about. During the second World War its estimated that somewhere between 50 and 70 million lives were lost, but it's not just those lives that were wiped out but all of the future lives which never came to fruition. So many more millions of people who were destined to be born but weren't. Who knows what people we lost out on, what they might have contributed to the world. Perhaps somewhere in there was the person who would already have cured cancer but they were lost just to the darkness of humanity.

The film is certainly a pretty grim and bleak experience, and it has to be. Any attempt at tackling such a story in any other manner would be disrespectful and ring false. Particularly disturbing instances include the numerous occasions where jewish individuals are shot in such a casual and matter of fact fashion, the piles of bodies strewn around, the scene where Goeth nonchalantly picks off unsuspecting jews from his villa and the harrowing sequence which details the burning of the dead bodies. Alongside those more obvious examples, Spielberg also conducts a series of more subtle moments and images which really heighten the sense of harrowing horror. Moments such as the unpacking and sorting of the luggage which the Jews mistakenly believe will be going with them; the Jewish women pricking themselves for blood to use for blusher to make themselves look healthier and the dehumanising health checks that followed; the 'snow' which isn't really snow; the little girl screaming “goodbye Jews!” with such hatred in her voice; the contrast of new housing between Schindler and the rehomed Jewish people; a child desperately searching for a hiding place from the Nazi officers; the naivety of the camp inhabitants over the fact they don't believe they will be gassed because the Nazis would not do that to their workforce; and the scene where Goeth tries to execute one of Schindler's workers over a hinge but it continually fails is almost unbearable to watch. And with Spielberg frequently framing hundreds of extras in his shots he is able to go some way to capturing the scale of inhumanity that occurred in those dark days. And while some may see it as an inadvisable move the film does contain the odd bit of rare humour. I think it works both as a touch of relief for the audience but also at representing the fact that if you're ever to make it through something like this you have to try and retain a bit of humour, a bit of humanity.

Spielberg also deserves great credit for the individuals he cast and the performances he was able to elicit from them. Liam Neeson gives an extraordinary showing as the eponymous Oscar Schindler, a very intriguing and complex character. Initially presented as a man taking advantage of the Jewish people and profiting from the misery of war, he eventually transforms into a rather heroic figure. Neeson plays him with a great charisma and arrogance to begin with before revealing his humanity and tortured soul. The scene where Schindler breaks down at the end over the feeling that he didn't save enough lives was a terrific piece of acting, and one I found to be very moving. As much as I love Tom Hanks, and I think his performance in Philadelphia was truly excellent, I think that Neeson perhaps should have taken the Best Actor Oscar for this performance, although it's insanely close. As Schindler's conscience you have Itzhak Stern, his accountant and business partner, played to very touching effect by Ben Kingsely. While Ralph Fiennes is genuinely scary as the psychotic sociopath that is camp commandant Amon Goeth. Many of his scenes are truly chilling. Just a few days previous to this I had watched him in Quiz Show as the charming, foppish Charles van Doren. I was just about in complete denial that this could possibly be the same man.

If I'm honest I never particularly wanted to see Schindler's List, I just felt it was a film that I should watch. And I still think that is the case. I think it's a film that everyone should watch, both as a technical achievement and as a document of an extremely dark time in history. And if I'm honest, at this moment I'm struggling to envisage a day in the future when I will sit down and think to myself “you know what I feel like watching again, Schindler's List.” Perhaps I'm wrong but I think it might be one of those one-watch films for me. That said I am very glad that I did finally get round to tackling it. Spielberg delivered a quite incredible accomplishment, taking just about the most difficult of subjects and treating it in a laudable and reverent manner.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/candle-2_zps3e56aae8.gif (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/MovieForums/candle-2_zps3e56aae8.gif.html)

The Rodent

08-08-13, 05:46 PM

Excellent review JayDee... well put.

No Popcorn rating though?

Daniel M

08-08-13, 06:06 PM

A great review JayDee and I agree with what you have said, I think, you see it's been an age since I watch it and have similar thoughts to you. When I watch a movie now I want to feel like I've spent the 2 hours (or whatever) watching the most enjoyable film I could have in that time, and now that I've seen Schindler's List, I am not in a real rush to watch it again, although I will. Undoubtedly a great film though.

The Gunslinger45

08-08-13, 06:26 PM

JayDee that was an incredibly moving review. It is hard not to be genuinely touched by the movie. And I understand the absence of the popcorn rating. What more can I say other then well done sir.

JayDee

08-08-13, 08:44 PM

No Popcorn rating though?

Ahem! The first paragraph -

This review is going to be a touch different from the norm. As I'm sure the more observant amongst you will have noticed I have not included the customary rating for this review of Schindler's List. The reason being that I have no real clue how to rate it.........But seeing as I usually rate on entertainment to try and come up with a number to define this film felt a bit tacky and inappropriate. Therefore I'm not giving one just now. I'm just going to write out a few thoughts and let them stand for themselves.

I'm curious how you can call it an excellent review when you apparently didn't read it!!! :p

honeykid

08-08-13, 09:37 PM

It's a great review, JD and, like you, it's not really a film I feel I'll watch again. I've seen it twice and that'll probably do me.

The Rodent

08-09-13, 09:17 AM

Arg! I did read it, the bit about no Popcorns just didn't register.

mark f

08-09-13, 02:12 PM

I'm a weirdo (like you didn't know) since I've seen Schindler's List seven or eight times. :)

Gabrielle947

08-09-13, 04:56 PM

I'm a weirdo (like you didn't know) since I've seen Schindler's List seven or eight times.
Fan of Spielberg? :)

I like Schindler's List a lot but it's not so devastating for me as I notice it is for others.Just a great sad history drama. :up:

JayDee

08-10-13, 05:34 PM

mirror mirror

Year of release
1993

Directed by
Jonathan Demme

Written by
Roy Nyswaner

Starring
Tom Hanks
Denzel Washington
Jason Robards
Antonio Banderas
Joanne Woodward
Mary Steenburgen

Philadelphia

3.5 +

Plot - Andrew Beckett (Hanks) is a highly skilled lawyer and a senior associate at the biggest corporate law firm in Philadelphia. He has kept the fact that he is a homosexual private from the senior partners, but his secret comes out when he contracts AIDS. Shortly afterwards he is fired from the firm; and while he is given the excuse that it was for professional reasons he is convinced he was let go as a result of his disease. When he decides to sue his former employers, Andrew hires showy and homophobic lawyer, Joe Miller (Washington). During the ensuing court case Joe begins to see Andrew for what he is, a human being no different from anyone else. Andrew's degrading health however may mean that he does not make it to the case's conclusion.

I've got to say that I was rather surprised at just how run of the mill Philadelphia was in some ways. It takes a pretty standard structure that we've seen in numerous guises and just gives us the gay/AIDS version of that story. You could take the characters that Hanks and Washington played, change them around ever so slightly, plug them back in and you'd have a different film. If one was female and the other was a bit of a chauvinist you have a movie about sexism. If one was black and the other a racist, it's a race movie. If one was Christian and the other Muslin...well you get the idea.

As such, when viewed today, Philadelphia may appear a touch tame and uncontentious in how it addresses its subject; you may even accuse it of attempting to sidestep any controversy, but I think you have to look at it in context. Back in 1993 when the film was released AIDS was still a very controversial topic and a great fear for many people, largely out of ignorance about the disease and the ways in which it could be transmitted. Philadelphia was the first major Hollywood film on the subject, and if it had set out to present a truly hard-hitting look at gay relationships and how AIDS impacted both the individual and those around them, it may have been commended but it would probably have been seen by about 12 people; not exactly the outcome the studio would be looking for to their risk. So to make it more appealing to mainstream audiences we get a more traditional, easier to swallow narrative. The topic of AIDS is instead told through the structure of a classic courtroom drama, an old favourite for audiences and a much safer bet for the higher-ups at the studio. It also makes it a lot easier to guarantee audience support for Hanks' character. So we are not just supposed to be backing a gay man suffering from AIDS, but that old tale of the little man taking on the big heartless corporation; something that is always easy to support no matter what form the little man takes. And this approach certainly proved to be a smart move on the part of the studio as the film was not only a big hit at the awards ceremonies, but it went on to gross over $200 million worldwide at the box office.

Philadelphia does have the tendency to have a little bit of a TV movie feel to it, except for when it comes to the performances which are quite clearly a cut above what you would likely find there. This is particularly true of the film's two central roles. In his Oscar-winning turn, Hanks gives an excellent and truly heartbreaking performance as Andrew Beckett, the lawyer stuck down by AIDS. He portrays the character both with a great courage and strength in the face of his condition, but also with the inevitable fragility and weakness that the condition will unavoidably bring upon him. It is a spectacularly touching and affecting performance. In particular I absolutely loved his work in the opera scene but we'll come to that later. And the physical changes that he goes through are really quite distressing to witness, especially to such a recognisable and much-loved face as his. And it wasn't just the make-up that brought about such a transformation; Hanks himself lost almost 30 pounds in order to give Andrew his especially gaunt appearance towards the end. This is just one of the many tremendous performances that Hank has gifted to us, and while I may have slightly edged towards Liam Neeson for the Best Actor Oscar (though I'm really not sure) Hanks was certainly very deserving of the win.

Film Trivia Snippets - Working titles for the film included "People Like Us", "At Risk" and "Probable Cause". /// It may have proved to be one of the defining roles of Hanks' career but the role of Andrew Beckett was offered to Daniel Day Lewis, Michael Keaton and Andy Garcia ahead of him. /// I just mentioned above how Hanks had to lose almost 30 pounds for the film. In contrast Washington was actually asked to put on a few pounds. Hanks had to almost starve himself to lose the weight and on set Washington would wind him up by frequently eating chocolate bars in front of him. /// During the trial we are shown a number of protesters standing outside the courthouse holding signs with anti-gay slogans on them. These individuals were based on the members of the disgustingly anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, which is led by “Reverend” Fred Phelps. Phelps has described this as “one of my favourite comedies.” The sick, pathetic b*stard! Opposite him Washington also gives a strong showing as the rather complex Joe Miller. Sadly like the large majority of people he treats Andrew and his condition with a sense of fear and outright disgust; the character even admits straight-up to his wife that he is homophobic, as is seen by a violent confrontation he gets involved in when he is talked up by a man who believes Miller is gay. Quite the showman, the only reason he seems to take on the case is for the money and the amount of media exposure it will earn him. I actually found his character to be really frustrating in terms of his treatment towards Andrew and other gay people suffering from AIDS. You would think that if anyone would sympathise with individuals being judged on their appearance, and people not wanting to touch them for fear of being infected, it would be an African American man who had lived through the 60s. Despite my frustration with the character, I had nothing but admiration for how Washington played the character. In large part it may be a two-hander but there is also some commendable work to be found amongst the supporting cast with Robards and Steenburgen particularly impressing. And despite the relatively small size of her role, Joanne Woodward really delivers in a couple of the film's strongest and most pivotal moments.

As I alluded to earlier there is a wonderful scene about two-thirds of the way through the film involving opera; it's an excellent scene which proves a vital point of the story and also shows the talents of Hanks and Washington at their absolute finest. Following a party Andrew and Joe are left alone in Andrew's apartment. While Joe is attempting to prepare Andrew for his deposition all Andrew wants to do is get to know each other a little better. A piece of opera begins to play in the background and Andrew is taken over by it. The heartbreaking aria is one that Andrew can identify with in his dying condition. He stands up and begins to explain what is being said and Joe, initially appearing rather bemused, gets caught up in it and finally 'sees' Andrew for the first time. He doesn't seem him purely as a gay man with AIDS but as a human being pure and simple, one with a love for life and a desire not to die. Afterwards Joe goes home, kisses his sleeping daughter and wife as he realises how lucky he is, and then just stares in contemplation. Hanks is exceptional in this sequence, so tragic and agonising to watch as he pours so much passion into it. In contrast Washington doesn't actually utter a single word during the sequence. He just watches on, but Washington is able to convey his characters emotions and his change in outlook merely through his eyes. We see that something in him changes. The way that the scene is presented by Demme is also an important factor in creating the sheer power of it. The film briefly abandons its sense of reality as Andrew and his apartment are bathed in a dark red, operatic light while Demme employs high and tight camera angles to really immerse you in the moment and Andrew's suffering. It's a wonderful moment concerning the power of art and is just a truly wonderful piece of cinema. And such a more powerful scene than what you may typically find, some big moment of back and forth dialogue which reveals Joe's transition for example.

By presenting the story in the form that we are given we do know pretty much exactly where it is going. We know that at some point Washington's character is going to go through a revelatory experience which will force him to shed his prejudices towards gay people. We know the likely outcome of the case long before it has been decided by the jury. However the performances and the way that Demme handles the film ensures that it remains a very engaging, and occasionally enthralling film throughout. Even if some of the story and its messages are a bit obvious and on the nose; particularly guilty I felt was the ending which featured home movies of Andrew as a young boy, that just felt a little bit too manipulative. Oh and I was a touch disappointed in the fact that Beckett's relationship with Miguel (played by Antonio Banderas) wasn't really given much exposure; it felt like it was rather glossed over.

Conclusion - Philadelphia may not have been quite as powerful or confrontational as it could have been but I'd say that it marked an important step in portraying gay characters and issues with more depth and respect in major Hollywood films. And it does remain a very affecting and moving experience, largely down to two excellent lead performances, especially Hanks' exceptional turn as Andrew Beckett.

honeykid

08-10-13, 05:45 PM

Philadelphia got what it did because it was the first big Hollywood AIDS film. That's it. It's good, decent, as you say, with a couple of great performances but that's it. Or, at least, that's how I remember it.

The Gunslinger45

08-10-13, 06:35 PM

This is a movie that was needed for the time. Early 90's, the first AIDS movie and what not. As such, I feel that while it is a good movie, the potential for a really powerful movie is there, but given the subject matter, the movies does not age. I agree with many of your points, particularly the opera scene and the relationship between Hanks and Banderas' character.

Gideon58

08-12-13, 05:08 PM

Liked your review of this film, one of my favorites from the 70's. I particularly liked what you said about Redford and Hoffman not receiving Oscar nods, but if that's true, why did Jason Robards win an Oscar for his Ben Bradlee? Did he not contribute to the experience t he same way Redford and Hoffman did?

JayDee

08-12-13, 06:26 PM

I'm a weirdo (like you didn't know) since I've seen Schindler's List seven or eight times. :)

You masochist you! :p I know it's one of your favourites (top 20 I think) so I hope you enjoyed my review of it.

I didn't see you'd reviewed Misery until now...

Well that just wasn't good enough Rodent! You used to be exceptionally reliable, always repping and often commenting within minutes of me posting. You're slippng man! Sort it out! :D

This is a movie that was needed for the time. Early 90's, the first AIDS movie and what not. As such, I feel that while it is a good movie, the potential for a really powerful movie is there, but given the subject matter, the movies does not age. I agree with many of your points, particularly the opera scene and the relationship between Hanks and Banderas' character.

Thanks for your input and thoughts 45. :up: Although you forgot your customary comment. :( I realise you may not always have the time to write it out so I've made this for you to quickly post after a new review :p -

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/Dude_zps8c74e131.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/Dude_zps8c74e131.jpg.html)

The Gunslinger45

08-12-13, 08:45 PM

And pic is now stolen! :D

cricket

08-12-13, 09:15 PM

I haven't seen either of the last two yet, shame on me.

Gideon58

08-13-13, 05:15 PM

Great review...Jack Lemmon was AMAZING in this movie.

JayDee

08-13-13, 05:56 PM

So far my season of 90s films has been going pretty well. Now however I fear the s*it may be about to hit the fan! :D I'm about to lay into a film that many of you adore and I'm sorry about that but that's just the way it is. I was very reticent actually about posting this and truthfully I wouldn't even have dared to post it if neg rep was still around! :p

Anyway onto the review my little pigeons. I've got a cat here which I'm now just going to place amongst all of you. :D

mirror mirror
Year of release
1999

Directed by
Paul Thomas Anderson

Written by
Paul Thomas Anderson

Starring
Tom Cruise
Philip Seymour Hoffman
William H. Macy
Julianne Moore
John C. Reilly
Jason Robards
Philip Baker Hall

Magnolia

2 -

Plot - In the San Fernando valley, over a period of twenty four hours, we follow a large ensemble of characters and how their lives interact with each other as they search for love, forgiveness and meaning. Numerous stories weave together and intersect as the characters go through numerous life-changing experiences. These characters include Frank T.J. Mackey (Cruise), a self-help guru in the area of picking up women, his father Earl Partridge (Jason Robards), who reaches out to his son while on his deathbed. Attempting to care for Earl are his male nurse Phil Parma (Hoffman) and wife Linda (Moore). Another series of characters are linked by the hit quiz show, “What Do Kids Know?” These include its host, Jimmy Gator (Philip Baker Hall), its new young prodigy Stanley (Jeremy Blackman) and 'Quiz Kid' Donnie Smith (Macy), a former champion on the show as a child. Meanwhile Jimmy Gator's daughter Claudia (Melora Walters) is a cocaine addict whose problems bring her into contact with police officer Jim Kurring (Reilly), and a potential romance begins to spark into life.

This has got to be one of the toughest and longest viewing experiences I've had in some time. At one point as I was struggling I checked the running time, hoping to see I was at least half way though and was dismayed that I had only managed to slog my way through 45 minutes of it. I couldn't believe it! I felt like I had been there for weeks! And yet I had barely made a dent.

The best way I can think to describe it is that I felt like Magnolia was the work of a magician, but not in a positive way. I felt like I was being treated to a case of misdirection, that Anderson was attempting to convince me I was seeing something that wasn't really there. With its epic 3 hour running time, countless number of characters and its numerous inter-weaving story threads it felt like it was trying to create the sense that you were watching something deep, profound, exceptional and unprecedented. Except that personally I didn't really find that to be the case. Instead I found it to be bloated, pretentious, convoluted, contrived and self indulgent. To me the film just felt extremely smug and oh so pleased with itself. This was particularly true of its opening sequences which depict 3 urban legends which apparently prove that sometimes the seemingly impossible does actually open; basically freeing the film from any duty to adhere to logic. These resulting breaks from reality feel tonally ridiculous and just plain silly; I'm looking at you, frogs that fall from the sky! And the moment that the characters all came together for a big sing-a-long? :facepalm: For me it again felt like an attempt to manipulate my feelings towards the film, that by merely making it weird and different it aims to convince me that means it's artistic or beautiful. The whole thing just felt oh so self-aware.

While I know that many people adore Anderson's direction I actually find that it can be quite irritating, especially when it comes to his trademark, Scorsese-aping, long tracking shots which don't seem to serve any purpose to the actual film itself except to show off his technical proficiency with a camera. I know that many people feel Anderson is the voice of his generation but I've got to say that outside of There Will Be Blood (which I thought was fantastic) I don't really feel like his films speak to me personally. And quite often I feel that his stylised direction just overwhelms what he is actually attempting to say.

Film Trivia Snippets - Paul Thomas Anderson actually wrote the large bulk of Magnolia's script during a two week spell he spent at the Vermont cabin of William H. Macy. The reason that he was able to get so much work done was down to the fact he had seen a snake and was afraid to go outside. Anderson also went above and beyond the normal tasks of a director by designing the Magnolia poster as well as cutting together the trailers to promote the film. /// In the infomercials for Frank TJ Mackie's “Seduce and Destory” program they give out the telephone number (877) TAME-HER. If you called the number at the time of the film's release you would hear a recording of Tom Cruise giving the Seduce and Destroy pitch. /// Not everything went smoothly on the casting front for Anderson. He wanted Burt Reynolds to appear in the movie, but after Anderson upset him during the promotional tour for Boogie Nights, Reynolds turned him down. And for the role of Earl Partridge, Anderson approached George C. Scott but was roundly rebuffed. Scott threw the script across the room, calling it the “worst f*cking thing I've ever read. The language is terrible!” The character of Earl Partridge was eventually portrayed by Jason Robards I was able to identify and appreciate the themes that the film was attempting to touch on - guilt, remorse, loneliness, fate, coincidence, the sins of the father and the lasting effect it has on the children etc and its obvious religious/biblical connotations but I don't really see how it needed 3 hours to muse on them. Some stories do undoubtedly need such immense running times to cover everything they want to, but I didn't think this was one of them. So many of the characters and their stories seemed to be similar that it became repetitive and redundant. I imagine you could easily have trimmed some of the characters and stories, and left a good deal on the cutting room floor and still been able to tell the exact same story. You could argue that its point is relevant in portraying how so many of us are linked by these identical emotions and experiences but for a piece of cinema much of it just felt superfluous to me. And so often I just felt that the scenes went on so much longer than was really necessary. And even with its mammoth running time the film still manages to leave some unresolved threads.

I will concede to a couple of things in the film's favour. I'll give it that its a very ambitious undertaking, even if I felt it rather crumbled under the weight of such ambition. But I'll never level out severe criticism to a film-maker for being ambitious. I think it's a good thing for Hollywood to have distinctive voices such as Anderson and Tarantino, even if I don't always appreciate their efforts. And the other point I'll concede is that across the board it is superbly acted. That is especially true in the case of Tom Cruise and Philip Seymour Hoffman who were both superb in portraying quite disparate characters. Cruise was amazing as the spectacularly arrogant and despicable Frank T.J. Mackie who is eventually revealed to be hiding a deep pain. He is tremendous in the scene where he is confronted by the reporter about the truth regarding his past, saying so much with just his facial expressions as opposed to words. It's got to be one of his best performances. Cruise's scenes were a joy because they had by far the most energy and life about them. Imagine that, making something interesting. The other top performance would be Hoffman's, who is as impressive as ever as male nurse, Paul. Other impressive showings amongst the ensemble are delivered by the likes of William H. Macy, Jason Robards, Philip Baker Hall and Melora Walters. The one performance I had some reservations about was Julianne Moore's. At times I thought she was good but when expressing her grief I felt that on occasion she went way too big with it to cringingly hysterical effect.

So there you have it. I'm sure a lot of you will not agree with what I've said, and perhaps even be quite wound up by it. I only have one favour to ask - please come at me one at a time instead of joining together for a big group attack! :D I know this film is much-loved around these parts, including by a number of people around here I consider friends who have contributed a lot of support and appreciation for my reviews (Skepsis, Daniel, Brodinski, seanc etc) and to them I apologise. I certainly didn't set out with the intention of laying into this film that you love so much. Neither am I claiming that I have seen the truth of the film that you have failed to spot. You guys love it, and that's great. I'm just delivering my own uneducated viewpoint on the matter.

Conclusion - I can imagine Magnolia easily being a film that you don't really 'get' if you're not in the exact right frame of mind for it. So taking that into account along with the efforts of its cast and the reputation it has amongst film fans means that I probably will give it another go someday. Although at the moment I am struggling to imagine how I'll force myself to sit down for 3 hours to watch this again. It may be very impressive in numerous technical terms, and that's extremely true of the acting, but overall I just found it an overwrought experience which was over written, over directed and too often approached the depths of a soap opera.

Frightened Inmate No. 2

08-13-13, 06:07 PM

Finally another person who didn't care for that movie. It's one of the most overrated movies I've seen. Great review.

Also, Julianne Moore was the only performance I didn't really care for, too. She went way too over-the-top a lot, and it felt kind of forced a lot of the time. She was still solid, but she was much better in Short Cuts.

gandalf26

08-13-13, 06:12 PM

In before at least 4 full pages of hate.

Justin

08-13-13, 06:18 PM

I didn't care for it, either. P.T. Anderson has made much better, deeper films that are stylistically more engaging and thematically richer. I thought the ending, while appropriate, was hardly a stroke of genius.

mark f

08-13-13, 06:18 PM

The Gunslinger45

08-13-13, 06:19 PM

ezetuw

08-13-13, 06:21 PM

Oh watch it. Now.

Daniel M

08-13-13, 06:25 PM

Are you sure it doesn't deserve 2----? :) You make some valid points. I appreciate Anderson and I find the movie more entertaining than you do. If you give this 2/5, you'd probably give The Master 1/5. I had real problems with that one. But there are an amazing number of sacred cows around here right now, and their fans only see things one way. You and I have our own too. Well, good work, as always.

What rating would you give Magnolia Mark? I think I saw you liked Punch-Drunk Love well enough and gave it 3 and you voted in my thread that you thought There Will Be Blood was his best, so I'd be interested to see how you rate this, along with Boogie Nights.

I'll respond to your post in a minute JayDee, I've read it but I am going to go through again and attempt to discuss some of the things. I wouldn't say I am a 'sacred cow/fan who only sees things my way', although I do love PTA and a lot of directors, I like to think I am accepting of other peoples' views :p

Mr Minio

08-13-13, 06:31 PM

Not too surprised with your rating. I watched 30 minutes of Magnolia, but had I seen in to the end, I might've given it 2 as well.

Daniel M

08-13-13, 06:48 PM

The best way I can think to describe it is that I felt like Magnolia was the work of a magician

All good so far... :D

but not in a positive way.

... what the **** are you trying to say! No, seriously now here's what I have to say...

I felt like I was being treated to a case of misdirection, that Anderson was attempting to convince me I was seeing something that wasn't really there. With its epic 3 hour running time, countless number of characters and its numerous inter-weaving story threads it felt like it was trying to create the sense that you were watching something deep, profound, exceptional and unprecedented.

It does. But a lot of films do this. A film I know that you love is Forrest Gump, I give it 3 for similar reasons, it feels forced, like the director is deliberately placing things that aren't natural to bring the emotions out of you. So I ask the question, and it's a question to myself as well, why does this work for some films and not others and differ from person to person? What makes you fall in love with a character, a film, and make you go along with the magical journey?

Except that personally I didn't really find that to be the case. Instead I found it to be bloated, pretentious, convoluted, contrived and self indulgent. To me the film just felt extremely smug and oh so pleased with itself.

I understand why this could be a problem with PTA in general, he's a confident director and all his works are extremely ambitious, he is going to rub people up the wrong way with the way he combines elements of other directors and puts them together and attempts to make a 'masterpiece', as he admitted with There Will Be Blood. I don't think he's particularly innovative, and understand that he takes a lot from other works, but I just think he knows how to maximise certain elements of direction to make a film work, at least for me. His films do feel big and possibly pretentious, perhaps he hasn't earned the respect to make such titles yet, and I understand you hate 2001: A Space Odyssey too, but I feel he has the ability to do so.

This was particularly true of its opening sequences which depict 3 urban legends which apparently prove that sometimes the seemingly impossible does actually open; basically freeing the film from any duty to adhere to logic. These resulting breaks from reality feel tonally ridiculous and just plain silly; I'm looking at you, frogs that fall from the sky! And the moment that the characters all came together for a big sing-a-long? :facepalm:

I thought this was part of the film and it's kind of irony. From the beginning of the film you kind of expect everything to come together in perhaps an even more contrived way. But instead nothing really comes together and the only thing linking these characters are similar issues and problems in their lives. I can imagine PTA thinking about the ending, adding the frogs, and smiling, laughing almost at the audience. I thought the ending of The Master was very similar. In fact I think the plots are very similar, in both films we expect characters to come full circle, to end at a definitive point, we think we know what's going to happen, but by the end things just don't turn out that way.

For me it again felt like an attempt to manipulate my feelings towards the film, that by merely making it weird and different it aims to convince me that means it's artistic or beautiful. The whole thing just felt oh so self-aware.

Possibly, the ending is a very gutsy move for me, and I found that part of the beautiful irony. Thinks aren't normal, this isn't just some normal tale where everything plays out how you expect. It is self-aware, but I don't think this is a bad thing.

While I know that many people adore Anderson's direction I actually find that it can be quite irritating, especially when it comes to his trademark, Scorsese-aping, long tracking shots which don't seem to serve any purpose to the actual film itself except to show off his technical proficiency with a camera.

Out of interest how do you feel when directors like Scorsese and Altman use such shots. Most of the time I feel they're used with reason, the carefully follow characters and the directions, and helps further the idea of a connection between certain things, like everything is continuous. I can't take about particular scenes from this film as well as I can Boogie Nights though, so I'll leave it at that.

I know that many people feel Anderson is the voice of his generation but I've got to say that outside of There Will Be Blood (which I thought was fantastic) I don't really feel like his films speak to me personally.

Have you seen Punch-Drunk Love? That's a charming little film not too similar to his other works, and it's quirky in a way you might enjoy. But yeh I can understand why his other works may leave people cold. Boogie Nights is a dark, depressing, pessimistic film set in a brutal world, so is Sydney to a lesser extent. The Master and There Will Be Blood both have potentially dislikeable characters, I wouldn't be surprised to hear such a statement from anyone.

And quite often I feel that his stylised direction just overwhelms what he is actually attempting to say.

One of the best things about Scorsese use of tracking shots for me is how it just all blends in naturally, he's showing off without us realising in a way, maybe PTA's do seem more obvious sometimes, it's taking me a few viewings to notice all of them in some of his films, and like I said earlier I think in some scenes they work well in capturing what he's trying to say, displaying a character's emotions, showing connectivity and continuity etc.

I was able to identify and appreciate the themes that the film was attempting to touch on - guilt, remorse, loneliness, fate, coincidence, the sins of the father and the lasting effect it has on the children etc and its obvious religious/biblical connotations but I don't really see how it needed 3 hours to muse on them.

Fair enough, if you don't connect with the film this comment is always going to be present about the length, but for some people you are so engrossed and entertained by what's in front of you, you don't want it to end. And for me and many overs the long running length flew by. I thought the main theme was about the relationships between parents and their children, I didn't think the biblical stuff was in anyway important by the way.

Some stories do undoubtedly need such immense running times to cover everything they want to, but I didn't think this was one of them. So many of the characters and their stories seemed to be similar that it became repetitive and redundant. I imagine you could easily have trimmed some of the characters and stories, and left a good deal on the cutting room floor and still been able to tell the exact same story.

But with as much power? The cutting between scenes and slow build up of atmosphere in each characters stories is part of the film's brilliance for me, it all ticks along quietly, sometimes more subtle than others, but you can feel a real tension building, something dark coming, a storm brewing. Even subtle touches like the weather readings help reinforce this idea that something is about to happen. It feels like we are about to witness the end of the world, its strangely unsettling but delightful at the same time. I guess you wouldn't like Short Cuts either.

You could argue that its point is relevant in portraying how so many of us are linked by these identical emotions and experiences but for a piece of cinema much of it just felt superfluous to me. And so often I just felt that the scenes went on so much longer than was really necessary. And even with its mammoth running time the film still manages to leave some unresolved threads.

Yeh, I've pretty much covered my thoughts on this.

I will concede to a couple of things in the film's favour. I'll give it that its a very ambitious undertaking, even if I felt it rather crumbled under the weight of such ambition. But I'll never level out severe criticism to a film-maker for being ambitious. I think it's a good thing for Hollywood to have distinctive voices such as Anderson and Tarantino, even if I don't always appreciate their efforts.

:up:

And the other point I'll concede is that across the board it is superbly acted. That is especially true in the case of Tom Cruise and Philip Seymour Hoffman who were both superb in portraying quite disparate characters. Cruise was amazing as the spectacularly arrogant and despicable Frank T.J. Mackie who is eventually revealed to be hiding a deep pain. He is tremendous in the scene where he is confronted by the reporter about the truth regarding his past, saying so much with just his facial expressions as opposed to words. It's got to be one of his best performances. Cruise's scenes were a joy because they had by far the most energy and life about them. Imagine that, making something interesting. The other top performance would be Hoffman's, who is as impressive as ever as male nurse, Paul. Other impressive showings amongst the ensemble are delivered by the likes of William H. Macy, Jason Robards, Philip Baker Hall and Melora Walters. The one performance I had some reservations about was Julianne Moore's. At times I thought she was good but when expressing her grief I felt that on occasion she went way too big with it to cringingly hysterical effect.

I'm glad you appreciated the acting. It really is magnificent and I loved how PTA handles the ensemble cast. I have no complaints about anyone, the same goes with Boogie Nights. I think your criticism about Moore is a bit harsh though, for me she gives possibly the best performance and the most powerful.

I love PTA films because he combines what we've seen before with family a lot. Boogie Nights is all about family, despite being cold and set in a harsh world as I said it somehow had a personal effect on me and was a very powerful story. I find him to deal with relationships greatly, and really felt the parent/child theme that was so strong in this film.Neither am I claiming that I have seen the truth of the film that you have failed to spot. You guys love it, and that's great. I'm just delivering my own uneducated viewpoint on the matter.

:up:
.

There you are :)

Deadite

08-13-13, 07:05 PM

That review was too long.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/b936c0208f577524d4d08781c7839183/tumblr_mfcyowxPnL1ryu3g1o1_500.gif

ezetuw

08-13-13, 07:25 PM

Ok, read it, Jay. Nah, I'm not gonna jump you, man. It's a weird movie first and foremost, and weird movies have rather specific audiences. I guess it's just not the movie for you. So I won't go into a point-by-point discussion about it, because I think I'm not going to convince you, neither think I should try to. Will just say that for me, it's a hell of a movie.

I totally get you seeing it as pretentious crap. In fact, I watch a review with PTA, and I do get a pretentious vibe from the guy. But I'm watching a movie, not a guy, and I do believe he's telling a personal story through all of these characters, and the most important part is, I relate with them. For me, it's a perfect film.

About Julianne Moore, I can see why you think she went over the top. But I actually knew a chick (a redhead, I **** you not!) who talked exactly like her in this movie. Seriously, it's scary. Way too fast, way too nervous. So I think, that chick, in a situation of pressure, and I can totally see it.

Skepsis93

08-13-13, 07:33 PM

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/conan_spaz.gif

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/angry-eyes.gif

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/mad-at-theinternet.gif

BAD JAYDEE. NO MORE PLUS REP FOR YOU

But seriously you expressed your thoughts well, and I appreciate the second-to-last paragraph. It's only a movie.

But still no plus rep for you.

JayDee

08-13-13, 08:37 PM

Wow well that certainly got a response. :D Although I'm rather buoyed by the amount of support my views got. I felt this may be one of those films where I was the only person on here who wasn't completely enamoured with it.

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

:laugh:

Not too surprised with your rating. I watched 30 minutes of Magnolia, but had I seen in to the end, I might've given it 2 as well.

Wow you could only manage 30 minutes?

Are you sure it doesn't deserve 2----? :) You make some valid points. I appreciate Anderson and I find the movie more entertaining than you do. If you give this 2/5, you'd probably give The Master 1/5. I had real problems with that one. But there are an amazing number of sacred cows around here right now, and their fans only see things one way. You and I have our own too. Well, good work, as always.

The way I actually settled on my score was that I disliked it a little bit more than Death Proof which got a 2. Oh really? I'm actually quite interested to see The Master at some point. Oh I know everyone has their sacred cows in terms of films, directors, actors. For example if I saw someone rip into Back to the Future like I did Magnolia, well I'd cut a bitch! :p

And thanks for the valid points and good work comments. :up: You may not exactly be gushing in your praise but I appreciate it. :D

There you are :)

Thanks Daniel. Great post. :up: Although I wish you hadn't done it. Knowing how popular the film is around here I wouldn't be surprised if your thoughts get more rep than me. And it would be pretty embarassing to get out-repped in my own thread! :p

I'll try and come back and address some of your points later

BAD JAYDEE. NO MORE PLUS REP FOR YOU

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/plsdontyell_zps52418b7e.png (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/plsdontyell_zps52418b7e.png.html)

But seriously you expressed your thoughts well, and I appreciate the second-to-last paragraph. It's only a movie.

But still no plus rep for you.

Thanks man. Glad you could appreciate that anyway. I didn't want to just come on and say "man this movie sucked!" I wanted to try and elaborate on why it didn't work for me. And yeah that was my attempt at appeasing the angry mob with torches and pitchforks! :D Attempting to disarm the hate!

:(

Oh and loving the pics. :D Especially the first one as I'm a big Conan fan. Are those Will Ferrell's eyes in the 2nd clip by the way?

mark f

08-13-13, 08:50 PM

You may not exactly be gushing in your praise but I appreciate it. :D

I don't gush anymore.

cricket

08-13-13, 09:29 PM

I don't remember Magnolia that well but I remember being underwhelmed, aggravated, and annoyed by it. I also remember thinking Tom Cruise was great in it. One of those films I most want to see again due to thinking I must've missed something the first time.

Skepsis93

08-13-13, 11:10 PM

Are those Will Ferrell's eyes in the 2nd clip by the way?

Looks like it to me. Mostly I'm happy it succeeds in putting across my SEETHING ANGER AT YOU, MAGNOLIA HATER

JayDee

08-14-13, 08:39 PM

I don't gush anymore.

Aw Mark. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/hug-1_zps21251001.gif (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/hug-1_zps21251001.gif.html) Something about that sentence makes it just about the saddest thing I've ever read.

I don't remember Magnolia that well but I remember being underwhelmed, aggravated, and annoyed by it.

That sums it up quite nicely. :yup:

SEETHING ANGER AT YOU, MAGNOLIA HATER

You're not going to let this go for a while are you? :D

Skepsis93

08-14-13, 10:26 PM

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/never.gif

ezetuw

08-15-13, 12:59 AM

Dammit I take back my response to the review. Why write like several paragraphs when I could've just said
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c
Sorry, I was desperate to use that clip.

Deadite

08-15-13, 04:16 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxTbdj2c61c

seanc

08-15-13, 05:03 AM

Brodinski

08-16-13, 09:22 AM

Meh, I won't hate on you for your review of Magnolia. The biggest complaint about the film is that it's too much of everything: too long, too contrived, too pretentious, and too forced. I could start arguing with you and launch a huge counteroffense, but I'd be fighting a losing battle. You've said your thoughts on the film, elaborated on them and I respect that.

Now, post a review of a film you really liked, so I can trash it.

Daniel M

08-16-13, 09:34 AM

Sorry you didn't like it JayDee. I am so looking forward to having my second viewing in the next week or so. I will post all my thoughts on my 100 thread so I won't write a paragraph here. I will say I think it's a funny thing about emotional manipulation. I feel as if movie fans we are okay with it if it works for us, but condemn it when it doesn't. I am not saying whether that is right or wrong because I slam plenty of films for being manipulative, it is just an observation. I wonder if anyone else agrees.

It does. But a lot of films do this. A film I know that you love is Forrest Gump, I give it http://www.movieforums.com/images/popcorn/3box.gif for similar reasons, it feels forced, like the director is deliberately placing things that aren't natural to bring the emotions out of you. So I ask the question, and it's a question to myself as well, why does this work for some films and not others and differ from person to person? What makes you fall in love with a character, a film, and make you go along with the magical journey?

:)

JayDee

08-16-13, 04:11 PM

Now, post a review of a film you really liked, so I can trash it.

Oh you're in luck Brod. My 90s season has taken a little detour into me revisiting some of my favourite action films of the decade; something I'd been planning on doing anyway for my new top 100 list. And as we've seen before (Speed, Point Break, my infamous Van Damme season) big, dumb action flicks are something I have a great fondness/weakness for. So I'll be throwing plenty of ammunition your way. :D

ezetuw

08-16-13, 04:39 PM

Who in their right minds would trash Speed?

JayDee

08-16-13, 05:58 PM

mirror mirror

Year of release
1997

Directed by
John Woo

Written by
Mike Werb
Michael Colleary

Starring
Nicholas Cage
John Travolta
Joan Allen
Alessandro Nivola
Gina Gershon

Face/Off

4

Plot - Caster Troy (Nicholas Cage and also kind of John Travolata) and Sean Archer (John Travolate/Nicholas Cage) were never exactly likely to be the best of friends, what with Caster being a criminal and Sean an FBI agent. When Troy kills Archer's son however this becomes a deadly, hate-filled feud that rumbles on for six years. Even when Archer finally catches up with Troy and leaves him in a coma things between them have not come to an end. Before being caught, Caster and his brother Pollux (Alessandro Nivola) had planted a bomb in downtown Los Angeles. In an attempt to find out the bomb's location from Pollux, Archer undergoes a radical and experimental facial transplant operation which switches his face for that of Troy. Having learned of the bomb's location it seems like the mission has been a success but things take a horrific turn for Archer. Caster Troy unexpectedly wakes up from his coma, forces the doctor to give him Archer's face and then kills everyone who was aware of Archer's transformation. Taking Archer's place, Caster now has the power of an FBI agent and Archer seems likely to be forever trapped in prison. Or something like that! :D I'm sure I've probably gotten confused in there somewhere.

If you're looking for a prime example of the great excesses that were to be found in the action genre throughout the 90s, you are unlikely to do any better than John Woo's Face/Off. Its concept is truly ludicrous. Its performances are so over the top that they end up in the stratosphere. And its action sequences are taken to ridiculous extremes. It's a film which actually has a bit of sci-fi vibe to it. Obviously you have the initial scenario which at the very least is certainly infringing on being science fiction, but then you've also got the faintly futuristic-feeling prison that Castor and his brother are sent to, what with its magnetic boots and all. As a setting and a scene the stretch is prison is actually pretty awesome.
Anyway let's just get this out of the way right up front. In terms of its whole premise Face/Off is absolute nonsense of the highest order! I mean even today, more than 15 years after the movie came out and scientists are only just beginning to get a real grip on facial transplants. And yet here they can switch people's faces so that it's impossible to tell the difference and that it doesn't leave a single bruise or scar; no healing required. So yes, absolute hogwash! But who cares? This is an overblown John Woo action film we're talking about. Why are you looking for logic? And I bet there are people out there who disparage this for being nonsensical trash, and yet they rave about artistic fare like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, completely overlooking the absurdity of the memory wiping technology which is central to its story. Anyway, once you get past the sheer incredulity of its premise you'll realise that it actually opens up a whole host of delicious prospects. And not just in the action sense; it allows for some interesting situations for its characters. For example it's really quite creepy watching Castor interact with Archer's family after the switch, and Travolta tackles these moments with an apparent relish; the intimacy with Archer's wife and the slimy bonding with his daughter. While in contrast Archer seems to adopt some of Castor's darker tendencies. While you could argue that it's for the greater good, while in prison he does instigate an escape and an ensuing riot which results in the deaths of several of the prison guards. He even comes to feel a sympathy and a connection with some of Castor's criminal associates. And as you would expect from such a set-up the film does also exploit this switcheroo for snatches of humour.

Of all the actors out there, particularly those who have won an Oscar, there are few who have a more polarizing effect on audiences than Nicholas Cage. Over the years he seems to have been both celebrated and derided in equal measure. And he's not like most polarizing figures who seem to split people into two separate camps; those that love him and those that hate him. It seems that everyone is capable of both loving and hating him, depending on the film and his performance. For the most part I'm a hater, not a lover but when I do love him it's usually in films like this. These kind of outlandish films suit his exaggerated style. The ticks, mannerisms and sheer weirdness that he brings to just about every one of his performances can often ruin a film, but they can excel in fare like this; larger-than-life films where his eccentric acting choices feel at home. And in an attempt to keep up with his manic stylings, Travolta seems to be having an absolute ball once he makes the switch over to the Castor Troy persona. I find him to be terrifically entertaining as he sneers his way through proceedings. I think that both men do a really nice job of representing the switch and inhabiting each other's characters. For example I feel that Cage does it very well following the switch when he is essentially Cage playing Travolta playing Cage. As Castor Troy he is pure unadulterated evil, but when he becomes Sean Archer it's the same act but you can see that it is forced and put upon.

Film Trivia Snippets - The studio wanted John Woo to remove the slash out of the title, but he decided to keep it as he didn't want people thinking it was a hockey movie. /// The original script that was presented to John Woo actually had the story set in the future. Woo however suggested that they change the setting to the present day to allow for more focus to be put on the dramatic and psychological elements of the story. /// The name of the floating prison, Erewhon, is a simple anagram of 'nowhere.' It is a reference to Samuel Butler's novel, “Erewhon”, which depicts a city where the main character is imprisoned and in which many of the normal rules of society are reversed. /// When it was originally being put into production, the idea was for Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone to perhaps take on the lead roles, but when Woo was brought on board he decided that Travolta and Cage would be more suited for the roles; though he also considered both Michael Douglas and Jean-Claude Van Damme.
Face/Off opens in very grand, operatic style and immediately informs you of the kind of experience you're in for. The film kicks off with a flashy, stylistic sequence which depicts the death of Archer's son at the hands of Castor Troy. Right away Woo's direction is in full force here; very slick, showy and creative. The action then moves on six years and we find that Archer is still hunting Castor. So far we've already seen the fairly unsubtle nature of Woo, next up its Cage in a bombastic introduction where we find him dressed as a priest and acting in a spectacularly maniacal fashion. It then delivers a fantastic action sequence which is so large and thrilling that it would normally be fit to close most action films. Here however it acts merely as a little warm-up for all of the chaos that is to follow. It sees Castor attempting to escape in a plane as FBI agents tear after him in SUVs down the runway. Archer then commandeers a helicopter and instructs its pilot to use it to stop the plane. The chase results in an absolutely explosive crash into an airport hangar.

And from then on Face/Off pretty much sticks with the nature it has already set out. It is fast-paced, overblown and on occasion downright goofy all the way to the end. There's a great little moment which I feel neatly captures that goofiness. After just arriving at the hi-tech prison Archer is confronted by another prisoner who thought he had got wasted. Trying to put on the kind of show that Castor would, Archer asks him if he wants “to see what wasted really looks like little man.” Cue high-pitched, camp calls of “ooooh!” from the nearby inmates. They act like damn high school kids! Oh and almost forgot, during the opening exchanges I think the costume design for Caster Troy is awesome, really helping to create this ridiculously extravagant character. We see him sporting a dark red suit, wearing large and ostentatious jewellery, showing off a flashy dragon money clip before revealing the pair of gold plated guns he keeps holstered. The character is just so incredibly vile and despicable; he's fantastic! :D

All of John Woo's trademark flourishes are on show here - his affinity for slow motion, the flamboyant choreography, his avian fetish, the highly stylised and violent action, characters going back to back, strong use of reflections etc. And they all come together to create some wonderfully thrilling set-pieces including numerous chaotic, violent shootouts and the concluding boat chase. I've always gotten a kick out of his character's fighting style in terms of leaping from side to side, firing guns in mid-air etc. There's a ridiculous and hilarious moment where during a shootout Nicholas Cage for no reason whatsoever does a forward flip, staying in the exact same spot, before resuming firing. All in all Face/Off certainly adheres to the classic archetypes of a John Woo flick.

Conclusion - It may not exactly be the most intelligent film that Hollywood has ever produced, and yes it may feature a couple of glaring plot holes, but come on, who really cares?! Face/Off is just ridiculously good fun, with some great action and two actors who seem to be having an absolute blast with such a preposterous concept and outrageous characters.

The Gunslinger45

08-16-13, 06:21 PM

Got to love classic over the top action movies! And Face/Off is one of them! Sometime you just want to turn off the brain and be entertained! And this is one of those movies! Excellent review!

Daniel M

08-16-13, 06:59 PM

I like Face/Off, but not as much as I used to, it hasn't held up as well for me as the two other films in the unofficial Nic Cage action trilogy... The Rock and Con Air. But yeh, like you say, fun stuff :)

edarsenal

08-16-13, 07:30 PM

was already a fan of John Woo before Face/Off came out and while it was a basic, get-to-know project for american audiences showcasing a lot of woo's previous tricks it is, as you said, "ridiculously good fun," which I'm guessing had a lot to do with the hollywood camp influence. And, cage does excel in the outlandlish character of Castor Troy. I always enjoyed the shoot-out with "Over The Rainbow" playing. TRUE Woo scenario.
I do get a kick out of this movie but it always makes me want to go "back to the well" and dig out one of Woo's movies from China, like Killer or Hard Boiled.

Excellent review btw

seanc

08-16-13, 07:44 PM

Loved Face/Off at the time. Def one that needs a re-watch though.

JayDee

08-17-13, 05:02 PM

it hasn't held up as well for me as the two other films in the unofficial Nic Cage action trilogy... The Rock and Con Air.

Oh well stick around then, you may be interested in what's coming up. ;)

Excellent review btw

Thank you very much ed. :up: And welcome to the thread.

Daniel M

08-17-13, 06:44 PM

Oh well stick around then, you may be interested in what's coming up. ;)Sounds good man, I know BBC show all three now and again and I know the other two were on fairly recently, like last couple of months, so looking forward to see if you reviewed any :)

JayDee

08-18-13, 08:47 PM

Before my next action film of the 90s here's a little catch-up of micro musings to clear the backlog. These are from my season of easy watches that included the likes of Alien Nation, The Hidden, Planet Terror etc

Micro Musings

mirror mirror

Year of release
1981

Directed by
David Cronenberg

Starring
Stephen Lack
Michael Ironside
Jennifer O'Neill
Patrick McGoohan

Scanners

2.5 +

Scanners has two fantastic moments in it; the first occurs in the film's opening moments and the second in its closing moments. In between them however I didn't find a great deal to truly love here. Those two moments however, particularly the first, really are quite awesome. The first is the moment that everyone knows. Even if you've not seen the film you've probably seen or heard about the exploding head. Both it and the finale are stunning examples of special effects work. That however is about the only instance where we are able to see any real effect of the scanning process. The rest of the time it is left to the actors to gurn maniacally to show they are either scanning or being scanned. The rest of the film just felt very predictable and staid. Performances throughout the film are pretty much exclusively hammy and overwrought with only the ever-awesome Michael Ironside really hitting the mark. It was a shame then to find how little he was actually in the film.

mirror mirror

Year of release
1974

Directed by
John Hough

Starring
Peter Fonda
Susan George
Adam Roarke
Vic Morrow

Dirty Mary Crazy Larry

3 +

I found this film really quite similar to Vanishing Point in a way, except that it handles the existentialism in a lighter way, ensuring the film feels a lot breezier. It's a really simple little film which most captures your attention as a great car film. It's got a couple of really cool muscle cars and a number of excellent moments of high speed racing and carnage. The performances certainly aren't born out of the Actors Studio, but through a combination of the dialogue and the characters they do have a good bit of punch to them. The characters themselves may be fairly one note but they're quite good fun. Peter Fonda supplies a good deal of energy as the adrenaline-junkie daredevil, Larry Rayder. As the titular Mary, Susan George is suitably annoying at times in a loud and trailer-trash like fashion, but at quieter moments shows a sensitivity and a naivety in her eyes. While Vic Morrow greatly entertains as the obsessed sheriff on their tail. The film also features a really quite shocking finale which came out of nowhere and really threw me for a loop. A nice little flick

mirror mirror
Year of release
1975

Directed by
Jack Starett

Starring
Peter Fonda
Warren Oates
Loretta Switt
Lara Parker
R.G. Armstrong

Race With the Devil

3.5 -

A cheap but effective little horror-thriller this one. It's suitably trashy throughout, really delving into the excessive and over-the-top fears that people hold about things like small hick towns and satanic believers, playing them up to their most gaudy and far-fetched natures. The film is quite slow to get going but once it does I thought it was a fun ride. Once the group witness a human sacrifice and get chased by the cultists however then the film really picks up. They are terrorised by the cult members who leave threatening notes and snakes in their camper van and kill their dog. It does a really nice job of creating a massive sense of paranoia so that every person they see and every look in their direction feels threatening. Essentially the film is very much in the form of films like Duel and The Hitcher, except that instead of a singular pursuer you've got a whole posse of them. And the big car chase that it all leads up to is pretty awesome. The cast are all solid and likeable. With me being a big fan of the classic sitcom, MASH, it was a particular treat to see Loretta 'Hotlips Houlihan' Switt in a major role. I think this may actually be the first thing I've ever seen her in outwith MASH. Race With the Devil also has a very notable and memorable ending; it's quite the shocking twist. I'll admit though that it is completely ludicrous and makes no sense whatsoever but for the initial 10 seconds until I realised that I thought it was awesome, and it does remain quite cool. While the film may take a while to get going I was able to find a lot of fun in this little flick. Though I will admit I'm not entirely sure why I liked it so much and I'm unsure how much replay value there is here.

mirror mirror
Year of release
1984

Directed by
Thom E. Eberhardt

Starring
Catherine Mary Stewart
Kelli Maroney
Robert Beltran
Mary Woronov
Geoffrey Lewis

Night of the Comet

2

What a disappointment this one was! I first heard about it years and years ago and ever since then had really high hopes for it, given my love for a good cult flick. But man were those hopes ever dashed! It starts off brightly enough with a really nice breezy nature, and I liked how the deserted LA cityscape was realised with its interesting, eerie red glow. Very quickly however it descends into an extremely slow and uneventful experience, where we find our characters doing nothing but hanging around a radio station, arguing over boys and going on a shopping spree. I don't know if this act was meant to be taken seriously or if it was going for spoof-like laughs that with the world going to hell all around them these girls are concerned with such trivialities. Either way I found it extremely flat. The film does pick up a little however with a shootout in a shopping mall, and a fun little ending. The acting is fairly ropey throughout, although Catherine Mary Stewart and Kelli Maroney still prove to be quite likeable regardless. The biggest problem with the film in my eyes would certainly have to be its lack of budget. As a result of it we barely get the opportunity to see the zombies whatsoever, and it annoyed me that they clearly couldn't afford cars for the production. It makes sense that there are no people on the streets as they have all been wiped out but what about the cars they left behind? There's barely a single one to be seen in the whole city of LA.

The Rodent

08-18-13, 08:53 PM

Watched Scanners the other night... seen it before when I was younger but it seemed extra boring this time round.

Haven't seen the others.

JayDee

08-19-13, 08:35 PM

Yeah was really surprised as I was watching it about how big a cult favourie it is for many people. As I said two moments aside it was really rather dull and I think I've been a bit too kind with my rating actually.

Sexy Celebrity

08-19-13, 08:37 PM

Look at all of these reviews!

The Rodent

08-19-13, 08:39 PM

Look at all of these reviews!

Not as many as me though :D

JayDee

08-19-13, 09:06 PM

mirror mirror

Year of release
1996

Directed by
Michael Bay

Written by
David Weisberg
Douglas S. Cook
Mark Rosnes

Starring
Sean Connery
Nicholas Cage
Ed Harris
John Spencer
David Morse

The Rock

4.5

Plot - Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary was a maximum high-security prison located on Alcatraz island just off the coast of San Francisco. Closed in 1963 it now operates as a tourist attraction. Except for today where it is going to serve as the base of operation for a biological rocket attack on the city of San Francisco unless certain demands are met. The man making the demands is Frank Hummel (Harris), a highly decorated Brigadier General who is sick of the way the Government has treated Marines who died on secret missions, their deaths never being honoured. He has led a group of rogue Marines in taking over the island, holding 81 tourists hostage, and plans on launching the rockets against the city if he does not receive $100 million which will be distributed to the Marines and to the families of men who died under his command. A group of NAVY Seals are assembled to penetrate the island's defences and disarm the rockets, with two unique additions to the team; FBI chemical weapons expert Stanley Goodspeed (Cage) and John Patrick Mason (Connery), the only man to ever escape from Alcatraz who will act as their guide to breaking in.

Read all about it! Read all about it! Michael Bay in great movie shocker!!! :eek: Yes that's right ladies and gentlemen, once upon a time one of the most derided of all contemporary directors actually did deliver a pretty good, nay a great film. That film was The Rock, a film that actually shares many of the same elements as his other work - loud explosive action, buddy relationships, half-hearted attempts at romance etc; elements that have generated numerous disappointing entries in Bay's catalogue of films. And yet here however Bay was able to take those facets and formulate a smart, thrilling and absorbing film, by far the most satisfying film of his career.

I don't think that anyone could have predicted it beforehand but in the mid 90s, for a very brief period, Nicholas Cage somehow became the biggest action star in the world. He may not have seemed like a very likely candidate for the accolade but a back-to-back triple bill of action classics propelled him to such a standing. Before delivering both prisoners-on-a-plane film, Con Air, and John Woo's Face/Off the following year, it was The Rock that set him on his way to securing his place in the echelon of the action genre. And while I may not always be his biggest fan I think he does a nice job here with his chemical weapons expert Dr. Stanley Goodspeed, playing him in a suitably geeky fashion with something of a Jimmy Stewart “aww shucks” nature to him. Initially we find the character nervous and out of his depth, even throwing up at the prospect of the mission, but eventually the character evolves into a bit of a kick ass hero with Cage portraying it nicely. His character is even able to overcome the fact that his name sounds like that of a Bond girl! :D

As enjoyable as Cage is however, star of the show in my eyes certainly has to be Sean Connery who brings a great deal of charisma and character to his escape specialist, John Patrick Mason. He seems to really embrace Mason's eccentricities and the colourful dialogue he gets to spout, and he really is quite bad ass in the film. He even gets the opportunity to play into his James Bond past a little bit with a few nods to his time in the tux. Connery had rather been in career wilderness for a while until the late 80s double bill of The Untouchables and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade launched him back to the top of the A-list. Throughout the 90s he starred in a number of action films, and given his age I suppose he was just as unlikely an action star as Cage at the time. And while I love the 90s output of Stallone, Van Damme, Willis, Lundgren etc these two make for a nice change of pace and a little bit of a novelty. Brought together here they display a nice chemistry in a classic example of the buddy relationship; two disparate characters paired up who put aside their initial differences to form a bond of friendship and trust.

Film Trivia Snippets - Arnold Schwarzenegger was actually offered the role of John Mason but turned it down. At the time the offer came about the script was only 80s pages long and according to Arnie “a lot of handwriting and scribbles and it didn't seem fully baked.” He has since talked about he regretted not taking the role. /// Sean Connery didn't want to have to travel back and forth between the mainland and Alcatraz island every single day, so he insisted that the producers build a cabin for him on the island so he could stay there permanently during the shoot. The producers agreed. /// According to Michael Bay the film would actually have been played much more straight and serious had they followed the script. While filming however most of the film's humorous moments and lines were improvised and kept in. /// The Rock actually had some rather famous writers do uncredited work on the script. Both Quentin Tarantino and Aaron Sorkin worked on the screenplay but without being credited. The Rock also benefits from quite a strong villain in the commanding presence of Ed Harris as Brigadier General Francis Hummel, a highly respected figure and legendary for his exploits during the Vietnam War. And Harris is a very nice fit, easily conveying the required sense of strength and resolve to convince you that he could really be this total bad ass. His character also makes a nice change from the villains most commonly found in action films of the 80s and 90s. Generally they were hugely over-the-top, crazy and despicably vile; real comic book style villains; see Howard Payne in Speed, Castor Troy in Face/Off, Simon Phoenix in Demolition Man, Andrew Scott in Universal Soldier, Eric Qualen in Cliffhanger, Emil Fouchon in Hard Target and pretty much everyone in Con Air for just a very small sample of the insanity that reigned. Harris' Hummel however is a much more intelligent and honourable adversary for our heroes, much more complex than the one-dimensional character it could easily have been. His intentions, however misguided they may be, actually are quite noble. All he wants to do is get the honour and respect for his fallen comrades that he feels they are due, and for their families to be compensated. It's an interesting concept to work from, a bit more intriguing than the typical gameplan of a movie villain. This approach also plays into the feeling that soldiers are often not given enough help and support from their government, particularly in regards to the Vietnam War of which Hummel was a part. Hummel also shows a genuine compassion for the marines who get killed trying to stop them; that was never something he wanted.

The film has got some great action sequences throughout such as the big shower room shootout and various battles that Mason and Goodspeed engage the terrorists in. However the pinnacle in terms of action in The Rock would certainly have to be its car chase through the famous streets of San Francisco. It's one of the few chases in contemporary films which can really hold up when compared to the golden age of car chases that was the 60s and 70s; a period which produced the likes of Bullitt, The French Connection, The Seven-Ups, The Italian Job, Vanishing Point, The Driver, Gone in 60 Seconds, Duel etc. It pits Connery in a monstrous Humvee on the run from the cops, including Cage in a stolen Ferrari, and seems them bring mayhem and destruction to San Francisco's iconic streets. I know I've said it before but I think that visually San Francisco has got to be my favourite movie city. I just love its iconic steep hills, unique architecture, eternal sunshine and the cool, artistic vibe that the place has. And The Rock makes great use of one of the city's most famous landmarks, Alcatraz prison. It proves to be a terrific setting for the film, one that is really interesting both visually and from a story point of view.

While The Rock may not be as outlandish as many of its fellow action efforts of the 90s, it still doesn't take itself deadly seriously and it still knows how to have a lot of fun. Alongside the bombastic action, the bickering between Mason and Goodspped and the rather witty script we also get some fun little asides in the form of minor characters whose characters are evolved beyond any plausible reasoning for the simple fact of providing a few laughs; I'm thinking of Mason's exceptionally camp stylist and the tram driver who is extremely passionate about his job and the tram that he operates. And who can't love the moment where Nichols Cage evokes the memory of Elton John's classic song, “Rocket Man.” :D
Conclusion - While it may appear to be just as brainless as many of the other action flicks that proliferated the decade, The Rock actually has some smarts about it. It's an exciting, suspensful and frequently amusing slice of action. With Alcatraz providing a great and seductive draw, the film features some very fine performances, great special effects and Bay at least proves that he knows how to handle an action sequence with some style. One of the primo examples of 90s action.

The Rodent

08-19-13, 09:14 PM

The Rock... Bay's best film.

Just a shame he went stupid.

Sexy Celebrity

08-19-13, 09:15 PM

The Rock... Bay's best film.

Just a shame he went stupid.

You're the one who gave him the directions.

The Rodent

08-19-13, 09:16 PM

Agree though, Connery is by far more memorable than Cage... even though Cage had 3,000,000 times more screen time than Connery.

The Gunslinger45

08-19-13, 09:55 PM

honeykid

08-19-13, 10:01 PM

Urgh! Cage. :(

Sexy Celebrity

08-19-13, 10:04 PM

Urgh! Cage. :(

Relax. I have the antidote:

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=11079&stc=1&d=1376960631

Daniel M

08-20-13, 08:38 AM

Great review of The Rock there JayDee, I knew you'd love it. Like I said I caught bits of it recently and thought it had held up really well, definitely an action classic.

JayDee

08-21-13, 05:52 PM

Urgh! Cage. :(

Urgh! Honeykid. :p

So none of the Cage action trilogy do it for you? How about Cage films in general?

mark f

08-21-13, 06:08 PM

He loves Drive Angry, but he's probably scared to watch it. Oh yeah, movies don't scare him. :)

honeykid

08-21-13, 06:53 PM

Urgh! Honeykid. :p

So none of the Cage action trilogy do it for you? How about Cage films in general?
The Rock is by far the best of those three, IMO. It's watchable enough and I quite liked it the last time I watched it. The big problem with The Rock is Cage and Connery. I mean, Jesus Christ. :facepalm:

I liked Leaving Las Vegas and thought he was really good in it, but he's good in it the way Keanu Reeves is good in The Matrix or Arnie is in The Terminator. It's a role that's made for him. The only other film of his I've seen and liked was Wings Of The Apaches (aka Firebirds) which isn't a good film at all, but I liked it at the time. Whether I'd like it or not now, I don't know. It was about around the same time as Navy Seals, Under Siege, Universal Soldier and those films.

I quite liked the sound of Adaptation, but his being in it put me off and I've been told I'd like The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans and Lord Of War, but haven't checked them out.

He loves Drive Angry, but he's probably scared to watch it. Oh yeah, movies don't scare him. :)
I am tempted by Drive Angry but have yet to succumb.

JayDee

08-21-13, 09:04 PM

The Rock is by far the best of those three, IMO.

I liked Leaving Las Vegas and thought he was really good in it, but he's good in it the way Keanu Reeves is good in The Matrix or Arnie is in The Terminator. It's a role that's made for him.

And yet you repped Face/Off and not The Rock? :confused: :p

Not actually seen Leaving Las Vegas. And do you personally actually like Reeves in The Matrix? I thought you hated everything about that film!

honeykid

08-21-13, 09:34 PM

No, The Matrix is ok, it's just that's all it is. It's ok. I just didn't think it was cool or great or mind-blowing or anything. It was on, I watched it, it finished, I didn't think about it... Then the entire world seemed to be talking about nothing else and it was the greatest film in the history of the world ever. Kinda like Gladiator, though I liked The Matrix more than Gladiator.

I + repped Face/Off because I read that review, however, I couldn't face reading another review of a Cage film straight away. :D

seanc

08-21-13, 09:38 PM

I am not a Cage fan either, especially the last 10 years. I love Adaptation though and like him pretty well in Raising Arizona. I have not seen Leaving Las Vegas yet either.

The Gunslinger45

08-21-13, 10:28 PM

The Rock is by far the best of those three, IMO.

I am tempted by Drive Angry but have yet to succumb.

Great movie!

JayDee

08-23-13, 06:05 PM

And now we come on to the final part of the unofficial Nicholas Cage trilogy, Con Air. And as he is such a big fan I would like to dedicate this review to Daniel M.

mirror mirror

Year of release
1997

Directed by
Simon West

Written by
Scott Rosenberg

Starring
Nicholas Cage
John Malkovich
John Cusack
Ving Rhames
Steve Buscemi
Colm Meaney

Con Air

4.5 -

Plot - Cameron Poe (Cage) is a highly decorated Army Ranger who is sent to prison after causing the death of a man while defending his wife. After being locked up for seven years Poe is granted his parole and is all set to head home to his wife and young daughter that he has never met. His passage home will be aboard the Jailbird, a prison airplane used for transporting prisoners. On this day Poe finds himself sharing the plane with some of the most sadistic and ruthless criminals you could ever wish to meet, or you know, wish to not meet. Amongst the passengers are criminal mastermind Cyrus the Virus (Malkovich), his right hand man Diamond Dog (Rhames) and infamous serial killer Garland Green (Buscemi), aka The Marietta Mangler. And perhaps unsurprisingly given the company he is keeping things don't exactly go smoothly for Poe in his attempts to get home. The criminals seize control of the plane and plan their escape. The one thing the criminals didn't bargain on however was that they'd be sharing the plane with an Army Ranger whose convictions and character will not allow for this to happen.

Cyrus the Virus, the villain in Con Air, picks up a stuffed toy bunny and holds a gun to its head. He threatens our hero, Cameron Poe, that if he moves he will shoot and kill the inanimate bunny. If you already feel yourself rolling your eyes and that you are obtaining an unacceptable level of incredulity, then I advise you to turn back now. This is not going to be the film for you! :D Yes that's right, we now move on to the third and final part of the mid-90s, Nicholas Cage action trilogy, Con Air. Probably the film of said trilogy which most splits opinion. Many people love it to the degree where it has become a cult film, while just as many people if not more think it's preposterous rubbish. And given the moment I outlined at the start I'm surprised it ever got made. I can just imagine people reading the script and this moment producing reactions of “what the f*ck?!!!”

The action in Con Air is overblown, preposterous and outrageous. Just the way I like it! :D The film's simple plot; bad guys attempting to get from A to B while good guy tries to stop them, allows the film plenty of time for explosions, furious shootouts, brutal hand-to-hand combat and all manner of vehicular chaos. There are a series of huge set-pieces which just seem to escalate throughout the film. The highlights would have to be a massive shootout at an abandoned airfield which pits all of the prisoners against the National Guard, and the massive finale which just keeps getting bigger and bigger. To start off with the plane carrying the prisoners crash-lands right in the middle of Las Vegas on the Strip. You would assume that's the film's climax but it's not, it just keeps going. Cyrus and his buddies flee in a fire truck while Poe chases them down in a motorcycle. Able to leap from the motorcycle onto the truck's ladder, Poe finds himself face to face with Cyrus, battling atop the truck as it speeds through the streets of Vegas. Eventually Cyrus is cuffed to the ladder as it is raised up, leaving Cyrus exposed as the truck crashes, sending him flying through the air and through a series of electrical cables. Ok surely that's the end right? Well not quite. There's still time for Cyrus to have his head crushed by a piece of machinery at a construction site. With all this action the film rarely allows you a single pause for breath.

With its large cast of recognisable stars, many of them associated with the action genre, in a way Con Air sort of feels like The Expendables before there was The Expendables. Leading the pack you obviously have Nicholas Cage once again. As I've mentioned in the previous couple of reviews he is an extremely divisive and often immensely irritating performer. However there is one thing I will give Cage credit for. He never really rests on his laurels as an actor. Some actors you'll see trot out the exact same performance time and time again. Cage however has an array of accents, mannerisms, ticks etc at his disposal. And of course the variety of hairstyles that he has sported on screen are legendary. So when you go and see a Nicholas Cage film you really have no idea what's in store, as scary a prospect as that is. And whatever eccentricities he chooses to impart to his characters, he always commits to them fully, no matter how misguided we might find them to be. So here we get a languid Southern drawl which is so slow it arrives about a week after Cage does, and of course the infamous greasy mullet. It really is quite something watching Cage run; his long, flowing locks blowing in the wind in slow motion.

Film Trivia Snippets - Con Air actually has the unique distinction of having an element of its production nominated by both the Academy Awards and the Golden Raspberry Awards. Trisha Yearwood's “How Do I Live” was nominated both for a Best Original Song Oscar, and a Worst Original Song Razzie. It didn't win either. /// When the end credits begin to roll a message pops up stating the film is “In Memory of Phil Swartz.” Swartz was an effects specialist who worked on the movie and was sadly killed during filming when a rigged plane fell and crushed him. /// In the film Colm Meaney's keyh chain has a little Star Trek communicator ornament on it; a little nod to his role as Chief Miles O'Brien in both Star Trek: The Next Generation and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. /// The film's explosive Las Vegas finale was filmed at the legendary Sands Hotel immediately prior to it being demolished. When the production team heard about the plans for demolition they immediately scheduled a multiple camera setup to take advantage of the event and that actually provides the explosions seen in the movie.
The villainous characters are all very colourful, cartoonish creations that urge the actors to really go for it, to ham it up to their hearts content. And pretty much all of them rise to that challenge. The fact that it features quite a number of character actors certainly helped. John Malkovich is great fun as the deliciously monikered Cyrus the Virus, playing him with a fantastic charisma. Also onboard you have the imposing figures of Ving Rhames as Diamond Dog, M.C. Gainey as Swamp Thing and Danny Trejo as Johnny 23 (named for the 23 women he has raped). As a massive X-Files fan Nick Chinlund works as a superb piece of casting as Billy Bedlam. As a result of his role in the show as a death fetishist serial killer he is someone that I always find extremely creepy. And just for good measure the film also throws in Dave Chappelle as the motor-mouthed Pinball who meets a very unfortunate end. While on the side of good I felt that Colm Meaney was very entertaining as a gruff DEA agent. John Cusack is ok but I feel that at times he seems rather lost, as if he is way outside his comfort zone. The only occasion where the film really drops the ball with a character is in Renoly Santiago's character, Sally Can't Dance; an unfortunate stereotype of the black drag queen character that frequently seem to populate prison movies.

And then there is Steve Buscemi's contribution to the film. Not many films appoint a f*cked-up serial killer as its comic relief, but then Con Air is no ordinary film. So Buscemi's Garland Greene, aka 'The Marietta Mangler', is indeed assigned that role with his weird and eccentric behaviour. This despite the fact that his character is a serial killer who was responsible for some 30 deaths. Who once beheaded a girl and wore her head as a hat across three states! :eek: At one point during the film, after the plane has landed, Garland walks off and stumbles across a young girl who wants to play with him so they have the creepiest tea party ever. The camera pans away leaving the two of them alone and it seems a sure bet that at the very least he is going to kill her, if not also molest her first of all. And yet later on we find out that she's completely unharmed and Garland seems to have undergone some kind of transformation, like he has had an epiphany as the result of the little girl showing him kindness; perhaps she was the first one who ever did. And after the film has seemingly ended we get a little bonus scene which reveals that not only has he been the only inmate other than Poe to survive but that he is free and clear and gambling in Vegas. If I'm honest I don't really have any clue what the film was attempting with his character, but for me that just adds to Con Air's preposterous charm. And Buscemi is a great piece of casting as just by being himself pretty much I find him genuinely creepy! You'll never hear "He's Got the Whole World in His Hands" the same way ever again.

As I alluded to earlier I have to talk about one of the film's other star, namely the fluffy, pink bunny. On first impression it seems to be an exceptionally daft addition to the film, particularly in terms of the perilous situations that the bunny often finds itself in. However as silly as it may seem I think there's also a little more to it than that. The film features themes of family and fatherhood and for Cameron Poe the bunny acts as a metaphor for his paternal desire. No seriously hear me out! :D We have already seen Poe struggle to connect with his daughter and form a relationship. Stuck in prison for her entire life the only form of communication they have had is through writing letters to each other. For him the bunny represents his dedication towards being a good father for little Casey. Which is why he takes it so serious when one of the inmates takes possession of it, “Put the bunny back in the box.” Or maybe I'm just trying to place way too much depth on it in an attempt to justify liking such a stupid movie! :D And even I can't attempt an explanation for that scene where Cyrus threatens Poe by holding a gun to the bunny's head.

I'm sure that Con Air is seen by many as being completely mindless trash, hitting all of the lowest common denominators of the action genre, but I like to think it's a good bit smarter than that. I think its script is actually quite witty and self-aware, and features just as many laughs as it does explosions. I find the film to have an awareness and almost a self-mocking tone in terms of how daft it is. It takes all the cliches and tropes of the masculine, testosterone-injected action film and takes them to their extremes. I think this is particularly apparent in the performances of the cast. As well as a whole array on one-liners the script has got a series of cheesy, groan-worthy lines of dialogue which are just awful but also brilliant; a perfect ingredient for the cult film which Con Air has undoubtedly become. And as for Con Air's fantastic premise, one that I imagine many people feel is complete nonsense. Well it actually isn't. The film's screenwriter, Scott Rosenberg, based it on the Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System, which has the nickname of Con Air. As in the film the plane transfers prisoners across the country. After learning of the program in a newspaper article, Rosenberg visited its base in Oklahoma to gather information which eventually formed the basis of the film.

Conclusion - From its pink bunny to its story arc for Steve Buscemi, as action flicks go Con Air is certainly one of the more quirky. And personally I think it's one of the most fun. I can understand why some people just cannot be bothered with it but I just find it to be terrifically entertaining. The film pretty much only has two modes; bombastic and explosive action scenes, or quieter moments where the likes of Cage, Malkovich, Rhames and Buscemi are all pretty damn great. Just immense fun, pure and simple.

Daniel M

08-23-13, 06:17 PM

Awesome review (I see this all the time, but yeh :p ) JayDee and you cover pretty much everything it comes to when I think of the film. As you say I see it as like my 'Expendables' of action films, I love everyone involved however crazy their role, Nic Cage and John Malkovich facing off against each other, famous action actor Danny Trejo and of course Steve Buscemi who gives one of the most strangest, f**cked up, but greatest action film characters for me.

Like I think Ebert says it's a film that knows it's ridiculous and over the top, but doesn't try to be anything else, it seems to be self-aware and where it goes silly it does it well. Part of my love for the film is the comedy in it too, it has some fantastic lines such as "Nobody on this plane gives a flying f**k" and "What's that?", "That's a rock" :D

The Gunslinger45

08-23-13, 06:40 PM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

No srsly I love this movie! I remember renting it from Blockbuster and chowing down on pizza. Great flick to unwind with and have fun! Which for me, is half the fun of watching movies. Yes we can all appreciate a movie as art, but lets face it, sometimes you just want to have fun!

Brodinski

08-25-13, 04:37 PM

Seriously, JD, knock off the blunts. They've got you thinking Con Air is actually an excellent film, as opposed to the usual Nicolas Cage embarrasment of a film.

Deadite

08-25-13, 07:18 PM

Con Air is a lot of hokey fun. Not my fave action film but good stuff. I really love the cast, Buscemi, Rhames, Malkovich, Cusack, Cage, Chappelle, Trejo... just awesomely eclectic.

I feel sorry for people who can't relax their anus, let their hair down and enjoy a film like that.

Sane

08-25-13, 07:55 PM

I re-watched Con Air recently after it showed up in the 90s countdown. I always remembered it as being a great action film and after re-watching it, it is.

The elements required to make a great action film are really no different to making a great any other genre film. The action is the easy bit - the inclusion of Cusack, Malkovich and Buscemi would be a damn good start to making any film great and it is why this film works. As Deadite said, add in Rhames, Chapelle and the rest and you have a great cast.

Probably the best big budget pure action film I've seen. "Terrifically entertaining" sums it up.

cricket

08-25-13, 11:05 PM

I didn't like Con Air when I saw it. But I saw it at the movies(I hate going to the movies), and I saw it with my wife(it's not her type of movie). I really want to see it again; it sounds great and that was a great review.

Brodinski

08-26-13, 03:19 PM

I feel sorry for people who can't relax their anus

SC drifts through these parts. You relax too much, he'll slip something unwanted in there.

Deadite

08-26-13, 07:28 PM

Through the internet? :shrug:

JayDee

08-26-13, 08:34 PM

Thank you Daniel, Gunslinger and cricket for praising the last review or two. And welcome to the thread Sane. :up:

I + repped Face/Off because I read that review, however, I couldn't face reading another review of a Cage film straight away. :D

:laugh: Oh well I'm touched then as I know you don't read reviews usually when you don't like the film. Now hurry up and read The Rock review then. :D

I feel sorry for people who can't relax their anus, let their hair down and enjoy a film like that.

Oh snap! Oh no you didn't! You hear that Brodinski, Deadite just called out your anus! Wait a minute, that doesn't really sound right.

Miss Vicky

08-26-13, 08:41 PM

You still have not reviewed any Q movies, Jaydee. I am disappointed in you.

JayDee

08-27-13, 05:32 PM

Oh boy this review kind of got away from me! :eek: Usually with a review I have an angle to start the review with and then it kind of unfolds from there. Here however I wasn't sure how to start so just jumped about writing bits and pieces as they came to me. It was only when it came time to gather them together and form the review I realised how much I had waffled on for. As a result this is kind of similar to the rambling reviews I usually produce for superhero films

mirror mirror

Year of release
1993

Directed by
Marco Brambilla

Written by
Daniel Waters
Robert Reneau
Peter M. Lenkov

Starring
Sylvester Stallone
Wesley Snipes
Sandra Bullock
Nigel Hawthorne
Benjamin Bratt

Demolition Man

4.5

Plot - Los Angeles, 1996. Violence and chaos abound on the city's streets. The main instigator of which is Simon Phoenix (Snipes), one of the worst criminals the city has ever seen. There is only one man who can stop him - L.A.P.D. officer John Spartan (Stallone), aka 'Demoliton Man.' And stop him he does, but not without a large degree of collateral damage. As a result both men are sentenced to be cryogenically frozen at the Cryo Prison. San Angeles, 2032. After being revived for his parole hearing Simon Phoenix manages to escape out into what is now a crime free society. Such an apparently utopian existence is completely unprepared however to deal with someone like Phoenix. With the cops at a loss there is but one option; to also revive John Spartan and send him after Phoenix once again. Assigned a partner in the form of Lieutenant Lenina Huxley (Bullock), Spartan not only has to try and catch Phoenix but adapt to this world which is completely alien to him.

Man I had kind of forgotten just how much I loved this film! Demolition Man is just deliriously good fun. As befits the era, the film features all of the over-the-top, anarchic violence you'd expect of the 90s, but it teams it up with a rather wicked,playful sense of humour; one born out of a very witty script which has a strong vein of satire running through it. It's one of those rare films that on the surface appears to be spectacularly silly and mindless, but actually achieves said silliness through a decent amount of smarts. As far as action films go this would certainly have to be one of more offbeat and satirical efforts out there.

You know the phrase “it's PC gone mad!” Well San Angeles really is a world where political correctness has gone wild. It's a world where you can't just accuse someone of committing a crime because “it's rude.” It's a world where anything potentially harmful to you has been outlawed. So that means no cigarettes, no alcohol, no meat, no caffeine, no contact sports, no chocolate, no gasoline, no non-educational toys and not even any spicy food. Oh and of course there is absolutely no foul language permitted. The whole city is littered with machines which detect swearing and automatically issues warnings and fines; machines that Spartan frequently falls foul of. In this world there has not been a murder for 22 years, and a crime wave is constituted as a little bit of graffiti. So when the deplorable Simon Phoenix is unleashed into this world they are completely unprepared for how to deal with him. There's a great scene where a group of police officers attempt to apprehend him but have no idea how to go about it. They make a request for instructions on how to handle a maniac, and when Phoenix begins to brutally resist arrest one of the cops observes that “We're police officers, we're not trained to handle this type of violence.” One of my favourite of the many great lines to feature in this film.

Most films which depict the future with a bleak viewpoint tend to be harsh, violent places presented in complete darkness. Demolition Man goes in completely the opposite direction but shows that even a world without violence or swearing can still be a dystopia, that it can still be a fascist place if it's one person's idea of perfection and everyone else has been rather brainwashed into accepting it without any questions. And even in this peaceful utopia we still have problems and divisions between people. Here we get a real example of the class system. Everyone who has gone along with the ideas of Cocteau lives a privliged life on the surface. Those who would object however are relegated to an existence in the sewers below. Given the derogatory term of 'scraps' they are forced to literally live beneath the rest of society with Cocteau instructing that they be prevented from getting any food in an effort to starve them and be rid of the problem, forcing the scraps to stage a series of daring raids to steal the food they need to survive.

For anyone who doesn't think that Sylvester Stallone can do funny, this movie disproves that notion. While his ventures into purely comedic films may not have been a roaring success, Stallone himself actually is a funny guy. In real life Stallone has always came across as a very intelligent, witty and self-deprecating individual and in Demolition Man he proves that he knows how to play it for laughs. He doesn't just display one setting either. He generates laughs through the classic action hero conventions of one-liners and loud-mouthed swagger, but also through a more dry, measured approach when it comes to his bemused reactions to this bizarre new world and its people. And unsurprisingly he still knows how to kick some serious ass! And opposite him Wesley Snipes is just an absolute hoot as the criminally insane Simon Phoenix, stealing many scenes and threatening to walk off with the whole damn movie. He is completely unleashed to be as crazy as he wants. It really is an enviable task for Snipes; he is given a character where it seems impossible to go too over-the-top. His character actually kind of reminds me of Batman's greatest nemesis, The Joker. It's the same chaotic madman taking joy in mayhem sort of character. Together Stallone and Snipes make for a really quite electric pairing, both of them seemingly having an absolute blast with the characters and the material they have been presented with.

Film Trivia Snippets - Sandra Bullock was not actually part of the original cast. Lori Petty had actually been cast in the role of Lenina Huxley but after a few days of filming she was replaced by Bullock. /// When the film was released in Kuwait it was done with the Arabic title of “Rambo the Destroyer.” With the Rambo movies being very popular it was hoped that it would sell more tickets if they tied Stallone and his Rambo character together in the title. /// The two original choices for Spartan and Phoenix were Steven Seagal and Jean-Claude Van Damme. Van Damme was offered the role of Phoenix but didn't want to play the villain. He agreed to do the film if he could play Spartan but Seagal rejected the offer. /// When Stallone came onboard he wanted the role of Simon Phoenix to be fulfilled by Jackie Chan. Chan refused however as Asian audiences don't like the idea of actors who have always played heroes suddenly playing evil characters. /// During the dinner sequence at Taco Bell Sandra Bullock's dress was made of stones and gems which weighed an astronomical 40 pounds. After the fight scene outside the restaurant her character jumps around in celebration, and the sheer weight caused the dress to start ripping. That's why she is holding her arms down at her sides after Stallone walks away. I have to admit that I have always been a big fan of Sandra Bullock and I think she is just delightful in this. I find her character, and Bullock herself, to be just so sweet, naïve and adorable. She is both very endearing and very funny as Lenina Huxley, a cop who remains fascinated by the world's violent 20th century past while everyone else just savours its utopian present. That fascination can be seen in several elements and 90s artefacts that litter both her office and her home; her Lethal Weapon 3 poster for example. Oh and I love the moment where she asks Spartan if he would like to have sex in such an unbelievably matter of fact way. And while it's quite a predictable move I also love the running joke that carries on for pretty much the whole film that sees Huxley's attempts at spouting old colloquialisms from Spartan's time go slightly wrong; “you really licked his ass”, “there's a new shepherd in town”, “let's go blow this guy” and “you can take this job and shovel it.” She is utterly charming.

For all its witty satire though Demolition Man still remembers to deliver on the action stakes. This was a first time effort for director Marco Brambilla and I've got to say that he does a very respectable job, particularly in the case of the action scenes which are quite thrilling and are delivered in quite a comic book style. The film actually opens in quite a dark, violent vein with a thrillingly explosive sequence which seems like it is placing us firmly in classic action movie territory before busting out its more tongue in cheek tone. In fact throughout the film the tone has a tendency to fluctuate between the comical and moments that are occasionally nasty such as Phoenix using a man's eyeball as a pencil topper and Phoenix's own spectacular demise. Speaking of violence there's a great little satirical nod to the present with the Hall of Violence at the Museum of History, the only place where weaponry can be found in this brave new world that also includes a preserved Los Angeles block as part of its exhibit. Oh and I love that when Spartan was in his cryo-sleep, in an effort to curb his violent streak he was reprogrammed with a proclivity for knitting. :D Stallone's sheer disgust at it is great fun.

Both the script and Stallone himself seem very self aware of and play into the fact about how Stallone is perhaps becoming out of touch in the action genre as he approached 50 years old at the time. Though fact that he is still making action films twenty years on now rather dilutes the point! It also takes the opportunity to poke affectionate fun at the genre and the characters that populate it through the eyes of Bullock's Huxley. She observes and takes delight in the classic action movie concept of the one-liner (“The joy-joy way you paused to make a glib witticism before doing battle...!”) and also points out the archetypal characters that the hero can be (“I fleshed you out as a blow-up-the-bad- guy-while-grinning type...but you’re actually the moody-gunslinger-who-will-only-draw-when-he-must type.”) In recent years Stallone has created The Expendables series, films made to playfully rib on the bombastic action films of the 80s and 90s, as well as just being a bombastic action film in its own right. In turns out that he had already kind of done that some 15 years earlier with Demolition Man.

Film Trivia Snippets - At times during the film Wesley Snipes' kicks and punches can have a tendency to appear lurchy and awkward. The reason for this is that in real life Snipes is a fifth degree black belt in Shotokan karate, and his kicks and punches were so fast that they actually blurred on camera. As a result the producers had to ask Snipes to try and reign himself in and slow down his actions. /// In some non-American releases of the film the references to Taco Bell were changed to Pizza Hut as that was a much more recognisable brand in many foreign territories. These changes included voice dubbing and using special effects to alter the logos in post production. /// Demolition Man made a number of predictions about the future which turned out to be true, or at least partly so. One in particular turned out to be slightly disturbing. At one point in the film we see a list of the cryo-prisoners held in the facility. One name on the list is Scott Peterson. In 2005 a man named Scott Peterson was tried and convicted for murdering his wife in Modesto, California.
Even outside of its big issues the film also takes the chance to slip in some extra little satirical asides which may not add much to the main thrust of the story but nicely flesh out the world and make for entertaining points. For example, at one point Spartan and Huxley are invited to dinner at Taco Bell by Nigel Hawthorne's Doctor Cocteau. With Spartan confused at the choice of Taco Bell, Huxley explains to him about the Franchise Wars; a series of corporate battles and takeovers between chain restaurants that left Taco Bell as the sole restaurant chain in the world; therefore every single restaurant is a Taco Bell. Given the demise of so many 'mom and pop stores', the frequency with which big conglomerates swallow up their opposition and the proliferation of a Starbucks on every corner this really doesn't sound all that far-fetched.

And with one of these little asides the film almost proved to be eerily prescient in regards to a certain acquaintance of Sly. At one point during the film Sandra Bullock's character references the Schwarzenegger Presidential Library much to the disbelief of Stallone's Spartan. She explains that “even though he was not born in this country, his popularity at the time caused the 61st Amendment which states…”; at this point Spartan cuts her off, too incredulous to hear any more. Schwarzenegger would of course go on to become Governor of California. That in itself is pretty damn close to Demolition Man's predictions. But it got even closer when in 2003, ten years after the film's release and just shortly after he became Governor, some people began to propose changes that would allow him to run for President. Three senators separately proposed an amendment to the US constitution to allow naturalized citizens to become President. Demolition Man almost pulled off the greatest piece of prediction the world has ever seen!

One of the first things that really struck me while watching Demolition Man again was just how well it's holding up. The film quite clearly had a very healthy budget at its disposal (in fact its $57 million outlay was only $6 million less than the budget of Jurassic Park which was released in the same year) and still looks very good. If it were released today I don't think you'd have a great deal of criticisms thrown its way in terms of its looks. Its special effects are still effective, and its art and set design are very impressive. The design of the actual cryogenic prison facility is very cool (no pun intended) as is the design for the underworld that the so-called scraps reside in. The technology, vehicles, weaponary and techno-gadgetry are all nicely realised. In fact quite a lot of its 'futuristic' technology has actually now come to pass, or at least some version of it; GPS, video conferencing on handheld tablets etc.

One of the things I really enjoy about Demolition Man is just how fleshed out its universe is; it really has built up this world that it inhabits. I've already covered many of its main components but even outside of them there are lots of smaller touches which seem to have been included purely for the fun of it. The way in which people greet and converse with each other is a riot. They sound like a sort of cross between a hippy and a dork as they wish each other “mellow greetings” and to “be well” and “enhance your calm.” We also see this in little technological touches of this futuristic word. The series of futuristic cars that populate the world do a nice job of creating this advanced society. They were actually concept cars supplied by General Motors, some of them prototypes of cars they would release in the future while others never saw the light of day. In total the cars loaned to the production were actually valued at $69 million. There's also the really cool instance where Spartan crashes one of the cars and we see the futuristic safety feature that is curefoam; a hardening safety foam which completely fills the car, protecting the driver from any harm. In the TV series Futurama we got suicide booths, and in Demolition Man we get pretty much the exact opposite - positive affirmation machines. Computers which offer you pleasantries to cheer up your day; “You are an incredibly sensitive man, who inspires joy-joy feelings in all those around you.” And then lastly of course there are the infamous sea shells; their purpose having remained a bit of a mystery for many years until Stallone addressed it during a large interview for Ain't It Cool News. And can I just say....yuck!!!

Conclusion - There may be better action movies out there than Demolition Man. There may be better comedies out there. And there may be better sci-fi flicks out there. But with Demolition Man bringing all three elements together in a delightful blend I don't think there are many films out there which are this much damn fun! You can easily switch your brain off and enjoy the film as a mindless piece of action if you wish, but if you dig a little deeper there is a lot more to enjoy here; you'll find quite a degree of wit and a touch of biting satire on the utopian dream.

The Rodent

08-27-13, 05:50 PM

I marked Demolition Man at 70% myself. It delivers everything it wanted to and with style... I just didn't get this: One that doesn’t make sense, is that this utopian future is based solely in one city after the event of a massive earthquake. What about the rest of the world outside? Surely this is the movie’s biggest plot hole.

Nice review though :D

nebbit

08-27-13, 06:50 PM

:love: Demolition Man, (own it) I think its funny, one of my must watch on a rainy day :yup:

honeykid

08-27-13, 09:28 PM

As you know, I bloody love this film. It came so close to making my list and, on another day, it may well've. I watched this for the first time in ages a few nights ago and, yep, it still works. :up:

That is one long-ass, rambling review, though. I still liked it, but I'm glad I didn't read your superhero reviews if they were like that. :D

Miss Vicky

08-29-13, 01:32 PM

Awesome movie. If I had made most of my 90's List with my heart instead of my head, I'd have voted for it.

Brodinski

08-29-13, 03:03 PM

got that ready rock?

The Gunslinger45

08-29-13, 06:10 PM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

Srsly I LOVE Demolition Man! One of my all time favorite action movies and probably my favorite Stallone movie (if you exclude The Expendables). It really is one of the best of the genre and a favorite of my childhood. And I did not even know they explained the seashells. I just assumed they would scoop poop into the shells and hoped to God you could whip it all away with just three shells. :sick:

edarsenal

08-29-13, 10:50 PM

writing an in depth post thanking jaydee for the link on his kiss kiss bang bang review and praising said review, voicing how I need to back log to read others and the excitement at seeing a review for, of all things, Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry; HUUUGE fan of that movie from my early teens, then joining in on (another) in depth, epic review for Con Air with a few introspective thoughts on a ridiculously fun movie that I enjoy watching, only to have the forum boot me out for idle time and lose it all can be SOOOO frustrating! :( :frustrated::bawling::furious:

So I will be back later to wander through some of the older posts, revel in the snippets and ponder the massive reviews you lay before us
take care, JayDee ;)

JayDee

08-30-13, 09:37 PM

You still have not reviewed any Q movies, Jaydee. I am disappointed in you.

So sorry Vicky. I mean after it took you just over two years to find my thread you think I could review a Q film within a week or two of you requesting it!!! :D Still need a Q, a Y and a Z movie to review

Nice review though :D

Nice? All that work and all you can offer up is a measly nice?!!!

:love: Demolition Man, (own it) I think its funny, one of my must watch on a rainy day :yup:

Glad to hear it nebs. And very glad to see you drop by. Your visits seem to be more and more rare these days. :( :p Although I don't know that my run of action films of late is really up your street.

As you know, I bloody love this film. It came so close to making my list and, on another day, it may well've. I watched this for the first time in ages a few nights ago and, yep, it still works. :up:

That is one long-ass, rambling review, though. I still liked it, but I'm glad I didn't read your superhero reviews if they were like that. :D

Indeed I am aware of your love for the film. It's been great seeing the love for this film since I joined this board. Until I joined I didn't really know anyone who loved it, or had even seen it. And not to give anything away but I think there's a decent change of it making my new list. ;)

Awesome movie. If I had made most of my 90's List with my heart instead of my head, I'd have voted for it.

Well it didn't make my list either although I certainly voted with my heart as opposed to my head. I just voted for my 25 favourite films of the 90s, whether they had a chance of making it or not. This was the first time seeing Demolition Man in quite a few years and would have come very close to making the list had I seen it before the list

got that ready rock?

Eh....ok? :confused: Perhaps this is clear to everyone else and I'm just having a brain fart, but what the hell are you talking about? :D

And don't worry Brodinski. Just one or two more action films and then I may be switching back to some more intelligent, layered films that have issues and themes etc. You know, films that are boring in other words! :p Oh and thanks for repping that Demolition Man review. :up: It was quite a surprise to see you repping and I assume taking the time to read that review out of all the others considering some of the films I've done of late - Miller's Crossing, Misery, Schindler's List, Donnie Brasco etc; films that are highly thought of and I know for a fact you're a fan of at least one or two of them.

writing an in depth post thanking jaydee for the link on his kiss kiss bang bang review and praising said review, voicing how I need to back log to read others and the excitement at seeing a review for, of all things, Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry; HUUUGE fan of that movie from my early teens, then joining in on (another) in depth, epic review for Con Air with a few introspective thoughts on a ridiculously fun movie that I enjoy watching, only to have the forum boot me out for idle time and lose it all can be SOOOO frustrating! :( :frustrated::bawling::furious:

So I will be back later to wander through some of the older posts, revel in the snippets and ponder the massive reviews you lay before us
take care, JayDee ;)

Oh you've got my sympathy mate, hate when that happens!!! :mad: Anyway thanks for the kind words ed. :up: And yeah Dirty Mary Crazy Larry was a fun little film. I think I may actually have underrated it slightly as while some films disappear from your mind right away something about that has stuck with me a little bit since watching it.

Oh and if you're interested in looking at what reviews I've done back on the first page there is an index of every review I've ever done along with links to the reviews.

JayDee

08-30-13, 09:39 PM

And I did not even know they explained the seashells. I just assumed they would scoop poop into the shells and hoped to God you could whip it all away with just three shells. :sick:

Well you're in the ballpark. Following Stallone's explanation i-mockery.com made this handy set of instructions -

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/i-mockery-seashells-print_zpsfd40312c.gif (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/i-mockery-seashells-print_zpsfd40312c.gif.html)

honeykid

08-30-13, 09:57 PM

And don't worry Brodinski. Just one or two more action films and then I may be switching back to some more intelligent, layered films that have issues and themes etc. You know, films that are boring in other words! :p
True dat. :D

Skepsis93

08-30-13, 10:03 PM

Stopping by to say hello. Nothing much I can add, waiting for some good films. :D

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/god-hi.gif

I still haven't forgiven you for Magnolia, by the way.

You don't get off that easy.

The Gunslinger45

08-30-13, 10:06 PM

Well you're in the ballpark. Following Stallone's explanation i-mockery.com made this handy set of instructions -

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/i-mockery-seashells-print_zpsfd40312c.gif (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/i-mockery-seashells-print_zpsfd40312c.gif.html)

THAT IS ONE OF THE MOST DISGUSTING THINGS I HAVE SEEN! And my turds are way too big for those piss ant seashells!

Miss Vicky

08-30-13, 10:07 PM

So sorry Vicky. I mean after it took you just over two years to find my thread you think I could review a Q film within a week or two of you requesting it!!! :D Still need a Q, a Y and a Z movie to review.

Yeah, well, I'm here now. :p

Besides, you've had 13 years to watch and review Quills. I also highly recommend Sam Raimi's The Quick and the Dead.

As for Z, that's easy: Zodiac

TylerDurden99

09-02-13, 06:38 PM

Great reviews, as usual, Jaydee. As you know, I have a strong affection for the action genre, and you have given some of my favourites fantastic reviews. I particularly like your one for Demolition Man. Being that I don't really count the Rocky's, Rambo's or Expendables as pure Stallone movies and put them off into their own realm, Demolition Man is right behind Cliffhanger as my favourite Stallone film.

:up:

JayDee

09-02-13, 07:30 PM

Still with the big dumb action films but I've taken a brief turn into the 80s as I've been wanting to revisit this one for quite some time

mirror mirror

Year of release
1985

Directed by
Mark L. Lester

Written by
Steven E. de Souza (script)
Jeph Loeb (story)
Matthew Weisman (story)

Starring
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Rae Dawn Chong
Vernon Wells
Alyssa Milano
David Patrick Kelly

Commando

3 +

Plot - John Matrix (Schwarzenegger) is a retired Special Forces commando who now lives in a secluded home with his young daughter Jenny (Milano). Matrix is about to be forced out of his retirement however by very nefarious means. At the behest of his employer, a former soldier who served under Matrix's command named Bennett (Wells) kidnaps his daughter to force Matrix's hand. Bennett's employer is an exiled dictator of South American country, Val Verde. Matrix was actually the man who helped to overthrow him, and now he is going to be forced to kill the new President of Val Verde or else his daughter will die at Bennett's hand. Matrix has a plan of his own however. He escapes off of the plane which is supposed to take him to Val Verde and sets about hunting down the men responsible and finding his daughter.

I don't know why but for some reason I just can't warm to Commando in any great manner. I mean it should be right up my street. Hell it should be just about my favourite movie of all time! As is pretty obvious to anyone who has been following my Movie Musings thread for a while I have a great affinity for the action genre. I also have a lot of love for films that are high on the cheese factor, and am a big fan of the cinematic output of the 'Austrian Oak', aka Arnold Schwarzenegger. And yet even with all those ingredients in its favour, I still can't generate a great deal of love for Commando, one of the most popular efforts amongst many of Arnie's fans. It seems to me like a lot of people would have this on their Mount Rushmore of action films alongside the likes of Die Hard, Terminator 2, Enter the Dragon, Predator, Lethal Weapon, The Matrix etc. But I just don't really see it. Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy it but just don't see it as one of the all-time classic entries in the genre.

As for Schwarzenegger himself, well he certainly wasn't cast for his acting talent. While he has never been a great actor, even by his standards he is fairly clunky in this film, coming as it did fairly early in his career. His level of emoting is truly shocking! During the moment where the baddies are threatening his daughter and holding a knife to her throat, Arnie's reaction is just this glum face that would be a more appropriate fit for something much more trivial, such as someone shrunk his favourite shirt! And while the one-liners that he delivers throughout the film are good fun, and arguably provide the film's highlights, I imagine that they haven't quite got the same pop to them as they would later in his career. But as I said he wasn't hired for his acting. He was hired purely on the basis of his physique and the screen presence that he undoubtedly has. And the film itself makes this perfectly clear. When the character is introduced we don't actually see his face right away. First we get a number of close-up shots focusing on his rippling muscles as we see him carrying a chainsaw over one shoulder, and a huge log over the other. We then see the character chopping wood just to establish beyond any doubt that this is the manliest, most macho man that has ever existed on this planet! There are a lot of threads on this board discussing and ranking the favourite superhero films of the board's members. Well Commando should probably come into the discussion as Arnie's Matrix seems very much like a superhero, complete with incredible superhuman strength. See how he rips a car seat out with ease; how he effortlessly tips a car over; how he busts a steel padlock with his bare hands and best of all see how he lifts up a phone booth with David Patrick Kelly inside and just tosses it aside as if it weighed nothing at all. There's a police officer in the film who at one point perfectly sums up Schwarzenegger's appeal and why he was cast in this movie; it's because “he is one gigantic motherf*cker!”

Similar to Die Hard, one thing the film succeeds in is making a number of its villains very colourful and memorable. They aren't exactly the most fleshed out of characters so much reliance is placed purely upon their appearance. So the exceptionally intimidating presence of Bill Duke as Cooke, and David Patrick Kelly as the slimy, weasely Sully are both put to very good use. Of course what we have to talk about Bennett, portrayed by Vernon Wells. As much loved as the character is amongst film fans, he surely has to be the worst movie villain of all time! First up there is of course his appearance, very much that of a Village People reject. Chainmail vest, leather trousers and a handlebar moustache - let's just say it's a distinctive look! In fact he looks exactly like a chunky Freddie Mercury! And Wells plays him in such a weedy, pathetic manner; really just about the least intimidating villain I've ever come across.

Film Trivia Snippets - Vernon Wells actually wasn't the original actor cast for the character of Bennett. He did audition for the role but lost out to another actor. On the first day of filming, director Mark L. Lester fired the actor that had been hired and brought Wells in. That's actually the reason why Bennett's clothes appear so tight; Wells was bigger than the original actor and the production didn't have time to make a new costume. /// In 1986, Steven E. de Souza wrote a sequel to Commando which was revised as Frank Darabont with the intention of having John McTiernan direct. The script was based on the novel 'Nothing Lasts Forever' but Schwarzenegger wasn't interested in returning to the character. The script was then reworked with a new central character, eventually becoming Die Hard. /// The original script was written by Jeph Loeb with the intention of having Gene Simmons plays Matrix but he passed on it. Loeb then rewrote the script with Nick Nolte in mind. /// Throughout the production Arnold Schwarzenegger worked with Michael M. Vendrell, a martial arts expert and fight choreographer. At the end of filming Vendrell estimated that Schwarzenegger had attained a level comparable to a second degree black belt. /// I had just talked about the big shootout at Aruis' complex above and was all set to say that it seemed exactly like the big shootout in Beverly Hills Cop. Well there's a good reason for that; it's the same mansion! It is the former Harold Lloyd estate in Beverly Hills and stood in as Victor Maitland's mansion which Axel Foley & co invaded at the film's finale.As fun as the character of Bennett is for all these eccentricities there is a potentially troublesome aspect to it. While it's never explicitly addressed at any point during the course of the film, the Bennett character certainly does have a strong homosexual vibe to him; not just in the form of his clothes and his fey manner, but his apparent relationship with Arnie's Matrix. In their showdown at the film's climax their certainly seems to be some kind of attraction for the character on the side of Bennett, evidenced in the talk about sticking him with a knife and the weird, what the f*ck facial expressions of Bennett which make it look like he's having an orgasm or something. And opposite him, as I outlaid earlier Matrix is just about the most macho person that has ever lived. And so by having the macho, manly character defeat the camp, apparently gay character is there some sort of homophobic element going on there? Oh and I did enjoy the addition of Rae Dawn Chong as the character of Cindy. Initially I found her to be a tad irritating as she moaned and wailed her way through the action but eventually I found her quite sweet as we see that she acts as conduit of sorts for the audience, reflecting our thoughts and commenting on how ridiculous the whole thing is in a rather tongue in cheek manner; “I can't believe this macho bulls*it!”

When it comes to action Commando certainly has more than its fair share. In fact it seems to have the share of about three films worth. And you certainly can't accuse it of being a slow starter. Within the first four minutes we have already witnessed three people meet their demise at the hands of Bill Duke's Cooke (well only two as it turns out). And from then on Commando presents quite the relentless slew of violence on its way to a humongous body count, only letting up for the occasional breather. Although I've got to say that very little of it truly thrilled me. It's all rather conventional and hackneyed, presenting very little that we haven't seen countless times before. And it seems really quite repetitive; the big shootout on the grounds of Arius' home being particularly culpable on that front. We seem to watch him blasting guys away for an age. There are a couple of entertaining set-pieces and sequences however. Matrix's shopping mall fight with Sully certainly being one of them as we see Arnie tossing Sully around like a ragdoll and then flying through the air in pursuit of him. Matrix's escape off the plane is also rather good fun as he makes his way out of the bottom and hangs on to the wheel as it begins to ascend, eventually jumping off into a swamp below.

I've got to say though that I found the fight with Bennett to a bit of an underwhelming climax. The camp and cheesy touches aside which I detailed earlier, it's a rather slow and clumsy affair as we see the two men lumbering about, quite clearly pulling their punches and missing their kicks by a considerable distance. As an actual piece of action I found it rather flat. It's a sequence that is saved only by that camp, cheesy nature and some preposterous but highly amusing dialogue; “Let off some steam.” In fact I feel that the film as a whole gets by and lives on just a few moments, some of which are admittedly great and usually occur when one Matrix takes out one of the villains. So for example the death of Sully (“I lied”) and the death on board the plane (“He's dead tired”).

There's no doubt that the film is cheesed out to the max. My favourite moment on this front I think would have to be the montage that plays over the opening credits and sees Matrix and his daughter bonding as they eat ice cream, go fishing and rather superbly, hand-feed a deer. It's so cheesy and daft, and feels like it could work perfectly as the credit sequence for some corny family sitcom of the 80s. Just play the Family Ties theme over the top of it and it's a perfect fit; particularly with the moment where young Alyssa Milano sticks her ice cream cone in Arnie's face as he gives a big goofy laugh and a sort of “oh you!” look. The whole film looks and feels really quite cheap. Appearance-wise it just doesn't have the normal cinematic sheen you'd expect to find of a big-screen film. It actually looks much more like a TV production of the era, something in the A-Team vicinity. In fact there's a moment where Arnie goes into a shed to shelter from the bad guys, and I was expecting him to pull an old A-Team style trick and construct some kind of weapon or vehicle out of the tools and items scattered about it. What he does do however is use a saw blade to slice the tip off of a guy's head; that was pretty cool. The only thing missing from the film to complete the A-Team vibe is Mr T. In fact why the hell did Arnie and Mr T never team up for a buddy movie in the 80s? That would have been awesome!

Conclusion - I understand that even people who love this film don't think it's necessarily 'good.' But even as a so bad it's good guilty pleasure I still can't truly love it. It's an easy watch and I still find a good bit of enjoyment in here but that's it. In my eyes Commando is a film which gets by and lives on the strength of just a few moments, and without the presence of Arnie keeping the film in the spotlight I imagine the amount of love for it would be immensely diminished. Without him this would likely have been completely forgotten about, appearing only on DVD as some cheap 4-in-1 multi-pack alongside three other cheap, TV movie style actioners. Given my amount of criticisms of the film the score may seem a little high but I think you have to take into account who it is that's reviewing it here. Me giving a bombastic action 'classic' a mere 3/5 is like Guap not liking a Miyazaki film; Daniel only rating a P.T. Anderson as a 2; HK not liking a Drew Barrymore film! :D There are certainly much better films in Arnie's resume (Terminator, Terminator 2, Total Recall) and I also think that in terms of cheesy, pun-heavy efforts there are films more deserving of the cult following that Commando has acquired over the years; The Running Man for example. Now that is an awesome film!

honeykid

09-02-13, 08:00 PM

Aw, it's a shame you don't love this, JD. I've not seen The Running Man in forever, but while I always really liked it, I don't know if I ever loved it and I certainly didn't love it like I do Commando.

However, there's nothing in your criticism that I can really disagree with. It's just that I love it for those reasons. :D

“he is one gigantic motherf*cker!”
I adore that line and the actors delivery of it.

The Gunslinger45

09-02-13, 08:28 PM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

I wonder if you are ever going to get sick of this pic? :D

In all seriousness, I love Commando, I give it a 4. But it is hard to agrue against it flaws. Of which there are many. Now a movie like The Running Man is a better Arnie movie. Better one liners, better production design, a better supporting actress, much better supporting characters, and a MUCH better villain. But Commando is literally so over the top and cheesy I cannot help but love it!

honeykid

09-02-13, 09:44 PM

A friend of mine and I always rib each other about liking a specific Arnie film. I take the piss out of him for thinking so highly of Predator, while he does the same to me about Commando. It's actually our 'go to' insult whenever one of us disagrees about what the other says about a film the other likes.

cricket

09-02-13, 11:54 PM

I actually think I like Commando better than Predator or The Running Man. But I am a fan of all three.

honeykid

09-03-13, 06:05 PM

Of course you do. You're normal. :D

JayDee

09-03-13, 08:59 PM

Yeah, well, I'm here now. :p

As for Z, that's easy: Zodiac

And I'm very pleased to have you here. :kiss: :p

For Z I was actually thinking the Sean Connery-starring Zardoz! Apologies to all the eyes that will be damaged by the following image

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/zardoz_zps8f486eda.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/zardoz_zps8f486eda.jpg.html)

Stopping by to say hello. Nothing much I can add, waiting for some good films. :D

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/god-hi.gif

I still haven't forgiven you for Magnolia, by the way.

You don't get off that easy.

Well clearly you haven't seen Demolition Man as that's a fantastic film!!!

So you drop by to basically say the films of late have been crap and to demand better films. And yet you do so with a clip from Evan Almighty?!!! :confused:

So how long is the Magnolia backlash gonna last?

THAT IS ONE OF THE MOST DISGUSTING THINGS I HAVE SEEN! And my turds are way too big for those piss ant seashells!

Oh well at least we have you to come along and class the place up! :p

Great reviews, as usual, Jaydee. As you know, I have a strong affection for the action genre, and you have given some of my favourites fantastic reviews.

Thanks Tyler. Always nice to have you stop by. :up: And yeah I've got a vague recollection of you perhaps being a little bit of a fan of action movies. :D

honeykid

09-03-13, 09:17 PM

Don't do Zardoz! It's for your own good. :yup:

nebbit

09-04-13, 07:36 AM

And I'm very pleased to have you here. :kiss: :p

For Z I was actually thinking the Sean Connery-starring Zardoz!

Own Zardoz :blush: one of those guilty pleasures :laugh:

JayDee

09-04-13, 10:50 AM

Aw, it's a shame you don't love this, JD. I've not seen The Running Man in forever, but while I always really liked it, I don't know if I ever loved it and I certainly didn't love it like I do Commando.

I know. I really want to love it and don't understand why I don't. I had actually only seen it once before that recent viewing and while I didn't remember much I remembered that I wasn't all that amazed by it. I was hoping my memory was either incorrect or that this time I'd see something I missed last time. Sadly not. Hopefully one day I'll watch it and it will just click, "Oh this awesome! How did I not see this before?"

I wonder if you are ever going to get sick of this pic? :D

Well not so far, still puts a smile on my face each time. :) Especially as it was the only bit of praise my Commando review got! :( :p

I had actually been going to comment on how taken you seem to be with the pic. And as such I thought I'd make up some more that other people may like to adopt. :D

A couple for Honeykid (the first would also work for Mark)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/ReviewJaws_zps56227336.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/ReviewJaws_zps56227336.jpg.html)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/ReviewTopGun_zps2ddeb20d.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/ReviewTopGun_zps2ddeb20d.jpg.html)

A couple for Daniel

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/ReviewConAir_zps140df9e7.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/ReviewConAir_zps140df9e7.jpg.html)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/ReviewsPulp_zpsf40b9447.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/ReviewsPulp_zpsf40b9447.jpg.html)

One for my sweety nebbit

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/ReviewsSomeLikeHot_zps8e1a611e.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/ReviewsSomeLikeHot_zps8e1a611e.jpg.html)

And while I don't suppose he'll use the second pic a couple for Rodent! :p

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/ReviewsRoboCop_zpsb6ddf653.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/ReviewsRoboCop_zpsb6ddf653.jpg.html)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/ReviewHighlander_zpsb8b9423a.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/ReviewHighlander_zpsb8b9423a.jpg.html)

And just a couple of random pics

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/ReviewFullMetalJacket_zps6083d315.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/ReviewFullMetalJacket_zps6083d315.jpg.html)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/ReviewZoolander_zps4954ccec.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/ReviewZoolander_zps4954ccec.jpg.html)

:laugh: Hope you all enjoyed my nonsense. Still got a few more to post as well but will leave them for later

Skepsis93

09-04-13, 11:02 AM

Well clearly you haven't seen Demolition Man as that's a fantastic film!!!

So you drop by to basically say the films of late have been crap and to demand better films.

Well, no. I haven't seen most of the recent ones, so substitute "bad" for "Skepsis hasn't seen them". You know I'm only joking.

And yet you do so with a clip from Evan Almighty?!!! :confused:
One of the great misunderstood masterpieces of our generation.

So how long is the Magnolia backlash gonna last?

Until you admit you're wrong and give it the 5 it deserves. :D

Daniel M

09-04-13, 11:10 AM

I have created something for Skepsis to use in this thread, so he doesn't feel left out... :D

http://gyazo.com/29bdff722358e27ed41d1facbae53c02.png

The Rodent

09-04-13, 11:13 AM

From now on... I'm using this whenever JayDee reviews anything.

http://i.qkme.me/355dvh.jpg

Daniel M

09-04-13, 11:20 AM

JayDee and Skepsis.

http://gyazo.com/6bb6a7ba7d90ac9a8a22ba4cce613d30.png

JayDee

09-04-13, 11:57 AM

http://gyazo.com/29bdff722358e27ed41d1facbae53c02.png

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/Magnoliaskepsis_zps8f425483.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/Magnoliaskepsis_zps8f425483.jpg.html)

And you actually stole my thunder a bit Daniel. As part of my second batch I had this peace offering for ol' Skepsy-boy if he ever decided to let me back in to his good graces

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/ReviewMagnolia_zps8bbf4acb.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/ReviewMagnolia_zps8bbf4acb.jpg.html)

Oh and by the way I can't rep your work Daniel (as much as I like it, especially the 2nd one) as it would give you more rep than I have and I started it. That would just be embarassing for me! :p

Daniel M

09-04-13, 12:17 PM

Oh and by the way I can't rep your work Daniel (as much as I like it, especially the 2nd one) as it would give you more rep than I have and I started it. That would just be embarassing for me! :p

Sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes, well, he eats you.

JayDee

09-05-13, 08:47 PM

Oh please, enough with the Big Lebowski references! What a horribly overrated film! :p

A few more of my really stupid pics

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/ReviewBacktoFuture_zps7d4f5ef1.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/ReviewBacktoFuture_zps7d4f5ef1.jpg.html)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/ReviewAnchorman_zpsea492292.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/ReviewAnchorman_zpsea492292.jpg.html)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/ReviewApollo13_zpsad90c38a.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/ReviewApollo13_zpsad90c38a.jpg.html)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/ReviewET_zps0047eed8.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/ReviewET_zps0047eed8.jpg.html)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/ReviewSpider-Man_zpscd3c6a1f.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/ReviewSpider-Man_zpscd3c6a1f.jpg.html)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/ReviewFightClub_zps26002e5b.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/ReviewFightClub_zps26002e5b.jpg.html)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/ReviewBreakfastClub_zpsa33d59d8.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/ReviewBreakfastClub_zpsa33d59d8.jpg.html)

And a little Forrest Gump range. The last could be used to encourage me to post a new review if I've been dormant for a while

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/ReviewGump2_zpsc1105855.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/ReviewGump2_zpsc1105855.jpg.html)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/ReviewGump_zps95f900c0.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/ReviewGump_zps95f900c0.jpg.html)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/ReviewGump3_zps57cdfead.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/JayDee87/media/ReviewGump3_zps57cdfead.jpg.html)

JayDee

09-06-13, 04:53 PM

Oh yeah and I kind of forgot at the time but my Commando review pushed me past meatwadsprite in terms of number of posts. In terms of posts this is now the biggest, longest running reviews thread on here I think. :p Unless I've made a mistake or overlooked some thread

gandalf26

09-06-13, 07:26 PM

Why did you inflict that picture of Sean Connery on us Jaydee..........WHY!!!!:mad:

Enjoyed the last few reviews. the Rock and Con Air are good for what they are, which is basically big dumb fun roller coaster rides.

I watched Demolition Man recently and it really does stand up quite well today like you said. Definitely one of the best action movies of the 90s if not ever.

I also liked and agreed with your Star Trek review in the Into Darkness thread and left a few thoughts of my own on the film.

nebbit

09-06-13, 07:31 PM

Oh please, enough with the Big Lebowski references! What a horribly overrated film! :p
Wash your mouth out with soap http://i475.photobucket.com/albums/rr120/Angelintown/Smiley%20diversen/soapbox.gif

Daniel M

09-06-13, 07:34 PM

Oh please, enough with the Big Lebowski references! What a horribly overrated film! :p

First the Magnolia review and now this. I think I speak for Skepsis too when I say you're dead to me :p

Deadite

09-07-13, 05:17 PM

http://www.troll.me/images/full-retard/this-thread-just-went-full-retard.jpg

JayDee

09-10-13, 05:45 PM

I've not posted a new review for a little while for one reason or another, so to make it up to you all here's a double bill. First up is the last of my current run of action films, another Stallone film and another personal favourite (or guilty pleasure however you want to term it)

mirror mirror

Year of release
1993

Directed by
Renny Harlin

Written by
Michael France
Sylvester Stallone

Starring
Sylvester Stallone
John Lithgow
Michael Rooker
Janine Turner
Rex Linn

Cliffhanger

4 +

Plot - Eric Qualen (Lithgow) is a ruthless criminal who has constructed an elaborate plan to hijack a United States Treasury airplane in mid-air and steal the $100 million bounty they are transferring. The operation is botched however and the money falls to the ground below, scattered across the foreboding Rocky Mountains. With the ability to track the cases which hold the money however it still seems like a sure win for Qualen and his gang of henchmen. After all, all that's standing between them and their haul are some measly mountain climbers. These climbers however are amongst the most skilled in the world, and they have the courage to match it. Gabe Walker (Stallone), Hal Tucker (Rooker) and Jessie Deighan (Turner) are in no mood to let the criminals get away with their plan so a frantic race to locate the money begins.

So far as part of my move musings I've done reviews of Die Hard on a cruise ship (Speed 2), Die Hard on a warship (Under Siege), Die Hard in a hockey stadium (Sudden Death) and probably some others I'm forgetting. Plus I also reviewed the original granddaddy of all of them; Die Hard itself. Now we come to perhaps the most ambitious of all the Die Hard clones that have been relentlessly churned out over the years; Die Hard on a mountain. While all of those films relied on containing the hero and the action within a single claustrophobic setting, Cliffhanger thrives on opening its world up, setting its sprawling action across the epic and wild expanse of the Rocky Mountains. As the end credits begin to roll the final image that we see is of those mountains themselves, and that feels like a very appropriate end as in many ways that setting becomes a star in its own right, perhaps even the star of the movie. It provides the film with some stunning scenery and vistas as its backdrop which means it's always interesting to look at. While its setting was the Colorado Rockies that isn't where Cliffhanger was actually filmed, it was instead filmed in the Cortina d'Ampezzo-Dolomites mountains in Italy because of their remarkable similarity to the Rockies. Captured by Alex Thomson's cinematographic eye the scenery just adds another layer of interest to the film; so scenes that we've seen countless times before in action films feel fresh thanks to the locations they are based in. It also creates

To really make the grade as an action film what you clearly need is some great action, pure and simple. And Cliffhanger certainly delivers. It both opens and closes on a high note with two great set-pieces and keeps the action flowing in between. In the opening scene Stallone's Gabe attempts to rescue his friend Hal and Hal's girlfriend, Sarah, who have become stranded high in the moutains after Hal injured his knee. After winching Hal to safety Gabe attempts to do the same for Sarah, but with disastrous results. Her harness breaks and she is left dangling above a massive chasm and certain death. Disregarding Hal's advice Gabe goes out onto the line in an attempt to save her but she slips from his grasp and falls into oblivion. The scene actually acts as a bit of a surprise. I mean this is Sylvester motherf*cking Stallone!!! He's the heroic dude who always saves the day, he's not going to let her fall is he? I mean there's no way, he's going to pull her up and....oh s*it she fell! :eek: And that vulnerable thread actually runs throughout the film. This isn't the type of character that Stallone or his action counterparts would play all that often; he's no tough-as-nails cop, no bad-ass soldier. He may be a tough, rugged mountain climber but he is also very human and is left completely shaken by the accident. It gives the character just a little bit more for Stallone to work with. And as a big fan of the man I think that he does a great job. Oh and as a little aside to that great opening set-piece, it's a scene which is hilariously spoofed by Jim Carrey and a racoon in Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls.

Cliffhanger also features a series of rather awesome deaths which befall the villainous characters. These include Stallone riding one of the bad guys like a sled down the mountain (resulting in vicious ice burns down the guy's face) before depositing him over the cliff, the giant fireball that eventually claims Qualen and Qualen's despicable, heartless sacrificing of his own lover. And then there is the best death scene, one of my favourites throughout all of cinema actually. Having fallen down a crevice in the moutain Stallone finds himself getting his ass kicked by Kynette, one of the villain's henchmen. Seemingly at Kynette's mercy Stallone all of a sudden grabs Kynette by the family jewels and crushes them with his bare hands! He then hoists him up into the air and body presses him into the cave's roof, causing a stalactite to puncture through his body.

Film Trivia Snippets - John Lithgow was actually a last minute addition to the production. Christopher Walken had originally been cast in the role of Qualen but left just before filming began, necessitating the 11th hour piece of casting. /// Cliffhanger was actually a bit of a compromise which arose as the result of others projects being cancelled. The studio, Carolco, had originally signed Stallone to appear opposite John Candy in a John Hughes comedy about feuding neighbours. While Renny Harlin had been signed to direct “Gale Force”, a 'Die Hard in a hurricane' action film whose effects were deemed to difficult and expensive. After both projects fell through they were brought together for Cliffhanger. /// At one point in an effort to demonstrate his faith in the safety equipment, Renny Harlin put on a harness and flung himself out on a cable over a cliff. /// During the version that was seen by audiences during sneak previews a rabbit was killed by gunfire. Their horrified reaction was enough to make Stallone invest $100,000 of his own money to have the scene re-shot and have the rabbit be seen to escape. /// One of the men who acted as a stunt double for Stallone was Ron Kauk and he really had to bulk up for the role. He ate 5 carbohydrate-heavy meals a day and pumped a lot of iron. As well as doubling Stallone, rather surprisingly he also doubled for Leon Robinson (a 6'3” black man) and Janine Turner (a 5'6” woman)!
As anyone who saw the fourth season of Dexter will be able to attest to John Lithgow makes for one terrific villain. Although here he is in more hammy, outlandish form than the quietly chilling way he played the Trinity Killer. He is just delightfully smarmy as Eric Qualen, smirking and sneering his way through the film. The man just has a face for evil. With hardly any effort at all it just takes on this natural look of pure disdain, giving his character this real sense of superiority as if he is disgusted to be having to share the same planet as the rest of us. And as is fitting for a villain in a 90s action film Lithgow employs an English accent. When it came to action films, the 80s and 90s were a time where just about every single villain came with an accent, typically from one of three camps. They were either English (Last Action Hero, Gone in 60 Seconds, Tomorrow Never Dies, The Lion King etc), German (Die Hard, Die Hard With a Vengeance, Rocketeer) or Russian (Air Force One, Red Dawn, First Blood Part 2, Top Gun, Rambo 3, Rocky IV, Red Heat, Hunt for Red October, Goldeneye etc etc. Man the Russians had a really tough time of it! :D).

Backing him up in the villain stakes is a fun performance from Rex Linn as Richard Travers, the dirty US Treasury agent who hooks up with Qualen and orchestrates the theft. The only previous work that I would really associate him with would be as the police officer on CSI: Miami so it was nice to see him playing a much nastier a*shole character. And even though he's not playing a villainous character Michael Rooker also gets a lot of traction out of clashing with Stallone. Rooker played Hal Tucker, a fellow mountain climber and previously a close friend of Gabe's. Following the death of Sarah he blames Gabe and from then on Rooker plays Hal with a great deal of intensity and a real bitter fury towards Gave. The only real disappointment in the cast is Janine Turner as Jessie, the supposed love interest of Stallone's Gabe even if I never really felt it, but in her defence a large part of that is down to the underwhelming character she is lumbered with.

One thing that really adds to the thrill of the film and how much the audience becomes invested in the story and its characters is how genuine much of it clearly is. While it did employ a series of cinematic tricks such as CGI, miniatures, matte paintings and even a motorised Sylvester Stallone pippet to impressive use, for the most part this is principal effects at work. These are real people that you're seeing climbing on that mountain, including the actors themselves on a number of occasions climbing the mountains and hanging over cliffs and voids. And when it's not them you've got a series of the world's best mountain climbers acting as their stunt doubles, meaning that we get some fantastic examples of mountain climbing. Although that's not the only piece of stunt work to catch the eye. The scene that depicts the attempted theft from the Treasury plane is insane. The plane is hijacked mid-flight and a line connecting it to another plane is put in place. The Travers character then uses the line to transfer from one plane to another in mid-air, a feat that was actually achieved through principal means, no CGI. Stuntman Simon Crane performed the stunt for real at 15,000 feet without even any safety devices and was paid $1 million to do so; and in my eyes he earned every penny. And while Cliffhanger was filmed in Italy this scene was actually filmed back in America as performing such a stunt was illegal in Europe. As a result of this stunt Cliffhanger resides in the Guinness Book of World Records for having the costliest aerial stunt ever performed. And Sylvester Stallone is to thank for making it happen. The insurance company that were underwriting the film refused to insure anyone to perform the stunt, so Stallone offered to have his salary cut to pay for the stunt. And because of the extreme danger involved, the stunt was only performed once.

Conclusion - Like the large majority of Stallone's back catalogue, Cliffhanger was never exactly going to trouble the big award ceremonies or be a darling of the critics. Also like the large majority of his films however, Cliffhanger is a whole load of fun. It's got some exciting action, a deliciously evil villain in Lithgow and is actually quite a funny and witty excursion on occasion.

JayDee

09-10-13, 05:45 PM

And as for the second part of my reviews double bill (make sure to notice Cliffhanger up above) we leave behind the acton flicks and return to 'proper' films, while still sticking with my 90s season

mirror mirror

Year of release
1995

Directed by
Marc Rocco

Written by
Dan Gordon

Starring
Christian Slater
Kevin Bacon
Gary Oldman
Embeth Davidtz
William H. Macy
Stephen Tobolowsky

Murder in the First

3.5 ++

Plot - As a 17-year-old orphan Henri Young (Bacon) stole a measly $5 from a post office to try and help out his young sister. His punishment was to be sent to the most famous (or infamous) prison of them all - Alcatraz. After he is caught during an attempted escape, he is placed in solitary confinement by the prison's sadistic warden, Milton Glenn (Oldman). According to the law the maximum stay in such conditions in 19 days. Henri Young however was held in the cold, dark dungeons of Alcatraz for three years. When he was finally released back into the general population he was no longer the same man; his treatment had turned him into a crazed individual who kills a fellow prisoner within mere moments of his release. Charged with the murder of the inmate he seems certain to be found guilty and sentenced to death. The case however falls into the lap of James Stamphill (Slater), a young and idealistic lawyer who doesn't believe that Henri is to blame; the real murderer is the prison itself, it's Alcatraz that drove Henri to do it.

As I was watching Murder in the First unfold I thought to myself it was easy to see why this story had been transported to the big screen as it features so many staples that are favourites of the Hollywood system - a courtroom setting, the battle of the little man against a powerful foe and impossible odds, brothers divided by the case, the conspiracy angle of witnesses being beaten up and intimidated etc. So it was a bit of a disappointment to come online and find out that very little of it was actually based on truth. In fact about the only thing that was true is that in 1941 there was an inmate named Henri Young incarcerated at Alcatraz who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter after he killed a fellow inmate. Pretty much everything else was entirely fictional. While these changes may help to create a more interesting and captivating narrative I couldn't help but feel rather conned by these alterations, especially as they were covered under the umbrella of “This film is inspired by a true story” in the opening credits; I was left feeling like it had done so in an effort to manipulate my emotions. So that certainly hurt the film a little bit in my eyes. However if you can ignore that what you're left with is still a very engaging piece of fictional drama, even if the courtroom scenes tend to indulge in some classic cliches such as Slater employing a unique and distuptive arguing style, being constantly threatened with contempt and being told that he's on thin ice.

The greatest strength of Murder in the First certainly lies within its cast. It is an excellent ensemble that the film was able to assemble, one of the more impressive of any 90s film, certainly amongst those films which aren't particularly well known. Even right down to the most minor of roles the film is blessed with talented and awards-recognised performers such as Emmy and Golden Globe winner Kyra Sedgwick, Academy Award nominee Brad Dourif, the distinctive presence of R. Lee Ermey and prolific character actor Stephen Tobolowsky. And of course as the District Attorney that Slater goes up against in court you have the always great William H. Macy. In the lead role we have Christian Slater, an actor whose work I've always enjoyed for his charismatic and sparky manner. Here however it's a little bit of a different role for Slater, not quite the typically raw and edgy character he frequently plays. As a result of it perhaps being a little outside of his normal wheelhouse, Slater perhaps attempts to compensate on occasion by over-acting a touch. That aside however it is still a very strong and commendable performance as for large stretches he is required to carry the film by himself opposite a taciturn Bacon. I felt he was particularly impressive in showcasing his character's growing fury at the inhumane treatment and the injustice that Henri is being subjected to. As the real villain of the piece we have Gary Oldman as warden Milton Glenn; a truly despicable character truly deserving of our loathing. Even though he doesn't actually have a great deal of screentime, Oldman really doesn't need much to convey the vile nature of his character and stoke up our hatred for him. Given the character he is asked to create you may expect Oldman to go very big with his performance as is quite common for him, but it's actually more reserved and quietly intense than you may imagine.

Film Trivia - As I said, much of the details about the life of Henri Young were completely fabricated for the movie. In real life he was not jailed merely for stealing $5 to help his sister. He was actually a hardened bank robber who took and brutalized a hostage on at least one occasion, and who committed murder in 1933. He had also served time in two State prisons and a Federal prison before entering Alcatraz. And while the film depicts Henri dying immediately following the trial, in reality this wasn't the case. He was transferred from Alcatraz in 1948 to the Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri. When his Federal sentence expired in 1954 he was turned over to the Washington State Penitentiary at Walla Walla to begin a life sentence for an earlier murder conviction. In 1972, at the age of 61, Young was released from Washington State Penitentiary, but he jumped parole and, according to Washington State authorities, his whereabouts are unknown, therefore, Young might still be alive. Even if he would be 102 years old In my eyes however Murder in the First is a film that truly belongs to Kevin Bacon who gives a terrific showing as the woefully treated inmate, Henri Young. I found it to be an especially affecting performance as Bacon portrayed the animal that he had been turned into as a result of his horrific treatment. Following his ordeal in isolation Henri Young is a completely broken man, both physically and mentally; in discussions with Bacon's lawyer he doesn't even know how old he is. Watching Bacon scurry around his cell, hobbling from the injury the warden inflicts upon him and unable to communicate, is reminiscent of the kind of footage you sometimes see of an ape that has been kept in captivity for too long and has heartbreakingly gone rather crazy. It reminded me a touch of the documentary Project Nim which I watched and reviewed a while back. The inhumane treatment which he has suffered has reduced him to quite a child-like state, we see him playfully sticking his tongue out at a child in the courtroom and despite the fact that his life is on the line during the trial the only thing important to him is having a friend in Slater's Stamphill. It's actually quite sweet how their friendship develops, to the point where Slater actually sneaks a prostitute into the prison for Henri. Both men lost their parents at a young age and seem to have very little in the way of personal connections. Henri really is a tremendously tragic figure and Bacon's performance is excellent. To convincingly portray the physical hardships that his character went through Bacon lost 20 pounds for the role. Outside of the Screen Actors Guild and the Broadcast Film Critics awards I'm surprised that he wasn't even nominated by any of the other awards organisations.

And it's through his character that the film really gets to the heart of the issues it wants to explore; the prison system and its redeeming qualities. Instead of rehabilitating Henri Young all the prison system has done for him is to create a monster, someone much more dangerous than when he was first incarcerated. And it's still an issue that rumbles on to this day, particularly in America with astronomical incarceration numbers, private prisons and a crushingly high recidivism rate all major concerns. It questions what the true nature of a prison should be. Is it just to keep dangerous individuals off the streets for a few years until they're released back into the world the same as when they went in, except now they're angry, disenfranchised and with little chance of gainful employment meaning a likely return to crime? Or is it their duty to attempt a rehabilitation of these criminals so that when they rejoin society they can make a positive contribution?

Murder in the First was directed by the late Marc Rocco, a director whose name I have to admit I had no familiarity with whatsoever. And that's no real surprise as he only directed four films in his short career and this film, released in 1995 when he was just 33 years old, was his last effort in the director's chair. And I've got to say that on the strength of this film it's a bit of a surprise that he was never given another opportunity, unless of course it was through his choice. You could perhaps accuse him of over-directing the film, of not putting enough trust in his actors to just tell the story, but personally I was quite impressed by his handling of the piece. He imbues the film with a lot of energy thanks to his ever-moving camera, ensuring that he brings life to a story which could otherwise feel rather sedate and tedious as a result of taking place almost exclusively in two potentially dull and suffocating environments; the cells and the courtroom. His immensely active camera also creates a number of other emotions. When we see Henri in his cell the camera roams around his confinings, almost mocking him with its freedom. These moments where the camera swirls around him also succeed at mimicking the character's fractured state of mind at this point.

Film Trivia Snippets - While filming the courtroom scenes in California, proceedings were interrupted by the powerful 6.7 Northbridge earthquake which left 57 people dead and over 8,700 people injured. Kevin Bacon was perhaps fortunate not to join one of those lists as at the time it hit he was handcuffed to a table, with no option but to duck underneath the table for shelter as an enormous crystal chandelier swung perilously above his head. The warehouse studio where the set was located was later condemned. /// At one stage Oliver Stone was apparently involved in an acting capacity, though for what role depends on the source. One role had him auditioning for the role of D.A. McNeill which went to William H. Macy, while according to Stephen Tobolowsky Stone was cast as Mr. Henkin but he didn't show up on the day of filming. So Rocco called Tobolowsky to take on the role just hours before shooting. /// As a result of the producers wanting a sense of authenticity Kevin Bacon, Christian Slater and Gary Oldman all spent much of their free time during the filming locked in jail cells. In the film's opening stretch we find Henri confined in isolation in the dungeons of Alcatraz, with Rocco filming in extreme close-ups and inverted camera angles, emulating the horribly claustrophobic and cramped nature of Young's life at this time. Getting in so tight also allows us to really focus in on the pain in Bacon's eyes and to experience the dirt and grime of the foul dungeons. These scenes are contrasted by exterior shots of San Francisco and its bay which really revel in their wide expanses and liberation. In a more typical move of such films we also find Henri Young constantly behind and blocked by the bars of his prison. In fact framing proceedings behind bars or a close approximation is a touch that features throughout the whole film, using gates and window panes in place of actual bars at time. At one point the courthouse where the case is going to be tried is actually framed behind a gate which acts like bars, replicating how Slater's Stamphill is attempting to put the system on trial. I also enjoyed the little touch of recreating newsreel footage which opened the film and was then spliced throughout.

I felt that the use of music throughout the film was rather sparse, but on the occasions where it was prevalent I felt that the score provided by Christopher Young was really quite beautiful. More known for his work on horror films at the time his work here is presented in the style of a good old-fashioned, big orchestral effort that is a tender, highly emotional, inspirational, haunting and occasionally breathtaking effort. That is particularly true down the film's closing stretch, with his final contribution, “Redemption”, being an especially stirring, powerful and glorious moment.

Conclusion - There's a slight touch of a Shawshank Redemption vibe to this film. Both are period-set prison films which could fall into the category of male weepies, which concern themselves with corrupt prisons, inhumane treatment, the power of friendship and the quest for freedom and hope. While Murder in the First may not soar quite as high as Shawshank it's still a damn fine film in its own right, with two excellent central performances and a great ensemble effort helping it overcome some clichéd characters and moments. Well worth a look.

Miss Vicky

09-10-13, 06:24 PM

It's been a long time since I last watched either Murder in the First or Cliffhanger, but I do recall quite liking both.

The Gunslinger45

09-10-13, 10:20 PM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

While I have not seen Murder in the First, I have seen Cliffhanger, and I thought it was a good movie. I have not seen it in over a decade, but I remember having fun with it.

honeykid

09-10-13, 11:37 PM

I've never been able to get into Cliffhanger. I've only seen it once, but I've tried to watch it a few times. However, I get the impression that John Lithgow is more Raising Cain than Dexter season 4.

I've not seen Murder In The First since the late 90's, but it's stayed with me all that time. I'm glad to see you liked it, JD. :)

Brodinski

09-11-13, 02:44 PM

Jesus, JD, thread's being hijacked by tards with too much time on their hands. Start lighting 'em up.

And start reviewing films worth a damn again. This last batch is all fizzle but no bang.

JayDee

09-12-13, 08:49 PM

Jesus, JD, thread's being hijacked by tards with too much time on their hands. Start lighting 'em up.

And start reviewing films worth a damn again. This last batch is all fizzle but no bang.

To be fair I think I'm the one who's been hijacking the thread with my stupid pics! :D

Well the next couple of 90s films have more depth and complexity to them, and are quite well thought of. Don't know how you feel about them though.

However, I get the impression that John Lithgow is more Raising Cain than Dexter season 4.

I've not seen Murder In The First since the late 90's, but it's stayed with me all that time. I'm glad to see you liked it, JD. :)

Oh yeah absolutely. :yup: That's a good line actually, wish I thought of it! Don't know if you read the review or not but think I commented about how it's a much more hammy, scenery-chewing performance than the quitely menacing, intense Trinity Killer.

Yeah I remember you mentioning you were a fan of the film because of the great cast. Hope you enjoyed my review. (And yes that is me fishing for a compliment! :D)

honeykid

09-13-13, 04:06 PM

Yes, I did enjoy the review, JD.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/ReviewTopGun_zps2ddeb20d.jpg

JayDee

09-14-13, 05:15 PM

mirror mirror

Year of release
1997

Directed by
Andrew Niccol

Written by
Andrew Niccol

Starring
Ethan Hawke
Jude Law
Uma Thurman
Loren Dean
Alan Arkin

Gattaca

4 ++

Plot - In the not-too-distant future, science has reached the stage where it has perfected the creation of the 'perfect' human being. Individuals who are not genetically engineered are looked down upon as inferior and have their opportunities in life severely restricted. One such 'natural birth' is Vincent Anton Freeman (Hawke), born with a heart defect which will limit his life and crush his dreams of travelling into space. To try and skirt the discrimination that comes along with his standing as a so-called 'in-valid' he illegally pays for and assumes the identity of Jerome Eugene Morrow (Law); a genetically engineered perfect specimen who is nevertheless paralysed as a result of a car accident. With the help of Jerome providing DNA samples to aid the ruse, Vincent is able to gain a place at the prestigious Gattaca Coroporation, where he is selected to go on a mission into space. At the same time however the director of the mission is killed, and the ensuing investigation threatens both Vincent's dreams and his freedom.

Gattaca is a very classy, intelligent slice of science fiction. It's a film that definitely seems to harken back to the genre's 1970s heyday, both in terms of its smarts but also the fact that it uses its sci-fi element to try and tell an intriguing and layered story with a message, and not just as an excuse for a series of explosions and space battles. It's certainly not a popcorn sci-fi flick, but more of a thinking man's movie. It's not a film which details and speculates about the far-flung possible future of spaceships, ray guns and aliens; but a film which takes our current society and levels of technology and just nudges them ever so slightly down the line; as the film itself tells us it's set in “the not-too-distant future”, and postulates how our civilization may adapt and change to advances in science.

It is an admirably restrained and understated addition to the sci-fi genre. In fact for much of the film it doesn't necessarily feel like a piece of science fiction. It just uses the sci-fi angle as the launching pad for a story encompassing romance, prejudice and mystery. In fact there's a strong noirish thread to the film, highlighted by Hawke's voiceover, a murder mystery and the use of dopplegangers amongst other elements. And in line with its constrained nature I appreciate the fact that the film doesn't just throw out lots of examples of futuristic technology just to get an easy wow from the audience, only doing so in the areas that are really prevalent to the story. And within the realm of genetics and science the film does a great job at detailing this advanced society. Showing all the little touches surrounding DNA and the numerous ways in which Vincent circumvents all of the tests is something I really enjoyed. I also love the lingo that Andrew Niccol created specifically for the film, a really great glossary of slang terms for this world. Individuals who were not genetically engineered are referred to by a number of terms, mostly in an unflattering and disparaging manner, such as 'utero', 'in-valid', 'faith-birth' and God-child.' By comparison those that have been engineered are addressed with great reverence as 'vitro', 'valid' or 'made-man.' People who were conceived naturally but have assumed the identity of an engineered person to 'get above their station' are referred to as a 'borrowed ladder' or by the cruder term, a 'de-gene-erate.' Oh and I love the slang term that Ethan Hawke uses to describe FBI agents - hoovers. It acts as a nod to both J Edgar Hoover (founder of the FBI) and to their practice of hoovering up skin cells and hair follicles in search of evidence.

I felt that the film was extremely well-acted throughout, even if it's not always immediately clear as a result of the nature of many of the performances. Most of the performances may appear to be rather staid, perhaps even wooden, but that fits in with the conservative, repressive disposition of this world's people. Uma Thurman in particular falls into this category, while she also suffers from existing purely as a means to help develop the character of Vincent. As a result it's quite a tough, thankless role but she does a solid job all the same. And just based on physical appearance alone Thurman is a great piece of casting. With her character meant to be one of these genetically engineered 'perfect' people, her face seems a likely product of such a procedure with its flawless, porcelain-like complexion. As someone who was once voted People's Sexiest Man Alive you could also say the same about the casting of Jude Law. Up until a couple of weeks ago I would have said that I didn't particularly care for Jude Law as an actor, but apparently I had just been seeing the wrong films. First off I was extremely impressed with his showing in The Talented Mr Ripley, and now it was a similar story here in Gattaca. I thought he did a great job in the role of Eugene, playing him with intelligence, intensity, bitterness and a touch of rebellious glee at being able to f*ck with the perfect system. Law's scenes with Hawke are frequently amongst the film's best. And speaking of Ethan Hawke I thought he did a great job in the lead role at building the character of Vincent, delivering a character of great focus and dedication, pretty much to a level of obsession. To realise his dreams he must display a really single-minded devotion and commitment to maintaining his façade at Gattaca, and Hawke does so with a real sense of drive and desperation. Oh and I also really enjoyed Alan Arkin's small contribution to the film, finding him very gently amusing in the role of Detective Hugo. While the investigatory techniques employed by the agents may be very much in line with the likes of CSI, by contrast Arkin himself seems much more comparable to Columbo; a little bit of a scruffy, bumbling fellow who hides his intelligence beneath his crumpled outer appearance.

Film Trivia Snippets - The original title that the film was shot under was “The Eighth Day”, a reference to the Biblical story detailing how God created the Earth. The story states that the Earth was created in six days and that one the seventh day God rested. The film's original title implies that on the eighth day man begin to tinker with their own genetic make-up. The name of the centre in the movie where the children are engineered is still called The Eighth Day. The film had a much-delayed release however and by the time it was finally set to be released a Belgian film had been released with the same title. As a result Andrew Niccol was forced to come up with a new title. /// As part of the film's promotion Sony placed a number of fake ads in newspapers across America offering “Children made to order.” The ads looked so authentic that they actually received thousands of calls from people interested. As a result The American Society for Reproductive Medicine asked Sony to change the ads to make it clear they were fake. /// The original ending for the film featured images of people who would never have been born in this society if we had genetic engineering, individuals including Albert Einstein (dyslexia), Abraham Lincoln (Marfan syndrome), John F. Kennedy (Addison's disease), Stephen Hawking (Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis) and Vincent Van Gogh (epilepsy). It ended with the statement "Of course, the other birth that may never have taken place is your own." People in test screenings said it made them feel inadequate and as a result it was cut.I loved the look of Gattaca. Niccol's direction and the sharp, crisp photography of Sławomir Idziak deserve a lot of credit. While Niccol composed a lot of great shots and compositions, what I was really a fan of were the numerous colour schemes that were deposited across the film's landscape. The various filters that Idziak employs do a great job at presenting contrasts between the different facets of this world, as well as simply helping to create the feeling of a slightly different world from that which we currently inhabit. Probably the most commonly utilised colour scheme is a cold blue tinge that is used to represent the scientific side which is so prevalent in this world, creating a real sense of being immersed in a sterile, cold and glacial existence. These stretches also tend to be quite washed out in appearance to highlight the lifeless and emotionless personality of the valids. This is contrasted by green hues which evoke a sense of nature and creation, and a yellow/golden tint which creates a much warmer tone and frequently seemed to be incorporated more towards the in-valid characters. Another visual touch which helps to flesh out Gattaca's themes is its set and art design. The sets and locations feel very sterile and soulless to once again highlight the separation from humanity that is present. And the staircase in Eugene's home is excellent. A spiral staircase, it is quite clearly symbolic of the DNA double helix so obviously ties in to the film's story of genetics. And the scene where Eugene has to drag himself up the stairs shows him overcoming his physical limitations (he is paralysed from the waist down and confined to a wheelchair) just as Vincent had to overcome his own physical limitations imposed on him in the form of his DNA. So yeah I loved how Gattaca looked, but I also loved how it sounded. Michael Nyman's score is spectacular; a truly beautiful and haunting effort which has a great depth all of its own and makes for a perfect companion piece for the visuals.

On first glance you may not think that Gattaca and the Sylvester Stallone vehicle that I just reviewed, Demolition Man, would have a great deal in common but they do actually cover some of the same ground. While neither film features the standard aesthetic or tone of a dystopian sci-fi film, both are certainly located in a dystopia all the same. On the surface both worlds may appear to be pristine, peaceful utopias of humanity; but scrape away that surface level and you'll see that for many people this world is not a particularly pleasant or prosperous environment to reside in. The advances in genetics may have created the 'perfect' human being in the eyes of many people, but what it has really done is just make the division between the haves and the have-nots all the more transparent, providing a clearer definition of the social hierarchies. It shows how that even if we were able to completely crack the DNA coding for the perfect human being we wouldn't be able to change the personality and deep seated dispositions of humanity; as a society we would still retain our habits of prejudice except that it would no longer be based on race, sex or religion, but on genetics. As Vincent states he “belonged to a new underclass, no longer determined by social status or the color of your skin. No, we now have discrimination down to a science.” The quest for perfection has destroyed individuality, creating an immensely conformist society as is seen in the almost identical appearance of all the employees at Gattaca. By becoming all the same much of the civilisation has lost its soul. It's no accident that the one piece of true art we see created throughout the film is to be found at the hands (literally) of one of these so-called in-valids; a 12-fingered pianist who enchants Vincent, Irene and the audience with his exquisite talent.

Another thing we would be unlikely to be capable of replicating however is the human spirit. History is full of examples of people overcoming shortcomings in their life; whether it be physical, mental, educational etc to achieve great things. In the film Vincent overcomes his genetic weaknesses to live out his dream, despite the whole attitude of society telling him its not possible. Through his own personal determination and hard work he is able to triumph over adversity while people like Eugene are unable to succeed despite being born with erery advantage possible. This world also breeds a mentality of how second place is for losers, a mentality that resulted in Jerome's attempted suicide which left him wheelchair-bound. It's also reflected very evidently in the sibling rivalry between Vincent and Anton.

Conclusion - Gattaca is an extremely accomplished, cerebral film which has a fascinating and intruging premise at its core. It is also a very plausible tale, one we can easily imagine coming to pass before too long, which addresses a number of interesting issues. In technical terms the film is almost flawless with only the odd hiccup in its story working against it; for example the romance between Hawke and Thurman didn't do a great deal for me, and I wasn't a fan of the revelation in regards to the idenity of a certain character. It was something I saw coming a considerable time before it was revealed and it felt like one of the few times the film was adhering to more classic movie conventions.

PS - Just as I was re-reading my review before posting it I began to wonder if I had perhaps misinterpreted the part of the film concerning the 12-fingered pianist. Was he actually genetically engineered to have 12 fingers purely to be a musical success in that he is able to play a piece of music that would otherwise be impossible. Was he actually a valid? I suppose it would make more sense that the public would go and support him. Although there is the poster advertising the concert which had the pianist covering his face with his hands. I assumed this was out of a sort of shame, but perhaps it was just highlighting what people were coming to see; his extra fingers and what he was able to do with them. What are people's thoughts?

seanc

09-14-13, 05:19 PM

Been a long time since I have seen Gattaca. I remember nothing about it, might be worth a second look.

The Gunslinger45

09-14-13, 06:47 PM

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

I remember watching Gattaca several years ago and I enjoyed the film. The extremes that Vincent goes to pretend to be someone else was to the point of OCD. To be honest I cannot only remember so much of the movie. I guess I will have to rewatch it sometime too.

nebbit

09-14-13, 07:07 PM

Great review http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd194/ocbw/smilies/freak-smiley-9422.gif :love: Gattaca forgotten how many times i have watched it, just replaced it with Blu Ray copy :yup:

honeykid

09-14-13, 10:25 PM

Now that really is a great review, JD. :up:

Just some housekeeping. I wouldn't mention it, but if I don't, when you spot it you'll accuse us all of not reading it properly. :p:D

for example the romance between Hawke and Kidman didn't do a great deal for me,
There's also a misspelling of "every", but I can't find it now. :D

JayDee

09-17-13, 04:21 PM

Great review http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd194/ocbw/smilies/freak-smiley-9422.gif :love: Gattaca forgotten how many times i have watched it, just replaced it with Blu Ray copy :yup:

Thanks nebs. :up: Could perhaps become a real favourite of mine as well over more viewings

Now that really is a great review, JD. :up:

Just some housekeeping. I wouldn't mention it, but if I don't, when you spot it you'll accuse us all of not reading it properly. :p:D

There's also a misspelling of "every", but I can't find it now. :D

So what you've just been lying previously? Humouring me? :( :p No to be fair I was quite happy with the review itself, felt it was one of my better ones in a while. Though it is easier when you've got themes and issues to talk about instead of best death scenes like in my action film reviews

You know I had to look at the section you quoted for ages before I spotted the problem! :D The way you said there's 'also' a misspelling of every made me think it was another spelling error and I just couldn't see it no matter how many times I went over it. Although to be fair my complaint does stand, the film really didn't convince me of the romance between Hawke and Kidman. And the fact that Kidman isn't in the film is no excuse! :p

JayDee

09-17-13, 09:10 PM

By the way is there anyone who has seen Gattaca recently enough or enough times that they have an opinion of the 12 fingered man question I posed?

Oh yeah and I really need to find somewhere to back up all my reviews. Either another forum or site, or start up my own site or blog for it. Just I'm getting so many database errors just now and every time I worry that the board has crashed and all my precious, precious reviews will be lost forever! :D

honeykid

09-17-13, 10:13 PM

I should've made the mistake clearer. Sorry I had you going mad over that piece. :D

Don't worry, JD, I think Yoda's looking for a new server.

JayDee

09-18-13, 06:49 PM

mirror mirror

Year of release
1997

Directed by
Robert Zemeckis

Written by
James V. Hart
Michael Goldenberg
Carl Sagan (novel)

Starring
Jodie Foster
Matthew McConaughey
James Woods
Tom Skerritt
William Fichtner
John Hurt

Contact

3.5 ++

Plot - Encouraged by her father at a young age, Dr Ellie Arroway (Foster) has developed a life-long fascination with the possibility of there being alien life somewhere out there in the universe. Following years of fruitless searching Ellie stumbles upon an intelligent signal being broadcast from outer space. When Ellie and her fellow scientists decipher the message within the broadcast they find themselves with blueprints to build some kind of machine which they believe will allow for galactic travel. These revelations prompt vastly differing opinions amongst humanity, in particular pitting the realms of science against religion. This is mirrored in the relationship and potential romance between the atheistic Arroway and Palmer Joss (McConaughey), a renowned Christian philosopher who becomes part of the group that will decide who gets the change to go into space and meet the alien race. Dr Arroway is one of those in the running, but her lack of religious faith may prove a stumbling block. And it's not the only one that the project faces.

I'm aware that this film seems to generate quite a lot of negative opinions in people, and while I can perhaps understand them I've got to say that I actually really enjoyed Contact. It takes the classic set-up of making first contact with an alien species and treats it in an intelligent and detailed manner, whereas commonly you would expect the likes of Keanu Reeves or Bruce Willis to be sent to meet the aliens. Throughout the film we never actually bear witness to any aliens, well apart from one who takes on human form, and while it may disappoint some sci-fi fans I actually find it quite fitting as this is not so much a film about alien lifeforms as it is about humanity. In fact it's probably amongst the most realistic depictions you will ever see in terms of the response of the world to such an event. It details how even with this most incredible of events, the most important in the history of humanity, it would get bogged down in politics. It would all be tied up in politics and posturing between nations, and humanity would be split in its reaction. I loved the sequence that depicted the circus that springs up outside the facility where the machine is being constructed; with thousands of people camping out it's a glorious mix of alien-welcoming nutters dressed up like aliens from 1950s B-movies, Nazis, religious zealots, an Elvis impersonator, a choir singing a song in praise of the aliens, lots of trailer trash and even a company offering insurance against UFO abduction. It is all witnessed by the highly bemused Foster. Obviously the main thrust of the film in terms of themes is one of the biggest and oldest of them all, science versus religion. It takes the time to pose and explore many questions that theme encompasses; are we alone in the universe? What are the implications if we aren't? What would it mean to the notion of a God? If we made contact with a civilization vastly advanced of our own, would they come in peace? All of those questions and more and tackled in an intelligent and thought-provoking fashion. While Zemeckis' handling of the film and the narrative of building and launching the machine make sure that we don't get bogged down in all this philosophising.

For the majority of the film I found Jodie Foster to be a solid lead but nothing all that noteworthy. However I felt that she really came into her own down the closing stretch. As soon as her character is allowed into the machine and to fulfil her dreams I thought she was excellent. I was particularly taken with her efforts whilst sitting in the machine waiting for it to be initiated. She displays a terrific mix of pain and fear at what she is going through and what lies ahead, but also a real determination that she is not going to let this opportunity pass her by. On the verge of tears and with her voice cracking she is able to utter through gritted teeth over and over again that “I'm ok to go.” I thought it was a great piece of acting and a level she kept up through the rest of the film. Her sense of both terror and sheer wonder as she is being traversed across the universe through the system of wormholes and at meeting the alien work perfectly. Her character lost both of her parents at a very young age and she seems to have a real fear of commitment, she appears to be scared to get close to anyone which is perhaps where her fascination with aliens comes from. After all why not dedicate your life to trying to communicate with someone who may not exist, and even if they do the odds of doing so are astronomical. Foster shows this through a touching sense of naivety and fear when it comes to relating to other characters, particularly the character played by Matthew McConaughey. Speaking of which...

Matthew McConaughey fell rather flat but in fairness to him that was partly down to the character he was saddled with. Employing his fallback surfer dude type persona he just feels complete out of place and at no point was I convinced that he was this deeply religious theologian and philosopher deemed important enough to be an aide to the President. Now as to who you blame for the style of performance he puts in I guess that will depend on your personal feelings. Is it the fault of whoever had final say in casting him in the first place? Is it McConaughey's fault for employing such a style? Or should Zemeckis identify it as a problem and suggest a different approach? Whatever the case it just never really worked for me. Tom Skerritt gets a lot of mileage out of his character, the closest that we get to a villain in the film. Portraying David Drumlin, a government scientist and scientific aide to the President, he is a despicable little slimeball; it's a while since I've hated someone quite as much. The reason for that is he is not an over-the-top villain; he's hateful because he is all too human. The majority of us don't know serial killers or psychotic murderers (well at least I'm hoping that's the case) but we probably all know someone like Drumlin; someone who lies, manipulates, backstabs and steals credit and fame they do not deserve. James Woods succeeds in similar fashion as National Security Advisor Michael Kits; a real bureaucratic piece of s*it! Both characters may be rather one-dimensional creations but Woods and Skerritt make the absolute most of them.
Film Trivia Snippets - The film's opening features an impressive pullback scene which starts on Earth and zooms out past countless planets and galaxies. To achieve this sequence took over 117,000 hours of computer rendering to create the CGI required. The servers crashed more than 25 times during the process, while the longest render time for a single frame was over 18 hours. Some of the film's visual effects where actually done by Peter Jackson as a way of repaying Robert Zemeckis for executive-producing Jackson's film, The Frighteners. /// At one point during the film, once Ellie has been selected to go into space, she is offered a suicide pill for the trip in case something goes wrong. The film posits that such pills were offered to all astronauts on NASA missions in case they were unable to return to Earth. This is a claim lifted from Carl Sagan's novel. However former astronaut Jim Lovell, commander of the ill-fated Apollo 13 mission, disputes this claim. /// The film has a unique holding in fashion circles. It was the last movie ever seen by the famous Italian fashion designer Gianni Versace. He was shot and killed mere hours following the screening. /// As I mentioned earlier at one point in the film we see a company offering 'UFO Abduction Insurance.' The banner advertising the service was actually taken from a real company which offers such insurance. Warner Bros. Paid the company to use their novel idea in the movie.In mainstream terms is there a director out there who has made more great films without getting a great degree of recognition than Robert Zemeckis? I have to admit that in the past I was one of those people not giving him the respect he deserved. It was only when I put together my list of favourite films that I realised, “hey this guy has made a lot of movies I love.” The Back to the Future trilogy, Cast Away. Forrest Gump, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Romancing the Stone etc - The man really does have a great filmography to put on his CV. So why exactly does he not have the same standing that many of his films enjoy? Perhaps it's the fact that he doesn't have a distinctive style that links his films like a Terry Gilliam, a John Woo or a Tim Burton. Perhaps it's that he's not got a identifiable persona. You don't see his face in magazines, you don't see him on chat shows etc. Whereas there are numerous directors that would be instantly recognisable to many people, not just films buffs (Tarantino, Spielberg, Scorsese, Hitchcock, Peter Jackson etc) I think most would struggle to identify Zemeckis. I'd like to think that if I was shown a picture of him I may recognise him but right now I can't honestly picture his face. He's a great storyteller and a man with an eye for a iconic shot.

He's also always been one to embrace new technology and the advances in special effects, but the most admirable aspect has been how he has employed it, usually using it only to advance and aid the story instead of overwhelming it as so many directors do. And it's a similar case here in Contact. The most impressive aspect of his direction here in my eyes was his handling of the special effects. There are used very minimally throughout the film but when they are they are excellent and used intelligently. As with Foster's performance the special effects really come to the fore as the film approaches its conclusion. The huge machine that is built based on the specifications provided by the aliens is a great design and it is beautifully realised by the effects, both in design and when in operation. Following that, the effects also do a great job at creating the incredible journey that Foster's Arroway goes on; a thrilling and disorientating ride. The CGI also creates a real shock in the vividly realised terrorist attack upon the machine. Although to be fair to the film it also employs the special effects to provide an astonishing zoomout at the film's beginning, starting on Earth and pulling out back past planets and out into the cosmos, through countless galaxies and solar systems. The point of this scene is that we are following the path of the radio broadcasts which have been sent out from Earth over the years, and as such we get a series of broadcasts playing as the background noise. It's a great opening scene, not even ruined by the inclusion of the Spice Girls! :D Oh and in a move similar to Zemeckis' Forrest Gump, special effects were also employed to digitally meld footage of the actors and President Clinton together so that it looked like they were interacting.

It's certainly not a perfect film by any means. As I already laid out earlier on, it has a few rather one-dimensional characters and the Matthew McConaughey character just never clicks. And the romance that is played out by McConaughey and Foster's characters feels very forced, coming across like one of the film's only adherences to the staples of a typical big budget flick. In addition to that there are a few other faults to be found. Contact has a running time of nigh on two and a half hours, so it's a long film and at times it does feel it. There are stretches where little happens and you may find your patience being tested but there are developments which keep the level of intrigue bubbling over (such as the terrorist angle) and I certainly felt like it had all been worth it thanks to the last 45 minutes or so which really won me over. There are also numerous occasions throughout the film where I didn't feel like the passage of time had been all that clearly defined. I was frequently unsure as to how long the political discussions had been going on for, how long it took to build the machine etc. I'm sure that some people will also find the film rather emotionally manipulative, maudlin even, and I can see that but in the end it proved very effective for me, creating a touching and emotional pay-off.

Conclusion - Contact may still offer the audience terrific special effects and some excellent set-pieces, but it has a lot more to offer than your typical sci-fi film of this nature; an enlightened and astute look at humanity, the need for faith in some people and the curiousity that humanity has about our wider universe. With a resolute performance from Foster and fine storytelling from Zemeckis I found this to be a very satisfying experience.

gandalf26

09-18-13, 07:33 PM

Good review JD. I like Contact, but it feels like it's really building up to something special and never quite realises that potential.

Not even a mention of John Hurt as the mythical John Hadden, master engineer. I love all the scenes with him the most.

Your right about the effects, it's really something when the big machine gets going.

The Gunslinger45

09-18-13, 08:52 PM

I have never actually seen this movie. Which is strange since I love Jodie Foster. Guess I need to add it to the watch list.

Either way,

http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w541/juanLopez85/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg (http://s1329.photobucket.com/user/juanLopez85/media/Dude_zpsbd8dd56d.jpg.html)

Yoda

09-19-13, 10:43 AM

Great reviews. And yeah, Gattaca is tremendous. Odd bit of trivia, about the text at the end. Great sentiment, but that would've been a clumsy way to present it. I'd like to have seen more of that kind of thing in the film itself, to be honest. They touch on it very briefly with the six-fingered pianist, but they don't drive it home. I suppose on some level I should just appreciate the subtlety there, though.

LP Quagmire

09-19-13, 10:55 AM

I've not posted a new review for a little while for one reason or another, so to make it up to you all here's a double bill. First up is the last of my current run of action films, another Stallone film and another personal favourite (or guilty pleasure however you want to term it)

mirror mirror

Year of release
1993

Directed by
Renny Harlin

Written by
Michael France
Sylvester Stallone

Starring
Sylvester Stallone
John Lithgow
Michael Rooker
Janine Turner
Rex Linn

Cliffhanger

4 +

Plot - Eric Qualen (Lithgow) is a ruthless criminal who has constructed an elaborate plan to hijack a United States Treasury airplane in mid-air and steal the $100 million bounty they are transferring. The operation is botched however and the money falls to the ground below, scattered across the foreboding Rocky Mountains. With the ability to track the cases which hold the money however it still seems like a sure win for Qualen and his gang of henchmen. After all, all that's standing between them and their haul are some measly mountain climbers. These climbers however are amongst the most skilled in the world, and they have the courage to match it. Gabe Walker (Stallone), Hal Tucker (Rooker) and Jessie Deighan (Turner) are in no mood to let the criminals get away with their plan so a frantic race to locate the money begins.

So far as part of my move musings I've done reviews of Die Hard on a cruise ship (Speed 2), Die Hard on a warship (Under Siege), Die Hard in a hockey stadium (Sudden Death) and probably some others I'm forgetting. Plus I also reviewed the original granddaddy of all of them; Die Hard itself. Now we come to perhaps the most ambitious of all the Die Hard clones that have been relentlessly churned out over the years; Die Hard on a mountain. While all of those films relied on containing the hero and the action within a single claustrophobic setting, Cliffhanger thrives on opening its world up, setting its sprawling action across the epic and wild expanse of the Rocky Mountains. As the end credits begin to roll the final image that we see is of those mountains themselves, and that feels like a very appropriate end as in many ways that setting becomes a star in its own right, perhaps even the star of the movie. It provides the film with some stunning scenery and vistas as its backdrop which means it's always interesting to look at. While its setting was the Colorado Rockies that isn't where Cliffhanger was actually filmed, it was instead filmed in the Cortina d'Ampezzo-Dolomites mountains in Italy because of their remarkable similarity to the Rockies. Captured by Alex Thomson's cinematographic eye the scenery just adds another layer of interest to the film; so scenes that we've seen countless times before in action films feel fresh thanks to the locations they are based in. It also creates

To really make the grade as an action film what you clearly need is some great action, pure and simple. And Cliffhanger certainly delivers. It both opens and closes on a high note with two great set-pieces and keeps the action flowing in between. In the opening scene Stallone's Gabe attempts to rescue his friend Hal and Hal's girlfriend, Sarah, who have become stranded high in the moutains after Hal injured his knee. After winching Hal to safety Gabe attempts to do the same for Sarah, but with disastrous results. Her harness breaks and she is left dangling above a massive chasm and certain death. Disregarding Hal's advice Gabe goes out onto the line in an attempt to save her but she slips from his grasp and falls into oblivion. The scene actually acts as a bit of a surprise. I mean this is Sylvester motherf*cking Stallone!!! He's the heroic dude who always saves the day, he's not going to let her fall is he? I mean there's no way, he's going to pull her up and....oh s*it she fell! :eek: And that vulnerable thread actually runs throughout the film. This isn't the type of character that Stallone or his action counterparts would play all that often; he's no tough-as-nails cop, no bad-ass soldier. He may be a tough, rugged mountain climber but he is also very human and is left completely shaken by the accident. It gives the character just a little bit more for Stallone to work with. And as a big fan of the man I think that he does a great job. Oh and as a little aside to that great opening set-piece, it's a scene which is hilariously spoofed by Jim Carrey and a racoon in Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls.

Cliffhanger also features a series of rather awesome deaths which befall the villainous characters. These include Stallone riding one of the bad guys like a sled down the mountain (resulting in vicious ice burns down the guy's face) before depositing him over the cliff, the giant fireball that eventually claims Qualen and Qualen's despicable, heartless sacrificing of his own lover. And then there is the best death scene, one of my favourites throughout all of cinema actually. Having fallen down a crevice in the moutain Stallone finds himself getting his ass kicked by Kynette, one of the villain's henchmen. Seemingly at Kynette's mercy Stallone all of a sudden grabs Kynette by the family jewels and crushes them with his bare hands! He then hoists him up into the air and body presses him into the cave's roof, causing a stalactite to puncture through his body.

As anyone who saw the fourth season of Dexter will be able to attest to John Lithgow makes for one terrific villain. Although here he is in more hammy, outlandish form than the quietly chilling way he played the Trinity Killer. He is just delightfully smarmy as Eric Qualen, smirking and sneering his way through the film. The man just has a face for evil. With hardly any effort at all it just takes on this natural look of pure disdain, giving his character this real sense of superiority as if he is disgusted to be having to share the same planet as the rest of us. And as is fitting for a villain in a 90s action film Lithgow employs an English accent. When it came to action films, the 80s and 90s were a time where just about every single villain came with an accent, typically from one of three camps. They were either English (Last Action Hero, Gone in 60 Seconds, Tomorrow Never Dies, The Lion King etc), German (Die Hard, Die Hard With a Vengeance, Rocketeer) or Russian (Air Force One, Red Dawn, First Blood Part 2, Top Gun, Rambo 3, Rocky IV, Red Heat, Hunt for Red October, Goldeneye etc etc. Man the Russians had a really tough time of it! :D).

Backing him up in the villain stakes is a fun performance from Rex Linn as Richard Travers, the dirty US Treasury agent who hooks up with Qualen and orchestrates the theft. The only previous work that I would really associate him with would be as the police officer on CSI: Miami so it was nice to see him playing a much nastier a*shole character. And even though he's not playing a villainous character Michael Rooker also gets a lot of traction out of clashing with Stallone. Rooker played Hal Tucker, a fellow mountain climber and previously a close friend of Gabe's. Following the death of Sarah he blames Gabe and from then on Rooker plays Hal with a great deal of intensity and a real bitter fury towards Gave. The only real disappointment in the cast is Janine Turner as Jessie, the supposed love interest of Stallone's Gabe even if I never really felt it, but in her defence a large part of that is down to the underwhelming character she is lumbered with.

One thing that really adds to the thrill of the film and how much the audience becomes invested in the story and its characters is how genuine much of it clearly is. While it did employ a series of cinematic tricks such as CGI, miniatures, matte paintings and even a motorised Sylvester Stallone pippet to impressive use, for the most part this is principal effects at work. These are real people that you're seeing climbing on that mountain, including the actors themselves on a number of occasions climbing the mountains and hanging over cliffs and voids. And when it's not them you've got a series of the world's best mountain climbers acting as their stunt doubles, meaning that we get some fantastic examples of mountain climbing. Although that's not the only piece of stunt work to catch the eye. The scene that depicts the attempted theft from the Treasury plane is insane. The plane is hijacked mid-flight and a line connecting it to another plane is put in place. The Travers character then uses the line to transfer from one plane to another in mid-air, a feat that was actually achieved through principal means, no CGI. Stuntman Simon Crane performed the stunt for real at 15,000 feet without even any safety devices and was paid $1 million to do so; and in my eyes he earned every penny. And while Cliffhanger was filmed in Italy this scene was actually filmed back in America as performing such a stunt was illegal in Europe. As a result of this stunt Cliffhanger resides in the Guinness Book of World Records for having the costliest aerial stunt ever performed. And Sylvester Stallone is to thank for making it happen. The insurance company that were underwriting the film refused to insure anyone to perform the stunt, so Stallone offered to have his salary cut to pay for the stunt. And because of the extreme danger involved, the stunt was only performed once.

Conclusion - Like the large majority of Stallone's back catalogue, Cliffhanger was never exactly going to trouble the big award ceremonies or be a darling of the critics. Also like the large majority of his films however, Cliffhanger is a whole load of fun. It's got some exciting action, a deliciously evil villain in Lithgow and is actually quite a funny and witty excursion on occasion.

CLIFFHANGER is a lot of fun, but the first fifteen minutes are so exciting and tension-filled that the remaining hour-and-a-half is underwhelming by comparison.

nebbit

09-20-13, 06:04 PM

Oh Contact, just rewatched it :yup: it is in my collection :yup:

Although I love action movies :yup: not a fan of Cliffhanger :( not in my collection :nope:

JayDee

09-20-13, 08:46 PM

Which is strange since I love Jodie Foster.

Huh......So you're obsessed with Jodie Foster - I know you've said love but I've chosen to read it as obsessed! :D

So you're obsessed with Jodie Foster; you've grown up in Texas; going by your username you like your guns; and going by your avi and user title you're obsessed with Taxi Driver.

You're not John Hinckley are you? :p

The Gunslinger45

09-20-13, 08:50 PM

Huh......So you're obsessed with Jodie Foster - I know you've said love but I've chosen to read it as obsessed! :D

So you're obsessed with Jodie Foster; you've grown up in Texas; going by your username you like your guns; and going by your avi and user title you're obsessed with Taxi Driver.

You're not John Hinckley are you? :p

LMAO! WELL PLAYED SIR! No just a man who loves the cinema as much as the Second Amendment. And I have no intention of trying to impress Jodie Foster. But my plans to sweep Rosario Dawson off her feet is going according to plan. :D

cricket

09-20-13, 11:57 PM

I went to the movies reluctantly to see Contact for my wife, and ended up liking it.

Murder in the First was a really good movie and Cliffhanger is awesome.

JayDee

09-24-13, 05:44 PM

Thought it was about time I started working through some of my backlog of reviews; reviews that have been sitting around for weeks or months even.

mirror mirror

Year of release
2002

Directed by
Sam Raimi

Written by
David Koepp

Starring
Tobey Maguire
Kirsten Dunst
Willem Dafoe
James Franco
Rosemary Harris
Cliff Robertson
J.K. Simmons

Spider-Man

4

Plot - Peter Paker (Maguire) is the resident science geek of Midtown High in New York. Orphaned as a child he was taken in by his loving Aunt May (Harris) and Uncle Ben. These days he is the frequent focus of the school's bullies and is unable to act on the massive crush he has for his next door neighbour, Mary Jane Watson (Dunst). Peter's whole life is turned upside down however during a field trip to a genetics library. He is bitten by a radioactive spider that had escapes its confinement. The incident leaves him feeling decidedly groggy, but when he wakes up the next morning not only is that sensation gone, but many other things have also changed. He is stronger, quicker and more agile. He finds himself inexplicably able to climb walls, fire webbing from his own wrists and develops a precognitive warning sense. Initially using his powers for his personal gain Peter's outlook changes when his beloved Uncle Ben is killed by a robber that Peter could have stopped but let go free. From then on Peter resolves to become a hero and fight the type of evil that claimed the life of his Uncle. Peter is not the only one going through a drastic transformation however. Norman Osborn (Dafoe), father of Peter's best friend Harry (Franco), becomes the Green Goblin after an experiment goes horribly wrong. Together these two superhuman individuals find themselves on a collision course, with the people that Peter cares about most caught in the middle.

Returning to Spidey's first foray onto the big screen it's a surprise to find just how cheesy and goofy a film it was. Indeed going back to it feels almost a touch nostalgic. It may be only a little over 10 years old, but already there's a sense of 'they don't make them like that anymore.' When compared with the dozens of superhero films that have followed in its wake Spider-Man now seems rather quaint. Its story and the action now seem rather small and personal compared to some of the more bloated and epic approaches taken since, while its tone is so much lighter than many of its counterparts. It's tough to imagine how two films that both reside in the superhero genre could be more different than Spider-Man and say, The Dark Knight for example. And to be honest I think it's the film that the public wanted and indeed needed at the time. Released less than a year after 9/11 people wanted fun escapism, they wanted a hero to root for, they wanted a clear black and white distinction between good and evil. By delivering such a film I think that's a large reason why Spider-Man was such a massive box office success. After what now looks like the moderate success of X-Men ($296 million), Spider-Man scored a huge $821 million at the box office and proved that superhero films were here to stay. The film even has a very direct shout-out for New Yorkers. With Spidey in a precarious situation at the hands of the Green Goblin, members of the public begin throwing items at Goblin, declaring that “you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us.” It's an exceptionally hokey moment, but given its subtext you can certainly forgive it.

As I said at the start it does feel rather cheesy and goofy, with Raimi largely responsible for this tone. Indeed Spider-Man feels very much like a film with an almost B-movie sentimentality, but made with a blockbuster budget. The story allows Raimi to tap into his love for horror films, with many staples of old-school horror present. In Norman Osborn/Green Goblin you've got the classic tale of the mad scientist and an experiment which goes horribly wrong and results in a monster which has featured in countless horror tales since the birth of the genre. While later on in the character you have a bit of a Jekyll and Hyde dynamic as the two sides of Norman's psyche battle for control. Then you've got the Goblin's costume and that ridiculous mask which I've never liked. The character has a real demented Power Rangers vibe to him. And his goblin bombs have an effect like something from an old-school 50s sci-fi film, reducing his victims to their skeletons which then crumble to dust. In fact if I remember correctly it's very similar to the effect in Mars Attacks, itself a spoof of those 50s sci-fi flicks. Then there's the extremely daft wrestling match where complete amateurs are allowed into the ring with a muscle-bound goon to get beaten up. Everyone in the world knows that wrestling isn't real, apart from these guys apparently.

Film Trivia Snippets - During the famous upside-down kiss in the rain, a unique problem plagued the scene..Hanging upside down, Tobey Maguire's sinuses kept filling up with water. /// Before Willem Dafoe signed on for the role of the Green Goblin, it had been offered to Nicholas Cage, John Malkovich and Robert de Niro. /// When it comes to big blockbusers few writers have had more success than David Koepp. Spider-Man marked the fourth occasion in which a film he had written broke the record for the highest opening weekend gross at the box office. The others were Jurassic Park, Mission Impossible and The Lost World: Jurassic Park. /// One reason that Sony liked the idea of appointing Sam Raimi as director was his love for the world of comic books. An avid collector, he had amassed a collection totalling over 25,000 comics. That being said though, he was far from their first choice with others considered including Tony Scott, Jan de Bont, James Cameron, Roland Emmerich, Ang Lee and David Fincher. /// Several Spider-Man costumes had to be designed for the production, at a cost of up to $100,000 each. During filimng four of the costumes were stolen off the set. A reward of $25,000 for their return was posted by Columbia Pictures but they were never seen again.And Raimi's direction certainly attempts to really grasp the look and feel of a comic book; it's a very bright, bold and colourful world that he's created for the characters. And for the most part it's a lot of fun, brining a lot of life and energy to proceedings. I love the montage of Peter attempting to come up with costume designs. With images, words and drawings crashing together its is a very neat, cool little scene. Oh and Peter's attempts at replicating his webslinging is still funny; “Up, up and away webs!” And Raimi does have an eye for a great shot. The upside down kiss in the rain is a very sexy moment, and has remained one of the most iconic images of all superhero films. And a number of the film's characters certainly live up to that colourful world Raimi presented. Top of which would certainly have to be Willem Dafoe who gives an insanely over-the-top performance as the Green Goblin; he sneers, smirks, cackles and glares his way through the movie. It's certainly not a subtle showing from Dafoe, but he gets lots of credit for some terrific 'evil eyebrow' work. Back in the day I don't think I was overly enamoured with him, but now I find it to be a lot of fun watching him go from quite creepy all the way into high camp on occasion. While the other larger-than-life character is to be found in the form of Daily Bugle editor, J. Jonah Jameson. J.K. Simmons seems to be having an absolute blast in the role, and as a result so does the audience. He just blusters his way through the film and dominates everyone who finds themselves in his path.

As our hero, Tobey Maguire was a very smart choice for the role. His Parker may lack some of the charisma and spark of Andrew Garfield's future incarnation but his dorky, loverlorn Peter is a sweet and likeable guy. As his love interest, Mary Jane Watson may not quite have the same character as in the comics; I imagine she lacks the same fire and spunk. She is more of the adorable girl next door, and Dunst fills the role well. With her troubles at home and unfulfilled acting aspirations she is also able to bring a surprising emotion and depth to the character. And as a huge admirer of redheads I personally don't think that Dunst has ever looked better. Both Rosemary Harris and Cliff Robertson do a fine job of giving Peter's Aunt and Uncle the requisite warmth and endearing nature, with Robertson in particular deserving of credit given his limited screentime and the fact that his death has to have the required impact upon Peter and in turn the viewer. Though some of Peter's scenes with Aunt May do slip into sappiness. The only really weak link of the cast I feel was James Franco's Harry Osborn. I just find him to be a bit bland a presence in the movie, though to be fair to Franco the script doesn't give him a great deal to work with. And his romance with MJ just never convinced whatsoever. No logical reasoning is ever really given for it to make it seem at all believable. It merely feels like a writer's ploy to try and introduce some O.C. style drama to the dynamic between the characters, and as a way of keeping Mary Jane in the picture. And even the romance between Peter and MJ tends more towards the sappy and overwrought on occasion. It certainly wasn't the film's strong suit.

Given that Spider-Man's origin story remains one of the best amongst all superheroes, the film very wisely chose to stick very closely to it. And I imagine it was quite the easy choice. After being gifted with his new powers Peter does what pretty much everyone of his age would do, he has fun with them and then thinks how he can use them for his own personal gain which unsurprisingly takes on the form of impressing Mary Jane. It's only through the death of his beloved uncle, and the guilt he feels due to his unwitting part in it, that Peter feels obligated to use his new-found abilities for a higher, more noble calling. As the iconic staple of Spider-Man goes, “with great power comes great responsibility.” And even with the film's light-hearted, breezy tone I admire the fact that the film shows the truth about heroism. It's not all parades and admiration. It shows the sacrifices that he must make and the pain that it causes him. Once more going back to its relation to 9/11, I imagine it rang a bell for a number of people given the ultimate sacrifice that numerous New York servicemen made that day. Though I do have some problems with the origin here, many of which were corrected in 2012's reboot. Given how important it was in the comics I'd have liked more time spent in high school, I'd have liked them to develop more the fact that Peter is a genius and also Flash Thompson just looks completely wrong! But I realise these are more the complaints of a Spidey fanboy than a movie viewer. :D

Film Trivia Snippets - During the film Uncle Ben claims to be 68 years old. At the time of filing however Cliff Robertson was actually 75, but this didn't stop the make-up artists from attempting to make him look older. /// When the project was first mooted in the late 1980s a whole host of actresses were considered for the role of Mary Jane Watson. This expansive list of recognisable names included Jennifer Jason Leigh, Ally Sheedy, Jodie Foster, Phoebe Cates, Bridget Fonda, Diane Lane, Sarah Jessica Parker, Brooke Shields, Kyra Sedgwick, Nicole Kidman, Julia Roberts, Molly Ringwald, Jennifer Aniston, Uma Thurman, Jennifer Connelly, Winona Ryder, Christina Applegate, Cameron Diaz, Alyssa Milano, Tori Spelling, Neve Campbell, Tiffani Amber Thiessen, Alyson Hannigan and Drew Barrymore. So pretty much every actress who was famous or would ever go on to be. When the film finally went into pre-production however, they were apparently all considered too old for the role. /// Once it did finally go into production Kate Hudson and Tara Reid were in strong contention, with Hudson a heavy favourite until she turned it down to star in The Four Feathers. Other acresses who did audition for the role included Alicia Witt, Mena Suvari, Elisha Cuthbert and Eliza Dushku. In fact Dushku can be seen during Tobey Maguire's screen test on the Spider-Man DVD. So the film does have some flaws. It's rather silly and sappy at points, with more than one unintentional laugh to be found along the way (Goblin interrupting Aunt May's prayers the most guilty). And I don't think that its score soars the way that the character does, proving to be rather flat and predictable too often I feel. The film's biggest problem however? Macy Gray! I mean really, Macy F*CKING Gray?!!! Who the hell thought her inclusion was a good idea? It's got to be one of the most dated elements of any film ever, right up there with flares in 70s flicks and mullets in the 80s. I mean I honestly don't think I've seen or even heard of her since this film was released.

For the most part the film's special effects still hold up. The only ones that don't work are the same effects which didn't work back then; most notably the scenes of Peter running and jumping across the rooftops. They just lack any depth or sense of reality, very video game looking. And no matter how many Spider-Man films there have now been, or how many times I've seen them, the moments of Spidey swinging through the streets of New York are still a great thrill. Especially for the Spider fanboy, which I most certainly am. And while the film's action may seem quite small and limited by today's standards, I will give the film credit for the fact that every bit of action has a purpose, both to the characters and the story. There's no sense of 'let's just throw these two guys together for a big ass fight' at any point. In fact it takes over an hour before we get our first example of 'costume on costume' combat. And as opposed to many of the huge-scale battles which close out superhero flicks, I really like the personal, brutal beatdown between Spidery and the Goblin at the abandoned building site.

Conclusion - It may now reside a touch in the shadow of both various films which followed in its wake and its own sequel, but the original Spider-Man film remains a very fun experience which helped to set the groundwork for all those films that followed. If I'm honest I've perhaps been a touch generous with my rating in terms of how I feel about this film these days. After numerous rewatches it's perhaps a smidge lower than that now. But still a lot of fun.