Change Your Image
"boz"
Reviews
Holy Smoke (1999)
An exceedingly funny comedy set in a horrible place full of horrible people.
Well, I saw the preview for this film in London and I was most intrigued, for I had previously read the novel (also written by director Jane Campion along with her sister Anna). The book was enjoyable enough to read, although there are some places where there is a certain lack of style, making you occasionally wonder why such a book was written.
However, from seeing the movie it was fairly obvious the book was mainly written for the film adaptation as a lot of the story's aspects work much better on screen, and so it is consequently much better as a film.
From the film's superbly portrayed credits, one can tell that this picture has a certain unique quality absent from mainstream cinema. It begins with a 20-year-old Australian Ruth Barron (Kate Winslet) and her time in India as a member of a religious sect led by a Guru, "Baba". Her deeply worried family back in Australia send her mother (Julie Hamilton) to find her in India, only to unsuccessfully attempt to bring her back to Australia under the false news that Ruth's father (Tim Robertson) is ill and dying. The only reason why Ruth returns is due to her mother having a severe asthma attack and her having to be taken back home in medical care on a plane. Once arrived, Ruth begins to settle in to her old family, but only temporarily. Soon she discovers her father's true condition, and that her family simply lured her to Australia in order to banish her from the Indian cult. What's more, the family have payed a large sum of money to a cult de-programmer from the United States called PJ Waters (Harvey Keitel). His plan is to mentally break down Ruth in order for her to lose her faith in the sect. He is given some time alone with her in a hut in the middle of the desert, it's only then when things begin to really get out of hand...
"Holy Smoke" is a darkly comic tale with some great acting, its tragi-comic style working very well. Several aspects of the book are much improved here.
The film brings out the more humorous side of the events. The most comic part of the film is Ruth's Australian working class family, hilariously and mercilessly portrayed as ignorant half-wits. Many of the film's dialogue is a lot funnier on film compared to the book because of the crass Australian accent (absent from the book) behind it. This illustrated by one excellent line near the beginning of the film in which a man introduces the idea of de-programming to Ruth's family and in the middle of his speech he talks about how he can wake up and say to himself every morning, "I'm fat, mate." Also, Harvey Keitel's cool, relaxed American character PJ Waters contrasts very well with the Australian backdrop, one of my favourite lines of the film being when he wakes up next to Ruth having reluctantly slept with her the previous night. His voice-over heralds the new morning with the words, "Day Three.....S***!" But not all of the film is comic; indeed, there are some scenes in the picture which are almost harrowing, one of the most memorable scenes being that of Kate Winslet wondering naked across the desert in the middle of the night, totally degraded and brainwashed, eventually urinating in front of the shocked PJ.
The film is a picture that simply has to be seen by anyone who has a reasonably good sense of black humour. There are outstanding performances from Keitel and Winslet, and a strong supporting cast, with some good performances from Sophie Lee as Ruth's sister and Pam Grier in her brief appearance as PJ's girlfriend. The soundtrack is also impressive, with a wonderful laid-back style. Overall, the film's blending with pathos and humour makes it very memorable and affective. One to watch!
Hideous Kinky (1998)
Makes a change, at least!
I liked this film. I recall purchasing the Esther Freud novel a few years ago and I honestly must say that reading it was a pretty tedious affair; even for a novel, its pace was sometimes excruciatingly slow and its adequate use of character development greatly marred by the story's very weak plot. When I heard that director Gillies Mackinnon was producing a film adaptation of Hideous Kinky I had very large doubts. From reading the first few pages of the book, you could tell that this was not something that could be adapted to screen with ease.
Hideous Kinky (its mysterious title derived from the two girls' favourite words) is a semi-autobiographical story by Esther Freud, concerning her time in Morocco during the early seventies. Julia (Kate Winslet) and her two daughters Bea (Bella Riza) and Lucy (Carrie Mullan) have left London and Julia's husband (a character that is often talked of but intriguingly never seen) in order to move to Africa, living an unstable life in the north of Morocco. Soon Julia meets Bilal al Hamal (Said Taghmaoui), a poor man who works as a public entertainer and acrobat, with whom she soon falls in love. Life seems reasonably stable but very depressing and uncomfortable, and Julia's various attempts to find work are all flawed, forcing her to move and so leave Bilal and his newly found occupation behind. She attempts to become a Sufi in a Muslim monastery. However, upon her return she discovers that her eldest daughter has gone missing from the apparently reliable company of Santoni (Pierre Clementi) during her travels. She finds her in a convent school, later discovering that she is severely ill. Upon her recovery, the returned Bilal manages to sell a stolen item and therefore buy tickets for the family back to London in order for Bea to be treated properly.
The film is handled with masterful style, and is often a great improvement on the novel. Many scenes are cut shorter and sometimes deleted (as they should be with a film adaptation), the faster pace therefore rendering the plot more interesting. The visually clever and sometimes awe-inspiring touches that occur in the film throughout also add depth, as does the film's music, which effectively blends the traditional hippie atmosphere of the time with the country's hypnotic rural rhythms. What's more, the performances are first-rate all round, especially the two young actresses Bella Riza and Carrie Mulan (the film's real stars), playing the two daughters aged 6 and 8, Riza arguably the weaker of the two, but in no way discredited. The star presence, Kate Winslet, complete with long hair, bracelets and the usual hippie gear, makes you wonder at the fact that this was almost instantly filmed after the box-office smash, "Titanic," the contrast (especially in appearance) from the previous film is just one of the aspects of this film that illustrates how good an actress she is. Said Taghmauoi plays Bilal, his appearance is a little briefer than the other three characters. His deliverance of lines may be a little weak at times but his character and its background allows us to let it pass. Good supporting roles also from the likes of Abigail Cruttenden and Pierre Clementi.
Some may complain of the film's occasionally tedious sentimentality, but this picture gives us a pleasant rest from the usual Hollywood film full of unnecessarily foul language, gratuitous sex and heavy gore. Simply enjoy a wonderful film of style that deserves more recognition.
Analyze This (1999)
Very funny in parts...
Well, I've just seen "Analyze This" at the cinema. This film seemed an amusing story judging from the trailer. Quite a good idea, Robert DeNiro and Billy Crystal could make a great double act!
Ben Sobol (Crystal) is a psychiatrist who lives a stable life with his teenage son and is soon to be married to retired TV news reporter Laura MacNamara (Lisa Kudrow). However, after a brief and purely accidental encounter with a member of the mafia "Jelly" (Joe Viterelli, excellent), he is soon dragged into meeting the country's most renowned Mafia boss Paul Vitti (DeNiro), who is currently experiencing problems in his job. He begins to soften up a little, has frequent panic attacks and has difficulties in his profoundly immoral sex life. He needs help from a "head doctor," a psychiatrist, i.e. Mr Sobol. Ben Sobol soon has his life invaded by the mafia, even during his vacation, eventually his wedding is ruined by Vitti and his men after a little bit of violence. His relationship with the mafia boss is now colder than ever and after a few mishaps and a second unsuccessful attempt at his marriage, Sobol ends up being Vitti's "consigliere" at a very important and highly dangerous secret meeting between the country's leading mafia families, led by rival Primo Sindone (Chazz Palminteri).
The film is very funny in parts but occasionally there are places in the film that become somewhat tedious. The idea is a very clever twist but not one that could easily be stretched out over a period of over 100 minutes adequately, and even the masterful skill of Harold Ramis (director of the hilariously funny "Groundhog Day") cannot hide the fact from us, resulting in an occasional sense of flatness in the film. The performances are reasonably good, the best of them being that of Billy Crystal, although some of his lines in the film's major final scene are a little similar to the film, "Mickey Blue Eyes," which was released not long before. Robert DeNiro is also quite enjoyable to watch, though some of his crying scenes seem a little awkward. Other performances from Lisa Kudrow and Chazz Palminteri are also done well, though neither of the latter two are featured as much as I thought they should have been.
So, see this film expecting an enjoyable black comedy, though don't set your hopes too high, or you might just be a little disappointed.
Morgan: A Suitable Case for Treatment (1966)
Although a classic cult film of the 60's, this film, when studied properly, has its definite faults.
David Warner is one of my favourite actors. He often appears in minor roles nowadays and gives the leads great support with his excellent performances, and his position down the cast list does enable him to be offered a wide range of characters. However, this has caused him to be one of the most underrated actors around today and unlike his English equivalents (John Hurt, Ian Holm, etc.) he has never been really appreciated enough by those outside the UK. It was with great interest, therefore, that I was given a chance to see one David Warner's first films after "Tom Jones" (1963), "Morgan, A Suitable Case for Treatment," a film adapted from a television play by writer David Mercer, in which Warner takes for the only time in his career, the definite title role in a movie, starring alongside then-first-timer Vanessa Redgrave.
Warner plays Morgan Delt, a barely sane man who has just had a divorce from his beautiful wife, Leonie (Redgrave), much to his secret dismay. As a consequence, Morgan begins to sabotage Leonie's second marriage to his former-best-friend Charles Napier (Robert Stephens), attempting various types of distractions which are characteristic of the man himself. He plays sounds from records to disturb the couple at dinner, re-wires Leonie's house, dresses up as a gorilla, and even plants bombs during a brief visitation from Leonie's mother. Soon he begins to dream, mostly about his obsession with gorillas but also of his mock execution, he believes himself to not only to be insane but also illegal.
This depiction of madness, however, barely works at all, the adaptation of this story from television to screen being probably the main reason for it. The acting is fine, Redgrave is brilliant and Warner, perfectly cast for once in his career, is superb, the supporting cast are also impressive, including a nice cameo from actress Irene Handl as Morgan's mother, it's just that the film doesn't quite work. "A Suitable Case for Treatment" does have some hilariously funny moments which are highly memorable in fact, but the film as a general whole doesn't succeed. See it if you can, but expect some disappointment.
The Crow (1994)
The script may not be excellent, but who cares!? It looks fantastic!
I had only heard one story concerning the making of "The Crow," and that is that the film's star was accidently killed by a badly loaded blank gun during one of the picture's shooting scenes. Maybe this incident brought a little more attention and praise to picture during its release than it should have had. Then again, maybe not.
This is a violent, action-packed revenge horror/thriller with a little twist, the supernatural character is the protagonist. The film begins with the consequences of the brutal murder of rock-star Ernie Hudson (Brandon Lee) in his apartment, and also the assault, rape and eventual death his girlfriend Shelly Webster (Sofia Shinas), this being one of the activities of a rough gang of four, motivated by the day being the eve of Halloween, named by many as "Devil's Night." The police investigate, one of them being policeman Albrecht (Ernie Hudson), who has the daunting task of explaining the news to the couple's adopted daughter, Sarah (Rochelle Davis). One year later, Sarah is now mostly in the care of Albrecht and many of the city's criminals begin to prepare for another night's demolition and arson of the city's buildings. Under the belief that a crow carries a person's soul to heaven, and that, if grieved enough, the soul can be returned to the person's body in order to put the wrong things right, the resurrected Ernie Hudson appears from the grave, ready to have revenge on the gang who killed him and his girlfriend, the leader of the gang being the truly evil Top Dollar (Michael Wincott).
Some of the lines are a little too vulgar, and I'm not so sure about some of the characterisation. The film even gets a little sentimental at times, but that does not ruin the picture. The action scenes are great, one of them being a strong contender for the best shoot-em-up I have ever seen! Unfortunately, that was the scene in which Lee died. What's more, some of the photography is totally awesome. The film contains such startling and wonderful imagery which has never been seen in any other American film. So, if you want to see a film that has plenty of thrills and amazing visuals, this is the film for you!
L.A. Confidential (1997)
"The best crime drama made since Chinatown?'" I don't think so.
I hadn't seen this film when it had come out in the cinemas, but telling from the general reception that the picture received, I assumed that this was going to something special. Its premise seemed good enough; a violent, entertaining and cleverly plotted crime thriller based on a novel by acclaimed writer James Ellroy. Its large amount of Oscar nominations, especially considering the fact that it was contending against the enormously successful film of that year, "Titanic," which may not have been awful but was too greatly rewarded. However, this is not a great movie, and it certainly does not deserve a firm position in so many lists of the Top 100 films made of all time.
It must be said that the film is a reasonably well made, quite watchable and an often entertaining movie. I just want to clear up any suspicion saying that I believe this is absolute trash, in fact I must admit that the film is at least as good as the more successful "Titanic." It's just that in the wake of the Cameron-directed box-office smash, this film was much too highly regarded by many of the rightful rebels of mainstream Hollywood cinema. People were then drawn into believing that this was a superb film due more to the film's making and background, rather than actually analysing the quality of the film itself.
"LA Confidential" is a very complicated and clearly adapted film set in the darker aspects of Los Angeles in the 1950's, the huge amounts of violent crimes, trading narcotics and police corruption contrasting against the city's then-glamorous image. The story deals with a mass homicide at an all-night diner, into which Police Lt. Ed Exley (Guy Pearce) investigates. He finds that one the murder's victims is the former suspended partner of policeman Bud White (Russel Crowe). The police force then investigates into the case, soon resulting into a complicated plot involving the false arrest and killings of three negro suspects, richman Pierce Patchett (David Straithairn), his high class pornography trade and Officer White's involvement with one of his prostitutes (Veronica Lake lookalike Kim Basinger), the partnership of detective Jack Vincennes (Kevin Spacey) and crime-news writer Sid Hudgeons (Danny DeVito) and their involvement in the investigation of trading in narcotics and the movies, Police Captain Dudley Smith (James Cromwell) and young officer Ed Exley's problems with his popularity in the police force.
Seems like a bit of a mouthful? Let me assure you, it is. I had to see it three times before I could fully understand the plot, and I don't think the exposition of the storyline is handled all that well. Some of the lines (especially Basinger's) are as pretentious and detestable as in any crappy Hollywood movie, and most of the film is quite uninvolving in both characterisation and storyline. Acting is fine, considering the lines the actors have, and some performances are a whole lot better than others. Also, the film's adaptation from a modern crime novel is often too obvious.
I'm that there are some who absolutely despise this movie, and I can understand them. I, myself don't hate the film, nor do I think it very poor, I just think that these so-called experienced critics should not be so blind, ignorant and have such a "go-with-the-flow" attitude as they have clearly had with this film. Don't go seeing this expecting an absolutely brilliant film, for I assure you, it is not.
Mickey Blue Eyes (1999)
A nice enough film, though nothing special.
"Nine Months", "Sense and Sensibility," "Four Weddings and a Funeral", "Notting Hill" and now this. Hugh Grant's stereotyped roles seem to be getting a little tiresome by now, don't you think? I mean, sure his typical role as a stammering shy very polite and good-mannered Englishman, often placed in a "Fish-out-of-water" situation, usually America, do cause laughs and hilarity at first, but by now it simply isn't funny anymore!
However, it must be said, despite Hugh Grant in his all-too-familiar role, the film has tried hard in trying to make us laugh, especially in other aspects. Unlike any other Grant film, this picture does actually take quite a serious and often grim situation and illustrates the funny side of it, most of the humour being quite intriguingly black. But then again, quite a lot of the film's gags are half-hearted parodies of the more serious Mafia pictures, such as "Casino", "Goodfellas," and (most prominently), The Godfather Trilogy, considering the fact that one the Trilogy's cast members plays a leading role in this film (James Caan, who without doubt gets the most credit in this movie).
The film deals with witty Englishman Michael Felgate (Hugh Grant) who lives in New York and has a comfortable occupation as an auctioneer for many art paintings. When he asks his girlfriend Gina (Jeanne Tripplehorn) to marry him, she surprisingly refuses, later claiming that he can't marry her because of her family. Soon Michael is introduced to the family, who turn out to be the leaders of a well-known Mafiosi crime mob, Gina's father (Caan) being one of the leaders. Soon Felgate (nicknamed "Mickey Blue Eyes" by the mob) gets reluctantly involved in the organised crime world, only to result in drastic consequences...
Sure, it is a little silly in some places. And I suppose that the characters do lack a little originality, though if you are a Hugh Grant fan, I encourage you to go and see it. I'm just saying that this is not a film to be overrated.
The Godfather Trilogy: 1901-1980 (1992)
A truly fascinating and well-devised saga.
In 1972 and 1974 Francis Ford Coppola in association with novel-writer Mario Puzo created two of the most critically acclaimed films in motion picture history, and either of them being strong contenders for the best picture ever made. Sixteen years later, Coppola and Puzo teamed up again to create an intriguing third installment, continuing the incredible saga set around 20 years after the events portrayed in the first two films. Now we can see all three superb films combined, carefully and effectively edited and containing scenes previously cut from original theatre versions. "The Godfather Trilogy: 1901-1980" is one of the finest pieces of cinema art.
The truly epic and grandness of the saga can now be appreciated in its full when the whole 9hrs and 32mins can be seen at once, what's more, it is in perfect chronological order.
The trilogy begins with The Young Vito Corleone (Robert DeNiro) and his rise to power in New York, this originally being a prologue to "The Godfather, Part II" is now placed right at the start of the saga, making the later flashbacks of DeNiro much more effective and it sets the scene beautifully for the following wedding scene at the beginning of the original "Godfather" film. Instead of being plunged into exposition far too quickly, as in the original cut of the first film, the exposition here is much more effective. The scene takes place at the wedding of the ageing Vito's (Marlon Brando) daughter Connie (Talia Shire) and it introduces his three sons, Sonny (James Caan), Fredo (John Cazale) and Michael (Al Pacino) along with Vito's adopted son and lawyer Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall), soon we are presented with the familiar though very interesting plot, including severed horse's heads, a lot of gunfire and various questions of morality. The final scene of the first film is immediately followed by the continuation of the same plot in "The Godfather, Part II," this being another masterful act of editing. The consequences at the end of the second film (particularly the death of Fredo) are therefore a lot more harrowing and effective.
Soon, we are elegantly taken to the events surrounding the ageing Michael Corleone, including the surviving members of the original films and also introducing a whole new generation of people including Sonny's illegitimate son Vincent (Andy Garcia) and Michael's own daughter (Sofia Coppola), and there is another opposition character in the form of Joey Zasa (Joe Mantegna) and so the story continues, this with an even more grim and equally powerful finale.
On a whole, this is simply a masterpiece, the story exceedingly effective (being based from Mario Puzo's successful novels) and the acting (particularly in the first two films) impeccable. To see it is more of an experience than anything else.
Wild Wild West (1999)
Overall acceptable, though a bit flat and often far too slow.
The last film I saw directed by Barry Sonnenfield before seeing his latest film, "Wild Wild West" was his adaptation of the popular Elmore Leonard novel, "Get Shorty," a superbly funny and enjoyable film boasting a good cast including John Travolta and Gene Hackman and a film which is still undoubtedly Sonnenfield's best. When hearing about his next film, "Wild Wild West," I did anxiously expect to see a similar movie of the same calibre, the film having an excellent cast and a promising story as it seemed from the film's trailer. The wonderful music video gave me a sense that Sonnenfield's film would be one of the most fast-moving, hilariously funny blockbusters of the year!
When I saw the film on its British release, I found the film completely different to what I had expected. I found the first half hour so slow and uneventful that I was soon suffering from extreme boredom, the small amount of material in the scenes nowhere near enough in quantity to keep us interested for such a long amount of time.
The overall plot takes place over a hundred years ago in the usual Western setting and deals with the President of the United States hiring the two best guns in the West, handsome gunslinger James West (Will Smith) and mechanical whizz-kid Artemus Gordon (Kevin Kline) to discover the mysterious kidnappings of many scientists by a certain General "Bloodbath" McGrath (Ted Levine). This leads them to discover that the entire scheme is one led by the supposedly-dead and legless Dr. Arliss Loveless (Kenneth Branagh), whose plan is to assassinate the President and divide the United States, with a little help from the likes of his own magnetically charged flying decapitator and a gigantic mechanical tarantula along with his selection of dangerously seductive accomplices. Providing the romance is brothel-woman Rita Escobar (Salma Hayek), who is reluctantly taken with the two in order for her to find her allegedly kidnapped father.
It seems like something fun, but most of these things are introduced far too late. After the long prologue, things do pick up quite a bit, with some genuinely funny moments and enjoyable action, but the lack of pace still tends to creep up every now and then. I'm not saying the film is awful, in fact most of the material and acting is absolutely fine, it's just that Sonnenfield really should have shortened the film by about 30 minutes, making it far more enjoyable. Still worth seeing if particularly favour some the actors, however, especially Smith!
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)
Certainly not as bad as some claim it to be, though not on a par with the original trilogy
About two months before "Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace" was released in Britain, the film's surrounding elements made the picture seem almost destined to become an enormous disappointment.
"Star Wars: Episode I" is the first of a trilogy of prequels to the original successful "Star Wars Trilogy" made around twenty years ago. The enormous popularity of the films "Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope" (1977), "Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back" (1980) and "Episode VI - The Return of the Jedi"(1983) resulted in enormous anticipation for the creation of another trilogy of Star Wars episodes relating to the original story. The enormous excitement had increased even further with the delay of time between the movies, especially with a new generation of Star Wars fans taking an equal amount of interest. This expectancy from many for George Lucas to produce an unforgettable, out-of-this-world, epic-style experience in contrast to the general surprise at the releases of the original trilogy seemed a perfect recipe for an enormous disappointment from many on seeing the film itself (especially from the hard-core fans) no matter how good the film was. What's more, the early comments and reviews of the seemed to suggest that this was not any good in the first place! Some dismissed the picture as "utter trash" and "gold-plated rubbish." All this seemed to add up to a huge failure...
How pleased I was when I saw "Episode I" on the day of its British release at my local cinema. I was relieved that I could honestly assure myself that I certainly had not wasted my money on buying my cinema ticket, far from it in fact. I found the film highly enjoyable and interesting. "The Phantom Menace" takes place 32 years before the events that are portrayed in the first Star Wars film. The movie deals with the evil Trade Federation's attempts to take over the peaceful planet of Naboo, ruled by Queen Amidala (Natalie Portman) and the Jedi Knights Qui-Gon Jinn (Liam Neeson) and a young Obi-Wan Kanobi (Ewan McGregor) and their battle with the Federation's leader Darth Sidious and his apprentice Darth Maul (and underused Ray Park). It also deals with Senator Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) and his corrupt rise to power, and, most importantly, Qui Gon's apprenticeship of a slave-boy named Anakin Skywalker (played by young actor Jake Lloyd), who lives in the planet Tatooine with his mother (Pernilla August) and is liberated by winning a public pod race. Young Anakin would later become the well-known figure of Darth Vader who appears in the original trilogy.
Of course, the film does have its obvious faults, especially in aspects of characterisation and acting. Neeson and McGregor's all too hammy performances often contrasting badly against the ridiculously contemporary character of Anakin (illustrated by by some of his words coming accross as very unlikely to still be in existence thousands of years into the future, such as "sure" and "I guess so"! But that's Hollywood for you). Also, the baffling and most irritating character of Jar-Jar Binks. He pays no contribution to the film's plot and many other scenes not involving him are much funnier than any of his lines. This leaving only Portman, who, although her duel performance as Queen Amidala and her maid Padme is done well despite her odd Anglo-American accent and sometimes ridiculous outfits, is hushed up in the wake of the other performances.
That said, the storyline itself is exceedingly clever and sometimes fascinating, George Lucas's revived style of directing is one to be admired, and John Williams's superb score is one of the finest of his career. And, most prominently, the visual effects are simply astonishing. The film looks so wonderful and at such a constant rate that the rest of film's aspects could simply be ignored. Not the best film ever made, though if viewed in the right mood, an excellent piece of entertainment.