Change Your Image
coolmule
Reviews
South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut (1999)
Quite simply the funniest movie I've ever seen
*******some spoilers************
When South Park first appeared on TV, I thought it was one of the funniest things I'd ever seen, and for a short while it even replaced The Simpsons as my all time favourite TV show. But after a while I grew bored with it - the show seemed to be a one trick pony, and unlike The Simpsons it seemed it could only be funny when it was being offensive, even though I admired a TV show which went out of it's way to offend as many people as possible. So I didn't see South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut in a theatre. And that is something I've regretted ever since I saw the film on video, because it is quite simply: 1) the best comedy I have ever seen; 2) along with Monty Python's Life of Brian and Dr. Strangelove, the best satire I've ever seen; and 3) the best musical I have ever seen.
What, I hear you ask, the best musical I've ever seen? Better than Moulin Rouge or The Producers? You bet. Leaving aside for a moment the content of the lyrics, rarely can a film have featured so many instantly catchy songs, even if the majority of them are only 1 minute long. Their short length is actually a strength, making them more memorable and stopping the obscene content of the lyrics from seeming too gratuitous. Of course, the songs deliberately rip off virtually every other musical going, from Les Miserables to Disney's The Little Mermaid, but again this is a strength - all the melodies sound vaguely familiar, which makes the lyrics sound even more inappropriately funny. Actually the songs are almost like a form of punk, with their short length and ripped off melodies. And of course the lyrics. I would say at least 50% of what makes this film so hysterically funny and gloriously offensive are the songs. In particular "What Would Brian Boitano Do?", "Blame Canada", the "La Resistance" medley and "Kyle's Mom's a B***h" are brilliant, but standing head and shoulders above them all, at least in terms of offensiveness and being infectiously catchy is the now legendary "Uncle F***a". Make no mistake, you will be singing this tune out loud for at least two weeks after seeing the movie, often in the most inappropriate places. Trey Parker and Matt Stone must have realised the effect the song would have, as the film even makes a joke out of the its catchiness, with the boys constantly singing it out loud in class, on the street, etc.
As I said above, at least 50% of the comedy in this film probably comes from the songs, but that doesn't mean the other 40-odd% is any way substandard. Yes, most of it is based around deliberately gratuitous swearing and purposefully trying to offend as many people as possible, but this is necessary for the film's satire to work (more on this in a moment). The film's short running time means that the jokes come far thicker and faster than even in the likes of Airplane. I don't want to spoil any of it, but I will just say this - you will never have laughed so long or so hard as you will do on seeing this film. You will be sore laughing. Your head will hurt from laughing. I'm laughing thinking about the film as I type this.
South Park is so way out beyond the pale in terms of offensiveness that it would probably still be funny even if there was no point to it. But undoubtedly what elevates the film above other bad taste comedies to the level of a true classic is the satirical content. Of course there's the obvious satire of parent's blaming TV for their kid's behaviour instead of paying more attention to their offspring, but the film also riffs heavily on US foreign policy. Actually, for a film made four years before the current Gulf War, the film is frighteningly current - the US invades a country without UN backing and a comedy Saddam Hussein is cast as being in league with the Devil - axis of evil, anyone?
In summary, so long as you can stand an f word count of well over 100, not to mention over two hundred other profanities, numerous references to obscene sexual practices and bucketloads of gore in the war scenes, you owe it to yourself to give this film a chance - don't let the deliberately rubbish animation or your views of the TV show put you off, because otherwise you'll be missing out on the funniest 80 minutes in cinema history.
Rating - 9/10
Ed Wood (1994)
God loves a trier
*******some spoilers********
Definitely my favourite Tim Burton film, Ed Wood is a hilarious, touching tribute to cross dressing director Edward D Wood Jr, a man who just wanted to tell stories and make movies, and refused to let the fact that he was by far the worst filmmaker of all time to get in his way. The message in this film, as enunciated by Vincent D'Onofrio's Orson Welles in a scene where Ed meets the great man, is that visions are worth fighting for, even if, as in Ed's case, they're rubbish.
At the heart of the film is the friendship between Ed and fading horror icon Bela Lugosi. Despite the fact that so much of the film is laugh out loud funny, this core relationship is really quite moving. Martin Landau is quite superb as Lugosi, and some of his scenes will leave you close to tears - in particular when he goes cold turkey in rehab, and when he recites his 'atomic supermen' lines from Ed's film Bride of the Monster. The absurdity of the lines only seems to add to their poignancy. That's not to say that Landau doesn't have some screamingly funny lines - "Let's shot this f****r!".
Johnny Depp's portrayal of the eternally upbeat Ed is equally good - his sunny disposition in the face of adversity and point blank refusal to let the constant setbacks he faces get him down will leave a huge grin plastered on your face throughout the film. So maybe Ed's films were terrible, but it's hard not to feel any warmth towards him as we see him directing in drag or going to increasingly bizarre lengths to secure funding for his films. You can't help but share Ed's childlike enthusiasm for his work, as he announces that each take is 'perfect' no matter what went wrong.
The rest of the cast are great, particularly Bill Murray and Jeffrey Jones as members of Ed's bizarre retinue. Patricia Arquette yet again shows her knack for portraying characters which are just impossible to dislike, while Lisa Marie is jaw dropingly sexy as Vampira. Kudos must also go to Howard Shore for his wonderful 50's B-movie-esque score.
Above all Ed Wood is a paean to filmmaking, even as it affectionately pokes fun at 50's C movies. One last thing - anyone who hasn't seen Ed's infamous Plan 9 From Outer Space but who has considered watching it just to see how hilariously bad it really is could do worse than watch Ed Wood, as it lovingly recreates all the best bad bits from all of Ed's films.
Rating - 9/10
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Somewhat overrated - visually stunning and profound, but can be excruciatingly boring
*******some spoilers*******
2001 is a movie which I have watched several times in my life, and each time I try harder to 'get' it. When I first saw it I was too young to understand the themes, and was bored to tears, mainly because I was comparing it to Star Wars. Viewing it as an adult has changed my opinion - it's a visually stunning movie, with very profound themes and a prophetic grasp of space technology. However, it is by no means the best sci-fi film ever, or Stanley Kubricks best film, and in truth has not aged particularly well. But enough about that just now. Whats good about the film?
It boasts some of the most brilliantly composed shots I've ever seen, right from the beginning with the slow reveal of the Moon, the Earth and the Sun to the iconic strains of Strauss' Also Sprach Zarathustra. The zero gravity settings and the various methods used to combat the effects of zero-g enabled Kubrick to play lots of cool tricks with the camera with people walking upside down or seeming to walk on the ceiling. Then of course there's the famous cut from the ape throwing the bone in the air to the satellite floating in space - it's effect is somewhat lessened due to the fact that everyone knows about it now, but back in 1968 it must have been a startlingly original edit.
The choice of music in the film is superb - probably the best collection of sourced classical music that exists. The music so perfectly fits each scene that you would think that each piece had been written especially for the film, rather than selected from a record collection. In particular, aside from the above mentioned Also Sprach Zarathustra, there's Khachaturyan's Gayne Ballet Suite, which perfectly conveys the crushing loneliness of space travel (and was of course lifted by James Horner for use in the Aliens soundtrack), and Ligeti's Requien for Soprano, which after the Ark of the Covenant theme in Raiders of the Lost Ark is probably the creepiest piece of music I have ever heard in a film. I could probably do without the Blue Danube, but that's just my personal opinion of that piece, and it does lend the shots of satellites circling the Earth an almost balletic quality.
Arthur C Clarke's story is incredibly prophetic in it's grasp of developments in space technology, even if he was a bit too optimistic in the timescale within which he thought it could all be developed. Every ship looks like it could exist, and of course the film showed a lunar base a year before the first Apollo landing. This is all very much science heavy science fiction, rather than being a fantasy set in space a la Star Wars - the ships make no sound in the vacuum, unlike almost every other celluloid space ship. Clarke also of course predicts the development of Artificial Intelligence in HAL, and there are numerous other little touches of technological foresight - note what look like thin plasma screen TV's that the Astronauts watch the BBC broadcast on.
The themes of the story are incredibly profound, dealing with the evolution of man, and can be debated endlessly. For instance, am I the only person who noticed the symmetry of the monolith giving the ape intelligence, which it then uses to commit murder, and the development of self awareness in HAL (presumably due again to the monolith), who then goes on to murder the crew of the Discovery?
In addition, all the scenes with the apes are great - how would have thought to fill the first fifteen minutes of a sci-fi film with a short story about the family life of a group of early hominids? Also, Bowman shutting down HAL feels incredibly tragic, as the computer reverts to its 'childhood'. Of course, the infinitely weird ending can be puzzled over till the cows come home, but is again beautifully shot.
Writing all this makes me think I've been unfair to 2001, but being objective about it, I must say that the film shows its age. No doubt the special effects were stunning in 1968, and in truth still look great today, but the endless shots of spacecraft floating at a snails pace through space just take forever, and become mind numbingly boring after only a few minutes. I am a University graduate and consider myself reasonably intelligent, and am quite prepared to commit my attention to films which don't feature endless action scenes, but it's very hard to appreciate the themes in 2001 when for long stretches of the film absolutely nothing seems to be happening. It's not artistic, it's just boring. And to be honest, the sequence when Bowman goes through the Stargate just smacks of the psychedelic hippiedom of the times the film was shot in, and again seems to take forever.
Having said all this however, it must be acknowledged that 2001 is a groundbreaking film without which modern sci-fi films in all probability wouldn't exist, and probably deserves to be seen just for that reason alone.
Rating - 7/10
Dragonslayer (1981)
Will appeal to Lord of the Rings fans
******Warning, Spoilers*******
While by no means a great film, suffering as it does from wooden acting and some pretty annoying music, Dragonslayer is somewhat better than the rest of the early 80's sword and sorcery films and for fans of the fantasy genre is worth watching for several reasons.
Firstly, the look of the film is very close to the Lord of the Rings trilogy - a dirt-under-the-fingernails, earthy realism combining costume and set design which looks like it could have existed in the sixth century with sweeping shots of the Welsh and Scottish locations where the film was shot. Curly haired Peter MacNicol even looks like a Hobbit! This is all a world away from the muscular heroes, scantily clad damsels in distress and fake looking weapons and armour in most fantasy films of the time, and interestingly foreshadows the look of Peter Jackson's trilogy. As an example of this, if you can find it, check out the mocked up trailer for a supposed Peter Jackson production of The Hobbit which has been floating around on the net - it's interesting to note how well the shots from Dragonslayer used in the trailer fit in with the footage from The Fellowship of the Ring.
(As an aside, the other film which Dragonslayer reminded me of was, bizarrely, Monty Python and the Holy Grail - the title sequence and plinky plonky music could almost have been lifted directly from Holy Grail, and the shots at the end with Ralph Richardson standing on top of the mountain are almost laughably close to the Tim the Enchanter scenes, probably due to very similar locations being used in both films, both being shot on the Isle of Skye in Scotland.)
Secondly, the film explores some interesting themes, principally the spread of Christianity in sixth century Britain and the consequent decline of the old pagan ways, represented by magic, and for that matter, dragons. The fact that to destroy Vermithrax the source of magic in the film must also be destroyed is quite a clever metaphor for the changes of the times the film is set in. This is very similar to some of the underlying themes in Arthurian legend, so fans of Excalibur may want to check out Dragonslayer for this reason.
Lastly, an honorable mention must go to Phil Tippets wonderful, stop motion dragon effects, which still look great today - again, they don't look at all out of place on The Hobbit trailer. It's easy to see why ILM was nominated for a special effects oscar in 1982 for Dragonslayer. Anyone bored with modern CGI should check this out - I can't help but wish that ILM had gone back to these kind of effects for at least some of the special effects shots in the Star Wars prequels.
Ultimately, Dragonslayer was a brave attempt to do a realistic fantasy movie, being set as it is in the real world and concentrating on character development for long periods of the film (the dragon hardly features in the first hour). However, it doesn't quite succeed, mainly due to wooden acting, the wonderful John Hallam excepted, and somewhat unengaging direction. Also, the ridiculously jaunty music at the end is completely at odds with the tone of the rest of the movie. Still worth checking out for fans of fantasy films though.
Rating - 6/10
Star Wars (1977)
Best. Movie. Ever.
Whatever else George Lucas does in his career, and no matter how Episode III turns out, what no one can take away from him is that in Star Wars he created, IMHO, the greatest two hours of film in cinema history. And that's ignoring the fact that it's the first part in what is, again IMHO, the greatest movie trilogy of all time. There's probably nothing I can say about this movie that hasn't been said before, but who cares, I'll say it anyway. My thoughts on what makes this film so good are difficult to list in only a 1000 words, but here goes.
It's the most exciting two hours of film you'll ever see, featuring beautiful princesses, scary baddies, likeable rogues, daring-do and success against impossible odds. It has a masterfully crafted script, one that any student of screenwriting or film history should study, utilising a template of Joseph Campbell's hero's journey theory and Akira Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress. It's the perfect standalone adventure film, with a classic good against evil battle, yet at the same time hints at the existence of a much grander story that lends it a feeling of incredible depth. It's a film which can be enjoyed by kids and adults alike, and shows that the best kids movies, the ones that really stand the test of time, are the ones that don't set out to be kids movies in the first place, but just to be really good movies that will appeal to kids. It has the greatest opening sequence in film history, featuring the best special effect of all time. It has John Williams fantastic score, featuring the best title theme ever. And of course it has Darth Vader, quite simply the best villain in movie history (I still remember absolutely cacking myself as a kid when he breaks that Rebel troopers neck!).
I could go on, but there's really no point. It's been said before but I'll say it again, if you don't like Star Wars, do you really like movies at all? Yes, the dialogue is extremely ropey in places and some of the effects are starting to show their age, even allowing for the changes in the Special Edition. But like the ridiculous 70's hairdo's everyone sports and the fact that C-3P0 is so obviously gay, this just adds to the films charm. And so what if the fact that Star Wars still commands such affection is based on nostalgia? Even stripping all of that away it remains a tremendously exciting, brilliantly conceived film. The fact is that if I could only watch one more film in my life, then it would have to be Star Wars.
(Note - while I'm rating the film as 10/10, I have to subtract one point from the Special Edition, just for the fact that Greedo shooting first really detracts from Han Solo's hero's journey, and Han as a character, not to mention looking stupid.)
Rating - Original Edition - 10/10 Special Edition - 9/10
Independence Day (1996)
Excellent first hour let down by Yankee doodle dandy cheesiness in the last act
******Warning, Spoilers*******
This blend of 50's alien visitation flick, 70's disaster movie and 90's UFO paranoia has received a huge amount of criticism on this site. Undoubtedly some of it is merited, but much of it is unfair. Firstly, for it's first hour Independence Day is excellent. It comes closer than any other film to showing what the reality of massive alien ships suddenly turning up would actually be like (a mixture of mass panic and euphoria) while at the same time plays like a military technothriller, with lots of tense scenes in command centres, submarines and the White House. The shots of the alien craft arriving over New York, Washington and LA are hugely impressive and ominous, while the frequent use of TV news broadcasts lends the whole thing an air of believability (for more of this check out the 10 minute mockumentary on the DVD). Also, a great sense of tension is built up by Jeff Goldblum's character's discovery of the countdown signal.
The payoff of all of this is the second reason the film is worth a look, namely some of the most impressive visual effects you are ever likely to see. Even seven years on the shots of the White House and Empire State Building being obliterated are astonishing (although undoubtedly helped by the fact that they taker place in darkness). The effects throughout the rest of the film are excellent as well, and use a nice mixture of CGI, models and puppets, rather than being a total CGI fest.
So far, so good, and if the film had continued in this way it could have been a brilliant, dark sci-fi epic. Unfortunately, the last half of the film is crammed full of some of the most jingoistic, cringeworthy, America-saves-the-day dialogue you are ever likely to hear. To be honest, most of it is so bad that it's not even offensive, just hilarious - it's impossible to keep a straight face when Bill Pulman's President gives his 'Our Independence Day' speech. The English public schoolboy RAF pilots are equally good, for all the wrong reasons - "About bloody time, what do they intend to do?" - absolutely priceless!! Thoroughly bloody good chaps, all of them!
While it is possible to just laugh at the above examples, some of the other scenes towards the end of the film really do grate. I'm thinking here specifically of the downright patronising shots of arabs and africans celebrating the destruction of the alien ships courtesy of the good ol' US of A. The rest of the last hour is littered with dialogue which may not be particularly offensive, but is just plain cheesy.
As for other criticisms which people have mentioned, well, yes, the plot is full of holes, but so are the plots of films like The Empire Strikes Back and Raiders of the Lost Ark (how does the Falcon get to Bespin without a hyperdrive? How does Indy survive the journey to the Nazi hideout on the outside of a submarine?). The fact is that it's a tribute to 50's B-movies, and therefore like Star Wars and Indiana Jones it's plot shouldn't be scrutinised too closely. It has a sheen of reality, and that's enough. And as for saying that it started the trend towards big budget special effects at the expense of acting and story, well that's been said since King Kong came out.
As for the rest, the acting is OK, nothing special (although Will Smith does have some pretty funny one liners), with the music serving it's purpose without really being memorable. This film is very much a product of it's time - REM are on the radio and the X-Files is namechecked. This means of the course that the World Trade Centre is still a part of the New York skyline and it's a little disconcerting, post 9/11, seeing famous New York landmarks being obliterated. Still, the film is worth a look - just enjoy the excellent first hour, then pause the film, go and have a few beers and proceed to kill yourself laughing through the cheesy awfulness of the second hour!
Rating - 7/10
RoboCop (1987)
Brilliant, dystopian satire, with lashings of ultraviolence
******Warning, Spoilers********
The 1980's, for all its faults, was surely a golden age for intelligent sci-fi/action films - think The Terminator, Aliens and Predator. 1987's Robocop sits comfortably alongside these films as a classic of the genre. Despite the bucketloads of gore and a title which is absolutely ridiculous if one stops to think about, this is a film with heart and soul, and most importantly a message. Paul Verhoeven, directing his first US film, brings the critical eye of an outsider to the me-first decade, and uses the films futuristic setting to lampoon 80's corporate America for all it's worth. Everything bad about yuppie culture is taken to extremes - executives assassinate one another, are involved with organised crime, and see the fact that a fellow exec has been turned into a hamburger by a psychopathic robot as a 'temporary setback'. This is Wall Street with cyborgs and a wicked sense of humor.
What's amazing about this film is how tightly scripted it is. It clocks in at just 102 minutes, not one of which is wasted. Verhoeven cleverly uses fictional TV news and commercials to build the world the characters inhabit (a technique he would reuse to lesser effect in Total Recall and Starship Troopers), thereby dispensing with the need to have lots of long winded exposition scenes. These segments are where the films satire goes into overdrive - kids play with a high tech version of battleships called Nuke-Em' ("Get them before they get you!"), a car named a 6000 SUX is advertised, and a Star Wars strategic defence 'peace platform' incinerates Santa Barbera. The storyline itself is pretty standard comic book stuff - cop gets shot up and turned into cyborg and then has to regain his humanity, but it's told so well, and in such a brilliantly realised setting, that its elevated above its pulp origins.
The cast all turn in decent performances, particularly Kurtwood Smith as over-the-top baddie Clarence Boddicker. Also, if you've only ever seen Nancy Allen in Carrie, her turn as ass-kicking cop Ann Lewis is an eye opener. The violence, while extreme (even more so in the directors cut), is more often than not played for laughs - it's hard to take the bit when Emil drives into the toxic waste seriously. A word of praise also for Phil Tippets wonderful stop motion ED - 209.
In terms of being a movie with meaning, Robocop should probably be counted among Paul Verhoevens earlier Dutch work such as Soldier of Orange, rather than his later Hollywood offerings. Well worth a look if you only know him as the guy who directed Showgirls.
Rating - 8/10
Jurassic Park (1993)
Theme park ride of a movie
*****Warning, Spoilers*****
Jurassic Park, a movie about a theme park, really is a theme park ride in itself. There's no doubt the stars of the film are the dinosaurs, rather than the actors (indeed, by saving Sam Neil and co from the Raptors at the end of the film, the T-Rex is revealed to be the hero of the story), and Steven Spielberg uses all his expertise to showcase the remarkable creations of Stan Winston and ILM. 10 years on, the CG still looks great - obviously a quantum leap over earlier efforts from the likes of the Abyss and Terminator 2, but what's remarkable is how good it looks compared to more recent efforts. The Dinosaurs look completely realistic, lacking the cartoonish quality alot of recent CG has. Clearly a huge amount of care went into making the creatures seem like living, thinking animals. Credit must also go to Stan Winston for his fantastic animatronics - the sick Triceratops in particular is brilliant.
While this film lacks the heart of some of his other work, it's clear that few directors can do an action-adventure movie as well as Spielberg. I wasn't born when Jaws came out, but I can clearly remember my reaction in the cinema when I saw Jurassic Park 10 years ago, and I imagine that audiences in 1975 would have reacted in the same way - pressed back into the seat, heart pounding as, in this case the T-Rex pounds relentlessly after the heroes. Spielberg builds up the tension in these scenes masterfully, with the vibrations on the surface of the glass of water performing the same role as John Williams score in Jaws - letting the audience that something huge and extremely nasty will be appearing imminently. Speaking of John Williams, he of course turns in yet another instantly catchy score, even if its not quite on the same level as Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark.
In terms of performances, there's nothing particularly wrong with the film - Sam Neil, Laura Dern and the rest give perfectly creditable performances, but only Jeff Goldblum really rises above the ordinary, in part due to his character having all the best lines ("that is one big pile of Sh*t"). Where the film does fall down is in the inclusion of the awful annoying kids. Timmy in particular is like a prototype for Anakin Skywalker in The Phantom Menace, although admittedly Joseph Mazzello is a way better actor than Jake Lloyd. There was a time when Spielberg, and George Lucas for that matter, made blockbusters that didn't pull their punches, and appealed to millions of kids in doing so. Now it seems family entertainment means cute 8 year old heroes and FBI agents carrying walkie talkies instead of guns. Oh, well.
In summary Jurassic Park lacks the soul to be considered an all time great, but is still fantastic popcorn entertainment with some brilliant special effects.
Rating - 7/10
The Keep (1983)
If only this had been made 10 years later
*****Warning, Spoilers*********
The Keep is a movie with an extremely interesting premise, totally ruined by the worst excesses of 1980's tackiness. It's a shame because this film had so much potential, featuring as it does a strong cast, including Jurgen Prochnow, Ian McKellen and Gabriel Byrne, along with some very gothic scenery, which could have come straight out of a Hammer Horror film. The basic plot is fascinating, linking the ancient Hebrew legends of Golems with the Holocaust (the Golem says to Ian McKellen's character "They're killing our people?", before incinerating the Nazis). Another plus point is the fact that the film is viewed through the eyes of German soldiers, albeit with the cliched good whermacht vs evil nazis.
All of this adds up to a movie with the potential to be a superb gothic horror. Unfortunately Michael Mann and Tangerine Dream got in the way. It's hard to believe the director of Heat was responsible for this - then again he was the guy behind Miami vice so perhaps one shouldn't be surprised that so much of the film looks like an 80's music video, with it's billowing dry ice and frequent use of slow mo. This on its own would be forgivable were it not for the fact that it seems to be set up to serve the awful Tangerine Dream score. Now, I have nothing against synth scores. Used properly, as in Blade Runner or The Terminator they're just as effective as anything John Williams can come up with. But here the music is so jarringly inappropriate that it totally destroys any sense of tension the film might have. Check out the scene where the evil force is unleashed - a soldier is crawling along a narrow passage way, he's just about to get zapped, yet all the while we're being treated to an extremely loud piece of early 80's synth pop.
If only the score was the only problem, I might be able to get over it. But the fact that the direction is so shoddy makes the film very hard to watch. Despite the excellence of the cast, Michael Mann fails to coax great performances from any of them. Jurgen Prochnow and Gabriel Byrne are OK as the feuding officers but Ian McKellen turns in quite a disappointing performance. Additionally the plot, which is the films only real strong point, is extremely hard to follow - I only understood it because I had previously read a Horror Movie magazine supplement with a feature on the Keep. Nowhere in the film is it actually explained what a Golem is and why Scott Glen's character is hunting it. Also the special effects are poor even by 1983 standards. OK, so the creature itself does have some camp value, but the final battle scene looks like a sequence from Tron - something less flashy would have worked so much better, and certainly wouldn't have aged as badly.
Overall, given the strength of it's premise, this film was a disappointment, and serves to remind you of everything that was rubbish about the 1980's. I can't help but think how it would look had it been made in the 90's with the same cast but without Tangerine Dream.
Rating - 5/10
Forgotten Silver (1995)
An absolute treat
****Warning, Spoilers*******
Hopefully the success of Lord of the Rings will encourage more people to seek out this wonderful 1995 mockumentary. This short film not only showcases Peter Jackson's versatility as a director, but also acts as a tribute to the early pioneers of cimema. Yes, the whole thing is one big lie, but it's a lie which may just get casual viewers interested in the work of the likes of D.W. Griffith and the Lumiere brothers, who are regularly namechecked in the film.
At first sight, the story of New Zealand film pioneer Colin McKenzie is completely convincing. Details of his life are intercut with real historical events such as the First World War and the Spanish Civil War. The footage from McKenzie's films looks authentically degraded, just as if it had been shot on primitive cameras a century ago. Peter Jackson and co narrate the story in a completely straight, documentary style, while the inclusion of interviews with real life industry figures such as Harvey Weinstein, Leonard Maltin and Sam Neil lends the film an air of absolute authenticity (so much so that, as the DVD making-of reveals, for 24 hours after the initial showing of the film on TV, New Zealand thought it had discovered a lost national hero). But then little doubts start to creep in, and this is where much of the humour is. To say any more would be to spoil it, but needless to say much of the fun in Forgotten Silver comes from the fact that Peter Jackson and Costa Botes were so successful in pulling the wool over everyone's eyes while at the same time including absolutely outrageous details in McKenzie's life.
As a side note, it's interesting to note the similarities between McKenzie's epic production of Salome and Peter Jackson's real life epic of The Lord of the Rings, which was four years away from filming at the time of Forgotten Silver's release. Salome, the production of which makes the shooting of Apocalypse Now seem like the filming of an average episode of Friends, took it's creator five years to film, featured epic battle sequences and required a huge cast and the construction of massive sets in the New Zealand country side. Sound familiar? If nothing else, this is a spooky foreshadowing of Jackson's later career in one of his own films. Then again, maybe Jackson had always wanted to make an epic, but at that stage in his career had to settle for a fake one.
Either way, Forgotten Silver is an utterly delightful, charming hoax which surely deserves a wider audience.
Rating - 8/10
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990)
Not actually all that bad
Forget any memories you may have of the childish cartoons, TMNT is actually a half decent martial arts/adventure film with some nice comedy touches thrown in. The Turtles are basically Bill and Ted crossed with the Muppets crossed with Bruce Lee, so if you're a fan of any of these you'll find something to enjoy here.
Taking it's inspiration largely from the original comics, rather than the TV show, the film features some quite adult fight sequences (with, admittedly, many Jackie Chan-esque comedic touches) and a half-way believable story. Having said that, there's still enough pizza consumption and cowabunga-ing to keep us 80's nostalgics happy.
The film also receives plus marks for the wonderful work of Jim Henson's creature shop. What's the bets that if this was made today all the turtles and Splinter would be computer generated? Anyone who admires the skill and artistry of pre-CG special effects may want to check this out.
Like Transformers: The Movie this is an essentially light weight film which grew out of an 80's toy line yet remains watchable. Personally, I can't see many of today's 10 year olds sitting down to watch Pokemon : The Movie in 15 years time.
Rating - 6/10
Judge Dredd (1995)
Fair Sci Fi/Action flick
Unless you're a rabid 2000 AD fan who can't get past Dredd taking off his helmet, this movie is marginally enjoyable sci-fi/action fare which should appeal to fans of the genre and certainly doesn't deserve all the criticism posted on this site.
True, Sly Stallone turns in a woeful performance, and the script isn't really up to much, but this is compensated for with decent enough support from the likes of Max Von Sydow and some truly stunning visuals. It's this that saves the film from mediocrity, as we're presented with a visualisation of the future which is over-the-top but at the same time gritty and believable. The vistas of Mega City One are every bit as impressive as the city scapes in The Fifth Element and Attack of the Clones, and are alot more believable and detailed to boot. In my opinion, this is what is Coruscant should have looked like in the Star Wars prequels. Additionally, in the ABC Warrior, the movie boasts probably the most impressive robot ever to appear on screen. The special effects, with the exception of some truly awful compositing in the bike chase sequence, are all top notch, and have a warmth lacking in modern CG.
The real problem with this film though isn't the acting but the length - at only 96 minutes it makes same the mistake as X-Men of having to set up characters and provide a resolution in far too short a space of time. It's just a shame that the technical skill and artistry that went into making this film couldn't have been provided with a better story.
Rating - 6/10
The Elephant Man (1980)
The most moving film I have ever seen
****Warning, Spoilers******
The Elephant Man is one of my all time favourite films - a true story of human dignity and friendship, set against a background of the bigotry, brutality and hypocrisy of Victorian society. This is the only film which has ever made me cry - I defy anyone to watch the scene where John Merrick recites the 23rd Psalm and not shed a tear.
David Lynch shot the film in black and white, which gives the whole thing a very gothic, nightmarish feel. It's not going too far to say there's a palpable sense of evil in some of the scenes. Set against this is a truly wonderful cast (including a very young Dexter Fletcher and R2-D2's Kenny Baker!). John Gielgud and Anne Bancroft are as good as you would expect them to be, but the film undoubtedly turns on absolutely magnificent performances from Anthony Hopkins as Dr. Frederick Treves and John Hurt (unrecognisable in his Elephant Man make up) as John Merrick.
Both actors give performances that will leave you never doubting the inherent decency and goodness of the human spirit ever again. John Hurt plays a man who has every reason to hate the world he was born into, but instead displays amazing reserves of dignity, courage and kindness. Anthony Hopkin's Frerderik Treves gives hope to us all as his relationship with Merrick changes from one of pity and medical analysis to a genuine friendship. The dilemma at the centre of Hopkin's character serves to highlight the hypocrisy of the society he lives in - he may have rescued John Merrik from being a circus freak, but has that only succeeded in turning him into another exhibit, albeit one to be viewed by Treves' medical colleagues and upper class voyeurs?
I cannot praise this film enough - as Barber's Adagio for Strings plays at the end you will never have felt so moved or uplifted. Do yourself a favour and see it at once.
Rating - 10/10
The Transformers: The Movie (1986)
80's nostalgia trip
****Warning, Spoilers****
OK, so its basically a 90 minute toy commercial, but Transformers: The Movie is actually quite a fun trip down memory lane for 80's kids like myself. The Transformers may have been the Pokemon of 1986, but unlike Pikachu and his annoying brethren, you don't have to be 5 to appreciate it.
The plot totally rips of Star Wars (to the extent that the movie begins with a Lucas-esque opening crawl), but don't hold that against it - the first 25 minutes especially are actually pretty gripping, as the giant planet devourer Unicron rips apart a world while the Transformers continue their age old civil war with the Decepticons attacking the Autobot city on Earth. You've got to admire a film that kills off the hero of an entire generation of adolescent boys before we're even half way through (even if it was only done to clear the shelves for a new batch of toys). After that things deteriorate a bit, with some annoying editing that seems designed to incorporate commercial breaks or the Transformers familiar spinning logo, but it still builds up to a rousing conclusion.
The dialogue is quite amusing in parts, especially the scenes involving the Dinobots, Kup or the TV talking Wrek Gar, with quite a diverse range of vocal talent on display, including a last film role for Orson Welles. The animation is probably the thing that's aged least well, as it's not a patch on the likes of Princess Mononoke or Akira. It still looks OK however, and adds to the films sense of retro cool.
Probably the best thing about the film though is the pounding 80's Power Rock soundtrack. Yes, it's extremely cheesy, but the little kid inside you will undoubtly start to jump up and down as Optimus Prime goes into battle accompanied by Stan Bush's The Touch.
Rating - 6/10
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
Good addition to the saga, and far better than Episode I
****Warning, spoilers ahoy*****
First off, you're unlikely to enjoy this movie unless you've both seen and enjoyed the other Star Wars movies (well, at least enjoyed the original trilogy) because :
A) You won't know what's going on otherwise, and; B) If you don't like Star Wars in general, you're not going to be able to overlook it's flaws and enjoy the many good things about it
Secondly, much of the criticism of this movie is unfair. In terms of special effects and sound the film is of course brilliant, but it's also better in every department than the mediocre Phantom Menace - tighter direction, better dialogue, less Jar Jar (and when he does appear he's actually funny and has a purpose), more adult action sequences. Hayden Christenson excepted, the cast range from at least good to great - Ewan McGregor, Iain McDiarmid, Christopher Lee, Samuel L Jackson and Natalie Portman all turn in performances which, while lacking some of the spark present in the original trilogy, are at least as good as those in the average Hollywood blockbuster.
The score does borrow from the other four films, but when it does recycle this music it's almost always done in a really effective way - note the use of the Imperial March as the stormtroopers board their ships to begin the clone war. And the score does contain the lovely, original, Across the Stars.
The plot, which was the Phantom Menace's strongest point, is again particularly good, and deals with some quite adult themes - the Galactic Senate, filled with greedy, corrupt politicians, is manipulated into creating the clone army (which we know from the original trilogy will form the basis of the Empire's military might) to fight a war which was instigated by the Sith purely to allow the creation of this army. It's a shame the sequence of Amidala arguing against the creation of the army (available on the DVD) was deleted - the idea of a military/industrial complex taking over a society from within and needing a war to justify this is actually quite prescient.
This is not to say that the movie is flawless, or as good as the original trilogy. The editing in the middle of the film is quite shoddy - constantly jumping from Anakin and Amidala falling in love to Obi Wan investigating the clones. Just when a scene starts to get interesting we're off to the other side of the galaxy. Also, the amount of CGI used is ridiculous - fair enough, many of the sequences simply couldn't be created without extensive use of CG, but one has to question the fact that every single stormtrooper in the film was computer generated. I can't help but think that the amount of blue screen needed for this must have affected the actors performances. And no matter how good CG is, it just can't replicate the randomness of the real world - many of the backgrounds in the film just look a little too perfect, and everything seems to lack the washed out colour of the original trilogy. Everything in the originals looked real, whereas in Attack of the Clones many of the sequences look like cut scenes from a playstation game.
In addition, it has to be said that for large parts of the film Hayden Christensen delivers quite a wooden perfomance (although it has to be said he's still an improvement on Jake Lloyd). It doesn't help that alot of his dialogue also feels clumsy and corny - it's hard not to watch the love sequences and not squirm, but it's telling that Natalie Portman gives a far stronger performance than Hayden in these scenes. Some of the dialogue in the rest of the film, particularly C-3P0's awful gags in the arena battle, is also quite wooden, although alot better than that in the Phantom Menace.
However, if you can forgive these flaws you'll be rewarded with a film which is a worthy addition to the Star Wars saga, and which contains some absolutely classic Star Wars sequences - Obi Wan fighting Jango Fett on the landing platform, Anakin racing into the desert as the Skywalker theme segues into Duel of the Fates, the Jedi kicking serious ass in the arena battle, Anakin and Obi Wan's furious argument aboard the gunship, the astonishing battle scenes at the end (with the irony of the Jedi leading the stormtroopers into battle), Yoda fighting, and my personal favourite, Yoda teaching the Jedi kids. These scenes sum up everything Star Wars is about, and are easily on a par with the original trilogy.
Let's just hope the upward curve continues come Episode III.
Rating - 7/10