Change Your Image
duvel71
Reviews
The Best House in London (1969)
Thoroughly enjoyable
Like a great deal of British comedy of the time, The Best House In London ends up degenerating into wacky silliness toward the end. But then, when you've referenced just about every other British literary genius and comic of the last two centuries, failing to give an enthusiastic nod and bow to the Goons would be rude. And rude just will not do.
Some may consider films such as these "bad", and theoretically I guess they'd be right. But if you're even a passing fan of the British comedy tradition, this movie brings together an intelligent and funny script by the brilliant Denis Norden, and a large cast of inspired and famous British comics. Its outrageous premise offers scope for first-class humour, great inter-textual pedantry, and witty social commentary. In the tradition of the Goons, the film is a biting and staggeringly funny indictment of Victorian moralism and piety, which was as apt in the post-war decades as it is in the politically-correct eco-religious world of today.
If you object to seeing middle-class hypocrisies (not to mention none-too-innocent maidens) skewered, don't see it. Otherwise, I can heartily recommend it.
If you're a fan of British humour, you need this in your collection, alongside the Goons, the Pink Panther, Blackadder, Monty Python, Spitting Image and the collected writings of Oscar Wilde, Spike Milligan and PG Wodehouse.
Grand stuff.
Million Dollar Baby (2004)
Million dollar rubbish
Am I the only one who thinks Million Dollar Baby is a terrible movie? It won best film, best director (Clint Eastwood), best actress (Hilary Swank) and best supporting actor (Morgan Freeman) at the Academy Awards. (And all four Oscars were prominently displayed during the cast interview.) I'd avoid plot spoilers for those who haven't seen it, but the plot is so clichéd, thin and predictable, I can't offer guarantees.
The only change to the old poor-boy-makes-good-boxing formula is that it's a poor girl this time.
Hilary Swank is pretty good and the boxing scenes are fairly well choreographed, but neither are good enough to rescue the movie from dreary predictability. The direction is marginally competent in places, and I even think I spotted Clint act at one point. Otherwise, his caricature of a bitter old grouch was simplistic and one-dimensional.
But neither Swank's efforts, nor Morgan Freeman's characteristic likability, could save the movie from a premise that is such a tired old workhorse that I'm surprised anyone bothered with it. It's a politically-correct Rocky rehash.
Apparently, it made everyone who read the script cry, so that justified making it. Well, I cried during The Champ. But that was 30 years ago.
This was pure self-indulgence on the part of Clint Eastwood. The grand question that tears at his soul was the cherry on top. "Look how strong and moral and basically good I am!" It was shot in 37 days. That shows. Even the screenwriter said he was surprised that his first draft was shot. He wouldn't have done that, and he would have been right not to. There were a loose ends all over the place, implausible scenarios (you'd think fingerprints in the hospital ward would have been an issue), and a lot of stock scenes that could have done with some disguise.
And how about that pukey guy talking to Eastwood, Swank and Freeman on the DVD cast interview afterwards? I'd be embarrassed to be interviewed by such a fawning fool. "I know I shouldn't say 'genius', but *sigh* GENIUS *faint*". It was creepy.
Swank made the only worthwhile contribution, both in her effort in the role, and in commenting afterwards that the movie did something for female boxers. It's not all just crude trailer-trash violence, and some of these women deserve a bit of respect - and self-respect.
But other than that, it was a load of codswallop. A waste of money. I give it three out of ten, as a consolation prize to Swank. Clint Eastwood - of whom, incidentally, I'm a big fan - gets nada.
Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002)
A high bar for future Clooney films
Many newly-minted directors are temped to try daring, novel stuff, and so does George Clooney. But instead of looking pretentious and inexperienced, he got himself a difficult Charlie Kaufman script and proceeded to plan every scene with extreme care. In the end he pulls off a superb film.
With no special effects, other than in-camera trickery (like placing Sam Rockwell on a turntable to switch him from bathroom to boardroom), Clooney achieves one stunner after another. This is film-making at its most serious, most entertaining, most artful and most inspiring.
Sam Rockwell plays TV-show-host-and-secret-agent Chuck Barris wonderfully. Chuck (on whose "unauthorised autobiography" this is based) must be pleased. It's an unusual and challenging role, but Rockwell seems eerily comfortable in the skin of Barris. Surrounding him is an all-star cast and some wonderful cameos. (Look out for Brad Pitt and Matt Damon, hilariously disguised as loser bachelors, on the set of the Dating Game.)
Everything just works. From the sharp-witted humour and amazing plot (one asks: could this possibly be true?), to the more clever or subtle jokes (Barris hailed as "hitman" by his TV colleagues; the reference to Oswald and Ruby and the jamming gun), to the use of colour (much shot with infrared), to the trickery with the sets, to the interesting framing and lighting, to the imaginative wardrobe... Clooney assembled an excellent crew.
Since "O brother where art thou?" I've been a fan of Clooney as an actor. I'm now an even bigger fan of him as a director.
As a debut, this sets a satisfyingly high bar for future Clooney films.
Lethal Weapon 2 (1989)
A powerful message? No, rather simplistic
It's a fun movie, but having lived in South Africa for some time, there's not much that rings true. One user comment said it contained a powerful message for him, since he's black and never quite understood apartheid.
Well, if this is what you're going to base your knowledge on, you're very far from the truth. Don't get me wrong, South Africa was racist, and many Afrikaners were rather backward redneck types, but the characters in this movie aren't even caricatures. The actors ham it up with no character research at all.
You want to understand South African racism? See Cry the Beloved Country, or something. Lethal Weapon is a cheap action movie. Don't mistake it for something that tries to deliver some deep and meaningful message. It doesn't.
Though it is unintentionally ludicrous if you're South African, it's watchable.
Death Train (2003)
Film 101: How not to do it
This movie is so bad, it's actually quite astonishing. There is not a single aspect that isn't dreadful. The script is shocking and low-grade porn actors deliver their dialogue more convincingly. The acting is stilted and staged across the board. The lame attempts at humour are easily missed, but you can spot them by noting when you cringe. The action scenes look so fake they're distracting, the sound production is terrible, and the special effects are even worse. I'm afraid I can't say much about the plot, since I'm not enough of a masochist to force myself to watch it with that much attention.
This would score high if it was a case study in how not to make a movie. It has all the elements that make a bad movie dreadful. How so many bad actors, directors, producers, cameramen, sound technicians and effects designers managed to converge on one place, we'll never know. It isn't even funny-bad. It's an ordeal. DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM. You have been warned.
What, it won't let me vote this zero? Awww...