andrewplord Reviews

Amsterdam (2022)

Angry, ambitious and sincere.

[7/10 · 15 January 2023]

Let's begin but stating the obvious - as a film it's a scattergun affair. One minute it's a quirky Coen brothers version of "Farewell My Lovely", then Roaring Twenties lovers in Europe as if Wes Anderson directed "Henry and June" and then it turns serious with a plot to overthrow the government and De Niro gets to do a version of the ending of "The Great Dictator". There's classism and racism and anti-semitism all thrown into the mix not to mention mysterious hit men and strange medical clinics and autopsies and it becomes a very rich Brew indeed.

But underneath it all is a serious anger. To bring up historic plots to overthrow the government in the wake of Jan 6th has an obvious political intent and this seems to just add one more gear change and U-turn for the film.

The cast works their hardest. Christian Bale seems to be impersonating Peter Falk at times, but John David Washington brings poise and grace to his role. Margot Robbie in her early scenes seems not far off Harley Quinn, but later settles down. Chris Rock is fine. De Niro puts in the effort (something that can't always be said lately) and it pays off.

Mike Myers manages to do something other than mug and as his partner Michael Shannon is equally good, although their obsession with bird watching seems to just be there for the sake of quirkiness, without adding much to anything.

It's all prettt entertaining and you probably won't pick where it's heading but you might have the idea that that's because it doesn't quite know itself.

.

Jupiter Ascending (2015)

Just turn your brain off and let your eyes engage.

[7/10 · 9 January 2023]

Is it a stupid movie, where not much makes sense, the dialogue is dreadful, the acting is over the top and everything is too bright and too loud?

Well, yes, but so was "Flash Gordon" and this movie is like a modern update of that camp classic.

There are enough explosions and chases and last minute rescues and hissable villains and double crosses to fuel a dozen series of a soap opera. About the only thing Eddie Redmayne doesn't do is twirl his big black moustache and tie Mila Kunis to the rail road track.

It looks like every single dollar of its vast budget is up on the screen either blowing up or crashing down around you and if you turn off the need for characters with more than two dimensions and actual motivations and a plot rather than stuff that happens then you'll have a good time enjoying the eye candy.

Probably ideal for those who find "The Fifth Element" a bit too intense and high brow.

Baymax! (2022)

Short, sweet inclusion

[9/10 · 3 July 2022]

A short, low key little series of adventures of the big balloon medical robot from Big Hero 6.

Covers a series of health issues without preaching or being over earnest and full of little jokes that might not be laugh out loud, but certainly bring a smile.

And yes, it does include representation of LGBT characters and shows a couple of health issues frankly and if you can't cope then don't watch. But for everyone else this is a sweet way to spend an hour.

The Ice Road (2021)

Fetch the Popcorn

[6/10 · 11 March 2022]

B-Grade nonsense about truck drivers racing against time to deliver life saving equipment to a mine across snowbound Canada.

Reminiscent of "The Wages of Fear" if you have a very bad memory.

Watchable, if utterly unbelievable, although they appear to have spent more on Neeson's salary than on some of the special effects. At the start of the film a truck goes over a cliff and it has the look of something that might just about pass muster in the old Thunderbirds TV series.

Considering that the point of the movie is for the truckers to get to the disaster site before time runs out, the characters seem to do an awful lot of standing around talking, or fixing trucks, or providing back story, or saying "God damn it! We have to go back!"

Liam is probably getting a bit long in the tooth for this sort of thing, but he has charisma to burn and makes the whole thing passable entertainment.

Machete Kills (2013)

Spectacularly Stupid Film

[7/10 · 6 November 2021]

If Russ Meyer directed Bugs Bunny in a remake of Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia you might get something almost as mad as this.

Bullets fly, heads roll, severed limbs fly, intestines tangle with helicopters and then, to top it off, Mel Gibson shows up.

Ridiculous fun.

Beach Blanket Bingo (1965)

Better remembered than seen

[4/10 · 2 January 2021]

The Beach Party movies are fondly remembered, but probably by people who haven't actually sat down to watch one in a long time.

There are a number of these in the series, all essentially the same and all interchangeable. Sure, there are ghost ones and Snow Party ones, but all of them basically concern a group of attractive, but virginal teenagers who romp about on the beach, never doing more than talking about sex even though it's pretty clear that they're meant to be irresistable in their bikinis and board shorts.

There's a biker gang who are meant to be a parody of Brando in "The Wild One", but who are played for sub-Three Stooges slapstick.

The boys go surfing and the girls watch the boys go surfing and everyone says things like "real gone" and "cool cats" and dance like things possessed. There's lots of lingering shots of the girls and the boys linger about flexing their muscles and making sexist jokes.

There's stunt casting - Buster Keaton turns up in this, looking a long way from The General - and songs are song that are so empty that you'll forget them while they're being performed.

It's all very innocent and light and perfect for the people who find the gritty drama of "Kissin' Cousins" or "Viva Las Vegas" a bit raw.

Birds of Prey (2020)

An Uneven Mess, but fun

[6/10 · 24 October 2020]

The cast is game, the action is pretty good and the thing rattles along efficiently. It probably doesn't make a lot of sense, but it keeps you watching.

It seems problematic that a movie that's marketed as a wild and crazy romp includes family massacres, exploding bodies, fairly graphic violence and did I hear someone say "faces peeled off"? It's like it wants to be "Adam West does Hannibal Lector".

The Thief of Bagdad (1940)

A Hugely Enjoyable Fairy Tale

[8/10 · 11 March 2020]

This is about as successful a fantasy film as anything out there.

The story rattles along with an air of making it up as we go along. There are flying horses, flying carpets, genies in Bottles, wicked Viziers, quests, storms at sea, kidnappings, giant killer animals, magical transformations, murders and sleeping beauties and the whole thing pretty much hangs together coherently.

Conrad Veight is eminently hissable as the villain, Sabu is as charming as only Sabu can be, Miles Malleson is supremely foolish and the two leads are blandly attractive.

Filmed in eye popping, candy coloured Technicolour the thing is a joy to watch.

Three down sides: Although not a musical, very so often someone bursts into song and you sort of wish they wouldnt.

The special effects, judged by today's standards are pretty dodgey, although they were state of the art at the time and remain hugely charming.

The movie has a Ketelby's In a Persian Market view of Islam and there's a lot of white people pretending to be POC and hoping no one will notice. Conrad Veight seems to have applied the burnt cork fairly freely but everyone else is resolutely British. Saying "For the love of Allah" every so often doesn't make it better. Best to view this as fantasy rather than ethnography.

But what a fantasy. A double Bill of this and Errol Flynn's Robin Hood would probably create a critical mass of adventure!

Drunken Master (1978)

The Three Stooges meet Ballet

[8/10 · 21 January 2020]

No CGI, no wire work, no tricks. Just people performing prodigious feats of choreographed acrobatic martial arts. Bodies haven't been thrown about with such abandon since Keaton was making films.

And unlike Bruce Lee, whose films were always serious affairs, Chan enjoys some slapstick. There are genuine laughs here.

Beautifully, if simply, filmed this is a hugely enjoyable and at times jaw dropping film.

Animal Crackers (1930)

Who needs a plot?

[9/10 · 9 June 2019]

Let's say a few things about "Animal Crackers".

First it really doesn't manage to escape its Broadway stage origins. Look at the way it's blocked. The chorus all stand about in an upstage semicircle while the principals stand at front of stage centre and deliver their lines to the static camera.

(The camera is so immobile that when Harpo does his knife dropping routine the camera pretty much misses it.)

Even the lines reflect the stage origin, with asides to the audience and, at one point, Groucho asking if anyone has a program he can look at.

The result is that the movie is probably pretty close to what would have appeared on 1930s Broadway, which makes it a useful document, if not that cinematic.

Second, there's this whole business of a plot. People who aren't the Marx Brothers keep coming on and carry on about stolen paintings and how romantic they feel and "oh if only we had enough money to marry" and the police arrive and they mustn't learn I spent time in prison and they all seem to be under the impression that we care.

Of course we don't. We want Groucho to tell us more about smoking meat, or Chico to play more bridge or Harpo to get shot at by interior design again, but instead we get Hives the Butler and Arrabella plotting about paintings and taking it deadly seriously.

Songs are sung. Some of them are so bland you actually forget them while they are being performed, but Groucho's "Hello, I must be going" and "Hooray for Captain Spalding" are great.

So it's stagey and burdened with a plot, but what does it have going for it?

Well,for a start this has some of the Marx Bros most "out there" comedy. Groucho's Eugene O'Neil parody, the Musical evening, Harpo trying to light up the room with a fish, the bridge game are all hilarious in a way they never quite were again.

Groucho, particularly in the restored uncut version, manages some of the smuttiest jokes he ever got onto film and Chico's piano solo is actually slotted into the film in a way that gets laughs.

Margaret Dumont looks on with the smiling look of an indulgent mother proud of her wayward charges and even after being insulted and outraged by Groucho assures us that "The Captain is so charming!"

Of course it's a lot if fun, much more confident and assured than "The Coconuts" and it roars along like a fun house on a steam train. They would make better movies (Duck Soup, Monkey Business) and they certainly made worse movues (The Big Store, Go West) but they never made another one quite like this.

Mousehunt (1997)

Mouse, Mayhem and Destruction

[7/10 · 9 June 2019]

Sort of a live action Loony Tune - think Coyote and Road Runner or Elmer Fudd "huntin' wabbits" - "Mousehunt" is far from subtle, but delivers plenty of slapstick laughs.

Nathan Lane and Lee Evans seem to be channelling Laurel and Hardy at times and having a grand old time and the rest of the cast revolve around them like clockwork.

Special mention for Christopher Walken's pest exterminator, played as a Christopher Walken parody.

Verbinski sets up his gags beautifully and zooms the camera around energetically in ways that add to the loopiness of it all.

We're a long way from Rashomon or The Seventh Seal here, but for simple, destructive laughs this delivers.

Monkey Business (1931)

I want laughter. I want gaiety. I want ha cha cha!

[9/10 · 14 May 2019]

Essentially a sort of rag bag of gags and bits that sort of add up to, if not a plot, then at least an Outline.

They're on a boat. They get chased around the boat. They meet some Gangsters. They get off the boat. They go to a party. There's a fight in a barn.

That's about it.

But there are jokes. One comes along every few seconds and sure, some of them are pretty bad. But some of them are about as funny as jokes get.

They play instruments. They make friends with frogs. They hide in closets. They battle puppets. They shave a man. They tango. In fact they do just about any thing to get a laugh.

Thelma Todd throws herself into the whole business fearlessly and shows what a great partner she was for Groucho. We all remember Margaret Dumont and Groucho and her standing with an outraged look on her face. But Thelma Todd joins in with him a gives as good as she gets .

Zeppo gets rather more to do in this than normal, being both love interest and action hero. Perhaps you think little of Zeppo, but when you think of the later movies where they replaced him with people like Alan Jones and you realise that Zeppo was actually pretty good.

All right, it's a glorious shambles, but it's a whole lot of fun.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016)

Review proof, to be honest.

[7/10 · 1 January 2017]

J.K.Rowling has such a strong fan base that any movie based in her magical world is essentially a licence to print money. After eight films from seven books we've also had a sequel of sorts (The Cursed Child) and now a prequel of sorts.

Written by Rowling herself in her first screenplay, the film concerns Newt Scamander, a minor figure in the original novels.

The movie clearly has a huge budget ($180m) and it shows on the screen. Beautifully detailed settings and costumes (1920's Manhattan) and excellent special effects don't come cheap and yet here they are.

Of course it would be nice to report that the thing is a triumph, but there are a few problems.

To start with - the script. There seems to be at least three or four different movies going on at once here. Newt and his chums seem to be in one of those animal adventure movies where people capture wild beasts and then deal with them back at the compound - sort of like "Hatari!", but with wands. There's the heroic Newt, the no-nonsense girl sidekick, her sister with the heart of gold and, in the Gabby Hayes comic relief role, the would be Baker who is non magical and so, conveniently needs to have everything explained to him, which makes him extra popular in the exposition scenes.

Then we have the doings back at the Mission House where a religious fanatic mother has to discipline (read "abuse") her wayward charges until one who has hidden dark powers gets their own back with fatal consequences. It plays a bit like "Carrie", although there's no bucket of pig's blood involved.

Then there's a really quite undeveloped bit about a family of a wealthy Newspaper Proprietor whose has two sons, one running for the Senate (in scenes that suggest he's running against Boss Jim W Gettys) and one who appears to be a wastrel and a disgrace to the family name. (I kept thinking of Groucho in "Horse Feathers": "You're a disgrace to our family name of Wagstaff, if such a thing is possible.")

And then there's the Magic stuff which seems to lack the charm that was found in Hogwarts. This movie is set in America and American Magic just seems nastier than the English kind. There's segregation to the point of apartheid, the death penalty used without a blink of an eye, registration of immigrants, black market animal trading... it all seems a bit dark and vicious. Colin Farrell gets to look all brooding and glowering as "Mr Graves" and rushes about waving his wand dramatically and threatening durance vile and a fate worse than death to our heroes.

These four different films keep rubbing up against each other in a variety of ways, seemingly in the hope that sooner or later the resultant friction might ignite something that passes for a plot.

It probably doesn't, but there's certainly a lot of sound and fury and CGI and people do things that are intended as excitement and at the end everyone realises what fools they've been not to listen to our hero all along and the sensible no nonsense girl surprises us and herself when she realises that she really can't live without him and Johnny Depp shows up and the movie ends.

There are, apparently, four more to come.

And then there's the gender politics of it all. Was I the only one who found the scenes where Mr Graves takes Credence out into the back alley to share "their secret" a bit dodgy? There's so much hugging and face stroking and whispered "I just want what's best for you" going on between a powerful middle aged man and a vulnerable teenager that it gets to be a bit.... well... dubious.

I've read that Graves is acting in "a fatherly way", but then comes the genuinely shocking moment (perhaps the only genuine shock in the film) where Graves slaps the boy across the face. Presumably "in a fatherly way".

Potterworld is, let's face it, resolutely heterosexual. Hogwarts must be the only boarding school in the known Universe where no teen aged student has ever developed a crush on another same sex student. There's not even a flamboyant art teacher. Dumbledore, we are told, is gay, but since there's no actual indication of this in either book or film that hardly counts. And he needn't have been played by Kenneth Williams ("Hello, I'm Dumbledore and this is my friend Sandy.") to get the point across.

Sure, the strong women role models are all there in spades. Hermione, Mrs Weasley, Professor McGonagall, Ginny are all strong, independent role models for girls. The President in this new film is a powerful woman - and a powerful woman of colour at that.

Rowling gives all sorts of kids who read the books someone to relate to. A bit nerdy and getting picked on? You could grow up to be a hero like Neville. A high achieving girl who gets pressure to be "more feminine"? Say hello to Hermione. Asian or black and trying to fit in? The Patels and Cho Chang are just what you need. Gay and worried about coming out? Well, there's...... well...... sorry, you're on your own.

And now there is a relationship on screen that could be seen as homosexual and it's age inappropriate, abusive and manipulative. Really?

The Servant (1963)

Absurdist Homo-erotic Power Games

[10/10 · 10 June 2016]

Dirk Bogarde plays Barratt, a "gentleman's gentleman" employed by Tony, an upper class young man (James Fox, looking remarkably like David Bowie in his "Let's Dance" period) who needs someone to look after him until he gets married to his no nonsense fiancé Susan (Wendy Craig)

The script, by Harold Pinter, begins like a modern day Jeeves and Wooster story full of "I aim to give satisfaction sir" and "I took the liberty sir of remove the ruffled valances. Not very practical."

Before too long it all goes very nasty indeed, as though Jeeves turned out to be a psychopath.

The pictures takes a path through psychological thriller areas with hints of sexual blackmail, incest, and intrigue and moral corruption and then ends up in firmly absurdist theatre territory, with characters playing threatening games of Hide and Seek, adults reacting like children to minor injuries (the sound Bogarde makes when he is struck in the face is quite bizarre) and strangely unerotic orgies filled with fully clothed prostitutes posing in front of strangely angled cameras.

The whole thing keeps getting reflected in distorting mirrors and through crystal orbs and the script is lean and spare as only Pinter scripts can be.

And to top it off the whole thing is shot through with a sort of all pervading, but unspoken gayness. There are significant glances aplenty between Fox and Bogarde, they bicker and argue like a married couple, and Fox's character slowly slides under Bogarde's control until by the end of the film he is... well, let's say he isn't in charge and leave it at that.

It's creepy, it's disturbing, it's puzzling and very very dark. Is it an allegory of class? Is it a film in the closet? Is it a surrealist drama? Probably yes to all three. But even more, it's a Pinter script. Like "The Birthday Party", like "The Caretaker", like "The Room", it's full of menace and dark humour and unspoken threat.

Losey directs like the master he was. Slocombe films the thing is pristine B&W and fills it with beautifully composed shot after shot. and The four principle actor give it all they're got.

The only thing dated is the score, which is very much of its time.

But this is a splendid film.

Love Actually (2003)

An Unlikely Fairy Tale

[8/10 · 28 February 2016]

This so completely should not work. Multiple story lines, a huge cast, plot lines that really don't make a lot of sense (Hugh Grant is a bachelor Prime Minister? His sister is sending her kids to a State School? What kind of high budget porn movie are those two actually making?) , a tangle of relationships between characters that's almost impossible to follow, coincidences that are almost impossible to believe (One of the main characters in one plot line just happens to live next door to one of the main characters in another com0letely unrelated plot line?)

It just ought to be a twee, self indulgent mess.

And yet......

The script is truly witty, The performances are outstanding. Emma Thompson and Bill Nighy are standouts, but there really isn't a weak performance in the piece. Colin Firth is dashingly romantic and Hugh Grant dances. Liam Neeson shows he has a very specific set of skills and they include comedy.

And somehow the whole is just a hugely enjoyable confection. Even a moving one. If Laura Linney doesn't pull at your heart then feel your pulse. And if by the time the Beach boys "God Only Knows" fills the soundtrack you aren't felling a bit warm and squishy inside then I despair of you.

It shouldn't work, but it most certainly does.

Live and Let Die (1973)

In this ever changing world in which we live in

[6/10 · 3 October 2015]

In a series hardly noted for the quality of its special effects ( remember those Space Shuttles in Moonraker? That erupting volcano in You Only Live Twice? The back projections through the speeding boat window in Thunderball? The death of Goldfinger? The surfing in Die Another Day?) can we agree that the death of Kananga is the absolute rock bottom special effect in any Bond Film. Not only does Bond's weapon of choice kill the bad guy, it also turns him into a Helium balloon! What were they thinking?

And really, what were they thinking expecting Roger Moore to act as the sexually irresistible Bond? He was in his mid 40s at the time and looked it. Seeing him seduce women with a flick of his impeccable linen shirt cuff is pretty dubious (it got worse as the series went on)

The plot seems just an excuse to hang a series of set pieces on - something to do with flooding Harlem with heroin and somehow voodoo cults and alligator farms and dixieland jazz and pimp mobiles and hang gliders and fortune tellers all get mixed up in it with no immediate relevance to the original idea. David Hedison seems to spend most of the movie assuring people "We've got everything under control" just before things go wrong.

The racial politics seem pretty woozy as well. At one pint Kananga has to disguise himself and without so much as a flicker of irony, reaches for a leopard print suit and a big matching hat because, obviously, that's what a big afro-American crime boss WOULD wear. The whole drugs / Harlem / soul-food connection seems a bit stereotypical and the voodoo stuff is just bizarre.

And did we really need a comedy relief Southern Sheriff who keeps referring to the black crims as "boy"? It's like Jackie Gleeson's sheriff from Smokey and the Bandit is doing "In the Heat of the Night".

Whereas the great Bond movies - Goldfinger, From Russia with Love, Casino Royale for instance - take Bond seriously, this does the whole thing with a smirk at the audience. By the time of Octopussy, with Bond running around in a clown suit and Q saving the day in a hot air balloon, the whole thing seemed terminal.

It's all a long way from something as taught and lean as From Russia with Love (and I seem to remember that movie as having a boat chase that was half the length of the one in this movie and far more effective.) and yes, the stunts are outstanding but otherwise... Bond had been a lot better and would be better again. But this was the start of a long downhill slide.

The Terminator (1984)

Fun to be had, but...

[7/10 · 13 June 2015]

No-one is going to deny that there is a lot of excitement and fun to be had here, but there are gaping plot holes ( a time travel plot will do that I suppose) and some pretty terrible writing. ("In the short time we had together we loved enough for a lifetime" is one notable stinker) But can we mention a couple of things.

1) The soundtrack. Surely the least effective collection of '80's synthesiser sounds trying to sound portentious ever recorded. Really a shocker. It clanks and plonks along with little connection to what's happening on screen and sounding like it was recorded in a barn. Horrible.

2) Who was responsible for Linda Hamilton's hair? Sure it was the '80s, but seriously her hair looks like something a cocker spaniel might reject. And then it gets messed up and she gets it redone in the same style, just to prove it was deliberate. There's no excuse.

3) The special effects... yes, I know the movie was done on the same amount as the catering budget Cameron used for Avatar, but even so, those effects where Arnie is pulling out his eyeball are a nonsense, they must be the least effective pipe bombs in history and the metal skeleton at the end - well, don't get me started on the metal skeleton. Ray Harryhausen could make an army of skeletons look believable and even charming in Jason and the Argonauts, but this thing is pretty damn lame.

I suspect that when people say "I love the Terminator movies", what they really mean is "I love Terminator 2" - a rip snorter, exciting, innovative movie. If ever there was a movie series that came into its own with the sequel it's this one.