Layer Cake

Drugs are bad, m’kay? And according to Daniel Craig and ’co, the trading and exchange of them can be just as life-threatening, in a film that for all its shimmer and star power fails to engage as much as it should.

Mr. X (Craig) is a drug dealer who acts as the middleman between the providers and consumers of narcotics in the UK, and alongside a group of cohorts, hopes to move up in the world or eventually leave the business. When drug runner Duke (Foreman) steals some ecstasy from the wrong people, X finds that he and the business he’s made so much money with are in for it; in trouble, marked for death and having to answer to many, many others in the layered ‘cake’ of the drug world.

Daniel Craig proves here that he has both the emotional range and sharp wit to portray James Bond; his mysterious protagonist sees his life combust in front of his eyes, and the actor’s intensity burns with his hopes. This is actually one of his better performances outside Bond; well worth watching him for. I guess Sienna Miller is considered a star now; but in this film she appears for about five minutes, seducing Craig’s character and doing nothing else. How she’s managed to make a career out of this appears to be only as a result of her looks; and this is shameful, considering the impressive performances she’s made in other movies. The only other woman to make an appearance is Sally Hawkins, who plays the Duke’s girlfriend Sasha, and the actress does a good job of impersonating a truly horrible, common woman, serving as the ultimate presentation of the scum that Duke represents.
Kenneth Cranham and Michael Gambon are filthy as Jimmy and Mr. Temple, two of the drug profiteers, whilst Dexter Fletcher and George Harris present the film with some humour as Craig’s cohorts in his drug escapades. Jamie Foreman is the drug Runner ‘Duke’, and alongside the excellent Colm Meaney as Gene, present the best supporting performances, men who have had their lives consumed and taken over by drugs and greed.

Matthew Vaughn, director of Stardust, directs this film with style, verve and a biting reality. The dialogue is witty and incisive, and the soundtrack deep in popular music – a more realistic and presentable film than I would have imagined. Vaughn presents the drug business through the eyes of Craig’s character, and as such (with the film having been adapted for the screen) he does not have much in the way of plot to invent himself. The director again shows his skill with visuals however, and to many this film will appear similar (or perhaps to some an antithesis to) David Fincher’s movies; narration, inventive camera angles and a witty script. Vaughn should make more films like this as opposed to fantasy like Stardust; he’s clearly better at reality.

The dialogue is realistic (mostly in its use of profanity) but in many cases very witty, particularly in the case of Craig’s character, whose every other word appears to be a put-down or insult of some sort. The use of music here is fantastic, merging a classical soundtrack with popular chillout and dance music, peppering the scenes around London with a reality and naturalism that would bypass other movies. From the opening scenes, Vaughn presents vistas and wide open space – the movie is clearly not constricted, and the effects that are used sparingly are to aid camera angles. The director’s hold on capturing one particular fight sequence, and juxtaposing it with another pivotal scene, is masterful whilst also quite incredibly brutal.

The film is great, don’t get me wrong, but the performances aren’t as good as perhaps they should be, and the story itself is shockingly incoherent at times. A good performance from Craig and impressive direction by Vaughn lifts it however.

7/10

Stargate

A cheesy, cliched and sometimes intelligent blockbuster, Stargate is the best Roland Emmerich film by a mile.

In 1928, a mysterious gate is found buried in Giza, Egypt. In the present day, American scientists, enlisting the help of Egyptologist Daniel Jackson (Spader) come to realise that the ‘Stargate’ is a portal to the other side of the known universe. Sending Jackson with a team of soldiers led by Colonel Jack O’Neill (Russell), the other side of the gate holds mysteries and answers for the team and for human history, but at a cost.

Kurt Russell and James Spader have to pretty much carry this movie, and they do just about enough to succeed. Russell’s hard-ass soldier with an emotional problem is a pretty naff role, but Russell makes it that much better simply being a bad-ass like he always seems to be. Spader plays the geek who saves the day and gets the girl, but again, as with Russell, a better actor than should have been chosen was chosen, and so Spader’s geek Daniel Jackson is that much more eccentric. The actress that plays Sha’auri, Mili Avital, really doesn’t have much to do other than speak Egyptian and look longingly at Spader. Nice job if you can get it I guess – expressions and some ancient language, followed by a paycheck! Jay Davidson, the bizarrely ambiguous star of The Crying Game, plays the antagonist Ra. As androgynous as you can get without feeling ill, and with a superimposed deep voice, this is the hammiest of all hammy, crappy villains – you will practically cringe every time he’s on-screen. The army grunts that make up the rest of the group act better than him, including a pre-3rd Rock from the Sun French Stewart.

Roland Emmerich, he of Independence Day and The Day after Tomorrow, started his Hollywood career with this gem, and it’s actually the most intelligent film he has made that I’ve seen. Emmerich burst onto the scene with this film in the 90’s, and effectively so – the mix of sci-fi with Ancient Egypt is a film-maker’s dream, and the German director convincingly manages to convey this insane mash of genres with his trademark spectacle film-making. This is not to say that his terrible script and cliched moments throughout the film are in any way good also. The script for this film is so, so bad it’s good. Not withstanding the fact that half the Ancient Egyptian is not subtitled (an incredibly confusing move), the hackneyed and ridiculous dialogue between Jackson, O’Neill and the tribes is painful to watch. Emmerich obviously hadn’t learnt by Independence Day four years later, and this is a reminder to directors to get in professional scriptwriters rather than write their own damn films.

David Arnold, of James Bond soundtrack fame, wrote this amazing soundtrack in a hotel room whilst working in a video store. Listening to it, you would have thought it was composed and written in vastly different surroundings, and it’s a testament to the composer’s fantastic talent that the score is one of the best things about the film’s production. The effects and vistas presented throughout the film are, as viewers would later come to associate with Emmerich, big, impressive and even jaw-dropping. Alas, time has allowed for some of the effects to date quite terribly, but the crowd scenes, desert setting and enemy ship are even today examples of fantastic visual storytelling. The journey from star system to star system again was more effective at the time, but nevertheless, the visual acumen of Emmerich’s film-making started with a bang here.

This is probably the guiltiest pleasure in film from my point of view – try as I might, I cannot hate this film, despite recognising how terrible it is.

6/10

The French Connection

For its time, The French Connection is a ground-breaking movie, and with a gripping narrative alongside brutal action and strong performances from Hackman and Schneider, it deserves recognition.

NYPD officers Doyle (Hackman) and Russo (Schneider) find out about and pursue (on a hunch) the possibility of a drug deal between low-level gangbanger Sal Boca (Lo Bianco) and a French trafficker, Alan Charnier (Rey). Doyle’s maverick style makes him no friends, and the parties involved in the deal are ready to outwit the narcotics cops at any time.

Hackman and Schneider are perfectly cast as the partners, one impulsive and the other reticent. Hackman’s legendary acting prowess shows here – the man is able to hop from jovial to raging in a heartbeat, and casting the suave, chilled in comparison Schneider gives the film’s star pairing a jarring yet alluring quality. Fernando Rey, as French drug trafficker Alain Charnier, dominates the support – his seemingly harmless old man in reality a truly reprehensible criminal; one who seems to be able to outwit his police pursuers at any turn. Tony Lo Bianco as Sal Boca is manifest of the low-life looking for a bigger score, whilst Marcel Bozzuffi portrays Charnier’s henchman Nicoli with a steely evil.

William Friedkin creates some of the most realistic car-chases ever put to film, as well as capturing the gritty, run-down heart of New York. Friedkin, later to be known more for his skill helming The Exorcist, commits to film a vision of police-work and gritty urban realism that is quite rightly lauded almost forty years later. The action and dialogue scenes sit perfectly in proximity, and the rising tension throughout the movie, as well as the sharp beats of action, present a tightly-produced and slick movie that any director would be proud of. Most people will know of the Poughkeepsie dialogue, and its bizzare nature. The rest of the film’s script is full of intelligent discussion and real-life references however, and the fact that the narrative is based on a real-life counterpart series of events only adds to the realism of the procedurals. Doyle does get the best lines, and Hackman can deliver any form of dialogue with a rasping sarcasm if he wants.

The score is brooding – at the onset it’s swift, reflecting the quick and brash entry into the events, but later it builds tension, reminding me very much of the Dirty Harry score – urbane and seventies. The car chase that is so revered is a brutal, bone-crushing scene that Friedkin filmed without the permission of the city of New York. Bear that in mind when you watch the car smashed to pieces as it pursues its target – this is the level of realism that Friedkin aimed for, and this, along with the dilapidated, crumbling surroundings, adds another layer of realism atop a film already too close to reality for its own good.

This really is a quite amazing film, not only for its time but in watching now – a taut thriller, filled with the right amount of grit and power to reflect its source events as well as produce a gripping fictional narrative.

9/10

Hard Boiled

This is probably one of the more satisfying and madcap action films I’ve ever watched or am likely to watch. Blood, bullets and slow-mo cameras present John Woo as an action genius in the making here.

Lt. ‘Tequila’ Yuen (Yun-Fat) is an uncompromising and wise-cracking cop who makes it his personal mission to take down a gang of criminals operating in his city. An inside man on the gang itself, Tony (Leung) teams up with his police colleague against Johnny Wong (Wong) and his henchmen.

Chow Yun Fat is a charismatic actor – his English language films have shown many people this. However, in this movie he seems far more at home; the Chinese language (seen through the dubbing) gives his performance a more realistic feel. Tony Leung, as the undercover officer Tony, plays flawed and secretive very well here, and his scenes with Fat, in terms of rapport and humour, are some of the best in the film.Teresa Mo doesn’t really have that much to do here as Yuen’s girlfriend, but she does at least contradict the movie stereotype of damsel in distress – her scenes with Fat are hilarious, as their relationship hits ups and downs at the worst possible time. Anthony Wong and Bowie Lam play the antagonists Johnny Wong and Benny, with the former projecting a large amount of sinister expressions as a performance to quite effective, if hammy, success. Lam is more disturbing however, his terminator-like Benny seemingly unstoppable and ruthless. Philip Chan plays the police sergeant, a role that Hollywood has done to death; put-upon, shouting and demanding results – not exactly remarkable.

John Woo presented the movie world with a new kind of action here; non-stop, adrenaline-pumping action all round, directed perfectly and skilfully by the Chinese director.Say what you want about Mission Impossible 2, Face/Off or Broken Arrow, but John Woo and action go together like peaches and cream. The director seems to only need the semblance of a story and the option for action to make an insane movie like this – and the three minute long take towards the conclusion is proof of his skill as an action film director. The version of the film I watched was heavily dubbed – but the translated dialogue was still poor beyond this disappointment. Some of the lines were so hackneyed as to be laughable – there’s one point at which Tequila and Tony discuss the accidental murder of policeman, and the characters actually go back on what they’ve just said – with no hint of comedy. Incredibly poor standards of writing for any film, but in this case it does not actually detract that much from the action itself.

Tequila plays at a jazz bar – and so for the first half of the film we’re treated to jazz, Chinese style. However, the rest of the soundtrack is pretty superfluous – if you can hear it over the gunfire or incredibly terrible dubbing then you’ve got fantastic hearing. Woo’s handling of action is, dare I say, the best of any director worldwide (other than Michael Bay), and the ballet-like movements of the policemen as they take down swathes of enemies is something other-wordly to behold. There are scenes and shots that just provoke an astonished laughter; you struggle to comprehend the madness of the shots, particularly stunt shots – Chow Yun Fat’s ability to mount seemingly any surface to aid in a fight is remarkable.

Whilst the film has drawbacks; namely, English dubbing (terribly done) and some hammy performances, it cannot be beaten for action – it’s a must-see film simply for the action on display.

8/10

Caddyshack

Hilarious and insane fun, Caddyshack is a reminder of the bygone era of comedy in film, and a comedy classic.

Danny Noonan (O’Keefe) is a golf caddy from a poor family, looking to get into college. Whilst caddying for eccentric golfer Ty Webb (Chase), he finds out about earning the golf caddy scholarship from Judge Smails (Knight), a high-class, influential member of the golf club. Danny’s story takes place at the same time as brash millionaire Al Czervik (Dangerfield) joins the club, much to Smails’ disgust, and behind all this, groundsman Carl (Murray) is enlisted with catching and killing the gopher destroying the course.

O’Keefe has the hard job of being straight-faced in the company of Chase, Dangerfield and Murray, and fortunately he does well. He is the audience’s point of view quite honestly – the underdog aiming to get success. I would say Chase was the other male star, and the comedy legend is in top form here as a golf pro who no-one seems to understand. His personality, a mix of forgetful idiot and smarmy sex-god, is a more normal, more restrained version of Will Ferrell’s iconic comedy characters of the last few years, and Chase shows us how it’s done – genius.

Bill Murray, Rodney Dangerfield and Ted Knight make this film the classic that it truly is. Murray’s groundsman Carl is the indisputable centre to the movie, and his bizarre appearance, along with his insane quest to kill the gopher plaguing the course, makes him one of Murray’s best roles. Dangerfield and Knight play Al Czervik and Judge Smails respectively, the comedy legend and the actor playing the two sides of the class war – working-class rich man and WASP, their conflicts giving the movie much of its hilarity, particularly Knight’s indignant rage towards the man he deems unworthy of membership at the golf course. Dangerfield is the epitome of crass, and yet you root for him throughout, his brashness a breath of fresh air into the stuffy golf club.

The women in the film really just serve to be attractive, stupid or a mockery – the main focus being Cindy Morgan as Judge Smails’ relative Lacey Underall, and the name suggests what you can expect from the actress. Maggie O’Hooligan, played by Sarah Holcomb, is the antithesis of Lacey, and the other women of his affections. Both women are alright, but not really up to the standard of the other performers – and that’s only because they’re the straight support.

Harold Ramis ably combines comedy legends with the sedentary game of golf; his use of his SNL cohorts a revelation in the circumstances, and Ramis manages to utilise the comedians perfectly – each of them given the space to be as improvisational as possible, and as with the Apatow movies of modern times, the spontaneity gives the movie a feeling of controlled insanity. Nearly every scene with Murray’s Carl is quotable; I’m sure that many will have heard the ‘Cinderella’ scene before, and his wacked-out musings on what he’ll do to the gopher, along with the scene with Chase’s golfer, give the comedian the chance to improvise to hilarious effect. The class battle between Czervik and Smails also provides many excellent lines – some hitting rather close to the bone. Chase gets many of the more surreal quotes, and his scenes provide the viewer with the chance to listen incredibly carefully – so many of his jokes and one-liners go unnoticed he says them so fast.

Kenny Loggins was hired to sing every song on here – and having absolutely no idea who he was before, I don’t really want to know now. The songs sound the same, every one, and it’s annoying to have watched this film, repetitive music in check, alongside Platoon and Taxi Driver – two films with the exact same problem. The physical comedy stunts are staged perfectly – the minimum of effects, if any, are used, and the scenes at the dock in Miami harbour are a prime example of the lengths to which Ramis wanted to make the audience laugh – boats flip, passengers are hurled in the sea, and Smails’ boat subsides into the water in a haze of madcap action! It’s a shame really then that the gopher, so integral to the plot, is a rubbish little toy – I get that the situation would have demanded it, and computer effects at the time would have looked terrible, but it is a little ridiculous. It does add to the humour of the whole situation – and hell, it looks more like a real gopher than the ones in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

If it’s madcap, laugh-a-minute comedy you want, Caddyshack comes highly recommended, quite honestly one of the best of its time.

8/10

Taxi Driver

What an overrated movie. Taxi Driver, for all the praise and plaudits given to it, is at its root a disturbing and repetitive joke, and unfortunately one starring De Niro and directed by Scorcese.

Travis Bickle (De Niro) is a loner, a taxi driver whose anger at the state of the city he lives in begins to drive him toward action. Encountering political worker Betsy (Shepherd) and child prostitute Iris (Foster), two very different types of woman, Bickle’s lack of social skill, coupled with his determination to change things, drives him toward a dangerous destination.

De Niro is engaging as nutcase Travis Bickle, but he lacks the intensity that the actor has shown in more recent times. Revered for this role by critics over the last thirty years, is good at playing psychopaths. Just watch Cape Fear; he’s better in that in than here. Travis Bickle is an immature, pathetic man who thinks he can change New York single handedly, and to that end De Niro does present the near-harmless level of oddness in the man. However, I couldn’t help but imagine a newer actor (say Ed Norton) in the role throughout, because they’d be better; the man is blank – and it’s hard to see how De Niro made a career from this.

Jodie Foster can hardly be called a star of the film, but she and Cybill Shepherd share about the same amount of time on-screen as the focus of Bickle’s crusades. Foster, at twelve, plays a child prostitute, and it is a pretty amazing performance (for what little performance it is) by the young actress. Shepherd plays a campaign worker for the presidential candidate featured in the film, and she at least presents the character as more than one-dimensional, a woman who makes the wrong assumptions about the wrong man.

Peter Boyle, Martin Scorcese, Leonard Harris and Harvey Keitel play small roles in the movie as counters to Bickle, with Boyle his co-worker at the taxi company – giving him advice on his life, and as such, not a particularly strong performance. Harris plays the slightly slimy politician Palantine, whom Bickle supports simply through his obsession with Shepherd’s Betsy working for him. Keitel is bizarre as Foster’s pimp – it’s strange to even comprehend that it is Keitel, as the role is so small and the performance so poor that the actor seems miscast. Scorcese himself seems to make the biggest impact in his cameo as a deranged customer of Bickle’s – his little diatribe about his wife and what he plans to do is probably one of the better scenes in the movie.

The film is gritty – the very definition of the word in fact. Scorcese does direct the film well – the insight into this one man’s insanity is well-synchronised with the degraded Manhattan presented on-screen. It’s just not that fantastic – not as good as the hype would suggest it is. In fact, some of the scenes are quite weak to behold, in particular those featuring Shepherd and her co-worker – almost unnecessary and quite out of place. The infamous line is somewhat lessened in impact thanks to its many impersonators through the years, and in looking at the rest of the dialogue, only Bickle’s descent into anarchy is intelligent in its construction. His uncertainty in voice-over reflects well on the film, with the constant stumble for articulation and justification. The scenes featuring Shepherd and her co-worker mentioned above are stupid however – it seems like Scorcese was trying too hard to get an indie-style conversation in the movie, and as such it feels staged and ridiculous in context – Bickle’s simple humanity clashes wildly with their inane, bohemian-style chat.

Hearing the theme score by Bernard Herrmann at the onset, it is incredibly good – a piece that seems to match Bickle’s bizzare personality with the metropolitan sprawl of Manhattan. However, it’s about ten minutes in when you realise Scorcese is going to use it over and over again – and by the conclusion you just won’t ever, EVER want to hear it again: a prime example of good intentions gone wildly wrong. The city of Manhattan, shot by Scorcese, looks amazing here. The blurred lights, contrasted with the multitudes of people, give the night scenes that sense of urban life that many films miss – and some scenes present the darker side of the city at night convincingly well. The violence at the conclusion is also vividly brutal – shocking considering the plodding, harmless tone of much of the rest of the film.

It’s good to be able to say that I saw this movie – but that’s all I got out of it, other than a sense of disappointment and annoyance. Both actor and director have gone on to better things, so I should be thankful for its existence, but the truth is that the movie is seriously overhyped.

3/10

Kingpin

Not your typical Farrelly brothers movie, Kingpin is at times ridiculous yet morose – not the long-lasting inanity of There’s Something About Mary, or the disturbing laughter of Me, Myself and Irene, but a quality comedy all the same.

Roy Munson (Harrelson) is a former professional bowler, who, having lost his hand, looks for a way to get some cash. Finding Amish man Ishamel (Quaid) bowling amazing scores, he hatches a plan to win the nationals, and with the help of Claudia (Angel), a woman they encounter on their travels, the two men aim to win the national bowling competition, particularly in beating Ernie McCracken (Murray), the bowler responsible for Munson’s predicament.

Woody Harrelson is the straight man, whilst Randy Quaid is the comedy centre as Amish Ishmael. Bill Murray memorably appears, whilst Vanessa Angel provides the feminine side. Harrelson and Quaid are pretty good here – Harrelson presenting Roy Munson as a damaged but good soul, someone burnt before who trusts nobody. Quaid’s Ishmael is an Amish man, innocent of sinful activities but amazing with a bowling ball. Both men play off each other, Harrelson’s seriousness feeding the playful innocence of Quaid.

Vanessa Angel plays the female foil to the two men, and her attractive looks are comically put to use by Munson to get them more cash. The actress is also convincing enough in the dramatic scenes, but as with many a Farrelly film, she does appear to only be there for looks most of the time. Bill Murray is back to his best as Ernie McCracken, the sleazy rival to Munson and the catalyst for the loss of his arm. Having heard Murray ad-libbed most of his lines, it’s testament once again to the actor’s strength as a comedian that he is still one of the best things about the film.

The brothers Farrelly manage to direct another ridiculous comedy here, but then that’s what they excel at, and here is one of the better examples of such a film. The Farrellys once again mix gross-out humour with stupid laughs, but here there’s a little subtlety to much of the comedy, and counteracting it with the pathetic life of Munson gives the film a slightly more morose edge. As you’d expect with a comedy, there are some great lines, but many of them quite infantile. When they’re good though they are great lines – though nothing much on the soon-to-follow Me, Myself and Irene. The use of live bands and some songs appropriate to the film provide an adequate soundtrack – nothing special or particularly memorable however. The gross-out humour provides much of the visual strength, but the bowling scenes are real and as a result that much more competent than, say, a faked or effects-driven sport comedy.

It’s a funny movie, but one which I think would have appealed to me much more as a child or young teenager – as a twenty-one year old adult, the movie is painfully childish at times, but also a lot more serious than I would have thought possible of the Farrellys.

6/10

Step Brothers

Not the greatest Ferrell film of recent times, but a worthy addition to the collection of insane, man-child characterisations that he seems to have made his own.
Brennan Huff (Ferrell) and Dale Doback (Reilly) are two forty-something losers: men who’ve never left home and never mentally grown out of teenage life. When their two parents marry, they become step-brothers and mortal enemies – their childishness and idiocy brought to the fore in the most ridiculous scenarios possible.

Ferrell and Reilly are really just let off the leash and allowed to act like kids – that’s probably why they’re so ridiculously funny. Will Ferrell appears to have carved a niche for these roles – Ron Burgundy, Jackie Moon and Ricky Bobby are all shades of the same inane, stupid character that now manifests as Brennan Huff. The strength of his performance relies on its opposition to Reilly’s, and Dale Doback presents himself, like Cal Noughton, as the stupid foil to Ferrell’s insane performance. Thing is, neither are that believable – and with the superiority of characters like Burgundy, it’s hard to see why Ferrell doesn’t stretch his humour a lot more. Richard Jenkins is worthy of praise though; as Dale’s long suffering father Robert, he explodes at the most bizarre times, and his face seems to indicate that every year he’s put up with this has taken a toll!

Mary Steenburgen plays Brennan’s mother Nancy, and she gives a little calm to the proceedings; which, in many scenes, only increases the laughter of a situation. She works almost like a counterpoint or foil to the man-children and Robert – the normal person in amongst the insanity. Kathryn Hahn, seen in bit parts in other comedies such as Anchorman, gets a bigger role – and look out for her in upcoming comedies, as her performance here is the biggest surprise. As Derek’s downtrodden wife, she seduces and accosts Dale at any given opportunity – and the fantasies and conversations she creates in these situations are some of the funniest parts of the film.

Adam Scott, as Brennan’s younger brother Derek, is hilarious – the man looks and sneers like Tom Cruise, and his rabid control and need for superiority over his brother means that the character is that much more of an important figure in the funniest scenes. In fact, one of the best scenes of the film comes through his character’s need for excellency in his family, and his behaviour at the conclusion cements him as a new comedy actor for the Apatow team – interestingly opposite to the needless cameo from Seth Rogen, who I feel will soon want to play something other than the schlubby, slightly bemused by anything character he plays here in one small scene.

Adam McKay manages to direct another ridiculous Ferrell comedy, and his collaborations, both script-wise and directorial alongside Ferrell, are consistently funny. McKay ably manages to stage the mad comedy that Ferrell indulges in to the full – witness the riot at the children’s playground, or the antics of Dale and Brennan around the house, and it’s easy to see why the director is good at staging the physical comedy as well as presenting the spoken comedy. There are some great lines, some fantastic (and memorable) lines, and shockingly some real clunkers. The scenes in which Brennan and Dale interview for jobs are terrible – and it’s a shame, as it detracts from some of the really great scenes that surround it. As said above, most of the scenes containing Jenkins and Hahn are the best of the film – particularly the latter, whose obsession with Dale leads to some incredibly wrong yet hilarious lines you’ll remember afterward.

The soundtrack itself is ample for the film, but it’s the use of songs here that gives the film much of its score. Sweet Child O’Mine is presented, a cappella, by Derek and his family to hilarious effect, whilst Time To Say Goodbye is performed by Ferrell so well that you would begin to think he should change career. A lot of the film is reliant on physical comedy, and fortunately McKay can present it very well – from the two men fighting across the house, through to their exploits in attempting to reunite the parents and keep the house, it’s sometimes the case that the physical laughs outweigh the spoken.

It’s certainly no Anchorman or Talladega Nights, but Step Brothers is up there alongside Blades of Glory and Semi-Pro – and you really get the sense here that Ferrell and Reilly perhaps enjoy playing these idiots a little too much!

7/10

Platoon

Brutally violent and engaging, Platoon takes the Vietnam War and centres it around a battle between two men for a new recruit’s soul, utilising setting, a wide range of acting skill and narrative to present war from an ordinary man’s viewpoint.

Platoon follows the experiences of Chris Taylor (Sheen) as he enlists in the American war effort against the Vietnamese. Entering a conflict already doomed to failure, he soon finds that the two leading officers, Barnes (Berenger) and Elias (Dafoe), have very different points of view on the rules of engagement and the behaviour of their soldiers. Alongside his fellow recruits, Taylor experiences conflict, both inside and outside the platoon.

Tom Berenger and Willem Dafoe are outstanding here, with Charlie Sheen taking his father’s role from Apocalypse Now as the audience’s anchoring point. Berenger and Dafoe, as the two officers, Barnes and Elias, present ruthlessness and level-headedness respectively; their two leaders are said to be fighting for Taylor and his soul, and it certainly appears that way throughout, as the young soldier exhibits behaviour in line with either, and the strength of their performances comes down to their antagonism toward one another. Berenger is cold, scarred and disturbing to watch, whilst Dafoe acts against type as the laid-back, morally central counter to him. Sheen is good as essentially the new recruit – the audience travels with him whilst he gets adjusted to war, and his move from innocent to ruthless soldier is convincing, a strong performance that keeps the film engaging to watch.

The supporting cast would appear to many to be quite unbelievably stocked full of skill – Keith David and Forest Whitaker portray two of the more experienced black recruits, their welcoming of Sheen’s Taylor and what transpires with each presenting the comradeship ever-present in war. Kevin Dillon and John C. McGinley play two of Barnes’ cohorts, insane and loyal respectively, and dangerous – the two manage to convey the darker side of war. Johnny Depp is even here – his small role befits his status at the time, and it’s bizarre to see him not only in a small role, but not assing around for once.

Like many war movies before it, and especially akin to other Vietnam films, Platoon is not just about war, but about the psychological effects of it. Notwithstanding this, the action is top-notch, and some of the dialogue will be familiar – this film is more quoted than you would think. Oliver Stone based the film on his own experiences and thoughts from a stint in Vietnam, and it’s impressive to behold the ambiguity he presents. Going against the war machine, he presents a starkly different picture than many films do of the American soldiers – some are murdering, raping scum, and some have been turned that way through their experiences of war. His experience of the war is a large part of the success of the film, as it is surely obvious that someone who may not have witnessed such a conflict would not be able to portray it truthfully. Some of the lines here are memorable, and the narration is (thankfully) minimal in comparison to other war movies (The Thin Red Line and Apocalypse Now, take note). Berenger’s Barnes and Dafoe’s Elias have some of the more intriguing scenes in which they put across starkly different views on war, and Sheen’s naivety soon changes to hardened, despondent rage – reflected well in his anguished conversations with the other soldiers.

The problem here musically is, while Adagio for Strings is an amazing piece of music, it is used to the extreme in the movie. There doesn’t appear to be a score, and the first few times at which the piece is played, it resonates. But by the conclusion, it loses its impact upon the viewer. Other, more popular pieces of music appear in the socialising scenes off patrol, and the men’s relaxation is reflected in the use of the songs to good effect. With a war movie, particularly one such as this, the action is brutal, swift and realistic. It’s not beyond Oliver Stone, having experienced war first hand in such conditions, to set the action in the jungles and wilds that the narrative demands, but he excels in showing the tight, uncomfortable confines and the subsequent anarchy as bullets, bombs and fire rain down upon the soldiers. To truly convey war, war must be presented realistically – and as a result, the bloodshed and effects are chillingly realistic.

All in all, it’s easy to see why the film is such a classic – it doesn’t need to follow the complicated, intricate plots or bloated running times of other war films, because it knows what story to tell and how to tell it effectively and stylishly.

9/10

Apocalypse Now

A fantastic film cataloguing insanity, war and imperialism, Apocalypse Now is a sprawling, magnificent film that masterfully builds up dread and tension through its adaptation of Conrad’s Heart of Darkness.

Martin Sheen is Willard, the main protagonist and soldier ordered to go after Marlon Brando’s Colonel Kurtz, a soldier who has turned away from his orders and gone insane – ordering tribes of Vietnamese people on a quest of murder and horror. Willard joins a troop of naval soldiers and travels up river to find Kurtz – but what he discovers harks back to the original’s title – the very heart of darkness and a hell on earth both in physical and mental forms.

Sheen is fantastic here – he is on-screen most of the time, yet appears distant, his character so far gone into the world of the post-war veteran, and sent back, his demeanour is suggestive of someone addicted; he didn’t want this, but he needs it, and there’s nothing else he can do. His narrative’s parallel with Brando’s Kurzt is masterfully played out, and their eventual meeting is impressive to behold. Brando is not in the film that much – in fact, it is in hearing recordings of his voice and seeing pictures of him that we gain a mounting sense of mystery, and when the viewer finally sees the man, the actor does not disappoint – conveying a sense of insanity with that of a man who has had enough with fighting for someone else, and has decided to take that power and use it for his own ends.

The male co-stars here are numerous and incredibly diverse; from the cameo from Harrison Ford, to the gleeful madness of Robert Duvall’s madman officer Kilgore, the supporting cast has many small standouts. The boat captain, played by Albert Hall, is perfectly in sync with Laurence Fishburne’s young upstart soldier, and along with Sam Bottoms and Frederic Forrest, they make the small boat’s crew that much easier to relate to throughout the movie – these are young guys, not ready for war, and not ready to face the hell that Willard commands them into. Dennis Hopper pops up towards the end as a spaced-out, drugged-up photographer who is part of Kurtz’s gang, and his rabid, non-stop idolising of the man makes good use of Hopper’s hyperactive acting as well as continuing to big up the reputation of the as-yet unseen Kurtz.

The documentation on the hell this movie went through on its way to production is widespread, and sometimes it shows here. However, Coppola’s taste for realism is starkly apparent in the way this film has been made – the army attack on the Vietcong coastal village in particular. Coppola has made what I think to be his best film with Apocalypse Now – The Godfather is a fantastic film, don’t get me wrong, but this is, in my opinion, the peak of what he could hope to achieve. The adapting of Conrad’s novella is ingenious in incorporating the Vietnam War, and the sets, actors and visuals are an example of how film should be; the best of the best, without concession.The dialogue takes many aspects of Heart of Darkness, and even tops the book in places where the madness of Kurtz is laid bare for all to see. And the quotable lines – well, you probably know most of them already, an indication of the influence this film’s script has had on popular culture.

The soundtrack was actually the most disappointing thing about the film – other than the great use of The Doors and Ride of the Valkyries, it’s all synth strings – a real shame when you consider the epic scale of the film. With an orchestral soundtrack, it would have been unbeatable, but the synth really ruins some key emotional scenes. The battle of the Vietcong village, which I’ve already mentioned, is a conquest of filmmaking; the sight of helicopters bombarding a real village with real fire-power, followed by a napalm bombing of the forest, is breathtaking to withhold, a battle the likes of which you would be hard pressed to find in any other film. It’s astounding, both in execution and in the way it’s been visualised Using the Philippines as a substitute for Vietnam allowed for Coppola to get the forests, rivers and vistas that only accentuate the splendour, and Kurtz’s palace at the conclusion of the film is an example of the grand, opulent sets that movies used to have. No effects are needed nor were used – only assisting in making the film’s visual acumen that much more profound.

It’s remarkable that this film was ever made, with the amount of problems it encountered – but thank goodness it was, as it remains one of the best films I have ever seen and is not simply the war movie people expect it to be – it’s a journey into the heart of the human soul, and a voyage to the dark side of human nature, packaged in a visual feast amongst the hell of war.

10/10

I Am Legend

Another Will Smith film that gets to its halfway point and loses its promise, I Am Legend nevertheless is a fantastic piece of filmmaking, and a real presentation of Smith’s acting skills.

Scientist Robert Neville (Smith) lives a solitary existence in a deserted Manhattan; after a supposed cure for cancer begins to kill people worldwide, Neville becomes the last immune person left, and he thinks he is alone in the world. However, at night the people who neither died nor were immune to the disease hunt for blood – their bodies changed irrevocably, and their minds diminished to those of animals. Neville attempts to eke out an existence, but it’s becoming harder for him to cope with his solitude, and whilst he may not be the only person left, he has to continue his fight against the infected or face death at their hands.

Will Smith is everything with this movie – without his performance, it would crash and burn. Introducing other survivors only makes his performance better. Smith is the last man on earth, and as such, his performance is somewhat more difficult than usual. The actor is finally and consistently presenting himself (along with another two of his films ‘The Pursuit of Happyness’ and ‘Seven Pounds’) as a mature and serious actor – he doesn’t wisecrack, there’s no rap track to accompany him. And Smith is a seriously good actor when he wants to be – his performance as Robert Neville is incredibly strong, the last man alive despondently going about survival, the city of New York his playground. Alice Braga plays another survivor, who, along with a small child she had found, tracks Neville down, and she does well with what she has as someone who is trying to reconnect – she is desperately searching for another human, and in Neville she finds one. The only real co-star other than the dog (who is great by the way) could be said to be Mike Patton of the band Faith No More, who voices the CGI humans, and it’s an achievement to be able to make such disturbing noises as he does. His vocal performance gives the otherwise soulless human infected with a sense of evil – an evil with its roots in humanity.

The film looks, sounds and is presented fantastically well by director Francis Lawrence, the particularly significant highlight being the empty New York in which the film takes place. Lawrence manages to craft a quite interesting update of the Richard Matheson novel here – his master-stroke is managing to convincingly empty New York City (more specifically Manhattan) and present it as a post-apocalyptic wasteland. Along with his direction of Smith’s total solitude and the visual effects on display, Lawrence has succeeded in making a particularly morose and dark blockbuster movie. What little dialogue is present is reflective of Neville’s solitude – memorable exchanges with his dog, the mannequins he strategically places to keep him sane and the eventual conversation with the two other survivors are great indicators of the psychological toll the events have taken on him. The music is mostly absent, only really appearing to accentuate the tension. And this is necessary – the deserted Manhattan is even more ominous when coupled with silence.

The practical and technological prowess exerted to make Manhattan appear so empty must be commended here – it really is incredibly convincing viewing the empty Times Square, or the many deserted streets of NYC that Neville traverses. The whole film is bathed in a dark golden light, and the resurgence of the wildlife amongst the skyscrapers presents the idea that nature is slowly claiming back what it used to cover. The only disappointment is the CGI used on the infected – if this had not been used then the film would most likely have been far more acclaimed, but as it is, the effects used are far too plastic, too fake to be taken seriously.

There are so many positives to this film, really. It’s a great movie that could have been perfect, and so nearly is. However, the CGI (and Lawrence’s adherence to it) ruins what may well have been the ultimate survivor movie.

7/10

Equilibrium

This crazy actioner takes influence from anything from ‘The Matrix’ to ‘1984’ – and the end result is a fun, seriously-thought film that presented Christian Bale as a more than adequate lead three years before Batman began.

Cleric John Preston (Bale) is an officer enforcing the policy of no expression in the futuristic society of Libria – freedom of expression is outlawed, emotions are suppressed by a drug, and order is restored permanently after World Wars 3 and 4. Preston begins to feel however; his missing of a dosage giving him insight into feelings, and up against an ambitious Cleric (Diggs) who wants his job, Preston begins to see that he needs to free the people from their self-imposed, emotionless lives.

Christian Bale shows his depth, moving from emotionless and cold to a man awoken and feeling for the first time. He commands here – his character’s transition from an unfeeling robotic man to an empathetic, deeply angry revolutionist against the established system a true test of his talent. Diggs is the antagonist Cleric Brandt, a man who seeks to usurp Preston at every turn, and the young actor is more than capable of standing toe to toe with Bale. Emily Watson plays Mary O’Brien, a woman with close ties to the feeling, emotional rebellion against the government, and the actress’s searing eyes provide her performance with an extra jolt of power – her scenes with Bale are indicative of the move from dominated to domination, with Preston’s move toward realisation mirrored in his growing affection for her.

Angus McFayden plays DuPont, the representative of the mysterious Father (Pertwee), and the two between them create an image of efficient, ruthless control that should not be tested. William Fichtner plays Jurgen, the leader of the resistance fighters, and Sean Bean Cleric Partridge, Preston’s former partner who cecedes to his feelings. The latter two have small but significant roles to play – Bean is our first indication that not all is pure in the society the men uphold, and Fichtner the representative of the change brewing under the surface.

Kurt Wimmer’s conception of this dystopian future has influences permeating it at every turn, but in his use of the martial art ‘Gun Kata’, the movie moves past its literary and filmic influences to be something quite independent. Wimmer created the martial art ‘Gun Kata’ specially for this film – how many directors have that much commitment in filmmaking? Other than the astounding stunts that the scenes with the fights present, Wimmer shows an adeptness for story and for character moments – and with an acting powerhouse like Bale, he creates some searingly emotional scenes that are astounding in this particular movie’s context.

There is a lot of 1984, Brave New World-style dialogue present here, but its the lyricism with which those who feel speak to those who do not that gives the film somewhat of an independence over these literary influences. The use of a soundtrack with heavy choral influence gives the film an extra sense of expectancy – the music swirls in symmetry with Preston’s discovery of his feelings, and the use of Beethoven in one particular scene sears home the idea that music is the purest form of expression we have come to achieve. The gunfights are more tangible and shattering than many films dare to present – bullets burst from guns with billowing plumes of smoke, and masonry, limbs and flesh splinter, smash and crack onscreen in an incredibly brutal, yet poetic way. The effects, when needed, are alright for the film’s needs, but you do get the idea that Wimmer was hamstrung financially by the studios – making the introduction of the martial art the key that unlocks the film’s potential.

The film seems to have everything – it’s not perfect by any means, but there is so much that lies in its favour that it cannot be ignored or dismissed as a Matrix clone. Expression and personal opinions are suppressed by regimes across the world even now, and with the clever use of action and intelligence, Equilibrium presents a disturbing vision of a possible global future – and reminds us how important our feelings are.

8/10

Wild Wild West

On watching this film a long, LONG time after having first seen it, I realise just how terrible it is – in every sense, this film is a joke. Will Smith, normally the one saving grace in any terrible film (just look at Hancock) can’t even rescue this one.

Jim West (Smith) is appointed by President Grant (Kline) to flush out the conspiracy and uprising against his forces in post-civil War America – West is partnered with the zany inventor Artemus Gordon (Kline) and together they search for the figurehead behind the whisperings of rebellion – legless Arliss Loveless (Branagh) and his army aid General McGrath (Levine).

Will Smith and Kevin Kline have to spearhead the film, and they try their best – it’s just not good enough. Smith, Kline and Branagh are the clear male stars, and each of them are terrible in their own special ways. Smith plays up his ‘Big Willy’ persona and takes it back to the frontier days, with the cocky, smart-ass attitude not really working. Kline plays both Artimus Gordon and President Grant, and neither role is really that good for the actor, who seems uncomfortable in a big budget film. Branagh is probably the worst movie villain of all time – his racist, paraplegic character Loveless is a total joke, and it’s so ridiculous to think that the man beneath the performance has been the foremost adaptor of Shakespeare. Unbelievable yet true, Branagh just makes you cringe every second he’s onscreen. Why he, Smith or Kline ever thought this would be a good decision is totally beyond me.

Ted Levine was the serial killer Jame Gumb in Silence of the Lambs seven years previous to this film – a performance that he was acclaimed for, and for which many people will fondly remember him. Why in the hell he would want to lower himself to playing such a ridiculous caricature as he does here? His army general is the lowest of the low, a dim-witted idiot who serves as the secondary villain to Branagh, and…it’s just stupid. A talented actor playing a one-dimensional character is always a shame.

Salma Hayek plays a woman rescued by the duo who has her own motivations, and the actress is really only in the movie as a feisty piece of eye candy for the two to fight over. Whilst her story’s conclusion is a nice little change from the usual, it does nothing to make her performance any better, or any less ridiculous. The other women represented are the henchwomen to Loveless – a bunch of women chosen for their looks, and not acting ability. Need I say more?

Barry Sonnenfeld made Men In Black with Will Smith – and then this. Why he would is anyone’s guess, because this film bastardises the television show it’s adapted from, and is in every directorial sense (other than the effects) a joke. The dialogue, much like the rest of this waste of space, is truly bad. From Branagh’s racist epithets toward Smith, onto Smith’s woefully bad innuendoes, and Kline’s boffin talk, the script is a bad, bad joke.The music is alright – it takes the theme from the show, and presents a Western, action-style soundtrack that is indicative of Elmer Bernstein. It’s a shame such an esteemed composer has his music set along to such a terrible movie.The only, ONLY area of the movie that has any merit – the CGI is actually good throughout, referencing steam-punk and maintaining the film’s burnished, outdoors look. The stunts are also quite excellently done, and once again, it just makes me sad to think that all these people worked so hard for a film that forsakes everything good done for it.

I am ashamed to have bought this film – really, truthfully and honestly ashamed. Don’t watch it if you haven’t seen it, save yourself time that could be better spent watching a good movie or doing ANYTHING else!
0/10

[REC]

[REC] is hands down the most disturbing horror movie I’ve ever seen. Combining a realistic, ‘Blair Witch’-style basis with a distinctly fantastical idea, the film never lets up, and come the end (less than ninety minutes), you’d be well-placed to not be quivering in your chair.

Angela (Velasco) and Pablo (Rosso) are a documentary film-crew filming in a Madrid fire-department at night, and despite their initial boredom, they eventually go out on a call, to an apartment block where an old woman has become distressed in her flat. What starts out as a routine call soon descends into a situation that no-one could have expected, and the documentary filming soon becomes witness to events that lay bare a horrific truth that spells horror and death for everyone inside.
Being as the film requires such a realistic basis, the characters themselves are that much more easy to relate to – and their behaviour seems indicative of anyone’s in such a situation as they find themselves in.

I suppose that it can be said that Pablo Rosso, as the cameraman Pablo, is one male star – we never see his face, but he is filming all the time, and documenting the unbelievable goings-on in the apartment block, and for an actor to balance the both is impressive considering the circumstances. Ferran Terraza, as the fireman Manu, presents the male action hero that pops up so often in horror films, but as you follow him from normality into chaos, it’s evident that he behaves as would any of us in such a situation – he’s frightened, he’s angry, but most of all he does what he can to survive. Manuela Velasco holds the film – she is the main focus for the most part, and it’s remarkable that the actress manages to hold on to her character throughout the events of the movie. As the journalist Angela Vidal, she is at turns detestable, flirtatious and (latterly) a damsel in distress, and pretty adequate at portraying each.

The women of the apartment block provide a somewhat different view – mothers and old women who are trying to protect those closest to them, but also the most bigoted and outspoken present. The other fireman, and the men of the apartments, are able support – particularly as many of them are playing some stereotypes of Spanish society. The ones that stand out are Jorge Serrano as the policeman who struggles to deal with what he encounters, and the aftermath, and Carlos Lasarte as the effeminate old man of the block – he seems to take the goings-on with a sense of disgust, and provides some much needed release with his stylings on Pablo.

The film’s production and presentation are the larger part of its success – the method with which the directors present it was still fairly unique, and is far more effective a method of creating horror than previously thought. The two directors, Jaume Balagueró and Paco Plaza, demonstrate here just how effective the Spanish horror movie scene has become, and the increased prowess of Spanish language directors globally. They take the Blair Witch model (before Cloverfield) and ramp it up somewhat – and their ideas and presentation of a zombie film with handhelds even led the original zombie filmmaker, George Romero, to make his own handy-cam version with Diary of the Dead. Presenting the horror movie cliches through a video camera as opposed to a film camera breathe new life into the scares, and present a movie that is far more effectively directed than you may think – it’s such a shame that the film’s been remade in the US under the name Quarantine – if you haven’t seen it, then watch this first.

There are some clunking lines of dialogue here, but the chills that follow the dialogue between the police outside the block and the individuals inside remind the viewer of the realistic bent the film has taken. Angela’s journalistic motivations are comical to hear, as are the ridiculous accusations of the tenants towards each other. The racism and prejudice on display are interesting in the context, and Pablo and Angela’s interviews with the tenants present individual microcosms of Spanish life and its foibles. There’s no score – what with the film being presented as a documentary style film – there’s no score to real life, so why should there be here! With silence, and the sounds of what the people are trapped inside the block with, there’s no need for a score – in fact, the absence of it only increases the total horror of the movie.

The visual scares are what gives the film its strength, and they really, really disturb. From the first incident, and the aftermath of the visit to that apartment, the film starts to present every shadow, every open door as a threat, and with the camcorder, the movement of Pablo to get away from what chases him only adds to the horror. The ‘individuals’ that provide the horror are your archetypal zombie style assailants, but their swift movements and screams of guttural, animal origin are truly disturbing to see and hear. Every jump and scare comes as more of a shock – there are no special effects that require computers here, and the tangible nature of what’s seen – particularly with the HORRIFIC last fifteen minutes – is what gives the film its power.

All I can say is that it should be seen – if you don’t like horror, then fine. But if you’re willing to see a truly insane movie with thrills, blood and lots of death, then see this.

10/10

The Orphanage

This film was, it must be said, a let-down. It never really reached the heights it’s been said to reach, and whilst it has a notable lack of anything but terror, this isn’t enough to make it the horror classic it’s been said to be.

Laura (Ruada) and Carlos (Cayo) move with their adoptive son Simon to the orphanage where Laura grew up. Simon’s imaginary friends begin to trouble the two, and when bizarre things begin to happen, their suspicions are aroused. Simon then disappears, and the mysteries deepen, with Laura’s past life at the orphanage beginning to appear far more significant to her son’s disappearance than she first thought possible. With supernatural goings-on and the disturbing findings that Laura continues to make, it becomes apparent that the orphanage holds many secrets, some of which may lead Laura to discovering the truth behind Simon’s disappearance.

Belen Ruada is the undisputed centre of the film; as the mother Laura, she is the audience’s guide and conduit to what’s going on in the orphanage, and the actress is convincing in her role, creating a sense of damage and desire to seek the truth that spurs the movie onward through the mystery. Princip, as Laura’s (Ruada) adopted son, shows again that child actors can be relied upon if they’re good enough. HIs performance mixes that of a precocious child with a sense of finality – the boy has a terminal illness, but takes it better and with more maturity than many adults could muster. Fernando Cayo, as Carlos, the adoptive father of Simon (Princip), is a wet blanket however – the cynic to Ruada’s believer, he does nothing other than appear when needed and moan about what he feels is the right approach – his only positive is his position as opposition to his wife’s beliefs, and other than that the character (not so much the actor) is superfluous.

Geraldine Chaplin plays a psychic who agrees to traverse the orphanage to seek the spirits that reside within, and who may know of Simon’s location. Her appearance and performance in this one scene contribute towards its horror and tension – and as such, she cannot go without mention, as the character witnesses some incredibly disturbing discoveries and experiences some truly bizarre moments – without the actress being so effective, this scene would be nothing. The mysterious Beninga (played by Montserrat Carulla) is the archetypal, disturbing old woman, and she looks disturbing enough without her actions – the actress looks like a corpse, and the skeletons in her closet are far more horrific
Apart from the clairvoyant man who assists the family with a search of their home for a presence, and the young children, there aren’t any other male co-stars, and those that are present only really represent those on the outside of the goings-on – no-one is involved intricately, and so they do their job of being outside characters adequately enough.

Juan Antonio Baya’s first feature film, assisted with the capable hands of Guillermo Del Toro, is well-shot, excellently scored and employs practical scares to great effect. His work in this movie is indicative of the strength of Spanish language horror at this time; lo-tech, old-fashioned horror that manages to remain with the viewer afterward. It’s just a shame that he doesn’t coax more scares out of the film – it’s interesting to imagine how good it could have been, a shame in retrospect. Baya employs close-ups to great effect throughout, and (particularly in regards to Princip) elicits great performances out of his actors. I’m sure that on the strength of this film he could get an incredibly good Hollywood movie, and I hope that his vision (a far more old-fashioned one than that of those such as Spielberg) is recognised accordingly.

The dialogue throughout is really just indicative of the narrative; there’s nothing that stands out as particularly significant, and in a film with such a plot, the less talking the better quite honestly – get back to the scares, don’t talk them up. The music is effective, chilling horror film standard – and unlike soundtracks in many other movies, it helps sustain the tension and has a place in the movie. There’s the very bare minimum of CGI on display, and quite rightly too – there’s not really any need for it in a film like this. Effects aside, the landscape and area around which the narrative is played out is amazing, and utilised to full effect – just watch the scenes involving the beach and caves, and you’ll see what I mean. The horror movie staple shots of someone standing where they shouldn’t be are used to great effect the whole way through – and with a child it’s always that much more disturbing!

I really do wish the film had lived up to its potential – it’s a shame to be writing a review that doesn’t shower praise on the film. Its plus points are significant, no doubt, but at the end of it all, you’re left feeling somewhat robbed.
6/10

Demolition Man

This classic ’90’s movie is always, always worth a watch if you have the chance. Having Stallone at the top of his game (which is still pretty bad), up against Wesley Snipes as a wise-cracking, violent antagonist, and adding them together with an interesting, satirical swerve on a utopian future gives ‘Demolition Man’ all it needs to be a classic.

Sly hints at some acting, but then just gives up about halfway and becomes the beefcake we all know and love. Snipes, along with Nigel Hawthorne and Dennis Leary, raises the game a little, and Sandra Bullock offers a romantic, yet comical feminine angle. Rob Schneider’s also in it, but mercifully for a very short time.

Stallone’s John Spartan conveys both his trademark aggression but also some softly-spoken satire – it’s hard to believe Stallone is actually that intelligent. Altogether, his performance is a lot more nuanced and interesting than, say, ‘Judge Dredd’ – so not that big a deal. Snipes however is the man here – his insane, anarchic Simon Phoenix steals the movie, a ruthless criminal in the ‘past’, and a crazed prisoner set loose in the ‘future’. Having always known Snipes from his beefy turn in the ‘Blade’ movies, it’s quite shocking to see him here as a weedy, hyper and disturbing little man. Sandra Bullock, as the only woman in the movie, makes her character a combination of airhead and child – albeit a child finally growing up. Conveying a sense of awakening, Bullock presents Lenina as someone for whom the past is everything, just like Spartan – and it’s interesting that a film that so easily could have been thoughtless action pap has a character with such depth.
Nigel Hawthorne and Denis Leary are the main co-stars – Hawthorne plays the leader of the utopian society, Cocteau, who is more than he seems, and the British actor is slimy in his moves from kindly old man to underhanded politician. Denis Leary plays the head of the resistance to the future society, and manages to convey the satirical aspect of the movie perfectly through his scruffy performance.

The film is a lot more intelligent than it can be perceived as being – it’s rich in satire, and a lot more hilarious than would have been expected at the start. However, that doesn’t mean that it’s a soft comedy throughout – there are some interesting issues raised, and some crazy action added to the mix. Marco Bambrilla takes Aldous Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’ and repackages it quite cleverly into a Stallone vehicle. The film brings up interesting points, moving from gang riots in the ’90’s through to cryogenics – and the ethics involved particularly. In the future, the idea of censoring profanity or any kind of expression is played both for laughs and seriously – how far does the censorship go, and how would two people from the ’90’s cope in a world much changed forty years later?

The future concepts feed into the different way of speaking – people say ‘Be Well’ as a form of goodbye, and swear words are outlawed and punished (making for some comical Stallone scenes). Snipes’ dialogue is interesting – his secret motivations for his actions in the future cryptically hidden in his insane monologues, and Stallone – when given a large bit of dialogue – manages to say it coherently, even engaging in some satire at the expense of Arnie – though the mocking of the Austrian becoming president is somewhat eerie now with his role as Governor of California! The music is pretty much anonymous – other than Sting’s song of the same name at the conclusion, it’s your standard action/comedy/thriller fare – nothing to remember.

Re-creating the hell of the L.A. riots at the beginning (concluding with the explosion of a massive building) would have been a task for most directors, but Brambilla moves from this onto a completely different future – clean, shiny and pristine. The future presented in the film is fantastic, and it’s clear that some care and attention was put in to make it seem realistic. The action scenes are bruising, explosive and entertaining – a balance of all three that is quite rare, and a film where things ACTUALLY blow up as opposed to CGI fire – a hark back to the classic action films of the ’80’s, but with a ’90’s sheen.

Altogether, ‘Demolition Man’ is a more intelligent and incisive movie than its advertising, main star or the action would suggest – it’s a satirical, futuristic comedy wrapped in an encasing of Stallone-style firepower.

8/10

Outlaw

Of any film could be the embodiment of absolute rubbish, ‘Outlaw’ is that film. I honestly can’t understand why Sean Bean and Bob Hoskins agreed to star in this. Or why I sat and wasted two hours of my life watching it.

Officer Bryant (Bean) returns from the Middle East to find Britain has changed beyond his imagination – for the worse. He decides to do something about it, and alongside a barrister (James) threatened by the man he aims to put away, an office worker (Dyer), a beat-up student (Friend) and an angry thug (Harris), takes action against the scum that populates the nation. A friendly copper (Hoskins) helps them from the inside, but the real question is whether they can go that extra step from standing up for justice to becoming true outlaws, and killing the criminals that threaten them daily.

When you think of the great performances both Bob Hoskins and Sean Bean have put in over their careers, it’s wholly depressing to think that they both plumb the depths here – I’m sure they had reason to act in the film (they liked the story, got paid a lot), but their performances aren’t anywhere near good enough to make the rest of the film any better. The other male actors starring in the film include Danny Dyer, Rupert Friend, Sean Harris and Lennie James, each playing another of the ‘Outlaws’, and each of whom are even more terrible than Bean or Hoskins. Danny Dyer continues to present himself as an Essex kid who just happens to have stumbled in front of the camera – a gormless idiot that directors continue to think can act! The other three play a uni student, a mindless thug and an upper-class barrister in the film, and each of them put in a performance that suggests they are as clueless as the viewer as to what they’re doing in this mindless tripe. The only women in this film are either strippers (in one strip club scene) or related to the Outlaws, without any further depth. Maybe the film might have been slightly better with some women in it, as opposed to the macho-fest that it is.

The sad thing here is that there are small signs of promise, but they’re overshadowed not only by the plot, but by the filming skills on show. Director Nick Love should hire a new cameraman as well as a proper screenwriter – the film is in constant shaky-cam mode, and the characters seem to be only excuses for coarse dialogue to be shouted out – with no proper meaning or thought behind what could have been a good message. Love seems to have had good intentions here – he wanted to catalogue the rising violence and scum in Britain on film, even enlisting the help of big name actors to do so. However, in execution (or rather in his execution of it) the idea is hackneyed, ridiculous and pathetic. Every character is a sterotype, and every swear word emphasised for no point whatsoever – it’s a disaster in filmmaking, on every level.

Giving Bob Hoskins the chance to use the C-word may well be hilarious in imagination, but then having him, Sean Bean and every other character swear regardless of the situation is both ridiculous and over the top. Everyone swears, that’s a given – but this much, almost every other word, in conversation? I don’t think so. And leaving the profanity alone, the expository dialogue, as well as some of the more ‘tense’ scenes, is TERRIBLE. I can’t even begin to describe it really – every character seems to have an issue with articulating speech – Sean Bean in particular looks like he’s just learnt how to speak every time he opens his mouth. Musically speaking, dark, ominous synth doth not a tense atmosphere make. I could bang up the background music for this film armed only with a keyboard.
In visual terms, Love shows a little promise – London looks fantastic, especially filmed as if it were New York or L.A. (those overhead shots that we see so often are used here). It’s clear that he knows what looks good, and many of the outdoor scenes really utilise the areas they’ve been filmed in (case in point being the forest towards the end). It’s just such a shame that it’s only the visual aspect of the movie that works – take away the plot, the characters and the dialogue and this would be a modern, shiny look at 21st century Britain.

I hope that this review stops anyone else from putting themselves through this rubbish – the more people I can save from seeing it, the better. It should never have been made, and the fact that it was is testament to the power of Sean Bean and Bob Hoskins – if they hadn’t have been in it, I wouldn’t have been writing this, and as it is, they should be wishing they weren’t in it.

1/10