Sweet Smell of Success is a film about the value of morality in an age where getting to the top is the be-all and end-all of life and, as such, is the most scathing deconstruction of the American Dream of the 1950's, an era of overwhelming commie-bashing and rampant patriotism/nationalism. Sidney Falco (Tony Curtis) is the embodiment of this type – a press agent who'll back-stab, sell-out and jump through hoops just to make it big. For him, that sweet smell is everything, but he's not as detached as he'd like to believe; his despicable actions make him uncomfortable and reduce him to a state of self-loathing, which makes him lash out at anyone who'd try to help or change him. He needs to get to the top – even if he isn't sure why. This is the American Dream. Already at the top is J.J. Hunsecker (Burt Lancaster), an angry, intimidating newspaper editor who fits the classic definition of "evil". He will destroy anyone he feels like, for his own satisfaction. He has reached the top and has absolute power over his writers, the police, his readers and everyone else he meets. Remind you of anyone? So when anyone disputes that power, such as when his sister Susan (Susan Harrison) begins a relationship with a jazz guitarist Martin (Martin Milner) and threatens to leave, he steps on anything and anyone to get that power back. Sidney and J.J.'s relationship is classic sadomasochism – Sidney disgusts J.J. and makes him the constant focus of his abuse, even while Sidney acts like a puppet on a string for him; Sidney takes this abuse with without defence – perhaps because he feels he deserves it. Susan and Martin are the only characters in the film not to embrace the rat race and they are, as a result, run over. Sweet Smell of Success was directed by Scottish director, Alexander Mackendrick and is a harsh, hilarious and cynical look at the pathetic scrabble for power that is the bedrock of capitalist society. Not too surprisingly, the screenplay was co-written by blacklisted communist writer Clifford Odets. The film is a visual and aural feast too – the sumptuous black and white New York location footage combines with a smoky Chico Hamilton jazz score and the result is one of the most atmospheric portrayals of the Big Apple and the people inside it. It is a film about small men who want to be big and big men who really are much smaller than they think. Dig it, rasclart!
Reviews
18 Reviews
I'm Not There
(2007)
I made a prediction about this film when I first heard about it...
19 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I said it sounded like the most pretentious film ever made.
So I just saw it. And I was right.
It was a pseudo-mystical vanity project that sensationalised so many real events and turned them into ludicrousness. The whole thing was an insane caricature.
Also, the various plot lines simply did not fit - they bared no relation to one another; half were totally fictional and half were semi-fictional and this did not work.
Plenty of irritating, cringe-worthy in-jokes ("hey, man she's JUST LIKE A WOMAN" - real subtle) that will make fans wince and be meaningless to non-fans.
They blend the barrier between fiction and non-fiction to the point where it just becomes confusing and pointless - some characters are pseudonyms for others, such as Julianne Moore playing Joan Baez's alter-ego, but some just appear straight, like Allen Ginsberg. It simply makes no sense and also occasionally suffers from typical "of-its-era" biopic problems, where numerous famous figures just happen to appear so as to emphasise the time and place.
It reminded me VERY strongly of Oliver Stone's ridiculous film, The Doors - an over-bearing work of idol-worship which distorts facts under the banner of being an "ART" film.
However, just like that film, this film did have some positive points. The acting was flawless - Cate Blanchett deserves a nomination for her performance, for sure. And visually, it was terrific - particularly the ludicrous swinging 60's bachelor pad where images just appear at random on the walls. And of course, the music's great stuff.
But the problem is that a lot of this stuff actually is documented - what was the point of exaggeration the famous "JUDAS" scene to the point of stupidity, or turning the cranking-up at Newport into a riot, when there is already actual footage of the events which reveal it to be nothing like it is shown? It's trying to make a big deal out of something which is not.
Overall, I'm not going to conclude the review, because I can't be bothered. Just re-read the rest and chop out the dull bits.
So I just saw it. And I was right.
It was a pseudo-mystical vanity project that sensationalised so many real events and turned them into ludicrousness. The whole thing was an insane caricature.
Also, the various plot lines simply did not fit - they bared no relation to one another; half were totally fictional and half were semi-fictional and this did not work.
Plenty of irritating, cringe-worthy in-jokes ("hey, man she's JUST LIKE A WOMAN" - real subtle) that will make fans wince and be meaningless to non-fans.
They blend the barrier between fiction and non-fiction to the point where it just becomes confusing and pointless - some characters are pseudonyms for others, such as Julianne Moore playing Joan Baez's alter-ego, but some just appear straight, like Allen Ginsberg. It simply makes no sense and also occasionally suffers from typical "of-its-era" biopic problems, where numerous famous figures just happen to appear so as to emphasise the time and place.
It reminded me VERY strongly of Oliver Stone's ridiculous film, The Doors - an over-bearing work of idol-worship which distorts facts under the banner of being an "ART" film.
However, just like that film, this film did have some positive points. The acting was flawless - Cate Blanchett deserves a nomination for her performance, for sure. And visually, it was terrific - particularly the ludicrous swinging 60's bachelor pad where images just appear at random on the walls. And of course, the music's great stuff.
But the problem is that a lot of this stuff actually is documented - what was the point of exaggeration the famous "JUDAS" scene to the point of stupidity, or turning the cranking-up at Newport into a riot, when there is already actual footage of the events which reveal it to be nothing like it is shown? It's trying to make a big deal out of something which is not.
Overall, I'm not going to conclude the review, because I can't be bothered. Just re-read the rest and chop out the dull bits.
The Doors
(1991)
One of the silliest films I have ever seen.
22 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Oh, boy, where to begin...
Now, I'm a fan of the Doors. I'm not really a fan of Oliver Stone, but hey, a movie's a movie.
But Christ! There's OTT and then there's LSDOTT! This is supposedly a biopic of the Doors, but Ray Manzarek, John Densmore and Robby Krieger get barely a mention. At best, they're portrayed as Jim's friends, at worst, ass-holes.
So this film is basically Jim Morrison. Now I like Jim's lyrics and voice, but the Doors would have been nothing without the fabulous music. Of course, he led by far the most chaotic lifestyle so it's inevitable he would get the most screen time, but oh my god, you wouldn't believe some of the rubbish Ollie sticks in this film. He raises Jim to status of some kind of Godlike figure. He has Indian spirits dancing around him when he performs. Every second word is some kind of mystical phrase. Every time he performs it's like it's some great historical event. Even the notorious incident when got out his penis on stage is transformed in a ludicrous sacred ritual! Not to mention the mystic orgies, insane (and nonfactual) stage behaviour, long drawn-out shots of him staring into the eyes of an Indian spirit who appears for no reason at all. It's all reminiscent of those ultra-pretentious art-house movies that were prominent in the 60's which have dated so badly.
It's so utterly nonsensical you wonder what Ollie was thinking (or drinking)! That's not the only problem with the film - it's historically inaccurate too, as has been pointed out in other reviews. The goofs section will tell all you need to know - you get the feeling that Ollie idolised Jim Morrison way too much.
As for the acting - variable. I'll admit, Val Kilmer does a TERRIFIC performance - it's uncanny at times. He's wasted in this movie. There are some particularly poor performances though. The scene that takes place in Andy Warhol's factory contains the worst offenders. Andy himself is portrayed as, well, WTF?! Just too weird and stupid to believe, uttering some idiotic dialogue about "Would you like to talk to God, Jim?" And Nico, who was known to be Jim's lover before he died, has almost racist portrayal.
Still, after all this I have to say I did enjoy watching the movie. It's beautifully shot and wonderfully evocative of the era. As a piece of art-house trash, it's fun.
As a biopic, it couldn't be worse.
Now, I'm a fan of the Doors. I'm not really a fan of Oliver Stone, but hey, a movie's a movie.
But Christ! There's OTT and then there's LSDOTT! This is supposedly a biopic of the Doors, but Ray Manzarek, John Densmore and Robby Krieger get barely a mention. At best, they're portrayed as Jim's friends, at worst, ass-holes.
So this film is basically Jim Morrison. Now I like Jim's lyrics and voice, but the Doors would have been nothing without the fabulous music. Of course, he led by far the most chaotic lifestyle so it's inevitable he would get the most screen time, but oh my god, you wouldn't believe some of the rubbish Ollie sticks in this film. He raises Jim to status of some kind of Godlike figure. He has Indian spirits dancing around him when he performs. Every second word is some kind of mystical phrase. Every time he performs it's like it's some great historical event. Even the notorious incident when got out his penis on stage is transformed in a ludicrous sacred ritual! Not to mention the mystic orgies, insane (and nonfactual) stage behaviour, long drawn-out shots of him staring into the eyes of an Indian spirit who appears for no reason at all. It's all reminiscent of those ultra-pretentious art-house movies that were prominent in the 60's which have dated so badly.
It's so utterly nonsensical you wonder what Ollie was thinking (or drinking)! That's not the only problem with the film - it's historically inaccurate too, as has been pointed out in other reviews. The goofs section will tell all you need to know - you get the feeling that Ollie idolised Jim Morrison way too much.
As for the acting - variable. I'll admit, Val Kilmer does a TERRIFIC performance - it's uncanny at times. He's wasted in this movie. There are some particularly poor performances though. The scene that takes place in Andy Warhol's factory contains the worst offenders. Andy himself is portrayed as, well, WTF?! Just too weird and stupid to believe, uttering some idiotic dialogue about "Would you like to talk to God, Jim?" And Nico, who was known to be Jim's lover before he died, has almost racist portrayal.
Still, after all this I have to say I did enjoy watching the movie. It's beautifully shot and wonderfully evocative of the era. As a piece of art-house trash, it's fun.
As a biopic, it couldn't be worse.
Stalker
(1979)
Perhaps the quintessential ART movie...
6 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
You know, I love art-house movies - Jodorowsky, Anger, Bertolucci, Wenders, Warhol, it's all good. But there's a line which mustn't be crossed. That's the line between justified and unjustified pretension. In other words, when does your film become arty without being entertaining? Well, for me, Stalker crosses that line.
OK, the good points. It's wonderfully shot. The contrasting colour and B&W works well at differentiating between the industrial landscape of the city and lush green growth of the zone. Some of the images here would work better hung in a gallery So what's my problem? It's slow. OK, let me rephrase that - it's so slow I think I could see my hair growing faster than the film was moving. Compared to this, Paris, Texas was a mile-a-minute riot.
I mean, what can you say when one plot element means it takes about 15 minutes just to cross a field? It would be something if the film was actually going somewhere, but the film just ends sort of inconsequentially. No re-balancing of equilibrium - they just go from nothing to nothing.
So call me a mainstream sellout if you want, but I like plot, I like colourful dialogue, I like characterisation, all to a moderate extent. Oh sure, you can analyse this film all you want, but you know, you can analyse Warhol's Empire to death too; nothing changes the fact that it's just the Empire State Building doing nothing for 5 hours.
I dunno, maybe it's just me, but this is exactly the kind of "art" movie that Monty Python was always so good at ridiculing.
OK, the good points. It's wonderfully shot. The contrasting colour and B&W works well at differentiating between the industrial landscape of the city and lush green growth of the zone. Some of the images here would work better hung in a gallery So what's my problem? It's slow. OK, let me rephrase that - it's so slow I think I could see my hair growing faster than the film was moving. Compared to this, Paris, Texas was a mile-a-minute riot.
I mean, what can you say when one plot element means it takes about 15 minutes just to cross a field? It would be something if the film was actually going somewhere, but the film just ends sort of inconsequentially. No re-balancing of equilibrium - they just go from nothing to nothing.
So call me a mainstream sellout if you want, but I like plot, I like colourful dialogue, I like characterisation, all to a moderate extent. Oh sure, you can analyse this film all you want, but you know, you can analyse Warhol's Empire to death too; nothing changes the fact that it's just the Empire State Building doing nothing for 5 hours.
I dunno, maybe it's just me, but this is exactly the kind of "art" movie that Monty Python was always so good at ridiculing.
Rushmore
(1998)
I suppose this is one of those "quirky" films...
6 September 2007
Wes Anderson is perhaps the quintessential "quirky" director. As in, his comedies may not be particularly funny, but they always have some off-kilter edge to them which keeps you watching.
Rushmore is a perfect example. The plot of the film makes it sound exactly like the kind of romantic comedy crap which I'd never get the slightest urge to watch, but it's also misleading. This is a romantic comedy filtered through a creative mind.
One of the most interesting features of the film is that Jason Schwartzman's character is totally unlikeable. Traditionally, the role of most obnoxious character tends to go to the popular kids, Football captains etc. But in this case, the character is a geek, obsessed with chess and play - usually the sympathetic characters. In this case, he comes across as unpleasant; I assume this was intentional. Schwartzman's performance is very convincing and he is perfectly suited to the character he plays.
Also great is Bll Murray, who plays a wealthy businessman friend of Schwartzman's character. You could argue that since he turned 40, Murray's been playing exactly the same style in ever film he's been in, but let's face it, it's a great style. Always, slightly depressed, never reacting to anything with any shock or surprised and brilliantly deadpan. As such, he is perfectly suited to Anderson's films.
As such, there is always a serious edge to his films. In this case, I'm not sure what his point is. Maybe he just wanted to write a teen movie and went horribly off the point. Oh well, it's probably better that way. You can't help but be gripped by the film and you sympathise with the characters, no matter how horrible they may be.
Overall, the main flaw is a lack of laughs. There are plenty of missed opportunities for humour throughout the film. I mean, it's not quite one of those arty films where you spend the entire time wondering when the "comedy" tag is going to come into effect, but it's not a laugh-a-minute fest either.
Still, worth watching. I personally preferred it to the Life Aquatic, not that it was a bad movie either.
Freak out!
Rushmore is a perfect example. The plot of the film makes it sound exactly like the kind of romantic comedy crap which I'd never get the slightest urge to watch, but it's also misleading. This is a romantic comedy filtered through a creative mind.
One of the most interesting features of the film is that Jason Schwartzman's character is totally unlikeable. Traditionally, the role of most obnoxious character tends to go to the popular kids, Football captains etc. But in this case, the character is a geek, obsessed with chess and play - usually the sympathetic characters. In this case, he comes across as unpleasant; I assume this was intentional. Schwartzman's performance is very convincing and he is perfectly suited to the character he plays.
Also great is Bll Murray, who plays a wealthy businessman friend of Schwartzman's character. You could argue that since he turned 40, Murray's been playing exactly the same style in ever film he's been in, but let's face it, it's a great style. Always, slightly depressed, never reacting to anything with any shock or surprised and brilliantly deadpan. As such, he is perfectly suited to Anderson's films.
As such, there is always a serious edge to his films. In this case, I'm not sure what his point is. Maybe he just wanted to write a teen movie and went horribly off the point. Oh well, it's probably better that way. You can't help but be gripped by the film and you sympathise with the characters, no matter how horrible they may be.
Overall, the main flaw is a lack of laughs. There are plenty of missed opportunities for humour throughout the film. I mean, it's not quite one of those arty films where you spend the entire time wondering when the "comedy" tag is going to come into effect, but it's not a laugh-a-minute fest either.
Still, worth watching. I personally preferred it to the Life Aquatic, not that it was a bad movie either.
Freak out!
Inland Empire
(2006)
Maybe Lynch's best, depending on your point of view...
28 June 2007
You could argue that Inland Empire shows a full circle completed. Lynch started his career with the abstract dreamscape of Eraserhead and since then until about the early 90's has gradually tuned down his vision into more commercially digestible form. Arguably the peak came with his masterpiece Twin Peaks and its incredible success with the viewers. Since then though, after the savage mauling of his criminally underrated Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me, he has been gradually been drawing the abstractions back into his work until now he seems to have gone back into Eraserhead territory. So is it any good?
Well, it seems to me that the big question is - what the hell was that about? Well, I know the answer - nothing whatsoever. It doesn't make sense because it can't make sense - Lynch wrote the scripts on the day of filming and took numerous sources for the film from works completed years before. The Rabbits for example, were a short and rather creepy movie he placed on his website in 2002. Why he has integrated them into the film I don't know - but they work. And that's the thing; it may not make any sense, but it doesn't need to. When you look at a painting by Salvador Dali or Francis Bacon it doesn't make sense. Oh sure, there will always be people who will try and put meanings to the works, but that's always just an opinion - the paintings represent pure consciousness, a stream of thought in a reality which doesn't work like you think.
In fact, that's the key to all of Lynch's films, especially IE - dream logic. You see, when you see most films with supposed "dream sequences" it never actually reflects a dream - they're always too logical, too coherent, too well put together. Lynch's films are not like this - they reflect the true dream logic, which is that you never know you are having a dream and everything makes sense to those inside the dream. IE fucntions to this logic throughout. It is pure thought.
Right, now that the pretentious crap's over I'll get to the easier to digest facts about the film - firstly, it's the scariest film ever made. It's true that nothing in the world can scare you as much as a nightmare - it acts upon your basic instincts. Well, that's what IE does, more than even Eraserhead. Not to mention there's a scene towards the end which I won't give away that genuinely almost made me crap myself. I have never been given such a fright by any other film ever. I almost felt like I wanted the film to hurry up and end I was so freaked out.
Another thing - the acting is absolutely fabulous by all concerned, but in particular Laura Dern - Lynch once said she was his favourite actress and you can see why. You'll never see a more disturbing or tragic performance given by any other actress for a long time.
And of course it goes without saying that Lynch has all his trademarks in place - Red drapes, little dudes, flashing lights - but even more interesting is his use of Digital Video - some fans expressed complaints, but I have to say it makes the film all the more dream-like and it also gives him much more room for picture manipulation. It's perhaps the most beautiful film I have ever seen, if not in the traditional sense. One more thing - he makes a lot of references to his other films; remember the monkey from Twin Peaks:FWWM? Well...
To conclude, if you're a Lynch fan and you haven;t seen this you need to be tazered - if you're not, well I wouldn't suggest making this your first film of his; it may throw you off a bit.
Still, the best film of the millennium so far. Ya dig?
Well, it seems to me that the big question is - what the hell was that about? Well, I know the answer - nothing whatsoever. It doesn't make sense because it can't make sense - Lynch wrote the scripts on the day of filming and took numerous sources for the film from works completed years before. The Rabbits for example, were a short and rather creepy movie he placed on his website in 2002. Why he has integrated them into the film I don't know - but they work. And that's the thing; it may not make any sense, but it doesn't need to. When you look at a painting by Salvador Dali or Francis Bacon it doesn't make sense. Oh sure, there will always be people who will try and put meanings to the works, but that's always just an opinion - the paintings represent pure consciousness, a stream of thought in a reality which doesn't work like you think.
In fact, that's the key to all of Lynch's films, especially IE - dream logic. You see, when you see most films with supposed "dream sequences" it never actually reflects a dream - they're always too logical, too coherent, too well put together. Lynch's films are not like this - they reflect the true dream logic, which is that you never know you are having a dream and everything makes sense to those inside the dream. IE fucntions to this logic throughout. It is pure thought.
Right, now that the pretentious crap's over I'll get to the easier to digest facts about the film - firstly, it's the scariest film ever made. It's true that nothing in the world can scare you as much as a nightmare - it acts upon your basic instincts. Well, that's what IE does, more than even Eraserhead. Not to mention there's a scene towards the end which I won't give away that genuinely almost made me crap myself. I have never been given such a fright by any other film ever. I almost felt like I wanted the film to hurry up and end I was so freaked out.
Another thing - the acting is absolutely fabulous by all concerned, but in particular Laura Dern - Lynch once said she was his favourite actress and you can see why. You'll never see a more disturbing or tragic performance given by any other actress for a long time.
And of course it goes without saying that Lynch has all his trademarks in place - Red drapes, little dudes, flashing lights - but even more interesting is his use of Digital Video - some fans expressed complaints, but I have to say it makes the film all the more dream-like and it also gives him much more room for picture manipulation. It's perhaps the most beautiful film I have ever seen, if not in the traditional sense. One more thing - he makes a lot of references to his other films; remember the monkey from Twin Peaks:FWWM? Well...
To conclude, if you're a Lynch fan and you haven;t seen this you need to be tazered - if you're not, well I wouldn't suggest making this your first film of his; it may throw you off a bit.
Still, the best film of the millennium so far. Ya dig?
Rubber Johnny
(2005)
So where's your first feature, Chris?
28 April 2006
Wow. This has to be one of the finest pieces of non-feature film-making I have ever seen. The best way to describe would be: The baby from EraserHead having grown up and become professional dancer.
The opening scene is one of the creepiest things ever put to screen. I could barely even watch. It lessens once Aphex Twin's music kicks in, but then your fear is replaced by wonder at the truly incredible editing techniques and visual effects.
The whole things screams for Chris to do a feature film, a truly twisted and bizarre film in the style of the aforementioned EraserHead.
Also recommended: Windowlicker and Come To Daddy.
The opening scene is one of the creepiest things ever put to screen. I could barely even watch. It lessens once Aphex Twin's music kicks in, but then your fear is replaced by wonder at the truly incredible editing techniques and visual effects.
The whole things screams for Chris to do a feature film, a truly twisted and bizarre film in the style of the aforementioned EraserHead.
Also recommended: Windowlicker and Come To Daddy.
2001: A Space Odyssey
(1968)
Groundbreaking and a great film, but overrated...
18 February 2006
This is definitely a great film. The special effects in it were groundbreaking for the day and are still impressive even now. The combination of visuals with music works just as beautifully now as it always has.
However, I have heard people call this the greatest sci-fi film ever. I have heard people call this one of the most thought provoking films ever. I have heard people complain about modern films for having nothing to them beyond special effects, but then praise 2001.
The film is overrated. If you really look at it, you'll realise that the film does not really raise any deep thought-provoking issues, it simply suffers from a almost non-existent narrative. If you read the book this will become very clear to you. It was originally considered to include a narration over the top of the film.
For this reason and the fact that there is little to no character development, this cannot be called the greatest sci-fi film ever and it is outmatched by masterpieces like Blade Runner or Brazil. Even David Lynch's Dune could be considered superior, as it succeeds in many of the areas where 2001 fails.
That said, it is still a bloody good film and a visual masterpiece.
However, I have heard people call this the greatest sci-fi film ever. I have heard people call this one of the most thought provoking films ever. I have heard people complain about modern films for having nothing to them beyond special effects, but then praise 2001.
The film is overrated. If you really look at it, you'll realise that the film does not really raise any deep thought-provoking issues, it simply suffers from a almost non-existent narrative. If you read the book this will become very clear to you. It was originally considered to include a narration over the top of the film.
For this reason and the fact that there is little to no character development, this cannot be called the greatest sci-fi film ever and it is outmatched by masterpieces like Blade Runner or Brazil. Even David Lynch's Dune could be considered superior, as it succeeds in many of the areas where 2001 fails.
That said, it is still a bloody good film and a visual masterpiece.
In the Mouth of Madness
(1994)
Best Cthulhu Mythos film I have seen!
20 December 2005
This has got to be one of the best horror movies of the nineties.
1. It is very creepy, containing a lot of suggestion as well as some very twisted imagery.
2. It both satirises Stephen King and homages H.P. Lovecraft
3.It is very useful to be familiar with the works of H.P. Lovecraft before seeing this film as it is very obviously based on them. IF you closely you may even see Cthulhu at one point!
Massively underrated!
Watch!
Now!
1. It is very creepy, containing a lot of suggestion as well as some very twisted imagery.
2. It both satirises Stephen King and homages H.P. Lovecraft
3.It is very useful to be familiar with the works of H.P. Lovecraft before seeing this film as it is very obviously based on them. IF you closely you may even see Cthulhu at one point!
Massively underrated!
Watch!
Now!
The Woodsman
(2004)
Thinks it's more liberal than it is...
3 December 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The Woodsman is a film so typical of Hollywood, in that it thinks it's being more intelligent than it is.
This film is basically saying than paedophiles are evil, but paedophiles who try to stop being paedophiles could not be.
The other paedophile character in the film is perceived as being a monster, and the film even has beaten into a pulp as result.
Films like this are the kind of films which give the wrong impression of paedophiles. It's pretty sickening, really.
If you want to see a film which really deals with paedophilia and treats them as human beings, watch "Happiness".
The film also fails because of the ludicrous coincidences in it, the fact that Kevin Bacon happens to be living in an area with a girl who is sexually abused by her father and where another paedophile picks up young children.
The film's only redeeming point is Kevin Bacon's performance.
This film is basically saying than paedophiles are evil, but paedophiles who try to stop being paedophiles could not be.
The other paedophile character in the film is perceived as being a monster, and the film even has beaten into a pulp as result.
Films like this are the kind of films which give the wrong impression of paedophiles. It's pretty sickening, really.
If you want to see a film which really deals with paedophilia and treats them as human beings, watch "Happiness".
The film also fails because of the ludicrous coincidences in it, the fact that Kevin Bacon happens to be living in an area with a girl who is sexually abused by her father and where another paedophile picks up young children.
The film's only redeeming point is Kevin Bacon's performance.
The Men
(1950)
Brilliant performance, not so brilliant film.
11 November 2005
This is the film which launched the movie career of the late, great Marlon Brando. Brando's performance as a disabled fighter pilot is terrific and ground breaking.
The trouble is that he is very out of place in the rest of the film.
The film is melodramatic OTT nonsense, all the other characters are clichés and the music is horribly dated. Brando's performance is the only thing that prevented the film descending into obscurity.
Definitely watch this film for Marlon Brando's heartbreaking and tremendously believable performance, but it's certainly no masterpiece and without Brando it wouldn't even be a good film.
The trouble is that he is very out of place in the rest of the film.
The film is melodramatic OTT nonsense, all the other characters are clichés and the music is horribly dated. Brando's performance is the only thing that prevented the film descending into obscurity.
Definitely watch this film for Marlon Brando's heartbreaking and tremendously believable performance, but it's certainly no masterpiece and without Brando it wouldn't even be a good film.
Good for newcomers, bad for fans.
17 July 2005
Warning: Spoilers
OK, first off, I have read all the books, seen the TV series and heard all the radio series, so I may be biased.
Pros: The CGI is terrific, and awe-inspiring, particularly during the planet building scenes.
Sam Rockwell is very good as Zaphod Beeblebrox, and his American accent adds well to his portrayal of an incompetent president *cough* Bush *cough*.
Stephen Fry is excellent at narrating the book, and the news graphics for the guide are all very effectively done.
Mos Def also isn't too bad as Ford Prefect.
Cons: Martin Freeman just isn't very good at portraying Arthur Dent and comes off as being unpleasant and unlikeable.
Zooey Deschanel is also not a very good actress. It can also be blamed on the producers that they felt a need to have 50% of the cast American, despite the fact that the film is billed as being British.
The main thing which spoils the entire film and makes the cons out way the pros is the seriousness of the film. The originals never had even the slightest amount of seriousness to them with even events like imminent death being treated with comedy. However, by far the worst thing about the film is the romantic subplot which has been added. It is absolutely TERRIBLE. Arthur Dent and Trillians relationship was little more than 3 lines in the originals. In this film it is stretched out in true Disney fashion over the entire film and completely undermines the rest of the film.
One last point which may not seem too important to most people is the final line: "The Restaurant is actually at the other end of the universe". This proves that the scriptwriters who were overseeing Douglas Adam's script had not researched any back info on the story as they would have known that the Restaurant at the End of the Universe is a measure of time, not space.
If you've never heard of Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy before, then you may enjoy this.
If you are already a fan, then you are very likely to loathe this film.
Pros: The CGI is terrific, and awe-inspiring, particularly during the planet building scenes.
Sam Rockwell is very good as Zaphod Beeblebrox, and his American accent adds well to his portrayal of an incompetent president *cough* Bush *cough*.
Stephen Fry is excellent at narrating the book, and the news graphics for the guide are all very effectively done.
Mos Def also isn't too bad as Ford Prefect.
Cons: Martin Freeman just isn't very good at portraying Arthur Dent and comes off as being unpleasant and unlikeable.
Zooey Deschanel is also not a very good actress. It can also be blamed on the producers that they felt a need to have 50% of the cast American, despite the fact that the film is billed as being British.
The main thing which spoils the entire film and makes the cons out way the pros is the seriousness of the film. The originals never had even the slightest amount of seriousness to them with even events like imminent death being treated with comedy. However, by far the worst thing about the film is the romantic subplot which has been added. It is absolutely TERRIBLE. Arthur Dent and Trillians relationship was little more than 3 lines in the originals. In this film it is stretched out in true Disney fashion over the entire film and completely undermines the rest of the film.
One last point which may not seem too important to most people is the final line: "The Restaurant is actually at the other end of the universe". This proves that the scriptwriters who were overseeing Douglas Adam's script had not researched any back info on the story as they would have known that the Restaurant at the End of the Universe is a measure of time, not space.
If you've never heard of Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy before, then you may enjoy this.
If you are already a fan, then you are very likely to loathe this film.
Bram Stoker's Dracula
(1992)
Better than the book.
15 July 2005
OK, what I am about to say now may annoy a lot of people, but here goes: People have complained that this film tampers with plot of the novel, Dracula by adding in the romantic subplot, but this in fact adds to the lacking plot from the novel.
The novel, when read today, is badly dated; sexist, patronising to the working class, slow and creaky, and because of the colossal number of films that have been made, the premise of the book just isn't very exciting any more. Having read some of his other work, it is clear to me that Stoker is not a very good writer and just scored a hit with Dracula.
So on the whole, the plot changes in this film actually add to the original plot instead of ruining it.
The novel, when read today, is badly dated; sexist, patronising to the working class, slow and creaky, and because of the colossal number of films that have been made, the premise of the book just isn't very exciting any more. Having read some of his other work, it is clear to me that Stoker is not a very good writer and just scored a hit with Dracula.
So on the whole, the plot changes in this film actually add to the original plot instead of ruining it.
Kids
(1995)
Perfect example of adult's views on children and sex.
29 June 2005
First off, I'd to point out that I am 15 and I am writing this from my poitn of view.
This film is very well made and the acting is generally good,although the acting was sometimes a little over the top.
The main point about this film is its attitude towards children and sex.If this film had been about 25-year olds drinking, fighting and having unprotected sex, then it would have probably caused no controversy. However, because they are children, suddenly its the most shocking film ever made(sarcasm)! And they are not completely innocent 5-year olds who know nothing about sex and AIDS, they are all teenagers who are well informed about sex.
This film did not really shock me at all, because I am looking at this from a teenage point of view. These are just normal people to me having (OK, unprotected) sex and it does not really offend me. The people who are really offended are the parents who hate to conceive the idea that their children might have sexual intercourse with another person. And yet the film is rated 18 in the United Kingdom and NC-17 in America. And yes, I know that it shows them having sex without condoms, but it also shows that this is not a good thing and that they will suffer the consequences.
If this film was meant to show people how shallow they are when they think about teenage sex, then I would say that this is great film. However, if it is meant to show teenage sex as being wrong and to make parents more paranoid than they already are, then I would say that this film has a terrible moral standpoint.
Watch it and decide for yourself.
This film is very well made and the acting is generally good,although the acting was sometimes a little over the top.
The main point about this film is its attitude towards children and sex.If this film had been about 25-year olds drinking, fighting and having unprotected sex, then it would have probably caused no controversy. However, because they are children, suddenly its the most shocking film ever made(sarcasm)! And they are not completely innocent 5-year olds who know nothing about sex and AIDS, they are all teenagers who are well informed about sex.
This film did not really shock me at all, because I am looking at this from a teenage point of view. These are just normal people to me having (OK, unprotected) sex and it does not really offend me. The people who are really offended are the parents who hate to conceive the idea that their children might have sexual intercourse with another person. And yet the film is rated 18 in the United Kingdom and NC-17 in America. And yes, I know that it shows them having sex without condoms, but it also shows that this is not a good thing and that they will suffer the consequences.
If this film was meant to show people how shallow they are when they think about teenage sex, then I would say that this is great film. However, if it is meant to show teenage sex as being wrong and to make parents more paranoid than they already are, then I would say that this film has a terrible moral standpoint.
Watch it and decide for yourself.
Mulholland Drive
(2001)
Haunting
20 June 2005
I have seen a lot of surreal and unusual films, most by David Lynch. David Lynch's films have a strange compellingness to them which draws you in and you just wants to keep watching no matter what happens.
Mulholland Dr. is no exception. Apart from great acting, scripting and one of the hottest sex scenes ever, the main aspect of the films is it's haunting power. After watching this film it will linger in your mind for months or years. You will have sleepless nights trying to work it all out. It is also extremely creepy, if not psychologically damaging. After I saw this film, any time I heard an extract of music from it I would shudder.
This film is probably David Lynch's finest film. See it or die!
Mulholland Dr. is no exception. Apart from great acting, scripting and one of the hottest sex scenes ever, the main aspect of the films is it's haunting power. After watching this film it will linger in your mind for months or years. You will have sleepless nights trying to work it all out. It is also extremely creepy, if not psychologically damaging. After I saw this film, any time I heard an extract of music from it I would shudder.
This film is probably David Lynch's finest film. See it or die!
The Evil Dead
(1981)
Good, Not-so-clean Fun, but not as violent as it is hyped.
1 November 2004
When you go to see this film, do not expect it to be the most violent film ever made. It was made on a budget of $90,000 resulting in fake-looking gore. Most of the violence is also too comical and over the top to be taken seriously. However, as an example of how to make low-budget horror movies, this is one of the best. Featuring innovative camerwork, a creepy atmoshpere and a sinister soundtrack, the Evil Dead can either be watched to frighten you or just for the fun of watching Demons being hacked to pieces. It is not, however, as violent as George A. Romero's living dead trilogy.
Dune
(1984)
The Eraserhead of Sci - Fi movies!
31 August 2004
This movie must be the most underrated movie of all time.
While it is confusing if you have not read the book and the acting is nothing special (although it is not necessarily bad), this film has one of the most unique production designs in Sci-Fi.
It has variable special effects which can range from dated and clumsy (some of the flying vehicles) to fantastic (The awesome Sandworms).
It also has possibly (in the style of David Lynch) one of the most repulsive villains ever, the Baron Harkonnen.
The best way to treat this film would be like Eraserhead. Eraserhead can't be viewed or judged in the same mindset as most other films. The same should apply for Dune, it should not be compared to films like Star Wars. Probably more like 2001.
One more thing - Frank Herbert, the author of Dune, actually said he liked David Lynch's version.
While it is confusing if you have not read the book and the acting is nothing special (although it is not necessarily bad), this film has one of the most unique production designs in Sci-Fi.
It has variable special effects which can range from dated and clumsy (some of the flying vehicles) to fantastic (The awesome Sandworms).
It also has possibly (in the style of David Lynch) one of the most repulsive villains ever, the Baron Harkonnen.
The best way to treat this film would be like Eraserhead. Eraserhead can't be viewed or judged in the same mindset as most other films. The same should apply for Dune, it should not be compared to films like Star Wars. Probably more like 2001.
One more thing - Frank Herbert, the author of Dune, actually said he liked David Lynch's version.
Ringu
(1998)
The Scariest Film of all time!
14 August 2004
Has anyone rented out the Exorcist or the Wicker Man after being told how unbelievably scary they are, only to be disappointed by the Exorcist and completely disappointed by the totally un-scary Wicker Man?
Well then, rent out Ring. If you can sit through this film without a feeling of eeriness and not crack up at the final scene, then you must be some form of superhuman.
Everything about this film is excellent. You are uneased by the surreal imagery on the infamous video tape and the atmosphere produced by the film getting your nerves ready for the final insomnia inducing final scene.
Other Recommendations: Dark Water, Ring 2.
Well then, rent out Ring. If you can sit through this film without a feeling of eeriness and not crack up at the final scene, then you must be some form of superhuman.
Everything about this film is excellent. You are uneased by the surreal imagery on the infamous video tape and the atmosphere produced by the film getting your nerves ready for the final insomnia inducing final scene.
Other Recommendations: Dark Water, Ring 2.
Tell Your Friends