Review #12: 'Black Swan' (2010)

Seen as a companion piece to director Darren Aronofsky's critical hit The Wrestler (2008), Black Swan is his love-letter to the operatic world of ballet. Similar to The Wrestler, this is a psychological study of a loyal servant to a chosen profession, who are pushed to the limits both physically and psychologically by the pressures of being good and relevant to their craft. Black Swan throws in a bit of mind-fucking and horror for good measure too.

Nina (Natalie Portman) is a gifted dancer who is reaching the make-or-break stage in her career. Always being pushed and encouraged by her mollycoddling mother Erica (Barbara Hershey), she hears about a new production of the Swan Lake to be directed by Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel), which requires one actress to play a dual role of both the White Swan and the Black Swan. Nina is an ideal choice for the role of the virginal, elegant White Swan, but Leroy has doubts over her ability to let go and become the darker, seductive Black Swan, a role that would be ideal for newcomer Lily (Mila Kunis). After a talk in Leroy’s office, Nina reacts badly to Leroy's advance and he becomes exhilarated when he catches a brief glimpse of what she could be capable of. And, when the casting is announced, Nina is awestruck when she lands the lead role.

The second act sees Nina engage on a mission to become the Black Swan, and this is when things get stranger. Doppelganger’s, reflections that seem to have a mind of their own, and a dabble in lesbianism start to push Nina towards psychological breaking point. It is unfortunately at this point where the film begins a steady decline, after the highly promising first hour or so. The twists and turns of Nina’s ever-declining mental state feature various strange episodes that I felt very familiar with. It had the same predictability as other films focusing on similar issues (Jacob’s Ladder (1990), The Machinist (2004)) and things rarely come as a surprise. Of course this is a film about the theatrical dramatics of ballet, but it begins to get overwrought and camp, when I feel it would have worked better with the style of the tense, slower-paced first act.

Not to knock the film too much, there is still much to enjoy here. The performances are excellent, namely Portman. She is in practically every scene and is every bit as good as you’ve most likely heard. Her transformation from the sweet, dedicated Nina of the first half to the desperate, troubled one of the second is wholly convincing, and that is down to Portman's acting ability. The scene in the cubicle when she calls her mother to tell her she got the part perfectly captures Nina’s joy mixed with utter disbelief and confusion. She’s always been a very good actress, but apart from 2004’s Closer, she’s never really been given a role she can really chew on. Here she chews with aplomb. Like I stated in a previous post, I would not begrudge her the Oscar if she beats my hopeful Jennifer Lawrence for Winter’s Bone (2010).

Black Swan is a very well-made film with amazing scenes of ballet, powerful acting and loose, confrontational camerawork, similar to that of The Wrestler. I just wish Aronofsky had been a bit more original with the horror scenes and offered something genuinely tormenting, similar to what he did with Requiem For A Dream (2000). Probably not for ballet-buffs either, unless you also enjoy scenes of fingernail removal and masturbation.


Directed by: Darren Aronofsky
Starring: Natalie Portman, Mila Kunis, Vincent Cassel, Barbara Hershey, Winona Ryder
Country: USA

Rating: ***

Tom Gillespie

Review #11: 'Bunny and the Bull' (2009)

This 'surreal' comedy plays much like an extended episode of The Mighty Boosh, however, it is far more endearing than this. The story focuses on friends Stephen (Edward Hogg) and Bunny (Simon Farnaby). Stephen is a shut-in who hoards everyday items and mementos in boxes stacked around the house. The two characters go on an imaginary road trip, which is fantasised through memories of past events. This faux-adventure takes them to Spain, where Bunny learns how to be a matador. This is after they meet spanish seafood resturant waitress Eloisa (Veronica Echegui), who has quit her job and decided to make the journey back to spain. After aquiring a vehicle in a crab eating contest, Stephen and Bunny catch up with Eloisa and make that journey happen.

The connection between this and the BBC show The Mighty Boosh, is obvious, as the films writer/director Paul King is involved in directing the shows episodes. The inclusion of Noel Fielding and Julien Barract in small (but highly hilarious) parts heightens this further.

The visual style of the film is reminiscent of the work of Jean-Pierre Jeunet and Michel Gondry. King uses the fantasy elements of the journey to create a backdrop of animations made from cardboard and layered paper. In an opening sequence we she Stephen and Bunny making bets in a bookies that looks like a set lifted from an episode of Paddington from the 1970s: that is, two dimensional pencil sketched surroundings.

There is much to like here, the performances of the two main characters are excellent, especially Simon Farnaby, who dresses like a 1970s binman. But for me the stand out character, and giver of the best laughs is Julien Barrats Polish Tramp. In a scene under a motorway flyover, Atilla offers Stephen some milk. "It's dog milk". This is offered in a bottle, but Atilla drinks directly from the dogs teet. Stephen gets a hard-on from the dog, Atilla replies "You want fuck my wife?"

In the closing sequences we get a beautiful Jeunetesque payoff, beauty becomes rhythm. Without words, the visuals play. The mechanical bull becomes the person. Metal to skin, skin to muscle, but death is ultimate when fantasy is mistaken for reality. Well, that's what I wrote in my notes. I'd had a few drinks whilst I watched it. In conclusion, a beautifully crafted film visually, with many laugh-out-loud moments, and some endearing characters.


Directed by: Paul King
Starring: Edward Hogg, Simon Farnaby, Verónica Echegui, Richard Ayoade, Noel Fielding, Julian Barratt
Country: UK

Rating: ***

Marc Ivamy

"Hollywood and the Marketeers"

At the Sundance film festival, Kevin Smith made a speech following the screening of his new film Red State. He was not in any way discussing the film itself in any matter. What, in fact, was his topic of discussion was his disgust at the Hollywood marketing machine. Whilst announcing that this would be his penultimate movie (and after this would be focusing on the careers of young filmmakers), he went on to criticise the large budgets spent on promoting films. He stated that his new movie cost $4m to produce and that the distributors would buy it for around the same cost, but then spend a further $20m to promote it. This, Smith states, sickens him.

I totally agree with him. The average Hollywood movie these days cost around $70.8m to produce, and then a further $35.9m are spent on marketing. This is a trend that really began in the 1970s, on films such as Jaws, where they had both saturation marketing (using print media, television advertising etc), then saturation booking, where the film is shown on as many screens in as many cinemas across the country for the first weekend. The saturation of this, is Hollywood marketeers idea that if the film isn't very good, they may well at least be able to break even in the first weekend before word of mouth kicks in and the movie dies the second weekend.

At this moment in time, Hollywood is using 3D to promote many of their movies, a gimmick used in other decades to try and get audiences back in the cinema. In the 1950s this was used as a defence against television. In the 1980s it was video. Today it is because of illegal torrent sites. So Hollywood are using 3D in marketing a film on this basis alone. In fact this year, there are at least 30 films to be released that are in 3D.

The trend of researching what the audiences 'want' to see began in the 1980s really when companies like Coca-Cola took over studios marketing departments. Tests were devised to find out how to target the demographic that is the films target, so that whomever the companies idea of who may like this movie, the marketing will be placed in the media most associated with that target demographic. However, now with budgets so high on production of the major blockbuster releases, of lets say the summer months, that marketing is targeted at anyone and is placed in all media, which is essentially wasting money in dead areas. An example of incredibly high cost of advertising was for the release of The Simpsons Movie, where in the US, 7-Eleven convenience stores were transformed into Springfield's Kwick-E Mart's nationwide.

It is sickening that movies promotion costs are so high. So high in fact that they could possibly feed the third worlds population 5 times over. But that's a side of politics I'm not sure I want to get into.

Marc Ivamy

Review #10: 'One Million Years B.C.' (1966)

The thing best remembered about this Hammer fantasy is not the movie itself, but the iconic image of Raquel Welsh, which has donned many a students’ wall throughout the decades. The movie itself is a bit of fun, but relatively forgettable.

It tells the story of Tumak, a neatly-bearded cavemen. One of two sons to the tribe’s leader, he is a member of the Rock tribe who seem to spend their time jumping on top of warthogs, squabbling over chunks of meat, and having dramatic stick-fights. His overbearing father rules over the camp like a nomadic Hitler, and banishes Tumak after a squabble over chunks of warthog meat leads to a dramatic stick-fight. After walking the land for a while and meeting some of ancient Earth’s giant monsters, he walks upon a tribe who seem to exist with a more peaceful outlook on life. Also, the women in the tribe are all blonde, skimpy-dressed, and seem to shave their legs.

It’s a vision of man’s beginning as seen through the eyes of Karl Pilkington. The giant creatures created by Ray Harryhausen are, as usual, fantastic to watch, but as the film goes on I started to wonder where the creators got their crazy ideas from. Obviously, the film wasn’t ever going to strive for historical accuracy, but when I saw the scene in which a giant turtle attacks the tribe I was gazing open-mouthed at the TV. It’s the kind of lunacy that makes the Hammer films of lesser quality still so endearing. Harryhausen defended the film, stating that he “didn’t make it for professors.”  Take Harryhausen’s words and just enjoy the sights on show, be it a giant gecko, a dinosaur fight or Raquel Welch.

Directed by: Don Chaffey
Starring: Raquel Welch, John Richardson, Percy Herbert
Country: UK

Rating: ***

Tom Gillespie

Review #9: 'Turkey Shoot' (1982)

Directed by Anglo Australian filmmaker Brian Tenchard-Smith (most notably known for the Australian film that introduced Nicole Kidman to the world, BMX Bandits (1983), a kid/family movie, mainly remembered for the zeitgeist trend of the bicycle craze in the title), this post-Mad Max dystopian future movie tells the 'story' of a camp for retraining the 'deviates' of society, so that they may conform to the institutionalised norm as a whole. It begins with three people being taken in the back of a van to the camp of 'Re-Education and behaviour modification'. The camp looks much like the Nazi concentration camps of such films as SS Experiment Love Camp (1976), or Ilsa: She-Wolf of the SS (1975). The film begins as all of the usual 'nazisploitation' movies do, with a pinch of titillation and humiliation. This is not however a nazisploitation movie, as it appears to have a more communist edge; as the motto goes (in a quite comical sequence where 'chief' guard Rimmer picks out the smallest woman, and mock-punches to her face, whilst forcing her to recite it), "I am a deviate, lowest form on earth..."

The main 'heroes' of the piece, are Paul (Steve Railsback), and Chris (Olivia Hussey - also known for such genre films as It (1990), and Black Christmas (1974)). These also constitute the ubiquitous love interest within the plot. Whilst the inhabitants of the camp are humiliated and ritually abused in almost gladiatorial fashions, the main plot stems from the concept highlighted by the films title (although this was altered both for the UK video market - Camp Blood Thatcher; and the US market, Escape 2000), where there are five prisoners who are set 'free' from the camp so that seemingly elite persons from society can game hunt them with no consequences. All this leads to utterly predictable outcomes, resulting in an attempted overthrown of the 'authorities'!

The film exploits the concept of game hunting with elements of gore (again ubiquitous of the times of production), but doesn't really explore the societal elements that the protagonists are trying to subvert. We know nothing of the 'societies' structural elements that may instigate any kind of revolution or revolt. What exactly are the protagonists subverting? What are the policies, or dogmas of this 'society'? We only see the camp, and are not given any knowledge of the non-diagetic world beyond this.

The rich hunt the imprisoned. That is about as political as this movie gets. Ok, so all movies don't necessarily need to have a message, granted. But if you are going to make a film set in a dystopian future, the world needs to be constructed so that we may understand why this future exists. To add insult to injury - despite the finale having a touch of gore - it almost seems like an episode of The A-Team, only people actually get shot. I almost forgot to say; a certain 'thing' accompanies one of the rich on the game hunt that he "found in a freakshow", which is essentially a badly dressed wolf-man. It's as if someone turned up on set in the wrong costume, and the director thought "well, fuck it, we'll make it work!"

If you love bad filmmaking, with no social commentary, and no element of surprise or suspense, then you may well love this. But, it is, and will always be a bore!


Directed by: Brian Trenchard-Smith
Starring: Steve Railsback, Olivia Hussey, Michael Craig
Country: Australia

Rating: **

Marc Ivamy

Review #8: 'WR: Mysteries of the Organism' (1971)

Directed by Serbian filmmaker Dusan Makavejev (also known for directing Sweet Movie (1974), and the Australian produced The Coca-Cola Kid (1985)), the film mixes documentary and narrative cinema, to comment on the infiltration of Soviet Communism, sexual politics/sexual revolution, in a political satire. The main drive of the film to begin with is the work of Austrian-American psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, Dr Wilhelm Reich: His theories of Organon therapy (use of static electricity), and the connection between neuroses in people that is rooted in physical, sexual and social surroundings. This connects also with the work of Alexander Lowen, an American psychotherapist (and student of Reich's), who practices and teaches Bioenergetic analysis which uses thereputical body work to associate the mind with the body, and in theory release repressed energy through the body sexually without the act of physical sex. I observed in these sequences a kind of connection to the work of Arthur Janov, and his primal scream therapy.

The narrative section of the film tells the story of Milena (Milena Dravic) and her sexually promiscuous flatmate Jagoda (Jagoda Kaloper), and their theories and speeches of sexual revolution: "The October revolution was ruined when socialism rejected free love". They meet a Russian communist figure skater, Ivica (Vladimir Ilivich), who they seduce. But Milena soon discovers that communism has no time for sexuality unless it is first met with physical violence. This seems to be a metaphor for the struggle against Stalinist communism within Yugoslavia since the second world war. But in the film Ivica seems somewhat deluded by the concept of communism (as he states, "communism is a Latin word meaning communal), whilst almost being made rigid by the sexual intentions of Milena.

The most interesting part of the film is the first part that focuses on the life and work of Wilhem Reich (hence the W. R. in the films title). He first started working in psychoanalysis with Sigmund Freud in the 1920's, but after writing books such as 'The Mass Psychology of Fascism', fled Austria for America, where he settled in Maine. He worked on his theories of orgone therapy, and developed the orgone accumulator, an organic box lined with lead that individuals would sit in and is theorised as giving both therapy to the body's organs and to sexuality (The use of the orgone accumulator was even endorsed by William S. burroughs.). Eventually Reich was arrested (more than likely the victim of situation - i.e. he was from behind the iron curtain), and viewed as insane - despite being tried in court. All of his books were burned in New York, supervised by the federal food and drugs administration agents (take from that what you will).

It is an interesting film. The different strands are connected by the theories of Wilhelm Reich. But it's one of those films that is probably more interesting to talk about than watch as it is incredibly slow moving, and at times seems to focus on activities (such as bioenergetic analysis), as group fad, and seems to almost fall into a 'new age' enlightenment message. Released in 1971, this would make sense, as the sexual revolution was in full 'swing'. Despite all of this it is a relatively enjoyable piece of cinema, with some nice ideas in it. But again, the life of W R far outshines the film as a whole.


Directed by: Dusan Makavejev
Starring: Milena Dravic, Ivica Vidovic, Jagoda Kaloper
Country: Yugoslavia/West Germany

Rating: ****

Marc Ivamy

Review #7: 'Thriller: A Cruel Picture' (1974)

As part of the 'rape and revenge' exploitation sub-genre that cropped up in the glory days of 70's grindhouse, Thriller - A Cruel Picture (aka They Call Her One-Eye), stands out amongst the rest due to the fact that it's actually bloody good. Frigga (played by exploitation regular and occasional porn-star Christina Lindberg) is mute due to being sexually assaulted as a little girl. On her way to the doctor she is offered a life by sleazy rich-boy Tony, (Heniz Hopf) and wined and dined before being drugged in his apartment. She wakes up to be told she's been hooked to heroin, and is forced into prostitution as Tony becomes her pimp.

When Frigga begins to show resistance, Tony reacts badly and stabs her in the eye, causing her to wear an eye-patch. After months of being forced into sex by her strange and abusive clients, Frigga uses her savings to plot a deadly and bloody revenge against the people that caused the misery in her new life. The film was banned in Sweden, and only received a heavily-censored release in the U.S.A., mainly due to the notorious eye-popping scene in which director Bo Arne Vibenius used an actual dead body for a close up of the eye being stabbed.

Quentin Tarantino frequently refers to this as one of his all-time favourites, and although hardly a masterpiece, you can kind of see why. Also, Frigga is an obvious inspiration for Daryl Hannah's sadistic assassin Elle Driver in Kill Bill (2003), and possibly for Kurt Russell's Snake Plissken in Escape From New York (1981). Frigga is a very interesting character. One half an innocent, shy girl that seems to accept her new situation with sad resignation. The other, a silent, patient killer-in-waiting. Lindberg pulls it off admirably, even though never speaking a word during the whole film.

When the film threatens to become monotonous with the scenes constantly drifting from a scene of heroin abuse to a scene of sex, the second act kicks in as Frigga begins weapons training, drag racing lessons and martial arts. And when the revenge comes, it's as stylish as a film of this budget could possibly be. Frigga mows down her victims in super slow motion, as bullet shells fly gracefully through the air, and objects explode into pieces in vivid detail. It's a style mirrored in Guy Ritchie's Lock, Stock And Two Smoking Barrels (1998), although it's much more effective in this film. It is, however, also one of the films negatives as it highlights how low the budget actually was, as fake, brown-looking blood erupts on the victims' torso's. It is also way overplayed in a scene where she uses her martial arts skills to fend off two policemen.

It clearly benefits from a director who had the honour of working with Ingmar Bergman earlier in his career as the film transcends similar films to the genre (such as Wes Craven's Last House On The Left (1972)). I would possibly urge you to watch the censored version if you can, as the unnecessary hardcore sex scenes bring the film down a level. A virtual classic in it's genre and compulsive viewing for exploitation film fans.


Directed by: Bo Arne Vibenius
Starring: Christina Lindberg, Heinz Hopf, Despina Tomazani
Country: Sweden

Rating: ****

Tom Gillespie

Review #6: 'Let's Scare Jessica to Death' (1971)

This film tells the story of Jessica (Zohra Lampert), her husband Duncan (Barton Heyman), and their friend Woody (Kevin O'Connor). After spending six months in a hospital for undisclosed mental issues, Jessica and her pseudo-hippy companions are driving to a rural house that Duncan and herself have purchased to renovate and eventually live in. Jessica's mental stability is alluded to simply as fear; we are never told what ever triggered this psychological collapse in the first place. Throughout, Jessica is haunted by hallucinations, visions and sounds only seen and heard by herself. She sees a girl in a white gown, first in a grave yard on the journey to the house. Her thoughts question her actions, and other voices question the actions of others. On arrival at the house, the group is startled to find a girl (Emily, played by Mariclare Costello), who has been squatting there for some time (so as she states). This seemingly stabilises the dynamic to the traditional girl/boy, girl/boy ratio, but only unbalances the fragility of Jessica's psychology.

This low budget horror/psychological drama was directed by John Hancock (only subsequently making notable directing turns in TV, on such shows as the 1980's incarnation of The Twilight Zone, and Hill Street Blues). Filmed on an incredibly limited budget of $200,000, the film still manages to hold up, with almost ethereal, soft focus camerawork. The film's title is slightly misleading (probably due to the distributors wanting a catchier title - the original of which was simply 'Jessica'), as it first appears the there are no inherent exterior entities to antagonise the character, and her own delicate psyche. But this is relatively ambiguous. As Jessica states in narration in the closing shot, as she sits still in a rowing boat, "Like Mirrors or dreams, madness or sanity, I don't know which is which".

The break down in mental stability of Jessica plays much like Roman Polanski's Repulsion (1965), or Rosemary's Baby (1968) (and as the film progresses Zohra Lamperts performance comes close in subtle intensity to Catherine Deneuves delicate, fragile take on mental breakdown in Repulsion). Whilst the history of the house is only mentioned in passing (a girl in the Bishop family - previous owners of the lot - drowned in the lake behind the house before she was to marry), it is never elaborated on, and there is a strain throughout the film suggesting that Emily could indeed be that Bishop girl. These ambiguities work well in the character of Jessica who seems to be trapped in psychological limbo, unsure if all these events are an illusion of her mental state. As things seem to fall apart, a mighty sense of paranoia hits Jessica culminating in a crescendo into a zombiesque finale in the closing moments.

Whilst much of the acting in this movie is lacklustre, the film works well, and is one of the better 'exploitation' movies of the period. A break away from the usual schlock fare you tend to expect in this genre, particularly in the low budget market. Certainly worth a view.


Directed by: John D. Hancock
Starring: Zohra Lampert, Barton Heyman, Kevin O'Connor
Country: USA

Rating: ****

Marc Ivamy

Review #5: 'Stalker' (1979)

Stalker begins in a black and white, industrialised, gated and despotic world. You feel the dampness permeated within the walls. Pools of water lay in mud; it falls from the walls and ceilings. This is the environment that we meet the main character ‘Stalker’ (played laconically by Aleksandr Kaidanovsky). His job is to guide people to their hopes and dreams. The place that he guides them through is ‘The Zone’. The zone is the perfect juxtaposition of the dank world we are first introduced to. A place occupied by the elements of nature. However, this space is unpredictable.

As the story goes, the zone is cordoned off to the masses as there was an unspecified ‘alien’ landing which, at its centre can give the answers – both philosophically and ideologically – to whomever reaches that core. Stalker is employed by people who want to find this out, as a guide through the treacherous landscape. They need a guide who knows how to manoeuvre through it as the land constantly changes, and can be utterly deadly. A writer (Anatoli Solonitsym) and a scientist (Nikolai Grinko), employ ‘Stalker’ as their guide through the terrain.

This is without question my favourite of all Andrei Tarkovsky films (easily beating Mirror (1975) and the more well known Solaris (1972)). There is always a particular beauty with which he is able to film nature, and to transcend the normality of it, and present it as pure imagistic poetry. In the opening sequences, he conjures beauty from damp, decaying environments, and offers the most perfect of juxtapositions of our industrialised world, next to the beauty of nature. But in this filmic world, the natural elements seem to be the enemy; the alien ‘other’.

The answers which the characters are looking for become almost irrelevant, as the sheer poetry of the filmmaking transcends story. I just implore you all to watch this film, which I have to say, is one of my favourite films of all time.


Directed by: Andrei Tarkovsky
Starring: Aleksandr Kaidanovsky, Anatoli Solonitsyn, Nikolai Grinko
Country: West Germany/Soviet Union

Rating: *****

Marc Ivamy

Review #4: 'Gold Diggers of 1933' (1933)

This masterpiece from 1933 is one of the best examples I've seen of early Hollywood exploitation, although by today's standards if you didn't already know it was controversial at the time you probably wouldn't notice. With the introduction of the talkies in the late 1920's, Hollywood seemed unable to control various movies using subtle innuendos, and actresses displaying a bit more skin than they should until the Hays Code came into full force in 1934, which enforced the boundaries as to what was deemed acceptable on screen. Gangsters profited from crime, women displayed their legs, and in the case of Gold Diggers Of 1933, women used their sexuality to conquer men and gain what they wanted.

Set during the Depression, it follows a quartet of stage dancers after their show is stopped due to the creative director failing to pay the bills. Things look on the up when the girls are asked to return for a brand new show, which would tackle the effects of the Depression on the common man and the state of the country. The enthusiastic director Barney (Ned Sparks) overhears the girls' neighbour Brad (Dick Powell) crooning a tune playing his piano, and invites him to play more tunes and eventually write the score for the upcoming musical. Barney also needs a lot of money to fund, something that Brad is happy to pay in case, much to the girls' suspicion.

It comes across as a film with two halves - the first focusing on the development of the musical, the relationship between Brad and dancer Polly (Ruby Keeler), and the confusion surrounding the shady Brad's situation. The second seeing fellow dancers Carol (Joan Blondell) and Trixie's (Aline MacMahon) attempts to squeeze as much cash as possible out of Barney's upper-class brother Lawrence (a brilliant Warren William) and bumbling Peabody (Guy Kibbee). The first is a masterclass of beautiful stage numbers, fantastic songs, and good old-fashioned escapism. The second is where the film hits full stride, providing laugh out loud situations and some verbal comedy that wouldn't look out place today, as the girls flirt with and tease the old men as we cheer them on. It's the kind of thing that Sex And The City wishes it could pull off when it isn't being so materialistic and soulless.

When you think it's over it pulls off one last masterstroke in the highly effective 'Remember My Forgotten Man' musical number, as Joan Blondell sings about how her man fought for her country and now begs for food and resorts to picking up discarded cigarette butts, as bloody soldiers march through the street. It's a beautiful moment and really sums up the era. It offers an insight into the whole Pre-Code Hollywood movement, where people would go to the cinema to escape their everyday struggles to see an actress like Blondell revealing a bit more leg than she should, or a Pre-Code veteran such as Warren William sneer his way through some juicy lines and villainous roles. It gave the general public that little something extra to get excited about.

This is a film that has everything, and if you can track it down I would urge you to see it. It's a fascinating time capsule, and even has a very early role for Ginger Rogers as the flirty Fay. It has also been entered into the National Film Registry for preservation by the Library of Congress. A must-see.


Directed by: Mervyn LeRoy
Starring: Warren William, Joan Blondell, Aline MacMahon, Dick Powell, Ruby Keeler, Ginger Rogers
Country: USA

Rating: *****

Tom Gillespie

Review #3: 'Predators' (2010)

It's been a long-time coming. Every since 1987's Arnie classic Predator and it's less impressive sequel, a franchise continuation has been frequently discussed and considered by many a director. It's strange that it's taken such a long time to arrive. The fanbase is already there, waiting intently, and the fact that the star is the beast itself means waiting for a big name actor to sign up doesn't really come into the question. When it fell into the hands of Robert Rodriguez, I had mixed feelings. He can do action well (Desperado (1995)) and not so well (Once Upon A Time In Mexico (2003)), but apart from the odd dodgy film choice (The Adventures Of Sharkboy And Lavagirl (2005) - seriously, why?) his films have been at a good standard. But then I found out he was only going to write and produce it, and a director called Nimrod was going to direct instead, so my expectations lowered slightly.

The film opens with a buffed-up Adrien Brody awakening as he falls from a plane onto a strange landscape, to be later joined by other characters unaware of where they are and how they got there. The characters eventually reveal themselves to be members of various elite forces from across the globe, including Israeli sniper Isabelle (Alice Braga), Spetnaz grunt Nikolai (Oleg Taktarov), and nerdy doctor Edwin (Topher Grace), whose inclusion confuses the group. It soon dawns on the group, after some keen observation by mercenary Royce (Brody), that they are a subject of a hunt and are being tested as they are the best of the best at what they do.

Whereas in the original two, it was one Predator hunting Arnie, Danny Glover and the huge teeth of Gary Busey in our environment, in Predators they have been dropped on an alien planet seemingly set up to train young Predators, and unluckily for Brody and the gang, there's three of the horrible bastards. So they must combine their own specialist skills and work out how to combat invisibility, high powered weapons, super strength and an annoying character in Stans (Walton Goggins).

It's nice to see the Predator back in it's own movie after being raped by Paul W.S. Anderson in Alien Vs. Predator (2004), and back in similar terrain as the original 1987 film. Unsurprisingly, it's not as good as the original but it does have it's moments. A pretty cool sword fight between one Predator and the mysterious, silent Yakuza Hanzo (Louis Ozawa Changchien), and a welcome return for the 'classic' Predator, the same kind that battled with Arnie in the first film. But these are few and far between and are ruined by stock archetypal characters and an ill-advised 'Predator dogs' attack which are basically crap CGI inventions, and an excuse to put a bit of action into the film.

Fans will no doubt enjoy it, but I feel the talent of Rodriguez could have added something different about the film. And a bit of nasty gore wouldn't have gone amiss. The film just seems a bit too tame. It's practically a retread of the original with different actors and more Predators. At least it does try and devlop the mythology, and it's nice to see Adrien Brody tackle a different type of role and pull it off confidently.


Directed by: Nimród Antal
Starring: Adrien Brody, Alice Braga, Topher Grace, Laurence Fishburne, Danny Trejo
Country: USA

Rating: ***

Tom Gillespie

Introducing Marc Ivamy...

I would like to welcome my friend Marc Ivamy as co-author of The Wrath of Blog, who I hope will make plenty of contributions and give us an insight into his own warped mind.

I met Marc when I used to live in Edinburgh a few years ago working at a delightful place called Virgin Media, where we were both doing an important, life-changing job that really had an effect on the world (ahem). We began discussing our love of films, where I realised his knowledge vastly outweighed mine. He loaned me a few of his films to watch, and opened up a whole new relm of cinema to me. Those films were Godard's Weekend, Bunuel's The Discreet Charm Of The Bourgeoisie, and Jan Svankmajer's Alice. Without Marc's recommendations I may have never seen a film by Mario Bava, Larry Cohen or Herschell Gordon Lewis... I now cannot imagine a world without them. I am eternally grateful!

Marc currently lives in Portsmouth, seemingly watching as many horror films as one brain can manage. As well as an avid film watcher, he is also an artist, writer, musician and devout Jew. One of those things is a lie.

Tom Gillespie

Review #2: 'Taking Woodstock' (2009)

It's seems remarkable to me that such a massive historic event as the one portrayed in Ang Lee's Taking Woodstock has largely been ignored in the movies, when it included many giants of the industry and took place in one of the most beloved era's in our recent history. The event I'm referring to is, of course, the legendary Woodstock Festival in 1969. The Festival was documented in the epic 1970 documentary Woodstock, but Lee's film concentrates on the creation of the Festival, the resistance the creators were faced with by the townspeople, and the dedication that the protagonist Elliot Teichberg had in what he saw as putting money into his poor parents pockets and back into the town's economy.

Teichberg (played with ease by stand-up comic Demetri Martin) is a successful interior designer and President of the Chamber of Commerce who spends most of his time handing his parents money so they can keep running their shit-hole motel, in which his miser mother tries to saves money by turning the bed sheets over rather than actually washing them. His long-suffering father spends his days in a semi-daze after years of living with his Russian-born wife who accuses anyone in her path of being an anti-Semite and reminds them of her struggle escaping from the Nazi's during WWII.

When Teichberg overhears that the original location to hold the Festival falls through due to opposition from the town members, he uses his permit (purchased for $1 for his usual small arts festival for the theatre troupe that lives in his barn) to lure the organisers to Woodstock and obtains permission to have free reign to use the acres of land owned by dairy-farmer Max Lasgur (the ever-brilliant Eugene Levy). He is aided by festival organiser Michael Lang (Jonathan Groff) and transvestite Vilma, who, being played by giant Liev Schreiber, looks ridiculous in a blond wig, but played to fantastic comic effect.

There are both strengths and weaknesses for the film, unfortunately a lot more of the latter. The film beautifully captures the era without going overboard, and it wisely keeps the focus on the main character's plight to make the concert work rather than shifting to the concert itself. But, while the character of Teichberg is interesting himself, his relationship with his mother and father takes up most of the film's focus, and it just isn't either convincing or interesting enough. His mother is uptight and unappreciative of her son's input in the family business, spending years saving any money she can while her son goes broke and the business suffers. It's a storyline that's been covered many times before and offers nothing new, although played well by the ever-reliable Imelda Staunton. Thank God, then, for the sweet relationship that develops between father Jake (Henry Goodman) and Schreiber's character, with the former fully engaging with the swarm of hippies on their motel and finding a new dimension and meaning to his life.

I must admit I was expecting more from a director of the magnitude of Ang Lee, capturing the same kind of magic found in Cameron Crowe's Almost Famous (2000), but it's never quite funny, dramatic or engaging enough. Many scenes fall flat, such as a spectacularly unfunny scene where Teichberg's parents eat 'special' brownies given to them by Vilma and proceed to dance and laugh with their son before stumbling into their bedroom and falling asleep. And the inclusion of Emile Hirsch's character - an isolated and paranoid Vietnam veteran who is struggling to fit back into home life - is just poorly written and wholly unconvincing.

Maybe I'm being a bit too harsh, or maybe I just expect more from Ang Lee. It is elevated by good performances by Martin and Schreiber. It also has a few nice moments - namely when we experience a screaming crowd turn into waves of psychedelic lights through the eyes of an acid-influenced Teichberg. An easy film to watch, but disappointingly run-of-the-mill.


Directed by: Ang Lee
Starring: Demetri Martin, Imelda Staunton, Henry Goodman, Liev Schreiber, Emile Hirsch, Paul Dano
Country: USA

Rating: ***

Tom Gillespie

Review #1: 'Rasputin the Mad Monk' (1966)

For a keen horror fan, I have seen precious little of the Hammer horror universe. You can imagine my delight when I was gifted the Hammer DVD Collection for Christmas which consists of 21 films from the vault of the great British institution. I felt spoiled for choice. When opening the box I was greeted by the mad eyes of Christopher Lee, gazing out from amongst a gigantic beard and El Topo (1970)-esque haircut. I felt obliged to choose this as my introduction to what will no doubt become a fixation with Hammer, and the film I will remember years into the future when I'm no doubt walking the Earth, trying to find all the tiny forgotten films Hammer produced before they became famous.

For those of you who don't know, Grigori Rasputin was a real-life Russian mystic/hypnotist/con-artist who had a heavy influence on the Tsarist government of Emperor Nicholas II and his wife Alexandra, after apparently healing their son Alexei as he lay dying from haemophilia. The film is less concerned with the politics of the time, and instead focuses on Rasputin's love for drinking, women, and generally being a bit of a bastard, as he hypnotises and heals his way through society and into the bed of lady-in-waiting Sonia (Barbara Shelley).

The film wastes no time introducing Rasputin's maverick attitudes to monkhood, as he heals a saloon owner's wife on her death bed so he can get served a drink, and proceeds to sing and drink the night way before hacking a man's hand off in a fight. Fleeing to Moscow after being hauled in front of the bishop for his unorthodox ways, he gains influence over a disgraced doctor and begins to plan his rise to power.

The film's main strength is undoubtedly Lee's performance as the mad Russian, as he dominates every scene with his intense, piercing eyes and booming voice, with his towering frame overshadowing everyone that comes across his path. The scene in which he does a celebratory dance after beating a challenger in a drinking contest only to mistake some onlookers for laughing at him is both weird and intimidating as he demands an apology. It is a great mix of thespian presence and gothic camp that makes the Hammer films, and more notably Christopher Lee's performances for the studio, that extra bit special.

Rasputin The Mad Monk is a thoroughly enjoyable film, anchored by Lee's performance and Hammer's usual beautiful Technicolour cinematography, and is made all the better by leaving out the politics and concentrating on creating a memorable film character.


Directed by: Don Sharp
Starring: Christopher Lee, Barbara Shelley, Richard Pasco
Country: UK

Rating: ****

Tom Gillespie

Welcome to The Wrath of Blog!

Hello... I suppose I should begin with the obligitary introductory sentence so here it is. My name is Tom Gillespie, and I'm a lover of films of all genres, age, nationality and even quality. From the masterpieces of Ingmar Bergman, to the tear-your-eyes-out crap fests of Herschell Gordon Lewis, I am always searching for something new or different, or something that has been long forgotten and flung into the purgatory of bargain bins or Quentin Tarantino's DVD collection. I thought it would be healthy to place my obssession into something active, and since I'm too lazy and untalented to actually make films, I thought I would write about them instead.


I currently reside in Swansea, though I am a native Wiganer (and that's the last time I'll admit it!). I do like to write scripts in my spare time but I must admit I'm very lazy. I have a degree in Media Film and Television which basically consisted of indulging in Eisenstein and Godard which had nothing to do with the course, and making a film about a paedophile in which my uncomfortable friend played said molesterer.


The aim of the site is to ultimately share my opinions with other film lovers, and to promote any gems I happen to stumble upon. It will include reviews, short essays, news reports and general rants that I would usually save for my long-suffering girlfriend who I frequently apologise to. I blame Eli Roth.


So I hope you enjoy it (if anyone actually reads it) and please feel free to leave comments... except if you are my brother and are considering posting a comment about penises.


Thank you!


Tom Gillespie