Review #148: 'The Book of Eli' (2010)

It's 31 years since the sky opened up, sending apocalyptic sun-rays to the earth. A familiar landscape of burnt out cars, empty homes and dilapidated plant-life. Eli (Denzel Washington), is a wanderer with an obscure "mission". He carries with him a book of great power and importance; he heads west on a journey that has been told to him by a voice in his heart. The road is a dangerous place; filled with violence, in a world that has lost it's rules and devoid of meaning. Eli wanders into a town ruled by Carnegie (Gary Oldman), who dictates from a desk in an abandoned cinema. Henchmen work for him, his myopic focus on claiming a book; the book (whilst the subject of which is skirted around for the first hour) is quite obviously the Holy Bible.

A collection of genre tropes inform this film. Firstly, the most obvious post-apocalypse setting gives is it's sci-fi credentials; this theme is ever-present at this moment in cinema, and has provided varying quality (The Road (2009), 2012 (2009)), the latter being an awful example). Eli wonders into the town controlled by Carnegie, with the same western iconography of Clint Eastwood's Man With No Name in Sergio Leone's Dollars trilogy. Carnegie controls a blind woman, Claudia (Jennifer Beals - her character name quite possibly a reference to Claudia Cardinale), and her daughter Solara (Mila Kunis). After discovering that Eli carries the book that he has been searching for, he begins a hunt for him.

I will admit that I came to this film very sceptical. A work colleague (Alice Mills), after hearing that I write reviews for this blog, suggested that I see this. The film is beautifully shot (well, it certainly has some wonderful back projections anyway). It's an interesting idea also, although not greatly realised, the concept of religiosity is carried through rather well. The film flirts with the concept that the bible has always been interpreted for use of both good and bad. Washington's character (obviously) carries and protects the book so that he may preserve its goodness, and pass it on so that it can continue to do it's supposed duty. Oldman's character however represents that darker element of representation. He sees the book as a weapon; a means to control the masses. A view that is very prevalent in attackers of the bible proper.

Whilst the film is admittedly enjoyable, it is simply a throw away piece of cinema. It possibly has some interesting ideas within it, but falters many times. In other words, it has many flaws. Whilst it represents the readings of the book, that throughout history has created such awful conflict, it also fully presents it's blind 'faith'. A line Eli states (when he is joined on his 'quest' by Solara) after being asked how he knows which way he is going - after all I'm pretty sure it does not take 30 years to walk from the east to west coast of America - he simply says 'I'm guided by faith, not by sight'. This statement does become more relevant in the closing moments of the film.

Whilst much gets in his way, Eli does make it to his destination. Alcatraz to be exact. There he finds a utopia of popular culture (literature etc) being cultivated. The head of this cultural museum is Malcom McDowell. Whilst perhaps I shouldn't say too much about the ending, it does remind me of Fahrenheit 451 (1968), in it's concept of the preservation of books in a world where they have become obsolete - and in the case of the bible, burnt after a war, presumably as it may have been the cause/blame for that war? The Book of Eli, is a flawed yet interesting film. It has the almost tired iconography of a modern CGI post-Apocalypse, yet it does attempt to manufacture something a little different from some of the other crop of the same story structure. It's not just a story of survival from vicious hoards of wanderers, scavengers etc. It does weave into this the preservation of ideas; the concept that the written word has something more powerful in it's presence in human consciousness.

I've not looked into it, but it would be interesting to hear the reaction of the Christian church (in all of its many manifestations). Whilst not explicitly, the film highlights the fact that the written form (and particularly the bible through history) has been mis-interpreted - or even purposefully re-read - to fit whichever form of control and repression that particular society feels it needs to provide.


Directed by: Albert Hughes, Allen Hughes
Starring: Denzel Washington, Gary Oldman, Mila Kunis, Ray Stevenson, Jennifer Beals, Michael Gambon, Tom Waits
Country: USA

Rating: ***

Marc Ivamy

Review #147: 'The Naked City' (1948)

A model, Jean Dexter, is found murdered in her apartment. In what is dubbed as the bathtub murder, an investigation is opened, lead by veteran New York Lieutenant, Dan Muldoon (Barry Fitzgerald). Frank Niles (Howard Duff) and Ruth Morrison (Dorothy Hart), are brought in to help with the investigation.They knew Dexter. As the lies, deceits and criminal activity are exposed through the people that occupied her life, a deep realisation that she too was incognito with the criminal underworld becomes apparent.

Shot on location in New York by Jules Dassin, this film noir adds something quite different to the average film of this genre. The usual laconic narration that is ordinarily spoken by the lead character, is, in The Naked City, spoken by the actual producer of this film. Mark Hellinger narrates the multitude of New York vignettes, and offers clues and speculation to the police procedural that follows the murder. The fact that also all the scenes were shot on location is quite an achievement for the time. This lends a certain documentary feel to the outcome. The cinematography is startling also because of this 'realism' (shot by William H. Daniels, for which he won an Academy Award).

The narrator offers insights into the everyday life of New Yorkers. He closes by stating that there are 4 million stories in New York; and this is one of them. This device was clearly lifted by Spike Lee in his 1999 film Summer of Sam. The influence of the film is also echoed in any film that was shot in New York this film most certainly is a document for that city that never sleeps. Much of the film is dialogue-heavy. But this need for exposition is essential in this kind of story. Perhaps not the greatest known (or even greatest) of the film noir cycle, but certainly one that broke ground in its ability to represent a certain reality within its frame.


Directed by: Jules Dassin
Starring: Barry Fitzgerald, Howard Duff, Dorothy Hart
Country: USA

Rating: ****

Marc Ivamy

Review #146: 'The Baader Meinhof Complex' (2008)

The late 1960's and early 1970's were a turbulent time throughout the world. Protests raged in nearly every major city, against American Imperialism; their occupation of Vietnam, and the middle-east situation, and the fight of the Palestinians; and of course civil rights. In West Germany, Ulrike Meinhof (Martina Gedek) is a journalist who is disillusioned that her published writing is not effecting change. She begins to get involved in the left-wing politics of the (mostly student) protesters. After discovering that her husband is having an affair, she takes of with their two daughters and joins the 'cause' full-time.

Andreas Baader (Moritz Bleibtreu) and Gudrun Ensslin (Johanna Wokalek) are living a pseudo-bohemian lifestyle after being released from prison for arson on a department store. They are also recruiting refugees of the right-wing police state they are living in; political prisoners, and runaways from homes/prisons. On their return to West Germany, Baader and Ensslin stay with Meinhof and she becomes part of the Red Faction Army (RAF). After some Iranian training, they begin a series of bank robberies, then begin bombing German Authorities property and US military sites located throughout Germany.

This results in the 'founding members' all being incarcerated. The film proceeds with a trial that is made a mockery of and the growth of the RAF (whilst Baader/Meinhof/Ensslin are imprisoned and falling apart as they break each other down psychologically, bickering) outside, whose violence escalates, and the concern of the 'Innocent by-stander' looses any meaning. This was a massive terrorist campaign that was to be titled German Autumn. It was a few years after the debacle of German authorities, in the handling of the terrorist hostage situation at the 1972 Munich Olympics, and this was an opportunity to show that they have learned from their mistakes, so the response is severe.

Directed by Uli Edel (Last Exit to Brooklyn (1989), Body of Evidence (1993)), displays some of his common themes in the terrorist group. He often parallels sex and violence; how closely entwined the two things often are in reality (but most often in art). The film is at times exciting and thrilling; it represents the facts of the story well without heavy exposition. The characters represent the generation after the end of World War 2. These were the children of the Nazi's. What these people saw in American Imperialism (which we are still living with today), is that it is intrinsically fascistic in it's blind "democratic" view-point of world domination. Perhaps more politically motivated, the characters often become almost incomplete. The RAF were often portrayed quite sympathetically, despite that fact that some of the acts were seemingly motivated with death in mind. In the real event the Baader-Meinhof Gang were almost celebrated by the German people much in the same way that Dillinger or Bonnie and Clyde were in the prohibition era America. But apart from the few lags in narrative, this was an entertaining crime drama.


Directed by: Uli Edel
Starring: Martina Gedeck, Moritz Bleibtreu, Johanna Wokalek
Country: Germany/France/Czech Republic

Rating: ****

Marc Ivamy

Review #145: 'Hugh Hefner: Playboy, Activist and Rebel' (2009)

We are all very familiar with the iconic brand that is the Playboy bunny. We are also familiar with the image of Hugh Hefner: An ancient Lothario; mannequin for a smoking jacket; pipe, and gallons of young, beautiful women, adoring him, as in the "reality-TV" horror that was The Girls of the Playboy Mansion. Some are unaware of his many political activities that he was involved in, in each decade since the 1950's. His involvement with the breaking of many socially draconian taboos and laws of sex, sexuality and the representation of these: Freedom of press and speech: The civil-rights movement: The anti Vietnam protesters of the late 1960's and early '70's: The Reaganomics of the 1980's and it's religious-extremist attitude towards "pornography". Hefner, according to this film, was active (if not systematic) in all of these 'historical' events that have instigated social change, not only in America, but throughout the western world. Perhaps this statement is too strong.

This documentary, directed by Brigitte Berman (who had previously made the Academy award winning film, Artie Shaw: Time is All You've Got (1986)), tells the story of Hefner, not just as a magazine producer, but as a political activist. beginning with the publication of the magazine Playboy, the film charts Hefner's rise as an advocate of literature and for political polemics, published in a monthly men's paper that also riskily showed the naked female forms. Alongside the playmate-of-the-month's and centre-fold's there contained abridged, monthly sections of books by such writers as Ray Bradbury and Ian Fleming; interviews with political activists/thinkers such as Dr Martin Luther King Jr and Malcom X. The magazine was breaking taboos set by a repressive society. Historically Hefner was also embroiled in the HUAC (House UnAmerican Activities Committee), who's McCarthyism was seen as a dent in America's freedom and an infringement of the first amendment. We also discover that Hefner supported Lenny Bruce (at a time when it was seen as career suicide to do so) through his trials for obscenities on stage.

Whilst the film focuses on these more flattering aspects of Hefner's life, it does skirt around many issues thrown at him by groups against his "objectification" of women. It does not fully explore the feminist and journalistic backlash that was aimed at him. I felt the film would benefit by exploring these issues, and present a less biased (less Hefner-centric) argument in the film, and it's issues of (particularly) sex and sexuality and all its representations. The film uses some very bizarre talking heads: Gene Simmons (well I guess he's probably met him, and probably reads Playboy) and George Lucas?? Hang on a minute! (Lucas oozes about as much sexuality as a brick oozes Virgina's). Aside from a few under-explored avenues of Hefner's career, this is still a flawed but entertaining documentary. We are shown that Hefner is not myopic in his outlook. He has been politically active and has given to many worthy causes. But, as he now is (seen by millions on reality TV), we just see an old man still unable to be monogamous, and surrounding himself in fresh, young girls, which are pushed aside annually for new meat. (Am I criticising that? Pfft!).


Directed by: Brigitte Berman
Starring: Hugh Hefner
Country: Canada

Rating: ***

Marc Ivamy

Review #144: '8½' (1962)

After the international success of Fellini's La Dolce Vita (1961), which was a departure in style from his previous, neo-realist techniques, he decided to use the more fantastical, personal details and stylings which resulted in the kaleidoscopic, beautifully seductive, 8 1/2 (named and it was Fellini's seventh feature - whilst he considered his three shorts as half each). Fellini's camera glides through the scenes. As do the actors, in a clearly choreographed ballet of acting.

Guido (Fellini alter-ego Marcello Mastroianni), is a film maker hot off the success of a film, and under pressure to direct another. As Guido keeps producers, writers, actors hanging for any slither of information of what the film is about. He secretly internalises his thoughts that segue from fantasy to memories of his past. Guido wants to make a film that tells no lies. He is himself, a selfish, and unfaithful character. He can not externalise his thoughts to direct the film that he wants to. His fantasies and memories culminate in his power of a hareem of women: all of these women from his life past and present who are all faithful, loyal, and love him. Guido seems, within his fantasy, to be destroying his own ability to speak the truth, as he is told by the women.

But one, elusive woman; his fantasy woman (Claudia Cardinale), seems to be the person (muse if you like), that will make the film happen. But she proves to be unattainable. This truly is "the greatest film about film making", as is so commonly stated. Guido's memories/fantasies are built within him to breakdown, and destroy his own creativity. This level of self-degradating of a block in creativity portrayed to perfection, both in dazzling cinematography and Mastroianni's laconic portrayal of an artist questioning his ability to create. Whilst this subject informed the creation of 8 1/2, it certainly does not display any inability in Fellini's startlingly beautiful, well crafted film; and quite often as stylistically creative as Citizen Kane (1941).

Directed by: Federico Fellini

Starring: Marcello Mastroianni, Claudia Cardinale, Anouk Aimée

Country: Italy/France

Rating: *****

Marc Ivamy

Review #143: 'Caravan of Courage: An Ewok Adventure' (1984)

George Lucas made a shrewd marketing move in the early eighties; changing the creatures to feature in 1983's Return of the Jedi from forest-dwelling Wookies, to small, cute and furry Ewoks. Lucas knew where the majority of his money was coming from: Merchandise. Ewoks were the cross-gender Star Wars 'commodity'. Figurines could be manufactured for the boys, so that they may interact with their existing toys; and a cuddly version could also be produced. However, after the release of Return of the Jedi, they no longer had a vehicle of promotion. So, Lucas pens "An Ewok Adventure" (story only), and cheaply produces a TV-movie.

Mace (Eric Walker), a mini-Skywalker, and his little sister Cindel (Aubree Miller), a sickening Curly-fucking-Sue, are stranded on the forest moon of Endor after their space cruiser crashed. Their parents Jeremitt (Guy Boyd) and Caterine (Fionnula Flanagan) have been kidnapped by the giant Gorax. The Ewoks discover the ship and take the kids back to their village. Eventually they join forces and form a quest to save the parents. This is aimed directly at kids of course. In 1985, both the "sequel" TV movie Ewoks: The Battle for Endor, and Ewoks: The Animated Series were produced, further exacerbating the kids "nag factor" element of toy marketing.

Oh, how times have changed! Well, I can certainly see this crass cash-in for what it is now that I'm a pseudo-adult. But at the age of 8, this was related to Star Wars. It could well have just been Chewbacca shitting in a basket (or even The Star Wars Holiday Special (1978)), but I would have loved it anyway. In hindsight, yes the Ewoks were rubbish anyway. But I admit this was not the case at the time (the shame!). What's even more shameful, is now that I've just watched it for the second time, I have now wasted three hours of my life on it. There are a few, good-for-the-time special effects. But this does not redeem a product of greedy capitalism.


Directed by: John Korty
Starring: Eric Walker, Warwick Davis, Fionnula Flanagan, Burl Ives
Country: USA

Rating: **

Marc Ivamy

Review #142: 'Sucker Punch' (2011)

Zack Snyder has directed a couple of quite good films (Dawn of the Dead (2004), and Watchmen (2008)), but this debut as the story/screenplay co-writer, shows that he is more of a visual stylist than one for narrative complexity. Snyder's formative years in television commercials has shown through his film career; fast editing; the oh-so-tired and cliched use of speed and slow motion in action sequences. In Sucker Punch however, the narrative/visual structure works on this with self-contained sequences, amounting to a series of commercials. The "adverts" (or even music videos) are fantasies of Baby Doll (Emily Browning). What these dreams are structurally also, are levels in a video game. To get to the next level, she must complete the task.

Baby Doll is being incarcerated into Lennox home for the mentally ill by her "evil" step-father. A lobotomy is ordered. This is where she delves into her imagination, constructing a world where she is imprisoned in a bordello and controlled by men who make them perform for them. Escape is on her mind. When Baby Doll is forced to "dance" for the audience, she goes even further into a dual fantasy where she is given orders by "Games Master", The Wise Man (Scott Glenn). These game-level "bosses" are visual cliches in themselves. Baby Doll and her appointed gang consisting of Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish), Rocket (Jenna Malone), Blondie (Vanessa Hudgens), and Amber (Jamie Chung), must battle giant monster-samurai on level one; German zombies in CGI WWI on level two; lord of the rings-like orcs and dragons on level 3......and so on. These fantasies of Baby Doll's are constructed as a device (in the bordello she is simply dancing), which make a simple task such as stealing a lighter off a dumb cook, is turned into a fight for survival from monsters!

This is absurdly expensive, derivative nonsense. It's an awful brickolage of visuals that have been on our screens for the last decade. The game-like structure is utterly ridiculous (yes, this type of structure was used to good effect in 2009's Scott Pilgrim vs The World, but that film played as pastiche), and Sucker just uses this device as a means to project dazzling computer effects. They make no narrative sense. Is her dance visually like the fighting in her fantasies? Even if you did want to hide from the reality itself, why would you construct over-elaborate fighting levels just to get a map? These questions are irrelevant, the main concept behind this movie is the perverse collection of fantasy dolls that make up the gang; all short skirts, underwear and stockings. It's a teenage boys wet dream, the product of a juvenile mind. As a teenager in an adults body, I have to say it was nice. However, the film did not have any excitement to it. The characters were bland facsimiles of genre regulars. The action was so similar to so many of these type today, it was hard to care about it, and became tedious very quickly.

Directed by: Zack Snyder
Starring: Emily Browning, Abbie Cornish, Jena Malone, Vanessa Hudgens, Jamie Chung, Carla Gugino, Jon Hamm, Scott Glenn
Country: USA/Canada

Rating: **

Marc Ivamy

Review #141: 'The Plague Dogs' (1982)

After the success of Watership Down (1978), writer/producer/director Martin Rosen, tackled another of Richard Adams' novels. Thematically similar to Watership Down, The Plague Dogs tells the story of two dogs who escape from a animal testing laboratory in Coniston in the Lake District. Snitter (John Hurt), a Jack Russell, and Rowf (Christopher Benjamin), a black Labrodor, find themselves in the fells of North West England. There they encounter a fox, The Todd (James Bolam), who offers to help them become wild to survive the harsh outside that they are not accustomed to. The local farmers are alerted to their presence once sheep start turning up mutilated. This breeds panic amongst them. The suspicions build and accusations are directed at the local, clandestine laboratory. Whilst kept secret for some time, the horrifying news is delivered that the two escapees are carrying the bubonic plague.

As I have previously stated, this is thematically similar to Watership Down. Humans are the instigators of the death of animals. Death is ever present within this film. Throughout our main characters are physically dying of hunger and exhaustion. Disney this is not. It is far removed from the cutesy animal characters of the Disney movies. These are animals at the height of existential crisis. Snitter has constant flashbacks (caused by a surgical slice on the head) of his past master, who he caused the death of in a road accident. Both characters are perpetually reminded and discuss 'The Blackness'.

This is not high-adventure kiddie-fodder. This is animated cinema at its bleakest. It's an austere account of survival in an alien winter landscape. The colour palette of the film is limited. With the hills and valleys of Lancashire, et al, in the closing months of the year, it uses mostly greys, browns, and shades to illustrate the dreary desolate surroundings. There are some incredibly disturbing moments here. In the opening sequence, Rowf is being submerged in a deep tank of water; the 'experiment' not verbalised. Rowf seems to die, sinking to the bottom until he is scooped out and resuscitated. In a later scene, Snitter is called over with whistles from a farmer searching for the escapees. When Snitter jumps in excitement, he accidentally pulls the trigger on a shotgun which proceeds to blow into the mans face.

This is grim, harrowing viewing. I remember seeing this film as a five year old. I (possibly luckily) do not recall my emotional response to it. As an adult, I see it as a continuation of the messages of human destruction as first proposed by Watership Down. I have noticed that the DVD versions available have cut 20 minutes of the film. I can not see where they could do this. I'm assuming that the sequences which show mutilated, bloody sheep will have been edited out. But, luckily, i saw the original 102 minute version. I can only imagine that at such a tender age in 1982, I could only have been traumatised by the experience. However, I could be wrong. There was quite a little fad for relatively bleak animated films during this period. Just look at The Secret of Nimh (also 1982). The continues also with the same beautifully rendered animation techniques as Rosens previous film. It depicts the countryside of England so well. Whilst the film is not so fondly remembered as Watership Down, The Plague Dogs still represents a piece of pure animation that does not shy away from confronting very disturbing and emotional issues. It also represents (whilst differently) a move from the view that animation is solely for kids. Like the more recent animated movies of Pixar, it has elements which speak to the adult viewer as well as the young. This may possibly be why it is forgotten. Or maybe it is just too bleak to contemplate after viewing just once. After all, I remember seeing the film at five; so it clearly had some impact on me.


Directed by: Martin Rosen
Voices: John Hurt, Christopher Benjamin, James Bolam, Nigel Hawthorne
Country: USA/UK

Rating: ***

Marc Ivamy

Review #140: 'The Invisible Man' (1933)

The film begins with a heavily-bandaged stranger arriving at a remote inn and demanding a room. He insists that he is to be left alone, only for the nosy innkeeper to keep interrupting his work. Tired of the intrusions, the stranger attacks the woman and her husband, and then later the police. He removes his bandages in a psychotic rage and escapes, randomly attacking the townsfolk as he flees. He is Dr. Jack Griffin, The Invisible Man, and as well as the obvious physical abnormality, his successful experiments have also driven him completely mad. As the police fret over their difficult search, The Invisible Man seeks out his old partner Dr. Kemp (Henry Travers), who he threatens to join him in his mad quest to reek havoc and live like a king.

Adapted from the novel of the same name by H.G. Welles, James Whale's film has everything you could possibly want from an old horror film. It is massively entertaining, and doesn't waste a second of its rather slight 71 minute running time. The most impressive thing is without a doubt the absolutely stunning special effects. How they managed to achieve such technical brilliance back in 1933 is beyond me. But with technical triumphs you also need an interesting protagonist, which they have in abundance in Claude Rains. His Invisible Man is a complete manic bastard, and Rains plays him with such a ferocity and a strange likeability that I was actually rooting for him the whole way through. And everything is controlled to perfection by the ever-brilliant James Whale. One of Universal's finest achievements.


Directed by: James Whale
Starring: Claude Rains, Gloria Stuart, William Harrigan
Country: USA

Rating: *****

Tom Gillespie

Review #139: 'Herostratus' (1967)

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Review #138: 'The Searchers' (1956)

Ethan Edwards (John Wayne) is an outsider; a wanderer after the Confederate wars were lost by the south. Arriving back at his brothers ranch in Texas , three years after the end of the civil, Ethan is later dismayed by the systematic killing of his brothers family and the kidnapping of his young niece, Debbie, by the Comanche. Ethan enters a 5 year odyssey to find his niece. He later discovers that she has become "one of them". Ethan hates them "Injuns". His plan now is to find Debbie and kill her; It's better that she dies than to live as a Comanche. His total, racist hatred towards the Indians is palpable throughout the film.

There's no disputing John Ford's film making virtuosity in this 'classic' Hollywood western. The outsider nature of Wayne's character is highlighted in the mise-en-scene and positioning of the shots. Ethan is nearly always framed in shots through windows, doorways and rock. We as the spectator are looking out at his character. Wayne is always outside looking in. He is alienated in-frame; his racism detached from the audience. This framing device also provides from this film, one of the most iconic images from the history of cinema. At the close of the film, as the family is reunited with Debbie, Ethan dithers at the doorway before turning to walk away. We are not supposed to like this bigoted character, yet we are to follow his "heroic" quest. Wayne sits uncomfortably throughout the film, seemingly looking awkward with the dimensions of Ethan.

This segues into John Wayne himself. I have only seem a small handful of Wayne's films. Two (now three) I have thoroughly enjoyed - Stagecoach (1939) and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962). However, these are more to do with the pleasure of the films themselves and not the Wayne performances. I really have a lot of difficulty liking him. Like his performance in The Searchers, I was agitated and uncomfortable. Wayne walks through his performances like a man with severe hemorrhoids. He stands, walks, shoots awkwardly. His diction sounds like a frustrated sex-pest drawling, and spurting out lines as if he had recently had a throat-stroke.

Aside from my passionate hatred of John Wayne, I can state that whilst he is clearly out of place with a compromised character - and not the clear-cut hero characters he was used to playing - it is quite refreshing to see him play something a little left-field (or right-field, if you like!), this is thoroughly entertaining western film making, in the classic Hollywood mode. The sumptuous cinematography capturing the true beauty of Monument Valley - it's location - is stunning. No one shots that landscape quite like Ford. It's no wonder that this was nominated in 2008 as the greatest American western, and number 12 on the AFI's top 100 American films of all time. I have to state though, that the western genre only really delights me when made outside of America.


Directed by: John Ford
Starring: John Wayne, Jeffrey Hunter, Vera Miles
Country: USA

Rating: ****

Marc Ivamy

Review #137: 'Repulsion' (1965)

It's easy to forget that beneath all the controversy and hullabaloo that has surrounded the majority of Roman Polanski's post-The Tenant (1976) career, Polanski was once one of the most exciting and formidable film-makers in the world. He could once stand up amongst the true greats of World Cinema, and even directed one of the greatest American films ever made in Chinatown (1974). It could be argued that his career remained strong after he was charged for underage sexual abuse, and he did even win an Oscar for 2002's The Pianist, but to me, he was never quite the same. He was once truly exceptional, and 1965's Repulsion is one of the best examples of his work.

Carole Ledoux (Catherine Deneuve) is a Belgian manicurist living in London with her sister. Although she is beautiful, she is extremely timid and quiet, and seems to have an unhealthy fear of men. She is being wooed by Colin (John Fraser) but she repeatedly stands him up. When her sister Helen (Yvonne Furneaux) and her boyfriend Michael (Ian Hendry) leave for Italy, Carole is left alone in her apartment. She begins to hallucinate about cracks appearing in the wall, and that a faceless man waits in her bed to rape her every night. As her mental state declines, she is paid a visit by Colin who is worried about her reclusiveness.

I put on this film without knowing at all what it was about, and after the first 45 minutes, it was still unclear. It felt like I was being teased and slowly drawn in by the atmosphere and beautiful black-and-white photography, only to be suddenly yanked into to this nightmarish world. Polanski and his director of cinematography Gilbert Taylor make the most out of the ordinary looking apartment. They turn it into the mind of Carole - cracks shockingly appear in the walls, arms grope her from the walls, and a skinned rabbit lays rotting and rancid in her living room.

Deneuve is a revelation here. She barely utters a word in the whole two hours, and instead lets her face do the acting. But the real star here is Polanski, who manages to keep a tight grip of the proceedings for the entire two hours and never lets up, and doesn't make it easy for you. Is Carole's mind tortured by her fear of what men are capable of? Or is she driven mad by suppressing her psycho-sexual fantasties? Either way, Repulsion is beautiful, horrifying, gripping and thrilling.


Directed by: Roman Polanski
Starring: Catherine Deneuve, Ian Hendry, John Fraser, Yvonne Furneaux
Country: UK

Rating: *****

Tom Gillespie

Review #136: 'Senna' (2010)

The documentary genre, in my opinion, is capable of reaching heights that is impossible for regular features. It has the advantage of being true, and a fascinating story told well that happens to be true is always going to be that little bit more special. True, it can be used as a propaganda tool, but after the documentary boom that started near to that start of the millennium (and it still going strong), the genre has been taken to new heights. And with Senna, a profoundly moving and thoroughly exciting film, it has blended documentary film-making with drama, action and a genuinely touching rags-to-riches tale that goes way beyond the sport of car racing.

Ayrton Senna was a Brazilian Formula One racing driver, who took the sport by storm in the mid-eighties with his no-holds barred attitude to driving, fierce competitiveness, and patriotism for his native country. Senna was simply untouchable. Tensions rose when his McLaren-Honda partner Alain Prost accused him of being reckless and dangerous in his driving, and the two fought for dominance until Prost eventually left. Yet Senna was always at the forefront at campaigning for safer conditions for him and his fellow professionals in the face of the politics of the sport, and it seemed inevitable that the sport would tragically kill him in 1994.

Being a person that usually falls asleep whenever Formula One appears on my television, I was more interested to see a documentary about the man himself. But kudos must go to director Asif Kapadia, as I was completely caught up in the archival footage of the races themselves. Added to the fact I didn't have a clue who won what, it was made all the more exciting. The film starts at a running pace and never lets up, much like Senna himself. It is never sidetracked and the pace is never held up by the use of talking heads - Kapadia instead has small soundbites playing over the footage, and therefore we never leave Senna.

The man himself, who I knew next to nothing about before seeing the film, seems as enigmatic and as captivating as his reputation precedes. He is portrayed here as spiritual, intelligent and warm. His rivalry with Alain Prost is often shown a little one-sided, with Prost being initially a bit demonised, but it makes the sight of Senna stood with him on the champions podium with their arms around each other years later, and eventually Prost carrying Senna's coffin, all the more profoundly moving.

As the tragic ends approaches, Kapadia shows how the drivers were getting increasingly concerned about safety, and Senna is always at the forefront of it. Here the film takes on an almost apocalyptic tone, as Senna's tragic death approaches. As the camera focuses on and studies Senna's face as he prepares for the race, it's almost as if he knows. He looks unsure, concerned, and yet somehow resigned to his fate. As if this is something he must do for the greater good. Perhaps I'm almost romanticising his death, but I was captivated by the man, and when the end came, I was deeply touched. A powerful documentary about a fascinating sportsman, and although it's not going to get me into the sport,  I certainly have a new-found respect for it.


Directed by: Asif Kapadia
Starring: Ayrton Senna
Country: UK/France/USA

Rating: ****

Tom Gillespie

"Nostalgia and Spectatorship"

Over the past month or so, we have been discussing the idea of creating a themed blog project. The first of these that we considered are the films of our childhood. The idea is that we would revisit films from our formative years, watch them with fresh, pseudo-adult eyes, and review them for The Wrath of Blog. This got me thinking about the films that I grew up with. This consequently led me to my change in attitude to the films from that time, and how the same cycle of genre films are dominating the cinemas of today - just now they are in the form of CGI "spectaculars". Because of this I decided that I should write an introduction to this themed, review based season (if you will).

'The Dark Crystal'

I became aware of film at a very early age. I was young, but remember vividly the early 1980's boom of video. We had a Betamax video cassette recorder. It was the size of a house. I remember that you could not only rent videos from very dubious shops, but you could easily also rent from videos lined up in some random houses porch. What this meant to me was simple. I had access to so many films. I could record films off the TV late at night, watching them in the early hours, before the parents woke. I even used to sneak to the newsagents to buy pre-certificate video trade magazines such as 'Video World'. This interest also informed me of the video nasty (a subject we will be returning to in a proposed project in the near future).

Whilst I had been exposed to the world of horror before in the form of (very early by my granddad who was also an avid film viewer and video cassette recording hoarder, as I later became) Universals 1930/40's horror cycle, modern horror had not been accessible for me. Then, when one day in 1982, my Granddad bounds into the house with a rented copy of John Landis's An American Werewolf in London (1982), and I was aloud to watch the transformation scene (you could see the delight on my granddads face as he was so amazed by the sequence). This made me hungry to see horror as much as possible. I was unable as a person of 7-9 years of age to find any of the video nasties until some time after this, so was happy to fit into the ones that I had access to, such as Wes Cravens A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984), Friday the 13th (1980) and their many sequels. I was however able to watch The Exorcist (1973) and The Texas Chain-Saw Massacre (1974), on incredible over-copied pirate video - I still believe this adds a certain grimy, more perverse viewing experience, making it an even greater thrill from the illicitness of the whole affair. After all these two particular films, whilst not of the official DPP 'nasties' list, were banned for distribution on home video by the BBFC. However this was not the dominant movie genre that I immersed myself in in my formative movie watching years.

'Dimensions Of Dialogue'

I was born in 1976. A year later George Lucas's Star Wars was released. I obviously wasn't aware of it at the time, but this became the dominant obsession for myself and my generation, and all that (at the time) followed in Hollywood cinema for the summer blockbuster as we pretty much know it now. So, the Fantasy film ran supreme in my video viewing and cinema going habits. After all, it was the age of kids cinema. My first cinema experiences are with films such as E.T. The Extra Terrestrial (1982), The Dark Crystal (1982), the obligatory Disney animated movies (Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937), Dumbo (1940) and Pinocchio (1941)), Return of the Jedi (1983), Superman III (1983), and Ghostbusters (1984). Action-Adventure movies were a regular on the screens. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) and Romancing the Stone (1984), cast Han Solo and that prick with the stupid hair, Michael Douglas as swashbuckling forest twitchers. I'm not going list all the films I watched as a child - that would be ridiculous, not to mention tiresome.

The story of how Jaws (1975) and Star Wars completely changed, and in many ways destroyed, the Hollywood system, has been exhaustively re-told by many, so I'm not going to re-tell it here, and only state that I agree with it, as is reiterated by Peter Biskind in his popular book 'Easy Riders, Raging Bulls'. Extending this to 2011, and we see that the blockbuster, weekend money-maker is still the prevalent occupier of cinema screens around the world. Now, I'm not going to continue with a diatribe about how films aren't made like they used to be; that would be crass. But obviously my viewing habits have changed since my childhood. The films however have not changed. It's the same stories told over. With computer generated monsters etc. We have been in a massive sea of fantasy films since Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings trilogy (2001 - 2003). Also super heroes are dominant. Their presence quite welcoming in some cases (Spider-Man 2 (2004), The Dark Knight (2008)), but usually not. In my childhood there was of course Superman (1978 - 1987) and later Batman (1989). On TV, the cheesy-yet-watchable American shows The Incredible Hulk (1978 - 1982) and The Amazing Spider-Man (1977 - 1979). So, the films of today are seeming to be repeating the trends set after Star Wars. As in the '80's, we now have endless sequels. Hollywood is a perpetual motion machine. '80's film is now being regurgitated in remakes.

'Q: The Winged Serpent' 

That's enough about the cyclical trends of Hollywood cinema since the age of the F/X "event" movie: back to the nostalgia. Because of video I was not only exposed to endless fantasy/sci-fi Hollywood blockbusters. But I'm not one to watch just one type of film. I was, even at a very early age, interested in new cinematic experiences (something I still do to this day). The most challenging, and artistically daring films I was exposed to, were the many dark and interesting animation from around the world. This was due to the newly begun UK television "network", 'Channel 4'. This had late-at-night animated shorts. This, I later discovered, is where I was first introduced to the films of Jan Svankmejer (Alice (1988), Dimensions of Dialogue (1982), Virile Games (1988)), and The Quay Brothers (Street of Crocodiles (1986), The Unnameable Little Broom (1985)). Through my Granddad, I was shown the epic 'classics'. Lawrence of Arabia (1962), Ben-Hur (1959), The Wizard of Oz (1939). The mini-epics starring Ray Harryhausen (Jason and the Argonauts (1966), The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (1977) et al). My childhood also includes many other types: Exploitation cinema, mainly through Kung-Fu movies, and of course horror and action z-grade movies. The works of Larry Cohen produced two of my favourite films in the 1980's; Q: The Winged Serpent (1982) and The Stuff (1985).

Whilst my film spectatorship has changed since my youth, I seem to have illustrated here that much of what I encountered has influenced what I watch today. My exploration for new cinema has obviously expanded since those early days. Access to film has certainly become easier since then. I do have many gripes with the Hollywood film industry and is continuation of the same cyclical path it has been tread milling since the 1970's. But because of this access to almost limitless films, I can do what we all should do when we view something that's personally offensive. Ignore it, leave the cinema, turn the video/DVD/Blu-Ray off, switch the TV channel over. Problem solved.

Marc Ivamy

Stay tuned!

Review #135: 'Boss Nigger' (1975)

Made at the height of the Black Power movement, Boss Nigger (or The Black Bounty Killer) is a blaxploitation western that was written and co-produced by genre legend Fred Williamson. Boss (Williamson) and his friend Amos (D'Urville Martin) are bounty hunters who are looking for wanted man Jed Clayton (William Smith), in order to claim a big reward. When they arrive at a small town where they suspect he may be, they discover it has no sheriff, and is instead being run by corrupt Mayor Griffin (R.G. Armstrong). Tired of being controlled by those damn 'whities', they instate themselves as sheriff and deputy, and stamp their own brand of law enforcement on the community.

Whether this is a genuinely angry film, made in the midst of racial tension and the rise of Black Power, or a satirical play on a familiar scenario with the roles reversed, I'm not sure. It certainly made me feel uncomfortable every now and then. There is only one white character in the whole town that treats the Boss as an equal, and he is quick to stamp his superiority over her as he seduces her. I know, this is a blaxploitation film and the theme is practically always sticking it to the whities, but this is the kind of stereotyping that the black community were experiencing themselves at the time, which leads me to believe that it may in fact be a play on this.

However, racial themes aside, this is actually a pretty enjoyable western. It doesn't break any boundaries, but it's a delightfully old-fashioned new-sheriff-in-town story, that is suitably both amusing and action-packed when it needs to be. As the Boss, Williamson employs his impressive screen presence the same way he did in Larry Cohen's Black Caesar (1973), taking no shit from the townsfolk, and charming the ladies. It also benefits from the fact that is had a bit of a budget, as opposed to most blaxploitation films which often looked cheap and amateurish. Good, bloodless fun, that drops more 'N' bombs than a BNP rally.


Directed by: Jack Arnold
Starring: Fred Williamson, D'Urville Martin, William Smith, R.G. Armstrong
Country: USA

Rating: ***

Tom Gillespie

Review #134: 'Good Morning' (1959)

Japanese master Yasijuro Ozu repeated many themes in his movies. One of the key things running throughout  his films is the idea of communication, or the lack of it. Good Morning, or Ohayo (to give the film its native title) centres around two young brothers, Minoru (Koji Shitara) and Isamu (Masahiko Shimazu), who long to own a television set. Their parents refuse, citing the fact that it will kill the art of conversation as the reason why. The boys rebel after accusing grown ups of talking a lot but never saying anything worthwhile, and go on a vow of silence, much to their parents gratitude. In a key sub-plot, the town gossips accuse the neighbourhood treasurer Mrs. Haraguchi (Haruko Sugimura) of embezzling their funds in order to buy herself a new washing machine, when in fact one of the gossips' mothers had forgot to pass the money on.

Ozu's reputation as one of cinema's all-time greats and a director of elegance and sophistication is given a bit of a kick up the arse in this film. This is Ozu at his most hilarious. The mischievous brothers' increasingly desperate antics unwittingly causes mayhem amongst the townsfolk and inevitably has them bickering amongst themselves. It also contains lots of fart jokes. Yes, fart jokes, from Ozu. The brothers and their friends have a strange obsession with forcing out little farts as they push each others foreheads, which causes one unfortunate to repeatedly soil himself as he tries to take part.

The kids' accusations that grown-ups have nothing useful to say is as amusing as it is poignant. The communities breakdown in communication leads to all sorts of rumours flying around about where the treasuries money is, when a simple forgetful act is all that has taken place. Even when this is discovered and the matter appears to be cleared up, they still find ways to stir up trouble. And the scene where two singletons who are obviously attracted to each other talk about the weather to fill the awkward silences, is as heartbreaking as it is oddly magical. Only a true master such as Ozu can conjure two conflicting emotions from one scene. But beneath all the bittersweet comedy and social observations is a sobering message about the decline of community and the looming death of cinema. Stunning filmmaking from a true great.


Directed by: Yasujirô Ozu
Starring: Kôji Shitara, Masahiko Shimazu, Keiji Sada, Chisû Ryû
Country: Japan

Rating: *****

Tom Gillespie