Rich kid Albert (Zooey Hall) is in an institute. We meet him at the beginning of the film trying to rape a nurse before he is apprehended. His doctor tells his mother that he is a lost cause and must be moved to a hospital for the insane. While being taunted by one of the male nurses there, Albert tricks him into watching one of the 'films' he's made, and ends up killing him and escaping. He arrives at his mother's house to kill her - he sees her as a whore who is not 'pure' enough. He instead comes across her housekeeper, who he taunts and kills. Yet when he meets her 11 year-old daughter Annie (Geri Reischi), they form a bond and Albert takes her away. For once he has met a girl who is pure and innocent, but the only problem are his violent sexual urges.
The original name for this film was Poor Albert and Little Annie, which is a much more apt title for a film that is relatively unexploitative and character-driven. While they are scenes of violence, they are brief and contain very little blood or gore. The film concentrates more on the relationship between Albert and Annie, and the creepy fascination Albert has with her. Albert is clearly a misogynist, viewing every woman as filth who have lost their purity. Annie is sweet and innocent, and so Albert begins a strange love affair with her. He understands his urges are wrong, but he goes with it all the same.
As interesting as I'm making the film out to be, you have to remember that this is a 70's grindhouse film marketed under the name of I Dismember Mama and was usually shown in a double bill with The Blood Spattered Bride (1972). This generally means that although the idea is certainly quite interesting, the execution is bad. Whereas the low-budget works in it's favour - the film has a grime to it that creates a feeling of sleaze - the film is peppered with long sections where nothing at all happens. The 80 minute running time feels much longer than it actually is, and although Hall in the lead is generally quite effective as the rich-boy psychopath, he cannot save the film from being a meandering missed opportunity.
Olive Penderghast (Emma Stone) is a confident and highly intelligent girl that is doing well at school until she lies to her best friend Rhiannon (Aly Michalka) to get out of a camping trip. Rhiannon presses her for details and Olive ends up telling her that she and her made-up boyfriend had sex. They are overheard by the school religious freak Marianna (Amanda Byrnes), who spreads the gossip around like wildfire. Olive is then approached by her old friend Brandon (Dan Byrd), a boy who is being bullied because he is gay. He asks her if she will pretend to have sex with him in order to convince others that he is straight, to which she reluctantly agrees. Soon Olive is making money from desperate boys wanting to be known for having sex with her, at the cost of her reputation.
It's rare that teen comedies actually get the formula right, especially in the last ten years or so. There was a boom back in the late 1990's, started by the hugely successful American Pie (1999), which lasted a good ten years and is still a successful marketplace. If Easy A shares any similarities to any of the teen comedies of recent years, then it's the Tina Fey-scripted Mean Girls (2004), which was a smart and very funny story of high school rivalry and bitchiness. Yet Easy A shares it's true roots with a different era of teen films - the 1980's. Director Will Gluck's favourite film is Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986), and the love and homages are plain to see. Olive even fantasises about her life being like a John Hughes movie.
Like Mean Girls, the screenplay is fantastic, and has a talent in Emma Stone to chew on the lines (I'll get to her later). Not only is the script very smart and funny, it's also venomous. Scriptwriter Bert V. Royal has created a highly intelligent character in Olive that can spit back an insult as good as anybody. When studying The Scarlet Letter (of which the film is obviously based on) in English class, one of the religious freaks who is disgusted by the rumours states her disapproval for the lead character in the book, before turning to Olive and saying 'perhaps you should embroider a red A on your wardrobe, you abominable tramp,' to which Olive replies 'maybe you should get a wardrobe, you abominable twat!'. Shocking, vicious, and very funny.
But the film's masterstroke is Emma Stone. While it's hard to believe that she blends into the background (as she describes at the beginning of the film - I mean, come on, she's gorgeous), she gives a performance full of swagger and confidence. Husky-voiced and super-smart, she gives Olive - who in somebody else's hands might quickly become unsympathetic or annoying - a likeability and vulnerability that makes her wholly endearing. Her talent was always obvious from her supporting roles in Superbad (2007) and Zombieland (2009), but this will surely catapult her to wholly deserved stardom.
If there's complaints to be made about the film, then some of the clever-clever quips and the interactions with her rather annoying parents (played by Stanley Tucci and Patricia Clarkson) can be cloying, and the film does rather run out of steam near to the end. But the film remains enjoyable, charming and genuinely funny. And it's a strong reminder that the teen comedy still has life in it, given a decent script and a bit of heart.
When notorious outlaw Doc Holliday (Walter Huston) arrives in town, he is greeted with open arms by local sheriff and best friend Pat Garrett (Thomas Mitchell). It's not long before Holliday comes across Billy the Kid (Jack Buetel), who seems to be riding Holliday's horse that he had stolen from him in a previous town. Holliday however, takes a liking to the cocky Kid much to the annoyance of Garrett. When the Kid kills a man that pulls a gun on him first, Garrett shoots the Kid but Holliday escapes with him, taking him to Rio's (Jane Russell) place. Rio is Holliday's lady but as she is tending to his wounds, she finds herself unable to resist the Kid's charms.
Multi-millionaire playboy and aviator Howard Hughes only made two films in his life (although he produced many more). I've not seen his first film, Hell's Angels (1930), which is a love-song to aviation, but this, an unconventional cross-genre western, shows his complete inexperience in the role of director. Apart from the blatant historical inaccuracies (which I'll forgive, given the film is clearly not striving for it), Hughes seems unable to decide what genre he wants the film to be. Is it a comedy? A drama? A romance? Who knows? One thing is clear, he is fascinated by Jane Russell's ample bosom. He felt that the film was not doing her breasts justice, and so he designed an early wonderbra that accentuated them. This generated lots of controversy, and led to the film only getting a limited release as it fell foul of the censors.
Clearly, Hughes knows that Jane Russell's sexual appeal is all that the film has going for it, judging by the posters. Apart from the terrible script and dodgy pacing, the acting is absolutely woeful. Jack Buetel, clearly hired for his looks alone, has less charisma about him than the horses he rides on. In fact, the horses have more facial expressions. Jane Russell, who would go on to be a massive star, demonstrates none of her acting ability and feistiness that she would become known for. In fairness, she is given nothing to do other than bend over Buetel with her cleavage visible, and pout occasionally when required.
The most confusing thing about this film is how Hughes expects us to like these characters. Pat Garrett is supposed to the 'bad' guy, jealous and furious over Holliday choosing to ride off with Billy the Kid. Yet as he pursues the Kid, who is by the way, a known thief and murderer, Doc Holliday shoots and kills many of Garrett's men. But somehow we are supposed to sympathise with Holliday and forget that he is a mass-murderer. It all plays out like some weird, homoerotic love story, with Garrett playing the jealous wife to Holliday's husband who has chosen to run off with Billy the Kid's younger, more exciting toyboy. The only female character of note, Rio, acts like a lost little girl who can't exist without a man's arm to lean on. The Kid treats her like shit, and even tries to trade her for a horse, yet she remains enamoured with him, running after him when he 'allows' her to come with him. It's just a very strange, confused film. And also a very bad one.
With the takeover of his home by the local country club imminent, Mikey (Sean Astin), a member of the 'goonie' gang who live in the 'goon docks' area of Oregon, plans a last adventure for him and his gang when he uncovers a map in his father's attic that may lead to the treasure of legendary pirate One-Eyed Willie. Joining him is Data (Jonathan Ke Quan), who is handy with gadgets, Mouth (Corey Feldman), who always lets his mouth get the better of him, and Chunk (Jeff Cohen), a bungling chubby kid who is famous for his 'truffle shuffle'. Meeting up with them later is Mikey's older brother Brand (Josh Brolin) and two girls, Andy (Kerri Green) and Stef (Martha Plimpton). The map leads them to a seaside restaurant that appears derelict, but they soon find it occupied by wanted criminals who may just be after the loot themselves.
So here it is. When we started the Childhood Memories Project, The Goonies was always high on the list to watch, and why wouldn't it be? Virtually everyone from my generation and the generations around me who owned a television when they were a kid would have seen this film many times, and, like me, loved it. It seemed to be constantly on one of the channels, and is the type of film that you can watch from any point and instantly become engrossed. It has everything a kids film could need - pirates, lost treasure, adventure, boys comradery, monsters (well, Sloth). And it has a sad element that could upset any child - the threat of moving away to the unknown and leaving those childhood friends forever. These things make the film timeless, and a true childhood classic.
This was the first time I'd watched the film since my youth, and the first thing that struck me was how dark the film is. There's some scary stuff in here (if you're a kid!) - skeletal bodies, a frozen corpse with a bullet hole in his head, a huge deformed monster chained in a dark room, and Martha Plimpton. There's also a lot of swearing. It's not the type of thing you get in modern day kiddy shit. Those films are too busy breaking into song or filling the screen with flashy effects to stop the X-Box and iPhone generation from losing concentration for 10 seconds and checking their fucking Facebook account. The Goonies gives us the real dirt, danger and sense of adventure that came with childhood, where an abandoned railway line would provide a whole day's entertainment (in my case).
I also found it extremely moving. I'm not sure if it was the nostalgic man-child in me that was transported back to a time where getting back home in time for dinner was the extent of my worries, or if it was from the many beers that I had. Either way, by the end I got all soppy. The Goonies is by no means a brilliant film, but the legacy it left behind it and the sheer scale of it's cult, nostalgic fan base is there for a reason - because it's the perfect childhood adventure film. And for that reason, and for the fact that I've never felt two hours fly by so fast, I'm giving the film five stars. This is the film that gave us the truffle shuffle and 'hey you guys!' after all. I just hope younger generations get to see it and are capable of appreciating it after being brought up in a world of Pirates of the Caribbean sequels, Miley Cyrus and Michael fucking Bay. Goonies never say die.
Disgraced aircraft pilot Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds) is chosen by a green ring to be Earth's representative in the Green Lantern Corps - a police force that spans the galaxy that protects the universe from evil. The ring gives him the power to materialise his imagination into a green force powered by will. The ring was brought to Earth by a crash-landed alien, Abin Sur (Temuera Morrison) who had, in the past, defeated a deadly foe named Parallax (voiced by Clancy Brown), who after escaping from his prison, attacked Abin Sur and caused him to flee his planet. Meanwhile, scientist Hector Hammond (Peter Sargaard), son of Senator Robert Hammond (Tim Robbins), is brought in to perform the autopsy on Abin Sur. A part of Parallax that has lingered with his corpse latches on to Hector, causing him to develop telekinetic powers and a rather large forehead.
Green Lantern is one of those adaptation that has been thrown around Hollywood for years, with many writers, directors and stars named as possibilities and then dismissed as quickly as the idea came around. For some films, this proves a good thing. An example, Zack Snyder's Watchmen (2009), was a hell of a long time coming, with the likes of Arnold Schwarzenegger being banded round to star as Dr. Manhattan. But several writers and directors later, it came to someone who had a passion for the material, and he created something very good and loyal to the graphic novel. While it was by no means a perfect film, it was just about as good as one could hope from a movie adaptation of a very difficult novel. In the case of Green Lantern, perhaps the troublesome journey from comic book to screen was there for a reason, as the finished film is pretty poor.
As likeable as Ryan Reynolds usually is, he doesn't have the charisma or the loveable rogueishness that, say, Robert Downey Jr. has as Tony Stark in Iron Man (2008). Hal Jordan is generally unlikeable - he is cocky, reckless and selfish. Tony Stark's arrogance makes him stand out, and separates him from the mere mortals he swears to protect. Jordan is seen at the beginning of the film sacrificing his wing-man (or wing-woman - the sexy Blake Lively as Carol Ferris) in order to beat a rival company in a dog-fight. He is evidently an emotionally torn character - we see this in an extremely soppy flashback which shows us how Jordan witnessed his father blowing up in front of his eyes. Well boo fucking hoo. I couldn't ever warm to his character because he doesn't deserve his power. Perhaps if his back-story was served with a little less cheddar and a bit more originality then maybe I could root for him.
The premise that he can harness his imagination as his power is an interesting one, and certainly one ripe with limitless possibility. Yet director Martin Campbell (Casino Royale (2006), The Mask of Zorro (1998)) and the four different screenwriters seem to leave many gaping plot holes. Jordan is seen throwing up fast and imaginative defences when being trained by Green Lantern Corps combat trainer Kilowog (Michael Clarke Duncan), yet when being faced by the giant-headed Hammond, everything goes out the window. Hammond holds Carol as hostage when Jordan bursts in brandishing his ring (the one on his finger!) when Hammond makes him aware that Carol is being held telekinetically in mid-air with a syringe filled with what I can only imagine as poison floating near her neck. Jordan appears to be helpless. So why doesn't he imagine a steel wall around Carol, and a giant knife across Hammond's throat? Because that would be to easy and would require the writers to come with better ideas, of course.
The film really isn't quite as bad as the critics have made it out to be. It is sporadically fun, and features the ever-watchable Mark Strong as Green Lantern Corps leader Sinestro. But the film is just so annoyingly stupid that it made me question why someone so stupid would be chosen to wield such power. And the script is so bad that you can hear the desperation to try and forge some humour out of the thinly-written supporting characters (the 'comedy relief' best-friend is so bad the director just seems to cut him out of the movie half way through). Not exactly a Ghost Rider (2007) sized pile of steaming shit, but nothing to give Christopher Nolan sleepless nights. DC better book up their ideas, as Marvel seem to be running away with it (although Marvel have yet to make a film as good as The Dark Knight (2008)).
Il Divo charts the vast and eventful reign that former Italian prime-minister Giulio Andreotti had over Italy. He served as prime minister a number of times between 1976 and 1992, and also held positions of Defence Minister and Foreign Minister. During this time he was widely believed to have strong links to the Mafia, and was placed on trial in the late 1990's for his involvement in the murder of a journalist who was suggested to have held documents that strongly implicated Andreotti in criminal activities. The film jumps back and forth in time, and shows Andreotti's enigmatic presence of almost divine levels, and his guilt over his refusal to negotiate in the kidnapping and eventual murder of fellow Christian Democrat Aldo Moro.
This is no ordinary biography. It is an unconventional, highly stylised comedy-drama that is infuriating, exciting, informative and exhausting. Director Paolo Sorrentino throws so many facts, figures and names at you in rapid fashion that it all becomes a blur, it is near impossible to keep up, especially if your knowledge of Italian politics around this time is slim (which was the case for me). But it eventually becomes clear that all this information is irrelevant. It's simply a way to show just how involved Andreotti was with virtually everything that happened. He was so influential, so powerful that nothing escaped him. And nothing could touch him.
Toni Servillo's simply brilliant performance conveys everything you need to know about Andreotti. He is not physically intimidating, but instead he is hunched, softly-spoken and extremely strange-looking. But Andreotti does not need to move for anyone. His extreme intelligence and near-supernatural ability to get out of situations by doing next to nothing only increases his divine status. We see the best and worst of Andreotti, but Sorrentino is not trying to force an opinion of him out of us, but instead he has directed an outrageous film about an outrageous man. 'Il Divo', literally translated, means 'the star', but suggests 'the divine one', and was the nickname given to Julius Caesar.
Freeman Lowell (Bruce Dern) is a botanist working on the Valley Forge, a spaceship that concentrates on maintaining plant life which has all but vanished on Earth. When he and his three fellow crew mates receive a message to destroy the domes that contain the forests and return to Earth, Lowell murders his crew mates and fakes a technical problem with the ship in order to escape into deep space so he can preserve his beloved forest. The resident 'bots, who Lowell dubs Huey, Louise and Dewey, provide him company. He at first re-programmes them so they can perform surgery on his injured leg, but later he teaches them to play cards and to tend to the forest. As time goes on, Lowell struggles with his loneliness and his guilt over the murder, and must find out why his forest appears to be dying.
Silent Running is one of those films that I've seen consistently mocked, homaged and referenced by other movies and programmes, but the film itself has always managed to elude me. Made around the time where people were starting to take notice of the eco-system and the fact that we may be slowly destroying the Earth with our acts, the film still packs a punch in the modern world that is all too aware of the threat of Global Warming. It does deliver a powerful ecological message, but the film is surprisingly more effective on a human level. Although Lowell seems to be on the verge of madness with his love for the beauty of nature, it is later in the film, when we see him lonely and missing humanity, that truly speaks volumes. Nature may be beautiful, but nothing is more comforting than human contact.
Despite having a strong message, the film always avoids being preachy. It instead focuses on the mental instability of the protagonist, who spend the majority of the film existentially pondering if this lonely existence he has created for himself was really worth murdering three of his colleagues. The film is also profoundly moving. The three robots prove loveable characters, though they never speak or ever communicate properly on a human level. The threat of their demise also lingers, and when it inevitably happens it's almost appallingly moving, given that they are clearly just robot costumes (controlled by amputees, I must add).
The film is no masterpiece by any means, but as a work of science-fiction, it is certainly brilliant. Back in the late 1960's and throughout the 1970's, sci-fi was inspired by ideas rather than special effects. The likes of Star Wars (1977) created a vast new world for it's audience to get lost in, and 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), combined philosophy and mysticism to create a work of high art. The special effects maestro behind 2001, Douglas Trumbull, directs here, and uses the futuristic setting as a conduit to send a social message of the way our planet is heading, that is more profound than ever given our heightened awareness of our effect upon the planet.
Special mention must go to Bruce Dern, who delivers a highly effective, if slightly over-the-top performance, as the angry and bewildered Lowell, who exists in a world where the Earth is scarred and devoid of plant life. This is original, innovative and surprisingly dark science fiction that manages to be both existential and entertaining. It's not perfect - the music is cheesy, the sets are very 1970's, Dern overacts to the extreme - but this is a cult favourite for a reason. It is simply a loveable film.
Martin Scorsese has throughout his career, made several labor of love documentaries mainly on the subject of another of his passions, music. In this one his focus is on "the quiet" Beatle. Harrison was always seen as completely secondary to Lennon and McCartney. However, in this film , Scorsese shows the complexity of his character. We see his very important contribution to The Beatles, not only through his own song writing, but also the elements that essentially made many of the Lennon/McCartney compositions.
We follow him through his exploration of, particularly, Indian mysticism and philosophy, and how he integrated this into his everyday life. His contribution to the film industry is summarily gone over, from his involvement with Monty Python And The Holy Grail (1974), through to the creation of the production company, Handmade Films, that became involved in some of the great British films of the 1980's.
What is apparent throughout the film is Scorsese's clear love of the music. Using still photographs, there are many sections that fill the three and a half hours with Harrison's songs. Scorsese uses these throughout, and presents them chronologically, so that we are able to witness the evolution of Harrison's song writing.
A clear documentary made by someone passionate about the subject, the film paints a picture of a very interesting man, who lived through much change around and within himself. This is a very well researched, well constructed story, and whilst long, does not seem that way whilst viewing.
In a scene towards the climax of the film, we see Lucy (Emily Browning), taking a lesson at university where the lecturer seems to be analyzing a game of chess. The question is proposed, asking why would someone make a move securing their defeat? This seems to be relevant for Browning's character throughout this very interesting tale of sexual depravity and the detachment of the female body to the masculine libido. Lucy works her way through education, financing her way with various menial jobs. She begins a job with an exclusive, and very clandestine operation, beginning simply with silver service waitressing in "risque" negligee. This of course progresses into a more dangerous level, when she is offered a very well-paid gig involved a drugging so that she may sleep whilst a client does what he wishes. Although, as promised in Lucy's first interview, "Your vagina will not be penetrated".
From first time director Julia Leigh, the film has various similarities to Luis Bunuel's excellent Belle de Jour (1967), mainly in it's depiction of a strong female character who wishes to delve into a dangerous world of male desires. However, unlike Bunuel's film, Leigh has created a character in Lucy, who seems utterly detached from the people around her. She does visit Birdman (Ewne Leslie), who seems to be agoraphobic, but this is not elaborated on. She seems also very willing to do things without questioning. In one scene she is offered a pill after her work in a restaurant, she asks what it is, but takes it without having had an answer.
The film is self-consciously European in it's atmosphere and pace. The handling of the subject matter is never gratuitous, neither does it spoon feed a message of masochistic perversity. Browning is excellently vacuous in the role, gently drifting from situation to situation with not a question or any adversity. The film is beautiful to look at (and I don't just mean the alabaster figure of the nude Browning), it's pallet of autumnal colours adding extra references to 1970's European cinema. There is no doubt that this film will divide viewers. Dirty old men ogling over a sleeping, naked 22 year old, will make for uncomfortable viewing for some, but I felt that this was not exploitational in it's depiction. We also never really see what these old men do in the time they are given with the "sleeping beauty". All we get is an almost confessional from one of the customers. After being advised by Clara (Rachel Blake) that there is no penetration, the client states: "The only way I can get a hard-on, is if I take 12 Viagra and get a beautiful lady to shove her fingers up my arse".
The films conclusion is haunting, beautifully realised and ambiguous. It certainly raises more questions than it answers about this detached and seemingly passive female character in a world of strange male desire. A film that will resonate in your mind some time after it has finished.
Blonde-haired cave woman Sanna (Victoria Vetri) is picked up by a seaside tribe after being thrown into the sea by her own tribe. Tara (Robin Hawdon), a member of the dark-haired seaside tribe becomes infatuated by her and woos her with the gift of his necklace. Ayak (Imogen Hassall - who tragically committed suicide in 1980) wants Tara for herself so becomes intent on removing Sanna from the tribe, but after they fight, Sanna's former tribe come looking for her and she flees for her life. Tara starts his journey to find her and bring her back, but he faces many dangers in the dinosaurs and creatures lurking in the jungles and mountains, and a tribal prophet has foreseen a tidal wave that could possibly devastate the planet.
This film is every bit as tedious as it sounds. One of a few prehistoric films produced by Hammer than depicted humans alongside dinosaurs, When Dinosaurs Ruled The Earth is nothing more than cheap fantasy that mixes the excitement of dinosaur attacks with big breasted women in cave girl costumes. Don't get me wrong, the sight of Vetri and Hassall all shaven-legged and oiled up wearing next to nothing and full make-up is not something I am complaining about, but that is just about all this film has going for it. The dinosaur scenes are mildly entertaining but are often repetitive, except for one scene which sees Sanna sleep in a broken dinosaur egg only to be adopted by the mother. Very silly but quite fun in it's own ridiculous way.
A small caveman language was created for the film ("Akita! Akita!"), which, according to IMDb, is based on Phoenician, Latin, and Sanskrit sources. Very admirable indeed, but it is strange that such attention was made to the language when the film ignores the obvious historical fact that humans did not co-exist with dinosaurs! It seems a pointless detail when the film is clearly going for fun and titillation rather than anything remotely resembling historical accuracy. All in all, an easy way to spend a lazy bank holiday afternoon, but a rather boring and unspectacular cinematic experience. I would expect more from the director of The Day The Earth Caught Fire (1961).
A strange hybrid of contemporary movies styles, Rat Pfink a Boo Boo begins as a seemingly straight, very low budget and amateurish crime drama. Cee Dee Beaumont (Carolyn Brandt), girlfriend to rock 'n' roll star, Lonnie Lord (Ron Haydock), is being harassed on the telephone by a gang of bored hoodlums. The first half of the film plays like a pulp melodrama, but this is also mixed with some beach party scenes. The whole film is a post-modern concoction of ideas, taken from the popular youth movements of the time. A year previous to the production of the film, an incredibly saccharine and asinine movie was released, that actually began a bizarre - if short-lived - series. Beach Blanket Bingo (1965), has been pilfered for the lame beach party scenes that interject throughout the first half of the film.
After Lonnie's girlfriend is kidnapped by the previously mentioned gang, he receives a phone call giving the demands for her release. This is where the film changes. It is not a revelatory change. It simply seems that the film maker just didn't know what to do with the ending. So, as per the previous action of pilfering, I can only assume he simply switched the TV on and was introduced to two popular shows that were being aired at the time (Batman and Batfink). Lonnie, along with a character we hardly noticed in the previous half, Titus Twimbly (Titus Moede), step into a cupboard. After a kerfuffle they exit wearing ludicrous outfits, and proclaiming their super-hero pseudonyms as Rat Pfink and Boo Boo. (As a note, this was the full original title. However, in post production, the titles were messed up leaving the a instead of the and.)
What proceeds is a farcical parade of the eponymous super heroes gliding through the streets on a motorcycle and side car around Hollywood. This last part plays out like the camp Batman series that clearly influenced it, and the title being adapted from another cartoon TV character, Batfink. With it's cheap credentials in place, the film still has some amateurish charm. I believe that much of the humour is intentional, and the super hero section has it's tongue placed firmly in it's cheek - much like the Batman series that it is riffing on.
The film does deserve it's 2.9 imdb rating, but because it is so low budget, I believe it has more to offer that let's say, for example, Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011), which has less to offer as it takes itself so seriously, and was made on a budget that could probably alter the third world. Also, with a running time of only 67 minutes, does not waste 3 hours of your life, and is worth it for it's outrageous acting, preposterous settings, and the more obvious limitations of it's director, a man who clearly lost his way 40 minutes into the film, resulting in the super hero ending, shoehorned into place.
Businessman Wataru (Shin Saburi) is continually approached by his friends and co-workers for advice and help, especially when it concerns potential marriages for their daughters. He is approached by Mikami (Ozu regular Chisu Ryu) who is concerned that his daughter has gone off with a man from a lesser family with a low-paid job. He agrees to meet her and try to talk some sense into her. One day at work, he is approached by a man named Maniguchi (Keiji Sada) who asks for his daughter's hand in marriage. Wataru is horrified that his daughter Setsuko (Ineko Arima) has been seeing this man without his knowledge, and insists that marrying him is not the right decision.
Japanese master Ozu is again on familiar ground with this gentle drama. Again, he explores themes of family, and change in a post-war Japanese society. Wataru is not a traditionalist by nature - he is generally quite open-minded, but only when it comes to his friend's families. When he has tea with one of Setsuko's friends, she explains how her mother is obsessed with finding her a match with a man with a decent job and background. Wataru is agreed that her mother is stuck in her ways. It becomes clear that Wataru is simply a father who cannot let go of his daughter. It's a sentiment that anyone, even those without children, can relate to.
Ozu does make a point of showing the increasing differences in attitudes between the generations. The parents are children of war. Wataru and his wife Kiyoko (Kinuyo Tanaka) discuss memories of being in the bomb shelters. Ozu doesn't want us to see the elders as narrow-minded and old-fashioned, but instead as people who grew up with danger and death all around them, and clearly hold protection and security in high regard, and for good reason. However, Ozu does show the women of Equinox Flower as the stronger sex, and the biggest advocates for change. Kiyoko tries to change Wataru's mind, but realises that this is a decision he will make on his own.
The film is full of Ozu's usual traits, including the usual gorgeous cinematography - and this is his first to be shot in colour. His camera is ever-still, watching from low angles, usually through doorways. He is offering his audience a window into these people's lives, and allows them to give their naturalistic courtesies as they would if no-one was watching. It is a delight watching a true master at work, and it's amazing how he finds fresh and fascinating ways to explore similar themes. I've never seen any of his films that have been anything less than brilliant, and I'm still to see his widely celebrated Tokyo Story (1953). An absolute delight.
Blind, retired journalist Franco (Karl Malden) is walking with his niece when he overhears a man in a car talking about blackmail. Pretending to tie his shoe, he gets his niece to describe the man in the car. That same night, a research facility is broken into and a security guard is knocked unconscious. Reporter Carlo (James Franciscus) begins the investigation, bumping into Franco along the way who has taken a personal interest. They learn that apparently nothing was stolen from the break-in. Dr. Calabresi (Carlo Alighiero) knows what was taken, but before he can do anything about it, he is pushed in front of a moving train. Carlo and Franco begin their own investigation, but find themselves hampered by a killer who will stop at nothing to protect the truth from being uncovered.
Argento's second feature, made in between his excellent debut The Bird With The Crystal Plumage (1970) and the bollocks-but-enjoyable Four Flies On Grey Velvet (1971), The Cat O' Nine Tails is the second in his 'animal' trilogy, and one of his personal least favourites. It wouldn't be until four years later when Argento would properly find his stride, making the phenomenal Deep Red (1975) and following it with three of his finest films, including two of the most memorable horrors ever made, Suspiria (1977) and Inferno (1980). However, Cat does include some enjoyable set-pieces, if sadly they lack Argento's usual Hitchcock-esque masterful touch.
The plot of the film, which includes something about a breakthrough in XXY chromosome research, is one of Argento's silliest, most confusing, and least interesting. It never really hits top gear until the last fifteen to twenty minutes when the plot finally comes together. The film is also disappointingly gore-light. This would of course not be a problem if the rest of the film was involving enough, but it fleshes out a rather simplistic story with no excitement or intrigue. However, Franciscus and Malden are good value, and the final death, one of Argento's most squirm-inducing, will send shivers down your spine. It's still head and shoulders above the majority of giallo's that came out around the same time, but knowing what Argento is capable of, this is a minor work.
David Miller's conspiracy-theory 're-enactment' shows the plotting by several oil-barons and intelligence officers to murder the then-President of the United States John F. Kennedy. Kennedy's pushing of the Civil Rights movement and plans to withdraw U.S. forces from Vietnam proves a threat to these emotionless rich folk, and the removal of Kennedy will benefit their business and, to them, their country. Farrington (Burt Lancaster), a black ops specialist, plans out the assassination in minute detail, with the backing of Foster (Robert Ryan), an oil baron. The action cuts between meetings between these men, the preparations of the gunmen and their target practice, and the recruitment and actions of a Lee Harvey Oswald lookalike.
While not being a fact-based and detailed account like the portrayal of Jim Garrison's investigation in Oliver Stone's excellent JFK (1991), Executive Action makes no claims to be historical fact, but instead a theory of how Kennedy's assassination could have been planned. How much is based on fact I don't know, as I had trouble finding much information about it. While it is certainly very interesting from a conspiracy-theorists point-of-view, the film works far better as a straightforward thriller, and certainly manages to build up plenty of tension regardless of the fact that we know what is going to happen, and that what is being played out in front of us is unlikely to be true.
It's a cold and emotionless film, which made me like it more. Lancaster's Farrington prepares the assassination as if he is preparing a holiday - matter-of-factly, routinely. The terrifying thing is that these men believe that what they are doing is patriotic and for the good of the country. Because of this, the film can be seen as a damning commentary of American values - the pursuit of money and desire for security is held in higher regard than doing the right thing, or equality. The film's low budget is certainly noticeable, and some of the supporting acting is often questionable, but this is a riveting thriller that contains many qualities that made the 70's the greatest era for American cinema.
A young black orphan is picked up by a group of women who feed him and give him a job as a towel boy in their brothel. One of the women seduces him and the two have sex. Due to his apparently large member, the woman, in a fit of ecstasy, nicknames him 'Sweetback'. When Sweetback is grown, he is employed as a male prostitute who performs for rich folk. When he witnesses police brutality on a black man, he beats up two police officers and goes on the run. The film follows his plight in a picaresque fashion, and he makes his way across a corrupt and discriminative America.
Generally regarded as the first blaxploitation film (although whether it is in fact exploitation is questionable), Sweet Sweetback influenced a whole generation of film-makers, and gave a new voice to a social minority with a lot more to say than the majority. Director Melvin van Peebles (father to Mario), who also plays the eponymous hero, funded the project himself (with a little help from Bill Cosby), and the film went onto gross $4.1 million. The film became required viewing for members of the Black Panthers, and Sweetback himself can be seen giving the Panther first sign.
As socially and historically important as this film is, it's still not very good. Apart from van Peebles' use of some innovative jump-cuts and camerawork, I found the film hard work. The terrible editing often renders scenes unwatchable, and I had trouble even following what was happening during some of the fight scenes. Often characters just babble seemingly meaningless rubbish at the camera. I must also mention the very uncomfortable first sex scene which borders on child porn, which depicts a boy (played by Mario) of around 12 having sex with a woman, the both of them being completely naked. Very weird.
Van Peebles himself appears in a few sex scenes, that are apparently unsimulated. He actually contracted gonorrhea during the shoot, and claimed workers compensation. This is a film all about black domination - Sweetback's large penis and sexual prowess standing for black superiority. As well as sexually, the black community are seen as superior mentally (the community pull together to outwit the police and protect Sweetback) and physically (Sweetback overpowers two policemen in a bar brawl). You can feel the anger and the desire to fight back in every scene.
Still, as interesting as the film is in a social context, this is extremely amateurish stuff. The last half an hour sees Sweetback running endlessly while the camera jumps around showing various landmarks to the sound of an extremely repetitive soundtrack. It goes on and on and on. But I suppose that any film that is indirectly responsible for Disco Godfather (1979)can't be all bad.
12 year-old Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) lives alone with his divorced mother. He is bullied at school and leads a generally lonely existence, until a man and what looks like a little girl moves in to the flat next door. The man (Richard Jenkins) kidnaps a young man, hangs him up by his feet and slits his throat, catching the blood. He slips on the ice, causing him to drop the blood which spills onto the floor. Later, we see the young girl Abby (Chloe Grace Moretz) shouting at him for doing this. Abby and Owen start a strange friendship, and it soon becomes clear that Abby is a vampire. Owen shows Abby what it is like to be human, many things she has forgotten, and Abby teaches Owen that he must stand up to his tormentors.
Matt Reeves' second adaptation of John Ajvide Lindqvist's Swedish novel Let The Right One In faced a backlash from fans of Tomas Alfredson's brilliant original when it was announced. Reeves was adamant, however, that this was not a re-make of Alfredson's film, but a fresh adaptation of the book, relocating the action from Stockholm to New Mexico. This film would keep the same focus on the central friendship between Owen and Abby (originally Oskar and Eli), and this would be a film in its own right.
I'll try not to mention Alfredson's 2008 version too much as this is a novel adaptation, but it is hard to ignore it given that it is one of my all-time favourite films, and, in my opinion, the greatest vampire film of all time (including Muranu's Nosferatu (1922) and Dreyer's Vampyr (1932)). Let Me In introduces the character of the Policeman (Elias Koteas), who does not appear in the original (I'm not sure if he is in the novel), and he seems to be there to play the moral centre of the film. This choice I could have lived without, as it is almost like they were worried that the whole film may seem amoral to an American audience. Well, it is about good and evil after all, and what defines it, so the addition seems wholly unnecessary.
Thinking about it, the more I write about this film the less I'm liking it. I know I said I wouldn't mention the original too much, but even though Reeves said this was a fresh adaptation, there are a lot of shots and scenes that are exactly the same to Alfredson's original. Only here, they are devoid of any atmosphere or heart. The original's perfect pace, and creeping atmosphere really got to the heart of Oskar. It emphasised that he was a troubled child with a worrying obsession with crime, knifes and voyeurism. Let Me In tones this down, making him a much more innocent character. Everything that was dark and different that the first film explored - the revelation that Eli/Abby is a castrated boy; the hinting that Eli/Abby's protector is a paedophile - are wholly ignored. It's like Reeves and the producers felt the Western audiences would be stupid to grasp these dark themes.
Also, the extremely poor CGI deserves a special mention. While it was used only when necessary in Alfredson's version, here it is used a number of times, especially when Abby is in her vampire mould, attacking a person or climbing up a tree before the hunt. It does nothing except take away the 'reality' of it all. This is a story that needs to be grounded in a believable setting, in order to emphasise the social themes, and to make the coming-of-age story more real and easier to relate to. But this is seriously damaged, and the film feels ever more like a fantasy horror, rather than a drama, which at the story's heart, it ultimately is.
The good, there is very little of to be honest. The acting, especially by McPhee and the always-impressive Moretz, is very good, although it is a shame they weren't given the whole of their characters to explore. But everything the original made subtle, atmospheric and scary, this Americanised version makes obvious, loud and jumpy. I don't know when directors will realise that loud noises aren't scary. Overall, very disappointing, but wholly expected. This is not a re-imagining, but a re-make. And a very average one at that.
Three wealthy socialites, Anna (Lea Massari), her boyfriend Sandro (Gabriele Ferzetti), and their beautiful friend Claudia (Monica Vitti), take a boat trip to Lisca Bianca, a volcanic island off the coast of Sicily. Anna and Sandro are unhappy, and following an argument, Sandro wakes up from a nap to find Anna missing. After a frantic search, the group leaves the island, and Sandro and Claudia begin a guilty love affair. They carry on the search for Anna, but as the film goes on, she is gradually forgotten and the two indulge their desires.
Michelangelo Antonioni makes slow films. He is more concerned with setting a tone, and creating the world that his characters inhabit. This is evident in the two films of his I've seen, Blowup (1966), probably his most popular film, and The Passenger (1975), a film I consider to be one of the best, if not the best, film of the 1970's. L'Avventura is no different, and Antonioni takes his time showing the morally corrupt and emotionally shallow world these upper class characters seemingly float through. The pace allows time for the central mystery of Anna's disappearance to slowly leave our mind, as Sandro and Claudia's love affair comes to the fore. They are initially full of guilt, but it becomes clear that these characters will have what they want.
Released at the same time as Fellini's hugely successful La Dolce Vita (1960), the two films tackle similar subjects. The life of the rich and care-free are apparently soulless adventures in partying where the consequences of actions are irrelevant. While La Dolce Vita was an excellent film, L'Avventura shows ultimately the darker side of this society, and it's impact greater. The characters in La Dolce Vita look like they're having fun, but in this, they drift through their lives like ghosts. These are horrible people, entirely lacking in emotion or any true feeling, apart from disconnection and isolation.
The cinematography is jaw-droppingly beautiful, with nothing left out of focus. Every frame has a crisp and polished look to it, as if Antonioni is asking us to look at what else is happening, what else is lying beneath the surface. It was booed at Cannes, but went on to win the Jury Prize, and has since then gone on to be recognised as one of the greats of world cinema. I must admit the slow plotting did sometimes hamper my enjoyment of the film, but L'Avventura leaves its mark and it's beauty becomes apparent after the credits have rolled.
The original name for this film was Poor Albert and Little Annie, which is a much more apt title for a film that is relatively unexploitative and character-driven. While they are scenes of violence, they are brief and contain very little blood or gore. The film concentrates more on the relationship between Albert and Annie, and the creepy fascination Albert has with her. Albert is clearly a misogynist, viewing every woman as filth who have lost their purity. Annie is sweet and innocent, and so Albert begins a strange love affair with her. He understands his urges are wrong, but he goes with it all the same.
