Reviews

5 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
My New Gun (1992)
10/10
A suntle, underrated, and misunderstood midnight classic
29 March 2005
This movie is quirky and will not appeal to most people. It's does not contain much in the way of action, there are no special FX, and the plot is down to earth. The film is also mistakenly billed as a comedy and this tends to throw people expecting funny hah hah as in Meet the Parents. This is a subtle black comedy. It's more funny in the same vein as After Hours. In fact anyone that liked After Hours a lot will probably like this too.

There are 2 central characters in the story. Diane Lane plays Debbie Bender a sexy youngish woman married to a stuffy slightly older doctor. I use the term youngish because her character appears to be in that strange zone that is the twilight of youth. Her husband although only slightly older has fully completed to transition to adulthood, is very materialistic, does not respect or acknowledge his wife's intelligence and views her as some sort of a possession / servant.

Jame LeGros plays Skippy a neighbour whos a sort of mid 20s James Dean crossed with Peter Pan type character slightly younger than Debbie... but not much. He's also rebellious - the aging neighbourghood bad boy stuck in a menial job and and still living with his mother obstensibly because he's too broke to get a place of his own but secretly because he has to look after her. Amusingly the Benders both perceive themselves to be much older than Skippy and treat him like the a neighbourhood kid, although deep down you can tell that Debbie perhaps identifies more with Skippy than her husband...

There's a hugely surreal aspect to the film although not as blatant as say Twin Peaks, this is presented is a voyueristic way letting you catch various characters with their guard down and seeing how they behave when they think nobody is watching.

The best part of the film is the sexual tension between Debbie and Skippy as they become thrown together by their vaguely and intentionally hum-drum adventure.

If you like films about the more interesting an amusing parts of real life while exposing some of the quirkier aspects of the human condition and with a crackling of sexual tension then you need to get hold of this.

Great soundtrack too!
14 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
misunderstood underrated cult classic MAJOR SPOILERS
23 October 2003
Warning: Spoilers
You must take into account that this film was released in 1985, the same era as Miami Vice, but pre Lethal Weapon. This makes it all the more remarkable and far sighted.

First off at the time the film was made none of the actors were well known stars.

The Chance character fanices himself. In the foot chase scene he falls over, doesn't quite pull it off. In one fight scene the bad guy beats him up. This isn't supposed to happen! Exactly. He's meant to look like a poseur. He's selfish, loves himself, and has little concept of reality.

Chance lays it on the line to a judge that he must have a prisoner released into his custody. The judge doesn't agree with him so Chance throws a spoiled brat tantrum. The judge relents, and Chances manages to screw up when his prisoner beats him up and absconds... Chance is not just fallible but downright clumsy and despite all this very very arrogant.

When Chance breaks the rules Vulkovich objects but is too weak willed to put his foot down. The rule breaking always blows up in their faces. Chance never considers the impact on Vulkovich, he's almost sociopathic in his attitude to other people. Vulkovich follows Chance around like a little lost dog.

Chance needs $30K to strike an undercover deal with Masters who killed his partner. The Secret Service has a rule that it will only front $10K. So what does Chance do? Break the rules and steal it from another crook. So he talks Vulcovich into kidnapping a diamond smuggler thats carrying cash for a diamond buy.

SPOILER ALERT

The diamond smuggler gets shot accidentally, and the Secret Service guys find themselves being chased in their car. They can't stop the car and say "Hey we're the Secret Service you can't chase us" because they just stole $50K for someone and now he's dead. Vulkovich is virtually crying he's so scared.

Next day they find out the dead guy was an undercover FBI agent working a sting operation... Oops.

But this doesn't phase the ever selfish Chance (after all it wasn't him that shot the FBI guy and how was he to know), so he goes ahead and makes the deal.

The criminals view the Secret Service guys as low calibre. Their attempts at undercover work are hurried and excuted in a hamfisted manner.

MAJOR SPOILER ALERT

Just when you thought things were heading waaay leftwards the bigget shock comes along. Chance isn't content with just apprehending the villan, no he wants to do it personally (just like on Miami Vice), so he screw things up by insisting that he personally cuff Masters, Vulkovich of course being as streetwise as a blind rabbit takes time out to spectate. Out of nowhere with no warning or build up, Chance gets his head blown off with a good 20mins left to run.

So this is essentially the story of a guy who wants to be in Miami Vice but finds out that those tactics don't work in the real world, gets killed, and the world goes on without batting an eyelid. Surprise!

Brilliant.

Meanwhile Vulkovich doesn't get any of this and decides to remodel himself as the new Chance, even resplendant in cheaper leather jacket with - you guessed it - the sleeves rolled up.

If you are sick off glossy cop thrillers with poseur infallible heroes and not only want reality but also come uppance, whilst enjoying a very thrilling and well made film then this is definately for you. Enjoy.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Not a typical 80s Thriller
3 September 2001
This flick is not typical 80s material. For starters nobody in it would qualify as a "*** M O V I E S T A R ***". Thta's not a bad thing because back then every second action thriller starred Stallion, Schwartzenposer, Van Dammed, Segull, etc (sic)...

Instead we get real actors for this one.

Second difference is that this is not a flag waving good guys vs bad guys, good guys win plot. No in this one there is a pretty fine line between good and bad with plenty of crossover. And you start to get that unusual feeling (that you don't often get with US films) of uncertainty as to who will come out on top.

Third difference is that the characters are flawed. They make mistakes. Serious ones. Pretty much every character in the film screws up in some way. Think 52 pickup or ransome, only with most of the mistakes perpretated by the good guys. It's not because they are clumsy, just that they are human. This makes the viewer empathise with them.

Fourth difference, the good guys do one very big no-no. You'll see what I mean.

Fifth difference, this comes about 15mins from the end. You'll know it when you see it. You'll think - no, surely that was the other guy. It's fast and sudden, and you are in disbelief for most of the rest of the film... ...that sixth difference goes on another 10 mins after you think it should have ended.

If you like Arnie films then you won't like this. That's probably why it din't do so wll back then. It's doing a lot better now.

I rate it the finest cop type thriller of it's day. It has more in common with James Ellroy that Jerry Brickhammer (sic).

Oh - and the directionis excellent. I give it a 10, and that's on effort alone!

Flash
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Remember that story about the Emporers new clothes?..
11 June 2000
...that could be a metaphor for the hype surrounding this - it's the worst British film since 'Big Zapper'. The only time I have been more disappointed was when I rented 'Driller Killer'.

If you locked me in a room with Guy Ritchie, Abel Ferrara, a gun and only one bullet, then afterwards you'd find Guy Ritchie beaten to death :)
12 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After Hours (I) (1985)
10/10
We've all had nights like this. Only not quite as bad. It makes you grateful that you are an actual person and not a fictional character!
11 June 2000
I must have seen this film over a dozen times. Every time I get something else from it. It's the little touches that do it for me...

...like when Paul is resigning himself into seeking sanctuary with Julie, so he goes to the gents to wash his face, and there on the wall, like a sign from God, is a drawing of a shark eating a mans dick.

There is a big play on sods law, that leaves the viewer empathising with Paul, thinking yes - that did/could/almost happen(ed) to me!

It just keeps on getting blacker and blacker. The rule in general is that everything that can go wrong will and therefore does - only much worse than you anticipated. Even Paul begins to sense this and falls to his knees in the street crying "What do you want from me God, I'm just a Word Processor for Christ's sake!".

Watch what's going on the the background closely (tip - never look away from the screen) the director even does a brief Hitchcock type appearance.

This film is best watched in the dark, the whole atmosphere is similar to the night time sequences in 'Taxi Driver' with the street lights reflecting in the puddles etc.

One of the key points is that the action takes place over a 12-16 hour period, reminiscent of 'Bad Day at Black Rock'. This keeps it tightly paced, and it feels longer than it actually is, but never ever dull!

I can't think of another film that is similar, the only thing that remotely springs to mind is 'American Werewolf in London'.

Not everyone will like this film - and you don't have to like Scorsese films to like this, it's 'Scorsese light'. I personally rate it as the best black comedy I've ever watched, and therefore give it 10/10.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed