mambogod Reviews

The Truth About Cats & Dogs (1996)

pet vet frets

[29 December 1999]

A peaceful tale in that oft-called-upon cinema scenario: the love life of the talk-radio vet.

As is often the case in romantic comedies, the ending is never in doubt, only the means of getting there. Here, there are quite enough episodes to make for pleasing viewing, and the whole thing is rather touching (the, er, "touching" aspects of the "phone" scene excepted) especially with Garafaro's very classy performance (as ever). She must feel a bit typecast though - I wonder whether she will ever be cast as anything other than a bit of a clever-clogs.

I was quite lulled.

By the way, look out for the coffee shop scene towards the end, where there is a very bold, static single shot of Garafaro and Chaplin lasting 26 seconds without any dialogue or movement whatsoever. Perfect!

The Sixth Sense (1999)

spooked me out

[21 December 1999]

After all the anticlimactic hype about Blair Witch, here's a top-drawer exercise in film making which I find very hard to fault. In fact, the only thing which upset my enjoyment was the person sitting next to me in the cinema, who on several occasions screamed very loudly.

Anyway, putting my neighbour's reaction down as both a critical "thumbs up" on her part and a new form of personal surround-sound for me, there is little more to say than to recommend it. Great plot, well filmed, apposite music, solid acting - enthralling and a genuinely spooky "chiller" to boot. And where did they get the child actor from? amazing stuff from him - I just hope he recovers from the experience!

Damage (1992)

funny to watch in "fast forward"

[9 December 1999]

Mercifully, Louis Malle didn't go for the final cliche of wallowing in his subject matter for three and a half hours, but most of the other "predictables" are well in evidence in this sorry tale (both in plot and directorial terms).

Obsession of any kind, including love, makes you do very silly things. Not a new message to me. But rather a depressing one in this treatment.

There's a directorial/writer's arrogance in the message here, i.e. that frankly the viewer has no IDEA what true emotion is unless they get themselves into this kind of a mess, and that we're all just a bit superficial for not understanding Jezza Irons' compulsions. It's reflected in the script, lots of references to him discovering new feelings etc. (implied: that surely the viewer can never know... ah how romantic).

Fortuitously Binoche is evidently up for it from the start, so Irons isn't left as a middle-aged stalker, another possible outcome - would we be encouraged by the director to be so sympathetic in that scenario? I think not.

She doesn't mess around, clearly yearning to be inseminated from the first scene she's in. Resultant dialogue (where it exists at all) suffers, e.g. how to get together? (phone):-

him: (sotto voce) "I have to see you"

her: (matter of fact) "of course"

cripes! there's a surprise. resultant scene of them crashing around apartment with oh so serious faces and no kit on.

Anyway, I am awaiting Binoche's first sci-fi role where her wierd half-french half-london accent may be of some use as some kind of sterile alien... actually her awkward physical style and haircut could come in useful there too.

Final suggestion: cut out the scenes with Miranda Richardson and clip them together to make an Oscar-winning short feature for her...

and bin the rest, pronto.

The Blair Witch Project (1999)

radio gives you the best picture

[10 November 1999]

What people told me about BWP (before I went to see it) fell into four categories, namely:-

(i) [competitive chili eater type] "I wasn't scared in the slightest"

(ii) [sensitive/never seen a horror film] "I was REALLY scared"

(iii) [postmodern] "less is more, pass the homous....."; or . . . . . .

(iv) [jaded] "it didn't live up to all the hype"

I got the hype first from advance news of how it was going down in the states and then as the publicity machine clicked into effect on this side of the pond. I bet this spoilt the fun for a lot of the UK audience, as we had probably heard the entire plot several times before the thing got in front of our eyeballs.

I couldn't work out what to think about BWP when I came out of the cinema. But by random TV scheduling I saw "Sleepers" the following day, a highish budget "quality" Hollywood film dealing with serious issues (child abuse, revenge killing etc) and with the likes of De Niro and D.Hoffman in it. It dawned on me then that the experience of watching BWP was hardly linked at all with that of going to see a production like "Sleepers" or anything else released for mass markets. BWP is basically a home video. It almost delights in using the cheapest backdrop and plots ( - a wood - a killer! - Troma's favorites!!) and no SFX worth mentioning.

The fact is that BWP would certainly be worse or even pointless if these factors weren't present. The whole thing is about believability, and for that reason the film must be in the roughcut shape it is in or it couldn't be mistaken for a home video, which is the intention. Shame then that the thing still cost the same to watch as a proper film, which is about $14US here in London.

Secondly, BWP (like "Sleepers", incidentally) largely left the serious violence as intimated rather than explicit. Hitchcock laughed off complaints about "Psycho" being too violent/scary when it came out by saying that the film as it progressed got less and less explicit and towards the end he was showing practically nothing on screen, but that the audience found that the most frightening.

With BWP, Hitchcock's point is extrapolated to the point where nigh-on nothing is shown at all. For me, either the film or my imagination was not quite up to it, and I was not convinced. But it's a pretty good attempt.

Maybe it will be better on TV as there's nothing much about the cinema format which adds to the chill factor in this one, except being in a big dark room. In fact, watching pixels on a cinema screen is quite distracting for me. I think a dark night at home with this could prove that the home video format is the proper environment for it to work properly.

Meet Joe Black (1998)

go meet someone else

[5/10 · 4 November 1999]

Oh dear, nightmare.

Personifications of death crop up quite a lot in cinema, but in my view seldom with so little effect as here.

I join with everyone else in being delighted by the "coffee shop" scene at the start. But after that, we have a slothful grind through some suspect acting and a plot (and sub-plots) which defy belief even in the context of a film based on death taking a holiday in the US.

Clare Forlani is of course not offensive to the eye, but I did worry about her repertoire of acting techniques. To cheer you up during your nye-on 3 hour sitdown, I suggest you count the number of times she stares at Pitt or Hopkins as they talk, then looks away to stare into the middle distance, gulps and nods rapidly a couple of times. Presumably that was doing "sensitive and vulnerable", but after a few repeats I didn't really care.

Pitt, well, less said the better about his attempts for much of the film at imitating the lobotomised bloke in "Planet of the Apes". And Hopkins does what he can, but is stuffed by having to play the straight man in a comedy double act with robot-boy.

I was fed this as an in-flight movie after I had seen it once in the cinema, it's an hour shorter, a mercy in itself, but the scenes which are cut leaves it even more confused. Almost everything about Hopkins' business activities goes out the window, along with the best (only) one-liner in the film.

The film may be good for people who have missed the difference between sentimentality and romance and I would recommend it to them. But for me, this film was dead on arrival. Inquest verdict: misadventure.

High Heels (1991)

Pedro's stilettos...

[4 November 1999]

Great stuff here from Mr Almodovar, with Victoria Abril in full effect. The result is a technicolour rollercoaster of a film. And they all break into song and dance too, way before Woody Allen tried it.

Strange that this film is so little shown, given the popularity both of the earlier "Women on the Verge..." and the recent "All About My Mother". If you can catch it at the cinema, all the better because the pace and colour is quite dazzling.

Gregory's Girl (1980)

Cumbernauld's finest

[3 November 1999]

Excellent stuff from Bill Forsyth. Admittedly, the plot is strangely lop-sided, with the last 15 minutes proving quite detatched from the rest of it, and a perhaps quite unpredictable ending.

But what is great about this film is its depiction of adolescent gangly awkwardness, mostly in the form of John Gordon Sinclair. He and the other characters come across very strongly, partly I am sure due to the almost jaw-droppingly plain and dull backdrop, in the form of Cumbernauld, filmed with great care. This, coupled with the rather odd electric jazz soundtrack, result in a strange sterility of surroundings otherwise only found in the likes of 2001 etc. The beauty of the hills and the sunsets are left to towards the end, which acts as a great contrast.

Certain comparisons might even be drawn with later films like The Rachel Papers and Ferris Bueller's Day Off (ie the role of Cameron), although don't expect either of those to prepare you for the dazzling Gregory!

Good to see Clare Grogan pre- pop stardom with Altered Images too...

Pleasantville (1998)

in black and white, most confused.

[26 October 1999]

Crikey! What a mix-up THIS film is. It's a bit like Gary Ross was told he could only direct one more film in his entire life and that he had to fit into it everything he wanted to say. The result is that he faffs around a lot but achieves little; the mix of potentially colourful themes ending up as a nondescript grey sludge of good ideas but a complete failure in the "conclusions" department.

Stepping into the TV is a good start I thought, mainly because I very much liked Woody Allen's "Purple Rose of Cairo" (and his earlier short story "The Kugelmass Episode"). The theme had also appeared in "Poltergeist"/"The Twilight Zone"/"Stay Tuned" etc. so was not new but clearly there was more that could be done with it.

But not much is. The fact that the kids are thrown into a TV series is for the most part forgotten and instead, the question is what do the 90s kids do if thrown into a 50s world? And that question was better dealt with in "Back to the Future", because at least in that film there was an intention of producing a passably realistic impression of the 50s. Instead, there are uncomfortable limits imposed as to the knowledge of the Pleasantville residents, ie no sex/colour/books/out of town/fire etc. but no rhyme or reason as to why some things exist in their world but others don't.

Add to that a random bit of magic realism (ie the burning tree), an embarrassing attempt to deal with race/discrimination issues, and the most unsatisfactory love-triangle sub-plot ever devised, and you have a proper mess, with more loose ends than a spaghetti sandwich. True, there are some pretty bits with the colour/black-and-white cine effects mix, very clever I'm sure, but that is just gilding a rotten lily.

Run Lola Run (1998)

deja vu

[25 October 1999]

Previous reviewers have commented on the similarity between the concept of this film and that of Sliding Doors/Groundhog Day. I agree. The "alternate version of events"-based story is not a new idea - see La Riviere du Hibou ("Incident at Owl Creek") from 1962 through to Wayne's World, not to mention Alan Ayckbourn's plays "Intimate Exchanges", "Sisterly Feelings" and "Man of the Moment".

The film has its good points. The leading actress is certainly entertaining to watch; I gather from a recent interview with her that the director tried several styles of "running" with her before settling on the one in the film, and it works. Those scenes are most absorbing - not dissimilar from parts of Besson's Nikita. She gives a strong performance fraught with urgency throughout.

Good music too. Plus, the film does not overstay its welcome, just as well given the repetitive nature of the narrative.

Maybe the trouble is that I was expecting something more innovative. Forgetting the point about the plot/concept (see above), there wasn't much to get excited about on other fronts either. Cartoon inserts? Big deal, roll on Dick Van Dyke and Julie Andrews. Split screen - been around since the 20's. And we've all seen rapid, clipped editing before.

Overall, it would be nice to see this director and the lead actress try something with a bit more substance and a few less (old) gimmicks, because I suspect at least the actress would be very good indeed.

Worth getting out on video though. (I won't say "one to rennt"...)

Dead Poets Society (1989)

spot the similarity

[21 October 1999]

Robin Williams plays a man who arrives as a newcomer into a staid, conservative environment and finds that his unorthodox approach leads to conflicts with his superiors. Robin Williams gets to show that he has a lively personality and yet deep down be vulnerable and sensitive.

Is that an accurate summary of Dead Poet's Society? No, it's an accurate summary of Good Morning Vietnam, Patch Adams AND Dead Poets Society. All you have to do is change the costume from soldier to doctor to teacher. Wait a minute, there's Awakenings too (doctor again)!

I generally like Peter Weir's stuff, and I have no particular animosity for Mr Williams. But I cannot fathom why people think this is a life-changing film in the slightest. What is set up is a situation where the audience has no choice but to side with Williams in his battle because the alternative (ie "the School") is so proposterous. Take for example the "rip it out" incident near the start. No English Literature book would have that kind of an introduction, so when Robin starts going on about the true meaning of poetry appreciation etc., it comes out sounding amazing; but in fact what he is saying is pretty mundane and only unorthodox when compared to the gothic horror of the School's teaching methods.

As for the ending, most unlikely and frankly it even trivialises what is a serious subject.

Seize the day - go do something else but don't bother with this!!

The Last Supper (1995)

yielding to temptation

[18 October 1999]

I caught this one on the telly at the weekend.

I am surprised that only one previous reviewer has mentioned the great similarities between this and "Shallow Grave" from 1994, the year before this was made. Rather a similar theme, and both movies done strictly in "black comedy" mode.

The premise of the film, ie actually killing people for their views, was interesting and I was looking forward to how the theme developed! Overall, however, the treatment lacked the subtlety it deserved. In particular, the writers yielded to the temptation of allowing the plot to descend, at least in one case, to violence just because one of the five is in fact a bit of a nutter. Shame, really, but it seems a direction that a lot of U.S. films take, but usually just more mainsteam i.e. Fatal Attraction, The Hand That Rocks The Cradle, Single White Female, etc.

My only other criticism was that its limited sets (ie the house and the garden basically) made me feel a bit like I was just watching a play.

VERY nice ending though.

Buena Vista Social Club (1999)

Wenders succeeds

[14 October 1999]

This is a top class film in so many ways.

To start with, there is the amazing backdrop of dilapidated old Havana, which Wenders admittedly got for free. Nevertheless, he pulls out shots which are so luminous and well constructed that they make you gasp, and all done on a digital betacam! This makes BVSC one of the few documentaries I have ever seen which must be seen on the big screen to be fully appreciated. Although I've never been to Havana, it also appeared to me that Wenders may have judged well in his balance by showing Havana as a poor broken down city and not just a place full of '50s cars, grand old buildings and omnipresent "faded glory".

The stars of the film are the old folks, of course. In some ways, the point of the film is not music - this could have been a film about people from any field. Instead, this is simply a record of what people have to say looking back on experiences from their lives which we can never repeat.

Perhaps there was a slight temptation at editing stage to steer the film towards certain themes. There was without a doubt rather a lot of places where the intended conclusion of the audience seemed to be "wow - old men can be cheeky... and they still have libidos!", but maybe only they can say whether the men themselves consider the film to be a fair reflection of the whole of their personalities, and I doubt we will ever find out.

Two points about the musical side. First, I continue to worry about Ry Cooder and his son Joaquim. Do they really need to be there? Ferrer and the old timers all kept tight lipped about Ry's slide guitar, NOT, I thought a prerequisite instrument of the average Cuban "son" band, and dare I say it, distractingly awful in at least one place in the film. Can't comment so much about Joaquim's style when playing the drums, but there must surely be some 50-90 year old cuban drummer cursing his luck that he isn't in on the party thanks to Cooder Jr.?

Second, what do Ferrer et al think about the music they are making now? How does it compare to how they considered they performed in decades gone by? Might they freely admit (as I suspect, honest and carefree as they clearly are) that they are reproducing now something which they did a lot better when they were younger? The question was never asked.

It's a tough point to make, but the average "son" singer does not I imagine consider at the outset of his career that he will only be hitting his peak in his eighth or ninth decade! If they do admit to having had a golden period in the past, why did Wenders not let us see footage of some of that. I doubt if any but a few of his audience have any knowledge of the Cuban music of the 40s and 50s so as to judge with any accuracy what merit there is in the music they are creating today. And without that, the risk is that the players are being cheered not for their musical skills but merely as museum pieces and for the fact that they are capable of doing it at their age at all. I had the slightly uneasy feeling by the end of the film that Wenders might have excluded old footage on the basis that it would show up the modern recordings as something less than the genre at its best.

You should go and see it and then tell me why I am wrong on those points, which hardly dent my rating for this as a definite 9+!