jimbofletch Reviews

Conan the Destroyer (1984)

Rubbish. I love it!

[24 December 2003]

Oh my gawd, this film's awful. The performances are wooden, the special effects are lousy, the dialogue is clunky and the story's preposterous.

Yet, this film is exceptionally entertaining! Come on, it's got Governor Arnold trying to act drunk, Grace Jones (terrifying) the tallest man ever (Bombatta), the Scrolls of Skelas, some priceless lines and plenty of action. It's loads better than the po-faced Conan the Barbarian, at least this one knows its garbage and just gets on with it.

The promise I was kingdomed? Come on, it's GENIUS!

Twin Falls Idaho (1999)

A lovely film.

[19 October 2003]

I'd never heard of this until a few weeks back. I saw it last week on video. What a lovely film. It treats its subject matter with real sensitivity. The performances are believable, especially by the two Polish brothers (who made the film as well)as Siamese twins who have shacked up in a hotel for reasons initially unknown, while Michele Hicks is really sweet as the only person who will befriend them. The mood and pace is slow and beautifully graceful. A nice change from shallow, dumb blockbusters, Twin Falls Idaho is a very touching, tender film.

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

This movie's got no soul

[28 May 2003]

Wow, this is not a good film: to be honest, i don't know what i was expecting, as I didn't think the original Matrix was that great either: sure, the action was pretty cool, but everything else was a bit hackneyed. A film set in the future where we're all slaves of some kind? Haven't heard of that one before. Plus, in Neo, Morpheus (silly name) and Trinity we had the three most dull characters in the history of cinema. Trinity's obsessive affections for Neo would have been mildly convincing were it not for the fact that Neo, the saviour of the universe, is played by... Keanu Reeves, surely the most baffling phenomenon to strike Hollywood: he's only good at playing morons (Bill and ted, Point Break) and his only talent is being able to make the terrifying notion of a bomb on a bus sound as dull as watching Songs of Praise on a sunday evening. Still, the action was fun, so it weren't all bad.

The Matrix Reloaded is all bad. For a start, it's preposterously straight faced, full of dull portent and cod-philosophy that becomes exceptionally wearing over two or so hours. The total dearth of characterisation is even more obvious second time around: it's this flaw that completely spoils the action, which was the only thing I was even expecting to be good. Sure, it's spectacular, but it's not exciting, or tense, because you know nothing about these half-dimensional characters to feel any suspense for them. Plus, the fact that neo is virtually invincible means that there's no real contest as to who's going to win. there's a fight about every ten minutes, and each fight goes on forever, and not one gets you on the edge of your seat. Sure, it's technically impressive, but there's no soul underneath. It's all a load of self-consciously cool posturing, cheesy in-jokes and lame dialogue.

I really felt bad for seeing this: deep down i knew it was going to pretty poor, but I didn't expect the action to be rubbish as well. It is without a doubt one of the most dull blockbusters ever made: however, it doesn't even have the perverse 'Oh my god I'm watching a once decent saga disintegrate before my very eyes' fascination that the appalling Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones had to offer. No, The Matrix wasn't that great to begin with, and this is worse. Yet, this film is going to be blatantly bigger than God: such a shame. It's easily one of the most pretentious films I've seen in ages, and it's fooling a lot of people into thinking it's something deeply meaningful with the irony-free platitudes spouted interminably by it's blank protagonists (two worst scenes: Morpheus' speech at Zion, and the pointlessly verbose encounter with between Neo and a surprise character at the end), and the fact that everyone wears black and no one smiles at all only adds to the irritating self-importance of it all. No wait, Agent Smith smiles a few times: ironically, he's by far and away the most human character in the film, he was certainly the best thing in the first film, but they really overegged the whole 'Hello, Mr. Anderson' routine this time around. Everyone else acts like they are robots.

It so badly wants to be cool, yet this utterly soulless experience uses a mask of pretension to hide the fact that this is pure trash. And not the kind of trash that's cool. The kind of trash that is quite simply, TRASH.

Really, really poor. And it has what is quite possibly the most unexciting, uninteresting cliffhanger of all time.

Knock Off (1998)

A work of genius

[28 May 2003]

I didn't expect Knock Off to be the film it was. I thought it would be another lame bit of Van Dammage, just like all the others, but wow! This is in a league of it's own. First of all, let me say this: it's not a good film: of course, it isn't! The script's diabolical, the acting is dreadful and the plot has got to be one of the silliest ever written.

Oh yes, but Knock Off works because it is truly bonkers. Truly out of its mind. Tsui Hark is a great director (check out the insane Zu: Warriors of the Magic Mountain, as well as the Hark produced A Chinese ghost Story, which is truly wonderful) and his irreverent approach works wonders here. Some of the camerawork here has to be seen to be believed: here, we have a shot from the inside of a shoe, the camera moving through a wall and through a computer...while, the action is wildly OTT and hilariously preposterous. Rough around the edges it may be, but the action is genuinely imaginative stuff. Like Van Damme's Hard Target, Knock Off has been blessed with a director who can stage great action, but unlike the irritatingly melodramatic john woo, Hark directs as though he's having a great time: even the dramatic (!) scenes border on intentional parody.

And then there's Jean Claude Van Damme, easily the funniest out of all the Schwarzenegger/Stallone/Seagal crowd. Funniest? Why? Cos he really looks like he's trying, bless 'im! The scenes where he gets all emotional (check out the bit when he confronts Hendricks on the roof top: 'YOU LIED TO ME!') are painfully funny because he just can't act at all. And because of his accent, lines like 'Don't you understand what you do....i-fax me?' (the 'i-fax' is supposed to be 'affects') sound highly amusing. Unlike that dullard Steven Seagal, van Damme's limitations as an actor are precisely what makes him watchable. Then there's the deeply stupid Rob Schneider, who plays EXACTLY the same role in everything he's ever done, and Paul Sorvino, who continues to destroy whatever credibilty he gained starring as Pauly Cicero in GoodFellas.

Plus, what's with the green explosions? The walkie-talkie dropping into the gangster's hand from nowhere? The bullet-shot that goes through the can of beans? Rob Schneider whipping Van Damme with a fish? The song at the end of the film? It's a complete mess!

Knock Off is easily Van Damme's best film, without a shadow of a doubt. It's utter rubbish, yet it's one of the funniest films I've ever seen. Of course, you need plenty of irony and an appreciation for stupid action movies to really get the most out of this. there are some people who will think that Knock Off is absolutely atrocious. And you know what, they're probably right too. But what's also correct is that in some deeply disturbing, dangerously perverse way, it is a work of genius.

The Simpsons (1989– )

Super Fun Happy Slide!

[1 November 2002]

From Season Three to Season Twelve, The Simpsons was SO good it was frightening. So many great characters, stories, parodies, references, set-pieces, catchphrases.

I will never, ever, ever get bored of this show. For about 200 episodes, it was sheer magic, it was perfection. It may not be as good as it used to be (other comments concerning the lack of character continuity over the last few years are sadly true)i think it was the episode where Bart looks after the birds nest when i realised that the magic had finally gone (still quite funny though), but when it was good, nothing could touch it. I mean it when i say that The Simpsons at its peak was and still is the funniest thing i have ever watched.

My favourite episode: "Last Exit to Springfield", which is staggeringly clever, imaginative and downright hilarious. It's also completely crazy, with druggy visuals (the Lisa in the Sky with Diamonds trip), bizarre fantasy sequences (Burns and Smithers running the plant by themselves), monkeys writing novels, Homer thinking Mr. Burns is coming onto him, Fake Vomit Co., "Where's my burrito?" and the funniest McBain clip in the whole series.

That episode is twenty or so minutes of genius. And that's just one episode! "Flaming Moe's", "Stark raving dad", "Homer the Heretic", there's three more masterpieces for you. There's about 196 others like those. All of them utterly fantastic. No other show has maintained a high standard so consistently for so long. It has no rivals.

Easily the best comedy ever.

RoboCop 2 (1990)

Unpleasant and cold

[2/10 · 7 August 2001]

I'm not a huge fan of RoboCop, but it is still one of the best action/SF/thrillers of the eighties because of its intelligent script, spectacular action and superb villains. RoboCop 2 on the other hand is a deeply grotesque experience that does well in portraying a completely degenerate vision of the future but leaves a nasty taste in the mouth because of its sheer gratuitous, exploitative tone. This is also a very cold, hollow film, very incompetent too, with cheap shots at satire and a thoroughly illogical and dumb script. Certain characters from the original are so different emotionally and in their behaviour that the film bears little relation to the original (i.e, it reeks of cash-in). And why, why, would they put the brain of a dangerous psychopath in a police cyborg? Why? It is so ridiculously insulting and contrived for a spectacular final battle at the end that I was offended that this film was only allowed to be seen by 18 year olds in the UK, when its real target audience would be a very undemanding, warped child. There seems to be no joy of storytelling here, no drive or emotion, just a soulless (which makes the violence even more unpleasant and gratuitous) empty machine of a movie with false attempts at wit to try and appease fans of the original and violence to appeal to the underage kids who sneak in. A slice of garbage from probably Hollywood's worst ever period (sequels, sequels, Bruce Willis and Julia Roberts vehicles, plus more sequels). Still, if this sort of stupid (and this film really is stupid) garbage gets your rocks off, you're welcome to it.

Alien: Resurrection (1997)

Oh Ridley, where art thou? (or even David Fincher?)

[1/10 · 14 July 2001]

Why? I'll ask that question again. WHY? Why was this film ever made? The original Alien is a masterpiece. No doubt. Aliens is the perfect sequel. Alien 3 is flawed, but visually inventive and it makes some interesting developments from the first two films in terms of drama and character. Alien Resurrection is a cash-in. Of course, most sequels are, but this one doesn't even attempt to hide the fact that it is one. It feels, lazy, hackneyed, tired and lethargic. There is no tension, not even in the underwater sequence that everyone raved about (simply because it was too difficult for the fans to believe that an Alien film could be utterly devoid of merit, suspense or interest). The Ripley character looks bored, and is now so outrageously arrogant as to become a cheap parody of her strong female status. Now she is so overwhelmingly macho it just looks stupid. The other characters are pitifully written. The first two Alien films had characters you cared about, and even the third film managed to make some of the victims (tough job considering they were all murderers) sympathetic. But here, all they do is make bad jokes and totally dispel any possible tension by spouting ridiculous dialogue. And for a film in which all the characters do is run away, there is no atmosphere of tension or sense of danger. This is

due to a lame script and uninvolved direction. The special effects are mostly poor, especially in the end, and is a further testament to the overall badness of CGI.

There is only one mildly diverting sequence, when Ripley sees all of her clones in the laboratory and burns them down in a moment of grief. Some attempts of character development, but in retrospect, the sequence just feels throwaway, just a bit of filler in between the next inevitable death. It is also doesn't help that the emotion of the scene is ruined by the line "Women..." by the stereotypically mysognist bonehead played by that moron out of Beauty and the Beast.

Finally. Winona Ryder. She is terrible in this! Of course (SPOILER), she's a robot, but that's just something defenders of her unexplainable star status say to avoid admitting the fact that she is bad in this. Very bad.

If Alien 3 was a pale imitation of Alien (albeit not a bad one), then this is a TV movie copy of Aliens. It looks rubbish, has no reason to exist, and completely destroys the credibility of one of the most interesting SF film series ever. For what once was a classic trilogy, has now become a franchise.

As stupid as Alien Versus Predator seems, it can't be as bad as this.

Pearl Harbor (2001)

This movie STINKS

[1/10 · 12 July 2001]

Pearl Harbor is garbage, genuine trash, but not the kind of trash that previous Bruckheimer blockbusters like The Rock and Con Air were. They were at least quite fun, but this is just trash as in complete rubbish. Bruckheimer movies are usually passably entertaining, but their non-existent characterisation, terrible dialogue and tacky storylines didn't really become overwhelmingly apparent until you watched them on video, for the movies themselves were so fast that you didn't really notice. With Pearl Harbor you do notice, because Michael Bay, actually believes that he can handle drama, and slows the >pace to fit this drama in. He cannot. Bad Boys and The Rock were fun because they were mostly tongue in cheek and action-based. Armageddon was pitiful because there was a worryingly major amount of sentiment, and all of a sudden you realised that Bay was actually trying to make us care about the characters, which is all very well if you're actually good at that sort of thing, but Bay isn't. (SPOILER ALERT FOR ARMAGEDDON)When Bruce Willis died at the end of Armageddon it was funny! That can't be right. Still, at least that film was ten percent good (the start, any action sequence), but there are literally no redeeming features in Pearl Harbor. The fact that it is historically inaccurate didn't bother me that much, for there were far more obvious flaws apparent to make me care about that.

REASONS WHY PEARL HARBOR STINKS!!!

1. Pearl Harbor is COLD. As in totally dead. There is literally no emotional involvement, except for that of boredom and suicide contemplation. It's characters are so unrealistic and corny that you're hoping the whole film is a parody, but it's not. Are we actually supposed to care what happens to these "people"? Obviously. Why would Bay devote an agonisingly long amount of screen time about their laughably pathetic romance?

2. The script is awful. But it's not even bad enough to be unintentionally funny. It's just boring.

3. The action stinks. Everyone's going on about how good the actual Pearl harbor attack sequence was. It was rubbish! The shot following the missile was so ridiculous that it belonged in the hilarious excesses of Con Air, not this nonsense! I felt no fear for the characters under attack because they weren't characters, which made the attack (I heard it was bordering on the terrifying when it happened in real life, just a rumour)completely ineffective. I was so bored with the first hour or so of terrible cinema that this spectacular but completely uninvolving sequence was too little and too, too late.

4. The song at the end. Makes Celine Dion sound incredible.

5. The overworked camera movements. Notice how the camera moves for no reason in all Bruckheimer travesties. It doesn't add ANYTHING. Bay's just desperately trying to look cool. He fails.

6. Too long. Top Gun is the best Bruckheimer film becasue it's under two hours long and doesn't outstay its welcome. Top Gun is still rubbish, but at least it isn't boring. Pearl harbor is THREE hours long. Every 180 minutes a total waste of my time.

All in all, Pearl Harbor is the worst blockbuster i have ever seen along with Wild Wild West. The thing is is that i have actually contributed money towards this terrible film and I am, in the filmmakers' eyes, no different from someone who paid the same amount of money as me to see it yet enjoyed it. I am therefore no longer seeing rubbish blockbuster films simply for the sake that they are the biggest films of the year. You see other films this year like Almost Famous, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and realise that films can be good, and that's a relief, for I become very cynical with the state of current cinema after watching this. What has happened to blockbusters? They were always just entertainment (with the Indiana Jones films and Ghostbusters being golden examples), but now they're not even entertaining. I was never expecting Pearl Harbor to be profound, or a masterpiece. All i wanted was to be entertained yet not insulted for a couple of hours (or if you insist, THREE hours). You did not entertain. You definitely did INSULT. Of all the blockbusters coming soon, i will only watch AI and Planet of the Apes because they have good directors behind them who can make entertainment. As for Tomb Raider and Jurassic Park III, not a chance. They won't be as bad as Pearl Harbor, but they'll come close.

Dancer in the Dark (2000)

One of the most amazingly emotional films ever

[10/10 · 15 April 2001]

Dancer in the Dark is incredible. It is one of the most affecting, emotional films ever made. Bjork is brilliant, definitely the best performance ever by a musician in a film (previous winner: Mick Jagger playing himself more or less in the superb Performance). Lars Von Trier does not hold back on the drama and the result is something that will leave you stunned and shaken after it has finished. The dream sequences are wonderful, joyous and exhilarating moments, but the film's final image is truly upsetting and saddening. This film deserved to be up for an Oscar, because really Gladiator, as fun as it is, is quite pathetic compared to this.

The Color of Money (1986)

Great entertainment!

[7/10 · 8 January 2001]

This is cinema at its purely enjoyable. Martin Scorsese's 80's films have been overlooked, eclectic minor classics, and this is no exception. This is seen as one of his more commercial films, and it's true, and it proves that the man can deliver slick entertainment just as well as he can make serious films. The photography in this is stunning: the pool scenes are exciting, musical and kinetic, definitely the highlights of the film. Tom Cruise is fine in his first serious role, but its Paul Newman's show here. The man exudes screen presence and charisma. The soundtrack, is as usual for Scorsese, brilliant, here he even makes Phil Collins sound great in the instantly arresting opening sequence. It's a relatively hollow experience compared to say, The King of Comedy, Raging Bull or even Bringing out the Dead, but it's sheer drive and energy makes it endlessly watchable.

Commando (1985)

A very, very funny film!

[6/10 · 8 January 2001]

Commando remains one of the most entertaining films of the 80's, and surely one of the funniest films ever made. Is its sheer awfulness done on purpose? Who knows? Commando is unofficially the most perfect spoof of the action genre, with all of the cliches thrown in. The script is either the best or worst ever written, depending heavily on your sense of irony. Another thing that you have to say about it is that it does not waste time. Ten minutes in and John Matrix (Arnie Schwarzenegger)is already thrown into a dastardly plot of kidnap, murder, the usual. Matrix may be an amazingly dull character, but the pleasures of Commando lie in the villains. Colonel Bennett is a rampantly flamboyant, slightly porky henchman with a silly moustache who delivers lines with such OTT relish you figure the actor must be having the time of his life. The other lackeys, such as Sully (who falls prey to one of the finest deaths seen on film), Cooke (played by some-time director Bill Duke)and the doomed Henriques, are amusingly colourful characters, all killed off way too quickly. Most of the enjoyment in the film is unintentional. For one thing, it is, technically, one of the worst films ever. Easily visible springboards hurling soldiers into the air, or safety strings holding up Sully when Matrix is holding him over the hillside, blatantly fake soldiers in the explosion scenes, continuity errors everywhere. It's best just to enjoy it. As for the one-liners, they are all classics ("I let him go", "Let off some steam", "Don't disturb my friend, he's dead tired"), and the final raid on Arius' lair is one of the most stupid sequences of all time, as Matrix destroys an entire army with the blink of an eye. Don't take this garbage seriously, and you might just have a great time!

Fright Night (1985)

Oh, you're so cool, Brewster!

[8/10 · 4 January 2001]

This is a very enjoyable film. Maybe not as scary as its tagline ("If you love being scared it'll be the night of your life") or the spooky poster (the one with the vampire's face floating above the Dandridge house) would suggest, Fright Night is far more successful as easy-going entertainment. The 18 certificate it got in the UK is ridiculous, as the tone of the film is lighthearted and only occasionally dark and eerie, like The Lost Boys. Even though The Lost Boys is more ambitious, imaginative and original, Fright Night is probably a more consistent film with a better script. The acting is pretty good, the contemporary soundtrack ranges from the amusingly dated to the admittedly brilliant, the special effects are decent (from the GhostBusters crew:not surprising since the vampire bat looks a little like the terrordog from that film)and the balancing of horror and comedy is very well judged. The story premise is an absolute peach, and the scriptwriters have done it justice, building up the suspenseful plot to a spectacular climax. William Ragsdale, Amanda Bearse and Stephen Geoffreys make for a sympathetic bunch of victims, while Roddy McDowall is very funny in a well written part. Of course the most important character is the vampire, and the talented Chris Sarandon from Dog Day Afternoon is the perfect bloodsucker: the film moves into top gear whenever he's around. For those who loved The Lost Boys and GhostBusters this is highly reccomended.

The Hunger (1983)

Good looking but hollow vampire film

[5/10 · 4 January 2001]

The Hunger looks brilliant. From the beautiful interiors of the house where vampire Miriam (Catherine Deneuve)lives to the sophisticated elegance of the main three characters, this is a feast for the eyes. However, these characters are so uninteresting and only mildly intriguing that their presence becomes tiresome not before long. It begins well. In fact, it begins very well, as Miriam and her lover John (David Bowie, not bad surprisingly)enter a nightclub and seduce some disposable prey to take back to their doom. Everything, from the editing to the superb use of music, shifting from 80's gothic rock to classical, oozes atmosphere and danger. After that though, it gets really, really dull.

The problem with The Hunger is that it's too serious. We are supposed to feel for these characters but they are so hollow that its difficult to pick up interest. At its best the film is mysterious and dark, at its worst it is horribly pretentious and dramatically uninvolving. The end is mildly interesting for its sheer weirdness but the horrific pay-off is a cold experience because, like the billowing curtains that block our view of anything in the hilariously exploitative lesbian scene, Tony Scott doesn't let us into this world completely. We are detatched outsiders, and this approach may be fine in his later no-brain pieces of garbage like Top Gun, but not in a film that seems to be feigning an interest in real drama when really it's doing nothing of the sort. A real pity, but a triumph of photography, editing and lighting.

Alien (1979)

Goddamned company! What about our lives you son of a ....

[10/10 · 1 October 2000]

Along with Blade Runner, Alien marks the career highpoint of Ridley Scott, who in these two films manages to provide enough depth and character to match his visual splendour, unlike efforts such as Legend and Black Rain, which although looking brilliant, are relatively hollow films. Initially this may seem like a simple horror with its crew of a mining vessel being eliminated one by one by a cold-blooded alien, and structurally it follows a lot of the same plot events (walking around in the dark, false endings). What should be noted is that the cheap imitations that have followed (some good such as Predator, some bad such as The Relic), as well as the much more intense sequel Aliens have undermined the much more subtle terrors of the original. It has to be said that as terrific as Aliens is, it is a far more accessible and immediate film than Alien. This is not necessarily a bad thing, its just that this does not do Alien many favours, especially for those who may have seen Aliens first and hoped for an original of equal intensity. The truth is is that Alien is just as intense, but in different ways. Whilst Aliens form of terror puts you in the middle of a full-scale war, Alien prefers to leave you lost in a maze-like house with a monster chasing after you.

Like Blade Runner, Alien should be watched alone, and with full concentration paid to it. The rewards are many: predictably, it looks absolutely brilliant, with atmospheric, stunning use of lighting (see Captain Dallas' descent into the vents to catch the alien). The music by Jerry Goldsmith is truly sinister and haunting, lending more drama and suspense to the proceedings. The acting is the most involved and believable of all of the Alien films, thanks to a very good script, though Sigourney Weaver's Ripley, whilst still a great performance, doesn't really develop truly until the sequel.

All this adds up to a masterpiece of tension and technical excellence, as well as character and story pace. Credit to James Cameron for taking the sequel to a different level and not attempting a re-run of the original because in its field, Alien is peerless.

For Your Eyes Only (1981)

The finest 007!

[9/10 · 26 August 2000]

For Your Eyes Only is the greatest. It is a tight, well-plotted thriller with good performances and some terrific action. In my opinion, the best action sequences in the Bond films are the speedboat chase in Live and Let Die, the oil tanker pursuit in Licence to Kill and most exciting of all, the ski chase in this absolute peach of a film that is a definite improvement over Moonraker, and is clearly the finest Roger Moore 007 film.

A good villain, an above-average Bond girl and an evidently edgier tone are some of the reasons why FYEO is an overlooked peach. The disco-themed soundtrack is amusingly silly, but as unintentionally funny as it is, the film would have been even better if John Barry had been there to do the score, and would have added even more to the tension, of which there is a lot. What makes this a real cut above most 007 films is the excellent finale, which disposes of the usual apocalyptic situations and goes for understated thrills. The sequence when Bond scales the cliff is first-rate. Moore's trademark silliness is mostly absent here, though it came back with a vengeance in the guilty pleasure masterwork that is Octopussy. Here, Moore really looks like he means it, and FYEO does have what is his finest moment: when the henchman pleads for his life in the car about to go over the edge of the cliff. Moore complies by booting the car away. Great stuff. Forget Goldfinger (which is amazingly overrated). This is what Bond films are made of.

Go (1999)

Amazing!

[10/10 · 19 August 2000]

This is one of the smartest, most energetic, entertaining films made in a long time. Doug Liman's Swingers was a brilliant, brilliant debut, and Go builds on his reputation as one of the best talents of recent years. I personally find this to better than Pulp Fiction, which this has some similarities with. the performances here are all excellent, and I really do mean all of them. Sarah Polley, Katie Holmes, Desmond Askew, Taye Diggs, especially Breckin Meyer and William Fichtner, everyone else who I haven't mentioned...everyone is perfect, helped by a great script and some inspired plot events.

Go is also full of great little ideas, such as the the opening sequence interrupting the Columbia logo (good idea)and the drug-induced hallucinations involving the cat and the hilarious Macarena dance in the supermarket. It also has a great soundtrack. This is a fantastic film that ranks along with the majesty of Swingers. I await Liman's next film very much, though its got to do a supremely amazing job equal his first two films.

Near Dark (1987)

Darker than average vampire classic.

[8/10 · 13 August 2000]

Young farmhand Caleb (Adrian Pasdar, who should have moved onto something special after this), has his sights set on some lovin' when the pretty but spooky looking Mae agrees to let him drive her home. What Caleb doesn't know is that Mae is something very special, but this not "special" in a good way. She, after giving him a peck on the neck he'll never forget, tries to initiate him into her society of friends, the kind of horrible no-goods you normally wouldn't want to associate with. It's easy to draw comparisons with this film and The Lost Boys. Plotwise, there really isn't much difference between the two, but the mood, tone and atmosphere of both films are very different indeed. Near Dark is a stronger, meatier and darker vampire film. The idea to set the film in the West (Oklahoma) was a smart, different move and the desolate visuals are frightening and eerie. The music is strange and subtle and the performances are all very good.

There are many superb moments in Near Dark. The opening is a classic example of tension, and the parts when we see the vampires looking out for food by picking up hitchhikers, hitching lifts themselves and one very spooky bit when the junior bloodsucker pretends to be injured to lure some poor man to his "aid" show the films more subtle side to its horror at its best. Subtle horror goes out of the window in the film's best sequence, which is the murder sequence in the bar. Equally funny (in a very dark way)and frightening, this deserves to go down in history as one of the best scenes of all time. Near Dark's ending is a little conventional however. Still, that's the only flaw in a great film that takes the vampire myth to darker depths than any of its contemporaries. A minor classic.

Casino (1995)

Better than Goodfellas! (Seriously)

[17 July 2000]

1995's Casino saw Martin Scorcese continue his masterful exploration of the American underworld, calling on the talents of Messrs De Niro and Pesci to portray the corrupt background of Las Vegas in the seventies.

De Niro and Scorcese, when working together, always come up with the goods (Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, The King of Comedy), although their previous collaboration, Cape Fear, was a slight dissapointment in comparison.

Casino tells the story of the rise of Sam "Ace" Rothstein (De Niro) to the top of the gaming community in Las Vegas, albeit with the help of the Mob and resident psychopath/long-time friend Nicky Santoro (Pesci), as well as concentrating on his rocky relationship with Vegas hustler Ginger (Sharon Stone). Between the heists, the stunning cinematography, seamless editing and sumptuously glamorous visuals, Casino is seriously compulsive filmmaking. De Niro and company are all on peak form, creating believable and fascinating three-dimensional characters. Scorsese's direction is smooth, confident and incisive, using a terrific array of shots and technical tricks to take us through the real deceptive nature of Vegas. The film is often hilarious due to the animated trauma of the characters (see Santoro's furious reaction to Tony Doggs spilling the beans about his boss) as they try to deal with the trials and tribulations of being first-rate gangsters.

The critics were shockingly unkind to Casino, saying that it was a poor man's Goodfellas. I wonder what everyone's reaction to Casino would have been if it had come out first and not Goodfellas. The truth is is that Casino, while lacking the strong narrative of Goodfellas, is in many ways a stronger film in terms of acting, direction and in terms of being simply more entertaining. Goodfellas is very professionally made, but at its peak, Casino really does impress more, especially in its more dramatic moments. De Niro and Pesci are given more room to explore their characters, and Sharon Stone is just brilliant, proving that there is more to her than the trashy exploitation of Basic Instinct and the awful Sliver. Also this film has probably the best soundtrack of any film made in the 90's. Just check out the stylish use of the Stones' classic Can't You Hear Me Knocking as Pesci introduces his gang of "desperadoes".

The Lost Boys (1987)

"Feedin' time, come and get it boys!" "Allright!"

[10/10 · 18 June 2000]

There's no doubt. The Lost Boys is my kind of film. It's just got it all, and even more. Funny, spooky, good-looking and weird, this is the film I have seen the most times by far. Kiefer Sutherland is the greatest in this film, and everyone else, especially Corey Haim and Corey Feldman, are also quality. I cannot ever get bored of this, this is the perfect cult film, the best film to put on video when you want to be entertained. The critics hated it, but what do they know? This is the best film of the 80's, and of any time. The soundtrack treads uneasily between brilliance and badness, but when it's good, it's really good. Forget Fright Night, Vamp, Weird Science, The Breakfast Club or any other contemporary 80's teen movie. As good as they are (and some of them are really good), they don't hold a candle to The Lost Boys. Just where are all of these actors now? I haven't seen Jamison Newlander (who plays Allan Frog) in any other film, as well as Brooke McCarter and Billy Wirth (the two lost boys who aren't Sutherland and Alex Winter). Some of the scenes in this are brilliant, truly brilliant: the bit when The Lost Boys lead Michael (Jason Patric) to the edge of the cliff on his bike is superb, and the scene on the train bridge is genuinely creepy. Hey,the film's not perfect, who cares? For the most part this film makes my night. 80's entertainment at it's best!

Freejack (1992)

"God Damn you McCandless!"

[2/10 · 26 May 2000]

This movie stinks more than my mother's one-bedroomed apartment! Completely devoid of anything approaching quality, this is to be enjoyed strictly on unintentional terms. Anyone planning to watch this film should book an appointment with their doctor directly afterwards. The actors boast abilities so low as to rival Roger Moore in Octopussy. Mick Jagger's performance has to be sen to be believed. It's quite dreadful, but no worse than the frequently annoying Emilio "silage heap" Estevez, who can add this to his long-running list of bad films (Men at Work, Young Guns). Anthony Hopkins looks embarrassed to be associated with this sad excuse for a film, but I guess this pays for another of his mansions somewhere in Aruba. The action is poorly staged, the dialogue unbelievable, and those of you still wondering whether or not I like this degenerate garbage? The answer is NO.

Wild Wild West (1999)

The worst film ever!

[1/10 · 27 April 2000]

Aaaagghhhh!!!!This is awful! This is undoubtedly the blockbuster at its worst. I hated this with a real passion. Nothing is good about it. How can the team who made Men in Black, which was good, foul this up so badly? Truly a complete disaster. I started falling asleep during it, the sheer laziness of the film must have been making me feel tired. Seriously, don't watch it. This is the dregs.

Point Break (1991)

Superb action film!

[27 April 2000]

Woah!!! Point Break is brilliant! Seriously, this is one of the best action films of the 90's. The key to its success is Kathryn Bigelow's excellent direction. The surfing and skydiving sequences are so well done, and the chase halfway through is one of the best set-pieces I have ever seen in a film. The whole feel of this film is similar to Joel Schumacher's The Lost Boys, and that was also a brilliant film , so no complaints. Not as good as Bigelow's earlier Near Dark (which was even more similar to The Lost Boys, both being vampire films and having pretty similar plots), but still a killer ride. When the posters for this claimed it to be "100% Pure Adrenaline", they weren't joking.

Road House (1989)

Don't think, just enjoy!

[7/10 · 26 April 2000]

Top drawer trash, Road House is one of the most fun movies of the eighties. Just relax and enjoy the fighting, cheesy dialogue and cheesier music (courtesy of The Jeff Healey Band). Yeah, it's not perfect, but I loved it. Be in the right mood, and you may love it too.

Hard Target (1993)

Two thirds terrible, one third incredible

[6/10 · 23 April 2000]

The first hour of Hard Target is not good. Why? Because this film has one of the worst scripts ever in a film. The pace is too slow and the acting ranges from mediocre to awful. Then something wonderful happens. One of the world's best directors of action actually directs some action! All of a sudden Hard Target turns into something very special indeed, with some of the best set-pieces I have seen in a film of its type. The plot takes a walk and everything explodes. Jean-Claude Van Damme is not the best of actors but he has something approaching presence when he's beating people up. The action here is so ridiculous it's untrue. At one point Van Damme stands on top of a moving motorbike and...well, I'm not going to ruin it, but it's pretty good stuff. What was so bad it was just bad in the film's first hour becomes so bad it's now funny. Woo has a tendency to show everything in slow motion. I'm talking everything, even stuff that doesn't matter. Why? It looks terribly self-indulgent but ends up being all the more entertaining. Van Damme sports a horrible mullet that blows gently in the wind in slow motion during any silly profile shots. Lance Henriksen's bad guy is so incompetent (ignoring the good advice of his henchman to quit while he's ahead), especially in the film's big finale, that he becomes good value to watch. The scene when a snake is punched out is genuinely hilarious.

Woo, however, does stage violence purely for violence's sake. In one scene, Van Damme's Chance Boudreaux (stupid name) shoots a guy twelve or so times, and for no real reason, does a flying kick and boots the cigar out of his mouth, just so that Woo can capture another smart looking slo-mo shot. The same goes for one bit when Chance kicks another guy in his face, making his cheeks go, well, funny looking. Just watch it, it's really surreal. The final twenty minutes are a peach, with non-stop death and even more slow motion, though also with huge lapses in logic. My advice on this film is to avoid the first two-thirds, then sit back and enjoy the excellent final forty minutes. Finally, Van Damme cannot act, though everyone knows that. When he yells out "How does it feel to be hunted?" or "Hunting season....is over", you'll know exactly what I mean.

Con Air (1997)

Stupid, stupid, stupid. But quite fun.

[21 April 2000]

This is one seriously stupid film, but what makes Con Air acceptable is that knows that it is ridiculous and enjoys the ride regardless. I found Nic Cage to be a rather faceless and uninventive hero, but John Malkovich was a good villain. Depending what mood you're in, this can be very annoying or very entertaining. The music is unbelievably corny, especially that silly guitar section that accompanies the big action sequences, and when it appears to be trying to be serious, like at the start, Con Air is quite bad, but in its more bombastic moments, the film becomes near-irresistible. The highlight of all this silliness is the ending, in which the action is so overblown as to become hilarious. If only what preceeded this craziness was just as over the top, then Con Air could have been one of the all time great guilty pleasures. Instead, its just a good laugh.