Change Your Image
0ldsk00l
Reviews
Judge Dredd (1995)
A pleasant surprise, GRUDamnit!
Given that all Hollywood adaptations of comic book heroes end up fundamentally flawed, this one does a pretty good job. Ok, so Dredd takes his helmet off (the abstention from this was merely a 2000AD in-joke anyway); Griffin is a bad guy; the entire Council of distinguished judges is wiped out in an instant; Rico is not the identical twin clone of Dredd; Aspen is substituted for Titan; neither Fargo nor Rico have badges bearing their proper name (Dredd)... but all these faults pale in comparison to what the movie actually got *right*.
The casting was absolutely spot-on: Dredd, Hershey, Fargo, McGruder, Griffin... all these actors looked and behaved exactly as their 2000AD counterparts. Fergie wasn't the same as his comic-book counterpart, but so what? The original character was such a caricature of a real person, had he been portrayed in that way he no doubt would have ended up the Jar-Jar Binks hate-character of the film. The costumes were also brilliantly realised from their comic book incarnations - something that is notoriously difficult to do, especially for a helmet design as impractical as that of the Mega-City One judge!
The dark totalitarian political landscape of Mega-City One was admirably conveyed, particularly in the device used to convict Dredd (the assassination of "pro-democracy" journalists) and the underhand skullduggery of Griffin and his co-conspirators. The icing on the cake was the inclusion of the brilliant Hammerstein robot from the ABC Warriors, and that of the Angel Gang. A better screen portrayal of the Angel Gang simply could not have been wished for - Mean Machine was *exactly* as he is in the comic!
My only real gripe with this movie is that the history of the 2000AD universe is significantly messed around with, but as I have said, this is expected of Hollywood and did not detract from this as a standalone film one bit. For me, the most disappointing change made was that of making Judge Griffin the bad guy. In the comic he is one of the most exemplary judges and indeed much admired by Dredd himself (as well as having an eye-patch for his troubles). It is a shame the film had to besmirch the good name of Griffin in this way - Jurgen Prochnow would have made a fine *upstanding* Griffin. That said, the changes are nowhere near as bad as those made for Batman where the origins of both the Batman and the Joker are changed in such a way as to spoil the entire essense of the Batman mythos.
Brit director Danny Cannon can congratulate himself on having done a fine job of preserving the essense of the world of Judge Dredd in the face of Hollywood revisionism!
Six Degrees of Separation (1993)
Awful.
An endless stream of empty dialogue spouted by thoroughly irritating one-dimensional characters. By far the most annoying aspect of this film, however, is the insufferable intellectual smugness of the playwright that pervades the entire piece. Needless to say, it is wholly unwarranted.
Waterloo Bridge (1940)
A touching, sentimental film, but seriously flawed
This was a touching story, and a nice film, but it is rather too seriously flawed to be regarded as a "great" film. One of the rather obvious flaws (as pointed out by many reviewers) is that unskilled female workers were in high demand during WWI (to work on munitions etc.) so there was absolutely no danger of unemployment or need to resort to desperate measures.
But the main flaw by a long way was the casting of an American in the role of an upper-class British officer. And it's not just the completely blatant American accent--the character portrayed by Robert Taylor IS an American. He's brash, self-assured, suave, glib, impetuous and extravagant--and none of these characteristics are what one would associate with an English (let alone Scots!) gentleman of that period! When British characters act like this, they are generally being portrayed as "cads" (see Terry Thomas or Patrick Macnee for example)--only an American can pull off this sort of behaviour and still appear charming.
See how Robert Taylor's character is completely at odds with those of his mother and uncle who are perfectly portrayed as they would actually have been--could this man really have been a member of that family? And the cultural dissonance here is not merely an aesthetic problem--it's a problem with the unrealistic way the character behaves throughout the film--would an Anglo-Scots gentleman have been so brash and overconfident in making a proposal of marriage in 1914? No, he would not, and the way he would have acted would, I think, have made for a more interesting and poignant film. Robert Donat would have been ideal for the lead role (he needn't necessarily have been quite as shy and retiring as Mr. Chips!), and he would have added emotional depth to the character of Capt. Cronin (who comes across as a little superficial, as well as just blatantly American).
That aside, I felt another flaw was a poor representation of the period. Although I am not an expert in the style and dress of the WWI period, the film did seem, overall, to be set at a time contemporary with its making. Vivien Leigh's hairstyle, for example, seemed anachronistic. Also, and more importantly, the horrors of trench warfare were in no way even *hinted* at--why are all the men at Waterloo Station, returning from the front, so apparently at ease with themselves? They've just seen their best friends blown to pieces on the battlefield! It doesn't make sense! Where is the sense of anger at the Hun, on the streets of London? It isn't there. And what of Robert Taylor's rather smug and cosy explanation of his war exploits? It's almost as though he's just returned from a blissful holiday on the continent!
Finally, another reviewer has commented that the "insidious" British class system in some way had an effect on the fate of the female protagonist. This is not only insulting, but absurd. If we leave aside the fact that the Captain is a typical American in every conceivable way and displays *no* British characteristics whatsoever, we can see that the two people who were the most noble and kind to Myra were the Captain's aristocratic mother, and The Duke himself! In fact, the Captain's mother is apparently very willing to forgive Myra and only allows her to depart because she does not seem to be able to forgive herself--I think this rather amply demonstrates the level of her compassion and understanding.
Waterloo Bridge (1940)
A touching, sentimental film, but seriously flawed
This was a touching story, and a nice film, but it is rather too seriously flawed to be regarded as a "great" film. One of the rather obvious flaws (as pointed out by many reviewers) is that unskilled female workers were in high demand during WWI (to work on munitions etc.) so there was absolutely no danger of unemployment or need to resort to desperate measures.
But the main flaw by a long way was the casting of an American in the role of an upper-class British officer. And it's not just the completely blatant American accent--the character portrayed by Robert Taylor IS an American. He's brash, self-assured, suave, glib, impetuous and extravagant--and none of these characteristics are what one would associate with an English (let alone Scots!) gentleman of that period! When British characters act like this, they are generally being portrayed as "cads" (see Terry Thomas or Patrick Macnee for example)--only an American can pull off this sort of behaviour and still appear charming.
See how Robert Taylor's character is completely at odds with those of his mother and uncle who are perfectly portrayed as they would actually have been--could this man really have been a member of that family? And the cultural dissonance here is not merely an aesthetic problem--it's a problem with the unrealistic way the character behaves throughout the film--would an Anglo-Scots gentleman have been so brash and overconfident in making a proposal of marriage in 1914? No, he would not, and the way he would have acted would, I think, have made for a more interesting and poignant film. Robert Donat would have been ideal for the lead role (he needn't necessarily have been quite as shy and retiring as Mr. Chips!), and he would have added emotional depth to the character of Capt. Cronin (who comes across as a little superficial, as well as just blatantly American).
That aside, I felt another flaw was a poor representation of the period. Although I am not an expert in the style and dress of the WWI period, the film did seem, overall, to be set at a time contemporary with its making. Vivien Leigh's hairstyle, for example, seemed anachronistic. Also, and more importantly, the horrors of trench warfare were in no way even *hinted* at--why are all the men at Waterloo Station, returning from the front, so apparently at ease with themselves? They've just seen their best friends blown to pieces on the battlefield! It doesn't make sense! Where is the sense of anger at the Hun, on the streets of London? It isn't there. And what of Robert Taylor's rather smug and cosy explanation of his war exploits? It's almost as though he's just returned from a blissful holiday on the continent!
Finally, another reviewer has commented that the "insidious" British class system in some way had an effect on the fate of the female protagonist. This is not only insulting, but absurd. If we leave aside the fact that the Captain is a typical American in every conceivable way and displays *no* British characteristics whatsoever, we can see that the two people who were the most noble and kind to Myra were the Captain's aristocratic mother, and The Duke himself! In fact, the Captain's mother is apparently very willing to forgive Myra and only allows her to depart because she does not seem to be able to forgive herself--I think this rather amply demonstrates the level of her compassion and understanding.
The Big Hit (1998)
Pure Genius
This movie is basically a modern masterpiece. It's right up there with The Shadow (almost!)
I'm guessing that the people who are saying this movie is the "worst film I have ever seen" (the most cliched, hyperbolic, and tedious comment that one can possibly make) have only seen maybe two or three films in their lifetime. That is not a comment one should *waste* on just any film--and this film in particular could *never* merit that distinction.
To be avoided only if you are entirely humourless. Lou Diamond Phillips' maniacal overacting is frankly mindbogglingly brilliant--if he never makes another film again, his place in the all-time acting hall of fame is already firmly assured by this work of the purest genius!
Before I Hang (1940)
Required Viewing
I am not exactly a connoisseur of Karloff, but this film makes me want to find out more about the great master--his performance in this was truly endearing, not to mention gripping.
Furthermore, this movie should be be required viewing for modern film-makers, because it really is a masterpiece of succinctness. Not a single frame of film is wasted! The movie only lasts for 62 minutes (although I'm sure the version I saw, early one morning, lasted a good ten minutes less than that!) and yet it crams more plot into that small timescale than a great many drawn-out 3 hour epics! And yet, the real genius of the work is that it does not for a single moment seem *rushed*. Everything flows smoothly right up to the final curtain, and you are left with the feeling of having watched a "full-length" feature--a truly astonishing achievement! I glanced at my watch at about the halfway stage , not out of impatience, but out of sheer wonder at how on earth everything was going to be wrapped up to a neat conclusion within only 25 minutes or so!
This film, more than any other that I can recall, bridges the gap between the frenetic single-reeler comedies of the 20s (which crammed a hell of a lot in, at the expense of a more welcome relaxed pace), and the modern day feature. If there really was five full minutes of piano-playing in this, I can't say that it perturbed me in any way whatsoever--it merely helped to set the melancholy mood of the piece. And that five minutes of a one hour film can be dedicated solely to mood setting, without generating any feeling of slow-down, is something really quite remarkable.
A great genius *can* make a 4 hour film work... but such directors are *extremely* few and far between (e.g. Kurosawa, von Stroheim). All others should learn from the director of this work: the Occam's Razor of feature films.
Brothers (2000)
Absolutely textbook.
I disagree with the other reviewer--this is definitely a film to remember, particularly for anyone planning to make a movie. It's an absolutely textbook example of how NOT to make a film. Virtually everything that one could do wrong in film-making has been done here, and to the highest level of incompetence.
Firstly and most importantly, we have the absolutely non-existent plot. Then there's the utterly inane cut-and-paste script, full of all the most tedious cliches you can imagine--sensitive "intellectual" "finding" himself through a series of "profound" observations about his situation, boring hedonist unable to articulate his disgust at his own stupidity... the list goes on... Next up, it's the acting--it's not exactly what one would call "cardboard", a better description would be "awkward and fifth rate". Whilst a lot of the acting deficiencies can be blamed on the moronic script, the actors certainly do nothing whatsoever to salvage the situation.
Lastly, but in no way to be underestimated, there's the direction, cinematography, and editing, all of which make most peoples' home videos seem highly polished and professional. Endless cutting to different scenes with no apparent continuity, the "novel" approach of playing dialogue between two characters who aren't even on the screen, and finally, the camera not even getting the subject properly in frame.
I suppose the bizarre and ridiculous cinematography could actually be considered a "feature" of this film, since I've never seen anything like it in my life--I refuse to believe that mere incompetence could have achieved such an effect. The only other redeeming feature of this movie is the mild pornographic aspect, which plays orders of magnitude above the rest of the production in terms of quality. Rebecca Cardinale is very, very hot as the lead Italian minx--but sadly, her sex appeal is wasted on this self-indulgent dross.
Pecker (1998)
Off the scale.
This film has the rare distinction of being one of the only films that has provided a temporary cure for my chronic late night insomnia. It's hard to tell who exactly this film was aimed at--the plot is like a simple-minded fairytale that 6-year-olds might appreciate, but it also features full-frontal nudity and old men in bars lusting after gay strippers.
Maybe I was having a nightmare... a really boring one.
Crash (1996)
Boooorriiiiing
This movie takes place in a "screwy" universe where the police don't exist, emergency services are happy to have sightseers come and take close-up photos of crash scenes, and motorists in general never get annoyed when they are cut up by a wreck being driven by a maniac.
This film was so interesting, I actually interrupted the penultimate crash sequence to watch Richard & Judy do a fascinating article on golf ball theft. I'd say it just pips 'Eyes Wide Shut' to the post in the tedium stakes, but 'A.I.' probably still has the edge in giving you that feeling that you are really criminally wasting your life.
Well, it's certainly a controversial and disturbing piece. Controversial in that it ever received funding (although it's no great surprise that the star of 'Stargate' was only too happy to sign up), and disturbingly boring.
Screwy.
Housekeeping (1987)
One of the worst films ever made.
'A Tidy Comedy'? Anyone who even *smiled* during the screening of this film needs quality psychiatric help.
And I say this as a huge fan of Bill Forsyth. I have seen all of his films, and I spent a great deal of effort tracking down this particular one. Having finally found it, I have to say, it's little wonder that it isn't widely available--it is DIRE.
Every director makes a few dud movies, but Forsyth's less brilliant films are still very watchable and above average (e.g. Breaking In). This however, is Bill Forsyth's worst film by *two* orders of magnitude--it's hard to believe he even had anything to do with it. It is *entirely* without merit: affected cardboard acting; excruciatingly boring, uneventful plot; superfluous, meaningless dialogue... just pointless... *pointless*... a complete waste of time! I cannot berate this film enough! In fact, the only thing that kept me going throughout this masterpiece of uninspired tedium (it took me about four sittings to watch it all the way through) was the prospect of giving it the richly deserved roasting that I now submit. I cannot believe that Forsyth read the (justly) obscure book upon which this film is based, and thought it would make an interesting (or even bearable) film--and if the film is anything to go by, the book must be absolutely *mind-numbing*.
There's no point in giving a detailed "intelligent" critique of this film--it would be a waste of time. This film is a non-entity. It's like a particularly dull episode of The Waltons, with John Boy's monotonous narrative voice-over replaced by that of the even more robotic Ruthie.
It defies belief that all the other reviews of this film are highly positive, the most scathing comment being that it was "uninspiring". Uninspiring? Try: *soul-destroying*. But the plot was only mildly depressing compared to the actual severe depression induced by the complete viewing experience. I have to admit, I experienced a real sense of uplifting *joy* when finally it was all over.
I expect that, to the *insane* reviewers who actually enjoyed this film, the intervention of the town's "concerned citizens" at the end might be considered the heartless act of interfering busybodies. I only wish that people of a similar ilk had interfered with the making of this abominable waste of time.
Fans of Forsyth: avoid like the *Black* Plague.