Catscanfly Reviews

Ghost (1990)

Touching

[4 December 2007]

So many things about this movie are- objectively speaking-

preposterous, unsubtle, cringey, laughable or simply bad.

That said, none of this at the end of the day matters much: Ghost is a classic romance, with good leads, a highly watchable storyline, plenty of charm and wit and a climax that it seems literally to be physiologically impossible not to cry buckets over.

The reason for this last attribute is that Ghost of course taps into many very fragile parts of the emotions that reside in nearly all of us- it is hard to sneer at a film that so earnestly carries on its' sleeve such motifs as the joy and depth of love, the inevitable fear and mystery of mortality, and the fathomless pain of loss. Such themes have seldom been dealt with in Hollywood movies in quite so brazen and nothing-if-not-sincere a manner. This is perhaps a part of Ghost's magic and endurance.

There are not many movies that tackle the "otherside" of death as Ghost does; and of course the reason is that nothing could be harder to do satisfyingly, convincingly.

Ghost on many levels does indeed fail to do so itself; the script is duff, many of the concepts it suggests are crude and ridiculous; and yet such objection seems somehow churlish given the undeniable ballsiness-if nothing else- of the movie's subject matter. Few movies- hokey or perfect- can lay claim to offering such emotional solace to people's real life experiences of bereavement than Ghost, no matter how much the lines and the plot developments might grate upon your nerves. In one of the movie's most moving scenes, the viewer is able to vicariously experience that tantalising, painful wish-fulfilment that is longed for by any one who has ever suffered the death of a loved one; that final embrace that so many are denied.

It is ultimately this sincerity and universality that- just about- carries the film along from start to finish; helped of course by Whoopi Goldberg's turn as an apparently fraudulent psychic- Sam's blustering, clucking, reluctant key to communicating with Molly. The role famously earned Goldberg an Academy Award and remains a sparkling gem of a performance. Demi Moore and Patrick Swayze never betray the film or highlight its' weaker points in their respective performances, and the two share a good level of chemistry together, more particularly impressive given the amount of scenes they spend unable to interact.

Good movie. Don't forget your Kleenex.

The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992)

The very best of all the Muppet Movies!

[10/10 · 24 November 2005]

The Muppet Christmas Carol is my favourite of all the Muppet flicks. Jim Henson, of course, never lent his name to anything even remotely resembling 'bad', but nevertheless, there is a clear mark of sheer mastery and brilliance in this movie that is somehow less evident in most of the other muppet movies.

In a way, I have to admit that I find this surprising. This was the first Muppet movie to be shot after Henson himself passed away; the voice of kermit, the most beloved and indeed inventive puppeteer ever to have lived was dead. Could Henson's magic touch ever be recreated? Did the Muppets have a future at all without their creator? The answer, of course we now know, is Yes they did.

As is the secret to all truly great children's movies, The Muppet Christmas Carol does not pander to notions of anything being 'too scary'; nor does it shy away from the innate darkness of the material at hand.

Dicken's tale is one that revolves almost uniformly around themes of corruption, poverty and death, and here it has most certainly not been diluted.

"There was the year we evicted the entire orphanage! I remember the little tykes all standing in the snowbank, with their little frostbitten teddy bears!" hollers a ghostly apparition of Scrooge's dead business partner early in the film. We witness a heartbreaking lament from Scrooge's lover, who leaves him because he has become too money-hungry to love her. We watch as Bob Cratchett's family mourn the empty chair at their table where their beloved and selfless young son once sat. At the eleventh hour, scrooge even bends before his own tombstone and begs in tears of desperation to a grim reaper-like spirit to be allowed to live. So much for it being the season to be jolly.

Where there is humour, it is frequently black, and where there is emotion, it is generally somewhat adult by todays standards.

Of course, before you decide not to show this to your five year old son or daughter, you should consider that these dark themes by no means drag the film down; rather, they help to raise it up to become, just like the original story, a stirring and emotional story of triumph and redemption in the face of mortality.

Whilst the script writers wisely keep the story pretty much identical to the original in all of it's major aspects, there is plenty mayhem and indeed magic here too which is 24 carat Henson Studios. I remember as a 5 year old simply adoring the spectacle of Kermit's Bob Cratchett taking part in a the Penguins of London Annual Christmas Skating party, or the delight of Gonzo and Rizzo's almost post-modernist presence as physical participants but also omnipotent narrators in the tale.

Indeed, the translation from book to screen is almost peculiarly elegant; the Muppet characters all seem to open up to new ranges of poignancy and dramatic possibility when placed in the storyline. You will find yourself feeling immense pity for Miss Piggy's somewhat hysterical but ultimately warm Mrs Cratchett for example, and indeed a whole host of wonderful performances on show from the familiar Muppet Show Cast.

Of course this review could not be complete without tribute to the simply brilliant performance from the great Michael Cane in the role of Ebeneezer Scrooge. he understands his role excellently and invests it with a moving, convincing and genius reality; always resisting the temptation, that must surely be strongly felt when one is the sole human among a cast of felt puppets, to play the role for laughs. One feels that his performance would not seem out of place if he were surrounded by the ranks of great British thespians and taking part in a 'straight' production of Dicken's tale as opposed to a Muppet movie. Upon recently viewing the Patrick Stewart film of this story, I was delighted to find that Cane quite simply out-acted Stewart in the role and clearly this makes his performance something special.

The production values are high in this film as is to be expected in a Henson movie, and the film has a wonderful, almost Tim Burton-esquire look which is by turns wintry and quite breath-takingly beautiful or dark and positively scary.

In terms of music it is filled with an array of wonderfully enduring and subtly written songs that fill me with a sense of child-like happiness and that allusive 'christmassey feeling' even after all these years. One recommendation I would make to anyone planning on purchasing the film is to if at all possible obtain a copy which contains the beautiful song "When Love Is Gone" which, in the recent DVD re-release, was sadly cut from the film. This decision to exclude the song from the film detracts hugely from the pathos of one of the film's central themes (past Mistakes and ultimate redemption) and definitely takes away some of the indescribably bitter-sweet overall mood of the film.

I strongly recommend this film to people of any age or gender as a film that it is virtually impossible not to fall in love with.

Spider-Man 2 (2004)

Let's not mince words- This film kicked proverbial ass

[9/10 · 23 June 2005]

This is the perfect summer blockbuster.

Generally I tend not to be a fan of these dubious blockbuster movies that've been in vogue in Hollywood summers for a few years now. They're all well and good to go see with a gang of friends after the BBQ or before the beach party- but as a rule, and though it's a clichéd sentiment, they just lack heart.

This, though, is something different. Spider-man, the original movie, was something that I wasn't awaiting with my tongue hanging out in hungry anticipation. I ambled along to the cinema a week or so after opening night, practically by accident, expecting an entertaining romp on a summer evening with my BF- but expecting nothing more.

What can i say- I came out in love with the movie. Although i'll be the first to admit that in the past I've ranted in unison with the most stuck-up of critics on the damage and evils of CGI and the blockbuster breed of movies in general, I simply turned around when i saw this movie- luscious effects, excellent cinematography, downright nasty villain, great direction and scripting. Add in the ever so slightly angsty performances of the ever wonderful Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst plus ace cast set against an achingly beautiful NY backdrop, and this was just one of the best films of the year.

And now, the sequel. Wow.

This movie is really really better. where the first stood alone as a melancholic tale of the loneliness that must be endured by a good man, the second film deepens and expands upon the real themes that were found in the first. "Sequel" is a word with bad connotations- and one almost feels the term is unjust for such a wonderful movie. This is a movie which is rich, romantic, funny, poignant, and just exciting as hell.

Whether you're marvelling at the swooping, poetic magnificence of Spiderman's sky- scraper acrobatics, becoming emotionally entangled in Peter's raw deal in life, biting nails in the jaw-dropper actions scenes or shedding a surreptitious tear for the lovers of this entrancing tragi-comedy, i just advise you to watch out. You might end up loving this movie a little more than is socially advisable.

Michael Jackson: Thriller (1983 Music Video)

The musical legacy in the wake of a waining star.

[8 June 2005]

Aaaaah, Thriller. Masterpiece.

A lot of people tend to think that this music video is one of the scariest things ever shot and remember being terrified by it ever since they saw it when they were a kid in the 80s or early 90s. While i gotta agree that it is really spooky in that spine-tingling, juicy way, it's just always struck me as not so much terrifying as just kind of sad- less a horror than a tragedy.

In one of the moments of sick irony in the MJ story ("It don't matter if you're black or white", anyone?) music fans all round the world watched in 1983 (a time when the only thing freakish about Michael was his incredible talent) with a delicious mix of horror and deep excitement as, in this video, michael strutted his stuff in three separate realities (the movie at the start, the dancing in the graveyard and the cats-eyes embrace at the end) and in each is transformed mysteriously into nightmarish figures of evil.

Little did anyone know that he would spend the next two decades doing so for real.

Well, here we are, 20 years later, asking questions that seem very far away indeed from the eighties: Did Jackson ply a series of children with alcohol and lure them into his bed? Is he nothing more than a lecherous paedophile who has spent millions of dollars tweaking and bleaching the humanity out of his once beautiful face? Is he doomed to spend the next 20 years in jail for perverted sex crimes carried out on young boys?

Who knows? No one does. What's certain though, is that there is nothing his present disgrace can detract from the sheer trail-blazing brilliance of Michael's work as a musician. There's something timeless, ageless and utterly vital in Thriller that stands as an eternal monument to his status as one of the greatest popular music icons of our time.

Be honest- you haven't forgotten how that body of his moved- smooth, fast, jagging and driven to the music, his moves mirrored by his unholy followers from beyond the grave.It didn't matter that he was tall and skinny, wearing that god-awful outfit. He was mesmerising to watch- both beautiful and sinister. It was something just totally different, totally urgent, and totally irresistible.

And hell, his singing- you've never heard someone sing like that. Sure, it was girly, full of crazy improvisations and easy to ridicule- but hey, that is MJ. And the fact is that it doesn't matter. Jackson inspired a whole new vocal style and scores of imitators still in the charts today- but there never was one that was a patch on Jacko.

It was once said of Wagner that "the art can never be absolutely separated from the man". And i think that the same is true of MJ. No matter what the outcome of his trial is, the world won't ever feel the same about this guy. You'll never know for sure what went on in Neverland- and you'd be just as well to keep your kids away from him. I'm sure again that his record sales will drop dramatically and whatever happens the rest of his life is likely to be pretty lonely and miserable. Plenty of folk refuse to abide his Cd's in their house anymore all due to the fact that he's in such disgrace.

This is a tremendous shame, in a way- Michael was a musician of outstanding invention and a performer of breathtaking skill and presence. Does his incredible output deserve to be shunned as Pop art when it's creator is disgraced in numerous lawsuits and painted to be an insane figure of public ridicule?

The answer is, I don't think so. And this is the full force of Thriller's importance and power- anytime I listen to the song or see the video, I really don't care about any sordid allegations.

The fact is that I know nothing of the Defendant that we're watching everyday, with his eyes hidden behind large shades, and his pallid white skin and tiny pointy nose peaking out from between the bouncy black curtains of hair. He may have touched little boys and filled his ranch with sordid porn magazines and fed alcohol to kids he bizarrely hung out with. I don't have a reason to think he didn't- the guy grew up in the kind of surreal showbiz background i can barely imagine.

The Michael I do know something about is the character; the persona. Thriller, Billie Jean, Bad, Smooth Criminal... these are the legacy as the star itself wains. He might be a regular Marlon Brando in his free time- but that doesn't mean i don't want to watch his splendour and appreciate his musical genius. whatever tears he's faking in court, he couldn't fake his talent.

Little Women (1970)

Worth watching but by no means a perfect adaptation

[7/10 · 8 June 2005]

I'm fond of this adaptation because it's been in my family's video collection for as long as i can remember- and so for me it got a lot of sentimental value.

However i don't think I'm being entirely clouded in judgement when I say that this was pretty good for the BBC costume drama department. If you've had the misfortune to sit through the sick 1980s/70s era Dramas they put out like Pride and Prejudice, Mansfield Park and Northanger Abbey, then you'll know what I mean.

Performance wise, this is actually really good in most areas (though kinda shabby in others). Angela Down made a likable Jo (inspite of her sporting a beehive of dubious authenticity) who does seem to grow and mature over the course of the drama in a fairly convincing way. Mr and Mrs March, Mr Brooke and aunt March are also very well cast, and the same goes for Meg and Amy (though they should have hired a younger actress in the latter case for the earlier scenes). Beth is the only real failure here- the character comes across as less the sweet and innocent young angel and more a fatigued and somewhat sinister presence (terrible make up job in the last stages of her illness- she looked like something out of MJ's Thriller).

The true gem of casting in this drama though is Laurie, played by Stephen Turner. I had a crush on him when i was younger and I still think that he just is the perfect Teddy- with brooding, handsome looks, his performance is every inch the romantic Italian tearaway of the novels (one area at least in which this adaptation triumphs over the popular Little Women of 1994 with a somewhat disappointing Christian Bale as Laurie).

This series could have used a great deal more verve and spirit though, if it wished to remain faithful to the vivacity of the timeless story. As it is, the shoestring budget constantly betrays itself, and the romance of the New England setting never comes alive (probably due in part to the fact that there are scarcely any exterior scenes- and when there are they are less than thrilling).

In effect, the whole thing is very very British indeed- the cramped and claustrophobic feel of the interior studio scenes that make for 95% of the series seems to afford little scope for any genuine atmosphere of the civil war era drama.

therefore, this is unlikely to impress many today as an overall production. It seems dated and there is no real evocation of the laughter, the imagination or the tears that female adolescence affords in equal measures to the March girls in the book.

In some ways Little Women is an Elegy to childhood- and in others a celebration of growing up. whatever way you describe it, the book is a complex, moving, and textured story that encompasses just about everything that seems important in life- even today, in such a different world.   This adaptation is admittedly in short supply of bounteous merit to do justice to the novel, but at the same time it holds firmly in possession of both it's own charm and strengths.

Clueless (1995)

Joyous and sparkling teen comedy

[8/10 · 8 May 2005]

This movie is way above so many of the others of its' kind. It's consumately likable, funny, sweet and sharp- the script is a killer, and the acting is fun and enjoyable.

Part of the success of the film is due to the fact that it appeals to several different audiences, and on multiple levels.

I first watched this movie with my mom, who loved the link it has to Jane Austen's Emma- all the main characters and the plot are direct modern equivalents to the novel. For instance, the famous passage in Emma inwhich Harriet burns all her "mementos" of Mr. Elton becomes the scene where Tai does so infront of Cher's gasfire. From this perspective alone, the movie is so fun and sharp to watch- even if your forte isn't usually American Teen High School comedy!

But this movie works on a really dumbed down scale too- let's face it, not everyone is big on English literature. The movie has an awesome soundtrack, Paul Rudd is unbelievably cute as "Mr Knightly" or rather Josh- and my boyfriend leads me to believe that the same is true of Alicia Silverstone- who still sparkles 10 years later as a mid-nineties teen queen with good intentions, Cher. Her performance here is impossible not to warm too, unless you have some sort of grudge against Valley girls, inwhich case you might not like it so much. Seriously though, this film is a must see for anyone who likes some real quality comedy- I'm so fond of this film personally that I would suspect basically everyone would enjoy it.

Bicentennial Man (1999)

Not bad, but could have been a lot better

[6/10 · 29 March 2005]

This movie got a bad rap from the press and the public and since it came out there's been very little interest in it. I wasn't too fussed about seeing it, but I gave it a shot anyway and found it to be not half bad at all.

There were times when i thought that it could definitely have done with a much stronger director at the helm- Columbus failed to bring out the darker side of the story's theme, and therefore let the film get bogged down as it progressed instead of allowing it to reach its' full potential.. The movie turned out far too timid and gentle and ultimately pretty weak. As usual, Columbus wasted an excellent story and cast with incredible potential in order to produce something diverting, occasionally very good, but on the whole very forgettable.

As I said, though, the cast is excellent- especially Sam Neill and Embeth Davadtz- and there was a lot of visual delight here too on display. I felt that Robin Williams started out well but failed to sustain his character.

the movie wasn't a total failure- i enjoyed watching it, as did my three very young cousins- but i ended up being disappointed, particularly since there are many films that have dealt with this theme much better; from A.I. Artificial Intelligence to Disney's Pinochio.

Hook (1991)

Magic that has to be taken on it's own terms

[9/10 · 27 March 2005]

"Hook" is one of the classics of my childhood- I don't remember when I first saw it but I've loved it for a long time.

The reason that this movie is pretty unpopular with some people is not because it's a bad movie- quite the opposite- but because of it's origins.

JM Barrie's amazing and well loved "Peter Pan" is one of my favourite books- there is nothing that has ever been written quite like it and there never ever will be, including the movie sequel, Hook. The idea of making a sequel about the grown up Peter- let alone a Hollywood movie one- would have made me cringe if i'd been old enough to contemplate the idea prior to seeing the movie.

True enough, "Hook" is, on that level, a travesty. No actor can live up to playing Peter Pan- least of all a short fuzzy American comedian. And what was with the lost boys in this movie? American punk kids? WTF? As for the idea of erotic overtones in Peter and Tink's relationship, let's just not go there.

But before Barrie's fans shudder and swear to never ever watch this movie- let me warn you that you'd be missing out.

Hook may not 'work' as a worthy sequel to Peter Pan, but this doesn't mean it doesn't work on its' own terms, in its' own right.

Forget all about the original when you watch this, and you will appreciate "Hook" as it's own movie, filled with magic, pathos, wonder and adventure. Sure, it might not be the work for the ages that Peter Pan is, but just learn to accept that fact and you can take delight in the inspired Dustin Hoffman as Captain James Hook (one of his finest performances), the endearingly unbelievability of the plot, the fantastical landscape of Neverland, the cinematography and light, the magical, dreamish quality of the Lost Boy's haven, Hook's galleon, and John William's gorgeous, sweeping score.

This film has the look of a story that has lept off colourful pages and sprung to life in the minds of a billion children. I defy you not to swept along by the sight of Peter finally discovering his happy thought and swooping through a shimmering sky. I defy you to not be filled with childish wonder at the sight of the banquet appearing on the table. I defy you not to be close to tears at the end, as this Peter (who may not be the Peter we have adored in Barrie's tale, but a new peter, and one we can warm to and love readily enough) leaves his lost boys for a life he must return to.

the cast too contribute to the excellence of the piece. In addition to Hoffman, we discover that although at times a little annoying, Robin Williams can turn in a funny, energetic and genuinely affecting performance (just don't bother complaining that he is hardly a fitting performer to portray an adult Peter Pan, since that performer simply doesn't exist.) Bob Hoskins is a great choice for Smee and though the idea of Julia Roberts as Tinkerbell might seem slightly dubious, it just does seem to end up working. She was pretty cool in this movie! And hey, Dante Basco was hot stuff (I don't care who knows it!) After all the years i've known this movie, I've come to love all the lost boy performers, especially the fat kid who first has faith and believes in Peter. Maggie Smith, too, deserves a mention for her lovely performance as Wendy.

Sure, the film begins weakly. The characterisation in some cases is pretty bad. the script can be stupid and gets sentimental in parts. there are silly ideas in the plot, and even the premise is, when you think about it, kinda lame. One can almost hear the studio execs pitching their idea- "hey guys, we wanna make a picture where the boy who never grew up... wait for it, wait for it..... grows up!"

As I said at the start, though, this film only works when you banish all thoughts of Barrie from your mind. Some purists might argue that it's cheap, Hollywood, americanised and insulting towards the original- and who knows, they might be right- but for me, this film has so much spirit and magic that i think thirty years from now, my kids will be watching it.

13 Going on 30 (2004)

Just Great!

[8/10 · 14 February 2005]

I never realised how good this movie was until i watched it the second time. (the first time i went to see it I wasn't exactly concentrating on the movie..)

Jennifer Garner totally shines as Jenna Rink, a 13 year old dorky kid who suddenly awakens one morning to find herself a sexy, thirty year old magazine journalist. Yeah, i know, doesn't sound that great, but believe me when i say that it is. Here showcasing her comedy and to a huge extent acting talent, Jennifer makes a breakaway from her best known role as a secret agent in the cult show Alias and has definitely opened up the doorway to a glittering career as a versatile movie actress.

Mark Ruffalo is an ace breakaway from the usual 'pretty boy' lead in movies of this sort, and fills the screen with wonderful chemistry between himself and Garner. he transforms a relatively thin character into a warm and charming performance that glistens with that irresistible feel good factor that runs through to the heart of the film.

This movie might sound sentimental and fluffy, and even though at times it is, It surely is able to win over almost anybody with its' style, comedy, genuinely heart-warming story and of course, 80's retro.

However i do think that the reason this movie stands out of its' genre is the genuinely poignant emotional under-current that under pins it. The actors are not just personable, but human. You'll be on the point of tears at Ruffalo's "You can't turn back time" monologue towards the movie's end. It is in scenes such as this that 13 going on 30 transcends it's forgettable, date-movie status and ends up touching it's audience in its' gentle and sweet way.

I can't complete this comment without mentioning too the wonderous Andy Serkis in a supporting role as Jenna's ultra camp/ incredibly hilarious editor boss, nor the scene of the movie: One dance floor. 30 people. Michael Jackson's Thriller.

The Little Mermaid (1989)

Perfect Kids film

[10/10 · 19 January 2005]

This movie is a stirling piece of work. It stands watcihng and re-watching, both by adults and kids, for its' glorious mixture of fairy tale, gentle but laugh out loud humour, amazing songwriting and downright energy.

The Little Mermaid stands as an everlasting monument to the greatness that was oh, such a short time ago, Disney Studios.

The films of Disney may continue their descent into mediocrity and perhaps in time cease all together, but what they will be remembered for is their glory days that this wonderful, wonderful movie is a part of, and not a sad downfall.

One criticism- fire whoever named the Prince.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

In a word, Awesome

[10/10 · 29 December 2004]

An achingly beautiful, black and wondrous story that swoops effortlessly from the epic to the personal and back again-

can a random kiwi better known for zombie slasher movies really be entrusted with sometihng like that?

the answer is yes. Peter Jackson's The Lord Of the Rings Trilogy is one of the great works of the new millennium, and no amount of nay-sayers can change that. In all aspects, including cinematography, direction, acting and effects, the Lord of the Rings excels and becomes an awesome piece of fantasy storytelling, becoming not only a wondrous technical achievement but also one filled with pathos, emotion and darkness.

oh yes, and it's way better than star wars. :-P

Pride and Prejudice (1995)

absolutely Amazing! (but of course you already knew that :))

[9/10 · 29 December 2004]

If you've had the misfortune to view any of the BBC's previous efforts to dramatise Jane Austen's work, and have consequently experienced perhaps the torture that is their Northanger Abbey, or maybe the fair disaster that was Mansfield Park, or the purely dire Fay Weldon Pride and Prejudice, then it is conceivable that you might be now purposely avoiding this newer product of their stables, Pride and Prejudice (1995).

Don't.

fortunately for her fans, the 90s were sometihng of a wonderful renaissance for her works' popularity and appreciation, and this decade spawned some lovely movies of her novels (the heart warming and sharply funny 'Emma' and 'Clueless', the achingly gorgeous and subtle 'Sense and Sensibility', and the infinitely more dubious but at any rate interesting Mansfield Park) and TV adaptations (including the atmospheric "Persuasion" and 'Emma') I don't remember any of these more fondly, though, (except for maybe Clueless :)) than this wonderful realisation of Jane Austen's most enduring story.

Pride and Prejudice is the ultimate Romantic Comedy:so rich and filled with wit, with characters so intricately and delightfully drawn (Austen surely acquits herself as the greatest social commentator in history) and with romance so subtle and warming, that contrary to one astounded male fan upon its' initial publishing's reaction, who was prompted to exclaim that the book was too witty, intelligent and remarkable 'to have been written by a woman', i have always thought it a book so beloved by women it could only have been written by one.

Surely Screenplay writer Andrew Davies was taking on a huge risk in toying with the emotions of the literary fans of the novel when he undertook to transfer it to screen.

Acting wise, the cast can hardly be faulted- excellent support from, among others, Alison Steadman as The Bennet Girl's Hysterical Mother, and Barbara Leigh-Hunt as Lady Catherine uphold the terrific comic value of the story, while standouts such as the excellent Susannah Harker as Elizabeth's angelic older sister, the charming Crispin Bonham-Carter as her lover Bingly, and Adrian Lukis as the dashing but not-all-he-seems Mr. Wickam.

An instant national icon upon the serial's release, Colin Firth is superb and brooding as the proud Mr Darcy, never tipping into the trap of becoming forced or wooden. his performance is understated, emotional and yes, pd sexy. I defy anyone with female reproductive organs to not be shivering with warm feelings at the sight of the ne'er before seen smile on his lips in the final, joyous scene.

The one bona fide complaint that can be made is the possible miscasting of Jennifer Ehle as Elizabeth Bennet. playing a character that personifies vivacity, wit and charm, Ehle seems distinctly uncomfortable and never seems to truly capture the lively essence of Lizzy Bennet- her performance comes across as too subdued and withdrawn. that said, her performance is by no means a failure as such, as she makes a sympathetic, very likable and pretty heroine, and, when surrounded by such a terrific, spot-on cast as this, you'll find yourself willing to forgive a great deal.

not that there is much elsewhere that needs forgiving. Shot in Cinemascope (a conscious artistic decision by the directors) this film not only contains wonderful landscapes and locaitons that simply drip with the atmosphere of the period, but also looks wonderful, with its' rich tones and its' wonderful set and costume designs.

add to this the beautifully assured wit, romance and awesome genius of Jane Austen, backed up by the faithful screenplay of Davies, and possibly a silly scene or two that betray a sodden or bare-backed Darcy and you've Romantic Comedy, at its' hilarious, gem-stone best.

The NeverEnding Story (1984)

On the whole powerful and pure magic, but beware the lucky dog thing.

[13 December 2004]

I remember this movie from way back, so i guess I'm sort of going to be a bit biased by sentimentality etc....

but hey.

this movie is inconsistent, in that there are times when its' magnificently dark, imaginative, spectacular and spellbinding story telling- the sort that rips basically any kid out of the room they're sitting in and places them on some crazy other planet. in other words, at these times, its' brilliant, genius fantasy for kids.

However, sometimes, this movie just gets so shockingly bad, in terms of characters and plot, that you just start to wonder what the makers were thinking.

The Man in the Iron Mask (I) (1998)

Terrible in so many ways.... but all the while so wonderful

[3 December 2004]

I saw this movie a while back, and OK, so yes, i am one of the fairly secretive clan of mid- adolescents who still in their concealed hearts adore Leo and his Titanic days- but please believe me when i say that i think this movie is actually not half bad in its' own right, and you have a fair chance of enjoying it. Everyone knows the story, and its' a good one- there's a lot of pathos and intrigue and thrills to be got out of the tale of the separated twin brothers--one locked away and masked in iron by his evil sibling, who sits on the throne-- and although i have many doubts about the film as a whole, i personally ended up deciding that the old-fashioned, damn good swashbuckler likability of the movie totally overcomes the many weaker aspects- including several duff lines and countless clichés that even this wonderful cast can't really save.

As Philippe (the man in the iron mask) and his brother (kind louie, teehee), Leonardo Dicaprio attacks the role with varying degrees of success. at some points, his American-boy accent was just a wee bit cringe-worthy in the circumstances, and in a couple scenes he possibly goes over the top- on the whole, however, he acquits himself well and at his best moments he is totally wonderful, (as the fabulously camp-looking Louie especially) stunning and touching to watch (if anyone on earth can play a Don Juan-type spoilt brat rich king dude, it's gotta be Leo) and all performance technicalities aside, i for one will give him snaps on having mustered the courage to wear those outfits (not to mention the hair).

altohugh the movie has a billion and one flaws that i won't even go into, I gotta admit that i just found it very enjoyable- the music and cinematography are lovely and inspite of John Malkovich's extremely distracting accent, the movie is really pretty evocative- if not always of 18th century France, then at least of old Hollywood, when they really weren't afraid to be cliché riddenly, buttock clenchingly and just plain generally BAD, with sackloads of style.

Before You Go (2002)

touching, gentle, and funny as hell

[14 May 2004]

this movie may not be perfect, and certainly isn't very well known. My friends and i rented it out, purely because, in a 'movie watching' kinda mood, we could find no others on the shelf we were particularly interested in. We didn't expect much, just an hour or two of distraction.

man, were we wrong. this movie is hilarious, poignant, emotional, and delicate. julie walters shines in her role particularly, and despite not always being wonderful, the movie is definately very funny and good entertainment for those who like something a bit more challenging than 'dumb and dumber."

The Tempest (1979)

absolute trite

[4 May 2004]

This movie sucked. I was studying "the tempest' at school recently, and this being the most faithful adaption my teacher could find, we watched it.

Prospero looked more like an incarnation of Doctor Who, Miranda was some kind of seventies punk-brat (no change there, then, for toyah wilcox) and derek jarman clearly held the misguided notion that showing the fullfrontal scene of ferdinand clambering ashore in the buff would be enough to save this crap from descending into seat squirmingly, buttock clenchingly arduous cinema.

however, unsurprisingly, scenes added more for the titillation of the director than for the enrichment of the production will not (shock horror) help this utter trite.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)

truly breath-taking

[9 April 2004]

In Ang Lee's martial arts master work, even those who don't enjoy kung fu movies will find alot to marvel at.

Having never been a great fan of action movies in general (particularly ones in foreign language) I was skeptical at first as to how good this movie could be. However, being directed by the same guy who shot one of my ALL TIME favourite movies (sense and sensibility) I ended up watching it.

I still don't think he matched is masterpiece Sense and sensibility, but in Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Ang Lee created a beautiful cinematic work.

the other worldish feel that this film held for me was spell binding enough. The landscape and laws of ancient, mythological china were brought to lifewith mystical magic and so much elegiac beauty.

the fight scenes wonderful too. instead of dull, seen-it-before fight choreography, Lee introduces the ability of flight to his characters, making for surreal, but wonderfully captivating and exhilerating viewing.

Chow Yun Fat shines as ever in the role of a wise chinese warrior, prevented from confessing his love for the woman he has been passionately in love with for years by strict codes of conduct.

Titanic (1997)

a weak, but at times truly incredible movie (a slight spoiler)

[15 March 2004]

Titanic is the sort of movie that you cannot critisize without mentioning its good parts, and cannot praise without recalling its dire ones. in many ways, it is very reminiscent of the old-style Hollywood romances- epic in length, enourmous in budget and popularity, weak in the eyes of some of its more critical viewers, and, fast destined for a high place in the most famous films of all time.

Rose (Kate Winslet), a young, beautiful, upperclass and miserable passenger on the famously 'Unsinkable ship' (perhaps at this moment it would be good to point out that infact, contrary to popular belief, titanic was never in reality marketted as "the unsinkable ship"... ahem, however) is disullsioned with life. Bearing this in mind, she makes a trip one evening to the stern (i think?) of the Titanic, climbs the railings, and prepares to jump into the freezing cold waters of the ocean below. As she prepares herself to jump, she is spotted by the equally young and beautiful, yet poor and freespirited artist Jack (leonardo Dicaprio), who manages to persuade her not to jump. And thus begins a beautiful friendship between the two- much to the distress and dissaproval of Rose's friends and family. Suprise, suprise, the relationship soon develops into sometihng more, and they become lovers. Just as their passionate love affair reaches steamy heights, the two become caught up, inevitably in the ship's sinking, and one of the greatest distaster sequences ever, ever filmed commences in the film's last hour: full of horror, tragedy, and terrible reality. The first two hours, driven by, concentrated on, and revolving around the romantic love affair between Rose and Jack, are clunking and thin. The script, while perhaps not dire, is certainly no masterpiece (written by the director, James Cameron) rather too full of cliche and annoyingly unsubtle messages designed perhaps to appeal to Cameron's conception of a modern audience's tastes (Rose, somewhat unconvincingly for the daughter of a conservative, upperclass, english society family, is an avid reader of Freud and waxes lyrical about Piccasso: "It's like looking into a dream or something. there's truth but no logic.")

this is perhaps too hard. some moments in these first two hours are lovely. I know that I might sound like a jackass for saying so, but in one of the truly iconic moments of romantic beauty that this movie, or indeed, any movie has to offer, what young girl was not lifted out of her cinema seat by that soaring, beautiful shot of the lovers at the ship's helm (i think? lol) at sunset? Dicaprio, a vastly underrated actor (and this movie might have something to do with that) as the inspired and inspirational young free spirit is at his most beautiful, boyish best, and manages to inject energy and charisma into a character who is sadly lacking in depth. (don't get me wrong, i loved him in this movie- being the hopeless romantic/ teenage girl i am....!) Winslet, another wonderful actress, is doing her best in her own role, but this is a more tricky one to make work: Rose is a character that makes a transition- from buttoned up, serious, posh "spoilt brat", as Jack names her, to impulsive, adventurous and sexually liberated young rebel chick. there is nothing wrong with this, of course, but the fact that even if we want to applaud her, we find her character extremely difficult to warm to, let alone grow to like or love. this has, however, probably never been a hinderance to what turned out to be definately a teen girl's movie- who was concentrating on Kate when we have Leo to look at? Other major characters include Rose's angry, idiotic, and completely villainous fiancee, Cal, who is determined to control Rose, in a way written to make any self respecting feminist's sight turn red with rage. Billy Zane plays the role in what i think is irony and humour, but the character is so poorly constructed, that even if this is so, his turn is far too broad and characturish, rather than a real performance of any kind. Also, there is Rose's mother (i'm not sure of the actress's name) another shameful steriotype (after watching this, i soon seriously started doubting if james Cameron's writing skills could ever possibly extend beyond borrowing a tragic historic event and placing a collection of cliches to bounce and react off one another in a ridiculous way) this time, of the cold, distant, and selfish mother, with little thought or feeling for others, and who is mainly motivated by money and rich husbands.

(it's no wonder Rose was about to commit suicide, when placed in such company)

However, this movie truly comes into it's own in when, as I mentioned, events reach their penultimate, inevitable conclusion, and that fateful night that the titanic collided with the Iceberg. In a gripping, heart wrenching hour long sequence, the love story finally takes back seat, and Cameron paints a portrait of the Titanic's last few hours above water. Indeed, this movie is well, well, WELL worth watching if only for this ending. I have never met someone who wasn't movied to tears by this film... however, i don't think i've ever met someone who was moved to tears by the love story's tragic conclusion. The fact that the enormity, horror and tragedy of the Titanic's sinking actually took place capsizes (forgive the allusion) the love story, which now more than ever feels synthetic, fake and trivial.

No, the tears I shed for this film were for the musicians who played "Nearer my God to Thee" as the ship sank. My tears were for the Irish thirdclass woman and her two children, as she tucks them into bed for the last time, becuase she knows there are no life boats for them. my tears were for the old couple who lie in bed, together, peaceful, and ready for death. it is in these scenes that the film displays incredible, beautiful and tragic humanity and greatness.

Edward Scissorhands (1990)

Words can't describe the magic of this movie (small spoiler)

[5 March 2004]

Edward scissorhands is one of the most beautiful films of all time. Although I have not seen all of Tim Burtons' films, I feel certain that it is humanly impossible for him to create a greater film than this. It is a magical, fantastical, tragic fairy tale for all ages (i know that that phrase is attached to hundreds of undeserving movies, but trust me: this film is incredible.) Johny Depp, in one of his greatest ever performances, is moving, childlike, and funny in this off-beat role, playing Edward, a misfit and outsider (with shards of metal for hands), who enters a small village community and is taken in by a kindly family. This film speaks to anyone who has ever felt isolated, different, or lonely. It's a beautiful, beautiful movie. You will never see another movie at all like this masterpiece. watch it. you will laugh, you will cry, you will fall under its' spell.

Oliver! (1968)

*shudders incontrollably*

[5 March 2004]

I loathe, despise, and hate this film more than the inadequate medium of words ever could communicate.

I mean, the songs SUCK. like, i love musicals, i really, really do, but i mean..... im sorry but i've never heard such terrible songs. Lionel Bart is hardly fit to be called a composer, particularly when he has never bothered himself in his entire career to learn how to write music, instead opting to hum his dubiously named 'songs' to someone who actually has aquired the skill of musical manuscript, who will then in turn actually do the writing down. The cast are also detestable for the most part, if not by themselves then they become so when they are pared up with the bad screenplay, which robs the harrowing Charles Dickens tale 'oliver twist' of any sincerity, poignance, dignity, or indeed any POINT it ever had, while replacing these traits with sacharine sentimentality and, as i before mentioned, a detestably annoying score.

Mark Lester, (who, i note, has all but sunk without trace now that his apparently cute boyhood features are gone) is (many will obviously disagree with this, but that doesnt make it wrong! lol) completely and utterly irritating in the lead role. I'm not sure if im right in saying this, but his voice sounds like it has been dubbed by a weak voiced woman. Ron Moody, as Fagin, in his career defining role, equals Mark lester in the "totally, neck-wringingly-annoying" performances department. Fagin, an utterly contemptible, evil character in the book, is transformed into what i can only suppose is meant to be a well meaning, charming old man who is forced through unfortunate circumstances to become a pickpocket.... but a tender one, righ to the last. I ended up wanting the ground to open up and swallow him whole.

Jack Wild, as the artful dodger nearly tops these two fine examples of terribleness with his own display. All i'll say is i wanted to smack that weasley faced little runt into the middle of next week by the end of this movie.

proably the WORST thing about this movie (and that's saying something!) is the amount of affection with which it treats itself. It's like a really, really terrible stage act that prances on, takes centre spotlight, and, with arms wide open, proclaims itself incredibly loveable, when, all the while, it is painfully, painfully obvious to the audience that it lacks depth, interest, cuteness, or even something so superficial as charm or charisma.

what adds an unbearable amount of insult to an already unbearably painful injury is that this movie was actually awarded, among others, a best picture oscar. This single, but unmistakeable, and certainly unforgiveable blunder has rattled, shaken, and dislodged my faith in the academy horribly.

The Water Babies (1978)

Buttock clenchingly terrible

[1/10 · 29 February 2004]

I loathe, despise, and hate this film with a passion that makes the red hot gates of hell look cold by comparison. it's nothing but a campy, frightening, and completly shoddy trip down memory lane to that oh-so-nasty time, the 70's, a decade im glad i wasnt a part of if this absolute trite is all that was on offer!

the animation is sickeningly dated, not least of all with it's tacky, missing frames, and characters with huge, bulbous heads, this film is an eye-sore. from the knowing, snide nod to the parents with the freakily gay sea horse, and it's camp hand motions and kenneth williams-esque voice, to the overtly, unsubtly druggy anthem, High Cockalorum, this film, im sad to say, is one that was forced upon me as a child and i have never fully recovered from the terror it caused me....

This ghastly display of complete terribleness should carry an R rated certificate, so disturbing it is in it's contents!

Moulin Rouge! (2001)

Inspired, inspirational, cinematic Joy

[10/10 · 24 February 2004]

this is probably one of my favourite movies of all time. that isn't to say that everyone will love it as I do, of course... It is definately the type of movie that divides people into two classes: those who absolutely love, cherish, and adore it, and those who absolutely loathe, hate and despise it. count me into the former.

To me, Baz luhrmann (the visionary, slightly mad director behind Romeo + Juliet) has created one of the rarest, most precious and beautiful gems of cinema, ever. The performances (a fizzling, sparkling cinematic pairing of the ever wonderful Ewan Mcgregor, and the heartbreaking, beautiful Nicole Kidman being the central ones), the sets, the costumes, the story, the themes, the music, and everything else that makes up this movie is sumptuous to the senses, overflowing with colour, emotion, energy, beauty and power. Luhrmann, who wrote the screenplay himself, along with Craig Pierce, (with whom he had already collaborated with on both his previous movies, Romeo + Juliet, and Strictly Ballroom) has admitted himself, that the movie is not aiming to be "psychologically thick". rather, it is a surreal, emotional journey, beautifully scripted, that aims not for realism, but "truth" of feeling. full of little gems (The scene inwhich Christian comes up with the refrain "the hills are alive with the sound of music" is a lovely example) and hundreds of truly show-stopping sequences, such as the incredibly intense "El tango de roxanne" scene, inwhich Christian's jealousy and anger towards his lover satine are brought to incredibly to the fore, through vigourous, erotic dancing, and swelling climax. Though this movie is notorious for it's MTV style quick cutting and fast paced, wild visuals and cinematography, I think it is infact not appreciated enough for what lends the film its heart and soul: the love story.The sequences set in the infamouse Moulin Rouge itself are, indeed, faced paced and exhilerating (perhaps to some, nauseating). however, Luhrmann steps up and down the pace of the camera. Even if at times it distracts some viewers with its restless, snappy cutting, it also becomes poetic and tender, if never quite stopping its' beautiously surreal movement and viewpoints. I've never been lifted higher out of my cinema seat than the joyeous scenes of the lovers duets "The elephant love medley" or "come what may". At points, the swelling emotion and magic is truly incredible, the emotional highs and lows the movie takes you on are truly amazing.This movie is a pulsating, touching, moving, funny, musical, tragic and wondrous work, that revolves around an age old theme: love, celebrating it and exciting all those whom it speaks, or perhaps sings to.

Starry Night (1999)

the perfect example of just how bad a movie can get...

[1/10 · 23 February 2004]

I'm not quite sure how i managed to see this film... Ah yes, i remember. My brother gave it to me as a joke christmas present, because he, having seen it, and repeatedly describing to me just how terrible it was, wanted me to confirm just how right he was.

He was right. The acting, writing, and general execution of this project is so bad, that it is comical to watch. From the first scene with dialogue, it becomes evident that this is going to be an arduous film to watch. The laughably clunking, cliche ridden script, electric keyboard soundtrack, and useless cinematography are topped in awfulness only by the shudderingly bad performances, and rather than a haunting feeling of mystique playing the viewers minds, there is a decided feeling of "what street corner did they scoop these people off?" Abbot Alexander, cast as the flesh creeping "hero" of this piece, is, admittedly, well cast: that is, he is if the makers intended for Vincent Van Gogh to come across as a semi irish, partially swedish, and occasionally glaswegian maniac, prancing around the streets of Hollywood, charitably donating money to "all the starving artists" of the world. And, judging by his performance, one wanders whether this was not what they intended). One can only suppose that he is meant to warm our hearts with his love and idealism, and his apparently selfless actions during his 100 day stay in the modern world. (no remembrance in sight for the general concensus that Van Gogh was, infact, an insane, often violent, and manic depressive homosexual, as opposed to a cuddly, loveable and most definately hetereosexual rogue, with an admirably eccentric lifestyle.) As his love interest, Cathy, (or, as Vincent incessantly, and infuriatingly refers to her: Cat-hee) Lisa waltz displays little to no amount of warmth or affection for her lover; instead, swans around, almost disjointedly, and remaining remarkably undisturbed or otherwise alarmed by her lover's sinister movements, creepy manner, or, worst of all, his frightening mascara. She delivers lines with fatigue and melodrama in equal measure, perhaps (one cannot be sure) experimenting with attempts to compensate for the shockingly stupid dialogue and motivations allotted to her character. However, neither of these two ghastly displays of so-called acting are quite up to challenging Sally Kirkland for the place of "most terrible performance". In the role of the tough, cynical and art detective Brooke Murphy (each introduction she gives to herself in the movie, including her listing all her achievements as an art detective, as well as the scenes inwhich she explains the psychology of "art terrorists" are hilarious) who chases after Vincent throughout the film, She displays a humourless amount of overacting, smouldering with an unreal amount of hatred and anger towards most living beings, particularly Vincent Van Gogh. On the other hand, of course, hers is admittedly, by far the most entertaining performance. Indeed, watching this actress take the possibilities of awfulness in acting to new heights is an all at once engrossing, horrifying, and hilarious spectacle.

But perhaps I have been too cruel. Starry night is, if notihng else, a brave, and might I add, ambitious project, which, with the possible exception of Liza waltz, the cast and crew have approached with incredible enthusiasm. some moments, are, infact,

beggaring in belief ( watch out for margo the peasant woman's most exceptionally weird wink at Vincent, in the first scene). And, for all it's faults (and there be many) starry night is almost , (almost) endearingly terrible. Or, then again, perhaps it is a clever, almost ingenious, but ultimately failed marketing attempt: make a movie so

indescribably awful (ala The Producers) that it will draw in so much incredulous disbelief, and cause audiences to make second, third, or even fourth trips to the cinema, to confirm it's existance.