johnhuxter Reviews

Equilibrium (2002)

Why waste your time with this when there are SO many better films it has copied?

[2/10 · 3 July 2009]

OK, first the good. The cinematography was excellent, and there were sequences which, in a better film, would take your breath away (the battle illuminated by the strobe-light effect of the gun-flashes was definitely memorable). Despite the obvious attempts to replicate some of the show-stoppers from The Matrix, I appreciate a film where you actually get to see the action, instead of having it cut-to-hell to merely give the impression (Star Trek or Quantum of Solace, anyone?) Now the bad. Like special effects, cinematography cannot save a truly dire film where the scenarios are unbelievable, the acting is wooden, and there isn't a single character you can connect with. In fact, the "big-effect" shots look laughably out of place. I'm used to suspending disbelief for a good sci-fi romp, but the whole "gun-fu" concept was just stupid, and no amount of high-speed filming can make it otherwise.

Christian Bale is a good actor, but here he flounders, probably due to heavy-handed direction. His character is supposed to be smart, but he couldn't make his "off the meds" status more obvious, even knowing that the penalty for feeling emotion is death! Keanu Reeves might be a dire actor, but he hit his stride in The Matrix, and even I became interested in Neo's voyage of discovery. The same can't be said of Bale's stilted - and frankly hypocritical - "cleric". Overall, the plagiarism from The Matrix, released 3 years earlier, is obvious and painful. My god, they even copied the cover art!

I also found it... well, boring. A good director and good actors can express so much in a single look, a 5-second frame. I was in agony waiting for scenes to end where the message was clear 10 minutes ago. I know he was upset by the death of his wife - for Christ's sake, don't beat us over the head with it!

There are many other flaws with this movie, covered by other reviews. Don't get me wrong - I'm a big sci-fi fan. Bladerunner, The Empire Strikes Back, Alien/s, The Matrix, Gattica, The Fifth Element, Serenity - these any many more are brilliant examples of the genre.

But that's the problem - once you've seen the greats, you just can't be bothered wasting your time with unoriginal knockoffs like Equilibrium.

A Christmas Carol (1951)

Few omissions, but too many dreary additions to Dickens' tale

[5/10 · 29 December 2004]

I have only recently seen this much-loved version of the story, so I do not have the benefit of childhood tradition to colour my view of it. I am a much greater fan of Ronald Neame's 1970 musical starring Albert Finney, and I will use this version for comparison. Fans of the 1951 film by Brian Desmond Hurst may be offended by what I'm about to write!

Firstly, this black and white classic does include the majority of the scenes from Dicken's original - the musical has had a few scenes cut. I'm not sure if the inclusion of the scenes particularly helps the plot along, but they do tend to be the darker sequences, like the pawning of Scrooges possessions after his death. Including these darker scenes is good in historical respect, but bad in other ways, as I will explain.

Both versions of the story feature "added" scenes. Neame's musical includes the infamous "hell" scene. But Hurst's 1951 version suffers most from additions, because they are protracted, dreary, and push the story down a route Dicken's probably had not intended. Two scenes in particular serve no purpose other than to convince us what a truly ruthless, heartless man Scrooge is. This is not a pathetic man with whom sympathy is possible. He is cunning, and does not value honesty - even in business matters - and anxiously waits for his partners death.

The added sequences with the ghost of Christmas past occupy an enormous chunk of the film, and literally suck the life out of it. The interposing of a maid in Scrooge's "awakening" scene also seems to drag it out and adds nothing. This is a private revelation in the text, not one shared with non-existent household staff. He is, after all, a miser!

The casting and the sets were not entirely appropriate. Sims' Scrooge was overdone in his evil behaviour, and yet somehow unconvincing in both it and his transformation at the end. Perhaps his eyes were a little too big and sad for such a wicked man. Perhaps he wasn't that good at expressing ecstasy. Perhaps both. But having gone through pains to convince us of his completely wicked nature, director Hurst leaves little room for joy at his transformation. Albert Finney's far more lively and convincing Scrooge was miserable and mean to be sure, but also pathetic and in turns comical, as Dickens wrote him. I can only believe that Alastair Sim "is Scrooge" to many simply because they grew up with his interpretation. Having read the book, he does not capture the depth of the character at all.

Hurst's Bob Cratchit was rather portly for such a poor man, and his household appeared at least as opulent as Fezziwigs offices - a grave error in my opinion. The contrast with Bob Cratchit's cramped but cheery household is made perfectly clear in Neame's 1970 version, and Cratchit himself is appropriately "trim", and inspiringly jovial in the face of his adversity - again, so important in Dickens' novel. Once again, this is an area where Hurst seems to have failed to convey the spirit of Christmas as well as others.

All that said, the city street sets and costumes were quite good, and the other supporting cast were adequately played. I think the Ghost of Jacob Marley was more true to form in this version than in the musical, though I confess I found Alec Guiness' interpretation a delight.

In summary, I'd give this version of A Christmas Carol the advantage for inclusion of more of the original text by Charles Dickens. However, the added scenes build upon those darker scenes to create a version which is ponderous and largely devoid of joy and wit until the very end. There are several better adaptations of the tale than this one, and make better use of adaptation to capture Dickens' "spirit".

Scrooge (1970)

A wonderful memorable adaptation - highly recommended!

[10/10 · 23 December 2004]

Christmas films, like Christmas songs, are a hugely personal choice, and depend so much on childhood experience. But this is one film which does not lose it's charm, no matter how often I see it. The songs, sets and costumes are fantastic, the acting is inspired, and the musical scenes are beautifully choreographed. In fact, there is no other Christmas film, which has contributed so many songs to my Christmas repertoire! The fact that this version is an English production also helps considerably in the credibility department - the accents are authentic.

Aside from the scene in "hell", this film is admirably true to the spirit and content of Dicken's text, with some inevitable cuts which frankly, I didn't miss. More importantly, I have seen no other version which manages to combine the miserable qualities of Scrooge with the touches of wit and humour which Dickens so skillfully wrote with. Other versions of the film so often succeed at being dour, while failing to capture the joyous aspects of the story, and the humour Scrooge himself sometimes provides. Happily, this version Succeeds at both.

The 1951 version of the film, with Alastair Sim as Scrooge, is often touted as being the best. This may be where my age betrays me, but when I saw it recently, it left me feeling rather flat. Sim did a good job of appearing afraid of the ghosts, but where was his bitterness, skepticism and sarcastic wit? By contrast, Albert Finney's portrayal is a joy to watch - you cannot help but both love and hate the miserable old creature, which makes his transformation at the end all the more joyous.

Highlights...

The clever use of songs like "Father Christmas" and "Thank You Very Much" to convey very different sentiments at the end of the film than they do when first introduced in eaarlier scenes - marvelous!

Albert Finney, as the hilariously miserable Scrooge, singing "I hate People"

Alec Guinness as a truly original ghost of Jacob Marley - fantastic!

Kenneth More's Ghost of Christmas Present - what presence, what a costume!

Laurence Naismith as the exuberant Fezziwig - exactly as he should be, and a good dancer too!

Edith Evans (Elderly Ghost of Christmas Past), in response to Scrooge's "You don't look like a ghost", primly replying "Thank You!".

Mrs. Cratchhit's scream of shock when she realises who is delivering the enormous turkey to her door! I could watch it a hundred times!

...and too many others to mention. This movie was released on DVD this year - by all means see it!