Reviews

The 70's seemed to be a rather good year for classic crime movies; Dirty Harry, Get Carter and The French Connection (all 71) The Godfather, Parts I and II and numerous others, though not as classic. So it really is a complement that Get Carter, not only widely regarded as one of the British films of all time, happens to be one of the best Crime Movies of the 70's; and yes, one of the best, and most brutal, ever.

The scenery really complements the exceptionally grim atmosphere of the film. The cinematography is damn near perfect; dark alleyways, open, rainy sea, smoky pubs and cobbled paths. But what really shines is the exceptional performance from Michael Caine, playing as a man loyal, and caring, to his family: and mercilessly sadistic to everyone else.

It opens with him viewing an array of pornography clips (which play a huge part to the plot in this film) with a variety of crime partners, bosses, and whores, and then his journey up to Newcastle where he finds, unexpectedly his brother in a coffin. Sounds cheery, eh? He's determined to find out who did it, even if it means gagging naked women and injecting them to death, leaving them in trunks and watching them fall to sea, torturing two men before killing them (with a chisel, and pushing another off a building) being mean, seedy and unpleasant and having sex in his spare time.

I won't spoil it, but the main point that strings the whole thing together is a punch to the gut and a kick in the teeth. It is in a nasty, horrible, unbearable scene to watch: but it stands as the best. After so long with a character who seems to care for nothing, and thrives on violence, you will be shocked to see him shed a tear. And, amazingly, even more so than the frankly graphic material that has gone before it.

More gritty than Dirty Harry, much more intriguing than The French Connection, less polished than The Godfather (this film has practically zero music, which really adds to the atmosphere) and more bleak, gritty and fantastic than all of them, this still remains a cult movie, but a classic all the same.

**** out of ****

And just so you know, I am not the sort who sees every movie over 30 years old as "boring". I love cop films- particularly ones that have some of the "greatest chase scenes ever made" and narcotics cops. I love Dirty Harry, the old westerns, Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Apocalypse Now and Do the Right thing. And this comment goes without any arrogance- I think I pretty much like the really "good" films in general- or at least can appreciate their good acting or script, even if it isn't my cup of tea. For example, "The African Queen".

But this was a sloppy, dull, SLOW, incoherent poorly done mess. Yes, a mess. I quite pity Roger Ebert giving this 4 out of 4. My lord, am I the only one who noticed that a chase scene begins at night and finishes in broad daylight? Did they run all night? They must have superb stamina. It could barely hold my attention, but not because not loads was going on- I can appreciate films with a slow build up where the director seems to actually know what was going on. But here? I think not. How on earth- and I really mean this- did this win Oscars for best screenplay, picture, editing and direction? OK, Gene Hackman did well with his awful script. But please, Dirty Harry was a far more interesting, well written, directed, character driven movie- an action film, sure, but one that shows how a normal cop can turn into an obsessive wreck over one criminal. Sure, Gene Hackman hated druggies with a passion in this film, but not in nearly as engrossing fashion.

Seriously, this is a huge warning, MISS THIS FILM. Its a drab mess.

4 out of 10

Forget any other typical "action siege" movies in your mind now. Forget the clumsy remake of this film, a disaster. And forget the modern sort of "teen horror" movies that are supposedly shockingly scary and tense. Love action films? This is for you. Love dramas? This is for you. Love horror? This is for you. Love great films altogether? Yep, this is for you.

But that fine recommendation doesn't come without warning. Yes, technically this is an ideal Friday/Saturday night movie to watch with a bowl of popcorn. But prepare to lose it all by throwing it up in the air in the more extreme moments of shock, shocking violence and terror. And be warned: they come quite often.

"So what's going on? Why is this such a great, but dark film? And is it action? They're not normally scary." Forget that notion.

So the film: Ethan Bishop (Austin Stoker) for reasons too inane to really mention (basically, he gets sent to a closed precinct to watch it shut down) gets unintentionally involved in a gang war started by sadistic, brutal thugs. How come?- because the father of a young white girl who gets murdered seeks revenge upon the gang, giving chase and manages to kill just one. He then runs for his life into the closed precinct 13 (where our protagonist is) and while he is talking mumbled gibberish in a state of fear, a ruthless attack from the gang begins upon the police station. Sound scary? You've no idea.

Due to illness, however, a bus full of criminals has to stop at the Precinct to get help before the contagious cough of one of the passengers spreads and infects. Ironically, the only form of help to Ethan, a secretary lady and her annoying friend comes in the hands of two widely hated criminals- Napoleon Wilson (Darwin Joston) and his black inmate- giving a nervous dark bit of humour to this otherwise awful tale.

From there, the tension really picks up. One reason why this films succeeds so much is it does a lot with so little. (I believe) it is low budget, and much of the film (certainly the second half) takes place in near complete darkness- adding to the always present feeling that no matter how hopeful things are going, something awful is always lurking along the way. One of the reasons why this film earned its "supposed" '18' rating in the UK is surely because of what relies on the imagination of the viewer, rather than any other visual elements.

And the acting- superb. All of the characters seem to act effortlessly, with real genuine fear, really bringing out the best in the awesome script. Assault on Precinct 13 (due to the cold subject matter of murder, sadism and terror) shouldn't be- but it is what it is- a treat.

**** out of ****

Nothing really, at least in my opinion, matches an old Clint Eastwood western. You know what to expect; violent interludes, smart talking and of course, smart shooting.

Well, it's back to basics here: Sombre, yet good guy Clint, is a drifter, who "happens" to stumble across a small little town in the west that, surprisingly, (for those times) knows very little about guns, or self defence. So, it's a blessing from God when gun-smart Eastwood comes in, teaches them how to defend, and in reward for his efforts, gets anything he wants on the house.

But, cleverly, as well as helping them, he exposes them, for the nasty, brutish, greedy people they really are. In his mind (unkown to the rest) he's only there to kill off the three guys who bull whipped the "Marshal" to death all that time ago.

Brilliant. That's the word that pretty much correctly describes this piece of cinema. It's brutal, ugly work, venturing further into the horrible times of the west- but it's a clever, groundbreaking piece of cinema nevertheless.

**** out of **** (4 out of 4)

No, not necessarily the show.

The fact that so many people say how bad this show is and what rubbish actors Mary-Kate and Ashley are and then loads of them compliment that rubbish show 'The Suite Life'. Maybe this is more of a review of that show, but C'MON! The Suite Life sucks! The acting is diabolical, the jokes are beyond bad and it simply isn't entertaining. This is far, far better.

For one thing the concept it more adult. Many of the jokes are daring and on the whole are far better. This is cool; everyone stop loving 'The Suite Life' and start liking this.

The Suite Life sucks.

As is the case with me, first viewings can be deceptive. The first time I have watched many different films people have raved about, I have been left feeling disappointed (as was the case with 'Memento'). I have expected so much more, and on the second viewing, I know what to expect, so it seems to make it better. But, for better, nothing is what it seems with 'Memento'. This is both disturbing, hilarious, violent and thoughtful.

Leanord (aka Sammy Jenkins- in my view, anyway) is a psychological wreck. He writes notes and gives himself tattoos to keep memories and 'play detective' for the ultimate reason: to avenge the rape and murder of his wife.

Surprisingly, it sounds a lot worse than it is. This may have a dark subject matter, and bear some of the worse language ever put on film, but this is both original and funny. Done end to beginning, Memento is brilliant.

**** out of ****

I cannot remember a recent "Steven Segal" movie in the cinema, or anywhere near publicised. The last one even close was "Half Past Dead", a mediocre yet fun action flick about Alacatraz if my memory serves correctly.

I rented "Belly of The Beast" for some Friday-night fun. And that is exactly what I got. Endlessly terrible and cheesy but fantastic at the same time, this is Steven Segal reaching new lo's in acting but highs in martial arts and action sequences. He kicks the hell out of anything he see's in bloodthirsty fashion, in some very inventive and surprisingly sadistic fashion (in one scene, he pushes a guy in hugely OTT fashion across a line of fish in ice-cubes into a meat hook- the '15' UK certificate is questionable). But still, this manages to be fun.

The plot is non-existent, as it turns in predictably bad fashion in any excuse to get Segal fighting, but this is hopeful- it proves this 50 year old overweight guy may have something left in him.

3 out of 5

Look at the above summary, then question: "What the heck kinda line is that?" Well, despite the fact that that is exactly what I thought, no-one can deny that "Casablanca" is a timeless classic, and a deserved one, too. Anybody who appreciates films should see this immediately, considering how epic in scope it is, and how likable it still remains to be. Yes, Casablanca really is marvellous.

But why? Well, the plot goes like this: Rick Blaine (Humphrey Bogart) runs a saloon, and a popular one, too. He's accompanied by Sam, his singer on the piano (one of the films main great features: the musical score) right at the start of the second world war. One day, his ex-lover walks in the door, accompanied with her husband. Rick sinks into oblivion, alcohol his only friend.

A curiously simple set up, but a marvellous romance- you really can feel the passion and chemistry between the two stars, as events unfold and destiny takes its course.

Funny and epic, the best of all time.

**** out of ****

Citizen Kane (according to the American Film Institute) is the greatest film ever made. Though I cannot comment fairly on that (I haven't even seen half of the nominated 100) I can assure any readers one thing: Citizen Kane is marvellous. I am not simply following the crowd, as I thought one to many official movie reviewers were doing. I agree with them; Citizen Kane lives up to the hype, just about.

I heard from a few average (but movie-loving) people that they thought Citizen Kane was good, but not superb or as good as it was supposed to be. I read so many great reviews, and really did think the reviewers were simply afraid to put this historic film out of place. I apologise: Citizen Kane is nearly perfect, and were it not for some small details in the second half of the film, it would be.

Nearly everything is spot on. The musical score, in particular, is the best I've ever seen. The film has charisma, charm. The acting is impeccable. The script fantastic. It's epic. And all done by a 25-year-old, which really gives it full marks.

And especially for the time, it must have been incredible. The cinematography, the landmark qualities, everything was so original and new. But in the final half hour, deeper insight is necessary. We are left hanging on a thread, wondering especially after some incidents how the newsroom is going. We know little of Kane newspapers, though the dilemmas in his personal life are particularly well played out.

Top banana, this is.

**** out of **** (4 out of 4)

This is a truly patriotic movie, and guess what: not even half of America probably likes it. It's got a dunce as the protagonist, who, for sentimentality reasons talks slowly, he's got your typical, advice-giving all-American mother, references to the Vietnam war and America's greatness and, of course, an all to frequently appearing love story.

Yep, that's Forrest Gump.

Coincidentilly appearing in many historical times, never funny (maybe save the 'Watergate' incident) these soon tire. It's simply done too many times, and each occurrence is as crap as the last. Many people have stated this an 'entertaing, heartwarming tale'. Are you watching the same film, with references to paedophilia, incest, war violence, death, cancer and drug addiction, all through the eyes of a disabled person. Heartwarming?

Well, no. This film may have been entertaining were it not so sad. It's got many occasions where you could watch happily. But everything bad in the film you've seen at the times it could be entertaining stick with you. The incest, the paedophilia, the drug use, the attempted suicide. It sticks with you.

Bad things happen to often in this film, and it's justified by Gump's idiotic nature.

I'll give it a ** out of **** for few moments of entertainment and savour.

'Hitchhikers Guide' lives up to its hype and more: surpasses it. Garth Jennings mercilessly (psycologically, of course) beats the late Douglas Adams into creating a film so truly original, no book could ever guide it. Jennings had a vision, and just about everything about it was correct.

Arthur (Martin Freeman- the office) just wants to sit in his quiet little country home and drink tea. That is, until he finds news of a new bypass, that is! His mate Ford Prefect hatches them onto a ride, one of the many massive ships covering the world, sadly run by terrible (but superbly done) creatures: Vogons.

To cut short, this film works so well because it is truly wacky, and, at parts, truly hilarious. Sit and enjoy.

***/ out of **** (3 and a half out of 4)

It's hard to believe 'Braveheart' a fantastic, emotional and hugely involving film, is ten years old. I only realised yesterday, when I re watched it, and noticed what a splendid film it is: not yet has there been a sword/medieval film so emotionally involving, brutal with a true message. Lame recent attempts such as 'Troy' haven't shown this, and don't even get me talking about the dreadfully box-office aimed 'King Arthur'; this is a great revenge flick, and an even better medieval sword classic.

Mel Gibson is just a small child named William when his father dies. Already the film has your emotions running. Then, when he is an adult, his wife, whom he obviously deeply loves, is raped, beaten and killed, all in horrific detail. What a light opening thirty minutes.

No. This film isn't light. If you expected some clichéd fairytale classic you were wrong. This is stark, brutal cold: a mean, but effect, medieval film.

So William kills them all in surprisingly brutal fashion (pushing the bars of the films '15' certificate) and immediately changes his choice of revenge; he now wants to free the whole of Scotland.

His unexplained change in motives is fine. No-body cares since the sets are so realistic, so well done, you feel you are taken into this world. Mel Gibson acts with all emotion, as do the others: they really do, in their own modern lives, probably want some freedom. It may sound preposterous, but how on earth could these actors act so convincingly? Maybe Merlin waved his wand and had a say?

The fights are brutal, graphic, squeamish may well want to look away. But it is commendable and fine enough. Gibson, who directs, wants to show how terrible, dirty and down right insane these times were. He even admits, as his character, that both sides are savages. Despite the bias is towards Scotland, it carefully weaves in another message: no side is better, or right or wrong.

The love story between Gibson and the French princess may be a little short and unnecessary, but it can be forgiven.

***/ out of **** (3 and a half out of 4)

Both 'Bad Taste' and 'Braindead' (both horror comedies) have obviously inspired the Spierig brothers, Michael and Peter, but comparisons are not necessary. 'Undead' is its own movie: a blood spattering, one-liner comedy gore fest, with blood and laughs both frequent.

It is hilarious opening: the fact that this movie is horror is obvious, but the set up and background movie are like that of a happy rural sitcom. But first glances may well be deceptive. Meteores strike rapidly, causing chaos, as well as blowing up an old lady.

Miss 'Catch of the day' is on her way out of the little Australian fishing village, but her trip comes to a halt when a meteorite stops the trip and no later and zombie kills her driver. But then local weirdo farmer Marion (in an obvious Clint Eastwood spoof) pulls out a three shotgun, er, shotgun and blows the zombie body apart in hilariously gory detail, leaving an even funnier sequence- a walking spine, resembling that of a tall headless chicken.

They are forced to hide out in his heavily protected farmhouse as well as others (including a foul mouthed cop) who seems to swear unnecessarily, but has some brilliant lines: "I'll f*ckin finish you off faster than a f*ckin birthday cake at a fat chicks f*ckin party!" or "in our day, we respected our parents: we didn't f*ckin eat em!"

In short, Undead is an enjoyable horror comedy with occasional flashes of sly genius to keep everyone happy.

*** out of **** (3 out of 4)

Where 'Apocalypse' fails, it delivers. I heard someone suggest a 'PG-13' would be favourable as a marketing suggestion, but thank god, that was shoved aside. This is uncut, and because of that, this delivers. Though this may be pretty terrible by and large, it is huge fun to watch. The action sequences deliver incredibly.

With no real motive but to get the zombies and humans fighting, the action starts unrealistically but manages to hold the attention. On occasion, this manages to be cool, though the flaws are so unbelievably obvious it seems credit to the director to even pretend they're not there. To much detail is unnecessary, and will probably prove notice to how bad this is.

And though the script is simply silly Mike Epps is great to add comedy to the supposedly 'scary' backup. Some of the characters decisions are so utterly ridiculously unexplained it turns into unintentional comedy. The characters have no motives: they're doing the script, nothing more. Oh well.

It still manages to be pretty stylish though, but never scary. It is, despite it's constant violence, hardly gory. But it is violent.

Forgotten, overdone, melodramatic, terribly scripted... yet curiously enticing.

**/ out of **** (2 and a half out of 4)

In 1984, little known director James Cameron picked up little known body building muscle man Arnold Schwarzenegger for a sci fi action movie 'The Terminator'. In short, both do very good jobs: Cameron, with his excellent provision of special effects and action sequences, and Arnold, expertly playing the terminator: an emotionless killing machine.

For the time, and even now, this film is nearly startlingly brutal. Less slow than 'Alien' and more in your face, this is a no-holds, dark piece of work, as this piece of human metal performs hideous operations and cold bloodily (yes, the Terminator has blood) kills innocent (or not so innocent) beings.

This film was a landmark for it's time, a lot to do with the special effects. Maybe less so impressive today, but the action sequences are frequent, and frequently impressive. This is tense, exciting stuff, from the word go. We care for our characters, but in a strange way, this Terminator has likable qualities: it manages to be so insensitive, yet so undeniably unstoppably cool.

Where this film faults is general errors. They may be little, and not hold back the entertainment value, but do stick out like a knife in the back. (Note: James Cameron directed 'The Titanic', check this website for goofs!) For instance, the tension is unintentionally held back in one scene where our heroin desperately shoves a quarter into a phone box and dials 911. Since when is money needed for emergency calls?

Still, this is brutal and effective: a classic, and still today, it remains and very solid, if faulted, movie.

***/ out of **** (3 and a half out of 4)

Alien is classic for a few reasons. For one: it is a rare beast, so emotionally and incredibly involving that when you stop watching it you have to emerge from the world you were in. Two: it defined the genre, a gory space horror that remains shocking today. And three: it is one of the greatest films of all time.

We know little about the Nostromo when it first appears in that isolated place called space: only that it has 7 passengers and is heading towards earth. We are soon introduced to the characters, already on a mission as they receive a distress call from an unknown planet. A few are reluctant to go, but they are forced to (mainly because of the incredibly dominating Ash) unaware of the horror that awaits them...

I guess human instinct and interest must have got the best of them, because instead of instantly fleeing and at the sight of a beast that was once alive (that stands an enormous hight) they enter it. Then do they flee? No. They go deeper. And deeper.

Squeamish people may very well want to keep what I say in mind. There is some shocking, jumpy stuff here, making even the hardest jump and genuinely fear for the lives of these fictional characters, despite their evident stupidity. A pillow may be handy nearby.

Though we don't know why at the time, Ash develops a huge interest in these aliens, and seems completely intent on keeping them alive, unaware of the immense danger it will lead these passengers to live through. Despite having a face-hugger strapped across his face Kane (John Hurt) is let through without being bacteria-free checked, endangering the others more than himself. The chest burster scene will prove my point.

The thing is, though this may not seem incredible, there just isn't a lot wrong with it. The script, acting and storyline are brilliant, and the tension is unbelievable and, nearing the end, unbearable. The constant feeling of fear twists in the pit of your stomach, and though the outcome may be slightly evident, you can't help feeling genuine fear and sorrow for these people and hope for their survival.

Along with that, it ask interesting political questions, aimed at government agencies and other undercover special forces. I wish not to reveal these (mainly for public enjoyment) but keep an ear close and handy and you will see what I mean. It is both daring and intelligent.

Sigourny Weaver (playing Ripley) is incredible, her performance completely real and believable. This film is not isolated like the characters stuck in it: this is a bold, in your face film that demands seeing. A masterpiece of modern (and old) cinema.

**** out of **** (4 out of 4)

I was hugely pessimistic about Taxi, said to be one of the worst remakes in recent memory, but seeing as it was about the last thing at the video shop, I decided to pick it out. It couldn't be that bad, could it?

Well, no. In fact, it's not half bad, considering the terrible reputation it has. Jimmy Fallon may not be the greatest actor, but he's got some pretty decent one-liners, though it's Queen Latifah who summons the most laughs. And it's got a shot of models wearing revealing clothing (including one incredibly ludicrous strip search) to keep audiences happy. Laugh, laugh again, and forget.

7 out of 10

'Freddy Vs. Jason' sounds like the sort of dreadful casted straight-to-video movie with nothing to offer but a horrendous script and OTT acting. Well, I can be sure to say that, on the basis of this film, you should never judge a book by its cover. Why? Because when you get past the weak points this film is superbly gory super Friday-night fun.

With no real motive but to get the two demons on the screen, Freddy Kruger wants to kill some more harmless kiddies. In order to get back in their dreams, he resurrects Jason Voorhees to do some killing as well.

Bodies of harmless teens begin to pile up in increasingly horrific and deliriously inventive ways, including an almighty beast of a bed crusher and just slicing with the tip of Jason's super sharp swords.

It would sound bad to any film respecting person, but believe me, it is far from. It is tremendous fun guessing who and how will the victims die next, and the tension even creeps up towards the end to kill the preceding dark vein of gross and downright sadistic humour.

In the end though, this is a marvellously gory treat; funny, gross and huge fun, this is not an Oscar winner, but deserves a shout out nevertheless.

8 out of 10

Platoon puts films like 'We Were Soldiers' 'Tears of the Sun' and 'Windtalkers' to shame. And considering Platoon isn't the best war film of all time, or even excellent, that is saying a lot.

But I'm not writing this review to blaspheme those films. I'm writing to inform; and, if you are willing to view this film, information is required. OK, no: Platoon is not the best war film ever made, or even close. But what it lacks it just about makes up for, with a great script, superb performances from anybody involved and a very emotive anti-war message (for part of the film, anyway).

Chris Taylor (Charlie Sheen) is a newcomer to the war. Living a reasonably middle class life, he joined up, seeing as he was 'educated', to defy expectations of his parents. But he gets more than he bargained for as early as the first week, and that's not even the half of it.

It takes a while for all the real atrocities to appear, but when they do, they really are atrocious. Particularly in a gut-wrenching scene where a man's face is literally reduced to pulp by the end of a gun.

It isn't perfect, however, no matter how ambitious; despite all of the above, I still think a deeper insight was completely necessary. This film being little less than two hours with the amount of explosions that there were proves my point. And if not a little short lived, this film can't really decide what it wants to be; sure, it shows all the horrible things in war, but rather contradicts itself; in the end scene, you realise this film is just as much pro as against. This really does take away some of the effect.

However, at least it isn't sentimental. The sad music does occasionally appear to frequently and in the wrong places, but that can be forgiven. One question to end though: will I remember Platoon? Despite the occasional brilliance and truly powerful scenes, I cannot be sure. If you asked me that about another war film, 'Saving Private Ryan' the answer was a definite yes. The difference is obvious.

8 out of 10

"Stand By Me" strictly categorically, is not great. There are some obvious flaws in sets, dialogue and even the acting. But a presence about the film leaves you feeling plain happy; however, this is not just a feel good movie. It is a classic coming of age comedy that is timelessly perfect that should be viewed by all.

Gordie (Wil Wheaton) is currently undergoing family surgery, after the death of his brother. Chris (perfectly played by River Phenoix) is the tough guy, smoking and cussing frequently. And the two side characters: Teddy (Corey Feldman, funny as heck) and Vern played by Jerry O Connell. What seems like another boring day in the tree house turns into much more...

News of a dead body is around, and the boys have a lead on it. So in a quest of part adventure, part fame, they set out to find it in the woods. A spectacularly funny, fabulous and touching journey follows.

There may be the odd mistake, but the boys do the best they can to be real. And they do. So, so funny, sad and purely lovely, Stand By Me is a timeless classic.

10 out of 10