Rolling Thunder (1977)
Incarcerated in a POW camp for eight years during the Vietnam War, Major Charles Rane returns back home as a national hero and is awarded a silver dollar for every day of his ordeal. Despite the positive press coverage of a returning hero, the reality is far different. Alienated from his family and institutionalised, he sleeps in the garage unable to adjust to normal life. An attack by criminals seeking the silver dollars leaves him maimed and his wife and son dead. He survives the ordeal and seeks revenge, knowing that it will bring him no peace or serve any purpose. It is simply the only option he has.
Incarcerated in a POW camp for eight years during the Vietnam War, Major Charles Rane returns back home as a national hero and is awarded a silver dollar for every day of his ordeal. Despite the positive press coverage of a returning hero, the reality is far different. Alienated from his family and institutionalised, he sleeps in the garage unable to adjust to normal life. An attack by criminals seeking the silver dollars leaves him maimed and his wife and son dead. He survives the ordeal and seeks revenge, knowing that it will bring him no peace or serve any purpose. It is simply the only option he has.
Vigilante and revenge films were big box office in the seventies. What makes Rolling Thunder a cut above the rest is that it was written by Paul Schrader. Overlooked on its initial release this low-budget gem boasts well defined characters and paints a credible picture of the psychological trauma suffered by US veterans. John Flynn's hard-hitting direction, aided by outstandingly performances by William Devane, Linda Haynes and Tommy Lee Jones, bleakly shows three disconnected souls trying to survive in a world that they can no longer function in.
Initially a human drama confronting the issues faced by returning Vietnam soldiers, it suddenly transforms into a brutal, nihilistic revenge film. Paradoxically, violence is never glamorised. It is simply shown as an inevitable consequence. The narrative is aided by Barry DeVorzon soundtrack and Jordan Cronenweth's stark photography. The deadpan script is sparse but still conveys the torment and bleakness of the central protagonists. This is a film with little sentiment although it does explore close friendships that are forged by common experience.
Rolling Thunder is an extremely well-acted, written and crafted film. It touches on many social issues but rather than moralising about them, merely shows them for what they are. The ending is dour and violent but could there have been any other possible outcome that was credible? Although originally scheduled to be released by Twentieth Century-Fox, the studio executives were perturbed by the violence in the final edit and the decision was made to sell it off to American International Pictures. It should also be noted that the lead role was initially offered to Kris Kristofferson.
The Captains (2011)
The Captains is a curious beast. If you’re expecting a traditional documentary where Bill Shatner simply indulges in a standard Q & A with other actors that have portrayed captains within the Star Trek franchise, then you will be disappointed. The Captains is a horse of a different colour entirely. Throughout its ninety minute duration, this documentary veers from personal reflections on acting, muses upon the nature of fame and even touches upon contemplating one’s own mortality. It certainly wasn’t what I was expecting and was subsequently a far more rewarding experience.
The Captains is a curious beast. If you’re expecting a traditional documentary where Bill Shatner simply indulges in a standard Q & A with other actors that have portrayed captains within the Star Trek franchise, then you will be disappointed. The Captains is a horse of a different colour entirely. Throughout its ninety minute duration, this documentary veers from personal reflections on acting, muses upon the nature of fame and even touches upon contemplating one’s own mortality. It certainly wasn’t what I was expecting and was subsequently a far more rewarding experience.
Some viewers may see Mr Shatner as an egotistical one trick pony and this film as a colossal self-indulgence. I do not. I genuinely think that he is a passionate man who has wrestled with the pitfalls of international fame. He certainly is quite candid about times when his popular persona was a burden to him. Through the cross examining of his guests (and that is a very apt term at times) he highlights the parallels of what he has come to terms with. The documentary is somewhat erratic and eclectic yet through all its muddled musings does have points to make.
The interviewees are a curious bunch, to boot. If The Captains does anything, it is to highlight that an actors onscreen persona can often be radically different to their own. Kate Mulgrew discusses how the strong authoritative character she portrayed was the complete opposite of her in her family life. Avery Brooks could not be further from Benjamin Sisko if he tried. A talented pianist and an individual with a clear artistic temperament, his personal reflections are often extremely philosophical and on occasion impenetrable. Yet all of this contributes to the underlying narrative thrust of the documentary. Exactly what impact did being a “captain” have upon each actor.
The Captains is a little too long and languid for the casual viewer. A re-edit would certainly help make it more accessible such an audience. For hardcore Trekkies/Trekkers or those who have a fascination with actors, this documentary is informative and of merit. Bill Shatner is a potent personality. The scenes showing him interacting with fans at conventions and working the crowd are fascinating. I think that he genuinely feels for his audience. Certainly the influence of his fame has become clear to him. He appears to be conspicuously aware of being in his twilight years and wishes to use them as well as he can.
Wild Geese II (1985)
The fortune of British film producer Euan Lloyds took a turn for the worst after the success of The Wild Geese in 1978. Both his subsequent movies The Sea Wolves and Who Dares Wins were critical failures and subject to diminished box office returns. Therefore Wild Geese II was conceived in hope that a new addition to the franchise would prove financially successful and restore Mr. Lloyd’s reputation as a top British producer. Former Bond director, Peter Hunt, was brought on board to oversee the proceedings, along with original star Richard Burton. The screenplay was again by Reginald Rose and soundtrack composed by Roy Budd.
The fortune of British film producer Euan Lloyds took a turn for the worst after the success of The Wild Geese in 1978. Both his subsequent movies The Sea Wolves and Who Dares Wins were critical failures and subject to diminished box office returns. Therefore Wild Geese II was conceived in hope that a new addition to the franchise would prove financially successful and restore Mr. Lloyd’s reputation as a top British producer. Former Bond director, Peter Hunt, was brought on board to oversee the proceedings, along with original star Richard Burton. The screenplay was again by Reginald Rose and soundtrack composed by Roy Budd.
However the production soon encountered problems, due to Burton's ill health. His role had to be substantially re-written to accommodate his lack of mobility. Thus the concept of the sniper was conceived as a plot device. Burton's death in August 1984 was major impediment but the production was too far forward to be cancelled. So Edward Fox was quickly secured to play the role of Burton's brother, Alex Faulkner. Story has it that the actor took the role to finance an extension to his home. It is also rumoured that the second lead was to be played but Lewis Collins but the role was deemed too similar to that he played in Who Dares Wins. The character then eventually evolved into a vehicle for Scott Glenn.
Upon release Wild Geese II was a box office failure. The story about a plot to rescue Rudolph Hess from Spandau prison was intriguing but poorly executed. The casting of Laurence Olivier as Hess was a bold idea but doesn’t quite work. The action scenes are shot in a very unflattering style and seem very hastily assembled. The contrast between principle photography and second unit direction is quite noticeable, clearly indicating that the film had a troubled production. Yet despite such flaws it is not devoid of any redeeming qualities. Wild Geese II serves as an interesting "snapshot" of the Cold War and a partitioned Berlin. It also features British actor, Derek Thompson, coming to yet another unpleasant cinematic end.
Wild Geese II is a subtly different film from its predecessor. It is more of an espionage thriller than an action film. It really needs to be viewed on its own merit, rather than in a direct comparison to its predecessor. It touches on many aspects of mid-eighties world politics, some of which are still with us, while others have long vanished. Certainly the power of global media corporations is still a relevant topic today. Despite a preposterous premise and a rather stark production design, Wild Geese II is a curious but entertaining film.
The Flight of the Phoenix (1965)
Gender representation in movies is a thorny issue at present. Certainly all male ensemble casts are a rarity these days. 12 Angry Men and John Carpenter's The Thing are two examples that spring to mind but by and large Hollywood still favours broad gender representation (if not equal status) for reasons of pure box office. However the all male cast of The Flight of the Phoenix simply reflects that nature of the oil industry at the time of filming and is not in any way a political statement. The absence of any romantic sub plot or any kind of sexual dynamics, allows the narrative to focus clearly on the theme of survival along and the psychological and emotional side effects.
Gender representation in movies is a thorny issue at present. Certainly all male ensemble casts are a rarity these days. 12 Angry Men and John Carpenter's The Thing are two examples that spring to mind but by and large Hollywood still favours broad gender representation (if not equal status) for reasons of pure box office. However the all male cast of The Flight of the Phoenix simply reflects that nature of the oil industry at the time of filming and is not in any way a political statement. The absence of any romantic sub plot or any kind of sexual dynamics, allows the narrative to focus clearly on the theme of survival along and the psychological and emotional side effects.
Veteran pilot Frank Towns (James Stewart) and navigator Lew Moran (Richard Attenborough) are flying a beaten up old transport from Jaghbub to Benghazi in Libya. On board are a motley group of oil workers and other assorted passengers. After encountering a sudden sandstorm the plane is forced to ditch in the desert. After an aborted attempt by some of the survivors to march to the nearest habitation, it soon becomes apparent that the food and water will only last a fortnight. With hope running out and petty squabbles increasing, the survivors must decide whether to pull together of fall apart.
Post war prejudice against the German plays an integral part in the Robert Aldrich' The Flight of the Phoenix. It was still a common mindset during the sixties, especially among those who had served. Therefore when Heinrich Dorfmann (Hardy Krüger) proposes to cannibalise the crashed Fairchild C-82 and build another plane to escape from the Sahara desert, it is met with scepticism among his fellow survivors. This is compounded by his cold scientific manner and logical thought process. He immediately chafes with Towns, a proud and old school flyer, who objects to his notion that the other men are simply a work force of expendable assets. The script by Lukas Heller cleverly never states each characters war record and leaves viewers to make up their own minds about their respective pasts.
Performances in The Flight of the Phoenix are universally outstanding due to the well-defined characters and tight screenplay. Ernest Borgnine excels as a psychologically disturbed foreman as does Ian Bannen as an irascible and sardonic oil worker. Peter Finch and Ronald Fraser play respectively a British Army Captain and a resentful Sargent. Their tenuous relationship quickly disintegrates under pressure, leading to potential murder through wilful neglect. It's all very powerful stuff and director Robert Aldrich makes no attempt to sugar the pill. The survivors skin burns and blisters. One injured man takes his own life in a particular moving scene which is sharply contrasted by Dorfmann's borderline callous indifference. Although not graphic, the movie is honest with its depiction of mental disintegration and death.
Like many other great films it is the little touches that embellish the story telling. Stewart's experience as a real life pilot makes his performance in the cockpit convincing. Attenborough's near hysterical laughter, when he learns Dorfmann's secret starkly depicts a man robbed of hope. The results of the Doctor’s and Captain’s negotiation with the Bedouin have a tragic inevitability about it. Aldrich directs with confidence. The artistic freedom and sensibilities of the times afforded him the opportunity to be honest and not have makes commercial concessions. A criticism I would level at the 2004 remake. The movie also benefits from physical effects rather than contemporary computer graphics, imbuing the arduous construction of the Phoenix with a tangible plausibility.
The Flight of the Phoenix is a movie with perennial themes. However these are enhanced when viewed within the context of the times. Aldrich makes a clear message that in desperate times, co-operation irrespective of personal likes, philosophy and dogma is the only practical option when facing disaster. It also explores the importance of hope and what can happen when that is removed. The movie is also a text book example of character acting and the importance of a strong screenplay. If a movie gets this right then the audience will happily follow the narratives twists and turns. Although its clichéd, they simply don't make them like this anymore. I think The Martian is the nearest I’ve seen to anything like The Flight of the Phoenix. It’s not because contemporary Hollywood lacks the talent. It is more of a case of that they lack the will.
Right at Your Door (2006)
I saw Right at Your Door upon its UK release in late 2006 and was impressed with the scope of the movie and the way it handled such an imposing subject matter. At the time the director Chris Gorak was still looking for a US distributor, which was proving somewhat difficult due to the subject matter and post 9/11 sensibilities. It was a full year before the movie finally got a limited theatrical release in North America. I recently saw the film again on UK network television and was further impressed with its exploration of a biological attack and the human cost. The movie has further relevance in light of current international events in the Middle East.
I saw Right at Your Door upon its UK release in late 2006 and was impressed with the scope of the movie and the way it handled such an imposing subject matter. At the time the director Chris Gorak was still looking for a US distributor, which was proving somewhat difficult due to the subject matter and post 9/11 sensibilities. It was a full year before the movie finally got a limited theatrical release in North America. I recently saw the film again on UK network television and was further impressed with its exploration of a biological attack and the human cost. The movie has further relevance in light of current international events in the Middle East.
Out of work musician Brad (Rory Cochrane) is at home when he learns of a series of explosions across Los Angeles, heralding a major terrorist attack. He attempts to drive down town to see if he can reach his wife Lexi (Mary McCormack) but is forced to turn back by the police. It is now apparent that the explosions are dirty bombs of some kind and that the ash from the burning buildings is potentially toxic. Brad returns home and seals himself in accordance with the authorities’ instructions. He is joined by Alvaro (Tony Perez), a maintenance man who was working at his neighbour’s house during the time of the attack. However matters are complicated when Lexi returns, apparently showing the symptoms of exposure to the toxins. Will Brad endanger himself by letting her in? Will she try to force entry into her home? Are the authorities trying to treat the public or are there more sinister motives to their strategy.
Director Gorak drives this contemporary survival drama with a tremendously brisk pace, highlighting the confusion, indecision and fear that accompany such a scenario. He makes very good use of overlapping dialogue, with radio and TV background chatter frequently providing further details on the nature of the attack. The main performances are very good and the characters are flawed, conflicted and very credible. It would have been far too much of a cop out to paint them as selfless martyrs. The movie also shows the blind and illogical nature of human emotions with a series of frantic phone calls between the central characters and their families. It shows how humans wilfully refuse to accept facts in an attempt to maintain a sense of hope.
The third act leads to a twist and possibly gimmicky ending but it does not undermine the overall narrative thrust of Right at Your Door. In the decade that have elapsed since the film's debut at the Sundance Festival, we have seen further evidence that the Government are not always well disposed towards their citizenry or doing the right thing. Consider the way Hurricane Katrina was handled and more recently the revelations about Project Prism. If anything the movies relevance has increased, irrespective of your personal politics. Overall Right at Your Door is a clever and concise directorial debut, which earned Chris Gorak a place on the Variety "directors to watch" list. Unfortunately this level of intensity and focus was conspicuously missing from his next film Darkest Hour.
Firefox (1982)
I read Craig Thomas's cold war novel Firefox in the spring of 1982 and was unaware that a film adaptation was in production at the time. Having enjoyed the novel immensely, I was pleasantly surprised at the quality of the adaptation. The screenplay stayed true to the story and large passages of the book made it directly into the films screenplay. Then there was the sublime casting of Clint Eastwood as Mitchell Gant, the veteran pilot suffering with Post traumatic stress syndrome. Even the author Craig Thomas approved. The movie proved to be very entertaining at the time (I was fourteen), with its action sequences and special effects.
I read Craig Thomas's cold war novel Firefox in the spring of 1982 and was unaware that a film adaptation was in production at the time. Having enjoyed the novel immensely, I was pleasantly surprised at the quality of the adaptation. The screenplay stayed true to the story and large passages of the book made it directly into the films screenplay. Then there was the sublime casting of Clint Eastwood as Mitchell Gant, the veteran pilot suffering with Post traumatic stress syndrome. Even the author Craig Thomas approved. The movie proved to be very entertaining at the time (I was fourteen), with its action sequences and special effects.
I recently discovered that Firefox is available on Blu-ray. The current US release has the movie paired with Heartbreak Ridge as part of a Clint Eastwood “double bill”. This region A disc features the shorter 124 minute print of the film. However there is a region B Norwegian Blu-ray available that has the longer 136 minute cut of the movie. I always this recommend version due to is expanded narrative and exposition. For those curious about the differences between the two versions, movie-censorship.com has a comprehensive photographic breakdown.
However regardless of which copy you see, there are some fundamental problems with both blu-ray transfers. The special effects sequences involving the MiG-31 utilised a process known as reverse bluscreen photography, pioneered by legendary effects supervisor John Dykstra. The high definition transfer unfortunately shows great deficiencies in the process and reveals an inordinate amount of image grain. Effects sequences such as AA missile launches and the rearward defence pod are also poorly realised, looking like just coloured cel animation. However the primary flying scenes featuring the MiG-31 still have a great sense of speed and there is some solid miniature work.
The main plot of Firefox is straightforward. The Russians have a plane that is technically superior to anything in the West, so the US intelligence services plan to steal one. Performances are low key and functional. Clint Eastwood does much to carry the film and Kenneth Colley is solid as Colonel Contarsky. Nigel Hawthorne is somewhat miscast as the dissident scientist and allegedly fell out with director Eastwood over his habit of filming rehearsals and using them as final takes. Firefox also features a very odd score by veteran composer Maurice Jarre which blends synthesiser based pieces with a traditional orchestral score. It often doesn't work and sits very uncomfortably with a lot of the movie. Yet the final suite of music played over the end credits is very engaging.
Firefox is very much a product of its time both cinematically and politically. Furthermore Clint Eastwood is a very lean film maker and some may find his approach to the narrative insufficiently exciting. Yet despite the movies age and the fact that the new hi-def transfer is unflattering to the optical process work, the real star of the movie is still the MiG-31. The design which is centred on stealth technology still looks plausible and extremely elegant. Regardless of the image grain, the sight of the plane flying over the ocean with the sunlight reflecting off its fuselage is still very impressive. Firefox is certainly not one of Clint Eastwood finest movies but it is one of his most curious, as it was a radical departure from the cop dramas and action comedy vehicles he had produced up to the time.
The Phantom Tollbooth (1970)
I first saw The Phantom Tollbooth during the early seventies, more than likely on a Sunday afternoon. I enjoyed it at the time but being a child its subtleties were lost on me. However I did get a distinct feeling that there was more to the movie than met the eye and it stuck in my mind as being different to the other animated films that I had seen at the time. Forty years on, I am now familiar with the legacy of Chuck Jones and the significance of his work. So when I recently acquired a copy of The Phantom Tollbooth on DVD I was very keen to revisit it and view it through the eyes of an adult.
I first saw The Phantom Tollbooth during the early seventies, more than likely on a Sunday afternoon. I enjoyed it at the time but being a child its subtleties were lost on me. However I did get a distinct feeling that there was more to the movie than met the eye and it stuck in my mind as being different to the other animated films that I had seen at the time. Forty years on, I am now familiar with the legacy of Chuck Jones and the significance of his work. So when I recently acquired a copy of The Phantom Tollbooth on DVD I was very keen to revisit it and view it through the eyes of an adult.
Made by MGM in 1969, The Phantom Tollbooth sat on the shelf for over a year due to internal studio problems. It was finally released to an indifferent public a year later. The story remains relatively faithful to Norton Juster's book, but clearly has the hallmark of animator Chuck Jones stamped on it along with a lot of late sixties ambience. The songs are clever and engaging although the title theme is very sub-Burt Bacharach. The movie starts with a live action opening sequence involvingMilo, (Butch Patrick), a bored young boy who lives in San Fransisco. He travels via the titular tollbooth to the Kingdom Of Wisdom where he must reunite the feuding realms ofDictionopolis and Digitopolis by rescuing the Princesses Rhyme and Reason from the Castle In The Air.
The transition from live action to animation is competently made and the film has a very experimental style and is artistically literate. The main characters are intriguing being either literary or mathematical idioms. There is Tock The Watchdog, Mr Humbug, The Spelling Bee, The Whetherman and his sister, The not so wicked Which. They're all a very likeable bunch (I defy you not to warm to Tock). The narrative reflects the positive outlook of the Kennedy era (the book was written in 1961) and infers that a balance between knowledge, science and art is the path to happiness and cultural harmony. However the stories greatest assets are also its Achilles heel. The puns, metaphors, word play and conundrums may well alienate the casual viewer.
However I am of the opinion that cinema is a two way street and that the viewer cannot always be spoon fed. The Phantom Tollbooth is an entertaining and thoughtful example of family entertainment, as well as a valuable historical window into the social attitudes of the time. The movie features a wealth of the best voice artists from the time such as Mel Blanc and Daws Butler as well as some beautiful word play ("You didactic drone") and credits its audience with both an imagination and a brain. If you get a chance to see it, then give it a go. If you have kids, then watch it with them and if they don't like it, hit them with a big dictionary while singing "Time is a Gift" (which is the best song in the movie).
Lake Mungo (2008)
Do not be fooled by the marketing and artwork for Lake Mungo. It is not a found footage movie but in fact a faux documentary. If you are looking for cheap scares, loud noises and unpleasant imagery, then you will be disappointed. Lake Mungo is not your standard exploitation fodder. If however you like well constructed movies that create a genuine sense of disquiet, then Lake Mungo is a must see. Once again Australian cinema has managed to produce an innovative and thoughtful entry to a popular sub-genre. The film demonstrates a great understanding of the mechanics of a ghost story and how they should be handled.
Do not be fooled by the marketing and artwork for Lake Mungo. It is not a found footage movie but in fact a faux documentary. If you are looking for cheap scares, loud noises and unpleasant imagery, then you will be disappointed. Lake Mungo is not your standard exploitation fodder. If however you like well constructed movies that create a genuine sense of disquiet, then Lake Mungo is a must see. Once again Australian cinema has managed to produce an innovative and thoughtful entry to a popular sub-genre. The film demonstrates a great understanding of the mechanics of a ghost story and how they should be handled.
The story centres around the Palmer family whose teenage daughter Alice drowned on a family holiday. The movie is shot in the style of a TV documentary, with talking heads, home video footage and recorded phone calls to the emergency services. The performances are very understated and very plausible. The opening scenes quickly establish a very credible depiction of a family coming to terms with loss. Performances by the three leads (Rosie Traynor, David Pledger and Martin Sharpe) are universally good as the Palmers. Shortly after Alice's funeral paranormal activity starts to happen within the house. The Mother is plagued by a recurring dream and the Father sees a manifestation of Alice. Matters are further confused by some photographic evidence that may indicate that Alice is not dead.
All these events are handled in a very understated and measured fashion. As the story progresses and the strain takes its toll on the Palmer family, we are introduced to a medium Ray (Steve Jodrell). Unlike other movies, this is a very sympathetic depiction of the profession and it adds a very different aspect to the narrative. The interview sessions and seances do not necessarily produce the results the viewer expects but like so many elements of Lake Mungo, these subtle sub-plots all have relevance and are tied up as the story progresses. There are several false positive events that occur as the film proceeds (one that particularly reminded me of Ghostwatch) which muddy the waters. This really helps add a credible element of doubt with the audience.
The pivotal plot moment occurs when Alice's Mother discovers her daughter’s secret. It is a terribly sad turn of events and it is purposely ambiguous in some of its details. One of the major themes of Lake Mungo is that of the transition of Alice Palmer; from a happy, outgoing teenage girl to a desperate and burdened soul. As well as the unsettling supernatural atmosphere, there is a great sense of tragedy to the movie. It also plays upon a parents fear of being powerless to help their child. Furthermore, even as the story reaches a point where you think it’s done, there are still several further twists in store. These widen the scope of the events and introduce some bolder ideas.
Lake Mungo is a film about grief, secrets, unfinished business and predestination. It conclusion is satisfactory and very melancholy. Alice Palmer is a very sympathetic character and there seems no justification for what happens to her. Like many things that occur in life, there is a great deal that is not explained. This is not because the writers are trying to be manipulative but because this is just the way of world. Director Joel Anderson maintains a steady pace and does not take liberties with the viewer’s suspension of disbelief. As the credits roll over a montage of photographs there is a further surprise, implying that the false positives we saw earlier were in fact genuine. It is a clever embellishment to end on and a validation of the movies merits.
Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins (1985)
Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins is based on "The Destroyer" pulp novels books from the seventies. Written by Richard Sapir and Warren Murphy, the stories catalogue the adventures of Remo Williams, an ex-cop brought back from the dead and trained in the obscure (and fictitious) Korean martial art of Sinanju. This esoteric fighting style enables an exponent to dodge bullets, cripple an opponent with blows to nerve endings and run across a beach without leaving footprints. On paper this was ideal material for an action movie franchise that could potentially fill a gap in the market between Bond movies. Yet this 1985 film struggled to find an audience upon release.
Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins is based on "The Destroyer" pulp novels books from the seventies. Written by Richard Sapir and Warren Murphy, the stories catalogue the adventures of Remo Williams, an ex-cop brought back from the dead and trained in the obscure (and fictitious) Korean martial art of Sinanju. This esoteric fighting style enables an exponent to dodge bullets, cripple an opponent with blows to nerve endings and run across a beach without leaving footprints. On paper this was ideal material for an action movie franchise that could potentially fill a gap in the market between Bond movies. Yet this 1985 film struggled to find an audience upon release.
Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins is both a curious and incongruous movie, containing elements of spoof as well as action. Perhaps it is the unusual tone that failed to engage viewers. It’s shame because there’s a lot to recommend and enjoy. Former Bond director Guy Hamilton manages the proceedings confidently and elements of Christopher Wood’s script are quite witty and entertaining. The underrated Fred Ward is very good as Remo Williams, as is Joel Grey as Chiun, his soap opera-loving Korean mentor. Some of the film's best scenes are there characters interactions. Carl Fullerton's make up effects turning Joel Grey into an aged Korean are outstanding. The action set pieces are very good, particularly a fight on the Statue of Liberty which was being restored at the time of filming. Again I’d like to highlight the fact that these are genuine stunts.
Unfortunately there are also weaknesses in the production. Kate Mulgrew's Major Rayner Fleming is given precious little to do and the villain of the piece, evil industrialist George Grove (Charles Cioffi ) is hardly an impressive adversary. Also some of the editing used to highlights Chiun's ability to dodge bullets and confuse his foes is poorly implemented. Instead of creating an effective illusion of speed and dexterity it simply looks “choppy”. But none of these aspect are sufficient to spoil the film overall. The humor of the film does not derail the preceding’s and there are a few grim sequences that are curious to see in a PG-13 rated move. This was a new rating at the time of release and had yet to fully find its feet.
Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins (retitled Remo - Unarmed & Dangerous for the British market) could in different circumstances become an interesting franchise. Unfortunately the prevailing tastes of the time wanted hard “R” rated action movies with high body counts. The frivolity and obvious seventies origin of the source material were deemed old hat. Casting a white actor to play an ethnic character is also anachronistic. It’s a shame really. Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins is no masterpiece but it’s not the disaster that some would have you believe. The truth lies somewhere in between. The film asks you to go beyond the usual limits of the suspension of disbelief. However due to the enjoyable dynamics between the two leads, I for one am happy to go there.
Spaceballs (1987)
There are some movies that you just never get around to seeing and they can remain an unknown quantity for many a year. If any of these films were a big event at the time, or have become a major part of pop culture, then catching up with them can presents its own set of problems. For example the status of some cinematic classics or cult movies inevitably raises expectations, which then may be hard to meet. Then there can also be pressure not to fly in the face of popular consensus, leaving the viewer obliged to like a film or find merit in some way. I had this experience myself recently when I finally caught up with Spaceballs.
There are some movies that you just never get around to seeing and they can remain an unknown quantity for many a year. If any of these films were a big event at the time, or have become a major part of pop culture, then catching up with them can presents its own set of problems. For example the status of some cinematic classics or cult movies inevitably raises expectations, which then may be hard to meet. Then there can also be pressure not to fly in the face of popular consensus, leaving the viewer obliged to like a film or find merit in some way. I had this experience myself recently when I finally caught up with Spaceballs.
Mel Brooks already amassed an impressive body of work when he made this movie in 1987. So I was expecting Spaceballs to be of his usual high standard. Instead I found myself watching a rather weak Star Wars parody (with a few nods to other science fiction classics), littered with poor puns, childish humour and tortuously contrived sight gags. It raised a smile but little more and certainly paled into into insignificance compared to other genre satires such as Galaxy Quest or Family Guy Star Wars Trilogy. I really felt that this movie suffered from "the emperor's new clothes" syndrome, due to its pedigree. The late John Candy can usually lift most movies by his presence but not here. Rick Moranis as Dark Helmet really is the only character of any note.
I was actually far more interested in the films production values which were high for a comedy. There were some rather good optical effects and outstanding matte paintings from Apogee Inc. There's a nice shot of a space diner with various intergalactic Winnebagos in the parking lot. One of which is none other than the Millennium Falcon. It's a shame that equal attention wasn't spent on the screenplay. Perhaps Brooks thought that the very act of satirising Star Wars would be funny enough in itself, as it was considered somewhat sacrosanct by fans at the time. Spaceballs was after all only made four years after Return of the Jedi.
After finally catching up with Spaceballs after twenty nine years I would argue that this is far from the classic that some ardent fans claim it to be. Perhaps the term cult may me more appropriate in this case. My viewing experience has certainly confirmed once again that broad popularity is no guarantee of a good movie. Furthermore fond affection by fans should not be construed as a definitive litmus test. Humour is a very subjective thing and for me Spaceballs was somewhat lacking. However that not to say it’s a terrible film and the very points that I struggled with may well delight others. Perhaps the lesson is that when viewing a film that has an established status, try your best to adjust your expectations and take into account, historical context and the fan factor.
Star Trek Beyond (2016)
I am not a dogmatic fan. In fact as I get older, I become far more flexible and forgiving in my outlook. I certainly don’t buy into the concept that your “childhood can be ruined”. The only way something new can spoil the memories of something old that you hold dear, is if you allow it to. If you wish to explore this concept further, I’d suggest reading Marcus Aurelius. Back to the matter in hand. When I found out that Star Trek was to be rebooted via an alternative timeline plot device, I was content with this. I decided to ditch my personal baggage and try and be objective about the now named “Kelvin Timeline”. I make no bones about the fact I have liked the previous two Star Trek movies. Are they masterpieces? No. Are they entertaining? Yes. That is far more than some reboots have achieved.
I am not a dogmatic fan. In fact as I get older, I become far more flexible and forgiving in my outlook. I certainly don’t buy into the concept that your “childhood can be ruined”. The only way something new can spoil the memories of something old that you hold dear, is if you allow it to. If you wish to explore this concept further, I’d suggest reading Marcus Aurelius. Back to the matter in hand. When I found out that Star Trek was to be rebooted via an alternative timeline plot device, I was content with this. I decided to ditch my personal baggage and try and be objective about the now named “Kelvin Timeline”. I make no bones about the fact I have liked the previous two Star Trek movies. Are they masterpieces? No. Are they entertaining? Yes. That is far more than some reboots have achieved.
Since J.J. Abrams move from director to executive producer on the new movie franchise, I’ve been a little sceptical regarding the third instalment. Justin Lin is not a film maker I would have immediately thought of with regard to Star Trek. Thankfully, I am happy to say my personal misgivings have been proven wrong. The director’s frenetic signature set pieces are certainly present in Star Trek Beyond. But so is an obvious understanding of the source material. In many respects the film plays out like a big budget, extended episode of the original series. However far from being a criticism, this is a major compliment, showing that the entire production team fundamentally understands what makes the franchise great and what fans like the best.
The plot is relatively straightforward, involving the Enterprise being lured into an ambush within the confines of an uncharted nebula. Marooned on a nearby planet, most of the crew find themselves prisoner of Krall, an alleged alien warlord. However, Kirk, Chekov, Spock, McCoy and Scotty evade capture and plan to rescue their colleagues. It is here that the film comes into its own, with the focus on the crew interaction. The pairing of McCoy and Spock is very reminiscent of scenes from the original series and includes some classic banter between the two. I was very pleased to see Karl Urban given more onscreen time, as his portrayal of Doctor McCoy is spot on. Although at times reminiscent of DeForest Kelly, Urban manages to provide a contemporary spin on the character and make the role his own. The movie also comes to life when the classic trinity of Kirk, Spock and McCoy come together. It would also be remiss of me to not mention Simon Pegg who has an expanded role this time round. His pairing with another alien Jaylah (Sofia Boutella), who has also been marooned, provides a greater insight into the character. There is humour and pathos in his performance.
Star Trek Beyond also takes the time to ponder some wider issues pertaining to the franchise. I like the concept of a captain questioning the validity of the five year mission faced with the infinite nature of the universe. The screenplay written by Doug Jung and Simon Pegg also sensitively deals with death of Leonard Nimoy. The passing of Spock Prime causes his younger self to reflect of his various choices, such as joining Starfleet and his relationship with Uhura. It is a credible dilemma that could beset those who find themselves part of a diaspora. The movie’s only narrative weakness it with its villain Krall, played by Idris Elba. He lacks sufficient development and although we understand his motives, they are somewhat arbitrary. Perhaps some additional screen time could have remedied this minor deficiency.
It was announced last week by producer J.J. Abrams that the role of Chekov will not be recast after the tragic death of Anton Yelchin. However the franchise will see a further instalment with a plot featuring Kirk meeting his dead father, George. Despite some rather vocal naysayers, it would appear that these new movie set in the “Kelvin Timeline” are finding an audience and proving commercially viable. With Bryan Fuller recently revealing that his new TV shows will be called Star Trek Discovery, it looks like the entire Star Trek franchise is in good shape after fifty years. Star Trek Beyond certainly contributes to this current good standing and manages remain true to the spirit of Gene Roddenberry’s vision, despite an unlikely director.
Dark of the Sun AKA Mercenaries (1968)
British cinematographer Jack Cardiff had an extremely distinguished career working with the like of Powell & Pressburger, Hitchcock and John Huston. As a director he received acclaim for Intent to Kill (1958), Web of Evidence (1959) and Sons and Lovers (1960). However his 1968 adaptation of Wilbur Smith's novel Dark of the Sun (also known as Mercenaries) is often overlooked. In some respects this gritty action movie may have been a little before its time with regard to both its politics and depiction of the Simba Rebellion of 1964-65. It still packs a punch forty eight years later.
British cinematographer Jack Cardiff had an extremely distinguished career working with the like of Powell & Pressburger, Hitchcock and John Huston. As a director he received acclaim for Intent to Kill (1958), Web of Evidence (1959) and Sons and Lovers (1960). However his 1968 adaptation of Wilbur Smith's novel Dark of the Sun (also known as Mercenaries) is often overlooked. In some respects this gritty action movie may have been a little before its time with regard to both its politics and depiction of the Simba Rebellion of 1964-65. It still packs a punch forty eight years later.
Dark of the Sun is set during the Simba revolt when the Congo government recruited mercenaries to fight a Marxist insurgency. Rod Taylor and Jim Brown star as Captain Curry and Sergeant Ruffo, a pair of professional soldiers paid to retrieve a cash of diamonds. The story starts in a fairly formulaic fashion with the rag tag assortment of mercenaries being assembled, including racist ex-Nazi Henlein (Peter Carsten) and alcoholic Doctor Wreid (Kenneth More). As they travel by train into the Congo interior, they rescue Claire (Yvette Mimieux), a white settler and victim of the Simba revolt. On reaching the diamond mine, they find that the vault has a time lock and must wait several hours. Tension increases as the insurgent’s approach, especially as they have a reputation for committing atrocities.
What makes Dark of the Sun different from this point onward is its exploration of the polarised politics of Africa and its uncharacteristically harsh and brutal depiction of the atrocities. By the standards of mainstream cinema of the time, this was considered a hard edged movie for a studio such as MGM/UA. There are scenes of the Simba's raping a Nun and a man being dragged by a motorbike whilst having petrol poured on him. Another victim has a burning torch thrust in his face. There is also an inference of male rape, which was far from common place in US cinema at the time. The film also has several brutal fights between Taylor and Carsten which are still quite strong.
However it is not just these aspects that make the film so intriguing. Dark of the Sun also contains a subtle performance by Kenneth Moore. As an actor he always gravitated to bluff English stereotypes and has often been accused of simply playing himself; his screen persona being forever synonymous with his performances in Northwest Frontier and Reach for the Sky. Here he bucks the trend playing an alcoholic Doctor whose conscience gets the better of him. It’s a measured and thoughtful performance proving that Moore's had a far wider range than many thought. Doctor Wreid is a flawed man who struggles with his own failure, afforded a chance to do something right, no matter how futile it may ultimately be. If only Moore had chosen other such roles during his career.
There is an element of truth to Dark of the Sun, as the two lead characters are loosely based on real life mercenaries 'Mad' Mike Hoare and Siegfried Müeller. Although far from a historically correct depiction of events, the action scenes are robust and the location filming bolsters the authenticity of the narrative. There is also an air of melancholy to the film as it ponders the end of colonialism, the futility of war and the realities of international politics. I therefore recommend Dark of the Sun to action fans as an interesting late sixties exploration of the genre. Tonally it has similarities to Cornel Wilde's World War II movie Beach Red. It certainly showcases the talents of Jack Cardiff as an eclectic director.
Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan Lord of the Apes (1984)
Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan Lord of the Apes approaches Edgar Rice Burroughs’ source material very differently from previous adaptations. The movie is far removed from the vintage Johnny Weismuller films from the thirties and forties. There are no white ivory poachers, evil tribesmen or a tree house love nest. Nobody says “Ungawa”. This is a revisionist recounting of the Tarzan legend undertaken in a thoughtful and intelligent fashion. Although relatively faithful to the original stories, there are some major thematic changes. Gone are the period notions of Nietzsche’s Übermensch. The screenplay also reflects contemporary understanding of great ape behaviour and society.
Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan Lord of the Apes approaches Edgar Rice Burroughs’ source material very differently from previous adaptations. The movie is far removed from the vintage Johnny Weismuller films from the thirties and forties. There are no white ivory poachers, evil tribesmen or a tree house love nest. Nobody says “Ungawa”. This is a revisionist recounting of the Tarzan legend undertaken in a thoughtful and intelligent fashion. Although relatively faithful to the original stories, there are some major thematic changes. Gone are the period notions of Nietzsche’s Übermensch. The screenplay also reflects contemporary understanding of great ape behaviour and society.
I will dispense with a detailed plot synopsis due to the familiarity of the storyline. Let it suffice to say that Tarzan is raised in the jungle, discovered as an adult and brought back the UK. The literate screenplay by Robert Towne depicts Tarzan, not as racially superior warrior, but a man torn between two worlds; the natural and the civilized. In a remarkable performance, Christopher Lambert portrays this angst and duality with realism. The movie was his first major English dialogue role. The supporting cast is uniformly excellent, boasting robust performances from dependable actors such as Ian Holm, John Wells, and the late, great Sir Ralph Richardson. Andie McDowell made her debut as Jane Porter. For some reason, she was completely re-dubbed by Glenn Close.
The cinematography of the African segment of the tale is very good. It captures both the beauty of the African wilderness and its savagery. Inevitably the ape sequences had to be shot in a controlled environment, so there are a lot of studio scenes to accommodate them. Also being a period film and a costume drama, there is exceptional use of English countryside as well as London exteriors. The Natural History museum is used to great effect. The production design is very authentic in representing the Edwardian age. The soundtrack by John Scott is very evocative and compliments the narrative without being too obtrusive.
Of course the film stand or falls by the quality of the ape make up effects. Rick Baker and his team excel themselves in this area, creating a range of different simian characters, all with distinct features and attributes. It should also be noted that despite its PG certificate, there are some disturbing scenes. These are mainly in the ape sequences where the cruelty of the jungle is not downplayed. Ian Holm also removes an arrow from his side in a “Rambo-esque” fashion. Bear this in mind when watching with young children. The violence, dark tone and narrative driven plot may not lend itself to the casual viewer.
Hugh Hudson is a talented director who works relatively infrequently. After the Oscar winning success of Chariots of Fire, it was a bold move to pitch such a radical adaptation to such a traditional studio such as Warner Bros. Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan Lord of the Apes is a worthy human drama, exploring the subjects of “man’s dominion over beast” and “social Darwinisms”. It takes a hard look at the strictures of English society and ponders that old chestnut of how thin the veneer of our civilisation really is. Overall this is a sombre movie with an inherently tragic thread running through it. However it can be a rewarding experience for those seeking a more in-depth exploration of the Tarzan mythos.
The Island at the Top of the World (1974)
I last saw The Island at the Top of the World in 1974 when it was initially released at the theatres. I was seven years old. Going to the cinema was a real event at the time and films such as this were always an entertaining spectacle. They frequently left a marked impression on a young mind. Special effects driven movies were not so ubiquitous during this decade. With these things in mind I recently decided to revisit The Island at the Top of the World. Forty two years watching the movie from an adult’s perspective was quite a different experience. That’s not to say that it’s a bad film; far from it. However it is quite a different beast compared to the modern action adventure movie.
I last saw The Island at the Top of the World in 1974 when it was initially released at the theatres. I was seven years old. Going to the cinema was a real event at the time and films such as this were always an entertaining spectacle. They frequently left a marked impression on a young mind. Special effects driven movies were not so ubiquitous during this decade. With these things in mind I recently decided to revisit The Island at the Top of the World. Forty two years watching the movie from an adult’s perspective was quite a different experience. That’s not to say that it’s a bad film; far from it. However it is quite a different beast compared to the modern action adventure movie.
Wealthy industrialist Sir Anthony Ross (Donald Sinden) cajoles historian and archaeologist Prof. Ivarsson (Phil Hartman) into helping him find his son, who’s lost in the Arctic. He may well have gone in search of the legendary graveyard of whales. Using his business connections, Sir Anthony hires an experimental French airship, “The Hyperion”, flown by Captain Brieux (Jacques Marin), to take the quickest route to the frozen North. Along the way, they find an Inuit named Oomiak (Mako) who was the last person to travel with Sir Anthony's son. After many adventures our protagonists find themselves marooned on an island shrouded in cloud. Volcanic activity has allowed a secret valley to stay warm and fertile. Furthermore it is populated by Vikings, who have remained isolated from the outside world, entrenched in their ways and customs.
What stands out the most about this movie is the “family friendly” screenplay. The protagonists face danger often through the hostile environment or extreme weather and not through violence. The evil high priest is a caricature who never gets an opportunity to do any real harm. At one point comic relief character, Oomiak, appear to be killed whilst escaping. However he evades death by swimming away under water. The film also rather clumsily endeavours to educate the viewer by introducing various aspect of Viking culture. The narrative takes time out every five minutes or so, to focus on village architecture, the famous longboat or the social structure of the community. Disney had a reputation at the time for its live action documentaries.
Anyone over the age of thirty will remember a time when there were no computer generated special effects. The industry and its skilled experts relied on optical effects, namely filming elements separately and then combining them. Miniatures were used along with intricate matte paintings on glass sheets. These skills had been in use since the very start of cinema and have often produced excellent results. Disney at the time had a reputation for producing effects work of the highest quality. It is not surprising that the work on display in The Island at the Top of the World is very good by the standards of the time. However, those viewing with an unobjective modern eye may not necessarily see this.
Director Robert Stevenson handles the story in a competent fashion and the film does not out stay its welcome. The production, cinematography and casting are all competent. The story follows a suitable arc. This is a classic example of functional film making. As a result after all these years, I still found The Island at the Top of the World entertaining. Yet it does belong to a category of film that seems to have died out of the world. Family friendly movies are few and far between these days. The PG rated movie has fallen to the more robust and commercially viable PG-13. The Island at the Top of the World with its simplicity, educational agenda and lack of brutality would not necessarily endear it to a contemporary audience.
Multiple Versions – Do We Have a Two Tier Movie Industry?
Mainstream Hollywood is all about making money. Let’s not lose sight of that fact. That is not to say that the system cannot make good movies, because it does. It is just not the primary purpose. Commercial viability comes first over artistic vision. I cannot remember a time when the US film industry was more focused on targeted movie making. Projects are conceived, developed and made with specific demographics in mind. This is because certain social-economic groups go to the theatre more often, spends more while there and are driven by popular trends. The entire process of making a movie, marketing it and generating revenue has been rendered down to an equation.
Mainstream Hollywood is all about making money. Let’s not lose sight of that fact. That is not to say that the system cannot make good movies, because it does. It is just not the primary purpose. Commercial viability comes first over artistic vision. I cannot remember a time when the US film industry was more focused on targeted movie making. Projects are conceived, developed and made with specific demographics in mind. This is because certain social-economic groups go to the theatre more often, spends more while there and are driven by popular trends. The entire process of making a movie, marketing it and generating revenue has been rendered down to an equation.
As a result of this business practise, one particular phenomenon has become increasingly more common in recent years; multiple versions of movies. The theatrical cut of a tent-pole release is driven by financial imperatives such as securing the most lucrative rating and optimum running time. The shorter a movie the more often it can be shown in one day. The net result is a plethora of movies rated PG-13 and running two hours or less. Once the theatrical run of the movie is over, retails sales on home media are driven by a different set of criteria. Hence you will often find unrated, extended and directors cuts, offering more footage. These extended versions are marketed specifically on their additional content.
Affectively the movie industry is now running what is fast becoming a two tier system. Furthermore this system has an impact upon consumer’s viewing habits. However because this does not have a negative financial impact upon overall revenue , these two very separate markets are left to run in parallel, irrespective of any wider issues they may have upon the industry.
A perfect example of this situation is the recent blockbuster Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Director Zack Snyder was obliged to produce a theatrical cut of the movie that was rated PG-13 for contractual reasons. This ran for 151 minutes. However the “Ultimate Edition” to be released on DVD/Blu-ray in mid-July has an additional thirty minutes of footage re-instated into the film, which has garnered an R rating. This results in two very distinct cuts of the same movie, specifically aimed at different audiences.
Now as a blogger I do like to see some movies as soon as possible because it lends itself to topical writing. However as a film fan, I often wish to see the most comprehensive version of a film and I personally dislike seeing a watered down theatrical version. This is especially so when I know that a more interesting version may be released within three months or less. As a result I and other potential viewers often do not choose to not go and see a movie during its theatrical release. Why pay for less effectively?
Faced with such marketing strategies consumers now make their choice according to their personal preferences and needs. Younger demographics will flock to the theatre to see a movie that has been marketed specifically to them, whereas the more mature film fan will simply wait for the retail version. Either way the studio still benefits from both streams of revenue.
However the question remains is creating such distinct and separate markets a good thing? Is making multiple versions of a film beneficial for a director’s artistic expression? The world is becoming increasingly niche market, with everyone doing their own thing at a time when it suits them. Many activities that use to be shared and universal experiences are now solitary and independent. Like watching TV or listening to music. I am a great fan of choice but I do worry about the notion of the movies becoming a product line rather than a single creative entity. Will we reach a point when you and I both see the same movie and have totally different experiences, not due to personal taste but due to differing content?
Slipstream (1989)
I'm always intrigued by films that have troubled production histories, or that have failed at the box office. Slipstream is a prime example and is also a very hard movie to define; a real cinematic oddity. Superficially it is a fusion of "Post Apocalypse" and "Buddy" genres. It has a distinguished pedigree, boasting a cast of quality character actors, an experimental director, excellent locations and a solid UK production crew. It also sports a superb score by the great Elmer Bernstein, considered in some circles to be one of his finest. Yet the overall movie is messy, disjointed, poorly edited and somewhat ponderous in its intellectual aspirations. However despite all these criticisms, it has a curious quality that holds the attention.
I'm always intrigued by films that have troubled production histories, or that have failed at the box office. Slipstream is a prime example and is also a very hard movie to define; a real cinematic oddity. Superficially it is a fusion of "Post Apocalypse" and "Buddy" genres. It has a distinguished pedigree, boasting a cast of quality character actors, an experimental director, excellent locations and a solid UK production crew. It also sports a superb score by the great Elmer Bernstein, considered in some circles to be one of his finest. Yet the overall movie is messy, disjointed, poorly edited and somewhat ponderous in its intellectual aspirations. However despite all these criticisms, it has a curious quality that holds the attention.
In the future the earth has been ravaged by a series of natural disasters. Earthquakes have altered the continents throwing nations together. The surface is swept by super wind-storms, forcing people to travel the Slipstream in the canyons and ravines of the earth crust. Bounty hunter Will Tasker (Mark Hamill) is searching for Byron (Bob Peck), a mysterious figure who is wanted for murder. Despite capturing him, he soon loses his prisoner to Matt Owens (Bill Paxton), an enterprising "trader" who takes Byron in hope of collecting a reward himself. During their travels Owens and Byron become incongruous friends, while being doggedly pursued by Tasker. It’s not before Owens starts to wonder about his friends strange abilities and whether there’s more to the criminal charges against him than first meets the eye?
On paper it all sounds quite good but rather than approaching the material as an action/sci-fi film, director Steven Lisberger (of Tron fame) seems hell-bent on making a "message" picture. There are intermittent pauses in the story to ponder metaphysics. Performances overall are very good. Bob Peck is superb, being enigmatic, vulnerable and just a little bit dangerous. Hamill, a truly underrated actor, is very convincing as the hard-nosed, old school bounty hunter. The aerial photography is also very creative and makes good use of multiple European locations. This was clearly a production that made the most of its budget. The effects work is very much of its time relying on physical stunts and optical processing. This aspect of the movie is never allowed to overwhelm the narrative which is very much the focus of the one hundred and two minute running time.
Yet Slipstream smacks of a film that has gone through multiple edits. There are several scenes that end abruptly or shy away from what has been telegraphed. For example, Hamill confronts a group of smugglers. Guns are drawn and then instead of a dramatic shootout, we cut to close shot of a shotgun muzzle being fired rapidly. Next thing we see are the dead victims being buried. Yet strangely, during the films climax, we see one of the lead characters shot and blown backward through a glass cabinet in slow motion. Minor characters enter the story and then are never seen again. The titular Slipstream itself seems to diminish in importance as the film progresses. I just get the impression that there's another twenty minutes of footage somewhere, that if reinstated would have drastically improved the proceedings.
Several of the sub-plots the run throughout Slipstream, seem strangely dated focusing upon philosophical questions pertaining to the end of society. Director Steven Lisberger seems enamoured with seventies counter culture. Tonally I was strongly reminded of such films as Zardoz and A Boy and His Dog. One of the most thought provoking aspects of the film is the old chestnut about how androids are external manifestations of human vanity. Byron an android, who was built as a companion, appears to have murdered his master. When questioned, Owens assumes that "he had it coming". Peck confirms this but the delivery of the lines implies a deeper meaning. A mercy killing perhaps, of someone who was terminally ill? It’s an aspect of the plot that would’ve benefited further exploration.
If you are a connoisseur of the unusual and have patience as well as an open mind, Slipstream is worth a look. It is definitely a failed opportunity but still has many aspects to engage the mind. Sadly a Director’s Cut seems highly unlikely, as producer Gary Kurtz stated recently that much of the missing footage was incomplete or dropped from the script before being shot. There simply isn’t the material to restore to the film. He also implied that the original story was a lot darker in tone and far more violent. Sadly, due to the financial failure of Slipstream the film is now in the public domain and therefore many of the copies available are sourced from poor quality prints, shown in the wrong aspect ratio. Therefore choose wisely how and where you decide to watch this cinematic curiosity.
Deadpool (2016)
Deadpool firmly nails its colours to the mast within the first minute of the opening credits with such statements as “Directed by an overpaid tool”. With the tone clearly established the movie then proceeds to satirise the very genre its set in and walks a very fine line between knowing in-jokes and actually biting the hand that feeds it. The screenplay is littered with profanity and dick jokes, with violent death frequently served as a punchline. The only thing missing from the proceedings are well placed rimshots. Deadpool is a film that will polarise audiences. Many will find the breaking of the fourth wall, the smutty quips along with the overall mocking of the super hero genre very droll. However there will be some critics who are obliged to see this movie that won’t be in on the joke and they will more than likely leave theatres very offended.
Deadpool firmly nails its colours to the mast within the first minute of the opening credits with such statements as “Directed by an overpaid tool”. With the tone clearly established the movie then proceeds to satirise the very genre its set in and walks a very fine line between knowing in-jokes and actually biting the hand that feeds it. The screenplay is littered with profanity and dick jokes, with violent death frequently served as a punchline. The only thing missing from the proceedings are well placed rimshots. Deadpool is a film that will polarise audiences. Many will find the breaking of the fourth wall, the smutty quips along with the overall mocking of the super hero genre very droll. However there will be some critics who are obliged to see this movie that won’t be in on the joke and they will more than likely leave theatres very offended.
As for me, I thoroughly enjoyed Deadpool. Despite being very traditional with its storyline, offering a standard “super hero origin” tale, it has an enjoyable narrative structure based upon a series of flashbacks. This is a story of boy meets girl, boy gets cancer and boy then takes a gamble on a covert military project that will allegedly cure him. Naturally our hero is betrayed and left with regenerative powers but horribly scarred. Obligatory vengeance is required and mayhem, slaughter and extreme violence ensues. Directors Tim Miller does a great deal with the films moderate budget and when the resources simply aren’t there, he ensures there’s a self-effacing quip in the script to mitigate the problem. It’s a clever approach that certainly entertained audiences in the screening I saw.
Performances are universally good and suit the idiom of the film. Ryan Reynolds, Morena Baccarin and Ed Skrein are well cast and tackle their respective roles in an appropriate manner. However it is writers Paul Wernick and Rhett Reese who really should take the credit for the movies success. They hit exactly the right tone and broadly maintain it throughout the films one hundred and eight minute running time. There are a few jokes that go astray but most of the time the dialogue hits the mark. There’s a superb gag involving a potential death by Zamboni that pleased the crowd and I enjoyed the way that Wham’s Careless Whisper was crowbarred into the proceedings. Extra marks are awarded for Deadpool’s musings upon Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson from Taken).
Deadpool is a wry and clever movie but it inevitably remains a niche market product. It certainly deserves to do as well as it can at the box office within the parameters of its genre, as I wouldn’t mind seeing another cinematic excursion. However I don’t think it’s a franchise that is indefinitely sustainable. Yet compared to the usual Marvel cinematic universe output, Deadpool is a breath of fresh air. The serious tone and lofty aspirations of the genre are beautifully subverted here. Therefore savour Deadpool for what it is and don’t forget to stay for the obligatory post credits sequence. As you’d expect from such a movie it flies in the face of the usual teaser format. Think Ferris Bueller's Day Off and you won’t be disappointed.
Theremin versus Ondes Martenot
A few years ago UK Film Critic Mark Kermode made a short video extolling the virtues of that curious musical instrument the Theremin. However his performance was far from edifying, so to redress the balance, I’ve posted below the main theme from Mars Attacks by Danny Elfman. It highlights the ubiquity of this instrument in the science fiction genre. All of which stems from the wonderfully atmospheric score for the 1951 classic, The Day the Earth Stood by the great Hollywood composer Bernard Herrmann. It was a milestone in the evolution of film soundtracks. Both tracks illustrates the point made by Mr. Kermode perfectly. The Theremin, due to its frequent use in a genre during its most formative years, has virtually become the de facto “sound of space" in popular culture.
A few years ago UK Film Critic Mark Kermode made a short video extolling the virtues of that curious musical instrument the Theremin. However his performance was far from edifying, so to redress the balance, I’ve posted below the main theme from Mars Attacks by Danny Elfman. It highlights the ubiquity of this instrument in the science fiction genre. All of which stems from the wonderfully atmospheric score for the 1951 classic, The Day the Earth Stood by the great Hollywood composer Bernard Herrmann. It was a milestone in the evolution of film soundtracks. Both tracks illustrates the point made by Mr. Kermode perfectly. The Theremin, due to its frequent use in a genre during its most formative years, has virtually become the de facto “sound of space" in popular culture.
Or is it? There is another instrument that vies for the crown of the definitive sound of science fiction; namely the Ondes Martenot. This esoteric French instrument, has been used in many films and TV series, such as The Twilight Zone, Lawrence of Arabia, Billion Dollar Brain and Ghostbusters. The original design was similar in sound to the Theremin. The instrument's eerie wavering notes are produced by varying the frequency of oscillation in vacuum tubes.
Composer Barry Gray often used this instrument to great effect and I would argue that some of his compositions are the equal of those by the Hollywood greats. Here is the classic "Sleeping Astronauts" theme from the 1969 film Doppelgänger AKA Journey to the Far side of the Sun. It remains one of Barry Gray’s finest tracks.
It is often a mistake to make generalisations when it comes to fandom, due to its subjective nature. Genres that are so liberally populated by fanboys will be rife with debate over the most minor and esoteric of points. However I do not think that either instrument trumps the other and I like the eerie ambience of both. These two tracks are outstanding in their own way and I think that pop culture can happily give them equal billing with regard to their contribution to the “sound of space”.
Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)
By the time the Bond franchise had reached its 18th incarnation in 1997 with Tomorrow Never Dies, the coveted opportunity to provide the title track was chosen through a competitive tender process. There were twelve submissions made for the movie, including songs from Swan Lee, Pulp, Saint Etienne, Marc Almond, Sheryl Crow and David Arnold. Arnold had already been personally recommended to compose the film’s soundtrack by Bond veteran John Barry, who had retired from the series in 1987.
By the time the Bond franchise had reached its 18th incarnation in 1997 with Tomorrow Never Dies, the coveted opportunity to provide the title track was chosen through a competitive tender process. There were twelve submissions made for the movie, including songs from Swan Lee, Pulp, Saint Etienne, Marc Almond, Sheryl Crow and David Arnold. Arnold had already been personally recommended to compose the film’s soundtrack by Bond veteran John Barry, who had retired from the series in 1987.
The producers eventually chose Sheryl Crow's track for the main titles, while David Arnold's song "Surrender" performed by K.D. Lang, was relegated to the end titles. Arnold’s song had obviously been a very serious contender at one point as its melody occurs in various cues throughout the film. The decision to parachute Crows song into the iconic title sequence was more than likely based on commercial considerations. However, "Surrender" is an infinitely superior song, written in a traditional Bond idiom and performed in a similarly appropriate fashion.
This is yet another example of the many “curious” business decisions that have been made regarding the Bond movies over the last fifty years. Others include the removal of George Lazenby after one movie and the decision to release Licence to Kill in the summer of 1989, thus competing with Lethal Weapon 2, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and Batman. Yet despite these odd choices the franchise still remains a major box office attraction and K.D. Lang’s "Surrender" is still the epitome of a Bond title song, even if it never quite achieved that status.
Are the Oscars Still Relevant?
The idea of a meritocracy where you are fairly judged by your peers is a noble and idealistic notion. It is one that many august bodies aspire to, as they endeavour to honour those they claim to represent. Yet the reality is often quite different from the intended aim. I believe that the Oscars are a text book example of this. Rather than being an impartial and honest award ceremony, the entire events is more a demonstration of corporate leverage and power politics. Furthermore, it would seem that the wider public has fallen out of love with Hollywood as yearly viewing figures fluctuate. Overall this is more of an event for the benefit of Hollywood, rather than a promotion of the art of cinema.
The idea of a meritocracy where you are fairly judged by your peers is a noble and idealistic notion. It is one that many august bodies aspire to, as they endeavour to honour those they claim to represent. Yet the reality is often quite different from the intended aim. I believe that the Oscars are a text book example of this. Rather than being an impartial and honest award ceremony, the entire events is more a demonstration of corporate leverage and power politics. Furthermore, it would seem that the wider public has fallen out of love with Hollywood as yearly viewing figures fluctuate. Overall this is more of an event for the benefit of Hollywood, rather than a promotion of the art of cinema.
There's a degree of cynicism associated with this annual event and each year’s nominations are frequently met with an air of scepticism. "Worthy" titles that have performed well at the box office, or that tick the right boxes make the list. It is all very predictable. There also prevails a "them and us" mentality between independent film makers and the big studios. The academy is a creature of habit that seldom deviates from its established game plan. Certain genres will never be afforded any acknowledgement and specific actors and film makers who exist outside of the mainstream are effectively out of the running.
That's not to say that all academy awards are contrived or unjust. A great deal of talented individuals and quality productions are appropriately honoured. Life time achievements are often honestly given. But the proceedings are still hindered by a very US-centric outlook and a predilection to focus on box office returns rather than broader creativity. Documentaries, short films, animation, as well as genres such as horror and science fiction do not get treated the same as human dramas, biopic, or historical movies. It seems at times that there is almost a formula to achieving an academy award. Perhaps there is truth in Kirk Lazarus' statement about "Never go full retard".
It will be interesting to see how well this year’s live award ceremony will be received. I have a horrible suspicion that the return of Chris Rock as host is merely a political gesture to try and negate the #OscarsSoWhite lobby that has manifested for a second year. Furthermore exactly how much influence does this annual event have on an increasingly independently minded public? It would seem that the traditional critic now has to seriously compete with social media and word of mouth. People seem more comfortable taking advice and recommendations from friends rather than established bodies. If the Oscars fail to have the impact that people such as Harvey Weinstein expect, then there may well be a lot of disappointed executives and investors.
We live in times when fans and enthusiasts can easily communicate with each other, create communities and hold events. Often awards and honours coming from these quarters hold more meaning for the recipients. If people feel that the academy is not representing certain sectors or showcasing certain artists, then alternative bodies will emerge to fill the gap. If recent history has shown us anything, it is that niche markets can often grow in to far more substantial entities. We have also seen a cultural shift in which the public increasingly feels it’s important that they have a say in matters themselves. Perhaps the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences needs to consider reinventing itself before it becomes totally obsolete.
In the year 1860, Baron Victor Frankenstein (Peter Cushing) faces execution by guillotine for the murders perpetrated by the creature he created. With the assistance of a hunchback named Karl (Oscar Quitak) he avoids death by beheading the priest who came to give him the last rites. The priest’s body is then mistakenly buried by the authorities. Three years later, Victor, now using the name Doctor Stein, has established himself as a prosperous physician in Karlsbrück, serving both affluent patients and the poor at a paupers’ hospital. Hans Kleve (Francis Matthews), a junior member of the medical council, recognises Victor and being an admirer, seeks to become his apprentice. Victor and Hans then undertake an experiment to transplant Karl’s living brain into a new, more refined body, rather than a grotesque monstrosity the Baron has previously made. Karl is eager to have a new healthy body, especially after encountering Margaret Conrad (Eunice Gayson), the charming new assistant at the hospital.