GREMLINS

1984

8/10

DIRECTOR: Joe Dante

Is this a horror film? Well, sort of. Is this aimed at kids or adult? Well, both I suppose. The film is rated 15 by the BBFC back in 1984 when Gremlins first burst on to our cinema screens and rose like cream to the top of the comedy horror genre. The rating system was to change soon after as this and Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom had created such controversy over the family nature and darker elements being summed up with such extreme ratings. PG was too soft, whilst R too strong? Welcome PG-13, well in the U.S. anyway.

Everyone’s seen it and every kid MUST see it. The scares are innocent but effective with enough tongue in cheek for us take it as seriously as they do.

It doesn’t mock itself or the genre but flatters it with its cine-literacy and a grand sense of stylist black comedy. Joe Dante’s direction is witty and this another Chris Columbus screenplay, the next great one being The Goonies the following year, before he would go on to direct the first two Harry Potter films.

I was never happy with Columbus’s directorial projects, such as Harry Potter and Percy Jackson And The Lightening Thief, not much in it some would say, with the exception of Home Alone, but the mid 80′s was his heyday as a screenwriter, with Gremlins and The Goonies proving their worth.

This is a pleasure to watch and with the correct balance of serious film making, savvy writing and a real sense of what the audience wanted, this has gone on to become one of the great 80′s hits, commercially and critically.

APOLLO 13

1995

10/10

DIRECTOR: Ron Howard

I remember it like it was yesterday. February 1996: an all but empty cinema in Bury; It was a Friday afternoon. We saw Apollo 13 and I loved it. I had always had an interest in space travel, real travel that is, but it had never really captured my imagination up until this point. The detail and accuracy helped to encapsulate the ten-year project that took man to the moon and the thousands of  people to make it happen.

Thousands of men and women, with a vision to send just three men into space and for two to walk upon the moon. Apollo 13 had it all though, when all was said and done. This demonstrated the feel of the programme lingering on precise of being cut; The long preparations for the seven-day missions; The massive assembly programmes and the dangers and almost certain death and isolation if something was to go wrong.

These guys were on their own, but the were also being aided by everyone at NASA and due to the ever changing methods of the press, the entire world had something to say about it.

This is the true story of the 13th Apollo mission, Apollo being the only programme every to land on the moon, back in 1970, when an explosion occurred in the oxygen tank on the command module, crippling the ship and potentially dooming the three-man crew. Do they make it? Well, if you don’t remember it from the time, or haven’t seen the film, then you’ll need to see it to find out!

Tom Hanks is Jim Lovell, the mission commander and if all had gone to plan, he would have been the 5th man to walk on the surface of the  moon, but fate prevented that. The story is detailed, mostly accurate, though there is obviously some license and the visual style is timeless. This looks amazing, capturing the feel of space travel, forty years ago.

Ron Howard’s film is credited with creating the Sun Flare effect and changing space effects forever. The launch sequence is one if the best sequences that I personally have ever seen, working on almost every level, but certainly dramatically, emotionally and visually.

Apollo 13 is a triumph and often overlooked, but whilst some may find it a bit slow, if it grabs hold of you, if you find or already have an interest in this subject, then this is the definitive NASA film. The Right Stuff had laid the path, but this movie had reinvented it, leading to the more comprehensive interpretation, HBO’s 1998 mini-series, From The Earth To The Moon.

And that’s how we do that…

LITTLE WOMEN (1994)

1994

7/10

DIRECTOR: Gillian Armstrong

Seen it all before. This 1994 version is the fifth film to be adapted from the 1868 novel. Little Women is the simple story of four Little Women and a cast made up of actors who have since become big players and well know names in the industry, finding their way in the world during and after the American Civil War.  It strikes a chord of Pride & Prejudice and was about a cinematic as the BBC version, which was to be made a couple of years later.

I have never read the source novel and nor would I want to if I’m honest, but this was a well made and solid period drama, providing everything that you would expect. But never having the read the book, I can only judge the film, but the overly sentimental take on the characters and events did grate at times, but this was to be excepted from a film such as this.

If you’re a fan of ultimate chick flicks, then this may well be the masterpiece that you’ve been waiting for…

THE GOONIES

1985

9/10

DIRECTOR: Richard Donner

I first watched this seminal 80′s classic in 1988, when it first appeared on TV and I was blown away by it. I was 10, roughly the same age as the lads and here was a film with a raucous sense of humour, strong child characters and large-scale plot which has made this film a multi-generational classic, with our parents, us as parents and our children all investing in the spirit of adventure of The Goonies.

Named after the Goon Docks of which they inhabit, a group of kids, after finding a treasure map, decide that this is their last chance to save the town, which is to knocked down in  favour of a Country Club. This leads them on an adventure through the booby-trapped underground catacombs of the town, as they follow the map to One Eyed Willie’s treasure.

They get mixed up with the Fratelli’s, a matriarchal crime family who get wind of the treasure and follows them into the caves.

The first ting that struck me about this, is after all these years what that it was still fun, enjoyable and even though I might not bother watching by myself, I would defiantly enjoy seeing again with the right audience. The raucous nature of a group of children together in a room is captured so expertly here, with a young Sean Austin, now famous for his portrayal of Samwise Gamgee in the Lord Of The Rings trilogy, holding the pack together; but the chaos is portrayed perfectly.

The language is good here too, with casual swearing amongst the kids, meaning that this  must be one of the rare family films to truly capture the interplay between tweenage and teenage kids. Overall, this is a classic for all the right reasons, with the story by Steven Spielberg with only goes to further reinforce his status as one of Hollywood’s greatest visionaries and a sharp, tight screenplay by Chris Columbus, who penned Gremlins the previous year and went on to direct the first two, but the weakest two Harry Potter movies.

There is also the questionable issue of the way that the Fratelli’s treat Chunk. When you think about it he is threatened with torture after being kidnaped and spending time with the murdered corpse of two ‘Feds’ who have been shot in the head, murdered in cold blood.

I love this, treating the horror in a mature way, allowing it to used as humour but in a way to playfully scare kids, which it does. It is fun, but I do wonder where the PC brigade would let some of these plot points go in to a child friendly romp in 2011? I hope so, as it is the combination of elements that made this film what it is today.

MACISTE NELLA TERRA DEI CICLOPI (aka ATLAS AGAINST THE CYCLOPS)

1961

2/10

DIRECTOR: Antonio Leonviola

NOT A PART OF MY COLLECTION

aka – (And the title that I watched this under) “Atlas In The Land Of The Cyclops (U.S. TV)

Will we be adding this to our collection? NO

Pardon my confusion, but I sat down to what this Spaghetti Epic, or Sword and Sandal as they prefer to be called, which was called Atlas In The Land Of The Cyclops, I didn’t understand why Atlas was being addressed as Maciste.

This was nothing remarkable and not my taste at all, as the well and I mean well-worn story of a Greek hero saving the day and in this case, putting a baby upon his rightful throne. This was part of a huge series of films,. following Maciste, here played by Gordon Mitchell, credited here as Mitchell Gordon. Unfortunately, there was very little to recommended it if you’re not already a hardened fan of the genre.

The sound dubbing was typical, with one particular moment standing out, as two characters are talking with the baby in the scene, and the baby’s crying sounding like another baby had turned up during the recording session and had inadvertently supplied the echoy dub.

Personally, I find these films to be hard to watch or enjoy but there is certainly and audience for them. But do I feel that this genre is falling in to the abyss, not only of obscurity but most likely into oblivion. The print quality was appalling, leading me to believe that since these films have fallen out of copyright, that the negatives are but faded, decayed or outright destroyed.

This was a 2.35:1 widescreen print in its day I would bet that nobody has seen that print in 40 years and are likely to NEVER see it. The colour was almost gone, faded to the negative’s native browns and the sound mix, only mono in the original instance, was also mushy. Granted this was a very cheap DVD, with a 1.33:1 print, clearly, based on the title, the U.S. TV print and no doubt, a 16mm one at that.

The Spaghetti Epics where always a cheap Italian alternative to Hollywood’s Roman Epics, but with little demand and limited financial return for the genre, I can see the negatives disintegrating and these movies being lost forever. Is that a bad thing? YES: even though I may never willing watch one again, it is a crying shame that the art of these films may lost forever. NO film should be lost, as no book should be either, but unless remastering technology becomes cheap enough and the demand for what could be regarded as cult classics, as horror films such as Dawn Of The Living Dead and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre are, then I see little hope.

THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL (2008)

2008

8/10

DIRECTOR: Scott Derrickson

Contains SPOILERS of BOTH the 1951 & the 2008 versions

I am a huge fan of the original film, which made in 1951, came only six years after the end of the second world war and the first and only use of Atomic bombs in wartime, over Japan.

Robert Wise’s 1951 version had a UFO land in Washington D.C. and Klaatu, a humanoid alien alighted the craft, along with his robotic companion, Gort. Klaatu, portrayed by Michael Rennie, is promptly shot by an over zealous U.S. infantryman, and Gort demonstrates that it can destroy any weapon of war it feels like, vaporising tanks and rifles etc, without killing the troops.

This is the first real difference here. Life is far less as sacred in this remake. At the end of the original, Klaatu meets with a collection scientists from around the world and in no uncertain terms, threatens the annihilation of the Earth if they spread their aggregation beyond the planet, as we were obviously on the brink of space travel after entering the atomic age.

He also stated that Gort was a galactic policeman of sorts, who could and would lay waste to the planet if they didn’t heed his warning. This film, seems to start in many ways were the original left off. There is no doubt that this is a remake, and is certainly no sequel, but the Wise version was more intellectual and threatening, almost as threatening as the Cold War would become, with threat over action protecting us from ourselves.

I felt that the 2008 version lacks that faith and felt that we needed to see what Gort could actually do, and in many ways, I liked it. Gort is now an organic machine and is made up of billions of nanobots which are manifested as locust type machines. The effect of the swarm consuming the earth towards the conclusion is brilliant and though it strays from the original’s sociopolitical stance, it does shift the film in to a more frightening direction.

Now, beside the fact that the film nods consistently and very nicely to original, it’s probably time to leave the comparisons and touch on the film as it stands. The Day The Earth Stood Still, had an amazing sound scheme, one of the best in past few years. How this didn’t win award after award is astonishing to me, but there you go.

The sound, the visual effects and the overtones of the film are all first-rate and it is mainly because of these factors that I bloody loved it, finding myself engrossed from the opening frame. But, there were several points that let it down, but not in a way that derailed it, which in itself,  must be a plus, surely.

Many have as usual, berated Keanu Reeves for his usual vacant performance and comments about the fact that this role wasn’t very taxing are banded about. But so what? It suited him and played it well. Harrison Ford generally excels at roles where he plays himself, as does Al Pacino, but to name couple. The action in general was good to excellent in this and that must be a testament to the direction ans well as the cast.

Though I must admit, that when  I saw John Cleese on the opening credits, I felt that we were in for a right one. But even his brief role as Professor Barnhardt, originally portrayed by Sam Jaffe, was great. I was in fact so pleased that he had been cast in a dramatic role, rather than pitched as comic relief, or unintentional comic relief as Sir Ian McKellen had fallen into in The Da Vinci Code.

The feeling was tense, dramatic and serious, without being downbeat of overly melodramatic. That’s not to say that melodrama didn’t have its place here, because there were moments but there was still a general homage to the tone of Robert Wise’s more clinical Sci Fi effort, with had been instrumental is legitimatising the genre, at a time when it was generally, green Martians invading Midwestern farms!

But the ending left me down, seemingly ending without a sufficient conclusion. There was no speech, no threats, just a conclusion to the events and a strong implication as to where things were heading. It was good, sort of effective but not as clear as I feel it should have been. I also wasn’t happy with Kathy Bates’ character as the Secretary Of Defense, exercising a national policy which seems to make little sense in the real word and beside news footage and verbal references to the world-wide panic, there was little sense of this portrayed on-screen.

Personally, I really liked it, and though it lacks some of the weight of the original, this was still entertaining and much, much better that I’d expected. In fact, this could be one of, if not the best direct remake of the last decade and beyond.

BEDTIME STORIES

2008

5/10

DIRECTOR: Adam Shankman

I had lowish exceptions for this, and in many ways they were met. Adam Sandler is one of my least favourite comics working today, but he’s not a bad as some. He grates on me and has nastiness about him which I find a little strange for an actor who is making his name in kids films.

The pitch is simple, though be it unexplained. Sandler has somehow gained the ability to summon into reality, the bedtime stories which he shares with his nephew and niece. This is convenient as he is up against Guy Pearce for the top job in the hotel where he works as a cleaner. As the week plods on, so do the stories and the real manifestations to some mild comic effect, but ultimately, there is no real moral value to the stories, or the manifestations themselves.

The story as a whole, has a happy and incredibly contrived ending and though toted as a family film, I would place it more in the under 8′s category. Not as funny, intriguing or moral interesting as it should have been, instead, just tosh, tosh and more tosh! Still entertaining though and therefore watchable, but that’s about it.

SHOOTER

2007

3/10

DIRECTOR: Antoine Fuqua

NOT A PART OF MY COLLECTION

Will we be adding this to our collection? NO

May Contain Spoilers!

Were do we start? Ned Beatty as Dick Cheney, perhaps? The lefty political slant which was about as subtle as a hole in the head? Pardon the pun. Shooter was as much of a throw back to late 80′s, early 90′s actioners as we’ve been exposed to in a long time, dealing with issues of Ethiopian genocide and the cynical U.S. or Western foreign policy.

This kicks of with the ubiquitous ‘in the midst of the previous mission’ scene, which though later we’re told has a significant value to the plot, is nothing more than a cheap setup of yet another of Wahlberg’s two-dimensional characters. Then it quickly moves in to a JFK style assignation plot, and Wahlberg is now a lean Lee Harvey Oswald, on the run and on a mission to clear his name, blar, blar, blar.

Danny Glover is the best actor that I have ever seen…. nah, just kidding, obviously! He is pants in almost everything he is in, and this is no exception, this is his career defining role. Ham doesn’t cover how bad his is in this, as his ‘plays’ a corrupt U.S. Colonel, who recruits and double-crosses who you might refer to as our ‘hero’.

The sniper action is interesting and tries to portray itself as technically accurate and intricate, employing complex physics regarding gravity, humidity and the curvature of the earth etc. Whist much of this is true and holds your interest for a few seconds, aspects still needed to be toned down due to the horrific truth behind such shootings.

It has been suggested that shots of this power would leave little behind of its victims besides body parts and of course, this isn’t the case here, which I have no problem with as fair enough, it doesn’t need to be that gruesome, but with technical accurately on one hand and compromise on the other, it smacks of confused integrity to me.

The film plays out are you would expect, with chicle’s aplenty and a predictable plot, but it does maintain a sense of cynicism, be it over played by Glover who proclaims like a child throughout that “He has won” and that his is basically untouchable. This leads to its conclusion, which whilst delivering some much-needed satisfaction, is still boring and very neat and contrived.

Overall, this is a mess of a film, which has no real sense of pace or drama, and even less of an identity of its own, borrowing from the real events of JFK ‘s assassination and CNN, as well as every thriller from the 60′s onwards.

3D Revolution In Review 2010

2010 saw a huge increase in 3D releases, both in the form of conversions to native 3D productions. This led to disasters, such as Clash Of The Titans, but followed on from the success of the groundbreaking Avatar.

Following is a selection of films from 2010. I have not seen all of these titles, let alone in a 3D theatre, but this is my view of 3D, the films I seen, anticipate and dread, but primarily focusing, pardon the pun, the ‘Parallax Illusion’, as Christopher Nolan has quite rightly called it.

The ratings are based on the 3D feature as a whole, and not just the narrative, acting or directing. For more detailed reviews, follow the links where applicable to the actual reviews of those movie which I have seen.

Is there a future in 3D? Don your glasses and read on…

-

2010

ALICE IN WONDERLAND

5/10

Did this benefit? Tim Burton’s foray into 3D was only average, This was a post-conversion and with the exception of some of the more fantastical scenes, such as the Rabbit hole sequence, so not really.

-

HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON

Want to see this

Did this benefit? Looks good for what I’ve seen, with the trailer and subject matter seemingly appealing.

-

CLASH OF THE TITANS

1/10

Did this benefit? Louis Leterrier’s post-conversion was in danger of derailing the whole 3D fad. This was 2D in every sense. Rubbish conversion turned a mediocre movie into a disaster movie! The WORST 3D that I have ever seen.

-

SHREK FOREVER AFTER (aka SHREK THE FINAL CHAPTER)

8/10

Did this benefit? 3D works best with digital animation, and this is no exception. Did we need it though? No.

-

STREETDANCE 3D

8/10

Did this benefit? Yeah, this was an effective and entertaining debut 3D feature from our very own in the UK. The 3D didn’t leap out of the screen nor should it have. Not perfect but a very good entry none the less.

-

THE HOLE IN 3D

Want to see this

Did this benefit? I’ve heard good things about the 3D in Joe Dante’s of Gremlins fame, The Hole,  but as of yet, no comment.

-

TOY STORY 3

9/10

Did this benefit? Surprisingly, no, not really. The 3D was almost so PERFECT that it became redundant. This may well be the problem with high brow 3D.-

-

STEP UP 3D

10/10

Did this benefit? Yes. Absolutely. This is proof positive that dance films with their inherent extravagance are prime for 3D. Over the top and exuberant. Top marks. Is this the BEST 3D film ever?

-
BEAUTY AND THE BEAST 3D

Want to see this

Did this benefit? I’m defiantly against post-conversion, certainly when applied to existing films and classics. This is as bad as colourisation, and must not be sanctioned. I also believe pursuing this will definitely lead to a backlash against 3D that may lead to its end.

The film though, in its original design does lend itself to 3D so it may well have looked good. This to date, has not been released in the U.S. or U.K. but suspect it primary purpose is to be sold on 3D Blu-ray, along with the proposed Lion King conversion…

-

PIRANHA 3D

5/10

Did this benefit? Not as good a use of 3D as you might expect from the Horror genre, 3D’s other home apart from Dance and Animation. The film wouldn’t have worked without it though, as it was driven by the novelty.

-
AVATAR (Special Edition)

10/10

Did this benefit? James Cameron’s revolutionary 3D feature short his new Fusion camera system. Is this the best use of 3D composition in the history of film? Possibly, but has it revolutionised the movie industry? That has yet to be seen, but it’s certainly fueled the latest craze. The film itself doesn’t work as well without 3D,  but it does work well enough. In time, higher brow subject matter will find its way onto 3D screens and then we’ll finally see whether the market really exists.

But this and Toy Story 3 are the best examples yet of proper films doing well in the format, besides the highly enjoyable use as applied to Step Up 3D.

-

LEGEND OF THE GUARDIANS

Not interested

Did this benefit? Again, not seen this one, but seen the trailer. The quality of the animation is clearly first-rate and is almost photo-realistic which does lend itself to 3D. But we’re back on the whole digimation argument.

-

SAW 3D

Not interested

Did this benefit? Horror sequel. This is prime, tacky 3D. No need, but no real need for the franchise in the first place is you ask me so no loss.

-

JACKASS 3D

Not interested

Did this benefit? I can only imagine that it would. But since this is the third of the franchise, it clearly works in 2D, though 3D will do it no harm what so ever, but what’s the point?

-

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART 1

N/A

Did this benefit? No. Namely because the 3D conversion was canceled. I don’t see any need for 3D with Harry Potter as the first six entries did just fine without it.

-

TANGLED

6/10

Did this benefit? There was no need what so ever, and the only major scene to benefit was The Lanterns towards the end.

-

THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE VOYAGE OF THE DAWN TREADER

Want to see this

Did this benefit? It just goes to show what little faith the producers have in this franchise. Or is this just me?

-

TRON: LEGACY

9/10

Did this benefit? Yes, though in a similar way to Toy Story 3. It was very good and effective, handled with care and attention. But after a while you forget about it and the your left wondering does this NEED to be in 3D? The choice to film the real world in 2D and the computer in 3D, in homage to The Wizard Of Oz was inspired.

-

CONCLUSION

2010 was a big year for 3D. Avatar had finally been released in December of 2009 and had been an unbridled success. I remember feeling that 3D could work, and that films needed to be made in the style of 2D but with the added dimension for effect rather than gimmick. But in the end, this has proven to be wrong.

You lose around four foot-candles of light with polarised Real D, or Disney 3D, and it has a miniaturising effect which is do with the depth of field vs. the ability to focus etc… In short, it may deepen the image or propel object out of the screen, b ut the latter is often seen a trashy gimmick and the forming is pointless, as demonstrated so well in Toy Story 3.

Then there’s the more practical angle of the added cost to the ticket and the shoddy manner in which the pricing has been handled. Initially, tickets were £2.oo dearer, and now it’s £1.00 + £1.oo the glasses, but giving you the choice to bring your own. Not a bad idea, but still costing more for the 3D film than it would for the 2D counterpart.

I don’t think that 3D has proven itself just yet, and this year, 2011, may well be the year that pushes the format into the mainstream, with blockbusters such as Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides and Transformers: Dark Of The Moon.

But I believe that the breaking or even making of 3D as a viable and lasting format comes with the Dimentialisation, as some have called it, of older films. The Harry Potter and Star Wars franchises are already slated for conversion, as is Titanic. As I’ve said, this is the bastardisation of classic films, no different to the colourisation of King Kong and It’s A Wonderful Life.

Cinema needs to change to continue to grow and maintain an audience in the 21st Century but trends lead more toward the rise in YouTube and computer games. They are the future, film is becoming literature, a precious thing, with passionate readers, viewers and followers but its mainstream days are numbered, and rehashing 3D in its pr esent form is not the way forwards. Now, holographic technology, now you’re talking...

My Top Five 3D films of  2010

1. STEP UP 3D
2. AVATAR (Special Edition)
3. TOY STORY 3
4. TRON: LEGACY
5. STREETDANCE 3D

-

For more information, on 3D releases, I would recommend The Illistrated 3D Movie List site, which have found to be helpful.

-

 

BATTLE: LOS ANGELES (aka WORLD INVASION: BATTLE L.A.)

2011

6/10

DIRECTOR: Jonathan Liebesman

CINEMA REVIEW

Will we be adding this to our collection? YES

I had high hopes for this film, the concept seemed strong, Black Hawk Down meets War Of The Worlds; the poster campaign was intriguing but in the end, it was  a case of be careful what you wish for. The film opens with Aaron Eckhart’s company flying over the city of L.A., which is the throws of the eponymous battle.

Then we cut to twenty-four hours earlier, where we expect to shown a series of character developments and building tension. Instead we’re given a series of shots introducing the troops without any real development and events which move too furtively to build anything. Then, within fifteen minutes we’re back where we started, over Los Angeles.

Once there, some tension ensues, the aliens are relieved, and a loose motive is contrived to get our company into the middle of enemy territory. This when we get our Black Hawk Down scenario. Er, no. I think it’s a mistake to compare two too closely and this will defiantly sway your view of the film.

This is NO Black Hawk Down, though the visual style and top quality effects will lead you to think otherwise. If L.A. was at war, this is certainly how it would look and for that I applaud them, and for the alien designs, though baring a striking resemblance to District 9, though there are always phases of designs in movies, are very good and realistic.

The exposition about the alien’s goals, motivations and movements are explained via military briefings, which come under the heading of shoddy dialogue and TV broadcasts, which don’t. The Television moments are well portrayed and feel somewhat real, convincing and familiar. This was defiantly one of the better plot mechanisms.

The hammy dialogue and barely believable actions and motivations of the lead characters on the other hand, are not. Aaron Eckhart is dull to the extreme, which I find strange for the accomplished actor, many of whose roles have been much more exuberant. Michelle Rodriguez was filling the usual tough but attractive position whilst Bridget Moynahan’s roll seemed to be all but pointless in almost every way.

The problem with this film is that in one way it looks like a gritty war movie and on the other, it’s a bog standard alien invasion flick. The graphic realism simply doesn’t gel with hammy contrivances necessary within the framework of a fantasy film. They grate on each other but this is amplified by the sometimes laughable dialogue which seems to consist of almost every single clichéd line ever spoken!

If you can get past this, then you’re in for a treat. I hope that on its second viewing, I can disregard the comparisons between this and either War Of The Worlds or Black Hawk Down, and simply take it for what it is. And this should be easy as this is certainly neither of those!

Saying all this, I did enjoy watching it and would see it again, though I’m not sure how it will sit with me, twice.