WESTWORLD

1973

DIRECTOR: Michael Crichton

NOT A PART OF OUR COLLECTION

May Contain Spoilers!

Will we be adding this to our collection? NO

The late Michael Crichton may be best known for his novel and subsequent Spielberg adaptation of Jurassic Park (1993), but his work on films goes back along way. He directed and wrote sci-fi classics such as the Amdromida Stain (1971) and Coma (1978), as well as writing and directing this classic.

People often tell me that Westworld is a “great film” but they haven’t seen it in twenty years. It’s Yul Brynner’s performance as The Gunslinger in the eponymous Westworld which they like, which itself comes of the back of his role in The Magnificent Seven (1960).

But the concept of Westworld and the other two, Future World and Medieval World, are is good. The rich of the near future, visit a theme park, where there dreams and whims can be acted out in a fantasy world, populated by robots, designed to simulate humans and animals. The machines can be shot and killed without any real harm coming to anyone. It’s a technological dream to come true.

But this is a 1974 Sci-fi story. Computers were fascinating but dangerous and the fear of allowing them to have too much power over us was palpable. This complex is controlled by a supercomputer which develops a computer virus, and novel concept in the 1970′s, which leads to a loss of control and the robots turning deadly.

Is it just me, of does this sound a lot like Jurassic Park only with robots? That’s not a bad thing as the concept is good and Jurassic Park would later go on to do this justice, but here, the execution is poor. The casting is below average in most cases with Yul Brynner bringing nothing to role besides his face.

The images of the workshop and mechanical people and horses being repaired is striking and are the ideas being this classic but for me, it’s too dated and offers little in the way of the action which it promises. The intellectual side is good though, if not a little obsolete and simplistic by todays standards, as our laptops can probably do more that this infected supercomputer and that exposition is aimed at an audience with ZERO understanding of computers, whilst this knowledge is now common place.

A worthy effort but one which I believe would reach its full potential with Jurassic Park 20 years later.

ROMANCING THE STONE

1984

DIRECTOR: Robert Zemekis

NOT A PART OF OUR COLLECTION

May Contain Spoilers!

Will we be adding this to our collection? NO

In 1987, I was nine years old and my mum went to the video shop and came back with Romancing The Stone. It was kind of like Indiana Jones, a style which was all the rage back in the 80′s, only with Kirk Douglas’ son in the lead, “solider of fortune” role.

How does it stand up 25 years later? Not bad. Nothing like as well as its clear inspiration, Indiana Jones, but it’ll do. The problem with this, it that it’s rated 15 for one (re-rated as 12 now), a rating which SHOULD have placed it out of  sight of youngsters, the key demographic for such a film, surly? But no, it’s aimed at women and clearly, cynically aimed at bored housewives, which our mousey heroine pretty much is.

Not a wife of course, but Kathleen Turner is a meek and timid thirty something romance novelist who has an irrational need to meet the man of her dreams, who she writes about in every book, and for him to sweep her of her feet and take her on some high adventure. What’s wrong with that? Well, nothing to a self-employed woman who’s has an intellectual job who wants to use that power and position to set the feminist movement back 50 years!

I mean, as a kid who doesn’t fully understand the subtly of what’s going on here,  its’ fine, but as a 34-year-old  man, it just CREEPY!! Run Douglas, RUN! To quote a later Robert Zemekis work. (Well, sort of…) Then, there’s the setting. Columbia was a great setting for Clear And Present Danger (1994), or parts of Scarface (1983), where you’re looking into the dark and horrific underworld of drug cartels, but the setting for an action adventure Boys Own or Barbara Cartland romance?

It’s raining, it’s corrupt and its damn right scary! Then there’s the bit when our couple hang out, smoking pot in a wreckage of a drug smuggling plane… Hmmmmm…

Don’t get me wrong, Zemekis, who has directed some of my favourite films, including Contact (1997) and Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988), handles his material quite well, in the sense that what’s there is solid and Turner and Douglas make a good couple, as was seen again in the appalling sequel (Jewel Of The Nile (1986), not a good example, and the like it or not, War Of The Roses (1990). It’s not cheap, it has a sense of humour, but one that has dated I’m afraid, and the action is well put together. But when you take the setting of such a politically sensitive country and just play about in it for a bit, mucking around with murderous secret police and drug barons, it just seems to be a bit tasteless to be honest. But a product if it’s time, no doubt.

I didn’t like the ending of this film. In short, the stone of the title ends up in a crocodile and Douglas is left wrestling it, but is forced to let it go in order to save her girlfriend, Turner. Afterwards, we’re supposed to believe that he manages to locate the croc in open water and recover the titular stone. This is just ludicrous and pushes the boundaries of believability, or the suspicion of disbelief to extremes.

Overall, if you liked it the first time, then revisit it but if you haven’t seen it, I wouldn’t bother. There’s a 95% chance that you either hate it or mistake it for a flat comedy. Shame, because as a child, I did quite like it. As an adult, I question the sanity of our leading lady…

CINERAMA @ 60 ~ SMILEBOX IS BACK

30th September 1952 saw the world premier of This Is Cinerama. This Sunday sees the 60th Anniversary of that event and will marked by several posts and reviews throughout the day.

After nearly three years of following the progress of these illusive Cinerama titles, independent distributor, Flicker Alley have finally released This Is Cinerama and Windjammer: The Voyage Of The Christian Radich today!

Originally set for the 13th September, they were both put back to the 25th. Both are presented in the underused Smilebox format, which so far, has only been applied once back in 2008 with How The West Was Won. But that Blu-ray also presented a 2.78:1 version (flat) as well, but not with these titles. It’s Smilebox or nothing which is fine by me.

My hopes are that sooner, rather than later, the remaining Cinerama Travelogues and the other feature film to be shot in 3-Strip Cinerama, The Wonderful World Of The Brothers Grimm, will be released also. And, though maybe a pipe dream, the prospects of releasing other films with the option of Smilebox, such as 2001: A Space Odyssey & Ben~Hur, for examples, which were presented on a curved screen at time, let alone restorations of lost films such as the only other 3-Panel Cinerama films such as the afore-mentioned The Wonderful World Of The Brothers Grimm.

There are some cracking features on these discs, such as The Breakdown Reel for This Is Cinerama, an alternate segment which was included in the European showings, as well a selection of features looking at the restorations of the titles and I hope that these two films will make a prestigious addition to my collection. I have never seen Windjammer though, and it suspect that few people have but I have seen This Is Cinerama at Bradford back in 1993 and of course many excerpts in Smilebox as they featured in the Cinerama Adventure documentary from 2002.

Cinerama and Cinemiracle, the latter format used just once for Windjammer, were never really sustainable as widescreen formats, but this was and is still a fascinating format and does not deserve to be lost forever and thanks to all those who spent their time restoring these lost epics, they won’t be. Though it will always be niche market for a small number of collectors such as myself.

I have yet to receive my discs as they are on their way from Flicker Alley in the U.S. as we speak, but a review is coming so brace yourselves!

N.B. This post contains some text from a previous post regarding the same subject from June 2012.

THE UNTOUCHABLES

1987

DIRECTOR: Brian De Palma

May Contain Spoilers!

“Where is Nitti anyway?”

“He’s in the car”

It was on this day, 25 years ago, that Brian De Palma’s reimagining of the television series, The Untouchables was release here in the U.K. As Ennio Morricone’s classical and powerful opening score played over the titles, a very telling credit appeared on the screen, almost telling us what to expect. “Costumes by Georgio Armani”.

This entire film is the Armani suit of gangster movies. De Palma had already made his name with films such as Scarface (1983) and Carrie (1976) but this modern classic was about to hit and strike a chord with more than just hard-core mobster fans. This is a complex film, not in a narrtive sense, which actually plays out quite simplisticly, though not to say stupidly, of dumb, but tonally, there’s a lot going on here.

This story of Elliot Ness (Kevin Costner) and his battle against Chigago mobster, Al Capone (Robert De Niro), has its roots in fact, is not accurately portrayed here, but it doesn’t matter. Costner’s Ness is portrayed as a family man on a righteous quest, who orders the police officers below him not to take a drink, which was of course illegal during Prohibition Era, the point of the crime wave with overtook Chicago; Whilst in real life, Ness was a philanderer and an alcoholic!

But we don’t need to see that. Capone is portrayed slightly more accurately as the celebrety crime boss who ran the city with bribery and fear. The basic framework of the story is correct, in the sense that Ness came along and eventually, Capone was brought down by income tax evasion, but in real life, Ness had nothing to do with that investagation.

But what we end up with here, is a classy and hyper stylish version of Chicago of the 1930′s. The blood is strikingly crimson, the music is as crisp as the Armani suits and the set design is beautiful. But this is not a case of style over substance, in fact quite the opposite and going back to the point about the tonal complexity, we have a violent and cool mob film, which is juxtaposed by Morriconne’s moving and heartfelt “Death Theme”, which plays a part in some of then films most moving moments.

Death is the gruesome outcome of the violence and De Palma never shy’s away from that, allowing us to will our heroes to take out Capone and his men, whilst fearing for Ness’ team of Untouchables, the only four clean cops in an otherwise corrupt city.

De Palma has also created a film with some of cinema’s most shocking moments, even on rewatches. The little girl who is blown up in the opening scene; the baseball speech; the stunning homage to Sergei Einstein’s, Battleship Poetemikins’ Odessa Steps scene and the completion of Elliot Ness’s character arch, as he throws the evil Frank Nitti (Billy Drago) off the court roof, finally doing what his murdered mentor had challenged him do all along. “Capone puts one of your men in the hospital, you put one of his in the morgue!”

All of which are works of fiction but a credit to David Mamets screenplay. Another major fictionious element was Sean Connery’s, Jim Malone, the beat cop who would become The Untouchables mentor and heart, which made his brutal death all the more moving. And earned him an Oscar in 1988, even though his acsent was right up the creek!

This in not an epic gangster film, it’s an enjoyable gangster movie, with a running time of just under two hours, therefore on the side of brevety. It’s look amazing with De Palma’s style working probably, at its best with a solid Morricone soundtrack, great casting choices and a very well paced screenplay. It manages to feel realistic without actually being so, in a simlar way to L.A. Confidential, ten years later, where everything is clean, yet lived in.

It’s as if they have captured the idea of a decade and brought it to life without all of the grime which should probably accompany it. But this makes it more palatable and allows us to see the violence for what it is, seeing the world of Chicago in 1930 as a war zone, with the people just trying to survive. And that violance leads to personal tragedy rather glamour or glory.

This is a true classic, which appeals to a broad audience and not just fans of the genre. Defiantly one of the De Palma’s best works, without a doubt, delivering some of cinemas most memorable and genre defining moments.

STAR WARS: EPISODE II: ATTACK OF THE CLONES

2002

DIRECTOR: George Lucas

May Contain Spoilers!

Three years on from the omen of foreboding which was The Phantom Menace, I doubt that I was on my own when I was hanging the fate of the entire Star Wars franchise on this film redeeming itself, and not replicating the first major mistake of the saga. The big question is, did it work?

No. But it could have been a lot worse! Lucas seems to have taken his true premise and motives from the first film, by creating an even bigger universe of exotic characters, but selling any form of narrative cohesion or integrity down the river.

The effects became more pronounced and there was a change in the esthetic from the Episode I, which for all it’s faults, was grounded and a more reasonable blend of visual effects and real life than this. A major misstep in a film by shot with green screen, and it shows.

It would take James Cameron the rest of decade to perfect this with Avatar, and you would think that if Lucas with all his wealth and power behind him, could either had waited or worked within the limitations of what was available at the time, because trust me, the technology that he was using, just simply wasn’t up to it. The matt paintings from his original trilogy were leagues better than most of the CGI effects here, but that’s not to say that they were all bad.

The sound design worked very well and effects such as the chrome starships from Naboo likewise, but I do feel that Lucas was again “inspired” by other sources for his production design, such as Courasent for example, which was basically is right out of Blade Runner.

But enough about the VFX, sound design and plagiarised production design, what about the narrative? What about it; The story is, without being distracted by the contrivances meant to convince us that this is a real grown up drama, that 10 years after The Phantom Menace, Anakin has grown up and fallen in love with Padmé, now a senator for Naboo.

Obi Wan Kenobi had continued his training, though little interest is show in developing this plotline, it’s just stated, and the pair of Jedi Knights are assigned, like to New York cops, to investigate an assassination attempt on Padmé.

Is this what you think of when you think Jedi Knights? I didn’t think so. So they separate, with Obi Wan winding up at the Planet Kemino, a planet of cloners (Hey up! Wink!) where he is introduced to the Stormtrooper army Mk1 and the clone army’s father, Jango Fett along with his son, a direct clone of him, Boba.

It’s this wish-fulfillment Fan-boy plot which pits Jango, who is basically Boba Fett for all intents and purposes, and Obi Wan against each other. They engage in a physical battle on a landing platform, in which Jango escapes only for them to fight again, this time in the rings of a planet.

This and many sequences in this film hark back to better days in the Star Wars franchise, in this case, the asteroid chase from The Empire Strikes Back, but it all plays out quite well. Meanwhile, Anakin and Padmé are falling madly in love in the corniest way possible and as part of  some of the worst scriptwriting that I have ever seen.

The acting isn’t much better either, something which we should be surprised about from the oscar winning Natalie Portman, but that’s the same story with everyone in these prequels. There’ no flair, no Harrison Fords, just good actors being green screened to death!

Then, as their forbidden love is on the brink of being explored, Anakin has a dream, a recurring plot device to move characters around in the prequels and mush return home to find his mother. She is killed by the Sandpeople, so Anakin ”Kills them all” but whilst teetering, still fails to turn to the darkside, seemingly brushing this incident to the back of his mind as they set off to rescue Obi Wan, who has been captured by the Trade Federation and Count Dooku. Yes, they’re back.

So, after a computer game styled sequence in a Droid factory, everyone is captured and they must battle a series of monsters in an arena… blar, blar.

So, it’s come to this we’re thinking, when suddenly “begins, The Clone Wars do”. The action kicks off, Anakin looses his arm, bad guy, this time in the form of Christopher Lee’s, Count Dooku, gets away for the next film and finally, the rubbish is out-of-the-way, and the story which we actually want to see is almost upon us.

Just three years later, and 22 years after Star Wars: Return Of The Jedi, we would finally see the creation of Darth Vader in a film, whilst far from what we would have hoped, was certainly more in tune with fans that these two.

On a plus note, the nod to fans that Jar Jar was now relegated to a supporting role was much appreciated, though I’m sure that many wanted him dead. But how well would a death scene have gone with Jar Jar anyway, it was probably best to simply cut their losses, tough it was nice to see his stupidity set up Emperor Palpatine in office, ready to take over the galaxy, thanks again, Jar Jar!

Overall, like the first film, not a bad watch as a glossy entertaining film, but not on par with the originals, lacking any real weight, with a screenplay which would not have passed any rigorous form of editing, and no theatrical of creative flair what so ever; Confirming that Lucas is the Ed Wood of our generation, only through one great film, Star Wars, and one of his most well judged decisions not to direct of write the screenplay for the sequel, and the best film of the franchise, The Empire Strikes Back, has been managed to become something that the famed “World’s Worse Director” (Ed Wood) couldn’t and make a ton of money in the process!

But I’m back with the same question. Would a film of this quality, after the last one, have spawned another sequel? If it was up to these two films, then we would never have seen Anakin become anything more that a piece of the scenery, let alone the iconic Darth Vader.

AVATARS, BACK TO BACKS AND BAD HOBBITS?

Today sees the launch of James Cameron’s 1997 epic, Titanic, now post-converted to 3D. This conversion came of the back of the unbridled successes of Avatar 3D, which will released on Blu-ray 3D in October, but surrounding all this, Cameron has been talking more and more about his upcoming sequels to Avatar.

2009 saw the decade long project of Avatar come to fruition. Back in 1999, talk of James Cameron’s next project, after Titanic, was vague, as he only discussed the pitch and banged on about the technology not being ready.

And he wasn’t talking about 3D either, he was actually developing the motion capture technology, which would quite rightly become one of the most important technical developments to hit filmmaking in years.

The 3D was the selling point but that fad will and already is passing by, leaving the film’s true accomplishment, Mo-cap to herald the movie as a cinematic achievement.

The story was nothing spectacular, often given nicknames leaning towards the films derivative narrative, such as “Dances With Smurfs” and “Smurfahontas”! But it was a huge financial success, it was very well shot and it looked great. A sequel is well deserved but two, really?

Nothing good comes from back to back sequels as the story becomes contrived and episodic, (take The Matrix and Pirates Of The Caribbean for examples), but Cameron is now saying that, “[he] is only in the Avatar business for the foreseeable future”, and that a fourth feature could be on the way, and in fact be a prequel!

Is it just me, or is this getting a bit ridiculous? Earlier this week, I read an article, regarding Peter Jackson, as his stretching of The Hobbit, which was a much smaller book that The Fellowship Of The Ring, the first book of the Lord Of The Rings trilogy, to THREE films.

The question which was being asked, which I agreed with 95%, was has Jackson got anything left to offer, as he is now revisiting, ringing the franchise dry in the process, his past successes. King Kong (2005) didn’t work and suffered from being drawn out, so the concept of dragging out The Hobbit which was one book in to a movie trilogy smells strongly of cynicism, greed and artistic laziness.

Is Cameron going the same way? Was Avatar good enough to warrant two, or three more films? Will we care about Pandora by the time he finally makes them all?

Personally, Avatar is a good film but it is not the masterpiece that some believe and Cameron has lost the plot in more ways than one. It also remains to be seen whether Jackson is going the same way.

Maybe though, this December with The Hobbit and in 2015 with Avatar 2, the pair may just surprise me and justify their lust for sequel making beyond the quest for making money over art.

STAR WARS: EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE

1999

DIRECTOR: George Lucas

May Contain Spoilers!

Dreams shattered. Never has a film or a film maker been subjected to such castigation as The Phantom Menace or George Lucas for adding to their own body of work like this.

Alarm bells rang out once the title was announced. The Phantom Menace… What do that even mean? It wasn’t The Clone Wars or Rise Of The Sith, or anything that we had come to expect, instead, like the entire contrived screenplay, we were subjected to a campaign of “This isn’t gonna be what you think it is.” (Or want, apparently!)

The problem here is that if you wait 16 years to begin a three film prequel arch, then you better have one hell of a story up your sleave and maybe you should have been a little more selective over the vast array of tie in novelisations, comic books and computer games, all of which seem to have used the best elements and plots for Star Wars.

What’s left? Well, nothing except for what we would expect, but is that bad thing? No, not really. We all knew that the Titanic would sink but that didn’t prevent a film about it becoming a top grosser in 1998. The problem here is Lucas himself.

He believes, and I’m sure that the entire company of sycophants which he surrounds himself with would agree, that Lucas is a fantastic director and screenwriter. WRONG! He is a decent, and no more, decent producer and visionary as to visual effects and the infrastructure of film making, but nothing more. His work to advance sound and picture quality with his THX standard is worthy, as was his now seen as rather hypocritical stance against colouration in 1980′s, only for him to butcher his own films and reissue them in 3D later! (This included)

I feel that he thought that he could give his loyal audience a new and fresh take on his saga, whilst tying it in to the established back story. That’s before the more cynical me would suggest that he also wanted to secure his toy and merchandising industry for decades to come, and sort out any plot complications by re-editing his treasured originals until they fit the new mould, something which first reared its ugly head in 2004 with his second Special Edition versions for the DVD’s.

But here we are in 1999, and the opening titles appear on the screen. Words such as “Trade Federation” and “Taxation” began to appear. Gone was the standard opening of an Imperial Star Destroyer and welcome some tiny rubbish looking spaceship, as it approached a fleet of little Death Stars.

Soon we meet Qui Gon Jin (Liam Neeson) and Obi Wan Kenobi (Ewan MacGregor) and the childish adventure begins. My first thought as a 20 year old was, ‘Was Star Wars really this childish? The answer: No. It was a family adventure and it wasn’t as high brow as many fans would like to believe but it wasn’t anything like this either.

Jar Jar Binks was a prime example of where this film went wrong as per the tone, as was the entire Gungan plot; Pointless. Eventually we finally end up on more familiar ground, Tatooine and we meet an 8-year-old Anakin Skywalker (Jake Lloyd). The future Darth Vader was far from the villain which we all wanted but it could have worked if executed better, but instead this was cynical move to add something more relatable to Lucas’ key demographic, the toy buying children.

Is this what we wanted. No. But does Lucas care? No. What he seems to think is that we should swallow whatever pills he gives us and we will, quite frankly, but he is hardly doing himself any favours in then process. Star Wars has become his own personal toy to tinker with at his leisure and this was phase two for him, after his Special Editions in 1997.

The main problem is here is the back story. As I said earlier, he didn’t seem content to give us the most plausible and thematically relevent version of events before A New Hope, instead in an attempt to give us something new, he contrived a story out of elements dismissed on never even dreamed of by others.

And there’s a good reason for that, because it’s crap! It seemed that Lucas was intent on having Anakin turn to dark side in Episode III, which is fine, so he needed to build a story to work towards that. But he never really archives this and starting here, 30 years earlier when nothing will have a direct influence on Anakin’s motivations to turn, seems to be waste of time.

And then there’s the lack any real villain. Granted we have the double act of Darth Sidious (Get it?) and Darth Maul (Ray Park), who is without a doubt the best character in this and they kill him off! For a franchise which delivered one of cinemas greatest villains in the form of Darth Vader to ignore this most basic need, was ludicrous. Maul was a wasted character and would have made the subsequent prequels better with his inclusion, I have no doubt about that considering what we were given. Sorry Christopher…

To me, this film should have started the franchise with something closer to what Episode II’s was in terms of plot, if it were, as with The Empire Strikes Back, making the second part the pivotal one, with the introduction of Darth Vader in the second film, leaving an entire third film to Darth doing what was quoted in A New Hope, “Hunting down and destroying the Jedi”.

This just seems a long, long prologue and extended filler. But as filler goes, there’s no arguing with some of the sequences here, particularly the Pod Race, based on Ben~Hur’s Chariot Race, even down to the hero and villain’s flag colours and the march of charioteers homage. And then there’s the lightsaber battle at the end, which in spite of many complaints about it being unfair, two on one and all that, I don’t care, it was cool!

Overall, it would appear that Lucas still has a flare for the visuals, but lacks any real story telling ability and anyone to edit his rubbish, but that’s not to say that if you let it wash over you and watch it with the children, it can’t be a reasonably enjoyable two hours especially, the Pod Race and The Final Duel.

But in an attempt to be clever and outsmart his own fans, he lost sight of his own intriguing back story which he penned over 20 year earlier, one in which Darth Vader was a pilot, not a smart-arse kid who raced jet engines around sand dunes and The Clone Wars sounded pretty cool.

And the two plotting styles of trade disputes and Jar Jar Binks style comedy just didn’t work well together. But I think it’s fair to sum up this film with one question:

To start with, for this example, there never was an original trilogy. It’s 1999: A film called Star Wars: The Phantom Menace comes out as a tent-pole summer release. The director was previously responsible for flop Howard The Duck and this film has a plot which is as all over the place as this. Would there have been a sequel?

If the answer is no, then you can surely agree that this is not the film to start one of cinema’s greatest and most successful franchises and there would never have been episodes IV or V, let alone VI. In real terms, this must be one of the most success films to be derided by its own fans in movie history. What kind of accolade is that?

TOP 5 BEST SOUNDTRACKS TO UNDERWHELMING FILMS

FILMS SAVED BY THEIR SCORES

Some people believe that a film can be saved by its soundtrack, whilst others can take te music or leave it. whilst I would agree that a rubbish film cannot be salvaged by a great score, it can at least make it watchable, so below is a my list of the my Top 5 films where the soundtracks saved what may have otherwise been an unwatchable mess.

• STAR TREK V: THE FINAL FRONTIER 1989 (Jerry Goldsmith) The late Jerry Goldsmith was a prolific composer who may best be remembered for his work on Star Trek. He started with the franchise in 1979, by composing the new and now iconic score for Star Trek: The Motion Picture, the theme of which was recycled eight years later for the Star Trek: The Next Generation TV series. He went on to compose the theme for Star Trek: Voyager in 1995, as well as the final three Next Generation movies, First Contact, Insurrection and Nemesis. But in the middle of all this, two years after his Next Generation theme had taken hold, he returned to composing for Star Trek with the fifth film and even in spite of my trek fanaticism, I am after all still a devout Trekie, it would have to said that this was not only the worst Trek film, but vying for one of the most disappointing movies ever made! But the music is a different kettle if fish. It’s bombastic, crisp and sharp, with strong themes, many of which are straight from The Motion Picture and it not only stands alone as a suite of music, it keeps the otherwise abysmal film a float, but only just, as Shatner’s ego is at work to sink the entire project!
• KING OF KINGS 1961 (Miklós Rózsa) One of Samuel Bronson’s independent epics from the 1960′s, charting the life and death of Jesus Christ, who, in another Star Trek connection, is played by Jeffrey Hunter, the original Captain Pike. But this three-hour epic suffers from padding, not enough Jesus and too much of the fictionalised Barabas plotline, were instead of simply being the murderer/thief or general criminal which he was in the Bible, he is now a revolutionary and action hero! Jesus himself, is relegated to his most famous bits and little else. Again the music saves the day! Not entirely but the film certainly benefits from Rózsa’s bombastic and yet emotional score. Possibly one of Rózsa’s best.
• LAND OF THE PHARAOHS 1955 (Dimitri Tiomkin) Known more for the terrible plot and hammy performance by Joan Collins, but this film could have been so much better. Writing problems, internal politics and poor creative decisions sunk this wannabe Warner Bros. epic, following the building of the Great Pyramid Of Giza but after a reasonable start, the film is sunk by the soap opera plotting of Collin’s wife to Jack Hawking’s Pharaoh. The effects a very good, the acting and almost everything aren’t, but Tiomkin’s score is grandiose, bombastic and much more effective than the narrative.
• BATMAN FOREVER/BATMAN & ROBIN 1995/1997 (Elliot Goldenthal) Two films for the price of one, but there’s not much between them. Goldenthal’s score isn’t the best thing that I’ve heard by a long shot, but the opening march as the credit fly across the screen is bold and dominant, clearly announcing the change in management of the Batman franchise, and that it was now bombastic rather than gothic. Good music, shame about everything else. Batman & Robin is now the benchmark for killing a franchise. Not where you want to be really…
• STAR WARS: EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE 1999 (John Williams) The legendary John Williams should not be associated with one of cinemas greatest disappointments, but here he is, trying to prop this disaster up. The score is classy and at times, fantastic, with the Duel Of The Fates suite standing head and shoulders above the rest. The film was poor, toned down for the action figure buying demographic but it’s almost as if William’s didn’t get the memo. He put together an epic sweeping score, leagues above the film of which it accompanies, but there’s no doubt that without him, this would have been even worse!

This list is by in no way concise, but these are the films which come to mind as movies which have been saved by cracking scores, rather than well-considered screenplays…

THE HELP

2011

DIRECTOR: Tate Taylor

May Contain Spoilers!

Whilst I was watching this drama, set in Jackson, Mississippi, in the 1960′s unfold, I found myself thinking back to another film which I reviewed back in July, The Women. Not as a direct comparison and certainly not to malign this with The Women’s quality, but the tone had some similarities. The Help follows young, white, aspiring writer, Skeeter (Emma Stone), as she attempts to put together a book of testimonials from the black women which work as servants, cooks, cleaners and nannies to the white families in the Southern United States, at the dawn of the civil rights movement in the turbulent 60′s.

Skeeter was herself raised by a black nanny, known as The Help, and sets about learning the truth behind this institution which was only a step away from the slavery which was supposedly vanquished a hundred year earlier. It’s not all dour, she learns, mainly through The Help, Aibileen (Viola Davis) and Minny (Octavia Spencer) that not all the white families are bad, and that they conduct themselves not only with as much dignity as they are allowed, but understand that they are not the second class citizens which many make them out to be.

But you’ve seen one civil rights movie and you’ve seen them all… right? Well, sort off, but some are better than others. This is not the best of the best, but it’s an admirable effort, tugging gently at your heart-strings whilst not ramming these issues down your throat. This is set in te deep south, it hard to escape the realities of racism but this film tries to limit the horrors and injustices as much as possible, instead focusing on the rights and wrongs of the situation.

The white men come across in a slightly more negative way here, but besides the mention of the K.K.K. assassinating Medgar Evers, they are generally portrayed as dismissive, leaving their wifes to deal with the day-to-day issues of the home and there by, The Help. This film has its villain, and that is in the form of Bryce Dallas Howard’s, Hilly Holbrook, a woman who herself was pretty much raised by The Help only to treat them as slaves as an adult.

She is a clear villain, but as most of the white characters are portrayed here, she is pathetic and weak, with Hilly simply bullying all those around her, whilst her peers, white women, seem incapable of making their own decisions of forming their own opinions.

The black characters are portrayed as sassy or disciplined, working towards a better day, when they can share the same toilet as their white masters and live free from degradation and abuse. It’s notable that whenever a black child is mentioned it is usually in reference to gaining an education, with one character resorting to stealing at one point, to pay for one of her sons to go to college. This doesn’t end well. But this is one plotline which goes to show how even-handed it is, knowing that a good argument will speak for itself, and therefore you are free to be true to you characters, good or bad.

The narrative is told through the eyes of the female characters in this Oscar nominated film, all of which are in one way or another oppressed and fighting to be heard. It’s also nicely played that this film is not just about racism in the 1960′s as much as it’s about sexism and the rise of feminism, with Stone trying to escape this small town trap, where a career is frowned upon by women trapped by convention themselves; Who place themselves on a pedestal higher than those who cook and clean for them.

And this is where Jessica Chastain comes in as a white women is looked down upon because she’s perceived as “Trailer Trash”. The fact that she is clearly colour blind (Figurativly), never really raises its ugly head here, instead she is trying to get the attention of the likes of Hilly (Howard) who is ashamed to be seen with her. They use the complexity and hypocrisy of this white conservative social dynamic to contrast the simpler life of their Help, who are still fighting for equality, in their own small way, as they contribute to Skeeter’s book.

My earlier comparison to The Women is based on the fact that even though men do appear in this, unlike The Women where not a single man is seen, this is very much a famine narrative, but unlike the other, this is about real issues, racial and feminist, rather than some cockamamie nonsense about not being appreciated and feeling smothered by all their money!

This is about women who raise and love other people’s children only for them to grow up and turn on them. This is about women working for a pittance in the so-called “land of  the free” at a time when presidents were being assassinated for advocating equality. The Help convincingly and emotionally shares the stories of this time, but does so without demonising everyone, choosing to cast Howard our villain, whilst allowing us to see the pathetic restraints placed upon the other white women.

This may be no excuse, but this was not and will never be a perfect issue with clearly defined rights and wrong and this story correctly chooses to be told in shades of grey, and not Black and White.

I have given this 7/10 and feel that maybe it deserves more, but for all the praise that would lavish upon its tone, its execution is still a little stale with the first hour running through the motions like any other movie of the week, but the second half picks up nicely and ensures that the best elements of this story are not wasted on a boring or mundane film.

This is not perfect. It not the best anti-racism film that I have seen and it does feel a little derivative, with my mind being cast back to films such as the afore-mentioned The Women, as well as Mona Lisa’s Smile to name two, but that can’t always be helped with such a well-worn subject. It was moving and the performances were first-rate across the board, and defiantly worthy of the best actress nods which Viola Davis, Octavia Spenser and Jessica Chastain were given and I would recommend this as a watch as a refreshingly unpreachy civil rights film and one which holds back from showing some of the now clichéd horror staples of that time. There are no significant K.K.K. murders besides that of Evers, which is off-screen, nor do we see any burning crosses, but the threat is present and that can actually underpin the tension better than any actual act.

In conclusion, this is a well judged film but I do feel that we’ve seen this before in many way, but besides that, I still liked it, a lot.

NOW PLAYING STRIKES AGAIN!

Earlier this month, I commented on Now Playing.com’s Batman Retrospective, but now it’s the turn of Star Trek. Back in 2009, the team at Now Playing recorded a retrospective series on the Star Trek movies, from the 1979′s The Motion Picture, right up to J.J. Abrams 2009 reboot.

Well, I’ve listened to 11 podcasts, covering the six Classic films, the four Next Generation films and culminating with the reboot. Overall, I have no objections to their views, concluding that 1. was boring, though somewhere had an interesting story; 2. was the best; 3. could have been better; 4. was up there but not the best; 5. was hilarious (The podcast that is!); 6. was like Murder She Wrote; 7. (which they went to light on in my opinion), was bloated with sub-plots and wasted Kirk; 8. was the best of The Next Generation movies; 9. was full of plot-holes; 10. was rubbish but had great SFX and 11. was okay, but was far from perfect.

I pretty much agree with most of that, with the exception of Star Trek Nemesis (#10). I find it interesting that back in 2009, Tom Hardy, who starred as the villain Shinzon here in an early Hollywood role, back in 2002 was just referred to as “The guy who played Shinzon”. In the past three years, Hardy’s international fame has exploded, with film’s such as Inception, Tinker Tailor Solider Spy and of course, Bane in The Dark Knight Rises, but in 2009, they just didn’t seem to know he even was. He just wasn’t Patrick Stewart, whose younger clone he was supposed to be.

Personally, I feel that even though Star Trek: First Contact (number 8) was the best TNG film, I feel that Nemesis brought a lot more to the table than most Trekers would have you believe. I am a Trekie, a life long one as well, but I feel that The Next Generation films lacked the scale or flair to be on the big screen in the same way that the Classic ones did, but by the time that they came to Nemesis, they went with a minor action director but long-standing editor, Stuart Baird, who added some of that to the franchise.

Classier visuals, stunning VFX and a more theatrical take, though I do agree with them that the story was not as good as the esthetic and that the film was out of character to the rest of the TNG films, this was not a bad thing. Those films, with the exception of First Contact, were benign, safe and more a kin to the TV series rather than an exciting 2 hours in a cinema.

All in all, give Star Trek: Nemesis a break. Granted they did admit that the effects were great and praised several key plot elements but in the end, it was a “Not recommend” from the team. I Love your reviews guys, agree with a lot of what you say but as for Nemesis, I couldn’t disagree more. I feel that it did more for adding that measure of theatricality to the franchise than Abram’s reboot ever did…