Reviews

I enjoyed the new Mad Max film. It did justice to the first three films, while at the same time managing to add enough new elements to the mix to justify its own existence -- no small achievement! Tom Hardy didn't bring quite the same gravitas to the role as Mel Gibson did, and I would have preferred to see the aging actor in the role, which I think could have made it more moving when Max is suffering nightmarish visions of his dead wife and child -- that's the trouble with a reboot that doesn't ignore the previous films, in squaring away the new cast with what has gone before. But, all things considered, it didn't disappoint, and I suspect it's one that might be even better second time round, when there's a chance to take in more of the secondary characters and the visuals. 8/10.

This tour documentary about the former lead man of Taking Heads is an interesting look at an eternally recreative spirit. Sure, you could be negative and say it's no Stop Making Sense, but then name me one other concert film of the last 25 years that stands up to that seminal movie? What this captures is one of modern music's most interesting creators heading into his twilight years as a public performer. I've followed David Byrne's career all the way from Talking Heads, and while he only rarely comes up with songs that can match his heyday output, he continues to be a fascinating musician, constantly pushing himself and trying new approaches. I saw him live on the tour which this film documents, and while it wasn't my favourite show of his, I liked that he was experimenting, incorporating dance routines into the fabric of the performance. This isn't a Rolling Stones-type showman, who simply trots out decades-old hits that the fans are going to mindlessly lap up. At the same time he's not a Bob Dylan-style crank either, mangling his classics and disconnecting himself from his audience. Instead Byrne throws in the olden goldies in an enjoyable way, but also offers up new material, in a crowd-pleasing and envelope-pushing combination. This film won't make you get up and dance in the aisles the way Stop Making Sense did, but it's a nice reminder that some artists CAN grow old gracefully and continue to be a meaningful presence in their field.

This is a documentary about the making of Poultrygeist, one of the better Troma offerings. The film was gory, immoral fun, poking fun at everything from fast food chains to the Taliban. You'd have thought that it would have been a hoot to shoot, but this look behind the scenes reveals a world of friction and arguments, with just about everyone driven to fury, tears and sometimes out and out violence!! It all starts promisingly, with the cast and crew volunteering to come work on the film, many giving their time and efforts for free, out of love of Troma and because they think it will be a blast. We see some amusing rehearsal scenes, where everyone is having a great time. But when the cameras start to roll, things quickly descend into tragedy and farce. The director annoys just about everyone he comes in contact with. They fall behind schedule from day one. Scenes have to to be sliced from the script because there isn't time to shoot them. Actors are left covered in horrible, uncomfortable makeup for 10 or 12 hours and then told they aren't needed for shooting that day. Kaufman decides to film an unscripted dance scene at a time when they're struggling to wrap the movie, as a result of which pretty much all of the intended fight scenes have to be scrapped -- not much fun for the guy who'd spent weeks preparing the cast for the fights!! Most behind the scenes docs like this paint the movie world as a fun, rewarding place, where everyone gets on, everyone loves the scripts, everyone adores the director. You might have to work hard, sure, but your efforts are appreciated and you come away having grown as a person and feeling much better about yourself. This strips all of that BS away and shows it like it really is. Poultrygeist was a bloody slab of fun, enjoyable but throwaway. This, on the other hand, is essential viewing. Worth buying the double disc DVD of the feature if just to see this extra.

This is a stand-alone episode from a series of (as far as I am aware) one-off plays, each of which was centred around events taking place in a different village hall. In this, the first to air, a national election is taking place and the village hall has been converted into a polling station for the day. A tired old pro (Moody) is in charge, assisted by an eager young man with high-flying political dreams, and a young woman who is besotted with the would-be PM. Over the course of the day, members of the public file in to cast their votes, while mini-dramas unfurl among the trio of officials in attendance. A decent script by Jack Rosenthal is reason enough to watch this, but a major bonus is the cast -- as well as veteran Moody, you can catch the likes of Bernard Hill and Michael Angelis (stars of Boys From The Blackstuff), Liz Dawn (who found fame as Vera Duckworth in Coronation Street), and an almost unrecognizable, bearded and relatively thin (!!!) Richard Griffiths (from History Boys, Withnail & I, etc). A little gem from the Granada vaults, definitely worth tracking down and casting your vote for!!!!

This simple children's film, made as a way of educating kids through "fun" means, is a small-scale, very dated piece of fluff that would have long ago been lost to cinema history if not for one very crucial element -- it was the final pairing of one of film's finest partnerships, director Michael Powell and writer Emeric Pressburger. After a string of cinematic marvels in the 1940s (including The Life And Death Of Colonel Blimp, Black Narcissus, The Red Shoes, and A Matter Of Life And Death), their fortunes faded. They kept up their partnership as The Archers until 1957, made one more film together in the mid-60s (They're A Weird Mob, which is probably the least seen and most elusive of all their work), and then surprisingly churned this out in 1972. Anyone hoping for a hint of the old magic will be disappointed. This is weak on all fronts, an odd and unhappy concoction from a pair of geniuses who were famed for their innovation and creativity. Fans will want to catch it anyway, just to be able to say they've seen it, but really this is a very minor PS to a fabulous career which had long since hit its peak.

The third Indy movie sees him go after his father, who has been kidnapped while searching for the Holy Grail. Indy doesn't believe in the mythical Grail, but his father, the leading lady and the Nazis all do! Great fun. A bit too formulaic, but it has its twists and surprises, and Connery is an inspired addition as Indy's eccentric Pa. Has a good beginning, too, with Phoenix starring as the young Indy. A pity he never grew up to play an older one ... The only real downside is the finale (filmed in the stunning location of Petra). It's incredibly weak and left me scowling. Apart from that, this is probably the second best of the series.

This is a good introduction to the work of one of cinema's finest and most professional directors. Although Wyler was sometimes criticised for having no discernible style of his own (he was no auteur, and I imagine he probably though the very notion ridiculous), he was famed for his meticulous approach to film-making, and willingness to have a crack at almost anything. As he himself said, he didn't want to just make the same film over and over -- he wanted to try different genres and make as many varied movies as he could.

This documentary features interviews with Wyler himself (recorded just three days before his death -- you can't possibly get tighter timing than that!), along with his wife and many of the stars he worked with over his long decades as a Hallywood A-list director. We don't get huge insights into the man behind the camera, but we learn a bit about his personal life, his background, his enthusiastic approach to living. There are also lots of clips from his better known films.

What shines through is Wyler's dedication to his work, his insistence on getting scenes right. He was (in)famous for making his actors do a shot numerous times -- there are legends that he sometimes did 40, 50, 60 or more takes of certain scenes. Charlton Heston and Wyler question the accuracy of those claims, but other actors insist they were no exaggeration. Either way, there's no doubt he was a perfectionist -- or that those he bossed around respected and admired him regardless of how badly he treated them on set. As Gregory Peck pointed out, every actor wanted to work with Wyler, because more actors won Oscars in his films than any other director's!!! This will be of only passing interest to hardcore Wyler fans, who would love to learn more about the man, to perhaps see dailies of him at work (if any exist), to see even more of that final interview. But as a quick way of getting familiar with his work, it does the business, and does it quite well. Because he eschewed the whole auteur approach to movie-making, Wyler has been somewhat marginalised over the years -- I think critics prefer directors with a one-track vision, as that makes it easier for them to write about! But as the testimonies on display here prove -- from the likes of heavyweights like Billy Wilder, John Ford, Laurence Olivier and Bette Davis -- Wyler's name should be revered with the very best of Hollywood's directors.

Peter Cushing plays a lecturing doctor in 19th century Edinburgh who must buy fresh corpses to teach his students about the mysteries of anatomy. While the emphasis is on the doctor and the moral dilemmas he faces, Pleasance and Rose steal the show as Burke & Hare, no-goods who hit on the idea of providing their own, surprisingly fresh corpses ...

This is an unbelievably vivid horror tale, gruesome and perverse, years ahead of its time. It has some weaknesses, and a most peculiar ending, but Cushing and Pleasance give two of their best ever performances, Rose matches them, and a young Billie Whitelaw is memorable also. Despite being a film from the 50s, this is absolutely NOT for the squeamish! An overlooked minor masterpiece, every bit as important to its genre as PSYCHO or NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD.

Trivia: Although "Psycho" is widely credited with being the first film to feature the actual sound of a stabbing taking place, if memory serves me right, this one might have beaten it to the punch by a year ... I'd be grateful if anyone else could confirm this.

This sequel to STAND UP, NIGEL BARTON (which aired just a week after Potter had introduced us to his angry young man) is set several years later. Nigel is married and running for parliament as a Labour candidate in a by-election, spurred on by his unscrupulous, cynical agent. As he takes to the electoral circuit, he begins to weary of the lies he must spout and the fake smile he must always wear. He wants to speak from the heart and make a difference, but that seems an impossibility. And when he does finally find the strength to express himself frankly and truthfully, it doesn't have quite the impact that it might have had in a Frank Capra flick!!! This angry political shot isn't as structurally intriguing as its predecessor, but for what it sets out to achieve, it's the stronger of the two. It's dated, yes, but its central messages ring true even forty years later, and you find yourself rooting for Nigel, feeling his sense of frustration, wishing he could change the world, but knowing he (like the rest of us) probably won't. It's excellently acted, exceedingly bitter, very funny in places -- and surprisingly moving in others. This makes a splendid double feature when seen with the first play. Potter fans should snap it up immediately, and others should give it a chance too -- while it's nowhere near as revolutionary as his greatest TV work, it's more immediately accessible than much of it.

This early Potter play -- which, along with its sequel, VOTE, VOTE, VOTE FOR NIGEL BARTON (shown one week later!) went a long way towards establishing his reputation -- is a little gem which is definitely worth catching. A young man from a working class background (his father is a miner) goes up to Oxford (or down, as his father says) and struggles to find his place, torn between two very different worlds, that of the upper and lower classes. It's very much a play of its time, owing a lot to the British Angry Young Man films of the late 50s and early 60s. But even this early on it carries Potter's distinct stamp, as when it starts and ends with the father resolutely marching down the centre of the road, or when the characters acknowledge the presence of the camera and tip knowing winks to the audience.

But the most fascinating aspect of this 1965 play for Potter-ites is the way it mixes the present with the past (a familiar Potter pattern), and also how the adults play the roles of children in the flashbacks. Potter made this device famous in his much later TV play, BLUE REMEMBERED HILLS, but here is evidence that the idea for having adults play nasty, vindictive, emotional children was very much in his mind from even his first ventures into the medium. It's a revealing insight and one that gives this added emphasis. The focus on the father-son and class relationships might have been borrowed from countless other similar films, but this upheval of dramatic expectations marks the play out as the product of a very different, very special writer -- which Potter went on to prove he was, time and time again, in no uncertain terms.

Shemp plays a fireman who is "snagged" by a woman (Daphne Pollard) in a park. She's been following all the advice in her book - "How to make love". Even so, he's wary at first. Then she tells him that she turned down the advances of a fellow officer of his. Shemp doesn't like the other guy, so he decides to marry her! Once they've settled down to married bliss, he thinks he can make a fortune by inventing a "putter-outer" fire powder. Oddly enough, it works. But, needless to say, things don't go smoothly when he tests it out on his own house and wife!! OK Shemp short, nothing special. Good physical comedy early on by Daphne Pollard.

A short look at Buster Keaton's troublesome MGM years, when he lost control over the films he worked on and went from being one of the most innovative stars in the world to being Jimmy Durante's straight man. Some interesting material, simply served up, though it's very narrow in its focus, and doesn't really have much new to offer about Buster's nightmarish fall from grace. Definitely worth having a look at if you're a Buster fan, though for a much fuller, meatier and satisfying dip into Buster's life and career, you need to watch Brownlow & Gill's magnificent documentary, Buster Keaton:A Hard Act To Follow. The problem is, that film is currently unavailable on DVD -- a shocking oversight which will hopefully be rectified sooner rather than later.

A junkie breaks into a locker and steals a bag, to get money for drugs. Later we see him in prison. He seems like a loner. Guards taunt him and try to make him lose his temper, so that he will be denied parole. When he's released, he tries to go straight. Interspersed with these scenes are flashbacks of his younger life.

Ramsay's second short film is similar in structure to her first. There are long time lapses between the scenes shown, and we learn nothing about what happens during that time. But it's a more ambitious piece, and works more as a whole. It tells a small, intimate, powerful story, and the final scene makes a big impression.

Another step forward for Ramsay. Definitely worth seeing if you can catch it.

Promising short feature, made by Lynne Ramsay as her graduation movie from film school. It covers 3 events in a girl's life. The first shows her as a very young girl watching her father get ready to go out for a night. In the second segment she's a teenager who witnesses a nasty incidence involving a cow. While in the third she's a young adult who goes to a creepy building with her boyfriend. He goes upstairs, leaving her to fidget nervously below. But then he calls to her ...

Dark, intimate snippets of everyday life, lovingly captured. An impressive debut by the director of Ratcatcher. This immediately establishes the mood, focus and ambition of her later work. It won a prize at Cannes.

Fun, sweet featurette (49 minutes) about a 15 year old ("let's say 16") boy who likes to take an industrial approach to courting. His plan for making the most of time at a party is to draw up a list of all the boys, then ask each girl to pick the boy they want to make out with! But when a new girl enters his life, industry is forgotten and he finds himself dreaming romantically, especially in the lead-up to New Year's Eve. But, this being an Olmi movie, happiness isn't quite as straightforward as it seems ...

A worthy short film from one of Italy's best-kept directorial secrets. It was made for TV, but you'd never guess that from the quality on display. Definitely worth checking out.

Ahead of the upcoming release of what will hopefully be the definitive film version of the Lord Of The Rings trilogy, Warner Bros has released the original 3 Tolkien films: The Hobbit, The Lord Of The Rings, and The Return Of The King. <p>The Hobbit was simple but quite good; The LOTR (made by an entirely different set of film-makers) seriously flawed but ambitious; but this, the little-seen finale, is simply atrocious. Intended to wrap up the story-lines of the incomplete Ralph Bakshi version of The LOTR, it fails because for some unfathomable reason it omits a HUGE chunk of the storyline following the point where Bakshi's film quit. i.e. The LOTR film finished about halfway through the trilogy, but this starts at about the three-quarters mark of the story! Thus, it makes no sense whatsoever most of the time. Those who've read the books will know what's going on, but those who haven't -- even those who've seen the first 2 movies -- won't have a clue!! <p>As if the incomprehensible jumping-on point wasn't bad enough, we're also subjected to some truly horrendous songs, bad dialogue, poor pacing, very basic animation, etc. Truly a waste of time -- don't let that time be YOURS!! The other 2 films are worth a look (as average as they are), but this will only frustrate and depress you. I'd rather have lunch with Sauron than sit through this again!!!

A would-be writer submits his historical novel to a couple of publishers. When they slam his writing talents (or lack thereof) and claim the book isn't believable, he sets out to prove them wrong by acting out the book in real, modern-day life, and hiring a photographer to film it. Some good ideas, but this ultra low-budget effort reeks of amateurism: the acting is weak, the script poor, the camerawork undistinguished. It deserves some credit for effort and ambition, but its shortcomings cannot be overlooked. The last 10 or 15 minutes are the most interesting, when the director works in interviews with real-life film stars at the Venice film festival, including George Clooney, Kenneth Branagh and Melanie Griffith -- but these scenes bear almost no relation to the rest of the movie!! At the end of the day, this is a film which friends and relatives of those involved can enjoy and admire, like a home movie -- for general audiences, there's little to connect with.

Impressive short film by Scott (billed as Anthony Scott), made while he was still a film student. Set during America's Civil War, it follows the grim fortunes of a scout who becomes trapped in the rubble of a bombed-out house behind enemy lines. A little over-flashy perhaps (like some of Scott's later features!), but a definite cut above most similar student projects.

Remember the story of The Emperor's New Clothes? Well, that's what this film is like. The makers cunningly predicted that if they played up the beauty of its stars, and the hip throwaway frothiness of the story, people would accept its shortcomings and overlook the fact that it's one of the most dismally structured and scripted films of recent years, right down there with the likes of The Avengers. There's nothing wrong with making light, fast, fun films -- but this is just calculated, poorly executed crud. Don't stand in the crowd with the mindless cattle and laugh stupidly -- open your eyes, use your brain, compare this to any action-comedy which you've enjoyed in the past, and see it for what it truly is.

Interesting documentary about the Marx Bros. The first half focuses on their early career and their movie heydays. It doesn't have any great revelations to make, but it's fun and insightful. The second half's of more interest to fans, covering their later years and TV lives. Some priceless footage of Groucho on "You Bet Your Life" and clips of Harpo and Chico in some of their post-movie ventures. Works well as either a nice introduction to their work, or as a nostalgia piece for already confirmed fans.

Sombre look at young British soldiers during WWI, on the eve of the Battle Of The Somme, when 60,000 of them met with a grisly finish in a single day of madness. With virtually the entire film confined to a small stretch of the British trenches, this feels tremendously confined. While the decision to go small-scale was probably intended to induce a sense of claustrophobia in the viewers, it succeeds only in making the film feel cheap and under-produced. The end is all too predictable, but in films such as this it usually is. What makes a doom-destined warfare movie work -- such as GALLIPOLI -- is the strength of characterisation and the slow build-up of tension before the final slaughter. Here, the characters are likeable and interesting enough, but rather stereotyped and not overly fascinating. This isn't a bad movie, just very average in all departments, and with absolutely nothing new to offer. For a great movie which offers a real taste of what WWI must have felt like, you should check out the original version of ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT, by which high standard this film's short-comings can be truly judged.

Truly awful teen comedy, in the spirit of PORKY'S and other such "classics" of the early 80s. Even given the limitations of the genre, this is crude, unimaginative, and worse -- unfunny. Don't waste your time on this turkey!

Amusing short film, in which pictures of male private parts are flashed on-screen, one after the other, accompanied by voice-overs of women discussing the relevance of the "wrinkly worms", their first glimpse of one, what they think of them, etc. Not, as you might imagine, the most serious-minded film in the world, and all the better for taking itself humourously.