henfish Reviews

The Mistress of Spices (2005)

Missed With Awful Spices

[1/10 · 8 July 2008]

When the chillies in a spice shop get more on screen attention than the leading man in a romance, you've got yourself big, big problems. Here are just a few: She's not allowed to touch a human... SHE'S RUBBING HER COUSIN'S HAND 5 MINUTES IN! Does every Indian now living in San Francisco have a history blighted by parricide!? When a film relies on over 50% of it's dialogue through the source of spoken thought it is corrupt of imagination.

On a more general note: Mistress of the Spices is a poor story poorly told. It's cliché ridden; the dialogue is shocking; the acting is unconvincing and the directing woefully one dimensional. Aishwarya Rai does indeed have stunning eyes - but does the camera really need to give us close-ups of them every 4 minutes!? There is nothing to recommend this febrile nonsense. It is patronising to both the Sub-Continent and the West and, as a metaphor, is as involving as if she'd have ran a DIY store. Actually...

If you're a fan of film and want to see how to get everything wrong - watch this. If you think time is too precious, have a curry instead - it's infinitely more authentic and satisfying.

The Wind that Shakes the Barley (2006)

Ken'll Fix It For You.. And You.. And You..

[2/10 · 26 February 2007]

Dear Ken, Can you fix it for me (being of Irish decent) to see a film based on a pivotal chapter of Irish history done in a simplistic, clichéd, patronising, un-explained and one dimensional manner?

Yours,

Henfish xxx

Dear Henfish,

Now then, now then... What have we here? (Strange glottal noises)

Well. We have fixed it for Henfish and The Wind That Shakes The Barley is that very film. We have removed any unsightly character development and left all emotional and dramatic scenarios as obvious and unchallenging as possible. To help this along we have made all the antagonistic characters exactly the same as one another in a helpful, one-dimensional fashion. Also - as your letter was so polite - we haven't lumbered you with any facts about the historical period in question. Instead, we have collated a large number of unbelievable soundbites (some refreshingly anachronistic), and peppered the entire film with them. This will hopefully confuse you to such a degree that you'll feel either overwhelming guilt and/or pride for the period in question and thus be blinkered as to the God awfulness of the actual project; failing, as it does, in every artistic area.

Yours,

Kenny Savey (rattle of jewellery... and almost empty head...)

Memoirs of a Geisha (2005)

This Movie DOES Contain Spoilers!!!

[3/10 · 15 January 2007]

A Geisha is a virgin who gives up her virginity to a wealthy man in order that he be her patron... No? Have I got that wrong? Best watch the film again or, better still, read the book. That way I won't have to sit through unnecessary fractured English; tedious, un-involving and badly handled set pieces; hybrid set designs confused between what producers think is the best of Eastern cinema and what they think Hollywood will think is the best of Eastern cinema (confused? They certainly were!) and a string of 1/2 dimensional performances (Li Gong is stunning.. and stunningly awful.. but only the 1st among equals)!

Ziyi Zhang is one of my favourite contemporary actors but, by God, she has her work cut out here. Her character (like the film and thus the audience) doesn't know whether it's coming or going! But in such an un-inventive, lazy fashion. Nothing adds up. The most predictable conclusions somehow seem to catch the characters off-guard. A prime example of this is Sayuri's reluctant wooing of Nobu at the Suomo fight. Not only is the dialogue she woos him with both lazy and forced - but she can be the only character on Earth who is surprised when he predictably (and unbelievably) falls for her. It's pretty much downhill from that point on as every cliché you hope wont happen does and, as moving as it is, the ending comes far to late to salvage the damage.

Why oh why oh why is a musicals' choreographer tackling such artistically demanding subject matter!!!!!!! This is a poor Hollywood attempt to match the subtle beauty of the best Eastern cinema. It isn't remotely subtle and the beauty is only surface. Hey! Maybe they knew that and it's a perfect metaphor for the subject matter!!! Oh! A pig just flew past my window...

On the plus side. Ken Wattanabe maintains much of the grace and poised demeanour missing from elsewhere and Suzuku Ohgo is a stand-out as the young Chiyo in the opening (and only decent) part of the film. But this is poor and tiresome fare. When the viewer doesn't have to work his brain watching a film, it turns off. Shortly afterwards - so does he!

The Manchurian Candidate (1962)

Candidate??? WINNER!

[8/10 · 7 February 2006]

Staff Sgt Raymond Shaw (Laurence Harvey) is a hated NCO during the Korean war, but on his return to America he is remembered fondly by all - including his commanding officer, Ben Marco (Frank Sinatra) - and he receives the Congressional Medal Of Honour. Despite the fact that his over-powering mother (Angela Lansbury) and her dim-wit, Senator husband (James Gregory) welcome this wonderful award, it doesn't stop Raymond turning into a thoroughly loathsome human being! Forget the remake (with it's very fine actors but so-so director) this film is AS GOOD AS THEY SAY. OK - the Janet Leigh character is ambiguous at best best and Sinatra is in sometimes emotionally above his depth... But what a film for 1962! And what a well made - extremely well made - thriller for any year. And as for criticism about Senator Iselin being too dumb for office... Hellooooooo!!!! This is a fine, fine movie. The scene when Iselin bullies the press conference; the first karate scrap in Hollywood; the 'rigged' queen of diamonds pack de-brief; the finale (the lifting of the candidates' flag itself is a film student's lesson scene!) - all filmed with great skill and imagination. I'm still not sure whether Janet Leigh's immediately friendly femme is Communist fatale or not. But I'm happy to believe she was there to 'de-brief' Major Marco when the dirty deed was done.

And the acting? Sinatra is solid and sometimes inspired. Harvey is as stiff as a fresher in the netball team's showers - which is uncannily perfect for the role. And even when I ask myself: Why the English public school accent? A voice keeps crying: 'Fill me burgers and make clean'; whatever that might mean. And James Gregory is exquisite comic relief.

But enough of that. Angela Lansbury is very good throughout the film but, in her final 'Lady Macbeth' speech, she gives as fine a performance in a single film scene as any actress has given. It's now probably (sadly) best remembered for the fact that mother snogs son - but the speech that precedes this Oedipal (or should that be, Jocasta) lust, in which Mrs Iselin declares how great she is about to become (with her son's active acquiescence) and how that greatness will undermine those who have abused her familial ties so gravely, is as perfect an example of the acting art as you will see in a motion picture: 'Then Johnny will really hit those microphones and those cameras, with blood all over him, fighting off anyone who tries to help him, defending America even if it means his own death! Rallying a nation of television viewers into hysteria to sweep us up into the White House with powers that will make martial law seem like anarchy!' George Axelrod - you just wrote Shakespeare! Or you just let slip the dogs of war... Congratulations.

The Manchurian Candidate is about neither being right (Communism and Capitalism that is) and, inevitably, about both being wrong. That it did not have the answer to the '3rd way' is greatly to it's credit. That it's a stunningly shot, finely acted and frequently sublimely written film is greatly to our good fortune.

I think Mr Frankenheimer has smelt foul deeds above the earth - with carrion men groaning for burial...

The Incredibles (2004)

The Inedibles

[5/10 · 3 May 2005]

Superheroes start upsetting normal people through their extraordinary talents (according to the press - a-la: X-Men/Spiderman) but the time comes around when the world needs them once more. Sadly there are only 5 superheroes left: 2 white adults (male and female); 1 black man and 2 children (male and female). And it is left to this PC example of the USA to save from destruction the... erm... city that looks like New York - but isn't. The white folk are The Incredibles and the black man is Frozone because black men are really cool.

The animation on this film is as brilliant as any animation I have ever seen. That's my five points out of the way.

The story, dialogue, clichés and 'morality' of this film are as crass as any I have ever seen.

If you're still reading on I shall keep things to a minimum. Rejected youth becomes baddie. Yawn. Son of Incredibles (i.e. young child) is seen to celebrate when he kills off the 'bad guys'. Repellant. Daughter of Incredibles is awkward, rebellious teenager who wears her hair forward and covers her pretty face. In order to fulfill her 'super' duties she must wear it back. Her pretty face is revealed, she stops being rebellious and her dad likes it. And, of course, now she does too. Because there's nothing like killing off lots of baddies somewhere to make you realise you have to make the most of your good looks!!!!! And the film was only funny in three places. (Anything with the Rosa Klebb clone in).

And the music was almost totally ripped-off from James Bond because, let's face it, that's what Brad Bird wanted to make but, because he didn't have the courage of his convictions, he added a thin, underdeveloped, 1 dimensional character 'story' about familial relationships which can convince no-one who actually has a family.

This story is not about subduing the best or celebrating mediocrity. This story is about how killing lots of certain people is OK (whether you're a child or not) if your culture says it is OK and if your animation is brilliant. It has nothing to to with the Brothers Grimm or any dark fairy-tales. Sadly, I suspect it has too much to do with Brad Bird wanting to re-create an already popular adult franchise and market it at kids. Bad luck to him.

And Toy Story 2 is one of my all time favourite films. Check it out for story, character, humour and morality.

Crime Spree (2003)

Amiable, flawed and frequently funny.

[10 May 2004]

A crew of fairly inept French burglars are given one last chance to impress their boss by pulling off a jewel robbery in Chicago. To help (or hinder) them, they are given the support of a couple of less savoury hoods and an incompetent Algerian. What follows is almost as predictable as the above might indicate - but not, I'm glad to say, without some quality laughs.

Crime Spree is NOT an excellent film. The script is flawed (the stolen car from the latin gang is a woeful subplot); the acting is too laid back at times and, as has been said below (on Jan 6th 2004), the director often can't decide on the cinematic style he prefers. But let's be balanced here - the director of this film is only as inconsistent as his above detractor. I mean - anyone who thinks the saving of the girl in the hallway is stolen from The Untouchables is being majorly tenuous and then to neglect to mention that De Palma actually (and totally) stole his particular scene from a much earlier movie is not really playing the game. By all means love or hate films - but don't force flawed arguments on those who disagree with you. Please.

The muffled phone sex scene is funny; the ariel shot of Marcel blasting his way through the hotel is excellent; the death scene of one of the gang members is poignant and the styles and verities that work serve the film well. It's not excellent cinema but it is amiable and of a welcome, off-beat quality that deserves appreciation and more respect than some might wish it. Then again - that's just my opinion. Each to their own.

Seabiscuit (2003)

Indigestible & Very, Very Wet

[26 March 2004]

Seabiscuit is a film about three men down on their luck in depression riven America whose lives are turned around by a magical midget horse. Ahhh!

What a tedious load of American pants! The first half hour hints at an inspirational story, the remainder of the 2 hours-plus offers up an insipid diatribe. I'm all for slow-burning in my cinematic experience but this stove frequently wasn't even lit!

Either have the testicles to do a 3 hour Epic Saga or the wherewithal to knock-out a 90 minute Greatest Hits: NOT a 2 hour 10 minute, inbetweenie, cover (patently too thinly) all posts!

An excellent cast mugged by Hollywood's bodysnatching of gritty with bland. The most predictably cliched beyond repair cinematography you will EVER see. (From someone who must be a regular at 'Mountain Backdrops Anonymous'[Why is a 'loud, trash-movie' cinematographer doing this in the first place?]) Possessed, nodding horses in close-up not quite as possessed (OR NODDING) in long-shot. And direction that becomes so pedestrian it should have a Mall erected around it. Dull, dull, dull, dull, dull, dull, dull!

If you liked this - check your pulse...

Austin Powers in Goldmember (2002)

OK. It Tries Too Hard. But It's Harmless Baby. And It Works.

[28 January 2003]

Austin Powers (Myers) chases villains (all Myers) across continents and through time in order to save the world; etc, blah,...$£*&=+> Yes, of course there's no plot, stupid! And of course it's rougher than the first two. It's a cash-cow. Is it ever funny? That's the question. Sometimes... Quite a few sometimes - no! Often (if you've bothered to let yourself get into the spirit of it all - and if you've hired it out or paid at the flicks to see the third instalment you must have SOME idea of what you're letting yourself in for) it is very, funny indeed. Crude? Yes. Crass? Very. Offensive? Extremely. Funny? Enough. (The sight-gag with the unconscious Japanese guard at the Manikin fountain is a perfect example of all of the above). Fat Bastard is way too OTT and Goldmember's one-note 'Farsher' gag lame indeed but Dr Evil is hilarious ("...and not you, the extra over by the machine, arbitrarily twidling useless knobs pretending to look busy...") and the Jailhouse musical sequence as inventive as any MTV video you'll see for a while.

Myers puts me in mind of a warped Conan-Doyle. Powers has at least another two box-office hits in him despite Myers (like Conan-Doyle did with Sherlock Holmes) trying to murder him by removing any semblance of narrative interest from around him. In fact, because Myers is too clever at what he does (the musical set-pieces; the marvellous rapport with mini-me; the internacine nepotism) the joke he constructs in order to dismantle the characters (i.e. that the whole thing is a shallow facade - cinematically and narratively) ends up being the right joke to take things in a promising new direction.

No. It's not Bergman. But it still knows what cinema is. And it can use it; as well (if not better) than far too many overstuffed Hollywood turkeys. And it can make money. And in the end - despite anything else Myers might care to do with his undeniable gifts - it'll be too tempting not to bring Powers and Evil back again. So... behave.

A Beautiful Mind (2001)

A Beauty Undermined

[4/10 · 11 November 2002]

Brilliant mathematician, John Nash (Crowe) becomes embroiled in counter espionage work in the Cold War peak '50's and his grip on reality takes a turn for the worst. He is helped by the love of a good woman though...

God awful ruination of a potentially revelatory story is woefully pithy; insensitively directed and features the worst Crowe performance since he hit Hollywood! The dialogue is a collection of wannabe profound soundbites which convince neither as the musings of the characters saying them or as the deep aphorisms the writer mistakenly perceived he was educating us all with. Howard's direction seems (almost purposefully) to miss the entire point that this should be a SUBTLE study of descent into and battling with madness. Instead we see the Hollywood lexicon for what thick viewers will recognise as madness: Nash gets angry for no reason; Nash writhes and foams; Nash chases his own tail; etc... And as pedestrian as Howard's non-functioning direction is - it isn't remotely helped by Crowe's interpretation of a tortured genius as: Spacker Camp! Crowe's grossly offensive (clearly un-thought out) attempt to portray insanity as a man walking around with the initial symptoms of cerebral palsy and talking with an affected, pseudo-effeminate register is the stuff of notoriety. This performance will come to haunt Crowe when right minded people wake up from their understandable reverie of rooting for the tortured soul and realise that a fine film is waiting to be made about John Nash and his tragic illness and this lame, gross affrontary is not it!

The Believer (2001)

Not as good as The Monkees: I'm A Believer

[11 November 2002]

Bright Jew becomes a Nazi. Or does he? Does he stop being a Jew? Can he? Can he not be both? I don't know. And - as interesting as the debate is - neither do the people who made this worthy, sometimes well acted, frequently confused and lost little film. There are bits that will make you think. There are, conversely, bits that will make you yawn. Still - at least they tried.

Chopper (2000)

Bravura Film Making - With Aussies!!!!!

[11 November 2002]

Mark Brandon Read (Bana) gains a fierce reputation as a hard man [and the sobriquet: Chopper] as a consequence of 'hitting people just to get himself a name'. A very accurate observation even if 'Chopper' himself maintains his only victims are 'low-life drug dealers' and their ilk.

Excellent example of film as story telling. I saw this 'indie' film on the same weekend as A Beautiful Mind and, my God, the lessons that shambles could have taken from this. Chopper is economically and crisply written with the sweetest doses of irony; marvellously directed with a plethora of techniques that only ever serve the film and it's grossly engrossing story and acted by an ensemble high on talent and clearly working for one another. Bana is a stand-out as the bright, troubled and dangerous hard man making a pathetic journey to emotional as well as physical incarceration; walking a dramatic tight-rope of comedian/homicidal-maniac as he does so with admirable skill and thoroughly believable integrity. Worth viewing by anyone who thinks they like all the ingredients of film and art to come together in the same project. Not worth viewing by anybody who thought the same things came together in A Beautiful Mind!

My Big Fat Greek Wedding (2002)

My Big Fatuous Greek Wedding

[3/10 · 28 October 2002]

A Greek-American 'Plain Jane' is eventually allowed to go to college at the age of 30 and, with a newly discovered confidence, attracts a handsome WASP American. Unfortunately, her parents will only allow her to marry another Greek and thus various hilarious (ha-ha) complications ensue. These would all appear to amount to the man selling his background and family down the drain in order to accommodate what must be the most pig-headed, vulgar, insensitive, crass family in the whole of the Western hemisphere.

MBFGW is one of those phenomena I can only equate to the maxim: Eat S**t - A Million Flies Can't Be Wrong! This is a poorly made, poorly written, infrequently funny rom-com in which very few of the characters end the story with redeeming qualities. I have an Aunt who is Greek and I have to say that it must be a trans-Atlantic thing because, as far as I'm aware, she's a million miles away from the naffly offensive stereotype represented in this film. And a quarter of a century ago she married my catholic English uncle in an English catholic church with her whole family present (and me in a fetching cream leather two-piece [I was only 8!]) and nobody said 'Boo!'. The reception, I'm happy to add, was in a Greek restaurant. So maybe - as has already been mentioned - the Greek ex-pats who don't find themselves in the good ol' US don't necessarily feel obliged to act in extremely OTT manner and alienate any non-Greeks who might come into contact with them. Or, then again, maybe there are only a few Greek ex-pats as awful as the ones seen here - but Hollywood was not interested in a film about the tasteful, decent, normal, representative ones. Hmmm... I wonder?

Training Day (2001)

High Ranking Performances... Cop-Out Plot!

[7/10 · 19 August 2002]

LAPD Officer Jake Hoyt (Hawke) wants to make a difference on the streets, so he attempts to join the tough, harsh world of the plain-clothes Narcotics Department. To succeed in this, he has to endure a training day on the job and convince the Narc's chief street officer, Detective Alonzo Harris (Washington), that he has what it takes. A difficult enough job for anyone, but Detective Harris has one or two skeletons in his closet, and today they've all decided they're claustrophobic!

Firstly. The acting of the two leads is top-notch. Washington might have won the Oscar for the showier part but Hawke matches him all the way in what is actually a more demanding journey. 90% of the movie concentrates on these two almost completely in isolation and they deliver through-out; a couple of moving, confrontational scenes at the heart of the film being exceptionally executed.

Secondly. The film does not have the courage of it's convictions. Initially it is almost plotless - and all the better for it. Harris takes his rookie on a roller-coaster of 'street justice' and, despite the latter's consternation, the pivotal moments are so well handled and the dialogue of argument in the mouth of Harris so persuasive that his apparent immorality is never as clear-cut as it should be. Had the entire film followed this path, we could well have been left with an intriguing debate on 21st Century urban justice and a refreshing reflection on the idea of 'right' and 'wrong'. The film, of course, does nothing of the sort. It's made in Hollywood after all! No, almost exactly half-way through, we are introduced to a no-brainer plot involving the Russian mafia (oh dear!) and Harris stops breaking the rules because he firmly believes this is the only way to maintain street law, and starts breaking them because he is suddenly a very bad man! Unbelievable plot twists follow hard by and we are taken into a different, disappointing, cliched nonsense of a film in which (among several lame developments) the residents of a lethal neighbourhood ghetto suddenly develop a collective, moral consciousness. The very ending is awful beyond words and if it's a nod to Penn's Bonnie and Clyde it's an offensively crude one!

It is to the two leads' credit than that, as crassly predictable as the film becomes, it remains very watchable because of their inspired playing. And for that - it is worth a few hours of anybody's time.

A Knight's Tale (2001)

Unbelievable! And So Much The Better For It!!

[7/10 · 15 July 2002]

This film is a load of old nonsense!

This film is the funniest, charming, most entertaining (and even sometimes - moving) load of old nonsense you will see in a long time!

Producers, directors and writers take note: You cast actors - you get acting!!! BLIMEY!

Ali (2001)

When We Were Serfs...

[4/10 · 9 July 2002]

Cassius Clay [Smith] overcomes many obstacles (including his name) to be the Undisputed Heavyweight Champion of the World.

Oh dear! Surely the basic tenet of a biopic is to tell the viewer something about the title character above and beyond the collection of cliches and soundbites we've already come to know and...

Michael Mann must have had the best intentions here, I mean - God knows he's not a bad director; but this (away from the acting and some slick editing) is a cinematic mess! When a movie exploring the life of one person throws up more questions for the viewer than answers, I think we've got ourselves a problem. Muhammad Ali was one of the finest boxers of the 20th Century. Does this film tell us why he became a boxer? NO. Does it tell us what drove him so much as a boxer? NO. Does it even tell us how he really considered each victory and the occasional defeat? NO. He was a scandalous womaniser. Do we find out why? NO. We just observe that he seemingly had to act like a slag. Do we discover how this tallied with his deep Muslim faith? NO. We don't even discover WHY he was so desperate to have a deep Muslim faith! (Despite the consternation of his family and no matter how flawed and selective he was about Islam's role in his life!!). In short - it's FAQ off! (So to speak). Anything you wanted to know about the title character of this film will not be on view for the entire, overlong duration of this film.

My biggest unanswered bugbear though regards Ali's name change from Cassius Clay. If it was purely a slave reason then surely all he needed to remove was the name Clay as that was the only association with some distant anaemic 'master'. The name Cassius was a result of his Romanophile father. How does that link to slavery? Are you a slave if your parents dictate your name? (This debate has a certain infinity about it...!!!) Whatever. The upshot is that this film tells us that the slave name - Clay - was removed first making him Cassius X and then the whole name was changed. And unless you have a fluid understanding of the Islamic faith - this film never explains why! Indeed, because Mann (et al!) decided that clever (and obtuse) cinematic collages were the key elements of this film in deference to any attempt at narrative, we learn precious little about what made Ali take most (if any) of his steps to glory and infamy. In fact, by half-way into the film, you are left with the (surely unintentional) impression that Ali was an arrogant, bigoted, misogynist arse-hole who deserved any misfortune that came his way. Brave film-making indeed!!??!!

The vast majority of this confused picture is both morally and emotionally muddy. Ali's romances suffer from a painful mixture of bad underwriting and way OTT pithy (and sadly, dirgy) soundtracks. {Fans of black music may feel somewhat cheated here as the verging-on-racist soundtrack would seem to suggest that African American's have only ever written maudlin, self-pitying ballads. Mann (or whoever!) seems to have suffered a blinkered amnesia when it comes to the likes of Chuck Berry; Jackie Wilson the Supremes et al. All contemporaries of Ali and all conspicuously absent in this film's mundane musicality.} As to the writing. It puts rubbish in the mouths of minor supporting characters {some spurious trash about Lennon being the only smart Beatle is incredible!} and soundbites in the mouth of it's lead. Virtually the only interesting things poor Muhammad seems to have to say for himself are in press conferences or in the ring; and sadly, these remain the film's only few highpoints. The bouts are powerfully done and Ali's relationship with Howard Cosell [a knockout(!) Voight] give the film some rare and welcome warmth. Likewise, a press conference with Don King [a wonderful Mykelti Williamson] and Angelo Dundee [a faultless but woefully underwritten and underused Ron Silver] provides Ali with his most solid show of humanity as he defends his training mentor (Dundee)against a typically robust King. It also sadly reminds us of another missed relationship opportunity. Instead, the film concentrates on an overstretched exposition of Ali's totally naive admiration for the notorious black leader, Malcolm X [a distinguished Mario van Peebles], a relationship which turns sour for the most unconvincing of reasons: Namely, that Malcolm wanted to take a different direction from his Muslim overlords. Clearly self determination was only something Ali was allowed. (Frankly, I reckon the relationship was doomed as long as Malcolm hung on to his Western Christian name!). As it is, Malcolm is portrayed as by far and away the better human being. Again. This cannot be the intention?? Michael??

But what about Smith? Well. He's outstanding. But he's given no help whatsoever by writer or director because - and this is the tragedy of it all - this is a whole lot of nothing movie! It has no heart. It attempts to show you it's trying it's hardest when we can all see the naked Emperor it really and truly is! It's just a collection of soundbites and highlights. Handbags and gladrags. It's a gross disappointment and not worthy of the name it purports to celebrate.

Don't watch this film.

Mike Bassett: England Manager (2001)

Graham Taylor: England Manager (Do I Like That!)

[7/10 · 2 July 2002]

Nobody wants the England manager's job so the Football Association appoint Norwich City's Mike Bassett (Tomlinson) mainly on the strength of his team's victory in the third rate Clutch Cup! Bassett might not be the world's most tactically astute manager, but the journeyman ex-player possesses an undoubted love and passion for the beautiful game and an ambition (with the notable influence of Rudyard Kipling) to win the World Cup!!!

Grossly unsubtle and saturating hits on it's obvious targets, MB:EM is nevertheless a frequently likeable, occasionally hilarious and poignantly accurate journey on the roller-coaster that is following an under-achieving football giant towards potential footballing Shangri-La. The barbs against the FA despite being razor sharp become tediously repetitive and the character assassination of Paul Gascoigne verges on slanderous but, despite these qualms, the basic premise and the story's foundations are undeniably heartfelt and evocative: The crap qualifying; the false promise borne from results beyond our control; the singular world-beating performance and the 'bridge to far' appearance against feted opposition. All these elements fit snugly into the mockumentary style and, together with Tomlinson's energetic, frenetic and ultimately sympathetic performance (the 'forlorn loser in the hotel bedroom' scene towards the end is class pathos) create a worthy cinematic addition to our (attempts at) understanding of why twenty two men kicking a sphere around a field might cause us such replete apoplexy!

And it erases When Saturday Comes from the record of last great (!) English football pic!

From Hell (2001)

As Illuminating As The Victorian Gas Lamp

[5/10 · 2 July 2002]

Inspector Fred Abberline (Depp) is thrust into the middle of his (nee' England's) most serious crime wave: Jack The Ripper. He's a capable officer with a loyal assistant (Coltrane) but it's going to take more than guess work and intuition to crack this evil-nut. Fortunately, Abberline is also gifted with special sight. Unfortunately, it doesn't help prevent the murders. Unbelievably, he falls in love with the prostitute at the head of the group seemingly on the Ripper's slash list: Mary Kelly (Graham). Can he prevent her demise?! Are the Royal Family REALLY involved?! Are the Juwes the ones who will not be blamed for nothing?!

If you know nothing about the life and times of history's most celebrated serial killer then you will probably appreciate this well made, atmospheric thriller for the brooding fantasy feature it is. Unfortunately, the more you know about the period of the Ripper, the less - proportionally - you will like about this film. For starters, the theory at the heart of the plot has almost universally been either discretited or, at the very least, presented as unrectifiably flawed. Secondly, Abberline's penchant for narcotics is (and always has been) highly debatable. A difficult point to reconcile oneself with when it forms a rock-solid tenet of the movie's story. And then there's the prostitutes: Graham as Mary Kelly suffers from being at least a league prettier than the next whore (until Estelle Skornik's belated appearance), a red-head (when in reality blonde) and being burdened with a hybrid London/English accent bearing no element of her native Irish or her adopted Welsh (she lived in Cardiff until her early twenties)? Likewise, 'Long' Liz Stride displays not a jot of her native Swedish accent despite only locating to England well into her mid twenties.

There are several other flaws which will niggle away at most viewers who possess even a slight knowledge of the murders. But, so what? It's a film. A piece of cinema. It's not supposed to be true. It's quite well made and (for the most part) reigns in it's cliches. Depp invests a certain acting integrity and is supported, ably, by a stong British cast allowed to spout reasonably believable dialogue. But it's not any greater than that. And it DOES purport to be true. All the characters existed and virtually all of them did what they did in the film. So picking up on easily rectifiable flaws IS valid. There are few things worse than lazy film making and - despite some tangible plus points - there is a veneer of sloppiness here which is sometimes difficult to see beyond.

Jeepers Creepers (2001)

Hybrid (half-baked) Horror

[6/10 · 8 June 2002]

Two siblings (Phillips and Long) are driving home to somewhere a long way away from somewhere else a long way away and, because they are in the middle of nowhere, they decide to pass the time by aggravating each other and developing unlikeable personalities. All this changes though when they witness a dodgy looking geezer throwing corpses wrapped in bloody sheets down a pipe by an old abandoned church. After almost being rammed off the road by the dodgy geezer's grotesquely fearsome Citroen van, the siblings decide to return to the pipe and discover whether or not the sheets really did contain any corpses and - more pertinently - whether any of the corpses are actually not dead(!). Perhaps not the best idea siblings in a horror movie have ever had... but almost certainly the only one!

Well. Copolla is involved. And the reviews waxed superlative. But is it a good film? No. It is however very nearly two very good films... ???

The first is a bog-standard, taut, well filmed chiller with a handful of 'out of your seat moments' and a welcome angle of the locals actually believing and supporting the scared kids which opens out the potential for the baddie's evil to grow. And it does. Unfortunately, the two siblings are actually so irritating that you cannot help but root for the monster. Surely not the intention. Anyway, shortly after the best bit (and indeed - the end) of the 'horror' movie, when we see the monster in all it's glory, the film suddenly and totally becomes a sci-fi fantasy (and totally different) flick in which we are drowned beneath embarrasingly awful dialogue, almost all of it spouted by the flawed 'see-er' Jezelle (the atrocious Patricia Belcher) and in which the monster develops a personality and - towards the finale - emotions!!!... Not that such a movie wouldn't have been worthwhile (on the contrary: A decent film about an evil beast trying to relate to it's warped interpretation of beauty is always welcome); but such a movie we did not begin with and, in it's own context, such a movie makes no sense without the necessary involvement of intelligence and plot...

That said. It's watchable. It delivers on several occasions and it isn't without potential. But you can't help thinking that, two thirds of the way in, the writer/director ran out of ideas for one movie and ham-fistedly tried to revive another. And by God it shows!...

The Thin Red Line (1998)

Please. Opinion is healthy and good - and it is allowed to be negative.

[4/10 · 8 June 2002]

Having already submitted a review for this flawed but noble film in February, I am drawn to make this addition as a result of those reviews posted by rabid fans who clearly seem unable to allow negative criticism (no matter how detailed, accurate or intelligent) to focus on THEIR film! I am particularly incensed by bollocks relating to what Einstein may (or may not) have said regarding some fascistic argument that people who did not appreciate this film are, basically, inferior. An argument perpetuated all too frequently throughout the reviews. Bizarre really when you consider that war ordinarily exists because one race or nationality considers itself superior to another and yet, because people don't appreciate this anti-war film, they are classed as 'lessers' by those awarding themselves an intellectual superiority based on their grasp of one man's cinematic interpretation of a novel. Be careful, this is where it all starts.

I don't doubt that negative reviews on this 'broad-church' website are frequently dubious and facile. But so are many positive ones. And no matter whether we disagree with another's opinion - we should never lose sight of being prepared to defend their right to voice it. Unless, of course, you're reading this in North Korea.....

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

More Marvelous Mythology Played Out In The Old West

[9/10 · 8 June 2002]

Ransom Stoddard (Stewart) arrives in the unlikely named town of Shinbone having had his arse 'wupped' by local bad-guy, Liberty Valance (Marvin); but does he seek a bloody revenge on his wicked nemesis? NO. He seeks justice by the book. You see, he's an attorney at law, and he desires to see civilised leanings spring up all over 'south of the Picket Wire'. Laughable really. The only law in the wild-west is the law of the gun. That's what's kept tough rancher, Tom Doniphan (Wayne) alive. And it's the only thing that will work for Stoddard... or is it?!?

Ford doesn't pretend that he's got anything new here. God no! What he's clearly interested in is the marriage (and divorce!) of the primal and the cerebral. He set's the whole thing in the wild-west (a genric canvas second to none) and relies on character and emotion to lead us way beyond the obvious plot. And what he delivers is a sublime debate on the inter-dependency of force and reason. For there are those not prepared to listen to reason and those disenfranchised by the reliance on force; and Ransom Stoddard eventually acknowledges this, embraces the essence of both codes and thereby supercedes Doniphan as the real 'hero' of the new renaissance of the American West.

This is an excellent piece of metaphorical mythology. The monochrome teases us of a 'black and white' world within which the 'reality' of life is oft contained within the shadows. Ford's direction of comedy and drama has never been bettered by himself (not even in the somewhat ponderous 'My Darling Clementine') and the dialogue risks allowing wisdom in Doniphon's horse-poke to be matched by an often acerbic, no-nonsense Stoddard. The characters (and the actors within them) are uniformly excellent. Stewart never puts a foot wrong and this is the high-water mark of Wayne's dramatic capability. The scene in which he realises his love is unrequited and subsequently drinks himself into oblivion reveals a depth few could have thought him capable of. Special mention must also go to Edmond O'Brien's avoidance of (surely tempting) caricaturing the newspaper editor and instead creating a most believable bridge of humanity between the values of the wild west and the civilised east. Lee Marvin's sullen rendition of the bad guy Valance is also outstanding. And it is to Ford's credit that you are always left uncertain as to whether Valance or Doniphan was the tougher cowboy.

The idea of a developing world allowing us to metaphorise our own understanding of and relationship with existence is as old as Zeus (and the God's that preceded him); and in the developing new world of the American west, nobody examined that potential better or more profoundly than John Ford. And this film is one of the crowning moments of that examination.

Enigma (2001)

Two Films For The Price (and detriment!) Of One

[6/10 · 7 June 2002]

If only we knew how to crack Germany's wartime communication codes - we could knock years off the war! Well, we did it once (the bloody Brits at Bletchley Park that is!!!) so, despite the Jerries changing their code unexpectedly just when we were sussing them out, let's jolly well see if we can't do it again. What ho! Mathematician, Tom Jericho (Scott) is our Ace card, but then - they're are bloody geniuses up at Bletchley! And this is a true story. And it's a rivetingly fascinating one. God forbid it should be sullied and muddied with an errant sexy-spy sub-plot... DOH!

Michael Apted capably directs two films here. The drama about code-breaking at Bletchley Park replete with it's cast of absurd British eccentrics (within which Scott provides a surprisingly underplayed and likeable genius) is both exciting and of huge historical interest. Sadly, it also has to share screen-time with a second, less satisfactory film: Namely a lame spy-thriller trying to be a 39 Steps (without investing either the necessary story time, character development or taut, intelligent dialogue) in which Jeremy Northam (surely the real successor to Donat and Moore) slides his way through each scene as the bad guy confusing underplaying for doing bugger all!!

Still. There's enough here of interest; and just enough about Bletchley to lift this above average. Winslett is as competent as ever and the photography and production design hit a satisfactory wartime note. However, despite being based on Harris's novel, the denoument of the 'spy at Bletchley' story is facile at worst - uninvolving at best.

The Rutles: All You Need Is Cash (1978 TV Movie)

Four Lads Who Shook Their Heads

[9/10 · 8 May 2002]

Rags to riches story of Dirk (Eric Idle), Barry (John Halsey), Stig (Rikki Fataar) and Nasty (Neil Innes): The Rutles. We follow their journey from humble Merseyside beginnings in Liverpool's Cavern Club to global superstardom under the secure (if somewhat shaky) hand of their manager, 'Leggy' Mountbatten. This intriguing and revelatory voyage to the highest echelons of the pop world and subsequent (and almost obligatory) mass litigation features several contributions from celebrity fans of the pre-fab four; ready to reveal to the waiting world exactly 'how it was'!!!

Brilliant mock-umentary stands as a glowing beacon to the Beatles (including a self-deprecating cameo from producer Harrison) with an astute collection of marvellous mickey-takes of the fab's more pivotal moments performed by four actors clearly having the time of their lives. (Idle and Innes are inspired). All this interweaved with Innes' uncannilly excellent soundtrack (inc. the sublime 'Let's Be Natural') makes for a must see film for true devotees of Beatles and comedy alike.

The Thin Red Line (1998)

Oh Dear! If Mahler Made War Movies...

[4/10 · 28 February 2002]

The battle for the vital island of Guadalcanal. If the American marines can take this strategic island they will have control of thousands of miles of air and sea territory! But first they must overcome the fierce enemy without - and the painful enemy within!

Please don't compare this with Saving Private Ryan. Not if you think you have the first idea about cinema. This is a totally different style and mood and historically different environment of film. So don't make yourself look overly naive by making empty comparisons. Ta.

The Thin Red Line is an occasionally moving, consistently tedious, curiously uninvolving, overlong and over earnest film which stands as a confusion of performance art video and action picture. The pithy score suggests a consistent profundity which is - ironically - battled against by a frighteningly flowery narrative and a plot which leaps far higher and more manically than the scores of possessed Japanese soldiers do when under close-arms attack! (E.g. Whatever happens to the limelight characters of John's: Savage and Cussack & how did we get from that meaningless jungle camp to the vitally strategic airfield - & many, many more...). The action scenes are handled solidly enough and the performances (before they disappear without explanation!) are uniformly (!) superb. (Nolte is spot on! But what happens to him...!!! Please!!!). But, all in all, this is an uneven mess of a film which constantly forgets where it's going; what it's trying to say and - most importantly of all - who it's trying to save. (Should we fight? Should we flight? Are animals better than us because they're not the warring type? Are the locals not the prime example of a perfect world in their constant summer bliss? Could northern hemisphere people live like that despite the fact that they live in frozen climbs and it's not as idyllic and as verdant and a search for more fertile territory might lead to... but no! This is about a war based on power and not survival so.. so.. how can I justify the constant close-ups of nature in peace. Because nature is peaceful. And universal. And if people don't agree with, erm.. OK. This, of course is not a perfect example of the entire world. But it's representative. Isn't it? I got a very good degree you know...). A case of: 'Why say one important thing clearly when you can attempt ten with little clarity?'. An unfortunate prognosis of a director who had what he thought was a good thing - and attempted to feed us far too much of it!

Eye of the Beholder (1999)

What the hell happened here???

[6/10 · 19 February 2002]

*POTENTIAL (NOT THE ENDING) SPOILERS*

You must disregard all the other negative comments you see relating to this movie and catch on TV or rent it out. I can't remember the last time I had to rewind a film so much because something happened which was so out of the blue (and normally absolutely unbelievable) that I had to check it out at least three times to have even the remotest idea what was going on! Half way through this film I thought I must have accidentally induced some really powerful halucinagenic drugs - such was the tangental - NEE - 180 degree turn nature of a lot of the plot twists. This film is a must see for anyone who thinks they've seen everything in films. It makes the Usual Suspects look as complex as Rambo!

The basic 'plot' (believe you me - you will never again regard that word in the same light) is about a British Embassy Investigator (Macgregor) tailing some guy being ripped off by his lover (Judd). When the lover brutally stabs the guy to death and starts crying about Christmas(?) - thus effectively ending Macgregor's involvement - he, of course, reports her to the police... Ha! Had you! No, of course he doesn't. He follows her around America for two years instead, obsessesed and totally in love with her, but always making sure she can never see him! I know: It's genius isn't it!? And that's the plot - on my life!

Some of the twists are pure brilliance. Like Judd loses a baby without the inconvenience of being pregnant! And Macregor manages to fly around the entire continent of North America and stay in exactly the same hotels (always in adjoining rooms) as Judd, despite not actually doing the job the Embassy asked him to do and not reporting back to them for several months at a time! And I won't begin to mention the bit in which Macgregor is allowed to live in a church bell tower for several months without permission!

The amazing thing about it all is that the two leads really do an incredible amount with the 'magic mushrooms' inspired plot and script and Judd is particularly enigmatic and beautiful: Despite turning into a psychopath because she once had a miserable Christmas as a kid! The stylisation of the film is constantly eye-catching as well and the editing of the high-tech sound and vision is first rate and frequently very clever. Unfortunately though - the film doesn't really know what it is or how it wants to play itself. Elements of the already mentioned, The Usual Suspects pervade, and nods to The Sixth Sense are prevalent throughout - regrettably without a modicum of either films' intelligence. That said, it is certainly watchable and, believe you me - it is highly unlikely you will have EVER seen anything quite like this.

The Contender (2000)

Intriguing, well acted and flawed - but worth a look.

[7/10 · 15 February 2002]

The vice-president of the USA is dead. The President (Jeff Bridges) needs a replacement. The shoe-in would appear to be Governor Hathaway (William Petersen), a war hero adored by politicians, public and media - but the President has other ideas. He wants to give the post to a woman: Senator Laine Hanson(Joan Allen). He wants a change in the body politik of America. And he knows it's not going to be easy.

The Contender's premise is, in itself, something of a curate's egg in that it deals ostensibly not so much with contenders but with pre-selected people and further still, it is for the hardly coveted position of vice-president - a job that no-one need be assassinated for!. But then - this isn't really what the movie's about. No, this is a 'what if' film: What if a woman rose to a position of potential supreme power in the good ol' US of? And, as such, it's an interesting diversion.

Now, writing as a British left-winger (I mean, are Democrats really left wing!?) even I could see the bias in this movie. The right is represented (almost solely) by the figure of Republican, Shelley Runyon (Gary Oldman) and despite Oldman's typically skilled and mannered performance, the character is thinly one-dimensional and myopically vindictive; factors which question how he rose to the prominence he appears to enjoy in his party. One suspects - knowing Oldman's leftist leanings and the fact that he was co-producer - that he over-relished presenting the right as a band of intellectual fascists and somewhat over-egged his cake in the process.

Despite this major flaw (and a collection of tenuous narrative and plot developments) the film serves it's central premise pretty well. As a hypothetical diatribe on what might befall a female who could become the President of the world's most influential country, it hits the mark with a series of vignettes in which no holds are barred (the abortion question during the hearing is a particularly vicious example). The performance of Allen is a boost in this argument too. She has consistently been the best screen actress in America over the last half decade and she displays an inner integrity which serves her character well here. Indeed, on the whole, the acting is first rate. Bridge's maverick, laid back President might be Lebowski with a shave in the oval office - but it's charming and disarming in equal measure. And PLEASE don't allow yourself to be kidded by the belief that Kennedy, Clinton and Dubya didn't/don't behave in some or most part like this. Elliot, Petersen and notably Slater as an underwritten 'youthful conscience' all give solid support and it is really as an ensemble piece that this project scores.

As a thriller, however, it is flawed and eventually far-fetched and too many loose ends are tied up in a clinically convenient fashion. But it's intriguing never the less. And it's central argument - that a woman standing for vice-president would be given nothing short of a torrid time by the chauvinist, patriarchal politicians of the States (beware, Hilary) - is surely strongly founded indeed!