Andyman-3 Reviews

Lethal Weapon 4 (1998)

Mad Bad & Dangerous - but no!

[15 July 1999]

As a hot-blooded, heterosexual Englishman I usually go for action films for the pace and violence - certainly not for the scripts. But Mel Gibson has always had a very strange "ooh I wouldn't kick him out of bed" effect on me. OK he's made some stinking turkeys in his time, but he's always done them with dignity, cool and above all sexiness.

However, Lethal Weapon 4 was the worst pile of disjointed, feeble, over-budgeted rubbish I have yet seen him in. The series has worked for me due to the great chemistry and witty repartee between Mel and Danny but it has become jaded and stale. The script was not just a crumby action script - it was like talking to your alzheimer's suffering grandmother. The story didn't flow and far too much pally-buddie-coincidence driven scenarios ground down an action packed adventure into a series of slushy sentimental cliches.

What I would say in it's defence is Jet Li was fantastic. He upstaged the entire cast. A menacing look here, a well placed (but still cool) kick there and the partnership of Mel & Danny was left looking comatose. When they are discussing leaving Jet alone because he's too good. I thoroughly agreed. Give him the entire Lethal Weapon 5 and Mel and Danny can stay on the golf course with Connery and other aging over-payed and lazy actors.

Sorry Mel, but however good you are in bed - you need to do better on the screen before you come anywhere near me.

Sleuth (1972)

Genius inspired

[15 July 1999]

When I saw the stage version of "Sleuth" by Anthony Shaffer I loved it. In the close intimacy of live theatre the audience are pulled into the story; sucked this way and that by the twisting eddies of the plot and sent reeling on a rollercoaster of emotions for whom you should have sympathy with.

Therefore I faced the film with much trepidation and scepticism. How could they possibly transpose a theatre piece which has only a cast of 2 (3) set in maybe 2 scenes on to the silver screen. How will they get away with film close-ups of disguises and impersonations which worked so well on stage due to the distance of the actors to the audience (It could be. . . but you just can't tell).

Well, they did it - that's all I can say. Olivier and Caine are supreme in this movie, the sets are beautifully lavish and show what couldn't be shown on the stage. The problems of impersonation are dealt with fantastically (yes, you think you know it's Caine, but what is he up to and why?) I was just bowled over.

I would still class this film in my top ten all time favourites and if anyone is considering a modern remake (as seems the rage at the moment) just forget it. The vision, acting and set design of this film are an inspired combination which we shall not see the like of ever again.

Saving Private Ryan (1998)

Film or Propaganda?

[9/10 · 14 July 1999]

I have only just seen this film on video for the first time and I must say that I regret not having seen it at the cinema (but after sitting through Schindler I was loathe to get an uncomfortable bum for a little bit more Spielberg self glory and pomposity). Except for a jingoistic 'America is the greatest land in the world' kind of attitude - I thought that this film stood head and shoulders above any other film of this genre and literally shot down The Longest Day as my classic WW2 movie.

It is, as has been pointed out repeatedly in these comments, a very fine and realistic seeming drama. OK so the plot is thin and intentionally narrow minded but what Hollywood movie isn't at the moment and It was refreshing to see the characters in the film moaning about how ludicrous and shallow their mission (and therefore the plot line) was, but in Ryan, the weak plot is it's grace. The sheer waste of life and time hits you very hard and it is the documentary of war-time which comes at you like a screaming fury and provokes a huge emotional reaction which (I'll wager I'm not alone) had me discussing WWII, 20th Century politics and war in general for quite a few days.

Yes, it may have been based on a real-life story. Yes the historical representation may have been unnervingly accurate. Yes the Omah Landings did prove costly (the artillery bomardment and armour landings failed to materialise - Not surprising from the American Armed Forces.) and yes, a great number of very brave men died. What got to me though was the huge pointlessness of the fight. Who was actually saved? Ryan - certainly not emotionally. The war-torn lands of France - not in the film. The American or even, come to that, the poor German soldiers who had to obey orders which did not take into account their humanity - not if the ketchup was anything to go by. Not even Hanks, Spielberg et al were saved the misery of Shakey in Love picking up their beloved Oscars.

But the direction of the piece, the cinematography, the initial landing scene (grainy and with fantastic sound and visual effects) will stay with me for a long time to come.

Spielberg has once again shot up in my estimation and it was pleasant not to have his own insecurities and pats on the back so prevalent in one of his films. I even hear that the next "Jews during the war" movie (The Betty someone Story) may not even be directed by him but may go to the Bard Branagh instead. But here he has at last come of age in the realms of adult drama and serious film-making.

Love's Labour's Lost (2000)

Likeable - not traditional

[7/10 · 13 July 1999]

To begin with, I must say that the version of Love's Labour's Lost that I saw had not been fully edited and the soundtrack comprised mostly of incidental music from Much Ado. Therefore I would surmise that the finished version will look better and slicker and, well, more finished.

Branagh has taken a play which is fairly long, quite banal and filled with complex yet beautiful language and by cutting it down to 93 minutes, adding 5 or 6 song and dance routines and eliminating much of the original Shakespeare, he has managed to produce a very likeable farce.

Traditionalists who hold Shakespeare in holy awe will find this film to be quite blasphemous. However, I feel that Branagh has captured the feeling of the piece extremely well. It is after all a slightly bawdy farce with lots of terrible jokes and a plot as shallow as a puddle in the drought season. Shakey raises it with many great and moving speeches (most by Berowne / Branagh surprisingly enough) and these have been lovingly restored in Branagh's film.

My main gripe about the film is the ending. Not wishing to give anything away, I shall just say that Mr S intentionally left the ending of the play

very open - even quite pessimistic(?) Branagh doesn't. Even this is not crushing in itself and is thoroughly understandable in order to appeal to a bland, formulaic-loving Hollywood audience. But Branagh puts us through 3 separate endings to go along with this.

The first, a usual musical device is used - to end on a spirited chorus song and dance. Branagh treats us to this - even to the extent of bringing on all of the cast for their bows. Then however he lets the momentum down for Ending No. 2 (the end of Shakey's play) which is slow, poignant and moving. Finally, he revs us up once again to give us a 3rd ending which the play did not contain and in my mind was superfluous to the piece as a whole.

So what do I think? I would recommend it highly for the song and dance routines, the colours, the sets, the clever use of Shakespeare and actors getting pretty damned close to the bard (Alicia Silverstone really surprised me), but if you wanted your Shakey 'as is' this isn't the one for you.

The Simpsons (1989– )

Another voice of reason added

[2 July 1999]

Though strictly about a compilation video, this seems to be the forum to add my views on The Simpsons.

England has always been behind America where US TV shows are concerned (though this is usually a very good thing). I believe, on terrestrial TV here, we are currently a year behind the US schedule, but I can already concur with what I have read from a great many other Simpsons Fans.

The Simpsons, once the pinnacle of satire and slapstick, has definitely taken a nose-dive. It still scores over everything else that American TV has to offer, but in the latter series' I have actually (please forgive me) been relieved to get Homer off the screen for a few seconds. He is undeniably the best developed character in a sitcom (simplistic but extremely well rounded) and because of this it is so apparent when he steps out of persona to follow an "adventure" plot-line. Because the majority of the shows are now driven by Homer, his personality (usually a constant to monitor the madness around him) is becoming warped and pulled out of shape by the demands to have "All Homer Episodes".

In actual fact, some of my favourite episodes have concerned other people - Primarily, it must be said, Montgomery Burns - An inspired comedy creation.

What will happen to the Simpsons? Everyone has some point to conjecture, but the facts are that it has now overtaken The Flintstones as the longest running TV cartoon and unless Dan Castellano outprices himself from the series, it should continue into the future. One by one we will stop watching it, and in the days to come of 'Futurama' the Simpsons will be showing on Channel 57 in the middle of the night watched only by the unemployed and alcoholic.

But hey, that accounts for me, see you there!