simonk_h Reviews

Get Carter (1971)

Just plain great

[10/10 · 9 April 2007]

Michael Caine does so many great roles that it would be difficult to pick a best one were it not for Jack Carter. I am normally sceptical on awarding a film on the merits of it's main actor but Caine just oozes menace and really feels like a hard-nut. He dominates the screen but (alongside director Mike Hodges) leaves breathing spaces for the other actors to do act as well as they do. This leaves a feeling of realism and knowing the characters from real life That is not to say that the rest of the film isn't that good. It's all top notch stuff, with the documentary style camera work and use of genuine locations makes for a fantastically gritty feel which goes hand in hand with the sour atmosphere and never lets up. I mean, I can't really believe that Newcastle was that grotty but clearly it was. It certainly doesn't make me feel nostalgic for living in the UK. I think it is mostly the simplicity of the camera work and the fact that there are no flashy visuals that makes it so interesting and exciting to watch. It makes you feel like the whole affair could be happening and probably has quite a few times. Once again, like The Wicker Man and The Italian Job, Get Carter is another example of a great British film's legacy destroyed by a Hollywood remake. I just pray to God that the same fate never befalls Zulu.

United 93 (2006)

I don't want to be clichéd but...

[10/10 · 18 January 2007]

When people say a certain film is THE film of such and such a year, I am naturally sceptical. So many films seem to gain that title and , whilst being impressive, you will not think too much about it afterwards. I think United 93 will stay with me for a long long time to come. Paul Greengrass' visual style is entirely appropriate here. I cannot think what it is about the hand held grainy camera that director's seem to love nowadays (sometimes I think it's a fad) but Greengrass is the only director, for me, who can pull it off properly. The shots throughout the whole film were wonderfully realised; muted colours, great light and to the point. I have not seen Oliver Stone's 'World Trade Center' but I am not sure that I'll bother now. Much as I appreciate him as a director, I think his cinematic style is not suited to these sorts of stories (whatever "these sorts of stories" are. That was very shallow, wasn't it?). You only have to look at the posters to these films and you can tell the difference. 'World Trade Center' has four very good looking name actors looking off into the middle distance. Very nice; very Hollywood. 'United 93' has a lot of normal looking faces, both young and old, looking at something. These faces seem to have a purpose to look away. I think also that budget is a contributing factor. Oliver Stone had $60,000,000 to play with, whereas Greengrass had $15,000,000. A much lower budget restricts people I think and forces them to look at the little picture as opposed to a broad canvas. The shock of seeing the planes hit the towers was incredible. I have not realised the true magnitude of the whole event before. However, when those images flashed up and the people reacted, I felt a tensing of my stomach and a definite feeling of shock and horror. It is probably because they have milked the whole thing to death through whatever means possible but my senses have become numbed to the American predicament. This film really brought it home to me. These people were ordinary people, on the face of things, seemingly undeserving of such a fate. But then the film does not show us bad people or people to dislike, if you will. The terrorists are clearly believing in what they are doing and really into the whole affair. They will not stop because they believe it is the right thing to do. It was a film that made me think, how can I watch another film ever a again? All these millions of dollars of money being poured into so-called entertainment and it should be spent on other, far more important things. When I become a director, I shall certainly endeavour to make relevant films like this one. And yes! That last image will be burned into your memory forever.

Day of the Dead (1985)

A very brave film

[10/10 · 16 January 2007]

Maybe I'm becoming a bit shallow with regards to the films I watch but I found myself wanting the good guys to survive in this one. Much as I'd like to believe that I am on a higher intellectual plain or am just plain cynical, I think I am just as susceptible to a good ride as the next person. So, I think I like this one the most out of all of George Romero's zombie movies. Towards the end, where the three main characters were trying to get out of the underground facility, I found myself thinking, "I hope they get out. I hope they don't die!" It could have been the morbid nature or the hopelessness of the whole film that made me think that but it was, nevertheless, very out of character. Maybe it was the storytelling. Maybe the character's weren't as one-dimensional as I thought they were (I mean, even if they were, I didn't mind that). Well, I didn't like the depiction of the soldiers representing the military presence, that just seemed to have no dimension at all. However, I say this is a brave film because, of course, there is very little violence for much of the movie. A lot of it is focused on experimentation, discovery and discussion. Romero seems to be just making his own movie and not caring what the fans think. He's having the patience to introduce the characters and develop them instead of rushing into murder everyone and that must surely be a sign of a great director. If the so-called "gore-hounds" (as Empire rag-mag calls them) want blood then maybe they should experience violence first hand instead of on a flat screen. I say, let it be a cult movie, it makes it all the better for that and leaves it almost untouched. Almost, of course, because as I write this, a remake is imminent. What is it with the film community at the moment? Oh, another George Romero remake? Terrific! Here's a lot of money! Who needs originality? What a waste of the tax payer's money. Another impressive facet of the film is the sub-plot of Bub the zombie. In 'Land of the Dead', the whole zombies evolving plot line seemed rushed and quite stupid. In 'Day of the Dead', however, the evolutionary steps that Bub takes are small and feasible (in a sense! Not forgetting of course that we are talking about zombies; fictional characters). It doesn't feel like Bub is suddenly understanding everything that is put in front of him (the razor, the book, the personal stereo) but he is remembering and that's much more interesting. Now, I'm going to be a hypocrite and talk about the violent bits. Don't get me wrong, I like the violent bits as much as anybody but there is a cut-off point, I feel (except for in 'Braindead', obviously). I liked the first zombie who stood in front of the Sun and we see that his lower jaw is missing. The zombie who got up from the operating table and let his insides fall on the floor was pretty cool as well. I liked the action bits and I can only commend Romero for not backing down to studio pressure because, by the sounds of things, had he done so it would have been their vision and not his and that's as big a nightmare as any you will get from this film.

Apocalypto (2006)

Different, thus very good

[9/10 · 16 January 2007]

If the Oscars are not as narrow-minded as I think they are, they will, at the very least, nominate this movie for it's costume design and make up. They were just phenomenal! It is difficult to praise Mel Gibson considering what a t*sser he seems to be but just because the man has personality problems doesn't mean he can't make great movies. If that were the case then we may as well discard most director's works. This is a wonderfully shot movie and thoroughly exciting. I don't think I have seen such great action pieces since 'Heat' and certainly the major set piece at the religious festival was incredible and brilliantly realised! If the Mayan descendants think that Gibson is presenting them as savages then they obviously didn't look too closely at this movie. All I saw was a very clever people who were miles ahead of those in others parts of the world and easily equally civilised to those in Europe at the time. Just because they didn't wear as many layers of clothing doesn't mean that they were retarded. Look at the temples in the city. Is that not an achievement above and beyond the turf huts that the Vikings and the Anglo-Saxons were living in in 900 a.d.? Of course the gore quota was pretty damn high, particularly when Jaguar Paw whacks his nemesis across the head and the wound has blood spraying out. Pretty disgusting! But that didn't get in the way of the acting which was excellent right across the board. Especially considering that they were unknowns and first-timers (reminded me of that Australian film 'The Magician'). The characters were fleshed out enough to make you care for what happened to them and the heartbreak that they go through. All in all, a great movie and a wonderful effort by Mel Gibson. Maybe I shall give 'The Passion of the Christ' a try now.

Bad Taste (1987)

Surprisingly well done

[10/10 · 9 September 2006]

For a movie with no money, no actors (as such) and no professional film makers, this is a surprisingly competent movie. My friends and I were discussing it briefly the other day. When you think about it, this movie is shockingly bad but excellent because of the enthusiastic performances, the poor taste of the jokes and the inventiveness of it all. The light atmosphere of the whole thing lifts it above other splatter movies which have an overall nasty tone which takes away from the humour. This movie feeds off the obvious awful face value of itself and delivers a fun adventure that you are swept along with. The splatter element is great too as we see the camera linger on gory images of half-exploded heads and sawn apart bodies. The climax is great as Derek saws his way through Lord Crumb. I have never seen such an enjoyable climax that is also so gross. Jackson is the real star of this movie. He has put so much effort into this production and it shows. His alien creations are inspired and his enthusiasm shines through every scene. Well worth a watch.

Casino (1995)

The usual comparison with GoodFellas

[10/10 · 17 July 2006]

First up, you definitely need to be in the mood to see this movie. I can watch a three hour movie no problem but with this movie It can really feel like three hours if you are just watching it for the sake of something to watch. Comparison with GoodFellas is inevitable and personally, I think that both movies are just as good as each other. Casino has certain qualities that GoodFellas lacks and GoodFellas has certain qualities that Casino lacks. Casino doesn't quite have the density of secondary characters that enriched the world of GoodFellas. It really felt like a community but then, that was the point of GoodFellas; that Henry Hill was being invited into a big family of sorts and that he would witness it's love and appeal but also it's horror and debauchery. Casino is more centred around 'Ace' Rothstein and Nicky Santoro. The secondary characters are there to provide their cog in the story and then go home. However, Casino has more grit and really conveys the pomp and greed surrounding the so-called "high" society of Vegas, not just the pathetic punters. It is also a benefit to hear of how the casinos work under the gaze of the Mob through the heavy use of voice-oveR. Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci are a fantastic double act and one cannot hide a certain envy towards Scorsese that he is able to wield the acting might of these two in his movies. Just seeing them having an argument is an acting tour de force (whatever that means, but I know it's positive). It's amazing that, like Temeura Morrison in 'Once Were Warriors', in that little scene with his son, Joe Pesci can make Nicky Santoro seem sympathetic. This must surely be the hallmark of a great actor. These are two actors at the top of their game under one of the greatest directors of all time, not just today. Enjoy. That said, Sharon Stone is as good as the madonna-cum-whore, Ginger, who starts the movie as a real figure in the world of gambling but ends up as a spiteful junkie, not even caring towards her child. I have not seen many of her films but I am sure that, just like Bruce Willis, if given the right roles or right director, she can act as good as the best of them. The supporting players such as; Don Rickles, James Woods, Kevin Pollack and L.Q. Jones manage to make their characters fresh and interesting in the time space given to them. The violence is one thing that people always comment on when it comes to this film. There is no doubt that it is pretty strong violence but what gets me is that the scene where Nicky stabs that man with the pen never gets a mention whereas the 'head-in-a-vice' scene always does. I see the pen scene as being a whole lot more graphic and shocking than the vice scene. This is because, with the vice scene, you get a couple of big warnings before hand so you know what will happen (also, the violence is more suggested, even though you can see what is happening to the victim, you do not see the gory details). With the pen scene, however, it takes you totally off guard. The close up of the pen entering the neck is more akin to Hostel than GoodFellas. It certainly took me off guard. What I want to talk about, finally, is the climax. Is it a climax? If so, it is a very played out climax. Maybe because it concerns the fates of several characters in the movie as opposed to just one big bad guy. Certainly Nicky's fate is drawn and bloody and the re-invention of Vegas is a part of that climax. It is a frank and final ending to the film and probably very fitting, as it shows us that crime doesn't pay for some people. In conclusion, I think that Casino is a definite Scorsese classic and one that should gain as much praise as his more lauded works. Despite some minor quibbles, it is up there with the better of Hollywood movies and hopefully will mature as time goes on rather than being regarded as the naughty younger brother of GoodFellas

The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle (1980)

Weird! Weird! Weird!

[6/10 · 14 July 2006]

At the risk of making you spend more money, I suggest that before you watch this movie, you should read John Lydon's autobiography, 'Rotten'. It gives a good account of that era and once you have read a bit into the history behind the film, it will mean a whole lot more. That doesn't mean to say that it ceases to be weird. The opening sequences are just about the strangest twenty minutes of film that I have ever seen. There are moments of brilliance though. Particularly Sid Vicious shoving a cake in some french prostitute's face is one of the funniest things I've seen in a long time. I generally think that Sid Vicious was an idiot (well, he was) but in this film, he comes across as an almost like-able, possibly insane character. The film seems to have a storyline of sorts but it all becomes confused in a muddle of history, punk rock and random sex. Malcolm McLaren comes across as a self-centred egomaniac (as usual) and Steve Jones is interesting as the detective on his trail. The trip to Rio seems to confirm Lydon's doubts about the whole thing. It was just a gimmick and what IS the point in glorifying the deeds of a man who helped to steal what was basically working class money? The song was crap anyway. This is a bizarre film so approach with an open mind or you will switch off very quickly as I did first time round.

Once Upon a Time in America (1984)

Better than The Godfather

[10/10 · 13 July 2006]

I can't watch the Godfather. It's so boring! Both these films are slow but there is a difference, which I think I've figured out. Once Upon a Time in America is slow because it has an attitude. This attitude needs to play itself out over each scene. Example: Noodles returns to gang headquarters and stirs his coffee for two minutes. The gang know that something has gone wrong between him and Deborah and want him to discuss it. Noodles does not want to discuss it and so stirs his coffee until someone talks about something else. The Godfather is slow because nothing happens. Example: The scenes in the hospital with Michael and Don Vito. Nothing is going on. It's no fun to watch. It's not entertaining. Still, come to think of it, Once Upon a Time in America is not exactly entertaining as such. Those rape scenes are really horrible and I, personally, can't watch them. However, one can appreciate how great a film it is and what an achievement in story-telling. Leone does not attempt to make these men seem sympathetic because they are bad men. And though it seems simplistic to say it; bad men do bad things. What can you do? That is just one facet of the strength of the movie, though. The child actors are a revelation. The kid who plays Dominic is brilliant, why we never saw more of him and less of Macauly Culkin is anybody's guess. The other thing is that they look just like young versions of the older actors. The final word, however, must go to Robert de Niro and James Woods. James Woods has rarely been better. He's come close, no doubt about that but never bettered. De Niro is on excellent form with a marvellously restrained performance. Sometimes you have to have a protagonist who is not an extrovert and this is just that character. Noodles, as portrayed by De Niro, is unhappy with his lot for several reasons and let's people know about subtley. The best Leone film? Difficult to say. They're all great films so this would definitely rank as one of the best and certainly deserves more praise than it gets, even now, in the film world.

The Meaning of Life (1983)

Under-appreciated

[9/10 · 11 July 2006]

I am one of the few people who think that this is the best Monty Python film. That doesn't mean to say that the others are crap but this one certainly is not as bad as everyone says. I guess it's because of the sketch format of the film and people are not used to that as opposed to a straight-forward narrative film. Who here doesn't find the Protestant sketch funny? That is almost all in one take and it is brilliant. The live organ transplants is another bit of inspired lunacy; definitely very gory for any film but it is in keeping with the dark tone that broods over the whole film. This is a film for every geek's DVD collection (like mine)! Well worth a watch and easily a match for Life of Brian.