Danfish Reviews

Saw (2004)

What he said...

[4 October 2004]

Jason is right, there is little else to add.

So why am I posting? Well, because I feel a little cheated that a film that was so slick in some aspects, was so ridiculously slack in others.

Continuity errors a-go-go! The lighting keeps changing in the 'cell'. Why? Objects disappear, reappear and spawn in areas they almost certainly weren't left in. Cary Elwes' feet TOTALLY change colour (all the way up to the ankle...) ala Bruce Willis' vest in Die Hard. Bruce sweats and shoots terrorists, Cary sits on his backside complaining.

It's all just a bit lazy. The whole thing resembles a cross between Seven (and if you're going to rip Seven off then you better make it goooood) and the Crystal Maze (a frightfully camp old task based British game show). Some of the acting is shocking (Monica Potter, please retire. You are beyond rubbish). Some of the dialogue is really duff (especially Zach's spirited defence of the cancer patient's personality). It's just not a very well made sadistic fantasy...

But it kind of works. An old man sitting behind me gasped once and hurried out of the exit. I'm guessing he wasn't shocked by the poor pacing and inconsistent lighting...

The whole experience left me rather 'saw'...

24 Hour Party People (2002)

Call the cops!!!

[22 April 2002]

Genius.

Not a word I use sparingly.

But here it kind of just... fits.

That said, I was very dubious about how 24 Hour Party People would turn out. How could they find an actor who could mimic Shaun Ryder's bloated, smack-addled cheek; or Ian Curtis' contorted, scowling intensity? How could Michael Winterbottom, responsible for one of the worst films this reviewer has ever seen (the offensively bad 'I Want You'), capture the essence of a story so shrouded in loved-up myth and self-aggrandising nostalgia that no two people tell the same version about it?

I would say I don't know how, but I think I do. Firstly, employ a bunch of actors who have lived through the period and who have so little acting experience and savvy that they are prepared to indulge in a little 'method' acting (or 'methadone acting' in Danny Cunningham's case). Secondly, allot a tidy portion of the film's production budget for pills, grass and powder (thrills and bellyaches optional). Third, beat the scriptwriter to death with a large haddock. Fourth, just encourage everyone to ad lib and help themselves to the aforementioned 'rider'. Fifth, don't stick to the facts and base each sequence loosely around whatever the main protagonists can remember about Factory Records and the Hacienda.

I was also very sceptical about the use of digital video, as most films I've seen that use it just look like bad soap operas. The acting and scripting of Spike Lee's crummy Bamboozled had all the authenticity of a school play and DV only seemed to highlight this fact. Likewise the Dogme movies and Series 7. If the film doesn't 'look' and 'feel' authentic then DV only makes it seem less real. But 24 Hour Party People employs such a brilliant use of straight up DV framing and extraordinary directorial flourishes (the poisoned pigeons scene is a classic) that it may be described as a revelation in cinematography.

Considering so much of the movie was improvised, the acting is amazing. Everybody manages to BE the person they're taking on perfectly. The Ryder brothers are utterly convincing. Sean Harris as Ian Curtis is a astonishing (although the town cryer epitaph scene doesn't really work) and Paddy Considine again marks himself out as one of the charismatic British actors around. The only person who lets the side down is Ralf Little as Peter Hook - the majority of his surly and stroppy performance has obviously been left on the cutting room floor.

Some people have expressed surprise at just how good Steve Coogan's impression of Tony Wilson is, but when you consider that Alan Partirdge was essentially an amalgam of a host of bad television presenters (Wilson being his key point of reference) his uncanny resemblance becomes easier to understand.

Would someone who has no interest in the Madchester scene get anything out of this film? Yes. The live music and club scenes are the best I've EVER seen in any film about music (including any music documentary), and if you like the Vic and Bob-ish quirk of the Royal Tennenbaums, then you'll find this film hysterical.

How many marks out of ten... go on then, 24.

Waking the Dead (2000)

Everybody's got one...

[8/10 · 15 April 2002]

There are a lot of people who clearly didn't like Waking the Dead, from users on IMDB to the showboating reviewers who slated the movie when it was released in the US. Fair enough.

But everybody has one band/ movie/ book/ football team, etc. that they are fantastically, neurotically obsessive about; so much so that when they ask one of their friends to listen to/ watch this favourite band/movie that they cannot understand why anyone would fail to see its brilliance.

Just to warn you: I feel exactly that way about Waking the Dead. I can't really justify it because anyone would be hard pushed to acclaim Waking the Dead as the GREATEST film of all time (ever...TM). And I've had many friends sit and watch it and then personally throw insults at me because they hated it so much. But I don't care because whenever I watch this movie it gets me every time.

The first time I saw it I was really moved by it (and I HATE spurious romantic movies) but I still had some serious reservations. Large parts didn't make sense to me, many questions remained unanswered: why did Sarah leave Fielding if she loved him so much? If Fielding really was going crazy during the senatorial campaign then how did he keep it together? Why did Sarah return to Fielding at the end only to leave him again?

The end part just didn't sit right and I thought that that was a bit slack for a film that marketed itself as intelligent take on a romantic drama.

But having watched it a couple more times I'm satisfied that there is nothing wrong with the film at all. I think the way Sarah drifts away from Fielding is very realistic, and if you watch closely it certainly doesn't just happen out of the blue. Certainly, it's quite unfair on Fielding as he is put in some very difficult positions because of her. She is continually testing him to explore the level of his political hypocrisy and self-deception when it comes to 'doing some good' when he gets to power. And he fails every time...

Some people have complained that it is stupid and unrealistic that Sarah would fake her own death (admittedly a supremely deceitful act) and risk losing Fielding for ever. But its clear that she thinks she's lost him to the corridors of power by the time she takes the fateful trip to Minneapolis. Anyone who thinks it unlikely that someone would choose political conviction over a lover is clearly a product of these intensely depoliticised times. Bear in mind that Fielding would have entered an administration that had engineered and sustained the Chilean regime that was responsible for countless crimes against humanity that Sarah had witnessed and which Fielding largely chose to ignore.

What raises this movie above any other romantic drama is the utterly extraordinary acting. Jennifer Connolly is never any less than excellent in my opinion but she really outdoes herself here. If she hadn't been convincing in this extremely complicated role then the movie would have failed.

One scene really stands out: the scene where she verbally attacks Ellis, the guy who wrote an article defending the Pinochet regime in Chile. Literally trembling with anger and frustration, Connolly launches into a tirade that is both brave and totally convincing. If this scene hadn't been so stirring then it would have looked like a callous attempt to wreck Fielding's career. But Connolly handles it so beautifully that she makes it clear that Sarah and Fielding's relationship is all but doomed.

Billy Crudup, however, is even more amazing. Playing a normally very stable and upright person having a nervous breakdown is not easy but Fielding's sorrow, frustration and confusion is totally convincing, and at times, heartbreaking. The scene that really stands out here is the dinner scene where he loses control after the election. It's absolutely shattering. I know several people who have had breakdowns due to depression and from what I've seen Crudup perfectly encapsulates all the sadness and anger that is capable of driving people out of their minds.

OK, OK... the end bit isn't too satisfactory. The idea that Fielding is doing 'some good' by answering a few begging letters is a bit of a cop out. If he was really doing the 'good' that Sarah wanted, then he would have been making some attempt to uncover the shady dealings of his pay masters surrounding Chile. It's also inferred that she may be in a relationship with Steve (the priest she works with) but this is never resolved. Why? It's clear that Steve loves her, but he remains a peripheral character. Also, Fielding would be unlikely to suddenly be cured just because Sarah came back to him for one night. If I was him, I'd be more screwed up then ever if she did that to me.

Nonetheless, Waking the Dead remains one of the most beautiful, even handed and intelligent movies I have ever seen.

If you're in love with someone, if you used to be, or if you just wish you were - watch it, you might learn something.

Election (1999)

What's that equation Slipknot formulated a few years ago...?

[9 April 2002]

Anyone who sat down to watch Election hoping for some sort of American Pie-type cavalcade of flatulence and pastry humping was probably going to be disappointed (though not half as disappointed as their parents when they realised what a dense beast they had brought up as their child).

Anyone who thought this was a movie that just points out how pointless High School elections are is also in danger of missing the point. I mean, everyone knows how stupid High School/ Sabbatical elections are - simply pointing that out would be nothing new or interesting. It would be sort of like making a film about how American Presidents tend to resemble monkeys: obvious.

Let's make no bones about this: Election is twisted, bitter and it wants to bring everyone down with it. Every character that we encounter is a self-serving, morally corrupt charlatan. The only possible exception to this rule is Paul, Chris Klein's muddy brained jock, a guy who wouldn't know what ethics were if they jumped up and bit him on the cajones. He betrays a certain kind of idiotic innocence that makes him simply the least worst candidate for President, a criteria that has been used to elect many a President into the White House.

Although the direction is not particularly unique it's very, very subtle and does a superb job of manipulating the audience's perceptions of each character by making them look... well... horrible. Who didn't want Matthew Broderick to take a fall after he got that ugly bee sting on his eye. I'm no fan of the guy, but his transformation from twee over-achiever to evil, adulterous wasp-stung warrior of doom is just brilliant.

Likewise, the audience is encouraged to detest Dave Novotny after they see his ugly attempts to play Hendrix with Mr McAllister at the beginning of the film. Reece Witherspoon (who'll always be an angel to me) is also cast instantly as a morally corrupt weirdo with those insane freeze frame shots that are used to introduce her. And as for Linda, that foul temptress... well, she's just foul.

A surprisingly cynical film for an MTV production (ditto their previous movie, Dead Man's Curve) this movie is the funniest, bleakest movie I've seen since Man Bites Dog.

Any Given Sunday (1999)

The finest film about sports ever made

[9/10 · 8 April 2002]

Let's get a couple of things straight:

I'm a 'limey' through and through, and know next to nothing about 'Football'. In Britain, most people consider 'Football' (I use inverted commas because we Brits call soccer 'football', too) to be a tamer version of rugby, played by wusses who are have to hide behind acres of padding. Anyone who continues to think that after watching this movie is clearly quite demented.

My only experience of 'Football' before this was playing John Madden's Football on the Playstation, so I never thought a good movie could be made about the sport. Even under the capable guidance of Oliver Stone.

BUT Any Given Sunday is so well acted, so incisive in its handling of the financial and ethical pressures facing the sport, and so brilliantly directed that I will NEVER get tired of watching it.

Jamie Foxx is especially surprising, notably in his showdown scene with Al Pacino, perfectly portraying the attitude and idiosyncrasies of an arrogant young hot head who had been catapulted to fame almost by accident. In English Football we have plenty of players just like this.

Even Al Pacino is great, and I normally hate the guy (if I want to hear a tired looking man shout at me incoherently, then I'll walk into a bar and spit beer in the bartender's face).

However, you definitely don't need to be interested in sports to enjoy this frenetic, amazing film. The match scenes are closer to the battle scenes in Gladiator then to any other sports film. As you would expect from Stone, the focus of his film (i.e. a fictional football league) is a microcosm for American society and no stone is left unturned; racism, corruption, heroism, self-destruction, greed, power... it's all there.

If you don't watch this movie, damnit, you don't deserve eyes. And if you do watch it, then remember to shield your peepers for the sickening injury scene right at the end... Ouch...

Training Day (2001)

Whoa!!! PIPE down there DENZEL!!!

[8/10 · 8 April 2002]

What's great about Training Day is that it never goes too far over the top. Judging by some of the comments already posted on this page, there are a lot of people who disagree with me on this one. But I thought the whole movie was nicely restrained, right up until the climax (is this review beginning to read like a write up for a high class porn flick?).

Yes, yes, so Denzel Washington spends MOST of THE film TALKING like THIS (!!!!), his eyes continually twinkling with a mixture of mischievousness and raw insanity. But if there's one actor who you don't mind over acting, then it's Denzel. Imagine Al Pacino in the same role - although Al would definitely have looked even more ridiculous than Washington going round calling everyone his "DAWG" and Ethan Hawke his "nigga". Did Washington deserve the Oscar for this film... yeah, kind of... well, no... he just deserved the Oscar that he didn't win for Malcom X.

Yet the whole time I was watching Training Day I just knew the final scenes would spoil it. I knew that Hollywood conventions would dictate that the film had to end with Washington and Hawke beating the living be-jaysus out of each other, sustaining several gun shot wounds and facial injuries in the process.

Yet the final fight was really well staged, not asking the viewer to really believe that scrawny Ethan Hawke could really batter big buff Denzel. I mean, earlier in the film they asked us to believe that Ethan Hawke (a man whose eyelids look like they're on loan from Droopy Dog) had never schmoked the demon weed before... C'mon.

Training Day is an interesting study in nihilism and is largely about, as another user has already commented, how important a set of rigid set of ethics should be to the public servants sent out to protect us. Yet the film never really resolves this issue - Ethan Hawke's character is shown to be deeply principled but largely unable to do his job because of his lack of street savvy and pragmatism, while Washington's Alonzo is shown to be resourceful and charismatic but ultimately careless and evil. So who does the screenwriter think should be patrolling the streets: Ethan? Denzel? Dr Dre (who's actually not as bad as you'd think)?

Needless to say, I won't be signing up to join the LAPD just yet...

Salvador (1986)

One 'El' of a movie

[8/10 · 4 April 2002]

If you walked into a room halfway through Salvador there would certainly be no prizes for guessing that it is an Oliver Stone movie. Even though I'm a big fan of his, this film has the look and feel of many of the films that he made throughout the eighties and nineties.

I do totally agree with those people who've criticised Salvador for trying to be both a movie about hedonistic debauchery (a la Fear and Lathing in Las Vegas) and a serious exposition of an actual series of (very serious) events. Jim Belushi's character never really looks at home in the movie (and, of course, that's one of the main jokes - Richard Boyle's selfishness more or less ruins Dr. Rock's life and turns him into a deranged 'tic tac' drinking wino) and the comic elements don't really work. This is possibly due to the fact that Belushi wasn't happy with the film or with his co-star (an admission he makes on the recently released DVD version), but it might also be the fact that he (and his brother) are/were extremely limited actors.

However James Woods suits the role of the Richard Boyle, an intensely conceited asshole if ever there was one, absolutely perfectly, and he is equally convincing when bull****ing local officials in pigeon Spanish and when breaking down in frustration due to American inaction over the worsening political situation in El Salvador.

I don't want to get into a debate about the truthfulness of the movie to the events it depicts, but the character of Major Max should definitely be addressed. As another person has already commented on this board - Major Max is little more than a caricature. This much is certainly true. But the guy he was based on, Jose Napoleon Duarte, WAS a thoroughly nasty piece of work. Yes, he may have been the first 'civilian' to be elected to the junta government, but to say that he was 'democratically elected' is being rather economical with the truth. The film does tend to lump the government in with the army and the death squads all too often, but this is not a complete fabrication by any means, considering the grip that the army had on government even after Duarte's subsequent re-election in 1984. Bear in mind that this film was also being shot while a number of those who masterminded the death squads were still in power. The DVD version contains the hilarious revelation that Stone and Boyle tricked the Salvadorian government into lending them their army and resources by making them think they were making a pro-junta propaganda piece.

The best point I think Oliver Stone makes with Salvador is that it is dangerous and unfair to denounce anyone who takes up arms against their government with a legitimate grievance as a godless communist. The FMLN guerillas were not sponsored by the Russians and they got little assistance from Cuba. Besides, if they were intent on destroying the Salvadorian state then why have they taken an active part in the democratic process since the fall of the junta? The lazy and ugly paranoia of the Reagan administration was perfectly illustrated by Stone's inclusion of a rambling speech by ol' Ronnie where he lists a number of continents (continents, not countries!) that he saw as possibly conspiring to attack America.

My only beef with the movie is Woods' ludricrously idealistic speech right at the end about what it means to be an American. The speech is proceeded by one of the most incisive criticisms of American foreign policy ever in a Hollywood movie, so to first say that America has opposed free speech across the world and then to sing the virtues of the 'land of the brave' just doesn't make sense.

Anyone in possession of a conscience who would like to know more about the oppresiveness of the outside world but who doesn't know where to start, should definitely watch Salvador.

The Contender (2000)

I hate to agree with all you Republicans...

[4/10 · 3 April 2002]

In Britain The Contender was marketed as the most honest and in depth study of American politics since 'Mr Smith Goes To Washington'. Yet in my view it was just as naive and simplistic as the Jimmy Stewart 'classic'.

Don't get me wrong, I do not agree politically with any Republicans, but I've got to agree that this movie is little better than illogical pro-Clinton liberal propaganda. Admittedly, it's message is not particularly pernicious (i.e. that politicians should be judged on their abilities and not on their private lives) but movies should be made to entertain, to educate and to provoke thought and not to try and bolster a cult of personality for the ex-President.

Besides, The Contender's concluding scenes are so hypocritical that they destroy the film's main points. For instance: if the Joan Allen character was so depressed at the way the system chewed her up and spat her out, then why does she accept the Presidential nomination at the end? Surely she can't have accepted it in the hope that her nomination would open the floodgates for American women in politics because her treatment would have only backed up her existing perception about the endemic sexism in Congress.

What's more: when she reveals to the President that she had never admitted to having been involved in the orgy because she hadn't been there the director obviously wants us to think: well done Joan Allen, aren't you a brilliantly principled paragon of virtue. But we the viewer end up thinking: Joan Allen, you dumb cow - nearly sacrificing your political career to try and prove a point that would have ultimately have been lost on those who sought to destroy you. Besides, by using this plot devise the film makers are essentially attempting to exonerate Clinton by saying that people have no right to question his private life.

Maybe so, but it is a politician's duty to tell the truth under oath. Clinton didn't do that, therefore he doesn't deserve to go down in history as a martyr for poltical truth and justice.

However, to suggest that the Republican right are portrayed unrealistically (as some people have done) I think is wrong. Garry Oldman perfectly portrays the creepiness of many so-called 'compassionate Conservatives' (why do so many of them have unisex names such as Shelly?). Whatever, you may think of Clinton, Kenneth Starr was definitely as hypocritical by claiming that what the President had done was morally repulsive, only to publish these repulsive deeds in pornographic detail.

And as for the impassioned speech to Congress at the end of the film... for goodness sake. As if the President enjoys such an unassailable position in Congress that he can just tell all his opponents off and expect them to just accept his vice-Presidential nominee out of shame.

Finally, the idea that all this political manouvering was being conducted out of personal principle (the Democrats fighting for sexual equality and the Republicans against it) is fundamentally unrealistic. For anyone with an ounce of poltical savvy knows that any two party political system (I include the British system in this equation) is oiled and given impetus not by the convictions of its elected elections officials, but by money, lots and lots of money.

Threads (1984 TV Movie)

Horror... horror...

[11 March 2002]

My first experience of Threads was, like most people who have posted here, when it was first broadcast on British television in 1985. My mother made me and my sisters watch it because she was big on shock therapy and thought that this BBC docu-soap would teach us all we needed to know about the threat of nuclear war.

A noble sentiment, undoubtedly. The only problem was that I was only six years old at the the time and was pretty close to traumatised by what I saw. Until two months ago I had always remembered the effect that this harrowing and deeply realistic film had first had on me, but I had now idea what it was called or how to get hold of it. That is, until I found it on imdb. I've since bought it on DVD and watched it again, and I can only say that this is one of the most important pieces of television ever made.

I also realise that I only saw about half of it the first time round because although I remembered most of it almost perfectly, the whole 'thirteen years on' bit was very new, and very disturbing, to me. I think the criticism leveled at the film is very unfair and simply misses the point of the exercise. The reason that there is little sense of the impending doom that is facing Sheffield in the film is because the people in it are so de-politicised and concerned with their personal problems (pregnancy, marriage, alcohol, unemployment) to pay too much attention until the last days before the bombs fall. They are also being continually told by the government that nuclear attack is 'unlikely'.

This, in my view, is an extremely true depiction of the complacency of the majority of people in the western world. When the bombs are coming and the end of the world looms the only tell tale signs that will register with most people is the fact that the supermarkets are raising the prices of food and the bank machines won't let us withdraw our money.

Besides, in Threads the bombs don't just come from nowhere. The consecutive BBC news reports that always remain in the background of the action (a marvelous and subtle touch) alert the viewer to the fact that war has broken out between the US and Russia in Iran and Afghanistan. This is scarily prescient when we consider how some members of the Bush administration are now currently calling for a first strike on exactly these countries. The acting (in the fine tradition of British docu-dramas) is utterly astounding, the special effects are amazing considering that this was a very limited budget and the overall effect is everlasting.

Possibly the most valuable lesson imparted by this film is that with nuclear war there can be no real winners. This is clearly a lesson that many of our so called 'defenders' of our society still need to learn...

Requiem for a Dream (2000)

Like being repeatedly punched in the back of the head by Mike Tyson

[10/10 · 30 January 2002]

It's difficult to know what to say about Requiem For A Dream. I first saw it in the cinema when it was released in England and I have never seen an audience react to a film like this one. The climactic sequence, where the protagonists are effectively destroyed by their addictions, seemed to trigger a bout of heavy breathing in the audience. As it was ending I heard a few people crying. My girlfriend and I didn't say a single word to each other on the bus home.

I bought the film on DVD the day it came out, but it took me around six months to watch it again. And only then because a friend of mine was curious. If anything, the impact was heavier than the first time I watched it and I've vowed never to watch it ever again.

Yet I have still awarded a rating of 10 on imdb and would definitely assert that it's one of the three greatest films I have ever seen. Why? The acting is just amazing. Jennifer Connolly gives the best performance of her career (not too tricky considering the movies she's been in) and remains stunningly beautiful (in a haggard sort of a way) and noble even when she's roped into a gang bang to fund her heroin habit. Jared Leto annoyed me intensely in Fight Club but he's perfect as hapless junky Harry - forever exuding an air of kindly incompetence that endears him to the audience but that will ultimately destroy him. Marlon Wayans is equally brilliant - wearing a beaming smile for the first half of the film and a compelling look of confusion and betrayal for the rest of it.

As for Ellen Burstyn... never has an actress been so unfairly cheated out of an Oscar (and I've seen the atrocity that won Marcia Gay Harden that Oscar for). She is just the picture of sadness the whole film through - a heartbreaking example of what loneliness can do to vulnerable people. The scene where she complains to Harry about being old is honestly one of the most tragic things I've ever seen and it makes me want to break down just thinking about it.

As such, I can only recommend this incredibly important movie with certain reservations. If your favourite film is 'You've Got Mail' steer well clear. If 'Snow Dogs' has been your most thrilling cinematic experience of this year then put this film back on the shelf. Trust me, it'll save the costs incurred by those expensive therapy sessions.

However, if you believe that cinema is an important tool in helping us understand ourselves and that we will only achieve self awareness by plumbing the absolute depths of despair and self-destruction then you must watch Requiem For a Dream.

Man Bites Dog (1992)

Indisputably the greatest film ever made

[10/10 · 23 January 2002]

I can understand why people have certain problems with Man Bites Dog. Really I can. I just think they're wrong.

Yes it's gruesome. Yes it displays a very warped sense of humour. Yes it sometimes goes to far in trying to repulse and cloud the moral sensibilities of its audience (I'm thinking of the repulsive gang rape/murder scene in particular).

But you either get it or you don't. The makers have not set out to make a movie intended to titilate the viewer, or to satisfy our morbid curiosities concerning serial killers. If that had been their intention they wouldn't have shot the film on cataract-inducing grainy black and white film.

They've made a movie that examines the role of violence in society and more importantly in movies. They've made a purposefully repulsive character that only seeks to prove that old Hollywood moral conundrum - if the protagonist makes us laugh and occupies a large amount of screen time, we, the audience will forgive him no matter what he does.

I'm not really into serial killer movies as a rule - I think most of them fall foul of the criticisms hurled at Man Bites Dog. But I have NEVER seen another film that is anything like this. And I don't think I ever will.