Retro Ramblings

Yes, it’s that time of year again. As most of you will know I provided some coverage of this last year, but getting tickets for ths year’s events was very difficult. This event is growing in popularity. I will not be at all suprised if it becomes impossible to get tickets in future.

Friday 13th August 2010

127 Hours - We saw the trailer for this, apparantly just finished that morning. Danny Boyle and Christian Colson did an interesting Q and A. I asked Danny Boyle about his use of locations, and how his films have a sense of place.

A Town Called Panic - Clips and trailer from this weird-looking Belgian animation. It looks like Robot Chicken. It was being promoted by Garth Jennings and Nick Goldsmith, and they showed a funny little film by Adam Buxton, who was pretending to be one of the animators. The film itself looks alright. A bit too wacky for its own good.

Never Let Me Go - the trailer looked alright. It’s a new Keira Knightley film, set in an evil boarding school in Hailsham. I live near Hailsham, and it never looks this scary. The film’s producers, Andrew McDonald (who was acting a bit odd, like he was feeling the effects of prescription medication), and Allan Reich, talked a bit about it. They also mentioned they will be producing a new Judge Dredd movie starring Karl Urban, which they are shooting in South Africa.

Finally we saw The Expendables. I think this was one of the first screenings in the UK. THis is a movie written and directed by Sly Stallone. It’s very difficult to describe. It’s supposed to be an all-out 1980s style action movie, with men on a mission against impossible odds. It’s got a pretty exciting cast, including a still very good looking Dolph Lundgren, alongside other stalwarts of the Eighties: Stallone, Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Mickey Rourke and Eric Roberts, playing the exact character he always plays. The trouble with the film is it can’t seem to decide what kind of film it is. Sometimes it seems like a spoof, almost at Austin Powers levels. The characters are so broadly drawn I was waiting for Eric Roberts to cackle loudly whilst explaining just how Evil he was. Other times it feels like Sly was really trying to attempt emotional depth. Unfortunately these scenes got just as much of a laugh as the comedy moments. There are some actual exciting and gutsy moments that can be applauded and laughed along with in equal measure. but sadly these are undermined by the unintentional humour in the more serious moments.

There are several plot problems, loose ends and sub-plots which exist purely to give an excuse for another fight scene, or to provide some kind of character motivation. It also features some pretty dreadful scripting and line delivery, which when accompanied by a soundtrack mix loaded with explosions, gun fire and heavy rock, means that half of the script is impossible to understand. Some exposition scenes, particularly those between Stallone and Rourke, are just rumbling bass with no discernable consenants between them.

One main problem for me was the lack of an explanation as to the Expendables themselves; who were they? Why were they expendable? They can’t be that expendable, because not one of them dies in the movie. They all make it to the end, which is fairly unusual for this kind of film.

Although a lot of the action is quite good fun, eventually I just lost my patience with it. The film turns into a constant repitition of men beating each other to a pulp, or blowing each other into tiny bits. The Expendables go to what appears to be a South American island republic in an attempt to overthrow an evil regime lead by an ex-CIA drug baron. Whilst there, although they defeat the villian, they kill absolutely every last member of the military on the island. It becomes a massacre. Soldiers are trying to run away, and they get blown up, stabbed in the face, sliced in half, gunned down and generally abused. To top it off they blow up the government headquarters and all military facilities. The screen becomes a literal wall of fire. So once they leave as apparant heroes, with Sly feeling redeemed because he got the bad guy and saved the girl, who is supposed to pick up the pieces? Every male member of the population between 18 and 45 is now dead, so the governance, policing and repopulation of the repulbic is now being left to the women and the elderly.

This is also a very cheap-looking film. A lot of the explosions and squibs look like CGI, which is unexpected for a Hollywood movie. The last time I saw bullet hits this obviously computer-generated was in a film made by A level media students.

On the plus side, it does feature Jason Statham quite heavily. His is the standout performance in this film, acheiving the levels of testosterone-fueled charisma and action he reaches in the Transporter trilogy. In fact, it would have been a better movie if Stallone had realised that the rest of the cast truly were EXPENDABLE, and just pointed his camera at Statham for the full 90 minutes.

Having now watched this twice, I can say I am eagerly awaiting the Director’s “Gopher” Cut.

A couple of weeks ago I was lucky enough to attend the launch of the new Harryhausen exhibit at The London Film Museum. The great man was there himself to celebrate not only the exhibition but also his 90th birthday. Family and friends were also in attendance, including some well known movie directors. Click on the picture above for my full coverage over at Cinema Retro.

I didn’t realise that in the 1940’s everything was so brown. This is a very brown film. Brian De Palma clearly loves digital grading.

I remember when this film came out. I was pleased to see De Palma managing to do some sort of mainstream film after almost a decade in the wilderness. I was also suprised by the cast. Could Josh Hartnett carry a leading role in a serious crime film? Arguably he hasn’t made a decent film since The Virgin Suicides (1999) or even The Faculty (1998). He certainly hasn’t had the commercial success or critical acclaim that he perhaps deserves. I often wonder whether he and Matthew McConaughey get together to compare notes and try to figure out what it is they’ve done wrong.

Sadly The Black Dahlia was not much of a success either. It’s like De Palma is trying to recreate the success he had with The Untouchables (1987), a film I became obsessed with when I was 13. It was the first VHS pre-record I ever bought, and I watched it at least thirty times. After spending the first half of his career borrowing liberally from Hitchcock and Eisenstein, De Palma now appears to be borrowing from himself. He’s brought back some of the same style from The Untouchables (they’re snappy dressers in the LAPD), along with some of his self-conscious visual tricks: wipes (check), split focus (check), long first-person steadicam shot (check), obvious back projecetion in driving scenes (check), rain as a metaphor for emotional distress (check), innapropriate use of a baseball bat (check). There are plot similarities too.  Josh Hartnett’s Bucky Bleichert becomes obsessed with the stag reels Elizabeth Short made before she died, watching them over and over for clues. This reminded me of another De Palma character, John Travolta’s foley artist in Blow Out (1981). And the more Bucky investigates, the deeper the conspiracy goes. The problem with the visual and editing trickery here is that it draws attention to itself. The audience is reminded that they are watching a film. A barrier is put between you and the characters in the film, making it even more difficult to relate to them and to even pay attention to what is going on.

The main problem with this film is that it just doesn’t reach the heights De Palma is clearly reaching for. Hartnett’s voiceover is gravelly to the point of incomprehension. Eckhart’s clearly troubled character is ignored for long stretches of the film, meaning we don’t truly get to understand him, making him just unpredictable (in a bad way) and difficult to empathise with. Scarlett Johansson plays what we assume is the film noir femme-fatale, but that potential plot development just stalls in a cul de sac. That leads De Palma to introduce Hilary Swank as another femme fatale (you know she’s going to be bad because she’s wearing black, as opposed to Johansson’s predominantly white outfits). Which brings me to my next point. The storyline is too convoluted and deliberately full of twists. We are introduced to characters seemingly at random, with no real idea of their significance. In a murder mystery twists are generally a good thing, meaning the big reveal/ bad guy monologue comes as a suprise, but with this film by the time the murder is solved you’ve been so beaten into baffled submission that you don’t really understand or care.

It’s not all bad however. The design and overall look of the film feels true to the period, even if the grading is a little OTT. There are some great performances, including Aunt Dursley from Harry Potter as the wildly alcoholic wealthy and disillusioned mother to Hilary Swank’s secret lesbian. There is a family with some issues. Hartnett acquits himself admirably, despite the gruff voiceover, and despite his still boyish good looks does have a world-weary appearance appropriate to his exhausted and increasingly confused detective.

There is a genuinely interesting and absorbing story to be told about the true-life Black Dahlia case, but this fictionalised account isn’t it. My personal favourite theory is that Orson Welles did it. If that sounds preposterous, read the evidence here. That is the version I’d most like to see.

This has been my first proper film review on here for a while, for which I apologise. I’ve got a big queue of films backed up to write about, but as I just saw this two days ago I felt I should do at least one which is still fresh in my mind. If you follow me on Twitter @retroramblings you can get a fair idea of what I’ve been watching and what I think. I may have to do these other reviews in Twitter style, less than 140 characters. It may be the only chance I have to catch up! 

The British ‘B’ Film by Steve Chibnall and Brian McFarlane

Published by BFI/ palgrave macmillan 2009

356 pages

Whilst the fortunes of the British film industry have been told in much detail over the years, both the highs and the lows, one significant element has often been overlooked: the hundreds of low budget films churned out from small independent studios across the country from the 1920’s through to the late 1960’s. Sometimes referred to as “Quota Quickies”, these films were usually supporting features to bigger films, predominantly from Hollywood, and served to provide training and employment for actors and technicians. It is unlikely that you will have heard of many of the titles in this excellent new book, but I guarantee you will be looking up the DVD availability for quite a few whilst you read it, as I did!

The book begins with a focus on the many features and documentaries that were produced during World War II. Obviously a lot of these were made to support the war effort and boost public moral. Viewed today some of these films could appear to be crude propaganda, but according to Chibnall and McFarlane they can still provide entertainment! It wasn’t just war films, but comedies, romance and drama also got plenty of opportunity.

The book goes on to detail some of the studios where these films were made, often based in or around London, with an emphasis on manor houses. One such studio was Merton Park, who became best known for producing Edgar Wallace mysteries but also had renowned directors such as Joseph Losey working there (The Criminal, 1960), following his being blacklisted from Hollywood.

As you might expect there are an awful lot of action and film noir-style films in here with terrific sounding titles such as The Diplomatic Corpse (1958), or this Hitchcock-style “wrong man” film Suspended Alibi (1957), where a journalistic hero is caught in a web of intrigue and circumstantial evidence. It’s a race against the clock to save the innocent man, and there’s sexual tension courtesy of a young Honor Blackman. At just over an hour long, how could you not want to see this movie? The book is full of descriptions of previously forgotten gems, many of which are no longer available. Perhaps thanks to this book interest in these movies may grow and result in some of them resurfacing. Already the BFI are planning to release some films on DVD that were produced by Adelphi Studios, another great B movie outfit, including My Wife’s Lodger (1952) starring Diana Dors.

I am well aware that we here in the UK are lucky to have an organisation like the British Film Institute. They have been working tirelessly for 75 years (I will keep you posted on some major events to celebrate this milestone later this year) to preserve film and make both classics and unexplored gems available to the public, both for entertainment as well education and research. This book is yet another example of why we need them.

BFI Film Classics series

Palgrave Macmillan 

We have a lot to thank the British Film Institute for. They serve tirelessly to preserve movies and promote film and film education throughout the UK and abroad. From the slightly dusty archives at Stephen Street through to the ultra-modern 20 metre high IMAX cinema boasting “the most sophisticated motion-picture projection system in the world”, and from promoting renowned directors like Akira Kurosawa to restoring sleazy British sexploitation like London in the Raw, they really do offer something for everyone. 

One of their most varied ventures is the long-running series of small books under the Film Classics title, each devoted to a single film. The range of these books covers classics from the silent era right up to the modern day. They currently have 119 different titles, with another 9 scheduled for release this year. Of particular interest will be books on The Godfather, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Sweet Smell of Success and Bringing Up Baby. Each title is written by a single author, mostly film journalists or film academics. As would be expected they tend to go beyond the usual “making of” stories to look at history, context and meaning. They use a wide range of approaches, and the result is like attending a lecture on your favourite movie. One of their most recent titles, a study of Jean Renoir’s World War I masterpiece La Grande Illusion, gives an overview of the filmmaker before discussing details of the movie and looking at wartime politics, as well as how the film was received (it was banned by the Nazis). The downside to this is it does require the reader to have a basic understanding of Vichy France, or at least to be prepared to do some extra reading elsewhere. This kind of academic, in-depth approach may not be for everybody, but the Film Classics range offers an accessible way to understanding how film studies can work, and they always shed new light on the subject in question.  

For a full list of films covered by the Film Classics series go to http://filmstore.bfi.org.uk/acatalog/BFI_Filmstore_BFI_Classics_11.html  

Duncan, Paul (Editor)
Devraj, Rajesh
Taschen, Hardcover, 23.1 x 28.9 cm (9.1 x 11.4 in.), 192 pages

Much to my mum’s disappointment, this is not a review of The Asylum’s Sherlock Holmes, which has recently appeared on shelves next to this more well known effort. Parts of that were shot outside her house, proving that The Asylum do occasionally break away from the LA trappings of their other movies. This film however was mostly shot in and around London, on a much higher budget. A friend of mine was an extra in the somewhat random Fight Club-style scene showed above. It is good that after being fed so much American glossy hero-type produce we can show (with a little help from an American lead and American studio backing) that we also have ouor own heroes and own locations and studios. Sherlock Holmes is about as British as you can get. He has been part of our public consciousness for such a long time that there are many who still believe him to have been an actual historical person. This is testament to the extraordinary writing skills of Conan Doyle, who rooted Holmes in the reality of the period, using real events and locations as the background to his fictional detective. Holmes has been adapted and represented countless times over the years, and not only through adaptations of his actual adventures. He has been brought face to face with Jack the Ripper, taken on the Nazis and even been into outer space. Actually, I made that last one up (I hope), but surely it’s only a matter of time before someone tries it ( a quick google search would suggest it’s been done in publilshed fiction, and possibly on Star Trek).

I have never watched a Guy Ritchie film all the way through. I missed Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels when it first came out, although I heard all the fuss about it. I saw that it inspired a vast array of cheery cockney gangster films during the late 1990s into the early 2000s, but to be honest I just wasn’t interested. I’ve since seen clips of some of his films which has merely served to confirm my lack of interest. I am however a fan of the master detective, whose dramatised for radio adventures you can currently hear every evening on BBC7. You can also get a free iphone app with all of the Homes books to read at your disposal. I’m currently hoping to work my way through the Basil Rathbone Holmes DVD boxset I picked up recently. Anyway, I’m rambling.

Last summer at the Empire Movie-Con II we were treated to a personal visit from both Ritchie and Downey Jr. to big up the film. This was in August, five months before it was due to be released. It was pretty exciting to be in the same room as Iron Man himself and I was really impressed with the footage they presented. This did look like it was going to be a lot of fun. I’m relieved to say, several months later, and courtesy of the free movie offer from Sky, I’ve seen it and it is. It took a bit of persuading to get my wife to agree to watch it, but she did and possibly enjoyed it more than I did!

Guy Ritchie has managed to put his own indelible mark on the film, in that it looks highly stylised and has a marked focus on men being violent to each other. Yet it is still very much a Sherlock Holmes story. They wisely avoided an origins story (although it might be nice to have some sort of flashback to this in the next film) dropping the audience straight in to the middle of their love-hate relationship. Holmes is often imagined as someone older than he is portrayed here, and Jude law is about as far from the Nigel Bruce depiction as it’s possible to get without just making him a woman, so you feel like although they have as history, there’s still a lot more to come. It’s just possible that Ritchie could make another one of these every few years until they are both octogenarians.

There are plenty of nice references to well known Holmes stories, including obviously the inclusion of Irene Adler, the only woman to ever get the better of him. In some ways I felt that she was included mostly because they needed some female interest rather than because she was totally necessary for the plot, but it was still good to have her there, and Rachel McAdams does a fine job. It is a bit of a shame that they couldn’t have used an English actress here (I was imagining Rachel Weisz every time Adler was on screen, and possibly at other random times in my life), but like the casting of Downey Jr. this was most likely in an effort to make sure the film would sell in the US and elsewhere. There were still some good English cast in the supporting roles. Mark Strong in particular was excellent as the crooked-toothed Lord Blackwood. I really liked the way he was some sort of Aliester Crowley-type figure involved with secret Masonic-style clubs. All very sinister and enjoyable. The design of the film was really good as well. It looked in many ways like they had borrowed some sets from Tim Burton. The street scenes of London looked and almost smelled authentic. All that was missing was the dancing chimneysweeps.

Overall this was a good movie and one that I would recommend. There is something slightly niggling me however that’s holding me back from giving it a full thumbs up, and I’m not sure what it is. It’s like there’s something unsatisfying about it, but I can’t put my finger on it. It is certainly not a film I’m desperate to either watch again or own on blu ray (although if anyone wants to give me a copy I’ll be very grateful). If I can work out what it is I’ll let you know. I am pleased to know that there will be a sequel, possibly bringing Moriarty more into play. The game is afoot!

I know I’m a little behind the rest of the world in watching Alias, but the benefit of that is that the boxsets are now pretty cheap. I finished Season 2 a while back and I’ve flown through this one, thanks to having a very long commute to work every day. In comparison, Season 3 is a bit of a let down. It’s certainly entertaining, and tries to throw in more twists than a 1950s prom night, but there’s something slightly unsatisfying about the whole experience.

We slowly learn why Sydney Bristow went missing for two years, but once we know the answer it seems a bit, well, lame. In a way it would have been better never to find out. They’ve also introduced some new characters, made old ones more prominent, and also relegated some old faces to cameo appearances. There seems to be no real rhyme or reason to some of these, other than possibly who was available to film at any given time. We lose Sydney’s mum, but gain her sister, played by the glamourous Isabella Rosillini. Sark is now in almost every scene as the main baddie, and as cut-throat murderers go, he’s quite likeable. The CIA seem to be completely incapable of keeping hold of him however, to the point where it feels like you’re actually watching a Laurel and Hardy “espionage” special.

One amusing and suprisingly engaging episode features a strong cameo from Ricky Gervais, playing a non-comedy character. This was a brave choice for both him and the producers considering that in 2003 he was only really known for The Office. He plays a bomb maker supplying explosives to the IRA. Very little comedy potential in that.

The big cliff-hanger at the end of this season is not really that exciting. Syd learns something shady about her past has something to do with her dad. That’s not really a great suprise is it? He’s an odd character. In other shows he would be considered a dangerous psychopath, but here he’s some kind of hero/ loving father-figure. Likewise Vaughn, Syd’s love interest from Season 2, goes a bit nutty. We’re supposed to feel sorry for him because his new wife, played by Home and Away favourite Melissa George, turns out to be a baddie. Yet I just worried about the security of our nation, if secret service-types are as unhinged as he is. In Alias-world it’s okay to cross and double-cross your own government agencies in the pursuit of a higher truth/ revenge/ information/ inside information on the 2.30 at Chepstow.

However, all that said, Alias is still fun entertainment. It’s certainly more engaging, and a lot less irritating, than Lost. Like that show, it’s clearly a fantasy that likes to spin mysteries and intrigue like it’s going out of fashion, but it’s better at providiing answers, even if occasionally they feel a bit hackneyed. I will now be moving on rather swiftly to Season 4!

As a child I used to spend a lot of time in my local video rental store. back in the 1980s they didn’t really care about such things as age ratings, and I would often borrow movies clearly unsuitable for a ten-year old. I mused on this at some length during my Braindead review. One film whose poster and box I often stared at in wonder was The Entity. This was a film that was discussed in hushed, almost reverential tones in the playground. It had a reputation that both intrigued and repulsed. I don’t know if any of my friends then had actually seen it, or if they were passing on the rumours and tales told by older brothers. All I knew was that it featured a women who is molested by a ghost, and you could actually see her naked breasts being touched by an invisible force. That’s a pretty strong image to have in your head as a ten-year old, particularly when you’re not even sure what rape is or what breasts look like.

I didn’t see the film then. I just saw it for the first time courtesy of Film4, and it turns out to be a suprisingly good film. This review is going to be full of spoilers.

The film focuses on single mum Carla, played by Barbara Hershey. She has three children and a useless older boyfriend. One night she is attacked and raped in her bedroom but there is nobody there. At first she thinks she is going crazy, but the attacks are repeated numerous times, including one particularly unpleasant moment whilst she is taking a bath. One time her son tries to help and he is thrown across the room and electricuted. Her friend encourages her to see Phil, a psychaitrist, who believes she is suffering from phsyical manifestations of psychological trauma from her difficult childhood (sexually abused by her strict minister father, pregnant at 16 to an older man who beat her up, then died in a bike crash). He even goes as far as to suggest that she is having sexual fantasies about her own 16 year-old son. This guy starts out being very understanding and sympathetic, but turns quite quickly into a raving nutter. Basically all of the men in her life are violent, unreliable or domineering, and Phil sadly starts to join the club.

Eventually she meets up with a group of parapsychologists who agree to help her. They witness spooky happenings in her house, such as cold spots and electrical discharges, and they even manage to catch the outline of a male figure in a photograph. So far, so good. The way the case is dealt with in the film seems quite realistic, if of course you accept the basic premise. I have read about real paranormal investigations and this one seems to be well grounded in the actual practises of this period. However, this wouldn’t be a Hollywood movie without a big flashy climax, and at this point the film loses all touch with what can be perceived as reality. It starts to become very similar to Amityville III, where the house gets taken over by a team of scientific parapsychologists for an explosive finish, featuring some kind of portal to another dimension and a major storm which virtually flattens the house killing the majority of the occupants.

In The Entity, the researchers decide to build a replica of Carla’s house on the basketball court of the university. Here, they somewhat optimistically deduce, the ghost will not be able to tell the difference and will turn up to attack. When he does they will dump liquid helium all over him, thus being the first to ever actually trap and record a spirit being. They manage to get this all set up in about half an hour. They must be the most well funded parapsychologists in the world. In reality they would probably have to make a dozen or more funding applications over a period of years to try and pull off an experiment that size. They seem pretty sure of themselves that it will work too, based on the flimsiest of premises. Carla goes along with it despite the protestations of her annoying psychiatrist, who trys to pull strings at the university to get the experiment cancelled. Of course, despite Phil’s best efforts, it goes ahead to provide the film with the effects-laden climax it needs. The idea is that when they detect ghostly activity, Carla will run to a safe area and they will flood the house with the liquid helium. But wouldn’t you know, the ghost gets in the machine. Before you can say “credibility stretched to breaking point” it’s possessed the helium gun and is chasing Carla around the house squirting jets of the freezing chemical, somehow missing her completely. She gets so close to the stuff that she should really have at least had her toes frozen off, but she manages to get to the safe area. Turns out to be a piece of crap as the glass shatters as soon as the helium hits it. Thankfully Phil saves the day and drags Carla out of the house. They turn around to see what looks like an iceburg forming over the shattered remains. So did they catch the ghost? It doesn’t look like it. Will the university team ever be able to play basketball again? Probably not.

So until it gets rather silly, the film is a serious attempt to portray the agony that the protagonist is forced to go through, which is apparantly based on a “true” story. In Roger Corman’s hands this could have been an exploitation-fest (does anyone know if he ever churned out any rip-offs of this?), but inasmuch as it’s about a woman being raped by a ghost, it’s quite sensitively done. There is very little nudity, the camera choosing to stay on Carla’s face, thus concentrating the audience on her suffering. There are however a couple of scenes featuring the infamous invisible breast-fondling I’d heard so much about as a child. It’s very effective and chilling, as well as incredibly realistic. I couldn’t work out how they did it until I saw Stan Winston’s name in the credits.

You can click on the picture above to see the original trailer.

It’s hard to believe that this was directed by the same man who took Cliff Richard and The Shadows around Europe on a bus in Summer Holiday. He was also responsible for the Michael Caine anti-Bond thriller The Ipcress File. Sadly he ended up being responsible for Superman IV: The Quest for Peace as well, but we shouldn’t hold that against him. According to the imdb he’s still working, which is impressive. The score was composed by Charles Bernstein, part of which was reused by Quentin Tarantino in Inglourious Basterds! That’s one for all you fact fans.

The Entity is a strange film, and it’s hard to know whether to recommend it or not. It is such an odd mix of gruelling drama and ridiculous hocum, and it doesn’t go far enough to become an exploitation classic, but it’s too silly to be really taken seriously. It’s a film that can’t decide whether it wants to be The Accused or Ghostbusters, falling somewhere in between instead. However, if like me you remember the whisperings in the playground, whilst you were trying to swap your Wham Bar for some Sherbert Dib-Dabs, you should finally give it a go.