Dark
Days
How did
we become so cynical? When did we stop seeing the intrinsic beauty in happy
endings and decided that actually they were corny? True - it is clear that
so called happy endings rarely happen in the real world, but that is not
to say they do not. There are happily married couples out there, there
are functional families, there are no end of moments in the day when -
if taken as a pure moment - we couple be described as being happy. This
occurred to me during a viewing of the documentary Dark Days at the Metro
(that is important and I’ll get to it). Firstly because it shows a picture
of people in desperate circumstances which they nevertheless survive through
and during those times they look and talk as if they are reasonably happy.
Mainly however it occurred to me because the film has a happy ending which
seems so disingenuous that it appears to undermine the rest of the film.
That’s a fair thing to say in a fictional piece - but in a documentary
that is much more of an indictment on the viewer.
Dark Days
is a talking head piece about homeless people living in the Amtrak tunnels
under New York. An odd community has been built up between these transients
to the point that some of them are no longer transient and have been there
for years. Using relatively intrusive fly on the wall techniques plus a
few behind camera questions we see their general way of life. And it is
quite astonishing that these people have built their own houses, tapped
electricity off of the rail and are living and thriving down there.
The film
however does not explain an awful lot about its scenario and if you did
not know that they were in these tunnels it would probably take you a good
half an hour to work it out. Whilst the director Mark Singer does a good
job of picking out his core cast (who are generally the quirky, funny or
empathic identifiable ones of the bunch) his style does not tell the story
all that well. A few moody black and white shots of trains and tunnels
set to a DJ Shadow score (sounding horribly dated - sorry Shadow) and then
we are in the tunnel dwellers little home made shacks. Indeed the black
and white camerawork does distance the viewer from the subject, when you
would assume that the documentary would want to suck as in. That said,
what the characters have to say is pretty interesting - not all that different
to what you would standardly see in a documentary of this sort but Singer
has structured the piece well enough to build empathy - and hide his sole
drug user ‘til half way through the film.
Despite
the black and white the film has intimacy which hides many of the problems
which haunt the viewer afterwards. An interviewee states that eighty percent
of the tunnel people are crack users, we only see one in our five main
characters. The film also has a meandering lack of narrative structure
which abruptly changes when Amtrak decide to evict them. Then we have a
rushed ten minutes of plot, and no real discussion on whether these people
wish to move or not. Then as if by magic everyone is rehoused in their
own private apartments (in New York, I don’t think so) and happy ever after.
It could be true, I hope it is. But the last ten minutes just feel false.
When you think a documentary is lying to you, or at least manipulating
you, it has failed. The thesis of the film originally seemed to be the
triumph of the human spirit, how some people can live and almost thrive
in such an alien environment. It ends with everyone saying how stupid they
were to live in the tunnels. Right, I agree, but I thought the film wanted
to argue the opposite to me.
Dark Days
is a well made documentary which suffers from a lack of focus and then
a radical style change. One can only speculate on why this is (Amtrak’s
lawyers?) Yet you cannot feel churlish for the actual real people in the
film - good luck to them - though my cynicism wants to kick right back
in at this point. It is an interesting watch, but will not change your
life and as a documentary you end up dwelling more on its flaws. This is
made all the worse when the cinema you are in (the Metro) fucks up the
sound for the first ten minutes, and never really gets it right. I wanted
to hear those trains rattle past these shacks, I heard a tinny mumble.
Dark Days, and a black mark for the Metro. (5)
IF THIS
FILM WERE A CAR CRASH: Well, Extreme Measures has a bunch of blokes living
in the subway in it. Documentary wise - its a bit ethnographic for my liking.
Deception
(Reindeer
Games)
Deception
is a lousy name for a movie. It tells you nothing about what is going on,
what is supposed to happen or about the settings. On the other hand Reindeer
Games is a fantastic name for a film, it is intriguing, lays few hints
about what the film is about but at least makes you look at the synopsis.
Since Deception on the first hand was a bit of a flop in the States, and
on the second hand is released in the middle of summer rather than the
more appropriate Christmas when it is set, Dimension Films (the bastard
offspring of Miramax) plumped for the more generic title. And whilst the
title lets the film down, you also have to wonder whether it really deserved
the better title - because it really isn’t all that good.
We are back
in so bad its amusing territory in a film which is incompetently plotted,
badly scripted and shot with all the flair of Mr Magoo. Infact that last
point is more than just a cheap crack. John Frankenheimer - without a doubt
one of the worst directors working in Hollywood these days - shoots Reindeer
Games like his eyesight his failing. What may have been a stylistic experiment
turns into a eye doctors dream, this is the most myopic picture ever released.
No-one is ever more than two yards away from the camera and this shooting
style merely blows up the faces of our lead characters and exposes the
vast vista’s of Ben Affleck’s chin. Man, you could go ski-ing on it.
So to the
acting. Not only does the film saddle Affleck’s character Rudy (Reindeer
Games reference one) with possibly the most inconsequential narration,
he also has been given very little to work with in the likability stakes.
After all, he plays an ex-con who leaves prison and shags his dead cellmates
girlfriend for the crack (literally). Perhaps the machinations of the fag
packet plot that is then dumped upon him is supposed to make us sympathise,
but Affleck himself really never convinces. Of course he towers above the
two other major principles. Charlize Theron (where did she get that name
from) is obviously here as a representative of the Nordic Forestry Board.
She flashes her toothy grin at us believing she is beguiling, instead one
of her front teeth is gargantuan and so we know that in the scheme of things
these movies always have a femme fatale. Except here, Theron is not so
much a Femme Fatale as a Femme Mildly Annoying. She acts worse than one
of the worst actors peddling his gear in Hollywood today, though is not
saddled with stupid name and look that Gary Sinise is. For some reason
this uber-baddie goes by the moniker of Monster and has decided to rock
the Chris Rea look. And you can’t really take him seriously when he might
break into Auberge at any minute.
So to the
plot. Rudy’s best mate gets knifed in prison the day before he was supposed
to get out. So Rudy pretends to be him to get in some post-prison heterosexual
shags. Soon turns that her brother Monster wants his expertise (not his,
his cell mates) in robbing a half arsed casino in the middle of nowhere
on Christmas Eve. Firstly none of the above is strictly true, no-one is
who they say they are and yet no-one appears to have any good reason for
these constant confusions (or some say Deceptions). Of course Rudy knows
nothing about said casino - which is only one of the several million so
called plot twists in this stab at confusing its own audience with things
which don’t make any sense. It is possible that this was meant to be a
blackly comic thriller, but since the gags are so lousy you are restricted
to laughing at the ludicrousness of the whole affair. Luckily it is all
ludicrous and you will get more than a few guffaws in. But it isn’t actually
any good.
Perhaps
there was something in the original script which could have been teased
into a half decent comic thriller. The plot must have remained constant
from the start, so you get the feeling that it is only with the lack of
a half decent wisecracking lead, any decent lines and direction which knows
how to display a light touch had scuppered it. Its been snuck out mid-summer
and in a lot of ways is a perfect film to catch before the excesses of
the summer season. It may make you look more kindly upon said films - which
will have equally large plot-holes - at least they will have good stunts.
Sinise should be proud that he has now starred in the two worst films of
the year, but sadly the best thing about Reindeer Games is its title, and
in this country that has not even survived. (3)
IF THIS
FILM WERE A CAR CRASH: Die Hard (for Christmas setting) whams into a number
of Hitchcock thrillers destroying each and every one of them in a half
arsed Ronin style car chase through nowhere. Oh, its got snow in it so
I suppose you can throw Fargo into the mix. This is not meant as an insult
to any of the above films - except perhaps Ronin - another John Frankenheimer
mess.
Deep
Blue Sea
What happened
to the action movie? When did everything become so self referential. Is
it really the fault of Die Hard 2 - with the same shit happening to the
same guy twice? Is it Arnie saying "I'll be back" in every role? Or is
it the fault of Kevin Williamson and his Scream movies? Well today I am
going to go with my instincts - I'm going to go with Die Hard 2. Because
that was directed by Rennie Harlin, who also directed this piece of pointless
fluff that calls itself Deep Blue Sea. Which I would rather call Kindergarden
Jaws.
I love Die
Hard. I think it is a fantastic movie, but centre to its excellence is
the fact that it makes sense. There is a reason for John McClane going
one on one against the terrorists. He is trapped, he does not realise how
serious the situation is until he has already got himself implicated, and
he is therefore fighting for his own and his wife's lives. There were moments
of pure pain, quiet character moments and therefore the payoff was exceptional.
Our hero triumphed, through extreme diversity. In Die Hard 2, John McClane
was in an airport who some terrorists decided to take over. He had plenty
of backup, and kept throwing himself into dangerous situations for the
hell of it. Because he was the designated hero. There was no real reason
for him to do this stuff, he just did because it made a rollocking film.
And there were no real characters in it. And, like I said before, it was
directed by Renny Harlin.
There are
no real characters in Deep Blue Sea. There is a blond. There is a rich
guy. There is an old guy. There is the ubiquiotous cowardly fellow. There
is the hero. There is the comic relief black guy and there is the fit scientist.
They are stuck on a marine lab, during one hell of a storm, with three
genetically modified sharks after them. Perm two from your character list
to survive, and let the rest get eaten via some rather nifty computer graphics.
And ladies and gentlemen, we have a summer blockbuster.
I saw this
with John, Kate and Julie. Julie screamed once, mainly because she wanted
to. The reason Deep Blue Sea did so well in the States is because it came
just on the cusp of Yanks really wanting to be scared. They remember Jaws
being scary. Therefore any film about smart sharks must be scary, right?
Nope. These sharks are supposed to be smart, but there is no real proof
of this. There is a nice point before Samuel L.Jackson gets it, where he
asks "If I were an intelligent shark what would I do". Sadly Jackson did
not have the luxury of playing the shark, and this is the kind of film
where all the decent actors get it early doors, as if these are Jewish
sharks that therefore have an aversion to ham. Indeed so poor are the lead
couple that it is obvious that after a test screening, they were baying
for the death of the appalling Saffron Burrows. Perhaps she was hired for
the intellectual leap that bad actress = bad person, though more likely
she was hired because she resembles Harlin's ex-Geena Davis and she comes
across as evil as they come. (Misguided scientists - doncha love 'em.)
There is
no suspense in Deep Blue Sea. There are very few thrills. It is, not despite
of itself but you fear intentionally funny in its crapness. But its bottom
line ignores the three key, key points of any action suspense thriller.
Rule one, characterisation: yes we know they're all going to die, but these
deaths mean nothing if we never thought they were alive in the first place.
Second rule, less is more: we do not need to see these sharks so much.
The more we see them, the less scary they are. But the cast iron action
film rule which must never be broken: No action film with water in it is
every any good because water isn't scary. Teeth are scary. Guns are scary.
Water is a bath. To be fair, even smart sharks aren't scary. Deep Blue
Sea could only have been any good if the sharks answered Sam Jackson's
earlier question properly. "If I were an intelligent shark, what would
I do?" Well I would sue my agent for a start, and then try and find where
I left the remote. (4)
IF THIS
FILM WERE A CAR CRASH: It thinks it is Jaws hitting Alien. It is actually
Jaws: The Return hitting Leviathan.
Le
Diner De Cons
There is
little evidence of foreign films in my cinema going. Yeah, I know Life
Is Beautiful is on the list, but we can't really be calling that a foreign
film now can we? It was nominated for best film at the Oscar's which means
it can't be foreign, not really. It was released in more than one cinema
in London, lots of people saw it. For all intents and purposes it dun't
count as a gobbledigook honest to Christ foreign film.
I do go
see foreign films, but I haven't of late. I suppose I use the same criteria
as I do with the rest of the films I go see. Does it look good, does it
look like my kind of bag? Now perhaps your standard Euru thriller that
washes up on our shore is not often my water boiling vessel. I'll watch
an Almodvar, and I adore anything like The City Of Lost Children, but no
- my favourite French films can be counted on a hand with less than the
average number of fingers. Yet I went to see Le Diner De Cons. Well, the
premise intrigued me, with my evil bastard head on. (Picture me as the
Worzel Gummidge of film reviewing why doncha).
The story
is simple. Le Diner De Cons is a dinner held by a number of friends, all
of whom must bring along a "con". The person who brings along the biggest
"con" wins. But what, you ask, is a con? Well, its not far from an English
word with a similar sound (I have no wish to be crude, but no real reason
not to be) - cunt. But perhaps with less of an edge, more wanker. Whatever,
it describes the kind of tedious twat that you wish never to be saddled
with in your private life. So our hero has to find a "con" more tedious
that the man who collects boomerangs, the current shoe in winner. This
he does by finding Pignon, a dolt of the highest order who makes matchstick
models of major architecture.
This is
a farce. Pure and simple. But its not one of your Bryan Forbes, whoops
vicar my undies are on your head and your wife is in the wardrobe stuck
by the groin to the local rabbi (a man of not inconsiderable faith himself).
Its almost a verbal two hander which scales the height of comic pain, as
our stupid con proceeds to wreck his benefactors life. (Splits him up with
his wife, does his back in, monkeys with a mistress and as a piece de resistance
gets him in trouble with the king of the tax inspectors). Yet it is all
down in a naturalistic way, nothing seems exceptionally forced and the
whole thing is damn funny.
The film
is pretty much a one scene play, our characters never leaving the set and
it would not surprise me if it was originally a stage play. It is a stagy
piece, which is no great criticism. It is also very short, which is merciful
as comedies should, by and large, grace us briefly. Also it plays with
a great idea (said Diner De Cons) without showing it to us, and as such
misdirects its audience to slowly ease us into its farce. Perhaps it gets
a touch sentimental before the end, and perhaps its anti-sentimental ending
is not as good a sucker punch as might be required, but these are minor
quibbles to what is an entertaining piece.
Le Diner
De Cons is a lot of fun, and is also easily dark enough to avoid being
remade by Hollywood. The only pity is the subtitles which are obviously
nowhere near as foul mouthed as the original French (it habitually translates
"con" as "idiot" which is far too tame). Nevertheless it is a slight, if
fun film which is a nice reminder of how a good idea executed simply can
be. And that French films aren't all impressionistic tosh. Now, does anyone
want to come to dinner. (8)
IF THIS
FILM WERE A CAR CRASH: Guess Who's Coming To Dinner hits the Pink Panther,
and guess what, or more precisely - guess who is coming to dinner.
The
Dish
Sometimes
you do not need much to make a film. Just a small story will do, as long
as you treat it properly and in a consistent style. The Dish is one such
film, based on a footnote of history, which takes a tiny story and manages
to spin it into an hour and a half of gentle whimsy. How does it succeed?
Merely by presenting some equally simple characters, peppering them with
a number of obvious subplots and bolstering the lot with stock footage
and some music. It certainly isn’t the most complex movie in the world,
but sometimes a bit of simplicity is the order of the day.
The Dish
is the story of Australia’s part in the 1969 moon landings. Australia,
or Parkes - the town where this is all set - has one of the worlds largest
radio telescopes which was used to relay the TV footage. During the mission
the station lost transmission for a small amount of time, and the dish
was held in place even though the wind could have ripped it out and destroyed
it. Of course when held up against an achievement like the moon shots it
is a truly tiny tale, but the beauty of The Dish is it takes this moment
in history and actually shows in the reactions of the ordinary people,
how extraordinary the event was. Ostensibly about the dish, the film is
also about wonder, about how people pulled together and an almost bygone
sense of awe.
The film,
as it is, is nothing new. It is cobbled together using identikit plot devices
from numerous other films. The town is of course peopled with eccentrics
from Sam Neill’s pipe smoking dish operator to the peace loving daughter
of the mayor. There is the expected culture clash between the Americans
and the Australians, and there are two moments which would equate to some
form of tension. These are all handled well by the director and the Working
Dog writing team (who made the equally as genial The Castle) with plenty
of heart. Indeed what makes The Dish work at all is the genuine affection
it has for its characters. They would be easy to patronise as hicks if
the film wanted more jokes, but instead it treats its subject with almost
too much respect - almost so much that the moments of suspense never convince
because we know the characters are competent. We also know that the mission
was televised, which would also do us on the tension front too.
The most
impressive aspect of The Dish is not in the writing or acting at all. It
is the cinematography of The Dish itself. The film more than adequately
conjures the size of this thing, from the oddly absurd game of cricket
which takes place within its huge span, to the amount of power required
to move it. Coupled with some well chosen psychedelic hits these musical
montage scenes actually drive the film along, rather than slow the thing
down as might be expected. When this is blended with the familiar stock
footage of NASA and the moon landing, coupled with some fine reaction shots
it actually conjures the moment up very well. There may not be much story
to speak of, but the big story is always worth retelling.
The Dish
is a very sweet movie, which is almost contemplative in its approach to
storytelling. Whilst there is much in the film which could be said to be
almost clichéd, and the extent that this is really based on a true
story is at best suspect - it still manages to conjure up an era. Rather
than the bombast of an American telling, this skewed view is both good
natured and truly evocative. There is much to like here, but you walk away
merely feeling in awe both of the moon landing, and of the scale of the
dish itself. A small movie, about a very big thing. (8)
IF THIS
FILM WERE A CAR CRASH: The Right Stuff meets The Full Monty. But in Australia
and without the nakedness.
Do
The Right Thing
First of
all, this is a major advertisement for the Prince Charles Cinema. Not content
with being the cheapest cinema in central London, with easily the most
interesting rotating programme of films you may have recently missed, but
now they have concieved a masterful idea. Take a director or actor who's
got a film coming out, and spend a whole day on them. Make that your super
cheapo Monday, and you could feasibly see four films for six quid, and
four good'uns at that. Last week was Scorsese (which precipitated one of
the most depressed feelings of my life when I gibbed out on Raging Bull
and Taxi Driver to end up ina student bar observing a beer fight), this
week it was Spike Lee. Now I'm itching to see Summer Of Sam, but in the
meantime it was a perfect chance to catch a really good film I had never
seen in the cinema, and one I had never seen and always been wary of. Do
The Right Thing was the former.
Do The Right
Thing is one of the very best kind of films, in as much as it isvery entertaining
but it is also intensely thought provoking. It is a political film, in
so far as any film about ordinary lives are political, like any soap opera
is political. For that is what Do The Right Thing is, a slice of soap opera
with a tragedy tagged on the end. Expertly structured to this end, we are
introduced to a large number of characters who live on an unnamed Brooklyn
Street during a scorchingly hot day. The heat is a metaphor, this is a
film which chews up and spits out metaphors like the many slices of pizza
eaten in it, and after a long wind up the film finally explodes in a riot.
The riot leads to a further tragedy, all of which appears needless. This
is the beauty of the film, there is nothing inevitable about the final
outcome, the audience can see so many ways out. All Lee is saying is that
somewhere, somehow, something like this will end up happening.
Lee often
rocks up in his own films, and in no film is his role more crucial than
in Do The Right Thing. As Mookie he delivers pizza to the neighbour (very
badly it has to be said). This allows us to see all sections as he interacts.
Mookie is initially seen as our hero, but it soon becomes clear that just
because he is the centre of this film he is by no means perfect. This ability
to paint his characters with light and shade is what allows Lee to convince
us that this relatively stagey set up is actually representative of a Brooklyn
neighbourhood. Danny Aiello turns in a tremendous performance as Sal, the
owner of the pizzeria who is as racist as he remembers from his youth,
but who loves this neighbourhood all the same. This is contrasted by his
son, John Tuttturo's genuinely nasty Vito, the closest the film has to
a villain - but even he we can sympathise with (albeit only slightly).
As the film progresses we get more and more embroiled in their lives, but
it is made very clear that there is really nothing special about this day
- except the heat. And its ending.
The ending
comes when the film is slowly starting to drag. If there is one criticism
of Lee its a typical one of a writer director. He does tend to go on a
bit. It is not clear what part of the film needs cutting, since the any
part of the film is as incidental as the next. Nevertheless, you do feel
that the film may end when the sun goes down, to match the thematic unity
of the film. It is a film very much of artistic touches, repetition, the
DJ linking device force an artificial structure on an otherwise loose plot.
That said, when the ending comes it is in turns masterfully shot through
with the correct sense of random violence and lack of moral absolutes.
Whilst the film is about racism, and Lee certainly never shies from the
racism of all its protagonists, he still settles on the point that if the
law that should protect actually attacks you then you must defend yourself.
As the two (needlessly clunky but interesting) quotes at the end of the
film suggest, Lee does not wish to dictate to his audience - we know what
a Hollywood film would have done, we know what we think Mookie should have
done - the question is - did he Do The Right Thing? Or more importantly,
was there a right thing to do? Its a four hour pub conversation if ever
I saw one.
So Do The
Right Thing is well over ten years old now, and Spike Lee has made plenty
of films since. How does it stand now. Well, there are a few things which
stand out today. Parts of the film have dated badly. The Rosie Perez dance
sequence over the titles is incredibly embarrassing. Its not all her fault,
it is next to impossible to do anything but pogo and point to Public Enemy
anyway, but her chicken dance coupled with the fact that her neck has never
quite seemed strong enough for her head does not help matters. On the same
tip, the soundtrack is very odd too, not the rap but rather the sax led
jazz which burbles over the film seems rather dated. All that aside, there
are plenty of signs that Lee was not just a good storyteller, but rather
an accomplished director - and certainly along with Woody Allen and Martin
Scorsese, a great chronicler of New York lives.
I don't
know if Do The Right Thing is Lee's best film, breakthrough movies are
often hyped more than their successors. That said, it probably is one of
Lee's most personal works, whilst being the most accessible. A lot of his
later stuff has focus on more singled out themes, whereas Lee makes a lot
of very good points, and he makes them with copious amounts of humour.
There is one thing that is undeniable, that a Spike Lee Joint has a certain
atmosphere to it. Do The Right Thing has an awful lot going for it, you
leave feeling artistically enriched and what's more it will give you a
whole evenings conversation in the pub later. (9)
IF THIS
FILM WERE A CAR CRASH: BreakDance: The Movie, hits My Beautiful Laundrette.
Nothing like either, but what a movie that would be.
Dogma
I like Kevin
Smith. There, I've got that out of the way. Go see my look at Clerks to
see why I like Smith, and also to see a review of a film I really like
which spends most of the review slagging it off. That is not strictly true
anyway, some of the problems I have with Clerks is due to the budget and
filming restrictions. The fact that what little plot Clerks has is badly
concluded, and that the acting is sub-par does harm it as a whole. Thankfully
to say, neither of these two criticisms can be levelled at Dogma, Kevin
Smith's new religious comedy. The acting is nearly all top notch, and the
excess of plot Dogma has is all rounded up properly with rather a nice
touching end scene. Unfortunately almost everything else is wrong with
Dogma.
Smith is
a writers director, in as much as he writes some of the most sparkling,
wittiest scripts in the business. Clerks is pretty much a laugh a minute,
Mallrats - despite its problems - is still a great film for dialogue. Chasing
Amy, Smith best movie, manages to mix some truly dirty observations about
sex, with a plot which has a strong kernel of truth running through it.
In all these films Smith's main target has been relationships, love and
sex - with the odd side line in crude gags from his perennial stoners Jay
and Silent Bob. Now a good point of Dogma is the large role Jay and Silent
Bob have in it, unfortunately the theme of the film is Catholic dogma,
something which is not as universal as relationships. And while we all
understand the subtleties and know that relationships is as large a field
as Catholic theology, the second topic is less accessible, and much more
boring. That many of these conversations could do with a severe script
editing is the least of their problems.
Smith tries
his best to make his discussions interesting, saddling them with a action
comedy fantasy road movie - and assembling a top notch cast to have them.
While Alan Rickman as the voice of God does his usual job of stealing the
movie, Matt Damon and Ben Affleck also impress with their less showy roles.
Linda Fiorentino is as always her assured self in the least flashy of the
roles, but the most important central character, and Jason Mewes and Kevin
Smith have now settled the roles of Jay and Silent Bob into one of the
great movie comedic duo's. Only Salma Hayek and Chris Rock come off badly,
in admittedly roles that are superfluous. You see, the biggest problem
with Dogma, and one that a script editor would have trouble putting right,
there are too many characters, and too many plots. While it might be a
great idea to make Jesus black, to make Fiorentino's character a long lost
relative of him and to have plenty of in fighting between the various planes
of angels, none of these things are central to the plot. As for the iconography
sub-plot, where Damon and Affleck and punish a Barney/Disney like company,
it is so unrelated to anything else that happens that the twenty minutes
it takes up would really just be better off spent having your appendix
out.
Dogma is
obviously a film close to Smith's house, and in a lot of ways it is easy
to see how it got such a good cast. The script, in discrete chunks, still
retains Smith's flair for a witty turn of phrase, and there still remains
some great dick and fart gags. It is only when taken as a whole that Dogma
resembles the huge mess that the mid film pointless Shit Monster is. Smith
is at best a point and shoot director, and in a lot of ways the action
scenes in Dogma show a development of his talent. That said, they are still
shot rather clumsily, oddly only the scenes where Smith himself stars have
any kinetic value. Whether this is due to a second unit director, or the
fact that Smith knows exactly what he want from himself is difficult to
say.
Dogma was
a huge disappointment to me, which is really more of an indictment on how
high I hold in regard Smith's other films. It is a mess, and could have
done with the hand of a good editor, both before and after the filming
process started. Nevertheless, it is at least original, which gives it
more than novelty value in the current market. I would much rather see
Dogma get made than an adaptation of a novel - and from that I mean not
just classics. Smith is an important film writer, and that he has erred
quite significantly here does not reduce the quality of his dialogue or
the value of his contribution to cinema. Dogma is a curio, perhaps if he
had got Robert Rodriguez to film it (as he originally planned) it may have
turned out better. For there is a double irony here, that whilst he is
a director, and accomplished dialogue writer - the best thing he does is
as the only screen mime I don't want to punch. (5)
IF THIS
FILM WERE A CAR CRASH: Mallrats hits The Rapture. Clerks hits A Matter
Of Life And Death. Almost An Angel meets Michael meets Chasing Amy. I suggest
its not so much a discrete car wreck as the biggest pile up you've ever
seen on a screen.
Don’t
Look Now
I had a
long discussion post seeing this new print of Don’t Look Now about watching
films over and over again. I rarely rewatch stuff on video, and do not
really own many. However there are films which I would watch again if they
happened to be on television. Don’t Look Now would probably not be one.
As a spooky ghost story it works exceptionally well, but it is similar
to that other ghost story The Sixth Sense that once you know how it ends
what made the film so interesting is wholly destroyed.
Don’t Look
Now is a fantastic ghost story in as much as the less you know about it,
the creepier the thing is. The more baffled you are by the film,
the more it will shock and surprise you. If - like me - you know the ending
then it just doesn’t work at all. Slight of hand and misdirection are rife
in this film, even up to the point that - taken logically - the end of
the film is wholly unrelated to the rest of it. However Nicholas Roeg uses
every trick at his discretion to suck the audience into a film which doesn’t
really have a plot at all.
Cinematically
Don’t Look Now appears quite dated now, thirty years on. The effects in
the film are pretty primitive and the electronic music - whilst still quite
spooky - nevertheless seems more than a touch tacky. However the acting
really gels the film together. From the excruciatingly twee and unpleasant
opening scene, through to the rest of the movie - Donald Sutherland treads
a tightrope between hysterical overacting and rather moving bemusement.
The latter wins out and it is one of his finest performances. Julie Christies
role is a touch easier, however she displays that effortless cool which
made her reputation. Even running around in some hideous clothes looking
far too much like my Mum she displays both her loss and confusion.
The Venice
location is also as important as a character. The foreigness of a place
which has canals instead of roads is used to a heightened effect - to push
the supernatural aspect further. This is no ordinary town, and it is easy
to get lost. Perhaps getting characters lost, and running around incessantly
is a cheap trick to heighten suspense, but Roeg pulls out all the stops
on that front. To also offer us in the two old ladies a pair of grotesques
whose intentions are never clear leaves us with little in the way of an
idea of where the film is going. Until that bizarre final scene it is never
clear what is going on. Of course when you see that final scene it becomes
all to plain why it was not clear. Yet even at this point Roeg’s film does
not disappoint leaving us with an uncomfortable crescendo which is anything
but a happy ending.
Don’t Look
Now is without a doubt one of cinemas finest ghost stories. Bookended by
two equally disturbing scenes and filled in between with a true sense of
mystery and menace it is clear why this film has endured - despite looking
dated in other aspects. Christie and Sutherland always convince as a real
couple, and therefore the sympathy level with them is always high. The
film understands that true fear and suspense comes from not knowing - and
happily ratches up the mystery until you really are not sure what will
happen, and more importantly why. Its just when you find out, you can never
watch it again. It just would not be the same. (9)
IF THIS
FILM WERE A CAR CRASH: If the Sixth Sense went back in time and hit
surprisingly Citizen Kane coming forward in time, then you might have some
semblance of this creepy classic.
Double
Jeopardy
Its been
an oft overlooked genre, that of the movie based on particular rounds of
game shows. But luckily Double Jeopardy is here while we wait for Supermatch
Game: The Movie (you'll believe Carole Smilie can play Blankety Blank).
Of course this is all idle speculation as Double Jeopardy is not about
the bit after the ad break in Jeopardy. It is however the answer to the
following question: "Name a film starring Ashley Judd and Tommy Lee Jones
which has potentially the most preposterous plot ever committed to celluloid?".
Some films
have bad scripts. Some films have bad acting. Some films have bad direction.
It is a rare film which has all three in such a joyous conjunction. Y'see
Double Jeopardy is easily the best bad film of the year, a film who's awfulness
is positively revitalising. Hackneyed, laboured and plotted by a five year
old - Double Jeopardy (can you tell I like writing that - its not single
Jeopardy, but DOUBLE!) concerns happily married mother and all round sickly
sweet housewife Ashley Judd. I'm not sure if I've seen Judd in anything
before, but if she has ever made anything this rip-roaringly bad I'll be
right down the video store to catch it. You see, this is a woman in peril
movie, a "convicted for a crime she didn't commit" movie - but most importantly
it is The Fugitive with a twist.
The twist
is Ashley Judd is a woman. High concept huh?
In a laboured
half hour opening which is all explained in about five seconds in the trailer,
Judd finds herself framed for the murder of her husband, goes to prison
and finds to her surprise that the husbands she was supposed to murder
but didn't is still alive. As then explained by the handy presence of a
plot expositional bird in jail with law degree, that means that all the
Juddster has to do is complete her stir and she can get out of jail and
murder him. All enshrined in the second amendment under the - wait for
it - Double Jeopardy clause which states she can't go down for the same
crime twice. The phrase DJ is mentioned a few more times just so a) we
know why the film is called that, and b) so as we do not examine said plot
point and wonder why she just did not set up an appeal on the highly valid
grounds that the guy she murdered is whipping up a storm in New Orleans.
It is not
my way usually to spoil a films entire plot. Narrative film reviews as
a whole annoy me, but there really is no other way of adequately explaining
the awfulness of this film. I could mention the little touches, like Judd
taking up weight training to make herself stronger: so she can shoot her
husband? Or how she is by far and away the worst cat burglar in history
(I thought chokey was supposed to teach you things like that). Nevertheless,
all you really need to know is that she gets out on parole and moves into
a halfway house run by the gruff, stern and apparently sleep-walking Tommy
Lee Jones. Do you have any idea what might happen next? Any, any, any idea
at all.
Remember
- it's the Fugitive with a twist.
Double Jeopardy
does not just have a preposterous and inane plot, it also has a script
full of corking one liners. If you couple this with the bad guy being called
Nicholas Parsons, you can see where the giggles just don't let up. Of course
this is nicely compounded by a sterling pair of performances by Judd and
Jones. Tommy Lee Jones can do this Fugitive chasing stuff without raising
a puff, not surprising when he has already done it twice. Therefore the
true revelation is Judd, who - when informed she is losing her son and
being sent to prison - raises her eyebrow and says "see you later kiddo".
She is not so much wooden as just plain arboreal.
There is
so much to enjoy in Double Jeopardy I have difficulty in truly thinking
of it as a bad film. It is possibly one of the most enjoyable couple of
hours I've spent in a while, only to be topped by the preview screening
questionnaire which was a hoot to fill in. It is an honest to god turkey,
made with the straightest of faces. The clichés come thick and fast
- you just have to read that she's off to New Orleans and you know the
kind of travel programme visuals you will be served up with. The film thinks
it is doing something radical with its "complicated legal plot and its
revolutionary female lead character", but face it - it's the Fugitive with
a woman. Or alternatively - as in Supermatch Game - The Movie: _________
Jeopardy. For 50 blanks its Single. For 100 blanks, its Double but for
150 Blanks - it is Appalling. (5)
IF THIS
FILM WERE A CAR CRASH: The Fugitive with a twist. She's a woman!
Dude,
Where’s My Car?
There appears
to be a misconception about Dude, Where’s My Car? Nearly all reviews I
have seen of it have tried to tie the film in with the recent spate of
teen comedies - in particular Road Trip and American Pie - the so-called
gross out comedies. This would appear to be lazy journalism of the highest
order. Just because the three films share a star (Sean Michael Scott) does
not mean there is a direct line between the three films. Dude is not a
gross-out comedy. Instead it is another entry in the shaggy dog story,
our loveable losers stumble across a plot of enormous complexity akin to
Bell And Ted’s Excellent Adventure.
No - scratch
that. It is not merely similar to the Bill & Ted films, it is a nigh
on carbon copy of them. Which is not a bad idea on paper, since the Bill
& Ted movies were genial, good humoured fun which made a star of at
least one of its leads - who has never really had such a good role since.
Instead of Bill & Ted though, here we have Chester and Jesse as our
two stoners who have no memory of the previous night. In trying to work
out what had happened the night before - and of course find the car - the
duo embark on increasingly less plausible happenings.
Your enjoyment
of Dude will entirely stem on the question - are stupid people funny. If
the answer is yes, then Dude will satisfy you. If its a no I would imagine
it will annoy you from the get-go. Me, I appreciate the humour of ignorance,
and the thick headed antics here are some of the finest we have seen in
a long time. Joke wise there are probably five good gags in this film,
the rest is wide eyed innocence and gentle slapstick. Luckily this is played
with genial good nature so whilst we are laughing at stupidity, it is not
in a judgmental way. We are also laughing at the GCSE story level of the
narrative and the quaint sexism the film displays.
The opening
credits look cheap and display a lack of ambition which is evident in the
entire film. It merely wants to entertain, and does not push you too hard
on that front - it is not as well written or plotted as either Bill &
Ted. The special effects are ropey at best (in an amusing B-Movie way)
and the whole thing does overstay its welcome a touch. More interesting
is the fact that the leads are supposed to be potheads - and yet we never
see them smoke any drugs in the film. It is inconsistencies like this which
weaken the film - you get the feeling that the film-makers are knocking
this out without much thought. And while its not a genre which usually
requires too much artistry, comedy is never the easy option.
There is
a drought of comedies out there at the moment, so even one which is sporadically
funny will probably be the best of the bunch. Of its type, Dude is the
first to come along in quite some time, which also gives it novelty value.
The film does go a long way on the charm and naiveté of its leads,
and perhaps too long. But merely for the bubble wrap jumpsuits the film
deserves to be seen on a quiet afternoon. It is funny sometimes, which
is better than a poke in the eye I guess. (5)
Bill &
Ted hits Earth Girls Are Easy, and that notorious smoke-free Cheech &
Chong movie.
