Abandon Film

It's not often that I'll give up on a film. I'm the eternal Movie Optimist; I can almost always find something to like about even the worst films.
But sometimes a film will defeat me.

Kingdom of Heaven - 2005, Ridely Scott
I almost regret not sitting through this one, and one day I might try again because I didn't even make it as far as Edward Norton who I like a lot. I watched the first hour or so on the TV recently, I'm not even sure which version I was watching; the original (and derided) cinematic version or the supposedly much more coherent director's cut (good old Ridely and his director's cuts). It's too easy to blame Orlando Bloom for KOH, even if he is woefully miscast. I don't mean to knock the guy, but there is a definite place for Orlando in the Cinematic world, and the lead role in historical epics is not it. I think the reason I so disliked KOH was because I so adore Troy. Orlando's performance in Troy is awful (along with Eric Bana's) but the whole thing is just the right level of camp for it to work. KOH also has an ensemble cast of famous 'great' actors, but it takes itself very seriously. If you get a load of well respected British actors to grow beards and dress up like knights to deliver po faced performances, it had better be Shakespeare, else it could easily be rubbish.

I'm Not There - 2007, Todd Haynes
I can handle pretentious bullshit, sometimes I even like it, but four/five actors all playing 'Bob Dylan' with varying degrees of self satisfaction was too much. A bunch of famous actors sitting around talking out of their arses may actually be the best way to represent the life and works of Dylan, but it ain't half boring.

10,000 BC - 2008, Ronald Emmerich
It was a while ago that I watched/abandoned this one and I have almost no memory of it, which is a surprise because I normally have a good memory for film (in place of being able to remember useful things). Something to do with cavemen mumbling to each other about someone who was kidnapped, and maybe a dinosaur. The action sequences were very boring and very expensive looking. It must be a massive disappointment for a director (and his financial backers) to watch the sequences he so carefully storyboarded, shot, and CGI-ed to the max, only to realise that the final shot is desperately uninteresting. 'Oh no' they must cry, 'This is meant to be the good bit'.
Some of Ronald's early low budget West German sci-fi films look quite interesting though.

Rocket Science - 2007, Jeffery Blitz
Soulless Indie Comedy by the numbers.

The Zombie Diaries - 2006, Kevin Bates and Michael Bartlett
Stop getting the Zombie Apocalypse wrong!
I love zombie films and the whole Dawn of The Dead zombie scenario in general. In fact, I sometimes fantasise about the dead rising and society falling. I'd relish the zombie Apocalypse, I think I could make it. For this reason I hate it when characters in zombie films start screwing up. I enjoyed The Walking Dead series on FX recently, but I still get annoyed when they get angry and shout at each other. Stop making so much noise. Stop wasting ammo. How could you not notice that zombie slowly staggering toward you?...and so forth. The Zombie Diaries is full of such stuff, but there was something else that put me off. TZD is a low budget British film (something to be applauded and supported) made with (I assume) amateur actors. At least I hope they were amateurs because they were all awful. This is the problem I have with home grown super-low-budget film; bad British actors seem worse than bad actors from other countries because I'm so used to British accents that I can easily tell when someone is 'acting' because it sounds staged and insincere (like the actors on Hollyoaks). Bad acting in non domestic films doesn't seem so bad to me because it's unfamiliar and so doesn't seem so obviously like acting. I suppose a zombie film where everyone creeps around in silence and never loses their heads might not be much fun to watch though.

Little Otik

Little Otik – 2000, Jan Svankmajer

Known as Otesanek in the Czech Republic (and given the incredibly lame title ‘Greedy Guts’ in some territories), this creepy little film is based on some Eastern European fairytale about a childless couple who, in their desperation to have a baby, raise a tree stump.



It’s not as dynamic as that trailer makes it look, but it’s certainly disturbing (the version I saw on FilmFour had no English dialogue, I assume it was just put on the trailer). An infertile couple are having a miserable time coming to terms with the fact that they will never have children. In an attempt to raise his wife’s spirits the husband presents her with a ‘baby’ fashioned from a tree stump he dug up from the garden of a cabin where they spend their weekends. The wife immediately starts treating the stump like it’s a real child and wraps it up in a blanket to take it home with them. Thus begins the downward spiral of a woman’s passion for motherhood. The wife tells the neighbours she is pregnant and the husband resigns to taking her to the cabin on weekends to see ‘the baby’, until one day, a mothers love (and obsession) brings the stump to life.

Baby Otik is animated by stop motion and puppetry. It’s creepy but it never gets as scary as it threatens to, it’s certainly not gruesome. The part of the film before the stump comes to life is probably the best. The husband’s despair at his wife’s delusion is affecting because it’s so believable. A genuine horror that his wife has gone mad and loves a stump like it’s her own child (what will the neighbours think?). The fantasy elements become more humorous than horrific as the film progresses. The animated sequences and creature effects (such as they are) have clearly been achieved on a budget, but it’s all been very lovingly made, which makes the anticlimactic ending all the more disappointing.

Considering the film was made in the Czech Republic a few years after the break up of Czechoslovakia, there are a couple of interesting subtleties; there is a lot of food in this film. It’s easy to associate Eastern Europe with queues outside shops where food is in short supply. Come to think of it, the use of food in Little Otik isn’t really very subtle at all; probably a comment on the other base human compulsion after reproduction – feeding. Otik’s a hungry baby, so hungry in fact that nothing and no one edible is safe.

I know there’s a lot more to the history of the former soviet block than rationing, but the shortage of food seems to have had an effect on the psyche of these film makers; there’s a lot of goulash in Lille Otik. Also, when Little Otik’s appetite extends to include a craving for human flesh and people start disappearing, there is a moment where they might be making a comment on the bad old days. I don’t know how bad Czechoslovakia was as far as other post war Soviet states, but there were at least a few purges apparently.

On the whole it’s a good one, but don’t watch it if you’re pregnant.

Shutter Island

Shutter Island – 2010, Martin Scorsese

Spooooooooooooooooooooooooky!



There are a handful of authors who are, or have been, very popular in Hollywood. Top of the list is Stephen King who has a list of media based on his works as long as both his arms and growing. King’s ‘great work’ the Dark Tower series will inevitably be adapted for film or TV or both.

The late Michael Crichton was equally prolific and would no doubt still be writing for the screen if he were still alive and now Dennis Lehane is setting himself up as the next Crichton (with less science fiction): Mystic River, Gone Baby Gone, a couple of episodes of The Wire and of course 2010’s warm up to Inception; Shutter Island.

I can only assume that it is a coincidence that two films were released within a few weeks of each other, both starring Leonardo DiCaprio and both having such a strong ‘it’s a film about films’ vibe. SI is an ode to classic 40’s thrillers and mysteries, Inception a tribute to Hollywood movie convention and a demonstration of how it doesn’t have to be all bad. Inception is of course open to, and subject of, intense debate about its meaning. A lot of people tired of the praise, then the backlash, and the following argument (summed up best here), but I’ll never tire of Inception or the great debate.

Shutter Island was lauded as a great film and rightly so, but it was never the beneficiary/victim of as much hype as Nolan’s film and so never sparked much debate. The other thing about Shutter Island is, without giving too much away, it is not open to interpretation. It’s a mystery, but all is revealed unambiguously at the end.

It’s precisely because it is not open ended that SI is so entertaining. Scorcese’s not-so-subtle-but-not-quite-obvious touches compel the audience to really pay attention. Some of the necessary elements that allow the viewer to form a theory about what is really going on are a tad obvious, but this is definitely a film that warrants a second viewing to go back and spot all the clues.

SI is one of the best ‘spooky thrillers’ I’ve seen (I’m desperately trying to think of a similar film...The Others maybe?) DiCaprio’s character’s motivation is clear and his behaviour is believable. I find that the most annoying thing about a lot of thrillers and horrors is the unbelievable or inconsistent way the protagonist behaves, all for the sake of moving the story forward of setting up the shocks, doing dangerous or ill judged things for no reason. In SI, all the secrecy and strangeness that surrounds Leo compels him to probe deeper into the events on the island, putting himself at greater risk, but not without reason.

I found to be a Shutter Island is a satisfying film. Some may think that the big twist at the end is either predictable or unoriginal, and they’d have a point, but they’d also be missing the point. Shutter Island is a popcorn movie. It’s a big budget studio picture starring an A-Lister in the lead and directed by a successful and well established director, and it’s as good as such movies get.

I suppose the only negative is the ‘they had too much money to spend’ factor that can effect films nowadays. The film looks very good but it’s very obvious that a lot of shots were filmed in front of a green screen.

The theory behind extensive green screen shooting is that it is cheaper to create stunning exterior locations digitally. Why bother scouting a location then setting up a shoot and waiting for just the right light when The Magic Hour can be created on a computer? It’s good, but not completely believable. It doesn’t detract from the experience, but there are a couple of scenes that look out of place because of the awkward transition from location to studio within the same scene. This is just nitpicking, Shutter Island is well worth a watch, and proof (as if it was needed) that Scoresese can do more than just Gangster Montage. It would be interesting to see what Guillermo del Toro would have made of it.

NB.
It’s very easy to mistype the title of this film.

Afterschool

Afterschool - 2008, Antonio Campos

I often count myself lucky that I went to school before WEB 2.0

Can anyone remember what the hell they did online before Facebook, Youtube and Wikipedia? I have a vague memory of reading funny stories on poorly designed websites that my dial up connection could download without too much trouble, and trying to find a decent NBA news website.

Enough has been written about the internet and its effect on kids to fill a thousand blogs, so I’ll keep my observations brief:

I’m sure that if I was in year seven or eight at school today, I would be a huge Facebook bully. I’ve never experienced any aspect of cyber-bullying, but I think it would have appealed a lot to me as a youth. The internet seems to have created a two-tear system of bullying. Poor rough kids don’t have the internet so they bully kids at school. Nice middle class kids have the internet so they bully other kids online, sometimes they don’t even do it anonymously. I was a nice little boy at school, and my educational experience was a pleasant one, but if I had had the opportunity to live out a second life, to carry out online whatever petty adolescent vengeance I may have harboured, who knows how I might have turned out.

Rob, the central character in Afterschool, is a nice upper middle class boy who has become an internet voyeur. He doesn’t need to do any bullying; he is satisfied just to watch. He likes to watch violent porn and real videos of school kids fighting. The internet allows him to become withdrawn and detached without getting bored or feeling like he’s missing out on much.

The well-to-do mixed boarding school where Afterschool is set is populated with teenagers who appear not to really like each other, but this may just be Rob’s perception. Rob is a bit of an outcast but he’s not completely friendless, he still manages to pull a nice girl, but no one else he hang’s about with seem like they care for him much.

Whilst shooting some footage for a video arts class, Rob is the only witness to the drug induced death of two beautiful senior twins who are the most popular girls in school. Their death is caught on tape. The bulk of Afterschool follows Rob as his video project becomes a memorial to the girls, officially sanctioned by the staff.

The popularity of the twins and the way the staff at the school turned a blind eye to their drug use, and that of other pupils, is a subtle critique of the way glamour and any level of celebrity is seductive, even to those who should know better. Specifically in the way the staff put the reputation of the school above the wellbeing of the pupils.
Rob’s failing is that he is a voyeur, but this is no greater fault than of those who find glory by mere association with the popular twins.

The only character who seems to have a shred of sincerity is the school counsellor, but to begin with he seems creepier than the other members of staff because he’s so keen to talk to Rob about his thoughts. This reflects the modern notion that any adult who displays any concern about the wellbeing of a child should be treated with suspicion.

Reviews for Afterschool are very mixed. It’s a slow film, but it’s incredibly atmospheric. Very uneasy from beginning to end, it’s very well shot and directed; one of the best debut films I’ve seen. Scenes are often framed with the actors just out of shot and with an economy of camera movement that reflects Rob’s apparent detachment from the world, even when he is involved in a very serious situation. The young cast provide understated and believable performances.

The original cinematic cut of the film was 107 minutes long. Unfortunately the DVD version (the one available on LoveFilm at least) is 142 minutes long. The slow pace is therefore drawn out to a degree that makes parts of the film a tad boring. I enjoyed and recommend it, but I’d definitely prefer to watch the shorter version if I get the change to see it again.

Antonio Campos hasn't made any other films since. I hope he has something in the works though, as he’s clearly one to watch.

Japanese Family Drama (yawn)

Tokyo Story – 1953, Yasujiro Ozu (136 min)
Memories of Matsuko – 2006, Tetsuya Nakashima (130min)
Tokyo Sonata – 2008, Kiyoshi Kurosawa (120 min)

The very dapper Yasujir Ozu was a prominent Japanese film maker who achieved recognition outside Japan only after his death. His films are placed on the shelf labelled ‘Masterpieces’ along with the work of Ingmar Bergman, Jean-Luc Godard et all.

The biggest criticism that is ever made of Ozu is that no one can tell one of his movies from another, and this is never made scathingly, it seems more of an observation of the fact that all of his films are equally outstanding. There’s no doubting it, Ozu could frame a shot. Every shot in every scene of Tokyo Story is a perfect composition. When reproduced in greyscale, Jan Vermeer’s 17th century oil The Art Of Painting is very reminiscent of Ozu’s style.



(well La-Di-Da)

Equally remarkably, Ozu’s camera almost never moves (there is one tracking shot in Tokyo Story and no pans as far as I recall) and interior shots are almost always from waist height (because everyone’s sitting on the floor). This humble minimalism makes Ozu’s films seems alien and creates the impression that his films have an immense sense of ‘Japanesenes’ to them, when in fact, as far as Tokyo Story goes, the story and characters are completely universal.

This film is about an elderly couple who travel to Tokyo to visit their children and grandchildren. They spend their time trying not to inconvenience their children, who in turn make little effort to spend any time with their elderly parents who have made a long trip to see them. Lack of respect for one's elders and unconditional love for one's children are the themes.

Clearly sad and bleak by design, but I found it hard to tell if the elderly couple who are the central characters were supposed to be comical. They maintain the same puzzled expressions throughout, even during the gloomy conclusion. The other character of most prominence is their daughter in law who was widowed when her husband went missing, presumed dead during the war. She also maintains the same expression almost the whole time, her's a face that always smiles politely even when she is dying inside.



She is genuinely tragic, maintaining a strangely optimistic acceptance that her life is already over.

I suppose I’d recommend Tokyo Story, but I won’t be seeking out any of Ozu’s other work any time soon. That said, as one of the giants of Japanese cinema, his influence presides over a lot Japanese film I’ve seen. Even violent and horrific Japanese films have moments of utter calm and tranquillity than can perhaps be traced back to him. He is an observer. His camera gives us the view of a silent character in his film sat on the floor like everyone else. There is no escape in his films.

Memories of Matsuko by contrast is pure escapism (is this contrast to Ozu’s style evidence of his influence?). In fact it’s the Japanese Amélie.



This film is basically a pantomime, a film that want’s to be a pop video. To me this films appears to have been made by westerners trying to make a Japanese style film. Some scenes are actualy pop videos intentionally, but all the quirky stuff detracts from the drama, so by the end it’s straining to strike an emotional chord. Some bits are very funny but they come at the expense of the drama...like it’s worried about taking itself too seriously.

Memories of Matsuko is very imaginative and the director has clearly brought his vision to life with a relatively small budget, however...

This film is basically ‘Japanese Bullshit’. If you surf the web a lot you’ll be familiar with Japanese Bullshit and probably have your own interpretation of what is bullshit and what isn’t. I’m often the first to defend a lot of films that might be considered bullshit. And a lot of Japanese stuff isn’t Bullshit in my opinion, but increasingly, there things that come out of Japan that are held up as examples of excellent art/film/whatever that are, in fact, bullshit. I strive to keep my blog free of my cynical and ill-conceived opinions on modern culture, so I’ll stop ranting now, but I will point you in the direction of this slideshow on the overrated Japanese artist Yoshitomo Nara.

As the guy says on slide 8 ‘‘It's one thing to be inspired by something, another thing to channel its energy authentically.’’ This comment sums up MOM perfectly in my opinion, and helps me explain why I’m not crazy about films that I should like, namely Amélie and Run Lola, Run. Original, ground breaking films so rarely receive the attention they deserve, so when one does achieve success, audiences accept uniqueness and individuality as enough to wow them and are too easily bowled over. But ‘new’ and ‘different’ aren’t enough.

Tokyo Sonata is a film that is exactly what I expected, yet still entertaining.
This film is about the interesting phenomenon of Japanese salary-men who are laid off but don’t tell their families. The leave home every day as if they were going to work. ‘Sonata’ is about one such guy who can’t bear to tell his family the truth, yet is infuriated by the lies his wife and children tell.

Just as slow as Story but the fact the camera actually moves makes it more interesting. In this sense the film serves as a critique of Ozu’s style, there can be such a thing as too much stillness, particularly when so many scenes take place in a domestic setting. The lead actor (who has a small role in MOM) is really good. In fact the whole cast are good. This film contrast very well with Tokyo Story (they would make two halves of an excruciating double feature) showing the difference between Japan today and of 50 years ago. No one will ever call it a masterpiece, but it looks good and the camerawork compliments the pace of the story. The humour comes across better in this one, probably because it’s more contemporary and less confusing.

Tokyo Sonata is a film about deceit within a family. Tokyo Story is a film about a family growing apart. Both are good.

Memories of Matsuko, Amélie and Run Lola, Run are films about Love. But love stories have been done more than any other, so it’s important to try something different, and each of these films should be commended for their originality, but not to the extent that their flaws are ignored.

Sci-Fi Adaptation

I recently watched Charly (1968, Ralph Nelson) which is an adaptation of the little known sci-fi novel Flowers for Algernon.

It’s not Space Opera, and it was set during the time of writing, but it qualifies as sci-fi through the use of fictional medical techniques. Reading the synopsis of the novel you’d think it sounded like a strange one to adapt into a film; retarded man undergoes a medical experiment that makes him incredibly intelligent, but emotionally detached from the rest of the world, the results are only temporary and he finally lapses back into a child like state of mind.

But then I found out the driving force behind the film was Cliff Robertson, the lead actor whose portrayal of the titular Charly won him the best actor Oscar in 1968. I’m not absolutely sure but maybe this was the fist example of Oscar success attained through playing a retard (without, of course, going ‘Full Retard’). Cliff is more recognisable as Peter Parker’s uncle Ben in the Spiderman films (I always thought it was that guy from Highway to Heaven).



Charly has the same kind of vibe to it as a film called Bigger Than Life in that it’s well made on a modest but not tiny budget, and without attempting to cause too much controversy, it deliberately questions the state of contemporary American society. Charly plays it completely straight throughout, although the following ‘drug-fuelled-bender’ sequence from the middle of the film is very out of place;



A clear example of a director stepping out if his depth.

There have in fact been eight adaptations of Flowers for Algernon and according to Wikipedia there is one in the works with Will Smith in the lead role (you’ll win that Oscar yet Big Wille).

This got me thinking about a few sci-fi novels I’ve read that would make good films;

Galaxies Like Grains of Sand, 1960 by Brian Aldiss
This is a collection of short stories, a lot of sci fi novels, including Flower For Algernon started out as shorts published in science fiction periodicals. Each story is set farther into the future than the last, following the evolution of mankind, much like Olaf Stapledon’s First and Last Men, only GLGOF doesn’t make the mistake of trying to predict the near future and getting it very wrong.

I think this particular collection would suit the ‘Animatrix’ style treatment that has become slightly popular. A series of short animated films set in a particular universe is a medium that worked well for Batman and Halo....speaking of which....

Ringworld , 1970 by Larry Niven
If you’ve played any of the Halo games you’ll be familiar with the concept of a Ringworld; an artificial ring so vast that the surface area of the inner face is a million times greater that of the surface of the Earth, at the centre of the ring is a star. The titular constructions from the Halo series are the same idea but on a smaller scale without a central sun. The best sci-fi novels are the ones which have the most imaginative ideas and Niven’s most famous work is full of them. Science fiction writing is often categorised (somewhat unfortunately) as ‘Hard’ or ‘Soft’ depending upon how closely the laws of physics are adhered to and how accurate the use of known technological constraints are. In the wake of Avatar, the sci-fi epic is in vogue again, but I don’t thing Ringworld will likely be adapted anytime soon for the reason expressed in the following equation:

(Ringworld + Warhammer 40,000 + Aliens) – Star Trek = Halo

If someone wants to adapt an ambitious story about large artificial ring shaped orbital bodies, they’re probably going to pick the far more recent and popular property.

The Forever War, 1974 by Joe Halderman
Joe Halderman was drafted and served in Vietnam, while he was there he may have read Starship Troopers. When he returned to the States he wrote The Forever War based upon his experience of returning as a veteran of an unpopular war. In the novel, the protagonist boards a star ship to fly off and engage an alien enemy light-years from earth, then makes the return trip. Though only a few months have passed from his perspective, due to relativity and all that jazz, 10 years have passed on earth and nothing is the same as it was when he left. This one was apparently close to being made by Ridely Scott, but he’s working on the Alien prequels now.

Neuromancer, 1984 by William Gibson
I recommend this novel the most, and would most like to see it faithfully adapted. A lot of this one has already made to the big screen in a round-about way. Neuromancer is set in a future Earth known as The Sprawl, Gibson wrote a three novels and a collection of short stories set there. One of the shorts ‘Jonny Mnemonic’ became a 1995 film staring Keanu Reeves (the character Jonny is referenced in Neuromancer). A few years later the Wachowski brothers wrote The Matrix, which for all its originality ‘borrowed’ extensively from various sci-fi sources (in Neuromancer the central character is a guy who plugs his brain into a huge computer network called ‘The Matrix’). The whole cyberpunk thing started with Gibson.

The Forge of God, 1987 by Greg Bear
I mentioned this one in my last post. The Forge of God is good, if slightly depressing story about the destruction of the Earth by robots from outer space. ‘Knowing’ and ‘2012’ have pretty much covered the whole destruction of the earth theme, so a similar film probably won’t be made in a while which is a shame as ‘Forge’ would have made a far better film than either of them. I didn’t care much for the sequel novel ‘Anvil of Stars’ though.

Ten Short Film Reviews 8

Felon – 2008, Ric Roman Waugh
What was the last prison drama that didn’t go straight to DVD? Probably the one staring Robert Redford and James Gandolfini. Oh, and A Prophet. And that Brazilian one...
OK, so a lot of prison dramas do get a cinema release, but for each one of those there must be at least ten prison dramas starring JCVD or Steven Seagal or Ving Rhames that are destined straight for Blockbuster Video. ‘Felon’ is better than the typical straight to DVD prison romp. Very well made considering the tight budget and featuring good performances from Val Kilmer and, surprisingly, Mr Bad Boyfriend himself Stephen Dorff.

Over The Top – 1987, Menahem Golan
Mr Golan directed a whole load of films, including everyone’s favourite Chuck Norris film The Delta Force (which is well worth checking out, B-Movie fans). Over The Top is basically Rocky with Arm wrestling. There’s less focus on training, more on trucking and the relationship Sylvester Stallone’s character has with his son. Sly’s character is very understated in this one, kind of like the big softy John Rambo might have been if only General Troutman hadn’t chipped away at that special stone in order to reveal the ultimate killing machine within.

Run Lola Run – 1998, Tom Tykwer
I should like it but I don’t. It’s a good idea, and it’s always good when a film is bold and mixes it up like this film does, but...I just can’t put my finger on what I don’t like about this film. It’s got a dated German-nes about it that is best summed up by Moritz Bleibtreu’s face:



Knowing – 2009, Alex Proyas
This film is packed full of clichés (spooky little girl, protagonist’s wife has died, man loses faith in life etc) and the plot is as lazy as the performances, but it managed to hold my attention because it’s not at all predictable. Stuff happens, tension builds, the world is going to end...and it’s there are no hints as to why it’s happening until the end when it is revealed... the paedophiles from space did it!
OK, so they aren’t really paedophiles, just aliens who know the Earth is doomed, and it’s an annoying ending. Something else that annoys me is that ‘the world coming to an end and the survivors are flying off into space’ plot was used twice in films made in 2009 (this and ‘2012’). This means that the big screen adaptation of Greg Bear’s novel Forge of God is probably out of the question for another ten years.

Unbreakable – 2000, M. Night Shyamalam
My favourite M. Night Shalamawhatever film. It’s very predictable, in fact if finishes so abruptly after the twist at the end it seems like he knew it was so predictable and it would be better not to dawdle. But I still like everything about it. The whole ‘tell a story about comic book heroes but in a realistic way’ has gotton old over the last ten years which is a shame. Maybe when everyone grows bored of the Iron Man/Avengers movies that are surely going to peak over the next couple of years, there will be another film like Unbreakable.

Capricorn One – 1978, Peter Hymas
Josh Brolin’s dad James plays the lead in this thriller about a faked mission to land men on Mars and the effort to cover it up. The story is good, but the film could have been so much better. The plot seems very underwritten and it gets a bit confusing towards the end due to bad editing; it’s hard to tell if some events that tale place are supposed to be occurring concurrently. The pacing of the final act is a bit off as well, Hymas’ later film Outland suffers in the same way. Nice little turn by Telly Savalas though. O J Simpson was a strange casting choice.

Idiocracy – 2006, Mike Judge
As you may already know, Mike Judge is the guy behind ‘Beavis and Butthead’ and ‘King of The Hill’. He also made the very popular (but in my opinion overrated) ‘Office Space’, and more recently a film called ‘Extract’ starring the almost-ubiquitous Jason Bateman. The films and TV shows that Judge makes tend to divide people. I’ve never been a massive fan of anything he’s been involved in, but I am very keen on Idiocracy. This film was criminally under promoted by a studio that got cold feet. This film isn’t really very profound or controversial, but its’ intelligent critique of the dumbing down of society was enough worry the wrong people, and it was all but shelved. It’s original and funny and thoughtful at the same time, I highly recommend it.



Days of Heaven – 1976 Terrence Malick
OK, I get it now. Terrence is an excellent director. His films are massively self indulgent, and yet they turn out well. I’ve watched my share of worthy-ass-films and I’d say that Days Of Heaven just about beats them all insofar as it has a loose plot that appears to have come together during the edit (a-la Wong Kar Wai) is beautifully shot in an amazing location (Wim Wenders) and has a dream like quality without being a fantasy (Peter Weir). I suppose being American meant Malick got a lot more recognition that the others...shame he doesn’t make more films.

Conan The Destroyer – 1984, Richard Fliescher
Not a patch on the first one, although this one does have a tongue in cheek tone that is far more suited to the whole crazy violent fantasy that takes place. It makes Conan The Barbarian appear to take itself too seriously, but I still think ‘Barbarian’ hits the nail on the head. This one is far more Swords and Sorcery with a bigger ensemble cast of misfit fantasy types; Virginal Princess, Amazonian Warrior Woman, Comic Relief Sidekick and Really Tall Dude (NBE legend Wilt Chamberlain) who’s a good guy, but obviously going to have a fight with Arnie at some point. I think Schwarzenegger spends more time with his shirt off in this film that any other. The Conan tradition of abusing animals continues.



Basic Instinct – 1992, Paul Verhoeven
Paul Verhoeven is an excellent director and worthy of a lot more credit than he gets. Paul is all about excess, mainly excess violence; Robocop, Total Recall, Starship Troopers. But in Basic Instinct he’s all about excess drama. This film basically screams ‘I AM AN EROTIC THRILLER Y’ALL’ at the top of it’s lungs for 127 minutes. I watched it for the first time and I was surprised at how much I liked it. If ever a film was dragged down by brief flash of minge, this is it. It may never have been as successful without it, but it has detracted from the films legacy, even though it doesn’t detract from the film itself. It’s testament to Verheoven’s skill as a director that he can make a film where a bird showing her clunge doesn’t seem out of place. I wonder if there’s a special edition somewhere that has a freeze frame so you don’t have to bother pausing it?