18 Reviews
A Dark and Scary Place
Starring: Rudolph Klein-Rogge, Otto Wernicke, Gustav Diessl.
Directed Fritz Lang
Eureka! Masters of Cinema
March 2004
Dr Mabuse, the Gambler was a two-part silent movie made by Fritz Lang in 1922. Mabuse was a crime lord who caused a wave of terror, death and destruction through his hypnotic prowess and evil genius, before eventually falling into madness after seeing the ghosts of his murder victims and being incarcerated in an insane asylum. In this talkie sequel made ten years later Dr Mabuse has made no outward progress in the asylum, simply staring into space. Now his hand begins to jerk violently in writing motions, and given a pen and paper he proceeds to scribble nonsense. However his penmanship becomes gradually more coherent until it's realised that Mabuse's 30 pages a day are intelligent instructions on how to run a successful reign of crime through fear and confusion. When the described crimes begin to be carried out for real, Inspector Lohmann (last seen on the trail of Peter Lorre's child murderer in Lang's M) takes up the case...
Originally premiered in 1933 in Budapest, The Testament of Dr Mabuse had been banned in Germany and wasn't shown again until 1951 in a shortened version. It was around this time that Adolf Hitler became Chancellor and Goebbels Minister for Enlightenment and Propaganda (!). It was said that Hitler was a great fan of Fritz Lang's work. Ironically, not only was Lang Austrian, but he was also Jewish. Goebbels apparently approached Lang, telling him he was aware of the man's "shortcomings" but thought him such an accomplished film maker that he wanted Lang to head the new Film Institute. Lang foresaw the inevitable and fled the country. Afterward, the film was banned by the Nazis because it "posed a threat to law and order and public safety", and the original film was seized.
This film is considerably more enjoyable than you might think. The ghosts which appear to Mabuse are very well done considering the year, and there is good use of lighting, particularly in the finale car chase where the approaching trees and the roadway ahead appear somewhat sinister. For a 105 minute film there is constant movement and progression, with a lot going on. There is the police mystery of who is running Mabuse's crime organisation, although the viewer already knows; sympathy for the character Kent who has unwittingly become embroiled in the events of the spree, dragging in his innocent girlfriend; there are arson attacks, robberies, shootings, and the clever idea of flooding a locked room to subdue the force of a bomb about to explode.
Like M, The Testament of Dr Mabuse has been lovingly restored, the picture and sound digitally remastered. The documentary included as an extra is interesting, but the subtitles are often difficult to keep up with, especially when there is a crowd scene or characters are arguing, their speech accelerated.
This film will appeal to collectors of old masters, but I wonder how much casual interest it will garner.
Verdict: 6 out of 10
(Review originally written by Ty Power for reviewgraveyard 2004)
Starring: Scott Speedman, James Marsden, Sofia Vergara.
Directed Tony Piccirillo
Mosaic Entertainment
September 2004
Two gay men get together at a bar. Dan is invited back to Tom's apartment, where he is asked if he remembers meeting before. When the conversation turns weird Dan attempts to leave, but is rendered unconscious and tied-up. It soon materialises that Tom had given the HIV virus to his wife, who committed suicide when the news that she had aids was revealed at a hospital. Tom has only slept with one man in his life... Dan, and he is convinced Dan passed the virus to him, because it was the only time he was unfaithful to his wife. So Tom holds Dan responsible and vows that if the results of the aids test (a sample of which was taken while the man was unconscious) comes back from the lab positive, he is going to kill his captive...
Yes, it is as tedious as it sounds, I'm afraid. Although there are a couple of other locations used, and a few ultra-brief, confusing and frankly pointless flashbacks, the vast majority of the film takes place in one open-plan area. There are endless conversations between the two at Tom's place about everything from American football, through archeology, sex and responsibility to truth. In all probability, this story could have been told comfortably on film in under 15 minutes. I suppose the purpose of the constant chatter was the two characters trying to get inside each other's heads (ahem...), but it simply comes across as blatant time-wasting. The director might as well have filmed his empty purse for 90 minutes.
Another mistake this film makes is to reveal the entire plot minutes into the running time. The viewer is then obliged to watch the two players go through the motions whilst awaiting a revelation with a suitable impact that just doesn't happen. The 24th Day runs more like a theatre play, but if it had been the curtain would have dropped for the final time on the first night. Avoid this one like the plague. Even James Marsden (Spike from Buffy the Vampire Slayer) couldn't raise this one from the mire.
Verdict: 2 out of 10
(Review originally written by Ty Power for reviewgraveyard 2004)
Starring: Jeanette Cronin, Ian Bliss, Vince Gil, Alex Menglet and Victor Rodger.
Directed Antony Redman
CDA Entertainment
November 2003
A gang meet in a restaurant to finalise their plans for an armed robbery on a diamond warehouse, planned for the next day. The restaurant staff decide to borrow their car, equipment and disguises and carry out the robbery today, and be back before the gang have finished their lunch. However, the plans go awry when one of the women is recognised by her uncle who owns the diamonds. They discuss an insurance scam between them, but it is interrupted when a third party arrives to take over the robbery...
What do you get when you cross a bunch of less than mediocre actors with a thin plot so porous you could strain your vegetables with it? Well... you get The Long Lunch actually. Thoughts of straining my vegetables keeps it fresh in my mind just how painful this is to watch.
Any good film maker would have severe difficulty filling only a twenty minute slot with merely this to work with. The emphasis here is on long. I thought I'd somehow slipped into another dimension where every minute lasts an hour. With no meat on the bones of the story, the vast majority of the running time is taken up with superfluous timewasting scenes.
The woman who leads the gang in the restaurant is having an open relationship with one of the men, but has a quickie on the video game machine with one of the others. Two of the men have a pointless gun-related argument about Elton John and Princess Diana. A man gets punched out because he releases another man's birthday present of a puppy for his daughter, fearing it will be eaten by Orientals. Gripping stuff, eh?
Try as I might, I just can't think of anything good to say about this disaster. A lame attempt to inject humour surrounding the restaurant staff's bungled robbery hits so far wide of the mark that they really shouldn't have bothered. Hang on a minute, I don't think they did anyway. Tilting their heads from side to side whilst making high-pitched Tweenie squeaking noises doesn't constitute humour in my book.
Proceedings become progressively more stupid as the film nears its end. Quite frankly, it comes as a significant relief when practically the entire cast of characters get shot or blown up.
Did you know you can put unwanted DVD discs to a multitude of good uses these days? How about a clock? A fetching pair of Bet Lynch earrings? A Frisbee? Or maybe just a beer mat?
Can you believe there are actually extras on this disc? Call me a non-completist if you wish, but I couldn't stomach watching the deleted scenes too. If I had anything to do with it a lot more scenes would have bitten the dust.
In case you haven't got the message yet, don't waste your hard earned cash on this nonsense. The single point is for the cast and crew remembering to turn up. On second thoughts, that wasn't such a good idea!
Verdict: 1 out of 10
(Review originally written by Ty Power for reviewgraveyard 2003)
Narrator: John Rhys-Davies.
With Peter Jackson
National Geographic
December 2003
Join National Geographic in an exploration of the real world parallels to the events and characters brought to life in The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King...
As soon as I saw the cover of this DVD I couldn't help assuming the content would be a blatant cash-in on Peter Jackson's excellent, and more to the point popular, Lord Of The Rings trilogy of films. Was this just the pessimist in me? Not really, because to a certain degree that's exactly what it is. That's not to say this piece is without virtue.
John Rhys-Davies (Gimli the dwarf in the aforementioned films) is used to narrate this Discovery Channel-type documentary, making connections between the characters and situations in The Lord Of The Rings with people and events from actual history. These connections are loose and spurious at best; not surprising when you think that virtually any fictional character can be compared with an historical figure if you delve deep enough into personalities and drives.
Here we have Aragorn the reluctant leader compared with William Wallace (Braveheart) for seeking an end result of freedom, with no power or glory. He is also matched with Theodore Roosevelt, both having exiled themselves. Roosevelt took up ranch work and over time learned how ordinary people lived their lives, which was invaluable when he became president. Gandalf is seen as a part reflection of William Cecil, advisor to Queen Elizabeth I, whose wisdom helped defeat the Spanish Armada, and also to Benjamin Franklin, inventor, statesman, advisor etc., remembered as one of America's greatest achievers. Wormtongue is seen as Rasputin, evil manipulator and so-called mystic, who
was advisor to Nicholas II of Russia.
The theme of optimism which permeates The Lord Of The Rings sees Aragorn's speech before the defence of Helm's Deep as a direct comparison to Henry V's rousing tirade, which inspired his cold, wet, hungry and ill English soldiers to overcome odds of four to one over the French at Agincourt. Churchill is also mentioned; in the Battle of Britain the RAF overcame similar odds against German elite fighters.
This is all very interesting, but without doubt the biggest attraction for any potential viewer is the great number of clips from the films, interspersed with snippets of interviews with the cast about their roles. Although the main menu which moves over a map of Middle-Earth looks great, extras are almost non-existent, consisting of a photo gallery and a quiz containing only eight questions! And while I'm quibbling, the running time is 51 minutes and not 60 as stated on the box.
If this was shown on any TV station and you stumbled across it, it would almost certainly maintain your interest until the end, but as for a commercial release... this will find itself in the bargain bin within weeks. Why settle for clips if you can buy the entire film (or three films). If you want to find out more about great figures in history, get out a library book or research on the Internet.
Verdict: 4 out of 10
(Review originally written by Ty Power for reviewgraveyard 2003)
Starring: Robert De Niro, Frances McDormand, James Franco, Eliza Dushku and William Forsythe.
Directed Michael Caton-Jones
Warner Home Video
July 2003
Joey LaMarca, son of the respected Police Lieutenant Vincent LaMarca, kills a dealer in a drug-induced state. Vincent tries to be the father he has thus far neglected to be, by investigating the incident, bringing in his son and cleaning him up. However, an associate of the dealer wants the money he thinks Joey has stolen. When the lieutenant's partner is killed by the man whilst looking for Joey, everyone thinks the cop's son is responsible. This appears to be substantiated by the discovery of a gun with Joey's prints on it. Suddenly, nobody is listening to Vincent, and the media begins to dishonour his name...
Robert DeNiro has never particularly been my cup of tea. Here, he's not too bad. That's pretty gracious of me, don't you think? It's refreshing to see the man playing an honest and genuine law enforcement officer, without any of that steroid-waving, macho one-man-band exaggeration so prevalent to these kind of stories. All of the violence comes from other people, and that works fine. It's also unusual to have the woman in the broken marriage being portrayed as the guilty party, rather than the standard aggressive, drunken or workaholic husband.
Having said all that, this film still principally concerns drugs and shootings, and we've seen far too much of that already. I can't imagine many people - even avid fans of DeNiro - viewing this repeatedly, but it is just interesting enough to be worth seeing once.
Verdict: 5 out of 10
(Review originally written by Ty Power for reviewgraveyard 2003)
Starring: Griff Rhys Jones, Mel Smith, Alison Steadman.
Directed Michael Tuchner
Carlton Visual Entertainment
July 2003
Henry Wilt is a a quiet, unassuming schoolteacher, constantly turned down for promotion, with a nagging wife who never listens to him. When a workman glimpses a woman's body just before cement is poured into a large hole in the ground on school property, and Wilt's crashed car is found near the scene, he is immediately suspected of the crime. Flint, the police inspector trying to make a name for himself, knows that Wilt's wife has been missing for three weeks and he's determined to break the man down and solve the case before his replacement returns from holiday. However, Wilt makes it hard work, telling a story so ridiculous that it simply must be the truth. But Flint can't see beyond his own aspirations of glory and promotion...
This film from the late eighties is an adaptation of the international bestselling book by Tom Sharpe. I remember reading it years ago on a recommendation and was suitably unimpressed. Humour, like all things, is objective; in this case you object to not being entertained! While that sounds harsh for what proved to be a popular novel, the comment doesn't so much apply to this movie.
You have to say that it's undoubtedly a masterstroke of inspired casting to have a successful comic double-act play the two pivotal roles. I've enjoyed the talents of Mel Smith and Griff Rhys Jones since the heady days of Not The Nine O'Clock News. Here, their dry wit, sarcasm and timed interplay beefs-up what amounts to a very average script. The humour seems somehow dated, raising no more than a smile here and there nearly 15 years down the line. The ones that work are practically throwaway lines. As Wilt is driven away by the police, one of his unruly students shouts out, "Don't tell the bastards nothing!" Wilt absently corrects the youngster with, "Don't tell the bastards anything."
The idea that Flint suspects Wilt of being the serial strangler does not become conducive to the plot until the contrived conclusion. Wilt's wife, having paddled ashore from a sandbank-marooned boat, makes a phone call from a church. Wilt, now released by the police, arrives to collect her. The owner, a vicar, tries to strangle her, but Wilt has his own problems when Flint turns up to exact his revenge.
This is a competently structured film which is sadly dated as a comedy. Extras are thin on the ground, with only a short featurette and a trailer. Expect to find this one in the bargain bin.
Verdict: 5 out of 10
(Review originally written by Ty Power for reviewgraveyard 2003)
Starring: Jean-Hugues Anglade, Joaquim De Almeida, Cyrille Thouvenin and Sagamore Stevenin.
Directed Louis-Pascal Couvelaire
CDA Entertainment
July 2003
Four men drive a truck containing a mysterious cargo across the desert to a rendezvous known only to one of them. Curiosity getting the better of them, they discover countless bags of gold coins. The find exacerbates their clash of personalities, so that it's every man for himself as greed becomes the prime motive...
Oh... dear! [Can you be a little more specific? - Ed]. I had high hopes for this film, but two minutes in I knew we were in trouble. I expected Sweat to emulate the style of Mad Max, or more accurately its first sequel, The Road Warrior. That wouldn't necessarily have been a bad thing, providing it had something new to say; however, I don't think it's unreasonable to state that Sweat isn't even fit to be described in the same sentence as Mad Max.
The movie suffers from two fundamental setbacks. First, the plot, or lack thereof. The only reason why the film lasts more than 20 minutes is because of a half-hearted attack by two jeeps, an overheated radiator, a stopover at a camouflaged camp, and numerous arguments and cheap explosions. Second, the presence of an aggravating Frenchman. This character doesn't work as a tough guy, and has no clear-cut motive for acting the way he does. He seems to be annoying purely for the sake of being annoying. It would make more logical sense for him to use his companions, before dispatching them close to the destination.
It's not often I feel cheated out of time by watching a film (I'm pretty open-minded about most things); here I had to force myself to watch to the conclusion, hoping for a twist or revelation that just might bring it to life and make the whole thing worthwhile.
Oh, well. Hope springs eternal.
Verdict: 2 out of 10
(Review originally written by Ty Power for reviewgraveyard 2003)
Starring: Vincent Cassel, Emmanuelle Devos & Olivier Gourmet.
Directed Jacques Audiard
Pathe
March 2003
Carla is a hard of hearing and rather insecure secretary in a contracts company. When her boss instructs her to employ herself an assistant (you can tell this is fiction, can't you!), she approaches the task like a dating agency. Paul turns out to be a criminal straight out of prison. When some old "friends" materialise to demand money from him, Paul arranges to work in their club until he has paid off his debt. However, old habits die hard. Carla finds herself dragged by Paul into discovering the villains' current scheme, and relieving them of their money...
Oh dear! Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! What, you want more? Sigh! Okay.
At one time I used to avoid subtitled films like the plague. That was before I learned non-English speaking dialogues do not necessarily relate to bad movies. The original Japanese version of The Ring, and the more recent masterpiece that is The Eye are two good examples. Unfortunately, this French film isn't another one. I was obliged to view Read My Lips in four sittings, as each time I started to watch it I felt myself slipping into a coma.
This is the kind of experience you need to set your alarm clock to endure; guaranteed, 10 minutes into it you'll be snoring contentedly. Dull? Bland? Pointless? Yes, all of those. There is a sense of going through the motions with no real drive or purpose in mind. It's difficult to know at whose feet to lay the blame: scriptwriter, director, cast; they're probably all equally at fault. It makes you wonder why they bothered. Bring back Power Ranger-Ninja Turtles, At least they were a lot about nothing. Read My Lips is nothing about nothing.
Verdict: 1 out of 10
(Review originally written by Ty Power for reviewgraveyard 2003)
Starring: Nick Nolte, Timothy Hutton & Armand Assante.
Directed Sydney Lumet
20th Century Fox
March 2003
A police detective lures a man out the rear door of a nightclub and shoots him dead. He places a gun in the dead man's hand, before threatening a couple of lowlifes into backing his story. Al Reilly is a young lawyer whose first job for the D.A.'s office is to tie-up this "cut and dried" case of self-defence. Nobody expects him to dig deep; what he discovers is a conceited and thoroughly crooked but respected cop. In fact, it seems that almost everyone around him is a bigot on the political trail. It's difficult to know who to trust. And just to throw an additional spanner in the works, the wife of a gangland boss witness is Reilly's old flame...
Q&A is another example of an individual going up against the establishment. However, in this case it's a little more realistic, in that there's no good guy as such, and all the characters are various shades of grey. Nothing exactly goes according to plan either. There are plenty of disasters, and no happy outcome. In this manner, it's a little reminiscent of The X-Files: no aliens (only illegal ones) but plenty of internal cover-ups.
Nick Nolte copes well with a pretty run-of-the-mill script. His character manipulates everyone around him, amidst a city den of iniquity. Everywhere you look there's transvestites, racists, crooks and blasphemers, and it's obvious the setting is intended to spawn the hard-hitting bent cop, who sees himself as the untouchable judge, jury and executioner.
Although Q&A is set in America, and it's a world apart from the Britain of today, this film doesn't inspire confidence in law and order. There's no doubt that corruption does occasionally take place; however, our friends from across the pond do tend to be moderately obsessed with conspiracies. The fact that we've witnessed so many of these "plots", in effect belittles the overall impact of the film. And one more thing: modern day fictional gangsters/hoodlums leave me cold.
This is a movie you could comfortably sit down and watch on TV one evening, if you've got nothing more productive to do, but it's nothing special, and certainly won't stand repeated viewings. With no extras, it's another poor release.
Verdict: 4 out of 10
(Review originally written by Ty Power for reviewgraveyard 2003)
Starring: Stephen Baldwin, Katie Griffin & Peter Gallagher.
Directed John Flynn
Momentum Pictures
December 2002
New York mobster Sal Veronica has a choice: testify against his mobster family or go to jail...
You haven't slipped into a coma yet, have you?! There are no prizes for guessing what happens next in Protection. Valuing freedom before loyalty he chooses the former and moves his family to a new area under the wing of the police witness protection scheme. When he enters into a business partnership with a new friend Sal (now using the surname Vincent) uses the connections of a local crime boss to get things moving. But you should never shake hands with a snake, because you might grab the end that bites. The crime boss double-crosses the partners and attempts to take control of the business.
However, super smooth Sal is having none of it. He threatens the boss and shows he's made of sterner stuff. Forced to extremes the boss discovers our dark hero's background and arranges for some old acquaintances to show up with guns and bags of vengeance.
I tried very hard to like this movie, but it's nothing that hasn't been seen a hundred times before: bad guy turns good, but turns bad to do good... if you see what I mean!
A hackneyed plot isn't helped by bland characters who inspire not one iota of sympathy. It seems that Sal is every woman's dream (he beds the wife of a man who has him investigated, his partner's wife continually eyes him up, and even his partner's teenage daughter lusts after him. Stephen Baldwin plays the main character cool; so cool, in fact, that he practically falls asleep standing up. I know how he feels.
Verdict: 4 out of 10
(Review originally written by Ty Power for reviewgraveyard 2002)
Starring: Angelina Jolie, Rosanna Arquette, William Forsythe.
Directed Tony Cinciripini
CDA Entertainment
April 2003
When three friends organise a robbery, their plans go tragically awry, culminating in Gloria's younger brother being shot and killed. She blames Johnny, who is imprisoned for a crime he didn't commit. When Johnny is paroled, he returns to Hell's Kitchen - the streets of New York, trying to make a new life for himself. He teams-up with an ex-boxing champ, who agrees to train him, but a corrupt promoter takes him on. However, Johnny has the added problem that Gloria is gunning for him. Gloria has her own problems though. Her lover Patty, the person actually responsible for her brother's death, is immersed in a world of drugs and violence and has drawn Gloria's mother in, too...
Although Hell's Kitchen is one story, it actually consists of three segments which are very different in style, and incorporate three plot strands. The first depicts the robbery and what happens when it goes wrong. This is extremely hard going; as a reviewer I felt forcibly obligated to persevere. The characters' mothers get almost constant mention, if you get my drift. I'm not averse to swearing being used anywhere in fiction within its context, but there's so much effing and blinding in the film that without it the dialogue would be only half its length. Extreme violence, continual conflict, everyone and his uncle on drugs... Is New York really like this? And if so, do people really want to watch a fictional film which, certainly early on, appears to glorify it?
The second section follows Johnny's return to the streets, and Gloria's agonising relationship with her mother and Patty. Johnny is cleaner than clean. After boxing regularly in prison, he now seeks professional fights. Gloria turns up intending to kill him. Her mother and Patty have struck up a drug-induced violent sexual relationship, and she learns belatedly that Patty harbours a guilty secret. This occupies the majority of the running time. It's the getting to the point when everything is out in the open and three old friend's lives are at a turning point. Ironically, the boxing bout scenes are almost incidental to the plot, and yet they are easily the most impressive. It makes me wonder if it might have been better to centre on the boxing, and have Johnny's past threaten his shot at the title.
The final section comes in a series of vignetted epilogues. Each scene slowly fades out, making you believe the film is about to end, only to be followed by another, and yet another. Johnny, without really trying that hard, has turned everyone's life around. He has paired-up with Gloria, who is pregnant with their child. Gloria's mother is in rehab, and patching things up with her daughter. Patty is visited in a psychiatric hospital by Johnny, who wants to rekindle their friendship - as unlikely as this might sound, after being imprisoned for the man's crime and then almost being shot by him. But it seems Patty has an excuse for his misdemeanours: he was beaten as a child. Oh, Please!
I can see what Hell's Kitchen is trying to achieve: to overcome and climb from the ghetto of their youth. To build futures for themselves. I suppose, in that respect it succeeds. But don't expect too much from this offering, because you won't get it.
Verdict: 3 out of 10
(Review originally written by Ty Power for reviewgraveyard 2003)
Starring: Ashley Judd, Morgan Freeman & Jim Caviezel.
Directed Carl Franklin
20th Century Fox Home Entertainment
March 2003
An attorney with no prior knowledge of military court procedures is forced to defend her soldier husband when he is accused of summarily executing nine civilians in El Salvador. Soliciting the aid of the best ex-military lawyer around, she soon suspects a cover-up surrounding a covert operation. Refusing a deal places her life, and those closest to her, in danger...
This is one of those courtroom dramas which highlights the rebel in us all. For that reason alone it's far from original. How many celluloid underdogs have we seen go up against the government, the military, mobsters or any other establishment in an apparent no-win situation? That many? Well, there you are then!
However, I can understand the validity of wishing to clear a loved one's name and reputation at all costs, and that's the main strength of this film. Morgan Freeman eases his way through most performances with little sign of outward effort; nevertheless, you can't help but enjoy his understated example again here. Why his character has to be an ex-alcoholic though is beyond me, as this is practically the most overused strand of plot padding in American film history.
I'd like to say more positive things about High Crimes, but the truth is I'm struggling. It's watchable but mediocre fair. Even the inevitable twist succeeds little in jolting the nerves or getting the blood pumping. File under: Nothing New.
Verdict: 4 out of 10
(Review originally written by Ty Power for reviewgraveyard 2003)
Four men from different parts of the world fall foul of the law in a big way (we see their individual stories) and end up in the Dominican Republic where, to earn the money they need to continue their respective journeys, they are obliged to accept a job driving two trucks carrying unstable gelignite across 200 miles of rough terrain to an oil fire which needs to be put out. The chances of success are very slim as the slightest jolt can signal instant annihilation. The job is made all the more difficult by the fact they don’t exactly see eye to eye...
40 years after its release Sorcerer gets a brand new launch – this time to generally rave reviews. Some say it is William Friedkin’s best work.
For many film fans Friedkin will need no introduction. He was the director of The French Connection (considered by many to be the ultimate crime thriller) and The Exorcist (one of the finest films ever made). By the time he proposed the notion of Sorcerer, in the eyes of backers, he could do no wrong. Universal Pictures and Paramount studios joined forces to welcome his new vision. Steve McQueen was first choice for the lead role. However, as he had just married he felt reluctant to jet off across the world for any length of time. Failing to convince the director to relocate to the USA, he pulled out and Friedkin went for Roy Scheider (who was currently popular with cinema audiences for his role in Jaws). Friedkin had a very solid arrangement for locations in the Dominican Republic.
Upon its initial release the film bombed. The majority of cinema goers were not overly enamoured, it seemed, and many critics were less kind. There were three main problems. Firstly, Americans weren’t attracted by the mostly foreign and unknown (to many) actors. Secondly, there were no heroes. Friedkin has never believed in them, citing that everyone is at least flawed. So all four main players are villains of one sort or another, allowing no audience relation or sympathy. In fact, the title Sorcerer is meant in the context of an evil wizard who manipulates events to his advantage – although much of what these characters try to do goes wrong, so you can’t even root for the bad guy. Mostly, it was down to bad timing though; it emerged in 1977 amidst Star Wars mania. The George Lucas film revolutionised overnight what cinema viewers expected from the experience.
Sorcerer was put on the shelf, so to speak, after around only two weeks and hasn’t seen the light of day until now. This is a momentous release (cleaned-up and presented on Blu-ray, with a reversible sleeve which gives the option of the film poster) because, although it’s not the best film you’ll ever see, it’s significantly superior to the treatment it originally received. We live in an age now whereby most individuals are prepared to give any film a try and judge it by its content and enjoyment factor, rather than on the year in which it was made, its budget or from what country it originated.
What you have to bear in mind is Sorcerer was done ‘for real’ – meaning there were no special effects. The trucks really drove along overhanging sheer drops, they really drove inch by inch across the dilapidated wooden swinging rope bridge, and they set real explosives to blow-up the huge fallen tree blocking their path. In fact, this last obstacle is overcome using a simple but clever timer device to allow them to be clear at the time of the explosion.
The screenplay to Sorcerer is by Walon Green, and is based on the novel The Wages of Fear, by Georges Arnaud. The music is composed and performed by soundtrack specialists Tangerine Dream. Friedkin asked them to score his next film after seeing them perform in an old church in Germany. The sound style sounds at times a lot like John Carpenter (no bad thing!), with a building of suspense and a definite relentlessness. There is no sentimentality here.
After ten minutes or so of abject confusion, the viewer begins to realise the background is being given to each of the four main character villains. The adventure really begins once we learn of the oil fire and the need for the sweaty gelignite. As with the minis escaping with the gold in The Italian Job, the main heart of the film is the potentially suicidal journey in the two trucks holding the explosives. The running time for this sequence goes by in a moment.
As an extra there is an excellent interview with William Friedkin wherein we witness his no nonsense manner and complete belief in the work he does. Friedkin says a lot of things that make sense, but we also capture an inkling of just why so many people couldn’t get on with the guy. It’s a real eye-opener and so gains an extra mark just for this inclusion.
Black Sun tells the story of the Nanking Massacre. In the early stages of World War II the Japanese invaded the Chinese city in a bid to claim the territory...
Call me old fashioned but I've always considered the primary purpose of a feature to be to entertain, no matter the genre I'm watching. I'll admit up front that I'm not really a lover of war films (there are a couple of exceptions to the rule), but the Nanking Massacre is a real life atrocity from history when a great deal of innocent people were raped, tortured or butchered (sometimes all three) by generals and soldiers with no humanity.
Serve me up any number of hack 'n' slash horror movies and I won't bat an eyelid (although plot should come before gore every time), but you'll forgive me for turning my nose up at the prospect of viewing a graphic and bloody re-enactment of one of the worst moments in history. You can't exactly sit down with your bucket of popcorn or your bottle of beer and enjoy this.
Okay, I know it's a film with actors playing roles, but it simply made me feel uncomfortable, as if I were helplessly watching the real event take place - especially when scenes were punctuated with black and white WWII footage. If director T.F. Mou's purpose was to shock with Black Sun, then he's achieved his aim; however, I can't help thinking if an historian wants to discover more about this dark chapter in time, why not just seek out the news reels.
No matter what the promotional packaging says, this is not a horror film in the conventional sense and will not appeal to cult fans. Tartan have released some great titles, but if this and Last House On Dead End Street are anything to go by then perhaps they should drop their Tartan Grindhouse range.
Not for me.
Victor Mancini is a self-confessed sex addict. He attends 'anonymous' group meetings, but only to find other sex partners. He works by day at a Colonial-Williamsburg-themed park - unable to take his role seriously - so that he can support his sick mother who is in a home. In addition, he uses a scam he adopted as a kid, whereby he fakes choking in expensive restaurants so that he can appeal for money to whomever 'saves' him...
You can never be sure how our mysterious editor's mind works, so I can't be certain, but I think I might have been sent this one by mistake. It's not the kind of thing I normally review. Personally, I think he sneaked it in among the horror films - but don't tell him I told you.
Choke is a film which tries to be clever whilst seeming to be something quite light-hearted and mundane. The title, whilst linking to a recurring event in the film, is obviously also a sexual innuendo. On the surface this sometimes resembles an old soft core porn movie - perhaps Confessions of an Insecure Sex Addict, or more accurately Carry On Being Pretentious. I say that because there's the underlying story of con artist Victor's mother suffering from Alzheimer's in a home, thereby keeping the secrets of his childhood from being revealed. Anjelica Huston gives this part some much needed conviction.
This film has been described as a psychotic comedy, and it does have its moments. When his mother's diary is discovered, written mysteriously in Italian, Victor seeks the aid of a female doctor with the know-how to translate. She tells him he is an immaculate conception. He doesn't believe it, of course, but particularly at the home everyone dotes after him, no matter how he treats them. In fact, there is a fascinating twist in the relationship between the two which effectively brings the plot full circle.
Choke is a film which you might watch on Channel 5 late on a Friday night after returning from the pub, but it's not going to have much mainstream appeal.
In the little US town of Reeseville a man is discovered hanged after his wife has died in childbirth. The dead man's brother-in-law, the local coroner and undertaker, suspects something more sinister. The prime suspect for murder is David Meyers, the dead man's son, who has returned home after 20 years away. While the sheriff wanders around warning people, and Meyers, a convicted felon, creeps people out with his quietly threatening attitude and daring ways, Iris, the sheriff's younger sister finds herself attracted to the bad boy. She makes the mistake of telling Meyers how the sheriff beat her last boyfriend to death when he got her pregnant, but Meyers may not be the most dangerous person in the town...
Reeseville is a very basic town-hides-secret scenario, with Meyers as the stranger who stirs up the mix. In reality he does little more than lurch about trying to look dangerous.
Even the presence of Mark Hamill as Zeek the undertaker does little to lift this from the surface of planet average. The very attractive Missy Crider is the only person in the film with any sort of personality.
So many films of this ilk are cram-packed with bland characters who are only going through the motions, their motivation obviously the pay cheque. Americans are seeing this sort of thing every day and they're seldom impressed, so why should we be? If you're going to film a very ordinary story, then you have to breathe some life into it.
I'm afraid that this is one of those films you watch hoping that something will jump out, hook you and gently reel you in; so it's doubly depressing when nothing much happens.
Ben awakes from a week-long coma to discover he has been in an accident in which his wife died of injuries sustained. As his whole life begins to fall apart he attempts to get it back on track by moving into an apartment building under repair. We also see him visiting a psychiatrist. His attractive neighbour strikes up a relationship, but Ben begins to see his wife in public places and is convinced she is still alive...
Trauma is a film which actively defies positive adjectives, except for perhaps it's not overly long. Maybe that's being a little too unkind, but there's definitely no spark.
"Gripping thriller..." says The News of the World quote on the packaging. Er, no, not even close. My Little Eye, also by director Marc Evans emerged into a bright light of film company hype which described it as original and a rewriting of the horror genre. It wasn't original; even back then Big Brother and other reality stuff wasn't new. As for rewriting the genre; it was basically a slasher movie, it simply took longer to show it's colours.
Similarly, in Trauma, you get the impression Evans thought he was making something special - a true psychological insight into how we tick, particularly after being traumatised. Believe me, although not derisory, it's certainly nothing special. Nor is it insightful; this idea has been tackled a handful of times before, and much more competently, by half-hour anthology shows.
It was obvious to me from early on that Ben was crazy, but just in case any viewer is particularly slow the fact is constantly waved in their face with ant-crawling dreams and a series of other set pieces.
Colin Firth and Naomie Harris deserve better material than this.
Haxan (from 1922) is a difficult one to quantify. Intending to primarily be a documentary describing the facts and legends surrounding the interesting subject of witchcraft and Satanism, it uses sketched depictions, models, animation and specially shot fictional film footage to lecture rather than entertain viewers, and suffers from getting caught between being a public information film and a Fritz Lang-type short.
You could be forgiven for thinking that this DVD contains two features. On the menus Haxan is listed as the main film, with Witchcraft Through the Ages sitting as a special feature. In actuality, they're the same thing. Haxan is tediously long at 104 minutes. Each line of subtitles seems to remain on the screen for an age, and I came dangerously (or should that be blissfully) close to falling asleep within the first five minutes. Furthermore, the original soundtrack is curiously unrelated in style to what is happening on screen. Rather than complimenting the piece it's manically fast and grating, which is almost certainly why we're offered two alternatives scores - one being the Brontt Industries Kapital in Dolby 5.1, the other by Geoff Smith in Dolby 2.0.
Witchcraft Through the Ages is the same feature, only mercifully 28 minutes shorter because of a narration replacing the subtitles. Although this makes the experience somewhat more palatable, William S. Burroughs' tone is conducive with the Green Cross Code Man instructing us on how to negotiate a crossing of the road, or perhaps an old piece of wildlife film covering the lions of the Serengeti.
In conclusion, Haxan does have its moments. The masks and costumes and the cleverly incorporated animations are impressive. Additionally, some of the live-action antics will make some people smile; particularly the Devil's shenanigans. However, the whole is unlikely to hold the attention of mainstream or even horror viewers, perhaps only appealing to those wishing to study factual references to witchcraft.
A bank robber is the only survivor of a passenger plane crash. A casino employee tracks him down and explains how luck is a real force passed from person to person. They team up, travelling to many illicit gambling or chance games played for high stakes, such as houses, cars and even people. The casino man now possesses the means to confront his corrupt and unnaturally lucky boss; but the game is Russian Roulette, and the old man has seen many opponents die. Meanwhile, a police detective is on the trail of the bank robber, and can't avoid getting caught up in the game...
It's difficult to know exactly how to quantify this film, and I'm not certain I want to try. Words don't come easily, because there's very little to describe: no multiple layers, no diverging or converging plot-lines, no interesting characters, no action or stunts, no humour, no suspense... Need I go on? I'm afraid there's not even enough here to stimulate the most complacent and accepting viewer of weekday afternoon TV films.
Another problem is the chaotic structure. The director clearly has no feeling for how scenes should be played out. Or perhaps it was an editing fault, in which case the whole thing should have been left on the cutting room floor. It's not the language which is to blame, although it can be a little disorientating to watch a Spanish film with English subtitles, only to have some characters switch to English and back again for no discernible reason. No, the cuts are far too abrupt and frequent, jumping from scene to scene, back and forth, before any real tension or cohesion can be realised.
As for the story... I can't even say with any conviction if I've accurately described the plot with my little synopsis, because this is one of those films you watch and think to yourself "What the hell was all that about?!" Give this one a miss.
A young policeman straight out of training school is caught at a drugs rave party. With his prospective career on the line, he finds himself being blackmailed into joining the Homicide squad. His insider knowledge is needed, but he soon finds himself well out of his depth. Somebody is killing people and removing the skin with their tattoos. He soon learns that the detective who coerced him has been looking in earnest over two years for his runaway daughter, after his wife was killed by a hit-and-run driver. The trade for classic Japanese tattoos by a talented but deceased artist hots up; some will pay millions and others will kill, but the artist's best work is on a woman still alive...
This is a German film with the option of English subtitles. Whilst I'm not a connoisseur of the German language I did listen for different emotions in the voices of the cast... and heard none. Even the movements of the actors were pretty staid, giving the impression they were simply going through the motions. The Homicide detective portrays the strong, silent approach, and the young policeman, almost the same in terms of moodiness, slouches his way through the movie tripping over clues, witnesses and informants as if this were a game of Cluedo.
Although the idea of trade in live tattoos is essentially sound, no one in the film shows any enthusiasm for the proceedings. Granted, in many American films there's lots of shouting and running around for no discernible reason, but here no one raises their voice for the entire duration and you feel like shaking some life into them.
I'm sorry, but with this being the case, why should I show any interest?
A young man travelling with a stranger pushes him in front of a vehicle and takes his identity. A few years later a murdered body turns up in Montreal, Canada. It is seriously mutilated, but a forensic reconstruction is conducted under the orders of Special Agent Illeana Scott of the FBI. Meanwhile, a woman reports seeing her dead son, and when his body is exhumed her story is substanciated. A witness to the murder has sketched the recently seen son of the woman, who it turns out had a favoured twin brother. The killer is temporarily living his victims' lives because he wants to remove himself from his earlier life - in other words, any life is better than his own. Scott gets drawn to the witness, but is he the innocent in fear of his life that he portrays?...
It's easy to dismiss this film as another in hundreds of American-style cops and robbers. Granted, it's set in Montreal, Canada, where there's a large French quarter, but you still have your mean, gun-toting detectives and a hard-nosed FBI agent, played by Angelina Tomb Raider Jolie. However, it is different in that the killer's sole motive is to live another person's life for a while, choosing somebody with as little ties as possible, discovering a bit about them before murdering them and mutilating the body so it can't be recognised.
Ethan Hawkes is solid as the villain of the piece and Jolie, who I've never really thought has had much going for her in the acting fraternity, aside from her admittedly good looks, herself puts in a good performance here - managing at relevant stages of the film to appear both tough and vulnerable.
The epilogue scene serves as the main conclusion to the film and incorporates a clever twist. However, having said everything above, Taking Lives still comes across as a low-key TV movie, far removed from blockbuster status and having a budget look representing the change from the director's supermarket food bill.
When classic car salesman Bill and his wife Bernadette discover a rat in their Beverley Hills swimming pool a powerful black man arrives from nowhere to fish it out for them. The couple assume he is the pool maintenance man, but instead he turns out to be a rapist and thief wanted by the police. There is no cash in the house, and it soon becomes evident that Bill has borrowed more money than the couple have. The intruder, known as Bone, gives Bill a deadline in which to drive into town, withdraw some money and get back, otherwise he will rape and kill Bernadette. Bill initially complies, but then gets side tracked by a liaison with a strange woman who was molested by an old man when she was a child and seems determined to repeat the experience. When Bill fails to show up at the allotted time both Bone and Bernadette are aggrieved for very different reasons. They decide to go after Bill, intending to cause an "accident" and claim on the insurance. But Bone hasn't counted on the ruthlessness of Bernadette...
The moment I noticed that Bone was written and directed by Larry Cohen I somehow knew exactly what to expect. I wasn't far wrong. Lots of jazzy The Streets of San Francisco type music, pretty bland characters and a plot which could easily have been played-out in half-an-hour. In fact similar scenarios have been attempted much more successfully in long-running weekly serials, because the format is far too common to be self-sustaining. So we are forced to endure the stereotypical black villain story, and are informed through dialogue that Bone acts the way he does because it is what society expects of him (what?!). Larry Cohen's It's Alive trilogy of films about cannibal babies weren't quality pieces by any stretch of the imagination, but at least they had a hook. There was mystery, there was danger and there was sympathy, all qualities missing from Bone.
On the extras, Jack H. Harris explains how he turned from film maker to producer and could not obtain enough films to please the film company. Bone arose from his liaison with Larry Cohen. The film was shown to test audiences who didn't care, so it was decided they might be more successful with predominantly black cinema goers. Wrong again. Instead of catching the blatant hints that this was a rubbish film the pair remarketed the project as a dark comedy and romance (for fear of repeating myself again... what?!). This time they were apparently more successful - which probably means one blind man turned up at the cinema looking for the bakers.
Extras include the aforementioned comments from Jack H. Harris, a Commentary by Larry Cohen, a Featurette, and Theatrical Trailers. In short, Bone will bore modern audiences to distraction. You could say it's Bone-idle (yes, I did think of that one all by myself).
Clayton Beresford Jr., a successful young business tycoon living in the shadow of his deceased father, has a relationship with Samantha Lockwood, a woman in his employ, which progresses to the point where they want to marry. However, the tycoon has been keeping the affair secret from his domineering mother whom he knows will disapprove. So he decides to undergo a quick, private wedding ceremony and inform his mother afterward. No sooner has he achieved this than the hospital contacts him with news of a donor heart. Obliged to undergo a life-saving operation to replace his own weak heart, the young businessman finds himself awake during the operation but unable to move. Not only does he feel every cut, but he soon discovers that the people he called friends are not who he thought they were...
Awake is a conspiracy thriller which dips one toe in the realms of supernatural fantasy. Hayden Christensen (the adolescent Anakin Skywalker in the Star Wars prequels) is much more convincing here as a trusting successful businessman duped in love for a scheming gold-digger (played by Jessica Alba) and her greedy associates.
The idea of somebody waking up during surgery, unable to move or speak but subject to the feeling of every cut, is a solid and convincing premise which works very well here. I'd go so far as to say it's unnerving to watch the heart surgery scene whilst listening to his mind screaming out in agony and outrage.
The solid manner of moving the young tycoon character into the realms of fantasy is for the script to have his traumatised mind place him anywhere but in the operating theatre, thereby having him learn about the plot to see him off for his money. In this manner, his mind reflects on previous conversations and clues he should have recognised at the time.
Although predictable in places, Awake is a powerful thriller which should entertain (or at least keep interested) both mainstream and genre viewers.
Extras include Deleted Scenes; an Audio Commentary by writer/director Joby Harold; a Making of... Documentary; and a Storyboard to Film Comparison.
Our dastardly Chinese master criminal returns to the seat of his ancestors (and a very comfy seat it is too) in a province two days from Shanghai. He fakes an earthquake to seal off access to outsiders, before kidnapping a missionary doctor and his daughter, bringing them in across the mountains. Threatening the daughter, he persuades the doctor to surgically change a person to look like his enemy Assistant Commissioner Nayland Smith of Scotland Yard. Miraculously, 48 hours later the facial paint by numbers is completed, and Fu Manchu arranges a switch whilst Smith is holidaying in Ireland. The real Smith is transported as a prisoner to the Chinese province; meanwhile the impostor returns to London, commits murder and is promptly sentenced to death. The Chinaman intends to do the same to prominent law enforcement officers around the world as a demonstration of his power to the underworld. In this manner he will group all the world's main criminal organisations together under his leadership. But has the Fu Man bitten off more than he can chu? (sorry, I couldn't resist that one)...
Here we have another film based on Sax Rohmer's Fu Manchu stories. All of the main characters return (Douglas Wilmer as the bogus Smith spending half the movie looking like a corpse freshly pulled from the grave), and the format is pretty much the same. Although this is set around the same period as the Sherlock Holmes tales, there is an element of overacting amidst the formal properness of the educated professional characters which reminded me of The Green Hornet with Bruce Lee and particularly the camp sixties Batman series, but without the fun. The many fight sequences are comical without intending to be so. Large curved blades look to be cut from tin and have painted on bloodstains. Each fighter waits until his opponent is ready before attacking, and Fu Manchu's assassin henchmen go down like a ton of bricks under a good old British bunch-of-fives.
Surely this was money for old rope for our very own master of horror, Christopher Lee. He has very little to do, the main requirements for the part apparently being to look evil and occasionally tweak his moustache. Granted, his villainous part is a thinker rather than a doer, but it seems an incredible waste for such an accomplished actor. I'm sorry to say that the best thing about this film is the scenery which at times is stunning. With no extras apart from the trailer, these films do not appear an attractive purchase. Perhaps two films packaged together as a single release might have been worth a tenner of somebody's money.
According to the conclusion of this film, "The World will hear again from Fu Manchu." I feel another review coming on..
Copyright © 2017 - 2024 A Dark and Scary Place - All Rights Reserved.