Near future England: Teenage gang leader Alex (played by Malcolm McDowell) leads his three friends (or "droogs") on nightly rampages of theft and savage violence against whoever is unlucky enough to encounter them. Tiring of Alex's arrogance, his friends set him up to be arrested after their latest attack goes fatally wrong. Alex is convicted and sentenced to fourteen years in prison. After two years inside, Alex is submitted to an experimental treatment called the "Ludovico Technique" which is intended to cure criminality by making the subject unable to act violently. Alex is released after the treatment and soon finds that where he was once the predator, he is now the prey.
Released in 1971, written and directed by Stanley Kubrick, and based on the 1962 novel by Anthony Burgess, this is hugely controversial film is now acclaimed as a modern classic. It is still a shocking film, in fact I would say that it would probably not get made today. because it would just be too problematic. Not necessarily because of the on-screen violence, which is heavily stylised and more shadowplay than graphic blood and gore, but because we are invited to like and sympathise with a brutal, unrepentant rapist and murderer. The entire film is shown through Alex's eyes, and he breaks the fourth wall with his voice-over narration (addressing the audience directly as "my brothers and only friends"). The first part of the film, depicting Alex's crimes is heavily stylised, whereas the latter part of the film, where Alex becomes the victim, the violence is much more realistically depicted thereby inviting the audience to enjoy Alex's rampages at a distance, but to sympathise with his own sufferings. Which is, of course, how Alex would see it. Also there is the towering performance of Malcolm McDowell as Alex, alternately threatening and innocent, it is a career best performance, and he is in pretty much every scene of the film.
The film is relatively faithful to the novel, although it discards the final chapter of the original, British version of the book. There are some odd elements in regards to the book, in which Alex's age is stated as being fourteen. Malcolm McDowell was in his late twenties when he made the film, and yet he is constantly referred to as a child, despite being clearly an adult.
The film depicts a very seventies future, and it really is a product of it's time and place, it feels more like an alternate early seventies than a futuristic piece. The novel was written in an invented slang called "Nadsat" and this is memorably retained in the film, although toned down. Burgess invented nadsat because he felt that if he wrote it in then-current slang then novel would feel dated as soon as it was published, and he was right.
The film was famously withdrawn from release in Britain by Kubrick himself and was not legally available there until after his death.
It is still a troubling, shocking and powerful experience.
Sunday, 8 July 2018
Thursday, 5 July 2018
Sometimes They Come Back
In 1990, high school history teacher Jim Norman (Tim Matheson) returns to his childhood home town for the first time in 27 years, with his wife Sally (Brooke Adams) and young son Scott (Robert Hy Gorman).
In 1963, nine year old Jim (Zachary Ball) and his fifteen year old brother Wayne (Chris Demetral) are walking through a railway tunnel on the way to the library when they are set upon by a gang of teenage greasers who kill Wayne, but are themselves almost immediately killed by a train.
Despite still being haunted by nightmares of his brother's death, Jim and his family settle in, and he starts teaching at the local high school, bonding with some students and making enemies of others. However, the students who Jim gets close to start dying in apparent suicides, and are replaced in class by students who look suspiciously like the gang who murdered Wayne.
Jim realises that the spirits of the dead gang members have returned and are set on revenge.
This film was originally made for TV and was first broadcast in 1991, directed by Tom McLoughlin. Based on a short story by Stephen King, it's a pretty by the numbers horror film, that features plenty of King tropes. Made on a low budget without particular style or flair, with a cast of solid performers, including veteran William Sanderson, who all try their best with stodgy material (pity Brooke Adams, who really has nothing to do here at all except be alternately supportive and scared). The story is not one of Stephen King's best and the screenwriters, Lawrence Konner and Mark Rosenthal, have trouble punching it up to feature length. The film is at it's best when the focus is on the ghoulish greasers who (as played by Robert Rusler, Bentley Mitchum and Nicholas Sadler) are ominous and threatening, although we never find out enough about them, they have no backgrounds or personalities, and are portrayed as pack animals (they growl, bray and howl like wolves).
Probably due to the limits of television in 1991, the film is light on blood and gore. At times it seems more like a supernatural drama about coming to terms with grief, than it is about shocks and scares, and the two sides don't gel together. The biggest problem that the film has is that it offers nothing new. Really, if you're interested at all in horror, than you've seen it all before.
In 1963, nine year old Jim (Zachary Ball) and his fifteen year old brother Wayne (Chris Demetral) are walking through a railway tunnel on the way to the library when they are set upon by a gang of teenage greasers who kill Wayne, but are themselves almost immediately killed by a train.
Despite still being haunted by nightmares of his brother's death, Jim and his family settle in, and he starts teaching at the local high school, bonding with some students and making enemies of others. However, the students who Jim gets close to start dying in apparent suicides, and are replaced in class by students who look suspiciously like the gang who murdered Wayne.
Jim realises that the spirits of the dead gang members have returned and are set on revenge.
This film was originally made for TV and was first broadcast in 1991, directed by Tom McLoughlin. Based on a short story by Stephen King, it's a pretty by the numbers horror film, that features plenty of King tropes. Made on a low budget without particular style or flair, with a cast of solid performers, including veteran William Sanderson, who all try their best with stodgy material (pity Brooke Adams, who really has nothing to do here at all except be alternately supportive and scared). The story is not one of Stephen King's best and the screenwriters, Lawrence Konner and Mark Rosenthal, have trouble punching it up to feature length. The film is at it's best when the focus is on the ghoulish greasers who (as played by Robert Rusler, Bentley Mitchum and Nicholas Sadler) are ominous and threatening, although we never find out enough about them, they have no backgrounds or personalities, and are portrayed as pack animals (they growl, bray and howl like wolves).
Probably due to the limits of television in 1991, the film is light on blood and gore. At times it seems more like a supernatural drama about coming to terms with grief, than it is about shocks and scares, and the two sides don't gel together. The biggest problem that the film has is that it offers nothing new. Really, if you're interested at all in horror, than you've seen it all before.
Saturday, 30 September 2017
Flatliners
Medical student Courtney Holmes (played by Ellen Page) convinces her reluctant friends to take part in an experiment during which she will be clinically dead before they resuscitate her, so that she can learn first hand what happens after death. After the experiment Courtney finds herself with a new lease on life and astonishing powers of memory. After seeing the effects, Courtney's friends all want to undergo the experience. However, it soon turns out that flatlining has some much darker side effects, as the students begin to be haunted by bizarre and disturbing visions.
Although referred to as a sequel to the 1990 film Flatliners, this 2017 film, directed by Niels Arden Oplev, is really a remake. Keifer Sutherland, who starred in the original, does appear in this, although as a different character. This is a fun film, with a good cast. Despite being a horror film, it's really not scary at all, and suffers from being too long. The characters aren't particularly explored and are more or less cliched. It also suffers from having too pat a conclusion. There is plenty of humour, the characters manage to rise above the material, and it is exciting, and the flatlining sequences are well executed.
I can't really say how fans of the original Flatliners will take to the remake, because I've not seen the original in years, and can't remember much about it.
Although referred to as a sequel to the 1990 film Flatliners, this 2017 film, directed by Niels Arden Oplev, is really a remake. Keifer Sutherland, who starred in the original, does appear in this, although as a different character. This is a fun film, with a good cast. Despite being a horror film, it's really not scary at all, and suffers from being too long. The characters aren't particularly explored and are more or less cliched. It also suffers from having too pat a conclusion. There is plenty of humour, the characters manage to rise above the material, and it is exciting, and the flatlining sequences are well executed.
I can't really say how fans of the original Flatliners will take to the remake, because I've not seen the original in years, and can't remember much about it.
Sunday, 24 September 2017
El Mariachi
This 1992 movie is the debut film from writer/director Robert Rodriguez. An unnamed musician (Carlos Gallardo) travels from town to town with his guitar to pursue his dream of becoming a mariachi like his father and grandfather. Arriving in a small town, the Mariachi is mistaken for a criminal, Azul (Reinol Martinez), who has broken out of jail and is being hunted by the local crime boss, Moco (Peter Marquardt). Like the Mariachi, Azul dresses in black and carries a guitar case, only Azul's is full of guns.
Reputedly produced for a budget of only $7000, which Rodriguez raised mainly by taking part in medical tests, this is funnier and more exciting than many bigger and more expensive action films. Carlos Gallardo is winning as the Mariachi, and Consuelo Gomez is affecting as the bar owner who he falls in love with. Some of the acting can be politely described as overly enthusiastic, the low budget is obvious in many scenes, and also there are several scenes that seem to be there just to pad out the run time, but by and large this is a fun, stylish movie, with well choreographed action. It was followed by two sequels: Desperado (1995) and Once Upon a Time in Mexico (2003).
By the way, Robert Rodriguez's book on the making of the film, Rebel Without a Crew (1995), is worth tracking down for anyone interested in low-budget film-making.
Reputedly produced for a budget of only $7000, which Rodriguez raised mainly by taking part in medical tests, this is funnier and more exciting than many bigger and more expensive action films. Carlos Gallardo is winning as the Mariachi, and Consuelo Gomez is affecting as the bar owner who he falls in love with. Some of the acting can be politely described as overly enthusiastic, the low budget is obvious in many scenes, and also there are several scenes that seem to be there just to pad out the run time, but by and large this is a fun, stylish movie, with well choreographed action. It was followed by two sequels: Desperado (1995) and Once Upon a Time in Mexico (2003).
By the way, Robert Rodriguez's book on the making of the film, Rebel Without a Crew (1995), is worth tracking down for anyone interested in low-budget film-making.
Performance
This film was produced in 1968 but not released until 1970, and was directed by Donald Cammell and Nicolas Roeg. In London, Chas Devlin (James Fox) is a brutal gangland enforcer, who genuinely enjoys his work. When he disobeys direct orders from his boss and kills a rival for personal, rather than business reasons, Devlin becomes targeted by his own gang. He decides to hide out in the vast mansion of reclusive rock star, Turner (Mick Jagger), who lives with Pherber (Anita Pallenberg) and Lucy (Michele Breton). In Turner's surreal, erotic, decadent world of drugs, sex and mysticism, Devlin finds the boundaries of reality and fantasy collapsing.
This is a film that, if you see it once, you will never forget it. It's very much a film of two halves. The first half is, in terms of plot, a great if conventional gangster film (in terms of style and technique it is a million miles away from an ordinary gangster film), and in the second it becomes a surreal fantasy of sex, drugs and identity. It utilises a fragmented, stream of conscience style, using almost every cinematic trick in the book. James Fox is perfect as Chas Devlin, someone who is, in British criminal slang, a "performer" (a gangster with a special talent for violence and intimidation), he frequently tells people "I know who I am", he lives in a pristine apartment, and is always immaculately groomed and dressed in sharp suits, and is always in control. Mick Jagger's Turner is another type of performer, a rock star who has retired because, as he says "I lost my demon". Devlin, a man who needs to be in control, suddenly finds himself, in Turner's house, in a situation where he has no control, where all the old rules just don't apply. Very much a product of it's time, and full of references to Jorge Luis Borges and William Burroughs, this is still genuinely shocking and disturbing.
This is a film that, if you see it once, you will never forget it. It's very much a film of two halves. The first half is, in terms of plot, a great if conventional gangster film (in terms of style and technique it is a million miles away from an ordinary gangster film), and in the second it becomes a surreal fantasy of sex, drugs and identity. It utilises a fragmented, stream of conscience style, using almost every cinematic trick in the book. James Fox is perfect as Chas Devlin, someone who is, in British criminal slang, a "performer" (a gangster with a special talent for violence and intimidation), he frequently tells people "I know who I am", he lives in a pristine apartment, and is always immaculately groomed and dressed in sharp suits, and is always in control. Mick Jagger's Turner is another type of performer, a rock star who has retired because, as he says "I lost my demon". Devlin, a man who needs to be in control, suddenly finds himself, in Turner's house, in a situation where he has no control, where all the old rules just don't apply. Very much a product of it's time, and full of references to Jorge Luis Borges and William Burroughs, this is still genuinely shocking and disturbing.
White Heat
This 1949 film is one of the quintessential Hollywood gangster movies. Tracing the violent life of psychotic robber Cody Jarrett (James Cagney) who despite being married to Verna (Virginia Mayo), has a deeply unhealthy bond with his equally ruthless mother (Margaret Wycherly) who is the only person that he seems to have any real feelings for.
This is an exciting, influential film and is widely regarded as one of the best films ever made. It has aged well, and the almost documentary style film-making is still in evidence today. The ending of the film has become one of the iconic scenes in movie history, and the prison cafeteria sequence is startling. James Cagney turns in a gripping performance as the savage, but strangely sympathetic Jarrett, and Virginia Mayo is impressive as Verna, who Jarrett cruelly ignores, but has her own capacity for extreme ruthlessness. Edmond O'Brien makes less of an impression, however, as the square-jawed hero. This is a must see for thriller fans.
This is an exciting, influential film and is widely regarded as one of the best films ever made. It has aged well, and the almost documentary style film-making is still in evidence today. The ending of the film has become one of the iconic scenes in movie history, and the prison cafeteria sequence is startling. James Cagney turns in a gripping performance as the savage, but strangely sympathetic Jarrett, and Virginia Mayo is impressive as Verna, who Jarrett cruelly ignores, but has her own capacity for extreme ruthlessness. Edmond O'Brien makes less of an impression, however, as the square-jawed hero. This is a must see for thriller fans.
Saturday, 16 September 2017
Mother!
A young woman (Jennifer Lawrence), referred to as "Mother" in the credits, although nine of the characters are named in the film, is married to a successful poet (Javier Bardem), who is suffering from writer's block. They live together in a rambling country house which she is renovating after a severe fire. One night a strange couple (Ed Harris and Michelle Pfeiffer) arrive and insinuate themselves into the lives of the homeowners. It then gets progressively darker and weirder as more and more people invade the couple's home.
This film from writer/director Darren Aronofsky is frankly bizarre. It's full of striking, memorable images and sequences, and Jennifer Lawrence gives a fantastic, tortured performance. Some of it though is frankly tedious, and almost the whole thing makes very little sense. It's probably best to see the film as an allegory, not to be taken literally, and there is likely to be a lot of discussion about what it actually means. My take on it is that Jennifer Lawrence just wants to be left in piece with her family, but it's impossible to escape from the demands and intrusion of the world outside. It's worth watching for it's sheer ambition. You'll likely not see much like this, certainly not from a mainstream Hollywood release. Personally I didn't enjoy the film, but I'm glad that I saw it, and I*'m still trying to decode what the hell it's all about.
This film from writer/director Darren Aronofsky is frankly bizarre. It's full of striking, memorable images and sequences, and Jennifer Lawrence gives a fantastic, tortured performance. Some of it though is frankly tedious, and almost the whole thing makes very little sense. It's probably best to see the film as an allegory, not to be taken literally, and there is likely to be a lot of discussion about what it actually means. My take on it is that Jennifer Lawrence just wants to be left in piece with her family, but it's impossible to escape from the demands and intrusion of the world outside. It's worth watching for it's sheer ambition. You'll likely not see much like this, certainly not from a mainstream Hollywood release. Personally I didn't enjoy the film, but I'm glad that I saw it, and I*'m still trying to decode what the hell it's all about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)