The 24th Day (2004)
Starring: Scott Speedman, James Marsden, Sofia Vergara
Directed by 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.
Beyond the Movie: The Lord of the Rings (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.
Black Sun - The Nanking Massacre (1995)
Starring: Liang Zhang, Haman Hu, Ming Chiang, Kathleen Ann DeBoer
Directed by Tun Fei Mou
Tartan Grindhouse
September 2006
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.
City By the Sea (2002)
Starring: Robert De Niro, Frances McDormand, James Franco, Eliza Dushku and William Forsythe
Directed by 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.
Choke (2008)
Starring: Sam Rockwell and Anjelica Huston
Directed by Clark Gregg
20th Century Fox Home Entertainment
March 2009
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.
Frailty (2002)
Starring: Bill Paxton, Matthew McConaughey, Powers Boothe & Matt O'Leary
Directed by Bill Paxton
Paramount
March 2003
A man walks into the FBI building and tells Agent Doyle that his brother is the God's Hand killer. He tells the backstory which begins with his childhood. He and his brother live alone with their father. Everything is normal until dad tells them he has been visited by an angel. Apparently, the final battle between angels and demons has begun. The demons are already here in human form, and it is the family's task to destroy them. When the angel revisits, relaying a list of names, the killing begins...
When I watched the opening shot of Agent Doyle exiting his car wearing a stereotypical mean expression, and walking through a night storm to the FBI building, I couldn't help sighing. This was going to be another one of the multitude of tired cops and robbers films that Americans insist on doing so badly. Matters didn't immediately improve when I realised a small part of the early plot was similar to a short story I had written some years ago. Thieves! Plagiarists! Where's my money?
Ahem, where was I? Oh, yes, being dreadfully wrong. Frailty (The God's Hand Killer would have been a good title) quickly lifts itself from the mire and into the elite stream. As time passes it's becoming increasingly difficult for the horror genre to reinvent itself. This film leans more towards thriller, but there's a hint of a supernatural element hanging over the events.
The entire package is extremely effective, even though one of the twists at the conclusion is blatantly predictable. The script doesn't need to be totally original, because it's so well told. However, it's the strong central characters and the actors' corresponding performances that make the tale so convincing. Bill Paxton, making his directorial debut here, plays the angel-visited dad. The two boys, who play Adam and Fenton, are even better, both displaying genuine reactions. Their expressions alone draw you into the emotional mix. One sees his dad as a murderer and longs to run away, but he won't leave his brother behind; and his brother trusts dad, having no problem (only a strange fascination) with what is going on.
Every once in a while it's nice to be pleasantly surprised, and that's precisely what happened here.
Hawks and Sparrows (1966)
Starring: Pierre Clémenti and Jean-Pierre Léaud
Directed by Pier Paolo Pasolini
Eureka Video
July 2012
Toto and Ninetto are accompanied by a talking crow who speaks truth and conscience to the point of annoyance. They travel the dusty road of realism, coming across and interacting with actor-hippies, rioters, slum-dwellers, and taking on the roles of Franciscan friars in order to preach the word of God to the hawks and sparrows. Ultimately, this is a comment on the state of the then modern world through the eyes of an old and young man...
Hawks and Sparrows is one of an on-going series of world cinema releases from Eureka presented under the banner Masters of Cinema. This is a black and white subtitled film from Italy directed by Pier Paolo Pasolini. It stars Italy’s comic actor of the time (1966), Toto, and Pasolini regular Ninetto Davoli. It’s presented in a new high-definition transfer, with newly translated English subtitles, and a very good illustrated booklet on the film, including comments from the director.
This was considered at the time to be a widely acclaimed achievement. A sometimes political, sometimes philosophical statement on what you might call life, the universe and everything aimed at a society which was caught somewhat between religion and communism. It’s truly difficult to formulate a logical opinion one way or the other on this. Hawks and Sparrows swings menacingly between profundity and pretentiousness. It is at one moment humorous, the next ridiculously stupid in its outlook on life. The central scene displays how religion can become a circus, but minutes later has the key characters hopping around like penguins on hot coals in an attempt to communicate with the sparrows.
So the pendulum swings first one way then the other. I can see what the director was trying to achieve, but for me a movie is all about entertainment not political statements.
Hell's Kitchen (1998)
Starring: Angelina Jolie, Rosanna Arquette & Mekhi Phifer
Directed by 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.
High Crimes (2002)
Starring: Ashley Judd, Morgan Freeman & Jim Caviezel
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.
Knightriders (1981)
Starring: Ed Harris, Gary Lahti, Tom Savini, Amy Ingersoll and Patricia Tallman
Directed by George A. Romero
Arrow Films
April 2013
In this contemporary people story, a troupe of travelling players arrive at the edge of town. They consist of King “Billy” William, his queen, a company of knights, various performers, and makers of arts and crafts. For a small fee the pageant puts on an often violent display of jousting - in armour, but on motorcycles rather than horses - and hand to-hand combat with weapons such as the axe, medieval spiked-mace, and sword. The combatants are happy with their calling, but one knight, Morgan, has ambitions to be king. Furthermore, he has been approached by a promoter, who wants to commercialise the company. Morgan is enticed by the prospect of money, fame and women, and leaves. However, King Billy refuses to sell out his ideals, but when he is jailed for defending one of his company against a corrupt policeman, it seems the close-knit community of knightriders may be coming to an end. King Billy continues to believe that doing the right thing will see them through, and that those which have left will return. But will he be proved right...?
Knightriders is directed by George A. Romero, who is perhaps best known for the horror classic, Night of the Living Dead. This was made in 1980, right after his zombie film Dawn of the Dead, and released the following year, at the same time as the much better known John Boorman movie, Excalibur. But Knightriders isn’t a straightforward retelling of the Arthurian tale. Instead, it is a modern era reinterpretation of the concept. When you first start to watch this film you’re tempted to think it a little silly; however, the more into the 147 minute running you get, the more realisation takes hold that this is all about honour, truth (as much to others as to yourself), and living life by a code. The ideals of King Arthur and Camelot are in place, and Morgan betrays Billy’s trust, as Lancelot betrays Arthur.
Ed Harris, Star of a host of blockbuster movies, such as Apollo 13, The Truman Show, and one of my favourites, The Abyss, plays his first key role here as King William. He puts in a sterling performance to the point that you can’t really think of anyone who could have played the part quite so well. The part of Morgan is played by visual effects artist Tom Savini, and it’s surprising how good he is. Special mentions should also go to Brother Blue who brilliantly understates his performance of a Merlin closer to a witch doctor than a wizard, and to Patricia Tallman, whose character stands up to her controlling slob of a father and hooks up with one of the knights. Other viewers like myself might know her better as the telepath from Babylon 5, but she has also carved-out a successful career as a stunt double. Fans of horror author Stephen King will be interested to know he has a superfluous cameo role as a greedy heckler.
The ending is rather bitter sweet. Without actually giving away the concluding events, King Billy holds on to his ideals, but comes to realise that his time has passed. We are living in a new age; it’s not necessarily better, but time has to be allowed to move on. So, something very different from what we have seen before, with the weighty actors required to pull off this strange tale. It’s a people story, and a very good one.
Extras include a commentary by George A. Romero, Tom Savini, John Amplas and Christine Romero; separate 20-minute interviews with Ed Harris, Tom Savini and Patricia Tallman; TV spots and Trailer.
The Long Lunch (2003)
Starring: Jeanette Cronin, Ian Bliss, Vince Gil, Alex Menglet and Victor Rodger
Written & Directed by 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!
Pigsty (1969)
Starring: Pierre Clémenti and Jean-Pierre Léaud
Directed by Pier Paolo Pasolini
Eureka Video
July 2012
While his super-wealthy father is a neo-Nazi political mover in post-war Italy, attempting to out-manoeuvre his opponent, his son proves to be much more of an enigma. The young man is romantically engaged with the daughter of another decadently rich family. She finds him both fascinating and aloof, particularly when he refuses to accompany her on a demonstration because he has to do something important - the only thing he really loves. Meanwhile, in the mountains, miles from civilisation, individuals from a lost war have to survive any way they can. This means eating plants, butterflies, raw snakes, and even human flesh...
This release is another in the Eureka! Masters of Cinema series. It is also the second film in a row I’ve reviewed from Italian director Pier Paolo Pasolini. Once more he’s being all meaningful with his allegories, so rather than a popcorn entertainment what we get is a political and moral statement on the world and society as a whole. Pigsty (1969) explores such animal instincts as greed, carnal lust, and the religious need to belong and be absolved. The film is described as a deranged parody, but for me this is an obvious Orwellian pastiche. The connection, albeit tenuous, to Animal Farm just can’t be ignored. The pigs actually describe the behaviour of mankind, and even many of the inherent conversations make references to these unfortunate animals.
The final scene describes the young man’s death at the hands (trotters?) of the pigs, but the major unanswered question is what exactly did the young man do each time he visited the pigs? Just watch them? Play among them? Mistreat them? Or worse? When a handful of peasant villagers describe the incident it is with quiet reverence. In dying he becomes a martyr; even a messianic figure. This would certainly tie-in with the talk of Jews and fascism.
Pigsty means more than Hawks and Sparrows - or at least the meanings are clearer, but you still have to read between the lines of much pretentious nonsense. Modern viewers will no doubt describe it as a load of old tosh, and who’s to say they’re wrong? As with Hawks and Sparrows, there is a very informative booklet and a short interview with the director.
Protection (2001)
Starring: Stephen Baldwin, Katie Griffin & Peter Gallagher
Directed by 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.
Q & A (1990)
Starring: Nick Nolte, Timothy Hutton & Armand Assante
Directed by Sidney 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.
Read My Lips (2001)
Starring: Vincent Cassel, Emmanuelle Devos & Olivier Gourmet
Directed by 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.
Reeseville (2003)
Starring: Brad Hunt, Majandra Delfino and Mark Hamill
Directed by Christian Otjen
Mosaic Entertainment
October 2004
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.
Sorcerer (1977)
Starring: Roy Scheider, Bruno Cremer, Francisco Rabal, Amidou and Ramon Bieri
Directed by William Friedkin
Distributor: Entertainment One
November 2017
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.
Sweat (2003)
Starring: Jean-Hugues Anglade, Joaquim De Almeida, Cyrille Thouvenin and Sagamore Stevenin
Directed by 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.
Trauma (2004)
Starring: Colin Firth and Mena Suvari
Directed by Marc Evans
Warner Home Video
February 2005
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.