| Movie | Rating | Review | Date | Your Rating | Match | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Csillagosok, katonák (The Red and The White) - Unrated |
Think of any war film and it's likely it was shot from the perspective of one side or the other, and its characters will be seen to have a purpose - capturing that hill, saving that private. Miklos Jancso's "The Red and the White" stands in sharp contrast as a film which not refuses to adopt the perspective of one side or the other, but one in which it's fairly difficult to decide what side the soldiers are on. And they have no purpose ... they hardly even seem concerned to stay alive. Set in the Russian Civil War in 1918, the White Czarist forces are locked in battle with the Red Bolsheviks. The film's action follows the remnants of a Hungarian company and the confused fighting which flows around a defrocked monastery and invades the fragile peace of a military hospital. Soldiers shoot, flee, are captured, are shot. From time to time they pose. A military band incongruously emerges from the forest to play a waltz. Jancso's view of war is of utter confusion, futility, and the sheer impossibility of retaining a moral perspective. Both sides, particularly in a civil war, strive to claim the moral high ground of legitimacy and purpose. Both sides in this film are corrupted by war. The individual, once he loses his shirt, ceases to be a person with an identity - a naked man could be a soldier in either side, or merely a civilian caught up in the fighting. Jancso strips his actors until they become mere pawns - you, as audience, never get a chance to really identify with any of the men, they come and go so quickly. Only a couple of the nursing staff demonstrate moral insight or question the morality of killing. Even they are compromised by the brutality of the action. In the end, you are left overwhelmed by the pointlessness of it all. Jancso famously shoots in long scenes and makes expansive use of distance and breadth of camera angle. Made in black and white, "The Red and the White" is a remarkable visual spectacle. Jancso emphasises the scale and confusion of warfare: sometimes troops are visible a couple of miles away down the valley, at other times squadrons of cavalry emerge from a hollow in the ground or from behind a hillock. And his images of the individual are often captured in longshot, so you see only a distant figure at the centre of the action. It's a style which disassociates you from identifying with the individual while accommodating you to the notion that war takes place on a broad scale, rendering the individual meaningless. War is absurd, brutal, and utterly chaotic. There is little in the way of plot, little in the way of dialogue, little in the way of characterisation. The abiding message is that war corrupts. The reality of war is not heroism or glory or duty, but physical survival, often at the expense of moral sacrifice. A very fine, thoroughly absorbing film which is as vivid and relevant as when it was made in 1967-8, and a film which deserves much wider recognition. |
October 1, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Europa Europa - R |
This is an extraordinarily funny film which, while it doesn't quite reach the heights of Hasek's "Good Soldier Svejk", views war from the perspective of the little man, the naïve participant caught up and swept along by the currents of history and blind obedience of those around him. While the humour does achieve moments of high farce, it is usually kept as an undercurrent, as an ironic theme, as a vital celebration of the human spirit. In the face of horror, holocaust, and the fifty million lives swept away in the European war of 1939-1945, laughter is not only still possible, humour is not only still possible, it is obligatory, for to have killed the ability to laugh and smile would have been to have destroyed the human spirit and allowed darkness to triumph. "Europa Europa" looks at war with an almost childlike vision, but a childlike vision refracted by years of adult distance and the ability to perceive the ridiculous, the risible, the raucous even in the midst of nightmare. Based on a true story, apparently, "Europa Europa" follows the travails of teenage Solomon Perel as he flees a pogrom in his native Germany, returns to the family's Polish roots, only to witness the 1939 invasion. He flees to the Russian side of the dismembered country, but, when the Germans turn their attention to the destruction of Stalin, Solly finds himself captured and pressed into service as an interpreter. He quickly becomes a front-line mascot and is shipped off back to Germany, to attend an exclusive school for the Hitler Youth and children of the Party faithful. Throughout the entire film he struggles to hide or deny his Jewish roots ... and, more particularly, to conceal the fact that he has been circumcised. A film about duty and obedience, a film about identity and the struggle to preserve it ... and an ironic commentary on masculinity, for Solomon's identity is ultimately bound up in his circumcised member - it's exposure can never be a triumph of macho dominance, but a betrayal of his vulnerability. Throughout the film, Solomon does as he is told - he obeys his parents, obeys the Russians, obeys the Germans. He struggles to obey his conscience, but he is young, he is human, and he is scared out of his wits. In the face of certain death, survival becomes the driving force. Ultimately, Solly obeys the instinct to survive. The film is delivered as a series of episodes, each culminating in a cliff-hanger situation, each situation resolved in more and more farcical fashion. Like the heroine tied to the railway tracks, salvation always seems to arrive in the knick of time ... divine intervention with a wry grin! That one Jewish teenager could survive in these circumstances is incredible, suggests the film, and exposes the myth of German efficiency. Life can be farcical (in retrospect) and far from 'efficient'. Primo Levi writes with extraordinary humanity and honesty about what it was like to survive Auschwitz. "Europa Europa" offers another spin on this. Survival is never heroic, is never one dimensional. Solly survives by sheer terror, ingenuity, and luck, pure luck. The Holocaust is too often offered up as simple, gross statistics. Solly, here, is a terrified teenager - a single, solitary individual against whom history and Europe seem to have conspired. You can sense the feeling of guilt, the "why me" questioning of the survivor, but the answer is in the film. Luck. A very funny film with a very serious message, it will doubtless outrage some who see it. But it is a film which should make you laugh: if Solly is a pawn in history, his story is a triumph not simply of luck and survival, but of an indomitable human spirit. Silence laughter and you silence love, understanding, tolerance, and forgiveness, for humour is at the root of the human spirit. Excellent, excellent film. |
August 6, 2009 | N/A | |||
| 1984 (Nineteen Eighty-Four) - R |
A film which warrants a whole thesaurus of adjectives - bleak, sombre, depressing, dismal. This is certainly not a feel-good movie. The film is reasonably faithful to Orwell's 1949 dystopic novel, exploring, as it does, the impact of a totalitarian government on the minds, beliefs, and behaviours of its citizens. The novel examined the role of a State monopoly of thought - dictating exactly what its subjects should think, the language they would use, the beliefs they must sustain, the obedience they are obliged to offer, unquestioningly ? and the role of the State in enforcing compliance through use of force, surveillance, entrapment, and denunciation by family and friends of any suspect act. Every thought and action comes under the remit of the Thought Police, who seize, torture, re-educate, or execute miscreants - their most potent instrument is use of self-denunciation, with convicted traitors broadcasting to the nation to confess their crimes. The film relentlessly portrays the presence of the television in every home and workplace, a machine which cannot be turned off, and which day and night delivers news of the latest production figures, the latest convictions and executions for treason, and the latest announcements by Big Brother, the head of the State. Not only can the televisions not be turned off, they watch as well as show. Everyone is monitored. As much as anything, "1984" defines the nature of distrust and suspicion, the inability to think as an individual in case your very thoughts might be detected by those around you - none of whom you can be certain is not an informer or agent provocateur. John Hurt plays Winston Smith, a minor functionary in Oceania's Ministry of Truth, rewriting history to comply with the State's latest definition of what is truth and which of its functionaries are still regarded as loyal. Anyone convicted of treason becomes an unperson and is written out of history. "Who controls the past controls the future" - history can be manipulated to serve the interests of the present and the demands of the State. Oceania is never specifically defined - it is constantly at war with one or other of the rival States of Eurasia or East Asia. Orwell clearly intended his work as an indictment of the Stalinist regime in the Soviet Union, and of the recently defeated Fascism in Germany and Italy. His Oceania, however, is an English-speaking State - Orwell wanted to emphasise that the English speaking world is not beyond the corrupting and dehumanising effects of totalitarianism. With the Cold War settling in (Orwell wrote just before the McCarthyite witch hunt gripped the USA), he appreciated that the State could well become resolute in defining who was the enemy and what beliefs might constitute treason (or un-American activity). Winston Smith engages in an illicit affair with Julia (Suzanna Hamilton), renting a room in a prole district (the working classes are treated as the great unwashed, a mass of people with no political rights or roles, beyond any civilising influence, and expected to tolerate State control obediently without necessarily being committed to its support). Julia works producing porn - novels for the proles. No art is produced by individuals, it is manufactured by machine and by committee. Both Winston and Julia know their affair is illegal and that, if discovered, they face death. That they can still love one another is a triumph of the human spirit in the face of the overwhelming power of Big Bother and the State. They fake obedience and loyalty in their everyday actions and words but commit the heinous thought crime of loving one another and enjoying a secret sexual liaison. They suspect they are doomed. A very fine rendition of Orwell's novel - the film has been seen as one of the most faithful attempts to translate a novel to film - powerfully imagined and delivered with conviction. Michael Radford's direction is unremittingly bleak and depressing - he presents a thoroughly convincing image of Orwell's world with its regimented functionaries living in an impoverished world with few material luxuries and the constant threat of betrayal, denunciation, or simply falling out of favour with the ruling elite. Not an easy film to follow, and it may actually be better if you have read the book first, but it is absorbing and compelling viewing. Fine performances from Hurt and Hamilton, and also from Richard Burton in his final film role. The lovers win your sympathies, but you have no great hopes that their love will end happily. Indeed, the real stars of the film are probably the set and costume designs, and the convincing sense of reality conveyed by its screenplay and direction. |
May 29, 2009 | N/A | |||
| The American Nightmare - A Celebration of Films from Hollywood's Golden Age of Fright - Unrated |
This is an intelligently organised review of the role and status of the horror movie in the USA in the last quarter of the 20th century. It juxtaposes clips from horror and science fiction classics - the living dead, towns being sanitised to stop plague spreading, the dangers of the unknown, the ephemeral veneer of civilisation - with clips of television coverage of Vietnam and urban rioting in the USA. The real footage is every bit as horrific as the fiction. We get a roll call of the giants of North American horror - Tobe Hooper, John Carpenter, Wes Craven, John Landis, George Romero, David Cronenberg, Tom Savini - explaining their influences and commenting on the reactions to their work. It seems they were often damned as un-American, as being subversive, purely because they might suggest that American society could break down in that way. Tobe Hunter, for instance, has his "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" hinging on a fuel shortage; George Romero's "Dawn of the Dead" is a commentary on consumerism as the dead are still drawn to the Mall. It's a very entertaining and thought provoking work which most horror fans will thoroughly enjoy. I would, however, advocate buying it as part of "The Wes Craven Collection", where it is packaged as an extra along with four of Craven's films and represents much better value in that form. |
May 19, 2009 | N/A | |||
| L'Armée des ombres (Army in the Shadows) - Unrated |
Jean-Pierre Melville's 1969 tale of the French Resistance, and a film which explores courage without melodrama or hyperbolic heroics. The tone is set early, with the execution of a traitor; in its early days Resistance to German occupation is an amateur cause - survival, never mind success, will depend on how quickly the amateurs can learn a dirty and dangerous profession. This is warfare without glory - its only victory is in living another day. The film opens with a triumphant German march past l'Arc de Triomphe as their propaganda machine publicises the surrender of France and Nazi occupation of Paris. Melville does not hide the fact that France had been humiliatingly defeated, nor that many in France would collaborate with the occupying forces. France was physically divided - part of it would be German occupied, the rest left under the control of the Vichy government (a collaborationist French regime), but France was also politically divided, most significantly between Left and Right. Melville's characters, throughout, are trapped, imprisoned in an environment controlled by the Germans. Betrayal is always possible, suspicion is the watchword. When the film's central character is taken to London for a briefing, Melville contrasts the French experience with the British one just a few miles away across the Channel: in Paris we see German uniforms everywhere, we see a handful of resistance fighters struggling against them ? and risking betrayal by their own people; in London, everyone is in uniform, everyone is in the fight against the Nazis - the Germans may be bombing the city, but the spirit of London and Londoners refuses to be broken. Melville was widely attacked in 1969 for showing the extent of collaboration in France - especially in demonstrating that the French police and French Fascists actively aided the Germans. The myth of the French nation solidly behind the Resistance was simply rejected by Melville - he knew many had collaborated unequivocally, he'd worked with the Resistance, he knew how dangerous it was, how few people could be trusted. The film, however, received a very chilly reception, and it was years before its quality was widely recognised - either in France or abroad. Dark, gloomy, stripped of any Hollywood glamour or bravado, Melville emphasises the moral nature of resistance, alludes to its intellectual roots (recognising that the Resistance brought together people from a wide spectrum of French politics - Communists, Socialists, Catholics, Gaullists, Republicans, even Monarchists). A courageous film in its refusal to glamorise warfare and its expose of the myth of the nation in resistance - finely acted, beautifully directed, and only lately winning a deserved reputation for its portrayal of wartime France. We follow the tale of Phillipe Gerbier (Lino Ventura), an engineer turned Resistance leader. His is an army of the shadows - they do not fight major battles, they do not wear uniforms, they seem to spend more time killing one another than attacking the Germans. They smuggle radios back and forth, they are constantly on the run, constantly on their guard against betrayal. It's claustrophobic, lacking in glamour, bleak, austere, and tinged with the depressing certainty that the Germans must get them in the end. Melville is demonstrating that it's the hopelessness of their position which makes their courage so extraordinary - and made collaboration so despicable. The DVD offers a fine combination of extras - a 35 minute newsreel shot by Resistance cameramen during the Paris uprising and liberation of 1944. Graphic, raw in its courage, and a must watch supplement to the film. And there's an excellent commentary by Ginette Vincendeau and an analysis of Melville's work, the film, his selection of shots, etc. Excellent value. |
April 22, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Nuit et Brouillard (Night and Fog) - Unrated |
Originally commissioned by the French government in 1946, Alain Resnais' 1956 film presents a montage of still and moving pictures which sum up the history and the evil of the Nazi concentration camps. It's a deceptive opening, gently lyrical music, some pastoral scenes of the countryside beyond the barbed wire, the picture slowly moving inwards to reveal the rusting and decaying remnants of a death camp. French actor Michel Bouquet delivers the narrative with calm assurance. Soon after the Nazis came to power in Germany they began planning the concentration camps - they didn't simply happen, they weren't an accident, they were designed with their purpose in mind and they were built according to a blueprint for institutional murder. Genocide was at the ideological and political heart of the Nazi regime. The montage unrolls before our eyes. We see the people destined for the camps, see them milling around uncertainly, almost innocently, docile and demoralised, stripped of all but the barest of possessions, waiting to be loaded onto cattle trucks to be taken ? where? Some promised safe haven? They cling to hope as tightly as they cling to their battered suitcases and bundles of clothing. Once at their assigned camp they are stripped of dignity - their guards have already abdicated any sense of humanity, have become blind functionaries prepared to deal cruelly and barbarously with their dehumanised victims. Resnais emphasises the total absence of humanity and human sentiment which characterised the role of the camps. The physical fitness of the guards, and of the medical personnel who carried out barbaric experiments within the camps, contrasts with the emaciated, cowed, diseased and dying inmates. As the deportation of Jews and undesirables from conquered Europe escalates, so the gas chambers are used to manufacture murder on an industrial scale. The dead are stripped of their hair, glasses, gold teeth - Resnais illustrates each atrocity with systematic photo editing, a relentlessly calm musical background, and Bouquet's voice offering uncritical explanation. It's an authorative commentary, delivered without sentimentality or obvious bitterness. He remains neutral, passes no judgement, but poses serious questions. The film was, at one stage, criticised because it does not focus purely on the murder of Jews. Resnais comments on the execution of French resistance fighters and dissidents, on the deaths of Spanish Republican veterans who had fled Franco's regime and settled in France, only to be rounded up by the Nazis when France fell in 1940. I don't see this as a valid criticism: the point is that millions were murdered in the camps; the film investigates institutionalised mass murder, the provenance of the victims does not make murder any more or less reprehensible. The film concludes with the question, who is responsible? For much of the time the concentration camps were operating, the world denied or ignored their existence. The German people did not protest - many claimed they were ignorant of the existence of the death camps, even when they were on their doorstep. Could it happen again? Could ordinary people be induced to ignore mass murder or collude in it? An outstanding documentary which, half a century later remains fresh and evocative, a powerful expose of brutality and inhumanity, and a masterly use of cinema. |
April 20, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Raiders of the Lost Ark (Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark) - PG |
Spielberg and Lucas, two men who understand the nature of the blockbuster, team up to deliver this 1981 take on the old cinema adventure serial, the Saturday cliff-hanger which kept generations of kids rapt in wonder. This is an adult tale, if a family movie, pitching Harrison Ford (fresh from his success in 'Star Wars') into the role of Indiana Jones, a role he'd make solidly his own. Let's begin with an unpalatable fact. Indiana Jones is not an archaeologist, he's a tomb robber, an asset stripper of ancient societies. Archaeologists look for evidence of how people lived, their cultures and social structures - Indiana brings back artefacts to put in museums, and to line his own pocket in the process. Fortunately he seems to have a secure job as a college lecturer - which must be some sort of sinecure, for he seems to absent himself from it at the drop of his hat. So, Indiana is no saint. He's not required to be. He's a hero. His world is non-stop action, he'll have to play it by ear, and sometimes he'll have to play dirty. It's the simplest of plots - hero overcomes evil and gets girl. At one stage Indiana is asked if he has a plan - he replies he's making it up as he goes along. At every turn you can believe the writers sat down and decided what's the worst thing that could happen here? And it does. Relentless action, you barely get a chance to draw breath. The scene is set. It's 1936 and Dr.Jones is intent on looting South American treasures. From the start we get exotic locations, action, sudden death, creepy crawlies, secret passages, tunnels and boobytraps, priceless treasures hovering just beyond reach, more and more action, and the certainty that you can never be certain one of the good guys isn't really a bad guy. It's a recipe which will be served up time and again in the Indiana Jones series. Jones will return to his US college, to be ogled by the female students and idealised by the male ones, and to be enlisted by spooks to go put a spoke in the Nazi war effort. The Nazis, it seems, are hot on the trail of the Ark of the Covenant - should they find it, legend has it that it will make their armies invincible. Indiana Jones is all that stands between them and world conquest. It's the stuff of a great adventure movie, a thriller, an action-packed entertainment which plays fast and easy with history, mythology, and superstition. Great music, chaotic action, comic book hero and plenty of laughs. Pure, no apologies, edge of your seat stuff. Indiana has the morality of an alley cat, a particular amoral alley cat who knows it's a big alley and there's not a female cat he can't make purrrrr. We get an inkling of his promiscuous past in his relationship with Karen Allen, a woman he jilted when she was a girl. As if any red-blooded male would jilt Karen Allen. She remains the pick of the heroines (or even villainesses) in the Indiana movies; she's tough, she's independent, and she can look after herself. Cracking good yarn, outstanding entertainment you can watch again and again without growing bored and without losing the smile from your face. Beautifully conceived, beautifully made, wonderful characterisation and performances by an excellent cast - I particularly love Ronald Lacey as the Nazi villain, a neat little cameo from Alfred Molina ? and of course the larger than life John Rhys-Davies seems to have all the answers. But Harrison Ford steals the show - well, he steals everything else in the film. Outstanding fun, and you'll never forget the theme tune. |
April 20, 2009 | N/A | |||
| The War Game - Unrated |
A film which, though dated, warrants five stars because of its courage and because it attempted to deliver an essential message in the face of extraordinary opposition. This is Peter Watkins' graphic account of a potential nuclear strike on the UK. Intended for showing in 1965 it was banned by the BBC until 1985 on the basis that it was too horrifying for public viewing - the BBC denied that it had come under political pressure to cancel the broadcast. The film was widely shown in art cinemas and in colleges, and private viewings were arranged by many anti-war activists. The film (made in b&w and running for less than 50 minutes) takes a drama documentary approach, explaining systematically how widespread would be the destruction should a Soviet nuclear attack be launched. The film opens by identifying the likely targets for a nuclear strike - making clear that in the UK, because of the density of its island population and proximity of military / air force bases to the country's cities, any first strike would eradicate a third of the population and reduce the UK to ashes. Survivors of a first strike would be exposed to crippling injuries - blindness, first degree burns, blast and shrapnel injuries. Within two months many would die through the effects of nuclear fall-out. The disruption and destruction of gas, electricity, water, sewage, road, rail, and distribution networks would have lasting effects. There would be no radio, television, or telephone communications left operable (except, potentially, for a few limited military ones). Fire storms would ravage cities, there would be few houses left undamaged, few left habitable. Food stocks would be confined to what survived the attack - there would be little prospect of food imports being available. Within months there would be severe malnutrition, the lasting effects of radiation, plus dysentery, typhus, cholera, plagues of rats and vermin. Psychiatric disorders and post traumatic stress would be widespread. The economy would come to a standstill. Food would be the only acceptable currency. Fire services, medical services, emergency services would be overwhelmed and functionally useless. Martial law would be declared - surviving military and police personnel would adopt extreme measures to try to preserve a semblance of order. Any missile attack would be likely to offer only a three minute warning of destruction. The film contrasts the planned government reaction (with evacuation of populations from cities and dispersal to the country) and its reliance on individuals building their own shelters (economically impracticable and effectively useless). Official plans for regional government and emergency responses would be overwhelmed and submerged in chaos - even assuming those responsible survived. The images are harrowing. The film follows a likely scenario which might have resulted in the Cold War of the 1960's going hot. It made clear the fact that the UK was practically defenceless in the face of a nuclear strike. Nothing has changed, only the scale. The film is clearly dated - not least in its style and cinematic techniques. What really dates it, however, is the fact that nuclear weapons are bigger and more devastating than they were in the 1960's. What hasn't dated is the horror it portrays and the blindness of those who continue to insist that nuclear weapons have a moral and political legitimacy. It is quite obvious why there was pressure to prevent its showing - and you have to ask why such films are not produced so regularly that no one in the country can be left in any doubt as to what a nuclear war might entail? The film can be seen online - do a search for the title, and be afraid, be very afraid. |
April 20, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Pierrepoint - Unrated |
Originally made for television, "Pierrepoint" is the story of Britain's most prolific hangman (not the last, there were nearly forty further executions after he retired from the duty). Albert Pierrepoint was, in fact, the third generation of executioner in his family (his father and grandfather had fulfilled the role before him). Given the subject matter, this is a surprisingly moving film, carried along by a superb performance by Timothy Spall and by an outstanding sense of period and place. Set in the austere decades of wartime and postwar England, direction and design capture a real feel for the era and for the gradual passing of time which led to a change in attitude, culminating in the abolition of the death penalty (abolished in 1969, though the last executions were carried out in 1964). The film portrays Albert Pierrepoint as a conscientious, dignified man who took no gratuitous pleasure in his profession, but who sought to make the last moments of condemned prisoners as calm and as dignified as possible. The film slowly acquaints us with the ordinariness of the executioner's task and routines. Surprisingly, it was a part time job - Pierrepoint worked as a delivery man before taking on the proprietorship of a Manchester pub, being summoned by appointment to the various prisons in England where he carried out his duties. Spall presents the man as decent, as determined to hold on to his anonymity - it was years before he even told his wife what he did on his 'trips'. The call to execute Nazi war criminals after the Nuremberg trials, however, plunged him into the public spotlight and, thereafter, he was subjected to pressures from both the pro- and anti-capital punishment lobby. A private, decent man, he could nevertheless enjoy himself during his leisure time, performing an impromptu cabaret act with a friend in his local pub. Spall voices opinions recorded by Pierrepoint in his autobiography - his insistence that, once executed, the dead person had served their sentence and they were entitled to have their remains treated with respect and dignity. He takes great professional pride in the speed and sensitivity of his actions. However, the responsibilities he carried appear to have placed him under greater and greater strain, and his exposure to publicity and occasional personal attack took their toll. It's a film which avoids the sensational, the morbid, or the macabre. What comes across is the sheer ordinariness of the job - and the extraordinary compassion of the man and his sense of humanity. Spall is a fine, fine actor, and he is ably supported by Juliet Stephenson as his wife and the excellent Eddie Marsan as his friend and fellow public house performer. Pierrepoint would, after his retirement, state that he felt capital punishment failed to act as a deterrent, and recorded that many of the people he executed (over 600) had gone to their deaths with courage and resignation. What the film possibly does not capture is a real insight into this enigmatic character and the conflict he apparently felt about the need to perform his task decently while doubting its very validity. Did he only conclude that the death penalty was not a deterrent after he retired, or had it been a concern during his career? Nevertheless, an exceptional film, beautifully made and very well performed, and a thoroughly engaging piece of cinema. |
April 19, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Pierrepoint - The Last Hangman - R |
Originally made for television, "Pierrepoint" is the story of Britain's most prolific hangman (not the last, there were nearly forty further executions after he retired from the duty). Albert Pierrepoint was, in fact, the third generation of executioner in his family (his father and grandfather had fulfilled the role before him). Given the subject matter, this is a surprisingly moving film, carried along by a superb performance by Timothy Spall and by an outstanding sense of period and place. Set in the austere decades of wartime and postwar England, direction and design capture a real feel for the era and for the gradual passing of time which led to a change in attitude, culminating in the abolition of the death penalty (abolished in 1969, though the last executions were carried out in 1964). The film portrays Albert Pierrepoint as a conscientious, dignified man who took no gratuitous pleasure in his profession, but who sought to make the last moments of condemned prisoners as calm and as dignified as possible. The film slowly acquaints us with the ordinariness of the executioner's task and routines. Surprisingly, it was a part time job - Pierrepoint worked as a delivery man before taking on the proprietorship of a Manchester pub, being summoned by appointment to the various prisons in England where he carried out his duties. Spall presents the man as decent, as determined to hold on to his anonymity - it was years before he even told his wife what he did on his 'trips'. The call to execute Nazi war criminals after the Nuremberg trials, however, plunged him into the public spotlight and, thereafter, he was subjected to pressures from both the pro- and anti-capital punishment lobby. A private, decent man, he could nevertheless enjoy himself during his leisure time, performing an impromptu cabaret act with a friend in his local pub. Spall voices opinions recorded by Pierrepoint in his autobiography - his insistence that, once executed, the dead person had served their sentence and they were entitled to have their remains treated with respect and dignity. He takes great professional pride in the speed and sensitivity of his actions. However, the responsibilities he carried appear to have placed him under greater and greater strain, and his exposure to publicity and occasional personal attack took their toll. It's a film which avoids the sensational, the morbid, or the macabre. What comes across is the sheer ordinariness of the job - and the extraordinary compassion of the man and his sense of humanity. Spall is a fine, fine actor, and he is ably supported by Juliet Stephenson as his wife and the excellent Eddie Marsan as his friend and fellow public house performer. Pierrepoint would, after his retirement, state that he felt capital punishment failed to act as a deterrent, and recorded that many of the people he executed (over 600) had gone to their deaths with courage and resignation. What the film possibly does not capture is a real insight into this enigmatic character and the conflict he apparently felt about the need to perform his task decently while doubting its very validity. Did he only conclude that the death penalty was not a deterrent after he retired, or had it been a concern during his career? Nevertheless, an exceptional film, beautifully made and very well performed, and a thoroughly engaging piece of cinema. |
April 19, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Threads - Unrated |
Written by Barry Hines, "Threads" is drama documentary made by the BBC and shown on British television in 1984. It echoes an earlier warning of the likely impact of nuclear war ("The War Game", scheduled for broadcast 1965 but banned by the BBC until 1985 on the grounds that what it portrayed was too shocking - it did the rounds of art cinemas, college film societies, and viewings organised by anti-war activists). "Threads" follows the impact of a nuclear war on two working class families and an ordinary council chief executive in the English city of Sheffield. It emphasises the lack of preparedness for nuclear war by beginning its story three months before the missile strikes occur. While the daily lives of the protagonists follow a mundane course, we are given glimpses of television news coverage of an escalating international crisis - news coverage which is largely ignored by the mass of the population. Only in the last few days does some degree of concern become widespread - even then largely confined to a run on food supplies and, finally, by an attempt to flee the city and find refuge in the country. The UK, of course, is a densely packed little island - there are few places or spaces which could offer anything purporting to be 'refuge', and certainly not enough to sustain the population fleeing from the cities. The film follows the slow, almost innocuous build up to war - contrasting it with the panic and immediate collapse of society's structures as the first mushroom clouds loom over British cities. The portrayal of terror and devastation is graphic - cities ablaze as fire storms sweep across them, survivors left blinded, burned, badly injured, and traumatised. Those who opt to follow the government of the day's 'protect and survive' policies - building shelters within their homes out of doors and bits of furniture - succumb to the effects of fall-out and die a slow death in their houses. Those who remain fit and active have to fight for food - and have to find somewhere to live (most of the housing stock will have been rendered uninhabitable). Law and order break down - the seat of local government is reduced to shambolic chaos, buried under the ruins of its municipal buildings. The surviving police and military institute martial law and try to cope with the disposal of the dead. Medical and emergency services are overwhelmed. And the effects of fall-out are yet to come. The theme, 'threads', emphasises that modern societies are utterly dependent on a sophisticated interplay and interconnection of many things - from basic gas, water, electricity, sewage, road, rail, and distribution systems, to communications, agriculture, industry, local government, a functioning Health Service, respect for law and order (by and large), and assumed access to food supplies and the income with which to buy goods (including food, accommodation, transport, and all the necessities of life). Nuclear war severs all the threads, fragments society into tales of individual survival. And following the nuclear devastation of the cities, there are the lasting effects of fall-out, and the immediate impact of nuclear winter as the explosions shut out sunlight and reduce agriculture to the stranglehold of an enduring absence of sun. The film follows the survivors over a number of years - perhaps its most chilling message. It suggests that any recovery from a nuclear strike would take decades, that for years afterwards the country would be reduced to chaos and to medieval technologies, with survivors living a primitive, hand-to-mouth existence, never sure from one day to the next what hope there might be for continued living. Utterly horrifying. Although nuclear weapons have become even more devastating in the years since this film was made, the message has not dated. It's a film which trivialises the Hollywood images of heroic survival in the face of Armageddon, a film which leaves you in abject terror of the possibility that such an atrocity could be perpetrated by human beings. It's a film which should be shown again and again until everyone appreciates that use of nuclear weapons leaves no winners and that the existence of nuclear weapons holds us all hostage to the certain prospect of becoming losers. The film is available online - search "Threads" and envy the dead. |
April 18, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace - PG | April 15, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back - PG | April 15, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi - PG | April 15, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope - PG | April 15, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| Nijushi no Hitomi (Twenty-Four Eyes) - Unrated | April 14, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| Spider-Man 2 - PG-13 |
Since his creation, Peter Parker has been the most human of the superheroes - the comic-books are as much character driven as plot driven. Parker has doubts, Parker has problems reconciling his human existence and his super powers. Parker has a three dimensional life, complete with bills, the demands of work and study, and an active libido. Simply being able to run up the outside of buildings doesn't solve these problems, and it certainly doesn't pay the rent. So, in Spider-Man 2 we begin with the pretext that Parker wants to hang up his red and blue suit ... until an experiment goes wrong and super-villain Doctor Octopus is created, complete with grafted-on robotic arms which have a mind of their own. Parker has to battle against him, try to get the girl, and cope with a best friend who blames Spiderman for the death of his father (unaware that he was the evil Green Goblin). The plot and sub-plots combine the comic-book fantastic, the potency of modern special effects, and a script which allows the characters to step off the page and become real. You can sympathise with Parker's loneliness, allow him his moments of introspection The key to the success of this production is in its reliance on character, and it is this which sets Spider-Man 2 apart from other films in the genre. Too many blockbusters rely on a helter-skelter of action to keep you entertained, the plot moving so fast you rarely have time to notice quite how cardboard and flat the characters are. Here, we have human beings struggling to cope with powers beyond their ken, beyond their control, and which, as in Doctor Octopus' case, can corrupt. For Parker, the comic-book hero, there is always the potential to take a walk on the wild side, to use his powers egotistically. The battle between good and evil in Spiderman is never simply at the level of good guy slugging it out with bad guy, but overflows into the trauma of good guy tempted by corruption. For some, this emphasis on character may be a weakness - if you simply want gore or explosions or arcade game action, this film may disappoint in places. If you enjoy a plot which engages your emotions and your intellect, you may surprise yourself by enjoying this - I'm not an avid action movie fan, but this one entertained me. And the use of humour was very finely judged! There's a quality performance from Alfred Molina as the bad guy. He's a quality actor, of course, and he's following in a now established Hollywood tradition - if you want a good bad guy, get a first class English actor. Your memories of Spider-Man 2 are dominated by Molina, not the special effects. Molina steals the show - he is capable of combining cool sophistication with the outrageous. An actor of his talent is always capable of grand larceny. Of course, it's likely you've seen this movie already, or have read all the hype which surrounds releases these days, and have already made up your mind to buy the DVD. It's a good choice. It's a film you can watch more than once or twice. Younger kids might be a bit switched off in places, but they'll grow into it, so, in that respect, it's a good investment if you're a parent. And this latest release comes with some interesting extras in the 'Making of' disc - giving you a two hour documentary on the conception of the film and a closer look at specific aspects such as the creation of Doctor Octopus. This is a must-have for fans of both Spiderman and the genre, as well as for loads of film buffs and people interested in the creative side of film making. All in all, a first class package. |
April 14, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Diabolique - R |
A remake of a tense French original, this is a twist on the eternal triangle scenario as the two women attempt to dispose of their redundant lover. Isabel Adjani owns a school for difficult boys: the most difficult of them is her brutish husband. Sharon Stone is his lover, drawn to the conclusion that life would be better without him. The two women plot a murder and execute it in chaotic fashion. The body, however, fails to lie down. Is he dead? Is he alive? Has someone seen them? Are they being blackmailed? And the very private eye of Kathy Bates is now investigating his disappearance. As a plot, it has great potential. The cast is, potentially, excellent. But something is lost in the translation. What could and should have been a first-rate thriller is reduced to almost B-movie fare as plot and characterisation are subjected to Hollywood's ritual process of the bland leading the bland. The whole production fails to crank up the tension and eroticism. Adjani's character is a former nun, an abused woman suffering from a heart condition: there is considerable potential here for sympathy, for drama, for erotic exploitation ... and yet the character comes across as insipid, most of the time reduced to a simpering, onlooker role. Stone can deliver wonderful performances as a hard-bitten, assertive woman of the world, sexually predatory and self-confident ... yet the performance isn't quite convincing here. You feel she is reduced to a plastic stereotype and given no chance to envigorate her role. Even the explosive sexual tension between her and Adjani is reduced to the fizzle of a damp squib. Bates, meanwhile, appears as a belligerent little rolly-poly detective with a sense of humour ... but her role doesn't quite get the comic leverage and dramatic presence it deserves. All in all, the ingredients were there, but you are left feeling that while it tries hard, 'Diabolique' should have done much better. |
April 14, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Attack - Unrated |
A World War 2 tale, set in or around the Battle of the Bulge. An American colonel with political ambitions (Lee Marvin) pushes forward one of his companies, assuring the company commander (Eddie Albert) that the village he has to take is unlikely to present any dangers. Inevitably, the first platoon in there (led by Jack Palance) will find itself in a murderous trap. Arnold lacks the courage to do the job, but he comes from a good family with powerful political connections. Marvin needs this support if he is to succeed in politics after the war: he knows the war is won, he's already focusing on his own future ... and he's prepared to ignore the obvious cowardice and incompetence of Arnold. Robert Aldrich offers a striking study in courage and cowardice, ambition and duty, leadership and indecision. Originally a stage play, the structure of the production does suffer in places from this. However, instead of the guns-blazing, flashy special effects of recent war movies, 'Attack' often feels claustrophobic, with men pinned into small rooms and glum cellars. While it sometimes feels a bit 'staged', at others, the sense of confined space means you can almost smell the sweat. There are echoes of Tennessee Williams here. Shot in black and white, the film has a distinct noir quality. Indeed, one of its most attractive features is the photography, the use of light and dark to emphasise the loneliness and the isolation of the soldiers. Palance has a rugged face at the best of times, but his cragginess is emphasised by the noir lighting ... and by a little cameo scene where he strips to the waist to work bellows for a blacksmith. This is Hollywood realism, juxtaposing the muscular, masculine Palance against the podgy, effete, political Arnold. The acting can become almost melodramatic at times - Arnold, in particular, is in danger of becoming a caricature. In the end, it's a method acting tour-de-force as Arnold comes unpicked at the seams. A serious subject, sentimental in places, but the photography and direction often gives it an almost documentary feels ... and don't ever doubt that soldiers do get sentimental from time to time. For all its breathlessness and raw emotion, for all the bulging muscles and taut jaws, this is not a very physical - or physically energetic - movie. The tension is in the dialogue and the interaction between characters. This can be a bit dated in places, a bit stereotypical, but there is a quality in the writing and in the drama which is sadly missing in many better known war movies. What is the moral of the 'play'? Courage? Retribution? Justice? I tend to feel it's actually dishonesty, corruption, perversion. Truth is the first casualty of war. 'Attack' confirms that warfare is ultimately about lies - convincing yourself that the enemy are sufficiently different from you to be worthy of hate, convincing yourself that you're not scared, convincing yourself that the war has a meaning and a purpose, convincing yourself that it will lead to a better future. A film which aspiring screenwriters should study and deconstruct. 'Attack' has genuine qualities in both its drama, its acting, its direction, and its cinematography. It is a film which will engage. |
April 14, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Out of the Past - Unrated |
Robert Mitchum was made for black and white movies and the noir genre. Here, the lighting captures his features mesmerically, like the extraordinary shadowed beauty of a moonscape. And then there's the voice, slow as sarsaparilla, deep as a honey jar ... just as smooth, but 140 proof! Mitchum's is a very physical presence, a very physical style of acting, but unforgettable. Told in flashback - hence the title - there is plenty of opportunity for Mitchum to narrate the story, using that voice to carry you along. For a film actor, he has a voice which would have made him a radio star. Director Tourneur clearly understands this and builds on the visual and audio strengths of the production. Geoff Bailey (Mitchum) is fleeing his past by hiding in a small town, miles from nowhere. His past, in the form of Kirk Douglas, catches up with him. His past also takes on the shape of the femme fatale, Kathy (Jane Greer). Douglas is wonderfully malevolent - there is a dual of the dimpled chins as he and Mitchum indulge in confrontational banter. It starts out as a simple story, maybe even a love story, then twists like a trenchcoat belt. Mitchum chainsmokes his way through. Will he get the girl, the homespun Anne, the small town girl next door who is so enamoured of him, or will his past suck him back down? Mitchum is built for a trenchcoat - he wears it in precisely the way Columbo can't. The story hangs about his central character in much the same way. It fits his acting and his presence perfectly. A superb example of the noir genre, a film you can watch and watch. |
April 14, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Rope - PG |
Two over-privileged young men commit the perfect murder. Their victim's body is hidden in a large trunk. They invite friends round for a small dinner party, amongst them their old tutor, Jimmy Stewart, the man who once claimed that some people have the right to commit murder ... the man who is most likely to expose their crime. They aim to subject themselves to his inquisitorial intrusion ... just to add a bit of spice to the murder. All this we learn, all this we are given. The tension in the film, the drama, lies in whether or not they will be caught ... and, if so, how? "Rope" is wonderfully transparent in the way the drama is structured ... you can see the clues being put neatly into place, like a master builder placing brick upon brick. There is a famous Chekhov adage that if, in a play, the audience can see a rifle on the wall in Act One, it will have to be used in Act Two. In "Rope", a whole arsenal of weapons is hanging on the wall. You know why they're there, you don't know when they'll make their entrance into the plot. Hitchcock films this story in what almost appears to be one long, long take ... as if he's just recorded a live stage production. The lack of cinematic sophistication only adds to the tension. It creates a sense of claustrophobia. The actors seem to be left to speak for themselves without the aid of rapid cutting or dramatic close ups. Words and action have to sustain the plot. The camera work is simple - it follows the action. There is a magnificent scene where the surly maid clears away the dinner dishes. The camera follows her movements, almost intrusively, as she walks on and off the set, slowly removing the dishes. Tension mounts. Surely, she must discover the body next time? Watch the background. The action takes place in a studio flat with a huge picture window at the back. As the drama unfolds, night slowly falls over the New York cityscape. Ominous clouds take on a Daliesque prominence, hugging the skyscraper silhouettes. It gives a real sense of time passing ... and impending doom. And James Stewart plays a wonderfully understated role. He uncovers not a murder, but his own sense of guilt at suggesting that someone might have the right to kill. The melodrama is swept away. Suddenly we have a fragile human being caught up in his own intellectual trap. Thrown centre stage, Stewart's portrayal is superb. A magnificent, and highly unusual movie. |
April 14, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Saving Private Ryan - R |
It is probably pointless offering a quick resume of what this film is about - I can't imagine there are many people who haven't seen Spielberg's take on a true story about efforts being made to ensure the safety of the last remaining Ryan after his three brothers have been killed in action. An intriguing piece of human interest, if not humane interest - you have to believe the generals who ordered this were mainly concerned with avoiding bad publicity. Amazing! Half the world is engaged in defeating Hitler, and the Pentagon has time to worry about bad publicity! Doesn't it just make you wonder exactly what sort of control the military exert over journalists these days, just how much truth you can expect to filter back from the battlefield? Anyway, enough of this cynicism. Spielberg's 'Saving Private Ryan' is a magnificent piece of cinematography. It is not the greatest war film ever made. There are many ahead of it - from Buster Keaton's "General", through the original, Lewis Milestone "All Quiet on the Western Front", or even a certain film about a Herr Schindler. Spielberg does capture a lot of attention by his graphic, visceral portrayal of the D-Day landings. Many have hailed this is the closest anyone has ever come to the true experience. I wasn't at D-Day, but I can assure you, when a lot of people out there seem intent on killing you, you do not see the world in technicolor or hear it in surroundsound, but you do tend to lose your fingernails trying to claw your way into the ground, and what the DVD can't offer you are the smells, dry taste in your mouth, and brittleness and vulnerability you feel in your skull and teeth. "Saving Private Ryan" is a good story, brilliantly directed and well acted - Tom Hanks conveys honesty and dignity impeccably. And the film does accurately re-enact that self-consuming myth that the USA saved Europe and can be trusted to save the world. Sorry, the cynicism is creeping back in again. However, it is worth making the point that I've noticed too many reviews which seem to luxuriate in some macho belief that this is what war really looks and sounds like ... so you must be a tough guy if you can watch it and not mess yourself ... but there are not enough reviews which note that there is an ideological dimension to this sort of movie. Maybe Spielberg doesn't intend it, but the Hollywood machine certainly pushes that message. |
April 14, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Emmanuelle (Edited Version) - R |
In its day a shocking breakthrough, 'Emmanuelle' was one of the first soft porn movies to go legitimate and be treated to release in High Street cinemas. It aspired to an art house status, its soft focus photography giving it a dreamy, haunting feel. Sylvia Kristel is its eminently desirable star: she appears in her first scene clad in a simple silk wrap, a bored French housewife, young enough to have retained a firm body and a resolute innocence, yet sophisticated enough to model in the nude and carry herself with an elegance verging on criminality. Life - and morality - for her are as soft-focused as the photography. Her husband, meanwhile, is extolling her virtues as a lover to his best friend, explaining she was a virgin when he met her ... but look what she's learned since. His work takes him to Thailand, Emmanuelle follows. There, life is cheap, sex is free, and Emmanuelle soon meets up with a coterie of equally bored, equally desirable women who introduce her to a broad menu of sex, from masturbating in a hanging chair to being corrupted by an ancient lothario. "Emmanuelle" has all the classic elements of erotica - voyeurism, sex with a stranger, sex on a plane, women on women, use of force, the notion of sexual innocence being liberated, the predatory older woman, the predatory older man. There is a lot of nudity ... but tastefully done. The sex is soft-porn - it is very erotic, very amusing, very soft-focus, at times quite beautifully done ... despite the dated feel of the soundtrack. "Emmanuelle" presents sex as poetry, as adventure. It embodies a libertarian philosophy - only love can heal the world ... so let's have sex. It offers a valuable health lesson - a truly healthy human being is one enjoying frequent orgasms! A film to be enjoyed on your own ... or with a partner ... or two. And nobody, but nobody, ever looked better in a baseball cap than Sylvia Kristel. |
April 14, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Shrek 2 - PG |
Once upon a time there was a loveable ogre called Shrek and we followed his adventures on film. Now he's back, married to the lovely Fiona, and he's been summoned to the kingdom of Far Far Away to meet her parents, the king and queen of that fair country. The parents, of course, are far from happy at the idea that their wee girl has married a big green ogre with sticky-out trumpet ears. I mean, would you be? And the Fairy Godmother is hopping! She'd hoped her son, Prince Charming, would get the girl. I mean, that's what's supposed to happen in fairytales? Right? Taking a fairytale scenario and giving it a few ironic twists is a long established comedy format. In Shrek we had a hugely entertaining and enthralling movie which could capture the imagination of children and adults alike. I was even prepared to forgive Mike Myers' Scottish accent - as a Scot, I have no problem with the notion of Scottish ogres, only with the parody of the language! That apart, if you loved the original Shrek, you'll love the follow up. It's not as funny as the original, and in places gets a touch too self-congratulatory about the quality of its production, but it's still an enjoyable watch. As a piece of animation, it is superb. The quality floods through at every level - just admire the way they do fur, or hair, or liquids, or shadows, or reflections, or the subtlety of the backgrounds, or the depth of the 3-dimensional feel. The images are sharp, the colour ablaze with life, the movement and emotion beautifully captured. It is a magnificent invitation to explore a fairytale world, and you are instantly caught up and carried away. The animation perfectly compliments the acting. Jennifer Saunders offers a nicely understated Fairy Godmother, nursing her wrath to keep it warm. John Cleese is the King, Julie Andrews the queen, the pair of them milking every syllable. Eddie Murphy clowns it up as the long-eared side-kick, disillusioned to discover that there's a new cat on the block ... Antonio Banderas simmers as Puss in Boots. Myers continues as the eponymous hero, Scots accent and all, and even a green Cameron Diaz (Fiona) is adorable. They've all made the characters their own, and they all bring life and emotion to their roles. It's an enchanting, highly entertaining, very funny movie, one you can watch again and again and still marvel at aspects of the production you missed first time round. The only question is which version you buy. There's a double disc version with tacky talking packaging (yuk). The single disc version is the better value, but you may be persuaded to invest in the more expensive one by kids who've been sold on the idea. Think hard about it - their disappointment won't last ... and neither will their interest in the added extras of the double disc version. |
April 14, 2009 | N/A | |||
| I, Robot - PG-13 |
Given the speed with which the PC, mobile phone, or DVD's became commonplace essentials in Western society, it's quite conceivable that by 2035 robots will be too. That's the basis of this movie. Robots do all the menial tasks: they fetch, they carry, they walk the dog - people still have real dogs. In Chicago, home of US Robotics, the new NS-5 robot is about to be launched. But Dr.Lanning, its designer, is found dead. Suicide? Spooner (Will Smith) is the first homicide detective on the scene: he suspects foul play ... and believes that a robot called Sonny is implicated. But Spooner doesn't trust robots; when it comes to technology, he's as bigoted as a racist ... and decidedly into retro. So, we have a science fiction whodunit, loosely based on a story or two by Isaac Asimov. The three laws of robotics keep mankind safe from the machines: they are programmed never to harm humans. No robot has ever committed a crime. So what could Sonny's motive be for murdering Dr.Lamming? "It's a robot," we're told. "It doesn't need a motive, it just has to be broken." That's the crux of the matter. When does artificial intelligence become the equivalent of human intelligence? When does programming and software become recognised as life? What happens if the plans go wrong and machines learn to think for themselves? What happens if they decide it's time for them, rather than mankind, to play god? 'I, Robot' continues a long history of fear of the machine. All that keeps the robots and computers from taking over the world are three fragile laws. Yet Asimov wrote his stories to dissipate fear of robots; he felt machines could be trusted to serve people. Significantly, our knowledge of and expectations of robots are almost entirely fiction-based. 'Frankenstein' explored fears of creating life; now we have similar fears about creating artificial intelligence. The production team on 'I, Robot' went to great lengths to research how robots would function and what the technology of 2035 could be like. They produce an interesting fiction of future science, but at times you grow concerned that the quality of a film has become synonymous with the glitz and glamour of its special effects rather than the quality of its storyline. The storyline, here, slurs into cliché. There is a potentially vital intellectual argument at the core of the film - the notion of the meaning of life, of consciousness, of personality. Yet the script is reduced to one-liner wisecracks from Will Smith, and an injection of car chases and gunplay (Smith's guns have limitless ammunition). You wonder if the film is largely conceived as a vehicle for both Smith and the special effects budget. The special effects can be quite entertaining. You can almost believe the robots are real. In fact, it's the people in the film you have difficulty believing. There are too many cardboard characters, too many clichés - the rogue cop, the hard-bitten police commander, the mega-rich industrialist. Given the power and prestige of US Robotics, no police force on earth would send a policeman like Spooner to investigate - they'd send in their most diplomatic and prestigious officers, not their loose cannons. Spooner doesn't even get a partner in this one. The suspect robot, Sonny, at times sounds remarkably like HAL, from '2001'. He claims to dream, to have feelings. His face can simulate emotion ... but when do simulated emotions become real ones? With Will Smith delivering one-liners, the potential for any depth in characterisation is severely limited - you get to know the characters by the technology they use. Sonny, at least, has doubts, and asks intelligent questions rather than blindly following his prejudices. That's the real failing with this film. It poses some very relevant questions about how we use technology and exploit the planet ... then forgets them as we plunge into special effects car chases, explosions, shoot-outs, and Ninja robots clambering up tall buildings. The extras are not bad - three audio commentaries by director, screenwriter, and composer, a 'Making of ...' documentary, features, interviews, a dissection of the special effects, a science of future robotics, and a discussion of ethics and philosophy, amongst others. Some of this seems a bit sophisticated for a screenplay which appears dumbed-down in places. But, if you're a fan, this will be fascinating stuff. If you just want to watch the movie, you buy the single disc version. And interested parties might also like to look at Isaac Asimov's "The Complete Robot" and "The Caves of Steel". |
April 14, 2009 | N/A |
186 ratings
150 reviews
