Movie Review: In The Spider's Web

0/10

Wow... I mean... wow!

Imagine, if you will, the most outrageously incompetent film you can, take away about five more percent competence and you have In The Spider's Web, a steaming turd of a film, a suspiciously malodorous patch of stain on the face of film making.

Now... the fact I viewed this movie was not an accidental event - me and Mrs Algo had caught a breathtaking five minutes of it on Sky Three while skipping through channels and knew we had to record it ready for our game weekend we were having (a weekend with friends where we play lots of games and watch films, usually terrible films, for comedy value)

The last movie at such an event was the lame Fear City, but even this was nowhere the sheer mouth open aghast madness inducing, wincingly excruciating embarrassment that is presented by In The Spiders Web. This isn't even an old 50s B-movie. It's a recent full colour effort from 2007.

If you ever see it, just try and get your head around the fact it was made in 2007. Go on. Try it.

I'll try and do justice to the plot...

A group of friends is walking through a studio based jungle when they notice there's a lot of spiders webs about... so they decided to set up camp under a bunch of them (I know, I know...)

Naturally one of them is bitten (well, duh!) and they are forced to seek help at a local village where an inexplicably creepy doctor (played by the frequently unreliable Lance Henriksen) who sports a creepy long fingernailed set of hands, and spouts gibberish about why there's Bolivian spiders in India.

In case he wasn't suspicious enough, his "brother" wanders around in a sack mask due a bone disease. The mere chance that anyone wouldn't run for the safety of town is laughable - and we are instead forced to sit through mad decisions (lets go into the creepy cave full of spiders!), crazy foreign tribesmen (look! they're eating plastic spiders!) and shifting distances (it took us 5 seconds to run down this passage, but the crazy sword wielding guy and his mates who are chasing us, NEVER arrive)

It loses coherence (!) after this and by the half hour point resembles nothing so much as a made for children tv show with a budget of about £50 and an editor who understands nothing about editing.

Several shots are reused a couple of times (at different speeds, no less) and the scripts madder moments are worsened by the editor's juxtaposition of nonsense dialogue with unrelated bits of action. It also manages to contradict itself on a couple of occasions, and to hit virtually every cliche in the book.

For no reason characters take crazy decisions, their supposed guide knows nothing about anything and its intended suspenseful moments bear more resemblance to lousy trick or treat costumes.

Never mind the fact that the extras casting appears to use the rule; "they look a bit foreign" without any regard for place or time. The Indian police force boast what look like the Frenchmen, Spanish and Africans amongst their number, and the villagers are pulled from every asian ethnic group there is.

This... I hesistate to call it this, but.... film... is a prime example of what is wrong with the movie world - it's under budgeted, scripted by those million monkeys, over edited and atrociously acted, with no sense of its own silliness and a failure to grasp even the barest, tiniest rules of filmmaking.

Lastly, if your movie relies on terrifying spiders they'd better be scary.

These aren't... the CGI spiders are atrocious, resembling the quality of ships present in the first Babylon 5 series chucked onto the film, other spiders are clay models that look painted by 5 olds and, the icing on the cake, some are just plastic models hung from fishing line.

You think I'm joking about the plastic spiders, don't you.

I'm not.

Avoid Avoid Avoid.

A
See the full post by clicking here...

Movie Review: Close Encounters Of The Third Kind

7/10

I can't tell you how upsetting to me that 7/10 is.

In my mind's eye, Close Encounters sits there staring at me like a puppy I just kicked and spat on.

Here's the thing, by my own rules it can't get a higher score. It just can't.

Why do I care about that anyway? Well, to me Close Encounters was always a fond experience I recalled from my childhood. The central tale of a man faced with something so simply profound he loses touch with the "ordinary world", costing him his wife and his old life in the process, was just awesome.

I love the design of the ships, the way the little ones seem like playful children - "Toys" as Barry describes them. This little boy is an excellent performance from the young lad Cary Guffy - actually responding to the toys given as bribes to get him to do the scene!

To get to my point, there is a superb scene in Barry's mom's kitchen, as he finds the fridge open and food all over the floor. He then is startled by two aliens.

Here's why the scene is great - it focuses on the young boy and more importantly his reactions to the new arrivals. But since he's a kid he's not at all afraid (the actor was responding to crew in masks!) and after the initial surprise he is enchanted and excited.

That's how you do aliens. Remember when Signs, a fairly effective tension movie, went bad? Close Encounters has the same problem:

IT SHOWS THE ALIENS!

Dear god. If you exist please wipe the final twenty minutes of this movie and replace it with him just walking into the spaceship and never seeing the aliens. Please?

It's almost enough to turn me to prayer.

This horrible, horrible, misstep costs the film dearly - a single shot of the appalling drawn on eyes on a lame plastic mask sticks with me more than anything now.

It's still a great movie, and the alien symphony at the end is still a wonderful bit of film-making and genuinely magical - Richard Dreyfuss, Bob Balaban and Francois Truffaut are all excellent. i just can't get the plasticy faced children in alien costumes out of my head now.

A
See the full post by clicking here...

Quick Movie Review: Bowfinger

5/10

So average I don't really want to waste much time on, it this is actually in all probability the best comedy Steve Martin or Eddie Murphy has been in for years, telling the story of a supposedly lovable charlatan, a nobody film maker (who, as a poster in the background describes, made "The Yugo Story".

He has one last chance to hit it big, and decides to cast as his leading man the biggest star in Hollywood in the form of Kit Ramsey - Eddie Murphy being a really irritating Tom Cruise alike who is blatantly insane, hearing voices and spending time at the scientology stand-in "MindHead".

That's about as funny as it gets. Malcom MacDowell's in it, with the kind of wandering accent he is great at, Heather Graham flounces about as a small town girl just arrived in Hollywood who is a bit more worldly wise than you'd think.

The problem I have with this film is that as a critique of Hollywood it just has no guts. Where Sunset Boulevard smacked the silver screen dead centre, Bowfinger pulls its punches. All the characters are resolved at the end and even Robert Downey Jr.'s high level Hollywood agent is nothing more than a jerk in a suit offering little more than clumsy "agents are scum" clichés.

I laughed a couple of times, at the way a character is forced to run across a busy motorway for a shot and at the dog walking in high heels but those show this films genuine level - it is immature, dumb and toothless.

At best its a mildly amusing timewaster, at its worst its just a waste of time.

Meh.

A
See the full post by clicking here...

Quick Movie Review: Sunset Boulevard

9/10

One of cinemas great grotesques is Norma Desmond, unhinged, lonely central figure in Billy Wilder's acidic 50s Hollywood deconstruction.

It's a story about how Hollywood's central mechanism is people, using people. Of course, the main character believes he is using Norma to make some money and avoid his creditors - she believes she is using him for something even more scary.

There are a couple of astonishing pieces of filmmaking - the famous opening shot, the terrifying and soul wrenching final moments as Desmond's plane comes crashing down in flames (metaphorically, of course) and the invention/one of the first uses of a classic device (think American Beauty).

It's so tough to say something interesting and original about a film that pretty much everyone knows is a great movie, so lets compare it to the other classics in Wilder's past. Obviously, my favourite of Wilder's films is The Apartment, a quite awesome and sweet piece of comedy. This couldn't be more different from that - where The Apartment is as lovable and cute as a moth eaten cuddly dog, Sunset Boulevard is a razor edged, howling monster of a film.

It is brilliant. See it if you haven't yet.

A
See the full post by clicking here...

Oscars: Oh whatever...

Firstly, no posts for the last week for two reasons:

Firstly, I've been helping my friend Paul with his Board Game Website (which I won't name here for reasons of keeping identities separate), writing several articles on board gaming and board games.

Secondly, I spent this weekend with my buddies at home, playing games, watching an atrocious film (In The Spiders Web - review upcoming) and generally having fun. Sorry if you've missed reading my disingenuous Twitter Posts or Blog Posts for the last week.

But I'm back! And today is the day that the film industry pats its favourite folks' backs.

There are two major themes to their award givings...

1. The Crowe Effect - Compensation. Martin Scorsese got an Oscar for Gangs Of New York and The Departed. GANGS OF NEW YORK? This was purely because he'd never had one before.
2. The Forrest Gump Effect - Surprise. Actor shows off their skills by playing either against type, or mentally ill. Obviously, this includes loads of performances - the classics are Tom Hanks, Charlize Theron etc.

At least one major award every year fits these rules. It doesn't take a genius to fit Kate Winslet into the first category and Sean Penn into the second.

For many people, Bollywood will have become interesting thanks to Slumdog Millionaire. Once again, your loyal film correspondent (i.e. me) was ahead of the game - follow this link, or this link for the two Bollywood films I fit in last year.

Other than these regular moans I have every year, I haven't seen any of the films that won major awards due to unemployment apart from The Dark Knight.

Fellow regular blogger Gary questions whether Heath Ledger would have won his Oscar for this movie if he was still alive. I am of the opinion that, no, he would not. He would, however, have won one if he had stayed alive - the performances in Monsters Ball and Brokeback mountain are, by repute. good enough to see he would have been a hugely successful actor.

So this feels to my like a preemptive Crowe Effect - they won't get another chance to reward his talents so they had to now. Meh - I'm not that bothered, really.

A
See the full post by clicking here...

TV Review: Dollhouse

Two "ahead of the game"s in one day? What is the world coming to.

I'm sure Charlie Brooker will get round to seeing this eventually, but for those of you who can't wait I will endeavour to fill in the time for you.

What is Dollhouse? Well, it's the new show from Joss Whedon, who was the creator of the classic Buffy The Vampire Slayer (and Angel) as well as being responsible for the far superior (and far more cancelled) Firefly and its movie spin off, Serenity. We saw the pilot of this new venture in advance of its UK premiere through a mixture of luck and design.

It is also a "star vehicle" for Eliza Dushku, Arnie's kid in True Lies (yeah yeah, and Faith from buffy, and Tru Calling woman etc) as she gets to show of her acting chops.

This is going to be massively spoilerific for those of you who like your first pilot viewing to be blind so let me summarise: it is not, unfortunately, very exciting viewing.

This is primarily a problem with the way Whedon's shows work - he likes to develop plot and character slowly over large arcs and many seasons and this is why his big fans (like us) love his shows so much. Is there any crime greater than the one that killed Firefly off? Not in my book.

Dollhouse is, like all of Whedon's shows, based on a very interesting premise.


=======SPOILERS START HERE========
We are introduced to "Caroline", played by Eliza Dushku - who is very concerned about soemthing that has gone wrong. She is offered a way out by a strange lady who says she must serve out a "five year contract".

Interesting. The next shot is of Eliza on a motorbike, racing and flirting with a handsome guy - only to leave the party they go to early, so she can have a "treatment".

This is where the plot finally starts to make sense. This "treatment" is in fact a full brain wipe. The physical body of "Echo" (as her character is now known) is being used as the vessel for any number of different personalities, which are grafted on in your typical Rekall memory implant apparatus (fans of Total Recall take note). This means that in any episode Dushku can be wildly different characters, with different skills and personalities depending on what the sinister agency (known as the Dollhouse, obviously) is hired to provide. These programmed dolls (between missions they are much like emotionless automata) are know as "actives".

Obviously, in the first task, she is hired as a "date" for the guy in question.

It's the second mission (or, "engagement", as the owner prefers to call them) with which the pilot mainly concerns itself. It regards the kidnapping of a little girl, whose father pays a lot of money for an "active" to be assigned to the task. He is told that as far as the active is concerned they are a real person, with a full history and memories so he should not refer to the Dollhouse at all.

Echo is programmed with the personality and history of a highly driven hostage negotiator - passionate but collected. Perfect for the task at hand.

Or so, as is predictable, they think.

The typical engineer type who runs the wipes and reprogrammings explains that while these exact people never existed, the personalities downloaded are amalgams of many separate real people, hence why Echo needs glasses as the negotiator (and she has asthma...). With the good side comes the bad side.

Of course, there is a major complication with this engagement and a real moral question arises (and the show gained a lot of interest from me for it) - one of the kidnappers who has taken the little girl is the same one who abused the negotiator in the past and she loses composure at a vital moment, failing to rescue the girl in the process! Setting aside the likelihood of the conceit for a while, the show makes the Dollhouse organisation make a choice - do they continue to go after the girl even though it may put them in a dangerously open position?

Well, no prizes for guessing the outcome.

=====END OF MAJOR SPOILERS=====
(though minors ones may remain - you've been warned)

Look, I don't want to get on the show's back straight away, but here's my two cents.

Firstly, if the pilot is designed to do anything, it must get people to watch the next episode. It should have a WOW! factor and pull people right in.

While it is clever and interesting to me, the beginning is far too slow to grab a majority casual viewers and many Americans, I am sure, will have switched off after fifteen minutes (which is the kiss of DEATH to any new show).

Secondly, the plot demands a versatile and skilled actress (as this one does) and I'm just not sure (never have been) about Eliza Dushku's range. She's a perfectly good actress at certain types of role (Vamp, Petulance), but this part will be quite outrageously demanding - I notice she is listed as a producer on the show... I will leave it at that. I hope she surprises me. (I'd have cast Summer Glau, myself)

The only performance that really stood out in terms of acting was that of the engineer, and there are a couple of interesting touches (the physio's face is covered with scars, for example) that point toward interesting future plot developments.

I enjoyed it to a certain extent, and I am sure that given time it will develop into a good show. I will certainly be watching the upcoming episodes (if we can get our mitts on them) to see if it picks up in true Joss style.

BUT unfortunately I have a bad feeling it is already in the list to get canned due to bad ratings (I blame the slow pilot start), and poor old Joss will have another one season wonder on his hands.

Finally, look, if he has enough caché now to get new shows made...

WHY NOT FIREFLY SEASON TWO? I'M DYING HERE!
IT'S NOT LIKE FILLION IS NOW A MASSIVE MOVIE STAR, IS IT?

A
(heady with all the excitement of seeing something early!)
See the full post by clicking here...

For once I am ahead of the game!

While his established style requires him to hate everything, my favourite young curmudgeon Charlie Brooker has written an article on, shock horror, the Walkers Crisps "voting" process.

Well, I was ahead of him this time - so in your face, Brooker!

If you like a bit of moaning you can find his summation at http://tinyurl.com/co8sr9

You can also have fun reading the comments at the bottom from frustrated bloggers and internet obsessed losers, who resent anyone who is paid for blogging and spend their time picking holes in articles written by successful people.

I don't subscribe to this, obviously. If you're a good writer you should be rewarded, and noone forces these people to read an article.

But anyway - in your face Brooker! Read my Crisps posts and despair!

See the full post by clicking here...

Movie Review: Back To The Future Parts 1-3

9/10, 7/10, 7/10

There are many reasons why I married the lady I did; her baking skills, the quality of her company, the fact I've been keeping her drugged....

But for an object lesson in good marriages, take a look at what we spent Valentines Day evening doing - watching the entire Back To The Future trilogy in one sitting, following our extremely tasty valentines dinner (thanks for the cheapish nosh, M&S)!

Many women would file for divorce instantly, but not Mrs Algo. Oh no. We had great fun.

For many fans, Part 3 is the weakest film, seemingly from a different planet to its prequels, in which for giggles we transplant the main characters to the Old West in order to have them root round in the clichés of that period - they have a gun fight! a lynching! a hoe down! woohoo!

There are a couple of issues I have before I go any further. First of all, this film isn't as bad as all that. It's great fun - and a cut above most other movies from that period in its commitment to detail and its story arc. It also works considerably better as the conclusion to an epic story rather than as a film in its own right - I'm not saying the whole six hour marathon should be the only time you watch part 3, but just that you'll enjoy it a lot more that way. You feel that the makers have "earned" this denouement to their crazy tale.

The second issue is that this and the second part were filmed pretty much back to back and so we get one of the most consistent film to film connections you could wish for which is a welcome change from the massive reshoot for the start of Part 2.

One thing I didn't like (and this is proper fanboy stuff) - in the old west, Seamus McFly's wife (Marty's Great Great Grandmother or something) is played by the same actress who plays Marty's mum. This is a bit of joke casting to show parallels I know, but I couldn't help the image that he's a "slacker" because the family is so inbred. Also, while Fox's irish accent is all litle people stereotyped, Lea Thompson's is all over the fricking place, and while at best it sounded like Mrs Doyle's in Father Ted at worst it sounds faintly Austrian.

The mother's looks are similar to the joke, in the second part, that Marty's kids are both played by Michael J. Fox (as if clones rather than kids) it's amusing, but a little weird...

And about that reshoot in the second film, it looks a lot worse when you put the first and second movies together since, like us, you can play the "new shot", "old shot" game. Elizabeth Shue is also not much cop in the part - it's a silly, throwaway part anyway, but I subscribe to Wayne Campbell's "I know it's a small part, but...." philosophy.

She's barely in part 3 anyway, sleeping on a bench in 1985 while our heroes mess about on horseback (where did Marty learn to ride, anyway?) and go toe to toe with Buford Tannen.

Ah yes.... the Tannen family. I like this kind of long term hatred they have for the McFlys ("No McFly ever amounted to anything in the history of Hill Valley") and this bears out over the course of the films.

Biff, Griff, Buford etc are all played by the hilarious Thomas F. Wilson, who manages to do cantankerous old man, bionic nutter, school jock bully and mad dog western cowboy equaly well. All the parts, as with all of the films' characters, are fairly broadly drawn and do little in the way of development throughout the pictures length. What they do is provide comic relief for the most part, and drive the plot along.

It is future Griff who is the lamest. The whole future segment is a little silly for my tastes (especially since it supposedly takes place in 2015 - duh!) and as I say, I can't get used to the kids looking exactly like their dad.... (shudder). So I'll be controversial and say this is the section that gets the lowest marks from me.

Also, the sequels introduce what is the worst plot device in the whole story - one word:

"CHICKEN?"

I mean, if he's that auto-responsive it says "mental illness" to me, rather than being afraid of people thinking he's a coward. Especially since it appears to have been passed down the family (along with the genes for looking identical to your ancestors). I suggest that anyone suffering from this kind of automatic response to goading needs therapy, preferably the kind available in this time period.

The blue screen work to have two Martys and two Biffs in the 1955 section of part 2 is looking fairly ropy these days, as is some of the eyelines between them (excusable since these days it's all done with computers and directors can get immediate feedback from their monitors and say... "look a little more to your left, Mike!" rather than getting into the editing suite before you can see they're a bit off.

Part 2 and 3 are marked by a level of ambition both technically and storyly (heh...) that means the plots intertwine well and all is kept together despite the films' shortcomings to make the two sequels a fine way to spend your time.

They cannot live up to, however, the sheer exuberant genius of the original movie. Where the sequels are loose and ambitious, the first movie is deceptively simple and tight. We're not in the business of stunt casting Marty as his own father so the genius of Crispin Glover, who deserves easily as many plaudits as anyone involved, gets to shine through. Equally at home as the bullied or the success - he's the real star of the show here.

Almost as good is Lea Thompson as Lorraine - props to her for working hard on both young and old Lorraine equally, meaning the whole plot works better - since she is the absolute centre of the story, with anything less than a great performance here, the whole shebang could have fallen apart.

Of course, Michael J Fox and Christopher Lloyd get to have all the fun, but Lloyds mania occasionally goes to far (a straight to the camera "Back... TO THE FUTURE!") and Fox's age is just hilariously wrong ("see you in thirty years.. I guess I'll be... 47..." - yeah right).

Of course, these are but minor smudges on the glass case housing the Mona Lisa, and this is going to be one of those films that retains its fans for many, many years.

It's tough to know what else to add that isn't just plot rehash or technical issues arising from its date of release. I'm just going to leave it at this:

Back To The Future is one of the best movies made in the 80s. It may well be the most fun. And next time you watch it, consider watching the six hour version - its a lot of fun!

Til next time folks, I am as ever...

A

P.S. I am now on Twitter, if that's your bag - algo81
See the full post by clicking here...

Quick Movie Review: Total Recall

6/10

Paul Verhoeven. What a guy.

In the pantheon of Philip K. Dick adaptations (such as Screamers, follow link for review) this is actually one of the more faithful offerings in its plot and events, though Arnold Schwarzenegger is one of the least appropriate bits of casting ever, since Dick's protagonists were usually ordinary schmoes and office furniture rather than aryan supermen.

Never mind - the story rockets along at a fair old pace and stays true to its internal logic, its intelligence shown best by the fact that it never commits to one version of events over any other in exactly the Dickian manner - sure we could be seeing real events, but only a small drop of sweat gives us any indication that this is not all in Quaid's head.

On the performances level it is your typical 80s action fare, i.e. nothing special, but the sheer exuberance of its excesses and the commitment to its twisted plot mean that it is easily the best Arnie movie of the 80s in which he is a human being.

A
See the full post by clicking here...

The Return Of The First Lines Quiz!

To my email subscribers, please come to the site at Wall Shadows to make your guesses on the comment form - thanks!

Guess the 20 random songs from my collection by recognising the first line below;

1. I lived alone... my mind was blank.... I needed time to think - to get the memories from my mind...
2. I was working at the club in 1995, Sunday was the night when the Gay crowd came alive...
3. Ooo Ooo... While the sun hangs in the sky and the desert has sand - while the waves crash in the sea and meet the land...
4. Laying on the bathroom floor... kitty licks my cheek once more...
5. AAAhhhhh Crazy blowing over with ideas, thousand ways to move a lover so sincere...
6. Slip Inside The Eye Of Your Mind....
7. Think of London - A small city. But dark - dark in the daytime. People sleep - sleep in the daytime. If they want to. If they want to.
8. I could paint a picture with a pin, but a song would only scratch the skin...
9. I recommend getting your heart trampled on to anyone, I recommend walking around naked in your living room...
10. Papa I know you're going to be upset cos I was always your little girl...
11. Here I go out to sea again, the sunshine fills my hair and dreams hang in the air...
12. Everybody's restless and they've got no place to go. Someone's always trying to tell them something they already know...
13. Children, behave - that's what they say when we're together.
14. If you listen you can hear it - it's the laughter in the street. It's the motion and the music...
15. Salty leave.... Salty Leave.... tell me the one about the friend you knew and the last good night that we toasted to...
16. What do you get when you fall in love?
17. There's a man I meet, lives up our street. He's a worker the council. Has been twenty years...
18. She says there's ants in the carpets, dirty little monsters....
19. There is lambs wool under my naked feet. The wool is soft and warm - gives off some kind of heat...
20. I could feel at the time there was no way of knowing - fallen leaves in the night, who can say where they're blowing.... as free as the wind...

Guesses on the comment form below - honour and glory awaits the brave musical traveller.

And I promise there's none from Labyrinth this time.

A
See the full post by clicking here...

Movie Review: V For Vendetta

6/10

Ever feel you got your double bill round the wrong way?

The central message of V For Vendetta (the film) is one that doesn't really come as a surprise to most British folk - that standing up to authority is not just inportant, it is absolutely crucial to a happy society. In the original book, I believe the V character is an Anarchist rather than a revolutionary.

I'm not sure this message will be heard particularly loudly in America where it is clearly meant to hit home hardest against what at the time at least was a rise of Neo-Conservative hyper national feeling.

The reasons for this are twofold. Firstly, if you're trying to get the USA on your side best not to do it by playing up the heroism of mad, serial killing bombers however appropriate the parallels with Guy Fawkes (assuming, of course, you sympathise with Fawkes in the first place). Secondly, because they have set it in the UK.

I appreciate the desire to set it overseas comes from the original graphic novel, but their messages suffer the same.

The British are one of the least trusting countries when it comes to their governments - this comes partly from our laughable pseudo-monarchy in which our nominal head of state has less power than a string of limp spaghetti and partly from a long history of secularism in government that means we do not imbue our leaders with anything like the automatic respect that any American President gets.

The Prime Minister (whoever it is) is just a gloified bank manager to most and it isn't viewed as "UnBritish" to refer to him as anything you like, within the confines of legality that apply to all British citizens.

For this reason I find it a big leap of belief to see anyone as mental as John Hurt's chancellor taking over the UK and turning it into a police state. What is interesting about this particular governement to me is that, unlike the Nazism it is clearly meant to resemble, it is heavily faith-based. This is of course central to their intense hatred of homosexuals, immigrants and deviants displayed in the film.

Taking the film at face value though, it is a perfectly servicable romp with bangs and flashes and the occasional good performance (despite a slightly wandering accent, Stephen Rea impresses as the doubting Thomas).

It suffers from the old problem of pretention though - never better depicted than in the final moments, when all the dead characters return for one last look at the world. That's just a cheesy and dumb decision.

Natlie Portman... sigh. She has been good on occasion (Leon, bits of Closer) but here she is two dimensional and dull until a good three quarters of the movie have passed by, at which point she seems to wake up and perform to her best. Hugo Weaving as the central character is daft as a brush, and fairly good physically - though some of the shots are actually of his predecessor in the part, James Purefoy (with redubbing, obviously).

An enjoyable movie, then. But it not half as profound as it thinks it is, and the less than enthusiastic response I remember it receiving may well be justified given its strange message and odd morals.

A
See the full post by clicking here...

Movie Review: Network

9/10

A searing indictment of TV culture from Sidney Lumet today. It is the last Movie to have had Oscar noms in all four acting categories and as of this moment (though I very much doubt this will be the case in two weeks time) features the only actor to have recieved a posthumous oscar, in the form of devastatingly superb Peter Finch, who plays the central role of Howard Beale.

Howard is a news anchor - he used to be a big name and a huge success but recently his ratings have been slipping and the network chiefs decide to fire him, giving two weeks notice. Problem is, Howard starts to slip into a breakdown from which he will never recover, initially threatening to commit suicide live on air and later ranting and swearing during a broadcast.

All very sad, but not the point. THe point is, Howard's schizophrenic outbursts and crazed behaviour start to pull in audiences and suddenly he is a hit again - exploited by both his division (represented by an excellent Faye Dunaway) and the company that owns it (represented by an extremely believable Robert Duvall).

As a satire it is almost comically appropriate to our times, as instead of treating the problems Howard is having, the world encourages them for its own entertainment. This is set against a parallel plot in which Faye Dunaway's upwardly mobile, deeply damaged programme director decides to start a show using the aid of a terrorist organisation to pull in even more viewers.

The moral centre of the piece is Howard's long time friend Max (played with measured calm by William Holden) who despite complications remains honest and open throughout.

The ending of the piece is never really in doubt once things go beyond a certain point, but the satire is that despite the inherent selfishness and madness of the ideas put forward, noone sees them as such - ratings are king and everything else comes second. That they create a monster that isn't entirely under their control is not anticipated until it's almost too late to do anything about it.

I can hardly recommend this movie enough - it is cutting while still being darkly humorous, affecting while being enraging and masterfully acted while containing no likable characters.

In parts it feels a little stagy due to a lot of talking heads and monologues, but this is not a bad thing, merely a function of the script. It does mean, though, that a stage production would be possible, which I'll chuck out as a challenge to any budding adapters out there. It would be an actor's dream since even incidental characters have flesh and bones - and there's at least one show stopping monologue from every major character to get your teeth into.

An immensely enjoyable experience.

A
See the full post by clicking here...

Movie Review: Touch Of Evil

8/10

Chuck and Orson.... weren't they two of the characters in Animaniacs?

Anyhoo, here we have a classic piece of cinema from everyone's favourite Jupiter-sized, sweaty genius advert voiceover guy, Orson Welles. It tells the story of a destructive clash of heads between two policemen with wildly different outlooks on the world and their jobs.

One, newly married Mexican big cheese Mike Vargas (Charlton Heston) is keen on sticking to the book, as he has shown recently in the anti-gang bust he pulled off against the Grandè family in Mexico City.

The other; rotund, ex-lush American maverick Hank Quinlan (Orson Welles) is a hunch-driven, flawed, legend - so powerful he has all the American cops hanging on his every word, they flock round him like starving children around the one hunk of meat they have.

The film opens with a typically bravura piece of filmmaking from Welles, as the camera tracks across most of a frontier town in a legendary single shot tracing the path of a car that we know has a bomb in the boot (one that was referenced stylistically and in dialogue in Robert Altman's The Player).

This is only the beginning of the problems though, since because the bomb was planted in Mexico, but exploded in America, both Vargas and Quinlan have legitimate claims to the case.

I've never been a big Heston fan personally, since I frequently find him one dimensional and dull. Here he does nothing to overcome my prior opinion - despite the dark make up he has not any trace of a Mexican accent and never convinces in the part.

This is a shame, because it undermines Welles' bigoted performance since for example; while it feels while he clearly detests young Sanchez, a suspect, because of his race, his dislike of Vargas is more to do with police procedure than anything else. This is the gut feeling I got, knowing full well in my head its a racial thing too, but the miscasting of Heston destroyed the illusion.

So it would have been far preferable to cast an actual Mexican actor in the role of Vargas, but clearly this was not viable at the time for whatever reason.

As we follow Quinlan down the path of darkness things get worse and worse for Vargas and his sole ally, Al Schwartz (perhaps to show some Jewish solidarity against all bigotry) as his wife becomes a victim of a nefarious plot by the Grandè family to discredit Vargas before he can prosecute the one he has in custody.

Janet Leigh is good as ever in this part, though it affords little in the way of depth or development, much like the rest of the supporting cast's parts don't.

Oh hell no, this is Welles' movie - his is the only character to get much in the way of backstory or development. We are given tantalising glimpses of his past - either through the stories told by his closest pal and partner, Menzies, or by the hints given by Marlene Dietrich's character (this is a cameo performance demanding little more than soft focus close ups).

Welles conveys perfectly the sense that this is a colossus of a man - a herculean figure, but one who has become poisoned by expectations and his own personal demons to become a terrible mockery of the man he once clearly was. At turns savage, childish, lost and shrewd - it is not at all difficult to appreciate the power this larger than life presence has on those who fall under his spell.

For the sheer power and skill of this performance alone this film deserves its place in any list of essential Noir - Welles' direction as well is a cut above almost any contemporary you care to name, shaping outstanding set pieces throughout (like the final "chase" sequence) or discomfiting close ups to pull you right into the action.

Worth seeing for anyone, but Welles' better work (Kane) and most eye catching performance (Third Man) are found elsewhere. Plus I truly feel Chuck is miscast badly, and this significantly damages the movie's impact. That I still gvie an 8/10 shows just how good the other factors are.

Oh, and Zsa Zsa Gabor has a blink-and-you'll-miss-it cameo too. I mention that since you may think I wasn't paying attention.

A
See the full post by clicking here...

The end of the packet....

I've finished my odyssey into Walkers Crisps new flavours, and its pseudo-democratic voting process is well under way.

My choice is obviously the underdog... or the undersquirrel. Here's my order.

1. Cajun Squirrel
2. Chilli & Chocolate
3. Crispy Duck & Hoi Sin
4. Fish and Chips
5. Onion Bhaji
6. Builders Breakfast

Sadly, I now have no desire to eat any crisps for another six months... ah well.

I hope you feel inspired to try some and make up your own mind.

A
See the full post by clicking here...

Movie Review: Underworld: Evolution

3/10

In this movie's case, it is good to be able to comment on its plot while simultaneously summarising your review.

I would lock this movie in a sealed coffin in a locked vault under a ruined fortress AND MELT THE SODDING KEY SO NO-ONE CAN RELEASE THE FILM LATER!

Sometimes it's good to feel you can provide a service to the betterment of mankind.

In the case of this review I hope it saves you two hours of your life.

Probably not enough to make up for watching the whole of The Assassination Of Jesse James on my recommendation (it was film of 2008) and feeling I had wasted your time, but goes a little way to repaying that debt. (sorry, Gary)

This particular impotent, cinematic dead end is the second movie in this disastrous pantheon (which inexplicably also includes the original and the new prequel, Rise Of The Lycans).

The original Underworld, while nonsensical, unfocused and containing little or no internal logic was excused in part by its clear concept as a rather obvious, erm, if you'll excuse the term, "wanktape" for its director Len Wiseman, who is the husband of the undeniably rather delicious star (in this film out of love, no doubt) Kate Beckinsale and on that level it achieved its goals with thousands of shots of his missus in outrageously tight PVC and vampire fangs cavorting about and shooting stuff in slow motion, occasionally pausing to look gorgeous in the dark blue lighting aesthetic that accompanies all low rent horror movies trying to look expensive, as well as many Goth-Rock music videos. I bet the kleenex company shares jumped after this film came out as thousands of pubescent teenagers
(and its director) started down the road to blindness.

It was excusable if incoherent - plus Bill Nighy and Michael Sheen are OK in it. To be fair, Michael Sheen is usually good - here it is despite the movie, not because of it.

All bets are off, however, when he inflicts more of this drivel upon the world. Underworld: Evolution is so hideously unlovable it upsets me that there's no justification for a lower score.

It's crimes are legion, but chief amongst these is sheer lack of cohesion or sense. Sure, there's a back story and "mythos" here, but it reveals itself only after a lot of work on the viewers part - not least because in parts this movie contradicts its predecessor.

Characters, buildings and plot devices come and go with little but a two line introduction, Derek Jacobi turns up (a performance as solid and phoned in as his irrelevant turn in The Golden Compass) only to be shortly dispatched in a totally cursory manner.

The plot is pathetically simple, yet has a self indulgent obsession with its own pseudo-epic quality, every hackneyed "twist" met with over serious expressions and a clear attempt at earth shattering effect that the preambles have not earned in the slightest degree.

Look - this is the plot - scary vamp wants to do bad thing. Nice vamp and her simpering hybrid boytoy must stop him. OK? I have respect for films that accept their simplicity and go all out for staying true to their internal logic - a perfect example is the bonkers Shoot-Em-Up, or even more silly is Planet Terror - sadly, Underworld: Evolution is no more intelligent or innovative than these but has a pretension to intelligence and innovation that I can't bear.

It has a period set flashback prelude! A wise, doomed yet morally questionable plot mover-alonger! Incredibly important sounding events noone has taken the time to establish! A couple of glimpses of breasts!

The quality of the acting is hilariously bad - emotions range from Silent to Loud, the major characters are the worst kind of two-dimensional computer game avatars and the romance between the leads is reduced to little more than a lighting change.

The movie as it continues, frequently contradicts itself or refuses to explain what it is on about - in one scene a major character returns to life for no other reason than that it is useful to the story at that point. That's not to say his resurrection is impossible under the story, there is certainly no reason that by the film's logic he couldn't come back to life earlier on - it's just that they wanted you to feel bad about him for a bit and create some false tension.

Hell, I don't care about spoilers - look - it's her boy toy who cops it but she refuses to leave him behind at the boat he was killed on and instead takes his lifeless corpse to the final battle FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN ENSURING HE'S THERE LATER!

You will know by now that I despise lazy and clumsy film making above most other sins of the silver screen and this "rebirth" is just one example of where this film fails to rise above even the poorest of competitors.

To sum up In U:E's case, it is an undoubtedly stylish film, but like with women, good looks can hide a multitude of sins - in this case beneath the PVC bodysuit this film has absolutely nothing to offer, and less to say.

Look, I realise there is almost certainly a very dedicated fanboy/girl community out there who look on these movies as their Star Wars or at least their Serenity, but come on! The whole thing resembles nothing so much as a particularly pretentious and obscure Power Ballad video with about as much plot.

Even having said all this, I must admit that even the most unlovable of films may still have been genuinely excusable if I have one iota of fun out of the experience (intended by the makers or not), or cared even the slightest about its story or characters.

In the case of Underworld: Evolution, suffice to say that I did not.

A
See the full post by clicking here...

Crispy crispy crispy....

Todays crisps are Hoi Sin Crispy Duck and are very good. A good taste on the hoi sin side with a little hint of meatiness. They are far superior to the lame ass Fish and Chips flavour that is basically Salt and Vinegar with some suspicious odour in he background.

However good Hoi Sin Duck is (isn't it alreadya Sensations flavour anyway?) It pales into insignificance next to the undisputed champion that is Cajun Squirrel.

You voted for it yet?

Just Chilli and Chocolate left - saved the weirdest til last!

With regards to Cajun Squirrel, just one day showed the response on my Facebook status (in which I extolled the virtues of such) that "I know theres no real Squirrel but I can't bear to eat them" I'm paraphrasing a bit, but that's the gist.

Listen, as dear old Gary says - it's one thing to dislike the taste or idea of real food, but if it's just the imitated taste of something that, while seemingly cute, is really justa big tailed rat I have to cal the men in white coats.

THIS IS YOUR FLAVOUR - Vote accordingly folks!

A
See the full post by clicking here...

Todays crisps: I gave in and ate two bags... sorry, waistline!

Builders Breakfast tastes of bacon and tomato mostly, but is a little weak in flavour.

Cajun Squirrel is AWESOME! I insist on everyone trying it and voting for it, since it has absolutely no chance without word of mouth behind it. Please pass this along, fellow bloggers or persons unknown - we can do this, and be proud that the British have the weirdest flavour of crisps on the planet. Maybe.

So Cajun Squirrel has my vote. So far at least.

Who's with me?

A
See the full post by clicking here...

Movie Review: Hellzapoppin!

7/10A

Myself and the inestimable Mrs Algo have taken it upon ourselves to try and fill gaps in our classic movie viewing histories along with the help of Empire's Top 500 movies, and our subscription to a DVD rental website (who don't pay me so why should I advertise?).

Ahem, all gaps except French films from the 1960s. I've seen a couple and they made me want to gnaw out my brain. I admit this is a prejudice and many people view French cinema as wonderful. I am not one of them.

The exclusion of French film means more time to see things a little more obscure and less cool (see Danger: Diabolik! for another example), and I was immediately intrigued by Empire's description of this film (and its place - 178 is a good 140 places higher than Airplane!) which I will quote here to back up why I was caught up in it.

"One of the darnedest films ever made, and a template for the who-cares-if-it- makes-sense-so-long-as- it's-funny? mode of comedy."

It's tough sometimes, as it was with seminal serious works like Seven Samurai and Citizen Kane, to make the important distinction between beats and cinematic moves which may feel like cliché now, but of which these were the first examples. The use of the word "template" was my clue (not "darnedest", not sure I know what that means anyhow).

Hellzapoppin' is not Citizen Kane. Not by a long shot. What it is, is a blueprint of future subversive anti-cinematic comedies like Blazing Saddles, Naked Gun and Airplane!

Amazing thing is, it was made thirty years before these, way back in 1942 during the war. It invites the audience to escape not only from the harsh reality of that world, but also from the dull repetition of formula movies - much as those more modern examples did for cowboys & indians, police procedurals and disaster movies, respectively.

Like those examples it takes as optional most of the conventions of movie making - Groucho Marx may have addressed monologues and jokes to the audience, but I'm pretty sure he never told the projectionist to rewind the film so he could see something again - and got his wish. Even if he did, I doubt it was in response to a dwarf exploding a taxicab.

At every stage the fourth wall is consistently broken and, in a very innovative move, other movies occasionally break into this one - sound familiar yet?

The comedy duo at the centre of this comedic melting pot are Olsen and Johnson (eagle eyed or elephant memoried readers will immediately note the Blazing Saddles connection) who, like a less successful Abbot and Costello pretty much sail through the middle of a dumb story while making the most of any opportunity for slapstick and wordplay ("A coat of arms!").

However - unlike those more mainstream comedies, the very movie itself is deconstructed too.

Here's how that works - the film opens in hell (obviously), and Olsen and Johnson are delivered there in a taxi...
(line - "the first cab driver who went straight where I told him to")
...and have a little fun making jokes as surreal events happen all around them, until the director of the movie stops everything and takes them to see a scriptwriter because you can't make a movie without a story. The scriptwriter chucks them into a romantic comedy with a plot described stupid by everyone involved - even the characters in it.

Getting the idea yet? This is a fantastically crazy, frequently headache inducing piece of cinema that I, for one, never anticipate seeing the like of. In my modernocentric, arrogant way I guess I had always assumed that many of the gags, surreal running jokes and setpieces here were simply too "modern" to be in a 67 year old wartime comedy. I am glad to be wrong.

Add in several outstanding comedy performances (the main duo, their Bronxian lady companion, the fake prince who isn't really fake etc) and a Lindy Hop dance sequence that starts out with the audience fearing a sort of mildly racist "black music" jazz sequence but morphs into the most extraordinary, celebratory and energetic dance section I have seen in a long, long time. Thought it should be noted that the African American contingent are all servants and quickly vanish out of the picture - it isn't THAT subversive.

The film is almost worth seeing just for this scene alone, but I have to highly recommend it to all comedy fans for its sheer exuberant subversiveness, anyway.

I cannot bring myself to give it a higher score for two reasons - first, while the romantic story is universally ridiculed and distracted from at all times, and obviously it is a satire on the formula pictures of its time, the two or three love songs are hideously mawkish, and the lovers (particularly the male one) are so immensely punchable it reduced my enjoyment a little more than it was supposed to.

The second reason I cannot score Hellzapoppin' higher is that despite its fast and furious gag rate about a third of the jokes just miss the mark - the innovation of others makes up for this in part, but particularly in the character of the private detective, felt a little dated and obvious in contrast to the rest of the general craziness on display.

It is for this exact reason I invented the blue A so take this as a totally fun, if not very cerebral, movie experience.

A fine example of something I didn't know existed - it comes highly recommended, so long as you don't expect anythign approaching sense or sanity.

'Til Next Time Folks!

A
See the full post by clicking here...

Christian Bale goes nuts on set... so what?

Many folks will have heard this already, but do an interwebz search to find it and hear why you should listen to the AD's instructions.

He basically goes postal on a lighting engineer who walks on set during a take.

Internet "buzz" is that he's been a total jerk and a lot of folks are saying they won't watch his films any more.

Why?

Are those people really assuming that all other movie stars are more sanguine and reasonable?

Also, there is a tradition on sets of people sharing negative rumours about stars since this makes them appear "in the know" and superior - this is much the same thing, people love telling the negative stories more than the good ones since they have better punchlines.

Seriously, how many people would care if you met Robert Downey Jr and he was "quite nice"?

Nah, you'll hear soemthing more "juicy" like he "seemed OK, but was totally up himself
(this means busy doing his job rather than listening to extras asking dumb quesitons and trying to be chummy - ed)
and I think he was on drugs!"
(this means he was happier and had more energy after lunch than at 6am. Duh!)"

You know whjich one will get people thinking you spent more time with him, though both are probably uninformed nonsense told in an attempt to rise above the mire of "moving clotheshanger" status.

As for me, I look at it this way - imagine that you got little sleep due to a late finish the night before, perhaps you have had a row with your other half - have a really hard scene to do today that you have had some trouble with and are just starting to get right when some fool walks in and spoils the shot meaning that all your preparation has to be started again.

OK, I don't know that's the situation, but it's just as likely as the - "the guy was minding his own business and Christian Bale just went mental" ideas that some people have had. Thing is, all the days that anyone works with nothing like this happening are never reported on - but every actor has their "moments".

I hope it doesn't cause him too much trouble, but you KNOW it will.

A
See the full post by clicking here...

Cajun Squirrel?

Last year myself and about 200 others participated in an excruciatingly long and tortuous day of filming at Charlton football club to advertise Walker's Crisps "Do Us A Flavour" campaign. Well, since the campaign was over by the time they paid us (grr...) they've really taken their sweet time choosing their flavours for voting.

But now, Walkers have finally decided on their six flavours for us to vote on this year to add another flavour to the age old set of Salt and Vinegar, Cheese and Onion, Prawn Cocktail, Roast Chicken and the original Ready Salted (I can't recall if Marmite and Worcester Sauce flavours are limited editions or not).

Here's what the folks at Walkers have chosen:

1. Builder's Breakfast
2. Fish and Chips
3. Onion Bhaji (I have tried them and they're weak flavoured and rubbish)
   
4. Crispy Duck and Hoisin
5. Chilli and Chocolate
6. Cajun Squirrel

I say they have chosen, because I have little doubt that the winner will be number 1 or 2, since these are certainly the ones that will be cheapest to imitate (except Onion, but these are rubbish) - and you can discount the 5 and 6 since however nice they are, I can't see too many people getting up the courage to try them.

Fish And Chips is SUCH A DULL FLAVOUR. Honestly. I hope I'm wrong though, since I anticipate this being the winner. We'll see.

I have bought all 6 and will let you know whether they suck or not. However, in the interests of my waistline (which is already too large) I will only have one pack a day.

Onion Bhaji is a bit insipid for my taste - and lets face it, all it is, is the curried onion flavour (since the flour bit comes from the potatoes). I think it's not really powerful enough to become a winner.

A
See the full post by clicking here...

I must've been working the ropes when your hand slipped from mine....

If anyone in the UK is yet to see the frankly transcendent performance by Elbow, the BBC Symphony Orchestra and the Chantage Choir on the BBC's own red button service I can't recommend it highly enough.

They perform the whole of last years Mercury Prize winning album, The Seldom Seen Kid.

I can't claim to know a lot about Elbow, and I've not heard much of their earlier albums (which I will now be seeking out as cash allows I'm sure) except for the single Fugitive Motel, of course.

They're a slow burner and a long term success story - something incredibly rare these days and since they seem like such genuine and grateful successes it is impossible to begrudge them much (though I do try). Please watch and enjoy.

A
See the full post by clicking here...

Movie Review: WALL-E

9/10

Regular readers (both of them) will be well aware that I am solidly of the opinion that Pixar are incapable of making a bad movie. A couple (Bug's Life, Cars) didn't float my boat as much, but are still fine examples of modern family entertainment. With the viewing of WALL-E I believe I have seen all their work and can make this statement with some authority:

When they are on form they are almost unassailably good.

In previous offerings, most notably Toy Story 2 and Ratatouille they managed to tread the line that almost noone else can, between kid friendly and yet rewarding to adult viewers with so much skill it looked effortless.

With WALL-E even by their own high standards they have scored big.

It tells the tale of the eponymous little robot who has been left on Earth to tidy up all the garbage choking it to death, while mankind goes off on a cruise.

His existence is fairly repetitive, though in years of solitude he has developed a personality and collects little bits of junk that capture his imagination. His soitude is interrupted, however, one day when EVE lands on earth, a sleek iPod styled robot who seems to be searching for something.

That's the whole premise, and in the first half we are shown, virtually dialogue free, an enchanting portrait of our leads - the dinky little robot and his sleeker companion. It encompasses romance, beautiful scerey and slapstick in a high point, if not only of animated cinema, but also cinema more generally.

It is inevitable then that the following section (some would say - "the plot") is not as perfectly realised and some missteps are made.

For example - I love Fred Willard. Genius - Best In Show, Spinal Tap? Great. He's also very good and very funny here as the President of the Company/Governemt who got Earth in trouble, but, and this is the key - it's ACTUALLY Fred Willard. Not his voice, not a MoCap facsimile like in Beowulf - it is actually him. On film.

This isn't a problem while WALL-E and Eve are on Earth with no comparison piece around, but as soon as you see the human race the use of actual film footage of Willard jars. Why, if he is real, are the humans CGI? And if (as is preferable), the humans are CGI why is he real? Sigh...

I also have reservations about the manipulative "oh no!" moment at the end (post repair - you'll know when you see it) which is hastily done away with for no more logical reason than we need a happy ending and just rang a tad trite considering the film's mature earlier approach.

But these are more minor problems than the time I am giving them reflects so I'll stop now.

Ben Burtt (he of R2-D2 and tie fighter sound fame) supplies the major character voices and all the sound design and he does a marvelous job, designing bloops, beeps and squawks that, as in the classic R2 style convey a whole range of emotions without ever completing anything approaching a sentence.

Earth is magnificently realised as a post urban decay nightmare, a nadir of littering and depopulation - it is testament to Pixar's commitment to their tale that they have no problem showing the robotic equivalent of a banch of rotting corpses (all exact replicas of our hero) being used for spare parts - something a more squeamish studio would have taken out at the pre-screenings phase.

The all too short space journey too is magical as it is a welcome change of pace. As with the story, the human spaceship is just not as interesting as Earth, but the bar is, by this point, set so high it is nigh on impossible to jump.

I have no hesitation in recommending it to your viewing pleasure. Enjoy. The first forty minutes are peerless in the field.

A

P.S. The DvD copy I had featured two "shorts" by Pixar Studios. One of which, BURN-E was a Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead type thing where it takes place parallel to the main movie as a little robot attempts to make a minor repair while at each step the main film's characters get in the way and cause more damage. It's OK, but not particularly inspiring. The other one, Presto, was exceptional, telling the tale of a Rabbit who causes his magician friend all sorts of Magic Hat related trouble because the guy won't feed the poor bunny. It's pure slapstick and just five to ten minutes of pure fun.


See the full post by clicking here...

Snow Day

Argh!

What's with the way the country's locked up completely thanks to Snow?

This is obviously as symptom of the New Labour pro-snow bias that is grinding this once great blah blah blah blah blah...

Seriously, five inches fell in Mum and Dad's back garden while I was watching the Superbowl (the only game of American Football I watch each year). That is a serious amount, and clearly causes problems of a very real kind that stop people being able to get to work and do what they normally do every day.

Of course, if companies allowed people more scope to work at home or on the move, they wouldn't be quite so crippled by a sudden change in weather (since the workforce could send in their work anyway from a different location).

I wonder if any will look at lost value from yesterdays snow day and think to themselves that a flexible attitude to worker locations may be worth the investment?

A
See the full post by clicking here...