Classic Movie Themes: The Long Good Friday
The Long Good Friday not only launched then career of Bob Hoskins but remains a uniquely British take on the gangster genre. Featuring authentic performances and a credible plot, the screenplay touches upon many of the social and political issues of the time; police corruption, the IRA, urban renewal and the decline of industry, along with EEC membership and the free-market economy. It’s a gritty and unrelenting drama that is still relevant today. Furthermore, the film is filled with quotable dialogue and has several stand out scenes that showcase Bob Hoskins’ smouldering performance. It’s also offers of “who’s who” of British character actors and there is one sequence still has the power to shock even today.
The Long Good Friday not only launched then career of Bob Hoskins but remains a uniquely British take on the gangster genre. Featuring authentic performances and a credible plot, the screenplay touches upon many of the social and political issues of the time; police corruption, the IRA, urban renewal and the decline of industry, along with EEC membership and the free-market economy. It’s a gritty and unrelenting drama that is still relevant today. Furthermore, the film is filled with quotable dialogue and has several stand out scenes that showcase Bob Hoskins’ smouldering performance. It’s also offers of “who’s who” of British character actors and there is one sequence still has the power to shock even today.
One of the many elements that contribute to The Long Good Friday being such a seminal movie is the score by Francis Monkman. A classically trained composer, conversant with multiple musical instruments, Monkman’ was the founder member of both the bands Curved Air and Sky. His score is a striking electronic synth hybrid featuring the talents of Herbie Flowers, Kevin Peek, and Tristan Fry. The addition of Stan Sulzmann and Ronnie Aspery on saxophone lends an interesting juxtaposition to the various tracks. It’s all evocative of mid-seventies UK police procedurals dramas with a blend of pulsing synths that you found in TV science fiction at the time. Yet despite its curious antecedents, it works very well on screen reflecting the story’s themes of old giving way to the new.
The Long Good Friday title theme is a brassy, pulsing affair. It is used several times throughout the film and works the best in an early scene when Harold Shand (Bob Hoskins) arrives at Heathrow airport after a flight on Concorde. It superbly establishes his character as he confidently strolls through customs after setting up a major deal with the Mafia in the US. “Fury” is a very interesting cue as it starts with a dark electronic passage as the Harold discovers the magnitude of his predicament. It evolves into a powerful and soulful sax driven piece as Harold washes the blood from himself after a frenzied attack. Both tracks are from the recent anniversary soundtrack album where the remastered score is finally available in stereo.
The Big Bus (1976)
Being a child of the seventies I have a soft spot, cinematically speaking, for the various disaster films of that time. Iconic titles such as The Towering Inferno, The Poseidon Adventure and Airport franchise. The latter was superbly lampooned in the 1980 movie, Airplane! by Jim Abrahams, David Zucker and Jerry Zucker. The team of writer/directors went on to make numerous other comedies in a similar idiom. However Airplane! was not the first major spoof of this particular genre. Four years earlier, director James Frawley made The Big Bus which similarly sends up the standard tropes of all major disaster movies. Where Airplane! was right on the money, The Big Bus is a little more scattershot in its approach and takes a while to find its feet. But James Frawley had a background in TV comedy, having worked on The Monkees TV show, and he does much within the limitations of the films budget. The films greatest asset is that it keeps up the pace. If a gag doesn’t work then don’t worry, there’s another immediately afterwards.
Being a child of the seventies I have a soft spot, cinematically speaking, for the various disaster films of that time. Iconic titles such as The Towering Inferno, The Poseidon Adventure and Airport franchise. The latter was superbly lampooned in the 1980 movie, Airplane! by Jim Abrahams, David Zucker and Jerry Zucker. The team of writer/directors went on to make numerous other comedies in a similar idiom. However Airplane! was not the first major spoof of this particular genre. Four years earlier, director James Frawley made The Big Bus which similarly sends up the standard tropes of all major disaster movies. Where Airplane! was right on the money, The Big Bus is a little more scattershot in its approach and takes a while to find its feet. But James Frawley had a background in TV comedy, having worked on The Monkees TV show, and he does much within the limitations of the films budget. The films greatest asset is that it keeps up the pace. If a gag doesn’t work then don’t worry, there’s another immediately afterwards.
The titular bus is in fact a nuclear-powered articulated vehicle that can carry 100 passengers on a luxurious non-stop trip from New York to Denver. However, someone seems hellbent on sabotaging Coyote Bus Lines new flagship project and a bomb goes off at the lab where it is being prepped for its maiden voyage. Professor Baxter (Harold Gould), is seriously injured while the driver and co-driver are killed. Hence, Baxter’s daughter, Kitty (Stockard Channing), has to find new driver. Kitty turns to a former lover, Dan Torrance (Joseph Bologna), to drive the bus. Dan is currently in disgrace within the bus driver community, after a serious crash at Mount Diablo and allegations of eating the passengers. However, he accepts the job and recruits “Shoulders” O’Brien (John Beck) to be his co-driver, who unbeknownst to him is narcoleptic. The bus departs New York along with all-star cast including Lynn Redgrave, Richard Mulligan, Sally Kellerman, Rene Auberjonois, and Ruth Gordon. However, the real star is bus itself AKA “The Cyclops”. Which features a bar (with Murphy Dunne as lounge singer), a bowling alley and an exclusive captain’s dining room. However, the saboteur has no intention of giving up and plants another bomb onboard. Hilarity ensues along with a never-ending barrage of verbal and sight gags.
The Big Bus hits many of its marks as it dismantles a well-known genre. Many of the cast are exactly the sort of actors that would have appeared in genuine disaster movies. Character actors such as Ned Beatty, Larry Hagman, Bob Dishy, Jose Ferrer, and Howard Hesseman. And then there’s David Shires score which totally gets the musical idiom of these movies and delivers a suitably hyperbolic soundtrack. Like Airplane! there are many sight gags and a strong streak of absurdist humour. There’s a bar fight in which a milk carton is broken and used as a weapon and then there’s the recurring gag of “Shoulders” O’Brien constantly falling asleep at inopportune moments. I was not familiar with actor Joseph Bologna and his previous body of work but he gives a good performance as the flawed hero. It should also be noted that The Big Bus is a little more rating conscious and doesn’t stray as far into adult humour as Airplane! Plus there’s a lot of conspicuous product placement which obviously helped with the movies financing.
The Big Bus doesn’t outstay its welcome, clocking in at sensible 88 minutes. The ending is a little lacklustre compared to the first two acts and it seems that the writers Lawrence J. Cohen, Fred Freeman were a little lost as to how to wrap things up. However, there is still much to enjoy. There are several good physical stunts involving The Cyclops which would nowadays been done with CGI. The cast chews the scenery exactly as you expect them to. René Auberjonois is rather good as a priest on the brink of losing his faith. However, despite being very well intentioned, The Big Bus only did moderate box office upon release and received mixed reviews. Director James Frawley later directed The Muppet Movie and subsequently returned to television Over the years, The Big Bus has lost its crown to Airplane! which is a shame. It isn’t as polished or as accomplished as its predecessor but it certainly pioneered the zany parody genre. Furthermore, it can still raise a wry smile.
Arabian Adventure (1979)
Before I begin, let’s just take a moment to remind ourselves about the notion of historical context. Movies, like so many other aspects of popular culture, reflect the prevailing attitudes of the time they were created. The reason I mention this is because within a few minutes of watching Arabian Adventure, viewers will become abundantly aware that the movie is very much product of British film making from the late seventies. If you are particularly sensitive on such issues as identity and gender politics, as well as historically accurate depictions of cultures and societies then watching this movie may prove jarring. If however, you view it through the prism of historical context and do not try to judge it against contemporary standards, then it may be an easier experience.
Before I begin, let’s just take a moment to remind ourselves about the notion of historical context. Movies, like so many other aspects of popular culture, reflect the prevailing attitudes of the time they were created. The reason I mention this is because within a few minutes of watching Arabian Adventure, viewers will become abundantly aware that the movie is very much product of British film making from the late seventies. If you are particularly sensitive on such issues as identity and gender politics, as well as historically accurate depictions of cultures and societies then watching this movie may prove jarring. If however, you view it through the prism of historical context and do not try to judge it against contemporary standards, then it may be an easier experience.
Evil caliph Alquazar (Christopher Lee) offers the hand of his daughter Princess Zuleira (Emma Samms) in marriage to Prince Hasan (Oliver Tobias) if he can complete a perilous quest for a magical rose. With the help of a young street urchin Majeed (Puneet Sira) and his faithful pet monkey, the pair have to face fire breathing monsters, a malevolent genie (Milton Reid) and treacherous swamps to reach their prize. The plot is very simplistic and generic. No archetype is left unturned. Lee smoulders, Tobias is heroic and Samms is just there to look good (it is a shockingly vacuous role for a female lead). Every conceivable cliché associated with Western interpretations of traditional Eastern tales is present and it all comes across as a pastiche of Sinbad, Ali Baba and Aladdin. The cast is conspicuously Caucasian and the production is mainly set bound at Pinewood studios. The optical, miniature and matte painting effects by veterans such as George Gibbs and Cliff Culley are simplistic, entertaining but hardly convincing.
The film was the last of several fantasy movies directed by Kevin Connor and produced by John Dark during the seventies. The previous being The Land That Time Forgot, At the Earth's Core and Warlords of Atlantis. However, despite having the biggest budget of all these productions, it failed to find an audience at the box office. In a post Star Wars world, it all seems a bit twee, lacking in scope and excitement. There’s little to recommend it to modern audiences as it all seems dated, cheap and a little awkward due to the racial and cultural stereotyping. From a movie buffs perspective, Arabian Adventure is a veritable who’s who of stalwarts of the UK film industry from the late seventies. The cinematography is by Alan Hume who would go onto film Return of the Jedi and several Roger Moore Bond films. It’s always nice to see such genre favourites as Shane Rimmer and the great Peter Cushing. But overall the movie is a far cry from Zoltan Korda’s The Thief of Bagdad and its box office failure is mainly due to being in the wrong place at the wrong time, just as audiences taste were changing.
American Sniper (2014)
It was hardly surprising that the movie adaptation of Chris Kyle's autobiography American Sniper, would cause controversy. The Iraq war, US Foreign Policy and national pride are seldom subjects that are discussed in a calm and measured fashion. And then there are the personal politics of director Clint Eastwood to consider. Hence there were claims from some quarters upon the movie’s release, that it was Islamophobic and counter claims that criticisms of the late Chris Kyle were unpatriotic. There still remain issues regarding the authenticity of events depicted in the source text and subsequently the movies screenplay by Jason Hall. Yet none of these factors have in anyway impacted upon the film's box office returns which currently stands at $247,900,417 worldwide.
It was hardly surprising that the movie adaptation of Chris Kyle's autobiography American Sniper, would cause controversy. The Iraq war, US Foreign Policy and national pride are seldom subjects that are discussed in a calm and measured fashion. And then there are the personal politics of director Clint Eastwood to consider. Hence there were claims from some quarters upon the movie’s release, that it was Islamophobic and counter claims that criticisms of the late Chris Kyle were unpatriotic. There still remain issues regarding the authenticity of events depicted in the source text and subsequently the movies screenplay by Jason Hall. Yet none of these factors have in anyway impacted upon the film's box office returns which currently stands at $247,900,417 worldwide.
American Sniper is directed by Clint Eastwood in his customary minimalist and no-nonsense fashion, allowing us to focus on the subject matter without any unnecessary embellishment. Tom Stern's cinematography is far from flamboyant and appropriately stark. The central performances by Bradley Cooper as Chris Kyle and Sienna Miller as his wife Taya Renae Kyle are both strong and clearly defined. Criticisms about a lack of depth and balance are misplaced as far as I'm concerned. If real people have strong views or convictions should that reality not be reflected in the script? Furthermore this is not a movie about the Iraq War itself and an exploration of the geo-political ramifications. It is simply a soldier’s story, told from his perspective. It is also a drama and not a documentary.
Eastwood has often explored within his movies the theme of violence and the impact it has upon all involved. In this instance he has chosen to focus upon one particular individual. Steven Spielberg, who was at one point associated with adapting this work, has indicated that he would have approached the subject differently. He intended to explore the curious duality between Chris Kyle and "Mustafa", his Iraqi rival and ex-Olympic marksman. Eastwood takes a different path depicting the emotional toll four tours of duty has upon Kyle and his family. Contrary to some opinions there is no triumphalist tone to the proceedings, nor are the action sequences overblown spectacles. They are straight forward and functional, very much in accord with the director’s approach to film making. The Iraqi's that are depicted in the movie are combatants and are treated as such. Beyond that there is no overt agenda against Islam nor does the film adopt any major political stance. The characters on screen certainly have their own views but American Sniper simply depicts them, rather than endorses them.
There are some flaws in the narrative but they are mainly procedural, rather than ideological. I would have liked to have seen more of Kyles home life between tours, as well as some exploration of the controversies surrounding his book. As for the codicil at the movies end regarding the news coverage of his subsequent death and funeral, again I see this as just a reflection of events rather than a specific commentary upon them. Overall these criticisms do not undermine the movie nor detract from the strong performances. However due to the emotive nature of US politics and even the reputation of its director, perceptions and opinions may well possibly have been skewed regarding the movie’s merits and its perspective.
A notable aspect regarding American Sniper is its soundtrack or virtual lack of one. Beyond three credited pieces of music used at strategic points in the story the movie has no overall score. However many viewers have drawn attention to the montage of news footage regarding Chris Kyles funeral shown at the end of the film. It plays out to a track called "The Funeral", composed by the great Ennio Morricone. The piece is a subtle variation of Taps, a tune played at dusk by the US military. The cue called Il Funerale was first used in the spaghetti Western “Il Ritorno di Ringo” AKA The Return of Ringo in 1965. Like so much of the composer’s work, its inherent beauty lends itself to intelligent use in other movies, thus it greatly compliments the final scenes of American Sniper.
Selma (2014)
Rather than overreach itself by striving to dramatize the entire career of Martin Luther King, Selma very sensibly focuses on the key event that took in Alabama in 1965. In doing so it provides a snapshot of the internal politics of the civil rights movement, as well as the personal concerns and doubts of Dr. King. Rather than placing key figures upon pedestals, Selma realistically show the complexity both legally and politically of the cultural changes that were taking place. It also shows the human flaws of many of the key protagonists.
Rather than overreach itself by striving to dramatize the entire career of Martin Luther King, Selma very sensibly focuses on the key event that took in Alabama in 1965. In doing so it provides a snapshot of the internal politics of the civil rights movement, as well as the personal concerns and doubts of Dr. King. Rather than placing key figures upon pedestals, Selma realistically show the complexity both legally and politically of the cultural changes that were taking place. It also shows the human flaws of many of the key protagonists.
Directed by Ava DuVernay, Selma is meticulously crafted in every way. It provides a fascinating breakdown of Dr. King’s political manoeuvrings with President Lyndon B. Johnson as well as his dealings with the internal hierarchy of the SCLC. The set pieces are both accurate and compelling showing the brutality that the peaceful protesters faced. Selma also highlights the difference between the press and media of the time and the twenty-four-hour news cultures that we currently live with. The importance of the evening news and the morning papers are shown to be key features to the campaigning. Popular opinion is shown to be galvanised over weeks rather than days.
Selma features a powerful ensemble cast in David Oyelowo, Tom Wilkinson, Tim Roth, Carmen Ejogo and Oprah Winfrey. Their performances are measured and strong, as is the screenplay by Paul Webb. Yet it has to be said that David Oyelowo’s portrayal of Dr. King is the foundation of the movie. He captures the civil rights leader’s oratory style and cadence perfectly and breathes life into a figure we know mainly through his historical legacy. Composer Jason Moran also deserves recognition for his soundtrack which intelligently underpins the unfolding story.
One of greatest strengths of Selma is that it does not lecture its audience. The events shown are largely left to speak for themselves, with any superfluous moral exposition. The murder of Jimmie Lee Jackson is a powerful example of this, playing out with an unflinching sense of inevitability. Director Ava DuVernay also boldly chooses to show a high-profile star such as Oprah Winfrey being beaten by State Troopers. On this occasion the presence of such a well-known figure helps audience connect to the power of the scene and its appalling barbarity.
Selma ends with a traditional postscript in which a summary of subsequent events plays out over a montage of original stills and footage. This succinctly shows that although progress was made as a result of the marches, resulting in new legislation, it still took further work, lobbying and campaigning to achieve all the desired results. Some would argue that the fight for equality in the US is still ongoing. Either way, Selma provides us with a timely reminder regarding the human cost of the day-to-day freedoms that we take for granted and is a fine piece of film making.
Men in Black: International (2019)
I was very surprised when I saw a trailer for a fourth instalment on the MiB franchise, based on Lowell Cunningham’s 1990 comic book series about secret government agents battling alien infiltration of earth. The third movie from 2012 managed to keep its head above water despite a very troubled production. At the time of its release, I like everyone else, pretty much thought that the series had run its course. Yet we live in the age of belated sequels as well as hard and soft reboots. And although Will Smith’s star may well be waning, Chris Hemsworth is still box office gold. Hence, we saw the release of Men in Black: International this summer. The basic concept of the franchise remains the same but this time the action begins in the London Office and then takes a more international journey with such locations as Marrakesh and Naples. Emma Thompson returns as Agent O and Liam Neeson joins the cast as agent High T.
I was very surprised when I saw a trailer for a fourth instalment on the MiB franchise, based on Lowell Cunningham’s 1990 comic book series about secret government agents battling alien infiltration of earth. The third movie from 2012 managed to keep its head above water despite a very troubled production. At the time of its release, I like everyone else, pretty much thought that the series had run its course. Yet we live in the age of belated sequels as well as hard and soft reboots. And although Will Smith’s star may well be waning, Chris Hemsworth is still box office gold. Hence, we saw the release of Men in Black: International this summer. The basic concept of the franchise remains the same but this time the action begins in the London Office and then takes a more international journey with such locations as Marrakesh and Naples. Emma Thompson returns as Agent O and Liam Neeson joins the cast as agent High T.
After encountering aliens and avoiding having her memory wiped by MiB, Molly Wright (Tessa Thompson) spends years trying to track down the organisation. After infiltrating New York headquarters she is surprisingly given probationary agent status and teamed with Agent H (Chris Hemsworth) The pair find themselves assigned to London, when a duo of shape-shifting intergalactic assassins, known as the Twins, kill a member of alien royalty. Investigations uncovers a missing crystal that may well be a devastating super-weapon of mass destruction. However, it would appear that the Twins may be getting information from within MiB, allowing them to stay one step ahead and avoid capture. Is there a well-placed mole in their midst? Cue copious amounts of chases, CGI driven set pieces and noise. Lots of noise.
Men in Black: International earnestly tries to change the mix and embrace change. Tessa Thompson’s addition to the cast breaks the gender stereotype of the MiB. The screenplay by Arthur Marcum and Matthew Holloway (Iron Man, Punisher: War Zone) explores the idea of aliens as migrants, rather than hostile invaders by default. Yet this interesting concept goes nowhere and the film soon abandons it to focus on the nuts and bolts of its remit. Equally Tessa Thompson who gave an accomplished performance in Boots Riley’s satire Sorry to Bother You, is hardly given anything of note to do. Her character arc follows a similar path to that of Eggsy in Kingsman: The Secret Service. Rafe Spall does his best with a supporting role as the nerdy agent H, sparring with alpha male Hemsworth to provide some comic relief. Everything about Men in Black: International is polished but perfunctory. It has all the ingredients but somehow lacks any originality or vital spark.
I was expecting Chris Hemsworth to carry this movie but all the enthusiasm and spirit that he’s previously shown in the Avengers movies and in the Ghostbusters remake is conspicuously absent. And then there is the spectre of Liam Neeson who fell from grace after making ill-conceived comments at a press conference just prior to the films release. Although I am happy to separate the film from the man, others may not. Overall Men in Black: International is a superfluous entry into the series. It is watchable and can provide a modicum of entertainment if you have some time to kill. But it really has little of note to offer and it doesn’t leave much of an impression. Where viewers may be able to recollect keys moments from the previous instalment with Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones, I doubt they’ll be able to do the same within a few days of watching Men in Black: International.
Men in Black III (2012)
The original Men in Black movie hit our screens back in 1997. It was a box office success and was therefore followed by a mediocre sequel in 2002. It took a decade before we got a third instalment in the franchise. However, the popularity of the two lead actors contributed greatly to the success of this series and so despite well documented production problems Men in Black III was released in 2012. However, the delay between movies did have consequences. Will Smith, despite being an Oscar winner and box office star, had lost his way during this time and was not as popular with audiences. Men in Black III was a timely opportunity to reconnect with his core fans. So to ensure that the film hit all the required beats and stand a better chance of being a success, the Columbia Pictures brought back previous director Barry Sonnenfeld, in hopes of warding off the Hollywood curse of third movie instalments.
The original Men in Black movie hit our screens back in 1997. It was a box office success and was therefore followed by a mediocre sequel in 2002. It took a decade before we got a third instalment in the franchise. However, the popularity of the two lead actors contributed greatly to the success of this series and so despite well documented production problems Men in Black III was released in 2012. However, the delay between movies did have consequences. Will Smith, despite being an Oscar winner and box office star, had lost his way during this time and was not as popular with audiences. Men in Black III was a timely opportunity to reconnect with his core fans. So to ensure that the film hit all the required beats and stand a better chance of being a success, the Columbia Pictures brought back previous director Barry Sonnenfeld, in hopes of warding off the Hollywood curse of third movie instalments.
So how well does this third movie fair? Well the basic formula remain the same. Tommy Lee Jones’ Agent K is dry, irascible and set ups the jokes and Smith’s Agent J provides the pithy punchlines. This time round the plot follows intergalactic criminal Boris the Animal (Jemaine Clement) who escapes from a maximum-security facility and seeks revenge on his arch enemy, Agent K. Using that cinematic get out of jail card, time travel, Boris messes with the present, thus eliminating Tommy Lee Jones from the current timeline. This forces Agent J heading to travel back to the sixties and thus interact with an earlier incarnation of K (Josh Brolin) in an attempt to restore history. This leads to an enjoyable re-iteration of the MiB universe, viewed through the social prism of the 1969.
Now these ideas are all very good on paper, but it soon becomes self-evident that Men in Black III had indeed the production and script problems, throughout the course of its development. The pacing is a little off at times and the focus of the narrative is inconsistent. We get a story that offers many good opportunities and then spends time developing the least of them. However, it is the constant barrage of background details, sight gags, witty asides and pop culture references that save the proceedings. Both in the present and in 1969. That and the fact that although we are deprived of Tommy Lee Jones (he is not in the movie as long as you may think), we are compensated by a note perfect replacement in Josh Brolin. Emma Thompson is as always eminently watchable as Agent O.
Men in Black III is by no means a masterpiece and shows signs of studio interference. But due to the competence of all those involved it manages to rise above its flaws and is a deliver an entertaining and enjoyable experiences. The production quality is still top notch. The effects work is very good and once gain the movie showcases the talents of the great Rick Baker, although some of his remarkable physical effects work was replaced at the last moment with digital alternatives. The dependable charm and charisma of the two leads along with the multiple layers of content are sufficient compensation for the movie’s plot holes and inconsistencies. The fashionable use of the sixties as a setting also gives this third movie a shot in the arm. I don't think this is destined to be considered the best in the franchise but it is by no means the worst.
More Cult Movie Soundtracks
A few years ago, I wrote a post about cult movie soundtracks and how many of these movies are often blessed with a high quality score from an established composer. The subject came up again recently when I was visiting the British Film Institute with friends, and several other examples were discussed. Hence, I thought it would be prudent to write a follow up post with another selection of material, as it continues to amaze me how often the most appalling films can still have outstanding soundtracks. With this idea in mind I've collated five films that are for various reasons are labelled “cult” and have suffered the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” over the years. All have scores of interests and note, though for different reasons. I have chosen a track from each soundtrack which I think highlights the musical excellence and integrity of the composers involved. The genres are varied as are the musical styles and nuances of each piece. All clearly demonstrate how a well-conceived score can embellish and enhance a movie, effectively becoming a character in its own right.
A few years ago, I wrote a post about cult movie soundtracks and how many of these movies are often blessed with a high quality score from an established composer. The subject came up again recently when I was visiting the British Film Institute with friends, and several other examples were discussed. Hence, I thought it would be prudent to write a follow up post with another selection of material, as it continues to amaze me how often the most appalling films can still have outstanding soundtracks. With this idea in mind I've collated five films that are for various reasons are labelled “cult” and have suffered the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” over the years. All have scores of interests and note, though for different reasons. I have chosen a track from each soundtrack which I think highlights the musical excellence and integrity of the composers involved. The genres are varied as are the musical styles and nuances of each piece. All clearly demonstrate how a well-conceived score can embellish and enhance a movie, effectively becoming a character in its own right.
I've always found it paradoxical that a movie such as Ruggero Deodato's notorious Cannibal Holocaust (1980), features such a haunting score by Riz Ortolani. I won't debate the merits of Cannibal Holocaust here but it’s a very morally ambiguous and controversial piece of cinema. It’s certainly not for those who are easily shocked. Yet its soundtrack underpins the narrative superbly. The opening theme, set against aerial shots of the Amazon rain forest, features a very gentle and haunting refrain. You would think such a piece would be more at home in a romantic drama or even a late seventies commercial. However, it is further repeated at various times during the film, often juxtaposed against scenes of abject barbarity.
Solomon Kane (2009), based on Robert E. Howard’s fictional "dour English Puritan and redresser of wrongs", is an underrated action horror movie. It manages to bely its modest production values to blend atmospheric European locations with a strong cast. The action is robust and James Purefoy carries the story forward and compensates for some of the film’s logistical failings. The tone and spirit of the proceedings is very much in the idiom of Hammer movies such as Captain Kronos. The score by German composer Klaus Badelt is grandiose and focuses on the central character of Kane. The main theme is used with suitable variations to reflect both the bombastic fights sequences and the moments of quiet religious reflection.
How can I possibly write about cult, obscure and trash movie soundtracks without at least one piece by the legendary Ennio Morricone. The maestro seems to have a knack of writing quality material for some awful films. Hundra (1984) is an Italian-Spanish fantasy film co-written and directed by Matt Cimber and starring Laurene Landon. It’s a kind of female Conaneque, sword and sorcery movie with a bogus feminist agenda. Beneath a wafer-thin veneer of gender politics is a generic exploitation movie. The actions scenes are weak, the story is formulaic and the performances are negligible due to the ADR inherent in such international co-productions. Yet the Morricone score stands out. Hundra’s main theme is simple and effective and there’s a chase scene with a whimsical accompaniment.
Lucio Fulci’s first instalment of his “Gates of Hell” trilogy is an atmospheric, off kilter horror outing. City of the Living Dead (1980) features his hallmark excessive gore but unlike his previous movie Zombie 2, the linear narrative is replace with a more dream like story line. Many scenes are visually striking but the plot doesn’t really make logical sense. However there are sufficient maggots raining from the ceiling and actors vomiting up their intestines to keep the audience focused elsewhere. The soundtrack by Italian composer Fabio Frizzi is creepy and uniquely European. The scene in the crypt at the climax of the movie has a great cue that plays as zombies stagger around burning.
If you are not familiar with Michael Mann’s The Keep (1983), then it’s difficult to know where to start. The film is based upon a gothic horror novel by F. Paul Wilson about a group on German soldiers based in a Romanian fortress during World War II, who are picked off one by one by a vampire like creature. Mann’s second feature film took this tale and adapted it into a curious science fiction horror movie. The production was “difficult”, ran over budget and studio executives panicked at the kind of experimental film making that ensued. The movie was taken away from the director, re-edited and released in a very truncated form. It failed at the box office and Mann has subsequently disowned it. It boasts a sophisticated soundtrack by German electronic music band Tangerine Dream. Like the film itself, the score just has to be experienced and digested to be fully appreciated. Similarly, the score has had a troubled life and there has never been an official release that contains all music used. But what remains is intriguing even when listened to outside of the context of the film itself.
Apocalypse Now Final Cut (1979)
Writing a review of Apocalypse Now is a somewhat redundant exercise, unless you have never seen the any of the previous versions of the movie, or your analysis is offering a unique and wholly original perspective. It is one of the most scrutinised, dissected and studied films in the history of cinema. Furthermore, the stories associated with the films tumultuous production have become as equally legendary as the movie itself. There is as much apocrypha associated with Apocalypse Now as there are legitimate anecdotes. In many respects the documentary Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse, which was shot during the films production, is equally as fascinating as the iconic movie. So with all this in mind, I will simply try to succinctly summarise my thoughts on this third version of Francis Ford Coppola’s magnum opus, which has been officially labelled “Final Cut” by the director.
Writing a review of Apocalypse Now is a somewhat redundant exercise, unless you have never seen the any of the previous versions of the movie, or your analysis is offering a unique and wholly original perspective. It is one of the most scrutinised, dissected and studied films in the history of cinema. Furthermore, the stories associated with the films tumultuous production have become as equally legendary as the movie itself. There is as much apocrypha associated with Apocalypse Now as there are legitimate anecdotes. In many respects the documentary Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse, which was shot during the films production, is equally as fascinating as the iconic movie. So with all this in mind, I will simply try to succinctly summarise my thoughts on this third version of Francis Ford Coppola’s magnum opus, which has been officially labelled “Final Cut” by the director.
Apocalypse Now Final Cut has been restored from the original camera negative via a 4K scan. Previous transfers used for the Redux version, were made from an interpositive. The new version has a runtime of 183 minutes, with Coppola having cut 20 minutes of the added material from Redux print. The original theatrical release in 1979 ran for 147 minutes. As for changes in scenes, the extended plot detour that takes place on the de Marais family's rubber plantation remains. Some critics consider this to be an unnecessary digression that slows the narrative. I see it more as an interesting statement on imperialism and its failures, which are subsequently being repeated by the United States and their interventionist foreign policies. The extended episode with Lieutenant Colonel Kilgore (Robert Duvall) culminating in the theft of his surfboard also remains. However, the scene in which Willard (Martin Sheen) and his men find the Playboy Bunnies, marooned after their helicopter transport has run out of fuel, has been removed. So has one of few daylight scenes showing Kurtz (Marlon Brando) reading aloud from Time Magazine to a group of Cambodian children. No further new footage has been restored to the film either.
Upon mature reflection, I would say that Apocalypse Now Final Cut is the most polished and substantial version of the film out of all three edits. It makes its points about the nature of war, its inherent absurdity, as well as contradictions and does so at the right pace. This time round Willard’s journeys upriver to both a metaphorical and literal place of insanity, is done at exactly the right pace. There no longer feels like they’re narrative gaps or changes of pace. For those familiar with the bootleg VHS assembly print that was in circulation in the early eighties, there are still several legendary scenes missing. But I would argue that they wouldn’t really add anything to the overall film. If any still exist then they would better serve as “extras” on the Blu-ray release. The beautifully restored print is also a timely reminder of how complex action scenes use to constructed in the pre-digital age. The helicopter attack on the coastal village is still a staggering feat of logistical organisation and co-ordination.
Transporter 3 (2008)
Do I really need to present you with some sort of plot synopsis for Transporter 3? No, I didn’t think so. More of the same as Frank Martin (Jason Statham) and his police chum, Inspector Tarconi (Francois Berleand) become embroiled in yet another high-octane escapade. There's fights, car stunts, exotic international locations and a strong sense of humour. This time, the disposable love interest is a Ukrainian girl named Valentina (Natalya Rudakova) who fulfils her role succinctly. The film benefits by being set back in Europe, after the mistake of basing Transporter 2 in the US. This time, the story takes us to such locations as Budapest and Odessa. The international film crew once again bring a veneer of panache to the production that is conspicuously absent in US action movies. For a modest budget fil, Transporter 3 it looks very good. Again the proceedings are given a boost by a pertinent soundtrack by Alexandre Azaria and a selection of European “tunes”.
Do I really need to present you with some sort of plot synopsis for Transporter 3? No, I didn’t think so. More of the same as Frank Martin (Jason Statham) and his police chum, Inspector Tarconi (Francois Berleand) become embroiled in yet another high-octane escapade. There's fights, car stunts, exotic international locations and a strong sense of humour. This time, the disposable love interest is a Ukrainian girl named Valentina (Natalya Rudakova) who fulfils her role succinctly. The film benefits by being set back in Europe, after the mistake of basing Transporter 2 in the US. This time, the story takes us to such locations as Budapest and Odessa. The international film crew once again bring a veneer of panache to the production that is conspicuously absent in US action movies. For a modest budget fil, Transporter 3 it looks very good. Again the proceedings are given a boost by a pertinent soundtrack by Alexandre Azaria and a selection of European “tunes”.
The fight scenes and car chases are well crafted and pitched at the right level for a PG-13 rated action-fest. The devil is in the editing, which is done in a very modern idiom, as you would expect. It is this fast pace style that allows the film to be get away with some of the content. The violence is strong but not dwelt upon. There are also some subtle references within the fight sequences to other classic films. Particularly Fist of Fury and Game of Death. Film buffs will know them when they see them. The dry banter between Statham and the sundry heavies he dispatches works well and embellishes the action. The franchise by this instalment has developed a sense of self-parody and there’s an amusing scene in which Frank give chase, not via some high-performance car but by bicycle instead. The joke works well, which is a surprising for a film that is derivative of a genre, that in itself, is self-plagiarising.
Transporter 3 has no pretensions to be anything else, other than what it is. It is very dumb, stylised and no cliché is left unturned. Its tone is pitched just right for this sort of movie. There is a running joke about Frank not liking to get his suit dirty when fighting and his disrobing becomes a potential weapon. The underlying homoeroticism of previous movies is openly explored this time (“You’re the gay?”) and is rather amusing. All in all, this film delivers perfectly what you expect in such a genre offering. Director Olivier Megaton (Taken 2 and Taken 3) thrives on this sort of material and seems to know inherently how to handle it. For once the movies rating and content do not work against it. The Transporter franchise may well be commercial and disposable, but it is also very entertaining. This in some respects, is the best sequel. The TV series that followed was lacklustre and the 2015 reboot failed to ignite audiences’ interest, despite Ed Skrein doing his best. The shadow of Jason Statham looms large in this franchise.
The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists! (2012)
The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists! is Aardman Animations fifth feature film and is based on the first two books in the Pirates! series by Gideon Defoe. For reasons known only to the marketing department, this movie has been retitled The Pirates! Band of Misfits! for its US release. When, I first saw the trailer for this movie way back in 2012, I thought that it had the potential to be a witty, inventive, quirky, and entertaining piece of film making, because that's what Aardman Animations does. The day they produce an inferior product is the day to quit watching movies, right? But let us not forget that even the most exemplary studio record can be blemished by the occasional wrong step (Yes, I'm looking at you Pixar after Cars 2). Happily that is not the case here. Having seen The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists! twice now, it is an extremely droll and clever animated movie. The film was nominated for the 2013 Academy Award for Best Animated Feature but lost to Pixar's Brave.
The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists! is Aardman Animations fifth feature film and is based on the first two books in the Pirates! series by Gideon Defoe. For reasons known only to the marketing department, this movie has been retitled The Pirates! Band of Misfits! for its US release. When, I first saw the trailer for this movie way back in 2012, I thought that it had the potential to be a witty, inventive, quirky, and entertaining piece of film making, because that's what Aardman Animations does. The day they produce an inferior product is the day to quit watching movies, right? But let us not forget that even the most exemplary studio record can be blemished by the occasional wrong step (Yes, I'm looking at you Pixar after Cars 2). Happily that is not the case here. Having seen The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists! twice now, it is an extremely droll and clever animated movie. The film was nominated for the 2013 Academy Award for Best Animated Feature but lost to Pixar's Brave.
The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists! is a finely tooled, richly embellished, genuinely funny piece of film making. It works on so many levels and once again succinctly demonstrates that Aardman Animations totally "get" the art of film making in every possible way. Furthermore you have a movie that can genuinely appeal to all age groups. There's none of your contrived focus group driven, age or gender specific targeting here. Just an engaging film that is accessible to all and entertaining on multiple levels. Hollywood take note. You don't need a bunch of bean counters pawing over market research and surveys to make a successful and quality film. You simply need to have an abiding love and respect for the medium, as well as a good screenplay. It also helps if you credit your audience with some degree of intelligence. Plus make sure you have Jokes. Lots of jokes. Sight gags, slapstick and verbal humour.
Okay, for those who insist on a plot synopsis, the narrative focuses on the Pirate Captain (Hugh Grant) who is desperately trying to win the much-coveted Pirate of the Year Award. But he's not exactly at the top of his game and is often ridiculed by fellow Pirates Peg Leg Hastings, Cutlass Liz and Black Bellamy. Furthermore the Pirate Captain's crew are somewhat lacklustre, being named after their personal attributes and foibles. These include such individuals as the Pirate with Gout (voiced by Brendan Gleeson and looking suspiciously like the actor to), the Pirate with a Scarf, the Albino Pirate and the Surprisingly Curvaceous Pirate (who is in fact a woman). After boarding the Beagle and capturing naturalist Charles Darwin (voiced by David Tennant) in a desperate attempt to improve his reputation, the Pirate captain discovers that his new parrot Polly is actually the last Dodo. Darwin convinces him that such a discovery could be invaluable to all concerned. I shall say no more than that. The plot even manages to have a few twists that may surprise the audience.
It is a cliché to say "hilarity ensures" after providing a plot summary. In fact it is often a prefix which carries a degree of derision or irony, as so many comedy films confuse hilarity with being crass. However in the case of The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists! The phrase can be genuinely used. The humour is subtlety different from Aardman Animations usual Wallace and Gromit fare, but is no less charming or emotive for it. There is a strong streak of traditional English humour throughout the movie that reflects a strong understanding and love of the UK's comedic heritage. From Monty Python and Douglas Adams to the Goons. It manifests itself in both overt and subtle ways. From Darwin’s chimpanzee butler Mr Bobo (who sports a monocle and communicates with cure cards) to the underlying fixation with ham. Every scene is packed with visual embellishments and throwaway gags. Certainly, this is a film that can happily sustain multiple viewings and still offer up new surprises.
The craft involved in this cinematic undertaking is staggering. There is CGI in places, usually to deal with wider environmental aspects such as the ocean and the weather. But pretty much everything else that you see is traditional hand-crafted stop motion animation and it works beautifully. The range of expressions along with the pathos and drama that is created via the medium puts a lot of contemporary Hollywood fodder to shame. If you watch any of the “making of” extras found on the DVD and Blu-ray release of the film, you'll see and appreciate the minute attention to detail that the animators have lavished on every aspect of the production. Often it only registers fleetingly on the screen, but it’s all done due to a consummate love of their craft and its presence enhances every single frame.
As film making is a financial endeavour as well as an artistic one, Sony Pictures decided to temper some of the British excesses of this production and create a separate version for the US market. As previously mentioned, the title of the film was changed and some minor jokes that referenced foibles of UK culture were removed. Furthermore, there have been some alterations to the voice acting. The Albino Pirate, voiced in the UK version by Russell Tovey, was replaced by Anton Yelchin. Similarly, Ben Whitehead's performance as The Pirate who likes Sunsets and Kittens, has been replaced by Al Roker. Overall these changes do not undermine the film in any major way. However, if you’re a cinematic “purist” then I would recommend the UK print over the US version. Either way, if you enjoy animated movies then The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists! is well worth viewing. Aardman Animations are an exemplar of all that is best in film production and standout like an oasis of talent in the current desert of Hollywood mediocrity. Plus any movie that features Swords of a Thousand Men by Tenpole Tudor on the soundtrack can’t be bad.
The Bourne Legacy (2012)
Jason Bourne originally graced our screens for the first time seventeen years ago. The Bourne Identity was a gritty, minimalist take on the espionage genre and a welcome change from the excesses of the Pierce Brosnan Bond era. The story arc was sustained over three movies and ended efficiently and succinctly. After which Matt Damon moved on, as did the director of two of the movies, Paul Greengrass. Which leaves us with The Bourne Legacy; the tangential sequel that arrived in 2012. A film that exists because the money men and bean counters hate to pass up on a franchise until it has been squeezed utterly dry. Hence, they commissioned the writer of the series, Tony Gilroy, to come up with a screenplay and direct a spinoff movie. Jeremy Renner was cast in the lead role. Yet despite narrative and production continuity, The Bourne Legacy was not a Jason Bourne movie with the star appeal of Matt Damon. Although the film turned a profit, it had the lowest box office returns out of the entire franchise.
Jason Bourne originally graced our screens for the first time seventeen years ago. The Bourne Identity was a gritty, minimalist take on the espionage genre and a welcome change from the excesses of the Pierce Brosnan Bond era. The story arc was sustained over three movies and ended efficiently and succinctly. After which Matt Damon moved on, as did the director of two of the movies, Paul Greengrass. Which leaves us with The Bourne Legacy; the tangential sequel that arrived in 2012. A film that exists because the money men and bean counters hate to pass up on a franchise until it has been squeezed utterly dry. Hence, they commissioned the writer of the series, Tony Gilroy, to come up with a screenplay and direct a spinoff movie. Jeremy Renner was cast in the lead role. Yet despite narrative and production continuity, The Bourne Legacy was not a Jason Bourne movie with the star appeal of Matt Damon. Although the film turned a profit, it had the lowest box office returns out of the entire franchise.
The plot is constructed in such a way to dovetail nicely into the existing storyline. Whether its clever or contrived, I'll leave you to judge. Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner) is an enhanced soldier from the Outcome program. This is the military's equivalent to CIA’s Treadstone project. After the events of The Bourne Ultimatum, Colonel Byer (Edward Norton) decides to eliminate all traces of Outcome. Not just the agents, but all medical researchers and admin staff. I wouldn't be surprised if that included the cleaners and stationery suppliers as well. So it's not long before Cross goes on the run the run with Dr Marta (Rachel Weisz), the one scientist who designed the physically and mentally enhancing "chems" that cross must take daily. Cue two hours plus of chase scenes, followed by plot exposition by character actors such as Stacy Keach and Scott Glen, followed by more chase scenes. Rinse and repeat.
It’s all very professionally made and somewhat soulless. One of the main selling points of the original Bourne trilogy was the lead character’s amnesia, struggle for identity and possible redemption. This plot device is absent from this movie and thus we’re much less emotionally connected with our hero. The concept of chemically altering a person into a Nietzchean superman is initially intriguing, portraying Cross as an addict. However it is conveniently dispensed with when we discovers that going cold turkey reveals that the drug’s effects are permanent. The ending leaves matters conveniently open for yet further exploration. Overall, The Bourne Legacy is somewhat perfunctory with its matter of fact, A to B style of film making. The movie lacks any dramatic focus.
The Bourne Legacy will provide you with adequate entertainment if you want nothing more than a technically competent chase movie for two hours or so. If you like your fight scenes edited so quickly you haven't a clue who just wupped who, then you're in for a treat. Yet considering the strength of the cast, this is a somewhat grey action movie. Apart from The Hurt Locker and The Town, I have yet to see Jeremy Renner in a role that he excels in. Certainly not any of his performances as Hawkeye, the dullest member of The Avengers. Overall, fans of the entire franchise can easily skip this instalment. It is worth noting that Matt Damon returned for a fourth movie in 2016 which provided a codicil to the Jason Bourne story arc. However, even this may not be the definitive end to the franchise. A further spinoff television show called Treadstone is due to be broadcast in October this year.
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)
John le Carré's Cold War thriller Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, is not only a good example of the spy novel genre, but a fine piece of seventies British literature per se. Therefore I was most surprised when I learned back in 2011 that it was to be made as a film. Could the complexities and subtleties of this cerebral and deliberately slowly paced book be adequately brought to the big screen, by today’s studio system? Could it compete with the previous BBC television adaptation starring Alec Guiness that was made in 1979? Thankfully, director Thomas Alfredson and Working Title films have successfully managed to distil the complex plot into the film’s 127-minute running time. Furthermore, the ensemble cast have a quality script to work with and the entire production benefits from the flair of a quality European director who brings an interesting outsiders dynamic to this very British tale.
John le Carré's Cold War thriller Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, is not only a good example of the spy novel genre, but a fine piece of seventies British literature per se. Therefore I was most surprised when I learned back in 2011 that it was to be made as a film. Could the complexities and subtleties of this cerebral and deliberately slowly paced book be adequately brought to the big screen, by today’s studio system? Could it compete with the previous BBC television adaptation starring Alec Guiness that was made in 1979? Thankfully, director Thomas Alfredson and Working Title films have successfully managed to distil the complex plot into the film’s 127-minute running time. Furthermore, the ensemble cast have a quality script to work with and the entire production benefits from the flair of a quality European director who brings an interesting outsiders dynamic to this very British tale.
In October 1973, the head of British Intelligence, Control (Sir John Hurt), resigns after an operation in Budapest, Hungary goes seriously wrong. It transpires that Control believed one of four senior figures in the service was in fact a Russian Agent. The Hungary operation was an attempt to identify which of them was the mole. George Smiley (Gary Oldman), who had been forced into retirement by the departure of Control and changes within the corridors of power, is returned to office and tasked with the investigation into the alleged spy and preventing a major scandal. Rogue Agent Ricky Tarr (Tom Hardy) has evidence to suggest that the claims are true. Smiley also considers that the failure of the Hungary operation and the continuing success of Operation Witchcraft, which appears to be yielding significant Soviet Intelligence, may be linked. As smiley digs deeper into the affair he finds that much within British Intelligence is not what it seems.
Modern mainstream cinema is fast, frenetic and often fun. Yet it can also be bombastic, self-indulgent and lacking in depth. Although the technical aspects of film making is continuously advancing, I often feel that art of writing a tight, engaging and credible screenplay is in decline. Plot detail, character development and credible dialogue is frequently sidelined so that a narrative can be expedited. Fortunately, that is not the case with Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. The skilful screenplay by Bridget O'Connor and Peter Straughan credits the audience with the necessary intelligence to keep up with the plot. The viewer has to be attentive to the dialogue, connect the dots myself and do a degree of thinking. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy also requires an overview of the political status quo of the Cold War. However, those who engage with the ongoing story are rewarded with a high-quality, narrative driven film. It’s been a while since my brain was given such quality fodder as this.
Purists will be happy to know that Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy has not made any major plot alterations to their beloved source text. There have been some reordering of events for cinematic effect but by and large the story remains intact and true to the source text. Performances are outstanding and Gary Oldman makes the iconic role of George Smiley his own within minutes of being on screen. The look and feel of the time is suitably captured, especially the grimy down at heel world of the intelligence community. This is not the faux, stylised depiction of the era you’ve seen on television shows which still strive to make this decade chic in some fashion. It is ironic that such a quintessentially British product has been successfully brought to the screen, by Swedish director Alfredson. His Scandinavian sense of style and clinical attention to detail, previously shown in Let the Right One In, is ideal in realising this sort of period production.
I could extol the merits of many aspects of this film, such as the cinematography, soundtrack, production design and editing. But frankly it is much better for potential viewers to discover these things for themselves without any advance notification. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy was rather arbitrarily and obviously labelled "old school" by some film critics upon its theatrical release. It is not. It is simply a succinct reminder of how quality cinema should be made. If you start with a good story, that is written well then you have a solid foundation for a good movie. That is as pertinent now as it was when film making was in its infancy. If you like strong stories and quality performances that play out over a measured running time, then Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy will be of interest to you. If you do not like having to think of yourself, listening or paying attention and prefer style over substance, then you may want to look for entertainment elsewhere.
The Stepfather (1987)
The evil stepparent is a common trope in cinema. One can argue that is does perpetuate a negative stereotype but then Hollywood has never been quick to reflect social change or been overly concerned about its depiction of certain aspects of society. However, as a plot device this is money for old rope. So dovetailing a murderous stepfather into a slasher movie was a logical step in 1987 when the genre was booming. In many respects The Stepfather is an arbitrary, low budget movie, with all the associated hallmarks. Its cinematography is functional but no more so and it is shot on low grade film stock. Hence the colour palette is somewhat lurid. It is mainly a housebound production with standard suburban exterior shots. The score is a typical eighties synthesiser offering, that both under performs and dates the proceedings. Yet one thing stands out and makes The Stepfather better than what it deserves. The central performance by Terry O'Quinn is compelling and drives the movie forward.
The evil stepparent is a common trope in cinema. One can argue that is does perpetuate a negative stereotype but then Hollywood has never been quick to reflect social change or been overly concerned about its depiction of certain aspects of society. However, as a plot device this is money for old rope. So dovetailing a murderous stepfather into a slasher movie was a logical step in 1987 when the genre was booming. In many respects The Stepfather is an arbitrary, low budget movie, with all the associated hallmarks. Its cinematography is functional but no more so and it is shot on low grade film stock. Hence the colour palette is somewhat lurid. It is mainly a housebound production with standard suburban exterior shots. The score is a typical eighties synthesiser offering, that both under performs and dates the proceedings. Yet one thing stands out and makes The Stepfather better than what it deserves. The central performance by Terry O'Quinn is compelling and drives the movie forward.
Jerry Blake (Terry O'Quinn) has recently married widow Susan Maine (Shelly Hack) after moving to a small town. He sells real estate and extols the virtues of the American Dream; of family, home and hard work. Yet his stepdaughter Stephanie (Jill Schoelen) is suspicious of him and still grieves for her natural father. She shares her fears with her therapist Dr. Bondurant (Charles Lanyer). Meanwhile, in the next town Jim Ogilvie (Stephen Shellen) searches for evidence regarding the murder of his sister and her family by the mysterious man she married. The police have no clues and the local press are disinclined to pursue the story any further. Jim suspects that there may be a serial killer travelling the state preying on widows and searching for the perfect family. Is Jerry Blake that man? Are Stephanie’s fears about him founded or is she just struggling to come to terms with the changes in her family.
The Stepfather has a good cold opening which clearly establishes where the plot is going. Although the rather formulaic screenplay by Donald E. Westlake unfolds in a somewhat expected fashion, it does have a few points of interest along the way. This is the era prior to DNA evidence and the proliferation of CCTV. Local police departments simply don’t have the manpower to undertake extensive door to door searches. If clues are not immediately forthcoming then a murder investigation quickly goes cold. Such a time obviously made moving around the country and changing one’s identity a lot easier. The film also touches upon the American love affair with small towns and how they represent all that is considered good and wholesome and about the American way of life. There are hints that the story by Brian Garfield (of Death Wish fame) is a metaphor for how this was considered under attack at the time, from social change.
The cast do the best they can and the screenplay endeavours to give some depth to the Mother and Daughter relationship and how it is unbalanced by the arrival of Jerry in their lives. But overall the proceeding are dominated by Terry O’Quinn. The way he veers from the quietly spoken Father figure to an angry sociopath is quite startling. There is not an excess of violence in The Stepfather but when it comes, it is powerfully handled. When Jerry finally snaps and has his iconic “who am I here” moment, where he momentarily forgets what identity he has currently assumed it remains a standout scene. Director Joseph Rueben gets as much mileage from his cast and the film’s 90-minute running time as possible. He refined this process even further to better result in 1991, when he made the similarly themed movie Sleeping with the Enemy with Julia Roberts.
The Banana Splits Movie (2019)
I was very surprised when I first saw a trailer for The Banana Splits Movie. It is unusual for a big studio such as Warner Bros. to allow one of its intellectual properties to be “repurposed” in this way. However, a little research online has yielded a few interviews in trade magazines where the inference is that this movie is a test. Naturally the studio wouldn’t take such a risk with a more popular franchise like The Flintstones or Scooby Doo, so The Banana Splits were chosen instead to see if they could successfully crossover into another genre. And the horror genre lends itself to low budget productions that can quickly be made, marketed and yield a satisfactory return on investment. It will be interesting to see if this gamble pays off and whether we’ll see a sequel or another beloved children’s show turned into a blood-soaked comedy horror.
I was very surprised when I first saw a trailer for The Banana Splits Movie. It is unusual for a big studio such as Warner Bros. to allow one of its intellectual properties to be “repurposed” in this way. However, a little research online has yielded a few interviews in trade magazines where the inference is that this movie is a test. Naturally the studio wouldn’t take such a risk with a more popular franchise like The Flintstones or Scooby Doo, so The Banana Splits were chosen instead to see if they could successfully crossover into another genre. And the horror genre lends itself to low budget productions that can quickly be made, marketed and yield a satisfactory return on investment. It will be interesting to see if this gamble pays off and whether we’ll see a sequel or another beloved children’s show turned into a blood-soaked comedy horror.
The Banana Splits Movie starts in a fairly innocuous fashion with an episode of The Banana Splits Show (which has been running in this movie universe since 1968) being recorded at the Taft Studios. But due to a change in programming policy the production is to be closed. Furthermore, the Banana Splits (who are robots for “some particular reason”) seem to be having problems with their latest software upgrade. Meanwhile young Harley Williams (Finlay Wojtak-Hissong) is visiting the studio with his Mother Beth (Dani Kind), older Brother Austin (Romeo Carare) and Stepfather Mitch (Steve Lund) to watch a live recording. It’s Harley’s birthday and he is a big fan of the show, although his parents worry that he’s a little old for such things. Since Harley’s Father died, he’s become very insular and Beth struggles to find one of his school friends to join his birthday celebrations. Zoe (Maria Nash) reluctantly comes along, although she finds the show somewhat “lame”. However, the Banana Splits have no intention of being cancelled and start reaping bloody revenge against both studio staff and the audience. After all, the show must go on. Will the Williams family survive?
The horror genre often lends itself to high-concept film making and The Banana Splits Movie falls clearly into this category. It has all the key ingredients required for such a movie, with its low budget, tongue in cheek approach and liberal quantities of gore. But this film has some of the flaws that are also inherent with these sorts of productions. The initial thirty minutes leading up to the first murder drag a little. The cast try hard and there is a little more backstory to the characters than you expect with such films, but performances are variable. Plus the screenplay by Jed Elinoff and Scott Thomas, dithers a little over what exactly to do with Fleagle, Bingo, Drooper and Snorky. There is no attempt to explain why they’ve gone “bad”, not that it is essential to the narrative. Horror movies have their own fluid, internal logic and audiences tend to indulge such things. There are also some editorial issues which leave some minor gaps in the narrative. A character loses some fingers off camera. During the end credits we see them lying on the floor. Has a greater significance been edited out?
If you adjust your expectations accordingly and keep in mind the realities of low budget horror movies, The Banana Splits Movie can be an amusing 90 minutes. The cast are sincere and there is an inherently creepy quality to the idea of something as benign as The Banana Splits behaving psychotically. Gore fans will not be disappointed as there are several quite detailed and grisly kills. If only the screenplay had focused more upon the interaction between Fleagle, Bingo, Drooper and Snorky. Naturally there are some obvious homages to The Terminator franchise and gamers will see clear parallels with Five Nights at Freddy’s. As for cries of “you’ve ruined my childhood” from the usual suspects, these can be dismissed as hyperbole from people who patently aren’t familiar with the writings of Marcus Aurelius. The Banana Splits Movie ends with plenty of scope for a follow up. It just remains to be seen whether this movie finds an audience who take it in the spirit it is intended.
NB Snorky is my favourite.
The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)
Fellow blogger and all round good guy Murf, posted an ode to Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure today. It is clearly a movie that he enjoys (Go read his review). He references how due to this movie (along with others), as well as being a decent person in real life, that actor Keanu Reeves enjoys a great deal of goodwill from fans and pop culture cognoscenti. Which is a good thing for Mr Reeves, because goodwill often means that folk are prepared to overlook past transgressions and misdemeanours. And in cinematic terms, Keanu has had a few. The Day the Earth Stood Still is definitely one of them. Now I’ve questioned before the wisdom and merits of writing a predominantly negative film review and believe me my thoughts on The Day the Earth Stood Still are most definitely so. However, I think that something positive can still be gained from scrutinising this film. It can be held up as a textbook example of how not to remake a classic.
Fellow blogger and all round good guy Murf, posted an ode to Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure today. It is clearly a movie that he enjoys (Go read his review). He references how due to this movie (along with others), as well as being a decent person in real life, that actor Keanu Reeves enjoys a great deal of goodwill from fans and pop culture cognoscenti. Which is a good thing for Mr Reeves, because goodwill often means that folk are prepared to overlook past transgressions and misdemeanours. And in cinematic terms, Keanu has had a few. The Day the Earth Stood Still is definitely one of them. Now I’ve questioned before the wisdom and merits of writing a predominantly negative film review and believe me my thoughts on The Day the Earth Stood Still are most definitely so. However, I think that something positive can still be gained from scrutinising this film. It can be held up as a textbook example of how not to remake a classic.
In a prologue sequence set in 1928, a solitary mountaineer encounters a glowing sphere. He loses consciousness after touching it and upon waking, he notices a scar on his hand where a sample of his DNA has been taken. Moving on to the present day, Dr. Helen Benson (Jennifer Connelly) is summoned to a military facility along with several other scientists when an alien spacecraft arrives in New York City. Aboard is a human-like alien (who looks like the earlier mountaineer) and a giant robot of immense size and power called Gort. The alien identifies himself as Klaatu (Keanu Reeves) and states he has “come to save the Earth”. The US Secretary of Defense Regina Jackson (Kathy Bates) sees him as a threat decides to have him interrogated more robustly. Dr. Benson considers this unethical and decides to facilitate Klaatu’s escape. However, when she learns exactly what his words mean, she tries to convince him to rethink his views on humanities iniquities and change his intentions.
When you consider this production’s budget, the quality of the support cast, along with the advances in visual effects, this movie could have been so much better. Director Scott Derrickson is far from a genre hack and I consider his previous work on The Exorcism of Emily Rose, Sinister, Doctor Strange to be of interest. I think his concept of retelling Robert Wise’s classic 1951 movie as a more benevolent tale, rather than an imperious threat, is a valid idea. Yet all these good intentions are lost due to a woefully inept screenplay by David Scarpa. One can’t help but feel that the narrative scope of the film tries too hard and that several well-intentioned casting decisions were ultimately a bad choice. Dr Benson’s stepson, played by Jaden Smith, is supposed to be conflicted due to the premature death of his father but comes off as simply intransigent and annoying. And then there is Keanu Reeves decision to try and play Klaatu in a similar disconnected idiom to David Bowie, in The Man Who Fell to Earth. Instead of being an understated performance it simply fails to convey any depth and conviction.
I’m a fan of unconventional casting when it works but Professor Barnhardt, played by a curiously deadpan John Cleese, whose character has won a Nobel prize for his work on "biological altruism” is too much of a stretch. As for the plot device of paranoid politicians, well if you want it to have any semblance of dramatic impact, then you really have to try and do something different with it. Sadly, such inspiration is sadly lacking and we’re just presented with the usual paranoid clichés about the military and our elected officials. Hence by the time the movie reaches its finale and the Robot Gort, transforms into a swarm of all consuming insect like nano-machines, the spectacular denouement lacks any emotional impact. Given what the audience has witnessed over the proceeding hour, I’m sure most right-minded people would say “fuck it, let humanity die, the bastards”. But at the last moment, Klaatu reverses his decision and sacrifices himself for the sake of humanity, thus ending an emotionally lacklustre and tonally deaf film.
The Day the Earth Stood Still lacks the portentous quality of its predecessor. Klaatu is no longer a biblical judge but a vaguely indifferent administrator, who is inconvenienced by humanity as he vacuum packs earth’s wildlife. Gort is robbed of his metaphorical status and is simply relegated to a MacGuffin designed to facilitate a spectacular ending. And the screenplay, instead of making the audience reflect upon the consequences of mankind’s propensity for violence and destruction, simply pays lip service to the environmental crisis and a few other token social issues. There is no conviction or gravitas present. Nor is there a soundtrack comparable to that of the original by Bernard Herrmann. This is big budget Hollywood science fiction, trying to be politically and socially relevant but refracted though the prism of a big studio that doesn’t really grasp either of those things. But returning to the original point, Keanu Reeves has firmly put this behind him and risen above it, thanks to impart to the John Wick Trilogy. Movies such as this have indefinitely stalled less fortunate actors’ careers.
Safe (2012)
During the eighties there was a clear league table of action movie stars. By the mid-nineties this system fell into decline and the Hollywood lacked any clearly defined exponents of the genre. A decade later, due to the success of Luc Besson’s Transporter films, Jason Statham became a bankable box office star in this field. When you look at Statham's early work in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels it is hard to envisage the "mockney geezer" as an international action star. Yet he has successfully stepped into the role and enjoys a large following. I enjoy his work as he has a likeable on-screen persona. My 88-year-old Mum likes him to because "he wears nice suits". The action genre seldom reaches such a diverse demographic.
During the eighties there was a clear league table of action movie stars. By the mid-nineties this system fell into decline and the Hollywood lacked any clearly defined exponents of the genre. A decade later, due to the success of Luc Besson’s Transporter films, Jason Statham became a bankable box office star in this field. When you look at Statham's early work in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels it is hard to envisage the "mockney geezer" as an international action star. Yet he has successfully stepped into the role and enjoys a large following. I enjoy his work as he has a likeable on-screen persona. My 88-year-old Mum likes him to because "he wears nice suits". The action genre seldom reaches such a diverse demographic.
Safe is a throwback movie. It's central plot theme is very seventies. It seems to be an integral part of the action movie stars rite of passage, that at some point they have to make a movie involving a child (special needs is optional), a pet or sundry exotic animal. Therefore, when I saw the trailer for Safe, the first thing I thought of was Bruce Willis in Mercury Rising. The similarities are quite apparent. In Safe, Statham plays Luke Wright, a New York law enforcer turned cage fighter whose wife has been killed by the Russian mob. He encounters on Mei (Catherine Chan) on the subway and intervenes when she is attacked by assassins. The eleven-year-old maths prodigy is the key to crime boss Han Jiao (James Hong) accounts system and therefore a huge liability in the wrong hands. Wright swears to protect her and so the bodies start piling up.
Director Boaz Yakin’s script is again very old school. It depicts a very modern Manhattan as a hotbed of corruption as you would see in many seventies’ movies such as Serpico. The entire bureaucracy is on the take from the mayor (Chris Sarandon) down to the street cops. It should also be noted that even with the required suspension of disbelief needed to watch such movies, Safe taxes credibility to the extreme with the level of mayhem that ensues. The dialogue is ripe and the acting consists of the cast shouting at each other in-between chewing the scenery. With regard to the action scenes, there are an adequate amount of set pieces, with hand to hand combat and sundry shootings. Nothing is exceptional but nor is anything substandard. Movies such as Safe require a liberal helping of action and sufficient is supplied. But there is nothing of note. Do not go expecting a bravura ending like in Wanted: Dead or Alive.
Yet despite these numerous faults, Safe bowls along under the power of its own insane internal logic. It also does exactly what it says on the side of the tin and somehow manages to entertain on a basic level. A lot of this comes down to Jason Statham. He has the ability to carry a film such as this. It is far from his finest work but overall, it’s acceptable. And so Safe simply joins the ever-growing list of tolerable action movies that are ideal for late night consumption, sans any major critical analysis. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t see that as a bad thing. As I’ve said on numerous occasions, not every film can be a critical success or a genre milestone. Material such as this fills a very particular niche in the market, serves a specific function and has its fans.
Phase IV (1974)
Every now and then, a mainstream film studio employs an artisan director to helm some sort of experimental or vanity project. The studio executives often have very little understanding of the film maker or their body of work, beyond that their artistically respected by their peers. Hence there is the corporate hope that the resulting production will be both critically acclaimed and financially successful. However, what all too often happens is that the said director goes off and indulges themselves, or simply does what they’re hired to do and delivers a finished picture that is beyond the intellectual horizons of the studio. Sphincter’s subsequently tighten among executives; the director is denied final cut and the film is taken a way and re-edited in the hope of rendering it more commercially viable. In the worse cases, a second director is brought onboard and new material shot in the hope of “saving” the picture. The net result is usually acrimony among all involved parties and a film that fails to make its money back at the box office.
Every now and then, a mainstream film studio employs an artisan director to helm some sort of experimental or vanity project. The studio executives often have very little understanding of the film maker or their body of work, beyond that their artistically respected by their peers. Hence there is the corporate hope that the resulting production will be both critically acclaimed and financially successful. However, what all too often happens is that the said director goes off and indulges themselves, or simply does what they’re hired to do and delivers a finished picture that is beyond the intellectual horizons of the studio. Sphincter’s subsequently tighten among executives; the director is denied final cut and the film is taken a way and re-edited in the hope of rendering it more commercially viable. In the worse cases, a second director is brought onboard and new material shot in the hope of “saving” the picture. The net result is usually acrimony among all involved parties and a film that fails to make its money back at the box office.
Phase IV is a textbook example of this phenomenon. It’s a cerebral science fiction movie with the emphasis on plot and the big ideas that underpin it. There are no major action driven set pieces, tempestuous romances or excessive sex and violence. It has a somewhat clinical setting, matter of fact performances by the two leads and the wider theme about next stage in human evolution has a lot in common with Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. Plus the film originally ended with an experimental montage that depicts the next stages in human and myrmecine symbiosis. Needless to say this was the final straw for the studio who had already gotten cold feet. The montage was edited out and Phase IV was given a limited release and arbitrarily marketed as a “creature feature” which it patently is not. The film died at the box office and has only in recent years found the audience that it deserves, through showings at film festivals and broadcast on stations favoured by movie enthusiasts.
The creative talent behind Phase IV was Saul Bass. Bass is best known as a graphic designer who created numerous classic motion-picture title sequences, film posters, and corporate logos. During his career he collaborated with such cinematic luminaries as Alfred Hitchcock, Otto Preminger, Billy Wilder, Stanley Kubrick and Martin Scorsese. After acting as a “visual consultant” on pictures such as Spartacus and dabbling in short film making, it was inevitable that Bass would want to turn his hand to a full-length motion picture. Paramount Pictures, seeing an opportunity offered him a deal and Bass set about developing Phase IV. Being an artist first and foremost, Bass was not going to produce an arbitrary science fiction movie. He saw a much greater potential in Mayo Simon’s screenplay and instead decided to explore much deeper themes, other than the basic man versus nature premise.
The film starts with an unspecific stellar event, which visually implies some sort of alignment of celestial bodies and the release of some form of energy. Scientists theorise upon the consequences of these events. Dr. Ernest D. Hubbs (Nigel Davenport), notices a rapid change in ant activities in the Arizona desert. It would appear that all-natural predators of ants in the immediate area have mysteriously died and that multiple species of ants are co-operating instead of fighting. Furthermore, they have built several large, geometrically intricate towers, instead of their traditional mounds. This unusual behaviour generates both concern and curiosity among the scientific community, who fund Dr Hubbs to research the matter further. A computerised laboratory is established close to the ant towers and fellow scientist and cryptologist James Lesko (Michael Murphy) joins Hubbs as he aggressively investigates the ant’s behaviour.
In many ways the real star of Phase IV is wildlife photographer the Ken Middleham, who shot the insect sequences. Nowadays such material would more than likely be computer generated but back in 1974, these things were done the hard way. And so we get intricate shots inside of the ant’s nest and later on it the film, of the ants crawling around inside the computer equipment and air conditioning units in Hubb’s laboratory. By forming chains they deliberately short out equipment. Middleham cleverly focuses on noticeably different types of ants so they can be clearly identified by the audience, making several key characters in the proceedings. Because the subject matter is handled in an intelligent manner, the idea of a hive mind remains credible. The concept of a queen ant that ingests the very toxins designed to kill her so she can breed a new generation that are immune, is quite disturbing and atmospherically handled. The film also has an eerie electronic score by Brian Gascoigne which enhances the off-kilter mood.
Phase IV was the first and last feature film to be made by Saul Bass. He returned to his regular line of work after this project. The poor marketing, studio interference and meant that the film simply didn’t find the right audience. The US theatrical poster clearly shows an attempt to sell this thoughtful and well-crafted film as a monster movie. Those who paid expecting a more violent version of The Naked Jungle must have been bitterly disappointed. However, in more recent years the film has been re-evaluated by critics, especially since the director’s death. In 2012 the missing end montage was found, remastered and shown along with the theatrical print at several US film festivals. Perhaps it may be re-integrated into the film at some point in the future for Blu-ray release. Phase IV will certainly be of interest to those with a passion for obscure and more intellectually driven film making. Comparable films are seldom made by big studios these days and when they are, still often share the same fate.
Tolkien (2019)
Within its first five minutes, it becomes very apparent what Finnish director Dome Karukoski is attempting to achieve with his biopic Tolkien. Commencing with JRR Tolkien (Nicholas Hoult) as an Army Officer, searching the trenches of the Somme for a lost comrade, the film explores through a series of flashbacks key events that shaped the authors life and inevitably influenced his subsequent writings. Naturally, such a narrative conceit is to be expected when considering such a writer and his literary creations but often during Tolkien, viewers may get a sense that the screenplay is overreaching to draw parallels between real world events and key themes in The Lord of the Rings. Furthermore, when considering Tolkien’s professed dislike of allegory, it does seem a little too heavy handed. Yet despite this stumbling block there are still other aspects of the production to enjoy.
Within its first five minutes, it becomes very apparent what Finnish director Dome Karukoski is attempting to achieve with his biopic Tolkien. Commencing with JRR Tolkien (Nicholas Hoult) as an Army Officer, searching the trenches of the Somme for a lost comrade, the film explores through a series of flashbacks key events that shaped the authors life and inevitably influenced his subsequent writings. Naturally, such a narrative conceit is to be expected when considering such a writer and his literary creations but often during Tolkien, viewers may get a sense that the screenplay is overreaching to draw parallels between real world events and key themes in The Lord of the Rings. Furthermore, when considering Tolkien’s professed dislike of allegory, it does seem a little too heavy handed. Yet despite this stumbling block there are still other aspects of the production to enjoy.
During his youth Tolkien’s widowed Mother (Laura Donnelly) finds herself in “impecunious circumstances” and the young John Ronald Reuel and his younger brother Hilary are forced to move from the rural West Midlands to the industrial suburbs of Birmingham. Her subsequent early death sees JRR Tolkien and his brother come under the guardianship of Father Francis Morgan (Colm Meany). Tolkien subsequently finds himself at King Edward’s School, Birmingham, where his is a rank outsider. An orphan as well as an immigrant from South Africa, his gift for language and stories set him aside from other students. Yet through a quirk of fate, he find himself in the company of Robert Q. Gilson (Patrick Gibson), Christopher Wiseman (Tom Glynn-Carney) and Geoffrey Bache Smith (Anthony Boyle), who all have similar artistic temperaments that are frowned upon by the academic establishment. All become firm friends and form a very strong social bond.
Tolkien also becomes enamoured by Edith Bratt (Lily Collins), the companion of Mrs Faulkner, who runs the boarding house where he resides. She is feels similarly trapped by her lack of financial independence and societal constraints. Yet their burgeoning romance is further hampered when Father Morgan states that Tolkien must decide between an early marriage and studying at Oxford. Matters are further compounded as he struggles academically to find his way at University. However, a chance meeting with Professor Joseph Wright, leads to him changing disciplines and studying “the Grammar of the Gothic Language”. However, the events of 1914 lead to Tolkien and his companions enlisting in the armed forces and leaving for France. It is here that the movie comes full circle and the unparalleled carnage of “the war to end all wars” greatly challenges Tolkien’s strong religious convictions as well as romantic and artistic notions.
Tolkien endeavours to cover a lot of ground both historically and thematically. It explores and reflects upon the value of art in society. The screenplay by David Gleeson and Stephen Beresford also attempts to capture Tolkien’s love of language and mythology. Something that is quite hard to do in a primarily visual medium whose foundation is the concept of “show, don’t tell”. There are some clever narrative parallels such as how language is both the life blood of a nation and institutions such as the Catholic Church and that both use words to express more than the literal. Yet while Tolkien is happy to approach these wider philosophical issues, it is surprisingly coy about addressing matter of its subject’s devout faith. For those with a keen cinematic eye cinematographer Lasse Frank creates some subtle religious imagery. Meaningful scenes play out below the stars, the shattered remnants of a Church still has a statue of Christ on the cross and there are cunningly place religious texts among the books on desks. But overall, Tolkien’s faith is not overstated.
Performances are earnest and competent. Lily Collins is very good as Edith, who is greatly confined within the strictures of Edwardian Britain but seems reconciled that a happy ending is unlikely to await her. Nicholas Hoult is clearly invested in his role and remains likeable in his portrayal of JRR Tolkien. There is a lovely camo from Derek Jacobi as Professor Wright. His little monologues about the importance of words is a standout and certainly points to where the character Treebeard may have originated. Visually Tolkien is a handsome biopic with both countryside and city vividly depicted, using a very bright colour pallet. The depiction of World War I trenches is similarly beautifully lit, reminding me at times of the work of Mario Bava. The bleak landscape frequently morphing into a kind of proto-Mordor, due to Tolkien suffering from trench fever. But this digital visual device is overplayed. If it had been done once at the movies climax, the point would have been made effectively. But it is belaboured and one is left feeling that the production is trying to stretch real life events to make its rather obvious point. It’s a shame, as there is much to like about Tolkien but it does feel that the entire film is trying to make Tolkien’s life as epic as the scope of his writing.
Cromwell (1970)
Big budget historical costume dramas were still popular at the box office during the seventies although the public was slowly falling out of love with them. Cromwell is a curious addition to the genre in so far that it is actually demonstrably less than the sum of its parts. Despite a high budget and a quite impressive production design, it offers nothing more than a broad historical overview of the English Civil War and is actually quite light on detail and frequently historically inaccurate. It comes across as a somewhat long-winded history primer for schools and the viewer is never really offered anything more than a dozen or so bullet points of information about this period. However, it has a few merits to consider and is certainly not a total waste of time for those seeking a few hours diversion.
Big budget historical costume dramas were still popular at the box office during the seventies although the public was slowly falling out of love with them. Cromwell is a curious addition to the genre in so far that it is actually demonstrably less than the sum of its parts. Despite a high budget and a quite impressive production design, it offers nothing more than a broad historical overview of the English Civil War and is actually quite light on detail and frequently historically inaccurate. It comes across as a somewhat long-winded history primer for schools and the viewer is never really offered anything more than a dozen or so bullet points of information about this period. However, it has a few merits to consider and is certainly not a total waste of time for those seeking a few hours diversion.
Director Ken Hughes allegedly produced a three-hour rough cut before editing the theatrical release down to a more manageable 139 minutes. At times this seems apparent due to the rather rapid way in which the historical narrative moves from one key event to another. Some scenes provide the bare minimum of detail and character development needed to make their point before moving on. For example one of Cromwell’s labourers, John Carter, is seen resisting Royalist troops as they fence off common land. He is arrested and subsequently released sans his ears to simply reinforce the plot that the King is a tyrant. The character then vanishes from the story for a considerable amount of time only to return as a loyal soldier in Parliamentary New Model Army, who is now in dispute with Cromwell’s policies. This and other examples indicate that a lot of broader detail has been excised.
However, despite discrepancies in the plot Cromwell does boast accurate period costumes, handsome sets and solid lead performances. Richard Harris is passionate and credible as a man who is constantly hamstrung by the failings of others and who frequently has to look to his own resolve to master events. Alec Guinness maintain a quiet dignity as Charles I; a man who seems to grasp that events often control the man rather than vice versa. His death scene is quite poignant, although his actual execution is discrete. The supporting cast is a veritable who’s who of British character actors from the sixties and seventies. Stalwarts such as Charles Grey, Robert Morley, Douglas Wilmer and Nigel Stocke play sundry nobles from the time. Some of the deficiencies of the screenplay are carried by the quality of the actors present who all are at ease in such opulent period productions.
The battles scenes in Cromwell also hint at some judicious editing and not necessarily for reasons of running time. There is a distinct lack of violence in the close quarters fighting with most deaths being shown in long shots. Yet there are numerous stunts with riders falling from mounts and infantry being blown up by incoming artillery fire. However, there are a few shots of the battlefield that feature bloodied corpses. Considering the rather jolting earlier scene where Frank Finlay staggers into the church with his ears cut off, I suspect that this movie was specifically trimmed for violence, as there are some tonal inconsistencies in the finished edit. Perhaps the producers wanted to focus more on the historical elements and not get bogged down in rating related issues.
Overall, Cromwell is an adequate movie, if you merely want a period drama that is light on detail and relatively easy watching. It is the performances that are its primary selling point. For those looking for something as cerebral and as multi-layered as The Lion in Winter or A Man for All Seasons, you may wish to adjust your expectations. For good or ill, Cromwell is a prime example of a genre of movie that is seldom made these days. The recent historical drama Mary Queen of Scots stood out among other mainstream theatrical releases for this very of this reason. The Outlaw King, which told the story of Robert the Bruce opted for Netflix as a medium to reach its potential audience. Cromwell also serves as a reminder that the UK still had robust stars of note and was capable of competing with the US film market at this time. Nowadays such a subject matter would more than likely be tackled via a miniseries that was internationally funded.