Visions of Light (1992)

2014 #33
Arnold Glassman, Todd McCarthy & Stuart Samuels | 90 mins | TV | 16:9 | USA & Japan / English | PG

Visions of LightCinematographers discuss cinematography in this AFI-produced documentary. Initially a whistlestop history of film photography, it segues into analysis of movies the interviewed DPs had shot. Unfortunately, casual film fans may judge it monotopical, while hardened cineastes may find it a haphazard, Hollywood-centric overview.

However, there’s real delight to be found in the clips, and the discoveries you can make through them. It opens with an extended section on David Lean’s Oliver Twist, which in my experience is mainly discussed for Alec Guinness’ Fagin, but on this evidence is visually awe-inspiring. This showcasing, plus a smattering of insights, redeem any imperfections.

4 out of 5

In the interests of completing my ever-growing backlog, I decided to post ‘drabble reviews’ of some films. For those unfamiliar with the concept, a drabble is a complete piece of writing exactly 100 words long.

The Big Lebowski (1998)

2014 #4
Joel Coen | 112 mins | DVD | 1.85:1 | USA & UK / English | 18 / R

I was going to post this review today anyway, but let’s nonetheless take it as a moment to acknowledge Philip Seymour Hoffman, who has a memorable supporting role here. He was an exceptional talent, gone before his time.

The Big LebowskiI confess, I’ve never really got on with the Coen brothers. I liked Fargo well enough, but I didn’t ‘get’ The Man Who Wasn’t There (in fairness, I was young and need to revisit it), felt Burn After Reading was aimlessly daft, and find No Country for Old Men to be a vastly overrated self-conscious bore, of which even the thought of re-watching to re-assess makes me groan. The Big Lebowski, however, is good fun.

In a plot that clearly and repeatedly references film noir, Jeff Bridges is everyman Jeffrey “The Dude” Lebowski, who is attacked in his own home when mistaken by Bad Men for Jeffrey Lebowski, rich businessman. The Dude visits his namesake seeking recompense, and ends up suckered into a kidnap and ransom plot that takes in so many wild asides and diversions there’s no point explaining them all here — that is the film.

Known for all its cult — and, to an extent, broader critical — popularity, there now seems to be quite a backlash against The Big Lebowski online, based on the comments boards of various websites. There’s a newfound consensus that it’s overrated, a meandering and unamusing nothing of a film. The DudeI don’t wholly agree, though I didn’t unabashedly love the film as some do. It’s perhaps a bit “of its time” now, and getting a little “you had to be there”; coming to it almost two decades later, it exemplifies a ’90s American mainstream/independent-borderline filmmaking sensibility; the kind of bracket the early works of Tarantino might also fall into, for instance.

So while it’s true that it does meander a bit, and has a certain relaxed manner that isn’t going to be for everyone, I think that’s a valid stylistic choice rather than a filmmaking error. It’s perhaps a film to relax with, to laze even, rather than one to expect to grip you and hold your attention tight for two hours. I also think that another common accusation — saying it’s no more than “a stoner movie for stoners” — is unfair. Indeed, I was pleasantly surprised how little of that kind of humour or content there was — it’s barely featured, never discussed, and the characters don’t seem defined by it. In fact, if I didn’t know that’s what people accuse it of being, I might even have missed it completely. (That’s not my kind of thing, so I’m not looking for it, but nor do I easily write it off.)

The other dudeIf one did want to look into Lebowski more deeply, the most interesting facet is that noir one. It’s quite lightly of that genre — very much an updating and re-appropriation of certain tropes, rather than a straight-up example of where the modern version(s) of the genre is (are… or were). It feels like the Coens were consciously putting a present-day(-then) character through the paces of a traditional noir plot. Whether that was the deliberate structural conceit or just a side effect of making a noir pastiche, I couldn’t say.

It would seem the cult of Lebowski is fading with time, increasingly limited to those who saw it at the right time or worship anything by the brothers Coen. But to write it off entirely is also a shame, because there is much to enjoy even for those who don’t partake in certain recreational substances.

4 out of 5

The Big Lebowski was viewed as part of my What Do You Mean You Haven’t Seen…? 2014 project, which you can read more about here.

Wolf (1994)

2013 #80
Mike Nichols | 120 mins | streaming (HD) | 1.85:1 | USA / English | 15 / R

WolfWithout meaning to spoil anything, Wolf is rated R for “language and werewolf attacks”! I love the ludicrous specificity the MPAA indulge in sometimes. I know the BBFC’s famous “mild peril” is pretty useless, but at least they draw from an academic- and objective-sounding pool of phrases in their summaries, rather than throwing in ‘advice’ that is meaningless (there are perfectly PG werewolf attacks in other movies).

Anyway, Wolf. It’s about werewolves. But don’t go thinking this is like An American Werewolf in London or The Wolfman, and certainly don’t attach it to the modern Twilight-type werewolf saga — this is a supernatural movie For Adults. Not in the sense of there being excessive violence or sex or swearing or what have you, which you might think when I’ve used adults with a capital A and highlighted the R rating — though there is a dash of all those things — but, rather, because of the characters and their situations. For instance, the titular (were)wolf is not a muscle-ripped teenage boy, but a middle-aged literary agent played by Jack Nicholson. No one wants to see him running around in the woods topless, do they? (I understand that’s the primary appeal of the werewolves in Twilight. I’ve still not seen it.)

And it’s not just about horror movie stuff, either. When he gets bitten, Nicholson’s character thinks it was just by a regular wolf. He has it treated by a doctor, that kind of thing. But then he begins to exhibit more self assurance in the workplace. Rather than meekly accepting his new posting to the back of beyond, with his protege and supposed friend stealing his current job, or that his wife is having an affair, he fights both these things. Only later does he start getting all hairy and kill-y and visiting-mysterious-shaman-y.

RealismIt’s those early sections where the film is at its best, when it tries to stay grounded in some form of realism. Any time it gets too Fantasy, it begins to get a tad silly. The climax in particular seems to come from a different film: Wolf abruptly moves from being an office politics drama with a fantasy edge, to a full-on manwolf-vs-manwolf brawl. As a straight dramatic director, Mike Nichols doesn’t seem to quite have the chops to pull off this fantasy/horror stuff without it beginning to look daft. That might not be entirely his fault, however, as reportedly the film was delayed by months to re-shoot the entire third act. Perhaps originally it had something more in-keeping? That said, he did want Michelle Pfeiffer to wear a red-hood sweatshirt during the finale! She refused, fearing it would harm the film’s credibility. She was right — it’s quite silly enough as it is.

Things do come to a head with nicely ambiguous ending, however. (Half-spoilers follow.) Rather than some pat “hero gets away with it in the end” conclusion, or even a “hero sacrifices self” moment, the primary ending is uncommon, followed by a coda that’s open to interpretation. Empire’s review reads it as a cliché, but I think that does it a disservice. It’s not enough to redeem the film, but I liked it.

One other aside I must mention is the budget: apparently it cost $70 million! How?! It would be a marvel for it to reach that figure today, never mind 20 years ago. FantasyI can only presume there were hefty paydays for Nicholson and Pfeiffer, both megastars at the time, and possibly Christopher Plummer’s supporting role, maybe Nichols, and on scoring duties (obviously), Ennio Morricone. And maybe those re-shoots were really extensive. Or perhaps they spent it all on the nighttime aerial photography of Manhattan, which is gorgeous — that would’ve been worth it.

All told, Wolf is an unbalanced film. The first hour-ish feels quite fresh, mashing together two different genres to use one as an unusual prism with which to commentate on a particular world. When it morphs into more standard werewolf territory, however, it throws away what was a unique facet in lieu of some half-rate horror-action theatrics. Shame.

3 out of 5

This review is part of the 100 Films Advent Calendar 2013. Read more here.

The Naked Gun 2½: The Smell of Fear (1991)

2013 #76
David Zucker | 82 mins | TV | 1.85:1 | USA / English | 15* / PG-13

The Naked Gun 2Frank Drebin and the crew at Police Squad are back for the usual mix of silly one-liners and farcical slapstick. Fortunately, they’re as entertaining as ever.

If you’ve seen a Zucker-Abrams-Zucker film you’ll know what you’re in for (and if you haven’t, is a sequel really the best place to start?), but the pleasing aspect is that this is as good as any. Well, not as good as any, but it’s a fine example of their style. Which means that, the afore-outlined daftness aside, some topical jokes have already been lost to time and/or culture (I say “already” — it is 22 years old (oh lordy!)). On that note, I’ll mention that there’s once again a longer TV version which wasn’t shown when I watched it on TV.

The plot is, of course, fairly incidental; but, in a moment of accidental depressingness, it could just as easily be set today as almost two decades ago: an environmental expert is set to make a speech to the US President that will influence policy, so of course the energy companies want said speaker silenced. The only bit that doesn’t fly today is that the President might actually listen to an evidence-backed scientist over energy lobbyists. 22 years on and that field is still as bad as it ever was Stateside, if not worse… Bit of a bleak topic for a comedy, but I suppose it wasn’t all as crushingly serious back then. I imagine that side of the film will only get less funny as the years roll on.

Probably better than the third, probably not quite as good as the first, The Naked Gun 2½ probably splits the difference for 3½ stars. But I don’t do things by halves, kiddo.

3 out of 5

* Classified a 12 for cinemas, but consistently (1991, 1992, 2001) a 15 on video. That’s a bit over the top; I really can’t see why it wasn’t lowered in 2001 at least. ^

Naked Gun 33⅓: The Final Insult (1994)

2013 #60
Peter Segal | 79 mins | TV | 16:9 | USA / English | 12 / PG-13

The Naked Gun 33Normally I’m a stickler for watching film series in order, even when it doesn’t matter, so skipping 31 sequels really isn’t my style… but this was on telly one night in July and I was in just the right mood, so the second will have to wait for its turn another day. (I watched and reviewed the first earlier this year, of course.) (And there aren’t really 33 Naked Gun films, obviously.)

Placed in direct comparison with its forbear, I’d have to say The Final Insult isn’t quite as good. These days film series seem to get bigger and bigger with each sequel, but The Naked Gun hails from the era when they just as often seemed to get smaller over time — it feels lower-key in pretty much every way, from scale to length to quality of gags. Nonetheless, it’s far from a write-off. There are copious funny moments and film spoofs, and that brief running time ensures it doesn’t outstay its welcome.

As with the first film, there’s a US TV version out there with numerous added scenes, but again I have no idea of its general availability. Also worth a laugh is that the MPAA rated the film PG-13 — for “off-color humour”. Ah, America. (Though the BBFC often cite “mild peril”, which sounds equally dappy to me, so maybe I shouldn’t point & laugh quite so much.)

As you might guess from the title, this was the last of the Naked Gun films. Though it remains an entertaining diversion and only marginally off-pace from early instalments — an impressive feat for the second sequel in a comedy franchise, no question — it’s probably best they never got round to the mooted fourth film.

3 out of 5

Broken Arrow (1996)

In the interests of completing my ever-growing backlog, I decided to post ‘drabble reviews’ of some films. One day I may update with a longer piece, but at least there’s something here for posterity.

For those unfamiliar with the concept, a drabble is a complete piece of writing exactly 100 words long.

2013 #35
John Woo | 104 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | USA / English | 15 / R

Broken ArrowUS Air Force pilot Jon Travolta crashes a plane, steals a nuke, and former friend and colleague Christian Slater must stop his dastardly plan in this ever so ’90s actioner.

In his second Hollywood outing, Hong Kong action maestro John Woo (over-)directs his little heart out: there’s an endless array of slightly hilarious slow-mo, crash zooms, etc. Plus, it has the honour of featuring possibly the most gloriously OTT villain death in the history of cinema.

It all seems quite cheesy now, but still quite fun. Perhaps best suited to those nostalgic for a style of movie now gone by.

3 out of 5

The Last Boy Scout (1991)

2013 #39
Tony Scott | 101 mins | TV | 16:9 | USA / English | 18 / R

The Last Boy ScoutBruce Willis stars as a down-on-his-luck PI who stumbles into a sport/politics conspiracy in this early-’90s action-thriller from screenwriter Shane Black (Lethal Weapon, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, Iron Man 3) and director Tony Scott (you know what Tony Scott’s directed). I think it’s seen as a fairly minor work in all of the primary participants’ CVs (and Halle Berry’s, who has a small supporting role), but is such ignored status deserved? Well…

The movie has two big points in its favour. The first is Black’s screenplay, packed with his usual sparky dialogue and flair for plot developments that you might not expect. He has a real way for working in familiar genres with a unique voice and Last Boy Scout is no exception. It’s considerably better than Lethal Weapon, which I really didn’t take to, if not quite as good as Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, which I adored.

Second is the wonderful noir feel that permeates through much of the film. This is thanks in part to Black — a private dick we first meet sleeping in his car who gets caught up in a conspiracy much bigger than him? What’s not noir about that? — but also to Scott and cinematographer Ward Russell. Technically this is neo-noir, but it makes you want to call it “neon-noir”Neon noir — pitch black frames punctuated by glowing coloured lights. On the whole, it looks gorgeous.

It’s this noir edge that appeals most about the film for me. The occasional action theatrics are fine, but there’s nothing innovative or exciting enough in that field that hasn’t been done better or more memorably elsewhere. It’s the story and tone that work most to the movie’s benefit. It’s a shame, then, that the third act ditches much of that mood in favour of a race-against-time OTT-action finale. In my opinion, it pushes things too far, and nearly dragged down my rating an entire star.

But that, too, would be taking it too far. The Last Boy Scout isn’t the best film starring Bruce Willis, or the best film written by Shane Black, or the best film directed by Tony Scott; but the fingerprints of all three are unmistakably plastered right across it, and it’s a long way from being anyone’s worst work.

4 out of 5

Stiff Upper Lips (1998)

2012 #96
Gary Sinyor | 91 mins | TV | 4:3 | UK & India / English | 15 / R

Stiff Upper LipsSpoof of British ‘Heritage’ films and TV series, particularly the work of Merchant Ivory. It was probably a bit belated: released in 1998, you’ll note most targets are from the ’80s. It only even made it to TV recently (I watched on Radio Times’ recommendation). Specific targets include Brideshead Revisited and A Room with a View, with individual sequences riffing off the likes of Chariots of Fire and Orlando.

A mite sex obsessed — though, arguably, that’s only highlighting the original works’ undertones, so in that respect makes fair mockery. At worst, however, it feels like American Pie in period dress.

3 out of 5

In the interests of completing my ever-growing backlog of reviews, I decided to post some ‘drabble reviews’ of a few films. In the future I may update with something longer, but if I don’t, at least there’s something here for posterity.

For those unfamiliar with the concept, a drabble is a complete piece of writing exactly 100 words long.

Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (1993)

2012 #57
Eric Radomski & Bruce W. Timm | 76 mins | DVD | 1.85:1 | USA / English | PG / PG

Batman: Mask of the PhantasmBatman movies have a habit of provoking strong reactions. The Dark Knight is popularly regarded as one of the greatest films of all time (settled at #7 on IMDb’s Top 25); Batman & Robin is widely reviled as one of if not the worst of all time; the Adam West movie and Batman Returns have long been wildly divisive, and it looks like The Dark Knight Rises has now joined their ranks.

And then there’s Mask of the Phantasm. Relatively little seen (it made under $6 million at the US box office on release and has never been particularly well served on DVD, though I understand it’s sold well), it’s acclaimed by those that have caught it — including critics — as perhaps the greatest Batman film of them all. Some even say it was the best animated film of 1993, and that’s the year of The Lion King and The Nightmare Before Christmas — a bold claim indeed.

Oh yes, that’s right — it’s animated. And right there we have an explanation for its lack of wide-spread appreciation.

Spun off from fan-favourite TV series Batman: The Animated Series, this feature-length version sees Batman remembering events from early in his career while tracking down a murderous vigilante, the titular Phantasm.

Batman no more?One of the main reasons the film succeeds is that look back at Bruce Wayne’s early days as a crime fighter. Batman’s origin is oft told — too oft, truth be told — but they thankfully don’t rehash it here. Instead, early in Batman’s career Bruce falls in love and finds happiness, causing him to question whether to continue down the path he’s already dedicated his life to. The scene where he talks to his parents’ grave, expressing his guilt at potentially finding happiness after so much mourning, is one of the most powerful, emotional moments in all of Batman’s many iterations.

But it’s not all navel-gazing. There’s more than enough action to satiate the young and young-minded, including a spectacular explosive finale set in a rundown theme park. It’s just another of the film’s many triumphs; another reason it deserves to be better known and better respected.

Many sensible, genuinely grown-up people will happily espouse that animation is not solely a kids’ medium, as Western attitudes have wound up painting it. It’s a battle far from won: despite the attention now afforded anime, companies that handle its Western distribution still struggle, and I think it’s seen by many as the preserve of ‘alternative’ teenagers and manchilds. Mask of the Phantasm is far from being an adults-only experience, instead treading that line often taken by US animation nowadays (particularly Pixar) of having plenty for the kids alongside more thematically and emotionally mature sensibilities. The titular maskBut instead of falling in some nasty halfway-house, Phantasm turns up trumps on all fronts.

I think we have to accept that it’s never going to gain the mass appreciation of Nolan’s Bat-films, or even Tim Burton’s; but for those in the know, Mask of the Phantasm is a gem in the history of Batman on screen. Indeed, it may even be the best Batman film of all.

5 out of 5

Batman: Mask of the Phantasm placed 4th on my list of The Ten Best Films I Saw For the First Time in 2012, which can be read in full here.

RoboCop 2 (1990)

2012 #82
Irvin Kershner | 116 mins | streaming | 1.85:1 | USA / English | 18 / R

RoboCop 2The consensus opinion seems to be that the RoboCop films exist on a steep downward trajectory of quality, starting with the pretty-good first film and ending with the nadir-of-humanity third. In this equation the second lands, naturally, somewhere in the middle — not that good, but not so bad. Personally, I enjoyed it more than the first.

As future-Detroit’s police strike over something to do with evil megacorporation OCP, ever-popular officer RoboCop fights a war on drugs, while OCP plot his replacement… Such is the barebones of a plot on which hang some solid stabs at satire and some nice boundary-pushing plot points, which at times left the film feeling still relevant today — something I felt the first RoboCop no longer was. Take the gun-toting pre-teen wannabe-drugs-baron, for instance, one of the film’s best characters who (spoiler alert!) they’re not afraid to deal a bloody death to. I’m not revelling in the death of children here, and I don’t think the film does either; instead, it demonstrates a kind of ballsiness and not backing down from the story and world they’ve created.

The satire is one of the most praised elements of the original film, but with new writers and a new director on board it would’ve been easy to ignore that in favour of a film in which a robot cop shoots lots of criminals. That is, obviously, not the case, and while at times some of the sequel’s jabs at society may be more on-the-nose even than the first film’s efforts, they’re not unwelcome or inaccurate. The screenplay was in part written by objectionably-right-wing comic book author Frank Miller, RoboCop tooand though it was reportedly massively re-written after his work was done (to the extent that, decades later, there was a comic book miniseries that adapted his original version) I think his touch can still be felt at times.

I also criticised the franchise opener for poor special effects, and I think RoboCop 2 improves in that regard too. There’s still moderately obvious modelwork on display, but it doesn’t seem as cartoonish or juddery as the previous film’s. The climactic villain is a more genuine threat (it’s responsible for at least one massacre at any rate) and the battle with RoboCop, a mix of life-size props and stop-motion, makes for an exciting, well-matched finale, something the first film’s falling-down-the-stairs moment didn’t quite achieve.

I can’t say I’m overly enamoured with either of the RoboCop films I’ve watched to date. As a character and franchise it seems to have slipped from the consciousness a bit in the last decade or so, and I can’t say I find huge fault with that status. Plus, it’ll be interesting to see if the forthcoming remake can do anything to boost the franchise’s fortunes. Nonetheless, this sequel is a solid example of R-rated late-’80s action entertainment that, as noted on more than one occasion, I certainly liked better than its predecessor.

4 out of 5

This review is part of the 100 Films Advent Calendar 2012. Read more here.