Wet matches

Backdraft (1991)

This blockbuster about fire fighters looks to have a lot going for it, Ron Howard directing and a cast including Kurt Russell, one of the lesser Baldwins, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Donald Sutherland and Robert De Niro. Unfortunately despite having all this going for it we have a case of Hollywood cheese on our hands here. While the special effects (which won an Oscar) are pretty amazing that is about as far as I would go with praise for this film.

While there is a great cast De Niro has a third rate part and Sutherland plays a fourth rate Hannibal Lecter that went into arson over serial killing. If Backdraft had stuck to exploring the relationship between the two brothers that are the main characters it might not have been so bad but the arsonist plot is nearly stupid enough to be offensive and contains silly contrivances such as having sex on top of a fire engine that is then called out to a fire to get all the characters to turn up at the fire scenes. Even the scenes which show case the special effects are pretty lame and do not seem to show much about how fire fighters actually work.

Over all I think this is probably a 2/5, it is the big budget stupid rubbish that Hollywood likes to turn out and some how people pay to see.

A death in the family

Once Upon A Time in the West (1968)

Sergio Leone is my favourite director and this is his master piece so gushing praise ahoy. I think that the biggest compliment you can give Leone is that is work is constantly imitated and referenced by modern directors but never replicated. West is a summation of all that has come before in the genre and is both a eulogy for the death of the mythic old west and as it turns out the western as a genre. It may have been a while later that Michael Cimino came along and put the final bullet in the head of the western with his massive failure Heaven's Gate, so bad it signalled the end of the “final cut” era for directors and brought down the studio that had financed it but by the late 60s the genre had largely played itself out anyway.

Right from the opening sequences it is clear that this film is all about atmosphere, tone and style. Ennio Morricone's score is haunting and fits the movie like a glove. What stands West out from so many modern films is the way the tension is allowed to build slowly, with the direction savouring the moment before sudden punctuations of violence rather than being all about the violence and fast, frenetic cutting.

The casting is excellent with Charles Bronson, Claudia Cardinale and Jason Robards but especially in the cases of Monument Valley as a back drop and the use of Henry Fonda which is probably lost on modern audiences sadly. The plot is chock full of references to great westerns and the dialogue contains some great exchanges, mostly involving Charles Bronson's character. Having the railways as a metaphor for the impending arrival of civilization and change works really well and can be applied to other situations such as the arrival of big business on the internet. Inclusion of landscape is one of Leone's strong points (something I think Tarantino really misses out on in his work) and Monument Valley does look amazing in the sequences it is included in and adds greatly to the amazing cinematography on show.

While some may feel the film has a slow pace the arrival of Harmonica at the start of the film and the shocking events at the McBain ranch draw you in to a ride which is not to be missed. 5/5 if you have not seen it yet then you should be looking out for this truly amazing film now!

Spelling tests

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001)

&

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)

Here we go with another double bill.

I have never read any of the Potter books and these are the only two of the adaptations that I have seen so I am not a fan boy. I was too old to be part of the whole “phenomenon” as it unfolded and I would guess that part of the lure for young readers was growing up and going through the school system along with the main characters. With all that being said lets get down to business.

From the first scenes of the first film it is obvious where the series is coming from, you can either call it a successor to a whole tradition of British children's books or a rip off that is just mashing them all together. The story opens with Harry Potter in a Roald Dahl novel, he lives with his aunt, uncle and nephew who hate and mistreat him and from there launches off into Enid Blyton, the odd bit of CS Lewis and a whole bunch of other stuff mashed in. The world of Harry Potter is very much rooted in British nostalgia with it's steam trains and boarding schools of the Victorian, Edwardian and early 20^th century period. Hogwarts, the magic school has all the trappings of an old boarding school with it's houses and strange sports. Having a British cast really helps keep the feel of the world, you could just see someone wanting to stick Tom Hanks in here and a Jodie Foster there.

Both films seem to work off the same formula but unusually Secrets is a vast improvement on Stone. The first film does not appear to have much to it really, Harry wishes he had a normal family and the basic plot is stopping the bad guy getting the Stone. When we get to the second film, while it basically follows the same route as the first the plot has much more meat on it's bones and we start to find out more about the characters themselves. You could say that the Potter world is something of a middle class aspiration fantasy world and the second film certainly gets into these class issues with the elitism of the pure blood magic users.

After watching the first two films in the series I am not really in a rush to go out and read the rest of the books or watch the rest of the films but they are not that bad when watched as an alleged adult either, even if it is a bit of a case of trying to see what parts of your childhood got pinched to make up which part of the Potter world. The fact that the first two films stuck pretty closely to the same formula would also discourage me slightly from seeking out further books/films. I would give the first film 3/5 but the second film a much improved 4/5.

A-maize-ing?

The Informant! (2009)

This corporate conspiracy thriller based on a true story takes the interesting direction of having a humorous tone to it and it works rather well. Price fixing in the corn market does not seem like a very interesting subject but the quirkiness of the protagonist and the light hearted comedy style of the film definitely make it rise above its subject matter. It also avoids any potential corny jokes.

Matt Damon carries the film really well which is important as the whole film hinges on his character as there is not a lot of personality to around the rest of the characters. I guess the film makers could have taken a darker route in exploring the subject matter but over all the light comedy style works out well as it would probably be very hard to get people to take the subject matter too seriously. It might have been better if there had been slightly more ambiguity over the nature of Damon's character at the end but other wise this is a very good film.

I give this a 4/5 and dub it the best film about the corn industry (it has many rivals).

Hamster wheels and other problems

Twelve Monkeys (1995)

Even before it starts twelve monkeys has a good shot at being awesome, Terry Gilliam directs (for the first time on a script he hasn't written) and David Peoples (Unforgiven) and his wife provide the script. While he may not have contributed to the script we are in good Gilliam territory with the subjects of time travel and sanity.

Bruce Willis is James Cole a convict sent back in time to gather information on the release of a virus that wiped out most of the worlds population or he might be a crazy. There are some great visual reflections to look out for in the first half of the film with sets in the “real world” echoing sets from the future which may be Cole's fantasy world. The future world is inspired by Gilliam's earlier film Brazil and there some nods to Hitchcock in the second half of the film as well. Brad Pitt is actually really good as the definitely insane Jeffrey.

The only thing I think could have made the film slightly better would have been a little more exploration of the possibility that Madeline Stowe's character could be the one that is really nuts but other than I am not sure you can improve on this film. There ending is also really good and the time travel aspect is handled well, sometimes people can get really bogged down on time travel when it is part of a story. I am going to make Twelve Monkeys the first 5/5 on the blog!

No moustache, no glory.

Hustle (1975)

Robert Aldrich directs Burt Reynolds as a police lieutenant in a film that can be summed up as “life sucks and all women are whores”. A teen age girl turns up dead on the beach by some new posh land development, the higher ups do not want it causing a stir but the girl's father does not believe it is a simple suicide. As this is a “neo noir” things are generally pretty dark, corrupt and are unlikely to end well.

While the plot is going on in the back ground Reynold's character is starting to have problems with his girlfriends line of work (an actual whore). I do not think this is the best work of anyone involved really and I am not sure it actually goes anywhere, it may even be slightly misogynistic given that all the female characters turn out to have questionable sexual morals.

On the lower end of a 3/5, not worth looking out.

Kangeroos

The Boys Are Back (2009)

This is an Australian film staring Clive Owen and is “based on a true story”. What “based on a true” story usually means is someone complaining about their life before rounding out on a life affirming message. That ends up being mostly the case here. Clive Owen left his first wife and son in England and moved to Australia with some bird he knocked up, so now he has two sons but his second wife dies at the start of the film.

The main thrust of the story is that because Owen's character spends most of his time away as a sports journalist he has to get to learn how to be a dad for his youngest and then his oldest son as well. Stuff happens along the way, there is a misunderstanding and then resolution. Par for the course, to use a sporting term.

Ultimately The Boys Are Back is not a bad film but it is not a good film either, it does not really do anything new and is probably a top end 3/5. If you have nothing better to do you could watch this but I would not go out of your way to.