Film Review: WILD AT HEART (1990)

Director: David Lynch
Writers: Barry Gifford (novel “Wild at Heart: The Story of Sailor and Lula”), David Lynch (screenplay)
Running time: 125 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 18

Genre: Crime/Romance
UK Release date: 24^th August 1990

Watched on Terrestrial PVR Monday 23^rd September 2013.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE UNINTENTIONAL SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

I have to admit I knew very little about this one before viewing. I have seen copies of the DVD in many a bargain bin but never paid it much heed. On discovering it was directed by David Lynch I decided to give it a go when it appeared in the TV listings recently. So what did I think; well, it’s got Lynch all over it with many of his tropes well to the fore and I did like it, although it did have its problems. I’ll tell you more after this very brief summary.

After a spell in prison for manslaughter, Sailor Ripley (Nicolas Cage) gets out and is met by his girl, Lula Fortune (Laura Dern). The pair decides to drive across country from Cape Fear to California but Lula’s domineering mother, Marietta (Diane Ladd) has other ideas. She sends a series of hit men after the couple as they travel to New Orleans and then on to a small town in Texas. This is where they run into Bobby Peru (Willem Dafoe), could he be the one to cash in?

Filled with some crazy characters, this one certainly catches your attention and refuses to let go. Nicolas Cage is at his best playing the larger than life Sailor Ripley and Laura Dern does a great job as Lula. I thought Diane Ladd as Marietta was truly excellent and Willem Defoe was also great as the sleazy Bobby Peru. You cannot fail to notice the many references to ‘The Wizard of Oz’; a theme that runs throughout. Unfortunately I found the film ran too long, there’s only so long you can put up with all the craziness. It reaches a point where we lose one of the main threads that have been running through the first two thirds of the film and I found that quite distracting. Still, it’s worth a look for a decent Cage performance and the, almost comic-book, like characterisations from Lynch (well at least for the first two thirds).

SteelMonster’s verdict: RECOMMENDED

My score: 6.9/10.

IMDb Score: 7.2/10 (based on 44,027 votes when this review was written).
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100935/

MetaScore: 52/100: (Based on 18 critic reviews provided by Metacritic.com at the time of going to press).

Rotten Tomatoes ‘Tomatometer’ Score: 65/100: (based on 43 reviews counted at the time of going to press).

Rotten Tomatoes ‘Audience’ Score: 80/100: (based on 42,112 user ratings counted at the time of going to press).
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/wild_at_heart/

If you’re crazy enough… You can find me on Facebook at:
http://facebook.com/andy.steel3

LINKS:
(Note: All were working at the time of going to press)
Trailer:

Film Review: MISSISSIPPI BURNING (1988)

Director: Alan Parker
Writer: Chris Gerolmo
Running time: 120 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 18

Genre: Drama/Mystery/Thriller
UK Release date: 5^th May 1989

Watched on Terrestrial PVR Thursday 25^th July 2013.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE UNINTENTIONAL SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

This is a film I have seen a couple of times before but this is the first time I’ve really sat down and watched it. I never realised before just how good it really is! I know it’s not a subject matter that some may feel is relevant today, but it’s still a very powerful piece of cinema and deserves recognition for that, if nothing else. Here’s a very brief summary before I give you my thoughts.

When three civil rights activists go missing in a small town in Mississippi in 1964, the FBI is called in to investigate. In charge is the younger Agent Alan Ward (Willem Dafoe) with the much older and wiser Agent Rupert Anderson (Gene Hackman) in tow. Having got short shrift from the local sheriff, Ray Stuckley (Gailard Sartain), Ward tries to speak to some of the black residents of the town, this does not go down well and results in those he had spoken to being beaten for their trouble. Eventually the car the missing men had been driving is found and Ward brings in more men, a lot of them. Suspicion falls on Deputy Clinton Pell (Brad Dourif), but he has the whole town covering for him, including his wife (Frances McDormand). Anderson befriends her but she will not budge on her story. It seems the whole town is scared of the KKK, but nobody wants to speak about it. Eventually though they get a break and Ward reluctantly agrees to use Anderson’s somewhat cavalier methods. Does it pay off? Well I guess that would be a spoiler now wouldn’t it.

Although based on real events, the filmmakers go to great lengths to make it clear that this is a work of fiction. As such it works very well; it is a very powerful drama that puts the fight for civil rights to the fore. I must say I found it quite thought provoking, very well made and really well shot. The performances were all excellent with (for me), Gene Hackman standing out; although I thought Willem Dafoe was very good and Brad Dourif was excellent as the loathsome Deputy Pell. I also have to mention a couple of small roles; it was nice to see both Stephen Tobolowsky as Clayton Townley and R. Lee Ermey as Mayor Tilman; I know they didn’t have an awful lot to do, but they were both quality. Over all, an interesting drama that kept me interested all the way through – a definite ‘must’ for any cinephile.

SteelMonster’s verdict: HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

My score: 8.7/10.

IMDb Score: 7.8/10 (based on 45,417 votes when this review was written).
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095647/

MetaScore: 65/100: (Based on 11 critic reviews provided by Metacritic.com at the time of going to press).

Rotten Tomatoes ‘Tomatometer’ Score: 89/100 (based on 18 reviews counted at the time of going to press).

Rotten Tomatoes ‘Audience’ Score: 63/100 (based on 38,017 user ratings counted at the time of going to press).
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/mississippi_burning/

If you’re crazy enough… You can find me on Facebook at:
http://facebook.com/andy.steel3

LINKS:
(Note: All were working at the time of going to press)
Trailer:

Film Review: AMERICAN PSYCHO (2000)

Director: Mary Harron
Writers: Bret Easton Ellis (novel), Mary Harron & Guinevere Turner (screenplay)
Running time: 97 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 18

Genre: Crime/Drama
UK Release date: 21^st April 2000

Watched on Sky+ Sunday 3^rd March 2013.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE UNINTENTIONAL SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

Believe it or not, I had never seen this film before today; it’s one I’ve obviously wanted to see for a long time, but it’s always eluded me. I must say it was worth the wait; a very interesting take on the psychotic killer motif with one truly remarkable performance from Christian Bale. I should say that I’ve never read the book on which it’s based so I can’t compare it with the literary work but here’s a very brief summary before I give you my thoughts.

It’s the 1980’s; a time of excess and there’s no one better at it than New York company Vice President Patrick Bateman (Christian Bale). But despite the money, the beautiful fiancée, Evelyn Williams (Reese Witherspoon) and a great apartment; he’s not happy. See Patrick has a secret; one that’s about to make his life very difficult. See, he’s a psychopathic killer and in a fit of jealousy he’s just murdered one of his colleagues. This brings in a detective, Donald Kimball (Willem Dafoe) who begins to poke about and Patrick is afraid he might discover more that he’s supposed to. This doesn’t stop him carrying on his ‘hobby’, he even nearly kills his own secretary Jean (Chloë Sevigny). But as time passes we can see he’s unravelling and it’s getting worse, even to the point where you begin to doubt what’s real and what’s just in his head. I think I’ll leave it there…

First off, Christian Bale is totally excellent in this part; because I’ve seen all the Batman films before seeing this, it came as a bit of a culture shock to see him in this particular role. But he carries it off brilliantly! I love the way his character’s narration overlay’s the images and the musical references are worked in so well. It’s a really well made film too with a pretentious cuisine and big chunky telephones taking us back to the 80’s. Having not read the book I did find some of it a little hard to follow, but I’ll add it to the reading list and give this one another look afterwards. Definitely worth a look though, if just for Bale’s performance.

SteelMonster’s verdict: RECOMMENDED

My score: 8.1/10.

IMDb Score: 7.6/10 (based on 202,870 votes when this review was written).
http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0144084/

MetaScore: 64/100: (Based on 35 critic reviews provided by Metacritic.com at the time of going to press).

Rotten Tomatoes ‘Tomatometer’ Score: 67/100 (based on 141 reviews counted at the time of going to press).

Rotten Tomatoes ‘Audience’ Score: 83/100 (based on 262,961 user ratings counted at the time of going to press).
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/american_psycho/

If you’re crazy enough… You can find me on Facebook at:
http://facebook.com/andy.steel3

FAVOURITE QUOTES:
Evelyn Williams: Thousands of roses and lots of chocolate truffles. Godiva, and oysters in the half-shell.
Patrick Bateman: [Bateman narrating] I'm trying to listen to the new Robert Palmer tape, but Evelyn, my supposed fiancée, keeps buzzing in my ear.
Evelyn Williams: Annie Leibovitz. We'll get Annie Leibovitz. And we'll have to get someone to videotape. Patrick, we should do it.
Patrick Bateman: Do what?
Evelyn Williams: Get married. Have a wedding.
Patrick Bateman: No, I can't take the time off work.
Evelyn Williams: Your father practically owns the company. You can do anything you like, silly.
Patrick Bateman: I don't want to talk about it.
Evelyn Williams: You hate that job anyway. I don't see why you just don't quit.
Patrick Bateman: Because I want to fit in.

Patrick Bateman: You're a fucking ugly bitch. I want to stab you to death, and then play around with your blood.

Evelyn Williams: What about the past?
Patrick Bateman: We never really shared one.

Waiter: Would you like to hear today's specials?
Patrick Bateman: Not if you want to keep your spleen.

Patrick Bateman: He was into that whole Yale thing.
Donald Kimball: Yale thing?
Patrick Bateman: Yeah, Yale thing.
Donald Kimball: What whole Yale thing?
Patrick Bateman: Well, for one thing, I think he was probably a closet homosexual who did a lot of cocaine. That whole Yale thing.

LINKS:
(Note: All were working at the time of going to press)
Trailer:

Film Review: JOHN CARTER (2012)

Director: Andrew Stanton
Writers: Andrew Stanton, Mark Andrews & Michael Chabon (screenplay), Edgar Rice Burroughs (story “A Princess of Mars”)
Running time: 127 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 12

Genre: Action/Adventure/Fantasy
UK Release date: 9^th March 2012

Watched on Sky+ Saturday 2^nd March 2013.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE UNINTENTIONAL SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

The title of this film should be ‘JOHN CARTER OF MARS’ but the Disney Corporation didn’t think people would go and see it if the word ‘Mars’ was present. As it happens, it didn’t make a blind bit of difference; once it had acquired quite a bit of bad press the people stayed away in their droves. And so when it came up in the TV listings this week I decided to give it a look and see just what was so bad about it. I will give you my thoughts after this very brief summary (pay attention now, it’s complicated).

When American Civil War veteran John Carter (Taylor Kitsch) finds himself transported to Mars (or ‘Barsoom’ as the locals call it), he is taken in by Tars Tarkas (Willem Dafoe) the leader of a twelve foot tall, four armed race called the Tharks. He seems very impressed with the fact the Carter can jump extremely long distances. Now, there is a war going on between two humanoid cities, Helium and Zodanga, and the princess of Helium, Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins) has been betrothed to the leader of the Zodangan’s, Sab Than (Dominic West). Of course she does not want this union and escapes only to be captured by the Tharks. There is a mysterious entity who calls himself Matai Shang (Mark Strong), a member of a hidden race known as a Thern, who is pulling the strings in this particular conflict. All Carter wants is to get home and a Thern device holds the key. He escapes with Dejah Thoris and the daughter of Tars Tarkas, Sola (Samantha Morton) and heads for a shrine to the goddess that might hold the key to his return to Earth. But Matai Shang has other plans… I’ll leave it there.

I think much of the negative press this film got was because of the enormous amount of money it cost to make. And yes, I can see it has extremely high production values with many exciting battle/chase/fight scenes all using very high quality CGI. I admit I have never read the Edgar Rice Burroughs ‘John Carter of Mars’ books but I’m sure those that have will have got a lot more out of this film than me. It’s an exciting adventure that (I’m afraid) has a storyline that doesn’t quite hold up today. Yes, it’s visually quite stunning in places with some very exciting action sequences along the way but the plot is a tad too over-complicated, particularly for a younger audience, and the main premise that Carter can jump is, quite frankly, very weak. So, does it deserve the vitriolic reception it received? I have to say no; it is a better film than many have made out. Was it worth spending that amount of money on making it? Again, no; although it’s not as bad a film as many have said; I still find it hard to justify the amount of money spent on it. Would I watch it again? Probably not; but I’m glad I did see it the one time.

SteelMonster’s verdict: RECOMMENDED (just watch it once)

My score: 5.8/10.

IMDb Score: 6.7/10 (based on 120,483 votes when this review was written).
http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0401729/

MetaScore: 51/100: (Based on 42 critic reviews provided by Metacritic.com at the time of going to press).

Rotten Tomatoes ‘Tomatometer’ Score: 51/100 (based on 216 reviews counted at the time of going to press).

Rotten Tomatoes ‘Audience’ Score: 61/100 (based on 102,575 user ratings counted at the time of going to press).
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/john_carter/

If you’re crazy enough… You can find me on Facebook at:
http://facebook.com/andy.steel3

FAVOURITE QUOTES:
Tars Tarkas: [voiceover] Mars. So you name it and think that you know it. The red planet, no air, no life. But you do not know Mars, for its true name is Barsoom. And it is not airless, nor is it dead, but it is dying. The city of Zodanga saw to that.

Tars Tarkas: Did I not tell you he could jump!

Tars Tarkas: [to John] You are ugly, but you are beautiful. And you fight like a Thark!

Tars Tarkas: Zodanga, red flags. Helium, blue. Zodanga is winning the war. But I say let red men kill red men until only Tharks remain.
John Carter: That doesn't look like a fair fight.
Tars Tarkas: Zodanga never fights fair.

John Carter: Stand behind me, this might get dangerous.
[John fights the Zodangans. When he loses his sword, Dejah takes it and kills the remaining enemies]
John Carter: Or maybe I ought to get behind you...
Dejah Thoris: [Cleans the blood off the sword with John's clothes] You let me know when it gets dangerous.

LINKS:
(Note: All were working at the time of going to press)
Official Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JohnCarterMovie
Official Site: http://disney.go.com/johncarter/
Trailer:

Film Review: FIREFLIES IN THE GARDEN (2008)

Co-Writer/Director: Dennis Lee
Running time: 96 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 12

Genre: Drama
UK release date 29th March 2009

Watched on Sky+ Saturday 26th February 2011.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

This film was recommended to me by someone on Rotten Tomatoes (sorry, I can’t remember who). Reading through the cast list, it looks very impressive but as we well know, a great cast doesn’t necessarily make for a great film. This, unfortunately, proves the theory all too well. Although there are some great performances, the film lacks any heart, you don’t really care about the characters as so it all kind of falls apart. More of my thoughts later, here’s a brief summary first (summary haters and those that don’t wish to know anything about the plot please go fishing while I write the next paragraph).

Michael Taylor is a writer of romance novels. His father, Charles, a much more serious and successful writer is a bully and made Michael’s childhood a misery. His mother, Lisa, is killed in an accident on the day Michael arrived home to celebrate her graduation from University. He is not alone, his sister, Ryne is with him, and his aunt, Jane Lawrence, and her family, husband Jimmy & children, Christopher and Leslie, are all there to support him. His ex-wife, Kelley arrives for the funeral and we are told, through flashback, of his life growing up in the same house in which Jane and her family now live. There is a sub-plot involving a manuscript that Michael has recently written, the significance of which is never really made clear.

Nicely shot with some really lovely imagery used, so hats off to the cinematographer on this one. As I said at the beginning, there are some great performances here. Ryan Reynolds stands out as Michael and Willem Dafoe is great, as ever, as Charles. Emily Watson did a great job as Jane Lawrence, Carrie-Anne Moss, again, a quality performance as Kelly Hanson and Julia Roberts was also great as Lisa. It was also nice to see Hayden Panettiere as Young Jane Lawrence (in flashbacks) and I thought Cayden Boyd did an outstanding job as Young Michael Taylor.

Now, despite all the star names in the cast and all the great individual performances, this film, I’m afraid, doesn’t quite work. The pace is, at times, painfully slow and I just couldn’t find anything I could care about in any of the characters. It’s a shame, I really wanted to like this one, but I guess you’ve got to watch a few turkeys sometimes so you can appreciate the good ones! Oh, and finally, I found the cruelty to wildlife depicted here in very poor taste, maybe another thing that put me off the characters. Sadly, NOT recommended.

My score: 4.8/10

LINKS:
(RT = Rotten Tomatoes)
IMDb Page: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0961108/
RT Page: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10008601-fireflies_in_the_garden/
Trailer (Sorry about the subtitles): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phtd7XOiky0

Film Review: DAYBREAKERS (2009)

Writers/Directors: Michael Spierig & Peter Spierig
Running time: 94 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 15

UK release date: 6th January 2010

Watched on DVD Friday 19th November 2010.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

A film about vampires set in the not to distant future can’t be bad, can it? I liked the ‘Blade’ movies so this one should be good too, shouldn’t it? Well, it’s not bad, but at the same time it ain’t no ‘Blade’. More of my thoughts later, first here’s a short summary (haters of summaries please spontaneously combust… or more practically, just omit the next paragraph).

About ten years into the future nearly all of the world’s population has been turned into vampires. How this happened, we are not told, but only about five percent of the humans remain. The vampires catch them and farm them for their blood, but there is not enough to go around. Desperately searching for a substitute for human blood is Edward Dalton, a haematologist working for a pharmaceutical company lead by Charles Bromley. If vampires are deprived of blood for too long they become more like giant bats and this is seen as a retrograde step by those in charge. Edward is contacted by a group of humans, one of which, Lionel ‘Elvis’ Cormac, was once a vampire but was cured in a freak accident. The humans want Edward to help them recreate the conditions of the accident. He does so and is turned human again. He now has to convince the entire vampire population to do the same… or die.

There was obviously quite a bit of money spent on this movie. There are some great special effects and an awful lot of gore on view. Decent enough performances all round despite a rather weak script IMO. Even Willem Dafoe as Lionel ‘Elvis’ Cormac struggled at times, but still stood out above the rest. Ethan Hawke as Edward Dalton and Sam Neill as Charles Bromley were not really stretched by their roles, but did a good enough job. Honourable mentions go to Claudia Karvan as Audrey Bennett, Michael Dorman as Frankie Dalton and Isabel Lucas as Alison Bromley.

I liked the concept of this film; unfortunately the execution did not ultimately live up to my expectations. It was quite hard to identify with any of the characters and thus it was really hard to care who lived or died in the end. The effects are very well done but this ultimately didn’t make up for a rather flawed script. If you’re a hard-core vampire movie fan then I’m sure you’ll find some redeeming features here, I don’t fit into that category, and so, sadly, not recommended.

My score: 5.4/10

LINKS:
IMDb Site: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0433362/
Official Site: http://daybreakersmovie.com/
Trailer: http://uk.imdb.com/rg/VIDEO_PLAY/LINK/video/imdb/vi1687225369/

Film Review: ANAMORPH (2007)

Co-writer/Director: Henry Miller
Running time: 99 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 15

Netherlands release date: 5th August 2008

Watched on Sky+ Sunday 12th September 2010.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

If we look up the word ‘Anamorphosis’, from which the title of this film was derived, we get the following definition:

Anamorphosis is a distorted projection or perspective requiring the viewer to use special devices or occupy a specific vantage point to reconstitute the image. “Ana – morphosis” comes from the Greek words meaning “formed again.” (Source: Wikipedia)

So it’s basically a piece of artwork that is painted in such a way that if viewed from a particular point it will make a complete picture. Unfortunately, the filmmakers didn’t get the complete picture when putting this rather poor effort together.

A troubled cop, Stan Aubray, is investigating a series of murders that are thought to be copy-cats of a killer called “Uncle Eddie” whose case he investigated and was thought to have been killed five years previous. He is helped by his partner, Carl Uffner and art expert, Blair Collet. The art expert is needed because the killer places all of his victims in poses that depict works of art. I really can’t say much more about this one, that is the basic premise of the movie.

As I said earlier I found this a rather poor effort. I usually like the work of Willem Dafoe, but he must have seen something in the script we didn’t see on the screen, because it is very poor. The pacing is way too slow and the dialogue, with great long pauses, is pretty dire. I did like the performance of Peter Stormare as Blair Collet; he was the one bright point in this movie. I will give honourable mentions to Willem Dafoe as Stan Aubray and Scott Speedman as Carl Uffner just for making the effort and turning up to make it.

I usually enjoy a good serial killer movie, but this one is certainly not going to feature in any of my end of year awards… unless I do a top ten worst of the year! Over all, very poor and definitely NOT recommended.

My score: 3.7/10

LINKS:
IMDb Site: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0497323/
Trailer: http://uk.imdb.com/rg/VIDEO_PLAY/LINK/video/imdblink/vi4120773657/