Once upon a time there was a writer and director named John Hughes. You might not recognise the name but you have certainly seen his films, especially if you grew up in the 80's. This was an era when family films meant something other than Spy Kids 15 or another animated movie. This meant cleverly observed, witty and touching films that had something for everyone. If you haven't seen Home Alone, Beethoven or Curly Sue then where have you been? If you were a little older the maybe you have seen his classic coming of age films such as Pretty in Pink, The Breakfast Club and Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Uncle Buck combines some of the best elements of both these type of films to give us another John Hughes classic.
John Candy plays Buck. He drinks, smokes, gambles, and avoids all responsibility. He is the last man you would want to leave in charge of your 3 kids, but that’s just what brother Bob must do when his father in-law has a heart attack. This is your typical fish out of water comedy with an edge. The edge being John Candy's fantastic performance as a bull of a man, charging into the lives of teenage daughter Tia (Jean Louisa Kelly) and kindergarten munchkins Maizy (Gaby Hoffman) and Miles (Macaulay Culkin). Candy brings Buck to life with his charisma, so much that I think every kid that saw this really wanted a babysitter like Buck! Who wouldn't want to have birthday pancakes so big they have to be flipped by a snow shovel?
I fell in love with this film all over again. Hughes allows just the right amount of adult humour in as Buck struggles to come to terms with his new responsibility. He reassures his stuffy sister-in law "I've given up smoking up cigarettes, I'm onto cigars now" and struggles with the washing machine "I'm gonna stuff my load into you!" Much of the humour comes from Buck trying to find his feet in world so alien to a serial bachelor, but there is some great support from the kids.
Tia is the sulky teenager who could have been the role model for so many high school girls who thought their parents had no other purpose but to ruin their lives. Let’s just say Tia's brooding angst got a wry smile or two of recognition from my fiancé! Macaulay Culkin is also at his cutest here, grilling Buck with 20 questions in a scene which could have been his audition for Home Alone.
It really got me thinking that family movies like this are a thing of the past. The crazy outfits worn by Tia's friends, berets and huge sunglasses, waistcoats and spray on jeans remind us that this film was certainly made in a time long gone. The humour and truth found in films like Uncle Buck is sadly missing from a lot of the bland modern money spinners made today. Just as Buck breezes in and brings a little cheer to his in-laws lives so did Hughes' films to a lot of people in their day. Will we ever see the likes of John Hughes and John Candy again?
7/10
Wednesday, 31 August 2011
Monday, 29 August 2011
Hot Fuzz (2007)
I'm not going to beat about the bush here. I loved this film. I am Nick Frost's character Danny Butterman you see, well maybe a small part of him. The bored film geek who sits about waiting for something to happen. Sorry, I'm getting a bit ahead of myself here. Hot Fuzz is a comedy starring Simon Pegg as super cop Nick Angel who is reassigned from the Met where he single handedly decimates London's criminal population with his hardcore determination and all round greatness as a crime fighting machine. He is promoted to sergeant and sent to his new patch, sleepy Gloucestershire village Sandford.
Here he meets up with some fantastically stereotyped locals and best of all, his hapless new partner Danny. Hot Fuzz is basically a satire of glossy Hollywood action movies. It fuses the high octane style so often used in big budget movies with a brilliantly British tale of shady goings on in a sleepy country village. The director (Edgar Wright) often plays on the contrast, using many staples straight out of the action movie handbook, such as loud explosions, screaming sirens and shotgun cutting to unfold the action. As Angel is deployed to the village for example his journey from the Met to a rainy train station is punctuated with this shotgun style of scene cutting, ending with him dripping wet at the station clutching his pot plant. As a bit of a film geek this kind of playfulness couldn't fail to make me smile.
The village's often surreal characters also really add to the likeableness. We have, among too many to recount in full, a pompous thespian, drunken tycoon, zealous neighbourhood watch members and a station full of useless police men. Perhaps most notable of all is Timothy Dalton's (yes James Bond!) slimy convenience store owner. Aside from Danny this is probably my favourite character as he often turns up at just the right time with a Cheshire cat grin and a cheesy one liner (Arrest me I'm a slasher... of prices!). And then we have Danny. Nick Frost is often hysterical as the heavy drinking, lazy, daydreaming foil to Simon Pegg's straight man.
The action film world is cleverly explored through Danny's constant questioning of his partner. "Have you ever jumped through the air while firing two guns? Have you ever jumped through the air while firing one gun?" As the story progresses our two heroes finally get a chance to perform all these testosterone filled sequences that Danny has fantasised over. Perhaps most notably is one scene from Point Break that is surely the closest Keanu Reeves has ever been to acting! The genius of Hot Fuzz is to contrast the big budget action movie stereotypes with the sleepy English village stereotypes, giving us a really enjoyable and cleverly observed satire of both worlds.
My only real criticism is that this perhaps drags on for about 20 minutes too long. I felt like Pegg and Frost were the film geeks indulging in their chance to be action heroes more so than their actual characters would have done. But I have to forgive them for that; I would have done exactly the same thing given the chance!
8/10
Here he meets up with some fantastically stereotyped locals and best of all, his hapless new partner Danny. Hot Fuzz is basically a satire of glossy Hollywood action movies. It fuses the high octane style so often used in big budget movies with a brilliantly British tale of shady goings on in a sleepy country village. The director (Edgar Wright) often plays on the contrast, using many staples straight out of the action movie handbook, such as loud explosions, screaming sirens and shotgun cutting to unfold the action. As Angel is deployed to the village for example his journey from the Met to a rainy train station is punctuated with this shotgun style of scene cutting, ending with him dripping wet at the station clutching his pot plant. As a bit of a film geek this kind of playfulness couldn't fail to make me smile.
The village's often surreal characters also really add to the likeableness. We have, among too many to recount in full, a pompous thespian, drunken tycoon, zealous neighbourhood watch members and a station full of useless police men. Perhaps most notable of all is Timothy Dalton's (yes James Bond!) slimy convenience store owner. Aside from Danny this is probably my favourite character as he often turns up at just the right time with a Cheshire cat grin and a cheesy one liner (Arrest me I'm a slasher... of prices!). And then we have Danny. Nick Frost is often hysterical as the heavy drinking, lazy, daydreaming foil to Simon Pegg's straight man.
The action film world is cleverly explored through Danny's constant questioning of his partner. "Have you ever jumped through the air while firing two guns? Have you ever jumped through the air while firing one gun?" As the story progresses our two heroes finally get a chance to perform all these testosterone filled sequences that Danny has fantasised over. Perhaps most notably is one scene from Point Break that is surely the closest Keanu Reeves has ever been to acting! The genius of Hot Fuzz is to contrast the big budget action movie stereotypes with the sleepy English village stereotypes, giving us a really enjoyable and cleverly observed satire of both worlds.
My only real criticism is that this perhaps drags on for about 20 minutes too long. I felt like Pegg and Frost were the film geeks indulging in their chance to be action heroes more so than their actual characters would have done. But I have to forgive them for that; I would have done exactly the same thing given the chance!
8/10
Bad Education (2004)
Have you ever watched a film based on the three sentence description written in a TV guide? If you have then maybe you know just how misleading they can be. I seem to remember reading that this was a tale of two characters troubled school days. That, in conjunction with the name made me think I was in for a kind of Spanish language version of Boyz in the Hood (yes it is another subtitled film). How wrong could I be! Maybe I should have known more about the director, Pedro Almodovar and his fondness for exploring taboo subjects and sexual identity. Maybe I should have not just been an assumptive ass. Regardless, this film surprised me on several occasions.
The plot is almost as confusing as the main characters themselves. Struggling actor Angel (Gael Garcia Bernal) visits childhood friend and successful director Enrique (Fele Martinez) looking for work. Angel leaves him with a script that tells the story of two young boy’s love affair at a repressive Catholic boarding school, an abusive priest and their strange reunion many years later. This script touches a nerve with Enrique and life seems to imitate the script as the actor and director’s stories also begin to unfold.
I found the story oddly gripping as it cuts from the present day to the script of Angel's story, which is itself split over two time periods. Essentially we have 3 narratives to negotiate, which are clouded more by the question mark that emerges over Angel's true identity. Also did I mention that Angel was a transsexual? The film constantly plays with identity, whether it is sexual or literal, it all builds to an engrossing tale made vivid by the beautiful cinematography of Almodovar. Despite there being some very dark themes, mainly involving the church, the film is shot in dazzling colour. It skips seamlessly between the reality and the fictitious, keeping the viewers attention as you try to unravel the threads.
I should probably point out here that if you are put off by a bit of male nudity then you should probably skip this one. If you are going to be offended by a transvestite giving head to a nearly unconscious man while her partner in crime is about to steal his motorbike then stay away! If you are not bothered by such things then there is a lot to enjoy about this film. There is a lot more here than originally meets the eye. Layered, dark, melancholy, beautiful and tragic all at once this could leave you as confused as the main characters but exhilarated nonetheless.
7/10
The plot is almost as confusing as the main characters themselves. Struggling actor Angel (Gael Garcia Bernal) visits childhood friend and successful director Enrique (Fele Martinez) looking for work. Angel leaves him with a script that tells the story of two young boy’s love affair at a repressive Catholic boarding school, an abusive priest and their strange reunion many years later. This script touches a nerve with Enrique and life seems to imitate the script as the actor and director’s stories also begin to unfold.
I found the story oddly gripping as it cuts from the present day to the script of Angel's story, which is itself split over two time periods. Essentially we have 3 narratives to negotiate, which are clouded more by the question mark that emerges over Angel's true identity. Also did I mention that Angel was a transsexual? The film constantly plays with identity, whether it is sexual or literal, it all builds to an engrossing tale made vivid by the beautiful cinematography of Almodovar. Despite there being some very dark themes, mainly involving the church, the film is shot in dazzling colour. It skips seamlessly between the reality and the fictitious, keeping the viewers attention as you try to unravel the threads.
I should probably point out here that if you are put off by a bit of male nudity then you should probably skip this one. If you are going to be offended by a transvestite giving head to a nearly unconscious man while her partner in crime is about to steal his motorbike then stay away! If you are not bothered by such things then there is a lot to enjoy about this film. There is a lot more here than originally meets the eye. Layered, dark, melancholy, beautiful and tragic all at once this could leave you as confused as the main characters but exhilarated nonetheless.
7/10
The Birds (1963)
The Birds is one of Alfred Hitchcock's more famous films. Not perhaps as well known as Psycho or Vertigo, but its basic plot is known by most people it seems. Crazy birds attack people. Hitchcock is famous for being the master of suspense and horror and this is another of those films. I feel that I have to watch a lot of 'classic' films during my one year mission to watch a film a day, and it would be wrong to neglect one of the most famous directors in history.
There is a bit more to the plot than just some lunatic birds to be fair. Melanie Daniels (Tippi Hedren) is a rich and mischievous socialite who has a seemingly chance encounter with lawyer Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor). They meet in a bird shop and soon Melanie is driving up the coast to surprise Mitch in his hometown of Bodega Bay. Everything seems quite normal until Melanie is suddenly attacked by a swooping bird. Soon psychotic birds are attacking everything in sight.
If you had no idea what film you were sitting down to watch you could be forgiven for thinking it was an Audrey Hepburn type romantic film. A playful flirtation between the two leads dominated the first half of the film. Tippi Hedren is very good as the spoiled rich girl who decides to follow a whim and basically stalk her new acquaintance. There is a surreal feel to things however which paves the way for the oddness that is to follow. As soon as the birds, seemingly randomly start to attack, things spiral very quickly into a full scale panic as the entire town begins to panic. The change in direction reminded me of From Dusk 'Till Dawn, or perhaps more appropriately Psycho. Some viewers might feel they are getting two films for the price of one where others might feel disappointed at the change.
As I have said Hitchcock is regarded as the master of suspense and horror. This provides much more suspense than horror for me. The birds of varying species begin to gather before attacks and the film really captures this well. Melanie look on worriedly in one scene as huge numbers of crows land outside a school full of children, angry squawks and nervous looks mingle creating a very tense mood. Where modern audiences will feel let down is the actual attacks. Unfortunately the effects have not aged well, despite the fact that they must have been a fantastic achievement in 1963. I found myself laughing for the wrong reasons in some places, as you can see that some of the birds are made of cardboard.
The surreal feel to the film and the odd characters really made this worthwhile for me. Perhaps this was intended because when the birds start attacking for no apparent reason it doesn't seem much stranger than Melanie following Mitch like a nut job might follow Brittney Spears. Another thing I enjoyed was the fact that no real explanation is offered. There is a great scene where residents of the town are speculating on why the attacks are happening while having their lunch in a diner. No conclusion is reached but everyone has a different theory. Much like the film itself it will divide opinion as it is purposely vague and open to interpretation.
Well worth a watch if you are not too put off by the dated effects.
6/10
There is a bit more to the plot than just some lunatic birds to be fair. Melanie Daniels (Tippi Hedren) is a rich and mischievous socialite who has a seemingly chance encounter with lawyer Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor). They meet in a bird shop and soon Melanie is driving up the coast to surprise Mitch in his hometown of Bodega Bay. Everything seems quite normal until Melanie is suddenly attacked by a swooping bird. Soon psychotic birds are attacking everything in sight.
If you had no idea what film you were sitting down to watch you could be forgiven for thinking it was an Audrey Hepburn type romantic film. A playful flirtation between the two leads dominated the first half of the film. Tippi Hedren is very good as the spoiled rich girl who decides to follow a whim and basically stalk her new acquaintance. There is a surreal feel to things however which paves the way for the oddness that is to follow. As soon as the birds, seemingly randomly start to attack, things spiral very quickly into a full scale panic as the entire town begins to panic. The change in direction reminded me of From Dusk 'Till Dawn, or perhaps more appropriately Psycho. Some viewers might feel they are getting two films for the price of one where others might feel disappointed at the change.
As I have said Hitchcock is regarded as the master of suspense and horror. This provides much more suspense than horror for me. The birds of varying species begin to gather before attacks and the film really captures this well. Melanie look on worriedly in one scene as huge numbers of crows land outside a school full of children, angry squawks and nervous looks mingle creating a very tense mood. Where modern audiences will feel let down is the actual attacks. Unfortunately the effects have not aged well, despite the fact that they must have been a fantastic achievement in 1963. I found myself laughing for the wrong reasons in some places, as you can see that some of the birds are made of cardboard.
The surreal feel to the film and the odd characters really made this worthwhile for me. Perhaps this was intended because when the birds start attacking for no apparent reason it doesn't seem much stranger than Melanie following Mitch like a nut job might follow Brittney Spears. Another thing I enjoyed was the fact that no real explanation is offered. There is a great scene where residents of the town are speculating on why the attacks are happening while having their lunch in a diner. No conclusion is reached but everyone has a different theory. Much like the film itself it will divide opinion as it is purposely vague and open to interpretation.
Well worth a watch if you are not too put off by the dated effects.
6/10
Sunday, 28 August 2011
A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)
Robert Englund, scarred face, stripy jumper dragging razor blade fingers maliciously across a wall is still one of the scariest images of my childhood. If you grew up in the 80's then the sight of Freddie Krueger could well be enough to send you scurrying into a corner to curl up into a ball and gibber something about dreams not being real. A Nightmare on Elm Street is, let’s face it a proper horror classic. I was so scared the first time I watched it that I woke my brother up, terrified for his life, when he was twitching in his sleep (turns out he was not being stalked by a disfigured psycho in case anyone is interested). I'm not ashamed to say that I heard that haunting song in my head for months afterwards (one two Freddie's coming for you, three four better lock your door...)
The original film, released in 1984 told the story of a group of high school kids being stalked and murdered in their sleep by a mysterious stranger with a burned face and razor blades for fingers. The only way the kids could avoid a grim death was to stay awake so that the dream monster could not get to them. 26 years later and a whole new set of pretty by dim teens must struggle to stay awake.
The first thing I noticed about this film, along with any other released in living memory is that the characters are very good looking. If America was even 10% as attractive as movies make out then no one needs to go on a diet there! Where are all the normal looking people? Even the pointless extras sitting in the diner at the beginning would look like Greek gods if they walked down the street in any British city. People would fall at their feet and weep at the beauty of the average Hollywood extra in any part of the British Isles. Also, as with many new films this has a certain slickness, a quality of production that tells us money has been spent here. This does more harm than good to most horror films for me. Especially so to a film such as this where our memories are filled with fear from the original, but clouded with doubt over the remake.
Freddie is introduced to us in a good opening scene. He appears behind his first would be victim twitching that iconic razor gloved hand, dragging out a haunting sound as metal caresses metal. Then he opens his mouth. Much like a hot woman in Hollyoaks that starts to talk and sounds like an alcoholic truck driver, the illusion is ruined. Too much of this film feels like a smooth imitation of the original. Several scenes try to copy/pay homage to scenes of pure creepiness that would have stuck in your mind as a child watching this for the first time. Yet all they succeed in doing is making the source material feel childish and really diminish the impact you would have felt first time around.
One particular scene that really stuck with me involved a girl being dragged around the ceiling, Freddy’s claw through her stomach, leaving a bloody trail in her wake. This version tries to recreate it when one of the characters is thrown about her bedroom by the monster as her horrified bloke looks on. The result is a poor copy of a scene far more terrifying, achieved with a fraction of the budget and none of the technology. Any chills the audience might feel are created by the story and images of Freddie, none of which are exactly new or even great interpretations of the original material.
It is no horror classic but it is a decent remake because it is based on good material. As the saying goes you can't reinvent the wheel, but you would be a bloody idiot to not be able to copy it. The biggest question that entered my mind as I watched this was how much money will it make? During an hour and a half where no effort is made add to the original that is one of the few things I had to think about. Why bother to make a film with something new to show us when you could just copy one that has already been done and achieve the same result? Have I already something very similar during this blog, repeating my thoughts on this topic in a very familiar way to what I have said before?? F**k it, if you can't beat 'em you might as well join 'em!
4/10
The original film, released in 1984 told the story of a group of high school kids being stalked and murdered in their sleep by a mysterious stranger with a burned face and razor blades for fingers. The only way the kids could avoid a grim death was to stay awake so that the dream monster could not get to them. 26 years later and a whole new set of pretty by dim teens must struggle to stay awake.
The first thing I noticed about this film, along with any other released in living memory is that the characters are very good looking. If America was even 10% as attractive as movies make out then no one needs to go on a diet there! Where are all the normal looking people? Even the pointless extras sitting in the diner at the beginning would look like Greek gods if they walked down the street in any British city. People would fall at their feet and weep at the beauty of the average Hollywood extra in any part of the British Isles. Also, as with many new films this has a certain slickness, a quality of production that tells us money has been spent here. This does more harm than good to most horror films for me. Especially so to a film such as this where our memories are filled with fear from the original, but clouded with doubt over the remake.
Freddie is introduced to us in a good opening scene. He appears behind his first would be victim twitching that iconic razor gloved hand, dragging out a haunting sound as metal caresses metal. Then he opens his mouth. Much like a hot woman in Hollyoaks that starts to talk and sounds like an alcoholic truck driver, the illusion is ruined. Too much of this film feels like a smooth imitation of the original. Several scenes try to copy/pay homage to scenes of pure creepiness that would have stuck in your mind as a child watching this for the first time. Yet all they succeed in doing is making the source material feel childish and really diminish the impact you would have felt first time around.
One particular scene that really stuck with me involved a girl being dragged around the ceiling, Freddy’s claw through her stomach, leaving a bloody trail in her wake. This version tries to recreate it when one of the characters is thrown about her bedroom by the monster as her horrified bloke looks on. The result is a poor copy of a scene far more terrifying, achieved with a fraction of the budget and none of the technology. Any chills the audience might feel are created by the story and images of Freddie, none of which are exactly new or even great interpretations of the original material.
It is no horror classic but it is a decent remake because it is based on good material. As the saying goes you can't reinvent the wheel, but you would be a bloody idiot to not be able to copy it. The biggest question that entered my mind as I watched this was how much money will it make? During an hour and a half where no effort is made add to the original that is one of the few things I had to think about. Why bother to make a film with something new to show us when you could just copy one that has already been done and achieve the same result? Have I already something very similar during this blog, repeating my thoughts on this topic in a very familiar way to what I have said before?? F**k it, if you can't beat 'em you might as well join 'em!
4/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)