"Crazy am I? We'll see whether i'm crazy or not"

Frankenstein 31/10/11

Director: James Whale           Writers: John L. Balderson, Mary Shelley (novel)

1931

A classic and a Halloween staple! While there is excellent source material the film has many of its own merits, and a touch we don’t get anymore is the cheesy warning from a presenter before the film. I would love to see a middle aged ma come on screen before the Saw films and tell us that what we are about to watch may shock our nerves. Another thing the book (and modern films) doesn’t have is the omnipresent spooky musical score. This combined with a psychedelic kaleidoscope effect with peering eyes prepares us for the new world we are entering as we see the opening credits. There’s a certain carnivalesque showmanship about these features that is heart-warming, probably not the effect experienced when the film was released, but it is nice to see.

            The first scene of the film is in a grim graveyard as we see a funeral, straight in with the theme of death then, and that suits horror film audiences just fine. We see Doctor Frankenstein (who has since been struck off I hope) and his assistant Fritz robbing graves and cutting down a hanged man, some dark purposes in mind. This marks the dark conception of Frankenstein’s unnatural son, an assembly of parts. We also see the creature’s explosive birth, all machines and electricity, with Frankenstein’s labour pain shrieks of “It’s alive!” and perhaps more telling of his mental state “Now I know what it’s like to BE God!”. Then we have private access to the creature’s painful childhood, tormented by Fritz the creature begins to lash out, and ultimately kills.

            Because we get such an intimate look into the creature’s life and his reason for killing the film is much more interesting. This is true of any good horror film, yes making us jump is scary, but getting to look at the mind of a monster is horrific. You can have an unseen evil tormentor setting awful traps, or an unexplained supernatural monster, but words like EVIL and MONSTER were created to distance ourselves from what is bad. When a film gets us close to what is bad, humanises a monster and explains evil we get a true horror film. That’s why this film is still as scary as it was almost ninety years ago. 

"All we represent to them, man, is somebody who needs a haircut."

Easy Rider 26/10/11

Director: Dennis Hopper         Writers: Dennis Hopper/Peter Fonda/Terry Southern

1969

The beginning of this film impacts our ears more than our eyes with the unmistakeable rumble of a motorbike engine. We are also quickly shown drug use, a much bigger deal in 1969 than now. From the start then the film flies its counterculture flag high. We see Captain America (Fonda) and Billy (Hopper) making some kind of deal and receiving a bundle of cash, but the details don’t matter and dialogue is blocked out by aeroplane engines, what matters is what happened next: money, the open road and our introduction to the films rock n roll soundtrack.

            That soundtrack was fairly unique back when original scores were the norm, but it was completely the right move. They used the genuine music of a cultural movement that the lead characters were supposed to be part of, using artists like Steppenwolf, The Jimi Hendrix Experience and Bob Dylan to connect with the audience. Another notable innovation is the way the edit between scenes flickers back and forth. Perhaps this to replicate a drug altered sense of time, or perhaps to put focus on the act of change, or perhaps just to be interesting.

            For the majority of the film we are happy to drift along the roads with our two protagonists, letting the plot get there in the end and enjoying the shots of beautiful wide open country combined with great music. There are plenty of interludes throughout the film where all we are seeing are men riding their choppers through the desert and these are 100% necessary to the film, we have to absorb these scenes to know their way of life and get a sense of their freedom on these bikes. These aren’t Hell’s Angels or part of any motorcycle gang, they are Hippies, and the bikes are just a way to be free.

            We get to see the Hippy way of life as Fonda and Hopper pass through a commune; it is simple, and tough, but free. There is a laugh as the two bikers join on to a parade, not causing any real trouble, but it gets them in jail. However that introduces us to Jack Nicholson doing what he does best as a hilarious alcoholic lawyer (with an epic excuse for a bike helmet). It is here that the film begins to take on meaning, the three set off to Mardis Gras and become good friends. They try to eat in a small town diner and see the price of even looking like you might be free, other people don’t like it. Nicholson gets the opportunity for a great speech about freedom, and then they are all punished for knowing what it’s all about. A very good film.

"Keep your souls, let me find a chicken"

Season of the Witch 20/10/2011

Director: Dominic Sena          Writer: Bragi F. Schut

2011

So we begin with ominous candlelit book reading that serves to create an air of mystery and a sense of time. Nothing spectacular but fine. Then we get an introduction to what witches mean in this film, and as usual they mean innocent young ladies being persecuted (beauty equals innocence we naturally assume) while we also get an unrepentant deformed old hag...so she must be guilty. Again, fine.

            Things are shaken up a little with the death of a priest by some kind of zombie with creature, but this isn’t actually mentioned again as far as I can tell, so I don’t really see the point. I suppose we need some action and scariness early on. We certainly get action with our two main stars, Mister Cage and Mister Perlman, both of whom can be great in action roles and to be honest they are the main reason I watched this film.

            I quite liked the battle scenes in the crusades where we see the strength of their friendship and the ability to chop, impale and spinning flip kick any robed faceless heather in their path, complete with 300(2006) style slow motion. Now we know they are the good guys because they fight for the church against the godless foreigners right? Not sure I like that premise but I didn’t watch the film for its ideas on foreign policy so I can get over it. BUT OH NO! Nick Cage disembowels some innocent lady-heathen and now they don’t want to slaughter people anymore. Apparently it pays to be female if you want to worship a different God from the stabby guys.

            At this point I was fairly optimistic (don’t ask me why) and thought we might have a 14^th century outlaw buddy cop thing going on, even if Perlman seems to be playing second fiddle, despite being funnier, bigger, cooler and beardier. And after a nice jump-scare in a creepy house we learn of a plague, and its apparent cause, a witch who happens to be all cute and nice looking. We already know that attractive = innocent right? Right?? Well we have to keep watching to find out.

            So the ambiguity about whether Claire Foy is an occult agent of Satan and general spreader of pestilence, or whether she is just cranky, is the most appealing part of the film along with the knight style bromance. BUT OH NO! The writer messed up and got rid of any real ambiguity far too early and now we don’t care about the rickety bridge (the film loses it from here on in) or CGI wolves or if Cage is all eaten up inside because of the innocent woman he skewered. The film becomes a series of stock characters, cliché dialogue and scenes stitched together to serve the plot. And the Perlman mentions something about a hometown or being 3 days away from retirement...bad move Hellboy! Probably not worth the time.

"I think she's been kissed a lot"

Footloose 18/10/2011

Director: Herbert Ross            Writer: Dean Pitchford

1984

That’s right, I’m reviewing the old one. The arguably classic one. The cult one. I certainly wouldn’t have seen myself watching this film (let alone writing about it) since I have a pretty solid rule about hating films about dance (not counting Black Swan or Saturday Night Fever) but I was persuaded by a female type to give it a go. I’m really glad I did!

            The reason this film works is it is fun. It might be based on a true story but the plot isn’t exactly amazing and there is nothing particularly interesting about the cinematic techniques used (although I think the editing in some dance scenes was very good). But it is fun and likeable and sort of gets under your skin. I’m sure I don’t need to go through the plot, which avoids the mistake of being anti-church and goes straight for anti-boredom. It also avoids the mistake of appealing solely to a female audience, we have a male protagonist named Ren, played by Kevin Bacons hair. Seriously, his hair is so ridiculously fluffy it steals most scenes!

            There is also a pretty good supporting cast, Lori Singer as a repressed preachers daughter, John Lithgow as her father, Sarah Jessica Parker shows she once had hope, and the late Chris Penn who for me plays the best character; Willard. Again, Dean Pitchford avoided mistakes by keeping Lithgow’s preacher redeemable, and lets us see his motivations right alongside his daughters, who we just about believe is a good kid despite her doing some ridiculous things (I would be worried about my child straddling two vehicles as a truck barrels towards them more than I would worry about a little dancing).

            There is in fact only three main dance scenes, all of which tie in to the story without making it look like Grease(1978) and none go on for too long. They never distract us from the point of the film: dance is expression and freedom, and teenagers need these things more than most people. That’s why I liked Chris Penn as Willard so much, he is a simple farm boy and can’t dance, but Ren teaches him and broadens his horizons, the city kid teaching the rural kid, but Willards character is never compromised. They learn to respect each other by standing up to each other, and see that they have plenty in common.

            Such messages are never pushed on the audience and there is no danger of Footloose turning in to a “serious” film. Its light and fun and wasn’t any crotch grinding...I don’t think the new version will be able to say the same, even if the script has been unchanged...not through laziness or anything. I sometimes couldn’t work out of the cheese factor was intentional or accidental, and I was so so puzzled about every teenage main character appearing on a motorbike near the end. Where did they get them? Why are they allowed vehicles with an awful safety record but they can’t dance?! But that’s kind of the point isn’t it, fun. All hail the fluffy hair.

"What is it with this city? I need to write a letter to the Chamber of Commerce."

Allen: Midnight in Paris 18/10/11

Director: Woody Allen            Writer: Woody Allen

2011

After conforming to the opening title pattern he has established in recent films Allen goes on to immerse the audience in a lengthy montage of shots of Parisian architecture and people, he makes sure that we know that the city is as much a character as any played by an actor in this film. We get another voiceover with the titles which sets up the view at life the film is supposed to explore. I was disappointed with the way the same thing turned out in Match Point (see last review) however this film is much more focused and aware of its concept. And it is an interesting, original concept: if we were allowed to carry out our nostalgic wishes and actually go back to another time, would we be happier?

            Our nostalgic protagonist is played by Owen Wilson, and for me he is pretty much at home here, seeking from the past inspiration from his favourite writers while he struggles with his debut novel. He is a neurotic dreamer who manages to find himself in the world (or time rather) of his dreams and find refuge from his fiancé (Rachel McAdams). There is typical couple’s trouble from Allen mainly in the form of the overbearing in laws and old crush Michael Sheen who hits an almost perfect balance between slimy and condescending. This made me more sympathetic than usual for a Woody Allen protagonist and I was happy for him when he got his wish of living in the past.

            I believe that most people are nostalgic about one era or another and shows like Mad Men and period dramas surely owe much of their success to this fact. What Allen shows us is that people in those eras we want to go back to had nostalgia of their own, and that it is the present that is the issue.