Change Your Image
Insincere Dave
Reviews
Grease (1978)
I apologise to fans, but this is as honest as it gets.
Based heavily upon the stage-show, Grease is an up beat, feel-good musical that has spawned an appalling sequel, countless CDs and a larger fan-base than most premier league football teams. But why don't I like it? With the exception of the Blues Brothers, I'm not a fan of musicals, I find them shallow, ill conceived and heavily dependent upon merchandise, but that's just me. The main reason I avoid all things Grease is that I saw the stage show before the film. It was in the London west-end, nearing the end of its run in a small theatre, with an unknown cast and no big star. And despite myself, I didn't find it disagreeable. The songs were acceptable (even amusing at times), the characterisation was incredible for a stage musical (in a cartoon-character kind of a way) and the comedic moments were actually funny. I was amazed that there was no taste of bile in my mouth, and that I had no need for therapy afterwards. So when my friends finally managed to get me to watch the film (as part of a deal: I would watch Grease if she would watch Blues Brothers, she got the better deal) I didn't complain too loudly. I wish I had. Despite being an almost direct adaptation of the stage show of the day, somewhere along the line, something had been lost. The characters seemed less cartoon like, and more two dimensional; the songs packed less of a punch, and at times made me desire the fast-forward button and the comedic moments just weren't as good. I don't know if it's because twenty-odd years have passed since the filming, but it just seemed . . . tame.
The songs are famous to get toes tapping at `any' party, there's Summer Loving, Greased Lightning, that one with the line `You'd better shape up' and those other ones. Out of an entire musical, only three songs are actually that memorable (I know I'll be criticised by all of you who know the lyrics to every single song in the film, but hey, everyone needs a hobby), taking up about 8 minutes of the film. That's kind of pathetic when you factor in at least two yawn-worthy songs (about 6 minutes) and the film seems less of a musical and more of a chore. Now, I wouldn't complain about the music if there were some decent filler material in between warblings, but the film was lacking in this area too. Dialogue was cheesy at the most, or as I like to call it, just plain bad. Today it seems ridiculous to watch John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John exchanging some lines that wouldn't seem out of place in a twelve-year old girls love story. If you're someone who likes to hear actors in their thirties play kids in their teens, spouting seventies dialect in the fifties then this is the film for you. If you like to watch over-ripe, then don't let me stop you. If however, you have a shred of taste in your body (and/or a Y chromosome) then stay well away.
Blues Brothers 2000 (1998)
It's not as bad as you've heard
Blues Brothers 2000 picks up the story 20 years later, when Elwood Blues leaves prison and discovers the heart breaking news the his brother, Jake is dead. This is when the plot goes somewhat
hazy. Yes, it's not as good as the original (but could it ever be?). Yes, the songs aren't as good as before (ditto). And yes, the storyline seems somewhat random (They've got to get to the battle of the bands. Why? Ummm
) But this film seems somehow able to redeem itself.
Dan Akroyd plays a much-changed Elwood, who whilst not as funny without John Belushi to work with, is still charming in his own way. A surprisingly adept John Goodman plays Mighty Mac, singing well in those dulcet tones. Joe Morton plays Cab's protégé (although he doesn't know it) and works well with what he's given, script-wise. J. Evan Bonifant proved to be the greatest surprise of the piece. Whilst bordering on the insufferable cute-dom of so many Hollywood kids, he manages to pull himself up to a hilarious performance (check out the dancing & harmonica playing).
A star-studded cast (to those who recognise them) helps fill out the film, and fans of the original will enjoy recognising familiar faces & places. The songs, whilst not having the same toe-tapping qualities of the original are all entertaining enough, as are the lower quality car chases.
I know most people will hate this film: it meanders, it repeats the original and has the most unsatisfying ending of just about any film I've seen, and yet the characters, music, dance and comedy all make this a film worth seeing.
Long live the Blues.
The Blues Brothers (1980)
Nothing can stop this film. It's on a mission from God.
Jake and Elwood are the Blues Brothers. Both ex-cons and lead singers of the Blues Brothers band, they are charged with a mission from God to find money to save the orphanage where they grew up.
A flop on it's original release, this film grew to become a cult-classic, spawning a sequel, stage shows and more spin-off CDs than I care to count. Undoubtedly one of the funniest movies of the 80s (possibly of all time), this masterpiece never fails to amuse or entertain. Yet what makes this film great?
Could it be that John Belushi's and Dan Akroyd's sunglasses-wearing characters are extremely funny, given their constant deadpan expressions and unique dancing abilities?
Is it the all-star cast - with cameos from, amongst others, such blues & soul legends as Cab Calloway, James Brown and Arethra Franklin?
Is it the superb music, always suitable to the moment and making the audience wish that they too could play the harmonica?
Is it the collection of stereotype characters gay neo-nazis, shotgun wielding cowboys and anal-retentive clerks who brighten up every scene?
Is it the car chases, always taken to the extreme and then over the edge in all the action scenes (yes, I know most of the stunts are physically impossible they're meant to be)?
Is it because of the seemingly random encounters with celebrities and attacks from an enraged Carrie Fisher, which make the audience sit up and take notice?
Or is it the fact that all of these together have produced a highly entertaining film which, even if it doesn't have you returning again and again, will at least have you searching for the soundtrack.
A classic in it's own league.
Go (1999)
At last - a decent Generation X film.
Films this clever are few and far between. Most scriptwriters find it hard enough to come up with one intelligent storyline to keep the audience entertained, but Go manages to intertwine multiple stories running parallel. In true, unashamed Pulp Fiction style these cross over at several points, with the main characters bumping into one another (at times in a literal sense). All of these stories, set in the festive season, seem to revolve around a drug-deal-gone-wrong, and the action flits backwards and forwards to those involved in each story. If this sounds like incoherent babble, watch the film, it makes more sense than I do.
In a possible masterstroke, the cast is made up mostly of comparative-unknowns (even boasting an old cast member of English school drama Grange Hill). This immediately dispels any delusions of Hollywood grandeur and clichés this stuff is fresh. A superb young cast shows the characters making molehills into mountains, and mountains into
bigger mountains. At no point do these actors slip into the laziness we see so often in teenage films and TV programmes and we feel empathy for all of the main characters at one point or another.
From a fantastic soundtrack to astounding camerawork, distinctly above average originality to one of the wittiest scripts of any recent film, Go is always throwing something unexpected into the faces of the audience. Admittedly, Go treads little brand new ground, and borders on the cliché happy endings that America demands, but it is not afraid to try old ideas in new ways and combinations. Pulp Fiction has been succeeded and improved upon by its own offspring.
A Clockwork Orange (1971)
Sociologist's nightmare, film-buff's dream.
I must admit that I am not Stanley Kubrick's greatest fan - I found Eyes Wide Shut disappointing and 2001 just plain dull. However, I went to see A Clockwork Orange not only on account of the hype but also as I had read the book several years previously and I wanted to see if the film version lived up to the literary classic. I discovered, not to my surprise, that it is affected by 'The Exorcist' syndrome. Kubrick managed to create something totally different to its source material, yet with a charm of its very own.
Obviously, from the very outset, a very seventies film, this was unlike anything I have experienced at the cinema before. This film disturbs at almost every conceivable level - rape, murder, brainwashing and "ultra-violence" are all breezed over during this films run time. And does the film stop to moralise? It barely takes a breath, leaving ethics up to the audience's discussions on their way home. You leave the cinema wondering who - if anybody - you should feel sorry for. Everyone in the film, from Alex (Malcolm McDowell) to Dim (a very early performance from Warren Clarke) and from Mr. Deltoid (Aubrey Morris) to Mrs. DeLarge (Sheila Raynor) displays inhuman characteristics.
There seems to be some confusion as to whether this film is really about Alex and his violent nature, reflecting the darker side of human nature, or society having no qualms about using a victim to their own ends. Perhaps it was too many people believing the former which led to its retraction in Britain for more than 20 years. Either way, the dark undertones, superb soundtrack and excellent acting make this film a must-see for any self-respecting film fan. Kubrick-lover or not.
The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
Just who is the hero?
As stated in the tagline, this is a film of hope. The difficult question is however, is whom does it refer to? The two lead characters (Andy Dufresne and 'Red' Redding, played superbly by Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman respectively) are both inmates at Shawshank penitentiary, one innocent and the other guilty. This however, does not mar your opinion of either character - you are able to sympathise with both of them, as you are with many of the prisoners. You root for these criminals every inch of the way, despite their wayward past and current situations. This is perhaps the ultimate feelgood movie, with the greatest twist since Kevin Spacey walked away in The Usual Suspects. Unlike other films of this genre however, there is no need for constant assurance that this will make you feel good - bar one or two moments in the middle, there is no hint that anything positive will happen to either hero, right up until that moment.
The greatest factor in this movie must be the characterisation. Prison guards turn from monsters, to friends to cowards; prisoners range from the horrific, to cruel, to pitiful and finally to likable. Above all, unlike too many recent films, each and every character is human and believable.
Is there an answer to that question? Which character has the lead - the narrating Red or the centrepiece Andy? Who has the hope? The answer to that lies in the interpretation of a film that can mean anything.
Léon (1994)
A shameful praise of a fantastic film.
Leon (Jean Reno) is a tortured soul. He lives in squalor and misery, never truly happy or at peace with himself. After all, he is a hitman. He lives quietly from kill to kill, harming no-one whom he has not been paid to assassinate. He is a simplistic, childlike man who lives by his own set of morals but is troubled by them. The one thing he seems to fear above all else is change.
Mathilda (Natalie Portman) is Leon's neighbour. A young girl, she lives with her father, step-mother, half-sister and half-brother. As unhappy as Leon, she lives in awe of the dark stranger, unaware of his true profession. Beaten by her parents and sister, she has abandoned school and instead spends the day watching cartoons and trying to escape from the real world.
When Mathilda's family is brutally murdered by a drug crazed Norman Stansfield (Gary Oldman), her only chance for survival is to hide with her neighbour. When she learns of Leon's true identity, she becomes infatuated with both him, and the grim world he inhabits.
This stark portrayal of humanity and inhumanity is produced with the style and finesse that one expects from Luc Besson. In addition, the combined talents of Jean Reno, Natalie Portman and Gary Oldman provide not only an unmatched on-screen chemistry, but also three perfectly created characterisations, the like of which are rarely seen in today's cinema. This film has my personal recommendation of being the best piece of cinema that I know of. I have not seen anything that matches it in terms of intensity or emotion - and believe me, I've looked. I found myself caring for the characters involved, an unique experience in itself. This is not the type of film for a night in with your mates, but nevertheless, it is an unforgettable piece of cinematic history.