Change Your Image
AnneSLReid
Can't get enough of films - favourites being Silence of the Lambs, Se7en, 8MM, The Ring. So mostly psychological thrillers, some horror (The Ring) and '80s sci-fi/action (The Terminator; Aliens)
Reviews
The Fly (1986)
Metaphor
***** WARNING SPOILERS ****** As explained already, "The Fly" (1986) is a re-make of the 1958 sci-horror of the same title. However, whilst the earlier film is a simple horror story of a man who (part) mutates into a fly, Cronenberg's version is a much more complex pic that appears to be a metaphor for mental illness more than anything else.
Story focuses on Seth Brundle (Goldblum), a gentle, socially awkward yet genius scientist who is working on a cure for his motion sickness (the latter preventing him from getting out much), in the form of teleportation through telepods. Brundle meets Ronnie (Davis), a journalist, and, keen to find a companion in his work, invites her to his warehouse apartment. Ronnie is immediately intrigued by his work and his boyish charms, and ends up agreeing to record his work to print an article when it is complete. Almost immediately, they begin a love affair.
Their affair is ultimately the making and breaking of Brundle and is the turning point of the film (rather than Brundle's teleportation through the pods). Having previously been a recluse, confined to his apartment, obsessively wearing the same clothes every day (and who considers cheeseburgers and a deluxe coffee-machine to be the sum excitement of his life!), Ronnie's sensual (and almost motherly) love awakens a passion (and conversely a jealousy) in Brundle he has never known before. Indeed, Cronenberg conveys this metaphorically. Brundle cannot teleport flesh (and there is a nasty scene with a baboon when he does) until his love affair with Ronnie - who essentially teaches him "how to be made crazy by flesh". This is literally what happens. Brundle realises his missing component, re-programmes his computer and the teleportation is successful.
Whilst his love for Ronnie helps to complete his work, it ultimately destroys him. In a fit of jealousy when she goes away to confront her meddlesome and lecherous ex (Getz), Brundle recklessly teleports himself, not knowing the pod is contaminated with a fly. The insect is obviously another metaphor, otherwise Brundle would have fused with every mite on his body! The telepods are Brundle's only means of leaving his confined existence - a form of deconstruction/reconstruction that fuses him with an insect at genetic level which is at first exhilarating then terrifying. It is from here that (well I believe) the film becomes a metaphor for mental illness. Having lived with someone with bipolar disorder, Brundle's behaviour very much mirrors the symptoms and personality traits: initially, he is sexually insatiable, promiscuous, irritable, unable to sleep, aggressive, speaks too fast, has an almighty God complex and oodles of energy (very much like a high - even to the extent that he craves sweet foods). When Ronnie can't keep up with him, she becomes "a drag", who only has a "basic understanding of the flesh" - clearly meaning he has "progressed" from mere sex to a higher level of consciousness (bipolar sufferers often feel they "see" and appreciate life more than others). Inevitably, his actions end their relationship because she doesn't understand him.
Before long, "the insect" starts to change him physically as well. He develops skin rashes, his nails, teeth and hair start to drop out and he is unable to eat food (food "hurts") - common fears with Anxiety (particularly food intolerances) when the "high" starts to wane and the reckless behaviour catches up with the body. What is noticeable is that Cronenberg very much focuses on Brundle's psychological changes before the gruesome physical downfall. There is no scientific explanation of why he physically metamorphs the way he does because it is really not important. Ultimately, his physical and mental state spiral down into something incapacitating (depression) and ugly until he becomes emotionally devoid to the point of dangerous (when the insect is "awake"). He feels his only option is to merge with Ronnie and their baby, but his attempts at "the perfect family" fail. Ultimately, from being at his mental and physical peak, Brundle is left with nothing, marked by the fact that it is the lecherous, "disgusting" ex who eventually who steps up to the mark of hero by helping Ronnie with her abortion and saves her at the end.
The poignancy of the film is that Brundle is always alone, no matter what stage he is at, be it reclusive nerd, arrogant genius or horribly disabled. Whilst the brief relationship with Ronnie is both tender and sweet (he even asks if it is a relationship, he is that naive) it is only brief and ultimately the cause of his demise. One can only wish he had never met Ronnie and kept to his caged existence. It shows the frustration of someone who cannot handle "the flesh" - i.e. a relationship - who is always relegated to a life alone constantly craving understanding.
My criticism of the film is the amount of gratuitous gore which looks both dated and ludicrous (particularly when she pulls his jaw off) and which distracts from the main theme of the film, to the point that a lot of people don't get it. Also, I felt Ronnie's character was very one-dimensional - ultimately a catalyst for Brundle - although Davis brought a natural, intriguing intelligence to it and did the best she could. Also, the leads' off-screen romance helped a lot with the chemistry between the characters.
A brilliant film that is probably the best so far of conveying the horrors and frustration of a world confined by illness.
The Assassination of Richard Nixon (2004)
For anyone disillusioned with life!
I think anyone, ranging from the disillusioned to the frustrated and angry, can relate easily to this film. Penn portrays an ordinary honest man, who struggles to survive in this artificial society in which we exist. However, where most people acknowledge the hypocrisy of their so-called "meritocratic" state and resign themselves to a simpler life, Penn (and no doubt many other people) is unable to fit in or tolerate it and he cannot understand how his friend and wife can be so resigned.
Essentially, only the con artists can succeed in Nixon's America (and not just Nixon's America!). Not only that, to even survive, you must con yourself and others that you are something more than you appear to be. A person must prove his worth and he means nothing until he does. Unless you are someone's employee (or property), you lose your home, family etc. Ultimately, survival or success relies wholly on your ability to prostitute yourself and abandon the complexities that make you human.
Penn's character cannot compromise or learn to fit in. As a result, he loses every job he gets, and in turn, his family. He desperately seeks lifelines against this system, which is crippling him, including applying for a loan to start a business with his friend, but again the system fails him. Without true understanding from his best friend, Cheadle, who suffers from racism, but who finds support from his own family; or from his wife, who is made to dress like a cheap wh*re for work, but who finds hope in a new relationship; or even his own brother, Penn has nothing and nobody to support him or get him out of his turmoil. In his desperation, his only chance of survival is to destroy the system, and its leader - Richard Nixon. Of course, the tragic irony is that the honest ordinary man can only get so far and Penn only succeeds in shooting a handful of people at the airport. He never even gets to Washington.
The realism of this film is what makes it so overwhelmingly powerful and successful. How many times would we like to change the system, but give up because it seems insurmountable? Penn's character is no revolutionary political activist, or strong action-hero. There are no special weapons or faithful sidekicks. Penn's character is ordinary, yet so extraordinary, naive, vulnerable, powerless (often mistaken for weak), and, moreover, alone. Whilst his death may finally give him the peace he so desperately seeks, you cannot help feeling so sorry for him when he is dismissed as some random madman. Nobody can understand him even in death.
Penn's performance was superb in that it was so unremarkable. Not one actor overshadowed another. Indeed, I wondered why Naomi Watts chose to play such a bland, plain role, but this is exactly where the film succeeded. Penn's inability to express himself verbally was indeed frustrating just as his non-verbal scenes smacked of vulnerability, tenderness and pathos.
I can only wonder how much money Penn received from acting this role!
The Ring (2002)
Modern horror at its best
After watching so many diabolical let-downs (House on Haunted Hill and Ghost Ship for a start!), it was so refreshing to finally find a modern horror film that is actually scary! Indeed, not only did I revert to a silly wimpy 7-year-old - sleeping in the lounge with the light on for 2 weeks - but I also found it impossible to stop thinking about this film!
This film worked very well for me, but I can understand why so many viewers thought it was poor. I saw this version before watching the Japanese one or reading the book. Indeed, neither film is very close to the book, which is a shame as I thought it was very good. However, after seeing the Western version and knowing what the concept was all about, I thought the Japanese version was dull, slow and an anti-climax, mainly because the film was so dark I couldn't see it and because the special effects were rubbish. Indeed, Rick Baker made a much better job, which, ultimately, saved the film from being a potential farce. However, had I seen the Japanese film first, I would probably be championing that instead!
The black-and-white film quality and eerie sound effects maintained suspense right through the film. My only complaint would be the decision to cast Dorfman as the "cute" kid, who looked more like the scary midget in "Don't Look Now"!
Action-packed from the start, intelligent and original with fine performances from Watts, Henderson (come a long way since Shortland Street!), and especially Cox, this is a masterpiece of modern horror.
The Pledge (2001)
Good but no banana
Whilst I like the concept of this film - that in real life, the good guy rarely gets the bad guy - I couldn't help feeling cheated by this film.
If the film was supposed to be a drama on real-life inadequacy, I wish it had started that way, instead of pretending to be a really good psychological thriller. The first hour was excellently paced, but then the film changed tack and meandered around Nicholson's confusing character, steering right away from the plot. By the end I was well and truly bewildered as to the identity of the killer and the whole point of this film.
Nicholson's acting was more subtle for once, unlike his usual over-rated hammy style. It was evident that Wright was only cast because of her marital status rather than any skill she might possess. Notable performances were Del Toro and Eckhart, whose fine looks helped the film immensely!
As a fan of Penn I was very disappointed with this film, which ultimately was trying to prove a point that is made in the papers every day! Thought-provoking, but left a bitter taste.
The Others (2001)
Macabre but not frightening
Like I always do, I see films like this one trailered and I rush to the cinema in the vain hope that I'll be frightened out of my socks, ignoring the little voice in the back of my head that says "it will be a let down". Well this time, I wasn't frightened, but the little voice was also wrong! More of a psychological thriller than a horror (wrongly hyped), the characterisation in the film was so incredible that I stopped caring whether or not the film was chilling.
This is Kidman's finest role I have seen to date and I have always been a fan of her acting. Her accent was brilliant and her portrayal of a strict, principled mother who is ultimately the most vulnerable person in that house is mesmerising. Of course, the unique relationship with her children could not have been adequately portrayed without the fantastic performances from Mann and Bentley. Altogether, the characters were realistic, funny and sympathetic.
Ultimately, this film was predictable, but it was more complex than a cheesy one-dimensional horror. That is not to say that the film did not have its chilling moments, such as when Mann is possessed by the medium (or vice versa), but it drew its suspense from the emotional rather than the visual.
A fine film with unique individuality and intelligence.
A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)
A sci-fi with brains at last!
Initially, I refused to watch this film as I just couldn't stand watching another lame action/sci-fi with re-hashed weak plots and five-minute-wonder stars, that are secondary to a variation of the same old (unimpressive) computerised special effects (Independence Day, Armageddon, Fifth Element etc). However, I gave in and to my surprise this film actually had a psychological element and characterisation.
Uniquely layered with the ironic portrayal of the age-old story of Pinocchio in a futuristic setting, the film successfully combines the Arts with the Scientific, padding out what would have been more sci-fi bubblegum. I even have to admit that Haley Brat Osmont was outstanding and - yes - he made me cry at the end - A LOT! The film preys on fundamental insecurities embedded in the child in all of us, enmeshed in a cold, clinical, world of robots.
Allegorical and heart-rending - who cares whether the special effects were good?! Not for spongy-brained meatheads!
Pretty Woman (1990)
Banal
Oh heaven forbid a PROSTITUTE find a bit of happiness!!! Indeed, such filth should be tortured and burned at the stake and the poor innocent pervert who pays for it should be saved from such degradation!!
Honestly you would think that some people on here - of the flaccid variety no doubt - left their brains (and their trousers) in the 15th century! So she's a prossie - so what???? My only complaint is that Julia Roberts is too clean and pretty to play the part realistically. This film is no more than a cheesy happy-ever-after flick, not an advert for prostitution. Indeed, I hope it gave these poor women hope and made people realise that women are more than just a pair of walking knickers! Roberts was funny and intelligent at all times. Gere, however, was very wooden and could have done with some hair dye!
Casualties of War (1989)
One of De Palma's best
This is a highly stimulating film which challenges all the traditional notions of morality - when does a victim become a perpetrator? How far can we excuse people's behaviour because of circumstance? Ultimately, De Palma tries to show that during war, the line between baddies and goodies is not as clear cut as we would believe.
The theme is totally centred around Penn and Fox, the former being the ostensible "baddie" - a common, sadistic, murderer of an innocent Vietnamese girl, but who is the best soldier of his platoon and whose bravery at the beginning of the film saves Fox's life. He is admired only in the field, outside of which he is a common, unsavoury nobody. After losing his friend to the VietCong, Penn savagely rapes a girl, whose only crime was to be associated with the villagers who harboured the VietCong. He then manipulates his henchmen to kill her - being too cowardly to do it himself. The line between grief and recklessness, understandable in wartime, and pure sadism becomes blurred. It is difficult to believe that the girl was murdered because he mistakenly believed she was VietCong. Rather, she was easy pickings.
Fox - the ostensible "goodie" - is a quiet, gentle, family man, conscripted into the Army, where he doesn't want to be - the antithesis of Penn. However, his gentle, trusting nature endangers his own life and possibly the lives of his comrades (he naively accepts food from the villagers and helps them farm their land, whilst they are harbouring VietCong). Fox is the only person to make a stand against the brutal rape, but he is too cowardly to save her from being killed. Indeed, he does not report the murder until his own life is threatened, a life which was originally saved by the man he reports. Although racked with guilt, his character is ultimately on nobody's side but his own.
The weight attached to these two characters is immense and both Penn and Fox made very good performances. However, Penn's performance was vastly superior. He was every bit as coarse and vulgar as his character should be, yet charged with vulnerable energy. I found Fox rather average - a typical all-American "goodie", whose moral outbursts were slightly unconvincing at times.
Supporting cast were also very good, particularly Leguizamo, who played the backstabbing "ally" to Fox. Le was also good, but her role was limited to a lot of hysteria. It is interesting to see that her character's name was never mentioned until her body was found. Reilly and Harvey were also limited, and Harvey's attempts at being "hard" were irritating beyond extreme. However, they served well to support Penn.
A very good film, which produces a variety of responses every time you watch it.
Don't Look Now (1973)
Well it put me off going to Venice!
I cannot say this film was terrible, but I cannot say it struck me as being very good either.
"Don't Look Now" pioneered the use of symbolic themes and motifs that have been incorporated into many horrors and thrillers since - such as "Sixth Sense" (use of red), "The Ring" (series of images seen before death), and "The Others" (scary yet benign old psychic lady). The whole film was numbingly creepy, achieved by its location in the backwaters of Venice. The ending was spine-curdling yet poignant and Sutherland's performance was nothing less than fantastic.
Indeed, the ending is about the only part that saves the film from being a crashing bore of slow-paced "images", which have no meaning until the end, forcing you to go back and watch the whole film again to find the "images" you missed. The first hour is painstakingly slow the first time around as it appears to have no meaning and the second viewing screams to be edited even more. Stretching a film out unnecessarily does not create suspense - it just gets boring. Not even the excruciating love scene between the anorexic Christie and Sutherland broke the stagnant pace.
Christie's performance largely contributed to the downfall of the film. She may be pretty, but her only acting skills consist of two pouting facial expressions. Supporting cast were robotic if nothing else - particularly the blind psychic lady, who was laudable at times. The most notable performance was the murderous midget, who stole the final scene and ruined the story of Little Red Riding Hood for me forever!
Like "The Exorcist", the director had the perfect concept and the perfect atmosphere, but should have sacked the editor!
Irréversible (2002)
Art Nouveau that is a bit passe
When I rented this film I thought it was going to be another average thriller with a slight psychological, pseudo-intellectual slant. I didn't even know the film was French!
However, despite the annoying, pretentious camera angles, slow pace and ambiguous dialogue (in the first 5 minutes) I thought I'd give our Froggie friends a chance - and I watched the whole film. I should have listened to my original instincts!
Why the director couldn't just film the picture properly instead of making me throw up my dinner with his swaying camera in a bid to become the next pioneering Hitchcock is beyond me. I think the point would have been made better as I couldn't see or hear who was saying/doing what! I know he was trying to convey a certain state of mind or mood, but to be honest I just felt sick!
By the time I got to the S&M joint and the "rape" scene, my dinner had no chance of staying down. I understand all the "depiction of gritty realism is a necessary warning" arguments and the "artistic licence" arguments, and I am one of the Freddy Krueger generation who yearns for a bit of satisfying gory nostalgia, but these scenes were just gratuitous and downright sick!
Why did the rape scene have to go on so long??? As a woman - I GOT THE MESSAGE IN THE FIRST 30 SECONDS and I think even that made me constipated for a week! The intelligent viewer (which this film is supposed to be aimed at) doesn't need to be exposed to this kind of thing so explicitly. While this scene is undoubtedly an eye-opening shocker for ignorant people who think "women ask for it" simply because they breathe in a man's direction, it still reeked of unadulterated titallation for the sadisticly minded. Ditto for the over-long aimless panning around the homosexual S&M parlour and the all-too-real extinguisher scene. Whilst I understand the director's motives and that he wanted to capture the decadence of this underworld into which such middle-class people have been dragged and the dichotomies of human pain (emotional as well as physical) and pleasure, the director became too self-indulgent.
Also, the use of irony and "premonitions" to expand the themes were so glaring they were insulting. For example, the homosexual overtones at the party; her dream; his arm; the red tunnel and the red lighting in the hallway; her joy at being pregnant etc. This has been done to death in much cleverer ways than dragging a film out so much we even have to watch Belluci pee!
I can't even agree that the subtle feminist undertones were thought through properly. Belluci says that it is a woman's choice whether women should have sex - but of course that isn't true and she looks like a joke for saying that in the first place. Because Belluci chose a real man, as opposed to some boring drip, it is suggested that maybe she fantasised about rape - and got more than she bargained for (meaning she should have appreciated the boring drip). Of course we sympathise with Belluci - as a victim - but only because the rape was SO brutal and because it was the stereotypical "stranger in a dark alley" rape. Ask yourself, if the rape hadn't included any of those things, would you still feel sorry for her? Or would she "have asked for it"?
For me, I endured 137 minutes of "revolutionary art" which was ultimately making a rather cliched, obvious, reactionary point, and which only served to inspire the next Ted Bundy. Noe - a little less passion - a little more restraint please!
The Accused (1988)
Thought-provoking at best
Whilst this film attacks stereotypes about the model rape victim I feel it fails in PERSUADING the viewer that rape, against any woman, is wrong. In the main its major weaknesses were the diabolically corny script and B-movie quality.
Firstly, if Alicia Silverstone wants to walk around butt-naked in Harlem then she should be able to - just as any man would if he wanted to! Men should never assume that women lose the right to personal autonomy in some sort of bargain for their right to sexual expression and independence. Ultimately, the Accused (feebly) attempts to convey this: It is men who should exercise control over their actions and responses - not women.
Obviously the main thread is that once a woman becomes reckless and unsavoury (i.e. behaves like a man), she becomes the Accused, undeserving of justice, of support from her mousy friend Sally (the traditional good, hard-working domestic mother), of loyalty from her lawyer Kathryn (the post-modern career woman), and undeserving of understanding from any man, including her boyfriend, except for Kenneth Joyce - a stranger and a man on whom she ironically comes to rely.
So for all the latent chauvinists (or chauvinazis if we want to be petty) with "mother" issues - this film is not indicating that all men are capable of rape!
However, the film does fundamentally contradict itself. The only time the viewer really sympathises with Sarah as PERSON and not as a VICTIM is when she starts acting (and looking) like a vulnerable, little girl -which is increasingly noticeable as the film develops from the car crash. This is exactly what the film was trying to crush.
Although the rape scene was graphic I did not think it was gratuitous and anybody who could get off on those scenes is just sick. The sequence was mostly filmed from Sarah's point of view - which has never been done before or since. The remaining shots focused on the crowd, Rossi and his troop, and Coulson's disgusted face, with few of the actual penetration. Indeed, I thought the scene was both sensitive yet shocking.
Foster's portrayal of Sarah was good, but a little melodramatic at times. Whilst I agree that McGillis' acting was a little wooden, I think it is understandable considering she had been raped in real life not long before the Accused was filmed. Indeed, her steely performance showed how even career women - those women who you think would be more feminist and supportive towards rape victims - can still be as unemotional and prejudiced as anybody else. Coulson's character was played with adequate warmth and sentiment but nothing more than what was required. Hearn's character and her act of cowardice could have been explained better.
May I briefly explain something to those who cannot get their heads around the law of rape and "criminal solicitation"?! It is not at all surprising that charges were brought against the ones who cheered and there was no clever twist of the law or logic - it was simply charging those who had very simply committed the crime of aiding and abetting. Whether the crime of rape had been committed or not is irrelevant to the case at hand - the question is whether they believed a crime was being committed. There is, indeed, an English case where a soldier witnessed a gang-rape in the soldiers' barracks. He was convicted for aiding and abetting for doing a lot less than the "applauders" in the Accused!
Secondly, such rapes as these do happen and are quite common. This particular rape was based upon a poolroom rape in Massachusetts in 1983, so the story cannot be that incredulous! Indeed, most rapes are not the "stranger in the dark alley" rape (which constitutes only 7% of rapes), but mostly marital and date rapes.
Wuthering Heights (1992)
Love it, Hate it, Watch It
After all these impressive reviews, there is not much else for me to say except that, on the whole, this film worked for me. The screenplay was very good and at times even excellent, although I would not put it in the same league as "Dangerous Liaisons". The film was visually a masterpiece, capturing essential decadence in its set and on location in Yorkshire.
Supporting cast were notable, particularly Janet McTeer and Simon Shepherd, who was very touching at times, especially with young Catherine. However, the film's quality came from the amazing performance of Ralph Fiennes whose sexual magnetism and intensity stole the screen. Indeed, without Fiennes, the film would have been too under-rated and even slow. Whilst Fiennes exploded in scenes such as breaking into the chapel, I found Binoche very stilted in her "emotional" scenes. At times, she over-acted whilst at others she lacked any expression at all. This made her character quite difficult to understand and I found it hard to imagine how the brooding, precarious Heathcliff could be so infatuated with her. She killed any sense of sexual tension and her acting seemed out of keeping with the others'.
Having said that, the film managed to develop the theme of love/hate with extreme ferocity. It portrayed how love can evoke pity and repulsion, blending passion with destruction, and life with death. Such contrasts effectively convey the eternal dichotomy of human love.
Dracula A.D. 1972 (1972)
Best of Cheese
If you want chills and thrills then you are stupid for watching a Hammer!
Indeed, the film is very dated even for its time. By 1972, the hippie culture was drawing to a close - not that it ever really gripped the UK in the first place. Not only do the hairstyles, clothes etc look ridiculously dated, but middle class "kids" trying to sound cool doesn't work well either.
However, Dracula 72 works mysteriously well. I first saw this film when I was 3 years old and although this was the only time it was capable of frightening me, I can still watch it, if only for a giggle. Christopher Lee is, as usual, convincingly icy as the debonair vampire and Peter Cushing is tolerable if you can ignore him constantly groping Stephanie Beacham every chance he gets!
Christopher Neame, though glaringly gay, is well cast as the re-incarnated henchman. I must agree with Blueboy that special mention should go to the beautiful Caroline Munro, who brought some glamour and sombreness to the film with her Gothic dark hair and black shroud. By far overshadowing the rather bland Beacham, it is a shame she was not cast as Jessica Van Helsing instead.
Dangerous Liaisons (1988)
A Classic not to be scoffed at!
From reading reviews I can understand why this film has stirred such a diverse range of opinions. Ultimately, only a select, intelligent elite who can understand and respect subtlety will enjoy this film. It is most certainly not for vulgar, mediocre perverts.
The very fact that this film is ambiguous demonstrates the complex genius that it possesses and reflects the ambiguity within human emotions that the film (and the book) hoped to portray. My immediate reaction after watching it was summarised by Madame de Rosemonde: "The only thing that surprises me is how little the world changes". The film is intensely gripping through its interwoven themes of passion, love, jealousy and revenge (indeed you never know which is the central issue) and without Malkovich and Close the film would never have adequately conveyed these themes.
I disagree with many reviews. I believe Malkovich was the perfect Valmont. He exuded incredible charm through his magnanimity and presence. His acting was impeccable, being under-stated and exciteable at the key points of the film. He comes across as intelligent, experienced and sophisticated, as well as a little barbaric, which is the essence of Valmont's attraction. Close stole the show by encapsulating multiple emotions and authority within a single glance or gesture. Indeed, I vehemently disagree that "Valmont" was a better film than "Dangerous Liaisons". I felt that Firth was rather bland and too arrogant for women to find attractive. His dark looks were his only saving grace. Similarly with Benning, she was too busy thinking she was a good actress rather than being a good actress. Indeed, the whole film lacked an intimacy with the characters that made "Dangerous Liaisons" so suspenseful. As for judging Benning's performance solely on her looks is just a predictable, base response from a fickle misogynist to which I would not bother responding.
Thurman was actually quite well cast. Though inexperienced, she was faithful to the clumsy character of Cecile Volanges and even a little amusing at times. Reeves brought out the ineptitude of Danceny's character very well, but only because he was playing himself. Pfeiffer was the real let-down of the film. Her plain, insipid features may titillate the latent paedophile audience who possess a penchant for pre-pubescent wallflowers, but to those who understand and admire good acting, she was completely expressionless and recited her lines brokenly as though she did not understand her script.
The real winner of the show was the scriptwriter, who, although took a lot of the script from book, managed to alter and edit it perfectly. This film may have been ambiguous and confusing (particularly the ending between Valmont and Madame de Tourvel) but it was designed that way to stimulate an intelligent, analytical audience. Indeed, any intelligent person could see that the whole film exuded sex without having to cheapen it with graphic (and boring) sex scenes. It is for this reason that "Cruel Intentions", a cheap imitation, is incomparable with such a masterpiece.
Fright Night (1985)
Move over Hammer!
This is perhaps the best vampire film I've ever seen. The directing managed to extrapolate optimum acting from the stars and produce a neatly condensed, funny and interesting picture without being pretentious.
Credit must go to Sarandon who is mesmerising even though he cannot help playing the part "tongue in cheek". He is nevertheless the perfect archetypal vampire. His suave and debonair manner (oozing experience), and ice-cold dark glare left every woman (well me anyway!) drooling - a refreshing change from the usual nerd we have to settle for in most films! Indeed, his charisma suffocated the attempts of McDowell, who was nevertheless impressive as the cowardly charlatan, and Ragsdale, who suffered mainly from a poor script.
Geoffreys was funny though bordered on the annoying. Bearse was surprisingly refreshing by managing to avoid posing throughout the whole film and shows obvious talent as a natural comedian. However, she and Sarandon looked completely incompatible. Stark spoiled the film by clumsily acting a part he was blatantly not suited for, even if his presence only served to highlight Sarandon's superior quality. He looked more like a bank manager than an evil henchman!
Make-up mainly contributed to the comic side of the film through its sheer absurdity if nothing else. Soundtrack is lovably cheesy as any 80's flick should be! A timeless pic which can - and should be - watched again and again.
Class of 1999 (1990)
Metaller film
This film is just one entire rip-off! The plot is terrible, meandering its way among too many characters, and the acting, particularly from the leads, is equally abismal.
I say that with the exception of Stacy Keach who is the only one to create any suspense with his enigmatic voice and freaky make-up. He completely overshadows McDowell. Gregg stood no chance of making an impression as he was too small to be an action hero, especially when compared with KilPatrick in the gym scene. Lind was simply reprising all her other roles, playing the overly cutesy all-American girl. As for Miller, I was too busy working out if he was really a boy!
Indeed, the other characters were far more appealing, particularly Hector (who has the funniest lines) and his Razerheade 3-man clan, Flavio and Noser (quite tasty!) The film is good for metallers who want to recall the 1980's battle between the glams (Blackhearts) and the goths (Razerheades).
With an OK soundtrack, including Nine Inch Nails (Head Like A Hole) and Midge Ure, the scariest thing in the film is Lind's earrings!
Far from Home (1989)
Not just porn for the boys!
Admittedly, this film did not deserve a place in the Oscars, but for an average thriller it is watchable.
Pic centres on a young girl just entering adolescence and interested in what every teenage girl is interested in - boys! It is her naivety and inexperience which lands her in trouble. Barrymore is generally good as the confused and lonely angst-ridden teenager, and is sometimes quite realistic in her scenes with Matt Frewer. As a teenager when I saw this a few years ago, I certainly could relate to her and her ineptitude with boys, but now it's just another coming-of-age film with a weak murder plot. Jones was convincing as the ice-cold lust figure for Barrymore, but we never saw enough of him and his character was too rigid. Girls will like him - especially in a wet T-Shirt (Barrymore isn't the only one!)
Nevertheless, some good acting and not a bad film overall, particularly from the women like Susan Tyrrell and Karen Austin, who seem to hold it together better than the men!