simonk_h

Michael Caine does so many great roles that it would be difficult to pick a best one were it not for Jack Carter. I am normally sceptical on awarding a film on the merits of it's main actor but Caine just oozes menace and really feels like a hard-nut. He dominates the screen but (alongside director Mike Hodges) leaves breathing spaces for the other actors to do act as well as they do. This leaves a feeling of realism and knowing the characters from real life That is not to say that the rest of the film isn't that good. It's all top notch stuff, with the documentary style camera work and use of genuine locations makes for a fantastically gritty feel which goes hand in hand with the sour atmosphere and never lets up. I mean, I can't really believe that Newcastle was that grotty but clearly it was. It certainly doesn't make me feel nostalgic for living in the UK. I think it is mostly the simplicity of the camera work and the fact that there are no flashy visuals that makes it so interesting and exciting to watch. It makes you feel like the whole affair could be happening and probably has quite a few times. Once again, like The Wicker Man and The Italian Job, Get Carter is another example of a great British film's legacy destroyed by a Hollywood remake. I just pray to God that the same fate never befalls Zulu.

When people say a certain film is THE film of such and such a year, I am naturally sceptical. So many films seem to gain that title and , whilst being impressive, you will not think too much about it afterwards. I think United 93 will stay with me for a long long time to come. Paul Greengrass' visual style is entirely appropriate here. I cannot think what it is about the hand held grainy camera that director's seem to love nowadays (sometimes I think it's a fad) but Greengrass is the only director, for me, who can pull it off properly. The shots throughout the whole film were wonderfully realised; muted colours, great light and to the point. I have not seen Oliver Stone's 'World Trade Center' but I am not sure that I'll bother now. Much as I appreciate him as a director, I think his cinematic style is not suited to these sorts of stories (whatever "these sorts of stories" are. That was very shallow, wasn't it?). You only have to look at the posters to these films and you can tell the difference. 'World Trade Center' has four very good looking name actors looking off into the middle distance. Very nice; very Hollywood. 'United 93' has a lot of normal looking faces, both young and old, looking at something. These faces seem to have a purpose to look away. I think also that budget is a contributing factor. Oliver Stone had $60,000,000 to play with, whereas Greengrass had $15,000,000. A much lower budget restricts people I think and forces them to look at the little picture as opposed to a broad canvas. The shock of seeing the planes hit the towers was incredible. I have not realised the true magnitude of the whole event before. However, when those images flashed up and the people reacted, I felt a tensing of my stomach and a definite feeling of shock and horror. It is probably because they have milked the whole thing to death through whatever means possible but my senses have become numbed to the American predicament. This film really brought it home to me. These people were ordinary people, on the face of things, seemingly undeserving of such a fate. But then the film does not show us bad people or people to dislike, if you will. The terrorists are clearly believing in what they are doing and really into the whole affair. They will not stop because they believe it is the right thing to do. It was a film that made me think, how can I watch another film ever a again? All these millions of dollars of money being poured into so-called entertainment and it should be spent on other, far more important things. When I become a director, I shall certainly endeavour to make relevant films like this one. And yes! That last image will be burned into your memory forever.