richie42 Reviews

Riverworld (2003 TV Movie)

Utterly appalling adaptation.

[1/10 · 20 May 2003]

When I wrote my IMDb review of the TV film IT 'adapted' from Stephen King's magnificent novel, my 'one line summary' was: 'The worst book/film translation ever?'

I wrote that because, at the time, I believed it *was* the worst adaptation I had ever witnessed.

But now I find I have to review and redefine what I think about poor adaptations because, surely, THIS one is the worst ever.

BY FAR!

I gave this movie every chance. I watched it (*suffered* it, more like) in the hope that at some point it would begin to bear more resemblance to Farmer's brilliant series of novels other than that there was a river in the movie, other than there was a boat, an alien, a Neanderthal type, a blonde (*BLONDE?!?*) Alice Hargreaves . . .

But I watched only to be increasingly disappointed.

I do so hope that when someone decides to adapt Arthur C. Clarke's *Rama Saga* for the big (or little) screen that it's not the Sci-Fi Channel who get the rights because if this adaptation of *Riverworld* is the general way they go about translating book to screen, I'll . . . well, I don't know - it doesn't bare thinking about.

My IMDb vote for this appalling adaptation is 1 out of 10. And I voted that ONLY because 0 (zero) isn't available.

My advice to anyone considering watching this movie is GIVE IT A MISS!

The Blair Witch Project (1999)

YAWN

[2/10 · 31 March 2003]

Yawn, yawn, yawn, yawn, yawn, yawn, yawn, yawn, yawn, yawn, yawn, yawn, is it over yet? Yawn, yawn, yawn, yawn, yawn, yawn, Ha-ha! Yawn, yawn, yawn, yawn, yawn, yawn, yawn, sorry - did I fall asleep? Oh, God! It's still going on and on and on and on and on and on and not doing anything different or interesting. Yawn, yawn, yawn, yawn, yawn, yawn, yawn, yawn. Oh great! It's finished. Now to do something interesting . . . . . . .

Dick (1999)

Extremely Funny. Finely Acted. A Marvellous Paraphrase Of The True Events.

[8/10 · 16 February 2003]

Quality Rating: 4 out of 5

This well-written (Andrew Fleming and Sheryl Longin) and well-researched movie is an absolute delight. Despite the downright absurdity of some of the 'other' explanations presented as to what 'may' have gone on during the Watergate scandal, most of them are entirely plausible. This fact may be lost in the total hilarity of the situations the three main protagonists - Dan Hedaya, Kirsten Dunst and Michelle Williams - are landed in. Dan Hedaya sends Nixon up magnificently, but he is almost acted off the screen by Kirsten Dunst and Michelle Williams who play their giggling-fifteen-year-old-girls roles to a level of perfection other young actresses of their peer group should aspire to. (And by the way, the really *do* look fantastic in their home made costumes at the end of the movie!)

The supporting cast - particularly Will Ferrell (as Bob Woodward) and Bruce McCulloch (as Carl Bernstein) - also delight in their nearly-over-the-top send ups.

It is rare that I rewind a rented video and watch a film again, but this is one of the ones with which I did just that - even if only to try pick up more of the plot subtleties. (And to see Kirsten and Michelle looking so utterly delicious in those costumes!)

My advice is: go get the tape, watch the movie twice, and then just look at the *real* facts - then you'll see just how plausible the whole thing is.

L'effrontée (1985)

A finely acted tale of friendship and longing.

[9/10 · 23 June 2002]

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Claude Miller's from the heart film, L'Effrontee is a masterpiece of French film making.

SPOILERS AHEAD!!

This is the simple story of Charlotte (played with effortless ease and considerable verve by Charlotte Gainsbourg), a girl of thirteen or fourteen who is unhappy with her lot. The school holidays are approaching and she is not going away for a month - not until August. She has nothing to do. She hates her peer group, so doesn't hang with them. She hates the fact that no one at home takes her seriously. Her only friend is Lulu (Julie Glenn), a younger girl with a weak disposition, constantly taking medication to keep her out of hospital, and constantly getting under Charlotte's feet.

Charlotte becomes jealous of her brother, who *is* going away on holiday, and Lulu and the housemaid Leone (Bernadette Lafont) bear the brunt of this.

There are, however, two new people in Charlotte's life.

On one of the last days of school she sees a video of Clara Bauman (Clothilde Baudon), a child prodigy. On the video, Clara is playing Beethoven's Third Piano Concerto. Charlotte finds out that she and Clara are the same age, and that Clara is coming to town to play a concert.

It is while watching the video that we see where Charlotte wants to be. We see her inherent understanding of the music and her love for it in the expression on her face. (It is also possible that the love and desire reflected on her face is for the girl.)

As the holidays get under way, we see Charlotte out walking with Lulu. A car pulls up behind them and the driver asks if Charlotte knows the way to a place where the other occupant of the car can have her piano stool repaired. The other occupant of the car is none other than Clara Bauman.

Charlotte does, indeed, know the way to the metal work factory and shows them the way. Once there, she hangs around and listens carefully to the conversation in an attempt to find out where Clara is staying. She also hears that Jean (Jean-Philippe Ecoffey), a temporary worker at the factory, will deliver the piano stool once it is fixed.

Clara and her driver - her manager Sam (Jean-Claude Brialy) - thank Charlotte for showing them the way and depart. But Charlotte has formed her plan: she will hang around and get to know Jean so she can deliver the piano stool with him.

In her own clumsy way, Charlotte succeeds in getting to know Jean, and does so seemingly unaware of the dangers of striking up relationships with men ten years her senior.

When she gets home, all Charlotte can do is talk about her new pianist friend. This, of course gets on the nerves of Lulu, Leone, and her father - a man who always appears dog-tired.

The following day, Charlotte meats up with Jean and they deliver the piano stool to the grand lakeside mansion where Clara is staying. Charlotte manages to get to stay behind once the delivery is made and also succeeds in getting herself invited to a party that night.

Once again at home she continues spouting off about her pianist friend, now claiming that she will be joining her on the rest of her tour. In her happiness she sets off a firework in the kitchen, further annoying everyone.

As the days to the concert go by, Charlotte becomes increasingly obsessed with Clara. She buys a new dress for the concert. Leone rubbishes the dress, saying it awful and unsuitable, and Charlotte has another of her tantrums. As a result of this she agrees to go to the cinema with Jean. After watching "The Exorcist" they go back to his hotel room. Jean, of course, tries it on with her. She escapes after bashing him over the head with a globe of the world.

Meanwhile, because of Charlotte's obsession with Clara, Lulu has become very worried that Charlotte *actually will* leave with her after the concert, so, during the concert, sitting with Charlotte and Leone, Lulu throws a tantrum - right in the middle of the performance - and the trio have to leave the auditorium. Charlotte throws another tantrum and goes to wait backstage for Clara.

Clara, however, finishes her performance on a musician's high and completely fails to notice Charlotte. She leaves without her. A distraught Charlotte is seen wandering around outside the concert hall by an overjoyed Lulu, but Lulu's emotions overcome her and she collapses.

The final scene is at the hospital where Lulu is recouping. She is on a balcony holding hands with Charlotte, Charlotte finally having realized that what she has got is far better than what she wants.

This film very deservedly won several awards:

Prix Louis Delluc - Claude Miller;

Cesar Awards, France - Best Supporting Acress - Bernadette Lafont;

and, of course,

Cesar Awards, France - Most Promising Actress - Charlotte Gainsbourg.

Go rent it, if only to see where Hollywood so often goes wrong.

Fly Away Home (1996)

The less said, the better. (Read on - this is not derogatory!)

[10/10 · 16 June 2002]

"Fly Away Home" is a masterpiece of film making. The photography is simply stunning. The acting is superb - especially Anna Paquin (as always) and Jeff Daniels. The supporting cast is exemplary. The story is simple - the best kind of story. The directing paramount. The music perfectly complimentary.

This is what I mean by "the less said, the better". There is nothing here to fault, nothing to complain about, nothing to niggle about.

This movie is quite simply superb.

10 out of 10.

It (1990)

The worst book/film translation ever?

[4/10 · 16 June 2002]

I am *so* glad I read Stephen King's "IT" before I saw the movie. It gave me some chance of understanding what it was all about.

You've heard that icebergs are 1/10th above water and 9/10ths below? Well, this comes near to describing how close the movie gets in essence to the book. More than this, I imagine there to be a light coating of snow on that part of the iceberg which is out of the water (I'm not an Antarctic explorer, so cannot be sure for certain). That snow is about how close the movie gets to portraying what happens in the book. In other words, 99% of what is in the book is missing; is out of sight.

I am not Stephen King's biographer, so I am guessing that because of the extremely heartfelt, almost personal nature, of the writing of the novel, that some of the events described are very close to some of those that happened in Mr King's early years (he would have been 11 or 12 in 1958/9 when the early part of the book is set). The most important of these heartfelt elements is the relationship between the seven youngsters in the 1958 segment. Mr King built this complex set of relationships in the book into one of the most believeable I have ever read. It is because of this, in the book, that it is therefore believable that the seven adults (minus one very spooked Stanley Uris) would instantly fulfil their promise to return to poor blighted Derry when Mike calls them.

Sadly, in the movie, this barely comes over - *and I say that having read the book*. Anyone watching without this prior knowledge must have thought the movie adults somewhat out of their heads to go back! (If the reason for them having to go back was properly portrayed at any point!)

In a runtime of 192 minutes there is plenty of time to include the deeper aspects of the novel - let the relationships develop more; let the earlier incidents of ITs visits to Derry take on more importance; let us *actually see* the mystical turtle who guides the youngsters, then the adults in the novel; let us see the kids' hideout; let us see the terrifying arrival of IT.

But no. We are left with a fathomless transcription that even changes the horrors the youngsters experienced into 'little kid' *worries* rather than the skin crawling horrors they witnessed in the novel.

I would like to commend all the actors in the movie who did so well to get that tiny 1% of the story across. They all played their parts very well.

Just think how good this movie could have been if the translation had been written with greater depth and pace (yes, 'pace', because there was none in this terrible adaptation) and reverence to the book and its superb plotting, and the actors had been able to show how horrific IT really is.

4 out of 10 only as a remark of respect to the players.

Aliens (1986)

One of the best copies ever!

[10/10 · 16 June 2002]

When I first heard there was a sequel to "Alien" been made I thought that classic line from Douglas Adams' "Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy": "Oh no! Not again!" For what sequel has ever surpassed its original in quality and style? Or remotely matched it, for that matter?

Well, "Aliens" did - with considerable style, aplomb and NERVE!

What do I mean, "nerve"?

The ending of course!

It's all over - just like the original was.

Ripley killed the monster and got to safe haven - just like she did in the original.

But the alien came along for the ride - just like it did in the original.

Then there was another do or die fight - just like there was in the original.

The monster was once more bested - just like in the original.

And they all went to sleep with the camera zooming in on their faces - just like it did in the original.

That's what I mean by nerve.

And did James Cameron's near direct lifting of the original's ending spoil "Aliens" in the least?

Definitely not.

For what Cameron managed to do was turn the slow suspenseful plot of "Alien" into a hold-on-to-your-seat 5-gees roller-coaster ride. He managed to give us another side - another view - of the aliens and to help us to understand how tenacious the species is.

As usual with Cameron films, the "Special Edition" gives even more depth to the original theatre release. I have both versions. I only ever watch the Special Edition. I have just one reservation about the Special Edition: there is one too many Hudson scenes - the one where he's blabbing on about all the weapons they're carrying on the drop ship; in the APC. It just goes on too long (Paxton improvising?) and for me weakens his character.

Never mind.

10 out of 10.

(A footnote to sequels: a certain J K Rowling has surpassed each and every Harry Potter novel with the next one. Let's hope the films manage to do the same!)

Alien (1979)

H P Lovecraft goes to space in a monstrous gunmetal grey boat

[10/10 · 16 June 2002]

Seven explorers pick up a hitcher in deep space. The hitcher proceeds to bump them off one by one.

A variation of a classic premise?

Undoubtedly!

Ever been done better?

NO!

With the genius triumvirate Ridley Scott, Dan O'Bannon and H R Giger driving this film with their unique visions so rock solid in design and concept, how could it be?

Ridley Scott demonstrates his unique cinematic view to the utmost here, paralleled only by "Blade Runner" and "Gladiator". Even the bright sets are relatively under-lit and diminish in frequency as the movie progresses; as it draws ever nearer its dark heart. You are always looking into the shadows to see if there is anything moving. And because of Scott's excellent pacing and character development - Ripley emerging as the strongest for one - you are always rooting for her, especially willing her to get the emergency cooling system to start up again. Shouting at her to get up that ladder quick before the boogeyman comes up behind her.

We see Dan O'Bannon finally get to deliver the horrendous monster he first thought up for John Carpenter's "Dark Star" (remember the beach ball that gets nasty in an elevator shaft? In an enclosed space?) And we also get to see his workable, lived-in view of the future.

And Mr Giger? The man who can make horrible, horrendous things look eerily beautiful? There is no doubt that without his perfectly spine chilling creation(s) this film would not have worked; this film would not still stand today as one of the all time great science fiction/horror movies.

#62 in the IMDb top 250? Behind "Star Wars"? Behind "2001"? I think not!

H P Lovecraft would have loved this story.

10 out of 10 (even if it is just a guy in a suit!).

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

The best science fiction film ever made.

[9/10 · 16 June 2002]

Yes, it is! (Even James Cameron said so - don't ask me for the reference, I just saw him interviewed on the TV.)

It may not be the most exciting SF film ever made, but it is definitely the closest thing ever filmed to future reality. This is because the reality level in this film is extremely high - just a few blunders (see the "goofs" page http://us.imdb.com/Goofs?0062622 and look at the "factual errors" entries). There are none of the ridiculous explosions, such as those in the "Star Wars" series, or "The Fifth Element", or the "Star Trek" films (don't get me wrong - these films are high up on my favourite movies list), audible through vacuum. (But remember the "Alien" tag-line: "In Space no one can hear you scream"!) I know it sounds good and adds to the occasion and lets the subwoofers rip - BUT IT'S WRONG! Also, there's none of the exploding-eyes-in-a-vacuum rubbish such as in "Total Recall" and "Outland". (Although Bowman's lungs should have burst when he held his breath while awaiting the explosive bolts to blow. Breathe out next time, Dave!)

The reality level is not, however, "2001"'s winning factor.

It is the scope of the film that transcends all other SF movies - "The Dawn of Man" to his ultimate incarnation. That is what the movie is about - no mystical mumbo-jumbo. Plain, simple Charles Darwin evolution - a theme that Arthur C Clarke has touched upon in other of his novels and short storys - that of the consciousness developing to the point where it can leave biology (body) and machine (cybernetic extensions) behind and become pure thought; pure logic. (Has "Trek's" Spock been reading ACC?)

That is not a foetus floating in orbit around Earth at the end - it is a representation of the rebirth of man. (Okay, so there is a little symbolic mumbo-jumbo!)

The fact that this film was made *before* man landed on the moon is also another of its great achievements.

The greatest achievement?

That Stanley Kubrick pulled it off with such scintillating visual prowess.

Mars Attacks! (1996)

Oh Dear!

[3/10 · 1 May 2002]

Once again, Tim Burton fails to deliver.

I am very sorry to report that Tim Burton - a man of immense imagination - has failed, yet again, to transfer his ideas to the big screen in a way that would interest anyone other than himself.

Despite laughing at some of the funny moments - and there are some in this film, for a change - my attention was continually wandering as the 'story line' of Mars Attacks! wandered from mediocre to downright boring, then, "What's the point in this?"

The points started were never expanded. No reasonable explanation was given to any exposition. All ideas were left in the open, unattended, incomplete.

Sadly, this all adds up to the excellent cast, despite doing their best, all had their time wasted making this movie. Even Jack Nicholson, who can steal the show in the most mediocre of films, had his work cut out for him in this one.

And what an exceedingly drastic waste of the talent of Natalie Portman!

Cube (1997)

When you see daylight - LEAVE THE ROOM

[6/10 · 21 April 2002]

The concept behind CUBE is not new - the exploration of human nature is, after all, the premise for countless films. CUBE, however, manages to do this with an interesting and highly claustrophobic twist.

But that's it - there is a twist at the end of this movie. One of those awful, pointless, non sequitur twists that spoils the entire 90 mins.

Some twists are clever, intriguing and thought provoking. The twist at the end of CUBE is twist for twist's sake.

This is why I say, "When you see daylight - LEAVE THE ROOM" - because if you see the end of the movie you'll know you've wasted your time watching it.

Lawn Dogs (1997)

Mischa Barton - superb.

[9/10 · 3 October 2001]

I first saw "Lawn Dogs" because I had nothing else to do. My TV listings mag gave it 4 stars (the maximum) so I thought "Why not?"

Never have I been more pleased with choosing to watch something "out of the blue". Mischa Barton's performance is utterly spellbinding. She captures and portrays the essence, the lonliness, of her character with ease and considerable aplomb, somewhat in the same manner as Anna Paquin portrayed her role in "The Piano".

I have not yet seen any other film featuring Mischa, but I do hope she is taking serious roles and continuing to have the same immense screen presence as she did in "Lawn Dogs".