stupid_fresh Reviews

Game of Death II (1980)

A solid martial arts film from the early 80s...

[8/10 · 1 November 2006]

...just forget about it being a Bruce Lee film! Honestly, it's pretty good. I don't know why people slate this film, it's no better or worse than something like Shaolin Iron Claws (also starring Hwang Jang Lee), or many other martial arts films from the late 70a and early 80s.

Unfortunately, as this was planned as a 'tribute to' (read 'another way to get money out of the image of') Bruce Lee, it's what it's mainly remembered as. I would argue that there are some rather good sequences in this film - Roy Haron's fight scenes, for example, or the end sequence (which is pretty enjoyable in a James Bond type of way).

And, to be honest, the footage is interpolated a HELL of a lot better than that P.O.S. 'Game Of Death' film that came first, which is just laughable. Damn, that film was bad. This film, in comparison, is reasonably good natured, and at least moves on from the Bruce Lee footage (none of which features any original Bruce Lee fighting at all!) quite early, leaving the audience to get on with a 'proper film', rather than playing spot the edits with the original Bruce Lee footage and the stand in.

I must apologise for all the 'inverted commas' in this review! Anyway, it's better than the first Game Of Death, Hwang Jang Lee is well worth watching (as always) and Roy Haron is wicked.

28 Days Later (2002)

Oh yes, I totally agree...

[25 May 2003]

...of COURSE this film is a complete rip off of Resident Evil! Obviously Resident Evil is such a great film that the maker of Trainspotting has to plagiarise from it! hahahahahaha (spot the sarcasm)

Silliness aside, I think that any film that involves a small group of people being attacked by greater numbers of different people/undead/infected while the protagonists hide in a series of places or one specific place has any number of parallels with any number of previous films. The only difference is that somehow the horror audience is more prone to scream about it. If you're so hung up on this film being a rip off of Resident Evil or Dawn Of the Dead or The Omega Man then why don't you mention Assault On Precinct 13 too? Group of people, attacked by seemingly unstoppable enemies who'll stop at nothing to kill them? Come on, Assault on Precinct 13 was a remake of Rio Bravo crossed with Night Of The Living Dead, but let's not cry about it. Put your hankies away.

Moving onto a constructive criticism. POSSIBLE SPOILERS This film is designed to scare people. As someone who teaches Horror as part of a Media Studies course, I think that I'll use this film next year along with Nosferatu, Dracula (Universal), Dracula (Hammer), Psycho, Blacula, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween, Dawn Of The Dead, The Shining, Re-Animator, Bram Stoker's Dracula, Se7en and Scream.

I sense hands raising to faces, bacon sandwiches being dropped, and sharp intakes of breath. You demand an explanation, I'm sure, so let me elaborate. All of the films that I teach are relevant within the horror genre. They all represent certain times and places and attitudes. You can NEVER have a film that doesn't reflect times and places and attitudes. As the man once said, the past is a perfect looking glass to the present. Look at Nosferatu, Universal Dracula, Hammer Dracula, Blacula and Bram Stoker's Dracula. All inspired by the same text, but all very, VERY different. Society and technology make change inevitable. By this rationale, I'll use 28 Days Later as an example of a time and place. If I was to take a poll of the public in the UK about what scares them the most, I reckon that (although this is a wild guess), the following topics would be included.

* Catching a deadly disease (AIDS, possibly SARS, maybe CJD); an outbreak of a disease that there is no known cure for * Complete anarchy in place of society * Military taking over * Invasion of the home by 'undesirables' * Physical attack / rape / invasion of self * Destruction of the _chosen_ family unit * Complete loss of government OR power structure

With this in mind, look at the themes and plot twists in 28 Days Later. See how carefully they are tailored to a specifically contemporary audience (i.e. someone watching it today). So what if there are a couple of plat holes? Any one of the films that I already teach have plot holes. After watching the above films with a different group of 18 year olds (who are often initially under duress about wathing them) for three years on the trot, sometimes with two groups in a year, you realise that there aren't many films without plot holes. Look at the pros rather than the cons: what was achieved despite lack of budget. The effectiveness of the 'infected'. The 'nods' (not plagiarised, merely referenced) to previous films, showing a respect for the films that inspired it rather than a complete rip-off mentality (I refer specifically to the refuelling scene that strongly echoes Dawn Of The Dead, even down to the killing of a child). But the overall effectiveness of the film can't be denied - even the detractors from the film in this review section admit that there are moments of great power. Just try to look at it objectively. And if all else fails, remember that it's only a film. Don't take it to heart....it was all acted and directed and written....and actors, writers and directors are only human.

The Long Goodbye (1973)

Why bother?

[13 April 2003]

I've had this film on video for over twelve years, as it was a film that I watched on a long-defunct UK film 'slot' called Moviedrome. I remember watching it and thinking it was intriguing but hard to follow...but I was only fourteen or so. The video has sat on the shelf for a while, and I've kept it the same way that I've kept other films that intrigued me. One day I'll sit through them all and see what all the fuss is about. There are some films that you have to be ready to watch. Anyway, it's been a good four or five years since I last watched it, and I decided to read the novel that it was based on a couple of days ago. (I like Raymond Chandler books - they're fantastically written, imaginative and inventive and effortlessly elegant, but in a hard-boiled way.) So I read the novel yesterday - it was my day off, and I really concentrated and read hard - and then watched the film again this morning.

SPOILERS

What was Altman thinking? OK, so he wanted to make an adaption of The Long Goodbye... but he didn't. He used the same characters and elements of the same plot, but why did he bother doing all the different stuff? Why not make a 'new' film? So he wanted to update Chandler. Fair enough, "That's OK with me". But why in such an inconsistent manner, and with such little regard or respect for the source material?

Elliot Gould is fantastic, as always, the acting is uniformly splendid, the score is excellent and the camerawork is impressively foreboding. My problem is with Altman and his rather childish treatment of such a great source. There's something that has always bothered me about him - the 'easy target' syndrome. MASH, The Long Goodbye, Short Cuts, The Player.... all great films (yes, The Long Goodbye IS great, but VERY flawed). But why does he do things in such a childish and transparent manner? (Not just here - witness the clumsy dog sh*t in Pret A Porter, the war metaphors in MASH...and so on.) You can almost hear the conversation when he pitched this film to United Artists.

"Hey, let's make Marlowe a shambling fool. If someone was transposed from the early 50s to the early 70s, that's what he'd be, right? He can let people walk all over him. He can drive an old car and wear these strange anachronistic clothes so that it refers back to the period when the book was set... What? Have I read it? No, I didn't bother (allegedly). Anyway, forget all this mystery business, and the plastic surgery, and the intertwining relationships and the betrayal at the end and the rather tender and touching ending (so I've been told, I didn't finish it, remember?). Let's dumb it down. Let's include some senseless mysogyny, because that's what the 70s is all about. In fact, forget about telling a story, that can be incidental. Let's make it a big in-joke, and a scathing comment about cinema in the 1970s! Yeah, that'll work. The audience can unpick it themselves, including the references to Hollywood that pervade every scene. You know, the way that the security guy imitates Hollywood stars. The way that everything is done on looks and image and how people see things. Let's throw in some contemporary politics, some sly cursory nods to current fads. We can get rid of all the intriguing things about the novel...and replace them with generic stereotypes. 1970s audiences can't cope with subtlety or anything too complicated. And throw in a big chunk of missing money, cause that's what everyone's obsessed with nowadays. And get him to shoot an unarmed man at the end. Can he be in danger? No, he just commits a cold-blooded murder. Yeah, that's right, to end the film with. Then Marlowe can wander off as happy as Larry, and we can dub an ironic song on the end...yeah, 'Hooray For Hollywood' will do. After all, hooray for any town where we can get away with this butchery, huh?"

BUT.................criticism of Altman's motives aside.......... If you haven't read the book, or you don't read the book after you've read it, it works pretty well as an Altman film (a look at Hollywood from the inside, although not necessarily a subtle one). As an abstract look at Hollywood in the 70s (as I've outlined above) it works well and gives an insight into what was in vogue at the time. I only question Altman's reasoning behind using such an excellent text, butchering it completely and subverting the storyline for his own ends. I haven't got anything against adapting texts - after all, a book is a book and a film is a film. But when the source is so perfect, why not just come up with something _original_? ...And before you say it, I mean why not come up with your OWN story rather than dessicating someone else's. Why put Chandler's name on the credits at all?

Black Caesar (1973)

A classic.

[9/10 · 13 April 2003]

This film is great. Immortalised by Public Enemy, Big Daddy Kane and Ice Cube on "Burn Hollywood, Burn" from the Fear Of A Black Planet LP, as soon as I heard Driving Miss Daisy being rejected for Black Caesar (listen to the track, you'll understand) I knew that I had to see this film. After all, if it's good for three of my favourite rap artists then it's good enough for me, right?

So I saw a copy in Bedford while I was doing my teacher training course, and me and my mate Jai went back to the place we were staying at and watched it. I was spellbound - it is one of the best Black aimed films that I own! (I don't like the term 'Blaxploitation'. Have you noticed that there doesn't seem to be an official 'Whitesploitation' genre?)

OOH ARR BOOOYEEEE, SPOILERS BEEEEELOW.

Anyway, for those that are interested in a review of the film rather than my personal beliefs, the film concerns Tommy Gibbs, a Black gangster who gets a job for the local Mob after a nifty killing in a barber shop. (This comes after an excellent beginning that sees him assist in the murder of a gangster in the middle of a crowded street.) It charts his rise and fall... much in the manner of Scarface (either version). As Larry Cohen says in his DVD commentary, it's more of a Black version of the old 1940s gangster films than it is a straight up exploitation piece like Slaughter or Black Gunn. I won't go into much detail as I urge you all to watch it, but I might add a couple of trivial points: you should watch it back to back with the sequel - Hell Up In Harlem. If you do, though, bear in mind that the print that survives has a substantially different ending. I say no more.

Watch this film - it is truly a classic.

Jo Jo Dancer, Your Life Is Calling (1986)

An unbelievably brave film.

[26 December 2002]

SPOILERS

Fans of Richard Pryor have to watch this film - you really have no choice. For my money, Richard Pryor is / was one of the funniest comedians ever. Period. No-one can relate to an audience quite like him - no-one can use their personal experience to quite the same effect. So forgive me if I seem a little biased.

Although this film concerns itself with 'JoJo Dancer', it is basically Pryor's life story (check the syllables in the name) with Pryor playing himself. Bearing this in mind, it won't be completely truthful, although on the surface it shows Pryor in a very unflattering light, giving the impression that it is a straight-up factual account of events. Does this mean that the story is unflinching? Yes. Does it mean that the film is honest in its' account of Pryor's life, relationships and behaviour? Not necessarily. It omits certain events that have been detailed elsewhere, for instance his treatment of his white wife. But it is a deeply emotional and almost confessional film, make no mistake. It's obvious that Pryor has cut his directorial teeth on this film, but still it holds up remarkably well. It shifts from drama to slapstick comedy, from stand up routines to fantasy interludes. Although the continuity in certain scenes is dodgy (to say the least) and the screenplay jumps about alarmingly, WHAT WE SEE ON-SCREEN IS HOW PRYOR SAW HIMSELF AT THE TIME. There is an incredible self-deprecation in this film, something that has always been present in his stand-up, but to such a degree here that it becomes painful and heart-wrenching to watch. Scenes such as when his mother tells him that she loves him, or when his father is crying and showing remorse for hitting him, are things that Pryor could never have witnessed, or probably heard about. Instead they are scenes that he wishes HAD happened. The footage of him pouring spirits on himself then setting himself on fire is tragic, but imagine the courage that it must have taken to plan it, write it into the screenplay, finance it, act it, film it, edit it then release it for the world to see.

Yes, the film is limited. It skates over events that would benefit from more detail. It uses stereotypical characterisations for certain people to make the story more simplistic, and uses a gimmicky premise that becomes confused about halfway through. But as a confession, and a true-from-the-heart autobiographical account of a life that was almost ruined through self-inflicted excesses, this is a one of a kind film. You must see this.

Blow Out (1981)

A classic.

[21 November 2002]

OO-AR, 'ERE BE SPOILERS, BOYEE.

I watched this film again last night, and it's still good after all these years. I saw it first in about 1988, having bought it at a car boot sale. For some reason, over here in the UK it is very difficult to get hold of as it doesn't seem to be on general release on video or DVD. Anyway, it surprised me how well it stood up, although it's a bit slow in places. But regardless of how slow the story may be (it could have lost a line or an exchange here and there, just to tighten up the pace), DePalma uses an inordinate amount of rather 'Hitchcockian' techniques and the film is never less than visually sumptuous. 360 degree pans (which made my girlfriend feel sick), split screen, spoof film extracts, mystery sound effects, unseen faces, long takes, the camera circling objects, muffled sound, red herrings, and of course a shockingly amoral ending. John Lithgow is particularly disturbing, especially in the toilet cubicle sequence. John Travolta gives the performance of his career (typified by the chilling final shot of the expression on his face). Dennis Franz is enjoyably seedy as Manny, and the only real weak link is Nancy Allen. She's not BAD bad, just a bit too 'trying too hard'.

There are several sequences that stick in your mind after watching this film: the Peeping Tom-ism before the car goes over the edge (and the subsequent re-enactment with a pencil); Lithgow's changing the tyre without revealing his face to the camera, the tyre just rolling into shot; the horrible realisation that the tapes have been wiped and the gradual build-up of 'wiped-tape noise'; the story about the undercover cop with the shorting battery; the sailor giving the hooker $10 instead of her $30 and Lithgow's expression while he waits; the combining of the film and the sound to show the gunshot.... The list could go on and on. I particularly love the in-joke about the screamers, which functions as the justification for the chilling final revelation. If you haven't got anything left, then you use what you can get your hands on.

A note to those who appreciate their film structure. Everything you need to know about the film is laid out in the opening sequences - from the moment the film begins to the end of the opening credits. Also, the spoof "Co-Ed Frenzy" is remarkably accurate. I teach Media Studies to sixth formers (16-18 year olds), and as part of the 'genre studies/horror film' course I use the beginning of this film as an example of slasher genre conventions.

A final thought - Tarantino loved this film so much that he took a couple of things from it (surprise surprise): the flashback sequence with Travolta telling the story of the undercover cop bears an uncanny resemblence to Tim Roth's flashback story in Reservoir Dogs; and Travolta himself was plucked from "Look Who's Talking" mediocrity based on his performance in this film.

Another 48 Hrs. (1990)

What...

[6 October 2002]

...a load of absolute rubbish. Walter Hill has sunk to a new low with this 'effort' (if it be called such a thing). Allow me to explain.

WARNING - OPINION ALERT. AUTHOR'S OPINION EXPRESSED BELOW.

Walter Hill must have a great big curl right in the middle of his forehead. Why? Because 'Southern Comfort', 'The Warriors', '48 HRS' and 'The Long Riders' are very, very good, but 'Extreme Prejudice' and 'Another 48 HRS' (and the other ones that are just too tiresome to remember) are horrid.

Some, like 'Red Heat' and 'Trespass' are OK, nothing more, nothing less.

WHAT is going on here? What (other than a chequebook being waved in his direction by Paramount) possessed him to remake 48 HRS in the first place? That's all this is, a remake, and for those people who don't like remakes and criticise them for not being as good as the original, look at this film: it's trying to be exactly the same as the original and it sucks. No humour, no believable action, no dead-eyed scary baddie, no believable plot, no real chemistry. Ganz's brother? Reggie back inside again? Jack still on the force? Kehoe as....what? (Don't want to give away the 'twist' - possibly the worse contrivance in recent film history). Too many questions.

Why not just re-release the old one? The reason this annoys me so much and yet I dislike slagging off remakes as a rule (as they DON'T destroy the originals, regardless of how many people are of the opinion that they do) is because this could have been fantastic. Look at the original. But what they've done here is taken the things that made the first one a classic and amped them up to unbelievable proportions. Let's see...the redneck bar, the meeting between Reggie and Jack in prison, the pumped up gunfight at the end, the lighter jokes, Reggie's singing etc. It's 'Beverly Hills Cop II and III' syndrome, that's what it is. "Do it again but make it bigger and louder so we make more money." Recreating the chemistry is possible in the right circumstances, recreating the menace and oppressive mood is also possible, but was fudged here.

Don't bother with this - another nail in the coffin of sequels. Rent the original.

Rear Window (1998 TV Movie)

What is the problem here?

[9/10 · 3 October 2002]

I can't believe that so many others on this page have slated this film. Yes, everyone is entitled to an opinion, so let me share mine.

I watched this film last night on Channel Five in the UK, and it was excellent. No, the direction wasn't perfect, and the camerawork wasn't all that. Daryl Hannah was a bit wooden, and the relationship between her and Chris Reeve was a bit 'take it or leave it'. But the film, as a TV FILM, not as a remake of a Hitchcock film, worked very well. Reeve's acting was fantastic - a role that didn't (through tragic circumstance) rely on his Superman persona (or ability) and focused on his facial expressions and voice. How many actors can carry a movie with only that? This was a fantastic performance in a difficult role. The suspense was tangible, keeping me on the edge of my seat. It veered away from the original at the end, which wrong-footed me a bit. It took the film into another dimension, if you like. Nothing like the element of surprise.

If you CAN'T get past the fact that it's a remake of a Hitchcock film, then let's say that you've seen the original - like me. So what if someone's remade it? Does it mean that the original is destroyed, never to be seen again? Course not. Does it mean that people won't watch the original? No more than if they'd never seen the remake. 'Young' audiences who watch Jimmy Stewart films are not going to turn their noses up at one that happens to have been remade with Christopher Reeve. Why all the criticism? Because someone dared to remake a Hitchcock film? Big deal. Watch the original too. Hitchcock remade his own film - The Man Who Knew Too Much. Problem?

Forget all this filmic snobbery - this is a solid thriller with a fantastic performance. Watch it if you get a chance.

Carry on Doctor (1967)

I dreamt about you last night...

[13 September 2002]

Did you?

No, you wouldn't let me.

What a line. This film is cheesy as they come, but it's all part of a British institution - the Carry On films. If you're not a Brit or you haven't seen any of these films then allow me to elaborate for a moment. Made between the late 50s and late 70s (except for one execrable exception from 1992), 28 films with the title "Carry On..." celebrated the best of UK 'seaside humour'. In other words, tit jokes. There's something inherently satisfying about watching this film in particular, one of my desert island films. Maybe it's the ridiculous puns, or the silly prat-falls, or the comfort of watching familiar faces. Who knows? But it is pretty funny.

*Spoilers*

Dr. Kilmore ("Did you hear about the pregnant bedbug? She had a baby in the spring") is a handsome doctor who the nurses fancy and the blokes think is pretty cool. Dr Tinkle ("Cold baths every hour, matron.") hates him, as does the infatuated-with-Dr-Tinkle Matron ("This hospital is not big enough for both of us, Doctor." "Oh, I don't know, you're not that big, Matron."). Nurse May (Barbara Windsor) fancies Dr Tinkle. And it all sort of moves on from there, apart from Francis Bigger, a 'positive thinker' with a bad back, and his deaf partner Chloe ("She's a bit mutt, doctor."). There's lots of puerile wordplay ("Ooh, what a lovely pear." "You took the words right out of my mouth!"), half-naked women on rooftops, falling over, exaggerated facial expressions and hammy acting. In other words, business as usual for the Carry Ons.

I love this film.

Night of the Bloody Apes (1969)

Prepare the gorilla.

[10/10 · 11 September 2002]

(Contains spoilers)

Night Of The Bloody Apes is a very special film. Special in a way that a mother could love. I can't really express my feelings for this film - I feel protective about it, as if watching over a child who is unable to look after itself. Excuse me for being inconsistent, therefore, in my appraisal of the film (below). Sometimes I feel paternal, others nauseous, when I think about what I have seen.

The film is a very cheap Mexican 'horror' with real life heart transplant footage edited into it during the operation scenes. This is pretty grim. Although, they can't possibly have done this operation for the film itself, so I don't really consider that to be too tasteless. And really, the rest of most of the film is so comic book and likeable, dammit, that you can forgive the rather shoddy idea of using said footage as a main point of sale. Far more interesting are the scenes where a woman wrestles another woman in what initially seems to be a pointless subplot. Have faith viewers, it is NOT a pointless subplot, but a cunning and subtle plot development. Even when the film appears to be going nowhere it IS. God bless writer/director Rene Cardona. I love the actress who plays the wrestler, too - especially when she looks straight into the camera and smiles to us, her loyal viewers.

The other section of the plot sees a man has leukaemia and his (doctor) father transplanting a gorilla heart into him. Well, the gorilla could be a man in a gorilla suit from the way he moves about in the cage prior to his tranquilisation. And hang on, how can the doctor shoot the gorilla through the wire mesh that fences him in? Anyway, the son then turns into a gorilla. Actually, he wears a gorilla mask and then terrorises the neighbourhood. Periodically, as he keeps fading (literally) between 'man state' and 'gorilla state'.

There are many, many amusing lines in the dubbed version. My personal favourites are "Prepare the gorilla" (before the first operation) and "I prepared for everything, but I didn't prepare for this" (after the doctor's son dons the simian mask and begins his terrifying rampage).

People say that really bad films are funny to watch _because_ they are so bad. I have only found this to be the case with one film before now, and that was Death Wish 3, but now Night Of The Bloody Apes has become one of my pet films. A desert island treasure.

For entertainment value, this gets 10/10. Recently I have been unable to watch films all the way through, due to my deteriorating attention span, but this kept my attention for its duration, even to the extent that I couldn't look away from the TV. Take my advice and watch this masterpiece.

48 Hrs. (1982)

A classic.

[3 July 2002]

This is one of my favourite films, and writing about it now makes me want to go home and watch it again. I'll keep this short and sweet, but there are many reasons to like this film. The score is evocative and slinky, with the nice slidy bassline and carribean steel drums. The acting from Murphy and Nolte is fantastic, with both playing their parts effectively and believably. The sequence with Ganz in the hotel is nightmarish, a tour-de-force of movement vs. stillness and the power of editing. The scene in the redneck bar is just amazing. Watch it and see why Walter Hill was the natural successor to Sam Peckinpah.

Bruce Lee: A Warrior's Journey (2000 Video)

Astonishing.

[26 June 2002]

This is without a doubt one of the greatest documentaries that I have ever seen. The narration is easy to follow, not too self-consciously obtuse or referential to previous films, and the piecing together is simply masterful. The only quibble is the lack of information on Bruce's early life.

Things to love about this film:

* the Game of Death sequence, fully restored, edited and soundtracked to Bruce's wishes (according to recently found production notes)

* The one finger (and a thumb) pressups - although rather short

* The one inch punch

Truly awesome and 10/10.

Ninja III: The Domination (1984)

Lucinda Dickey should have stuck to Breakin'.

[26 June 2002]

Oh my goodness, what an absolute classic of poor cinema. I think that this is one of my guilty pleasures in life. One day in the future I expect to be watching this film in a darkened room, away from the public and family gaze, and my children will run in, see what's on the screen, look accusingly at me and I will lose their respect FOREVER.

Seriously - this is a special film. After all, the seal of approval has to be the Cannon logo at the beginning. That and the cover artwork. And the UK title: Ninja III: The Domination. A misleading name, I feel. This film is special in a way that only a mother could appreciate.

Warning: Spoilers ahead (although it is hard to spoil this film).

Lucinda Dickey is a telephone repair woman with a portable tape player. She is possessed by a dying Ninja after a golf-course confrontation between said Ninja and various businessy types, and as a consequence Lucinda goes all 'oriental' (i.e. slant-eyed with a yellow tinge. n.b. Heaven forbid there should be racial stereotypes here in Cannon-land, after all this is a Golan-Globus film!). She then uses a floating sword to kill various policeman who were responsible for the Ninja's death. The big plot twist - was her new policeman boyfriend the ultimate killer of the Ninja? - is, sadly, uninteresting. The martial arts scenes with Lucinda Dickey are, unsurprisingly after witnessing Breakin' 1 + 2, clumsy. The musical score is very 80s.

The opening sequence, however, is absolutely fantastic in its' awfulness. It's a desert island opening, a shoo-in for my top 10. The whole gun blowing up thing, the the helicopter - dear God, the helicopter. And the little bomb type thing that causes the Ninja to disappear - fantastic! Classic moments continue to come thick and fast through the rest of the film, with Lucinda and her boyfriends' sex scene a highlight. And her flip over the bar outside the dance school is quite simply the slowest flip over a bar outside a dance school that I have ever seen. Although the field is hardly crowded. The pool table scene is also great. And the sword suspended by wires. And the blow-dry effect she gets when she is possessed. Oh dear lord.

A work of genius. I will have to go and watch it again. But I'll shut the curtains first.

Class of 1984 (1982)

No-one messes with my man Leroy...

[25 June 2002]

...I'm gonna cut you, white meat!

I really like this film. A great exploitation piece from the early 80s, one of the great eras for trashy but 'fun' B-movies. The thing about the early 80s is that (in the UK, anyway) the Video Recordings Act had not yet been introduced. This meant that censorship was a great deal more lenient (if non-existent), and anyone could get a video of pretty much anything. Class of 1984 is still - inexplicably - banned in the UK, even WITH edits. I can't see that this is a valid decision, after trashy crap like The New York Ripper (Fulci, 1982) has been re-released by the VIPCO distributors.

Anyway, SPOILERS ahead as we look at the plot of this B-movie classic:

The place: Canada. The time: 1982. Mr. Andrew (Andy, to his friends) Norris is the new replacement at a rough school for Mr. Goldstein, a music teacher who "fell down some stairs". He could come back, but as the more cynical, gun-packing Biology teacher Mr. Corrigan says: "old teachers, just like athletes, don't come back." Mr. Norris inherits some nasty pupils, including Peter Stegman, a neo-Nazi piano-playing type who "runs the school" and sells drugs in the toilets at breaktime. His gang, who are equally tough, are pure anarchy in human form. They throw bits of paper in class and interupt the register with various witticisms and singing.

Out of school they are the local youth mafia, running 'tings in local punk clubs and terrorising the neighbourhood in their nice red car. Apparently "they ought to have a revolving door named after them", as one police representative comments, but his hands are tied and he can't do anything to stop the gang tormenting poor Mr. Norris by splashing paint at him, disrupting his lessons, shouting at him in an aggressive way, and... I won't go much further, but be warned: there is an unpleasant rape scene that detracts from the film as a whole. Up until then it is a comic book style action film with attitude to spare, but the inclusion of that sequence moves it into a different territory, something much more exploitative than it needed to be.

Other than that, this is great stuff - this film is cheesily brilliant. Perry King is a bit vacuous as Mr. Norris, but Michael J. Fox has an effective early role as Arthur, a swotty kid who gets stabbed, possibly for his awful one-liners. Roddy MacDowell is fantastic as Mr. Corrigan, drunkenly cooing at the soon-to-be-slaughtered animals in his lab, and Timothy Van Patten gives a scenery chewing performance as Stegman (and he wrote that piece of piano music himself, ladies and gentlemen).

Leroy's gang have a strange mixture of accents - listen carefully before the chain fight 'after school', and the leader of the gang has a very cockney accent. "No-wun messiz wiv moi man Leeroy!" This is getting more and more accurate every day, I think, especially with the amount of power that a) the 'kids' wield in the local community, and at school, and b) the police don't have when it comes to dealing with them.

Also, OFSTED (the UK's teacher inspectors) would probably object to Mr. Norris's way of dealing with disruptive pupils (smashing their heads open, lynching them, etc). Behavior like that in the UK would probably lead to disciplinary action: maybe some kind of paperwork shuffling activity or fruitless liaising with the parents of the children involved would be recommended.

Although this is hard to get in the UK (I picked my copy up at a car boot sale about 10 years ago), if you get the chance to see this then do - a simple, vigilante/exploitationer B-movie. It delivers the goods and plays like a live action comic book. Good work!

Mr. Majestyk (1974)

Put down those melons.

[25 June 2002]

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

One of Bronson's great films, but forever to cause hysteria in our family for that one line. What an absolute legend. This is a difficult film to love, but one that you can watch when there's nothing else on. I like how the woman's hair stays the same throughout, and Bronson moves his face in this film. Unusual happenings, both. But the melons....dear lord, the melons.

The New York Ripper (1982)

Overrated.

[21 June 2002]

I've just seen this film after all the reviews that have been printed on this site and it's a let down. I like Fulci. Zombie Flesh Eaters and The Beyond were really good, films that I can watch again, but New York Ripper is nothing special. I spent £15 on it it HMV. Not my wisest purchase. Fulci is better doing fantasy horror - naturalistic thrillers/giallos certainly aren't his style. The dialogue is laughable (although this could be the fault of the translated dialogue), the cinematography is poor, the music is banal, the effects are normal. Not brilliant, not awful, but normal. The acting is just.....nondescript.

There's nothing really to say about this film. I seem to remember Total Film (UK film magazine) saying that it was a film that made you want to "wash your eyes out with soap" as it was so "grubby". But it just made me want to yawn. It's simply a police thriller, no more, no less. Bronson's film Ten To Midnight was more engaging, better made and had a better storyline. If that's an indication on the quality of film then draw your own conclusions. Stick with Fulci's other films.

Death Wish 3 (1985)

Catch it on the evening news.

[19 June 2002]

I should really really hate this film. After I ragged on "Alien Warrior" on this site a few days ago, I really shouldn't stick up for Death Wish 3, but I will... simply because it was one in a series of 18 rated films that I watched before I was 18. The thrill of watching videos borrowed off mates, the thrill of being a 'grown up'. Little did I know that Winner must have aimed this film at exactly my audience - people not old enough to see that the films were, in reality, trash. This 'effort' (if it be referred to as such) has more holes than Bronson's bulletproof at the end of the film. I can't understand how if the old Jewish fella has been killed, how his wife is still hanging about and being cheerful. And doesn't he turn up in the final fight sequence? But, it has a very cheesy charm. More to the point, there is a strong comedy element (unintentional, I'm sure) to this film that makes it highly enjoyable. Comedy moments come thick and fast in this film. * The bit where Bronson (wearing his cheesy old man leather jacket like a demented old uncle at a party) turns to the young boy who shouts "Yeah!" at him and raises his fist, in a touching gesture of solidarity.

* Martin Balsa (sorry, BALSAM, I was thinking of the wood) loading the bullets backwards and being beaten to within an inch of his characters' hideous, pointless life. * The whole 'walking off and being defeated by a bunch of OAPs and pre-pubescents' at the end. * The teeth. Dear Lord, the TEETH! * The pipe with missile.

I could go on but I'm going to have to go home and watch it now, laughing until the tears run down my cheeks and my long suffering girlfriend has to help me use my inhaler.

Alien Warrior (1985)

...nearly drove me insane.

[1/10 · 12 June 2002]

This film almost gave me a nervous breakdown. When I was recovering from appendicitis a few years ago, I had just started teaching in secondary (high) school. The whole teaching business was all a bit nervewracking for a beginner, but to mentally prepare myself for going back into the classroom I decided to watch some rather awful films. The Flintstones was one of the films that I chose, and then I put "King Of The Streets" (the UK title of 'Alien Warrior') on. Just before it finished I found myself almost in tears at the sheer waste of it all...my life, the film stock, the £2 I had paid for it a couple of weeks ago in the Blockbuster ex rental section, the time it must have taken to print the sleeve art, the effort of the editors and musicians involved in the soundtrack (as negligable as their efforts were)...the list goes on.

I love bad films. Let me make this perfectly clear - I LOVE watching crappy films from Blockbusters. Me and my mate Dan used to sit and watch many, many cheapjack horrors and laugh at them. But this was a different type of crappy film. I don't think that anything has come close to this, not even Tobe Hooper's "Death Trap" (which is probably my second worst film in the world). The whole making a car from abandoned parts section nearly killed me; the repetition of music at any available opportunity, regardless of on-screen events; the whole.... AAAGGGHHHHHHH!!!!! I can't even carry on with this 'critical' dissection, as my gag reflex has started. The futility of that film, even now, three years after I watched it for the first and last time, still renders me speechless (but I am still able to type). The whole "making a car from odd parts" section had me contemplating horrible things.

I implore you, if you are interested in watching this film, just gaze at the cover of the video and imagine the worst possible version of the story synopsis on the back. I can almost guarantee that it won't be even half as bad as this film actually is. Don't, under any circumstances, contemplate actually watching it for any reason whatsoever. Not if you are a Christian and you want to see a Christ allegory; not if you are a bad movie afictionado and you want to experience the true nadir of trash; not even if you want your life to seem longer (and believe me, every second that this film runs seems like at least a minute). Make no mistake about it, this film is unholy. It is the antichrist in video form. As Bo Cattlett in Get Shorty said: "I've seen better film on teeth".

The Goonies (1985)

to add to alternate versions...

[29 May 2002]

On the UK video release of the Goonies, they edit out the subtitles saying that it's Mikey + Brand's father's sexual torture equipment in the drawers.

This is something that should be put into the alternate versions of the film, rather than a review in its' own right. I can't, however, find the button to tell me where to submit this information.

Police Academy (1984)

"Oooh, political correctness blah blah blah..." Waddageek! (cough cough)

[9/10 · 23 October 2001]

I have to say that Police Academy is one of the funniest films I have seen. It regularly takes a place in my top ten, as I'm not a snob or a political correctness addict (WADDageek, cough cough) and I can recognise that some films are funny, pure and simple.

For the reviewer (below) who posted comments like "Ooohhhhh, the innocent tone of the film...the character development...the man what does this and the man what does that..." If you are analysing Police Academy (not Ghandi, Schindler's List or even Goodfellas) in those terms then you should lighten up, fool. It's a film that doesn't deal with serious issues. It's a comedy. Do you go to pantomimes and analyse the mise-en-scene?

Anyway, personal beefs aside, Police Academy 1 is highly amusing. Head up horse's backside...the whole megaphone / shoe polish thing... amusing stereotypes but not offensive enough for the same actors to play the same roles four times in a row (at least). If you liked American Pie 2 then you'll like this, unless you thought American Pie 2 was homophobic or tasteless, in which case avoid it like the plague. For one, I found both films funny and didn't watch them in the style of a Daily Mail reader.

10/10

Wild Style (1982)

The Old School Royalty

[10/10 · 23 October 2001]

Wild Style is not a documentary, despite what it may look like from packaging or even camerawork. It's a pretty slow-moving story of a man who writes on walls and his girlfriend's alleged infidelity with another man who writes on walls. While this love triangle is being played out, there is a journalist woman who wants to find out about a new sub-culture that is happening in the Bronx. There is also a musical event being planned in the amphitheatre in the park to showcase the local musical talent.

If you were reading the synopsis to this film anywhere, it would probably read something like that. But Wild Style isn't about the story. It's not about the acting, the direction or even the camerawork or sound recording (although the soundtrack is important).

It is a film that has shaped a generation, purely with the members of the cast and the records used in the soundtrack. Wild Style is a historical document. It perfectly captures a time and place - the Bronx, New York 1982 - and most of the figures that made that time and place so special. The plot is merely a device with which to string along a series of scenes of rappers, DJs, B-boys and spraycan artists. Some of these people were the roots of the hip hop movement. To see the impact that this film has had, look at how many times the soundtrack has been sampled - not only the dialogue (Tommy Tee, Beastie Boys, Cypress Hill, DJ Premier) but the backing loops. 'Tracks' such as Down By Law have become standards - no, classics - in battle cyphers and old school hip hop nights all over the world.

It's basically a visual dictionary of Old School hip hop royalty -

* GrandMaster Flash in what looks suspiciously like his bedroom cutting up the Headhunters' "God Made Me Funky" and then Bob James' "Take Me To The Mardi Gras" (although on the UK video re-release it has been replaced on the soundtrack with a Chris Stein co-produced track from the OST).

* The Rock Steady Crew intercut with Flash, walking up the hill in the park with a roll of lino on their shoulders.

* Fab 5 Freddy as the svengali of the film, leading others into the realms of the hip hop landscape (and hustling other members of the cast for money with card tricks).

* The Cold Crush Brothers and the Fantastic (Romantic) MCs in the basketball court.

* Double Trouble on the stoop ("Here's a little story that must be told...").

* 'Lee' Quinones and Lady Pink doing their thang on the walls of NYC - Lee's 'hands' piece being done at the same time as the RSC break and GM Flash cuts.

But enough of my salivating. This film is a slice of history for hip hop fans as much as footage of the 1966 World Cup Final is for British football fans. It should really be watched along with two other essential old school hip hop films - Beat Street (1984) and Beat This - A Hip Hop History (a BBC-TV film, 1985). Watching all three of those in one is an absolute education for anyone out there who has even a passing interest in hip hop (or even just rap) music. As a film, OK, it's limited and trite. The plot is pretty much non-existent and the acting is pretty variable. But no-one should watch it for that. Its whole reason d'etre is to provide an overview of a time and a place, when hip hop was innocent and a way of life, instead of a calculated business venture.

Beat Street was a bigger budget version of Wild Style, even down to the big name guest stars, the graffiti-artist-being-thwarted theme and the big show at the end of the film. It's easier to watch, but doesn't have that raw, cinema-verite style that Wild Style has.

Some trivia on the film. Chris Stein from Blondie co-produced he backing soundtracks that the MCs rap over. The records that the DJs use were pressed in very VERY limited quantities, and were not the result of crate digging. They were made for the film... According to popular legend, the opening scene of the (graffiti) bombing of the train was the only scene that Charlie Ahearne - director - could get the money together to do 'properly' (ie legally). If the rumours are to believed, the rest of the film was done 'on the run' - without permission.

If you like hip hop, are interested in it or even if you have never really thought about it, then watch Wild Style. It sums up a place and time and a FEELING quite unlike anything else. Now hip hop is the world's biggest selling music, watch this film to see where it came from. It'll probably make you reach for the nearest tracksuit, Kangol and lino and have you down the park in a fit of nostalgia.