OllieZ Reviews

Mo' Better Blues (1990)

A fun, jazzy and delirious.

[8/10 · 21 May 2007]

I am shocked this film has such a low IMDb score! I watched both this and Crooklyn the past few days, and this is the better film.

It has all the flaws of Lee's films - tonally all over the place and a tad overlong.

But that's why I love Lee. He is always interesting. I love Inside Man, a more conventional film for Lee, but Mo' Better Blues is far more personal. This is quite clearly a work of love for the director. The cinematography is stunning. The fast dolly shots are similar to that of Scorsese and Hitchcock. The colour is wonderful too, full of rich blues and reds on the New York skyline.

The story is pretty good too, though you will have seen it all before. The tale of a jazz musician and his band, through their highs and lows: in terms of live and music. The acting is all round great, headed by Denzel Washington as Bleek, the artist who loves the music more than his friends. Wesley Snipes is Shadow Henderson. This is back when Snipes didn't have to phone in a performance in a silly action film. Lee himself, and Joie Lee also give fine support.

Let's not forget the music, which is what the film revolves around anyway. If you don't like jazz, I guess this film isn't for you. I myself liked it, it had me tapping my feet all the through.

The film is a little long and can sometimes lose its way, but this is a very enjoyable film, a solid effort from Spike Lee.

Crooklyn (1994)

Uneven Joint

[7/10 · 20 May 2007]

Although I wouldn't say this is a great Lee film, it is still very solid. There isn't a story as such, instead it is a love letter to childhood and family life in Brooklyn. Imagine Radio Days, including the sentimental streak.

The actors are great and this movie only goes to prove that Delroy Lindo is one of the best actors around. Zelda Harris as the young girl, Troy, is also brilliant. Alfre Woodard is the pivot of the film, around which most of the film revolves around - even if she has less than Troy.

Tonally the film doesn't quite click. Sometimes the original music is quite sour and does not fit with the images. Some scenes seem forced.

But the amazing soundtrack helps put things right.

Even though the film isn't perfect, it has a great soundtrack and a very unique take on things.

Murmur of the Heart (1971)

Unflinching.

[9/10 · 18 May 2007]

A tender, witty and often raw coming-of-age film from Louis Malle.

The film follows Laurent, a 14 year old boy, who is coming to terms with love and sex.

The relationship between the son and his mother is played with brilliant conviction.

The music score has some great jazz on it, from Parker to Gillespie.

Le Soufflé au Cour also has a great script, where the characters are totally believable and have depths beyond your average film-fare. The actors don't need to have a tic or a physical disability to stun you.

The pacing of the film is often very slow and doesn't have much direction, but that doesn't matter.

This is a subtle film, one which I am sure you will enjoy.

28 Weeks Later (2007)

Good sequel, not as good as the first.

[7/10 · 13 May 2007]

28 Weeks Later was a sequel I didn't want to see.

The first film was so good in my books, that the idea of a sequel would undermine the whole thing. Fortunately, this film is hugely enjoyable.

The set pieces are thumping; the first ten minutes is a relentless siege upon a survivors den. The editing is extremely fast, which hardly gives the viewer any time to see what's going on. You're either going to love this or hate this.

The story is pretty good, considering it's a sequel. It revolves around a family - the father (Robert Carlyle), a cowardly figure, who you can actually sympathise with; the daughter, who looks after her brother, who apparently have special blood. I won't spoil any of the film for you, but suffice to say, when the family enter the quarantined district, things get a little out of control.

The involvement of American troops is not exactly inspired, meaning that we get some very clichéd military speak, which undermines the whole urban grittiness of the first film. Still, the actors are good and some of the best action sequences come from the military side of things.

Overall this is a very good film. It sometimes meanders - the film wanders into gung-ho action flick mode sometimes. But that's not exactly a big quibble - if you want a really entertaining film to see this week, see this one.

Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)

The sad one.

[8/10 · 10 May 2007]

Peckinpah's tale of two friends on opposite sides of the law doesn't play out like a typical western. In fact, I think it was Biskind who said this film was completely miscast - but still worked. I disagree on that, but I do see some truth in it. The film is quirky to say the least - like a quiet rock and roll elegy to the West.

The story is simple enough yet it meanders, through the landscape of America and of the character's minds. We see the violence of America, the sex, the booze and all. It's a great backdrop for a cat and mouse tale, even though that does simplify the film somewhat.

Pat Garrett may hunt down Billy, but I often ask myself, why does he do it? It is to satisfy his new-found status as sheriff? Garrett used to be an outlaw, now he finds a need to find an identity, to prove himself on the other side.

The music is wonderful, written and performed by Bob Dylan who supports the wonderful Coburn and Kristofferson. There are some scenes which just utterly touch the soul...where "Knockin on Heavens Door" plays. That sounds very soppy of me, but you have to see it to feel it. If you like Westerns, you will really feel the impact of that scene.

This is a melancholy western. The dying of traditions. The ageing of a country.

This countries getting' old, and it's time we got old with it.

Romanzo Criminale (2005)

Average crime film.

[5/10 · 9 May 2007]

Critics compared this to the likes The Godfather and Goodfellas - I wasn't convinced by these comparisons, nor should you.

It's no where near as good as Goodfellas or The Godfather, which is what people have compared it to. The director can't decide whether to have the viscera nature of Scorsese's film, or the elegant violence of The Godfather.

Most of the time I was bored by this film. It takes itself far too seriously and feels about as populated as Chernobyl.

It is like the character Ice - cold; a gangster film which is passable and doesn't have much heart.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966)

Great!

[10/10 · 17 April 2007]

Basically, if you have to see one western, watch this one. From the opening credits, you can tell its going to be a stylish, bloody ride.

What I admire most about this film is the attention to detail. Leone doesn't rush scenes; sometimes we have shots up to five minutes without dialogue.

Tension chews nearly every scene as we observe the eyes and hands of the characters. It's as much a film of greed and civil war, as it is about deception.

The acting is perfect all round. Clint, Wallach and Cleef are all amazing in their roles. They manage to live up to their roles of good, bad and ugly well, but it's not as clear cut as that. The characters in this film are all morally ambiguous and so they should be. At a time like the civil war, even the "good" can be "ugly".

Great direction, superb acting and amazing style. The film is very efficient at telling its story - and the ending is amazing.

Definitely watch this.

Hobson's Choice (1954)

Great performances...bad pacing.

[7/10 · 15 April 2007]

I have been in the habit of watching David Lean's films recently, with Blithe Spirit, Great Expectations and Oliver Twist being viewed to great satisfaction.

Hobson's Choice is not as good as those 3 films. Although the performances are pitch perfect. Laughton and Mills are polar wonderful as their character's and surely De Banzie gives one of the best turns in any Lean film.

However, it is the pacing that undoes the film for me. It starts off with great zip; the exchange of dialogue between father and daughters and De Banzie's moulding of Mills. By the end of the picture, everything seems a little drawn out - the spark of the earlier scenes has died out.

Still, it's an entertaining film and is worth at least one watch. Don't think you'll be in for one of Lean's best efforts though.

Crank (2006)

Could have been much better.

[5/10 · 15 April 2007]

What a waste. I thought I was going to get a balls-out action film; tense, tight and rock'n'rolling. Instead, I got an MTV, teenage semen sweat fest.

Alright, maybe I am being harsh. But this film should have been much better. The pacing was wrong, the action didn't have enough oomph and it just wasn't that fun.

Statham is good in the film, as Chev Chelios, a man who has to keep his adrenaline levels up to stay alive long enough for a cure. This is a great idea - Speed on the cardiovascular system.

The director took the wrong direction for this film. I know the whole manic rushing and flashy editing was done to show the anxiety of the character, but it just ended up looking a mess. The ending was atrocious as well.

The film would have benefited from a tighter script. For a film about rushing, the film wasn't very action packed or thrilling. Admittedly, some of the scenes were done well, but this is a missed opportunity.

Imagine this film remade with more efficiency, more thrills and a better use of Los Angeles - surely one of the most under developed characters in the film.

Watch it once for some good action scenes, but if you are like me, and like pacing and action in good measure, you might get angry watching this confused effort.

Ghost Rider (2007)

Entertaining, nothing special.

[6/10 · 8 March 2007]

First and foremost, this film is not in the vein of Batman Begins. Nor is it very similar to Spider-Man 1 or 2. As a whole experience, it is probably most like Daredevil, the director's other stab at the Comic Book genre.

The start of he film is much too fast, therefore rushing the back story. It's a shame, because the film should have really utilised the western setting to a far greater degree. The atmosphere could have been really great, with John Carpenter style Gothic settings. Instead what we got was a fairly generic Texas.

However, the film was still entertaining. Cage is always fun to watch, and it was clear he was having fun in this role. The comic touches between him an Mendes was cool and definitely made the film flow better.

What I was there for was action, and Ghost Rider delivers this well. Although the film is rated a 12A in the UK, I was still fairly impressed with the special effects, where the people were all consumed of life. The CGI was blatant, but I didn't mind.

You see, the director's intentions were pretty obvious. This was an entertaining film, which had hardly any surprises, but did pack some good action and fun performances from Cage, Mendes, Bentley and Fonda.

There were moments of soppy-sweet bullshit that makes me cringe in films like these (the Spider-Man 2 wedding moment - eurgh) but overall it was a fun film.

6/10

Hot Fuzz (2007)

Kick Ass!

[8/10 · 19 February 2007]

Hot Fuzz is the new film from the Spaced trio and it is a great edition to their CV! The story is simple, an urban western of sorts, about corruption in a small English village. The film actually reminded me of Mangold's Copland, but it had numerous references to other high-octane actioners like Point Break and Bad Boys 2.

Pegg is Nick Angel, and this is probably his best performance yet. Finally breaking away from the cool slacker of Spaced and Shaun of the Dead, Pegg forms a character that isn't entirely likable. Again, the pairing of Pegg and Frost works wonders, with Frost giving a great Bristol accent. The duo are backed up by a great supporting cast, with Broadbent, Coogan, Dalton and Considine.

The action is great and Wright is clearly aiming to be an action director. All his work so far has had a trademark zip to it, but he could calm down just a little with the editing.

Don't try to compare this film to Shaun of the Dead, they are completely different films. Shaun has more jokes, but Hot Fuzz makes up for that with it's action. It's still hilarious, but I think people might expect the same blatant comedy of Shaun. It's structure is more Copland than Lethal Weapon, so it isn't the all-out stupid action fest people might have been expecting.

Minor quibbles aside, it is safe to say Hot Fuzz is a riot.

The Breakfast Club (1985)

I won't be forgetting them anytime soon.

[9/10 · 11 February 2007]

In the last few weeks, I have been watching all the John Hughes films again, like Sweet Sixteen, Ferris Bueller, Some Kind Of Wonderful (he wrote it) - and it seems that The Breakfast Club provides the most thoughtful insight out of all of them.

The story is simple, about 6 kids in detention on a Saturday. What ensues is a film about bonding, the fragile nature of these kids and what it means to be a teenager. In the hands of other directors, this film would have probably focused on comedy too much, to sacrifice for the lack of a "house party" scene. But Hughes handles the pacing well, and the film never rushes the development.

The characters are all stock - at least we think. As the film progresses, the vulnerability of these kids becomes more apparent. I don't wanna ramble on too much, but this film is the best teenage comedy made in the 80's...with Ferris Bueller.

Estevez, Nelson, Hall, Sheedy and Ringwald are all wonderful in this film. Sometimes too much emphasis is on Nelson, but who cares when th rest is so good.

Watch it, love it.

The Godfather Part II (1974)

A great sequel and enduring vision of corruption and family.

[10/10 · 15 January 2007]

Without a doubt, Coppola made four of the best films of the 70's. The Godfaher Part 1, Part 2, The Conversation and Apocalypse Now. Out of these, The Godfather Part 2 remains my favourite.

It continues the Corleone family tale, of greed and corruption and yet Part 2 adds another vein to the bloodstream of this biblical tale; the story of Vito Corleone and his arrival in New York. The cinematographer, Gordon Willis creates a sepia-washed dream of a New York. Every shot is sumptuous ad full of depth - the production value was a help too, with some of the most authentic streets scenes ever committed to film.

Though, as wonderful as the film looks, the acting is stellar to. De Niro completely transforms himself from the urban maniacs like Johnny from Mean Streets and Travis Bickle from Taxi Driver, to form Vito Corleone, the younger Marlon Brando. De Niro doesn't over cook the character, instead he simmers; his eyes tell two tales, one of being content, the other of contempt, for the killing of his family.

De Niro is backed up by great co-stars, such as Bruno Kirby who played the young Clemenza. The story itself in this section of the film is slow burning, much like the rest of the film, yet is here to serve a contrast to the story of Michael Corleone in Nevada.

This is the part in the trilogy where Michael transforms from the "college boy" and "war hero" of part 1, into the heartless, muted confusion that he embodies here. Pacino plays the part with ease and never goes wild and shout, much like his later work (Glengarry Glen Ross, Godfather Part 3...). Keaton is superb as the WASP wife, Kay, who tries to break free of the corruption she has married into. Cazale, who plays Fredo is wonderful too, a helpless, jealous character, who forms one of the best brother characters in film history. The co-stars are also great, with Strasberg as Hyman Roth.

Just as Michael's family is dissolving, Vito's is just beginning. The two fragments of the Corleone history run side by side to depict the downfall of Michael's character. Constantly trying to please his dead father, Michael talks of family, but doesn't understand how to sustain it.

A classic.

Miami Vice (2006)

Crisp cold celluloid; a gritty take on the 80's crime show.

[8/10 · 3 January 2007]

Firstly, let's establish that this is film is in the same vein as three of Mann's other work; Heat, Thief and Collateral. All four films are completely different, each of them containing a similar aesthetic. Miami Vice looks more real than the other films Mann has made; the HD cameras really give the film an aesthetic edge.

So yes, Mann has succeeded in bringing those urban landscapes to life again. Heat, with it steely blues, Collateral with diverse flowers of colour. Miami Vice shows us a dense urban landscape, with colour, texture and detail.

But is it a good film? Thankfully yes, though not as good as Heat. The first time through, the film is difficult to understand, all thanks to the actors mumbling their lines. This comes off as too moody. Coupled with the torrid storms in the distance, you'd think that Mann had gone all depressing on us.

However, the second time through, the film is rewarding. The performances are good on the whole. I particularly liked Farrell as Crockett. He showed just the right amount moody/mysterious, without becoming a complete tortured soul. Foxx comes off worse, trying to be too cool with his silent stares, but still manages to convince.

Gong Li creates a convincing character, but her accent is sometimes difficult to understand. Nonetheless, I was sold on her chemistry with Farrell, though they were prone to shag a lot.

The undercover antics of Crockett and Tubbs make for taut, adult and confusing crime film. Though the first half of the film struggles to get the motor running, the last half fares much better. Mann directs two tense "action" scenes. The camera is usually hand-held, and the movement of the battle methodically moves forward.

This film is not for action freaks. It is not like the TV show. What it does have is an intelligent story, wonderful images, city life and mature characters.

The Snows of Kilimanjaro (1952)

Certain moments make it worth a watch.

[6/10 · 29 November 2006]

The Snows of Kilamanjiro is a moderately touching story of a writer (Peck), who, close to death in Africa, tells his neglected wife of his past love (Gardner), who he can't seem to forget.

The tone of the film is sometimes a tad over dramatic and the first time in Africa shows some technically bad shots of the animals and the rivers. However, if we look at this film from a technical aspect, it has a lot to recommend. I loved the colours in the film, especially the blues of the skies. They are bright and filled me with nostalgia.

Furthermore, the way the story is told is great. We are told of Peck's love life through a series of flashbacks. The actual tale itself is drawn out, but some moments make it worth the ride. The tragedy of Peck's character is one many people can relate to; the artist pursues his "art", but neglects the emotions he speaks so highly of.

Peck and Gardner are great as the leading roles. Peck sometimes mumbles his lines, but that is part and parcel of his charm in the film. Susan Hayward is great as the neglected wife.

This film does have moments of brilliance. It has some heart breaking moments, but it is fleshed out by some un-believable events and bum choices by the director. I couldn't help but feel that the THEMES (capital letters, everyone), were slapped on a little too heavily sometimes. Sure, we can be shown reasons of Harry's tragic downfall, but does it have to be spelt out for us? I think the director should have left some of the thoughts and memories for the audience to think of.

Still, a good film, with wonderful colour and some great tear-jerker moments. Worth a watch.

The Browning Version (1951)

Fantastic.

[9/10 · 19 November 2006]

Michael Redgrave is wonderful in this film. To watch him in The Lady Vanishes, then to see him in this, it really is a testament to his acting versatility.

The story itself is utterly depressing, and shows little remorse. Though this is why the film is so brilliant. The atmosphere mixes that of the school and that of the Greek tragedy - namely Aeschylus' the Agamemnon. Coker-Harris is slowly broken down by his wife, which is similar to that of Clytemnestra and Agamemnon. However, Coker-Harris has not done much wrong to warrant this hate and spite, which makes him a sympathetic and tragic character.

The film moves at a brisk pace and is not once boring. The acting is superb, the look efficient and makes for a superb film.

Sidewalks of New York (2001)

Finally, a modern romance I actually like.

[8/10 · 17 November 2006]

I am a massive fan of Woody Allen's films, such as Annie Hall, Manhattan and Husbands and Wives. They simultaneously amalgamate witty romance with this inevitable melancholy that comes with it all. I must admit, I have never seen an Ed Burns film before, nor have I seen him act much before, except for Saving Private Ryan. So this was a new venture for me.

It's safe to say, I was very surprised by this film. It has a style and form similar to that of Allen's Husbands and Wives. Ed Burns is very likable, and has great charisma as an actor. Graheam really shows her worth as an actor in this film - though I loved her in Boogie Nights and Swingers as well. Tucci, Murphy and Krumholtz are all on top form too.

It's an entertaining piece of cinema, one that didn't take itself too seriously and indulge in those oft-walked streets of New York. It was fresh, young and truthful, with characters that have shades to them, and aren't just two dimensional cut outs.

I highly recommend this film to everyone.

Hard Candy (2005)

Nothing special...

[7/10 · 21 June 2006]

Hard Candy is actually a watchable film. The actors were certainly game (all two of them, the others merely bit parts) and the cinematography was good but flawed.

It was not handled as well as I thought it could have been. Thought provoking? I do not think so. Although the ambiguity over who was the "bad guy" was there, the film seemed to run out of ideas.

Yes, it is interesting to see a torture scene; it is what he deserves apparently. But for 15 minutes? The camera work was good in the way that it made you feel nauseous, so it wasn't an easy film to experience. It left most up to the imagination.

Also the sense of space in the film was closed down due to the amount of close up's. Yes, this might be a device intended by the director so that we as an audience feel claustrophobic, but in the end, it really annoyed me in places.

The again, what did I expect? The premise of this film is hardly brain teasing stuff. Again, people will end up going "but the film leaves it open" argument. Ambiguous Schmiguous. The film started so well, but failed to capitalise on it.

The film was just exploitative; there are some good shocks and the tension is neatly crafted, it is shame the pacing is not so great.

But it felt un-finished and ultimately a tad pointless. The mind games that Hayley plays on the photographer were gripping initially, but by the half way mark, I understood what was going on, and knew that he would kill himself.

She forced him to kill himself - in a similar way to Saw. Not a big surprise.

Still, it was a decent little film that succeeds in making the viewer uncomfortable. But it could have been better and more efficient. In a world of Saw's and Hostel's, maybe this is too much, too soon.

Seinfeld: The Heart Attack (1991) Season 2, Episode 8

One of the best of season 2.

[9/10 · 8 June 2006]

Not much to say here really. I think this was a turning point in Seinfeld.

When George is purple in the back of an ambulance...strange but hilarious.

Seinfeld is the perfect sitcom for this very reason. It makes nothing seem so funny.

Kramer is great in this episode, as he persuades George to go to a herbal healer.

The healer reacts perfectly to the other characters. Like Curb Your Enthusiasm the comedy is superbly crafted.

Another classics, much like all the episodes.

Situational comedy at it's best.

Devil in a Blue Dress (1995)

Deserves more attention.

[8/10 · 2 June 2006]

I am glad I caught this film on TV; it was great entertainment and executed well.

I don't want to ramble on too much, so here goes. The acting is great - Washington giving another good performance. His narration was suitably dry too. Cheadle just chewed on the scenery. He was hardly in the film, but when he was, his impact as Mouse was powerful. Elsewhere, Beals was good as the titular devil in the blue dress. Sizemore was good as the sleaze ball who hires Washington - yet he seems to good at playing these types in all his films.

The aesthetic of the film was enticing. The smooth camera-work was mesmerising. The first shot that tracks through the busy streets and then cranes up through the window to Easy is so Hitchcock - or any director of film noir for that matter. The colours are beautiful too, from the orange skies in the day, to the hazy blues at night.

The story is gripping, if a tad predictable. If you like your Sam Spade and your Marlowes this film will be fine for you. The ending where Washington closes in on a house in the hills is very 'Big Sleep'.

Devil In A Blue Dress is unique in terms of perspective. The story is told from a black males view point and this makes the film very interesting to watch. No more all-white worlds of the 40's generation. This film shows both sides of the coin, and doesn't end up with a chip on both shoulders.

The film may be a tad predictable, but this should not deter you. This film is underrated and deserves your attention. Very entertaining.

Inside Man (2006)

Thank God

[8/10 · 30 April 2006]

I have been going to the cinema lately, hoping to find a film that satisfies me, even if it is not completely original. Horror films have nearly done the job - Hostel and The Hills have Eyes were good and acceptable.

Yet it is Spike Lee's new heist film that has finally satisfied me. Inside Man is a good, old fashioned crime thriller, about deceptively simple heist on a bank. I don't want to ramble on too much, but all I can say is that it gripped me from start to finish. The acting was good on all counts (Washington, Owen and Plummer being very solid).

The film did drag a TAD at the end, but I couldn't care less; the film was superbly crafted and well acted. This film is not a 'twist' film. It does not rely on a twist to make you enjoy the film. I enjoyed the atmosphere of the streets, the banter and the tension of the heist.

It can never be as good as Dog Day Afternoon, but Inside Man is an enjoyable crime film, albeit nothing special.

The Hills Have Eyes (2006)

A Good Remake

[7/10 · 30 April 2006]

Lately in cinema, I have felt somewhat 'numb' to horror films. Lately there have been a slew of 'Saw' situation horrors, 'Wolf Creek' torture porn and the same old Japanese-remake bullshit.

Now, I thought Saw was pretty good - a tad schlocky and easy to predict, but entertaining nonetheless. Wolf Creek at the cinema was great, yet it loses its power the second time through. The middle section is still intense, but it all seemed too slight in comparison to horror of the 70's. Hostel was a surprise, because no matter how much porno/gore it had, it still actually had a heart, and played out as more of a thriller than anything.

The Hills Have Eyes is a tough one to call. As a remake it is really similar to the 77 original; whereas the original stopped, the remake carries on for a typically open ended finale.

In terms of pacing, I love films like this. It's as if Aja went to the John Carpenter school of Atmosphere. The director slowly cranks up the tension - a little too slowly perhaps? But never mind, it is enjoyable, and we soon set out the stock characters and boundaries between the family.

The pay off for all that waiting is suitably violent - maybe excessively so (not a bad thing). For 15 minutes, the family are assaulted, the daughter violated by a 'mutant' and a baby is kidnapped. When I saw this in the cinema, it totally grabbed me by the neck - it's a shame it let go soon after.

Aja had a brilliant set up, followed by a very intense 15 minutes of old school violence. The mistake with both this and the original is that the film runs out of steam. Aja had the opportunity to crank up the tension to 11, to utterly thrill us right to the end of the picture. Yes, the audience should be allowed a breather, but there was too much flab between the violent set pieces.

Still, this is a minor problem in an otherwise good film. The remake is better than original, but so it should be after 30-odd years. The build up is great, the acting is solid, the violence is intense and disturbing and the climax is typically cynical.

If I had to choose a horror film of 2005/2006 to watch again...it would probably be Hostel or this. Although Hostel is not half as violent as it would like to be, it still hits all the right spots. The film isn't bogged down by homage; it efficiently works up a solid thriller. The Hills Have Eyes is not as darkly comic as Roth's effort, but I love the atmosphere that is built up here.

So I would give the film 7 out of 10. Perfectly acceptable horror film, but something tells me that it could have been a lot more. Let's hope the horror genre gets out of this Myer of remakes and excessive gorenography and carves a niché of its own, not someone else's.

Manhattan Murder Mystery (1993)

Wonderful.

[9/10 · 14 February 2006]

After the mature and gritty work of "Husbands and Wives" (1992), Allen returns to what can be described as an amalgamation of his early "funny" movies and the moral ethics of his 80's work like "Crimes and Misdeameanors" (1989) and "Hannah and her Sisters" (1986).

"Manhattan Murder Mystery" (1993) re-teams Allen and Keaton, and also uses two cast members from "Crimes and Misdeameanors", Alan Alda and Angelica Huston. This is a comedy quartet alone make the film work. Jerry Adler is also good as the neighbour who is feared to be a murderer. All the characters seem so vibrant and alive, like the city it is set in. When Allen, Keaton, Alda and Huston all meet in a café at 1 in the morning to discuss their findings, I could not help but feel attracted to the atmosphere Allen had created - the city that never sleeps.

The plot never sleeps either, even though it is relatively simple. The fun derives from the fact that these upper-middle class New Yorkers make their life more interesting by trying to solve a murder. The story seems so warm and approachable - like Broadway Danny Rose and Radio Days.

The story of murder is mixed with wry humour and a little light violence. We go from a scene of a body being melted, to a hilarious phone scene. It is this juxtaposition of genres that creates the films success. The actors are all immersed in their characters, but sometimes they are off guard - and thank god too. We actually get genuine laughs from the actors. We see it here (the ending) and also in "Annie Hall" (1977), when Alvy Singer and Annie Hall are in the kitchen with lobsters.

Furthermore, the story is genuinely a good "mystery" albeit a light one. The film references are all their too - "The Lady from Shanghai" (1948)for example. To some extent Allen expects knowledge from the viewer - the film references (this film has them, "Face to Face" in "Annie Hall", the re-used but never stale jokes (sock filled with horse manure gag...Annie Hall and Radio Days) and various key figures of our times (Freud spoke of a latency period...Wagner music...lots more).

Visually the film is good too. The first few shots of New York were surprising for me. They were not as romanticised as previous films - at least not to me. It seemed more like a Michael Mann film, with the city lights.

So overall, I am glad Woody lightened up. This film is accessible, yet has many shades. I loved Husbands and Wives, but the Bergman-esquire relationship quarrels are not too fun to watch on your average night in.

This film is charming, well acted and most of all a great time.

Love Actually (2003)

Didn't work.

[5/10 · 29 October 2005]

Firstly, the score of 5 means average. Therefore, this film is average - the nicest word possible for this overly sweet romance from Richard Curtis.

I like Four Weddings and a Funeral,not a popular opinion for film buffs but I thought it was witty, and save for MacDowells risible performance, well acted. It was a change for British comedy, but it is such a shame it spawned so many bland and lifeless films - mainly from Curtis' own hand (wrote Notting Hill, directed Love, Actually).

Now, you may think I am a miserable old sod, not liking this new rom-com fare...and you may well be right. I am a fan of romantic comedies, yes, such as Woody Allen's films. Annie Hall, Manhattan for example - but what makes them work is that they are sad - Annie Hall in non linear fashion, charts a relationship through its highs and lows, whilst Manhattan, taking place in the black and silver backdrop of Gershwin's in the titular city, also explores relationships. Yet these films almost end (or in Annie Hall's case, start) on a series of down notes, which agrees with Dante from Kevin Smith's Clerks (1994) that life is a series of down notes.

And therein lies Love, Actually's problem - the story, even though it has some down notes, they are ALL resolved in the completely "coincidental" ending, where the characters' paths all seem to cross. Almost too coincidental, the Hollywood ending that Allen avoided in The Purple Rose of Cairo. Curtis is all too happy to resolve the ending in this film. Even though Four Weddings does end happily, at least it had the courtesy to include some laughs - which this film seems have forgotten about.

The main laughs for mainstream viewers might well have come from Hugh Grant playing Prime Minister (and strangely enough, himself), dancing and pratting around with house maid Martine McCutcheon. I expected laughs from the morose dead pan of Alan Rickman - instead the story was at its most dramatic with him. I did enjoy his section of the story, because although it was clichéd, it was enjoyable to watch.

As for the other stories in this film, they were cringe worthy. Liam Neeson and his son hunting for women was really quite a bore...Keira Knightly and her two lovers was underdeveloped...the guy who went to America, also in hunt of sex and (love, actually!)...Colin Firth's story of love in a foreign climate was well handled admittedly - as for the rest, I have already forgotten them.

Films that handle a lot of characters like this, are normally paced rapidly. Think Altman's Short Cuts, Anderson's Magnolia and Boogie Nights. If Curtis would have paced the film up, injected a little life into this film, it probably would have been a bit better.

"Loce Actually" had its moments of comedy, its moments of drama - but overall, it never really came together. The happy ending was too sweet, and the lead up was badly directed - the acting was fine. So an average film, with an ending that will be rotting your teeth and burning your brain with anger.

Ah, but I'm a cynic. If you liked this film I recommend you seeing: Annie Hall, Manhattan, Crimes and Misdemeannours - romance/drama that is subverted.

Happiness - this film also explores a lot of characters. Enjoy.

It's Not Just You, Murray! (1964)

Well made short from the early Scorsese.

[7/10 · 26 October 2005]

Out of his earlier works, I would say Italianamerica is my favourite, but this short film is just as important.

Not to be compared with his more serious works, Scorsese's short film is a comedy piece where we are introduced to the life of a small time hood - Murray, who is oblivious to the fact that even his best friend is betraying him. This gives way for some interesting set pieces.

This film could have been a start of Scorsese's interaction with mob life. The ideas of male bonding etc, are used here, and will later be seen in Mean Streets in 73. Mean Streets was also influenced by I Viteloni by Fellini - so if you are interested in Scorsese's work, and how it came to be, watch that film.

If you are a Scorsese fan, you must see this - as it helps you understand his later works. Also recommended : Italianamerica/Big Shave/what's a nice girl like you doing in...

See some Truffaut to - for technique.