Change Your Image
apteryx-1
Reviews
Jack Brown Genius (1996)
Interesting
This movie reunites Peter Jackson (not as director, but as co scriptwriter, and also credited as 2nd unit director) with Lionel from `Braindead' (Timothy Balme in the title role here), and has Jackson's special effects company Weta providing the effects here. Can't be bad, huh?
Well, not so fast..
One critic actually suggested that this might be the worst New Zealand movie ever made. In doing so, he exposed his lack of familiarity with many early '80s NZ movies, in the era when if a NZ movie was too good, it risked making a profit, thus destroying the tax losses its investors hoped to gain. But this is not a movie for film critics. In fact, critical faculties of any kind are best checked at the door when approaching it.
The story involves the spirit of a 10th century monk named Elmer who died in a failed attempt to fly, and who now stands to be damned eternally for suicide unless he can prove within 1000 years that unpowered manned flight is possible (his is a God who believes in results rather than intentions). He inhabits the `brain-pan' of the title character, who has invented a `power amplifier' that amplifies any force input to it. They realise that this might allow a man to fly.
But can Jack accomplish this and save Elmer's soul before his invention is taken from him by his employer who sees only the financial gain of a quick sale of the device, or by the campy villainess, who also quite likes finance?
It is certainly possible to enjoy this movie. But you do have to be in the right mood, and to work with it, rather than sitting back and waiting for it to entertain you.
I'm not sure of the nature of Peter Jackson's involvement with this movie. I don't know whether Jackson and partner Frances Walsh essentially wrote it intending Jackson to direct it, but passed it on to friend Tony Hiles to direct when Jackson became too involved in other projects. Or whether Jackson just lent his friend a helping hand on a film that was always largely Hiles's own. The film does have something of the humour and amateur enthusiasm of the early Peter Jackson movies (but -one scene excepted - without the gore). It would have been interesting to see what Jackson might have made of it if he had directed.
Pride and Prejudice (1995)
Very Strong Objections to the Lady
Having just re-read the book, I thought it the ideal time to view each the two BBC mini-series I have on video to see which came closest to capturing the spirit of the book. It is not this one.
That may seem a harsh judgment, since so much more money has clearly been spent on this than on the 1979 production, and as a result, it is far superior in all the essentials (costumes, sets, cinematography), and inferior only in trifles (the accurate depiction of the characters created by Miss Austen). Since this production is aimed at a mass market, I understand perfectly the need to make gross caricatures of those characters intended to be ridiculed (Mrs Bennet, Lydia, Mr Collins, Lady Catherine de Bourgh); otherwise, how would people know that they were meant to be ridiculed? And since the key target audience is female, I also understand that the male lead cannot be allowed to appear stuck-up, and so Mr Darcy's initial pride is sensibly converted to a more fashionable cynical disdain.
Unfortunately (given the title of the work) this leads to a deficiency in pride, which the director can only make up by presenting Elizabeth with such overbearing smugness, as to cause the viewer to conclude that Darcy's initial assessment of her as `tolerable' is in fact extremely generous. As with Mr Darcy in the book, Elizabeth becomes much more agreeable after his first proposal to her. Presumably her pride is mortified by the discovery that she has been wrong in her apportionment of blame between Darcy and Whickham, no doubt the first time she has made such a discovery. But she remains essentially a robust 90s chick in Regency garb, pretending to be Elizabeth Bennet. Jennifer Ehle blesses her with such self possession as to make it impossible to believe several of the incidents recorded of her (the she accepts Darcy's invitation to dance at Netherfield against her wishes, because she is so taken aback by it; that she twice allows men to make unwelcome declarations of love to her without interruption until they reach their natural conclusion in proposals of marriage; that she blurts out Lydia's disgrace to Darcy, the last person she wants to know it; and that she is unable to look Darcy in the eye when she tells him that her feelings have changed).
So formidable is this Elizabeth, that is hard to imagine anyone, even her father, having the temerity to address her to her face as `Lizzy'. And whereas in the book, we admire Elizabeth's courage in standing up to Lady Catherine de Bourgh when the latter attempts to warn her off Darcy, here we are rather left wondering at Lady Catherine's courage in making the attempt.
The depictions of Mr Bennet and Mr Bingley are excellent, and that of Mr Whickham tolerable. And the film recognisably tells the story of Pride & Prejudice, and so is worth watching. But I prefer the 1979 BBC production.
Moulin Rouge! (2001)
Very, um stylish
A dumbed-down `La Traviata' meets a dumbed-down `Gold Diggers of 1933', at 80 mph. There were no survivors.
For a while I tried to see it as a satire of recent Hollywood movies, puerile stories papered over with million-dollar production values. But I realised by the end that it just was a puerile story papered over with million-dollar production values. You can't call it a triumph of style over substance, because there is no triumph here. It is just an unsuccessful assault by style on substance. I'll give it 2/10 because bits of it would have made a good rock video.
The Avengers (1998)
The Quintessential Awful Movie
I never thought I'd give a rating of 1/10 to a movie. I thought, if a movie even looked like it might be bad enough to deserve that rating, I wouldn't watch it for long enough to be sure it really was that bad. Until I saw this movie on TV.
It turns out it's like a road crash. I couldn't take my eyes off it. As a fan of the original TV series, I changed channels pretty quickly when I saw what they had done - attempt to recreate the magical chemistry between Patrick Mcnee and Diana Rigg in the original with leads who had all the chemistry of two inert gases. But I kept switching back to see if it was still as bad. It always was, except when it was worse.
They would have done much better to cast the 60-year-old Rigg to reprise her TV role. They would probably have done better to cast the much older Mcnee as Stead, even if he had to stay invisible for the whole movie.
Some scenes (like the teddy-bear conference and the Escher staircase) were whimsical enough to have belonged in the TV series. But in the TV series, they would have been part of a consistent theme that was plugged throughout that episode and related to the particular evil villain to be foiled that week, and not just plucked from the air as here.
Worth seeing, perhaps, to know that the art of making truly awful movies has not been lost. I've never seen Manos, Hand of Fate. In Plan 9 from Outer Space, the cast and crew at least deserve credit for trying to the best of their ability. The Avengers would get my vote for the worst move ever made.
Grosse Pointe Blank (1997)
Surprisingly good
I wasn't expecting much from a romantic comedy about a hit-man. But John Cusack hits the right notes as the hit-man who believes that what you do doesn't define who you are. Very funny scenes in particular between Cusack and Alan Arkin as his unwilling psychiatrist. Well worth a look.
Braveheart (1995)
You can take the Mickey, but you cannae take it seriously
This movie can lay claim to the most refreshing interpretation of Scottish history (ie, ignore the facts, concentrate on the story). It may well have the best Scottish accent ever in a major movie picture by an American-born Australian actor. Or perhaps the best movie recreation of a Renaissance Fair recreation of a generic medieval battle (with added blood). But its chief claim to fame is without doubt in the category of best historical joke in a major motion picture - the suggestion that William Wallace (died 1305) fathered the future Edward III of England (born 1312).
William Wallace deserved a better movie. So did I.
Father of the Bride (1991)
It could have been worse
It could have been worse. It could have been a lot worse, considering other 90's remakes.
In fact I would go so far as to say that if I wanted to watch "Father of the Bride", and couldn't get the Spencer Tracey original, I would watch this movie.
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Simply brilliant
My background: I have read Lord of the Rings about 5 times, but I thought I was content to see someone else's interpretation even when it differs from the images I formed reading the book. And Peter Jackson's earlier `Heavenly Creatures' is the only film released in the 90s to force its way into my all-time Top Ten, but I have seen `The Frighteners', so I know he is not infallible.
So overall the odds were that I would love this movie. The biggest risk was that I might have set my expectations too high. But in the event they were exceeded. On my first viewing I did everything wrong, going to a midnight session when I was already tired, at a multiplex I hadn't been to before, and which turned out to have inferior projection and sound, and despite my best intentions, taking with me some preconceptions about how some scenes should be played. But I came out thinking of it as a masterpiece, just slightly flawed by the fact that several scenes hadn't been played my way. I was undecided whether it rated 10/10, or merely 9 (I use the 10/10 rating to identify my Top Ten movies of all time - if any new movie gets that rating and moves into my Top Ten, one of the existing ones must drop down to 9).
However on a second viewing at a better theatre (so full I had to leave my preconceptions outside) I was surprised to see that many of what I had thought were flaws had disappeared or been greatly reduced. One of them, the different approach to the character of Aragorn, and his relationship to Boromir, had been magically transformed into a major strength, setting up the very moving ending, with the too-late reconciliation between the two.
No other movie that I have seen for the first time within the past 30 years has so moved me that I cannot stop thinking about it a week later. No other movie I have seen for the first time in that period has left me with such desire to go back and see it again.
Dr Strangelove drops out of my all-time Top Ten to make room for it.
Richard III (1995)
A good combination
Taken strictly as an adaptation of the play, you would have to wonder where the other half of Shakespeare's lines went.
Taken as a play on a hypothetical fascist coup in Britain in the 30s, you couldn't help noticing how they talk funny.
But take it for all in all, it has to be said that it works better than some attempts to set Shakespeare in modern periods. The intrigue that the play centres on is well suited to the era of dictators and military coups. It even provides a modern explanation for the peculiar acquiescence of Lady Anne. Ian McKellen predictably excels in the title role, a role as far as you could get from his recent one in Fellowship of the Ring.
Shakespeare in Love (1998)
Funny and Intelligent - How on Earth did this win the Oscar?
One of my favourite movies. Two intelligent writers, Tom Stoppard and Marc Norman, combine to give us their vision of Young Shakespeare as a would-be up-and-coming writer, in the time shortly before he mysteriously changed gear in the mid 1590s and became The Bard.
The problems he faces in becoming established are shown as remarkably (nay, mysteriously) similar to those confronting writers today writer's block, money, producers, and an abandoned wife and children (a woman of roperty - she has a cottage). He finds the answer in the form of Gwyneth Paltrow (well, it would work for me) playing the role of her career to date as Viola de Lesseps, daughter of a merchant rich enough to attract suitors from the nobility for his daughter. We know that she is certainly well beyond the reach (for marriage) of a humble player, but she is an early fan of the budding writer, even when nearly all she has to go on is `The Two Gentlemen of Verona'
The humour turns partly on the situation of Will Shakespeare facing modern theatrical problems (which however are not necessarily outside the range of what the real Shakespeare might have faced). But beyond that there constant Elizabethan in-jokes, pitched so that even those with the barest acquaintance with the life of times of Shakespeare will get some, while others are rewards for deeper study.
Many people who do not like the film ask how could it have won the Oscar for Best Picture in 1998. I ask the same question - given that it is so far superior to those normally recognised by the Academy in recent years (I mean, Gladiator? Titanic?! The English Patient?!!!). The answer has to be: it is a mystery.
The Two Gentlemen of Verona (1983)
Filtering out the rubbish
I must admit that this production of one of Shakespeare's earliest plays (if not the earliest) is beginning to grow on me. I must be losing my critical judgment.
Or it may be because I have learned to filter out the rubbish spoken by the main characters, and play full attention only when the clowns Speed (in this production played plausibly as an annoying boy by Nicholas Kaby) and Launce (played by Tony Haygarth) are speaking. Launce's classic speech to his dog Crab (the only other engaging character) about the trouble Crab has brought on him is the highlight of the play.
It may be that this production (the only one of this play I have seen) suffers from the seriousness which is applied to all of the productions in this BBC series of the plays. I wondered on watching it how much better it might have been if the four main characters had played their lines for laughs. The absurd reconciliations in the final scene might then have had me rolling in the aisles rather than staring in disbelief. It is hard to believe that a writer as intelligent as Shakespeare could have intended to have those lines delivered po-faced, and harder still to believe that if he did anyone would have paid him to write another play
Goldfinger (1964)
Corny but fun
This was the first Bond movie I saw, and along with Dr No, the only one I managed to sit through, so call me a Conneryist. Back then Bond movies were just a subtle shift away from being genuine thrillers, everyone had fun, and so did the audience. Has the classic Bond exchange `Bond: Do you expect me to talk? Goldfinger: No Mr. Bond! I expect you to die!' Also noteworthy for having lured Honor Blackman out of TV's `The Avengers' to play Pussy Galore (magnificently), and allowing Diana Rigg to take her place on the series.