Always Bet On Banksy

I'd thought I'd outwit the queues and go and check ot the Banksy exhibition at Bristol's City Museum and Art Gallery. Alas, the masses had other things in mind and, despite arriving 45 minutes before opening time, the crowds were already massing. Still it was well worth the wait.

For the unfamiliar, Banksy is the pseudonym for a secretive Bristol street artist. His work, mainly stencil grafitti, has been displayed (mostly illegally) in many counties and cities around the globe and his work has finally been acknowledged by the art community as serious and substantial stuff.

The first thing you'll notice upon entering is how Banksy has used the museum setting to his advantage. Rather than displaying walls of grafitti or phtos of his existing street art, he's complimented that stuff with huge sculptures, many of which are enhanced with animatronics. They also blend into the surroundings. It took me a couple of minutes to realise the greek pocelain sculpture I was standing next to had been modified with sunglasses and shopping bags.

There seems to be a three stage reaction when looking at his work:-
1/ Wow. What a great painting / drawing. I love graphic, black and white artwork anyway, so his realistic stencil style always impresses.
2/ Ha ha ha. Thats jolly amusing.
3/ A feeling of sadness often follows as, when the meaning of the piece sinks in, you realise he's talking about society. Our society. MY society. And it sucks we treat the world and those on it with such disrespect.

Banksy, as with all art, wants you to observe the familiar and consider it from a different perspectice. Take the above photo. "I hate Mondays" has been uttered by most of us at some point as we drag ourselves off to work after a relaxing weekend. Have we considered Mondays from a small African child's perspective as he makes the 5 mile walk from the local water hole for the fifth time that day? Nope, me neither.

Most of the exhibition is staged on the ground floor, but it's fun tracking down Banksy pieces secreted amongst the Museum's regular exhibits, in a sort of cultural treasure hunt.

Very worth while and enjoyable. Put your queueing shoes on and get in line.

If Gollum Could See This Baby!

Warner Brothers Animation have teamed up with DC Comics in recent months to bring fans drawn versions of their favorite superheros, while the live-action versions flounder in development hell. Last month brought Wonder Woman. The same team, this month, bring you a Green Lantern origin story.

Don't get fooled by the fancy packaging...this is no sophisticated adult piece. It's aimed directly at your saturday morning, Ben 10 crowd. Those seeking character development need not apply. However the animation's up to par for a studio produced, TV superhero cartoon these days.

If you're a Green Lantern fan it might be best to wait for the Ryan Reynolds adaptation due in 2011. But if you're like me, and are completely unfamiliar with the alien police recruit with the magic ring, it's a great way to introduce yourself to the mythology. It's far more fantasy and off-world based than I could ever have imagined and the origin (I'm guessing it's faithful to the comicbook) is very reminicant of the Jedi Knight narrative in the Star Wars prequels. For a low-budget animated movie the music score is far too impressive to be used here.

Awaken your inner 7 year old and enjoy.

Death To Spies

It's an unconventional choice, but 1987's James Bond 007 movie, The Living Daylights may be my favorite Bond movie. Pre Daylights, I was never a big Bond fan. I liked them on TV, sure, but it wasn't until 85's A View To A Kill that I went to the cinema to see one (and look at the poor choice that turned out to be!)
So here's why:-

1/ Timothy Dalton, although not the best Bond ever, brought back a seriousness and intensity lacking from the part. You believe he's a ruthless agent with the authority to kill at will, as well as a human being that gets angry or scared. He pulls off Bonds one-liners with a quiet and dry smugness pull handles the romantic scenes a little uncomfortably. I love his introduction in the p[re-title sequence as he turns dramatically into camera.

2/ The action scenes are the best and most consistant in any Bond movie, since Live And Let Die. From the opening Gibraltar Land Rover chase to the assualt on the Safe House to the Tangiers roof chase; all are well staged, exciting set-pieces. The airfield assualt and Hercules Plane escape provide a rollercoaster finale for the movie while Koskovs defection show just how much more inventive the writers are this time round. The best though is the Aston Martin snow chase. It's great to see a new Aston in action (not seen since those early 60's movies) in a beautifully structured and imaginative display of stunts and practical effects.

3/ The plot, which has two collaborating Bond villains, defecting Russian General Koskov and Arm Dealer Whittaker, brings the franchise kicking and screaming into the modern world. The cold war style narrative, plus the absence of a science-fiction, control the world plot-device gives this entry into the series a fresh feel.

4/ John Barry's score is arguably his best ever (yes, even better than OHMSS or You Only Live Twice). The mixture of electronic with the distinct Barry orchestrations gives an exhilarating soundtrack. He also pushes the Bond theme to the fore, perhaps to make newcomer sound more heroic; but ir works.

As a side note Maryam D'Abo as Kara has the distinction of being one of the most attractive and adorable Bond-girls ever. She is, with the exception of trek across an Afghan airfield, the wettest, most unrelentlessly weak and girlie Bond co-star ever. Bless her.

Is this the best Bond, well there's others I'm fond of too including Tomorrow Never Dies, Casino Royale and On Her Majesties Secret Service. But Daylights was the one that converted me to Bond and saved me from brain destruction in the summer of '87. Having watched the mind-numbing misery of Superman 4, it was a quick visit to the Odeon to catch the next performance of Daylights that saved my sanity. And for that alone, I shall always admire it.

Rock To Which Mountain?

Disney's remake/sequel Race To Witch Mountain must have been made with the aid of a time machine. The concept comes from the original 1975 movie Escape To Witch Mountain. It's designed in a style in keeping with the 1980's and it's imagination tops out around 1987. The directoral style is more contemporary, but not cutting edge; hence a 1990's camera style. Finally it's set in 2009 with stars from this era, including Dwayne Johnson (tough, funny...and should be in better stuff than this) and the ever-better Carla Guigino.

The kids are fine and the plot rockets along in a light, harmless manner. But it severely lacks originality, panders to kids-logic too much and lacks a consistant vision to bring the sci-fi elements to life. The effects are (barely) adequete while the Terminator style baddie is a bloke with a sculpted plastic motor-cycle helmet and fitted overalls on. Very outer space in 1975 but not today.

Have Disney been taking tips from Fox as to how to approach their movies???

Stiller Couldn't Be Stiller

Twenieth Century Fox's current policy is to taylor virtually all of their movie product at all age groups. Even the adult stuff. So when movies are gutted of their edgey or potentially offensive content...or are dumbed down so an 8 year old or redneck can understand the plot and themes...we the audience become fed up. However, there are movies when those effects are deminised because they are MEANT for 8 year olds (and rednecks too if they feel inclined). Such is Night At The Museum 2.

Ben Stiller, and most of the original cast are back in a grand example of sequelitus; bigger, louder with a lot of the same jokes repeated. This time Stiller's Museum buddies are transplanted to the Washington Smithsonian where they fall afoul of Hank Azaria's Egyption baddie (playing it like a camp Jeremy Irons).
A fast paced romp ensues and they all live happily ever after.

Stiller cuts back on his usual schtick, making him a virtually interchangable leading man. Only an amusingly adlibbed controntation with Jonah Hill's amatuer guard works in Stillers favor. Amy Adams is cute and infectious as Amelia Earhart; she's turning into one of this generation best, young character actors. The effects are consistantly high quality and the score lavish.

Like Harry Potter Part One, The Wizard Of Oz or Chronicles of Narnia this is an inoffensive, family friendly fun movie. Of cousre, this being a Fox movie it's instantly forgettable and it wont be competing with Pixar in the quality stakes anytime soon. But the tone is spot on for those 8 year olds.

Very Bad Things Couldn't Be Better

With the similarly themed The Hangover doing the rounds I'd thought I'd check out Peter Berg's Very Bad Things. It's still a great black comedy that fortunately managed to find a great cast. Everybody shines, especially Cameron Diaz as the obsessive Bride to be.

It's been so long that I've seen it I couldn't remember the plot, beyond the basic set up. The narrative twists and turns in the most unexpected and enjoyable ways and it's great to see how simple decisions of selfishness can backfire in very bad ways.
Very black, very funny and very wrong. Great.

Die Hard 2 - Die Harlin !!!

1990's Die Hard 2 feels a little dated but is still a thoroughly enjoyable action thriller. The third best of the brilliant quadrilogy, this has got several pros and cons.

Going against it is Renny Harlin's less realistic take on the subject. It's a bigger but dumbed down version of the first movie. It's also suffering from sequelitus as well...the scripy often has New York Cop, John McClane muttering to himself about how his wife's been 'held hostage' by more terrorists on a different Christmas holiday. Unfortunately it's a contrivance the movie never escapes from.

The pluses outweigh the negatives fortunately. The move to Washinton keeps McClane as an outsider while the airport setting is a work of genius, upping the stakes to an epic level. Harlin directs with considerable style, giving the movie a grimier, gritier quality than before...the snow helping to isolate McClane and his environment further. William Sadler is inspired casting as the brutally professional bad guy, Colonel Stewart. And the set pieces that the airport setting provides get increasingly more grand and exciting as the movie proceeds.

Perhaps because the Bourne movies and Serious Bond thrillers are the order of the day, this overkill of McClane wisecracks seems very 90's. But this is still better than 98% of movies made today.

Cowboys Vs Indians Vs Graboids

Set in the good ol' USA in 1879, The Burrowers follows a group of cowboys and their Native American Indian guide across an Indian reservation as they search for a missing family of settlers. Then the graboids,er, monsters under the ground appear and start killing everybody. Thats about it really.

It stars Tom Cruise's cousin, the immortal Clancy Brown and that twitchy, evil git from The Green Mile. Despite being shot in widescreen and being handsomely shot, Burrowers is painfully slow. It takes forever for a monster attack to occur and you don't get to see the creatures until the finale. At least they're creepy little buggers, coming across like a mutated cave dweller from The Descent.

It's ok but I'd recommend you watch with beer goggles for maximum effect.

Harry Potter & The Two Towers

As TV series Baylon 5 used to say, "life can be broken down into moments of transition or moments of revelation". The episodes in that show used to reflect that; major event episodes were separated by transitional episodes that dealt with repercusions from the previous instalment and set up events in the next revelatory episode. It's the same with movie trilogies too; Lord of the Rings has The Two Towers to transition between introduction and resolution.

If you ignore the first four Harry Potter films (and you can as nothing of great significance occurs!) then the final 3 stories will for a trilogy. 2007's Order Of The Phoenix introduced evil Lord Voldamort as a physical threat to the magic world and 2010's split movie The Deathly Hallows will resolve the saga. So it's up to this years Harry Potter And The Half Blood Prince to make the transition between the two.
And a great job it does too.

All four movies in this 'trilogy' are thankfully directed by the assured hand of David Yates. Half Blood Prince feels like a direct continuation of Part 5 due to the same measured tone and adult approach to the Potter world. In fact, his style is so dark and quiete at times, I'd have thought small kids would stick their noses up at this (but the box office proves otherwise). There's a still quality to the direction that reminds one of Bryan Singer...and like Singer, I hope Yates tries a true adult thriller when his fantasy movie duties are fulfilled.

Like Order of the Phoenix the drama comes from the quieter scenes rather than overblown effects setpieces (although there are a few to pick the pace up occasionally). Hermione's revelation of unrequited love is one, beautifully subdued scene as is Harry's plea to Professor Slughorn for some vital information. The handling of a major character's death is also particularly sensitively handled (there was sobbing in the audience behind me).

A statement that is true for all Harry Potter films, including this one is...the kids are still a little stiff but there acting's getting better. The interweaving of REAL character development in this gives the actors something to get their teeth in to...and under Yate's direction, they achieve it with great subtlety at times.

Because of the transisional nature of the film, Part 6 isn't as strong as Part 5. The main story is very dark and very strong indeed...it's the developing character arcs that interupt the flow. But at least the threat to the magic world by the phantom menace that is Voldamort, is still very much felt...and becomes much more dangerous to everyday lives as the plot progresses. Issues of love, addiction, obsession and even terrorism is dealt with here (Yates has graduated from political thrillers after all).

A thoroughly enjoyable addition to the series. At this rate The Deathly Hallows should be a corker.

Warehouse 13 - Unlucky For Some

sci-fi syf

Some one saw the either Raiders of the Lost Ark or KIngdom of the Crystal Skull Recently and thought, "That would make a TV series!" By adding The X-Files structure (2 government agents investigating supernatural cases each week) around the idea of a warehouse that contains all of America's secrets... the creators of Warehouse 13 came up with the Sci-Fi channels new hit series.

Well, perhaps not. This is X-Files-lite having none of the class, wit, atmosphere or scares of that classic. This is cheaper, dumber and sillier entertainment that wants to be both mainstream ans quirky, but achieves neither. Eddie McClintock gets the 'Boreanez'; role of Pete; slightly smug, cocky, slightly rebellious beefcake. He's partnered with ace, straight-laced Secret Service agent Myka (played by the unfathomably sexy Joanne Kelly). McClintock is fine, if you like Daytime TV style casting. Gorgeous though she is, Kelly fluffs her portrayal of Myka. One minutes she's focused, top-of-her class agent...the next she's flapping and stomping around like a stroppy 14 year old cadet. Very unconvincing. The cast is rounded out by the likable Saul Rubinek as the caretaker of the warehouse.

If you want a great supernatural drama featuring FBI-type guys, wait for the return of Fringe in the autumn. If you want something to take your mind off of ironing your immense under-pant collection...then Warehouse 13 won't offend.

One Small Step For Movies, One Giant Leap For Rockwell-kind

Duncan Jones is the new Neil Marshall. Well, kind of. He's a talented, up and coming British genre director thats produced an amazing film going experience by reinterpreting his favorite movies influences of his youth. Marshall has used American Werewolf, Alien, The Shining, Escape From New York and The Road Warrior in his various endevors. Mr Jones (David Bowie's son, fact fans) has got his own cool movies and TV to reference; Blade Runner, 2001, THX 1138, Outland, The Matrix and Silent Running.

In Moon, Sam Rockwell stars as Sam Bell, the lone human worker of a fuel producing moonbase of the near future. Nearing the end of a solitary 3 year shift, Sam encounters a replica of himself outside the base. Sam's only company is the moonbase computer Gerty, voice by Kevin Spacey.

The movie is dirt cheap, being reduced to the small interior of the base for 95% of the film. But like the best stage-plays, sets make a good movie not...it's the script and the acting talent. Filming his own screenplay, Jones presents an engaging mystery along the lines of an extended Outer Limits episode. Like Martyrs, seen earlier in the year, it provides us with a basic senario...then keeps adding layers and twists and revealations that alter our perception of what we're watching. Even when you've got a handle as to what's going on..there an increasing level of subtext emerging as the 2 Sams deliberate their situation, that keeps you glued to the screen. Even with 2 characters present (or 1 when you consider it's the same person) Jones shines a light on the way humans operate in society. A lot of Philip K Dick issues crop up regarding the nature of an individuals identity...is it due to the memories you have or the life experience that you build up or something more. Corporate influence on society is thrown into the mix as are notions of slavery and freedom. AS a meditation of the human condition, it's excellent, seeing Rockwell presented at various stages of the human lifespan; birth, life and death.

It's made all the more intriguing by the masterful performance of Mr Rockwell who, as anticipated, rises to the challenge of a one man show. He delivers the whole range of emotions from sorrow to joy, from anger to sadness...and all while playing opposite a robot...or himself. It is , by far, the most convincing split screen performace I've seen (and yes, that means better than the Shatner verses Shatner fight in The Undiscovered Country).It's a nuanced performance, broken up by some wonderful funny moments...the best use of a Chesney Hawks song in a motion picture by far.

Despite the low budget, Moon never feels cheap. The interiors are confinded, spoarce and lived in (Outland style) while the Space 1999-esque exteriors, created by Cinesite Effects, are moody and dramatic...cementing the belief that Sam is on the moon...not in a cramped set. Composer Clint Mansell pulls another haunting score out of the hat....if his work on The Wrestler, Smokin Aces, The Fountain and Requiem For A Dream gives you goosebumps...so should this.

Despite this being a minor production, this is a major league motion picture. One of the best of the year.

Thou Hast Been Avenged!!!

Poor producer Jerry Wentraub. In the late 90's the guy must have secured a line of funding for some high profile, big budget blockbusters. One was Soldier, starring Kurt Russell, which originally had an acclaimed script. Alas Jerry hired Paul W S Anderson, the script was rewritten, and the movie was a dog. There was also The Avengers, a major theatrical interpretation of the cult, British, 1960's, fantasy/spy series. Critically savaged and abandoned by audiences at the box office, it was one of the biggest flops...well, ever.

Revisiting The Avengers, it's not a complete write off (it's not Battlefield Earth bad, as we say in the trade) but it is crippled by monumental misjudgements and terrible miscasting...of nearly everyone involved. It's a cool concept, and has a great basic story to base a summer movie on...it's just that the house built on top of it is completely rotten.

The culprits are many. Jerimiah Chechik should never have been hired to direct. Avengers is a quirky concoction the exists in a silly, heightened reality version of England when lap-tops, sixties fashions and 1920's motor-cars co-exist...and Chechik doesn't have a clue how to make it work. You need a director with a vision like Burton, Gilliam or Sonnenfeld to pull it off. John Landis is another helmer whose appreciation for the surreal and humorous would have been suitable.

The pace is plodding and cold. For what is supposed to be shallow, entertainment for the masses it's a cold joyless experience. The visuals are littered with daft, oddball humour and the dialogue is light and frothy...but it's filmed with leaden enthuisiasm you'd be forgiven for giving up 10 minutes in. And many have.

Ralph Fiennes, trying his hand at blockbuster fare, is stunningly miscast as hero, Steed, having not of the presense, charisma, charm or energy the role requires (even original TV Steed, Patrick MacNee, has more impact in 1 scene...as an invisible man than Fiennes). Thurman is better, but overplays the plumminess of her English accent and the cartooniness of her character. Since the audience is completly unable to empathise with either of the leads, we're unable to care about what goes on (as shown in the chemistry free attempts to convince us they're flirting). Connery, as the baddy, hams it up like never before but it's ill thought out attempt to fit into this bizzare onscreen world.

The score is bland (apart from when the brilliant 60's theme kicks in) and the photography, especially in the exteriors, is flat beyond comprehension. The effects are variable, with an inventive but horribly unconvincing mechaical giant wasp attack on the heroes being a lowpoint. At least the production designers have had some success with a snow bound Trafalgar Square, Escher like mazes and deserted London streets. But they needed to push it further to capture our imagination.

Still, it is watchable in a car crash kind of way. The story hangs together ok and there some strangley surreal svenes to keep the attention; the lone, red phonebox in the forrest, the opening English village field-agent test, and the insane sight of Connery hosting a board room of his teddy bear associates.

Like most car crashes you don't want to look at the carnage. But, every now and again, you're compelled to take a peak.

I Came, I Saw, It Kicked My Ass!

After watching the seriously impressive designs and graphics for the new Ghostbusters Video Game, inspiration took hold of my friends and 1984's Ghostbusters was soon hastily shoved into the DVD player.

Now 25 year old, the movie is as funny as ever. Having seen Land of the Lost recently...an attempt to emulate Ghostbusters fusion of talented comedians with a high concept fantasy-adventure, you can see why the original got it so right; it's an adult comedy that kids just happen to love. It doesn't pander to kids. It treats the characters, situations and concept with respect...which means I get the respect I deserve as a viewer.

The casting is perfect with Bill Murray sublime in his landmark role as Venkman, the Ghostbusters natural leader. His dry, sarcastic asides are still gold...but I was suprised at how smarmy and cocky Venkman is. He'd be a slimey twat if you met him in real life, but Murray ensures he's cool, confident and likable. Ramis and Akroyd are more low key in their roles but both deliver some great line deliveries and comedy gems. Even Sigourney Weaver slips into a lighter kind of movie with ease. Also, she's never looked better than here.

The script is perfect...in pacing, characterisation, and orignality. The jokes come thick and fast...they're mostly quality belly laughs... and have proven to be utterly memorable ("Ray. If someone asks you if you're a God...you say YES!"
Ivan Reitman directs with style, but allows the humour to breathe. The New York setting provides the movie with a distinct look and there's plenty of iconic images which have stood the test of time; the terror dogs, the boiler suit uniforms, Slimer, Ecto-1, the logo...all instantly recognizable outside the context of the film.

Ray Parker Jnr's theme song is as fun as ever and it compliments a successful array of other soundtrack contributors; as a collection of songs on film, it's one of the best.

Lets not forget what a great concept this is. Ghost hunting had existed in movie land for decades...but not in the comedy genre. By introducing technology to battle the supernatural, a modern audience is able to relate to 'ghost-busting' in a more realistic way. By adding top of the line visual effects (courtasy of Richard Edlund)it makes it a must see event movie. Mighty clever.

Let's hope then that the long in development Ghostbusters III gets off the ground. Even with the original cast taking a backseat, the concept is so strong and rich in opportunities, it would be a crime to let it wither (but not die...we're talking ghosts you know!)

The Greatest Movie Ever Made

Die Hard, the 1988 action thriller starring Bruce Willis as New York City Cop John Mcclane, IS the greatest movie ever made. It's not the smartest, best written or greatest award winner ever. But it is my favorite movie ever. So, after seeing this masterpiece again, slightly over 20 years from when I first saw it in February 1989, let me see if I can explain why.

From the outset, there's several recognisable, often told tales in the general plot. First off, it's a hostage drama...the kind of which I was always drawn to in UK cop shows, whether it be The Sweeney, The Professionals or Dempsey & Makepiece. It's such a great premise; if the bad guys are holed up with a gun to a hostages head, how the hell does the good guy rescue them safely?
We follow the terrorists point of view quite closely in Die Hard, as they are besieged by the outside LA Police force. I've loved siege movies ever since I got into John Carpenter movies.
Then there's the fact it's a caper movie. Like The Italian Job, The Sting or The Great Escape, the characters are trying to pull of a cunning plan...the details of which will slowly be revealed to us, the audience, as the movie progresses to showcase how darn smart the characters are. So it is here with Hans Gruber and his crew.

The other reasons are in the way it was made. There's the old saying...it's not what you do, it's the way that you do it. That goes for film making and story telling too. Lots of siege movies have been told. Many a caper yarn has been spun. But if you do it with enough originality and enough style, you can create a new and exciting siege and caper movie.

Part of that freshness is bringing hit TV actor, and wannabe moviestar Bruce Willis onboard as reluctant hero John McClane. I was already sold on Willis' tough but irreverant persona due to my love of the 80's show Moonlighting. However by becoming butched up and taking himself seriously in an identifiable, blue-collar worker, everyman role he redefined movie action heroes forever. Looking back at him here, Willis is young and baby faced...the bare-foot, vest-wearing, receeding hairline combination image is now a firmly established movie icon.

But the main ingredient is director, John McTiernan, here delivering his best work. After scoring major points with 1987's Predator, producer Joel Silver smartly nabbed McTiernan again. For what is basically a cops n robbers shhot-em-up, McTiernan give the movie a exhilataring sophistication that few film-makers achieve.

From the films opening scenes you can see his style in play. The main titles 'Die Hard' don't come crashing on screen with an deafening accompanying fireball but in a long shot, in small text with the subtle jingle of christmas bells. In fact, it's amazing how subtle and restrained much of the movie plays (which helps greater range of storytelling on show when the fireworks are delivered). Movement and dialogue is greatly minimised at times, such as when the terrorist take Nakatomi Tower. The terrorist quietly do there thing and when the baddies do arrive it's not with grenades an mortar shells...they just stealthfully slip out of the elevator.
such restraint in an action movie is to be admired.

McTiernan directoral style reminds me of Bourne director Paul Greengrass. In both their movies the action feels frenetic and realistic. Many mistake this for rapid editing (which is a mistake, as it makes for difficulty when trying to follow the sequence of events). Instead they use longer cuts, but keep moving the camera and reframe the action...like when McClane's under siege in the computer room. The camera moves from the exit to his face to the glass and his bare feet. Quantum Of Solace director Marc Forster would cut edit for each shot prompting the audience to think,"Was that an exit sign I just saw?!" It's suprising how slowly Die Hard is edited.

The camera style is part old-school movie making, part documentary style. Characters don't quite fit in the frame, often occupying the extreme right or left of the screen...just like if they'd been captured by a fly-on-the-wall film crew. This same feeling is produced as the camera reframes constantly as if the cameraman is attempting to capture what's really going on before him. The difference here is the camera isn't jerky like a hand-held or steady-cam...it's smooth and graceful in movement. The sophistication of the gliding camera is because it is on a dolly (a crane or support) giving the movie that classy, old-style look. That combination, of documentary and old-school class is McTiernan's visual strength.

Director of photography, Jan De Bont, is also at the top of his game here. Die Hard is it is subtle, pastel hues for the most part, except for small bursts of colour (Christmas lights / Police sirens) that stand out. It has a very modern, gleaming, metal and concrete sheen that still feels vibrant to this day. The backgrounds are reduced to soft focus blurs while key lights frequently create striking lens flares in the frame. The editing is rhythmic..instead of musical beats we get visual ones....the nod of a head, a glance, a signal or a gesture.

Producer Joel Silver's frequent musical collaborator, Michael Kamen, provides a great score. Few of Kamen's scores work apart from the images that they are supporting (Prince Of Thieves is an exception) and Die Hard is no exception. But like his partnership with Metallica on the S&M album, he is a master of providing unexpected and pleasing 'harmonies' to others work. Like the rest of his colleagues on the film, his work is underplayed and subdued...bur interweaves distinctive themes and melodies throughout. The decision to use Beethoven's 9th as the Terrorists theme as a masterstroke.

The groundwork for the story is laid effciently over the main titles as New York Cop John McClane is picked up from the airport while estranged wife Holly waits for him at the work party. Geography, locations, characters, relationships, important story points are all set up in the brief period before Mr & Mrs McClane meet. It also sets up the fish-out-of-water angle with McClane being out of his element in a strange town(L.A.), a strange environment (a corporate christmas party) and cut off from everybody. In this regard Die Hard is like a western; the solitary sheriff rides into town and defends the locals against the marauding gang. It wears the western influence on its sleeve; hence the Roy Rogers references. The story's urgency is enhanced as both hero and villains have clear objectives...plus there's a built in time element as McClane rushes to save everybody, before the plastic explosive is used.

The script has heart too. Al is a tragic figure that obtains redemption. Ellis is a coward, misguided by arrogance and drug-abuse. But the backbone of the movie is a man coming to terms withhis "idea of what his marraige should be".

Eventually, Alan Rickman (charming, menacing and poetic and elegant)and his Euro-trash thieves arrive to disrupt proceedings. The arrival is cinematic and exciting. One of the film's strengths is in it's pacing; it's all in the build up. It's less about the firefight and more about the storys built in tension...will McClane be captured? Will the terrorists discover Holly's relationship with John (that upturned photo looms over the entire movie)? Take the LAPD's attempt to storm the tower with the aid of an R.V. There's very little action involved...it's all soldiers moving into position and the terrorists running down corridors to counter. So when the action does arrive is hardcore, R-Rated brutally that hits much harder than without the set up.

A couple of things make Willis's McClane even more effective. Rickman is enigmatic as Gruber and you really feel this guy is a worthy opponant for McClane (I love the way the camera goes off-kilter as McClane and Gruber face-off at the movie's mid-point). Also, McClane's situation gets evermore desperate as the story progresses (even the police chief's against him) so when he does score the occasional victory, we share his success too. It's also great to have a determined, pro-active hero. So often in movies the villains move the story forward while the hero just reacts without trying to outwit them....until the end, when they're obligated to win.

As with ant great film, there's some memorable moments; Han's creepy, slow motion plummet...Argyal's obliviousness to the terrorit's activities...explosives in the lift shaft...Al's sad story...FBI agents Johnson and Johnson (no relation)...Karl's psychotic 'Fatel Attration', back-from-the-dead climactic moment....and the classic 50's song to close. And many, many, more.

The set pieces are truly exhilarating. By the time you get to the 'double-cross' on the roof...my brains are routinely 'blown out the back of my head' in an adrenaline fueled overload. All the action sequences are effective with each getting progresively more intense. But the combination of assualt weapons, helicopters, shouting...followed by the desperate fire-hose jump and smash into the side of the tower... It technically might not be the best constructed action sequence ever, but it is the most exciting.

So thats my Rob rave rant then. It's the mark of a great movie that you want to rewatch it immediately after you've finished viewing it. Die Hard certainly does that. But there's only a handful of movies that give you the ecstatic sensation of violent brain removal thanks to their stunning execution of action.

The Haunted World Of Del Boy

Ghostboat by George E Simpson and Neal R Burger is one of my favorite novels. An obscure 1976 book, it tells of the USS Candlefish, a World War II sub that resurfaces 40 years after it had been presumed sank. No crew, living or dead remain aboard. Recruiting the only know survivor, the amnesia suffering Professor Hardy, the navy embark on a mission to retrace the final voyage of the submarine in an effort to asertain what happened to her.

In 2007, ITV made a TV adaptation of the book starring David Jason as Hardy. I was was very excited about this. So excited, I bloody missed its broadcast! So I'd thought I'd catch up with it.

Some changes have been made in the adaptation. The ghostly sub is now named HMS Scorpion with the British and Germans now the focus of events rather than the US and the Japanese. The resurfacing of the sub has been shifted from 1974 to 1981 to allow for some present day tension to be created from a Britsh sub carrying nuclear torpedos threatening the Russian coastline at the height of the cold war.

It's still a good yarn and, for a TV production, is well made, designed and shot. But it's directed sluggishly, rarely obtaining the momentum or atmosphere a story of this kind needs to succeed. Worthy but not exemplary.

Live Free Or Have Another Very Bad Day

Despite being produced by Twenieth Century Fox, 2007's Die Hard 4.0 (or Live Free or Die Hard as it was known on the States)is a grand addition to the franchise. Unusually for Fox, or perhaps because franchise guardian Willis held his ground, the producers waited 12 years for a decent script to come along before embarking on this delayed sequel. Fortunately, it's a script which provides a fresh twist on the established Die Hard formula and adds some new sides to hero, John McClane.

Director Len Wiseman (of Underworld fame) gives the movie a cinematic feel and distinct visual signature (lit with grays, blues and harsh blacks). Given its naughties production values it's edited a little quicker than past instalments but never to the detriment of the inventive action sequences. The action set-pieces slowly grow in scale, from a frenzied gunfight in Justin Long's appartment (we dont get to see that much of that kind of thing in movies these days) to a lunatic-conceived sequence where McClane surfs a jet fighter! The best is a sustained sequence involving McClane in a police car versus the baddies in a helicopter. The climatic bit of this scene, as Willis takes ot said helicopter with said car, demonstrates why this movie series is still tops.

Castwise it's pure joy to see Willis back as John McClane; world weary, wise-cracking and relentlessly commited to doing the right thing. Although it's weird seeing McClane as a wrinklie baldie, it's his behaviour that we love to watch. Justin Long makes for a different kind of foil than McClane's has had in the past; one that highlights the characters age. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is smartly (and cutely) cast as Lucy, John's Daughter, giving her the spunk and vulnerability that screen mother Bonnie Bedelia possessed. Cliff Curtis is adequete in the chief authoritarian role while Timothy Olyphont in nearly unmemorable as the villain (a crime in this series). Fortunately some ultra sarcastic asides allow him to be retained in the cerebreal cortex for a bit.

The plot's the same basic structure as before...but at least McClane is doing his job as a cop in this one, rather than just happening across the terrorist while on holiday. It's also clever in the way it introduces the 'bad guys are really only in it for the money twist'...when it seemed that Olyphant and Co are doing the begrudged 'former government employee goes bad' routine from Under Siege 2 or The Rock.

As with many movies these days, the harder cut, DVD unrated version is the one to watch...containing more swearing and violence that you'd expect from an adult, hard-edged action thriller, that were all the othe films in this series.

Yes, after a 12 year wait and a shit studio producing it, this perhaps shouldn't have worked. It's the least successful of the franchise, but with such a high bar set by the previous enties, that's no great critisism. Question is...will Willis ever do a fifth movie and will the studio want to? Well, I want to...

Samuel L Jackson...With A Vengence

Die Hard With A Vengeance, the third movie in the Die Hard franchise, is my second favorite of the series. This is for 3 main reasons.

First off it marks the return of director John McTiernan to the helm, following Renny Harlin who made 1990's number 2. McTiernan is a stylish film-maker whose fingerprint you can spot a mile off. Even with a movie that's both, much talkier and bigger scale, he gives the flick a realistic Euro feel...not quite documentary but not quite conventional film-making either. With cinematographer Jan De Bont off doing his own thing, Die Hard 3 has a much dirtier, earthier look than the first movie...that helps give this movie its own identity.

Secondly is the casting of the unique power-house that is Samuel L Jackson. With John McClane no longer as 'out of his depth' as he has been (it is part 3, after all), giving McClane non-cop Zeus as a partner ensures the original movie concept is maintained while giving Willis a firey foil for the duration.

Finally it's a relief that the script is a departure from the 'terrorist in a building/train/boat' sennario of the past. Thankfully they realised it's not the location (although New York State is the battleground this time) that makes the concept...it's the desperate, lonely cop against the terrorist/thieves caper plot that defines 'Die Hard'. Also, by making this a direct sequel to the first Die Hard, it takes away the credibilty stretching convenience that McClane just happens to be 'in the right place at the right time'.

Michael Kamen supplies the excellent score for the third time, once again incorporating a classical piece of music (this time the song "When Johnny Comes Marching Home").

The first half is flawless as McClane and Zeus are forced to play Simon Says against the charismatic and commanding Simon Gruber (a brillant Jeramy Irons). Once the villain's true goal is revealed, and McClane gets proactive, the set pieces get increasingly more unbelievable... although the story is still very, very strong. I can take McClane surfing a dump truck in a tunnel. What takes me out of the viewing experience is that he's blown out of that tunnel in a jet of water EXACTLY THE MOMENT as Zeus goes driving past. Falling 100 feet to the deck of a ship and surviving also grinds my gears. The climax of the movie doesn't have the action chops it should (the boat explosion seems rushed and anti-climatic and the Canadian chopper shootout seems tacked on...which it was).

Still this is a great action thriller, with huge style, huge characters and a great story.

Kugalsack Attack!

If you've seen Sash Baron Cohen's 2005 hit Borat you know what to expect from 'Bruno'. Shot fly-on-the-wall documentary style, it follows fictitious Austrian fashion icon Bruno as he attempt to gain worldwide celebrity status...by any means possible. As with Borat there's a loose narrative running through the movie as Bruno's assistant tries to make his love for his boss a little less unrequited. After that it's the usual series of comedy skits where unexpecting celebrities or members of the public are duped into revealing their prejudices or hypocitical nature. Or just to make them feel plain uncomfortable or look stupid.

As with Borat, Bruno is extremely funny. You're either crying with laughter, gawping in disbelief at the extent of people's (mainly dumb Americans) prejudicies, cringing as Baron Cohen pushes his targets to physically dangerous responces and squirming as good intentioned people are made to feel uneasy. On the serious side, it's a revealling insite into the mindset of many segments of contemporary culture with regards to celebrity, sexuality, politics, religion, climate change, media and family values.

If there's a downside, it's that Bruno as a character isn't as outright daft and naive as Borat, and so it loses a degree of bite. But thats only a minor quibble; Bruno makes up for it in Hitler gags. The Austrian government are not best pleased.

The Hair-Care Product Sting Caper

There seems to be a certain group of writers, directors and stars in the movie world who are attempting to maintain the intelligence and integrity on show in mainstream cinema. Steven Soderberg, Ridley Scott, The Cohn Brothers, George Clooney, Matt Damon, Christopher Nolan, Leonardo DeCaprio. All are fighting against the studio rot of Bruckheimer and The Wayans Brothers.

You can add to that list director Tony Gilroy and stars Julia Roberts and Clive Owen.
After his critically acclaimed 'Michael Clayton', Gilroy is back with an old fashioned, classy sting movie...with a twist. It follows Owen and Roberts, both ex-intelligence agency insiders who have teamed up and gone corporate to rip off two waring business giants of the drug/personal hygene world.

Like Bryan Singer's Valkyrie, tension is bulit, not through gunfire and explosions, but by plot, character, editing and situations that could go very wrong ...and often do. Like that movie it's confidentely and stylishly shot with a crisp, modern look.
But it's the central relationship between Roberts and Owen that brings the movie to life. Their romance and working partnership is build entirely on mis-trust...allowing for some sparky and unpredictable banter. Tom Wilkinson and Paul Giamatti shine as well as the company rivals determined to out do each other.
Great ending too, although when there are this mant twists and turn in a movie, you begin to expect the unexpected in the last 10 minutes.

So that's one on the score board for the Big Brains. For a measured responce, over to you Michael Bay...

Barrowman's Buttocks Vs Children Of The Damned

Ah, Torchwood. The Doctor Who spin off we all love to bitch about. Of course we love it because someone has at last produced a popular, after-the-watershed, British, science fiction, action series. Unfortunately, where everybody knows that deep down, Doctor Who is for the kids, we can forgive it for it's extravagent eccentricities...Torchwood is for Mummy and Daddy making the frequently barking plotting difficult to swallow. Season 1 was typical of this. Despite promises, season 2 was even more so.

Season 3 tries a different approach. Reduced from 13 to 5 episodes it tells of one alien invasion plot over a week. And by Shatner's Wig, it works! Having bad memories of the BBC's last alien takeover series, Invasion Earth, I was concerned the writers wouldn't be able to sustain one story over 5 hours. But they've apparently learned from their American counterparts with series such as 24 and Lost for inspiration, as the mini-series rockets along, right to the end.

The best aspect is it reminds one of classic british sci-fi of the 50's to 70's. The science. The army. The unseen monster. All are very Quatermass or even the original Doctor Who series, especially as it is serialised with cliffhangers at the end of each episode. The children centric plor reminds me of (the original) Village of the Damned and even Day of the Triffids in it's bleak, helpless to resist, alien monsters narrative.

Barrowman and Eve Myles are engaging as ever, while fellow colleague Jones is as lifeless as ever. The character stuff betrays Russell T Davis's writing being too silly and overtly gay throughout. And Torchwood is still prone to being batshit crazy. The rescue of Jack in episode 2 (I think) defies belief (an elite military group outwitted by a fat welshman and a bloke on a slow tractor is not that convincing). But it does deal with some interesting moral issues especially how our morality is tested when children are at stake.

With the recent budget cuts at the BBC and Russell T Davis's departure at Doctor Who, Torchwoods future is uncertain. However, with high viewing figures and a hugely exciting third series just aired, I'd like to see this back in one form or another.

Lost In The Land Of The Lost

On paper this should have been a monster comedy (no pun intended, dinosaur fans).
Take a director (Brad Silberling), with visual flair and a background in Fx movies (Casper / Lemony Sniketts)...combine it with a big budget...a top comedy actor (Will Ferrell) looking for a high concept effects funride...give them able support with starlet Anna Friel and newbie comedian, Danny Mcbride...and then, as a sure thing, base it on a beloved hit American TV show. And thats how you make a hit movie!

Wrong. Too many cooks spoiling the broth on this one as it smacks of studio interference, and misjudged artistic decisions all over. The tone of the thing is all over the place for one, veering from crass (yey) tits and arse gags to pre-pubesent slapstick. I think Ferrell and Mcbride wanted to make one film while the studio aimed for the child market. Ferrells performance is inconsistant anyway; one minute a intelligent and heroic professor...the next a brailess pleb with no common sense.
Silberling aims for a parallel world that has a heightened reality to it...but can't keep the look consistent. On the one hand are the beautiful location shot desert scenes, complete with Raptors and T-Rex's. There's some amazing photography here. But he undermines it with an abundence of studio bound stage work that is deliberately made to look like it was shot on a set. It's Spielberg's Hook all over again. At least last years Journey To The Centre Of The Earth stuck to it's indoor studio look...not mixing the fantasy world up with a more realistic location shoot.

Unavoidably, the kiddie aspect is enhanced by the alien Sleestacks, the 1950's bug eyed baddies. By this point it's just a pantomime and you'd just wish Ms Friel would strip off for some crude distracting boob jokes.

A faliure, and unfotunately it's not funny enough to compensate for its mistakes. In this age where studios are trying to make more mainstream movies more palletable to a greater demographic...let this be a warning to all who proceed.

Losers - The Story Of Losers

Wanna see a spiritual movie? Don't fancy The Passion Of The Christ? Steven Segal's On Dealy Ground not for you? Then check out Anvil - The Story of Anvil. It's about a heavy metal band, Anvil, that toured with the likes of Bon Jovi and The Scorpions in the early 80's. They predated the big four Thrash Metal bands of the time (Slayer, Metallica, Megadeth and Anthrax) by a year or two. They were highly regarded. They were inspirational trend-setters. Their lead singer, Lips, played the guitar with a plastic dildo. And they failed to make an impact.

Of course, then as it is now, many bands get their break and fail to make the big time (where would the 'line-up' round on Never Mind The Buzzcocks be without it. The difference here is Lips, and fellow founding member Robb, have never given up the dream. This documentary is funny (Lips is sliigghhty crazy), interesting, sad and quite touching as we follow the band trying to make it...one more time.

On every US sitcom you have to have the moment, near the end, where the characters realize moral of the story...you know, like 'never give up, despite the odds'. With out the sentimentality, Anvil IS that moment embodied in full metal glory.

Jacko Of The Dead

Considering the pop culture nature of this blog, it seemed appropriate tp mention the passing of of an important cultural icon; Michael Jackson. Many will sing his praises, and deliberate the controversies of his life elsewhere, but I just wanted to add my perspective.

Pop videos...no one made music videos like Michael Jackson, even if they had money to spend. When an MTV countdown showed the most expensive music videos ever...most were wasteful crap. Will Smith on a speedboat ain't that engrossing. Anything with Mariah Carey is a waste of money. P Diddy...we don't care how much attitude or bling you have. Jackson videos were mini movies. The had plots. They had epic dance sequences, impressive Jackson dance solos, imaginative settings and inventive direction. From the stark sci-fi slickness of Scream to the power of the Earth Song video. From the crazy unrelated collection of scenes in Black or White to the gang-inspired confrontation of the Bad video. Most were memorable. Some were great.

Perhaps intentionally, his best songs were adapted into his best videos. There's the glorious 1930's gangter style Smooth Criminal with it's bizarre gravity defying dancing. In its longer, Moonwaker cut, it goes all Transformers on us, destroying all pop video competition in the process.

But his best is the incomparable, John Landis monster epic Thriller. Landis was at his peak here and had proven himself a master of comedy, horror and the musical (all the genres on show in Thriller). A perfect marraige of music and moving image, it's barely dated despite it starring 'black' Jackson in his red-leather period. The video is so iconic, it's inspired a collection of affectionate homages and spoofs (including the above Final Fantasy DVD extra from the 2000 movie).

Still brings a shiver to my spine, the perfection of that dance sequence. Today, at perhaps this very moment, Jackson is being laid to rest. In three days time, if he were to rise from the grave, if Jacko were to perform this dance, I'd be a happy man.
So would Jackson (no make up required you see).

Dillinger, You Da Mann

No matter how much director Michael Mann denies it, his new gangster flick Public Enemies, has many similarities to his 1995 classic Heat. There's the equal but opposites of the career criminal and hardened cop, both smart enough to realise their obsessions are not the best thing for their peace of mind, relationships or health. Of course, they have one major conversation in the entire movie...and it ends rather badly for one of them (no spoilers here...it's Dillinger...don't you read history?).

After an rambling start the movie starts to click as we get to see how bank robber Dillinger (Johnny Depp) operates and how his opposite number, Christian Bale's FBI go-to guy Purvis, organises his counter offensive. Depp is well cast as the serious but charismatic thief. As the movie progresses we begin to see his love of cinema and how it affects his lifestyle; his choice of women, how he looks and where he chooses to operate.

Whether it's Mann's direction, the structure of the script or the quality of the casting, but I found the Christian Bale side of the story more interesting. Bale's got a reputation of only doing shouty, angry roles recently. Here he dials it back and proves why he's one of the best actors working today. He demonstrates his commitment to his line of work, but he very subtley conveys his doubts, inner-conflicts and insecurities. The police procedural stuff is facinating..seeing how deduction and investagative techniques had advanced by 1933 (they had wire-tapping dontchano!)

Best of all is the decision to shoot this period movie in hi-defintion video, as Mann has done since Collateral. It gives the movie an immediate home video style, putting the audience right in the centre of the action. You feel you're there in the room or standing next to the guy with the tommy gun. The technique removes part of the cinematic barrier which subliminally tells you it isn't real. The result, combined with the detail-obsessed Mann, is an immersive cinematic experience. You feel like you're in 1933. The digital film brings out all the subtle details in the image; individual hairs on a fur coat or the imperfection on a facial compexion.

Goldenthal's music score is sparse, but makes an impact when it appears. Better still is the director's decision to use music of the time, as he did with Miami Vice, to give the movie more texture. The use of Otis Taylor's Ten Million Slaves during the early robberies brings an excitment and coolnes music score alone could not achieve.

An enjoyable movie but not an original or great one. Heat still remains the template for this basic story, being better balanced between the leads and is generally written overall. But I'd say it's Mann's best film since that masterpiece.

M.I.A.: George Lucas

Where is George Lucas? No, not Star Wars director George Lucas who is holed up in Skywalker Ranch in California, producing Indiana Jones movies and preciding over his private technology stretching empire. I'm talking about the angry, uncompromising, experimental film student, George Lucas, who made 1970's THX 1138. Because you would hardly make the connection that the director of The Phantom Menace made THX.

The future world that Lucas presents is a typically stark, early 70's vision of a modernist future. It's a frightening future where corporate mentality has conquered humanity. Everybody is sedated so as to perform with out question, exactly as instructed. This kind of control ensures efficiency is maintained at work and in the factories. In fact, with so much control and technology to support it, there seems to be very little in the way of war, disease, overcrowding, starvation or conflict. But with virtually everybody giving away their freedoms, humans are reduced to a robot-like existance. When Robert Duvall unknowingly comes off of his sedatives, he looks for a better life.

The revelation her isn't the story but the imagination and level of experimentation that Lucas indulges in. It has a cold, documentary feel for the most part...but Lucas throws every editing and sound technique in the book to communicate his ideas. A far cry from the guardian of conventional directing when he produced Jedi in '83.

I don't recall the original cut of THX but the Directors Cut is mighty impressive as George, Star Wars Special Edition style, expands his landscapes exponentially. It works; the new subterrainian cityscape is flawlessly integrated into the original footage.

Great ending too; as Duval make his desperate bid for freedom the authorities call off the pursuit as it's 'too expensive to continue'. Makes you wonder how our law enforcement and prison institutions balance the public's safety from criminals and fugitives against profit.

Disturbia II - The Revenge Of Mr Janssen

There seems to exist a type of U.S. movie that is fully intended to get a cinema release but can't get a major distribution deal. Morgan Freeman makes too many of these movies. They're well produced and nicely made...but lack that stamp of quality OR broad commercial appeal that makes a theatrical release viable for a movie exhibitor or distributor.

100 Feet starring Famke Janssen is one such movie. Take a plot similar to that of Disturbia (Famke's finished her prison term for manslaughtering her abusing husband and is now confined to her house via a tagging system). Poor girl can only go 100 feet from the tag sensor and exceed that for no longer than 3 minutes. Which is fine...unless the pissed off ghost of your late husband shares your abode. Bugger.

It's a fine movie. Eric Red, the writer of the original Hitcher, directs with confidence. There's a serious, thrillerish tone that's superior to the teen-dumbness of a 'Friday the 13th' kindathing. Famke's a solid actress and she carries the film with attitude and with ease. There's a small supporting cast; the lack of characters gives the narrative focus..always focusing on Ms Janssen's troubles. The best idea is to make the ghost someone the protagonist knows, rather than some grumpy spirit that wants the new homeowner out of 'their' house. Adding that personal relationship heightens the stakes...and that's never a bad thing.

If there's a downside it's that the resolution is shockingly misjudged. It's not necessarily the story that mucks up...more the choices the director makes (bad music / poor effects / logic hiccups).

Not a classic by any means...and it's more dramatic than horrific (apart from a marvelously brutal poltergeist attack)...but it is a step above most horror dross out there...even the theatrical releases.