The Beatles: Eight Days a Week – The Touring Years

Dir: Ron Howard

2016

****

The Beatles have had a few feature length documentaries made about them and plenty of television documentary series made as well. In many respects even a typical four hour/four-part series wouldn't be enough time to cover the bands beginnings, middle and end, as well as their solo projects and beyond. In fact, I'm not sure four hours would be enough to cover either of the four members. The Beatles were huge, the only way to make a compelling, fresh and informative film about them, is to concentrate on one single aspect and that is what Ron Howard has done, rather well too as it happens. In concentrating purely on the touring years, Howard has created (and by that I mean painstakingly edited) the perfect linear document of what life was like looking in and looking out for the Fab Four. Howard has previously produced several documentaries and directed his first in 2013 with Made in America - another music based film concentrating on one specific festival, which has clearly put him in good stead to tackle this popular subject. That said, huge credit goes to editor Paul Crowder, who does a stunning job. I think the fact that Crowder comes from a musical back-ground helps greatly. The footage is brilliant, I'm not a huge follower of The Beatles but I hadn't seen most of it and there were plenty of interesting revelations along the way that I'm not sure were common knowledge, even to the hard-core fans. Overall, it's quite a revealing journey of what it would have been like to be touring the globe, being one of the most famous people in the world. The media hung on every word they said and the adoring fans would state their love at the same time as trying to rip them to pieces for a bit of torn cloth as a souvenir, the talking head interviews, recorded throughout the Beatles lives and career, help the viewer understand just quite what that was like and how they coped (and didn't cope) with it. You can speculate just how much the way of life would have brought the four members down and without clear declaration by either of the four men, you can quite easily read between the lines. That is the sign of a successful documentary. What I really liked though was the detail. For instance, I've seen pictures of their famous Shea Stadium performance but never actual footage. It was restored and released especially for this film and it looked spectacular. Now, they could have cranked up the volume and played any one of their recorded hits but instead they tell it like it was, the fact is that in what was the biggest concert of its kind at the time, the live music was pumped through speaker tannoys and it must have sounded awful. Not that I expect you would have been able to hear them over the screaming anyway but in just this one scene, it shows how big stadium gigs developed and just how ridiculous many of the shows were back then. A must for Beatles fans obviously but there is plenty here to enjoy, even if you didn't much care for them. It's the perfect document of how and why the music industry works today and it is fascinating stuff.

Closed Circuit

Dir: John Crowley

2013

***

What starts out as a very shaky example of continuity done badly, soon turns out to be quite an intriguing suspense, albeit with an unremarkable conclusion. It is brilliantly written by Steven Knight, one of the most interesting screenwriters working today, it's just a bit bland when it comes to the direction. I'm glad they haven't thrown lots of bells and whistles at it, and it does remain eerily believable, it's just that there are one too many clichés thrown around that get in the way of all the really clever bits. Eric Bana is miscast, his terrible English accent is a distraction, which is unfortunate when compared to Rebecca Hall's fantastic performance. Quite why Bana's character, a moody and unlikable defence barrister, has to canoe to work (along the Thames) and lives in shed on the shores of the east end docks is unclear, other than maybe that is considered 'edgy' but for me it’s an example of that weird cliché that suggests that great lawyers/detectives either live on a boat or drive a really old car for no other reason than because they are 'different', 'single-minded' and somehow likable because of these things. Looking beyond all that nonsense though is a very chilling plot that is so believable, it's all rather disturbing. If your geography of London is anywhere above intermediate this film will annoy you greatly but if you aren't naive enough to believe that everything our secret service does is above-board, then you will find your ears will prick up. Dodgy performances, bad continuity and a clearly below-average budget can't keep a good story down and it the heart of Closed Circuit is a good story. There is so much I disliked about it if I'm being honest but I still found it rather enthralling. Full of intrigue and suspense, two great supporting performances from Riz Ahmed and Jim Broadbent and a bleak conclusion make for quite the entertaining thriller.

Killer Tomatoes Eat France

Dir: John De Bello

1992

***

I'm a huge fan of John De Bello's Killer Tomatoes series but the fourth and final installment is the franchise at its weakest, as is so often the case. It's not at all a bad film, just not as clever or satirical as the first three. There are actually elements of Killer Tomatoes Eat France that make it one of my favourites in many ways, the main one being that it incorporates many ideas and characters featured in the animated series. The animated series was criminally overlooked and underappreciated in the early 90s, it did everything De Bello couldn't do in live action and it was gloriously silly, as well as being quite mature in what is spoofed and referenced. Its only mistake was to go computer animated in season two but its characters were brilliant. Also, this time round the tomatoes speak English and all have unique character traits, making the film even more of a b-movie farce, rather than a clever social satire. It's all good as far as I'm concerned, although I loved the way the first films constantly broke the fourth wall, I'm glad they didn't over do the same trick. John Astin returns once more as Professor Mortimer Gangreen as does his assistant Igor (played by Steve Lundquist). In this episode, Gangreen discovers that Igor just so happens to own a 'really big' castle just outside of Paris and decides to set up his new lab there just after breaking out of prison. He also soon realizes that Igor looks remarkably like King Louis XVII (also played by Steve Lundquist) and decides to stage a second French Revolution (a reverse of the first one) in order for Igor to take the throne and for them to take over the world from there on. Not quite the political satire of the first but that is a certain something about it. It's a b-movie b-movie from there on really but there are plenty of great lines and hilarious scenes to enjoy, the highlight for me being the giant tomato lurking in the castle awaiting a coach-load of American tourists. The silly humour, awesome puppetry and the brilliant John Astin make it a joy to watch, but the last scene of the film is now a rather sad one, where Astin's Professor Gangreen escapes in a hot-air balloon not before declaring that he'll be back to reap revenge in the next movie, a movie that never happened. A brilliant, funny, intelligent, overlooked and misunderstood series that deserves far more love.

Killer Tomatoes Strike Back

Dir: John De Bello

1991

****

Anyone who ever says something derogatory regarding the Killer Tomatoes clearly either hasn't seen it, doesn't understand it and has a vital part of their anatomy missing, in particular, their funny bone. Attack of the Killer Tomatoes was good satire done on a small budget, while Return of the Killer Tomatoes was epic satire done on a slightly bigger budget. I get the sense that John De Bello had slightly more money for Killer Tomatoes Strike Back, although the film isn't as satirical as the two previous episodes. This time round, De Bello sticks to parodying other specific films (rather than film in general) as well as exploring what I think most viewers who are new to the series expect it to be. The previous films have pictures of large tomatoes with angry faces on them, which were all part of the satire and not really the point of the film. Here, for the first time, the tomatoes have faces and can sort of speak. I'm a huge fan of puppetry so I approve but it was a far cry from the genius satire of the first two films. However, with a cult fan-base and probably more confidence, De Bello indulges himself and really lets himself go and makes Killer Tomatoes Strike Back into the tomato-fest he and many of the fans wanted and expected from the onset. John Austin returns once more as Professor Mortimer Gangreen who is now working in disguise as a Talk Show host with the aim to brainwash viewers and to take over the world with his Killer Tomatoes. Only Police assistant Lance Boyle (Rick Rockwell) and Tomatologist Kennedy Johnson (Crystal Carson) can save the day, with a little help from series favourite FT (Fuzzy Tomato). The film parodies Lethal Weapon, Friday the 13th and features the greatest (my personal favourite at least) spoof of the infamous Psycho shower scene. The references to the two earlier films are a treat for the hard-core fans and overall it's a brilliant mix of silly and clever, and a beautiful ode to mad scientist/monster movies of the 1950s.

Two Rode Together

Dir: John Ford

1961

***

John Ford hated the story, hated the script and hated the end result and only took on the role of director for the money and as a favour to the head of Columbia Pictures Harry Cohn who died a couple of years before the film's release. The infamously difficult director took his frustrations out on the actors, even more so than usual and while his harsh treatment of the cast may have attributed to some great scenes, overall it comes across as an unhappy film, which it undoubtedly was. I don't particularly like or agree with the story, neither did Ford, the whole thing was made with contempt and I felt that while watching it. While it's not quite regarded as the classic John Ford western, it is remembered fondly for the relationship and on-screen chemistry of James Stewart and Richard Widmark, which is undeniably strong. Both actors were approached separately by Ford and told to up their game as the other actor was stealing the show, this clearly worked and both actors said as much years later in interviews. While there are no stand out scenes as far as performance or visuals go, it is still strong, John Ford's average being better than most director's best. From a story point of view it's impossible not to compare this to Ford's classic The Searchers, made five years previous and from a performance point of view, James Stewart's The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, made the following year and also directed by John Ford - although it is amazing the two men worked with each other again, three more times no less (How The West Was Won and Cheyenne Autumn). It says a lot about a film when what happened behind the camera is better known and more interesting than what was filmed but the first half of Two Rode Together is great cinema with two immaculate performances. It's just a shame the direction the story takes sours everything good about it.

Zoolander 2

Dir: Ben Stiller

2016

*

I wasn't a huge fan of the first Zoolander made back in 2001, it has always been overrated and a sequel was never warranted nor deserved. The joke is exactly the same as in the first film, although now there is a new type of male model, one that is a far cry from what Zoolander and friends represented. This is where the idea could have excelled, instead, it wasted every opportunity given and kind of made it worse the more it seemed to acknowledge it. Once more, they attach a nonsensical plot to a one joke idea and the laughter flows exactly the same way that bricks don't. Each and every joke misses the mark so spectacularly, you wonder whether the producers are in fact Max Bialystock and Leopold Bloom, again, in the absence of any real humour the film is instead, littered with an array of cameos, one or two returning from the first film and most being from the world of fashion and so up to the eye balls you wonder if they actually know where they are and what they are doing anyway (and before anyone accuses me of unfair stereotyping, ahem, this is Zoolander we are talking about). They kill off character that might not want to return or who might get in the way fair quickly and we find Zoolander has been living as a hermit (crab, ha ha ha) in the woods since 2001. Billy Zane, for some reason, persuades him to come back to the world of fashion and perform at one of the biggest events of the calendar for a big comeback. His friend Hansel (Owen Wilson) also agrees after being persuaded to leave his orgy of lovers that include a fat man, a small man, a Donkey and Kiefer Sutherland. It's really not funny. There is one seen that involves Hansel's orgy of lovers begging him to come back to them after each member, including the males members, proclaim they are pregnant by holding up all blue pregnancy test kits. Sutherland then proclaims that he lost his, due to doing his own stunts. It is unfunny on so many different levels, indeed, the film finds new levels of unfunnyness. Penélope Cruz returned to English language film in 2016 after a good few years away to do this and Grimsby. I feel she is being taken advantage of and should brush up on her English. The worst cameo in my opinion has to be Neil deGrasse Tyson, who proves that maybe he isn't as clever as we all thought he was. I found no redeeming features whatsoever, I held no emotion to the first film but I still felt sad after watching this awful excuse for a film. So many good careers damaged in such a careless manner, while The Secret World of Walter Mitty wasn't perfect, I'm not sure how you go from that to Zoolander 2 in just three years? An amazing sequel, for all the wrong reasons, and probably the worst mainstream film of 2016.

Zoolander

Dir: Ben Stiller

2001

**

Based on a couple of short comedy skits that Ben Stiller made for VH1's Fashion Awards television specials in 1996 and 1997, Zoolander, a narcissistic and dimwitted male model, is an amalgamation of Calvin Kline models Mark Vanderloo and Johnny Zander. The basic premise of the 89 minute joke is that male models are dumb and vain, that's pretty much it. Mark Vanderloo actually has a degree in history but whatever. Stiller is joined by Owen Wilson who also plays a male model, more spiritual but just as stupid. To break up the one monotonous gag, a plot involving cheap child labour (always a hilarious subject) and the assassination of the Prime Minister of Malaysia and Zoolander's family origins in coal-mining are clumsily explored. I like silly, I'm a huge fan of silly in fact, but this isn't silly, this is stupid and not particularly funny. Sacha Baron Cohen invented his character Bruno a good few years before Zoolander and he lampooned the world of fashion in a far superior, satirical and funnier manner. Will Ferrell plays the bad guy in one of his least funny performances and Vince Vaughn completes the 'frat pack' roster with a supporting performance - indeed, you can't have a Ben Stiller film without at least Owen Wilson or Vince Vaughn appearing in a supporting role or cameo and the same can also be said of either actor. The unwritten rule in comedy film is that when you run out of jokes, you throw in as many cameos as you possibly can, hoping that people confuse humour with familiarity. So Zoolander's humour can be measured by the fact the film contains cameos from Donald Trump and his wife Melania, Victoria Beckham, Christian Slater, Tom Ford, Cuba Gooding Jr, Tommy Hilfiger, Natalie Portman, Emma Bunton, Gwen Stefani, Lenny Kravitz, Paris Hilton, Fred Durst, Lil' Kim, Stephen Dorff, Heidi Klum, Mark Ronson, Sandra Bernhard, Claudia Schiffer, Lukas Haas, Karl Lagerfeld, Winona Ryder, Billy Zane, Donatella Versace, David Bowie (which hurt the most) and a string of people famous in 2001 and now forgotten. That's how funny it was. To be more than fair, the film does have its moments. I don't like comedy based on stereotype if it isn't a clever satire but some of the lines did make me laugh and I quite like Stiller and Wilson, even when they are at their worst. It's regarded as something of a modern classic by some which I really don't understand but I've seen worse.

Herbie: Fully Loaded

Dir: Angela Robinson

2005

*

After eighteen years Disney finally decided to resurrect the Herbie series with a film that might have just killed it off for good. With a horrible title, typical of the time, the new millennium's version of Herbie is all about product placement and ignorance. The way the film makers have made out that no one has ever seen a Volkswagen Beetle before is irritating enough and then to make out that it is an ugly car that no one likes, even though it is one of the most popular cars ever made, is just plain annoying. It seemed a bold and interesting direction to include the new Herbie into the world of NASCAR racing, until you realize that it is just a way of getting as much advertising as possible into the film. NASCAR has always had limited appeal to me anyway, seeing as the cars just go round and round in one big circle. That said, many great films have been made about NASCAR racing, but Herbie: Fully Loaded isn't one of them. Fully Loaded, the sixth Herbie film in the series, doesn't seem to be connected to the previous film although director Angela Robinson has since said that she tried to get original Herbie star Dean Jones to appear but in an undisclosed role. I can't help but think if he'd appeared as Jim Douglas, the original owner of Herbie, it would beg the question of why he would have let the little car go and end up on the scrap heap - for the second time! It would have been more of a cameo I would have thought but due to other work commitments Jones dodged a bullet and didn't appear. It's a bit of a horror all round really, as Lindsay Lohan brings nothing to the role (I think she was on a Disney contract and have little choice), Justin Long was quite good but his lines were not and I sincerely hope that both Matt Dillon and Michael Keaton were paid handsomely as this is a blot on both of their careers. Poor little Herbie deserved better than this, there are even a few scenes where he is CGI'ed, which for me was the final insult. It's such a simple concept, it is amazing how Disney got it so wrong - again, although the money they made would suggest otherwise. The whole thing made me rather unhappy.

The Love Bug

Dir: Peyton Reed

1997

*

I was always quite fond of the Herbie films as a child but frankly, the only reason I sought out 1997's The Love Bug (and I mean sought out because it was incredibly hard to find in the UK when it came out) was because the mighty Bruce Campbell was in it and I make a point of watching all of Bruce Campbell's films, no matter how bad they are. He has been in some real stinkers but he always seems to make them slightly better and The Love Bug is no exception, although it is still a one star film. Peyton Reed's Herbie film is not quite a remake and not quite a sequel, and while it doesn't totally dismiss the events of previous films, it totally ignores any kind of continuity. You get a feeling that Disney don't really care, it's a made-for-TV film, who gives a monkey? At this point I'm not sure anyone did. In the film we learn that Herbie is alive due to how he was made. He was actually crafted by a Dr. Gustav Stumpfel shortly after the Second World War who used magical ingredients and spiritual know-how to bring the little Beetle to life. It all sounds a bit like Nazi experimentation to me, especially when Simon Moore III (played by John Hannah), a racing driver who bought Herbie and rejected him after they didn't get along, tracks down the Doctor and asks him to create a 'Hate Bug' to take on Herbie in road race. The 'Hate Bug' then goes on to kill Herbie, who actually has a funeral half way through the film. It's safe to say that this is the darkest of all the Herbie films. However, when Herbie's original owner Jim turns up (once again played by Dean Jones) he explains that there is in fact a way of rebuilding Herbie to his former glory. I'm not sure anyone doubted Herbie wouldn't survive a Herbie film, at this point the question of why Jim got rid of him in the first place comes to mind, especially if he 'means so much to me' like he states in the film. A Herbie is for life Jim, not just for Christmas damn it! Apart from the Nazi experimentation, voodoo and death of a much loved Disney character, The Love Bug is made up of all the spare parts of the four previous films. Bruce Campbell is visibly uninterested in the film he's in but he still rocks. John Hannah does himself no favours but I like him and even though it raised many unanswered questions I like that Dean Jones came back for a cameo. Everything else was awful.

Herbie Goes Bananas

Dir: Vincent McEveety

1980

***

Widely regarded as the worst of the franchise (at the time of release anyway), Herbie Goes Bananas was always the Herbie film I felt best represented the character. Indeed, Herbie meets what I always thought was a great representation of his human counterpart, a mischievous little Latino boy called Paco. Herbie's original owner Jim has gone but has left his little Volkswagen Beetle to his racing driver nephew Pete. Along with his best friend DJ, the pair travel to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico to retrieve the car and then board a ship to Rio de Janeiro to enter Herbie in the Brazil Grand Primeo. While Pete fakes his love for a young girl aboard the ship with the intention to get her wealthy Aunt to sponsor their race entry, Herbie gets up to shenanigans with Paco, a young pickpocket who smuggled himself in Herbie to hitch a ride, not realizing where they were going. After ruining the captain's costume party, Herbie is tried and sentenced by the captain to be thrown in the sea, in what is the film's weakest moment it has to be said. Apparently the stunt car that they threw over the side was never recovered and I wonder if it was the inspiration behind the rusted VW Beetle seen on the ocean bed in 2016's Finding Dory? Herbie somehow manages to drive underwater to dry land and soon reunites with Paco and the pair embark on a one car taxi enterprise. If it didn't feel like the writers were making the story up as they went along enough, Paco and Herbie get mixed up in a crime syndicate after Paco pickpockets the wallets of three very bad men (played rather well by John Vernon, Alex Rocco and Richard Jaeckel). There is a great scene where Herbie becomes a Matador but the film is generally a bit of a muddled mess. The title Herbie Goes Bananas seems to be, purely because Herbie hides in a pile of bananas in a very short scene, giving even more weight behind the idea that no one really knew what they wanted to achieve with the film and that it was more of a series of scenes, rather than a film with a coherent plot. The last scene, where Paco explains to the group why he refers to Herbie as 'Ocho' throughout the film is incredibly cheesy, and not in a good way. 5+3, as in Herbie's racing number 53, equals 8 and 8 in Spanish is 'Ocho'. Everyone laughs because maths is funny. I'll still defend the film though, it's flawed but it’s innocent and fun and impossible to hate.

Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo

Dir: Vincent McEveety

1977

***

Herbie Strikes Again was always a childhood favorite but there was as something missing from the first film. Buddy Hackett. Apart from Buddy Hackett, the big thing missing, from a story about a little racing car, was a car race. Thankfully, Vincent McEveety's Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo understood this and entered the little Volkswagen Beetle into the famous Monte Carlo Rally, or a slightly made-up version of it at least. Herbie's original owner Jim Douglas (played once more by Dean Jones) returns to the franchise, this time with good friend, and Buddy Hackett substitute, Wheely Applegate played by Don Knotts. Now I love my Buddy Hackett but Don Knotts was pleasing replacement. The three of them compete against various pesky European stereotypes and a woman driver (Diane Darcy - played by Julie Sommars), who obviously doesn't win but falls in love with Jim. Rather bizarrely, Herbie also falls in love, with Diane Darcy's powder-blue 1976 Lancia Scorpion (with sexy yellow and white stripes). The Lancia also seems to possess consciousness as the two cars declare affection for each other by holding doors with one another. Makes you wonder whether Herbie is all that special after all, as nearly every car seems to have the gift of life but when Herbie and friends are responsible for the destruction of so many other cars, it makes you wonder if you're cheering on the right team. Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo doesn't do anything wrong as such but it doesn't quite have the same charm as the two previous outings. The inclusion of the great Roy Kinnear and Bernard Fox as a couple of jewel thieves is a plus but I can't help but think some of the plot was lifted right out of the script of one of my all-time favourite films, made eight years prior, Monte Carlo or Bust! (or Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies as it was known in America). However, I could watch the Herbie films all day (well, the original ones anyway) and Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo ticks all the right boxes.

Herbie Rides Again

Dir: Robert Stevenson

1974

****

In Robert Stevenson 1974 follow up to The Love Bug, it is only Herbie the Volkswagen Beetle who returns. We soon learn that original owner Jim has 'gone to Europe' and his best friend Tennessee has gone back to Tibet to learn more from the monks. Poor old Herbie has been left behind in the care of Tennessee's elderly aunt (played by Helen Hayes) who lives alone in the old Fire station with only a young neighbour (Stefanie Powers), an early 19th-century orchestrion that plays on its own accord (a continuation of the Buddhist reincarnation theory of the first film - although the breed of dog, or indeed species, of the orchestrion remains unknown) and a retired cable car from the defunct Clay Street Line known only as 'Old No. 22' for company. If abandonment isn't enough, 'Grandma' Steinmetz soon finds herself hounded by notorious real estate magnate and demolition baron Alonzo Hawk who wants to knock down her beloved fire station and build a 130-story Plaza in its place. Alonzo Hawk is a recurring villain in Disney films, first appearing in 1961 comedy The Absent-Minded Professor and its sequel Son of Flubber. The great Keenan Wynn played the part both times and also played him in Snowball Express (1972) and Shaggy D.A. (1976) although the character names were changed. It was a great move, considering the gap left by Buddy Hackett's lovable character and David Tomlinson's villain. The film is basically one long series of mischievous tricks pulled by Herbie in order to keep Hawk's hands off the fire station, the best one being a brilliant scene in which Herbie finds himself on the 28th floor of Hawk's skyscraper office after driving onto a window cleaning platform. While Herbie drives around the office causing mayhem, the window cleaning machine attached to the platform comes loose and fills the department full of bubbles. Herbie saves the day once more and sets up another couple along the way, although he doesn't achieve this alone. In what was felt a triumphant conclusion when I was a child, I now see the last scene whereby Herbie enlists the help of every Volkswagen Beetle in the San Francisco area, who all turn out to be living entities as he is, to be somewhat terrifying. They do realize that the Volkswagen Beetle was a product of Nazi Germany and commissioned by Adolf Hitler himself don't they?

The Love Bug

Dir: Robert Stevenson

1968

****

The first film of a beloved franchise, 1968's The Love Bug is a simple, odd but wonderful exercise in anthropomorphic silliness. It combines two of society's great loves; Cars and Dogs. Based on Gordon Buford's novel Car, Boy, Girl, released seven years previous (bought by Disney and never reprinted) it's hard to say how close the story is as hardly anyone has read it. I do wonder whether it featured the reason as to why Herbie the Volkswagen Beetle was a living entity, or if he was at all, I would guess instead that it was a Disney thing. Quite why Herbie was alive was only hinted at by Buddy Hackett's character, who suggested that all inanimate objects have hearts and souls, coming to this conclusion after spending time in Tibet with Buddhist monks. You have to wonder why Herbie becomes close friends with the character, considering he transforms wrecked car parts into sculpture, like some kind of automobile psychopath, that's the wonder of Buddhism I guess, although Herbie does essentially murder a Lamborghini 400GT in a fit of jealousy. So Disney would have us believe that Herbie is a murderous Buddhist and no one ever questioned it. I digress. Herbie adopts racing driver Jim Douglas (Dean Jones) after he defends him in a car showroom. Showroom owner and part-time racer Peter Thorndyke (played by the brilliant David Tomlinson - because all bad guys are British) eventually sells Jim the Beetle after it follows him home, helping him escape charges of grand theft auto. Maybe Herbie, being Buddhist and everything, is actually the reincarnation of a Labrador? Anyway, Jim overlooks Herbie's affections, he then warms to him, especially when he helps him get a lady, 101 Dalmatian style (maybe Herbie is the reincarnation of a Dalmatian?) and then he eventually races him, setting the structure for the whole series pretty much. It's wonderfully ridiculous and 1960s Disney at its best. It made the world want to own a Volkswagen Beetle, live in an old Fire station in San Francisco and have Buddy Hackett for a best friend. You can't help but love Herbie, it's got everything you could want from a movie; Cars, Romance, Racing, Adventure, Buddhist reincarnation of a Dalmatian...everything!

A Farewell to Arms

Dir: Frank Borzage

1932

****

Ernest Hemingway was said to have loathed Frank Borzage's adaptation of his semi-autobiographical novel that covered his time as an Ambulance driver in Italy during the First World War and while I can understand why, I think there is still a lot to be said about it. The one thing Hemingway said he did like about it was the performance by Gary Cooper in the leading role. The author went on to have a rather negative relationship with Hollywood throughout his career but the one thing he insisted on was that Cooper play the lead in the adaptation of his 1940 novel, For Whom the Bell Tolls. The pair who go on to have a life-time friendship, although it was said that neither of them would ever discuss A Farewell to Arms. As good as Cooper was however, I always felt that it was Helen Hayes who really stole the show. Neither character are quite like how they are in the book but is something crazed about Hayes's Nurse Catherine Barkley, and many of her great lines of dialogue were thankfully left in and she delivered them perfectly. Indeed most of my favourite parts of the book are in-tact in the adaptation but certain scenes are mixed up for no apparent reason and the overall relationship between the couple is a little too Hollywood for it to be considered accurate. I'm still surprised that the novel was adapted as early as 1932 as even now the themes are taboo. The parts of the book I found most shocking are all absent in the film, probably for good reason but I would love to see an updated, more authentic adaptation one day. Still, for every scene missing from the book there is a wonderful recreation of one in the film, one of my favourites being the scene in the bar where Cooper's Lieutenant Frederic Henry and Adolphe Manjou's Major Rinaldi go out for the night for a session of heavy drinking and discuss the mystery of a woman's foot in intricate detail, in a manner that only an old soak could. It's the scene whereby you knew it was definitely written by Hemingway but maybe the only one. In avoiding certain subjects and side-stepping around others, the intense romance of the book is somewhat diluted but the performances certainly have the right amount of passion required for it to still be a great film in its own right.

Phantom Boy

Dir: Alain Gagnol, Jean-Loup Felicioli

2015

****

Alain Gagnol and Jean-Loup Felicioli return to the big screen following their hugely successful Oscar nominated 2012 debut A Cat in Paris with Phantom Boy. I have to admit I wasn't a huge fan of their first film, it had a lot going for it but I didn't much care for the style of animation and I thought the story stumbled a bit half way through. I think lessons have been learned but Phantom Boy is a very different kind of story and one that surprised me somewhat. A Cat in Paris was quite an arty noir, where Phantom Boy is a strange sort of supernatural crime thriller. The animation style is similar but more polished and detailed than their debut, less expressionist and more graphic novel, although the villain is cubist. The Phantom Boy of the title is a young boy who is in hospital receiving serious treatment for an illness the viewer is left to assume is cancer. The boy soon develops a way of exiting his body and flying. He can pass through walls undetected and he helps others back to their own bodies who don't realize they are doing the same (although no one ever remembers). That is until a cop, in hospital after breaking his leg during a chase, remembers him vividly. Realizing that the boy could help him track down the mysterious 'Man with the broken face', the cop enlists his help and sends his spirit on observational missions. With only 24 hours to go until the mysterious villain hits the city with a terribly computer virus, the two inpatients have to work fast. It is a strangely compelling animation that actually feels like a proper thriller. Quite how or why the boy manages to leave his body is never explained, one could guess but that only complicates what is a very simple story. I think connecting the child's illness and seeing him as a ghost is incorrect though, I believe the film is meant to be more of a superhero film, the boy's power being in balance with his weakness. Like I said, the reason behind it is never really deemed important, this is a detective thriller first and foremost. I think it could have been darker, the villain in particular had the opportunity to have been something rather iconic but I think the film is marketed at kids, older kids but still family friendly. I can't really compare it to anything else, it's a little bit bizarre and totally original. Much like A Cat in Paris, I liked it but it took a little getting used to. The animation is superb throughout but a couple of the characters let it down somewhat. It's missing that one big memorable scene perhaps but the detail, colour, landscape and composition more than make up for it. I'm looking forward to seeing much more from the directors.

Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates

Dir: Jake Szymanski

2016

**

Jake Szymanski's Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates tells the nearly true story of two brothers who placed an ad on Craiglist in 2013 who asked for two girls to accompany them to their cousin's wedding, all expenses paid. The ad soon went viral and the two brother found themselves on Breakfast television and inundated with offers. They wrote a book about it and this film soon followed suit, however, the story is now heavily fictionalized by this point with most of the factual content thrown out the window. I haven't read the book and I have absolutely no intention of doing so. There is no sweet story to be had here, two opportunistic boys went on a website I still don't understand and then wrote a book about the nothingness that they learned from the experience. Their cousin wanted them to bring specific wedding dates so that they wouldn't pester her female friends, the two are clearly pests with something of an ego problem. They made a lot of money at their cousin's expense too, no shame, all profit. By watching the film I bought into their seedy little word and it made me feel dirty. Beyond all that, the film itself isn't great either but it does have a few positives. Zac Efron is fast becoming a funny performer who is more than just a pretty face and he delivers another good performance. I warmed to Adam DeVine after a while but no immediately, he needs to work on his improv but there was something of a young Dan Aykroyd about him that I liked. I've been a champion of Anna Kendrick's for a while, I think the film is beneath her to be honest, she's cut her teeth in dodgy comedies now, time to stick with the well written films I think. Aubrey Plaza's talents are also somewhat wasted here but she and Kendrick do make a great duo. The film's outtakes are very revealing. The girls are made out to be very laddish in the film, taking on roles traditionally associated with young men. They are essentially supposed to be female equivalents to the two brothers but it is way too forced. In the outtakes Plaza is pushed by the director to make more 'Dick jokes' because Fox likes it. When Plaza says she brushes her teeth with dicks in the morning she is told it is too much. She looks unamused and sarcastically asks 'Oh, Fox don't like that?'. It's frustrating to see and it is amazing how wrong Hollywood keeps on getting the emancipation of young women. Break down boundaries by all means but it doesn't take a genius to work out the real equivalents in the younger generations. It is unacceptable and not particularly entertaining to watch men talk about genitalia (theirs or others), why wouldn't it be the same for women? I'm no prude, I just think it's boring and the desired shock just isn't there anymore. However, there are parts of the film that try to shock and titillate that do work and are funny (the massage scene) but it's never out of sophistication. It's a really old premise, updated ever so slightly with the inclusion of modern technology and what you can now get away with in terms of censorship and acceptability. What makes it fresh is the performances and the ability to ad-lib, and while it's not perfect, it's way better than that of the usual suspects from the Apatow generation.

Oasis: Supersonic

Dir: Mat Whitecross

2016

***

I bought the first Oasis album when it came out and I 'acquired' the second from my room-mate at university but I never felt compelled to buy any of Oasis's subsequent albums, although I did buy the single 'Sunday Morning Call' from their 2000 LP Standing On The Shoulders of Giants. Two good albums and five albums with one, maybe two good songs on them each. You won't hear much said about the last five albums in Mat Whitecross's Oasis: Supersonic documentary though, mainly because Oasis themselves are still living in the past and still think they are as important as they did when they were cocaine-fuelled twenty-somethings. I've been to see hundreds of bands at hundreds of gigs and Oasis were one of the worst bands I ever saw live. The truth of the matter is that there were loads of great bands not getting the recognition they deserved back in the early 90s, the big labels were playing safe and the independent ones were stumbling in the dark, sometimes getting lucky but more often getting drunk/high/bankrupt/all three. Oasis weren't cutting edge, they weren't doing anything particularly new, they were mainstream all the way and the attitude and the two fingered salutes to the press were all part of the lazy marketing. I learnt an awful lot I didn't know about the band regarding their early days and what happened behind closed doors but in truth this film is a complete whitewash. It makes out that Oasis are a huge band that the world is waiting, with bated breath, to return once more to glory, and while many would be happy, I wonder whether the band are holding back because they know, deep down, that they really never were all that. Britpop was a media pop-word, it is meaningless other than it marked the time when really good indie music was commercialized and made mainstream. None of the bands really had anything in common and all the great bands split up just before hand. The people of the world that think that the bands associated with Britpop were really the best of British are probably the same that think we all still go to work in bowler hats and cried the day Margret Thatcher died. Apart from a few early days’ revelations and behind the scenes footage, this film doesn't really reveal anything particularly interesting. I'm not sure if all concerned are aware but while declaring just how wonderful Oasis was (in their minds) they actually show lots of examples of why they weren't great, and why they were actually close to awful. Any admiration I once had for the brothers' Gallagher went down two notches while watching, I had no great feelings of nostalgia and I still didn't like the songs, even having not hard them for over a decade. It's a half story by a couple of egotistical d**kheads with delusions of grandeur, yes they sold lots of albums but so did the Crazy Frog, people are idiots. From a technical angle however, the film is very well put together and edited brilliantly. I don't like the subject much but the documentary itself is crafted well.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

Dir: Glenn Ficarra, John Requa

2016

****

Glenn Ficarra and John Requa's war correspondent comedy was one of 2016's best under the radar hits. Based on the memoir The Taliban Shuffle: Strange Days in Afghanistan and Pakistan by Kim Baker, it follows her transition from daytime news television presenter to war correspondent. Wanting an escape from her unfulfilling life and career, and being one of few staff members at her channel who are unmarried with no children, Kim takes a short assignment in Afghanistan that develops into years spent in one of the strangest places in the world. Kim discovers that life as a war correspondent is one of two halves; the danger of shadowing solders under fire and interviewing questionable politicians and the long nights of heavy drinking, parties and sex. Kim befriends BBC reporter Tanya (a previous inspiration) and Scottish photographer and letch, Iain and her life at home becomes something of a distant memory until a kidnapping, a double-cross and the end of the war is declared. It's a funny sort of film really, serious but also a little surreal. It's probably a more honest account of the life of a journalist just about on the right side of enemy lines during a forgotten war as we're ever likely to see, with real people in a weird situation. The obsession and risk that war correspondents take are covered well but without being overcooked for dramatic effect. It's a good balance of funny and informative, with genuine moments of intensity, suspense and believable drama. It's a shame really that more people weren't talking about it, it's the best performance by Tina Fey so far and everyone was talking about Margot Robbie's Harley Quinn when they should have been talking about her role here. Glenn Ficarra and John Requa have a strange portfolio, after working for many years writing for Nickelodeon they wrote Bad Santa, I Love You Phillip Morris and then Crazy,Stupid Love, three great films but not particularly similar in either style or humour. They're the new kings of quirky it seems, you can't really compare their work to anyone else's and I think that's why I like them so much. I suspect the title of Whiskey Tango Foxtrot (WTF) may have put a few people off the film, indeed I’m not sure the film was marketed very well but it is a very competent war film that covers pretty much every genre and emotion in one way or another while feeling fresh, somewhat surreal but totally believable. It's worth watching for Alfred Molina's performance as Afghan Attorney General Ali Massoud Sadiq alone to be honest.