Evil Ed

Dir: Anders Jacobsson

1995

**

1995's Evil Ed is something of a cult classic. It's not that great a film however, but then some of the worst films can also be the most important. Evil Ed is a student project that took five years to complete and it absolutely looks like it. However, it is also a cutting satire directed towards the harsh censoring that the Swedish Statens biografbyrå (Cinemabureau of the state) ran from 1911 until 1996. The bureau was dismissed in 2011, being the oldest film censoring organization in the world. Anders Jacobsson and his crew were publicly ridiculed by the head of the Swedish Film Institute on national television, which made them heroes of independent film. The fact that their film came out just one year before the Cinemabureau's decommission is seen as something of a victory and it is definitely something to remember and celebrate. It is shame then then that it's not very good. I like the idea though - the opening scene showing a horror editor of a production company going slowly mad and biting down on a hand grenade after editing far too many horror films, specifically the fictional Loose Limbs series. When the soulless head of company find himself of an editor quick, he borrows Ed, a gentle man who edits the studios more family friendly released. Playing on the idea that watching too many horror films will turn you into a murderous psychotic villain, Ed soon turns into a murderous psychotic villain. The first half of the film is, rather ironically, a badly edited mix of horror scenes that are from the fictional Loose Limbs films. It is clear these were made years apart from each other, one is a splatter tribute, one is a 'creature' tribute and one is a slasher tribute. Ed himself then snaps and the film touches on slasher, splatter, haunted house (or asylum/hospital in this case) and vampirism - or at least I think that is what it is supposed to be. There are also a clear Evil Dead reference (one of many) with the addition of a classic Raimi deadite. It is quite clearly a tribute film but the fact that every wall visible has an Evil Dead poster on it is a little heavy handed and it almost makes it look more amateur than it already does. I have no issues with independent horror films, in fact I love them, but the script has to be right, it's the one thing money can't buy, so there really isn't an excuse. The effects aren't too bad either, a lot ended up on the editing room floor but was returned quite nicely in the special edition. It was originally recorded without sound as they always intended on dubbing the dialogue, and while the voice over work isn't great, the sound effects are wonderfully old school and very effective. I'm not sure it really deserves its cult status, credit to what it achieved but as a standalone horror film it's not as exciting as it is original.

Ghost in the Shell

Dir: Mamoru Oshii

1995

*****

Mamoru Oshii's cult hit Ghost in the Shell (known as Mobile Armored Riot Police: Ghost in the Shell in Japan) is the seminal adaptation of Masamune Shirow's popular MANGA comic. It was a Japanese and British international co-production that was produced by Kodansha in association with Bandai Visual and Manga Entertainment, with Production I.G serving as the animation studio. The futuristic computer heavy story revolves around a public-security agency, Section 9, made up of cyborg operatives and their hunt for a mysterious hacker known as the Puppet Master. With the assistance of her team, Motoko Kusanagi tracks and finds their suspect, only to be drawn into a complex sequence of political intrigue and a cover-up as to the identity and goals of the Puppet Master. It’s classically dystopian, like a George Orwell or Ray Bradbury, with a strong Philip K. Dick influence but it is also way ahead of its time and the science behind the idea doesn’t seem fictional at all. The philosophical themes of the film, including self-identity in a technologically advanced world, is where we are at all these years later. It’s one of the various reasons why it fast became considered to be one of the greatest anime films of all time, its visuals are stunning, all achieved through a combination of traditional cel animation and CG animation. The film has served as inspiration for filmmakers such as the Wachowskis, the Matrix being an obvious offspring of Shirow's original idea. Mamoru Oshii has since stated, "My intuition told me that this story about a futuristic world carried an immediate message for our present world. I am also interested in computers through my own personal experience with them. I had the same feeling about Patlabor and I thought it would be interesting to make a film that took place in the near future. There are only a few movies, even out of Hollywood, which clearly portray the influence and power of computers. I thought this theme would be more effectively conveyed through animation." Oshii expanded on these thoughts in a later interview, noting that technology changes people and had become a part of the culture of Japan. He commented that his use of philosophy caused producers to become frustrated because of sparing use of action scenes. Oshii also acknowledged that a movie with more action would sell better, but he continued to make these movies anyway and a global following of fans are glad he did. As far as I’m concerned it goes Metropolis (1927), Blade Runner, Ghost in the Shell. I’m not sure The Matrix actually comes into the equation. Masamune Shirow struggled initially to make it neither too complex nor too simple, I believe he succeeded in answering big questions within the smallest of details. It was important for the development and progression of story that the audience would just except that the world is like this in the future without answering all of the many questions they would have. Shirow answered these questions by quietly asking the reader to heighten their observations, Oshii even more so in his adaptation. The viewer doesn’t even have to read between the lines, it’s all explained if you are willing to listen. It’s one of the reasons it has become such a cult hit, however, there are still many new questions raised that are left open to interpretation. You could write a dissertation on the complexities of the story, I’d bet good money that someone already has. Fans of the original were left disappointed at the removal of a certain sex scene from the comic series but by and large the adaptation was seen as something of an improvement. The visuals are stunning, the sound and the music are wonderfully indulgent, the score, composed by Kenji Kawai, includes an ancient Japanese language in a wedding song that serves as a key piece of music leading up to the climax of the film. It all works together beautifully. I’m not the biggest anime fan in the world, indeed, my anime tastes are very specific but Ghost in the Shell is right up my street. The various sequels, sort of sequels and series are good, and I really liked the live action 2017 remake, but nothing compares to the original. Hugely influential but rarely bettered.

Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children

Dir: Tim Burton

2016

****

While Ransom Riggs's initial story may not sound particularly original, indeed, the 'Young Adult' genre is flooded with spooky fantasy, time-traveling sci-fi and 'the chosen one' themed adventure, but I would argue that his is far superior to most others. It is the perfect story for Tim Burton also, and it feels like something of a return to form for the kooky director. I really liked Big Eyes (2014), proof that he was still a great director but it wasn't classic Burton that we all know and love. I quite liked Frankenweenie too but it felt like unfinished business, moving backwards rather than forward. I think before that the last film of his I liked was 2003's Big Fish - which again didn't quite feel like one of his films, and the last film of his that I loved was 1996's Mars Attacks and that was twenty years ago. He's back though with Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children, although this typical humour isn't there and the mood is far darker than it has been before. It's almost a showcase of all of his talents and his collective visual flare can be seen throughout. I saw Beetlejuice in there, definitely some Edward Scissorhands, a bit of Sleepy Hollow and Big Fish, Big Eyes, dark Shadows and even Mars Attacks. No Batman or Pee-Wee Herman though, but that would have been ridiculous. A return to form indeed. In all seriousness though, it does look good, with all the visual flare you could hope from the cult director. Composition and visual flare aside, there are some wonderfully unexpected scenes that took me by pleasant surprise that I would never associate with Burton. It was like visiting an old friend but without any of the forgivable clichés you might expect. It's really scary too. Burton's films have been known to frighten but generally there is humour there or something sweet to take the fear away but here it is full on dark terror. Refreshingly creep stuff, that's for sure. There is an element of humour when it comes to Samuel L. Jackson's Mr. Barron, but then he isn't meant to be an all evil, all powerful, unstoppable villain, he's just a shapeshifter that likes eating children's eyeballs is all. The only problem I had with the film was the clumsy narrative. It was particularly confusing towards the end of the film, I had to just detach myself from the sudo-science of it all and just take it for granted but by the end I was left with many unanswered questions, ones that I found to be particularly bothersome. Also, my favourite scene of the whole film was also the scene that bothered me the most. Towards the end, the Hollows (think The Slender Man but not as well dressed) fight a group of resurrected skeletons (ex-passengers of the sunken RMS Augusta - that may or may not be based on the RMS Empress of Scotland?) on Blackpool pier. Burton once listed The Golden Voyage of Sinbad in his top 5 favourite films of all time and is clearly a big Ray Harryhausen fan and this scene is clearly a huge tribute to the man and his work. It's glorious, except it was given a fast-paced dance soundtrack that sounded beyond awful. A very strange and unfortunate move. The ending was rushed, while the beginning of the film was rather slow. A few tweaks and it could have been perfect. I'm not sold on Asa Butterfield just yet but Ava Green was perfect in the titular role. Terence Stamp, Judi Dench, Chris O'Dowd, Samuel L. Jackson and Rupert Everett make for quite a wonderful mixed bag of talent and each actor is given a role perfectly suited to them but not necessarily as we've ever seen them before. It's really not perfect but I think that's what I liked about it, it was original and cliché-free. It ticked all the right boxes for me, I have no idea how much of an authentic adaptation it is but I really felt that Burton was back where he belonged but also trying something new.

Congo

Dir: Frank Marshall

1995

***

Bruce Campbell, Michael 'Jurassic Park' Crichton and a talking Gorilla? In 1995 this was an irresistible mixture and even though it was something of a let-down, I've still got fond feelings for Frank Marshall's odd adventure. Marshall, along with wife Kathleen Kennedy, produced some of the best, most iconic films of the 1980s and 1990s, and Marshall directed the surprise hit Arachnophobia in 1990. Michael Crichton wrote The Andromeda Strain, Westworld and the screenplay to Coma. Bruce Campbell is a B-Movie god and everyone likes monkeys - talking monkeys even more so, especially cute ones wearing back-packs called Amy. The film also stars personal favourites including Ernie Hudson, Tim Curry, Joe Don Baker, Joe Pantoliano and Delroy Lindo, as well as the voice of Megatron himself, Frank Welker. The problem is the screenplay was from by the same guy who wrote Moonstruck. I'm not hating on Moonstruck - at all - John Patrick Shanley just wasn't the first person I think of when I think Adventure film featuring killer Silver-back Gorillas. Also, Bruce Campbell is in it for around three minute’s tops. Laura Linney, Dylan Walsh and Grant Heslov are good in their main roles and Ernie Hudson and Tim Curry are wonderfully over the top in their performances but there was always a certain level of disappointment for me that the great chin himself didn't have a larger role. Two years after the great Jurassic Park, Congo had to impress but unfortunately it just doesn't compare but looking back at in now I think the response was harsh. It really isn't a masterpiece or even above average in its genre but there is a certain charm about it that makes me watch it every time it is repeated on television. Bruce Campbell might only be in it for three minutes and it might not be the most faithful adaptation of Michael Crichton's novel (it really isn't anything like it) but it does have a talking gorilla in it and one out of three isn’t bad. It isn't the big blockbuster everyone had hoped it would be but it is a damn fine B-Movie and that's okay with me. Jurassic Park is just a B-Movie that had millions of dollars thrown at it after all. It was up against Braveheart, Batman Forever, Apollo 13, Judge Dredd and Pocahontas. That's a popular superhero franchise, a Disney film, a hotly anticipated comic adaptation, a Space film starring Tom Hanks at the peak of his popularity and Mel Gibson in a skirt back before people started hating him. I feel a bit sorry for poor old Congo. They might have miss-sold the finished product but I think the camp performances, reassuringly familiar formula and Amy the talking gorilla actually went a long way in making up for it. Bruce Campbell is only in it for three minutes but Bruce Campbell is still in it, obviously improving the film by at least one star. Congo is that little kid in the playground wearing the superman costume getting picked on. He can come to my birthday party if he wants.

Life

Dir: Anton Corbijn

2015

***

It’s no real surprise that Anton Corbijn has an interest in the relationship between Life photographer Dennis Stock and screen legend James Dean as, some twenty years later, he found he had a similar relationship with musician Herman Brood and His Wild Romance. Dennis Stock found James Dean by chance when meeting him at one of Nicholas Ray’s parties. Many future super stars were there but Stock found himself drawn to the rather subdued Dean. Life magazine took a risk on it, just as Warner Brothers were taking a risk on Dean and Stock’s photos of Dean became a hit. They are considered as something of a revolution in terms of modern photographic portraiture and are still the template of modern photography. Corbijn took a similar path and would work closely with music stars, contributing regularly with the NME (New Musical Express) and The Face. He would not have had the opportunity had Stock not taken his infamous photos of James Dean. The photos themselves seem a little unordinary, but that is exactly why they were so striking at the time. A non-posed photo was considered a waste of film, big stars didn’t have their photos taken while reading or getting their hair cut. Stocks photos made Dean seem approachable, which he was in real life, and this was appealing to a mass audience. They’re great photos, undeniably some of the coolest ever taken, but then they all have a 1950s backdrop and they’re all of James Dean, so it’s unsurprising, but is that because they just are or is that because of Stock’s photos specifically? I think it probably is and Corbijn clearly thinks so to, although he doesn’t push that message as some sort of agenda. I’m not sure what his agenda is really, I’m not sure he really has one. Dean’s premature death isn’t explored in the film whatsoever, and we only see or hear aspects of the films he appeared in by name and the odd addition of a fellow actor, producer or director. The film is very much about the relationship between Dean and Stock, and in many respects that’s where the film fails. What relationship? Where they close in real life, because I’m not really seeing it in Corbijn’s film. All I see is a troubled photographer having to deal with an intelligent but arrogant would-be film star. Was he arrogant? Many people believe that he was undiagnosed bipolar and had a lack of social skills which I don’t think were ever addressed. Robert Pattinson doesn’t really do much, the script doesn’t ask much of him and ended up feeling sorry for him. Dane Dehaan makes a surprisingly better James Dean than I thought he would but he still looks like a twelve year old pretending to be James Dean, even though he was two years older than Dean was when he played the part. The direction is superb, with beautifully rich muted colours and perfect composition. I expected nothing less from one of the world’s most talented photographers but there is still nothing of much interest really in the overall film. Ben Kingsley is brilliant as Jack Warner and has all the best lines, Peter Lucas makes a pretty good Nicholas Ray and I hope the 99 year old John G. Morris got a kick out of Joel Edgerton’s portrayal of him but the less said of Eva Fisher’s Judy Garland and Lauren Gallagher’s Natalie Wood the better, even if they were minor roles in relatively short scenes. It didn’t need to be all singing and all dancing, and it certainly isn’t, but there is a certain something about Life that is compelling. It looks glorious, and that is why I rate the film as high as I do, but I would have liked a little more substance.

Purple Rain

Dir: Albert Magnoli

1984

*

Prince is, and will always be, a legend and a pop icon. However, his 1984 musical Purple Rain will always be a huge pile of awfulness. It may well feature classic hit songs, most of which I like, but the story and the acting are among some of the worst committed to celluloid. The film stars Prince in his acting debut playing 'The Kid', a quasi-biographical character who sings as a regular in a club but is looking to be replaced by the club's manager. When not singing or driving around on his purple motorbike, 'The Kid' lives with his mother and abusive father in their basement. He's 26 years old, clearly has money (designer clothes, purple motorbike etc) but still lives with mum and dad. He meets a young girl called Apollonia who clearly worships him and makes her strip next to a lake before ridiculing and abandoning her. He later punches her in the face. A bit odd for a man who admits in the film that his own father used to beat his mother. His father also shoots himself in the head, something that didn't happen in real life. Now like I said, I'm not a huge Prince fan but this film did not make me warm to him much. The band members (The Revolution) played themselves, indeed Clarence Williams III, Olga Karlatos and Apollonia Kotero were the only professional actors in the entire cast, and The Kid's treatment of Wendy and Lisa in the film is pretty much how Prince treated them in real life. Like a jerk. When The Kids and the band receive success and a standing ovation following their final show I didn't feel happy at all, I simply though yeah, it does seem to be the assholes who somehow become the most successful. It was a cheap and easy way to showcase Prince and sell some albums, and that is exactly what it did. The film grossed more than $68 million at the box office in the United States and over $80 million worldwide, thus making a large profit on its $7.2 million budget.The film won an Academy Award for Best Original Song Score, the last to receive the award. It was written by Albert Magnoli and William Blinn, and produced by Prince's managers Robert Cavallo, Joseph Ruffalo and Steven Fargnoli. Prince developed the concept during his 1999 Tour. The original script by Blinn was darker. Later Magnoli was brought aboard and rewrote it. The film was directed and edited by Magnoli who had next to no directional experience. Blinn was an established writer and work on some of the best TV shows of the 60s and 70s, everyone else was winging it and it shows. Prince intended to cast Vanity, leader of the girl group Vanity 6, but she left the group before filming began. Her role was initially offered to Jennifer Beals (who turned it down because she wanted to concentrate on college) before going to Apollonia Kotero, a virtual unknown at the time. Prince had seen her appearance on the February 1983 episode of Tales of the Gold Monkey, in which she played a saucy island girl who was sleeping with a German man of the cloth. Excluding Prince and his onscreen parents, almost every character in the movie is named after the actor who plays him or her, adding to the amateurish feel of the movie. After the character change from Vanity to Apollonia, the script was drastically revised, and many dark scenes were cut. Some of these scenes include Prince and Apollonia having sex in a barn (a concept which was the story behind the 1985 song "Raspberry Beret"); Prince going to Apollonia 6's rehearsal and engaging in a physical fight with the members of The Time; and a scene which featured Prince's mother talking to him about her shaky relationship with his father. There was a second love scene that was not included in the final cut of the film. This scene has special meaning because it contains the actual illusion of the purple rain. A snippet of this scene is included in the theatrical trailer for the film as well as the When Doves Cry montage. This scene, as well as the other deleted footage that led up to it, is also outlined in the film's screenplay found on various websites. It is rumored that this second love scene almost earned the film an X-rating although it's unclear as to whether this scene was actually included in early edits of the film or actually submitted to the MPAA. Why cut the 'Purple Rain' scene or make it so unsaleable. It's an awful film made by amateurs. Great songs, and I understand the ultra-camp appeal but it is taken far too serious for me to even sit back and laugh at. It's pretty nasty in places and I really didn't care for it. Listen to the album instead, super-fans will probably disagree.

Sully

Dir: Clint Eastwood

2016

***

Clint Eastwood's 2016 adaption of Chesley Sullenberger's hit autobiography 'Highest Duty' that he co-wrote with the late Jeffrey Zaslow, is refreshingly subdued, particularly given what Sullenberger is most famous for. Chesley Sullenberger, or Sully as he is best known, is the talented hero pilot who, with the assistance of First Officer Jeff Skiles, landed an A320 Airbus on the Hudson River, saving the lives of all 155 people on board and preventing even more loss of life, had the plane crashed on land. The typical Hollywood biography might see Sully as a young man, then as a young pilot etc and would follow a linear path, ending with the famous landing on January 15, 2009. Eastwood doesn't do that, instead, the film begins with the famous incident, at a level most people know of, and then revisits key moments and explores details that most people are unaware of. I had no idea for example that his actions were ever under scrutiny. This is because they weren't, at least not how the film suggests. Every incident needs a full investigation and it is totally understandable that simulations were needed to verify the need and justify Sully's emergency landing. If he really had no other choice then he would be a hero, if however he could have avoided landing in water, a move that has never worked in aviation history, then he would and should have to take responsibility. So of course he was investigated, but the National Transportation Safety Board are depicted in quite an antagonistic light, one that is completely unfounded. Sully himself had reviewed an early draft of the script, which identified NTSB investigators by their real names, and asked that these be removed. He felt that the real-life investigators "were not prosecutors" and it was not fair to associate them with changes in the story to depict "more of a prosecutorial process". So the very man who the film is about has basically said this aspect of the film is fictional. Why do that? Is this what modern audience’s desire in this day and age, a hero story that we can't fully enjoy without outdoing someone? Is this a dig at modern day health and safety by an aging right-winger who hasn't quite finished preaching? I think so, Mr Eastwood can protest that he's neither right nor left-wing, a Libertarian etc but in all the films he has directed there is an underlying message, an antagonistic jab where there just isn't a need for one. He lost my respect and faith in him when he declared American Sniper to be one of the greatest (and misunderstood) anti-war movies of all time. Pull the other one Mr. Eastwood. Anyway, back to Sully, I thought most of the film was an interesting look at the details that resulted in that miraculous landing. It is tarnished by Eastwood stupid tampering but the editing and structure of the film is actually rather brilliant. The performances are also brilliantly subdued and there is little in terms of false emotion or in emotional blackmail. I just don't understand why such a great story needed elaboration. Hollywood tampering in true stories needs to stop before every single film becomes the same, Sully is a good example, otherwise you should just make a documentary. Credit it due to editing, screenplay and performance (Ton Hanks and Aaron Eckhart are on good form), but shame on painting good people as villains, especially when the actions of those good people have saved many lives.