ProperCharlie Reviews

Control (2007)

A clear view of a broken soul

[8/10 · 17 October 2007]

There's something about crystal-clear, black and white, beautifully composed, cinematography projected digitally that penetrates the soul.

In this case the souls illuminated are the same souls behind the writing, production and music of the film. That people are willing to open themselves up to such stark melancholy speaks volumes of the impact the life of Ian Curtis had on those who knew him. For those of us who knew him solely through his music and the press, this film serves as explanation of, an epitaph for, and an entrance into a troubled mind.

It's interesting that the illness that's focused on in Ian Curtis's life, is epilepsy. For me, what screams from the screen from the very first shots of the teenage Bowie fan in his room, is the depression and isolation that he grew up in and ultimately failed to deal with. Rarely have I seen depression portrayed so truthfully and compellingly on screen. Unflinching in showing us how he felt; that everyone wanted something from him, how no one could see the real him underneath, how he couldn't cope with both needing people around him and wanting to be by himself. He had no escape. Not from his marriage, from the band, from Macclesfield. We see this right up to his death, watching a film in which even a misfit manages to escape a life of alcoholism and imprisonment with only the help of a prostitute and a dancing chicken. This is not the 'Shawshank Redemption'. His ultimate way out was the only one he could see.

The greatest praise I can give this film, above even the great performances from the cast, is that it feels like it was really made in the early 80s. It has a BBC2 clunky-kitchen-sink quality ('Come to bed Ian'), that I think may be accidental, but to someone like me who lived in the UK at the time, is more redolent of the era than the twin-tub, pay-phones, and Andrew's Liver Salts in the medicine cupboard combined. It took me to another era of film-going altogether.

More plaudits for letting the actors perform the music themselves, adding authenticity to their roles and an evenness to the musical performances. Even more plaudits for having 'Love Will Tear Us Apart' as the only exception to this. Listening to Ian Curtis sing the words he wrote about the situation unfolding on screen before us in the sharpest of focus brings the pain he felt cutting clearly and directly into the hearts of everyone who watches this perfectly melancholy film.

The Red Angel (1966)

Surviving Hell.

[7/10 · 21 September 2005]

'Akai tenshi' is one of those films you see and you suddenly realise where so many strands of modern cinema have their roots. The images on the screen morph into that latest multiplex blockbuster, art-house cult or imported favourite. Here is the ancestor of the recent Japanese horror boom. There is a 'war is hell'/'madness of war' theme of a distinctly Vientnamesque cast. There's drug dependency, gang rape and there's more than a flavour of Tarantino. And this was made in 1966.

The start is where the grotesquerie starts. This is a field hospital in a bloody war. A charnel house with en suite morgue. The doctors struggle to keep up. Buckets fill with amputated limbs, often chopped off with out anaesthetic. Worse still the sounds of a surgical knife going through a thigh followed by a bone saw through femur. And concordant with the obscenities of mass butchery, the emotional detachment of the doctors, nurses, orderlies and soldiers staffing the hospital. This is hell. It's not just the gore either. There is body horror. Multiple amputees struggle to cope with their new status. Bandaged stumps are waggled and examined by their owners. The camera doesn't flinch though the audience might.

The only women at the hospital are the nurses and they are surrounded by large numbers of traumatised, men who've recently been trying to kill other men. Order is poorly maintained, the social structures within the hospital are on the edge of collapse. It seems gang rape of the nurses is the rule rather than the exception, something that the protagonist experience very early on in the film. Rarely is this side of men's nature put on film. Recently I can only think of '28 Days Later'. It is an important question to ask. Will groups of men always act like this? Why? Are all men are rapists, or do all women fear that they are? Unfortunately the film doesn't answer this, but is content to add in as another level of hell that Nurse Nishi must endure. She endures it rather too stoically.

Underlying all of the horror and gore there is a strong undercurrent of sexuality. And the films seems to wear its maleness on it sleeve in this department. There are all sorts of fantasies from dark to pitch black. Cross-dressing, bondage, submission, sex with amputees, gang-rape. There is a rather richer fantasy of the woman bringing a man back to potency purely with the power of her sexuality. Nurse Nishi is a strongly sexual character and largely in charge of her own desires, except in the rape scenes. Ultimately this is an exploitation picture, but a very classy one.

The best part of this film is just how little is shown for the impact that you get. There are one or two gratuitous shots of gore and under lifted skirts. Mostly though the horror and erotic content is implied or shot well. There is no nudity, Nurse Nishi is viewed naked in shadow or through mosquito nets. Most of the horror is in the sound, the writing of the victims on the surgical table, the struggles of a single nurse against large groups of men, or simply the word: 'cholera'. This is a disturbingly erotic and exploitative tale of sex, madness, war that will haunt you in many ways.

The Aristocrats (2005)

Why I'm not a comedian...

[5/10 · 20 September 2005]

A critic walks out of a cinema and says,

'Boy, have I got a film for you. There's these comedians. Some of them are quite old and look like amphibians, but that's not a problem. They'll work for flies and sometimes they lick their own eyeballs. That always brings the house down. Anyway, these comedians, they get up on the screen and tell this lame joke. It's really lame. It doesn't even make sense. It probably wasn't that funny when it was first told decades ago.'

'Now I know, you're thinking. Why would anyone watch an old, unfunny joke told mostly by decaying newts? But wait, there's a kick. You see they're all trying to top each other on just how many swear words they can put in, how many obscenities they can describe and how many boundaries they can break. Only they're not too keen to do religion, race or politics apart from a couple of the younger, more mammalian looking ones.'

'So there's s****ing and f***ing and incest and rape and sodomy and bestiality and blood and violence and menstruation and pissing and necrophilia and child sex and haemorroids all over the screen. Worse still there's ventriloquism, mime and jugging. Actually the mime and the juggling are OK, but you get the picture. By this time there're people walking out of the cinema, but that's OK because they've already paid for their tickets. A lot of what's on screen ain't that funny either, but people stick around because some of it is *really* funny and they're hoping that the next old, frog-faced comic will say something outrageous.'

'There's a few stand-outs like George Carlin, Cartman and Robin Williams. There's some dark bits like the comedienne who puts the old "I was the daughter in the act spin" on it culminating in the claim that the agent raped her. There's a lot of bits that really aren't that funny at all. Most of it isn't the joke telling at all, it's a documentary trying to find new angles to portray what is essentially a private joke between friends. And as we all know, in-jokes aren't the funniest. Especially when filmed by two people with DV cameras who love to shoot the same person from two different angles and cut between them faster than a 9 year-old remote-wielding couch potato who's off his Ritalin. A sort of MTV/Dogme crossover that should never, ever be done by anyone else, ever.'

'Anyway, the killer is you promote it as totally outrageous which it is; side-splittingly funny, which it is in parts; and also as a worthy documentary, which it isn't, but will give the punters the excuse to come in and see it in the first place when it's just a bad, dirty joke and a celebration of the pus-filled abscess rupturing the necrotic heart of comedy. Time to pith the frogs. What do I call this film? Glad you asked. I call it "The Aristocrats".'

24 Hour Party People (2002)

Filming the legend, perhaps not the truth.

[8/10 · 15 September 2005]

The story of Factory Records is one I lived through by reading the UK music press whilst growing up in the 80's and 90's. I read about the parties, the drugs, the fights, the splits and the deaths. The people were larger than life caricatures, in a time before 'celebrity' had reached the nadir it has plumbed today. The best soap opera set in Manchester... What I read were legends, the truth hidden behind the ink. Having watched it brought to life, I'm still not certain what really happened. As Steve Coogan as Tony Wilson quotes in the film 'if I have the choice between the truth and the legend, print the legend'. Here the legend has been filmed.

And largely, they've played if for laughs. The real-life Tony Wilson is someone is often laughed at true, but when he speaks there's a hard edge, a confidence and edge, maybe even a whiff of intellectual brutishness, that Steve Coogan's portrayal doesn't have. The Tony Wilson in the film reminds me most of other Steve Coogan roles such as Alan Partridge. Unfortunate that the central role is lacking, as all the many other roles revolving round this centre of levity are wonderful. Most especially good are Andy Serkis as Martin Hannett and Sean Harris as Ian Curtis.

This film's brilliance is in showing the life of a large, amorphous group of people brought together for the purpose of making music. There is an ill-defined boundary round the edge of Factory Record through which people slip quietly. From within, all is energy and life. Relationships fizzing off one another bringing tragedy and comedy, art and manure in equal measure. Lives lived brightly with a heart that still beats today, even though the body has been scattered to the major labels around the world. This thing really did exist, here is the testament.

Help, I'm beginning to sound like Tony Wilson.

There are other successes and failures. The Hacienda is resurrected to the smallest detail. The claim to show the real Manchester of the time rings hollow. This maybe their Manchester, but it isn't the real one. The in-flight narrative by Coogan as Wilson is simple, yet doesn't work. The cameos by many of the 'real' people is great if you know who they are. If you don't 'get' Factory, you'll probably not 'get' this film.

As an attempt to bottle the Factory spirit, this is a roaring success and for that it gets high marks. This is not the real story, something that would make for a great documentary all of its own. One for re-living the legends rather than looking at them critically.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)

Saccharine

[8/10 · 12 September 2005]

My expectations for this film were low. Although I'm a big Tim Burton fan, this looked far too sweet a confection for me to enjoy. My fillings throbbed anxiously at the prospect of being saturated in sugar saturated colours and maddeningly loud, shouty morals. I had the book read to me as a child and loved it. I've read in adulthood and found it to be wonderfully arch but more of a revenge on the bits of the world he didn't like by Roald Dahl. I've also seen the 1971 version of the story and enjoyed it.

Sweet it was. Loud it was. Colourful it was. My filings did rattle in fear round their cavities however, I enjoyed it immensely. Leaving the cinema I felt like Augustus Gloop covered in chocolate yet finding that he tasted so good. The day was bright afterwards, although considerably less colourful. It's faithful to the book with just enough small diversions to make it relevant to a more modern audience. The glass elevator is faithfully depicted are the squirrels, the inventing room, and the TV room.

Best of all is the chocolate world with its chocolate river. Johnny Depp shines as Willy Wonka, acting like he's in Dr. Seuss inspired nightmare of Michael Jackson after meeting the ghost of Howard Hughes. Not of this world. A twisted individual, tortured by an orthodontically-retentive father, into a sugar-free Oedipal fantasy creature. In the chocolate land, his simultaneous fascination with his land and his disgust at children, their (ssssh) parents, and the rest of world in general is wonderful. The look on his face is pure badly-repressed 'ick'. Freud would have had a field day.

The child actors do well, especially Jordan Fry playing Mike Teevee. I suspect this is the character most modern children will sympathise with. Tim Burton questions Roald Dahl's simple world using him as a mouthpiece, unfortunately he mumbles all these lines. Well Willy Wonka seems to think so anyway. The wonderfully updated chocolate room scene including an awful lot of bits out of '2001: A Space Odyssey' made me laugh out loud to the chagrin of the rest of the audience.

The added bits of backstory for Willy Wonka work well with the surprise appearance of Christopher Lee as his father. Tim Burton's now worked with two of the unholy trinity. It is a pity that Peter Cushing is no longer around for him to complete the set. This film does not debase the wonderful 1971 movie, it compliments it. Very rare for a remake of a much loved film. If you can ignore the sheer sugariness of this film, there's a lot of fun to be had here. Buy an everlasting gobstopper at the concessions stand and go see.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

Astounding Story

[10/10 · 8 September 2005]

When I was growing up in the 1970s, I knew the future would like '2001: A Space Odyssey'. Everything would move slowly, with an elegance and grace. Spaceships would waltz around planets and space stations. Astronauts would bide their time patiently, waiting to get to their destination in sterile surroundings. Men really did land on the Moon the year after this was released, but the effects didn't look as good. When 'Star Wars' came along, it looked the same but made everything move ten times faster, whilst the crew weren't so averse to grease and dust. Somehow that didn't seem right.

It's a testament to the special effects of this film that it's only when I see the film now, in 2005, that I'm beginning to see where the effects begin and the backdrop ends. They are almost perfect. As I am exposed to more films, I get used to the CGI. It looks far too artificial. In 1968 they made do with model work and camera movement. It looks far, far better to me. Keep it simple, stupid. There's even some attempt at a steadicam-ish sort of shot on board the Discovery before steadicam got invented. The sound design is also excellent. For 10 minutes all we can hear is breathing and the sound of gasses whistling through tubes. The sound of life support in the silence of space. Possible the most tense sound imaginable as the rate your respiratory system matches that of Dave Bowman. The influence of the design lives on through sci-fi films to this day. Look at the graphics on the computer screens. Now think of 'Alien', 'Hitch-Hiker's' on the TV. Think of Darth Vader's heavy breathing.

Then there's the horror. The third section with HAL and the Discovery is some of the most tense film I know. I've already talked about the sound, but there are all the other nightmare touches. Empty space-suits hang like suits of armour in a haunted castle with added gas-mask creepiness. You're just waiting for them to move. Then there's pods looking like Cycloptic crabs. And of course at the centre there's unblinking, Orwellian eye of HAL. Seeing everything. The many long-held shots on that red glow are all that's needed for you to wonder just what he's thinking. You can see the turmoil going on behind the bulb. Beyond the Discovery there's an emphasis on violent death whether it be of apes, tapirs or sleeping scientists.

There's also a lot to think about. Philosophical questions about evolution, death and rebirth, change, artificial intelligence. I know there are theological debates on the film's position on evolution or creation. To my mind it's a half way house, not mentioning creation at all and suggesting some form of 'driven selection'. Are the black slabs gods or God? Or can any civilisation, sufficiently advanced, appear to us as gods or magical. The mystical, hallucinogenic final section is redolent of the era in which the film was made. It offers no easy explanation, but then if these beings are so advanced, do you think we'd understand them in the space of twenty minutes?

This film has so much, and I love it more every time I see it. I'm astounded it was made in 1968. I still want the future to be a zero-G ballet in orbit. I'm waiting for another film to match this in its vision.

The McKenzie Break (1970)

We're both in the **** now...

[7/10 · 6 September 2005]

When a sub-genre is established in the wonderfully diverse cosmology of film, you can bet that someone in this post-modern, media savvy world will add to it. Only they'll have knowing winks to the audience when the usual hoops are jumped through or they'll play with those expectations and pull the rug out from under you by subverting them and twisting the plot. We all know the score, they know we know, we know they know we know ad infinitum, or more often, nauseam. It comes as a surprise to me that someone was at this in 1970 with a humble POW movie.

The inmates are tunnelling out. Dummies in for escapees at roll call, check. Uniforms manufactured in camp, check. Tunnel cave-in during the escape, check. It's not all by the numbers though. We have a vaulting horse. No tunnel mouth there though as you can see right under it. Good topsoil on the turnip patch, but that's not where they're hiding the spoil. That this is a British POW camp the those escaping are German prisoners is unusual and welcome. Maybe the biggest twist of all is that the whole escape has been rumbled by the authorities, but they let them escape in order to net a bigger prize.

OK, it's not as knowing as anything since 1994, but it does play with the genre well, albeit a little ham-fistedly at time. Underneath the genre trappings there's a good little drama with a central duel between an Irish Captain in British Intelligence and the U-Boat Commander commanding officer in camp. Both are willing to bend and break the rules in pursuit of their aims. One of them will even kill to achieve his aims. Both are highly flawed individuals. Both are self-centred and neither of them succeed. From a simple set up at the start, the film reaches a fresh and unexpected conclusion to give a true stand-out film.

There are some clumsy cuts and overlays to demonstrate simultaneous actions in various locations as the escape progresses that really don't work and the drive of the second half of the film falls flat. The feuds within the camp, both that between captors and captives and between the Luftwaffe and the Submariners, are edgy. The tension created evaporates as soon as the escapees are out of the camp. It all gets a little clunky. However, overall this is a good film and definitely one to watch if you like your post-modernism freshly minted from the 70s.

12 Angry Men (1957)

Theatre of justice

[8/10 · 5 September 2005]

There are some films that are acknowledged classics of one degree or another. Whether it be a technical aspect such as cinematography or something less tangible such as emotional content or a gripping narrative, some stand out. 'Twelve Angry Men' is one such film, mostly noted for the amazing acting performances from a large cast in one room. They have few props and one main set. The stage for twelve actors to show their stuff. And show it they do.

This film works as a pure stage play on the screen. All twelve actors step up to the plate. The writing is immaculate making the complex inter-relationships between the twelve work believably and never letting the pace slacken. It's tense and taut. The points being made aren't always subtle, but they're never hammered home. Keeping twelve characters involved in a story while keeping it moving along is a tough task for a writer. All of them want to have their say so you don't forget them, all of them have to show what their character is, yet none of them must be allowed to dominate. Reginald Rose deserves immense plaudits for what he achieved here.

There is a political message here. To some it may be obvious, to others it may be unpalatable. You may call it propaganda, yet unlike a lot of more modern propagandists, this doesn't solely preach to the converted. This is one to think on for everyone. It's important that even at the end, the viewer doesn't know what really happened the night of the crime. Did they save an innocent from the chair or did they let a killer walk free? It asks questions, says where its loyalties lie but doesn't claim that the issues are black and white. A truly unusual standpoint and one I would welcome more of in film.

Perhaps one of the notable aspects that isn't much commented on about 'Twelve Angry Men' is the oddly un-filmic qualities it has. As previously mentioned it moves like a stageplay rather than screenplay. The look is reminiscent of a TV production including the sans-serif credits underneath the actors faces, and the simple studio set. This hasn't prevented its strengths propelling it into a slot as one of the best and best loved movies of all time.

Primer (2004)

This time around

[9/10 · 1 September 2005]

I think we have a new genre here. This may be the only film where one of the time machines used in the film may be necessary in order for the viewer to go back and re-watch the film and come close to understanding what's going on. 'Merchanising as integral to film viewing'. I can hear George Lucas sniffing round the possibilities already.

For every viewer, there is going to come a point in 'Primer' where you are just going to lose track of what's going on and enter a realm of utter confusion. For some it may start early in the overlapping, engineer speak of the garage based development cycle. If you survive that, then there's the explanation of how the time machine works to get through. Finally, causality and paradoxes get involved with a couple of essential plot points that are breezed over in a couple of seconds to dumbfound anyone still left standing. This is no bad thing. The first time I saw this I spent the last half an hour basking in a warm, comfortable fuzziness when I just didn't know what was going on, but enjoyed the film all the same. The thing is that the characters in the film are trying to work it all out themselves and are equally as confused. At least we're not suffering from bleeding ears and an inability to write. Well most of us anyway.

This may be the first time travel movie I've truly liked. All the others I've seen come up with definitive answers to explain the paradoxes or like 'Twelve Monkeys' have perfectly closed loops where everything makes sense in the end. Worse still is to have a plot that hinges on time travel in order to work , but that really don't make sense a la 'Terminator 2'. 'Primer' adopts the experimental approach to exploring to time travel. As Abe says, it's probably totally unsafe, but let's do it regardless. It doesn't have to explain everything. A lack of understanding can be a good thing.

Burying beneath the plot, the characters are well drawn. They start off as white shirted engineers in a garage trying to find the idea that'll get them rich. Controlled, but scheming. All intellect, creativity and safety. Their invention allows them and us to release the darker side of their personalities. If absolute power corrupts absolutely, what would a time machine do? The reveal of the time machine is particularly wonderful. It's the stretched out middle of the film where the joy of discovery is played out step by step for one character and to the audience at the same time. And it's real too. Alongside that joy, is a wonderful mundanity. Who would have thought that the first thing to travel in time would be a Weeble?

Yes, this film has low production values and the cast list is very similar to that for the crew. The sound is muffled and some of the low lighting sections are very poorly filmed. I think that adds to the experience. It lends it a documentary air that increases the authenticity. Although this is the result of inexperience and a lack of cash, I wish more filmmakers would be brave enough to experiment with lo-fi production to enhance the film watching experience.

This is a film that will be discussed to death both for the plot and for the film itself. It's bound to end up finding a place in articles on the history of science fiction film. It might even be a watershed; a move away from the sci-fi blockbuster to the sci-fi of ideas again. I can only hope. Go see it three times at least.

101 Reykjavík (2000)

The pig's a real star and there's a mangy dog too

[6/10 · 30 August 2005]

I nearly didn't write this review. I mean it's just film isn't it? Writing something involves effort, creativity, thought. I could just get out, get drunk, fall down, sleep around. Wake up and repeat. Would the world be any different if I did. Bleurgh,.

The glory of this film is in the world it shows. Reykjavik life for the 20-something. Permanently avoiding, well, something. Not really sure what, but it needs to be ignored. And as this is Reykjavik, it's cold. This world takes place indoors, in small, densely populated space, in warm clothes. Human contact seems to be more for survival and avoiding freezing to death rather than for intimacy. Alcohol blurs the real world and takes off its sharp edges. The nights are long in the cold. No one can see you. You're alone. Insulated from reality. Insular. That's life in Iceland. It's going to be hard to escape. Even Glasgow seems like an exciting, tropical paradise with exotic goods and thrilling times to be had.

Going away from that into the realm of plot and character, I get lost. I don't know these people. Are they real? The lead character has so much stuff happening to him and around him. He's so wrapped up inside himself and can't engage with it, let alone articulate his feelings. He hates those around him and yet wants people. He's still a teenager despite being in his mid-20s. It's unfortunate that the actor plays him as mischievous, always with a gleam in the eye. To me that just didn't fit. Is it possible to be playful whilst feeling misery, anger and angst? Maybe the characters feelings were buried so far within his layers of clothing that I couldn't see what was going on. What it comes down to is that I didn't like him, I don't know him and yet his day to day life doesn't seem that unusual. A misshapen character. I'm don't think Reykjavik is that alien.

The plot is bordering on farce. Nothing wrong with that, only the comedy often falls flat, and can seem inappropriate. I love black humour, only this wasn't a dark belly laugh, it was more of a greyed-out smirk. It's also incidental to the character development. He's trying to get out, he tries all sorts of things, though in the end, his only way out being to grow up, but only after he's tried to kill himself. Half-heartedly, of course.

If you're not in the market for dodgy pig and dog videos, watch this for what your life could be like once you've exhausted all the opportunities your environment offers you. It's not pretty.

Me and You and Everyone We Know (2005)

Only connect.

[8/10 · 26 August 2005]

Only connect, yet we rarely do. All of us want to reach out, make ourselves vulnerable, and touch someone else. Mostly we get bruised, bitten and shamed. It's a simple thing to see and it takes a film as good and simple as this to show it. 'Me and You and Everyone We Know' follows a group of characters, all cut off from those around them. Children don't speak to father's, important phone calls fail to get made, desires go unfulfilled and families fail to reunite except in photos from the past. Yet everyone keeps on trying, and eventually something gets through. For a moment there's magic. It's up to us to decide how transient that link will be.

This is a first mainstream film for the director and writer, who's known for short, art films and performance art. You might expect something less easy to interpret or less warm. Yet this film starts off easy to like and stays that way throughout despite dealing with tricky subjects such as childhood sexuality and family breakdown. It's almost the world as viewed through the rose-coloured specs of a perpetually smiley child as life splutters along messily around her. It never descends into true embarrassment that it could easily achieve, remaining serene with its flowery bittersweetness. It's the emotional equivalent of going home one final time for you mother's cooking which is just like you always remember it.

The writing is most impressive, especially that for the many children in the film (whose acting is amazing as well). The language used for a range of different ages and personalities is the most true to life you'll hear on a screen in a cinema. The innocence and naivety of childhood here is exactly how I would want every film to do it. This is the world of the child that the media has forgotten exists. I'm glad to see it still does.

In the end connections are made and the magical, real world around these characters shows itself to be the wonderful place it really is. That connection also existed between myself and the film. This new director is 1-for-1 in the only connecting challenge.

Audition (1999)

Deeper.

[7/10 · 25 August 2005]

** Spoileresque ** It's difficult to know what my reaction to this film is. I have several, they're strong and they're pulling me in different directions. Let me explain. This film sets off at a gentle pace. A bereaved husband and father sets out to look for a new wife when his son says he's looking lost. A friend of his in the film industry sets up an 'audition', superficially trying to discover an unknown actress but actually trying to find him the young, trained, traditional Japanese wife he would like. Just like his previous partner and not at all like those awful young, loud, girls in bars. He falls for one; an ex-ballet dancer forced to give up dancing because of a dodgy hip. But his producer friends thinks something's amiss, and he's not wrong...

And so the film goes by. The director has said he set out to bore the audience for the first two thirds of the film. The producer in the audition asks one candidate if she has 'seen any films by Tarkovsky'. I'm assuming this is an aside to the audience saying 'yes, this is deliberately slow, please gently fall asleep in your seats, get used to it'. I, determined to be stubborn, enjoyed it. It sets up the characters well, especially the lead. A damaged soul, still hurting from the loss. Cajoled into looking to fill that gap by those around him, he cheers up. He fishes for her, hoping for the big catch. He looks like getting lucky. He dares to have hopes. A new life beckons and slowly builds. I didn't really think it was that slow or boring. But then I like Tarkovsky.

The purpose of this alleged boredom of course, is that it all ends up with acupuncture nightmares, missing persons, child abuse and discarded digits all in graphic technicolour terror vision. If you didn't know it was coming, you would have ended up with your popcorn all over the person in front of you, including the popcorn you were contentedly digesting.

It would be easy to read this film as a misandrist/gynophobic horror. It might be taken as a more specifically culturally Japanese lament for the passing of a way of life, a la 'Tokyo Story'. You could note that the jumbled chronology or hallucinatory structure of the horror segment could indicate uncertainty. Did it really happen or are those his fears? You could note that it's his son that kills Asami, the traditional (albeit psychotic) being destroyed by the newer generation. You might think that Asami is a Nemesis, born from the violent suppression of women through time.

You could do all of these things however, I think it's a cut and shunt job. I like both sections on their own, but stick 'em together and it feels like I can still see the tape holding the two sets of spliced film stock together. These themes deserve exploration and I'd love to see the missing two halves to the two parts we've seen. Together it's a dislocated joint in my brain, albeit a well-executed and compelling one.

Imagine the sensation if the loss and hope in the first half could have made it through to be confronted by the psychosis and nightmares of the second. Instead they're misplaced somewhere in the confusion of a drugged glass of whisky and the director's desire to stupefy us into submission. Despite Asami's philosophy of getting at reality through pain, I don't think this film was painful enough, although I can't think of any part of it I didn't like. My reactions to the film may be contrary but they don't hurt enough. Deeper, please.

Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down! (1989)

Unconventional love story that just misses its mark.

[6/10 · 24 August 2005]

** Some Spoilery **

Once upon a time there was a straightforward story. Boy meets girl. Boy likes girl. Girl likes boy. Boy and girl share time, experiences and feelings. Boy still likes girl. Girl likes boy even more. Boy and girl live together happily ever after. Normally those shared experiences include some light comedy, a few moments of embarrassment, occasions of sadness and anger, and if we're lucky, those rare moments of true connection when heart meets heart and they beat together brightly while the world goes on around them. 'Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down!' ( I would use 'Atame!' but I can't do upside-down exclamation marks), is such a love story and has all of the above present and correct. Two innocents meet by chance off-screen, and their paths to the future are set. Or at least that's what they boy thinks.

This film dares to use a controversial narrative to get the girl, and for that it deserves full marks. Its setting is childishly colourful and bright which is fitting considering the two leads are really teenagers in adult bodies. The mood is generally light. Even in the darker moments with the director's allusions to Hitchcockian suspense and horror, the suspense never materialises, soon bursting in a confection of whimsical threatlessness. The portrayal of a naive and obsessive love is wonderful. The fact that it celebrates this without criticism or cynicism is more wonderful still. There are no moral qualms about sex, sexuality, or nudity which might be dismissed (wrongly) as being 'European' in some quarters. This is as refreshing as it is rare. Both leads are having fun entirely appropriate to their roles.

However, I feel that the story here falls short of where it wants to be. Marina's emergence from her status as victim, becoming one of the lovers is rapid and not convincing. Her feelings revolve around toothache and pain relief. Her fear of her kidnapper is never that genuine. I'm glad there's no Stockholm syndrome in play, but there do need to be some moments where she loses the fear she should have and gains a trust she's never had before. Their absence lets down the film. The film also shies away from the fetishistic aspects of bondage. Though not a part of the story, they're certainly integral to the way the camera pans up the body of Marina when she's tied to the bed. Worse still, the film seems to support the view that power exchange within a relationship is not a healthy thing, and that 24/7 equality is to be striven for. A very safe viewpoint for such an 'edgy' film.

There is more good than bad here, but as a whole, it disappoints. Perhaps the main legacy of this film is that it was (allegedly) the first film to be rated NC-17 in the US, although the importance of this is probably overstated.

Chicago (2002)

I've got it coming...

[7/10 · 19 January 2003]

If you like big stage musicals with big production numbers, lavish sets and scantily clad women then this is right up your street. It is really impressive production with some excellent performances.

Roxie dreams of the stage, Velma Kelly is on the stage until they both wind up imprisoned for murders under the custodial charms of Mama Morton. The only person who can stop them hanging is unscrupulous lawyer Billy Flynn, master manipulator of Chicago's press. What happens when the limelight finds another caged bird to shine on though?

All of the leads give wonderful performances. I was impressed by Renee Zellweger, Catherine Zeta-Jones, and John C. Reilly, but I was most impressed by Richard Gere. I thought (and still do) that this was a piece of miscasting. I could almost feel creeking during some of the numbers, but give him credit, he sang and danced with the best of them and really gave the role his all.

Chicago does suffer from the straight-jacket of its structure. Chicago appears to be an almost straight conversion of the stage musical to the big screen. Yes, I know there are songs and plot lines missing, what I mean is that it is structured in a very Act 1 Scene 1 followed by Scene 2 and so on. There is no sense of what you can do with film and instead we are presented with what could have been footage filmed at a performance of the stage show. I almost wanted the curtain to fall between acts.

It's really a resurrection of the big musicals of the past. This is not a Moulin Rouge or a Sound of Music, which are more film-aware musicals. They have threads of narrative we can follow when the scenery changes. This is more reminiscent of Fred and Ginger films. You know, those ones where the plot is really an excuse for some great singing and dancing. Maybe you can even compare it to pantomime...

In the end, despite the excellent production and performances, Chicago feels too rigid and brittle. It's liable to snap under it's own impressive weight. It doesn't really escape from the page. The weight of expectations of those who've seen the show seem to have weighed heavily on the director, in a similar way to the Harry Potter films. A good musical, but not a great one.

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)

Bourbon and pure rainwater

[10/10 · 19 January 2003]

Dr. Strangelove is my favourite Kubrick movie. It still has something of that detachment found in his other movies. However it manages to connect with the audience in a way that the others don't. It's not just the humour, the film rattles along with a narratively-linked sketch-like structure. Each scene is memorable, of the perfect length and has perfect timing. It shares this quality with films like Pulp Fiction and Withnail & I, perhaps even with material like The Goon Show. Note that all of these films have more than their fair share of quotable moments.

This is the story of the Air Force Base commander who 'exceeds his authority' and sends off his bombers to bomb the Ruskies, the President who tries to get them back and the mysterious scientific advisor, Dr. Strangelove who has some interesting ideas. The humour is a subtle shade of pitch black, finding it's comedy in the spectre of nuclear war at the height of the Cold War.

The acting is superb all round, Peter Sellers takes on three roles and plays them marvellously. Even better is the support given from Slim Pickens, George C. Scott and Sterling Hayden. Kubrick uses some excellent lighting and camerawork, most notable in wonderful War Room scenes. Some of the shots are wonderfully composed, between shoulders and across the War Room table, General Jack D. Ripper outlining his theories while we look up from below. The scenes of the attack on the Air Force base are the forerunners of films like Full Metal Jacket and Saving Private Ryan with their shaky, handheld camerawork as if we're invading with the troops.

Some have argued that the film has aged along with the Cold War. It is certainly a savage critique on war and the confrontational politics and posturing of two barely concealed enemies. I think these themes are just as relevant today as they were at the beginning of the 1960s. Just for a moment imagine as the camera looks up at the dramatically lit face of General George W. Bush as he chews on a pretzel and says the following 'I can no longer sit back and allow terrorist infiltration, terrorist indoctrination, terrorist subversion and the international terrorist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious...bodily fluids.' It has a certain, awful sense of familiarity doesn't it?

If you're serious about watching film, this is one that you cannot afford to miss. A classic.

Bowling for Columbine (2002)

Bang, bang, the mighty fall.

[8/10 · 15 January 2003]

I like Michael Moore. He makes highly interesting cinema about things that need to be talked about. Even if you don't agree with him he certainly starts a debate which is exactly what needs to happen on topics such as gun culture and gun violence. In fact this film deserves a high ranking just for being made and distributed this widely. I'm amazed that permission was granted for some of the material in the film. I bet Charlton Heston hasn't got the poster for this film on his wall.

This documentary is an interest-grabbing mission to find out what lies at the heart of the USA's love of all things gun shaped. Further, why does the USA have such a high rate of gun related fatalities compared to a lot of other countries. His search takes him through historical, racial, media, political and financial arguments. The focus is the tragedy at Columbine High School ("Home of the Rebels"). Why did those two kids do what they did? Why doesn't this happen in other countries?

Ultimately no reason nor solution is offered. The closest Moore comes to attributing blame is on the culture of fear whipped up by the media in the States. Particularly he focuses on fear of the black community. In the case of Columbine he can offer no definite reason, preferring instead to say that you might as well suggest that they killed those children because they'd been bowling that morning.

I think the weakness in this film is that it's very much preaching to converted. It's easy to see that Moore is often traditionally political (for instance his emphasis on the the welfare to work scheme in Michigan). Anyone who's got a built in left-wing detector is not going to buy much of what he says. Yes, a lot of people have seen this film but I bet that most of them will be receptive to his message before the trailers.

It's also a shame that he doesn't offer any form of solution. It's important yet easy to criticize. It's vital yet hard to come up with solutions.

The centrepiece is a short animation from the people who brought you South Park documenting in a really funny way, the culture of fear and armed response. It's a pity that a certain Mr. Bush isn't forced to watch this every morning.

This film is a triumph both as film and as agitprop. I hope Michael Moore goes on to make loads more documentaries on a lot of other subjects. The world needs him.

Gangs of New York (2002)

The cat in the hat comes back. Why?

[4/10 · 13 January 2003]

***SPOILERS HO!***

Before I start I'd like to say that it's not that I really didn't like the film, it's a fascinating bit of history that America really buries away really well. A lot of thought and money has gone into it and it does look good. It's kind of like Titanic; very simple story. The trouble is its told in this case not very effectively and with pretensions to say all sorts of things of moment and import, but muddling all the many messages it's got into bleeeurrggh. It's kind of like a drunk trying to tell everyone they've left the gas on and the cat's not been put out. This can be a good thing providing much debate about greatness or otherwise as well as just what the hell was going on. In the case of this film though, that debate is one I'm going to pass on, it's not worth the effort.

It's a big wide sprawling mess. I'm not sure what it was trying to say, but I think it managed vomit instead of really saying anything. It most reminded me of sectarian inspired football (that's soccer) violence in the 1970's. I've never seen some much fake red hair outside a Bay City Rollers reunion concert and it does not suit Cameron Diaz at all. Nice scar though.

Daniel Day Lewis was good. He had a really fun character to play. The main trouble I think, was that everything looked so fake and staged. The accents were horrible, the hair was horrible, the costumes looked liked something out of a bad 70's BBC Dicken's adaptation. Of course, this may all have been accurate to a degree of painstaking historical research I'm not aware of. I know very little of life in New York during the American Civil War. It does give every actor with a bad accent in every movie yet to be made a brilliant excuse when challenged; 'Well my accent was way better than Daniel Day Lewis in Gangs of New York and no one complained about that.'

I think this movie has had too much subtle hype. I was promised epic. Reviewers have said epic. Epic is a word that follows Mr. Scorsese around like 'Italian-American', 'Catholicism' and 'family'. This isn't epic. It is overlong and yet seemed to have lots of bits missing. The story is thin, the violence is inappropriately cartoonish, there seems to be a lot more style than substance and the message moves beyond ambiguous into the arena of confusion.

This is a product of Hollywood about a dubious part of 100% USA history in which the 'Natives' violently oppress immigrants at a time in the present when the USA is preparing for armed conflict on a variety of questionable fronts, a film which condemns the violence of the Civil War while seemingly reveling in the violence of the streets, a film that finishes on a shot of New York with the Twin Towers intact, a film being seen around the world. This is a film that wants to ask questions of an American audience and ends up confusing them while I really don't know what non-American audiences are meant to get out of it at all.

Maybe I'm just a thicko, lazy or not getting it, but the question that most readily springs to mind is, why Martin, why?

Spaced (1999–2001)

It's life Tim, and boy, do they know it.

[9 January 2003]

"Spaced" is like watching the cartoon of the life of the average SFX reader or Ain't-it-Cool UK talkbacker. It's the closest thing to fanboy (and fangirl) heaven there is. By that, I don't mean it's a perfect word for word film version of Lord of the Rings nor even a big BBC production of Asimov's Foundation trilogy. No, this is where really good fanboys (and fangirls) go when they die.

Set around the lives of Tim Bisley and Daisy Steiner sharing a ground floor flat somewhere in North London it shows in a disturbingly honest way the lives of the average late 20-something, recently moved to London, wannabe creative, painfully middle-class, skint people in much the same way that David Attenborough might bring to life the daily trials of a family of pandas. Their many rituals and habits are studied in detail as they go about carving their way in the cruel world around them. We see them go clubbing, going to sign on, in the pub, and rescuing dogs from animal testing laboratories. The one thing that leads me to think that this is only a sitcom and not real life is that their flat is always suspiciously clean.

As Tim is a struggling graphic artist trying to break into the world of comic illustration, it's appropriate that the characters are all cartoons themselves. They almost spew stylised behaviour, phrases and clothes. Some even have their own signature moves such as Brian's standardised description of his 'work' when he is asked what he paints. The editing follows this lead with many cut-aways into people's thoughts much in the manner of a thought bubble. The sheer quantity of cultural references is staggering. However, having lived a life similar to this, I know the number of cultural references in real life is at about the same level.

If you're currently aged between 27 and 34, this is the only sitcom you'll ever need to see again. Well, Black Books is pretty good too. Anyway, there are few things that make me laugh as much of this. If you know the words to the Ewok song, watch this.

Spider (2002)

Psychosis is not a healthy coping strategy

[7/10 · 7 January 2003]

Spider is a wonderful entry into the Cronenberg cannon. I strikes me as Cronenberg trying to do a Ken Loachesque style movie with all of his usual hard philosophical questioning, sniping at your assumptions of what reality really is.

The overwhelming impression I was left with was the sheer creepiness of the film, highly appropriate in a film about a Spider. This impression is built up with wonderful cold and dismal sets and cinematography and a relentless slow pace that draws you in to the inevitably horrifying conclusion. There is always an undertone of the horrors that have driven the protagonist to his fate though you never really see that underlying terror. You almost feel as if his psychotic reaction to events was almost the only thing he could have done. The acting is first class all round I feel it would be unfair to single out any one of the stunning performances.

This film is really about growing up and how you cope with it. Everyone has to go through it and most seem to emerge the other side with only minor ticks and deviancies. Some people however are crushed by the terror of the things that come to light between the ages of 6 and 17 and this is the perfect illustration of this. This could have been you. More worryingly, if something really bad happens to you, this still could be you.

Are you so sure that everything you remember happening in your childhood really happened? Those little anecdotes you trot out when you're with friends? Are those memories coloured by how you saw the world when you were that age? What are childhood experiences are you hiding from yourself? In a sense these are all very Freudian concepts given life in a film that has as it's central plot a case of Oedipus twisted way beyond it's classical borders.

Some have found this boring, I didn't. I can understand that the slow pace and, for Cronenberg, the simplicity of the storyline might lead one to not engage with the film especially if you find the entire concept of mental illness alien. However, that feeling of wanting to run away from this film as fast as possible whilst screaming is one that should really recommend it to you in the strongest possible terms. Not all horror is jumps and monsters, some is atmosphere and the ordinary. And that's the scariest sort.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

The difficult middle bit.

[10/10 · 7 January 2003]

It sounds to me as if some people are disappointed that they haven't just witnessed their own personal epiphany on celluloid (or digitally projected where available). If you are one of these people, I feel sorry for you. You are missing a truly wonderful experience and probably one of the best cinematic adaptations from source material there is around. Don't worry, those treasured images conjured from reading the books will still be there after you've seen the film. Maybe they'll even be improved. Plus, you can always read the books again afterwards.

This film is the equal of the magnificent 'The Fellowship of the Ring'. The themes are different of course and the feeling is possible even more traditionally Epic. You get swept along with the whole experience, you feel the devastation of Rohan, the assault on Helm's Deep, the possibility of the extinction of men.

The portrayal of the effect of the Ring is magnificent. Frodo's pain and fall into its grip are clear across the screen as Frodo's dependence on Sam to keep him going grows. Gollum/Smeagol is the best use of a CGI character I've yet seen on film, praise which should not detract from the Ents, Fell Beasts and Wargs. The assault of Helm's Deep in stunning mostly because of the clarity of editing and narrative at what could be a very confusing moment. At all points it is clear what is going on and how desperate the situation is becoming.

The only slight criticism I have (and it's only tiny and not enough to stop me giving the film a 10), is that it feels as though there's something missing. You'll know what I mean if you've seen the extend Fellowship DVD. The extra footage in that seems to round out that film and complete it. I already can't wait for the extended DVD of the Two Towers.

So, you must see this even if you think that Elves and Dwarves are a little bit silly. Peter Jackson has made a stunning film out of what could have been the hardest book of the three adapt. Possibly the best epic film series there has yet been made.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)

East is East...

[10/10 · 21 November 2002]

I've just watched this film and then popped along to IMDB for a quick read of the comments as I normally do and WOW.

I can't believe the sheer spectrum of opinion on this film. Whilst the two polar camps of lovers and haters are present as they are on many films, I can't believe the number of differing directions the hate is coming from. From the cheated actioneers, to the Asian weirdness lot, to the HK seen it all before and better, to the affronted at the over-reaction of Western critics.

OK, cards on the table. I'm not a big fan of HK cinema, although that may because of my under-exposure to it. I think this film is beautiful and touching. I think the plot is a little hackneyed. I think the whole of the film is paced wonderfully. I believe it doesn't matter how simple or complex or old or new a plot is, it's how you present it. I think that this film has many Western elements and many Eastern elements to it. I think the problem that a lot of people are having is reconciling this melange with their own experience of cinema and storytelling. I have no truck with people who want action and get disappointed when all the lovey stuff begins.

From a Western perspective, I'd like to lump this film in with Moulin Rouge. It's not to everyone's taste and it may affront those who are familiar with the setting and sensibilities of the era/genre in which it is set. It is a simple story wonderfully and beautifully told. The film has a heart (as well as wonderful cinematography, choreography and music) and that is what those who have place this film so highly in the top 250 are responding to.

There is a nasty undertone of cultural imperialism here that I don't think belongs. There are films where history is altered, liberties are taken with cherished cultures by outsiders, people and places and ideas are falsely associated with nations and tribes, and all of these are done in the name of entertainment and profit. This isn't one of them.

This film, I believe, was an attempt to marry two different cinemas. Whether this has been successful or not is for everyone to judge themselves. Personally I love it.

Saving Private Ryan (1998)

Shellshock on celluloid

[9/10 · 21 September 2002]

** Spoiler country ahead **

This film has proved to be one of the more devisive that Spielberg has made and along with Schindler's List, it's certainly the most harrowing. When I first saw this in the cinema, 95% of the audience couldn't stand up as the credits rolled. The trauma induced watching the battle scenes seemed to disconnect everyone's brain from their leg muscles. If you ever want to make anyone realise that war is not a good idea, make them watch this.

Many have said that this film doesn't have a plot. Rubbish, the plot is that 8 soldiers go off to rescue the last remaining brother of a family so that some high ranking officer doesn't have tell his mother the worst possible news without something positive to add at the end. Sorry, bit of cynicism there. It don't care if the plot is true, made up, plausible or a steaming pile of cow dung, it's still a plot. To me the number of soldiers who died in WWI to gain 100 yards of ground seems totally implausible - but it happened. In was lots of crazy things happen and sometimes the focus needs to be on the detail rather than the big picture.

I agree, the plot is something to hang this film on. It's a bit flimsy but it isn't why the film was made. I think this film, like the gravestones in Normandy, is a monument to the fallen. It's an attempt to do an honest war film. No punch pulling. No batteplans, just individual soldier's stories in one huge story there players within. To do that well you need a simple story and that's what you've got.

Now the big controversial bit. Patriotism. Yes, it's an American film made by Hollywood with American actors and money. It's about Americans at war. Maybe everyone should treat it as such. Das Boot is an excellent German war film about Germans and the number of British war films made in the later half of the 1940's about Brits does not need mentioning.

But...

The rest of world is starting to view America as a bit schizophrenic. On one hand very insular and not really wanting to interact with the world; certainly wanting to be safe from the rest of the world's problems. On the other hand American culture, values, interpretations of history, art, music are everywhere around the world. Indeed most of the world are a little bit American. That's fine as far at is goes. You don't like, you don't eat at McDonald's.

However when a brilliantly artistic and truthful film that we all want to share in fails to do this and goes all insular and US-patriotic on us, we get a little bit disappointed. Yes this film tells the truth, but it doesn't tell the whole truth. It's subtle, but it's rewriting history. That gets people's backs up and leads to tension and arguments.

The association of the universal truths with the US flag and US soldiers seems to be stealing something that we all own for an individual nation. War it a horrible thing, that men can commit the ultimate sacrafice for another man, that fighting brutalises, that the freedom to make this film was won on those beaches and fields; this film has a message for all of us, not just the US.

Films should have an affect on you, they should haunt your thoughts for days afterwards. Saving Private Ryan still haunts my thoughts over 3 years since I saw it. Please see it regardless of where you come from.

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

Busy dying or busy living?

[10/10 · 1 September 2002]

**Yes, there are SPOILERS here**

This film has had such an emotional impact on me, I find it hard to write comments on it. I've read a lot of the previous comments; all those that gush and eulogise as well as those who think it's over-rated or cliched. Most have got good points to make, however the thing that I think everyone is struggling to both explain and come to terms with is just why this film is *so* loved. Loved to the extent that for many it is an almost spiritual experience or for those of a more secular nature like myself, loved as one of the most devastatingly uplifting things that can happen to you while watching a film.

So I'm not going to review it, I'm just going to struggle in my own way to explain this film. It took me a few viewings to get why I connect with it so deeply, but here goes.

Many people in this world are unhappy. Most people in this world don't want to be unhappy. Lots of people wish, pray and above all hope for that magic wand to wave and wash them of their fears, losses, angers and pains once and for all. They see lots of other people seemingly in this magical state, while they suffer. To borrow the words of another film, they're watching the bluebirds flying over the rainbow.

Many unhappy people have learned that the magic wand doesn't exist. They're not destined to join the bluebirds and fairytales don't come true. It's not that no one lives happily ever after, it's just that they're not going to. They're busy dying.

In this film, or as some people have quite correctly said, this fairytale, magic wands exist. And that magic wand is Andy Dufrense imitating Houdini. However this film is not about him. Neither is it about the prison, the governor, the guard, the plot, the acting, the cinematography, the script, the direction or the score.

It's about Red. He is the one who has become institutionally unhappy, he's not only trapped in a prison, not only has he given up on the idea of ever leaving, not only does he have no hope, he knows that if the miracle would ever happen to him, he couldn't cope. He's safe in his unhappiness and that security is what keeps him going. Hope is, as Red say, dangerous. The metaphor for a certain illness here is very clear to me and I know that a rather large number of people suffer from it. A large proportion of those don't understand what's wrong, but they certainly can recognise a fellow sufferer. Those who are mercifully untouched by this illness definitely don't understand what's going on in those who do. They're too busy living.

The miracle in this film is not only that Red is redeemed but that the world outside the prison isn't all warm and sandy and sunny and with excellent fishing. Some of it is rocky and uncertain. Fairytales don't get this far. They'd end as Red left the gates of the prison and the credits would say 'and he lived happily ever after'. This is the only film I can currently think of where they show how to get to the living happily ever after bit from your redemption via the rocky and uncertain ground of bagging groceries at the local store. In other words, they're not going to cheat you and tell you everything's going to be alright.

This is crucial. For two and half hours, those of us who are quite content to mooch around our own personal prisons can see an escape route quite different to Andy's mapped out on the screen. And it's a real way out. It's hard and upsetting, but ultimately rewarding. The high you get from finding out and knowing that is only comparable diamorphine.

The trouble is, if you're already busy living, this film won't mean that much and you'll see it a little more clearly than those busy dying. To those fortunate individuals, watch this film and understand what the rest of us are going through.

So, yes, this film is a cliched fairytale and maybe as a story it isn't realistic and at second on the IMDb all time list, it is a bit over-rated. However if you could have a chart of films listing the number of lives saved, altered and improved, the Shawshank Redemption would be way out in front at number one.

Kes (1969)

Manchester United 1 Tottenham Hotspur 2

[8/10 · 22 April 2002]

The beauty of this film lies in the simplicity and purity of its message. If you want to get along, especially in a Northern English mining town in the 60's, do not ever hope for anything better. If you do, the world's gonna come and kick you in the teeth. Discuss.

Billy Casper has an empty life. In trouble with the police for theft, he shares a bed with his brother (a discontent miner willing to take out his frustrations on just about anyone nearby), goes to a school with some dispiriting and brutally repressive teachers, and has nothing to look forward to but the day when he to descends into Hades to work the coalface.

Until Kes comes along. Kes is a kestrel that Billy rears and trains. Kes soars where Billy can only dream. Kes is hope.

Ken Loach is the master of social commentary and I think this is probably his best film. This film embodies what it means to be working class in all the best traditional ways. You work, you do not have ambition, you are surrounded by people who have accepted their lot in life, you cannot hope for better, you won't be allowed to hope for better. If that sounds brutal, it is and so is this film. You aren't told right and wrong, you are told what is. It is thrust in your face for you to deal with.

The best thing about this film are all the characters that surround Billy. All have had all spirit hammered out of them at an early age and are damned if any one else is going to have any. The teachers casual and resigned brutality living what remains of their dreams by playing against the boys on the football field and imagining they are Bobby Charlton (and still losing) is perfectly displayed. The shop keeper's humouring of childish enthusiasm because he knows it ain't going to last. And most of all Billy's brother's spiteful depression. His spirit has been freshly crushed and it still rankles.

And amidst this gloom shines Billy and Kes. They soar above this nightmare like Andy Dufrense soars when he plays opera to the Shawshank inmates. Ken is telling us hope is a jewel to be treasured especially when it is surrounded by those wishing it crushed and buried.

You must see this film, especially if you've seen the Shawshank Redemption. Be warned though, there is no redemption here. Don't be afraid of the accents you non-Yorkshire folk. Just think of it as Wallace and Gromit without the cheese.

Bend It Like Beckham (2002)

The best British women's football film since Gregory's Girl

[4/10 · 19 April 2002]

** MINOR SPOILERS **

This film is like that epitome of 70's cuisine Angel Delight. It's got slightly cheesy packaging that promises a wholesome and uplifting experience. What you get is something that leaves you grinning but also with a nasty chemical aftertaste, an intangible emptiness and the feeling that the government has just tested a new happy drug on you to quell your rebellious spirit.

The heroine, Jess is a 'typical' Hounslow dwelling girl with a gift for the nutmeg and the dribble, who dreams of big things and scoring for United and David Beckham. Unfortunately her parents see her as a) a lawyer and b) married with kids. Many set pieces ensue with Jess hiding her footballing activities in order to avoid confronting her parents over her future. Ultimately, of course, the big show down has to happen and does during her sister's wedding.

Let's just say it's not all that surprising. A quicker summary would be to say Gregory's Girl as performed in the style of Goodness Gracious Me (UK sketch show, not Peter Sellers). And that's it, there's nothing more. Intangible emptiness. Big grin. Has someone slipped me something? This popcorn tastes funny.

OK you could go on about the stereotypes. But then British film and British comedy are big on stereotypes. In some cases they're justified and funny and in some cases they're clumsy and so unfunny you feel the need to complain to someone about them. For every Danny the Dealer and Camp Freddy there's a cockney gangster #2 or a blue-rinse matriarch. Bend it Like Beckham's are just about OK, but I did feel they're walking very close to the edge of tackiness and tastelessness.

I would add that I work in the College that most of Southall's youth attend when they're doing their A-levels and the portrayal of the girls shopping and the boys playing football is *spot* on. These people really exist...

I don't doubt the director's motives for making this film, but I do question the studio's morals in marketing it. The Bollywood film market is the UK is huge and getting bigger by the day. The World Cup is round the corner. David Beckham is Hello magazine's number one dreamboat. So what better than a lot of zeitgeisty stuff crammed into 90 odd minutes of celluloid and marketed in a surprisingly big way. Don't forget this film premiered at the 1500 seat Odeon in Leicester Square.

What could be a strong feminist statement of a film, what could be the first 100% mainstream 100% British-Asian film with a really big studio push is just an average Brit-com coining it in for the shareholders. It's a Mike Leigh film with most of the social commentary replaced by poor jokes and an injection of mass-produced optimism. I feel that I've been promised something then been let down badly. Intangible emptiness, mindless grin, feel-good but real-bad.

So, go if you must, but don't eat the popcorn. I'm going back to my Billy Bragg records.