wayofthecass Reviews

Pimp (2010)

A bad film!

[3/10 · 18 November 2010]

Pimp by Robert Cavanah is a novel project. Out of his frustration at not getting cast in any decent roles he decided to co-write, produce, direct and even star in this production. Kudos to him for getting it done. But that's where the back slapping ends. There are some nice shots, all the girls are beautiful, and Cavanah can really act (indeed if he simply wanted to use this as a platform to showcase his acting talent then mission accomplished) but the story is an inferior take off of the decent '8MM' with Nicholas Cage: the dialogue is a load of condescending, pretentious rubbish: it's pretty scatter brain in it's approach and the concept of it being a fly on the wall documentary is absurd. I mean yeah, like pimps, hookers, drug dealers, porn barons, triads and secretive sex clubs are just going to allow themselves to be filmed without realising the likely legal repercussions of their actions. Clearly though this approach has been adopted in order to cover up the blatant lack of budget. Any budget there was most likely went on paying the 'star' that being of course the rent a 'hardman' Danny Dyer. As just about everyone has noted, Dyer is mis-cast. I don't mind Dyer playing the hooligan wide boy or lower level villain and indeed think he's pretty good when cast against type as the victim but increasingly Dyer just seems to do straight to DVD, bargain bucket British tosh, shot with the standard Lock, Stock filter. That combined with his persistent appearances on British lad TV in shows such 'Britain's Hardest B@stards', 'Britains Even Harder Hard B@stards' and 'Britains Hardest Harder B@stards IV' makes him increasingly difficult to take seriously in any shape or form as a crime syndicate kingpin.

The film itself follows the title character Cavanah (he's the pimp) as he goes about his daily seedy business before receiving what seems like a mock snuff movie which he increasingly becomes concerned might be real. Meanwhile he's caught in the middle of a turf war between well dressed, generic triad newcomers to the scene (funny as I thought the Chinese had been in the UK for several decades) and the aforementioned Dyer and his brother who have taken over from their recently deceased father as heads of the established Soho villain racket. Cavanah also falls in love with the very beautiful Chinese asylum seeker Bo in an extremely underdeveloped and unconvincing love angle which sort of leaves you feeling like Cavanah took full advantage of his creative control in the casting and plot development.

It's full of generic dialogue and torture and intimidation scenes you've seen a million times before. But credit to Cavanah who at least carries it off with realistic conviction, if only from an acting perspective. The pretentious and confusing ending pretty much puts the cherry on top of what was a by the numbers, contemporary London gangster movie which ticked all the boxes that Zoo magazine readers are looking for.

I caught the film late night on Bravo cable channel which appears to have an unwritten rule of only freeing up a few hours a day for programming which doesn't feature Danny Dyer. Anyway in summation, it's not one to be sought out put it that way.

Note: The first review by 'masterly-thorn' has been blatantly submitted by someone involved with the production. Giving this movies 10 out of 10 is completely ludicrous and frankly pathetic! May I recommend that they re-watch without the use of the rose tinted spectacles.

Caddyshack II (1988)

Why?

[2/10 · 31 July 2009]

Caddyshack II is one of those pictures which makes you ask 'Why?' As in; 'Why was it funded?': 'Why was it made?' and 'Why was it released into the public domain?'.

To say the least it's a bad film. It serves little purpose but to underline how superior its prequel was by setting an almost identical set of characters against each other in a similar storyline as a 'New money' land developer attempts to buy out the establishment's golf course sanctuary.

Right off the bat making the follow-up a whole 8 years after the original is somewhat bizarre. I mean if your going to cash in on highly successful picture such as the first one then you have a window of a few years to do so. But leaving it 8 years means that the formula is hardly fresh enough to simply do a follow up, or poor imitation as this is, so your sort of obliged to reward fans of the original by giving them at least reference to if not indeed actual contributions by the actors who made the first one so memorable. But there's little if any of this.

Instead we get cheap imitations. Okay the passing of Ted Knight in the interim years would have made it impossible to bring back the memorable Judge Smails but Robert Stack's inclusion as 'Chandler Young' (a fellow WASP elitist akin to the Smails character) is unimaginative and seriously lacking in the sort of anarchic frustration that made Knight's turn so watchable. Jackie Mason's 'Jack Hartounian' is a feeble attempt at recreating the non stop wisecracks delivered by the Al Czervik (Rodney Dangerfield) character of the first. While Dangerfield's role was endlessly quotable Mason's is completely forgettable.

Bill Murray's laughably ridiculous groundskeeper 'Carl Spackler' and his war of attrition with the pesky local gofer is substituted for his Ghostbuster's co-star Dan Ackroyd's role as the militant 'Capt. Tom Everett' who's high pitched voice just splits your sides with frustration as opposed to the intended laughter.

Randy Quaid , brilliant as Cousin Ed in the National Lampoon's Vacation series, is quite the opposite here playing Hartounian's unstable lawyer. The looks of disbelief shown by the actor's looking on at Quaid's character's intended to be hilarious acts of inappropriate violence echo that of the audience. Your not laughing. Your just asking 'What the hell is he doing?'

Chevy Chase shows up, all be it occasionally and wisely rather fleetingly considering the disaster that's perpetrating itself around him,as club pro 'Tye Webb' in the films only direct reference to the original not withstanding the golf course itself that is. With his deeply tanned skin and loud Hawaiian shirts Chase looks like he's just got back from a lengthy summer vacation and needs a paycheck. He distances himself from the events in the actual picture enough that he takes little of the blame and leaves with some, all be it little, credibility still intact.

Jessica Lundy as Mason's daughter 'Kate' takes over from the 'Danny Noonan' role of the original as teenager struggling against class divides. Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? At least in the first Danny (an Irish Catholic from a blue collar family) and his laughable attempts to make inroads into the White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant dominated world of the golf club mover and shakers was played out to some memorable set pieces such as being dismissed by the resident Lutheran Bishop as well as being mocked by the offspring of the local yacht club. Lundy's embarrassment of her father's inability to fit-in is hinted at being because of his Jewish roots. That aside it may also have to do with him being a classless moron but such intricacy's are swept aside though I stopped caring long before they were resolved. At the end of the day Noonan was trying to get ahead in life. Miss Hartounian's biggest problem is getting the hob nobbers at the local golf club to like her multi-millionaire father so that she can get a date with the club's prodigal white kid. Or so I gathered.

Anyway in summation its poorly written, badly scripted with lame set pieces and wastes a lot of talent. Indeed kudos if you were able to sit through it to it's conclusion. It really is a penance. There is that question mark though of why did so many of the original actors not return as opposed to being replaced by performers who on paper at least looked their equals. Maybe they just weren't asked. Or perhaps I suspect they actually read the script. Stick to the original!!!

The Pallbearer (1996)

Very Watchable.

[7/10 · 13 January 2008]

'The Pallbearer' is a somewhat inoffensive film which most people could either take or leave. The film was Schwimmer's first attempt at non-'Friends' success but it bombed terribly at the box office and as a result remains unusual and unique in that so far it is his only attempt to carry a picture. I'm hesitant to call a it a star vehicle because it also features Gwenyth Paltrow but that is essentially what it is, or at least tries/was meant to be.

I actually like this movie but I would have found it ultimately forgettable if it hadn't been constantly shown on one of the more obscure digital TV channels late at night just as I was coming in from work for a 6 month period a few years back.

It has a good and recognisable cast which will put an audience at ease. Rappaport is as usual very funny and Schwimmer plays a very 'Ross'-esque character, given a ridiculous hair cut so that we can obviously differentiate from his 'Friends' persona. Paltrow looks cute and does what she does best.....pouts a lot.

The plot itself centres around Schwimmer's character attempting to negotiate a relationship beyond friendship with his high school crush (Paltrow) who he has not been in contact with for years, presumably as he has only recently returned from completing his college studies. This is somewhat hindered though as he has also become intimately involved with the grieving mother of a recently deceased local man played by Barabra Hershey who believes, wrongly, that Schwimmer's character was her departed son's best , and for that matter only, friend at high school. As he is looking for some excitement in life Scwimmer's character was more than willing to maintain this incorrect assumption in order to bed the vulnerable Hershey character but after peddling the deception to the point where he delivers the eulogy at her son's funeral (at which he is also a Pallbearer hence the film's title) guilt begins to catch up with him and the 'Graduate'-esqu style of excitement he had previously felt is replaced by regret. There is also the underlying feeling to which many can probably relate of a post graduate who is struggling to move on with his life. This of course summons further comparisons with the earlier mentioned 'Graduate' from which this picture obviously draws major though not overly obvious influences.Tom Thompson (Schwimmer) has achieved an architectural degree but is struggling to find employment in the field and is back living in his old bedroom at his mother's house which looks , and where he is treated, like he is still at high school. To make matters worse his friends who live near by are all in 9-5 jobs and have all moved on with their lives to the point they are either married or engaged and are considering starting families. The relationship with Hershey seems to give a feeling of maturity whilst the reemergence of Paltrow has allowed him to recall happier and simpler times in his life where he wasn't under so much pressure to grow up.

The story itself can be viewed as simplistic and not very exciting but it was matched by the slow pace. I myself actually appreciated it but maybe thats because I found relevance to my own life. Either way the audience can get some enjoyment out of the actor's performances and some sharp dialogue and set pieces. There are also some nice directorial touches though the film is not what you would call stylistic or a talky for that matter.

Shwimmer's dead-pan comedic tone and facial expressions worked as well here as they do in 'Friends'. I felt he was just right for the role and enjoyed his performance. Though I accept that he is not to everyone's taste and for that reason many people will probably not enjoy this movie. Being a Shwimmer fan here is not a necessity but it certainly helps.

On the whole this is the kind of film which works well at entertaining in a kind of personal way and in a subdued setting IE.- late at night in your living room with nothing else on or perhaps a rainy Saturday afternoon. It would have been an extremely unsatisfying cinematic event though and that is probably where most of the bad press for it comes from.

Definitely not perfect but none the less a decent film which is made all the more worth while if you approach it with low expectations like I did.

The underlying theme is about facing up to the difficulty of that crossroads in life when we realise that perhaps its time to move on from being a carefree youth to a mature adult. If that interests you then I guess this movie you will appreciate.

Kids (1995)

Bankrupt culture.

[5/10 · 13 January 2008]

'Kids' is an okay film. Sometimes people think that because it has a pretty controversial topic and unorthodox style of representation that this in some way makes it original and therefore great. But I have to point out that the; direction is average ( raw one moment / standard Hollywood the next and neither done in any particularly eye catching form): there doesn't seem to be any kind of story here, apart from the AIDS message and focus is often lost on that.

The subplot (to the non-existent main plot) has something powerful to say. But it is not maintained by much outside of the Taxi driver's decent speech on life and Sevigny's character occasionally asking "Has anyone seen Telly?".

Harmony Korine has in many ways got away with murder in getting this film funded/ directed by an experienced photographer in Clark and distributed by Mira-Max (operating under an independent name so as not to incur the wrath of they're pay masters Disney) in the screenplays current form. I mean it could have done with about 3 or 4 rewrites in order to hone it's focus and clarify it's message.

I've also got to criticise some of the performances. Sevigny looks out of her depth in this. Kind of numb and uninteresting throughout the whole film. Its very difficult to distinguish between her sober and stoned. And its almost impossible to feel sympathy for her such is the unconvincing level of her performance when she is upset. Leo Fitzgerald also seems inadequate as Telly. There is some good non-dialogue scenes from him but when he opens his mouth he just sounds plain stupid. I found it hard to believe that an uneducated ignoramus with the appearance of a junkie could be Manhattan's under 16s ladies man.

However a lot of the younger kids at the party scene near the end are very impressive. They're dialogue is very well scripted and executed. And Justin Pearce looked like a star in the making. I thought he was brilliant and towered above the other lead roles of Sevigny and Fitzpatrick who were just plain poor. Sad to hear that at the age of only 25 , Justin Pearce took his own life. He definitely could have gone on to bigger things.

Anyway 'Kids' did have it's heart in the right place but it's execution was disappointing and it looked like a rushed job to me. Some better casting, direction and scripting/story development could've made this a powerful picture. But I guess thats the case with most average to bad films.

I think its interesting how America was so disgusted by this kind of gritty, harsh realism. I also think its slightly amusing how some of the American commentators think that gives it some kind of shocking originality. Believe me there are many European films ie- 'Prisoner of the Mountain' (Russia), 'La Hain'( France), 'Small Faces', 'Trainspotting', 'A Sense of Freedom'(Scotland), 'Made in Britain', 'The War Zone', 'Scum' and'The Firm'(England) which are all at the very least equal if not way ahead in portraying depressing and graphic realities.

If you really liked 'Kids' I'd encourage you to check out British actor Gary Oldman's film 'Nil By Mouth'(2000) which makes this look like a tea party.

Scrooged (1988)

Seasonal Murray vehicle has its moments.

[6/10 · 27 October 2007]

The reviews by the critics for this film were terrible. However the general viewer feedback is good. The film has some sappy, overblown moments ie.- the ending. But its all done in good spirits. If your a Bill Murray fan you'll love it. As the morally redundant TV exec Frank Cross, Murray gets far and away the most screen time and his straight faced, dry humour is just perfect for this type of character.

The film is a modern update of 'A Christmas Carol' for anyone who doesn't already know with the aforementioned Murray character Frank Cross replacing the role of Ebeneezer Scrooge. After being initially visited by his now deceased ex-boss(represented rather shockingly as an old decaying, mouse infested corpse still wearing the golf uniform he suffered his life ending heart attack in on the fairway) and on whom he had based his own career (though Frank has gone on to become even more selfish and concerned with the bottom line than even he was) Cross simply dismisses the episode as the result of high level executive pressure. In particular Frank is stressing out about his network's live Christmas eve broadcast which is surprise, surprise a big budget live version of 'A Christmas Carol'. However he is in turn visited by 3 very different versions of the ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Future to the one's represented in the Dicken's tale , with the possible exception of the final ghost who is much more traditional in representation than the others. The role of Tiny Tim and Bob Cratchet are represented by Cross's long suffering secretary and her young son who is a mute as a result of the trauma of seeing his father murdered several years before. There is a couple of interesting side stories involving Murray rekindling the only real relationship he has ever had with his first love Clare who he decides to recontact amongst all of the madness as well as a confident young new executive who has been brought on board and tries to act as Frank's friend but is clearly planning to usurp him. This attempt is aided by everyone's perception that Frank appears to be suffering some kind of breakdown as he tries to deal with the bizarre impingement on his life by the aforementioned ghosts. Possibly the most entertaining of the story lines not relating directly to the main one involves a naive young board member played by the usually larger than life, but here toned down, Bobcat Goldthwaite who has been fired as a result of innocently questioning a violent promo for the live show which Cross has commissioned. As Frank is dealing with his ghost's Bobcat's character descends into a rather pathetic depression and desperate alcoholism , in the space of a few days, as he tries to come to terms with his unemployment.

I really enjoyed John Glover as the slimy Californian exec who is obviously after Cross's job. It kind of underlines the point that though Cross is nasty at least what you see is what you get. Glover's character is completely 2-faced. The character obviously made an impact on the makers of Gremlins 2 because they cast Glover in an almost identical role in that movie a mere two years later.

Karen Allen as Carol is convincingly sweet and warm as possibly the only person who can truly help redeem Frank but both her and Robert Mitchum as Frank's boss are somewhat underused and in the case of a legendary talent like Mitchum's you almost wonder why he is in it.

Anyway in summation if you like Murray you'll love this. If you don't your enjoyment may suffer but there are still laughs to be had at the send ups of Christmas Network programming ie-. 'Bob Goulet's Cajun Christmas' , 'The Night the Reindeer Died' with Lee Majors and 'Dad Loves Chasing Beaver.' The soundtrack, special effects and make-up are also first rate. However be warned, it is very dark and at times a little sad, particularly in one scene in which Frank re-encounters one of the homeless people he had met earlier at Claire's shelter in a disused boiler room on a typically freezing New York winters night. So if your looking for an uplifting, fun seasonal movie instead of just a good laugh then avoid this. At least up until the end anyway where they all live happily ever after. I would also not be to keen on showing it to very young kids. Its not exactly a horror film but there are enough moments to scare some children and the humour is for the best part more on the adult side.

Miller's Crossing (1990)

Another Coen brothers triumph.

[8/10 · 26 October 2007]

This is one my favourite gangster pictures of all time and to say the least I am a big fan of the genre. The use of the camera by the Coen bros.,the cinematography and the detail of the mise-en-scene are first rate. Yeah yeah. Thats my sad attempt to show that I learned something in film school. Seriously though the sets are excellent. As in The Hudsucker Proxy the Coens really make you feel like your in a completely different time and place.

Gabe Byrne is well cast as the softly spoken loner who by the end of the picture has danced rings around everybody yet doesn't seem much better off. Tom Reagan(Byrne) is a very original character because one can really relate to him. He hasn't got the stomach to murder, doesn't carry a gun despite all of the violence which surrounds and indeed threatens him every day and is prepared to take a beating as opposed to venting hell hath no fury style vengeance which would result in a much higher penalty. Essentially he's an everyman who is playing the cards life has dealt him and is more than aware its a shitty hand but knows the best way to win is not to go for broke.

Albert Finney is excellent as Leo the boss of the Irish mob who run a very fictional Chicago-esq setting and who is a lifetime friend of Reagan who is essentially Leo's unofficial consular. John Turturro goes from a 'tough-guy' in 'Do The Right Thing' to an at times pathetic yet equally psychotic 'rat' in this picture rather superbly. J.E. Freeman represents a rather commanding and intimidating physical presence as the fearsome Eadie Dane who has to be one of the most memorably sadistic henchmen ever committed to the screen. However for me Jon Polito, a favourite of the Coens, just about runs away with the picture as the wise-cracking mob underboss Johnny Caspar, a tough talking and ambitious Italian who has become fed up of taking the scraps from Leo's table and launches his own bid for the crown as the town's head honcho.

The film offers one of the most violent and memorable scenes in movie history when to the sweet theme of 'Danny Boy', two of Caspar's henchmen attempt to assassinate his now rival boss Leo at his home. The sheer ferocity of Tommy Guns has never been so well portrayed or indeed has this very cinematic weapon ever been so aesthetically pleasing.

The theme of the film is, like many before, borrowed from 'Yojimbo' with a middle man, Tom Reagan, playing off two rival gangs. The difference is that Tom actually does have loyalty to one.Another difference is that there is a lot of well executed humour here. Thats not to say there wasn't some in the Kirisawa classic but it's a little more obvious here. There is a more direct comparison to this film which some may have noticed but believe me 'Last Man Standing', released several years later, does not hold a candle to this picture. That film took itself a hell of a lot more seriously and faded from the memory rather quicker quite possibly because you had seen it all done before but better.

A typically Coenesque surreal edge is also given by the at times unorthodox camera use and blandness of the sets. As in 'Hudsucker' and 'Barton Fink' the minimalist and somewhat austere fashion of the pre-60s years is overemphasized to great effect. The film is after all meant to be a fantasy. Yes a very adult and violent one with obvious nods to the realities of Capone's Chicago and the 30s and 40s Cagney gangster films but still a fantasy non the less.

Overall this is a very original take on the gangster theme and a visual gem. It also contains some important lessons for any aspiring gangsters. In the words of Johnny Casper "Look at this kid. Something I tell all my boys.Always put one in the brain!"

Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd (2003)

Badly Made: Poorly Conceived: Has 1 funny scene!

[3/10 · 26 October 2007]

One of those films that will astound you in that it actually got made. The script and direction here are poor and some of the 'comedic' performances are non-existent. But then again dialogue wise nobody has really anything to work with. The first film was made on the basis of a strong script. This sorry mess is made simply on the basis of a 'good' idea (that being lets cash in on the first one).

The studio probably commissioned this after seeing only a treatment or maybe even just a pitch which probably went something like "Dumb and Dumber made a lot of money. Lets make another one". If that's the case then they should have got some performers who are good at improvisation but alas.

To the film itself.....the leads do a good impersonation of Carey and Daniels but lack the comedic flair and material. It must have been a tough job I admit but the Loyd Christmas character struggles to get any laughs at all. The Harry take-off fairs better though. The one scene in the film which had me laughing was set in the school babe's house when she invites Harry round for dinner. But this was about the only one which had the whole audience, or indeed even part of it, going. It involved some pretty base toilet humour but in this movie you take the chuckles where you can. As for the plot. What can I say?! Its a prequel to the aforementioned original set during the terrible twosome's school years. And really that's about as much info as you need in terms of the character's motivations.

In regards to the other more notable cast members present here Eugene Levy stole the show in 'American Pie' but most of his scenes here stink of being painfully under-written. He almost looks embarrassed to be in it. Also the rest of the kids in the special needs class just ain't funny. For a start they don't actually do anything and when they do get screen time they are about as charismatic as a career stoner. And when we find out that the Asian foreign exchange student is actually American the general reaction is not laughter but more wondering 'Who is she again?' I don't know why Mimi Rogers and Luis Guzman are in this. Their roles are small and uninteresting. I think that's meant to be the joke. Ha, Ha. Also that Loyd's dad(Guzman) is an Hispanic for some unexplained reason. Wacky! The role that must get the most criticism though is that of the store clerk. This guy's timing and general acting, if you could call it that, are just terrible. He stinks the house out . I can only imagine that they found him on the street and were unlucky to uncover America's worst performer. I mean what kind of audition , if any, did he go through for this? He has a gratingly monotone voice and a face you would like to hit.

In summary: you can see 90% of the laughs coming and when they do come they ain't funny; the ending has huge plot holes in it that are never explained(I know. I may have taken it a bit too seriously) and even the out-takes struggle to raise a snigger. The film has the same poor pacing and direction of 'Dude.Where's my car?' but is even less funny than that piece of $h!t. 3/10

Jimmy Johnstone: Lord of the Wing (2004)

A tribute to Jinky!

[8/10 · 14 October 2007]

An insightful and emotional documentary about a man from Glasgow who was small in stature but big in heart and blessed with wonderful football skills that graced the field of Celtic Park (thats Paradise to anyone that knows about these things) for well over a decade and was part of the Great Celtic team of the 60s and 70s that stormed to a momentous 9 consecutive Scottish League titles and became the first British side to lift the European Cup (the most prestigious of World club football trophies) with their victory, or was that 'lesson in attacking football' over the then World football power from Italy called Inter Milan. Billy Connolly narrates and there are contributions from some of Celtic's many world famous supporters such as actor/director Peter Mullen and Simple Minds front-man Jim Kerr. Sadly wee Jimmy or 'Jinky' as he will always be known is suffering from a debilitating muscle wasting disease which may threaten his life. Some will see this DVD presentation as a send off but I hope that is not the case and that the most skillful winger to ever grace the game will be able to triumph over adversity. My prayers are with him and his family at this tough time. But i'm sure 'Jinky' will know that with the ever grateful Celtic support from all over the world behind him 'You'll Never Walk Alone.'

Caddyshack (1980)

A very funny summer golf comedy.

[7/10 · 12 October 2007]

The film has some great moments and is possibly one of the most ad-libbed pictures of all time. Chevy Chase, in one of his first film roles, gives us a taste of his great comic turn in 'Fletch'(1985) with the off-beat portrayal of club pro Tye Webb. Chase is really untouchable when it comes to playing funny-straight characters. Bill Murray is hilarious as grounds keeper Carl Spackler. Murray has improvised just about all of his dialogue and it really is superb. His 'Cinderella Story' scene, followed by caddying for the Bishop in the thunder storm is one of the funniest things i've seen on screen.

Rodney Dangerfield is somewhat hit and miss. All of his dialogue is quick fire one-liners so the chances are that when he does crack a funny joke you'll be so busy laughing that you'll miss the next one. The funniest one in my book is his retort to caddy Tony D'Annunzio: 'Hey kid, when are you due back in boy's town?' For me Ted Knight steals the picture as Judge Smails. He is such an energetic over the top character. His constant put downs of grandson Spallding , 'You'll get nothing and like it!', and random acts of frustrated violence supplied constant entertainment.

The question is...why didn't the film just focus completely on these guys? Instead it kept on harping back to Danny Noonan. Michael O'Keefe is a fine actor but he was always going to struggle in a comedy which featured the above cast members and characters. Another handicap is that in a comedy he gets few comedic lines. His character's relationship with his girlfriend Maggie, played inexplicably with a terrible Irish accent, and with his own family are highly under developed. Cindy Morgan is also given an extremely under written character who's motives are never explained and who randomly comes in and out of the film. Harold Ramis's direction is at times sloppy and echoes his then inexperience. He did go on to do 'Groundhog Day'(1993) though so he obviously learned his lessons.

To sum up this is a good film to get you in the mood for the summer. Lots of beautiful weather covering some splendid golf course scenery. There are plenty of likable characters and some very funny set pieces. Its also interesting to see the launch pad for some of the 80s biggest comedic stars. But be warned if you don't like Chase, Murray or Dangerfield then don't waste your time on this. Along with Knight, the film really is their show. For further evidence to support the final sentence just look at the poster.

Under the Car (1992)

Little seen horror short is a gem.

[7/10 · 7 October 2007]

A group of friends return to the deserted car park where the designated driver's 4 wheel drive is situated. The group are all happy go lucky after a fun night out but soon things change. After entering the car and finding it won't start they disembark the vehicle and attempt to fix it. 1 by 1 though the group (numbering about 5 or 6 I think) which is comprised of couples, begin to be picked off by an invisible entity.

The creature seems to be hiding under the vehicle and attacks with deadly precision and ferocity. The only safe place seems to be inside the car and the survivors of the original attack hole up in there for the night. But of course each one attempts to either take a look, fight back or make a run for it. All with gruesome consequences.

The question is ' Will anyone survive?' I was lucky enough to see this riveting little American short sometime late at night in the mid 90s on ITV in the UK. This little short was part of a schedule filler series called 'Short Story Cinema(or theatre)' or something like that. By schedule filler I mean these little short films would appear sporadically late at night, sometimes months apart, simply to fill up any spaces in the night's TV listings. I think ITV just made up a title for the series as I can't find it listed on IMDb.

Sadly ITV haven't done this show for some time and will probably never again. Even if they did its just your luck if you switch on at the right time and it happens to be this particular short that they're showing. A shame as it really is exciting and scary. Kind of like 'Predator'meets 'Wolfen' condensed into about 10mins (or whatever the running time was.) The ending is also pretty cool with a good reveal as to what the creature actually is. There had been some funny and entertaining dialogue scenes in the car as the panicking friends had began to debate what the creature is. One suggestion i think was an escaped tiger from the local zoo. There is also a lot of arguing and concern over how they will be able to go to the can. The film was really well scripted.

Ultimately though it makes you appreciate the benefits of a mobile phone.

In the unlikely event that you obtain a copy ,or like me stumble upon it unwittingly one night,......enjoy.

PS/ Another good short in the same series is called 'The Jogger'. This film is also a horror and is listed on the movie database.

In the Company of Men (1997)

Nice guys really do finish last!

[7/10 · 5 October 2007]

In the Company of Men is a dark and disturbing story focusing on two corporate work colleagues who take advantage of a deaf typist while on a six week work related trip.

Chad is confident, good looking, calculated and cold. Howard is unconfident,disorganized, short and overweight but intelligent and successful at the same time. Christine, the deaf typist, is vulnerable as her disability makes her self conscious of the way she speaks. The two men, both bitter about recent break ups with their girlfriends, decide to date Christine so as to build up her confidence (which due to her self consciousness about the way she speaks is understandably fragile in social situations) and then dump her in an attempt to break her belief once again. Therefore they will be striking back against the female community which they feel has wronged them. The results are fascinating and somewhat upsetting.

As for my one line summary above.This is the moral of the story. It would seem on the surface that the conclusion is that Christine is the victim. But this is wrong. Howard is the true victim here. Chad not only gets promoted while Howard is demoted but illustrates his superiority over Howard in terms of sex appeal and in his ability to constantly gain control over situations in the work place. Chad can sit back in a boardroom and call everybody a "c**ks**ker" or "f**ker" behind their backs to everybody else's amusement and get away with it.Howard meanwhile struggles to even introduce himself to co-workers.I think it should be noted that as the relationship between the men and Christine develops, Howard begins to make mistakes and slip ups which lead to his eventual demotion. Chad though is able to maintain his cool exterior and continues to treat the relationship as a game.In the end Howard is a broken and lonely man with nothing. Chad meanwhile has become stronger and more powerful yet his attitude remains the same.

Eckhart is awesome as Chad. Anyone who knows anything of acting will tell you that such characters are a joy for an actor to play but the role is executed wonderfully. Its no surprise that it is on such a performance that Eckhart has built a pretty stellar career. There are also some shades here of his excellent recent portrayal as a tobacco industry spin doctor in the wonderful 'Thank You For Smoking' but the difference is that this one is in no way played for laughs.Matt Malloy portrays a much more difficult role very well and the portrayal of Christine is also very impressive.

The people who criticised the acting in the recommendation section must be watching the wrong movie. I found myself enjoying the performances as much as the material which was very basic and offered characters which we have seen before in other films with a 'big business' backdrop ie.-Wall street.

Overall its a somewhat bluntly executed but engrossing portrayal of relationships in the workplace and how as much as we may despair some people are just plain no good. The ending is also worthy in that it contains a twist that you really won't see coming.

You will ponder it after viewing and if you like Eckhart it is somewhat essential viewing.

Twenty Bucks (1993)

Interesting but forgettable.

[6/10 · 5 October 2007]

One of those strange little independent films that pops up late one night on your television set occasionally and makes you ask "where the hell has this been hiding?" That's not to say that it's a great movie or anything but it certainly is interesting. The premise is portrayed by some as genius but is in fact pretty simple.

The film follows a $20 note around, sometimes deviating to follow characters who are not in it's possession , or at least have not had their hands on it yet. The film is directed in a sloppy fashion at times including a poorly edited scene involving the Gladys Knight character scaring some kids at a diner window and for the best part lacks the style its premise eludes to. I think it would have been a lot more memorable , though a hell of a lot less subtle, if the likes of Tarentino had got their hands on it but that I suppose is neither here nor there. As for Gladys Knight's involvement it acts as a useless cameo of which there are a few. Also the storyline involving her character's grandson added nothing but a poor attempt at humour by an over confident young actor and his unconvincing first love in a short story theme lifted from 'American Graffiti' about an underagers' eventful attempts to obtain alcohol.

As has been acknowledged by most commentators Christopher Lloyd's scenes with Steve Buscemi(who must now be recognised as the patron saint of independent American pictures) , centering around a cold and calculated armed robber and his new , loose cannon, partner are the standout of the film. By the end of the picture you feel let down by Lloyd's character not re-entering the fray. However Elizabeth Shue is not far behind as she also gives an impressive account as a struggling writer. Also watch out for Ross Geller , yes I know that's not his real name, in an early pre-Friends role portraying a character who almost acts as a prototype for Shwimmer's most impressive outing in a film role as one of the slimy pioneer surgeon's of 'Breast Men'. What let the film down for me in the acting department was Brendan Fraser who produced an uninspired performance as an uncertain groom to be whose character admittedly suffered from a complete lack of explanation and development. Fraser seemed to be kind of sleep walking through a role which was supposed to be both sympathetic and misunderstood. Instead he just comes across as a loser who wasn't grateful for what he had.

Some unnecessarily elaborate and quick plot developments which seemed designed to but failed to deliver any laughs , ie- a cocaine dealer organizing a fishing tournament for kids one of who ends up phoning a sex chat line, only helped to frustrate one into wondering what was happening to the main characters and when would we see them again? Though I must also note nicely executed little cameos by William H. Macy as a fidgety , bored cop and Linda Hunt as preachy , pretentious vagrant whose constant speeches ultimately cost her the destiny which she believes is about to be bestowed upon her, redeemed the scenes that included them and in Hunt's case tied the movie up nicely.

Despite all of the famous stars a viewing of the film pretty much awakens one to why it never got any kind of major cinematic release. For in the end it's premise and casting somewhat flattered to deceive. A more ambitious and brave director could have elevated it above the average fair which it ultimately is. I give it 6 / 10.

If you liked this or have an interest in similar low budget star packed features then check out the far superior 'Trees Lounge' which starred and was directed by one of this film's most notable names Steve Buscemi.

Parallel 9 (1992–1994)

Bizarre Saturday morning kids show!!!

[7/10 · 24 June 2006]

'Parallel 9' was a Saturday morning kids show introduced by the BBC after the falling ratings of the out dated 'Going Live' which had ran from 87' to 92'. The idea was that while 'Going Live' took its traditional summer break, a new alternative Saturday morning kids show would be given a run with the promise that 'Going Live' would return as it always used to during the winter. It was set on an alien planet, not surprisingly called 'Parallel 9', and was basically your standard fair with competitions, phone-ins, game shows, cartoons, celebrity guests (I remember Hulk Hogan being on it in the last series.) etc. The actual presenter was an Australian actress who used to play Melanie in Neighbours for series 2 onwards anyway. Can't remember who did series 1. I think she presented it from Earth, if you know what I mean, but the show would switch between her and the events on 'Parallel 9'. The whole 'Parallel 9' side of it was kind of weird. There were some very strange characters interacting and it seemed kind of pointless. They had to get off 'Parallel 9' or something because they were cast away there for being dicks or something like that. It was quit dark but belonged more as a sci-fi series or game-show and not as a Saturday morning kids TV extravaganza. Some people praised its darkness and originality. Though as a kids format it didn't work. Indeed I, and most other kids at the time, started praying for the more stayed and orthodox 'Going Live' to return and when it did we were overjoyed before it dawned on us how boring 'Going Live' had become. Series 2 in the summer of 93' saw the original concept completely revamped.It looked like an advert for luminous condoms and was so bright and colour saturated it made you feel sick. The presenters were rubbish. Pretty much nothing from series 1 survived.

BUT THEN.....in its third season the makers of 'Parallel 9' were obviously told it was going to get the chop for good after the the third run had finished and a big bold return to the traditional 'Going Live' style kids format but with more energy and younger presenters was about to be launched called 'Live and Kicking', which would run year round and not seasonally like 'Going Live'. With the advertising for that in full swing the producers of 'Parallel 9' obviously figured that as they were doomed any way they would be as well taking chances. They introduced a rather nasty character ( who I think was a Baron or something) who basically ran the place and he took great pleasure in trying to intimidate and torture the rather hilarious 'Little Green Man' who had been introduced in Season 2 in a much smaller role. The chemistry between these two was surprisingly good and there were some genuinely hilarious moments. I recall one where the Little Green Man gave the Baron-Esq type character a green jelly like gift and the Baron licked it, smiled and asked if it was indeed jelly. The Little Green Man , in his high pitched voice, replied 'No. I brought it up from my chest this morning.' Shocked look by the Baron, they both look at the camera with wide eyes and then cut to a cartoon. Genius. It all became very knowing and tongue in cheek and at the end it was a total riot. It was flicking hysterical when celebrity guest would be 'beamed up' to 'Parallel 9' where they would be treated with complete contempt by the characters and there would be countless looks of 'what the hell is going on?' on various guest pop stars and TV show stars faces. I think it all ended with 'Parallel 9' blowing up and the Baron and Little Green Man jetting off somewhere. I know that there was a finale which proved that they knew an end to this short lived show was on the cards for a while.

To sum up....... Series 1 was pretty pointless, ill advised and of beat and sealed the shows fate. Season 2 introduced a bizarre colour scheme and a bloody stupid dinosaur puppet called Brian. Series 3 introduced some great characters, as well as minimised the crap Brian's role to a bare minimum, and is to this day one of the most bizarre and original Kids TV shows which did not pander and dumb things down to kids but actually dared to believe they would 'get it.' Another smarter component of these shows was that they only lasted for 2 hours unlike Going Live and Live and Kicking which ran on far too long at 3. I will never forget this show. Great TV? Hardly. Original and entertaining? Yes. In the case of the third and last year of it any way.

The Boys of Sunset Ridge (2001)

Excuse me while I puke blood!

[2/10 · 7 April 2006]

One of this sickeningly sweet , "seems like old times" , friends forever nostalgic films that's tells a story you've seen a million times before. I mean for a start John Heard is not, by any stretch of the imagination anywhere near as old as Pat Morrita or Ronny Cox so that requires a lot of suspension of disbelief. It is pretty much standard fair until the old man section at the end where our principal characters have all entered the twilight of their lives and become "The Golden Boys". That requires the acting heavyweights (Heard, Young, Cox and Morrita) of the cast to enter the setup and that's where it also starts to think its important. Full of Heard narrating everything and the characters , one by one, fading out on the golf course, indicating that they are all dead. Its all so damn generic. The way they all become successful as well. It has to tie up every loose end so damn perfectly. Like as soon as the Young character makes his money he dies in a car crash just after being told "life just wasn't a challenge for him after he became rich." And just before the Morrita character dies we are told that he had just retired from teaching and then become some mega successful writer. The actual end to the film is what led me to use my chosen title. It involves the central character's grand kids spreading Heard's ashes and talking some clichéd garbage about friendship. Please. We get the point already. Stop frickin underlining everything. To sum the film up put it this way.....its the kind of thing Alan Alda usually shows up in. He must have been sick that week or something.

Moving (1988)

Pryor on a leash.

[3/10 · 23 May 2005]

This is what happens when you try to restrain Richard Pryor's talents to a relatively safe and formulaic setting. It just doesn't fit. The film's writers and producers obviously couldn't make their minds up about what direction they were going to take this in. Family comedy, Pryor vehicle or kick ass suburban nightmare send-off? In they end they tried to attach all three and not surprisingly the result is a poorly paced and confused affair lacking coherence and overall good direction.

'The Burbs' was intelligent because it kind of put you in a safe and familiar environment then turned it on it's head. It also had some really well developed characters. But there is little at best of that here.

Randy Quaid's character is supposed to be the neighbour from hell. At least that is what we're told and what is instigated through Pryor's reaction to him. But we don't actually see much evidence of this. Which kind of made me not really understand why Pryor hated him so much. Shame as well because this is the kind of role that big Randy usually kicks ass in ie. - 'National Lampoons Vacations I,II and IV' and 'Next Door'.

The removals guys were just really predictable (with the King Kong Bundy joke not really working nowadays) and though he usually makes me laugh the Dana Carvey section just wasn't well.......funny.

The side stories about Pryor's daughter staying behind in Jersey because of her new boyfriend also just falls apart. He doesn't answer a call from her the night after her folks leave so from that we are meant to infer I think that he is cheating or something so she just ups sticks and moves out after her folks. Okay. But what the hell does this contribute to the story? Similarly Pryor's two twin sons decide to pass themselves off as one person throughout the movie. Ah the old identical twin joke. So their parents never went to a parent's night obviously as they claim that nobody ,outside the family home, has ever clocked onto it in their 12 years of existence. And this plot device is used for? Well nothing. Just another inconsequential little side story with no resolution.

The whole bit involving Pryor becoming a Post-Apocalyptic like, Kung-Fu using warrior out of frustration is more embarrassing than entertaining sadly. This films just left me feeling disappointed as there were certainly the tools and potential for something more.

As it is it's more of a kind of mild and forgetful rainy Saturday afternoon type of experience. Check out 'Neighbours'and 'Funny Farm' if your looking for something in the same territory which hits the mark more often. See 'National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation' or 'The Burbs' if your looking something along the same lines but which is completely superior.