Serenity (2005, Joss Whedon)

Between the years of 2002 and 2003, Joss Whedon’s short lived, sci-fi western themed programme, Firefly aired on Fox for one season. At the time, many critics complained that the mix between science fiction and Westerns were simply too jarring.  Luckily, in the brief time it was on television, and the DVD release which proceeded its airing, the show amassed a vast cult following; which was apparently enough to convince Universal Studios to give Joss Whedon $40 million to make a spin-off movie sequel to the show. 

Set in the year 2517, the government, named “The Alliance” have long since won the war against “The Independent Faction” (nicknamed “Browncoats”, based on their uniforms). Now, The Alliance has spread out across the universe, taking over planets and galaxies as they go. A young, psychic girl named River Tam (Summer Glau) has been kidnapped by Alliance scientists, who perform cruel experiments on her and try to manipulate her psychic abilities for their own gains. Rescued by her older brother, Simon (Sean Maher), the two find refuge aboard the Firefly-class transport ship, Serenity, captained by Malcolm “Mal” Reynolds (Nathan Fillion), a former Browncoat who has a grudge against The Alliance. Once an Alliance agent, known only as “The Operative” (Chiwetel Ejiofor) finds out she is missing, he makes it his mission to retrieve her by any means necessary. 

Given a synopsis like that, many of those reading who are not aware of Firefly and Serenity will probably not have a clue what I am talking about, and that is the first problem with the movie. It is not at all friendly to newcomers, which means certain audience members spending the first half-an-hour or so catching up. For the sake of clarification, “The Alliance” and “The Browncoats” are based loosely on The Union and The Confederates from the American Civil War (there is just one of its connections to Westerns). There are also “Reavers”, who are one of the film’s antagonists. They were once men who became rage filled zombie like creatures who cross the universe, attacking in hordes, raping and murdering all they see. Fans of the show will be well aware of the Reavers, and know the threat they pose, but newcomers will struggle to catch up. To be fair, Whedon does give a few characters chunks of exposition, where they explain very clearly to the audience just what is going on and why. There is also the problem that the Reavers are fairly unimpressive in terms of how they look, and they never feel like a threat.

Thankfully, once the uninitiated do figure out just what is going on, there is a lot of fun to be had. One has to remember that, while $40 million is a high budget, it is fairly modest for a science-fiction space opera. This modest budget allows the film to rely on character and hand-to-hand fighting, instead of computer generated spectacle. There is an intimacy, not just between the cast, who have fantastic personal chemistry, but to the audience. It realises that this may be the last chance that diehard fans get to see their favourite characters, so it delivers what it promises by giving each character a lot of cool things to do. It respects its audience enough to deliver a carefully crafted, witty, fun space-yarn. Given the fact that this came out in the same year as the bloated, overly serious Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, this, in comparison is brimming with life and energy.

As you may expect from a cast who have already become friends on the set of Firefly, the lead performers have excellent chemistry, and deliver fine, individual performances to boot. Nathan Fillion as Mal Reynolds is extremely charming, coming across as a mix between Han Solo in the Star Wars franchise and Clint Eastwood in The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. Had the film been a bigger hit, I imagine he may have become a bigger star than he is, but it seems being a cult performer has been sufficient for him in the years since Serenity has been released.

Some people have argued that every actor is simply doing their best Han Solo impression, which I find unfair. Each actor has a distinct personality, and is played with charm and wit. Gina Torres is suitably dry as second in command, Zoe, and has several emotional moments towards the end. Alan Tudyk is witty as the ship’s pilot, Wash, and will break the hearts of diehard Firefly fans, which I shall not spoil. Adam Baldwin plays a decent tough guy as the ship’s muscle, Jayne, and some of the best lines are his. Jewel Staite is tomboyish as the ship’s mechanic, Kaylee, and manages to balance wide-eyed innocence and tough girl moments. Sean Maher is good as the square-jawed, overly serious, ship medic, Simon Tam. Also, his dedication to his sister, River Tam is convincing. Lastly, Summer Glau as River is excellent, and despite her small frame, she is very convincing in the action scenes. Joss Whedon should be commended for paving the way for writing women as tough, and savvy, as so few filmmakers do, especially in science-fiction cinema. I believe the Han Solo comparisons comes from the fact that each character is a rogue, and the ship’s crew make their living by stealing anything that is not nailed down, but other than that, the comparison is off base.

One of the standout performers is franchise newcomer, Chiwetel Ejiofor as the villain, The Operative. He is cold and is willing murder anyone who gets in his way, making him an impressive villain. Ejiofor is a chameleon like performer who adapts to any situation presented before him. His breakout was in Stephen Frear’s Dirty Pretty Things (2002) and since then he has worked with such directors as Spike Lee, David Mamet and Woody Allen, to name a few. He may be best known by audiences in the UK for his stage work, specifically his Laurence Olivier Award winning performance in Othello in 2008. He shares some great scenes with Fillion, specifically a fight scene towards the end of the film, which is an excellent example of how to perform a decent fight scene.

As you may imagine, since Serenity was based on a flop TV-show, the film flopped. Although,  like the TV-show, the film has found a dedicated audience on DVD, making it a cult hit. I think what makes Serenity so successful, is Joss Whedon. His writing is pin sharp, especially when mixing Western sounding dialogue with futuristic settings, and he has a keen eye for detail as a director. He gave the audience the film they wanted to see since the show was cancelled, and no one can fault him for delivering to them and them only. 

8/10

Local Hero (1983, Bill Forsyth

It is a shame that filmmaker, Bill Forsyth stopped making films. Not only for audiences the world over, but also because the idea of a world where he is not making films is a very sad one indeed. In 1994 he directed Being Human, an utterly soulless Hollywood movie, made as a vehicle for Robin Williams. He found the experience of working with Hollywood so traumatic that he never directed another film. It is somewhat ironic that the film Forsyth is best known for, internationally at least, is Local Hero; where capitalistic greed is defeated by delicate, natural beauty, when it was Hollywood's capitalistic greed that destroyed Forsyth's career.

Local Hero opens with MacIntyre (Peter Reigert), a hot-shot executive working for the Houston, Texas branch of Knox Oil and Gas. He has been sent by his boss, oil tycoon, Felix Happer (Burt Lancaster) to buy the small, costal, village of Ferness in Scotland so the company can build an oil refinery on the land. When he arrives in Scotland, he teams up with Danny (Peter Capaldi), a bumbling young man from the Aberdeen branch of Knox Oil and Gas. Together they try to negotiate with Ferness' local lawyer-cum-hotelier Gordon Urquhart (Dennis Lawson), who, along with the rest of the village, becomes bewitched with the idea of becoming rich after the village has been bought. Eventually, after spending a few days in the village, Mac begins to shed his materialistic lifestyle and falls head-over-heels in love with the town's natural beauty.

During the theatrical release of Local Hero in 1983, many people were comparing it to similar "tartan-whimsey" as Whiskey Galore and Brigadoon. However, a more apt comparison would be with Powell and Pressburger's I Know Where I'm Going, which echoes Local Hero's utopian feel for landscape. What Forsyth, and director-of-photography, Chris Menges manage to do is to craft mood with their images. Often, scenes will play out with little to no dialogue, and we as an audience simply have to accept that the gradual changes in the characters are sincere, and not the result of simply being on a pretty beach. The land is character, and it is filmed in such a way that it engulfs the viewer and leaves them transformed. It is common in films such as this that the land plays as an important part as the characters, and the locations here are stunning, and shot with a warmth that makes it seem like this location can be found only in dreams, not in real life.

Mac's change is gradual, and it is represented, not only in Peter Riegert's warm performance, but also with visual changes. For example, he stops wearing his tie in one scene, then he stops wearing a suit altogether. Eventually he is standing drunk in a bar, unshaven, wearing his most casual clothes, admitting to Gordon that he wants his life. It is touching simply because we have gone through that gradual change with Mac, and we too have found something wonderful in Ferness. Mac announces towards the start of the film that he is, "more of a telex man. I could have this done in afternoon over the phone." By the end of the film he is simply agreeing to whatever price Gordon suggests. Although, while Mac's change is gradual, Gordon and the villagers reaction to the money is immediate, and they seem eager to take the money and run, consumed by greed.

In fact, this is, when you dig deep enough, not just an idyllic fairytale, but a satire on capitalism. As the roles are reversed, Mac realises that if he sells Ferness to the oil company, they will ruin the village, yet the inhabitants of the village do not seem to care. Both Happer and Mac are capitalists by profession, yet they lead shallow lifestyles and they attempt to fill that void with something real. For Mac it is Ferness, and for Happer it is the natural beauty of the stars. It may not be a grand statement, but it is certainly effective. Forsyth's best decisions and strongest scenes are when he lets his scenes play out with subtlety. His humour raises giggles, but few belly laughs, the only broad jokes occurring in the few scenes when Happer, back in Houston, is being harassed by an abusive psychiatrist. These scenes are just broad enough to make the scenes work and are never so unsubtle to derail the delicacy of the scenes in Ferness. Overall the script is unforced, unfussy and playfully sweet. 

 Moments of pathos are handled equally well. For example, Mac's eventual return to America is written and performed to be bitter-sweet, as the cold, sterility of Houston's skyline contrasts so heavily with the natural landscape of Ferness. As he looks over Houston, which is beautiful in its own way, he realises everything he needed to be happy was left behind in Ferness. From the friends he made to his newfound love of the simple life, and now he must return to a life that he no longer has any use for. It is, in my opinion, one of the finest scripts ever written, at least in terms of balancing moods between melancholic and heartbreakingly bittersweet. Local Hero may have been inspired by the early-80s oil boom, but the film's inspiration on cinema and television is undeniable. The creators of Northern Exposure, the popular television series which ran for five seasons between 1990 and 1995, all but admitted that they were attempting to recreate Local Hero. 

In terms of its performances, the film has a decent ensemble. All the villagers are authentically rustic and have several funny moments to themselves. A standout moment would be when a passerby asks an elderly fisherman painting a sign on a boat, whether there are two Ls in "dollar". He replies, "Yes. Are there two Gs in bugger off?" Out of the leads, Dennis Lawson is perhaps the best, showing his subtle change from local town lawyer to a man who will potentially be rich is fairly interesting. He also shares a decent chemistry with Peter Riegert, as Mac and Gordon become friends they share several touching scenes together. Although, the real scene stealer is Burt Lancaster, who is clearly having a ball playing against type as a kindly, gentle man who just happens to be rich.

However, the most complimentary thing to this film's feeling and mood is not the actors, as fine as they are, but the music. The score is performed by Mark Knopfler, best known as a member of Dire Straits. His music is just the right side of melancholic and compliments the film's images perfectly. Like every other aspect of the film, it is, personally, one of the finest film scores ever composed. Everything in the film, from the wonderful screenplay to the pitch-perfect acting and direction is near sublime, and a personal favourite of mine. 

10/10

Suing the Devil (2011, Timothy Chey)

I remember as a child, when I was in primary school, I was once asked by a friend whether or not I believed in God. I told him I did not, but I could see that my answer bothered him. For ten minutes or so he squirmed in his chair and kept making annoyed faces until, finally, he blurted out, "Do you believe in the Devil?" By this point, this friend of mine was really getting on my nerves, so in an attempt to please him, and to get him to shut up, I said, "Sure, why not." My youthful, naive mind thought that if I played along, even for a short while, he would be happy. He was not, and for the rest of the day he kept making cross signs at me and calling me a devil worshiper. I have not thought about that day for roughly twelve years, but when I sat down to see Tim Chey's Suing the Devil, memories of that day, and the irritation it brought on, came flooding back.

The plot of Suing the Devil centres on a young man named Luke O'Brien (Bart Bronson), a devout Christian having "the worst year of his life". His mother has been killed by a drunk driver, his girlfriend has a mysterious cough (which in cinema terms means she has a deadly disease) and, according to him, everything good in the world has turned rotten. This can only mean one thing, that the Devil is to blame, and the only way to fix all the world's problems is to sue him for eight trillion dollars. Expecting to be laughed out of the courthouse, O'Brien, as well as the judge, are both shocked to see none other than Satan (Malcolm McDowell) himself traipse through the courthouse doors to accept O'Brien's challenge. What started out as a simpering little twerp blaming all of his problems on a mythical beast turns into the (and I am quoting the film's tagline here) "the trial of the century".

As you may have noticed from my transparent, condescending tone, I am being sarcastic. This is, quite frankly, one of the worst films in Malcolm McDowell's questionable career. This is the kind of movie that would go down in bad movie legend, if it was not for the devoted cult of Christian right-wing fans who keep insisting that this is an inspiring masterpiece. Perhaps the most insulting aspect of the film is that it pigeonholes people into boxes of "good and evil" based on their faith alone. For example, Satan's team of high priced lawyers all share a hatred of God and would have no problem selling their souls to make a quick buck, so we know they are evil. Also, when O'Brien inexplicably puts an oil executive on the stand, he proceeds to chastise him for being an atheist and a capitalist; as if either fact has anything to do with this man's qualities as a human being. Then there is Satan himself, who, among other things, takes credit for gangster rap, which just goes to show how primitive and dangerous this film's ideas are. As if hip-hop music is evil simply by being aggressive and coarse, which of course, it is not.

The honest truth is, there is nothing wrong with religion in the media. Johnny Cash, for example, in his lifetime was one of the most sincere, honest musicians working, and it just so happens that he was a devout Christian. Martin Scorsese, one of the greatest living filmmakers, often uses themes of Catholicism in his films. However, both Cash and Scorsese live(d) in the real world, and are, or were, aware of the fact that simply being a Christian does not make a person good or bad. Simply put, a lot of the greatest art in the world, from the Renaissance era to the modern day, has been influenced by Christian teachings, yet each piece of work has been made with talent. That talent, however, is not inherited through belief, but is instead inspired by it. One cannot simply put a camera in the hand of an incompetent filmmaker and expect a masterpiece, simply because of his belief.

Although, what burdens the film most is the staggering lack of focus. Is O'Brien suing the devil for all of the world's problems, or just his problems? It flips between doing both, with some scenes referencing the great flood and others referencing Satan's punishment of Job. One was an incident in the Bible that affected the whole world, the other was a personal incident. If O'Brien is looking simply for self gratification, then Satan's case against him is hardly airtight. As each of Satan's lawyers question O'Brien, all they can determine is that he once made a racist remark, once cursed God, and watched internet pornography before he met his girlfriend. Concrete character assassination there, guys! Although, to be fair, perhaps these scenes would have been more interesting if either the actors playing the lawyers, or Bart Bronson as O'Brien could actually act. Instead they simply alternate between whispering and shouting their lines. Also, the script is no better, lurching awkwardly between drama and comedy.

What is perhaps most disheartening about the film is that the premise is a good one, and that there are infinite possibilities that one could do with Satan in a courthouse setting. For example, The Devil's Advocate did just that, making Satan the head of a law firm, and was a fairly successful film. However, it wont work if filmmaker's keep making film's such as this, with a condescending, almighty tone. Unfortunately, it is Malcolm McDowell who comes across as the worst, despite being the most competent actor, because he truly deserves better than this. My patience with Malcolm McDowell is beginning to wear thin, and if he does not stop agreeing to star in, and produce, schlock like this, I may have to terminate any good will I have towards him.

In conclusion, any enjoyment you may have watching this will only be on an ironic level, and not on any level that the Tim Chey intends. Malcolm McDowell is wasted and one wishes he will find better work in the next few years or so, but it is doubtful considering his output of late. If you are not the kind of person who enjoys watching bad movies simply to laugh at them, then please avoid this patronising mess. Avoid this like hell (sorry, I could not resist).

2/10

Bubba Ho-tep (2002, Don Coscarelli)

Stop me if you have heard this one before. Elvis Presley and John F. Kennedy, who is an elderly black man, did not die and are spending their twilight years in a retirement home in Texas. Given a setup like that, it sounds like the beginning of a great joke, or at the very least, a crackpot conspiracy theory. However, this is exactly the premise for Bubba Ho-Tep, and it only gets stranger from here. Based on the short story by Joe R. Lansdale, Bubba Ho-Tep tells the "true" story of Elvis' (Bruce Campbell) last years, living in a retirement home in East Texas with an abnormal growth on his penis which he is sure is cancerous.  According to this film's version of Elvis, he swapped lives with an Elvis impersonator named Sebastian (also Campbell), who promptly died on the toilet, leaving the real King to wither away into anonymity. After Sebastian died, the real Elvis spent the next twenty years of his life playing Sebastian playing Elvis on stage, until an accident caused him to fall of stage and break his hip. To add to the King's misfortune, the accident caused the hip to become infected, and he is now bed ridden with no motivation to "take care of business". His one friend in the home is "Jack," (Ossie Davis) a possibly senile black man who claims to be John F. Kennedy. When an evil, egyptian mummy starts sucking the souls of the rest home's residents, it is up to JFK and Elvis to conjure the spirits of their former, rebellious selves to save their rest home, and save the souls of its inhabitants.

What is perhaps most surprising about Bubba Ho-tep, is just how touchingly melancholic it is. If one can accept early on that the whole thing is a metaphor for ageing, then one will find oneself being pleasantly swept away. Director Don Coscarelli knows that when you take two icons such as JFK and Elvis Presley, who were known trouble makers in their youth, and show them as tired, cranky and ineffectual, we can project a lot of our fears about ageing onto them. When they both decide to fight back against evil, it works, because when you get right down to it, we get to see two people who are thought of as an inconvenience struggling for one last chance at relevance. This is also true for the cancerous lump on Elvis' genitals. It may be an excuse for Coscarelli to get in a few wink-wink, nudge-nudge knob gags, but it is also a hurdle for the character to overcome which makes their struggle all the more resonant. Think, for example, of C.C. Baxter's cold in The Apartment, or John McClaine's cut up, bloody feet in Die Hard, both are used to make us cheer harder when the heroes do eventually triumph.

Unfortunately, while Bubba Ho-tep is a soaring success on a subtextual level, it is not quite as successful as a horror movie or as a comedy. Firstly, the creature design on the mummy, while fairly imaginative, looks creaky. It is named "Bubba Ho-tep" because it is a cross between an ancient, Egyptian mummy, and a redneck from the South of America ("Bubba" being slang for "good ol' boy"). So the design of the creature has some nice, Western additions, such as a cowboy hat and boots with spurs. However, these imaginative touches cannot paper over what looks like a man dressed up in an ill-fitting mummy costume, and all fear or tension disappears once we see him. One wonders how effective the mummy would have been if they had not shown him so early on in the film, and he was just spoken about like the shark in Jaws, who is only ever seen in the last-third of the film. 

It is more successful as a comedy, as Bruce Campbell and Ossie Davis have an easy going chemistry, bouncing wry one-liners off one another with grace. Surprisingly, it is Davis who turns out to be the funnier of the two, which is nice to see as he is better known as a dramatic actor. Campbell is funny too, but he is the one who carries the bulk of the more dramatic moments. Unlike Davis, Campbell is mostly known for his work as a comedic actor, so it is nice to see him play against type here. Regrettably, while it is fine as a comedy, and okay as a horror movie, it is a shame that neither the comedy nor the horror comes across quite as well as the drama.

Director, Don Coscarelli is no stranger to cult cinema, as it is he who directed the Phantasm franchise, and he works hard to make the more cult pleasing moments work with the more melancholic moments. One would think that Elvis trying to karate kick an evil mummy would work in a film which talks maturely about the fear of age as concept; well, one would be wrong. Credit must also go to director-of-photography, Adam Janeiro, who gives the film a fairly warm, sunny look. One imagines that it is his work behind the camera that managed to make the extremely low budget not be too apparent. Although, despite everyone's best efforts, it always looks a little cheap, and had they managed to raise just another million dollars or so, they could have improved the horror element of the film.

I feel it would be remiss of me not to reiterate just how good Ossie Davis and Bruce Campbell are in their roles. Firstly, they both have to take very broad caricatures of people who are iconic and, therefore, well known and give them a surprising amount of depth. Secondly, both of them are well known as cult actors, and often in academic criticism, actors such as these are underrated or looked down upon. So it is nice to see them do such good work here. As most of you will know, Ossie Davis became best known in the late eighties and early nineties for being a regular in Spike Lee's movies, and Campbell is forever immortalised for playing Ash in The Evil Dead franchise. Due to typecasting both Davis and Campbell seemed unable to escape from B-movie hell, so in a way, they share a similar plight to Bubba Ho-tep's Elvis and JFK, in that they are making one last stab for greatness. 

Thankfully, Bubba Ho-tep has become a minor cult classic since the time of its DVD release, meaning that people are still enjoying the film to this day. I hope that when new viewers find the film, they enjoy the subtler subtext to the movie, and not just the gags about Elvis' penis.

6/10

Bringing Out the Dead (1999, Martin Scorsese)

When watching Martin Scorsese's shock to the senses which is, Bringing Out the Dead, one realises that somewhere along the way the traditional "beginning-middle-end"  story structuring has been completely disregarded. It is a sensory experience before it is a film, and it attempts to strike you with its sounds, sights and (imagined) smells before trying to entertain you; which is perfectly fine if you allow yourself to go along with it. 

Our story (or should that be "series of events") follows paramedic, Frank Pierce (Nicolas Cage), a Manhattan medic working the graveyard shift in a two man ambulance team. Sleep deprived, Frank wishes to be sent home to sleep, as his burnt-out mind causes him to see ghosts roaming the streets. One ghost that persists in returning is Rosie, a homeless woman he failed to save six months previously. Over the course of three nights, we see him with three different partners, who each bring with them a rush of adrenaline to an already high-strung film. Firstly, there is Larry (John Goodman), who is with Frank when he meets Mary (Patricia Arquette), the daughter of a heart-attack victim whom Frank will later befriend. Frank's second partner is Marcus (Ving Rhames), a Jesus-loving nuisance who enjoys attempting to flirt over the radio with the woman manning the dispatch desk. Lastly, there is Tom (Tom Sizemore), a psychotic paramedic who is excited by the thought of beating drug-addict, Noel (Marc Antony) to death with a baseball bat.

If that synopsis sounds episodic and difficult to digest, it is because it is. At best, one could describe the narrative as being manic-depressive, which is fitting giving the protagonist's state of mind. For long stretches, mostly during the scenes in the ambulance, it rushes and pulses; then it lulls and becomes sluggish. While I imagine that is the desired effect, as Frank and his series of partners must be alert and ready when they are on the job, it is disorientating for the viewer. That is not to suggest that it does not work, or that the absences of form causes the film to drag, it does mean that it is difficult to ease into as a coherent narrative. It is impossible to really care for Frank, or any of the situations in the film, as they go from zero miles-an-hour, to one-hundred and twenty in a millisecond. There is no way to readjust or get comfortable, so the best one can do is to attempt to enjoy the speed for as long as it lasts. It is perhaps most comparable to a roller coaster, which temporarily slows down before it ramps up the speed. It is breathtaking for its duration, but hard to connect to it on an emotional level.

Based on Joe Connelly's novel of the same name, Bringing Out the Dead is adapted for the screen by Paul Schrader, a frequent collaborator of Scorsese's. Before this was released in 1999, their previous collaboration was The Last Temptation of Christ in 1988, and it is surprising to see just how similar the two films are. Bringing Out the Dead, has a lingering motif of guilt and its consequences running throughout, especially given how Frank reacts to the people he cannot save. He allows each person whom he loses to haunt him, and imagines that those he could not save are ghosts. If you had not guessed already, Frank is a metaphor for Jesus, who wears the weight of the world on his shoulders. It is particularly obvious in his scenes with Mary (his Mary Magdalene), an ex-drug addict who falls off the wagon when her father is taken ill. Frank rescues her on several occasions (cleansing her of her seven sins), even going so far as to drag her out of a drug dealers apartment, and as a reward, he is allowed to sleep in her apartment. She absolves him of guilt, which allows him to go back to work with a clear conscience. While this is very interesting, Frank never really comes across as more than a metaphor, and he never comes across like a real human being.

As previously mentioned, the film works best when it is at its fastest, as Martin Scorsese's depiction of New York is quite hellish. Firstly, it is set in the early 90s, during the peak of the AIDS epidemic, which makes for a fairly interesting subtext and allows the action to be crowded with gaunt, dying faces. This lends an authority to the ambulance scenes, as Frank and his partners seem suitably swamped. Secondly, Scorsese allows his production team to get really low-down and dirty when shooting New York. There are no stereotypical shots of The Empire State Building here and Scorsese directs with all the speed and energy of a cocaine addict, not allowing the pace to drop for a second during these scenes. 

Unfortunately, the performances are something of a mixed bag, ranging from decent to fairly amateurish. If there is one thing that Nicolas Cage can do as an actor, it is that he can play high-strung characters, which works very well here. Cage has always been somewhat of an anomaly as actor, in the sense that he simply does not seem like a member of the human race. His movements and speech patterns are so eccentric and bizarre that he comes across more like an extra terrestrial life form which simply chose to mimic humans; although it is just that bizarre energy which makes his performance work. Out of Frank's three partners, Cage has a particularly decent chemistry with Ving Rhames as Marcus, who brings a self knowing, broad wit to his performance, which works well in the lighter scenes. Regrettably, Patricia Arquette comes across as a little flat, sounding as if she is reading her lines off cue cards. This is a shame, as I think that most of the time she is a pretty remarkable talent. Although, she is done no favours by the script, which leaves her character a little underwritten. 

In conclusion, did I enjoy the film? Absolutely I did. From the moment it began to the moment it ended I was gripped. However, did I think the film was great? Frankly, no, I did not. It is such a moody, grubby piece of work that it keeps you at an arm's length throughout. Its subject matter and execution, while breathtaking and entertaining, are what keep you from truly allowing the film to connect with you. Instead, you are bombarded with images and sounds that eventually the only thing you can connect to is the shallower elements of the film. It is certainly worth a rent, and only becomes more entertaining on a rematch, but it is by no stretch a masterpiece.

7/10

Southern Comfort (1981, Walter Hill)

Sometimes, two films are released with such similar plots and structure that it is hard not to compare the two. For example, Deep Impact was released in the same year as Armageddon, and since the latter was released first, it is the former that looked derivative. Unfortunately, the case with Southern Comfort is that Deliverance was released first, and is the better film. Despite the fact that, other than having similar settings and a similar plot structure, the two films are nothing alike. In fact, the tagline for Southern Comfort was, "Not Since Deliverance…"  Which just goes to show that the film's marketers were as aware as the public.

The film is set in 1973, and a squad of undisciplined members of the Louisiana Army National Guard are meeting in the Bayou's swamps for weekend manoeuvres. Corporal Hardin (Powers Boothe) has transferred from the Texas National Guard, and within moments of arriving he finds he is disgusted with the behaviour and arrogance of his new squad. Nevertheless, he befriends PFC Spencer (Keith Carradine), who seems to be the only level headed member of the group, other than Hardin. In the swamp, the squad decides to steal several pirogues (cajun canoes), and as one may imagine, this does not please the local gun-totin' Cajun swamp dwellers. However, the nail in the coffin is when PFC Stuckey (Lewis Smith) fires blanks from his M60 machine gun at the Cajuns as a prank. The threatened Cajuns fire back, killing the squad leader. Now, the unprepared group of National Guardsmen must fend for themselves in the unfamiliar terrain, as they are hunted for their sport.

According to the director, Walter Hill, this is not a metaphor for Vietnam. He reportedly told his cast before filming began that, "People are going to say this is about Vietnam. They can say whatever they want, but I don't want to hear another word about it." Although, it is not hard to see it as such, especially when considering that the plot revolves around a group of poorly trained young men fighting in a terrain in which they are unfamiliar. Regardless of whether the parallels to Vietnam are intentional or not, this is an excellent survival horror movie.

Firstly, Walter Hill understands genre cinema. He is credited as either a producer or executive-producer on all four movies in the Alien franchise, and he has directed anything from buddy-comedy cop movies (48 Hours/Another 48 Hours) to Westerns  (the pilot episode of Deadwood). If there is anyone who can direct a movie such as this, it is Hill. He can direct tension to perfection, and he understands that survival horror relies on the fragility of its characters, and how the unknown situation eventually causes a few of them to breakdown. Although, some credit has to go to the cast, especially Powers Boothe and Keith Carradine as the two leads,  like Hill, they have a good history with genre cinema, often lending a gruff gravitas to what many considered "B-movies". They are the kind of character actors that seemed to be everywhere in the late seventies and early eighties, and then seemed to vanish into obscurity. One wonders whether it was Hill's influence as an executive producer and director of HBO's seminal Western, Deadwood, that got Boothe and Carradine such juicy parts on the show?

Although, as good as Hill's direction is, the real star here is the music by Ry Cooder and the swamp of Louisiana itself. Director of photography Andrew Laszlo films the swamp in such a menacing fashion, with each zoom and pan making the swamp look thicker. It creates a fantastic sense of dread among the audience, as one starts to question every little thing they see. Ry Cooder's use of steel guitar is also used to great effect, creating an atmosphere which is so thick, one could cut it off the screen with a knife. 

Perhaps the only downside to the film is that it will be forever associated with Deliverance, which unfortunately has led some to believe that it is merely being derivative. While, I must admit, that Deliverance is the superior movie, Southern Comfort is still an extremely successful genre film. It is arguable that Southern Comfort is more successful at keeping a consistent tone throughout the movie, as even when two of our heroes look as though they will be rescued, the tone is still kept incredibly tense. If I had one wish for this movie, it would be that it finds an unbiased audience who can judge it for its own merits, and see it for the tense thriller that it is. Admittedly, the film has picked up a cult following, but I hope in that in the future more people will buy the DVD and give it a second life in home theatres.

7/10

Vamp - 1986 - Richard Wenk

It probably is not a good sign for a film if, while watching it, you are reminded of other, better films. And yet, that was exactly what happened when I sat down to watch Richard Wenk's terribly dated vampire film, Vamp. For example, the plot is eerily similar to Robert Rodriguez' homage to vampire films of the 1980s, From Dusk Till Dawn (1996), and aesthetically, Vamp's style and camera work seem derivative of other, better horror films. In the former case, it is understandable that From Dusk Till Dawn's story and structure feels similar to Vamp's, as Robert Rodriguez is deliberately picking things from cheesy vampire films from the 1980s and mocking them. I would not be surprised if I heard that he did pinch story elements from Vamp, especially since both films feature a Queen Vampire who strips to lure her prey.

So, what is the story of Vamp, I hear you ask? Well, it concerns two college students, Keith (Chris Makepeace) and AJ (Robert Rusler), who want to hire a stripper for their fraternity initiation party. Unfortunately, Keith and AJ have no car, so they manage to convince Duncan (Gedde Watanabe), a college loner with no friends, to loan them his car. However, he insists that as compensation, they must pretend to be his friends for a week and take him with them. So, the three of them travel to the seediest club in the neighbourhood, the After Dark Nightclub, in search for a suitable candidate. It is there where they meet the lead vampire, Queen Katrina (Grace Jones), and realise that everyone there, including the staff and strippers, are ruthless bloodsuckers out to feast on all those who enter through the strip club doors.

I imagine several of you are drawing parallels between the two films, if only if it is because both films use a strip club and erotic dancers to attract their prey. However, while Vamp seems to still be able to inspire filmmakers to this day, I do believe that, in terms of its appearance, it owes a debt to Dario Argento's Suspiria (1977). I would go as far to say that Vamp is derivative to the point where the filmmakers cannot claim this is just an "inspiration". Cinematographers Elliott Davis and Douglas F. O'Neons bathe the screen with a neon green and pink look, which is suitable considering the seedy nightclub is the main set piece of the film. However, Suspiria had this exact same style, albeit in blue and red, and in all honesty, Dario Argento used it far more effectively.

Below are two stills from Suspira, and below that are two stills from Vamp.

I should say that the photography is well accomplished, and photographers Douglas F. O'Neons and Elliott Davis went on to have lucrative careers in Hollywood. I do not blame them, or director Richard Wenk, for being derivative. They were starting out in their filmmaking careers and they wanted to give their film a distinct look, which is understandable. It is no different to Martin Scorsese using a lot of red in his films' photography because Michael Powell used a lot of red. I just feel that it is distracting to the point where I could not concentrate on the film.

If I seem to be talking about Vamp only in superficial terms, such as what it inspired and how it looks, it is because there is nothing remotely interesting about the film other than what it inspired and how it looks. It is a terribly dated piece of work, in both its attitudes to women and its costumes. For example, the fact that every female character is a stripper, and a ferocious she-beast at that, is simply insulting. This is spookily similar to contemporary horror films from England, Doghouse and Lesbian Vampire Killers, where all the monsters are women who are sexually provocative. Whichever way you look at it, the filmmakers seem to be judging these women for the fact that they are strippers. In feminist terms this is referred to as "slut-shaming", and this film reeks of it. Surely, if Richard Wenk wanted to be progressive, he would make AJ and Keith the vampires, as their attempt to hire a woman to strip for their fraternity brothers is more akin to bloodsucking than the woman stripping. The fact that AJ and Keith look like they could be members of Huey Lewis and the News and that the lead antagonist is played by Grace Jones makes it a time capsule to the mid-1980s. 

 Despite this, the film's greatest sin is that it is boring; sleep enduringly boring. As a horror, it is not scary, despite a few jump scares, and as a comedy it is not funny, other than a couple of mild chuckles towards the beginning. In terms of the acting, the majority of the cast are simply dull, however there are a two notably awful performances; namely Gedde Watanabe as Duncan and Grace Jones as Queen Katrina. Most people will remember Gedde Watanabe as Long Duk Dong in Sixteen Candles (1984), perhaps the most annoying character in teen movie history and certainly the most racially insensitive. While he is slightly less grating here, he is still utterly awful. Grace Jones, however, seems embarrassed to be showing up in this turkey. She does not have a single line of dialogue in the film, and one imagines she must have requested this, much like Maila "Vampira" Nurmi in Ed Wood's Plan 9 From Outer Space (1959), in a vein attempt for people not to associate her with this film. 

However, given its budget was merely one point nine million dollars, it never looks cheap, and the grotesquely monstrous vampire effects look excellent. Also, going back to the photography, many of the shots look as if they should have cost a lot of money to pull off. The fact that they did not cost that much, and they were able to accomplish those shots for such little money is very impressive.

4/10