This Is Evil...

...but I just can't stop laughing.

http://durrrrr.blogspot.com/

FUCKING FINALLY!

It arrived this morning.

Film Review: SPIDER-MAN 2

I've had a strange relationship with the first SPIDER-MAN movie. On the first few viewings I absolutely adored it, then I went through a long period where its flaws really stood out to me, especially that of the character of Mary Jane and Ms Kirsten Dunst (one of the only real problems with the sequel). But I've come to see that even with some of the film's occasional lows, the highs compensate greatly. The Green Goblin and Dafoe's performance, J.K. Simmons' dead-on J. Jonah Jameson, Tobey Maguire, the rich emotion and depth. It's really a great movie, even taking the flaws into consideration.

However, SPIDER-MAN 2 blows it out of the water. I remember being excited when I first heard that the title of the movie was to be THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN, which I thought was a wonderful idea, especially with the thought that we could have sequels called THE SPECTACULAR SPIDER-MAN and WEB OF SPIDER-MAN, but I guess we're down to just plain old SPIDER-MAN 2. No bother, but that title would have been awesome.It's two years later and Peter Parker isn't having the best of times. The complete opposite of Batman's alter-ego Bruce Wayne, our intrepid hero is broke, and is having great trouble finding time to do both his normal duties and swinging around the city in red and blue tights (if only Spidey had a multinational corporation and a stiff butler to help out.) He's still in love with Mary Jane, although her romantic interests are now placed elsewhere, and he's also going through an awkward time with Harry Osborn, who distrusts him because of his relationship to Spider-Man. Add to this the rampaging Doctor Octopus, a mild-mannered scientist whose attempts to create a new energy source have left him at the mercy of the four artificially intelligent tentacles grafted onto his body. Life certainly isn't easy being a superhero.

SPIDER-MAN 2 is a complete success on all levels. It has the required astonishing action sequences, the right mix of humour and heroism that has always been a staple of the Spider-Man comics that started with Stan Lee and Steve Ditko's groundbreaking run, but at the heart of it is the real problems and heartaches that our hero faces. One of the most interesting things about the character has always been that he's just a kid who just happens to have special powers, and as such has to find a balance between his normal life and his life as a hero, and because of that, he gets dumped on by life. A lot.I recently saw the comic book adaptation AMERICAN SPLENDOR, and while being a brilliant film I was drawn to the tagline on the DVD case, which reads 'At last a comic book hero we can relate to.' For me, that completely applies to Peter Parker. Here we have a kid who has A: money problems; B: a ton of guilt from his Uncle's death; C: a broken relationship with his best friend; and D: a burning love and desire for a woman that he tells himself no doubt daily that he cannot have, despite the fact she loves him. And that's without even going into being chased around Manhattan by a psycho with four robotic tentacles.

It's this part of the story which really grips us, which takes us by the throat and tugs our heartstrings. To see Peter having to tell his Aunt that he was responsible for her husband's death. To see him going through what he goes through with Mary Jane, again and again, all because he has a duty in his other life. And also his internal conflict with his alter-ego, where he doesn't want to be Spider-Man, he just wants to life his life. But he knows that he has a special gift, and that he holds a power inside him that all of us can only wish for, he only needs the will to carry it out. After all, with great power comes great responsibility.Of course, all of this can be for nothing if you don't have a decent actor to carry it off. Luckily, Sam Raimi has shown his knack for casting with actors like Tobey Maguire, who is absolutely perfect in this movie. With the amount of things both Peter and Spidey go through, to have such a brilliant performance to balance it all out is a gift, and Maguire just nails it all the way. It's unfortunate that he's acting opposite such an average actress, who has none of the spirit or chutzpah that has always defined Mary Jane Watson, as that foil to Peter's conflicts and seriousness that has always kept him going. It's credit to Maguire, Raimi and the screenwriters that the movie is still able to pull this element of the film off, and so well. But Dunst is my only real major nitpick.

Alfred Molina isn't really someone you'd immediately consider in the role of a super-villain. But like Willem Dafoe's Green Goblin and Ian McKellen's Magneto in X-MEN, he pulls it off brilliantly. Unlike the first movie, where Osborn wasn't really a decent guy in the first place, we get a chance to really see Octavius in a good light, with him waxing on about his need to serve mankind through science. You endear to him really quickly, and it greatly enhances the tragedy of the character when his accident happens, and the ending ties up the arc of his character beautifully.

Rosemary Harris as Aunt May is as brilliant as she was in the first movie, and has a great monologue that Peter repeats in the clutches of Doc Ock at the end. James Franco is also excellent, nailing the brooding nature of a character you can see falling deeper and deeper into darkness, a future essentially cemented by the wonderful scene where he discovers his destiny, incidentally my favourite scene in the film.And of course, Bruce Campbell is great, and absolutely hilarious.

This is a pure comic book movie. From the beautiful opening titles, with paintings by comics maestro Alex Ross, to the fight on the train, to the multitude of shots that look like panels from a comic book, to the cameos from characters like Doc Connors, it just excudes a completely unapologetic comic book atmosphere, no doubt due to Raimi himself being a huge Spidey geek. You can feel the love that went into it, and because of this, he just nails the film in every way.

Danny Elfman also does a surprisingly good job. While he's a great composer - his scores for EDWARD SCISSORHANDS and BATMAN are masterpieces - I didn't really find myself impressed with his score for the first film. The main theme was great, it's just the rest sounded like background music, not really serving the film at all. Here, it's much more pronounced, and it works beautifully, especially with the theme for Doc Ock, although that sounds incredibly like his Penguin theme for BATMAN RETURNS, which will no doubt fuel the people who like to point fingers at Elfman for his repetition. But at least he's not as bad as James Horner, who constantly repeats Horner ripping Goldsmith.

At the end of the day, for a comic nerd like me, SPIDER-MAN 2 is very near a perfect movie. Dunst lowers it slightly, but not enough to make a huge difference, and there are the occasional nitpicks (such as the amount of times Spidey takes his mask off in public), but when it comes down to it, it's just a beautiful experience. Until next time, true believers...

9.5

Starring: Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, Alfred Molina, Rosemary Harris, James Franco, Willem Dafoe. Music by Danny Elfman. Cinematography by Bill Pope. Produced by Laura Ziskin and Ian Bryce. Based on the Marvel comic book by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko. Story by Miles Miller, Alfred Gough and Michael Chabon. Screenplay by Alvin Sargent. Directed by Sam Raimi. Columbia Pictures/Marvel Entertainment Group, 2004. PG. 2. 40:1.

Film Review: AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON

The Werewolf has always been prominent on celluloid, being probably the second most popular monster after the Vampire, but it's never really had the consistent presence that its bloodsucking brethren has always had. Flicks about Werewolves have always seemed to come in periods, starting from the 30s/40s, with WEREWOLF OF LONDON in 1935 and the heyday of Universal's horror period, which began with DRACULA and went on to do FRANKENSTEIN before turning onto the Werewolf in the 1941 George Waggener picture THE WOLF MAN. Then they returned in the 60s/70s with flicks such as Hammer's CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF, and the Spanish Paul Naschy movies such as BLOOD OF THE WEREWOLF. Then came the period in the 80s when we saw in a few short years the Werewolf flicks that started to take advantages of modern technology to go away from Jack Pierce's famous lap dissolve makeup and to show the often painful transformation of the monster on screen, notably Neil Jordan's THE COMPANY OF WOLVES, Joe Dante's THE HOWLING, and the one most people remember, John Landis' AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON.

David Kessler and Jack Goodman are two young American kids backpacking across Europe. They're planning to soak up the sun in Italy, but first they've decided to traverse the North of England, and the Yorkshire Dales to be precise. After a strange encounter in a pub with some charming Yorkshire people, they go out onto the moors at night, under the light of the full moon. Can you guess what's coming? Both are attacked by some sort of animal, but while David gets away with a few scratches, Jack is torn apart by the thing. It's killed by the locals, and we're taken to a London hospital where David learns that his best friend is dead. And then it starts to get really weird. After having a few surreal dreams, David is confronted by the sight of Jack, his throat fresh from being torn apart, as he picks at his breakfast. Jack tells David they were attacked by a Werewolf, and that the curse has been passed on. David obviously doesn't believe him, but amidst a relationship with Alex, a young nurse from the hospital, he wonders that maybe he will go on to "sprout hairs and fangs and eat people". Assuming you're one of the twelve people who haven't seen it, I'm sure you can guess the rest from here.

As Clint Eastwood's Blondie said in THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY, 'There are two types of people in the world:' Those who are committed to THE HOWLING, and those who are dedicated to AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON. While I'm a huge fan of both movies, if I was asked to pick one in a Desert Island Discs sort of scenario, I'd pick WEREWOLF every time. Landis' film is always regarded as one of those fabled few movies - along with THE HOWLING and EVIL DEAD II - that straddle the line between horror and comedy without straying too much into either genre. While this isn't surprising, both with WEREWOLF and THE HOWLING being directed by two directors that are renowned for humour in their directorial careers, I'm not sure I necessarily agree that WEREWOLF straddles the line as much as bites it in two. It's definitely a horror, but just a very funny one at that. The film has some incredibly horrific and intense sequences, but often manages to infuse those with a very dark sense of humour. It's all pretty summed up in the scenes where a dead Jack visits David. We - and David - are trying to come to terms with the fact that this very likeable character who we saw torn apart a reel back is now here and talking. He says some incredibly hilarious stuff, such as the classic 'Have you ever talked to a corpse before? It's boring!' and if there's one thing WEREWOLF is, it's very quotable. But the scenes have a dark tinge to them, and are reminiscent of Lon Chaney's scene with Maria Ouskenspaya in THE WOLF MAN when she tells him about the curse, which isn't surprising as this is essentially Landis' remake of that film. But Dunne's stunning performance really sells both the comedy and the horror, and it's all very, very uncomfortable.

Like THE WOLF MAN, WEREWOLF is a tragedy. As Landis itself puts it, 'This movie is not subtle! They start off in a truck full of sheep, and by the end of the film, these boys are dead.' The central character of David is very sympathetic, as he is essentially really psychological fucked up, as well as physically. We know his relationship with Alex is going to end in tears and bullets, and we know David is going to go apeshit when the moon rises. We know as soon as Jack visits him that he is doomed. Well, we know what's going to happen from the title of the movie, but that's maybe being a little pedantic. Naughton is superb as David, giving him a great sense of pathos and vulnerability and just plays it perfectly. There's one scene where David, who now knows he's a Werewolf and on the previous night spent the twilight hours taking people apart, calls his parents in New York, only for his teenaged sister to answer. He tells her that he loves her, and the family, and it's obvious that he's saying goodbye to them, but his sister can only give him a rebuttal by being silly with him. It's a great scene, and incredibly sad, and that's one of the elements Landis perfectly captured in the movie.

The comedy in the film does come quite often, and is very memorable. There is one scene where David, after going on his rampage, wakes up in the wolf enclosure in London Zoo. Of course, after his transformation, he's naked. After stealing balloons from a young boy to hide his manhood, he grabs a coat from an old lady, and we see him standing at a bus stop, wearing this fluffy old lady's quote, catching strange stares from the man in front. His response? 'Hotter weather we've been having lately.' Possibly the funniest sequence comes in a porno theatre, where David is confronted by Jack and the fresh kills from his previous night, which include a straight family man who David has orphaned, a happy and smiling couple, and three tramps. It's an absolutely hilarious scene, as they discuss ways that David can commit suicide, with the grumpy tramps providing a great foil against the happy couple who seem pleased to suggest David shoot himself while throwing him the pearly whites. It's Landis having fun, and it is gloriously funny.

Landis' film is stooped in Hollywood lore and particularly that of THE WOLF MAN. A pentangle sits on the wall of The Slaughtered Lamb (the pub they enter at the beginning) and is quickly pointed out by Dunne as being a Universal icon and the mark of the Wolf Man. Naughton discusses the film itself with Jenny Agutter, who claims the only one she's seen is CURSE with Oliver Reed, and even the question of whether he needs silver bullets to kill himself is laughed off by Dunne. The film is heavily based on songs featuring the word 'moon', with various versions of 'Blue Moon', as well as Van Morrison's 'Moondance'. It ties the film together well, but doesn't leave a lot of room for the brilliant but very short score by Elmer Bernstein. Because of the short length of the music, it's never been given a proper soundtrack release, although curiously there was an album called 'Impressions of An American Werewolf in London' by Italian disco genius Meco, who had a hit with the release of the Cantina theme from STAR WARS. In any case, it's dead hard to find, and it would be nice to see an actual CD release sometime. After all, if punk bands can make albums that last about five minutes, why not film scores?

The centre of the film is undoubtedly the Werewolf itself. The movie is incredibly well-known for its transformation sequence, and rightly so. After all, Rick Baker did win an Oscar for it. The challenge set by Landis was to show David turning into the creature with no cutaways, and in harsh bright light. In light of that, Baker's achievement was extraordinary, as was his Werewolf and makeup on Griffin Dunne. The first incarnation of the dead Jack looks absolutely 100% realistic, right down to the vibrating nub of flesh everyone always mentions. The Werewolf is different to any other movie version, being on all fours and therefore more like a wolf, but it's a horrific creation. It looks absolutely scary, and totally real, and for me is the best looking lycanthrope out there.

Overall, AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON is a masterpiece. Landis' writing and direction have never been better, there are great performances all across the board, especially from Naughton and Dunne, and Baker's wolf is amazing. It's clearly the best Werewolf film out there for my money, and one of the best horror movies ever.

9.5

Starring David Naughton, Griffin Dunne, Jenny Agutter, John Woodvine, Brian Glover. Music by Elmer Bernstein, Werewolf Effects and Makeup by Rick Baker, Produced by George Folsey Jr, Written and Directed by John Landis. Universal/Polygram, 1981. 100 minutes. R. 1.85:1.

Film Review: THE RETURN OF THE KING

Well, it's over. For the two years or so since the Christmas 2001 debut of THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING, the world has been tightly held in the mighty grasp of Peter Jackson's stunning adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's long thought unfilmable epic trilogy. And now, the third and final part of the series is upon us. Books V and VI in the original literature, this is THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING.

I imagine everyone but the snobbiest moviegoers will be familiar with the overall plot of the saga, so I'll refrain from going into that, and just give you the lowdown on the final chapter. THE RETURN OF THE KING opens with a wonderful sequence (directed by Fran Walsh) that displays to us the true suffering of Smeagol, or Gollum. Fans of the book will be familiar with Smeagol killing his cousin Deagol to get the One Ring, but what follows is a horrifying look at the true corruption of the Ring. Sympathy for Gollum is there, but we cannot help but be disgusted by him. The whole character really is a character study on addiction and the psychology of character change. Cut next to the Fellowship as they journey to Edoras, the capital of Rohan, via Isengard. After Saruman's disappearance is explained away - and honestly, I didn't miss him - the drama begins as Pippin looks into the Palantir, revealing himself to Sauron. Therefore, Gandalf takes him to Minas Tirith where the forces of Mordor are due to attack, and all hell begins to break loose.

One thing the LOTR movies are always described as is epic, but they are possibly more accurately described as intimately epic, if that makes sense. The films, their spectacle and their environments are huge, but at the core of the film and the thing that drives them are a deceptively small cast of characters, who slowly become larger in character as the story evolves. The films mirror this, with the beginning of FELLOWSHIP showing us the small and quaint Shire, and as the characters begin their journey the story gets bigger and bigger, from the relatively small conflict at Parth Galen to the huge battle at Helm's Deep, culminating in the vast and, well, epic fight on the fields of the Pelennor in RETURN. But the small moments are still the most important. For example, as Pippin and Gandalf prepare to leave for Minas Tirith, Merry is in turn angry at his friend, but distraught at the possibility of never seeing him again. It's a very short scene, but heartbreakingly conceived, and for all the huge battles and spectacle, it is moments like this that really make these films.

It's quite spectacular to see Peter Jackson weave the different threads of the action successfully when so much is going on, and really, there is a lot. Cutting between Frodo and Sam following Gollum as he leads them up the Winding Staircase, together with the siege on Minas Tirith and the fate of Aragorn and his party, it really is an amazing job, and credit to editor Jamie Selkirk. The editing is quick when it needs to be, but never leaves a scene too soon, and in a film full of some very important "quiet" moments, this is very important. The character of Gollum really comes into his own here, as someone we know now is a murderer - unlike in THE TWO TOWERS - where it was still relatively ambiguous. This leads to the audience siding with Sam and knowing that he is really up to something, therefore making his scenes with Frodo all the more creepy as the Ring takes hold and leaves him completely oblivious to where he is being led. The scene with Shelob is one of the most horrifying moments of the film, with a desperate Frodo on the run from the creature only to hear Gollum's twisted nursery rhymes echoing in the cave.

Shelob herself is executed perfectly. We've all seen giant spiders in movies, and indeed, 2002's HARRY POTTER AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS had a whole cavalcade of them, but none of them, or in previous movies, can compare to Shelob. Here we have the best motion capture of an arachnid ever, allowing it to move absolutely realistically, but also with a creepy otherworldly movement that WETA have imprinted. The whole sequence is genuinely horrifying, especially the second half, where Frodo is walking towards the stairs to Cirith Ungol, unaware that a creeping Shelob is above him. The outcome is shocking, especially for those who have not read the book, and probably all the more so because Peter Jackson is a horror director at heart. You wonder what he's going to do with KING KONG after this.

Of course, one of the things RINGS has been synonymous with since the prologue at the beginning of FELLOWSHIP are the huge epic battles that Jackson seems to pull off so well, and as expected, they're here in force in RETURN. The siege of Minas Tirith is incredibly powerful, with the huge Grond and the divebombing fell beasts, but the battle of the Pelennor Fields is the crowning achievement. An absolutely gargantuan conflict, with the Rohan making their late arrival against the armies of Sauron, Nazgul, and the Haradrim and their Mumakil oliphaunts, before Aragorn and the Fellowship make their way with the spirits from the Paths of the Dead. Here are some of the biggest crowd-pleasing moments in the film, with Eowyn staring down the Witch King, the baddest of the Ringwraiths, and Legolas doing his signature move by taking down an oliphaunt single-handedly.

Other spectacular imagery includes the lighting of the beacons as each part of Gondor lights a huge fire to say they will come to the aid of Minas Tirith, which is all executed in a brilliant sequence, underscored by Howard Shore's fantastic Gondor theme. There is the battle at Osgilliath, where Faramir has essentially been sent to his death, intercut with a sad Pippin singing to Denethor. And some of the scenes near the end are so amazing, they really can't match up to description.

Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn is brilliant in the film, a little more confident after the victory at Helm's Deep and knowing the Rohirrim will follow him to whatever end, but still unsure about which path he will eventually take. Once he does take up the mantle as he is given the reforged Narsil, and told by Elrond to enlist the Dead to ensure his victory, he is unstoppable. His best moment in the film, and possibly the best moment of the whole trilogy - and a defining moment for his character - is in the last battle at the Black Gate, where the remaining forces are surrounded by the armies of Mordor. He looks on the Eye of Sauron and walks towards the Gate, away from his people, and stares the dark lord down. As he turns back to Gandalf, for a second he has the same look Isildur had when he refused to destroy the Ring, but then he says but just two words to the wizard - 'For Frodo.' - before charging towards Sauron and his forces. It's a majestic moment, and just really fucking powerful.

And that's where THE RETURN OF THE KING really succeeds. Sure, there's huge battles and lots of big moments, and spectacle and all that jazz, but when it comes down to it, it's about spirit and determination, it's about destiny, it's about responsibility, and it's about friendship. This is where Frodo and Gollum differ; Frodo is bound to Sam, and it takes the most powerful machinations of the Ring and Gollum to make him send him away, but you know that he will always be with him in some way. Whereas Gollum kills his best friend the moment he finds the Ring. But the friendship of Frodo and Sam is the core of the story, and when watching the film you realize that the real hero isn't Frodo, or Aragorn, or Gandalf. It's humble Samwise Gamgee. Which is why when Frodo and Sam are stuck on the edge of Mount Doom, the volcano crumbling all around them, Frodo says 'I'm glad to be with you, Samwise Gamgee... here, at the end of all things.'

One complaint I've noticed that people seem to be saying is that the film has too many endings. My opinion on this is that when you go on a twelve-hour journey with someone that you like - or even love - as much as these characters, you need to say goodbye. I'll be honest, I didn't want it to end. As Frodo said goodbye to Sam, Merry and Pippin at the Grey Havens, I was distraught. This wasn't a two minute denouement ended with a party in the woods. This was a real send-off. A send-off to some of the best, and worst people we've met. A send-off to a wonderful world that we've lived in and experienced time and again. And to a wonderful work of celluloid art that deserves every plaudit it gets.

To put this to bed, I'll say four sentences. THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING was outstanding. THE TWO TOWERS was even better. THE RETURN OF THE KING is flawless. THE LORD OF THE RINGS as a whole, well, it's nothing less than a cinematic masterpiece.

9.7

Starring Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen, Liv Tyler, Viggo Mortensen, Orlando Bloom, John Rhys-Davies, Bernard Hill, Karl Urban, Sean Astin, David Wenham, Dominic Monaghan, Billy Boyd, John Noble, Cate Blanchett, Ian Holm, and Sean Bean. Music by Howard Shore. Produced by Barrie M. Osborne, Fran Walsh, and Peter Jackson. Cinematography by Andrew Lesnie. Edited by Jamie Selkirk. Special Visual Effects by WETA, Inc. Screenplay by Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, and Peter Jackson. Based on the book by J.R.R. Tolkien. Directed by Peter Jackson. New Line Cinema/WingNut Films, 2003. 201 minutes. PG-13.

Film Review: JAWS 3-D

I suppose when movies originally came on the scene at the turn of the last century, they would have been seen by most as a gimmick. Hell, it still isn't taken seriously as an art form by some people, so it's only natural that cinema, like many other mediums, would go through various trends and fads to make the format more exciting. But as good as seats with electric buzzers and rumbling theaters were, no fad was ever more popular than 3-D.

3-D has always been associated with genre films, ever since it came out with flicks like Universal's classic THE CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON and Hitch's DIAL M FOR MURDER, following on with the western COMIN' AT YA!, Paramount's FRIDAY THE 13TH, PART 3-D, and even EMMANUELLE 4, allowing you the simple pleasure of seeing Sylvia Kristel's tits in three dimensions. But to anyone growing up in the late 70s/early 80s, only one movie really grabbed your attention: JAWS 3-D.

I've been looking across the interweb at reviews of this movie, and it seems that every single one seems to review it the same way: in comparison to JAWS, as a totally straight movie. I'll be honest, while folks have every right to do that because the producers saw fit to release it as a serious movie, I don't think it should necessarily be looked at that way, in the same way I wouldn't review THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS the same way as FLASH GORDON. At the end of the day, it's a silly movie about a man-eating shark that revolves around using 3-D gimmicks, with storytelling at the back end of the project somewhere near catering and Louis Gossett, Jr's hairdresser. It's fair game, sure, but there are so many wannabe film critics out there who put such a serious fucking slant on their reviews while trying to be the next Ebert, resulting in some incredibly droll writing. Not that I'm claiming to be a good writer, I just like to be less serious than most when writing about films 'suggested by the novel "JAWS"' as the credits of the film say.

That said, I am a JAWS geek. The first movie was one of the first flicks I ever saw, leading me to have both a perverse fascination with horror films as well as a less-perverse but still pretty strong interest in all things shark-related. Because of this, I still have a vivid memory of the first time I saw JAWS 3-D, right down to commercials advertising it in the days leading up to the showing, which was on New Year's Eve, 1987. I also remember it pretty vividly because I fell asleep halfway through, and the tape ran out, thankfully causing my parents to go and rent it from the local video shop. I must've rented it about twenty times subsequently, my child brain infinitely satisfied with rubber sharks chomping down on theme park patrons.

Unfortunately, I grew up and what I was presented with as an adult was an incredibly poor film. Reviewing it seriously for a moment, the script is awful, the acting is hilariously stiff and the contrivances brought around by the 3-D really fuck with the film's structure. The effects are also pretty bad, but I'll go more into that later as it's a bit of a tale. So yes, the film is crap.

It's also damn fun to watch, in the tradition of say, Mystery Science Theater 3000. The fun of watching this movie is pointing out the cliches, the awful acting, the Edam-filled script and the 3-D scenes now hopelessly neutered by the 2-D presentation on home video. One of the unfortunate things is that I never actually got to see the movie in 3-D, and I don't think I will have the opportunity unless Universal decides to reissue the DVD in the format, which, seeing how badly they've treated the original JAWS on disc, seems very unlikely indeed, although I certainly think there would be a demand for it.

The stall for the film is set out immediately in the opening titles, where after being treated to the site of a grouper having its head unceremoniously chomped off by the shark - which of course we don't see because it's using the famous POV - we see the main title hurling towards us and biting out at the audience. It's a cheesy but nifty title, and works well in 2-D.

The basic premise is that a baby shark gets into Florida's Sea World amusement park. Once discovered, it's immediately put on display because of the box office receipts it will pull in, as Great Whites are notoriously hard to keep in captivity to the point where barely any place in the world has successfully kept one for more than a week before it showing extreme signs of death. This is actually the only really time in the film where it adheres to true science. However, for the rest of the film, we're treated to the only shark in the world with vocal chords, the tendency to swim backwards and an unnerving ability to hold Simon MacCorkindale in its jaws after swallowing other people.

Following science, the shark dies after Louis Gossett, Jr puts him in a pool that's too small for him. Actually, the pool they put him in would be too small for Kenny Baker, but that's besides the point. The shark dies, then people around start disappearing. But the shark's dead you say? It is, but there's one theme that keeps coming back in the Jaws movies, seemingly stolen ironically from one of the first movie's chief imitators: Michael Anderson's silly but underrated 1977 eco-horror ORCA, KILLER WHALE, that being the notion that sharks are capable of the human emotion of revenge. And to quote Seth Brundle in THE LOST WORLD, 'Mommy's very angry.'

That's correct. Don't worry, Lou Gossett, Jr had a problem swallowing it as well, but yes the chief villain in JAWS 3-D is the mother of all sharks: a thirty-five foot Great White who has obviously seen FRIDAY THE 13TH a few too many times and is exhibiting disturbing signs of Betsy Palmer Syndrome. Cue lots of scenes where various Sea World patrons are terrorized by said mother, although for all the people in this movie - consider that this is basically JURASSIC PARK in full swing - the body count is incredibly low. It doesn't border on the disastrous JAWS, THE REVENGE, where only two people died in the whole film, depending on whether or not you watch the Mario Van Peebles friendly version. By my count, five people die in this flick. Five people. People died weekly on the 60s STAR TREK, yet when dealing with the underwater equivalent of HALLOWEEN, it can only come up with five people? I bet she blames it on the deadbeat dad, too.

JAWS 3-D is also notable, or notorious, for attempting to make a star out of Dennis Quaid, acting here alongside such luminaries as Bess "was in that movie Tom Selleck made to prove he really was good enough to be Indiana Jones" Armstrong, Lea "why didn't I get my tits out in this movie because it really could have saved it?" Thompson, and Simon MacCorkindale, best known for the ludicrous slice of 80s action TV that was Manimal. Needless to say, it's not full of Oscar-worthy performances, although for what they were given, Quaid and Armstrong do a decent job with their romance, so much so that whenever it goes into it, you start thinking you're watching a different - and much better - movie.

Still, the worst part is that this film comes from the pen of JAWS scribe Carl Gottlieb and Richard Matheson. Yes, that Richard Matheson. The one who wrote THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN and I AM LEGEND before obviously taking a whole boatload of mind-expanding drugs that turned his senses to jelly and his writing ability into that of Akiva Goldsman. To be fair to Gottlieb, he was brought in, as with JAWS 2, to polish up the script, which was based on the concept of a Great White swimming into a lake and getting stuck, by a guy called Guerdon Trueblood whose unfortunate name I've never heard of again, although I doubt there's much work out there for writers who can't do the simple bit of research to find out that Great Whites are saltwater fishies only. Of course, we're talking about the same movie where a shark roars like a lion at Meg Ryan's ex-husband, so it's all relative really.

The effects... well, the shark doesn't look that bad, especially compared to JAWS, THE REVENGE. It's weird how as the movies went on, the special effects got worse. Who'd have ever thunk a shark made in 1975 would look more realistic than one made in 1987? Then again, who'd have thunk George Lucas would have fucked up the STAR WARS: SPECIAL EDITION as he's done with the new DVD release. These Hollywood types boggle the mind, really.

Because of this, the history of the project is an interesting topic. Originally slated to be called NATIONAL LAMPOON'S JAWS 3, PEOPLE 0 and to be directed by Joe Dante, written by John Hughes and starring a naked Bo Derek and comedian George Jessel (the guy Dr Zoidberg's voice is modeled after), the film was put into pre-production before Steven Spielberg, under contract to Universal at the time, told the head of the company if they made the flick he would walk. Weirdly, he worked with Dante four years later on GREMLINS, so I wonder if Joe actually knew Steve had fucked the movie over. Then it went to this guy named Alan Landsburg, who was a TV producer, and he got a company, named PSE, to do the effects. They started doing effects tests using barbie dolls and model sharks (I shit you not) and a new computer compositing process, and they were apparently pretty damn good. Thus, the tests were deemed a success, the flick was greenlighted, and everything was going swell until the nearing of the release date. Allegedly, a guy named Robert Blalack of Praxis, a SFX company, told Landsburg that he thought the effects were awful and that his company could do them much better. So Landsburg ordered all the stuff to be redone with what was left of the shoestring budget. Supposedly, the real reason was that practical effects people were getting scared of the computer revolution and possibly losing their jobs, so they used the scare tactics in order to sabotage the evolution. Unfortunately, JAWS 3-D's effects suffered, with the miniatures being especially crap, and at least two shots in the movie with green screen backgrounds because they weren't finished. So the next time you think about how bad the effects are, just think about how ego and self-preservation can sometimes get in the way of evolution.

The music score is pretty good, surprisingly. Written by a dude called Alan Parker - although not the BUGSY MALONE/MISSISSIPI BURNING guy - it works well, so well that I bought the vinyl of it on Ebay last year.

This movie is fun to watch, even with its horrendous problems. It's never really boring, the shark bits are awkward but entertaining, and there's occasional bits where you actually find yourself getting into the film. Then you hear the shark roar like King Kong, and any geniune interest you actually had invested in the characters or plot is sunk like the Orca.

I can never defend JAWS 3-D as a good flick, I know that. It's bad on most levels, and on some levels it's downright awful. But as a bad flick it's more entertaining than straight bad flicks like INDEPENDENCE DAY or SHREK 2, and for all the mind-numbingly bad 3-D shots, just remember: it's a film about a mother shark getting revenge for the death of her son, and we so rarely see those films nowadays. As such, we should rejoice. While praying someone out there is, at this very moment, writing JAWS 5.

As a film: *1/2
Entertainment: ****

Starring Dennis Quaid, Bess Armstrong, Louis Gossett, Jr, John Putch, Simon MacCorkindale, Lea Thompson. Music by Alan Parker, Shark Theme by John Williams, Cinematography by James A. Contner, Story by Guerdon Trueblood, Screenplay by Carl Gottlieb and Richard Matheson, Suggested by Peter Benchley's novel "Jaws", Produced by Rupert Hitzig, Directed by Joe Alves. Universal, 1983. PG. 2.35:1.

Film Review: LEATHERFACE: TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE III

Note: this review is of the 96 minute unrated cut of the film.

Sequels have never really been treated that fairly over the course. To some people, it’s justified, after all a sequel is primarily a film made by the studio to make more money. If it follows a film or a film brand name that has been successful, in the studio’s eyes it has the recognition to make some decent bank. But unless you’re someone like Spielberg, people are going to immediately see that you’re making a sequel and think ‘sequels are lame’. This is especially true in the horror genre. In 1978 when Bruce’s wife reared her big grey head in JAWS 2, while being a hit, it was treated with – unfair in my opinion - derision. The same can be said of the slew of sequels to HALLOWEEN and FRIDAY THE 13TH although I'm certainly not saying it's unfair that some of them are treated with derision. Have you actually seen H20? But as people always say, matching up the original is near impossible, and that was certainly the case with LEATHERFACE: TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE III.

The film starts with yet another take on the original CHAINSAW’s crawl, telling us that the Feds thought Leatherface was an alternate psychological side of the Cook, but giving us a coda saying that they might be wrong and he could still be out there. Cut to California cunningly disguised as Texas, and a couple taking a road trip. There’s little point explaining much more, only that they end up in the hands of a brand new family of psychos, with only Ken Foree to ludicrously save the day.

LEATHERFACE has been widely publicized as being a decent film destroyed by the studio, who in this case is New Line Cinema. A long way away from their future success with THE LORD OF THE RINGS, New Line back then distributed the original TCM but were known primarily for producing the NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET films. New Line’s problem with the film was its gore. They weren’t happy with how violent it was, and they also ran into trouble with the MPAA. This has been a source of controversy, and New Line’s view on it seems to be that director Jeff Burr was contracted to make an R-rated movie, not an NC-17 one. That seems fair enough, but the script was apparently incredibly violent and visceral, which Burr had tried to make. To give someone a script and say ‘make this movie with a tiny budget’ and then turn around and say ‘well, it’s too violent’ reeks of double standards. But then, it is a studio we’re talking about.

The film itself is average. Kate Hodge is a decent scream queen, but she’s no Marilyn Burns, but to be fair to her there’s really nothing here to suggest anything near the horror or the intensity of the original movie. They were apparently going for a ‘true sequel’ outlook on the film, but to be honest, at times it seems like a low-rent Xerox of the original movie. The family itself is pretty cool, with Leatherface surrounding himself by a mother figure, two brothers – including Tex, played by Viggo Mortensen – and what apparently is supposed to be his daughter, which at first is a ludicrous thought. First you think who would ever have sex with the boy, then it starts to get into the whole rape thing, and you feel very uncomfortable. In any case, the girl is actually quite a cool little character. She’s played by Jennifer Banko, who was the young Tina Shepard in FRIDAY THE 13TH, PART VII: THE NEW BLOOD, and this girl is a pretty good actress. There’s one bit where the family let her have her first kill, and it’s kinda like a sick Barmitzvah.

Viggo Mortensen is good in just about everything he does, so it goes without saying he ain’t bad here. He’s never going to get to the heights of Aragorn or Satan in THE PROPHECY, but he does well, playing Tex. Ken Foree is great as usual, and takes up the horror icon role he’s held since DAWN OF THE DEAD, but he is involved in one of the most ludicrous plot twists ever, and this movie’s psychic link to JAWS: THE REVENGE. He gets chainsawed in the head near the end by Leatherface, so naturally that should be it for him, right? Not when New Line cinema are involved! He comes to pick up Hodge in his truck right at the end, much like Mario Van Peebles at the end of the aforementioned shark “classic”, where he’s taken by the huge monster great white only to reappear at the end of the movie, shouting ‘I’m okay, mon!’ Absolutely fucking ludicrous. But again, we’re dealing with studios here. Apparently some of the test screening audiences seemed to like Foree’s character, so New Line decided it was a bad idea to kill him off and reshot the ending, leaving us with the view that Burr is an incompetent director when it’s really the work of the studio.

The effects guys on LEATHERFACE are KNB FX. A great studio in LA, they’ve worked on everything from EVIL DEAD II to KILL BILL and produced some great stuff, but the only problem with their work here is that you can hardly see it! Even in the unrated cut, which is five minutes longer than the R-rated cut, so little of their work is used that it’s amazing that this isn’t a PG. They did some great work for the film that was cut out, especially with Ken Foree’s “death” and William Butler's head being bashed in, but typically it was caught in the crossfire between Burr, New Line and the MPAA. This sucks, because KNB have always done some fucking great stuff, and if my zombie movie ever gets off the ground, they will be first in line to have me beg them to do makeup.

Overall, LEATHERFACE isn’t a great movie at all. It’s not a lost classic, and while it’s certainly not utter shit, it’s just another average horror movie that has built up this myth that it’s this amazing film waiting to be found. I can’t say for certain, as I haven’t seen the fabled original director’s cut, but I somehow doubt it would be that much better. The studio involvement does put me on the side of the director, but at the end of the day, as much as I love part 2, the saga of THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE should have ended with Leatherface’s dance of death on the highway.

Starring Kate Hodge, Ken Foree, Viggo Mortensen, Jennifer Banko, Joe Unger, and R.A. Mihailoff as "Leatherface". Music by Jim Manzie and Pat Regan, Special Makeup by KNB FX, Screenplay by David Schow, Based on Characters created by Tobe Hooper and Kim Henkel, Produced by Robert Engelman, Directed by Jeff Burr. New Line Cinema, 1990. 96 minutes. Unrated. 1.85:1.

Film Review: THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE

It’s pretty hard for one to talk about a film such as THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, with everything that has been said and written about it thus far in the twenty-nine years since it was released. The film has been described as controversial, notorious, nasty, worthless, and even misogynistic. It’s loved and hated by generations of moviegoers, and still remains in our collective unconscious. But why?

While it may seem futile to describe any semblance of the plot, TCM is a film that still goes unseen to a number of movie patrons, especially in the UK, where it was only recently released after being banned for decades. Possibly the best way to introduce the film is to reproduce the narrated crawl that opens the film.

The film that you are about to see is an account of the tragedy which befell a group of five youths, in particular, Sally Hardesty and her invalid brother Franklin. It is all the more tragic in that they were young, but had they lived very, very long lives, they could not have expected, nor would they have wished to see as much as the mad, and the macabre that they were to see that day. For them an idyllic summer afternoon drive became a nightmare.

The events of that day were to lead to the discovery of one of the most bizarre crimes in the annals of American history. The Texas Chain Saw Massacre.

As that crawl fades, we are treated to abstract scenes of human remains, and finally, a reveal of a bizarre statue made of two corpses in a Texan graveyard. The basic story is that a group of kids are travelling through Texas, visiting the graveyard to see if any of their relatives’ remains were disturbed. They run low on gas, and with no service station around, are led to the strange white clapboard house that resides on the Texan skyline. In that house, and around it, they suffer a horrific ordeal that none of them would ever wish to ever experience.

THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE is, in its truest form, a horror film. Whether we have been desensitised over the years by films like it, such as DAWN OF THE DEAD or THE EXORCIST, or have been bombarded by teen horror flicks that seem to have lost all meaning of the term ‘horror film’, TCM may not still have the impact that it once had. However, it is a perfect example of a horror movie, a film whose sole purpose is to take you by the scruff of the neck and scare you. It makes you feel uncomfortable, it unsettles you, and by the time the film is in its last moments, you’re screaming for relief. Some of the terms that have been used to describe it are true. It’s nasty, and very dirty. Now to some, those terms may seem derogatory. However, in the case of TCM, they’re a perfect example of the film’s agenda, and its impact as a work of horror art. Think of THE EXORCIST, in its own right a brilliant horror film, yet so much of that film, despite some of its more horrific scenes, still feels clean. The Georgetown area, especially Regan's home, is filmed in such a way that makes it eerie, yet clean. TCM is the opposite, revelling in the grime and grit of its environments to create the atmosphere so needed for a film of its type. We go from the opening shots of the cemetery, to dead animals on the road, to old, dirty bones hanging from furniture. Every part of the look of this film, from the cinematography to the production design, is designed to create an atmosphere of horrific intensity, and it works beautifully.

One of the other successes of TCM’s impact is the cinematography, where it goes hand in hand with the grit mentioned before, is that the way it is filmed is almost like documentary-style. There’s no real flashiness in the photography, with only one shot that would possibly come into that category, which is a brilliant dolly track of the camera following a girl under a low wooden swing as she walks towards the house, the clapboard structure growing as she nears, imposing and foreboding. But the cinema-verite style helps the film’s effectiveness, and is perfectly suited to the atmosphere of the film.

Of course, the film has been personified over the years by its ‘star’, the enigmatic Leatherface. When we are used to seeing horror villains portrayed as either the supernatural or just pure evil, it is refreshing to see such a strange characterization of a villain. Leatherface, to be politically incorrect for a second, is purely a retard. He is an abomination, a character who has seemingly been raised by two insane brothers, unable to talk, unable to express himself without holding a chainsaw or sledgehammer, and has been immersed in what must be the dysfunctional family. Raised in blood and murder, it’s all he knows, and if anything, after the fact, is a character who attracts sympathy.

The film itself is paced perfectly. It’s sort of a slow burn, beginning innocently, and slowly growing more and more unsettling, until it ascends into a glorious display of intense horror, which doesn’t let up until the final cut to black. Like the cinematography, the editing has no flashy elements, and serves only to make the film more and more horrific as the time runs. The film itself over the years has been wrongly criticized as a major part of the ‘gore’ movement, and while it did spring out of the decade that brought us such gore classics as DAWN OF THE DEAD, there is little blood in it. In fact, a sure way to tell if someone has actually seen the film, is if they are telling you it is incredibly gory. The film’s success is in suggestion, the deaths are mostly blink-and-you’ll-miss moments, such as the infamous moment when the character Pam is placed on a meathook. In lesser films, we would have seen this death from all angles with blood and gore spraying everywhere, yet here, we see her placed on the meathook and then pull away after a reaction shot, her screaming intensifying the scene more than any blood could. We then leave Pam in the background as we see Leatherface sawing up her boyfriend, her screaming echoing as it combats the intense buzzing of the chainsaw.

Of course, the lack of blood and gore didn’t help the film escape any notoriety, especially in the UK, where the film, while readily available in the years before, was refused a certificate by the BBFC (British Board of Fascist, sorry, Film Censors) in 1983, in the year the infamous Video Recordings Act was introduced. However, it’s now readily available, completely uncut, on VHS, DVD, and laserdisc, all much better quality than the bootlegs that kept the film alive during those dark years. So, if you haven’t seen it, go and seek it out. I just ask that you turn down the lights, turn up the sound, and prepare yourself for THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE.

9.5

Starring Marilyn Burns, Paul A. Partain, Allen Danziger, William Vail, Jim Siedow, Jim Dugan, Edwin Neal, and Gunnar Hansen as Leatherface. Music by Wayne Bell and Tobe Hooper. Edited by Larry Carroll and Sallye Richardson. Cinematography by Daniel Pearl. Art Direction by Robert A. Burns. Screenplay by Kim Henkel and Tobe Hooper. Directed by Tobe Hooper. Vortex Inc, 1974. 83 minutes. R. 1.85:1.

Film Review: ROBOCOP

Say what you want about Paul Verhoeven. The man has taken a lot of shit for both SHOWGIRLS and generally being a nutty Dutchman revelling in the glory of violence. But whatever you say, he'll go down in legend for directing one of the best American movies of the 1980s and a genuine sci-fi classic in ROBOCOP.

Murphy is a good cop. He's just been transferred to a police department in Old Detroit, where crime is rampant in the shadow of a new project to take the city out of the slums and back into the glory of its days as the industrial capital of America. However, policing isn't what it once was. The police service has been taken private by OCP - Omni-Consumer Products - who are desperate to create a police officer who doesn't have to sleep, eat, or rest. Their first attempt, the ED-209 (ED standing for Enforcement Droid) has been disastrous, so they need a second option. Enter Murphy, who is slain by a crime gang while on duty, and thus becomes the perfect candidate to be turned into a cyborg. However, is this new 'RoboCop' on the level, and what is he really - Man or machine?

Hearing about a film named ROBOCOP doesn't really make you hugely interested unless you're the world's biggest Charles Band fan, or you're a ten year old boy. I was the latter when I first saw the film, and aside from being one of two single films responsible for the constant use of the word 'fuck' in my vocabulary - the other is James Cameron's ALIENS - this was the first film I'd seen which I could honestly say was ultra-violent. I mean, I'd grown up since the age of five watching flicks such as THE EVIL DEAD, but as good as Tom Sullivan's horror hag makeup was, it wasn't the most realistic, and Sam Raimi didn't always go for constant violence. But for a kid at that age, ROBOCOP was heaven.

Then a funny thing happened: I grew up. What as a child was comic book violence wrapped up in a neat story about cops and robots became a densely layered intelligent and incredibly funny movie that's as important to sci-fi as a genre as 2001 and BLADE RUNNER, but also is a hugely important film to American culture. It's an incredibly simple story - man dies, becomes robot, has identity crisis - but it's executed with such precision and wit that it is just an incredible movie. The starting point of course is the script by Ed Neumeier and Mike Minor, but mix that with the insanity that is Paul Verhoeven's brain functions, and you have a movie that just keeps on lovin'.

ROBOCOP really is a film that has everything. Brutal violence, all kinds of social satire, hilarious comedy, and some great visuals that have become iconic in the genre. Ask a few people on the street about iconic moments and the occasional person will recall moments from movies like PREDATOR, or that one pretentious guy will give you a huge list of movies starting with Michael Crichton's RUNAWAY while in the same breath doing all he can to downplay the importance of movies like THE LORD OF THE RINGS, but just about everyone who has seen ROBOCOP remembers ED-209 taking his first steps down a staircase, and falling on his back like a helpless insect, or scarily, almost like a baby. Here we have a film full of characters who are leaping up out of the yuppie age, and are so greedy, so wealth-obsessed and so self-important, that they manage to make the two main robotic characters in the film two of the most human characters.

That's what on one level ROBOCOP is - it's a story about humanity. Here we have a man who is brutally murdered, but because he signed a release form when he joined the police, he is now donating his body to the scientists at OCP, who in their infinite wisdom have made him RoboCop. But do we have the capability to create what is essentially a new lifeform? Okay, it's essentially like programming a computer. But under all the metal he's a human being, and while he's officially dead, he still has flashes of memory. It's testament to the film that they can create a story about a guy dressed in a huge robot suit and not just have us root for him in the hero way, but also have it truly move us to the point where we start to feel for the machine as a person. The strongest scene in the film is also the most heartbreaking, where Robo goes to his old house, which is now being sold off. As he traipses through the now empty house, he gets memories of his life there, of his son, and of his wife, telling him she loves him. It's all too much for RoboCop, and it's all too much for us, as after that scene we are left with our handkerchiefs set for stun.

ROBOCOP also works greatly as a satire of 80s culture, and America at that time. Here we have the Reagan era where technology was really starting to come in for use in a military sense after the use in Vietnam, as well as the whole onset of the importance of possessions and the yuppie movement. There's a scene where Dick Jones says, talking about OCP, 'We practically are the military'. It's a statement which is outrageous in the film, especially in the time and the fact that someone could be saying that, but absolutely shocking that it's actually relevant now. We have hundreds of contractors working for the military, everyone from McDonnell Douglas to Boeing and probably some we don't know about, and it's less about how the military operates and more about who actually is the military. There is also a heavy Vietnam theme in the film with the film's motifs of military technology, but also about the arrogance of 'the military', with OCP certainly representing an America which is thinking that they can do anything in the world without anything or anyone to stop them. Even ED-209's design is based around the Bell Huey helicopter, so prevalent in the Vietnam war that it became one of its defining images.

It's also a huge antidote to the gung-ho movie attitude of the 80s. That decade seemed to take it on itself to take the violence in the 70s from movies such as TAXI DRIVER, APOCALYPSE NOW and STRAW DOGS and strip down all the social commentary that those movies were presenting, ramp it up so it becomes over the top, and serve with lashings of ammo. The 80s was the decade when violence stopped being shocking and immoral and started being entertaining. It's possible that you can attribute it to movies before that. I mean, a lot of the lesser cowboy films had their fair share of straight violence before Leone and Peckinpah stepped in, and even movies like STAR WARS seem to revel in comic book violence, but never to the extent of the gung-ho nihilism of the 80s. We had everything from RED DAWN to COMMANDO, RAW DEAL, THE EXTERMINATOR, DEATH WISH III through V and that's only talking about the bigger ones. Of course, there was also the famous RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD, PART II, which while being an entertaining film in the context of this comic book violence, had the dubious thematic motif of going back to Vietnam in order to finally achieve victory over Charlie, with one of Stallone's famous lines being the ludicrous 'Sir, do we get to win this time?'

ROBOCOP takes this violence and puts it so over the top that it is absolutely hilarious, although some of its impact is lessened by the idiotic cuts made by the MPAA. Luckily, the unrated version is available for all to see, so in the opening scenes with ED-209, you see for how long Kinney gets blasted for. The amount of time in which it happens eventually desensitizes you to it, and then as it goes on and on it makes it incredibly funny. Where the movie's genius shows is in the scene where Murphy is killed. You've met this heroic character, you've seen some hilarious violence for ED-209 and you're damn interested, so it's time to take it up another notch. Murphy's death is the antithesis of the film, where none of it is in any way funny. You really feel the pain of this guy, who is being torn apart, and even while Clarence Boddicker and his cronies make awful jokes, there is no humour in the scene because it's so brutal. Now, you're hooked completely, and there's nothing you can do. That's the genius of ROBOCOP.

As well as the writing and direction, the film has an incredibly strong cast and crew. Peter Weller is perfect as Murphy, being a good decent man at the beginning, and being able to actually act like a robot instead of looking like a guy in a suit pretending to be a robot. He has the perfect face for the character, an almost synthetic face but one that can really instil sympathy and emotion. The scene where he looks into the mirror after taking off his helmet for the first time is an almost mirror of the lake scene from Whale's FRANKENSTEIN, and it's brilliantly done. Nancy Allen is good as his ass-kicking partner Lewis, and they have a good pairing, especially in the scenes where she is trying to jog Murphy's memory. Ronny Cox is a fantastically slimy villain, and really seems like he could be the real head of a multinational. But probably the most memorable role is that of Kurtwood Smith as Clarence Boddicker. The man has been seen as a nice guy in so many flicks, from the head of the Federation in STAR TREK VI to the dad on That 70s Show, but here he's just absolutely fantastically bad. You almost endear to him in a way, because Smith plays him so over the top, yet he's such an evil fuck that when he's skewered by Robo at the end with his memory stick thing (a great prediction of today's data storage systems), you can't help but cheer.

ROBOCOP is also helped by a terrific score by Basil Poleduris, who is known for his bombastic but lyrical music for such movies as CONAN THE BARBARIAN, as well as Verhoeven's own STARSHIP TROOPERS. The theme will be stuck in your mind forever, and indeed I can still remember it at the drop of a hat, but the more emotional scenes have some beautiful, almost surreal scoring that really give the film a haunting undertone. Of course, the effects are great, with Robo's design coming from Rob Bottin, my favourite FX designer who has done everything from the Werewolves in THE HOWLING to The Thing in, well, THE THING. The suit looks like an amalgamation of Gort from THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL and a thousand different robots from the covers of pulp sci-fi novels and magazines, and just looks absolutely great. There's also some great work by Phil Tippett on ED-209, bringing a great sense of character to one of the coolest robots ever to be put on film.

There's still a lot more to say about ROBOCOP, but as always the fun is in watching it and discovering rather than reading about it. This movie has a number of different layers that say an awful lot about movies and American culture in general, without even getting into Verhoeven's Christ metaphor motif. As a piece of movie entertainment it's a riot, as an intelligent piece of sci-fi it is brilliant, and as a general deconstruction of a lot of the socio-political issues from the 70s and 80s it's fantastic. It just goes to show that you can't judge a movie by its title, well not unless you're ten years old.

9.5

Starring Peter Weller, Nancy Allen, Kurtwood Smith, Ronny Cox, Daniel O'Herhily, Miguel Ferrer. Music by Basil Poleduris. Cinematography by Jost Vacano. Co-Producers Ed Neumeier and Jon Davison. Produced by Arne Schmidt. Written by Ed Neumeier and Michael Minor. Directed by Paul Verhoeven. Orion Pictures, 1987. 100 minutes. R/Unrated. 1.66:1.

Film Review: MARTIN

It’s hard to categorize George Romero’s MARTIN. Is it a vampire film? Or is it a character study or a clearly quite insane young – or old - man? To be honest, it’s both. It’s a brilliant deconstruction of the vampire myth, and an excellent commentary on the superstition of the old world versus the science of the new world, with a terrific performance at the centre of it.

Martin is a very strange young man. He hardly talks, he always looks like a frightened cat, and as we find out in the first scene, he has a penchant for drinking blood. However, he doesn’t seduce the women, and he doesn’t bite them on the neck, preferring a dose of chloroform and a handy razor blade. He’s been brought to Pittsburgh by his cousin, an old man who lives up to his neck in superstition, and is under the belief that Martin is a cold-blooded vampire. As he brings him to the house, he shows him the garlic on his door, and the crosses that wallpaper the place. Clearly a man who believes. Martin however, doesn’t believe, and neither does his cousin’s granddaughter, Christina, who from her point of view sees that Martin has been driven mad by his family and her grandfather, who have apparently held this family shame since living in the old world. Because of this shame, Martin is alone, his only ‘friend’ being the host of a radio show Martin calls into, as “The Count”. He tells him that he just wants to have sexual relations with women, and doesn’t want to have to keep drugging them. But is he really a vampire, or is he a young man driven mad by superstition and accusations?

Romero really has created an interesting character in MARTIN, and one that, for all the things he does, gains sympathy. He displays traits of a vampire, for instance he’s very pale, and he claims to be very old, and indeed enjoys drinking blood. But one of the main question running through the film is ‘Is he a vampire because he drinks blood, or is that just a safe categorization of ours to make us feel comfortable with someone that does something, which to us, is sick and deranged?’ Martin’s cousin clearly thinks he is a vampire, and has obviously been raised in superstition in ‘the old world’, which from his accent might suggest a place like Romania, or even Transylvania. Martin doesn’t believe in any of the ‘magic’, and he shows his cousin this by eating garlic and rubbing a cross on his face, two acts that would surely have killed a traditional vampire, or at least given them a nasty burn at the very least. This is set against the backdrop of a crumbling town where even the church who at one point would have subscribed to all the interpretations of Martin’s cousin are now interested in a much more explanatory way of thinking: psychology. The priest that comes to see Martin’s cousin – played by George Romero – can’t even keep a straight face at his tales of demons and possession.

Martin himself is definitely a very lonely and a very sad young man. He longs for relationships with women, and when one comes along that doesn’t result from drugging them first, she kills herself, presumably out of guilt, but the real reason is never explained. He is clearly alone, and it becomes apparent that he has been driven at least partly by the weight of the accusations from his family. He calls himself a vampire, but did this belief come from himself, or did it come from his family and their beliefs? The film is filled with some intense but beautifully filmed black and white flashbacks which seem like they have come from old German expressionistic cinema, or indeed the classic Universal horror movies, or even Nosferatu. Martin’s ‘drinking’ sessions are also intercut with images of gothic romance, that seem to suggest that they are less flashbacks and more images from the aforementioned movies that are an allegory for the myth and the shame his family has presented upon him.

Cleverly, Romero never answers his question, and leaves it up to us, which leaves for an incredibly heartbreaking and tragic finale, which has a healthy dose of irony built from the fact that his one true relationship with someone has led to his downfall. We are left with all the ambiguity we began with, although we are now much more educated with regards to making a decision, or a guess. But in regards to Martin’s bloodsucking origins, we’ll never know, and that’s one of the many strengths of the film. It’s like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY in a way. If you know everything for sure as you leave the cinema, then the filmmakers have failed.

MARTIN is built around an extraordinary performance by young John Amplas, who went on to be the casting director for Romero’s next film, the zombie classic DAWN OF THE DEAD. Amplas has those eyes that can be both piercing and puppydog like, and I do wonder if Johnny Depp looked at this performance for EDWARD SCISSORHANDS. We can see he doesn’t like doing what he’s doing, and is doing it out of necessity, the need, or the lust if you will. But he’s never ever scary. There are some disturbing scenes where Martin is taking his victims, but he always tells them just to ‘sleep’, as he doesn’t want to hurt them. It’s no less comforting for the audience, but it clearly shows he doesn’t like drugging people. The film also has several other strong performances, including Lincoln Maazel as Martin’s cousin, Christine Forrest as his granddaughter, and Elyane Nadeau as the housewife Martin falls in with. The film is also wonderfully shot by DAWN’s cinematographer Michael Gornick, going back to Romero’s arthouse roots that he clings to, as opposed to commercial filmmaking. The Catholic imagery – no doubt influenced by Romero’s upbringing – looks great, as does the image of a town on the verge of crumbling away into nothing, mirroring the questions about faith and superstition.

But the one image the film leaves you with is one of its final one. I probably shouldn’t reveal it here, but people who’ve seen the film will know what I’m talking about. It’s a horrific scene, and utterly devastating to the audience, conforming to the standards of ‘the old world’. It’s a CARRIE-esque moment in a way if you catch my drift, but while that scene was done for shock value, this is literally a moment that brings all our thoughts and theories from the mythic and the psychological to the forefront. And it helps stake the claim (sorry!) that MARTIN is one of the best “vampire” films ever made.

Starring John Amplas, Lincoln Maazel, Tom Savini, Christine Forrest, and Elyane Nadeau. Music by Donald Rubenstein. Cinematography by Michael Gornick. Special Makeup by Tom Savini. Produced by Richard P. Rubenstein. Written and Directed by George A. Romero. The Laurel Group, 1976. 95 minutes. R. 1.85:1.

Film Review: DAY OF THE DEAD

It’s fair to say that in every trilogy before THE LORD OF THE RINGS, everyone always saw one instalment – usually the last one – as a disappointment. Not every Star Wars fan was incredibly happy with the Ewok-paved road RETURN OF THE JEDI took, a lot of those fans of THE MATRIX who managed to sit through and enjoy RELOADED were horrified at REVOLUTIONS, and likewise, many fans of George A. Romero’s Dead trilogy weren’t that thrilled with DAY OF THE DEAD. However, like many of today’s classic horror movies – such as John Carpenter’s THE THING – the film has found its audience through the avenue of home entertainment. So is this indeed a lost classic, or is DAY OF THE DEAD just a disappointment next to the glory of its older brothers?

It wouldn’t be a big reach to state that Romero’s zombie flicks are regarded as the best movies featuring those flesh-eating folk who have risen from the grave. 1968’s NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD has long since been seen as the movie that began the golden age of the horror movement, and 1978’s DAWN OF THE DEAD has ascended to the stuff of legends since its release. But DAY OF THE DEAD has always been seen by some as the bastard child of the trilogy. Seven years after DAWN, DAY picks up the tale of a world taken over by the dead and takes us away from Pittsburgh – although it was still filmed largely in the city – and to Florida, where the military are cooperating with scientists determined to crack the secret of the zombies and their ability to function after the normally fatal affliction of death. Well, they were cooperating until their commander was killed, leaving the tyrannical Captain Rhodes in charge.

Rhodes isn’t particularly interested in what science has to say, unless it has to do with eradicating the zombies. However, while scientists Sarah and Dr Logan are trying to decipher the secrets of the dead, they’re also trying to escape the intimidation from the military. It’s a desperate situation made all that more uncomfortable from a lack of distrust, and in the face of a zombie invasion, time is running out.

It’s obvious from the first few minutes that DAY OF THE DEAD is a much darker instalment in the trilogy, especially after the comic book extravaganza that was DAWN. Here we have a group of people who seem to be in conflict all the time, ready to tear out each other’s throats instead of waiting for the zombies to do it. Along with this, they're stuck underground, which is claustrophobic even for the strongest person. The way the military is portrayed in the film harkens back to Romero’s brilliant movie THE CRAZIES, although it’s fair to say that while they are pretty much all portrayed as assholes, they’re not all as crazy or sadistic as Rhodes. Romero follows in the footsteps of ALIEN and the emergence of strong female characters – possibly as an apology for the weak character of Barbara in the original NIGHT – with the character of Sarah, who is certainly unafraid to stand up for her rights and what she believes in, and is not ready to be pushed around by Rhodes and his men. Lori Cardille’s performance is excellent, and I’m really surprised she didn’t go on to much bigger things, although horror still does have a stigma with all those who don’t enjoy the occasional dose of blood and guts.

The issue of the military is explored at length, with their methods and ideas of what they should be doing versus the scientists and their work. When it’s revealed Dr Logan is working on training the zombies, starting with the surprisingly docile Bub, Rhodes goes mad, showing a complete lack of understanding of A: what Logan has achieved, and B: what the whole point of the experiments are. Although, there’s also an interesting undercurrent about the legitimacy of Logan’s experiments in a moral sense, as he is using many dead military soldiers as subjects, a fact Sarah isn’t too happy about. But Logan’s work with Bub is at the core of the film, taking on an almost maternal theme. Richard Liberty as Logan is fantastic, showing a great deal of eccentricity and a tiny bit of insanity, but also a display of fearsome intelligence. Howard Sherman as Bub is equally good. His scenes with Logan are priceless; as Logan gives him a cassette player (remember those?) a phone, and a gun, Bub’s original instincts from back before he was dead kick in, and he actually remembers how he used to use them. It’s almost like watching a baby learning to do stuff as it grows up, and is an excellent touch to the film.

Another theme in the movie that rings true is that of this desperate situation getting even more desperate, and as we look for answers to solve it, what actually caused it? There is a brilliant scene where helicopter pilot John (Terry Alexander) explains his theories on the zombie invasion, telling Sarah that he thinks God could have brought it all down after we started to try and "figure all his shit out". That we got too big for our boots. Obviously not an advocate of the scientific community. However, the movie is dominated by Sarah and Rhodes, with Pilato's performance as the near-psychotic captain probably the strongest in the film. He is mesmerizing as the character, and he always keeps us guessing as to what he'll do next. There's a scene where he nearly shoots Sarah after she storms off from a meeting, and the whole scene is tense as hell, with Rhodes' mad eyes making us wonder what lengths he will go to in order to prove himself.

Like NIGHT and DAWN, DAY OF THE DEAD is a zombie movie with a difference. It isn't satisfied with showing you buckets of gore and feasting zombies - although if that's your poison, you're still gonna love the movie - but it's really showing an intense and intelligent dramatic situation. In a decade where so many adrenaline pumping macho action movies were released, and Arnold Schwarzenegger became a star, here is a movie that provides one consistency that so many people are so unafraid to experience: discomfort. As the scientists and military are uncomfortable with each other, we are always uncomfortable at the situation, uncomfortable with the characters, and uncomfortable with this end-of-the-world prospect Romero has given us. And that is what gives DAY an edge over a lot of horror movies, and especially over the majority of zombie epics that weren't made in Pittsburgh. You can even witness its influence in Danny Boyle's recent British horror flick 28 DAYS LATER, which while being an enjoyable time at the movies and a decent horror, has to pay its dues for the last half of its movie to DAY, whether by homage or wholesale stealing. However it's interesting to find out the history of DAY and what it was originally going to be. Romero planned for a huge epic involving aboveground zombie battles, some huge action scenes and a much bigger scope. Unfortunately, the folks funding the picture would only put up the $7m budget Romero needed if he could deliver an R-rated film. After the success of DAWN as an NC-17. Romero didn't want to sacrifice the film's best interests, so went with $4m and scaled the film down. In any case, it's a great achievement.

Of course, if you're one of those bloodthirsty souls who also come to these movies to see how the makeup artists are going to top the previous efforts - and let's face it, who isn't? - then you'll be happier than Jason Voorhees at Butlins. Tom Savini, along with Greg Nicotero (who also has a role in the film as one of Rhodes' men) provide a huge smorgasbord of walking corpses tearing the flesh out of anyone they find. The zombies now have more detail, with a different colour to the blue-grey zombies in DAWN, and are creepier. Highlights include Captain Rhodes' eventual death, and some of the most horrific meat-eating scenes you'll ever see. Savini is deservedly hailed as a genius, and he really outdoes himself here.

One aspect of the film that seems to never escape attention is the score by John Harrison. It's a decent score, and no worse than the hundreds of generic scores we normally get in horror movies, and I really haven't figured out why it gets so much stick. I guess it's because it does sound like it's from the '80s, but guess what, it was! It works well with the film, and is never obtrusive. It's never going to live up to Goblin's music for DAWN, but on its own, it's not too shabby at all.

Overall, DAY OF THE DEAD is a great flick. Romero continues using his zombie movies as riffs on the social climate of the time, it has a healthy dose of gore, and the film is remarkably uncomfortable to watch with some strong performances. Is it as good as its predecessors? Hard to say. NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD will always be an untouchable classic, and DAWN OF THE DEAD has long been one of my favourite movies, horror or otherwise. I don't think it's as good as Romero's masterpiece MARTIN, but it definitely ranks well alongside THE CRAZIES as, first and foremost, a very underrated flick, and also works as a great zombie movie. Now, we just have to wait for DEAD RECKONING...

9.2

Starring: Lori Cardille, Terry Alexander, Joe Pilato, Richard Liberty, and Howard Sherman as “Bub”. Music by John Harrison. Edited by George A. Romero. Cinematography by Michael Gornick. Makeup by Tom Savini. Produced by Richard P. Rubenstein. Written and Directed by George A. Romero. The Laurel Group/United Film Distribution, 1985. 101 minutes. Unrated. 1.85:1.

Film Review: STAR WARS

It was a day long remembered. Back in 1982, a young four-year old pup of an Englishman sat down with his folks and caught his first grainy, pirated glimpse of that galaxy far, far away. But that glimpse was a sequel. So after witnessing much Hoth goodness, my folks sat me down and showed me the first episode of that saga which began with those tantalizing words 'A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away....' STAR WARS.

Most people around today know the story behind STAR WARS. We’re told by the opening crawl that the evil Galactic Empire is taking the final steps to destroy the opposing Rebel Alliance and bringing complete order to the galaxy by constructing the gigantic Death Star battle station, which possesses the power to destroy and entire planet. But through a stroke of good fortune, the Rebels have gained access to the plans of the Death Star, a crucial first victory against the tyranny of the Empire. However, the Imperials have discovered this, and are on the tail of the main Rebel representative, the spunky Princess Leia. As the Empire and evil Sith Lord Darth Vader catches up with her, her safety, and the future of the galaxy as a whole will rest in the hands of a young farmboy and the supposed last surviving member of the Jedi order...

You’d think a review for one of the most revered and popular, not just movies, but pop culture movements, would be easy to write. No way. I mean, I’ve grown up with this movie. It, and his sequels have taught me various stuff I’ve applied in life. I’ve lived, eaten and breathed STAR WARS for nearly two decades. And this is hard. Well, here goes nothing...To say STAR WARS had a mild cultural impact is like saying Hitler was a bit of a wanker. No one could have predicted the success of a movie that, by all accounts, was supposed to be an unmitigated disaster. The various production stories are legendary, notably the advance showing George gave to Brian DePalma, Steven Spielberg, Francis Coppola and his other mates. Because ILM had been slack effects-wise for so long, what would later be astonishing space dogfights were, for the moment, old footage of World War II battles, with spitfires standing in for X-Wings and Messerschmitts standing in for TIE Fighters. Reportedly, everyone but Spielberg told Lucas the movie sucked, and that he had a flop on his hands. Twenty-five years later, the saga is ingrained in the conscious minds of people across the world while DePalma is directing MISSION TO MARS. Funny how these things work out.

But enough behind-the-scenes talk. STAR WARS works. People all over the planet love this movie to death. Name me one other movie, especially sci-fi, that has inspired fans to create a religion based around central philosophies of the film. Not that I particularly endorse those crazy people who made Jedi an official religion, but still, that’s a pretty big testament to the lasting legacy of the Force. So, the movie works. But why does it work?

When STAR WARS came along, the cultural phenomenon of the “summer blockbuster” had only just surfaced two years previous, with the worldwide smash success of Steven Spielberg’s killer shark movie JAWS. STAR WARS took what Jaws had done and multiplied it beyond all expectations. And it wasn’t just first-time business. People were going to see these movies again and again. It’s not hard to see why they made such a huge impact. In spirit, there hadn’t really been a movie like STAR WARS since the days of THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD, which shared the fanciful romantic swashbuckling adventure of STAR WARS and probably helped to inspire it. Sci-fi and fantasy had mostly gone serious, with movies like THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL and PLANET OF THE APES successfully combining the fantastic with relevant social commentary, both now elevated to classics of the genre. Of course, there had been other movies around in fantasy and sci-fi, some of it good like FORBIDDEN PLANET, some of it crap like BARBARELLA. However, in 1968, Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY surfaced. This was a sci-fi movie like never before. In Kubrick’s universe, the spaceships were as real as your average jumbo jet. Instead of being filled with all sorts of typical laser sounds and rocket engines, sound, like in reality, didn’t exist in space. But while 2001 was a stunningly made movie, and had some very relevant themes about mankind, it isn't always exciting movie. STAR WARS was the total opposite. Here was a movie that was exciting, loud, and unrealistic but was beautifully crafted, all taking place in a seemingly real and wonderfully realized world. But that’s just the tip of what really makes STAR WARS so good.

There was something about STAR WARS that was timeless. I mean, look at it now. The only thing that dates it is Harrison Ford’s sideburns. It was also very different in terms of the definition of the polar opposites of good versus evil. The movies in the seventies had a habit of presenting the main protagonist/hero as someone who was not necessarily defined as clearly good. Popeye Doyle in THE FRENCH CONNECTION may have made the biggest drug bust in history, but he was also a brutish, womanising, hard-drinking racist. Travis Bickle was, eventually, a hero, but while he was a casualty of society, he was still a very dodgy guy. STAR WARS clearly defined who were the heroes, and who were the villains. When Princess Leia moved around in the bowels of the Rebel Blockade Runner in her sheer white dress, we instantly knew we were supposed to fear for her, likewise, when Darth Vader first entered the Tantive IV, breathing menacingly, we instinctively knew to boo and hiss him.

The good versus evil dynamic also allied the movie with a lot of myths, modern and ancient, and also helped to establish the movie as a fairytale of sorts, notably in the opening title card. ‘A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...” is just really another way of saying “Once upon a time...”. The movie goes through all the classic stereotypes associated with myths and fairytales: Darth Vader acting as the evil wizard, Princess Leia as the damsel in distress, Luke Skywalker as the brave young knight, The Death Star as the labyrinth, but uses these in ingenious ways, especially under the guise of sci-fi, to give us an interesting spin on it. Lucas also drew from different kinds of genres, such as Akira Kurosawa’s samurai epics SEVEN SAMURAI, YOJIMBO, and HIDDEN FORTRESS, and also the western. Obi-Wan Kenobi is basically an old samurai teaching his new apprentice the Force, which is in essence reminiscence of some eastern religions, notably the themes of self-belief. Han Solo is a gunslinger, especially in the scene in the Mos Eisley Cantina. Indeed, replace all those aliens with humans and that might as well be a scene from a western. Han is the typical gunslinger, cool, an amazingly quick draw, someone who knows how to get out of trouble. And someone who isn’t afraid to shoot first. Unless, of course, it’s a special edition. Probably the most direct original influence on Lucas is the sci-fi pulp serials of the 1930s, such as Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers. In fact, before embarking on the quest to make STAR WARS, George tried to acquire the rights to make a Flash Gordon movie. The owners wouldn’t sell, so he went and made his own. The movie, however, retains the spirit of the old serials, using the decidedly high-tech science fiction hardware of the movie as a grounding to support the high spirited fantasy notion of the story, to help us suspend our disbelief and not make it look silly, as so many other films of the genre have (the 1980s FLASH GORDON, anyone?). It’s an innocent and romantic high adventure, something that hadn’t been around for a long time. And in a way, cinema needed it.

Indeed, the main character of STAR WARS in its final form is quite different as from the all-American Flash Gordon. But here we have a character most of us can really identify with. Luke Skywalker is a typical teenage boy, fed up, disillusioned with working on his uncle’s farm, yearning to go out into the stars and train as a fighter pilot. But he can’t, because of his supposed obligations to his uncle. Most of us have had a period in our lives where we’ve wished for something better, yearned to be able to just take off. Luke is no different, and that’s what we identify with. At the end, it’s the actual death of his uncle and aunt that convinces him he must leave, and follow his dreams, which we all wish we could do. He also manages to leave the safe confines of his home and journeys into many different areas of peril, emerging not only unscathed, but having passed his tests with flying colours.

The success of STAR WARS, at least on a domestic level, could also possibly be attributed to the social environment of America at the time. The country was still recovering from the Watergate scandal and the Vietnam War, which, along with other social issues, had America in a state of unrest. STAR WARS not only brought along a different type of movie, but archetypal heroes who could be cheered on, something which America was surely lacking. Vietnam also shared a big theme with STAR WARS, the organic against the machine, with the small band of Rebel fighters going up against the technological might of the Empire. The theme also takes on a more personal identity with the tragic figure of Darth Vader, the once great Jedi Knight who was seduced to the dark side of the Force, and then half destroyed in a duel, thus needing machinery to sustain his life and creating a blank face of evil which was fleshed out more in THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, and later resolved in RETURN OF THE JEDI, after the turmoil between his allegiance for evil and his son’s continuous quest to find the good inside him eventually caused him to sacrifice his life to save his son’s, and leave the confines of machinery to reside as a pure, natural human spirit.

Of course, the success of STAR WARS cannot be attributed to thematic elements alone. I mean, it goes without saying that the movie practically reinvented special effects for movies, and finds itself in a line of real milestones in the realm of cinematic creativity, along with Melies' early movies such as A TRIP TO THE MOON, 1933’s KING KONG and 2001. The brilliantly realized hardware of 2001 no doubt inspired STAR WARS, but like the film’s essence, its effects and the way they were used are so different to the latter’s. I mean, when Lucas was trying to get the movie made, he went to all the top effects masters, such as Douglas Trumbull, and told them what he wanted. Their response? It can’t be done. So George got together a group of what were basically kids, and founded Industrial Light and Magic, a name now instantly recognisable as the premiere groundbreaking effects company. Along with this, the production values were just incredible. The sets didn’t wobble, and weren’t covered in tin foil. The robots were cute, and perhaps annoying, but still looked like robots, as opposed to some guy in a suit. Despite being low budget for the seventies, the film’s crew managed to show creativity and innovation that, while had sometimes been seen before, had a level of quality that was relatively new to movies, bar 2001.

Along with all this, there’s one name that is as much a contributing factor to the success of STAR WARS as George Lucas or Harrison Ford. John Williams. It’s just impossible to imagine the movie without his music. Think of the different movie themes you can easily hum without thinking. Most would probably say THE GREAT ESCAPE, Morricone's THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY, JAWS, RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, all great themes. But when you hum STAR WARS, how many different themes can you hum? The main theme? Sure. Princess Leia’s theme? Probably. The Force theme? Doubtlessly. Not to mention music from the sequels. But Williams’ music really helps so many aspect of the movie. In fact, I’m not sure it would have been half as successful without it. One example is the scene where Luke walks outside and stares at the sun. This is probably for me one of the best scenes in the movie, if not the best. Pissed off at his Uncle and his dull farming life, Luke stares onto the plains to look out to the horizon. As he walks out, the quiet haunting strains of the Force theme begin to play, no doubt the only logical theme to play in this scene. The music is so beautiful, so lyrical and otherworldly, and so wonderfully played in this scene that it really does speak for Luke. We know that he is fed up with life at the homestead from the scenes with his aunt and uncle, but this scene really convinces us of his feelings in a way the script probably never could.

Of course, you’re probably reading this and thinking “is there nothing wrong with STAR WARS?” Well, not enough to make a huge difference. Of course, you could make criticisms as it definitely isn't a perfect movie. The acting can be a bit wooden at times, with only Harrison Ford and Alec Guinness really standing out. Lucas’ dialogue occasionally grates, especially when it’s spoken faster than the Millennium Falcon, (during production, some of the cast got T-shirts printed with the slogan “You can type this shit, but you can’t say it.”) If you looked hard enough, could also point out many plot holes, but while all this is valid, with a movie like STAR WARS I don’t really think it matters too much. The clunky dialogue has a certain charm, especially when spoken by Harrison Ford, and even Mark Hamill, whose acting has been criticised eternally, isn’t that bad at all, especially when you look at someone like Hugh Quarsie’s Captain Panaka in THE PHANTOM MENACE.

A big criticism of STAR WARS in recent times were the 1997 Special Editions. Lucas was always annoyed that the final movie wasn’t the way he totally imagined it, especially with the technical limitations of the seventies. However, now that the CGI era had dawned, he felt he could go back and fix the stuff he couldn’t do right before. After their release, many had different opinions on the movies, feeling he shouldn’t have reworked them, some even going so far to say he had no right to (probably the same people who endorsed The Phantom Edit). So should he have left well alone? Let’s take a look at some of the main changes.

The Restoration – For me, this was easily one of the best things to come out of the Special Edition projects. Just looking at the horrible quality, plus the faded colour of not just the current videotapes but the original negatives themselves, the movie really needed a new coat of paint. Thus, the awesome picture restoration and digital sound remix was much needed, and came out wonderfully.

The Dewback Patrol – I really liked this scene. The dewbacks, static in the original 1977 issue of the film, were brought to life really well, obviously helped a lot by the CGI advancements in JURASSIC PARK. Also, the Imperial landing craft was pretty darn cool. The Stormtroopers are the only real downside to this scene, they look awfully computer-generated, and I feel it would have been better to just film actors on blue screens like they did in PHANTOM with Qui-Gon and the Eopie. But it doesn’t spoil it.

Mos Eisley Spaceport – I really do like the way Mos Eisley has been opened up to make it look like a real city. Even a few ships flying around make it look bigger, and I love the big rusty Rebel Transport behind the ASP droid, even if that little scene is a little silly. They perhaps went overkill on the amount of Rontos around, but again, it doesn’t do too much damage against it in my opinion.

The Mos Eisley Cantina – What? Why did they take away Lak Sivrak? I don’t know if George felt he looked awful, but I always loved the wolfman, and the guy in his place isn’t half as cool. Still, at least they left Muftak alone...

Greedo Shoots First – This is the addition most people have directed their hatred towards. And rightfully so. In the original, Han Solo was almost the sci-fi equivalent of the Man with no Name. Slightly mean, rogue-ish, and not afraid to shoot first. Now, he may look a bit more morally right, but the scene is almost a joke. Han knows Greedo is out for blood, that’s why he shoots him first. And I know Greedo has awkward looking tentacle hands, but would he really have missed from there? If George ever does the rumoured Archive Editions, I pray he changes this scene back to the original.

Han Meets Jabba – I’m still unsure. Sorry to be crude, but by all accounts, ILM really fucked up Jabba’s look here. I mean, the guy basically goes from Pee-Wee Herman to Marlon Brando in three years. That’s a hell of a lot of frog consumption. I kinda like the way he moved like a seal, but it still looks wrong for Jabba. It especially looks dodgy compared to the first prequel, where he looks bigger. I don’t know if they could redo it now, maybe with Jabba being on a hover-sled or something, and maybe mix live action Han with a CGI Han, because I really like the scene, but just not how it’s done here. If they can do it convincingly in the Archive Editions, I think they should try.

The Millennium Falcon – The Falcon looks great in its new makeup. Originally, you could see the way the motion control techniques had been smoothed out between A NEW HOPE and EMPIRE just by looking at the way the Falcon moved, and its nice to see ILM go back and made some retroactive adjustments. The scene where it escapes from Docking Bay 94 is an awesome example. A job well done.

New explosions – The destruction of both Alderaan and the Death Star now look better than ever, especially with the addition of a blast wave. Very cool.

The Death Star – I like the subtle additions made here. The Falcon in the docking bay looks nice, although I can’t especially see why they redid it. Probably my favourite and least favourite bits here are during Han and Chewie’s chase with the Stormtroopers. I absolutely love the new addition when Han runs around the corner after the troops and then runs into a whole docking bay full of Stormtroopers. It absolutely enhances how funny that scene is, and is a real treat. Unfortunately, the new addition of the “Close the blast doors!” line doesn’t really work, all because of the new voice actor sounding totally different to the old one. I can’t understand why they didn’t just hire a vocal performer to imitate the original. Oh well.

The Battle of Yavin – More great work. For how maligned it is, some of ILM’s work in the Special Editions is fantastic, especially here. For one, the new additions don’t look out of place one bit, and there are some fantastic shots here, especially the shot of the lookout post guy as the X-Wings and Y-Wings rise above the trees, not to mention the flyby of the whole attack fleet past Yavin IV and towards the Death Star. I’m a sucker for detail, so I love that they actually put thirty ships in that shot, to correspond with the later “We count thirty Rebel ships” line. Just great.

So, at the end of the day, is STAR WARS really that good? Doubtlessly, for me, the answer is yes. Obviously, I grew up with it, so, along with a whole generation of people, I have a somewhat skewed opinion. But even objectively, it’s a fantastic movie, giving us an equal sense of excitement, wonder and thrills that you rarely get these days because everyone is so concerned with their notions of trying to make everything look cool while letting the inherent nature of the film fall by the wayside.

After all, it's just fun. And there are few movies that do it better.

9.5

Starring Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Peter Cushing, Anthony Daniels, Dave Prowse, Kenny Baker, Peter Mayhew. Music by John Williams. Produced by Gary Kurtz. Written and Directed by George Lucas. Twentieth Century Fox, 1977/97. 125 minutes. PG/U. 2.35:1.