Dune (1984)

Pros

• For anyone who has read the novel this much-maligned David Lynch interpretation is actually fairly close to its source. Yes, the movie doesn’t doesn’t have the capability to have every scene from the book, and there are some serious lacunae that require either assumed knowledge or guesswork from the audience. However so many large works of literary fiction don’t transfer to film so it is unfair to criticise ‘Dune’ for being a movie more familiar to those who read the book. In fact I would argue that ‘Dune’ does a fantastic job of turning the book into a visual media.
• The very large cast must have been a challenge for Lynch, and generally he succeeds getting some good performances from the actors and actresses. Kyle MacLachlan, Jurgen Prochnow and Sian Phillips are more than acceptable in their roles, and some of the minor characters are quite well done (such as Patrick Stewart’s Gurney and Richard Jordan as Duncan).
• Generally speaking the look of the film is very good, such as the depiction of Arrakis’ huge sand deserts, or the costumes worn by the cast, or in the case of the leading evil character, Kenneth McMillan’s Baron Harkonnen, make-up.This however does not include the special effects (see below).

Cons:

• This is a long film, no matter what version is seen, and it is not surprising that a later TV mini-series was made of ‘Dune’. Such a large story with so much depth of plot and number of characters becomes unwieldy at the end, and there are moments where Lynch has obviously had to lose important parts of the original material or have it significantly curtailed/simplified.
• The mystical aspect of the book and Paul’s central role is murky and not exactly revelationary. Ok, ‘Dune’ does a better job of dealing with a God-like being than ‘Star Trek V: The Final Frontier’, but there is still an underwhelming climax as Paul Atreides/Muad’Dib realises his spiritual apogee.
• There are some less than satisfactory special effects that were not that good in 1984, and now look even less impressive. The worst scenes are those involving the spice-worms, where to be honest they look like badly manipulated sock puppets blue-screened into a sandbox.

Final Rating:

2 out of 5 Bill Collins

Cliffhanger (1993)

• At the risk of being howled down by fans of the Italian Stallion, I have no qualms in saying that ‘Cliffhanger’ is Stallone’s best movie and whilst that isn’t saying much, plus I have no real interest in Stallone’s body of work, this is still a movie where his limited acting capability is given all the space it needs to be surpassed by scenery, stunts and a great bad guy (i.e. John Lithgow).
• ‘Cliffhanger’ is one of those dime-a-dozen action films that have been pumped out by Hollywood over the last 20-30 years, and although it isn;t unique there is a certain majesty in the use of the Dolomites (standing in for some bloody high US mountains) as the back drop for all the stunts and Stallone muscle-work. I can’t think of another action flick from the likes of Seagal, Van Damme or Willis where the environment is so integral to the drama and the look of the movie.
• John Lithgow and other supporting cast members are great foils for Sly’s mumbled and steroid fuelled performance. Yes, the baddies get killed one by one. Yes, Janine Turner’s character is rescued by Sly and his best friend (played by Michael Rooker) reconciles with him at the end of the film. It’s conventional and hardly an art film…yet ‘Cliffhanger’ succeeds in its spectacle and its thrills.

Cons:

• This is a Sylvester Stallone film so check your brain in at the door before watching it. There is no deeper meaning to this movie than Sly will defeat the baddies. Sylvester’s acting technique (involving grunts, exposed muscles, more grunts and the occasional pithy one liner) is hardly Stanislavkian, but it is all to be expected in such a movie.
• I understand that technically many aspects of this movie are patently ridiculous (i.e. those involving mountain climbing). Okay, so this isn’t a documentary on such a dangerous past time, but having said that it doesn’t take too much for a movie to ground itself in a little reality before becoming a flight of fantasy.

Final Rating:

2 out of 5 Bill Collins

The Odd Angry Shot (1979)

• I’ve already noted before how good this film is as an example of Australian film making from the 1970s, and I would like to say that this is one of the best war films made anywhere in the world. Made at a time when the resurgent Australian film industry was in full flood, ‘The Odd Angry Shot’ is a classic. It not only does what only our films can (i.e. put the Australian experience and national character into the cinematic language), it has an intense realism in its depiction of the life of a common soldier that is missed by many a bigger budgeted, more famous war film (e.g. ‘The Deer Hunter’, ‘We Were Soldiers Once’).
• The lead cast with Graham Kennedy, John Jarrett, Bryan Brown and John Hargreaves are absolutely spot on with their characterisations, and for each actor this movie is one of their career highlights. Kennedy is the most surprisingly good, considering his background as a TV presenter, but there is a truth to all the lead performances that can only be understood by someone who has met or served with real Vietnam vets.
• For a small budget Australian film there is no great difficulty in seeing the realism of the combat sequences. The Australian war in Vietnam more often than not was one of small unit patrols with minor unit actions and lots of concern over death or injury through mines and other weapons. Also it was fought by a more disciplined and less divided army than the Americans. In ‘The Odd Angry Shot’ we see the SAS troop that is the central unit of the film engaged in just these kinds of activities.
• Whilst there is plenty of violence, death, cynicism and general military madness in the movie, ‘The Odd Angry Shot’ is not afraid of showing the humour of the men at war. There are moments that are piss-funny, and as has been said before by others war can be long periods of boredom broken up by moments of sheer bloody terror. Your average digger in Vietnam (if not soldier anywhere since recorded time) responded by sometimes laughing in the face of boredom and terror…this movie shows this in spades.

Cons:

• The lack of a big budget is not in itself a liability, however it does mean that for its viewers who have seen ‘Apocalypse Now’ or ‘Platoon’ or ‘Hamburger Hill’, it can be said that ‘The Odd Angry Shot’ is limited in its production values. This movie doesn’t lose anything by being shown on the small screen, which is perhaps indicative of where it was at as a piece of cinema.
• The cynicism and distrust of ‘the powers that be’ who have put this group of men into battle in Vietnam is barely raised as a theme, and so for anyone looking for a wider political or social message about the war in Vietnam, ‘The Odd Angry Shot’ fails to deliver this.

Final Rating:

4 out of 5 Bill Collins

Contagion (2011)

• This is a disaster film that isn’t your run of the mill disaster film. Unlike those genre defining Irwin Allen flicks from the 70s (think ‘The Towering Inferno’ or ‘The Poseidon Adventure’) or the recent Roland Emmerich efforts ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ or ‘2012’ Steven Soderbergh creates a clinical, well-reasoned and in all honesty more realistic interpretation of what may happen when the shit really does go down. ‘Contagion’ doesn’t feel like a fantasy, it is almost like a documentary, with camera work and a focus on the science that could easily be a work of non-fiction.
• Certain members of the all-star cast do a more than reasonable job of being ‘non-celebrity’ in this movie, and this is most apparent with Matt Damon and Gwyneth Paltrow. Both have been what I would call ‘show ponies’ in almost all of the films I have seen them in, not so much acting as relying on good looks and PR to sell their work. Damon’s character is one of the emotional foci of the film (alongside Laurence Fishburne, Kate Winslet, Jude Law and Marion Cotillard) and he does quite well.
• The scepticism with which Soderbergh and his script treats the unfounded conspiracy theories of the lunatic fringe is refreshing. ‘Contagion’ is a film that isn’t afraid to say that sometimes there is no underlying subtext to our lives…the government and big business is not necessarily working to own us or restrict our liberties etc…in fact it can be the fears of the common man or woman, or the mob, that may be even more dangerous.

Cons:

• Because this is a more realistic approach to the disaster film genre and it is literally think with plot points and meaningful characters, there is a shortage of time to address all the issues raised in the film. For such a realistic movie it seems surprisingly easy for things to be resolved so readily by the film’s end. Society is seen to suffer incredible fractures and yet more time is spent on bouncing from one character’s problems to another. Like ‘Traffic’ (Soderbergh’s cinematic look at drugs in America and beyond) ‘Contagion’ has a richness of material that would perhaps be more suited to a multi-episode mini series. There are characters and plot threads that need to be drawn out further, and the movie’s structure doesn’t help.
• There is an almost ‘Tom Clancy’ feel to this movie, in that because it tries to be so realistic and represent how so many parties are affected or involved in the film’s plague, they eventually lose their individuality, becoming cyphers. Contrasted to the classic ‘disease disaster’ film ‘The Andromeda Strain because ‘Contagion’ spreads its net so wide in terms of the characters they can’t give us more than a few simplistic shadings (e.g. Jude Law’s obnoxious and self-serving Australian conman is just that…there is no more to him). Winslet, Fishburne and Damon do the best with what they can…Cotillard is almost written out of the film until the last few minutes, and even then her character seems to be disconnected from the real emotion of its situation.

Final Rating:

2 out of 5 Bill Collins

Operation Dumbo Drop (1995)

Pros:

• There is little to complain about the technical aspects of this Disney feature, in that it looks very good (thanks to the combination of the Thai filming locations and the work of director and cinematographer Simon Wincer and Russell Boyd. The use of some stereotypical Vietnam War tropes (e.g. the ‘gone native’ GI, the dense and threatening Vietnamese marketplace, the by the book American and the scheming ‘fixer’ REMF) is also a sign of the technical competency.
• There is also much to be said in favour of the performances by Ray Liotta, Danny Glover and Dennis Leary. Glover is probably the best, echoing (without the expletives or drug-soaked characterisation produced by Willem Dafoe as Sergeant Elias in ‘Platoon’). Leary reminds me a little of Don Rickles in ‘Kelly’s Heroes’ and Liotta is solid as the more conventional Green Beret at odds with his colleagues and the mission.
• The central character of the film is the elephant Bo-Tat, and it is easily the most entertaining film pachyderm since Dumbo. Of course there is not much competition…

Cons:

• Producing a family friendly Disney film set in the Vietnam War seems bizarre if not historically negligent. Yes, there is violence and yes, there are moments of conflict. However unlike the searing realism of ‘Hamburger Hill’ or ‘We Were Warriors Once’ and plenty of similar movies, ‘Operation Dumbo Drop’ seems like a fable set in a sanitised Vietnam War theme park. Disney had previously shown that comedies set in Vietnam can work (i.e. ‘Good Morning Vietnam’ starring Robin Williams and produced by Disney’s Touchstone team), and that was because underlying the silliness there was some historical truth and realism. Sad to say ‘Operation Dumbo Drop’ is like some whitewashed figment of someone who wanted to create a kid’s movie with nasty men wearing NVA uniforms.
• Like many a Disney film, the biggest strength of the movie (its efficient and seamless sentimentality) is its biggest weakness. You know that when you watch this movie everything will end up fine, and all danger is cartoonish. It’s surprisingly shallow emotionally, and when contrasted with the Pixar animated films it’s problematic that depth of character is more often found in the likes of Wall-E or Ratatouille than in the personae of ‘Operation Dumbo Drop’.

Final Rating:

2 out of 5 Bill Collins

Sweet Liberty (1986)

Pros:

• Michael Caine and Michelle Pfeiffer show their considerable comedic talents in this Alan Alda magnum opus, and Caine particularly mines a rich seam as the philandering, larger-than-life British lead of the movie-within-a-movie. As an actor who had many a low point in his career both before and after ‘Sweet Liberty’, his performance here is one of the better ones (certainly equal to his work in ‘Dirty Rotten Scoundrels’ and possibly better than ‘Water’ and ‘Without A Clue’).
• The remainder of the cast are all quite solid, with Bob Hoskins another Brit who upstages his American colleagues. Alda is possibly the weakest leading actor but he is still pleasant enough. It’s also fun (if not rewarding from a performance point of view) to see Lillian Gish in her penultimate movie role.
• For a relatively small film from the 1980s with not much of a reputation for huge box office or critical success, ‘Sweet Liberty’ is still quite charming and effective as a romantic comedy. It’s a movie that works very well on the small screen, and would be worth viewing for anyone interested in the careers of the leading cast members or the ‘film-within-a-film’ genre.

Cons:

• Alan Alda takes on an almost Woody Allen-esque role with ‘Sweet Liberty’, writing, directing and starring as the main character, and unfortunately his talents are not broad enough to sustain all three activities. Coming very soon after the end of his career as Hawkeye Pierce in ‘MASH’, Alda struggles to emerge from underneath that persona. Also, his partner in the movie as played by Lisa Hilboldt loses out rather badly to Michelle Pfeiffer…it seems a little unsatisfactory that Alda and Hilboldt are out-performed by the supporting actors.
• As a satire on the movie industry or the bastardisation of the creative purpose for commercial reasons this is a very mild film. ‘Sweet Liberty’ is no ‘Barton Fink’ or ‘The Player’.

Final Rating:

2 out of 5 Bill Collins

That Thing You Do (1996)

Pros:

• Tom Hanks’ first writing and directing credit on a feature film is a very enjoyable pastiche of some traditional genres, in that it’s got a solid romance story, some very good songs to create it’s musical credibility, a believable look back into pop culture (mirroring a similarly set movie of the same year, ‘Grace of My Heart’) and finally a semi-serious ‘biography’ structure that is on the same plane (if not the same standard or surrealism) as ‘This Is Spinal Tap’.
• The cast of mostly young and relatively unknown actors at the time is more than adequate, with Tom Everett Scott bringing just the right amount of levity and seriousness to his role as Guy (no doubt channeling the style of Hanks himself from his better films of the 1980s). Liv Tyler is suitably beautiful and charming as Faye, and Jonathan Schaech as James has enough of the Brian Wilson/John Lennon persona to keep his character interesting. Hanks himself is good (and actually surprisingly cynical at times in the movie) but for me the stand out performance is Steve Zahn as Lenny. He rips into his role with gusto and a comedic energy that steals many a scene. Zahn is one of those actors who never gets enough credit for his performances and in ‘That Thing You Do’ he shines.
• For a musical comedy it is imperative that the music is good, and there are no complaints on this aspect of the movie. From Beatle-ish pop songs (as embodied in the title track), through surf songs, Phil Spector-like torch ballads and even upbeat jazz ‘That Thing You Do’ doesn’t put a foot wrong.
• The look of this movie is also a positive; for a film set in 1964 it looks historically appropriate but also fresh and vibrant.

Cons:

• This isn’t a deep or meaningful film, and it offers none of the bizarre insight into or outrageous laughs from the rock/pop industry offered by ‘This Is Spinal Tap’ or ‘All You Need Is Cash’ (featuring the Pythonesque Rutles). A lightweight movie, ‘That Thing You Do’ won’t last too long in the mind of most movie goers.
• The theatrical release had problems with the way it depicted Charlize Theron as Tom Everett Scott’s girlfriend, in that one minute she was with Guy, the next gone. The editing of her role left much to be desired and this supposedly has been improved by the extended DVD. Considering Theron’s career since 1996 it seems that she was wasted in this movie.

Final Rating:

3 out of 5 Bill Collins

Wings (1927)

Pros

• Before there was ‘Flyboys’, ‘The Dambusters’, ‘The Battle of Britain’…even ‘Star Wars’ (or any other movie where heroes with their flying machines fought the enemy above the infantrymen on the battleground) there was ‘Wings’. This is the first great movie to takes its focus from aviators using their warplanes in dogfights whilst also fighting other battles back at base. There is no doubt that this film is a classic for not just being a shared winner of the Best Film Oscar, but also as one of those few movies that are the beginning point for an entire genre.
• The flying sequences are amazingly well produced, with the assistance of the then US Army Air Corps and some wonderfully talented (and brave) stunt men and actors bringing off some fantastic dogfights on film. It would take the likes of ‘The Battle of Britain’ many years later for old style special effects to reach a similar standard when showing war in the air, and much later movies like ‘Pearl Harbour’ and ‘Flyboys’ had to rely on CGI and models to help create scenes of a comparable nature.
• Whilst the two leads actors are okay, it is Clara Bow who steals this movie. Her tomboyish (yet damned pretty) character Mary Preston brings the film alive when the emphasis is away from the dogfighting above the trenches. The Paris scenes are a stand-out thanks to her participation, and for a war film her effect is to bring some surprisingly feminine comedy to the movie.

Cons:

• For the film goer of today ‘Wings’ definitely looks dated and has issues in terms of the acting as a whole (we are generally not used to the broader ‘muggings’ of silent actors), and the rudimentary look and feel of the battle scenes. As a very old film that was setting the pattern for others to follow, ‘Wings’ can suffer in comparison with more contemporary movies. For example, the love triangle that creates a rivalry between the two leads Buddy Rogers and Richard Arlen is very much a passe motif in today’s cinema (both ‘Pearl Harbour’ and ‘Dark Blue World’ used this idea as part of their stories).
• The more astute (or perhaps anal) aviation buff will be less than impressed with the cavalier approach to history in the movie, particularly regarding the types flown in the dogfight scenes. This is a minor criticism more relevant to someone who has an abiding interesting in military aircraft than the average audience member.
• The supporting cast are barely of interest and the much celebrated cameo from Gary Cooper is so fleeting its hardly worth watching.

Final Rating

2 out of 5 Bill Collins

The Paleface (1948)

Pros:

• The biggest two reasons to see this film are Jane Russell and Bob Hope, who dominate this comedy western. Russell (who was infamous for her voluptuous figure as seen in ‘The Outlaw’) was able to demonstrate in this film some solid comedic skills whilst still keeping her feminine charms as part of her role’s focus. Hope is up to his (then) usual tricks of playing a cowardly wise-cracking everyman who somehow seems to accomplish more by blunder and bluff than a more heroic leading man could.
• Westerns were a staple of Hollywood films from the birth of the industry through to at least the end of fifties, and generally speaking they took a dramatic turn (with some rare exceptions such as the B grade films like ‘The Terror of Tiny Town’ etc). In its way ‘The Paleface’ was following in the very narrow path trod by ‘Go West’ from The Marx Brothers, then more illustriously shown in the Mel Brooks classic ‘Blazing Saddles’.
• The song ‘Buttons and Bows’ is peformed by Hope in this film, and it is one of those classic movie songs that deserved its Oscar.

Cons

• The plot is silly and very much a pot boiler from an era when Westerns were churned out a dime a dozen. Don’t expect to see the same invention as seen in the previously mentioned ‘Blazing Saddles’ (in fact it could be argued that the idea that Bob Hope’s character is a gunslinging hero instead of a dentist is a rip-off from the Disney short ‘The Brave Little Tailor’).
• This is not a PC film, where Native Americans are shown with dignity or cultural sensitivity. If you want a more modern parallel, take a look at some of the old episodes of ‘F Troop’ for reference.
• Bob Hope is Bob Hope…the predictability of his performance is both a blessing and a problem. In some ways watching ‘The Paleface’ is like a western ‘Road To…’ movie without Dorothy Lamour or Bing Crosby

Final Rating

2 out of 5 Bill Collins

Little Shop Of Horrors (1986)

Pros

• The musical as a film genre went through some dark days between the early seventies through to the release of ‘Chicago’ and ‘Moulin Rouge’, and one of the few (and brightest) highlights in the gloom was ‘Little Shop of Horrors’. Taking the Off-Broadway musical as its model, which in its turn had been based on one of Roger Corman’s classic low budget genre flicks, this 1986 Frank Oz directed film hits so many positive notes as a musical, as a comedy, as a special effects film and as a romance.
• As much as this is a movie with some solid (or even better) from its Hollywood stars such as Rick Moranis, Vincent Gardenia, Steve Martin and a hilarious cameo from Bill Murray, the two greatest performances of ‘Little Shop…’ are from Ellen Greene as Audrey, and Levi Stubbs’ voiced puppet plant, Audrey II. Greene is a revelation as the meek, battered and beautiful flower arranger who looks to escape skid row with Rick Moranis’ Seymour Krelborn. Thank goodness neither mooted ‘Audreys’ Cyndi Lauper nor Barbara Streisand got this role. Greene has a wonderful singing voice and in this film she combines that with some exquisite comedic timing. ‘Audrey II’ is a triumph of puppetry, not seen outside the likes of ‘Labyrinth’ and with Levi Stubbs providing the voice the monster is surprisingly likeable. Between Greene and Stubbs these two voice talents achieve some great musical moments (also attributable to Howard Ashman and Alan Mencken, the writers of ‘Little Shop..’ score and lyrics).
• The innate comedy of the film’s premise is well realised thanks to the participation of many Second City/Saturday Night Live alumni (i.e. Moranis, Murray, Martin, John Candy, Jim Belushi). Martin’s sadistic dentist is one of his best efforts from the 1980s, whilst Rick Moranis does very well as the nebbish lead and romantic hero.

Cons

• Depending upon how closely you wish a film to follow the original story/show, ‘Little Shop of Horrors’ is perhaps an example of the unfortunate reliance of studios on test audiences to make creative decisions. The recently released Blu-Ray and earlier DVD editions show the original ending, which was cut due to its negative response, and it could be said that the movie’s been changed too much from its original form. I tend to disagree with this point, however it must be cited for anyone familiar with the Corman film or Off-Broadway musical.

Final Rating

3 out of 5 Bill Collins

The Running Man (1987)

Pros:

• For a Schwarzenegger action film from the 1980s this is possibly the most literate and intelligent entry if not in his entire career, at least from the earlier stage of his work (pre-‘The Terminator’). No doubt the influence of using a novella from Stephen King as the basis for the film helps, and the commentary made by the movie on American television and society seems almost prescient of the recent phenomenon of reality TV.
• Whilst this is supposed to be Arnold’s movie, Richard Dawson as Killian owns this movie. His evil game show compere is dripping with wit, satire and sheer cartoon nastiness. Whilst Arnie delivers his usual mix of heavily accented puns and muscular grunts it is Dawson who has the definitive character from ‘The Running Man’.
• There are also some better than average cameos from a mix of character actors such as Jim Brown, Maria Conchito Alonso and Yaphet Kotto, pro-wrestlers (Jesse Ventura) and drop ins from the music world (i.e. Mick Fleetwood). Alonso is not exactly up to the same dramatic standard as she was in ‘Moscow On the Hudson’, and Jim Brown doesn’t replicate his importance from ‘The Dirty Dozen’. Yet the cast does what is needed to make what is effectively a better than average genre film.

Cons:

• Arnie is not as strong a lead as he was in other films either immediately before or after ‘The Running Man’. His Ben Richards is no ‘Terminator’, no John Matrix (‘Commando’), no Dutch Schaefer (‘Predator’). Having said that any Schwarzenegger fan would watch this movie with plenty of satisfaction.
• The satire is probably too obvious (we’re not talking a Robert Altman film here), and it could be said that for a movie that targets the crass commericalism and debasing of American society through media manipulation in TV is just as guilty by foisting a violent action hero into the midst of a movie directed by an ex-70s TV actor (Paul Michael Glaser).
• With the action sequences fed into the movie in an episodic nature they lose some of their intensity and appeal when contrasted with the set-up scenes in the fake TV show hosted by Killian/Dawson. And unlike ‘The Terminator’ or ‘Predator’ the action is mostly cartoonish.

Final Rating

2 out of 5 Bill Collins

Bataan (1943)

Pros:

• A classic propaganda war film from Hollywood, ‘Bataan’ is an object lesson in a movie turning defeat into a clarion call for civilians on the home front. Unlike other contemporary films (e.g. ‘Objective Burma’) this movie demonstrates that American military power and its soldiers aren’t supermen always able to defeat the dastardly Jap…instead the main characters are flawed and fractious men with just as much internal conflict within the group as they have against their enemy.
• For one of the first and only times in early American war film history we see a unit of integrated soldiers (admittedly an ad hoc one) where Asians and Blacks are just as important both as characters as well as fighting men in the movie’s action. In this way it sets a precedent (admittedly a rudimentary one) for later Vietnam War films such as ‘Hamburger Hill’ and ‘Platoon’.
• ‘Bataan’ also perpetuates the set-up of a group of people brought together under duress, and slowly but surely they are eliminated one by one. It could be said this is a revisit of the Agatha Christie whodunnits in a war film, and ‘Bataan’ certainly has echoes for anyone who has seen the likes of ‘Aliens’, ‘The Hills Have Eyes 2’, ‘Event Horizon’ etc.
• The cast is extremely solid, filled with recognizable stars and character actors from the forties (Robert Taylor as leading man, but also with such scions of the studio era such as George Murphy, Robert Walker, Thomas Mitchell, Lloyd Nolan).

Cons

• A propaganda film from the forties will have a hard time reaching an audience from the current era, where cynicism and more brutal war films have made the likes of ‘Bataan’ and later efforts (e.g. ‘The Sands of Iwo Jima’) almost redundant. In a post-modern world where war heroes almost always have as much cultural integrity as the politicians who send them to fight no one can ever conceive and film a movie like ‘Bataan’ and expect it to be popular.
• The historical veracity of the film is tenuous at best, and it fails to do what more modern war movies do when it comes to a defeat (i.e. a self-examination of the reasons why such an event came to pass). Yes, this is a small scale film that was for the home front; however contrasted to a much later movie such as ‘Zulu Dawn’, in ‘Bataan’ the man who was behind so much of the failed effort is let off scot-free (i.e. Macarthur). Truth and historical awareness is given short shrift.

Final Rating

2 out of 5 Bill Collins

Annie Hall (1977)

Pros:

• This is almost certainly (with some serious competition from the likes of ‘Manhattan’, ‘Crimes and Misdemeanors’, ‘Midnight In Paris’ and ‘Hannah and Her Sisters’) Allen’s best film, and of course his most successful in terms of Oscar recognition. Almost anyone who wants to point to a specific film of Allen’s and identify what typifies his general style will use ‘Annie Hall’ as the archetype.
• Obviously part-autobiographical, both for Woody and for Diane Keaton, the narrative for ‘Annie Hall’ is almost perfect, with no missteps. Allen takes on his usual targets (love, death, sex, New York, the creative process, loss, family, television, Jewishness etc) and hits each one with humour and also (surprisingly) with some tenderness. It would be impossible to find best moments or highlights from Annie Hall…it is that good.
• The supporting cast has some wonderful cameos, ranging from Tony Roberts through the likes of Shelley Duval as a date for Woody’s Alvy Singer, Marshal McLuhan, Paul Simon, Colleen Dewhurst, a hilariously weird American Gothic-like Christopher Walken and Jeff Goldblum. These actors neither disappear underneath nor overshadow the leads of Diane Keaton and Woody Allen, instead providing added colour and vigour to many a scene.
• The critic Peter Bradshaw says of ‘Annie Hall’ “this wonderfully funny, unbearably sad film is a miracle of comic writing and inspired film-making”. There is no better summary of one of the all time great films from the US, from the seventies, in the romantic comedy genre and just as a movie full stop.

Cons:

• In the interests of objectivity I wish I could find flaws with ‘Annie Hall’ (perhaps Allen’s acting which is always problematic at best when playing a romantic lead). However in all honesty it is far beyond my capabilities as an amateur critic to have a go at what is Woody’s greatest film achievement.

Final Rating

5 out of 5 Bill Collins

The Lonely Guy (1984)

Pros:

• Charles Grodin almost steals this movie from Steve Martin, playing a far more experienced ‘lonely guy. Whilst Steve Martin’s Larry is a muted version of his then ‘wild and crazy guy’ persona, Grodin makes great play with turning what could be a pathetic role into one that is likeable and funny despite itself. Together Martin and Grodin are a wonderful comic pairing.
• There is sufficient surrealistic comedy to enhance the more romantic scenes, turning it into a true classic of Martin’s work. The ‘sneezing orgasm’ scene is one such moment, as is the ‘stop the wedding’ sequence. ‘The Lonely Guy’ is a more mature film than (for example) ‘The Jerk’ and benefits from Neil Simon’s input adapting the original Bruce Jay Friedman book.
• Judith Ivey is very good in this film, and it is a shame that she never has gotten more film roles that reflect her comedic skills. Whilst it could be argued she is doing what Bernadette Peters did in ‘The Jerk’, her work with Steve Martin is quite funny and at times touching.

Cons:

• The humour of ‘The Lonely Guy’ is not as uproariously funny as ‘The Jerk’ or for that matter later Martin flicks such as ‘The Man With Two Brains’ or ‘All of Me’. It has a subtlety that sometimes gets submerged under the mawkish romantic moments, and it would appeal more to a fan of Neil Simon or Woody Allen.
• Steve Lawrence as the lothario who rivals Martin’s Larry is just not that good. I find the closing sequences of the movie where he and Ivey’s Iris come together are not that convincing nor engaging.
• Some films from the 80s still look good even though the production values on screen are dated. For some reason ‘The Lonely Guy’ hasn’t kept as well visually, and whilst it was obviously made on a smaller budget than ‘The Jerk’ and other early Martin films the film’s director (Arthur Hillier) hasn’t made as much of the movie as he could have.

Final Rating

3 out of 5 Bill Collins

Lord Of War (2005)

Pros:

• Nicolas Cage is one of those actors who seems to fall between some moments of brilliance (or at least manic achievement) as in ‘Leaving Las Vegas’ or ‘Moonstruck’, then falling into the pitfalls of caricature (as seen in ‘Captain Corelli’s Mandolin’). Thankfully in ‘Lord Of war’ he veers towards the former end of his acting spectrum, and as the central character his Ukrainian gun runner Yuri Orlov he delivers exactly what is needed. There is an amoral, hustling show-pony vibe to the portrayal that also has all the right undertones of cynicism for such a problematic persona. The minor romantic plot line that develops in the movie is there to underscore Cage/Orlov as the efficient, manipulative salesman of death.
• The humour is sufficiently black and satirical to convey the message of the movie (i.e. the darkly complex political and moral responsibility for the shipment of weapons on a massive scale to all manner of despots etc). This comic thread slowly dries up till in what is arguably the most important part of the film Cage’s character has to decide what is more important; money and survival or his morality and his brother.

Cons:

• The supporting cast are somewhat under-utilized, with Jared Leto’s Vitaly (brother of Yuri) the prime ‘victim’ of what is effectively Cage’s domination of the film. There is a more compelling dynamic between the two characters that doesn’t quite get the air it needs. The same can be said for Bridget Moynihan’s role as Cage’s love interest; she is almost like a bland sheet of white wallpaper for Cage’s characterization to stand in stark (and far more interesting) relief against. Ian Holm is wasted and Eamonn Walker’s Liberian dictator is a shadow of a more impressive (and similar) role for Forrest Whittaker in ‘The Last King Of Scotland’.
• The political message of the movie, that major powers (especially the US) encourage and facilitate both the arms trade and the ongoing cruelties of third world terrorists, despots etc seems a little too easy a conclusion. Those that are the buyers don’t get off scot-free in the film however ‘Lord Of War’ effectively says that ‘evil prevails’ and it will always be an opportunity exploited by the sellers of weapons. More of the film’s concept of the burden of responsibility needs to be sheeted home to those who use the weapons, who commit the massacres, who sell the blood diamonds. There is almost a western sense of guilt denying non-western barbarity behind the movie’s message, equating capitalism, wealth and political power with the killings, not the despots, the dictators, the warlords.

Final Rating:

3 out of 5 Bill Collins