The Cinemasitter

Author: Cinemasitter

  • Review: Prometheus (2012)

    Ridley Scott’s return to the massively popular Alien franchise he helped launch in 1979 shoulders an enormous burden in audience expectations – this is his first science fiction film since Blade Runner, after all – and it’s little short of a miracle that he succeeds in delivering a worthy follow-up. It may not be the equal of its classic progenitor or his landmark 1982 future noir, but Scott proves he still has it in him to deliver a beautifully crafted, mature slice of sci-fi while keeping audiences on the edge of their seats. Raising as many questions as it does answers, the director and Twentieth Century Fox have successfully resuscitated one of the studio’s key properties by delving in to its origins (much as they did with last year’s X-Men and Planet of the Apes reboots) instead of churning out a redundant remake, managing the difficult act of keeping long time fans onboard without (ahem) alienating newcomers.

    Full review: Prometheus | Cinema Review | Film @ The Digital Fix

  • Review: Men in Black 3 (2012)

    Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones saddle up together for a third time in Men in Black 3, a sequel that feels like it was made five years too late and everyone turned up to make it just so they could get it over with and cross it off their To Do lists. A sense of tiredness permeates this belated threequel as it struggles to deliver big laughs or re-establish the quick-fire chemistry between its two stars. Yet, with that caveat out of the way, there is still some fun to be had – a time-twisting plot and new supporting characters do go some way to freshening things up – but anyone hoping for a rejuvenated franchise will come away somewhat disappointed.

    Full review: Men in Black 3 | Cinema Review | Film @ The Digital Fix

     

  • Review: The Dictator (2012)

    Sacha Baron Cohen’s particular brand of provocative comedy comes undone in his latest venture, a disappointing satire of Middle Eastern politics that never really comes together. In attempting to move away from the mockumentary approach of previous films like Borat, Baron Cohen falls victim to an utterly conventional plot and a string of misfiring jokes that leave the film struggling to stay afloat. When there’s more laughs to be found in a film’s trailer than in the film itself, you know you’re in trouble. It’s not a complete loss – as with all his films, Baron Cohen succeeds in making a few pointed political statements – but it’s surely his weakest big screen effort to date.

    Full review: The Dictator | Cinema Review | Film @ The Digital Fix

     

  • Review: The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp (1943)

    The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp posterIf you’ve not yet seen Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger’s The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, currently on nationwide re-release, then you really should treat yourself. It might be the best part of three hours long, but the time really does fly by. Starring the phenomenal Roger Livesey, it’s a moving yet warmly humorous portrait of Clive Candy, a British career soldier, starting from his youth in the Boer Wars, through his active service during the First World War, and ending with his forced retirement in the Second. During this time he falls in love with two different women and takes a shining to a third – all played by Deborah Kerr. He also duels and later befriends a German military officer, Theo Kretschmar-Schuldorff (Anton Walbrook), with whom he shares much in common.

    It’s difficult to say quite how brilliant the film is without simply gushing forth hyperbolic praise. The performances are fantastic: Livesey is simply superb, portraying a fully rounded character (in every sense) as he ages down the years from youth through middle age to over-the-hill has-been. It’s also a beautifully crafted film, as all Archers productions are, despite wartime shortages hampering the production.

    Basing its central character on a well-known cartoon figure of the day that famously lampooned the British Army, it is said that Winston Churchill wanted the film banned for fear of it demoralising audiences and spreading dissent. The first few scenes suggest he was right to worry. Candy is very much Blimp personified – old, overweight, full of bluster and pomp, and completely out of touch with the modern world. Furthermore, the sympathetic portrayal of Candy’s German friend in the middle of World War Two was a remarkably brave decision, earning the film the disapproval of the British government.

    But that’s exactly where the brilliance of Colonel Blimp lies.

    Despite the romantic interludes with Kerr’s characters, the key to the film is really Clive and Theo, both soldiers from another age when soldiering was an honourable career and war was governed by a gentleman’s code of conduct. The portrayal of a friendship between two men united in a shared belief of common decency and honour despite being on opposing sides – a belief that transcends borders, politics and language – speaks very much to traditional British values of fairness. By the film’s beautifully bittersweet ending the two are also united in their obsolescence, and Candy finally comes to realise and accept this.

    But Powell and Pressburger have built up such strong sympathy for Candy, I think it’s clear they are not out to criticise the British Army or the men who led it at the time. It may well have been a warning, but it was an absolutely respectful one. Instead I think they tried to show that the values that Candy cherished were still worth cherishing, even if they were no longer applicable on the battlefields of Europe. The fighting may have got dirtier than the campaigns of old, but that simply made it even more important for the British to hold on to their humanity and stay true to their beliefs. Contrary to the concerns of Whitehall officials, is that not in fact a fiercely patriotic message?

    Blimp reminds us that behind every man and woman there is a personal history, a story that shaped their lives and beliefs, and we ignore that story at our peril. In an age where our sense of community is at risk of crumbling away, I wonder if Blimp is actually more relevant today that it ever has been.

    [xrr rating=5/5]

  • Review: The Raid (a.k.a. Serbuan maut) (2011)

    (Review originally published at One Hundred Words Magazine)

    The Raid posterThe action film genre gets a kick in the pants with director Gareth Evans’ kinetic Indonesian martial arts thriller. Set in an apartment block in the Jakartan slums, a SWAT team tries to arrest the chief occupant – a seemingly untouchable criminal overlord. Problem is, all of the other occupants are on his payroll, and it’s left to a single cop (Iko Uwais) to punch, kick, stab and shoot his way through the henchmen to the top dog. The plot is of course a flimsy hook on which to hang the action, but what artfully shot, adrenaline-pumping action it is.

    [xrr rating=4/5]

    Postscript: On a side note, it’s nice to see that multiplexes have embraced this low-budget, low-tech festival hit. Indeed, I can’t remember the last time a foreign language film was playing at the local Cineworld but not at the Picturehouse. Yes, it’s an action film of course, and as such its natural audience will be rather more mainstream than that of the arthouse circuit. But that in itself doesn’t guarantee a wide distribution, and being subtitled with a no name cast certainly doesn’t help.

    So what makes The Raid different? Is it perhaps serving an audience that Hollywood has tended to ignore in recent years – that of the adult action thriller? Something that hasn’t been watered down to get a more marketable rating, like PG-13 in the States or 12A in the UK? Certainly The Raid pulls no punches when it comes to its onscreen violence (though it doesn’t dwell on injuries; it’s a visceral, not a gruesome watch, and it’s not nearly as bloody as something like Tarantino’s Kill Bill). But those of us who remember films like Die Hard and Lethal Weapon in the 80s remember a time when the 18/R-rated thrillers used to be Hollywood’s bread and butter.

    The other point is that martial arts is a language that transcends linguistic boundaries. Hong Kong action flicks have been doing the rounds on video for years, and any modern American beat ’em up/shoot ’em up movie worth its salt will normally feature some form of fighting technique imported from the east. Given that dialogue is pared down to a bare minimum in The Raid, and the plot could be written on the back of a postage stamp, it’s probably fair to say that subtitles aren’t going to put the multiplex crowd off from seeing it.

    Might this open the floodgates for more overseas action films turning up at the local multiplex? I suspect not, but The Raid at least proves that it can be done, and it certainly won’t be the last.

  • Review: American Reunion (2012)

    American Reunion posterThis is one of those films that relies a good deal on sentimentality, and as such your enjoyment of American Reunion (a.k.a. American Pie 4) will depend on your tolerance for basking in past glories. Certainly there is little reason for this film to exist beyond a loyal audience’s curiosity as to what happened to that likeable bunch of high school kids we last saw nearly ten years ago.

    Original series writer Adam Herz seems to be MIA (his last credit was 2003’s second sequel) so Harold & Kumar franchise veterans Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg step in as both writers and directors, and the change is more or less seamless. The characters are quite believably moved forward several years, with Jim (Jason Biggs) and Michelle (Alyson Hannigan) now parents whose marriage has begun to lose its spark; Oz (Chris Klein) is a TV sports presenter in LA with a bimbo girlfriend; Kevin (Thomas Ian Nicholas) is a domesticated house-husband; and loudmouth Stifler (Seann William Scott) is still living at home with, er, Stifler’s Mom (Jennifer Coolidge) while temping in an office. Only Finch’s (Eddie Kaye Thomas) backstory doesn’t quite hang together, thanks to an 11th hour twist; but it doesn’t spoil the story much.

    From here it’s very much business as usual: pratfalls aplenty, drunken parties, the odd gross-out gag and a few more life lessons learned. Even some of the jokes are recycled from earlier entries. But the cast still spark nicely together; it is after all down to them that the series has endured for as long as it has. Without getting too mushy, it’s a real pleasure to see them back together (which is probably why this fourth film was bankrolled at all). It’s a solid enough entry in the franchise, coming in above American Wedding but below the first two films (I’ve not seen the numerous – and widely reviled – direct-to-dvd spin-offs). Unquestionably it’s aimed at the series’ fanbase, but newcomers will probably find much to enjoy as well, particularly if they’ve ever harboured doubts about meeting up with old school friends many years after graduating.

    [xrr rating=3/5]

  • Digital Fix review – Piranha 3DD (2012)

    History repeats itself, so the saying goes, and ample proof is provided by the resurrected Piranha franchise. In 1978 Joe Dante’s trashy Jaws rip-off delivered the goods but was followed in 1981 by an entirely worthless sequel, which would have been long forgotten were it not for the fact that it happened to be directed by one James Cameron. Then in 2010 Alexandre Aja’s tits ‘n’ gore remake similarly provided robust entertainment, mixing big name cameos with tongue-in-cheek humour amidst some serious carnage, and this has now duly been followed by a worthless sequel of its very own. Ramping up the camp humour along with the size of breasts on display, director John Gulager must surely be praying that his career will now follow a trajectory similar to that of Cameron’s – but from here it’s looking somewhat unlikely.

    Full review: Piranha 3DD | Cinema Review | Film @ The Digital Fix

     

  • Friday Favourites: 10 sequels that are better than you thought

    Continuing my occasional series of articles about the wonderfully murky world of sequels (see 10 films that deserved a sequel and 10 sequels we should all pretend don’t exist), here are a bunch of follow-ups which are much better than their reputation (or indeed their title) suggests.

    Alien 3 poster1. Alien 3 (1992)

    I’ve banged on about the overlooked merits of David Fincher’s Alien 3 elsewhere, but I’m more than happy for an excuse to talk it up again. It might not be the equal of its perfectly formed predecessors, but it’s a vividly atmospheric slice of sci-fi horror that brings Ripley’s story to a suitably fiery conclusion (until Alien: Resurrection anyway). Trust Fincher to sweep away the crumbs of comfort left over from Aliens and close the original trilogy with a crowd-unpleasing bleakness; yet with hindsight it’s a tone that feels absolutely right.

    2. Predator 2 (1990)

    Here’s another one I’ve flown a flag for in the past: the first sequel to one of the best sci-fi action films of the 80s. Though Arnie jumped ship (which doubtless scuppered the project from the start for many fans), there’s plenty to enjoy here – a fresh location and story (set amidst open warfare between drug cartels in L.A.), characters that aren’t bulging musclemen (the casting of Danny Glover is a remarkably brave one in this genre) and some pretty decent set-pieces. It may lack the suspense and memorable one-liners of the original, but those with an open mind will find plenty to chew on.

    3. Psycho II (1983)

    This sequel should have been a disaster. How on earth do you follow-up a Hitchcock masterpiece – one that was so successful it spawned its own sub-genre (the slasher movie)? The answer: switch genres to psychological thriller and keep the audience guessing as to whether Norman Bates is responsible for a new spate of murders. It works perfectly, thanks to neat misdirection from Richard Franklin and a pitch-perfect performance from Anthony Perkins, superbly reprising the role he was forever associated with.

    4. Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones (2002)

    For my money this was the best of the prequels. It didn’t have the extended periods of tedium that afflicted The Phantom Menace, and neither did it tip over in to the overly dark faux-tragedy of Revenge of the Sith. Instead there’s intergalactic intrigue combined with some decent action and SFX; the addition of Christopher Lee and a sexed-up Natalie Portman don’t do any harm either. Shame that Anakin is still annoying as hell – his romance with Padmé is the worst part of the whole thing – but this is otherwise good clean fun. Just as a Star Wars film should be.

    Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man poster5. Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943)

    Before watching this, I was fully expecting a cheap and cheerful effort from a studio desperate to squeeze whatever drops of profitability remained from two of its most popular horror franchises. But with a script by Curt Siodmak (who wrote the original 1941 The Wolf Man) and efficient direction by Roy William Neill, the film in fact defies expectations to become a strong entry in its own right. In fairness, this is more ‘The Wolf Man II featuring a guest appearance from the Monster’ than a genuine Avengers-style team-up, but by saving the big meeting for the grand finale the film ends up a small treat. Let’s just ignore the labyrinthine Frankenstein family tree that allows a new descendant to appear in every sequel.

    6. Quatermass 2 (1957)

    I suspect this film’s reputation is already better than its simplistic title might otherwise indicate, but I’m more than willing to help raise its profile a little bit further. The first film in Hammer’s adaptations of Nigel Kneale’s groundbreaking TV series, The Quatermass Xperiment, was (and still is) a fine effort; but the sequel is a step up in every way. A shadowy government conspiracy,  plenty of action and suspense, good use of atmospheric locations and tight direction from Hammer veteran Val Guest make this arguably the finest cinematic outing for Quatermass – even if Brian Donlevy remains miscast as the Professor.

    7. Mimic 3: Sentinel (2003)

    Shot with a tiny budget even by direct-to-dvd standards, this second sequel to Guillermo del Toro’s 1997 original unashamedly rips off Alfred Hitchock’s Rear Window by confining the film’s story almost entirely within a single location: the apartment of a young man who is housebound because of a crippling disease he suffered from as a child. He takes photographs through the window as a hobby, and notices that one or two of his neighbours are getting bumped off by a sinister looking thing. It’s nicely written and directed by J.T. Petty, and even though it feels a bit stretched (despite a sub-80 minute running time), it does have the feel of a pleasingly creepy short story.

    Superman III poster8. Superman III (1983)

    This entry is often accused of being the point at which the rot set in, as the series moved further away from the epic romance of Richard Donner’s original to the tongue-in-cheek silliness favoured by producers Ilya Salkind and Pierre Spengler. And of course that’s true to a large extent. But to write the film off entirely would be a mistake, as there’s also a fair bit to enjoy. Christopher Reeve is still on terrific form, and we get the added bonus of him playing an evil Superman when Kal-El splits in to two. The scenes between Clark Kent and Lana Lang when he returns to Smallville are nicely played. Richard Pryor is generally given too much screen time, but even so he still gets a good few laughs. And though the computer-centric plot is horribly dated, the cyborg woman who emerges near the end has an element of genuine comic-book scariness about it.

    9. Universal Soldier: Regeneration (2009)

    Now this should have been perfectly dreadful. It’s not as if the original 1992 actioner starring Jean-Claude Van Damme and Dolph Lundgren was anything more than a passable Terminator knock-off. The 1999 sequel was utter dreck, though it somehow limped in to a small number of cinemas before beating a hasty retreat to dvd. But this second follow-up (this time straight-to-dvd) manages to outclass both previous entries. Director by John (son of Peter) Hyams, the opening chase sequence compares favourably with anything from the Bourne franchise, while the rest of the film’s action (set within the ruins of Chernobyl) is visceral and intense, meagre budget notwithstanding. Notably, JCVD first appears onscreen around the halfway point and barely speaks a line throughout.

    10. Return to Oz (1985)

    Disney’s rather belated follow-up to the classic 1939 MGM musical goes down a darker path than its predecessor, more explicitly suggesting that Oz is just a figment of Dorothy’s over-active imagination. With no toe-tapping songs to its name, and with a cast of characters far creepier than before, it’s no wonder that Walter Murch’s film disappointed fans of the original. But time has been somewhat kinder to this admirable venture: its trouble production occasionally shows through (hasty script rewrites, followed by Murch being fired at one point) but its vision of Oz is one that continues to dazzle and scare in equal measure.

     

  • Review: The Avengers (2012)

    Avengers Assemble posterBefore we start, let’s get the title out of the way: in the UK, it’s supposed to be called Marvel Avengers Assemble, which is such a hideous mouthful I’m going to ignore it completely (from now on at least).

    The story: Earth’s mightiest heroes are brought together by S.H.I.E.L.D., an agency dedicated to protecting Earth from the threat of invasion. Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), Captain America (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) must battle with Loki (Tom Hiddleston), who leads an invading force of aliens with the intention of taking control of the planet.

    Marketing pedantry aside, The Avengers is the film we’ve all been waiting for since 2008’s Iron Man first hinted at such a team-up. It’s been the holy grail for comic-book fans for decades: a film universe equivalent to that of the comics, where superheroes not only co-exist but join together to take on a superior foe, or alternatively beat seven bells out of each other. Or preferably both.

    There have been hints at such a prospect before. Joel Schumacher’s Batman films (*shudder*) made mention of  Superman and Metropolis, though fans prefer not to remember this (or indeed his films). Then in the early 2000s Warner Bros attempted to jump-start both their DC superhero big guns with Batman vs. Superman, an epic to be directed by Wolfgang Petersen from a script by Andrew Kevin Walker. This was scrapped when separate reboots were chosen instead; and, needless to say, don’t expect Clark Kent to turn up in Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight series any time soon.

    The main obstacles to a gigantic Marvel superhero mash-up have always been legal ones. The company had in the past made deals with different studios to adapt specific characters. Thus, Spider-Man lies with Sony and X-Men and Fantastic Four are locked in at 20th Century Fox – and studios are notoriously protective of their properties. But this changed when Marvel set up their own independent financing. As rights began to revert back to the company, several of their characters came back under the same roof and a team-up project became a legal, if rather unlikely, possibility.

    But pipe dreams finally began to turn in to reality when in 2008 Iron Man featured a post-credits tease with Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury, who in the comics is in charge of S.H.I.E.L.D. This obviously sent fans in to something of a tizzy, and sent a clear signal to Marvel that an Avengers movie was worth pursuing.

    The Avengers are of course a team of Earth’s greatest superheroes. Except they’re not; they largely consist of Marvel’s second (or even third) tier of characters, the ones you find after you get past the aforementioned crown jewels like Spider-Man, X-Men, or Fantastic Four. Only the Hulk could be considered a true A-lister; Iron Man has been popularised by two blockbuster films but was largely unknown to the masses before then, while Thor and Captain America only have a single film to their names, both of which – though financially successful – mainly served to set up the story seen onscreen here. The remaining two characters, Russian spy Black Widow and ace archer Hawkeye, only had minor roles in previous Marvel films and were certainly unknown outside of comic geek circles, mainly because they don’t really have any noteworthy superpowers.

    So it’s greatly to Marvel’s credit, as well as that of writer-director Joss Whedon, that this project is the success it deserves to be. After all, trying to fold several characters with such varied backgrounds – a billionaire in a hi-tech flying suit of armour, a man who transforms in to a giant green bodybuilder, a defrosted WWII super-soldier and a Norse demigod wielding a magic hammer – in to a single universe is no easy task.

    But by laying the groundwork so far in advance, with Samuel L. Jackson popping up across most of the films (he’s only absent from 2008’s The Incredible Hulk) dropping hints about bigger things to come, audiences had plenty of time to get used to the fact that they were watching characters that shared a larger onscreen world. The softly-softly approach has clearly paid off, with huge public demand for this epic culmination. Just take a look at the early box-office returns for proof – £15m+ in the UK alone.

    The film itself is a fast-paced, action-packed delight: from start to finish it’s a blockbuster that treats its characters and its audience with respect. The action is suitably grand and thrilling but never deafeningly so (Michael Bay could learn a lesson or two here). This being a Joss Whedon film, there’s wit and humour to spare which makes it palatable to Marvel newcomers without alienating longtime fans. Unlike Christopher Nolan’s Batman films, which try to sit within the real world as far as possible, The Avengers is a comic-book film and proud of it, and as such it’s perfect summer entertainment. That’s not to say there isn’t drama and suspense – certainly plenty of that – but Whedon finds exactly the right balance, letting the humour naturally permeate the breathless action sequences. All the main characters get their moments in the spotlight (though Captain America and Thor are pushed to the background a bit towards the end). Hell, even the 3D isn’t bad.

    If one was to nitpick, the humour did occasionally undercut the threat that Loki was supposed to present, and the film might have benefited from easing up its pace a fraction every now and again. But when you’re having this much fun, why quibble? I can’t wait to see it again – surely the ultimate seal of approval.

    [xrr rating=4/5]

  • Blast from the Past: reviewing David Cronenberg’s Spider

    I’ve enjoyed writing film reviews for quite some time now, though only in the last couple of years or so have I tried to do this in any sort of organised way. Whilst trawling through Harry Knowles’ marvellously insane Ain’t It Cool News site recently, I rediscovered one of the first reviews I ever had published on a popular website.

    The movie in question was David Cronenberg’s rather fine Spider, starring Ralph Fiennes. The reason I chose to review this film was simple: it received its UK premiere at the Cambridge Film Festival in July 2002, long before its nationwide release and indeed its arrival Stateside. A perfect opportunity to review a film ahead of the pack for once. (I’m quite pleased to note that this means I have been a visitor to the Festival for at least ten years now.)

    As both my brother and I went to the screening and were regular readers of Ain’t It Cool, we both submitted reviews (I forget who decided to review it first; I have an inkling it wasn’t me). And happily, both got published. You can read the original article here, but for posterity I have reprinted it below. Not that I’m particularly proud of it, you understand, but occasionally it’s nice to see how far you’ve come. And yes, we both got to shake Richard Harris’ hand at the festival that year – not long before he passed away. Cheers, bro.

    So here you are; I went under the codename of Deep Red, and my brother Thin Red. Cool, huh?

    ***

    Thin Red & Deep Red attend the UK Premiere of Cronenberg’s SPIDERS!!!
    Published at: Jul 22, 2002 10:30:10 AM CDT

    Hey folks, Harry here…. The word that came from Cannes was a bit mixed on Cronenberg’s latest, but then word is usually mixed on David’s films and that doesn’t stop me from admiring and enjoying each and every new film he makes. They succeed at different levels and consistencies, but they are never like anybody else’s films… They are always David Cronenberg movies, and that should be enough for any film geek to chance it. Here’s a pair of brothers in the Argento vein…. Deep Red and lil bro Thin Red….

     

    Hey Harry,

    Deep Red here in Cambridge, U.K. with a review of David Cronenberg’s latest
    film, Spider. I believe my younger sibling (Thin Red _______) has already
    sent you a quite ecstatic review of it. Here are my thoughts:

    After some sombre opening credits we meet Clegg (Ralph Fiennes), stepping
    off a train in London, on his way to a house that offers accomodation for
    ‘mentally unbalanced’ people who are either making a recovery or seemingly
    less dangerous than their more unhinged breathren. We’ve all seen people
    like Clegg at stations or cities around the world: shabby, smelly,
    unsightly, not quite with it. Fiennes delivers an amazing performance: he
    smokes endlessly, scrawls unintelligible words in a notebook, and mutters
    words to himself as he remembers his childhood.

    At this house (located opposite an enormous gasworks, the significance of
    which becomes apparent later), he begins to remember his childhood from the
    1950s, and the events that led to his current situation. Fienne’s Clegg
    watches on as he sees his younger self (Bradley Hall) in these times.
    Apparently friendless, he stays at home after school with his loving mother
    (Miranda Richardson). His father (Gabriel Byrne) is becoming bored with his
    family, preferring to go down the pub with his wife. When he starts having
    an affair with a local slut (also played by Miranda Richardson), tragedy
    lurks around the corner for mother, father and child…

    It’s a simple tale, but told in an intelligent, thought-provoking, low-key
    way that one does not expect from Cronenberg. A dark, absorbing drama with
    absolutely no showiness at all. Although actors playing different roles
    invites natural wariness on the part of many movie-goers (particularly those
    who barely survived David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive), this film employs the
    tactic for all the right reasons: the viewer is not required to make some
    ridiculous leap of logic in order to “get it”. The performances are great –
    Fiennes and Richardson do great work, ably supported by Bynre and Lynn
    Redgrave as the woman running the house. But where next for Cronenberg? Here
    is a director who is maturing as a filmmaker, looking for a new direction
    for his career. If he continues down this road, I can’t wait to see what’s
    next.

    So all in all, a very, very good film – well worth anyone’s time.

    Deep Red

     

    Here’s the little brother of doom…

     

    Morning, Knowles. Thin Red here…

    My brother (Deep Red) and I went to the UK premiere of Cronenberg’s latest

    SPIDER, last night – at the Cambridge Film Festival; and it was rather
    spiffing, I must say. I doubt this’ll get on to your site, I’m sure a few
    early reviews got in after Cannes. Anyway – i keep my fingers crossed and
    anything else i’ve got going, crossed, to hope i manage to climb to the
    dizzy heights of a review on your jolly website.

    My (brief, because i’m at work) review of SPIDER.

    I havent had too many encounters with Cronenberg, but with the few I have
    had, i was suitably intrigued and impressed. Videodrome was creepy and
    brilliant, while eXistenZ was scary and poignant. I could see a theme
    running in his work: identity, and the loss or discovery of it (having read
    through reviews of his other movies too). I wanted more of his work, and
    just havent got round to it, until i found that his new movie was being
    premiered right on my back doorstep 4months before its even going to be
    released across the UK. Bargain!! I asked my brother to buy tickets as soon
    as possible (2weeks before it was shown) and satisfied my cravings by
    watching other premieres such as “Amadeus: Directors Cut” (3hrs long). and
    Richard Harris(Gladiator, Harry Potter)’s latest “My Kingdom” (modern
    adaptation of King Lear in Liverpool – dont let it put you off, its good!),
    at which he attended! i shook his hand!

    Anyway – when Spider came along on sunday night, i sat on my seat (front
    row… on the left side, grrr), and 1h 40mins later, got on my feet and
    walked away. I wasn’t sure how i felt. I knew i’d liked the film, but…
    where was my reaction? I realised i was in a slight shock. I’d given my
    brother a thumbs up, as i passed him and his g/f, but i still wasnt sure.
    Then it hit me, the reaction i yearn for after a film i look forward to.
    “Wow”. If i get a “wow”. i know i’m voting 10/10 on IMDB. And this wow was
    involuntary.

    Cronenberg’s direction and his cinematographer have created a mood piece
    more than anything. His lead character, Ralph Fiennes’ “Clegg” barely talks:
    he rambles and mutters under his breath. So if the lead performer is not
    too vocal Cronenberg must compensate and compliment him. He does this
    marvellously.

    I won’t go too detailed into the story, because i hate it when people give
    spoilers. But suffice to say, Clegg is a loner and somewhat unstable man,
    who arrives at a house in London, where a few similarly unwell people go to
    be catered for, and looked after. Here he starts having flashbacks of his
    youth as a 10yr old, looked after by his loving mother (Miranda Richardson)
    and not-so-loving father (Gabriel Byrne). and thats all you’re getting –
    lets just say, his flashbacks dont help him get over his instability, but
    make it worse.

    Cronenberg compensates for the lack of insight into Fiennes character, by
    investing into his history, and having him as an onlooker into his past, and
    his parents, tremendously performed, especially by Miranda Richardson, who
    will more than likely be up for several awards come March. Her
    multi-charcter yet same-character performances are wonderous… so
    different, i thought it was another actress, until half way through. Byrne
    does a fine job, as does Lynn Redgrave. However, for this movie to be
    successful, Clegg needed to be a sympathetic, mysterious man, with a suspect
    past. Fiennes manages this very well. It takes a while to get used to his
    mannerisms, but when you do, you get to see how this man works, and by the
    end, why he is the way he is. Fiennes gives a cracking, understated
    performance.

    I hope you come out with the reaction i did about 3mins after you’ve walked
    out the cinema…

    ………………………………………………………………….
    ……………………………………”wow”

    Chin-chin

    ***Thin Red