The Deer Hunter

I watched this 3 hour classic on the weekend. Didn't start it until 11pm, which was ambitious. Anyway, it's meant to be one of the best films ever made - very highly acclaimed as a cinematic high point, but (and I feel a little bit ashamed as I write this)... I didn't like it. It was an absolute battle getting through to the half-time cup of tea, let alone the end credits. I was surprised that I had such a dry response to it because I can normally find some enjoyment out of just about any movie, and I love 70s American cinema. Myself and the others that watched this were wondering if we'd been oblivious to moments of sheer brilliance. The only thing that kept me watching was the hope that something would happen, but it never gripped me.

To briefly summarise, the movie is about a bunch of working class buddies that go off to 'Nam, have an horrific time there and return to Pennsylvania, forever changed by the torment of what they (barely) endured. That doesn't do it justice - there's a lot more to it than that, and there are some memorable scenes in the movie (several intense Russian Roulette games). But the whole thing is so slow moving it was almost funny... It begins with a Russian Orthodox wedding scene that lasts for 45 minutes! That's like watching a complete stranger's wedding video. I'm sure the reason behind such a loooooong scene was to create some kind of familiarity with the characters involved but that didn't work for me; I couldn't engage with any of the characters and I seriously felt that some drastic editing was required.

At some stage, I plan to watch 'The Deer Hunter' again - give it another chance when I'm feeling more awake. Has anyone seen it? If so, can you explain what I missed?

The Motorcycle Diaries

I watched this for the third time the other day. I actually enjoyed it more than I did the first time. When I first saw it, I went in with the assumption that it was a movie about Che Guevara in his younger days and it would foreshadow what happened with the Cuban revolution. That's not really what it is. When I re-watched it recently, I didn't really think about it historically; I didn't even think about who the character of 'Ernesto' would later become - and I enjoyed it more. It's basically a cool road-trip movie about humanity and the awakening of a social conscience. There are a lot of subtle moments in the movie that are actually quite moving, and I missed these on my first viewing. Oh and it made me pumped to go to South America - the scenery is spectacular and mysterious.

The Godfather part III

I recently watched the much maligned third installment of the Godfather trilogy. It was made some fifteen years after part II and set about 20 years after it. The Godfather part I and II are considered as two of the best films ever made, and they really are awesome, possibly even perfect films. While the first two parts were soaking into our culture, becoming 'classics', the time in which part III was to be made and be well received was slipping away, as was the chance that it would be any good compared to the other films.

I really enjoyed the film. It's not as good as the other two but as far as films go, I think it's a very good one. I really like that the story focuses on the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church - it adds a weird romantic, mysterious edge and gives the corruption a new flavour. The final 3/4 of an hour of this film (the opera scene to the end credits) is one of the most exciting and memorable scenes in the entire trilogy.

Some letdowns:

- Michael Corleone's character. I know he was meant to be older and more reflective, and tormented by his past sins but there was barely any recognisable trace of the Michael from the first two films. Al Pacino acted well in this, but I couldn't help but feel he'd forgotten what Michael was like. He really does seem like a completely different person - literally.

- Sofia Coppola's acting. It was very bad - she actually made her character seem 'special' and I don't think that was the intention.

- The script. It's not as well written as the others. This film is not actually adapted from Mario Puzo's novel - the screenplay was written from scratch by Puzo and Coppola and was perhaps a little rushed. It doesn't have the poetic brilliance of the first Godfather film, where every line spoken seems perfectly natural and tantalisingly profound at the same time.

- Vincent. I didn't think this character had any depth. It was hard to believe that Michael would put him in charge of the family. This film really missed Robert Duvall.


Some let-ups:

- As mentioned earlier, the opera scene was fantastic.

- I liked what they tried to do with Vincent's character. It seemed like he was meant to be the reverse of Michael in part I - going from ruthless villain to respectable family man. I like that idea, it just didn't quite work because of Andy Garcia's acting and the script. Or maybe I'm just seeing things that weren't there.

- I liked the brief flashbacks to all the women that Michael had lost. They gave a lot of strength to the emotional punch of this film.

Not a perfect film but a nice way to end the trilogy, nonetheless.

Old People...

If you watch a video with old people, when it's finished they always feel the need to make some sort of concluding remark like "there we go then", or "hmmm", or "well...".

Childhood Classics

Partly to prove that I'm not against children's films, here's a list of movies that I used to watch repeatedly as a child. My family used to tape a lot of films from TV onto VHS, so we'd end up having heaps of sub-quality recordings of sub-quality productions, with the quality diminishing each time the tape was re-watched.

King Solomon's Mines


The 1985 version with Richard Chamberlain and Sharon Stone. Although it's an adaptation of H Rider Haggard's book, I reckon this film was made to cash in on the success of Raiders of the Lost Ark. I'm sure that didn't occur to me when I was 7 though. I watched this countless times and not once did it cross my mind that I might be watching a B-Grade flop and holder of two razzie awards ('Worst Musical Score' Jerry Goldsmith - I remember even liking the music! 'Worst Supporting Actor' Herbert Lom). I didn't notice the over-the-top acting or the corny script, I only noticed the excitement that came from watching an adventure like this. Funnily enough, a straight-to-TV version of King Solomon's Mines with Patrick Swayze came out not so long ago, and from what I saw of that, it seemed even worse than this one, and it probably had twice the budget, not to mention the hindsight of the 1985 version's failure. It would be good to watch it again for a nostalgic laugh.

BBC Narnia series


Particularly The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe and The Silver Chair. I haven't seen these for a long time and would love to watch them all again. Because of my bias, the BBC Lion, Witch, Wardrobe will always have a bigger place in my heart than the recent film. But I won't stop there - I'm going to go as far as to say that the BBC is *better* than the new one. Particularly the white witch. I prefer the older one to Tilda Swinton's Jadis. I used to be terrified of her as a child (I guess that's the point - "as a child") Also, Maugrim was much more intimidating as a wolf-man type than as a talking wolf (regardless of what CS Lewis thinks). I haven't seen the new Prince Caspian but I always thought the BBC version of that was a bit crusty, so maybe the new one will surpass it in my mind. The Silver Chair was just awesome, and Tom Baker was a better Puddleglum than he was a Dr Who. Everything about it was magical, not least the fact that they made it on such a limited budget (they re-used the actress that played Jadis, to play the Lady of the Green Kirtle). The new film will have to be pretty special to come close to that.

The Wolves of Willoughby Chase


This was quite brutal for a kid's film. The whole thing had a very sinister mood to it. The villain, Miss Slighcarp, a witch-type character, was extremely frightening. There are a lot of witches and wolves in children's fiction. I think this film in particular typifies what most kids are afraid of... which I might explore in a later post. Mind you, I'm sure The Exorcist would typify every child's deepest fear had it not been rated R.

The Water Babies


This was a great fantasy. I remember the first part of the film was live action and set in Dickensian London. Then the protagonist (Tom) jumps into a lake and discovers an underwater kingdom and gets captured by sharks and eels. It sounds like an acid trip, but I remember it being a really exciting film. The image above, is not from the movie; it's an illustration from an edition of the novel, which, incidentally, I'd like to read if I can find a copy.

All 3 Indiana Jones films


I imagine most kids would've watched these to death. I certainly did. I was particularly fond of The Temple of Doom. In fact, I still really like the Indy films. They capture 'adventure' so well. I remember trying to replicate Indiana Jones' adventures (and invent some new ones) by skillfully climbing up the balcony, then precariously balancing on the railing, before rolling through the sliding door -pretending it was something more dangerous than glass. I also remember wishing I had a whip... something I certainly haven't dared to wish for as an adult.

All 3 Star Wars films


I've been on the Internet for too long tonight as it is. So I'm not going to write about Star Wars. I just couldn't live with myself. Needless to say I loved all three original films as a child/teen and have seen them so many times that I haven't had the desire to watch them again since.

Disney


We had quite a large collection of Disney cartoon films on video. My favourites were Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Sleeping Beauty, The Jungle Book and Alice in Wonderland. I used to think it was called 'Disnep', because of the logo. How dumb!

A few other films I used to watch as a youngin': The Wizard of Oz, Superman: The Movie, The Dark Crystal, The Karate Kid, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.

Pixar and such

Wall-E is the latest Pixar animation. I haven't seen it so I shouldn't really comment on it, although it's meant to be very good; potential "best picture" nomination. What I will comment on though: computer animated films. I'm getting a bit sick of them. They just seem really gimmicky, and the stories more and more preposterous with each film that comes out.
It's like they think:

"OK, we're raking it in with these CGI kids movies... what can we do next?"
"Oh we haven't had one about cars yet..."
"Yeah, that'll do. What should we call it?"
"Uuuuuuuuuummmmmmmm... Oh F--k it, let's just call it 'Cars'."

Apply the same logic to robots, monsters, penguins, superheroes, fish... rats! Obviously, I'm not in the ideal age demographic to appreciate these films, but it's not as though I'm against cartoons - I have fond memories of the old Disney feature films.

Another thing: What's with the way people look in these latest ones?

Surely they don't have to look THAT mutated?

Now, don't get me wrong, I liked the first Toy Story, Shrek, and I didn't mind Finding Nemo. But Robots, Ice Age (can you believe there's an Ice Age 2 for goodness sake!), Madagascar, Ratatouille, Happy Feet, and Star Wars: The Clone Wars? Please make them stop.

This does NOT look awesome...

Righteous Kill. Robert De Niro and Al Pacino - potentially a recipe for the best movie ever... but watch the trailer. It looks simply awful; the type of film that will go straight to the cheap DVD bin. I cannot fathom why these two actors would sign up for something like this. Their characters' names are 'Turk' and 'Rooster'. They may as well have named them 'Robert' and 'Al', as it looks like they're practically playing themselves. And Fiddy Cent is in it... purely for marketing reasons, I'd imagine. I can only hope that the trailer is nothing like the final product.