so, i've watched a few films of late. three, as point of fact. well, actually a few more, look you see, but these are the three i felt warranted in commenting on here. yes, these are the ones what are freshest in my mind.
to be honest (as i try) i have kind of found that i have fallen from favour with watching films. once i would have considered myself, or accepted the accusation of being. a film "buff'", seeking all opportunities or chances to have a watch of something. i guess for a variety of (agreeable) reasons such times and chances all faded away, and so the habit went.
yet, when i steal time, when i motivate myself to sit and watch a film, i still find it all so immensely enjoyable, and take a sort of tacit vow to do so more frequently. but, i don't. no matter, enough of such sentimental hygiene drivel, on with what i did get around to looking at.
a vague link between these three (3) films were that they were ones i had not seen before. further, they were bought cheap, and on something of a partial whim, for i spotted them and considered how yes, over the last few years, each was a title i had (mentally) noted as being one what i would wish to see. not with any great enthusiasm, of course, for i believe the "most recent" of these came out some four years ago. so i was not in all that much of a rush.
by and large, i found each (one) of the three (3) to be agreeable viewing. not necessarily great, or exceptional, but did the job. certainly, i would not wish to care to revisit any of them, but all the same remain satisfied that i watched each. and so, all three in a bit more detail. for those of a sensitive nature what need such stressing, a *** SPOILER WARNING *** is hereby decreed.
provenance of my copy would be a market stall selling 3 DVDs for £2, so an exact cost would be circa 67p or so. rounded up.
the plot? a getaway driver (Mel Gibson) is heading to Mexico (as appears to be the case with all criminals in American movies) with a great deal of money which is not his. he gets intercepted by the Mexican cops, who in such films are always corrupt, and thrown into some sort of improbable prison which appears to operate as a village. there he works on ways to survive, and hatches an improbable (also frankly ludicrous) scheme to save a family, reclaim his money and exact an unlikely scenario of "revenge" against people what he presumably stole from, or off of, in the first instance, hence the whole premise.
hmn, would be my actual review. as most reviews tend to say, this is, despite itself, a really good film. the issue, of course, and the reason you would assume it was a disaster (catastrophe, in fact) at the box office, comes in the form of Mel Gibson. yeah, the world just let him ramble on with his unbelievable xenophobic historical rewrites, praising him and giving awards for inflammatory yet entertaining tosh like Braveheart (a low point being the provisional IRA just hanging around in a Scottish forest in the 13th century, waiting for someone to join the anti-English quest) and plain sh!t like The Patriot. letting him get away with all of that just left him believing he could say as he wished, and sure enough the world turned against him when he stopped attacking just the English, and went very darkly racist, sexist, misogynistic and antisemitic. one of cinema's greats was taken from us as no one thought to stop his ludicrous views early on.
i am pretty sure this film was a cautious "last throw of the dice", a testing of the water to see if there was any chance this formerly lucrative and bankable star could have a redemption path. based on the pure quality of the film alone, regrettably the answer was, or remains "is", no. had he made this in the earlier 2000s, rather than being given a free hand to ramble on about all sorts of ugly, nasty things, then the world might be a better place. oddly, this film works well as a strange, quasi-sequel to Payback. well worth a look if you, like me, recall class, good Mel Gibson, and can cast from mind all thoughts of his disgrace and fall from grace for ninety (90) minutes or so.
on to the plot, and this is at times an abstract and at times quite specific "re-imagining" or remake of the infamous Harvey Keitel film of same name, from the early 90s. now that was one dark, heavy, uneasy watching experience, with absolutely nothing in the way of redeemable characteristics to any character in it. not so here.
my point of interest here was just how dark Nicolas Cage (in the ostensible Harvey Keitel role) would go in this version. would we get to see (mindful of earlier spoiler warnings) get to see Nic go full tilt naked, dancing around with a crack pipe? or get totally smashed out of his trolley in a church, start hallucinating Christ, throwing bottles at said hallucination and calling Him a "wrecked f***"? how about shooting the radio in the car whilst driving? often close to such disturbing moments, but not the whole distance. which may not be all that much of a bad thing.
whilst not exactly a "fun for all the family" version of the film, this is a heavily sanitised, toned down version of Bad Lieutenant. and that it remains often very uncomfortable tells you just how harsh the original was, precisely, if you are not familiar with it. certain scenes are recreated in a less graphic way, and the crime at the heart of the ostensible plot is watered down, a lot. but still gruesome and vile.
the most noticeable, indeed peculiar, thing is that the titular character is given a reason for being the very bad lieutenant (more of a naughty copper, perhaps). which (and you were given a spoiler warning) sets up a whole unlikely, preposterous and fluke redemption arc. kind of the point, or premise, of the original was to present the seedy, the dark, the ugly and downright evil, all being just that with no given reason, and absolutely no redeeming sought or possible. quite an interesting idea, this one, to take a film, go ahead and "re-imagine" it, doing so in a way that totally tilts the purpose or point. strangely, and unexpectedly, it does work and it is a very good, if not for all, film.
as i understand it, due to a number of "misunderstandings" regarding tax liability, as well as some ad hoc random purchases of castles and dinosaur skeletons (fossils), Nicolas Cage basically has to star in as many films as he is offered. similar fates have befallen other actors for reasons fiscal. however, whereas Seagal and Snipes make unwatchable tripe, and Kevin Bacon sells phones, Cage has an uncanny knack of turning up in lots of at worst average films. mostly he does the over-acting thing here, but every now and then one gets a reminder of why, once, he was so celebrated, loved and laden with awards. for a nice touch, Val Kilmer randomly turns up, and is as good as ever.
whereas i really, really liked the "first" of this trilogy, Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes (and to this day i believe John Lithgow has not had enough credit for his part in it), i was left disappointed and outright bored by the follow up, Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes. so dire and tiresome i found it, with particular emphasis on how wasteful they were with Gary Oldman, that i was amazed to learn they had gone ahead with a third film. one that i had no interest in. but, then, it turned up cheap.
i was even more surprised to find that the critic and fan consensus was that Dawn was in fact a better film than Rise, and that many considered this one, War, to be even better. which i suspected meant that i may find it even worse. but, you know curiosity and low cost drew me in.
as it happens, or turns out, yes, this one was quite good. i enjoyed it a lot more than Dawn, and probably would consider it at least as good as Rise was. for matters of plot, this sees lead ape Caesar just wishing to live in peace with the apes, away from humans, and no conflict. but with humans all but extinct via this "virus", some (led by barbaric, vengeful Woody out of Cheers) wish to fight the apes to the death for control of the planet.
for me, the most curious thing about these semi "prequel" films is that none of them do what the title says. in the first instance, Rise didn't really show a rise, bar some references in the end credits. as for Dawn, well, it didn't really show the dawning of the planet of the apes. and here we are with one called War, that does not show an actual war, outside of the battle at the start, since the one at the end is not really apes vs humans. but still, two good films and one that lots but me liked.
not really much else for me to say on this one, yet it feels like i should. what to put here? yes, the effects are outstanding, the performances are solid (as in good not wooden) and the whole thing held my attention. all as a Planet Of The Apes film should be, and the only two to ever fail one or more of them were Dawn and that wretched thing featuring Dirk Diggler out of Boogie Nights.
uncertain and unsure if any of this has been of all that much interest, but all the same thanks for reading, or at the least checking out the cover artwork in Commodore 64 mode.
be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment