quite a few films

hello there

so little is the time that i get to do this that i have somehow managed to watch a whole stack of films, or movies, since i last did any sort of "think piece" on what i had watched. many, i am aware, would say it is a good thing for me not to take up so much internet space. they are not necessarily wrong to speak so, look you see. but here we are.

let me, with an unusually generous amount of time to myself momentarily, remedy writing of films from the above. it shall be, i suspect, a challenge to my ever decreasing memory to list them all (i am pretty sure i forgot one or two the last time i did this), but what i thought of them should remain true. or, at the very least, as true as i get. yes, indeed, something is either true or it is not. 

briefly, then, a glance at some (four) of what i watched. with a warning that there is every chance of some of those *** SPOILERS *** present in comments. certain films under discussion are quite old, although as a friend put it a "new" movie only becomes an "old" one when you've seen it. 

from what i can recall the first of this "new batch" what i watched (since the last post) was Man Bites Dog as it got called here in England (and other places), which is interesting as the original titles translates as It Happened Near Your Home. but, as i recall, the main reason this got released at all overseas was that at around the same time Reservoir Dogs pushed some boundaries of screen violence. fairly obvious cash in title, then, and certainly the Belgians decided to go (at least) one louder in respect of boundaries. if you are unaware of the film, essentially it's a "mockumentary" about a serial (or indeed random) killer, and it is brutal and hilarious. 

why watch again, especially for the first time in, probably, a quarter of a century? some parts of it kept coming back to mind, so figured why not, especially when the tape (DVD) was going cheap. yes, it remains as repulsive as it does darkly funny, condemning you for forcing you to do nothing but laugh at some points. virtually every "ism" you can come up gets ticked off in the film as a means of upset, and one suspects there would be absolutely no chance of this being made or released today. really probably should have caused more fuss at the time, but it's funny what happens when you make a film in black and white and not in English. those two qualities apparently make it immediately "art" and thus you can get away with all sorts. no, i would not wish to see a colour version, thanks. 

on, then, to what is likely (thus far) to be the greatest artistic achievement of this miserable century or millennium. for yes, certainly, behold, i have indeed witnessed the greatness that is Beavis And Butthead Do The Universe. and it is beautiful.

there was something of a fear that it would be Bill & Ted, that revisiting a much cherished thing from decades ago would not end well. and yet it does here, for there is no ageing or development. essentially the film is them two wandering around with their constant smirk giggle, describing things purely as being cool or stating that they suck, finding smut and innuendo everywhere. were it so that we were honest, we would confess to wishing to live such a life. 

i suspect the appeal of this film will be (severely) restricted to those of "my age era", or generation if you like, and even then just those that liked the TV show (and original film) at the time. hence it going out straight on that rather disposable (bar the odd fluke) "streaming" format, or "platform". quite the shame, but there we go. for those of you who don't mind spoilers, alas, sadly no, there is no song included on the soundtrack as smart as Lesbian Seagull, and also Mr Anderson (or his shed) does (do) not feature. but still, i very much enjoyed. 

since the infamous "curse of Keanu" has entered the conversation (never mind Bill & Ted, just think of any Matrix sequel), yes, to wrap things up i did indeed seek out and watch John Wick 2 and of course John Wick 3. also, i believe another is on the way? not bad, either of them, but still the feel of diminishing returns was an ever constant. 

although the first one (John Wick) was quite good in as much as it featured one of the idiot offspring of Keith Allen getting absolutely battered, these two did not continue that trend. sadly. further, the main fault or problem with the first was no nudies, and that kind of remains the same here. one article i read somewhere suggests copious nudies no longer feature in films as they can no more rely on it as a marketing tool; not with the proliferation of such (in high quality) on that internet. oh. effectively, these films are the same thing; Keanu kills lots of people and Keanu does not get killed. there are many, many worse variations of this. but also better ones, with nudies in. 

not once, and not as often as three times, but twice i have been to an actual, real cinema, then, to see the wonders of Top Gun Maverick. reports indicate that everyone in the world will have seen this film now, going on the box office figures. this does not surprise me. it's brilliant. whilst i am no expert in what does or does not work, it strikes me they did that wonderful Godfather Part II trick, or even The Dark Knight. arguably The Empire Strikes Back but let us not wake up Space War Treks or whatever fans. a sequel what is even better than a formidable original, based on the basic of taking what worked in the original (often, to be fair, in this one, very directly) and building on it, rather than just replicating. 

my first attendance at the cinema was the day after it got released, with a good friend and colleague. down in Leicester Square no less. the last time i saw a film there was Cape Fear, with a different good friend and college associate. William expressed an interest in seeing it, so i took him to see it, but not down in London (innit). James expressed no interest in it. 

yes, the above pic is from Top Gun but i shall clarify why just now. despite it being a delayed sequel of sorts, i think a lot of the magic of Top Gun Maverick is of it being a self-contained film, no "expanded universe" or remake or "saga" or "colour by numbers" disposable viewing. packed to the brim, it is, with well defined characters, breathtaking action, wonderful humour and true emotional involvement. a reminder of how cinema used to be when you could just make a film, and not worry about it being part of a bigger franchise, or "cannon". 

for a large spoiler section (being for the benefit of the three people reading this yet to see it), in all likelihood this motion picture is Val Kilmer bowing out, saying farewell to us, the humble movie fans enthralled and entertained by his talents all these years. i do not care, i do not give the slightest, single f*** what Tom Cruise believes in, or does off screen. all i know is he is a beautiful man with a beautiful heart to have enforced them constructing this entire film around how they could get the very ill Val to be in it. bravo and bless you, sir. 

it is so that William had not actually seen the original Top Gun, so i fixed that for him with a low down priced blu-ray tape (disc) of it off some supermarket. for me it affirmed that the original was really good, but still Maverick somehow went better. for William, he said it (the original) was good, but the sequel was better, mostly as the sequel does not have "a stupid love scene wasting time where the planes could be having another dogfight". he's not wrong. 

going surprisingly linear (with narrative if not order of watching films), a (very) good friend asked, on the basis of my love for Top Gun Maverick, if i had yet seen Val. no, i had not. so i (ahem) sought it out, borrowed a tape, so to speak, and saw it. wow, just wow. a rather incredible collection of home videos he had kept, and generously shared with an audience. it's heartbreakingly brilliant. yes, i have rather liked Val Kilmer ever since me, my brother and sister rented Top Secret! off of the video shop in a petrol station strangely close to a school. and yes, all of you were wrong to let that at (the very) best reasonably competent director distract everyone from his lack of ability by blaming Kilmer for a certain film not being so good. 

highlight of Val for me was undoubtedly seeing his audition tapes for Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket. whereas that film was (of course) perfectly cast and made, damn, it would be interesting to know how close, if at all, he came to being in that movie. oh well. also, the sheer work and effort he went into for every role, but particularly that of Morrison in The Doors. further, the reminder that like everyone else i went in to watching Heat with a view of "at last" De Niro and Pacino working together, only to discover easily the best actor and true "star" of that incredible film was Val. 

the same (very) good friend also asked if i had seen the in no way Val Kilmer related film Palm Springs. i forget what it was in connection with, some topic of discourse or other, but the answer remained no, i had not. as it turned out a rather difficult film to locate in the UK, and yet still i was able to (ahem) borrow a tape of it for a look. 

perhaps the best way to describe this one is as a quasi remake of the classic Groundhog Day, but for a somewhat more mature (not necessarily adult) audience rather than being family friendly (ish). quite a lot of sex and references, more graphic deaths and murder, and also the addition of science. so, a bit the same in premise (living the same day again and again) but a quite different take. 

really, though, or perhaps 'essentially' it's one of them rather quirkly, feelgood films what for some specific reason American "indie" filmmakers have a true gift for. i loved, say, Napoleon Dynamite and in particular Safety Not Guaranteed for the same reasons i liked Palm Springs - it just feels good when you are watching it, and very satisfactory after. inexplicably difficult to get a copy, but worth the effort of finding it, should my view be of any use.

continuing a somewhat linear trend, it was so that another colleague (and indeed friend) quizzed me on the subject of the motion picture Team America : World Police. no, i confessed, when asked, i had not ever actually seen it. he told me off for this. as did the bloke in the shop where i bought it, and as did a friend (and former colleague) who called me as i eventually did see it. 

no, that's not from this film (the picture above), one to come later. a great one, too. but, anyway, since this is supposed to be Team America : World Police, on to that. not really sure why i didn't see it on release. speculative guesses would be too busy with married life, parental life or something. also, i suspect, it just didn't appeal, as the whole joke appeared to be "made with puppets". as it turns out, that's not too far from it. risking upsetting some who hold it dear, well, it just has not aged quite so well as the makers' other work, South Park, has. rather funny in places - especially and unexpectedly with the songs, and yes of course the theme tune - but roughly one quarter of the laughs of the original South Park Movie or the movie that should have been, Imaginationland. glad to have seen it, don't think you can make those sort of jokes about Alec Baldwin no more (at least not momentarily) but i can't see me ever putting this tape (disc) in the machine again when i have South Park ones to had. 

my suspicion would be that regular readers (thank you) are quite baffled by the lack of things being presented in the greater good and glory of Commodore  mode, for that reason let me move on to the film that is Doctor Strange 2, or something like that. i think maybe Doctor Strange In The Multiverse Of Madness is the actual, proper name. average, colour by numbers film would be it in short. 

i would suspect i am not alone, but all the same a silent number, in thinking that there is now well and truly just too f*****g much of all this Marvel "expanded universe" stuff. haven't counted but it feels like two or three films are being thrown out each year, along with some series or other on a streaming service. and one has to see all of it to vaguely understand any of it. at least things like Dallas were just once a week. 

plot of this one? well, not sure. i mean, at times, there were five or even six consecutive minutes where things in Doctor Strange II made sense. the most confusing part is the name, for if anything it all plays like a sequel (or extension) to the series WandaVision (which i thought was called One Division) with hints of the most recent Spider-Man thing. having Sam Raimi direct it filled me with optimism, but alas other than loading the film - to the point of distraction - with Evil Dead references, he just does that thing i believe the call "phoning it in". 

a little while ago Martin Scorsese (i think) said that all these super hero / comic book novels were not really film-making. he got knacked for that, but has been proven right. the films seem to be made on the basis of four or five scenes (or incidents) being included so as to tie in to other films, and then the rest is all "colour by numbers". barring (at best) the first two Iron Man films, essentially all of these Marvel films have been remakes of The Blues Brothers - imperfect heroes are either putting a band together or back together to achieve an improbable good, but the heroes must pay a price for it. the only real deviation was Black Panther, which took some of those elements but mostly was just a very clever, tacit remake of The Lion King. 

keeping the strange, peculiar (and unexpected) linear narrative going (kind of), then, with a Martin Scorsese film. which would be Bringing Out The Dead. no, i didn't watch it at the time. once GoodFellas got followed up with Age Of Innocence and Casino i clocked that he had run out of things to say. yes, i tried his "film that he had been trying to make for decades", Gangs Of New York, and it was atrocious. just people stealing watches. sure, i get the "time" metaphor, but really? for three f*****g hours? how thick does he think his audience is (or was)? 

watching it (eventually) came about when i was reminded of it in some internet based chat what Nic Cage recently did. he was asked to name his own personal favourite three films of his career. of course, and predictably, he named his most recent (to have been released), the one he won and Oscar for and then, perhaps to the surprise of many (me included), this one, Bringing Out The Dead. trying to name just three (3) class Nic Cage films is tricky, really. well, for me Wild At Heart will forever be number one, possibly rounded out with Face/Off and Lord Of War. 

so, i bought a tape (disc) of this one and watched it. not bad per se. appreciating that it was based on the book by a real life paramedic (or what Americans call them), huge chunks of it felt like i was watching a clever, completely relocated take on Catch 22. which is no bad thing. i cannot make up my mind about how it compares to Scorsese's other "New York but not crime specifically" film, the magnificent After Hours. whereas i have no regrets over the time invested in watching it, i am not so sure i would hold it up as a finest hour of either director or star. 

right, on to what i think is the last of this batch of films watched. unless i saw something on a streaming service or other and forgot it. but yes, no, it's the one previewed earlier, and it is Hired To Kill. 

every person who has ever watched movies (of films) has heard the expression "it's so bad it's good" to describe one of them at some point. ladies and gentlemen, Hired To Kill is a dictionary definition of this. by some margin it is the greatest 19p what i have ever spent in a charity shop on a tape. actually, i wish this had been a tape, in the mid to late 80s, for my brother and i would have rented the absolute p!ss out of this one until we worked out how to connect two videos to make our own copy. not that i would do that, hope taping is killing music, etc. 

it's just sh!t really, vaguely revolving around a plot to free some friendly leader in some country via means of sneaking into the country as a fashion designer with a bunch of models trained to kill. yes, Ollie Reed is the main "baddie" what has to be beaten to get the leader (Jose Ferrer) out, and no less than, to unexpectedly mention it again, Dallas star (of sorts) George Kennedy is the one who hires the leader of this band - Brian Thompson. if you are asking "who", he played the "alien shape shifter bounty hunter" in Mulder & Scully or whatever it was called. effectively this film, from 1990, appears to have been attempt to pitch him as a "cheaper" Schwarzenegger for films. and by cheap i do mean getting change from US$100, rather than paying millions. 

yes, i did quite like the "love scene" between Ollie and Brian, hence the pictures. as it happens, and those well versed in his work shall not need me to say so, macho man love scenes occurred in a good many of Ollie's films. he liked naked wrestling with men, he did, bless him. and drinking.

under no circumstances whatsoever would this film get made today, and that's not particularly a bad thing. very much of its time it is, with an incredibly sexist, misogynistic script. doubt any channel anywhere in the world would broadcast it either. also, a very disappointing lack of nudity, considering the cast is predominantly lady models and there's even a scene set in a women's prison. what nudity that does turn up is rather disturbing by any standard, as it happens, but still. a lovely man love scene with Ollie kind of balances it all out. 

going back to my last post on films (here), i think this one would make a pretty decent double bill with that film i thought was good but also would be better with (more) nudies, Inglorious B@stards. or i might just watch this one on its own again. well, by watch, i mean skip to the Ollie man love bit.

no, i am sure that i am forgetting (at least) one film, but never mind, that i think is quite enough for one post. certainly i am quite aware my views on these films, or any others, or anything are of little actual value, but there you go anyway. 

be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!