well, not sure what (exactly) came over me, but i went on a bit of a bender watching some tapes (discs) of late. as would be usual, then, some comments. this blog of mine is not the only outlet for airing such views, look you see. except, mostly, i suppose, actually it is.
indeed i opted (or elected) not to use the term "films" or "movies", for at some points i watched different sorts of tapes (discs). as point of fact, also i watched some broadcast ("streaming") stuff too. but, well, if you read on, you will see what's what. or, you know, scroll down and see if any of the images i have chosen to beautify this with take your fancy.
quite a few of the things what i have watched are in the above image, presented in the greater good and glory of Commodore 64 mode. well, no. i think there's 14 (fourteen) titles below, which sounds like an awful lot of writing i have committed myself to. oh. anyway, mindful of my maths not being too good, i suspect what is shown is a 52% to 48% split of things watched. should the modern world have taught us anything, it is that this is a definitive and conclusive margin.
just in case, yes, one of them much fabled *** SPOILER WARNINGS *** is in place for all of the remainder of this post.
no, i am not going to present these in any particular, specific or pacific order. except, maybe, them what i watched on those "streaming" things, because why not. and to start with, then, a disclaimer or maybe even a qualification. often, when i do these things, i wonder why, thinking (or assuming) that anyone what would wish to see any of them would have done so already. and then i go, well, it has taken me somewhere north of 35 years to actually getting around to watching Death Race 2000.
surprising that it took so long, really. i mean, i am to be found kneeling at the altar of the video game that is Carmageddon, which was inspired by this. probably never saw it before now as it was either banned off of the bbfc here in the UK, or shredded to ribbons by same censors. and then likely i just forgot about it. but then there it was, cheap and apparently uncut on a market stall.
after such a long (but not necessarily intensive) wait, was it worth it? yeah, maybe. the thing what stuck me most was the David Carradine character, being in all black, wearing a black helmet, and being more machine than man underneath. some two (2) years before Darth Vader out of Star Wars. go figure. in terms of the most important part of any film, yes, there is an agreeable and interesting level of nudies in it. also one Sylvester Stallone, pre-Rocky, is in it, as a nasty character. clearly made on the cheap but inventive with resources, it was enjoyable. no doubt the recent(ish) remake is a cgi nightmare.
on, then, to the murky world of "streaming services". and, as it happens, and believe me by accident, first up indeed there is a (sort of) link to the above, for it is Obi Wan Kenobi what i watched. which wasn't a film, but a series. that maybe they should have made into a film; indeed i am aware that someone has edited it down into one, of sorts.
back to the realm of the Star Wars prequels, then, which i am delighted are finding acceptance and love in audiences these days. some people were right nasty about them, but at heart they were the pure fantasy escapist entertainment what the films were always intended to be. wonderful to see key members of the cast back, the new additions are great, and the story is amazing.
with regards to (or in respect of) the story, well, wow. famously, or infamously, them what do these things now, Disney, wildly misjudged what sort of "subvert expectations" Star Wars fans would be interested in or open to. stuff like having the original cast back but not at the same time, and quite a bit of The Last Jedi, for instance. but note perfect here. everyone knew, from the original films, that Kenobi hung around on Tatooine to act as a protector for Luke, and the trailers for this series made it look like that was the direction here. big surprise, to be sure, and a welcome one, when it was all an Obi Wan and Leia adventure in the series. see, Disney, you can make subvert expectations work beautifully.
the series is six (6) episodes long, and each "thematically" echoes Episiodes I - VI of Star Wars in a subtle, brilliant way. at times the series could have been called Vader and that is not a bad thing. you are left wanting more and more, but you know what, leave this here. some sort of Darth Vader thing, or his presence (felt) in another film or show would be good, but this is the perfect "bridge" story between the much loved original films and back to the growing in love prequels. yes, he says the line in it.
for many, many years i pretty much avoided watching Breaking Bad. yes, i was aware of the good reviews, and it looked interesting. but, ultimately, it struck me as likely to be too linear. certainly i eventually saw it, and indeed it is (was) brilliant. partially i watched it because of friends and contemporaries urging me to, the celebrated Anthony Hopkins letter was a factor, but mostly it was down to me being intrigued by the sound of a spin off called Better Call Saul. that immediately sounded like my sort of thing, and it was clear i'd need to have an understanding or the parent show before watching.
in a lifetime of making some poor, or ill-advised decisions, watching both proved to be very wise and very rewarding. true, Better Call Saul might not have followed the path or narrative structure i or others had expected, but the way it went, simply genius. some have gone to the extent of saying that this series is even better than the show from which it spins off, if that is worded right. i would be hard pressed to say which is "better". certainly, absolutely it is so that Better Call Saul benefits from the learning curve of the original, as in what worked well and what didn't work as hoped. ultimately both are very much worth the many hours of viewing needed.
moving on to the third and final watched by streaming means Prey. which is a Predator film without having the name (or word) 'predator' in the title. bold, brave move to get that past the marketing types, so hats off. a lot of people have gone off on one, declaring this the "best since the original" and complaining that this one really should have been a cinematic release. um........
up to now i have not met a Predator film i didn't like. obviously the original has a special place in the heart for me and everyone else. but the rest have had "moments", and been more good than bad. this is very much the truth of Prey. but that doesn't mean it is "better" than Predator 2, or Predators, or even the wonders of South Park Imaginationland. yeah, likely better than The Predator but still i did like that one, at least until the stupid "uber Predator" turned up.
lots and lots have been said of the great things of Prey, so i guess i can chip in on the weaknesses. first off, no, this was clearly made for a home audience. absolutely none of the visuals say it should have been a cinematic experience, thanks - it is perfect on a big tele at home. most disappoint was how, well, quite sh!t the Predator looked sans mask. the look in the original Predator and for that matter Predator 2 was iconic, brilliant, scary and also added to the dark humour of the creature. no idea why they went ahead and changed it to one that looks worse. maybe i didn't like this one all that much, for i cannot see circumstances in which i would want to watch it again. the others, certainly i would.
of what i have watched of late (in terms of this batch), which was the worst? are you asking that? if so then the answer, somewhat regrettably, is an Arnold Schwarzenegger film called Maggie.
no, me neither, in answer to any (and all) comments about having never heard of it. somewhere on the internet i saw one of them "things" with a picture and text, saying how it was "Arnold's greatest ever acting performance", and how he did it for "free" (the acting yes, the "executive producing" maybe not so much) because he believed in the project so much. indeed i was suspicious about how good a relatively unheard of film with such a big star (i assume he still is one?) could be. especially when one could buy the tape (disc) of it for south of £2 on the internet. but yeah, tried it.
plot? mindful of this being mid 2010s, some sort of "plague" has decimated the world, turning those infected into zombie like creatures. as it happens, Arnie's daughter (the titular Maggie) gets infected, and the film is him wrestling with this, not wanting to "let her go" in any sense.
it's sh!t. there really isn't any other review. no, Arnie does not deliver an acting tour de force. the story is tired, and has been done before. pacing is a complete mess, and it drags on in a dreary, dreadful way. further, they do that Game Of Dragons last series ("season" if American) or so thing where they make everything so dark you can't see and are soon persuaded to lose interest. avoid this one.
happy days, then, with Witchfinder General. there was absolutely no way that a film of that name, made in the 70s, and with Vincent Price, could be bad. especially not at (i think) 50p off of a market stall. the plot is something something English civil war, something something witches, something something. for the important stuff, yes, in this "restored" version, a most agreeable level of nudies features, although at times a bit disturbing.
what i really, really loved about this tape (disc) is in the last sentence, but oddly not the nudies part. it's ace how someone has sellotaped this together from various sources, and those sources are very much of varied quality. a few would find this frustrating, but i loved it when the picture (and sound) quality dramatically dipped for a scene or two; it really felt like you were watching something only unearthed recently, or even better something that you were never supposed to see. leave it dirty and scratch. it was boss when the "restored" The Wicker Man did this on tape (disc), but not when they went and cleaned it all up on the other, other (blu) tape (disc) release.
but is the film actually any good? well, it kept my interest. don't believe it was made by them, but it certainly has the feel of those classic Hammer movies. also, for a generation of us, it is a bit difficult to take Vincent Price seriously, so perfect was the parody of him on Spitting Image in the 80s. i felt very much like i got 50p value, if that helps.
pretty sure i have (somewhere) made the point before on this blog (well, i have been writing it for, what, 16 or 17 years), but here it is again. in that screenshot from U2 Zoo TV, what you are seeing with them lights in the audience are not mobile phones videoing it, but cigarette lighters, which were the norm for people to have in general and to wave as such for a "ballad". likely due to it not being practical to take candles to a gig. my, how times have changed.
kicking around somewhere i have the fancy 2 tape (disc) version of U2 Zoo TV, but then i saw the 1 tape (disc) version in a charity shop and went, oh well. watched it again, of course. quite a tricky one to call, this. just like every concert video which isn't Stop Making Sense off of Talking Heads or Sign O The Times off of Prince, it is very badly filmed, frustratingly so. also, the band aren't giving what you would call one of their top ten performances, not helped by how you can't even just listen to it, for the sound recording is not great either. but it remains a document for an interesting concept. if one takes the premise of it (mindful of it being early 90s) - the sense of so many tv stations vying for viewers that you ended up channel hopping, facing an avalanche of too much information to comprehend or process in a way you would normally do - and applied it to phones and/or social media in the present day, it was absolutely bang spot right on. best U2 live video (disc) in my view is that one which was in one anniversary or another set of The Joshua Tree. recorded in France, to a clearly not capacity audience, just after the album came out. essentially it captures them, arguably for the last time (obviously) at that point where they went from promising band with a growing audience to the biggest thing in the world. for a time, at the least.
sheer, unbridled merriment was what i experienced, indeed felt, when i found a copy of the tape (disc) of Harley Davidson & The Marlboro Man on a market stall. not seen it for a few years, and whenever i have thought to have a look for it on tape (disc) it's always been a bit expensive. on watching it again a quite vague memory of the first time i tried to watch it came back, tearing it out of the video (for it was an actual tape) in disgust at bon jovi being used for the theme.
in this, my more mature and sophisticated era (by comparison if not fact), i let that slide, and watched all of it again. pretty decent, standard "buddy" action film, of course. within the first twenty (20) minutes one gets two scenes of unnecessary and most agreeable nudies, and you get to see both Don Johnson and Mickey Rourke get their f*****g heads kicked in. do you really need any further review of excellence beyond that?
for a "critical assessment" thing, my word there is plenty wrong with Harley Davidson & The Marlboro Man. all to do with the "baddies". this, as far as i am aware, was one of the first roles what Tom Sizemore had, at least of any prominence. presumably very few casting directors saw it, or chose to generously write it off. worse is Daniel Baldwin, who is absolute junk in this one. oh, you didn't know about the other, other, other Baldwin? he is in this one, showing exactly why he was not in so many other films after this. anyway, the film features smoking, nudies and violence - in particular from some dudes dressed like how people did in The Matrix some 8 years after this came out - so yes, it's really, really good.
yet another re-watch after a few years next, then, with Perfume being one i wanted to see again. so yes, then, perhaps there is a subconscious pattern to how i am presenting some of these films. quite likely one could find my original (or initial) views on this film somewhere in the history of this blog, somewhere over ten or so years ago. likely more. from what i recall, i was impressed when it came out.
alas, it has not aged well. from the perspective of first watching it, i suspect i was impressed that someone had managed to "pull off" filming Perfume, due to the number of "failed" attempts to do it. once Kubrick was reportedly "interested", and that's what drew me to the novel in the first instance. years later it was circulated that Scorsese wished to have a go, but that came to nothing.
looking at it again with some "distance" in place, and yes, it kind of more or less gets the essence of the novel, if that is not an unfortunate turn of phrase. also, some of the slight but significant changes work really well to convey the same point. as a constant from then and now, yes, absolutely, Ben Whishaw was perfectly cast, perfection in the role. the same is true of most of the supporting cast. alas, the performances of the two "star names" - Rickman and Hoffman - feel very phoned in. no, i am not happy to write that, but both could have done the roles so much better.
perhaps the most baffling thing of Perfume is that the notoriously prudish, nanny state, wet nurse ban everything bbfc only gave it a 15 certificate. i would argue, for all the flaws in the film, the first 20 or so minutes are the most distressing and disturbing things possible in a movie. and yes, also there is an absolute pile of nudies in it. no, i doubt i shall watch it again. from what i can gather there's a new, and modern setting, version of it on NetFlix or similar. will give it a pass.
on watching things again (continuity), i saw the tape (disc) of the complete series of Police Squad, so yeah, bought it. as far as i am aware they never released a "partial" series tape (disc), but just saying what it says on the box.
should any of you be unaware or unsure, Police Squad is (or was) a tele series done by the brains and quasi star (he is the one you remember, shirley) of the motion picture Airplane!, only doing it with the police instead of airline pilots. exactly the same "out there" deadpan humour and visual gags, yet for some reason (and they talk of why on a documentary on the disc) it failed with audiences. oddly, when they went back to this and made it into motion pictures (The Naked Gun) it was a huge success. maybe some things are not meant for tele.
but still, i loved it. whether they were arresting a monkey or the bizarre "guest star" for each episode, it is just really, really funny. on procuring this tape (disc) i put it on more or less straight away, thinking i would watch an episode, maybe two. yes, indeed i did end up watching all six (6) binge watching, that is what i think the kids call it these days. although watching all of it takes less than 3 (three) hours.
yes, then, clearly a pattern has formed, for the next watching experience (pictured above) was also coppers, as in the constabulary, but decidedly not for laughs. i happened to be in a chapter of HMV recently, and they had a sale on. the tape (disc) of Electra Glide In Blue was on sale for south of £2, so i picked it up. mostly i always wondered what the title meant, for when i first heard the name of the film there was no "internet" to look it up. except teletext. turns out Electra Glide is the type of motorbikes what the coppers rode, and the in blue bit references police uniforms. oh.
rather odd, this one. at times (in particular at the start) it moves so slowly that it might be boring enough to make you think it's a Sidney Lumet film (i checked, it is not). and yet it is always compelling, indeed interesting, thanks to the superb acting. not sure, echoing earlier comments, why this is an '18' as it is not really graphic. also, not sure why over the years some have described it as "fascist propaganda for the police", as the police (overall) do not get painted as looking all that wonderful. fits in very nicely with the other classics of 70s "gritty" or "realism" cinema from America, yet does not feel like a movie one would call "must see". still, glad i got to see it, eventually.
moving on, then, and another "re-watch". for some reason someone somewhere decided that the world required a fancy blu ray tape (disc) reissue of Whoops Apocalypse, being the film of that name and not the original, very similar but radically different television show. recalling - fondly - a brilliant turn by Peter Cook, an excellent early appearance from Kramer out of Seinfeld and an as usual bonkers performance by Rik Mayall, i clicked order.
if anything, Whoops Apocalypse is (somewhat) more pertinent to today, or more "relevant" as a parody than it was at the time. absolutely no way in the 80s could we see a PM of the nature that Peter Cook portrays being real, yet here we are. lots (and lots) of the plot really does make it feel like it has been made more recently than the 80s, but i dare not say too much, for, you know, spoilers. surprisingly well is how this film has stood up, especially with the three (3) performances mentioned. go seek it out.
but, if you wish to save some pennies (and who, today, does not), avoid the blu ray tape and get just the dvd tape. trust me, the extras on the blu variation are, mostly, a disgrace. sure, the section which is an interview with the writers is ace. but then there's one with three people who made the film, one i think was even the director. none of them seemed interested in it, and don't speak kindly. worst is the boom operator, or "man that holds the microphone", who appears to just want to moan about how most of the a-listers (stars, if you like) didn't want much to do with him. go figure. but the biggest disgrace is a section marked as intended as a tribute to Rik Mayall, which features a few minutes of someone saying that they had no wish to talk about Rik Mayall.
something i had wished to see for many, many years was One Plus One, although these days it is known by the renamed title Sympathy For The Devil. in a comment that would be unlikely to surprise many, then, it features The Rolling Stones, and documents the recording of that song. many note, or observe, that it was made by "that twat Jean-Luc Godard", but that is a little harsh as he is only half French. not sure if "half twat" is a term in common use, but there you go.
what an utterly, utterly, utterly wasted opportunity this film (documentary, really) is. absolute gold on film, a pivotal moment in the history of the band and the world, but no, the French side of the director came out, all avant garde. essentially you see the creation of the song, one you could argue is of the greatest by the band. but no conventional recording or moment, and no i am not talking about how in it Bill Wyman looks like he would rather be somewhere else and Charlie Watts looks like he wants to be going home for a cup of tea. recording progresses at a time in history when it became necessary to change the lyric "who killed Kennedy" to "who killed the Kennedys". also, you watch Brian Jones just disappear from the band. incredible stuff, ruined by that twat (who might as well be full tilt French) inter-cutting it all with scenes of black panther and then white right wing extremists for no apparent reason at all. i mean, no statement is made.
famously, or infamously, The Beatles for many (many) years didn't let the original Let It Be film be shown, as in their words it "made it look like band split because Yoko sat on a speaker". the celebrated re-edited version of it, Get Back, tells a whole different (and you have to assume correct) account of it all. it will never ever happen, but it really should be so that someone re-edits One Plus One in a similar way. unlikely, as everything about the twat who made it suggests he wouldn't let someone come and make an actual proper film from it, and the Stones are notorious for airbrushing their history.
blimey, last film (or bit of watching) for this update. and a bit of a full circle to the first thing featured here, for it features one Sylvester Stallone. when browsing a charity shop i observed, with interest, a tape (disc) of First Blood for sale, for 19p. as it is one of my favourites and i had not seen it in many, many years, i went yeah, go on.
just a touch south of 40 years since i first saw it, then. in shame and in disgrace i cannot recall which friend, exactly, but they had a pirate tape, and an actual video tape at that, of this and Rocky III, so that was where i saw them first. likely that ten or so year old me was rather impressed with all the senseless violence. nearly 50 year old me is sat in awe, or revelation, at the perceptive brilliance of First Blood. we were really mean to Stallone in the 80s, deriding him when he was clearly a f*****g good actor. looking at this film now and it's all allegorical, metaphor or what have you. brilliant portrays how mental health issues are brushed aside and the dangers of that, the perils of police believing they and they alone define the law, untreated (and/or ignored) post trauma stress, and then some. of course, yes, it is so that the "action" bits are brilliant, but really we should have been concentrating on the other bits in First Blood what Stallone was doing.
oh. no, hang on. yes, there is indeed one more thing what i watched. quite like some of the above i failed to mention it in the most recently previous post of this sort, so let me not leave it again.
it was with the mixed sense of curiosity and reluctance that i elected (or opted) to give Pistol, being a telling (or another telling) of The Sex Pistols, a go. on the one side i felt as though i was quite aware of all which could be said, be it via folklore, legend, documentaries, The Great Rock N Roll Swindle, Dead On Arrival, The Filth & The Fury and indeed Sid And Nancy. also John Lydon had tried to block it, well kind of (deny use of music in it), with his comments being they would not let him see the script before he approved it. yet the cast and crew were excellent, and surely it would be a reminder of when music was important beyond just itself; when it could both represent and invoke a change in the world.
exactly how accurate, being based on one member's memoir, i know not. but yet, truly, it is inspired in its brilliance. Lydon comes across not as evil personified, but a lonely, alienated poet, longing to belong and live in a decent world. far removed from the "genius svengali who planned it all" is McClaren, showcased here as riding of good fortune as well as being horrified (and scared) by what he had ended up unleashing. Jones, unsurprisingly (for it is his memoir) comes over considerably more sympathetic than he has ever been presented; one even warms to him.
truthfully, i get the wider Lydon concern. perhaps the story should be left to myth and legend, passed on in whispered tales of naughtiness from generation to generation. but, once again allowing for having no idea if it is any more or less accurate that previous tellings, this is excellent. at once the highlight is the most disturbing chapter, Bodies. very brave to select this as showing how their songs came about, yet perfectly illustrates how and why it was the band came to be in society, what they reflected, what they were created from.
phew. that was quite a bit (as in a lot) of writing. also pictures, and animated stuff. well, let me take a slight break from that sort of thing.
hopefully some (unlikely all) of this has proven to be of passing interest.
be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment