four films

hello there

normally i try (unsuccessfully) to avoid doing too many posts on the same general subject all close to each other. at least date wise, look you see. but, here we are, a third post this month ostensibly related to things films. if you are all that interested, here and here you go, the other two (2) posts on cinema, the movies or what have you this month (july). 

every indication of this is right there in the title, but for the sake of clarity (or confirmation) indeed it is so that i've watched four (4) films of late. these have been on video, or if you like disc. both regular types of disc and then fancy ones. not, i hasten to add, them "ultra" fancy ones, for it turned out there was a limit to how far i was prepared to upgrade. 

as is (kind of) usual for when i have a number of films to write of, here are some comments on the ones pictured above. that being because these are the ones that i watched recently. strangely, or oddly, in most cases this was the first time i had watched the films. i imagine some of you, reading this as you know me, can tell which of the above four (presented in the greater good and glory of Commodore 64 mode) i have seen many, many times before. 

perhaps rather (or somewhat) surprisingly i had managed to make it all this way into my life without seeing 48hrs. well, not properly, at the least. somewhere in the echoes of my mind i can vaguely recall trying to watch it on itv late one night, but as was standard then (the 80s) it was very clearly cut to ribbons by the censors. other than that, on watching it felt like i had seen most of the key scenes in documentaries and that, likely ones on Eddie Murphy. 

for those that don't know the plot, a hardened rough copper, played by Nick Nolte, feels compelled to release a prisoner into his custody (Eddie) for, yes, 48 hours, so as to catch some right nasty people. a reasonable amount of violence, bad language, comedy and not as much nudity as you might expect, or i may have hoped for, follow over 90 minutes or so. rather like every single film, and there have been many, of a similar "cop mismatch" premise. except usually this is regarded as the iconoclastic one, the first of its kind of the genre. 

overall, this wasn't too bad. this being an early 80s film there is kind of that issue with some one the language which may be problematic these days, a la, say, Blazing Saddles. my basic understanding is that this film was one intended to primarily showcase Eddie Murphy's (vast) talents. clearly that worked out well. whereas this one doesn't disrupt the holy trinity of the (obviously) three greatest Eddie films, being (for clarification) Trading Places, Beverly Hills Cop and Coming To America, it probably sits as 4th best on his list. now i suppose i need to track down a copy of Another 48hrs. 

there was absolutely no way i was every going to watch the film Stardust. it got announced, and came out, at a time i (and many others) felt was "too soon" after the death of David Bowie, so it felt a touch 'cashing in'. also the Bowie Estate took the time to speak up (or out) against it, refusing to let any use of music, etc. nothing said watch this. 

and then i found myself in a chapter (or branch) of fopp, the one down in that there London (innit). it was sat on the shelf for all of £3, and for some reason i felt obliged, or compelled, to give it a go. unexpectedly it turns out i was most glad that i did indeed do so. 

it didn't necessarily start off promising, mind. after a declaration that the film was 'mostly' fiction, it launched into a bit of a if not homage then remake of 2001 A Space Odyssey. the latter part, however, made sense soon after, as this film all takes place in the (it says here fictional) life of Bowie after the hit Space Oddity and before that one called Ziggy Stardust. some rather lean years for him, in truth, if also years of producing excellent but not wildly successful music. for the most part, or mostly, it follows him on the road around America with a possibly not as enthusiastic as possible record label PR man, trying to make him famous. 

most, if not all, of this is based on accounts of Bowie at this time. well known and documented events and conversations and, of course, family life. ultimately my review is that this would have been one hell of a stage play. in the absence of hiding behind Bowie's music, what this film is at heart is a really brilliant drama about facing fears and formulating some identity in this world. once again i fell compelled to recall a quote from Bowie. when asked if he would do an autobiography he suggested people simply "go and look at all the unofficial biographies, pick one they like, assume it to be the truth and move on". undoubtedly he would have referred to this just as so. all the same, recommended. 

sadly, and for provenance in the same shop as what i saw Stardust on sale, i noted Showgirls sat there on fancy disc for a reasonably attractive price. my memories (or recollections) were of it being truly terrible. with a vague notion of it maybe being one of them "so bad it's good" type of films i elected to pick it up and try it again. no, in short, it's one of those ones which are really, really bad and not worth it. 

exactly how this managed to be as bad as it is becomes quite a headache inducing question. you have absolute stacks of nudity, the likes of David Bowie and Siouxsie And The Banshees on the soundtrack, Paul Verhoeven of (proper) RoboCop directing and Agent Cooper out of Twin Peaks. maybe not so much of a headache. it's the terrible script, horrible story and awful acting that's at fault. had they taken just the positive ingredients i mentioned and simply sellotaped that together for two hours, like people just wandering around naked with smart music on the go, that would have been a much, much better film. 

any redeeming features to Showgirls? i have no idea to the veracity (accuracy) of the behind the scenes of dancing (and what have you) in Vegas, but to be fair Robert Davi is outstanding as the owner of the sleazy strip club where the ostensible protagonist started out. for a bit of ying and yang (or whatever, think it might be yin and yang), Agent Cooper out of Twin Peaks has a truly awful hairstyle, but in a couple of scenes he gets his bum out and it oddly, weirdly, looks really smart. but for that, this is truly a film to be forgotten about. not sure why them who made the tape (disc) of this went to so much effort to go and "restore it", but what you end up with is a clear print of a horrible, nasty film. 

for a last one, for now, or finally, Quadrophenia. which would be the film of these four (4) what i have seen a whole load of times. as should you. well, maybe. it's not family viewing. 

do i need to do the plot? based on The Who's outstanding masterpiece of an album, it tells the story of Jimmy, a mod in the 60s. further, it's set, or has as a background, the legendary rivalry between "mods" and "rockers", which culminated or led to some brutal fights down at Brighton, innit. 

hard to categorise, really. in places and at times it's heartbreaking, hilarious, involving, dramatic and edge of your seat stuff. the entire cast is nothing short of exceptional, with many of them - Phil Daniels in particular, of course - finding themselves becoming iconic purely due to the role they had here. even Sting is amazing. actually, he's brilliant. 

ultimately, if one had to categorise it, this is a "coming of age" film bar none. not the soppy version what Americans like to portray in their films, but a brutally honest, reality based one. at least, i suppose, so far as reality exists for us English. how expertly made that this is clearly set of a particular time, yet speaks of something timeless, with the sentiment and all within being something that shall resonate for years and years. except if someone bans it. 

right, well, time to go get some other things of stuff done, i suppose. 

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