Found as an extra on Ridley's fantastic feature debut, THE DUELLISTS, this short film is actually Ridley Scott's first completed work. Originally done during schooling, the student nature of the film is quite evident. Yet despite this, it is representative of Ridley's unconventional visual style, and his excellent eye for composition. This underrated director gives us stark visuals in black and white and using only natural light, making the film all that much more special. The narrative is somewhat obtuse, a peek into a young boy's thoughts as he rides around a small English town playing hooky. Definitely art house material, and thus not for everybody, but a must see for anyone with an interest in direction, cinematography or a die hard Ridley Scott fan. Almost as essential as THE DUELLISTS itself.
Reviews
6 Reviews
Alien 3
(1992)
Criminally Under-appreciated
2 February 2002
Where does one begin to defend a movie so loathed by the general populace? Even I initially despised this film for reasons i now consider somewhat ignorant and close-minded. For starters, Many viewed this film coming down from the non-stop adrenaline rush that was Jim Cameron's Aliens, a film very far removed from the original '79 classic. The biggest problem i had with Aliens was Cameron all but threw out the original ideas Ridley Scott and his crew had concieved, even turning H.R Gieger's elegant and terrifying creature into an armored war - machine, good only for quick scares and cannon fodder. On the other hand Cameron introduced some great supporting characters in the form of Hicks and Newt. Before Alien 3 was announced, an independant Comic Book publisher named Dark Horse Comics published a sequel to Cameron's "Aliens" in comic book form. In this story Hicks and Newt become the central characters, and the tone becomes much closer to that of the original film. Ripley's presence is felt in the form of a metaphorical ghost, while not directly appearing, the mystery of her whereabouts and circumstances of her dissapearence following the events of the film Aliens lend purpose to the characters of the book, which brings us at last to Alien 3. Fincher took the road least expected, bringing the series back to its roots following the success of the second film, this move alone damned the film as far as i'm concerned. The explosion and saturation of the second film into popular culture ensured that it would go down as a classic, while the first film remained a cult-status masterpiece, and thus the vast majority of film-goers were watching the third outing from the James Cameron perspective rather than the Ridley Scott one.
Where Fincher succeeds is in the bleak, desolate imagining of Fury 151, a male penal colony located on a planet about as pleasant as hell on earth. The pacing, mood, atmosphere and even simple things like Fincher's use of sound in the film add to the frightening nature, the opening alone, with it's dead quiet-sudden rush of flame-dead quiet-sudden alarm etc. sets a frightening note to start on, leaving us in bewilderment as to what's actually going on, quick little glimpses and the voice of a computer are used so effectively in evoking panic. This tactic works well throughout the film, even in it's slow moments, oftentimes tricking or manipulating the viewer, sometimes with false alarms, sometimes not. Fincher also digs a little deeper than even Ridley Scott did into the drama inherent in the Ripley character, the tradgedy surrounding her, and how she and the alien share a bond in a sense, much to her dismay. The tension and drama all add up to an incredible sequence near the end when the inmates struggle to lure the Alien into a lead press. The frenetic pacing, after such a slow build up, works very effectively.
Where Fincher et al go wrong, is in their use of characters, for reasons i figure had more to do with executive politics and the availability of certain actors than with plot or storyline, Hicks and Newt are mercilessly killed off during the opening sequence. This reeks to me of "Michael Bihen is unavailable." or "'fill in the blank' doesnt want Michael or Carrie back again... lets off 'em" rather than "Lets make it even more tragic, lets have Ripley lose those she cares most for". To be fair, Lance Henrikson does make an appearance as the ruined android Bishop, as well as a poorly concieved and poorly handled appearance as the company scientist on whom "Bishop" was based. If George Lucas ever went ahead and did Star Wars 7, and un-ceremoniuosly killed off Han and Leia in the opening sequence, you get the equivalent of Alien 3. I think it's this 'detachment' from the second film which really ruins it for many and not so much the return to a darker, moodier setting. This series was not about Ripley at one point, sure she was a survivor and all, but she was a piece of the whole, and this film strips away some of her charm by elevating her to 'sole character' status, which also kills a lot of her likeability as far as i'm concerned. Alien: Ressurection proved this even further in my opinion, completely destroying the character created by Scott, and expanded upon by Cameron and even Fincher. The other inmates of the prison should have been given a tighter focus, and the most interesting of the lot (the doctor) should not have been one of the first to be killed off.
In all Fincher assembles a noble film every bit as good as its predecessors, however it is a film which must be viewed on it's own merits, one must put Cameron's Aliens as far back into his mind as possible. I would wonder how much better recieved this film would have been if only Ripley and Bishop had made it onto the Sulaco at the end of Aliens.
Where Fincher succeeds is in the bleak, desolate imagining of Fury 151, a male penal colony located on a planet about as pleasant as hell on earth. The pacing, mood, atmosphere and even simple things like Fincher's use of sound in the film add to the frightening nature, the opening alone, with it's dead quiet-sudden rush of flame-dead quiet-sudden alarm etc. sets a frightening note to start on, leaving us in bewilderment as to what's actually going on, quick little glimpses and the voice of a computer are used so effectively in evoking panic. This tactic works well throughout the film, even in it's slow moments, oftentimes tricking or manipulating the viewer, sometimes with false alarms, sometimes not. Fincher also digs a little deeper than even Ridley Scott did into the drama inherent in the Ripley character, the tradgedy surrounding her, and how she and the alien share a bond in a sense, much to her dismay. The tension and drama all add up to an incredible sequence near the end when the inmates struggle to lure the Alien into a lead press. The frenetic pacing, after such a slow build up, works very effectively.
Where Fincher et al go wrong, is in their use of characters, for reasons i figure had more to do with executive politics and the availability of certain actors than with plot or storyline, Hicks and Newt are mercilessly killed off during the opening sequence. This reeks to me of "Michael Bihen is unavailable." or "'fill in the blank' doesnt want Michael or Carrie back again... lets off 'em" rather than "Lets make it even more tragic, lets have Ripley lose those she cares most for". To be fair, Lance Henrikson does make an appearance as the ruined android Bishop, as well as a poorly concieved and poorly handled appearance as the company scientist on whom "Bishop" was based. If George Lucas ever went ahead and did Star Wars 7, and un-ceremoniuosly killed off Han and Leia in the opening sequence, you get the equivalent of Alien 3. I think it's this 'detachment' from the second film which really ruins it for many and not so much the return to a darker, moodier setting. This series was not about Ripley at one point, sure she was a survivor and all, but she was a piece of the whole, and this film strips away some of her charm by elevating her to 'sole character' status, which also kills a lot of her likeability as far as i'm concerned. Alien: Ressurection proved this even further in my opinion, completely destroying the character created by Scott, and expanded upon by Cameron and even Fincher. The other inmates of the prison should have been given a tighter focus, and the most interesting of the lot (the doctor) should not have been one of the first to be killed off.
In all Fincher assembles a noble film every bit as good as its predecessors, however it is a film which must be viewed on it's own merits, one must put Cameron's Aliens as far back into his mind as possible. I would wonder how much better recieved this film would have been if only Ripley and Bishop had made it onto the Sulaco at the end of Aliens.
The Shipping News
(2001)
An honest portrayal of life on "the Rock", though a little shortsighted
22 January 2002
Being a resident of Newfoundland all my life, it was a great thrill to finally see my homeland portrayed so vividly on screen. Though born and raised in the capital city (St. John's), my mother hails from Long Harbour, Placentia bay, a small outport community very much like that represented by 'Killet claw', and much of the imagery in the film hit very close to home for me, but in a very good way. seeing the salt box houses, and sea stages, the old winter coats and knitted caps and sweaters, visually, this film is perfect. In terms of acting, Judi Dench is flawless, Julianne moore is perfect, the men of the Gammy Bird all elegantly cast, and Kevin Spacy was simply remarkable to watch, he was neither mainlander nor "Typical" Newfoundlander, very low key, very simple to understand, a very human character, something i'm not used to from Spacey.
Story wise, the film is more of a "slice-of-life" piece than the book, not so much emphasis is placed on individual events, but rather the experience as a whole. If you aren't the sort of person who can merely sit and "soak in" what's happening, than you will not get this film. Also the climax and resolution are very low key moments, which may leave some scratching their heads.
My strong liking for this film probably stems from the small piece of identity i share with the characters, Newfoundland is not simply the backdrop or the setting, those farmiliar with our culture and heritage will see that We, culturally, are as much a character in the film as Quoyle or Weavy or Agnes. There are moments however where the film misses the mark, or does things that I, as a Newfoundlander, can instantly identify with, and yet, (judging from other comments on this site) other people will immediately dismiss or simply not understand. Quoyle immediately getting a job as a reporter with only an ink-setter's background, the almost cartoon-ish portrayal of the folk when it comes to boats and the water, the thick accents, and even the no-holds barred nature of the festivities shown in the film. These are all examples. Newfoundlanders are a connundrum, we are simple, yet more complex than many, we are friendly and hospitable to a fault, yet our feathers ruffle easily and more often than not, especially where males are concerned, violence and long standing fueds are not uncommon. These elements of our society may be mis-understood by the vast majority of people, and to be honest, the only way to understand is to live here. But where the movie misses, is it's primitive portrayal of the above. We are not primitive, we are not savages (or most of us aren't), and we are most certainly not so malicious as some of the characters were portrayed. The movie tends to emphasize our qualities a little, and it really focuses on extremes rather than showing the bigger picture, it Makes Spacey's Quoyle look like an outsider, when he's actually the closest to the mark of the whole bunch.
Rest assured at any rate, from a Newfoundlander's perspective, this film paints an accurate picture of island life in the outskirts, even if it isn't what one could call a "typical" Newfoundland story (the upcoming Lion's Gate film "Rare Birds" starring William Hurt looks more like a typical Newfoundland tale of quirkiness)and i for one would love to see the film industry return to our little corner of North America (far EAST, not north!)and leave with a bigger slice of our cultural pie.
Story wise, the film is more of a "slice-of-life" piece than the book, not so much emphasis is placed on individual events, but rather the experience as a whole. If you aren't the sort of person who can merely sit and "soak in" what's happening, than you will not get this film. Also the climax and resolution are very low key moments, which may leave some scratching their heads.
My strong liking for this film probably stems from the small piece of identity i share with the characters, Newfoundland is not simply the backdrop or the setting, those farmiliar with our culture and heritage will see that We, culturally, are as much a character in the film as Quoyle or Weavy or Agnes. There are moments however where the film misses the mark, or does things that I, as a Newfoundlander, can instantly identify with, and yet, (judging from other comments on this site) other people will immediately dismiss or simply not understand. Quoyle immediately getting a job as a reporter with only an ink-setter's background, the almost cartoon-ish portrayal of the folk when it comes to boats and the water, the thick accents, and even the no-holds barred nature of the festivities shown in the film. These are all examples. Newfoundlanders are a connundrum, we are simple, yet more complex than many, we are friendly and hospitable to a fault, yet our feathers ruffle easily and more often than not, especially where males are concerned, violence and long standing fueds are not uncommon. These elements of our society may be mis-understood by the vast majority of people, and to be honest, the only way to understand is to live here. But where the movie misses, is it's primitive portrayal of the above. We are not primitive, we are not savages (or most of us aren't), and we are most certainly not so malicious as some of the characters were portrayed. The movie tends to emphasize our qualities a little, and it really focuses on extremes rather than showing the bigger picture, it Makes Spacey's Quoyle look like an outsider, when he's actually the closest to the mark of the whole bunch.
Rest assured at any rate, from a Newfoundlander's perspective, this film paints an accurate picture of island life in the outskirts, even if it isn't what one could call a "typical" Newfoundland story (the upcoming Lion's Gate film "Rare Birds" starring William Hurt looks more like a typical Newfoundland tale of quirkiness)and i for one would love to see the film industry return to our little corner of North America (far EAST, not north!)and leave with a bigger slice of our cultural pie.
Megadeth at their finest! a great documentary
28 February 2001
Evolver takes us behind the scenes to witness the making of Megadeth's 1994 album, Youthanasia. The film, while seemingly recorded using low quality home video cameras, gives us a great view of Megadeth's groundbreaking 1994 album. It also does a great job of shredding the common misconception that metal stars of the time, despite the posturing of angst-mongers like Metallica and Pantera, were also capable of being normal everyday musicians. Dave Mustaine in particular disproves the accusations of his being a "control freak" or an "egomaniac" and is in point of fact a down to earth and humorous individual. The entire band simply oozes charisma and provide quite an entertaining show. The view of the recording process also brings to light a whole new respect for the "Youthanasia" album itself, and gives much more to the viewer than the average heavy metal VHS would! You even get a few snippits of music from megadeth's 1997 follow-up album in the form of rough studio jam tracks! Evolver is a must-have for any fan of Megadeth!
Willow
(1988)
A Real rarity, a fantasy film that isn't a B-Movie
10 January 2001
From the opening scenes Willow presents a grand and epic storyline. The film places the viewer squarely in a fully realized Fantasy world, comparable (of course) to Tolkien's Lord of The Rings. The biggest draw of the film is the fact that the setting apparently contains a vast amount of history and backstory, Much like Lucas' Star Wars trilogy. Willow has potentially hundreds of years of backstory, and again, like the Star Wars trilogy, the viewer isn't bombarded with this history, it remains squarely in the background, and is barely hinted at. The cinematography is nothing short of beautiful, with lush green landscapes and beautiful imagery. Also a comment must be made on the phenomenal production design, the sets, armor, weaponry, and costumes are fantastic. In the end it provides plenty of adventure, drama, and an epic feel making it a true Hollywood rarity, a true Fantasy "A-Movie" in a genre filled with hack em up B-flicks. My biggest hope is that Willow soon hits DVD, now would be the perfect time to ride the wave of hype surrounding Lord Of The Rings, and garner this under-rated film a whole new audience of fans!
The 13th Warrior
(1999)
A great film for those who love a good adventure film!
20 December 2000
The 13th Warrior lies somewhere in that grey region that exists between the real world and that of high fantasy. While little more than a re-telling of Beowulf, It gives us a surreal but entirely believable setting with none of the bizarre magic or monster fare common in this sort of high-adventure film. What the film lacks in exposition it more than makes up for in lush cinematography and intelligent presentation. It doesn't take itself seriously at all, and yet the comedy we do see is more everyday reality-based comedy as opposed to the one-liner, slip on a banana peel type of comedy we see in films like the Lethal Weapon series. It's the kind of movie that not all will really appreciate and many will overlook, however if you're looking for medieval fare, swords without the sorcery and dungeons without the dragons, and aren't in the mood for the political and dramatic presentation of something like Braveheart or The Messenger, than you can't go wrong with the 13th warrior.
Tell Your Friends