Change Your Image
taylor_mayed
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
All Heart (2014)
A real achievement, belying its zero-budget origins
It seems incredible that in this day and age, the simple act of being able to make a film with an entirely female cast should still be regarded as a achievement, and yet an achievement it is. Writer and director Tim Pieraccini has been able to craft a story for an entirely female company with a skill which means that this never feels like a statement or a casting policy for the sake of it or some odd alternative universe where men don't exist. It simply feels like real life, to the extent that if you didn't go into the thing knowing there were no men in the film, it's probably not something that would particularly strike you unless it was pointed out.
There can perhaps be a perception that films of this type can run the risk of looking like little more than messing about with a camcorder, but All Heart is not so much a cut as an entire packet of razor blades above this level. While its story may be intimate and dialogue based rather than from the cinematic school of telling stories through pictures and to tell with the words, not being a particular film buff myself and coming more from a background of enjoying television drama and novels, this was very much to my taste.
I'd very much recommend this film to anyone who wants something with a bit of thought in it, or to aspiring film-makers wanting to know how they can make a very little, budget-wise, go a very long way.
Down with Love (2003)
Terrific fun
This film is not particularly deep and meaningful, nor is it cool and innovative, or even loud and flashy, but I'll tell you what it is immensely enjoyable. Just the sort of thing to watch if you're in the need of cheering up, or simply want something light-hearted to pass an hour and a half or so.
It's presented as a pastiche of those 1950s Rock Hudson and Doris Day movies, but in a very knowing, twenty-first century manner. That's not to say it's a spoof of those films it's done very affectionately, and the care and enthusiasm which everyone involved seems to have for that era and those types of films shines through. There are some delightfully self-aware and self-referential moments, such as the pseudo-sex scene with the split screen while McGregor and Zellweger are talking on the phone, but it never gets too metatextual for its own good, and on the whole is pitched just right.
It's a fantasy vision of the early sixties, of course, very much a theme park period movie, but then again that seems to be exactly what the production team were aiming for. One thing they certainly got very right was the casting Zellweger and McGregor are great fun, and both seem to be having an absolute ball. Zellweger in particular has some great scenes, particularly her long expositional piece at the end one long single-shot take that on one level mocks the fun-but-daft plot of the film, but on the other hand is a terrific sustained performance from the actress, and one that for all its silliness is undeniably impressive.
On the whole then, a little gem of a film. Not one for the cynics, perhaps, but definitely recommended for anybody who likes a nice harmless, cheerful, entertaining comedy.
The Sign of Four (1983)
Not a bad little effort (some mild spoilers for anyone who doesn't know the story)
Ian Richardson is probably better known to Sherlock Holmes fans these days for playing Arthur Conan Doyle's mentor and apparent inspiration for his famous character, Dr Joseph Bell, in the BBC's justly-lauded Murder Rooms series around the turn of the 21st century. He is sadly less well remembered for actually having taken on the role of the great detective himself in a short series of television movies in the early 1980s, which is a shame as he is excellent in the part, as displayed here in one of that very series.
Richardson brings much of the literary Holmes to the fore, with the sense of self-assuredness coupled with a wry sense of humour and a mysterious, enigmatic quality. Richardson's portrayal exudes charisma his Holmes may be arrogant and single-minded, but he is so watchable you can barely take your eyes off him. It's a real shame Richardson never got a longer run at the part in a perhaps more polished production, as he could well have gone down as one of the very finest actors ever to have handled the role.
One of the reasons why his stint in Baker Street is not so well remembered is because just a few short years after his productions were made, Granada Television came along with their famous series starring Jeremy Brett as Holmes, which has pretty much remained the last word in Holmes on the small screen ever since. Granada's own version of The Sign of Four in particular is commonly regarded as seeing their series at the very height of its powers, just as Doyle's original version is perhaps one of the best loved of all his Holmes stories. Thus this particular version both had a lot to live up to already and has been subsequently somewhat overshadowed, leaving it more of an interesting curio than a definitive version.
Nonetheless, taken on its own merits it is a more than entertaining film Richardson's performance alone assures that much, but the script has been assembled with a little more care than some television movie hack jobs. The direction is also very accomplished on the whole the shots using famous London landmarks such as Tower Bridge without getting any 1980s architecture in frame are particularly well-achieved, and indeed the entire boat chase sequence is made to seem fast-paced and exciting despite the boats themselves lacking the speed of the car chases which were to later succeed them in crime fiction.
Despite some minor changes to the details of the story that often seem pointless why have Small hide the diamonds in his wooden leg rather than dispose of them in the river as in the original text? the script remains largely faithful to Doyle's novel until towards the end, when for some unknown reason a lot of tedious padding set in a fairground is inserted for no real benefit to the story. Perhaps the film was running short it's based on quite a short novella, after all but they could perhaps have found something rather more interesting to fill the time with.
Nonetheless, the only change that really grates is the fact that once again, as in just about every other adaptation of the story, Watson fails to get the girl and have a happy ending with Mary Morstan as his wife. Morstan does at least get to keep some share of the treasure in this version, and on reflection the producers probably realised that to have her fall in love with their version of Watson would be pushing the audience's suspension of disbelief just a little too far.
This is because sadly, as with many Sherlock Holmes adaptations, the depiction of Doctor Watson is not quite that of the brave, intelligent man who narrates Doyle's tales on the printed page. While not as bad in the bumbling idiot stakes as the infamous Nigel Bruce, David Healy does suffer here from being somewhat miscast in the role of Holmes's sidekick. For one thing, I know nothing of Healy's background but he sounded less like the Victorian English gentleman than an Irishman struggling badly to put on an English accent although given the number of times English actors have done the reverse in film and television history, I don't suppose there's much ground for complaint on that score.
It's perhaps ironic that given Healy's failings there is another Doctor Watson present in the cast. The actor here playing Inspector Layton Terence Rigby, who coincidentally also co-starred with Ian Richardson in the BBC's 1979 adaptation of John Le Carre's Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy played Watson in the BBC 'classic serial' strand's contemporaneous adaptation of The Hound of the Baskervilles, although that particular production and its star, Tom Baker, are not particularly highly regarded in terms of depictions of the Holmes stories on the small screen.
Overall then this is a fair adaptation, and while not on a par with the best of the Granada versions or perhaps the 1960s BBC Peter Cushing series, this is certainly well-done and enjoyable, and definitely worth making an effort to watch if and when you should spot it in your television listings.
Maid Marian and Her Merry Men (1989)
The finest children's TV show of its generation
This series worked on just about every level - "Blackadder for kids" is an expression often used to sum it up, but that does it a disservice, suggesting it's some kind of imitation of another show. This really was wonderful in its own right, though - entertaining stories and performances delicately laced with some delicious satire and gags you can't believe they got away with, i.e. Robin's "I've never laid anything in my life!" when trying to sneak into the castle under the guise of being a carpet fitter. It's a crying shame they never made more than they did, but at the same time at least it never became stale. DVD release soon, please!
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005)
Another disappointing movie adaptation
I suppose it's in a way unfair to judge the film in comparison to the books, radio series, television series, partly because it has to be designed to stand alone and partly because they were all made with the benefit of their writer and creator being actually alive and involved. I did try to sit back and enjoy the film without thinking 'they've changed that
they've missed that out,' but come on. It's impossible. This is the Hitch-Hiker's Guide, for goodness sakes! It's also difficult because of the film-makers themselves and their little touches to the past. Perhaps the best moment for me was the shot of the Guide itself floating through space, the title revealed to the familiar strains of the original Flight of the Sorcerer theme tune by The Eagles. I thought at this point 'Yes! This is where this film is finally going to start!' but it never really happened. Simon Jones as the Magrafean hologram and of course the original BBC Television Marvin in the Vogon office queue were also nice to see and reminders that this was frankly not as good as any other version of the story there's ever been.
Let's start with Marvin himself, shall we? I was quite optimistic when I heard Alan Rickman's voice for him in the trailer, but the character here is just very very wrong. The original Marvin was depressed, grumpy and not only had a brain the size of a planet but an ego the size of one. One of the whole points of Marvin is his massive superiority complex, but he's portrayed here with an inferiority complex, seeming more pathetic and whiney than the iconic character he was first time around.
Speaking of characters being done badly, Mos Def as Ford Prefect was just dire. Well, perhaps he wasn't so bad, just what he was being asked to do was wrong. Ford is a mysterious, perhaps somewhat arrogant freeloader who just didn't care. Again maybe it's unfair to judge him against David Dixon (always my favourite Ford, with all due respect to the original radio show's Geoffrey McGivern) but rather than being enigmatic and frustrating, Def's Ford is just a bit
Well
Camp and silly.
Zaphod was better (shame about just the one head) and much easier to get used to seeing as how he was always played as a faux Yank anyway. And at the risk of seeming alarmingly sexist, the film's Trillian is a hell of a lot prettier than Sandra Dickinson, and again as the character was a Yank on TV I don't mind her being so here. (I didn't hear the radio series where Trillian is of course English until after I'd seen the TV show and read the books so I always have the TV fixed as the imagery and voices in my mind).
On the subject of Trillian though, her love story with Arthur why??? For God's sake, why turn the thing into a soppy, vomit-inducing sub-Hugh Grant romantic comedy? Please don't say anybody's trying to turn Martin Freeman into the new Grant. Mind you, he's already halfway there by playing Tim, his character from The Office in everything he does, just as every single Hugh Grant performance for the past decade or so has just been Charles from Four Weddings by any other name.
Aside from all that
Well, I liked Mirren as the voice of Deep Thought and Fry as the voice of the book, although it was a shame so many of the classic Guide sections were cut so short. The woollen bit was good, and Bill Nighy was great as Slartibartfast, but overall
Nah. I think I'll stick with my DVD of the TV series thanks. The movie may have better effects, but you can't beat the older version's humour and character.
Please don't let these people make The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, or I might cry.
Robinson Crusoe (1997)
A real dog of a film...
SOME MILD SPOILERS. MOSTLY DOG-BASED.
I'd only just finished reading Daniel Defoe's famous novel Robinson Crusoe the previous day when I happened to glance at the TV listings and notice that Channel 5 were showing this 1996 film adaptation in the middle of the afternoon. So, sticking a tape in to record it, I settled down later that evening intrigued to see what the producers had made of a story that was still so fresh in my mind.
Robinson Crusoe is not a novel with a hell of a lot of plot to it, so it's understandable that if you're making a film of it you have to try and make it a little more dynamic, or else you'll just end up with an hour and a half of a man cutting down trees, sowing crops and raising goats. The duel- and woman-based storyline grafted onto the beginning and end of the film here isn't much of a one, however, with Crusoe fleeing a murder charge in eighteenth century Scotland and taking to sea.
Quite apart from the moving of the events of the story from the seventeenth to eighteenth centuries by the film-makers, if Crusoe is a Yorkshireman in the book and he's being played here by an Anglicised Irishman in Pierce Brosnan, then why the hell is he Scottish? Brosnan can't even do the accent particularly well, so it seems a very strange choice indeed. I can only imagine it was an attempt to cash-in on the success of the film's contemporary, Braveheart, which had seen great success with a Scottish character and setting. The only effect it has here though is leading the film-makers to include a couple of dire and cringe-worthy bagpipe scenes.
The other major problem the film has is the condensing of the story not just shrinking down the events of the novel (where they actually bother including them), but reducing Crusoe's stay on the island from twenty-eight to a mere six years. While this is understandable in terms of making their framing plot work, it leads to such lunacy as Crusoe apparently being able to teach Friday good conversational English within six months.
Speaking of Friday, who is here far more vital to events than he ever is in the book, it's perhaps understandable and indeed commendable that he's made more of Crusoe's equal and not the happily subservient savage he remains in the novel. That said, however, they do go overboard in loading on the touchy-feely 'let's all be friends, wasn't slavery a bad thing, all religions are equal' message which, while undoubtedly worthy, are very awkward when tacked onto a story that was very much a product of its times, for better or for worse. On the other hand, however, the friendship between Crusoe and Friday here and the eventual climax of the film between the two of them is probably a punchier ending than Defoe gave to the original novel, which sort of fizzles out with a load of nonsense including wrestling bears in the snow in its original form.
There are numerous other problems Crusoe does have a canine companion rescued from the same ship he was on in the book, so that's faithful enough, but he was a little too cutesy here for my liking, and what the hell was the point in blowing the bloody thing up? They probably realised they wouldn't be able to do anything else with it further on in the film and thus thought of this rather silly way of killing the thing. Even more ridiculously, later on once the enemy tribe reach Crusoe's settlement in the final battle, what's the first thing they do? Desecrate poor old Skipper's grave cue vengeful-looking close-up of Crusoe. For goodness sake
There's also the fact that as the initial stages of his exile pass by so quickly, we get to see little of Crusoe's ingenuity in settling into his surroundings, finding ways of providing for himself and building his settlement.
Perhaps to trick viewers who haven't read the novel into thinking that this is an accurate representation of it, the makers of the film include a couple of short scenes at the beginning and end of Daniel Defoe being presented with Robinson Crusoe's journal by an eager friend who thinks he should turn it into a book. "I must write this!" the previously reluctant Defoe enthuses in the second of these scenes near the end of the film, having now read the manuscript. They fail to depict him going on to say "well not this exactly, I mean I might use the same name and basic main plot idea, but I'll need to make a hell of a lot of changes
" "Daniel Defoe died in 1731, but the story of Robinson Crusoe lives on," a caption just before the end credits tells us. And so it does, but not in this film I'm afraid. While there may be some passable entertainment value here for those who are just interested in it as a film in its own right, as a literary adaptation it's distinctly average, at best. Not one to make any special effort to see, unless perhaps you're a Pierce Brosnan completist.
Black and Blue: Secrets (1973)
A superb example of a BBC television play
I knew very little of this play before I bought the "Ripping Yarns" DVD boxed set, on which it is included as an extra. I'm so glad to find that it was - even though it's sourced from an off-air recording, the picture quality is perfectly watchable and matters not a jot anyway when you consider the qualities of the script and the performances. Sharply written, excellently played with some superb turns from luminaries such as Warren Mitchell, David Collings and Brian Wilde, this is a brilliant example of the sort of one-off television play the BBC and indeed British television in general was once so famed for. That it was not preserved in the archives is a tragedy, but the fact that it exists in a home video format from as far back as 1973 is something to be thankful for. It does, however, sadly make one wonder just how many similar gems went out, were wiped and were not lucky enough to be preserved. This is almost worth the price of the "Ripping Yarns" set on its own, never mind the fact that that wonderful series in itself is on the discs!