Curse of the Fly (69%)

Piece by Piece... Atom by Atom... Humans Invisibly Teleported Through Time and Space!!!

I just finished the last of the original Fly movies, Curse of the Fly. I was expecting a pretty generic and ultimately terrible end to the series as Vincent Price no longer stars and as far as I know Curse of the Fly was barely released in theatres and has never shown up on home video (up until The Fly Collection was released on DVD about a decade ago.)

I mean how could another scientist, playing around with teleportation, somehow get mixed with fly genes and become a walking embodiment of manfly terror. What kind of story would warrant a reaction from the audience that wasn't boredom and didn't feel derivative of the last two films. As well, the budget for Return of the Fly was minuscule compared with The Fly so I was positive the budget for this one would be even less.

Well lo and behold was I surprised by this film. It was much better than expected and in fact was intrigued and interesting and captivating from start to finish. Unlike the first two films in the series,  Curse of the Fly is a straight out horror film. It still has a few elements of science fiction but the tone and story is outright horror. The story is original and somewhat clever and the acting is universally better than the acting in the previous films.

The story takes place about two or three generations later than Return of the Fly. (I wasn't sure if the main character was the grandson or great grandson of the manfly from Return. It is a little loose and a little confusing chronologically speaking and there are a few plot holes that make connecting the dots to the previous entry rather difficult.) Martin Delambre is our titular hero this time out. Working with his brother Albert and his father Henri, they have almost perfected the teleportation device. Almost! Henri, is obsessive and hides errors with the machine from Martin. Martin falls in love, gets married and hides a terrible secret from his new wife. No one turns into a fly here, rather, as the title suggests, there is a 'curse' that has been set upon the Delambre family.

That's all I'll say about the story as I don't want to give away the surprises the story lays out but I will say I was hooked from the get go with this film. It has a very modern sensibility to it and seems to have many elements that are prevalent in today's horror films. First off the film opens with a women escaping from a mental hospital. She escapes in nothing but her underwear. Had this film been made today she would have been at the very least topless, but don't forget this is 1965 we are talking about. Secondly, there is lots of murder and death and grotesque imagery within the film, more so than the first two films put together.

As I said earlier the acting is by far much better than the first two films (expect for Vincent Price). There are no wooden actors surrounding the leads and no annoying child actors to deliver terrible stilted dialogue. There script is fairly well written, with most of the dialogue seemingly real (very little expositionary speeches). The editing is tight and taught and the cinematography is nice to look at with strong shadows and lighting that makes the film all the more eerie. Again, as I said earlier, the audience is a little jarred at first and is at a lose to explain how this film connects to the last one but by about 15 minutes in you are to engrossed to care.

This film is so engrossing, titillating and more original than it deserves. It is destined for tragedy and ends, like the first one, with a downbeat and horrific ending. There are no happy endings here and the film from the start sets up the tragic fates of all involved.

So why, you are probably wondering, do I give this film such praise but only a 69%? The answer lies in the effects of the film. Sadly, the effects are piss poor here. The teleporting doesn't look as good as the original two films and the mutant creatures look like humans with either really bad make-up or bandages. There are lots of mutant creatures and each one looks worse than the next. These creatures, like the manfly, are mistakes made when various insects, not just flies, got caught in the teleporter. The make-up effects are so bad and so cheap they bring down the film. Had they been better, this film would be as good if not better than the original. With that said though, it is a 47 year old low budget movie movie and it stills works tremendously well regardless of the ill advised effects.

Curse of the Fly comes highly recommended, especially to those who like horror. It's an original and unique film that takes the story set up in the last films to new and unexpected places. It is eerie and seems more modern than most horror films from the same era. Don't believe the internet, this film is great. Unfortunately the effects are no good and bring it down a notch or two but in 1986 David  Cronenberg would fix that (using the same approach as this film--straight out horror and grotesque imagery) when he remade The Fly...


Film Rating: 69%

Breakdown (How The Curse of the Fly scored 69%):

Production Design: 3 out of 10
Cinematography: 8 out of 10
Re-playability: 8 out of 10
Originality: 8 out of 10
Costumes:  5 out of 10
Directing: 7 out of 10
Editing: 7 out of 10
Acting: 7 out of 10
Music: 8 out of 10

Script: 7 out of 10

Return of the Fly (60%)

Blood-Curdling giant fly creature runs amuck!!!

Well well! I just finished Return of the Fly and I'll tell you this. It was exactly how I thought it would be. I was hoping for more elements of the remake to make an appearance here but other than that it was exactly what I thought it would be. A below average, run of the mill, studio rushed sequel to a high grossing, well made film from a year earlier.

The film opens on a splendidly eerie shot of a funeral, with rain pouring down and thunder rumbling in the background. Very soon we find out that this is the funeral of Helene Delambre, the ill fated wife of Andre Delambre, the man who melded with fly in The Fly. But within the first few moments of the film, perhaps 20 seconds in, I sensed something was amiss. There was Vincent Price (His name now appearing first in the credits!) as Francois Delambre, looking just as he did in the first film, as if no time has gone by yet Philippe Delambre, Helene and Andre's son is now a fully grown adult, in his mid twenties no less.

But, that aside, the film starts out promisingly enough, albiet with cheesy, b-movie-esque dialogue straight out of the 50's.  Philippe finds out the truth about his father and wants to continue and correct his work. He has a partner to help him and a reluctant Francois at his side. Due to a slew of both a mysterious and intriguing side story and a convoluted and non-sensical list of plot lines (How did Philippe get his dad's notes if dad had burned them all up in the first film?), Philippe becomes just like his dad, a human/fly hybrid, a manfly if you will.

Unfortunately, as soon as the new manfly arrives onscreen, all semblance of writing sense withers away and the film becomes a jumbled mess of story that is just an excuse to have a manfly running around. This time the manfly escapes the confines of laboratory and runs amuck through the city. Even though he has a fly foot, and has to drag it along, he outruns police and gunfire very easily. Even though he had no idea about a plan to steal his machine is in the works, he somehow tracks down the culprits and has his revenge. And then when he returns home, he conveniently passes out for no reason other than the writers needed him to.

There are some pleasing aspects to the movie. Price, as Francois, is particularly fun to watch as he tries his best to give his performance some weight through some really bad and expositionary dialogue. He does a great job and helps in making the picture feel better than it actually is. The rest of the main cast perform well, but no one really delivers a performance of note. There are the obligatory wooden and bland actors in the minor roles, something that seems to happen quiet a bit in the 50's and 60's, but at least we don't encounter another terrible performance by a barely capable child actor.

Unlike The Fly, Return of the Fly is not in colour, rather it is in black and white and is obviously done for budgetary reasons. The manfly's costume and the teleporting machine don't look as good either, another unfortunate setback due to the budget. But with that said, the buildup to the creation of the manfly is rather interesting and the way it falls into place is fun to see play out. The shots are framed nicely and it's tightly paced, lasting a brisk 80 minutes.

The ending is muddled and rather chipper compared to the first film and unfortunately, except for Vincent Price, nothing is as good here as it was in the original. That is expect for the music which is tense, fast and drives the movie forward. I was hoping for more moments in this film that Cronenberg might have eluded to in his film but alas I could find none. It is for these reasons that I wouldn't really recommend this film to anyone who hasn't seen it's predecessor, The Fly, but for those who have this is a fun if not as rewatchable follow up.

It took six years for a second sequel to hit the screens. Six years and when number three arrived there was no Vincent Price. Would the third film be better or worse than number two? Where could the story go now? Under what circumstances could a third manfly be created? Did the world really need another Fly movie? These questions shall be answered when I return from The Curse of the Fly...


Film Rating: 60%

Breakdown (How Return of the Fly scored 60%):

Production Design: 6 out of 10
Cinematography: 7 out of 10
Re-playability: 5 out of 10
Originality: 5 out of 10
Costumes:  6 out of 10
Directing: 6 out of 10
Editing: 6 out of 10
Acting: 6 out of 10
Music: 8 out of 10

Script: 5 out of 10

The Fly - 1958 (79%)

For your own good we urge you not to see it alone!

Having finished The Fly last night I thought I would take the evening off and reflect on what I had seen before I sat down and wrote an off the cuff review. After a few long hours of deliberating and thinking and stalling and sleeping I have awoken to write for you my dear readers a succinct and astute review and discussion of the classic that is The Fly.

After 33 (two months shy of 34) years I have finally seen the original The Fly. I have always wanted to see this film but I had never caught it on television and for the life of me I can't ever remember it playing. Then, back when I rented VHS cassettes from my local video store I had never picked it up off the shelf and taken it home, although I do remember seeing it on a select few shelves. And finally in about 1994 I stopped renting and buying movies that weren't widescreen editions of the films in question and thus never wanted to see a cropped and ugly looking transfer of The Fly. Thank god for DVD and widescreen TV's.

So last night I finished a film I have wanted to see for many a full moon. I expected to watch a B-movie about a guy turning into a fly. I expected a black and white cheap picture with hokey effects and some truly awful acting. After all, this film was made in 1958. A time when Hollywood (and others) were throwing on the screen a whole slew of cheap movies involving monsters, space aliens and other science fiction horrors. The B-movie horror experience in 1958 was something that teens were flocking to at an alarming rate.

So I was mighty surprised that The Fly was actually a much better film than expected. I can see why it has stood the test of time and become a classic from it's era and I can see how and why Cronenberg wanted to remake this film. It wasn't in black and white which I thought it was and it rose nicely above it's B-movie origins that it so easily could of been. The effects were good and the acting better (for the most part) than I had expected.

For those not in the know, The Fly is bout a scientist who, in his laboratory, discovers how to teleport matter from one place to the next. Being a brash and fearless scientist he teleports himself to test the  machine but unfortunately when he does so a fly flies into the machine with him and when he remerges his and the flies bodies have melded together.

The horror in this version of The Fly is more subdued than the remake, and the scientist here is a family man working out of his basement. Unlike the remake, this film is told in flashback and rather than slowly becoming the fly our scientist is fly-like from the instant he blends with the creature. Like the remake though his mind slowly begins to dissipate as he starts to run out of time. The story is rather horrific but due to technical limitations and government regulations the horror and the gore are never seen and must be created in the viewers head versus on the screen. For the most part, the scientist/fly hybrid is covered by a sheet and you never see it. When it eats, it is again covered by the sheet, but the sounds and position of it's body we can only picture horrific things (even more so if you have seen the remake).

The effects, for 1958, are pretty damn good here. The fly/human hybrid is well put together with a  nicely designed face and a scary looking arm. By todays standards it looks like a mask and prosthetics but for it's day it is rather convincing. The laboratory and all the gadgets are well designed and when the items teleport from one end of the lab to the other it looks and sounds convincing. The cinematography captures the wonder and excitement of these machines and the lighting and colours work well to create an aura of mystique to the proceedings.

The acting is pretty good too. David Hedison and Patricia Owens are great as the ill fated husband and wife and deliver excellent performances, especially Hedison who captures the raw emotion, terror and turmoil that his character goes through. Vincent Price, as his brother, is quite good too. His performance is low key and quiet but convincing, and while not aa good as Hedison, it is easy to see why he is a legend in the horror circuit. I haven't seen much of Price's work and I would love to see more but just based on this performance alone I had echoes and a few chills now seeing how good a job Geoffrey Rush did imitating him in House on Haunted Hill.

With that said, not all the performances were very good. Some were passible while others were pretty bad. A pretty bad performance, straight out of B-movie hell, comes from Torben Meyer as the night watchmen of Price's factory but the penultimate bad performance here is, as usual, owned by child actor Charles Herbert. Bad child performances are a dime a dozen in movies and while directors today have done a much better job with child actors, for the most part (or at least from the movies I've seen from that era) movies from the 40's, 50's and 60's generally have very wooden performances from the children.

And while the story is rather well put together, with great editing and a steady pace, and the film is rather original, the dialogue at times is pretty poor. Again, some of the bad dialogue is a product of the time this film was made but some of it, if it wasn't surrounded by men turning into flies and Vincent Price, would be wince inducing bad. Once again, most of this is due to child actor Herbert. Every time he opens his mouth it's like he's reading a cue card from just behind the camera written by the director on the fly (no pun intended) for exposition purposes.

With that aside though, The Fly is a rather exciting and well put together film. It's campy in a nostalgic way and it's somewhat scary in an old school kind of way. It delivers excitement and thrills and has a moral message about playing God and about what's wrong and what's right when it comes to science. We as an audience sympathize and feel for Hedison, Owens, and Price which as a marvellous feat for a horror movie made in the late fifties. This is due to the solid direction and great performances from our leads.

The Fly comes highly recommended by me and I feel like it is endlessly re-watchable.  I'd have no problem sitting down and watching this film again with someone else, or even by myself. The remake is a great film that plays on the strengths of this one. It changes the ending and it takes away the idea of the flashback but it sticks pretty strongly to the overall story arc of this film. When I finally heard the classic line of 'Help me. Heelp Meee!', I wasn't expecting what I saw and after considerable reflection have decided that it was a rather gruesome and grim scene for it's time with another dose of excellent effects.

I can see why audiences were thrilled by this movie 54 years ago and I can see why there were 2 sequels that followed. I can see why Cronenberg, with his fixation on the body, chose to remake this film and I can see why people are still talking about this film over 50 years later. There are two questions I have now, after watching this film. 1) Exactly how different or how close is the remake to this film? and 2) How did they make a sequel and even a third film to this one? Well it's time to answer that second question so I bid you all a farewell and will return shortly with my views on Return of the Fly...


Film Rating: 79%

Breakdown (How The Fly scored 79%):

Production Design: 8 out of 10
Cinematography: 8 out of 10
Re-playability: 9 out of 10
Originality: 9 out of 10
Costumes:  8 out of 10
Directing: 8 out of 10
Editing: 8 out of 10
Acting: 7 out of 10
Music: 7 out of 10

Script: 7 out of 10

The Fly Papers

One of the strongest movie memories I have is that of Jeff Goldblum, staring at himself in the mirror horrified as he slowly and meticulously pulls off one of his fingernails. That image, amongst many, has haunted my dreams for as many years as I can count. It is of course one of the shocking and brilliantly twisted scenes from David Cronenberg's remake of The Fly.

Cronenberg's The Fly is also the only film of the entire series that I have ever seen. I have seen, on TV, and years back, bits and pieces of the supposedly terrible The Fly II. From what I saw there I don't recall the film being that bad but as I rewatch movies from my youth I have noticed that, if not my tastes, then at least  my critical eye has sharpened my outlook on what makes a good film and what makes a bad film.

So fellow readers and fellow followers (and if your aren't a follower please become one) it is without further ado that I am going to review and discuss the entire Fly series of films. And no, it's not going to be just the remake and it's sequel. After all, how can I discuss the merits of these pictures without watching the original trilogy of Fly films that made their way to the big screen many moons before this fateful writer was evening a twinkling in the eye of my ma and pa.

The original The Fly was released in 1958 and shocked and awed critics and viewers alike with it's novel and unique blend of sci-fi and horror elements. It was followed a year later by The Return of the Fly and six years later by The Curse of the Fly. It would be another 21 years before Cronenberg brought his version to a newer audience and as of this writing, the final Fly film arrived a short three years after.

As I watch these five films over the next week or so there are many things that I look forward to seeing and discussing. First off there is the incomparable legend that is Vincent Price. Then there is the immortal line that everybody knows: 'Help me!! Help me!!!!'. There is Jeff Goldblum in his best (?) role ever, and a young and underrated Eric Stoltz in a rare lead role. There are four films that I have never seen before, with at least one being a classic of the horror genre. There is the fact that I get to watch Cronenberg's remake yet again (I can watch that movie over and over and never get bored).

It will be fun to see how the remake plays with the original story, if there are any homages to it and to see how it differs. It will be exciting to see the film that influenced Cronenberg to make his masterful film. It will be a rip roaring, rock 'em sock 'em good time and hopefully a rather enjoyable read for you too my fellow readers. It will be interesting to read your comments (if any!!) and see what you thought of a) the film b) the entire series and c) my opinion and I promise to respond to every single comment that is made.

So now it's time to turn the lights down low, turn the sound up high and let the fun begin. I'm ready to witness the entire 30 year odyssey of man mutating into fly. I'm excited to share with you my experiences watching these tales of  horror, gore and possibly (in the later films) nudity (for who doesn't like a sprinkling of TNA in their movies).

Well my TV's on, my sounds system is buzzing and the DVD is loading up. It's time to sign off but I'll be back as soon as I can with my thoughts on a film I should have seen years ago. As the DVD loads up I can feel the clock spinning back tio 1958. I can see the last people shuffling into the sold out theatre and I now see the curtains are starting to open. The Fly is about to begin...

The Life of David Gale (58%)

The crime is clear. The truth is not.

Quentin Tarantino recently came out and said he wanted to retire after ten movies. His reasoning behind the statement was that he didn't want to become an 'old director' who had lost his touch. Well Alan Parker, who directed The Life of David Gale, is a prime example of what he is talking about. Parker started off in the late 70's directing classics such as Midnight Express and Fame. Not every film of his to follow was a classic or a masterpiece but he continued to make good to great films and finished off in 1996 with the excellent Evita. But then he directed Angela's Ashes which was his weakest film to date. Then he followed it with The Life of David Gale which is an even weaker film and sadly the last film he has thus far made.

It is actually shocking that the same man who made Midnight Express, Fame and Mississippi Burning made this film. What a difference in quality and skill. From the outset The Life of David Gale seems like it should be a winner with a great cast, a great director and an interesting story. Unfortunately things didn't come together and the film that was released has ended up being subpar filmmaking at best.

Usually Parker has shown excellent skill in working with his actors. In this film he seems to have lost his touch. Laura Linney is great as usual, and Kevin Spacey shines at times but at other times he seems to be heavily overacting. Then their is the stunning and talented Kate Winslet. Without a doubt this has to come off as her worst performance ever. She puts on a fake American accent and seems to just go through the numbers. There are moments where her talent shines through but not enough to merit any kind of accolades for her performance here. Most of the secondary cast manages to be average to poor in the acting department with an especially bad performance by Noah Truesdale as Spacey's son.

Another aspect that Parker usually excels at but faltered on in this film is the music. Generic and cheesy for the most part, the score (minus a solid tense reoccurring theme) just doesn't work well and doesn't draw you into the film. Scored by Parker's two sons, the music is probably the weakest music ever heard in a film directed by Alan Parker.

Then there is the editing which is ok, but could use a lot of work. There is really no reason that this film needed to be over two hours long. No reason at all. Scenes could of been trimmed and shortened or cut altogether and at, maybe, an hour and forty minutes the film might of worked better than it finally did. There is nothing unique about the editing or the sets, or the costumes, or the cinematography. While the film does look good, with nice colours and clear images the shots are rather generic and there are no images that wow the audience, something that has happened in nearly every other Parker film.

But the absolute worst thing about The Life of David Gale is the screenplay. Filled with cliches and awful dialogue it seems amazing to me that actors such as Winslet and Spacey ever saw something in the script. The outcome of the film is predictable and really doesn't jive well with the morals of the film. Winslet's intern/assistant/partner is a useless character who speaks only in exposition. Why open the film in the place that they did? Did it add anything to the story? No. And then there are the ridiculously ham fisted and hockey plot points that drive the picture forward. Why break into Winslet's hotel room to leave a snippet of a videotape as a clue hanging from a lamp? How did the police not discover the videotape that could solve the whole case when it was so easy to find by Winslet?

The Life of David Gale is not the worst film ever made and I'm sure there are many people out there that will find many things to like about it. But it really isn't that good. It plays almost like a TV movie of the week on a grand scale. It's a real shame that Parker seems to have ended his career on a note like this. Knowing that he directed this film makes it that much worse of a film. There are some elements that do work and it looks good, plus the viewer is seldom bored throughout the two and a bit hours that it runs for but it's never really as engaging or as clever as the filmmakers think it is.

It's too bad that Parker seems to have finished his career with this film. Maybe after seeing the final product he realized that he has lost it as a director. Maybe he just wanted to retire. Maybe he realized somewhere within the production of the film that it just wasn't working and he gave up for good. It's sad that this is how his legacy seems to have ended but then that's what Tarantino is talking about when he says he wants to retire on a high note. He doesn't want to become like Parker and hopefully he never will.

In a word: Disappointing!!!


Film Rating: 58%

Breakdown (How The Life of David Gale scored 58%):

Production Design: 7 out of 10
Cinematography: 7 out of 10
Re-playability: 5 out of 10
Originality: 5 out of 10
Costumes:  7 out of 10
Directing: 6 out of 10
Editing: 6 out of 10
Acting: 6 out of 10
Music: 5 out of 10

Script: 4 out of 10

Angela's Ashes (69%)

The Hopes of a Mother. The Dreams of a Father. The Fate of a Child.

I have never read the book, but I assume if Angela's Ashes  won the Pulitzer prize it must be one hell of a book. Written by Frank McCourt, it is a biography of his childhood growing up poor in the slums of Ireland. Unfortunately, Alan Parker's film version shows not only no signs of a Pulitzer winning novel but also ends up being Parker's worst film to date (not including The Road to Wellville and Bugsy Malone which I have not seen).

While not a bad film, it really isn't that great of a film either. It is well directed, well shot and well acted but it also is rather bland, with not much going on and no real arch within the story. It entertains to a certain degree but just barely does it do so and it ends up stretching on for almost two and a half hours. Thinking back though, I am racking my brain as to which scenes could be cut to make the film shorter.

The strongest aspect of Angela's Ashes is the acting. Both Robert Carlyle and Emily Watson or excellent in their roles with Watson being the stronger of the two. Watson is an amazing actress and seems to get better with every role she appears in. Carlyle fairs well too, although his character comes off as to nice and not enough of a boorish drunk to sell the story. The rest of the acting is top notch too, especially the child actors. Joe Breen plays the youngest incarnation of Frank McCourt. Not only is he great but he is pure 'Parker'. He looks, and for the most part is dressed, just like young Pink from Pink Floyd: The Wall.

Parker doesn't repeat himself with the movies he makes, but like Evita, there are many shots here that are strikingly similar to ones seen in Pink Floyd: The Wall. There are many shots with young Frank, playing in the streets that seem like outtakes from that film. But unlike that film, the cinematography here comes off at first striking but by the end of the film, rather bland. It looks good but there is only so many times we can see the same street corner or shot of a bridge in the rain before it gets boring. As well, the opening scenes in Brooklyn, New York are indistinguishable from the scenes in Ireland that take up the rest of the film.

The setting in Ireland is dirty and dingy and makes you undertand the conditions that McCourt and his family are living in. The costumes are pretty good too, showing the wear and tear of the clothing on the poor McCourt's backs. We see their clothes disintegrate before our eyes and we hope that things will get better for the family.

Unfortunately the story, for the film at least, is rather blase. Not much happens here I am afraid, at least not much of a story or much in originality. The entire film is basically watching Frank McCourt grow up poor. Okay, big deal, there are lots of poor people around so what makes his story so special. I'm sure his writing (in the book) is what creates the magic and won the Pulitzer but here it never goes anywhere. A few moments of humour, a few moments of sadness but overall there is a general feeling of complacency to the proceedings.

This isn't helped by the music which I found to be rather repetitive and tame. Scored by John Williams, I felt the film was missing high crescendos and soaring themes that could help elevate the story or bring the viewer deeper into the story. Rather you here the same piece of music (or few pieces of music) over and over or so it seems. It's a shame as usually Parker's choice of music is one thing that works really well in his films.

It's sad that such a great and revered book was turned into what is Alan Parker's worst film to date. It's not terribly boring, it passes the times and it is worth a watch, but only one. After all, we know that McCourt grows up to write the memoir and thus we have no worries that things will turn out fine for him. The film moves from humour to sadness to many times in to short a time to give the audience any kind of emotional pull and thus they are left with a somewhat enjoyable if overlong look into poor Irish folk. If you like Emily Watson, Robert Carlyle or Alan Parker, or you really have nothing else to watch then give this movie a shot otherwise there are plenty other films that you can wile away two and a half hours on.

In a word: Passable.


Film Rating: 69%

Breakdown (How Angela's Ashes scored 69%):

Production Design: 8 out of 10
Cinematography: 6 out of 10
Re-playability: 5 out of 10
Originality: 7 out of 10
Costumes:  8 out of 10
Directing: 7 out of 10
Editing: 7 out of 10
Acting: 9 out of 10
Music: 6 out of 10

Script: 6 out of 10

Evita (87%)

The Most Anticipated Motion Picture Event Of The Year

When producer Robert Stigwood and composer Andrew Lloyd Webber wanted to make a movie verison of Evita I believe they had only two choices in mind, Norman Jewison and Alan Parker. Jewison had of course done a fine job of directing Webber's Jesus Christ Superstar. Parker on the other hand had directed Fame, The Commitments and Pink Floyd: The Wall. Based on his track record, and the entire structure of Pink Floyd: The Wall I believe they had no choice but to choose Parker.

Evita is a fantastic film and Parker proves once again what a great director he is especially when it comes to musicals. Like his earlier musical works, Evita is a film that is a musical but not in the traditional sense. No one breaks out into song and dances here or there. Instead everyone talks in song and the entire film is one long musical piece with little to no dialogue. It is in fact structured very much like Parker's own Pink Floyd: The Wall. In fact, there are scenes within Evita that seem like they are straight out of that film. The riots in the streets and the marching of the army could be interchanged between both films they are so similar. As is the reoccurring motive of the ballroom dancing.

But that doesn't mean that Evita is a bad film. On the contrary it is a great film and sits up their as one of Parker's best films. It takes a certain kind of skill and talent to be able to make a film with no dialogue (at least speaking dialogue) and still keep the audience interested for over two hours. Parker has that skill and he proves it once again with this masterwork of a film.

Of course, it is based on the hit musical by Webber and former partner Tim Rice. It features all the songs from the musical (plus one new one) and tells the story of Eva Peron, darling First Lady of Argentina. From her youth to her death and her rise to stardom in between we learn it all through song and visuals.

The visuals are supplied by the great Darius Khondji and have some of the best shot scenes in any Alan Parker film. Shot in glorious 2.35:1 widescreen, the images are crisp, clear and a beauty to be hold. The colours are rich and full and the lighting sparkles throughout. Khondji and Parker have captured images that feel like they are from 1940's Argentina. They feel real and are fully realized. The crowd scenes feel massive, the quiet scenes feel intimate and the entire picture is just a feast for the eyes.

The costumes and sets are as good as the cinematography. The locations are stunning and feel like they could be the real thing. I have never been to Argentina but after watching Evita I feel like I know what it would look like and what it would feel like (something a movie rarely does). The attention to detail in everything from the outfits to the posters to the background extras is gloriously produced and perfectly placed giving the audience much to admire throughout one or repeated viewings.

And then there is the acting. Madonna plays the lead role here and leave it to Alan Parker to pull the best (if only good) performance of her career out of her. Madonna does an admiral job in the lead but she isn't as strong an actor as she is a pop star. There are times when she seems bland and times when she seems emotionally blank when the story is calling for more. But then there are times when she rises to the occasion and puts on a stellar performance. While she isn't the strongest of actors she does do a fine job for the most part here.

The rest of the cast (and thousands of extras it seems) are simply amazing. Antonio Banderas is delightful and amazing in his role as narrator. He is so good you wish for more of him when he disappears from the screen. Then there is the great Jonathan Pryce. Another stellar performance from a stellar actor. Within ten minutes on the screen you feel his power and can understand why and how he became President. Everyone else around the three principle actors does a fantastic job and everyone together helps Madonna's performance seem even better than it is.

The music is of course excellent. It soars and it punctuates and it swells and it crashes and it hits all the emotional strings it needs to do. It carries the picture and is there for 99.9% of the time. There are classic songs performed well by the entire cast and great moments of jarring and exciting cues that play well with the intense visuals created by Parker. The only problem I had with the music is that after a while, it does become somewhat repetitive. This is more a product of the musical it is based on than the film, but it is still a slight problem. After all, not all musicals have that problem.

Evita is truly a remarkable film. It's visuals are so striking that it becomes a joy to watch many times over especially set to some classic show tunes. The editing is, in usual Parker form, top notch and the acting is for the most part stellar. Bandaras, in an English language film at least, has never been better.  The sets and locations, the costumes and cinematography are so exceptional I feel like I've lived and been in 1940's Argentina. This film, like many Parker films, comes highly recommended. If you like musicals, or you like the theatre, or you like spectacles than this film is for you, In a word: Unmissable!!


Film Rating: 87%

Breakdown (How Evita scored 87%):

Production Design: 10 out of 10
Cinematography: 10 out of 10
Re-playability: 8 out of 10
Originality: 8 out of 10
Costumes:  9 out of 10
Directing: 9 out of 10
Editing: 9 out of 10
Acting: 8 out of 10
Music: 9 out of 10

Script: 7 out of 10

The Commitments (89%)

They Had Absolutely Nothing. But They Were Willing To Risk It All.

I have always wanted to see Alan parker's The Commitments. I remember how when I was a young tyke my parents raved about this film. I also remember catching glimpses of the film (five minutes here and there) on television and not really getting it. But I was pretty young and it obviously wasn't made for the young minded or just plain young viewer.

So last night I popped in the DVD and watched what is apparently a very a good movie. Was it? Oh yes, a very good movie it was. Starring a cast of relative unknowns at the time, and Colm Meany who made it famous on Star Trek: The Next Generation, and directed by Alan Parker, The Commitments is an absolutely wonderful film that is chock full of joy and life, homour and sadness and really is just over an hour and a half of pure viewing pleasure.

The film tells the beginnings of a fictional Irish soul band called The Commitments. It starts with two members and their manager and goes on to tell how the band is formed and the troubles between the bandmates. Throughout the film you can see that they are destined for greatness but at the same time you can see how they are destined to fall apart. As you watch the film you will be wondering if they will succeed or if they will fall apart at the seems. I'll leave it to you to discover what happens.

The acting is stellar from everyone involved.You would never be able to tell that most of these performers weren't actors or at least have never acted before. Colm Meany is fantastic as one of the main character's dad; an Elvis loving wannabe singer who is resistant at first but ends up loving the sounds of soul. His son Jimmy, played by Robert Arkins, is excellent as well. When he gives his speech about soul and the Irish and why soul is so important to the culture and the band, it makes the viewer want to go and buy (or download) as much soul as they can get their hands on.

The rest of the cast is equally good in their roles and its nice to see Parker return to form as an actor's director after some weaker performances he captured in Come See the Paradise. In fact, The Commitments has turned out to be his best film since his early glory days in the late seventies and early eighties. Everything about this film works, from the costumes to the make-up; the cinematography to the editing; the directing to the acting; the stellar script to the top notch sets and locales.

The music too, is fantastic! When you hear the band first perform Mustang Sally in rehearsals it sounds rough and doesn't really work that well, but later in the film, when they perform it live it is legendary and really has become the go to version of that song. The Commitments could only be directed by Alan Parker. Like Fame it is a musical without being a musical. The actors perform the songs on screen as much of the movie has them singing but it is done as part of the story and feels very much like Fame. By that I mean it feels organic and is part of these characters lives more than say breaking out into song and dance out of the blue. Parker is really the best at doing this kind of movie and he was the perfect choice for this film.

I'm a fan of soul music, but never has it been my number one choice in music. In fact I own very little soul music, minus a bit of Otis Redding and a few other choice cuts. But this film, while watching it, makes me love the music. It makes me feel the passion and hits me way down in my soul. Like most of Parker's films, I now want to own the soundtrack.

Musical movies don't get much better than this. The Commitments cements Parker as the go to guy for  musical-less musicals. The go to guy for music inspired movies and the go to guy for large ensemble casts for films about music and the arts. There is very little to complain about with this film, right now all I can say is that maybe it was just a bit too short (and I never say that). The script is perfect, the acting great, the music awe-inspiring, the directing stellar, the editing perfect. I guess one other bad thing about this film is that it makes me sad that I can't perform like these guys (I've tried but sadly I suck). In a word: Sensational!!!


Film Rating: 89%

Breakdown (How The Commitments scored 89%):

Production Design: 8 out of 10
Cinematography: 8 out of 10
Re-playability: 9 out of 10
Originality: 8 out of 10
Costumes:  9 out of 10
Directing: 10 out of 10
Editing: 9 out of 10
Acting: 9 out of 10
Music: 10 out of 10

Script: 9 out of 10

Come See the Paradise (72%)

First, their love was forbidden by law. Then it was torn apart by war.

Like Shoot the Moon, Come See the Paradise is an Alan Parker film that I knew nothing about. From the cover of the DVD I assumed it was a war film. With Dennis Quaid in the lead role I expected less of a movie than I was now accustomed to by Mr. Parker. And as I had heard of, or seen all of Parker`s other films, I expected this one to be so bad that it had sunk into oblivion.

I just finished watching Come See the Paradise (well, I finished it last night) and I found it to be better than I thought it would be. It wasn`t a war film, although it does take place during WWII. As it turns out, the film is a romantic drama about Japanese Americans during World War II. Quaid falls for a Japanese woman and both he and her first must first fight her families traditional values and then the greater American population in order to stay together. They are torn apart by war, by struggles and by opinions but throughout it all they continue to seek each other out.

Quaid, as I mentioned earlier, plays the lead role in this film. Generally I find his acting slightly better than average, but never (minus a role or two) exceptional. Here he is as strong as I have ever seen him. In all honesty, I was rather impressed by his performance. He delivers a solid (if not quite award worthy) performance that holds the viewers attention throughout the over two hour run time. Tamlyn Tomita plays his Japanese love and her performance is even better than Quaid`s.

But the best performance in the film is that of Sab Shimono. Shimono plays Tomita's father and he is just plain fantastic. He exudes emotion and does an impressive job outperforming everyone else in the film. There are other great performances in the film too, but then there are also some performances that are weaker than they should be and could be the weakest performances I have yet to see in an Alan Parker film (which is unusual as he usually pulls out excellent performances from everyone). It's hard to pick out these weaker acting moments but one that comes to mind is two of the three actresses who played Mini (Quaid and Tomita's daughter). It's hard to get a child to act gracefully, but I expected more from Parker after the excellent performances he pulled out of the children in Shoot the Moon and to a lesser extent in Pink Floyd: The Wall.

One performance that switches in the middle, from poor to great is that of Stan Egi, who plays Tomita's brother Charlie. He starts off kinda weak in the acting department but as the film progresses and his character changes he becomes a much better and stronger actor and by the last hour he is unrecognizable as the same guy he was earlier. His transformation is remarkable and commendable.

These poor performances are somewhat the fault of the screenplay. While it tells an original story, it has many moments that are rather hokey, other moments that are generic and many moments of poor dialogue. When I think back on the film, I feel like Egi's performance in the first half of the film is as bad as it is due to the corny and heavy handed dialogue he has to say. Overall, the screenplay tells a great story and keeps the audience engaged but is nowhere near as strong as Parker's past efforts and ends up bringing the film down.

The score, by Randy Edelman, is pretty strong and engaging. I couldn't be positive but I think I've heard the main theme used in many a trailer and/or commercial. The cinematography is pretty good, but doesn't reach the same level of creativity or artistry as Parker's previous films. At times it is striking while other times the scenery is somewhat flat and bland. The costumes, sets and make-up are done well enough to bring the audience into the late 30's/early 40's time period, but like the acting and the cinematography, it just isn't out of this world.

As a serious piece of drama, Come See the Paradise, is lacking in that department. It tackles serious issues and has a serious tone but it never affects the viewer on too deep a level. Subjects are touched upon but never fully explored and other subjects are included for no reason but to add drama. As a romance it works better and keeps the audience rooting for the two lovers, destined to be separated, to stay together. Quaid and Tomita have good chemistry together and make the film more enjoyable than it would otherwise seem.

I do recommend this film to be seen if you haven't seen it before. It is enjoyable and romantic and is a great watch when snuggling on the couch with your partner. It's up there on the bottom of the Alan Parker films, but it's not a bad film overall. It's not a film I would watch over and over (like Fame or Pink Floyd: The Wall) but I am glad I got to see it. In a word: Romantic!!!


Film Rating: 72%

Breakdown (How Come See the Paradise scored 72%):

Production Design: 8 out of 10
Cinematography: 7 out of 10
Re-playability: 6 out of 10
Originality: 7 out of 10
Costumes:  7 out of 10
Directing: 8 out of 10
Editing: 8 out of 10
Acting: 7 out of 10
Music: 8 out of 10

Script: 6 out of 10

Mississippi Burning (86%)

1964. When America was at war with itself.

Mississippi Burning is a great film. It deals with issues of race and murder and is Alan Parker's best film since Pink Floyd: The Wall.  After two films, Birdy and Angel Heart, Parker has made a return as the great filmmaker that he was destined to be after his first few features.

The story of Mississippi Burning is based on (slightly) true events. The characters aren't real but the film plays like a true story. Set in 1964, the film begins with the murder of three people (two white and one black) in the backwoods of Mississippi. This brings in the FBI who discover a sinister plot of racism and deception from what seems like all sides of the town. The KKK feature prominently throughout the film.

The film stars a young Willem Dafoe, an even younger Frances McDormand, Gene Hackman and the great Brad Dourif. Like almost all of Parker's films, Mississippi Burning contains stellar acting from everyone involved. Dafoe is great as an innocent yet tough FBI agent; Hackman is even better as his partner. McDormand is just as good and shows a lot of the appeal that would eventually win her that Oscar many years later. In a small but memorable role, a young Kevin Dunn (Shia LeBeouf's father in Transformers) appears and seems to have not aged a day since this movie was made.

There are plenty of chases and explosions and violent images in this film. Parker handles them all with care and never lets the realism fade away. In the hands of a lesser director things could of turned offensive or schmaltzy but Parker brings just the right amount of emotion and action to make the audience enthralled and appalled yet unable to look away.

The cinematography, sets and costumes help bring the audience into the bitter and shocking world of 1964 Mississippi. The camera angles are simple in their execution but the lighting is stellar and the two together help create a mood that is dark, thrilling and moody. The night is dark and mysterious and the flames from the fires throughout the film sparkle in their orange intensity. The sets and locales all look like 1964 and the make up and costumes suit the era too, minus a funeral scene near the end where some of the extras seem to be a bit to modern for their time.

One of my favorite Composers, Trevor Jones, supplies the absolutely riveting soundtrack to the film. The music is moody and tense and really enwraps the viewer into the events that are unfolding on screen. With a stellar repetitive theme, Mississippi Burning is a soundtrack that would sound just as good playing on my iPod as it does in the film and is a soundtrack I'd love to purchase and add to my collection.

The tight script is held together well by the almost as tight editing. Like most Parker films there isn't a wasted moment, or wasted shot spliced into the film. Every scene plays with one another and works together to create a movie that works from the opening frame to the final frame. While the story is maybe not the most original (KKK, racism, good FBI vs. everybody else), the film is done so well that it ends up feeling original and unique.

It's nice to see Parker step up his game to something close to the beginnings of his career. It's not that Birdy or Angel Heart were bad, it's just that they weren't as good as what Parker gave us before. Mississippi Burning returns him to that former glory. While not as good as his first few films it sure does come close. Having watched seven Parker films I am amazed and astounded by how different each film is, and like his previous six films, Mississippi Burning is unlike any of his previous films and is all the better for it. In a word: Remarkable!!

Film Rating: 86%

Breakdown (How Mississippi Burning scored 86%):

Production Design: 8 out of 10
Cinematography: 8 out of 10
Re-playability: 8 out of 10
Originality: 8 out of 10
Costumes:  8 out of 10
Directing: 9 out of 10
Editing: 9 out of 10
Acting: 9 out of 10
Music: 10 out of 10

Script: 9 out of 10

Angel Heart (74%)

Harry Angel is searching for the truth... Pray he doesn't find it.

Have you ever wanted to see a Cosby girl naked? Have you ever wanted to see Mickey Rourke in a movie with Robert De Niro? Have you ever wanted to watch a slow moving but suspenseful film that is weak on story but strong on almost all other accounts? If you answered yes to any or all of those questions then Alan Parker's Angel Heart is for you.

I first saw this movie when I was younger, much younger, too young. I was probably 12 or 13 when I rented Angel Heart on video. I liked Robert De Niro, I had heard of this guy Mickey Rourke and I loved horror which Angel Heart apparently was. Also, it was rated R and I would probably get to see a Cosby girl naked. So it was around 1991 when I rented this movie and man did I hate it. It was slow, boring and was seriously lacking in the horror department.

Cut to last night and I just finished Angel Heart for the second time, 21 years later and it was much better than I remembered it. By no means is it a masterpiece and it sits somewhere on the fence of being one of Alan Parker's worst films so far, but it is still a decent picture with an excellent look, a strong sense of foreboding, a lot of mystery, a little horror and a Cosby girl naked.

To start off I will discuss the two bad things about this film. First is the story. While it's not a bad story, or a badly written script, Angel Heart ends up coming off as generic and anticlimactic. The ending you can see coming within 30 minutes of the movie and when it is finally revealed it ends up being less of a shock and more of a 'I knew that was coming' moment. There are random characters and scenes that could of been cut and the story would of played out exactly the same. There is some hot sex featuring a Cosby girl.

The second bad thing is the acting. While most of the leads do a fine job, especially Rourke who comes off perfectly as a mid twentieth century detective, some of the other actors don't come off that well. De Niro does a fine job in his small role, but is outshone by Rourke in every scene they share. One actor in particular who just doesn't pull off the role well is Lisa Bonet. She is the weakest link in the leads and puts a hamper in the believability of the film. I feel like she took this role to break out of her Cosby girl image but instead the audience (men) just relish that they get to see her naked.

The good things about Angel Heart though do out way the bad. The film looks like it was shot in the 1950's and the attention to detail is astounding. The cinematography, as usual in an Alan Parker film, is glorious to behold. The lighting and the framing are as good as it gets and the music keeps the film going and the audience interested. The editing is solid and keeps the picture flowing at a nice pace (if a bit slow for younger audiences). And you get to see a Cosby girl naked!!

Angel Heart is at heart a mystery movie. It has moments of horror (which work now that I am an adult) and moments of eroticism but at it's core it is a hard boiled detective story with a twist. The twist is predictable and can be seen a mile away and the story is a bit muddled here and there with too much exposition and random characters but the top notch cinematography, sets, locations and music and a nice editing job still keep the audience entertained. Plus you get to see a naked Cosby girl.

Parker has made a tight little film that works well and plays well with an audience. It's not his greatest achievement but it also isn't his worst. The acting his hit and miss (depending on the actor) and the story is somewhat generic (at least in 2012 it is--maybe in 1987 it wasn't) and formulaic but Parker is a master craftsman and even through both those faults he is able to piece together a film that is a lot better than it should be.  It's bloody, it's intriguing and it's got a cool factor to it. It flies by quicker than it's run time and it sticks in your head for a while after it ends. And did I mention that it's got a Cosby girl naked in it?

In a word: Recommendable.


Film Rating: 74%

Breakdown (How Angel Heart scored 74%):

Production Design: 8 out of 10
Cinematography: 8 out of 10
Re-playability: 6 out of 10
Originality: 8 out of 10
Costumes:  8 out of 10
Directing: 8 out of 10
Editing: 8 out of 10
Acting: 6 out of 10
Music: 9 out of 10

Script: 5 out of 10