Knightriders (1981)

Directed by George A Romero
Starring Ed Harris, Tom Savini, Gary Lahti, Amy Ingersoll, Patricia Tallman, Christine Forrest, John Amplas
Produced by Richard P Rubenstein
Written by George A Romero
Music by Donald Rubenstein

I must admit, I put off watching Knightriders for the longest time purely because of the front cover of the DVD. It doesn’t exactly inspire confidence that the material is anything but crap. But the film surprised the hell out of me, and I rank it as one of Romero’s best. It’s clear that this was a deeply personal film for him. Long story short, you have this bunch of stunt players who have established a sort of on-the-road bikie medieval community, with a King, Billy (Ed Harris), Queen, and (presumably) First Knight (Morgan, played by Romero’s gore-effects maestro Tom Savini). Instead of horses, they use motorcycles (less shit to clean up). They make ends meet by staging dangerous medieval tournaments, joust with motorcycles, perform jumps and other stunts, that sort of thing. However, as their financial problems worsen they are courted by big business who provide the means to finance their tournaments in exchange for a little cross-promotion.

"Yeah, see that fantasy troupe fan over there? I had her, and her sister too.
The chicks love the Black Knight get-up, Ed, I'm telling ya!"

It’s blindingly obvious, therefore, that Knightriders is Romero’s commentary on the movie industry and, in particular, how he fits in with it. Romero’s always preferred to make films on his own terms, even if that often means he winds up with limited budgets. His choice is pretty clear: stay independent and make the films you want, but work with the budget you can scrounge up. On the flipside, “sell-out” to the big studios as a director-for-hire, make films with virtually no restrictions in terms of resources, but have a set of demands imposed on him which often affect the quality of the outcome. Take the third and fourth zombie films in Romero's Dead series. Romero had an epic zombie movie envisaged for the third, Day, but ended up filming only a fraction of it due to the budgetary limitations; however, this meant he could keep the film unrated and not have to appease the notorious MPAA and their retarded demands. Had he opted for the studio-backing, he would have had to have slashed Day’s notoriously gory effects to gain a US R rating. For Land of the Dead, he got a larger budget with Universal’s backing, but had to make a bunch of cuts to meet an R rating for cinema release and made it a bit more commerically appealing, rather than mirror the grim and downbeat tone of Day.

Here, Romero’s saying that just as the characters in Knightriders have a choice between artistic integrity and compromising your vision for the sake of a few bucks, so too does virtually every artist, whether you’re in film, print, paint, whatever. Like the commentary he puts in some of his other films, it’s not exactly subtle, but it works.

Bernard was secretly envious about the superlative printing on  Ron's shield.

Beyond all that guff, however, the film is a real oddity, yes, but also extremely entertaining. It’s also surprisingly moving in parts, at least, as much as a film about men on bikes pretending to be knights can be. The opening scene is a bit weird and trippy, but get beyond that and you start really getting to know the characters, and you'll see a lot of familiar faces from other Romero films pop up. Harris is reliably solid as usual, and Savini is a blast playing a more reckless biker who wants to run things his own way.

The stunts are very well staged. Some of the stuff looks pretty dangerous, so kudos to the stuntmen. One issue I have is that the driving around and jumping and racing goes on for a bit too long. Knightriders could have benefitted from some tighter editing; at two-hours-plus it definitely strains the limitations of the material. However, when you take into account the sheer enthusiasm of the production and the quality of the material then you don't really mind. Ultimately, if you're in the mood for it, I found this to be one of Romero's stronger films. Definitely the oddest, but surprisingly too it's probably one that's the most emotionally resonant.

Best bit
Savini coming to terms with what he has to do for his corporate benefactors

Iconic moment
the memorable finale

Worst bit
the very start, complete with "vasoline lens" vision

Best line
"We're bigger now. Things are different. Christ, we've got an overhead."

Best performance
Ed Harris, of course, as reliable and sturdy as a really big frickin' rock

MVP
George Romero, for bringing this oddball vision to life

What would have made this better
some editing trims, ditch the offputting opening scene

What would have made this worse
if Romero ditched the bikes and focused on one of those pissweak medieval meets as shown in Role Models

Companion film
now that I mention it, Role Models would make a pretty neat double bill with this

If you liked this...
watch Martin for another excellent Romero film that isn't quite what you expect

Pros
+ a great cast, with Harris and Savini standouts
+ a terrific "family" vibe, both in front of the screen and behind it
+ some great stunts
+ both surprisingly entertaining and curiously emotional

Cons
- a bit too long in places
- the opening scene has to go
- for a lot of viewers, the very concept will put people off
- the front video and DVD cover is extremely offputting too

Rating on the Tom Savini/Sex Machine level of tough-guy biker cameos:

After.Life (2009)

Directed by Agnieszka Wojtowicz-Vosloo
Starring Christina Ricci, Liam Neeson, Justin Long
Written by Agnieszka Wojtowicz-Vosloo, Paul Vosloo and Jakub Korolczuk
Music by Paul Haslinger

Psychological thrillers, especially ones that deal with the afterlife (like The Sixth Sense) are tricky to get right. Tricky because there's a fine line they have to straddle between being true-to-life (so to speak) and completely daft. The Sixth Sense managed it through some strong performances, a grounding in as much reality as could be managed, and a strong script. After.Life only has one of these things (hint: it's the first).

Capably directed by Agnieszka Wojtowicz-Vosloo (how's that for a name, I thought that guy who directed The Tourist had a hell of a name!), it's an interesting look at what *might* happen in that brief doorway between life and death. Interesting in that it's a different take on the usual thriller fare, but unfortunately fails in the execution, and what we're left with is a fairly middling thriller. Plus, it seems to contradict itself (unless I've failed miserably to grasp what the director and screenwriters were trying for).

Christina Ricci's expression when informed her wardrobe
budget for the film was going to be slashed to $20

--- minor spoilers ahead ---

Ricci gets in a car accident, and winds up in a funeral home, and the film takes pains to hint that (a) she was dead to begin with and this is merely a transition to the "after life", and Neeson can talk to dead people or (b) she's on the verge of death and Neeson is a deranged nutter who is killing people. Unfortunately, though this is resolved by the film's end, it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense throughout. Some scenes strongly suggest, right from the outset, that Ricci is dead, or dying, or a ghost, or something. Then, later on, we get the sense that Neeson is the one who's lost his mind, not Ricci, and that she is alive all along. Or something.

--- end spoiler alert ---

Ultimately the script lets the film down, not the performances nor the direction nor anything else. Liam Neeson provides a creepy and effective performance as a possibly unhinged mortician. Christina Ricci, who suffers through the majority of the film either as a psychologically damaged character, nude, or both, grounds the film, and our sympathies, as she tries to work out what the hell is going on. Justin Long is probably the only weak link, acting-wise. He's not terrible by any means...he's just...himself. Maybe After.Life benefits from a second watch to see if everything makes sense (a'la Shutter Island) but, to be honest, I was somewhat underwhelmed by the entire experience and I don't think I could stomach a rewatch.

"I've got the latest script right here...I'm afraid it still doesn't make any sense."

The film is suitably atmospheric, there are some nice makeup effects throughout (apart from one "big" scene which has too much CGI crap) but ultimately this is a case of "nice concept, average execution", very much like a lot of M Night Shyamalan's work post-Sixth Sense. It's not scary or thrilling enough to truly work well, which means we have to rely on the script and performances to see us through, and not even Ricci and Neeson can save us in that respect.

Best bit
eh, hard to pick one - Ricci's car accident, perhaps?

Iconic moment
none, really

Worst bit
the cliched "walking down a corridor and the lights go out one by one" which seems to be completely out of place...unless I missed something

Best line
"You're a corpse; your opinion doesn't count anymore."

Best performance
Liam Neeson, just the right blend of creepy and oddly sympathetic

MVP
Christina Ricci, for at least giving it a go and acting in a challenging role that requires her to be 50% naked throughout the film

What would have made this better
a more satisfying resolution, replace Justin Long, remove the glaring continuity errors and actually make sure the damn thing MAKES SENSE

What would have made this worse
replace Christina Ricci with Kathy Bates

Companion film
for more life-near/after-death shenanigans, Flatliners

What to watch instead
probably The Sixth Sense

If you liked this...
try the very first Saw film if you want more of that "value life" lesson

Pros
+ Neeson and Ricci are very good and effectively keep the film on track
+ lots of nudity for the raincoat brigade
+ some good makeup FX
+ intriguing concept

Cons
- some illogical plot devices
- Justin Long is fairly weak in a pivotal role
- weak ending
- not enough gore for the gorehound, not enough chills for the thriller fan, not enough meat for the serious film buff

Rating on the Angus Scrimm/Tall Man level of creepy morticians:

Rambo (2008)

Directed by Sylvester Stallone
Starring Sylvester Stallone, Julie Benz, Matthew Marsden, Graham McTavish, Reynaldo Gallegos
Written by Art Monterastelli and Sylvester Stallone
Produced by Kevin King, Sylvester Stallone, Kevin King Templeton and John Thompson
Music by Brian Tyler

First Blood is a great film. I watched it recently and it's amazing how much you forget the fact that Rambo, in that particular film, doesn't kill anyone. He injures a few people, but he hardly runs around slaughtering hundreds of bad guys. Then you watch Rambo First Blood Part II and the lamentable Rambo III where he fights off entire armies and you see the huge leap in direction the series took. You can compare First Blood to Taxi Driver; both films are about ex-Vietman vets who return home and are abandoned, finding nothing for them except disillusionment and scorn. They both have a gritty, low budget vibe. Compare that to the Rambo sequels, which are basically big, dumb cartoons.

And now we have the fourth Rambo film, confusingly titled Rambo (the original title, John Rambo, would have worked better). Initially it's an odd sight seeing Stallone as John Rambo not as the so-muscular-he-looks-like-a-knobbly bare-chested hero of parts II and III but as a moping, sour old veteran who looks like he's about ready to quit and retire to somewhere really remote like Bermuda. His face is a combination of 2008-Mickey Rourke and a melted wax candle. And once again we have John Rambo getting involved in a horrible war zone (Part II was Vietnam, III was Afghanistan, this time it's Burma and its civil unrest that's been going on for years and years). We are introduced with real footage of the atrocities in Burma, and some of the footage is deeply unsettling, as much for their content as it is that Stallone decided to include it in a Rambo film. His intentions are noble, I suppose; he wants to show the appalling violence that has been going on. It just seems a little strange to be including this sort of stuff in a film which, ultimately, wallows in the sort of gory violence that you'd expect to see in a Takashi Miike film.

Don't be fooled - though this is a rare, quiet moment, Rambo
is still thinking about eviscerating someone with a branch

We end up with a film of two halves. The first half we have Rambo as a bittered man who is thoroughly sick of the violence all around him. He's only reluctantly drawn back into action because he has a thing for a female missionary, Sarah Miller (Benz). We see the devastation of the village by an army led by a nasty NASTY general (the film points out how bad he really is by him having sex with young boys, shooting innocents in their hundreds and running a band of soldiers so ruthless that their chief enjoyment comes from raping women and making villagers run through mine-infested farmland and laying bets on which ones get blown up).

We get some truly horrific violence in the first half: people being shot down indiscriminately, mothers and children shot, limbs being hacked off. You forget this is a Rambo film, it could as easily have been a sequel to Saving Private Ryan or Black Hawk Down. The film has that same sped-up, jarring, shaky camera technique pioneered by Spielberg for Ryan and, annoyingly, used by virtually all war films since. The second half of the film has Rambo tracking down the missing missionaries with a band of mercenaries. This was a sensible decision on Stallone's behalf. At 60-something, John Rambo is clearly too old to take out an entire army by himself. He still looks pretty fit and handles the action scenes well, but at least it's not the same old 1 vs 100 that we've seen in parts II and III.

The second half of the film treats us to some truly awe-inspiring scenes of carnage. After an age of mournful pessimism, Rambo's back to what he does best: killing the shit out of baddies. And boy, does he. Rambo is by far the most violent film of the series. It's like comparing the original 50's version of The Fly to Cronenberg's gloopy remake. The first three Rambos are subdued in their presentation of violence compared to this one. Stallone said that he wanted to make the violence real, to show how bodies are actually affected by bullets and explosions. And HOLY SHIT DOES HE EVER. Let's just say if you like the Saw movies for their grisly violence, you'll love this. We see bodies torns and chopped to pieces by 50 calibre bullets. Limbs go flying in showers of blood. You have enough exploding heads. Rambo does his fair share, gunning baddies into mincemeat with a mounted turret gun and decapitating and gutting people left and right. Rambo even rips a guy's throat out in one particularly wet scene. It's shot with quite a fair amount of style and the look and feel of the film is pretty gritty (again, like a jungle version of Private Ryan) so it's not as cartoonish as it could have been. But you're still left staring open-mouthed at some of the delirious gore that showers the screen. It's certainly one of the most gloriously violent action films ever made.

"I respectfully disagree with your position, sir."

Therein lies the problem. Rambo wants to be two things: a sobering reminder of the atrocities being committed in Burma, and at the same time an exciting action-cum-war film with enough gore to make George Romero stand up and cheer. Stallone does a decent enough job both in front of and behind the camera. Jerry Goldsmith's memorable main theme is reused here by composer Brian Tyler; this is a thoughtful touch for fans and quite respectful of the work done by the legendary composer.

So the fourth (though probably not last) Rambo film is definitely one for fans. People who have felt that the first three films wallowed too much in excessive violence (a criticism that I felt the first film did not deserve) will definitely want to steer clear of this one. It's the most unashamedly gory, violent and grisly of the lot. There are possibly more deaths in this film than the first three combined. You have to ask yourself how it was that the notoriously scissor-happy MPAA let this through pretty much unscathed. First Blood will always be the strongest film in the series, but at least Rambo ends things in a way that has him come full-circle. In general this is a better Rambo sequel than I think most have been expecting.

Unless you like films with strong dialogue, compelling characters and a thoughtful script.

Best bit
Rambo turns some baddies to mush with a jeep mounted gun

Iconic moment
the decapitation is both sickening and hilarious

Worst bit
most of the dialogue scenes in the first half which try to be deep (but aren't really)

Best line
"Fuck the world."

Best performance
it'd have to be Sylvester Stallone, if anyone - at least in terms of screen presence

MVP
obviously Sylvester Stallone, for acting, directing, writing and everything else

What would have made this better
make the main villain less overtly nasty (we get it, really), strengthen the opening scenes between Rambo and the missionaries

What would have made this worse
more ridiculous comic-book action like Rambo II and III

Companion film
First Blood

What to watch instead
if you can't handle the gore but want something stylistically similar, try Black Hawk Down

If you liked this...
you're a wee bit sick in the head (like me) and should watch Saving Private Ryan (you probably already have)

Pros
+ it's short, streamlined and doesn't muck about
+ a stunning amount of violence and gore
+ the action scenes are well directed and exciting
+ a good, satisfying ending
+ Jerry Goldsmith's theme is reused

Cons
- it'll be way too gory for some viewers
- it wants to thrill us with exploitative violence and hammer home a "violence is bad" message as well
- some dialogue is weak

Rating on the R Lee Ermy/Sgt Hartman level of hard-arsed war veterans:

Zodiac (2007)

Directed by David Fincher
Starring Jake Gyllenhaal, Robert Downey Jr, Mark Ruffalo, Anthony Edwards, Chloe Sevigny
Written by James Vanderbilt
Produced by Cean Chaffin, Brad Fischer, Mike Medavoy, Arnold Messer and James Vanderbilt
Music by David Shire


Some people say that Zodiac is director David Fincher’s masterpiece. It quite possibly is, although it’s not like his career is in decline and he hasn’t got a few good years left in him. Plus, this is the man who made Fight Club. Is one better than the other? It’s not like some directors don’t have two or even more masterpieces in them. Kubrick had 2001 and Dr. Strangelove, Kurosawa had Seven Samurai and Rashomon, Spielberg has Jaws and Schindler’s List.


Zodiac tells the story of the serial killer the press came to label as (funnily enough!) the Zodiac Killer who, for a period in the late 60’s and early 70’s, was linked to many murders, only a few of which were proven to be his. He gained notoriety by changing his methods and taunting the police and media with letters written in a cypher code, threatening to kill others (including a busload of school children) if his demands weren’t met. Filmmakers based Scorpio from the classic movie Dirty Harry on the Zodiac killer; interestingly, Fincher directly makes this reference within his film.

The rough draft of the final Harry Potter book was roundly criticized as a massive departure for the series

Zodiac benefits from three great lead performances by Gyllenhaal, Downey Jr and, especially, Mark Ruffalo as the driven inspector David Toschi (apparently Clint Eastwood’s Dirty Harry character is partly based on the detective). You can see the case weighing down on their characters and their private lives, both physically and mentally, as the film goes on. Fincher establishes a great feeling of time and place, using detailed information gleaned from the crimes methodically without sacrificing the film’s tone or pacing. It’s not like those bullshit CSI-style shows which use show-off zooms into bits of evidence and corpses and the detectives do EVERYTHING, from investigations to interviews to forensic analysis to capturing the killer. Zodiac has a strong grounding in reality because it doesn’t flash up the police procedures involved in a case of this nature, and shows just how some cases can get bogged down in minutae and just plain bad luck. These sort of things aren’t necessarily filmic in nature, but somehow Fincher has made Zodiac utterly compelling; it may not be fast-paced, but it’s certainly not slow or dull. I’ve watched 80-minute shit-fests that feel far longer and drawn-out than Zodiac. Though it's occasionally show-offy, Zodiac presents the killings in such a clinical fashion that it makes them feel more chilling than if they were more stylised, especially a particularly brutal stabbing involving a young couple.

"Three letters, down...a domestic animal, known as man's best friend..."

I liken this film to the TV series The Wire – probably my favourite TV show ever, certainly one of the greatest series ever made. Like Zodiac, The Wire takes its time to delve into the methods that law enforcement uses which aren’t always glamorous, but they’re at least halfway truthful. For those who prefer the glamorous detective hijinks of, say, CSI or CSI: New York or CSI: Bethlehem, well, David Fincher wouldn't want you watching his brilliant crime film anyhow, so just go back to dragging your knuckles on the ground and picking nits out of your hair.

Best bit
detectives interview the cagey and unnerving Arthur Leigh Allen


Iconic moment
the intensely creepy driveby in 60's suburbia, shadowed by fireworks


Worst bit
a late scene in a suspect's basement reeks of try-hard suspense


Best line
"Methinks our friend's a tad bit fuckered in the head."


Best performance
Mark Ruffalo's David Toschi; hard-arsed but haunted


MVP
David Fincher, who has crafted an elegant, and eerie, crime thriller


What would have made this better
probably just the removal of the basement sequence with Gyllenhaal, and not much else


What would have made this worse
if they'd tacked on a deliberately happy ending


Companion film
Dirty Harry, obviously


What to watch instead
if you're after a more straightforward, but equally brilliant, serial killer thriller, go for Silence of the Lambs


If you liked this...
you're awesome, and you should watch Fincher's Se7en (and if you've seen it, watch it again)


Pros
+ a superb recreation of 60's/70's America
+ uniformly excellent performances
+ utterly compelling, chilling, enthralling
+ doesn't take any easy (read: cheap) routes
+ treats the audience as intelligent
+ technically astonishing


Cons
- a couple of scenes ring false
- might be too long for some
- some of the murders are deeply unsettling (this might be a Pro if you're sick in the head)


Rating on the Andy Robinson/Scorpio killer scale of completely mental serial killers:

Iron Man 2 (2010)

Directed by Jon Favreau

Starring Robert Downey Jr, Gwyneth Paltrow, Sam Rockwell, Mickey Rourke, Scarlett Johansson, Samuel L Jackson, Don Cheadle

Written by Justin Theroux

Music by John Debney

What the hell happened here? Iron Man was a genuine treat; exciting, compelling, innovative in terms of superhero films, with Robert Downey Jr the highlight as a spoiled, somewhat eccentric, but charismatic billionaire. The sequel is a bloated mess, with not even a fraction of the original's wit or excitement. We have a bunch of new characters, most who are only peripherally involved with the main drive of the film (which is pretty thin anyway, involving a weapons contractor rival, Tony Stark's heart giving out and other shit). The action scenes are distancing, not involving. And even though the CGI is pretty amazing for the most part, you don't end up caring what happens from one dumb fight to the next.

This looks really retarded but thankfully when it's in full-motion it's 4% less retarded

Chief of the film's problems is Marvel Studios' insistence on shoehorning this bullcrap about Nick Fury (Samuel L Jackson) and some organisation called S.H.I.E.L.D. who wants to recruit Tony/Iron Man for some reason, and yet not. Or something. I don't really know, nor care, because it has no impact on the main storyline. It's so they can lead into the forthcoming Avengers movie, making Iron Man 2 more about advertising the Marvel universe than, y'know, making an ACTUAL FUCKING MOVIE for those of us who think S.H.I.E.L.D. stands for Shitty Humans Interrupting Everything Largely Decent. Most of us non-comic readers probably don't give a rat's arse about all this shit. And the references to Thor and Captain America? Again: WE DON'T CARE! All it does is take us out of the moment. It's like watching The Godfather and having Robert De Niro from Goodfellas turn up in the middle of the film saying how there's a bunch of mobsters planning a heist with Joe Pesci, Ray Liotta and a bunch of others and how Marlon Brando and Al Pacino should totally join up with them and then leave it at that.

The story is all over the place. Sam Rockwell is surprisingly ineffective as the main villain. Scarlett Johansson as some S.H.I.E.L.D. agent whose name I forget and don't care about looking up looks hot in tight black pants and kicks people in the head quite well, but again her character is quite superfluous. Mickey Rourke is the only actor in this who surpasses the lame material he is provided; even the usually excellent RDJ fumbles with a character who is supposed to be amending his wild, childish ways but in the next scene flip-flops right back into those annoying characteristics I thought were supposed to be dispensed with in the first Iron Man.

Note to self: fire agent, do sequel to Kiss Kiss Bang Bang instead..."

There's a lot of CGI-stuffed action for those who like boring scenes jerked out of a computer. Where the action scenes in Iron Man felt organic and real, most of the stuff in Iron Man 2 is so over-the-top and so inconsequential to the story (such as RDJ and Don Cheadle's fight) that we, the audience, quickly lose patience. Instead of one or two iron-suited baddies at the end, we get a whole horde of them who are surprisingly easily dispatched. *Yawn*.

Iron Man 2, along with Spider-Man 3 and Transformers 2, has to be the gold standard for the typical Hollywood overblown sequel: too much of everything stuffed into an otherwise simplistic story that fails to engage the audience, too reliant on CGI to smooth over the glaring flaws, with nary an actor able to save it, not only hugely disappointing, but bad enough to besmirch the legacy of the original.

Best bit

Whiplash confronts Stark on the Grand Prix circuit

Iconic moment

none I can think of other than Mickey Rourke thrashing his electric whiplashes about...pretty piss-poor selection, really

Worst bit

so many scenes to choose from, but I'd have to say the pointless, energy-sapping moments with Samuel L Jackson and all the malarky about S.H.I.E.L.D.

Best line

"I've successfully privatized world peace."

Best performance

Mickey Rourke in full-blown Russian bad-guy mode

MVP

cinematographer Matthew Libatique: Iron Man 2 at least LOOKS excellent

What would have made this better

remove all the Nick Fury/S.H.I.E.L.D. crap, cut out a lot of the characters, don't make Tony Stark such an annoying prick

What would have made this worse

ditch the Iron Man storyline and make him a background character to a feature-length film about S.H.I.E.L.D...yet still call it Iron Man 2

Companion film

presumably the companion films to this, as advertised by Marvel frigging Studios, is Thor, Captain America and The Avengers

What to watch instead

Iron Man, and pretend it's a standalone film

If you liked this...

you've fallen into Marvel Studios' trap

Pros

+ the CGI is mostly excellent (when it's not slapping you in the face with hundreds of Iron Man knockoffs)

+ the cinematography is very nice

+ Scarlett Johansson in a tight black outfit

+ good cast

Cons

- good cast, wasted

- overlong

- needless stuff about S.H.I.E.L.D. gets in the way of the main story

- references to other Marvel characters and forthcoming films makes this feel less like a movie and more like a two-hour-plus advertisement you payed for

- too many pointless characters

- unnecessary scenes that contribute NIL to the film

Rating on the Michael Keaton/Batman level of superheroicness: