Arthur(2010)

ReBranded


The remake of Arthur neither trends a brand new path, or sticks to the original’s script verbatim. It’s actually a weird mix of the same story with minor tweeks, but with new dialogue, peppered with the classic lines of the original. Sadly missing is my favorite from the original. Prostitute to Arthur-“My mother died when I was 5, my father raped me when I was 10,” Arthur(drunk as usual), “So you had a relatively good 5 years.” The fact that such a great line is missing kind of sums up the new movie. It’s rudder, as in it has more swearing, yet it is also a lot more scared of offending anyone. You’ve probably heard that in this version Arthur actually does attend an AA meeting, although to Brand’s credit he gets a big laugh out of it by saying, “this is depressing stuff, I need a drink.” Later however the movie caves and we are told that Arthur has dried out. If I’m not exactly selling you on the film, don’t dismay though. The film is very funny, I laughed out loud several times which for me, these days, is a very good sign in a comedy where often I sit stony faced with the odd lip twitch. Brand holds the film together sometimes through sheer willpower, luckily coming across like Dudley Moore’s ruder, younger brother, which is a great compliment, and he also feels like a leading man in this rather than the stunt casting of Sarah Marshall(2008), or secret weapon in Get Him to the Greek(2010). You can tell Brand probably improvised a lot of his lines and while some miss, and some may be more Brand than Arthur, when they hit, they really work. One of the best lines is when Arthur says, “not if I keep them moist,” in response to Jennifer Garner saying her father will cut his balls off. This is a great punchline to an unfunny scene set up way, way before. In the theatre the audience I was with actually paused to remember the set up but then laughed all the harder. If Brand works wonders(and I’m only a recent convert to him myself, I used to not understand his appeal at all, especially the sexual frenzy of women for him), the rest of the cast is ill served by the lines the script gives them. Garner actually shows good comic muscles but doesn’t feel like a real person, Guzman as Bitterman is just the idiot foil in a role that could have really worked very well, as he is basically the audiences eyes, Nolte- the stunt casting here is wasted, and seemed ill or on drugs to me, also he’s unfortunate to be part of the most uncomfortable and unfunny scene in the film with the table saw- although it does lead to that great line later. Surprisingly the biggest disappointment is Mirren, not because of anything she does but again by the script. Strangely enough one of the biggest fumbles is in her reading of Gielgud’s lines such as “if I die, take back my library books,” which are totally mishandled and sadly have nothing new of the same power to replace them. In the place of comedy and sarcasm is sentiment and Hobson does get two speeches, one in the AA meeting where she talks for Arthur about his problems, and one about why she didn’t leave him when she fell in love as a younger woman. These do work well, but give me Gielgud saying “do you need me to wash you dick for you, you little shit,” any day. Also, interestingly, whereas in the original we had a beautiful scene of Moore closing the door to Hobson’s room and locking it, after he had died, here we have Brand finding Mirren in bed and trying to rouse her- it shows us more but gives us less, which to me sums up the new version. So Arthur is not as good as the original, which frankly no one expected it to be, and it feels more like a succession of sketches than an organic film but it is a funny romantic comedy with a very rude and British slant, and for that speaking as an Englishman, we should be very greatful. 8/10

Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers(1988)

You can see why some people love Halloween 4, and going to the Alamo’s sixth year showing, in a room with Owen Edgerton giving a good defense, and a crowd full of fans, it would be easy to be swayed. Halloween 4 also made a lot of money, and brought back Michael Myers again, putting him, like Halloween 1, 2 and H20, in a secure position to survive as a franchise through some less than stellar installments- Halloween 6: The Curse of Michael Myers(1995) anyone? I hated Halloween 4 when I first saw it on video, but a couple of theatrical experiences later, I can see its limited charms, it does try hard to plug any holes from Halloween 2(1981), and continue the story with as few bumps as possible, some shots are very good, the characters are not as annoying or as thinly drawn as they later became, and of course Donald Pleasence is still fantastic value( although for my money, he’s the only thing that actually improved between this and Halloween 5:The Revenge of Michael Myers(1989), where he roughs up a child and beats Michael Myers while screaming at him, with a four by four- the Inspector Dreyfus of the Horror world, Halloween 5 is his Curse of the Pink Panther(1976). Even how 80s it looks, which originally used to irk me, now gives it a period charm. Against this though, sorry Owen, but you must be on crack to think this is better than Carpenter’s original, the kills seem toned down and tame compared to Part 2, the hunters are very annoying, as are nearly all of the characters with the exception of the Jaime and Rachel- making you not really care who gets killed, and Michael himself looks slightly off. Here is the first mask that looks wrong to me- a problem that caused reshoots on Halloween H20(1998). The climax also seems strangely anti-climatic after the great endings of the first two installments(Halloween 3:Season of the Witch(1983) was of course a totally different story), or even later sequels, like H20. In the history of the franchise, Halloween 4 deserves recognition for keeping it, like Michael himself, alive and kicking, but not much else. 6/10

Far from Brain Dead

Dead Alive, Braindead(UK)(1992)

This is the movie that made me fall in love with Peter Jackson. It was love at first sight as I rented the video to tide me over a damp, cold, early Christmas holiday in my deserted student house. I got this and Map of the Human Heart(1993), simply on the strength of good reviews, I hadn’t seen Bad Taste(1987) or Meet the Feebles(1990) yet, so had no idea of the anarchy to expect. Five minutes in, I was smitten, by the end I was ready to search out or go and see any film Jackson had made. Some people are snooty that Braindead is played more for laughs and gore than genuine horror, but even they have to respect the sheer invention on display here. Jackson, armed with a love of slapstick and horror movies, unleashes his imagination on a mock-up 50s New Zealand- Brits in particular will love the references, to The Archers, the Queen and custard- “no pudding,” as Lionel and his mother try to keep up appearances while literally falling apart, and being attacked by zombies. Like Monsters, which I saw the same weekend, both contain love stories at their centers, although while Monsters is awkwardly realistic, Braindead is the usual cheesy Hollywood romance, sweetly innocent when not hacking up bodies. Also, it has a Freudian angle second only to Pink Floyd’s The Wall when it comes to suffocating and literally monstrous mothers. Very quotable, very funny and I would guess still unsurpassed in the amount of body limbs and blood used. 10/10

Who are the real Monsters?

Monsters(2010)

Described by many critics as an artier Cloverfield(2008), or Before Sunrise(1995) with special effects, Monsters gets along way on its premise, and certainly manages a lot of bang for its buck on a small budget, however, ultimately not enough seems to really happen, horror and action junkies may feel short changed while drama fans might baulk at the silly creatures. I personally must admit that this wasn’t the film I was hoping or expecting, but once I had readjusted my expectations, I did enjoy it and was impressed at the very realistic genre mix. Worth supporting and a good alternative date movie. 7/10

Almost an Angel (1990)

…or Crocodile Dundee(1986) without the hat. Terry Dean(Hogan) is hardly a stretch for the actor, being basically him playing himself again- the easy charm, the snappy wisecracks, the cheeky grin. Sadly, whereas after the world conquering Dundee, and it’s first sequel, he really needed a strong concept film to cement his position as a star. The fact that Almost an Angel feels like a briefly sketched idea, probably caused it to flop badly, and Hogan never had another hit movie. Or perhaps audiences only liked him as Mick Dundee. The film skims along very inoffensively, but is held up single handedly by Hogan, lacking any real forward momentum, subplots or characters we care about. Linda Kozlowski funnily enough(and yes, I am being sarcastic) plays the love interest, while a young(and with added hair), Elias Koteas embarrasses himself but at least gets some experience on the way to becoming the great actor he is today. Then we have the totally mad ending, which comes out of nowhere and doesn’t make any sense, but is the most memorable part of the film. 5/10

Zombie(1979)

The confusingly titled Zombi, Zombie, Zombi 2, or Zombie Flesh Eaters, depending when and where you saw it, originally rode on the coattails of Dawn of the Dead’s success, hence the ‘2’ in its title. Directed by Lucio Fulci, who would give us varying quality of movies, but always different and always interesting (compared to Bava or Argento, his fellow countrymen), however successfully they turned out. Zombie is probably viewed as his most popular movie. The reasons for this is possibly in its straightforward telling, for a director who would often throw the audience narrative curveballs, and often be incomprehensible- (even in his better films like The Beyond(1981), here we have a simple story of mad doctor and investigating group trapped on an island populated by increasingly antagonistic zombies. It also has some of the most arresting images of his career- the eye on the splinter, the famed zombie versus shark fight, and enthusiastic performances, from amongst others, genre favorite, Ian McCulloch , who at this time was a dependable, British Tom Atkins in a run of Italian horrors. He could always be relied on to turn up in a Roger Moore like outfit, and hopeful comb over, to try to rationalize the situation or if in doubt, start a punch-up. These points win over the obvious cheapness of the production- most notably in the fiery climax, where the same shot is used again and again. Add to this the annoyingly catchy soundtrack and women willing to strip off when nothing else is going on, and your in horror heaven. 9/10

Kiss This

The Great Rock ‘n’ Roll Swindle (1980)

Julien Temple’s film is basically Malcolm McLaren’s rewrite of The Sex Pistols history, as lessons in business in how he planned everything, by the man himself. Even taking aside the fact that if McLaren is such a genius, how was he never able to repeat this success with his other bands, the film does make an interesting bookend and counterpoint to The Filth and the Fury(2000), Temple’s excellent documentary of the band members versions of events, where unsurprisingly McLaren is portrayed as a clueless buffoon(often in footage used to impress earlier) and opportunist, as amazed as anyone else at the outcry. Indeed, the best pieces of Swindle- the animation, band performance footage, and talking heads are recycled for the later doc. While what is left is hardly illuminating or of historic value, you can’t say a naked McLaren in the bath lecturing(which he does a lot) to an obviously underage naked teenage girl(one of the two images along with an gynecological glimpse of a woman that still shocks now), transforming into a Punk. There’s lots of sex, naked bodies, swearing, fighting and puking, and Ronnie Biggs apparently taking over as lead singer. If none of these at least titillate you, or the car-crash quality of the film give you some anarchy to cheer, then your best off just going straight to the much better Filth. However, if you treat Swindle as performance art- all surface and not much depth, there’s fun to have. Probably it’s greatest crime is the obvious sidelining of Rotten(who had been sacked and only appears in old footage), and the fact that the Pistols are treated as a subversive creation who can’t play or sing, to annoy everyone, instead of the tight, great band they actually were. Swindle is the Pistols seen by their manager, who perversely seems to value their music last. 5/10