Siege-G-I: Pound Shop Flix watches 2011’s IRONCLAD

Alright Party People?

As threatened in my preview post from a couple of weeks ago, I’ve watched Ironclad, a British Historical Action film- with the emphasis firmly placed upon the action. Sorry this entry comes late, I’ve had a lot going on. I actually didn’t think this film was too bad! Not exactly weighty filmmaking, and not competent across the board, but it does what it does well well enough to be enjoyable! (Say that three times as fast!)

To set the scene, let’s discuss the plot. The film is set in 1215, the year after the signing of the Magna Carta. King John, unhappy signee of the charter is attempting to nullify the changes the charter brought about by bullying his way across England and taking ownership of Castles along the way. Standing against him is the protagonist Thomas Marshall (Simon Purefoy), a member of the Knights Templar, Baron William d’Aubigny and the Baron’s band of mercenaries and former soldiers. Oh, and a random criminal they meet. The group take up the defence of Rochester Castle, a sight of strategic importance and King John’s next target. From there, King John lays siege to the Castle, with the help of a Danish Army (not Vikings, as the ‘Viking Age’ ended in the 11th Century, but Viking-like) and the group of motley fighters fend them off desperately, in the hope of the arrival of the French Army, who are coming at the behest of the groups’ ally the Archbishop of Canterbury (Charles Dance).

Let’s start with the good. Ironclad features a lot of action. A lot of fighting, a lot of sieging and a lot of gory warmaking. This is where the film excels. The sword-(and axe)-fighting is visceral, fast paced and nicely choreographed. The group of protagonists fight off the King’s villainous hordes both stylishly and satisfyingly crunchily, giving the characters a heroic bent as they fight off seemingly impossible odds again and again. The quite intense and bloody nature of the action won’t be for everyone, but one suspects that it is exactly what Ironclad’s target audience is looking for. The firing of the Siege Weapons, the explosion and the somewhat improbable pig-splosion (which I will explain later) are all fun to look at, but the close, hand-to-hand combat is the real selling point. The film has a couple of obvious influences in this regard. My copy of the Ironclad DVD proudly proclaims: ‘From the Producers of 300‘, and this is the most obvious influence. The historical setting, the bloody violence, the story of a few fierce warriors fighting at an overwhelming numerical disadvantage. Secondly, I would point to Martial Arts films. Early on in the film, the Templars are referred to as ‘Warrior Monks’, a phrase that brings to mind shaolin monks more than it does English Knights. What’s more, the artistic nature of the combat, and touches like Marshall wielding his longsword almost like a whirling staff at points make it look almost like a Kung Fu film. I’m not qualified to measure the authenticity of the swordplay, but I think to do so would be somewhat missing the point- no-one is mistaking this for a documentary. Regardless, I must confess to enjoying it action sequences; enjoying them enough, in fact, that I by and large enjoyed the whole film, despite it’s pretty glaring flaws.

And it is to those flaws that we now turn! This is a film, essentially, of two distinct types of scene: the fighting bits, and the other bits. Where the fighting bits stand up well, everything else falls flat. The film would have been better off going full genre and ignoring any romantic or emotional subplots. I was going to suggest they feel tacked-on, but that’s not quite true. It feels more like the film HAD complete emotional arcs and scenes to flesh out characters properly until someone in the editing room got a little too excited with the scissors. Flashes of characterisation appear, and lines of dialogue which feel like they COULD have felt profound with a little more context abound. But because we don’t know enough about, and therefore, care enough about, the motivations or inner lives of the characters, they fall flat. A couple of primer examples: reference is made numerous times to Marshall carrying a burden of regret, a weight of sin about his past life as a Templar. It’s intimated he feels bad about having killed so many. But we never get a flashback, never get any specifics about what he regrets- and then he spends the rest of the film killing countless men anyway with no apparent remorse. Then there’s the case of Gil Beckett (whose first name I only know thanks to IMDB), played by Jason Flemyng. Beckett’s character can be summarised in a single word: horny. He is introduced to the story whilst sleeping next to a prostitute, and spends any time he is not fighting having sex with someone. And yet, later on, he comes out with ‘I’ve been angry so long, I don’t even remember (why).’ He doesn’t seem that angry in any other scene! Rude, horned-up and unkind, yes, but he’s no angrier than anyone else!It just feels like they’re throwing characterisation spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks, in the hope that they can distract us with another fight scene asap.

Another, lesser problem is with a couple of moments of CGI. Though broadly the film looks good (if mostly brown and grey), there are a couple of moments in the fight scenes that don’t look terribly convincing. One moment where a man is cut in half vertically looks like it was pulled straight out of Mortal Kombat, and the projectiles from the siege weapons don’t always convince. This is a fairly minor point, however, and forgivable of a movie without a Hollywood budget.

Finally, I want to talk about the historical setting. This isn’t necessarily a pro or con of the movie, and I’ll explain why I feel that way, but it’s worth noting that every single review of Ironclad contains a sentence along the lines of: ‘Excusing the historical inaccuracies…’ or ‘Playing fast and loose with history…’ This is not a film that strives to tell an accurate retelling of the (real) Siege of Rochester Castle. Interestingly, it does take some real things for inspiration. Baron William d’Aubigny was real and Pigs really were used in the Siege (I’ll explain soon, I promise). But for every semi-accuracy, there are two things which directly contradict historical truth. The Templars supported King John, for one thing, and the King WON the Siege of Rochester which (spoilers) he does not here. We see (literally) more of Marshall’s love interest, Lady Isabel (Kate Mara), than she would have shown at the time, and the Baron did not die at the Siege, as he does here. How you feel about this all depends on you. Some people find historical inaccuracies infuriating. Some don’t care! For whatever its worth, I think that history in cinema has a worthwhile place, and that the actual accuracy of a piece only really matters if it’s trying to be educational or ‘important’. If this film had presented itself as slavishly factual or as a worthy lesson from history or something, it would matter. But as this is a throwaway blockbuster with blood and a little sex, it hardly seems important. Hell the film might actually have been BETTER if a dragon showed up or something.

Two minor points remain, which I wish to talk about. The first is Paul Giamatti, who is very good at intense and villainous but not very good at shouting with a convincing English accent. Second is the pigs. In the real Siege of Rochester, King John slaughtered fatty pigs and used their lard in the construction of a tactical mineshaft. In this movie, they blow the pigs up in the mine shaft by burning them alive? So… yeah.

3 stars!: ***

Best Performance: Exploding Pigs

Worst Offence: Exploding Pigs

Elevator Pitch: 300 but with Exploding Pigs.

-Tom

PS!!!: Dear Reader, I must tell you something! I’m getting good news in my life at the moment, been very busy as I intimated at the start of this post. Job interviews are beginning to come in and its looking like I’ll be back at work soon. This is wonderful. Unfortunately, it means I’m going to stop blogging, at least for a while! But don’t worry, the blog has come back once already; I see it as a kind of irregular, reappearing blog, coming back when the time is right. I may never post again, it’s a possibility! But more likely, I think, I’ll be back when the star align. Until then fair reader, thanks for joining me. Think of me when you next watch a film and think:
‘This is a bit crap.’

Preview Post 06/11/2020

Good day readers! Hope you all had a nice Halloween- hamstrung though it was by Coivd 19. Mine was good! Played some Resident Evil 2 and got to try the Avengers game. As you are also no doubt aware, I also watched Aliens as part of my Halloween celebrations- my review of it can be found here.

But now, normal service will be resumed, and its time to watch another film I suspect to be a bit pants. This time, it’s 2011’s Ironclad- A British Historical Action film starring a pretty impressive sounding cast. It features Paul Giamatti, Derek Jacobi and Charles Dance alongside central characters played by James Purefoy and Kate Mara. However, initial investigations seem to be suggesting that this film is brutal action and not much else; lacking in meaningful plot and historical accuracy. Indeed, there appears to be some disconnect between people who enjoy the film’s bloody violence despite (or perhaps because of) the lack of characterisation and narrative weight, and those who are unimpressed by limb-chopping alone. These two groups broadly follow critic/ fan groupings where most critics deride the film, but some avowed fans defend it. However, this is not the whole story! Some critics accept that the film is what it is, and appreciate that it succeeds at its core competency: mindless violence.

Mudclad more like… Somebody get the Persil non-bio.

As for myself, I, of course, reserve judgement until after I’ve seen the film. But for what it’s worth, I don’t think a film HAS to be clever or well plotted to be enjoyable. If the film sets out its own terms and succeeds on them, that can be more than enough. After all, I love Martial Arts films, which are basically just 90 minutes of fighting. But having said that, action alone is usually not enough to carry a film, unless it is perfectly paced. So we shall see!

The other issue critics point to is the lack of historical accuracy in this film. It uses real figures (or at least one in Prince John) and a real event (the siege of Rochester Castle) but plays out in a fashion very different to reality. Despite my being a History graduate, this does not inherently bother me. I don’t believe, as some do, that inaccurate action films are ruining our nations concept of its history. Indeed, even inaccurate films can give people an interest in or flavour of real history. What matters more in a film like this, which no one is going to mistake for a documentary, is whether the historical setting and changes to history result in a compelling and worthwhile film. Only my viewing next week will tell!

Until my post then, enjoy these links to film ephermera!:

Firstly, and presented largely without comment, is the trailer for ‘Killer Sofa’, a film my friends recently watched which, despite not being able to join them, I’m pretty confident is a masterpiece: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBrjlDkN65g

Secondly, this excellent SNL parody which fuses Sesame Street and everyone’s favourite Taxi Driver remake: Joker: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqpak5lFxvs (yes I know this is old now but I’ve only just seen it).

Until next week then!

-Tom

‘Not Bad for a Human’: Pound Shop Flix Watches ‘Aliens’ for Halloween!

Alright spooky people?

As promised, here is a review of 1986’s Aliens, the sequel to Alien! It’s part horror, part war movie and on the whole really rather good. Spoilers ahead!

Before watching this film, as you could likely tell from my preview I was expecting good things. It’s funny, because Alien was both a franchise-spawning Horror movie and an 80s blockbuster, and often the sequels to those things are decidedly hit or miss. Horror classics like Nightmare on Elm Street and Halloween have plenty of dodgy sequels, and anyone whose seen Robocop 3 can tell you it’s not worth bothering with- so when looking at Aliens in its contemporary context, one could easily have imagined it might be a bit of cash-in or botch job. Indeed, future entries in this very franchise are not all critically lauded. But I had heard from both friends and the pop culture grapevine that Aliens was really quite good. Indeed Empire Magazine called it the ‘perfect sequel’. So I was expecting a pretty great film, and I got it!

Before I discuss what I liked about the film, let me give you a (spoiler-filled) run-down of the plot. 57 years after the event of Alien, protagonist Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) is picked up whilst floating in space in her wreck of a ship. She has been in ‘hypersleep’, not aging and effctively in stasis whilst time moved around her. When she recounts the events of the first film to her superiors, she is not believed. Others have been to LV-426 and not encountered the aliens she’s describing. So she takes on labouring work having been disgraced and being 57 years out of touch. Shortly however, the colony that has been established on LV-426 drops out of contact, and Ripley is sent, along with a group of Marines, to investigate what has happened. As you might have guessed, Aliens happened. The Marines encounter the Xenomorphs and are quickly humiliated by them, losing several of their crew and needing to retreat. As the events of the film unfold, the Aliens close in around the survivors and their defences, they go o the run and fight to survive until finally Ripley, a Marine, an Android and a child survivor they found manage to make an escape- but not before fighting off a never-before-seen Xenomorph Queen…

Let’s talk about what I liked about this film. Before I get into specifics, unlike the films I normally write about on this blog, the film is fundamentally well made. It wouldn’t be interesting to talk about how the script, the lighting, the directing and so forth were all decidedly competent, so just take it as read that all the basics here are good. It’s the specifics of what I think works really well which set the film apart. Firstly, the use of sound in this film is brilliant. in my review of Alien, I spoke about how good the audio was and the same is true here. Through sparing use of music, quality sound design and judicious use of silence, the film is made to feel intimate and real, with the quiet noises of equipment, people and creatures all feeling very real and very close. Moreover, when it is called for, the film uses big swells of noise to put across ideas of space and tension and it really works well. Much like the dubstep-style WHOMPS that Hans Zimmer used for Inception, these swells of noise give the film a signature feel and a sense of thematic weight. The film was composed by James Horner.
On top of this distinctiveness, is the way the world of the film is fleshed out. Ideas, motifs and visual details are weaved into the world without ever being thrust at the viewer. We learn about the reputation of company men like Carter Burke (Paul Reiser) through one quick line- ‘I work for the company. But don’t let that fool you- I’m really an OK guy’. We see how the future being portrayed is grounded in a familiar past as we see Ripley’s Reeboks- space age and different, but recognisably a pair of Reebok trainers. Then there are the power-loaders which represent a very believable future version of the fork-lift truck; and there’s something very believable about humans being stuck with manual labour even in the far-future.
As so much of this film, much like the first, is about Ripley though, it wouldn’t be up to much if the central performance/ characterisation wasn’t any good. Fortunately it is! Sigourney Weaver is very good as the compassionate, steely and sensible Ripley. She keeps a cool head and determination even as the people around her fall apart. She’s suffering from some trauma from the first film, but pushes through her fear to do what needs to be done. Don’t forget, Ripley was an anomaly in 1980s blockbusters- a capable female heroine. As such, the character carried an extra burden of having to prove the doubters wrong, but the actress and film make a great success of it. Another potential hurdle is the fact that a child actor plays a prominent part. Children can feel a bit out of place in this sort of film, but Newt (Carrie Henn) is a good mixture of humour and pathos, getting better as the film goes on.
As I referred to earlier, Empire called this a ‘perfect sequel’, and there’s something to that. This films expands on the world of Alien effectively as outline above, but also treads an impressive line between doing something new with the franchise whilst making sure it feels thematically consistent. The first film was a Ghost story with an Alien, the second is more like a Vietnam story with some Aliens. But the themes and story beats of the first film are referenced and kept in tact in this sequel. Ripley’s trauma, the evolutionary perfection of the Xenomorph, Corporate greed outweighing human life, Ripley’s relationship with androids, it’s all there and calls back to the first film. I particularly like the fact that the idea of the Xenomorph being like a ghost or ‘monster’ is continued; everyone scoffs at what Ripley claims to have seen- until they see it for themselves.
Finally, I would be remiss not to point out that this film succeeds partly due to James Cameron. As the director and one of the writers of this film, he had a pretty big hand in it. And while there’s a couple of moments that feel TOO James Cameron-y (which I’ll come to later), the mixture of periods of great tension and sudden outbursts of action and terror work extremely well, and his direction is a big part of that. The blending of War film and Horror film could have fallen flat, but instead provide an interesting twist on both genres, which is impressive in of itself.

So as you can tell, I have a lot of praise for this film and did very much enjoy it. There were a few minor issues I had though, which I’ll outline now:
At the beginning of the film, when the Marines are all cocky and, well, alive, I found them pretty irritating. They are brash, dick-swinging macho types who, if they were alive today, would definitely have a few videos up on Facebook where they smash lager tins against their foreheads in Wetherspoons. This is a criticism tempered, however, by recognition that it’s sort of the point. Classically, in horror films (particularly ‘slasher movies’), characters that die early are made out to be pretty objectionable or ‘bad’ so that the audience doesn’t mind their loss too much- even cheering for the killer/ monster if they’re charismatic enough- and I feel like that’s a device used here. I did not mind losing a couple of those jerks. Additionally, the fact that they’re all so cocky makes their humiliation at the hands of the Xenomorphs all the more effective. Nonetheless, it did grate a little.
The other problems I would group into one larger group of problems that reflect the context of the film’s creation. For one thing, Ripley gets her kit off again. I understand you need to be dressed down for hypersleep, but would a military vessel really put Marines and civilian men and women all next to each other all in their underwear? I doubt it. Just seems like a good excuse to gawp at Weaver in her pants. Another thing, and this is what I referred to as too ‘James Cameron-y’, a film that succeeds so much in subtlety and moments of tension doesn’t benefit from the bombast of lines like: ‘Get away from her YOU BITCH’. I know its a classic line to the franchise and its fans, but it felt forced to me. Lastly, I hope that, if this film was made today, Ripley’s trauma and its affect on her would be explored in more depth. I think it would have added to the film if there was a deeper exploration of her attempting to overcome it to defeat the Alien menace and it would be a good thing for people to get to see a better exploration of mental health issues- Sci-Fi is the perfect vehicle for exploring very real human problems in analogous and fantastical settings.
But these are all pretty small complaints in truth!

The last thing I want to talk about is the ‘Big Themes’ that I wondered in my preview whether I’d spot. Some of those I’ve seen identified are: Motherhood; The Nuclear Family; Evolution; and a Feminist Heroine/ Sexual politics. I think I can see where each of these apparent themes have been identified. The Alien Queen and all her Eggs vs Ripley and her surrogate daughter Newt, as well as the bloody and painful method of the aliens ‘birth’ both this theme. The Nuclear Family makes an appearance through Ripley, Newt and Hicks being the last (human) survivors. Evolution is something I’ve already mentioned, as technologically advanced humans fail to really defeat a perfect hunting organism. And the sexual politics side of things is pretty obvious with Ripley being an arse kicking, trail-blazing woman heroine fighting of legions of decidedly phallic aliens. I must confess I thought, from the way the reviews I read sounded, that the film would have something profound or complex to say about these things, In truth, it doesn’t, they are simply laced throughout the film as ideas that come up- more of a: ‘look at this thing’ situation than a: ‘here’s what I think about this thing’ one. And that’s fine!

To summarise I liked Aliens a lot. I think if I absolutely had to choose I liked Alien slightly better, but would (and will) happily watch either again!

4 stars!: ****

-Tom

Preview Post 22/10/2020

Alright readers?

Fresh off of my Out of Reach viewing, I’m looking forward to the next film I’ll be writing about. You see, I’m sure it hasn’t escaped your notices that it’s Spooktober*, and Halloween is a mere week-and-a-half away. In honour of this, instead of your usual instalment of bad film badness, next week will be a special blog post: a Halloween special focusing on ‘Aliens’!

Long time readers of the blog will remember that, as a reward for sitting through 9 terrible films, the tenth film I watched for the blog was ‘Alien’, which I rather liked. In order to do this, I bought a boxset of the first four Alien films, meaning I already have Aliens good to go. Some people tell me they prefer this film to the first and I gather that it is quite different in tone to the original. Directed by James Cameron the film is a thematic and narrative continuation of the story of the first. But where the first was like a Sci-Fi horror film, akin to a Ghost story, a little research suggests this film is framed more like an action film- specifically a War movie. Indeed, the tagline reads: ‘This time, it’s War’.

So yes, I’m looking forward to seeing how this plays out! There can be little doubt that its a good movie- plenty of reviews both professional and from my friends suggest an all time classic. What will be more interesting to me is whether I like it more or less than the first, and to see whether I spot the weightier themes the experts say are littered throughout. I’m excited to see the return of Sigourney Weaver as Ridley, and to get to know some of the other elements of the Alien canon like the Power-Loaders, the Marines’ Weaponry and the immortal, infinitely parodied lines: ‘Game over Man, game over!’ and ‘Get away from her you BITCH’.

I’ll have the review up by Monday 2nd November. Until then, here’s some amusing content related to the blog:

Firstly I invite you to look at this poster for Steven Seagal/ Van Dam film Sniper: Special Ops. This was shown to me by a friend whilst I was writing about Out of Reach and was too good not to share. The longer you look at it, the sillier it is:

Next, and the last bit of Seagal-content (Seagaltent?) for a while, I promise, is this old SNL sketch which riffs on Action Movies pretty effectively. Also Jay Pharoah’s Denzel Washington impression is very, very funny:

Until next week readers!

-Tom

*Side note- Where did ‘Spooktober’ come from. I’m sure I’d never heard it before this year. Maybe we needed something extra goofy to help us through another month of 2020? Dunno.

‘Pain is your friend’: Pound Shop Flix watches ‘Out of Reach’ (2004)

Alright party people?

I know this is a day later than I said I would post, so apologies for that! But it’s here at last, the first Steven Seagal film of the blog: Out of Reach.

Out of Reach is from 2004 and features the 50+ Seagal as a former undercover agent who has retired to live out in the woods. He is contacted by his former partner and employers (exactly what company or agency he worked for never became clear to me, so I’ll just refer to this employer as ‘The Company’) and asked to perform one last job. When he refuses, they decide to kill him. Their exact reasons for doing so are also unclear; the best explanation we get is: ‘It’s time to put an old dog out of his misery’. Seagal manages to fight his way out of their ambush, stopping on his escape to collect his post. Throughout the introduction to the movie, we see Seagal corresponding with a young Polish girl, an orphan, who he has become pen-pals with, and when he picks up his post he has another letter from her home- suspiciously saying only that Irena ‘will no longer be able to correspond’. He heads to Poland to discover Irena has been taken by a Human Trafficking ring, and, with the help of Polish detective Kasia Lato (Agnieszka Wagner) sets about rescuing Irena and killing his way through the crime ring and his former employers.

As you can probably gather from the above synopsis, this really is the most basic, clichéd action film plot going. The retired agent who gets dragged into one last caper, the plucky female sidekick, the endangered kids flimsily justifying any and all violence by the protagonist. It’s all there. Cliché, of course, doesn’t equate to ‘bad’, necessarily. But it can point to a certain laziness or lack of originality, and indeed Out of Reach is, regrettably, not a good enough film to rise above this by-the-numbers plot.

There are numerous problem s which prevent this film from being particularly enjoyable. On the whole, it lacks polish or and real kind of craft. Not only is the plot extremely standard fare, but the characters are thin, the action uninspired and the dialogue really awful in places. And that’s before we get to the specific Seagal-isms which plague this movie. Let’s talk first about the overall feel and effect of the film. Aside from a couple of nice location shots, this film is visually indistinct from any other action film. Seagal looks the same as he always does, in a suit that’s clearly a little too big for him, the villains are all interchangeable besuited goons with guns and the slow-mo that pops up 3 or 4 times in this film is unimpressive. The film is what you might show an alien if you wanted to show them what a 20th Century action movie looked like, if you wanted to give an impression of a whole genre without anything distracting like characters, wit or excitement. On top of how the film looks, the second half of it feels extremely low stakes. This is because, just like the ‘bad movie diaries’ guys note in their piece on Contract to Kill, Seagal never seems in any real danger. He plays a peculiar kind of tough-guy here who seems so infinitely capable that he doesn’t take one single hit until the last 15 minutes of the film- and yet can barely bring himself to move his arms. Every single walking shot of Seagal’s character in this movie, he’s got his arms hanging by his sides. He doesn’t emote, even when he’s cracking wise. His threats are delivered in the same kind of monotone whisper he uses to order a drink or ask to use the telephone. Seagal barely turned up for this shit, which is consistent with reports that he only spends 3 hours maximum on set per day. The man cannot be bothered. It’s hard to feel any sense of excitement or peril when the main character shrugs off every bad guy with barely a raised eyebrow, and the quick fire editing used to cover up Seagal’s lessening skills mean that no blow really feels like it lands. The broad effect is to make an action film where the action never really feels like it matters.

Next, let’s talk about the dialogue (some offensive language ahead!). It is very poorly written, staggering between two separate issues: 1) Stuff that’s supposed to sound cool just sounds daft; 2) Some of it is borderline nonsensical. Some examples of the first problem:

-Something is referred to as ‘always a constant’. If its a constant, of course its always a constant. That’s what a constant is. It’s like saying: ‘that big tree is large’.

-Seagal claims: ‘Don’t worry, I closed my eyes during the procedure’ after removing a bullet shot just above Kasia’s breasts. THEN HOW THE FUCK DID YOU SEE WHAT YOU WERE DOING.

Some examples of the second:

– ‘Pain is your friend… It will set you free’

-‘You’re playing a whore’s game. And you know what happens to whores? They get fucked!’

It’s just dreadful. Not cheesy enough to be funny and not witty enough to seem cool. It feels almost like one of those bots people design to write fake tweets or passages using someone’s previous writing, except for action films. Poor dialogue seems to be almost a constant of bad films. I’m beginning to think it’s a close to a litmus test of a film’s overall quality as any other!

Finally, the third major thing that gives this film it’s ‘character’ is its essential nature as a Steven Seagal film. He starred in and executive produced this film. Firstly there’s the forgettable title, which follows the Seagal format of containing exactly three words, just like (*deep breath*): Above the Law; Hard to Kill; Marked for Death; Out for Justice; On Deadly Ground; The Glimmer Man; Fire Down Below; Half Past Dead; Into the Sun; Today you Die; Mercenary for Justice; Against the Dark; Driven to Kill; A Dangerous Man; Force of Execution; A Good Man; Sniper: Special Ops; Code of Honor; The Asian Connection; The Perfect Weapon; Contract to Kill; and Beyond the Law. They just could not be more interchangeable. Secondly, as alluded to before the film has to frame the action in these rapid-fire cuts, which most agree is to better mask the fact that Steven Seagal, in his latter years, is not the young martial artist he once was. On top of that, as discussed, he doesn’t seem to want to put any effort in. I LIKE Martial Arts action sequences, but the ones in this and, one has to assume, most of Seagal’s later works, are extremely unexciting. This massaging of Seagal’s ego also likely accounts for why none of the villains seem to pose him any real threat. Given the evidence of this film, Seagal’s character (Williamson, if, for some reason, you care) could take all your faves on without breaking a sweat. Which sounds cool, until you realise how dull it is for the main character of a film to not be presented with any real challenge. Then, there’s Seagal’s weaknesses as an actor. He’s monotone, he doesn’t emote at all and doesn’t seem to have any comedic timing for his (admittedly thankless) one-liners. He might once have been good in a fight, but he’s no thespian. Finally I’d point to the odd tendency in Seagal films for him to be a merciless killer. As EL-P (of Run the Jewels) put it in the article I linked last week, Seagal is ‘always about being a complete fucking asshole’. He might be the protagonist, the good guy, but Seagal kills without remorse, even brags about how much he’s going to enjoy killing IN FRONT OF THE CHILD WHOSE INNOCENCE HE’S SUPPOSED TO BE FIGHTING FOR. Not only is it easy for him, but it feels very natural to just off numerous people (some of whom are already beaten and defenceless) in search of his goal. If he was playing a nasty anti-hero, this would be fine. But in this film we’re supposed to buy him as a kind of reluctant assassin who just wants to retire to his hut and save the children. The films wants to give us a bad man with a good heart, but instead gives us a slightly bored looking killer who happens to be fractionally less evil than the villains.

In truth then, not one I’ll be returning to! It did have a couple of enjoyably odd moments, and if you enjoy the specific flavour of Seagal Souffle, then this serves up exactly what you’d expect- albeit not quite as deep into his late career weirdness as we can expect now! But basically Seagal doesn’t really bother to show up for this movie, and unless you’re a fan, neither should you!

Best performance: Agnieszka Wagner as Kasia Lato who does a better job than the film deserves.

Worst Offence: The dialogue

Elevator Pitch: Taken before Taken and significantly worse.

2 stars!

-Tom

Preview Post 07/10/20

Hello Readers!

I hope you are all as well as can be expected! Here in Britain the Summer is giving way to the Autumn and the temperature is beginning to drop. All the more reason to bring you the fearsome heat of my amateurish criticism of bad, bad films!!

This week, we have a real treat. Pound Shop Flix will be losing its’ Steven Seagal virginity with 2004’s Out of Reach.

Yessir, for those of you who don’t know, Steve Seagal was a late 80s/ early 90s action movie star in the vein of Claude Van Damme or Arnold Schwarzenegger. Although, in truth, he was specifically a trained Martial Artist, more like Chuck Norris or Bruce Lee, and that- rather than any acting talent- was his way into the profession. He was part of the explosion and bullet filled world of action movies that have since helped define the period in popular consciousness. His films weren’t quite as dominant as, say, Predator, or First Blood, but made good money and shot Seagal to stardom nonetheless. This is all interesting enough, and, had it been left there, Seagal would have likely been remembered as an action star briefly at the top levels of Hollywood who moved on with everyone else once that period was over. However, unlike Schwarzenegger and Van Damme, who have developed a self-awareness about their place in cinema, or indeed Sylvester Stallone or Liam Neeson, who appear in action movies about kicking arse DESPITE their age, Seagal still makes movies like the last 20 years never happened. Or, at least, he tries to. His body is no longer up to it. Thanks to his varying lies about his pre-Hollywood life, Seagal’s actual Martial Arts credentials are not entirely clear, though he was at least once proficient enough to teach Akido, and was fit enough to keep up in films like Above The Law or Under Siege. However, he is widely agreed to have not kept fit, and can do longer convince as the violent bruiser he specialises in playing. But no-one seems to have told Seagal this.

For a few years now, Seagal had been churning out straight to DVD films at an astounding rate, all of which follow the same kind of plots and formulas and feature him in essentially the same costume- orange sunglasses, black military fatigues. They are comparatively low budget, and appear to be, essentially, vanity projects where rapid editing is used to make it look like Seagal can still fight legions of baddies and win. He’s creating a unique, post-heyday canon of bad, po-faced action movies that belong to another decade. And somehow keeps making enough money to keep doing it. At this point is can surely only be die-hards and people like me, who watch these films to take this piss out them, who are propping up his career at this point. Although there is always his friendship with Vladimir Putin…

In truth, Out of reach is probably a little too early to be considered part of this latter day orange-sunglasses-wearing Seagal-ist canon. Though it did go straight to DVD and was critically mocked, so it should perhaps given indication of where his career was going. Either way it should be good fodder for this blog!

I’ll have the post up on Out of Reach by Saturday 17th. Look forward to sharing this new disaster with you all! Until then however, here are some suplementray things you might enjoy:

First: A longer summary than mine of the absurd later career of Steven Seagal: https://www.pastemagazine.com/movies/steven-seagal/the-tao-of-steven-seagal/

And second, tangentially related to Seagal: Here’s how Bruce Lee’s famous One Inch Punch worked, mechanically speaking: https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a3093/the-science-of-bruce-lees-one-inch-punch-16814527/

Until next time folks, thanks for reading!

-Tom

‘You Must Learn to Like Men a Little Better’: Pound Shop Flix watches the swordplay and sexism of Red Sonja (1985)

Alright party people?

I sat down last week to watch Red Sonja. This film, as mentioned in the preview post, is about a female warrior whose name the film bears, and who was lifted from the pages of comic books- in turn, based upon characters from Robert E. Howard swords and sorcery tales. This film is widely reviled, with critics mocking it and no real nostalgic audience love for it that I’m aware of! This is, broadly, pretty fair as it is not a good film. However, I don’t think it’s as bad as it’s reputation suggests. It has enjoyable moments! The problem is, these moments are largely sandwiched with boring filler, casual sexism and bad attempts at acting.

To give a brief overview of proceedings (and ergo give away some spoilers- so skip to the next paragraph if you intend to see the film), the story starts with Sonja (Brigitte Nielsen) being gifted powers by a very vaguely defined ‘Goddess’. These powers are given to her for the sake of ‘justice’ and ‘revenge’- for you see her parents and brothers were killed by the wicked Queen Gedren. Then, Sonja’s sister’s order of Warrior Women are attacked by the Queen and her minions, who take an artefact which can destroy the world. And so, Sonja and apparently passing Warrior/ Conan the Barbarian-Lite ‘Kalidor’ (Arnold Schwarzanegger) go on a quest to catch and defeat the Queen. This involves a good deal of travel, fighting baddies, and an attempt at sexual tension.

Let’s start with the good. Red Sonja’s fight scenes, whilst not a patch on modern, visceral, snugly choreographed action films, are enjoyable enough, with big swords clattering against each other, and a genuine sense of threat more often than not. Given that Sonja is supposed to be Goddess-Blessed warrior of supernatural strength and skill, and Kalidor is… well… the size of a small house, it feels right that they smash through waves of villains, though the odds are always stacked against them. It’s hard for me to comment to deeply on the quality of the swordplay, as I’m no expert, but this was very much the period when sword fights in Hollywood meant two people smashing their swords together until one of them decides to hit the other- rather than a believable conflict. That is not unique to this film though, and forgivable enough as the fights are pacey and well shot.

Another strength of the film is the set design and costume design. Though the film doesn’t have many standout characters beyond the central cast, most of the set pieces, and the people in them, are interesting to look at. They world being portrayed (‘The Hyborian Age’, where Conan too resides) does have an more-or-less consistent look and feel, and speaks to a kind of pulpy fantasy popular before the Lord of the RIngs/ Game of Thrones style fantasy became the norm.

Indeed, on the whole then, the films strengths lie in it’s big moments and set pieces- the problem is getting to them. The parts of this film where there is no fighting suffer largely from being under-written. I alluded early to the Goddess who give Sonja her powers being ‘vague’, and this sets the tone for most of the characterisation and world building. Nothing is adequately explained. Nothing is given enough context to feel like it matters. This is a recurring theme on this blog! A lot of bad films seem to think they can just focus on the big moments, and the rest won’t really matter. This is not the case. Between special effects or exciting stunts, romantic kisses or character deaths you have to build up the stakes, you have to make everything feel like it counts. Otherwise that explosion, that kiss, or that death is just a thing that happens on screen- it will have little to no affect on the audience. And that is largely the case here. Sonja’s motivation- her origin story, to use the language of Superhero flicks- is given barely seconds on screen. Her Sister’s death is anticlimactic as they come- she seems to forget about it, largely. This is not helped by the fact that Nielsen, at this early stage in her career (Red Sonja was her first film, and she was cast for her ‘Amazonian’ looks) cannot act. And no-one ever called Arnie a thespian either. It is all a bit stiff and lifeless.

(Content Warning: The rest of this review will contain references to Rape).

Finally, it’s important to overlook the films’ outdated values. I had almost forgotten to write about this because I knew about it before watching the film. I was prepared for it by previous knowledge and by the blurb on the back of the DVD case- it therefore came as no surprise, and not especially interesting. Nonetheless, it is important to discuss. The film features a female action hero, long before that was more commonplace in Hollywood- though it’s still uncommon now. That is worthy of note, regardless of anything else. However, it does not serve this heroine especially well. Sonja had next to no inner life, as a result of the sparse characterisation and Nielsen’s acting inexperience. Were she not the lead, she would seem like a sexy prop. And regrettably, what characterisation she DOES have is couched in the decidedly problematic use of sexual assault as a motivating factor. In the plot summary I mentioned that Queen Gedren killed Sonja’s family. She does this, and also instructs her men to rape Sonja, which they do. We mercifully only see a momentary glimpse of Sonja’s face when this happens. But we didn’t need to see it at all. It didn’t need to happen. Rape scenes are the subject of some controversy for good reason- they should not be undertaken lightly. There are stories worth telling with depth and care where a character survives a sexual assault and does something about it. This is not one of them. It’s a mindless Hollywood fantasy/ action film. The killing of Sonja’s family was enough on its own. Though it was part of Sonja’s origin in the comic books, this film is not a faithful adaptation of those books, so the filmmakers can, and should, have chosen to leave this out. Moreover, Gedren’s violence against Sonja was a result of Sonja rejecting her romantically/ sexually, meaning Gedren is a villainous queer character- another troublesome trope. It’s not that non-straight people can’t be villains, it’s that so often it is used as part of their ‘evil’ or ‘otherness’, including here. Finally, I think it worth pointing out that Kalidor, presumably for the sake of the audiences fragile manhood, saves Red Sonja repeatedly, and, despite her Goddess- given powers, is her equal in strength and skill. On top of that, Sonja and his romance is troubled (until the end of the film, at least) by the notion that Sonja has taken a vow that she can only be ‘had’ by men who have beaten her in combat- seemingly removing her sexual agency. Much of this can be attributed to the date of the films making. Our heroines in today’s action films tend to be served better. But the sexism is baked so much as a part of the film’s structure that it goes beyond the excuse of circumstance- and even of it didn’t, it would still be worth identifying.

So what you have, on the whole, is a film that is enjoyable for bursts, while the rest, including not insignificant sexism, one simply has to sit through. Some effective comic relief is provided by young, usurped child King Tarn (Eddie Reyes Jr.) and his faithful servant Falkon (Paul L. Smith, also known for playing Bluto in 1980’s Popeye). I wouldn’t recommend it to many, but if you have an affection for swords and sorcery fantasy and a good deal of patience, its watchable.

Best Performance: Eddie Reyes Jr. who, though still a child, is a better actor than either of the two leads.

Worst Offence: Rape as a plot convenience.

Elevator Pitch: ‘What if Conan the Barbarian… was a lady. A sexy one…’

2 stars!: **

-Tom

‘Do you need a moment?’ Pound Shop Flix does Cat Run:

Alright Party People?

So this week, it’s time to review ‘Cat Run’. This is a film at odds with itself, never quite sure what it wants to be, and never really succeeding in being anything. It’s titillating, a couple of jokes land, and it occasionally makes a decent stab at being the stylish action thriller it so clearly wants to be. But mostly, its cheesy, tacky and childish! It’s problems can largely be broken down into three points: it’s basic lack of cohesion; it’s characters; and it’s fundamental lack of quality or class. I’ll expand on all of those points after a quick plot summary (there will be spoilers).

Cat Run is a film that (ostensibly) follows the story of ‘Cat’, a sex worker on the run from organised crime after she witnesses the killing of one of her colleagues by the U.S Secretary of Defence at a party held by said mobsters. She is assisted by two young men in their early 20’s (I think) who, improbably, have set up a Detective Agency above a Porno Theatre. They try and stay one step ahead of the mobsters whilst attempting to expose the crime, hounded by hired killers. In the end, with the help of one of these hitmen (or rather, a hitwoman) they are able to expose the Secretary of Defence at a political gathering and in turn stop him from then killing all the witnesses. The lads’ detective agency booms, and one of them gets together with Cat who, along with her baby, is now safe. Oh, and the hitwoman who tortured and maimed people on screen for the better part of her role gets a happy ending too. For some reason.

Upon playing the DVD of Cat Run -which is, by the way, a silly title- I was first greeted by a screen saying ‘THANK YOU’. If you live in the UK, you probably know the one, it’s the one where the voiceover says: ‘Thank you, by buying this DVD you are supporting the Film Industry’ (or something along those lines). Well frankly, film industry, you’re glad I love you, or I’d be pretty annoyed at what you birthed back in 2011. Cat Run is bad. Offensively bad in places. And it all starts with the problem I alluded to in the opening paragraph: it doesn’t know what it wants to be. Imagine, if you will, a Pizza. Delicious aren’t they? Okay this Pizza is a cheap one with minimal toppings and a burnt crust, but it’ll do. Now imagine a Milkshake. Not thick enough really, and a tad too artificial, but once again, it will do. Now imagine the waiter in the restaurant you are sitting in serves you this Pizza and this Milkshake by pouring the Milkshake onto the Pizza, smiling at you and never breaking eye contact. That’s what watching this film is like. Maybe some execs wanted to ram a half-arsed love-story into the director’s budget-Guy-Richie flick. Maybe they felt like teen sex comedies would have been vastly improved with some torture. Who can say? Either way, this film does not know what the fuck it’s doing. It’s presentation is that of the aforementioned budget-Richie flick, with freeze-frames giving you character nicknames and bios, a violent British hitwoman who is, I think, supposed to be charismatic, and plenty of violence. But it’s watered down with the story of these two DEEPLY irritating wannabe detectives, who belong to a different film, a different genre, altogether! Their antics are the sort of horny adolescent slapstick you might find in a knock-off American Pie film, and the love story between the ‘smart’ one (Tony) and Cat is… hard to accept. This basic identity crisis runs through the whole film. There are sections where we forget the boys exist and, by the other side of the same coin, sections where we forget this film is supposed to be about Cat! Moreover, when the two parts do meet, the effect is pretty jarring. In one scene we’re treated to the same penis pump joke Austin Powers did fourteen years earlier -‘it’s not mine!’- and in another a woman quite graphically tortures someone with a drill. None of it gels and the fact that Cat and Tony feel like they belong in different films (not to mention the fact that they are totally mismatched individuals) make the love story feel crowbarred in.

This was… pretty much the only shot I could find where Vega’s breasts weren’t front, centre and barely covered.

Speaking of Cat and Tony, the second problem with this film is the characters. Or lack thereof. Let’s start with Cat. Cat might as well be a pair of talking breasts. Her character is wafer thin, the script giving Pam Vega nothing at all to work with. She is either being victimised, assaulted or using her body to distract a man. Perhaps I brought this on myself when I complained that The Martian War offered no ‘sex and violence’ but this is… not better. The only slithers of decency towards Cat is that she is never judged for being a sex worker, and she is shown to be quite capable at keeping the mobsters at bay, at least for a while. That is until the Sherlock Boners arrive. Cat is then, essentially, a sexy prop.

Of the two young detectives, it is hard to say who is the more annoying. Tony is one of those characters we are expected to believe is Smart. He works out that the mob must be involved by reading about the case in a newspaper! He won’t shut up about The Brothers Karamazov! He has a high IQ!* Problems is, the film tells, but doesn’t show. None of Tony’s behaviour is the behaviour of somebody smart. He ‘deducts’ that Cat is trying to steal his car when they first meet (by bending over to show him her arse while she takes the keys, naturally) but doesn’t… stop her? Until she’s already in the car? He starts a detective business with his goofball friend when neither of them have any training, contacts or experience? If you want us to buy Tony being ‘Smart’ Cat Run, don’t make his decisions so dumb! Also, he comes across as smug and a bit whiny, which is a hard combination to like! Vying for the title of chief irritant is Julian (Alphonso McAuley), Tony’s aforementioned goofy friend. Most of the ‘teeheehee I mentioned sex’ jokes come from him. He also likes to sing at seemingly random intervals! So there’s that. If you like your humour broad, he’s your guy! He shows us all his penis at one point! What a card! Finally, the fourth and arguably best of the main characters is Helen Bingham (Janet McTeer) who’s almost, ALMOST compelling. She’s a prim British lady who works as a hitwoman and says: ‘Do you need a moment’ before she kills someone. It’s her catchphrase. The filmmakers were obviously aiming for a Richie or Tarantino-esque ‘cool’ killer as she is incongruous with everything else, cold when committing violence, and has a sort-of anti-hero arc towards the end- though this seems a little forced. She’s kept from genuine cool-dom though by the lacklustre script and the fact that she goes from remorseless killer to ‘I guess we root for her now?’ at the apparent flick of a switch. The really telling thing is that, when she disappears at the end of the film, Julian says in awe: ‘she was cool’. We get it guys, but if you have to have a character announce it, it probably didn’t work.

((Content Warning: The next paragraph will mention an offensive portrayal of a disabled man and attempted sexual assault.))

Finally, the most broad of the film’s problems: a general lack of quality or class. I don’t know the budget of ‘Cat Run’, but it probably wasn’t very big. That in of itself is okay, and in truth a lot of the jet-setting and location shooting is convincing enough. The production is quit poor in other ways though. Some pretty ropey-looking explosions and car crashes happen, Ave Maria gets used early on and then recycled later in the film for an unrelated occasion (not helped by a character drawing attention to the song) and the Scanners-style head explosion is shocking, but not at all believable. The worst example comes, however, in the attempts to animate D.L Hughley’s character ‘Dexter’. Hughley might be the most famous person in this film, but is used sparingly. That may be for the best, however, as the use of his character is pretty offensive. Dexter is a multiple amputee, with one arm and no legs who interviews for, and subsequently is hired for, the job of the detectives’ receptionist. His disability is, of course, treated as a joke. To prove his physical capabilities during said interview, he leaps onto the table and stands on his stumps which are… unconvincing to say the least. Hughley is not disabled in reality, so CGI is used to animate him and it is very bad. Dexter also has their remaining arm cut off and is kicked across the room in ‘comical’ slow motion. The whole character is a staggering misconception and deeply offensive- given that Dexter plays almost no part in the plot, the film would have been better off without him. You wouldn’t get this (I sincerely hope) in 2020, but the film’s age is no excuse. We knew better than this in 2011. This, along with the film’s humour which was, I can only conclude, written by a teenager and its lurid sexual elements (including attempted rape) speak to a total lack of class. As I’ve mentioned before on this blog, mature themes and content are welcome, as long as the film justifies them. This film doesn’t even come close. Just cheap titillation and sniggering.

All in all then, Cat Run is Very Bad. I wouldn’t recommend watching it ironically or sincerely. I enjoyed exploring what I think didn’t work about it, but writing the last paragraph made me realise how egregious some of it was. I debated not giving it a star rating at all, but I think I’ll slot it in below Red Surf and The Martain War, which puts it firmly in the ‘would not watch again’ category!

1 star!: *

-Tom

*Those tests don’t even really work! https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fundamentally-flawed-and-using-them-alone-to-measure-intelligence-is-a-fallacy-study-8425911.html

BONUS POST: Pound Shop Flix Watches The Wizard of Oz

Alright Party People?

As promised in this week’s preview post, this here is a bonus post created as a result of my watching The Wizard of Oz (TWoO) with a good friend recently. I wanted to share my thoughts with you all on this wonderful, bizarre classic.
I’ve not seen TWoO in a good few years. Perhaps not even since I was legally a child (I’m 27 now fact fans!). But I wanted to go back to it as part of an arrangement where my friend and I show each other films the other has never seen and which we feel like they should have! She had never seen TWoO, and my interest in it had been renewed by Eric Shanower and Skottie Young’s comic-book adaptation of Frank L. Baum’s original Oz stories. Ergo, we watched it together (over distance, Coronavirus being what it is!).
Before I get into the meat of the thing, let me say that I know you probably don’t need me to tell you that TWoO is great. It’s a widely recognised, well regarded classic. Maybe you like it, maybe you don’t! But the point is, the jury has already come to a verdict, and you’ve all heard it, so I’m not going to spend a good deal of this post trying to change your mind or even go to bat for the film. It’s been done! The damn thing’s over 80 years old! What I am going to do, is talk about WHY I like the film, its’ wider cultural context, and a few other relevant points. So I hope you’ll join me as I ride the twister over the rainbow and get a snootful of Kansas-style Olde Hollywoode whimsy and weirdness!

Broadly the story of TWoO is that of Dorothy Gale, a Kansas Farmgirl circa 1930s who, after a bump of the head from the debris of a Twister, is transported to another world, the world of ‘Oz’. Not, as you might think, birthplace of the Minogue sisters and terrible Lager(!)*, but a land of bright colours, strange creatures, Munchkins and witches both good and evil. There, desperate to get home, she embarks on a journey to the Emerald City, where she hopes the titular Wizard will grant her wish and send her back to Kansas. Along the way, she is menaced by The Wicked Witch of the West and meets a scarecrow, a tin man and a Lion- the three of whom join her on her journey in the hope that the Wizard might grant their own wishes. Together they sing, dance, and fend off the Witches’ machinations including, but not limited to, Flying Monkeys.

Indeed it is this group of four: Dorothy, Scarecrow, The Tin Man and the Cowardly Lion who really make up the heart of this film. Dorothy (Judy Garland) travels the yellow-brick road, meeting, and acquiring the company of, Scarecrow first. The Tin Man is added once they meet and have oiled his joints, and the Cowardly Lion joins last. The three Oz natives are played by Ray Bolger, Bert Lahr and Jack Haley. As the four take up so much screen time, and the events of the film by and large happen TO them, it’s important that they are engaging. Thankfully, they very much are. Starting with Garland, it is easy to see why she became a star. Despite being only 16 when filming TWoO, she is extremely capable at helming the film. She makes Dorothy emotive, wide-eyed and innocent, and the audience really feels what Dorothy is feeling through here expressions. As Dorothy, she is also required to be something of an all-rounder, singing solo on ‘Somewhere Over the Rainbow’ and dancing along with the Munchkins down the yellow-brick road. Her voice and energy are delightful, and its Dorothy’s desire to get home which is the axis upon which the film turns. Because we care about that, everything else is easy to go along with- outlandish as it often is! On a more personal note, let me just say that when Garland is playing the sad scenes were Dorothy cries, the pathos is overwhelming. Perhaps its because I’m a adult man and Dorothy a frightened young girl and I feel a certain paternal or protective impulse! Whatever the reason, her feelings of fear and sadness don’t so much tug on my heartstrings as wrench them clean off. It’s enough to make me want to kick the Wicked Witches’s arse myself! It’s a similar experience to seeing that crying cat picture the internet loves. Why must this wicked world hurt its most precious creatures!!! But I digress. The three others are also excellent, with Bolger giving the Scarecrow a slapstick energy, Haley bringing pathos to the Tin Man without heart, and Lahr providing the Cowardly Lion (my personal favourite) with a comedic timing and turn of phrase that is particularly amusing.

I mentioned the quality of Garland’s voice above, and I didn’t just mean singing. Her manner of speaking, and indeed the films’ dialogue take the viewer back to Golden Age Hollywood. That feeling, that aesthetic of a very particular cultural time and place is baked into this films core, and I’d suggest that this film, along with Singing in the Rain and Gone with the Wind is one of the major touchstones which remain relevant and in the pop-cultural consciousness from that era. Considering all that it’s likely that a person’s enjoyment of this film as an adult (once the magic has gone from our world-weary hearts) depends somewhat on your enjoyment of that old Hollywood feel. Do you allow yourself to get swept up in it? Or does it all feel hokey? Do you like the way the dialogue sounds and feels or does it all seem a little staged? These are the kind of things that will, for better or worse, affect your experience with the film. I personally love that kind of atmosphere and, while I wouldn’t want every film I watch to feel like this, I appreciate it specifically for that. Your mileage may vary!

Trigger Warning: Following paragraph contains discussion of addiction, and overdose.

Having said all that about the film’s nostalgic charm, I think it worth mentioning that Golden Age Hollywood was not exactly perfect- and the wonderful whimsy of Oz is no exception. The young Garland’s image was heavily monitored and critiqued by studio execs. She wore a corset for TWoO in order to flatten her figure and make her look more like the 12 year old child she was portraying. On top of this, she was expected to consume only Chicken Soup, Black Coffee and to smoke cigarettes in order to remain slim-looking; something that was made harder still by the fact that she was quite short at 4’11 and half. Though she had taken ‘Pep Pills’ under her mother’s guidance earlier than TWoO, she was encouraged to take them here too, and by the age of 17 was an addict. Garland’s life would be cut short in 1969 at the age of 47 due to an overdose of barbiturates. How much the role of Dorothy and her treatment during TWoO played part in her untimely death is conjecture that I won’t indulge in. But it certainly didn’t help. Furthermore, the film shows other signs of its age, and its production was morally lacking in other ways too. For instance, the ‘Munchkins’ (played by ‘The Singer Midgets’) earned less than half of the money for their work than Toto (the dog) did. The Cowardly Lion also makes reference to ‘Hottentots’, a racial term which is unacceptable today.

So where does that leave us overall? I think that TWoO is a really quite special film, and one I continue to enjoy. The main cast are excellent. Garland is fantastic despite the hurdles put in front of her. The film conjures a nostalgic sweetness which never strays into being saccharine thanks to its wit and playful absurdity. But it should not be divoreced from its context and we have to recognise that the film is a product of a flawed system. It’s old Hollywood in a nutshell- with all the wonder and infamy that brings.

4 stars! ****

Thankyou for reading along. A standard post on ‘Cat Run’ will be out next week, so keep an eye out for that! For now though, thanks for joining me!

-Tom

*Fosters is the worst. Fight me.

Preview Post 01/09/2020

Alright Party People?

So, last week I blogged about The Martian War. It was good to be back and writing again, even if the film was pretty bloody boring. But I didn’t start this blog to watch good films, I started it to watch bad ones. And by god that’s what I’ll do.

So yes, with last week in our wake, it’s time to set up for another movie! The next standard blog post will be about 2011’s Cat Run starring Paz Vega. I bought this whilst searching through CEX for cheap fodder for the blog. It seems to fit the bill- while not an outright mockbuster like The Martian War, it’s a film that’s obviously not got any prestige behind it. Looks like a by-the-numbers sex and violence job- so it should, at very least, be entertaining in ways The Martian War wasn’t.

The post on Cat Run will be up by Saturday 12th of September. Until then, there will be a bonus blog post at some point, detailing my thoughts upon rewatching The Wizard of Oz! Until then though, here’s some discussion and links to keep you busy!

First, I want to give a quick word about the new Christopher Nolan film Tenet. I went to see the film in a cinema last Saturday. The cinema experience was really not all that different to normal, except with some distancing within rows, and the face masks. I knew next to nothing about the film going in, and am glad I didn’t! The trailer seems to be deliberately vague and that’s a good thing. The central concept of this film is WILD. And it being sprung on me as a viewer at the same time as it was on the main character was the right way to experience it, I feel. And it is quite an experience, a sci-fi action film in a similar vein to Nolan’s Inception, except that I think Tenet is even more ambitious than Inception. It’s so convoluted and fast paced it can be hard to keep up, but the ride is extraordinary. If you feel comfortable going to the cinema, then definitely consider making Tenet the film you see.

In more amusing-yet-also-fucking-horrifying news: Trump’s scheming to try and keep himself in power over in the U.S has made the decidedly improbable happen: people are talking about The Postman: https://www.pastemagazine.com/movies/the-postman/kevin-costner/

Finally, having mentioned Inception above, I found this quick article on the faults in the central character quite though provoking (content warning for Gaslighting): https://lwlies.com/articles/inception-gaslighting-marion-cotillard-leonardo-dicaprio/

Thanks for reading gang, see you soon for some more flix!

Tom