I've Just Seen: Diner (1982)

 Director: Barry Levinson

Diner is one of those films about a group of people at a particular time of their lives, where subtle but monumental shifts are occurring. Here five guys are on the cusp of adulthood, though a few seem to have already taken the plunge and are now wondering if they lept too soon. Over the last week of the 50s, the group reconnects and tries to figure out what their futures will look like.

There is a bit of plot in the film, but this is really about the characters and their relationships to one another. The cast is made up of Steve Guttenberg, Tim Daly, the always recognisable Daniel Stern, Mickey Rourke, and unavoidable Kevin Bacon. They have great chemistry with one another as they reminisce about their high school days together at the titular diner. There are a few female characters too, most notably Stern's "Shrevie's" wife Beth, but the focus is mostly on the guys.

Diner is a good blend of comedy and drama, and nicely evokes the late 1950s without overdoing the period aesthetics: perhaps because many people still remembered those days Levinson felt it would have been overkill. This gives the film a timeless quality, that the concerns of these young men play out in each generation. The only difference between theirs and ours (or mine at least) is that the signifiers of  adulthood are nowdays put off longer (I can't imagine being married at 19!).

I've Just Seen: House of Usher (1960)

 Director: Roger Corman

I love a good Gothic horror film, and if it has Vincent Price in it I am bound to like it even more. Based on Poe's novella The Fall of the House of Usher, the story follows Philip Winthrop who comes to the House of Usher to see his fiancee Madeline. He meets her brother Roderick who tries very hard to dissuade Philip from marrying Madeline, arguing that the Usher family is cursed with madness, and that only will it stop with his and Madeline's deaths.

I really enjoyed this film. Vincent Price is a magnetic screen presence, and his Roderick is a wonderfully tortured soul. He belief that he and his sister will go mad is presented as tragic, but he is so determined that it will happen, and cannot accept giving Madeline a chance at happiness, that you wonder if the other Ushers simply drove each other mad.

In terms of pace and gore, this film is dated. A modern audience would get impatient with the time it takes to get crazy, and the blood is tame. However, the motivations underlying Roderick's behaviour are pretty awful, and if the story were remade today I'd imagine more emphasis would be placed on Madeline's character. I enjoyed the film, having a soft spot for cult horror classics.

Corman adapted many Poe stories, and if this anything to go by, I shall enjoy watching them. They are fun, and if a horror film doesn't shock or scare you, it is better that it amuse you than bore you.

I've Just Seen: Charulata (1964)

 Director: Satyajit Ray

Most of the Indian films I have seen are Bollywood-style films: melodramatic, musical, with lots of bright colours and gorgeous costumes. This is almost the opposite to Ray's film Charulata, with its quiet story of unspoken feelings that create painful changes in a small family unit. This is the first of Ray's films I have seen, and if they are all like Charulata, I am going to have another director to add to my list of favourites.

In the late 19th century, Charu lives with her husband Bhupati, who runs a newspaper dealing with politics. The marriage is friendly, but not close, and Charu is bored with little to do around the house. Bhupati's cousin Amal comes to stay, and Bhupati asks him to encourage Charu's interest in writing. Tender feelings start to bloom between Charu and Amal, though neither dares speak it aloud.

This is such a lovely film that deals with a small situation yet shows the devastating effects small breaches of trust can have on relationships. The black-and-white cinematography, along with the at times languid but interested position of the camera reminded me of Ozu's films, and the effect as a whole makes us focus on the faces and movements of our characters. The looks and gestures Charu, Amal and Bhupati give one another speak volumes. All the actors are wonderful, particular Madhabi Mukherjee as Charu, who has one of those faces that the camera loves.

It is always good to be reminded that a country's cinema is not made-up entirely of one kind of film. I do love the Bollywood musicals, but I also love this quieter, more character-driven style of storytelling. Both, when done well, are wonderful.

I've Just Seen: Westworld (1973)

Director: Michael Crichton

Science-fiction and Westerns genre mash-ups often make curious films. Science-fiction is usually focused on the future and technologies interacting with humans; Westerns almost invariably look to the past, and humans in a more primitive mode of survival. Westworld marries the two genres together in a really clever way, exploring these ideas around technology and survival.

The Westworld of the title refers to one of three themed worlds featured at the theme park Delos; the other two are Medievalworld and Romanworld. Each world gives he guests are immersive experience in either the American Old West, Europe in the Middle Ages or Roman Empire life (the last two are the experiences of the elite, naturally). Two guests to Westworld, Peter and his friend John (who is on a repeat visit) enjoy the life of a cowboy in the Old West, even having a duel with a cold-blooded gunslinger, played by a brilliant Yul Brynner. However, malfunctions starts happening, making the androids' "do not kill" function stop working. Guests start getting killed, and Martin finds himself being pursued by Brynner's vengeful Gunslinger.

So much about this movie works really well. The concept for a start is extremely good, and very fertile ground for storytelling: no wonder it has been turned into a TV series several times. The character of the Gunslinger clearly inspired the Terminator, with its relentless pursuit of its intended victim. The film was also rather predictive with its analogy of the systems malfunction to a virus. To modern minds this sounds obvious, but many in the 70s would have found it new, and no doubt frightening.

This is a very clever and thought-provoking film, one I am surprised Hollywood hasn't remade as a film (the TV series likely stopped that from happening). Its ideas are ones we are still grappling with, and it is potentially for horrifying for us as robots become more and more common in everyday life.

I've Just Seen: Natural Born Killers (1994)

 Director: Oliver Stone

American road movies as a genre throw up something interesting films. Natural Born Killers must be one of the most violence and visually frenetic ones out there. It follows Mickey and Mallory Knox as they make their way violently around the American south, becoming famous for their deeds after being profiled on a TV show. They eventually end up in gaol, where their separation leads to an extremely violent climax.

This falls into the "admire but not necessarily enjoy" category of films for me. The story is divided into sections, each with its own distinctive look and feel. In the first, Stone cuts between black-and-white and colour cinematography, making us feel the scene is being observed by more than one audience. In the second section the story of Mickey and Mallory's meeting is portrayed like a sitcom, though the laughs come incongruously, usually reacting to the awful abuse Mallory receives from her father. In the final section in the prison, one scene is split between two groups, and Stone shoots one group on green, while cutting to the other group in colour. We are constantly reminded that everything is a spectacle, that what we are watching is artificial.

The performances are very good across the board. Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis have great chemistry together, and are truly terrifying as they go about their killings. Tom Sizemore is just as horrifying as Detective Jack Scagnetti, who enjoys killing as much as the Knoxs. Robert Downey Jr. is suitably oily as Wayne Gale, the TV reporter, and Tommy Lee Jones, who is great in everything, is on form too.

As I said before I admired this more than I enjoyed it. Its relentless violence is too much for me. The film is meant to be satirical, and pokes at the audience's enjoyment of the extreme action. While Tarantino only had a story credit, and I can see his influence on the film, though it is also clearly an Oliver Stone film. It is good, but I won't watch it again.

I've Just Seen: Barbarella (1968)

 Director: Roger Vadim

The chauvinism and sexism of Vadim's films is hard to stomach at times. I have seen a few of his movies now, and can't say I want to see anymore. Barbarella at least has some camp value, though the troubled production means that the film loses focus and all sense rather early on.

In a very distant future Jane Fonda's Barbarella, who is some sort of interplanetary special agent, is tasked with finding Dr Duran Duran, a scientist whose invention - a positronic ray - could be dangerous for Earth if one of the other planets get hold of it. So Barbarella goes looking for it, crash-landing on a planet supposedly more primitive than Earth (they have sex the "old-fashioned way"). Eventually she meets an angel, goes to Sogo where Dr Duran was last seen, and then ... things happen. Really, there is not point worrying about the plot of the film: the filmmakers started filming before they had even finished the script. This doesn't always spell disaster for a movie (Casablanca is a good example), but here it shows badly.

While the film is not great, it is campy enough to be vaguely enjoyable. The costumes are pretty eye-popping, and clearly inspired Paul Gaultier's costumes in The Fifth Element. The sets are also remarkable, especially Barbarella's spaceship, with its furry, carpeted walls. So 60s! Fonda is very good as Barbarella, and while the script subjects the character to several exploitative scenarios, she does get moments of comedy, and Fonda makes the most of them.

I am glad to have crossed a cult classic off my list, but feel that were I male, I may have got more out of this. As it is, I was impressed with Fonda's dedication to the role, the look of the film as a whole, and even some of the scenes are hilarious, like the demonstration of exaltation-transference pills (how future earthling have sex). But the sexism and cobbled together nature of the story and script are too big to ignore.

I've Just Seen: Monster (2003)

 Director: Patty Jenkins

There are several clever decisions Jenkins made with her film about real-life serial killer Aileen Wuornos. There had already been two documentaries (one that came out the same year) about Wuornos made by Nick Broomfield which laid out the facts of the case and showed footage of Wuornos in court describing her life as a prostitute, as well as several interviews with her in gaol. Jenkins' film takes a more "inspired-by" approach, fictionalising parts of the story, and only focusing on Wuornos' life before she was caught. This allows us to get to know Aileen as a person, and her relationship with her girlfriend, and the circumstances of those murders.

Charlize Theron won heaps of awards for her performance, and deservedly so. Having watched Broomfield's films, I knew what the real Aileen was like, and Theron not only does a perfect impression of her, but also opens up her character as we see her personal life. Along with Sissy Spacek as Loretta Lynn and Natalie Portman as Jackie Kennedy, Theron's performance is one of the best portrayals of a real person I have seen.

Christina Ricci is also great as Selby Wall, a fictional version of Wuornos' real girlfriend Tyria Moore. Ricci's role is less magnetic than Theron's, but she makes Selby an interesting and complex character. She is looking for love, trying to find a place for herself as a lesbian in small town America, and for a time ignores the horrible crimes Aileen commits, even benefiting from them. Their relationship is very complicated but never feels artificially so.

I am glad that a woman directed this film, and wrote it too. While many a male director would have done a fine job, Jenkins treatment of the whole, particular the lesbian relationship at the story's heart, is not sensational. The gaze of the audience isn't directed to say 'Oh, look, two woman in bed together,' but 'Gee, having an non-hetero sexuality is not easy.' Also, it doesn't simply say "Wow, a woman who is a serial killer, that's rare', but instead explores the way Wuornos' gender leads to her killing clients.

The film gets remembered for Theron's performance, and it should, but it should also be remembered for how its story draws out the relationship between Aileen and Selby.

I've Just Seen: House on Haunted Hill (1959)

 Director: William Castle

House on Haunted Hill has everything you would want from a horror B-movie. It is set in a strange, gothic mansion, there are skeletons, ghosts, secrets, hysterical screams, a pool of acid in the basement, and best of all, Vincent Price!

The story's set-up is that Price's Frederick Loren has invited a group of people, all in need of money in some way, to stay the night at the supposedly haunted mansion. If they make it through the night, they will get $10, 000. One of the guests is actually the owner of the building, Watson Pritchard, and he is terrified of staying, saying that ghosts haunt the house. The other guests are a psychiatrist, a pilot, a columnist, one of Loren's employees, and his wife Annabelle (the gathering is ostensibly a party for her. Some party.).Of course things start to go bump in the night, and when Loren's wife is found hanging dead from the rafters, things get really exciting.

This film is hoot! While not scream-inducing by today's horror standards, it does have a rather sinister ending. Overall it is pure camp, something I generally enjoy. Vincent Price is also a great screen presence, particularly with that voice of his. Few people project such an aura of malevolence as he does.

This is a great cult classic that is a huge heap of fun. It is short and sweet in its running time, and it won't leave you feeling bored. Its influence on Tim Burton's films and many episodes of The Simpsons are obvious, and only adds to the enjoyment.

I've Just Seen: The Company of Wolves (1984)

 Director: Neil Jordan

One must go into Jordan's film not expecting a typical Three-Act story structure. Instead, like the fairytales it is retelling, the film has stories within stories all based around the film's theme: beware of charming strangers.

Rosaleen, in modern day Britain, dreams she lives in the forest in a fantastical past. Her sister has recently been killed by wolves, and Rosaleen's grandmother tells her stories about dubious men with monobrows who turn out to be werewolves, including a man who disappeared on his wedding night, only to come back years later to visit his ex-wife. All this leads up to the Little Red Riding Hood story, as Rosaleen one day meets a hunter in the woods (one with a monobrow).

The special effects, particularly the wolf transformations, are on a par with those in An American Werewolf in London. They are gruesome and startling, and really well done. Sarah Patterson is great as Rosaleen; she reminded me of Helena Bonham Carter. Angela Lansbury is, as you would expect, wonderful as Rosaleen's grandmother: and she gets a rather spectacular end too!

The Company of Wolves is a fun and clever curiosity of a film. I do like my fairytales, and also Gothic horror films, and this brought the two together nicely. Its low-budget aesthetic also adds to its charms.

I've Just Seen: Dressed to Kill (1980)

Director: Brian De Palma

One could be rude and say that Dressed to Kill is for people who thought there wasn't enough sex and blood (or shower scenes) in Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho. For Dressed to Kill is very much a retelling of Psycho (thought not a shot-for-shot remake). However, saying that would be wrong, as De Palma's film is really a clever and highly entertaining variation on a theme of the famous film. It is Hitchcockian, but also entirely De Palma's own movie.

As in Psycho, the first part of De Palma's film follows a woman, Kate Miller, as she works through a morally dubious situation she has got herself into. In Dressed to Kill, Kate's dilemma is about having an affair, as her husband is not satisfying her needs. She tries her attractions on her therapist Dr Robert Elliot, but he turns her down, so she ends up going home with a stranger she finds in an art gallery. This part of the story is essentially a red herring for the audience, as we believe we are going to see the results of this affair. And then something unexpected, and seemingly unrelated happens: Kate is brutally attacked by a blonde woman in a black trench coat. Just before she dies a young woman, Liz Blake, sees her dying in the lift, and also spots the assailant. So she is next!

De Palma often receives criticism for his portrayal of woman, specifically the way they are sexualised while being mutilated or murdered. I think that criticism is warranted, but his female characters in Dressed to Kill aren't nearly as poorly drawn as many woman in films are. Kate may border on being a stereotypical 'nymphomaniac,' but she has a friendly and close relationship with her son and is a good mother. Liz is a prostitute but is clever, possessing both intelligence and street-smarts. She doesn't sit back and let herself become the next victim, nor relies on the police (in fact, they use her to find information).

There are lots of great scenes in the film, one being the gallery scene where Kate looks for a suitable lover for the afternoon. The whole scene, done without dialogue, is masterful, everything conveyed with glances and gestures and a good old-fashioned glove drop. De Palma uses some old film techniques, like split screens when characters' remember something; and the bright colours of the film are reminiscent of Hitchcock's Technicolor thrillers.

This was hugely enjoyable, the only real negative being the old-fashioned approach to transgender people. The ending is also a bit of a cliche, but I felt that it played to its classic Hollywood approach to the story. This is how you "remake" a film (if you really have to).

I've Just Seen: It Follows (2014)

 Director: David Robert Mitchell

It Follows is a slow-burn horror story with a very clever conceit: after having sex, a person suddenly starts being followed by ghostly apparitions, which only they can see. After an assignation with her new boyfriend, Jay Height finds herself in this situation, having caught the sexually transmitted hauntings, and must make the decision whether to pass it on and get rid of it, or try to end it with her.

Mitchell has filmed his story in a quiet way, with unobtrusive editing (it doesn't cut every split second), and uses Steadicam shots that revolve around a scene until landing on the characters. It is dispassionate but not uninterested. It ups the creepiness and seriousness of the hauntings, as it takes a while for us, and Jay, to see the person following her; and we become suspicious of anyone walking behind the characters.

While a lot of teenagers in horror films are stupid and/or annoying, Jay, her sister and her group of friends are portrayed as intelligent, and supportive of one another. Mitchell even includes some sexual tension between the group which doesn't necessarily lead anywhere, but feels realistic. The tone of the film is quite sincere, there are few jokes or light moments, but it maintains the oppressive fear throughout.

I was really impressed by the film. It has its own distinct style, and enjoys the ambiguity of its story, not giving the audience complete closure with its ending. It resembles Robert Eggers The Witch, with its slow-burn approach that heightens the horror of its story.

I've Just Seen: American Honey (2016)

 Director: Andrea Arnold

Arnold's film about Star, a young woman who joins a mag crew, is an American road movie that evokes other films in the genre - Malick's Badlands in particular - but also feels like a unique and fresh exploration of the subject.

The story and its running time made me a bit hesitant to watch it. I had never heard of mag crews before the film came out, and wondered how such a story warranted a two-and-three-quarter hours running time. Even the casting of Shia LaBeouf made me worried. But I should have trusted Arnold's talent as a filmmaker. The film is beguiling in its treatment of Star and the whole world of the crew. We get a small taste of her unhappy life, enough to understand why she would fall for the romance and adventure promised by LaBeouf's Jake. We watch as Star works to find her place in the group, though she always seems slightly aloof from everyone else (apart from Jake). Then the romance wears off, and the ugly side of life intrudes again.

Arnold often uses untrained, unknown people as her leading actors, and it works just as brilliantly here as it did in Fish Tank. Sasha Lane carries the whole film as Star - many shots are just close-ups on her face watching and subtly reacting to things  - and she more than holds her own against seasoned actors Shia LaBeouf and Riley Keough (both of whom are wonderful too).

Epic road movies are usually shot in widescreen, but Arnold shot American Honey in Academy Ratio (4:3), and it works beautifully. The focus is on faces and close-up details, like the small insect trapped in the car (rather than the view out of the window behind it). It also increases the space the sky takes up in the shots, particularly behind Star, as though she is floating in some sort of dreamy world. The colours look slightly saturated, with a warm glow diffused over many shots. Again, it is beautiful.

The score is also great at evoking this particular world of travel, with the mag crew often having sing-a-longs in their van. I didn't recognise any of the music, but it works to create the camaraderie of the crew: the singing of the titular song is a particularly lovely scene.

American Honey joins Fish Tank as my favourite Arnold film, and is one of the best road movies you will see. I never lost focus or interest throughout the whole running time, and when I had to pause it to do other things, I as anxious to get back and watch more. Always a sign of a great film.

I've Just Seen: Badlands (1973)

 Director: Terrence Malick

I am rather ambivalent about Malick's films, which slightly baffles me as I don't object to spirituality in films. Even more strangely, I am one of those who found Tree of Life to be a marvellous piece of cinema (dinosaurs and all). But some of his others have left me a bit, eh. Don't get me wrong, his films are absolutely beautiful to look at, and there is a lovely dreaminess to them, but I just don't get swept up in them.

Badlands was Malick's debut, and it is a very impressive one. The road trip film follows teenager Holly and her boyfriend Kit as they move around the Midwest of America, leaving a trail of destruction in their wake. Holly narrates the film, starting off rather enamoured of bad-boy Kit who seems to promise a life of excitement. Throughout their adventures Holly starts to see Kit's behaviour in a new light as the romance wears thin.

Sissy Spacek and Martin Sheen are fantastic as Holly and Kit. Their growing attraction and eventual separation feels natural. This is a particularly poignant scene where Sheen's Kit tries to reignite their romance by dancing in the car's headlights to 'A Blossom Fell.' Holly's dissatisfaction is clearly written on her face, hidden from Kit as he gently sways her from side to side. The music in the film is also great, from the music the two listen to, to the Carl Orff score. The cinematography, as you would expect, is gorgeous, from the sweeping expanses of the Montana badlands, to the romantic lights peeping out of the night sky.

Writing this review has made me appreciate the film a lot more. Malick gets great performances from his two leads, and his story is anti-romantic in a way; Holly's projection of James Dean onto Kit is punctured by the reality of actually living with a bad-boy. The violence and killings are a shock but they don't break the tone of the film, as though it, like Holly, is unable to fully comprehend what anger resides in Kit. I can see echoes of Badlands in Andrea Arnold's American Honey which simiarly takes a dreamy, poetic approach to teenage disaffection.

I've Just Seen: Funny Games (1997)

 Director: Michael Haneke

Most horror films deal with some sort of supernatural idea, be it monsters or spirits. Or if it is a human character, they are painted as monster-like themselves, and we usually get some kind of explanation for their behaviour. What makes Funny Games one of the most terrifying films I have seen is that the "evil" of the film is unexplained, and it is dealt by two young men who seem, on the surface, pleasant and even helpful.

Haneke's film falls into the category of admirable but not enjoyable. It is hard not to admire it. Haneke uses extremely lengthy shots to allow the story to unfold in a slow-burn way that ratchets up the tension. Two in particular really standout: the first is the one where the mother Anna is trying to give Peter some eggs, which he breaks, then ruins her phone, then drops some more eggs. What starts out as slightly comic becomes threatening, and you start thinking "Get him out of the house." The second one comes right after a horrifying death, and holds on Anna as she, and we, try to overcome our shock at what has happened.

The story is a clever one, defying our expectations, and even breaking film rules as a scene is re-wound to change its outcome. The central question of "why" regarding all the violence and horrible games is never answered, leaving us with little closure. All this is incredibly admirable, but is also used to deliberately make the film really unlikeable.

Like with Requiem For a Dream, I won't be watching this again anytime soon. I don't think I can take the tension all over again, especially knowing what is to come. Haneke's films are never easy or comfortable, but you will never forget them.

I've Just Seen: Boom! (1968)

 Director: Joseph Losey

The things one does for love! I love Elizabeth Taylor and am trying to watch all of her films. Not all of them are available in Australia, but one of those that is is Boom!, which is about ...

Honestly, I don't know. This film is so bad, and part of that badness is the terrible handling of the story. Taylor plays a dying "old' woman who is meant to be seduced by a "youthful" fortune hunter, played by Richard Burton, infamous for being around wealthy old women when they die. For some reason it all happens in a modern house perched precariously on a cliff on the Mediterranean. Stuff happens, often with Taylor wearing rather elaborate costumes (the best part of the film: they do look great on Taylor).

This film has apparently got camp value, and Taylor's performance is rather over the top: Burton doesn't seem to be even trying. None of it makes sense, and I was rendered bored by the whole thing. Burton and Taylor could be dynamite on screen, but here the chemistry is missing: they look like they weren't speaking to each off screen for the whole shoot.

Really, you don't need to see this, unless you share similar taste in films to John Waters, who loves this.

I've Just Seen: Re-Animator (1985)

 Director: Stuart Gordon

I love it when a horror film goes utterly crazy. It is both horrifying and hilarious, leaving you almost breathless with glee. Re-Animator, with its short running time, goes brilliantly mental very quickly (I'd say somewhere around the re-animated cat), and just when you think it can't get more ridiculous, it does.

Jeffrey Combs is perfect as the 'mad scientist' Herbert West, whose invention - a reagent that reanimates people - has horrible side-effects on the reanimated corpse. He is obsessively focused on his invention and can't help using it, even when doing is a really bad idea (like reanimating he man trying to take credit for his invention). Combs' West's bluntness and inability to suffer those he sees as foolish make him appear almost the most sane, or at least calm, character in the film.

The story follows West as he tries to fine tune his invention in America. He takes up with a follow medical student, Dan Cain (owner of the cat), and somehow Dan's girlfriend Megan's father ends up as one of the corpses. Into the mix is West's nemesis Dr Hill, who also has a thing for Megan. The film's ridiculous plot adds another layer of humour.

The other great element of Re-Animator is its opening titles sequence and theme, which is iconic enough to be parodied in The Simpsons. It is reminiscent of Psycho, and points to the coming madness and chaos of the story.

Re-Animator has everything one wants in an 80s cult horror film: humour, gore, an iconic central performance, a brilliant theme, and a nice chilling ending to round it all off. Great fun!

I've Just Seen: Cries and Whispers (Viskningar och rop) (1972)

 Director: Ingmar Bergman

Cries and Whispers, like Persona, looks at the complexities of female relationships. In this film the relationships are familial, between three sisters and a maid. Unlike Persona, where the two women seemed to be blurring into one another, two of the sisters in Cries and Whispers, Maria and Karin, struggle to overcome their own lives in order to support the dying Agnes. Only Anna, the maid, responds with complete love and devotion to Agnes in her pain.

The film doesn't follow a linear storyline, instead flashing back in time to memories of Agnes' childhood, Maria's infidelity, Karin's horrific episode of self-mutilation (which made me queasy), and Anna's reflection on her dead child. There is also a scene, which could be a dream or a real shared experience for the women, where Agnes comes back to life and begs her sisters to comfort her. This engimatic approach makes this a film one experiences and then pieces together afterwards.

The cinematography is utterly beautiful, with its etheral white costumes contrasted with the plush red furniture and decoration in the house. It keeps us entralled in this emotionally complex situation, as the sisters and Anna grapple with their own fears around death, their bodies, and questions of happiness and faith.

Like almost all of Bergman's films, I want to watch this again to see what a second viewing reveals about the characters. The film's overall tone is one of deep introspection that reveals many painful truths for the women (and the audience), yet the ending is one of quiet hope and joy for sisterly togetherness. As devastating as it is beautiful.

I've Just Seen: Coma (1978)

 Director: Michael Crichton

Coma is not strictly a horror film, but its subject matter - patients being left braindead after routine operations - plays on common fears about medical procedures, and questions our complete reliance on doctors to always do the right thing. Genevieve Bujold's Dr Susan Wheeler starts investigating these supposedly random events and uncovers something sinister.

This is the third film starring Bujold I have watched, and she is a good here as she was in Anne of the Thousand Days and Dead Ringers. She radiants intelligence, and her doggedness in pursuing these irregularities is not painted as a caring, female quality, but a rigorous desire for the truth. The studio apparently had thought about casting a male in the lead (Paul Newman), but part of the tension of the story comes from Susan's gender. The senior male staff ignore her findings, and even her partner, fellow doctor Mark Bellows (Michael Douglas) complains about her working too hard, and wants a more traditional relationship.

This is a neat little thriller film that engages with medical ethics in a clever way. While it gets a little melodramatic in the final third, Genevieve Bujold is also a joy to watch.

I've Just Seen: mother! (2017)

 Director: Darren Aronofsky

Every review you read about mother! is going to say 'This film will divide audiences' or 'This film is not for everyone.' And it is true. Aronofsky has created something that hard to explain and makes no apologies for its allusions and themes. You will come out of the film feeling something, be it stunned, angry or confused (or all three).

I don't want to say much about the film, as it is one that benefits going in as cold as possible. Mother (Jennifer Lawrence) lives with her poet husband Him (Javier Bardem) in a house in the country. She is fixing it up while he tries to write. One day Man (Ed Harris) arrives and stays, much to Mother's chagrin. Then his wife (Michelle Pfieffer) turns up, and things start to get weirder and weirder.

There is a clear allegory in the film, though I only pieced parts together hours after seeing it. You could read it through a feminist lens, with an environmental view, or even with a Biblical eye. Lawrence is wonderful as Mother. The whole film rests on her performance, and a good portion of it is close-ups of her face as she reacts to the chaos ensuing around her. She keeps us anchored as the film's dream logic takes us to extremes.

I really liked this, but know others won't. As I was leaving the cinema, the woman in front of me was telling the usher it was a 'shocker' (Australian for "shockingly terrible"). Like with many films I have seen, I don't know anyone in my immediate acquaintance I'd recommend this to, but am looking forward to seeing it again and noticing new things about it.

I've Joined Letterboxd!

Here is my profile.

If you are on it too, please follow me, and I'll more than likely follow you (in some sort of weird circle!). If you are not on Letterboxd, you can look at what I have (and have not) seen, and what I think about it; and judge me for my poor and/or good taste!

I've Just Seen: Black Christmas (1974)

Director: Bob Clark

Black Christmas has one of the best ending for a horror film I have seen. Without giving too much away, it leaves the viewer with a deep sense of unease, wondering what on earth is going to happen next, and slightly shocked that the film managed to trick us into imagining a different ending.

The film is set in a Canadian sorority house just before everyone leaves for Christmas. The sorority has been receiving creepy phone calls from a rather disturbed male caller; we assume it is from the same person we saw climb into the house in the film's opening scene. Our main character is Jess, who is dealing with a grumpy boyfriend, and her unwanted pregnancy to said boyfriend. Margot Kidder is a fellower sorority sister, and the whole group are overseen by housemother Mrs Mac (who is more loose than some of the girls, with her stores of booze hidden around the house). After one of the girls, Clare, disappears, a search starts around the university, until other girls start to disappear: and the phone calls get more and more violent.

The start of the film is a little slow, but it gets more and more tense as it goes on, leading to its brilliant ending. The editing in the slasher scenes is nicely jarring, emoting violent rather than showing it. The first-person camera work used for the killer is effective in its creepiness, as the man sneeks around the house, glimpsing future victims as they wander around. The film's famous image of the girl suffocated in a rocking chair occurs early on, and is used throughout the film to show how close, yet how far the women and police are to solving this case.

I really liked this. It is just as much a psychological horror story as a slasher film, doing what Hitchcock describes as suspense: the killer is the "bomb" in the story, and we wait anxiously, hoping someone discovers him before he "goes off" (kills) again (and so we can find out who it is).

I've Just Seen: Girl Shy (1924); The Freshman (1925); The Kid Brother (1927)

Director: Fred C. Newmeyer, Sam Taylor (for the first two films); Ted Wilde, J. A. Howe, Harold Lloyd, Lewis Milestone

My local library recently added a free film streaming service to its online resources. Because it is meant to be an educational resource, the service has a great deal of early cinema classics, as well as foreign language films. This, naturally, suits me perfectly. A large number of Harold Lloyd films are included, and seeing as he appears briefly in the 1001+ list, I thought I'd check them out.

I can see why Lloyd was such a star; he is incredibly likeable. While he started his career imitating Chaplin's tramp character, Lloyd went on to develop his own persona. Where Chaplin is Dickenesque in his exploration of poverty through his tramp, and Keaton is stony-faced as he deals with the chaos going-on around him, Lloyd's Harold plays with ideas of masculinity. In Girl Shy he is just that, playing a tailor unable to speak to women without a considerable stutter; The Freshman follows Harold's attempts to be popular at college, using quirks he has copied from a film; and in The Kid Brother he is referred to as the boy of the family, and his often compared to his burly brothers and father. He even does the domestic work in the house. This underdog status, along with his sweet, shy smile, make him a rather adorable romantic lead.

Like Keaton, Lloyd was renowned for his athleticism. He scales the branches of an immensely tall tree just to keep his beloved in sight; he gets constantly tackled by football players; and in Girl Shy performs one of the most impressive chase scenes in film history. These three films cast him alongside Jobyna Ralston: they were in six films altogether. They have great chemistry, and Ralston sometimes gets to be part of the joke, not just the object of desire.

Only one of these films is included on the 1001+ list - The Kid Brother - the only entry from Lloyd's filmography. This is a shame, because any one of these, along with Safety Last! could be included; they are all funny, clever and impressive, showing the joys of silent comedy as brilliantly as Chaplin and Keaton do too.

I've Just Seen: Tucker & Dale vs. Evil (2010)

 Director: Eli Craig

Well, its three from three for SJHoneywell's horror recommendations. A mixture of parody and homage, as well as a subverting of the stereotypes of horror films, how could I not enjoy Tucker & Dale vs. Evil!

Like The Cabin in the Woods, Craig's film plays on the horror staple of a group of college students going on a trip into the woods, and a rather eerie cabin with references to previous owner's violence. However, the owners of the cabin are Tucker and Dale, two hillbillies with pure intentions for their weekend getaway: fishing and clear-up of the cabin. The college students take against them after an awkward (and hilarious) encounter at the local petrol station, and it gets even worse when one of them, Allison, ends up unconscious in Tucker and Dale's cabin.

The deaths in this film are both gruesome and hilarious, all of them accidents that incriminate Tucker and Dale. The woodchipper scene was a highlight, its slapstick a more violent type of Buster Keaton sketch. The relationship that develops between Dale and Allison is sweetly handled, and nicely draws out more of their characters than one usually gets in a horror film.

This really works if you love horror, and have seen enough horror-in-the woods American horror films to get all the references. I also like that its skewers stereotypes about its characters: that the attractive, 'educated' characters may actually be the "evil" ones, not the supposedly creepy country folk.

I've Just Seen: Dunkirk (2017)

 Director: Christopher Nolan

Dunkirk, as an event, seems to occupy a similar space in British history that Gallipoli does in Australia. It is used as an example of national character, where the country's defining characteristics were displayed not through victory in battle, but in its determination to keep on going, despite the odds. This is certainly the approach Nolan takes in his film.

While I have liked Nolan's films in the past, and cannot say anything against the look of his films, I haven't been entirely convinced by his storytelling. I feel that sometimes he relies too heavily on exposition to propel his twisty plots. While the dialogue in Dunkirk is not earth-shatteringly great, and is arguably the weakest part of the film, Nolan doesn't lean on it. Instead, the actors are often left to simply act with their faces, letting us see or wonder at their feelings. The story is really well-structured, as we jump between three different stories - land, sea, and air, over one week, one day and one hour respectively. The three gradually converge as the move to get over the Channel becomes more desperate.

The film looks wonderful largely due to Nolan's use of film stock. The blue of the water almost pops out of the screen in some scenes, and the lack of digital manipulation makes the air battles in particular look and feel real. The sound design and the music are what really brings the whole thing together. The roar of the Spitfires' engines vibrates in your body (with the help of the cinema's sound system), as does Hans Zimmer's score, with its clock-ticking motif and very emotive use of Elgar's Nimrod, a beautiful, stirring piece of music.

I am really glad I went and saw this on the big screen, and wish there was an IMAX cinema near me. While the film would be impressive on a TV screen, you wouldn't get that immersive quality that the big screen gives you. The loudness of the sound was a good thing, particular as the people sitting next to me saw fit to read out the words on the screen, and talk throughout (argh!); it was so loud that I mostly couldn't hear them.

I've Just Seen: In the Realm of the Senses (Ai no corrida) (1976)

 Director: Nagisa Oshima

I am no prude when it comes to nudity and sex in films: one of my favourite films is a French adaptation of D. H. Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover, which has full frontal, equal opportunity nudity, and several long sex scenes. It also has a plot with character development in between the love scenes; something that cannot be said for Oshima's film. Oh, there is a story: a woman working as a maid in a hotel begins an intense affair with her boss Ishida. The woman, Sada Abe (is it a coincidence that her name implies sadism?) used to be a prostitute, and does resume her former trade, but just can't keep away from Ishida.

If you were to play a drinking game, imbibing each time the two have sex, you would be sloshed within the first 15 minutes. Really, very little happens onscreen other than the two having sex and/or talking. And it gets boring rather quickly. Even when those two aren't having sex together, when we see them they are usually having sex with someone else, sometimes encouraged to do so by the other. Some of the activities they engage in, while not as revolting as those seen in Salo, are still unpleasant: eggs being inserted into unorthodox places, forcing others to watch them, forcing others to sleep with them, and finally a member being cut off.

Of course, what makes this all the more confronting is that much of the sex is non-simulated (well, I can't speak for Eiko Matsuda ecstasy, which may be Sally Albright levels of acting). To be honest, I had forgotten this fact as I started watching, and even found myself naively wondering how they did certain things (answer: they just did them).

The plotline of the story appears to be "I love you, and that is why I have to kill you," as the film culminates with a rather violent act, one of the few unsimulated parts of the film. While I didn't care for what I was seeing on screen, it does have some top quality cinematography (something I also said about Salo), so it does have a veneer of sexiness; it just loses it very quickly through repetition.

I am glad I have ticked this off the list, and will hopefully never need watch it again. While sex scenes are fine in films, character development and a good story is what makes them interesting and even sexy. Not continuous money shots.

I've Just Seen: Bullitt (1968)

 Director: Peter Yates

Bullitt feels likes a precursor to 70s films like The French Connection and Serpico, with its bleak approach to police work. Frank Bullitt, a policeman who is popular with the public and the media in San Francisco, is choosen to protect a Chicago defector. The man, Ross, gets killed, and Bullitt finds himself pursuing a major case of subterfuge. The plot allows for several exciting chases, including one of the most famous car chases in film history.

Steve McQueen really was one of the coolest guys to move across a screen. He was never a demonstrative actor, and here his understatement works well. You can feel the frustration building in Bullitt through the smallest flickers across his face. The other great character in this film is San Francisco, particularly during the famous car chase scene (despite it ending outside the city). Those famous hills and streets add a different feel to the chase, breaking the long scene into two parts (the second on a highway).

The editing in this film puts many modern chases to shame. It lingers a little longer with its shots, letting the audience feel motion of the cars dipping up and down the hills, and it helps elongate the tension of the whole scene over 11 minutes.

While this film does point to the bleakness of the 70s, its jazzy, snazzy soundtrack is pure 60s, and it is another element that makes this film so enjoyable. Really, look it up and listen to it; you'll imagine yourself walking around San Fran in the 1960s, or gliding around in your car, with a stylish coat on, and a hard stare searching out trouble.

I've Just Seen: Wake in Fright (1971)

 Director: Ted Kotcheff

So many Australian films set in the outback have an aura of horror around them. There is no supernatural creature in Wake in Fright, with the horror instead comes from the aggressive friendship of the characters of Bundanyabba, who welcome city-raised teacher John Grant into their world of drinking, gambling, roo-hunting and fighting. Grant, well-educated with a suitcase full of books, waiting for a flight to Sydney to see his girlfriend, finds his whole person being completely pulled apart by this oppressive masculine world.


The view of Australia is from an outsider's perspective; we are looking at this culture through the eyes of John Grant, played by English actor Gary Bond, and the director is Canadian. The scenes in the RSL feel almost like a study of a foreign culture, from the bar etiquette to the sudden silence during the Ode. As someone who has grown up in this culture (or parts of it, I don't live in the outback) this makes for interesting viewing. When the film came out in the 70s many Australians found the film hard to stomach: it doesn't paint us in a great light!

There are many memorable scenes in the film, from the aforementioned RSL, to the two-up game, and the rather harrowing kangaroo hunt that takes place over a whole day and night. Throughout all the scenes there is an underlying menace from the locals, particularly from policeman Jock Crawford, and Doc, played by Donald Pleasance, who has a tendency to stare at one too long, and stand too close as he speaks to you. The nightmarish quality to John's experience also comes out in his inability to escape the town: he loses all his money in two-up, so no plane journery, and even a hitch-hiking attempt takes him back to the Yabba.

While not displaying Australia at its best, this is one of the great films about the Australian outback, and how alienating life can be living in the middle of nowhere. It is a horror film about the nasty side of mateship, turning the ideals of the Anzac spirit on its head, and asks Australians to think about just how friendly we really are.

I've Just Seen: Slither (2006)

 Director: James Gunn

I watched this on the recommendation of fellow blogger SJHoneywell; we share a similar taste in horror films, a trend which continues with Slither. Comedy-horror can be difficult to pull off, but Slither is both hilarious and horrifying, and often at the same time. It also cleverly references other horror films, but without being derivative or lazy.

We are introduced to the town of Wheelsy, a typical mid-America small town which is visited by an Invasion of the Body Snatchers' style parasite which infects local car dealer Grant Grant (played by the brilliant Michael Rooker, reminding me of his role as serial killer Henry). Soon the alien life is changing Grant, making him hungry for meat and growing long tentacles. His younger wife Starla is suspicious and enlists the help of policeman Bill (who has a crush on Starla). The plot follows the usual trajectory for these type of films, but has fun playing with the audience along the way.

As I said, this gets the balance between funny and frightening pretty much perfect. The comedy comes through the interactions of the characters and their bemusement at what is going on. The horror is genuinely gross at times. The scene where Brenda, used by alien-infected Bill as his human womb, bursts open, releasing millions of these parasites into Wheelsy. The bath scene, made iconic from its inclusion on the poster, is also memorable, and cleverly moves the plot along as well. Grant's final transformation, as the primary organisism that the infected seek to absorb themselves into (with orgasmic joy) makes you laugh out of revulsion as well as humour.

I don't know why this film was poorly received by audiences in 2006, despite critical approval. Watching it now, the special effects haven't aged that badly, the writing is sharp, and many of the stars have gone on to become even more famous in recent years. Unless you hate gooey, slimy, even silly horror, there is so much to enjoy here.

I've Just Seen: The Last Battle (Le Dernier Combat) (1983)

Director: Luc Besson

Besson's debut film is not strictly a silent film; it has a lot of sound and noise on its soundtrack, from whistling wind, to pelting rain, and clanging gates. But there is not dialogue, apart from one word -  'bonjour' - and the post-apocalyptic setting implies some sort of event has happened rendering humans speechless; the characters work very hard to say this one word. The black-and-white cinematography gives this science-fiction story a timeless quality: it is set in the future, but also harks back to early cinema.

The story follows 'The Man' around this desolate world of urban ruin and environmental bleakness. The first we see of him is having sex with a blow-up doll in a dilapidated apartment, the first of many striking images in this film. He leaves this place after some unknown men pursue him, flying in a handmade aircraft. The Man eventually meets with 'The Doctor,' a man living a another town, who has a secret that another man, 'The Brute' (played by Besson regular Jean Reno), is trying to get at. The Doctor fixes The Man after he crashes, and eventually reveals his secret to him. In the final third of the film The Man and The Brute battle over this secret.

As I said, this film has several interesting images in it. The most startling is the scene of fish falling along with rain on the town, and The Man gleefully gathering them up in a giant pile. Later pieces of rock fall like rain on The Man and The Doctor. The Man's first "home" is an old office block and he sits at a desk, still with some paraphernalia on it, but instead of carpet there is sand on the ground. We never learn what has happened, yet we know that it is something cataclysmic.

I was really impressed by this film, particularly knowing it was a debut feature. Besson has become well known for weird, brightly coloured and fast-paced science-fiction, so watching where he started off is very interesting. We are given few answers as to why the world has been all but destroyed, and instead experience the brutal level of survival the characters are living.

I've Just Seen: Z (1969)

 Director: Costa-Gavras

Use the word 'political' to describe a film these days, and most people are likely to turn off. This was not always the case, as many 60s films can attest. Z is a political thriller (not an oxymoron!) in the same vein as The Battle of Algiers, following the political fate of a country suffering under oppressive government rule. A leader of the peaceful leftist party is killed in drive-by accident, a set-up by the right-wing government, and a magistrate and journalist work to undercover the cover-up.

This doesn't sound thrilling on paper, but Costa-Gavras' film is both passionate in its politics, and very entertaining. Like Pontecorvo's film, Z doesn't have a specific protagonist but instead follows the fate of the unnamed nation as a whole. We know the truth from the start - that the government was deeply involved in the murder, making it an assassination -  and are whipped up into energetic frustration at the prospect of the government getting away with it (why does this sound so relevant?).

The screenplay is superb, as it introduces us to this politically charged world, and to the people who live in it, from the corrupt elite government officials, the weary opposition, the law and media trying to discover the truth, to the citizens with their diverse opinions and loyalties.

As you can tell, I really enjoyed this. It never talks down to its audience, trusting them to keep up with the story and the large cast of characters. The only reason you may not enjoy this film is if your politics is different to Costa-Gavras'; there is little doubt about his allegiances, though considering the recent history of Europe when the film was made (25 years since the end of WWII), it is not surprising.

Another Year Older ...

The 18th of July is my birthday, and to mark its occasion this year I thought I would look at few of the films that came out the year I was born: 1990.

While not as stellar a year as 1939 or 1959, 1990 does have a several great films, a few of which I watched recently and really enjoyed. So here they are:

An Angel at My Table

Jane Campion's biographical film follows the life of New Zealand writer Janet Frame, spanning from her childhood to her success as a writer. Based on three different memoirs by Frame, three different actresses play her at different stages of her life; all sporting the same bright, frizzy orange hair. The film, like its subject, is quiet, yet very sympathetic to Frame and her life, and finds moments of humour among the pain.

Edward Scissorhands

This was the first Tim Burton film I saw, and it is still my favourite of his. The story is a lovely modern fairytale with a sweet performance by Johnny Depp as the titular Edward, and a wonderfully constructed world of pastel suburbia and a gothic oddness.

Goodfellas

I am generally left cold by gangster films, finding all the wealth and crime unalluring. But Scorsese is a master of the genre, and from the opening scene you are thrown into this high octane world of drugs, guns and money. You know how it is going to end, with the American Dream turning into a nightmare, but the length of the film allows you to get to know these people and understand why they do what they do.

Misery

Lots of elements work so well in Reiner's film, from the script, the production design, the cinematography, to James Caan's performance. But what makes the film so good is Kathy Bates' Annie Wilkes, one of the best villians in any horror film. She manages to be convincingly kind, then too kind, then terrifying with her sudden outbursts of anger. Authors beware: don't tick off your fans!

Metropolitan

Whit Stillman's film could easily have been pretenious nonsense, being set among the upper-class New York college students home for deb ball season. But the wry humour and affection Stillman has for these adolescent adults is clear and smooths any irritation. For a film that is largely people sitting in ornate rooms talking, it manages to be very cinematic and lovely to look at, with a melancholic nostalgia for the fleeting closeness of these friends.

Jacob's Ladder

This is a film I need to watch again. Its plot follows three different time periods: the Vietnam War, Jacob's current life working in a post office and living with girlfriend Jezzie, and his previous family and memories of his dead son. Things start to get strange when demonic beings start appearing in his life with Jezzie, leading Jacob to try and discover what is going on (as fellow soldiers in his platoon in Vietnam are experiencing the same thing). When you finally discover what is going on, it completely alters everything you've just seen, and shows how wonder film it at manipulating time.

Have I missed anything? Was your birth year a great year for film?

I've Just Seen: Born Yesterday (1950); The Girl Can't Help It (1956)

 Directors: George Cukor; Frank Tashlin

I've grouped these two films together because they essentially share the same plot: a gangster hires a professional man to help educate his blonde girlfriend, and the teacher and student fall in love. In Born Yesterday Judy Holliday is the blonde Billie, with William Holden as journalist Paul Verrall, while Tom Ewell and Jayne Mansfield are Tom Miller and Jerri Jordan in The Girl Can't Help It. In the first, Harry Brock wants Verrall to educate Billie as she embarrasses him in front of potential business partners; in Tashlin's film Miller is hired to make Jerri a star in order to reinstate Fats Murdock's reputation as a 'somebody' gangster.

In terms of the love stories of each film, Born Yesterday does a better job of convincing you that Billie and Paul are attracted to each other. The chemistry between Holden and Holliday is allowed to develop, and they get a number of scenes to talk to one another. The Girl Can't Help It tells us a great deal about Jerri's life, but Miller doesn't reveal much about himself: his attraction appears to be largely for surface reasons. The script for Born Yesterday is much better; it was based on a play after all!

That being said, there is much to enjoy in The Girl Can't Help It. As the first rock 'n' roll musical it has a fantastic soundtrack; Fats Domino and Little Richard feature among others. Jayne Mansfield made a career of being a Marilyn Monroe-type (or exaggeration), but she is a great screen presence. I couldn't help but be slightly mesmerised by her body shape: how did she get her waist that small! She is also a pretty good singer.

Judy Holliday as Billie won the Oscar for Best Actress in the same year that Anne Baxter and Bette Davis were nominated for All About Eve, and Gloria Swanson for Sunset Boulevard. All I can say is that this is further proof that the Oscars are meaningless. All of those women gave such wonderful, and different performances, and Holliday thoroughly deserved to be named among them. She is clearly having fun playing brassy Billie but also gives her depth; she responds well to Paul's teaching, and shows a sweet if sad backstory for the character.

I like Born Yesterday more than The Girl Can't Help It, but both are very enjoyable. While they seem to trade off on the 'dumb blonde' stereotype, both also play around with it in interesting ways.

I've Just Seen: Thirst (2009)

Director: Park Chan-wook

Thirst is a modern vampire film merged with the plot of Emile Zola's novel Therese Raquin. A Catholic priest in South Korea, Sang-hyun, becomes a vampire after becoming infected while volunteering in Africa. He returns to Korea and falls in love with the wife of a childhood friend. The two start an affair that threatens to kill everyone around them.

I really like Park Chan-wook as a director. He doesn't hold back in terms of violence and horror, and creates twisty plots that constantly challenge your expectations. Right from the start Thirst gives us a clever variation on the vampire story. Sang-hyun's infection is delivered through a blood transfusion, and actually saves his life (in a way). Park Chan-wook also focuses on character, and this particularly drives the plot of Thirst.

Sang-hyun, though he loses his faith after his 'conversion,' still maintains certain morals about his behaviour. He drinks from patients at the hospital who are on drips or steals bags of blood so he doesn't kill anyone. He is not above murdering his lover Tae-ju's husband, but does so believing him to be abusive. She on the other hand is much more bloodthirsty, despite not being a vampire for most of the film.

Thirst manages to be gothic and modern, harking back to nineteenth century literature, and stories of vampires, with some new ideas thrown in. It is sexy, gory and clever, even if the story lags at times during its long run time. There are several scenes of gore that stay with you; Sang-hyun haemorrhaging while playing his flute, to the oddly romantic yet gross way Sang-hyun saves Tae-ju's life. You certainly know you are watching a Park Chan-wook film.

I've Just Seen: Anvil: The Story of Anvil (2008)

 Director: Sacha Gervasi

Who would have thought a documentary about an aging, Canadian, heavy mental band would be so emotional, touching and ultimately uplifting?

Anvil is one of the those bands that are well respected in the industry, but have never managed to break out into the mainstream. The film starts with footage of a concert in Japan in the 80s, where Anvil played along with other bands who, the titles tell us, went on to sell millions of albums. We also have a few clips of interviews with people like Slash and Lemmy, explaining the impact of the band's album Metal on Metal on their music.

Rarely do you get the stories of the bands that didn't make it, and the rather brutal honesty of the film is one of the reasons why it works so well. We see lead singer "Lips" Kudlow working as a delivery man for a food charity, while the drummer works in construction. Interviews with their family and friends reflect on the heartbreak the band has experienced, having given their all and receiving little reward. The first part of the film follows a disasterous tour of Europe, including a rather Spinal Tap moment of missing a train, and playing in large arenas to handfuls of people. All this is painful to watch, as you see the strain it puts on the band and their friendships. The second half has the band working towards releasing a new album, one that is produced by Chris Tsangarides, who also produced Metal on Metal.

There are several moments that are truly lovely and/or heartbreaking to watch. First is Kudlow's sister lending him money to go to England to make the record with Chris. Lips cries on his sister's shoulder, and you clearly see the love she has for her brother. The other moment is when Lips and drummer Robb Reiner make up after a big argument. Lips tells Reiner that though they fight, he loves him like a brother.

A good story will make you invest in ideas you are usually not interested in. I know almost nothing about metal music, but found myself completely engrossed in the band's fate, and hoped that they would suceed. The spectre of This is Spinal Tap hangs over this film, but where that film brilliantly sent up the ridiculous side of band life and the music industry, Anvil lovingly celebrates the passion people have for this music.

I've Just Seen: The Fearless Vampire Killers (1967)

 Director: Roman Polanski

Polanski, as I've said before, is one of my favourite directors (in spite of his private life); Chinatown, Rosemary's Baby, Repulsion are some of the best films I have ever seen. The Fearless Vampire Killers, or Pardon Me, But Your Teeth are in My Neck is a very different prospect from Polanski: a comedy, and a broad one at that. Starring Polanski's future wife Sharon Tate, the film follows Polanski's Alfred and his mentor Professor Abronsius, two vampire killers, as they seek to save Tate's Sarah from the clutches of a Transylvanian vampire.

This is not Polanski most sophisticated work, and you wouldn't know from watching it that it was one of his films - except that he plays the main character. However I did enjoy this. It didn't raise much laughter, but I chuckled a few times, and liked the apparent levity of the story. Sadly I couldn't watch Tate and Polanski on screen together and not remember what happened just a few years later. Tate doesn't have a great deal to do in the film except be the object of desire, and take a number of baths, but she does get a great end scene. Polanski is good as the bumbling Alfred, and Jack MacGowran steals the show as the Professor.

This is a fun little horror comedy that shows Polanski's humorous side. It has less bite than you'd expect, and much more slapstick comedy than you'd imagine.

I've Just Seen: Anne of the Thousand Days (1969)

Director: Charles Jarrott

Being a fan of Elizabeth Taylor entails becoming a bit of a fan of Richard Burton; the two acted several times together, and Burton was of course talented in his own right, particularly playing rather grand characters. And they don't come much grander than Henry VIII. This film covers Henry's relationship with his second wife Anne Boleyn, the first 'beheaded' one, from their meeting to Anne's execution.

As a young teenager I was very interested in the history of Henry and his eight wives. I didn't think much about the character of Henry himself, but instead thought more about the feelings of his wives. Henry, as played by Burton, is a tantrum-prone tyrant, a man who believes all he does is fine by God, and can think of nothing else but producing a male heir for his kingdom. His attraction to the lively Anne is portrayed as a tragedy, with the two having a brief time of blissful love before reality sets in. Of course, the tragedy is entirely due to his obsession with having a son.

Burton is good as Henry, striding around shouting his wishes aloud - 'I want Anne!' or 'I want a son!' - or whispering loudly sweet nothings to Anne. It is a big performance, which does work as Henry was a big character. Genevieve Bujold is wonderful as Anne; she had my sympathies from the start, and she moves so naturally through the character's arc, from hatred and anger to love and wistfulness. She is intelligent and clever, navigating her way in this harsh world, trying to get the best for herself and her daughter.

While the script is full of talk about lust, sex, incest and adultery, onscreen it veers towards stuffy; it doesn't throw off its origins as a play. The costumes are gorgeous, opulent in their details - Margaret Furse thoroughly deserved her Oscar.

I've read somewhere that Burton had wanted Taylor to play Anne; I would have enjoyed seeing these two once again spar with one another on screen, but Bujold is so good in the role that I don't regret the casting for a moment. While not required viewing, it has several good performances and is lovely to look at - and watch out for Taylor's cameo!

I've Just Seen: Shaft (1971)

 Director: Gordon Parks

It is impossible to talk about Parks' film and not mention the theme song. It is the first thing you hear, played over the titles as we follow John Shaft walking around his patch of New York City. On its own, "Theme From Shaft" is a great song, sticking in your head for the whole film and long afterwards. Combined with the film's opening shots, it works as one of the best introductions to character you will see in film.

John Shaft is a private detective with an uneasy relationship with the police and several gang members. He is hired by Bumpy Jonas, a gangster, to find his kidnapped daughter. This gets complicated as several groups have their own agenda, including the police who want to know what Shaft knows, fearing this dispute might look like the start of a race war (which is it not).

Shaft is, as the song tells us, 'a complicated man.' He operates in a world that means his loyalties are not clear-cut - he doesn't want to get caught up with Jonas' gang, but is also weary of the police: a classic noir detective. His 'complications' also extend to his love life. The most dated part of the film are its sexual politics, as Shaft cheats on his girlfriend (thought the song assures us she is the only one who understands him!), and is described by one fling as "pretty good in the sack" but "pretty shitty afterwards.' This is just how Shaft is, the movie says, part of his "sex machine" persona. Despite this, Shaft is an incredibly charismatic individual, and you can't help but enjoy watching him take on this case.

Parks' decision to cast a black actor in the role of Shaft (the studio and writers had originally wanted a white actor), is one of the best decisions in film history; I can't imagine anyone else but Richard Roundtree playing the role - he is fantastic.

This was my first taste of blaxploitation cinema, and I look forward to seeing other films in the genre (the horror films look particularly intriguing!).

I've Just Seen: Once Upon a Time in China (1991)

 Director: Tsui Hark

Foshan, the setting for Hark's film, is presented as an incredibly international city, at least was in the late 19th century. It is a giant melting-pot of various Asian and Western countries, including America and Britain. At the centre of this world is Wong Fei-hung, a martial arts teacher and healer, and his coterie of apprentices and his '13th Aunt,' related to him by marriage and the woman he secretly loves. Another talented martial arts fighter arrives in town with the theatre, Leung Foon, who also adores '13th Aunt.' Wong, despite wanting peace, finds himself fighting with local gangs who have dubious connections to Americans who run a human trafficking ring.

Really, the plot is simply there to facilitate the fight scenes, and there are enough of them to keep you interested, or from cringing at the acting of the 'Americans.' Jet Li is good as Wong, and his fight scenes are a joy to watch. I also liked his quiet romance with Rosamund Kwan's '13th Aunt.' The depiction of this uneasy multicultural city was interesting, though I didn't known the history behind each country's presence there.

I did enjoy watching this, but am slightly unsure why it is on the 1001+ list. I can only think it is because it sparked an interest in martial art films at the time. It is good fun, but lacking in depth regarding its characters.

I've Just Seen: The Big Red One (1980)

 Director: Sam Fuller

Trust Sam Fuller to make a war film that doesn't feel like other war films. Following a group of men from the 1st Division in World War II, we get an episodic view of war; the tension, the boredom, the unexpected, the comradery, and the fear. Lee Marvin is the oldest of the group, and saw action in the First World War. His experiences there affect his experiences in this war, and Fuller reflects on what we really learn from one war to the next.

Fuller does not shoot his war film like others. Instead of gloomy interiors of bombed-out houses, or battle-scarred, dark landscapes, we get sun-drenched North Africa, Sicily, Omaha Beach, and sunny West Germany. The opening scene in WWI, which was shot in black-and-white, and the final scene at night, are the really noticeable moments of darkness. The effect is to expose everything about war, and it leaves a lot of the emotions to the audience to feel, rather than the film using darkness to provoke fear.

The cast is full of well-known faces. Lee Marvin is great as the leader of the squad, a man still haunted by his previous experience. Mark Hamill plays a talented shooter who suffers a loss of confidence and becomes something of a pacifist (as much as you can be in the depths of war). Robert Carradine is the narrator of the film, and his character is apparently based on Fuller himself; the film's stories are based on Fuller's own experience in the war.

This is a nice change from the usual war films one watches. It has moments of humour, pathos, real tension - the Omaha beach scene is really wonderful, very well paced - and the ending is a great call-back to the opening scene. The film feels like a whole picture of war, and doesn't continually dwell on the pain and anguish of war. There are lots of films that focus on those experiences, but Fuller's viewpoint seems to rarely get portrayed.