John and Mary (1969) directed by Peter Yates

Directed by Peter Yates, perhaps best known today for the crime thriller Bullitt (1968), John and Mary is something of a forgotten gem. It's the story of a man and a women who meet at a bar, nothing new there, but what follows is what happens the day after. Two virtual strangers get to know each other. Each is jaded to some extent by previous relationships that have gone wrong. As we follow their story along, we see, intermittently (through their eyes) what happened.

The film is to an extent an exercise in style. From the characters awakening "the night after," to the steady conversations and interruptions of consciousness: flashbacks to their past, as thoughts on their minds.

Dustin Hoffman is well cast as John, a neurotic, seemingly straight laced new age man. Equally Mia Farrow is strong as Mary, a slightly jaded young independent women who has grown somewhat cynical due to past relationships. Each of them have loved and lost before, they've been around the block and are no longer naive to the world. But that doesn't mean they are as wise as they think they are.

Structurally the film is non-linear. The story passes backwards and forwards in time in a kind of stream of consciousness. The film is heavily influenced by European cinema of the 1960's, especially the films of the French New Wave, while Jean-Luc Godard's Weekend (1967) is discussed in the titular character's first meeting.

Visually, John and Mary is direct. It's key focus is on the character's and their thoughts. To this extent, the film is much like a play. Moving from dialogue to monologue, or in this films case, narration.

While following the cynicism of many films of the 60's, the film remains positive and hopeful. It is a strange mishmash that sits somewhere between the blissful puppy love of Romeo and Juliet, and the more nuanced adult romance of Annie Hall (1977). This gives the impression that the film is a kind of Frankenstein's monster, but it isn't. The movie is a solid romantic drama. It takes inspiration from many sources and crafts an interesting take on contemporary relationships at the time it was made.

It's not a perfect film by any stretch of the imagination. The pace is sometimes ropy and the script occasionally feels stilted. But these are issues which are generally glossed over due to solid acting and equable direction from Peter Yates.

Is it an instant classic? No. But that doesn't mean it isn't a truly interesting movie. If you like romantic dramas that put their own spin on the genre, give this one a watch, you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Jonathan Creek (1997 - 2016) – Breakdown of a show

With the world in lockdown and people consuming TV shows in heavy doses, the question comes to mind, what are you watching? While most are turning to glossy Netflix and Amazon originals for their binge worthy television, I came across a simple mystery show that has had me hooked.

Jonathan Creek (1997 - 2016) is different to most mystery shows, films or books. It is less about "whodunit" and more about how they did it, and to an extent the show isn't even about that. It's a comedy of manners, masquerading as a mystery thriller.

The show stars Alan Davies as the titular character. He's not a detective or former police officer as in most mystery stories, instead a magician's ideas man. A man who is interested in illusion, misdirection and the truthful (logical) answer. Supporting him in the early seasons of the show is Caroline Quentin who plays his character's opposite Maddy Magellan. Where he is gawky, she is sociable. She's a freelance journalist and also, a compulsive liar. She will do or say what she needs in order to get to the bottom of her story.

Together though they make a charming odd couple, trying to get the same answer for differing reasons. In later seasons, Jonathan is joined by other supporting character's to act as a foil, however none of them have the same charm or chemistry that Davies and Quentin share earlier on in the shows run.

Visually the show is shot like a typical British mystery thriller. Although the style and construction of the show is very different. The show is part puzzle box, part Screwball Comedy. The hook to each episode is, what has happened? A crime has been committed and we want to know how it happened. We then follow the key characters as they try to find out what has really gone on. That's the hook, but what keeps us invested and coming back for more is the levity of other aspects of the show. The witty back and forths and the contrast of the farcical situations the investigators get themselves into while seeking the truth.

Although at times tongue in cheek, the acting on the show is strong. The music is equally effective. Camille Saint-Saëns Danse macabre is the perfect piece of music to set the tone. Grand and lofty, serious and yet somewhat absurd. The music balances between scary and silly at the same time in the same way the writing balances the tones of mystery and romantic comedy.

There have been many parodies of the mystery thriller, however there are very few loving homages that stand out as their own entity. This show is one of them.

On the whole, the show feels fun and fresh. In a world filled with big budget movies and TV shows, this one maintains a uniqueness that permeates throughout. It isn't the greatest TV show every made, but it's got soul and character. It isn't concerned with lofty ideals, it deals with mysteries and people in conflict. It's funny, witty and mysterious: it's Jonathan Creek and there's really nothing else quite like it.

The Silence of the Lambs (1991) directed by Jonathan Demme – A Film Review

Much has been said about this classic horror film. The suspense packed flick has so many memorable qualities to it that it almost seems a daunting task to fully analyse such a masterpiece. And that is what this film truly is, a master class in screenwriting, directing and tactful acting that emboldens the roles being portrayed.

From the offset, we are introduced to our protagonist and audience avatar Clarice (Jodie Foster) as she rushes along an assault course through a huge dense forest. As the camera follows her along from behind we see her almost swallowed by the brash all encompassing woodland. Here Clarice is shown to be small, vulnerable even, yet at the same time plucky and determined. When ordered back to the FBI headquarters, we see her petite frame contrasted by her large and masculine male colleagues. She is constantly fighting to be noticed and not belittled by her dominant male counterparts. At numerous points throughout the film, she is often ostracized or left out of important matters (even by her lower ranked colleagues) because she is a young woman in an “old boys” type club. Because of this she has a feeling of inferiority, which forces her to try and be the first to act in situations of urgency. This weakness is set up and paid off subtly as the film plays out in a way that may require repeated viewings for some to fully grasp.

Likewise, the killer nicknamed Buffalo Bill (Ted Levine) is slowly introduced in a scattering of short scenes with only the smallest of information as to whom he might be. As we follow Clarice in her investigation, we as the audience only find out information just before, or in most cases, as she receives the information. Through this method of revelation we are as confused and repulsed as Clarice is by this killer on the loose. He remains (or at least seems) dangerous to us because he is dangerous to our avatar, Clarice.

This runs as an exact counter to the man helping Clarice in her investigation, the incarcerated convicted murderer and cannibal, Hannibal Lecture (Anthony Hopkins). As a former psychiatrist, he is seen as someone who may be able to help get into the mind of this new killer on the loose. As Lecture continues to help with the investigation he begins to gain more knowledge about Clarice herself. Whilst we know that Lecture is smart and extremely dangerous man, we, like Clarice, are lulled into a false sense of security in knowing that he is locked away, safely behind bars. And through this false sense of security, Clarice grants Lecture certain privileges that Lecture is able to manipulate to his own advantage. In order to rush for a solution to the Buffalo Bill problem, in order to prove her capabilities and worth, she allows herself to be taken advantage of and release an even greater threat on the world.

That’s not to say Clarice is a bad investigator or officer of the law though. At many points in the film she shows her capabilities in her focus on the smaller details. In her investigations, Clarice is able to deduce information that many other officers had managed to overlook. At one point, under the assumption that one of the victims may have known the killer, she goes through the woman’s personal possessions. She stops looking when she comes across a child’s ballerina jewellery box. Rather than thinking of it as just a sentimental or nostalgic ornament, Clarice looks fervour at the device. What she finds is a false top, an opening that contains intimate pictures of the victim undressing, suggesting that there was a secret lover, confirming her suspicions.

To be fair, the level of depth to this film is quite astounding. The level of character depth and the masterful way in which the story has been told mean that you could probably watch this movie a hundred times and get something different, new and exciting from it from each of these viewings. The surface has barely been scratched on this one, but from what I’ve already said, it’s certainly one I’d fully recommend.

The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975) directed by Jim Sharman – A Film Review

A cult classic for the ages, The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a fun extraverted tour de force work of musical mayhem and madness. A science fiction rock opera and musical like no other, it has certainly left an impact on the pop culture psyche. But the question still remains: how does this forty-year-old film play to the modern audience? Well, let’s find out.

On a dark and stormy night, a young, newly engaged couple’s car brakes down. In search of a telephone to call for help, they head to an old gothic manor. What they find there is a bizarre party of people led by Dr Frank N. Furter (Tim Curry). As they attempt to get access to a phone, Brad and Janet are dragged through a series of odd scenarios and soon discover that all is not as it seems in the old house.

The film itself plays as a loving homage to science fiction B movies and 50’s rock and roll. It plays with clichés in its own tongue in cheek style, whilst still paying a genuine tribute to them. What Rocky Horror does different to the films that inspired it however, is play with these underlying elements. It plays up to the camp and silliness of the B movies that came before it. Frank N. Furter isn’t just a mad scientist who try’s to create life in defiance of nature; instead he tries to create the perfect being to satisfy his own sexual desires. Brad and Janet aren’t just the typical all American teenagers, they’re stupidly naive to the point of absurdity. Furthermore, Frank N. Furter’s scientist assistants like Riff Raff aren’t just mysterious or scary, they’re intentionally antagonistic, almost miffed in just having to be in the presence of others.

In terms of the actor’s performances, everyone does a fantastic job: although Tim Curry as Dr Frank N. Furter is the main standout. He oozes sexual charisma in his role as the “sweet transvestite”, commanding attention on screen like no other. Richard O’Brien as Riff Raff also does a tremendous job here: whilst the rest of the cast all have there time to shine too.

Visually the film is fun and vibrant. There’s an energetic tone to the whole movie that keeps you hooked from start to finish; like a rollercoaster ride keeping it’s passengers at the edge of their seats. At times the story wonders into moments of irreverence but what stays constant is the euphoric sense of enjoyment each musical number produces in the audience.

On the whole The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a cool, excitingly unique film. Unlike other musicals, it isn’t afraid to let loose and poke fun at it’s own clichés. It’s loud, brash, out and proud. It has a knowing and confident sense of self that is very appealing (attractive even) to its audience. At 41 years old, the movie feels as fresh and vibrant as it ever did. And because of its brazen uniqueness it has (and forever will have) earned its place in the pop culture canon.  

Captain America: Civil War (2016) directed by Anthony Russo and Joe Russo – A Film Review

In terms of their film projects, Marvel has created a vast universe filled with smaller stand-alone super hero ventures that connect with one another in their larger Avengers spectacles. Whereas the previous films had their own definitive identities, this one seems to sit somewhere in-between the two arc types: with some fans jokingly referring to it as the Avengers 2.5.

Based primarily on the Marvel Comics “Civil War” storyline, we see the Avengers split in two (one team led by Captain America and the other by Iron Man) following an accident on assignment. Iron Man believes the Avenger should be subject to governmental restraints after an accident causes a number of civilian deaths. Captain America however believes they shouldn’t be subject to these regulations, as he sees the Avengers as the last line of defence against chaos and destruction.

Overall the story’s an intriguing one. Each of the heroes has a good reason for siding the way they do, which really adds to the tension and drama. Throughout the film there are a number of moments of potential reconciliation, yet in each instance, we see how small actions can break down the lines of communication.  

That’s not to say the film is by any means perfect. At over two hours long and with so much material compressed into the story, the movie can’t avoid feeling bloated at times. Whilst the film overall is very enjoyable, you do get the impression that you are watching two or three movies that have been merged into one. In fact, there is a point at about the three quarter mark where it felt as though the film was coming to a natural conclusion; to be followed on later in another film, continuing on with this main story: yet this wasn’t the case.

At the same time though I wouldn’t like to give the impression that this is a bad film, far from it. The acting is top notch throughout; the overall story is fun and intriguing, whilst the action set pieces are also well handled.

All together, Captain America: Civil War is a well-crafted action movie, and for those interested in this genre it certainly won’t disappoint. However I do feel that the material that they had here was often rushed through. So much of what was happening was passed over quickly and could easily have been expanded upon over a much longer period of time.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) directed by Zack Snyder – A Film Review

Following on from the mixed reception he received with Man of Steel (2013), Zack Snyder’s follow up had many people anxious of what to expect. With a huge promotional campaign advertising the clash of two of comic books best-known superheroes, the stakes were high in the audience’s minds. But could the film actually live up to this hype? The answer in this case unfortunately, is, not really.

Following the aftermath and destruction of Metropolis, Batman (Ben Affleck) vows revenge against Superman (Henry Cavill). In the meantime, Superman is stuck dealing with the repercussions of the previous film, whilst Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg) attempts to manipulate each of them for his own sinister purpose.

On the whole, this sounds like a simple story to follow. Two essentially good men are led by their own sense of doing the right thing into fighting one another; whilst in the background, something sinister remains. These ideas together should be the basis for an interesting and fun comic book movie, but, unfortunately for us, this isn’t the case here. And the sad thing is that it isn’t the essential parts of the story being told that are the true let down, it is the forced expository elements that are there to help build for future movies in the DC universe.

Yet whilst there are parts of the film that do drag on, that doesn’t mean that the entire piece is a let down. Affleck is a strong stand in as Batman. Henry Cavill likewise has a good presence as superman, while Gal Gadot proves a strong choice in her supporting role as Wonder Woman.

In terms of the visuals, the film has the same strong sense of style and direction seen in Zack Snyder’s previous works. He is able to craft interesting scenes and set pieces and combine them with stunning visual spectacles. At his best he is an inventive director, yet his artistic visuals do sometimes get in the way of the key story elements.

Most of the films key issues however come from the script. Problems of character motivation and their principles changing on whim make the film seem rushed and lazily written. Lex Luthor in particular (the main villain of the movie) doesn’t have a clear motivation for his actions, and goes from appearing cold and calculated to goofy and bonkers for no real reason.

Overall, is the film good? No, but it does have some interesting elements to it. Some critics have been a little overzealous with this one. Are there problems here? Certainly, but a film critic is supposed to look at the whole of the picture, not just the elements that stand out most to them.

Deadpool (2016) directed by Tim Miller – A Film Review

Super hero films of late have often followed a very tired formula. Good vs. evil and the introduction of pre-established comic book characters in “origin story” films for characters that are already an established part of the pop culture canon. Numerous film reboots for the Spider Man, Batman and Superman franchises have left audiences wanting something different. That’s not to say that before Deadpool there were no comic book adaptions that rocked the conventional “comic book film” formula; with films like Watchmen (2009), Kick-Ass (2010) and V for Vendetta (2005) being strong examples of this.

Yet, there is something different about Deadpool. As a more recent creation, the Deadpool comics haven’t quite had the penetration into pop culture that some older comics have. As such, taking on a Deadpool movie would certainly of been seen as more of a risk to the studios.

But how does it differ from other comic book movies? Well it doesn’t take itself too seriously but it’s also not an out and out parody of the superhero genre. It has a tongue in check tone yet wears its heart on its sleeve. Deadpool himself is an interesting character but is by no means an admirable one. He is essentially a broken man at the beginning of the film and by the end he isn’t really much better. This isn’t a story of redemption, or a superhero as such for that matter. It’s a rollercoaster ride through the world of a self-referential smart aleck who does what he wants, and that’s what’s so appealing about him. He’s a fun un-brooding anti-hero with a wild and veracious sense of humour.

The film is definitely defined by its humour, but that’s not to say it’s its only strength. The cast are a blast to watch in this one. Ryan Reynolds was born to play Wade Wilson (aka Deadpool). Morena Baccarin is also fun as Deadpool’s equally smart-alecky fiancé Vanessa. All of the cast here seem to be having a blast and it plays well to the audience.

In terms of the films look, Tim Miller has done a great job of visualising the wacky adventures of Deadpool and bringing them to the screen. In particular he has effortlessly incorporated Deadpool’s breaking of the forth wall in a way that neither seems unnatural or forced. There are also a number of sequences that use music to great effect, with clinical timing to the action.

However the films greatest strength could be to some viewers, its greatest weakness. The comedy and jokes in the film come across at a scatterbrain pace. There’s also a crudity and vulgarity to the humour that some might not find to their taste. At its heart Deadpool is firmly a fun and comedic action film for adults: with naughty words and all. If these things offend your sensibilities then it’s probably not for you. However if you like fast paced action with a good sense of character and fun then maybe give Deadpool a watch.