From the time I was born right up to the present day I have always been told that I am very similar to my sister. We have similar personalities, a similar sense of humour and we tend to like the same films, directors and actors. However when I was in my teens we realised that there was a pair of Hollywood rivals whom we couldn’t agree upon. My sister was Paul Newman’s biggest fan whilst I loved Steve McQueen. Each of us liked both actors but when it came to who was the bigger star or the better actor we stuck firmly in our chosen camp. When Paul Newman sadly passed away last week it made me think again of those conversations we shared and drove me to reconsider if I had been right all along.
Any discussion on the relative merits of McQueen and Newman will hang on the period between the two films that they appeared in together. The eighteen years between ‘Somebody Up There Likes Me’ and ‘The Towering Inferno’ cover the peak years of Newman’s career and pretty much the whole of McQueen’s. As a picture of how their standing in Hollywood changed, the movies couldn’t be more different.
‘Somebody Up There Likes Me’ (1956) was significant for both men. After the death of James Dean in 1955 the roles he would have played initially went to Newman and Marlon Brando. Newman had made one or two films by this stage but this was the film that launched him as a star. Among the bit part players was a Steve McQueen making his film debut before embarking on the successful television series ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive’. Given that two years later McQueen was till a TV star and was making ‘The Blob’ whilst Newman was picking up an Oscar nomination it was clear that the younger man had some serious catching up to do. He finally made his breakthrough in ‘The Magnificent Seven’ (1960) but by that time Newman had a string of hits and was about to make the movie that many consider to be the best of his career. For my money ‘The Hustler’ (1961) is up there with ‘E.T.’ as one of the most over-rated movies ever made but I cannot deny that the one reason I sat through it was because of Paul Newman’s performance.
McQueen did little to follow-up on ‘The Magnificent Seven’s success, making a couple of average war movies and one of his ill-fated ventures into the world of comedy. Newman said that once he saw himself in ‘The Secret War of Harry Frigg’ (1968) he knew he was finished with trying his hand at comedy but McQueen took longer to learn the lesson. ‘The Honeymooners’ (1961), ‘Soldier in the Rain’ (1963) and ‘The Reivers’ (1969) are three very painful watching experiences. After finally making another good film, ‘The Great Escape’ (1963), McQueen mostly stuck to what he did best. His films contained a number of tough, distant, almost unlovable characters that suited McQueen who in reality seemed fairly tough, distant and unlovable. One role in particular drew parallels with Newman. In 1965 McQueen played ‘The Cincinnati Kid’ which tried to do for poker what ‘The Hustler’ had done for pool. The reaction has generally been unfavourable to ‘The Cincinnati Kid’ when the movies are compared but I think it is the superior film. It is one of Steve McQueen’s best performances and he is helped enormously by a terrific supporting cast (much better than ‘The Hustler’), tight direction and the toning down of the obligatory romantic sub-plot. (The film would probably be one of my all time favourites if Spencer Tracy had been well enough to accept the part of Lancey Howard. In the end another great actor, Edward G. Robinson, took the role but despite the esteem I hold him in I can’t help wondering what the movie would have been like with Tracy and McQueen facing off.)
McQueen was by this point becoming obsessed with the idea of becoming a bigger star than Paul Newman. They played similar parts in similar movies and, whilst he was a big box-office draw, McQueen was desperate to be seen as Newman’s superior in terms of star quality and acting ability. Newman had built on his personal success in ‘The Hustler’ by taking on a number of memorable or, at least, interesting roles. Chance Wayne in ‘Sweet Bird of Youth’ (1962), ‘Hud’ (1963) and ‘Cool Hand Luke’ (1967) are the former whilst Ram Bowen in ‘Paris Blues’ (1961), Andrew Craig in the criminally under-rated ‘The Prize’ (1963) and Juan Carrasco in ‘The Outrage’ (1964) fall into the latter category. ‘The Prize’ is an example of the kind of film Newman made that McQueen could never have been successful in. What McQueen lacked was a sort of ‘lightness’ that allowed Newman not to take himself too seriously. McQueen also showed poor judgement in his choice of roles. Newman rarely made truly awful during the 1960’s but McQueen never seemed able to make more that two or three good films in succession. This is best illustrated by considering that in 1968 he made ‘The Thomas Crown Affair’ and ‘Bullitt’ which, for the first time, put him on top of the box-office money list. His next film was ‘The Reivers’. Newman saw out the 1960’s with ‘Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid’ (1969) a film that should have starred McQueen as well but his other obsession – having top billing – prevented the pairing. The film is better than any western McQueen made before or subsequently. McQueen had a knack of turning down good parts in order to make dud films. ‘Breakfast at Tiffany’s’ (1961), ‘Two for the Road’ (1967), Jaws (1975) and ‘Apocalypse Now’ (1979) are four notable examples.
The 1970’s didn’t start auspiciously for either actor. McQueen’s long planned ‘Le Mans’ (1971) was not only a woefully boring film but was also the first box-office flop of his career. Newman appeared to have gone off the boil as well with films like ‘WUSA’ (1970) and ‘Pocket Money’ (1972), which were solid but unmemorable efforts. Then something significant happened. Steve McQueen met Sam Peckinpah and made two films that went someway to realising his twin ambitions. ‘The Getaway’ (1972) made him the highest paid actor in the world and ‘Junior Bonner’ (1972) shows McQueen acting ability like no other film he made. It is McQueen’s only real character driven piece of work and gives a glimpse of what might have been had he lived long enough to be offered the sort of roles Newman played from the 1980’s onwards. Of course Newman had been a character actor from the very beginning but he had the looks and charisma to make him a star as well. His transition from handsome movie star to distinguished supporting actor was a natural one. It is doubtful whether McQueen’s ego would have ever allowed him to make the same move but ‘Junior Bonner’ and the later ‘Tom Horn’ (1980) gave an indication that it would have been possible in purely acting terms.
If it weren’t so against what we know of Paul Newman’s personality it could be mischievously suggested that the decision to make ‘The Sting’ (1973) was solely influenced by his being knocked of his perch as Hollywood’s most expensive and bankable actor. Teaming up again with Robert Redford and director George Roy Hill after the phenomenal success of ‘Butch Cassidy…’ was as close to ensuring success as is possible. The movie didn’t disappoint. Not only was the film the number one box-office success of 1973 (bettering McQueen’s ‘Papillon') it is very possibly the best and most enjoyable movie made by either man. Robert Redford’s star was at it’s brightest at the time but he still played second fiddle to Newman’s Henry Gondorff. This was the perfect Paul Newman role – belligerent, ruthless, streetwise but likable - the anti-hero with a heart as well as a brain.
On the back of both men’s sustained success they were finally paired opposite one another in ‘The Towering Inferno’ (1974). The stories of McQueen counting lines in the script and going ballistic when he found out Newman had more, the staggered billing and his agonising over which of the main characters was cast in the best light by the film go to the very route of how seriously Steve McQueen felt about ‘beating’ Newman now that they were going head-to-head on screen. He was determined that it should be as equals so that any perceived victory would be incontestable. Newman probably didn’t care and that is probably why McQueen walks away with the film. Even in their few shared scenes it is McQueen who hold the attention. Many reasons have been given for this but I feel that McQueen was always the better action hero and this is what the film called for. McQueen may have won the battle but being declared the best actor in a disaster movie is a rather hollow victory. Nevertheless ‘The Towering Inferno’ was far and away the biggest moneymaker of 1974 and having, by general consensus, dominated the movie McQueen could by rights declare himself to be the biggest star in the world. The fact he had achieved this status by acting opposite Newman and giving a better performance should have made it all the sweeter. McQueen could, in terms of the movies, do anything he wanted and that is what he did. Remarkably, after finally getting where he wanted to be, he snubbed Hollywood. He went bike racing, dune buggy racing and car racing and didn’t make another film for three years. He only made three more films before he died in 1980. Newman, after some disastrous failures in the late 70’s, regained his standing after McQueen’s death with a number of excellent performances throughout the 1980’s and one or two choice roles in the ‘90’s and beyond.
Traditionally it has always been accepted that Paul Newman was the better actor and that he made better movies then Steve McQueen but it was whilst reading Newman’s obituary last week that I realised just how many misguided, imperfect and downright awful movies he had made. The number of genuine classics that McQueen made can be counted on one hand but you wouldn’t need to take your socks off to count the number of Newman films that have sit in that category. What we must realise is that for both actors on so many occasions it is their performances we remember, not the films that contained them. The characters created by Newman as the superior actor rise above some of the films he found himself acting in whilst McQueen is the more iconic. It is the Cooler King and Frank Bullitt who adorn bedroom walls to this day and given that Hollywood has a tradition of remembering its icons rather better then it remembers some of it’s finest acting talent McQueen may very well outlast Newman and their contemporaries in the same way that Clark Gable and Marilyn Monroe are remembered better than William Powell and Lee Remick. If we accept that Newman was the enduring actor and McQueen the enduring star then each can claim to be remembered how they wanted.
Paul Newman: Must See
Cool Hand Luke (1967)
The Sting (1973)
The Verdict (1982)
Steve McQueen: Must See
The Great Escape (1963)
The Cincinnati Kid (1965)
The Getaway (1972)
Friday 10 October 2008
Thursday 9 October 2008
The Ten Worst Films I Have Ever Seen
This is a list reproduced from my Facebook page.
This is a list of the ten worst films I have ever seen. There might be ones I have missed but as these ten stood out in the memory I think that indicates just how bad they are. They are all unforgettably appalling.
10. Straw Dogs (1971 - Directed by Sam Peckinpah)
Around the turn of the century there was a whole spate of previously banned films that suddenly re-appeared. 'The Exorcist' wasn't particularly scary but it was atmospheric, well acted and well directed. 'A Clockwork Orange' was unpleasant and pretty dull. 'Straw Dogs', however, was just shit. Considering how bad this film is it is a wonder that 'The Wicker Man' was made just two years later as this could have put anyone off making an 'outsider terrorised by the locals' film. Sam Peckinpah had just made 'The Wild Bunch' and 'The Ballad of Cable Hogue' and was about to make 'The Getaway' and the massively underrated 'Junior Bonner'. This was like the thorn between four roses, but a big massive thorn with horns and teeth. This really should have remained banned, and not because Susan George gets done up the arse. It should be banned because it's absolutely terrible.
9. The Enchanted Cottage (1945 - John Cromwell)
A man suffers facial disfigurement during the war and when he returns he can't face his family. He rents a cottage with a maid so ugly he reckons he can have her and he is right. That is pretty much what this film amounts to. If you want to watch a movie about wounded servicemen struggling with the return to normal life watch 'The Best Years of Our Lives'. This is one of the most stuffy and stilted movies ever made. It makes 'Brief Encounter' look like 'Deep Throat'. Let's just pray those two fugly bores didn't have kids.
8. Carry On England (1976 - Gerald Thomas)
Let's get one thing straight - I love 'Carry On' films. I think they are really good fun and don't deserve their reputation as something to be ashamed of. This entry in the series, however, would make you never want to watch another if it happened to be the first one you ever saw. No Kenneth Williams, no Sid James, no Charles Hawtrey, no Hattie Jacques... the list goes on. In return we get Patrick 'Emmerdale' Mower, Melvin 'It Ain't Half Hot, Mum' Hayes, Judy 'Percy's Progress' Geeson and Jack 'wanker' Douglas.
7. B. Monkey (1998 - Michael Radford)
As a student I used to sleep in late every morning that I didn't have lectures (shock!). That meant that I used to struggle to get to sleep and ended up seeing my fair share of those movies ITV relegate to the middle of the night. Unfortunately for every 'Midnight Cowboy' there was a 'B. Monkey'. The plot concerns... ah! The film is little more than an excuse for Rupert Everett to over-act and Asia Argento to get her kit off and they both grab the opportunity with both hands. Jared Harris is such an ugly leading man he would surely need more than 'The Enchanted Cottage' to make a career as a leading man. Sadly for Rupert Everett, this isn't even the worst film he has ever appeared in...
6. The Next Best Thing (2000 - John Schlesinger)
... this is.Oh Madonna! Give it up. You are a terrible actress and you are not even attractive. It is pretty hard to stomach hearing line after line about how beautiful and sexy you are when you resemble the scarecrow from 'The Wizard of Oz', even through the Vaseline-laden camera lens this movie employs. Sadder even than Madonna's continued attempts to find her niche in the movies is that fact that this was directed by John Schlesinger, a director who made some of the best British films of the 1960s ('A Kind of Loving', 'Billy Liar', 'Darling') and then went to America and made 'Midnight Cowboy' and 'Marathon Man'. Not since Orson Welles voiced Optimus Prime in 'Transformers: The Movie' have we seen such a dramatic fall from grace.
5. Girl on a Motorcycle (1968 - Jack Cardiff)
Just because you are a great cinematographer doesn't mean you can be a great director. Jack Cardiff made this piece of psychedelic shite whilst almost certainly NOT under the influence of drugs. If he had dropped a little acid he might have made 'Easy Rider'. As it is he made one of the most incoherent and irritating films I ever wasted my life watching. Alain Delon is hardly in it and Marianne Faithful (sans Mars Bar) is neither interesting nor sexy enough to carry off what amounts to 'Barbarella on a bike'.
4. Napoleon Dynamite (2004 - Jared Hess)
When this film was released I knew it wasn't for me, but the number of people who told me I had to see this film made me think I was really missing out on something. I really should trust my gut instinct more. The whole thing was cringingly unfunny. None of the characters are likeable and it's all trying a bit hard to be quirky and funny. It is the movie equivalent Will Ferrell. Watch 'Juno' instead.
3. The Fury (1978 - Brian de Palma)
A genuine contender for the number one slot, this is a horror/ sci-fi/ spy thriller with a very wooden and annoying hero. I like Kirk Douglas and John Cassavetes but why on earth did they agree to make this pile of toss. I guess the pay packet must have been enormous. Very similar in tone to the equally fucked up 'The Eyes of Laura Mars' but just that little bit worse. When Brian de Palma gets it right he really gets it right but he gets it so wrong a lot more often and this is the worst of them... and I have seen 'Dressed to Kill'.
2. Exorcist 2: The Heretic (1977 - John Boorman)
What is the longest movie ever made? It doesn't matter because if you watch 'Exorcist 2' you will never believe that any movie is longer. Officially 118 minutes long, weeks will seem to go by before it finally crawls to its ending. An hour into watching it I looked at the time believing that it was about to end. Imagine my dismay as it trundled on like a snail-powered tractor for a further hour. The totally incomprehensible plot is the main factor but the editing and performances don't help. As wastes of talent go it must rank up there as one of the most inexcusable in Hollywood history. Richard Burton, Max von Sydow, Louise Fletcher fresh from 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest', Paul Henried and, worst of all, one of my favourite directors John Boorman. This man who made three of my favourite films (Deliverance, Hope and Glory, The General) is sadly responsible for the worst Hollywood movie I have ever seen.
1. The Ups and Downs of a Handy Man (1975 - John Sealy)
Given the relative budgets, I was sorely tempted to put 'The Fury' or 'Exorcist 2' at number one but when it comes down to it this is the worst film I have ever seen on every level. Actors who don't seem to have ever spoken words before, seemingly filmed in the directors back garden on a bog-standard home movie camera engaging in the most witless soft core fumblings and lower-than-lame slapstick. Even Robin Askwith would have turned his nose up at this. It makes Benny Hill look like Charlie Chaplin. Words really cannot describe just how soul-destroyingly bad this film is. If it ever turns up on television again I almost implore you to watch it to marvel at how humans are capable of producing such utter shit but I would feel so guilty for taking even one second of your life that you will never get back that I just cannot do it.
I reckon if I was being really harsh 'The Spiderwick Chronicles' (2008 - Mark Waters) would have squeezed out 'Straw Dogs' as it is total tripe with dreadful special effects, a dull story and probably the worst climax to a film I have ever seen. However, as it is aimed squarely at young children, who would probably find something to enjoy in it, I have given it the benefit of the doubt.
This is a list of the ten worst films I have ever seen. There might be ones I have missed but as these ten stood out in the memory I think that indicates just how bad they are. They are all unforgettably appalling.
10. Straw Dogs (1971 - Directed by Sam Peckinpah)
Around the turn of the century there was a whole spate of previously banned films that suddenly re-appeared. 'The Exorcist' wasn't particularly scary but it was atmospheric, well acted and well directed. 'A Clockwork Orange' was unpleasant and pretty dull. 'Straw Dogs', however, was just shit. Considering how bad this film is it is a wonder that 'The Wicker Man' was made just two years later as this could have put anyone off making an 'outsider terrorised by the locals' film. Sam Peckinpah had just made 'The Wild Bunch' and 'The Ballad of Cable Hogue' and was about to make 'The Getaway' and the massively underrated 'Junior Bonner'. This was like the thorn between four roses, but a big massive thorn with horns and teeth. This really should have remained banned, and not because Susan George gets done up the arse. It should be banned because it's absolutely terrible.
9. The Enchanted Cottage (1945 - John Cromwell)
A man suffers facial disfigurement during the war and when he returns he can't face his family. He rents a cottage with a maid so ugly he reckons he can have her and he is right. That is pretty much what this film amounts to. If you want to watch a movie about wounded servicemen struggling with the return to normal life watch 'The Best Years of Our Lives'. This is one of the most stuffy and stilted movies ever made. It makes 'Brief Encounter' look like 'Deep Throat'. Let's just pray those two fugly bores didn't have kids.
8. Carry On England (1976 - Gerald Thomas)
Let's get one thing straight - I love 'Carry On' films. I think they are really good fun and don't deserve their reputation as something to be ashamed of. This entry in the series, however, would make you never want to watch another if it happened to be the first one you ever saw. No Kenneth Williams, no Sid James, no Charles Hawtrey, no Hattie Jacques... the list goes on. In return we get Patrick 'Emmerdale' Mower, Melvin 'It Ain't Half Hot, Mum' Hayes, Judy 'Percy's Progress' Geeson and Jack 'wanker' Douglas.
7. B. Monkey (1998 - Michael Radford)
As a student I used to sleep in late every morning that I didn't have lectures (shock!). That meant that I used to struggle to get to sleep and ended up seeing my fair share of those movies ITV relegate to the middle of the night. Unfortunately for every 'Midnight Cowboy' there was a 'B. Monkey'. The plot concerns... ah! The film is little more than an excuse for Rupert Everett to over-act and Asia Argento to get her kit off and they both grab the opportunity with both hands. Jared Harris is such an ugly leading man he would surely need more than 'The Enchanted Cottage' to make a career as a leading man. Sadly for Rupert Everett, this isn't even the worst film he has ever appeared in...
6. The Next Best Thing (2000 - John Schlesinger)
... this is.Oh Madonna! Give it up. You are a terrible actress and you are not even attractive. It is pretty hard to stomach hearing line after line about how beautiful and sexy you are when you resemble the scarecrow from 'The Wizard of Oz', even through the Vaseline-laden camera lens this movie employs. Sadder even than Madonna's continued attempts to find her niche in the movies is that fact that this was directed by John Schlesinger, a director who made some of the best British films of the 1960s ('A Kind of Loving', 'Billy Liar', 'Darling') and then went to America and made 'Midnight Cowboy' and 'Marathon Man'. Not since Orson Welles voiced Optimus Prime in 'Transformers: The Movie' have we seen such a dramatic fall from grace.
5. Girl on a Motorcycle (1968 - Jack Cardiff)
Just because you are a great cinematographer doesn't mean you can be a great director. Jack Cardiff made this piece of psychedelic shite whilst almost certainly NOT under the influence of drugs. If he had dropped a little acid he might have made 'Easy Rider'. As it is he made one of the most incoherent and irritating films I ever wasted my life watching. Alain Delon is hardly in it and Marianne Faithful (sans Mars Bar) is neither interesting nor sexy enough to carry off what amounts to 'Barbarella on a bike'.
4. Napoleon Dynamite (2004 - Jared Hess)
When this film was released I knew it wasn't for me, but the number of people who told me I had to see this film made me think I was really missing out on something. I really should trust my gut instinct more. The whole thing was cringingly unfunny. None of the characters are likeable and it's all trying a bit hard to be quirky and funny. It is the movie equivalent Will Ferrell. Watch 'Juno' instead.
3. The Fury (1978 - Brian de Palma)
A genuine contender for the number one slot, this is a horror/ sci-fi/ spy thriller with a very wooden and annoying hero. I like Kirk Douglas and John Cassavetes but why on earth did they agree to make this pile of toss. I guess the pay packet must have been enormous. Very similar in tone to the equally fucked up 'The Eyes of Laura Mars' but just that little bit worse. When Brian de Palma gets it right he really gets it right but he gets it so wrong a lot more often and this is the worst of them... and I have seen 'Dressed to Kill'.
2. Exorcist 2: The Heretic (1977 - John Boorman)
What is the longest movie ever made? It doesn't matter because if you watch 'Exorcist 2' you will never believe that any movie is longer. Officially 118 minutes long, weeks will seem to go by before it finally crawls to its ending. An hour into watching it I looked at the time believing that it was about to end. Imagine my dismay as it trundled on like a snail-powered tractor for a further hour. The totally incomprehensible plot is the main factor but the editing and performances don't help. As wastes of talent go it must rank up there as one of the most inexcusable in Hollywood history. Richard Burton, Max von Sydow, Louise Fletcher fresh from 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest', Paul Henried and, worst of all, one of my favourite directors John Boorman. This man who made three of my favourite films (Deliverance, Hope and Glory, The General) is sadly responsible for the worst Hollywood movie I have ever seen.
1. The Ups and Downs of a Handy Man (1975 - John Sealy)
Given the relative budgets, I was sorely tempted to put 'The Fury' or 'Exorcist 2' at number one but when it comes down to it this is the worst film I have ever seen on every level. Actors who don't seem to have ever spoken words before, seemingly filmed in the directors back garden on a bog-standard home movie camera engaging in the most witless soft core fumblings and lower-than-lame slapstick. Even Robin Askwith would have turned his nose up at this. It makes Benny Hill look like Charlie Chaplin. Words really cannot describe just how soul-destroyingly bad this film is. If it ever turns up on television again I almost implore you to watch it to marvel at how humans are capable of producing such utter shit but I would feel so guilty for taking even one second of your life that you will never get back that I just cannot do it.
I reckon if I was being really harsh 'The Spiderwick Chronicles' (2008 - Mark Waters) would have squeezed out 'Straw Dogs' as it is total tripe with dreadful special effects, a dull story and probably the worst climax to a film I have ever seen. However, as it is aimed squarely at young children, who would probably find something to enjoy in it, I have given it the benefit of the doubt.
Monday 8 September 2008
Review: The Strangers (2008) * *
…and so to my first review. First of all I should point out that there is no particular reason as to the order I review films in. I might have just watched it, just read about it, just been reminded of it or I might, as will be the case for the majority of the time, just feel like it. Also if you are expecting to read reviews only of the latest cooler than cool 'indie' flick or to hear what I think of the whole of the French ‘New Wave’ then you may also be disappointed. Those types of movie will doubtless crop up now and again but you as likely to find yourself reading about Doris Day or ‘The Poseidon Adventure’ as you are Jim Jarmusch or ‘The Red Balloon’.
As far as movie genres go, horror has never been a particular favourite of mine so it was with a certain degree of trepidation that I watched ‘The Strangers’ last night. The story, as you may know, involves a young couple (Liv Tyler and Scott Speedman) that leave a friends wedding and travel to spend the night at Speedman’s remote summer home. Whilst there, they are harassed, tormented and assaulted by three masked strangers (Kip Weeks, Gemma Ward and Laura Margolis). That is the sum total of the plot and therein lies the films biggest problem. Nothing really happens. The couple make no real concerted effort to get away from the house and they don’t even come into that much contact with the masked trio. The film consists of a string of scenes involving Tyler or Speedman walking silently around the house to be confronted by one of the three masked figures very suddenly and, as far as the audience I was watching it with are concerned, very shockingly. (My girlfriend spent part of this movie horizontal in her seat and her voice, which she had lost over the weekend, returned miraculously at certain junctures in the form of a scream).
To be fair to Bryan Bertino, who wrote and directed ‘The Strangers’, he has made a film that provides plenty of split-second shocks without resorting to the kind of shock value slashing of ‘Saw’ or the abhorrent ‘Hostel’ However, the film is extremely repetitive and, even worse, derivative. Blank, dead-eyed masks are scary but once one has appeared from nowhere on the screen it is very hard to make the audience jump the next time it happens. This situation crops up about ten times during the film and you always know when it’s going to happen – pretty much every five minutes. Aside from the masks, there are plenty of other clichés (red, scrawled writing appears on the windows, escape is hampered by injury to one of the good-guys). Movies like this rely on disorientation for its scares and, apart from one moment with a stuck record, there is nothing remotely disorientating about ‘The Strangers’ because it’s situations and it protagonists are too familiar from a hundred other movies. Added to the fact there is hardly any dialogue (though given the quality of what there is I should probably call that a plus-point) and the good-guys have much better weapons than the strangers (For fuck’s sake! You have a shotgun, they have one axe between three of them…) I have to say it is a bit dull with a suitably dull denouement.
It is good to see Liv Tyler though. I thought she had dropped off the face of the earth and I always thought she was quite a good actress. I imagine that the similar looking but younger Anne Hathaway gets all the roles once offered to Liv these days. I bet she is gutted she missed out on ‘Get Smart’.
‘The Strangers’ Genealogy
Grandparent: ‘Halloween’ (1978)
Estranged biological father: ‘Funny Games’ (1997)
Annoying, copycat sibling: ‘Eden Lake’ (2008)
As far as movie genres go, horror has never been a particular favourite of mine so it was with a certain degree of trepidation that I watched ‘The Strangers’ last night. The story, as you may know, involves a young couple (Liv Tyler and Scott Speedman) that leave a friends wedding and travel to spend the night at Speedman’s remote summer home. Whilst there, they are harassed, tormented and assaulted by three masked strangers (Kip Weeks, Gemma Ward and Laura Margolis). That is the sum total of the plot and therein lies the films biggest problem. Nothing really happens. The couple make no real concerted effort to get away from the house and they don’t even come into that much contact with the masked trio. The film consists of a string of scenes involving Tyler or Speedman walking silently around the house to be confronted by one of the three masked figures very suddenly and, as far as the audience I was watching it with are concerned, very shockingly. (My girlfriend spent part of this movie horizontal in her seat and her voice, which she had lost over the weekend, returned miraculously at certain junctures in the form of a scream).
To be fair to Bryan Bertino, who wrote and directed ‘The Strangers’, he has made a film that provides plenty of split-second shocks without resorting to the kind of shock value slashing of ‘Saw’ or the abhorrent ‘Hostel’ However, the film is extremely repetitive and, even worse, derivative. Blank, dead-eyed masks are scary but once one has appeared from nowhere on the screen it is very hard to make the audience jump the next time it happens. This situation crops up about ten times during the film and you always know when it’s going to happen – pretty much every five minutes. Aside from the masks, there are plenty of other clichés (red, scrawled writing appears on the windows, escape is hampered by injury to one of the good-guys). Movies like this rely on disorientation for its scares and, apart from one moment with a stuck record, there is nothing remotely disorientating about ‘The Strangers’ because it’s situations and it protagonists are too familiar from a hundred other movies. Added to the fact there is hardly any dialogue (though given the quality of what there is I should probably call that a plus-point) and the good-guys have much better weapons than the strangers (For fuck’s sake! You have a shotgun, they have one axe between three of them…) I have to say it is a bit dull with a suitably dull denouement.
It is good to see Liv Tyler though. I thought she had dropped off the face of the earth and I always thought she was quite a good actress. I imagine that the similar looking but younger Anne Hathaway gets all the roles once offered to Liv these days. I bet she is gutted she missed out on ‘Get Smart’.
‘The Strangers’ Genealogy
Grandparent: ‘Halloween’ (1978)
Estranged biological father: ‘Funny Games’ (1997)
Annoying, copycat sibling: ‘Eden Lake’ (2008)
The why.
I would love to be able to say that my earliest memories of movies were akin to those of Toto in 'Cinema Paradiso'. If they had been I could tell you of school holidays and weekends spent trying to sneak into the big movie house in my tiny home village and being taken under the wing of a grumpy, yet kindly projectionist. However my childhood was not spent this way. I have always lived in big cities or large towns with more than one cinema, I have never even met a projectionist, I didn’t grow up to be a successful film director, my Dad didn’t die in World War Two and I have never, ever risked pneumonia by standing below the bedroom window of a girl with dodgy eyebrows as the heavens opened.
However, the school holidays certainly had a large part to play in my movie education. When I was very young I used to watch, like the majority of children, any cartoon going. One of my favourites was the Larry Harmon produced 'Laurel & Hardy' series. As a toddler I was aware that these two animated figures may possibly have been based on real people but it wasn’t until I was a little more grown up, probably eight or nine, that I got to watch a real Laurel & Hardy movie thanks to those wonderful schedulers of BBC 2’s late morning programmes for children. What was that first film? Memory tells me it was 'Way Out West' but to be totally honest it could just as easily been 'One Good Turn', 'The Music Box' or 'Me and My Pal'. For six weeks my brother David and I were in wonderland and couldn’t get enough of Stan and Ollie. I did everything I could to ensure I was up and at home for them so that I could not only watch but video them for continued consumption. I mastered how to set the timer to record them at that early age in case my Mum had plans for us to go book shopping at Birkenhead market, bargain-hunting at Ellesmere Port or promenading at Llandudno or Southport. I cursed myself when I forgot to set the video and went ballistic when I discovered a recording of 'Coronation Street' where 'Saps at Sea' should have been. As my eldest brother was not a fan of L&H and I was absolutely convinced that he had purposely taped over them and from that moment on I zealously guarded them like a squirrel does with his nuts.
Perhaps the most pleasing side-effect of all this was that I was never going to be afflicted by that most odious of aversions that can affect the young – that they won’t watch black and white movies. I don’t think I can ever be a true friend with somebody who has this problem though I try to show tolerance. ‘I find them boring’ is the usual defence, in one sentence relegating 'Citizen Kane', 'Casablanca', 'Paths of Glory', 'Wild Strawberries' et al. below 'The Number 23', 'Ernest Saves Christmas' and 'The Spiderwick Chronicles' in terms of interesting or watchable films.
Over the years my love of films grew. I discovered Chaplin and Keaton, Tracy and Hepburn, Newman and McQueen. I grew to love Lang, worship Wilder, and marvel at Minnelli. I wanted to know James Stewart, drink with Richard Burton, make love to Jacqueline Bisset and be Cary Grant. The cinema had invaded me and I was powerless to resist. From Gene Kelly’s feet to Clark Gables’ ears I absorbed any film I could and still cried out for more. I knew about Claudette Colbert’s good side, Gene Wilder’s blue blanket and Sid James’ piles. Between the ages of 16 and 18 I was literally a review reading, movie watching, biography devouring machine and whilst my passion for all things cinematic has never gone away it has never quite reached those heights again (blame booze, girls and Steven Gerrard).
Movies are still a very important part of my life, rivalled only by football as an interest. I like to talk about them and that is really the reason why I have decided to write a blog about them. That is not to say that I am limiting myself to talking only about films, actors, directors etc. but they will make up the spine of what is written. If any one takes the time to read what I write them that is terrific and I hope that whoever they are they will enjoy what is written and feel free to comment on it.
However, the school holidays certainly had a large part to play in my movie education. When I was very young I used to watch, like the majority of children, any cartoon going. One of my favourites was the Larry Harmon produced 'Laurel & Hardy' series. As a toddler I was aware that these two animated figures may possibly have been based on real people but it wasn’t until I was a little more grown up, probably eight or nine, that I got to watch a real Laurel & Hardy movie thanks to those wonderful schedulers of BBC 2’s late morning programmes for children. What was that first film? Memory tells me it was 'Way Out West' but to be totally honest it could just as easily been 'One Good Turn', 'The Music Box' or 'Me and My Pal'. For six weeks my brother David and I were in wonderland and couldn’t get enough of Stan and Ollie. I did everything I could to ensure I was up and at home for them so that I could not only watch but video them for continued consumption. I mastered how to set the timer to record them at that early age in case my Mum had plans for us to go book shopping at Birkenhead market, bargain-hunting at Ellesmere Port or promenading at Llandudno or Southport. I cursed myself when I forgot to set the video and went ballistic when I discovered a recording of 'Coronation Street' where 'Saps at Sea' should have been. As my eldest brother was not a fan of L&H and I was absolutely convinced that he had purposely taped over them and from that moment on I zealously guarded them like a squirrel does with his nuts.
Perhaps the most pleasing side-effect of all this was that I was never going to be afflicted by that most odious of aversions that can affect the young – that they won’t watch black and white movies. I don’t think I can ever be a true friend with somebody who has this problem though I try to show tolerance. ‘I find them boring’ is the usual defence, in one sentence relegating 'Citizen Kane', 'Casablanca', 'Paths of Glory', 'Wild Strawberries' et al. below 'The Number 23', 'Ernest Saves Christmas' and 'The Spiderwick Chronicles' in terms of interesting or watchable films.
Over the years my love of films grew. I discovered Chaplin and Keaton, Tracy and Hepburn, Newman and McQueen. I grew to love Lang, worship Wilder, and marvel at Minnelli. I wanted to know James Stewart, drink with Richard Burton, make love to Jacqueline Bisset and be Cary Grant. The cinema had invaded me and I was powerless to resist. From Gene Kelly’s feet to Clark Gables’ ears I absorbed any film I could and still cried out for more. I knew about Claudette Colbert’s good side, Gene Wilder’s blue blanket and Sid James’ piles. Between the ages of 16 and 18 I was literally a review reading, movie watching, biography devouring machine and whilst my passion for all things cinematic has never gone away it has never quite reached those heights again (blame booze, girls and Steven Gerrard).
Movies are still a very important part of my life, rivalled only by football as an interest. I like to talk about them and that is really the reason why I have decided to write a blog about them. That is not to say that I am limiting myself to talking only about films, actors, directors etc. but they will make up the spine of what is written. If any one takes the time to read what I write them that is terrific and I hope that whoever they are they will enjoy what is written and feel free to comment on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
