Film Review | Lost Highway (1997)

There are, in general, two ways to watch a David Lynch film. The first is to see it as a puzzle: something to be worked out, picked apart, theorised about and ultimately solved. This is a dangerous route to take, because if Lynch's films are puzzles then there is almost certainly more than one way to "solve" most of them, and it's almost never clear which (if any) is the way Lynch intended them to be pieced together. The second way to watch Lynch's work is to see them as pure art - leave the intricacies, the conundrums and the enigmas, and just let a surrealist tsunami engulf you.

Reviewing a David Lynch film therefore needs to take in both perspectives, and with Lost Highway there's a lot you can say about both. As a cinematic riddle, this is one of Lynch's most accomplished head-scratchers. The key is to be found in a line Fred Madison (Bill Pullman) says near the start of the film: "I like to remember things my own way. How I remembered them, not necessarily the way they happened". Much of Lost Highway is undoubtedly seen from Fred's point of view, which begs the question of exactly how much of what we're seeing is "what actually happened" and how much is purely Fred's perspective. Things get even more complex when Pete Dayton (Balthazar Getty) enters the story; how he's linked to Madison is never fully explained by Lynch, allowing each viewer to come to their own conclusions.

As an artistic work, this is up there with Lynch's very best. The director gets the best out of his whole cast; particularly noteworthy are Patricia Arquette in a femmes fatale dual role, and Robert Blake as one of the most genuinely unsettling and chilling characters you're likely to ever encounter on screen. Lynch's bizarre genius is on show throughout the film, with the first truly mind-bending meeting between Pullman and Blake's characters likely to stay with you for a long time to come. As you'd expect from Lynch, his choice of camera angles and cinematography is consistently individual and expertly constructed lending Lost Highway an ethereal and irresistable nightmarish quality.

Lost Highway feels like the natural predecessor to 2001's Mulholland Drive. It's almost like the director was refining here the methods and tone presented in the later work. Despite its many strengths, Lost Highway isn't perfect largely because, despite the clear craft and artistry that has gone into its creation, it is quite regularly almost too obtuse and indecipherable to truly enjoy. There'll undoubtedly be several moments throughout where you'll have to be honest with yourself and admit that, even if you're captivated by Lynch's film, you have very little idea of what's actually going on. But in many ways, that's the beauty of the work of David Lynch: it can leave you completely bewildered and at the same time entirely certain that what you're watching is utterly brilliant.

8/10

Film Review | Toy Story 2 (1999)

After the overwhelming success with both critics and audiences of Toy Story, it's no surprise that Pixar chose to create a sequel to capitalize on its success only four years later. No other franchise from the studio would receive a sequel until Cars 2's release in 2011. It could be that Pixar didn't want to emulate the dead-horse-flogging antics of rival studio Dreamworks, churning out one sequel after another no matter how low the quality sank. Or maybe the masters of computer animation were anxious that any future sequels made by them matched up to the incredibly high bar set in Toy Story 2.

A great deal of Toy Story 2's success comes from returning director John Lasseter's decision to carry over many positive elements from the original film. Hanks and Allen again deliver first class vocal turns as Woody and Buzz, as do the rest of the returning cast. New additions to the acting roster are just as excellent: Joan Cusack as cowgirl doll Jessie fits the character to a tee with a larger-than-life performance; Kelsey Grammer as Stinky Pete draws on his thespian roots, as well as his well-known television role as the pretentious Dr. Frasier Crane, to create a classic cinematic villain; and Wayne Knight is a perfect fit for ruthless toy collector Al McWhiggin.

Lasseter's direction here is in many ways even more impressive than in Toy Story. The advances in Pixar's animation in the four years since the first film are regularly obvious, but always used with subtlety and panache by the director. Toy Story's opening was intentionally low key and all the more powerful for it; the start of its sequel sits at the opposite end of the spectrum in terms of flamboyance, delivering a breathtaking action sequence that takes in a great many cinematic nods and references along the way, but at the same time Lasseter once again crafts a compelling and entertaining sequence. Elsewhere we see refined examples of something Pixar are now seasoned experts of ingeniously crafting from computer code: pathos. I defy anyone to watch Jessie's flashback sequence without experiencing a pang of genuine emotion within themselves.

Arguably, Toy Story 2 doesn't avoid every pitfall many sequels often fall into. The story here revisits some of the key beats of that seen in Toy Story with a rescue mission at the core of both films, only with Woody and Buzz's roles reversed from the first film to the second. But this never takes anything away from Toy Story 2, and the richness of the craft and depth of the ideas on display here mean that any repetition can be wholly forgiven. Toy Story 2 is every bit as accomplished, imaginative and entertaining as its predecessor, deserving recognition as one of the best animated films ever made.

10/10

Film Review | Toy Story (1995)

It's in no way an understatement to say that Toy Story is a cinematic milestone: one of the most important films ever made. It transformed the landscape of animated cinema forever and managed to do so slap-bang in the middle of the Disney Renaissance, one of the most critically and commercially successful periods for the animation giant. But whilst being a watershed moment in CGI, eighteen years after its release Toy Story still feels as fresh, vibrant and masterfully crafted as it did in 1995.

Toy Story perfects that synthesis of performance, direction and art so rarely seen and so precious when it happens. The vocal performances consummately fit their animated counterparts without fault. Both Tom Hanks and Tim Allen as Woody and Buzz Lightyear respectively cease to be actors, inhabiting their characters absolutely and sublimely. The chemistry between the two is pure cinematic gold, making the journey the two toys make from rivals to odd couple to double act an intoxicating mix of childhood fantasy and raw authenticity. The supporting characters too are fleshed out superbly, their voices expertly cast and each as entertaining as the next.

The script is spot on, with joke after joke hitting the mark. Toy Story effortlessly blends wordplay with visual humour, as well as providing what is now seen as a Pixar trademark - comedy that will entertain the kids, but will also draw genuine laughs from the adults. There are numerous subtle references and in-jokes littered throughout, and each is a winner.

The directorial craft from John Lasseter is consistently stunning. Shot after shot shows a passion and gift for storytelling influenced by some of the finest cinema ever made. Within Toy Story you'll find sequences of high emotion, heart-pounding action and unsettling horror, underpinned by one of the best buddy stories ever told. It's also to Pixar's credit that, nearly two decades on, the animation within their debut feature is still just as impressive as ever, the design of their characters effortlessly retaining a timeless yet contemporary quality.

Perhaps Toy Story's finest achievement of all is its transcendence of both genre and target audience. To describe it simply as a "children's film" or an "animated adventure" is to ignore its universal appeal and broad spectrum of influence and ambition. It's a film which has earned its place in cinematic history but, most importantly of all, it's a film which provides pure enjoyment through comprehensively refined cinema. Simply put, Toy Story is flawless.

10/10

Film Review | Miracle On 34th Street (1994)

A confession to open this review: at the time of writing, I've never seen the 1947 original version of Miracle On 34th Street. Whilst it therefore may be considered cinematic sacrilege to have seen the John Hughes produced 1994 remake several times, it does mean that I can consider the modern version on its own merits without making constant comparisons to the much-loved black-and-white classic.

Richard Attenborough stars as Kris Kringle, playing Santa Claus at New York department store Cole's which is relying on a successful Christmas season to fend off its recent financial difficulties. Kringle purports to be the real Santa and, whilst initially setting about to convince the non-believing Susan Walker (Mara Wilson) and her mother Dorey (Elizabeth Perkins), ends up in court arguing not only for his sanity but also over whether Santa Claus exists at all.

Miracle On 34th Street may not be directed by Hughes, but as producer and co-writer here his fingerprints are all over it. Hughes knows people and seemingly effortlessly creates incredibly human characters often in larger-than-life situations. Kris Kringle is the epitome of this, gleaming throughout with charm and warmth which is brought to life through a fantastically committed and wondrously understated performance from Attenborough. The veteran actor strikes the perfect balance between the harmlessly loopy and endearingly wise and caring elements of Kris' character; many cite Edmund Gwenn from the 1947 version of this film as the greatest big screen Santa of all time (indeed, Gwenn is the only actor ever to win an Oscar for a portrayal of Santa Claus), but to my mind Attenborough has to be considered as one of the all-time greats as well.

Attenborough is supported ably by Wilson and Perkins as the charming, yet damaged, mother and daughter pairing, as well as Dylan McDermott as Bryan, Dorey's patient and adoring boyfriend and later Kris' lawyer. The casting and performances fit brilliantly into the curiously timeless world which Hughes and director Les Mayfield create. Miracle's New York City is enchantingly caught between the modern day and a nostalgic old-fashioned version of the city (perhaps a throwback to the time in which the original film was set and released), giving the film a feeling of quality and a highly polished finish.

The story is one that can be watched and rewatched without becoming tiresome, putting a unique spin on Christmas traditions and creating arguably one of the most magical of all Christmas films without overtly putting the magic on camera. There are no elves or flying sleighs in Miracle: it's magic is much more subtle, and all the more heartwarming for it.

Occasionally the film becomes too schmaltzy for its own good - a montage depicting a date between Bryan and Dorey, set to a vomit-inducing Kenny G version of "Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas", is potentially one of the cheesiest sequences ever committed to film - and things occasionally feel a little too gentle, even for a family film. But the pervading Christmas spirit easily wins through, making Miracle On 34th Street a well made and thoroughly enjoyable modern Christmas classic.

8/10

Film Review | The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992)

The Muppet Christmas Carol looked like anything but a safe bet when it was released twenty years ago. Eight years on from their previous big screen outing, 1984's The Muppets Take Manhattan, the film was a notable departure from the more straightforward stage musical style that the Muppets were known for. It was also the first major release from the characters since the death of their creator, Jim Henson, two years previously; the film is dedicated to Henson, and his son Brian took on the director's role. These factors combined meant that a Muppet version of Dickens' famous festive ghost story could at the times of its release be considered a sizeable risk. Two decades later and the film is one of the most well-loved film versions of the tale and, arguably, the Muppets' most successful feature film.

The film recounts the well-known story of Ebeneezer Scrooge (Michael Caine), a miserly misanthrope who detests Christmas. However, during a visit from the ghosts of his deceased business partners Jacob and Robert Marley one Christmas Eve, Scrooge is warned to change his ways and informed he will be visited by three further spirits throughout the night.

The Muppet Christmas Carol gives you an awful lot to like about it all the way through. The casting, both human and Muppet, is spot on: Kermit is the perfect fit for humble optimist Bob Cratchit, with Miss Piggy overacting tremendously in the role of his wife; Statler and Waldorf heckling from beyond the grave as the Marley brothers is simply superb, as is Fozzie Bear in the small but key role of Scrooge's first employer Fozziwig; the best piece of Muppet casting, however, has to go to Gonzo narrating the whole thing as Charles Dickens himself, forming a perfect double act with Rizzo The Rat (as himself) and providing plenty of laugh-out-loud moments throughout.

The way in which the three Christmas ghosts are realised through original Muppet creations is wonderful,  with acute attention to detail and incredible faith to the source material; only the Ghost Of Christmas Present is softened up a little, working to the film's benefit by providing a much starker contrast to the Ghost Of Christmas Yet To Come. Whilst this is a Muppet film, much of the film's success must also be attributed to a faultless central performance from Caine. His Scrooge is the perfect balance of cruel taskmaster, lonely and bitter old man and, becoming more and more evident as the story wears on, a sympathetic figure with some serious emotional damage. His transformation from the start to the end of the film, coupled with the chemistry he consistently demonstrates with his Muppet co-stars, shows just how skilled an actor Caine is.

The combination of fidelity to Dickens' novella, sharp and intelligent humour and some incredibly catchy tunes (you'll have "Marley And Marley" stuck in your head for days after you watch) make The Muppet Christmas Carol a near comprehensive success. It occasionally becomes a little too sentimental for its own good, with some of the scenes involving Tiny Tim (played by Kermit's nephew Robin) laying on the schmaltz a little too heavy-handedly, but the story's pervading morals coupled with this being a Christmas tale allow this to be mostly forgiven. Overall, this is a charming, well made and incredibly enjoyable treat that deserves to be revisited every year during the festive season.

9/10

Film Review | Home Alone 2: Lost In New York (1992)

Surprising precisely no-one after the incredible success of the original, Home Alone 2: Lost In New York was released just two years after Home Alone, swiftly cashing in on the unstoppable popularity of pint-sized star Macauley Culkin in the early '90s whilst showing a keen awareness that Culkin's "cute kid" appeal might only last a few more years.

Set a year after the events of Home Alone, the McCallister family are jetting off once again for the Christmas holidays, this time headed to the sunny climes of Florida. Whilst Kevin (Culkin) makes it to the airport this time, things still manage to go awry as he ends up on a plane heading to New York City. Once again, Kevin initially enjoys exploring the city without the constraints of his parents (Catherine O'Hara and John Heard) or siblings. That is until recently escaped convicts Harry (Joe Pesci) and Marv (Daniel Stern), whom Kevin helped put away last Christmas, cross paths with our young hero once again.

Home Alone 2 takes a great many of its cues from the first film, with the plot essentially following a similar path to that of Home Alone with the action transferred to New York instead of the McCallister family home. Whilst this is something that never bothered me as a child growing up watching these films, revisiting them as an adult it's a factor which does leave several moments throughout the film lacking in originality. That said, there is enough here to make sure this isn't merely the exact same film being rehashed, with the New York setting providing some memorable moments and settings.

The sequel also retains all the key players in the cast from the original and is all the better for it. Culkin is just as good here as he was in the first film, retaining the charm and mischievousness which made him a star. O'Hara and Heard are reliably strong, and Pesci and Stern too slip straight back into the roles they carved expertly in Home Alone. It's a shame that the script this time gives Harry and Marv a few scenes that are just too silly to be truly satisfying. New additions to the cast range from the welcome (Tim Curry) to the forgettable (Rob Schneider, in a career high).

When all is said and done, Home Alone is a film built on schmaltz and slapstick, and Home Alone 2 not only sticks to the same simple formula but decides to crank up both elements a few notches more. From Brenda Fricker's homeless woman who just doesn't want to get her heart broken again (whom Kevin of course not only befriends, but gives sage advice involving rollerblades about how to overcome her problem) to Eddie Bracken's orphan-loving toy shop owner, when Home Alone 2 turns on the sentimentality it occasionally comes close to excruciating. On the other side of things, the cartoon violence-fuelled finale surpasses that of the original, with the pratfalls and destruction reaching new levels of inventiveness.

Ultimately, Home Alone 2 ends up as the slightly inferior younger sibling of Home Alone. It's enjoyable enough with a strong cast, but falls down when things get too sappy or too familiar. As festive film offerings go, it's not quite the modern classic its predecessor has become, but it's certainly an entertaining slice of '90s nostalgia and much better than a lot of Christmas offerings out there.

7/10

Film Review | Home Alone (1990)

Responsible for turning Macauley Culkin into one of the biggest names in Hollywood for the first half of the '90s, Home Alone is now over twenty years old and has become a perennial fixture in many a VHS, and now DVD, player throughout December. And, whilst it has its flaws, the family favourite holds up pleasingly well.

Culkin plays Kevin McCallister, an eight-year-old mischief maker who, thanks to a series of unfortunate mishaps, manages to get left behind whilst his entire family head off to Paris for the Christmas holidays. Whilst Kevin initially revels in his new found freedom, things take a more sinister turn when yuletide burglars Harry (Joe Pesci) and Marv (Daniel Stern) target his family home.

Let's get the negatives out of the way first: Home Alone has some uneven plotting here and there, with a middle section that becomes decidedly episodic. Whilst this does allow for some particularly memorable scenes, such as Kevin using dialogue from a gangster flick to pay for a pizza before scaring the delivery boy off, there are also a few sequences which now feel somewhat tedious. Things also become a little too schmaltzy at times, with the moral message - love your family even if they drive you crazy sometimes - laid on very thickly here and there.

There's far more to like than to dislike here though, not least the performances throughout the cast. It's not hard to see why John Hughes wrote this part for Culkin after the young actor's charming performance in 1989's Uncle Buck. Culkin is consistently a likable and enjoyable presence at the centre of the film, delivering a performance which superbly fits the farcical family fun aesthetic. Catherine O'Hara and John Heard as Kevin's mother and father bring credibility and humour to their roles, and there's even a welcome extended cameo from Culkin's Uncle Buck co-star John Candy.

But the most ingenious pieces of casting by far here are Pesci and Stern as the criminal duo terrorising Kevin's neighbourhood. The two have wonderful chemistry and provide plenty of genuine comedy throughout. It's hard to believe that one of Pesci's most iconic and expletive-laden turns, that of Tommy DeVito in Martin Scorsese's Goodfellas, was released in the same year as Home Alone.

The film's most memorable asset is, and will always remain, the final act where Harry and Marv are subjected by Kevin to one of the most severe slapstick assaults seen in modern cinema. True, the cartoon style of violence means that we never truly believe the youngster is in any real danger, but that doesn't take away from the pure entertainment that is delivered from this section of the film. 

Ultimately, whilst it's not perfect, Home Alone manages to deliver consistently enjoyable family entertainment laid on the able foundations of a talented and entertaining cast. Two decades on from its release, and Home Alone is more than deserving of its status as a modern Christmas stalwart.

8/10

Film Review | The Mask (1994)

Jim Carrey has been something of a "marmite" actor throughout his career, and in The Mask he delivers possibly his most love-it-or-hate-it performance of all. Whether you're a fan of Carrey's green-faced whirlwind or not, it's undeniable that this film - along with two more 1994 releases, namely Ace Ventura: Pet Detective and Dumb & Dumber - launched Carrey as a major star.

The Mask tells the story of Stanley Ipkiss (Carrey), a milquetoast bank employee growing tired of his luckless and boring existence. His life changes completely when he happens upon an ancient and enchanted mask which transforms him into an extrovert lothario with a toothy, lime-hued visage.

The Mask is from the outset a film of two distinct levels of success. The opening act introduces us to Stanley, his workaday life and timid attitude, as well as his best friend Charlie (Richard Jeni). It's fine, but nothing special. Cameron Diaz - in her feature debut no less - is fine as love interest Tina Carlyle, and Peter Greene as the villain of the piece Dorian Tyrell is again, well, fine. The whole thing does what it needs to, but without ever feeling special. In hindsight it's clear to see that Stanley Ipkiss, above Lloyd Christmas and Ace Ventura, is the breakout role that would cement Carrey as more than just a maniacal force of comedy but as genuine leading man material. But even so, The Mask begins in an overall underwhelming way.

At around the twenty minute mark, however, Stanley puts on the mask and the whole film immediately shifts into another gear entirely. The Mask as a character is so outlandish and blatant that, as has already been acknowledged, he is likely to divide audience opinion. To my mind, he is one of the finest physical comedy creations in cinema. The character pays homage to everything from classic Tex Avery cartoons to the Marx Brothers and Jerry Lewis, with references to a huge amount of classic cinema including Gone With The Wind and The Cincinnati Kid. From the moment The Mask character enters the film, every moment he's on screen is pure gold. Carrey's performance is flawless and comically note-perfect as Stanley's emerald-countenanced alter-ego.

The film essentially ends up becoming the average of these two planes. When the focus is on Stanley's everyday life, things become somewhat less interesting; aside from one or two more entertaining scenes, including one where Stanley consults mask expert Dr. Neuman (Ben Stein, in a pleasing cameo), the film at times feel like it's almost filling in between the appearances of The Mask. But when Carrey dons the green make-up and is allowed to let loose, this is superb. What we end up with therefore fluctuates between the good and the outstanding, but overall is entertaining, thoroughly enjoyable and regularly showcases Carrey at his comedic best.

8/10

Film Review | The Cable Guy (1996)

It's almost certainly easier for audiences to take in Jim Carrey's unnerving and darkly charged performance now than it was when The Cable Guy was first released. It's Carrey's inhabiting of the role that drives much of the film's success, so unless you can get behind him, it's unlikely you'll get much from the film as a whole.

Carrey stars as the eponymous televisual technician, Chip Matthews, who befriends Steven Kovacs (Matthew Broderick) after installing his cable for him. It's a friendship which swings wildly from the pleasant to the downright creepy, thanks in no small part to Chip's erratic behaviour.

The Cable Guy is at its best when at its darkest, with Carrey's demented turn as Chip at its heart. Borrowing from his rubber-faced repertoire only occasionally, this, along with his performance in 1995's Batman Forever, was the point in Carrey's career that he began to demonstrate he was more than just pratfalls and gurning. There are some more overtly silly scenes here - a friendly basketball match which escalates in the extreme being a prime example - but there are also plenty of moments, particularly in the final third, where Carrey along with director Ben Stiller show they can create something really quite unsettling. It's at these moments that The Cable Guy reveals itself as something more than just another wacky comedy.

It's a shame that it takes far too long to get there. With a relatively slight running time of just an hour and a half, this really shouldn't be the case. The first hour has some good moments, but there's also far too much here which simply doesn't do much at all. The cast aside from Carrey are functional at best, with Broderick doing everything he can to make you neither like nor hate his mawkish everyman, and the biggest achievement of the remainder being how many future big stars there are littered amongst them without any of them impressing you.

The Cable Guy ultimately evens out as something very entertaining but a little too patchy to be anything more. If the balance of the film was readjusted so that it took half the time to get to the darker and more successful stuff, and there was twice as much of it when you got there, this would be a classic.

7/10

Film Review | A Bug's Life (1998)

A Bug's Life has possibly the most unenviable position in Pixar's cinematic canon, sitting chronologically as it does between the release of Toy Story and Toy Story 2, films quite rightly hailed as two of the studios very best. It was also in cinemas at the same time as rival studio DreamWorks' first ever animated release, Antz, a film with  several similarities in character and concept to Pixar's second feature. It was therefore a film that needed to work incredibly hard to make itself stand out.

A Bug's Life follows Flik (Dave Foley), an ant who lives in a colony terrorized by a swarm of grasshoppers led by the nefarious Hopper (Kevin Spacey). Flik also has a tendency to leave destruction in his wake, especially when he attempts to help his fellow ants. After Flik causes the entire harvest gathered for the grasshoppers to be destroyed, he volunteers to travel to the city in order to find someone who will help rid them of the grasshoppers for good.

Now nearly fourteen years old, revisiting A Bug's Life could have been an experience of seeing how much animation has advanced since Pixar first started making feature length films, but thankfully this isn't the case. Watching the film on Blu-ray only served to enhance how vibrant and colourful the studios animation still appears. There are one or two elements which may show the film's relative age in the medium - the bird comes to mind first, as well as a couple of other larger elements (well, from an ant's perspective anyway) - but never to the extent of taking anything away from it.

That said, when compared to Toy Story (something that A Bug's Life will have to put up with permanently), the film at times comes across as less adventurous and a little more safe in its design. Andy's bedroom is characterised by the variety and difference between all of his toys, with each feeling like a distinct personality and beautifully realised in its own way. Ants are, by definition, pretty similar looking. There may be subtle differences between Flik and his fellow ants, but never enough to distinguish one ant from the next. The background characters in Toy Story featured a wealth of individuals who may only have had a minute or two of screen time but were brought to life as their own toy; here we have an army of blue ants who for all intents and purposes look exactly the same, facing off against grasshoppers who by and large look the same as each other. It just doesn't have the same impact.

The same can be said for the story. Finding its roots in the fable "The Ant And The Grasshopper" by Aesop, the film owes just as much to Kurosawa's Seven Samurai. But whilst the plot is engaging and fun with clear cinematic heritage, this is much more firmly grounded in the family and children's entertainment bracket than the Toy Story franchise and other later Pixar efforts. The hidden humour and in-jokes for the grown-ups are much scarcer, mainly provided through the grasshopper characters, and feel much less subtle than what many have come to expect from the studio by now.

Ultimately, A Bug's Life is a victim of Pixar's success both before, in the form of Toy Story, and since. It's a fun, well made, enjoyable film. But when it comes from a studio as innovative and consistently outstanding in terms of output as Pixar, it's a film that is likely to get overshadowed. In some ways that's a shame, as A Bug's Life is a genuinely very good film; in others, it's right that the studio's relatively superior efforts get the recognition.

8/10

Film Review | Beethoven's 2nd (1993)

Revisiting films you loved as a child can be a risky business, and invariably leads down one of two paths: you  are either transported back to your childhood, memories flooding back of watching beloved pieces of cinema on one of four channels on a lazy weekend afternoon, as you rediscover a gem of a bygone era that has aged joyously well; or, you are faced with the reality that the film you watched so many times that the sound and picture wore out on your VHS cassette when you were a child is something that the adult version of you can barely get all the way through. Whilst Beethoven's 2nd, a childhood favourite of mine along with the 1992 original, is not an absolute stinker, it certainly hasn't held up as well as the 10-year-old me would have hoped.

We rejoin the Newton family, parents George and Alice (Charles Grodin and Bonnie Hunt both returning from the first film) and their two point four children, plus of course the eponymous St. Bernard who is now feeling broody. Beethoven soon finds his sweetheart in Missy, a female St. Bernard (complete with pink bow at all times), and raises a litter of puppies. However, the canine couple are soon separated after Missy is taken from her owner by his spiteful ex-wife Regina (Debi Mazar).

Unfortunately, Beethoven's 2nd is never as enjoyable as the first film. Grodin and Hunt do their best to keep things afloat, but even their collective charm can't counteract the film's shortcomings. Two of the Newton offspring again are given subplots, this time both involving young love, and both failing to impress - Ryce's (Nicholle Tom) relationship with a boy at school begins promisingly, but concludes with one of the film's most ludicrous scenes; meanwhile Ted's (Christopher Castile) failed attempts to woo a classmate of his own because he's too short just come across as lazy and, in all honesty, stupid, with a conclusion lifted almost entirely from Ted's bullying story in the first film.

The problems unfortunately continue with the film's main plot, which feels limp and lacking in any substance, and punctuated by saccharine doggy romance far too often. Debi Mazar is suitably hateable as the poisonous Regina, but seeing Chris Penn reduced to playing her pratfalling, dumb boyfriend Floyd less than two years after his role in Reservoir Dogs is painful every moment he is on screen.

Beethoven's 2nd does have some redeeming features - Sarah Rose Karr is perpetually sweet as the Newtons' youngest Emily, and there are a handful of genuinely entertaining scenes, usually those where Grodin shares screen time with Beethoven (something which sadly happens much less frequently than in the original). But the humour is largely recycled from the first film, and what new ideas there are here are never successful enough. If like me you first saw this as a child, you'll probably still enjoy revisiting the colossal canine's misadventures, but sadly Beethoven's 2nd doesn't hold up well to close scrutiny.

4/10

Film Review | Beethoven (1992)

Having written and directed a host of films throughout the '80s that have since gained everything from mainstream to cult adoration, John Hughes moved into slightly more safe territory in the '90s aiming squarely at the family market. Hughes continued to have considerable success, but seemingly hedged his bets with which of the films he wrote he would actually put his name to. In some cases, such as Home Alone or the 1994 remake of Christmas favourite Miracle On 34th Street, Hughes is clear to see within the credits; in others, Hughes chose the literary-flavoured "Edmond Dantès" as his pseudonym, possibly to protect himself from slightly less surefire hits. Beethoven falls into the second category, and whilst its never classic cinema, Hughes could have safely slapped his name on this and kept his reputation intact.

Beethoven follows the so-named St. Bernard who, after escaping being stolen from a pet shop to be used for illegal animal testing, winds up as the pet of the Newton family led by father George (Charles Grodin), who quickly develops a love-hate relationship with the huge hound.

As far as harmless family entertainment goes, Beethoven fits the bill. Yes, in many ways it goes down the well-trodden path of many that have gone before it - there's a montage to show Beethoven growing from lovable puppy to hulking St. Bernard, complete with puppy pee jokes and dad Grodin getting the rough end of the deal whilst the rest of the family get to pet and play with the new addition - but there's enough here to raise Beethoven securely a notch or two above more forgettable entries into the genre. 

The major component in this is Grodin; the role of harassed middle-class father might not be the most original, but Grodin makes it his own. It's also hard to deny the chemistry that he and his canine co-star share. Many of the laughs, as well as some of the film's more touching moments, happen when Grodin and the dog are on screen together. Add to this some able support from Bonnie Hunt as wife and mother Alice, as well as some early appearances in supporting roles from recognisable names such as Stanley Tucci, Oliver Platt and David Duchovny (who hams it up well as a smarmy business associate of George's) and suddenly Beethoven reveals itself as a much more appealing product than it might first appear. 

That said, it's not without its faults. Some aspects are painfully episodic; son Ted's (Christopher Castile) problem with bullies at school feels more like something out of a preachy kids' TV series, and older daughter Ryce's (Nicholle Tom) teenage romance is given far too short shrift to become anything of worth to the film. The brief running time of just under an hour and a half also means that the film's main plot - an immoral vet stealing pets to make money out of animal testing - doesn't quite get the screen time to be fleshed out thoroughly. But it also means that the film never manages to outstay its welcome. Beethoven manages to entertain earnestly and swiftly, something that many more recent entries into the family market cannot manage.

6/10

Film Review | Jackie Brown (1997)

Jackie Brown is arguably Tarantino's least celebrated film. It was never going to have an easy time, following on from the overwhelming mainstream and critical success of Pulp Fiction which in turn had generated greater attention in the director's first film, Reservoir Dogs. Tarantino had set himself up to incredibly high - maybe even impossibly high - expectations, so no matter how he attempted to meet them there was inevitably going to be at least some of his audience who would be underwhelmed by his third film.

Jackie Brown tells the story of the title character (Pam Grier), an air hostess who helps weapons dealer and gangster Ordell Robbie (Samuel L. Jackson) smuggle money in and out of the USA. After ATF agent Ray Nicolette (Michael Keaton) catches Jackie in the act, she becomes further embroiled in Ordell's business and a sting operation for Nicolette to arrest the gangster, whilst at the same time striking up a relationship with bail bondsman Max Cherry (Robert Forster).

In all honesty, I cannot understand the negative criticism levelled at Jackie Brown. It's almost certainly Tarantino's most "un-Tarantino-esque" film, not containing as many of the director's hallmarks (at least not as overtly). The narrative is by and large linear, and the dialogue is less flagrantly audacious than that heard throughout Tarantino's earlier works. It may be the absence of these features that lead fans of the director to be overly critical of the film; you don't have to scratch the surface too deep to see that Tarantino has created cinematic gold once again.

That Jackie Brown isn't as endlessly quotable as either of the writer and director's previous films doesn't mean that this isn't another stellar script from Tarantino. The intricate story builds perfectly throughout the two-and-a-half hour running time towards a gripping finale and a tense and emotional epilogue. The script is imbued with a subtle pizazz that often rings truer than the poetic style heard in Tarantino's previous films. This is potentially the director's most mature and balanced work.

Tarantino again garners a wealth of top-notch performances from his ensemble cast. Once again, it's hard to pick out one actor above the rest. Grier brings confidence and authenticity to the title role, with Forster's turn opposite her imbued brilliantly with introversion and subtlety. The attraction that builds between Jackie and Max is incredibly well-handled; theirs is a genuine and covert affection that only rises to the surface once or twice throughout, and is the most real romantic relationship seen in any of Tarantino's films. Robert De Niro is reliably excellent as Ordell's criminal associate Louis Gara, again bringing an understated feel to the role. In contrast to Forster's Max, De Niro constantly lets you know that there is fire burning beneath Louis' sometimes bumbling character making his performance captivating yet at times superbly uncomfortable.

Jackson is perfect throughout, giving his best performance of any of his films. Jules Winnfield may be Jackson's most iconic and quotable role, but it is through Ordell Robbie that Jackson truly shows his undeniable brilliance as an actor. Watching Ordell calmly and precisely pull on his leather gloves before preparing to do away with whomever he has deemed necessary to dispatch sends chills down your spine, which is testament to both Jackson's acting and Tarantino's direction. Ordell is  simultaneously calculating and cold-hearted, charismatic and despicable, but always feels completely authentic.

Simply put, Jackie Brown is a film of quality and maturity through and through. If Reservoir Dogs is a shot of tequila and Pulp Fiction a strong, carefully mixed cocktail, then Jackie Brown is a smooth sipping whiskey over ice to be enjoyed slowly. It's Tarantino at his most restrained, but also his most refined. An exercise in subtlety and expertly crafted cinema. The film stands incredibly well on its own, but it also rounds off Tarantino's opening trilogy of works superbly; together with his first two films, Jackie Brown eloquently argues for Tarantino to be considered as one of the greatest cinematic writers and directors of all time.

10/10

Film Review | Pulp Fiction (1994)

In Reservoir Dogs, his feature debut, Quentin Tarantino laid down in raw, unbridled fashion what he is about as a film-maker. Pulp Fiction was his chance to refine this style and prove his first film was not just a fluke. History shows that he more than managed this: Pulp Fiction received seven Oscar nominations, with a win for Best Screenplay, and is regularly hailed as both a cinematic milestone and Tarantino's defining work. Eighteen years on, it's still not hard to see why.

The film relates, in nonlinear style, several different stories set in Los Angeles linked by the characters appearing within them, most prominently mob hitmen Vincent Vega (John Travolta) and Jules Winnfield (Samuel L. Jackson), their gangster boss Marcellus Wallace (Ving Rhames), his wife Mia (Uma Thurman) and boxer Butch Coolidge (Bruce Willis).

Pulp Fiction is such a comprehensive success, first and foremost, because of the talent on show here. There  isn't a performance within the film which isn't excellent, and the cast play off each other superbly. It's unfair to single out any individual turn over the others, but there are a few which are so iconic that it's hard not to: this is the film that revitalised Travolta's deteriorating career and that made Jackson a renowned and respected Hollywood star; it also allowed Willis to truly prove he was capable of more than just action roles, his turn as Coolidge being one of the most varied and multi-layered he has ever given, and potentially his best performance in any film. Ironically, the only performance that truly sticks out (although not enough to spoil proceedings) is Tarantino's cameo as Jimmy - his n-word laden speech to Jules and Vincent when we first see him is still cringeworthy, and mainly serves as a reminder as to why Tarantino moved behind the camera in the first place. Thankfully, Harvey Keitel soon shows up to undo any damage with a performance that desperately begs the question as to why the man never made it as a genuinely big star.

The rest of Tarantino's work here is so exemplary that even his dodgy bit part can be wholly forgiven. Part of the charm of Reservoir Dogs is the rough-and-ready feel to much of it; Tarantino showed what he could do with a relatively small budget. With Pulp Fiction, Tarantino had the chance to show off a lot more with a studio behind him. The cinematography here is superb, with every shot considered and crafted to perfection. The director also shows ambition in using more abstract elements in his work - watch Mia draw a square in the air when describing Vincent's attitude, only for it to appear in front of her then disappear with a cartoonish pop. It's kitsch, it's unexpected, it's brilliant.

Tarantino's script fizzes and crackles throughout, his characters speaking in a poetry which oozes cool and perfectly fits the world Tarantino creates within the film. From Jackson's Bible-quoting mobster to Thurman's character saying "disco" where most would use the word "bingo", Pulp Fiction offers some of the finest, coolest writing ever heard in a film. Tarantino imbues his scripts with both contemporary fire and retro ice, making his films simultaneously modern and nostalgic. Pulp Fiction balances this effortlessly, arguably better than any of his other works, giving the film a timeless quality and allowing it to age beautifully.

Pulp Fiction is an incredibly ambitious work and succeeds comprehensively at everything it attempts. It's a film which can be endlessly analysed, interpreted and critiqued, but just taken as a piece of cinema it is purely and simply a masterclass in film-making. There is not a part of this film that doesn't work. Not only that, it cemented Tarantino as one of the defining cinematic talents of the 1990s and showcased both the scope and imagination of his talent.

10/10

Film Review | Reservoir Dogs (1992)

Reservoir Dogs celebrates its twentieth birthday this year. In the year of the film's release, Coppola's The Godfather was twenty years old and firmly established as one of the greatest crime dramas, and the greatest films, ever released. It's my strong conviction that, two decades on from when it was first seen, the same can be said of Tarantino's directorial debut.

The film tells the story of a diamond heist gone wrong, depicting the events leading up to and following on from the heist, but not the actual robbery itself. Most of the men involved don't know each other, using colour-coded aliases to refer to each other. As events unfold, Mr. White (Harvey Keitel) begins to form a bond with Mr. Orange (Tim Roth); at the same time, other members of the group, particularly Mr. Pink (Steve Buscemi), suspect that the heist was a set up with a rat amongst them.

From the very first scene to the very last, Reservoir Dogs is electrically charged cinema that demands your attention and rewards every minute of it. Tarantino's story is simple, often related using simple imagery - the colour-coded names, the black-and-white suits, the minimalist setting of a warehouse feeling almost like a theatrical stage - but also told with intelligence and skill that forces you to stay on your toes. Many of the director's hallmarks are first seen in this film and used to astounding effect. Tarantino is sharp and in complete control, knowing exactly what he wants you to see and how he wants you to see it. The "commode story" sequence is one of my all-time favourite pieces of cinema, and even after seeing it dozens of times it still sends shivers down my spine thanks to the craftsmanship and power behind every moment of the story-within-a-story-within-a-story. The script throughout is sharp, witty, compelling; if you ever needed proof that Tarantino is an artist behind the camera, Reservoir Dogs is it.

The cast are flawless, littering the film with a wealth of perfect performances, to the point that singling out any one performance seems unfair. Keitel and Roth are superb as the veteran criminal who allows his hard exterior to be penetrated by a first-timer; the scenes between these two are packed with genuine heart to the point that you often forget how despicable some of the things they are saying and doing are. Buscemi is a joy as Mr. Pink, frantic yet determined and, arguably, the one with his head most firmly on his shoulders. Michael Madsen's performance as Mr. Blonde is brilliantly unnerving, keeping us guessing as to exactly how demented he might be until a certain scene involving a policeman, a chair and a cutthroat razor lays his character bare.

Many hold up Pulp Fiction, Tarantino's next film, as the director's defining work. But as good as Pulp Fiction is, I will always choose Reservoir Dogs as holding that honour. It signified a new era in cinema of indie and arthouse values brought together brilliantly with traditional Hollywood ideology. It also announced Tarantino as a writer and director of whom the world needed to sit up and take notice. Most importantly of all, it's a piece of cinema as vibrant and aggressively engaging now as it was when it was first released, and one that I find impossible to fault.

10/10

Film Review | RoboCop 3 (1993)

After the mess and bad feeling surrounding RoboCop 2, it was down to the third in the trilogy to bring some of the credibility of the original film back to the franchise. However, RoboCop 3 suffered the behind-the-scenes turmoil which marred the first sequel: Peter Weller chose not to return as the eponymous cyborg, his experience being so negative whilst working on RoboCop 2; Frank Miller was again brought back to write the script, hoping to reintroduce some of the ideas he'd had for the second in the franchise that weren't used, but again saw his script rewritten to the point of being unrecognisable. He wouldn't return to Hollywood until Robert Rodriguez brought Miller's graphic novel Sin City to the big screen. All things considered, RoboCop 3 seemed anything but a safe bet to bring back the satirical brilliance of the first film.

We return to the dystopian near-future, where OCP's plans to level Detroit and create "Delta City" in its place are underway as many of the city's inhabitants are forced from their homes by armed officers known as "rehabs". After an attempt by RoboCop (Robert John Burke) and partner Lewis (Nancy Allen) to defend citizens against the rehabs goes awry, the law enforcement cyborg joins forces with a resistance group to take down the rehabs and OCP once and for all.

In short, RoboCop 3, much like its predecessor, never manages to overcome the trouble behind its production. The script is schlocky and overly sentimental - a world away from that of Paul Verhoeven's sharp and acerbic original. Some of Verhoeven's hallmarks linger on, although they just serve to remind you of how far the franchise has fallen since its opening installment.

Burke's effort in taking on the Murphy/RoboCop role is admirable, but is hampered by the poor script and Fred Dekker's muted direction, as well as the insurmountable problem that he simply isn't Weller. Allen is a welcome returning face, although her time on screen is brief making her sorely missed for most of the film. New characters introduced are flimsy, from Stephen Root's over-the-top resistance member Coontz to Remy Ryan's irritating and ludicrous juvenile computer hacker Nikko.

RoboCop 3's biggest failing, however, is the change of tone from the first two films, largely in order to gain it a PG-13 rating in the USA upon its release. Gone is the adeptly utilised ultraviolence the first film is known for and that the second film, albeit with limited success, attempted to replicate. Instead we get neutered action sequences and cartoon style violence that for the most part falls flat.

To its credit, RoboCop 3's story hangs together much better than that of RoboCop 2, and in that sense it is superior to the first sequel. But when the story is as mawkish and silly as that related here, it makes very little difference. RoboCop 3 ensures that the franchise goes out on a whimper, certifying the original film as the trilogy's sole worthwhile entry.

3/10

Film Review | RoboCop 2 (1990)

RoboCop 2 in many ways exhibits the hallmarks of the "difficult" sequel. Known for being Frank Miller of Sin City fame's first big opportunity to break into Hollywood as a writer, the script was doctored to the point of Miller's original story being almost unrecognisable. The film also attempted to recreate the razor-sharp satire of RoboCop through the hallmarks of Paul Verhoeven, despite the director having no involvement in the film with the sequel helmed by Irvin Kirschner. The question upon RoboCop 2's release was whether or not the film could win through on screen despite the turmoil behind the scenes.

We return to Detroit in the not-too-distant future. OCP is now even stronger, tightening its grip on the city and forcing the police department to strike, meaning that crime is running even more rampant than ever. Meanwhile, RoboCop (Peter Weller) heads up the fight against a new drug, "nuke", pushed by a criminal with a Christ complex, Cain (Tom Noonan).

RoboCop 2's positives are largely carried over from the first film. Weller as Murphy/RoboCop is just as strong, bringing as much of the humanity and cybernetic charm seen in the original to the role here as he can. Nancy Allen, returning as Murphy's partner Lewis, is also strong, as are many of the returning cast such as Robert DoQui. Kirschner's attempts at Verhoeven's satirical and blackly comic news reports and advertisements used throughout the film also work at least some of the time, although often without the subtlety or panache that their originator brought to them.

Less successful is the film's ultra-violence. In RoboCop, the use of extreme gore and violent scenes was a key storytelling device, punctuating the film's message through both shock and satire. Here, much more often than not, it just comes across as violence for violence's sake. There's no message, just blood and death. Ironically, this key feature which raised the first film above many other action flicks actually helps to cement RoboCop 2 as never anything more than a meatheaded kill-fest.

So far, so forgivable. What drags the film down further is its haphazardly episodic structure. It's very hard to see any clear thread running through what's going on throughout the film. What are initially introduced as key plot elements are either quickly disposed of or just forgotten completely. In one scene near the beginning of the film, Murphy's wife is given a heartfelt scene confronting the cyborg created from her husband's dead body. After this, she's barely given a mention. There's nothing here to latch onto, which ultimately makes everything presented seem all the more vacuous.

Where the film falls down almost entirely is in the characters it introduces. Cain never feels like any genuine threat, and Belinda Bauer as the new head of OCP's RoboCop program is just irritating. Worst of all is Gabriel Damon as Hob, Cain's juvenile right hand man. Grating in a typically "annoying kid in an '80s movie" kind of way in the first half, Damon takes things to a whole new level when his role is expanded in nauseating fashion as the film hobbles towards its conclusion.

RoboCop 2 is therefore at best a wasted opportunity that seemingly couldn't overcome its troubled production. Whilst there are aspects here that genre fans will likely enjoy to a point, ultimately this is a shallow husk of an action film and a shadow of the enjoyable and smart original. Weller refused to return for RoboCop 3 after his negative experience throughout this first sequel; undoubtedly, many audience members did, and will continue to do, the same.

4/10

Film Review | The Insider (1999)

As a fan of films and the film industry, there are always going to be films that I naturally am attracted to or repelled by, usually due in no small part to the people involved in making them. Everyone has actors and directors whose work generally appeals to them, as well as those who they just don't get on with; Russell Crowe and Michael Mann are two people whose work independently, whilst not going as far as hating, I have struggled to enjoy in the past. So it was with some degree of trepidation that I decided to give The Insider a go; with the former starring and the latter directing, was there any chance I would be able to agree with the immense amount of praise the film had received on release?

The film is a dramatised account of a real life media event of the mid '90s. After being fired from his job at a "big tobacco" company, Jeffrey Wigand (Crowe) is contacted by TV producer Lowell Bergman (Al Pacino) to help him decipher information he has received on the tobacco industry. Wigand's involvement with Bergman goes much further, however, to the point of Bergman working to have him featured on the TV show 60 Minutes to blow the whistle on many of the questionable practices within the tobacco industry. But Wigand's former employers won't simply allow this to happen without causing both men problems.

There's an awful lot to like about The Insider. The feel of the film is polished and highly crafted throughout, with a solid script at its core. Mann manages to create an authentic, almost timeless feel to the story - whilst the events happen in the late 20th Century, the ideas and issues tackled could apply to any time since the dawn of mass media - and I had less issue with his style direction here than I have in other films he has made. That said, Mann still chooses to ruin a handful of shots by opting for a "shaky" handheld camera style which felt out of place and did nothing but distract me from the story being told.

I wasn't aware until after watching the film that Crowe had been nominated for a Best Actor Academy Award for his performance as Wigand and, to be honest, I was a little surprised. That's not to say his performance wasn't good. Crowe manages throughout most of the film to imbue the character with the necessary pathos and suggestion of varying degrees of instability, but there were also times where I found his performance to be just good enough, and not what I'd call Oscar-worthy at any point throughout.

Pacino is reliably strong, bringing a tenacity to Bergman that is both believable and satisfying throughout the film. That said, this is not Pacino at his very best; at times he feels as though he is holding back, with only a couple of slow-burning rants to enjoy throughout the film's two-and-a-half hour running time. In a role such as this, Pacino could never have been anything less than great, but measured against his own back catalogue his performance here never threatens to be a defining one.

Worthy of mention in amongst a solid supporting cast is Christopher Plummer, who inhabits the role of Mike Wallace with a thick skin and constant fire in his eyes, outperforming both Crowe and, on several occasions, even Pacino.

And then there is the film's length. I've read other reviewers suggest that the near 150 minutes fly by, but I certainly didn't find this. The film is too long by around half an hour. Where that time could be removed from is debatable, but I felt that the opening act slightly lacked pace and that the final act trundled to a halt a little too much, rather than being brought to a controlled conclusion. It may be that Mann felt that he needed to include everything shown here to represent the true life events, but there is evidence here that he should have been more focused on creating a tight piece of cinema than a comprehensive document of all the events.

Despite what surely seems like a great deal of criticism, The Insider is undeniably a very good film, and almost certainly the film of Mann's that I've enjoyed watching the most. It's a film not without fault, but still a film of quality and craft and a fine example of a contemporary corporate and media thriller. Will it make me a convert of Mann and Crowe? Probably not, although I'll most likely be slightly more open to their work in the future. To me, The Insider is not the near-perfect piece of cinema many hailed it as at the time of its release, but it is certainly well made and worthwhile.

7/10