Film Reviews

Kingpin is one of my favourite comedy films. it’s truly brilliant.

One of the funniest things in it is the pastiche of Mrs Robinson; in it Lin Shaye plays the landlady who accepts sex instead of rent money. it is such a memorable performance – despite its brevity – that i cannot watch this actress in anything else without recalling it. That means all the Insidious films for me are ruined which is a shame as i appreciate a good horror film. Talk about unfortunate casting…please do, as i’ve nowt else to say abowt it – Eeee I’ve not started….

I was writing some shit about those feel good british films on facebook recently. in particular the recent spate of ‘inspirational’ stories set in wales. i stay away from them if i can, i.e. i don’t go to the cinema and waste money on them, but then there’s always that nagging feeling that maybe you missed something worthwhile. Incredible then that today i found out that one of my friends actually created the story and first draft of one of the most recent of that sub genre welshy in it. i’m not going to name the film film here as there’s all sorts of masonic militants keeping their eyes on the free liberal press…and i get depressed when people have a go at me. but anyway she confirmed a lot of what i had already guessed regarding this film. (and this crappy ‘genre’ generally) ultimately it is the money people who dictate what the content will be, what the imagery will project, what stereotypes need to be upheld….the money people, not the writer, not the director…the creative people are all expendable. just get that commodity churned out. let’s face it well over 50 percent of all films are just shit, bile. unlike other arts like dance, music, comedy, books, films can be full of shit right in front of the public’s nose, yet they watch it anyway , transfixed. there’s something wrong with this dynamic…i don’t know what. it’s like we should all demand better, boycott this vapid trite, but we don’t. it’ like we can’t take film seriously.

It’s plain to see, if you read the biographies of the great writers, the ones who wrote for films, they basically say you’re lucky if they leave a tenth of your script untouched in the filming process. terry southern ,one of the greats, certainly tells us that much. so it’s as if we already know en masse what a brainwash the idea of filmic entertainment is.

and if it’s not the money people who enjoy ruining the sublime then it’s the censors. Censors sometimes cut things just to be mean it seems. or somebody cuts things, and the end effect is truly sad. Twice in my life i have seen the film House of Long Shadows. not a great, but okay old dark house horror tale, famous for being the only film to star the four titans Price Cushing Lee and Carradine. i have read that, at the end of the film the great cast added a special credits scene where they walk present themselves one by one walking up to the screen as if taking a bow for a theatre crowd. sounds like it could even be the best thing in the film. twice i’ve seen the movie and twice that scene has been missing…WHY?? i mean, what’s gained by its excision? the shaving off of a minute ?? AN example of the killjoy censor.

Then you get the scene cut out which is only brief, but its absence lessens the quality of the film by a mile, in an intrinsic way. The best example i know of this kind comes from the classic british horror film The Queen of Spades…which i was lucky enough to see ( i didn’t realise i was lucky at the time) at the BFI in London around 2000. it’s a great atmospheric film, and there’s a very clever special effect, very brief, showing the eye of the queen on the queen of spades card winking. this is a call back to the earlier scene where the dead princess (played by Edith Evans) (who has been murdered by Anton Walbrook) winks at her murderer from her open coffin. was it a twitch? a dead cat bounce ?

The wink of the card comes towards the end, and is probably an effect created through animation.

Just last year i watched this film again on the Talking Pictures tv channel. again its black and white gothic gloom hit me, and yet it had no spine. it was jelly at the centre, it had lost something, lost its impact. It hit me straight away after the final scene what the problem was; they’d cut out both scenes with the winking eye. I was gobsmacked. why the omission? there was no rhyme or reason, i mean it’s not as a winking eye is obscene, or offensive to children. Whoever was responsible for this has no concept of the aesthetic he was destroying. mindless destruction of a film’s impact is what it was. Very odd, and very sad. i’d love to know the story behind the cut. again it couldn’t have been for time consideration as we are talking about a couple of seconds.

The thing that links both the examples above is: i happened to have seen or read about the original version. i had the awareness of the original in my mind. Now, had i not known of these beforehand who knows what i would have thought? I’m guessing i would have watched the films, enjoyed them, and not thought anything amiss. But i also like to think you can sense something rotten behind the light; often given away by awkward edits and jarring cuts. IN the case of the Queen of Spades i can quite categorically say that the version with the winks was ten times scarier. it wasn’t just the image itself, but the context of the two winks, the implication, the horror, the revenge from beyond the grave. The wink gave meaning to it. Keep it in FFS!

El Dorado. Must be one of the wittiest films. you wouldn’t have thought that a 1967 John Wayne cowboy movie would be thus, but i tell you it’s a comedy! Robert Mitchum even does a Laurel & Hardy style pratfall after being hit on the head with a spitoon. (or is it a bed pan?). Arthur Hunnicut plays the ‘cripple’, and i prefer him to Walter Brennan’s equivalent role in Rio Grande. this is kinda a buddy movie, but it’s seen as a sequel come remake of 1959’s Rio Bravo. Both movies focus on a small disparate group of men defending the town jail against the baddies. the earlier film was apparently a response to High Noon and the cowardliness – as perceived by Duke – of the townsfolk in that film. John Wayne is immensely watchable, more so with a good script, it seems a shame that in real life he had that ‘all american anti-red thing’ going on.

Duuuwwww i watched a ton of slasher films down at Gareth’s house. I never realised that the late 70s/early 80s are seen as the golden era of the genre. But like all ‘genres’ it is a mixed bag when it comes to quality.

Student Bodies was alright, liked some of the humour, a sort of a Kentucky Fried Movie for sickos. Gareth told me that Scary Movie was influenced by this one.

NEW YEAR’S EVIL. i personally thought this one pretty shit, with a bizarre inert performance by the lead actress.

MOTHER’S DAY. – this was a very average mess. fun in parts but no way a classic. watched the special features where Eli Roth proclaims his love for this one. As a lonely kid he got all his mates around during his barmtizva to watch it. EVen today he loves it. and you can tell by the way he gushed on about every aspect of the film that he really really loves it. OK I think it’s nice when a film director talks about a film he rates, but at the same time i think he’s let his child self over rate the film. I MEAN, at one point he goes on about how it’s political film, a film about consumerism, – really?? Just cos there’s a few TVs in the house, playing adverts?? I could not see that aspect of the film at all, mainly because the crappiness of the film distracts from any thematic nuance. And when i say ‘crappiness’, for example, the whole opening segments following the three female leads setting up camp in the woods. iT WAS done in such an unrealistic way, nothing about them was convincing as campers.

Last House on the Left aka Krud and Company.

picked this double DVD set up in a charity shop….maybe i should have paid for it, but fuck it- charity’s about giving right.

anyway, when i got him home the first fuckin disc was missing. so i had to watch the second one instead. well, as it turned out, that was okay: The film on this disc was the same as the one in the title above, only it was called Krug and Company. this was the name before they changed it to the more commercial sounding LHOTL.

so this film, released in 1972, was Wes Craven’s directorial debut. Apparently an infamous film, prompting bannings and censorships; volatile criticism and hate. and i could see why. There was something about the voyeuristic almost documentary style of it that would have appalled audiences of the time, who, though used to crime films, would not have expected such a loose structure, with contradictory nastiness coming in without warning.

It’s a really seedy film with seedy looking criminals ,who stay in grimy hotel rooms, that is, when they’re not in jail, where they get hooked – and get their children hooked – to heroin.

It exudes seediness; there’s even porn actors in the cast. It’s like a dirty, rotten, cheap version of A Clockwork Orange, released a year after that panageyric to violence, and strange thing i noticed: one of the characters in LHOTL, the moll, sings a short snippet of Singin in the Rain – this happens as they are luring the two innocent young women to their torture. Could this seemingly improvised few seconds be coincidence or a homage to the Kubrick film?

It’s cinema verite for serial killers, but holds together, and is after all a Wes Craven film – his first, so i guess it will always hold some mystique. Though it is definitely not a horror film per se. The producer is a bloke called Sean Cunningham who apparently also became a big knob in the same genre, going on to create Friday the Thirteenth (I was never a fan).

The music is great and crazy – unexpected rock songs and folk music coming in as sadism kicks in.

For me Craven’s best film, and monster, was Nightmare on Elm Street with Freddy Kruger…

This was early beginnings

Escape from LA.

I’d forgotten how camp this was. Kurt Russell in an eye patch and tight leather trousers giving it his all as the apocalyptic anti hero Snake Pliskin, he of the husky voice. But the film’s not half as good as the its prequel – escape from New York – being a melange of funky set pieces that flow awkwardly, like the CGI wave that flings Snake onto the back of a red convertible cadillac. The first film ran smoother, with cool supporting roles from the likes of Ernest Borgnine, Adrienne Barbeau and Lee Van Cleef,

what you gonna do? you just got to sit and watch it til the end..

Bizarre action like machine gunners flying in on hang gliders; a tidal wave carrying a surfboard mounted Snake Pliskin; an underwater mini-sub plunging through the depths of a submerged Universal Studios. The latter features the best – and most surreal – joke of the entire film: a giant shark is seen lunging and just missing the mini sub. Thinking about it that might be the only joke. How i wish there’d been more.

I think that’s what it sorely lacked, this film, was humour. Even though Steve Buscemi – this film’s Borgnine – is clearly a wise arse taxi driving loudmouth….i just think his – and all the other characters’ – script could have been cleverer, and wittier.

The final moment in the film is dark – literally – and a good way to go out.

Oh yes Bruce Campbell pops up in the middle – hard to recognise because he’s plastered in make up- as a nihilistic futuristic plastic surgeon placating the vanity whims of his rich clientele – the demand for face jobs has gone mad. Bruce’s bit is short but memorable.

Yeah i thought the first half was pretty good …just that the action sequences needed better effects to make less silly looking.

I guess this is early 90s so early use of CGI type effects

Sling Blade

1996 – written, directed, and starring Billy Bob Thornton.

a heartbreaking film. But brilliant with it – the great american film. Made 2 years after Forrest Gump, with some parallels to it, mainly in that the hero of both is the alienated strange one.

But, unlike Gump, Sling Blade is blunt in what it portrays about the cruelty of life. it also has some magic to it in the way it resurrects hope, in the way that symbols and poetry are used to convey the human heart…whatever that is. Carl, the anti hero, tells us the heart is an awfully big place….as is the world outside his safe home the mental hospital.

There are so many great scenes, brilliantly written. some made me cry.

The young boy, companion to Carl is an incredible font of good, of humility, of pure potential. He takes some flowers to a girl. she takes the flowers but flatly refuses to go out with him . it’s not that she’s horrible, – she isn’t she’s perfectly polite – but she informs the ‘boy’ unequivocally that she’s not interested in him that she has a boyfriend. who knows what the reasons really are for such a callous rejection. maybe the boy had it coming, maybe they come from different sides of the track, never the twain shall meet and all that…but when the door closes in his face the shock of the refusal, of the rejection, is somehow palatable, a part of life, and that perhaps because Carl is present when it happens.

I was never blown away by Forrest Gump – i think it has some dubious moral messages. whereas Sling Blade’s message is simple and powerful . Religious teachings are used in part to convey it along with the theological symbolism of heaven and hell.

Mindwarp. – around 1991.

I bought it mainly because i’m a fan of Bruce Cambell – Campbell? – but it was a little disappointing.

I mean, there is something absorbing about the premise….and who can trespass on those premises: dreams, brain washing, thought control – a society that is happy to sleep and allow a synthetic made up reality to live their lives for them. well, either they are happy to allow it to happen or they are forced to do it by a sneaky all powerful upper echelon. (for the former see’ Surrogates’, for the latter see’ Matrix’).

there’s a long drawn out middle section where the action is directed in a not very exciting way, there’s campness, and bikinis. When Bruce appears he’s wearing a mask, but no matter- you know it’s him by his head movements (maybe it’s the chin).

But i liked it, until the ending came and spoilt it. To me, the groovy thing about ‘dream within dreams’ scenarios is the potential to unhinge the viewer’s perception; you invariably expect and get twists in the fabric of the story reality (usually at the end); ‘how are they gonna resolve this one?’ the voice in the head asks excitedly as the movie rolls to its climax. You can guess it’s going to involve the unexpected surprise of the reality we thought we were watching being not a reality after all but one of the many reality-like dream states. Sci Fi films specialise in this, especially mind control sci fis e.g. The Matrix. Minority Report the short story also plays a neat twist on this by not fighting the dream – though the Spielburg directed film version, while having some brilliant stuff in it, completely sells out on the ending.- My own favourite in this genre comes from a fairly low budget film called Virtual Nightmare, which has a double reveal: one half way through and one at the end of the film.

But for a twist like this to work it’s got be done just right. And there are so many ways to cock it up.

I won’t reveal how Mindwarp, in my opinion, cocks it up, but i was let down by it. It frustrated me no end because i couldn’t follow the logic of what i’d just seen…i think they took it a dream too far. I was left not just confused but angry with the film makers because the illogical ending effectively negated more than half of what i’d just watched ! …And relax…

The Wild Bunch.

Oh my god…sifting through the brain in order to construct a decent film review is like wading through treacle sometimes. Maybe because even though i initially set up this part of the website out of love for film…it can also feel like a duty. Duty makes me idle….it’s like being in the army, it fills me with inertia. But also it’s hard to write an appreciation of a film that actually communicates something with the reader.

I’m no Mark Kermode, more of a Commode Mark, – is what i write shit… ?

Anyway, Sam Peckinpah, 1969…a long winding film, one of many Western epics that Peckinpah directed.

I recall seeing it as a kid, and being a bit bored – though the opening credit sequence of kids tormenting and torturing a scorpion always stayed with me –

But i ‘d say it is a film that’s best appreciated by adults. There’s a bit of a joke with Peckinpah when it comes to violence and slow motion shoot ’em up. Monty Python did a famous pastiche called Sam Peckinpah’s Salad Days…

But there’s a lot more than just violence to this film. Wisdom. Ageing. Mortality. A sense of belonging.

The Mexican characters are portrayed with respect, not just one dimensioanl cliched expendables as was so often the case in westerns. They all speak Spanish, and not a subtitle in sight – brilliant!

William Holden, who is an actor i’ve never really appreciated, is just right as the maturing leader of the outlaws. He’s like John Wayne, but a John Wayne who’s not so concerned about his family image…

Coming at the end of the 60s this film shares what seems a common element of that time: an end to an age is portrayed with the death of folk heroes being the ultimate symbol of that end. The Wild Bunch, Butch and Sundance, Bonnie and Clyde, – to name but three movies – all share the idea that there is no way out for those who live outside the law, outside the system, despite the fact that they are the ‘goodies’. They are anti heroes for sure. their exploits and adventures exude heroic acts, but the one member pf the bunch who survives – played gruffly by Robert Ryan (great) – is actually the one member who has left the gang even before the story starts. he has embraced conformity, the law, the pay packet of a detective.

Unlike films of previous decades the goodies depicted here do not live in fantasy but in a harsh reality where bullets maim and kill, and where the old cowboy sees the new age ushered in by the motor car and the ‘bicycle’.

In the classic of the previous decade Shane – released 1953 – the outlaw also knows his days are numbered, and he says as much to the villain…but the ending there is ambiguous as to whether he lives or dies.

In The Wild Bunch there is no ambiguity, just a tragic fate, one that is set up for the bunch right at the beginning of the film. Right from the start the odds are against them, just as the scorpion is overwhelmed by ants…

but ultimately it is their sense of loyalty to their Mexican friend that draws them back into the trap…there’s no way they can escape their loyalty, their sense of honour.

Switching Channels (1989)

a fast paced, fun film, the most recent version of The Front Page which started out in the ’20s as Broadway stage play. It’s been made into a film about 4 times. It’s a newspaper office set comedy, but this late ’80s take sets it in the news dept of american TV. I thought it worked, and was funnier than the Billy Wilder version (with Mathau, Lemon and Sarandon). But if you look at Google you will see how badly Switching Channels fared at the box office, and also at the hands of critics.

But, maybe the quality of a well put togther comedy film is something so rare today that to me – in comparison -this film shone. It’s a good story, with some very witty lines, and excellent ensemble acting. that works. Burt Reynolds, Kathleen Turner and Christopher Reeves starred, but as i say the entire cast had their moments.

The film is packed from start to end with screw ball twists, slapstick, physical as well as verbal humour. e.g. there’s a slap from Turner that Burt Reynolds ducks by a milimetre, which is a master calss in timing. The camera work also shares in this clockwork timing; there is a one long scene that drifts from one newscaster to another, maybe six in total, and ends in stretcher coming into shot.

It’s a shame that satire, when it appears, is not appreciated more. Oh well, maybe people at the end of the 80s were spoilt for choice when it came to comedies- Eddie Murphy was doing a lot for example. But his best comedies were mid eighties: 48 hours, Trading Places, Beverley Hills Cop.

Comedy is a hard thing to do, and it seems to be the reviews are constantly wrong, as is the box office. I mean, Ghostbusters – the original – was a big hit comedy…really? a funny film ? It ‘s a long commercial, effects driven piece of crap…and yet it was a giant hit; i too bought my ticket, I went to the pictures to see it because hype is a wondrous thing.

Talking about wit, i think there were a lot more films embracing it back in the 60s, 50s and 40s than there are today…or were there? We are led to believe that. Billy Wilder churned out a lot; Lubitsh; Born Yesterday is seen as a classic; The Lady Eve and in fact most anything by Preston Sturges.

I watched the Lady Eve the other day. On Goggle it says it’s a film that has about the wittiest dialogue of any film. So i watched it and yes there’s some good lines in it. But the story line mucks up any logic; there’s a completely unbelieveable story twist where Henry Fonda thinks – well i won’t spoil it for you. And then Fonda’s character is so limp – i mean he’s meant to be an explorer who hunts snakes in the Amazon FFS ! But his lack of perception , his inability to heed his bodyguard’s advise, makes him into a stupid not the classic i hoped for.

To me , a witty play or film is elevated if the story has a realism, a logic that reflects what could happen in real life. The actors and script, if godd, help that illusion along.

Switching Channels did and it didn’t…There were outrageous stunts, and farcical evets, but they were carried off well by the performers.

Saint Jack (from 1979)

I had the DVD for this lying around the bedroom. i couldn’t play it for ages because i never had the right player ( it’s an american region disc).

Also, i just couldn’t be bothered to get around to watching it. But I’m glad i did. Me and eleri lying on the bed of an afternoon. we watched it together.

I loved the film.

Peter Bogdanovich directed , and plays a big role in the film also. The entire cast is superb, Ben Gazara really shows how sweet an actor he was, and could be, and his relationship with Denholm Eliot in the film is great.

A few unexpected names in the cast, amongst them Rodney Bewes and George Lazenby.

It’s a really smooth watch, with no fast editing, not much violence, but great portrait of a man in a situation.

I’m glad i sought this out.

Anotehr film i may soon seek is the Lady Eve, a screw ball comedy from the 40s, directed by Preston Struges. It’s meant to be one of the wittiest films ever….that’s what the hype says.

Gwaed Ar Y Ser (Means ‘Blood on the stars’)

welsh language horror/comedy from around 1981 – pre S4C.

A grand romp with great jokes and dialogue. It also features a naked Dafydd Iwan lying naked, painted green, in the countryside – a rare sight indeed ! This movie has the amazing Wynford Elis Owen as a detective on the track of a sick murderer of celebs.

The Pretender (1947)

Did you know Billy Wilder had a brother who also wrote and directed films ? Well i didn’t. He ‘s not as famous as his brother, probably cos his films are inferior.

But William Lee Wilder tried , and was prolific, his canon included many sci fi B movies in the 50’s.

The titular – which does not mean it had tits – film was what is now known as ‘noir’. It was great and free to access on Youtube. Albert Decker played the lead, and it was good to see him in a decent film, as the only thing i can recall seeing him in before was Dr Cyclops. Which i didn’t think was a very good movie even though it’s got a classic horror theme, and even though i am generally a fan of that era (early 40)’s horror.

Anyway, The Pretender has a really clever story which sets up a mistake identity, which could lead to an assassination. The result is that Dekker’s character gets more and more paranoid – is there poison in his food ? will he get knocke down by a car if he goes out? etc.

Dial M for Murder (not the famous one)

As i did with the Holbrook movie (below) I stumbled across another film who’s lead actor has recently left us – and i don’t mean he’s gone to the toilet!

A TV version of the famous Hitchcock effort Dial M for Murder….both films based on the original play. this time with the late Christopher Plummer in the Ray Milland role.

For some reason it’s set in 1963. so it’s set later than the Milland film, and yet not contemporary to the year of making which was around 1981. I assume this is hds something to do with the fact that the storyline involves the death penalty as well as being set in Britain. Angie Dickinson’s wife gets sentenced to hang for a murder which in reality clever Christopher has staged. (The death penalty was abolished in UK by the mid 60s). It would have been more satisfying i think to bring the period right up to the present day – i don’t think the wife dying is an essential plot detail though, having said that, her will comes into it i.e. what she leaves to her husband after her passing.

Ron Moody played the stooge set up to commit the murder of the wife – nice to see him in anything outside Oliver! – this act goes horribly wrong.

Plummer is suave, sophisticated, charming and cold. His brilliantly quick planning reflects the cleverness of the plot. You the murder he planned – to be carried out by Moody – backfires. Instead Moody is killed by his intended victim (played blandly but ably by Dickinson). The resulting improvisation on teh part of Plummer’s character shows what a dashing criminal mind is all about…but his ultimate dowfall comes from a fiendishly subtle plot device involving a latch key (not the double locking night variety that they stock in Pobl Y Cwm). Is that what’s known as a McGuffin? If so i’ll have mine large with fries and extra cheese please.

Some people online reckon this film too talky, but whattheheck it’s based on a play……and so its theatre filmed. Filmed very well i thought. Directed by Boris Sagal – he of The Omega Man fame – who i once read met his end at the touch of a helicopter blade. Dial M was one of the last things he worked on.

nothing but death to look forward to – i guess that’s why people leave all these films to posterity….they can never die. Talking about death…Ron Moody’s character’s death by scissors is far superior here than in the 1952 version. In the latter the stooge gets stabbed in the back by Grace Kelly with a pair of scissors. But i always find it unsatisfactory to watch, because a couple of inches of blade in your back would not i think kill you outright. But in the newer film there’s a slight adjustment to this scene when the stabbed man falls to ground after being stabbed and we watch – and i think hear – the body land on the scissors and can sense it going all the way in….indeed a few minutes later and Chris Plummer , who’s returned from the club to check things out, calmly declares that the blade’s been ‘driven in’. Yes ! where was that in the original? was it in the paly and cut out of the film for being too crude i wonder? or is it not in the play but added later courtey of Sagal et al…?

Plummer seemed to get busier and more successful the older he got. Even though he played the husband in Sound of Music, one of the most popular films ever made, to me his face didn’t become recognisable until well into the 70s. Often picked to play icy villainous types, i think he was a more than competent lead, as well as character actor.

Look out for ‘Remember‘ a Canadian production from about 8 years ago….it’s got the excellent Martin LAndau as well as Plummer . This film has a breathtaking last minute twist which my friend Glyn told me I’d never guess…..but i think becasue he told me that i worked extra hard i nmy mind to guess what the twist would be. Once the story and the charcters are set see if you can guess the ending? Or better still don’t….instead just sit back and enjoy….i know i didn’t and as result my enjoyment of the otehrwise brilliant movie was completely fucked…

The Creeper aka Rituals

This was a film that surprised me. One night i was lying on the sofa perusing youtube for some horror films. And i saw this Trash TV drive in double bill – that’s what they’re called. The first one on this particular bill was Funeral Parlour, it was ok but was slow, and i was able to skip parts in order to get to the irresistable denoument : PSYCHO in reverse.

The second film completely blew me away – and that inspite of the crap picture quality from this inferior copy on there. Hal Holbrook played one of a group of doctors , middle calss susccessful, on holiday out in the boondocs (somewhere like Canada or the Rockies). His role emerged to be the main one by the end, though the way there was unpredictable to say the least.

Five – or is it six ? – men go on a trip and are gradually picked off one by one by a creeping hunter , who watched their every move through the woods….Think Deliverance, but with less glamour. The characters dialogue, interaction and relationship are make this film what it is. the ensemble, all male, are convincing hikers, and the gradual decay in their communications and atrophying mentals states while conducting exhausting physical feats elevates this movie into the top realm. I’d say it is a ‘horror’ film, and yet there is no supernatural element to it….but the way it plays out the feeling of it, it so well shot, and paced, that the unknown aspect of what’s ‘out there’ becomes a monster….

and I guess part of that monster is the environment, nature.

It’s criminal that Rituals/Crepper is not well known – i’d never heard of it and i’m gonna lock up the people responsible for that! And how timely that i should stumble across this only a few weeks after the passing of Hal Holbrook. You may remember him as Father Malone in The Fog – but here he is a multi faceted hero, and puts in a performance worthy of any Oscar winner.

The Iceman Cometh

I saw a film called The Iceman Cometh. it ‘s from 1973, and is a filmed play, the play of the same written by Eugene O’Neill. I’d read about it somewhere and ordered it on a whim, well i’ve been reading a lot of plays of late – and the internet is such an easy place to get candy. Wasn’t sure if i could actually face watching it as it’s 4 hours long. but i ‘m not fussed if it’s done in one than more sitting….

I’m glad i did I watch it in sessions. Now, i used to have a friend who would never do that; he’d insist on watching all his movies in one go, it had to be free of advert breaks, with nothing to break up the film’s continuous completeness. I once went with him to the cinema and he walked out as soon as he realised that he’d missed the opening few seconds of the film…which i thought was a little unreasonable. I mean ok neither of us had actually paid for a ticket but still i was looking forward to Blue Jasmine with or without the opening seconds !

I don’t mind watching a bit at a time; stopping, then watching some more. I don’t find it mars my enjoyment of the film, though of course it depends on what the film is.

Anyway, this film Iceman is incredible. Even though it is just a film of a play, it is done very professionally. When i say filmed play i mean it has been adapted to teh screen, but the words, the words are all the same as what the play is.

What stands out is the cast. an awesome generation spanning cast:

Robert Ryan, Frederic March, Jeff Bridges , Lee Marvin (who gets top billing), Bradford Dillman, Clifton James, Moses Gunn and others. Turns out it is the last ever film that Ryan and March did, and what a swan song for the both.

This film is deep…..and the direction is simple but fluid. John Frankenheimer, an amazing director who could turn his hand to almost anything, here holds the shots for long periods to ensure that the performances are captured properly. Robert Ryan, who i think of when i think of film noir and violent B movies, proves to everyone what an amazing actor he was. His stoic resignation belies a sickness, a sickness that many if not all the characters share. They just want to get drunk so that they can forget their problems. Drink seems to be the biggest star of all in this story which is set in the one location: Harry’s Bar. The potential claustrophobia of the set is avoided somehow, or maybe it isn’t. Maybe it’s present but lends itself to the power of the play. This film would not be for everyone, the dialogue is dense and coming from the mouths many different characters…but if you enjoy a challenge this movie is worth it. It’s pessimistic as hell, but asks a lot about what is life? what is ambition? What is the point?