P.R.O.B.E: The Devil of Winterborne

 "I'm Gavin Purcell, not Dennis Wheatley!"

The first episode was good, if cheap. The second instalment is, I think, even better... if cheap. It is, as the above quote suggests, a very low budget riff on Dennis Wheatley devil worship cult stuff, is very cleverly written as the revelations unfold and (SPOILERS!) ends up having no apparent supernatural elements in the end.

It's not just the very well done plot, though. Mark Gatiss again gives us some superb dialogue. The ending is horrifying. Caroline John once again excels at a rather nuanced portrayal of the pipe smoking, older Liz Shaw... and is there a mild hint, as the two of them get a bit pissed on wine, that she and Patsy may be old flames? Are we also going to get Terry Molloy's semi-sceptical detective as a new regular?

The other standout performance is, of course, from Peter Davison, whose character we are kept guessing about until close to the end. His "confession" is truly chilling and shows how bloody good Davison can be when given the chance to play a baddie... although in this case, of course, things are not quite what they may seem...

There's some nice indications of evolving social attitudes here, as well as towards mental health with the character of Georgie, although admittedly this is outsider drama from the younger generation. Overall, though, this is a highly impressive second instalment. 

Johnny Mnemonic (1995)

 "Ghost in the machine..."

Let's admit it: this isn't exactly the greatest film ever made. But it's a fascinating one. 

This is the most cyberpunk film I've ever seen, from a time when cyberpunk was, at a stretch, still pretty much a thing in its original form, and it's helmed by a director best known for making the music videos for R.E.M, which in itself is pleasingly '90s. Even better, it's an adaptation of a William Gibson short story (I've read it, but we're talking thirty odd years...) with a screenplay by Gibson himself.

It's not exactly great, despite all that- it lacks a certain sparkle in dialogue, direction and performance (although Henry Rollins is great) and, given the cast, I suspect that last flaw is down to the director. Yet this isn't by any means a bad film either, simply promising but flawed. And it shows, perhaps, that the script is by a novelist who isn't used to writing for the screen.

Yet it's fascinating to see this imagined cyberpunk future of 2021 (there's a pandemic!), with corporate rule enforced by Yakuza, intelligent savant dolphins (shades of Halo Jones there), and, er, VCRs! The internet is shown with trippy visuals and imagined in such a quaint, 90s, virtual reality way. It's all so... cyberpunk.

Yet the ideas are often great. Uploading extra memory capacity to one's brain. An electronic virus. A cyborg preacher. This is a flawed film, but I'm glad it exists: a film that is the cinematic epitome of cyberpunk itself.

Downtime

 "I thought I was in Cromer..."

I know: still suffering Doctor Who withdrawal.

This is another one of those curious oddities from, ahem, "the Wilderness Years", as we Doctor Who fans call the '90s. I saw Shakedown not long ago, I enjoyed it despite its endearing flaws, so I thought I'd watch this. Any good?

Well... no. I mean, on paper, it seems good. Filmed on location, a sequel to The Abominable Snowmen and The Web of Fear, loads of old actors and characters. And yet...

The direction is flat. Marc Platt's script has it's character moments and lots of nice metatextual lines, but it's a mess. There's a heavy focus on Victoria, with Deborah Watling being very good, and a welcome appearance from her real life father Jack Watling as Professor Travers. Nick Courtney is superb, as ever, as the Brig, and has a nice little family subplot. And, yeah, this is totally why UNIT today is led by Kate Lethbridge-Stewart.

Yet Elisabeth Sladen, despite being very good, is woefully underused as Sarah Jane Smith, and there's a little too much going on. And, despite some good character stuff, the plot is very muddled and oddly paced. And yes... inevitably, the whole thing looks very cheap.

This is an interesting curiosity, perhaps, and far from terrible, with very real good points. But it's not exactly great, sadly.

Ghost in the Shell (1995)

 " I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it."

This is the first anime, incredibly, that I've blogged. Indeed, it's only the second anime filom I've seen- I saw Akira about twenty years ago, not that I remember much. I have to see some more; this film is superb.

Admittedly, the translated dialogue seems a bit stilted and unnatural, suggesting not so much care has been taken with the translation as would be the case for a live action film, but the film itself can't be blamed for that. The animation is quite brilliant, and the unusual soundtrack extraordinary and atmospheric. Yet what elevates the film to genius is the script.

It's a distant future Japan of 2029(!), and things look and feel very cyberpunk, with cyborgs, corporations, crime and corruption- the three c's of cyberpunk- everywhere. Our protagonists are agents of "Section Nine", rivals to "Section Six", augmented to extremes , including to their brains and memories to the point where it's debatable to what extent they retain the same "self", one of many points made by our philosophical protagonist, Major Kutanagi. Yes, there's a plot full of action and intrigue. And it's nicely done. Yet what lingers in the memory are moments like Kutanagi pointing out that she and her friend Bato would, if they were to retire or resign, have to forfeit all their augmentations- arguably tantamount to losing their sense of self. This is ironic, given the ending, but this line of thinking poses deep, existential questions on the nature of consciousness. We change, evolve and experience life. Are we, therefore, meaningfully the same consciousness as at a given point in the past? Are we sentient, or is the very notion a mere comforting illusion? Is there a self beyond memories? Equally disturbing is the man planted with false memories of a daughter for whom he feels real love, his original memories gone forever.

Yet. if Kutanagi is philosophical, her antagonist the Puppet Master is even more so. The ending is extraordinary. It wasn't what I expected, but this is an extraordinary bit of cinematic hard science fiction.

Mallrats (1995)

"And don't ever lose that nipple!"

Finding a quote for a Kevin Smith film is not exactly the most difficult thing ever, which says something in itself.

Ok, this isn't quite as good as Clerks. It's similar- a geek-cum-romantic comedy with slapstick, wit, heart and profound '90s-ness, but it doesn't have the art house look or the hard hitting ending, nor is thereas much depth behind the humour and the cool. This is Kevin Smith by numbers, with a moderately bigger budget.

But you know what? If this is what Kevin Smith comes up with when he's relatively uninspired, I'll take it. It may not be his best work, but it's still awesome. In fact, it's awesome for the deliberately Road Runner-esque scenes of Jay and Silent Bob trying to get past the security guard and destroy the stage. Stan Lee gets an awesome cameo. The Easter Bunny gets a damn good kicking. Some excellent points are made about Superman's sex life.

The performances are superb. Jason Mewes is excellent as Jay, and we see a lot more of him and Silent Bob, always a good thing. But it's the central comic performance of Jason Lee who holds the film together. The Blind Date-style conclusion is neatly done and, unlike in Clerks, the two sets of lovers are back together by the end. The slacker will forever remain a '90s trope; sunce the 2008 crash, and certainly now, it stands revealed as a luxury from a more prosperous era. But the geek, nonetheless, shall inherit the Earth/.

Bad Boys (1995)

 "It's ok to be a homosexual, Mike..."

Some evenings you just need a big dumb '90s action film. And some dumb '90s action films are not dumb at all, even when directed by Michael Bay, a director who certainly has his highs but equally has an awful lot of lows.

This, though, is one of his highs. To a large extent this is because of Martin Lawrence.Oh, Will Smith is superb and charismatic, as always: he may be a pretty boy but you can't deny his acting chops. He tends to pick damn good scripts too. But Martin Lawrence's Marcus is the real hero- the family man with real rsponsibilities rather than the shallow trust fund playboy.

The two of them are a magnificent double act, though, in a sparkling script which mixes comedy and sction superbly in a Miami which mixes high and low life, druggy villainy with domestic drudgery, but keeps the tone light and the action fun. The car chases alone are magnificent.

There's nothing whatsoever that's clever about this film. But it works. The heroes are both likrable and charismatic and the plot works, despite being just set piece after set piece. It's all very '90s in the best possible way- the first scene riffs on the fact that cars are now expected to have cupholders, while pagers abound. There's also the cars, the awful clothes, the awesome music, the direction.

The '90s were a golden age for big dumb action movies. This film epitomises why.

Seven (1995)

 "This guy's methodical, exacting and, worst of all, patient."

I'm not going to call it Se7en. That would be silly.

Anyway, wow. David Fincher has given us a deep, profound and truly great film that isn't widely appreciated enough because of the style, the (mainly conceptual rather than visual) gore, and the industrial aesthetic bookended by opening titles from the great Trent Reznor and closing titles from the even greater David Bowie, in his sublime '90s industrial phase which you probably haven't listened to but must do so, now, immediately. The style may be out of sync with the mainstream, but it's superb.

Furthermore, the performances are exquisite. Morgan Freeman is sublime as William Somerset, a Philip Marlowe figure- a grizzled and cynical cop who has seen it all, yet a man of culture, decency and humanity, a nuanced, real and decent man. He oozes charisma. Brad Pitt plays a character less obviously deep and interesting on the surface, being an unintellectual and naively impetuous everyman, yet his performance is no less sublime. And Kevin Spacey, whatever his deep moral failings in real life, is the perfect villain here.

This is overtly the gory tale of a killer who commits highly sadistic murders in the theme of the seven sins, as investigated with much cleverness by two contrasting detectives. Yet it's about much more than that. It's about the extreme danger of inflexibly religious "morality" and the obscenity of puritan obsession over the whole concept of "sin" to the point of blaming the housebound victims of extreme obesity or women made obsessed by society with body image for their nature while ignoring the fact that something- misogyny, abuse, whatever- made them what they are. Justice cannot exist withoiut sympathy and understanding. This is what Somerset has, for all his cynicism. Mills and John Doe do not.

This is sublime, and a defining film of the decade.

As an aside, it's very xennial of me to note that I saw this, at the pictures, in 1995, when I was eighteen and therefore an adult. Yet this is a world where police detectives have typewriters at their desks instead of PC's and research means libraries rather than Google. I am, nevertheless, young. Yes.

Twelve Monkeys (1995)

 "All I see are dead people."

I've seen this film before, but in another century. I remembered nothing of it, and this second viewing brought back no memories of this strange beast- a '90s sci-fi action film, starring A list Hollywood action stars, directed by Terry Gilliam of all people. That's somewhat disappointing, as unreliable and vague memories are a huge theme here, but never mind.

The film is not, perhaps, quite in the very first rank or as good as Gilliam's own Brazil (of which the style of the future scenes, with its panel of eccentric scientists). Yet it is, nevertheless, a superb little meditation on time travel, circulat time travel paradoxes, and the subjectivity of memory. It is also, inevitably for a plot based on time paradoxes, a meditation on fate and the idea that, as we do not have much agency in our lives, we may as well enjoy the ride. The influence of La Jetee was, I'm told, important: I must see that film some time.

It's also a triumpant performance from Bruce Willis, who always has been a much better actor than his usual action film roles may imply. But there's also a solid performance from Madeleine Stowe, and a gloriously unhinged one from Brad Pitt. It's also good to see a prominent part for an older Frank Gorshin, the Riddler himself.

More than anything, though, this is anothef splendid film from the unique mind and aesthetic of Terry Gilliam, establishing himself firmly as a proper Hollywood auteur. The old Monty Python animator done good.

Judge Dredd (1995)

“I never broke the law. I AM THE LAW!!!”

This isn’t my first viewing, of course, but the last time I saw this film was on VHS and when John Major was prime minister. It’s probably one of those much-maligned films that benefit from being seen some time later.

There’s no doubt that the film has its flaws. A phoning-it-in Sylvester Stallone is woefully miscast, and the film spends most of its running time breaking the sacred commandment that is Thou Shalt Not Remove Dredd’s Helmet. The Angel family are also shovelled pointlessly into the film with no real development, and it’s very obvious that the Mega City One Street scenes, in spite of the rather good design and use of CGI, are shot on a small set shot to look bigger than it is. You’re also made painfully aware of the flat studio floor.

Still, if you look past these flaws,  and the first two in particular, we actually have a bloody good script here and, while clearly straining against the budget, things generally look pretty impressive. Dredd’s characterisation is perfect (with lots of “I knew you’d say that”) and the world of Mega City One and the Cursed Earth is both faithfully and clearly presented in a way which gives us a world true to the 2000 A.D. strip and a film which works pretty damn well for those who, like myself, are not necessarily huge Dredd fans. A complex plot is made admirably easy to follow, there’s lots of humour, and we have the clever including of Fergie as a much-needed Everyman  for us to identify with

The whole thing, inevitably, looks very ‘90s now, and nothing dates the film as much as the stunt casting of Stallone just because he’s a big name. But this is certainly a cut above most ‘90s sci-fi B movies and manages to overcome its flaws. I enjoyed it.

Batman Forever (1995)

“It's the car, right? Chicks love it."

 Incredibly, I've never seen this until now, after 23 years.After the two gritty Tim Burton films, which I'd seen at the cinema and enjoyed, I wasn't impressed by the prospect of a film that dialled down the atmosphere and just tried to tell an exciting story.

So did I enjoy it? Well, yes, it's a fairly good Hollywood blockbuster action film, and it's even pretty good with the Batman mythos- we get a pretty good Robin origin with the Flying Graysons and the character is made not to look silly, which is no small achievement, even if the fact that the Flying Graysons all wear costumes while performing that Dick's eventual Robin costume will pretty much mirror means that it's pretty obvious who Robin really is, so Bruce's secret is shot too. But then, in this film at least, it pretty much is anyway.

I also like both Tommy Lee Jones' performance as Two-Face and the fact they only did his origin in flashback. But the Riddler, well, Jim Carrey is really annoying and the riddles are a bit perfunctory, the character seemingly being really about those silly brainwave machine thingies; this doesn't really feel like the Riddler.

Also, Joel Schumacher's directorial style is so very generic Hollywood compared to Tim Burton's unique and very fitting style, and even Gotham itself suddenly looks just like an ersatz New York, complete with Statue of Liberty, rather than the Gothic, Expressionist nightmare we've become used to. This is connected to the first two films only by Pat Hingle, Michael Gough, and the design of all of Batman's stuff. And Brude actually gets a girlfriend and still has her when the film ends- what's going on?

Plus Val Kilmer is, if not awful, not great either, and not a patch on Michael Keaton. This just isn't the same introverted, brooding character. But then this isn't really part of the same series of films in any meaningful sense. It's pure Hollywood spectacle, done well but with no real depth or meaning.

Braveheart (1995)

“The trouble with Scotland is it's full of Scots...”

I’ve seen this film a fair few times but not for many years, and certainly not since, well, Mel Gibson gained a reputation for ultra-conservative religious beliefs and films to match, and somewhat unfortunate comments about Jewish people. So it seems rather pointless for this Englishman to complain about this film being “anti-English”- given the subject matter, which is broadly true even if the chronology is somewhat compressed and William Wallace seems to be both suspiciously older and less upper class than he would have been. But these days it’s far more notable just how pious all the good guys are here.

Still, the film isn’t a bad melodrama and Gibson himself is rather good, and gets some equally good performance out of a cast without a huge amount of star wattage, although I’m kicking myself for not recognising Patrick McGoohan as King Edward I until now. The whole thing looks good and the battle scenes, so often dull and hard to follow, are genuinely dramatic and gripping.

It may play a few tricks with history- Edward I did not die at the same time as William Wallace was hung, drawn and quartered, and Robert the Bruce didn’t have much success until years later- but Braveheart is an entertaining and fun, if rather violent, Hollywood treatment of a somewhat neglected historical saga. Still watchable after all these years.

Tank Girl (1995)

"I'm gonna need a microscope and tweezers, it's like, uh..."

Don't get me wrong; this is a B-movie, with all that entails, even though it feels strange to be talking about B-movies as late as 1995. But a B-movie can still be awesome, and this splendid feminist cult classic is no exception.

Yes, the budget looks cheap, but that doesn't stop future Doctor Who helmer Rachel Talalay from directing it stylishly and not being unafraid to use bits of comic strip and even cartoon to transition between scenes. I haven't read the original comic book but the film certainly sells it well, much as this post-apocalyptic future of water scarcity and feminist subtext feels very 2000 AD.

Lori Petty is superb as the wittiest, most double-entendre spouting pro-sex feminist hero in all of cinema, and Malcolm McDowell chews scenery as only he can, but Naomi watts is also superb as the initially beaten down Jet Girl who slowly learns how to kick ass in this world of cruel and unimpressive men. The soundtrack, which boasts the likes of Devo, Hole, L7, Portishead and Richard Hell and the Voidoids, is as awesome as they gets, much though it leads me to reflect mournfully on how plugged in I was back in '95 and how these days I'm, well, not.

The film is superb, at its heart a film about real darkness, cruelty, abuse and despair yet rising above it with the power of joyful wit. It has the feminism of Riot Grrl, "bollocks" in an American accent , pimped-up tanks and Iggy Pop as a silly masked mutant. What more can you ask for?

GoldenEye (1995)

"I think you're a sexist, misogynist dinosaur, a relic of the Cold War."

I saw and enjoyed this film at the pictures back when I was an 18 year old student at Liverpool University, briefly: I ended up dropping out and getting my degree later. I must admit, though, that disappointed as I am on a second viewing I can't entirely blame this film.

So why did GoldenEye disappoint this time round? Well, to a large degree it's Pierce Brosnan. He really is shockingly rubbish, just phoning in his performance and displaying no charisma whatsoever, something which is not the case with his non-James Bond career.

But it's more than that: it's the script. It feels as though, after a six year gap, they've forgotten how to do James Bond. Only Desmond Llewelyn connects this to any previous film, and really does suddenly look so shockingly old. And the attempts to make ironic references to Bond's inevitable sexism- his combative relationship with the new female M and the new Moneypenny's flirtatious mention of "sexual harassment"- just aren't as clever as the film thinks they are.

Where are the glamorous locations? Yes, it's the '90s, and Russia is fleetingly friendly if also incredibly corrupt, but Siberia is no place to set a Bond film, and brief scenes in St Petersburg and Cuba don't make up for that. Xenia Onatopp is a genuinely brilliant and very Bond character- a female assassin who kills her victims by squeezing them with her legs and a delightfully Freudian nightmare for men- but there's not much else here that's brilliant.

It's hard not to compare this with the Austin Powers films- and unfavourably- given the conscious contrast between the social mores of the '60s and '90s, respectively. And you can tell it's the '90s when bond starts the film with a bungee jump. But this is a slow, ponderous film that takes ages to get going and just lacks oomph. Not their finest hour. In fact, I'm so underwhelmed that I'm going to press pause on watching the Bond films for a bit.

Oh, and we have the bizarre absence of the proper Bond theme tune at the very start. Legal reasons?