I Know What You Did Last Summer (1997)

 "A toast. To us, to our last summer of immature, adolescent decadence.

I hadn't seen this film since uni, until now, and that's twenty years and change ago. Having seen it today, though... it's quite good. And much maligned, I think, by people unfairly expecting it to be something that it's not. Because, well... this is a script by Kevin Williamson and, while there's certainly wit in the script, it's a straight-up slasher and certainly no Scream.

But we need to appreciate how this came about- after Scream was a massive hit, an older script from Williamson, adapting a novel, was finally acted upon and we have this film to show for it. And, well, it works. There's lots of suspense and scares, which matters. There isn't a huge amount of gore, but why is that a problem? Horror films should be suspenseful, above all, and a focus on the gore of the violence itself will always detract from that. The film's restraint and, yes, the relatively limited number of killings, is no bad thing.

Then there are the four main central members of the cast. Sarah Michelle Gellar stands out, but all four of them are excellent. We're kept very much engaged throughout in terms of both suspense and character.

Perhaps the resolution isn't as good as it could be, as we don't learn about Egan's dead girlfriend until a fair way in the film, about her father until later, but it works. I'm a little confused as to why the killer should murder extra victims who didn't try to kill him last summer, admittedly, but we can handwave that. I tend to suspect this film is unfairly dismissed for not being a postmodern riff on the genre, something it isn't trying to be. Overall, this is a decent if workmanlike slasher movie.

Scream 2 (1997)

 "How do you know that my dim-witted inexperience isn't merely a subtle form of manipulation, used to lower people's expectations, thereby enhancing my ability to effectively manoeuvre within any given situation?"

SPOILERS, in case it needs saying when discussing a slasher that is also a sort of whodunit.

I suppose this film isn't quite as good as its predecessor. But when a sequel is this good, who cares? And, naturally, the film is sufficiently self-aware as to tackle this very subject in the film class discussion scene. Sequels to slashers abound: indeed, one might say that they infest. So it's a joy to see all the knowing references to the specific tropes of slasher sequels.

The plot may be less original than the, er, original, but the narrative is dripping with witty commentary on how the plot is going to unfold. We have a much-maligned red herring in Derek, and a reveal that is a nod to Mrs Vorhees in Friday the 13th.

Yet we also have a cast that shines, and genuine chemistry between Gail and Dewey. The set pieces- the one with Sarah Michelle Gellar as Cici especially- are magnificently done, as one might expect from Wes Craven.

Most of all, though, we have a witty and highly literate script that, at one point, riffs heavily on Aeschylus' Agamemnon. We also get a reminder of how deeply unsettling and weird those American sorority and fraternity things are. Can't they just, like, lower their drinking age to something less insanely puritanical and have their students just drink in bars on campus as happens in every other country?

As sequels go, this may not be an Aliens, or a Godfather: Part II. But it's bloody good, and makes Scream a proper franchise.

The Last English King by Julian Rathbone

I last read this rather enjoyable and playful novel many, many years ago. It's the tale of Walt, one of King Harold's housecarls who is afflicted by both physical and mental wounds after surviving the Battle of Hastings and, evoking The Wanderer, filled with guilt at not having died alongside the ring-giver. It's a novel which balances its humour with real humanity. Walt, like most north European aristocrats, was hardly a cultured man, a kind of proto-John Bull, but he's made likeable by his suffering.

Wandering the Byzantine Empire, as many English refugees were wont to do in the late 1060s, he is accompanied by travelling companions who slowly hear his story, vividly evoking a culture and a lifestyle now suddenly vanished. Yet it's more than this, with the many playful jokes and allusions making this novel a joy to read despite its being about deep loss, subjugation and suffering. We are certainly left in no doubt as to the fate of the common people under Norman rule, but life goes on, and there will always be wine, beauty and laughter.

There is an icky moment involving Walt and a fourteen year old girl, which may be minor in nature but, well, the only acceptable level of ickiness of this sort is zero. That aside, I strongly recommend this wonderful novel from an author who arguably seems, worryingly, to be slowly falling out of fashion.

Chasing Amy (1997)

 "Since you like chicks, right, do you just look at yourself naked in the mirror all the time?"

Time for another View Askewniverse film in my meandering marathon... and this one is not only bloody good, but beneathe the humour it explores some rather serious themes. Don't get me wrong, I like good films of any genre, but I tend not to seek out many romantic comedies because, well, I'm a bloke. Sometimes, I feel, even the good ones can have a very superficial, greetings card view of love and relatiobships. Yes, Richard Curtis, I'm looking at you.

This film is not like that. This is real.

I've seen this film before, at uni, but that was, ahem, a couple of years ago. I've lived a lot and loved a lot since then. And, well, 1997 was a long time ago. At least, I hope fewer men today are as much of a dick as Holden.

It's interesting looking back into an age when acceptance of LGBT issues (although the T wasn't thought about much back then) was evolving. The twentysomething characters here don't approve of bigotry, the word "homophobia" exists, although quite new, and, as illustrated by Banky, we have that by now dated trope that men who are bigoted about gay men are in denial about their own sexuality.

But the crux of it all is the sexual politics between women and men. Because Alyssa is completely wonderful- witty, funny, kind, fun and basically an amazing person. Holden is very lucky that she loves him.And she does. She gives up her friendships to be with him. She gives him everything.

He doesn't deserve her. He goes all wobbly because... she dares to have a sexual past while being female. Yep, double standards again. And very immature attitudes to threesomes, ployamory and sex in general, skewered brilliantly by Kevin Smith. He destroys both his relationship with the love of his life and his relationship with his best friend. His heart is broken. Good. Serves him right. But breaking Alyssa's heart is unforgiveable. We get an ambiguous ending... Holden doesn't deserve a happy one.

This film is mature, devastating, superbly acted and written, and has some very nice directorial touches. There's also some bloody good humour, as we'd expect, and a great character in Hooper. Silent Bob, of course, steals the show.

This is, overall, a far more serious film than its two predecessors. It will break your heart. But it's very, very good indeed.

Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery (1997)

 "That's right, buddy. You show that turd who's boss."

It's 1997, Cool Britannia amd that. That brief period of time when the Union Flag meant Noel Gallagher's guitar, not fascism. Where the flag of our nation was not considered as a sign of fascism by the dimmer kind of right winger, as though conceding the key national symbol to nationalists who are in no way patriotic is a clever thing to do. Sigh.

Anyway, isn't this film fascinatingly dated while still being awesome, bearing in mind that today's "dated" is tomorrow's "period"? I mean, let's look at the version of 1967, through the prism of 1967. It's shown as a decade of universally accepted free love drugginess and grooviness that bears zero relation to the actual decade in which my parents both grew up, in Leicestershire. Which is, of course, part of thejoke.

Indeed, while Space appear in the closing credits, this is not a Britpop reimagining of the decade. This is a '60s of Burt Bacharach and Nancy Sinatra.

This is a bloody funny film. Obviously, it's the same style as Wayne's World, but better. The James Bond pastiche is on point. Austin Powers is in no way like James Bond in character, puns excepted: he's more obviously the popular image of the decade. But Doctor Evil, the consummate pastiche Bond villain, is exquisite pastiche. The laughter scene alone is priceless. An then we have the comical canonisation of the deceased henchmen.

Groovy baby. Sgagadelic.

Jackie Brown (1997)

 "I think it's a gun pressed against your dick..."

It's somewhat embarrasing that there are any Quentin Tarantino films I haven't seen, quite frankly, This is the earliest, and I'm so glad I crossed it offmy list. I mean, it's not even one of the more famous Tarantino films, but that matters not. It's a straightforward, yet also complex, heist movie with few bells and whistles of Tarantino's usual structural stuff. But it's interesting to see him restraining himself. This film is superb.

The cast is, of course, magnificent. Pam Grier stars, wonderfully, in a film that is not a B movie, and shoes us her sheer class in a highlight of her career. Given a first class film, she shines. If only she'd been given more. She's a forty-something black woman starring in a big Hollywood movie, too. That's embarrassingly rare, and I bet Miramax (friends of a rapist) had representations. I'm sure any one- or two-fingered gesture would fit nicely here.

Yet Samuel L. Jackson is also oiutstanding as Ordell, a clever, gun-running chap whose best line (about guns and killing, of course) cannot be used at the top of this blog post because swear words are a thing to right wing wankers, who nevertheless won't censor said obscenity because it's a Brit thing.

Roberty De Biro is in this, giving a restrained yet awesome performance. The plot is superb, as is the dialogue. It's a noice '90s time capsule in that Jackie is poor and must subsist on recorfds, not CDs- that's really dated.

Sid Haig is there, too, as the judge. This is a superb henist movie, yet I'm sure thrre are all sorts of directorial bits...?

Starship Troopers (1997)

“Fresh meat to the grinder, eh?”

I saw this film once before, and loved it, twenty-odd years ago. But I only read Robert Heinlein’s original novel a couple of years ago, on the train, during my commute, where I do all my reading these days. And the novel is a different beast. It follows the story of Johnny Nico, yes, but doesn’t concern itself with just one war and is as much world-building as narrative. Most extraordinary, it seems to expound a worldview that is quite extraordinary, and which is assumed to be more playing with ideas than reflecting the supposedly libertarian views of its author.

These views are, to put it mildly, not remotely libertarian. I say that as a radical liberal, a devotee of Lilburne, Locke, John Stuart Mill, Keynes, Beveridge and Henry George. Personally I’m left of centre while avowedly not in any way socialist, seeing the need for the state to free people from poverty in terms of individual liberty; unlike right wing libertarians I don’t see this as a silly abstract opposition between the state and the private sector. I’m the kind of libertarian that would support, say, the state legislating to prevent private organisations from putting cameras in employee toilets. The point is, as a radical liberal I’m left of centre, very much unlike Heinlein, but although I prefer not to use the word “libertarian” (it has right-wing connotations these days), I certainly am one.

And, if the novel truly reflects Heinlein’s views, he most certainly was not one. The classroom scene in the film- expanded in the novel to “history and moral philosophy”- justifies its ideology that only soldiers or former soldiers deserve citizenship as being because voting is an exertion of power and this a violent act, and violence gets things done. I don’t agree, to put it mildly. I’m all in favour of the idea that freedom isn’t free, that free citizens must be prepared to fight and die for that freedom, as in 1939. But to make that freedom conditional would pervert such a noble gesture into cynical self-interest; we would be fighting for personal advancement, not to defend a freedom we would not have. Heinlein seems to support discipline and violence as ends unto themselves, whereas it is of course nonsense to fetishise then like this; discipline and force are morally neutral. It’s the ends they are used for that matter. And I firmly believe that a truly free society would fight better. We should be Athens, not Sparta. And yes; I’m aware that soldiers are free to leave at any time without their citizenship and that the society appears to be a true meritocracy. It still isn’t free.

Anyway, the film, which is awesome. Obviously, Hollywood can not possibly get away with espousing such views and the film wisely takes a more critical look. Paul Verhoeven is absolutely the right choice as director. The film is filled, from the start, with spoof military propaganda (and others, subtly expanding this world of psychic powers and summary rough justice) which satirises this kind of knee-jerk militarism. Yes, this kind of thing repeats the same trick from RoboCop but it is, I think, the right way to frame the film. It’s also the right decision, cinematically, to structure the film as more of a narrative focusing on Johnny, his friends, and the love rectangle with Carmen, poor Diz, and Zander. And the bugs look awesome in a way they would not have done a few years later with CGI development. I’m sure those expecting a straight ahead s I-do romp would be disappointed, but this is a film rightly focused on ideas and satirical humour as much as glorious violence and sex- it’s notable that military service is gender blind, society seems gender blind too, and that both sexes shower together.

This is a well-made, genuinely gripping film with no slow moments, yet one which is careful to present Heinlein’s ideas without endorsing them. An absolute triumph.

Batman & Robin (1997)

"This is why Superman works alone!”

Oh dear. What an absolutely terrible film. Incoherent, full of meaningless bangs and explosions, and with ridiculous overacting from Schwarzenegger and Thurman in particular, and a bafflingly miscast George Clooney who plays Batman as a generic superhero of the sort you simply can’t imagine beating up criminals for information like he used to when he was Michael Keaton.

Indeed, Clooney seems to be channelling Adam West as a goody-goody Batman but with absolutely none of the camp humour that was the whole point. And, after largely ditching Tim Burton’s moody darkness reflective of the ‘80s comics, this film drops it entirely. We may have the same Alfred and the same Jim Gordon, but this is otherwise unrecognisable from those distant-seeming Tim Burton days.

The whole thing is just cartoonish and silly. Arnie hams it up as Mr Freeze (always a rubbish villain) from the start, and those constant terrible puns completely erase any possible pathos that could potentially be supplied by his motivation to cure his wife. But even worse is the appallingly silly performance from Thurman, an otherwise talented actress, who completely sends up the character of Poison Ivy, although of course the script does that anyway. Bane is wasted as a generic henchman and Jason Woodrow just gets to be a generic mad scientist to twirl his moustache for a bit and get killed. The whole movie is a tick box exercise of featuring various characters for the sake of it and just wasting them.

Perhaps the worst case of this is Barbara Gordon, although for some reason here she’s Alfred’s niece instead of Jim’s daughter- she unexpectedly turns up from England without telling anyone, for some reason wearing her school uniform, and claims to be English although Alicia Silverstone isn’t bothering with the accent. And then plot convenience let’s her discover the Batcave and a costume that Alfred made for her on the off-chance(!), and she duffs up Poison Ivy in spite of having no apparent combat experience or athletic prowess. This is all just very silly.

And I haven’t even mentioned THOSE nipples, and the scenes with Batman and Robin bidding in the millions for Poison Ivy. Can we just end the franchise now? Oh.

Anastasia (1997)

"That's what I hate about this government. Everything's in red."

 Ok, let's forget historical accuracy. Rasputin died in December 1916, a full two months before the revolution, yes. And Anastasia was killed with the rest of her family in Yekaterinburg in July 1918 along with the rest of the former imperial family. But let us forget such things, much as we forget how silly it is to travel from Germany to France (by map, naturally) by sailing round Denmark. Why? Because artistic licence, because this was Mrs Llamastrangler's favourite film when she was younger, and because it's an entertaining and kid-friendly piece of superior ersatz Disney.

The plot is predictable; Anastasia survives in defiance of the historical record and heads to Paris to find her grandmother and validation, all the while falling gradually in love, screwball comedy style, and ending up happy if no longer royal- who needs those useless Romanovs anyway?

It's a superb cast, with Christopher Lloyd superb in a rare villainous role as the surely too scary for kids ghostly Rasputin, but Meg Ryan and John Cusack (the most '90s stars ever) steal the show. The animation, still hand-drawn, is gorgeous, and I appreciate the various nods to contemporary art and especially the Toulouse Lautrec version of the Moulin Rouge. Yes, it's for kids; yes, narrative rides roughshod over historical accuracy; but there are far worse ways to spend ninety minutes.

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)

"You always were a cunning linguist, James."

I know, it's been a while since GoldenEye. But it took a while before I could face another Bond after that, and it was with all due trepidation that I sat down to watch this. It's a relief to say, then, that Brosnan is better, if still hardly my favourite Bond, and that this is a good if not great Bond film- it says a little in the middle, perhaps, and the whole thing is an extremely formulaic Bond-by-numbers but done well enough, and I think that's what's required at this stage. This is only the second film after a large gap, and there's a need to re-establish all the many tropes.

So we get a notable return to tradition after GoldenEye's sometime iconoclasm, with a notably less spiky relationship between Bond and Judy Dench's M. But we get a decent pre-titles- the Russians are goodies; it must be the '90s- and a mildly disappointing theme tune from Sheryl Crow, and off we go.

This film's Bond villain is the media mogul Eliot Carver, played with splendidly scenery-chewing relish by Jonathan Pryce as he arranges conflict between the UK and China purely to make money. He gets lots of zeitgeisty speeches about the power of the media that date the film enormously; it won't be long until the Internet starts to topple the likes of him off their perches. And I notice that Bond has his first mobile phone, although from the dependably sarky and now octogenarian Q, who has been there since From Russia with Love.

We get a splendid cast as usual, even with the likes of Jason Watkins, Julian Rhind-Tutt, Gerard Butler and Hugh Bonneville with small parts as naval officers. This is hardly one of the greats, but Bond is back on track.

Men in Black (1997)

"No, Elvis is not dead. He just went back home."

Here's a heretical opinion for you: Men in Black is a bit pants.

Yep. You read that right. It's pants. The central idea is good but the story is meh, the script isn't funny and the only reason it sort of works as a film is because Woll Smith can always lift a poor script into acceptability by doing his usual schtick. And I must admit that, while he always plays the same character film after film, he plays that character well, with charm and charisma.

Oh, and it's always good to see Rip Torn. But these sorts of things do not a good film make. I mean, yes, the underground base and hordes of men and women in black are incredibly cool, but the humour is all very basic slapstick and there are far too many annoyingly cute CGI aliens for me. Sorry. This is just a forgettable Hollywood comedy that pretty much got away with it purely through Will Smith's charm.

Cube (1997)

"This may be hard for you to understand, but there is no conspiracy. Nobody is in charge. It's a headless blunder operating under the illusion of a master plan."

Wow. What a gloriously cynical concept- a giant Rubik's cube, with 17,526 cubes, some with deadly traps, into which people are placed from time to time for reasons seemingly lost in the mists of time. It's a superb concept and, as it happens, a brilliant film. Not bad for a film requiring so few sets.

Indeed, it's not just the superb concept, neat plot and gruesome deaths that make this film work, but the carefully orchestrated mix of characters. The limited sets makes this feel something like a stage play (not often said of films like this) which emphasises this.

We have, firstly, the contrast between the reactionary Quentin and the left-wing conspiracy theorist Holloway, alongside the cynical Worth, mathematical prodigy Leaven and autistic savant Kazan, the only survivor. The relationship between Quentin and Holloway, and their inevitable clash, is handled superbly. Quentin, of course, turns out to hide a murderous anger beneath his UKIP-friendly views, making him the definite villain. Holloway is too strident, so she dies. Worth is morally compromised, so he cannot be allowed to live. And Leaven must die because she's too clever by half. The only survivor is Kazan, seemingly the least equipped to survive.

Oh, and we get the big twist; their best chance of survival would have been to stay in the room they started in. It's a satisfying end to a well plotted and characterised film with a kick ass concept. Cube is brilliant. And that's another reference in The Cabin in the Woods that I now get. 

Titanic (1997)

"I intend to write a strongly worded letter to the White Star."

This is, well, the biggest, most epic film I've yet blogged. It's long, expensive and big in every sense of the world. Is it any good? Well, yes. It has deep flaws in its pacing but it is a technical triumph of cinema, and the interminable first half eventually gives way to a second half (in real time from the moment the iceberg is hit until the final sinking in a significant chunk of the film that does not feel to long) which can stand among the finest disaster movies ever made.

That first half, though... yes, it looks amazing in its recreation of Belle Époque opulence, but it is bloated and unwieldy. Yes, the modern day sequences are nice and, yes, Gloria Stuart is a legend of cinema, but given the sheer amount of footage these sequences are disposable. And the long setting up of the relationship between Rose and Jack takes up a normal length film by itself- and, if that were the whole film, this would be fine.

Yes, it's nice to see the the amusing Hollywood romantic comedy trope whereby a woman starts out by being intensely annoyed by the man she will ultimately fall in love with. Yes, Rose and Jack are star cross'd lovers, divided by the gulf of social class. Yes, it's funny to see Cal's unthinking snobbery ("That's amazing. You could almost pass for a gentleman."). But the effect of all this is somewhat undermined for the audience by the fact that the characters are all on the Titanic and, bloodthirsty as we are, we're all impatiently waiting for that iceberg.

And the constant use of that bloody Celine Dion tune doesn't improve matters either.

There are some nice touches; we get to see such Titanic perennials as the unsinkable Molly Brown and J. Bruce Ismay. The Captain is played by Bernard "Yosser Hughes" Hill. There's a very nice sweeping camera movement from the Bridge to the hot, stifling environment with the machinery below. The class gulf between first and third class, and between old money and new, is made very clear. Jack seems to be a fan of Picasso's Cubist period. Rose gets naked and there ensues what can only be described as a sketching montage.

It's still a relief, though, when we're saved by the iceberg. It's an instant change of tone, and urgency; levels of panic will slowly rise and rise throughout the second half of the film. Jack finds himself handcuffed to a pillar as the ship starts sinking, and this leads to a magnificent sequence whereby Rose rescues him; this is truly superb, perhaps the highlight of the film.

Order soon collapses into chaos, with the brave, the selfish, the rich and the lucky finding themselves on lifeboats more often than not. The film becomes more and more gripping as desperation takes hold, with scene after scene providing top entertainment. Perhaps my favourites are the band- truly noble- the Captain going down with his ship and the gentlemen in first class who remain behind to die "But we would like a brandy."

The final moments of the ship are superb,  and we get to see the tragic deaths of people bobbing in the water while people watch in lifeboats which are nowhere near full, and (spoiler alert!) Jack's death is such a powerful moment. 

Titanic is a mixed bag of a movie: overlong, and a mix of bad melodrama and great disaster movie. But the latter, and it's awesome technical accomplishments which won it all those Oscars, makes it a film that has to be seen.

Alien Resurrection (1997)

“She’ll breed. You’ll die.”

I was worried about this film after the disappointment that was its predecessor, but I shouldn’t have been. This isn’t quite as good as the first two, but a film scripted by Joss Whedon can never fall below a certain standard.

For a start, it makes you jump. A lot. It seems to me that’s the one thing an Alien film should definitely do, and something which the last film conspicuously failed at. The scene with the alien suddenly striking out at Wren only to hit glass which we only now realise is there is probably the bit that made me jump the highest, but there’s a lot of this sort of thing, a lot of suspense, and a real sense of threat, which again Alien³ conspicuously lacked.

Jean-Pierre Jeunet isn’t a Ridley Scott or a David Cameron- the film is very well shot, with some creative use of the camera, but there’s none of that indefinable sense of style that separates a great director from a very good one. Still, the film looks very good and ticks all the boxes, although this time with CGI.

This is also a very witty script, with every character feeling well-rounded and individual. It’s unmistakeably a Joss Whedon script, and there’s a definite proto-Firefly feel to the crew of the Betty. Whedon also takes the opportunity to do something which the previous film again failed to do- have some fun with the tropes. The body horror element is made much more horrific by the simple expedient of making everyone aware that Purvis is “pregnant” and an alien is bound to burst out of his ribcage at an inconvenient moment. The hybrid creatures in jars are horrible. And it’s a nice twist that this film’s token android (or “Auton”, a word to raise the eyebrows of any Doctor Who fan) should be Winona Ryder’s uber-emotional Call. There are little things, too: the whole clichéd situation of the powers that be foolishly believing that they can use the aliens for their own purposes, and not all die horribly, as Ripley attempts to persuade them otherwise, is just quickly glossed over near the start of the film. After all, we know the drill by now.

These aliens are cleverer, and more dangerous. There’s a nice scene with Vriess (nice to see a disabled character who doesn’t die!) which really emphasises how nasty the acidic blood is, too. And the whole underwater scene, with its shark-like swimming aliens and the horrible, horrible trap is just amazing. This film is very, very strong on set-pieces. The death of Ripley’s “child” is just….eurgh!

Interestingly, the two characters with, more or less, superpowers are both women: Ripley and call. Indeed, our cloned, part-Alien Ripley is looking a little similar to the eponymous star of Whedon’s own Buffy the Vampire Slayer (which I shall be returning to after I finish Borgen), which commenced in the same year. And the only characters to be successfully “impregnated” are all men. This is a return to the sexual-political subtext of the first film.

The ending is a little abrupt, perhaps, and while the whole thing looks good it lacks the touch of genius it would have needed to compete with the first two films, but this is a much better effort.