Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991)

 "That's it, then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans.No more merciful beheadings. And cancel Christmas."

I've seen this film many times, but not since the turn of the millennium. It is, of course, a highly entertaining Hollywood blockbuster, perhaps the most popular celluloid version of the Robin Hood myth. Yes, Kevin Costner is... well, adequate, but we all know the real star is the late Alan Rickman. Was ever scenery chewed with such aplomb? This is one of the finest bits of moustache twirling villainy in cinematic history, and perhaps the performance for which Rickman will be best remembered. 

And it's a fun film, lots of set pieces. It's good. And yet... it drags a bit in places, doesn't it? And... we need to talk about Robin of Sherwood.

Yes, Azeem, the character played superbly by the always excellent Morgan Freeman, is clearly based on Nasir, and no previous version of the legend had included such a character: the film was lucky not to get sued. Yet the overall plot, the feel, and especially the climax feels suspiciously similar to the TV series, right down to the mild fantasy elements in the person of the witch character.

The geography is, of course, hilarious, and not only the start of the film where the White Cliffs of Dover are apparently within easy walking distance of Hadrian's Wall. The implication throughout is that Nottingham is in some way close to London, and that the Sheriff is in some way a figure of national imporance.

The revelation about Will Scarlet is hilarious too. And doesn't quite feel plausible how Little John's merry band so easily accept Robin as their leader.

Despite all that, though... ah, it's fun watch, and what more do we want?

Dogma (1999)

 "Bethany, bless the sink!"

I watched, and enjoyed this film, many years ago but, as often happens as the decades pass- and I am not, you understand, in any way confessing to being middle aged- I remembered very litttle. Last night was pretty much a second first viewing.

And it's superb. As a comedy, it's bloody good, with a constant stream of laughs. Linda Fiorentino is perfect as the star. Chris Rock and Alan Rickman are both brilliant. George Carlin is perfect casting as a down-with-the-kids cardinal. Some dodgy angel wing CGI aside- and we can be forgiving, because it's 1999- there's not much wrong with this.

It is, of course, a very different beast from the very '90s slacker romantic comedies for which Kevin Smith had previously been known, although there's a fair bit of that sort of thing here. But the religious stuff is obviously going to come across as provocative, not least with Bethany working at an abortion clinic and (spoilers!) the plot requiring God's life support machine to be switched off. Casting Alanis Morissette as God is, of course, entirely uncontroversial.

And yet... I don't get this film to be mocking faith, or religion itself, in any way, but rather the reactionary and socially conservative structure that eventually inserts itself around every religion. I've never had any religious faith myself, I wasn't brought up with it and am simply unable to believe in something without empirical proof, but even I was moved by Bethany's drunken nostalgia for a time when she had a childlike, simple faith. But perhaps this film also hints at a deeper truth. Divine or not, this Jesus person seems to have been anything but conservative.

Die Hard (1988)

 "You macho assholes!"

It's December. Merry Christmas. This is, of course, the consummate Christmas film, so there can be no better time for me to watch it again for the first time since, disturbingly enough, the twentieth century.

The conventional opinion is that a film lives and dies by its script, or at least for those not convinced by the French school of the director auteur. Now, I love France and its cinema (I voted Remain, to boot), but I am one of said school. Except... this is a so so script, perfectly fine but no more than that. And yet this a magnificent film, one that has been remembered. Why?

Admittedly, it's because of not only the superb direction, which makes the many extended action scenes entertaining rather than boring, as action sequences often can be, because of the movement and the tension which is ALWAYS present, but because of the superlative individual performance by the excellent Bruce Willis, the everyman who faces a group of cynical, materialistic, one may almost say Thatcherite terrorists, led by the almost equally charismatic Alan Rickman. His performance is truly magnetic.

The script really is middling. The direction is brillianty, but focussing on the two main principals, Bruce Willis makes this film, and solidifies his career as action hero leading man. Alan Rickman chews the scenery in the best possible way.

But let's agree on the main point. This is THE Christmas film, set on Christmas Eve, with lot of Chritmas tree. It's the epitome of Christmas, right?

Right.

Perfume: The Story of a Murderer (2006)

"Because it's a legend, you numbskull!"

I must have read Patrick Suskind's novel back in the late '90s, so my memories are hazy. I remember liking it, but little else. Huge Nirvana fan that I am, though, I'm well aware that "Scentless Apprentice" on In Utero is entirely about the novel, the only novel that Kurt Cobain ever wrote a song about.

But what of the film? Well, they did the best they could- it's well-shot, well-acted, well-made- but there's no getting around the fact that the book is unfilmable. The visuals are sumptuous, yes, especially of Provence, but it is the olfactory, not the visual, that is the point. A film cannot convey smell in the way that words on a page can. This is a valiant attempt at the impossible.

Still, as I said, it's a well-made film. Ben Whishaw is very good, John Hurt's narration is excellent, Dustin Hoffman gets a fun little part, and the harshness of eighteenth century France is conveyed well. But the very oddness and creepiness of Jean-Baptiste Grenooulle as a character leads to a lack of charisma at the centre of the film, something that matters less to the novel. However gorgeous this film looks it is, ultimately, a failure.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows- Part 1 (2010)

"You're not still mad at him, are you?"

"I'm always mad at him!"

No more do we get to see any wondrously imaginative and charming scenes of life at Hogwarts: the seriousness has fully taken over, it's war stations from the off, and not everyone will survive. Oh yes, and DOBBIE DIES!!!!!!

This is all very Lord of the Rings, right down to the suspiciously One Ring-like effect of the Horcrux on relations between Harry, Hermione and Ron and, while good, just doesn't feel much like a Harry Potter film. Still, I have to deal with the film as it is and, while I'd have preferred something less grim and gritty, I can't say that it isn't a good film, though by no means a great one.

The stakes are high, as is proclaimed by the very dark visual style of the film. Voldemort, Sauron-like, is about to take over everything and there are so many magical MacGuffins in play here that it's hard to keep track of them, much like the absurd number of acting luminaries that are in this film. One of the more notable is recent birthday boy Alan Rickman, of course; Snape seems pretty unambiguously to be a baddie here, right?

Possibly the second most heartbreaking thing in the film (I don't need to say what the first is, right?) is Hermione's decision to make her parents forget her; she is now an orphan, and homeless. And she now has to fight in a war. It's a terrible burden for one so young.

She, of course, is a "mudblood", and it is a sign of whether one is a goodie or a baddie as to whether one approves of this or insists on racial "purity". This is the nearest the film comes to being "about " anything, really, but the ride is an exciting one, with all of our characters being put through the emotional wringer. Harry, certainly, doesn't have the greatest of seventeenth birthdays.

Snape, now headmaster at Hogwarts, institutes a severe regime, and our heroes are all off to Mordor, or wherever. It's all strangely dark for a children's film, with bleak landscapes and a muted colour palette, although it's nice to see an emphasis on a book of wonderfully childlike fairy tales with stylised animation, the highlight of the film.

Harry's invisibility cloak has never reminded me more of Bilbo's, and Voldemort's attacking forces seem very much like Ringwraiths. But there the Tolkien comparisons end as things get very dark, and very complicated, as various MacGuffins are fought over and poor Hermione  has "mudblood" etched into her arm. How will it all end?

It's a good film, yes. Well made and acted, yes. And yes, I enjoyed it. But the tone is surely a little too dark for a children's film? Still, I can't deny I'm excited about the ending.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

“Excuse me, I have to go and vomit.”

I think I may have reached a turning point. I’ve enjoyed all the Harry Potter films, but up until now I have somewhat regretted the increasing seriousness of the films, in contrast to the sense of fun and wonder which the first film had. With this one, though, I may be starting to appreciate the more serious later films without pining for a more innocent past. This is probably because the ongoing plot and character development begins to bear real fruit at this point.

We begin with Harry and Dumbledore and a load of iconic London landmarks, which are looking very cinematic and presented as magical, in a way which evokes Neil Gaiman’s Neverwhere and the works of China Mieville. A bit of a scrap occurs and the Millennium Bridge is destroyed with delightful gusto. It’s an exciting beginning, which sets us up for a dramatic film. There’s a bit of exposition as the pair visit an old pall of Dumbledore’s, Horace Slughorn, who is to be the new potions teacher and who has a very convincing armchair costume!

Probably the most interesting character in all of these films, partly because of Alan Rickman’s performance, is Snape, who has until now seemed to be a red herring. However, a visit from Bellatrix leads to the revelation that he is apparently a baddie! The fact that he later (SPOILER ALERT!!!) murders Dumbledore, is another subtle hint! But for now it’s a shock to see him swearing allegiance to the Mallfoy’s and to Voldemort himself.

Eventually, term finally starts, although not before some argy-bargy in the train (again). Snape is the new defence against the dark-arts teacher and is suspiciously ineffective in the role. There is a new MacGuffin in the form of Tom Riddle’s diary, and a new emphasis on unease between everyone at Hogwarts. Harry’s possessiveness over the diary drives a wedge between him and his friends, while the mutual attraction between Hermione and Ron, what with them being teenagers in a movie, predictably leads to denial and awkwardness between them. Once again, as with previous Harry Potter films, and indeed with Buffy, the moral is clearly that a hero needs friends.

It’s an uncomfortable term, ending on the most uncomfortable note as Harry overhears Snape with Draco. The plot thickens as Harry discovers that Tom Riddle has a past with Slughorn which he is unwilling to discuss. Slughorn is not the only link to potions; in this film they positively abound, and Ron seems to be under the influence of a love potion. Slughorn, meanwhile, is soon the victim of an attempted poisoning. Things continue to go from bad to worse, and Tom Riddle’s diary is a sort of ring to Harry’s Frodo.

Fortunately there is such a thing as liquid luck. There is also such a thing as Hagrid, who is, as ever, a good friend. As soon as the gang gets back together, all friends again, things begin to look up, and for the first time we discover what horcruxes are, and the quest to destroy them all begins. This is, in fact, the beginning of the end of the film series, and a suitable point for Dumbledore, the father figure, to be killed off! This is a shocking event. It seems that Snape was the Half-Blood Prince after all. It is up to Harry and his friends to fulfil Dumbledore’s mission, destroy the horcruxes and vanquish Voldemort.

I enjoyed that. It was dark, but had an epic quality that previous films have not. If the final two films are anything like this then I will enjoy the ride!

Alice in Wonderland (2010)

“I’ve been shrunk, stretched, scratched and stuffed into a teapot!”

Well, it was only a matter of time until Tim Burton had a go at Alice in Wonderland, wasn’t it? Three things were pretty much inevitable: it was going to feature Helena Bonham Carter, it was going to feature Johnny Depp, and it was going to be good. Lo, all three of these things come to pass.

Of course, Tim Burton, being Tim Burton, doesn’t actually make an adaptation of Alice in Wonderland; he jumps straight to Through the Looking Glass, but still calls it Alice in Wonderland anyway. It all looks amazing, and as trippy as all versions made since Jefferson Airplane did White Rabbit have to be by default. The early flashback scenes to Alice’s childhood have a very stylised, uber-Victorian look, while the present day scenes have a very un-Burton realism to be contrasted with the, er, wonders of Wonderland. I only saw this film in 2-D, and I’m gutted; lots of shots were quite clearly composed to look amazing in 3-D, and I’d imagine that the contrast with what I assume would be a 2-D “real” world would be even more effective.

The cast is, obviously, brilliant, and Helena Bonham Carter as the Red Queen and Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter are both as extraordinary as you’d expect. (Depp effortlessly switches between RP and Scottish; is there any accent he can’t do?) But there are far too many gloriously whimsical performances to. I ought to mention, though, that this is the last ever screen credit for Michael Gough, who was ninety-four years old when he voiced this role.

There’s obviously a moral behind the story: as the White Queen says, “You cannot live to please others. Alice arrives down the rabbit this time in the midst of a very public marriage proposal from an absolute drip of a man, a proposal she’s under huge pressure to accept, and the film shows her gradually coming to realise that she doesn’t need to. In this sense, Wonderland is the “looking glass” of the original title, although the plot is very different. There is also a nice philosophical conversation at the end between Alice and the Hatter in which Alice comes to realise that this world is real, and not a figment of her imagination, subjective though this is; which one of them is real and which dreaming. It’s nice to see the Jabberwocky poem crowbarred in, too; the mosyer itself is a magnificent bit of CGI.

Of course, there’s a heavy dose of feminism in here that was lacking in the novel. There is only a Red Queen and White Queen; kings are absent. The moral of the film presents what would in Victorian times have been a rather shocking message about the role of women. And, of course, the conclusion, in which Alice becomes an apprentice in a huge trading company, is not exactly realistic for the period but is necessary for our modern, and rather more enlightened, sensibilities.

One day I’ll probably give a bad review to a Tim Burton film. But I don’t see that day coming any day soon.

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)

“My elixir is piss???!!! Who says this?”

I don’t as a rule, like musicals. I do, as a rule, like Tim Burton films. So this was an interesting film to approach. I reviewed Little Shop of Horrors recently too, mind: perhaps my attitude to musicals is becoming more open-minded. I certainly enjoyed this one, although of course I have no idea how faithful it was to Tim Burton’s original.

This is a Tim Burton film, so obviously it stars Johnny Depp, complete with cockney accent, and the missus, Helena Bonham Carter, who is by far the sexiest of all of H.H. Asquith’s descendents. Both are, obviously, superb. The whole look of the film is exactly what you’d expect from a Tim Burton film, with all the brilliance thereof, and this style works wonderfully here. It’s usually twilight, with muted, pastel, pre-Raphaelite colours working well as a limited palette. Only the flashbacks, depicting a time of happiness, are brightly coloured. The dark visuals serve to evoke a wonderfully gothic and dark Victorian London, and yet there’s beauty in the darkness; it’s never depressing. It’s a perfect marriage between the visuals and the wonderfully dark humour of the story and the songs.

Yes, I enjoyed this as a musical. The songs were fantastic. Perhaps I’ll be converted. You can certainly expect the third review after this one to be another great musical, I can tell you for certain. After that long hiatus I have quite a backlog…

Alan Rickman is superb as a baddie, which will surprise no one, and gets some gloriously moustache-twirling lines (I love the scene where he sentences a little boy to hang, which by the rules of all drama means he need to die horribly as punishment!), although there’s one point where I noticed Stephen Sondheim doesn’t seem to have quite known what a catamite is. It’s something much gayer than implied by the dialogue here…! But the dialogue, and the lyrics, are gloriously witty throughout. All the characters are grotesques, which means we can enjoy their gruesomely blood-spattered demises.

The best character, though, it Mrs Lovett, that gloriously scatter-brained cannibal, whose demise is the most wonderfully gory of them all. Bonham Carter is magnificent, and has superb chemistry with Depp. I love the fantasy sequences depicting both characters in a cottage by the seaside, with poor Sweeney Todd looking thoroughly miserable!!!

The ending is a bit predictable, but it’s supposed to be: the mysterious old woman turning out to be the protagonist’s wife is one of the most clichéd of all the many tropes of the Victorian novel. The Judge finally gets to die, after much teasing, and the spurting of the blood goes on and on, gloriously. We end with gallons of blood flowing and yet, somehow, it’s all very romantic.

Enormous fun. If you’re partial to a Tim Burton film but not too keen on musicals, like myself, give this a chance.