The Dead Zone (1983)

"The missiles are flying!"

Two David Cronenberg films in one year? This film is probably a little less well known than Videodrome, which I liked a lot. But it's probably the better film.

I suppose it must be admitted that the film relies heavily on Stephen King's original novel, of which it's an adaptation and which I haven't seen. But the film is superbly shot and paced, Christopher Walken is superb as a decidedly non-heroic lead, and the cruelty of the various tragedies are all the more effective for their unsentimental depiction. Spielberg this ain't.

This is an unnerving depiction of a normal, decent but fallible person who develops psychic powers after an accident, but at the huge cost of losing five years of his life and, worse, the love of his life. His bitterness is very human, and I like how it takes him time to reluctantly use his "powers" to help people- although his conscience tends to prevail.

This is not a film about a superhero, but a realistic depiction of how frightening it must be to have "powers" which one can neither control or understand, which are unnerving and uncomfortable, and which bring pain, possible eventual death, unwanted fame and, ultimately, impossible moral dilemmas.

This is at once a tragic love story, a story about ethics and one of the most intelligent and thought provoking examination of the implications of psychic powers. Not a great film, perhaps, but a highly impressive one.

Batman Returns (1992)

"I'm tired of wearing masks."

I haven't seen this since 1992, at the old Cannon cinema in Hinckley. I don't much remember what I thought of it then, but I like it a lot now. It doesn't quite beat its predecessor for me (sorry, Nick!)- it doesn't quite have the depth, visual elegance or Batman screentime- but Tim Burton leaves the franchise with two superb films under his utility belt.

Batman’s lack of screen time here is a surprise- Batman and Bruce Wayne are little more than a plot function here, with Michael Keaton not given much interesting stuff to do, especially as compared with the first film. But then we must remember that this isn’t primarily a franchise film but a Tim Burton film; the film is about the Penguin and Catwoman.

Interestingly, though, neither of the two traditional villains are wholly evil; that accolade goes to the splendidly named Max Shrek, a corrupt and morally depraved businessman whose Nosferatu-inspired name fits well with the film’s aesthetic for Gotham. He’s the catalyst for Catwoman. Selina Kyle, a downtrodden and humiliated secretary, single, alone and browbeaten by all and sundry, finds out stuff she shouldn’t and is thrown out of a high window, losing the first of her nine lives, and something snaps. At first it looks as though there’s a bit of a feminist message here, especially as Catwoman’s first outing is to rescue a woman from a man in a dark alley, but this doesn’t go anywhere. Still, Michelle Pfeiffer is pretty good and the kinky latex costume and whip looks cool- although it sort of takes over from the whole cat thing. Still, an impressive treatment of the character.

The treatment of Danny DeVito’s Penguin is much more radical; this Oswald Cobblepot grew up in the sewers, abandoned, and the only cigarette holder to be seen is that of his father, glimpsed early on. The umbrellas and monocle are present and correct, but this is a much more feral Penguin, no angel but genuinely vulnerable, and bordering even on likeable if he were not so lecherous.

These characters are fascinating, and what the film  is about, much more so than Batman or even Gotham. This is notably much more of a Tim Burton film and less of a Batman film than its predecessor, and the respective values you place on those two categories will probably decide which of the two you prefer. Personally, I may like this one less but it is nonetheless superb.

Pulp Fiction (1994)

"I'm gonna get mediaeval on your ass!"

This is, quite alarmingly, the 384th film I've done for this blog. Just as alarmingly, it's the first of those 384 films to have been directed by Quentin Tarantino. The odds were against this- I'm quite a fan of his, and this is THE film for those of my generation- but here we are; I've finally got around to blogging the finest film of the '90s.

So what makes Pulp Fiction so superlatively good? Well, part of it is just bloody good directing- take the syringe sequence- but there's more to it than this. Tarantino famously appeals both to the Cannes-attending intellectual crowd and to those who just like to be entertained by a couple of hours of violence and cool, two things which Tarantino is very good at. How does he keep both groups happy?

Well, I tend to say that Tarantino is the Jimi Hendrix of cinema- a true virtuoso, but you could never call him pretentious. Clever though he is, he always retains that lightness of touch. There's a line he doesn't touch. So Pulp Fiction may have a non-linear narrative and a complex ensemble plot with multiple perspectives, but at the same time it manages to be easy to follow, an achievement in both scriptwriting and directing which is not easy. Also, the allusions to cinematic history may be many, but they never overshadow the film itself.

But, I think, what Tarantino does with Pulp Fiction in particular is to use dialogue differently. It's not just that the dialogue is cool and quotable, although it's both of those things, but that it is allowed to breathe. Conversations are allowed to meander and reach a natural end, as per real life, from that first conversation between Jules and Vincent about Amsterdam through the entire film. They are not truncated to fit the narrative and rhythm of the plot; rather, the dialogue sets the rhythm and is used to make sudden moments of action more dramatic.

So many performances deserve praise- Uma Thurman as the tantalising Mia, Samuel L. Jackson as the compelling Jules, comeback kid John Travolta actually being quite good (and getting top billing after all those years of obscurity), Harvey Keitel doing the cool character that probably inspired those recent insurance adverts (something I've only just realised). Not only that, but even Bruce Willis manages to be more-or-less acceptable.

This is one of the greatest films ever, end of. It shouldn't be so long until I blog my next Tarantino film...

A View to a Kill (1985)

"Well my dear, I take it you spend quite a lot of time in the saddle."

"Yes, I love an early morning ride."

"Well, I'm an early riser myself."

Meh. This isn't quite the worst Bond film so far- that would be Thunderball- but it's certainly the very dampest of squibs. Roger Moore, at 57 and suddenly looking it, is by now absurdly too old to be convincing in the part, but ultimately the problem lies with the script. The plot is fine, but the dialogue is functional and lacking in wit, and as a result the film fails to come alive. That's a shame, as an actor like Christopher Walken deserves a much better villain to play. Still, he deserves much praise for triumphing over a crap script to give us a memorable Max Zorin regardless.

The film also suffers from that perennial problem of Bond films set largely in the United States: what is Bond doing there when the Americans have agencies of their own? Still, Duran Duran give us a decent theme tune and it's always good to see Patrick Macnee, even if his character does spend his final few hours alive being ordered about by Bond. Grace Jones is good as May Day but, again, wasted, as indeed area many of the set pieces which seem to be shot rather unimaginatively. Still, I enjoyed the finale with the airship on the Golden Gate Bridge.

Not a good swansong, then, for the suddenly much-aged Roger Moore: he should have left on a high with Octopussy. It's goodbye too, though, for Lois Maxwell, the only cast member who's been there since Dr No.

The Stepford Wives (2004)

"And I'm gonna attach a pine cone to my vibrator and have a very merry Christmas."

Before anyone says anything... no, I don't blog remakes of films I've not already blogged. But this isn't a remake, just the second cinematic adaptation of a novel. Right? Right.

The critics didn't like this film. Frank Oz directed, and vilified he was. Stick to playing Yoda, he should. Or that was the general gist.

I can see why purists would be put off: this is hardly a faithful adaptation. A gay couple is rightfully included, in a bid to modern sensibilities. And the brainwashing of the Stepford womenfolk is no longer left as a creepy mystery but explained in detail, with Glenn Close's Claire (gosh, a woman!!!) behind it all, and to top it all off the film has a distinctly comedic tone.

But if you judge the film for what it is- a satirical comedy- instead of what it isn't- serious, hard sci-fi adaptation- it becomes rather enjoyable. Nicole Kidman, not usually my favourite actress by any means, is great, although of course completely overshadowed by the great Bette Midler. The script is laugh out loud funny. The skewering of reality TV at the start is delicious. There's even a robot dog, for crying out loud. What's not to like?

Try it. You might like it.