Carrie (1976)

“Thou shall not suffer a witch to live!”

This is a superb film. It really is. But it’s reputation as a horror film is not quite right. I don’t care how scary Sissy Spacek looks, emotionless and demonic as she gracefully, calmly and indiscriminately kills people , and in slow motion. At the dance. This isn’t a horror film. It’s a tragedy. And Carrie’s tragic flaw, sadly, is both her abusive upbringing and the savage bullying she endures. Abuse of children behind closed doors, and bullying in schools unchecked by adults, are two great evils of this and every age.

The film is shot superbly, with camera angles, viewpoints and (during the prom climax) slow motion being used to an effect of both suspense and beauty. I can understand why this is considered Brian De Palma's masterpiece, although one has to question why it was necessary to have a slow motion tour of the naked bodies of characters who are eighteen-ish years old, even if the actresses playing them are not so young. As a 42 year old man I'm not entirely comfortable with being forced like this to be a voyeur in a school changing room for girls.

That aside, though, the film is a faultlessly unfolding tragedy. Teenagers can indeed be that evil, and adults that negligent of the consequences- although, of course, Miss Collins in particularly doesn't deserve to die so horribly, which itself is the point. And, were I a religious man- which I am not- I would reserve a particularly nasty bit of Hell for people like Margaret White, religious fanatics who abusively raise their children in fear and a life-hating aversion of "sins" which hurt no one. Margaret is filled with a burning disgust of sex which, at first, makes me suspect an abusive past but no- from what we're told it's all fanaticism. The worst thing about her ex-husband having sex with her was that "I liked it". And the religion is no excuse for her being such a terrible mother, any more than it excuses sexism, homophobia or anything of the sort. Plenty of highly religious people are capable of doing none of these things. Interesting, though, that we are presented with no external tragedy in Margaret's life. I wonder whether the novel was any different?

A superb and very well directed tragedy that I had no business waiting until now to see, however weird it is to see a very young Nancy Allen as a bullying schoolgirl.

RoboCop 3 (1993)

"We're dead, you stupid slag!"

This final film in the series is, I see, not much liked. And yes, diminishing returns are indeed a thing here with the weakest of the trilogy. But it’s not bad. Well, not that bad.

The general storyline is pretty damn good and deals with the right sort of themes- OCP is now fully under Japanese control, because it’s the early ‘90s and Japanese corporate domination of America in the near future is very much a thing. OCP are peddling some pie in the sky fantasy of a new 1950s utopian city to encourage people to leave their home while employing nasty mercenaries to evict while neighbourhoods just for profit, while there’s a big Japanese sort of ninja-sequel end of level boss lurking in the wings.

Robert John Burke is as good a replacement for Peter Walker as you’re likely to get, and Rip Torn is always good to see. It’s great to see a lot of the usual guest cast, with the Sarge particularly getting to shine. Also, I love the little girl reprogramming ED-209, John Castle as an evil villain straight out of Thatcher’s cabinet, and Nancy gets a meaningful death. This isn’t a bad film.

So why is it not as good as it could be? Well, the script is pretty good, and has the right kind of cynical political subtext, but the dark humour is gone. And the direction, while competent, is action film direction and lacks the visual wit we have come to expect. You have to say the film is well made, the script isn’t bad, but the end result is a little disappointing.

RoboCop 2 (1990)

"What about democracy? Nobody elected you."

"Anyone can buy OCP's stock and own a piece of our city. What could be more democratic than that?"

It's been six long years since I blogged the excellent first film; a superbly written and shot dystopia about privatisation and corporate greed that was very Paul Verhoeven. It was hard to imagine how a sequel would not disappoint. Yet this doesn’t. It’s a superb film and a fine sequel.

But perhaps we should expect no less from Irving Kershner, he of The Empire Strikes Back: he has, after all, directed the greatest sequel of all time. Here he doesn’t quite reach the same heights but he does something similar- following an iconic director in a self-effacing yet worthy way. Kershner isn’t a director with a distinct style of his own, but as a craftsman of cinema he’s superb.

Hence we get a film that’s very faithful to its predecessor’s style, with the satirical commercials not looming quite so large but certainly present and correct, and with many familiar faces returning to the same Detroit which faces the same dystopian problems, courtesy of a superb script from an at-his-peak Frank Miller, writing for cinema at a time when comics scribes were not so well-respected as they are now.

And, of course, again we have a hard-boiled Hollywood film where, unusually, the message is clearly a left-wing one. We begin with OCP, owners of the privatised  police force, cutting their wages by 40% and cancelling their pensions, leading to inevitable strikes. There’s an uber-addictive drug called Nuke, there’s a kingpin called Cain and a child gangster called Hob, but the real villain is the anorak and grasping OCP, who deliberately engineer for the city to become hopelessly in debt to it so they can privatise the whole thing. And, much as RoboCop may defeat Cain, who has been turned into the body horrific and fourth wall breaking “RoboCop 2”, The film ends with OCP seeming to succeed in this, and getting away with this through a little scapegoating.

There’s lots of touching character stuff, too- the bit where Murphy pretends not to recognise his wife to protect her is heart-wrenching- but it’s all done perfectly in the same slightly cyberpunk corporate dystopia of the first film. This is how to do a sequel. So can we have another one please?

Poltergeist III (1988)

“We're baaaack!"

 You know that pattern with sequels? You know, excellent first film, less profound but still good sequel, and then they do one sequel too many which is just awkward, clumsy and not very good? Well,  this film is the latter. And, if that wasn't enough to damn it, it also stands accused of wasting the last months of poor Heather O'Rourke's life and may have hastened her tragic and obscenely young death. This film gets extra low marks.

The film is set in a bizarrely upmarket and modern (for 1988) tower block, where Carol Anne is staying with her Aunt Trish and Uncle Bruce for a reason and duration that isn't really explained. Tangina and Carol Anne are the only returning actors; Henry Kane is played by some ersatz shouter, the amazing Julian Beck having died three years earlier. And, while Zelda Rubinstein is not only extraordinary but gets a satisfyingly expanded part, Heather O'Rourke just looks ill, and should not have been there.

On paper it's a better cast, with big names like Tom Skerrit and an immediately post-RoboCop Nancy Allen, but Allen is shockingly bad and no performance can save this script. What could have been a large scale horror spectacular involving the whole tower block instead ends up smelling of budget cuts, with no big set pieces and, in spite of some clever use of mirrors, no real scares. Instead we waste time with characters discussing whether or not the whole thing is Carol Anne doing hypnotic suggestion. Dull, dull, dull.You can skip this one.

RoboCop (1987)

"Best way to steal money is free enterprise."

Right. The next five Saturdays will be Doctor Who nights. That means no movie reviews until after then, probably. So here's one last review slipped in while I can…

This is a very unusual film, far more so than it appears at first glance. It's an '80s macho action film with loads of posturing, gore and violence, a genre we all know well. Thing is, though, we all vaguely assume, correctly, there's something intrinsically right wing about genre. Interesting, then, that RoboCop should be so centred around a central message. Because this is a film about the excesses of privatisation. OCP has already run prisons and hospitals and now, with inevitable corruption, it runs the police. I look at this film, I look at the creeping privatisation of the police under the UK's Coalition government, and I'm scared.

Not that the film, with its vague near-future setting, is prescient in all things, of course. "Old Detroit" seems rather more populated than the Detroit of 2012. Characters are seen smoking indoors. The fashions are irredeemably '80s. But the political satire is frighteningly accurate; a privatised police force leads, inevitably to corruption. Even before we find out that Clarence Boddicker is working for Dick Jones we're clearly shown that there's a moral equivalence: that quote up there comes from Boddicker. In Old Detroit there's no public service, only profit. And no one at OCP displays and moral sense at any point whatsoever. The difference between Bob Morton and the other executives is pure hubris; they're no more moral than he is. We're given constant contrasts between the violent world of the overtly criminal and the no less disgusting world of the corporate, a world of cocaine, hookers, ruthless competition and (literally, with ED-209!) blood on the carpet. The corporate world is completely unglamorous: Wall Street this ain't. There's a good symbolic reason why we get so many scenes set in the toilet.

All this is further shown by the hilarious news broadcasts, which eerily foreshadow The Day Today but are gloriously dark, with an aggressively nuclear apartheid South Africa and the Star Wars "Peace" platform. This is also a nice narrative device for moving the plot along. RoboCop is a very pacey film. It's also a very violent, gory film, of course (especially Emil and the chemicals!!!), which is the main thing noticed by my eleven year old self when I first saw the film, hired from the local video shop. It feels a long time ago.

It's not perfect; Peter Weller's acting is not unlike a plank of wood. There's also an embarrassing plot hole: why does OCP sent RoboCop to a precinct where he might be recognised as Murphy? But it's witty, brilliantly shot by Paul Verhoeven, and gloriously violent. RoboCop is a true '80s video classic. I hadn't seen it for about twenty years, which is shocking. Don't make the mistake I did!