Ladyhawke (1985)

"Oh God, is it Lent again already?"

I expected this film to be one of those Sword and Sorcery or Tolkien-esque fantasies that abounded in the '80s. Instead I got a rather fun swashbuckler clearly inspired by Abelard and Eloise, bizarre concept though that is.

Here, though, our Abelard is not literally castrated. Instead, we have a family-friendly metaphor. Navarre is cursed, by a jealous, evil, devil-worshipping bishop in mediaeval France, to be a wolf by night, whereas his lover Isabeau is a hawk by day. It's tragic, it's romantic, it's as '80s, somehow, as the ever-present music in this film.

Yet the lovers are not the stars; that would be a very young and very impressive Matthew Broderick, with a sly comic timing and an ability to find chemistry with all ofbthe established stars- Michelle Pfeiffer, Rutger Hauer, Leo McKern- with whom he stars.

It's odd that a film I'd expected to be set on a generic fantasy world should instead prove to be set in a mediaeval France (albeit filmed in Italy) where the inevitable mythology turns out to be Christian and the villain a wayward bishop. This link to real history adds a certain weight, heft and realism, with Philippe introduced as a thief who escapes judicial murder. This helps us to get to know him, via his ever-present monologues with God about his very naughty thievery. Rutger Hauer is also superb, however, as is Rutger Hauer.

A superb film. I'm glad I've seen it at last.

Scrooged (1988)

"Where are we? Trump Tower?"

This is my Christmas movie to slot in before said holiday properly commences. There may or may not be others. We shall see. It's a good way, for now, to try and forget that bleeding election.

And a bloody good Christmas movie it is. The opening is wonderful with a series of bizarre scene of Santa, his elves and, er, Lee Majors, all taking part in a shootout at the North Pole. We soon learn that this is just a television programme, and are introduced to the mean and cynical Frank Cross, a Sscrooge for our time who just happens to be producing a live televised version of A Christmas Carol.

The plot runs as we'd expect, of course, but that's the point- this is like a very different cover of a classic song. So here we have a Christmas Carol in '80s New York, where the Ghost of Chrstmas Past not only drives a yellow cab but is played by the lead singer of the New York Dolls. Bill Murray is awesome, and behind the scenes arguments with Richard Donner don't seem to show up on screen at all. We even get the great Robert Mitchum in a supporting role as Frank's boss.

The ending wouldn't fly today- a hostage situation, with a gun, as a major part of a happy ending. But there's no denying that this is a true Christmas comedy, full of Christmas spirit without being excessively schmaltzy. It's warm, it's comforting, but it's not afraid to use the dark side of humour too. A real seasonal classic.

The Goonies (1985)

"Nothing exciting ever happens here anyway..."

I was eight in 1985. And this is the first time I've ever seen this film. Yes, I know.

So, what’s it like, seeing this for the first time at the age of forty-two? Well, I rather enjoyed it, and not least because of the bizarreness of seeing Sam from Lord of the Rings and Thanos as brothers. It’s a pirate themed adventure story-cum-comedy, complete with comedy criminal baddies, scripted but not shot by Steven Spielberg and seemingly intended as very much Indiana Jones (a hot property in 1985) for kids- even to the point of casting Ke Huy Quan.

There are lots of booby traps, Heath Robinson style escapades and silly gadgets, mostly from Data, and even the opening of the gate early on is the coolest thing ever. It’s essentially for kids and I’m really probably too old to appreciate it, but there’s also a little bit of subtle romance wiry the teenage Josh Brolin and a splendid comeuppance for some evil property developers.

Maybe there’s an uncomfortable focus on Chunk’s Jewishness but, then again, the part is both written and played by a Jewish person. And the character of Sloth is probably not one we’d see these days.But this is a pretty much faultless ‘80s classic that I really, really should have seen back in the day when I used to constantly see the poster reproduced here in the pages of the UK reprint of Secret Wars II. Lessons learned, I think, and better thirty-four years late than never...

Superman (1978)

"I have sent them you, my only son."

This is, perhaps, the first of the current era of superhero films. The 1966 Batman film was a TV tie-in, while all the others were either movie serials or of that world. This film sets a precedent, and at first it looks like being a good one; Superman is, after all, bloody good.

It isn't a good precedent, though, for the simple reason that the film is an origin story. It happens to work here, yes, but it doesn't in general. Origin stories just mean that you spend most of the film without the title character being able to do any of their usual cool stuff. It works here because Superman's origin story is epic and cool, but generally speaking origin stories are to be avoided.

Still, it works here, and the film is superb. Oh, there are flaws- Gene Hackman is miscast, playing Lex Luthor for broad humour rather than the more camp performance the character needed. Luthor six written like a villain from the Batman TV series; he should have been played as such. Also, there's a glaring continuity error. Jor-El tells Kal-El in the Fortress of Solitude that he's been dead for thousands of years. Yet Kal-El took twelve years to reach Earth and he crashed into Kansas, we're told, in 1948. (So Superman is thirty years old.)  Oops. Also, I'm not sure there's any real logic to the way Luthor infers the existence of Kryptonite. Still, it's necessary to the X plot. Oh, and why is Superman so stupid as to tell Lois one of his weaknesses, namely that he can't see through lead, knowing full well that she's going to write a full page article about it?

All that said, though, the film is epic, huge, looks awesome and Christopher Reeve is perfect casting. It's a triumph, and here are some particular nice touches. The film commemorates thirty years of Superman, so the tribute to Action Comics #1 at the start is an extremely nice touch. Also a nice touch is that all the Elders of Krypton have  different symbol on their chests, and Jor-El's just happens to look like an "S" in the Roman alphabet. Also, well, Marlon Brando. Sadly, though, I must confess to my fellow Doctor Who fans that I failed to spot William Russell in these scenes.

Also s nice touch is the young Clark Kent running faster, literally, than a speeding train. These little touches keep us entertained as the film whisks is through Superman's origins and, this being pre- Crisis on Infinite Earths and the film being moderately faithful to the comics, his takes a good long while. 

Interestingly, though, Jor-El says the line "I have sent them you, my only son". This is a blindingly obvious Christ allegory and I'm not sure that's appropriate; Superman was created in 1938, the year of Kristallnacht, by a couple of Jewish nebbishes. The character is, in spirit, Jewish. He's also essentially a liberal wish fulfilment figure: Superman in his early years would go after wife beaters or put Hitler and Stalin on trial. Here, though, he's a resolutely conservative and all-American figure, his liberal, Jewish origins forgotten.

Nothing dates the film so much as the scenes at the Daily Planet, with typewriters everywhere and not a single PC. Metropolis is very obviously New York here: there are trains to Buffalo and Syracuse.

Sadly, the climax to the film is a bit of a letdown; if Superman can just turn back time so that Lois doesn't die then all future dramatic tension is gone. But this is a film that rises above its flaws by dint of simply being awesome. 

There. After loads of Marvel stuff I've finally blogged something by DC!

The Omen (1976)

“When the Jews return to Zion
And a comet rips the sky
And the Holy Roman Empire rises,
Then you and I must die.
From the eternal sea he rises,
Creating armies on either shore,
Turning man against his brother
Till man exists no more.”

…And no, that poem isn’t real, it was made up for the film.

I’m not really what you’d call the most suitable person to review a horror film like this. Yes, I’ve done a few camp Hammers and Universals, but this is the first time I’ve done one which is supposed to scare you witless. But the thing is that I just don’t believe in anything supernatural- I’m the ultimate sceptic. Plus, I’m as atheist as they come- not the Richard Dawkins kind, mind. I just wasn’t brought up to be religious, I live in a fairly secular part of the world, and I’m one of those people who are simply unable to accept the existence of a higher being without actual physical evidence. The upshot of which is that films like this, which are reliant on at least some belief in the Devil and in predestination, just don’t scare me. Now, slasher movies, on the other hand…

None of this means I can’t appreciate when this sort of thing is done well, however, and it’s done brilliantly here. And, although Gregory Peck is always the most straightforwardly decent and heroic of leading men, there’s still a bit of camp horror here in the wonderfully over-the-top deaths of Father Brennan (the wonderful Patrick Troughton, whom we Doctor Who fans know to be a first-rate actor) and Keith (a shockingly young-looking David Warner).Plus, watching the film now, the atmosphere is a little diminished by the sheer retro pleasure that is the extreme 1970’s-ness of it all.

It’s a superbly taut script, with the first few scenes establishing the situation very quickly and economically, and unapologetically giving us a cast with fairly superficial; personalities so that we can focus on the plot. We’re given an image of a supremely successful man, Robert Thorn, United States ambassador to the Court of St James, and his seemingly idyllic family life. It’s only when Father Brennan intrudes into his life for the first time that we begin to get an inkling that his adopted son, Damien, may be something evil.

It’s interesting to ponder on the conceit of a child being evil in the light of the recent novel We Need to Talk about Kevin (recently filmed, of course) by Lionel Shriver. I should emphasise that I haven’t read or seen it yet, but it’s central theme- what if you, as a parent, raise a child who goes on to do something terrible?- seems to be the subtext of this film too, except that the fantasy / pseudo-religious elements help to make it more palatable for the movie-going public. It’s a deeply shocking idea (and redolent of original sin, of course) that a young child could be in some way “evil”. That’s what gives the film its power. That and the pacing.

There are a couple of plot holes, perhaps. Would a mother really not notice that her child had been switched just after birth? And how come the US ambassador to Great Britain has all this free time to go gallivanting all around Italy and Israel? But the whole thing fits together so well that I’m prepared to overlook these little things. The set pieces are superb: the sequence where Father Brennan is pursued by gales and tempests before his grotesque death is probably the highlight, but all the deaths are memorable, and the mutilated monk is a highlight too.

I’m glad I’ve finally seen this film- I’m 34, but today was the first time I’d seen it- as it looms rather too large in popular culture for it to be a film that can go unseen. I can’t say that I was scared, but that’s simply because such things don’t scare me. I enjoyed and appreciated it, at least. And so did Windsor Safari Park, I expect, who must have been delighted with the publicity.