Aliens Double Bill

Perhaps Aberdeen is not the centre of the cultural universe, but as long as the excellent Belmont Filmhouse keeps putting on events and screenings of classic films, then I'll be happy.  My cinema going isn't as frequent as it used to be, but in recent years I've enjoyed an Indiana Jones double bill, Metropolis, Nosferatu, Labyrinth, The Thing, Robocop, Tron, The Big Lebowski Wii ten pin bowling night and now an Aliens double bill.

When I first saw the advert for the event, there was nothing that was going to stop me going.  I've seen Alien before on the big screen, I think it was on the 25th anniversary (I was only 3 when it was first released); but I've never seen Aliens in large format.

Free Hugs for anyone who books tickets for our Alien + Aliens Double Bill on Sun 27 Jul ;) http://t.co/DLcpANEG1d pic.twitter.com/06aGnHkZTy
— Belmont Filmhouse (@BelmontFh) June 13, 2014

Needless to say, both films were utterly brilliant; seeing them on the big screen shows up a level of detail that is lost on TV, and in Aliens in particular the practical effects look tremendous.  The sound design in Aliens (that freaked me out so much playing AVP on the PC in the dark) is superb and so atmospheric at volume, as is James Horner's score.  Being part of an audience who are all fans enhances the viewing; there is almost palpable excitement as the Alien logos come up on the screen (sublimely understated), and a lot of humour that is lost when viewed at home suddenly works like you're seeing it for the first time.

Of course this was an event as much as a showing of two amazing films, and as such was a great success.  Posters and T-shirts had been kindly provided by the excellent Last Exit to Nowhere, and before each film, Dallas (Marketing and Events manager at The Belmont - not actually beardy Tom Skerrit) asked Alien-related questions handing out Alien Kinder eggs as prizes.

Having simply worn a dressing gown and sandals to the Big Lebowski night, I thought I'd make more of an effort this time, and through a combination of old clothes, charity shops and eBay, I thought that I came up with a fairly convincing Brett costume.

Dallas (centre, complete with chestburster) thought so too, and I am very thankful for my complimentary Filmhouse tickets and my Blu-Ray boxed set of the 4 Alien movies + Prometheus prize.

Brilliant event, a great time had by all, and I'm looking forward to the Back to the Future Trilogy.

Nosferatu (1922)

As part of this year’s Halloween programme, our local Picturehouse cinema The Belmont screened Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau’s 1922 horror film, Nosferatu.  This is the first time that the character of Dracula had been portrayed on the silver screen, though due to the inability to secure the rights to Bram Stoker’s novel, names and locations had to be changed.  Most notably Count Dracula becomes Count Orlok, and the location of the heroes moves to Germany; understandable as Murnau was German.  This all has no effect on the final product because Nosferatu is tremendous.

The plot really does follow that of Dracula: estate agent Hutter travels to Transylvania to help Count Orlok purchase a property in Wisbourg where Hutter and his wife live.  During Orlok's voyage across to Germany, all of the ship’s crew are mysteriously killed or disappear.  Once in Wisbourg, a mysterious plague strikes the inhabitants, blamed on infected rats brought ashore by the ship that carried Orlok.  Count Orlok himself makes Mrs Hutter his personal mission, ever since he noticed from a photograph that she “has a beautiful neck”!

Max Schreck is incredible as the sinister Count Orlok, certainly one of the most enigmatic and iconic portrayals of the Dracula character.  I’m not sure how tall he is, but the long slim coat he wears, the bald head and the pointy ears serve to make him look even taller and even more disquieting.  Shadows and lighting are used to tremendous effect, so that the audience shares the same dread that the characters do.  The shadows perhaps give even Raiders of the Lost Ark a run for its money, and it is obvious where Francis Ford Coppola got his inspiration for Dracula’s menacing shadows in his 1992 film.  Schreck has such an overwhelming presence that any time he is on screen, the viewer is sure that something terrible is about to happen.  In this way Orlok is as ominous as more contemporary baddies such as Darth Vader or Anton Chigurh; not bad for a silent movie from the 20s.

Of course there are noticeable technical issues due to sections of the film being lost, found and restored by one way or another, but none of these issues diminish the power of the film; the music and the presence of Max Schreck make sure of that.  The film is also perfectly paced, with a run time of little over 90 minutes it clips along at a fair old pace, but never feels rushed or that any important exposition scenes are cut out; I certainly didn’t have time to get bored.

In Nosferatu, Murnau created one of the most iconic horror villains ever to appear on film, and at the same time shot some of the most memorable scenes in cinematic history.  These shots have been oft copied in movies and are now an accepted cinematic technique; almost a prerequisite for a horror film.  A wonderfully atmospheric gothic horror with an incredible performance and evil presence from Max Schreck, Nosferatu changed the way horror was made, and also happens to be magnificent.  But, well, you know, that’s just, like, er, my opinion, man.

                                   

                                            

Metropolis (1927)

Continuing the classic Sci-Fi season at our local excellent cinema The Belmont, there was a showing of the full (so far) version of Fritz Lang’s critically acclaimed Metropolis. When a full print of the film was found in Argentina in 2008, a rescue operation was duly mounted to restore the whole film. The final version, though for the most part perfectly clear, does contain some scenes that were very grainy and one short scene which has been lost forever and so is explained by intertitles. Other than reminding the viewer that the film itself has a turbulent history, it does not detract from the spectacle at all.

What a spectacle! I was not expecting to see a film with such a grand scale, so many extras, such design and such great music. Clearly a lot of the larger backgrounds were matte paintings, but, as with A Matter of Life and Death 20 years later, they are shot in such a clever way that it works seamlessly and gives a real sense of scale to the city. There were also so many little touches that made the film so unique, memorable and elevate the film to a higher level. From the Art Deco design of the film (well it was made in the 20s), and the dance-like quality of the workers’ movements, to the idea of decimalising time! (Actually I’ve always thought that we should decimalise weeks. Longer weekends!). Actually, several of the actors’ movements are also very stylish, not just the proletariat moving synchronously as one entity.

The story revolves around Joh Fredersen (Alfred Abel), who runs the futuristic city of the film; and his son Freder (Gustav Fröhlich), who, when he learns of the miserable life of the workers, wants to experience that life first hand and help them. While “down below” with the workers, Freder meets and falls in love with Maria (Brigitte Helm), a revered speaker who is campaigning for a peaceful end to the workers’ misery. However, Joh Fredersen hears of this and plots to incite a riot among the workers. His friend Rotwang the inventor (Rudolf Klein-Rogge), has recently created a robot; and by transposing the likeness of Maria onto it, the “Maschinenmensch” takes Maria’s place and incites the workers to revolt. However, Joh Fredersen does not know that his son is involved.

The acting is all very good. Gustav Fröhlich is perhaps a bit over-the-top as Freder (and seems to be wearing as much make-up as Maria!), but the performances of Alfred Abel and Brigitte Helm in particular are very believable; and thinking about it now, I forget that this is a silent film. Their expressions communicate so much without over-acting, as Gustav often does. Rudolf Klein-Rogge is also very good as the crazy inventor, certainly a predecessor of Doc Emmett Brown!

Speaking of which, there were a few other moments that I thought may be inspiration for later films. The proletariat moving as one, almost dancing, reminded me of the beginning of Shaun of the Dead when people are shown going about their normal lives as zombies, moving automatically. I have mentioned how the music was great, but I felt that Joh Fredersen’s theme was very evocative of the Imperial March in Star Wars: a rousing and imposing score for the main “bad guy”. Huh, and Joh Fredersen is the father of the “hero” too! I don’t think that this score was particularly influential to John Williams as he wrote the score to Star Wars, it just reminded me of it. Of course the robot in Metropolis was the inspiration for C3PO.

I’m sure that many other more worthwhile reviewers have said all this and far more about such a classic film; I haven’t even touched on the significance of the Tower of Babel, or the main theme that “There can be no understanding between the hand and the brain unless the heart acts as mediator”. For me though I was totally engrossed; good acting, marvellous sets, brilliant music and some cool special effects. I can see why the word masterpiece is bandied around so much when talking about Metropolis.

Robocops (1987-1993)

Once again our excellent Picture House cinema The Belmont was showing a classic film, this time as part of the Culture Shock series. So it was that I was very much looking forward to seeing Robocop for the first time ever on the big screen (I was only 10 when it first came out). I had been thinking about reviewing all three Robocops for a while now, and this gave me the ideal opportunity to start. So here are three brief reviews of a classic 80s film and two not-so-classics!


Robocop (1987)

Director: Paul Verhoeven.
Writers: Edward Neumeier, Michael Miner
Starring: Peter Weller, Nancy Allen, Miguel Ferrer, Kurtwood Smith, Paul McCrane

Peter Weller is Murphy, a cop in the Detroit police force; left for dead when a notorious gang of criminals shoot the hell out of him, he is saved and re-incarnated as a cyborg who is out for revenge. Director Paul Verhoeven did a great job in creating an iconic hero, and a brutal action movie. By making it a bit tongue-in-cheek and ever so slightly hammy he managed to make Robocop a cult classic.

Helping out is a solid cast. Peter Weller and Nancy Allen are fairly convincing partners; Miguel Ferrer is great as the epitome of 80s yuppy corporate culture, and Kurtwood Smith (That 70s Show), & Paul McCrane (ER) in particular are great criminals. Everything adds up to create a fun, brutal and cool movie that could have been instantly forgettable, but instead is actually pretty great.

Things you might like: Seriously violent; lots of blood; great 80s sleaze performances; badass Robocop; eminently quotable; great score from Basil Poledouris; Paul McCrane being melted by toxic waste!

Things you may not like: Stop motion animation on ED209; ED209 growling and squealing like a pig.

Rating: 4 jars of baby food out of 5

Robocop 2 (1990)

Director: Irvin Kershner
Writers: Edward Neumeier, Michael Miner, Frank Miller
Starring: Peter Weller, Nancy Allen, Tom Noonan, Gabriel Damon

Robocop is on the trail of a notorious gang of drug dealers who are peddling the designer drug Nuke. When the leader of this drug ring, Cain, is killed; through various nefarious deals of questionable morals, OCP re-incarnate him as Robocop 2 - a cyborg that Murphy must eventually have a showdown with.

Astounded as I was when I noticed that Empire Strikes Back director Irvin Kershner was at the helm of this project, he couldn't save it from being a very mediocre film. The over-riding story of OCP ruining Detroit so that they can start construction on Delta City is good enough, (it's the same writers throughout the trilogy + Frank Miller for 2 and 3) but the execution just isn't good enough. I think Kershner et al tried to distance themselves from the "I'd buy that for a dollar" feel of the first film, but playing it straight just didn't work; especially when Robo was re-programmed. Shudder.

Tom Noonan was fairly forgettable as Cain, though I was a little impressed with Gabriel Damon's performance as Hob, he's not bad for a kid, though I've seen a lot better. The other problem is that the special effects used are not up to much; Robocop vs a very obviously stop-motion animated Robocop 2 just doesn't cut it. Imagine Tony Stark vs The Dude at the end of Iron Man, but crap. In the first film the main bad guy was a man, not a robot, which worked great. Trying to up the ante by having a robot vs robot climax just didn't work for me.

Things you might like: Robocop saying "Isn't this a school night?" to a bunch of kids in an arcade; OCP being desperate to control Detroit; at least Peter Weller, Nancy Allen and Robert DoQui as the Sergeant are still there!

Things you might not like: Re-programmed Robocop; paper thin bad guy characters, un-convincing climactic battle; fairly lazy un-imaginative direction.

Rating: 2 out of 5 canisters of Nuke.

Robocop 3 (1993)

Director: Fred Dekker
Writers: Edward Neumeier, Michael Miner, Frank Miller
Starring: Robert John Burke, Nancy Allen, Rip Torn

OCP have finally gone too far and are employing a brutal Rehab squad to clear people out of their houses to make way for construction of Delta City. Robocop sympathises with the underground resistance to these Nazi-style clearances, and follows them to their hideout. OCP are being taken over by Kanemitsu, a Japanese company who have a vested interest in Delta city; but when the CEO of Kanemitsu learns of Robocop's defection and the resistance to rehabilitation he sends over his highly trained assassin. Yet another mess for Robocop to sort out.

For the third outing, Monster Squad director Fred Dekker was chosen to run the show. Robocop 3 was his fourth and final film as a director. Nuff said. Again, the story of OCP (now run by a new CEO played by Rip Torn) trying to control the whole city is a fair one, but the plot is lame, the script bad and the acting for the most part woeful. Rip Torn is about the only good performance, he has quite a commanding presence. Even Peter Weller couldn't be tempted back for the 3rd instalment.

There are far too many stupid plot holes and daft bits to list, and the less said about the rubber-faced Japanese assassin the better. In some vain attempt to boost audience numbers, the rating was dropped from the 18 certificate of the first two films to a 15. Consequently, there is none of the brutal action of the first films; indeed the action in Robocop 3 is probably more TV A-team than anything else. A real whimper of a film to end a trilogy that started with such a bang, indeed several bangs of shotguns.

Things you might like: erm... Rip Torn?

Things you might not like: Robocop's silly arm accessories, awful script, generally bad acting, little or no real action, Jet-pack sequence!

Rating: I wouldn't buy that for a dollar.

Final thoughts

It's a shame that since the first film is so enjoyable, the follow up films taint Verhoeven's 80s classic. Taking the three films together, the one thing I do like is the overall theme of corporate evil. OCP are clearly in big business to make as much money as possible, and as they become bigger their scruples become fewer. The ends justify the means, even if the means demand exploiting people and destroying lives. This theme is as relevant to day as it was 20-25 years ago; it takes an effort to not buy anything today that has either a Unilever or Nestlé label on it. Huge corporations are here, and though they might not be building destructive robots, their ethics are often very questionable.

The Thing (1982)

I was lucky enough that our local Picture House cinema The Belmont were showing John Carpenter's classic The Thing last night. An absolutely fabulous film, that hits all the right notes of horror and tension. Anyway, I've reviewed it before so here's a picture of Kurt Russell looking cool, and a section of Ennio Morricone's wonderfully atmospheric score for you to listen to.

Labyrinth (1986)

I wish the Goblins would come and take you away! Right now!

Our local Picture House cinema The Belmont, is currently showing several classic 80s films. Back to the Future and American Werewolf in London have been and gone, and the next in line was Labyrinth. I know a lot of people talk about The Princess Bride as being a childhood adventure favourite, but I didn't see it until I was in my 20s so didn't really get the appeal; for me Labyrinth is the iconic childhood adventure (as well as The Goonies naturally).

Despite being 26 years old Labyrinth is still great fun. Bowie is hilariously camp, Jennifer Connelly is pretty good as Sarah, and of course all the creatures are nicely brought to life by Jim Henson studios. In fact it is the puppets that save the film from looking too dated. Because there is precious little blue screen (the little that there is doesn't look good), and all the puppets are right there with Jennifer, it still looks pretty great. The story is very straightforward, but since the focus is getting lost in the labyrinth and meeting fantastic creatures the film really scores. I had never realised before that George Lucas was the executive producer, so that explains why it is all so fantastic and outrageous fun; the highlight of which is the Bog of Eternal Stench!

A truly daft film that has no right to be as entertaining as it still is. Lots of detail and great little touches (e.g. 2 bottles of milk outside the door to the Goblin Palace!). And let's be honest, The Princess Bride doesn't have David Bowie in tights does it!

                                                                   Truly terrifying!

Oranges and Sunshine

This is one of those films that I really knew very little about before I saw it. Emily Watson plays Margaret Humphreys, a British Social worker, who by accident finds out about an international scandal. She discovers that 30 or more years ago the British and Australian governments were complicit in the forced migration of children from the UK to Australia. The children were said to be orphans (though often their parents were very much alive at the time), and so they would be given a fresh start in a new country. It turned out that a lot of the children were essentially used as a slave workforce when they arrived. Margaret sees it as a personal challenge to get to the bottom of what really happened, and soon receives the backing of the Social Work office that she works for. Over the course of a few years, Margaret manges to re-unite many children (by now in middle age) with their parents back in the UK.

Directed by Jim Loach (son of Ken), this is quite an emotional film, but is saved from being overwhelming by the way the story is told and the main cast of three: Emily Watson, Hugo Weaving and David Wenham. Waston is great as the driven social worker; it is strange how sometimes she can be very emotional (especially with her children and husband), but when she is present at parent/”orphan” re-unifications she is strangely distant. This probably is due to trying to maintain some professional distance between herself and the people involved; but her blank face was often a bit odd. Of course then her family get the full brunt of what she is really feeling.

Hugo Weaving, despite only having a relatively small role, is fantastic. Even though his character is quiet, he still has a tremendous presence on screen. He is brilliant in the very emotional scene where he discovers that his mother only died within the last year; despite thinking for all these years that he was an orphan. David Wenham has more of a role to get hold of. His character, Len, is initially very sceptical of what Margaret can actually achieve by interfering; he has tried years ago to find his mother and failed. His attitude therefore is quite aggressive towards Margaret. However, his character mellows as Margaret helps him to find his mother, and by the end of the film he is one of the closest friends that Margaret has over in Australia.

A very interesting, well-crafted film starring a cast that is quite understated in their roles, but who nevertheless are all great. I should add that the reason we saw this was to support out local art-house cinema, The Belmont, as it was in danger of being closed due to lack of funding by our city council. I am very happy to say that it has now been saved. Hoorah! It also resulted in seeing this great movie which otherwise would have passed me by; and that’s the great thing about independent cinemas; finding a gem of a film that otherwise I may not have heard of.

Social Network

I suppose I'm surprised that there isn't more hype surrounding this film given its subject matter. I enjoyed the way that computer geek Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) 's techno-joy at hacking Harvard's computer network and the ensuing set up of the facebook phenomenon, was intercut with the two legal proceedings that were being brought against him. Then perhaps there hasn't been the hype, because as soon as the phrase "legal proceedings" enters a film synopsis, your average joe who doesn't want to think while watching a film, falls asleep.

I thought I was going to struggle initially, because in the first scene with Zuckerberg's girlfriend breaking up with him, they both talk at like a million miles an hour! Not to mention lots of references to I don't know clubs, fraternities whatever, which meant nothing to me and confused me more. Still it settled down and I did like the smarmy, un-flappable,  know-it-all character of Zuckerberg. Reminded me a lot of the know-it-all in the Sontaron episodes of Dr Who, who invented the ATMOS!! Zuckerberg's character is definitely of the "It's been a long time since anyone said no to you isn't it?" brands.

The one thing that was very impressive was the handling of the Winklevoss twins. Two actors, but in post production the face and speech of Armie Hammer was computer-ally added on to the unfortunate other actors (Josh Pence) head. I seriously couldn't tell the difference between the twins.
The thing that was awful was the cgi breath that was added to Zuckerberg and Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield) as they discussed the beginnings of facebook outside in the cold in one scene. Truly is was terrible! Not a case of "is that cg or not?" it obviously was, instantly.

That's really my only gripe really. I guess the other very good effect was discovering that Justin Timberlake is quite a good actor!

What are you looking at Butthead?!

Often when someone remembers a great film from their childhood, and makes you watch it for the first time as an adult, you hate the film. I've made people watch The Lost Boys & Star Wars, and at best received a shrugging of the shoulders in return. The only film I can think I've been exposed to like this is Dirty Dancing, which being more of a chick-flick isn't a fair comparison I guess. But when I watched Back to the Future in its entirety just a couple of months ago (Yes I've never seen it all before, I've seen bits over the years), I was surprised that I really enjoyed it. Maybe this should be the hallmark for a great film; if you can watch it for the first time 25 years after it was first released and still think it's great, it must be good!


Therefore, as it has just been re-released for its 25 year anniversary, I saw it for the second time. Disappointing that there was only 8 people at the Belmont cinema to see it though! That's only 2 more people than there was when I went to see AVP in Berlin!!
As far as the film goes, was there anything that could go wrong? There's humour, romance, fast cars, time travel, extremely quotable lines, The Power of Love, and executively produced by Steven Spielberg. I guess MJF could have turned out to be a total bust, but even he's great. It's hard to think of many other films that are as pure entertainment as Back to the Future, apart from Indy films (Oh, Spielberg again), and perhaps Transformers! (sorry, but I was always going to love Transformers since I was a HUGE Transformers addict when I was a kid; Oh and look, Spielberg again!). So maybe I should redefine my great film criteria to one where Steven Spielberg is a producer! Erm checking IMDB I quickly retract that, I'd forgotten about Revenge of the Fallen, Jurassic Park 3, and some other clangers!


Lost the plot a bit there! Back to the Future. Great film, even 25 years on, doesn't look too dated. Cool enough to inspire not one but two Last Exit to Nowhere shirts! Go and see it if you haven't already!

“Doc, are you telling me that it’s 8.25?!” “Precisely” “Dammit, I’m late for school!”

High and Low

I had put this on our Love Film list after it being recommended by the manager of the Aberdeen Picture House cinema: The Belmont (Dallas King, http://championshipcelluloid.blogspot.com/, http://twitter.com/#!/Dallas_Belmont). As he had raved about it, citing it as one of the high points while completing his Empire Top 500 films challenge, I had high expectations of it. Though it wasn't the knockout film I was expecting I did enjoy it.


The plot revolves around a case of mistaken kidnapping; the target: the son of a successful businessman, but actually his chauffeur's son is taken instead. The first half of the film is quite tense as it is shot almost exclusively in the living room of the businessman Mr Gondo. As they come to terms with the kidnapping, the arrival of the police, speaking to the kidnapper and hearing his demands the tension builds as emotions boil over. Following the handover of the money to the kidnapper, the second part of the film is concerned with the police hunt for the kidnapper. Though this is all very well shot and scripted, it just didn't sit with me so well.


The police kept saying they were really keen to catch the kidnapper in a way that made it sound like a favour. As if they felt sorry for Mr Gondo as he had lost millions because of paying the ransom. Fair enough, but it was said so often that it made me think that if he wasn't such a great guy and had so much money, that the police wouldn't have given a shit. I also kept expecting a twist at the end, expecting that the kidnapper was one of Mr Gondo's rivals who was trying buy his shares in the company; but that never materialised. However, that said, the film is very good and I enjoyed it, I think I'm probably just being over-cynical for a 1963 film; tastes and expectations change. The plot is very methodical, but I think that is also one of it's strong points; the police investigation is also very methodical and thorough, everything is explained carefully in meetings in the police station (reminds me of how methodical and realistic Bullitt is). The script is also pacey; though it is a fairly long film (2 hours 20 min), the story doesn't feel like it drags at all.


Anyway, enough rambling. If you don't believe me (chances are you don't), go and see it (chances are you haven't already!).