Worth Watching:

• Die Hard 2 (1990), Renny Harlin – I watched this over a longneck back home, with an old friend. This film was the perfect accompaniment. Bruce Willis is one of the perfect action heroes. Has a bit where he blows up a plane and says “Yippi ki aye motherfucker”, so that’s pretty sweet.

• The Killing (1956), Stanley Kubrick – Brilliant early Kubrick which is almost an archetypal crime film. Clearly influential on films such as The Town and even The Dark Knight. Long stretches of almost Tarantino-esque dialogue. Rocks a soundtrack dripping with Jazz and an incredible, back and forth, Groundhog Day structure which actually enhances the film unlike most attempts at this kind of thing.

• Torn Curtain (1966), Alfred Hitchcock – In Julie Andrews and Paul Newman this film sports surely the most engaging lead duo in history. This is a slightly more melodramatic than average Hitchcock outing but features enough typically awesome camerawork to get any film-nerd excited. A cool, cold-war espionage story ensures this, like the best of Hitch’s films is a hell of a lot of fun to watch.

• The Passenger (1975), Michelangelo Antonioni – Beautiful settings from North Africa to Barcelona provide a cool backdrop for this interesting road film. Jack Nicholson, for once not overdoing it, assumes the identity of a dead man to escape his unfulfilling life. Slow moving, but engaging and unpretentious.

• Johnny Stecchino (1991), Roberto Benigni – Benigni is a divisive figure and this is the first film of his I’ve seen. He is a comedic spiritual successor to Chaplin and Sellers. Standard material that could’ve been predictable is saved by a cool script and lively, good-natured delivery. Funny.

Not Worth Watching:

• Rambo-First Blood (1982), Ted Kotcheff – I watched this thinking it was on the 1001, because I’m working on an action film piece. I thought I had seen my first ever ‘Schooner of Tooheys New film’. Unfortunately though it’s not on the list. I have no idea why this has any kind of reputation. Poorly made with the production values of any crappy run of the mill midday movie you couldn’t be bothered finishing in your childhood. Humourless, with no one to cheer for. Two pretty terminal flaws in an action film. A nasty film.

• Swept Away (1974), Lina Wertmuller – A quite offensive Italian film, supposedly a ‘political romance’. Is happy making obvious and shallow comments on politics, but lets the male lead’s quite confronting physical and sexual abuse of the main female go unchallenged. Main dude looks like Zack Galifinakis, and his performance makes that tubby bearded man look like the greatest actor in history.

If you only have time to watch one The Killing

Avoid at all costs Swept Away

It is difficult, but as much as possible I try to minimise my expectations of films. Too many films have been built up by friends and critics, only for me to watch them and be most underwhelmed. In fact there is not much I hate hearing someone say to me more than “you have to see this film”. The opposite can also ring true though, and that is the case with this film, Luis Bunuel’s The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (1972). Not particularly listening to whoever said you should never judge a book by its cover, just from the title and DVD cover of this film I gleaned the conviction that I was going to hate this film. It was going to be slow, boring, very confusing and above all pretentious. Having low expectations of a film I find can work both ways. It can mean that it has to do something absolutely incredible to win me over cause I already have such a low opinion of it. Or it can benefit from these low expectations and merely by not being terrible leave me pleasantly surprised. Let’s see how Mr Bunuel’s film with the rather lengthy title does.

The first thing that was exposed was the folly in trying to create expectations from the title and DVD cover. I was sure from the images on the cover that this was set in some 17th Centuryish French Court. The opening image though is of a traffic jam, pretty clearly not something too common in 17th Century France. Like many films, it is folly to try and sum up the plot of this one. If I was to partake in such folly I would tell you that the film is about a group of people trying and failing to have a meal together. The core group of characters are wonderfully absurd made up of a drug-running ambassador to a small, fictional South American country and his associates. On the fringe of this group is the bishop who wishes to be a gardener. It is hilarious to watch these upper-class companions try to deal with the barriers to their meals which grow greater and more illogical. It is hilarious to see them take these barriers generally in their stride, never failing to set the next dinner date after one after another fails.

One of the film’s core concerns is class. I am not going to pretend that I got all of the allusions and satire relating to class that the film is filled with. But I did find the movie as a whole wryly amusing and much of that came from the class snobbery exhibited by pretty much every character in this film. The characters that populate the film outside the core dinner party are defined by their class. Rather than names, it is generally just made clear that they are maids, chauffers, soldiers (cavalry not infantry!), terrorists, gardeners, policemen and so on. Structurally the film is absurdist and non-linear with dream sequences abounding and suspension of logic a prerequisite. There are many suggestive recurrent images and themes throughout the movie. Just as their attempts at dinner are endlessly interrupted, so are the characters attempts at sexual intercourse, poisoning is a recurrent theme and there is a repeated image of the six central characters walking down a highway. Rather than needing to completely understand all of these, you can just allow them to wash over you, providing humour and confusion in equal measure. I am sure they would become more thought-provoking (and clearer?) with repeat viewings.

I liked this movie a lot, and not just because my expectations of it were so low. Even just in terms of the bits of the film that I actually ‘got’, it is very clever and very funny. I am tempted to say it is a little pretentious as I feared, but in reality I think I would only be saying that because I didn’t understand a whole lot of it. And I think that is a wonderful thing – being able to only half-understand a film yet thoroughly enjoy the experience. If you’ve seen this film, I would love to hear your thoughts.

Verdict: Pint of Kilkenny

Progress: 32/1001

Worth Watching:

• Kung-Fu Panda (2008), John Stevenson, Mark Osbourne – Kicks off with a wonderful traditional animation intro. From there Jack Black, who has a voice made for animation, and the really crisp animation make this one of the better of recent animated films. The keen sense of style in the training and fight sequences being the highlight. However it does include probably the worst DVD extra in existence. This:

• The Informant (2009), Steven Soderbergh – Matt Damon is excellent (isn’t he always lately?) as a deluded, paranoid whistleblower. This is a strange film which treats some very serious content in a very light-hearted way. A contrast which may possibly explain its rather weak following. But it’s never less than intriguing, and the quirkiest voiceover I can remember hearing is worth watching this for alone.

• Adjustment Bureau (2011), George Nolfi – Philip K. Dick’s short story has been expanded into an at times clumsy, but overall intriguing sci-fi love tale with Wings of Desire (1987) overtones. Damon is surprise surprise, excellent while Emily Blunt showcases the unfamiliar talent of being able to seem like a real person.

• Twelfth Night (John Gorrie), (1980) – The BBC Shakespeare adaptations improve to 1-1. This film clarifies the play and delivers a low budget but very funny and very very well acted version of Shakespeare’s comedy. Captures a fantastic sense of fun.

• The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl (2005), Robert Rodriguez – After reading his book recently, I have set myself the challenge of watching every Rodriguez film. This is one of the best family films I have watched in a long time and Rodriguez brings a bold, heavily stylised visual style to bear on the material adapted from his son’s dreams and drawings (awww). All the performances are good (even from that Twilight dude), especially George Lopez hamming it up.

• Accattone (1961), Pier Paolo Pasolini- Pasolini’s first film is incredible. Confronts social issues such as prostitution and violence against women in a disturbing, sinister atmosphere. A tale of the lengths that poverty drives people to, a message still relevant today.

• X-Men (2000), Brian Singer – This comic book flick’s evolutionary ideas give it a nice boost. As does Jackman’s charismatic turn and Paquin’s interesting one. Whilst a little silly on occasions, this builds nicely, and if anything could have done with more of the great fight scenes with the characters powers.

Not Worth Watching:

• The Hangover (2009), Todd Phillips – I’ve become pretty sceptical of contemporary comedy recently. This is a pretty run of the mill effort, except for a really good performance by Bradley Cooper, and the Mike Tyson cameo.

• War Inc. (2008), Joshua Seftel – Some quite good films, for one reason or another go straight to DVD in Australia. This is not one of them. Oh man this is bad. Nowhere near as clever as it thinks it is and about as subtle as a baseball bat to the spine. I can sum up why you should not watch this in one sentence: Hilary Duff, playing a Middle Eastern popstar, is the highlight.

• Paycheck (2003), John Woo – A brilliant Philip K. Dick short story is turned into a far from brilliant film. The sci-fi setting of unknown times is kitsch, and the whole experience is cringeworthy. It took my girlfriend all of 15 seconds to start pissing herself at how bad this is. I fell asleep for the last half an hour, but she assures me it does not get any better.

• Mrs Dalloway (1997), Marleen Gorris – The style of Woolf’s novel doesn’t exactly scream “cinematic adaptation”. The film is very obvious, which comes from trying to externalise what was internal in the book. Bad hammy acting and a fumbling of the novel’s flashback structure add to the pain.

• Knife in the Water (1962), Roman Polanski – Film’s don’t have to have likeable characters to be enjoyable. But having two that are as big pricks as these guys makes it difficult. Drab, washed out visuals are pretty at times. But nothing can save the waaaay to slow narrative of this attempted psychological thriller. Far too ponderous.

If you only have time to watch one Accattone

Avoid at all costs War Inc.

Worth Watching:

• The Green Hornet (2011), Michel Gondry – A really fantastic, and funny action film that benefits from Gondry’s unique visual style. Firecracker opening sequence featuring a hilarious James Franco cameo sets the tone for the whole film. Even the 3-D looks good, doesn’t have that whole diorama-rama day feel going on which has plagued recent releases.

• Madagascar (2005), Eric Darnell, Tom McGrath – The animation already looks positively dated compared to recent Pixar releases, but this is one of the funniest of the computer animations. Pleasantly relying on humorous caricatures of the animal kingdom, rather than tired pop-culture references.

• Rich & Strange (1932), Alfred Hitchcock – Hitch shows a lighter touch in this globetrotting comedy which features the strange use of intertitles for a sound film. A genuinely funny film that is extremely frank in its depictions of adultery for the 30s.

• Bedhead (1991), Robert Rodriguez – Rodriguez’s formative short, with its funky hand-drawn credits, rocks a very cool visual aesthetic with the director experimenting with zooms, and editing (done on two VCRs). Throw in a great voiceover and music and it’s a winner, which you can check out here:

• Gone Baby Gone (2007), Ben Affleck – Affleck adapts a novel by my equal favourite living novelist and knocks it out of the park. This is an intense, deeply affecting film, that will stay with you long after it is finished. An incredible ensemble piece – Casey Affleck is brilliant, Michelle Monaghan is brilliant, Amy Ryan is brilliant and Ed Harris is fucking brilliant. If there’s a more promising and exciting young director than Affleck working today, I don’t know about them.

 Not Worth Watching:

• Danny Bhoy Live – I didn’t see any movies I wouldn’t recommend this month. But I went and saw the Scottish comedian Danny Bhoy. A strong start gave way to lowest common denominator stuff – gay jokes, jokes about ethnicity and most disturbingly rape jokes abounded.

If you only have time to watch one Gone Baby Gone

Avoid at all costs Danny Bhoy live

Until not too long ago my favourite film western of all time was Back to the Future III (1985). Recently John Ford’s Stagecoach (1939) has taken over that mantle but as a budding film buff I still thought it was time to expand my Western viewing experience. The focus of this post is on some iconic films and figures of the genre. I think as a genre, the Western is a distinctively American one. As an outsider it is easy to get an appreciation of the cowboys and indians, gunfights and bar brawls. But the role and importance of the frontier in American history is something that is essentially lost in the Australian experience. I think that the best Westerns are able to capture the sense of the frontier and communicate it to a broad audience in their narratives. Whilst on the surface a simplistic genre, by including themes such as the frontier, and ones contemporary to the film’s making the best Western’s can rise above their generic conventions to deliver a satisfying experience. Lets see if these most iconic examples can achieve this.

Red River (1948) stars that most iconic of all Western stars, John Wayne. It was directed by Howard Hawks, one of the greatest directors of all time and according to the American Film Institute is the 5th greatest Western of all time. Personally though, I find little to recommend in this film.

It starts out relatively promising, with a real ‘frontier’ feel to it. John Wayne’s Tom Dunson leaves a wagon train to start his own cattle ranch, in the virgin Texas countryside. A brilliantly fast paced battle with the local Native Americans (of course referred to as Indians in the film) follows soon after. Hawks frenetic editing here is way ahead of its time and works a treat, ramping up the action. Following this a young boy walks out of the wilderness, the rest of his companions having already fallen victim to the Native Americans and joins Dunson and his offsider. The action then skips forward 14 years. And it’s an unfortunate skip, with the film losing the real frontier feel that was an asset to it early on. The young boy is now a grown man, Montgomery Clift’s Matthew Garth, and Wayne’s Dunson has clearly spent the last 14 years getting suitably grizzled. As a result of the Civil War there is no money for beef in Texas, and as a result Dunson, Garth and their men have to transport their 10,000 head of cattle all the way to Missouri. It is this ride that takes up the remainder of the film’s narrative.

Red River abounds with Western cliché. That in itself is not a bad thing. A film like Stagecoach is essentially one long cliché, but it does it with a freshness that is sorely lacking from this film which is really quite tiresome. Even the interesting elements, the looming mutiny amongst the men and Dunson’s loss of control, are not handled in a way which draws the viewer in. Generally speaking the acting is melodramatic. The exception is Montgomery Clift who is fantastic and is one of the film’s saving graces. Wayne is average, even though this is supposedly on of his finest turns, to me it seems he is ‘phoning it in’ to use modern parlance. After the cracking start he makes with the opening showdown with the natives, Hawks errs often. Montages over the top of pages turning are weak. And a tendency to begin momentous moments with close-ups of all the men is distracting and uninteresting – when they first set out on the drive all the men get a close-up where they get to give the camera their best “YAHOO” in what is frankly a cringe-worthy moment. There are a number of times the narrative threatens to break out. Matt seizing control of the ride when Dunson goes too far – but all to quickly it reverts back into the blandness that dominates the film. There is no emotional investment in the characters, the late love interest section is almost laughable in it’s rendering for example. If you wrote the ‘high points’ of the storyline down it would look like you had a cracking tale on your hands, but it is the in-between bits that are just so utterly boring to sit through that is the issue. The film’s climax sort of summed this whole film up for me. I could see the idea, I could see what they were going for and could see that it should work. But it didn’t. It was hollow and just did not ring true.

This film escapes the dreaded ‘Schooner of Tooheys New’ rating for a couple of reasons. There are a few flashes of excellence. Most of the film is so mundanely paced that the sequences where it picks up really stand out. The initial confrontation with the Native Americans that I have already mentioned and a later stampede are really excellent action set-pieces that make you mourn for the rest of the film’s pedestrian-ness. The second half is somewhat better than the first. And Clift’s performance is also wonderful. But overall this was an intensely disappointing experience. If this is the 5th best Western in history, I am a bit worried about sitting through the rest of them (a fair amount) on the 1001 list.

Verdict: Schooner of Carlton Draught

After the decidedly average experience of watching Red River, the next film I turned to was Clint Eastwood’s Best Picture winning Unforgiven (1992). Eastwood has directed some films I have really loved, Changeling (2008) and Gran Torino (2008) were both excellent (I definitely recommend you seek out the first one if you haven’t already seen it), and some which I thought were rubbish, Absolute Power (1997) for example. So let’s see where this acclaimed modern Western fits in.

The film has a simple, but fine central storyline. An enraged cowboy viciously slashes the face of a prostitute after she giggles at the size of his “pecker”. The other whores put a $1,000 bounty on the attacker’s head, and that of his offsider. A young man keen on the cash enlists grizzled, retired gunslinger Bill Munny played by Eastwood to claim the bounty. Bill, now a reformed single father begrudgingly agrees because he desperately needs the cash. However he remains steadfast in his determination to honour his deceased wife who reformed him, and not revert to his former life of boozing and killing. Along the way two becomes three when Bill’s former partner Ned Logan played by Morgan Freeman joins the fray. Our odd threesome ride into the town of Little Whisky looking for the cowboys with the bounty on their heads. The town is patrolled by sheriff Little Bill played by Gene Hackman who runs the show with an iron-fist, not allowing guns in his town and enforcing this ordinance violently.

Some of the character establishment in the film is somewhat questionable. The over the top attempts to depict Eastwood’s Bill as a klutz are laboured and fail. Scenes of Eastwood repeatedly falling in the mud when mustering his pigs, and comically time and again trying to get on his horse are silly, and don’t work as well as the simpler scene of him practicing with his gun for the first time in what must be a while. These comic flourishes, which are a semi-regular occurrence through the film’s first half, are merely distracting from a strong, serious narrative. The young hothead, The Schofield Kid, played by Jaimz Woolvett is likewise a little forced initially – we get that he is meant to be young and impetuous but the point is laboured. Once this is established, the character gets more interesting, at times it seems his motives have developed further than money into a care for his older companions, then this is quickly shut down as well. I think the most interesting character in the film is Gene Hackman’s Little Bill. He is not the arch, evil presence often seen in a Western. I guess he is the bad guy, but a lot of what he does is simply attempting to maintain law and order on his beat of Little Whisky. A lot of the time he is enforcing the law, albeit in an extremely violent manner, aiming to make an example of anyone who dares to sully the atmosphere of his town. Not to say he’s a good guy, but definitely a more nuanced bad dude than the norm. I think the characters (and by extension the film) work best when avoiding humour or self-awareness. The latter is embodied by the superfluous character of English Bob and his biographer. The biographer hangs around even after Bob is run out of town by Little Bill. To me, the whole ploy of having the biographer follow Bill around, idolising him smacks of revisionist self-awareness that is neither humorous nor did it add anything to the film. It seems a half-cocked attempt to update the straightforward Western story that is really unnecessary. Others may disagree, and in reality it is not a major part of the film, but a gripe nonetheless.

The occasionally meandering first half/two-thirds of the film gives way to a crackerjack second part where the tempo picks up in a good way. There is a wonderful siege sequence when the three men have tracked the first of their targets and are attempting to shoot him, which takes place amongst some unforgiving rocky formations. Ned is crushed when he realises he has lost his nerve and no longer has it in him to pull the trigger, that he is no longer the man he once was who revelled in that lifestyle. Even the moments we know are coming (the revelation that the kid has never shot anyone, Bill reverting to drink once again) are handled well, and importantly add something to the story above and beyond cliché. I was really excited when Bill started hoeing into the Whisky because you knew the final confrontation was coming, and it had been built very well by the film up until this point. And the final sequences are excellent, balancing delivering what the audience wants with a genuine uncertainty around how things are going to end. The film’s latter stages reveal an obsession with the theme of death. As Bill says to Schofield “We all have it comin’ kid”, and this obsession is nicely handled being both prominent but not overwhelming.

This is a film that really rises above its flaws. It definitely restored my desire to check out more Westerns. As I think I have made pretty clear the second half especially is a fine fine piece of work, avoiding the aspects that grated for me in the film’s first. It may not have claimed its place as my favourite Western, but it’s up there.

Verdict: Pint of Kilkenny

The Great Train Robbery (1903) directed by Edwin S. Porter is generally regarded as the very first of all Westerns. Porter is one of the great innovators of film history, especially in regards film length, narrative construction and editing. But in reality he was more of a technician than a filmmaker in a contemporary sense. He did not direct too many films before leaving the creative side of the industry to focus on the technical side of things. The Great Train Robbery remains his most famous film and the most famous Western of the silent era. Some have countered the claim that this was the first Western arguing either that there were Westerns before it, or that the film is not a Western at all. I do not have the knowledge to counter the first of these suggestions, but in my opinion the film is definitely a Western, it features gunfights, crime, big hats, good guys vs the bad guys. More than enough to qualify. I would imagine that much of the iconography that came to prevail in the Western genre was established in this quite fantastic film.

First of all the film is easily accessible on Youtube. There are a whole bunch of different versions. This three parter is the one I prefer (the quality isn’t great, but it’s the closest in length to what the film was originally shown as, suggesting the frame rate is about right):

There are many amazing things about this film. The shooting of the film externally, on location stands out amongst early film. The high paced chase sequences through the forest toward the end are especially interesting, the kind of location shooting that seems so commonplace today. Who could imagine a Western shot on a soundstage? We may have this film to thank for that. The distinct scenes were also innovative in their day. The manner in which the action shifts from the initial holdup, on to the train, inside the train and then finally into the forest is wonderful. The scenes on the train utilise some wonderful shifts in camera angles. Initially, whilst on top of the train the camera is positioned directly behind the robbers as they attack the men working on the train, beating them up and throwing them off. The next scene, inside the train is almost the opposite. This time the camera is directly side on, almost like an old 2D video game. The thieves work their way from left to right, beating up the men before letting off explosives. This kind of thoughtful shot composition is also reflected in the film’s opening scene where the robbers beat up the signal operator. As their attack continues the train can be seen pulling into the station through a small window in the top right of shot.

The action in the film is excellent as well, with the rather cold-blooded violence helping to build tension. This is no twee exercise where the good guys save everyone and the baddies are totally inept at inflicting any damage. During their early rampage the robbers throw a man from the top of a moving train carriage, then later they shoot a civilian in the back as he attempts to flee. Similarly the long takes (whilst also lengthening the film in the days of a stationary camera) allow scenes to develop and heighten expectation. The film flies by and seems in some ways like an epic production, the aforementioned shooting on location, as well as a substantial cast of extras make this short film a full, substantive work. And of course, no discussion of this film is possible without mentioning the most iconic shot in the history of the Western. The film’s final shot (it was actually released on a separate reel so could be played at the start or end) sees a gunman fire his gun point blank at the camera. It is an audacious piece of filmmaking, and still wows people today. It wows me anyway. I think it is a fantastic way to finish off a fun, innovative and beautiful film.

I really love this film. Not just in an it’s an interesting relic of early film kind of way, but in that I genuinely enjoy sitting down to watch it kind of way. All film lovers have a lot to thank Edwin S. Porter, and innovators like him for.

Verdict: Longneck of Melbourne Bitter

My initial idea for the last film in this piece was to review a film that chronicled iconic, real-life iconic events from the Old West. However whilst searching through the ‘1001 Movies’ book I stumbled across the entry for Shane (1953) which states the film is amongst Westerns “surely the most iconic”. I thought that sentiment seemed to fit rather well with the scope of this blog.

A reaction to this film really centres on a reaction to two characters. Firstly there is the painful little boy Joey, an incredibly annoying character whose characterisation could only be less subtle if he spent the whole film with the words PLOT DEVICE scrawled on his head with permanent marker. This character manages to detract from the film as a whole, the entire way through. Then there is Alan Ladd’s titular Shane. You want to talk iconic, this is by far the most iconic character in any of these films, and surely in all Westerns. He’s silent and brooding, women desire him, men either respect him or fear him, he’s a sharpshooter who’s reluctant to use his gun. The camera looks up at him in ‘hero worship’ mode and music soars when he appears onscreen. Alan Ladd is able to convey this silent hero type extremely well, not needing to resort to histrionics, and delivering Shane’s tough guy dialogue in a believable way that demands respect rather than titters. Shane is a rebel with a cause – to help and protect a family that he has literally just met. Before you know it, the men have taken their shirts off and are working as a team to remove that stubborn stump from the top paddock. The film’s plot centres around this – Shane being gradually incorporated into the Starrett family unit as they battle against the local land baron Emile Meyer and his cronies the Ryker boys trying to take them over. If I was a small-time farmer who wanted protection from a big evil corporation, this is the dude I want on my side. And to counter his presence the big evil corporation eventually brings in a similarly evil character to do battle – Jack Wilson played by an extremely young Jack Palance. This is the great Jack Palance at his best here. He does not spend a whole lot of time on screen, but the time he does spend sees him embodying evil, clad in all black, cold, seething and deadly. The result when this force, meets Shane’s in the film’s climax makes for some intense viewing.

This is a really nicely shot film. The opening shot, looking down over an expansive, picturesque valley sets the tone. The scenery is not overdone though, with these sort of images contrasted with the claustrophobic, sparse dwelling the Starretts inhabit. The film is shot in really snappy technicolour, which looks really vibrant and makes the film look like it was shot at least 20 years after it actually was. The action is just as competently shot as the scenery, and this movie features the best fistfight I have ever seen on film, better than any boxing film. Shane and his foes duke it out for what seems minutes with punches to the face landing left right and centre, in a scene that is exciting and realistic to look at. Then, just as you think the scene is almost over Joe Starrett comes to Shane’s aid and turns into a 2 on plenty brawl. But director George Stevens remains always in control and is able to stop it from becoming a shemozzle at any point. This movie is well worth watching just for this sequence. It’s beautifully well controlled, and pretty brutal as well. I have no idea how this manages to be a G rated film with that sequence in there. Much to my girlfriend’s embarrassment, I take notes whilst watching films for this blog. But sometimes the thoughts I jot down there are the most accurate ones. Just after this sequence I wrote “fucking masculine film”. And it is, the men are real men who feel the pressure to provide for their families in this brave new frontier land and to have the respect of their fellow blokes. However to say it is a masculine film is not to say that female characters are neglected or that females would not enjoy the film. Without exception every single one of the men in the film is hopelessly devoted to his darling wife. They make decisions on what is best for her. Not because they are nagged or feel pressured, but because their love for these frontier women (what a life) is so deep. What’s more the women are independent and willing to stand up and fight for what or whom they believe in.

Like many genre flicks Shane has multiple layers of social commentary to peel back if you wish, most of them pretty relevant to our 2011 world. One of the reasons Joe Starrett is so determined to hold on to his plot is because he believes his small-scale, open range farming is sustainable whereas Emile Meyer will just brutalise the land for short term monetary gain and then move on. A problem that plagues our modern world. The place of guns in a society is also examined. Despite obviously being a sharpshooter, Shane is extremely reluctant to utilise his weapon until circumstances make him believe there is no other option. Restraint that the world needs more of. He tries to teach Joey to shoot as the youngster is desperate to learn, but is stopped by Marion Starrett who scolds Shane by saying that “A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it.” It is clear that gun control was a concern of filmmakers of the 1950s, not just filmmakers today. Another contemporary concern that the film confronts is an economic one. The demise of the little guy so to speak. The ability of the large corporation to bully them into submission and take what is not rightfully theirs. Emile Meyer thinks just because he owns a lot of land and has a lot of money, he can force the Starrett’s and their friends of their lands using underhanded intimidation. Land ownership on the frontier was obviously a complicated question. If no-one ‘owned the land’ (obviously most of it was inhabited, not that you would know from this film, I don’t think one Native American makes an appearance), then who could claim it. And how could you stop someone else coming along and claiming it over the top of you?

Thankfully the iconic Shane is able to negate the effects of the miserable character of Joey. Probably the best endorsement I can give for this film is the emotional connection that it built up in me with most of the characters. By the end of the film I was cheering, desperately hoping for a happy ending. This is definitely my favourite of the feature-length Westerns I watched for this piece, and joins Stagecoach atop the list of my favourites of the genre overall.

Verdict: Longneck of Melbourne Bitter

Progress: 26/1001

I am not a big horror film fan. Quite the opposite, in fact I don’t think I have ever seen a horror film in a cinema. I genuinely do not see the appeal in having the shit scared out of me by a film, I would much rather be exhilarated or reduced to hysterics by one. But I am rather fond of a good creature feature. Those over the top pieces that occasionally transcend their B-movie roots and turn out to be something much more. I decided to check out three supposedly great ones from very different eras to see what they could offer.

The Wolf Man (1941) recently received the big-budget Hollywood remake treatment starring amongst others Benicio Del Toro, Anthony Hopkins and Emily Blunt. When the remake came out a number of retrospective reviews appeared on the original. The ones I read were in general not overly positive. Whilst not deriding the film outright they did state it had dated quite badly, was inferior to other creature features of the time and was basically quite average. Well, unsurprisingly for a film close to 70 years old, it has dated a lot. But that was the only thing that I agree with from these reviews. This movie was a very big, very happy surprise for me. Firstly, the central performance by Lon Chaney Jr in the role of Lawrence Talbot/Wolfman is one with few peers in film. His performance is towering, emotive and close to perfection. Physically he is a large, lumbering man but manages to convey everything from kind-hearted tenderness to lustful yearning to uncontrolled animalistic rage with ease.

The story opens with Lawrence returning to the family home. His brother has passed away and there is clearly a lot of tension between Lawrence and his father, resulting from Lawrence’s actions in the past. These tensions are put to bed early in the film allowing Lawrence seemingly to get on with the task of wooing the attractive Gwen from across the road, and focusing on his employment with his father. Things go downhill fast for him though – The lady across the road turns out to be engaged, he hears legends of a werewolf from numerous sources and in fighting off a wolf that is attacking a friend during a tense scene, he is bitten in the exchange. Suspicion is aroused when under examination his bite wounds appear not to exist, and an elderly gypsy man is found dead where he felled the wolf. Our hero Lawrence is now a fully fledged werewolf. Strangely for a Hollywood film there is very little hope for our hero. The only way for a werewolf to be killed is by a silver bullet (or being bashed to death with a silver implement). No alternative way out is offered for Lawrence and in the end he attempts to flee in order to protect those he loves, like Gwen and his father. The story is fantastic, simple yet dripping with emotion, conflict and tragedy. Narratively it does seem a little wonky. The first appearance of the Wolfman is not until two-thirds in. But the result of this is that when Lawrence does suffer this inescapable curse, the audience cares so much more.

Somewhat surprising for a creature feature, this is a very well made film. It is atmospheric with abundant shots of the forest, all shadows and slanting light. Director George Waggner renders some real tension in a number of scenes, notably the initial wolf attack and the excellent finale. Whilst the film is not at all scary for a modern audience, this finale does manage to shock. The final attack on Gwen is quite vicious and the fact the Wolfman is killed by his father is also somewhat ironic. It also manages to surprise, after a sense of inevitability has built up due to the doomed fate of the Wolfman. As mentioned earlier, the performance of Chaney Jr is truly special. He brings a wonderful humanity and vulnerability to this ‘monster’. Chaney Jr essentially nails two roles here. The out of control beast and perhaps even more brilliantly done, Lawrence in non-wolf form as he exhibits the descent of a man wracked by mental illness. The performances throughout the film are excellent, Claude Rains playing Chaney’s father Sir John Talbot is also excellent. A character whose motivations are at times uncertain and who develops a complex relationship with Chaney’s Lawrence. In the end though Rains is able to convey the father’s love that Sir John feels for his son, and exhibits in the ultimate way in the film’s finale. The big moment for any werewolf film is the ‘transformation’ scene. How do you go from wolf to man? Lacking the technology required for a full-frontal transformation as seen in a film such as An American Werewolf in London (1981), Waggner gets around this creatively. At the point of each transition he zooms into Chaney’s feet. Using primitive time-lapse photography the feet sprout extremely long hair. The camera retreats to a full shot of Chaney, now clad in the Yak hair trimmings of the Wolfman. It sounds pretty bad, but works excellently, with the feet sprouting hair a wonderful touch. If only this sort of creativity and lateral thinking was not exhibited more often today, rather than resorting to mindless CGI.

This film drew me right in and then blew me away. The core trial that the main character was going through felt very grounded and real, even though it had the fantastical trimming of the fact that he was turning into a werewolf. The acting was absolutely fantastic with Chaney’s one of the best performances ever committed to film. I also felt that this didn’t suffer from some of the corniness issues that plague other monster flicks of his vintage, not being afraid to ramp up the violence or deliver things the audience did not necessarily desire plot wise.

Verdict: Longneck of Melbourne Bitter

David Cronenberg’s remake The Fly (1986) was the director’s breakout film and one which established his name in mainstream film circles. It tells the story of scientist Seth Brundle, played by Jeff Goldblum, who is developing a teleportation device, and his short-lived romance with the gorgeous “Particle Magazine” journalist Veronica Quaife played by Geena Davis. Brundle is fused genetically with a fly when one makes its way into one of the pods the first time that he attempts to teleport himself. This initial teleportation exposes some pretty cartoony special effects which really show the film’s 25 odd year age. The script exhibits some pretty snappy dialogue early on, which definitely brought a smile to my face. When Veronica is interviewing Seth on tape after an early failure (preserved for all time on Betamax) she repeatedly asks what he is thinking, to which he retorts “Fuck is what I’m thinking.” These early scenes also show some flashes of real gore. I didn’t find the film continually gory, but there were some gross out scenes sprinkled through. The first comes when Brundle’s teleportation device manage to turn a baboon literally inside out because it can’t handle the breakdown and reanimation of flesh. My personal favourite of these gory inserts in the film comes when Seth, on the prowl for a bedfellow who is willing to be teleported, challenges a man to an arm wrestle in a bar. He beats the thug comprehensively when he snaps his forearm, breaking the skin, which Cronenberg chooses to show unflinchingly. This scene also leads to the film’s most iconic line when Veronica warns the woman that Brundle has picked up to “be afraid, be very afraid.”

I didn’t find the central romance all that believable or well drawn. It would take a bit more convincing for me to believe that Davis’ smokin hot journalist would fall for Goldblum’s uber-geek that quickly. She essentially throws herself down and begs him to take her. It just doesn’t ring true. The immediate disintegration of their relationship following Seth’s teleportation is better handled though. Some of the film’s more chilling moments arrive here, with Seth trying to force Veronica into the telepod to undergo the same “purifying” that he has undergone. In his mind you are only half a person until you have undergone the procedure. Echoes of modern sentiments which promote the latest surgical procedure or drug to make you jump higher, fuck longer and look hotter. From here much of the film shows Brundle’s transformation into Brundlefly, or for those who haven’t seen the film, the fly aspect fused to Brundle begins to take precedence over the human one. Pretty soon Goldblum is unrecognisable under the layers of prosthetics he is covered in. These prosthetics, whilst impressive, are at times rather comical. Today these scenes would probably be done with CGI, who knows if that would be any better (we may all know soon, supposedly Cronenberg himself is planning a remake). Aspects throughout this period are touching. Veronica refuses to give up and is continually trying to help Seth. No matter how grotesque his appearance becomes, she does not shy away from him either physically or personally. This culminates in her giving him a reassuring hug after his gnarled ear falls off.

The three central performances are all good. Davis is bright and bubbly, and probably delivers the films standout performance. When her character becomes pregnant with Brundle’s child, Davis delivers one of the film’s more famous scenes when during a disturbing dream sequence she gives birth to a larva. Goldblum likewise is good with what he is given, although personally I found his character to be a bit of a cutout. He could have done with some more nuances, especially after undergoing his transformation. I recognise that he is meant to be losing some level of his sanity, but his treatment of Veronica straight after the incident doesn’t marry well with his behaviour beforehand, or the attempts by him to make peace with her later in the film. John Getz is also excellent as Stathis Borans although his character suffers from similar issues as Goldblum’s. Initially he is the sleazy, ex-boyfriend boss, breaking into Veronica’s apartment and stalking her. And Getz plays this character really well, I personally was cheering for his downfall. Then with a click of the script’s fingers he is Veronica’s shoulder to cry on, trying to help Brundle and trying to win the girl back, but with none of the sleaze he previously displayed. If you can get over his earlier actions, Stathis becomes a hero to cheer for in the film’s second half. He bravely enters Brundlefly’s den to rescue the kidnapped Veronica at the film’s conclusion.

I was expecting The Fly to occupy a similar philosophical space as The Wolf Man, the main character going through existential dread as he realises his inescapable fate, and attempts desperately to fight against it. But in reality this was a minor concern of the film, although it does come up when Brundle briefly begs for Veronica to help him. For the most part the more and more mentally unstable Seth is content with his newfound physical attributes and embraces them. One similarity between the films is the sexual overtones. In The Wolf Man Lawrence’s transformation into the Wolfman is preceded by his pursuit of Gwen, who is already engaged. Seth’s great power that he acquires following his experiment manifests itself as an insatiable sexual appetite. Much has been made of this film being a love story between Brundle and Veronica. Personally I think this is overstated. If anything I think the great love throughout the film (especially its second half) is the love and devotion Stathis has for Veronica. The film finishes with Seth attempting to carry out a Frankenstein-esque experiment to create the “ultimate family” by genetically fusing himself, Veronica and their unborn child together. These late attempts by Brundle to regain his ‘human-ness’ are quite interesting. For me, the whole film overall would have been a much better piece if there was more of this, rather than just trying to show of a succession of prosthetic masterpieces.

Whilst this is a good film, for me it never really rose to any towering heights and falls short of being a classic. But the performances are good; Goldblum as Seth Brundle, and Geena Davis is absolutely outstanding as Veronica Quaife, making you wish she was seen on screen more these days. With its lashings of gore, and innovative prosthetics you can see why this is a bit of a touchstone for 80s horror film, but it only stands up ok nowadays.

Verdict: Stubby of Reschs

The final stop on my chronological journey through the creature feature brought me to the South Korean film The Host (2006) directed by Bong Joon-Ho. This film made a pretty huge splash when it appeared, garnering a whole lot of critical acclaim and in addition making a whole lot of money, becoming the highest grossing South Korean film in history. So does it match the hype? Well early on it does. The highlight for me comes around the ten minute mark. In a fantastic and unconventional scene the monster is revealed. For starters, the boldness shown to reveal the focus of the film so early works brilliantly. Instead of giving us glimpses and shadows for an hour like many films would, this one hits you between the eyes with it straight away. Next, this scene happens slowly and in broad daylight. It is not cheap shock that is being aimed for. The amphibious being stretches out from the underside of the bridge it is clinging to and slowly drops itself in the bay. Whilst the attempt is not to shock, this initial glimpse of the creature does make the skin crawl. The amphibious being, whilst clearly fake but still looks exceptionally cool. And the violent rampage that follows, featuring gnarly tail whippings, shows us this is not a creature to be messed with. This is the best clip I could find of it (unfortunately it cuts off some of the brilliant initial slow reveal):

It is a shame that, at least in my opinion, the film does not hit these heights again. But then again most films, of this genre or otherwise, never manage to soar that high even once. In fact the film starts brilliantly. The scene preceding the one I have described above sees two fishermen fishing in the bay as ominous Jaws-esque music plays in the background. One fisherman catches a strange looking fish in a cup which he eventually lets go. The inference here is obviously that this strange looking fish goes on to become the film’s beast. This is only a little detail, but for some reason I love it. The fact that the creature could have been nipped in the bud before growing larger than a fish is a wonderful notion to ponder.

The story follows a single father trying to locate his only daughter after the monster takes her. The heart-wrenching scene where his daughter is taken is beautifully done, with no sound until the final, emphatic splash of the monster entering the water with her in its jaws. Along the way he and his dysfunctional family (father, sister, brother) are hindered by the Korean bureaucracy and the American military. The father figure is a strange choice for a horror movie hero. He clearly loves his daughter terribly and will do anything he can to make her proud, such as saving up all the coins he can steal from his father’s shop to buy her a new phone. His parenting attempts are also occasionally misguided, such as when he informs his daughter that its “time for a cold one” and cracks open a beer for her. As the film goes on we learn more about his backstory which explains a lot of these inadequacies and his tendency to fall asleep at pretty much any time. I found the characters of his brother and sister less endearing, and I am not sure that I was meant to. They acted horribly toward him, blaming him for the loss of his daughter and also acting as if she is more important to them, than to her father. This is definitely a B-movie though. Some of the acting (especially by a number of the American actors) is pretty woeful and at times the action scenes can be pretty average. Even worse are the occasional attempts at humour which fall ultra flat, see the man in the biohazard suit falling slipping over repeatedly for example. The film struggles when it gets too far away from the monster which is its real strength. The hospital scenes, whilst chilling, go on far too long. Something that is going for the film are the settings, especially the grimy, industrial sewers where the monster maintains it’s lair which really ramps up the atmosphere. Another standout scene takes place here where the girl tries to use the sleeping beast as a ramp but gets plucked out of the air by a tentacle.

There is much social commentary littered through this film of you’re into that kind of thing. There are plenty of anti-American pot shots and some interesting commentary on environmental issues. Some of it very heavy-handed, but equally some is nicely done. The first scene in which the monster is revealed sees the crowd on the bank rather than flee in terror, instead pelt it with rubbish. The monster is created through Americans dumping toxic chemicals and the role of the American military once they get involved is not portrayed in an overly positive manner. More interesting to me were the constant references to the notion of ‘seori’, where people steal out of necessity. How malicious is the monster really? It is not killing for fun, just to feed and stay alive. Not really any different a man stealing food to feed his family.

This is a film with some wonderful aspects, but I don’t think that it’s that much of an essential one. It is best when defying convention such as in the early sequences, and in not giving the audience the happy ending we are expecting. It does feel like it drags a bit though, and when away from the monster the B-acting and script can be a bit disappointing.

Verdict: Stubby of Reschs

Progress: 22/1001

I am aware that this is generally a film blog. But the last 24 hours has inspired me to have a bit of a ramble about one of my other passions – football. Last night was a bit of a miserable stormy night in Canberra. Tired after a return to full-time work, the bed was definitely calling. Instead, around midnight I forced myself into my Socceroos shirt and my Johnny Warren scarf and took myself down to the local club to watch the Asian Cup quarter final. Despite not having the hype associated with a world cup match, this was going to be one of Australia’s most important games in the last 5 odd years.

I sat alone at the club, but amongst about 30-40 others there for the same purpose, and was treated to quite possible the most tense Socceroos match I have ever watched. For two hours, I sat practicing my best ‘nervous, praying football fan’ face. This was an incredible match, the ‘best of football’ of this piece’s title. Australia had the better of the game. Initially they dominated the opening 15-20 minutes before Iraq came into the game more strongly. However in the first half it was Australia with the better chances, both Harry Kewell and Matt McKay having chances to put the team in front. In the second half Iraq had a golden chance early when one of their players got through one on one with the keeper. Both teams had very good chances in the second half, Brett Holman nearly banging a long range effort home. Into extra time it went, by this stage I was well and truly wishing I was not driving so I could have a stiff drink or three to calm the nerves. There was no shutting up shop and waiting it out for penalties (although there was the occasional suggestion of this from the Iraqi team). Newish Australian coach Holger Osieck was astute with his substitutions. He still had two up his sleeve going into extra time and used them to bring on youthful attackers Nathan Burns and Neil Kilkenny. During extra time, Sasa Ognenovski almost scored what would have been probably the most amazing debut goal ever for the Socceroos. The ball spilled to the 6 foot plenty man known as Ogre, who launched into an amazing acrobatic bicycle kick any forward would be proud of. As the ball was goalbound, Australia’s Mile Jedinak reacted instinctively, attempting to nod the ball in. He only succeeded however in heading the ball over the top. There were plenty of nervous moments during extra time, especially when the referee waved away what probably should have been an Iraqi penalty when Lucas Neil bundled one of their players over when they were through on goal. It appeared penalties beckoned and I was preparing to take my nervous face to a whole new level. But, with 3 minutes left in extra time two of Australia’s best players combined for a stunning winner. Matt McKay (thank God for strong domestic football) broke down the left and played a floating, early cross. It split two defenders perfectly and was clinically finished with a wonderful Harry Kewell header into the bottom right corner. Myself and the rest of Dickson Tradies went suitably wild.

Pretty much all the Australian players were impressive, including a bunch of less-familiar names. I thought Sasa Ognenovski was our best player, rock solid at the back and a continual attacking threat from set-pieces. He is the man to build our defence around going forward. Matt McKay, despite some poor touches was another who was close to Australia’s standout. His running from midfield was inspired and he looked always dangerous. The only issue with McKay is his finishing, which he has struggled with even at A-League level. A major question for Osieck is what to do with McKay. Will he be dropped? Brett Emerton will be coming back in to the side for the semi, and is surely an automatic selection. It appears that unless Osieck is willing to dispense with playing two holding midfielders that the Brisbane man will have to make way. Harry Kewell was the third player who stood out for the Roos last night. Why some people continue to be so negative towards this player astounds me. By a good margin he is the finest Socceroo I have ever seen play, and at times last night he looked a class above, with his control on the ball and most importantly hunger to win for his country. Because he has been injury prone, many have made the suggestion that Kewell lacks heart. These people have not been watching the last 5 odd years of his international career where every time he has played the passion and effort are plain to see. If Harry can sharpen up his finishing Australia are a very very good shot at winning this title. The draw has opened up nicely now for Australia who are to play Uzbekistan in the semi-final. The Uzbeks have been a bit of a revelation in this tournament and are to be respected, but Australia at their best should have too much class. Make no mistake, this is Australia’s best ever chance to win a major international trophy. It’s time to jump on the Asian Cup bandwagon people.

And now to the worst of football which was also on display last night. Lo and behold, yet again it is Kevin Muscat at the centre of it all. Muscat is a man loved by his own team’s fans and despised by all others. Surely after last night’s sickening challenge on the 20 year old Adrian Zahra, even the Victory fans are starting to have their misgivings. You can see the tackle I am referring to here:

From all reports Kevin Muscat is a nice guy off the field. I was certainly surprised at his astute, well-spoken commentary on SBS’s World Cup coverage last year. The issue is that on it, for lack of better terminology, he is an utter scumbag. I went and saw the Victory play recently and he elbowed two players in the head and made a late, wild challenge that could have broken legs. He continues to get away with this behaviour, in that game against the Newcastle Jets he did not even receive a yellow card. The tackle on Zahra is horrible, even for Muscat. He never gets within a metre of the ball. He realises that he is beaten, but instead of pulling out of the challenge he throws his weight onto the knee of the young player. The adage that ‘what happens on the field stays on the field’ is an old, and surely outdated one. If I go to work and am injured due to the incompetent and dangerous behaviour of a work colleague, then surely I should be compensated. Zahra, having just signed a two year contract is fortunate in that he will be financially supported throughout his rehab. But it’s more than that. This is a young man, living his dream having been plucked from relative obscurity and that has been taken away from him for possibly up to a year. Whilst I have not seen a whole lot of Zahra’s play, what I have seen shows that his speed is a great weapon on the park. It appears that surgeons will have to try and piece Zahra’s leg back together again, and if that is the case who knows how much speed he will have lost. Let’s hope it is not the case, but we are talking about a man with 15 years ahead of him in the game. A guy who could make massive money in the great leagues of Europe or even just a very good living in the A-League. Who knows? But at any rate, if last night’s tackle hinders that in any way, it is Kevin Muscat who should pay the dollars. The Melbourne Heart should feel aggrieved as well. Why should they have to pay a player who will not play for a year. The Melbourne Victory continue to put on the field a player who has a proven record of being a danger to the safety of opposition players (and as he has proven on two previous occasions, staff). Maybe they should foot the bill.

I know I am harking on about the financials here, but I think the greater shame is that an exciting young player looks like missing out on getting to do what he loves for an extended period. I know how much the poor level of sport I play enhances my life, and can only imagine how much it does for Adrian Zahra’s. Kevin Muscat will likely get 2-3 weeks suspension which highlights the sheer inadequacy of football disciplinary action. A similar incident in the NRL would earn the guilty party 8-12 weeks, and Muscat should get the same. Or even better shouldn’t be allowed to play again til Zahra is able to.

I was actually quite upset after thinking about this whole issue this morning. The way in which the reckless actions of one individual could have such a major effect on an others. The last 24 hours for me have shown the best and worst of football, and sport in general. A wonderful free-flowing game that was full of skill and desire to win for the national team (this applies equally to the Socceroos, and the Iraq teams). And on the other hand a malicious act that shows the desire to win is not the be all and end all. Muscat has it, but if he can’t control it, then he should not be on the field.