http://www.redcourt.demon.co.uk/reviews.htm (Internet on a CD, 07/1998)These reviews were only written at times when I was really bored and felt like reccommending a few films to people, because I think they're really good. Or really bad, depending on the film. Tell me if you disagree - I'll be happy to listen to your arguments. Expect to see comments about Titanic, As Good As It Gets, Good Will Hunting, and a few others here soon. I know they're quite short reviews - I don't have the time to do large ones anymore, but the old reviews are longer.
Some old reviews:
The Game
Absolutely fantastic, is the simple phrase. I can tell you very little without ruining the plot, and given that the plot is the essence of this film (rather than effects, or, to be honest, even the characters), doing that would be a crime of massive proportions.
The basics are these: Michael Douglas is very close to his 48th birthday. He gets a gift from his brother, in the form of a ticket for a company called "Consumer Recreation Services". His brother says that they run a service just called "the game", which is tailored for each person individually. Michael Douglas goes along to the office, takes part in various tests, and goes home. A day or so later he gets a phone call, saying that he's been rejected for entry. However, when he goes home that evening he finds a clown on his front step, with a key inside it carrying the logo "CRS". The game has begun.
From then on it all gets rather confusing, for him and the audience, but stick with it. He (and hence us) never know whether the events that happen in his life are pure coincidence, part of "the game", or part of an overall more sinister plan. Or is the game really a sinister plan? Is it just a game? The whole point is that we don't know, and we aren't told - we're as much in the dark as Michael Douglas is.
I loved this film. Loved every second of it. However, it'll depend entirely on whether you like having your mind messed with. In other words, it'll depend on whether you like films which aren't clear-cut. One of my friends, who's as big a film buff as me, still hasn't decided whether he loved it or hated it, because he can't work out whether or not he liked being deliberately misled by the film-makers. See it, being prepared all along the way to have one impression after another completely destroyed, and you'll enjoy it ridiculous amounts, not least because it's one of very few recent original film plots.
Scream
I'm writing a review of this just because I've bought the video recently, and I can't get over how amazing it is. It's a film with a genuinely clever premise behind it - a film in which the characters realise that the situation they're in is exactly like a horror film, and quote horror film "rules", which other characters then obey or disobey. Don't get me wrong - the characters don't sit there realising "if we do this, that must happen". It's just that the characters behave with a certain amount of common sense, rather than the mindless stupidity which is normally found in horror films.
I have to say that I'm generally not a big fan of "slasher" films, because while they can be scary, they're too predictable, in a way, because most of them have a very obvious killer (Freddy, Jason, etc.). Scream has the obvious scare element of not knowing where the killer's going to pop up, but also the added aspect of not knowing who the killer is. The first time I saw it, I was scared a bit, but generally found I was too busy working out who the killer was - I sat there thinking "might be him, him, her, or him". Then one of them would get killed, and the other three would have definite alibis, and my theories would be wrecked. Perversely, I liked that.
Having said that, Scream can get extremely tense at times, especially since Wes Craven is such a an accomplished horror film-maker that he knows what people expect, and plays on that for all he's worth. My favourite examples include music that makes you think something's going to happen, then it doesn't, and making something so blatantly obvious that you convince yourself it's not going to happen, then it does. (Plus the classic line "but this is life - it isn't a movie").
I'm a big fan of "Friends", but I have to say that so far I haven't been too impressed with the performances of the stars in films. With one exception - Courteney Cox. The main problem I have is that all the characters they play in films seem identical to their "Friends" characters. However, Courteney Cox has proved herself to be pretty damn good on the big screen, not least because she'd had a lot of practice at it before "Friends". In Scream I never once saw her as Monica. Just thought I'd mention it.
Basically, see Scream if you want a scary film. Also see it if you like clever films. Or if you like clever, scary films. There's a lot to pick up on in this, if that's how you like looking at films (all the subtle references to other films, irony (one character telling a video "look behind you" when the killer's behind him), etc.), or else you can just sit back and get scared, or just treat it as a mystery. It's all things to all people....potentially. And believe me, there's a very cunning way Wes Craven stops you ever guessing the killer for certain, right to the end.
[I also love the killer's line which shoots down any arguments about films causing people to go on killing sprees: "movies don't create psychos, they just make psychos more creative"].
I'm grouping these together because they make up a trilogy, but not a normal trilogy. They don't follow on from each other, there's only one very vague, general references to one of the other films (to Clerks in Chasing Amy), and they have completely different characters in them. Except one pair - Jay and Silent Bob. They're two drug dealers, but this is never really made a big deal of. They're basically just two relaxed guys, who happen to enjoy life a lot. And Silent Bob very rarely speaks. VERY rarely speaks.
However, Kevin Smith (writer, director, who also plays Silent Bob) has created them as a trilogy, so that's what they are. And there are very obvious connections, provided you watch them all a few times. For example, the same actors crop up many a time - "Dante", from Clerks, plays minor roles in the other two films, Ben Affleck has a minor role in Mallrats, and is a major part in Chasing Amy, Jason Lee is a lead in the latter two films.....the connections are pretty much endless, because some producers double as actors, actors play different roles in the same film, whatever.
The plots all differ, but they aren't the main feature of the films, so I'll summarise them briefly:
Clerks: the plot centres around two shop assistants who are friends - one is behind the counter in a grocery/newsagent, and the other works in a video store. Dante, who works in the grocery, has a girlfriend, but an old girlfriend wants him back, and he tries to decide. To be honest, that's not a major plot point the whole way through, but it resurfaces towards the end. Most of the film consists of the clerks' interactions with the customers, and the various ways they skip work during the day.
Mallrats: This was far less well received by critics and audiences, but for the life of me I can't work out why. Well, I've got an idea, but only just. In comparison to Clerks, Mallrats is far more "Hollywood" like, with a more clichéd plot, and a happier ending. Two male friends get dumped on the same day by their respective girlfriends, and head to the mall to try and work out ways of getting them back. Again, there are lots of comic situations en route.
Chasing Amy: I've only seen this once, so can't give quite as complete an analysis of it as the other two (I've got them on video). Two flatmates meet a girl in a bar. One of them starts getting interested in her, but she turns out to be a lesbian. This doesn't dissuade him, and they become close friends, but her past starts changing his opinion of her.
The reason I say that the plot doesn't define these films is because by far the most important aspect of them all is the dialogue. Kevin Smith writes fantastic conversations, characters, reactions, and events. Each film is packed with fast, funny (often hilarious) dialogue, amazing situations, and genuinely insightful comments on life as a whole. He switches from slapstick to wit to intelligence in a few easy moves, and really thinks about what his characters are saying. Generally, Clerks tends to have a thoughtful but negative look at individuals, Mallrats goes for pure humour, and Chasing Amy studies relationships, but they all have aspects of the others. It's not vital to see them in order, or even to see them all, but they're worth it. The friends I went to see Chasing Amy with came out wanting to see the others, purely because they'd enjoyed it so much.
What else can I say? They're really difficult to define - just very funny, very intelligent, extraordinarily well-written films, and I love them all. They're all about people, but are jam packed with dialogue that makes you laugh, but which at the same time often makes you think "that's actually true". They're films which have little bits you can pick out as being deliberately done just for the sake of it. For example, in Mallrats, one of the main characters tries on a hat with "clerks" written on it. There are also lines which seem casual, but at the same time can be taken to refer to life as a whole - for example, in Clerks, one man gets his hand stuck in a packet of Pringles, and Dante says "sometimes you've got to let those hard to reach chips go". Could relate to crisps, or could relate to life - "know when you're beaten, and don't torment yourself over it".
See them all, love them all, and tell all your friends how great they all are. Oh, and look out for "Dogma" - Kevin Smith's new film. There's information about it on the "coming attractions" page, listed on the "links" page.
Updated 29/5/98 by JWES