Maverick (1994)

Who loves dust more than Richard Donner? Seriously: whatever time and geography brings, there must be some dust. So why not do a western! Much more dust!

Let's start with the music for a change: There was hardly ever a better composer of comedic music than Randy Newman, and he delivers here as well. A perfect rendition of quirky, upbeat and humorous. Not unlike Basil Poledouris' score for "Quigley down under" 4 years earlier.

Gibson was of course born to play a character that has a constant need to talk and joke. However, it doesn't play to his strengths that in this movie, most of the cast are trying to screw him, and not the other way around. There are other actors who play befuddled, frustrated and mockishly angry better than him. When push comes to shove, Gibson isn't a comedian.

Nor is Jodie Foster, and though her chemistry with Gibson is far from bad, we don't get the constant grin that a better pair would have provided. The reason I bring up that none of the actors on display here are comedians is that this is a comedy. It doesn't take itself seriously enough at anything else, be it action, suspense or drama. It's all in a jovial, good-humoured way. Which is fine, but if you're making a comedy we really should be laughing more.

Not surprisingly, the best acting comes from Alfred Molina. As he is portraying a rather vicious and cruel cowboy, it is quite spectacular to not look stupid and out of place, but Molina always was underestimated. Gibson has some of his better scenes in this flick playing off Molina.

And anyone who is good at making comedies knows that 80-90 minutes is perfect. "Maverick" clocks in at 127. There is nowhere near enough script for that. Not to mention jokes.

So this is a light-hearted and charming as all films Gibson played in during this era, but it doesn't really bring anything else to the table. And as good as Gibson was at that in the 90's, it isn't quite enough.

5/10

Spaceballs (1987)

Was there ever a more loveable spoof than Mel Brooks? Of course not. At least not that managed to maintain any kind of fun for the viewer.

This is from his more straightforward period where he simply made a parody out of another film (or in this case, a franchise). Not as flexible as the concept of "Blazing Saddles", but Brooks was always quick with a joke and for anyone who actually saw "Star Wars", they will find much to muse at in this flick.

First a problem though, and it is a directorial one: Someone should have noticed that Pullman and Zuniga in the leads have different thresholds of parody in them. Whereas Pullman finds a certain balance, Zuniga is a full-fledged parody, making their interactions lacking to the point of confusing in a lot of their scenes. It should have been fairly easy to adjust, but alas. Their time together on screen is limited, and therefore, so is the damage. And as a rugged parody of Harrison Ford, Pullman works brilliantly.

The parody of Star Wars itself is fairly funny but not very imaginative. As usual Brooks hurls puns and gags at the viewer at an alarming pace, and that guarantees a certain amount of laughs. Some of them are more subtle though, so paying attention will be rewarded. The best gag is actually quite without both sound and facial expressions. Genius. Brooks knows the entire spectre of comedy. From the embarrassingly simple and stupid to the brilliantly clever.

This comedy suffers from the same fault as most, though: The simple fact that it has a funny premise, a funny start followed by some good jokes, but then falls into the trap of keeping too much focus on a story that wasn't too good to begin with.

As a the top-billed comedian here, John Candy knows his place perfectly as the highly enjoyable Barf. Other than him, there is limited talent, though Brooks has 2 small parts and Rick Moranis stars as Dark Helmet, nicely flanked by George Wyner.

All in all, Brooks provides more than enough gags for anyone to laugh. As always. And that really is the key thing for a comedy

7/10

Stripes (1981)

Ah! The uneven talent of Ivan Reitman. But he was never better than in the 80's and Stripes surely offers a lot of the best comedians of the decade

This movie has all the necessary features of a comedy of its time. Losers finding strength, titties (even mud-wrestling), women as props and some guns to boot.

Having used up and coming Bill Murray two years earlier in "Meatballs", Reitman knew he could depend on the young comedian. Teaming the misanthropic and impulsive Murray with the smart, careful Harold Ramis, was such a smart move, he did it with even greater success when producing Ghostbusters three years later. 


It's quite obvious that "Police Academy" has stolen its entire first third from this flick, as most elements from the enrollment are similar. There are also, particularly in the early stages, huge similiarities between Murray's Winger and Gutenberg's Mahoney (even the many push-ups in the rain as punishment). Though naturally, Murray has more strengths to play to. His misanthropy, opportunism, shameless flirting and bottomless insolence really is enough for any comedy to survive with honors. He is very nicely flanked by Harold Ramis, John Candy, John Larroquette and Warren Oates (he died only six months later at the age of 53) who all add laughs, smirks and snickers. And some extra credit to Sean Young who really has a dazzling smile to charm everyone present.

The music by Bernstein is brilliant, and the two themes perfectly fitted for the two main phases of the film. Firstly "all goes to hell" at the beginning and later the military phase. Elmer Bernstein certainly was the king of comedies.

The first hour or so is quite funny, and the characters are good. Ramis is a bit more on offence than he was allowed later in his career, so look for his mimics and facial expressions a lot of the time. They seemed to have two scripts and didn't do a good job editing. Hence, the movie is half an hour too long and the last part of it isn't particularly interesting nor funny. The prospect of a war-Winnebago is of course not without promise, but the gags are spent earlier and it adds litle to the whole. If anything. Generally Stripes feels like a lot of good ideas and fun for all involved, but a lack of discipline and structure strips it of status as a classic. It still is a good representative for comedy of its time.

7/10

Spectre (2015)

Of all the heroes with all the lives, none have more than 007, and he sheds a few in every instalment. But is there anything to enjoy this time around?

I still keep Connery as the all-time greatest Bond, but Craig is a good second. He really is a cold-hearted bastard at times, and has no qualms with being a brute and a thug. I like that. I also like that after "Skyfall", a good film that never really felt like a Bond-flick, Sam Mendes finds back to a lot of the formula here. There is an exciting intro, a spectacular set-piece, a God-awful song so lacking testosterone that it will make the skin crawl on anyone who ever loved music, and straight to the plot we go. Via a gorgeous female of course. And the puns! All is as it should be.

Christoph Waltz is beautifully set up as a looming, all-seeing shadow in the dark. A worthy nemesis, as Blofeld should be. Even with the scar (eventually) that Donald Pleasance made his own. Thought Waltz makes for an eerie character, he isn't the most enthralling, nor believable villain in the series by far. Léa Seydoux is as average as Bond-girls come, though Bond annoyingly fails to see it. For all his toughness and callousness, Craig's 007 is idiotically soft when it comes to women. Ralph Fiennes is quite exquisite, though. Looking weary, worn down and every single year of his 54, though heart-strong and resilient. I didn't miss Judi Dench for a minute, and that says a lot about his contribution here.

The plot is as modern as ever, and as non-consequential as most instalments since Goldfinger. Ironically, the parts that feel stupid and unnecessary are where they try to make this a "family matter". Someone should have recognized that as a terrible idea already before they started shooting, and surely in the editing-room. But alas, such brains were not present.

Where this film really excels though, is the spy-banter. Particularly the opening scene with Fiennes, Craig and Andrew Scott. Such crisp dialogue, such fantastically restrained acting. Not a single air-conditioner on the planet could keep a decent temperature during their little conversation. There is so much going on between the lines, every subtlety counts. A rare sight in modern films, and most welcome.

For hard-core fans there are plenty of small (and some less subtle) nods to earlier Bond, be it garments, tête-à-tête with the main villain. So I really have no problems with the level of detail or the loyalty to the fans here.

Mendes fails to hit the really high notes though. The most suspenseful scene is about midway, with Bond searching for the lost Mr. White. It also lacks the chemistry Craig had with Eva Green and the aforementioned ultimate villain (not to mention henchman), thus making it a solid Bond-film, but nowhere near the classics, and a bit short of Craig's best as well.

7/10

The Fisher King (1991)

Ah. The lovely weirdness of Terry Gilliam combined with the outright wackyness of the late, great, Robin Williams.

Let's start with the images. Gilliam has plenty. Perfectly using different locations and filters to enhance the viewer's experience. Not to forget the outright absurd, such as Michael Jeter (another that left us too soon) as a homeless person in a drag singing showtunes. Though there are plenty of outrageous scenes here, it never takes focus from what this film is really about: Fate and the people affected by it.

Though Gilliam has quite a few tricks up his sleeve visually, the brilliance of this film is very much down to the three lead actors. Bridges delivers a stunning performance as the self-loathing Jack whose life goes into turmoil when a radio-listener of his goes on a shooting spree. Staggering drunkenly (guess what he drinks) about his life, with an utter disdain for his own existence, treating those around him as total garbage (line to his girlfriend as to how they met: "Suicidal paranoiacs will say anything to get laid"), he really is at rock bottom. Apart from the beginning, where his well-known swagger shines.
Robin Williams combines what was to become his trademark here. Utter madness with an exceptional warmth and underplayed wisdom, combined with the ability to make others see their lives from a different angle. Both as characters and actors the two are perfectly matched.
Mercedes Ruehl won an Academy Award for her part here, and though she is very good, it's her interaction with Bridges that comes across as such a highlight. The hidden bitterness, the slight flirtation at times, and, not least, the looks and expression between the two adds so much without taking any real space at all. Kudos to all three.

Gilliam has a knack for being sentimental without overdoing it, and is even better at leaving a little something for the viewer to ponder, instead of painting with broad strokes. The scene where Williams walks Amanda Plummer to the door is so well-written, perfectly executed and timed, it is nothing less than a fullblown treat. He's also underestimated at dialogue and some of the lines from Williams and Bridges really are brilliant. Not to mention the perfect cameo for Tom Waits who works as the cynic and realist just when we need it the most.

Is this a classic? No, but it really is a fantastic view, with some truly breath-taking performances from the leads. Besides, it is very funny at times, and how could it not be when Williams is given a good script and a treat of a character.

And whatever Gilliam is, he's never boring.

8/10

Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015)

So I suppose the big question we have all been asking ourselves is: Is Disney interested in making quality films in this saga or are they too preoccupied with selling toilet paper with pictures of C3PO at double the price?

The answer lies somewhere in between. Make no mistake about it: Half this script was made in their marketing department. They sat there with their polls and research and came up with ideas like: "Ooo, ooo. We need a female heroine for the female viewers. She must be very poor and alone, but insanely resilient and crafty. And an african-american. And a white man of course. Everybody likes white men. And to be sure we sell the market to young people we need all actors to be in their thirties and look like they are in their twenties. But wait? What about the old fans? Well, just stick some of the old geezers from the original trilogy in there (almost all in one scene - that doesn't look geriatric at all) and they will all cry with joy. Oh! And remember a cute robot".

So Disney still has no soul. J.J. Abrams though, might just have a little slice. He sets up a frantic pace to waken his audience and it almost gets tedious at first. But he soon finds a good balance and it all settles nicely. OK, so this doesn't have a homage here and there, it has practically stolen 70% of the script from "A New Hope". At times it's so obvious it makes you wonder if they ever hired anyone to do any writing at all.

But where this film is miles better than the pitiful "The Phantom Menace" or the uneven "Attack of the Clones" is dialogue and acting. Daisy Ridley really is brilliant, and Harrison Ford somehow manages to convince us that he actually wanted to do this film. The pair excels, and Ridley even makes Boyega look okay whenever they're on screen together. Boyega has the misfortune of an abject character. A somewhat less irritating version of what Shia Labeouf did in Transformer. A pussy, a whiner and a most unwanted character to give screen-time. In case no one had noticed: The robots are there for comical relief, there is no other need for dorks.

It's always been my opinion that a big movie needs a huge villain. Like Darth Vader, Ian McKellen's excellent Magneto or even the lingering shadow and fire of Sauron. There needs to be an imminent and most serious threat. George Lucas understood this in his second trilogy and found Darth Tyranus (when is ever Christopher Lee wrong for an epic villain?) and the astute Palpatine in Ian McDiarmid's safe hands. The villain here? He's a puppy who has eaten your newspaper. And looks like a guy sulking over not having been invited out to a party with his emo-vampire-friends. Supreme leader Snoke has a bit of potential though, and his scenes have stunningly clever visuals. But they need a new ultimate villain, giving him some scars and harder eyes just won't cut it. First Order also seems like a cartoonish version of the Government from "V for Vendetta".

The red thread in the story is the search for Luke Skywalker, and in this respect Abrams does absolutely everything right. Seriously; all fans of Star Wars want to see Luke found and when the main theme in the story is that unifying, it actually saves quite a bit. When Luke is ultimately found in the last scene it is a fantastic ending to a somewhat mediocre film.

John Williams still has a few good notes in him so the music is, in every respect, great.

This movie is very entertaining and has a nod for both new fans and the generations past. But there are too many big flaws that this was worth the wait. As a setup for a sequel it could just do the trick though. We all want to see more of Luke Skywalker. The original redneck saviour of the Universe.

6/10

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (2005)

No lolly-gagging this time as Lucas goes straight to action with many explosions and some nifty piloting. Then it's directly over to some saber-wielding. No time to snooze!

Actually it starts off with 24 minutes of suspense and action. Most likely to distract the viewer from the awfulness of the acting from the two former instalments. Unfortunately, he cuts to Anakin and Padme in one of the worst dialogues of the entire franchise (and perhaps ever in a film not starring Madonna). Including ewoks muttering to each other. Harrison Ford said to George Lucas during the first trilogy that. "George, you can type this shit, but you sure as hell can't say it". Boy, was he right.

Thankfully, all is not awful in the land of Star Wars-acting. McDiarmid is astonishing and dominates every scene he's in to a most impressive extent. He conveys mischief, manipulation all around and is menacingly evil at just the right times. Naturally, McDiarmid with a lightsaber is not a spectacular action-feast, but he compensates with grimacing, sneering and a wicked grin. Christopher Lee is almost equally brilliant and the film suffers from his (very) early demise. Other than that it's mostly gruesome, both the casting and the acting. I've seen Natalie Portman in many films, and I can't believe how horrible she is in almost every single scene. Whether trying to convey love, fear or strength it's simply not even at an Ed Wood-standard. And she's competing with a Carrie Moss on drugs. Not exactly Ingrid Bergman to set her bar then... McGregor seems bored out of his skull, and particularly the opening scene has him looking like he'd rather pick lint from between his toes. Christensen is still nowhere near believable, though with a hood they make him look somewhat mean. And to top of it most of the side-characters are bad as well. I hope Samuel L. Jackson took his part for his kids.

The story works much better in "Revenge of the Sith" than its two predecessors. Lucas manages a decent build-up until order 66 is invoked, in part thanks to the beautiful transitions of John Williams' score. After this, it's sheer movie-magic. Riveting, suspenseful and devastating. 

The editing of Yoda vs Sidious and Anakin vs Kenobi is utterly enticing and will keep you at the end of your seat from start to finish, which is good considering it goes on for a bit. The ending is all bad, for every single character (except Palpatine - I like that guy). 

And so, finally, things are dark and grim enough to be exciting and credible as the world of Jedis descends into oblivion. And as Vader rises with James Earl-Jones' voice and a final, brilliant, piece of manipulation and deceit from Palpatine, we finally got what we deserved from this trilogy. 

The problem is, it's only half a movie of three (very long) movies. And it's much less compelling than it should have been. Anakin's journey should have been an immense, psychological fall from grace. But firstly, we all stopped caring about Anakin after the first "woohoo" in "The Phantom Menace" as he is such an unendurable twit. Secondly, and more important, Lucas can't write nor direct characters. It just doesn't seem believable that what Anakin goes through (very much including the pivotal scene where he kills Mace Vindu) makes him a slave of Palpatine, willing to kill friends and children alike. 

Like Anakin, this trilogy should have been the chosen one. Instead it brought mostly bitter disappointments. 

7/10