Film Reviews by HW

A fairly decent horror film in comparison to the other Saw films. Jigsaw is actually portrayed as a sympathetic antihero: first when he’s conned by an unscrupulous doctor and then when it turns out there are people even more sadistic than him, because of course Jigsaw has a ‘moral code’; even when he’s enacting an overly elaborate brutal series of vengeful torture devices where people disfigure themselves in order to redeem themselves. Hey you’ve cut off your own leg so you can be a better person! 

Perhaps the quality of this movie is hard to argue for in this day and age, especially when there are many scenes of red-coated white men gunning down hundreds of black men. But honestly, this film didn’t feel as patriotic or jingoist as I expected it to. There are some excellent performances (Caine included) of the British soldiers as ordinary men caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, simply doing their duty: ‘Why us?’ ‘Because we’re here.’ Arguably they wouldn’t have been there if it wasn’t for colonialism and empire-building. There is no sense of pride in the empire or war. By the end, the Brits are left shaken, even ashamed to be alive: a realistic portrayal of the psychological effects of warfare. I don’t know how accurate this depiction of this extraordinary event is but it’s arguably the most epic siege film, with suspenseful, emotional build-up to fierce action scenes and spectacular scenery. You can see how this inspired ‘Two Towers’. I also thought the Zulus were depicted decently as noble warriors. A tour-de-force of emotion and the horrors of colonial conflict. 

I was apprehensive about seeing this, as the many voices of the internet denounced this as a weak adaptation of the excellent John Williams novel. I was glad to discover that the internet was once again wrong - or at least, I thought this was an epic, faithful adaptation that does justice to the message and spirit of the book. The cast are like the characters brought to life: even Nic Cage, who thankfully didn’t turn on his trademark overacting for this role but played buffalo hunter Miller with chilling stoicism. The cinematography was also spectacular and an atmosphere of building unease was maintained throughout, as the characters find their gruelling lives living outdoors (at the mercy of nature) growing more and more brutal and cruel. Watch this if you want an epic, survivalist western adventure with deep bleakness. 

The ‘Saw’ franchise was always trying to convince us that these were detective movies, and no more so then here. If I’m honest, I did enjoy that more thought was given to the story and characters rather than excessive torture scenes (although the games we do see are brutal). Chris Rock gives a surprisingly non-comic performance as an outcast detective hunting down a seemingly copycat Jigsaw targeting corrupt cops. If you didn’t really like the Saw films, you might like this one for being slightly different to the others. 

Sometimes I need to stop listening to the internet. I had doubts about the new ‘Nosferatu’ film because of online negativity and thoroughly enjoyed it. I was uncertain about this one, as it was described as a weak rip-off of ‘Silence of the Lambs’. Yes, it is about a young FBI agent hunting down a really creepy serial killer in the 90s who’s good at sewing. However, I feel this setup is a trick to mess with the audience’s expectations. Because say what you like about this movie, it’s unpredictable. Enjoy it for the weirdness (helped by everything nearly being shot with a fish-eye lens) the exaggerations, the sinister atmosphere. Also it’s genuinely unsettling, even frightening. Partly because of the use of jarring editing and music but also Nicholas Cage’s absolutely unhinged performance, which disturbs you from the opening scene. You know an actor’s doing right in a horror when you want them to keep the hell away from you. 

So no, maybe it doesn’t always make sense. Yes, it’s weird. But maybe if you stop being critical, you’ll just enjoy it (even while you feel steadily more traumatised as you watch) and start to think there might be hope for the horror genre yet. 

This is a very faithful but concise adaptation of the awesome novel. It helps that King himself wrote the screenplay, so the creeping atmosphere and the explorations of death and grief are still present. The main actor is a little wooden until he convincingly slips into grief-stricken madness by the end. The actor playing Jud Crandall is wonderful, as are the child actors and the cat! The film may not pack the emotional punch or horrible impact of the book and it may not be up there with Kubrick’s ‘Shining’, but it does feature a Ramones song at the end. Overall, a decent 80s/90s horror that feels reassuringly American and does a good job of creeping you out. Also features the King himself in a surprise Biblical role! 

You just can’t keep down a horror franchise. To be fair, this movie does an acceptable job of resurrecting a killer who was supposed to have been put to sleep, and there are enough twists to mess with your head. And to give it credit, while there is certainly squeamish nastiness, this sequel goes more for mounting terror rather than outright gore during Jigsaw’s games. 

Just to be clear, my title is completely sarcastic. Director Howard Hawks could be rightfully accused of lifting characters and plot lines from his 1959 classic ‘Rio Bravo’ for this movie, and you know what? It doesn’t matter, because while ‘El Dorado’ doesn’t quite have the same magic or focussed, consistent quality as ‘Rio’, it’s still really fun for western fans. There’s plenty of action and humour, and the cast is great. John Wayne is… John Wayne. Robert Mitchum gets our sympathy playing the regretful drunk this time, even if he can be compared to a sad, howling dog in some scenes. A young James Caan is likeable as a chirpy, Poe-quoting sidekick. It’s quite nice to see that even in the late 60s, when the western belonged to Italy, that classic-style American westerns could still be fun. One other thing I like is how Mitchum and Wayne’s two old heroes get more injured and crippled as the action progresses: a nice realistic touch in an otherwise silly film. But you can’t keep ‘em down: they keep on fighting their enemies and each other to the end. Good to watch back-to-back with ‘Rio Bravo’ for an entertaining marathon. Ride, boldly ride. 

A very similar plot to another political spaghetti-western ‘A Bullet for the General’ (1966), in which a cool, money-motivated white mercenary (Franco Nero, the original Django) teams up with a lively Mexican bandit/revolutionary (Tony Musante). This unlikely duo both fight with and against each other in order to make money from the violent situation around them during the Mexican Revolution of the early 20th century. You’ve also got Jack Palance hunting these crooks down in a bizarre villainous role. Tarantino was clearly a fan of this, as he surely borrowed elements from the plot for his own films such as ‘Django Unchained’. I also recognised bits of the ‘Mercenary’ score (by the maestro Ennio Morricone) from ‘Kill Bill 2’ and ‘Inglorious Basterds’. This film may be worth watching not just for the frequent, thrilling action but for the Leone-style duel in a bullfighting arena, enlivened by Morricone’s epic music. 

A rather topical film regarding the recent assassination of the health insurance CEO. Such a character is forced to cut down his entire workforce in this film… using a variety of gruesome games curtesy of Jigsaw. Meanwhile, is creepy detective Hoffman safe from suspicion? A few interesting moral questions smothered in tortuous, unsubtle brutality, per usual. 

The more I watch this film, the less I care about the gross profanity (as blackly funny as those outrageous lines can be) and the impressive FX. This is not really a story of a girl getting possessed by the devil. It’s the story of Father Damien Carras having a crisis of faith, which is only restored upon seeing a child possessed by an actual demon. When medicine and psychiatry fail to provide solutions, Carras needs to restore his belief in order to save the girl, helped by the unwavering warrior-priest Father Merrin. This classic still has the power to shock today, while boasting what most other horror shockers don’t have: a genuinely dread atmosphere, unflinching realism and haunting performances. Like other smart 70s horrors such as the ‘Wicker Man’, ‘the Exorcist’ also makes you ponder questions on morality, the supernatural and religion: while delivering a powerfully thrilling good vs evil battle. Still vomits all over every subsequent exorcism picture. 

Bar Leone’s films, I find most spaghetti westerns ridiculous. This one had a simple, straightforward manhunt plot that kept it grounded (mostly) in a realistic western setting. The focus on two main characters also allowed for some intriguing character development. This might be the best performance in Lee Van Cleef’s career, as his lawman character John Corbett grows more and more obsessed with catching the bandit Cuchillo, at the expense of his morals and near sanity. Tomas Milian is totally charismatic as the young folk-hero trickster, cunningly slipping out of Corbett’s clutches in a variety of wily ways. Yet he also displays deep bitterness at his station in life, as a lowly Mexican peon hunted by men of higher standing. In this way, the film takes on a leftist political aspect that doesn’t swallow the film, unlike with other less subtle Italian westerns. This is still an entertaining classic spaghetti western with thrilling gunplay and a rousing Morricone score; with added surprising depths.  

This doesn’t have the same magic as the first ‘Mummy’ film but it was still fun to revisit this action-packed sequel, even if they turned up the melodrama and the now dated CGI. Rachel Weisz kicked ass in this one, more so than the bizarrely cast Rock as the smirking Scorpion king.  

People have said this is one of the best TV shows ever made. I thought it was good but not greater than any other interesting crime show I’ve seen. The strength of the show does come from the relationship between the two male leads: two very different men joined together over the years by a dark murder/abduction case with occult overtones. I quite liked McConaughey’s character as a nihilist, philosophical detective (although his misanthropic, pretentious moaning did get tiresome). Woody Harrelson’s character was interesting in that he was a complete hypocrite: a so-called ‘family man’. 

Anyway, a decent thriller-drama with some good scenes of suspense and atmosphere. But by the end of this, I felt a little underwhelmed from all the hype: no way like the shock and awe I felt at the end of ‘silence of the lambs’, still in my mind the best crime drama. 

A film that gets a great story out of some unique history: the trial of Australian soldiers for war crimes during the Boer war of the early 20th century. Not only does the film offer some insight into such a little known conflict (when a world empire nearly met its match against a small guerilla army) but it boasts a gripping plot with gripping performances. Edward Woodward is captivating as the almost romantic but controversial figure of Lt Morant, a man driven to savage vengeance by the horrific death of his friend. Jack Thompson as his defence lawyer is even more electrifying, rivalling Keith Douglas for moral outrage at his fellow Australians being sentenced to deaths for crimes no worse than any other actions of the British empire against the Boers. The film is certainly not trying to say that the accused were innocent (although some justification is made for their actions) but rather that the extreme situations and stresses of war brings out the worst in men. The courtroom scenes are so passionate and tense, the thunderous shootouts interspersed throughout are not really needed (but welcome if you appreciate some good action). The ending may be one of the most emotional and best-shot conclusions not just in the war film genre but in film history. A jewel in the gritty greatness of Australian cinema.