Author: hscptcrash

Ransom (1996) Film Review

Rating 18
Length 2h19
Release 7.2.1997
Director Ron Howard
About When a millionaire’s son is kidnapped, he adopts a novel technique for tracking down the kidnappers and recovering his son.
Moon: no moon sighting
Where to Watch: Netflix, ITV4 @ 23:20 on 8th November 2021
Trailer:

The Good

  • In an opening akin to Speed (1994), you’re given a lot of information in a short space of time. It’s not pulling any punches and you know who the target is and you sense it could happen at any moment. There’s little things that will set a viewer on edge; from the party happening in the millionaire’s penthouse apartment, to a reporter gaining access and approaching Mel Gibson’s character.
  • The story itself is brilliantly developed. Without spoiling anything, this film makes daring choices that, as a bystander, you can actually see logic in. Not only that, you are in a position where you know the moves of both the protagonist and antagonist. Something that is not often pulled off as well as this film managed. Being in a position of knowing something Tom doesn’t could have had that ‘they’re behind you’ panto tone but with Ron Howard’s direction, it holds much more gravitas to it.
  • Ron Howard is a competent film maker. He’s not someone who has a style that could enable me to pick out his filmography, but there’s that seal of quality on them.
  • Sitting here in 2021, it’s hard to remember that Mel Gibson was consistently in the annual Quigley List of top ten most bankable stars. While he seems to be able to avoid ‘cancel culture’, he certainly hasn’t been a leading man for at least a decade.
    However, thirty seconds of screen time in something like Ransom and any viewer who was alive before Y2K will remember why this man was so in demand. This isn’t to say I excuse anything he’s accused of or absolve him of any of the antisemetic views, misogyny or domestic violence. What I am saying however, is that there is a detachment of the actor and the roles he plays. Something I don’t think can be said of others.
    Gibson commands your attention as Tom, he wins you over before there’s even a need for you to be on his side. Then there are those moments of vulnerability, of determination and Gibson is the only one who could have ever given us this Tom Mullen. As I was watching, all I could think of was that we don’t have a contemporary actor that could bring to a role what Gibson does and, toxicity of him as a person aside, it really is a shame.
  • The rest of the cast is incredible. From the stroke of genius of having Rene Russo reteam with Gibson, to up and coming Liev Schreiber doing sketchy the best way he knows how. All of this quality casting ensures that there’s a quality to match the action. Had this been made today, or even then with a lesser director, the focus may have only been on the action and it wouldn’t be anywhere near as good.
  • One thing I do love about the dialogue is that Tom questions how much the kidnappers ask for in ransom. Had he not done this, I may have thought £2 million was the going rate to demand from millionaires. That one line allows those viewing from the future to understand that something’s not quite right.

The Bad (spoilers within)

  • It is not a perfect plot. There are some bits that, because of how good this film is, stick out like sore thumbs. Quite a lot of it occurs in the final act. Firstly, I’m not so sure police are allowed to accept reward money? For me, that’s a big red flag and I’m wondering why Tom is so accepting of handing over the money.
    Secondly, the FBI now know the detective is with Tom, so lay person me works out pretty quickly that the jackass is going to have his radio on him. So why the fuck would you let him know you’re on to him?!
  • I don’t buy the motivate of Jimmy Shaker. I needed more of a connection to Tom to buy it fully. The idea of Tom buying his ‘way out of things’ came across as such a trigger that it was personal to Jimmy. There was also the repeated line that the money was deserved, that it was *his* money. There’s still a question mark over it all.

The Ugly

  • Poor Donnie Walberg. First you have to deal with the fact that Donnie is Marky Marky if you’d ordered him from Wish. Then his character goes and wins the viewer over with his remedial charm and all round good heart. I, personally, was rooting for him to be the one that saved the day, before the proverbial rug was pulled and he exited stage left before the audience hits the halfway mark.

Final Thoughts

It’s not a popcorn watch in the slightest. It’s gritty and will leave any viewer on the edge of their seat and perhaps even hugging their little ones a little closer. A wickedly smart story that will keep your attention, long after the credits roll.

Stargate (1994) Film Review

Rating PG
Length 2h10
Release 6.1.1994
Director Roland Emmerich
About Dr Daniel Jackson is asked to decode an old hieroglyph in a military facility by a mysterious woman. He discovers important information about the device, which was found during an expedition in Egypt.
Moon: three full moons seen upon arriving at the planet
Where to Watch: MGM subscription on Amazon Prime
Trailer:

The Good

  • The music for this film, this franchise, is incredible and now so iconic. It works in every moment of the film and it is made all the more impressive when you know that this was the composers first major project.
  • The characterisation of Daniel Jackson is perfect. The great mind, zero social skills, bumbling chaos is a wonderful thing to see on screen. While Michael Shanks goes on to make the role his own in the TV incarnation, James Spader gives this academic , somewhat out of his depth, man such a endearing and comedic charm.
  • Much in the same way, the Jack O’Neill presented here by Kurt Russell is very different to the one Richard Dean Anderson gives us. Russell is able to bring a weight to the character that lends itself to the pivotal relationship with the teens on the planet they discover.
    Similarities can be made to Russell’s previous characters, including MacReady in The Thing and Snake Plissken in Escape From New York however, O’Neill is a character to develops into these action hero types. His main role on the mission becomes clear once he’s no longer haunted by the past. It is the character’s complex background that allows the audience to engage and empathise with him.
  • The best thing about this film is that it subverts the genre. It’s very much about exploring space, but without the spaceships and spacesuits. The team is military, they’re able to travel lightyears without actually developing the technology. It makes for an incredible change of pace and changes the expectations for Sci-fi. This is the birth of a franchise that rivals that of Star Trek and Star Wars. It’s an underdog franchise on the surface, but this is one of the strongest starts for a franchise.
  • The effects still stand up. The gate itself is incredible, but so is the CGI removal of the alien head dresses and the glowing eyes.

The Bad

  • The first half of the movie is rather a slow burn, and while I liked that about Stargate, I’m aware some viewers won’t. I personally see the value in understanding the project and the background of both O’Neill and Jackson. However, this could have all been done with a little more efficiency. Often the demographic of this type of genre are interested in the action set pieces and can do without the characterisation. The film lacks an action piece in the first 40 minutes or so and it’s perhaps why its not considered as much as other Sci-fi offerings.
  • French Stewart is a welcome addition to the team. Viewers will recognise him as Harry from Third Rock From the Sun. However, as much as I love seeing him on screen, he appears to be killed by Ra’s foot soldiers. That’s sad, but fine. Except he’s seemingly resurrected by the final act. In such a good film, this annoys me.

The Ugly

  • Damn it, I hate that ‘world in the corner of the screen’ image we get at the end of the film. Predator and The Thing do it too and it just feels cheap.

Final Thoughts

I will always love this film and this franchise. How can you not when it introduced you the man that is James Spader. (Although, in my defence, I had been watching him in Mannequin years before this. I just didn’t know *that* him.

Shuffle (2011)

Rating 12
Length 1h22
Release 21.10.2011 (USA release only)
Director Kurt Kuenne
About A man begins experiencing his life out of chronological order. Every day he is a different age, in a different stage of his life, and never knows where he’ll be when he wakes up.
Moon: Full moon 48 minutes in
Where to Watch: Part of MGM subscription on Amazon Prime
Trailer:

The Good

  • The characters are good and so is the story; once you have all the pieces.
  • TJ Thyne proves here that he can hold his own and lead a film. He’s charming, engaging and emotive. Everything you need in a leading man.
  • The mystery does keep you invested. Knowing that the protagonist is there with you too allows you to want for the answers. I never like it when the protagonist is holding back from the audience.

The Bad

  • The lighting of the film is inconsistent. Now while it may convey something, I found it very distracting when it changed when the angle did. It didn’t feel like an artistic choice and more of a incompetence.
  • The unusual narration choice is really hard to follow, as seen by the extensive use of a vocal narrative. It became rather repetitive to hear the protagonist for the fiftieth time tell us he knows something, but doesn’t know how he knows.

The Ugly

  • There was no option for subtitles on this title. I have them on out of habit now, but this film really did need it. Perhaps its part of the “Indie” feel, but the sound mixing was terrible and I spent a lot of the film changing the volume.

Final Thoughts

One watch wonder. The out of sequence narration does not make for an easy or enjoyable watch. Once the mystery is solved, I’m not sure a repeat viewing is needed.
Wanting something similar, but better? Time Traveller’s Wife, About Time or Benjamin Button all handle this bittersweet time travel much better.

Inside Out (2015) Film Review

Rating U
Length 1h42
Release 24.7.2015
Director Pete Docter
About Eleven-year-old Riley moves to San Francisco, leaving behind her life in Minnesota. She and her five core emotions, Fear, Anger, Joy, Disgust and Sadness, struggle to cope with her new life.
Moon: no moon sighting
Where to Watch: Disney Plus
Trailer:

The Good

  • The story; the metaphor for emotions and memory is not only well presented, but it is really important for anyone exploring the growth mindset.
  • The use of colour to reflect Riley’s emotions is brilliant, particularly when Riley is on the bus and her thoughts change.
  • The voice casting is genius; Bill Hader, Mindy Kaling and Amy Poehler are perfect in their roles.
  • There’s the nice added touch of seeing into other people’s heads and how their Joy et al manifest.

The Bad

  • The clown and the imaginary friend. Nope, nope, nope! Hate them, can’t be doing with them. Just, no!
  • I hate Sadness. I know you’re meant to and the moral is that we all do need that bit of sadness in our lives, but seriously, I want to yeet her out the movie before it even begins.

The Ugly

  • How has there not been a sequel. There’s so much potential there that I would rather have seen a number 2 of this than the 4th Toy Story.

Final Thoughts

Another addition to the Pixar Studio. I must admit though, I absolutely hated this movie the first time I watched it.

The Belko Experiement (2016) Halloween Advent

Rating 18
Length 1h29
Release 12.4.2017
Director Greg McLean (Writer James Gunn)
About An ordinary day at the office becomes a horrific quest for survival when 80 employees (John Gallagher Jr., Tony Goldwyn, Adria Arjona) at the Belko Corp. in Bogotá, Colombia, learn that they are pawns in a deadly game. Trapped inside their building, a voice over an intercom tells the frightened staffers that two workers must be killed within 30 minutes. When another ultimatum follows, friends become enemies and new alliances take shape, as only the strongest will remain alive at the end.
Moon: no moon sighting
Where to Watch: Part of MGM subscription on Amazon Prime
Trailer:

Trick

  • There’s a few narrative choices that wind me up. The use of the lift again. Some of you reading might remember my rant from Prom Night (2008) a few weeks back, but here it is again. Only, its even mentioned. Mike goes so far as to tell people not to use the lifts. He tells them that during these sort of problems in buildings, they’re not safe. So why the fuck is he seen using one in the next god damn scene?!
  • I wish the film had perhaps used the company appraisal or review system to select people to be killed. It would add a second layer to the plot as often appraisal systems are flawed and corrupted by management to allow brown nosers to succeed and keep those who a sincerely good at their job at a certain level.
  • This is a budget movie and, as a result, the CGI is shit. I’m talking about the sequence in which the building is locked down and I’m just of the thought that CGI, and the very poor establishing shot, was unnecessary.

Treat

  • This film is everything you love about James Gunn’s work; from casting familiar faces to music selection and odd-ball comedy ticks. There’s a bit where a number of workers have headed to the roof and are calling for help. They grab the attention of the guard, who turns, drinks his tea, lowers it and turns away. That sort of obscure humour really tickles me.
  • There’s too many amazing people on the cast list to mention individually, but I want to mention regulars to Team Gunn: brother Sean and Michael Rooker. Both of them have clearly been given roles made for them and I am here for it. While its fair to say I could have done with more of both of them, they worked perfectly in the time that they had on screen.
    Tony Goldwyn and John Gallagher Jr are incredible in their own roles, but it is the conflict between these two characters that makes them both the perfect choice.

Final Thoughts

Its dark, its gruesome and perhaps not for everyone, but the casting and visual style works for me. It is also obscure enough that tweens won’t ruin it by telling me how amazing the violence is.

Carrie (2013) Halloween Advent

Rating 15
Length 1h40
Release 29.11.2013
Director Kimberly Peirce
About Carrie, an awkward teenager protected by fanatical mother, becomes the butt of all jokes in school. When the pranks of her classmates go out of hand, she unleashes her telekinetic powers.
Moon: Full moon when Sue Snell puts away her prom dress
Where to Watch: Available on MGM subscription via Amazon Prime
Trailer:

Trick

  • The CGI in this version is shockingly bad. The blood scene in particular stands out as fake along with the car crash that has Chris and Billy inside the car and the final shot of Carrie’s grave.
  • The music is a little underwhelming.

Treat

  • This version gives us a much better opening, which shows us much more about ‘Mama’ and shows that Carrie always has telekinesis. The simple inclusion of the fact that her mother tried to kill her at birth immediately has me on Carrie’s side.
  • The shower scene is a million times better; a much better representation of awkward teens and Chloe Grace Moretz really gives a better performance of a young girl experiencing her first period without having any education on the process. The added touch of someone filming Carrie, curled up in a ball and afraid that she’s dying is such a brilliant touch. Mainly because, again, this director is showing you what teens would do in the situation.
    The one thing I absolutely loved more than anything, was the fact that Sue became more sympathetic on her own. The gym teacher did not intervene or pressure her into regret.
    They also, very easily, manage to solve many of the issues I had with this scene; they have the girls explain to the teacher that they don’t think Carrie knows what is happening to her. It’s simple, but damn it, it works.
  • Judy Greer is always fantastic, but in this, she is the perfect authoritarian who genuinely cares for Carrie. I do enjoy that they kept in some of the character’s unprofessional behaviour while acknowledging it as such.
    Her handling of Carrie right after the shower is spot on, and is how I would expect a teacher to handle the situation.
  • In fact, so many of questions the plot raised in 1976, are answered here. I will also note, that it is in fact helmed by a female director and do feel like that makes the world of difference due to the subject focus. The biggest being; if Mama was so fearful of her daughter being influenced by society, why the fuck wasn’t she being home schooled? Just a line by the principle “You have to be here because the State denied your mother home school privileges” or something like that.
  • The Sue, Tommy, Carrie triangle is handled a little better in this film and at the very least they don’t include the Tommy/Carrie kiss. I also love that Carrie responds to Tommy’s death and that almost forms the catalyst for her rampage. However, I am only convinced that the plot truly will ever work if it was a brother of Sue’s (maybe a twin), that Carrie likes.

Final Thoughts

A superior version that answers a lot of the questions the 1976 instalment raised.

Carrie (1976) Halloween Advent

Rating 18
Length 1h38
Release 27.8.2021
Director Brian De Palma
About On the day of her prom night, seventeen-year-old Carrie discovers that she possesses telekinetic powers. She puts her powers to use when she is humiliated after a prank.
Moon: no moon sighting
Where to Watch: Part of MGM subscription package on Amazon Prime (£4.99 a month)
Trailer:

First Thoughts

I loathed this film! Just fair warning…

Trick

  • My biggest issue is the entire opening scene/act. It is beyond gratuitous and does such an injustice to everyone involved:
    • Did we really need to see teenage girls (I’m aware they were all nearing their 30s, but that’s not the point. They’re playing teenagers) fully naked. This isn’t about me being a prude, the film is an 18 after all, but about the realities of teen girls. No way, no fucking how, are teen girls prancing about *that* naked. When this is also meant to be about the awkwardness of teen years, why throw that away so you can give your audience a stiffy or wide-on?!
    • Going on from that, what the actual fuck was with that introduction to Carrie White. Bullying her for starting her period and not knowing?! That becomes a bit hard to buy given that she’s spent the entire credit sequence all but orgasming there in the shower, in full view of her class.
      Going on from that, Carrie’s hysterics and the fact that its her first period are so mishandled that I’m lacking sympathy for this character. Just needed even one girl to acknowledge that they thought it was Carrie’s first period and that she didn’t know what one was. Either that, or we really needed more screen time with her not cleaning herself like she was in a porno.
  • Well, I can only imagine the character of Billy Nolan has a microscopic dick, because Chris has flawless speech for someone who is meant to be sucking off her boyfriend. Also, why the fuck was she the one moaning like it was her receiving oral sex?! I honestly felt like this was directed by someone who really just wanted to work in porn. For a film that’s event trigger is menstruation, you’d think that you’d be more aware of your demographic.
  • Now, I’ve read a few bits about De Palma being accused of being misogynistic. I’ve not read King’s book either, so I don’t know if I can put the blame solely on De Palma, but what kind of bullshit is it that girls (I assume it would be the boys too, but that was unclear) cannot go to prom without a date? That’s some discriminatory crap right there and it angered me so much I almost stopped watching there and then.
    Which leads to the reason why they had to put that in play; Sue Snell forcing her boyfriend, Tommy Ross, to ask out Carrie. Like what the fuck?! It doesn’t work or stand up to scrutiny. It’s just as cruel as what Chris has planned because its not established that it’s as friends and Tommy even goes as far as kissing her, which I find hard to take as sincere.
  • The Mum is illogically fucked and leaves me with too many questions:
    – If this mum is so against the society, why is she not home schooling Carrie?
    – Periods are a punishment of sin? What the fuck? Also, what’s the underlying cause of Carrie starting her period late?
    – A religious nut so against sex? Yes, pre-marital sex, I get. However to be so against it that she refuses sex even to produce a child really does make me wonder why she got married at all?!
    – Carrie is clearly a victim of abuse and no one has picked up on it? I guess that’s a bias one because I’ve been trained in spotting such thing, but when the film is called Carrie, I shouldn’t be questioning the morality of everyone else.

Treat

  • I love all the split screen editing that allows both the forground and background be in focus at once. Even the Vaseline smudge between the two really adds to the visuals.
  • Everything from the start of prom onwards is brilliant visually, musically and tonally.
  • The use of the Psycho score is perfect. I thought I’d imagined it at first, but as Carrie’s powers develop and you heard more you couldn’t deny its presence. It works just as effectively here as it does in Psycho.

Final Thoughts

Over-rated bullshit. Probably should have been called Mama, given she was the asshole of the film. The film leaves way too many plot holes that solve so many bits of the cause and effect that leaves you with way too many questions.

End of Days (1999) Halloween Advent

Rating 18
Length 2h01
Release 10.12.1999
Director Peter Hyams
About The Devil crashes a New Year’s party in New York and inhabits a man’s body. He searches for his bride, a woman named Christine York, as he wants her to bear his child and destroy the world.
Moon: Full moon during the establishing shot of 1979
Where to Watch: Disney Plus
Trailer:

Trick

  • Some of the CGI hasn’t aged well. I would also argue that it wasn’t designed to live up to repeat viewings. The one scene that’s most noticeable is the homeless guy who shatters like glass in Christine’s dream.
  • It’s a visually dark film. There are ways in which you can suggest this level of darkness while still keeping the scene lit. The way in which this film is produced, you cannot have any light in the room in order to watch the film. That doesn’t make for enjoyable watching on my part.

Treat

  • For me, this film is faultless casting. I was reading that the role of Jericho was originally offered to Tom Cruise. Given that the role is so similar to John Anderton in Minority Report, I cannot see how that would have worked. Whereas Arnold Schwarzenegger offers something different to the man broken by life.
  • Kevin Pollak is always a welcome addition to any project, but he’s spot on here and provides a comedic relief that fits the tone of the film. His story arc is a touch of genius too. The careful editing, snappy dialogue all helps his journey and increases its believability.
  • The religious symbolism and imagery within the film is something you might not notice at first watch, but it is well thought out. What is also good about these elements is the fact that they’re value added; you don’t miss anything by not knowing this stuff, but it does add layers.
    • From having the priest who prophesied Christine’s existence called Thomas (While there’s the literally link of Thomas Aquinas, there’s also the idea that he called by name after the Pope disagrees with Thomas’ plan to kill Christine; perhaps an alluding to Doubting Thomas).
    • Jericho Cane shares his initials with the Christian saviour and his story arc involves a beautifully cruel mirroring of the temptation of Christ and even the final act has comparisons to Jesus’ rejection of violence in the Garden of Gethsemane and His prayer for strength from God.
    • Christine herself is believed to bring about the birth of the anti-Christ, so its quite fitting that she has a feminine name similar to Christ.
  • What I love most of all about this film is its action sequences. This is a typical Arnie film where you can switch of your brain and watch the Muscles from Brussels save the day.

Final Thoughts

Its not perfect, but that’s why I love it. Just don’t ask me to choose between this or Stigmata because 1999 really came through for us with the religious horror!

The X-Files: Fight the Future (1998) Halloween Advent

Rating 15
Length 2h02
Release 21.8.1998
Director Rob Bowman
About Two FBI agents set out to unravel a government conspiracy related to the alien colonisation of Earth and attempt to rescue the people on the planet.
Moon: Full moon at 33 minutes in
Where to Watch: Disney Plus
Trailer:

Trick

  • There’s not enough Mitch Pileggi. There is literally never enough Mitch Pileggi, but it’s still very true here. He sort of bookends the film and then pops up one or two more times. It’s weird to see him in a role where he’s not the one in charge.
  • The Lone Gunmen are used poorly. They’re nothing more than lip service and its a real injustice. While I’m sure the actors were happy to appear on the big screen, they could have played a bigger, better, part.
  • Due to this being a film, set between series, there’s an element of setting the scene for none fans. It’s why there’s two segments before getting to Mulder and Scully. For the tv show, a cold opening works. It doesn’t here and, even as a fan of the show, I’m restless until our protagonists appear.

Treat

  • This movie really does give the fans some epic pay offs for five years of mythology content. Cigarette Smoking Man has a B-plot thread and the Well-Manicured Man shows his true-ish colours. The whole thing not only gives us answers, but it adds gravitas to the mythology.
  • There’s something more to this than it being an episode story with extra time. The budget is bigger, so the plot is able to take us beyond what we’d ever see in even a multi-episode arc. The set pieces are bigger, better and serve the plot well.
  • David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson prove that they are made for the big screen; their chemistry, their character portrayal and story arcs are still able to shine through despite the grander scale; not many actors would be able to do the same.
  • The horror comes from the rather oddest part in this movie. It’s not the extra-terrestrial or the plot that comes with their existence, but the actions of the group that both the Cigarette-smoking Man and The Well Manicured Man belong to. The lengths that they’ll go to cover things up is truly terrifying.

Final Thoughts

The only shame is that Fox Studios wouldn’t allow Chris Carter to follow through with his plan of a number of movies following this one. Its a good watch for this time of year and it works well to watch outside of viewing the series.

Nightbooks (2021) Halloween Advent

Rating PG
Length 1h 43
Release 15.9.2021
Director David Yarovesky
About Scary story fan Alex must tell a spine-tingling tale every night, or stay trapped with his new friend in a wicked witch’s magical apartment forever.
Moon: no moon sighting
Where to Watch: Netflix
Trailer:

Trick

  • The opening of the film is really off putting. It throws you in the deep end, for the purpose of a payoff later in the film. It doesn’t work for me and makes me a little detached from the protagonist.
  • The theme of abuse and trauma is a little too on the nose for what should be a children’s film. To also contain it in such a way in a fantasy film is a little problematic when a lot of children are made to believe everything they experience is in their own head.
  • It’s really dark, and scary. Which, yay, its Halloween. However, this is not a family affair and it will scare little ones.

Treat

  • Krysten Ritter was born for the role she plays, if not a little too young looking for the role. The fear and the horror comes from her unpredictability and clashing sugary sweet look.
  • The way in which Alex’s stories are told really is awesome. The stylised approach really allows to make a distinction between Alex’s stories and Alex’s experiences.

Final Thoughts

Its not too sure on its target audience, so be aware if you intend to watch with little horrors.

The Canterville Ghost (1985)

Rating N/A
Length 55m
Release 1985 (no further details to be found)
Director William G Claxton
About The restless ghost of Sir Simon Canterville has been endlessly haunting his castle in search of a brave soul who will release him from the Canterville curse. A family then moves into the castle, and upon discovering the ghost, finds him to be quite amusing.
Moon: no moon sighting
Where to Watch: Amazon Prime
Trailer:

No trailer

Trick

  • At 55 minutes, the first is a little too short to do Oscar Wilde’s short story its true justice. It’s such a charming and wonderful story, that has been retold through the decades and with such little screen time, this does very little to stand out from the others.
  • I hate it when it is so obvious that the film is not being filmed in the place in which the story is set. It’s such a shame, as it is only a few establishing shots that really ruin the illusion and reveal the California home.

Treat

  • I absolutely adore the effects. Are they old and cheesy? Damn right, they are, but that’s part of the charm.
  • The cast is wonderful. From ‘that guy’ Mr Hammond spared ‘no expense’ for the narration of Jurassic Park’s tour (Richard Kiley), to Diagnosis Murder’s Barry Van Dyke and the girl that looks eerily like the one from Poltergeist. They all provide solid performances.
  • It is Mary Wickes, who viewers will recognise from Sister Act, who steals every single scene she’s in as the long standing house-keeper. Her personality wins you over so quickly that you can’t even be mad that this woman is grumbling about the invasion of American owners in her own, unhidden, accent.

Final Thoughts

A solid entry into the Canterville offerings, but I still prefer the Neve Campbell and Patrick Stewart version.

Death Becomes Her (1992) Halloween Advent

Rating 12
Length 1h44
Release 4.12.1992
Director Robert Zemeckis
About A writer and an actress hate each other for years as they have a crush on the same man. They secretly drink a miracle cure that prevents ageing and also turns them immortal.
Moon: no moon sighting
Where to Watch: Netflix
Trailer:

First Thoughts

I loved this movie as a kid. So much so, I dressed as Goldie Hawn’s Helen complete with shotgun hole. Only problem? The school’s projector screen was down so my painfully painted brickwork didn’t create the illusion I wanted.

Trick

  • There’s no bad here.

Treat

  • The effects are incredible and, on the most part, stand up today. It allows for this amazing showdown between the two leading ladies. It doesn’t last very long, but its so effective that the almost Tom & Jerry type violence will stick in your memory.
  • Bruce Willis playing a put upon meek guy in a comedy is rather unexpected and I’m here for it. He works amazingly against both Goldie Hawn and Meryl Streep.
  • The story works with the passage of time really well. We need the backstory and the conflict, or the bulk of the story won’t work. Not many films would be able to do it as well as this one.

Final Thoughts

It’s still as awesome as it was all those years ago. Camp, crazy and just perfect for this time of year.