Reviews

And for those of you who didn't believe that you could shoot a film for practically nothing, even when you heard of Mr. Rodriguez, then 'The Accountant' is just another example. We shot this in just under two weeks on Super16mm - I had never touched a film camera before. We used practicles for the lighting. Fuji exterior film doubled up for the interior shots. Technicolor laughed when we delivered one piece of film, which I had to cut when unloading the film from the camera (it was my first time), in a biscuit tin. I had trouble getting a edit suite to let me come in and use an Avid to cut the film because they said I'd need an editor because I'd never used/seen one before. I cut the film, put all the dialogue in, SFX and music in seven days. I had to cut the script down from its original 85-minute length due to the absolute ZERO assistance we got from the British Film Industry. We were shot down at every avenue. Any funding we sort, assistance or equipment we needed were not given. So the only way that we could get this made was with our own money (finished cost: around £3,500). A lot of the media people also expressed disbelief that we could accomplish what we set out to do. Now I left film school to make this movie because at 'film school' they made us make models to animate, of which you'd get five minutes using the equipment. So I came on to make this movie totally alone with just Mr. Calver as my producing partner and star of the film. Now to make a film you don't need film school - you just need some cash. An hour or two with the camera people at Arri (who, BTW, gave us a VERY good deal, thanks guys), a glance at your light meter here and there and you are well on your way. Sound is probably the biggest headache in such a production. Around 50% of the dialogue was recorded while we shot, the rest wild later on. We used a Sony Minidisk recorder for all sound. Why? Few reasons: it is cheap, it is digital and you can chapter what you recorded for instant access. In the finished film the only negative comments that I have received is that at some points during the film it is very 'quiet'. Now I can put this down to 'artistic integrity' or some other crap but they may be right. If we were to do this again I'd leave that minidisk recording AT ALL TIMES. Wild sound is very important. It also made me realise how important that Foley stage is for footsteps, sounds that you take for granted when watching a film. A tip for the editing: go non-linear. It is really so easy and painless to cut a film, any film, that way. Also, ignore any 'suggestions' that you'll need an editor to work the system for you. Do it yourself, it's easy, it's fun and you have complete creative control. So now it is complete and I have seen it several hundred times (you will if you are the editor) and the question I'm always asked is "well, what do you think?". I always give the same answer: it is impossible to stand back and give a reasoned response. When I watch it I watch it critically and can see the errors and what should have gone in there and how it never turns out as good as it was in your mind. Other people have commented very favorably, though.

Arlington Rd is a film that has been made with a style and energy that is lacking in many studio productions. Pic opens with Daniel's finding a blood-soaked boy in the middle of the street. We follow as he tries to save the boy's life, the camera spinning wildly as Daniel's fear grows. The film builds slowly from this point (too slowly?), gradually building Daniel's paranoia and suspicions about a certain neighbour - Tim Robbins. All this slowly builds up until the big crackerjack finale*.

Arlington Road does certainly pose many question, and provides its own answers, regarding urban terrorism. It is rather heavy handed on its approach to whether or not we are 'safe' in today's society, labouring on the point on too many occasions. Recommended nevertheless.

If Ryan gave the senses a workout with the fantastic opening sequence, Terrence Malick's 'The Thin Red Line' sets out in completely the different direction. His flawed masterpiece instead opens with voice-over, nature and natives in a 15 minute sequence exploring the parallels and difference war brings the land and man.

The Thin Red Line does contain thrilling battle sequences (the attempt to take a hilltop bunker standout) that can certainly compare with Spielburg's opus. Ryan was filming in a gritty, grainy docu-style; here we view the battle in living colour. The light as it sweeps over the battlefield is brilliantly filmed and brings an extra dimension to the men's futile attempt.

The effects of war both on the men and on how nature can teach us, the violent tendency, is continually explored. Both in voice-over and epic camera moves Malick gives the audience substance to think about and consider.

The film certainly has more 'depth' in its message and its meaning than Ryan. For this reason it will do worse commercially. It is a masterpiece - yet a flawed one. The narrative, broken up (characters appear and disappear) by Malick having to trim his original six hour cut, does slow the film down in places and certainly some minds will wonder.

Quite easily the best film so far of 1999. With all the crap that they have shovelled out so far this year this picture should be a must see.

This was the first time that Hitchcock had come back to film in England since the forties - and it would be the last. Hitch's second to last film is certainly interesting, and it does show a return to form that dropped with Topaz and Torn Curtain, but it is by no means classic Hitchcock.

Check out the lovely shot that follows the killer into a house, up a flight of stairs and into a room, it then tracks back down and out across the street as the killer commits his dreadful deed. Brilliant!

The violence level is on a level that he had not touched since Psycho and the film is uneven at best. Any Hitchcock fan will undoubtedly enjoy the film - especially the scenes between the police chief and his wife.

A while ago this newsgroup conducted a lengthy debate over the topic of the best car chase ever. Well I believe I've just been witness to one that can top them all.

To those who appreciate the car chase as the best expression of stuntmen's capabilities, and easily the best form of the 'action' sequence, then UA's Ronin will go down as an instant classic. And like Bullitt, who's car chase has given it iconic status, its place in the annuls of history is assured.

John Frankenheimer should seriously consider just directing car sequences for other people's movies. The second chase through the streets of Paris is unprecedented and to those who still think The French Connection or The Seven Ups reign supreme, this should finally silence their claims.

If you have ever spoken of an interest in the action genre, if only in passing to a stranger, then watch Ronin and see what even $50 million's worth of CGI could never achieve.

Mr. Seagal's films don't seem to get a cinema release in the UK any more and his new film, The Patriot, didn't even get the direct to video lable. Instead it was shown on Sky and it isn't hard to see why it received such treatment.

There are NO deaths and NO action within the first 45 minutes, incredible for a Segal film and must have had the distribution boys worried right away.

Seagal again (see On Deadly Ground) tries to "educate" his audience, this time against chemical weapons and how the spirt of the Indian people and their herbal remedies can defeat a level 5 virus.

It is just plain boring. Let's face it, does anybody choose to watch one of his films for anything other than the action? Take that away and what have you got- very little.

The bottom line is: if Seagel wants another cinema release (and a hit) he has to go back to who gave him his only bona fida hit, Andy Davis. With Seagel's popularity waning I don't like his chances.

This 'interactive movie' pushed the envelope when it was released in 1994. It still is the only game series to use FMV well and to its advantage. A computer classic.

Having seen Rollerball for the first time a few days ago I didn't know what to expect. After seeing the movie I suppose I can say that it delivers- but only just. The three lenghty Rollerball game sequences are fast, hard and exciting. Behind the game, of which there is a society run by corporations without poverty, we see and learn very little. The film-makers have choosen to ignore basically everything but the game of the title. This is fine to a certain degree but you come away wondering exactly what they could have done with the premise. Fun but shallow entertainment.

I didn't particularly like the movie, the narrative too cliched and seen many , many times before, though I thought the lead charactor Claude, Alison Folland, was a shining light in this nasty New York environment. Get that girl to Hollywood- post haste!