Green Street: When Sequels Make Things Worse

I've refrained from writing posts about bad films so far because some are already famously bad, and some just aren't interesting enough to write about. However, I feel as though an exception can be made with the Green Street trilogy, as it is a prime example of how sequels can make a film's reputation worse than how it was as a standalone film. I won't pretend that the 2005 original film, directed by Lexi Alexander, is a masterpiece. There are plenty of over-the-top moments and dodgy cockney accents that impact the drama in a negative way. Having said that, the film at least as its merits, primarily the decision to focus on character development for the most part. The film was followed by two direct-to-video sequels: Green Street 2: Stand Your Ground (2009) and Green Street 3: Never Back Down (2013).  Both these films serve as examples on how not to make a sequel, and the way in which they get things wrong has compelled me to talk about them on this blog. So let's take a closer look into this fascinatingly bad series...

First, a brief look at the first film. It stars Elijah Wood as Matt Buckner, an american journalism student studying at Harvard. When Matt is wrongly expelled, he travels to England to meet up with his sister Shannon (Claire Forlani) and her husband Steve (Marc Warren). Soon after his arrival, Matt meets Steve's brother Pete (Charlie Hunnam), a West Ham United fanatic. On their way to see West Ham play Birmingham City, Matt learns that Pete is the leader of a firm, the Green Street Elite. This leads to Matt becoming involved in football hooliganism, and he sees the firm as a place of belonging. As previously mentioned, the film invests a lot of time into developing Matt's character, and the other members of the GSE. Pete, despite Hunnam's questionable cockney accent attempt, is a likeable character even with his links to football violence, and we get to see how all this effects Matt and Pete's family. Even with a slightly hammy villain in Tommy Hatcher (Geoff Bell), leader of the rival Millwall firm, we get to see his backstory and what drives his hatred for the GSE. Some bizarre action moments aside (the GSE commandeering a van to sneak up on a Manchester United firm), the film does keep us invested in the characters and situations, and so means that the first film in the series is what I'd describe as "decent" overall.

Green Street 2: Stand Your Ground is where things get really interesting. This is a film that simply gets everything wrong. The casting, dialogue, story, setting, drama, all of it. It's not only a poor sequel, it's a poor film in general and you should totally watch it. All the mentioned wrong elements are done so badly that they give the film a unique, trashy charm. Though I think it has to be seen to be believed, I'll do my best to describe the film in order to get across just how strange it is. So what's the story? After the climatic fight between the West Ham and Millwall firms in the first Green Street, those that survived are sent to a maximum security prison. As you can imagine, old tensions re-surface, and the GSE must fight to survive. With the whole thing set in the prison, any semblance of what effect this mindless violence has on anyone other than the thugs participating is non-existent. Instead, we spend all our time with these thoroughly unlikeable characters, most of which weren't even in the first film. The only returning cast member from the original is Ross McCall as Dave, a character who did next to nothing to make any sort of impact on the audience. They try to develop him by introducing his girlfriend Michelle (Suzanne May), who visits him during the allowed hours of the prison. She gets no character development whatsoever, and so her existence to add development to Dave completely falls flat. Amazingly, Green Street 2 can lay claim to having an even more over-the-top villain than the original film. Here, we have Graham McTavish as Big Marc Turner, and he pretty much gives the same performance he did in Sylvester Stallone's Rambo (2008) one year prior. He looses his temper so often that it becomes comical, even going as far as bludgeoning an inmate's head in with an iron weight. The scene is so forced to show how "evil" he supposedly is, and it's complete with some utterly cringe-worthy dialogue, complete with racial slurs and overuse of swear words. 

The most baffling thing about Green Street 2 though is the setting of the prison itself. Given that it's filled with football hooligans, we can assume that the film is set in London, like the original. However when you see the prison, there are a few things that don't look quite right. Why are some of the inmates wearing orange jumpsuits? Why is the weather sunny 24/7? Why does it look like the prison is surrounded by a desert? Yep, it was clearly filmed in the United States. How do they  hide this obvious filming location? Easy, put some football goals in the prison courtyard. Magic. The inclusion of the courtyard five-a-side pitch does serve a plot purpose, in what can only be described as the most farcical, hilarious ending ever to be written for a supposedly serious film. In order to determine which set of prisoners are the more reformed, the GSE are pitted against the Millwall firm in a football match in a bid to win their freedom. I can't word that any other way. No amount of re-writes could make that ending sound any less ridiculous than it is. And that's the beauty of Green Street 2: it gets everything so wrong, that it becomes incredibly entertaining. A guilty pleasure if ever there was one. 

I stumbled across Green Street 3: Never Back Down simply by browsing through the DVD section at a shop. I couldn't believe that I hadn't heard any news of it being made, but there it was, staring me in the face. Needless to say, I'm glad I didn't put any money towards buying it, as the filmmakers don't look to have put in any effort into making it. Whereas Green Street 2 strayed so far from the original it became comical, Green Street 3 attempts to be more faithful to the first film's tone and setting. On that basis, it sounds like Green Street 3 should be the better of the two sequels. I beg to differ. It takes itself so seriously and attempts to be a gritty, worthy follow-up, but has none of the hilariousness of Green Street 2. Surprisingly, Green Street 3 has a dumber story than Green Street 2, but the serious tone completely ruins any chance of this being another guilty pleasure film. The story follows an ex-hooligan named Danny (Scott Adkins), who returns to the GSE to investigate the murder of his younger brother by a rival firm. Danny soon finds out that hooliganism isn't what it used to be, and he'll have to improve the firm's reputation as a top fighting team if he is to get any closer to finding his man. Doesn't sound quite as silly as Green Street 2, does it? Well let me explain what's wrong with this plot with a few simple questions: Is mixing martial-arts with football a good idea? No. Is having the characters be even more underdeveloped and uninteresting as the second film a good idea? No. Is having the hooligans participate in underground fighting set up like the Premier League a good idea? Yes, but only for parody purposes. This is not a parody, it genuinely thinks we'll be invested in this nonsense. I don't think I've heard of a dumber idea for a film since, well, Green Street 2.

So the film doesn't score any points with the tone clashing with the ridiculous story, and sadly that means that the acting also doesn't inspire much either. Scott Adkins puts no effort into his performance as Danny. We all know he's a great martial artist and therefore can do the fight scenes very well, but he's a wooden lead at best, and looks increasingly uninterested as the film progresses. Given that the rest of the characters are not as crazy as Green Street 2's, they become forgettable. Combine that with Adkins' performance and it makes for a depressing viewing experience. It's the kind of bad film that has you questioning its existence. When we aren't focused on Adkins, we're focused on an endless amount of montages. There's several training montages, a drinking montage, a sex montage. This is more of an editing project than a film. A bad sequel, and thoroughly awful film in its own right.

So there you have it, the completely mental franchise that is Green Street. I honestly don't believe we'll see a series quite like this in the near future. A flawed, but overall decent original, a second film that's entertainingly bad, and a third film that is just bad. The first Green Street has gathered a cult following since its release, but there's no doubt that both sequels will damage its reputation. I for one will continue to enjoy the well done moments of the first film, the absurdity of the second, and steer well clear of the third. And should there be a Green Street 4, might I suggest that the filmmakers consider donating the budget to a more worthy cause. Adding cartoon sound effects to the wacky second film, perhaps?

Top 10 Not Going Out Episodes

I've been thinking of doing a Top 10 list on this blog for some time now. The difficulty was trying to compose a list that hasn't been covered yet (see the WatchMojo YouTube channel for pretty much every Top 10 list ever). I haven't covered much television so far, and have only written about one comedy: Beverly Hills Cop (1984). So I've decided to dedicate a post to one of my favourite comedy series on television: Not Going Out. Created by British comedian Lee Mack, he writes and stars as a fictionalised version of himself. Living as a lodger with his attractive landlady, Lee tries his best to impress her whilst also trying to steer clear of any trouble. But Lee can't help rope his best friend Tim (Tim Vine) into his schemes, and this usually ends up with their plans backfiring. With its dead-pan humour and witty writing, Not Going Out frequently has me coming back for more. Here's my personal 10 favourite episodes of the show so far:

10. Lucy (Series 7, Episode 9)

This episode makes the list not so much for the comedy, though that's still here in spades of course, but for the ending. Set entirely in the one location, Lee is troubled that his chances of ever being with Lucy (Sally Bretton) are fading. With competition supposedly arriving, Lee must quickly find the courage to admit his feelings to Lucy, but begins to doubt if he's the right man for her. While definitely the most dramatic episode, the comedy doesn't suffer, and that's largely down to the conversations between Lee and his neighbour Toby (Hugh Dennis). But the highlight is of course the ending. After seven seasons, we finally see Lee at his most sensitive. Seeing him get together with Lucy is both satisfying and hilarious, with Lee still managing to keep his witty personality intact whilst trying to be romantic. One of my favourite moments from the show.

9. Rachel (Series 6, Episode 5)

Yet another episode where Lee tries to get in touch with his romantic side. Only this time, it's to make Lucy jealous, as he tries to prove that he can be in a relationship if he wants to. He asks out the good looking Rachel (Joanna Bobin) on a dinner date, but Rachel seems a bit too keen to see Lee again. It soon becomes clear that Rachel isn't all Lee had hoped, with her strange behaviour amounting to recreating the film Fatal Attraction. The dinner date scenes are what makes the episode so funny, with Lee becoming more and more disillusioned with Rachel as she becomes more attached to him:

Rachel: Why won't you just listen to your heart, Lee?

Lee: I can't hear it, my brain's doing too much screaming.

Throw in a crazy ending with Lee's ditzy friend Daisy (Katy Wix) saving the day, and you have an amusing take on just how bad dating a psychopath can go.

8. Surprise (Series 7, Episode 7)

When Lucy plans a surprise anniversary party at a restaurant for her parents, she makes her biggest mistake by telling Lee all about it. Lee tries his best to act natural, but Lucy's father Geoffrey (Geoffrey Whitehead)  soon finds out, and Lee must do all he can to get the party cancelled, as Geoffrey hates surprises. The lengths Lee goes to accomplish this are incredible, even going as far as telling the owner of the restaurant that Geoffrey has died. When the owner shows up to show his condolences, Lee buries himself even deeper as he now must spin more lies and stop the now happening party being ruined. With Lee trying to con more people than he can possibly handle, this is an episode that doesn't disappoint.

7. Conference (Series 6, Episode 4)

A lot of Not Going Out focuses on Lee's attempts to worm his way into Lucy's affections, even if it means lying. In Conference, we see Lucy assume this role, as she tries flirting with potential clients at a business conference. When she pretends to be married to show there's a limit as to how far she's willing to flirt, Lee isn't happy at all, and shows up to the conference in order to keep an eye on Lucy's actions. This scenario is used to its full comedic potential, with Lucy's parents even showing up to the conference. Geoffrey gets all the best moments, with his hot-headedness not exactly aiding in a misunderstanding of a client thinking that he's Lucy's unclean, lazy "husband". Meanwhile, Lucy's mother Wendy (Deborah Grant) has to spend time with Lee, and soon Lucy isn't the only one attempting to flirt...

6. Gay (Series 2, Episode 2)

Usually when Lee is in a spot of bother, his best friend Tim is the first to know. Except this time, not only does Lee forget to inform Tim, but it is in fact Lee who has been dragged into a false pretence. Lucy is told that her workmate Guy (Simon Dutton) is gay, and so feels bad after making a joke about homosexuality beforehand. Despite being told this, Lucy's attraction to Guy remains, and so she tells him that she lives with a gay man in order to prove she is not homophobic. With Lee struggling to prove he ins't interested in the opposite sex. Tim slowly becomes convinced Lee may actually be gay. Lee's growing restlessness of pretending to be gay played out alongside Tim's suspicions makes for some of the best dialogue exchanges in the show. My personal favourite is when Tim finally wants Lee to tell him the truth, but Lee thinks Tim has found out that he's lying to help Lucy:

Tim: Look, why don't you just tell me.

Lee: Tell you what?

Tim: About you being... gay.

Lee: Oh that. How did you find out?

Tim: So it's true?

Lee: Yeah, but I'm not doing it for much longer.

Tim: Why?

Lee: Can't keep it up.

Simon Dutton is great here, perhaps his best episode of his one series in the show. The icing on the cake is his disbelief of Lee's sexuality, but not at all questioning that Tim is gay. Luckily for Lucy, her lie proves meaningless as Guy isn't gay at all. Guy instead shares the same attraction towards Lucy, setting up a strong story arc for the series.

5. Winner (Series 3, Episode 2)

Winning a writing competition doesn't seem like something Lee is capable of, so Tim isn't the least bit surprised to learn that he simply downloaded the essay off the internet. Lee isn't affected by Tim's discovery, however, as he feels the competition organisers won't think he is capable of using the internet if he is "blind". Lee's optimism is soon shattered when a journalist wants to interview him, and it turns out that Lee entered the essay under the pretence that he is a wheelchair user by mistake. From there, the episode offers up even more false disabilities Lee claims members of his family have in a desperate attempt to fool the journalist. It reminds me of the Fawlty Towers episode "Communication Problems", with so many characters being manipulated so the protagonist can claim a sum of cash. The best episode of Lee's overambitious conning gone wrong in the show's history.

4. Camping (Series 5, Episode 3)

What happens when Lee goes against the title of the show, and goes out? In this episode, Lee wants to prove to Lucy that there is no way she'd be able to cope with the great outdoors. Along with Tim and Daisy, their journey to the camp-site leads them to a spooky wood, where they soon discover they are not alone... Seeing the characters in such a different situation and acting scared makes Camping a stand-out episode of the show. I can't say too much, as you simply have to see it to understand just how funny it is. One thing to mention is that it is a surprisingly suspenseful episode, and Daisy is perhaps at her very best here.

3. Band (Series 5, Episode 1)

"You're just not very cool". Tim refuses to let Lee join his rock band, lead by charismatic guitarist Stretch, who appears to have his sights set on winning Lucy's heart. Lee, wanting to keep his eye on Stretch, is determined to prove he is cool enough to play in the band, just as a Battle of the Bands competition gets started. As a fan of rock music, this was an episode I was particularly looking forward to, and seeing Lee attempt to wow the audience with his "musicianship" makes for one of the show's greatest moments. There's a hilarious cover of Motorhead's "Ace of Spades", and Lee and Tim's brilliant chemistry is given plenty of moments to shine:

Lee: We'll go on forever, just like Status Quo.

Tim: With two guitarists?

Lee: Exactly, just like Status Quo.

Tim: You've certainly changed your tune.

Lee: Exactly, just like Status... in fact forget that last one.

2. Stress (Series 1, Episode 4)

As Lee becomes more and more stressed, his original landlady Kate (Megan Dodds) suggests a variety of ways for him to calm down. With her yoga session not lasting long, she books him in for an acupuncture appointment, whilst Tim tries to mend his damaged friendship with her. Lee Mack is superb throughout the episode, with his sarcastic delivery of the dialogue playing perfectly off Megan Dodds' straight faced acting. Even the acupuncturist (Miranda Hart) gets sick of Lee, which results in a rare moment of physical violence, all of course presented as completely over the top. Tim also has some great moments, with him constantly swinging between genuinely wanting to help Kate, to backing out of the idea entirely when he finds out Lee and Kate may be seeing each other. Not one scene is without laughs, and it all builds to a fantastic conclusion involving Kate's attempt at driving in the company of a jealous Tim, and a doped up Lee...

1. Drunk (Series 5, Episode 6)

I'll try my best not to spoil this episode, as it has the best build up and climax in the show. Lee and Lucy make what could be the biggest mistake of their lives after drinking too much home-brewed alcohol, rendering them with no memory of what they did. The next morning, they try to piece everything together, leading them to try and recover a videotape that they can't afford to let anyone see. All the main characters get a moment to shine, including Tim and Lucy's parents, where Geoffrey Whitehead steals the show with only a few lines. With the scenario becoming even more of a farce as events unfold, this episode sums up everything I love about Not Going Out: wacky storylines, hilarious character interactions, and all of it being delivered with in a dead-pan manner. If you don't laugh at this episode then the show really isn't for you, but for me, comedy doesn't get much better than this fantastic episode of one of my favourite comedy series.

Honourable Mentions:

Kid (Series 1, Episode 5)
Gangster (Series 2, Episode 7)
Party (Series 3, Episode 4)
Drugs (Series 4, Episode 1)
Movie (Series 4, Episode 3)
Pointless (Series 7, Episode 5)
The Wedding (Series 7, Episode 10)

Terminator Genisys (2015) Review

"I'm not a man, not a machine... I'm more!" - John Connor.

Normally, I wouldn't post a quote above that would give away a big plot point. But, in the case of Terminator Genisys, that "twist" was given away in the trailer. Not a good start for a film carrying the baggage of two below-par sequels. Going into the film, my expectations were pretty neutral. Critics love to bash it, whereas fans seem to have taken to it a bit more. Even James Cameron, director of the first two (and best) Terminator films has given this one his approval as a worthy entry in the series. While not as good as The Terminator or Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Terminator Genisys is most certainly a return to form. Though flawed, it left me satisfied and hopeful that if more sequels are to be made, they at least have a good platform to build on.

If you haven't seen at least the first two Terminator films, prepare to be confused if Terminator Genisys is your introduction to the series. The plot heavily revolves around altering the timeline of the first film, thus altering the sequel's story in the process. I'll try and explain it as simply as possible. In 2029, mankind is on the verge of winning the war against the machines, an event mentioned in the previous films. In a last-ditch effort to win the war, Skynet, the computer system responsible for the war, sends back a Terminator to 1984 to kill Sarah Connor (Emilia Clarke). Knowing that the death of his mother will mean he will never be born, the human resistance leader John Connor (Jason Clarke) sends his friend Kyle Reese (Jai Courtney) back to the past to stop the Terminator, as seen in the first film. However, upon his arrival Reese discovers the timeline has been altered, and Sarah Connor isn't in need of protecting, as she and her Guardian Terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger) have already attempted to stop the Terminator sent by Skynet to kill her. With the timeline altered, Reese must convince Sarah to travel to 2017 to prevent the Skynet program (referred to as Genisys in its early stages) from launching. A bizarre plot, and one that you really have to be paying attention to in order to fully grasp what's going on. Having this film alter the events of the first film initially didn't sit well with me. Both the first and second films are masterpieces, and so I thought that if you are to alter the Terminator story, alter the events of Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, as it was nowhere near as good. That being said, I ended up enjoying this alteration, as it embraced its ridiculousness by giving us some thrilling action scenes and good humour. It was good to see my initial worries squandered so quickly. One thing that I thought was particularly odd though was the ending: the Guardian Terminator is alive by the end of the film, and Sarah and Reese believe Skynet to be destroyed for good. This is almost the exact same ending as Terminator 2, where Sarah and John believe that Skynet and the machines will no longer exist, as they have destroyed it in it's early stages and have defeated the evil T-1000 Terminator. The big emotional moment comes soon after T-1000 is killed, with Schwarzenegger's good Terminator sacrificing himself so that there can be no trace of the machines whatsoever. Having the Guardian Terminator survive this film's events removes that emotional investment entirely, and in a way defeats the entire purpose of trying to destroy Skynet and the machines, even if the Guardian Terminator is on the human's side.

While not as big a  concern as altering the original's story, I was sceptical of recasting the iconic characters of Sarah, John, and Kyle. I've enjoyed all three actor's previous work, namely Game of Thrones for Emilia Clarke, Zero Dark Thirty for Jason Clarke, and Spartacus: Blood and Sand for Courtney. Thankfully, they quickly demonstrate that they are more than capable of tackling these characters, thanks to some strong acting and writing. Sarah Connor has some similarities with the original character, played by Linda Hamilton. She's tough and shows the qualities of a survivor, but in this film is a more emotional character. Her bond with the Guardian Terminator is very strong, whereas Hamilton's Sarah hated the Terminators and only at the end of Terminator 2 was more accepting of Arnold's good Terminator. Seeing her dynamic with the Guradian Terminator, but keeping with the character's previously established strengths is a welcome addition to the series. Kyle Reese and John Connor's relationship as comrades in the war receives focus, a storyline not shown in any of the other films. It was good to finally see this interaction play out, as it gives both characters new depth, building up nicely for the reveal of Reese being John's father (which was shown in the first film). Their relationship is shown to be false, however, as John's mind and body has been taken over by Skynet, and so friends and family must quickly become enemies. As mentioned above, the reveal of John Connor as a machine was given away in the trailer, so the slow build up and tension in the film becomes pointless, which is a shame as this plot point is something unique to the series, and one of things I thought the film did right. With each successive film in the series, the evil Terminators became more and more advanced, starting with Schwarzenegger's T-800, the liquid-metal T-1000 in Terminator 2, the upgraded weapons based T-X in Terminator 3, and a Terminator believing itself to be human in Terminator: Salvation. Here, John Connor's Terminator can  move at lightning speed, shapeshift, heal, and interact with technology in the same way humans can, aiding in his disguise as a machine. Having John be the antagonist and being so advanced definitely makes for an interesting villain, and raises the stakes for our heroes as the toughest enemy in the franchise's history.

One thing that remains consistent in all entries in this franchise is the action. While Terminator Genisys can't match the unbeatable Terminator 2 in the action department, it does have many moments that will please fans of the series and this genre aplenty. With the crazy alternate timeline story, almost any character from the series can come into contact, and that is used to its potential particularly in the film's opening 20 or so minutes. With one Terminator sent back to 1984 to kill Sarah, things take a new turn when another Terminator, the Guardian, shows up to take him down. While it may seem like just fan-service, I thought it was a smart move by the filmmakers to embrace the craziness of the Terminator series and have scenes like this Good Arnold Schwarzenegger against Bad Arnold Schwarzenegger. While that encounter was awesome, the following action scene I didn't care for as much. It involves Reese as he arrives in 1984, where a T-1000 is waiting to assassinate him.  T-1000 first appeared in Terminator 2, and, for me, is one of the best villains ever. Having him only make a brief appearance here is really underwhelming, as he is discarded just as fast as he arrives. The cameo of the original T-800 worked because both were played by Arnold Schwarzenegger and are evenly matched in strength, whereas T-1000 is far more advanced, and so seeing him killed off so easily seems like a waste. The rest of the action is good enough to keep you entertained, including an incredible stunt involving a school-bus in the second half of the film. Definitely worth checking out if you want to see just how much better action scenes done for real look compared to ones overly reliant on CGI nowadays.

Terminator Genisys is the best entry in the series since Terminator 2. That alone is a miracle, given how this could have been the film to sink the franchise. With its storyline altering plot, and following on from an underwhelming third film and boring fourth, Terminator Genisys was a huge risk. But the positives outweigh the negatives here, and this really should be the last entry in the series. Let it end on a high. But, as we all know, he'll be back...

Pros:
+ New actors do a good job filling the iconic character's shoes. Arnold is just as good as ever, of course.
+ Alternate timeline story offers up great action moments and character interactions.
+ Intriguing character twists (ignoring the fact that the trailer ruins some of them).

Cons:
- T-1000 being used so briefly is pointless overall.
- Having the Guardian exist by the film's end means that the war can still happen, so why the "happy ending" feel?

Quadrophenia (1979) Review

"I don't wanna be the same as everybody else. That's why I'm a Mod, see?" - Jimmy.

It's  not often a film is made based on an album. There are plenty of films adapted from books and television, but films like Quadrophenia are a rarity. The Who's album of the same name from the early 1970's tells the emotional journey of Jimmy, a young man struggling to find his worth in life. Brought to life by director Franc Roddam, the film is very much loyal to the album's story, and it's visuals really help to engage the audience further.

Set in London at the height of the Mods and Rockers feud, young Jimmy Cooper (Phil Daniels) loves hanging out with his mod crew, and seeks to impress his crush, Steph (Leslie Ash). Jimmy sees the Mod's planned trip to Brighton as the ultimate chance to impress Steph, but he wasn't quite expecting the trip to turn out the way it does. The Rockers soon show up, complete chaos erupts, and the aftermath will change Jimmy's life for the worst. It's a compelling story, as we see Jimmy through the most important stages of his life: his initial boredom, chasing after Steph's affections, being on top of the world as one of the "faces" who fought the Rockers in Brighton, and then back to nothing as his friends, gang and family abandon him. All the characters, along with Jimmy, go through changes as the film's events unfold, and so people we initially loved, we may hate by the end of the film. There are no obvious good or bad people, it's just people trying to find their way in life, and we see this through Jimmy's eyes. For anyone who's ever felt out of place, Quadrophenia is very engaging, and will leave a lasting impression.

Being based on an album, one might assume The Who's music is the focus. But their music is only used sparingly, and the characters are focused on much more, and they are the film's greatest strength. All of them are memorable, and aren't pushed to the side to make way for Jimmy, but help to advance the plot. Jimmy's right-hand-men Dave (Mark Wingett) and Chalky (Philip Davis) make for a hilarious double-act, and their encounters with the Rockers in Brighton are some of the best comedic moments. Steph is difficult to read at first, sort of just going along with Mods for amusement if nothing else, but her true colours are shown in the final third, where her relationship with Jimmy becomes more and more difficult. Phil Daniels completely owns the role of Jimmy. Its a very strong performance, as Daniels has a lot of emotions to convey throughout. He's very convincing in all of these moments, but my favourite scenes are when he's trying his best to impress Steph. From blasting "My Generation" at a house party to leaping off a balcony at a dance hall, Jimmy's efforts are very amusing and have to be applauded. I think that's what makes him such a great character: he wholeheartedly tries his best in all he does, but sometimes applies this to the wrong choices. An example comes when he chases down a Rocker with a group of Mods, only to realise that the Rocker is actually his close friend Kevin (Ray Winstone). In a short space of time, we see Jimmy's mood quickly change from joyful, to shock, and finally to anger. It's a scene that sums up the film perfectly: a whirlwind of emotions combined with exciting action.

Quadrophenia is a film that can speak to every generation. Though its subject matter is grounded in 1960's youth culture, the struggles Jimmy faces and the changes the other characters go through can be applied to almost anyone. The acting, writing and use of The Who's music really makes the film stand-out. I don't think you necessarily need to be a fan of The Who to like Quadrophenia, as the film is more focused on telling a great story with memorable characters than it is being a feature-length music video to accompany the album. A classic of cult cinema, and one my favourite films.

Pros:
+ Phil Daniels' star-making performance as Jimmy.
+ Memorable side characters who are developed alongside the protagonist.
+ The action sequence in Brighton is fantastic, it should be recognised as one of the best action sequences ever put on film.
+ The Who's music is never obtrusive to the story, instead aiding to show the character's emotions in certain scenes, but still leaving room for the acting to take centre-stage.

Cons:
- Kevin disappears from the film after the above mentioned chase scene. I think this character could have been used towards the end of the film, so we could further see the extent Jimmy's actions have had on the ones he cares about.

Batman (1989) Review

"Haven't you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?" - The Joker.

With the upcoming release of Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice next year, it hasn't take long for Detective Comic's iconic superhero to be widely discussed once again. Batman has had a highly-profiled history, largely down to the many different interpretations of the character. It could be argued that Batman first broke into mainstream media via the 1960's television series, starring Adam West and Burt Ward. Soon after the series' end, it was time to establish Batman in a more serious context, akin to his original interpretation in the comics. To achieve this, Tim Burton took on the job of directing one of the most anticipated superhero films of all time, and the result was a dark, awe-inspiring masterpiece.

Michael Keaton stars as Batman, a casting choice met with much disdain back when the film entered production. Many fans couldn't see Keaton pulling off a serious portrayal of Batman, as his previous work mainly included comedic films such as Mr. Mom (1983). I would love to have seen how those fans reacted to seeing him in the role upon the film's release, because I imagine they were soon regretting every negative thought. When Batman first appears, he apprehends two thieves, and intimidates one of them by hanging him off the side of a building. Right away, this sets the perfect tone for the film and characters, with Batman's appearance being frightening for the criminals, and his crime-fighting methods being pleasing to the audience. Throughout the film Keaton's performance as Batman remains just as powerful, and yet I feel it is his performance as alter-ego Bruce Wayne that leaves just as much of an impression, a testament to his abilities as an actor. As Bruce Wayne, nothing is given away about his character, hobbies or profession when we see him in person, making him look like a regular person, and possibly someone who wants to go unnoticed. This gives an aura of mystery about him, and helps disguise his Batman persona from the audience as well as the other characters. This is, for me, why Keaton is so perfect in this role: he is unassuming. He hides his other life as Batman so well, and makes for an intriguing character, as he struggles to find balance between both lives.

 However, as good as Keaton is, he can't steal the show when you have Jack Nicholson as The Joker. For me, this is one of the greatest villain performances in the history of cinema. Nicholson perfectly balances the character's twisted sense of humour and sinister, more serious side. What makes him so brilliant is his unpredictability, making every scene with him nerve-wrecking and enthralling. One of my favourite moments comes towards the end, where we get possibly the best scene to define The Joker in any Batman adaptation. After Batman has thwarted his plans of poisoning the people of Gotham , he turns to his right-hand-man Bob, and asks for his gun. Upon receiving it, The Joker, without hesitation, shoots Bob. This is a character who has been loyal to The Joker throughout the film, and so to see him be killed off by his boss in such a surprising and cruel manner makes for a great piece of dark humour. There are moments when The Joker can be pretty terrifying, too. The scene that particularly stands out is the first time The Joker sees his face after surgery. Initially heartbroken, his sadness soon turns to insanity, as he smashes the mirror and leaves, laughing maniacally. This is a villain that has it all, and a performance that I consider one of the most memorable of all time.

A review of Batman wouldn't be complete without mentioning the phenomenal music composed by Danny Elfman. The music here plays such a big part because, as well as the performances from the actors, moods and personalities of the characters can be reflected through the particular use it. As expected, the main theme music is fast paced and energetic, and plays whenever Batman makes a dramatic entrance to fight crime. Conversely, the beginning of this theme music has a slower, mournful sounding tonality. This indicates that Batman’s origins may have been ones of a dark nature (which we learn is the case as Bruce investigates his past throughout the film), eventually becoming the saviour of the city with the arrival of the energetic section. In contrast, Elfman scores The Joker’s scenes with a different tone to that of Batman. When The Joker first appears, he kills a gang boss for trying to have him killed. When shooting at him with a gun, The Joker dances around playfully, laughing at every shot fired. The music in this scene sounds like a circus fanfare, and is heard alongside the sound of gunshots and laughter, completely complimenting The Joker’s dark sense of humour towards murder and crime, and is livelier in tone to that of Batman’s music. Both these pieces of music help distinguish Batman and The Joker apart, setting a clear definition of hero and villain.

With it's enticing atmosphere, fantastic performances and equally terrific musical score, Batman has everything a great film should have. Once viewed, it is not easily forgotten. Burton's use of all the formal components make for a unique entry in the history of superhero comic adaptations, and for me is his best film. Keaton and Nicholson are the perfect combo of hero and villain, and their performances have stood the test of time, even when compared to the highly-praised contemporary takes on the characters by Christian Bale and Heath Ledger. When I watch it now, it still has a powerful effect on me, and is a film I keep coming back to again and again.

Pros:
+ The best portrayals of Batman and The Joker in any Batman adaptation.
+ Striking and atmospheric musical score.
+ Moody visuals, matches the Batman character perfectly.
+ Well balanced humorous and serious tone.

Cons:
- Ending is very quick: The Joker is defeated and that's about it. It would have been nice for some of the other characters to get more focus on their closure, especially as some of them didn't appear in the sequel.

The Lord of the Rings (1978) Review

"One ring to rule them all. One ring to find them..." - Gandalf.

I imagine pretty much everybody is somewhat familiar with J.R.R. Tolkein's fantasy series The Lord of the Rings. Whether you read the books first or were introduced to it through the cinematic trilogy of films directed by Peter Jackson (like I was), chances are this epic tale of good and evil left an impression. Many see the Peter Jackson trilogy as the definitive adaptation of the books, but despite how ground-breaking the films were, I don't think they taint the image of the first attempt to bring the world of Middle Earth to film. Released in 1978, Ralph Bakshi's animated feature is a truly unique piece of work, both for its use of animation and the fact that the film was never finished. With the release of the Jackson trilogy, Bakshi's adaptation is either loved or hated in comparison. Although I prefer the Jackson films, there is plenty to enjoy in Bakshi's adaptation, and may grow on some fans if they are prepared to judge it fairly.

The story follows hobbit Frodo Baggins (Christopher Guard), as he sets out on a quest to destroy an ancient ring created by the dark lord Sauron. Accompanied by friends Samwise Gamgee (Michael Scholes) and powerful wizard Gandalf the Grey (William Squire) amongst others, Frodo encounters Sauron's dark forces and forges new alliances with those threatened by Sauron in order to prevent his return to power. With such an epic story with so many characters and action sequences, it is a great shame that the film was never finished. Instead, it only manages to cover two-thirds: The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers. Even with most of the story covered, the film only runs for just over two hours, so not every character is fully developed or gets enough screen-time to leave an impact. Elf Legolas (Anthony Daniels) and dwarf Gimli (David Buck), two central characters in other adaptations, barley say a word and don't do much in aiding to advance the plot. Thankfully Aragorn (John Hurt) has plenty of focus, and is definitely one of the film's strongest characters. He is involving in a lot of the diplomatic discussions on what to do about the ring and how the quest should proceed, and being voiced by the brilliant John Hurt certainly adds a great deal of class. I have mixed feelings about Gandalf. Though he is certainly memorable and plays a large part of the story, his personality is far from how I would imagine. He repeatedly gets irritated by the other characters, and can't keep still whatsoever, waving his hands around and constantly trying to get his own way. I have to say though, he's very entertaining and I have a lot of fun watching this interpretation of the character. He's totally unpredictable. But what about protagonist Frodo Baggins? Well, I'm happy to say, he isn't completely crushed by all the other large personalities that surround him. Though he isn't the toughest hero, he remains headstrong throughout and isn't overly reliant on the other members of the fellowship. Well, except for Gandalf in some instances in the film's first half. It's when he and Sam are separated from the others and encounter the villainous Gollum (Peter Woodthorpe) where Frodo comes into his own. He is fair, but won't be patronised by Gollum's blatant attempts to appear pleasant. Overall, a well portrayed hero, and one that you could rely on to persevere in the face of adversity. 

One thing that taints the film (or improves it, depending on your mood) is the plethora of unintentionally hilarious moments throughout. Some of these moments are just plain weird decisions by the filmmakers, including changing a character's name part way through! The character Saruman is first referred to as Aruman by Gandalf. Then in the next scene, when Gandalf meets with Saruman, he calls him Saruman! I honestly cannot fathom what the point was in changing the name, but if they did change it, stick with it! Another highlight is possibly my favourite use of an obvious mistake in a film ever. There is a scene where Aragorn is running in slo-mo towards the camera, and his sword hilt gets caught between his legs, causing him to trip. Why on earth did they leave that in?! I can understand the actor providing the physicality of the character (the film was shot with actors then animated later) may have tripped, but why animate it and keep it in the film? Immediately after follows another strange running scene. This time, it's a large group of orcs running from a distance. As they move closer you can see one orc on the right hand side running on his own, some distance away from the rest of them. It's something that has to be seen to be believed, so I've grabbed the images of both these moments to fully illustrate how strange this film can be.

For all its silly moments, I'd say the film has plenty to offer if you want a good fantasy-adventure film. If you look past its inferiority compared to the Peter Jackson films, the film can stand as an enjoyable adaptation on its own. The primary characters are memorable, there's great atmosphere (thanks largely to some well painted scenery), and is well paced. If you're a Lord of the Rings fan, there's certainly enough to appreciate, as Bakshi is clearly intent on creating a serious portrayal of the story, which is sadly hampered by the above mentioned unusual scenes. If only they could have finished it, and then the story would have a point. As it stands, the ring is never destroyed and all it took to defeat Sauron's forces was Gandalf doing what he does best: waving his hands around. Except this time, with a sword.

Pros:
+ Some strong voice acting, most notably John Hurt as Aragorn.
+ Well paced, even if it leaves out important plot-lines form the books.
+ Atmospheric scenery, the film is visually stunning in some instances.

Cons:
- A large number of strange, unintentionally hilarious moments (there are so many more than just the ones I mentioned) that can take away from the film's seriousness.
- It's not finished!

Godzilla (1998) vs. Godzilla (2014): A better future for Hollywood remakes?

Following on my review of King Kong (1933), why not take a look at the equally popular and iconic Godzilla? Rather than a review of any singular film in the Godzilla series, I'll be looking at both the 1998 and 2014 remakes of the original Godzilla film from 1954. Through this comparison, we'll see that Hollywood's obsession with remakes may be starting to pay off, with the 2014 film remaining loyal to the original whilst also having fresh ideas. That is, however, after they got it terribly wrong in 1998. 

In the 1954 original film, directed by Ishiro Honda, Godzila is awoken by nuclear fallout, and causes mass hysteria and destruction throughout Japan. Being that the film was made less than a decade after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II, the origins of the monster serve as symbolism for Japan’s fear of nuclear weapons. The first Hollywood remake, directed by Roland Emmerich, has Godzilla's origins come from similar circumstances, but completely ignores the symbolism of nuclear threat. Instead, the film seldom makes reference to what Godzilla represents, instead favouring an abundance of set pieces where Godzilla is continuously chased by a less-than-competent military team. The only time Godzilla's origins bear any meaning to the plot is when a team of French Secret Service agents reveal there intentions to cover up France's role in the creation of Godzilla via the nuclear tests. This plot-point is only used as an excuse for further action sequences, and any meaning that it has dies as soon as the events of the film are resolved. 

After the critical backlash of Roland Emmerich’s version, there wasn't an American produced film featuring Godzilla until Legendary Pictures’ adaptation in 2014, directed by Gareth Edwards. In this version, the character Dr. Ishiro Serizawa (Ken Watanabe) explains that in 1954, Godzilla was awoken by nuclear tests, but no mention is made of the attacks Japan suffered as depicted in the original film. Instead, Serizawa explains that more nuclear “tests” took place, which were in fact efforts to kill the monster. Although the fear of nuclear threat theme remains the same with Godzilla’s origin, the omission of Godzilla causing destruction to Japan in this contemporary version means that Godzilla’s symbolism to Japan, representing their specific fears after the Hiroshima bombings, again bears no meaning. Instead, Godzilla is given a more heroic status, as seen in the film’s final moments. After Godzilla defeats two monsters, a television news report reads: “King of the Monsters- Saviour of our city?”. The only other time the 2014 film references the original’s themes of nuclear threat  is when Serizawa explains to a military officer that his father died in the Hiroshima bombings. However, this mention of Hiroshima serves as Serizawa’s argument against the military using a nuclear bomb to kill the monsters, in an effort to convince that Godzilla is the solution to bring balance.  Serizawa’s want for Godzilla to defeat the monsters is an example of the themes explored through this contemporary production of the Godzilla story: man versus nature. As director Edwards explains: “We've taken it very seriously and the theme is man versus nature and Godzilla is certainly the nature side of it.  You can’t win that fight.  Nature’s always going to win and that’s what the subtext of our movie is about. He’s an anti-hero.  I wouldn't describe him as a good guy, but he’s not evil personified. He’s the punishment we deserve, you know?”. With this in mind, though differing slightly from the original, the 2014 version of Godzilla is a more faithful adaptation of Honda's 1954 film. It presents thought-provoking themes that are relevant to audiences at the time, whereas Emmercih's 1998 remake merely used the important origin story of Godzilla to add more action sequences on top of the many set-pieces already presented.  

Aside from the themes of the film, Edwards' Godzilla design is more faithful to the iconic monster's look. Being that the design had been established for 44 years when Roland Emmerich's film was released, and with it being a recognisable piece of pop-culture, fans were unsatisfied by the new look of Godzilla. For a start, the appearance is so drastically different from how Godzilla looks, that the design looks more akin to that of the T-Rex in Steven Spielberg's Jurassic Park, released 5 years prior. Godzilla is also permanently hunched over has a grey-looking skin tone. Whereas the original Godzilla appears to also be based on a T-Rex, he stood tall, which gave him a more intimidating presence. The 1998 Godzilla is based more on an Iguana, and doesn't bear any of the trademark Godziila characteristics, such as the nuclear breath and ability to withstand military weapons. Both abilities were re-established in the 2014 version. As well as this, there was an opponent (or opponents in this case) for Godzilla to fight, something that had become a staple of the Japanese Godzilla series. 

In conclusion, the 2014 re-imagining can serve as an example that Hollywood remakes can have a better, consistent future. By drawing on the themes and designs established in the 1954 original, whilst also adding its own ideas to the story, audience's will be more satisfied, as shown clearly by the critical reception and box-office takings. With the 1998 version, the filmmakers seemed to ignore the important factors of the Godzilla character and story, and their attempt at originality fell flat. I hope the next time Hollywood plans to remake another classic, they keep both these attempts in mind, so that not only will they produce more faithful adaptations, but better films.  

King Kong (1933) Review

"He's always been king of his world, but we'll teach him fear" -Carl Denham.

What can you say about this film? Everyone knows it's a classic, and it inspired so many monster films and several remakes and crossovers featuring the titular giant ape. But there is such charm to the 1933 original King Kong, that there is plenty to talk about, and plenty to praise. Though I eagerly anticipated the developing prequel, no other film featuring this iconic character have ever come close to matching this film's pacing, characters, and memorable moments.

Struggling filmmaker Carl Denham (Robert Armstrong) is determined to make "the greatest picture in the world". To accomplish this, he travels to the mysterious Skull Island with his film crew, and newly hired actress Ann Darrow (Fay Wray). However, things take a horrific turn as Ann is offered as a sacrifice by the island's natives to their god, a giant ape named Kong. Its now up to Carl and tough-guy sailor Jack Driscoll (Bruce Cabot) to rescue Ann and capture Kong alive, so he can be paraded as the "Eight Wonder of the World". Of course, things continue to go wrong after Kong's arrival to New York, as he appears to have a soft spot for Ann, and will destroy anything in his path to get to her. Despite a simple plot, King Kong leaves an impact on the viewer through the portrayal and twits on the classic "beauty and the beast" tale. Kong isn't a mindless beast, he's an intelligent animal. His aggressiveness towards the rescue team is down to them invading his territory, and wanting to protect Ann. However, what makes Kong a great tragic character is that he lets his protectiveness of Ann get the better of him, which ultimately leads to his death. Carl Denham notes this on two occasions in the film: "Kong could've stayed safe where he was but he couldn't stay away from beauty". Finally, there is the classic closing line, where Denham responds to a statement claiming that the aeroplanes that shot Kong are what killed him: "It wasn't the aeroplanes, it was beauty killed the beast". The portrayal of Kong is one of the film's greatest strengths, as we don't want anything bad to happen to Ann, but we equally don't want anything bad to happen to Kong. But through man's arrogance and determination to rescue Ann, there can't be one without the other. Ann is in danger if she is with Kong, and Kong is in danger from the other human characters because of it.

Though King Kong is known for its (at the time) innovative special effects, there is thankfully a lot of time devoted to the human characters. Protagonist Ann Darrow of course gets a lot of screen-time, alongside Kong himself. Unfortunately, her character development stops after she is captured by Kong, with her merely being the damsel-in-distress and not really doing much else besides scream. Before the crew's arrival on the island, Ann was shown being able to look out for herself, especially against Jack Driscoll, whose misogynist attitude wasn't enough to spoil her enjoyment of going on an adventure. Jack, despite his initial flaws, does  eventually grow into a more mature person, with him even falling in love with Ann and going to any lengths to rescue her. His chemistry with Ann is good for the most part, the only weak moment sadly being the moment where he admits his feelings. The scene is so sporadic, that it still makes me laugh, even with the well done scenes featuring the two of them before-hand. Carl Denham, however, is a character with no weak moments in the film what so ever. Sure, he has his flaws, like wanting to bring Kong to New York, but he remains strong throughout the film, and the mistakes he makes aren't out of arrogance or selfishness, just merely trying his best to succeed in a world that has looked down on him for so long. I like how involved he is with the rescue mission, even though his job was a film director, none of that seems to matter when attempting to be there for the team. By far my favourite character in the film.

One final thing to discuss are the special effects, which I just love. Okay, it's obviously not very realistic looking, but I don't think it's fair to judge effects from the 1930's when it's the best they could have done. However, in the case of King Kong, these effects where beyond anything anyone at that time had ever seen. The effects where groudbreaking, and I have great admiration to what the filmmakers achieved with them. What makes the effects so endearing to me is how creative they are. Not only was Kong and the other monsters created with stop-motion, but there were also practical effects such as a life-size Kong arm and head. King Kong's effects are also a great testament to not allowing somewhat crude methods to effect the story. The filmmkaers could've quite easily lessened Kong's screen-time due to the amount of time it took to animate the stop-motion puppets. Thankfully, Kong is involved with the majority of the film's action sequences and has plenty of quieter, emotional moments, meaning that the effects in the film play a large part in aiding the story.

If you haven't seen King Kong, I can't recommend it enough. Contemporary audiences may be put off by the effects. If you can't get into seeing stop motion monsters and obvious green-screen effects, I still think there is plenty of suspense and well written and acted characters to keep you invested in the well paced story. A classic film for its time, and for all time, and perhaps the greatest monster movie ever made.

Pros:
+ Suspenseful and well paced story.
+ Creative special effects.
+ Likeable characters, with strong performances to match.
+ Plenty of action sequences.

Cons:
- Sporadic love story between Ann and Jack is more amusing at first than endearing.

Beverly Hills Cop (1984) Review

"I never been in no cell that had a phone in it. Can I stay for a while, 'cause I ordered some pizza." - Axel Foley.

It's dialogue like the above quip from fast talking Axel Foley (Eddie Murphy) that makes Beverly Hills Cop an instant comedy classic. Featuring a cool soundtrack along with action and jokes aplenty, Beverly Hills Cop has a lot to offer, and succeeds on all fronts. Though the sequels weren't as good, nothing can taint the appeal the film still has today, and the character of Axel Foley is by far Eddie Murphy's standout role.

The story follows Axel as he travels to Beverly Hills to investigate business man Victor Maitland (Steven Berkoff), whom he believes to be involved with the murder of his friend. Upon arriving, Axel instantly makes an impression with hapless duo Sergeant John Taggart (John Ashton) and Detective Billy Rosewood (Judge Reinhold). Though not getting along at first, the three police officers eventually begin to work together, along with Axel's old  acquaintance Jenny (Lisa Eilbacher), to bring down Maitland. Without even trying, Murphy completely steals the show. His delivery of the one-liners is second to none, but what makes the film even funnier is the chemistry between Axel, Taggart and Rosewood. Axel's non-stop quips combined with the straight faced acting of Ashton and Reinhold is absolutely hilarious. There's such a massive contrast in their approach to police work, and so giving Taggart and Rosewood the task of following Axel to ensure he doesn't cause any trouble makes for all kinds of humorous scenarios. The infamous moment where Axel stops their car by clogging the tailpipe with bananas is still as amusing as it ever was, and the film has one of its best dialogue exchanges when the incident is brought up by two other officers:

Action scenes aren't the focus of Beverly Hills Cop, but I'd still argue that some of it is better than some films in the action genre. Just take the film's opening scene for example. There is a chase between police cars and a truck being driven by a drug dealer. By the end of the chase, there is a massive pileup of cars, and Axel is hanging onto the back of the truck throughout the entire chase! Reportedly, Sylvester Stallone was approached with the script, where upon he rewrote the film into a standard action-fest. Thank goodness that idea never went through, as the minimal action in the film is more than enough to satisfy. The decision to focus more on comedy is a huge advantage for the film, especially when Eddie Murphy is the protagonist. His performance turned Axel Foley into one of the best characters in the history of cinema, whereas I think Stallone's version would become lost in the sea of other similar action roles he has done throughout his career.

There are so many brilliant comedic moments throughout the film, that almost every scene will have you laughing at something. If I had to chose one moment that makes me laugh the most, it would probably be the scene when Axel meets Victor Maitland for the first time. This is one of the more serious moments in the film, as Axel confronts him about his friend's murder. What makes me laugh is what happens next, where Axel is carried out of the room to the ground floor, where he is thrown through the window. It's so unexpected after a moody scene to have a darkly funny moment where a character is roughly ejected from a building. Of course, Axel lands himself in further trouble for "disturbing the peace", and this encounter leads him to learn just how different Beverly Hills police work is to his hometown of Detroit.

Beverly Hills Cop made a star out of Eddie Murphy, and it's clear to see why. The film is relentless in serving up hilarious one-liners, absurd scenarios and has perhaps the best straight-faced acting you'll see in the characters of Taggart and Rosewood. Even after seeing it so many times, it still gets plenty of laughs out of me, and that is a testament to how good the film is. It hasn't aged at all, because the humour is so clever and the acting so good, that anybody is sure to enjoy it. One of my favourite comedies of all time.

Pros:
+ Eddie Murphy as Axel Foley is one of the most loved film characters ever. A show stealing performance.
+ John Ashton and Judge Reinhold are perhaps the best straight-faced duo in any film. Their chemistry with Murphy is second to none.
+ Exciting action set-pieces.
+ Memorable, hilarious and quotable dialogue.

Cons:
- Some clichés, Maitland is a very typical 80's bad guy, and his henchmen are given very little personality.