Watched as part of an upcoming podcast (no clues) I hadnt heard of ‘Colony Mutation’ prior to watching this, and I chose to go in as blind as possible…Im not 100% certain what I just watched, but I like to think in a spiritual (and erotic!) way…I know EXACTLY what the director was going through when he made this.

The plot follows Jim, a…fairly nasty piece of work, and thats the kind way to put it! Jim is a scientist working at a facility experimenting with RNA and DNA mutations. his wife meredith is specifically working on mutating RNA into a parasite that has the ability to regenerate the hosts lost tissues and even drive the host when its no longer concious. Its a promising piece of work into regenerating lost limbs, but has a way to go.

Anyway; Jims cheating on Meredith with his secretary? Lab assistant? junior researcher? Who knows, the film doesnt make it clear. But what it DOES make clear is that Jim is basically being a bit parasitic himself, going with his secretary just long enough to dump Meredith and go with her…and then move on from her when he gets bored.

Well, Meredith cottons onto this when she finds out Jim has been charging the couples account for ‘Holiday inn’ rooms that have no explanation OTHER than Jims an Ass hat. Meredtih confronts Jim, only for him to blatently lie to her. When he pushes her one too many times, she grabs a vial of mysterious fluid and throws it in Jims face…Only, that wasnt just ANY mysterious fluid! it was a live culture of the parasite!

And within 20 minutes Jims wolfing down raw packs of bacon, raping and murdering women and has seemingly developed a parasitic killer penis. and…thats kind of the rest of the movie. Jim meeting up with strangers and then letting the parasite murder them and feast on their flesh, while the secretary becomes increasingly frustrated that Jim wont commit to her and is being way more evasive.

At first I thought this film was trying to be an imitation of elements of J.R Bookwalters ‘Ozone’, then around the 2nd act I began to wonder if this was some kind of exploitation comment on the AIDs epidemic or on the proliferation of STDs as a form of control. and by the final act I was convinced this was heavily influenced by the works of Frank Hennenlotter…But as the credits rolled, I had to admit, I had NO idea what the intention of this movie was actually.

With it being shot on 8mm with no synch sound, the entire film had to be redubbed from the ground up, sometimes the actors can be bothered to move their mouths, but sometimes the dub that runs over the footage isnt even close to whats happening on screen. Complicating matters further, the version I watched (via Tubi) appears to be a ‘star wars special edition’ type affair from Visual Vengence.

It appears they’ve cropped the film into ‘widescreen’ added a load of ‘bad film’ filters, colour corrected everything into murkey brown or barely visible dark blue. They’ve remade the opening and closing credits with CG and they’ve created some new CG effects for the final act, and all of this looks and feels AWFUL. It makes the movie even HARDER to watch coherently because some of its been so drastically colour corrected that is basially just a block colour screen with occasional eye balls. I dont know whether my enjoyment of this film would be heightened had it been presented in its original aspect ratio, and with all the colour grading and CG reverted back…But I KNOW it didnt help it here.

The script is quite slow and plodding, there are sparks of good moments here and there across the runtime, but the film has a really bad habit of making our characters go for extended walks, have dream seqeunces that dont really go anywhere or do anything. And in the 2nd act in particular, the film gets locked into a bit of a loop of Jim hunting down women and homeless people on dates to murder and feed to the parasite, but then it doesnt really even show you the murders or parasite stuff…So we (as the audience) basically spend 40 minutes watching a guy go on a load of first dates with women, he offers to take them home, he’ll release a parasite, the woman will scream, and then it’ll hard cut to Jim on the phone the next day to his secretary, trying to arrange a dinner date between them and her sister.

The act structuring is a little melty too, the first act is SUPER short, but the transition between the 1st and 2nd acts is painfully long and padded with all sorts of random conversations. Then, as mentioned, the 2nd act locks into the ‘first date/kill/call secretary’ loop…before finally about 20 minutes off the end we crash into a 3rd act that feels like a poor mans ‘Brain Damage’ where things get a little more humerous? But that quickly gives way to an extended final fight that ends abruptly and felt dissatisfying.

Oh also; the film has about 8 minutes of titles and credits…which, given the films barely an hour and 15 to begin with…is a bit much.

I think this film struggles to find the right tone to attack with. I feel like it wants to be seen as an outright horror, it has moments where it wants to explore comedy, but seems reluctant to do that, theres a sci-fi element that isnt really explored much. and the drama element is probably the only thing thats genuinely stuck to across the whole runtime, and it falls flat by the half way point.

The characters arnt particularly interesting, Jim is the only character that really GETS a character and it takes 2 acts to really start to get going…So again thats a bit of a busted flush.

I do have to give some credit to the direction, while it may not be a pretty film, theres absolutely a layer of creativity running throughout this thing. Its not quite a professional end product. But I will say this is a film that DOES seem to be TRYING. especially in the final act as the parasite becomes a more ‘physical’ being, I think the effects work, and the way they mask the parasite are effective and do offset the budget limitations somewhat. Is it perfect? absolutely not. But again; I’d rather a film maker that tries and fails, than one that just shoves slop out the door every 12-15 months.

That being said, other than the creative techniques put out by the director, the cine itself is mixed to poor. shots barely have a focal point, 90% of the shots feel like it was just a case of ‘pop the camera down, check its vaguely in focus, Go!’ which…is not the best way to make a movie, the colour correction does the film absolutely no favours, crushing all the colour out rendering half the film sepia and the other half looking like 1920s ‘tinted’ film. theres a significant lack of B-roll here, noticable by its sheer absence. Alongside at least a few moments of janky editing, where footage slows down, tears or reverses briefly before cutting to the next scene…I have to assume this is done by accident because it only impact 2-3 points in the film for no longer than a second and a half each time.

But the whole thing really could have benefitted from a couple more pass throughs on the edit. I think at sub an hour it would have felt smoother, 45 minutes would probably be its optimum run time. But I get it. You cant sell a short, but you can sell a feature…I do wonder sometimes though if hurting your film to get it out to audiences does any kind of favours to both the film or its creator.

Performance wise, its a game of two halves…LITERALLY, the 8mm visuals showcase poor performances, a lot of neutral faces, even in extreme situations. noone really emotes properly and physicality on screen is through the floor. its a very drab set of scenes on display.

The dub makes the whole thing feel more quirky, but it never quite reaches the delirious nature of ‘Things’ settling instead for deliveries that are WAY too mild mannered, to the point that they feel out of place with the physical actions on screen, only to then occasionally deliver one of the weirdest line deliveries i’ve seen in a good while, out of the blue, with no reasoning for it seemingly. I will say this, it may not be the most vivid script in the world, but my GOD this is weirdly put together…Fascinating from an editing perspective honestly.

And the soundtrack? at times it sounds like early 90s lofi midi, at times it sounds like a 1:1 rip of the ‘Things’ Soundtrack. THAT is the kind of area we’re in ladies and gentlemen. its clunky, ill fitting, it synchs with whats happening on screen maybe 25% of the time.

Colony Mutation is an underwhelming, but surreal at times piece that I feel a bit conflicted on. I dont think its particularly well made, but there are moments here that just scream ‘bad movie’ gold. I didnt come away hating this one. But I dont think i’d actively choose to watch it again. If your a fan, gods speed. But I dont think this one was for me.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/colony-mutation/

‘Grown Ups’ isnt really my usual rodeo. I dont dislike Adam Sandler, but I find as a creative, he dances a VERY very fine line between being ‘sincerely watchable’ and being absolutely and totally unbearable in any capacity. So when I went to visit family this weekend and they put ‘Grown Ups’ on…I was ready to basically spend 100 or so minutes on my phone waiting for it to finish. But what I actually watched astounded me.

Obviously; Red Letter Media have discussed at length how they have a ‘conspiracy theory’ that Sandler makes films that basically do the double whammy of being a tax break, while allowing him and his friends to go do some crazy fun weird stuff that normal people just dont go and do. While passing it off as them making an actual movie. They used ‘Jack & Jill’ as their example. But ‘Grown Ups’ is MUCH more glaring of that in action…

…Because, if you didnt know any better, you’d assume that Adam Sandler basically asked a dozen or so of his friends if they fancied 2 months of hanging around in serine log cabin/woodland locations, getting free food and entertainment most nights and free passes to water parks for most of the summer season. Because thats basically all this film is. Sandler and his friends hanging out and doing crazy stuff on a studios budget for 112 minutes with a SUPER thin veil of ‘plotting’ going on about it.

So; the whole plot of the movie is that a group of friends find out that their childhood basketball coach has died, and this prompts them to all reconnect at his funeral, and in turn, agree to dispose of his ashes in a place he wants it being disposed of. Which means they all head out to the wilderness to reconnect with their inner childs, whilst ALSO trying to break their ACTUAL children OUT of being addicted to social media, ‘posh’ water and games consoles.

Cue a runtime that mainly consists of fart jokes, slapstick, innuendos, gratuitous perving and gentle snarking. But its mainly a vacation video.

The best way I can describe how this entire movie feels is to say that it feels VERY much like the scene in ‘Planes Trains and Automobiles’ where Del and Neil are sat in a motel room driking the mini bar dry and talking rubbish, only, while ‘Grown ups’ manages (at times) to capture a degree of sincerity. Its missing almost ALL the weight and emotional development needed to make me actively care about these people and this situation…That, and dragging something that was a 5 minute ‘bit’ in ‘Planes Trains’ into a 112 minute slog here doesnt really help anyone.

My biggest issue with the script is its really just way too ‘soft touch’. The point of a movie (generally speaking) is to introduce some characters, give them a problem to solve, make the problem *seem* like it has the upper hand, and then let our characters resolve it AND ideally grow from the experience, ending the film with them being better people for it.

This film has NON of that! its a modern miracle in that sense. All the characters start off a little run down from their jobs, they drag the whole family out to the woods to ‘reconnect’ and all that happens is they goof about a bit, and then feel a bit brighter at the end. That *isnt* how thats supposed to work!

The film is INCREDIBLY avoident of ANY kind of conflict or issue that last more than one scene. Im not kidding when I say the entire movie is literally just our characters encountering a problem, and then IMMEDIATELY resolving it. OR! Our characters encountering a problem, it getting put on the back burner for a scene while they set something else up, and THEN them solving it almost immediately with no effort.

Probably the best example of this is with Chris Rocks character, who, probably has the ‘rockiest’ (no pun intended) relationship with his spouse. in the 2nd act they show a scene where his wife sees him talking to Adam Sandlers Nanny, and they basically try on EVERY level to establish that, because Chris Rock is talking to another woman, he MUST be being unfaithful. Fast forward not TWO scenes later, and the wife confronts him about what she saw, only for Chris Rocks character to basically say ‘Talking is talking, your my wife’ and then that plot line is just…resolved. gone…and I should point out, theres no maturing that issue, its not like in the scenes in between his wife goes to speak to the other wives about the issue, or that we get to SEE that Chris Rocks character isnt really chatting up ther Nanny…its just created, and then solved as soon as its made. And thats like…90% of the tension in this film. Made to fill time, and solved as quickly as its created.

The tones a bit all over the place, its really trying to create that quasi nostalgic feeling of old friends reconnecting and ‘remembering the good times’. But they dont even really do THAT particularly…they just sort of, talk about stuff that happened after the friendships drifted apart. and they dont really even focus on HOW that happened in the first place. While its doing that, its also trying to be a comedy, but the humours SO all over the place and has SUCH a strong emphasis on gross out (Breastfeeding gags, ugly feet and dry heaving) and slapstick (people in full body casts getting pushed around, people smashing into trees) that it really kind of mutes out the comedy that ACTUALLY HAD heart and feeling behind it. the more subtle moments just get lost to conversations about ‘botch toe.’

Add to that that the pacing seems all out of whack to, to the point that it seems like the film gets more and more improvised as it goes on. We have a very tightly scripted first act, but then the second feels a lot like they just left cameras rolling inbetween takes and told folks to stay in character. The film fully trails off by the third act, and by that point I really was sitting there wondering what the hell the films message actually even was? I mean they loosely try to put a point in there about how the parents realise that spending time with their family has to come above any work or travel commitment. and at the very VERY end theres an incredibly half hearted attempt at trying to sell the idea that ‘everyone deserves a win sometimes’…But its so undercooked that it just comes across as sloppy and thought up in the moment.

The direction and cine are both studio grade for the time. I have next to nothing to say about them honestly, the film looks fine for what it is. The fact it isnt intensely into CGI for the time it came out was a nice addition. It looks fine. It isnt pushing any boundaries, but I wasnt expecting it to, they use colour relatively well, but nothing standout. The cast direction largely seems improvised, but these are (largely) comedians, so the ‘off the cuff’ stuff is a little hit and miss (but for my money) *is* more hit than miss.

The edit is solid enough, I do wonder why they broke 90 minutes for this, it could have easily been 80-90 and probably a little better than what there actually is.

Performance wise, everyones pretty much fine. I feel Sandler and Kevin James have some good chemestry and most of the scenes where they’re together feel the most sincere and humerous. Chris Rock I feel gets downplayed here really, he has a few good moments to shine, but I feel giving him a bit of a ‘down’ personality because of his home life, kind of undercuts the potential he had to really get on top of this casting. Because, when he does shine here, he delivers some of the best moments of the film.

David Spade and Rob Schnider?…ugh. But! a Steve Buschemi cameo WAS very nicely recieved.

On the whole, everyone on screen in this thing seems to have a good personal relationship with each other, and it felt more like watching old friends catch up and LARP a scenario where they all grew up together, than them actually turning in a performance. It means that while I believe these people were having a nice time, I dont believe the characters, I dont believe the scenario. and thats a bit of a problem.

And, the soundtrack was so good, I literally cant remember anything about it (womp womp)

Grown ups is a bit of a rare thing these days, a family oriented movie about a group of adults reconnecting with not only each other, but with their own childhoods and the warmth that can come from remembering where you came from. It evokes series like ‘The Wonder Years’ and most of John Hughes filmography…And yet it really fails to fully understand WHY we so fondly remember those tv shows and films…it ISNT just because the cast talk about what they got up to as kids, its because the cast WERE ultimately well fleshed out, complex characters who the audience got to spend a lot of time with, and the nostalgia factor was a brief window into their souls at some point in the movie/series, rather than the whole point of the movie/series.

Because we dont really KNOW anything about these characters beyond a bullet pointed ‘what they do now’ and a couple of flashbacks to the late 70s, we dont feel the same kind of connection, and that makes a lot of this film feel a bit hollow ultimately. I dont really regret catching this one, as it does have moments. But all I can say is, I hope I get to be friends with Adam Sandler and go on vacation on the studios money some time sooner, rather than later.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/grown-ups/

The Terry Nation Estate REALLY needed a top up on their bank balance in the mid 60s it seems. With Terry seemingly doing EVERYTHING within his power short of ACTUAL deals with the devil (though that cant be scientifically ruled out) to try and get his creation, ‘The Daleks’, onto as many screens and into as many homes as possible.

in 1965 Nation sold the rights to the story elements of the first ‘Dalek’ serial to AARU films and the results were a strange hodge podge supercut of the key beats of the original BBC story, along with a load of random ‘lore’ that fundamentally seemed to misunderstand why people liked ‘Doctor Who’ in the first place.

Well! 12 months later they were back again! adapting the 1964 serial ‘The Daleks Invasion of Earth’ to the big screen with Peter Cushing returning as the DEFINITELY 100% human ‘Dr. Who’ along with his grandaughter ‘Suzy’, ‘Barbara’ his *other* daughter and…Ians paycheque must have bounced because he aint in this one. Instead; we have lovable Burnard Cribbins playing a local Bobby (policeman) called ‘Tom’…Who…isnt based on anything from the BBC series…they just wanted someone to act goofy.

Now, I do feel context is key here, as I think not only will it explain why this film wasnt *quite* as successful as it could have been, but also why I take grief with it in some ways.

So the film, as mentioned, is an adaptation of a serial from 1964. By 1966, ‘Doctor Who’ still wasnt *quite* as established in ‘lore’ as it would go on to be (the core foundations of the show wernt really, properly fleshed out until a five year gap occured between VERY late 1969 and early 1975. Where basically the show everyone knows and loves today took shape. In 1966; Time lords? Gallifrey? Regeneration? all still either non existent or very much in its infancy.

And yet, Where the show was in 1964, and where it was at the point that this film came out in 1966 couldnt have been MORE starkley different if it tried. 1964 ‘Who’ had William Hartnell at the healm, he was an irrasible, but ultimatley lovable grumpy grandfather figure, with a little bit of a ‘Daffy Duck’ twinkle in his eye at times for good measure. The show was still running 6 part serials as the standard, and they relished the opportunity to slow burn stories for as long as the budget could carry them. The companions were a little better established, and the format was just about taking shape. But the only solid confirmations by this point were that ‘The Doctor’ and susan were aliens whod decided to see the world via a time travel spaceship after fleeing from their own people for some unmentioned reason.

Why do I clarify this? Because by the time THIS film came out, the BBC version of the show was unrecognisable to what had come before it.

Doctor who was in the middle of a ‘brief’ pause as one of the shows biggest ‘lore’ moments had just happened (Regeneration) Patrick Troughton was now known as the face of the show, and in the previous 2 years we’d gone from 4-6 part stories (emphasis on 6 parts) that were either educational attempts at historicals, or alien planets that used a studio the size of a bedroom. to 4-6 part stories (emphasis on 4 parts) that were significantly lighter in tone (Daleks Masterplan omitted) faster paced, and striving to be more modern and to appeal to the mid 60s ‘kids of today’ rather than the early 60s ‘Kids being made to watch what their parents *think* is good for them’.

Television had moved on considerably in those 2 years, the culture had moved on significantly in those 2 years. When Troughtons era formally began in November 1966 the last of the ‘true’ historicals would go out, and from then on in it was fantasy and whimsy right the way up to the 70s…and I mention that because, amongst the many MANY reasons the show refreshed in 1966 WAS that the show had found itself in a bit of a rutt, where audiences thought the programme was a bit *too* uptight and needed to let its hair down a bit. Its the 60s MAAAAN (and…all that)

Its because of that, why ‘Invasion Earth 2150 ad’ is such a strange end product for the time. Because right as the public were banging the table for change, out pops one of THE most early 1960s style doctor who adventures you could ask for, with little more changed to it than a few more pratt falls and large chunks of wandering about cut out. Its a bit like answering the question ‘How do we make this show fresh again?’ with ‘Do the old stuff, but quicker.’

And thats basically all this is. an old story, dusted off, with an hour chopped out of it and some of the dialogue/characters rotated to make up for their absence in this film adaptation, or to remove any references to the doctor being an alien.

A good example? In the BBC serial theres a moment where the first doctor, Ian and a human survivor of the Dalek occupation are put into a cell with a logic test, the doctor solves it immediately (the humans had no idea) and the Daleks use this as an opportunity to PROVE the doctor is of a higher intelligence and suitable to become something of a stratagist.

In this film, Dr. Who, Tom and a human survivor of the Dalek occupation are put into a cell. And the doctor uses a comb to break the magnetic lock on the cell door, at which point the Daleks swoop in, announce that THAT was a logic test and send the whole gang off to become ‘Robomen’ (the Daleks ‘on the ground’ human converted slave drivers)

Its oversimplification to the point of daftness, and its prominent pretty much throughout the whole thing. Also the statement ‘The Daleks Swoop in’ could be used on any and every single page of the script for this thing. I think the only piece of feedback the production team took to heart was that in ‘Doctor Who and the Daleks’ the Daleks didnt turn up for a while (because they dont in the actual serial for 2 or so episodes) and so they decide to crash the daleks into every single scene in this thing, sometimes MULTIPLE times.

I cant particularly fault the direction, the scenes they do recreate from the original BBC serial look 100% better, grander and more detailed than the original broadcast version (they had a budget and a set space bigger than a shoebox though…So I cant exactly say its a fair comparison) But the majority of the movie itself is decent enough, super colourful and a clear line of thought has been put into exactly how this should look and feel. It would have been easy to just recreate how things looked from the TV version, but here it does have a grander and richer vibe to it, that I personally quite liked.

Cast direction is a bit of a flop on the other hand, with most of the cast looking lost when on set, and in some cases the ‘set’ itself is just a black curtain…Which doestn exactly give them a lot to work with in terms of hitting marks and utilising props.

Nevertheless, the cast do muddle on and there is some genuinely well handled moments here, though, most of them appear to be from Bernard Cribbins who was renowned for being a fairly solid physical performer.

The script itself, being an adaptation kind of lives and dies by that. and I do think they cut this thing a little too close to the bone, its supposed to show a dystopia. But all it really is, is a load of upbeat british folks wandering around a couple semi demolished buildings…Not exactly ‘end of the world’ vibes…Also; they decided for some reason to tone down certain KEY characters here. Susan (who…well basically this is her story! its the one where she leaves, finds love and starts trying to rebuild the planet) is snookered here. Suzy is 6 years old. So obviously love and philanthropy on a dystopic world is out. But rather than try to make her fit the plot, they take the kid (who was VERY vocal and precotious in the first film) and basically just, write her away here. She has VERY little dialogue and spends most of the film wandering around various bunkers and woodland until she’s reunited with Cushing.

But even more strangely, The Doctor himself is abscent for a decent chunk of the movie, and when he does turn up, he has minimal lines and largely just re-emphisises the plot as it stands. Its bizzare. This is a DOCTOR WHO movie, and DOCTOR WHO has barely anything really to do with it.

They seem to struggle a bit with tone, they want it dystopic, but not *too* dystopic. They want comedy, but not *TOO*much comedy, they want to remain faithful to Terry Nations vision. But this is a Gramaphone of a story in a ‘CD’ world. its…a square peg in a round hole honestly. I dont HATE it, but its weird to see why anyone would bother doing THIS, NOW.

The cine is fine, compositions about as good as it gets for these low budget runs. I adore the use of colour here and the Daleks shell colours are all utterly delightful honestly. its vivid and creative, maybe a *bit* safer than the first outing. But ultimately still solid enough.

The performances are largely sitting on Bernard Cribbins and Peter Cushing (whenever he ACTUALLY gets a chance to DO something) I also have to give a special shout out to ‘Philip Maddoc’ one of the few TV doctor who actors to somehow land a part in these films. And my favourite ‘person who gets blown up in a shed, when he thinks the daleks cant blow up sheds.’ delightful.

Also; on the soundtrack front, we’re still doing big band orchestral pieces, and this one sounds even MORE like some kind of strange ‘Showa’ era TOHO production. It…wasnt for me, and felt quite dated for the time it came out…but hey ho!…

Daleks: Invasion Earth 2150AD was a sequel noone really asked for, and that reflected in the box office. A third film adapting ‘The Daleks Masterplan’ was kicked around for years befor eventually being abandoned in 1970. and LORD knows what THAT would have looked like. To me? I kind of just put this film in a compartment of my brain that acknowledges it exists….But doesnt really know why. I dont hate it, but I certainly dont love it. It has its moments, but whenever the credits roll Im always just left with ‘why?’

I’d say if you like your low budget, cheesy 60s sci fi stuff, this is absolutely a curio not to be missed. But doctor who fans may see this more as an oddity than anything ACTUALLY worth their time, and I personally will probably leave it a bit before revisiting this one.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/daleks-invasion-earth-2150-ad/

I missed my chance catching this in the cinema, and trying to find a copy of this film on physical or even digital that wasnt stupidly expensive was problematic to say the least. Mercifully ‘Channel 4’ appear to have screened it over the new years, and they’ve JUST by chance got their streaming app back up and working on google and android systems. So I grasped at the chance to catch this one while there was still a window to do it legally for free…and I was NOT dissapointed.

The film is essentially one giant spoiler. So I cant really go into any kind of detail without ruining the experience. Suffice to say, I went into this largely blind with only the knowledge that it involved jumping around in multiverses in some way, and that apparently it was a bit weird (my kind of remit). But I dont think I was prepared for the subtext of this piece to really smack the audience across the face in the 2nd and 3rd acts.

The universe hopping is really just window dressing, the framework from which the main plot is draped, which is predominantly around finding and accepting your place in the world, working through trauma and acknowledging when that trauma is influencing your life and your decisions to both yours and the people around you’s detriment. and learning to continue growing, learning acceptance and actually striving to evolve, rather than shutting down and just accepting your lot in life.

This film is basically a ‘growth’ story, but it does the wonderful thing of not just making it a lone persons growth story, much like the multiverse plot thats being thrust to the forefront of the pictures marketing. this film is about the growth of a family, the development of a family, and how one small change can create unexpected bigger ripples (something the film cleverly talks about literally with the multiverse elements, while doing it metaphorically with the characters themselves.)

I really quite enjoyed this one. I felt the script was refreshing, ran at a clip and structured itself remarkably well while spinning so many plates. I always say the sign of a great movie is when you become so wrapped up in the world the films building that you end up having a a shock realisation of the logistics it would have taken to handle some of the themes, elements, shots or direction choices the film made. and I found myself constantly having to pause the film to catch my breath at some of the shot choices, thematic choices and effects utilised. Its honestly a remarkable work, with influences stretching from anime titles like ‘Paprika’. ‘Perfect Blue’ and ‘Ghost in the shell’, to surreal Japanese cinema offerings like ‘House’ to Western influences ranging from ‘Monty Python’, to Disney right through to the 1964 film ‘L’Enfer’

It casts its net into so many genres, movies, fields and thoughts it can quite quickly become a rather overwhelming experience (Lord knows how it felt to watch this thing in Imax, im sure ushers had to scrape peoples brains off the ceiling).

The script itself is charming, interesting and relentless baraging the audience with philosophical concepts and ideas from start to finish. the act structuring is solid, the decision to split the film into 3 parts I thought worked well and the ideas coming off this script are astounding, its a firework of a film honestly shedding sparkles of genius with ever throb.

While I do think the film starts to slow a little in the back half of the 2nd act as it gets bogged down with the concepts the films trying to present. I think i’d find it hard to get this movie down to sub 2 hours. Im almost always an advocate that your film could be 10-15 minutes shorter and twice better for it. This film is no exception, but it really becomes a case of ‘where to cut?’ because even the small moments, are nice and add subtle additional layers to the storytelling.

The direction and cine are both exemplary, theres a reason this film did well during awards season with ultra creative directoral visions beautifully captured in razor sharp cinemetographic choices. I do think it relies on CGI a little *too* much at times, and at times it does feel like it prioritizes the visuals over the vision. But I can forgive it that given how folks quite often will remember an image over an idea.

The colour use is superb, the shot variety and edit are astounding, clear, precise works that honestly delighted. with humour being gently sprinkled across the runtime, in ways that CAN be up front, but are often quite subtle.

The performances are equally astounding. Of course, the centerpiece of the whole thing has to be the frankly genius acting of Michelle Yeoh and Stephanie Hsu as Mother and Daughter Evelyn and Joy. Delivering an astounding range over 150 minutes from genuine gut punches to solid laughter and everything in between, the film would have been a poorer experience without their sincerity and genuiness oozing out of the screen.

Of course, thats not to ignore Ke Huy Quan here as Waymond, who gets a split personality role ranging from a suave action type, to a soul crushed gent who ‘missed an opportunity’ to a doting husband on both sides of a divorce. he too gives an astounding range of performances and his charm really does help pull the audience in and bring them along for every bump of the ride.

That of course isnt to play down the supporting cast, in particular James Hong and Jamie Lee Curtis as ‘Gong Gong’ and ‘Deirdre’ respectfully…who do a fine turn in their respective roles. They fully capture the parts they’re playing and seem to be having a lot of fun doing so. Put it this way, when JAMES HONG…AND JAMIE LEE CURTIS…ARE BOTH…Starring in your film, and they’re great, but arnt a patch on your leading cast. My god, you’re cooking with something special.

Throw in a solid soundtrack that really helps punctuate key moments and is used almost a layering tool to help further pull you into the situation, and I think you have a real winner on your hands here honestly.

I didnt really know what to expect from ‘Everything Everywhere All at Once’ going in. I was just hoping what i’d heard was done effectively. And I really wasnt dissapointed. an astounding journey of a movie with a unique flare and style that was MORE than deserving of the praise the academy gave it at the time. I highly recommend checking this one out. But my advise is to make sure you have the time to catch it all in one sitting, uninterrupted. I struggle to find 2+ hours free a day, and I feel being pulled in and out of the action didnt solidly help me. But if you can stay in that world, it’s a rich and rewarding experience.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/everything-everywhere-all-at-once/

The last film on the ‘Short Sharp Shocks: Volume 2’ set I had yet to watch. ‘Hangman’ is a ‘Safety at Work’ film aimed at helping building site workers not die by drinking 16 largers and doing a bit of scaffolding.

Incredibly campy, it sounds like the whole film was narrated by Mike Reid, as he cheekily narrates the pitfalls ans follies that could lead to your demise.

I’m a sucker for PIF’s and this one’s great fun. Little on the more violent side than most. And I do feel the structure of the film (which is essentially a ‘guess what happens’ piece) is undermined by the opening 3 minutes in which they show basically all the accidents nastiest bits.

But hey, this is probably one of the more fun films on these sets, and arguably in the top 3 I’ve seen so far. I’d say if you enjoy public information films, you’ll probably get a kick out of this one.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/hangman-1986/

Well, I figured i’d kick start the new year with a bit of cheer and merryment, and they seldom get as cheery or merry as ‘Chitty Chitty Bang Bang’ the unholy union of the guy who wrote the ‘James Bond’ books, teaming up with the guy who wrote ‘The Witches’ and ‘James and the Giant Peach’ to create simulatneously the most delriously eccentric and terrifying work the 60s had to offer.

Its a bit of a nationwide staple is ‘Chitty Chitty Bang Bang’ around this time of year, some watch it around christmas time, others prefer to have it on in that weird gap between the 27th of December and New years (I fall into this camp) but in the UK its usually playing somewhere and is something of a festive favourite alongside similarly bizarre and troubling films like ‘Oliver!’ and ‘Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory’.

The plot?..Thats a loaded question. But i’ll give it a go. Its 1911, and Two kids find a rundown car in a junk yard thats alledged to have been a world champion racer for 3 years on the bounce. The kids love the car, but a scrap merchent threatens to buy it and melt it down…Unless of course the kids can cough up 30 shillings (approximately £155 in todays money, or nearly $200 American).

They head home and tell their dad, who reveals (to the audience) they are in fact poor…SO very poor, and they dont have that kind of money just lying around to buy broken cars with. It turns out the dad is an eccentric inventor whos inventions almost never work, who’s also taking care of his aging father, who’s also an eccentric, who believes he’s still in the military (whether he ever actually was to begin with is up for debate).

Anyway a chance encounter with a lady called ‘Truely’ sets our inventor up with a meeting at a sweet factory to try and sell his latest invention, the ‘Toot Sweet’ a sugar stick you can blow like a whistle. it passes the audition, but an EQUALLY chance encounter at a fair ground with a man who gets a particularly bad hair cut from our inventors ‘automatic haircut’ machine ends in greater success, when he joins in on a random carnie side show and makes the 30 shillings for a 3-5 minute performance all in one go.

Anyway; they buy the car, they do it up, they take it out for a ride (along with Truely) and while spending the day at the beach, the dad recalls a tall tale about a group of nasty folks from a faraway european country called ‘Vulgaria’ who’ve heard about the car, and its supposed magic ability to fly and float on water…and they want it. Cue a madcap adventure to Vulgaria complete with Elder-napping, Noncery and traumatising visuals, guarenteed to ensure your kids wont WANT to see January 2nd.

It’s got to be *AT LEAST* 13 years since I last watched this film all the way through, I remembered always having a quite sincere soft spot for its whimsical nature. But the curse of media literacy, and 7.5 years of film journalism (not to mention the 20+ years of film making) has had devestating consiquences on my ability to enjoy movies…So much so that rewatching this now, I had to deal with my nostalgia trying to overlook simply unforgivable things about this film.

For a starters, I completely forgot that this film is nearly two and a half hours long. HOW?! How is this movie nearly 150 minutes long?! It absolutely doesnt warrent it. it has NO business being this length. and that factor alone has a devestating impact on the scripting.

The first act, CRAWLS. It CRAWLS…to get to a place where it starts picking up steam. I had completely forgotten most of the first act going into this, I had always just assumed the film started with Carattacus Potts bringing the car into the workshop and slowly working to get it up to speed.

I’d COMPLETELY forgotten about the extended race car intro that goes on for approximately 25 years, the kids arguing with the scrap man, the family finance issue plotline, the first meeting with Truely, a good 2-3 of the musical numbers in that opening half hour. and its PAINFUL waiting for this thing to ACTUALLY kick in and BE the movie I want it to be.

It isnt really till around the half way point that we actually get into the more fantastical elements of the production, and they’re fun, dark at times, but largely in a way that invites the audience to laugh along, rather than recoil (child catcher aside of course.) But by that point i’d felt like i’d been waiting in an airport departure lounge for a week.

And I think thats a core issue with this script, the characters are great, when they’re doing whimsy and charismatic things…But when that isnt happening, its like their entire personalities fall off. they just become exposition spreaders and not much else really…and because the whimsy doesnt really begin till the 2nd half (with the fair ground and the sweet factory sequences as VERY notable exceptions) I found myself getting impatient for the actual film to start proper.

From there the second and third act are largely fine, charming, witty, genuinely funny in places. But because of the ‘epic’ runtime, it has a real problem trying to establish and stick with tone. on one side of the see-saw you have Potts and Truely doing pratt falls, physical comedy and funny faces. On the other, you have the baron trying to kill his wife, the child catcher leering on children and questionable language choices such as ‘Fuzzy Wuzzies’. its disorienting. My understanding is that the brief was to try and make a film with a plot that replicated the Grimms fairytale type structure…and on that front they do succeed…But at what cost I ask you?

I dunno, Im conflicted on this rewatch about the structural integrity of the script. I feel like had it been 90-100 minutes and it had binned off most of the opening act, alongside tightening up the tone to help (if nothing else) make the contrasts a bit more consistent, it could have been absolutely perfect. As it stands, I feel most people forget the *thud* that lands with this film when the hit play.

The direction and cine are probably the films 2nd strongest elements honestly (outside of the performances) we have creative direction and cinematography a-plenty here, its exploding with possibilities, unusual decisions that just somehow work and fantastical visions that make it stand out as a film that has clearly lasted the test of time. Only matched by some superb cast direction that delivers moments that are burned into the minds of the nation. perfect set placements, perfect designs. I LOVE the look and feel of this film visually and its probably one of the sole reasons the film is remebered so fondly. Because while the scripts a bit of a mes, the ‘feel’ this film has is frankly unmistakable.

Easily however, the thing that saves this film and probably the best aspect is the casting. From the top; Dick Van Dyke, Sally Ann Howes, Lionel Jeffreys, Gert Frobe, Anna Quale, Robert Helpmann and Benny Hill? No notes. Perfection. Its a remarkable thing to get THAT MANY folks who just so perfectly personify the characters they’re being asked ot play. its frankly insane to have so many bottles of lightning all in one movie, but they somehow do. Its incredible.

Thats not to do a disservice to the rest of the cast however, who also all deliver remarkably good performances that mix high energy with some genuine feeling and deliver an outcome that manages to really get things over the line and cooking. I wont go as far as to say their isnt a BAD performance here…Just that I cant recall any.

And tying it all together is the soundtrack, which is best described as ‘A third of tracks I dont remember at all, that are utterly forgettable. A third of tracks that I vaguely remembered, but largely didnt care for. and a third of tracks that absolutely blow me away and are some of the finest musical numbers ever composed.’ the films that fractured. Truleys song lamenting Caratticus was NOT my cup of tea at all, but an addled ex-army general singing about being carried off to ‘the posh life’ while being kidnapped in his shed by a blip, while ALSO getting dunked like a biscuit! YES PLEASE!

Hits include ‘Me old bamboo’, ‘Chitty Chitty Bang Bang’, ‘The posh posh travelling life’, ‘Doll on a music Box’, ‘Choochie face’ and much…MUCH…MUCH MUCH more. go nuts. you’ll find at least half a dozen you like.

Having given it time between rewatches, i’ve found with this instance that ‘Chitty Chitty Bang Bang’ frustrated me, I really wanted to like it like I used to, I wanted to enjoy it the same way I recalled enjoying it in my memories. But the reality is, its overlong, tonally all over the place and a big chunk of the songs are just flatlining.

There is an incredible movie in here, and I think with some re-editing I could love it a HELL of a lot more than I did with this watch…But for now, I think im going to need a bit of time before I give this one another spin.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/chitty-chitty-bang-bang/

Watched on Wednesday January 1, 2025.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/bloody-new-year/4/

For my 300th (and final!) movie of 2024, I decided to go out on a high, with what a vast majority of critics (inlcuding Siskel and Ebert) alongside multiple online aggregate sites list as ‘The Greatest Musical Ever Made!’ Yep, I sat down in the middle of a severe weather warning for wind and rain on New Years Eve with my partner, and together in the warm glow of the christmas lights, we watched ‘Singing in the Rain’ for the first time ever. And we had a pretty great time.

The films set in the 1920s and follows Silent film lethario ‘Don Lockwood’ (Played by Gene Kelly) and his malicious co-star Lina Lamont (Jean Hagan) Linas maliciousness is spurred by the fact that Don really just, isnt that into her, despite her being MASSIVELY into him. The pair are icons of California appearing as THE romantic pairing in all of the major films of the day.

But one fateful night, two incidents will set in motion events that will change the face of Hollywood forever. The first is Don, while being hoarded by fans, tries to escape by jumping into the car of one ‘Kathy Selden’ (Debbie Reynolds) at first the pair cant stand each other, with Kathy insulting Dons acting ability and Don swiping at Kathy for being a lower rung on the actors ladder than he is. But after another encounter later at a party being held by the head of ‘Monumental Pictures’ (R.F Simpson) Don is left swooning by Kathys attitude and way of being…which only upsets Lina even more when she clearly sees he’s more interested in Kathy than her AND during the party Kathy accidentally sends an entire birthday cake into linas face.

The other incident is that, while at the party, R.F Announces a special treat, revealing a new revolution in moviemaking…Sound. specifically they cite that warner brothers is soon to release the first fully talking picture ‘The Jazz Singer’…They’re not worried though as, at this point, its just being seen as a gimmick…That is until ‘The Jazz Singer’ does gangbusters at the box office, leading ‘Monumental’ to urgently rework all their ‘in production’ silent films into ‘talkies’.

For Don, thats not a problem, he’s maybe a little stiff on delivery and line memory, but he’s fine…But Lina? she has a voice that could cut a two by four in half. She cant remember lines, she has trouble pronouncing words…She isnt built for the ‘Talkies’…But you know who is? Kathy. And when Don and Kathy are reunited. the pair along with Dons lifetime friend Cosmo hatch a scheme to put Kathy on the map, while also keeping Lina from stirring up trouble…IF they can pull it off that is.

And y’know what? I think ‘Greatest Musical Ever’ is *probably* an overstatement. But I’ll tell you what, this is a MORE than fantastic little musical that had me grinning for most of the runtime.

In an era where musicals were often a little…’rigid’. Where they basically came in three flavours, ‘Very serious and dower’, ‘Farsical comedies’, or ‘Opera’. ‘Singing in the Rain’ breaks new ground by looking at the framework of the ‘muscial’ genre up to that point and remodelling it with the slightly more swinging and hip sensibilities of the 1950s.

Its a musical that inherently takes itself VERY seriously, with careful consideration put into every dance routine, line delivery and musical number. and BECAUSE it spends so much time trying to master the hard stuff to the point it looks effortless, it grants them the tremendous fortune of being able to actually PLAY the film as a bit self aware, a bit laid back. a more natural happening, rather than an almost pained movie of routine after routine.

And everyone in this film quite literally put their blood sweat and tears into the production (I lost a lot of respect for Kelly over this film) but it cant be denied the end result is a masterwork. A film that from top to bottom feels like its been optimised almost to the point of perfection for the genre at that time.

For a starters the script is a VERY pacy hour and 42 minutes long, the tone is easy going, playing for laughs, but not to TOO much of an obnoxious degree. he cast are charming, charismatic and entertaining throughout. I had a warm smile for most of the runtime on this thing just watching the antics go down, and there are some really solid laughs in this to boot too!

The songs are well paced out, not *too* often, but plentiful enough (and consistent with hits) to keep you engaged. I feel its biggest triumph is taking an element of movie history (the jump to the talkie) and actually managing to translate it not only into a successful musical, but an entertaining and well played one at that. It could have been SO easy to mess this up, and wind up with an insincere piece that felt flat and too tied to the time to be fun. But they relish every scene their in with quirky dialogue and *just* the right amount of snark as and when required to just about keep the production afloat for the whole runtime.

In fact my only criticism is the somewhat surreal ‘Gotta Dance’ sequence in the 3rd act…Which for me? while VERY nicely handled, did feel out of place with the rest of the movie and seemed to go on for an AGE. I understand why its there because it helps to further work on Don as a character a bit. But I think it could have been cut, or at the very least trimmed a fair bit and this would have been even better still.

Direction is frankly superb, the dance numbers are cited as some of the most difficult routines in musical history, Debbie Reynolds hadnt done anything like this before and somehow, via supernatural powers or the pure wrath of Gene Kelly, they managed to pull off some of the most memorable, creative and interesting direction that i’ve seen in a movie in a good while, constantly shapeshifting and evolving, theres sequences in this film that feel 30 years fresher than they actually are. It honestly blew my mind to find out this was 1952, as i’d have had it as a late 50s film truthfully.

Direction of the cast is extroadinary as well, again these were NOT easy routines to learn and Kelly, Reynolds and O’Connor MASTER them. I dont think i’ve ever seen footwork and intensity in a performance anywhere quite like whats shown here. its truely remarkable. Concerning…But remarkable.

As for the cine, its beautiful, intense and creative sequences flow beautifully from one scene to the next, theres room for creative compositions that most all land, sequence building is a little stiff in places (but it is 1952) and I think a little more B-roll would have got it over the line fully for me…But its a minor grumble, this thing looks fantastic, its vivid, colourful, engaging, SHOWS more than it tells and the edit is seamless, equally smooth and frankly an utter delight.

Performance wise, Debbie Reynolds and Gene Kelly are astounding. Given what we know Kelly did to Reynolds through this production I almost feel perverse praising him here. But the pair really do have a strong on screen chemestry, they both astound in their roles delivering fantastic performances that largely (and successfully) carry the film from start to finish.

Donald O’Connor and Jean Hagan as Cosmo and Lina equally delight as comedy foils for the production, with O’Connor *maybe* just about pushing the comedy foil a bit *too* far for my taste. But never full crossing the line. and Hagan is just perfect as Lina, giving a performance thats rich, multi layered and varied. I laughed at her when we found out her voice was a dud for ‘talkies’ I winced when she started flexing her stranglehold on the studios when she found out they were employing Kathy. It takes a strong performance to be able to play both the victim of comedy, the comic foil AND the villainess all at the same time, all in one movie. But she really truely nails it delivering a memorable performance that helps tie the whole thing together.

And as if I could review this without talking about the soundtrack. the titular ‘Singing in the Rain’ is a wonderful classic, but ‘Good Morning (to you)’, ‘Gotta Dance’, ‘Make ’em Laugh’ and ‘Moses’ are all show stoppers in their own right and really showcase the talent both on screen and the crew behind it. I was beyond impressed and was in awe of the craftsmanship behind it.

Is ‘Singing in the Rain’ the greatest musical ever made? In my opinion? im not fully convinced. I could easily see a point where, through re-watches, this becomes one of my favourite musicals. In terms of technical ability it almost certainly is in the top 3. But for me? this is just a really solid, charming and astounding work that is guarenteed to raise even the sourest of moods and was a fantastic way for me to see out 2024. The only thing better than finishing ‘Singing in the Rain’ is knowing a next time will always be on the cards.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/singin-in-the-rain/

youtu.be/iQamw4xxxHY?si=dF5bpIz9hpfWBfHS

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-mark-of-lilith/

Probably the best entry so far that I’ve seen in all of the ‘Short Sharp Shock’ boxsets. ‘The Dumb Waiter’ is a simple stalked/home Invasion piece in which a woman is contacted by a man claiming to be following her, and from there the action and tension just keeps getting ratcheted higher and higher.

I’m going to keep my thoughts on the script to a minimum because, it is a quite short film and I don’t want to spoil it. But the direction and cine are really rock solid, reminding me very strongly of the sense of isolation and creativity seen in Bob Clarkes ‘Black Christmas’…which I’m sure is probably one of the higher honours I can bestow a short like this.

Tense, creative and the first film in ANY of these sets to genuinely have me on the edge of my seat, ‘The Dumb Waiter’ is a fine fine movie. And one I can definitely recommend.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-dumb-waiter-1979/