Super 8

WARNING: SPOILER ALERT...SUPER 8 is F*@KING CRAP!!!

It Arrives

 It certainly does and if you go and see this then you will wish it hadn't!!!!!!!!! This is bad...really bad...and I mean really, really, really bad! I am ashamed to know that I watched this and feel simultaneously agrieved and angry about the fact. If you are expecting this to be an adult movie then I'm afraid, like me, you have been duped..it isn't. This is a movie for 11-12 year olds. And this is where I'm agrieved because nowhere in the promotion of this movie was it made clear what the target audience was meant to be. I feel somewhat cheated because I wouldn't have bothered with this at all if I'd known the age group this is and should have been promoted to.

 In essence Super 8 is a cross between The Goonies, E.T, and Race to Witch Mountain. Sure E.T wasn't just for kids but Super 8 is. But even though it is a younger persons movie it is still bad. It is totally preposterous, overly sentimental, and I really wonder if young people are that stupid as to buy into this clap-trap. I think their intelligence is being insulted at the quality level displayed here. As an adult mine was and I spent 112 minutes in bored agony!!

 The movie is far too slow in picking up pace and jerks badly between action and long scenes of tedium and sentimentality. The train crash is spectacular but overly reminiscent of the containers flying around in the A-team as the ship explodes. Yawn! seen it before. The idea that a pick-up truck can de-rail a train is absolutely ludicrous and I was slacked jawed at the absurdity of it. Even worse after a spectacular CGI driven train de-railment the driver of the pick up was still alive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Absolute nonsense! That was stretching things too far even by Hollywood standards. Funny it was this scene that had my alarm bells ringing because up to then the movie had been fine, but once I saw the 'survivor' I knew the rest was going to be crap...and it was...absolute piles of it.

 Well I can't say much more because from there on in Super 8 had lost me. I just sat there appalled at what I was then subjected to. Honestly credibility was stretched beyond belief and it became far too sentimental for its own good. Not only was I in agony at the awfulness I was seriously, and I mean seriously, bored. The script is thin and weak, the CGI ho hum, the performances somewhat the same, and the general premise absolutely been done to death before..honestly this is The Goonies meets E.T. What is original in that?

 And now like Super 8 I have come to the end of what I can do with so little. How far can thin be thinned??!!! There is nothing further I can add. This is as bad a movie as you'll ever see and it pisses me off that utter trash like this is made and makes millions and milions of dollars. It belongs in the garbage can I'm afraid, and I'm just saddened by the fact film makers think young peoples intelligence levels are so low that this is the best that can be provided for them for a trip to the flicks.

 I give this a 2/10. It is extremely poor and over hyped. I just can't escape the feeling of anger when I think of this movie as it left a bad taste in my mouth. And I just cannot believe how anyone can think that this is in anyway a half way decent movie.

 Avoid Avoid Avoid. Utter garbage alert!!!!!! Do yourself a favour, stay at home and hire some DVD's because this will insult your intelligence.

Now if you don't mind I think I'll go and watch The Hustler again just to remind myself of what a REAL film is!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Hustler

 'A twenty-five percent slice of something big is better than a hundred percent of nothing'.

 Fast Eddie Felso to Bert Gordon.

' Perverted, Twisted, Crippled'.

 Sarah on Bert Gordon.

 I was in our local library today and I had forgotten it had a DVD section albeit a rather limited one. I'm starving for classic films to watch and I had a quick browse and picked out this and The Wild One. There are a few more but I'll keep them for another day. Well if you have been following this blog then you'll have seen I read a Paul Newman biography recently so it isn't difficult to fathom why The Hustler found it's way into my DVD player is it?! I just hope  my mediocre writing and critiqing abilities can do justice to this very finest of films!

 The Hustler was Paul Newman's break out role/film. The thing that instantly hit me is that in Shawn Levy's biography he states that in Newman's early career he was considered as the 'poor man's' Marlon Brando. I can see why as there is a similarity in looks and in a white t-shirt Newman does look very similar to Brando in A Streetcar Named Desire. Newman though was never as muscualr as Brando, and it shows when he has his shirt off in The Hustler. He is ripped to be sure but certainly not muscualr.

 One thing that did surprise me was that it was filmed in black and white. This is a 1961 film so it seems strange it isn't in colour. The pictures on the cover are in colour so it was with some surprise to find the film wasn't. The picture was lovely and crisp though but I found the last twenty minutes or so it got quite grainy. It was a surprise because I would have thought that that sort of thing would have been fixed up for DVD release.

 The Hustler was nominated for numerous Oscars and after viewing it it is immediately obvious why. I mean four acting nominations alone is an incredible achievement. I believe Newman was disgracefully over looked for this role that year for his performance and Shawn Levy agrees in his fine biography. When you consider the quality of the films The Hustler was up against, and who Newman was nominated against it is very clear he was overlooked. Many believe his only Oscar win for the Colour of Money was a belated apology and acknowledgement of this.

Felso and Fats about to slug it out..over 40 hours!!

 It is a great performance by Newman to. The opening few scenes are out of the way quickly and it rips into Newman giving a quite electrifying performance as Fast Eddie Felso. What a scene!! I was spell bound by it and Newman is just incredible. Electrifyingly incredible!! He is arrogant, cocky, and also bloody good at pool. The marathon session with Minnesota Fats lasts forty hours! It is a scene that is broken up into various parts and yet it plays like one contiuous one to give a feeling of time. I liked how certain parts had the action of the table super imposed over the various players. A good technique as it just added to feel of time and continuity. If you haven't seen this film then believe me this part of the film is one you will never forget. It has to rate as one of Newman's very best surely.

 The film is pretty much devided into three parts. The opening part is fairly much the battle with minnesota Fats. After Felso is comprehensviley cleaned out the film moves on to him meeting a lonely woman called Sarah. The middle chunk of the film actually slows right down after the amazing introduction and its adrenaline fueled surge. And yet it is an important part as Felso is revealed to be something of an amoral man with no real direction in life except hustling. As Gordon Bert ( a very good George C. Scott ) tells him, he lacks character. The scene where Bert tells Felso this is another standout as Felso hears some hard truths about himself. In essence he is told he is a loser.

 The middle portion of the film has virtualy no pool action besides a short billiards session where it appears Felso is to be cleaned out and yet prevails. It is central to the film's theme as it is more than just pool and hustling. It also explores human character, and to a certain degree redemption and the price than can be paid for chasing a dream. Felso wants to be the best pool player in the country and virtually sells his soul to Gordon to achieve it. We see Sarah at one stage begging Felso to walk away as Gordon will break his heart. It is telling that in the billiards scene Gordon is told he resembles a statue behind him of a goat legged Devil!

 Of course we then see the famous scene of Gordon extracting sex from Sarah and her writing on the mirror the words Perverted, twisted crippled, before killing herself. She realises that Felso will never return the love she feels for him as he has made his decision to beat Minnesota Fats. Funnily, Piper Laurie, even though nominated for and Oscar, was heavily critisied for using the method acting too much!! I thought her excellent as a lonely aimless woman who has turned to liquor and yet finds love in the form of Felso...who is ultimately the cause of her suicide through Gordon.

 This all leads up to the final show down scene, and it is a rip snorter with Newman absolutely fizzing as Felso. It is a palpable scene and Newman is just sublime. His anger and his knowledge within himself as to what he sacrificed to achieve his goal sees him absolutely cream Minnesota Fats. The last parts are brilliant as Felso seeks redemption as a human being as he tells Gordon he is the real loser as he is dead inside. He shames him by telling him he is responsible for Sarah's suicide. Gordon knows he is right and lets Felso go but warns him to keep out of big pool halls as a parting shot. It may be a sports film but it is also very human in that it explores some quite dark themes about personal corruption, morality, and the price to be paid for it.

 The Hustler is just over two hours long and even though it is in three obvious parts there are no dull spots. Some critics claim it is too long but I disagree. It is just right and perfectly paced. I like how Felso is so arrogant and cocky that the viewer almost feels as if he is going to come out wth some humourous lines and add a comedic air to the film. This doesn't happen and yet the expectation is there. Great acting from Newman. It is also rated as the sixth best American sports film ever made. No disagreement from me there. The marathon forty hour battle between Felso and Fats is brilliant and both Newman and Gleason are just sublime. And the shots!!...honestly some of them are just breath taking and makes the film well worth seeing for them alone.

 What a film, what a film!!! This really is as good as it gets folks! Riveting! Brilliant stuff! It is funny because Scott in a 1980 interview said the acting in The Hustler was nothing special!!!! I heartily disagree. Scott himself is superb and shows his performance in Dr. Strangelove was no fluke. Jackie Gleason has only twenty minutes screen time but is very good as the sauve, unflappable Minnesota Fats.  But ulimately Paul Newman is the stand out. What can be said about his performance?? Quite brilliant..I could feel the sparks fly as he danced around the pool table!! ( Both Newman and Gleason actually learnt how to play pool and most of the pool sequences are actually them playing. It just brings that extra air of credibilty and quality to the whole film ). The whole cast gel extremely well,  but the scene between Felso and Gordon where Gordon offers Felso his 'advice' is a damn fine bit of one on one acting and the best of the film.

 A definite must see!! A true classic, and is Paul Newman at his very best ( for which he should have got that Oscar!! ).

Click here for a synopsis and more:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054997/

And here for more:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hustler/

Alec Guinness : The Authorised Biography - Piers Paul Read

' You must remember something about Alec, he is a not very nice man trying to be a good one'.

Percy Harris.

 I like biographies and have read my fair share of them over the years, but looking back at my Paul Newman review I realise I'm not good at writing about them! Biographies are a difficult genre to write because they are  attempting the truely impossible, namely getting inside another human being's mind. All the biographer can really achieve is a sort of interpretation of the subject. In saying that biographers can fall into a trap of either being too biased for or against the subject. It is a difficult balancing act, and after having read two biographies back to back, and with totally different styles, I will say that Shawn Levy's biography on Paul Newman is far the superior. Levy brought Newman to life, Read puts Guinness into oblique shadows.

 The problem with Piers Paul Read is that he became friends with Alec Guinness about ten years before his death. Guinness liked Read's novels and after his death Guinness's wife Merula gave Read permission to write Guinness's authorised biography with uninhibited access to all his papers and diaries. She died before it was completed but the Guinness' son Matthew looked it over before publishing. All through the biography I couldn't escape the feeling of having Matthew Guinness looking over Read's shoulder as there is an over-riding feel of vagueness and subtle censorship. Alec Guinness was a very guarded and private man, for very obvious reasons, but somehow Read doesn't capture Guinness in the way Levy captured Newman.

 Even with Guinness' papers etc Read has a knack of dancing around Guinness and not really giving the reader a 'feel' for the man. Remember Read was friends with Guinness and yet he still can't write/paint a literal picture of him. Shawn Levy never met Paul Newman but he makes the reader 'feel' Newman in a way that Read frustratingly doesn't. Read has basically written a dry chronology of Guinness life and danced around his less savoury aspects as if he his afraid to offend anyone.

 Alec Guinness wasn't a nice man as such. He was cruel to wife in his life long belittlement of her and he was aloof from from his son. He was sharp tonged, tack less, and difficult to get along with as he could take offence to the very smallest of imagined slights. Read shows that his upbringing had much to do with this as he was ashamed by being born out of wedlock. His mother refused to tell him who his father was. His mother was an even bigger embarrassment as she was a petty thief and general never do well.

 Throughout his life Guinness kept his humble beginnings secret, as he did with his homosexual leanings. Although married he never had a homosexual encounter and fought all his life against his 'condition'. He became a Catholic so he could confession as an release valve to his homosexuality. He kept it secret because in his early career homosexuality was still illegal in Britain and if known would have been the end of his career. Read says Guinness entered into acting like many homosexuals did because it gave them the ability to be someone else and escape themselves. Apparently most of Britain's male stage actors were gay, including the legendary John Gielgud who helped Guinness in his early years.

 Homosexuality runs right throughout the whole the biography and to be honest I got a bit sick of it. I was starting to wonder if I am the only straight guy in the world. It seemed as if every male in the biography was gay!! Unfortunately Read doesn't really come to terms with Guinness' homosexuality as he frustratingly dances around it. He does give enough to the reader to leave no question about his leaning but he somehow projects a feeling of vagueness about it all. Guinness did marry and stayed with his wife until his death even though he became celibate and stopped having sex with her from the age of forty. This was due to his homosexuality but also because of his conversion to Roman Catholicism. Read surmises that by being celibate he would be able to keep his yearnings under control. We can only guess at Guinness' mindset as he left nothing in his diaries etc about his homosexuality but there is enough between the lines evidence to see he was tormented by it.

 His homosexuality clashed with his theology. He knew what the church felt about homosexuality and he spent a lifetime trying to reconcile the two. This internal battle Read says is why he was so ill tempered and difficult as the man he projected was not the man he wanted to be. Throughout his life he struggled with bouts of depression and doubts on his acting abilities. There is no question he was a tormented and conflicted man, and I think his high intellect exasperated the problem. He was an intelligent and extremely well read man to be sure, and became quite dis-missive of those who weren't. He hated the British 'class' system and yet became a snob himself, calling the lower classes 'common' and most people he met 'bores'. He was really trying to escape his own back ground and did so by de-basing others.

 He treated his wife quite cruelly and yet there is no doubt he loved her. ( God only knows why she stayed with him because he constantly belittled her even though she was quite intelligent and talented herself ). After stopping the sex the marriage was more one of companionship, and for all his homosexual leanings it appears he never wanted to leave his wife. Read points out Guinness' unease with woman in his acting. His on screen romances were flat and he never fizzed with any of his leading ladies. Even with Grace Kelly he didn't gel 'romantically' on screen. He was also an incurable control freak and extremely bossy. His wife was a talented actress and could have done well in the profession. Guinness made her give it up because he thought if she failed it would ruin his career to!! Again we see Guinness keeping up appearances.

 I found the whole biography too chronological and found myself drifting off at times as Read's narrative failed to engage me. As a biography it is somewhat too long and I'm not a fan of the constant use of letters and diary entries to let Guinness speak in his own words. I found myself skipping them after a while. I was deeply disappointed too at the real lack of depth and look at Guinness career as a whole. Again it is too chronological and nothing new is added to any particular stage performance or film role. All we get is a series of diary entries on what Guinness saw and felt. It makes grim reading at times as he was so dismissive of so many of those he worked with.

 In essence what the biography does show is that Alec Guinness was a very complex and tormented man. His humble up bringing and ambivalence towards his mother saw him become a snob in later life. Combined with his repressed homosexuality Alec Guinness became a difficult person to be around. He could be very generous helping out friends financially but he could also be rude and extremely cutting. In short he wasn't a nice person but he tried very hard to be. All this Piers Paul Read reveals but to be honest I think anyone who meet Guinness professionally or privately already knew this so Read hasn't revealed anything new. He may have just confirmed what everyone knew and explained why.

 Alec Guinness : The Authorised Biography was a disappointment. It is dry and vague. I don't subscribe to the theory that this was so so because he was vague and secretive about himself. I think Read had the Guinness family shadow looking over his shoulder and he was politely held back from really going deeper into his subject. It is far too chronological and provides so very little on the aspects of Guinness' career I wished to know more of. For instance there is virtually nothing in regards to The Bridge on the River Kwai and how he personally felt about his Oscar. This is poor as it was Guinness' greatest role and is hardly mentioned. Very disappointing considering I have just seen four of his films recently, and is the reason I read the biography in the first place.

 In all Guinness' character is revealed within an examination of why he was the way he was. Somehow though Read doesn't deliver the reader Alec Guinness, only a dry shadow of the man. After finishing I couldn't escape the feeling that was Read's intention. Authorised biography yes, but really the sort of biography Guinness himself would want written about himself, vague and unrevealing. Hard to recommend as it provides very little on what the reader wants to know about Guinness, and the constant letter and diary entries are a pain. I can't describe it as little more then a non-biography, forever skirting around but never going in.

Click here for a review from 2003, the year of publishing:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2003/oct/19/biography.features1

X-Men : First Class

 I must admit to have never taken to the X-Men franchise. I see the appeal but it is just wasn't for me. In many respects when the franchise first our screens I felt that the super hero market was already in the glut stage and felt we didn't need anymore. The last of the franchise I saw was Wolverine which was appaling in its awfulness. I was so embarrassed with myself for having sat through the whole thing I walked out of the theatre covering my face in shame!!

 I have seen the three previous X-Men movies ( on telly, as I didn't fancy seeing them in a theatre ), but really can't remember any of them as such. I just find the franchise so unremarkable that nothing leaps out at me and sticks in the grey matter. So suffice to say I was somewhat a reluctant ticket buyer earlier today, but you know how it is...I just had to go!! Believe it or not I enjoyed this movie even though it is CGI heavy and I'm seriously starting to hate the technique. Unfortunately it is here to stay and the more CGI movies I watch the more it seems the overall quality of what we are watching is rapidly degrading. I'm afraid I'm after substance not style, and CGI doesn't satify me in any way.

 I'm not a fan of re-makes or re-boots as such either as I see them as a money grab, and underlines a serious lack of original thinking in mainstream Hollywood. At the moment the only interesting American movies are from independants and I think Hollywood has got to have a serious look at where it is going cinema wise. When you are the biggest show out there you can dominate of course but I'm tired of CGI and re-boots etc to be honest. But bitching aside X-Men : First Class surpassed my expectations as I really thought I'd be groaning and fidgeting right throughout it wanting all the misery to my eyes to end. But it wasn't like that at all, in fact some of it was quite good and engaged my attention.

 The cast is a good one to start with. Kevin Bacon has been around a longtime and is a seasoned actor and I found he brought credibilty to the movie. As did James McAvoy. He in particular stood out for me even though he looked a bit stupid putting his fingers to his temple as he read people's minds. I wondered as I watched him if he felt stupid acting it out?!! I think quality roles like Atonment has sharpened his acting and it shows in his performance in this. January Jones was her mediocre self and was nothing more than eye candy in a tight white outfit. She was her usual uninspiring self, and totally devoid of any screen presence what-so-ever. 

 Jennifer Lawrence was the disapointment for me. She is an extremely talented actress and is totally under utilised here. If you want to see how good she can be watch Winter's Bones which I reviewed several months ago. In that review I stated my fears for her if she appeared in X-Men. Well I was right as her lines are totally banal and really clang at times. It is what I feared as she would be used as eye candy and have her real talents mis-used. She is better than this I really hope she doesn't get sucked into roles like this too often. It'll ruin her career before it has really started.

 Besides these two issues with the female stars, one of who will never be an actress of any note ( January Jones! ), the rest of the cast was very good. It is sad to see that Lawrence is the only one who was given such crap lines to deliver as the rest of the cast have good dialogue and it is a step above what I was expecting. I really was expecting this to be a very expensive b-grader but it is way above that. Possibly the only really mistake made was a small cameo by Hugh Jackman. It provided nothing as such and was more an acknowledgement of his character than anything relevant to this movie.

 Well overall when I have a serious look at this movie I find I can't really find much to say about it. Unfortuantely after a season of David Lean nothing else is going to compare and the latest releases for me have suffered because of this. They have been in all honestly fucking crap when compared against Lawrence of Arabia and Doctor Zhivago, etc. I think if you are an X-Men aficianado then you will really like this addition to the franchise. It is a very solid movie with a reasonable script, cast, and actors involved. It is of course CGI'ed to the max and I found myself somewhat jaded by it. Sure the scenario may be different but the technique is the same and it just doesn't impress me anymore.

 A surprisingly well made movie that I'm sure will satisfy most audiences. I liked it but felt it just another CGI super hero movie in an already glutted market of super heroes. But as a prequel it works very well and bettered my initial expectations of what I was going to get served with. Like I say I'm not a fan as such of the franchise and will leave the fans to really critique it. As a movie I've seen it all before, and yet I will say it is well above average and will better your expectations. I'm sure it will race to number one in box offices around the world and make zillions in the process....in which to make another movie!! ( I will say this though. I prefered this to Thor which I found neither here nor there, where as I have very definite ideas about this movie ).

 

Click here for a synopsis and more:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1270798/

And here for the official site:

http://www.x-menfirstclassmovie.com/

A Passage To India

 Well that's it then...the David Lean run is over with the last screening of his final film A Passage to India yesterday. I now feel a dose of melancholy to know that without such fine films to see on the big screen I'm back to Hollywood and its perchance of mass destruction courtesy of CGI. The last five weeks have been fantastic and you cannot believe how much of a privilege it has been. As to this film I clearly remember it's release and my parents going off to the old State theatre to see it. I re-call it being a big deal in its day, and I have seen it on the small screen albeit many moons ago now.

 A Passage to India was Lean's last film and his first film in fourteen years after Ryan's Daughter. It is assumed after the negative reception of Ryan's Daughter that the long hiatus between films was due to this. He in fact tried unsuccessfully to get a version of Captain Bligh and Mr. Christian off the ground. He envisioned making two films but through various troubles with the script it didn't eventualise.

 This film is obviously based on E.M. Forster's famous novel of the same name. I haven't read it unfortunately even though I came close several months ago. I now wish I had of considering I have seen the film adaptation. Lean made changes from the book as most film makers do, the most obvious being giving the film a romantic feel. Like Doctor Zhivago I have always considered Passage more a woman's film because of its romanticism. But I don't think that now as it isn't overly romantic and definitely as much a males film as female. As a film adaptation it wasn't for purists of the novel but as a film it more than satisfied cinema goers and critics alike.

 Readers of the book will see that Lean toned down Forster's anti-British sentiment. Forster was scathing of the British presence in India and believed they should get out. Lean tended to veer towards the British somewhat. As an adaptation it was felt Lean adapted 80% of the book into the film and fiddled with the rest. It may be dated material but I think his pro-British outlook wasn't bad as it was more his attempt to provide a lens to look through at the British sentiment of the times instead of just being straight out pro-British in sentiment. I think Lean done the tight-rope balancing act well in all his films. I never felt he veered one way or the other and just tried to portray a balanced view point.

 The film has all of Lean's usual style and interestingly there is a scene with use of the CGI of the times. Remember that in 1984 George Lucas had been using the technique in the Star Wars movies and Lean used it in the opening scene of this film. For me this shows the sign of the times as Lean's previous films were hand built prop based and yet here is moving with the times. It was amusing because it now looks incredibly clumsy! I'm pleased this was its only use in the film. As in my Ryan's Daughter review I think Passage is somewhat out-dated as a genre. By the time Ryan's Daughter was made the 'Epic' was on it's way out to make room for the 'Blockbuster'. Passage in 1984 was a dinosaur!! I don't think Lean was out of date I just think studios had moved on and audiences with them, and the 'Epic' in 1984 was something from the past. In saying that though it was definitely an 80's film and it felt like it colour wise. It is the genre that had dated not the craftsmanship.

 For me I enjoyed this. It is incorrect to call this the weaker of Lean's film as it isn't weak at all. It is hard to define because it has all his style and craftsmanship, but it just isn't The Bridge on the River Kwai or Lawrence of Arabia. I'd say it is Lean's lesser film. But even as a lesser film it is still damn good!! I think on a bad day Lean could produce a film that still showed how cinema should be. But comparing this against Lawrence, and Kwai, is somewhat unfair because Passage is smaller in scale, and yet Lean still goes for the perfect shot with his noted eye for detail and landscape that has never been beaten.

 I was surprised at the condition of this film. It is only twenty eight years old but it was in very poor condition in parts. At one stage it was so badly worn the picture all but disappeared along with the score. But funnily enough that, with the intermission, only added to the 'classic' feel. Like I said, it is now with a tinge of melancholy that I'll be going to the flicks from here on as you just cannot beat classics in anyway. The whole experience for a cinema lover is there and nothing can top it!

 Passage may have been somewhat out-dated style wise by 1984 but it still managed eleven Oscar nominations! Surely that alone shows how good it is as a film? Peggy Ashcroft won an Oscar for best supporting actress and she is still the oldest recipient of the award at 77. She puts in a good performance among the many. It is so typical of Lean that all his casts were so superb. Alec Guinness is again his brilliant self, and is very good as Professor Godbole. He can play any role and makes himself believable in it. I didn't feel as an Indian he was mis-cast or belittling of Indians. But one must ask why Lean used him as surely there were Indian actors good enough to have starred in the role at the time.

 Guinness per usual clashed with Lean on the set. I'm reading an Alec Guinness biography at the moment and I'm hoping to gain insight into why he and Lean clashed so often. In all his films Lean clashed with someone. In Ryan's Daughter it was Christopher Jones. In Passage both Guinness and Judy Davis clashed. He was such a perfectionist though that I'd go as far as to say the final product proved Lean right in every case!! Guinness was aggrieved at how much Lean edited him out of Passage as well. Apparently he fell out with Lean for many years over this and didn't patch things up until shortly before Lean's death. To me this isn't, and was never going to be Guinness's film, Ashcroft, Davis, and Victor Banerjee are the main protagonists here and not Guinness. The role that really impressed me though was that of Richard Wilson of One Foot in the Grave fame. He plays an absolute racist prig...and to perfection. He is such an arsehole and I absolutely hated his character!! His British sentiment, and disdain for the Indians really comes through, and it was painful to watch the British in their 'Club' and the absolute racist snobbery that prevailed.

 Like all of Lean's film it is interesting to see who he wanted to get and who he ended up with. He wanted Peter O'Toole to play Richard Fielding and ended up with Edward Fox. Celia Johnson was approached to be Mrs Moore but declined and died thirty months later. Richard Wilson got the role because original casted Nigel Hawthorne fell ill. But in all the cast is very strong and I can only sit back and admire David Lean for his ability to get such a big named cast to gel and get such superb performances from each individual. When you think of the famous clashes he had with some actors it is surprising the end products where of such high quality. He must have had an incredible amount of endurance and patience with actors!!!!!!

 There really isn't a lot more I can add! Against The Bridge on the River Kwai, Lawrence of Arabia, and Doctor Zhivago, A Passage to India is somewhat over shadowed, and yet it shouldn't be. It isn't the great film those three are but it is still of a superior quality than most films can hope to achieve. For me it is Lean's quiet sleeper and when you watch it you realise how good it actually is. It has two flaws though. The score doesn't match the scenes and some of Lean's editing gives the film a feel of jerkiness. But they are quite minor quibbles really. Not a master-piece from a man who just seemed to have a gift for producing them, but still a real piece of quality cinema.

 Highly recommended. Somewhat forgotten about in light of other David Lean films but he was a real cinematic master that even his lesser films stand out!

 Click here for a synopsis and more:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087892/

And click here for some interesting facts:

http://www.mapability.com/travel/p2i/index.php

Paul Newman : A Life - Shawn Levy

Cover of the American edition.

' Paul Newman's craft was acting. His passion was racing. His love was his family and friends. And his heart and sole were dedicated to helping make the world a better place for all. '

 The press release from Newman's Own Foundation on Paul Newman's death, Friday, September 26th, 2008.

 Unfortunately I don't have the time I wish I had to read as many actor/actresses biographers as I'd like to. I just happened to see this book the first step I took into our local library the other day. I was only after some very light fiction, but as soon as saw this I stuck it under my arm and read it in two nights. For me it is somewhat poignant as Cars 2 is to be released soon and it brings home to me what a great loss he is to us all.

 Well if you don't know who Paul Newman was then there is really no hope for you at all! Either that or it is a very isolated cave you have living in for a very long time!! Newman is a name that needs no introduction, and Shawn Levy's biography is the first published since the very sad passing of this true cinematic legend and humanitarian. There have been twelve books written about Newman over the years, of which I have read the grand total of ...none! After reading this book though I was surprised how much I knew about the man and also how much I didn't!

 Firstly Newman's parent were Jewish. Newman is a bit of a give away when you think about it but Paul himself wasn't a practising Jew being quite oblivious to the religion as a whole. The only time in his life his origins were brought into question was when he met Sam Speigel for a casting session. Speigel was himself a Jew, and concious of it to the point of signing himself S.P. Eagle. He asked Newman why he didn't change his name to avoid Jewish stigma and what he would call himself. A green Paul said, S.P. Newman. He didn't get the role!! Which role? On the Waterfront!!

 The whole biography is full of interesting titbits like this, and as always it is interesting to see the roles he was offered and turned down. For example:

Both he and Robert Redford were initially going to make Serpico together. Obviously it never happened and Al Pacino got the role. They were also both considered for The Man Who Would Be King, but Paul told John Huston ' to get Caine and Connery for Christsake '!

The Eiger Sanction and Dirty Harry - Clint Eastwood. ( Thank god for posterity Newman never became Harry!! ).

Robin and Marion - Sean Connery.

Cry Freedom - Kevin Kline.

Superman - Marlon Brando.

Romancing the Stone - Michael Douglas.

 He was also approached to make Papermoon with his daughter Nell. Ryan O'Neal got the role with his own daughter Tatum ). Interestingly Nell was banned by both Paul and Joanne from auditoning for the Exorcist, the role made famous by Linda Blair. They didn't want her involved in the industry but she of course persisted, giving up her acting career in her early thirties at the start of the 1980's.

 Paul Newman is regarded as a man within an extra-ordinary amount of natural talent. This really is untrue as he was actually a man who worked extremely hard to achieve his successes and wasn't naturally talented at all. He achieved everthing through hard work and dedication, something he learnt from his father. When he started acting he was quite poor at it and yet persisted. It is unbelievable to think that the actor we now know started out with such inauspicious beginnings. He started out, as so many actors did, on the stage, and slowly worked his way up into television before his break out role in the awful, The Silver Chalice. All reviews took notice of his looks but were adamant he couldn't act, and wouldn't get anywhere on his looks alone.

 Well has an actor defied the odds so much as Newman did?! After The Silver Chalice his star took off, even to the point of him buying out his Warner Bros. contract to further his career, and be his own man. I don't have to add anything to what he achieved do I?!! Ten Oscar nominations, one win,  an Oscar for services to the industry, and numerous other distinctions and awards are indicative  enough.

 Unlike many actors Newman took his craft extremely seriously. He worked extremely hard as an actor, and what looks like natural talent is actually dedication and much rehearsing. He was noted for such efforts even though some actors found him hard to work with for the amount of time he put in rehearsing a scene before shooting it. Most actors came in, read and memorised the lines, and then shot the scene. Throughout the whole book though Ava Gardner was the only one who has ever gone on record as saying Newman wasn't much of an actor!! At the start of his Hollywood career he suffered from being known as the poor man's Marlon Brando. It irked him as they both came from the same school of method acting, and it took him many years to shake the image off. Interestingly Joanne Woodward had dated Brando before meeting Newman!!

 The whole book obviously goes through Newman's whole acting carrer. He done it all, from stage, television, film , directing, producing. He had much success in all fields, and his share of flops too. During the late sixtes he was the most 'bankable' star in America. During the 1970's his choice of roles deserted him and his star waned somewhat. He admits he starred in The Towering Inferno solely for the money, something he had never done before as he took roles he was interested in playing, and felt were within his abilities.

 It is amazing that Newman never felt himself a good actor. It was part of his self-effacing persona, but by the end of the sixies he was bored with acting as he felt he had done all the roles he could within his abilities. It wasn't until the 1980's that his talents shone again. He rates Martin Scorsese highly as a director because he felt he stretched him as an actor and got things out of him he didn't knew he could play. Of course he went on to finally win a belated Oscar for The Colour Of Money. I've always felt it was belated and some of the evidence does point to this. Many of his previous nominations were against fairly mediocre films and performances, and it is obvious he was over looked for far too long Oscar wise.

 After Cars Newman wanted to make one more film as a goodbye to the industry. For several years he and Redford looked for a suitable script but it never came to pass. Redford actually rang him one day with one but Newman told him he was finished and had retired. He was actually ill and dying with cancer. The pairing of Newman and Redford in a final hurrah was sadly not to be.

 Newman's enduring marriage to Joanne Woodward is legendary. I knew he had been married previoulsy but didn't realise he had three children to his former wife. It is funny to read some of Woodward's views on Newman, especially in regards to his sex symbol status. She once said he has six children and snores in his sleep, how can he possibly be sexy'!! But millions of women thought so!! He was endlessly mobbed by them and Wooward was always amused by watching women literally go weak at the knees whenever he entered a room. His sex appeal even saw his twelve year old daughter asked by a girl friend whether she, 'felt like raping her father'!! At twelve!!!!

 Newman was famously adamant about protecting his privacy. He didn't like being a sex symbol. His blue eyes are legendary and they gave him no end of grief. He took them for granted and was known to say ' I didn't ask for them ', and got annoyed by strangers asking to see them. He is quoted as saying, 'There's nothing that makes you feel more like a piece of meat. It's like saying to a woman, open your blouse,  I want to see your tits.'  As a sex symbol Newman only strayed from his wife once. This after his famous quote as to why he wasn't a womanizer, ' When I've got steak, why would I go out for hambuger'. The thing was his only daliance was with a woman called Nancy Bacon. So he did leave the steak once.....for some bacon!! But she is reported as saying he wasn't very good in bed. I can believe this as Newman doesn't have the reputation as a strayer. Sex symbol he may have been but in all reality he was no Casanova and didn't want to be.

 He is also famous for his looks that didn't seem to age. At forty he looked ten years younger. I reviewed The Left Handed Gun several months ago and assumed Newman to be in his early twenties. He was in fact over thirty!! I couldn't believe it, and he certainly looked younger than he was for most of his life. He never lost his looks until he was dying when he became quite skeletal from cancer. In a twist of irony with The Green Lantern being released soon it was interesting to read that Newman was the base for which Gil Kane designed his comic book character, Hal Jordan, from!!! ( See page 86 ).


  The Newman's mariage may have been legendary but did have its moments. Amazingly at times both partners kept it together in an industry known for its sham marriages. Paul and Joanne's wasn't, and was the real deal to the end. I've always admired them for that fact in a Hollywood riddled with egos and falseness. This trueness though had a sad ending for Newman's son. Scott was Paul's only son and he suffered from being placed into his famous fathers shadow by the public. He felt he had to live up to his fathers image as so many children born to famous parents did. He mirrored the likes of Humphrey Bogart's son, Stephen, and Robert F. Kenndy's son Michael who, like Scott, died from a drug overdose. Scott's death did rock the Newman's but their daughter opened a foundation to help others with drug problems as a result, The Scott Newman Foundation.

 Newman was basically the big name star who stared philanthrophy before it became fashionable. His cooking was legendary, and he was known for sneaking home made popcorn into theatres. He was also better known for taking his own salad dressing to restaurants and washing actual salads in the rest rooms, then re-dressing them!! This led to him and a friend devising a way of making his salad dressing in bulk and selling it for charity. The way it was devised and sold is extremely interesting. and well worth a read. The rest as they say is history. At time of publishing US$400 million had been donated to charities according to Levy. He even opened several camps in America that spread around the world for children with cancer that cost the parents nothing to send their sick children to. Just an amazing man who used his own (unwanted ) celebrity for so many others.

 Newman also was a champion of Civil Rights and unashamedly tended many rallies. He even threw his support behind several presidential candidates. One year he rallied against Richard Nixon. Somehow he ended up on Nixon's infamous 'hate' list. Nixon famously said, 'Tell Newman he's a great actor even though he thinks I'm a losy politician!! Newman's life outside of acting was just one charity or cause after enough. His selflessnes was just staggering as you realise the time he put in over many years.  I mean he was at it when over 80 years of age!

  Newman was very private and didn't like the publicity his fame gathered. He famously didn't give out autographs when asked. He was adamant he was a private person outside of films, and he kept to it as well . When he developed a love of racing he told those around him it was no publicity stunt as he took it all seriously, and his name wasn't to be used in any publicity of the sport. Again, like his acting, Newman developed his skill slowly and carefully. He didn't start racing until he was forty and is still the oldest driver at 70 to  win a professional race in the States!! He came to be highly regarded as down to earth and not one who threw his celebrity status around.  This was a trait that followed him everywhere in life though. He co-owned his own racing team when he became too old to race himself, and again was known for his down to earth manner. He won his last race at the age of 80, and at speeds of 180mph!! He became a talented driver but it was through hard work and application, probably the two things that really highlight his life.

 So without doubt Paul Newman was an interesting man. But what really comes through is the fact that he was so ordinary. He was just an everday guy who worked very hard and had some success doing it. This ordinariness is so hard to fathom when you look at his achievements. When you do you can only admire them all the more for keeping his down to earth style. Incredibly he was a functioning alcoholic for most of his adult life drinking 24 cans of Coors beer a day, and even half a bottle of scotch until he gave it up after Joanne's insistence. He also smoked heavily, and yet counter balanced it by very regular excersise, and was always trying to quit by eating carrot and celery sticks!! He was human after all with flaws like everyone else.

 This biography is very good and I like how Shawn Levy has steered away from the trap of many biographers of straight out character assassination. He points out at one stage how a previous biographer was some what anti-Newman to the point of calling him a 'homo'. The quickest way to slur a man is to call him homosexual after all. As I have alluded to Newman really wasn't a wonanizer and to think he was is just fanciful thinking. Even in college Newman wasn't known for 'chasing' girls even though he had girlfriends. He was actually quite a gentleman when it came to woman sexually. His looks didn't mean he used them for sexual purposes.

 One trap too of a biographer is that of hero-worship. Levy keeps his under control and I feel this is a balanced Biography. Warts and all you might say. He paints Newman as the normal man he was with his strengths, weaknesses, and flaws. Towards the very end a bit of gushing occurs, but Levy builds it up nicley as he re-caps Newmans successes, particualrly as a philanthropist. The end pages are quite sad as he describes Newman's failing health and eventual death. The last two pages are full of fitting, and touching, epitaphs of the times. This one from George Clooney stood out for me as he is similar to Newman in style as a celebrity, and self effacing human being:

" He set the bar too high for the rest of us. Not just actors, but for all of us."

 That about sums up Paul Newman for me, and it is a great last word of a great man from one who himself is quite a nice guy too!!

 This is a worthy read full of interesting facts and anecdotes. I found it very easy to read and  believe it can be managed by all reading levels. It is well balanced being neither a character assassination or overly gushey. May be it achieves what any good biography should do; make me put down the book and make me 'feel' as if I'd actually met Paul Newman. I'm satisfied it did!! Paul Newman was an outstanding, down to earth man and this biography is a worthy look and appraisal of this remarkable actor, man, husband, father, driver, and humanitarian. Highly recommended to all.

Cover to the English addition. Shawn Levy prefers the American cover as he considers it more 'sexy' Something I'm sure Newman wouldn't like as he didn't consider himself a sex symbol. It was an image that didn't sit comfortably with him.

Resident Evil

 Well I stayed home last night for the new series of Doctor Who. I thought I'd seen my fill of movies for the day in The Hangover II, so was pleasantly surprised to see Resident Evil playing immediately after Doctor Who. The weather was appalling yesterday so I wasn't adverse to sitting there watching it again next to the warm fire instead of going to bed and reading.

 I missed the first three movies of this franchise as I was never fussed on the idea of a video game being made into a movie. I passed on Doom and saw that only recently, being unimpressed to say the least! But I did venture out to the fourth instalment Resident Evil: Afterlife. The trailers looked good and I thought I give it a try. Well I wasn't disappointed at all. I thoroughly enjoyed it and at Christmas I rented the previous three on DVD, and had a Resdient Evil session with a bottle of Woodstock bourbon!!

 According to wikipedia Resident Evil was poorly recieved by critics when released back in 2002. The general public seemed to disagree as this made a great deal of money!! Now if you have read any of previous posts on zombie/infected movies you will know that I'm a serious fan of the genre/s. What I like so much about Resident Evil is how it fuses zombies/infected/horror, with sci-fi, survivor, and action elements. But best of all it is it's post apocalyptic element which I like so much in the genre.

 For some reason post-apocalyptic zombie movies really appeal to me. Add in infection and you have me every time!! 28 Days, and 28 Weeks Later, are superb examples of this genre within a genre. Unlike Resident Evil though they are English, and much the superior for it. Hollywood throws huge wads of cash at a movie to get an end result. Whilst it makes for a visually spectacular movie it lacks the more under stated English 'less is more' approach. Compare the CGI devastated cities of Resident Evil against an empty London in 28 Days. Which is the more terrifying and eerie?? That scene is one of the most haunting ever filmed in my opinion. Watching Cillian Murphy walking through an empty London, with no idea what has happened, is true horror at its best.

 There have been many post-apocaltyptic movies made over the years. The Omega Man, I Am Legend, The Book of Eli, 28 Days, etc, and I do believe the Resident Evil franchise is a valid, and welcome addition to the genre. Sure it is over blown and CGI heavy, but they are fast paced for action buffs, whilst providing enough genuine scare moments to please horror aficianados. I certainly jumped in Afterlife several times, and reveled in the action sequences, so my lusts were satiated!!

 I just can't explain what appeals to me about humans wiping out the population of the planet through viruses. Somehow it makes for entertaining movies though!! Resident Evil may have been savaged by the critics but it is still a visually entertaining movie. I must admit to really liking the franchise even though I think 28 Days/28 Weeks Later are its superior in premise, and delivery. Critics have lamented the characters lack of real dialogue. Much of it is delivered in commands, explanations, and exclamations. Maybe so, but it isn't pretending to be Oscar material. Like many movies of its type it relies on visual delivey for its impact, dialogue be damned. Fair enough, it's an actioner not a bloody drama!!

 The movie may be only nine years old but it is already showing its age. It still looks good but CGI has improved even more since 2002 so Resident Evil is visually creaking a bit . Take a look at the dobermans as an example because they do look slightly dated now. But overall I think this is still a fine looking movie. It has its short comings but it still provides enough for two hours of good genre driven entertainment. Compared against many of its competitors it still stands up well. I like how it has a anti-corporate message, and updates the zombie genre in the process. The action, once it begins, is relentless, and all an action fan can ask for. Surprisingly though for a zombie/infected movie it is relatively gore free. I actually liked this as over the top gore is unneccessary, and is often used to disguise other short comings.  I suppose with it being video game based this was done to avoid an R-rating, and to get more bums on seats.

 Milla Jovovich was a good choice as the heorine. Eye candy pulls in the boys!! She has definitely made the role her own and I think she has better in each succeeding movie. I particularly like her in Afterlife. She appears more developed as a character, and also somewhat world weary of the zombie/infected apocalypse. Michael Rodriquez is herself as usual as a chick soldier with balls. James Purefoy gives a Mark Anthony performance before he became Mark Anthony in Rome!! I was interested to read he was screen tested as James Bond before the role was given to Pierce Brosnan. His name was then bandied about as Brosnan's replacement but lost out again!! Bugger for him!

 As a multi faceted genre movie you can do far worse than the Resident Evil franchise. I really like them. They have all the ingredients to make them work, and cover all the bases well. If you want some mindless fun that is also well above the average quality wise, and visually impressive in the process, then Resident Evil is for you. If you really want the real deal post infection wise then you can't go past 28 Days. Either way, they are both worthy watches, and provide their own takes on a post viral-apocalyptic world.

 Have fun!!!....and remember...don't get bitten or scratched because you know what that means. That T-virus is a real bitch, and don't get me stated on the Rage virus, man, I don't want that again!!!!

 Click here for a synopsis and more:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120804/

 And click here more:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/resident_evil/