Spider-Man

Year: 2002 (Spider-Man), 2004 (Spider-Man 2), 2007 (Spider-Man 3)
Running time: 121 minutes (Spider-Man), 127 minutes (Spider-Man 2), 139 minutes (Spider-Man 3)

Certificate: 12A (Spider-Man, Spider-Man 3), PG (Spider-Man 2)

Language: English

Screenplay: David Koepp (Spider-Man), Alvin Sargent (Spider-Man 2), Sam Raimi, Ivan Raimi, Alvin Sargent (Spider-Man 3)

Director: Sam Raimi

Starring: Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, Willem Dafoe, James Franco, Rosemary Harris, Cliff Robertson, J.K. Simmons, Bruce Campbell, Alfred Molina, Topher Grace, Thomas Haden Church, Bryce Dallas Howard, James Cromwell

An iconic kiss.

Spider-Man could have been a huge failure back in 2002, before comic book superhero movies were everywhere with a guaranteed monster audience, regardless of actual quality. It's quite a difficult superhero concept to pull off successfully – not as dark and brooding as Batman, but not as heroic and colourful as Superman, the web-slinger lies somewhere in between seriousness and pure escapism. In the hands of a less competent director, or simply a director that wasn’t as much of a fan, this would probably have misfired badly. Thanks to Sam Raimi of Evil Dead fame, Spider-Man is on a par with X-Men in terms of quality comic book adaptations.

The secret is not just concentrating on the heroics and over the top action sequences, but under-pinning it with a well of everyday struggles for not only our hero, but for every character – even the bad guys are pretty damn well developed. The original Green Goblin (Willem Dafoe) is an effective villain, even though I'm not the biggest fan of the outfit, because Dafoe has such a gift for playing psychotically insane people.

A run-in with the Goblin.

The story of Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) and his transformation into Spider-Man via a run-in with a bite from a genetically-modified / radioactive spider is so well known that I feel this line is probably enough to cover it. Living with his Aunt May (Rosemary Harris) and Uncle Ben (Cliff Robertson), Peter is a gifted student spending his time being wholesome with his aunt and uncle, geeky at school with rich and not quite as smart best friend Harry Osborn (James Franco) and pining after his crush, girl next door Mary Jane 'MJ' Watson (Kirsten Dunst).

His newly-awakened spider powers give Peter the ability to fight crime, and when, in an act of petty revenge, he neglects to use his ability, tragedy ensues with the death of his uncle Ben. A more on-the-nose example of the oft-repeated phrase 'with great power comes great responsibility' is difficult to imagine. Harry's father Norman loses his mind rather when he loses his company, providing a catalyst to accelerate his transformation into the Green Goblin, and Raimi stages the action and story beats marvellously. Stakes are raised when Harry misunderstands the situation and comes to blame Spider-Man for the death of his father, and Peter comes to understand that to realise his dream of being in a relationship with MJ will potentially endanger her life.

Heroics ensue.

The sequel (still the best of all Spider-Man movies, if you ask me, although I have yet to see No Way Home) ups the ante splendidly and as well as the action being on a larger scale, Peter Parker’s personal problems are getting more troublesome – whereas in the first it was unrequited love for MJ and poor uncle Ben that were the cause of his anguish, this time it’s the weight of responsibility that comes from a position such as his, pulling on the thread exposed at the end of the first film, as well as increasing the weight of that uncle Ben-shaped millstone around his neck.

Properly named comic book villain Dr. Otto Octavius (Afred Molina) fails to perfect the development of a new energy source and the metal arms he was using to try to control it take over him and, in a bravura sequence showing that yes, Raimi is first and foremost a horror maestro, lay waste the surgical team trying to detach them, he is reborn Doc Ock, ready to rob, kill and destroy his way to recreating his failed experiment in an attempt to prove he was right all along.

Doc Ock prepares to do battle.

Despite the rather silly premise (it's a comic book movie, what did you expect?), it's played straight and Raimi's insistence on making Spider-Man's opponents fully fledged characters with sound motivations makes for affecting drama amongst the action shenanigans. There's a really could've been cheesy, but was actually disarmingly-sweet scene where Peter's identity is revealed to the people on a runaway train he's just saved and they all promise to keep his secret.

It all comes together to (almost) perfect the approach to the material that showed so much promise in the first film, although, as happens too often in movies like this, the remarkable Kirsten Dunst is relegated to mere love interest/support/convenient victim that requires saving to motivate the lead male character at the right time.

And then we have part three. Like X-Men: The Last Stand before it, the final part of the trilogy lets the side down. Mainly this is due to Raimi doing what he swore he’d never do – multiple villains – not just two, but three, either one of which would be more than a handful on their own. Raimi should’ve stuck to his guns and left out venom for a further sequel and cut 25 minutes from the running time, as this would’ve improved the film no end. This is not to say it’s a bad film overall – but the second part is definitely the superior film.

Like looking in a mirror, only not.

The villain overload combined with the approach of giving them full character arcs with proper development leaves us overwhelmed. First, we have Peter's best friend Harry going full Defoe and becoming the New Goblin, out for Spider-Man's blood. This has been building since the first film and works really well. Second we have poor Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church), trying to provide for Penny (Perla Haney-Jardine), his sickly daughter's medical bills. In the rule of trilogies, we also have Peter finding out a truth about the very incident that sent him on this path in the first place; Marko is uncle Ben's real killer.

This in itself would have been enough to justify Peter's descent into darkness, but just to use a sledgehammer to make the point, the alien symbiote Venom also drops to earth and takes up residence in Peter's suit.

I mean it all kind of works - Harry has a redemption arc, eventually giving his life to save his old friend, and Peter has his own road to travel to forgiveness, when it becomes clear that his uncle's death was not murder, but an accident. Again, this would've been enough, but we also have Venom, who retreats to Eddie Brock (Topher Grace) once Peter overcomes him. Eddie has no such arc, and decides to embrace the darkness to exact vengeance on Peter, which costs him his life. Eddie is only like this because Peter ensured he was disproportionately punished for some wrong decisions he made while Peter was under the Venom influence, but I don't think Peter feels any remorse for Eddie's death, which can arguably be laid at Peter's feet, at least in part. And he should. It all fits the theme of one's choices and actions defining who you are, but it's a little overwhelming, and I think Venom and Eddie should have been reserved for a future film.

Peter makes some...questionable choices.

Tobey Maguire is perfect for the role in all three films, and he plays a man on the verge of being buried by his responsibilities at just the right pitch. One suspects that he had enormous fun making the third movie when his character finally gives up the good fight and goes to the dark side, which apparently, according to his make-up, means going emo. Darth Vader he is not.

A stonking trilogy, which unfortunately loses a little shine due a bloated third part.

Score:

Spider-Man: 8/10
Spider-Man 2: 9/10
Spider-Man 3: 6/10

My thoughts on this Spider-Trilogy broadly mirror those of Roger Ebert, with the exception of the first movie, which I liked a fair bit more. See his reviews of Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2 and Spider-Man 3.

Hugo

Year: 2011
Running time: 126 minutes

Certificate: U

Language: English

Screenplay: John Logan

Director: Martin Scorsese

Starring: Asa Butterfield, Chloë Grace Moretz, Ben Kingsley, Jude Law, Ray Winstone, Christopher Lee, Sacha Baron Cohen

Hugo and Isabelle visit the movies.

This is a really unusual entry into the Scorsese canon, filled with whimsey and odd shifts in tone, but I found that I loved it nonetheless. Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield) lives alone in a huge Parisian railway station, following the death of his uncle Claude (Ray Winstone), where he scurries through the walls fixing and maintaining the clocks. Before this, Hugo lived with this father (Jude Law), and the only thing he has left to connect to his beloved dead father is a mechanical automaton that he is trying to fix.

Hugo spends his days fixing clocks, trying to find the secret key for his automaton and avoiding the station inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen), who is trying to get Hugo shipped off to an orphanage. He also get involved in the lives of a very cranky shopkeeper Georges Méliès (Ben Kingsley) (yes, as it turns out, that Georges Méliès) and his god-daughter Isabelle (Chloë Grace Moretz).

This is an engaging enough time spent with the film-loving Hugo and his new friend Isabelle as they unlock the mystery of the mechanical man, but at some point the film lurches, for want of a better word, into a celebration of Méliès' work, with scenes and set ups lovingly recreated by Scorsese. It is never clearer than during this extended sequence that Scorsese is a man that utterly adores cinema, and having spent a lifetime honing that craft, puts that love unashamedly onscreen for all to see. And he's so good, that I found myself loving cinema more than I ever did while watching it. It's mesmerising.

Georges sits and thinks about the past.

I think Hugo is meant to be a film for children; the first half seems clearly aimed at a younger audience. I am not sure, to be honest, how it plays with the TikTok generation; my girls liked it well enough when they first saw it, but now they're a little older I don't think it would hold their attention. And when it changes to something else entirely, that homage to the early years of cinema, it seem to give up all pretence of being a film for kids and just becomes a cinephile's dream.

I loved it, because I've loved film for years and years, but I am unconvinced regarding how successfully it can reach its apparent target audience.

Almost two different films, I found myself enjoying the first, loving the second, but slightly surprised at how Scorsese jammed them together.

Score: 8/10

There's a lot of love for Hugo out there; see this review from Kim at Empire. Not everyone enjoyed it, and there are some fair points raised regarding the tonal inconsistencies in this review from Andrea Phillips.

Burn After Reading

Year: 2008
Running time: 96 minutes

Certificate: 15

Language: English

Screenplay: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen

Director: Ethan Coen, Joel Coen

Starring: Brad Pitt, Frances McDormand, George Clooney, Tilda Swinton, John Malcovich, Richard Jenkins

Chad: not the brightest spark.

Written at the same time as, made before and released after No Country for Old Men, this is the other side of the Coen coin, as far from that dark moody piece as it's likely possible for the Coens to get. Burn After Reading is the two directors on zany form; elements in common with Raising Arizona, Intolerable Cruelty, Fargo and a fair few others all showing up in the mix. Somehow for me it doesn't reach the giddy heights of their best work, but I would still say it's worth a watch.

Osborne Cox (John Malcovich) is an analyst for the CIA. Resigning in a fit of pique after being demoted due to alcoholism, he decides to have his revenge by writing a tell-all memoir. Osborne's wife Katie (Tilda Swinton) is using this latest crisis to make her decision to leave him, milking him for every penny he's got in the process. She is already cheating on him with Harry Pfarrer (George Clooney), a man with a past in personal protection who is a serial philanderer.

A CD-ROM of Osborne's manuscript found in the changing room of a gym, where employees Linda Litzke (Frances McDormand) and Chad Feldheimer (Brad Pitt) find it and promptly decide to blackmail Osborne, kicks the plot off. This is primarily Linda's idea as she wants to pay for plastic surgery. This does not go according to plan and the farce proceeds to escalate to ludicrous levels, as it must with the 'screwball' genre, which, amongst other things, this most certainly is.

Linda contemplates, while a lovelorn Ted looks on.

There's a star-studded cast, all of which are playing characters dumber than a bag of hammers, to paraphrase another Coen brothers' film. I think the reason I don't like it as much as other films by them may be the lack of anyone to root for; everyone here is stupid, selfish or otherwise unpleasant, with the possible exception of Ted (Richard Jenkins), nursing an unrequited crush on Linda, but he's too much of a minor character to hang your hopes on, unlike The Dude, Marge Gunderson or Ulysses Everett McGill.

Very much in their wheelhouse, this is decent enough, but not top tier Coens.

Score: 6/10

Two reviews from the same publication take almost opposite viewpoints - see these reviews from Andrew and Peter at the Guardian. I find myself more or less in the middle of their perspectives.

WALL·E

Year: 2008

Running time: 98 minutes

Certificate: U

Language: English

Screenplay: Jim Reardon

Director: Andrew Stanton

Starring (voices): Ben Burtt, Elissa Knight, Jeff Garlin, Fred Willard, John Ratzenberger, Kathy Najimy, Sigourney Weaver, Teddy Newton

Ready to start a new day.

I remember when news started to filter through about WALL·E. There was some doubt as to whether Pixar would be able to pull it off (I was quite confident in them myself). Set in a bleak but increasingly likely future (increasingly likely that is, except for the positive aspects), on an Earth long abandoned by humans, covered in garbage. Almost dialogue free for the first 40 minutes. It sounded less like a kids movie, and more like some sci-fi arthouse film.

As it turns out, the studio delivered their finest work to date (back then, since topped by, maybe, Inside Out), trumping even the bar-setting Toy Story. The title character is a little robot, seemingly the only one still functioning, spending his days compacting rubbish and stacking it in skyscraper-high piles. During his time spent doing this, WALL·E collects little trinkets and objects that he finds interesting. The little robot is imbued with such a remarkable sense of personality and childlike innocence that to see him is to love him utterly. Johnny 5, eat your metal heart out.

WALL·E's routine is broken by the arrival of a huge rocket from the heavens, out of which comes EVE (Elissa Knight). WALL·E is more than a little intrigued and follows EVE as she goes about her incomprehensible mission. This initial courtship proves almost fatal for WALL·E, as EVE turns out to be formidably weaponised. Undeterred, WALL·E continues to pursue EVE and eventually he makes her acquaintance without being blasted to pieces.

Desperate to impress his new friend, WALL·E shows off his collection to EVE, and when he shows her a plant growing in a boot he recently found, her programming kicks in and she takes it from him and shuts down, awaiting pick up. Pick up arrives in the shape of the aforementioned rocket and in an attempt to not be separated from his new companion, WALL·E hitches a ride into space, where he and we catch up with what became of humanity. In what must be a wet dream for Elon Musk, we managed to abandon our dying planet and retreat to the stars in a fully-functional miracle space ship (this is the positive aspect that is the unlikely part of this depiction of the future). The arrival of the plant kicks off a struggle of wills between the captain (Jeff Garlin) ('captain' in name only; in reality he's a figurehead and the ship is entirely run by the AI autopilot (Sigourney Weaver)) and the computer controlling the ship.

The wonder of space.

The state of humanity is played for tragi-comic effect - people live in floating chairs and don't walk, while generations in space has left everyone with no bone density and an inability to walk. It's funny to watch, but it's desperately sad because if you squint you can see it; what too many of us are, what we'll most likely become. Slaves to chairs, screens and advertising. Reminds me of Idiocracy a little. But Pixar is not Mike Judge and even though it can be depressing, it is clear that these humans have retained that sense of goodness at heart and they are inspired to help do the right thing when it matters. This in itself gives me hope, and if that hope is false I care not a jot.

This might all sound a little weird (but try to explain the plot of any Pixar movie and sound normal - you can't), but make no mistake; the sci-fi setting and artificial nature of the characters are mere set dressing. This is a romance at heart, and if you let it, it will bring you joy and wonder to make your heart sing.

The film is full of little moments of perfection, such as WALL·E’s courtship of Eve on Earth mentioned earlier, the mesmerising flight through space and the two robots dancing through the airless vacuum together. It's impeccable, it really is.

As you might imagine, the whole thing looks wondrous, but Pixar’s strength has always been to put the story first and the looks second, and WALL·E is no exception. The separate strands of comedy, romance, action and wonderful sense of adventure and discovery tie together beautifully with each other to create a truly complete and emotionally satisfying story.

Despite the rather bleak beginning, it ends on a positive note that will uplift you and make you feel good to be alive. Cinema's emotional effect is rarely this powerful, and this proves completely that those who still don’t take computer animation seriously as an art form are simply wrong.

WALL·E helps you rediscover your sense of wonder in a way that only the very best stories can.

Score: 9/10

It doesn't come as a surprise to me that everyone out there seems to love WALL·E; described as 'flawless' in this review from Larae at the Critical Movie Critics and brilliantly as 'Koyaanisqatsi directed by Chuck Jones' in this one from Seb at Den of Geek, who definitely preferred the first half.

A History of Violence

Year: 2005
Running time: 96 minutes

Certificate: 18

Language: English

Screenplay: Josh Olson

Director: David Cronenberg

Starring: Viggo Mortensen, Ed Harris, Maria Bello, William Hurt, Ashton Holmes, Heidi Hayes

Local hero being locally heroic? Or something more?

A History of Violence is one of David Cronenberg's more 'normal' films (although this is only at first glance; a more considered look shows multiple layers on identity and transformation, both of which are well-trod ground for the director). I wondered if 'commercial' would be a better word there, but actually I think despite being generally a lot more 'out there', Cronenberg has been a pretty successful director. It seems he had a pretty good time making this gangster-like thriller, because he and his star Viggo Mortensen followed it up in 2007 with Eastern Promises, which isn't the same, but I think does share some similarities.

Tom Stall (Mortensen) owns a modest diner in small town America. Happily married to Edie (Maria Bello) with two kids Jack (Ashton Holmes) and Sarah (Heidi Hayes), he is quiet, peaceful and well-liked. Until one night he foils an attempted robbery on his diner, despatching the two would-be robbers with quick, brutal efficiency. The scene is sudden, shocking, and over before you know it. Hailed as a hero, Tom becomes an unwilling local celebrity, face plastered all over the news, which is how he gets the attention of Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris).

Carl has been looking for a gangster by the name of Joey Cusack for years, and shortly after the incident, arrives at Tom's diner to tell him he is convinced that Tom is actually the Joey Cusack he's been looking for. From this point on the film dives deep into themes of uncertainty, trust and deception. At first, it seems ludicrous that Tom is Joey, but the crux of the film is how this certainty begins to unravel throughout the running time as in light of the shocking efficiency with which Tom kills the two robbers, Edie begins to doubt her husband is who she has always assumed him to be.

Mistaken identity or exactly who he's looking for?

There is no point spoiling the rest of it for you, but the story does a decent job of leading you through a twisted narrative to get to the truth. As a whole, it's pretty good. The themes are interesting and the story is well told. Admittedly, I wasn't blown away, but I think that's more to do with me than the film itself. Suffice to say it's competent and worth a watch, but won't be sitting on my favourites list, nor am I desperate for a rewatch any time soon.

Score: 7/10

James at Reelviews thought it was good but undermined by a formulaic third act and Peter at Rolling Stone absolutely loved it.

Bill & Ted

Year: 1989 (Excellent Adventure), 1991 (Bogus Journey), 2020 (Face the Music)
Running time: 90 minutes (Excellent Adventure), 93 minutes (Bogus Journey), 91 minutes (Face the Music)

Certificate: PG

Language: English

Screenplay: Chris Matheson, Ed Solomon

Director: Stephen Herek (Excellent Adventure), Peter Hewitt (Bogus Journey), Dean Parisot (Face the Music)

Starring: Keanu Reeves, Alex Winter, George Carlin, Terry Camilleri, Dan Shor, Tony Steedman, Rod Loomis, Al Leong, Jane Wiedlin, Robert V. Barron, Clifford David, Hal Landon Jr., Bernie Casey, Amy Stoch, J. Patrick McNamara, Diane Franklin, Kimberley Kates, Frazier Bain, William Sadler, Joss Ackland, Pam Grier, Annette Azcuy, Sarah Trigger, Chelcie Ross, Kristen Schaal, Samara Weaving, Brigette Lundy-Paine, Anthony Carrigan, Erinn Hayes, Jayma Mays, Beck Bennett

Strange things are afoot at the Circle K.

Pulling off comedy that is quite smart while appearing to be very dumb is a difficult thing indeed. It is their success in this most difficult of areas that makes the Bill & Ted movies so much fun even decades after they were first released. Bill S. Preston Esquire (Alex Winter) and Ted Theodore Logan (Keanu Reeves) are stupid. There are no two ways about it; these guys lack intelligence. Together, they are Wyld Stallions, a rock band who cannot play the guitar at all. And yet, it turns out that this pair of fools are supposed to end up ushering in a new age of peace, rock and water slides.

Despite not being the brightest (example: Teacher: "Who was Joan of Arc?" Ted: "Noah's wife?"), Bill and Ted are winning characters because they are eternally optimistic. You can't help but like them. As first movie Excellent Adventure gets underway, we soon find out that our intrepid pair are at risk of failing history class, the consequences of which will be Ted is moved away to attend military school, marking the end of Wyld Stallions. Enter: Rufus (George Carlin). Rufus is from the future, and he is here to offer Bill and Ted help with their history assignment. Help that comes in the shape of a telephone box time machine, allowing Bill and Ted to visit the past collecting famous historical figures from history to help with their report.

A fairly simple concept that allows for some out there comedic moments, from Napoleon discovering water parks, bowling and ice-cream, to Genghis Kahn discovering baseball bats and Joan of Arc discovering exercise classes. Jokes poking gentle fun at Bill and Ted's limited intellect when they meet Socrates frequently raise a chuckle; looking for him in the phone book under 'So-Crates' and connecting with his philosophical statements: "The only true wisdom consists in knowing that you know nothing." "That's us, dude!"

They even manage to find love, taking a couple of princesses out of medieval England back to San Dimas (no worrying about timelines here; Back to the Future this ain't). It all amounts to a fun time, with some great comedic moments, memorable characters and a large helping of positive vibes (sorry for using modern vernacular for which I am far too old).

Most non-triumphant.

The sequel is more of the same but also different. This time, in a bit of a Terminator nod, two evil lookalike robots are sent back in time to kill Bill and Ted and take their place, thereby ruining the utopian future. De Nomolos (Joss Ackland) can't stand this future (his present) you see. He is, frankly, a miserable old man, determined to make everything as miserable as he is. To begin with, his plan succeeds, and Bill and Ted are promptly dispatched. But this is just where we get started.

This time round, instead of a trip through history, we explore the afterlife, covering possession ("I totally possessed my dad!"), hell, heaven (where apparently the entertainment of choice is Charades) and the classic trope of playing death to win a second chance. Hearing a frustrated Death (William Sadler) growl "You sunk my battleship" is one of the movie's great joys.

It gets really trippy in the final third, where given help by the almighty himself (in spite of mugging three people to sneak into heaven), they head back to the land of the living and with the help of a weird alien named Station build good robots to take on the evil robots. Eventually, De Nomolos is defeated and the guys use the time machine to take an intensive guitar course and come back and actually play well to an international audience. And so the future is assured...or so we think.

29 years later, we arrive at Bill and Ted Face the Music. The intervening decades have not been kind to Bill and Ted. From that peak at the end of Bogus Journey, their musical career has declined steadily as they try to write the song that ushers in the future paradise they were told they would write, with increasing desperation. When we catch up with them, they are performing weird Theremin-based abstract musical pieces at Missy's (Amy Stoch) wedding to Ted's little brother Deacon (Beck Bennett) (which is a cracking end to a running joke).

It seems after all this time, the endless positivity is beginning to fade, especially with Ted, who is positively brimming with unhappiness and anger. It's a good decision to go this way - I think trying to recreate that dumb good humour that was such a strength in the first two films would have been a mistake. Instead, it is their kids Billie (Brigette Lundy-Paine) and Thea (Samara Weaving) that bring the positivity, albeit with smarts rather than idiocy, as well as an encyclopaedic knowledge and boundless enthusiasm for every type of music there is.

Chips off the old block.

The future is tired of waiting for Bill and Ted to bring it about, and faced with the fabric of reality falling apart, instead put in to action a plan based on a different theory; that Bill and Ted must die to bring about the future. And so, robot assassin Dennis Caleb McCoy (Anthony Carrigan) is despatched to destroy them. Dennis Caleb McCoy and his journey from killing machine to self aware repentant machine as he kills and sends to hell the wrong people by mistake is I think the flat out funniest part of Face the Music, and Bill and Ted travelling to the future to try to steal the elusive world-saving song from their future selves gives it some stiff competition. I think it's the bittersweet thing of Bill and Ted striving their whole lives for something that seems forever out of reach that makes their scenes a little tragi-comic rather than flat out funny.

In the more traditional Bill and Ted roles are Billie and Thea, as they try their best to help by recruiting some of the best musicians throughout history to help bring about the future utopia. The solution is quite sweet; it's actually Billie and Thea that create the song itself, but Bill and Ted still get their moment and the closure they'd been working for all those years. It's pretty joyous and a bit of a tonic for recent times. Watching the three together you can see how things are a little different nowadays; the brief moments of casual homophobia in the first two films are quite jarring, and it's pleasing (though not unexpected) to note it has not been continued for Face the Music. The same thing happens in the Lethal Weapon series; as that series progresses, you see Riggs's casual homophobia and racism fade as it becomes obvious how unpalatable it is. It's the kind of progress I'm here for.

It might not be everybody's cup of tea, but for me this trilogy is a sure fire mood lifter and I'm delighted that after years of trying, they managed to see the two lovable dudes off in style; the post credits old Bill and Ted jam session is exactly the ending I didn't know I needed.

Score:

Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure: 8/10

Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey: 8/10

Bill and Ted Face the Music: 8/10

All three films have some pretty mixed reviews, but there are some out there that align quite closely to my thoughts; this review of Excellent Adventure from Jim at ZekeFilm, this one of Bogus Journey from Roger Ebert and this one of Face the Music from Chris at GameSpot.

Touch of Evil

Year: 1958
Running time: 95 minutes

Certificate: 12

Language: English

Screenplay: Orson Welles

Director: Orson Welles

Starring: Charlton Heston, Janet Leigh, Orson Welles, Joseph Calleia, Akim Tamiroff, Ray Collins, Dennis Weaver

Setting the scene in that masterful opening sequence.

A tale of corruption, murder and intimidation told in a queasy and disturbing, especially for 1958, way, Touch of Evil is unpleasant yet mesmerising. Opening with an infamous three-minute tracking shot, we're served, right from the start, with further proof, as if any were needed, of the astonishing filmmaking chops of Orson Welles. Re-writing the script after being given the directing job at the insistence of lead actor Charlton Heston, Welles turns a standard piece of pulp fiction into what is frequently regarded as the last great film noir.

It's worth noting that the version I watched was the re-edited version based on notes made by Welles after the film was cut by the studio on its initial release.

The said opening is set on the border of the USA and Mexico. On the Mexican side of the border a bomb is planted in the boot of a car, and we follow the car on its way through the border town, where people drop in and out of shot, and the car passes over to the US side. After a short time the car explodes, killing the occupants. You can already see the rather messy tangle that creates, jurisdiction-wise.

One of the people seen in this opening is Mike Vargas (Heston), a Mexican narcotics officer trying to enjoy his honeymoon with his American wife Susie (Janet Leigh). Hank Quinlan (Welles) is the police captain tasked with investigating the murder. I think having a heroic protagonist be a Mexican was probably 1958's version of being progressive (and based on the regressive trajectory the US has been on these past 4 years of madness, is probably 2021's version as well), but it would quite rightly be controversial to cast someone like Heston as a Mexican these days. I don't think it is worth taking issue with though, with it being 1958, and in spite of this Heston is effective enough in the role. It is Hank Quinlan that really steals the show here though; bloated, unpleasant, and corrupt so long he no longer seems to even know the difference between right and wrong, only that he judges his actions to be the means that justify the end in accordance with his own badly skewed sense of morality. Welles is equal parts magnetic and repugnant.

The plot; she thickens.

Vargas notices Quinlan planting evidence regarding the investigation in order to frame his Mexican suspect, so starts to investigate the corrupt captain. Also causing trouble for Vargas is the Grandi family, a crime syndicate in Mexico City he has been building a case against. That trouble involves harassing and menacing Susie. In the battle of wills between Vargas and Quinlan, the corrupt captain accuses Vargas of covering for the suspect, and in an attempt to direct attention away from his corruption, arranges for Susie to be drugged, abducted and terrorised.

Not only does the story go to some pretty dark places, but the mastery of black and white cinematography, using shadows and jarring camera angles, makes the discomfort all the more pervasive than it might have been in lesser hands. Welles has complete command of every facet and he has me hooked from the opening show-stopper to the oppressively-filmed climactic chase.

Score: 9/10

Unsurprisingly, this is pretty much considered top tier filmmaking in most reviews - see these examples from Angie at Empire and The Twizard.