Prime Time: Needful Things (1993)

I went for my first proper holiday overseas when I was about 16-17, finally experiencing proper sunshine in the glorious land of Los Christianos in Tenerife. And that first proper holiday overseas meant that I picked my first chunky book that I decided would be perfect to read by the swimming pool. And that book was Needful Things, another Stephen King tale set in Castle Rock, Maine. It was a very enjoyable read.

Then the book was made into a movie, which I always thought for many years was a TV movie (but it did have a theatrical release in the USA), and I was young and naive enough to be optimistic about it.

Watching it now . . . my goodwill towards the story, and goodwill towards many of the cast members, means I still like it more than some other King-based tales (I will never understand all of the love that gets heaped on Storm Of The Century), but I know it’s not actually a good film.

Max von Sydow plays Leland Gaunt, a newcomer to the town of Castle Rock, and the owner of a new store named “Needful Things”. The store seems to have just what people what most, and the prices are affordable. A specific cash amount . . . and a small prank. But Gaunt knows how to make things snowball, with pranks being used to turn people against one another, leading to bickering, fighting, and potentially deadly consequences. Sheriff Alan Pangborn (Ed Harris) is initially confused by the way his friends and neighbours so quickly turn into bloodthirsty maniacs, but he soon starts to realise who is at the heart of a dark and wide-reaching web. He wants to save the town, but he also wants to save the woman he loves (Bonnie Bedelia).

Adapted into screenplay form by W. D. Richter (who has a filmography with titles ranging from the likes of 1978’s classic The Invasion Of The Body Snatchers to the not-so-modern-classic Stealth), Needful Things doesn’t have a premise that works half as well when moved from page to screen. Not that anyone wanting to make money from Stephen King tales has ever been put off by that idea. It’s a hurdle that Richter cannot overcome though, sadly, and nothing is helped by Fraser C. Heston’s pedestrian direction, which makes my memory of this as a TV movie all the more understandable. Nothing here feels particularly cinematic or exciting, despite the best efforts of the cast, and it all just fizzles along to a climax that presents a damp squib when it should be a full firework display.

Von Sydow is a great fit for the role of Leland Gaunt, an elderly man who can deliver a physical shake-up of someone as easily as he can deliver a charm offensive. Gaunt has more fun as those around him become more miserable, and Von Sydow almost always pitches his performance perfectly, despite an odd moment that has him a bit too close and personal with Bedelia’s character. Harris is an excellent Pangborn, a very reliable and stoic figure who fortunately avoids being seduced by the allure of anything that Gaunt has for sale. Bedelia is a bit wasted in her role, sadly, although her character plays a vital part in the unfolding chain of events, and Amanda Plummer is fun to watch, delivering another prime mid-90s bit of Plummer madness. J. T. Walsh is the standout though, playing the kind of shady and sweaty businessman that appears in so many Stephen King stories, a role elevated here by the kind of performance you can rely on from J. T. Walsh. And it’s also worth mentioning Shane Meier, who plays young Brian Rusk, the first customer in Needful Things, and the first person asked to play a little prank in service of Gaunt’s grand plan.

I still like Needful Things. I have that strong attachment to the source material, the premise is a great one, and many of the supporting cast members have one or two moments to shine. I doubt many others will view it as I do though. Part of me knows that it’s not good, a bigger part of me knows that I will never actively dislike it. It feels like a story that has joined me on a journey, as I moved from a voracious reader to more of a cinephile, and that attachment certainly skews my rating slightly.

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Robin Hood (2010)

So I thought I knew what I was getting into when I went to see Ridley Scott's take on Robin Hood at the cinema. I was in safe hands, surely. Russell Crowe in the central role (who does well but provides a strange Geordie/Glaswegian accent for the part), Cate Blanchett as "Maid Marion" (excellent), the fantastic Mark Strong as the baddie, other roles given to the likes of Max Von Sydow, Oscar Isaac, Eileen Atkins, Léa Seydoux, William Hurt, Matthew Macfadyen, Danny Huston, Kevin Durand, Scott Grimes and Mark Addy amongst others. All of them are at least very good, most of them are excellent. A screenplay by Brian Helgeland. It all seemed so good. I mean, good grief, there isn't one Ridley Scott movie I can think of from the past 30-40 years that I've actually disliked.

Which makes it all the more disappointing that this movie was a bit of a misfire. Its greatest strength (the talent behind and in front of the camera) proves to be its biggest drawback. This movie coming from anyone else would have been alright. But coming from people I expected so much from means that, despite one or two great moments here and there, it just doesn't cut it. No sir.

The story, for those unaware, is all about how the man we came to know as Robin Hood actually became the famed outlaw we all love to this day. This is not a tale of daring archery contests, no cocking a snoot at some panto baddie here, this is an origins tale.

Which is a great shame because when the movie gets close to some swashbuckling fun it then pulls back just when things are about to get entertaining. Does this make me a shallow audience member or am I simply suffering because Ridley Scott wants to have his cake and eat it in so many ways? He wants the "reality" of the story yet laces it with wonderful, cinematic moments. He wants actual characters instead of caricatures and then makes the decision to portray Marion (after such a good number of scenes pitching things perfectly) as a much-too-progressive spirited fighter. Not to mention the bizarre inclusion of "the lost boys" for reasons best known to himself.

As good as it gets in places, and it does get very good, it all feels like a movie that had to be made just to get a greenlight for the sequel, a film featuring all of the antics and swashbuckling fun we love about Robin and his men in tights (surely).

It's definitely not the Gladiator 2 that many lazy critics tagged it, neither is it an actual, fully fledged, Robin Hood movie. Ironically, this feels very much like Robin Begins.

NB. The Bluray, as expected, is a nice package. While there's not enough in the mix to make it worth a purchase if you hated the movie, there's plenty to enjoy if, like me, you liked parts of the film, and wanted to like it more.

6/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Robin-Hood-Extended-Directors-Blu-ray/dp/B003DZ1328/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1388850998&sr=8-2&keywords=robin+hood+blu+ray

Judge Dredd (1995)

I think it's pretty widely acknowledged nowadays that Judge Dredd was a bit of a letdown for fans of the character. I still like it more than a lot of people but even I must admit that Dredd spends far too much time not wearing his iconic headwear and there's a bit too much screentime given over to the comic relief AKA Rob Schneider. Anyway, let's start with the good stuff.

Judge Dredd has a great cast, including Sylvester Stallone in the title role. When he first appears onscreen he's fantastic in the title role. Stallone may not be the best actor in the world (though he certainly has his moments) but he's surrounded by a quality cast. There's Diane Lane, Max Von Sydow, Armand Assante, Jurgen Prochnow and the great James Remar (although he's, sadly, not in it for long). There are also small roles for Ian Dury, Ewen Bremner and Scott Wilson. And then there's Rob Schneider.

The plot sees the most infamous peacekeeper in Mega-City One being accused of murder. It's unbelievable but all the evidence clearly points to Dredd as the perpetrator. Dredd is to be sent away for a long time but that doesn't quite go to plan thanks to a big fight on board a vehicle full of prisoners that leads to a crash that leads to Dredd and a hapless criminal named Herman (Rob Schneider) stuck in some waste lands and needing to deal with some bad folks before finding their way back into Mega-City One and clearing Dredd's name. Meanwhile, it turns out that the real villain is someone very close to Dredd with his own warped reason for revenge. Even better, he's played by Armand Assante, in superb eye-rolling form.

Michael De Luca may have managed to come up with the story with William Wisher but it's Wisher and Steven E. de Souza who crafted the final draft of the screenplay and due credit must also, of course, go to the many fine folks who have written stories for Judge Dredd during his long-running stint in the mighty 2000 AD. The story, and the backstory (both that which is revealed and that which is just known to fans of the comic), is solid and the direction from Danny Cannon isn't that bad at all. The film simply starts to fall apart when Judge Dredd stops seeming like Judge Dredd and that happens, as silly as it may sound, when the helmet comes off. And when it stays off for most of the movie. It's not true to the character and it just leaves viewers with a half-decent Sylvester Stallone action movie. There are already plenty of those, thank you very much.

Judge Dredd is fun. It has one or two enjoyable set-pieces (one that involves James Remar, one involving the delightfully demented Angel Family and almost any moments that involve Assante), I don't hate Schneider as much as some people and it's good to see so many big names involved with what is, essectially, pulp fare. It's just not a great JUDGE DREDD movie and that is, ultimately, a big black mark against it.

6/10

This Bluray plays  in the USA AND the UK - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Judge-Dredd-Blu-ray-US-Import/dp/B008C0C1Y8/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1348590005&sr=8-8