When Harry Met Sally... (1989)

As much as I have always enjoyed When Harry Met Sally..., I would also slightly dismiss it as a film very much in the shadow of Annie Hall. I'm not wrong to mention that touchstone, I don't think so anyway, but revisiting this has reminded me of how wrong it is to dismiss it. This is a rom-com that easily delivers on both the rom and the com fronts, as well as providing some great autumn/winter atmosphere in a number of great sequences.

Billy Crystal is Harry Burns and Meg Ryan is Sally Albright. The two first meet as they ride-share to New York. It doesn't exactly seem like the start of any long-term friendship. Harry certainly doesn't help when he, unprompted, discusses his theory that men and women can never really be friends because of sex getting in the way. Anyway, time passes and Harry and Sally keep crossing paths, ultimately becoming friends, despite what Harry said during their first encounter. Or is there still a chance of sex mucking everything up for them?

Writer Nora Ephron may not have a filmography full of all-time greats, but she certainly managed an excellent hat-trick of star vehicles for Ryan between 1989 and 1998 (no, I'm not including Hanging Up from 2000 because, well, it's not in the same league). Director Rob Reiner, on the other hand, didn't really put a foot wrong throughout the 1980s, and he came to this after a quartet of features that could easily be said to include three absolute classics. With Ephron having mined material from Reiner and Crystal, as well as her own life, everything was aligned to create a film that allows everyone involved to have fun without ever losing focus of that vital central relationship.

While Crystal is a lot of fun here, and tends to get more of the witty lines as he provides commentary on human nature, and the important differences between men and women, the film belongs to Ryan. This is the film that firmly placed her, for a few years anyway, as "America's sweetheart", and it's easy to see why. She's cute, she does well with the comedy, she's someone to sympathise with at times, and the film allows everyone to fall completely in love with her in sync with her co-star. Carrie Fisher and Bruno Kirby are also great though, playing friends (Marie and Jess, respectively) who allow our leads to discuss their problems and differing perspectives. There are some other people who pop up here and there, particularly in a number of interludes that have people relating stories of how they fell in love, but most of them are surplus to requirements. We only really want to spend time with four people. In fact, we only really want to spend time with two people, but the two others orbiting their lives are funny and interesting enough to help avoid the leads being stuck in any kind of vacuum.

What else do you need to know? There's lovely cinematography from Barry Sonnenfeld, great work from Harry Connick Jr. throughout the soundtrack, and you get a handful of genuinely wonderful quotes to carry in your heart as you go through your own ups and downs in life (and that's not including THAT line, which caps the most memorable scene in the film). The only real criticism I have is the fact that Crystal gets carried away with his schtick a few too many times, which may be more of a problem for anyone who doesn't like him as much as I do, but there's very little else to pick at. It's a comforting, cosy, lovely, funny, rom-com that still sits within nudging distance of the very best.

8/10

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, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Innerspace (1987)

An updated version of Fantastic Voyage, but with some better special effects and a fair amount of comedy added, Innerspace is another film from director Joe Dante made in the middle of a period where he could do no wrong (from the late '70s all the way through to the early '90s) . . . unless you were someone always wanting to see a decent, or indeed any, financial return from his films. Because as beloved as many of them are today, many Joe Dante movies only found a fanbase when they were discovered on VHS. The director himself perhaps views the underwhelming box office performance of this one with particular disappointment, having said that positive test screenings were followed up with a poor marketing campaign that didn't clarify exactly what kind of movie it was. An image of a tiny vehicle, and tiny pilot alongside it, being held between someone's finger and thumb may show the miniaturisation at the heart of the plot, but it doesn't reassure people that they will get a lot of laughs and entertainment.

Dennis Quaid plays Tuck Pendleton, a pilot who has volunteered to take part in a groundbreaking experiment. He will be placed in a small vehicle, miniaturised, and then injected into a bunny rabbit. But there are some villains who want the technology, which leads to some chaos, leading to Tuck actually being injected into the butt of hypochondriac Jack Putter (Martin Short). So now everyone wants the tech that is in Jack, and they’re not too bothered if Jack and Tuck survive the process. Once Tuck figures out where he is, he communicates with Jack and helps him avoid danger, also enlisting the help of Tuck’s on-off girlfriend, Lydia Maxwell (Meg Ryan).

Written by Chip Proser and Jeffrey Boam, Innerspace is a wonderful adventure that makes inventive use of the premise to blend a lot of comedy with many family-friendly thrills. Simply focusing on the voyager inside the human body could have been a showcase for special effects, but may have also become quite dull after the initial excitement died down, so having Tuck able to communicate and help Jack is the masterstroke that elevates this above the film it most closely resembles.

Whether you tend to love or hate the films of Dante, and I fall firmly into the former camp, there’s no denying that he excels at creating films that satisfy a wide audience demographic, with younger viewers impressed by FX work, laughs, and thrills, and older viewers also able to appreciate the many references to the history of cinema, and Loony Tunes cartoons.

The other thing that Dante so often does is cast well, and Innerspace certain benefits from superb casting. Quaid is at his cocky, charming, best as Tuck, and this is one of many fine comedic performances from Martin Short that serve to highlight what a superb actor he is. Ryan is at the start of a run of performances that would mark her out as a female lead that everyone fell in love with for a number of years. Robert Picardo, Kevin McCarthy, and Dick Miller all appear, of course, playing The Cowboy, a main villain, and a taxi driver seen in one scene, respectively, and all are as great as ever, with Picardo having the most fun of the three. Fiona Lewis is also a villain, working in tandem with McCarthy, and Vernon Wells is a menacing “henchman” who could easily be part of any James Bond movie (his fake hand providing one of the more amusingly risqué gags in the film). There are also great little turns from Henry Gibson, Wendy Schaal, and a number of other familiar faces.

Arguably the most straightforward family film from Dante during this period of his career, Innerspace is everything you could want from a polished blockbuster. Lots of fun ideas, a cast of memorable characters, great set-pieces, and an ending that is so enjoyable I end up watching the footage that plays out over the credits every single time. There’s also another great Jerry Goldsmith score, and great use of the song “Twistin’ The Night Away”. The only main issue is the pacing of the first half, which could have been tweaked to get to all the fun stuff a bit quicker. 

Sometimes the best things do come in the smallest packages.

8/10

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

Mubi Monday: In The Cut (2003)

I remember being hugely disappointed when I first saw In The Cut, a film which was the first (and, sadly, still the only) I saw from Jane Campion. It was promoted as an adult erotic thriller. It was Meg Ryan moving away from her lovely, cute, roles. It seemed to be something that I would enjoy. The end result left me resenting a number of the people involved.

Here we are, almost two decades later, and this is the first time I have rewatched the movie since that initial disappointment. I don't know why I hoped that my response to it nowadays might be very different, all of the problems that I saw in it back in 2003/2004 (whenever it hit the home rental market) are still very much there).

Ryan is Frannie Avery, a woman who teaches writing. She is also working on her own project, which is why she meets up with student Cornelius Webb (Sharrieff Pugh) at a bar called The Red Turtle. And in that bar she ends up in a back room where she sees someone receiving oral sex. Although not seeing the face of the man, she spies a tattoo, which may be of some importance when the woman involved in the sex act turns up dead. Detective Giovanni A. Malloy (Mark Ruffalo) is investigating the murder, which brings him into contact with Frannie. The two have some chemistry together, and start having sex. But Detective Malloy also has a tattoo that looks identical to that which may belong to a killer.

Adapted by Susanna Moore and Campion, from the novel by Moore, In The Cut is a trashy erotic thriller that can't ever be comfortable as nothing more than a trashy erotic thriller. The sexual politics are interesting, to say the least, and a woman being in the director's chair doesn't make it any less strangely old-fashioned when it comes to dealing with what could have been an interesting look at what women can enjoy in their sex life while rejecting a number of those elements in any other context (the power shift, something dangerous, an abandonment of intelligence). Campion, and Moore, don't give more than a cursory nod to this complex subject, although there's a recurring narrative strand that shows Ryan's character exploring some of her thoughts with all the sense of a fumbling adolescent.

The weak screenplay and disappointing direction (meandering, unfocused, camerawork that is also trying to distract viewers from the kind of film Campion and Moore seem to want to deny making) would be less obvious is covered up by a decent cast, but In The Cut has a number of people giving far from their best performances. The worst of these, arguably, is Ryan, who just cannot convince in a role that sets her up as someone trying far too hard to shake off an image she crafted through years of successful rom-com work. Ruffalo may not be AS bad, but he seems to be bored throughout, perhaps knowing that the technical aspects won't mask the deficiencies in the material. Nick Damici is Ruffalo's partner, and he seems equally bored. Jennifer Jason Leigh is as good as ever, playing Pauline, a much more interesting character, Frannie's half-sister who seems less repressed, but also more troubled. Pugh is very good, and sorely underused, and Kevin Bacon appears just long enough to, well, I'm still not sure of the reason for his character being added to the plot (apart from, I guess, he was in the novel).

In The Cut is, essentially, an erotic thriller for people who just cannot sit comfortably with the idea of watching an erotic thriller. And it's made by people, both behind and in front of the camera, who all feel the same way. You may watch it and somehow appreciate it as a work of art. If so, feel free to call me an ignorant heathen. It wouldn't be the first time. Others should just go and watch Basic Instinct or  Poison Ivy again instead.

3/10

https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Amityville 3D AKA Amityville III: The Demon (1983)

In this third, and disappointing, entry in the Amityville Horror franchise (and, let's face it, did the thing NEED to become a franchise anyway?) the plot revolves around a cynical reporter (Tony Roberts) who spends his time debunking supernatural phenomena and uncovering fraudsters. He thinks that living in the infamous Amityville house makes for a delicious irony but there is, of course, one big problem. The horrors of that house are all too real. This may affect his colleagues (mainly Candy Clark and Robert Joy), his ex-wife (Tess Harper) and even his daughter (Lori Loughlin).

Directed by Richard Fleischer and written by William Wales, saying that this isn't the worst of the many Amityville sequels is like saying a bout of chronic flatulence isn't the worst thing that could happen to you on a first date. It's still bad, it still stinks and at the time, not knowing what lies ahead, it doesn't seem as if anything will ever make up for it. In this case, however, there were more sequels to come.

The script isn't too bad in places, and the first half of the movie certainly has some potential as the lead characters set about explaining supernatural events and taking people to task. The direction is a bit flat and doesn't even use that imposing house to best effect. Then we have the cast, a mixed bunch but generally poor. I have enjoyed Tony Roberts in a number of roles but he doesn't make for a great leading man, in my opinion, and this movie highlights that. Candy Clark is as wonderful as ever while Robert Joy is okay in his role, despite being given some of the more ridiculous dialogue in the third act. Tess Harper and Lori Loughlin are neither great nor terrible and Meg Ryan fans may take some pleasure in seeing her act as a daring young woman before she'd settled into years of being the sweet gal audiences would love before the kooky sweet schtick got tiring.

But before you write it of as nothing more than an average horror movie that fails to live up to any of the previous two films let me remind you about the 3D element. It's shit. Yes, this was yet another movie released in the early 80s that tried to reach out to audiences, literally, with the use of the third dimension but it's probably the very worst of a very bad bunch. There are one or two moments that employ the 3D gimmick and make it fun but the rest just doesn't use the extra depth and leaves you simply wearing uncomfortable glasses and getting a bit of a headache.

Despite my criticism here, the film has grown on me over the years as a bit of a curio that I honestly can't entirely dismiss. The fact that it tries to take such a different path is admirable and the final product is one to class as an interesting failure as opposed to a complete waste of time.

5/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Amityville-3-D-Demon-Collectors-Edition/dp/B0001M1JNY/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1344875496&sr=8-3