24FPS Top 100: No. 65

65: A FISH CALLED WANDA [1988]
DIR: Charles Crichton


WHY IS IT ON THE LIST?
A Fish Called Wanda is a silly film, and I mean that in the best possible way, it is gloriously silly, and yet it is beautifully constructed, almost musical in the way it conducts it various characters and storylines and peppers the jokes through the roughly 100 minute running time.

But it is perhaps expected that A Fish Called Wanda should be both silly and meticulous, as those are the two qualities for which its writer (and uncredited co-director) John Cleese is famous. He worked on the screenplay for Wanda for six years; honing every joke, working and reworking every storyline, polishing every line, every moment, to a mirror shine (what went wrong with spiritual follow up Fierce Creatures remains something of a mystery). It's not, though, this polish that makes Wanda such fun to watch as much as it is the wonderfully natural and loose way that everything comes together.

Cleese himself takes the lead as an uptight barrister named Archie Leach (a reference to Cary Grant's real name). Leach is defending George Thomason (Tom Georgeson) the leader of a gang of jewel thieves, but the other gang members want the loot and so Wanda (Jamie Lee Curtis) seduces Leach so that she and her lover Otto (Kevin Kline) can learn where the diamonds are without tipping off George. What's really great about this film is that the story just works; the jokes are the spice, but the basic story and characters would be interesting even without them.

That said, this is a comedy, and as well as it functions as a fun caper movie, it's the jokes you'll remember. Reviewing comedy comes down to the simple question; is it funny? Well, A Fish Called Wanda must rank among the funniest films ever made. The choice of then 77 year old Charles Crichton to direct is indicative of how the film plays; Crichton made a lot of the famed Ealing comedies, including The Lavender Hill Mob, which is a clear influence here. While there are some coarse moments in the film and both language and humour are allowed to be more explicit than in the heyday of Ealing the film still feels rather old fashioned, delighting in intricate dialogue and in scenes of high farce for its laughs, rather than the shouting and bodily function based 'comedy' we tend to see now.

Cleese is great, once again playing the role of a stuck up and frequently exasperated authority figure , but also generating enough warmth to make his romantic scenes with Curtis (19 years his junior) if not entirely convincing then at least not creepy. Most of the time though, Cleese plays straight, generously leaving his co-stars to pick up the big laughs. The biggest go to Kevin Kline, whose performance won him an Oscar, incredibly rare for a comic performance. Kline, previously known as a dramatic actor is pitch perfect as the incredibly stupid Otto, a man who despises pomposity in the English, yet is blind to his own and repeatedly admonishes people "Don't call me stupid". Kline's timing is perfect; look at the wonderful scene when, after shopping George to the Police, Otto and Wanda go to retrieve the jewels and discover that George has hidden them, Kline's "Okay... Okay... DISAPPOINTED" is so beautifully timed that it makes the whole scene.

A less surprising, but equally brilliant, comic turn comes from Cleese's old Monty Python cohort Michael Palin, who is priceless as Ken, a stammering animal rights activist tasked with killing the eyewitness who could put George in jail (something he fails to do in sequences of escalating absurdity and hilarity). Palin nails the reality of Ken's stammer, playing it perfectly (it is based on his father's voice) but also plays it to the hilt for laughs with the timing of a masterful musician.

Curtis has less overt comedy to play (though the one scene where she does get to cut loose is one of the film's best) but she makes Wanda interesting and real. She's a good enough actress to make us believe the process as Wanda warms up to Archie and she's certainly beautiful and sexy enough that we believe how hard and fast Archie falls for her. Also worth mentioning is a wonderfully dry performance from Maria Aitken as Archie's wife.

The bottom line is that, perhaps 20 years and probably a similar amount of viewings since I first saw it, A Fish Called Wanda had me roaring with laughter again last week as I watched it to prepare this post. That's a good enough argument for its inclusion here all by itself.

STANDOUT SCENES
Wanda and Archie's date night
A brilliant piece of farce, expertly and economically shot by Crichton and played with pitch perfect timing by the whole cast.

The Kah... The Kah...
Cleese and Palin's first scene together in the whole film, as Ken desperately tries to tell Archie something vital.

MEMORABLE LINES
Wanda: [after Otto breaks in on Wanda and Archie in Archie's flat and hangs him out the window] I was dealing with something delicate, Otto. I'm setting up a guy who's incredibly important to us, who's going to tell me where the loot is and if they're going to come and arrest you. And you come loping in like Rambo without a jockstrap and you dangle him out a fifth-floor window. Now, was that smart? Was it shrewd? Was it good tactics? Or was it stupid?
Otto: Don't call me stupid.
Wanda: Oh, right! To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people! I've known sheep that could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs. But you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it. Now let me correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself." And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up.

Otto: You pompous, stuck-up, snot-nosed, English, giant, twerp, scumbag, fuck-face, dickhead, asshole.
Archie: How very interesting. You're a true vulgarian, aren't you?
Otto: You're the vulgarian, you fuck.

[Otto dangles Archie out a window]
Archie: All right, all right, I apologise.
Otto: You're really sorry.
Archie: I'm really really sorry, I apologise unreservedly.
Otto: You take it back.
Archie: I do, I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you, or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.

If you want to buy this film and help 24FPS out at the same time, please use the links below. Thanks.

The Dilemma [12A]

DIR: Ron Howard
CAST: Vince Vaughn, Kevin James, Winona Ryder,
Jennifer Connelly, Channing Tatum

The problem with The Dilemma isn't so much that it's an awful movie (it's not) as it is a confused one. It's having an identity crisis; is it a knockabout comedy featuring Vince Vaughn getting injured as he tries to decide whether or not to tell his best friend (James) that his wife (Ryder) is having an affair or is it a drama about the manipulative Ryder putting Vaughn in a situation where, if he tells James what he's seen, it could destroy their friendship? Ultimately the film can't decide which of these things to be, and the six of one, half a dozen of the other, approach hobbles what might have been a much more interesting film.

The two halves of the central cast each seem to be acting in separate films. For me it was Ryder and Connelly's part; the dramatic half, that came off better. Connelly, of course, has long been a well rated actress, and here she brings all her talent to bear on a part that, in the hands of a lesser actress, could have been completely two-dimensional. The role of Vaughn's long term girlfriend is seriously underdeveloped, but Connelly commits to it, and has chemistry with Vaughn, there's a straightforward sincerity about both character and performance which is entirely appealing. Winona Ryder is good too, far better here than she is in the staggeringly overrated Black Swan, which contains possibly the worst performance she's ever given. There's a pivotal scene in a diner in which she tells Vaughn that, if he tells his friend about her affair that she'll say that Vaughn made a pass at her, and reveal the one night stand they had 20 years ago, which they have so far kept a secret. Ryder's excellent here, the whole scene turns on her ability to make Vaughn, and us, believe that her husband will buy this story, and she does, effortlessly.

I wish that the film had developed this dramatic side a great deal more, because the subject matter is serious and there are flashes here of a really interesting treatment of these issues.

However, this isn't a review of the film I wish I'd seen, it's a review of the film I actually saw. Unfortunately the other half of The Dilemma, mainly the scenes that revolve around Vaughn and James, is an utterly misconceived knockabout comedy, which ring false and unfunny at every turn. Vaughn, James and director Ron Howard work hard in the pursuit of laughs, squashing the prospect of them in the process. Comedy needs to be breezy and fleet of foot, it needs to feel as if it's only funny by accident. The Dilemma smacks of effort at every comic turn, as if it's trying desperately to shoehorn in the 'zany' bits, the punchlines a hammer being repeatedly brought down on a square peg which it is attempting to pound into a round hole. Watching the 'funny' half of the movie feels not only like you're watching a different film, edited into the drama by mistake, but more damagingly you're not laughing, for all the effort the jokes just feel so out of place that they miss the mark (few more so than Queen Latifah's inexplicable extended cameo).

This isn't to say that the dramatic side of the film entirely works. Like all romantic, or bromantic, comedies, it has to create a conflict in the third act, and like most of them it fails to do so in a remotely convincing way. Vaughn and James seldom convince as best friends of many years, and the plot gives them little help in the forced scenes of the third act, which allow both to come off as petulant overgrown children rather than adults who have dealt for twenty years with the ups and downs of friendship. With a rewrite (and, frankly, some different casting in the male leads) The Dilemma could have been an interesting character drama, as it is it's a confused mess of a movie, albeit one with a couple of good performances and flashes of the better film it might have been.

24FPS Top 100: No. 66

66: DIE HARD
DIR: John McTiernan

WHY IS IT ON THE LIST?
Action movies often get short shrift from critics (and, to be fair, that's largely with good reason), but Die Hard really is a very special film. It's action packed, crowdpleasing fare, but it never talks down to the audience. It's perhaps implausible at times, but it's never stupid, and it is relentlessly entertaining.

Despite the presence of John McTiernan, fresh from Predator, Die Hard was something of a gamble for Fox. They searched for a long time for an actor to play New York cop John McClane, who finds himself having to free a group of business people, including his estranged wife, when a group of presumed terrorists take them hostage during a Christmas party. The film was offered to the top action stars of the day; Arnie, Sly, Mel, Harrison Ford and, erm, Richard Gere before Bruce Willis. Willis, who had never toplined a film of this scale, made an astonishing for the time $5millon for the role. His casting was clearly not fully endorsed by the studio even when the film was finished; the first posters did not feature his face at all.

The casting, ironically, is one of Die Hard's strongest suits. Willis is quite simply perfect as McClane, bringing to the screen a more down to earth action hero than ever before. McClane is an endless improviser. Some of his ideas work well, but others don't, he's shown not as the immovable object that an Arnold Schwarzenneger was but as an ultimately rather fragile. Every exertion seems to hurt him, and he's even allowed to express genuine emotion. It's this that makes Die Hard so much richer than, say, Bad Boys 2.

The other key piece of casting is that of the antagonist; Hans Gruber, which saw British stage actor Alan Rickman make his film début. Rickman is outstanding as the coolly calculating villain Hans Gruber. Rickman is funny and scary, often in the same moment, but his truly outstanding moment - possibly the one that made him the star he is today - comes in the brilliant scene where Hans and McClane finally meet, and Hans pretends to be an escaped hostage, a scene that was written when Rickman was heard demonstrating his American accent on set.

The great thing about Die Hard's vulnerable hero and wily villain is that the combination introduces a greater level of suspense into the film than most action movies are ever able to generate. We love McClane, and we want to see him succeed, but even halfway through the film he's run ragged, bleeding and facing huge odds, it really seems like it's possible that he can lose this battle. He doesn't of course, but just for a moment there's doubt there, and that makes the film incredibly engaging.

The action, under McTiernan's expert direction, is near peerless. No it doesn't have the balletic style of a Hard Boiled, but the film's direct and to the point action scenes are visceral and exciting all the same. In one outstanding set piece Hans and his cronies shoot out the glass in an office, leading McClane to have to injure himself to escape (and, as it happens, to the film's best scene). McTiernan pursued what he called 'exaggerated realism' with the action scenes, and he nails it perfectly; McClane seems lucky and extremely proficient as he fights off Hans and his gang time and again, but he's never superhuman, and again this just helps us both to identify with McClane and to fear for his safety.

There's so much to talk about with Die Hard, be it the exceptional performances (Bonnie Bedelia's steely work as McClane's estranged wife has long gone unappreciated, the sharp witted screenplay, or the surprising emotion of some sequences. It's almost unfair to pigeonhole it as an action movie. It's not just a classic action film, it's a classic film, full stop.

STANDOUT SCENES
Arrival: Hans' group step out of the elevator and immediately take control of the room and the movie, brilliantly led by Alan Rickman.

"Does it sound like I'm ordering a pizza?": McClane tries to communicate the gravity of his situation to a 911 operator, a perfect example of the film's mix of character, drama and humour.

"Schiess dem fenster": Hans' exhortation to "shoot the glass" leads to the film's best action scene and the to its best dramatic scene, as an injured McClane tries to get a message to his wife.


MEMORABLE LINES
John McClane: Nine million terrorists in the world and I gotta kill one with feet smaller than my sister.

Hans Gruber: Mr. Mystery Guest? Are you still there?
John McClane: Yeah, I'm still here. Unless you wanna open the front door for me.
Hans Gruber: Uh, no, I'm afraid not. But, you have me at a loss. You know my name but who are you? Just another American who saw too many movies as a child? Another orphan of a bankrupt culture who thinks he's John Wayne? Rambo? Marshal Dillon?
John McClane: Was always kinda partial to Roy Rogers actually. I really like those sequined shirts.
Hans Gruber: Do you really think you have a chance against us, Mr. Cowboy?
John McClane: Yippee-ki-yay, motherfucker.

Hans Gruber: [addressing the hostages] I wanted this to be professional, efficient, adult, cooperative. Not a lot to ask. Alas, your Mr. Takagi did not see it that way... so he won't be joining us for the rest of his life. We can go any way you want it. You can walk out of here or be carried out. But have no illusions. We are in charge. So, decide now, each of you. And please remember: we have left nothing to chance.

John McClane: [huddled in an air vent, recalls his wife's invitation] "Come out to the coast, we'll get together, have a few laughs..."

Holly Gennero McClane: After all your posturing, all your little speeches, you're nothing but a common thief.
Hans Gruber: I am an exceptional thief, Mrs. McClane. And since I'm moving up to kidnapping, you should be more polite.

If you want to buy Die Hard, and help 24FPS out at the same time, please use the links below. Thanks.

DVD Review: Circle of Pain [15]

DIR: Daniel Zirilli
CAST: Tony Schiena, Heath Herring, Louis Herthum,
Bai Ling, Dean Cain
I love martial arts movies. Sometimes I just want to switch off my brain for 90 minutes and engage with a movie at a visceral level. That's what films like Circle of Pain are designed for. If you're looking for something to pass a friday night with some friends, some beer and some pizza, then this ought to go over perfectly well. That's not, however, to say that it's an especially good movie.

The story couldn't be more formulaic if it tried. It's that tired old tale of the fighter (in this case karate champ Schiena) with a dark past pulled out of retirement for one last bout against a younger up and comer (UFC fighter Herring). Schiena has a roommate (Cain) who has been confined to a wheelchair since they had an accident in the ring, and this haunts him so much he's never fought since, so he trains with the eccentric Willy (Herthum, last seen in The Last Exorcism) to get over this block.

And then, oh then there's Bai Ling. Ling plays the owner of the Multiple Martial Arts franchise putting this bout on and does so in the riotously terrible way we've come to expect from her. She's an appalling actress, never for a second convincing as anything but the utterly insane Bai Ling, but her broken English and apparently equally broken mind are hilariously entertaining.

Next to Ling's lunatic display (watch for the scene where she shouts "shut fuck up" at her own crowd) the rest of the performances come off dull, but the cast aren't bad, considering that they are largely fighters rather than actors. Tony Schiena is flat, but Heath Herring has some charisma. The worst performance comes from Shannon Leppard, making an embarrassing debut as Schiena's ex wife.

But the story and performances aren't really the point. What people really want to know about when it comes to films like this is the fighting. If you're a fan of MMA then you'll likely love this film. The fights are plentiful and the pairings varied. For me, I can't quite get into MMA as a cinematic style. It seems to stake out a no man's land between the brutality of a style like Muay Thai or Hung Gar and the grace of Wushu or Wing Chun. The choreography does a good job of putting across the power of these fighters but personally I missed the lightning speed of a Yuen Biao, the humour of Jackie Chan and the groundbreaking choreography of their best work.

Ultimately Circle of Pain wasn't really for me, but if you like this sort of thing then you'll like this. It's an acceptable way to kill 86 minutes, but personally when I next reach for a martial arts film it will probably have Sammo Hung in it rather than Tony Schiena.


CIRCLE OF PAIN is out on DVD now.

24FPS on VYou

VYou is a video site that allows users to answer questions submitted by readers with short video messages. I've just started an account, and I'd welcome any questions you guys might have. I'm happy to talk about almost any topic (though I'll quite likely draw the line at the most personal questions) so if you've anything you want to ask me be it about movies, about criticism, about blogging, or about something else, drop me a line and I'll do my best to give you an answer. You can see the answers I've given so far and submit questions below, or you can click HERE to visit my VYou page.

24FPS at MultiMediaMouth

Monday means a new Why Haven't You Seen...? article for MULTIMEDIAMOUTH, and this week I've chosen Swedish exploitation classic Thriller: A Cruel Picture. It's a tremendously cool film, and well worth tracking down. You can check out the article HERE, or see a list of all the articles in the Why Haven't You Seen...? series HERE.

In the last week I also posted a review at MultiMediaMouth, so if you want to know how I have suffered, watching Gulliver's Travels [3D] so that you don't have to, click HERE.

There's plenty of exciting film content on the way at MultiMediaMouth including new Disturbingly Cheap Review, a Shortlist on supporting actors who should be getting lead roles and, hopefully very soon, a couple of new contributors.

The King's Speech [12A]

DIR: Tom Hooper
CAST: Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, Helena Bonham Carter, Guy Pearce

This none more British story of our World War II era king George VI (Firth) being given elocution lessons by a maverick Australian speech therapist (Rush) in order to overcome his crippling stammer so that he can make the most important speech of his life, has been a big hit at festivals including Toronto and London and is now being tipped for Oscars (one for Firth is likely assured). I skipped the LFF press show in order to go and see a weird Russian film instead, and I'm glad I did, because while The King's Speech is not a bad film by any means, it is also not a terribly remarkable one.

It's fine. The performances are fine, the screenplay is fine, the direction is fine, but it's never really much more than that, and the overall feeling is of something very safe, very familiar and ultimately more like Sunday evening TV than something that cries out to be in a cinema.

Colin Firth is very good as 'Bertie', more officially known, at least by the end of the film, as King George VI. He's very good at putting across the stammer as something natural; debilitating, but never overplayed, he's clearly done a lot of research and work on the voice, and it pays off. The problem is that this is a performance that works very much on the surface. In both Genova and A Single Man Firth gave performances in which much was apparent but never stated; a whole emotional story bubbling away beneath the surface, creating a full and rounded character. Here we don 't really get that with any of the characters, the script tends to be more about the events and any emotional revelations are spoken rather than suggested. It's not bad, but there's the sense that Firth can deliver a lot more than what is asked of him here.

This is equally true of the rest of the film. The excellent cast is rather under challenged by a script that feels very rote and familiar, and offers most of them little to do. Helena Bonham Carter, for instance, is good as Firth’s wife (who later became the Queen Mother and lived to be 101, which makes it very likely that we’ll see Bonham Carter reprise this role in the future) but she doesn’t have much to do after the first twenty minutes other than be encouraging and give the occasional funny line. Among the rest of the supporting cast there is both good; Michael Gambon as Bertie’s father, Guy Pearce as Edward VII, whose abdication places Bertie on the throne and bad; Timothy Spall’s hamtastic Winston Churchill

Geoffrey Rush, a consummate actor, is as good as ever as Lionel Logue, and his work never feels remotely actorly, he’s probably the most rounded character too, thanks to the fact that we get to see him with his wife (Jennifer Ehle, good in a thankless role) and kids and that we get a glimpse of his failed ambitions as an actor (Rush is especially good playing Lionel as a bad actor).

Tom Hooper’s direction isn’t bad, and the period detail is authentic, but there’s nothing especially cinematic going on here. Visually it’s all, like the writing, just a bit straightforward. On the whole there’s not much worth shouting about in The King’s Speech for me it was neither particularly bad, it’s a solid effort from all concerned, entertaining enough to pass its running time, but unlikely to trouble either my thoughts or my dvd player in the future. It’s a nice film, more for my parents than for me. When Colin Firth wins his Oscar in a few weeks it won’t be a travesty, but it will be a shame, because good as he is this is far from his best work.

24FPS at MultiMediaMouth

This week, with Michel Gondry's THE GREEN HORNET hitting cinemas, fellow MMM contributor Michael Ewins and I have both turned our attention to superhero movies. In this week's Why Haven't You Seen...? I take a look at the criminally underrated 1991 flop ROCKETEER. You can read that article HERE, or you can click HERE to see the WHYS...? archive.

Be sure to check MMM again on Friday for Mike's superhero Shortlist feature.

Silence is Golden? Week 1

I take pride in knowing a lot about movies, and I mean a lot, at this stage I could justifiably say that I've forgotten more about cinema than most people are ever likely to know. I've seen films from more than 30 countries in more than 20 languages, I've seen films made as early as 1895 and as late as 2010. That said, though I've seen a few, I don't know all that much about silent cinema, nor is my experience of it especially wide. So, during 2011 I'm going to try and address that. Each week I'll be watching two silent films, and creating a sort of journal of my impressions. These won't be traditional reviews as much as they will be refelections on the movies. I hope I'll be taking in films from all over the world, from many different genres, acknowledged classics and near forgotten films alike. I may also include things like reviews of books I read about silent cinema, or documentaries I see on the subject. I think it's going to be an exciting journey. I hope you'll enjoy it as much as I suspect I will.

WEEK 1
NANOOK OF THE NORTH (1921) and LE VOYAGE DANS LA LUNE (1902)


I started my trip through silent cinema with films set in unfamilliar locations. NANOOK OF THE NORTH is generally thought to be the first film to be what we would consider a documentary, though it predates John Grierson's coining of that term by a decade or so. Though it is presented as purely factual there are clearly things in the film that are staged by director Robert Flaherty. One early sequence shows the entire eskimo family that the film is about climbing one by one out of a tiny canoe, suggesting that this is some sort of Alaskan TARDIS. It's easy to see that Flaherty staged this scene, using a locked off camera to hide the cuts. Apparently much of the rest of the film is, if not fictional, then certainly heavily staged. It seems that by 1920 the Eskimo technology had moved on from the harpoons we see here to the use of guns for their hunting, but that Flaherty wanted to show 'traditional' hunting methods.

Whatever the reservations about the honesty of the film though, you can't deny that it is engaging, and technically remarkable for its time. Just getting the camera to these inhospitable locations in 1920 must have been a real feat, and through it Flaherty catures some genuinely striking and fascinating images. The hunting may be a recreation of something that happened in the 19th rather than the 20th century, but the footage is still hugely interesting, and it is probably authentic at least in that Nanook is old enough to remember the techniques first hand. The real point of interest though is Nanook and his family. The films does take a patronising view of them, but even though you can't hear them they are engaging characters. The sequence in which Nanook and his family build an igloo is especially enjoyable, not just seeing the technique, but the way the whole family chips in to some degree.

Another thing that is really interesting about NANOOK OF THE NORTH is looking at it through the prism of where documentary is in 2011. For a few years now there have been high profile films whose authenticity as documentaries has been challenged CATFISH and AMERICAN TEEN among them. If this film teaches us anything about documentaries it is that the line between fact and fiction has always been a blurry and easily crossed one. 90 years on, this is still a fascinating film, and well worth looking out.



When French magician Georges Melies made this 12 minute film (generally regarded as the first science fiction film) cinema hardly existed. The first feature length film was some way off yet as were purpose built cinemas, moving pictures were still seen as a parlour trick, and what a trick Melies pulled here. LE VOYAGE DANS LA LUNE (A Trip to the Moon) may be primitive, with its proscenium stage and static camera, but it has some startling features. The most famous shot is visible for only a second, but the image of the man in the moon with the rocket ship stuck in his eye remains an inventive and funny one. There is also primitive usage of editing (again, something that wouldn't be fully developed for some years) in order to make characters disappear in a puff of smoke.

It's creaky, sure, and for all their attractiveness the sets are clearly quite cheap and thrown together, but Melies is inventing with every shot here. Seen today this is still a fun and funny film, but imagine seeing it 109 years ago, what the moment the moon man explodes in a puff of smoke must have been like for those first audiences. This is also an important film for its influence, just try and find someone working in animation or special effects who doesn't know this film and its maker.

I think we're off to a good start. Next week I'll be looking at FW Murnau's late period silent CITY GIRL and one other film that I haven't yet decided on.

24FPS on Superpodcast: Review of 2010

Once again I'm guesting, along with friend of the site AJ Hakari, with Marcey and Bede on Superpodcast. In this episode we run down our 3 worst films of 2010, and then our 5 Best (along with honourable mentions). This is an epic episode, but it's a brilliant discussion, with usual ranting, raging and rambling included. Check it out.

24FPS Top 100: No. 67

67: CANDYMAN [1992]
DIR: Bernard Rose

Why is it on the list?
It would have been very easy for Candyman to be just one more stupid horror film with an imposing bogeyman slicing random victims up, but actually this adaptation of a Clive Barker short story is much more intelligent, and much more artistic, than that. The film centres on a graduate student (played, in one of her first really good roles, by Virginia Madsen) writing a thesis on urban legends, who is told the story of the Candyman. Apparently if you say his name five times, while looking in the mirror, the hook handed monster will appear and wreak havoc. Guess what happens.

What’s really interesting about Candyman is how unlike a horror film it often seems. Though the bogeyman is given flesh - and, courtesy of Tony Todd, a voice that seems to be the product of a lifetime diet of cigarettes, sandpaper and gravel – for most of the film there is a real ambiguity about how real he is, about whether the murders we see Candyman commit are actually perpetrated by Virginia Madsen’s character, Helen. British writer/director Bernard Rose keeps a firm grip on this part of the story, making the film feel more psychological than visceral, and both the design of the film (the nightmarish graffiti visions seen around Cabrini Green for example) and Madsen’s excellent performance help keep this film from becoming just one more movie about people being sliced up with a big hook.

That said, Candyman is a horror film, and it’s often a damn scary one. Partly that’s thanks to the ever present sense of foreboding created by both Rose’s direction and the beautifully creepy choral score by Philip Glass but it’s also down to Tony Todd, who is instantly iconic as Candyman; elevated to the pantheon of great horror monsters within seconds of his first appearance, but it’s more than just his physicality, Todd’s a fine actor (see his non horror role in Le Secret for further proof) and he invests Candyman with more than just menace; there’s a seductive air about him, you can see how Helen might be sucked in by this monster.

The images are often stunning, as Rose renders both fantasy (the justly famous image of Candyman attempting to kiss Helen, his mouth filled with bees and yes, that’s Tony Todd, and those are real bees) and reality (the many times when Helen wakes to find herself covered in blood) with equal assurance and imagination. He also blends the two brilliantly, especially in Candyman’s first appearance, in which he uses flash frames of graffiti of Candyman and other nightmarish imagery (more bees) to make it unclear whther Candyman is real, or Helen is going crazy. There are relatively few onscreen kills, but those we see are rendered brilliantly; the violence brutal and bloody, but generally swift enough to shocking rather than rubbing the audience’s face in the gore.

After Carrie it became rather an overworked horror cliché to have a shock epilogue on a horror film, many have done it very badly indeed, but Candyman’s gives you a real jump, and is more than shocking; it’s themeatically interesting too, and brings all the questions the film has spent 95 minutes asking back round full circle. I rather like the first sequel; Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh, but I really wish there had been a film playing off the ending of this one.

Overall, for me this is one of the best, and most underrated, horror films of the 90’s, there’s more thought in these 95 minutes than in 100 dead teenager movies, and more scares too.

Standout Scenes
Hanging Around
A spectacular kill, but one that preserves the film's essential ambiguity.

Kiss me
One of the nastiest, creepiest, images in 90's cinema, all the more so because it's not fake.

Helen... Helen... Helen...
I won't spoil it, other than to say AARRRGGGHHH!!!


Memorable Lines
Candyman: I am the writing on the wall, the whisper in the classroom! Without these things, I am nothing. So now, I must shed innocent blood. COME WITH ME!

Candyman: The pain, I can assure you, will be exquisite. As for our deaths, there is nothing to fear. Our names will be written on a thousand walls. Our crimes told and retold by our faithful believers. We shall die together in front of their very eyes and give them something to be haunted by. Come with me and be immortal.

Helen Lyle: What's the matter, Trevor? Scared of something?

If you want to buy Candyman, and help 24FPS out at the same time, please use the links below. Thanks.

24FPS at MultiMediaMouth

As you may be aware, I've been Film Editor at WWW.MULTIMEDIAMOUTH.COM for a couple of months now, and I write a series for them recommending obscure films called Why Haven't You Seen...?. The latest WHYS...? is on French serial killer film ROBERTO SUCCO, and you can read it HERE.

You can also see all of the WHYS...? articles to date HERE