I STILL KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER

US, 1998, 100 minutes, Colour.
Jennifer Love Hewitt, Freddie Prinze Jr, Brandy Norwood, Mekhi Phifer, Muse Watson, Bill Cobbs, Matthew Settle, Jennifer Esposito, John Hawkes.
Directed by Danny Cannon.

I Still Know What You Did Last Summer is an immediate sequel to the successful original. This time there is a new location, a new writer. However, Jennifer Love Hewitt and Freddie Prinze Jr appear again. They are again menaced by the mysterious fisherman, played by Muse Watson.

Julie and Ray meet again when Julie’s roommate at college gets free tickets to a resort. She goes with her boyfriend and Jennifer Love Hewitt takes a friend. While they are there, enjoying the life of the resort, the same menace appears – that the killer still knows what they did. It is a year later, he still wants his revenge.

Direction is by British Danny Cannon who made a number of interesting films including The Young Americans and Judge Dredd but who has spent years writing, directing and producing the CSI series for television.

1.The popularity of the original? Inevitability of a sequel? The quality of the sequel?

2.The similarities of plot? The characters? Variations on a theme? The murderer and his pursuit?

3.The focus on Julie, studying, her friendship with Karla? Karla and her character, friendship? Tyrell as her boyfriend? The winning of the tickets, the decision to go on the vacation? Taking Will as a friend?

4.The holiday, the lifestyle, relaxation? Intimations of trouble?

5.Ray, his arrival, supportive of Julie?

6.The murderer, his vengeance, his pursuit?

7.The characters on the island, Estes, Nancy and the bar? Humorous background to the serious themes?

8.The build-up to the climax, the confrontations, the violence? - All resolved? Or not?

9.The continued popularity of this kind of horror film with young characters?

I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER

US, 1997, 100 minutes, Colour.
Jennifer Love Hewitt, Sarah Michelle Geller, Ryan Phillipp, Freddie Prinze Jr, Bridgette Wilson, Anne Heche, Johnny Galecki, Muse Watson.
Directed by Jim Gillespie.

I Know What You Did Last Summer is a classic horror film for younger audiences. Written by Kevin Williamson, who wrote Scream as well as Teaching Mrs Tingle, the film draws on many of the conventions of the horror film and puts them together quite neatly.

The four young stars, at the beginning of their careers. Portray a group of friends who are celebrating in the summer holiday, drive home and knock somebody down. They decide to get rid of the body and not tell anyone.

A year later, the Jennifer Love Hewitt character receives a note saying, “I know what you did last summer.” The friends, who have fallen out, reassemble in the town, discover that the person they thought they killed was not the person whose body was thrown into the sea. They go to visit the sisters of the alleged victim – but are menaced by the real victim who is the father of a little girl, run over by the man they thought they killed. This provides for plenty of complications, plenty of pursuits, plenty of terrors.

There was a sequel a year later with Jennifer Love Hewitt and Freddie Prinze.

1.An interesting and entertaining horror film? For younger audiences? Older audiences?

2.The title and expectations? The resort, the summer, the celebration? A year later? College? The coast, the beaches? The film’s use of night and shadow? The musical score?

3.The credibility of the opening of the film, Helen as the beauty queen, celebrating with Julie, the boyfriends? The drinking, the driving? Ray and his hitting the man on the road? The response, the terror? Throwing the body into the sea? The pact to keep silence? The body not dead – and attacking Helen? The year passing?

4.Julie, the song, seeing the words of the note? Going back, the group reassembling? The effect of the year on each of them? Their personalities, clashes? Julie as heroine, trying to do the right thing? Helen as less scrupulous? Barry as cocksure of himself? Ray, genial – but under suspicion?

5.The summer holiday, the fears, the intimations of attack? The visit to Melissa, discussions with her, her eccentricity?

6.Helen and her sister Elsa, the glamorous Bridgette Wilson seen as dowdy? Her advice?

7.Max, his infatuation with Helen, his seeming to be a suspect? His being murdered?

8.The various murders? The policeman?

9.Benjamin Willis, his background, his love for his daughter, the dead man responsible for his death, his blaming the young people? His pursuit of them, mad, the fish-hook? The mysterious fisherman?

10.The confrontation with the group? Barry’s death? His attack on Helen, cutting her hair? Julie and her being stranded, Ray coming to her rescue?

11.The background of the coastal holiday resort, life there, the celebrations, the police in ordinary life, the sinister aspects? The opening for a sequel?

HOME ALONE 3

US, 1997, 102 minutes, Colour.
Alex D. Linz, Olek Krupa, Lenny von Dohlen, David Thornton, Haviland Morris, Kevin Kilner, Marian Seldes, Scarlett Johanssen, Christopher Curry.
Directed by Raja Gosnell.

Home Alone 3 came rather late in the day. It was written original writer-director John Hughes. This version was directed by editor Raja Gosnel (Never Been Kissed, The Scooby Doo films, Yours, Mine and Ours).

While the cast has changed, and there is some more exotic background to the film, it basically remains the same story.

This time Alex D. Linz (One Fine Day, voice of young Tarzan) is left at home. However, the film has an esoteric background – four thieves getting a ten-million-dollar secret computer chip from Hong Kong and hiding it in a remote-controlled toy car. As will happen in this kind of film, the thieves take the wrong package. Mrs Hess (Marian Seldes) takes the package and gives the car to her young neighbour. The thieves track them down – and the young boy films their pursuing of Mrs Hess with a camcorder. He develops chicken pox, is at home, the thieves try to recover the car – and thus begins all the slapstick of the various attempts to physically stop them getting in. All ends well – and with the thieves getting chicken pox.

1.The popularity of the original Home Alone films? The focus on the young boy? Fending for himself? Fending against attack?

2.The exotic Hong Kong opening? Airport sequences? Back to suburbia? The homes, the streets? A realistic setting for the implausible action? The musical score?

3.The thieves, the chip, the car, the mistake at the airport, following Mrs Hess? Scouting out the house? The discovery of the truth? Their attempts to get into the house? The confrontations with Alex? His outdoing them, the slapstick comedy, the slapstick villains? The final comeuppance with chicken pox?

4.Alex, his age, at home, the neighbour, Mrs Hess and the gift? His playing with the car? Watching the criminals? The chicken pox, his being confined? Photographing the criminals? The attacks, his sturdy defence, using his wits? The physical nature of his attack on the thieves? The happy ending?

5.Mrs Hess, the mistake, her gift? The criminals pursuing her?

6.The family – absent? The happy ending?

7.The police, the agents, tracking down the thieves?

8.A family film – with literal knockabout comedy?

GEORGE OF THE JUNGLE

US, 1997, 92 minutes, Colour.
Brendan Fraser, Leslie Mann, Thomas Haden Church, John Cleese, Richard Roundtree, Holland Taylor.
Directed by Sam Weisman.

George of the Jungle survived terrible reviews in the US to have box office of nearly $100,000,000. So much for reviews! It is based on a comic strip which is a spoof of Tarzan. It is played very broadly with Brendan Fraser as an accident-prone George. John Cleese provides the voice of Ape! Exactly what you might expect!

1.An entertaining jungle film? Spoof? Origins in a comic strip? The flavour of the comic strip style?

2.The African settings, the jungle, the animals? Life in the jungle? The contrast with the United States, the upper crust, society homes? San Francisco? The musical score?

3.The title, the background of the plane crash in the African jungle, George and his surviving the crash, taken by the gorillas, raised as a gorilla? His encountering the expedition? His reputation as ‘a white ape’? Rescuing Ursula? Taking her on his trapeze and the vines to his hut? His talking gorilla, Ape? Shep – the elephant dog? Touci, the toucan? Life in the jungle for the adult George? The simplicity, talking with the animals? His being shot? Ursula taking him back to the United States? George and his trying to adapt to high society, Ursula’s parents and their reaction? His manners, rough ways? The workman on the bridge – and George saving him? Feted as a hero? Touci with the news from the jungle, flying to America? George and his return, saving Ape? Ursula coming to Africa? Together in the jungle? A happy ending? Brendan Fraser’s genial performance as George? The goofy aspects and the comedy?

4.Ursula and the expedition, Lyle, the engagement? Lyle and his uptight attitude? In the jungle, looking for the white ape, encountering Ape? The bullet? Ursula and her being rescued? Her going back to the United States, with George, in love with him? The fastidious response of her parents, especially her mother? George and his adapting, becoming the hero, her response? Her going back to Africa – and happy ever after?

5.Lyle, the expedition, the hunter, the shooting? His staying in Africa, his looking for the ape, capturing him? Touci and the rescue?

6.The animals: Ape and being voiced by John Cleese, the sardonic remarks? The elephant dog? Saving George? Touci and the friendship?

7.Kwame, travelling and guide in the jungle, character, the thugs with Lyle? Their attitude towards the animals, capturing Ape?

8.Ape, the character through John Cleese’s voice? The irony of the end – and Ape with a singing career?

9.Audience familiarity with the Tarzan stories and liking them? This comic variation on a theme?

THE DEVIL’S ADVOCATE

US, 1997, 140 minutes, Colour..
Al Pacino, Keanu Reeves, Charlize Theron, Judith Ivey, Connie Nielson, Craig T. Nelson.
Directed by Taylor Hackford.

Talented lawyer, Kevin Lomax, is offered an opportunity to join a prestigious law firm in New York. His wife is uncertain about the move and his mother is against it. Nevertheless, they move and discover an affluent life-style and a clientele of the rich and famous. The company is presided over by John Milton, intense, ambitious and persuasive.

Kevin's wife begins to hallucinate and Kevin becomes unstable in his work, his relationship with his wife and in his attraction to another lawyer. He also wins acquittal from murder charges for a wealthy, but guilty, businessman.

His wife claims assault by Milton. She takes refuge in a church but is committed to an institution where she kills herself. When Kevin confronts Milton he discovers that he is the devil incarnate who offers him the world and the opportunity to create an Antichrist. Kevin kills himself.

He is then back in the washroom where he had gone in the initial case to think through his position in defending a teacher accused of assault. He decides to refuse to defend the teacher. But a reporter asks him for an interview which will make him a celebrity...

The film is very stylishly made, photography, visual effects and sound. And, in a film dealing explicitly with sin, there are some sequences which may be momentarily disturbing. However, it is a film well worth discussing, especially since the screenplay raises themes of God, the devil, salvation and damnation and free will.

Basically, the film appears as a courtroom drama with Keanu Reeves a hot-shot Florida attorney who has not lost a case, even though some of the clients he defends disgust him. His mother is a God-fearing Bible-quoting woman. His wife is devoted and shares his ambitions.

When he is headhunted for a top New York firm, he willingly starts a journey to the top but also a journey that takes him into his deeper self and the struggle for his conscience and his soul.

The head of the firm, played with panache by Al Pacino, is ominously named John Milton. He is a controller, a tester, a tempter with genial and reasonable sounding advice. But, one's suspicions that this multinational corporate legal firm is not all it seems are soon confirmed and the young lawyer discovers more about himself than he wanted to, that he is too vain, ambitious, neglectful of his wife, prepared to double-deal.

Which brings him face to face with the Devil and a debate about his own responsibility in his moral downfall. The devil scoffs at God but is prepared to adhere to a theology of free will, where human beings can't blame others for the self-centred choices they make. There is more than a touch of the apocalyptic in the literally fiery scenes and discussion of the evil of the 20th century - the devil at his peak - and the coming millennium. It is a variation on It's a Wonderful Life, where the hero sees what might have been, though the style fifty years on is grimmer.

1.The impact of the film? Interest? Entertainment? Religious themes? Temptation? Sin?

2.The title, the literal meaning? The advocate from the Devil’s point of view? The advocate, this time for the Devil? The background of belief in the Devil, evil incarnate, angels? 90s and the interest in the supernatural? The approach of the millennium?

3.The apocalyptic tone of the film? The imagination about the incarnation of the Devil, the Devil taking over the world, power in the economy? Ideas? The visuals of the frieze coming alive?

4.Religious perspectives on the Devil, on evil, the demonic? How credible? The possibility of the incarnation of the Devil?

5.Themes of sin, redemption, free will – and the perspective of John Milton? His comments on personal choice and responsibility?

6.The visuals for the fire, the demons, the frieze? Coming alive?

7.The structure of the film: the experience of the law court, Kevin and his work, Mary Ann, family? The interruption with the tempting in the washroom? The progression of the narrative? The build-up to the climax? Back in the washroom, discovering that it was a nightmare? The variation on It’s a Wonderful Life and the possibility of an alternate world, 90s style? The ending, the possibilities of this happening over again? The initial case, the accused, the attack on the little girl, the people in the court, the issues of child abuse? The prosecutor and the attack? Kevin's defence case of the rapist: the leering defendant, the distraught child, her parents, his wife. Going into the washroom to examine his conscience. Temptation to the easy and comfortable life and his accepting, the move to New York and the world at his feet.

8.The role of the judge? The client and his rubbing his hands? Kevin’s reaction? Going into the toilet, looking in the mirror, the journalist and the wink? His dream, the return to the washroom, his resignation, the possibility of his being barred? Mary Ann and the next day – and the journalist and a further temptation? Succumbing or not?

9.Kevin, his skills as a lawyer, winning the case, reaction? Mary Ann and her devotion to him? His decision to go to New York, Mary Ann’s reaction? Kevin’s mother, her background, reaction? (And the later revelation of her liaison with Milton and the demonic nature of her son? At the church, the singing? The antagonism of Mary Ann? The Scripture quotations? Going to New York?

10.The recruiter, Kevin’s response? New York, the social round, the party, the drinks, the jokes, cheques? The mobile phone? Hopes? Leammon and his wife?

11.The arrival in New York, success, meeting Milton? The other men at the office? Milton’s offer? On the roof? Balance? The image of the temptations from the Gospels? The test, Milton and his bargain, Kevin agreeing?

12.Al Pacino as John Milton? The symbolic nature of his name – and Paradise Lost? The company, the jobs, the global reach, the corporate clients? The offices and staff? Leamon, Eddie Barzoon? His wife? Christabella and her presence? The board meetings? The apartment, luxury, clothes? Painting?

13.The Cullen case? The background of voodoo? The talk, the study, the case itself? Winning? On religious grounds? Cullen, the discussions, Milton and his connection with Cullen? The celebration? The effect on Mary Ann?

14.Mary Ann, the neighbour, the decadence, shopping, the touch, clothes, party, Mary Ann’s fright? Her reaction to Kevin and Milton? Changing her hair, her anger, her decline, illness? Alienation? The sexuality? Going into the church, the abuse? Her condemnation of Milton? Going to hospital, killing herself? The audience relief at the end and the possibility that this would not happen to her?

15.Kevin, his being busy, the change going to his head? Neglecting Mary Ann? The church, the confrontation with Milton? The effect of her death? Milton, in his office, the confrontation with Kevin, the background of the large frieze, the tableau coming alive? John Milton as the Devil, his intense and overblown speeches, on the roof of the building, his board and their evil actions, Kevin caught up in the evil and his defence of the wealthy murderer. The final confrontation with Milton, with Christabella, the sculpture coming alive - and Kevin's decision to opt out.

16.Kevin and his having to face his own reality? His decisions? The relationship with Milton?

17.Kevin's mother and her seduction and her fears for her son, Mary Ann and her suffering, the assault by Milton, her going to the church and the crucifix, her illness and death.

18.Kevin and the opportunity to start again, taking a moral stance, but the reporter offering him temptation again.

19.The return to the washroom? The effect of the imaginary experience and temptation?

20.The journalist, the further temptation to success – the journalist turning into Milton? Kevin’s reaction?

21.The Devil Incarnate, evil, the possibility of overcoming evil or not?

SERAPHIM FALLS

US, 2006, 115 minutes, Colour.
Liam Neeson, Pierce Brosnan, Michael Wincott, Ed Lauter, John Robinson, Anjelica Huston, Kevin J. O’ Connor, Tom Noonan, Angie Harmon, Xander Berkeley.
Directed by David Von Ancken.

Seraphim Falls is a visually beautiful but thematically grim western. Its plot is very similar to the classic Clint Eastwood film of 1976, The Outlaw Josey Wales. While that film began with the post Civil War raiders burning the farmer’s home and killing his wife and child and Josey Wales then going on a revenge pursuit, Seraphim Falls opens in mid-pursuit, the farmer chasing the Union commander who ordered the burning of his property which led to the deaths.

Pierce Brosnan is Gideon, the Union officer. Liam Neeson is the former Confederate officer who is bent on revenge.

The pursuit takes them through the snow and ice of the mountain forests of Nevada (with New Mexico standing in for these locations, the waterfall actually in Oregon), down river and the waterfall, to the isolated lowlands to a town, to the site of work on railroad tracks, past a group of religious settlers and into the desert for the showdown. One saying goes, ‘Revenge is sweet’. That is definitely not the message of this film.

Apart from the two men, there is a posse, frightened children in a cabin, the railroad builders, a lying reverend, a mysterious Indian in a top hat whose name is Charon and a well-dressed travelling saleswoman, played by Anjelica Huston. By the time we meet Charon, we are wondering if the two men are, perhaps, already dead, playing out the final stages in a purgatorial confrontation. Certainly, Madame Louise appears in dry desert and seems to disappear, as do the images of the two men at the end.

The director has spoken of mythic westerns and that is the thought that occurs a number of times while watching the film. So, how much is real and how much is surreal and symbolic? During the final confrontation there is a vivid flashback to show the horror of what happened at the fateful burning of the house.

The physical endurance of Gideon, especially in the frozen mountains as well as his skills in survival make this a very tough film. The long pursuit, the deaths and the revenge motivation mean that is also harsh and relentless.

1.The impact of the film? As a western? Drama? Psychological drama? Revenge drama?

2.The location photography, its beauty? Starkness? The mountain scenery, the lowlands, the railroad tracks, the desert? The musical score?

3.The basic revenge plot? The mythic overtones of the western? The west as a place for revenge? Pursuit?

4.The Civil War background? The suggestions of flashbacks throughout the film? Leaving the flashback till the end? Carver and his farm, his wife child? Working? The Union soldiers coming? Gideon and his orders, the confrontation between the two, the war over? The men searching the house, ignoring the baby? The orders to set the barn alight, the burning of the house, the wife and son going in to rescue the baby, looking from the window? Carver’s grief? Gideon and his thinking the house was empty, his walking away?

5.The film opening in mid-pursuit? Gideon and his being alone in the mountains? Shot? The physical presentation of his survival, falling down the mountain? The fires, eating the rabbit? Into the river? Trying to cross the bridge? The waterfall? His survival? Underwater, taking off his coat? His continuing through the forest?

6.Carver, his posse? Shooting Gideon? The continued pursuit? Relentless? Their tracking down Gideon after finding the fire? Pope and his being under the tree, the dropping blood? The knife and his death? The continued pursuit? Gideon and his getting into the lowlands? Seeing the hut? The frightened children? The father, the gun? His getting out? The pursuers?

7.Gideon’s encounter with the religious settlers, their religious comments, his moving through?

8.The railroad tracks, the Chinese working, the bosses? Apprehending Gideon? Tying him up, the guard, Gideon attacking him, getting the knife, free? The Chinese, getting the horse? His escape? Carver and his arrival with the posse, the suspicions of the railroad boss? Getting the horses and leaving? The grim picture of the railroad depot?

9.Gideon, his skills, the trap, the death of the young man in the posse? Gideon and his going out into the desert area? His encounter with Chron? The Indian, the exchange, the money, the water? Carver and his arrival with Chron? The same process?

10.The final part of the film? Were the men already dead? Parsons and his decision to pull out of the posse – and Carver killing his horse? Hayes and his standing in front of Carver, Gideon shooting him?

11.The trek out into the desert? The mythic landscape? The purgatorial experience? The two men gaining and losing their horses? The encounter with Madame Louise? Her offering the remedy? Her deals with them?

12.The final chase, the two men in the desert, the confrontation? The flashback inserted at this moment? The effect on each of them? The nature of revenge? Their dropping their weapons? Walking separately into the desert? Disappearing?

13.How well did the film incorporate both the realism of the west as well as its mythic qualities? The religious dimensions and values in terms of violence and revenge?

FREQUENCY

US, 1999, /118 minutes, Colour.
Denis Quaid, Jim Caviezel, Andre Braugher, Elizabeth Mitchell.
Directed by Gregory Hoblitt

In October, 1969, the Aurora Borealis is shining spectacularly in the New York City sky. Frank Sullivan is a fireman, skilled and daring in his rescues. He is a loving husband and close to his six year old son, Jack.

In October, 1999, and the Aurora is glowing once more. Jack Sullivan's life is a mess. A cop, he is introspective and depressed. His girlfriend leaves him. With the son of his childhood friend, they find his father's old ham radio. Soon he makes contact with his father from thirty years before. He is able to give his father advice that saves his life.

The consequence of this is that automatically the details and direction of his life story change.

The police find the body of the victim of a serial killer back in 1969. Jack is now able to get his father to prevent this death. Again, history changes. When his mother is about to become the next victim, Jack enables his father to stop this murder but he clashes with the killer and is arrested as a suspect. The final confrontation with the killer takes place in both 1969 as he attempts to kill John's mother and in 1999 when he tries to kill Jack. Jack is saved by his father who, because of the changes he and his son have made in their histories, is still alive.

The family history has changed from despair to love.

Writer and music producer, Toby Emmerich, has imagined not a time travel story but a time communication story. It is not people but information that goes back and forth over thirty years. He and director Gregory Hoblitt (award-winning director of Hill Street Blues and NYPD and the movies, Primal Fear, Fallen, Hart's War) have consulted with academic scientists to ensure that the physics theories used in the plot are plausible.

At the core of the movie is the story of a father and a son, the son losing his father at the age of six but suddenly finding him again thirty years later and able to save his life and let his father save his. The relationship between Denis Quaid and Jim Cavaziel is strongly drawn. Their radio communication sequences were actually filmed with the actors working together on set reinforcing the relationship.

The movie works as an intriguing drama which plays with the mysteries of time. It is also quite effective as a police thriller and mystery. It also works very well in terms of portraying loving family bonds as well as the possibility of re-shaping and healing the past.

1.An entertaining thriller? Issues of time, cross-time? Parallel universe? Changing time and people’s lives?

2.The focus on family, father-son relationships, bonding, regrets, reconciliation?

3.How effective as a police thriller, as a murder mystery, as an action film?

4.The combining of the two time stories: 1969: John as a boy, his father and his kindness, his relationship with his mother? The 1999 story, John and his sense of failure, Gordon, their friendship, finding his father? The murder of 1969 and its repercussions in 1999? How plausible was this kind of communication, time travel?

5.The title, the reference to radio? The opening, the aurora of 1969? The background of science, explanations? The scientific communication? The influence of the aurora?

6.1969 and the crash, the fire, Frank and his work, his heroism? His escape? His relationship with Julia? With John? Frank as the ordinary type, in action? The factory fire and the rescue? The credibility about the girls? Frank as a husband, the Elvis dance? As a father, the bike, the stories, ball, Little Chief? A genial character? Julia and her strength, her work as a nurse, her love?

7.John as a boy, his friendship with Gordo? Friendly, his relationship with his father, the bike, crying, six years?

8.John and 1999, grown up, his work, police work? His relationship with Samantha? Her leaving? His fault? His work, Gordo and the past? Yahoo and searching?

9.The radio, the frequency, the mystery of finding his father? Communicating with him, the possibility of saving his father? Changing the course of history?

10.The killer, 1969 and the murders? Discovering the body? 1999, the role of the murderer? The changed family situation, the threat to John’s mother? Saving her? The information coming from 1969?

11.The happy resolution, for John, the power of the communication between father and son on the radio, the love in their storytelling, the shared experiences of baseball? John’s advice after saving his father’s life? The quality of love and care in the family, each parent with John, his seeing their dance, the bike lessons, playing ball? Frank as a loving role model of father?

12.The theme of what if …? If we’re able to change our lives, how would we relate to our parents?

SUGARHOUSE

UK, 2007, 90 minutes, Colour.
Steven Mackintosh, Ashley Walters, Andy Serkis, Tracy Whitwell.
Directed by Gary Love.

In the last ten years there has been an abundance (over-abundance?) of British gangster film. It’s a fairly limited scope compared with the US gangster world. Here is another.

The action takes place over a few hours one afternoon in East London. Wealthy businessman, Tom (Steven Mackintosh) links up with a black addict, D (Ashley Walters), to buy a gun. He doesn’t know that D has stolen the gun from the local kingpin, Hoodwink (Andy Serkis). Hoodwink wants his gun back as it is a weapon in a murder crime. He confronts D and Tom and then the tables are turned. The other characters are Hoodwink’s pregnant wife who calls him Michael and has a technique for him to calm his habitual rage. There are also three young thugs from the area who also experience Hoodwink’s anger.

There are lots of conversations, a certain rhetoric in the screenplay with D speaking in a more literate way than we might expect. It sounds as if it were adapted from a play – and we discover it is. It is based on a 2001 play by Dominic Leyton who has adapted it for the screen but, while opening out different locations has kept too many speeches. And the performances seem like overacting with Serkis showing hyperkinetic energy. The settings are striking but the film is rather alienating.

1.A British gangster film? Similar to the many gangster films of the 21st century? Different?

2.The East London settings, the underground, the streets, the old warehouses, the estates and the flats? Authentic? The musical score – atmospheric, heavy?

3.The screenplay, based on a play? The amount of talk, rhetoric? Opened out from the play – yet confined to various sets? However, effective – or did it detract from the drama?

4.The acting and directing style? The overacting – the hyperactivity? More being less effective than less?

5.The opening, the introduction to Tom, travelling on the underground, going to East London, his quest? Meeting up with Dee? The discussion, the previous meeting? Wanting to buy a gun? Dee and his incessant talking? Going through the estate, through the park, seeing the little girl whose mother was a prostitute and in the buildings? Going to the warehouse? Dee and his incessant chatter, delaying, asking for the money, wanting the extra fifty pounds? The argument about deposits? His having the gun? Tom and his reaction, insistent on getting the gun, listening to Dee, sympathetically, but in a hurry?

6.The introduction to Hoodwink, naked, the tattoos everywhere, shaving his head, his ice and the water? His anger, with his wife, her pregnancy? Her method of calming him down? Going out, finding Dee, the attack on Tom, the bashing of Dee? Wanting his gun? Dee and his persuading him that Ray had taken the gun? Hoodwink believing him? The phone call, demanding the three young men to come?

7.Hoodwink, kingpin of the estate, brutal, mad, seeing him take the drugs? His attack on Ray and bashing him? Their persuading him that Dee actually had the gun? His attack on Dee? Tom and the plans with the gun, emptying the bullets? Pulling the gun on Hoodwink? Falling, dropping the bullets? Hoodwink and his getting the gun? The confrontation, the arguments? Dee putting the bullets in, killing Hoodwink?

8.The background of Hoodwink at home, his pregnant wife, Paul coming to take the drugs, his being able to change his personality?

9.The three young men, part of the gang, one wanting to study, the other in the factory? Their interactions with each other? At Hoodwink’s beck and call? The violence?

10.Tom and Dee and their talking, Tom’s name of Horatio? Dee giving the explanation of his life, orphan, he without his mother, the effect on him, a crack addict? His referring to Tom as the rich man? Tom, the story for why he wanted the gun, his wife of six years, the child not his, going off with somebody he knew? The irony of his wanting his gun to kill himself?

11.The two of them going off, some kind of understanding? Passing the little girl sitting in the park?

12.Portrait of London characters? East London? The drug and gangster culture? The wealthy and their relying on contacts in this world? How effective the characters, the portrait, the issues?

WE ARE ALL CHRISTS

Poland, 2006, 107 minutes, Colour.
Marek Kondrat, Andrzej Chyra, Michal Koteski.
Directed by Marek Koteski.

Polish sensibility has deep Catholic roots. This is evident in a grim and graphic film about alcoholism, We are All Christs (2006) directed by Marek Koterski. The central character is a professor of art who takes students on guided tours of churches. We see him standing against the station of the cross where Jesus falls the first time. He explains the sufferings of Jesus with some forcefulness. Interspersed amongst the scenes of family conflict because of alcohol, are brief sequences of Jesus carrying his cross, but against the background of a modern high-rise apartment building.

Not only that, various characters are depicted as being on the cross and their sides pierced, like that of Jesus, by a spear wielded by another member of the family who is being cruel. So, we are all Christs. Towards the end, when father and son attempt reconciliation, we see the two of them, dressed in white robes, carrying a heavy cross like that of Jesus, each helping to bear the other’s burdens. The Jesus-figure and the Christ-figures bring Jesus into the harsh contemporary world of addictions where people suffer like Jesus. They fall. But Jesus has been there before them.

This is quite a harrowing film. At times the desperate behaviour seems too much, but it is clearly the self-destructive behaviour of longtime addicts – and the destructive effects on succeeding generations.

1.Polish seriousness? Religious perspective? Moral values? The focus on the title and Christ? Images of Christ?

2.A film of interiors, a film of dialogue? The exteriors and the beach? The rubbish tip?

3.Realism and surrealism, images, dreams, the images of Christ and his Passion? The musical score?

4.The title and its perspective, the focus on Jesus, carrying the cross, falling on the way to Calvary – and the background of the high-rise? The Stations of the Cross in the church? The others as Christs – and their being pierced on the cross? The cumulative effect? Jesus and his suffering, giving meaning to other people’s suffering? Others as Christ figures? How helpful was this in understanding their suffering? Like Christ? The quotations from 1 Corinthians 13 about love? From Romans 6 about doing what one didn’t want to do and not doing what one wanted to do? As an adequate text for the addicts?

5.The structure of the film: the son and the father talking, this is a framework for the flashbacks, for Adam as a boy, his own father and his drinking, leaning against the tree and collapsing, his mother and her grief? The later mother and her arguments against her son? Adam’s life, his marriage, his relationship with his son? The years passing? The presence of the guardian angels? The resolution – the tip, the beach, carrying the cross, the discussions, going into treatment?

6.Adam as the central character, as a baby, drinking alcohol, as a boy, drinking from the cupboard, his mother and her grief and concern? His growing up, his friends, telling them false stories and lies about his life? The explanation of his marriage, unwilling, thinking of the divorce? Going to the hotel, being sick, meeting his wife? The marriage ceremony, his work, in the church, the group of students, his explanation of the Stations of the Cross, the sufferings of Jesus and his four? Going to the boss, vomiting? The presence of the angels and his interpretation of what they said? The seven years of drink? Christmas, the tree, the decoration, the talking angel on the tree, his drinking, coming home, wife and son leaving, his axing the tree?

7.The older Adam, twenty years of difference? His son and his taking the drugs, caring for his father yet wanting him to die? His son going to the house, the old man sleeping, getting up, drinking, the promises?

8.Adam on the tip, his being attacked, rescued? With his son on the beach, carrying their cross?

9.The presentation of addiction, issues of addiction in the genes, the influence of parental example, shame or not? The excesses of drink and addiction? Hiding the drink, the father breaking his son’s piggy bank to get the money? Sickness, the gutter life, the rubbish tip?

10.The frank discussions, the son and his admission of his addictions, the effect on his life? The drugs, the description of the three days? Desperate?

11.The moral perspective of the film, the Scripture quotations, the imagery of Jesus and his suffering? Audiences judging the characters or not?

12.The final information, the effect on father and son? The possibility of change and redemption?

KNOCKED UP

US, 2007, 129 minutes, Colour.
Seth Rogen, Katherine Heigl, Leslie Mann, Paul Rudd, Jason Segel, Jay Baruchel, Jonah Hill, Martin Starr, Iris Apatow, Maude Apatowe, Joanna Kerns, Harold Ramus, Alan Tudyk, Kristen Wiig, Loudon Wainright III. Cameos: Ryan Seacrest, James Franco, Steve Carell, Andy Dick, Jessica Simpson, Eva Mendes, Jessica Alba.
Directed by Judd Apatow.

Writer-director, Judd Apatow, has the knack of offering provocative titles for his comedies – at least for those who are alert to sex comedies, either for or against. He also has the skills in creating some crass jokes and allowing his cast to improvise. But he also has the know-how to make his sex comedies moral fables for today’s generation which is less puritanical and/or inhibited than some past generations. The 40 Year Old Virgin was about love and respect as well as sex. Knocked Up’s paean to pregnancy, motherhood, fatherhood and responsibility and family love outweighs the casual sex angle which the title and the opening of the film highlight. Even the final credits show the cast and crew’s baby photo album.

So, casual sex and the consequences, decisions for life and the repercussions. This is really a very strong pro-life comedy.

However, the characters!

Seth Rogan is Ben, one of a group of slackers who like min-Jackass kinds of pranks and are preparing a website to offer information about nude scenes by famous stars and when they occur in the movie. We are introduced to a bunch of little boys in adult guise who experience no urgency in life at all. By chance Ben meets Alison who is celebrating her promotion to on camera interviewer on Channel E. They drink, they dance, they go home together and…

One of the interesting things about our response to the characters is how the progress of the film alters our perceptions of them and our attitudes towards them. There is practically nothing about Ben that commends him. His tasteless verbal gaffes, his getting high, his idiotic behaviour offer very little hope. And, yet, he does it. He changes gradually. He begins to grow up. And everyone hopes that he will be a great father.

Katherine Keigl is Alison who is shocked at the pregnancy, makes a decision, against her mother’s advice, to keep the baby. We share the pregnancy with her – and her mood swings.

Her controlling older sister (played incisively by the director’s wife, Leslie Mann – with their actual daughters as the children here) alienates her loving husband (Paul Rudd) and Alison feels they are terrible role models. Of course, Debbie needs a good talking to, at least, and does get some – so there is hope in that household as well.

Knocked Up is not quite so overtly funny as was The 40 Year Old Virgin. It is more of a smile comedy, but nonetheless is always amusing. The crass slackers and their interests are neatly and mockingly set up for parody.

The film has been a box-office bonanza in the US and with its touches of the raunchy (not too much given some of the youth oriented films these days) and with its obvious love for family and babies, it will appeal to a lot of audiences.

1.The popularity of the film? Humour? Themes? Real life?

2.The title, expectations? Tone? The fact and its consequences?

3.The situation humour, people comparing their ordinary experiences with those of the characters? The visual gags? The verbal humour, the ironies, the crass humour, the critique of crass humour? Movie buffs and the Hollywood references? The entertainment of the cameos – especially Ryan Seacrest spoofing TV interviewers and guests? James Franco and his bewilderment? Steve Carell and his appearing unpleasant and the comments?

4.The introduction to Ben and his friends, the club, the jackass-like behaviour, slackers, the individual characters, the bet about the beard growing, paying the rent? Ridiculing Martin? The website and the information about nudity? The drinking, getting high? Their attitudes towards life? Crass humour and remarks? Ben within this context?

5.The contrast with Alison, her life, living with Debbie and Peter, the kids, driving them to school, pacifying the children – and the humour of the children’s interactions? At work, Ryan Seacrest and his outburst? Her work on the staff? The interview with the bosses – and the humour of their giving her an on-screen job? The assistant and her wry comments all the way through? Alison’s excitement, telling Debbie, their going to the club, being let in, the bartender ignoring them, the encounter with Ben, his buying the beers, Jay and Ben coming to the table, Jay and his flirting with Debbie? Debbie going home, the dancing, the drinking, Alison and Ben going home, the sexual encounter, the issue with the condom? The aftermath, the morning after, breakfast? Giving her card?

6.Debbie and her illness, on screen, with James Franco? The editor? With Alison, the supermarket, getting all the tests, positive? Going to visit the doctors? Ringing Ben, his crass reaction to the news, his change of heart? Accompanying her to the great range of doctors? Her decision to keep the baby, the discussions with her mother who wanted it aborted? Ben and his discussion with his father, his father’s affirmation about life, love and happiness?

7.The decision to go with having the baby, talking it over with Ben, his agreement, the shopping for the baby clothes, Debbie and the present of the cot, meeting her girlfriends, the explanations? Ben and his mates, their discussions? Alison and her getting to know Ben, the outings, talk, the earthquake, looking through his things? Liking him, their falling in love? The various episodes, buying the books – and his not reading them?

8.The contrast with Debbie and Peter, Debbie and her control, the kids, life at home, Peter going away, the group following him, discovering the fantasy baseball group? Alison and her worry about them being models of marriage? Peter and Ben becoming friendly, talking, the decision to go to Las Vegas, the mushrooms, the circus and the trip? Alison and Debbie, going to the club, the bouncer refusing, Debbie losing her temper, the bouncer giving his sad talk – but not letting the old and the pregnant into the club?

9.The progress of the pregnancy, the weeks and information given? The different effects on Alison? Hormonal? Her being argumentative – and the outburst in front of the nurse? The effect on each other?

10.The background of the four friends, their characters, behaviour, crass, Jonah and his girlfriend, Martin and his getting high, the beard getting longer, Jay and his flirting with Debbie? Jason and his obtuseness? Checking the facts about nudity on the films? Checking the times, the film jokes? Ben, with them, gradually changing, getting a job, buying the apartment, having the early night?

11.The birthday party with Debbie and Peter, the tensions?

12.The TV studio executives, wanting a pregnant on-air interviewer? For the mothers? Wanting Alison to be tight after the birth? The satire on TV administration – and Hollywood not liking liars?

13.Alison and time for the birth, the phone call, Ben and his coming, her being in the bath, ringing the doctor, his being away at the bar mitzvah, ringing for help, the drive to the hospital, the nurse and his work, the doctor and the past experience with him, harsh attitude, the issue of drugs, Ben and his discussions with him in the corridor, his change of approach, the natural birth? The birth and detail? Debbie coming in, Ben ordering her out? Peter and the camera? The various friends turning up and waiting in the waiting room?

14.The delight with the birth, everybody happy, the consequences, especially for Alison and Ben – driving at twelve miles an hour on the road?

15.The humour, the moral perspective, values? Marriage, pregnancy, children, family? In a flip and contemporary context?