Class of 1999 (1990)

 

The second movie in the 'Class of' trilogy, the first being the 1982 flick 'Class of 1984'. None of these movies share much continuity despite having the same director (Mark Lester) and are loosely tied together, which is somewhat surprising really.

This time around in the distant hellscape of 1999 schools have become warzones full of violent uncontrollable gangs. In a highly obvious nod (or knock-off) to John Carpenter's 'Escape from New York' these schools, and the surrounding areas, have been cordoned off and there is no law. The police do not enter these zones. This is explained in a sequence virtually copied from said Carpenter flick. How they got away with that I don't know. So what to do? Well it's the future so they draft in humanoid super androids to deal with the kids. Unfortunately it seems the androids grow to enjoy their job and start killing the kids. What this part of the plan?

Man where to start! So apart from the obvious 'Escape from New York' plot vibes this movie also decides to take ideas from another sci-fi classic in 'The Terminator'. The android teachers look like your typical mid-80s high school educators on the outside for sure, but as they start to tear off their outer layers of skin we see a familiar sight. Obviously it's not all the same, these androids have limbs that are weapons and they bleed lots of thick green goo. But hot damn do some sequences look almost identical to the finale in said Cameron classic. Again I dunno how they got away with it.

The delinquents in question are naturally your stereotypical archetypal 80's/90's punks. Just look at those threads man! Wow! These guys dunno what decade they're in. You've got bandanas, skinny jeans, studded belts, chains, huge earrings, battle jackets, band-styled jackets, makeup, top hats, quarter-length coats, leather jackets, neck scarfs, flowing hip sashs etc...And everything is in an array of colours as if it's just come off the set of 'The Fresh Prince of Bel Air'. I'm still not sure if this was all deliberate because they genuinely thought it was cool and edgy, or they were just mocking the street punk genre.

These street punks are so over the top it's cringeworthy at times. It is also worth noting that these sewer urchins never appear to change their clothes, eww! I also love how these hooligans don't seem to learn with the teachers. Some of them mouth-off and get beaten by one teacher, then straight into the next class some other fools do the same thing again! Let's not forget their modes of transport, various souped-up muscle cars all decked out in classic 'Mad Max' styled armour and weaponry, because cliche!

Yeah you can't deny this movie is a quirky looker that's for sure. Taking all manner of classic imagery and sticking it together in a not-very-original plot. If it wasn't for the pretty solid effects and casting this would have been dreadful. Yes the effects are actually good. Blood, gore, guns, explosions, squibs, killer androids etc...all look pretty good in that low-budget straight-to-video shop kinda way. The bleak industrial locations also set the mood pretty well helped by that Pacific North West cloud and drizzle.

But it's the key casting that really helps this unoriginal sci-fi hokum. The love child of Corey Feldman and Stephen Dorff, Bradley Gregg, is the main badass Corey Culp (the Yanks love that name Corey, and how about that second name!). In my opinion this guy is underrated and was underused back in the day. This movie clearly shows that he could hold his own as an antihero type, and villain if needs be. What the hell is he wearing around his neck the whole time?? I also wasn't sure about this guys age here. He starts out in prison but still has to go to high school? I mean he literally gets out of jail and goes straight to school (laugh out loud).

The rest of the cast is a mishmash of well-known character actors that we've all seen in many cult movies including the short and odd-looking Joshua Miller. Blaxploitation action star Pam Grier. Stacy Keach whose character seems to have some kind of bionic eyes or something? This is never explained, but hey it's the future! There is also the always evil-looking Patrick Kilpatrick being evil as usual, and Malcolm McDowell who this time plays a good guy.

Boy oh boy this movie. Yes it's completely 100% a rip-off from so many other movies and it's totally predictable from start to finish, but it's also lightning in a bottle. The casting, the cheesy good special effects, the ridiculous action, the ridiculous costumes, never-ending numbers of gang members that appear outta nowhere just to get wiped out. And then on top of all that you've got a pretty solid creepy killer android finale to boot! This movie is literally the definition of a cult classic and if you're a certain age it's impossible not to like it, or at least respect its sheer audacity.

8/10

Napoleon (2023)

 

Well well what have we here? Another historical epic from top director Ridley Scott charting the life of French military commander Napoleon Bonaparte; or a close approximation.

I find it very difficult to try and review some historical films for the very simple reason that I don't know anything about the history of whatever it may be. I don't want to come across as ignorant but that's just the way it is, some things you know about, some things you know a bit, some things you know nothing. Obviously I have heard of Napoleon and his antics but what I know is extremely limited as I am not in any way an expert on French military or revolutionary history. I am also willing to bet that this will be the same situation for the majority of regular moviegoers the world over, and in some cases even worse.

So when it comes to watching a film like this I have to rely on certain things such as Wikipedia and various other bits of information (often YouTube videos) to delve deeper into the history and learn what was accurate, what wasn't, and what else occurred that may not have been shown. There is no shame in this in my opinion, I am simply researching and learning more about the period. It's no different from doing homework, which in my day would have been 100% reliant on books. This is the only way to learn and discover more, it's just a shame some directors couldn't do the same.

So when it comes to this epic biographical offering there is alas a hyper tonne of history to dig into involving lots of historical people, battles, wars, skirmishes, political theatre etc...To the point that it would take you potentially years to digest and understand everything that occurred during Napoleon's lifespan. Reading about one small aspect of his life will inevitably link to a specific event, which in turn will inevitably link to a multitude of people and other events surrounding them, in turn linking to more battles and more people, often covering multiple countries etc...So bottom line, I'm putting a lot of faith in Ridley Scott to deliver something that I can get to grips with and give me the basics to get me through. A condensed two and a half hour history lesson of the French revolution, give or take.

Did Scott deliver on this? Yes and no. As expected with Scott the film looks tremendous with high detail both in the foreground and background. Virtually every aspect of the era has been carefully recreated to the best of everyone's ability. Again I'm no expert but what I saw on the screen, to me, looked amazingly realistic and presumably accurate. From the basic cast iron heating system steaming away in the corner of a room; to the huge array of outfits, the hairdos, the food, the landscapes, weaponry,  the various methods of transportation etc...it all looks very impressive. The only tiny quibble would be the lack of most actors going for a French twang in their dialect. 

Naturally it's the battles everyone came for (all the various politics in between are interesting of course but let's be real here) and naturally these don't fail to deliver. The vast stonking scenes of war porn we get in the finale at Waterloo is what I was waiting for. Granted it is not as good or as detailed as the classic Rod Steiger epic of 1970 but I can't deny it was solid. I know nothing about actual French Napoleonic warfare and how it may have actually gone down real-time so to me it was exciting and thrilling, oh yes. Scott can certainly deliver a rousing war and this was definitely worth the wait. Charging cavalry, screaming troops, unthinkable suicidal marches straight into gunfire, thundering cannon fire, blood, thick mud, and stoic British officer types glaring at the enemy through steely eyes.

So whilst Scott is able to deliver much visual spectacle across the board, alas he doesn't often seem to deliver much historical accuracy as proven here. Stating once again I know very little about this time period but even I had to question the moment Napoleon fired his cannons at the ancient Pyramids of Giza. This was easily the most offensive of the historical inaccuracies simply because it was so blatantly false. We know there aren't large cannonball-sized holes in the Pyramids for Pete's sake. I simply cannot understand why Scott would make such a horrifically false sequence. Everyone expects there to be inaccuracies in historical films but usually not this glaring, geez!!

Other than some stand-out moments of pure inaccurate nonsense, quite frankly it's all good! I didn't expect every inch of Napoleon's life to get covered and it wasn't. After some reading there were obviously more battles, political guff, and whatnot but you can't expect everything to be crammed into a film, it's just not possible. Nor did I think more battles would have made it any better as this is supposed to be essentially a bit of a history lesson, not war porn, so we need the other less exciting stuff. The acting, much like most Scott epics, is pretty much flawless across the board really. Everyone looked and felt right in their respective roles. What else can I say here? It's a modern day historical epic, we don't get too many of those, I do enjoy them and this satisfied me. I was engaged right to the bitter end. I can't deny I'm surprised that Scott is apparently still able and allowed to make these sprawling flicks considering most of his flicks have a tendency to fail at the box office but there you go.

Not as good or action-packed as 'Gladiator', but this is a different type of animal. Not as good as 'The Last Duel' which is a HIGHLY underrated medieval epic. But 'Napoleon' is much better than 'Kingdom of Heaven' and 'Exodus: Gods and Kings'. Very much recommended if you can overlook the inaccuracies. 

7/10

Dr. Who and the Daleks (1965)

 

A long time ago in an era far far removed from the present-day shenanigans of Dr. Who there were two movies. Two movies that have been long forgotten about despite them starring the mighty Peter Cushing as the Doctor and the feverish devotion you get with modern fanbases.

At first glance I found this hard to believe, I am not a fan of Dr. Who in any way but I was surprised to find out that these two movies were kinda ignored by the fanbase. I just assumed they fit into the lore or timeline at some point back in the early days. Upon further reading I discovered that both movies are actually entirely separate from the TV series and are simply stand-alone remakes (of early series) that are not very popular with the fanbase.

Why are these movies not very popular? Well it seems parts of the Dr. Who canon has been changed. They don't fit into the TV series timeline and unfortunately they aren't seen as being very good. I can understand this as this first adventure is pretty basic. The plot centres around Dr. Who and co accidentally getting transported to another planet somewhere, accidentally getting captured by Daleks, and having to defeat them with the help of friendlier aliens.

Right from the get-go, despite my lack of Whovian knowledge, I could tell this wasn't the same as the famous BBC show. As already mentioned Peter Cushing is the Doctor here, which is inspired casting no doubt, but you don't really get the quirky eccentric Doctor we are all used to. What we get is essentially Peter Cushing doing his usual polite and charming kooky scientist/inventor routine which doesn't really fit the bill and plays out more like a Doug McClure adventure. The plot also puts the Doctor at a point where he's just invented the Tardis so everything, again, feels closer to any manner of classic adventure flicks involving crazy machines going to outlandish places like the moon, centre of the Earth, bottom of the sea etc...Loved the huge red lever to activate the Tardis.

Another huge problem for this movie is the lack of scope (probably down to budget). I'm sure back in the day this may have looked impressive but looking back...not so much. The main issue being the sets, the obvious sets. Everything looks so confined with no depth or scale. This feels like a very small planet and limited adventure. All the props look flimsy and horribly fake. The costumes are typically dated and very drab-looking. The action is hokey as hell, and the Humanoid alien race known as 'Thals' look like the worst type of original Star Trek alien ever. And what was that big frozen dinosaur type thing that appeared to be frozen in place? That went nowhere.

The highlight (other than Roy Castle's hilariously cringeworthy performance) is of course the Daleks themselves. These extremely popular robotic trolleys have somehow become feared and loved by children and adults for as far back as I can remember, and I just don't know why. I can't deny they are a unique and original design and I have always liked the idea of a small alien creature having to exist inside its own little tank, but in this they are bad (not in a good way). What we really have are ropey-looking bumper cars trundling around very slowly firing bursts of fire extinguisher foam at actors that are trying to escape slowly to give the Daleks an impression of some speed, aggression, and intimidation. The result is often a giggle-inducing scene where a Dalek will attack and go after someone very very slowly whilst trying not to bump into props and scenery.

I think the real crime here is the movie is boring, nothing really exciting happens, nothing keeps you on the edge of your seat. Another glaring crime is the fact the Daleks aren't threatening at all. Sure they may have been back in the day but now? Forget about it. There is never any real peril because everything looks like a Blue Peter set with the odd nice prop and one nice matte painting. Heck they even chuck in some lava lamps as set decor for flip's sake. And lastly, the main man, the Doctor, doesn't really do anything either. Cushing certainly looks the part but they give him nothing to do! Criminal! I think anyone who is unaware of Dr. Who and likes old hammy sci-fi will get a kick outta this, but in all honesty, who is in that boat being unaware of Dr. Who? 

4/10