A Google search of ‘greatest film villains’ will bring many familiar faces: Hannibal Lecter, Darth Vader, Alex DeLarge, Anton Chigurh and, of course, Heath Ledger’s turn as the Joker – a character that has become omnipresent.
The villainy of these iconic performances is without question, but there are many more nasty characters in the annals of cinema history that are seldom if ever considered in the lists by various magazines, websites and institutes. Some are a pleasure to hate, whilst others cause the proverbial red mist to descend in righteous indignation. So, in no particular order: To continue reading, please follow the link: http://www.tasteofcinema.com/2017/the-10-most-underrated-movie-villains-of-all-time/#ixzz4Zvg68vcL
When Princess Diana’s life was suddenly cut short in 1997, Britain experienced its first nationwide emotional outburst of pornographic proportions. Long known for its ‘stiff upper lip’, the British seemingly fell to their knees with hysterically maudlin grief over a woman who was nothing more than a socialite – Kim Kardashian or Paris Hilton with a bit of class.
Her death was clearly tragic, she was a 36-year-old mother of two, but the media attention she received both before and after her death was entirely undeserved and downright aberrant in its obsessiveness. What was there to admire? She was unintelligent (by her own admission), uncharismatic, enormously privileged and manipulative on occasion. Despite this, she was not hateful or even particularly dislikable, so the bulk of one’s exasperation should not lie with Diana, but with the media, who, on the morning of 1st September 1997, insisted that Britons across the nation had to mourn a multi-millionaire celebutante they had never met.
The toxic seeds of the international media’s relationship with Diana were planted around 1980, when Prince Charles began courting her. The incessant coverage she subsequently received is rather curious because, like many socialites, the depth of her personality left much to be desired. That didn’t matter of course as she was blonde, blue-blooded and the potential partner of the heir to the throne. The tabloids treated Diana as a sex object, a pretty doll whose coy expressions could tame the Prince in time for his kingship.
It is clear to those with even a modicum of emotional intelligence that Diana and Charles simply weren’t compatible. She was nineteen, naïve and neurotic and Charles had neither the time nor the inclination to spend enough time with her – it was a union orchestrated by each other’s families that neither was ready for. Frankly, their doomed marriage was a 15-year hiatus in the relationship between Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles, which was and now is a far more appropriate partnership.
The media and the public are often keen to glorify an individual when they die prematurely, but with Diana it verged on canonisation. The scores of people who laid flowers and openly wallowed defended their cheap, morbid bereavement by harking on about the virtues of Diana’s charity work, but how virtuous was it?
The images of Diana walking near land mines and prodding terminally ill people are familiar, but what else was she supposed to do when she wasn’t strolling the grounds of Balmoral or building a new gilded existence with the disagreeable Fayed family? Charities have become a fashion accessory amongst A-list celebrities; they’re paraded around much like those ridiculous bug-eyed handbag dogs. It’s somewhat cynical to think this way, and not all celebrity charities are self-serving endeavours (Spielberg’s Shoah foundation, for example), but it’s quite obvious that sanctimony and ‘fitting in’ are primary incentives for many philanthropic celebrities.
It’s often claimed that Diana was a victim of the paparazzi, but she used these free PR agents to create her personality cult. As the frenetic chatter of paparazzos’ cameras started to follow Diana wherever she went, she learned how to present herself and manipulate these desperate parasites.From the battlegrounds of Bosnia to the minefields of Angola, her every precious step was captured and broadcast for the whole world to fawn over. I’d shake the hand of every leper in town if I was adored and almost beatified by swathes of people from the world over!
Unfortunately, it seems many people cherish the image rather than the long, hard graft of real innovation and achievement. Take Norman Borlaug for example, he was an American biologist whose high-yield, disease-resistant wheat vastly improved the food supply in Asia and Africa, causing him to be nicknamed ‘The Man Who Saved A Billion Lives’. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for his contributions to world peace, but despite his profound betterment of humanity, Borlaug’s mainstream fame is minimal because he was an old bald man from Iowa.
A more direct comparison is Jody Williams, whose extensive work in anti-landmine campaigning and other political activism was also rewarded with the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997. Williams was active at the same time as Diana, but heartfelt political principles are of minimal interest to those who enjoy crying, so her committed political career went largely unnoticed by the general public, who found the glamour and fantasy of Diana to be infinitely more watchable.
Diana’s saintly reputation was (and still is) the creation of a mawkishly money-minded press and a disconcertingly large part of the population who willingly indulged it with teary-eyed relish. The other key influence on the event was Prime Minister Tony Blair. Diana’s death occurred at a very opportune time for the newly elected leader; after winning a landslide victory with the New Labour campaign in 1997, he was swiftly handed a chance to connect with ‘the people’ on an emotional level with an intensity perhaps unseen since VE day 52 years prior.
It was Blair who popularised the laughable moniker ‘the People’s Princess’. This is a woman who was bought a £100,000 house for her eighteenth birthday, wore a £9000 wedding dress, and was somehow worth an estimated $40 million at the time of her death – how on earth can she be considered a figure that represented the people?
The footage of myriad plebs flocking to Buckingham Palace and even camping around it so they could mourn an aristocratic celebutante they had never met is pathetic in the true sense of the word. They were shamelessly caught up in Diana’s cult of personality, exposing much of humanity’s need to worship someone or something, whether it’s Jesus Christ or Kim Kardashian’s arse.
Blair wasn’t the only public figure to endorse and exacerbate the media’s campaign of crying, Elton John and Bernie Taupin rewrote Candle in the Wind to fit the occasion. Of course, all proceeds went to charity, but it is clear that the song’s purpose was to vastly inflate John’s ego, not his $450 million bank balance.
Candle in the Wind 1997 is the anthem for the infantile, protracted emotional outbursts that have become so commonplace, whether it’s Jade Goody’s made-for-TV cancer battle or the never-ending Hillsborough disaster. The lyricism of Candle in the Wind is very much to the taste of those who thought it was appropriate to give a kitsch teddy bear to a dead stranger, highlights include: ‘For our nation’s golden child’, ‘All our words cannot express / The joy you brought us through the years’, ‘From a country lost without your soul’.
Where does one begin with these stupid lyrics? I’m sure Elton felt much joy when he rubbed his sycophantic shoulders with Diana at glitzy, gaudy high society functions, but what joy did she bring to the rest of us lowly serfs? The most offensive of the song’s claims is that Britain – the first industrialised nation who conquered much of the world, contributed significantly to science and the arts and defeated some of history’s greatest tyrants – was ‘lost’ without the soul of some posh totty. Elton and Taupin were right about the ‘nation’s golden child’ bit though – she had a 20 million pound jewellery collection.
The solemn dignity of Henry Purcell’s March once flooded Westminster Abbey for the funeral of Queen Mary II in 1695; I wonder what Purcell would have made of Taupin’s claptrap and the melodrama of John’s pianism? I shouldn’t think anyone else gives a toss though, because a 2002 poll revealed that the British public considered Diana to be the third greatest Briton of all time, putting her ahead of Charles Darwin, Isaac Newton, Charles Babbage and Tim Berners-Lee. I know, it is just a list, but it’s still a disconcerting measure of the public’s preference for vapid celebrity over true understated genius.
The whole Diana issue is wrapped in another layer of stupidity when one considers the monarchy and the population’s relationship with it. Britain’s former draconian rigidity and pomp and circumstance was largely eroded by two World Wars and cultural revolution, causing the Royal Family to look terribly archaic and useless. The perpetually sour-faced Queen and her clan have devolved into little more than a tinselly tourist attraction for American and Commonwealth tourists to gawp at.
The cultural bastardisation of the Diana debacle stressed just how absurd the notion of royalty is. With their divorces, syrupy concerts (more of that in a minute) and Nazi themed fancy dress, the Royals have dumbed down along with the rest of mainstream culture, reminding us more than ever that they too are homo-sapiens, African apes with tiaras and fascinators. The French realised this in the 18th century, and even though I understand and enjoy the allure of tradition, it’s about time we did, too.
I may disagree with their unearned adoration, but that doesn’t mean I dislike the Royals as people. William and Harry appear perfectly affable, so it was particularly disappointing when they organised and hosted the Concert for Diana in 2007. The show commemorated what would have been her 46th birthday, which was almost 2 months before the 10th anniversary of her death and the subsequent destruction of British values.
Elton John returned, opening and closing the ceremony with a selection of naff ballads. The rest of the concert comprised 26 acts, ranging from Duran Duran (Diana’s favourite band) and Tom Jones to Kanye West and ‘P. Diddy’, or ‘Puff Daddy’ or ‘Diddy’ or whatever juvenile pseudonym he was using at time. Musically, P. Diddy’s performance was very lacklustre, he instead channeled his efforts into what he called ‘Diana’s rebirth’, which saw him walking to the front of the stage and asking the audience to join in with him shouting ‘We love you! We miss you!’ Diddy’s self-serving display left me utterly incredulous.
Using a format similar to Red Nose Day, the concert was punctuated with short films of charity workers and other interviewees relentlessly praising Diana as if she was the Earth’s first faultless human being. The last film that championed a real-life figure so spectacularly was Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph des Willens (1935).
Whether it is the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the sob stories in the weekly pabulum that is The X-Factor, or the death of Jade Goody (don’t get me started), an unhealthy appetite for vicarious bereavement and the 24hr media circuses that satiate it continue to rage on. The masses may eventually get a grip, but the damage has already been done. There will always be two categories of people: those who cried when Diana died and those who rightfully did not.
The Film Inquiry team have been considering cinema’s greatest couples. I was planning on choosing a non-romantic couple for my contribution until I remembered the very special Enough Said. Directed by Nicole Holofcener, the film charts the romance between Eva (Julia Louis-Dreyfus) and Albert (James Gandolfini), two divorcees who are introduced to each other at a party. Their remarkably naturalistic performances are key to the film’s success.
Cult films are difficult to define, as they vary in scope, themes, genre and in just about every other way. Despite these ambiguities, it is demonstrable that the revered Roger Ebert once got the definition entirely wrong.
In his review of Avatar, Ebert described the film as an “event” that was “predestined to launch a cult.” Avatar was indeed an event, as the film had been the subject of a relentless $150 million promotional campaign that employed methods as commercial and corporate as McDonald’s Happy Meal toys. An otherwise emphatic Ebert acknowledged this caveat, describing it as a “dubious advance buzz,” but I think this manufactured buzz should immediately negate any arguments that it is a cult film. Any highly successful blockbuster film with a profile that’s been pumped up by Rupert Murdoch’s deep moneybags can rarely be called a “cult film,” as its reach and grasp are far too large.
‘My visit to Auschwitz was more uncanny than overwhelming’
‘I had read that it was an ‘overwhelming’ experience, and I suppose that is an accurate description, however my reaction to this overwhelment wasn’t an emotional breakdown but rather a numb detachment that was punctuated by an occasional portent feeling and this nervous unease that put the hairs on the back of my neck on end. I’d get this latter sensation when I peeked into the windows of locked barracks; in most instances the rooms were dark, dusty and dilapidated, yet having some knowledge of what happened in these nondescript old wrecks made me feel somewhat spooked as if some tortured soul’s face was suddenly going to appear in the shadows.’
The Stoke Film Theatre is celebrating its 40th birthday this year. It opened its doors in September 1974, a time of great vitality in world cinema. With people like Michael Bay running amok, how well does contemporary cinema serve film fans?
Located in Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, the Stoke Film Theatre has committed itself to showing a wide range of films to the public. It’s a great cultural jewel whose considerable patronage is of all ages. The Theatre’s schedule is split into three parts: Main Programme, Screen Monday and Screen Wednesday. The Main Programme comprises new films that are both obscure and wide releases. Tickets cost £6 or £5 for a concessions ticket. Screen Monday showings are free and vary in content, the latest Monday season is in tribute to the late Philip Seymour Hoffman.
Screen Wednesday, which is also free, is an outlet for the Staffordshire Film Archive, which was founded by Ray Johnson and is situated in Staffordshire University. (For details on what’s showing, visit their website.) Following Staffordshire University’s semesters, the Stoke Film Theatre closes in July and reopens in September.
Grace Jordan has worked with her husband John at the theatre in a voluntary capacity for 40 years. She said: ‘The Film Theatre evolved from The North Staffordshire Film Society in September 1974, it is a non-profit organisation run largely by volunteers, the only paid members being manager Alexandra Scott and administrator Gill Yates.
‘There are 8 teams of volunteers, each comprising 6 people. They run the front of house, managing ticket sales and running the bar. We also have several volunteer projectionists. To conform to industry standards, we had to equip the theatre with digital technology at the expense of around £50,000.
‘Our anniversary is in September, we plan to celebrate this with a collection of films that were shown back in 1974, however we haven’t decided what they are yet.’
Peter Hames has been a governor of the Stoke Film Theatre since 1974 and was also head programmer for over 30 years. Peter, who lives in Stone, was also involved in the creation of the film studies course at Staffordshire University. Peter said: ‘It is the function of the Film Theatre to provide a considerably wider range of films both in terms of country of origin and in terms of subject matter.’
Peter Hames has been a Film Theatre governor since 1974.
The Stoke Film Theatre is part of the Europa Cinemas Group, which is a theatre network that focuses on European cinema. It is a vast organisation comprising 1,182 cinemas and 3,194 screens in 682 cities in 69 countries. Europa’s objective is to provide ‘operational and financial support’ to cinemas like the Stoke Film Theatre that are committed to screening European films.
Peter said: ‘Originally the Film Theatre was set up in association with the British Film Institute, who advised on film availability and programme selection. We’ve also always had an advisory programming committee’
The booking of films is done through the Independent Cinema Office, who negotiate directly with film distributors. Peter said: ‘There have been occasional problems with distributors, but generally relations have been okay.’
Peter specialises in Slavic cinema, having written a book titled ‘Czech and Slovak Cinema: Theme and Tradition’. He is the Russian and Eastern European film programme advisor for the BFI London Film festival. When asked his favourite films, Peter named the five films he selected for Sight and Sound’s best films of all time in 2010: ‘The Man in the White Suit’ (UK), ‘The Searchers’ (US), ‘A Tale of Tales’ (Russian animation), ‘Celine and Julie Go Boating’ (France), ‘Daisies’ (Czech). But like so many film fans, he finds such a small number just isn’t enough: ‘I estimate that I would have to select at least 60 with a claim to being representative of ‘the best of cinema’.
Volunteer Beth Walton said: ‘I have been a volunteer at the film theatre for two years now, but I have been an audience member for about eight. I work in the box office selling tickets and occasionally on the bar which is what all the volunteers (apart from the projectionists, who only project) do, but I also keep the Facebook page and Twitter feed up to date with what is going on, along with one other volunteer.
‘Updating these is really enjoyable, especially when we do fun things like the programme board that said ‘Hello to Jason Isaacs’ and got re-posted by Kermode and Mayo, where it got well over 100 ‘likes’!
‘I have also been able to program a couple of our Screen Monday seasons. Every Monday night we show a film for free in seasons of four or five around a theme, usually an actor or director. Back in September we had Monday of the Dead which was really fun. I’ve met so many great people through volunteering at the Film Theatre and count a couple of them as some of my best friends’
Beth Walton has been a volunteer at the Stoke Film Theatre for two years.
When asked what her favourite films were, Beth said: ‘It is really hard to say what my favourite films are – the list depends on what I’ve been watching recently or what mood I’m in, but today it is: ‘Harold and Maude’ (1971), ‘If…'(1968), ‘Saturday Night, Sunday Morning’ (1960), ‘Cria Cuervos’ (1976), ‘A Streetcar Named Desire’ (1951).’
The Stoke Film Theatre was launched at a time of great invention and transgression in world cinema. The late 60s and 70s were dubbed ‘New Hollywood’, they introduced audiences to levels of realism that had been seldom seen. Sex, violence and counterculturalism proliferated with titles such as ‘The Wild Bunch’(1969), ‘Easy Rider’(1969), ‘Midnight Cowboy’(1969), ‘Bonnie and Clyde’(1967), ‘Deliverance’(1972), ‘A Clockwork Orange’(1971), ‘The Exorcist’(1973), ‘Taxi Driver’(1976) and many more.
Many complain that modern cinema has become excessively commercialised, with some of the harshest criticism levelled at confectionary prices. (Not a problem at the Stoke Film Theatre, they even sell alcohol too!) BBC film critic Mark Kermode has frequently criticised the ‘multiplex culture’, writing whole books about the issue. Scores would agree that the summer blockbuster, which began with the excellent ‘Jaws’ in 1975, has been steadily bastardised with many long, boring and incredibly loud films like ‘Transformers’ inexplicably managing to rake in the cash.
Peter Hames pointed out: ‘Commercial cinema is there to maximise profit and is therefore not going to experiment with unusual (or foreign language) cinema, this is where places like our theatre come in’
Of course, not everything at the Staffordshire multiplexes is directed by Michael Bay (the notoriously explosion-happy director responsible for tripe such as ‘Pearl Harbour’ and the ‘Transformer’ series), there are plenty of interesting films that receive wide releases. But the Stoke Film Theatre, which is a cultural jewel of not only Stoke but Staffordshire, hosts the largest breadth of world cinema in the area. It reassures any dissenting voices that there is still a wealth of interesting, original and challenging cinema being produced.The Theatre has done a sterling job showing the best of the past couple of years, with packed audiences for ‘The Hunt’, ‘Captain Phillips’, ’12 Years a Slave’, ‘Nebraska’, ‘The Act of Killing’, ‘Rush’ and ‘Blue Jasmine’ to name only a few of just their main programme.
Compared to the music industry, cinema is in perfect health. Much like the shouty blockbusters of cinema, the nonsense that is chart music may obnoxiously steal the attention away from the proper artists, but are the proper artists comparable to the proper films like Thomas Vinterberg’s brilliant ‘The Hunt’? I’m not sure they are. If you’re a fan of cinema who’s become disillusioned with the local multiplex, let me assure you that the Stoke Film Theatre is a place with like-minded patronage that go to the cinema to actually watch a film. Visit their website.
I don’t consider this list to be definitive, there are of course scores of other interesting actors who may turn out to be far more interesting than the individuals mentioned below. For now though, here is a list of six people whose career paths are following the most interesting trajectory.
6 – Arnold Schwarzenegger
He’s not the most talented, nuanced of actors, but I’ve been a fan of the Austrian Oak’s iconic persona since I was a child. Schwarzenegger deprived fans for 8 years during his incredulous tenure as Governor of California, and he downright teased us in 2010 with his brief cameo in ‘The Expendables’. However, he is no longer the Governator, he has returned to his second career, the one that made him most famous. He’s already starred in ‘The Last Stand’ (2013), a film that annoyingly I haven’t been able to see yet. However it was great seeing him in last year’s ‘The Expendables 2’ which was, to quote Patrick Bateman, a ‘laugh riot’. I’m always up for a slice of Arnie cheese, and I’m sure ‘The Tomb’, ‘The Expendables 3’ and perhaps even ‘The Terminator 5’ will be entertaining, however I’m not sure how the latter will work out.
5 – Michael Fassbender
Fassbender has proved his worth in small independent films such as ‘Fish Tank’ (2009) and ‘Shame’ (2011) and big-budget blockbusters like‘Inglourious Basterds’ (2009)and ‘Prometheus’ (2012). With films like ‘The Counselor’, ‘Jane Got a Gun’ and ‘Prometheus 2’ in his upcoming canon, the affable Fassbender seems to be forging a career that is both critically and commercially successful.
4 – Ryan Gosling
It’s remarkable to think that a man who starred in the worst film ever made, The Notebook, could appear on this list. Since the offence in 2004, Gosling starred in films such as Half Nelson(2006) and Blue Valentine(2010). He didn’t truly come to my attention until 2011, when he assumed the role of ‘The Driver’ in Nicolas Winding Refn’s Drive. His performance, like the film, wasn’t the most layered, but he certainly excelled in producing a steely aura and being just so incredibly cool.
The great thing about Drive was that it signalled Gosling’s encroachment onto the edgy, independent area of cinema. It was also hopefully going to be the first instalment in a cinematic collaboration between him and Danish director Refn. Those hopes were confirmed when images of Only God Forgives surfaced, showing Gosling with a badly beaten up face.
3 – Nicolas Cage
He’s by no means a new kid on the block, quite the contrary, he’s becoming a rather venerable member of Hollywood. Since his emergence in the mid to late eighties, Nic Cage has appeared in approximately two million films.
Some may be surprised by his inclusion, his role decisions are becoming increasingly questionable, but I really like Cage, he’s idiosyncratic in more ways than one. Firstly, as Mark Kermode once rather rudely pointed out, he certainly doesn’t have leading man looks, and his hair is very, very strange. He is also famously capable of delivering unhinged performances, performances which can only be described as ‘Cagesque’. Among the finest examples in the ‘Cagesque’ oeuvre are ‘Vampire’s Kiss’ (1988), ‘Bad Lieutenant’ (2010), ‘Deadfall’ (1993), ‘Face/Off’ (1997) and ‘Matchstick Men’ (2003). It’s this combination of unconventional looks and persona that make him a favourite of mine.
Of course, Cage can also deliver more balanced, subtle performances if a director manages to tame him, as demonstrated in ‘Leaving Las Vegas’ (1995) and ‘Adaptation.’ (2002). Because of the sheer personality of the man, I’m always on the look-out for updates on his career – I was utterly delighted to hear that he will be appearing in ‘The Expendables 3′.
2 – Christian Bale
Christian Bale is the undisputed king of ‘weight acting’.
His performance as Patrick Bateman in American Psycho (2000) is one of my all time favourites, and his roles in ‘The Machinist’ and ‘The Fighter’ show how he’s a truly committed actor. Now that the vastly overrated Batman trilogy has ended, Bale can leave the boring character of Bruce Wayne and build on an already impressive portfolio. His appearance in ‘Untitled Terrance Malick Production’, which co-stars Ryan Gosling, Michael Fassbender and Rooney Mara is a step in the right direction. Bale will be offered the best scripts in Hollywood; we’ll probably find him in the Best Leading Actor category at an Oscars ceremony in the very near future.
1 – Matthew McConaughey
Matthew McConaughey’s films have been famously commercially-minded for the past decade or so, with films such as ‘The Wedding Planner’, ‘Sahara’, ‘Ghosts of Girlfriends Past’ and ‘How to Loose a Guy in 10 Days’. This career move is understandable, the man has amassed a fortune from these films, however he has lost a damning amount of credibility in the process.
Not anymore though, over the past few years he has shown what he’s capable of in films such as ‘The Lincoln Lawyer’, ‘Bernie’, ‘Magic Mike’ and ‘Killer Joe’, which for my money is the best film of 2012. I fawned endlessly over his performance in my review of ‘Killer Joe’, and for good reason, he doesn’t just break his typecast, he shatters it. It’s one of the most menacing performances I’ve seen in years.
It seems this upward trajectory isn’t slowing either, with McConaughey going all method actor and losing massive amounts of weight for his leading role in the upcoming ‘The Dallas Buyer’s Club’. Other roles include ‘Mud’ and Scorsese’s ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’. I’m all for this, but I can’t help imagining this rapid ascension has left McConaughey feeling rather smug, he’s gone from a mere rich heartthrob to a rich, critically respected heartthrob!
In my honest, correct opinion, Predator is a better film than Alien.
While both films share one crucial thing in common, that their narratives both concern a homicidal extra-terrestrial, they are constructed completely differently. From its score, characters and set design – Alien is all about understatement. On the other hand, Predator is loud, brash and brilliantly macho. Both films have the same central conceit, however Alien, the one that takes itself very seriously, is the one that unfairly claims all the critical praise.
Despite the massive amount of praise Alien has been steeped in over the years, it’s little more than a B-movie. The film follows a seven-member crew aboard Nostromo, a commercial spacecraft that is carrying millions of tonnes of mineral ore. The cast of characters are: Ripley (Sigourney Weaver), Captain Dallas (Tom Skerritt), Kane (John Hurt), Lambert (Veronica Cartwright), Ash (Ian Holm), Brett (Harry Dean Stanton) and Parker (Yaphet Cotto).
Their routine procedure is complicated when the crew are ordered to investigate an anonymous transmission from a nearby planetoid. During the investigation, they find a nest of eggs, one of which hatches with worrying results. What ensues back on their ship is nothing more than B-movie fare, which usually isn’t a problem, however its aura of restraint and suspense seems to have convinced people that it’s some sort of masterpiece.
Despite my reservations, I do think Alien is a good film. Its first quarter is compelling, suspenseful and in one particular scene, very shocking. H.R. Giger’s set design is also striking and original, below is an image of the famous ‘Space Jockey’. Last summer I visited the H.R. Giger museum in Gruyeres, Switzerland; it was very interesting, the Alien imagery could be seen throughout his body of work.
Through its use of sound, set design and Jerry Goldsmith’s understated, creepy score, the film creates an effectively eerie aura, but it doesn’t do much more than that. I must note that it’s important to consider the impact Alien had on its release. There’s no doubt that Alien is an epochal film that really worked with audiences, however the elements that made it gripping and original in 1979 have unfortunately been eroded by the dozens of spin-offs. On repeated viewings, the film is restrained to the point of tedium; it hasn’t got the replay value of Predator. Some would say that Predator is one of those spin-offs, but it’s so much more than that.
My main problem with the film is its cast, they’re convincing, but the crew members are devoid of charisma, especially Ripley, the leading lady. Predator is by no means an exercise in character development, but its characters are amusing caricatures; the crew aboard Nostromo just leave you indifferent.
After the chestburster scene, a truly remarkable moment, the film drastically reduces its use of on-screen gore. The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is testament to the power of sparse amounts of violence, but in Alien, it just feels neutered and disappointing. Also, there are moments that are laughably dated and unfrightening, most notably in the scene captured below.
Just Like Alien, Predator is a B-movie, however it’s as a B-movie should be, exciting and pulpy. The film concerns Dutch (Arnold Schwarzenegger), a tough Major who commands a platoon of comparably hard men, including: Dillon (Carl Weathers), Mac (Bill Duke), Billy (Sonny Landham), Blain (Jesse Ventura), ‘Poncho’ (Richard Chaves) and Hawkins (Shane Black). The platoon are traversing through the lush, dangerously vast jungles of Central America to infiltrate a camp of guerilla forces who have kidnapped a politician and his aide.
In stark contrast with the believable but boring crew of Alien, the characters in Predator are funny, charismatic and comically masculine, none less than its leading man Schwarzenegger, who delivers his iconic Schwarzerisms with one liners such as ‘Stick around!’ and the now famous ‘GET TO DA CHOPPA!’. Below is a scene I find very unintentionally funny, but female readers be warned, the scene below is pumped with so much testosterone that you may become pregnant.
Dillon! You son of a bitch!
The bloody confrontation at the camp, which serves as the film’s primary action sequence, is brilliantly shot and choreographed, it’s a quality slice of squibby carnage from the superlative action director John McTiernan, who has largely been a wasted talent ever since the superb Die Hard (1988). Unlike Alien, the violence in Predator is strong and grisly, the film hasn’t dated in this respect, and surprisingly its smart use of CGI hasn’t dated either, it remains convincing to this day.
Its smart, resourceful use of special effects means that ‘Predator’ is convincing 26 years later.
Predator is a film teeming with life and energy, these vibes being very much compounded by Alan Silvestri’s score, which is both excitingly militaristic and intensely suspenseful. The film takes a B-movie concept and successfully blends the best of the action and science fiction genres, creating a experience which is thrilling, funny and satiatingly violent. Alien on the other hand exercises its talent in typography.
Personally, I find the stubbing of a toe or stepping on Lego infinitely more wince inducing than a big, bloody shootout. There were numerous other clips I considered, however I felt they were more appropriately placed on a ‘most violent’ list. So instead of the cinema’s most violent, I name cinema’s most painful. Defining what’s cringe worthy is quite a subjective matter, so see if you agree. (Warning: Contains spoilers)
#10 Pet Sematary (1989)
The familiarity of this scene is what makes it so toe curling. Bedrooms may be a place of rest, but unforgiving bed posts and bedside tables can wreak havoc on your knees, elbows, ankles and in this case, entire face. This brief yet utterly visceral moment is the only thing I can remember about ‘Pet Sematary’, and it’s actually much funnier than I remember.
#9 Midnight Express (1978)
This scene demonstrates that when the nape of the neck and a large metal coat hook collide, the coat hook wins. The thought of that tender area of your body being penetrated so violently sends an unpleasant sensation down my spine. This scene is especially shocking when seen in context, it completely catches you off guard. The pain begins at 1:28.
#8 ‘Thanksgiving’ Grindhouse Trailer (2007)
I know, this isn’t a film, but this little homage achieved the hard task of making me absolutely gasp. Although the scene is of a blade colliding with genitalia, it is spared of violence and successfully relies on your imagination to contemplate the ghastly damage. The pain begins at 4:50.
#7 The Shining (1980)
Jack Nicholson’s ad-libbed ‘Here’s Johnny!’ is one of the most famous lines in the annals of cinema history, it’s also followed by one of cinema’s cringiest injuries. The pain begins at 1:54.
#6 The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)
The sight of Leatherface having a wrench thrown at his head by a fat man in a mustard coloured t-shirt is undeniably funny, but the viewer immediately recoils when he falls over and cuts a few inches of flesh out of his thigh. Having a whirring chainsaw lacerate your leg makes for a very risky shot, but given the tight budget and notoriously intense filming conditions, something tells me that director Tobe Hooper slipped Gunnar Hansen a few dollar bills to injure himself in the name of exploitation cinema. The infamous meat hook scene is also bitingly painful. The pain shortly after 1:25.
#5 Goodfellas (1990)
This is a scene so painful, so completely agonising, that it bypasses your intellect and actually physically hurts you more and more with each blow of the pistol butt. The opening scene to ‘Goodfellas’ is also very vicious, but I think this just about edges in front of it on the pain-o-meter.
#4 Un Chien Andalou (1929)
You wouldn’t have thought that a French film from 1929 would make it into the top 10, let alone come in at number 4. This looks so horribly, wince inducingly real because it is, only it was the eye of a dead horse. I remember showing this to my father and he reacted with total dismay – “Why have you shown me this?! Why do you watch things like this?! Why do they make things like this?!”
#3 American History X (1998)
Here is another scene that is blood free yet jarringly visceral. ‘Curb stomping’ really is an evil, barbaric thing to do to someone, I don’t think even Hitler deserved this.
#2 127 Hours (2010)
Everyone knows the story before they watch ‘127 Hours’, but that does nothing to soften the blow of the amputation scene that the audience has been anxiously awaiting for the past 80 minutes. It certainly didn’t soften the blow for one viewer at the screening I was in. Shortly after the amputation scene, I heard ‘Can someone phone an ambulance?’ emanate from the back of the auditorium, for a split second I attributed it to the surround sound, but knowing that clearly wasn’t the case, I quickly realised that someone had fainted. Once they had been taken out of the screening, the distinct smell of vomit began to pervade the room. I pitied them, but they certainly gave the film a sense of occasion!
#1 Misery (1990)
This scene is infamous and for good reason. Seldom have I empathised with a character as much as I did with the defenceless Paul Sheldon (James Caan), what a sorry, sorry predicament to find oneself in. I’d love to see an audience’s reaction to this one.