The French Connection Double Bill

The French Connection (William Friedkin, 1971)
The French Connection II (John Frankenheimer, 1975)


What are they about? Both films focus on tough-talking cop Jimmy 'Popeye' Doyle (Gene Hackman) and his efforts to catch suave heroin smuggler Alain Charnier (Fernando Rey). The first is based on true events and is set in Boston where Doyle first stumbles upon the case, the second is a fictional extension of the story and shifts to Marseilles as he obsessively pursues the French connection.


Are they any good? Well I'm guessing I don't need to tell you much about the first one. You'll know it's a classic Oscar-winning 70s cop movie, with a terrific performance from Hackman as the belligerent, casually racist, anti-hero Doyle. And even if you haven't seen it, you'll probably know about the car chase sequence, which stands amongst the best car chases ever filmed. Stories of how it was shot are now the stuff of film-making legend, not least the tale of one poor bloke who left his home for work in the morning unaware that filming was taking place and ended up getting his car totalled. The producers gallantly paid for the damage and left the shot in the final cut of the film to increase realism. However, I actually prefer the other chase, the one which takes place on foot as Doyle tails Charnier through the streets and down into the subway, which is a tense, funny, cat-and-mouse sequence. The whole thing was shot in gritty docu-drama style by Friedkin (inpsired by the French political thriller Z) and given extra realism by sprinkling the cast with real-life cops involved in the real case. See Doyle's supervising officer? That's Eddie Egan, the guy the character of Popeye Doyle is based upon - he and his partner Sonny Grosso (played by Roy Scheider in the film) acted as consultants on the film. See the mechanic who helps strip the car for drugs? That's the real mechanic who helped the cops find the stash. Throughout the film, the use of real locations wherever possible also contributed to the authenticity of the events unfolding. But what really pushes the film into classic territory is its uncompromising ending, which both emphasizes the grim futility of the fight against drug trafficking and muddies the moral waters even more by demonstrating how it can be soul-destroying for those involved. Literally. No point making a sequel to that, eh?



Director William Friedkin discusses how he fashioned
The French Connection's classic car chase

Yeah, right. The box-office success of The French Connection meant a sequel was inevitable. Hackman and Rey were enticed back, but Friedkin opted out, leaving helming duties to John Frankenheimer, who presumably decided not to fix what wasn't broke and simply aped the style of the first film. So, it lacks the originality of its predecessor and is not in the same class, but it's perfectly acceptable in its own right, taking a fish-out-of-water theme this time as Doyle travels to Marseilles and rubs up the local gendarmes the wrong way with his blustering Yankee ways. The notable feature of this film is that it features an extended sequence wherein Doyle is kidnapped and forcibly addicted to heroin. The advantage of this is that it allows us to savour some impressive Hackman acting, particularly in the cold turkey scenes, but the disadvantage is that it rather stalls the film's plot to a halt for a while, with the result that it doesn't have the same compelling momentum as the first film. Still, it rallies strongly at the end with another chase sequence (on foot this time) and builds to a satisfying pay-off. Incidentally, those expressions of pain on Hackman's face during this chase are real - he had bad knees and all the running left him in terrible discomfort.

Anything else I should know? You may be interested to know the worst hotel I have ever stayed in was in Marseilles - it genuinely looked like the one Doyle gets taken to to be pumped full of heroin. I had no such luck. Instead I went to the crummy cafe next door and bought the only thing they had left, which was a manky old profiterole. So that's my story of The French Confection. BOOM! High five! Wasn't going to pass up the chance to shoehorn that joke in.


What does the Fonz think? "You ever high five your hand in Poughkeepsie?"
for the original for the sequel

Buy them on Amazon

Ray Harryhausen Tribute


"I had to learn to do everything because I couldn't find another kindred soul. Now you see eighty people listed doing the same things I was doing by myself."
Ray Harryhausen





Back in the 1980s, I invented a thing called computer generated imagery (CGI) for the movies. I had lots of money and computers to do it and it's used quite a bit now in cinema. However, I always felt inadequate, because in the room across the corridor sat a genius. As I tapped on my keyboard and rang studio bosses demanding more money, this quiet man, armed with little more than a putty knife and his imagination, and funded by loose change he found down the back of the sofa, was creating movie history. That man was special effects legend Ray Harryhausen and he died yesterday at the age of 92. Well, he may have drawn his last breath, but he breathed life into some of the greatest creatures ever seen in the movies. Let's take a look.




Talos in Jason & the Argonauts (1963)
It is a fact that not a single gram of CGI has ever made me shit my pants as much as when the bronze statue of Talos sloooooowly creaked into life and turned his black eyes upon the thieves stealing the treasure of the Gods. Run away!



Medusa in Clash of the Titans (1981)
Let's face it. Clash of the Titans is pretty shit. Not as shit as the 2010 remake. But still pretty bad. But the monsters aren't. The Kraken, the scorpions, the clockwork owl - all fabulous. And of course the fearsome Medusa, who I always thought looked like Davros, the creators of the Daleks, in drag. 


Giant Octopus in It Came From Beneath the Sea (1955)
Due to budgetary constraints, the giant octopus was tentacly challenged, sporting only 6 of them. But somehow Harryhausen managed to make this a benefit rather than a drawback. Harryhausen's imagination fuelled our own - who knew what manner of fearsome monster had managed to remove the missing tentacles? And yet the Giant Octopus had prevailed. Wow. A lovely tribute was paid in Monsters Inc. (2001), when Mike takes his girlfriend to the restaurant Harryhausen's - watch out for the octopus barman (er..bar-octopus?), who has only 6 tentacles as a homage.



The Skeletons in Jason & the Argonauts (1963)
Four and a half months of work went into creating this iconic moment of stop-motion history. Astonishingly detailed and brilliantly choreographed, this inspired a generation of filmmakers, just as King Kong (1933) had inspired Harryhausen in his youth. Of course, Jason should have just told the skeletons 'Argo fuck yourselves'. Little topical mythology humour there folks.


Kali in The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (1973)
The multi-armed Kali isn't just a nifty fighter. Prior to tackling Sinbad with her six swords, she does a foxy little dance and she's quite the mover. Like Cheryl Cole, only blue and with 6 arms. And sexier. And prettier. And more animated. 

Cyclops v Taro stompy monster smackdown in The 7th Voyage of Sinbad (1958)
Pursued by the Cyclops, Sinbad creates a diversion by releasing the conveniently located dragon Taro from his shackles. Unexpectedly faced by this new scaly foe, Cyclops opts for the classic headlock-with-one-arm-and-punch-with-the-other tactic. Which might work well down the boozer, but Taro having none of it. Also watch out for Cyclops' 'Oh Shit!' face when he sees the dragon.


Wonderful - just a brief recap of some of those creatures I first encountered watching TV matinees on Saturday afternoons. And that's without even mentioning the countless other dinosaurs and space monsters Harryhausen created. Or the moon cow in First Men in the Moon (1964). That's right, a moon cow. For extra reading you can check out the official Harryhausen website, this account of making Jason & the Argonauts or this comprehensive rundown of Harryhausen creatures in the movies. Or you can read one of the thousands of similar articles which have sprung up across the internet in the past day like an army of skeletons as film fans pay tribute to a man who made us believe in the fantastic. Actually, you know what we really need here? A montage of monsters! Oh! Here's one that'll do nicely.





“What we do now digitally with computers, Ray did digitally long before but without computers. Only with his digits.” 
Terry Gilliam. 


RIP Ray.








The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser (Werner Herzog, 1975)

What's it about? Based on the very odd true story of teenager Kaspar Hauser, who turned up in Nuremburg in 1828, hardly able to talk or walk and clutching a cryptic note, apparently having being unexposed to human contact for many years. Who the hell is he? 


Is it any good? No point watching this if you want to find out who Kaspar Hauser is. To this day, his origins remain unknown, despite many speculations. So without an answer to his enigma, Herzog instead uses the story to take sideswipes at religion, science and society, not to mention the meaningless futility of life in general. The general point he seems to be making is that if human activities were shown to a complete outsider, it would actually be the human race that would seem a bit odd. Which is a fine thing to aspire to, although this isn't the most polished film in the world, with pacing problems as it moves from intriguing to a bit boring and back again. It does have an ace up its sleeve, however, in the casting of Bruno S. as Kaspar. This is a man who had been in and out of mental institutions for years, an experience which drew Herzog to cast him as the stranger in a strange land in this film. At 41 years old, he was obviously too old to play the teenage Kaspar, but his affecting, off-kilter performance is the best thing in it. Elsewhere, Irish readers might be interested to hear it also features some footage of pilgrims climbing Croagh Patrick in Co. Mayo, something my folks have tried to get me to do for years. I won't be doing it now, because according to the film, Death is at the top. Cheery thought.

Anything else I should know? Let me guess - you want to know more about this Hauser character? Well, that's what Wikipedia is for - you can read all about him here. Fecked if I'm going to summarise it for you. Go on, leave me here, I know you're not going to bother watching the film or browse my site further. Don't know why I even bother - you humans are all mad.

What does the Fonz think? Odd.






Buy it on Amazon

Sightseers (Ben Wheatley, 2012)

What's it about? Living at home with her spiteful mother, Tina (Alice Lowe) is only too glad to get away on a caravan holiday with her new boyfriend Chris (Steve Oram) around the lesser-known sights of Yorkshire. Steve's a nice bloke, but he does get rather annoyed by some of the people they encounter. So he kills them.  


Is it any good? It's like Badlands crossed with that Fr Ted episode where they go to the caravan, but not as good as that might sound. You know how you sometimes go on a sightseeing trip and it doesn't really live up to your expectations? You can appreciate the effort that someone has put into presenting their little piece, but it doesn't really excite you? Well, that's how I felt about this. Despite good performances, assured direction and a few guilty laughs at the deadpan humour, it's not really funny enough to be a great black comedy, or clever enough to be a great social satire. Check it out if you find yourself in its vicinity, but I wouldn't really go out of your way to see it. 

Anything else I should know? I play five-a-side football with a lad that looks exactly like Chris - that'll be slightly disconcerting at the next game.  

What does the Fonz think? Not really worth the admittance fee.






Buy it on Amazon

The Impossible (Juan Antonio Bayona, 2012)

What's it about? Maria and Henry Bennett (Naomi Watts and Ewan McGregor), along with their three young sons, arrive for their holiday in Thailand on Christmas Eve, 2004. But disaster strikes two days later when the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami strikes their resort and tears the family apart.


Is it any good? So, I've heard both sides of the argument about this. Is it a whitewashed tourist-centric version of a real-life tragedy? Or is it an honest, family-centric version of a real-life miracle? Well, maybe it's because I'm a miraculous and honest family man, but I came down on the side of the latter. It has a few hokey moments, sure, but this is an authentically staged and engaging disaster movie. The recreation of the tsunami itself is brilliantly realized, heart-in-mouth stuff. If, like me, you had thought perhaps you could have outran the wave if you had been there, this will set you straight. The aftermath is no less grueling to watch - Naomi Watts injuries are likely to cause a little wincing - as the family members search for each other in the devastated area, again superbly believable in its chaotic details. The emotional engagement is heightened with really good performances, particularly from Tom Holland as the eldest son, whilst McGregor has an outstanding breakdown scene which is heart-rending to watch. It could perhaps have done a better job of showing the wider impact of the disaster on the region and skates close to being manipulative at times, but.......YES! OKAY! FINE! I got a little teary, alright? Is that what you wanted to hear? Huh!? ARE YOU HAPPY NOW? Must have been the wine. 

I don't trust you. What do others think? This caused a lot of fuss about the ethical and moral responsibility of making such a film. In the blue corner, the film's detractors weighed in with the argument that the film had focused on a privileged white family of five, whilst marginalizing the hundreds of thousands of Asian people who died and the millions more displaced by the tragedy. Fueling this 'whitewash' argument was the fact that this is the story of a Spanish family, the Belóns, yet the family in the film has been transformed into English. Despite claims to the contrary from the studio, it would seem fairly likely that the changes were made to appeal more to Western audiences, thereby boosting the box-office potential. Studios interested in making money - who'd have thunk it? In the opposite corner, however, the argument was made that this was simply a story of one family's experience of the disaster, not intended to be representative and not intended to play down the scale of the disaster. That said, the emotions on display do speak of a universal theme of love and family, and a celebration of the human spirit, so that justified making the film. You can read more on the argument here.



What does the Fonz think? A wave of emotion to compensate for the whitewashing.






Buy it on Amazon