integralesixteenvalve

Barriers seems to be one of those series that have been lost in the mists of time. After it's transmission in the early 80s and one repeat, it's since sunk without trace. This is a crying shame.

I originally watched this when it was transmitted in the Southern TV region on Sunday afternoons and was classic tea-time viewing. Although I don't remember a great deal about the program, a few things stuck in my mind. Most notable were the unforgettable titles. The mournful flute music accompanying the attempted escape across an East European border and the subsequent car crash (and that scene has left me with an abiding love of 'fintail' Mercedes models as they used a Merc 200). Although it wasn't obvious at the start, the solution to the series' mystery was in these titles.

The plot about a young music student trying to unravel what really happened when he discovers he was adopted had lots of twists and turns but Barriers was a surprisingly 'adult' children's drama. Benedict Taylor was excellent as Billy and it was a shame he didn't do a lot more.

This was a quality drama, well overdue for a DVD release and I hope I'll get the chance to re-acquaint myself with it in the future.

A fond memory from my childhood

Let's get one thing straight first of all. Many reviewers have referred to 'zombies' in this film. It's an easy mistake to make but does colour one's opinion before they have even seen this genuinely frightening tale. Zombies are dead people bought back to life. The 'monsters' in 28 Days Later are still very much alive but infected with the 'Rage Virus', a strange man-made virus that looks like a nasty mixture of rabies and ebola (especially in the way it's passed on).

28 Days Later ranks as one of the most disturbing and genuinely unsettling films I have ever seen, a horror story in the true sense of the word. Other's have drawn parallels with Biohazard, the Romero 'zombie' series and Resident Evil. However, if this film has any real debt for it's inspiration, it must lie with the equally disturbing BBC sci-fi/environmental horror serials of the 1970's: Survivors, The Mad Death, and The Day Of The Triffids. The scene where Jim wakes up in hospital and then walks out into a depopulated and devastated London owes so much to John Duttine's similar journey in Douglas Livingston's superb adaptation of Triffids.

What made this such an unsettling tale was it's relative believability compared with most horror tales. One can imagine the 'Rage Virus' doing it's worst in real life and anyone who can remember how fast the panic over last Summer's Foot and Mouth outbreak spread can identify with much of this story. Viruses, from Ebola to HIV to Rabies and others are genuinely frightening because the spread so fast and infect at will without us puny humans being able to do much to prevent it. While 'Rage' is purely fictional and the premise of man against nature is an old plot, Alex Garland and Danny Boyle have brought more than a few new wrinkles to the table. Together with Matthew Tildsley's superb production design and excellent performances from the cast, 28 Days Later is an effective and chilling film that MUST be seen. Once seen, it won't be forgotten easily. Especially if you watch back to back with the equally impressive (although slightly sillier) sequel 28 Weeks Later.

Well, this must prove that what Michael Bay knows about good film-making could safely fit up a gnat's backside. 'Pearl Harbour' and 'Armageddon' were stinkers but this goes much further. Not only is it unimaginative, poorly acted, predictable and generally repugnant, it's also made by people who had not even the slightest idea of how to mount a suspenseful thriller. It's, in fact, mounted with mind-boggling incompetence.

I loved the original 'Hitcher'. It might not have been a classic, but it was a tidy, original and well paced thriller that delivered a number of really shocking moments. Not only that, it boasted Rutger Hauer's career best performance. He out-did every on-screen baddie that had gone before with his portrayal of John Ryder. He was the perfect embodiment of menace and one of the most truly terrifying madmen ever to hit the screen.

For all his talents as an actor, Sean Bean did not deliver. Look at 'Essex Boys' or 'Fools Gold' to see that he can do over-the-top evil very well, but subtle, manipulative and coldly calculating is not really his forte. Mind you, compared to everyone else involved in this rubbish, he was positively outstanding.

The main character's boyfriend was an irritating, whiny and woodenly played dimwit and the girl simply a 2 dimensional plot device and not someone you could truly root for.

Where this film raises its repellent stink however is in the totally over-the-top nastiness. The first scene, where a rabbit is splattered by a passing car is simply unnecessary and sets the tone for the rest of the film. It has nothing new or interesting to add to the original film so it simply piles on buckets of blood and goes all out to disgust the audience.

What shows up the total clueless incompetence of those involved though is the way the film is constructed. They missed the atmosphere of the original and simply hung together a number of scenes, some directly lifted from the 1986 version and just 'splattered up' without thinking about logic or plotting. Shocks are telegraphed with appalling predictability and everything can be seen coming a mile away. It's almost as if the director and writer went ahead with only the loosest knowledge of how to make a movie because the result is proof that they didn't have the foggiest idea of what they were doing.

That Michael Bay was the producer of this witless farrago comes as no surprise. He's never shown much subtlety in his 'productions' and very little idea or story or character but even he must be truly embarrassed by this. Hollywood re-makes generally stink (with the exception of Guy Ritchie's remake of 'Mean Machine') but this one plumbs new depths and must be one of the worst. The only consolation I can take from the 90 minutes I wasted with this tripe is that I saw it as an in-flight movie and was therefore free. Had I paid money to watch this, I'd be really angry now. I've seen plenty of crap films in my time but rarely have I taken against one as badly as I have with this.

A perfect example of talentless, soulless, clueless imitation from people with nothing to say.

Why this has never been released on DVD I'll never know, especially when so much grade-z rubbish has been given the lavish 'Special Edition' treatment. This is, quite simply, one of the finest 'revenge' genre films made and far more intelligent than most of it's type. I mean, just take a look at the cast: Tom Skerrit, Michael Sarrazin. These a class actors.

What makes Death Vengeance so strong are the well developed characters. You identify with them more than anything. Paul Kersey was someone who appealed to the lowest common denominator, those who liked to cheer violent characters responding in a totally over the top fashion. John D'Angelo seemed to be grounded more in reality, reacting in a way we can understand. While not always sympathetic, Skerrit's performance made him believable.

The film was marketed in a fairly deceptive way. This is more than just another shoot-em-up no-brainer and deserves to be recognised as such. Director Lewis Teague could have taken the easy option, thrown in lots of action set-pieces and had a sky-high bodycount. Instead, he decided to engage our brains instead of our base instincts. He, and the film need to be recognised for this. Shame this doesn't happen more often. See it and you will find an underrated and surprisingly thought provoking film.

Now, I'm going to forward a controversial comment. This is the BEST adaptation of Dracula yet seen and miles better than Coppola's version.

I liked this adaptation because it was a subtle take on the old legend, needing neither the overblown pretension of Coppola's rather lurid and purple-prosy presentation, nor the schlocky elements of the Hammer versions (as good as they are).

Frank Langella really was the definitive Count. He carried the role off with charm and calculation, making him far more rounded a character than Oldman did (but maybe not with the poignancy). What makes the difference though, is that Langella gets first-class back-up while (with the exception of Anthony Hopkins) Oldman was left on his own by the woodenly gruesome performances of the supporting cast (Wynona Ryder and especially Keanu Reeves were the chief culprits here). Kate Nelligan, Sir Larry and Donald Pleasance were in fine form and Trevor Eve made more of the Jonathan Harker character than Reeves ever could. Jan Francis made a believably frail Mina.

What really makes this film so good though is the superbly Gothic atmosphere. The set for the Count's castle was suitably creepy and the cinematography added to the feel of the period. Technically, Badham's version shows how much has now been lost by the reliance on CGI and digital add-ons.

That this Dracula takes it's cue from the stage adaptation rather than Stoker's original book adds a welcome element of variety. So what if it's not faithful? Does it matter? Very few films these days have this level of class and genuine skill injected into them. John Badham's version has been criminally underrated for years and slagged off by far too many ill-informed pedants. Judge for yourself. Maybe you will disagree about which adaptation is best but , pound to a penny, you won't regret watching it.

I will go with the majority opinion here. Sweeney 2 definitely beats Sweeney as the best film spin-off. No silly conspiracy stories, just good old fashioned blaggers and Regan and Carter doing what they do best. Not to say that Sweeney was a bad film, just it was too far removed from the series.

The story pits our favourite coppers against a gang of ex-pat blaggers who travel back to England from Malta every time they need more funds. As a highly professional, ruthless group, they are not easy to catch and Regan finds himself under the cosh, being pressured by his boss (Nigel Hawthorn) to get a result before the inquiry is taken away from them.

Sweeney 2 is more than just an extended Sweeney episode. It's considerably stronger in terms of both violence and bad language that even the ground-breaking series never approached. The fact that in the cinema it was certified 'AA' (now 15) but has always been an X/18 rated video shows that it hasn't mellowed over time.

Although the film drags badly in the middle, this is more than compensated for by the spectacular action scenes and a tense final 25 minutes. The scene where the blaggers crash a Ford Cortina through a shop window, and leaving a police car trailing in it's wake, is an absolute corker and one of the iconic images from the film (look at the video cover if you don't believe me).

Although Sweeney 2 is very much a film for fans of the series, I'd highly recommend it to anyone who likes a good police yarn. There is definite nostalgia value of the scenes of '70's London and it's great playing 'spot the familiar TV actor' as the film included the likes of Ken Hutchinson, Brian Hall, Georgina Hale and Derrick O'Connor.