We here at The Three Movie Weekend (we meaning me) would like to take a moment to mourn the passing of a cinematic legend. This weekend Paul Newman died due to lung cancer.
When following the progression of cinema, one of the ways to demarcate (and there are many) different eras in cinema history is by the style of the major actors of the time. There was a period where Chaplin was the main draw, and his was the style of the day. There there was the Golden Age of Hollywood where we had the likes of Bogart, Cagney, Stewart, Grant, Gable, etc. Legends and incredible actors, but their style was very stilted, very much derived from the stage and not realistic. Then that style was changed towards much more realistic characterizations with the coming of Marlon Brando. He revolutionized the way actors acted. Yet his revolution may have been short lived were it not for a second generation of realistic actors that firmly entrenched the style. Actors like Robert Redford, Dustin Hoffman, Steve Mcqueen and, yes, Paul Newman. Of that generation, Paul Newman was the giant. He was larger than life and as big a draw as any of the actors already mentioned. His popularity at it's height cannot be underestimated. But in the case, his popularity was just a small reflection of his actual talent. Some actors you can tell just dig into their roles. They find out every little thing about the characters and truly absorb them as people. Newman didn't do that, or at least didn't seem to do that. His acting was natural, almost effortless. He didn't have to work for it, or at least didn't seem to. His roles looked as natural on him as feathers on a duck. As Kevin Spacey recently remarked:
"An era just ended. Paul Newman was a great humble giant. He said it was all down to luck, but the rest of us know it was his talent, wit and generous heart that made him the star he was."He should be an example to the acting profession because he seemed to have had his ego surgically removed."
Do you doubt Newman's impact or his cinematic legacy? Let us look down his filmography shall we? One of his first major roles, Cat On a Hot Tin Roof. Even censored as this film was from the original play, the emotional impact of the film is intense. And just by using subtlety and craft Newman was able to maintain the homosexual undertones of his character in a time (1958) when that subject would NEVER be allowed to be mentioned in a major motion picture. I wondered about that aspect of his character as I watched the film, and it wasn't until later when I read that theme was much more blatant in the original play did I realize how artfully Newman kept that portion of the character in.
His amazing turn as Eddie Felson in The Hustler where he stood his ground against the amazing screen presence of George C. Scott (though really it's the few scenes with Jackie Gleason that steal the show). And there is one of the best films all time. Hud. I had the privilege of watching Hud on the big screen at the Classic City Film Festival. I had seen and loved the film before, but seeing it again on the big screen was just something special. You want acting? Go watch the scenes between Newman and tragically underrated actress Patricia Neal. Two thirds of the communication between them is not spoken.
I also want to mention an incredibly strange film Newman did called The Outrage. It was a Western remake of Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon in which Paul Newman plays a mexican bandito. Remakes of Kurosawa as westerns are almost standard (The Magnificent Seven/The Seven Samurai, A Fistful of Dollars/Yojimbo), but this one is just weird. Unless someone points out the fact that the bandito is Paul Newman you would never recognize him.
Then Newman hit his own personal golden age in the late 60's and early 70's. He made three huge films, the first two of which have had immense impacts on the popular culture of America. I'm speaking of Cool Hand Luke, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, and The Sting. Of those three, the most brilliant film in terms of acting and impact is, far and away, Cool Hand Luke. If you watch only one Paul Newman picture, watch Cool Hand Luke. It's gritty, realistic, lighthearted, depressing, and all points in between. Portions have entered into popular culture. "What we've got here, is...failure...to communicate." "Shaking the bush, boss." "Sometimes nothing can be a pretty cool hand." "Why you got to go and say fifty eggs for?" "Oh they broke me, but I didn't stay broke." This picture is, in a world, brilliant.
Newman continued to work steadily throughout his entire life. There was perhaps the first loser comedy, Slapshot. There was his reprise of Eddie Felsom in The Color of Money for which he won his best actor academy award (though likely it was more for his career instead of this particular role). There was The Verdict, which is in my Netflix list. There's The Hudsucker Proxy, The Road to Perdition, Message in a Bottle, and even doing a voice in the Pixar movie Cars just two years ago. He only officially retired in 2007 to fight against the cancer.
On then there are his charitable works, of which I am only just learning about now. For example, the food company Newmans Own, which is nationally stocked in grocery stores, uses all it's profits for charity. Think about that. Think about it. That's like asking Kraft to donate all it's profits to charity. That's an insane amount of money. He also set up a charitable foundation to fight drug abuse when his only son died of an accidental drug overdose.
I want to emphasize a word I've used several times in this entry. Giant. That's what Paul Newman was. He was a giant. Not only in the movie industry, but in the world. He used his talent not to gain fame but to create beautiful and tragic things. Fame came from that. And he used that fame for a greater good. Most of us live small lives. A few of us live lives that are larger than we are, and become dwarfed by them. A scant few of us live the lives of giants and walk among smaller men as weeds. And then there was Paul Newman. Rest in peace, Mr. Newman. Our lives are better for having been in contact with yours.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Small hiatus
Not getting many movies watched in the past couple weeks, due a combination of getting my new cat and myself being sucked into the world of World of Warcraft PvP. Rest assured, the Three Movie Weekend will return. I've watched one movie, just need to get the other two done. Not that there is any real demand. All....three....of my loyal readers will manage without it, I'm sure.
Monday, August 11, 2008
August 8-10, 2008
High Fidelity -
It's probably considered some sort of hipster sin that I hadn't seen this movie. A lot of people assume I am just like the guys in the film. I'm not. I know a couple people just like them, but I am not. I do not have the comprehensive knowledge of music. My musical tastes are somewhat limited. I dabble in genres, but most of the time I stick to the ones I like. It just so happens that those genres aren't necessarily mainstream. Now, if we were talking movies, that'd be an entirely different matter...
I liked the film. It's clever. It's witty. It knows it will appeal to a specific crowd and it doesn't care. John Cusack does a good job, though it is odd to see him acting so manic after seeing him act subdued in a number of films. But he pulls it off well, jumping in the bed, orating at the camera, ranting. The supporting cast is kind of blase. The woman that played Laura was good and Jack Black was almost tolerable. I don't like Jack Black. I'm sorry, but I find him annoying as all shit. There was, as would be expected, some damn fine music. But just as the record store is compared to a porn shop in terms of a targeted fetish consumer group, this film is the same way. It's appeal will be directly proportional to how appealing you find hanging out in a record store discussing albums.
On the up side, it has tons of Chicago flavor. Cusack knows how to bring out the best of Chicago.
Grade: B-
Rushmore -
I like Wes Anderson films. I do. I loved The Royal Tenenbaums and I found lots of redeeming value in The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. I realize Wes Anderson isn't for everyone. He has a particular tongue in cheek style. It's like everyone is acting with a poker face and what they say has little bearing on what their face is saying. It's like watching a smart person intentionally acting dumb to get a laugh. This works for me, but I could understand how some people wouldn't like it. It's high-brow low-brow comedy. As such, his films are even more niche-targeted than High Fidelity. Fortunately for me, I belong in that niche.
While this film does have the characteristic Wes Anderson feel, it's too much of the Wes Anderson feel. The characters are overly quirky, instead of middling quirky. In other words, Anderson learned to tone it down in his later films.
The story went interesting places, places I did not expect it to go. In that, I was pleased. Bill Murray was awesome, as should be expected. However the pace of the film and any emotional involvement with the characters was off-kilter. It was entertaining, but I'd watch some of Anderson other films instead.
Grade: B-
Wonder Boys -
Michael Douglass' bad day turns into a bad week. But seriously folks....
Michael Douglass plays a professor at a liberal arts university. He wrote a novel 7 years ago that was a hit and a brilliant piece of literature. He hasn't written anything since. He smokes pot, cheats on his wife with the Chancellors wife, has one student lusting for him, drives an ugly-ass car and is basically slowly disintegrating. Into his life comes another one of his students, a reclusive angsty fuck that also just happens to be a brilliant writer. The two writers share three days of hell, learn about themselves and each other and their place in the blah blah blah.
While there are many unusual things that happen in this film, it is not a plot driven piece. It is character driven. It is how the characters act, react and interact that drive the film forward. As such, it was a rousing success. The characters are incredibly well written. They are flawed. Humanly flawed. Almost Charlie Kaufman humanly flawed. Changes that happen to the characters are minor, subtle, and derive from within. Along with the characters I cannot but mention the cast. This film has one HELL of a cast that dig into their parts with relish. Michael Douglass, Tobey Maguire, Frances McDormand, Robert Downey Jr., Katie Holmes (who looks hot as fire), Rip Torn and even a small part played by one Mr. Alan Tudyk of Firefly fame.
This film also appeals to me on two other levels. For one, it is set in academia. It portrays a very realistic reality of the underside of academia. Those parties where the faculty get together and there's booze and food and all sorts of overly intelligent discussion intermixed with swearing and crudeness? Yeah, that happens. I've been there. That's sort of where my life is heading. I actually kind of enjoy it, but I do admit it's weird. Secondly, it deals with writing. As most people that (supposedly) read this blog do belong to a little writing group, it's something that we can relate to. The film deals in part with the despair that comes from writing. The desire to create something beautiful conflicting with the actual ability to do so. When I write sometimes I feel like I'm trying to paint the Sistine Chapel with a box of crayons. You want to create something amazing, but every attempt feels childish and amateurish. It also deals with the crude reality of writing. Fact of the matter is that writing is a pretty shitty job. You are only as good as what you publish, and one book can't carry you forever.
I think writing is sort of like being a punker or making a zombie film. You never can call yourself a writer, and anyone who does is missing the forest for the trees. A writer just writes. They write because they have to, and it's nothing more of a big deal than that. I also don't think I'm a writer. A real writer can't stop, never stops. It's like being a professional athlete or musician. The best ones, the ones that make it, have not only the talent but the drive and determination to see it all the way. I may have talent, but the drive is lacking. Story of my life.
Enough of that shit. Point is, damn good movie. Damn good movie. Except for the ending. The ending wasn't bad per se, but it was a little too pat. A little too cute. A little too wrapped up in a nice bow. We are dealing with frayed people here, the ending should be frayed too.
Grade: A-
It's probably considered some sort of hipster sin that I hadn't seen this movie. A lot of people assume I am just like the guys in the film. I'm not. I know a couple people just like them, but I am not. I do not have the comprehensive knowledge of music. My musical tastes are somewhat limited. I dabble in genres, but most of the time I stick to the ones I like. It just so happens that those genres aren't necessarily mainstream. Now, if we were talking movies, that'd be an entirely different matter...
I liked the film. It's clever. It's witty. It knows it will appeal to a specific crowd and it doesn't care. John Cusack does a good job, though it is odd to see him acting so manic after seeing him act subdued in a number of films. But he pulls it off well, jumping in the bed, orating at the camera, ranting. The supporting cast is kind of blase. The woman that played Laura was good and Jack Black was almost tolerable. I don't like Jack Black. I'm sorry, but I find him annoying as all shit. There was, as would be expected, some damn fine music. But just as the record store is compared to a porn shop in terms of a targeted fetish consumer group, this film is the same way. It's appeal will be directly proportional to how appealing you find hanging out in a record store discussing albums.
On the up side, it has tons of Chicago flavor. Cusack knows how to bring out the best of Chicago.
Grade: B-
Rushmore -
I like Wes Anderson films. I do. I loved The Royal Tenenbaums and I found lots of redeeming value in The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. I realize Wes Anderson isn't for everyone. He has a particular tongue in cheek style. It's like everyone is acting with a poker face and what they say has little bearing on what their face is saying. It's like watching a smart person intentionally acting dumb to get a laugh. This works for me, but I could understand how some people wouldn't like it. It's high-brow low-brow comedy. As such, his films are even more niche-targeted than High Fidelity. Fortunately for me, I belong in that niche.
While this film does have the characteristic Wes Anderson feel, it's too much of the Wes Anderson feel. The characters are overly quirky, instead of middling quirky. In other words, Anderson learned to tone it down in his later films.
The story went interesting places, places I did not expect it to go. In that, I was pleased. Bill Murray was awesome, as should be expected. However the pace of the film and any emotional involvement with the characters was off-kilter. It was entertaining, but I'd watch some of Anderson other films instead.
Grade: B-
Wonder Boys -
Michael Douglass' bad day turns into a bad week. But seriously folks....
Michael Douglass plays a professor at a liberal arts university. He wrote a novel 7 years ago that was a hit and a brilliant piece of literature. He hasn't written anything since. He smokes pot, cheats on his wife with the Chancellors wife, has one student lusting for him, drives an ugly-ass car and is basically slowly disintegrating. Into his life comes another one of his students, a reclusive angsty fuck that also just happens to be a brilliant writer. The two writers share three days of hell, learn about themselves and each other and their place in the blah blah blah.
While there are many unusual things that happen in this film, it is not a plot driven piece. It is character driven. It is how the characters act, react and interact that drive the film forward. As such, it was a rousing success. The characters are incredibly well written. They are flawed. Humanly flawed. Almost Charlie Kaufman humanly flawed. Changes that happen to the characters are minor, subtle, and derive from within. Along with the characters I cannot but mention the cast. This film has one HELL of a cast that dig into their parts with relish. Michael Douglass, Tobey Maguire, Frances McDormand, Robert Downey Jr., Katie Holmes (who looks hot as fire), Rip Torn and even a small part played by one Mr. Alan Tudyk of Firefly fame.
This film also appeals to me on two other levels. For one, it is set in academia. It portrays a very realistic reality of the underside of academia. Those parties where the faculty get together and there's booze and food and all sorts of overly intelligent discussion intermixed with swearing and crudeness? Yeah, that happens. I've been there. That's sort of where my life is heading. I actually kind of enjoy it, but I do admit it's weird. Secondly, it deals with writing. As most people that (supposedly) read this blog do belong to a little writing group, it's something that we can relate to. The film deals in part with the despair that comes from writing. The desire to create something beautiful conflicting with the actual ability to do so. When I write sometimes I feel like I'm trying to paint the Sistine Chapel with a box of crayons. You want to create something amazing, but every attempt feels childish and amateurish. It also deals with the crude reality of writing. Fact of the matter is that writing is a pretty shitty job. You are only as good as what you publish, and one book can't carry you forever.
I think writing is sort of like being a punker or making a zombie film. You never can call yourself a writer, and anyone who does is missing the forest for the trees. A writer just writes. They write because they have to, and it's nothing more of a big deal than that. I also don't think I'm a writer. A real writer can't stop, never stops. It's like being a professional athlete or musician. The best ones, the ones that make it, have not only the talent but the drive and determination to see it all the way. I may have talent, but the drive is lacking. Story of my life.
Enough of that shit. Point is, damn good movie. Damn good movie. Except for the ending. The ending wasn't bad per se, but it was a little too pat. A little too cute. A little too wrapped up in a nice bow. We are dealing with frayed people here, the ending should be frayed too.
Grade: A-
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
August 1-3, 2008
Short reviews, cause I'm tired.
Klute -
Very much an early 70's piece, filled with the brutal minimalist style of the period. Story-wise it's somewhat predictable, but still intriguing nonetheless. Jane Fonda won an Academy Award for her portrayal of the high class prostitute. I will say her performance was pretty damn good. Donald Sutherland, who usually plays quirky interesting characters played something of a blank slate here. There wasn't much to his character, but it plays well off of Fonda's spiritedness. Plus Sutherland was able to portray this Jimmy Stewart "Aw schucks" vibe, which really worked. Roy Scheider plays a great slimeball. We miss you, Roy.
Overall, decent but not superlative.
Grade: B-
Five Easy Pieces -
The film that made Jack Nicholson a star. He plays a young man from a musical family, a talented pianist, who splits from his family and works on oil rigs and other odd jobs. Spends his nights drinking, being unfaithful to his girlfriend played by Karen Black, and being a general bastard. He learns his father is ill and returns home. Clash of two societies and the conflict of Nicholsons lifestyles.
Mostly a character study that doesn't know what genre it wants to belong to. The first and last thirds are dramatic. The middle third is comedic. The entire thing feels like a made for TV movie. Fairly disappointing overall, with a Spanking the Monkey/Leap of Faith ending, that does seem to work. Still, it's one of those films that reminds you that Nicholson can freaking ACT. Damn he's good.
Grade: C
Falling Down -
Michael Douglass has a very, very bad day.
I was very pleased with the story-telling, much of the details were subtly introduced. Douglass is great as this borderline protagonish. He's not a hero, but he's not an anti-hero either. He's a "bad man" that you identify with, which is scary and awesome.
His progress through LA makes me think it's loosely based on some ancient tale, ala The Warriors, but I have no proof of that. It also feels like a game, as he keeps upgrading his weapons as he goes. The B story with Robert Duvall was as subtly told, but not nearly as interesting.
SPOILER: I generally don't like films that kill off the main character at the end. I've talked about this before. It's usually a cop out, meaning the writer can't think of a better way to end it. But it worked it. It was philosophically appropriate.
On a strange note, as I was watching this film I noticed something weird. As it turns out, Douglass' mother, played by Lois Smith, also played Nicholsons sister in Five Easy Pieces. Just a strange collision of the film world in my weekend.
Grade: B+
Klute -
Very much an early 70's piece, filled with the brutal minimalist style of the period. Story-wise it's somewhat predictable, but still intriguing nonetheless. Jane Fonda won an Academy Award for her portrayal of the high class prostitute. I will say her performance was pretty damn good. Donald Sutherland, who usually plays quirky interesting characters played something of a blank slate here. There wasn't much to his character, but it plays well off of Fonda's spiritedness. Plus Sutherland was able to portray this Jimmy Stewart "Aw schucks" vibe, which really worked. Roy Scheider plays a great slimeball. We miss you, Roy.
Overall, decent but not superlative.
Grade: B-
Five Easy Pieces -
The film that made Jack Nicholson a star. He plays a young man from a musical family, a talented pianist, who splits from his family and works on oil rigs and other odd jobs. Spends his nights drinking, being unfaithful to his girlfriend played by Karen Black, and being a general bastard. He learns his father is ill and returns home. Clash of two societies and the conflict of Nicholsons lifestyles.
Mostly a character study that doesn't know what genre it wants to belong to. The first and last thirds are dramatic. The middle third is comedic. The entire thing feels like a made for TV movie. Fairly disappointing overall, with a Spanking the Monkey/Leap of Faith ending, that does seem to work. Still, it's one of those films that reminds you that Nicholson can freaking ACT. Damn he's good.
Grade: C
Falling Down -
Michael Douglass has a very, very bad day.
I was very pleased with the story-telling, much of the details were subtly introduced. Douglass is great as this borderline protagonish. He's not a hero, but he's not an anti-hero either. He's a "bad man" that you identify with, which is scary and awesome.
His progress through LA makes me think it's loosely based on some ancient tale, ala The Warriors, but I have no proof of that. It also feels like a game, as he keeps upgrading his weapons as he goes. The B story with Robert Duvall was as subtly told, but not nearly as interesting.
SPOILER: I generally don't like films that kill off the main character at the end. I've talked about this before. It's usually a cop out, meaning the writer can't think of a better way to end it. But it worked it. It was philosophically appropriate.
On a strange note, as I was watching this film I noticed something weird. As it turns out, Douglass' mother, played by Lois Smith, also played Nicholsons sister in Five Easy Pieces. Just a strange collision of the film world in my weekend.
Grade: B+
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
July 18-20, 2008
Stigmata -
Funny story about Stigmata. I actually went to see it when it came out in the theaters, with my sister. We got about halfway through the film when a fire broke out in the building somewhere. We had to evacuate. I don't think anyone got hurt, but we never got to see the rest of the film. So that's why I rented this, I wanted to see how it ended.
This movie actually reminded me a lot of Jacob's Ladder. They are sort of derived from the same place. SPOILERS AHEAD. Start with a fact. A little known fact that is A) controversial, B) hushed up and C) has broad range appeal. In Jacob's Ladder it was that the US Government experimented on its own troops in the Vietnam War. In Stigmata it's that an ancient scroll was discovered that could very well be Jesus' own Gospel, his own words, and it has been denied by the Catholic church. Start with that fact, then build a story that is tangential to that fact. Not a story about those facts, but a story about people that were affected by those facts. In one case it's a soldier that was killed by his comrades under the influence of the drug and and the subsequent happenings as he dies. In the other, it's a young woman that becomes by possessed by the spirit of a priest that translated the scroll and the happenings as the spirit is determined that the gospel become public.
About the movie, it was a decent flick. Lots of the imagery was well done and things were done to an appropriately yet not over-the-top level. The music was interesting, I saw that the soundtrack was done by Billy Corgan of Smashing Pumpkins fame. The story was intriguing enough. That acting was decent. I really like Patricia Arquette and she made a decent showing here. Gabriel Byrne is like a slightly more lively William Hurt. His acting style is more of a mirror, a blank slate. He's generally not strong enough to carry a film on his own, but he's great at having other actors play off of him. The quality of his performance is usually dictated by the performance of the actors opposite him. In this case I think Arquette and Byrne played off each other well.
This is sort of a "small" film, like Jacob's Ladder. The world it creates is small. There are only a few characters, only a few locations, and it creates the feeling that the film could be contained in a small glass globe. Not like a movie based on a play, that has a different feel. But, because the film is a "small" film (and note that has nothing to do with size of production, but just a feel) it has a tendency to get into a niche in your mind and kind of hang out there. Like a seed in a sidewalk crack or a pip in between your teeth. It'll stick in there, most of the time not discreetly, but every once in a while it'll pop out.
On a side note, I wonder how Gabriel Byrne's sitcom did.
Grade: B
Blade II -
Sequel to the B movie action flick Blade. I was interested in the film partially because it was directed by Guillermo Del Toro, celebrated director of Pan's Labyrinth, the Hellboy movies, and upcoming blockbusters The Hobbit and....sigh....The Hobbit II (don't get me started). I'm not familiar with Del Toro's work, so I wanted to start getting a feel for it.
I actually like the first Blade. It had this neat sort of indy-film feel to it. It was an action film about vampires, sure, but it had some artsy edges to it. Not overblown, but nicely accented. And it was serious, it took itself seriously which is really the only way these types of films can work. Making something intentionally campy is a recipe for disaster. I wish Mr. Del Toro had realized that.
Whereas the original Blade was artsy and dark and serious, this film is just dumb. The plot, what little there is of it, is silly and not developed at all. Some of the plot points were ridiculous. Resurrecting Whistler? Fuck you, I don't think so. The acting was either wooden or extreme (with the exception of the awesome Ron Perlman, who is awesome). The set design looked like the guy who designed sets for the 60's Batman TV show became a goth and watched the Matrix 14 times. Rooms with pipes of blood creating pools of more blood? An underground rave with leatherclad goths? Where was Morpheus, eh?
Obviously this is an action movie, so it is supposed to be carried by the strength of the action scenes. It wasn't. The action scenes were carbon copy Matrix style, aka no originality, and much of the action style was done simply to look cool. I hate that. I want it to look cool because it works with the natural flow of the fighting, not because you pause the damn film as Blade catches his sunglasses. It's like a bunch of thirteen year old boys held Woo Ping at gunpoint and forced him to choreograph the fights the way they wanted it.
As always, the film does have a redeeming point or two. There were a couple good laughs. And there was Leonor Varela, who could be best described by "humina humina humina humina humina."
Let's hope this was a fluke by Mr. Del Toro, though I don't hold much hope. My understanding is that his major criticism is that he's all style, no substance, and if he fucks up The Hobbit there will be blood. And frankly, I don't trust anyone that wants to make a sequel to the Hobbit created with their own material. Why? Why must you do this to me?
Grade: D
Resident Evil -
I rented this.....because? I have no idea. Seemed like the thing to do. I never played the games.
Based on the first 10 minutes of this film I had some hope for it. It actually had a very creepy and well done prelude, and the opening of actual main arc had a very good video game feel to it. You are thrown into a world where shit is going on and you don't know a damn thing. You are given a very important task with comrades, figure it out as you go along, and the truth will be revealed to you through a series of flashbacks until it all makes sense.
Then things went downhill.
I thought there was going to be some hint of a plot. There wasn't. None. Period. Zip. Zilch. The plot of this film made Blade II's plot look like Hamlet. I'll give you the whole plot. Giant evil corporation makes evil virus that turns people into zombies, said virus gets loose in a facility. Military needs to go inside and take care of it, then get back out in three hours. That's it. There you go, you've seen the movie.
This movie is supposed to be carried by the awesome badassedness of Milla Jovovich. Milla Jovovich is absolutely stunningly gorgeous in this film, and she is indeed badass. I think. Fact of the matter is, we don't even see her do anything remotely badass until FIFTY MINUTES INTO THE FILM. And that is just one small thing. In fact, there is very little of Ms. Jovovich being badass at all. She shoots a couple things, smacks some things in the head with an axe, and that's it. This film needed her to be an asskicker, and she wasn't given the opportunity to kick much ass, outside of a few puppies. No, all the action was done by the military unit, who are as interesting as staring at beige carpeting. The most intriguing character was the unit commander, who seemed very cool, and they killed him off within a half hour. Even Michelle Rodriguez wasn't that entertaining.
The film sucked. The acting sucked, the action sucked, the plot didn't exist, the sets were rediculous, the production values were weak, the special effects were atrocious. I had to double check to make sure it wasn't an Uwe Boll film. The only redeeming part of the film was the end. Partly because it was over. Partly because it had the trademark horror film ending. Just when you think everything was going to be ok, the shit hits the fan, you are left with a vision of the world even more hopeless than before, and the door is wide open for a sequel. It was nice to see something in this film executed correctly.
Grade: F
Funny story about Stigmata. I actually went to see it when it came out in the theaters, with my sister. We got about halfway through the film when a fire broke out in the building somewhere. We had to evacuate. I don't think anyone got hurt, but we never got to see the rest of the film. So that's why I rented this, I wanted to see how it ended.
This movie actually reminded me a lot of Jacob's Ladder. They are sort of derived from the same place. SPOILERS AHEAD. Start with a fact. A little known fact that is A) controversial, B) hushed up and C) has broad range appeal. In Jacob's Ladder it was that the US Government experimented on its own troops in the Vietnam War. In Stigmata it's that an ancient scroll was discovered that could very well be Jesus' own Gospel, his own words, and it has been denied by the Catholic church. Start with that fact, then build a story that is tangential to that fact. Not a story about those facts, but a story about people that were affected by those facts. In one case it's a soldier that was killed by his comrades under the influence of the drug and and the subsequent happenings as he dies. In the other, it's a young woman that becomes by possessed by the spirit of a priest that translated the scroll and the happenings as the spirit is determined that the gospel become public.
About the movie, it was a decent flick. Lots of the imagery was well done and things were done to an appropriately yet not over-the-top level. The music was interesting, I saw that the soundtrack was done by Billy Corgan of Smashing Pumpkins fame. The story was intriguing enough. That acting was decent. I really like Patricia Arquette and she made a decent showing here. Gabriel Byrne is like a slightly more lively William Hurt. His acting style is more of a mirror, a blank slate. He's generally not strong enough to carry a film on his own, but he's great at having other actors play off of him. The quality of his performance is usually dictated by the performance of the actors opposite him. In this case I think Arquette and Byrne played off each other well.
This is sort of a "small" film, like Jacob's Ladder. The world it creates is small. There are only a few characters, only a few locations, and it creates the feeling that the film could be contained in a small glass globe. Not like a movie based on a play, that has a different feel. But, because the film is a "small" film (and note that has nothing to do with size of production, but just a feel) it has a tendency to get into a niche in your mind and kind of hang out there. Like a seed in a sidewalk crack or a pip in between your teeth. It'll stick in there, most of the time not discreetly, but every once in a while it'll pop out.
On a side note, I wonder how Gabriel Byrne's sitcom did.
Grade: B
Blade II -
Sequel to the B movie action flick Blade. I was interested in the film partially because it was directed by Guillermo Del Toro, celebrated director of Pan's Labyrinth, the Hellboy movies, and upcoming blockbusters The Hobbit and....sigh....The Hobbit II (don't get me started). I'm not familiar with Del Toro's work, so I wanted to start getting a feel for it.
I actually like the first Blade. It had this neat sort of indy-film feel to it. It was an action film about vampires, sure, but it had some artsy edges to it. Not overblown, but nicely accented. And it was serious, it took itself seriously which is really the only way these types of films can work. Making something intentionally campy is a recipe for disaster. I wish Mr. Del Toro had realized that.
Whereas the original Blade was artsy and dark and serious, this film is just dumb. The plot, what little there is of it, is silly and not developed at all. Some of the plot points were ridiculous. Resurrecting Whistler? Fuck you, I don't think so. The acting was either wooden or extreme (with the exception of the awesome Ron Perlman, who is awesome). The set design looked like the guy who designed sets for the 60's Batman TV show became a goth and watched the Matrix 14 times. Rooms with pipes of blood creating pools of more blood? An underground rave with leatherclad goths? Where was Morpheus, eh?
Obviously this is an action movie, so it is supposed to be carried by the strength of the action scenes. It wasn't. The action scenes were carbon copy Matrix style, aka no originality, and much of the action style was done simply to look cool. I hate that. I want it to look cool because it works with the natural flow of the fighting, not because you pause the damn film as Blade catches his sunglasses. It's like a bunch of thirteen year old boys held Woo Ping at gunpoint and forced him to choreograph the fights the way they wanted it.
As always, the film does have a redeeming point or two. There were a couple good laughs. And there was Leonor Varela, who could be best described by "humina humina humina humina humina."
Let's hope this was a fluke by Mr. Del Toro, though I don't hold much hope. My understanding is that his major criticism is that he's all style, no substance, and if he fucks up The Hobbit there will be blood. And frankly, I don't trust anyone that wants to make a sequel to the Hobbit created with their own material. Why? Why must you do this to me?
Grade: D
Resident Evil -
I rented this.....because? I have no idea. Seemed like the thing to do. I never played the games.
Based on the first 10 minutes of this film I had some hope for it. It actually had a very creepy and well done prelude, and the opening of actual main arc had a very good video game feel to it. You are thrown into a world where shit is going on and you don't know a damn thing. You are given a very important task with comrades, figure it out as you go along, and the truth will be revealed to you through a series of flashbacks until it all makes sense.
Then things went downhill.
I thought there was going to be some hint of a plot. There wasn't. None. Period. Zip. Zilch. The plot of this film made Blade II's plot look like Hamlet. I'll give you the whole plot. Giant evil corporation makes evil virus that turns people into zombies, said virus gets loose in a facility. Military needs to go inside and take care of it, then get back out in three hours. That's it. There you go, you've seen the movie.
This movie is supposed to be carried by the awesome badassedness of Milla Jovovich. Milla Jovovich is absolutely stunningly gorgeous in this film, and she is indeed badass. I think. Fact of the matter is, we don't even see her do anything remotely badass until FIFTY MINUTES INTO THE FILM. And that is just one small thing. In fact, there is very little of Ms. Jovovich being badass at all. She shoots a couple things, smacks some things in the head with an axe, and that's it. This film needed her to be an asskicker, and she wasn't given the opportunity to kick much ass, outside of a few puppies. No, all the action was done by the military unit, who are as interesting as staring at beige carpeting. The most intriguing character was the unit commander, who seemed very cool, and they killed him off within a half hour. Even Michelle Rodriguez wasn't that entertaining.
The film sucked. The acting sucked, the action sucked, the plot didn't exist, the sets were rediculous, the production values were weak, the special effects were atrocious. I had to double check to make sure it wasn't an Uwe Boll film. The only redeeming part of the film was the end. Partly because it was over. Partly because it had the trademark horror film ending. Just when you think everything was going to be ok, the shit hits the fan, you are left with a vision of the world even more hopeless than before, and the door is wide open for a sequel. It was nice to see something in this film executed correctly.
Grade: F
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
July 11-13, 2008
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari -
A german expressionist film from 1919. I'm not terribly familiar with german expressionism. I've seen Der Golem, and while Metropolis is not considered a german expressionist film per se, it is heavily influenced by the movement. However, that's pretty much my exposure to the genre. But this is a very influential film in its own right. It is one of the early horror movies. Admittedly the horror is extremely dated, and I didn't feel a twinge at this point, but I can imagine audiences of the time freaking out at the film.
As with most silent films that do not fall in the comedy grouping, the acting was way over the top. That's the way it is, and that's why I tend not to like silent dramas. It's too much. The story of the film was fairly interesting if not simplistic. In a small town during a fair, a series of murders occurs that seemingly have a connection to sideshow run by the aging and creepy Dr. Caligari. The show is called the Somnambulist (a fancy term for a sleepwalker, though here the somnambulist was closer akin to a zombie). The Somnambulist is kept in a cabinet and comes out to read the future.
Really, the thing to talk about here is, of all things, the set design. The set design was, in a word, brilliant. For nearly every set in the film, there is not a straight line or a right angle to be found. Everything is at an odd angle. Walls are set at angles, doors within the walls aren't even close to rectangular, more trapezoidal or even triangular. Everything is exaggerated. Authority figures, such as the town clerk or the police officers, sit at desks easily 5 feet tall, and their chair have seats at the same height, so they are all towering above other people. Even the doors of Dr. Caligari's cabinet aren't in a straight line. In an amazing feat of engineering, they made the seam between the two cabinet doors crooked. This all produces a really eerie feeling. This feeling has a purpose, though I won't say why because it has to do with the twist ending. And the twist was pretty damn cool. It's not Sixth Sense wow-factor, but still pretty damn good in it's own right. I was pleased.
Grade: B-
Alexander Nevsky -
Considered the masterpiece of legendary Russian filmmaker Sergei Eisenstein, who created one of the most influential movies in history, Battleship Potemkin.
In terms of theme and story, this is pretty clearly Communist propaganda. It's the story of 13th century "Prince" Alexander, the prince of a small community in Russia that is really more common than royal. However, he is a brilliant tactician and warrior. The people rally around him to repel an invasion by German (Teutonic) knights. Nevsky is more of a common man in stature (metaphorically, as literally he is shown to tower over other people). He incenses other royalty, but rallies the commonfolk into a fighting force, under the banner of a unified Russia, to repel the invaders. Most people consider Nevsky an allegory for Stalin.
While the theme and story are pretty bland, the imagery is very well done. While the russian peasants are barefaced, the germans all wear helmets that cover their faces (some even extremely elaborate with pagan symbols and such), making them a more intimidating appearing fighting force. Sort of a stormtrooper effect. Also, intriguingly, the germans are shown to be heavily religious, covered in cross symbols and bringing an entire christian retinue with them, including a priest that wears a sort of Inquisitors robe and makes him look like Emperor Palpatine. That same religious symbolism is missing from the Russians, though presumably they were similarly religious at the time. Seems like that Eisenstein was using religion derogitorily which falls in line with the communist political views, but I find this surprising. I'm not expert on Russia, but I'd think that there would still be pretty heavy russian orthodox christians in Russia in the 1930's despite the communist government. Of course, I could be wrong.
Grade: C
Flatliners -
A thriller about a group of med students that use their knowledge to kill themselves to investigate death and return back to life. What they see haunts them when the come back, literally.
This actually was a pretty damn good movie. The story was inventive and intriguing, and it certainly kept me interested. The visual style was well done. Lots of use of color, not just in contrasting the death vs. life states, but also states of mental consciousness and emotions. Lots of good imagery in the film as well, and the pacing was good.
Where this film suffers is in the cast. Don't get me wrong, the acting wasn't exactly bad (though Oliver Platt needs to be sedated as usual). The problem is that the case is a bunch of pretty people. It's Keifer Sutherland, Julia Roberts, Kevin Bacon at his 80's mulletted best, a young Billy Baldwin before he went nuts, and the aforementioned Oliver Platt. This cast was clearly designed to draw audiences in based on them being pretty, and not the film itself even though the film doesn't need any help. It's just, at every turn you see the cast standing there saying, "Hi. We're pretty people. Love us!" A less physically pleasing cast would probably have worked better. It felt too much like the Lost Boys Go to Med School.
Grade: B
A german expressionist film from 1919. I'm not terribly familiar with german expressionism. I've seen Der Golem, and while Metropolis is not considered a german expressionist film per se, it is heavily influenced by the movement. However, that's pretty much my exposure to the genre. But this is a very influential film in its own right. It is one of the early horror movies. Admittedly the horror is extremely dated, and I didn't feel a twinge at this point, but I can imagine audiences of the time freaking out at the film.
As with most silent films that do not fall in the comedy grouping, the acting was way over the top. That's the way it is, and that's why I tend not to like silent dramas. It's too much. The story of the film was fairly interesting if not simplistic. In a small town during a fair, a series of murders occurs that seemingly have a connection to sideshow run by the aging and creepy Dr. Caligari. The show is called the Somnambulist (a fancy term for a sleepwalker, though here the somnambulist was closer akin to a zombie). The Somnambulist is kept in a cabinet and comes out to read the future.
Really, the thing to talk about here is, of all things, the set design. The set design was, in a word, brilliant. For nearly every set in the film, there is not a straight line or a right angle to be found. Everything is at an odd angle. Walls are set at angles, doors within the walls aren't even close to rectangular, more trapezoidal or even triangular. Everything is exaggerated. Authority figures, such as the town clerk or the police officers, sit at desks easily 5 feet tall, and their chair have seats at the same height, so they are all towering above other people. Even the doors of Dr. Caligari's cabinet aren't in a straight line. In an amazing feat of engineering, they made the seam between the two cabinet doors crooked. This all produces a really eerie feeling. This feeling has a purpose, though I won't say why because it has to do with the twist ending. And the twist was pretty damn cool. It's not Sixth Sense wow-factor, but still pretty damn good in it's own right. I was pleased.
Grade: B-
Alexander Nevsky -
Considered the masterpiece of legendary Russian filmmaker Sergei Eisenstein, who created one of the most influential movies in history, Battleship Potemkin.
In terms of theme and story, this is pretty clearly Communist propaganda. It's the story of 13th century "Prince" Alexander, the prince of a small community in Russia that is really more common than royal. However, he is a brilliant tactician and warrior. The people rally around him to repel an invasion by German (Teutonic) knights. Nevsky is more of a common man in stature (metaphorically, as literally he is shown to tower over other people). He incenses other royalty, but rallies the commonfolk into a fighting force, under the banner of a unified Russia, to repel the invaders. Most people consider Nevsky an allegory for Stalin.
While the theme and story are pretty bland, the imagery is very well done. While the russian peasants are barefaced, the germans all wear helmets that cover their faces (some even extremely elaborate with pagan symbols and such), making them a more intimidating appearing fighting force. Sort of a stormtrooper effect. Also, intriguingly, the germans are shown to be heavily religious, covered in cross symbols and bringing an entire christian retinue with them, including a priest that wears a sort of Inquisitors robe and makes him look like Emperor Palpatine. That same religious symbolism is missing from the Russians, though presumably they were similarly religious at the time. Seems like that Eisenstein was using religion derogitorily which falls in line with the communist political views, but I find this surprising. I'm not expert on Russia, but I'd think that there would still be pretty heavy russian orthodox christians in Russia in the 1930's despite the communist government. Of course, I could be wrong.
Grade: C
Flatliners -
A thriller about a group of med students that use their knowledge to kill themselves to investigate death and return back to life. What they see haunts them when the come back, literally.
This actually was a pretty damn good movie. The story was inventive and intriguing, and it certainly kept me interested. The visual style was well done. Lots of use of color, not just in contrasting the death vs. life states, but also states of mental consciousness and emotions. Lots of good imagery in the film as well, and the pacing was good.
Where this film suffers is in the cast. Don't get me wrong, the acting wasn't exactly bad (though Oliver Platt needs to be sedated as usual). The problem is that the case is a bunch of pretty people. It's Keifer Sutherland, Julia Roberts, Kevin Bacon at his 80's mulletted best, a young Billy Baldwin before he went nuts, and the aforementioned Oliver Platt. This cast was clearly designed to draw audiences in based on them being pretty, and not the film itself even though the film doesn't need any help. It's just, at every turn you see the cast standing there saying, "Hi. We're pretty people. Love us!" A less physically pleasing cast would probably have worked better. It felt too much like the Lost Boys Go to Med School.
Grade: B
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
July 4-6, 2008
THX 1138 -
Ah, the dystopian future story from George Lucas, one of his first feature length films based upon an award-winning short he made at USC film school.
In terms of story, this is pretty much your standard dystopia tale. People's lives are completely controlled by a corporate state, they take drugs to kill urges and be complacent. One man struggles to break free of the system, runs from the authorities, escapes and finds....well we don't know, the film ends right as he gets away, so there is no sense of closure here, but that's the way it goes. In terms of cinamatographic style, you can tell this is an early film in someones career. It leans heavily towards artsy fartsy. Style for the sake of style, with not so much regard on how that style impacts the emotionality, or lack of it. Also, this is the re-release version of the film, and it looks like the effects have been significantly cleaned up. Waaaaay too nice compared to other film effects of the period.
As would be expected from George Lucas, this film is heavily influenced by other films and stories. There are clear elements from Brave New World, a ton of stuff from Metropolis, a smattering of The Day the Earth Stood Still and I think a little Alphaville in there as well. Possibly some 2001. I'd swear it influenced some later films itself, though. I saw some elements in there that reminded me Logans Run and Rollerball. Maybe even a little Blade Runner.
There's not a heck of a lot to talk about. The story is simple. The style is disjointed, particularly the use of sound is very hectic and blaring. It's a young filmmaker experimenting with things.
Grade: C
Dil Chahta Hai -
I once mentored an undergraduate girl named Puja. She was a med student, and didn't do particularly good work, but she was a nice person and we got along well. We talked a lot. She developed an affection for me as a mentor. Of course, being the bastard I am we lost contact when she left, even though she emailed me a couple times. She even brought me back a blanket from India when she went to visit family. Anyways, to the point, I had mentioned to her how I'd seen come Indian films and that I really liked Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge. Like most Indian people when I mention this fact to, she first gave me a look like I said I liked to gargle my own urine, then she chastised me for my terrible pronunciation of the name, then said I needed to watch some better Indian movies. She then gave me a list of 3 films I should see. One is called Lagaan, which would've been the third Indian film this weekend making it round out nicely, but it wasn't available from Netflix. The second was this film. Like Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge, this is a Bollywood film.
Bollywood films are a guilty pleasure of mine. I haven't seen many, but I've liked all the ones I've seen, though admittedly this might be because I've only seen the good ones. It's hard enough to find Bollywood films available to the general public period, let alone bad ones. Bollywood films are like if 1950's musicals from Hollywood got transplanted into India, took root, and refused to die. They are the height of escapism. There are certain guidelines that are really rules for a Bollywood film. First, it's got to be long. No Bollywood film I have seen has been under 3 hours. There is good reason for this, as most people in India are dirt poor and if they are going to spend a little money on a movie, they want the biggest bang for their buck. Two, it's got to have a romance with very good looking people with the guy getting the girl in the end. Again, escapism. These may be the rules, but there is one unbreakable law for Bollywood films. They all have to have extravagant, hugely choreographed and insane musical numbers. During the course of the film, the main characters WILL burst into song with tons of people dancing and very strange moves going on. It will have little to do with the plot. It may appear even at random. But it will happen.
I think the reason Puja recommended the two movies I saw this weekend is that they are more modern versions of Bollywood films. Don't get me wrong, they are pure Bollywood. Three hours long, love is the main topic, tons of dance numbers. But I think they do a decent job of representing a modern India (ok, that's a guess, like I have a clue what modern India is like). You can imagine my surprise when watching this film one of the characters starts playing Sting's Desert Rose album, or when the characters walk out of a theater that's playing Snatch and Charlie's Angels and Chicken Run.
This film is the story of three friends who are as close as brothers, how they struggle to find love and how that splinters them apart. But this is a Bollywood film, so it all works out in the end. And here is where Bollywood really shines. You know why? This film takes it's time. American filmmakers are so concerned with creating the largest emotional impact in the smallest amount of time that often characterization is lost in the name of brevity. Not here. The movie is going to be long, so the filmmakers can take their time to fully flesh out the characters. When the characters fall in love, it's not a love at first sight kind of thing (well, ok, sometimes it is), but the affection between two people is built over a number of scenes. It makes it seem more realistic and the emotional impact is greater. The more people interact, the more their actions become believable. I really found the characterizations and plot devices derived there-from to be very well done, largely because the filmmakers had time to do it.
The types of love stories that come into play are very different, as well as the conflicts with the main characters. It is superbly acted and really resonates. The only real complaint I have is a small thing they added to the ending to make it all happy-go-lucky, but that's to be expected. All in all, I was very impressed.
Grade: A-
Kal Ho Naa Ho -
And even more modern Bollywood film. The story of a young Indian woman (Preity Zinta) living in New York in a fractured family and her struggles to find happiness when all around her is tragedy. Of course, there's a love story, but this times it's a triangle between her, her best friend (Saif Ali Khan) and a newly arrived neighbor who not only manages to teach her to love again, but fixes other various problems with her family. The neighbor is played by Bollywood MEGASTAR Shah Ruhk Khan. He's sort of the guardian angel, semi-mystical person. At least mystical change.
The angel analogy is interesting actually, because I was very surprised to see that the main character and most of her family were actually Christian. Her grandmother was Hindu, and while there was some conflict over the religion, the conflict in the family was largely from other reasons. I was just really surprised to see a family in a Bollywood film being Christian. Good on them, way to break with tradition guys, I'm proud of you.
Like the previous film, this one takes the time to fully develop relationships and emotional reactions, which is good. The problem is that the plot uses a lot, and I mean a LOT, of really really really bad soap opera-ish devices. Not only do you cringe when you see the plot device, they lead to some really bad overacting. The last third of the film is basically people crying. But I'll give the ending some credit, it didn't end with a happy-go-lucky feeling, it had a more bittersweet feel. It seems that this is sort of a revolutionary Bollywood film, in that the director is given credit for taking the Bollywood archetype in a slightly different direction. I still liked the film, and if they had stayed away from the All My Children plot styles I'd think it's better than Dil Chahta Hai, but I just can't take that sort of thing.
Oh, and Preity Zinta is FREAKING HOT. I mean smoking hot here. She actually was in Dil Chahta Hai, and she was hot there, but here she's even hotter, and I'm amazed that's possible. She could be working in American films.
Oh yeah, one last thing. Both Indian films I watched had this strange occurrence. Every once in a while the actors would say their lines in English. Four-fifths of the film is in....whatever language they use in Indian, there's like 12o different dialects aren't there? But about a fifth of the film is in English. It confused the hell out of me at first. I couldn't tell if I needed to have the subtitles on or not.
Grade: B-
Ah, the dystopian future story from George Lucas, one of his first feature length films based upon an award-winning short he made at USC film school.
In terms of story, this is pretty much your standard dystopia tale. People's lives are completely controlled by a corporate state, they take drugs to kill urges and be complacent. One man struggles to break free of the system, runs from the authorities, escapes and finds....well we don't know, the film ends right as he gets away, so there is no sense of closure here, but that's the way it goes. In terms of cinamatographic style, you can tell this is an early film in someones career. It leans heavily towards artsy fartsy. Style for the sake of style, with not so much regard on how that style impacts the emotionality, or lack of it. Also, this is the re-release version of the film, and it looks like the effects have been significantly cleaned up. Waaaaay too nice compared to other film effects of the period.
As would be expected from George Lucas, this film is heavily influenced by other films and stories. There are clear elements from Brave New World, a ton of stuff from Metropolis, a smattering of The Day the Earth Stood Still and I think a little Alphaville in there as well. Possibly some 2001. I'd swear it influenced some later films itself, though. I saw some elements in there that reminded me Logans Run and Rollerball. Maybe even a little Blade Runner.
There's not a heck of a lot to talk about. The story is simple. The style is disjointed, particularly the use of sound is very hectic and blaring. It's a young filmmaker experimenting with things.
Grade: C
Dil Chahta Hai -
I once mentored an undergraduate girl named Puja. She was a med student, and didn't do particularly good work, but she was a nice person and we got along well. We talked a lot. She developed an affection for me as a mentor. Of course, being the bastard I am we lost contact when she left, even though she emailed me a couple times. She even brought me back a blanket from India when she went to visit family. Anyways, to the point, I had mentioned to her how I'd seen come Indian films and that I really liked Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge. Like most Indian people when I mention this fact to, she first gave me a look like I said I liked to gargle my own urine, then she chastised me for my terrible pronunciation of the name, then said I needed to watch some better Indian movies. She then gave me a list of 3 films I should see. One is called Lagaan, which would've been the third Indian film this weekend making it round out nicely, but it wasn't available from Netflix. The second was this film. Like Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge, this is a Bollywood film.
Bollywood films are a guilty pleasure of mine. I haven't seen many, but I've liked all the ones I've seen, though admittedly this might be because I've only seen the good ones. It's hard enough to find Bollywood films available to the general public period, let alone bad ones. Bollywood films are like if 1950's musicals from Hollywood got transplanted into India, took root, and refused to die. They are the height of escapism. There are certain guidelines that are really rules for a Bollywood film. First, it's got to be long. No Bollywood film I have seen has been under 3 hours. There is good reason for this, as most people in India are dirt poor and if they are going to spend a little money on a movie, they want the biggest bang for their buck. Two, it's got to have a romance with very good looking people with the guy getting the girl in the end. Again, escapism. These may be the rules, but there is one unbreakable law for Bollywood films. They all have to have extravagant, hugely choreographed and insane musical numbers. During the course of the film, the main characters WILL burst into song with tons of people dancing and very strange moves going on. It will have little to do with the plot. It may appear even at random. But it will happen.
I think the reason Puja recommended the two movies I saw this weekend is that they are more modern versions of Bollywood films. Don't get me wrong, they are pure Bollywood. Three hours long, love is the main topic, tons of dance numbers. But I think they do a decent job of representing a modern India (ok, that's a guess, like I have a clue what modern India is like). You can imagine my surprise when watching this film one of the characters starts playing Sting's Desert Rose album, or when the characters walk out of a theater that's playing Snatch and Charlie's Angels and Chicken Run.
This film is the story of three friends who are as close as brothers, how they struggle to find love and how that splinters them apart. But this is a Bollywood film, so it all works out in the end. And here is where Bollywood really shines. You know why? This film takes it's time. American filmmakers are so concerned with creating the largest emotional impact in the smallest amount of time that often characterization is lost in the name of brevity. Not here. The movie is going to be long, so the filmmakers can take their time to fully flesh out the characters. When the characters fall in love, it's not a love at first sight kind of thing (well, ok, sometimes it is), but the affection between two people is built over a number of scenes. It makes it seem more realistic and the emotional impact is greater. The more people interact, the more their actions become believable. I really found the characterizations and plot devices derived there-from to be very well done, largely because the filmmakers had time to do it.
The types of love stories that come into play are very different, as well as the conflicts with the main characters. It is superbly acted and really resonates. The only real complaint I have is a small thing they added to the ending to make it all happy-go-lucky, but that's to be expected. All in all, I was very impressed.
Grade: A-
Kal Ho Naa Ho -
And even more modern Bollywood film. The story of a young Indian woman (Preity Zinta) living in New York in a fractured family and her struggles to find happiness when all around her is tragedy. Of course, there's a love story, but this times it's a triangle between her, her best friend (Saif Ali Khan) and a newly arrived neighbor who not only manages to teach her to love again, but fixes other various problems with her family. The neighbor is played by Bollywood MEGASTAR Shah Ruhk Khan. He's sort of the guardian angel, semi-mystical person. At least mystical change.
The angel analogy is interesting actually, because I was very surprised to see that the main character and most of her family were actually Christian. Her grandmother was Hindu, and while there was some conflict over the religion, the conflict in the family was largely from other reasons. I was just really surprised to see a family in a Bollywood film being Christian. Good on them, way to break with tradition guys, I'm proud of you.
Like the previous film, this one takes the time to fully develop relationships and emotional reactions, which is good. The problem is that the plot uses a lot, and I mean a LOT, of really really really bad soap opera-ish devices. Not only do you cringe when you see the plot device, they lead to some really bad overacting. The last third of the film is basically people crying. But I'll give the ending some credit, it didn't end with a happy-go-lucky feeling, it had a more bittersweet feel. It seems that this is sort of a revolutionary Bollywood film, in that the director is given credit for taking the Bollywood archetype in a slightly different direction. I still liked the film, and if they had stayed away from the All My Children plot styles I'd think it's better than Dil Chahta Hai, but I just can't take that sort of thing.
Oh, and Preity Zinta is FREAKING HOT. I mean smoking hot here. She actually was in Dil Chahta Hai, and she was hot there, but here she's even hotter, and I'm amazed that's possible. She could be working in American films.
Oh yeah, one last thing. Both Indian films I watched had this strange occurrence. Every once in a while the actors would say their lines in English. Four-fifths of the film is in....whatever language they use in Indian, there's like 12o different dialects aren't there? But about a fifth of the film is in English. It confused the hell out of me at first. I couldn't tell if I needed to have the subtitles on or not.
Grade: B-
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
June 27-29, 2008
Road to Rio -
You know, it's funny. If this movie were made today the critics would rip it to shreds. I know I would. It's Hollywood capitalism at it's finest. Absolutely no plot to speak of, just two big names and a bunch of jokes. In modern day parlance, this would be like George Clooney and Ray Romano making a buddy picture. People of taste would rise and lambaste the film like it was White Chicks. But I love the Road movies. Somehow, because it's Hope and Crosby, it makes it all ok. I have no explanation for this. It is a complete and total double standard, I admit it. And I don't care.
This film is Bob Hope and Bing Crosby fooling around, this time supposedly in Rio Di Janeiro, though I'd bet dollars to donuts there wasn't a second of location shooting. But who cares. This film is funny. I laughed. The bit with the hats had me cracking up. It's amazing how these old movies were able to do such simple things to make you laugh. I suspect that these films work because they are largely derived from vaudeville. The plot is just a thin veneer to string together a bunch of set pieces, be they song and dance numbers, comic routines, daredevil routines, whatever. And just as with vaudeville, the main purpose of each bit is to entertain, and I think if there is a distinction between these movies and modern day silly comedies it's that the aims are slightly different. The old movies (ala vaudeville) want to entertain. They want people to have a good time. Modern silly movies are almost insulting. It's like the failed writers and directors that make them take out their bitterness in the "comedy". Like they are saying "you yokels actually think this shit is funny? Well fine, I'll heap on this crap until you choke, you bastards." And I give Hope and Crosby credit, you can tell that everything they are doing is to entertain you. They are willing to do anything to get a laugh. Turn to the camera and mug? No problem. Dress in drag? Make sure it shows my chest hair.
Another interesting facet of this film and Road films in general is how carefully it treads breaking the fourth wall, both literally and metaphorically. It's not like a Zucker brothers comedy, where it completely violates the fourth wall and plot-driven filmmaking, but it's not a straight comedy either. There are plenty of times where the characters turn to the camera and say something to the audience, or they refer to the fact it's a film or to their real life personas. So it treads the middle ground between straight comedy and Zucker comedy. It's a difficult area to make work, but they do it well.
Grade: B
Calender -
This is the Netflix summary of the plot:
Atom Egoyan directs and stars in this painfully honest account of an Armenian photographer's search for love in spite of himself. His marriage in tatters, he starts dating again, but can't quite jump in with both feet, and his heart, first. With every date, he puts the women through the paces, asking them to make sexually charged phone calls to others. When he finally meets his match, his ex suddenly comes back into the already murky picture.
Yes, this is the plot of the film. But then again, it's not. The events described in this summary are about seven layers underneath the actual happenings in the film. It is helpful to know this summary going in so you can abstract the meaning from the very slow-paced action of the film. And the film is incredibly slow. While it does serve some purpose, it allows the viewer time to digest what is going on and abstract the actual meaning from the events, it does not make for an entertaining time.
The cinematography oscillates between stark visuals and luscious textures, though I would've preferred the switch between the different styles to have slightly more meaning in the context of the story, but it is used to a fairly well effect. The main problem I have with the film, outside of it's pacing, is the fact that I found the protagonist to be a fairly unlikeable character. He's a schmuck. And an asshole. Yet we are supposed to identify with this person, identify with his pain and struggles. While that is certainly possible, we do identify with his struggles to a certain extent, it's hard to care when he is a jerk.
On the whole, I liked the film. It does a good job relating the emotions of a heartbreak, something we can all relate to, in a very convincing and artistic fashion, but the film does have flaws, which detract from the overall experience.
Grade: C+
Zorba the Greek -
The iconic role for revered ethnic actor Anthony Quinn, one for which he was nominated for an Oscar and should've won (he lost to Rex Harrison in My Fair Lady, though that was a pretty damn good year for best actor category). The story of a young Englishman (Alan Bates) who travels to a bit of land in Crete owned by his family, with plans for resuscitating the lignite mine on the premises. Along the way he meets an old Greek man named Zorba (Quinn) who becomes his right-hand man and life mentor. Bates reason for traveling to Crete are murky and subtly told. He is a writer, but hasn't written anything for months, and views the mine as a test to his ability. All of this is related in one conversation with Zorba in the underneath subtext of two or three lines of spoken dialog. This is just one small facet of this amazing film.
To put it bluntly, this is the best film I have seen in some time. It blew me away. What is this film about? It is about life. From the dizzying highs to the stygian lows and all points in between. White, black and every shade of gray imaginable. Or as Zorba himself would put it, "the whole catastrophe". Every human being should see this film. If life were a college course with a required reading/viewing list, this film would be on it. This film examines life from every angle. Not just the positive life-affirming stuff that you'd expect in a film, but also the senseless, tragedies that come along for the ride. It's LIFE, in all its mysterious ways. Just when you think you get a handle on how the film is going to go, it moves in a completely different direction. A couple times, those directions were dark. Not just dark, but black. Bleak. Disturbing even. But it doesn't stay there. It hits a point, then comes back around to something else. This isn't a one-message film, just as life doesn't have one message. It is a mirror. It shows what life is. The messages are your own.
For all you guys out there that cry at the ending of Big Fish, I dare you...I DEFY you...to watch the ending of this film and not weep like a babe. It is now one of my favorite endings of all time. I rewound and watched the ending four times, then the next day popped the DVD back in to watch the ending a couple more times. I haven't done that since I saw Secretary. This is a brilliant film. Go watch it. NOW.
Grade: A+
You know, it's funny. If this movie were made today the critics would rip it to shreds. I know I would. It's Hollywood capitalism at it's finest. Absolutely no plot to speak of, just two big names and a bunch of jokes. In modern day parlance, this would be like George Clooney and Ray Romano making a buddy picture. People of taste would rise and lambaste the film like it was White Chicks. But I love the Road movies. Somehow, because it's Hope and Crosby, it makes it all ok. I have no explanation for this. It is a complete and total double standard, I admit it. And I don't care.
This film is Bob Hope and Bing Crosby fooling around, this time supposedly in Rio Di Janeiro, though I'd bet dollars to donuts there wasn't a second of location shooting. But who cares. This film is funny. I laughed. The bit with the hats had me cracking up. It's amazing how these old movies were able to do such simple things to make you laugh. I suspect that these films work because they are largely derived from vaudeville. The plot is just a thin veneer to string together a bunch of set pieces, be they song and dance numbers, comic routines, daredevil routines, whatever. And just as with vaudeville, the main purpose of each bit is to entertain, and I think if there is a distinction between these movies and modern day silly comedies it's that the aims are slightly different. The old movies (ala vaudeville) want to entertain. They want people to have a good time. Modern silly movies are almost insulting. It's like the failed writers and directors that make them take out their bitterness in the "comedy". Like they are saying "you yokels actually think this shit is funny? Well fine, I'll heap on this crap until you choke, you bastards." And I give Hope and Crosby credit, you can tell that everything they are doing is to entertain you. They are willing to do anything to get a laugh. Turn to the camera and mug? No problem. Dress in drag? Make sure it shows my chest hair.
Another interesting facet of this film and Road films in general is how carefully it treads breaking the fourth wall, both literally and metaphorically. It's not like a Zucker brothers comedy, where it completely violates the fourth wall and plot-driven filmmaking, but it's not a straight comedy either. There are plenty of times where the characters turn to the camera and say something to the audience, or they refer to the fact it's a film or to their real life personas. So it treads the middle ground between straight comedy and Zucker comedy. It's a difficult area to make work, but they do it well.
Grade: B
Calender -
This is the Netflix summary of the plot:
Atom Egoyan directs and stars in this painfully honest account of an Armenian photographer's search for love in spite of himself. His marriage in tatters, he starts dating again, but can't quite jump in with both feet, and his heart, first. With every date, he puts the women through the paces, asking them to make sexually charged phone calls to others. When he finally meets his match, his ex suddenly comes back into the already murky picture.
Yes, this is the plot of the film. But then again, it's not. The events described in this summary are about seven layers underneath the actual happenings in the film. It is helpful to know this summary going in so you can abstract the meaning from the very slow-paced action of the film. And the film is incredibly slow. While it does serve some purpose, it allows the viewer time to digest what is going on and abstract the actual meaning from the events, it does not make for an entertaining time.
The cinematography oscillates between stark visuals and luscious textures, though I would've preferred the switch between the different styles to have slightly more meaning in the context of the story, but it is used to a fairly well effect. The main problem I have with the film, outside of it's pacing, is the fact that I found the protagonist to be a fairly unlikeable character. He's a schmuck. And an asshole. Yet we are supposed to identify with this person, identify with his pain and struggles. While that is certainly possible, we do identify with his struggles to a certain extent, it's hard to care when he is a jerk.
On the whole, I liked the film. It does a good job relating the emotions of a heartbreak, something we can all relate to, in a very convincing and artistic fashion, but the film does have flaws, which detract from the overall experience.
Grade: C+
Zorba the Greek -
The iconic role for revered ethnic actor Anthony Quinn, one for which he was nominated for an Oscar and should've won (he lost to Rex Harrison in My Fair Lady, though that was a pretty damn good year for best actor category). The story of a young Englishman (Alan Bates) who travels to a bit of land in Crete owned by his family, with plans for resuscitating the lignite mine on the premises. Along the way he meets an old Greek man named Zorba (Quinn) who becomes his right-hand man and life mentor. Bates reason for traveling to Crete are murky and subtly told. He is a writer, but hasn't written anything for months, and views the mine as a test to his ability. All of this is related in one conversation with Zorba in the underneath subtext of two or three lines of spoken dialog. This is just one small facet of this amazing film.
To put it bluntly, this is the best film I have seen in some time. It blew me away. What is this film about? It is about life. From the dizzying highs to the stygian lows and all points in between. White, black and every shade of gray imaginable. Or as Zorba himself would put it, "the whole catastrophe". Every human being should see this film. If life were a college course with a required reading/viewing list, this film would be on it. This film examines life from every angle. Not just the positive life-affirming stuff that you'd expect in a film, but also the senseless, tragedies that come along for the ride. It's LIFE, in all its mysterious ways. Just when you think you get a handle on how the film is going to go, it moves in a completely different direction. A couple times, those directions were dark. Not just dark, but black. Bleak. Disturbing even. But it doesn't stay there. It hits a point, then comes back around to something else. This isn't a one-message film, just as life doesn't have one message. It is a mirror. It shows what life is. The messages are your own.
For all you guys out there that cry at the ending of Big Fish, I dare you...I DEFY you...to watch the ending of this film and not weep like a babe. It is now one of my favorite endings of all time. I rewound and watched the ending four times, then the next day popped the DVD back in to watch the ending a couple more times. I haven't done that since I saw Secretary. This is a brilliant film. Go watch it. NOW.
Grade: A+
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
June 20-23, 2008
Horror movie weekend, Part II! The Revenge of Horror Movie Weekend!
Friday the 13th -
The granddaddy of the slasher film genre. Ok, that's probably not true, as it came out in 1980, but it's the spiritual granddaddy as it really established the themes that we've come to equate with slasher films. What have we learned? If you have sex, you are going to die. If you isolate yourself, you are going to die. If you wander stupidly out into the dark, you are going to die. In particular, this movie combined with last weekends movies and more from this weekend, we learn that if the locals tell you stay away from a place, STAY THE FUCK AWAY FROM THE PLACE.
This slasher film is an interesting one. It's the combination of a thriller and a horror film. It builds the tension of a thriller, with the gory finish of a horror film. Did I find this film scary? Not really. There were a couple cheap tricks, jump-out-of-the-woodwork moments, but I consider that amateurish. But I'll tell you what I did like about this film. I really liked the way it built tension. When we look at building tension, we look to the master. Alfred Hitchcock. No one could build tension like he could. But how did he do it? Hitchcock built tension largely through plot devices. Macguffin anyone? Hitchcock would introduce a plot element, and let it just simmer. In his own words, "There is no terror in a bang, only in the anticipation of it." But he did this with the plot. There isn't much plot to speak of in Friday the 13th, and what plot there is really isn't directed towards creating suspense. So how did the filmmakers do it? By using the language of film.
Pay attention to the framing of many of the shots in this film, particularly those in which people don't actually die, but you THINK they are going to die. Pay attention to where the people are. Often times, the person is in one extreme half of the frame, the left or right half. The vacant half of the frame is truly vacant. There will be nothing in that part of the frame except darkness or a doorway, and usually the person will have their back to this vacant part of the frame. It creates the open invitation for an attack from that nebulous space. Most times, that attack doesn't actually come, but the sensation is there. The anticipation of it is there. You really have to admire that kind of filmmaking. The suspense in the scene is created simply from the placement of the actor, the placement of the camera, and the placement of the lighting.
I was also very surprised by the use of sound in the film. In most circumstances, there is no sound more suspenseful than silence. It heightens the senses. But this film makes extensive use of rain (and water in general, I'm sure there's a metaphor there but I couldn't tell you what it is). The rain creates a persistent white noise background that serves to cover up the noises of movement, supplying a sonic cover for the slasher. This works particularly well in the setting of the camp because much of the movement is outdoor and therefore subject to giveaways like leaves and twigs snapping.
And I thought the Kevin Bacon death was quite creative.
Grade: B-
American Psycho -
In the words of the Netflix summary: With a chiseled chin and an iron physique, Patrick Bateman's looks make him the ideal yuppie -- and the ideal serial killer. That's the joke behind American Psycho, which follows a killer at large during the 1980s junk-bond boom.
That summary is dead on. It's the "joke" behind the film. I thought this film was about consumerism, and talking with Coyote verified it. Take the 80's yuppie boom as the personification of mass consumerism. A time all about the things you owned, even to the point of the way you looked was a "thing" you owned. The ME Generation. The exact things that make Patrick Bateman an ideal yuppie also make him an ideal serial killer. Attention to detail, callow emotional emptiness, lack of any compassion, the ability to create a false outward appearance. And thus mass consumerism is critiqued in the way that the attributes it spawns are embodied in a serial killer, and in the way that it is so easy for that killer to hide in that culture, that he almost can't get caught if he tried.
To me, the main message of the film is how consumerism run rampant homogenizes humanity, making everyone the same. The point that struck home was how Patrick Bateman was constantly confused for a different person. The way they dressed, looked, ate, created their business cards and such were so similar that one person could be substituted easily for another. This is a fact that Bateman exploits to satisfy his bloodlust, further emphasizing how dramatic it is. When consumerism dictates who you are, you cease to be a person and become a product. And any product can be replaced with another.
I believe we also see in Bateman a certain desire to stand out, though he certainly would not say so himself. I see the bloodlust in him as his individualism lashing out violently against the monotony of his world. In one scene, Bateman returns to the scene of his previous nights crime, an apartment that he left filled with bodies and blood. He arrives expecting a scene, and instead finds every trace of the crime removed and the apartment being shown off to potential buyers. He seems almost disappointed that his actions have been erased. In another scene, he confesses his killings to his lawyer, and later his lawyer not only believes that it was a joke, but that Bateman is someone else entirely, despite Bateman desperately trying to convince him of the truth. His killing, his "pain" as he calls it, is his attempt to be different from the crowd, and he rails against the cage unable to declare his individualism even in this most violent way.
I like to think this film is an indictment of consumerism in general and not just the yuppie culture of the 80's, but I could be wrong in that.
Grade: A-
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre -
This may be the actual granddaddy of the slasher film genre. Five teens go to visit a desecrated graveyard to see if a relatives grave is in tact. On the way home they stop off at a dilapidated family house and get picked off by a chainsaw wielding maniac (aka, your average Texan).
In some ways this film succeeds greatly, in some ways it fails spectacularly. Unlike Friday the 13th, there is very little tension in the film. I think at times it tries to build tension, but it doesn't work. There is little to no lead up to the killings. Things are moving along (usually slowly), stuff is happening, doo doo dooBAM dead teen, back to stuff happening. Seriously. Teen wanders in house, hears some strange noises, counts to 3, Leatherface jumps out, kills them, drags them off, and cut to next scene. The lead up and actual killing take all of 30 seconds of screen time, no tension there. Also, I object to Franklin killing. The guy is being wheeled through the field on his wheelchair, all the sudden Leatherface jumps out and slices him up with the chainsaw. I call shenanigans. The chainsaw is NOT an ambush weapon, ok? Normally you can hear a chainsaw running from a mile away, but these two people in the field are apparently deaf as they can't hear a running chainsaw two feet to their right.
But, like I said, the film does a lot of things right. Mostly, it gets high marks for disturbing imagery. Starting off with the corpse statue right at the beginning of the film, then with Cletus cutting himself. All the stuff they did with bones was just brilliant, really great messed-up imagery using bones. The meat hood scene. And frankly, Grandpa scared the shit out of me. I didn't think that was a person, just another mummy. When he started sucking the blood from the girls finger I nearly pissed myself. The first two thirds of the story wasn't great. Like I said before, it's slow. It's also fairly predictable, though that may be the fault of so many later movies borrowing from it. But when the girl escapes and runs to the gas station, the plot went in a direction I totally didn't predict. Normally, in a slasher pic, I'd never expect the heroine to actually make to civilization, she'd just end up further and further into the wilderness. Not here. She makes it to civilization, and things turn even stranger. I was impressed with most of the plot in the last third of the film.
But I'll tell one thing that pissed me off. The end. First off, no one seems to give a shit about the black truck driver. The guy is trying to help the girl, the girl gets away, but we never find out what happened to the truck driver. Apparently he was left for dead, though he was intact when we last saw him. That was not tidy. Second of all, the film doesn't actually end. It just stops. I complained about the lack of ending in The Hills Have Eyes. This one was worse! Girl speeding away in the back of the truck, covered in blood, laughing hysterically, shot of Leatherface dancing a jig with his beloved chainsaw under the setting sun in a ye olde England faerie dance way, black, credits. Is this typical of horror films, that they don't end? They just stop? Is it supposed to be a device that leaves the audience unsettled, that lack of resolution? If so, it doesn't leave me unsettled, it leaves me pissed off. Fuck you, movie. Fuck you.
Lastly, I could never figure out, was the meat they were eating supposed to be made from the people? If so, that would make the second horror film that uses cannibalism as a plot device. I wonder if there is some deep-seated human fear against cannibalism, like not only is your body being consumed but your soul too.
Grade: B-
Friday the 13th -
The granddaddy of the slasher film genre. Ok, that's probably not true, as it came out in 1980, but it's the spiritual granddaddy as it really established the themes that we've come to equate with slasher films. What have we learned? If you have sex, you are going to die. If you isolate yourself, you are going to die. If you wander stupidly out into the dark, you are going to die. In particular, this movie combined with last weekends movies and more from this weekend, we learn that if the locals tell you stay away from a place, STAY THE FUCK AWAY FROM THE PLACE.
This slasher film is an interesting one. It's the combination of a thriller and a horror film. It builds the tension of a thriller, with the gory finish of a horror film. Did I find this film scary? Not really. There were a couple cheap tricks, jump-out-of-the-woodwork moments, but I consider that amateurish. But I'll tell you what I did like about this film. I really liked the way it built tension. When we look at building tension, we look to the master. Alfred Hitchcock. No one could build tension like he could. But how did he do it? Hitchcock built tension largely through plot devices. Macguffin anyone? Hitchcock would introduce a plot element, and let it just simmer. In his own words, "There is no terror in a bang, only in the anticipation of it." But he did this with the plot. There isn't much plot to speak of in Friday the 13th, and what plot there is really isn't directed towards creating suspense. So how did the filmmakers do it? By using the language of film.
Pay attention to the framing of many of the shots in this film, particularly those in which people don't actually die, but you THINK they are going to die. Pay attention to where the people are. Often times, the person is in one extreme half of the frame, the left or right half. The vacant half of the frame is truly vacant. There will be nothing in that part of the frame except darkness or a doorway, and usually the person will have their back to this vacant part of the frame. It creates the open invitation for an attack from that nebulous space. Most times, that attack doesn't actually come, but the sensation is there. The anticipation of it is there. You really have to admire that kind of filmmaking. The suspense in the scene is created simply from the placement of the actor, the placement of the camera, and the placement of the lighting.
I was also very surprised by the use of sound in the film. In most circumstances, there is no sound more suspenseful than silence. It heightens the senses. But this film makes extensive use of rain (and water in general, I'm sure there's a metaphor there but I couldn't tell you what it is). The rain creates a persistent white noise background that serves to cover up the noises of movement, supplying a sonic cover for the slasher. This works particularly well in the setting of the camp because much of the movement is outdoor and therefore subject to giveaways like leaves and twigs snapping.
And I thought the Kevin Bacon death was quite creative.
Grade: B-
American Psycho -
In the words of the Netflix summary: With a chiseled chin and an iron physique, Patrick Bateman's looks make him the ideal yuppie -- and the ideal serial killer. That's the joke behind American Psycho, which follows a killer at large during the 1980s junk-bond boom.
That summary is dead on. It's the "joke" behind the film. I thought this film was about consumerism, and talking with Coyote verified it. Take the 80's yuppie boom as the personification of mass consumerism. A time all about the things you owned, even to the point of the way you looked was a "thing" you owned. The ME Generation. The exact things that make Patrick Bateman an ideal yuppie also make him an ideal serial killer. Attention to detail, callow emotional emptiness, lack of any compassion, the ability to create a false outward appearance. And thus mass consumerism is critiqued in the way that the attributes it spawns are embodied in a serial killer, and in the way that it is so easy for that killer to hide in that culture, that he almost can't get caught if he tried.
To me, the main message of the film is how consumerism run rampant homogenizes humanity, making everyone the same. The point that struck home was how Patrick Bateman was constantly confused for a different person. The way they dressed, looked, ate, created their business cards and such were so similar that one person could be substituted easily for another. This is a fact that Bateman exploits to satisfy his bloodlust, further emphasizing how dramatic it is. When consumerism dictates who you are, you cease to be a person and become a product. And any product can be replaced with another.
I believe we also see in Bateman a certain desire to stand out, though he certainly would not say so himself. I see the bloodlust in him as his individualism lashing out violently against the monotony of his world. In one scene, Bateman returns to the scene of his previous nights crime, an apartment that he left filled with bodies and blood. He arrives expecting a scene, and instead finds every trace of the crime removed and the apartment being shown off to potential buyers. He seems almost disappointed that his actions have been erased. In another scene, he confesses his killings to his lawyer, and later his lawyer not only believes that it was a joke, but that Bateman is someone else entirely, despite Bateman desperately trying to convince him of the truth. His killing, his "pain" as he calls it, is his attempt to be different from the crowd, and he rails against the cage unable to declare his individualism even in this most violent way.
I like to think this film is an indictment of consumerism in general and not just the yuppie culture of the 80's, but I could be wrong in that.
Grade: A-
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre -
This may be the actual granddaddy of the slasher film genre. Five teens go to visit a desecrated graveyard to see if a relatives grave is in tact. On the way home they stop off at a dilapidated family house and get picked off by a chainsaw wielding maniac (aka, your average Texan).
In some ways this film succeeds greatly, in some ways it fails spectacularly. Unlike Friday the 13th, there is very little tension in the film. I think at times it tries to build tension, but it doesn't work. There is little to no lead up to the killings. Things are moving along (usually slowly), stuff is happening, doo doo dooBAM dead teen, back to stuff happening. Seriously. Teen wanders in house, hears some strange noises, counts to 3, Leatherface jumps out, kills them, drags them off, and cut to next scene. The lead up and actual killing take all of 30 seconds of screen time, no tension there. Also, I object to Franklin killing. The guy is being wheeled through the field on his wheelchair, all the sudden Leatherface jumps out and slices him up with the chainsaw. I call shenanigans. The chainsaw is NOT an ambush weapon, ok? Normally you can hear a chainsaw running from a mile away, but these two people in the field are apparently deaf as they can't hear a running chainsaw two feet to their right.
But, like I said, the film does a lot of things right. Mostly, it gets high marks for disturbing imagery. Starting off with the corpse statue right at the beginning of the film, then with Cletus cutting himself. All the stuff they did with bones was just brilliant, really great messed-up imagery using bones. The meat hood scene. And frankly, Grandpa scared the shit out of me. I didn't think that was a person, just another mummy. When he started sucking the blood from the girls finger I nearly pissed myself. The first two thirds of the story wasn't great. Like I said before, it's slow. It's also fairly predictable, though that may be the fault of so many later movies borrowing from it. But when the girl escapes and runs to the gas station, the plot went in a direction I totally didn't predict. Normally, in a slasher pic, I'd never expect the heroine to actually make to civilization, she'd just end up further and further into the wilderness. Not here. She makes it to civilization, and things turn even stranger. I was impressed with most of the plot in the last third of the film.
But I'll tell one thing that pissed me off. The end. First off, no one seems to give a shit about the black truck driver. The guy is trying to help the girl, the girl gets away, but we never find out what happened to the truck driver. Apparently he was left for dead, though he was intact when we last saw him. That was not tidy. Second of all, the film doesn't actually end. It just stops. I complained about the lack of ending in The Hills Have Eyes. This one was worse! Girl speeding away in the back of the truck, covered in blood, laughing hysterically, shot of Leatherface dancing a jig with his beloved chainsaw under the setting sun in a ye olde England faerie dance way, black, credits. Is this typical of horror films, that they don't end? They just stop? Is it supposed to be a device that leaves the audience unsettled, that lack of resolution? If so, it doesn't leave me unsettled, it leaves me pissed off. Fuck you, movie. Fuck you.
Lastly, I could never figure out, was the meat they were eating supposed to be made from the people? If so, that would make the second horror film that uses cannibalism as a plot device. I wonder if there is some deep-seated human fear against cannibalism, like not only is your body being consumed but your soul too.
Grade: B-
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
June 13-15, 2008
It was a horror movie weekend!
Dawn of the Dead -
What follows Night of the Living Dead? Why Dawn of the Dead of course! (no, not Dawna of the Dead) The zombie apocalypse is really starting to get into full swing now. A television reporter, a helicopter pilot and two soldiers hop in a helicopter and take off for "Canada", deciding along the way to stop at and eventually hole up in a shopping mall. A shopping mall full of zombies.
Shopping mall full of zombies. It should be apparent by now that this is an allegory about american consumerism. I knew this going in, so I was on the watch for it. With that said, I found the allegory to actually be quite subtle. In fact, if anything, it was UNDERdone, which I did not expect. It really only came out apparent in two instances. One was the generic shots of zombies shuffling through the mall. It makes you think "gee, if I went to the mall right now, I wonder if I could tell the difference." Two was the invasion by the biker gang, stealing junk from the mall even though in the apocalypse none of it is really worth anything. I.e. stupid senseless consumerism.
No, instead of a bashed-over-the-head allegory I kind of was expecting I found an expertly crafted film. Romero takes the material "dead" serious (I hate you Larry). He takes the story in a completely realistic path, even starting at the beginning where the police are rounding up both criminals and zombies, people are starting to snap (though I did find the arguing on television a little unrealistic), the ends are starting to fray. This group finds the mall, realizes that they may have a good situation and systematically goes about securing the premises and establishing security routines and mechanisms. The film is first and foremost about HOW these people are trying to survive, and other more subtle facets, such as the consumerism allegory and the interactions between the characters, are gently mixed into the main survival tale. In other words, the main cable of the film is the most important thing in the story: survival. And other parts of the film are strung from that cable. It's wonderfully realistic storytelling. I think this may Romero's strongest zombie film, myself.
Oh, and Stephen's zombie walk really WAS the best.
Grade: B+
Day of the Dead -
When the Dawn of the Dead bleeds into Day. The zombie apocalypse has has settled and entrenched completely. In fact, in a certain sense, it's "over". And the zombies won. Here we watch a group barricaded in a 14 mile cave complex in south Florida, a small military squad and an even smaller group of scientists. They cannot contact any other human beings, suggesting that they are, in fact, the only humans left alive. The scientists want to find a way to cure or control the zombies, the soldiers want to kill them. The two groups are at odds and everyone is walking a very thin line over the pits of insanity.
While the storying telling in this film is as good as any Romero film, I found the story itself a little bland. It doesn't do anything new with the zombie franchise, unless it's an allegory to something I'm missing. To me, it simply hearkens back to the Night of the Living Dead in it's message. That people are just too stupid to work together in the face of adversity, and our own natural tendencies will get us killed. That human instincts towards stubbornness and independence can be fatal weaknesses. And that humanity has a misguided sense of priorities (see the "tombstone" speech). Not that this message is bad or anything, or even poorly done. It's just that it has been done already. It was new and inventive in the first film. The second film used the zombie theme to explore a different message, which is what I am looking for from a sequel. Use the established material to explore a different topic. It seemed that Romero understood how to make sequels. Then we have this, which is just a reiteration. Not a bad one, just not new.
I also found some of the acting to be really overdone. Particularly by the military people. Though the lead actress did a very good job.
I've read that many people, including Romero himself, think this is his strongest film. While I agree that is perhaps is his cleanest, the production was VERY smooth and polished, I still think that Dawn of the Dead or Night of the Living Dead were stronger in terms of inventiveness and story-telling.
Also: CHOKE ON 'EM
Grade: B-
The Hills Have Eyes -
A "modern" family gets stuck in the desert and meet up with some very bad wild people. The more I think about this film, the less I like it. Don't get me wrong, the storytelling is actually pretty good. It has a good pace to it, a nice flow. It does a decent job of sucking you in to the plot. It's just....the villains. They are terrible. We are talking about people that EAT other people. We are talking about a pretty damn significant de-evolution of humanity. I'd expect them to be almost feral. Instead, they are pretty much rednecks. It's like the hillbillies from Deliverance developed a taste for human flesh. I mean, I've seen people less cultured driving through Georgia. As far as villains go, I was more scared of the mother than any of them. I think in order to convey any sort of terror, the family would have to be somewhere between man and beast. A feral human being, not a NASCAR fan.
Fact of the matter, I did not find this movie scary at all. It's a thriller maybe, but not a horror film. Yeah, I saw the torn Jaws poster, Mr. Craven. You can shove it, cause Jaws was 10 times scarier than this film. In premise, this was closer to Hitchcock than horror. An "everyday" family, through a twist of fate, gets thrown into a horrible situation. See: North by Northwest, The Man Who Knew Too Much, The 39 Steps, The Lady Vanishes, Saboteur.
Oh yeah, and someone teach Wes Craven how to end a film. The end goes like this:
ACTION, ACTION, ACTION
Enraged 70's Porn Star: YOU DIE NOW
Mullet Bob: BLARGH
Fin
In the immortal words of Tom Servo, "well if you want to be that way about it, movie, bite me."
Grade: C-
Dawn of the Dead -
What follows Night of the Living Dead? Why Dawn of the Dead of course! (no, not Dawna of the Dead) The zombie apocalypse is really starting to get into full swing now. A television reporter, a helicopter pilot and two soldiers hop in a helicopter and take off for "Canada", deciding along the way to stop at and eventually hole up in a shopping mall. A shopping mall full of zombies.
Shopping mall full of zombies. It should be apparent by now that this is an allegory about american consumerism. I knew this going in, so I was on the watch for it. With that said, I found the allegory to actually be quite subtle. In fact, if anything, it was UNDERdone, which I did not expect. It really only came out apparent in two instances. One was the generic shots of zombies shuffling through the mall. It makes you think "gee, if I went to the mall right now, I wonder if I could tell the difference." Two was the invasion by the biker gang, stealing junk from the mall even though in the apocalypse none of it is really worth anything. I.e. stupid senseless consumerism.
No, instead of a bashed-over-the-head allegory I kind of was expecting I found an expertly crafted film. Romero takes the material "dead" serious (I hate you Larry). He takes the story in a completely realistic path, even starting at the beginning where the police are rounding up both criminals and zombies, people are starting to snap (though I did find the arguing on television a little unrealistic), the ends are starting to fray. This group finds the mall, realizes that they may have a good situation and systematically goes about securing the premises and establishing security routines and mechanisms. The film is first and foremost about HOW these people are trying to survive, and other more subtle facets, such as the consumerism allegory and the interactions between the characters, are gently mixed into the main survival tale. In other words, the main cable of the film is the most important thing in the story: survival. And other parts of the film are strung from that cable. It's wonderfully realistic storytelling. I think this may Romero's strongest zombie film, myself.
Oh, and Stephen's zombie walk really WAS the best.
Grade: B+
Day of the Dead -
When the Dawn of the Dead bleeds into Day. The zombie apocalypse has has settled and entrenched completely. In fact, in a certain sense, it's "over". And the zombies won. Here we watch a group barricaded in a 14 mile cave complex in south Florida, a small military squad and an even smaller group of scientists. They cannot contact any other human beings, suggesting that they are, in fact, the only humans left alive. The scientists want to find a way to cure or control the zombies, the soldiers want to kill them. The two groups are at odds and everyone is walking a very thin line over the pits of insanity.
While the storying telling in this film is as good as any Romero film, I found the story itself a little bland. It doesn't do anything new with the zombie franchise, unless it's an allegory to something I'm missing. To me, it simply hearkens back to the Night of the Living Dead in it's message. That people are just too stupid to work together in the face of adversity, and our own natural tendencies will get us killed. That human instincts towards stubbornness and independence can be fatal weaknesses. And that humanity has a misguided sense of priorities (see the "tombstone" speech). Not that this message is bad or anything, or even poorly done. It's just that it has been done already. It was new and inventive in the first film. The second film used the zombie theme to explore a different message, which is what I am looking for from a sequel. Use the established material to explore a different topic. It seemed that Romero understood how to make sequels. Then we have this, which is just a reiteration. Not a bad one, just not new.
I also found some of the acting to be really overdone. Particularly by the military people. Though the lead actress did a very good job.
I've read that many people, including Romero himself, think this is his strongest film. While I agree that is perhaps is his cleanest, the production was VERY smooth and polished, I still think that Dawn of the Dead or Night of the Living Dead were stronger in terms of inventiveness and story-telling.
Also: CHOKE ON 'EM
Grade: B-
The Hills Have Eyes -
A "modern" family gets stuck in the desert and meet up with some very bad wild people. The more I think about this film, the less I like it. Don't get me wrong, the storytelling is actually pretty good. It has a good pace to it, a nice flow. It does a decent job of sucking you in to the plot. It's just....the villains. They are terrible. We are talking about people that EAT other people. We are talking about a pretty damn significant de-evolution of humanity. I'd expect them to be almost feral. Instead, they are pretty much rednecks. It's like the hillbillies from Deliverance developed a taste for human flesh. I mean, I've seen people less cultured driving through Georgia. As far as villains go, I was more scared of the mother than any of them. I think in order to convey any sort of terror, the family would have to be somewhere between man and beast. A feral human being, not a NASCAR fan.
Fact of the matter, I did not find this movie scary at all. It's a thriller maybe, but not a horror film. Yeah, I saw the torn Jaws poster, Mr. Craven. You can shove it, cause Jaws was 10 times scarier than this film. In premise, this was closer to Hitchcock than horror. An "everyday" family, through a twist of fate, gets thrown into a horrible situation. See: North by Northwest, The Man Who Knew Too Much, The 39 Steps, The Lady Vanishes, Saboteur.
Oh yeah, and someone teach Wes Craven how to end a film. The end goes like this:
ACTION, ACTION, ACTION
Enraged 70's Porn Star: YOU DIE NOW
Mullet Bob: BLARGH
Fin
In the immortal words of Tom Servo, "well if you want to be that way about it, movie, bite me."
Grade: C-
Monday, June 9, 2008
June 6-8, 2008
One From the Heart -
I rented this movie because the entire soundtrack was done by God. God being Tom Waits. Unfortunately, the soundtrack was the only redeeming thing. This film was a giant ball of schmaltzy crap. I'm entirely disappointed with Francis Ford Coppola. He should've done better.
This is the story of Frannie (Teri Garr) and Hank (Frederick Forrest), two working class schlubs who find their relationship falling apart on the Fourth of July in Las Vegas. Frannie gets mixed with a waiter/piano player played with verve by the late, great Raul Julia. Hank gets mixed up with a showgirl/performer played by the ultrasexy Nastassja Kinski.
This film is basically Coppola trying to make a film based on the music of Tom Waits and completely missing the point. Whereas Waits sings about the troubles of everyday people and makes it sound believable, this film makes them seem like caricatures. It isn't helped by the style of film, which starts at juvenile and descends to cartoonish. The film was shot and staged like a play, entirely on set, and it looks like utter crap. There is also a completely inexplicable musical scene, full of people dancing in the streets, on cars, etc. Also inexplicably, Teri Garr spends most of the film topless....and I don't know why. Don't get me wrong, I'm ALL in favor of nudity in films. Yes, more boobs please. But, for one, Teri Garr isn't all that where we need to see her nude for the majority of the time. Two, it doesn't really emphasize the plot or even serve as shock factor. It seemed like Teri Garr agreed to appear topless and the filmmakers decided to get as much mileage from it as possible. Conversely, Nastassja Kinski appears topless for approximately 1.2 seconds and that at a distance so you can barely see anything, which sucks because she has a body that could make men and some women spontaneously combust.
The film isn't without some merit. There is, after all, the music of Waits. While I'm not a fan so much of his duets (see "I Never Talk to Strangers" with Bette Midler) and many of the songs here are done with Crystal Gail, but many of the songs also kick much ass. There is also a tango scene with Teri Garr and Raul Julia that is wonderfully shot. The rest of the film, utter crap.
Grade: D
The Adventures of Baron Munchausen -
This film is directed by Terry Gilliam. That means the film has that inventive, mind-boggling, curious, intriguing and above all unique Terry Gilliam style. In fact, the film really is just an exercise and excuse to let Terry Gilliam run wild with his imagination.
It's hard to describe the plot of this film. A city occupied by the...British I think, is under siege by a Turkish army. Inside the city a group of players is putting on a performance of The Adventures of Baron Munchausen. Aside from some mortar shells, it all goes fairly well, until the real Baron Munchausen shows up. Then the story goes crooked. The Baron takes off to find his compatriots of years ago so he can return and save the city, all in the company of a little girl, the daughter of the owner of the actor company. During this trip, the Baron takes a trip to the moon (an interesting sequence with Robin Williams playing the king of the moon), a volcano where he converses with the god Vulcan and dances with the goddess Venus (played by Uma Thurman who never looks hotter than she does here, plus you get to see her nipple), and reside in the belly of a whale ala Jonah.
I think Gilliam wants to make this a vehicle to poke fun at the lack of imagination in people, especially during this "age of reason". Mourn the loss of imagination. But really, where this film suffers in comparison to other Gilliam masterpieces is that the story is less coherent. Like I said, it's less a story and more a method of letting Gilliam have fun. Not that that is a bad thing.
Grade: B
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind -
It's a rare thing in film for the screenwriter to outshine the actors or directors, to take upper billing. Occasionally it happens when the movie is based on a famous book, but it's even rarer when it is an original screenplay. The two prominant cases come to mind of legendary satirists Preston Sturges and Paddy Chayefsky, the latter of which I've raved about before. Well, it's struck again. Charlie Kaufman is the new Paddy Chayefsky.
I like Charlie Kaufman. I identify with Charlie Kaufman. I loved Adaptation, except for the end where he got too cutesy in a meta-sense, but other than that it was BRILLIANT. Wasn't a huge fan of Being John Malkovich, but that was the fault of some false expectations. Everyone told me it was sooooooooooo funny, and I didn't find it funny at all. I found it bleak and black. Probably because I identified most with the John Cusack character. But still, Charlie Kaufman = awesome.
I was worried about this film because it stars Kate Winslett, and I hate Kate Winslett. But this film was amazing. I don't think this is a film that has a message per se, but more of a movie where you derive your own message. To me, the film was about the crap of life, and how perhaps that crap is more important to our life than we think. And that sometimes you just have to take the bad with the good. The film reminds me of a line from an otherwise bleh film, Forget Paris.
"All I know is we are better together than we are apart."
Or something close to that. Relationships may not always work, and they may not always be pretty. But sometimes you are just better together than you are apart.
Kaufman has a way of making characters that connect to people. I think it's because the characters are often insecure and irrational and flawed. And everyone is insecure and irrational and flawed, so we identify with them. They seem real. But it's not just that they are flawed. It's easy to write flawed characters. His characters are flawed in very real ways. They behave and react in real ways. And that's why he is a genius and successful where many others aren't. I mean, the scene where Joel is with Clementine under the covers and he's screaming "let me keep this one, please, let me keep just this one!" nearly broke my heart.
I'm not sure about the whole B story with Kirsten Dunst, it seemed tacked on. Was it just an elaborate way of getting the tapes into Joel and Clementines hands? If so, it was a bit overelaborate. Or was it a way of exposing the fraud of starting over with a clean slate, that there is no such thing. That whole part of the story didn't seem to gel with the rest of the plot.
I still think Adaptation is better, but I very much liked this film, and it's worthy of watching by anyone.
Grade: B+
I rented this movie because the entire soundtrack was done by God. God being Tom Waits. Unfortunately, the soundtrack was the only redeeming thing. This film was a giant ball of schmaltzy crap. I'm entirely disappointed with Francis Ford Coppola. He should've done better.
This is the story of Frannie (Teri Garr) and Hank (Frederick Forrest), two working class schlubs who find their relationship falling apart on the Fourth of July in Las Vegas. Frannie gets mixed with a waiter/piano player played with verve by the late, great Raul Julia. Hank gets mixed up with a showgirl/performer played by the ultrasexy Nastassja Kinski.
This film is basically Coppola trying to make a film based on the music of Tom Waits and completely missing the point. Whereas Waits sings about the troubles of everyday people and makes it sound believable, this film makes them seem like caricatures. It isn't helped by the style of film, which starts at juvenile and descends to cartoonish. The film was shot and staged like a play, entirely on set, and it looks like utter crap. There is also a completely inexplicable musical scene, full of people dancing in the streets, on cars, etc. Also inexplicably, Teri Garr spends most of the film topless....and I don't know why. Don't get me wrong, I'm ALL in favor of nudity in films. Yes, more boobs please. But, for one, Teri Garr isn't all that where we need to see her nude for the majority of the time. Two, it doesn't really emphasize the plot or even serve as shock factor. It seemed like Teri Garr agreed to appear topless and the filmmakers decided to get as much mileage from it as possible. Conversely, Nastassja Kinski appears topless for approximately 1.2 seconds and that at a distance so you can barely see anything, which sucks because she has a body that could make men and some women spontaneously combust.
The film isn't without some merit. There is, after all, the music of Waits. While I'm not a fan so much of his duets (see "I Never Talk to Strangers" with Bette Midler) and many of the songs here are done with Crystal Gail, but many of the songs also kick much ass. There is also a tango scene with Teri Garr and Raul Julia that is wonderfully shot. The rest of the film, utter crap.
Grade: D
The Adventures of Baron Munchausen -
This film is directed by Terry Gilliam. That means the film has that inventive, mind-boggling, curious, intriguing and above all unique Terry Gilliam style. In fact, the film really is just an exercise and excuse to let Terry Gilliam run wild with his imagination.
It's hard to describe the plot of this film. A city occupied by the...British I think, is under siege by a Turkish army. Inside the city a group of players is putting on a performance of The Adventures of Baron Munchausen. Aside from some mortar shells, it all goes fairly well, until the real Baron Munchausen shows up. Then the story goes crooked. The Baron takes off to find his compatriots of years ago so he can return and save the city, all in the company of a little girl, the daughter of the owner of the actor company. During this trip, the Baron takes a trip to the moon (an interesting sequence with Robin Williams playing the king of the moon), a volcano where he converses with the god Vulcan and dances with the goddess Venus (played by Uma Thurman who never looks hotter than she does here, plus you get to see her nipple), and reside in the belly of a whale ala Jonah.
I think Gilliam wants to make this a vehicle to poke fun at the lack of imagination in people, especially during this "age of reason". Mourn the loss of imagination. But really, where this film suffers in comparison to other Gilliam masterpieces is that the story is less coherent. Like I said, it's less a story and more a method of letting Gilliam have fun. Not that that is a bad thing.
Grade: B
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind -
It's a rare thing in film for the screenwriter to outshine the actors or directors, to take upper billing. Occasionally it happens when the movie is based on a famous book, but it's even rarer when it is an original screenplay. The two prominant cases come to mind of legendary satirists Preston Sturges and Paddy Chayefsky, the latter of which I've raved about before. Well, it's struck again. Charlie Kaufman is the new Paddy Chayefsky.
I like Charlie Kaufman. I identify with Charlie Kaufman. I loved Adaptation, except for the end where he got too cutesy in a meta-sense, but other than that it was BRILLIANT. Wasn't a huge fan of Being John Malkovich, but that was the fault of some false expectations. Everyone told me it was sooooooooooo funny, and I didn't find it funny at all. I found it bleak and black. Probably because I identified most with the John Cusack character. But still, Charlie Kaufman = awesome.
I was worried about this film because it stars Kate Winslett, and I hate Kate Winslett. But this film was amazing. I don't think this is a film that has a message per se, but more of a movie where you derive your own message. To me, the film was about the crap of life, and how perhaps that crap is more important to our life than we think. And that sometimes you just have to take the bad with the good. The film reminds me of a line from an otherwise bleh film, Forget Paris.
"All I know is we are better together than we are apart."
Or something close to that. Relationships may not always work, and they may not always be pretty. But sometimes you are just better together than you are apart.
Kaufman has a way of making characters that connect to people. I think it's because the characters are often insecure and irrational and flawed. And everyone is insecure and irrational and flawed, so we identify with them. They seem real. But it's not just that they are flawed. It's easy to write flawed characters. His characters are flawed in very real ways. They behave and react in real ways. And that's why he is a genius and successful where many others aren't. I mean, the scene where Joel is with Clementine under the covers and he's screaming "let me keep this one, please, let me keep just this one!" nearly broke my heart.
I'm not sure about the whole B story with Kirsten Dunst, it seemed tacked on. Was it just an elaborate way of getting the tapes into Joel and Clementines hands? If so, it was a bit overelaborate. Or was it a way of exposing the fraud of starting over with a clean slate, that there is no such thing. That whole part of the story didn't seem to gel with the rest of the plot.
I still think Adaptation is better, but I very much liked this film, and it's worthy of watching by anyone.
Grade: B+
Monday, June 2, 2008
May 30-June1, 2008
Three Kings -
I recall my mother liking this film, so I figured it was worth a shot. In short, four soldiers attempt to steal several million dollars in Kuwaiti gold from Saddam shortly after the first Gulf War ended. The film is described as a dark comedy, but I don't really think it's that. Network is a dark comedy. Wag the Dog is a dark comedy. This is...something else. Certainly there are many comedic moments, often times at the beginning. In fact, at times the film tries too hard to be funny. But really this film is, unsurprisingly, a political commentary on the Gulf War and US policy in the Middle East in general. I mean, it's pretty obvious. Showing a series of absurd situations and characterizations during the Gulf War, it's gonna be a political commentary.
Let's face facts, with a movie like this, you are going to be looking for the political commentary. Therefore it's very difficult for the filmmakers to get their commentary across without it being overly blunt or over the top. And for the most part, they tread that fine line very well. There are a few situations that go a little too far, but for the most part it's very well subdued.
Sadly, the movie goes from political commentary to pretty standard war flick about two-thirds in. It's still well done, but it's also quite predictable. Both parts of the film are good, but they seem disjointed from one another. The performances are pretty solid, though a few of the characterizations are flat. I'm guessing that the major point of this film was to introduce the fallacy of American involvement in the Middle East to the general public, to show our naivete in thinking we were there to "protect Kuwait", when all we were really there for was to press our oil concerns. Also to introduce the news that America trained many of the people we were fighting in Iraq back when Iraq was our ally against Iran. Obviously by now this news is old hat, and I think by the time this film even came out that news was out of the bag. But the film does a solid job in reminding us how absurd the whole situation was and really how absurd any war is.
Grade: B
Prizzi's Honor -
This film reminded me that Jack Nicholson can act. Basically every role for Jack Nicholson in the past 10 years has been Jack Nicholson playing Jack Nicholson. Which is fine, because Jack Nicholson is awesome. But, yea, there was a time that Jack Nicholson could fucking act. And this was it. I read the synopsis: Jack Nicholson playing a dim-bulb mafia thug. Wha?! I couldn't see him pulling it off. But damned if it he didn't. He got the accent down. He got the mannerisms. He suppressed his native Jack Nicholson as much as he could. He was awesome.
The movie itself? It was ok. It was fairly light-hearted as far as mafia pictures with people getting killed goes. It was a "comedy" though there weren't terribly many laugh-out-loud moments, but I let out a solid guffaw now and then. It was just a throw away movie. Entertaining while you watch it, forgotten the moment it ends. Not much staying power with a person. I will say, though, that the ending was fairly bleak when compared with the rest of the film. It left me going...huh.
Grade: B-
Barton Fink -
Early Coen brothers film about a young, idealistic playwright who goes to Hollywood and gets his life taken apart. When it comes to Coen brothers, I prefer their comedies over their dramas, and while I'd swear that at times this movie was trying to be a comedy, it was in fact a drama. It actually was an over-stylized drama. It was the Hudsucker Proxy meets Blood Simple. It reminded me a lot of Blood Simple, and that's not a good thing because I didn't like Blood Simple. Both that film and this are terribly over-stylized. I'm not talking in visuals per se, I thought the set design and overall visual look of this film was absolutely wonderful. It's the mood. The Coen brothers try to make every moment in this film just drip with mood and overtones. They were successful in their aim, but failed in that it was annoying as hell. You don't have to have every single frame just oozing mood. It's too much. It's overwrought. It was when they backed off of it, and played things a little lighter, that the film really bloomed.
The film features the usual cast of Coen regulars. John Turturro, John Goodman, plus a couple of character actors I like (see Jon Polito). I really don't like John Goodman. I'm sure he is a very nice person, but he always plays such assholes no matter the film that I really have garnered a dislike of him. However, I think he inhabits his role in this film very well, and I'd have to rank it right up there among the tops of his roles.
I like the use of silence and the use of the beach painting in the movie, and I think it is well-crafted. It's just over-crafted. In such, you can tell it's an earlier one of their films. Later they found a much cleaner, smoother story-telling for their dramas (i.e. Fargo and I'm led to believe No Country For Old Men, though they did come back to it later with The Man Who Wasn't There, a film I do not like). Still, even at that point in their development, they were already very skilled filmmakers. Worth a watch.
Grade: B-
I recall my mother liking this film, so I figured it was worth a shot. In short, four soldiers attempt to steal several million dollars in Kuwaiti gold from Saddam shortly after the first Gulf War ended. The film is described as a dark comedy, but I don't really think it's that. Network is a dark comedy. Wag the Dog is a dark comedy. This is...something else. Certainly there are many comedic moments, often times at the beginning. In fact, at times the film tries too hard to be funny. But really this film is, unsurprisingly, a political commentary on the Gulf War and US policy in the Middle East in general. I mean, it's pretty obvious. Showing a series of absurd situations and characterizations during the Gulf War, it's gonna be a political commentary.
Let's face facts, with a movie like this, you are going to be looking for the political commentary. Therefore it's very difficult for the filmmakers to get their commentary across without it being overly blunt or over the top. And for the most part, they tread that fine line very well. There are a few situations that go a little too far, but for the most part it's very well subdued.
Sadly, the movie goes from political commentary to pretty standard war flick about two-thirds in. It's still well done, but it's also quite predictable. Both parts of the film are good, but they seem disjointed from one another. The performances are pretty solid, though a few of the characterizations are flat. I'm guessing that the major point of this film was to introduce the fallacy of American involvement in the Middle East to the general public, to show our naivete in thinking we were there to "protect Kuwait", when all we were really there for was to press our oil concerns. Also to introduce the news that America trained many of the people we were fighting in Iraq back when Iraq was our ally against Iran. Obviously by now this news is old hat, and I think by the time this film even came out that news was out of the bag. But the film does a solid job in reminding us how absurd the whole situation was and really how absurd any war is.
Grade: B
Prizzi's Honor -
This film reminded me that Jack Nicholson can act. Basically every role for Jack Nicholson in the past 10 years has been Jack Nicholson playing Jack Nicholson. Which is fine, because Jack Nicholson is awesome. But, yea, there was a time that Jack Nicholson could fucking act. And this was it. I read the synopsis: Jack Nicholson playing a dim-bulb mafia thug. Wha?! I couldn't see him pulling it off. But damned if it he didn't. He got the accent down. He got the mannerisms. He suppressed his native Jack Nicholson as much as he could. He was awesome.
The movie itself? It was ok. It was fairly light-hearted as far as mafia pictures with people getting killed goes. It was a "comedy" though there weren't terribly many laugh-out-loud moments, but I let out a solid guffaw now and then. It was just a throw away movie. Entertaining while you watch it, forgotten the moment it ends. Not much staying power with a person. I will say, though, that the ending was fairly bleak when compared with the rest of the film. It left me going...huh.
Grade: B-
Barton Fink -
Early Coen brothers film about a young, idealistic playwright who goes to Hollywood and gets his life taken apart. When it comes to Coen brothers, I prefer their comedies over their dramas, and while I'd swear that at times this movie was trying to be a comedy, it was in fact a drama. It actually was an over-stylized drama. It was the Hudsucker Proxy meets Blood Simple. It reminded me a lot of Blood Simple, and that's not a good thing because I didn't like Blood Simple. Both that film and this are terribly over-stylized. I'm not talking in visuals per se, I thought the set design and overall visual look of this film was absolutely wonderful. It's the mood. The Coen brothers try to make every moment in this film just drip with mood and overtones. They were successful in their aim, but failed in that it was annoying as hell. You don't have to have every single frame just oozing mood. It's too much. It's overwrought. It was when they backed off of it, and played things a little lighter, that the film really bloomed.
The film features the usual cast of Coen regulars. John Turturro, John Goodman, plus a couple of character actors I like (see Jon Polito). I really don't like John Goodman. I'm sure he is a very nice person, but he always plays such assholes no matter the film that I really have garnered a dislike of him. However, I think he inhabits his role in this film very well, and I'd have to rank it right up there among the tops of his roles.
I like the use of silence and the use of the beach painting in the movie, and I think it is well-crafted. It's just over-crafted. In such, you can tell it's an earlier one of their films. Later they found a much cleaner, smoother story-telling for their dramas (i.e. Fargo and I'm led to believe No Country For Old Men, though they did come back to it later with The Man Who Wasn't There, a film I do not like). Still, even at that point in their development, they were already very skilled filmmakers. Worth a watch.
Grade: B-
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
May 23-25, 2008
Turned out to be a damn good weekend for movies.
Akira Kurosawa's Dreams -
A collection of 8 vignettes based upon actual dreams of legendary filmmaker Akira Kurosawa.
In film there is a cinematic device that is seldom used. It is called a tone poem. It is a bit of film that has no purpose in the narrative. It does not strengthen or advance the story, it does not develop the characters, it doesn't set the scene. It is a bit of film used solely to convey a mood. It is seldom used because as filmmakers are under the constant pressure to shorten their films, tone poems are easily removed without affecting the story. This film, or more accurately a collection of films, are tone poems.
This is an art film, plain and true. There is no narrative here. No story, no character development, hell, sometimes not even any logic. There is just visual textures and overall moods. In the simplest sense, this is a moving painting. It is mostly an abstract thing, from which you must garner the meaning yourself. As such, I doubt it will be accessible to most people. This isn't a movie you just pop in to kill some time. It is an experience, like going to a museum.
These stories were, simply put, amazing. Kurosawa was able to capture the beautiful surrealness of dreams. How they are real, yet not real at the same time. How ideas and concepts are introduced on the fly, dredged up out of the subconscious and exposed. You know how when you are having a vivid dream, how everything seems to make sense, how all the connections are apparent and logical, but viewed as a whole the arc of the dream itself is absurd. This is a difficult thing to describe, which makes the fact that Kurosawa was able to capture it perfectly that much more impressive. The best example of this is the first story in the film, Sunshine Through the Rain.
Unfortunately, some of the stories can get a little preachy. Two of them deal with the destruction of the world by nuclear fallout of one kind or another, perhaps unsurprising given how Kurosawa did live through the war. The last one, Village of the Watermills, is basically a sermon, but the location and design of the set, on the river with watermills, is so absolutely idyllic, so heavenly, that I can't but love it.
The most famous of the stories is Crows, wherein a man enters the paintings of Vincent Van Gogh. ILM received accolades for bringing the paintings to life in 3-dimensions, in addition to the fact that Vincent Van Gogh is played by Kurosawa fan Martin Scorsese. But for my money, the best story is The Blizzard. The tone set by the opening is beyond measure. Four mountaineers trudging through the snow. This lasts for a solid four minutes and I was riveted to the screen for the entire time. It's impossible to describe the mood conveyed. The screen is clouded by a haze, like walking through a shadowy gorge. You can't see the peoples faces, all you can discern is the ashen look on them, the buildup of beards and ice and snow encrusted on them. The way the men move, doubled over, broken, tied together with ropes, tugging futilely at each other to keep moving. Stooping through the snow with preponderance. The sound, oh god the sound of it. Most directors would go with a howling wind, and though Kurosawa uses it later, he doesn't use it here. The sound is mostly silence. An intense silence, that highlights the little sound you do hear. The labored breathing of the men, the soft clink of metal on metal, used as an indication of their movements. It's like the clinking metal serves as the tick of a clock, and it occurs so infrequently, it really highlights how slow they are moving. The entire scene speaks of stillness, cloistered and insulated spaces. These men aren't moving across the face of a mountain. They seem to be walking in a personal 40 x 40 snow-filled hell that just repeats on itself when the reach the end. The tone of absolute bone-weariness comes over you. And all of this, ALL of it, is conveyed cinematically. There is no dialogue. It's four men walking through snow, but it creates such a feeling in you. It's beyond description. The story then turns slightly surreal, but in a totally amazing and fantastical way. It is absolute brilliance.
Grade: B+
Cecil B. Demented -
John Waters is a pervert and everything he does is with the singular focus of being as distasteful and offensive as possible. And I LOVE IT. John Waters is amazing. You want a counterculture hero? He's right there. All his films are essentially the same thing. Taking a "normal" thing and perverting it. Which is great. Just because something is "normal" doesn't make it "right". It just makes it popular. This appeals to the anarchist in me. John Waters seems to despise and target mainstream culture and, more specifically, the people that work under the assumption that because something is mainstream, it is the way it "should" be. Which, to me, is nonsense. Like the song says, there ain't no straight line on Gods green. If you like smearing your ass with peanut butter while singing the Good Ship Lollipop, then hey, more fucking power to you. Life's too short to deny yourself whatever pushes your buttons. So John Waters makes fun of popularity. Sometimes he does it with an even hand, sometimes it's a little more bitter. But always the target is the "normal". What's interesting is the angle he takes. Many people would take the angle that normal really isn't that normal, and show that supposedly normal things/activities can, when viewed in the right light, be quite abnormal and strange. John Waters doesn't go this direction. He points out the normal things, says "yeah, that's normal stuff. It really IS normal. And you know what? Fuck normal."
In the past he's turned this view, this...weapon, on race relations, and on sex (one of my favorites), this time he turns it on cinema itself. Many times it's a little bitter. I.e. making fun of Hollywood for making bad sequels to movies which often times were bad themselves (Flintstones 2 anyone?). As a consumer of mainstream cinema I could get offended, because the meaning of the film is pretty militant pro-independent cinema, and I do believe mainstream film does produce some good movies, but for the most part I agree, so whatever. Hollywood does produce a lot of shit, but so does independent film. Really, the best message from the film is cinematic freedom, the freedom to make whatever movies you want. Be it family crap, hardcore action, hardcore art, hardcore porn. Whatever floats your boat, babe. Roll with it. Fuck the MPAA and fuck censorship. Freedom of expression, that's what I'm for.
Of course, Coyote should be all over this film. Takes place in Baltimore, features much of Baltimore, John Waters is a Baltimore icon and as I recall Coyote really loves the Senator theater, which is actually used in the film. Of course, John Waters also makes fun of Baltimore a bit, as it should be. Nothing is sacrosanct.
This film cracked me the fuck up. Some of it is ludicrous, some of it crass. All of it is awesome. But it's not for the easily offended.
Grade: B+
Big Fish -
When I was in college and taking a fiction writing class, my teacher told me a story. It was about Scheherazade and the Thousand Tales. There was a prince, and every night the prince would take a different woman into his room. He would have his way with her, and then he would kill her. As you can imagine, the female populace of this city was a bit nervous. Eventually, every woman would be killed. So the daughter of the princes vizier, Scheherazade, concocted a plan. She would volunteer to be the princes next consort, and when the night came, she would tell the prince a story. The prince would become enthralled with the story, and keep Scheherazade alive for the next night, and the next night and so on. The vizier, predictably, was not happy, as he loved his daughter and did not want to lose her. So he came to his daughter and said, "daughter, I want to tell you a story." And the vizier concocted a tale of a woman that went to the prince with noble thoughts and intentions, but instead found her fate sealed, and no amount of good intentions could save her from her death. It was a very convincing tale. And when he finished, pleased with himself, he asked his daughter what she thought. She replied, "father, I am now more determined than ever to carry out my plan. For you yourself, in telling me that story, have shown me that you believe in the power of stories to change people." And thus Scheherazade went through with her plan, and told the prince 1001 stories.
I rented this movie because you bastards kept going on and on about it. In the realm of interpretation, this film could be about many things. It could be about the way people are different than the way we want them to be, and how we must accept who they are. It could be about the need for a certain level of escapism in every day life, not to the level of psychosis, but to the level making life a little more interesting. But to me, this film is about stories. Telling stories, and the power that those stories have. You see, it was in being told the story related above that I remember how powerful stories are. How they have a way of sticking with you, staying inside you, and ultimately changing you. In part, because of the way that story unfolds, and how it ends not how I thought it would. But also because I remember it because it was told to me as a story. It in a cute meta-sense, the story of someone telling a story of someone telling a story made me remember how telling a story can make you remember. It's the story itself, and the telling of it.
This film is about stories and the power of stories. My favorite part of the film is at the end SPOILERS AHEAD when they are at the funeral and the camera pans over the crowd. The people are in knots and small groups, and you see people catching up with each other. Their hands are sawing the air as they relate one story or another to each other. That's just it, isn't it. When friends get together, what do they do? They tell each other stories. Stories from their life, stories they heard or read. The entertain. They inform. They change our lives. And I loved how you saw some of the people of Edwards life there, as they really were. Carl wasn't a 20 foot tall giant. He was about 7 feet. And the twins weren't joined at the waist. They were two separate people. Edwards stories, like all good stories, had an element of truth inside the fiction. Hell, the story above about Scheherazade may not even be the real Scheherazade story. But it doesn't matter. I remember the story, it has changed me. That's what matters. And that's what Edwards stories were about. The factual truth isn't really all that important. It's the telling of the story, the hearing of the story and how we incorporate that story into ourselves that mattered. It can be a tough thing to resolve. When presented with the obvious fallacies with his fathers stories, Will thought his father was a fake. He took the fictions for falsehood and thought his father was hiding something from him, obscuring the truth. What he had to come to realize is that his father didn't make those stories to hide any truth, his father didn't give a damn about the truth. His father cared about the stories. His father WAS the stories. His father wasn't a fake person just the way a painting isn't a fake reality. It is what he was composed of. He was a story, and that is where his power came from.
The film is made by Tim Burton, and of course it is superiorly crafted. The visual look of the film was impeccable. Burton brought the perfect balance of surrealism to it. The fantastical wasn't over the top. Just like Edwards stories, it was reality, just embellished. The acting was pretty good all around. Albert Finney was a little flat, but so it goes. Ewan Mcgregor continues to kick ass. However, I found Helena Bonham Carter, an actress I very much respect, was miscast for her part. It just wasn't working. Still, on the whole, it was an incredible piece of film craft.
Grade: A-
Akira Kurosawa's Dreams -
A collection of 8 vignettes based upon actual dreams of legendary filmmaker Akira Kurosawa.
In film there is a cinematic device that is seldom used. It is called a tone poem. It is a bit of film that has no purpose in the narrative. It does not strengthen or advance the story, it does not develop the characters, it doesn't set the scene. It is a bit of film used solely to convey a mood. It is seldom used because as filmmakers are under the constant pressure to shorten their films, tone poems are easily removed without affecting the story. This film, or more accurately a collection of films, are tone poems.
This is an art film, plain and true. There is no narrative here. No story, no character development, hell, sometimes not even any logic. There is just visual textures and overall moods. In the simplest sense, this is a moving painting. It is mostly an abstract thing, from which you must garner the meaning yourself. As such, I doubt it will be accessible to most people. This isn't a movie you just pop in to kill some time. It is an experience, like going to a museum.
These stories were, simply put, amazing. Kurosawa was able to capture the beautiful surrealness of dreams. How they are real, yet not real at the same time. How ideas and concepts are introduced on the fly, dredged up out of the subconscious and exposed. You know how when you are having a vivid dream, how everything seems to make sense, how all the connections are apparent and logical, but viewed as a whole the arc of the dream itself is absurd. This is a difficult thing to describe, which makes the fact that Kurosawa was able to capture it perfectly that much more impressive. The best example of this is the first story in the film, Sunshine Through the Rain.
Unfortunately, some of the stories can get a little preachy. Two of them deal with the destruction of the world by nuclear fallout of one kind or another, perhaps unsurprising given how Kurosawa did live through the war. The last one, Village of the Watermills, is basically a sermon, but the location and design of the set, on the river with watermills, is so absolutely idyllic, so heavenly, that I can't but love it.
The most famous of the stories is Crows, wherein a man enters the paintings of Vincent Van Gogh. ILM received accolades for bringing the paintings to life in 3-dimensions, in addition to the fact that Vincent Van Gogh is played by Kurosawa fan Martin Scorsese. But for my money, the best story is The Blizzard. The tone set by the opening is beyond measure. Four mountaineers trudging through the snow. This lasts for a solid four minutes and I was riveted to the screen for the entire time. It's impossible to describe the mood conveyed. The screen is clouded by a haze, like walking through a shadowy gorge. You can't see the peoples faces, all you can discern is the ashen look on them, the buildup of beards and ice and snow encrusted on them. The way the men move, doubled over, broken, tied together with ropes, tugging futilely at each other to keep moving. Stooping through the snow with preponderance. The sound, oh god the sound of it. Most directors would go with a howling wind, and though Kurosawa uses it later, he doesn't use it here. The sound is mostly silence. An intense silence, that highlights the little sound you do hear. The labored breathing of the men, the soft clink of metal on metal, used as an indication of their movements. It's like the clinking metal serves as the tick of a clock, and it occurs so infrequently, it really highlights how slow they are moving. The entire scene speaks of stillness, cloistered and insulated spaces. These men aren't moving across the face of a mountain. They seem to be walking in a personal 40 x 40 snow-filled hell that just repeats on itself when the reach the end. The tone of absolute bone-weariness comes over you. And all of this, ALL of it, is conveyed cinematically. There is no dialogue. It's four men walking through snow, but it creates such a feeling in you. It's beyond description. The story then turns slightly surreal, but in a totally amazing and fantastical way. It is absolute brilliance.
Grade: B+
Cecil B. Demented -
John Waters is a pervert and everything he does is with the singular focus of being as distasteful and offensive as possible. And I LOVE IT. John Waters is amazing. You want a counterculture hero? He's right there. All his films are essentially the same thing. Taking a "normal" thing and perverting it. Which is great. Just because something is "normal" doesn't make it "right". It just makes it popular. This appeals to the anarchist in me. John Waters seems to despise and target mainstream culture and, more specifically, the people that work under the assumption that because something is mainstream, it is the way it "should" be. Which, to me, is nonsense. Like the song says, there ain't no straight line on Gods green. If you like smearing your ass with peanut butter while singing the Good Ship Lollipop, then hey, more fucking power to you. Life's too short to deny yourself whatever pushes your buttons. So John Waters makes fun of popularity. Sometimes he does it with an even hand, sometimes it's a little more bitter. But always the target is the "normal". What's interesting is the angle he takes. Many people would take the angle that normal really isn't that normal, and show that supposedly normal things/activities can, when viewed in the right light, be quite abnormal and strange. John Waters doesn't go this direction. He points out the normal things, says "yeah, that's normal stuff. It really IS normal. And you know what? Fuck normal."
In the past he's turned this view, this...weapon, on race relations, and on sex (one of my favorites), this time he turns it on cinema itself. Many times it's a little bitter. I.e. making fun of Hollywood for making bad sequels to movies which often times were bad themselves (Flintstones 2 anyone?). As a consumer of mainstream cinema I could get offended, because the meaning of the film is pretty militant pro-independent cinema, and I do believe mainstream film does produce some good movies, but for the most part I agree, so whatever. Hollywood does produce a lot of shit, but so does independent film. Really, the best message from the film is cinematic freedom, the freedom to make whatever movies you want. Be it family crap, hardcore action, hardcore art, hardcore porn. Whatever floats your boat, babe. Roll with it. Fuck the MPAA and fuck censorship. Freedom of expression, that's what I'm for.
Of course, Coyote should be all over this film. Takes place in Baltimore, features much of Baltimore, John Waters is a Baltimore icon and as I recall Coyote really loves the Senator theater, which is actually used in the film. Of course, John Waters also makes fun of Baltimore a bit, as it should be. Nothing is sacrosanct.
This film cracked me the fuck up. Some of it is ludicrous, some of it crass. All of it is awesome. But it's not for the easily offended.
Grade: B+
Big Fish -
When I was in college and taking a fiction writing class, my teacher told me a story. It was about Scheherazade and the Thousand Tales. There was a prince, and every night the prince would take a different woman into his room. He would have his way with her, and then he would kill her. As you can imagine, the female populace of this city was a bit nervous. Eventually, every woman would be killed. So the daughter of the princes vizier, Scheherazade, concocted a plan. She would volunteer to be the princes next consort, and when the night came, she would tell the prince a story. The prince would become enthralled with the story, and keep Scheherazade alive for the next night, and the next night and so on. The vizier, predictably, was not happy, as he loved his daughter and did not want to lose her. So he came to his daughter and said, "daughter, I want to tell you a story." And the vizier concocted a tale of a woman that went to the prince with noble thoughts and intentions, but instead found her fate sealed, and no amount of good intentions could save her from her death. It was a very convincing tale. And when he finished, pleased with himself, he asked his daughter what she thought. She replied, "father, I am now more determined than ever to carry out my plan. For you yourself, in telling me that story, have shown me that you believe in the power of stories to change people." And thus Scheherazade went through with her plan, and told the prince 1001 stories.
I rented this movie because you bastards kept going on and on about it. In the realm of interpretation, this film could be about many things. It could be about the way people are different than the way we want them to be, and how we must accept who they are. It could be about the need for a certain level of escapism in every day life, not to the level of psychosis, but to the level making life a little more interesting. But to me, this film is about stories. Telling stories, and the power that those stories have. You see, it was in being told the story related above that I remember how powerful stories are. How they have a way of sticking with you, staying inside you, and ultimately changing you. In part, because of the way that story unfolds, and how it ends not how I thought it would. But also because I remember it because it was told to me as a story. It in a cute meta-sense, the story of someone telling a story of someone telling a story made me remember how telling a story can make you remember. It's the story itself, and the telling of it.
This film is about stories and the power of stories. My favorite part of the film is at the end SPOILERS AHEAD when they are at the funeral and the camera pans over the crowd. The people are in knots and small groups, and you see people catching up with each other. Their hands are sawing the air as they relate one story or another to each other. That's just it, isn't it. When friends get together, what do they do? They tell each other stories. Stories from their life, stories they heard or read. The entertain. They inform. They change our lives. And I loved how you saw some of the people of Edwards life there, as they really were. Carl wasn't a 20 foot tall giant. He was about 7 feet. And the twins weren't joined at the waist. They were two separate people. Edwards stories, like all good stories, had an element of truth inside the fiction. Hell, the story above about Scheherazade may not even be the real Scheherazade story. But it doesn't matter. I remember the story, it has changed me. That's what matters. And that's what Edwards stories were about. The factual truth isn't really all that important. It's the telling of the story, the hearing of the story and how we incorporate that story into ourselves that mattered. It can be a tough thing to resolve. When presented with the obvious fallacies with his fathers stories, Will thought his father was a fake. He took the fictions for falsehood and thought his father was hiding something from him, obscuring the truth. What he had to come to realize is that his father didn't make those stories to hide any truth, his father didn't give a damn about the truth. His father cared about the stories. His father WAS the stories. His father wasn't a fake person just the way a painting isn't a fake reality. It is what he was composed of. He was a story, and that is where his power came from.
The film is made by Tim Burton, and of course it is superiorly crafted. The visual look of the film was impeccable. Burton brought the perfect balance of surrealism to it. The fantastical wasn't over the top. Just like Edwards stories, it was reality, just embellished. The acting was pretty good all around. Albert Finney was a little flat, but so it goes. Ewan Mcgregor continues to kick ass. However, I found Helena Bonham Carter, an actress I very much respect, was miscast for her part. It just wasn't working. Still, on the whole, it was an incredible piece of film craft.
Grade: A-
Monday, May 19, 2008
May 16-18, 2008
A Guy Thing -
I rented this movie for two reasons. And those two reasons are Julia Stiles and Selma Blair. I want to marry Julia Stiles. If I see Julia Stiles, I will drop down on one knee and propose on the spot. I will mug an old lady for her wedding ring to use then and there. She's got this girl-next-door-that-grew-up-to-be-fucking-hot-but-still-retained-her-
sense-of-fun-and-quirkiness vibe going on. And Selma Blair I want in a way that will likely get me a restraining order. Good god she was SMOKING HOT in this film. Her character was a liiiiiittle annoying, but it was designed to be that so you wouldn't feel bad when the main character broke up with her. I gave away the main thrust of the film, but you know what, it doesn't matter, and I'll explain why in a bit. The point is, Selma Blair was so hot she made my pants smolder.
The basic premise is this: a slightly nebbish guy (Jason Lee) is getting married to a gorgeous if not a little stuffy woman (Selma Blair). After his bachelor party, he wakes up in bed with one of the dancers (Julia Stiles). The dancer turns out to be the quirky wild-child cousin of his fiance. Hijinks ensue.
Though this is sort of an indie flick, it a straight-out-of-the-box romantic comedy. It took the formula and stuck to it like superglue. There are no surprises here. None. If you've seen a romantic comedy, you've seen this movie. Everything moves as expected.
Jason Lee was an odd choice for the main character. I like Jason Lee, I think he's a good actor, but his part in this film is something of a milquetoast and that is not what Jason Lee plays best. He's better at witty, acerbic, bitter generation X'ers (or white trash philosophers as I'm led to believe). He does his best with the role, but it never quite comes off. You never really feel the connection between him and Julia Stiles, which is absolutely necessary to make a romantic comedy be successful. He does play the comedic parts very well (though the crotch scratching scene was a bit over the top). This film also has a cameo part by a little known but totally awesome actor/comedian Larry Miller. The rare mp3 I have of Larry Miller doing his 5 Levels of Drinking bit is one of my treasured possessions.
Grade: B-
Schizopolis -
The only term I can think of to describe this film is post modern. It's weird for the sake of weird. This film is basically Steven Soderbergh screwing around. There is a story there, but it's really not the point. The point is screwing with film language. The closest analog to this film would be Mulholland Dr. by David Lynch. However, Mulholland Dr. is more weird/creepy whereas Schizopolis is more weird/funny. It's sort of an off the all comedy. But not off the wall in a Zucker brothers way, off the wall in a meta way. I'm going to quote some passages to give you a feel for how the film goes.
Fletcher Munson: [sunnily, on homecoming] Generic greeting!
Mrs. Munson: [warmly] Generic greeting returned!
[they kiss and chuckle at each other]
Fletcher Munson: Imminent sustenance.
Mrs. Munson: Overly dramatic statement regarding upcoming meal.
Fletcher Munson: Oooh! False reaction indicating hunger and excitement!
Minister at funeral: [deadpan] Lester Richards is dead. And aren't you glad it wasn't you? Don't you wish you felt something? How many men here are attracted to Shelley, his lovely wife? She's a babe. And how many women here wish that their husbands would drop dead and leave them a big fat insurance policy? Yes, I thought so. Hell, it'll be years before you figure out what Lester's death really means. So let's forget the blah blah blah, and go have a drink. Amen.
Newswoman: A New Mexico woman was named Final Arbiter of Taste & Justice today, ending God's lengthy search for someone to straighten this country out. Eileen Harriet Palglace will have final say on every known subject, including who should be put to death, what clothes everyone should wear, what movies suck, and whether bald men who grow ponytails should still get laid.
Mrs. Munson: Y'know, there was a time... there was a time when I felt like an old rag with a stain you couldn't get out, and you... you were like a piece of rotting fruit on a window sill. And it was great.
These may sound like passages from a Zucker brothers film, but where the Zucker brothers do it with a nod and a wink, Soderbergh did with a completely straight face. Zucker comedy is a clown jumping out of a cake and smacking you with a pie. This comedy is a businessman jumping out of a cake and reading you stock reports from the Wall Street Journal. I guess it's sort of Python-esque, but with more overall coherence.
I liked the film, but I like weird for the sake of weird. Plus I like it when people screw around with the rules of film. I think some people like to read deeper meanings into the film, but I sincerely doubt that's what Soderbergh was going for. Kind of like people read things into Mulholland Dr. that aren't there. Lynch made Mulholland Dr. to screw with people. Face it, folks.
If anything, you should see this film because a large portion of it is dedicated to taking shots at Scientology. That alone is worth the price of admission.
Grade: B
Escape From New York -
Yes, I hadn't seen it. I think that violates some geek credentials or whatnot, but I've seen it now. I wanted to see what the hubbub was about.
Frankly, the film didn't do much for me. Yes, Snake is a pretty good badass, but there are better badasses out there. However, that may be a contextual thing as I don't know if there were better badasses out there at the time this film was made. He may have been one of the original badasses. The supporting cast is pretty good. Lee Van Cleef, Donald Pleasance, Isaac Hayes. The premise is pretty good, though by now it's probably a bit overplayed. Again, a contextual disadvantage. The production values are a bit on the sparse side, but I'm guessing this was sort of an underground cult film, so that's to be expected. It's just, there wasn't a heck of a lot of action, and there wasn't much else in the film to support it outside of the action. Needed more Snake being a badass and less Snake wandering around. In the world of John Carpenter films, I'd say They Live is better than this film.
So, on the whole, I'm guessing not viewing this when I was young/when it first came out sort of ruined it for me as a geek mainstay. Most of themes and styles used in the film have been reused and better. No fault of the film, mainly a fault of aging. I will say that the look of the bombed out, dilapidated Manhattan was really good. Some of the underground stuff was a bit too much, a bit Thunderdome-ish, but the scene of flying through the empty and lifeless Manhattan towers was really awesome.
Also, I want Adrienne Barbeau. I...want...her. I don't think I have to explain why.
Grade: C+
I rented this movie for two reasons. And those two reasons are Julia Stiles and Selma Blair. I want to marry Julia Stiles. If I see Julia Stiles, I will drop down on one knee and propose on the spot. I will mug an old lady for her wedding ring to use then and there. She's got this girl-next-door-that-grew-up-to-be-fucking-hot-but-still-retained-her-
sense-of-fun-and-quirkiness vibe going on. And Selma Blair I want in a way that will likely get me a restraining order. Good god she was SMOKING HOT in this film. Her character was a liiiiiittle annoying, but it was designed to be that so you wouldn't feel bad when the main character broke up with her. I gave away the main thrust of the film, but you know what, it doesn't matter, and I'll explain why in a bit. The point is, Selma Blair was so hot she made my pants smolder.
The basic premise is this: a slightly nebbish guy (Jason Lee) is getting married to a gorgeous if not a little stuffy woman (Selma Blair). After his bachelor party, he wakes up in bed with one of the dancers (Julia Stiles). The dancer turns out to be the quirky wild-child cousin of his fiance. Hijinks ensue.
Though this is sort of an indie flick, it a straight-out-of-the-box romantic comedy. It took the formula and stuck to it like superglue. There are no surprises here. None. If you've seen a romantic comedy, you've seen this movie. Everything moves as expected.
Jason Lee was an odd choice for the main character. I like Jason Lee, I think he's a good actor, but his part in this film is something of a milquetoast and that is not what Jason Lee plays best. He's better at witty, acerbic, bitter generation X'ers (or white trash philosophers as I'm led to believe). He does his best with the role, but it never quite comes off. You never really feel the connection between him and Julia Stiles, which is absolutely necessary to make a romantic comedy be successful. He does play the comedic parts very well (though the crotch scratching scene was a bit over the top). This film also has a cameo part by a little known but totally awesome actor/comedian Larry Miller. The rare mp3 I have of Larry Miller doing his 5 Levels of Drinking bit is one of my treasured possessions.
Grade: B-
Schizopolis -
The only term I can think of to describe this film is post modern. It's weird for the sake of weird. This film is basically Steven Soderbergh screwing around. There is a story there, but it's really not the point. The point is screwing with film language. The closest analog to this film would be Mulholland Dr. by David Lynch. However, Mulholland Dr. is more weird/creepy whereas Schizopolis is more weird/funny. It's sort of an off the all comedy. But not off the wall in a Zucker brothers way, off the wall in a meta way. I'm going to quote some passages to give you a feel for how the film goes.
Fletcher Munson: [sunnily, on homecoming] Generic greeting!
Mrs. Munson: [warmly] Generic greeting returned!
[they kiss and chuckle at each other]
Fletcher Munson: Imminent sustenance.
Mrs. Munson: Overly dramatic statement regarding upcoming meal.
Fletcher Munson: Oooh! False reaction indicating hunger and excitement!
Minister at funeral: [deadpan] Lester Richards is dead. And aren't you glad it wasn't you? Don't you wish you felt something? How many men here are attracted to Shelley, his lovely wife? She's a babe. And how many women here wish that their husbands would drop dead and leave them a big fat insurance policy? Yes, I thought so. Hell, it'll be years before you figure out what Lester's death really means. So let's forget the blah blah blah, and go have a drink. Amen.
Newswoman: A New Mexico woman was named Final Arbiter of Taste & Justice today, ending God's lengthy search for someone to straighten this country out. Eileen Harriet Palglace will have final say on every known subject, including who should be put to death, what clothes everyone should wear, what movies suck, and whether bald men who grow ponytails should still get laid.
Mrs. Munson: Y'know, there was a time... there was a time when I felt like an old rag with a stain you couldn't get out, and you... you were like a piece of rotting fruit on a window sill. And it was great.
These may sound like passages from a Zucker brothers film, but where the Zucker brothers do it with a nod and a wink, Soderbergh did with a completely straight face. Zucker comedy is a clown jumping out of a cake and smacking you with a pie. This comedy is a businessman jumping out of a cake and reading you stock reports from the Wall Street Journal. I guess it's sort of Python-esque, but with more overall coherence.
I liked the film, but I like weird for the sake of weird. Plus I like it when people screw around with the rules of film. I think some people like to read deeper meanings into the film, but I sincerely doubt that's what Soderbergh was going for. Kind of like people read things into Mulholland Dr. that aren't there. Lynch made Mulholland Dr. to screw with people. Face it, folks.
If anything, you should see this film because a large portion of it is dedicated to taking shots at Scientology. That alone is worth the price of admission.
Grade: B
Escape From New York -
Yes, I hadn't seen it. I think that violates some geek credentials or whatnot, but I've seen it now. I wanted to see what the hubbub was about.
Frankly, the film didn't do much for me. Yes, Snake is a pretty good badass, but there are better badasses out there. However, that may be a contextual thing as I don't know if there were better badasses out there at the time this film was made. He may have been one of the original badasses. The supporting cast is pretty good. Lee Van Cleef, Donald Pleasance, Isaac Hayes. The premise is pretty good, though by now it's probably a bit overplayed. Again, a contextual disadvantage. The production values are a bit on the sparse side, but I'm guessing this was sort of an underground cult film, so that's to be expected. It's just, there wasn't a heck of a lot of action, and there wasn't much else in the film to support it outside of the action. Needed more Snake being a badass and less Snake wandering around. In the world of John Carpenter films, I'd say They Live is better than this film.
So, on the whole, I'm guessing not viewing this when I was young/when it first came out sort of ruined it for me as a geek mainstay. Most of themes and styles used in the film have been reused and better. No fault of the film, mainly a fault of aging. I will say that the look of the bombed out, dilapidated Manhattan was really good. Some of the underground stuff was a bit too much, a bit Thunderdome-ish, but the scene of flying through the empty and lifeless Manhattan towers was really awesome.
Also, I want Adrienne Barbeau. I...want...her. I don't think I have to explain why.
Grade: C+
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
