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-
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
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+
Monday, May 12, 2008
May 9-11, 2008
A decent weekend for movies.
Wet Hot American Summer -
This was a very strange film, but not in the way you may think. It's a comedy, a campy comedy about campy camp movies. It was all very cute and very funny. I laughed. A lot. But it was weird in that the film kept switching styles. It modulated between fairly straightforward situational comedy to almost Zucker brothers absurdity comedy. I kind of wish it had stuck with just one style. It kept me off balance. Perhaps some people would like that though.
Janeane Garafolo was very funny, a lot of other unknown actors were also very funny. The SNL people in it were ok. Christopher Meloni as Gene the camp cook was fucking hilarious. He alone was worth the price of admission.
Other than that, not much to say. It's funny, it's campy, it's enjoyable, and that's about it. Wow, what a crappy review.
Grade: B-
Grays Anatomy -
I like Niel Diamond. My mother loves Niel Diamond, I was raised on Niel Diamond, I like Niel Diamond. One of my favorite quotes I don't even know where it came from, though I'm led to believe it was spoken by Bill Murray in some context. It goes "there are two types of people in this world. Those who like Niel Diamond, and those who don't." Logistically speaking, this is fairly silly, as any thing can be divided up in a binary fashion like that. But it's better to think of it more colloquially. Niel Diamond is a defining person. A person that defines the type of person you are. Who am I? I'm the kind of guy that likes Niel Diamond. That alone will probably tell you a lot about who I am.
Spalding Gray is the same way.
I had seen part of some Spalding Gray monologue on television at one point, I think it was from Swimming to Cambodia, and it seemed interesting to me. I suspected at that point that I was the kind of person that would like Spalding Gray.
Spalding Gray films, as far as I can tell, all follow the same formula and they are all odd. They are monologues. Spalding Gray in front of the camera telling a story. The backgrounds may change, there may be clips of footage of other people, but the meat of it is Spalding Gray telling a story. The man of Spalding Gray was odd as well. This wasn't an actor, though he acted. He wasn't an author, though he wrote and published. He was a storyteller. A guy that told stories. He had unique perspectives on life, sundry educations, a cookbook of neuroses and no real goddamn reason to be successful in media other than he told stories. Essentially, watching Spalding Gray is like listening to a friend tell you about his day. There is a sequence of factual information, but that is only half the story. The other half is the commentary from the person about their events. Their reactions, opinions and feelings about what happened. Chances are that this person is your friend because you like the way they contextualize their story. It's the reactions, opinions and feelings about the story jiving with your own that makes them your friend.
Whether or not you will like Grays Anatomy or any Spalding Gray film is directly relevant to whether you would like Spalding Gray the person. Me, I'm a Spalding Gray person. I like educated references combined with the vulgarity, almost a Dennis Miller-esque fashion but without the irreverence. But I don't expect everyone to. Just like I don't expect everyone to like Niel Diamond.
This was my first Spalding Gray film I've seen in full, and I probably should've picked a different one. See, the entire basis of the film is Spalding Gray dealing with a problem with his left eye. The beginning of the film starts with 10 minutes of interviews with people that describe the horrible and horrific accidents they have had with their eyes. I am EXTREMELY sensitive about my eyes. I can't wear contacts because I can't touch my own eye. The mere thought of trying to touch my eye makes them water. In fact, they are watering right now as I right this, I am not kidding. The first 10 minutes of the film nearly killed me, as people were describing how inch long slivers of metal were pulled from their eye. I was cringing in my chair and hiding my face. But that's a personal psychosis.
Grade: B
Slaughterhouse 5 -
I've never read the book. I think I just heard Coyote scream all the way from Baltimore. Yes, I haven't read the book. I haven't read much of Vonnegut at all. Only Cat's Cradle, which was the singular most depressing book I've ever read.
The makers of this film (George Roy Hill, et al.) meant well. I think they tried to capture the essence of the book. But I'm guessing they did a poor job of it. I think there is a lot more depth in the book, about the desperation of common existence, the frailty of humanity, the necessity for escapism and other themes dealt with lightly in the film. The filmmakers tried hard. But it's helpful to know where this film places in film history. It was released in 1972. The late 60's to early 70's were the Horse Latitudes in cinematic history. The film industry was in the dumps. Antitrust legislation had destroyed the big studios, so the golden age was over, and television held the greater interest of the country. Not that good films didn't get made in that time, but overall, it was much harder. Production values were rock bottom, which is why most of the films from that era look like shit. They are grainy, poorly colored, poorly made. The music, sets, special effects, all were done as cheaply as possible. And often times the films added unnecessary elements to drum up attendance. Aka boobs. There are breasts in this film, and they are nice breasts, but they weren't necessary. I'm not complaining, I'm just saying.
If you have ever seen the film version of Fahrenheit 451, this is pretty much the same thing. Taking a fairly popular if not underground story, making a film of it and trying to cover up the low production values with artsiness. In particular, rapid and pointless cutting and over the top sound tricks. Silence is a big part of these films, mostly because I believe they couldn't afford to get them properly scored.
The film itself isn't bad. The acting is decent. The direction is ok. But on the whole, this film serves only one purpose for me and that's to get me interested in the book which I would bet is the far superior experience.
Grade: B-
Wet Hot American Summer -
This was a very strange film, but not in the way you may think. It's a comedy, a campy comedy about campy camp movies. It was all very cute and very funny. I laughed. A lot. But it was weird in that the film kept switching styles. It modulated between fairly straightforward situational comedy to almost Zucker brothers absurdity comedy. I kind of wish it had stuck with just one style. It kept me off balance. Perhaps some people would like that though.
Janeane Garafolo was very funny, a lot of other unknown actors were also very funny. The SNL people in it were ok. Christopher Meloni as Gene the camp cook was fucking hilarious. He alone was worth the price of admission.
Other than that, not much to say. It's funny, it's campy, it's enjoyable, and that's about it. Wow, what a crappy review.
Grade: B-
Grays Anatomy -
I like Niel Diamond. My mother loves Niel Diamond, I was raised on Niel Diamond, I like Niel Diamond. One of my favorite quotes I don't even know where it came from, though I'm led to believe it was spoken by Bill Murray in some context. It goes "there are two types of people in this world. Those who like Niel Diamond, and those who don't." Logistically speaking, this is fairly silly, as any thing can be divided up in a binary fashion like that. But it's better to think of it more colloquially. Niel Diamond is a defining person. A person that defines the type of person you are. Who am I? I'm the kind of guy that likes Niel Diamond. That alone will probably tell you a lot about who I am.
Spalding Gray is the same way.
I had seen part of some Spalding Gray monologue on television at one point, I think it was from Swimming to Cambodia, and it seemed interesting to me. I suspected at that point that I was the kind of person that would like Spalding Gray.
Spalding Gray films, as far as I can tell, all follow the same formula and they are all odd. They are monologues. Spalding Gray in front of the camera telling a story. The backgrounds may change, there may be clips of footage of other people, but the meat of it is Spalding Gray telling a story. The man of Spalding Gray was odd as well. This wasn't an actor, though he acted. He wasn't an author, though he wrote and published. He was a storyteller. A guy that told stories. He had unique perspectives on life, sundry educations, a cookbook of neuroses and no real goddamn reason to be successful in media other than he told stories. Essentially, watching Spalding Gray is like listening to a friend tell you about his day. There is a sequence of factual information, but that is only half the story. The other half is the commentary from the person about their events. Their reactions, opinions and feelings about what happened. Chances are that this person is your friend because you like the way they contextualize their story. It's the reactions, opinions and feelings about the story jiving with your own that makes them your friend.
Whether or not you will like Grays Anatomy or any Spalding Gray film is directly relevant to whether you would like Spalding Gray the person. Me, I'm a Spalding Gray person. I like educated references combined with the vulgarity, almost a Dennis Miller-esque fashion but without the irreverence. But I don't expect everyone to. Just like I don't expect everyone to like Niel Diamond.
This was my first Spalding Gray film I've seen in full, and I probably should've picked a different one. See, the entire basis of the film is Spalding Gray dealing with a problem with his left eye. The beginning of the film starts with 10 minutes of interviews with people that describe the horrible and horrific accidents they have had with their eyes. I am EXTREMELY sensitive about my eyes. I can't wear contacts because I can't touch my own eye. The mere thought of trying to touch my eye makes them water. In fact, they are watering right now as I right this, I am not kidding. The first 10 minutes of the film nearly killed me, as people were describing how inch long slivers of metal were pulled from their eye. I was cringing in my chair and hiding my face. But that's a personal psychosis.
Grade: B
Slaughterhouse 5 -
I've never read the book. I think I just heard Coyote scream all the way from Baltimore. Yes, I haven't read the book. I haven't read much of Vonnegut at all. Only Cat's Cradle, which was the singular most depressing book I've ever read.
The makers of this film (George Roy Hill, et al.) meant well. I think they tried to capture the essence of the book. But I'm guessing they did a poor job of it. I think there is a lot more depth in the book, about the desperation of common existence, the frailty of humanity, the necessity for escapism and other themes dealt with lightly in the film. The filmmakers tried hard. But it's helpful to know where this film places in film history. It was released in 1972. The late 60's to early 70's were the Horse Latitudes in cinematic history. The film industry was in the dumps. Antitrust legislation had destroyed the big studios, so the golden age was over, and television held the greater interest of the country. Not that good films didn't get made in that time, but overall, it was much harder. Production values were rock bottom, which is why most of the films from that era look like shit. They are grainy, poorly colored, poorly made. The music, sets, special effects, all were done as cheaply as possible. And often times the films added unnecessary elements to drum up attendance. Aka boobs. There are breasts in this film, and they are nice breasts, but they weren't necessary. I'm not complaining, I'm just saying.
If you have ever seen the film version of Fahrenheit 451, this is pretty much the same thing. Taking a fairly popular if not underground story, making a film of it and trying to cover up the low production values with artsiness. In particular, rapid and pointless cutting and over the top sound tricks. Silence is a big part of these films, mostly because I believe they couldn't afford to get them properly scored.
The film itself isn't bad. The acting is decent. The direction is ok. But on the whole, this film serves only one purpose for me and that's to get me interested in the book which I would bet is the far superior experience.
Grade: B-
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
May 2-4, 2008
My heart wasn't quite into the movies this week. Largely because Dwarf Fortress continues to own my soul. But the three movies did play and my interest was mostly on them.
RKO 281 -
This movie is about the making of Citizen Kane. So let's talk about Citizen Kane. I've seen Citizen Kane three times in my life. The first time I watched it I was fairly young, 12 or 13 I think. I wanted to see what the hullabaloo was all about. I didn't get. I didn't see what was so great. Fast forward some time. I'm in college taking an introductory film course. We watch Citizen Kane, and I am absolutely blown away. Now that I have been trained to look for certain things in the film, the lighting, camera angle and such, I am absolutely astounding. It is a technologically brilliant film, using the language of film in (at the time) completely innovative ways. And that pretty much sums up Citizen Kane the film as a whole. It's a film for film critics and film artists and film appreciators. For the average person, it won't be that good. The third time I watched it was when I bought the special edition DVD and I listened to Roger Eberts commentary track over the film. It is simply the best commentary track I've ever heard. I learned to appreciate the film in a completely new way. For example, did you know that shot-for-shot, Citizen Kane has more special effects than the original Star Wars? It does, it's just that the shots don't make fantastical things like spaceships, but more mundane things like building fronts.
I mention the special edition DVD for another purpose. Included on that DVD was the AandE (I think) documentary "The Battle for Citizen Kane", which was actually the basis for this film. I had watched it, so I was familiar with the story material. It really is a fascinating story. I wasn't aware of the connections between Kane and William Randolph Hearst beforehand, so this was new to me. And it shows an interior glimpse at the Hollywood machine that was rarely scene.
Now, about RKO 281 itself. I have very little negative to say about this movie. The production value, the art decoration, the editing, the acting, the story were all top notch. Liev Schreiber does a great job as the young genius Orson Welles, great supporting work by John Malkovich, Roy Scheider, and James Cromwell. Perhaps the weakest part of the film was Melanie Griffith playing Marion Davies. Really great characterizations. It would have been all too easy to paint Hearst as the megalomaniacal tyrant suppressing free speech of the young innovator Welles, but we are also shown to what depths Welles will go to get his movie made. Welles was not stainless in the affair. Overall the movie was very good. If you will permit me, I would like to use a baseball analogy. This movie is not a homerun, but it is a ringing double off the wall. Whatever magic or majesty is necessary to make a film timeless, make it stick in your head, seems to be missing here, and I don't know why. I can't really find anything to complain about. It's a solid film. It's just not a masterpiece. Maybe it's the subject material, I don't know. But I heartily recommend anyone and everyone watch it.
As a side note, the incident described in the film taking place aboard Hearsts yacht involving Thomas Ince was itself made into a film called The Cat's Meow, which will be coming up relatively soon on my Netflix list. I'm looking forward to it, but mainly to see Eddie Izzard play Charlie Chaplin.
Grade: B+
The Madness of King George -
A film looking at the political mechinations during the reign of King George III (after he lost America) when he went batshit insane.
This is a tough film to review. It's one of those films that doesn't seem to have a "point" per se. RKO 281 had a point, it showed the battle of wills between two people, the clash of humanity. It had a destination. This film is a series of events without a destination. It's a concourse of happenings. It reminds me of Six Degrees of Separation that way. There doesn't appear to be much story arc, it just presents a (absurd) situation and lets you draw your own conclusions from it. It is perhaps unsurprising that both films are based on plays. This may be a common element of plays, I don't know. I don't know plays very well.
However, like Six Degrees of Separation, this film completely sucks you in. You can't help but watch what's happening, even if it doesn't happen to be leading you anywhere. And personally, I can't think of any better purpose for a movie. A movie is a story, and as such, it must capture the attention. This movie does a damn good job of it. It's not a masterpiece as a masterpiece film must not only just capture the attention, but have the according cinematography, acting, production, direction and whatnot to accompany the story. In these aspects the Madness of King George does solid yeoman work, though not revolutionary. But still, the story pulls you in, and that's good enough.
Grade: B+
The Rundown -
I must admit, I did not do a very good job of watching this movie. I was busy working my dwarf fortress and constantly distracted. This has happened to me in the past, where I have not given a movie the attention it is due (most notable with Double Indemnity and Touch of Evil). I feel guilty about it. But I believe I got a decent enough impression of the film.
An action movie trying to establish Dwayne Johnson (the Rock) as a new action film star. This movie was...surprisingly good. In that it was damn funny. I have no idea if the filmmakers were trying to make it funny, but it was funny. There were some great comedic moments. There were some not so great, but really, what do you expect. Dwayne Johnson does a decent job with his role. It is a role well designed for him. Not a lot of depth, but just enough to make him seem more than 2-dimensional. Sean William Scott's character was annoying as fuck. I think that was supposed to be the point, but he was still annoying. And there was a young Rosario Dawson.
The story was forgettable, but again, this is an action movie, so what do you expect? What's important was the action, so let's talk about the action. The fight scenes were COMPLETELY unrealistic. They were also COMPLETELY awesome to watch. They were very inventive, and if there was wire fu involved, it was low key. I have nothing against wire fu, but it's nice to see something else every once in a while. The film editing, both in the fight scenes and elsewhere, was a bit spastic. I think the editor was watching a little too much Darren Aronofsky, and missed the point while s/he was. And the special effects labeling at the start was pointless and annoying. But still, as far as action flicks go, this was a good one.
Not enough Christopher Walken though. Needs more Christopher Walken.
Grade: B-
RKO 281 -
This movie is about the making of Citizen Kane. So let's talk about Citizen Kane. I've seen Citizen Kane three times in my life. The first time I watched it I was fairly young, 12 or 13 I think. I wanted to see what the hullabaloo was all about. I didn't get. I didn't see what was so great. Fast forward some time. I'm in college taking an introductory film course. We watch Citizen Kane, and I am absolutely blown away. Now that I have been trained to look for certain things in the film, the lighting, camera angle and such, I am absolutely astounding. It is a technologically brilliant film, using the language of film in (at the time) completely innovative ways. And that pretty much sums up Citizen Kane the film as a whole. It's a film for film critics and film artists and film appreciators. For the average person, it won't be that good. The third time I watched it was when I bought the special edition DVD and I listened to Roger Eberts commentary track over the film. It is simply the best commentary track I've ever heard. I learned to appreciate the film in a completely new way. For example, did you know that shot-for-shot, Citizen Kane has more special effects than the original Star Wars? It does, it's just that the shots don't make fantastical things like spaceships, but more mundane things like building fronts.
I mention the special edition DVD for another purpose. Included on that DVD was the AandE (I think) documentary "The Battle for Citizen Kane", which was actually the basis for this film. I had watched it, so I was familiar with the story material. It really is a fascinating story. I wasn't aware of the connections between Kane and William Randolph Hearst beforehand, so this was new to me. And it shows an interior glimpse at the Hollywood machine that was rarely scene.
Now, about RKO 281 itself. I have very little negative to say about this movie. The production value, the art decoration, the editing, the acting, the story were all top notch. Liev Schreiber does a great job as the young genius Orson Welles, great supporting work by John Malkovich, Roy Scheider, and James Cromwell. Perhaps the weakest part of the film was Melanie Griffith playing Marion Davies. Really great characterizations. It would have been all too easy to paint Hearst as the megalomaniacal tyrant suppressing free speech of the young innovator Welles, but we are also shown to what depths Welles will go to get his movie made. Welles was not stainless in the affair. Overall the movie was very good. If you will permit me, I would like to use a baseball analogy. This movie is not a homerun, but it is a ringing double off the wall. Whatever magic or majesty is necessary to make a film timeless, make it stick in your head, seems to be missing here, and I don't know why. I can't really find anything to complain about. It's a solid film. It's just not a masterpiece. Maybe it's the subject material, I don't know. But I heartily recommend anyone and everyone watch it.
As a side note, the incident described in the film taking place aboard Hearsts yacht involving Thomas Ince was itself made into a film called The Cat's Meow, which will be coming up relatively soon on my Netflix list. I'm looking forward to it, but mainly to see Eddie Izzard play Charlie Chaplin.
Grade: B+
The Madness of King George -
A film looking at the political mechinations during the reign of King George III (after he lost America) when he went batshit insane.
This is a tough film to review. It's one of those films that doesn't seem to have a "point" per se. RKO 281 had a point, it showed the battle of wills between two people, the clash of humanity. It had a destination. This film is a series of events without a destination. It's a concourse of happenings. It reminds me of Six Degrees of Separation that way. There doesn't appear to be much story arc, it just presents a (absurd) situation and lets you draw your own conclusions from it. It is perhaps unsurprising that both films are based on plays. This may be a common element of plays, I don't know. I don't know plays very well.
However, like Six Degrees of Separation, this film completely sucks you in. You can't help but watch what's happening, even if it doesn't happen to be leading you anywhere. And personally, I can't think of any better purpose for a movie. A movie is a story, and as such, it must capture the attention. This movie does a damn good job of it. It's not a masterpiece as a masterpiece film must not only just capture the attention, but have the according cinematography, acting, production, direction and whatnot to accompany the story. In these aspects the Madness of King George does solid yeoman work, though not revolutionary. But still, the story pulls you in, and that's good enough.
Grade: B+
The Rundown -
I must admit, I did not do a very good job of watching this movie. I was busy working my dwarf fortress and constantly distracted. This has happened to me in the past, where I have not given a movie the attention it is due (most notable with Double Indemnity and Touch of Evil). I feel guilty about it. But I believe I got a decent enough impression of the film.
An action movie trying to establish Dwayne Johnson (the Rock) as a new action film star. This movie was...surprisingly good. In that it was damn funny. I have no idea if the filmmakers were trying to make it funny, but it was funny. There were some great comedic moments. There were some not so great, but really, what do you expect. Dwayne Johnson does a decent job with his role. It is a role well designed for him. Not a lot of depth, but just enough to make him seem more than 2-dimensional. Sean William Scott's character was annoying as fuck. I think that was supposed to be the point, but he was still annoying. And there was a young Rosario Dawson.
The story was forgettable, but again, this is an action movie, so what do you expect? What's important was the action, so let's talk about the action. The fight scenes were COMPLETELY unrealistic. They were also COMPLETELY awesome to watch. They were very inventive, and if there was wire fu involved, it was low key. I have nothing against wire fu, but it's nice to see something else every once in a while. The film editing, both in the fight scenes and elsewhere, was a bit spastic. I think the editor was watching a little too much Darren Aronofsky, and missed the point while s/he was. And the special effects labeling at the start was pointless and annoying. But still, as far as action flicks go, this was a good one.
Not enough Christopher Walken though. Needs more Christopher Walken.
Grade: B-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
