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-
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
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-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
