The Movie: Man Bites Dog, directed by Rémy Belvaux, André Bonzel and Benoît Poelvoorde
Recommendation: Me
Reason: A mockumentary about a serial killer? Sign me up!
First, a warning. If you have trouble watching horror movies, do not see Man Bites Dog. This is a brutal movie, not in terms of gore, but in terms of unflinching psychological wretchedness. It will hollow out your soul and wear you like an Edgar-suit. There is no merciful cutaway at the last minute. There's no comfortable cushion taking you away from the action. If you see the Criterion version of this film, brace yourself. If you can make it past the twisted psyche of the film, it has a lot of interesting things to say about people, murder, death and the media.
The act of viewing something changes that which is viewed. Don't know who or what I'm quoting there, but it seems very applicable to Man Bites Dog. What starts with a flashlight ends in horror as Neitzche's oft misquoted axiom lurches to life. "When you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you." The abyss in this case is a harmless looking serial killer named Ben who expounds on theories about race, art, life and philosophy in between terrorizing and brutalizing people, almost at random. Those doing the looking are his proteges, a camera crew that trails him around. Though they're complicit in his crimes by the simple act of filming his actions, they become accomplices incredibly quickly. I think the only thing I missed in this film was the motivations of the crew themselves-what they wanted out of the experience. Obviously a film, but why this subject? Ultimately, of course, it's not that important in the context of the movie. Just a question I wanted answered.
See this movie if you do your research and you think you can handle it. Watch the Criterion version, to get the entirety of the film the creators intended you see. Value the humor, and think on the message. Just don't look too far into that pitch black place.
57/365 down, 308/365 to go
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
I just can't do the joke a third time.
The Movie: The Gate, directed by Tibor Takács
Recommendation: Dee
Reason: "It's scary when you're a kid!"
I saw a preview for The Gate when I was pretty young. Imdb says I would have been about seven or eight, which makes sense. I was quite terrified of the idea of a gateway to hell. I was very Catholic. I really didn't want a gateway to hell opening anywhere, much less in my yard! If I'd known then that my major problems with a gateway to hell would have been creatures shorter than my knee ineffectively biting my clothing and trying to steal my brother, I probably would have been less scared.
I can't see how anyone was ever afraid of The Gate. The monsters were lame (though the big king demon was an exception), Sam Raimi owns the whole 'homunculi' gag, and it was pretty bog standard for an 80's horror movie. Bad special effects, really bad acting (including a lot of people looking up and off-camera, presumable for some really bad directing), and a paper thin plot.
I was pretty surprised to see some familiar scenes, though. My beloved Monster House included quite a few homages to this movie in particular, and that sudden realization was pretty bizarre. I suppose they're trying for nostalgia-I imagine quite a few kids my age saw The Gate at a sleepover or something similar. I suppose nostalgia glosses over a lot of things.
-56/365 down, 309/365 to go
Recommendation: Dee
Reason: "It's scary when you're a kid!"
I saw a preview for The Gate when I was pretty young. Imdb says I would have been about seven or eight, which makes sense. I was quite terrified of the idea of a gateway to hell. I was very Catholic. I really didn't want a gateway to hell opening anywhere, much less in my yard! If I'd known then that my major problems with a gateway to hell would have been creatures shorter than my knee ineffectively biting my clothing and trying to steal my brother, I probably would have been less scared.
I can't see how anyone was ever afraid of The Gate. The monsters were lame (though the big king demon was an exception), Sam Raimi owns the whole 'homunculi' gag, and it was pretty bog standard for an 80's horror movie. Bad special effects, really bad acting (including a lot of people looking up and off-camera, presumable for some really bad directing), and a paper thin plot.
I was pretty surprised to see some familiar scenes, though. My beloved Monster House included quite a few homages to this movie in particular, and that sudden realization was pretty bizarre. I suppose they're trying for nostalgia-I imagine quite a few kids my age saw The Gate at a sleepover or something similar. I suppose nostalgia glosses over a lot of things.
-56/365 down, 309/365 to go
Game of Eyes and Minds
The Movie: Enemy at the Gates, directed by Jean-Jacques Annaud
Recommendation: Von Gauzen
Reason: "Look Gwen, Rachel Weisz!"
Near the end of World War 2, Hitler set his sights on Russia and made a hard push to the Mother Country. Standing in his way were millions of Russians, and a military willing to send them to their deaths. In particular, there was a city called Stalingrad. In a battle that's considered to be the single largest in human history, the Russians and the Germans fought each other for every room, every doorway and eventually every chunk of rubble in Stalingrad. Amidst the chaotic meatgrinder that unfortunate city became, Jean-Jacques Annaud tells an intriguing fiction of egos both national and personal.
The battle between Vasiliy Grigor´yevich Zaytsev and Major König didn't really happen, though Zaytsev was a real person. He didn't get his happy ending with Tania. The rest of the film is an earnest and genuine effort to weave a tale about nationalism and personal life, and it hits more than it misses. Amidst some excellent special effects, Jude Law puts on a great performance, backed quite nicely by Rachel Weisz. Joseph Fiennes had a few moments that nearly slipped awry, but he was capable of enough restraint to keep his character's high emotions from soaring into comedy.
The visuals were quite well done, the costuming very effective. Little touches here and there, shots of hesitant soldiers and panicking civilians really added to the movie. I thought the music was a very wonderful touch, very unobtrustive.
-55/365 down, 310/365 to go
Recommendation: Von Gauzen
Reason: "Look Gwen, Rachel Weisz!"
Near the end of World War 2, Hitler set his sights on Russia and made a hard push to the Mother Country. Standing in his way were millions of Russians, and a military willing to send them to their deaths. In particular, there was a city called Stalingrad. In a battle that's considered to be the single largest in human history, the Russians and the Germans fought each other for every room, every doorway and eventually every chunk of rubble in Stalingrad. Amidst the chaotic meatgrinder that unfortunate city became, Jean-Jacques Annaud tells an intriguing fiction of egos both national and personal.
The battle between Vasiliy Grigor´yevich Zaytsev and Major König didn't really happen, though Zaytsev was a real person. He didn't get his happy ending with Tania. The rest of the film is an earnest and genuine effort to weave a tale about nationalism and personal life, and it hits more than it misses. Amidst some excellent special effects, Jude Law puts on a great performance, backed quite nicely by Rachel Weisz. Joseph Fiennes had a few moments that nearly slipped awry, but he was capable of enough restraint to keep his character's high emotions from soaring into comedy.
The visuals were quite well done, the costuming very effective. Little touches here and there, shots of hesitant soldiers and panicking civilians really added to the movie. I thought the music was a very wonderful touch, very unobtrustive.
-55/365 down, 310/365 to go
Sunday, February 25, 2007
*zap* HAHAHAHA! *zap* HAHAHA!
The Movie: Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation, directed by Kim Henkel
Recommendation: No one.
Reason: Renee Zellweger and Matthew McConaughey have both tried to get this movie squashed. I wanted to see why.
There is only one reason anyone would ever want to watch this movie, and it's Matthew McConaughey's borderline funny giggling psychopath. If you want another reason, the dialogue is a really top shelf awful attempt at creating a self-aware horror flick. If the acting hadn't been so horrendous, it might have managed a laugh or two. As it was, all the comedy that didn't come from McConaughey came from Renee Zellweger getting repeatedly tasered. It was excessive. Cathartic for me, but excessive, even in the context of a TCM film.
The original film was excellent. A gruelling order of horror without reason or logic, just people devoted to murder and cannibalism. Nobody was spared. There wasn't any escape or mercy. Subsequent attempts to capture the lightning with near exactly the same story, like this and House of 1000 Corpses, have really sucked because we've already seen it once, and once is plenty. I don't think I've seen a 'nowhere to run, surrounded by hillbilly cannibal' flick that exceeded the quality and terror-factor of Tobe Hooper's original effort.
Zellweger was awful and shrill, the movie was dark and almost unwatchable, and it's certainly no worthy sequel to the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Boo. Hiss.
-54/365 down, 311/365 to go
Recommendation: No one.
Reason: Renee Zellweger and Matthew McConaughey have both tried to get this movie squashed. I wanted to see why.
There is only one reason anyone would ever want to watch this movie, and it's Matthew McConaughey's borderline funny giggling psychopath. If you want another reason, the dialogue is a really top shelf awful attempt at creating a self-aware horror flick. If the acting hadn't been so horrendous, it might have managed a laugh or two. As it was, all the comedy that didn't come from McConaughey came from Renee Zellweger getting repeatedly tasered. It was excessive. Cathartic for me, but excessive, even in the context of a TCM film.
The original film was excellent. A gruelling order of horror without reason or logic, just people devoted to murder and cannibalism. Nobody was spared. There wasn't any escape or mercy. Subsequent attempts to capture the lightning with near exactly the same story, like this and House of 1000 Corpses, have really sucked because we've already seen it once, and once is plenty. I don't think I've seen a 'nowhere to run, surrounded by hillbilly cannibal' flick that exceeded the quality and terror-factor of Tobe Hooper's original effort.
Zellweger was awful and shrill, the movie was dark and almost unwatchable, and it's certainly no worthy sequel to the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Boo. Hiss.
-54/365 down, 311/365 to go
Saturday, February 24, 2007
We will conquer the world through the power of steam!
The Movie: Steamboy, directed by Katsuhiro Otomo
Recommendation: Me.
Reason: Akira was an impressive feat of animation. I wanted to see if Otomo could duplicate his previous work of art.
I'm a total sucker for pulp anything. A childhood spent whiling away watching Indiana Jones, Romancing the Stone, Star Wars etc. makes me crave good old fashioned adventure stories. The over-the-top villains, sensational fight scenes, rambling monologues and good old SCIENCE! can keep me occupied for hours. Steamboy was visually and stylistically thrilling in that vein. Though parts were a little reminiscent of Dr. Strangelove (not a bad thing, necessarily), I was thoroughly immersed in the film.
If the pulpy action of the piece hadn't caught me, the beautiful visuals would have. The flavor of the film was in every second of screentime, from the clothing to the gorgeously rendered streets of London, to the captivatingly awesome SCIENCE! powered machinery. It was obvious that plenty of thought went into the devices that the mad scientists created, from the little garage-workshop to the titanic Steam Tower. And then we come to the action, which was done just as superbly as the rest of the film.
We come to problems with Steamboy when it gets to characterization. Though the mad scientists Eddie and Lloyd are thoroughly thought out and well played, the rest of the cast seemed a little thin. Steamboy was interesting, if a little dull, but Scarlett and pretty much everyone else was a paper cutout, a typical whiny girl. She was used to good effect, as far as the imagery was concerned (Scarlett in the warzone was quite beautiful), but as a character she was shrill and annoying. Evidently the English dub of this film was quite good-I watched it in its original Japanese with subtitles, and felt at a few points that I wished the film was in English for plot reasons.
-53/365 down, 312/365 to go
Recommendation: Me.
Reason: Akira was an impressive feat of animation. I wanted to see if Otomo could duplicate his previous work of art.
I'm a total sucker for pulp anything. A childhood spent whiling away watching Indiana Jones, Romancing the Stone, Star Wars etc. makes me crave good old fashioned adventure stories. The over-the-top villains, sensational fight scenes, rambling monologues and good old SCIENCE! can keep me occupied for hours. Steamboy was visually and stylistically thrilling in that vein. Though parts were a little reminiscent of Dr. Strangelove (not a bad thing, necessarily), I was thoroughly immersed in the film.
If the pulpy action of the piece hadn't caught me, the beautiful visuals would have. The flavor of the film was in every second of screentime, from the clothing to the gorgeously rendered streets of London, to the captivatingly awesome SCIENCE! powered machinery. It was obvious that plenty of thought went into the devices that the mad scientists created, from the little garage-workshop to the titanic Steam Tower. And then we come to the action, which was done just as superbly as the rest of the film.
We come to problems with Steamboy when it gets to characterization. Though the mad scientists Eddie and Lloyd are thoroughly thought out and well played, the rest of the cast seemed a little thin. Steamboy was interesting, if a little dull, but Scarlett and pretty much everyone else was a paper cutout, a typical whiny girl. She was used to good effect, as far as the imagery was concerned (Scarlett in the warzone was quite beautiful), but as a character she was shrill and annoying. Evidently the English dub of this film was quite good-I watched it in its original Japanese with subtitles, and felt at a few points that I wished the film was in English for plot reasons.
-53/365 down, 312/365 to go
Friday, February 23, 2007
All three NicoTom movies? Check.
The Movie: Days of Thunder, directed by Tony Scott
Recommendation: Dee
Reason: "See Tom Cruise in all his early 90's homoerotic glory!"
See what I did there? NicoTom? Yeah, I can follow horrible Hollywood naming trends too! My firstborn is totally going to be named Supergirl Orange. Ahem. Sorry, it's been a couple of days and I get a little hyper when they let me play with my shiny machine again. Today's first film was Days of Thunder, another car movie for my growing collection! For the first five minutes, I swore I'd already seen it (though I haven't, at least not in its entirety). Then I recalled the opening sequence of Cars, and was impressed by Pixar's well-realized homage.
Robert Duvall played his 'grizzled mentor' role very well in this one, but forever and always will I love his acting for the part of Hub in Secondhand Lions. I almost expected him to pull out a shotgun once or twice, but I was disappointed in that respect. Tom Cruise was entertaining to watch, if only for all of the easily misinterpreted innuendo the movie has in it. Obviously it's all unintentional, but the look he gives Carey Elwes right before the final race at Daytona set me giggling. Cruise did manage one noteable moment of real, genuine acting-when he's getting a CAT scan and he pleads with the doctors and Duvall to talk to him.
The music made me really want to find a synthesizer and beat it to death. The piercing wails really ruined any romantic chemistry I was watching for between the leads, when my eardrums weren't being blown out by the noise and fury of the racetrack. I did really like the way the vehicle scenes were shot, as I believed they really captured a lot of the racetrack experience.
-52/365 down, 313/365 to go
Recommendation: Dee
Reason: "See Tom Cruise in all his early 90's homoerotic glory!"
See what I did there? NicoTom? Yeah, I can follow horrible Hollywood naming trends too! My firstborn is totally going to be named Supergirl Orange. Ahem. Sorry, it's been a couple of days and I get a little hyper when they let me play with my shiny machine again. Today's first film was Days of Thunder, another car movie for my growing collection! For the first five minutes, I swore I'd already seen it (though I haven't, at least not in its entirety). Then I recalled the opening sequence of Cars, and was impressed by Pixar's well-realized homage.
Robert Duvall played his 'grizzled mentor' role very well in this one, but forever and always will I love his acting for the part of Hub in Secondhand Lions. I almost expected him to pull out a shotgun once or twice, but I was disappointed in that respect. Tom Cruise was entertaining to watch, if only for all of the easily misinterpreted innuendo the movie has in it. Obviously it's all unintentional, but the look he gives Carey Elwes right before the final race at Daytona set me giggling. Cruise did manage one noteable moment of real, genuine acting-when he's getting a CAT scan and he pleads with the doctors and Duvall to talk to him.
The music made me really want to find a synthesizer and beat it to death. The piercing wails really ruined any romantic chemistry I was watching for between the leads, when my eardrums weren't being blown out by the noise and fury of the racetrack. I did really like the way the vehicle scenes were shot, as I believed they really captured a lot of the racetrack experience.
-52/365 down, 313/365 to go
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Paging Manon to New Orleans...Paging Manon...
The Movie: The Skeleton Key, directed by Iain Softley
Recommendation: Dee
Reason: "It was okay...not great."
One component of most successful horror movies is atmosphere. It's critical to the plot and scare-factor of a horror movie to set a suitably freaky stage for the ultra-creepy (ideally) plot to take place on. However, relying entirely on atmosphere means you get movies like The Skeleton Key. New Orleans is a very atmospheric place, stuffed with history and magic. Atmosphere is easy, if you set a movie there. It's important to then work on things like plot and acting.
Kate Hudson, spawn of Goldie Hawn, is not usually a slouch in the acting department. Emphasis on 'usually'. She's had her down moments. This is one of them, though there are glimmers of 'good' in there, once in awhile. She manages to get across what she's trying to get across. The rest of the cast is limp. They're there, they're playing their parts, they're just a little lackluster. As usual, Joy Bryant is a bad actress, though she seems to have improved a bit since Honey.
I think I enjoyed the magic the most of the entire movie. It seemed, surface-wise, well researched. The 'final battle' was very reminiscent of The Craft, not that that's necessarily a bad thing. It was probably the best part of the entire movie, managing to combine atmosphere with a good spot of acting and the culmination of a plot that could have used fifteen less minutes to play out.
-51/365 down, 314/365 to go
Recommendation: Dee
Reason: "It was okay...not great."
One component of most successful horror movies is atmosphere. It's critical to the plot and scare-factor of a horror movie to set a suitably freaky stage for the ultra-creepy (ideally) plot to take place on. However, relying entirely on atmosphere means you get movies like The Skeleton Key. New Orleans is a very atmospheric place, stuffed with history and magic. Atmosphere is easy, if you set a movie there. It's important to then work on things like plot and acting.
Kate Hudson, spawn of Goldie Hawn, is not usually a slouch in the acting department. Emphasis on 'usually'. She's had her down moments. This is one of them, though there are glimmers of 'good' in there, once in awhile. She manages to get across what she's trying to get across. The rest of the cast is limp. They're there, they're playing their parts, they're just a little lackluster. As usual, Joy Bryant is a bad actress, though she seems to have improved a bit since Honey.
I think I enjoyed the magic the most of the entire movie. It seemed, surface-wise, well researched. The 'final battle' was very reminiscent of The Craft, not that that's necessarily a bad thing. It was probably the best part of the entire movie, managing to combine atmosphere with a good spot of acting and the culmination of a plot that could have used fifteen less minutes to play out.
-51/365 down, 314/365 to go
The suburbs are a gateway to hell: RELOADED!
The Movie: Fun With Dick and Jane, directed by Dean Parisot
Recommendation: Dee
Reason: "This movie was hilarious!"
I eagerly anticipate The Number 23. Jim Carrey's dramas are overwhelmingly my favorites of his work, though of course I did spend my childhood giggling uproariously at many of his comedies. He's a good actor, and I really want to see him paired up with Virginia Madsen (who is a previously undiscovered treasure, though 2007 looks like it's her year). She was excellent as The Woman in White in A Prairie Home Companion, and really captured my interest in Candyman. Tea Leoni sucks. She just does. I hate her and I hope she never works again, as unlikely as that is. I hate her almost as much as I hate Jon Heder, and that's quite a lot. Feel free to change my mind, the e-mail's cbkook@hotmail.com.
I am fond of reprehensible human beings as lead characters in movies. Fallible human beings, with faults and flaws, deep or shallow. I loved Lester Burnham. I loved Dae-su Oh. Big fan of Bill, right here. I could only muster a deep and unabiding loathing for Dick and Jane through the entire movie. I desperately wanted them to fail. I wanted the movie to take a hard left into gritty crime, and the pair of them to be gunned down mid-robbery. I was hoping for corporate assassins to come out of the woodwork and destroy them for their pretentious, 'better-than-this' attitude. I wanted blood, and I didn't get it. I didn't care that the CEO of Dick's company made off with millions of dollars of the company's money, defrauding his employees of their well earned paychecks and pensions, because I had my villians in Dick and Jane. I bet Willy the Mailboy didn't decide he was above the law, and I doubt he went on a little robbing spree, taking from people who couldn't even dream of the shallow, hollow existence Dick and Jane were struggling so hard to maintain. WHO THE HELL STEALS A LAWN? Seriously. Yes Dick, you're a master criminal indeed. You and the missus were too good for minimum wage jobs, which would have landed you that 400$ you needed by the end of the month. And yes, I did catch the irony of his shout back to the managers-the entertainment value of that little segue into solidarity with the minimum-wagers was lost, because the whiner-baby didn't even try getting other minimum wage work.
I think where this movie lost me was in having utterly reprehensible assholes as main characters, who completely failed to see anything beyond their little tunnel vision suburban world. Lester, at least, had a struggle towards sanity that he was undertaking. Dae-su Oh was horribly tortured for a crime that was many orders of magnitude less severe than his punishment. Bill died. Sure, Dick and Jane managed to pull off their little coup, but it was meaningless. What did they learn? What did they get for their shallow, pretentious idiocy? They got to be the bearers of good tidings. They got monetary compensation. They didn't even go to JAIL. NEITHER OF THEM DID. Ha. Ha. Ha.
-50/365 down, 315/365 to go
Recommendation: Dee
Reason: "This movie was hilarious!"
I eagerly anticipate The Number 23. Jim Carrey's dramas are overwhelmingly my favorites of his work, though of course I did spend my childhood giggling uproariously at many of his comedies. He's a good actor, and I really want to see him paired up with Virginia Madsen (who is a previously undiscovered treasure, though 2007 looks like it's her year). She was excellent as The Woman in White in A Prairie Home Companion, and really captured my interest in Candyman. Tea Leoni sucks. She just does. I hate her and I hope she never works again, as unlikely as that is. I hate her almost as much as I hate Jon Heder, and that's quite a lot. Feel free to change my mind, the e-mail's cbkook@hotmail.com.
I am fond of reprehensible human beings as lead characters in movies. Fallible human beings, with faults and flaws, deep or shallow. I loved Lester Burnham. I loved Dae-su Oh. Big fan of Bill, right here. I could only muster a deep and unabiding loathing for Dick and Jane through the entire movie. I desperately wanted them to fail. I wanted the movie to take a hard left into gritty crime, and the pair of them to be gunned down mid-robbery. I was hoping for corporate assassins to come out of the woodwork and destroy them for their pretentious, 'better-than-this' attitude. I wanted blood, and I didn't get it. I didn't care that the CEO of Dick's company made off with millions of dollars of the company's money, defrauding his employees of their well earned paychecks and pensions, because I had my villians in Dick and Jane. I bet Willy the Mailboy didn't decide he was above the law, and I doubt he went on a little robbing spree, taking from people who couldn't even dream of the shallow, hollow existence Dick and Jane were struggling so hard to maintain. WHO THE HELL STEALS A LAWN? Seriously. Yes Dick, you're a master criminal indeed. You and the missus were too good for minimum wage jobs, which would have landed you that 400$ you needed by the end of the month. And yes, I did catch the irony of his shout back to the managers-the entertainment value of that little segue into solidarity with the minimum-wagers was lost, because the whiner-baby didn't even try getting other minimum wage work.
I think where this movie lost me was in having utterly reprehensible assholes as main characters, who completely failed to see anything beyond their little tunnel vision suburban world. Lester, at least, had a struggle towards sanity that he was undertaking. Dae-su Oh was horribly tortured for a crime that was many orders of magnitude less severe than his punishment. Bill died. Sure, Dick and Jane managed to pull off their little coup, but it was meaningless. What did they learn? What did they get for their shallow, pretentious idiocy? They got to be the bearers of good tidings. They got monetary compensation. They didn't even go to JAIL. NEITHER OF THEM DID. Ha. Ha. Ha.
-50/365 down, 315/365 to go
Monday, February 19, 2007
Italy, land of a thousand bad, cheap actors
The Movie: The Last Man on Earth, directed by Ubaldo Ragona
Recommendation: Dee
Reason: The love of Vincent Price is a powerful force.
Everyone but Vincent Price in this movie was awful. Fortunately, they didn't take up too much screen time, leaving plenty of time to appreciate the cheesy awesome that is Mr. Price. Through the voiceovers that provided most of the exposition (and were an excellent plot device, considering the situation), he chewed the scenery and played off of absolutely nothing to make a really neat movie.
This was an Italian-made horror movie, very, very B-movie, and it was fun to watch. Not particularily scary, but a good storyline from the novel "I am Legend". The filming was alright, appropriate to the piece. It was very dark, even for black and white. Not a bad way to kill an hour and then some.
-49/365 down, 316/365 to go
Recommendation: Dee
Reason: The love of Vincent Price is a powerful force.
Everyone but Vincent Price in this movie was awful. Fortunately, they didn't take up too much screen time, leaving plenty of time to appreciate the cheesy awesome that is Mr. Price. Through the voiceovers that provided most of the exposition (and were an excellent plot device, considering the situation), he chewed the scenery and played off of absolutely nothing to make a really neat movie.
This was an Italian-made horror movie, very, very B-movie, and it was fun to watch. Not particularily scary, but a good storyline from the novel "I am Legend". The filming was alright, appropriate to the piece. It was very dark, even for black and white. Not a bad way to kill an hour and then some.
-49/365 down, 316/365 to go
Don't get dead
The Movie: Cyborg 2, directed by Michael Schroeder
Recommendation: Me
Reason: The movie cost two dollars in a superstore bargain bin, and it starred Angelina Jolie in her second movie appearance ever.
Sequels never go well. Generally speaking, they're a bad idea, though there are a few noteable exceptions. Having never seen the first one, I went into Cyborg 2 a little unprepared. Fortunately it's a B-movie with a saran wrap thin plot and bad special effects. No one needs any extra preparation for that.
The only notable thing about the film was Angelina Jolie, who was well above sub-par in her second movie role ever. She managed to act, which was more than could be said for everyone else. It wasn't a tour de force, not worth any kind of significant praise, but it was an early indication of her talent. On the scenery chewing front, nobody could be better than Billy Drago, who pranced through the movie like a demented David Bowie. I actually really liked him, as weird as that might be. He brought a weird sort of hilarity to the proceedings with his expansive overacting.
-48/365 down, 317/365 to go
Recommendation: Me
Reason: The movie cost two dollars in a superstore bargain bin, and it starred Angelina Jolie in her second movie appearance ever.
Sequels never go well. Generally speaking, they're a bad idea, though there are a few noteable exceptions. Having never seen the first one, I went into Cyborg 2 a little unprepared. Fortunately it's a B-movie with a saran wrap thin plot and bad special effects. No one needs any extra preparation for that.
The only notable thing about the film was Angelina Jolie, who was well above sub-par in her second movie role ever. She managed to act, which was more than could be said for everyone else. It wasn't a tour de force, not worth any kind of significant praise, but it was an early indication of her talent. On the scenery chewing front, nobody could be better than Billy Drago, who pranced through the movie like a demented David Bowie. I actually really liked him, as weird as that might be. He brought a weird sort of hilarity to the proceedings with his expansive overacting.
-48/365 down, 317/365 to go
Destroy the brain and you destroy the ghoul.
The Movie: Night of the Living Dead, directed by George Romero
Recommendation: Me
Reason: The original. The source. The genesis of the zombie film as we know it.
I love zombie movies. The gore, the social commentary, the growing tension, the knowledge that no one gets out alive...there's nothing like a good zombie movie to heighten the pulse and make you squirm in your seat. Romero is the god of the modern zombie film as we know it. Pretty literally, nearly every well-known/well-recieved zombie film since Night of the Living Dead has owed heavily to the original Dead trilogy. Either they were created as unofficial sequels (The Zombi series, the Return of the Living Dead series), official sequels (Dawn of the Dead, Day of the Dead, Land of the Dead) or they were remakes of the original three (Night was remade in 1990, Dawn in 2004, Day is apparently being remade in 2007, and Land hasn't had time to age in order to be remade just yet). Those zombie films that aren't directly related to the Dead quadrilogy generally give Romero his due in homage or rip offs of his scenes. Sometimes, they even come to him seeking approval.
I knew vaguely what the core plot of the movie was about and having nearly lost my lunch watching the original Dawn, I sort of knew what to expect effects-wise. What Romero created on the budget Night had was definitely more than the sum of its parts. He drew an excellent performance from Duane Jones and built great atmosphere with the supporting cast of zombies and survivors alike. Once more, I came close to being sick during the cannibalistic feast scene, but I appreciate that sort of thing. There were jump-shocks that I didn't predict, and I was upset at the end of the film.
Shot in black and white, with suitably dark lighting to set the mood and special effects that were sickening in their simplicity, Night was an excellent film. One that would never win any awards that would mean anything, but an excellent film nonetheless. Romero deserves every gorehound's acknowledgement and respect for accomplishing so much with so little.
(P.S. Everyone, read this article. It's awesome.)
-47/365 down, 318/365 to go
Recommendation: Me
Reason: The original. The source. The genesis of the zombie film as we know it.
I love zombie movies. The gore, the social commentary, the growing tension, the knowledge that no one gets out alive...there's nothing like a good zombie movie to heighten the pulse and make you squirm in your seat. Romero is the god of the modern zombie film as we know it. Pretty literally, nearly every well-known/well-recieved zombie film since Night of the Living Dead has owed heavily to the original Dead trilogy. Either they were created as unofficial sequels (The Zombi series, the Return of the Living Dead series), official sequels (Dawn of the Dead, Day of the Dead, Land of the Dead) or they were remakes of the original three (Night was remade in 1990, Dawn in 2004, Day is apparently being remade in 2007, and Land hasn't had time to age in order to be remade just yet). Those zombie films that aren't directly related to the Dead quadrilogy generally give Romero his due in homage or rip offs of his scenes. Sometimes, they even come to him seeking approval.
I knew vaguely what the core plot of the movie was about and having nearly lost my lunch watching the original Dawn, I sort of knew what to expect effects-wise. What Romero created on the budget Night had was definitely more than the sum of its parts. He drew an excellent performance from Duane Jones and built great atmosphere with the supporting cast of zombies and survivors alike. Once more, I came close to being sick during the cannibalistic feast scene, but I appreciate that sort of thing. There were jump-shocks that I didn't predict, and I was upset at the end of the film.
Shot in black and white, with suitably dark lighting to set the mood and special effects that were sickening in their simplicity, Night was an excellent film. One that would never win any awards that would mean anything, but an excellent film nonetheless. Romero deserves every gorehound's acknowledgement and respect for accomplishing so much with so little.
(P.S. Everyone, read this article. It's awesome.)
-47/365 down, 318/365 to go
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Circlejerk, Activate!
The Movie: Boffo! Tinseltown's Bombs and Blockbusters, directed by Bill Couturie
Recommendation: Me
Reason: A documentary about what makes movies great, and what makes them bad! Finally, some insight!
I'm developing some really awesome hindsight here. It's like...I didn't need to see this movie. Like I already knew most of the 'amazing revelations' about the creative process. Maybe it's just my work as an admittedly unsuccessful writer, maybe it's my developing love of film. Maybe it's just that a lot of what the interviewed artists talked about was common sense. Yes, in fact, you do need a good script, a good director and some good actors to make a successful movie. However, the people in the film seem to have confused 'good' with 'famous'. They kept pushing out Nia Vardalos and John Singleton as though the pair of them were idiot savants when their first films were as good as they were. As though Vardalos wasn't a good writer, and Singleton wasn't a good director.
For a documentary that claimed it was going to address what makes movies flop, they didn't discuss a lot of flops. They talked a lot about some really great movies, and how those films were almost never made because of strange concepts or off-the-wall casting, but aside from some good natured ribbing about Howard the Duck and Morgan Freeman's soundbite about Bonfire of the Vanities, there wasn't a lot more ammo fired at the movies that sounded great on paper, but blew it at the box office. They didn't talk to the Coen brothers, so obviously they couldn't discuss The Ladykillers. Nobody asked Tarantino what he thought, so he couldn't really address the success of Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill versus the relative failure of Jackie Brown. No Robert Rodriguez, who could have offered an interesting perspective on filmmaking for children versus filmmaking for adults. I could go on about the silliness of leaving off M. Night Shyamalan (to examine how ego annihilates otherwise potentially good filmd) or Baz Luhrmann (though they did at least address the unlikely success of Moulin Rouge).
If you're new to the film industry and want to hear a few tidbits about box office unpredictability and some anecdotes about Jaws (because they talk about Jaws a LOT), then sure, watch this. If you're not new or you don't have your ears plugged and your eyes closed, find something else. If anyone has any suggestions along that vein, I'm all ears.
-46/365 down, 319/365 to go
Recommendation: Me
Reason: A documentary about what makes movies great, and what makes them bad! Finally, some insight!
I'm developing some really awesome hindsight here. It's like...I didn't need to see this movie. Like I already knew most of the 'amazing revelations' about the creative process. Maybe it's just my work as an admittedly unsuccessful writer, maybe it's my developing love of film. Maybe it's just that a lot of what the interviewed artists talked about was common sense. Yes, in fact, you do need a good script, a good director and some good actors to make a successful movie. However, the people in the film seem to have confused 'good' with 'famous'. They kept pushing out Nia Vardalos and John Singleton as though the pair of them were idiot savants when their first films were as good as they were. As though Vardalos wasn't a good writer, and Singleton wasn't a good director.
For a documentary that claimed it was going to address what makes movies flop, they didn't discuss a lot of flops. They talked a lot about some really great movies, and how those films were almost never made because of strange concepts or off-the-wall casting, but aside from some good natured ribbing about Howard the Duck and Morgan Freeman's soundbite about Bonfire of the Vanities, there wasn't a lot more ammo fired at the movies that sounded great on paper, but blew it at the box office. They didn't talk to the Coen brothers, so obviously they couldn't discuss The Ladykillers. Nobody asked Tarantino what he thought, so he couldn't really address the success of Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill versus the relative failure of Jackie Brown. No Robert Rodriguez, who could have offered an interesting perspective on filmmaking for children versus filmmaking for adults. I could go on about the silliness of leaving off M. Night Shyamalan (to examine how ego annihilates otherwise potentially good filmd) or Baz Luhrmann (though they did at least address the unlikely success of Moulin Rouge).
If you're new to the film industry and want to hear a few tidbits about box office unpredictability and some anecdotes about Jaws (because they talk about Jaws a LOT), then sure, watch this. If you're not new or you don't have your ears plugged and your eyes closed, find something else. If anyone has any suggestions along that vein, I'm all ears.
-46/365 down, 319/365 to go
Of Wasted Potential and Bad Actors
The Movie: The Exorcism of Emily Rose, directed by Scott Derrickson
Recommendation: Me
Reason: True stories of this nature are always interesting.
The truth behind The Exorcism of Emily Rose is that it was stuffed with potential, from the directing to the script, but where the ball was dropped was the acting. Not Laura Linney-she was quite good, though a little bland. Pretty much everyone else was quite bad, which made an unfortunate mockery of a film with some decent potential. Here and there, you could spy spots of brilliance, such as the well-shot exorcism scene. However, there were also glaring moments of horrible, such as the multiple-cat vs. priest fight that interrupted the exorcism scene. Note to anyone who didn't watch the X-Files episode Teso dos Bichos: CATS ARE NOT SCARY.
The story that this movie was based on is quite interesting. It's also a little unfortunate. In a fitting 'sequel' to yesterday's Jesus Camp, Emily Rose's life seems to have been sacrificed to the beliefs she held so strongly. I strongly doubt the German church is quite as insane as the American Fundies.
As it happens, a German director has created a film titled Requiem that apparently made an effort to stick a little closer to the true story of Anneliese Michel. Just based on the Imdb comments, it looks like that film was quite good. The Exorcism of Emily Rose was alright. Not as good as it could have been, though.
-45/365 down, 320/365 to go
Recommendation: Me
Reason: True stories of this nature are always interesting.
The truth behind The Exorcism of Emily Rose is that it was stuffed with potential, from the directing to the script, but where the ball was dropped was the acting. Not Laura Linney-she was quite good, though a little bland. Pretty much everyone else was quite bad, which made an unfortunate mockery of a film with some decent potential. Here and there, you could spy spots of brilliance, such as the well-shot exorcism scene. However, there were also glaring moments of horrible, such as the multiple-cat vs. priest fight that interrupted the exorcism scene. Note to anyone who didn't watch the X-Files episode Teso dos Bichos: CATS ARE NOT SCARY.
The story that this movie was based on is quite interesting. It's also a little unfortunate. In a fitting 'sequel' to yesterday's Jesus Camp, Emily Rose's life seems to have been sacrificed to the beliefs she held so strongly. I strongly doubt the German church is quite as insane as the American Fundies.
As it happens, a German director has created a film titled Requiem that apparently made an effort to stick a little closer to the true story of Anneliese Michel. Just based on the Imdb comments, it looks like that film was quite good. The Exorcism of Emily Rose was alright. Not as good as it could have been, though.
-45/365 down, 320/365 to go
We're going to the special hell...
The Movie: Jesus Camp, directed by Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady
Recommendation: Broomie
Reason: "You hadn't seen a good horror movie in awhile."
Levi is a shy kid. Rachael is precocious. But it's Tori who made me weep. Tori, the little girl who really likes to dance, but admits that sometimes she 'dances for the flesh', and she needs to stop that. Consider that statement for a moment. A child who loves to dance, chastising herself for not thinking of God every time she moves. I might be exactly the kind of horrible person that the Evangelical Christian movement loathes with every fiber of their being, but I can't find it in myself to hate them the same way. Levi, Rachael, Tori and their peers are the reason why. Their passion for the Lord matches the love for Jesus I had when I was their age. In fact, I saw far too much of my young self in Rachael. I carried a Bible with me, prayed to myself, though I never preached to strangers. That took a sort of courage I didn't have when I was young.
The directors of this film did an excellent job reminding we the viewers that the people we were watching were real children, sometimes shy, sometimes happy, and sometimes engaging in behavior so terrifying it took my breath away. What child really understands the meaning of dying for the Lord? Should a children's Sunday school performance resemble melee practice? What child has the capacity to reason through complex political issues (and these abound in Jesus Camp) and come up with their own decision? These are questions Jesus Camp raises, and the answers that the Evangelical movement demonstrates are hideous. It's important to note how united the film's fans are-Evangelical and 'Liberal' alike. Many of the Evangelical Christians who have seen this film wholly support it and the message that they are portrayed as sending-that they are at war with Satan, and the battleground is the political landscape of America.
I live in Canada, and I'm tempted to give my country a huge hug after seeing this film. The crazy fundie movement hasn't got quite as large a foothold here as it does in the south (except in Alberta, where the Mormons are quite widespread). Anyone who wants a quick education in what these people believe and what they're doing about it needs to see this movie. Soon.
-44/365 down, 321/365 to go
Recommendation: Broomie
Reason: "You hadn't seen a good horror movie in awhile."
Levi is a shy kid. Rachael is precocious. But it's Tori who made me weep. Tori, the little girl who really likes to dance, but admits that sometimes she 'dances for the flesh', and she needs to stop that. Consider that statement for a moment. A child who loves to dance, chastising herself for not thinking of God every time she moves. I might be exactly the kind of horrible person that the Evangelical Christian movement loathes with every fiber of their being, but I can't find it in myself to hate them the same way. Levi, Rachael, Tori and their peers are the reason why. Their passion for the Lord matches the love for Jesus I had when I was their age. In fact, I saw far too much of my young self in Rachael. I carried a Bible with me, prayed to myself, though I never preached to strangers. That took a sort of courage I didn't have when I was young.
The directors of this film did an excellent job reminding we the viewers that the people we were watching were real children, sometimes shy, sometimes happy, and sometimes engaging in behavior so terrifying it took my breath away. What child really understands the meaning of dying for the Lord? Should a children's Sunday school performance resemble melee practice? What child has the capacity to reason through complex political issues (and these abound in Jesus Camp) and come up with their own decision? These are questions Jesus Camp raises, and the answers that the Evangelical movement demonstrates are hideous. It's important to note how united the film's fans are-Evangelical and 'Liberal' alike. Many of the Evangelical Christians who have seen this film wholly support it and the message that they are portrayed as sending-that they are at war with Satan, and the battleground is the political landscape of America.
I live in Canada, and I'm tempted to give my country a huge hug after seeing this film. The crazy fundie movement hasn't got quite as large a foothold here as it does in the south (except in Alberta, where the Mormons are quite widespread). Anyone who wants a quick education in what these people believe and what they're doing about it needs to see this movie. Soon.
-44/365 down, 321/365 to go
Friday, February 16, 2007
Isn't Aaliyah, I don't know, DEAD?
The Movie: Honey, directed by Bille Woodruff
Recommendation: Much More Music. Bastards.
Reason: Because it was on, and apparently I haven't suffered enough.
Shawn Desman is in this movie. The title role was originally intended for Aaliyah (but hey, WHAT WASN'T, RIGHT?). It's more important right now to focus on the fact that SHAWN DESMAN was given screen time. Enough that he was identifiable as Shawn-FREAKING-Desman, and not 'White Hip Hop Artist #3'. His other claim to fame is the theme song from...wait for it...KANGAROO JACK. Yeah, the movie that was the death knell of Jerry O'Connell's career. The one about the kangaroo that steals money from Jerry O'Connell and Anthony Anderson.
Cameos aside (and there are a LOT of cameos), Honey's a predictable movie whose major redeeming features are its uplifting message and the number of times Jessica Alba gets oiled up and dances. Neither of these was worth the two hours of my life I sacrificed to the film. Sister Act II came out a decade earlier, and it was more entertaining. And it had Lauryn Hill, not Jessica Alba as a poor substitute for Aaliyah. Not to slag too much on Alba-she takes the roles she's meant for and she gets the most she can out of them. Like everything else involving Missy Elliot from y2k through 2004, though, Honey was supposed to have Aaliyah in it. She was a good singer. She was a pretty good actress, with what she was given. But she wasn't the great gift to entertainment people seem to think she was. SO STOP WITH THE MEMORIALIZING ALREADY! Yes, tragic death. I was very upset. But Aaliyah was not the solution to the world's problems. She wasn't going to cure cancer or AIDS, she was a pretty girl with a lot of entertainment potential that was cut short.
The music in this picture was bland and uninteresting-better hip hop movies have been and will be made. Mekhi Phifer was very nice, for his brief moments on screen. I almost have to say that more of him would have improved the film quite a bit.
-43/365 down, 322/365 to go
Recommendation: Much More Music. Bastards.
Reason: Because it was on, and apparently I haven't suffered enough.
Shawn Desman is in this movie. The title role was originally intended for Aaliyah (but hey, WHAT WASN'T, RIGHT?). It's more important right now to focus on the fact that SHAWN DESMAN was given screen time. Enough that he was identifiable as Shawn-FREAKING-Desman, and not 'White Hip Hop Artist #3'. His other claim to fame is the theme song from...wait for it...KANGAROO JACK. Yeah, the movie that was the death knell of Jerry O'Connell's career. The one about the kangaroo that steals money from Jerry O'Connell and Anthony Anderson.
Cameos aside (and there are a LOT of cameos), Honey's a predictable movie whose major redeeming features are its uplifting message and the number of times Jessica Alba gets oiled up and dances. Neither of these was worth the two hours of my life I sacrificed to the film. Sister Act II came out a decade earlier, and it was more entertaining. And it had Lauryn Hill, not Jessica Alba as a poor substitute for Aaliyah. Not to slag too much on Alba-she takes the roles she's meant for and she gets the most she can out of them. Like everything else involving Missy Elliot from y2k through 2004, though, Honey was supposed to have Aaliyah in it. She was a good singer. She was a pretty good actress, with what she was given. But she wasn't the great gift to entertainment people seem to think she was. SO STOP WITH THE MEMORIALIZING ALREADY! Yes, tragic death. I was very upset. But Aaliyah was not the solution to the world's problems. She wasn't going to cure cancer or AIDS, she was a pretty girl with a lot of entertainment potential that was cut short.
The music in this picture was bland and uninteresting-better hip hop movies have been and will be made. Mekhi Phifer was very nice, for his brief moments on screen. I almost have to say that more of him would have improved the film quite a bit.
-43/365 down, 322/365 to go
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
So...Julianne Moore doesn't even have a kid?
The Movie: Benny and Joon, directed by Jeremiah S. Chechik
Recommendation: Dee
Reason: It's Valentines Day!
As you may guess, the title's a reference to Julianne Moore's more recent roles, in which she has a child, usually a boy, who is dead or has been taken from her, and the loss is driving her insane. Refreshing to go back to the time in which she wasn't so wrapped up in such dramas. Of course, I barely remember her being in the movie, due to the presence of a certain Johnny Depp.
I have a great deal of respect for Depp as an actor. He has a signature style, admittedly. He plays quirky characters, characters with a weird sort of depth to them. He steals the show, lights up the screen just by being on hand. He's not even a title character-it's pretty obvious that he was never intended to be more than a supporting actor, but seriously, he blows Aidan Quinn right off the screen. Sam and Joon just wouldn't be as good a title, unfortunately. He's spectacular, essentially, as usual. It's just not worth it to comment on the rest of the cast-they're basically props for Depp to work off of.
Musically, this movie was quite excellent. I'm a huge fan of seminal moments in movies being denoted by the perfect music, and Benny and Joon's musical selector (whoever they are-I don't know who on the crew list would do this job!) was some kind of genius. 500 Miles, by the Proclaimers, now sits right up there with Battle Without Honor or Humanity, Misirlou, I Need a Hero, You Don't Own Me, Sugar High, Lovefool and...well, you're getting the idea. The closing shot of the movie was perfected by music. Huzzah. Excellent Valentine's Day movie.
-42/365 down, 323/365 to go
Recommendation: Dee
Reason: It's Valentines Day!
As you may guess, the title's a reference to Julianne Moore's more recent roles, in which she has a child, usually a boy, who is dead or has been taken from her, and the loss is driving her insane. Refreshing to go back to the time in which she wasn't so wrapped up in such dramas. Of course, I barely remember her being in the movie, due to the presence of a certain Johnny Depp.
I have a great deal of respect for Depp as an actor. He has a signature style, admittedly. He plays quirky characters, characters with a weird sort of depth to them. He steals the show, lights up the screen just by being on hand. He's not even a title character-it's pretty obvious that he was never intended to be more than a supporting actor, but seriously, he blows Aidan Quinn right off the screen. Sam and Joon just wouldn't be as good a title, unfortunately. He's spectacular, essentially, as usual. It's just not worth it to comment on the rest of the cast-they're basically props for Depp to work off of.
Musically, this movie was quite excellent. I'm a huge fan of seminal moments in movies being denoted by the perfect music, and Benny and Joon's musical selector (whoever they are-I don't know who on the crew list would do this job!) was some kind of genius. 500 Miles, by the Proclaimers, now sits right up there with Battle Without Honor or Humanity, Misirlou, I Need a Hero, You Don't Own Me, Sugar High, Lovefool and...well, you're getting the idea. The closing shot of the movie was perfected by music. Huzzah. Excellent Valentine's Day movie.
-42/365 down, 323/365 to go
I hate missionaries.
The Movie: Hawaii, directed by George Roy Hill
Recommendation: Dee
Reason: "I hadn't seen it yet, and I wanted to see what the hell a movie made in 1966 could talk about for three hours."
Yes. You read that right. Three hours. What did I learn? Well, missionaries went to Hawaii and brought sickness, insanity and death with them. I could have probably told you that before I watched the movie. A quick look at imdb provided a few minutes of funny-apparently this is Bette Midler's big screen debut. She was a seasick passenger, which means she was likely visible for about five minutes, if even. In a case of perfect timing, the song from one of my favorite movie moments ever just kicked in ("You Don't Own Me", from the First Wives Club. And if you can't get down to a trio of the greatest feminist film icons of all time grooving to a really sweet classic song about belonging only to yourself...I just don't know, man.)
Okay, Bette and Diane and Goldie are gone now. Media Player has moved on to some Rent, and in the vein of musical theater and musicals in general, the leading lady of Hawaii is Julie Andrews. Julie Andrews is stunning. In this movie, she's sort of an afterthought, which made me pretty sad because goddamn Max von Sydow is an annoying overacting twat. HACK. I kept praying for Gene Hackman and Richard Harris to come back and beat him up repeatedly, and my prayers were answered! Yay! People kept one-punching him! Of course, mentioning the cast just wouldn't be right without cheering for the excellent Jocelyn LaGarde, who was downright awesome in her role as the leader of her people. In a group of people overacting (von Sydow), underacting (Andrews) and just not being onscreen long enough, dammit (Hackman), Jocelyn LaGarde really stole the show.
The visual style of the movie was evocative. I think the cinematographer managed to pull off some really excellent shots here and there, particularily in his views of the Hawaiians themselves. The color was really vivid when it should have been, though the visuals didn't really speak to me as much as they could have. Unfortunately, the pacing was...how shall we say...awful. The movie was SLOW. I think that's the real killer for me. It was so hard to stay awake. Mahalo, Hawaii, for at least including a shark attack.
-41/365 down, 324/365 to go
Recommendation: Dee
Reason: "I hadn't seen it yet, and I wanted to see what the hell a movie made in 1966 could talk about for three hours."
Yes. You read that right. Three hours. What did I learn? Well, missionaries went to Hawaii and brought sickness, insanity and death with them. I could have probably told you that before I watched the movie. A quick look at imdb provided a few minutes of funny-apparently this is Bette Midler's big screen debut. She was a seasick passenger, which means she was likely visible for about five minutes, if even. In a case of perfect timing, the song from one of my favorite movie moments ever just kicked in ("You Don't Own Me", from the First Wives Club. And if you can't get down to a trio of the greatest feminist film icons of all time grooving to a really sweet classic song about belonging only to yourself...I just don't know, man.)
Okay, Bette and Diane and Goldie are gone now. Media Player has moved on to some Rent, and in the vein of musical theater and musicals in general, the leading lady of Hawaii is Julie Andrews. Julie Andrews is stunning. In this movie, she's sort of an afterthought, which made me pretty sad because goddamn Max von Sydow is an annoying overacting twat. HACK. I kept praying for Gene Hackman and Richard Harris to come back and beat him up repeatedly, and my prayers were answered! Yay! People kept one-punching him! Of course, mentioning the cast just wouldn't be right without cheering for the excellent Jocelyn LaGarde, who was downright awesome in her role as the leader of her people. In a group of people overacting (von Sydow), underacting (Andrews) and just not being onscreen long enough, dammit (Hackman), Jocelyn LaGarde really stole the show.
The visual style of the movie was evocative. I think the cinematographer managed to pull off some really excellent shots here and there, particularily in his views of the Hawaiians themselves. The color was really vivid when it should have been, though the visuals didn't really speak to me as much as they could have. Unfortunately, the pacing was...how shall we say...awful. The movie was SLOW. I think that's the real killer for me. It was so hard to stay awake. Mahalo, Hawaii, for at least including a shark attack.
-41/365 down, 324/365 to go
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
My elephant is fight
The Movie: The Protector, directed by Prachya Pinkaew
Recommendation: Me
Reason: Hey, Ong Bak was fun, right?
Ong Bak was great. It was an eye opener, as martial arts movies go. My jaw dropped so many times while I was watching that movie, I was practically catching flies. I slavered over The Protector, having seen a preview scene featuring the fight with Lateef Crowder, the Capoeira fighter. Watching Tony Jaa fly across the screen and knee some guy in the face was to be the high point of my night.
The movie didn't quite live up to the one fight I'd seen. The editing was shoddy, the camerawork pretty lame. The martial arts choreography was alright, but definitely did not live up to the promise of Ong Bak. Tony Jaa kneed a whole lot more people in the face in that movie. So, without living up to the over-the-top face-imploding action of Dude, Where's My Buddha?, what did The Protector have left?
Your answer may be plot. Ong Bak was a little light on that, in favor of more cartilage crunching and diving through barbed wire. The Protector, being a little lacking in those departments, could have attempted plot, or acting, or possibly not being pretty lame. It succeeded only at being pretty lame. Overall, it was just...not quite right. There was very little plot, with minimal coherency. Oldboy, even the beginning, made more sense.
-40/365 down, 325/365 to go
Recommendation: Me
Reason: Hey, Ong Bak was fun, right?
Ong Bak was great. It was an eye opener, as martial arts movies go. My jaw dropped so many times while I was watching that movie, I was practically catching flies. I slavered over The Protector, having seen a preview scene featuring the fight with Lateef Crowder, the Capoeira fighter. Watching Tony Jaa fly across the screen and knee some guy in the face was to be the high point of my night.
The movie didn't quite live up to the one fight I'd seen. The editing was shoddy, the camerawork pretty lame. The martial arts choreography was alright, but definitely did not live up to the promise of Ong Bak. Tony Jaa kneed a whole lot more people in the face in that movie. So, without living up to the over-the-top face-imploding action of Dude, Where's My Buddha?, what did The Protector have left?
Your answer may be plot. Ong Bak was a little light on that, in favor of more cartilage crunching and diving through barbed wire. The Protector, being a little lacking in those departments, could have attempted plot, or acting, or possibly not being pretty lame. It succeeded only at being pretty lame. Overall, it was just...not quite right. There was very little plot, with minimal coherency. Oldboy, even the beginning, made more sense.
-40/365 down, 325/365 to go
Monday, February 12, 2007
Lord. Have. Mercy.
[Edit: My original attempt at a review for this movie sucked. This is attempt 2.]
The Movie: Gia, directed by Michael Cristofer
Recommendation: Von Gauzen, H
Reason: Von Gauzen got this for me for Christmas a couple of years ago, and H passed me another copy with the rest of her reccomendations. Both pretty much said "Here, have some Angelina Jolie." Am I that transparent?
My sapphic hero! I have gone to my happy place, in fact, I'm certain that for a few minutes I stopped breathing during this movie. Promising, I know. It's not a spectacular piece of work, but I sort of stopped caring. Angelina Jolie is easily one of my favorite actresses, and her work on Gia was utterly spectacular. Elizabeth Mitchell is also awesome (Hi again, Lost!).
Queer cinema rules remain in place (horrible death ahoy!), except for the one that says bisexuals don't exist (right on, Linda!). I guess this would be the place in which I'm supposed to flip out about the exploitation of lesbianism in popular cinema. That it's hot for two attractive women to kiss, but it's not quite so cool for two guys to kiss. That's the extent of my flip out. Yes, twenty minutes into the movie we're treated to an exploitative demonstration of "the lesbians" in action. I refuse to object to two attractive people making out, whether other people are titillated or not. That's other people's problem.
After Oldboy, I was pretty desensitized to the gross stuff, but hey, nothing deglamorizes drug addiction like watching someone shoot up into a hideously infected boil on their hand, followed by pus leaking out. And then later they die of AIDS. I guess that's sort of a service to the community. Gia was one of the first famous people to die of AIDS, or so her wiki page says. Can't help but notice that this was after the fashion industry drained her of her life, beauty and vitality. Also can't help but notice that she died pretty much alone. How nice of them.
-39/365 down, 326/365 to go
The Movie: Gia, directed by Michael Cristofer
Recommendation: Von Gauzen, H
Reason: Von Gauzen got this for me for Christmas a couple of years ago, and H passed me another copy with the rest of her reccomendations. Both pretty much said "Here, have some Angelina Jolie." Am I that transparent?
My sapphic hero! I have gone to my happy place, in fact, I'm certain that for a few minutes I stopped breathing during this movie. Promising, I know. It's not a spectacular piece of work, but I sort of stopped caring. Angelina Jolie is easily one of my favorite actresses, and her work on Gia was utterly spectacular. Elizabeth Mitchell is also awesome (Hi again, Lost!).
Queer cinema rules remain in place (horrible death ahoy!), except for the one that says bisexuals don't exist (right on, Linda!). I guess this would be the place in which I'm supposed to flip out about the exploitation of lesbianism in popular cinema. That it's hot for two attractive women to kiss, but it's not quite so cool for two guys to kiss. That's the extent of my flip out. Yes, twenty minutes into the movie we're treated to an exploitative demonstration of "the lesbians" in action. I refuse to object to two attractive people making out, whether other people are titillated or not. That's other people's problem.
After Oldboy, I was pretty desensitized to the gross stuff, but hey, nothing deglamorizes drug addiction like watching someone shoot up into a hideously infected boil on their hand, followed by pus leaking out. And then later they die of AIDS. I guess that's sort of a service to the community. Gia was one of the first famous people to die of AIDS, or so her wiki page says. Can't help but notice that this was after the fashion industry drained her of her life, beauty and vitality. Also can't help but notice that she died pretty much alone. How nice of them.
-39/365 down, 326/365 to go
Let me tell you my story
The Movie: Oldboy, directed by Chan-wook Park
Recommendation: The Boy
Reason: "It's unbelievable."
Much as I dislike vague recommendations, The Boy was right. Oldboy was unbelievable. I spent most of the movie with my hands firmly over my mouth (some might say protectively), in a state of shocked horror. It's not that it was graphic. My imagination supplied plenty of additional information that I could have gone without. It's not that it was particularily gory. It was just so awful (not the movie, the things that were happening to the main character).
I think there's possibly a lesson here to be learned about making a really scary movie. Oldboy had no jump-shocks, no musical cues telling you when to scream. It was just horrific, entirely on a psychological level. The main character's torment was initially carried out for no discernable reason. He's an ass, but so are a lot of people. Then the revenge starts, and the tension ratchets, and...well, saying more would be giving up too much. It's a stomach-twisting movie to watch, downright painful in parts. The physical torment is nothing compared to the mental anguish.
As you may have gathered by now, I'm a fan of camerawork and cinematography. The movie was excellently shot. The claustrophobia of the first act was particularily well done. The visual tone of the movie was part of the reason it was so relentlessly evil-just looking at it, at some points, made you feel dirty. The fight choreography was particularily good: it looked like Dae-su Oh really had learned to fight by watching TV and punching a wall for several years, and I really got nervous whenever he picked up that hammer. Overall? Well done. Great movie. I never want to see it again, and I hope that Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance and Lady Vengeance are as good.
-38/365 down, 327/365 to go
Recommendation: The Boy
Reason: "It's unbelievable."
Much as I dislike vague recommendations, The Boy was right. Oldboy was unbelievable. I spent most of the movie with my hands firmly over my mouth (some might say protectively), in a state of shocked horror. It's not that it was graphic. My imagination supplied plenty of additional information that I could have gone without. It's not that it was particularily gory. It was just so awful (not the movie, the things that were happening to the main character).
I think there's possibly a lesson here to be learned about making a really scary movie. Oldboy had no jump-shocks, no musical cues telling you when to scream. It was just horrific, entirely on a psychological level. The main character's torment was initially carried out for no discernable reason. He's an ass, but so are a lot of people. Then the revenge starts, and the tension ratchets, and...well, saying more would be giving up too much. It's a stomach-twisting movie to watch, downright painful in parts. The physical torment is nothing compared to the mental anguish.
As you may have gathered by now, I'm a fan of camerawork and cinematography. The movie was excellently shot. The claustrophobia of the first act was particularily well done. The visual tone of the movie was part of the reason it was so relentlessly evil-just looking at it, at some points, made you feel dirty. The fight choreography was particularily good: it looked like Dae-su Oh really had learned to fight by watching TV and punching a wall for several years, and I really got nervous whenever he picked up that hammer. Overall? Well done. Great movie. I never want to see it again, and I hope that Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance and Lady Vengeance are as good.
-38/365 down, 327/365 to go
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Cartoons + Wine = Saturday Night!
The Movie: Cars, directed by John Lasseter
Recommendation: Dee
Reason: "I heard it's cute!"
Okay, so that might not be the actual reason for the recommendation, but it'll do. I'm 2 tequila sunrises, 1 Smirnoff Ice and 2...no, 2 1/2 cups of wine in, and reasoning's getting a little fuzzy. Hey, no one said I had to be sober watching these movies, right? But that's enough about my weekend drinking habits. On to Cars. Despite my love for Pixar, my anticipation for this movie was minimal. I saw the ads, I saw the box office, saw the box art and I heard the reviews, but still I wasn't convinced. After such monuments to excellence as The Incredibles and Finding Nemo, I need to reexamine some of my 'acceptable movie' criteria. Cars (and Finding Nemo before it), proved that I'm far too eager to dismiss a movie based on silly criteria. In this case, my lack of knowledge of Nascar and low enthusiasm for any movie that spent so much time focusing on vehicles contributed to my late viewing of this movie.
As I said, I should have learned from Finding Nemo. When I first saw the ad campaign for that movie, I believe my exact words were something along the lines of "They're making a movie...about a reef." Of course, I've eaten those words. Cars was similar. I was engaged by the movie (intoxication level aside) from start to finish. I can't watch Nascar or really any sort of racing, but somehow, Cars drew me in. I think I would have to attribute that to the fascinating little world that the Pixar artists developed around the concept of the film. It was the little details that were so enthralling. Cars doing the wave using their headlights. Pit crews made up of little forklifts. The Zoom Zoom river valley. The small touches, basically.
The voicework in this film was alright. No one particularily stood out, though Dee continued to comment that Lightning needed to have a crooked nose. Cars don't have noses, I told her, but she was not to be dissuaded. The characters were quite entertaining, the voice acting adequate, the movie was nicely entertaining.
-37/365 down, 328/365 to go
Recommendation: Dee
Reason: "I heard it's cute!"
Okay, so that might not be the actual reason for the recommendation, but it'll do. I'm 2 tequila sunrises, 1 Smirnoff Ice and 2...no, 2 1/2 cups of wine in, and reasoning's getting a little fuzzy. Hey, no one said I had to be sober watching these movies, right? But that's enough about my weekend drinking habits. On to Cars. Despite my love for Pixar, my anticipation for this movie was minimal. I saw the ads, I saw the box office, saw the box art and I heard the reviews, but still I wasn't convinced. After such monuments to excellence as The Incredibles and Finding Nemo, I need to reexamine some of my 'acceptable movie' criteria. Cars (and Finding Nemo before it), proved that I'm far too eager to dismiss a movie based on silly criteria. In this case, my lack of knowledge of Nascar and low enthusiasm for any movie that spent so much time focusing on vehicles contributed to my late viewing of this movie.
As I said, I should have learned from Finding Nemo. When I first saw the ad campaign for that movie, I believe my exact words were something along the lines of "They're making a movie...about a reef." Of course, I've eaten those words. Cars was similar. I was engaged by the movie (intoxication level aside) from start to finish. I can't watch Nascar or really any sort of racing, but somehow, Cars drew me in. I think I would have to attribute that to the fascinating little world that the Pixar artists developed around the concept of the film. It was the little details that were so enthralling. Cars doing the wave using their headlights. Pit crews made up of little forklifts. The Zoom Zoom river valley. The small touches, basically.
The voicework in this film was alright. No one particularily stood out, though Dee continued to comment that Lightning needed to have a crooked nose. Cars don't have noses, I told her, but she was not to be dissuaded. The characters were quite entertaining, the voice acting adequate, the movie was nicely entertaining.
-37/365 down, 328/365 to go
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Oh god, that's not a pillow!
The Movie: My Stepmother is an Alien, directed by Richard Benjamin
Recommendation: Von Gauzen
Reason: "Tell me why people think this is a children's movie."
This is not a children's movie. Or, if it is, it's a children's movie that borrowed heavily from Porky's for a laugh. I think the misleading factor is Dan Akyryod, since so many of his movies seem to be perceived as for children. The people who think so are fools.
I suppose the moment I knew this movie was gonna be bad was when I noted that there were four writers, and one used a synonym. Now, we're not talking Star Wars III bad, just...average bad. Enough that when Kim Basinger busted out her 'I'm a hot alien chick that just landed here and learned everything from TV' routine, I burst out laughing with a cry of "Leeloo Dallas Multipass!". Memories of The Fifth Element sort of carried me through the movie, when I wasn't being mocked for my previous inability to identify Seth Green, or discussing how much I would have to be paid to lick Dan Akyroyd.
Eh. So it wasn't great. It's a movie most of us saw in our childhood, and it marks the beginning of a great working relationship between Seth Green and Alyson Hannigan. Yes, I'm a Joss Whedon fan (for you know, the two people who didn't already know). I liked it enough for that.
-36/365 down, 329/365 to go
Recommendation: Von Gauzen
Reason: "Tell me why people think this is a children's movie."
This is not a children's movie. Or, if it is, it's a children's movie that borrowed heavily from Porky's for a laugh. I think the misleading factor is Dan Akyryod, since so many of his movies seem to be perceived as for children. The people who think so are fools.
I suppose the moment I knew this movie was gonna be bad was when I noted that there were four writers, and one used a synonym. Now, we're not talking Star Wars III bad, just...average bad. Enough that when Kim Basinger busted out her 'I'm a hot alien chick that just landed here and learned everything from TV' routine, I burst out laughing with a cry of "Leeloo Dallas Multipass!". Memories of The Fifth Element sort of carried me through the movie, when I wasn't being mocked for my previous inability to identify Seth Green, or discussing how much I would have to be paid to lick Dan Akyroyd.
Eh. So it wasn't great. It's a movie most of us saw in our childhood, and it marks the beginning of a great working relationship between Seth Green and Alyson Hannigan. Yes, I'm a Joss Whedon fan (for you know, the two people who didn't already know). I liked it enough for that.
-36/365 down, 329/365 to go
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Charmingly New York
The Movie: When Harry Met Sally, directed by Rob Reiner
Recommendation: H
Reason: "the best romantic comedy ever made, with pretty woman as a close second"
When Harry Met Sally is probably not the movie to embark upon right before Lost resumes it's third season. You want to see high maintenance? Try little miss runaway Kate. But it's this movie that brought the concept of 'high' versus 'low' maintenance to prominence, as well as blowing the lid (pretty literally) off of the whole 'faking it' thing. Rob Reiner does have a bit of a thing for directing romantic comedies, and this may be one of his best. Nothing will ever, ever top The Princess Bride, but this charming piece comes pretty close.
So, can two best friends sleep together and still be likeable in the morning? Originally I thought this movie starred Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan, which pretty much explains everything about why I hadn't seen it until today. Foolish me, had it mixed up with You've Got Mail or Sleepless in Seattle. Billy Crystal, the actual male lead, is a lot funnier than Tommy boy ever has been. The relationship (sleeping with aside) he and Meg Ryan play out is crisp and interesting, particularily in the dialogue section. I suppose that's owed to the writer, but it's the actors who really carry it off. I've always enjoyed Meg Ryan, and having a quick glimpse at her filmography, I'm forced to conclude this is one of her breakout roles. She was sweet and fresh in this film, her dialogue a neat patter that was entertaining to listen to.
It looks like Nora Ephron is the one responsible for that flowing New York wordgame that was the script, and it was a decent one. There have been better, there have been worse but at least she managed to remember that she was writing a story that was both romantic and a comedy, something a lot of writers seem to forget. This was a smart movie, engaging, and as I said before, charming. I might not seek it out again, but I'm not going to turn it down. Still doesn't beat the best rom-com I've seen this year, Love Actually, but hey...there's only so far I can go with Hollywood.
-35/365 down, 330/365 to go
Recommendation: H
Reason: "the best romantic comedy ever made, with pretty woman as a close second"
When Harry Met Sally is probably not the movie to embark upon right before Lost resumes it's third season. You want to see high maintenance? Try little miss runaway Kate. But it's this movie that brought the concept of 'high' versus 'low' maintenance to prominence, as well as blowing the lid (pretty literally) off of the whole 'faking it' thing. Rob Reiner does have a bit of a thing for directing romantic comedies, and this may be one of his best. Nothing will ever, ever top The Princess Bride, but this charming piece comes pretty close.
So, can two best friends sleep together and still be likeable in the morning? Originally I thought this movie starred Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan, which pretty much explains everything about why I hadn't seen it until today. Foolish me, had it mixed up with You've Got Mail or Sleepless in Seattle. Billy Crystal, the actual male lead, is a lot funnier than Tommy boy ever has been. The relationship (sleeping with aside) he and Meg Ryan play out is crisp and interesting, particularily in the dialogue section. I suppose that's owed to the writer, but it's the actors who really carry it off. I've always enjoyed Meg Ryan, and having a quick glimpse at her filmography, I'm forced to conclude this is one of her breakout roles. She was sweet and fresh in this film, her dialogue a neat patter that was entertaining to listen to.
It looks like Nora Ephron is the one responsible for that flowing New York wordgame that was the script, and it was a decent one. There have been better, there have been worse but at least she managed to remember that she was writing a story that was both romantic and a comedy, something a lot of writers seem to forget. This was a smart movie, engaging, and as I said before, charming. I might not seek it out again, but I'm not going to turn it down. Still doesn't beat the best rom-com I've seen this year, Love Actually, but hey...there's only so far I can go with Hollywood.
-35/365 down, 330/365 to go
The suburbs are a gateway to hell
The Movie: American Beauty, directed by Sam Mendes
Recommendation: Von Gauzen
Reason: "It was a good movie, it was just really weird." I forgive you for the Ewoks movies. :D
Suburban America is ripe fodder for film, it seems. Desperate Housewives, Close to Home and Weeds rack up TV ratings focusing on the seedy underbelly of the upper-middle class, and there are stacks and stacks of movies that deal with that same sordid material. American Beauty is head and shoulders above the genre for its artful portrayal of a few attempts to break away from that materialistic life.
I suppose this is where I'd normally blather about acting and such, but I was most struck by the use of color, light and music in this film. Sure, Spacey was great, Benning was great, Mena Suvari and Thora Birch, also great (but outdone by the leads by a mile). But the cinematography was superb. I'm a big fan of wacky technical hijinks and long tracking shots (see: Serenity's opening, multiple moments in Children of Men), but the touches that Conrad L. Hall was able to put on this film were spectacular without being exceptionally technically difficult (he wasn't riding around in a car with the top cut off, in other words). The framing of the film was as critical as the lighting was to the story, with light often serving as judge and the framing of certain shots as jury. Such shots as Annette Benning's breakdown in the house she's trying to sell, Spacey's workout sequences, the (fairly infamous) rose petal scenes and the dinner scenes were told at least half through the camerawork.
Okay, I lied. Gonna have to talk about the acting. Silly me, I know. What is there that hasn't already been said? Spacey got an award for his performance. The film won best picture. Benning was nominated. And you're probably thinking "But Gwen, didn't you rather vehemently mention how much you hate the Oscars? Why do you keep bringing them up?" Well yeah, I did, and yeah, I do, because other people do seem to agree with their choices. I can complain all I like, but sometimes I have to admit they get something right. Spacey deserved the award he won for this film. Benning did some great work, but she definitely didn't blow it out of the park like Hilary Swank did. So...just this once? Good job, Academy.
-34/365 down, 331/365 to go
Recommendation: Von Gauzen
Reason: "It was a good movie, it was just really weird." I forgive you for the Ewoks movies. :D
Suburban America is ripe fodder for film, it seems. Desperate Housewives, Close to Home and Weeds rack up TV ratings focusing on the seedy underbelly of the upper-middle class, and there are stacks and stacks of movies that deal with that same sordid material. American Beauty is head and shoulders above the genre for its artful portrayal of a few attempts to break away from that materialistic life.
I suppose this is where I'd normally blather about acting and such, but I was most struck by the use of color, light and music in this film. Sure, Spacey was great, Benning was great, Mena Suvari and Thora Birch, also great (but outdone by the leads by a mile). But the cinematography was superb. I'm a big fan of wacky technical hijinks and long tracking shots (see: Serenity's opening, multiple moments in Children of Men), but the touches that Conrad L. Hall was able to put on this film were spectacular without being exceptionally technically difficult (he wasn't riding around in a car with the top cut off, in other words). The framing of the film was as critical as the lighting was to the story, with light often serving as judge and the framing of certain shots as jury. Such shots as Annette Benning's breakdown in the house she's trying to sell, Spacey's workout sequences, the (fairly infamous) rose petal scenes and the dinner scenes were told at least half through the camerawork.
Okay, I lied. Gonna have to talk about the acting. Silly me, I know. What is there that hasn't already been said? Spacey got an award for his performance. The film won best picture. Benning was nominated. And you're probably thinking "But Gwen, didn't you rather vehemently mention how much you hate the Oscars? Why do you keep bringing them up?" Well yeah, I did, and yeah, I do, because other people do seem to agree with their choices. I can complain all I like, but sometimes I have to admit they get something right. Spacey deserved the award he won for this film. Benning did some great work, but she definitely didn't blow it out of the park like Hilary Swank did. So...just this once? Good job, Academy.
-34/365 down, 331/365 to go
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
They totally should have made a movie about Wookies.
The Movie: Ewoks: The Battle for Endor, directed by Jim and Ken Wheat
Recommendation: Von Gauzen
Reason: "Childhood, Gwen, childhood!" I don't think she hates me, but this might be preemptive revenge for the cold I'm circulating.
So. Wilford Brimley isn't a Jedi, the stupid kid from the first movie dies in the first five minutes (I checked), there are horses and magic on Endor. Oh, and the battle for Endor isn't so much a battle for Endor as it is a bunch of Ewoks beating merry hell out of a bunch of lizardmen. It was sort of like a D&D game, with Star Wars thrown in. In that respect, it was fun. I had to keep in mind that it was a kids movie from the 80's when logic took a sharp right and fell over a cliff now and again, but it was fun.
I guess there's not a whole lot more to say about this movie. It was filmed for TV, like the other Ewoks movie was. It doesn't really feel like Star Wars-it's just a spin-off, and one that's not very consistent with the original trilogy. Like the first, it didn't age well-the special effects were uneven, and the plot draaaaaaaaagged. But dude? Ewoks.
-33/365 down, 332/365 to go
Recommendation: Von Gauzen
Reason: "Childhood, Gwen, childhood!" I don't think she hates me, but this might be preemptive revenge for the cold I'm circulating.
So. Wilford Brimley isn't a Jedi, the stupid kid from the first movie dies in the first five minutes (I checked), there are horses and magic on Endor. Oh, and the battle for Endor isn't so much a battle for Endor as it is a bunch of Ewoks beating merry hell out of a bunch of lizardmen. It was sort of like a D&D game, with Star Wars thrown in. In that respect, it was fun. I had to keep in mind that it was a kids movie from the 80's when logic took a sharp right and fell over a cliff now and again, but it was fun.
I guess there's not a whole lot more to say about this movie. It was filmed for TV, like the other Ewoks movie was. It doesn't really feel like Star Wars-it's just a spin-off, and one that's not very consistent with the original trilogy. Like the first, it didn't age well-the special effects were uneven, and the plot draaaaaaaaagged. But dude? Ewoks.
-33/365 down, 332/365 to go
Monday, February 5, 2007
If you want to win an Oscar, get ugly
(Please forgive me if this and all other reviews done today are rambling and weird. I'm sick.)
The Movie: Transamerica, directed by Duncan Tucker
Recommendation: Me
Reason: Queer film is a strange beast, and Huffman got a nomination for this.
Queer film is weird. Try to think of a single movie featuring a transgendered, transvestite, gay, lesbian or bisexual character in the last...oh...forever that didn't feature that character coming to a tragic end, or exploit the queerness of the characters for tittilation or comedy value. Brokeback Mountain, Boys Don't Cry, etcetera, etcetera. Transamerica isn't as transgressive as many of the other mainstream films in the catalogue, but something about a genetic-woman playing a transwoman still doesn't sit right with me. It's a small nitpick, since Felicity Huffman handles her character with a modicum of taste and a heap of respect for her journey. I can't speak to how 'real' Bree's lifestyle, affectations and eventual transformation are, but Huffman's performance at least made it seem close.
This film did get an Oscar nod for Huffman's turn, but I have to admit to being at least as interested in Kevin Zeger's layered work as Bree's son, Toby. His part was quite complex, the sort of thing most young male actors wouldn't undertake both for its complexity and for the amount of comfort with distinctly not-straight situations he needed to have for the part. I'm a fan of him as a supporting actor, and I will be watching for him in the future. His performance here was vulnerable and almost painful at times, but he developed a real sense of character.
The movie was alright. Nothing too spectacular, nothing horribly awful. The costuming was well done, managing to convey a lot about the characters. I suppose the real keyword for the movie would be 'subtle'. So yes. Not great, not awful.
-32/365 down, 333/365 to go
The Movie: Transamerica, directed by Duncan Tucker
Recommendation: Me
Reason: Queer film is a strange beast, and Huffman got a nomination for this.
Queer film is weird. Try to think of a single movie featuring a transgendered, transvestite, gay, lesbian or bisexual character in the last...oh...forever that didn't feature that character coming to a tragic end, or exploit the queerness of the characters for tittilation or comedy value. Brokeback Mountain, Boys Don't Cry, etcetera, etcetera. Transamerica isn't as transgressive as many of the other mainstream films in the catalogue, but something about a genetic-woman playing a transwoman still doesn't sit right with me. It's a small nitpick, since Felicity Huffman handles her character with a modicum of taste and a heap of respect for her journey. I can't speak to how 'real' Bree's lifestyle, affectations and eventual transformation are, but Huffman's performance at least made it seem close.
This film did get an Oscar nod for Huffman's turn, but I have to admit to being at least as interested in Kevin Zeger's layered work as Bree's son, Toby. His part was quite complex, the sort of thing most young male actors wouldn't undertake both for its complexity and for the amount of comfort with distinctly not-straight situations he needed to have for the part. I'm a fan of him as a supporting actor, and I will be watching for him in the future. His performance here was vulnerable and almost painful at times, but he developed a real sense of character.
The movie was alright. Nothing too spectacular, nothing horribly awful. The costuming was well done, managing to convey a lot about the characters. I suppose the real keyword for the movie would be 'subtle'. So yes. Not great, not awful.
-32/365 down, 333/365 to go
At least it wasn't about Jawas
The Movie: The Ewok Adventure, directed by John Korty
Recommendation: Von Gauzen
Reason: "Remember your childhood!"
When I was a kid, we had this movie and the sequel on tape. Actually, my uncle had it. We used to watch it all the time, usually right before the Ewoks cartoon came on on Saturday morning. I liked the movie and I liked the cartoon, and I think I eventually concluded that I wanted to be an Ewok when I grew up. I probably drove everyone insane, constantly talking in Ewok. Jub jub! I later added Martian to my repetoire. Why is this relevant? I think I was a pretty easily pleased kid.
The Ewok Adventure, aka Caravan of Courage, starts off as a Wild America-meets-Star Wars examination of Ewok culture, sort of. It's about as stimulating as you might think. Burl Ives lulled me to sleep with his totally groovy tone of voice, and I probably missed most of the early dialogue. That's okay, though, because it's entirely in untranslated Ewok. Yeah. Forty minutes of 'Jub jub!' without so much as a humorous subtitle. I don't know how I decoded it as a kid, but I have to admire my persistence. The rest of the adventure is...questionable, from a logical standpoint, but if you think like a kid, it's pretty thrilling stuff. Monsters, magic, Ewoks, children who are dumber than you are, faeries...it's not so bad. Not really Star Wars, but not bad.
Caravan of Courage doesn't hold up well over time. I think that's what I'm trying to say. I loved it as a kid, but as an adult I'm spoiled on subtitles and a lack of George Lucas in my life. Viewed through the eyes of a child from the 80's, it was awesome. Now, not so great.
-31/365 down, 334/365 to go
Recommendation: Von Gauzen
Reason: "Remember your childhood!"
When I was a kid, we had this movie and the sequel on tape. Actually, my uncle had it. We used to watch it all the time, usually right before the Ewoks cartoon came on on Saturday morning. I liked the movie and I liked the cartoon, and I think I eventually concluded that I wanted to be an Ewok when I grew up. I probably drove everyone insane, constantly talking in Ewok. Jub jub! I later added Martian to my repetoire. Why is this relevant? I think I was a pretty easily pleased kid.
The Ewok Adventure, aka Caravan of Courage, starts off as a Wild America-meets-Star Wars examination of Ewok culture, sort of. It's about as stimulating as you might think. Burl Ives lulled me to sleep with his totally groovy tone of voice, and I probably missed most of the early dialogue. That's okay, though, because it's entirely in untranslated Ewok. Yeah. Forty minutes of 'Jub jub!' without so much as a humorous subtitle. I don't know how I decoded it as a kid, but I have to admire my persistence. The rest of the adventure is...questionable, from a logical standpoint, but if you think like a kid, it's pretty thrilling stuff. Monsters, magic, Ewoks, children who are dumber than you are, faeries...it's not so bad. Not really Star Wars, but not bad.
Caravan of Courage doesn't hold up well over time. I think that's what I'm trying to say. I loved it as a kid, but as an adult I'm spoiled on subtitles and a lack of George Lucas in my life. Viewed through the eyes of a child from the 80's, it was awesome. Now, not so great.
-31/365 down, 334/365 to go
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Breakthrough Performances That Make You Feel Old for $500, Alex
The Movie: Four Weddings and a Funeral, directed by Mike Newell
Recommendation: Von Gauzen
Reason: "This is one of my favorite movies of all time, and you don't want to watch anything depressing right now."
So, as I've said, I really don't like straight-up romantic comedies. They're sappy drivel, blah blah blah. Gonna have to go on record right now and revise that statement. Yes, they're sappy and I still don't like a lot of them, but not every non-twist romantic comedy straight up sucks. Four Weddings and a Funeral, the precursor to such gems as Love Actually and Notting Hill, did not suck. What does this mean for my movie watching career? Well, I think I'm about to be much more open to this sort of suggestion in the future, as long as Hollywood had nothing to do with the production (movies made before 1995 probably being the exception).
I'm going to blame the writer entirely for this movie being so entertaining. Though it was a little uneven in parts, it's a definite classic. The emotion of the funeral scene was perfectly amped both by John Hannah's performance and by the script he was given (and I know Richard Curtis didn't write the beautiful poem Hannah recited, but he picked it). The dry delivery of the majority of the film's characters was excellent alongside his writing. Though I felt some of the plot points were a little weak compared to his later work (Love Actually, ahem, WATCH THE MOVIE, PEOPLE!), his writing really shone in his character development. The group of friends was believable, right and natural. Partially the responsibility of the actors, of course, but the writer does need to be given his due for such excellent dialouge.
And now to address the title of this little review. Four Weddings and a Funeral must be forgiven for bestowing Hugh Grant on us across the pond. I generally really dislike him, but in this movie he was still fresh. Watching him in his first 'major' role (silly as that is, as half his career was behind him at that point) was quite nice. I'm still not his biggest fan, but at least I can see where they're coming from. Kristen Scott Thomas, on the other hand, was absolutely remarkable as usual. I'm not certain a single bad performance can be given by that woman. The rest of the cast was great, but she was the one who really shone. What's with me and Supporting Actresses lately, huh?
-30/365 down, 335/365 to go
Recommendation: Von Gauzen
Reason: "This is one of my favorite movies of all time, and you don't want to watch anything depressing right now."
So, as I've said, I really don't like straight-up romantic comedies. They're sappy drivel, blah blah blah. Gonna have to go on record right now and revise that statement. Yes, they're sappy and I still don't like a lot of them, but not every non-twist romantic comedy straight up sucks. Four Weddings and a Funeral, the precursor to such gems as Love Actually and Notting Hill, did not suck. What does this mean for my movie watching career? Well, I think I'm about to be much more open to this sort of suggestion in the future, as long as Hollywood had nothing to do with the production (movies made before 1995 probably being the exception).
I'm going to blame the writer entirely for this movie being so entertaining. Though it was a little uneven in parts, it's a definite classic. The emotion of the funeral scene was perfectly amped both by John Hannah's performance and by the script he was given (and I know Richard Curtis didn't write the beautiful poem Hannah recited, but he picked it). The dry delivery of the majority of the film's characters was excellent alongside his writing. Though I felt some of the plot points were a little weak compared to his later work (Love Actually, ahem, WATCH THE MOVIE, PEOPLE!), his writing really shone in his character development. The group of friends was believable, right and natural. Partially the responsibility of the actors, of course, but the writer does need to be given his due for such excellent dialouge.
And now to address the title of this little review. Four Weddings and a Funeral must be forgiven for bestowing Hugh Grant on us across the pond. I generally really dislike him, but in this movie he was still fresh. Watching him in his first 'major' role (silly as that is, as half his career was behind him at that point) was quite nice. I'm still not his biggest fan, but at least I can see where they're coming from. Kristen Scott Thomas, on the other hand, was absolutely remarkable as usual. I'm not certain a single bad performance can be given by that woman. The rest of the cast was great, but she was the one who really shone. What's with me and Supporting Actresses lately, huh?
-30/365 down, 335/365 to go
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Say it again, Sam
The Movie: The Maltese Falcon, directed by John Huston
Recommendation: AFI Top 100 (number 23)
Reason: Film Noir, baby. All the way.
I like to say I'm a pulp fan and a afficionado of noir. I've had limited recent experience with most of the genre, I have to admit. Therefore, I was pretty thrilled to find The Maltese Falcon in my hands, brimming with Bogey and one-liners that today's screenwriters can't come close to matching. That charming grin and smooth patter of Bogart's was exactly what I was looking for, and kid, it was fantastic. Black and white doesn't bother me (anymore than subtitles do, and people insist on warning about both...go figure), and with quality like The Maltese Falcon shot in light and shadow, I don't see how anyone else could care about the lack of color.
It's tempting to say that noir just can't be done in color (but I've seen L.A. Confidential, and I know that it really can). While color isn't necessary, shadow is. It's hard to discuss shadow in the film without showing images, so I'll have to rest on this. Film, whether still or in motion, is a study of light and dark. The meaning of those things is crucial to understanding the piece, and in the shadow-and-grey packed noir...well. Nothing's pure white.
Incidentally, much like Alan Rickman, I can listen to Humphrey Bogart talk forever. Especially with that awesome grin. Sam Spade's the PI for me, any day. If you're not such a philistine that you can't tolerate black and white, find this movie. Not as impactful as some, but certainly an utterly awesome detective story.
-29/365 down, 336/365 to go
Recommendation: AFI Top 100 (number 23)
Reason: Film Noir, baby. All the way.
I like to say I'm a pulp fan and a afficionado of noir. I've had limited recent experience with most of the genre, I have to admit. Therefore, I was pretty thrilled to find The Maltese Falcon in my hands, brimming with Bogey and one-liners that today's screenwriters can't come close to matching. That charming grin and smooth patter of Bogart's was exactly what I was looking for, and kid, it was fantastic. Black and white doesn't bother me (anymore than subtitles do, and people insist on warning about both...go figure), and with quality like The Maltese Falcon shot in light and shadow, I don't see how anyone else could care about the lack of color.
It's tempting to say that noir just can't be done in color (but I've seen L.A. Confidential, and I know that it really can). While color isn't necessary, shadow is. It's hard to discuss shadow in the film without showing images, so I'll have to rest on this. Film, whether still or in motion, is a study of light and dark. The meaning of those things is crucial to understanding the piece, and in the shadow-and-grey packed noir...well. Nothing's pure white.
Incidentally, much like Alan Rickman, I can listen to Humphrey Bogart talk forever. Especially with that awesome grin. Sam Spade's the PI for me, any day. If you're not such a philistine that you can't tolerate black and white, find this movie. Not as impactful as some, but certainly an utterly awesome detective story.
-29/365 down, 336/365 to go
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
