The important thing is, we’re awake now, and hopefully for a long time to come
Nicole Kidman as Alice Hartford
It explores the sexual ambivalence of a happy marriage, and tries to equate the importance of sexual dreams and might-have-beens with reality
Stanley Kubrick
Movies always portray sudden passion and rushes of blood in the elevator, but they never deal with married sex.
Kubrick to Friedric Raphael(?)
That just about sums it up. When Stanley Kubrick died in March 1999, Eyes Wide Shut became condemned as a razzie classic. The audience hoped to get some nice Tom and Nick porn and instead got a ridiculously boring epic about a high society couple hiding many romantic and erotic pathologies. Based on Arthur Schnitzler’s Traumnovelle (1926), Eyes Wide Shut examines a New York couple as played by Tom Cruise as Dr. Bill Harford, Nicole Kidman as Alice Harford, and Madison Eginton as Helena Harford.
Ostensibly, the plot is about Kidman admitting to some bizarre sexual desires that sets Bill on an almost endless journey through orgies and hookers bearing even odder sexual tastes. But Kubrick is cleverly haing fun ith the audience and himsel. This movie isn’t really about sex or even love but the illusions about sex and love. Both Bill and Alice seem to have everything but they do? Does any couple?
On one point, Kubrick can be faulted and that is for concentrating too much on Bill’s phobias. He has many. One possible consort, Marion (Marie Richardson), the daughter of the elderly patient, tells him she is madly in love with him. Another, a college-going hooker, Domino looks suspiciously like … his daughter To top all that, he attends a masquerade ball that has a mysterious woman sacrifice herself to save him from the clutches of a secret society led by a masked man, the Red Cloak.
There’s no point to look or a simple narrative logic. The audience is supposed to get lost in Bill’s maze. The conclusion – such as it is – has Bill confront a superb Sydney Pollack revealing that he, too, had been at the party and knows all about Bill’s secrets. But does he?? Or is he bluffing?? Pollack’s Ziegler says to us: “Please, Bill … no games.” But it appears this scene like the others is meant to be maze-like and baffling.
There is no good or right answer. The ending has Bill admit everything (?) to Alice and they travel to a Christmas shop at F.A.O. Schwarz – in another maze-like pattern – to have an interesting but odd conversation. There’s a lot to comment but let me brief. Most commentaries note the only conspiracy messages in the film. Those are plausible but I think this misses the dominant motif here which is humor. Like Lolita, Kubrick sees sexuality as a power game but also something else: downright hilarious. Especially hilarious is conversation Bill has with Alan Cumming as a desk clerk poking not-so-subtle fun at Tom’s (alleged) homosexuality.
The jokes may not work on most since scenes have to look at repeatedly to pick up the subtext. This isn’t to say there isn’t a lot of seriousness at play either. Like The Shining, imperialism and the Holocaust are major running themes as are class difference, prostitution and money.
Aesthetically, the movie has many rich layers including the music and costumes. Perhaps the most interesting aspect is Kubrick’s utilizing light in many scenes like blue lighting to frequently used to convey dread or sorrow. The movie also looks back on Kubrick’s films (Fear and Desire, Killer’s Kiss, The Shining, 2001: A Space Odyssey) and stylistically nods to them. This movie is probably only going to satisfy Kubrick addicts since the scenes are meant to have multiple readings. A first-time viewer is no doubt going to be overwhelmed or underwhelmed but more long-time film buff are going to many unexpected treats here.
Lastly, the film credits Julienne Davis as Mandy, and Abigail Good as the Mysterious Woman. Davis is NOT the girl at the mansion. Many people including professors get this incorrect. Recommended only for mature audiences.
Sunday, July 27, 2014
EVEN IN SPACE NICK CAGE CAN SCREAM Con Air *1/2
Nick Cage must like to rile critics. Con Air is a polarizing pic as any. On the surface, it’s a high-octane adventure. Or, it’s an atrocious promo pastiche of much better films. On the plus side, the movie is only rarely confusing. But the premise is too silly to sustain itself. Cage is a Marine wrongfully imprisoned – he used lethal force on some rednecks. He turns himself into a muscular Jesus-like ass-kicker and has the double misfortune to be coerced into joining a daring escape attempt by a group of convicts hi-jacking a plane.
John Cusack head-scathingly comes along for the ride. There are too many good moments in Con Air to condemn it as a piss-poor clone of Michael-Bay scripting.
Any movie that dares to call its baddie Cyrus the Virus – who, by the way, hates rapists – is, at least, going for the glory. And, one has to admit, Ving Rhames and Steve Buscemi are especially good as crazed convicts.
But there’s just nothing hold this baby up and the supposedly satisfying final confrontation in Las Vegas feels overdone. More effective as a comedy than an action film but, at least, sel-consciously aware of its silliness. A one-and-half star vehicle but still recommended as a howler. A guilty pleasure all the way through.
John Cusack head-scathingly comes along for the ride. There are too many good moments in Con Air to condemn it as a piss-poor clone of Michael-Bay scripting.
Any movie that dares to call its baddie Cyrus the Virus – who, by the way, hates rapists – is, at least, going for the glory. And, one has to admit, Ving Rhames and Steve Buscemi are especially good as crazed convicts.
But there’s just nothing hold this baby up and the supposedly satisfying final confrontation in Las Vegas feels overdone. More effective as a comedy than an action film but, at least, sel-consciously aware of its silliness. A one-and-half star vehicle but still recommended as a howler. A guilty pleasure all the way through.
But Is IT Any Good It (1990) **
Stephen King on the big screen has been almost always awful. Is the small screen better? A decided no has to be said. King’s IT is arguably his Magnus opus. The adaptation not surprisingly can’t match the sheer bigness (it’s about 1,100 pages!) or even allusiveness in the book – King slyly name checks himself using a Christine-like a 1958 Red Plymouth Fury and young Dick Hallorann. And, admittedly, it could have butchered King even worse but, as it stands (no pun), this adaptation is too unremarkable to merit praise.
In many ays the book is a severe indictment o the 1950’s and lashes out at the Puritanical repression during that time. The film misses that but it does capture some of the alleged innocence during the time. Directed by Tommy Lee Wallace, IT originally aired on ABC Network television and TV censorship really neuters a potentially great movie. Not much explicit material is needed here but the direction is too tame by half. Easily, the best highlights are when the music comes on.
Like the book, the story is told in nonlinear as the camera move back and forth beteen 1957 and 1984. The cast includes Stuttering Bill Dengbrough, Eddie Kasprak, Ben Hanscom, Richie Tozier, Stan Uris, Beverly Marsh, and Mike Hanlon in their younger and older selves growing up in Derry, Maine. Almost no one remembers or cares to but the Losers’ Club as they dub themselves comes across a ferocious monster called IT, killing the local children and absorbing them. It calls itself Pennywise, the Dancing Clown but Pennywise is just an alias (the book has it take on several names).
Tim Curry as Pennywise is electrifying – though perhaps derivative in taking a lot of cues from Freddy especially. Though much of the terror comes from Curry’s sharp accent. He sounds scary telling the children: “Oh you are priceless Brat! I am eternal, child. I am the eater of worlds.” But, again, the adaptation is only a minor slice of the book.
In the novel, It, cleverly, mutates into many old monsters – many from 1950s monster movies. The book has IT become the Creature from the Black Lagoon, Frankenstein, a mummy, and even hobo with leprosy and leeches. The movie sadly features only some of these mutations but, at least, those it does has are incredible. Easily the most terrifying scene in IT has Richie encounter It wearing a Letterman-like high school jacket and imitating the werewolf in I Was a Teenage Werewolf (1957). Characters in a movie like this are going to be constrained so that can’t be the main problem the adaptation doesn’t cohere.
Three major dilemmas come up that the poor direction doesn’t help. One is the sheer production value. Although money is well spent in many places in many other places the film just looks bad and cheap. Another is there is no sense of genuine building of terror. Only a handful of scenes are genuinely scarily – like the mid-point journey to the sewers. Another is the sheer unstable focus. At times, it looks like It is the major villain but, at others, the local bullies, the Bowers gang (Henry Bowers and “Belch” Huggins) takeover.
This is more a rent-it than see-it film with a standout role by Annette O’Toole as Beverly as an adult. John Ritter also does a capable job. But, alas, the film merely floats (no pun intended) and only rarely hooks onto the rich material King has provided.
In many ays the book is a severe indictment o the 1950’s and lashes out at the Puritanical repression during that time. The film misses that but it does capture some of the alleged innocence during the time. Directed by Tommy Lee Wallace, IT originally aired on ABC Network television and TV censorship really neuters a potentially great movie. Not much explicit material is needed here but the direction is too tame by half. Easily, the best highlights are when the music comes on.
Like the book, the story is told in nonlinear as the camera move back and forth beteen 1957 and 1984. The cast includes Stuttering Bill Dengbrough, Eddie Kasprak, Ben Hanscom, Richie Tozier, Stan Uris, Beverly Marsh, and Mike Hanlon in their younger and older selves growing up in Derry, Maine. Almost no one remembers or cares to but the Losers’ Club as they dub themselves comes across a ferocious monster called IT, killing the local children and absorbing them. It calls itself Pennywise, the Dancing Clown but Pennywise is just an alias (the book has it take on several names).
Tim Curry as Pennywise is electrifying – though perhaps derivative in taking a lot of cues from Freddy especially. Though much of the terror comes from Curry’s sharp accent. He sounds scary telling the children: “Oh you are priceless Brat! I am eternal, child. I am the eater of worlds.” But, again, the adaptation is only a minor slice of the book.
In the novel, It, cleverly, mutates into many old monsters – many from 1950s monster movies. The book has IT become the Creature from the Black Lagoon, Frankenstein, a mummy, and even hobo with leprosy and leeches. The movie sadly features only some of these mutations but, at least, those it does has are incredible. Easily the most terrifying scene in IT has Richie encounter It wearing a Letterman-like high school jacket and imitating the werewolf in I Was a Teenage Werewolf (1957). Characters in a movie like this are going to be constrained so that can’t be the main problem the adaptation doesn’t cohere.
Three major dilemmas come up that the poor direction doesn’t help. One is the sheer production value. Although money is well spent in many places in many other places the film just looks bad and cheap. Another is there is no sense of genuine building of terror. Only a handful of scenes are genuinely scarily – like the mid-point journey to the sewers. Another is the sheer unstable focus. At times, it looks like It is the major villain but, at others, the local bullies, the Bowers gang (Henry Bowers and “Belch” Huggins) takeover.
This is more a rent-it than see-it film with a standout role by Annette O’Toole as Beverly as an adult. John Ritter also does a capable job. But, alas, the film merely floats (no pun intended) and only rarely hooks onto the rich material King has provided.
Thursday, July 24, 2014
GIVING WATERWORLD WHAT IT DESERVES Waterworld (1995) **
Given my recent pillaging it might seem odd to cut Waterworld (1995) a break. To be sure, the canonical consensus is correct. It's a thoroughly lousy film. But it ISN'T as bad one may have thought. The problem is not that it's a bad film but just an average one and truly average despite the massive efforts being made. Kevin Costner is a weird kind of fishman calling himself the Mariner (a very cool name) in an apoclayptic future where the Earth is covered with water. The story idea is potentially great but Kevin Reynolds' poor direction and a so-so script by Peter Rader and David Twohy keep managing to trap the film in Battfield Earth stupidities.
A post-apocalyptic science fiction action film is not a tough genre to make either but Costner's heroics here have been done to death and his performance is nice but no great surprises are in store. More critically, there is no great villain which kills any narrative momentum. The action scenes and special effects are spectacular and the story never bores you. But it never grips you either.
The real tragedy is Jeanne Tripplehorn who offers up another stellar performance and could have been a potential Jennifer Connelly - this film sadly destroyed her career.
An average, sub-par movie that could've easily been a three-star delight with just better editing and writing.
A post-apocalyptic science fiction action film is not a tough genre to make either but Costner's heroics here have been done to death and his performance is nice but no great surprises are in store. More critically, there is no great villain which kills any narrative momentum. The action scenes and special effects are spectacular and the story never bores you. But it never grips you either.
The real tragedy is Jeanne Tripplehorn who offers up another stellar performance and could have been a potential Jennifer Connelly - this film sadly destroyed her career.
An average, sub-par movie that could've easily been a three-star delight with just better editing and writing.
THE BIGGEST WHIMPER OF ALL Dark Knight Rises (2012) Bomb
Since Christopher Nolan experienced such a sharp rise it's only right he receives his proper downfall. But such rise-and-fall narratives are tiresome (as this movie shows) and I'm going to resist hating Nolan because it is the current trend. Granted, Nolan was never and probably is never going to match Kubrick or Hitchcock or Scorsese. But let's put aside his modest talents. He did a fairly good job on the first two Batman films despite this.
Moreover, he can't be entirely blamed. The death of Ledger truly distorts the film aa the Joke was clearly meant to be here and he is sorely missed. Dark Knight Rises is Batman's confronting his true opposite, Bane. Let us be clear: Nolan's Bane isn't Schumacher's monstrosity. But this isn't Batman's Bane either and the changes made to Bane are puzzling - to begin with it's almost impossible to HEAR Bane which in a MOVIE IS a problem.
The other dilemma is that Bane's entire style - ideology, custome, and strategy never add up. WHY is he torturing Batman? The logic escapes me and the explanation given borders on the ludicrous. Catwoman is thrown in and she looks lovely as does the Batbike and huge "Bat plane" at the end. But the Batman trilogy resisted these easy - and mindless - pleasures. This film is needlesssly long, tedious, boring, illogical, comical, and, jus plain, confusing.
I know Nolan is TRYiNG to tell us something deep and profound about terrorism, fascism, class warfare, and Batman's mythology but this is, basically, a really bad sci-fi plot made worse by poor pacing and even poorer twists. Adding characters to an already bloated cast just makes one wonder if Nolan has truly lost his mind or is unable to deliver any film without pretensese of being some Joycean novel. A final problem and its HUGE ONE is Nolan's lack of anything resembling a good sense of humor. Batman Begins had a few dry laughs but this film tries to deliver the dumbest, longest jokes in film history OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
This isn't Def Jam comedy. It's as if a deaf is TRYING to direct a horror/comedy and manages to make a bad version of the Sixth Sense and Mad Max together and those were hardly the classics everyone thinks they were. A truly awful movie by Nolan and all the more puzzling that it is considered the best in the trilogy. Some people have no taste or just sharper hearing than me.
Moreover, he can't be entirely blamed. The death of Ledger truly distorts the film aa the Joke was clearly meant to be here and he is sorely missed. Dark Knight Rises is Batman's confronting his true opposite, Bane. Let us be clear: Nolan's Bane isn't Schumacher's monstrosity. But this isn't Batman's Bane either and the changes made to Bane are puzzling - to begin with it's almost impossible to HEAR Bane which in a MOVIE IS a problem.
The other dilemma is that Bane's entire style - ideology, custome, and strategy never add up. WHY is he torturing Batman? The logic escapes me and the explanation given borders on the ludicrous. Catwoman is thrown in and she looks lovely as does the Batbike and huge "Bat plane" at the end. But the Batman trilogy resisted these easy - and mindless - pleasures. This film is needlesssly long, tedious, boring, illogical, comical, and, jus plain, confusing.
I know Nolan is TRYiNG to tell us something deep and profound about terrorism, fascism, class warfare, and Batman's mythology but this is, basically, a really bad sci-fi plot made worse by poor pacing and even poorer twists. Adding characters to an already bloated cast just makes one wonder if Nolan has truly lost his mind or is unable to deliver any film without pretensese of being some Joycean novel. A final problem and its HUGE ONE is Nolan's lack of anything resembling a good sense of humor. Batman Begins had a few dry laughs but this film tries to deliver the dumbest, longest jokes in film history OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
This isn't Def Jam comedy. It's as if a deaf is TRYING to direct a horror/comedy and manages to make a bad version of the Sixth Sense and Mad Max together and those were hardly the classics everyone thinks they were. A truly awful movie by Nolan and all the more puzzling that it is considered the best in the trilogy. Some people have no taste or just sharper hearing than me.
MOORE GOES FOR LESS AND GETS MORE Sicko (2007) **1/2
A big complaint from even the left is filmmaker Michael Moore's tendency to showboat and play for the cameras. Apparently, some memos got to Moore since he is almost completely absent in
Sicko, a documentary that investigates health care in the United States, focusing on its health insurance and the medical paradoxes and insanities. This proves more effective than the usual set-ups Moore has. Essentially, people are left to tell their own endless tales of horror of waste and mismanagement. If anything, the film is rather generous since the US system really is almot bottom-of-the-barrel and indeed in terms of what people pay for - it's a disgrace and deserves a pounding. Still Moore is Moore and can't help himself by pulling a stunt that is going to infuriate even friendly critics (I count myself here).
He "ends" the film with an incredible trip to Cuba where all the patients he brings are given superb care. The problem is not the obvious propaganda being done but Moore once-again playing stupid as if he doesn't know that things are not what they appear to be. In fact, the Cuban system IS a model in many ways but, to be fair to Moore, he skips over the pathologies in other systems (Canada, Cuba, England, etc) to contrast the US badly.
But point a may be true - the current US system is intolerable. Point b - everyone else does it better needs more argumentation. But focusing on point a the film delivers the laughs. But point B is going to require more seriousness - and the fact that no such documentary has emerged is a challenge to critics of Moore who hate him to do his type of politicized reporting even better.
None, unfortunately, have done a better job - yet.
He "ends" the film with an incredible trip to Cuba where all the patients he brings are given superb care. The problem is not the obvious propaganda being done but Moore once-again playing stupid as if he doesn't know that things are not what they appear to be. In fact, the Cuban system IS a model in many ways but, to be fair to Moore, he skips over the pathologies in other systems (Canada, Cuba, England, etc) to contrast the US badly.
But point a may be true - the current US system is intolerable. Point b - everyone else does it better needs more argumentation. But focusing on point a the film delivers the laughs. But point B is going to require more seriousness - and the fact that no such documentary has emerged is a challenge to critics of Moore who hate him to do his type of politicized reporting even better.
None, unfortunately, have done a better job - yet.
DENZEL AND RUSSELL TEAM UP!!! (MAYBE THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE) Virtuosity (1995) BOMB
Something happened to Denzel Washington in the mid-1990s - it's as if he decided to do his best and worst work simultaneously. Co-starring with a (then unknown) Russell Crowe in Virtuosity (1995) has to count as one of his worst efforts. it's tempting to put all the blame on Brett Leonard, who had done The Lawnmower Man (not exactly a good sign of what's up ahead). Crowe is a vicious serial killer named SID 6.7 but SID is a computer program used by the police to train themselves. Given Crowe's future brilliance what happened??!??
Here I can only offer a two-prolonged attack that MAY explain this disaster. One - apprently Leonard - notice this are the sheer PHYSICAL problems in having Denzel Washington face=off against Sid. This is not Gladiator and Crowe (because he is) looks SMALLER and WEAKER than Denzel's more muscular and taller character making the conflict seem absurd - like a midget fighting a heavy weight champ. To be sure, SID has more power but, cinematically, the film doesn't look good - literally, the colors, costumes, and the like don't meld nicely.
Secondly, and no one can be blamed here but the major problem the film is genre. Thanks to Silence of the Lambs, the studios went beserk in pumping out serial-killer movies that soon lost any novelty. Unless one has a brilliant script there's no point in trying. It's painfully obvious the movie is trying for some edgy, cross-genre of sci-fi and serial killing but this is not Total Recall or even Robocop, it's just an empty thrill-fest and Crowe's SID brings nothing to the table.
My own guess is that Denzel and his people thought the script was OK and any problems could be hammered out. Big mistake. Not a total waste of time but given he talents present, it's a crime that Washington and Crowe couldn't be given something better to do. Still, it's not a complete disaster. Crowe looks OK in a kimono. And that's all there is to say about this lamentable exercise.
Here I can only offer a two-prolonged attack that MAY explain this disaster. One - apprently Leonard - notice this are the sheer PHYSICAL problems in having Denzel Washington face=off against Sid. This is not Gladiator and Crowe (because he is) looks SMALLER and WEAKER than Denzel's more muscular and taller character making the conflict seem absurd - like a midget fighting a heavy weight champ. To be sure, SID has more power but, cinematically, the film doesn't look good - literally, the colors, costumes, and the like don't meld nicely.
Secondly, and no one can be blamed here but the major problem the film is genre. Thanks to Silence of the Lambs, the studios went beserk in pumping out serial-killer movies that soon lost any novelty. Unless one has a brilliant script there's no point in trying. It's painfully obvious the movie is trying for some edgy, cross-genre of sci-fi and serial killing but this is not Total Recall or even Robocop, it's just an empty thrill-fest and Crowe's SID brings nothing to the table.
My own guess is that Denzel and his people thought the script was OK and any problems could be hammered out. Big mistake. Not a total waste of time but given he talents present, it's a crime that Washington and Crowe couldn't be given something better to do. Still, it's not a complete disaster. Crowe looks OK in a kimono. And that's all there is to say about this lamentable exercise.
Sunday, July 20, 2014
NEVER TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY Bravehart (1995) **
Braveheart is a 1995 epic historical drama war film directed by and starring Mel Gibson that is (ALLEDGEDLY) about 13th-century Scottish warrior William Wallace. William Wallace certainly existed but he wasn't the heroic guerilla fighter portrayed here. Gibson gets the British side, at least, correct. They were unimaginably evil and grotesque. But by pitching his film so fantastically one wonders what's the point. Except for some stunning (and bloody) battle sequences, the fascist posturing is unbearable here.
Gibson is a talented director and the plot twists are interesting enough. But the hypermasculine, anti-homophobic, and ethnic stereotyping are so strong one might imagine Gibson is a communist trying to parody war movies. But nope he really means it. Great propaganda for war lovers. But as a film it has diminishing returns.
Gibson is a talented director and the plot twists are interesting enough. But the hypermasculine, anti-homophobic, and ethnic stereotyping are so strong one might imagine Gibson is a communist trying to parody war movies. But nope he really means it. Great propaganda for war lovers. But as a film it has diminishing returns.
NOT CONTROVERSIAL BUT FUNNY Lolita (1962) ***
"How did they make a movie out of Lolita?" Well, simple ... they didn't. Stanley Kubrick's Lolita is not an adaptation of the infamous Nabokov novel but it has its charms - especially about sexual humor. James Mason is Humbert Humbert who is trying to lodging from Charlotte Haze, a widow,(Shelley Winters) when he meets her daughter (Sue Lyon). The plot focuses on Humbert's obsession with Lolita but that's the least of the issues Kubrick is having fun with.
He's mostly making fun of himself and Hollywood films that deify young beauties. The acting is top-notch though many of the jokes may seem dated. Given censorship problems, the script had to be incredibly discreet. But those with a more historic background are going to be thoroughly amused by Mason and company as Humbert finds, conquers, loses, and then regains Lolita in a two-hour-plus epic.
He's mostly making fun of himself and Hollywood films that deify young beauties. The acting is top-notch though many of the jokes may seem dated. Given censorship problems, the script had to be incredibly discreet. But those with a more historic background are going to be thoroughly amused by Mason and company as Humbert finds, conquers, loses, and then regains Lolita in a two-hour-plus epic.
DON'T CATCH THIS IF YOU CAN HELP IT Catch Me If You Can (2002) *
Catch Me If You Can is ostensibly about an interesting cat-and-mouse chase. But really its a Spielberg hommage to the 1960s. That's fine insofar as it goes but this film just has no real anchor to it. Some sharp dialogue and flashy visuals can't save a pretty empty picture.
The main character is so infuriating unsympathetic that one wonders if Spielberg is trying for some bit of modernism. No such luck. It's a deadly serious bit of overexpensive fluffery that wastes its budget on a minor figure.
The main character is so infuriating unsympathetic that one wonders if Spielberg is trying for some bit of modernism. No such luck. It's a deadly serious bit of overexpensive fluffery that wastes its budget on a minor figure.
A CURIOUS BIT OF HORROR The Fly (1986) ***
There are actually very few horror films that are terrifying as opposed to just grotesque. This is one of them. You'll FEEL the pain of these characters. Seth Brundle is a mild-mannered scientist in Cronenberg’s (remake of) The Fly and his obsession with perfecting some transportation technology.
After a heated dispute with a lover, Seth accidentally mutates himself into a fly-man. Things actually seem pretty good at first as he gains spectacular new abilities. But soon his body begins to degenerate and the film goes into a wrenching descent. NOT RECOMMENDED for the squeamish as Cronenberg pulls absolutely no punches in this sick but philosophically-powerful dissection on the body.
After a heated dispute with a lover, Seth accidentally mutates himself into a fly-man. Things actually seem pretty good at first as he gains spectacular new abilities. But soon his body begins to degenerate and the film goes into a wrenching descent. NOT RECOMMENDED for the squeamish as Cronenberg pulls absolutely no punches in this sick but philosophically-powerful dissection on the body.
PLEASE! STOP MAKING THESE Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989) *1/2
Even for Halloween fans this is a doozy. Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers is a 1989 film directed by Dominique Othenin-Girard and starring Donald Pleasence as Dr. Sam Loomis. Unless you see part 4 tis will be extremely confusing but essentially Michael has blown to bits and is floating on a river. He briefly becomes comatose and reawakens a year later to retun to a killing spree. As in part 4, he shares a bond with his niece Jamie Lloyd (Danielle Harris).
There's not much to see here except the inclusion of bizarre elements of a cult apparently protecting Michael. This leads to a sequel but depending on the version you get certain scenes may have been cut out. A disappointing, continuing degeneration of a once-proud series.
On an added note: Michael is supposed to be "unmasked" and unless you have extremely good editing machines you won't see this - but Michael had been unmasked in any case in part one.
There's not much to see here except the inclusion of bizarre elements of a cult apparently protecting Michael. This leads to a sequel but depending on the version you get certain scenes may have been cut out. A disappointing, continuing degeneration of a once-proud series.
On an added note: Michael is supposed to be "unmasked" and unless you have extremely good editing machines you won't see this - but Michael had been unmasked in any case in part one.
Apt Pupil (1998) **1/2
"And once they were in the chamber, how long did it take? Like a minute? Five minutes?"
Todd Bowden
Apt Pupil is a quirkly little number made by Bryan Singer after 1995's The Usual Suspects. It's wrong to put him in the same category as Kubrick, DePalma, or Cronenberg but then perhaps that isn't the point. The story revolves around a teenager (Brad Renfro) stalking an old man (Ian McKellen) who turns out to be a major Nazi war criminal. As Todd Bowden, he blackmails Dussander (McKellen) into divulging his secrets and tell him what it was really like in the camps. that, at least, is what Todd says he wants. "I want to hear about it," he says. "The stories. Everything. Everything they're afraid to tell us in school."
Apt Pupil adapts a Stephen King novella but Singer turns into a much more frightening allegory about the seduction of American power and privilege. “It is a privilege of boys to be truthful,” Dussander tells Todd's parents. “A privilege that men have to sometimes give up.” Not as deep as the film believes itself to be but a very fine film nonetheless. Some of the supposedly horrifying scenes come off as more silly than anything. Still the ending is a potent one though it diverges largely from the book's ending.
Todd Bowden
Apt Pupil is a quirkly little number made by Bryan Singer after 1995's The Usual Suspects. It's wrong to put him in the same category as Kubrick, DePalma, or Cronenberg but then perhaps that isn't the point. The story revolves around a teenager (Brad Renfro) stalking an old man (Ian McKellen) who turns out to be a major Nazi war criminal. As Todd Bowden, he blackmails Dussander (McKellen) into divulging his secrets and tell him what it was really like in the camps. that, at least, is what Todd says he wants. "I want to hear about it," he says. "The stories. Everything. Everything they're afraid to tell us in school."
Apt Pupil adapts a Stephen King novella but Singer turns into a much more frightening allegory about the seduction of American power and privilege. “It is a privilege of boys to be truthful,” Dussander tells Todd's parents. “A privilege that men have to sometimes give up.” Not as deep as the film believes itself to be but a very fine film nonetheless. Some of the supposedly horrifying scenes come off as more silly than anything. Still the ending is a potent one though it diverges largely from the book's ending.
ARNIE IS BACK!!! The Running Man (1987) **1/2
The Running Man has Ben Richards (Arnold) forced onto a fake TV game show to survive. This is really on watchable thanks to Arnold's endless one-liners - "I’m a quick learner" - usually against his opponents Buzzsaw ("He had to split"), Fireball ("What a hothead"), Sub Zero and Dynamo ("He was a real pain in the neck").
This is strictly paint-by-numbers thriller that leads to Ben taking righteous reventge on his tormentor Killion.
A satisfying and, ironically, potent 1980s satire of fascist/corporate tyranny. But a very shallow and unfaithful adaptation of the short novel.
This is strictly paint-by-numbers thriller that leads to Ben taking righteous reventge on his tormentor Killion.
A satisfying and, ironically, potent 1980s satire of fascist/corporate tyranny. But a very shallow and unfaithful adaptation of the short novel.
Prophecy (1995) **
Viggo Mortensen’s Lucifer in The Prophecy sports a devilish goatee and hairstyle. The trope surrounding a fallen angel has been used before. But this takes that logic to an extreme and horrid conclusion. The devil actually seems rather sane compared to Gabriel, an angel out to avenge … actually, his rage isn’t clarified. Does it need to be?
The human drama involves some humans as they attempt to block Gabriel killing a small girl. The devil helps them out. One of Walken's best performances but intended only for the strong.
The human drama involves some humans as they attempt to block Gabriel killing a small girl. The devil helps them out. One of Walken's best performances but intended only for the strong.
The Usual Suspects **1/2
“The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.”
Verbal
The Usual Suspects is that rare film that is going to be infuriating and pleasing all at once. Shot in an amazingly short time this is a breakthrough film visually and performatively for the director and actors involved. That said, the ending is truly hard to swallow. Roger “Verbal” Kint (Kevin Spacey) is our ostensive narrator who tells us a long tale about a group of cut-throat criminals maniupalted by the legenday underworld figure, Keyser Söze.
But nothing is as it appears in this tricky thriller. The revealations are too preposterous as they come. Still, this is a film to keep debating if not necessarily love.
Verbal
The Usual Suspects is that rare film that is going to be infuriating and pleasing all at once. Shot in an amazingly short time this is a breakthrough film visually and performatively for the director and actors involved. That said, the ending is truly hard to swallow. Roger “Verbal” Kint (Kevin Spacey) is our ostensive narrator who tells us a long tale about a group of cut-throat criminals maniupalted by the legenday underworld figure, Keyser Söze.
But nothing is as it appears in this tricky thriller. The revealations are too preposterous as they come. Still, this is a film to keep debating if not necessarily love.
The Ninth Gate ***
Roman Polanski’s The Ninth Gate, Boris Balkan’s attempt to get The Nine Gates of the Kingdom of Shadows written by Torchia in 1666 has Dean Corso (Johnny Depp), a book detective, run all over the world to find the book that supposedly allows one to conjure up the devil. The Ninth Gate is unfairly compared to Polanski's allegedly superior, earlier horror films. But one has to recognize he is going for something deliberately comedic. This isn't to say there is just shallow entertainment. For those willing to look a little further, the film offers some interesting treats in terms of plot and character.
END OF MEIN CAREER? End of Days (1999) **
Gabriel Byrne in the End of Days plays the Devil as a modern cynic. Arnuld, in contrast, is so sincere that you’d think he never heard of the seven sins. Arnie is Spartan, a disaffected cop, harboring a dark past, that happens on a strange crime to leads him to battle Satan.
This should be called End of Career since it nearly destroyed Arnold’s. This actually isn’t a bad pic.
But assuming a generous paycheck as always and a huge budget it seems like an uneven effort. The title and year are a play on the infamous eighteen - 999 is 666 upside down.
This should be called End of Career since it nearly destroyed Arnold’s. This actually isn’t a bad pic.
But assuming a generous paycheck as always and a huge budget it seems like an uneven effort. The title and year are a play on the infamous eighteen - 999 is 666 upside down.
Dolores Claiborne ***
Dolores Claiborne is a bit hard to describe. The term feminist horror film seems like an oxymoron. To be sure, there is little to no gore here. But horror there is a aplenty although what kind is hard to understand. The film has Kathy Bates return as the title character. Dolores is under arrest and charged with murdering her employer, Vera. Her daughter, Selena, returns to stand by her side. But Dolore and her have unresolved issues.
Without giving too much plot twists away, the drama is on our believing Dolores, as tough and unlovable as she is, is no murderer but director Taylor Hackford provides some cunning and subtle clues that Dolores has a more complicated past than she lets on. A tough-as-nails cop, Detective John Mackey (Christopher Plummer), doesn’t buy Dolores claim to be innocent and makes us genuinely wonder just who can be trusted in this murder mystery.
No ghosts or ghouls in the explicit sense are here. Instead King has us concentrate on existential terrors as communicated by deep class and regional divisions.
Without giving too much plot twists away, the drama is on our believing Dolores, as tough and unlovable as she is, is no murderer but director Taylor Hackford provides some cunning and subtle clues that Dolores has a more complicated past than she lets on. A tough-as-nails cop, Detective John Mackey (Christopher Plummer), doesn’t buy Dolores claim to be innocent and makes us genuinely wonder just who can be trusted in this murder mystery.
No ghosts or ghouls in the explicit sense are here. Instead King has us concentrate on existential terrors as communicated by deep class and regional divisions.
CAN KEANU BEAT THE DEVIL?! The Devil’s Advocate ***
The Devil’s Advocate is going to anger Al Pacino admirers. Pacino gives yet another over-the-top performance as John Milton. Initially, the movie has Keanu Reeves as a slick, up-and-coming lawyer summoned by Milton to join his legal team. The title indicates the obvious.
Pacino is the devil and is set on corrupting Reeves. But why?? The payoff is a bit debatable. Still the stages in getting to the ultimate revelation are better than anyone might suspect. Reeves' usual, laid-back style serves him ell here as he bit by bit pieces together the intertwining of his life and Mr. Satan’s. To be sure,
some parts seem to have been done better than others. Several sub-plots are needlessly added and The Shining is shamefully ripped of.
Pacino is the devil and is set on corrupting Reeves. But why?? The payoff is a bit debatable. Still the stages in getting to the ultimate revelation are better than anyone might suspect. Reeves' usual, laid-back style serves him ell here as he bit by bit pieces together the intertwining of his life and Mr. Satan’s. To be sure,
some parts seem to have been done better than others. Several sub-plots are needlessly added and The Shining is shamefully ripped of.
SHALLLOW SECRETS AND MODEST TERROR Secret Window (2004) **
Secret Window is a psychological thriller directed by David Koepp. Johnny Depp plays a writer who catches his wife, Amy, cheating on him. Alas, we've been here before. This is an examination of a writer, Mort (Depp), and his relationship to his writing and the possible madness that may ensue.
But Misery mined these issues and did better in terms of scares and laughs. The film is originally ased on the novella, "Secret Window, Secret Garden."
But Misery mined these issues and did better in terms of scares and laughs. The film is originally ased on the novella, "Secret Window, Secret Garden."
You've Got Mail (1998) **1/2
I could never be with someone who likes Joni Mitchell. "It's clouds illusions I recall/I really don't know clouds at all." What does that mean? Is she a pilot? Is she taking flying lessons? It's probably a metaphor for something, but I don't know what.
Joe Fox
You've Got Mail is admittedly tough to swallow. on the one hand it avoids the usual pitfalls romcoms are known for. On the other hand, it creates needless new headaches. Tom Hanks plays a confident but ruthless businessman called Joe Fox. Meg Ryan is the owner of a small bookstore.
There may be more subtlety involved but this is a romcom and the issue is how long is it going to take before both of them wake up and see what's in front of their face.
You have to give create to the producers for not just giving us Sleepless in Seattle II. Not many romcoms can name-drop Foucault without seeming to go overboard.
Joe Fox
You've Got Mail is admittedly tough to swallow. on the one hand it avoids the usual pitfalls romcoms are known for. On the other hand, it creates needless new headaches. Tom Hanks plays a confident but ruthless businessman called Joe Fox. Meg Ryan is the owner of a small bookstore.
There may be more subtlety involved but this is a romcom and the issue is how long is it going to take before both of them wake up and see what's in front of their face.
You have to give create to the producers for not just giving us Sleepless in Seattle II. Not many romcoms can name-drop Foucault without seeming to go overboard.
THE POLITICS OF MODERATION Argo (2012) ***
Argo has gained much praise but this is odd since it refuses to take much of any stance. Affleck is a capable enough as an director yet one must be honest to say the film works because it risks little.
Beyond an interesting animated opening the film is stuck between not totally condemning the revolution in Iran and having us lament the fate of Americans stranded in a perilous situation. In reality the Canadian role was much greater but the most questionable aspect of the film is focusing on Affleck's CIA character - Tony Mendez (actually Hispanic but whitened here) - and turning the film into a generic thriller.
A lousy concluding section that degenerates into action cliches but a decent film about a bizarre episode in history with some nice supporting performances by Bryan Cranston, Alan Arkin, and John Goodman.
Beyond an interesting animated opening the film is stuck between not totally condemning the revolution in Iran and having us lament the fate of Americans stranded in a perilous situation. In reality the Canadian role was much greater but the most questionable aspect of the film is focusing on Affleck's CIA character - Tony Mendez (actually Hispanic but whitened here) - and turning the film into a generic thriller.
A lousy concluding section that degenerates into action cliches but a decent film about a bizarre episode in history with some nice supporting performances by Bryan Cranston, Alan Arkin, and John Goodman.
TRYING TO CLONE MAGIC Alien 4: Resurrection (1997) **
Alien 4: Resurrection is usually desiganted the worst in the franchise. Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) is back kind of. But this is, strictly, a Ripley clone (no pun intended) and pale imitation of the preceding films. The plot seems to rehash Aliens but with a slight twist.
More characters come in and Winona Ryder stops by. The film is action-filled enough. But given the budget one might think more creativity could have been injected.
The ending is overdone and by turns sentimental and/or sick depending on one's taste. Strictly for die-hard fans interested in seeing another Alien entry.
More characters come in and Winona Ryder stops by. The film is action-filled enough. But given the budget one might think more creativity could have been injected.
The ending is overdone and by turns sentimental and/or sick depending on one's taste. Strictly for die-hard fans interested in seeing another Alien entry.
HANNIBAL IS BACK! BUT SHOULD HE BE? Hannibal (2001) **1/2
The best that can be said for Hannibal is ir could have been worse. Julianne Moore is Clarice Starling as she continues to hunt the good doctor. He is relaxing in Italy but an old enemy forces him out of retirement.
The film delivers the goods insofar as it can and Hopkins does his best at being charming and sadistic. But this film is tame and flails its arms trying to cover up its obvious moneymaking aims.
A tight episode at best expanded to a dull gross feature long superseded by American Psycho and more interesting takes on the serial-killer genre. Recommended only if bored.
The film delivers the goods insofar as it can and Hopkins does his best at being charming and sadistic. But this film is tame and flails its arms trying to cover up its obvious moneymaking aims.
A tight episode at best expanded to a dull gross feature long superseded by American Psycho and more interesting takes on the serial-killer genre. Recommended only if bored.
Friday, July 18, 2014
SHOULDA BEEN CALLED OUTLANDER!!! Stephen King's Children of the Corn (1984) **
Stephen King's Children of the Corn (1984) is based on a short story by the same name. This film directed by Fritz Kiersch really doesn't adapt the story. That had been done ealier in a short episode. But it takes some parts fot the story and fills it out to overlong lengths. Narrator Job (Robby Kiger) retells how Gatlin becomes ensnared by demonic forces as a boy preacher named Isaac (John Franklin), leads a rising up of the children against all grown-ups.
A few years pass and Job and his sister, Sarah (Ammemarie McEvoy) try to help their friend, Joseph (Jonas Marlowe) escape through the cornfields of Gatlin. No spoiling that the kid doesn't make it. The story then brings in unsuspecting doctor, Burt Stanton (Peter Horton), and Vicky Baxter (Linda Hamilton), his girlfriend as they discover Joseph's dead body.
They are warned not to go into Gatlin but do so anyway and are soon hunted by the children. (They have to continually sacrifice people to a "Corn" God or He Who Walks Behind the Rows.) The ending is spectacular but takes sometime to get there. Followed by endless, atrocious sequels.
A few years pass and Job and his sister, Sarah (Ammemarie McEvoy) try to help their friend, Joseph (Jonas Marlowe) escape through the cornfields of Gatlin. No spoiling that the kid doesn't make it. The story then brings in unsuspecting doctor, Burt Stanton (Peter Horton), and Vicky Baxter (Linda Hamilton), his girlfriend as they discover Joseph's dead body.
They are warned not to go into Gatlin but do so anyway and are soon hunted by the children. (They have to continually sacrifice people to a "Corn" God or He Who Walks Behind the Rows.) The ending is spectacular but takes sometime to get there. Followed by endless, atrocious sequels.
AN OVERRATED BUT EFFECTIVE BROMANCE BY STEPHEN KING The Shawshank Redemption (1994) **1/2
The Shawshank Redemption is a 1994 American drama film written and directed by Frank Darabont that adapts Stephen King's short story "Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption." In 1946 a young New England banker, Andy Dufresne (Robbins), is convicted and send to jail.
Shawshank follows his harrowing integration into a brutal prison society. He befriends Morgan Freeman's Ellis "Red" Redding. Technically, Freedman is the narrator of the film as his voice guides us through the many years spanning Andy's internal and external freedom from Shawshank and its horrendous inmates including some sadistic guards led by Byron Hadley. Underneath it all, though, this is a clever, if uneven, attempt to cinematically represent male friendship.
It isn't anywhere as good as its admirers pretend but it is touching at places. This isn't really King's short story but Darabont does provide, sporadically, some interesting symbols to garner at. More a rent it than see it flick but a rather good picture given the constraints the actors and director were under.
Shawshank follows his harrowing integration into a brutal prison society. He befriends Morgan Freeman's Ellis "Red" Redding. Technically, Freedman is the narrator of the film as his voice guides us through the many years spanning Andy's internal and external freedom from Shawshank and its horrendous inmates including some sadistic guards led by Byron Hadley. Underneath it all, though, this is a clever, if uneven, attempt to cinematically represent male friendship.
It isn't anywhere as good as its admirers pretend but it is touching at places. This isn't really King's short story but Darabont does provide, sporadically, some interesting symbols to garner at. More a rent it than see it flick but a rather good picture given the constraints the actors and director were under.
QUENTIN'S QUIET CINEMATIC TRIUMPH Jackie Brown (1997) ***
Jackie Brown is Tarantino's best film because it is his most disciplined. The film stars Pam Grier as a drug dealing employee of the brutal but charismatic Samuel L. Jackson. But as always it's really the script that is the star in a Tarantino film.
Thankfully, though, this one stands out in several ways. Unlike Pulp Fiction the narrative is not fractured but there some slight slippages in time and place. The dialogue remains verbose but it isn't as overdone as Pulp or Reservoir Dogs.
The characters feel more natural and are restrained. The essence of the plot is Jackie attempting to outsmart Ordell (Jackson) with some intentional and unintentional help from enemies and friends. Giving more away might ruin some of the intriguing plot developments. Bridget Fonda stands out and remains shamefully overlooked in this ensemble piece.
Thankfully, though, this one stands out in several ways. Unlike Pulp Fiction the narrative is not fractured but there some slight slippages in time and place. The dialogue remains verbose but it isn't as overdone as Pulp or Reservoir Dogs.
The characters feel more natural and are restrained. The essence of the plot is Jackie attempting to outsmart Ordell (Jackson) with some intentional and unintentional help from enemies and friends. Giving more away might ruin some of the intriguing plot developments. Bridget Fonda stands out and remains shamefully overlooked in this ensemble piece.
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
COULD THIS BE JASON AT HIS WORST? Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan (1989)
Jason films are a real hit-or-miss proposition. This struck me as one of the BEST of the (admittedly) problematic sample. But the general consensus is that this the worst Friday film. That seems extreme.
Perhaps a lot of the hatred is inspired by the mis-advertising. It's called "Jason Takes Manhattan" but most of the action occurs on a CRUISE SHIP (the SS Lazarus)! The cruise-ship killings are a little too formulaic. But the Manhattan segment (to me, at least), was rather intriguing. If anything one wishes there were episodes during that part of the movie which are, by turns, funny and absurd.
A major distraction is one of the main characters keeps having outlandish visions into Jason's past. This is explained but the explanation is so poor it can hardly be believed. In any case, it's supposed tie into the ending, which is too bizarre unto itself. A mostly silly movie. But, then again, they all are. On that basis, a rather weird entry; watch out for a particularly odd confrontation Jason has at the end with himself. But I enjoyed it. Still - be warned - it may annoy some more than others.
Perhaps a lot of the hatred is inspired by the mis-advertising. It's called "Jason Takes Manhattan" but most of the action occurs on a CRUISE SHIP (the SS Lazarus)! The cruise-ship killings are a little too formulaic. But the Manhattan segment (to me, at least), was rather intriguing. If anything one wishes there were episodes during that part of the movie which are, by turns, funny and absurd.
A major distraction is one of the main characters keeps having outlandish visions into Jason's past. This is explained but the explanation is so poor it can hardly be believed. In any case, it's supposed tie into the ending, which is too bizarre unto itself. A mostly silly movie. But, then again, they all are. On that basis, a rather weird entry; watch out for a particularly odd confrontation Jason has at the end with himself. But I enjoyed it. Still - be warned - it may annoy some more than others.
STRANGELOVE AND NINTENDO MUST FIGHT! WarGames (1983) **1/2
WarGames (1983) is very much a film of its time and is, alas, too clever for its own good. It's the early 1980s and fears of nuclear exchange are reaching a peak. Matthew Broderick is a young computer enthusiast who to impress a girl (Ally Sheedy) unwittingly Joshua acts as if a real war is occurring and proceeds to almost launch a nuclear strike on Russia as Broderick and Sheedy rush to find the computer's designer.
The script is smart and acting credible but it's not the special effects that hamper this movie. It's a clever premise and unlike most films, the action is mostly believable. But obvious problems lurk - like why does Broderick insist on playing nuclear warfare at all??? A little more time might've really solidified this charming classic.
Putting my own personal bias aside (I fall for the tricks in this movie too easily), the film is too impressed with itself to work on anybody but the most cynical.
The script is smart and acting credible but it's not the special effects that hamper this movie. It's a clever premise and unlike most films, the action is mostly believable. But obvious problems lurk - like why does Broderick insist on playing nuclear warfare at all??? A little more time might've really solidified this charming classic.
Putting my own personal bias aside (I fall for the tricks in this movie too easily), the film is too impressed with itself to work on anybody but the most cynical.
CLINT EASTWOOD REVISES AMERIKA The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976) **1/2
Clint Eastwood is an acknowledged master-director but even for him The Outlaw Josey Wales is truly experimental. Here Eastwood is a Missouri farmer turned Confederate guerrilla who teams up - yes - with the Indians (!).
The plot foreshadows the superior Unforgiven greatly as Josey is forced to fight in retaliation due to the deaths of his wife and son by pro-Union Jayhawkers. The emotions are authentic insofar as they go. But the politics of the film are the more fascinating as one delves into them; the source novel was written by a Klansman!!
Especially in the context of Vietnam, the film is weird meddling of anarchist and libertarian themes. Even today I'm not sure what to think of it. For Eastwood, it may affirm his conservative ideology but the common moviegoer may see this as simply another generic man-against-the-system movie.
The plot foreshadows the superior Unforgiven greatly as Josey is forced to fight in retaliation due to the deaths of his wife and son by pro-Union Jayhawkers. The emotions are authentic insofar as they go. But the politics of the film are the more fascinating as one delves into them; the source novel was written by a Klansman!!
Especially in the context of Vietnam, the film is weird meddling of anarchist and libertarian themes. Even today I'm not sure what to think of it. For Eastwood, it may affirm his conservative ideology but the common moviegoer may see this as simply another generic man-against-the-system movie.
WISHING WES HAD ENOUGH $$$$$ Wishmaster (1997) *1/2
Wishmaster is a 1997 American horror film directed by Robert Kurtzman but it's executive produced by Wes Craven and speaks badly to Craven's seemly limitless cynicism. Compared to Elm Street, Wishmaster is the Showgirls of horror and even Showgirls didn't skimp on the effects like this turkey does. Unfortunately, Andrew Divoff gives such a spirited performance it doesn't deserve to be forgotten. But this film is bad not just aesthetically but an insult even at the level of torture porn.
Which is too bad since the premise is intriguing enough. An evil genie or Djinn has lain asleep for centuries. But accidentally awakened, it has to convince Holly Fields to wish three wishes (why??????) in order for an entire race of Djinn(s?!) to conquer the earth. Violates its own rules of logic left and right and gives such a cheap ending that nullifies the whole film. Pointless, stupid, cynical, and just plain annoying to watch after awhile.
Aside from some funny cameos by Robert Englund, Tony Todd, and Kane Hodder this belongs in the strictly it's-so-bad-it-is-just-bad-not-good column. An atrocious attempt to cash-in on Craven's fame from the Freddy years. Not as dumb as Shocker but just as uninspired.
Which is too bad since the premise is intriguing enough. An evil genie or Djinn has lain asleep for centuries. But accidentally awakened, it has to convince Holly Fields to wish three wishes (why??????) in order for an entire race of Djinn(s?!) to conquer the earth. Violates its own rules of logic left and right and gives such a cheap ending that nullifies the whole film. Pointless, stupid, cynical, and just plain annoying to watch after awhile.
Aside from some funny cameos by Robert Englund, Tony Todd, and Kane Hodder this belongs in the strictly it's-so-bad-it-is-just-bad-not-good column. An atrocious attempt to cash-in on Craven's fame from the Freddy years. Not as dumb as Shocker but just as uninspired.
THE TWILIGHT OF GREAT VAMP FLICKS Interview with the Vampire (1994) ***
Interview with the Vampire (1994) at the time of its opening attracted huge controversy whether it was casting Tom Cruise as Lestat or its (then) unprecedented violence. In retrospect, this film is surprising sedate and the scares come much later in the film. Traditionally, horror is about immediate, constant fear but this film settles for a more long-lasting sense of dread.
The film starts off in the future as Pitt playing Louis Pointe has Daniel Malloy (Christian Slater) take down his memoirs. Louis recounts encountering Lestat and move from their coming together to the forming of a macabre family that includes Claudia (Kirsten Dunst).
This film is not going to be to everyone's taste as Neil Jordan takes his time to move Louis and Claudia through their separation with Lestat to finding other vampires, including Antonio Banderas and Stephen Rea as cynical elder statesmen. The conclusion - or conclusions - are rousing enough. But, sadly, one feels one has watched two very long episodes that one wished kept going.
The film starts off in the future as Pitt playing Louis Pointe has Daniel Malloy (Christian Slater) take down his memoirs. Louis recounts encountering Lestat and move from their coming together to the forming of a macabre family that includes Claudia (Kirsten Dunst).
This film is not going to be to everyone's taste as Neil Jordan takes his time to move Louis and Claudia through their separation with Lestat to finding other vampires, including Antonio Banderas and Stephen Rea as cynical elder statesmen. The conclusion - or conclusions - are rousing enough. But, sadly, one feels one has watched two very long episodes that one wished kept going.
NOT OSCAR MATERIAL BUT STILL DISTURBING No Country for Old Men (2007) ***
No Country for Old Men is a 2007 American neo-Western thriller directed, written, and edited by Joel and Ethan Coen, based on the Cormac McCarthy novel of the same name.The time is 1980 in West Texas.
Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) chances upon a bag of money and chaos soon ensues. Admittedly, the film's visuals are going to be too much for some. Javier Bardam's acting is fine but the presentation of Anton Chigurh is too silly and laughable.
This is too bad since Anton is vital to the story, his absurd appearance drains a lot of the film as the main plot is Anton chasing Moss for the money, clearly the result of drug dealing. The real star, though, in the film is the murky, moral nihilism that the Coens see America - very clearly REAGAN's America - being stepped in. Though Carter is, technically, president, the film alludes to over and over colonialism, genocide, racism, and gender phobia - in one howlingly funny scene, a fat woman manages to scare Chigurh off. This film has a lot of mysteries that are sure to rile some and entice others. I'll only give one major dilemma people have come across.
Chigurth, at times, is wounded is appears superhuman but there is a lot of visual evidence not so much that Chigurth is superhuman as much as HE THINKS HE IS SUPERHUMAN. One can enjoy the film as just a thriller and nothing more. But the Coens and clearly Cormac are aiming at bigger game. Play close attention to the conversation Anton has with Carla Jean (Kelly Macdonald) as Llewelyn's wife. Tommy Lee Jones also provides a typically great supporting role.
This is too bad since Anton is vital to the story, his absurd appearance drains a lot of the film as the main plot is Anton chasing Moss for the money, clearly the result of drug dealing. The real star, though, in the film is the murky, moral nihilism that the Coens see America - very clearly REAGAN's America - being stepped in. Though Carter is, technically, president, the film alludes to over and over colonialism, genocide, racism, and gender phobia - in one howlingly funny scene, a fat woman manages to scare Chigurh off. This film has a lot of mysteries that are sure to rile some and entice others. I'll only give one major dilemma people have come across.
Chigurth, at times, is wounded is appears superhuman but there is a lot of visual evidence not so much that Chigurth is superhuman as much as HE THINKS HE IS SUPERHUMAN. One can enjoy the film as just a thriller and nothing more. But the Coens and clearly Cormac are aiming at bigger game. Play close attention to the conversation Anton has with Carla Jean (Kelly Macdonald) as Llewelyn's wife. Tommy Lee Jones also provides a typically great supporting role.
White House Down (2013) **1/2
White House Down is an unbelievably silly action film. True, Channing Tatum is a good actor and this film laces itself with talent (Jamie Foxx, Maggie Gyllenhaal) in order to guarantee that it isn't completely laughable. Director Roland Emmerich's has many problems but here a lot of (assumed) stupidity is harnessed for good.
As much good as one could expect. Tatum is a DC cop who happens to visit the White House (he's there to try to join the Secret Service) and ends up saving the President (Foxx) from a terrorist attack. The rest of the film is Tatum as John Cale attempting to survive being shot at.
No big surprises but Tatum manages to keep one's interest as the film, impossibly, keeps adding layer after layer of a final conspiracy twist so incredible that it has to inspire a smile. Not Emmerich at his best or worst but a really fun, vapid joyride. Unfortunately, sure to be imitated and tried again.
As much good as one could expect. Tatum is a DC cop who happens to visit the White House (he's there to try to join the Secret Service) and ends up saving the President (Foxx) from a terrorist attack. The rest of the film is Tatum as John Cale attempting to survive being shot at.
No big surprises but Tatum manages to keep one's interest as the film, impossibly, keeps adding layer after layer of a final conspiracy twist so incredible that it has to inspire a smile. Not Emmerich at his best or worst but a really fun, vapid joyride. Unfortunately, sure to be imitated and tried again.
AN 80s CLASSIC THAT DESERVES ALL THE PRAISE IT GETS Robocop (1987) ****
Old Detroit in the future is in a post-apocalyptic mood of endless crime. A brave officer is killed and transformed into Robocop, an experimental cyborg. Paul Verhoeven's classic is questionable at points but being what it is - a subversive anti-capitalist, anti-consumerist, anti-fascist parody that is also so packed with action and violence it's hard to know who ISN'T being wasted, targeted, or destroyed in this romping story - it has few peers (unless one counts Michael Moore's also quesitonable "documentaries").
Sadly, this satire is indeed still in a class of its own because it takes itself just seriously enough as Murphy struggles to, initially, embrace his hero status then reject it and then embrace it again. Usually this decline and fall and rise again narrative comes off as too mechanical. Here, it is gut-wrenchingly authentic. It's taken for granted that Robo deserves all credit. I disagree, although Clarence Boddicker is no doubt still a fan-favorite, the film and plot really depend on Ronny Cox's Dick Jones, an OCP exec whose loyalties are prone to shifting at a moment's notice.
It can't be called a perfect film. The cops-turning-on-Robocop twist is so stupid and unbelievable. But the amazing thing is the cohension that the plot and character have even today.
Sadly, this satire is indeed still in a class of its own because it takes itself just seriously enough as Murphy struggles to, initially, embrace his hero status then reject it and then embrace it again. Usually this decline and fall and rise again narrative comes off as too mechanical. Here, it is gut-wrenchingly authentic. It's taken for granted that Robo deserves all credit. I disagree, although Clarence Boddicker is no doubt still a fan-favorite, the film and plot really depend on Ronny Cox's Dick Jones, an OCP exec whose loyalties are prone to shifting at a moment's notice.
It can't be called a perfect film. The cops-turning-on-Robocop twist is so stupid and unbelievable. But the amazing thing is the cohension that the plot and character have even today.
SCORSESE FAILS AND OLLIE IS STILL KING The Wolf of Wall Street (2013) **1/2
Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio) was a LONG ISLAND lowlife and seller of questionable stocks. Belfort is not (portrayed) as a bad guy as his friendship with Donnie Azoff (Jonah Hill) seems genuine and touching. The problem is this film is operating in the shadow of Stone's Wall Street and it shows. It stylistically and aesthetically references the film. But even more pathetically, Scorsese thinks he can outdo his student by loading up on the fucking and cursing. I kid you not. The nudity and sex scenes are shocking. This might SEEM brave but understanding the production process one gets that Scorsese made a money decision to try to be as controversial as possible to guarantee an audience. Big mistake.
Wall Street had its faults but its basic logic was over corruption and a boy being seduced by the devil. Jordan is just a lucky punk that likes hookers and money and ... likes hookers and money ... likes hookers and money and so on and so on. Though, to be accurate, the entire film should be called PILLS: A CAUTIONARY TALE. Drug pills turn up at the beginning, middle, and end of this film. I thought I was watching a documentary on rich people on drugs most of the time. There is ONE great, ridiculous, scene that demonstrates why Leo is indeed an actor. But for the most part there's too much overacting and overacting for no purpose or reason.
Scorsese is a smart, good director but far from being the best director alive - this film demonstrates he is pathetically far behind either his students - Stone - or his peers like Cuaron, Del Toro, or even Nolan. It's as if putting in so many naked models and hip hop music made this lousy Goodfellas Two something other than it was. This film is NEVER boring. But, then, it also isn't any good either.
There's a fascinating tale to be told. But this is isn't it. It's just a bizarre addition to the growing porn-inspired cinema polluting cinema for over a decade now. A worthy addition to that unworthy tradition.
Wall Street had its faults but its basic logic was over corruption and a boy being seduced by the devil. Jordan is just a lucky punk that likes hookers and money and ... likes hookers and money ... likes hookers and money and so on and so on. Though, to be accurate, the entire film should be called PILLS: A CAUTIONARY TALE. Drug pills turn up at the beginning, middle, and end of this film. I thought I was watching a documentary on rich people on drugs most of the time. There is ONE great, ridiculous, scene that demonstrates why Leo is indeed an actor. But for the most part there's too much overacting and overacting for no purpose or reason.
Scorsese is a smart, good director but far from being the best director alive - this film demonstrates he is pathetically far behind either his students - Stone - or his peers like Cuaron, Del Toro, or even Nolan. It's as if putting in so many naked models and hip hop music made this lousy Goodfellas Two something other than it was. This film is NEVER boring. But, then, it also isn't any good either.
There's a fascinating tale to be told. But this is isn't it. It's just a bizarre addition to the growing porn-inspired cinema polluting cinema for over a decade now. A worthy addition to that unworthy tradition.
ZACK SNYDER'S NOBLE BUT FAILED EPIC Man of Steel (2013) **1/2
Man of Steel (2013) isn't really sequel or prequel or remake but just the first film done again. This time Henry Cavill is Superman. Not a great choice but passable. But Amy Adams seems completely miscast as Louis. Michael Shannon plays Zod, the baddie. Not much of a story so the issue is Superman coming to Earth, growing up, and coming to terms with his power. To be sure, Snyder does (pathetically) try to inject some realism and novelty into his interpretation but it feels too forced.
Superman doesn't fly at first ... he leaps. A glorious moment. And the film shines here and there but it seems obvious the film is groping to say something but ends up rehashing elements from other films, including the Superman series, to sustain itself. One can say that clearly everyone - except for Adams who seems to be trying for an Oscar in a different film - is trying to do right by Christopher Reeves but this effort just pales in comparison even the not-so-stellar Superman films.
Bryan Singer’s film is very much in the shadows as is the Donner film, shamelessly raped, re-cut, and recreated in MOS. k to the franchise, and they have, at the expense of practically everything else. It's unclear if blame should go to Zack or Christopher Nolan. One can join many fans though in agreeing that Man of Steel is probably the future of cinema and its a sad one. A nice two hours. But one is going to end up wondering why not see much better cartoons or television shows costing one-tenth of this picture and having two time the heart. Not an embarrassing piece but we're still waiting for a good Superman film. This faux serious attempt and silly-ass "adult"-version Superman wouldn't impress a retarded juvenile. =ver
Superman doesn't fly at first ... he leaps. A glorious moment. And the film shines here and there but it seems obvious the film is groping to say something but ends up rehashing elements from other films, including the Superman series, to sustain itself. One can say that clearly everyone - except for Adams who seems to be trying for an Oscar in a different film - is trying to do right by Christopher Reeves but this effort just pales in comparison even the not-so-stellar Superman films.
Bryan Singer’s film is very much in the shadows as is the Donner film, shamelessly raped, re-cut, and recreated in MOS. k to the franchise, and they have, at the expense of practically everything else. It's unclear if blame should go to Zack or Christopher Nolan. One can join many fans though in agreeing that Man of Steel is probably the future of cinema and its a sad one. A nice two hours. But one is going to end up wondering why not see much better cartoons or television shows costing one-tenth of this picture and having two time the heart. Not an embarrassing piece but we're still waiting for a good Superman film. This faux serious attempt and silly-ass "adult"-version Superman wouldn't impress a retarded juvenile. =ver
DAVID CRONENBERG AND CHRISTOPHER WALKEN AS THE (NICE) KINGS OF HORROR The Dead Zone (1983) ***1/2
The Dead Zone is based on Stephen King's 1979 novel. Given the resume that David Cronenberg has (Scanners, The Fly) this should be match made in heaven. And it is - just perhaps not in the way anyone would expect. Christopher Walken is Johnny Smith a teacher who after an accident discovers he has the power to enter the Dead Zone, essentially a space that gives vital knowledge on a person he touches. This is NOT King's book though one might be fooled. His John kinda liked the power; Cronenberg has Walken treat his abilities as a curse and one potentially killing him. The film version mostly takes good liberties with the material though the evil Johnny faces when it comes is obscure.
One wishes a little more screen-time and story were devoted to Smith's nemesis. But that aside this is one powerful film and unexpectedly Cronenberg's best - especially because it is so easy to follow. But don't be saddened, there is still some genuine fright despite Cronenberg toning down his infamous pomo/homo habits. In fact, in some critical scenes Cronenberg increases the terror in ways one wouldn't predict or guess. The only complaints are regarding production - not enough money is spent to make Johnny's world as powerful or full as it could or should be.
Still, this film works on almost every level and when Walken goes WALKEN it makes sense and will probably not make you think of ICE in the same way ever again!!
One wishes a little more screen-time and story were devoted to Smith's nemesis. But that aside this is one powerful film and unexpectedly Cronenberg's best - especially because it is so easy to follow. But don't be saddened, there is still some genuine fright despite Cronenberg toning down his infamous pomo/homo habits. In fact, in some critical scenes Cronenberg increases the terror in ways one wouldn't predict or guess. The only complaints are regarding production - not enough money is spent to make Johnny's world as powerful or full as it could or should be.
Still, this film works on almost every level and when Walken goes WALKEN it makes sense and will probably not make you think of ICE in the same way ever again!!
DID I MISS SOMETHING?? JENNIFER'S ASS LOOKS GREAT BUT SKIP THIS X X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014) **
X-Men: Days of Future Past has so quickly gotten to the rank up of the BEST films ever and easily one of the best X films that this review is going to be short and sweet. Essentially, this is Wolvie film (again!) but this time Wolvie gets to go on a time travel - but in the mind. Apparently this film is for visual, filmic, comic, AND literature illiterate. Source Code mined this area years ago and did it much better as did Donnie Darko or ... nevermind. So no points for the time-travel thing - which is most of the film. But the real shocker is the casting since except for Patrick Stewart nobody looks, talks, or feels like the comic-book version of themselves. And their movies versions (Beast, being a good exception) aren't all that much better including Jackman - who I never thought was that great as Wolverine.
It's even impossibly annoying at the sheer badness of logic which most X-films even Brett Ratner's foray kept that to a minimum. My favorite lapse is that Chuck can walk in this film but it takes away his MENTAL powers. BECAUSE???!!!??? On one point I do agree with everyone, the Quicksilver element is amusing (though that's not really the comic book Quicksilver - and since this is Magneto's SON how do they not recognize one another???!! Stupid, stupid, stupid film that does the whole freedom versus determinism debate.
Jennifer Lawrence looks OK ass-wise but a poor let down from Rebecca and there are some interesting fight scenes - but even those make no sense - like how can Beast and Magneto even fight since Magneto can control the IRON in ANYONE's bloodstream. A nice ten minutes with Quicksilver but not much else. Sentinels look horrible, too, and the original designs were hardly good to begin with. A waste of a film. But if it's your cup of tea - by all means, dig-in.
It's even impossibly annoying at the sheer badness of logic which most X-films even Brett Ratner's foray kept that to a minimum. My favorite lapse is that Chuck can walk in this film but it takes away his MENTAL powers. BECAUSE???!!!??? On one point I do agree with everyone, the Quicksilver element is amusing (though that's not really the comic book Quicksilver - and since this is Magneto's SON how do they not recognize one another???!! Stupid, stupid, stupid film that does the whole freedom versus determinism debate.
Jennifer Lawrence looks OK ass-wise but a poor let down from Rebecca and there are some interesting fight scenes - but even those make no sense - like how can Beast and Magneto even fight since Magneto can control the IRON in ANYONE's bloodstream. A nice ten minutes with Quicksilver but not much else. Sentinels look horrible, too, and the original designs were hardly good to begin with. A waste of a film. But if it's your cup of tea - by all means, dig-in.
NATALIE FUCKS UP HER CAREER EVEN MORE ... No Strings Attached (2011) **
As painful as it sounds, I can't in good conscience blame Ashton Kutcher for this stupid excuse for a "romcom." Kutcher plays Adam and Natalie Portman is Emma. As the title gives the plot away, instead of a romantic relationship, Emma forces (?) Adam to just have sex with her and this is the comedy ... I guess. Though, Ivan Reitman takes no chances and brings in rapper Chris Ludacris Bridges, Kevin Kline (yes that Kevin) ... but what's the point? Not a total waste of time but really damn near close. I would only give it two stars because some people might find some material here funny. This film definitely proves that comedy is incredibly hard and that Kutcher and Portman just aren't good in these kinds of things.
But unfortunately one can't leave the issue at Portman making a perhaps unwise choice. No. She is the executive producer of this monster and deserves some serious ass-raping. Presumably the thinking of Team Portman was to make Natalie really no longer a good girl and push her to some silly porn girl extreme. But several sad problems arise - for anyone daring to look close - even at the visual level. NATALIE LOOKS OLD!! So making her into old porn whore just feels creepy. Another problem is that this oversexed persona is too silly to maintain seriously - and, in any case, no real nudity appears here. But to be fair, I found her being naked in Closer just as laughable and overdone.
Presumably, there is a story that can have Natalie Portman naked (and apparently she WANTS to be naked) and we can see her and not laugh, cry, or wince. But this disgusting excuse that she helped bring to the screen - and made money from - surely isn't it. Too clever by half and over-marketed in the extreme. Not one of the worst sex comedies but perhaps a classic in the top forty.
Production year: 2011
Country: USA
Runtime: 108 mins
Directors: Ivan Reitman
Cast: Ashton Kutcher, Cary Elwes, Chris Ludacris Bridges, Greta Gerwig, Jake M Johnson, Kevin Kline, Lake Bell, Natalie Portman, Talia Balsam
But unfortunately one can't leave the issue at Portman making a perhaps unwise choice. No. She is the executive producer of this monster and deserves some serious ass-raping. Presumably the thinking of Team Portman was to make Natalie really no longer a good girl and push her to some silly porn girl extreme. But several sad problems arise - for anyone daring to look close - even at the visual level. NATALIE LOOKS OLD!! So making her into old porn whore just feels creepy. Another problem is that this oversexed persona is too silly to maintain seriously - and, in any case, no real nudity appears here. But to be fair, I found her being naked in Closer just as laughable and overdone.
Presumably, there is a story that can have Natalie Portman naked (and apparently she WANTS to be naked) and we can see her and not laugh, cry, or wince. But this disgusting excuse that she helped bring to the screen - and made money from - surely isn't it. Too clever by half and over-marketed in the extreme. Not one of the worst sex comedies but perhaps a classic in the top forty.
Production year: 2011
Country: USA
Runtime: 108 mins
Directors: Ivan Reitman
Cast: Ashton Kutcher, Cary Elwes, Chris Ludacris Bridges, Greta Gerwig, Jake M Johnson, Kevin Kline, Lake Bell, Natalie Portman, Talia Balsam
FREDDY KRUEGER AT HIS BEST BEFORE HE DIES A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987) ***
Arguably, the final installment of the Elm Street series is better or even New Nightmare (if it should be included) or even the first Nightmare. But in terms of CLASSIC Freddy, this installment is clearly the best. The third Nightmare has serial killer Freddy Krueger returns to plague a new set of victims. But here there is a notable twist in that his main opponent is Nancy (Heather Langenkamp) his enemy from the first film who has grown up to become a "dream" counselor.
Robert Englund hardly needs any praise. His classical training shines once again. But Craig Wasson deserves mention since his supporting role is crucial not just in motivating the story but in providing some of the saddest and most provocative scenes in the film. What's really interesting is just how psychologically real everyone feels. The "dream warriors" refers to kids in a mental hospital who each tap into a special power - but that's the surface material and despite some impressive special effects really don't matter in the end. (Actually, in one case, a dream warrior turns out to be more powerful than Freddy but still loses!!)
Truth be told, this is Langenkamp's picture and she gives us one of the cinema's lamentably forgotten heroines' best performances. In terms of Freddy being scary AND funny - this picture, literally, has it all - from old cast members returning to the most up-to-date effects (for their time) and we even learn Freddy's origin. Not a perfect film by austere horror standards - Michael is still king there - but the Nightmare series at least goes out on a strong note.
Robert Englund hardly needs any praise. His classical training shines once again. But Craig Wasson deserves mention since his supporting role is crucial not just in motivating the story but in providing some of the saddest and most provocative scenes in the film. What's really interesting is just how psychologically real everyone feels. The "dream warriors" refers to kids in a mental hospital who each tap into a special power - but that's the surface material and despite some impressive special effects really don't matter in the end. (Actually, in one case, a dream warrior turns out to be more powerful than Freddy but still loses!!)
Truth be told, this is Langenkamp's picture and she gives us one of the cinema's lamentably forgotten heroines' best performances. In terms of Freddy being scary AND funny - this picture, literally, has it all - from old cast members returning to the most up-to-date effects (for their time) and we even learn Freddy's origin. Not a perfect film by austere horror standards - Michael is still king there - but the Nightmare series at least goes out on a strong note.
RUSSELL CROWE EARNS HIS CROWN Gladiator (2000) ***
It's difficult to remember that Gladiator was a very big risk when it came out. Russell Crowe who plays Maximus was by no means a major star and the script was essentially non-existent. There are, to be sure, many faults here. But they are, thankfully, in the minor-problems category.
The film has Joaquin Phoenix's Commodus, a pretty strong candidate for one of the best movie villains ever created, usurp the throne to the Roman Empire and exile Maximus. Most of the film is about Maximus recovering and returning to Rome, secretly, and, then, openly as "Spainard," a ruthless gladiator. There are so many juicy scenes - many improvised - it's difficult to know where to begin. But the basic fact is Crowe is able to maintain a good balance between being heroic (reluctantly) and a plain man caught up in a web of lies and deceit.
Still, Crowe and Joaquin wouldn't be as good without some powerful supporting performances by Connie Nielsen, Djimon Hounsou, and Derek Jacobi to round out the drama unfolded masterfully by Ridley Scott. Nor should one underestimate the solidity of the script that does emerge or the splendor in recreating Rome by Scott. Scott is often uneven - but here he isn't. Too postmodern in places and the narrative logic doesn't strictly hold up either if one looks close enough. All in all (and this is how any film must be judged), a rousing film by any standard. This is Oliver Reed's last film role before dying.
RATING: R
The film has Joaquin Phoenix's Commodus, a pretty strong candidate for one of the best movie villains ever created, usurp the throne to the Roman Empire and exile Maximus. Most of the film is about Maximus recovering and returning to Rome, secretly, and, then, openly as "Spainard," a ruthless gladiator. There are so many juicy scenes - many improvised - it's difficult to know where to begin. But the basic fact is Crowe is able to maintain a good balance between being heroic (reluctantly) and a plain man caught up in a web of lies and deceit.
Still, Crowe and Joaquin wouldn't be as good without some powerful supporting performances by Connie Nielsen, Djimon Hounsou, and Derek Jacobi to round out the drama unfolded masterfully by Ridley Scott. Nor should one underestimate the solidity of the script that does emerge or the splendor in recreating Rome by Scott. Scott is often uneven - but here he isn't. Too postmodern in places and the narrative logic doesn't strictly hold up either if one looks close enough. All in all (and this is how any film must be judged), a rousing film by any standard. This is Oliver Reed's last film role before dying.
RATING: R
Sunday, July 13, 2014
THE KUTCHER EFFECT? Butterfly Effect (2004) *1/2
Butterfly Effect stars Ashton Kutcher and Amy Smart as lovers tragically fated ... until Evan (Kutcher) discovers time travel and seeks to reorder the past. This is a dark psychological thriller and, at places, delivers the goods. But there are far too stupid moments clogging up the script.
Why does Kayleigh's brother have to be such a psycho? Why does Evan have the power - or how - to travel in time?? Why is Se7en in the picture?!?! It's tempting to blame Kutcher here as with a lot his misfires but the truth is there are serious problems all around. Smart is good as always but she's got nothing to do.
Stars: Ashton Kutcher, Amy Smart, Elden Henson, William Lee Scott, Melora Walters, Ethan Suplee and Eric Stoltz.
Writer-directors Jonathan Mackye Gruber and Eric Bress
New Line Cinema
Why does Kayleigh's brother have to be such a psycho? Why does Evan have the power - or how - to travel in time?? Why is Se7en in the picture?!?! It's tempting to blame Kutcher here as with a lot his misfires but the truth is there are serious problems all around. Smart is good as always but she's got nothing to do.
Stars: Ashton Kutcher, Amy Smart, Elden Henson, William Lee Scott, Melora Walters, Ethan Suplee and Eric Stoltz.
Writer-directors Jonathan Mackye Gruber and Eric Bress
New Line Cinema
MURDER BY MISERY! Misery (1990) ***
SLIPPED AWAY! SLIPPED AWAY? SHE DIDN'T JUST SLIP AWAY! YOU DID IT! YOU DID IT! YOU DID IT! YOU MURDERED MY MISERY!
Annie
Paul Sheldon (James Caan) is the mediocre writer of gothic novels starring Misery Chastain. But he wants to move on. Finishing up a manuscript in Colorado, he unfortunately crashes but is saved by Annie Wilkes (Kathy Bates), a kind nurse. But this is based on Stephen King book so the good times can't last. It turns out is a psycho - no big shock here being as she tells us Paul's "number one fan."
So she intends to inflict a lot of said misery on Paul (and does!) to bring her heorine back from the dead. Far inferior to the novel but then that is a deconstructive look at the writing process. This is a superior thriller about a fan meeting a celebrity author and torturing him with impunity. The writing and direction for most of the film are superb - especially one grisly scene. But the concluding scenes are terrible and diverge from the book greatly by introducing a very phony epiphany by Sheriff John T. "Buster" McCain played by Richard Farnsworth
Would there be a better way to end things? Can't say. The director and writer settle for less in this solid but unambitious adaptation.
Trivia: Bates won a Best Actress Oscar in 1990 for the role.
Director: Rob Reiner Writers: Stephen King (novel), William Goldman (screenplay)
Stars: James Caan, Kathy Bates, Richard Farnsworth
Soundtracks SHOTGUN Performed by Jr. Walker & The All Stars (as Junior Walker & The Allstars) Courtesy of Motown Record Company, L.P. Written by Junior Walker (as Autry DeWalt) Published by Stone Agate Music A division of Jobete Music Co., Inc.
Annie
Paul Sheldon (James Caan) is the mediocre writer of gothic novels starring Misery Chastain. But he wants to move on. Finishing up a manuscript in Colorado, he unfortunately crashes but is saved by Annie Wilkes (Kathy Bates), a kind nurse. But this is based on Stephen King book so the good times can't last. It turns out is a psycho - no big shock here being as she tells us Paul's "number one fan."
So she intends to inflict a lot of said misery on Paul (and does!) to bring her heorine back from the dead. Far inferior to the novel but then that is a deconstructive look at the writing process. This is a superior thriller about a fan meeting a celebrity author and torturing him with impunity. The writing and direction for most of the film are superb - especially one grisly scene. But the concluding scenes are terrible and diverge from the book greatly by introducing a very phony epiphany by Sheriff John T. "Buster" McCain played by Richard Farnsworth
Would there be a better way to end things? Can't say. The director and writer settle for less in this solid but unambitious adaptation.
Trivia: Bates won a Best Actress Oscar in 1990 for the role.
Director: Rob Reiner Writers: Stephen King (novel), William Goldman (screenplay)
Stars: James Caan, Kathy Bates, Richard Farnsworth
Soundtracks SHOTGUN Performed by Jr. Walker & The All Stars (as Junior Walker & The Allstars) Courtesy of Motown Record Company, L.P. Written by Junior Walker (as Autry DeWalt) Published by Stone Agate Music A division of Jobete Music Co., Inc.
THE REVOLUTION ... NOT!!!! Matrix Revolutions (2003) BOMB/*
All right! This is it! Now you all know me, so I'm gonna say this as simply as I can. If it's our time to die, it's our time. All I ask is, if we have to give these bastards our lives... WE GIVE 'EM HELL BEFORE WE DO!
Mifune
Even as not-to-bright directors, the Wachowski Brothers truly stink up their last installment. Granted, there's not much left to ruin since Reloaded pretty much exhausted every trick produced in the first film. Still even as bad films go, this one really seems to strive for nothingness.
The film can't even seem to wait to jump the shark as Neo is knocked around easily by a new character called the Trainman who is able to do this ... because?!? Even going through the rest of the plot is pointless because no one cares. There is virtually no real plot in any case since the action centers on Neo's willingess to sacrifice himself and since he is - there's not much tension. Even more atrocious is the breaking of "rules" in this movie where Neo is God one minute ... then powerless ... then ...
In any case, the major league fight at the end is meaningless since both Smith and Neo are so powerful. And, by now, any pretense to real philosophy has been or was drowned in endless advertisements and tie-ins. The original itself was never that good or even inspiring. But, at least, it had some (derived) style and vision. This is just a clunky, overlong mess that as Mifune's "dialogue" seems to signal gave up a long time ago. A disappointing effort all-round.
RATING: R
TIME: 130 minutes
GENRE: Science Fiction
STARRING: Keanu Reeves, Carrie-Anne Moss, Laurence Fishburne, Hugo Weaving, and Jada Pinkett-Smith
DIRECTORS / WRITERS: The Wachowski Brothers
PRODUCERS: Joel Silver
EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS: Andy Wachowski, Larry Wachowski, Grant Hill, Andrew Mason, and Bruce Berman
DISTRIBUTOR: Warner Bros.
Mifune
Even as not-to-bright directors, the Wachowski Brothers truly stink up their last installment. Granted, there's not much left to ruin since Reloaded pretty much exhausted every trick produced in the first film. Still even as bad films go, this one really seems to strive for nothingness.
The film can't even seem to wait to jump the shark as Neo is knocked around easily by a new character called the Trainman who is able to do this ... because?!? Even going through the rest of the plot is pointless because no one cares. There is virtually no real plot in any case since the action centers on Neo's willingess to sacrifice himself and since he is - there's not much tension. Even more atrocious is the breaking of "rules" in this movie where Neo is God one minute ... then powerless ... then ...
In any case, the major league fight at the end is meaningless since both Smith and Neo are so powerful. And, by now, any pretense to real philosophy has been or was drowned in endless advertisements and tie-ins. The original itself was never that good or even inspiring. But, at least, it had some (derived) style and vision. This is just a clunky, overlong mess that as Mifune's "dialogue" seems to signal gave up a long time ago. A disappointing effort all-round.
RATING: R
TIME: 130 minutes
GENRE: Science Fiction
STARRING: Keanu Reeves, Carrie-Anne Moss, Laurence Fishburne, Hugo Weaving, and Jada Pinkett-Smith
DIRECTORS / WRITERS: The Wachowski Brothers
PRODUCERS: Joel Silver
EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS: Andy Wachowski, Larry Wachowski, Grant Hill, Andrew Mason, and Bruce Berman
DISTRIBUTOR: Warner Bros.
FEAR OF JENNIFER LAWRENCE'S BODY? The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013) **1/2
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire picks up with Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen now in love (at least, in the media's eyes) with Peeta Mellark. The main attraction is going to be yet (another) round of brutal to-the-death-traps Katniss is going to have survive. The story and acting are good and above average but something in this series keeps failing to connect. Here the obvious problem - if not a bad one - is the camera's weird relationship to Lawrence's body. The camera is often deliberately distant from her. Which is good since oversexed superheroines have been done to death and the character development portrayed is (mostly) credible. But, in the end, it's hard to take a story seriously where Katniss, at one moment, is courageous and clever and the next can't help but fall for the most seemingly obvious ploys from the male characters. But a (female) associate assures Katniss is much smarter in the novels.
ORIGINS OF AN OVERUSED PREMISE The Most Dangerous Game (1932) **
This world's divided into two kinds of people: the hunter and the hunted. Luckily I'm the hunter. Nothing can change that.
Bob RainsfordThe Most Dangerous Game when it was released was perceived clearly a deep and ponderous film. By today's standards, unfortunately, there's not much to praise. Leslie Banks as Count Zaroff hunts Bob Rainsford (Joel McCrea) on an isolated island. Undoubtedly, there's a lot of Nietzschean/nihilism contained in Zaroff's madness but the overacting is so severe (even by the period's standards). Still, the film is bearable but it's primary value is seeing as the first of many films exploiting the slick premise of poor people hunted by overrich hunters. The Ice-T version is much more effective - though not by much.
THE TOP OF THE WORST Battlefield Earth (2000) BOMB BOMB BOMB
John Travolta's Battlefield Earth is unforgivable on so many levels it's hard to know where to begin. It is meant to be - first or foremost (seriously) - a propaganda film FOR L. Ron and the Scientology cult/religion Travolta is a part of. One's religious or political views are certainly legitimate. But Travlota just isn't in the same league as Spike Lee, Oliver Stone, or even Lucas. It's even pointless to bother with plot synopsis. Essentially, this is an overblown slaves-rebel-against-the-empire-analogy films. Since slavery and genocide are serious subjects its beyond atrocious how badly they are utilized here. The costumes are bad and stupid. The plot keeps generating so logical holes one thinks an algorithm was programmed to INTENTIONALLY make the film unwatchable. And the characters are all so cardboard, wooden, and unsympathetic it's hard to root for any side. Even as camp this film fails miserably. It takes itself far too seriously but then even its comic moments are done badly too. The director(s??) and writer(s??) J.D. Shapiro can't be blamed since Travolta FORCED the studio to do the project. His career took a severe body-blow - and he DESERVES it. Trash beyond trash. Makes Showgirls into Casablanca by comparison. Recommended solely to laugh at and even then it's hard going. Sometimes the Razzies get it wrong but this time ... not enough bad things to say about this particular pic.
NEITHER GREAT NOR TERRIBLE The Lord of the Rings (1978) **
Ralph Bakshi's take on J.R.R. Tolkien's much-beloved trilogy is heart-wrenching labor of love. But, alas, I have judge the results and not pain and effort it took to get this picture done. This is not a literal adaptation but a severe attempt to shorten (impossibly) a 1,000 page book. Actually, Tolkien intended a single book - the trilogy is a product of editorial intervention. Still one big book is different from a big movie - even a two-hour plus masterpiece. Bakshi is good but not good enough. Major points must come off since the animations LOOKS AWFUL, both comparatively and by itself (Strider looks especially bad here). To be sure, it's an interesting idea to not go for traditional animation but the pay-off is sporadic. And Bakshi's decision of what to include and what to leave out is mind-boggling.
To be sure, the core of the story is still here. Frodo, Sam, and Gollum come together in a battle to decide the fate for Middle Earth. Some scenes do stand out as far superior to even the Peter Jackson adaptations. The problem is Bakshi is trying to do too much is stuck between making a great animated film and making just a great epic. Neither entirely works. This is a two-star film. BUT IT IS A GREAT TWO STARS! Not to be missed. But seeing the animated Hobbit is mandatory or a newcomer will be hopelessly lost. One suspects even more attempts to redo The Lord of the Rings will let this rest as superior, middling spot of adaptations.
To be sure, the core of the story is still here. Frodo, Sam, and Gollum come together in a battle to decide the fate for Middle Earth. Some scenes do stand out as far superior to even the Peter Jackson adaptations. The problem is Bakshi is trying to do too much is stuck between making a great animated film and making just a great epic. Neither entirely works. This is a two-star film. BUT IT IS A GREAT TWO STARS! Not to be missed. But seeing the animated Hobbit is mandatory or a newcomer will be hopelessly lost. One suspects even more attempts to redo The Lord of the Rings will let this rest as superior, middling spot of adaptations.
ENTER THE CONNERY! Rising Sun (1993) ***
Philip Kaufman's Rising Sun is a clever, post-modern adaptation of Michael Crichton's novel. The film is often attacked as xenophobic - and that undercurrent is there - but the more fascinating thing is just how fun, clever, and self-assured the film is about the corporate politics of power and corruption. Sean Connery is a retired Los Angeles police detective who acts as a mentor the hot-headed
Wesley Snipes. Ostensibly, they are trying to resolve the muder of pretty young model murdered in the board room of a large Japanese corporation - one about to the seal a merger so controversial even DC politicians are commenting on it.
Unless one is a 1990s baby a lot of the subtle fun the film is having is going to fly over one's head but if one knows a little about recent history, this film is going to be a real treat. It's also stunningly interesting despite talk substituting mostly for action but when action does come it packs the punch it should. The final twist is, alas, a little too smug and doesn't do justice to the build-up in tension. Still, for three-fourths of the way this is a well-made piece of entertainment. Harvey Keitel plays a nice supporting role as a cop with shifting allegiances.
Unless one is a 1990s baby a lot of the subtle fun the film is having is going to fly over one's head but if one knows a little about recent history, this film is going to be a real treat. It's also stunningly interesting despite talk substituting mostly for action but when action does come it packs the punch it should. The final twist is, alas, a little too smug and doesn't do justice to the build-up in tension. Still, for three-fourths of the way this is a well-made piece of entertainment. Harvey Keitel plays a nice supporting role as a cop with shifting allegiances.
ONLY HALF A FILM Get Rich or Die Tryin' (2005) **
Director Jim Sheridan is clearly trying to his best and Curtis Jackson can act but Get Rich or Die Tryin' is one confusing picture. After the success of 8 Miles, it seemed inevitable that 50 would take his movie-like life to the big screen. But there's a tactical error. 8 Miles is about BATTLING; is it NOT nor meant to be about Marshall Mathers. But Get Rich or Die Tryin' seems to try to be about 50 ... sort of. But then it tries to about the politics of drug dealing ... but then it tries to be about the infamous 50-vs.-Ja ... well, you get the picture, this film bounces around so much it should be called DOCUMENTING SOME CRAZY RAP CATZ IN THE YEAR 2002.
Returning to the plot: 50 is Marcus, a drug dealer attempting rap superstardom. But fiction and real life soon get intertwined in truly bizarre - even time traveling ways (how can the Kerry Commission be playing TODAY?!). That a tough childhood can be fodder for great works of art is obvious as Dickson demontrated. The problem is 50's life is actually more interesting; his family loved him. The family Marcus has to deal with as well the record industry portrayed are so unsympathetic it's hard for a viewer to cling to anyone to care about including Marcus. The best character is one called Justice but he's relegated to a few lines. Still there are some funny moments by one actor trying to be Ja Rule (?). Strictly for the hardcore fans. Get Rich or Die Tryin' is more interesting as to what might have been created, alas.
Returning to the plot: 50 is Marcus, a drug dealer attempting rap superstardom. But fiction and real life soon get intertwined in truly bizarre - even time traveling ways (how can the Kerry Commission be playing TODAY?!). That a tough childhood can be fodder for great works of art is obvious as Dickson demontrated. The problem is 50's life is actually more interesting; his family loved him. The family Marcus has to deal with as well the record industry portrayed are so unsympathetic it's hard for a viewer to cling to anyone to care about including Marcus. The best character is one called Justice but he's relegated to a few lines. Still there are some funny moments by one actor trying to be Ja Rule (?). Strictly for the hardcore fans. Get Rich or Die Tryin' is more interesting as to what might have been created, alas.
WOLVERINE AND SOME OTHER UNKNOWN PEOPLE FIGHT THE APOCALYPSE X2 (2003) **1/2
Since X2 has such a fond place in people's hearts there should be a little of explanation for giving it a mere "OK." There needs to be some congratulation for juggling so many characters. But praise needs some balance. At the beginning, Magneto is still in his plastic prison but a sudden assassination attempt destablizes everything. It becomes rather obvious covert government operative, William Stryker, and old-time foe of Xavier is behind it and is planning a jihad against all mutantkind. Alas, like EVERY X-film, this film is just really a Wolverine-and-Chuck film in disguise. Which is fine by me but it strains the script to needlessly include Rogue, Iceman, and (new character) Pyro.
One might wish to include Lady Deathstrike but she is radically transformed in this film calling her character is pointless. Could a better film have been tried? Sure. The problem is the decision to keep making the X-Men films into just variations on Wolverine, Magneto, and Professor X debating one another over the use of violence. The X-Men are more than just two people and NOT EVERYTHING reduces to one Darwinian reference or another. A good film and some very funny jokes included indeed but for whatever reason studios seem to keep limited these characters to Wolvie and His Less Famous Friends. Both Shadowcat and Beast appear in cameo roles.
One might wish to include Lady Deathstrike but she is radically transformed in this film calling her character is pointless. Could a better film have been tried? Sure. The problem is the decision to keep making the X-Men films into just variations on Wolverine, Magneto, and Professor X debating one another over the use of violence. The X-Men are more than just two people and NOT EVERYTHING reduces to one Darwinian reference or another. A good film and some very funny jokes included indeed but for whatever reason studios seem to keep limited these characters to Wolvie and His Less Famous Friends. Both Shadowcat and Beast appear in cameo roles.
THE DISCREET EVILS OF THE BOURGEOISIE Barry Lyndon (1975) ***1/2
Kubrick is up to as always many tricky things but what he is clearly NOT doing is making an art or pioture film. Most people complain the film focuses too much on the beauty of the landscape and paintings of the period. But the film's message - as I read it - is the opposite. It's about the sheer evil that the paintings and music hide and mask. Kubrick isn't celebrating the period but mocking its own self-pretensions. Barry's various duels and card games aren't so much about the joy of a past era as much as man's seemingly inescapable journey towards self-destruction.
Kubrick fans will recognize the theme is more or less the same ones explored in 2001 though here Kubrick goes for verbal overkill. There are also a lot of clear aesthetic contradictions to chuckle at. There is a lot to enjoy here but anyone that sees the film and isn't horrified has misread Kubrick's attempt at self-parody.
LEGEND OR LAZY? Psycho (1960) ***1/2
_shower_scene.jpg)
Psycho should be seen at least three times by any discerning film-goer, the first time for the sheer terror of the experience...the second time for the macabre comedy inherent in the conception of the film; and the third for all the hidden meanings and symbols lurking beneath the surface...
Andrew SarrisAlfred Hitchcock's Psycho is not original in either the literal or metaphoric sense. Based on Robert Bloch's novel and Joseph Stefano's script, Hitchock has crafted a decidely weird thriller. Actually, this is two films in one which makes it hard to judge. Ostensibly, the film is about lovers Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) and Sam Loomis (John Gavin) wanting to marry but needing money. Marion steals $40,000 from her employer and flees to the Bates Motel and meets a strange man called Norman and his mother and the rest is as they say history. Purely, as a filmmaking experience, this film is hard to top. Though everyone points to the infamous shower scene, some of the most effective images come very early and late in the film. I won't spoil them but like many films in the genre, the real thrill is being wrapped in the characers' varied paranoia. Remember this film came out BEFORE the Kennedy assassination so the film is pushing things very close to the edge. By now, unfortunately, outmoded by more sophisticated fare or just more gory material (the Saw series comes to mind), Psycho is a classic that earns its praise though perhaps overrated. Rope is a better picture and more philosophic. And some logical problems are too much to stomach - like how can Norman project his voice so well?? But putting these minor quibbles in their place this film does deliver the goods and some genuine (though far too few) scares.
HITLERISM AS GREEK HEROISM 300 (2007) **
Zack Snyder's 300 really is as bas as advertised. It's a silly, juvenile fascist fantasy. Based on the graphic novel by Frank Miller and Lynn Varley by the same name, 300 has King Leonidas (Gerard Butler) engage in a personal war against Persia's King Xerxes. Although the movie isn't a literal adaptation, Snyder does faithful to (most of) Miller's vision. The real issue is slavery versus freedom as the Spartans are meant to represent the forces of Western progress and so on and so on. There was indeed a famous Battle of Thermopylae that had 300 Spartans sacrifice themselves.
BUT Leonidas had 4000 men fighting under him. In any case, Spartans were notorious slave-owners. Accurate this film is not. But, more critically, some critical elements are missing in this film translation. Miller's 300 is more subtle and more humorous - elements sorely missing here. But even at the purely visual level Snyder is too derivative and brings nothing to the table except letting the CGI go wild. There are too many good things in 300 to write it off completely as a perverse neo-Nazi, wish-fulfillment. Yet it comes damn close; too close for comfort.
Invasion U.S.A. (1985) *1/2
Joseph Zito's Invasion U.S.A. starring Chuck Norris is instructive on many levels. It isn't a stupid or dumb film by any means. On the contrary, from the first, incredible, scene, Chuck is hunting big game. The dilemma is that he simply lacks the intelligence - not to mention a good enough script - to pull off what he is attempting. Norris is Matt Hunter, a retired CIA agent who lives in the Florida Everglades. When a communist invasion (yes COMMUNIST), led by Russian terrorist, Rostov (I think he's meant to be Russian), it's up to Chuck ... well, you get the picture.
But Chuck is trying to do some serious ideological deconstruction he has not just Rostov but a Libyan-looking goon, an Arab second-in-command, and apparently Vietnamese communist aiding his evil schemes. A moment's thought renders this right-wing fantasy beyond the comprehensible. Allegedly Rostov is POSING as a terrorist - not a Russian-backed one - ergo this is apparently why the US government can't retaliate agains the mounting terrorist attacks Chuck is stopping. But since it doesn't take too much to discover Rostov is on the side of the USSR wouldn't the US just threaten nuclear retaliation ... well, whatever. A fun film but so politically reactionary and paranoid only a dedicated right-winger can truly stomach this glorious stupidity.
Night of the Living Dead (1968) ***
Night of the Living Dead is George A. Romero's break-out film though it, alas, typecast him for life. Romero does a lot given the budget constraints. The film acts as a fairly obvious analogy to the Vietnam War. It can't be said this the strongest entry in the zombie genre or even in Romero's many incarnations of his own basic story. Probably the most memorable aspects of this film are its poltiics. Though they are understated. Having a black protagonist was a huge statement onto itself even in, yes, 1968. The story in this film is too small to fit the director's ambition. But the movie relies mostly on the basis of atmosphere and this film has it in spades. A minor classic, at best, but worth looking at beyond Romero's hardcore audience.
Saturday, July 12, 2014
OH NO THEY DIDN'T!!! Don't Be a Menace to South Central While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood (1996) ***
Don't Be a Menace to South Central While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood is a parody of the so-called hood movies that pervaded the early 1990s. The sad thing is given so many potential targets, the film only focuses on a handful of juicy subjects. Everything from Jungle Fever to South Central to Do the Right Thing to Boyz n the Hood and (obviously) Menace II Society are mined for humor. Shawn Wayans stars as Ashtray (or Tray for short) and his crazed gun-toting cousin Loc Dog (Marlon Wayans), "militant" Preach (Chris Spencer), and Crazy Legs (Suli McCullough). Recounting plot is pointless since the film is enjoyable mainly in its attitude in defying the rules of logic and story-telling. Definitely a superior entry in these kinds of films. But one will be surprised at how conservative the film is at the end. Marlon's Loc Dog is alone worth the price of admission. Also features many cameos from stars of the parodied films.
DEPALMA AT HIS PEAK The Untouchables (1987) ***
Director Brian De Palm seems to have no middle range. This is him at his most over-the-top and yet it still manages to work. The Untouchables (1987) has a young and unseasoned Elliot Ness (Kevin Costner)
1987) as he takes on Al Capone (Robert De Niro) in 1920s America. Tutored on the "Chicago Way" by Malone (Sean Connery), Ness makes numerous mistakes in strategy and tactics before gaining the upperhand in battling Capone. The only complaint is that this is a bit of false advertising since DeNiro really is around for a very small amount of time. On the other hand, his performance is to self-consciously stylistic perhaps this is a good thing. Not historically accurate by far. But as an exercise in filmmaking, well worth seeing and enjoying.
THE MATRIX BEFORE THE MATRIX Seconds (1966) **
John Frankenheimer has done much better films, even in the strange conspiracy genre (Manchurian Candidate). Still Seconds (no pun intended) has its moments. This is basically an elongated Twilight Zone episode. Arthur Hamilton (John Randolph) is a faceless Manhattan businessman living a boring, staid life with his wife in the New York suburbs. He is offered a strange deal by old friend (Murray Hamilton) whom he thought had died.
The friend leads Arthur him to The Company run by The Old Man (Will Geer). The Company promises Arthur a new identity and new life. Reemerging as a new, younger self (Tony Wilson as played by Rock Hudson). Initally, Tony/Arthur enjoyes his new life but soon doubts creep in. The film isn't brave enough to take this intriguing premise to its conclusion. But it's fascinating to see the conspiracy genre at its beginning. Not highly recommended but not a waste of time either.
The friend leads Arthur him to The Company run by The Old Man (Will Geer). The Company promises Arthur a new identity and new life. Reemerging as a new, younger self (Tony Wilson as played by Rock Hudson). Initally, Tony/Arthur enjoyes his new life but soon doubts creep in. The film isn't brave enough to take this intriguing premise to its conclusion. But it's fascinating to see the conspiracy genre at its beginning. Not highly recommended but not a waste of time either.
Apocalypse Now (1979) *1/2
Apocalypse Now is the infamous 1979 Vietnam War epic Francis Ford Coppola helmed. There isn't enough space to detail the problems the film had but to be fair to Coppola this film is, yes, one fot the FIRST MAJOR films on Vietnam. Even years after the war ended, the studios were too nervous to do ANY film on the subject. So that the film is disappointing on many levels has to be seen in perspective. The film centers on Martin Sheen as Captain Willard sent to find mystery man (Marlon Brando). Many have found this is a hypnotic, exisential interpretation of the war-is-hell genre. Granted, there are moments of brilliance like Robert Duvall muttering his now-classic napalm line. But this film is, basically, an incoherent mess and one that relies too much on style. It's not deep or penetrating or even unpatriotic - it is a self-indulgent piece of idiocy and Brando's absurdist rants at the end actually come off as slightly sane compared to some of the silliness filmed earler. Not recommended except for film historians. Harrison Ford has a crucial cameo at the beginning.
THE NES DREAM MOVIE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN The Wizard (1989) **
Todd Holland's The Wizard (or Joy Stick Heroes ..., Game Over, Gameboy depending on your casette) is a 1989 adventure comedy-drama film starring Fred Savage. The premise is seemingly simple and even inviting. Savage's brother is a kind of Rainman of videogames so they decide to hitchhike to have him enter a massive video game competition. What's amazing is the sheer cast: Christian Slater, Beau Bridges ... But it's all wasted. But is the Wizard as bad as people say it is. No (apologies to NC).
That said, the one, big disappointment is since the film is essentially supposed to be an advertisement for Nintendo, most of the games featured look awful. The use of video games at times doesn't even logically make sense (in one scene the film has the Dougle Dragon game playing - the NES version - IN AN ARCADE!).
Still, having Savage utter lines like "You got 50,000 on Dougle Dragon" can't be all bad. Unfortunately, most people aren't going to tolerate waiting for the big fight at the end that features a preview of Super Mario Brothers 3 - and it is worth the wait.
That said, the one, big disappointment is since the film is essentially supposed to be an advertisement for Nintendo, most of the games featured look awful. The use of video games at times doesn't even logically make sense (in one scene the film has the Dougle Dragon game playing - the NES version - IN AN ARCADE!).
Still, having Savage utter lines like "You got 50,000 on Dougle Dragon" can't be all bad. Unfortunately, most people aren't going to tolerate waiting for the big fight at the end that features a preview of Super Mario Brothers 3 - and it is worth the wait.
BETTER THAN EVEN THE MATRIX Dark City (1998) **1/2
Despite being released earlier, Dark City by Alex Proyas was sadly overlooked. In terms of look and perspective, the two films are amazingly similar. It wouldn't be correct to say Dark City is better since the Matrix is, at best, mediocre.
Rufus Sewell is Murdoch, a man who is plunged into a massive conspiracy by aliens to experiment on humans - but at night. (The movie never really establishes if it is set in the future or in contemporary times.) The film doesn't investigate the line between dreams versus reality as much as reality and higher forms of reality. Aided by Schreber (a pre-24 Keifer Sutherland), ostensibly helping the aliens, Murdoch slowly becomes enlightened to the conspiracy and his appointed role as a savior/messiah (again, the Matrix-like parallel is astonishing).
Sadly, the movie after its innovative beginning ends on too conventional note. Still the noir atmosphere is more genuine and consistent than the one the Matrix featured. Jennifer Connolly and William Hurt provide crucial, supporting performances.
Rufus Sewell is Murdoch, a man who is plunged into a massive conspiracy by aliens to experiment on humans - but at night. (The movie never really establishes if it is set in the future or in contemporary times.) The film doesn't investigate the line between dreams versus reality as much as reality and higher forms of reality. Aided by Schreber (a pre-24 Keifer Sutherland), ostensibly helping the aliens, Murdoch slowly becomes enlightened to the conspiracy and his appointed role as a savior/messiah (again, the Matrix-like parallel is astonishing).
Sadly, the movie after its innovative beginning ends on too conventional note. Still the noir atmosphere is more genuine and consistent than the one the Matrix featured. Jennifer Connolly and William Hurt provide crucial, supporting performances.
WHEN THE FARRELLYS WERE GREAT Kingpin (1996) ***
This is the real first film by Bobby Farrelly and Peter Farrelly. Woody Harrelson stars as Roy Munsen a bowling prodigy destroyed by Bill Murray. Roy's life goes downhill until he spots another up-and-coming Amish(!) bowler (Randy Quaid). Kingpin is probably the best the Farrellys are capable of in terms of grotesque humor and features them as their bravest and most creative before the success of Something About Mary spoiled them. But this is really my type of humor so people with soft stomachs are duly cautioned.
As good as Quaid and Harrelson, it's really Murray's pitiless performance that makes this worth returning to. It's too bad his contribution is limited, essentially, to the beginning and end of the film. The intervening episodes are amusing but really a set-up for the final confrontation at the end.
As good as Quaid and Harrelson, it's really Murray's pitiless performance that makes this worth returning to. It's too bad his contribution is limited, essentially, to the beginning and end of the film. The intervening episodes are amusing but really a set-up for the final confrontation at the end.
Thursday, July 10, 2014
THE MOST OVERLOOKED FILM OF THE CENTURY Ulee's Gold (1997) ***1/2
Ulee's Gold by writer and director Victor Nunez is a rare accomplishment. It has a very old and very young cast and it looks like little money was spent on the project. But if one lets it in, the film is a life-changer. Most fims, the majority of them, try to be novels and fail miserably. This is the rare exception and is EFFORTLESSLY lyrical, literary, and haunting. Peter Fonda Florida beekeeper Ulysses "Ulee" Jackson, a widower and Vietnam veteran.
The gold refers to the honey and there are powerful scenes of Ulee working with his bees. But the true delight is the incredible cast that features a very young Jessica Biel as teenager Casey and 9-year-old Penny (Vanessa Zima). The heart of the story - that can't be detailed but has to be seen - is about Ulee's troubled family. He is tending to grandchildren because their father is in jail.
The plot centers on Ulee's son and the troubled company that he kept that has returned. Not much more can be said than that except that the plot takes unexpected turns that make sense but are still devastating and heartwrenching. The problem in creating films like this is the necessity of time and place. Nunez has explored this territory before as his other films - Gal Young 'Un (1979), A Flash of Green (1984) and Ruby in Paradise (1993), that happened to a star a then unknown Ashley Judd — are set in Nunez's native Florida. It's a deep shame that Nunez never achieved and still has not achieved his well-earned status as a director of the first caliber. This isn't screenwriting but storytelling at it's finest and most confident. A good film from beginning to end that spiritually and emotionally leaves an impact. Perhaps the best case for considering film as a genuine form of art that is ever likely to be made.
The gold refers to the honey and there are powerful scenes of Ulee working with his bees. But the true delight is the incredible cast that features a very young Jessica Biel as teenager Casey and 9-year-old Penny (Vanessa Zima). The heart of the story - that can't be detailed but has to be seen - is about Ulee's troubled family. He is tending to grandchildren because their father is in jail.
The plot centers on Ulee's son and the troubled company that he kept that has returned. Not much more can be said than that except that the plot takes unexpected turns that make sense but are still devastating and heartwrenching. The problem in creating films like this is the necessity of time and place. Nunez has explored this territory before as his other films - Gal Young 'Un (1979), A Flash of Green (1984) and Ruby in Paradise (1993), that happened to a star a then unknown Ashley Judd — are set in Nunez's native Florida. It's a deep shame that Nunez never achieved and still has not achieved his well-earned status as a director of the first caliber. This isn't screenwriting but storytelling at it's finest and most confident. A good film from beginning to end that spiritually and emotionally leaves an impact. Perhaps the best case for considering film as a genuine form of art that is ever likely to be made.
RON HOWARD MANAGES TO DO THE IMPOSSIBLE - The Dilemma *1/2
Critics love to debate what film is the worst of all time. Truly bad films have many qualities but perhaps a make-or-break moment is when it takes actors that are able to be good even in bad films and make you cringe for their careers. In The Dilemma, director Ron Howard manages to do the impossible: he made me HATE Jennifer Connelly and Connelly is THE ONLY THING that makes seeing this film tolerable. What happened?? On paper the projects seems, at least, plausible.
Vince Vaughn, Kevin James, and Winona Ryder have done comedies and are CAPABLE of being funny but here an ostensive comedy is not just not funny but downright boring, annoying, and offensive in not even trying to be offensive. The major controvesy over The Dilemma was its gay jokes - which are so unbelievably tame that one wonders what the controversy is. The plot of course makes no logical sense or HUMAN logical sense anyway. The Dilemma is presumably about a ... dilemma? And the dilemma is (apparently) whether Ronny should tell his genius engineer/buddy Nick that Ryder is cheating on him.
How is this a dilemma ...?? Presumably, the dilemma might inhere in that this is a drama AND comedy. Unfortunately, the film is pretty vacuous at both ends. In terms of comedy - there is none. But the drama is hard to locate to - as is the plot. Entire threads and even characters (Queen Latifah) simply come and go. Nothing seems to cohere and set pieces and action scenes go on and on and on and the ostensive punchlines - telegraphed in ridiculously explicit mannerisms - are so over-the-top it seems the film is aimed at a teen audience. But that can't be right since the "humor" (such as it is) is abut relationships, committment, and so on. Part of the dilemma that The Dilemma has is perhaps Howard's decision to call his film a dilemma and making people GUESS in a COMEDY what is THE FUCKING DILEMMA ALREADY!??!
I seriously can't still figure out what that dilemma is and when calling your film a dilemma that REALLY does need explaining upfront. Vince Vaughn is playing (again) ... an annoying version of Vince Vaughn ... this WAS funny but having seen that the film merely showcases Vaughn being Vaughn being Vaughn. And even if that were funny, the drama is (supposed to be?? I'm seriously guessing) supposed to play off our sympathy for the characters. But nothing in the story makes one sympathetic to anyone but Beth (Connelly). The problem is the elements and logic never add up. If Beth is even half as intelligent as Connelly why would Beth want Ron?? Vaughn may be many attractive features but attractive to intellectual-sexy women like Connelly he is not. And Kevin James, alas, keeps relying on his fat to be funny. In short, eveyone seems to be phoning in their performances and expecting them to mean something. But anyone trying to understand the various plot twists is going to be disappointed. Mathematical puzzles have less paradoxes per second than this film. But it's sad to say the film is so bad and awful and stupid and meaningless and pointless, it is actually bearable as a case study of a Hollywood movie gone horribly wrong. Were there different scripts? Better scenes cut out??? Other actors considered?
The Dilemma is that rare critical treat: a film so fucking stupid its being there is a better joke than any joke IN the movie. Well, worth seeing as a disaster flick and a truly promising project gone terribly, terribly, terribly, terribly, terribly, terribly, terribly, terribly ... wrong. And this NOT an exageration. (HONESTLY: I actually want to know WHAT IS THE DILEMMA THE DILEMMA IS ABOUT?)
Vince Vaughn, Kevin James, and Winona Ryder have done comedies and are CAPABLE of being funny but here an ostensive comedy is not just not funny but downright boring, annoying, and offensive in not even trying to be offensive. The major controvesy over The Dilemma was its gay jokes - which are so unbelievably tame that one wonders what the controversy is. The plot of course makes no logical sense or HUMAN logical sense anyway. The Dilemma is presumably about a ... dilemma? And the dilemma is (apparently) whether Ronny should tell his genius engineer/buddy Nick that Ryder is cheating on him.
How is this a dilemma ...?? Presumably, the dilemma might inhere in that this is a drama AND comedy. Unfortunately, the film is pretty vacuous at both ends. In terms of comedy - there is none. But the drama is hard to locate to - as is the plot. Entire threads and even characters (Queen Latifah) simply come and go. Nothing seems to cohere and set pieces and action scenes go on and on and on and the ostensive punchlines - telegraphed in ridiculously explicit mannerisms - are so over-the-top it seems the film is aimed at a teen audience. But that can't be right since the "humor" (such as it is) is abut relationships, committment, and so on. Part of the dilemma that The Dilemma has is perhaps Howard's decision to call his film a dilemma and making people GUESS in a COMEDY what is THE FUCKING DILEMMA ALREADY!??!
I seriously can't still figure out what that dilemma is and when calling your film a dilemma that REALLY does need explaining upfront. Vince Vaughn is playing (again) ... an annoying version of Vince Vaughn ... this WAS funny but having seen that the film merely showcases Vaughn being Vaughn being Vaughn. And even if that were funny, the drama is (supposed to be?? I'm seriously guessing) supposed to play off our sympathy for the characters. But nothing in the story makes one sympathetic to anyone but Beth (Connelly). The problem is the elements and logic never add up. If Beth is even half as intelligent as Connelly why would Beth want Ron?? Vaughn may be many attractive features but attractive to intellectual-sexy women like Connelly he is not. And Kevin James, alas, keeps relying on his fat to be funny. In short, eveyone seems to be phoning in their performances and expecting them to mean something. But anyone trying to understand the various plot twists is going to be disappointed. Mathematical puzzles have less paradoxes per second than this film. But it's sad to say the film is so bad and awful and stupid and meaningless and pointless, it is actually bearable as a case study of a Hollywood movie gone horribly wrong. Were there different scripts? Better scenes cut out??? Other actors considered?
The Dilemma is that rare critical treat: a film so fucking stupid its being there is a better joke than any joke IN the movie. Well, worth seeing as a disaster flick and a truly promising project gone terribly, terribly, terribly, terribly, terribly, terribly, terribly, terribly ... wrong. And this NOT an exageration. (HONESTLY: I actually want to know WHAT IS THE DILEMMA THE DILEMMA IS ABOUT?)
Transformers (2007) BOMB
Transformers is ostensibly based on the famous TV series of the 1980s. Adaptations have been controversial especially in terms of fidelity. Fans of the series don't have much to hang onto here. Megatron is unrecognizable. The focus of the story is on THE HUMANS (why? isn't the show about ROBOTS?). The incredible mythology of the characters is never alluded to and rewritten completely. The only recognizable feature is the voice of Optimus Prime. And even there some changes have been made. Michael Bay is certainly capable (at times) of making a passable film as Bad Boys demonstrates. But he's simply out of his depth here.
There is virtually no story, plot, or character development. The action is loud and hard to follow. There are also many pointless, tasteless jokes and an absurd sub-plot that takes up almost THIRTY MINUTES!!! And the film keeps sexualizing cars and Megan Good's bodies - apparently forgetting some Transformers are planes! But the really devastating problem this film has it just isn't very fun. Whatever might be said about Transformers- be it the majesty or inventiveness - no episode was ever boring.
This film FEELS long and nothing distinct is added in terms of the stories or characters. Even calling it Transformers is misleading. Aside from selected visuals, this has no relation at all to the TV series or the stories contained in. There is no sense of the GENERATIONS of Transformers as a species much less myth. An almost complete failure.
There is virtually no story, plot, or character development. The action is loud and hard to follow. There are also many pointless, tasteless jokes and an absurd sub-plot that takes up almost THIRTY MINUTES!!! And the film keeps sexualizing cars and Megan Good's bodies - apparently forgetting some Transformers are planes! But the really devastating problem this film has it just isn't very fun. Whatever might be said about Transformers- be it the majesty or inventiveness - no episode was ever boring.
This film FEELS long and nothing distinct is added in terms of the stories or characters. Even calling it Transformers is misleading. Aside from selected visuals, this has no relation at all to the TV series or the stories contained in. There is no sense of the GENERATIONS of Transformers as a species much less myth. An almost complete failure.
Gravity (2014) **
Gravity is, admittedly, a tough film to review. Especially since I believe it is more properly understood as a noir - not sci-fi - film. Sandra Bullock stars as Ryan Stone (Rhinestone??), an astronaut set adrift and trying to surviveness the vastness of space. Alfonso Cuaron is a powerful and great director but he plays it too safe by half in this film. There are many brave moments - the only sounds the audience hears are jets or debris or Bullock's screams. Nevertheless this realism is tempered by incredibly beautiful - but impossible - photography of space and Earth's sun. On the one hand, the story is fairly standard, even slightly regressive. Stone is not like Ripley in Aliens nor is a proto-feminist like Jodie Foster in Contact.
Still Bullock's Stone is touching and though Cuaron (as an obvious Catholic) lays the religious metaphors on a little too thickly for my taste, one does genuinely feel Stone's redemption as she emerges triumphant after her trials and tribulations. unfortunately, the dialogue is poor and sub-standard and plot twists (except for a crucial one near the end) are far too conventional and thus rob the film of it's potential, revolutionary aesthetic. That's Ed Harris's voice heard at the beginning.
Still Bullock's Stone is touching and though Cuaron (as an obvious Catholic) lays the religious metaphors on a little too thickly for my taste, one does genuinely feel Stone's redemption as she emerges triumphant after her trials and tribulations. unfortunately, the dialogue is poor and sub-standard and plot twists (except for a crucial one near the end) are far too conventional and thus rob the film of it's potential, revolutionary aesthetic. That's Ed Harris's voice heard at the beginning.
Malcolm X (1992) **1/2
The film narrates Malcolm's life as a hustler (Detroit Red), prionser, and, finally, Muslim preacher joining the Nation of Islam. Spike Lee has always had issues dealing with black women but even by his standards, Malcolm X is incredibly condenscending. The only women that appear are either whores or loyal wives. Even more troubling or just odd is the inclusion of pointless musical interludes throughout the film. Washington certainly gives rivetting parts of Malcolm's speeches - one of the most effective at a univeristy. But, visually and politically, the film is a mess and seems uncertain whether to cast the NOI, the FBI, or Malcolm's own gullibility as the villain of the piece.
Ultimately, the film settles into a rather bland separation from the Nation and (erroneous) portrayal of his murder. Though the film does include some touching (real) scens of Malcolm overseas, Lee chooses not to include - or isn't aware of - his contacts with revolutionary leaders in Algeria or his fateful meeting with Castro. One may not agree with Malcolm's words or teachings but the film barely touches on the substance of them and provides an interesting (though false) narrative of religious redemption that is too soothing and historically inaccurate.
Showgirls (1995) BOMB?
Showgirls has been maligned as decadent, sexist, boring, and unintentionally comedic. That it was directed by Paul Verhoeven (yes, the same Paul Verhoeven that gave us Total Recall and Robocop!) is even more apalling. This is a lost opportunity. It certainly isn't a bad film. There are far worse films.
It just feels unnecessary and, incredibly, preachy about subjects that had already been treated in a much superior way by much better films including Felix the Cat and Kids. But the reptutation of this film's sheer nastiness and silliness is well earned. The major reason for finding the film difficult to swallow (no pun intended) is its sheer, unapologetic marketing. The film allegedly is meant to be taboo-shattering expose of Hollywood, pornography, and the Las Vegas culture of strip club dancing. But it's hard to understand who the producers are aiming the film at.
Elizabeth Berkley is fine as the unlikeable lead Nomi Malone (that's no typo - somehow "Nomi" is supposedly to be subverse??). But there's no motive or story behind her odyssessy. And who is naive enough not to know about the sexual abuses that occur behind the scenes of these strip clubs?? But is the film watchable? Barely. The dialogue drags on and on and the characers pile on one after another, all forgettable. For a film filled with unbelievably unsympathetic characters, it's amazing the script never manages to create a credible villain. And the nudity and erotic scenes are rather moderate. This is an overlong sexual tale about starlets seeking fame .... blah, blah, blah, blah. Interesting as a time capsule of the 1990s but not much else. Definitely not a camp classic.
It just feels unnecessary and, incredibly, preachy about subjects that had already been treated in a much superior way by much better films including Felix the Cat and Kids. But the reptutation of this film's sheer nastiness and silliness is well earned. The major reason for finding the film difficult to swallow (no pun intended) is its sheer, unapologetic marketing. The film allegedly is meant to be taboo-shattering expose of Hollywood, pornography, and the Las Vegas culture of strip club dancing. But it's hard to understand who the producers are aiming the film at.
Elizabeth Berkley is fine as the unlikeable lead Nomi Malone (that's no typo - somehow "Nomi" is supposedly to be subverse??). But there's no motive or story behind her odyssessy. And who is naive enough not to know about the sexual abuses that occur behind the scenes of these strip clubs?? But is the film watchable? Barely. The dialogue drags on and on and the characers pile on one after another, all forgettable. For a film filled with unbelievably unsympathetic characters, it's amazing the script never manages to create a credible villain. And the nudity and erotic scenes are rather moderate. This is an overlong sexual tale about starlets seeking fame .... blah, blah, blah, blah. Interesting as a time capsule of the 1990s but not much else. Definitely not a camp classic.
Truman Show (1998) ***
The Truman Show is, unfortunately, Jim Carrey's still best dramatic role. Carrey is Truman Burbank, a seemingly mild-mannered average man, but, in reality, the unsuspecting subject of the longest running TV reality show in history. His wife, friend, and even family are all actors attempting to stop his repeated attempts to escape to Fiji reunite with his true love.
Director Peter Weir is having a lot of fun not just satirizing the media but offering some serious and prescient commentary on globalization and American fears. (In one scene, Truman visits a traveling agency that warns people of, yes, TERRORIM!) That said, the plot can only trade on Carrey's charms for so long and Truman's slow realization of being in a television show could've been delivered more realistically. Was Truman ever really tricked? Did he want to believe his phony life? This film doesn't offer any simple answers.
Especially touching is how the camera repeatedly stops and returns to the "Truman Bar," where Truman fanatics debate the latest plot point. And this is indeed the message the film has: is Christoph (Ed Harris), the villain, the one imprisoning Truman or the very audience including us addicted to story of his life? Oscar-worthy performances by both Carrey and, especially, Laura Linney, as his manipulative pseudo-wife.
Director Peter Weir is having a lot of fun not just satirizing the media but offering some serious and prescient commentary on globalization and American fears. (In one scene, Truman visits a traveling agency that warns people of, yes, TERRORIM!) That said, the plot can only trade on Carrey's charms for so long and Truman's slow realization of being in a television show could've been delivered more realistically. Was Truman ever really tricked? Did he want to believe his phony life? This film doesn't offer any simple answers.
Especially touching is how the camera repeatedly stops and returns to the "Truman Bar," where Truman fanatics debate the latest plot point. And this is indeed the message the film has: is Christoph (Ed Harris), the villain, the one imprisoning Truman or the very audience including us addicted to story of his life? Oscar-worthy performances by both Carrey and, especially, Laura Linney, as his manipulative pseudo-wife.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)