Thursday, December 13, 2007
I tivoed this one back in October when TCM was showing a bunch of old horror movies, and just got around to watching it. I still have a few others to catch up on as well.
As a horror movie fan, I've been working to expand my knowledge of older genre entries. This here is a Vincent Price movie from the early 60's loosely based on the Poe story.
I saw a few Vincent Price movies when I was a kid, and I always liked Price, but never liked the movies. He is a pretty hammy actor, I suppose, but in a really good, really entertaining way. He's corny, but he's got a lot of presence, you know? I am making an effort to see some more of his films.
I'm happy to report that The Pit and the Pendulum is the first Vincent Price movie that I liked. The rest of the cast besides Price suck, and it's a little too talky, but it's entertaining. It's colorful and visually over-the-top, has a pretty good story, and some really good scenes. The last 10 minutes-ish, when we finally get to the titular pit and pendulum, are pretty awesome.
Next up, I think I will give Price's Theatre of Blood a chance. He plays a Shakespearian actor who kills off the critics that don't like his work. That sounds pretty awesome.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Bugsy
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Ok, time for some catch up.
On Wednesday I watched Bugsy, a sort of mini-epic about about mobster Benny Siegel (don't call him Bugsy, he hates that). Long story short, it's pretty good.
This is definitely the best Barry Levinson film I've ever seen, and I like how he really goes overboard with the 1940's atmosphere. I think it was nominated for costume and set design Oscars, and they may not be the best ever, but they are some of the most noticeable. They try to cram so much detail into the design of every scene, and it's a nice hyper mix of period detail and old-fashioned gangster movie glamor. The visual style is also way over the top, in a good way, with all sorts of needless montages and silhouette shots and heavy rainy scenes to make it feel like some sort of coked-up, colorized update of a 1940s movie.
And Warren Beatty is great in this. He's got a natural charm, so you can understand why people would be drawn to Siegel, and he is so enthusiastic and ingratiating, and he has a lot of great rapid fire dialogue. But then, he always has this violence boiling right under his exterior charisma, and you know sometimes with just a quick look in his eyes that he could explode at any minute. He doesn't kill a whole lot of people during the movie, but there is a lot of tension running through many of scenes because you're always aware of his potential for violence.
So by the hour mark in this film, I thought maybe I was dealing with a gangster movie classic, but it wasn't to be. It stays entertaining throughout the 2 1/2 hour running time, but I think it treats the material too seriously in the later half. If it had just stayed an energetic, stylized throwback the whole way through, I think I would have liked it better. I could have done without the way the movie tries to make us, I guess, care for Siegel and his dreams, and his girlfriend and blah blah. I mean, the guy is an evil creep and murderer, I don't sympathize with him. I will gleefully revel in his debauchery and crime, and "like" him in that sense, but I won't actually care for him. But then, you know, something dramatic happens, and some very dramatic music cues up dramatically on the soundtrack, and I think the movie is telling me that his downfall is sad. It's not.
Ok, so, not an all time classic, but still really entertaining and lovingly made, with great dialogue and a great lead performance. See it.
Ok, time for some catch up.
On Wednesday I watched Bugsy, a sort of mini-epic about about mobster Benny Siegel (don't call him Bugsy, he hates that). Long story short, it's pretty good.
This is definitely the best Barry Levinson film I've ever seen, and I like how he really goes overboard with the 1940's atmosphere. I think it was nominated for costume and set design Oscars, and they may not be the best ever, but they are some of the most noticeable. They try to cram so much detail into the design of every scene, and it's a nice hyper mix of period detail and old-fashioned gangster movie glamor. The visual style is also way over the top, in a good way, with all sorts of needless montages and silhouette shots and heavy rainy scenes to make it feel like some sort of coked-up, colorized update of a 1940s movie.
And Warren Beatty is great in this. He's got a natural charm, so you can understand why people would be drawn to Siegel, and he is so enthusiastic and ingratiating, and he has a lot of great rapid fire dialogue. But then, he always has this violence boiling right under his exterior charisma, and you know sometimes with just a quick look in his eyes that he could explode at any minute. He doesn't kill a whole lot of people during the movie, but there is a lot of tension running through many of scenes because you're always aware of his potential for violence.
So by the hour mark in this film, I thought maybe I was dealing with a gangster movie classic, but it wasn't to be. It stays entertaining throughout the 2 1/2 hour running time, but I think it treats the material too seriously in the later half. If it had just stayed an energetic, stylized throwback the whole way through, I think I would have liked it better. I could have done without the way the movie tries to make us, I guess, care for Siegel and his dreams, and his girlfriend and blah blah. I mean, the guy is an evil creep and murderer, I don't sympathize with him. I will gleefully revel in his debauchery and crime, and "like" him in that sense, but I won't actually care for him. But then, you know, something dramatic happens, and some very dramatic music cues up dramatically on the soundtrack, and I think the movie is telling me that his downfall is sad. It's not.
Ok, so, not an all time classic, but still really entertaining and lovingly made, with great dialogue and a great lead performance. See it.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Wait Until Dark
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
This week is shaping up as a good one, with a 2nd great movie I can blog about. Sweet.
Wait Until Dark is a film, as a fan of the horror cinema, I've been meaning to see for a long, long time. It's a 60's horror/suspense dealie, based on a stage play. It's about three criminals who believe that heroin is stashed in an apartment, unbeknownst to the inhabitants. The twist is, the inhabitant is a blind woman(played by Audrey Hepburn), so they concoct an elaborate con to get themselves in the apartment to look around without raising her suspicions about their motives.
Of course, Hepburn is more observant than they realize, and as she slowly starts to piece things together, the criminals' actions become more sinister.
This movie starts out more like a crime movie, and only slowly becomes a horror film as it moves along. And it's got to be one of the best shifts in tone I've ever seen in a movie, really ratcheting up the tension more and more until a truly fucking awesome last 15 minutes or so.
Hepburn seems like a weird choice for such dark material, but it turns out to be a brilliant idea. Her charm and lovableness, and the character's vulnerability seem out of place in a horror movie, but it makes us care about her more, and hence fear for her more as shit starts to hit the fan.
The blindness angle is an old standard in horror movies, and has been exploited a million times before and since. (See every Italian horror movie ever). Wait Until Dark may use it better than any other movie I've ever seen. First, it works as a gimmick to show how an otherwise intelligent woman can be manipulated. Later, to build suspense when she has no idea what the hell is going on around her.
And at the end, she breaks all the lights in her apartment, and holy shit, now the playing field is level. This last chunk of the movie is the best, when she faces off against Alan Arkin in the pitch black apartment. There is a great back and forth, as he tries to find light sources, and she tries to use sound to find him. I don't want to go into too much detail, but there is one great set piece after another, as they try to one-up each other.
Alan Arkin makes for a great villain. He is a little weird and goofy, wears these stupid beatnik glasses, and tries to project incompetence. But we realize that his oddness and incompetence is maybe a put-on to get everyone to drop their guards. You get the sense that he's a lot more dangerous than he wants you to realized. Still, I was surprised at how small his role is. His scenes are mainly confined to the first and last 15 minutes. When he shows up in the middle, it's brief and he's often in disguise. Much more prominent is Richard Crenna, as one of the other con men, but he gets billed after Arkin in the credits. I think that's probably because his role, while larger, is less memorable.
Let's wrap this up: Wait Until Dark is a bonafide classic, a must-see for any fan of thrillers and horror films. Might have to pick me up a copy one day.
This week is shaping up as a good one, with a 2nd great movie I can blog about. Sweet.
Wait Until Dark is a film, as a fan of the horror cinema, I've been meaning to see for a long, long time. It's a 60's horror/suspense dealie, based on a stage play. It's about three criminals who believe that heroin is stashed in an apartment, unbeknownst to the inhabitants. The twist is, the inhabitant is a blind woman(played by Audrey Hepburn), so they concoct an elaborate con to get themselves in the apartment to look around without raising her suspicions about their motives.
Of course, Hepburn is more observant than they realize, and as she slowly starts to piece things together, the criminals' actions become more sinister.
This movie starts out more like a crime movie, and only slowly becomes a horror film as it moves along. And it's got to be one of the best shifts in tone I've ever seen in a movie, really ratcheting up the tension more and more until a truly fucking awesome last 15 minutes or so.
Hepburn seems like a weird choice for such dark material, but it turns out to be a brilliant idea. Her charm and lovableness, and the character's vulnerability seem out of place in a horror movie, but it makes us care about her more, and hence fear for her more as shit starts to hit the fan.
The blindness angle is an old standard in horror movies, and has been exploited a million times before and since. (See every Italian horror movie ever). Wait Until Dark may use it better than any other movie I've ever seen. First, it works as a gimmick to show how an otherwise intelligent woman can be manipulated. Later, to build suspense when she has no idea what the hell is going on around her.
And at the end, she breaks all the lights in her apartment, and holy shit, now the playing field is level. This last chunk of the movie is the best, when she faces off against Alan Arkin in the pitch black apartment. There is a great back and forth, as he tries to find light sources, and she tries to use sound to find him. I don't want to go into too much detail, but there is one great set piece after another, as they try to one-up each other.
Alan Arkin makes for a great villain. He is a little weird and goofy, wears these stupid beatnik glasses, and tries to project incompetence. But we realize that his oddness and incompetence is maybe a put-on to get everyone to drop their guards. You get the sense that he's a lot more dangerous than he wants you to realized. Still, I was surprised at how small his role is. His scenes are mainly confined to the first and last 15 minutes. When he shows up in the middle, it's brief and he's often in disguise. Much more prominent is Richard Crenna, as one of the other con men, but he gets billed after Arkin in the credits. I think that's probably because his role, while larger, is less memorable.
Let's wrap this up: Wait Until Dark is a bonafide classic, a must-see for any fan of thrillers and horror films. Might have to pick me up a copy one day.
Transformers
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
This would be the Michael Bay Transformers, not the 80's cartoon movie.
I'm not sure if this means that I have bad taste, but I enjoy Michael Bay. The Rock and Bad Boys II are two of the best fucking action movies ever made, plain and simple. Transformers is not close to their level, but I do enjoy it. I liked it back when I saw it in theaters, and maybe I liked it slightly more this time. Dunno.
Michael Bay is both the best and worst thing that happened to this movie. His action kicks ass, the movie looks fucking great, he knows how to make a goofy movie but keep a straight face doing it, and he knows how to make special effects fun. (I am not usually one to praise big special effects in movies, especially CG. The best special effects in the world don't mean dick if they aren't used to create a good film. But I have to say it, the effects in Transformers are actually fun to watch all by themselves, and would be fun even if the rest of the movie sucked). Better yet, and maybe something I wasn't expecting from Bay, is how fun all the scenes with Shia LaBeouf are. He captures a lot of the wonder, and excitement, and humor of being a teenager with a robot car. It's not a realistic portrait of teenage life, but it's a great fantasy. I'm assuming some of the credit is due to Spielberg's influence, and a lot to LaBeouf himself, but still. Kudos.
But then there's all the stock Michael Bay stuff that keeps Transformers from being a great action movie. Namely, all the shit involving the military or the government or scientists. I don't know why Bay loves guys in suits sitting in control rooms barking orders, but boy does he ever. He loves people spewing a lot of meaningless technical jargon, and bureaucrats getting into pissing competitions, and computer nerds trying to say shit that sounds smart, and army guys blowing shit up.
I think maybe Bay put all this crap in the movie to make it seem more plausible. Like, he really wants to imagine how the government or military would react to robots from space. And I guess maybe he thinks that makes it seem more epic, and makes the stakes seem greater, I'm not sure. But it really sucks ass. Bay has this great, goofy story about giant fucking robots that turn into cars and fight, and he has a charismatic teenage kid that we can identify with along for the ride. Oh, and in case that's not enough, we have a hot girl to look at. That is enough awesomeness to sustain a feature film. Every time Jon Voigt shows up to bark orders at computer nerds, or some government agent drops the phrase "non-biological extraterrestrial" to I guess make the silly as story sound more believable, the movie is fucking boring.
I do have one other complaint, and it's about the All Spark. It's the coolest idea in the movie, and they completely under use it. We get to see it turn a cell phone, an XBox, an SUV and a Mountain Dew machine into killer robots, and holy shit that fucking rocks. But that's all we get to see. It's maybe about 1 minute worth of the film. I don't know about you, but I could watch a 90 minute film about innocuous electronic devices turning into missile shooting robots. The tiny cellphone robot shooting tiny missiles is the best part of the whole fucking movie. If they do part 2, I want more All Spark.
Okay, that's enough of this. Bottom line: the good stuff outweighs the bad. Transformers is good fun.
This would be the Michael Bay Transformers, not the 80's cartoon movie.
I'm not sure if this means that I have bad taste, but I enjoy Michael Bay. The Rock and Bad Boys II are two of the best fucking action movies ever made, plain and simple. Transformers is not close to their level, but I do enjoy it. I liked it back when I saw it in theaters, and maybe I liked it slightly more this time. Dunno.
Michael Bay is both the best and worst thing that happened to this movie. His action kicks ass, the movie looks fucking great, he knows how to make a goofy movie but keep a straight face doing it, and he knows how to make special effects fun. (I am not usually one to praise big special effects in movies, especially CG. The best special effects in the world don't mean dick if they aren't used to create a good film. But I have to say it, the effects in Transformers are actually fun to watch all by themselves, and would be fun even if the rest of the movie sucked). Better yet, and maybe something I wasn't expecting from Bay, is how fun all the scenes with Shia LaBeouf are. He captures a lot of the wonder, and excitement, and humor of being a teenager with a robot car. It's not a realistic portrait of teenage life, but it's a great fantasy. I'm assuming some of the credit is due to Spielberg's influence, and a lot to LaBeouf himself, but still. Kudos.
But then there's all the stock Michael Bay stuff that keeps Transformers from being a great action movie. Namely, all the shit involving the military or the government or scientists. I don't know why Bay loves guys in suits sitting in control rooms barking orders, but boy does he ever. He loves people spewing a lot of meaningless technical jargon, and bureaucrats getting into pissing competitions, and computer nerds trying to say shit that sounds smart, and army guys blowing shit up.
I think maybe Bay put all this crap in the movie to make it seem more plausible. Like, he really wants to imagine how the government or military would react to robots from space. And I guess maybe he thinks that makes it seem more epic, and makes the stakes seem greater, I'm not sure. But it really sucks ass. Bay has this great, goofy story about giant fucking robots that turn into cars and fight, and he has a charismatic teenage kid that we can identify with along for the ride. Oh, and in case that's not enough, we have a hot girl to look at. That is enough awesomeness to sustain a feature film. Every time Jon Voigt shows up to bark orders at computer nerds, or some government agent drops the phrase "non-biological extraterrestrial" to I guess make the silly as story sound more believable, the movie is fucking boring.
I do have one other complaint, and it's about the All Spark. It's the coolest idea in the movie, and they completely under use it. We get to see it turn a cell phone, an XBox, an SUV and a Mountain Dew machine into killer robots, and holy shit that fucking rocks. But that's all we get to see. It's maybe about 1 minute worth of the film. I don't know about you, but I could watch a 90 minute film about innocuous electronic devices turning into missile shooting robots. The tiny cellphone robot shooting tiny missiles is the best part of the whole fucking movie. If they do part 2, I want more All Spark.
Okay, that's enough of this. Bottom line: the good stuff outweighs the bad. Transformers is good fun.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
The Lives of Others
Monday, December 10, 2007
Ok, here we go. Finally. The first "new" movie I've watched since starting this blog that I would actually classify as great. I was going to congratulate myself for finally picking a great one off of Netflix, until I remembered that my dad actually got this. Damn.
So, I tried to write about this last night, but I was out of it or something, and all that came out was a bunch of nonsense. It was basically a long, yet vague, synopsis.
That's not what I started this blog for. Fuck synopsizing. I'm not writing professional reviews. I'm here to document all the movies I watch, and comment on them if I feel like it. What matters is that I understand these entries.
Moving on. The Lives of Others is definitely worth commenting on. I think a major part of it's appeal comes from the main character. I'm fascinated by cold, emotionally withdrawn or seemingly empty characters, and I'm a sucker for movies about loneliness. Wiesler, the main character of The Lives of Others, doesn't betray much emotion, and what little life he has seems pathetic. He has no friends, and when he asks a hooker to stay with him a few extra minutes to just hang out, she says she has to leave to meet another appointment.
It's 1984 in East Germany, and Wiesler is part of the secret police. The movie deals with his spying on a German author named Dreyman. By listening in and spying on the author's every private moment, Wiesler slowly begin to care about Dreyman, and to question his own actions and the actions of his government.
There is, obviously, a heavy political element to this movie, but I was a lot more interested in the emotional side of the tale. The actor playing Wiesler does a great job of conveying a lot of information about his character without using much emotion or dialogue. Wiesler is a limited man in terms of his feelings, but the performance suggests a great depth of loneliness and emptiness.
The film is captivating throughout, moving back and forth between character study and thriller, but I was surprised at how touching the ending was. The movie is low key and reserved, even as the thriller elements of the story build. Certain plot points, that could be melodramatic in another movie, are curiously muted, as we witness them from Wiesler's perspective. What's crucial is the way the movie lets us understand this sad, lonely man. The final scene simply involves a written message being received by Wiesler, but our knowing of what the message means, and what it means to Wiesler, is incredibly moving. The movie never pushes for big drama or forces any emotion, yet achieves great emotional power on it's own subtle way.
I think this will make the list of the all time great movies about lonely or empty characters, right up there with Le Samourai and Brokeback Mountain. Unlike the others, The Lives of Others leaves us with some hope, maybe a final sense of connection in the end. Yup, a great movie.
Ok, here we go. Finally. The first "new" movie I've watched since starting this blog that I would actually classify as great. I was going to congratulate myself for finally picking a great one off of Netflix, until I remembered that my dad actually got this. Damn.
So, I tried to write about this last night, but I was out of it or something, and all that came out was a bunch of nonsense. It was basically a long, yet vague, synopsis.
That's not what I started this blog for. Fuck synopsizing. I'm not writing professional reviews. I'm here to document all the movies I watch, and comment on them if I feel like it. What matters is that I understand these entries.
Moving on. The Lives of Others is definitely worth commenting on. I think a major part of it's appeal comes from the main character. I'm fascinated by cold, emotionally withdrawn or seemingly empty characters, and I'm a sucker for movies about loneliness. Wiesler, the main character of The Lives of Others, doesn't betray much emotion, and what little life he has seems pathetic. He has no friends, and when he asks a hooker to stay with him a few extra minutes to just hang out, she says she has to leave to meet another appointment.
It's 1984 in East Germany, and Wiesler is part of the secret police. The movie deals with his spying on a German author named Dreyman. By listening in and spying on the author's every private moment, Wiesler slowly begin to care about Dreyman, and to question his own actions and the actions of his government.
There is, obviously, a heavy political element to this movie, but I was a lot more interested in the emotional side of the tale. The actor playing Wiesler does a great job of conveying a lot of information about his character without using much emotion or dialogue. Wiesler is a limited man in terms of his feelings, but the performance suggests a great depth of loneliness and emptiness.
The film is captivating throughout, moving back and forth between character study and thriller, but I was surprised at how touching the ending was. The movie is low key and reserved, even as the thriller elements of the story build. Certain plot points, that could be melodramatic in another movie, are curiously muted, as we witness them from Wiesler's perspective. What's crucial is the way the movie lets us understand this sad, lonely man. The final scene simply involves a written message being received by Wiesler, but our knowing of what the message means, and what it means to Wiesler, is incredibly moving. The movie never pushes for big drama or forces any emotion, yet achieves great emotional power on it's own subtle way.
I think this will make the list of the all time great movies about lonely or empty characters, right up there with Le Samourai and Brokeback Mountain. Unlike the others, The Lives of Others leaves us with some hope, maybe a final sense of connection in the end. Yup, a great movie.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Knocked Up
Sunday, December 9, 2007
I decided to follow up Anchorman with Knocked Up to prolong my happiness until I went to sleep. Then, I realized I had watched Knocked Up pretty recently, and opted to view the commentary track. I've decided to include commentaries on the blog as part of the official count.
It's a funny commentary, but not the most informative. I was most interested to find out that about 50% of the movie comes right out of Judd Apatow's real life. It was also interesting to see just how much they were winging during shooting. Even though this feels a lot more tightly structured than Anchorman, they apparently were making just as much shit up as they went along. Most shocking to me was that they couldn't decide whether to make the kid a boy or a girl, so they shot alternate takes of every reference to the child's sex. You'd think that would be something they'd determine during the writing phase!
My point is, kudos to Judd Apatow for knowing how to reign in all this material and make a good movie out of it. The pacing of Knocked Up is perfect, and you'd never guess how loose the shooting style was. The more I think of it, the more I think one of these movies deserves some sort of award for the editing. More than 99% of other movies, these films really take shape during the editing process.
I like Knocked Up a lot, and it has held up to repeat viewings, but I'm still a much bigger fan of The 40 Year Old Virgin and Superbad. In think my main problem may be the cast of KU, which is a great one, but lacks a diversity of style. Too much of the movie is about Seth Rogan's character and his friends, and they are all pretty much interchangeable. Virgin and Superbad I think do a better job of fleshing out an interesting supporting characters and subplots.
Also, I think KU isn't as insightful as the other two movies are. Apatow does have a lot of insight into marriage and raising a family, but I don't know that he digs deep enough with Rogen and Katherine Heigl's relationship. Superbad and Virgin both have surprisingly touching payoffs, but I couldn't really care if Rogen and Heigl stayed together or not. The movie just relies on childbirth being touching. Which is more default than it is an earned emotional release.
Still, don't get me wrong, some very funny shit. Just falls a little short of the greatness of the other Apatow/Rogen collaborations.
I decided to follow up Anchorman with Knocked Up to prolong my happiness until I went to sleep. Then, I realized I had watched Knocked Up pretty recently, and opted to view the commentary track. I've decided to include commentaries on the blog as part of the official count.
It's a funny commentary, but not the most informative. I was most interested to find out that about 50% of the movie comes right out of Judd Apatow's real life. It was also interesting to see just how much they were winging during shooting. Even though this feels a lot more tightly structured than Anchorman, they apparently were making just as much shit up as they went along. Most shocking to me was that they couldn't decide whether to make the kid a boy or a girl, so they shot alternate takes of every reference to the child's sex. You'd think that would be something they'd determine during the writing phase!
My point is, kudos to Judd Apatow for knowing how to reign in all this material and make a good movie out of it. The pacing of Knocked Up is perfect, and you'd never guess how loose the shooting style was. The more I think of it, the more I think one of these movies deserves some sort of award for the editing. More than 99% of other movies, these films really take shape during the editing process.
I like Knocked Up a lot, and it has held up to repeat viewings, but I'm still a much bigger fan of The 40 Year Old Virgin and Superbad. In think my main problem may be the cast of KU, which is a great one, but lacks a diversity of style. Too much of the movie is about Seth Rogan's character and his friends, and they are all pretty much interchangeable. Virgin and Superbad I think do a better job of fleshing out an interesting supporting characters and subplots.
Also, I think KU isn't as insightful as the other two movies are. Apatow does have a lot of insight into marriage and raising a family, but I don't know that he digs deep enough with Rogen and Katherine Heigl's relationship. Superbad and Virgin both have surprisingly touching payoffs, but I couldn't really care if Rogen and Heigl stayed together or not. The movie just relies on childbirth being touching. Which is more default than it is an earned emotional release.
Still, don't get me wrong, some very funny shit. Just falls a little short of the greatness of the other Apatow/Rogen collaborations.
Anchorman
Sunday, December 9, 2007
I just wanted something fun to cheer me up, and Anchorman is a perfect movie for that. It's just a bunch of good-natured silliness, guaranteed to make you laugh.
I'm always impressed, while watching it, that it didn't turn out to be a complete train wreck. The way they filmed it, seeming to make so much of it up as they went along, sounds like a recipe for disaster. And if you've ever seen Wake Up, Ron Burgundy, then you know the entire last act of the film was originally completely different.
You'd think the disorganized method of planning, coupled with the out-of-left-field style of humor would make for a big mess, but I guess Adam McKay and Will Ferrell know what they're doing. Funny motherfuckers.
I just wanted something fun to cheer me up, and Anchorman is a perfect movie for that. It's just a bunch of good-natured silliness, guaranteed to make you laugh.
I'm always impressed, while watching it, that it didn't turn out to be a complete train wreck. The way they filmed it, seeming to make so much of it up as they went along, sounds like a recipe for disaster. And if you've ever seen Wake Up, Ron Burgundy, then you know the entire last act of the film was originally completely different.
You'd think the disorganized method of planning, coupled with the out-of-left-field style of humor would make for a big mess, but I guess Adam McKay and Will Ferrell know what they're doing. Funny motherfuckers.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
The Isle
Sunday, December 9, 2007
I watched a bizarre movie with Shenan and my dad a few weeks back called Time. It's Korean, so right there you know it's probably not going to be a very mellow or restrained film. The plot concerns an obsessive young woman who becomes convinced her boyfriend no longer loves her. So she decides to disappear from his life, get complete facial-reconstructive surgery, and then re-enter his life 6 months later and pretend to be another woman.
As I alluded to before, I've noticed that the Koreans seem to like really melodramatic, extreme behavior in their movies. No one ever seems to act like a real person, but in the best of their movies, there is usually an internal logic where it all makes sense in context of the exaggerated, heightened, fictional world the characters inhabit. It's not at all like real life, but maybe does hit at some essential human truths. Like Oldboy.
Time, I thought, I was a pretty good example of this. The characters were compelling and sympathetic in their own, whacked-out unrealistic way. And the story was so fucking bizarre that you couldn't help but love it. I think I knew the movie was something special when the main character puts on a cardboard mask of her old face in an attempt to convince her boyfriend that she had returned. You don't see that every day.
The Isle is an earlier film by the same director, also dealing with obsessive love, but this time throwing in more extreme sadomasochism. It is about a mute woman who becomes obsessed with a suicidal man who lives in a tiny house on a little floating barge thingy and...
...Ok. You might have noticed that I talked a lot about Time before even mentioning The Isle. That's because I liked it a lot more. The Isle had some effective imagery, but didn't have much of an entry point to relate to any of the (underdeveloped) characters. And, as it goes along, I think it relied too heavily on trying to shock the audience with big, gross-out moments.
Time definitely got fucking weird, but it kept throwing in little human moments to make us care about what was going on. Like one part where the heartbroken boyfriend gets drunk with friends and does some really, really bad karaoke. Funny and relatable. The Isle mostly consists of long, silent scenes of the two main characters staring at each other in "meaningful" ways, while tension boils under the surface. Later, they jam fish hooks into places they really shouldn't go. At the end, like Time, the movie ends on a surreal, poetic note that makes no sense whatsoever. In a good way.
The cinematography and whatnot seemed nice (although the DVD I had was not the best quality), and they do a lot of the obvious shots of reflective water and sunsets and all that. But I'm not sure it really has anything to do with the rest of the movie.
I still might check out another film by this director, but The Isle did not live up to the promise of Time. Not poetic or insightful enough to illicit an emotional reaction, and not weird enough to be enjoyed for weirdnesses sake. More of a mild curiosity.
I watched a bizarre movie with Shenan and my dad a few weeks back called Time. It's Korean, so right there you know it's probably not going to be a very mellow or restrained film. The plot concerns an obsessive young woman who becomes convinced her boyfriend no longer loves her. So she decides to disappear from his life, get complete facial-reconstructive surgery, and then re-enter his life 6 months later and pretend to be another woman.
As I alluded to before, I've noticed that the Koreans seem to like really melodramatic, extreme behavior in their movies. No one ever seems to act like a real person, but in the best of their movies, there is usually an internal logic where it all makes sense in context of the exaggerated, heightened, fictional world the characters inhabit. It's not at all like real life, but maybe does hit at some essential human truths. Like Oldboy.
Time, I thought, I was a pretty good example of this. The characters were compelling and sympathetic in their own, whacked-out unrealistic way. And the story was so fucking bizarre that you couldn't help but love it. I think I knew the movie was something special when the main character puts on a cardboard mask of her old face in an attempt to convince her boyfriend that she had returned. You don't see that every day.
The Isle is an earlier film by the same director, also dealing with obsessive love, but this time throwing in more extreme sadomasochism. It is about a mute woman who becomes obsessed with a suicidal man who lives in a tiny house on a little floating barge thingy and...
...Ok. You might have noticed that I talked a lot about Time before even mentioning The Isle. That's because I liked it a lot more. The Isle had some effective imagery, but didn't have much of an entry point to relate to any of the (underdeveloped) characters. And, as it goes along, I think it relied too heavily on trying to shock the audience with big, gross-out moments.
Time definitely got fucking weird, but it kept throwing in little human moments to make us care about what was going on. Like one part where the heartbroken boyfriend gets drunk with friends and does some really, really bad karaoke. Funny and relatable. The Isle mostly consists of long, silent scenes of the two main characters staring at each other in "meaningful" ways, while tension boils under the surface. Later, they jam fish hooks into places they really shouldn't go. At the end, like Time, the movie ends on a surreal, poetic note that makes no sense whatsoever. In a good way.
The cinematography and whatnot seemed nice (although the DVD I had was not the best quality), and they do a lot of the obvious shots of reflective water and sunsets and all that. But I'm not sure it really has anything to do with the rest of the movie.
I still might check out another film by this director, but The Isle did not live up to the promise of Time. Not poetic or insightful enough to illicit an emotional reaction, and not weird enough to be enjoyed for weirdnesses sake. More of a mild curiosity.
Home Alone
Saturday, December 8, 2007
I'm not sure how it came up, but Shenan and I decided that we wanted to watch Home Alone on Saturday night. Maybe because it's getting to be Christmas time, I don't know.
I liked Home Alone as a kid, but it was never a favorite of mine. Yet I somehow managed to see the fucking thing so many times that I pretty much have the script memorized. I couldn't even help myself last night, talking in unison with the characters.
"Fuller, go easy on the Pepsi"
"I'm gonna give you 'til the count of 10 to get yer ugly, yella, no-good keyster off my property before I pump yer guts fulla lead. One. Two. Ten!"
And so on.
What struck me as interesting last night is how Home Alone bends over backwards to believably explain how the family could leave Kevin behind. It seems to me that the central premise of a kid being left alone to rule over his house without parents is perfectly designed to appeal to the children in the audience. Yet the movie spends so much time trying to make the premise believable to parents, showing every step along that way the leads to Kevin being left alone.
I guess they were worried about the parents in the audience calling the movie's credibility into question?
I'm not sure how it came up, but Shenan and I decided that we wanted to watch Home Alone on Saturday night. Maybe because it's getting to be Christmas time, I don't know.
I liked Home Alone as a kid, but it was never a favorite of mine. Yet I somehow managed to see the fucking thing so many times that I pretty much have the script memorized. I couldn't even help myself last night, talking in unison with the characters.
"Fuller, go easy on the Pepsi"
"I'm gonna give you 'til the count of 10 to get yer ugly, yella, no-good keyster off my property before I pump yer guts fulla lead. One. Two. Ten!"
And so on.
What struck me as interesting last night is how Home Alone bends over backwards to believably explain how the family could leave Kevin behind. It seems to me that the central premise of a kid being left alone to rule over his house without parents is perfectly designed to appeal to the children in the audience. Yet the movie spends so much time trying to make the premise believable to parents, showing every step along that way the leads to Kevin being left alone.
I guess they were worried about the parents in the audience calling the movie's credibility into question?
The Darjeeling Limited
Saturday, December 8, 2007
I keep meaning to go see Beowulf in 3-D over in Georgetown, but no one ever wants to go with me. I kind of had my girlfriend agreeing to see it on Saturday, but we got caught up helping with the Christmas decorations and before you knew it, it was too late to go.
I scanned the paper for another movie, and was a little surprised to see that The Darjeeling Limited was still playing up the street. It came out a while ago, and wasn't exactly a blockbuster hit.
I had not bothered to see it, mainly because of how much I didn't like The Life Aquatic. Wes Anderson has a distinct and amusing style, but to a fault. As much as I loved Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums, it was becoming clear that he was just making the same movie over and over again. The Life Aquatic seemed almost like a parody of his style, with the goofy characters and story even more over-exaggerated than usual, and then randomly having a character die in the middle of all the goofiness to let you know that it's, like, serious, man. Oh and then a guy sings David Bowie songs in French for no fucking reason. OMG it's sooooo quirky!
It was so disappointing that I actually went back and saw it again, figuring that there must have been something wrong with me and not the movie. The 2nd viewing just confirmed my initial reaction.
Any shit, this was all just a long preamble to get to the part where I am happy to say that I liked The Darjeeling Limited. It's not one of Anderson's best, and it is basically the same movie he's already made 4 other times, but it's a satisfying experience. Maybe it's just a cover song, but it's a good rendition.
Like Aquatic, this one is more colorful and energetic than his earlier movies, but here he keeps the zaniness modulated to a perfect, non-distracting level. And unlike Aquatic, most of the humor actually seems to derive from the personalities of the characters instead of just being a bunch of arbitrary lunacy. Darjeeling stays mainly focused on its three leads, and knows that it can rely on their interactions to create most of the entertainment and drama.
Before, I complained about the way that Aquatic randomly killed off a character just so there would be some drama. For a minute, it seems like something similar is happening in Darjeeling and I was growing disappointed in how the movie seemed to be creating false drama and expecting me to be moved. Then, however, the movie flashes back a year earlier to the funeral of the main characters' father, and you realize how this is stirring up all sorts of confused emotions and memories with the characters. And then it really does become a little moving.
Hopefully, this means that Anderson has regained his footing. At the very least, Darjeeling is a step in the right direction. Unlike this time, I will actually be looking forward to his next movie.
I keep meaning to go see Beowulf in 3-D over in Georgetown, but no one ever wants to go with me. I kind of had my girlfriend agreeing to see it on Saturday, but we got caught up helping with the Christmas decorations and before you knew it, it was too late to go.
I scanned the paper for another movie, and was a little surprised to see that The Darjeeling Limited was still playing up the street. It came out a while ago, and wasn't exactly a blockbuster hit.
I had not bothered to see it, mainly because of how much I didn't like The Life Aquatic. Wes Anderson has a distinct and amusing style, but to a fault. As much as I loved Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums, it was becoming clear that he was just making the same movie over and over again. The Life Aquatic seemed almost like a parody of his style, with the goofy characters and story even more over-exaggerated than usual, and then randomly having a character die in the middle of all the goofiness to let you know that it's, like, serious, man. Oh and then a guy sings David Bowie songs in French for no fucking reason. OMG it's sooooo quirky!
It was so disappointing that I actually went back and saw it again, figuring that there must have been something wrong with me and not the movie. The 2nd viewing just confirmed my initial reaction.
Any shit, this was all just a long preamble to get to the part where I am happy to say that I liked The Darjeeling Limited. It's not one of Anderson's best, and it is basically the same movie he's already made 4 other times, but it's a satisfying experience. Maybe it's just a cover song, but it's a good rendition.
Like Aquatic, this one is more colorful and energetic than his earlier movies, but here he keeps the zaniness modulated to a perfect, non-distracting level. And unlike Aquatic, most of the humor actually seems to derive from the personalities of the characters instead of just being a bunch of arbitrary lunacy. Darjeeling stays mainly focused on its three leads, and knows that it can rely on their interactions to create most of the entertainment and drama.
Before, I complained about the way that Aquatic randomly killed off a character just so there would be some drama. For a minute, it seems like something similar is happening in Darjeeling and I was growing disappointed in how the movie seemed to be creating false drama and expecting me to be moved. Then, however, the movie flashes back a year earlier to the funeral of the main characters' father, and you realize how this is stirring up all sorts of confused emotions and memories with the characters. And then it really does become a little moving.
Hopefully, this means that Anderson has regained his footing. At the very least, Darjeeling is a step in the right direction. Unlike this time, I will actually be looking forward to his next movie.
Army of Shadows
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Continuing with my exploration of the films of Jean-Pierre Melville is Army of Shadows, which deals with the French resistance during WWII. Melville apparently fought for the resistance during the war, so it's likely that this was a very personal project for him. I heard this one was a lot darker and more serious than Le Samourai or Le Cercle Rouge, and I was pretty much ready for this one to be his definitive masterpiece.
When I started this blog I was really hoping to find some truly amazing movies I had never seen before to write about. So far, my luck hasn't been great, and I haven't seen anything that succeeds past "really, really good." And Army of Shadows is, sadly, no exception. It is a film with many moments of greatness, with scenes that really stick with you, but also a lot of stuff that drags on and doesn't really compel.
Maybe the problem is with me, I don't know. I really wanted to love this one... and I did, at times. But I also felt bored and restless during other areas. One day, I should give it another shot.
Melville seems to have really conflicted feelings about his material, but in the best possible way. He fought for the resistance, but obviously finds himself saddened and disturbed at what they had to do in order to fight. He makes the violence very sad, and ugly, and none of his heroes seem very heroic. The best scenes are the ones that examine the way people can do cold, inhuman things to further a cause they believe in. Maybe it's the "right" thing to do in the larger sense, but brutal and soul-crushing on a personal level.
The best and most heartbreaking sequence of the movie is when some of the main characters are captured by the Nazis. The Nazis line a bunch of them up in a large hallway, with a manned machine gun on the one end. The prisoners are told to run to the other end of the hallway. Anyone who can make it to the end of the hallway without being shot will be spared until the next execution.
The main character tells us, in a voice-over, that he won't run. He refuses to let them steal his dignity and play their game. The bullets start flying, and at first he holds his ground. But before he even knows what he's doing, he's scrambling down the hallway with the other prisoners. He can't help it.
Nobody wants to die, and everyone can be broken. He gives up his dignity to try to save his life, and we'd all do the same. This scene, and a few other moments like it, really penetrate you while you watch.
Again, maybe it was just something wrong with me, but other parts of the movie were problematic and kept me from really being blown away by Army of Shadows. Too many characters involved in too many stories that sometimes seem to drag, or not build up to anything. Too many scenes with characters trading redundant dialogue that doesn't seem flesh out the characters or the story. Too many digressions and detours that I couldn't understand.
This warrants another viewing, some day. It's worth seeing, absolutely, and is a damn good movie if not a great one. Perhaps my expectations were too high, or maybe I was expecting something different.
But, hey, they actually translated the title to English this time. Good job.
Continuing with my exploration of the films of Jean-Pierre Melville is Army of Shadows, which deals with the French resistance during WWII. Melville apparently fought for the resistance during the war, so it's likely that this was a very personal project for him. I heard this one was a lot darker and more serious than Le Samourai or Le Cercle Rouge, and I was pretty much ready for this one to be his definitive masterpiece.
When I started this blog I was really hoping to find some truly amazing movies I had never seen before to write about. So far, my luck hasn't been great, and I haven't seen anything that succeeds past "really, really good." And Army of Shadows is, sadly, no exception. It is a film with many moments of greatness, with scenes that really stick with you, but also a lot of stuff that drags on and doesn't really compel.
Maybe the problem is with me, I don't know. I really wanted to love this one... and I did, at times. But I also felt bored and restless during other areas. One day, I should give it another shot.
Melville seems to have really conflicted feelings about his material, but in the best possible way. He fought for the resistance, but obviously finds himself saddened and disturbed at what they had to do in order to fight. He makes the violence very sad, and ugly, and none of his heroes seem very heroic. The best scenes are the ones that examine the way people can do cold, inhuman things to further a cause they believe in. Maybe it's the "right" thing to do in the larger sense, but brutal and soul-crushing on a personal level.
The best and most heartbreaking sequence of the movie is when some of the main characters are captured by the Nazis. The Nazis line a bunch of them up in a large hallway, with a manned machine gun on the one end. The prisoners are told to run to the other end of the hallway. Anyone who can make it to the end of the hallway without being shot will be spared until the next execution.
The main character tells us, in a voice-over, that he won't run. He refuses to let them steal his dignity and play their game. The bullets start flying, and at first he holds his ground. But before he even knows what he's doing, he's scrambling down the hallway with the other prisoners. He can't help it.
Nobody wants to die, and everyone can be broken. He gives up his dignity to try to save his life, and we'd all do the same. This scene, and a few other moments like it, really penetrate you while you watch.
Again, maybe it was just something wrong with me, but other parts of the movie were problematic and kept me from really being blown away by Army of Shadows. Too many characters involved in too many stories that sometimes seem to drag, or not build up to anything. Too many scenes with characters trading redundant dialogue that doesn't seem flesh out the characters or the story. Too many digressions and detours that I couldn't understand.
This warrants another viewing, some day. It's worth seeing, absolutely, and is a damn good movie if not a great one. Perhaps my expectations were too high, or maybe I was expecting something different.
But, hey, they actually translated the title to English this time. Good job.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Cruising
Wednesday, December 5
MAJOR ULTRA SPOILERS
I had a little trouble with what to make of this film, but I think I might have liked it. It's a thriller about a cop, played by Al Pacino, who goes undercover to a bunch of gay, leather, S&M bars to catch a serial killer who is picking off gay men. It was directed by William Friedkin, who did the undisputed classic The Exorcist amongst other things, and whom I've been slowly seeing more films by. I'm curious to see a bunch of his stuff because he's essentially a genre-film director, yet seems to have a more respected artistic reputation than these guys usually get. I think his results are mixed, but he's clearly talented, and I'm hoping to find another gem or two. In fact, Bug gets a pretty high recommendation from me to you.
OK, this is a great story set-up. We have this straight cop trying to fit in with an extreme subculture within the gay community, and you figure that he will be bothered in some way by this, or his sexuality will come into question, he'll find new things out about himself, etc. Lots of potential for drama.
Except, weirdly enough, it doesn't explore any of those ideas at all. In fact, Pacino plays a lot of his scenes low key and ambiguous. He goes from leather bar to leather bar, witnessing all sorts of lurid sexual practices and possibly engaging in some himself, but the movie is vague on how he feels about it. Disgusted? Turned on? Indifferent? Dunno. He tells his girlfriend at one point that it's wearing on him, but never says how.
The movie, instead, seems content to watch him try to adapt to his surroundings, learn the culture, etc. And, it's actually kind of entertaining, in a police procedural sort of way, watching him do this for a while.
I'm somewhat surprised Pacino was even in this. He doesn't show up until a good 15 minutes into the film, and then occasionally disappears for short stretches. Then, as I've implied, they don't actually build much of a character. We don't learn anything of his past, and not much about his personal life or anything along those lines. So, I thought, maybe he just did it for the money and was only on set for 2 weeks. Except that he's involved in some pretty strange, graphic and extreme scenes, so you have to imagine he felt enthusiastic about the movie in order to agree to be in it. It's a role that could have damaged his image, so it seems unlikely that he did it just for a paycheck.
After a little Internet browsing, I found out that this movie was protested by the gay community, as they perceived that the film made them look like a bunch of degenerates, and perhaps encouraged violence against them. They may have a point, but it's hard to tell. On the one hand, I think the movie tries to present a few positive gay characters, and has Pacino's character express anger that someone would kill the victims just because of their sexuality. On the other hand, the movie does show a lot of sleazy, gay themed stuff, always in dank locations, which gives it all a weird, creepy vibe.
And, man, does this movie wallow in the sex. We get all sorts of gay club orgies, blow jobs and buttfucking, and even some fisting thrown in. I suspect this is done to be shocking, but at the same time, is the audience watching this movie going to be shocked? We know what we're getting into when we watch it, the sort of people who would be bothered by this movie probably know better than to watch it. Speaking personally, this kind of stuff doesn't offend or bother me. So all the long sequences of sadomasochistic homoeroticism get a little boring after a while.
And for whatever reason, Friedkin always makes the clubs dank, ominous, and joyless. I mean, I get that the movie is a thriller and it shouldn't be light hearted, but this approach strikes me as false. Let's say you were doing drugs, dancing to music you loved in a bar full of people that wanted to fuck each other. That'd be fun, right? You'd be having a great time. It wouldn't be all eerie and sinister. So, I can see why the gay community might not like the way this film depicts them.
There is one scene where Pacino is dancing while high and gets really into it, but even then everyone has a really determined look on their face. Too busy concentrating on dancing to enjoy themselves, I guess.
Right, so this post has been mostly complaints so far, but let me explain what started to fascinate me about Cruising. About the time in the movie when we're getting frustrated by it's unwillingness to explain Pacino's sexuality, it throws in some really weird and interesting scenes and ideas. It starts messing with our perception of cops and homosexuals, blending or confusing the two groups and their imagery. Normal movies often present the dichotomy of straight vs. gay; the dichotomy in effect in Cruising is cop vs. gay.
Early in the movie, two cops berate a couple of trannies, but then force them to perform sex acts. And none of the other cops will believe the trannies when they try to report the incident. Later, as Pacino dives deeper into the club scene, he goes to a strange, almost dreamlike cop-themed gay bar. There are kinky uses of handcuffs, guys sucking nightsticks, etc. Everyone is play acting as cops and fucking each other. Then, the bouncers sense him as an impostor and kick him out for not being dressed as a cop. Even though he really is a cop.
Even better, and more bizarre, is a scene where the police are interrogating a possible suspect. Pacino is in the room, and the police are pretending to interrogate him as well, so as to not blow his cover. Then, out of nowhere, a large, muscular black man wearing only a cowboy hat and a jock strap comes into the room and punches Pacino in the face.
WHAT WHAT WHAT?! Do the police typically employ naked gay men to beat up on suspects? Why not just have a regular cop beat him up? What the fuck is going on?
Alright, so weird shit like that is sprinkled in the movie, making it fascinating and borderline surreal. But let's get to my favorite part: the last 15 or 20 minutes.
From what I gathered, the main complaint about Crusing is the stuff I mentioned before about it's seeming unwillingness to deal with the sexual issues raised. Only, the last act of this movie suggests that something altogether different is going on that we weren't thinking of.
Well, it starts earlier. We are shown scenes of the killer doing his dirty work at the beginning of the film, and we briefly see his face a few times. Then, when Pacino is on the case later, the killer is only shown in shadows. I wondered: Why are they hiding his face now, after we saw it? At a later point in the film, a gay man is killed in the park by a man with a biker hat and lather jacket. In the next scene, Pacino is wearing the same outfit. Hmm.
Near the end of the movie, Pacino finds the man who clearly killed the initial victims. He lures him out to the woods with the promise of sex. They are dressed identically. The killer sits on the top of a bench. Pacino does the same. The killer takes out a cigarette. Pacino does the same. He does everything the killer does. Then, the two seem about to make with the loving, when Pacino punches the killer, then pulls out the same knife the killer was shown using earlier and stabs him. Unprompted. And then tells his boss that he was attacked. At the end, Pacino's gay neighbor is mysteriously killed.
Okay, so I looked around online and didn't find a lot of reviewers mentioning this, but here's what I think is going on. The movie never comes out and tells you, but Pacino is also preying on gay men, carving them up with a knife. He's the killer in the shadows. That was his reaction to his assignment, he's going around taking out his pent up aggression or homophobia or sexual desires on the gay men.
But like I said, the movie never states this explicitly. If the idea hadn't popped into my head when I noticed Pacino and the killer had the same clothes, then the thought would never have occurred to me. The ending is so weird, open, and inconclusive that it blew my mind a little.
So, Cruising has a lot of problems, but is fascinating enough that I think it warrants a look by anyone that likes this sort of thing. It is a bizarre, unique and mysterious entry into the serial killer genre. The premise of this movie deserves a remake, where it actual explores all those sexual issues I mentioned before. But as it stands, the final product of Cruising is a one of a kind movie. I still can't even decide if it's a good movie or not, but damn am I glad I saw it.
MAJOR ULTRA SPOILERS
I had a little trouble with what to make of this film, but I think I might have liked it. It's a thriller about a cop, played by Al Pacino, who goes undercover to a bunch of gay, leather, S&M bars to catch a serial killer who is picking off gay men. It was directed by William Friedkin, who did the undisputed classic The Exorcist amongst other things, and whom I've been slowly seeing more films by. I'm curious to see a bunch of his stuff because he's essentially a genre-film director, yet seems to have a more respected artistic reputation than these guys usually get. I think his results are mixed, but he's clearly talented, and I'm hoping to find another gem or two. In fact, Bug gets a pretty high recommendation from me to you.
OK, this is a great story set-up. We have this straight cop trying to fit in with an extreme subculture within the gay community, and you figure that he will be bothered in some way by this, or his sexuality will come into question, he'll find new things out about himself, etc. Lots of potential for drama.
Except, weirdly enough, it doesn't explore any of those ideas at all. In fact, Pacino plays a lot of his scenes low key and ambiguous. He goes from leather bar to leather bar, witnessing all sorts of lurid sexual practices and possibly engaging in some himself, but the movie is vague on how he feels about it. Disgusted? Turned on? Indifferent? Dunno. He tells his girlfriend at one point that it's wearing on him, but never says how.
The movie, instead, seems content to watch him try to adapt to his surroundings, learn the culture, etc. And, it's actually kind of entertaining, in a police procedural sort of way, watching him do this for a while.
I'm somewhat surprised Pacino was even in this. He doesn't show up until a good 15 minutes into the film, and then occasionally disappears for short stretches. Then, as I've implied, they don't actually build much of a character. We don't learn anything of his past, and not much about his personal life or anything along those lines. So, I thought, maybe he just did it for the money and was only on set for 2 weeks. Except that he's involved in some pretty strange, graphic and extreme scenes, so you have to imagine he felt enthusiastic about the movie in order to agree to be in it. It's a role that could have damaged his image, so it seems unlikely that he did it just for a paycheck.
After a little Internet browsing, I found out that this movie was protested by the gay community, as they perceived that the film made them look like a bunch of degenerates, and perhaps encouraged violence against them. They may have a point, but it's hard to tell. On the one hand, I think the movie tries to present a few positive gay characters, and has Pacino's character express anger that someone would kill the victims just because of their sexuality. On the other hand, the movie does show a lot of sleazy, gay themed stuff, always in dank locations, which gives it all a weird, creepy vibe.
And, man, does this movie wallow in the sex. We get all sorts of gay club orgies, blow jobs and buttfucking, and even some fisting thrown in. I suspect this is done to be shocking, but at the same time, is the audience watching this movie going to be shocked? We know what we're getting into when we watch it, the sort of people who would be bothered by this movie probably know better than to watch it. Speaking personally, this kind of stuff doesn't offend or bother me. So all the long sequences of sadomasochistic homoeroticism get a little boring after a while.
And for whatever reason, Friedkin always makes the clubs dank, ominous, and joyless. I mean, I get that the movie is a thriller and it shouldn't be light hearted, but this approach strikes me as false. Let's say you were doing drugs, dancing to music you loved in a bar full of people that wanted to fuck each other. That'd be fun, right? You'd be having a great time. It wouldn't be all eerie and sinister. So, I can see why the gay community might not like the way this film depicts them.
There is one scene where Pacino is dancing while high and gets really into it, but even then everyone has a really determined look on their face. Too busy concentrating on dancing to enjoy themselves, I guess.
Right, so this post has been mostly complaints so far, but let me explain what started to fascinate me about Cruising. About the time in the movie when we're getting frustrated by it's unwillingness to explain Pacino's sexuality, it throws in some really weird and interesting scenes and ideas. It starts messing with our perception of cops and homosexuals, blending or confusing the two groups and their imagery. Normal movies often present the dichotomy of straight vs. gay; the dichotomy in effect in Cruising is cop vs. gay.
Early in the movie, two cops berate a couple of trannies, but then force them to perform sex acts. And none of the other cops will believe the trannies when they try to report the incident. Later, as Pacino dives deeper into the club scene, he goes to a strange, almost dreamlike cop-themed gay bar. There are kinky uses of handcuffs, guys sucking nightsticks, etc. Everyone is play acting as cops and fucking each other. Then, the bouncers sense him as an impostor and kick him out for not being dressed as a cop. Even though he really is a cop.
Even better, and more bizarre, is a scene where the police are interrogating a possible suspect. Pacino is in the room, and the police are pretending to interrogate him as well, so as to not blow his cover. Then, out of nowhere, a large, muscular black man wearing only a cowboy hat and a jock strap comes into the room and punches Pacino in the face.
WHAT WHAT WHAT?! Do the police typically employ naked gay men to beat up on suspects? Why not just have a regular cop beat him up? What the fuck is going on?
Alright, so weird shit like that is sprinkled in the movie, making it fascinating and borderline surreal. But let's get to my favorite part: the last 15 or 20 minutes.
From what I gathered, the main complaint about Crusing is the stuff I mentioned before about it's seeming unwillingness to deal with the sexual issues raised. Only, the last act of this movie suggests that something altogether different is going on that we weren't thinking of.
Well, it starts earlier. We are shown scenes of the killer doing his dirty work at the beginning of the film, and we briefly see his face a few times. Then, when Pacino is on the case later, the killer is only shown in shadows. I wondered: Why are they hiding his face now, after we saw it? At a later point in the film, a gay man is killed in the park by a man with a biker hat and lather jacket. In the next scene, Pacino is wearing the same outfit. Hmm.
Near the end of the movie, Pacino finds the man who clearly killed the initial victims. He lures him out to the woods with the promise of sex. They are dressed identically. The killer sits on the top of a bench. Pacino does the same. The killer takes out a cigarette. Pacino does the same. He does everything the killer does. Then, the two seem about to make with the loving, when Pacino punches the killer, then pulls out the same knife the killer was shown using earlier and stabs him. Unprompted. And then tells his boss that he was attacked. At the end, Pacino's gay neighbor is mysteriously killed.
Okay, so I looked around online and didn't find a lot of reviewers mentioning this, but here's what I think is going on. The movie never comes out and tells you, but Pacino is also preying on gay men, carving them up with a knife. He's the killer in the shadows. That was his reaction to his assignment, he's going around taking out his pent up aggression or homophobia or sexual desires on the gay men.
But like I said, the movie never states this explicitly. If the idea hadn't popped into my head when I noticed Pacino and the killer had the same clothes, then the thought would never have occurred to me. The ending is so weird, open, and inconclusive that it blew my mind a little.
So, Cruising has a lot of problems, but is fascinating enough that I think it warrants a look by anyone that likes this sort of thing. It is a bizarre, unique and mysterious entry into the serial killer genre. The premise of this movie deserves a remake, where it actual explores all those sexual issues I mentioned before. But as it stands, the final product of Cruising is a one of a kind movie. I still can't even decide if it's a good movie or not, but damn am I glad I saw it.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
28 Weeks Later
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
I'm going to hold off on doing a longer post on this one. I was reflecting on the horror films of 2007, and noticed that we had a lot of really fucking good ones this year. So I was going to do a longer piece or two about the horror films I liked this year.
I will say that 28 Weeks Later is the sequel to a personal favorite horror film of mine, one that is probably my 3rd fave zombie film of all time. Weeks isn't quite that good, but it was still first rate in a lot of regards. So if you haven't seen this one, and you like these kinds of movies, you need to get on it.
More to follow when I get to the larger article.
I'm going to hold off on doing a longer post on this one. I was reflecting on the horror films of 2007, and noticed that we had a lot of really fucking good ones this year. So I was going to do a longer piece or two about the horror films I liked this year.
I will say that 28 Weeks Later is the sequel to a personal favorite horror film of mine, one that is probably my 3rd fave zombie film of all time. Weeks isn't quite that good, but it was still first rate in a lot of regards. So if you haven't seen this one, and you like these kinds of movies, you need to get on it.
More to follow when I get to the larger article.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
The Last Seduction
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
You might remember a few posts back when I mentioned that I expected The Taking of Pelham One Two Three to be a gritty crime drama, and it turned out to be more of a fun, comedic cops and robbers type of flick. Well, I need to start doing my research better, because something similar happened with The Last Seduction.
I had heard this movie mentioned as a neo-noir with frank sexuality and a great Linda Fiorentino performance. For whatever reason, in my mind this movie was going to be some darker, heavier drama, maybe even a little bit tragic. I end up being pretty thrown off during the first few minutes when it turns out to be a quick-witted, quirky dark-comedy that's even a little goofy at times.
This movie have a number of classic noir-ish elements, but the cool twist is that this time the femme fatale is the lead character. It's a great character too; maybe the most heartless bitch in film history. Manipulative, greedy, vengeful and oh-so acid tongued. Linda Fiorentino is a lot of fun too watch.
I enjoyed this one, but not as much as I had hoped. One reason is the inconsistency in tone. A lot of the movie plays as very dark but relatively restrained comedy. But then, Bill Pullman keeps showing up in a really bizarre, really over-the-top performance. He does a good job, but it feels like it's from another movie. And then other really broad moments start popping up, and it's like the movie can't decide which style is more fun.
I would also say the movie is maybe a little too long or slow in parts, and it drains on the fun a bit. There is a lot of snappy dialogue, but sometimes the movie drags on too long without much seeming to happen. In retrospect, I can see that some of these scenes are important plot points (in true noir fashion, the plot is absurdly dense), but they can have done more to keep the energy up and make these scenes fun.
I've yet to see a movie by director John Dahl that I didn't at least somewhat enjoy, with Joy Ride being a personal favorite of mine. The Last Seduction, however, doesn't build up nearly as much suspense or interest as that film does. This one is a lot more like his Red Rock West, with a little Double Indemnity or Body Heat thrown in. Fun, but I wanted to like it more than I did.
UPDATE 12/6/07
I forgot to mention this in my original thoughts, but I always thought Dahl had a cool visual style in his other films. However, I couldn't really appreciate it as much here, because Netflix only had a full screen version. Arg!
You might remember a few posts back when I mentioned that I expected The Taking of Pelham One Two Three to be a gritty crime drama, and it turned out to be more of a fun, comedic cops and robbers type of flick. Well, I need to start doing my research better, because something similar happened with The Last Seduction.
I had heard this movie mentioned as a neo-noir with frank sexuality and a great Linda Fiorentino performance. For whatever reason, in my mind this movie was going to be some darker, heavier drama, maybe even a little bit tragic. I end up being pretty thrown off during the first few minutes when it turns out to be a quick-witted, quirky dark-comedy that's even a little goofy at times.
This movie have a number of classic noir-ish elements, but the cool twist is that this time the femme fatale is the lead character. It's a great character too; maybe the most heartless bitch in film history. Manipulative, greedy, vengeful and oh-so acid tongued. Linda Fiorentino is a lot of fun too watch.
I enjoyed this one, but not as much as I had hoped. One reason is the inconsistency in tone. A lot of the movie plays as very dark but relatively restrained comedy. But then, Bill Pullman keeps showing up in a really bizarre, really over-the-top performance. He does a good job, but it feels like it's from another movie. And then other really broad moments start popping up, and it's like the movie can't decide which style is more fun.
I would also say the movie is maybe a little too long or slow in parts, and it drains on the fun a bit. There is a lot of snappy dialogue, but sometimes the movie drags on too long without much seeming to happen. In retrospect, I can see that some of these scenes are important plot points (in true noir fashion, the plot is absurdly dense), but they can have done more to keep the energy up and make these scenes fun.
I've yet to see a movie by director John Dahl that I didn't at least somewhat enjoy, with Joy Ride being a personal favorite of mine. The Last Seduction, however, doesn't build up nearly as much suspense or interest as that film does. This one is a lot more like his Red Rock West, with a little Double Indemnity or Body Heat thrown in. Fun, but I wanted to like it more than I did.
UPDATE 12/6/07
I forgot to mention this in my original thoughts, but I always thought Dahl had a cool visual style in his other films. However, I couldn't really appreciate it as much here, because Netflix only had a full screen version. Arg!
Sweet Land
Monday, December 3, 2007
Sweet Land is a low key, feel-good, predictable comedy drama of modest charms. It apparently won an Independent Spirit Award, but it's such a straightforward crowd-pleaser that I don't think I can give it much street cred. It's the kind of movie your mother will really like. Maybe even your grandmother.
It tells the story of a German woman who travels to post-WWI America to marry a farmer she has never met. The community is xenophobic and causes complications for her. Meanwhile, after an awkward introduction, she and the farmer start to fall in love.
This is all played rather laid-back as opposed to melodramatic, which I appreciated. It's story has such a predictable arc that you can pretty much map out the rest of the movie step by step after the first 20 minutes or so. No points for guessing that the woman and the farmer slowly fall in love after initial hesitancy, or that the community slowly embraces them. What makes the movie somewhat enjoyable is the way it is told with easy going warmth and humor.
Alan Cumming plays a goofy neighbor, and no it's no surprise that he steals every scene he's in. The rest of the cast is, again, modestly charming and watchable. It's not exactly a compelling or exciting movie, but it's pretty hard to dislike it.
The worst thing about it is the weirdly convoluted wraparound story. The story is, I think, told in flashback by either the main character's son or grandson (I can't remember which), remembering his father or grandfathers funeral where the main character told the story of or flashed-back to the story I described above. Since the part in the 20s or 30s is the only interesting part, I don't know why they framed it with this twice removed story.
So, for one of these kind of movies, it's a somewhat entertaining but not particularly great example. I wish they could have put that quote on the DVD case.
Sweet Land is a low key, feel-good, predictable comedy drama of modest charms. It apparently won an Independent Spirit Award, but it's such a straightforward crowd-pleaser that I don't think I can give it much street cred. It's the kind of movie your mother will really like. Maybe even your grandmother.
It tells the story of a German woman who travels to post-WWI America to marry a farmer she has never met. The community is xenophobic and causes complications for her. Meanwhile, after an awkward introduction, she and the farmer start to fall in love.
This is all played rather laid-back as opposed to melodramatic, which I appreciated. It's story has such a predictable arc that you can pretty much map out the rest of the movie step by step after the first 20 minutes or so. No points for guessing that the woman and the farmer slowly fall in love after initial hesitancy, or that the community slowly embraces them. What makes the movie somewhat enjoyable is the way it is told with easy going warmth and humor.
Alan Cumming plays a goofy neighbor, and no it's no surprise that he steals every scene he's in. The rest of the cast is, again, modestly charming and watchable. It's not exactly a compelling or exciting movie, but it's pretty hard to dislike it.
The worst thing about it is the weirdly convoluted wraparound story. The story is, I think, told in flashback by either the main character's son or grandson (I can't remember which), remembering his father or grandfathers funeral where the main character told the story of or flashed-back to the story I described above. Since the part in the 20s or 30s is the only interesting part, I don't know why they framed it with this twice removed story.
So, for one of these kind of movies, it's a somewhat entertaining but not particularly great example. I wish they could have put that quote on the DVD case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)