Saturday, January 5, 2008
Mmm mmm. I love me some Argento, and despite some really bad dubbing/acting, this is one of his best. Violent, stylish and bizarre... love it.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Sunday, January 6, 2008
There Will Be Blood
Saturday, January 5, 2008
This is a hard one to talk about... I know I enjoyed it, but I'm not sure how much.
It is completely different than everything else Paul Thomas Anderson has done, and it's not recognizable as his work. It's big in scope, but keeps a tighter cast of characters, isn't too eager to get chatty and is mysterious.
Well, I feel like I need to see this one again before I can make up my mind over it, but I'm also not sure I want to do that right away. Maybe give it some time.
My main thing is... it's a long movie, and for the first 2 hours or so, I didn't feel much. It was always interesting, and well-shot, well-acted, etc, but the material didn't stir up any emotions or passion or anything like that. But then, I have to say, everything wraps up really well in the last 40 minutes or so. So, I know all the earlier stuff is there for a good reason, because it's all important build-up for the finale. The question is... will seeing it again enrich the first 2 hours, or make me enjoy them more? Or will it remain a well-made but sterile extended prologue to a really strong pay-off?
Usually I like to rate every movie I see on Netflix, but I haven't been able to give this one a solid rating. Somewhere between 3 and 5. Does that make it a 4?
This is a hard one to talk about... I know I enjoyed it, but I'm not sure how much.
It is completely different than everything else Paul Thomas Anderson has done, and it's not recognizable as his work. It's big in scope, but keeps a tighter cast of characters, isn't too eager to get chatty and is mysterious.
Well, I feel like I need to see this one again before I can make up my mind over it, but I'm also not sure I want to do that right away. Maybe give it some time.
My main thing is... it's a long movie, and for the first 2 hours or so, I didn't feel much. It was always interesting, and well-shot, well-acted, etc, but the material didn't stir up any emotions or passion or anything like that. But then, I have to say, everything wraps up really well in the last 40 minutes or so. So, I know all the earlier stuff is there for a good reason, because it's all important build-up for the finale. The question is... will seeing it again enrich the first 2 hours, or make me enjoy them more? Or will it remain a well-made but sterile extended prologue to a really strong pay-off?
Usually I like to rate every movie I see on Netflix, but I haven't been able to give this one a solid rating. Somewhere between 3 and 5. Does that make it a 4?
Two Girls and a Guy
Friday, January 4, 2008
This is an enjoyable and well-acted movie in which nobody behaves at all like an actual human being. It's James Toback, so I'm guessing this is a mix of scripted and improvised scenes. It's about 2 girls who realize they are both dating the same guy, and so they ambush him. It pretty much all takes place in his apartment, as he tries to schmooze his way out of the situation.
Like I said, no one in the movie reacts to anything like a real person would, but the characters are still interesting, articulate and funny. It's short, it doesn't add up to much, but it's a fun watch.
This is an enjoyable and well-acted movie in which nobody behaves at all like an actual human being. It's James Toback, so I'm guessing this is a mix of scripted and improvised scenes. It's about 2 girls who realize they are both dating the same guy, and so they ambush him. It pretty much all takes place in his apartment, as he tries to schmooze his way out of the situation.
Like I said, no one in the movie reacts to anything like a real person would, but the characters are still interesting, articulate and funny. It's short, it doesn't add up to much, but it's a fun watch.
Friday, January 4, 2008
The Science of Sleep
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
I don't have a lot to say here. I feel the same way at I usually do about Michel Gondry's films... it took a lot of imagination and energy to create, but the end result does not engage me on an emotional level.
Gael Garcia Bernal is (typically) good in this, but damn is this one obnoxious character. I'll give him and Gondry credit and assume that he was supposed to be irritating (and not lovable, as I occasionally feared they were going for), but still sympathetic. They don't really succeed in making him sympathetic, though, and it hurts the final product. He's so socially awkward and weirdly obsessive that you just don't like being around the guy.
It's possible to have this kind of character in a movie and build empathy for him, though. Look at something like One Hour Photo. Robin Williams is a complete fucking nut in that one, but you at least feel some understanding of his loneliness. Garcia Bernal just comes off like a whiny bitch in this movie.
I'm still looking forward to Be Kind, Rewind, though.
I don't have a lot to say here. I feel the same way at I usually do about Michel Gondry's films... it took a lot of imagination and energy to create, but the end result does not engage me on an emotional level.
Gael Garcia Bernal is (typically) good in this, but damn is this one obnoxious character. I'll give him and Gondry credit and assume that he was supposed to be irritating (and not lovable, as I occasionally feared they were going for), but still sympathetic. They don't really succeed in making him sympathetic, though, and it hurts the final product. He's so socially awkward and weirdly obsessive that you just don't like being around the guy.
It's possible to have this kind of character in a movie and build empathy for him, though. Look at something like One Hour Photo. Robin Williams is a complete fucking nut in that one, but you at least feel some understanding of his loneliness. Garcia Bernal just comes off like a whiny bitch in this movie.
I'm still looking forward to Be Kind, Rewind, though.
Friday the 13th
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
You hear the same guys who did the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake are going to remake this one? I guess I'm curious. I mean, I like Jason, but these movies aren't exactly great. Meaning, it wouldn't really hurt my feelings if the remake sucked, and that there's also room for improvement. I'm assuming Bay, Nispel and Co. are going to go for a similar vibe as they did with TCM and make it a cliched and generic slasher picture, but also grim and violent.
Which is odd, because I always thought the F13 movies were fun, and not really scary or atmospheric. So, maybe we'll be getting a new take on Jason.
A month or 2 back, Shenan and I watched part 2, which I had remembered as being one of the good ones. But I had not seen it in a long time, and it turns out that it's pretty boring. It's got some good ideas, like the extended fake-out opening where the hero of part 1 gets killed. And there are some classic scenes, like the couple getting impaled while fucking, or the wheelchair kid flying down the stairs with a machete in his face. I guess this was the shit I remembered, but that I completely forgot that the rest of it is boring and poorly staged. And the plot makes no sense... Jason was never dead? He's some crazy redneck in the woods? Huh?
So I was a little nervous sitting down to watch this one, worried that I remembered it as being good even though it actually sucked.
But I am happy to report that it's exactly how I remember it: an average, entertaining Halloween ripoff. No more, no less. Important to us horror geeks for the series it spawned, but only a mild pleasure itself.
How this spun off into the biggest, most bloated slasher series of all time, I have no idea. It's a pretty modest, run-of-the-mill late 70s/early 80s slasher/whodunit with a few good ideas, some good gore and a couple of memorable scenes. It's funny though, if you were to watch this back-to-back with one of the later, indulgant sequels, you'd probably have no idea that the two movies were in any way related. But, the series perfectly charts the history of the slasher genre, the way it became more about the bodycount and the gore, etc. Not that part 1 was some classy affair, but it's interesting to watch the series descend into sleaze. (And frankly, some of the sleazier ones are a lot more entertaining than the original.)
You hear the same guys who did the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake are going to remake this one? I guess I'm curious. I mean, I like Jason, but these movies aren't exactly great. Meaning, it wouldn't really hurt my feelings if the remake sucked, and that there's also room for improvement. I'm assuming Bay, Nispel and Co. are going to go for a similar vibe as they did with TCM and make it a cliched and generic slasher picture, but also grim and violent.
Which is odd, because I always thought the F13 movies were fun, and not really scary or atmospheric. So, maybe we'll be getting a new take on Jason.
A month or 2 back, Shenan and I watched part 2, which I had remembered as being one of the good ones. But I had not seen it in a long time, and it turns out that it's pretty boring. It's got some good ideas, like the extended fake-out opening where the hero of part 1 gets killed. And there are some classic scenes, like the couple getting impaled while fucking, or the wheelchair kid flying down the stairs with a machete in his face. I guess this was the shit I remembered, but that I completely forgot that the rest of it is boring and poorly staged. And the plot makes no sense... Jason was never dead? He's some crazy redneck in the woods? Huh?
So I was a little nervous sitting down to watch this one, worried that I remembered it as being good even though it actually sucked.
But I am happy to report that it's exactly how I remember it: an average, entertaining Halloween ripoff. No more, no less. Important to us horror geeks for the series it spawned, but only a mild pleasure itself.
How this spun off into the biggest, most bloated slasher series of all time, I have no idea. It's a pretty modest, run-of-the-mill late 70s/early 80s slasher/whodunit with a few good ideas, some good gore and a couple of memorable scenes. It's funny though, if you were to watch this back-to-back with one of the later, indulgant sequels, you'd probably have no idea that the two movies were in any way related. But, the series perfectly charts the history of the slasher genre, the way it became more about the bodycount and the gore, etc. Not that part 1 was some classy affair, but it's interesting to watch the series descend into sleaze. (And frankly, some of the sleazier ones are a lot more entertaining than the original.)
Graveyard Shift
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Just three days after watching an evil rats movie, here comes another one. This time, from the Stephen King set.
I remember the short story, and I remember liking it. I liked the movie, too. The story was a lot creepier, but the movie was fun. It's a good, not great, little monster movie with some cool makeup effects and whatnot. It didn't seem to have a very large budget or anything, but it looked nice, and I thought the evil rat king was pretty sweet. (Although I remember the story having a whole shitload of weird mutant rats... the movie only has this one, which is a missed opportunity for aweomeness).
The acting was also pretty good, for this type of affair. Straightforward, likeable characters vs. rats. Except the dude playing the villain, who goes really over-the-top, and not in a good way. More iin a stupid way. Which is a shame, because the movie already has Brad Dourif in a good over-the-top performance as a rat catcher. Which was enough, but this villain dude has to go and spoil everything.
Still, I liked it.
Just three days after watching an evil rats movie, here comes another one. This time, from the Stephen King set.
I remember the short story, and I remember liking it. I liked the movie, too. The story was a lot creepier, but the movie was fun. It's a good, not great, little monster movie with some cool makeup effects and whatnot. It didn't seem to have a very large budget or anything, but it looked nice, and I thought the evil rat king was pretty sweet. (Although I remember the story having a whole shitload of weird mutant rats... the movie only has this one, which is a missed opportunity for aweomeness).
The acting was also pretty good, for this type of affair. Straightforward, likeable characters vs. rats. Except the dude playing the villain, who goes really over-the-top, and not in a good way. More iin a stupid way. Which is a shame, because the movie already has Brad Dourif in a good over-the-top performance as a rat catcher. Which was enough, but this villain dude has to go and spoil everything.
Still, I liked it.
Pet Sematary
Monday, December 31, 2007
I picked up a cheap set of 4 Stephen King movies. Shenan and I watched this one New Year's Eve to kill time before the party.
Hadn't seen this one since I was a kid, and I vaguely remembered liking it. Turns out that it's pretty lame, even if it does have Tasha Yar and the guy from Time Trax.
A pretty mediocre effort, but with a few choice moments of gore. Also, there's a really (I think unintentionally) funny scene where two guys get into a fistfight at a funeral and knock the casket over.
This did bring up a childhood memory. When I was young, an older kid I knew made with his parents video camera some stupid Pet Sematary knockoff called, if I remember correctly, Sixth Cemetery. Don't ask me why one would want to imitate Pet Sematary, or whyone would think Sixth Cemetery was a good title. The best part, though, was that at the end, he just spliced in the end credits from Pet Sematary, complete with the Ramones' theme song. Except every time Joey sang the word "pet," this kid dubbed in himself saying "sixth."
That shit still makes me smile, like 15 years later.
I picked up a cheap set of 4 Stephen King movies. Shenan and I watched this one New Year's Eve to kill time before the party.
Hadn't seen this one since I was a kid, and I vaguely remembered liking it. Turns out that it's pretty lame, even if it does have Tasha Yar and the guy from Time Trax.
A pretty mediocre effort, but with a few choice moments of gore. Also, there's a really (I think unintentionally) funny scene where two guys get into a fistfight at a funeral and knock the casket over.
This did bring up a childhood memory. When I was young, an older kid I knew made with his parents video camera some stupid Pet Sematary knockoff called, if I remember correctly, Sixth Cemetery. Don't ask me why one would want to imitate Pet Sematary, or whyone would think Sixth Cemetery was a good title. The best part, though, was that at the end, he just spliced in the end credits from Pet Sematary, complete with the Ramones' theme song. Except every time Joey sang the word "pet," this kid dubbed in himself saying "sixth."
That shit still makes me smile, like 15 years later.
Demons 2
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Andy and I finished up the pre-New Year's Eve Movie Marathon with the enjoyable sequel to the classic Demons. I've been pushing this a lot on here, but Demons is fucking great. Such a rare, perfect combination of intentional entertaining horror movie lunacy, and unintentional comedy.
Part Deux is not up to snuff with the first film, but it has it's merits. It's basically a rehash of the first movie, but with less amusingly awful dialogue (certainly it's less quotable) and also less violence (which I find confusing). Still, it has the same entertaining visual style, manic energy, fun special effects and the same kind of lunatic, nonsensical, fever dream of a plot.
Instead of an outbreak of demons at a movie theater, this time it happens in an apartment complex. Not quite as memorable, but still a good setting, opens up some new gimmicks, etc. I like the way the infected demon blood drips down from floor to floor and nails the unsuspecting inhabitants below.
One of my favorite parts of the original is what Andy and I refer to as the "Punks in a Car" motif. About halfway into Demons, the movie randomly cuts to a stolen car full of coke-snorting punks, miles away from the action. They all do some amazing overacting, with plenty of great-awful dialogue, and what's great is it's a total non-sequitor to cut from demons attacking people in a theater to a car full of punks doing jack shit. Ok, so you figure this is going somewhere. The punks do eventually show up at the theater, so maybe they will help fight off the demons, etc. But instead, once they end up at the theater, there is a scene of them being attacked and then they vanish from the film. Later, if you watch really closely and have seen the movie 4 or 5 times, you will notice that some of them are now in the background as demons.
I guess the point of the subplot is to explain how the demons get out into the real world, after one of the punks opens the door to the theater. I guess. It's still all completely asinine, and completely genius. And I bring this up, because part 2 out-asinines it in a way that makes me suspect that director Lamberto Bava is asinine like a fox. Because in Demons 2, we get another random car full of punks, who are on their way to the apartment building. It occasionally randomly cuts to them driving around, just like in part 1. Only this time, they get into a fender bender, and that's the last you see of them. They never actually make it to the apartment. They have nothing to do with the rest of the movie.
Bravo, Bava. Check and mate.
This was my 2nd time seeing Demons 2, it probably won't be my last, but I'm not going to watch it a million times like the original. Still, a good way to end our movie marathon. Good times.
Andy and I finished up the pre-New Year's Eve Movie Marathon with the enjoyable sequel to the classic Demons. I've been pushing this a lot on here, but Demons is fucking great. Such a rare, perfect combination of intentional entertaining horror movie lunacy, and unintentional comedy.
Part Deux is not up to snuff with the first film, but it has it's merits. It's basically a rehash of the first movie, but with less amusingly awful dialogue (certainly it's less quotable) and also less violence (which I find confusing). Still, it has the same entertaining visual style, manic energy, fun special effects and the same kind of lunatic, nonsensical, fever dream of a plot.
Instead of an outbreak of demons at a movie theater, this time it happens in an apartment complex. Not quite as memorable, but still a good setting, opens up some new gimmicks, etc. I like the way the infected demon blood drips down from floor to floor and nails the unsuspecting inhabitants below.
One of my favorite parts of the original is what Andy and I refer to as the "Punks in a Car" motif. About halfway into Demons, the movie randomly cuts to a stolen car full of coke-snorting punks, miles away from the action. They all do some amazing overacting, with plenty of great-awful dialogue, and what's great is it's a total non-sequitor to cut from demons attacking people in a theater to a car full of punks doing jack shit. Ok, so you figure this is going somewhere. The punks do eventually show up at the theater, so maybe they will help fight off the demons, etc. But instead, once they end up at the theater, there is a scene of them being attacked and then they vanish from the film. Later, if you watch really closely and have seen the movie 4 or 5 times, you will notice that some of them are now in the background as demons.
I guess the point of the subplot is to explain how the demons get out into the real world, after one of the punks opens the door to the theater. I guess. It's still all completely asinine, and completely genius. And I bring this up, because part 2 out-asinines it in a way that makes me suspect that director Lamberto Bava is asinine like a fox. Because in Demons 2, we get another random car full of punks, who are on their way to the apartment building. It occasionally randomly cuts to them driving around, just like in part 1. Only this time, they get into a fender bender, and that's the last you see of them. They never actually make it to the apartment. They have nothing to do with the rest of the movie.
Bravo, Bava. Check and mate.
This was my 2nd time seeing Demons 2, it probably won't be my last, but I'm not going to watch it a million times like the original. Still, a good way to end our movie marathon. Good times.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Rats: Night of Terror
Sunday, December 30, 2007
OK, this is a little more what I think I had in mind for our movie festival. This is one of them low budget, late 70s/early 80s italian horror/exploitation films I am so damn fond of, complete with graphic violence, bad writing, worse dubbing, and full frontal female nudity.
Well, this isn't a great one by any means. It's no Demons, that's for sure. Hell, it ain't even a Nightmare City in terms of quality. It's too fucking slow in the middle, not quite violent enough, and it lacks the requisite amount of accidental comedy.
Still, I'm gonna need to check out something else by this Bruno Mattei fellow, because I can sense that he has "the touch." There are enough moments here in Rats: Night of Terror that I suspect this guy makes good-bad sleazoid horror films, and hopefully not the boring or pervy kind.
I think Andy and I knew this wasn't going to a complete waste of time when the movie started with a text crawl. See, we figured this one was going to be a pretty simple horny teens running afoul of evil rats scenrio. Not content with that simple bullshit, Mattei and co. open by letting us know that this takes place in a post-apocalyptic world, 225 years A.B. (after the bomb). And instead of horny teens, it's a horny, post-apocalyptic roving motorcycle gang. Running afoul of evil rats. Nice.
So, like I said, no classic, but there are moments. Like when one unfortunate girl gets a rat up the pussy. Youch! And not only that, but then it comes out her mouth... that's the kind of extra effort I'm looking for in these kinds of shitty movies.
Then there is a completely ridiculous, hilarious twist ending that is so fucking silly that I think it reaches some kind of level of genius. You see, the opening text explains that most of earth's inhabitants live underground, and that they hate the ones that live above and consider them savages. So at the end, the 2 survivoring bikers are saved by a bunch of dudes in gas masks who gas all the rats to death. These obviously must be the people who live under the earth. Only when they take off the masks... OMG they are giant people sized rats!!!!!!
This sounds reatrded, and it is. But but but... I started wondering why the giant rats were killing the other rats instead of the humans. Then I remembered the opening text. These giant rats are the underground dwellers mentioned in the beginning, and it's the above ground rats that they hate and think are savages, not the humans.
That they actually set this ridiculous twist up in the opening I think earns some kind of special B-movie medal for Best Worst Thinking Outside the Box-type Extra Effort in a Horror Film award. Go for the gold!
In conclusion, this is not one I will likely watch again. But I'm thinking of checking out more by Bruno Mattei, maybe Hell of the Living Dead. I get the feeling he's got a classic awesome shitty movie somewhere in his filmography.
OK, this is a little more what I think I had in mind for our movie festival. This is one of them low budget, late 70s/early 80s italian horror/exploitation films I am so damn fond of, complete with graphic violence, bad writing, worse dubbing, and full frontal female nudity.
Well, this isn't a great one by any means. It's no Demons, that's for sure. Hell, it ain't even a Nightmare City in terms of quality. It's too fucking slow in the middle, not quite violent enough, and it lacks the requisite amount of accidental comedy.
Still, I'm gonna need to check out something else by this Bruno Mattei fellow, because I can sense that he has "the touch." There are enough moments here in Rats: Night of Terror that I suspect this guy makes good-bad sleazoid horror films, and hopefully not the boring or pervy kind.
I think Andy and I knew this wasn't going to a complete waste of time when the movie started with a text crawl. See, we figured this one was going to be a pretty simple horny teens running afoul of evil rats scenrio. Not content with that simple bullshit, Mattei and co. open by letting us know that this takes place in a post-apocalyptic world, 225 years A.B. (after the bomb). And instead of horny teens, it's a horny, post-apocalyptic roving motorcycle gang. Running afoul of evil rats. Nice.
So, like I said, no classic, but there are moments. Like when one unfortunate girl gets a rat up the pussy. Youch! And not only that, but then it comes out her mouth... that's the kind of extra effort I'm looking for in these kinds of shitty movies.
Then there is a completely ridiculous, hilarious twist ending that is so fucking silly that I think it reaches some kind of level of genius. You see, the opening text explains that most of earth's inhabitants live underground, and that they hate the ones that live above and consider them savages. So at the end, the 2 survivoring bikers are saved by a bunch of dudes in gas masks who gas all the rats to death. These obviously must be the people who live under the earth. Only when they take off the masks... OMG they are giant people sized rats!!!!!!
This sounds reatrded, and it is. But but but... I started wondering why the giant rats were killing the other rats instead of the humans. Then I remembered the opening text. These giant rats are the underground dwellers mentioned in the beginning, and it's the above ground rats that they hate and think are savages, not the humans.
That they actually set this ridiculous twist up in the opening I think earns some kind of special B-movie medal for Best Worst Thinking Outside the Box-type Extra Effort in a Horror Film award. Go for the gold!
In conclusion, this is not one I will likely watch again. But I'm thinking of checking out more by Bruno Mattei, maybe Hell of the Living Dead. I get the feeling he's got a classic awesome shitty movie somewhere in his filmography.
Teorema
Sunday, December 30, 2007
This one was Andy's suggestion.
You know when you're watching a movie, or show, or whatever, and they do a parody of some pretentious, foreign arthouse film. It's always, like, a bunch of people in a field or the desert, and nothing really happens, and the dialogue is all either mundane or oblique, and then randomly it turns black and white maybe? Well, I think Teorema might be the film they are referring to. Or maybe they are inspired to this Passolini fellow who directed. Either way, this movie is the exact image that is conjured in our minds when someone refers to a movie as a pretentious bore.
Not exactly the best choice for our marathon, but oh well. We're pioneers, we try new things. And it wasn't terrible, just boring. I'm all for weird, experimental shit, but this just didn't engage me on any level. Lots of silence, and people walking around slowly doing vague things, and it's not particularly well shot or thought-provoking. I mean, for shit's sake, I've watched and enjoyed Antonioni movies. I love Fellini's 8 1/2. I'm ok with weird and slow. Just give me something to chew on. I think this one wants to be enigmatic. It's certainly impenetrable, but not in a way that inspires the viewer to explore its depths. It leaves you scratching your head, but only for like 5 minutes. Then you completely forget about it.
This new year, for the next couple of months, I've pledged a Kommittment to Klassiks, where I will make an effort to watch more older films, and weird art house films, and beloved directors that I am unfamiliar with, and try to branch out a bit in to things I haven't seen. I will watch more westerns, some Fassbinder, some Preminger, I want to see The Best Years of Our Lives, more Kurosawa, probably more Antonioni, maybe try Douglas Sirk, continue further with Humphrey Bogart and John Huston, maybe catch some obscure Hitchcock even though I feel well rounded with his stuff, see some more of the beloved 70's golden era whatever the fuck movies, and then just all sorts of oth random shit I'm ignorant of. Give new things a try. (I'll try to cut back on the slasher movies and that shit, but only a little bit. One man's trash is another man's treasure). Well, I did my good deed with Passolini, and I wash my hands clean. I don't think he'll be on my list for the coming year.
HEY KIDS! DAN'S FREE, SUPER-SPECIAL, BONUS, ALTERNATE REVIEW OF PASSOLINI'S TEOREMA!!!!! :
What the fuck?!
This one was Andy's suggestion.
You know when you're watching a movie, or show, or whatever, and they do a parody of some pretentious, foreign arthouse film. It's always, like, a bunch of people in a field or the desert, and nothing really happens, and the dialogue is all either mundane or oblique, and then randomly it turns black and white maybe? Well, I think Teorema might be the film they are referring to. Or maybe they are inspired to this Passolini fellow who directed. Either way, this movie is the exact image that is conjured in our minds when someone refers to a movie as a pretentious bore.
Not exactly the best choice for our marathon, but oh well. We're pioneers, we try new things. And it wasn't terrible, just boring. I'm all for weird, experimental shit, but this just didn't engage me on any level. Lots of silence, and people walking around slowly doing vague things, and it's not particularly well shot or thought-provoking. I mean, for shit's sake, I've watched and enjoyed Antonioni movies. I love Fellini's 8 1/2. I'm ok with weird and slow. Just give me something to chew on. I think this one wants to be enigmatic. It's certainly impenetrable, but not in a way that inspires the viewer to explore its depths. It leaves you scratching your head, but only for like 5 minutes. Then you completely forget about it.
This new year, for the next couple of months, I've pledged a Kommittment to Klassiks, where I will make an effort to watch more older films, and weird art house films, and beloved directors that I am unfamiliar with, and try to branch out a bit in to things I haven't seen. I will watch more westerns, some Fassbinder, some Preminger, I want to see The Best Years of Our Lives, more Kurosawa, probably more Antonioni, maybe try Douglas Sirk, continue further with Humphrey Bogart and John Huston, maybe catch some obscure Hitchcock even though I feel well rounded with his stuff, see some more of the beloved 70's golden era whatever the fuck movies, and then just all sorts of oth random shit I'm ignorant of. Give new things a try. (I'll try to cut back on the slasher movies and that shit, but only a little bit. One man's trash is another man's treasure). Well, I did my good deed with Passolini, and I wash my hands clean. I don't think he'll be on my list for the coming year.
HEY KIDS! DAN'S FREE, SUPER-SPECIAL, BONUS, ALTERNATE REVIEW OF PASSOLINI'S TEOREMA!!!!! :
What the fuck?!
Theatre of Blood
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Part 2 of the Price is Right Double Feature (and 4th movie of the day) was a little picture called Theatre of Blood... and goddamn.
I said before that Madhouse was my favorite of the 2 Price movies, and that's true, as I think it was better shot and a more consistantly entertaining. But there's something about this Theatre of Blood. It's just so fucking nuts... I mean, completely coo-coo for Cocoa Puffs. Let me explain.
This time, VP plays Edward Lionheart (good name), a Shakesperian theatre actor who is killing off all the critics who wrote bad reviews about him and humiliated him by not giving him an acting award that (he felt) he deserved. And he kills them in ways taken from (or more often loosely inspired by) Shakespeare plays. OK, so far it sounds pretty similar to Madhouse. Only this time, "the Veep" (as I call him) is straight fuckin' looney tunes; there's no mystery about who the killer is, it's him. We just follow him along on his murder spree, aided by his (get this) loyal band of muderous, hippie hobos. Also in tow is his sexy daughter, who disguises herself by wearing a fake beard and 'fro and pretends to be a man. She tends to help lure in the critics with some sort of ruse. I guess I can maybe accept that the critics couldn't tell she was a woman, but didn't, say, that one critic think it was at all odd that some hippie looking dude with a weird voice was hosting a wine tasting with a bunch of smelly homeless people dressed up in ill-fitting suits?
These critics kind of have it coming, is what I mean.
See, then what makes this flick even more bizzare is the fucked up ways they kill everybody. They don't just snuff them out, some of this shit is gross and protracted. They cut a pound of flesh off of one fellow, in a re-writing of The Merchant of Venice. Actually, they take off too much flesh, so Lionheart cuts off a piece and re-weighs it. (No word on if they put the extra flesh back). Another dude, Lionheart bakes his beloved pet poodles into a meat pie and force feeds it to him until he chokes to death.
Even worse is when Lionheart and Co. sneak into one guys house, dressed as surgeons, drug him and his sleeping wife, and then slowly cut the head off his still living body. And since Lionheart is an actor, he stays in character the whole time and pretends to be a surgeon, with an assistant that wipes his forehead and everything. His only audience being his buddies and, I guess, us. Oh and there's some really inappropriate, rather pretty music playing on the soundtrack, which makes the scene both funnier and more disturbing.
Then, each time he kills someone, he recites an appropriate quote from a Shakespeare play.
This movie has problems. The cinematography seemed a little bland, and the editing a little choppy at times. Some of this may be an issue with the DVD (the audio was also a little too quiet at times), but it still isn't always a well crafted movie. It's a little sloppy. Some of the humor (it's more of a dark comedy than anything else) is a little corny at times, too.
Damn, though. It's maybe not a well-made film always, but it's fascinating. It's just so oddball, veering from broad comedy, to really dark comedy, to full-on horror. It gets my thumbs up. You just don't see shit like this every day.
Part 2 of the Price is Right Double Feature (and 4th movie of the day) was a little picture called Theatre of Blood... and goddamn.
I said before that Madhouse was my favorite of the 2 Price movies, and that's true, as I think it was better shot and a more consistantly entertaining. But there's something about this Theatre of Blood. It's just so fucking nuts... I mean, completely coo-coo for Cocoa Puffs. Let me explain.
This time, VP plays Edward Lionheart (good name), a Shakesperian theatre actor who is killing off all the critics who wrote bad reviews about him and humiliated him by not giving him an acting award that (he felt) he deserved. And he kills them in ways taken from (or more often loosely inspired by) Shakespeare plays. OK, so far it sounds pretty similar to Madhouse. Only this time, "the Veep" (as I call him) is straight fuckin' looney tunes; there's no mystery about who the killer is, it's him. We just follow him along on his murder spree, aided by his (get this) loyal band of muderous, hippie hobos. Also in tow is his sexy daughter, who disguises herself by wearing a fake beard and 'fro and pretends to be a man. She tends to help lure in the critics with some sort of ruse. I guess I can maybe accept that the critics couldn't tell she was a woman, but didn't, say, that one critic think it was at all odd that some hippie looking dude with a weird voice was hosting a wine tasting with a bunch of smelly homeless people dressed up in ill-fitting suits?
These critics kind of have it coming, is what I mean.
See, then what makes this flick even more bizzare is the fucked up ways they kill everybody. They don't just snuff them out, some of this shit is gross and protracted. They cut a pound of flesh off of one fellow, in a re-writing of The Merchant of Venice. Actually, they take off too much flesh, so Lionheart cuts off a piece and re-weighs it. (No word on if they put the extra flesh back). Another dude, Lionheart bakes his beloved pet poodles into a meat pie and force feeds it to him until he chokes to death.
Even worse is when Lionheart and Co. sneak into one guys house, dressed as surgeons, drug him and his sleeping wife, and then slowly cut the head off his still living body. And since Lionheart is an actor, he stays in character the whole time and pretends to be a surgeon, with an assistant that wipes his forehead and everything. His only audience being his buddies and, I guess, us. Oh and there's some really inappropriate, rather pretty music playing on the soundtrack, which makes the scene both funnier and more disturbing.
Then, each time he kills someone, he recites an appropriate quote from a Shakespeare play.
This movie has problems. The cinematography seemed a little bland, and the editing a little choppy at times. Some of this may be an issue with the DVD (the audio was also a little too quiet at times), but it still isn't always a well crafted movie. It's a little sloppy. Some of the humor (it's more of a dark comedy than anything else) is a little corny at times, too.
Damn, though. It's maybe not a well-made film always, but it's fascinating. It's just so oddball, veering from broad comedy, to really dark comedy, to full-on horror. It gets my thumbs up. You just don't see shit like this every day.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Madhouse
Sunday, December 30, 2007
The next step in our adventure was what we called The Price is Right Double Feature. It was back-to-back Vincent Price movies, both with a similar plot. (Or so we assumed).
Madhouse was my favorite of the two. In it, Price plays... well, sort of himself. He's an aging horror movie actor attempting to make a comeback. Only, in a twist that I assume is not based on his real life, people on the set of his new movie keep getting killed by a mysterious masked madman. And the killer is killing them in the exact same ways that characters were killed by him in his old movies. Could Price be the killer? Or is someone setting him up?
This is a pretty entertaining horror/mystery type flick, good-looking, with a typically enjoyable performance by Price. It's not a particularly graphic film, but it was more violent than I was expecting. (That's a pleasant surprise). Also, as an added bonus, Peter Cushing is along for the ride, too. And they make good use of actual clips from some of Price's older movies.
It also had a really weird ending that I'm not sure I understood. I was scratching my head a bit. But in a good way, if you feel me.
The next step in our adventure was what we called The Price is Right Double Feature. It was back-to-back Vincent Price movies, both with a similar plot. (Or so we assumed).
Madhouse was my favorite of the two. In it, Price plays... well, sort of himself. He's an aging horror movie actor attempting to make a comeback. Only, in a twist that I assume is not based on his real life, people on the set of his new movie keep getting killed by a mysterious masked madman. And the killer is killing them in the exact same ways that characters were killed by him in his old movies. Could Price be the killer? Or is someone setting him up?
This is a pretty entertaining horror/mystery type flick, good-looking, with a typically enjoyable performance by Price. It's not a particularly graphic film, but it was more violent than I was expecting. (That's a pleasant surprise). Also, as an added bonus, Peter Cushing is along for the ride, too. And they make good use of actual clips from some of Price's older movies.
It also had a really weird ending that I'm not sure I understood. I was scratching my head a bit. But in a good way, if you feel me.
Alien Vs. Predator - Requiem
Next up in the marathon, we followed No Country immediately with AvPR. I know, I know. Not the best matched combo, but for whatever reason we decided it was the only other movie that made sense.
Well, I know Andy doesn't agree with me here, but I actually think this movie is better than No Country.... just fucking with you, I mean it's actually better than the first AvP. Which is to say, it's a really mediocre waste of time, but that it didn't inspire any hatred in me.
Of course, I have an almost irrational hatred of the films of Paul WS Anderson, but still. This one is better. More blood, less unnecessary exposition and pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo. Also, this time a Generic Blonde Hottie gets into her skivvies. Although, now that I think about it, this flick was rated R, so we should have at least gotten some tits. I feel a little gypped.
What's kind of funny is that these movies have had the (terrible) idea of bringing Aliens to modern day America I guess as a last ditch effort to inject some blood into a dying premise, but then they completely don't do anything interesting with the new setting.
In this one, the aliens and a predator end up in some small town. The heroes include some wannabe badass rolling back into town after being gone a few years, his teenage brother, the above mentioned Generic Blonde hottie the brother wants to fuck, her asshole jock boyfriend, and the skeptical local sheriff who doesn't realize what's up until the shit has already hit the fan. That's right, the aliens have pretty much accidentally landed in a generic 80's slasher movie.
Actually, realizing that this is just a Friday the 13th sequel with Aliens instead of Jason is what made me not hate this movie as much as I could have. Yeah, as an Alien movie, it's pretty embarrassing, but as a lesser Jason movie, it's kind of acceptable.
Or, well, that's being a little generous. It's not intolerable.
Well, I know Andy doesn't agree with me here, but I actually think this movie is better than No Country.... just fucking with you, I mean it's actually better than the first AvP. Which is to say, it's a really mediocre waste of time, but that it didn't inspire any hatred in me.
Of course, I have an almost irrational hatred of the films of Paul WS Anderson, but still. This one is better. More blood, less unnecessary exposition and pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo. Also, this time a Generic Blonde Hottie gets into her skivvies. Although, now that I think about it, this flick was rated R, so we should have at least gotten some tits. I feel a little gypped.
What's kind of funny is that these movies have had the (terrible) idea of bringing Aliens to modern day America I guess as a last ditch effort to inject some blood into a dying premise, but then they completely don't do anything interesting with the new setting.
In this one, the aliens and a predator end up in some small town. The heroes include some wannabe badass rolling back into town after being gone a few years, his teenage brother, the above mentioned Generic Blonde hottie the brother wants to fuck, her asshole jock boyfriend, and the skeptical local sheriff who doesn't realize what's up until the shit has already hit the fan. That's right, the aliens have pretty much accidentally landed in a generic 80's slasher movie.
Actually, realizing that this is just a Friday the 13th sequel with Aliens instead of Jason is what made me not hate this movie as much as I could have. Yeah, as an Alien movie, it's pretty embarrassing, but as a lesser Jason movie, it's kind of acceptable.
Or, well, that's being a little generous. It's not intolerable.
No Country For Old Men
Sunday, December 30, 2007
As I was mid-vacation on Sunday, I decided it would be a perfect day for an all-day movie marathon with my brother. Andy and I started by waking ourselves up bright and early, and catching the first showing of No Country For Old Men.
I had already seen this one before, and it's definitely on my short list for Best Fuckin' Movie 2007. This is a nice mixture of genre movie masterpiece and art house movie masterpiece. If it weren't for The Big Lebowski, this would be my favorite Coen Brothers flick.
I think my favorite thing about No Country, or at least the part of it that most resonates, is the sort of unexpected direction it veers off into during the last 20 minutes or so. It's genius, and maybe a little devious, the way the Coen's set us up to expect a big, climactic showdown, and instead leave us scratching our heads. I mean, 23 years of movie going had lead me to anticipate major confrontation, but instead the movie has a slow, thoughtful closing. The way it all plays out is a little haunting, and it's not an easy movie to dismiss.
Well, if I get around to doing a Best Of list, I'll probably have more to say on this one. As for now, I must move along, as there is much catching up to do...
As I was mid-vacation on Sunday, I decided it would be a perfect day for an all-day movie marathon with my brother. Andy and I started by waking ourselves up bright and early, and catching the first showing of No Country For Old Men.
I had already seen this one before, and it's definitely on my short list for Best Fuckin' Movie 2007. This is a nice mixture of genre movie masterpiece and art house movie masterpiece. If it weren't for The Big Lebowski, this would be my favorite Coen Brothers flick.
I think my favorite thing about No Country, or at least the part of it that most resonates, is the sort of unexpected direction it veers off into during the last 20 minutes or so. It's genius, and maybe a little devious, the way the Coen's set us up to expect a big, climactic showdown, and instead leave us scratching our heads. I mean, 23 years of movie going had lead me to anticipate major confrontation, but instead the movie has a slow, thoughtful closing. The way it all plays out is a little haunting, and it's not an easy movie to dismiss.
Well, if I get around to doing a Best Of list, I'll probably have more to say on this one. As for now, I must move along, as there is much catching up to do...
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
You Got Served
Saturday, December 29, 2007
OK, I'm going to be honest here. This was probably the 4th or 5th time I've watched You Got Served, and my enjoyment of it isn't entirely ironic. Yes, a lot of this movie is laughably bad, especially the dialogue. Also, the movie dismisses a very large subplot that took up a large chunk of the movie, with just a very quick exchange of dialogue between minor characters. This is not a good film.
But god damn it, if I don't genuinely enjoy all this silliness, and god damn it if the dancing doesn't plaster a big fucking smile on my face.
This movie is what I categorize as a Demons Movie. The Demons Movie classification is named after Demons, which is one of the most wildly entertaining movies ever made. The thing that makes it special is that it is entertaining for reasons that are completely unintentional, yet also entertaining for the very reasons it tries to entertain. It is like a fascinating hybrid of a so-bad-it's-good movie, and a no shit, for real so-good-its-god movie. (You see this trend mostly with horror movies).
You Got Served isn't as incredible as Demons, no, but it provides that same combo of actual entertainment with unintentional hilarity.
Oh, and there's this one part where it's a rap/rock musical montage of the characters training and practicing their dance moves in a gym, when suddenly there is a thunder crash and the next shot is of them outside, dancing shirtless in the rain. No logic or rationalization for this, just the power of the image of shirtless black men in the rain. And I swear to fuck it's that kind of potent visual triumphing over logic or narrative that is the very essence of cinema itself. For real.
OK, I'm going to be honest here. This was probably the 4th or 5th time I've watched You Got Served, and my enjoyment of it isn't entirely ironic. Yes, a lot of this movie is laughably bad, especially the dialogue. Also, the movie dismisses a very large subplot that took up a large chunk of the movie, with just a very quick exchange of dialogue between minor characters. This is not a good film.
But god damn it, if I don't genuinely enjoy all this silliness, and god damn it if the dancing doesn't plaster a big fucking smile on my face.
This movie is what I categorize as a Demons Movie. The Demons Movie classification is named after Demons, which is one of the most wildly entertaining movies ever made. The thing that makes it special is that it is entertaining for reasons that are completely unintentional, yet also entertaining for the very reasons it tries to entertain. It is like a fascinating hybrid of a so-bad-it's-good movie, and a no shit, for real so-good-its-god movie. (You see this trend mostly with horror movies).
You Got Served isn't as incredible as Demons, no, but it provides that same combo of actual entertainment with unintentional hilarity.
Oh, and there's this one part where it's a rap/rock musical montage of the characters training and practicing their dance moves in a gym, when suddenly there is a thunder crash and the next shot is of them outside, dancing shirtless in the rain. No logic or rationalization for this, just the power of the image of shirtless black men in the rain. And I swear to fuck it's that kind of potent visual triumphing over logic or narrative that is the very essence of cinema itself. For real.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)