Undenibly Fun - Plugging ROH latest PPV and Filmmage!
Boy, I Said Stay Away From My Cat!
There Will Be Blood
Paul Thomas Anderson’s American epic about an oilman in the early Twentieth century is as misleading with its title as its source material. While there is blood, there aren’t bucket loads to warrant it the R-rating it receives (really) and Upton Sinclair’s novel Oil! only works as the skeleton for what the narrative actually focuses on. Provided that the central themes of the movie are deception and manipulation, these inconsistencies only seem appropriate.
Daniel Day-Lewis is Daniel Plainview, a family man whose ideology stems into the darkest realm of the American psyche. He believes that the callused hands of a businessman define his character. Plainview comes from a time where Darwinist theory claimed the lives of many in the frontier for wealth, and does what he sees is needed to assure that no one jeopardizes his wellbeing. Plainview has, as his name suggests, a clear view of what he wants but does not go about it plainly.
In may ways, Day-Lewis portrays the tragic hero as he often does. His character has much in common with his Bill the Butcher from Gangs of New York, and both give similarly chilling speeches under decadent lighting. His nemesis Eli Sunday, who actor Paul Dano presents evenly and does not become overshadowed, brings about the worst in Plainview, and also the best. You find yourself liking him whenever Eli appears.
What we see are characters who lie in order to get ahead, and also to prevent themselves from appearing weak. There Will Be Blood rarely uses subtlety to reveal its themes. Musical cues drown out all other sound when something ominous and meaningful is about to happen. Anderson’s uses a dueling scene technique to bring his messages home. For instance, soon after Eli talks to Daniel about blessing the drill, we see Eli looking on the oil geyser that has since been set to flame, to give us that “hell on earth” imagery that parallels the action happening on screen. The same trick is used to show us how similar Eli and Daniel are in relationship to their family.
Anderson’s excessiveness (and occasional obviousness) has come to be a staple in his movies. All which are long and character driven. Fortunately for us, Anderson is a talented enough director who can assemble terrific casts. Few can begin to match the performance that Daniel Day-Lewis gives, and without him the movie wouldn’t be half as interesting. However, we don’t have to worry about any such scenario. What we do have is a very good movie with a good story, and one individual who demands to be seen. (A)
Cloverfield
Matt Reeves had a clever idea about shooting a monster movie strictly from the perspective of the common folk. J.J Abrams had a clever idea on how to market such a movie, and what you have is a success story of established conventions. With a cast of B-list actors from either television or films that didn’t leave much of an impression, you have the formula for what many may call the illusion of realism. It’s never quite that, but it works well enough.
So anyway, you have these up-and-coming models at a party, all whom have a My Space account and lots of their daddy’s money to throw around, with little to worry about but whether or not they’re getting laid tonight. Fortunately for us , a giant monster appears to make things interesting. Also, despite his horrendous camera skills, we have a likeable character named Hud that without his humorous reactions would have taken away most of the humanity from the movie.
The footage that begins the film does little to sale the main protagonists, other than as a plot device. They aren’t annoying but they serve about the same purpose that such characters would if they were in a traditional Hollywood horror flick. Cloverfield uses many of these traditional horror methods that when they don’t work cheapens the experience. There is a scene borrowed from The Descent that thankfully is countered by Hud's realistic reaction to it. For the most part, these cheap thrills are used sparingly.
From about the get-go, we are thrown into the action and must rely on the Children of Men show-don’t-tell storytelling to get most of the details. A lot of which is under speculation and hints at a possible sequel. I’d argue that the novelty of the film would be lost if there were other films to explain the mystery of the monster, but when you consider the reliance of Post 9/11 sentiments for exploitative means, you may want Reeves to consider building what Japan did with Godzilla in concern with the H-bomb.**
As is, you have a very entertaining movie that does justice to the genre. Anyone who complains that we don’t see enough of the monster must have been vomiting in their popcorn bag. Had this movie been made in 2000, it would not have been nearly as effective because without the fleshing out of the characters and the real-life parallels, you’d have a mess of footage with some cool special effects. The question of tastes is valid, but it’s a monster movie and rarely have they been associated with the high standards of tastes. No one screams terrorism, or references some other movie which are omissions that I appreciated.
If there was ever a doubt about cameras experiencing adrenaline, the one in Cloverfield proves it when you consider it’s endurance amongst the chaos. By the conclusion, you feel just as battered but surprisingly undrained. (B)
** There is a really great movie called "Picnic at Hanging Rock" that revolves around the mystery of four people who go missing at Hanging Rock. The film focuses on the reactions of the populace to their disappearance. If it wasn't about that and rather on what happened to the people, I doubt it would have been nearly as memorable. Cloverfield is similar in perspective, while not as focused in the meaning it's trying to convey by doing it.
Horror High (1974)
An instant classic about two guinea pigs in the laboratory called life. One is a nerd with thickly framed glasses named Vernon and the other is his furry pal named Mr. Mumps. Both whom experiment with a chemical that makes them go mad. Mr. Mumps transforms into a beast that feasts on felines and is brutally murdered by a janitor who loves bologna sandwiches.
Vernon in a rage, drinks his concoction and becomes something he will regret. He gets revenge on the janitor and disposes of his body in a barrel of sulfuric acid. The remains are discovered and result in an investigation by a funky bunch of gentlemen who try to uncover the mystery that is Horror High.
Meanwhile, Vernon awakens in his bed to what he thinks is the Bloody Mary version of a wet dream, though audiences may wonder if Vernon is really a man at all! We find out when we experience an origin story that appears in the glossy frame somewhere in Los Angeles. His father talks on a phone while his girlfriend makes faces at him. These pivotal details may seem unnecessary at first, but we realize by the time the credits roll that they mean everything.
Vernon is baffled by the detective’s alluring questioning about the janitor. He doesn’t know whether or not to unbutton his own wall-paper designed shirt and reveal his three chest hairs, or to comply with actual answers pertaining to the case. Lt. Bozeman can’t help but look onward with his hands placed firmly at his hips, confused as to why Vernon doesn’t get the message.
Horror High is an erotic neo-realism about how a teenager must survive in an institution that forbids his sexual exploration. Screenwriter Jake Fowler (pronounced Foul-er) explores a students fantasy to get head from his English teacher and to hang by the waist side with his P.E. coach who also shares an interest in him. His identity is lost amongst his bi-curiousness that goes repressed due to society’s intervene.
In turn, Vernon must find refuge in a lab pet named Mr. Mumps, and a woman he cannot have, a playboy model who has returned after a decade to complete her high school degree. When these options are taken away from him, Vernon turns to chemicals and drugs where the results are truly horrifying. (A+)
There Will Be Blood
Paul Thomas Anderson’s American epic about an oilman in the early Twentieth century is as misleading with its title as its source material. While there is blood, there aren’t bucket loads to warrant it the R-rating it receives (really) and Upton Sinclair’s novel Oil! only works as the skeleton for what the narrative actually focuses on. Provided that the central themes of the movie are deception and manipulation, these inconsistencies only seem appropriate.
Daniel Day-Lewis is Daniel Plainview, a family man whose ideology stems into the darkest realm of the American psyche. He believes that the callused hands of a businessman define his character. Plainview comes from a time where Darwinist theory claimed the lives of many in the frontier for wealth, and does what he sees is needed to assure that no one jeopardizes his wellbeing. Plainview has, as his name suggests, a clear view of what he wants but does not go about it plainly.
In may ways, Day-Lewis portrays the tragic hero as he often does. His character has much in common with his Bill the Butcher from Gangs of New York, and both give similarly chilling speeches under decadent lighting. His nemesis Eli Sunday, who actor Paul Dano presents evenly and does not become overshadowed, brings about the worst in Plainview, and also the best. You find yourself liking him whenever Eli appears.
What we see are characters who lie in order to get ahead, and also to prevent themselves from appearing weak. There Will Be Blood rarely uses subtlety to reveal its themes. Musical cues drown out all other sound when something ominous and meaningful is about to happen. Anderson’s uses a dueling scene technique to bring his messages home. For instance, soon after Eli talks to Daniel about blessing the drill, we see Eli looking on the oil geyser that has since been set to flame, to give us that “hell on earth” imagery that parallels the action happening on screen. The same trick is used to show us how similar Eli and Daniel are in relationship to their family.
Anderson’s excessiveness (and occasional obviousness) has come to be a staple in his movies. All which are long and character driven. Fortunately for us, Anderson is a talented enough director who can assemble terrific casts. Few can begin to match the performance that Daniel Day-Lewis gives, and without him the movie wouldn’t be half as interesting. However, we don’t have to worry about any such scenario. What we do have is a very good movie with a good story, and one individual who demands to be seen. (A)
Cloverfield
Matt Reeves had a clever idea about shooting a monster movie strictly from the perspective of the common folk. J.J Abrams had a clever idea on how to market such a movie, and what you have is a success story of established conventions. With a cast of B-list actors from either television or films that didn’t leave much of an impression, you have the formula for what many may call the illusion of realism. It’s never quite that, but it works well enough.
So anyway, you have these up-and-coming models at a party, all whom have a My Space account and lots of their daddy’s money to throw around, with little to worry about but whether or not they’re getting laid tonight. Fortunately for us , a giant monster appears to make things interesting. Also, despite his horrendous camera skills, we have a likeable character named Hud that without his humorous reactions would have taken away most of the humanity from the movie.
The footage that begins the film does little to sale the main protagonists, other than as a plot device. They aren’t annoying but they serve about the same purpose that such characters would if they were in a traditional Hollywood horror flick. Cloverfield uses many of these traditional horror methods that when they don’t work cheapens the experience. There is a scene borrowed from The Descent that thankfully is countered by Hud's realistic reaction to it. For the most part, these cheap thrills are used sparingly.
From about the get-go, we are thrown into the action and must rely on the Children of Men show-don’t-tell storytelling to get most of the details. A lot of which is under speculation and hints at a possible sequel. I’d argue that the novelty of the film would be lost if there were other films to explain the mystery of the monster, but when you consider the reliance of Post 9/11 sentiments for exploitative means, you may want Reeves to consider building what Japan did with Godzilla in concern with the H-bomb.**
As is, you have a very entertaining movie that does justice to the genre. Anyone who complains that we don’t see enough of the monster must have been vomiting in their popcorn bag. Had this movie been made in 2000, it would not have been nearly as effective because without the fleshing out of the characters and the real-life parallels, you’d have a mess of footage with some cool special effects. The question of tastes is valid, but it’s a monster movie and rarely have they been associated with the high standards of tastes. No one screams terrorism, or references some other movie which are omissions that I appreciated.
If there was ever a doubt about cameras experiencing adrenaline, the one in Cloverfield proves it when you consider it’s endurance amongst the chaos. By the conclusion, you feel just as battered but surprisingly undrained. (B)
** There is a really great movie called "Picnic at Hanging Rock" that revolves around the mystery of four people who go missing at Hanging Rock. The film focuses on the reactions of the populace to their disappearance. If it wasn't about that and rather on what happened to the people, I doubt it would have been nearly as memorable. Cloverfield is similar in perspective, while not as focused in the meaning it's trying to convey by doing it.
Horror High (1974)
An instant classic about two guinea pigs in the laboratory called life. One is a nerd with thickly framed glasses named Vernon and the other is his furry pal named Mr. Mumps. Both whom experiment with a chemical that makes them go mad. Mr. Mumps transforms into a beast that feasts on felines and is brutally murdered by a janitor who loves bologna sandwiches.
Vernon in a rage, drinks his concoction and becomes something he will regret. He gets revenge on the janitor and disposes of his body in a barrel of sulfuric acid. The remains are discovered and result in an investigation by a funky bunch of gentlemen who try to uncover the mystery that is Horror High.
Meanwhile, Vernon awakens in his bed to what he thinks is the Bloody Mary version of a wet dream, though audiences may wonder if Vernon is really a man at all! We find out when we experience an origin story that appears in the glossy frame somewhere in Los Angeles. His father talks on a phone while his girlfriend makes faces at him. These pivotal details may seem unnecessary at first, but we realize by the time the credits roll that they mean everything.
Vernon is baffled by the detective’s alluring questioning about the janitor. He doesn’t know whether or not to unbutton his own wall-paper designed shirt and reveal his three chest hairs, or to comply with actual answers pertaining to the case. Lt. Bozeman can’t help but look onward with his hands placed firmly at his hips, confused as to why Vernon doesn’t get the message.
Horror High is an erotic neo-realism about how a teenager must survive in an institution that forbids his sexual exploration. Screenwriter Jake Fowler (pronounced Foul-er) explores a students fantasy to get head from his English teacher and to hang by the waist side with his P.E. coach who also shares an interest in him. His identity is lost amongst his bi-curiousness that goes repressed due to society’s intervene.
In turn, Vernon must find refuge in a lab pet named Mr. Mumps, and a woman he cannot have, a playboy model who has returned after a decade to complete her high school degree. When these options are taken away from him, Vernon turns to chemicals and drugs where the results are truly horrifying. (A+)