some summer flicks close to my heart
ALI: FEAR EATS THE SOUL- [4.1] Like Todd Hayne’s FAR FROM HEAVEN, this film is strongly influenced by Douglas Sirk’s film ALL THAT HEAVEN ALLOWS, in which an older woman falls for her young gardener. Fassbinder shakes things up a bit, by making the woman thirty years older than the man she falls in love with, who just happens to be Arabic. Some intense interracial stuff, obviously. Really intense stares, we always see people’s reactions to Ali. The cyclical torture of alienation is addressed here, as we see Emmi rejecting the new Yugoslavian cleaner, just as she herself was ignored only scenes earlier in the film. And of course, the nobly depressing Fassbinder ending. The great thing one can say about this film is the amazing acting. The script of course helps the actors tremendously, but Emmi especially is perfectly played. Ali is a little stiff, and doesn’t seem to act much. This could either be the character, or a result of his being cast because he was Fassbinder’s lover at the time. Either way, it works. For a work with such long pauses, I was never bored.
I, CLAUDIUS- [4.6] “By the way, don’t touch the figs.” This is perhaps, most probably, the best tv miniseries ever made. Even though it was filmed in the 1970’s, for BBC, with fairly low production value, this 12 hour epic is stunning. The acting is top notch, from Patrick Stewart’s evil Sejanus (with hair!), John Hurt’s gleefully psychotic turn as Caligula, Derrick Jacobi’s miraculous aging as the stuttering, egotistical protagonist Claudius, and my favorite, the perfectly cast Sian Phillips as the absolutely wicked Livia. This miniseries plays out like the best tabloid soap operas, but with an epic historical twist. This is the Bold and the Beautiful, 2000 years ago. Intrigue is everywhere; there’s incest, corruption, assassination, drunkenness, revolutions, insanity, executions, and so much sex you would think it was the playboy mansion. The stories themselves are the epitome of trashy, and more interesting than anything you’d read in the tabloids today. This is a very informative and entertaining look at Roman life, and you will learn a ton about the Julio-Claudian emperors, even if not everything is true (the original Roman authors had a tendency to exaggerate and gossip). I was so hooked, I talked back to the screen, and a number of times was heard gasping, “oh my god, I can’t believe you DID that, ______”: fill in the blank with Augustus, Livia, Julia, Claudius, Caligula, etc. For a good time, check this out.
THE LONG GOOD FRIDAY- [3.6] Decent British gangster flick. Not horribly interesting, nor action-filled. And I had a somewhat difficult time completely following the story. Perhaps because it was confusing, but most likely because I wasn’t engaged enough in the plot. The acting is solid, especially Bob Hoskins as a gangster who just wants to be legit, who, like Michael Corleone, wants to take his mafia world into semi-legal capitalistic ventures. His character is noble, yet violent, likeable, yet ruthless. Pierce Brosnan has a pretty good cameo, and the score is terrific. Yet, despite all that, the picture never really moved me. Maybe I needed to live in early Thatcherite London.
SLACKER- [3.8]
VERONICA VOSS- [4.3]
DOWNFALL- [4.4]
THE OBSCURE OBJECT OF DESIRE- [3.8]
MEAN STREETS- [3.9] Fine Scorsese film, with lots of the energy and emotional intensity to be found in his later, more polished work. Its extremely raw here, which is part of the film’s charm, and also a bit disengaging. The dialogue is difficult to hear and comprehend at times, and the story seems a bit scattered and more cinema verite than his later work. The camera work is fine, but the soundtrack and acting are the most exceptional parts of the work. The music came from Marty’s personal collection and its all fascinating and unnerving for its 1950’s innocent sensibility and yet fits right in with the mean world of 1970’s New York. Deniro is fabulously crazy, and there are plenty of humorous, violent outbursts, laying the groundwork for the masterpieces to come. A flawed, but necessary film in Scorsese’s growth into a personal director.
BIRTH- [2.6] What the fuck happened in this movie? I was really set to like it, despite the negative reviews I heard. It sounded just weird and unusual enough for me to latch on, what with Nicole Kidman falling in love with a 10 yr old boy who claims to be her reincarnated son. But, uh...really fucking boring. I was never quite sure why the kid, who claimed to be the husband, had come back, other than to fuck with Nicole's life and tell her not to marry her new fiance. The kid was really annoying, but perhaps that was the character. Nicole is ok, nothing special. The plot moves along so slowly, and I never felt any sympathy for the people involved. Mostly, I just agreed with Nicole's family, that the boy should go away and leave Nicole alone. The ending seemed ridiculous, and didn't really clear up anything for me, nor even interest me. Fairly worthless, but maybe deserving of a second chance, just for the originality of it. So much potential...
BOB & CAROL & TED & ALICE- [4.3] This is truly the great lost 60’s gem! A sharp, clever script delves into the fears and soul searching of two los angeles couples at the end of the 60’s. While poking fun at the often ridiculous nature of the hippy ‘free love’ movement, which led to wife swapping and orgies among the elite and upper classes, who thought of such new freedoms as being modern and intellectually stimulating, the film manages to avoid feeling jaded or bitter. In fact, all of the characters are treated with complete sympathy, even though they are all flawed in their own ways. Two married couples don’t know how to behave in a stuffy, confined adult world, and must resort to the vices of the lower classes, drugs and extramarital sex, in order to discover who they are and how to live life. It’s a wonderfully amusing and emotional film. The directing and acting are top notch as well. While Robert Culp is a poor man’s Warren Beatty, he still pulls it off beautifully. Speaking of beautiful, Natalie Wood is ravishing. The scene with the therapist is more real and cutting than almost any I”ve seen on film. There are so many memorable scenes of banter, but one in particular sticks out: a surreal scene on an airplane, written almost as a precursor to what Woody Allen would do in his 70’s comedies, with Ted speaking in monologue as a pretty woman undresses in the seat beside him. And the great quote: “Ok…so we’ll have an orgy and then go see Tony Bennett.” A generation defining film.
CASABLANCA- [4.7]
BANANAS- [4.1]
FRIDAY THE 13TH- [4.1]
LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS (1986)- [3.6]
SEX AND LUCIA- [3.3] With a title like that, and hot actresses like this film had, who would have thought that I would dislike it as much as I did?
DARK STAR- [4.0]
RIO BRAVO -[2.0] How can a film be so horribly overrated? This film was the definition of ennui. First of all, the cast should be magical, but the script doesn’t give them all much to do. In fact, most of the action is repeated for the length of the film, a whopping 2hours and 20 minutes! Whats strange about this flick is that, besides the primary characters, there doesn’t seem to be anyone else living in this town! The sets are bare, and ordinary folks are never seen. The dialogue and actions are redundant: Dean Martin getting drunk, kicking his habit, getting drunk, kicking it; Rick Nelson being on his own, joins the group, goes on his own, joins the posse; John Wayne going to the jail to check on the prisoner, going into the city, back to jail, back to the city. And nothing really happens!! The love interest is the most boring female alive. In fact, most of the characters are boring. There are no huge conflicts, and no one seems to really lose their cool. Everything feels too ambivalent. The only good scenes are whenever Ricky Nelson is on (oooh, that ass and that face), when Nelson and Martin duet on two full length country songs (“hey, nothing is happening in this movie, so lets just stick in 6 minutes of plotless singing!!”), and the scene where Martin shoots the killer hiding in the rafters. Oh, and Stumpy, except his humor was overused. This film solidifies my belief that I personally find great disappointment in classic Hollywood westerns. I like most styles of classic film, but classic romances and westerns don’t seem to sit well with me. I much prefer the grittier, more stylized spaghetti westerns to this. Or perhaps I don’t even really like westerns at all…
THE SECRET OF ROAN INISH- [1.0] Horrible, awful. One of the most boring films I’ve ever seen, with little to no reward factor. I had heard such good things about John Sayles. But then I saw LONE STAR, which is supposed to be his masterpiece. And then this childlike piece of shitttt. Perhaps I’m being unfair since I had been watching movies for 14 hours previous to viewing this thing, but I am going to stick with what I know. There is very little plot here, mostly just atmosphere. Basically, a little annoying girl hears stories from her relatives and then finds her lost selkie (somehow related to ocean seals) brother, who floats in little boat. The whole thing is annoying and pointless. My mind was about to self destruct upon viewing this trash.
RANSOM! (1956)- [4.0] Very strange film for the 1950’s. It is surprisingly realistic, with almost no musical soundtrack, making this tale of a child abduction earilly prescient. The script was unusual for the time, with very good dialogue, with little of it being dated or overly melodramatic. The acting is also top notch, with Glenn Ford doing a spectacular job as a desperate father. Leslie Neilsen also makes a fine dramatic effort. The film feels oddly like a stage play, with the house being the only real set of the whole feature. And this enclosed feeling works well for the audience to get in touch strictly with the father’s dilemma and emotions. The ending is odd, mostly because of its quiet tone, considering how unlikely it is. The boy just wanders back, is embraced, and the film ends. A satisfying enough resolution because the boy is recovered, but the rest of the mystery is left unsolved. Also, I can’t recall seeing a 1950’s b/w feature done in widescreen before. Usually its shot in 1:1.35. It just appeared strange to me, at first. Hm.
RANSOM (1996)- [4.0] While being an action/suspense thriller update on the previous, tension-filled drama, this remake still possesses enough good acting, dialogue, and story to warrant the same rating as the original. Rene Russo is better than Donna Reed, but Mel Gibson is no match for Glenn Ford. Because this is a Gibson vehicle, the father is turned into a powerhouse, morally upright (even though he is given a “character flaw”) dad who will battle the bad guys with his bloody fists raging. What’s interesting about this story is that it basically fills in the blanks to the original. While the most we ever see of the bad guy in the 50’s version is a shadowy hand smoking a cig, this new one basically becomes the bad guy’s story. I would argue that most of this film is centered around Gary Senise, the bad cop gone kidnapper. There’s some pretty scary stuff in this film too, especially when Gibson opens his email to see the video of his kid handcuffed to the ratty bed. Both this and the original seem too long, and Ron Howard, though doing a good job as director, failed to remove the script’s horribly cheesy fight scene at the end of the flick, where Gibson beats the shit out of the bad guy. It’s a typical Hollywood ending, it serves its purpose, but…its still kind of a cheap trick. (oh, and I thought it was very interesting how the score sounded so similar to the PSYCHO soundtrack. Just food for thought).
BREAKING NEWS- [4.0] Truly remarkable 7 minute opening, with one long take to capture an entire fight sequence: the camera glides around, cranes up and down, all very slowly, curiously, as we see the gangsters planning their getaway, the cops intercepting them, the battle beginning, cops getting shot, and the gangsters fleeing in a stolen police car. How Johnnie To managed to coreograph this sequence so perfectly is a feat unto itself. The rest of the movie isn’t nearly as remarkable, but does hold its own against many big budget Hollywood action films. The gangsters hide out in a huge Hong Kong apartment complex, and the cops, eager to win back their reputation that was tarnished in the earlier battle, decide to put on a show for the cops, instead of going in full force for the arrest. The power of the media theme is blatant, but well done. There are many comical moments, such as when the gangsters prepare a meal with their hostages and then leak video of them eating peacefully onto the internet. The police counter this publicity by ordering expensive lunches for themselves (“We have to show them cops are human too.”) and for the crazed paparazzi. The film is a bit long, and character development is strongest with the antagonists (I really knew nothing about the ‘heroes’), but still a fun, thrilling ride.
THE MISSION (1999)- [4.0]
THE HITCHHIKER’S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY- [3.8]
THE LAST TEMPTATION- [3.9] Very entertaining, well acted, well written, and well directed movie. The big shocker is that it was a MADE FOR TV movie!!!! Yea, stunning. Linda Fiorentino is a knockout and really delivers a great performance as one of the bitchiest women in film (many complained she deserved an Oscar nod, but couldn’t get it because the film was not released theatrically first). She’s far worse than your classic femme fatale: she’s beautiful (looking a lot like Terri Hatcher’s Lois Lane), the best lay of your life, and also the deadliest. She thrives off of fucking with people’s heads. Bill Pullman was also incredibly fun to watch in his role as a drug-dealing doctor. I kinda expected this to be like BODY HEAT, and a lot of it was, except it was much colder, lacking in the character identification and sizzle that the other film had. This film was too cool: cold and impersonal, like the characters. Only complaint is that the Trish mystery/plot-twist was very obvious to me early in the film. But maybe ten years ago it was a bit more shocking/unusual. Also, the ending feels too abrupt and, even considering everything else, perhaps too far fetched. Some great lines: “There’s a black man here to see you. A BLACK man!”, “Don’t be afraid. It’s only a machine,” “I’m hung like a horse”/”Mr Ed, lets see”, and my favorite “I don’t do murder”/”You would if you loved me.”
NAKED- [3.5] Talk about having a bleak outlook on life. Todd Solondz holds nothing compared with this film. Every character is the epitome of selfishness and alienation. The only somewhat likeable character is the security guard, who’s sole purpose in life is to guard an empty space. There’s lots of mythical imagery here, apparently, such as the guardian of space, the waitress who represents Time, the woman with the death tattoo, and then Sebastian and Johnny, who are more like “hell” and ‘more hell’ than heaven/hell. One is upper class, the other lower class, but they both engage in the same mysogonistic, violent outbursts. They enjoy their sick mindgames and brutal behavior. However, Johnny is clearly the protagonist in the story, and we are meant to feel compassion for him, as opposed to the slick smarmy rich asshole Sebastian. But, I thought Johnny was an absolute prig. Sophie was a hysterical mess. Louise was rather ugly and boring. And Sandra was the most annoying figure in the whole film (finish a goddamn sentence, bitch). Some of the dialogue was very good, but there just wasn’t enough of it. For not really saying much about life (other than it sucks!), this movie was pretty long. And maybe it was because I could only catch 2/3 of the dialogue (I’m talking about heavy northcountry accents here), I couldn’t really keep my attention span piqued. The performances were fine, but they seemed a bit theatrical/cartoonish at times (especially Sebastian’s unique choke/churtle/laugh). Overall, not as good as the hype.
INTERIORS- [3.7] Woody channeling Bergman. Now, he’s done this with his other films, Annie Hall, Manhattan, etc, but here he does an exact replica of a Bergman film. Why Woody? I am enamored by Woody’s humor and this film lacks all of that. It seems like Woody did this film in order to be taken seriously. He felt like he should shed his comedy genius in order to be a second-rate Bergman. This fails for me, mostly because I find many of Woody’s classics to be on par with, if not surpassing, of Bergman’s humorless films. Woody manages to take the same themes of alienation and death and subvert them into a comedy that is both more palatable and more relatable. Interiors offers lots of good acting, but was rather slow and boorish moving, which, I must say, is also similar to many Bergman films. Strangely, the characters seemed to lack the richness and motivation of his comedies. They were well defined in many respects, but also too melodramatic. Woody comedies offer rounded personalities, funny and sad. This film revels in its unpleasantness. Mary Beth Hurt stood out the most, and truly shook me with the power of her voice and appearance. Too bad the rest of the characters didn’t draw from the same well.
THE KILLING OF A CHINESE BOOKIE (1978)- [4.0]
ADAM AND STEVE- [2.9] Romantic comedies are bad enough, but trying to make a political one? Yikes. This film tries to infuse modern gay socio-politics into a goofy farcical comedy. True, some scenes are very funny, and even Chris Kattan manages to draw a few chuckles, but many scenes far very very flat, and the attempts at moralizing are out of place. Stereotypes, many of them true, abound, but are not successfully dealt with. Parker Posey is pretty good as a girl who can’t get over not being as Fat as she was 15 years ago. The two main characters, though…I suppose they do a good job, for what the script offers, but…their development is so weak. I bought into their whirlwind romance, sure. But when they all of a sudden break up for…what reason? And then they get back together just as quickly? I know the film wasn’t supposed to be believable, but I would hope for some credible character choices, to at least justify the plot. So-so comedy, but as an example of “gay cinema,” this made me a bit uncomfortable. Maybe that’s good. Or maybe I should see MYSTERIOUS SKIN and see a supposedly excellent gay film. Yea. I’ll do that.
FLESH- [4.0] Wonderful first installment in Paul Morrisey’s trilogy starring Joe Dellesandro. Joe oozes sex in this film, and much has been discussed about making Dellesandro the screen’s first truly sexually objectified male body. His nudity is flaunted about. The character is a whore, a passive man who is had by anyone who desires him. He wants nothing in this film. Sure he turns tricks for cash, but its not really cash he wants. He just gets the cash to appease his wife, but he doesn’t really like her either. Why is he doing anything? He just goes with the flow, floating through life in a malaise. Many people in the audience were turned off by the horrible sound quality, which included a loud POP with every cut, and awkward, fast splicing didn’t help either. But, clocking in at an hour and a half, I thought the film was done splendidly. It didn’t try to be pretentious and artsy. It was just made very cheaply, on-the-fly, and could very well be mistaken for a truly gritty cinema-verite project. The opening is spectacular, just a CU of a sleeping man’s face for about 2 minutes. Then, a sudden cut to reveal, simply and with more than a hint of intended shock-value, the boy’s full on naked backside. Throughout the film we see Joe more intimately than any actor. We see him erect, limp, posing, playing. Its his very nonchalance and lack of self-awareness that makes his constant nudity so fascinating. He seems to be completely unaware of how beautiful his body is. In one scene, he puts up with the rantings of an old man, who offers him a hundred dollars to pose in classic Greek positions for him to photograph and sketch. Joe listens lazily to the man’s lectures on the Greek’s love of the body, and how Body Worship is the only truly important thing in human life. It relates to every aspect of human behavior. Right after, Joe discusses hooking with some kids on the street. He tells him it don’t matter being straight or not straight, its just getting used to whatever you do. Then there is the fabulous scene with Candy Darling and Jackie Curtis, two very funny transvestites. They aren’t your typical witty, arrogant drags. No, they behave the part of two classy, subdued, bored housewives. They sit bored, flipping through a raggedy Hollywood gossip rag, while their stripper friend gives Joe a blowjob a few feet away. She then asks them whether or not she should get boob jobs, and if she should get silicone or a plant extract that some man told her about. Then there is the long silent sequences, both uncomfortable and relaxing, in which a naked Joe plays with his young child. Having a nude, sexy man with a young baby is quite strange enough for American audiences, but the quick jumps, in which the baby looks at a muffin, and then Joe feeds the muffin to the baby are fascinating. They touch on all sorts of issues, mainly what is masculinity and adulthood? What is the human body? Why is joe naked but his son clothed? Is Joe more liberated than the son because he has shed his adult suit skin? The ending, with Joe sleeping alone next to his wife cuddling with her lesbian lover, also touches on issues of male control. This film is such a man’s story, focusing and sympathizing wholly with male problems, and making women dumb/dependent/cunning cunts. What would a female film look like? Would a female be given the chance to make this type of film? Would she want to? What drives men to create certain stories, and women to create different ones? This film is a classic of the underground movement, and should be reborn again for a new analysis.
SHOWGIRLS- [3.9] Could this NC-17 Hollywood flick live up to the ridiculously camp height that surrounds it? If you haven’t seen this gem, let me offer some lines from the script: “I’m erect. Why aren’t you erect?”, “I’m not a whore”, “It must be weird not having somebody cum on you,” “I used to love Doggie Chow too!” and “I have a problem with pussy. I always have, and I'm always gonna.” This movie looks wonderful. Paul Verhoeven is a class-A man, and he has made a dazzling spectacle. Unfortunately (or, in this case, fortunately), the acting is just as horrible and ridiculous as the script. Elizabeth Burkley is wonderfully wretched as a whore who’s dream is not to be a whore but to be, come on, a SHOWGIRL!!! The black dance teacher, James Smith, has to be one of the worst actors put in a big budget film. He says every line with exactly the wrong inflections and with facial expressions right out of a John Waters film. Everything about this film is so deliciously wrong. If this was sold as a serious, suspenseful, sexy film…boy, someone was NOT sober. This has to be the most expensive camp film ever made. From the painfully choreographed elaborate dance sequences to the excessively gaudy costumes and sets, including Zack Carey’s backyard, where giant neon palm trees light up above the swimming pool. Kyle MacLachlan turns in another Lynch performance, only this time real sleezy. He can’t act, but man oh man, he pretends better than anyone I know! Besides having horrible character development, crummy dialogue, a lame 1950’s “STAR IS BORN” plotline infused with 90’s porn-sexiness, along with a ridiculous ending revelation and you have the makings of a fantastically funny film. Too bad the filmmakers and studio didn’t realize the potential of such a classy trash film.
I, CLAUDIUS- [4.6] “By the way, don’t touch the figs.” This is perhaps, most probably, the best tv miniseries ever made. Even though it was filmed in the 1970’s, for BBC, with fairly low production value, this 12 hour epic is stunning. The acting is top notch, from Patrick Stewart’s evil Sejanus (with hair!), John Hurt’s gleefully psychotic turn as Caligula, Derrick Jacobi’s miraculous aging as the stuttering, egotistical protagonist Claudius, and my favorite, the perfectly cast Sian Phillips as the absolutely wicked Livia. This miniseries plays out like the best tabloid soap operas, but with an epic historical twist. This is the Bold and the Beautiful, 2000 years ago. Intrigue is everywhere; there’s incest, corruption, assassination, drunkenness, revolutions, insanity, executions, and so much sex you would think it was the playboy mansion. The stories themselves are the epitome of trashy, and more interesting than anything you’d read in the tabloids today. This is a very informative and entertaining look at Roman life, and you will learn a ton about the Julio-Claudian emperors, even if not everything is true (the original Roman authors had a tendency to exaggerate and gossip). I was so hooked, I talked back to the screen, and a number of times was heard gasping, “oh my god, I can’t believe you DID that, ______”: fill in the blank with Augustus, Livia, Julia, Claudius, Caligula, etc. For a good time, check this out.
THE LONG GOOD FRIDAY- [3.6] Decent British gangster flick. Not horribly interesting, nor action-filled. And I had a somewhat difficult time completely following the story. Perhaps because it was confusing, but most likely because I wasn’t engaged enough in the plot. The acting is solid, especially Bob Hoskins as a gangster who just wants to be legit, who, like Michael Corleone, wants to take his mafia world into semi-legal capitalistic ventures. His character is noble, yet violent, likeable, yet ruthless. Pierce Brosnan has a pretty good cameo, and the score is terrific. Yet, despite all that, the picture never really moved me. Maybe I needed to live in early Thatcherite London.
SLACKER- [3.8]
VERONICA VOSS- [4.3]
DOWNFALL- [4.4]
THE OBSCURE OBJECT OF DESIRE- [3.8]
MEAN STREETS- [3.9] Fine Scorsese film, with lots of the energy and emotional intensity to be found in his later, more polished work. Its extremely raw here, which is part of the film’s charm, and also a bit disengaging. The dialogue is difficult to hear and comprehend at times, and the story seems a bit scattered and more cinema verite than his later work. The camera work is fine, but the soundtrack and acting are the most exceptional parts of the work. The music came from Marty’s personal collection and its all fascinating and unnerving for its 1950’s innocent sensibility and yet fits right in with the mean world of 1970’s New York. Deniro is fabulously crazy, and there are plenty of humorous, violent outbursts, laying the groundwork for the masterpieces to come. A flawed, but necessary film in Scorsese’s growth into a personal director.
BIRTH- [2.6] What the fuck happened in this movie? I was really set to like it, despite the negative reviews I heard. It sounded just weird and unusual enough for me to latch on, what with Nicole Kidman falling in love with a 10 yr old boy who claims to be her reincarnated son. But, uh...really fucking boring. I was never quite sure why the kid, who claimed to be the husband, had come back, other than to fuck with Nicole's life and tell her not to marry her new fiance. The kid was really annoying, but perhaps that was the character. Nicole is ok, nothing special. The plot moves along so slowly, and I never felt any sympathy for the people involved. Mostly, I just agreed with Nicole's family, that the boy should go away and leave Nicole alone. The ending seemed ridiculous, and didn't really clear up anything for me, nor even interest me. Fairly worthless, but maybe deserving of a second chance, just for the originality of it. So much potential...
BOB & CAROL & TED & ALICE- [4.3] This is truly the great lost 60’s gem! A sharp, clever script delves into the fears and soul searching of two los angeles couples at the end of the 60’s. While poking fun at the often ridiculous nature of the hippy ‘free love’ movement, which led to wife swapping and orgies among the elite and upper classes, who thought of such new freedoms as being modern and intellectually stimulating, the film manages to avoid feeling jaded or bitter. In fact, all of the characters are treated with complete sympathy, even though they are all flawed in their own ways. Two married couples don’t know how to behave in a stuffy, confined adult world, and must resort to the vices of the lower classes, drugs and extramarital sex, in order to discover who they are and how to live life. It’s a wonderfully amusing and emotional film. The directing and acting are top notch as well. While Robert Culp is a poor man’s Warren Beatty, he still pulls it off beautifully. Speaking of beautiful, Natalie Wood is ravishing. The scene with the therapist is more real and cutting than almost any I”ve seen on film. There are so many memorable scenes of banter, but one in particular sticks out: a surreal scene on an airplane, written almost as a precursor to what Woody Allen would do in his 70’s comedies, with Ted speaking in monologue as a pretty woman undresses in the seat beside him. And the great quote: “Ok…so we’ll have an orgy and then go see Tony Bennett.” A generation defining film.
CASABLANCA- [4.7]
BANANAS- [4.1]
FRIDAY THE 13TH- [4.1]
LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS (1986)- [3.6]
SEX AND LUCIA- [3.3] With a title like that, and hot actresses like this film had, who would have thought that I would dislike it as much as I did?
DARK STAR- [4.0]
RIO BRAVO -[2.0] How can a film be so horribly overrated? This film was the definition of ennui. First of all, the cast should be magical, but the script doesn’t give them all much to do. In fact, most of the action is repeated for the length of the film, a whopping 2hours and 20 minutes! Whats strange about this flick is that, besides the primary characters, there doesn’t seem to be anyone else living in this town! The sets are bare, and ordinary folks are never seen. The dialogue and actions are redundant: Dean Martin getting drunk, kicking his habit, getting drunk, kicking it; Rick Nelson being on his own, joins the group, goes on his own, joins the posse; John Wayne going to the jail to check on the prisoner, going into the city, back to jail, back to the city. And nothing really happens!! The love interest is the most boring female alive. In fact, most of the characters are boring. There are no huge conflicts, and no one seems to really lose their cool. Everything feels too ambivalent. The only good scenes are whenever Ricky Nelson is on (oooh, that ass and that face), when Nelson and Martin duet on two full length country songs (“hey, nothing is happening in this movie, so lets just stick in 6 minutes of plotless singing!!”), and the scene where Martin shoots the killer hiding in the rafters. Oh, and Stumpy, except his humor was overused. This film solidifies my belief that I personally find great disappointment in classic Hollywood westerns. I like most styles of classic film, but classic romances and westerns don’t seem to sit well with me. I much prefer the grittier, more stylized spaghetti westerns to this. Or perhaps I don’t even really like westerns at all…
THE SECRET OF ROAN INISH- [1.0] Horrible, awful. One of the most boring films I’ve ever seen, with little to no reward factor. I had heard such good things about John Sayles. But then I saw LONE STAR, which is supposed to be his masterpiece. And then this childlike piece of shitttt. Perhaps I’m being unfair since I had been watching movies for 14 hours previous to viewing this thing, but I am going to stick with what I know. There is very little plot here, mostly just atmosphere. Basically, a little annoying girl hears stories from her relatives and then finds her lost selkie (somehow related to ocean seals) brother, who floats in little boat. The whole thing is annoying and pointless. My mind was about to self destruct upon viewing this trash.
RANSOM! (1956)- [4.0] Very strange film for the 1950’s. It is surprisingly realistic, with almost no musical soundtrack, making this tale of a child abduction earilly prescient. The script was unusual for the time, with very good dialogue, with little of it being dated or overly melodramatic. The acting is also top notch, with Glenn Ford doing a spectacular job as a desperate father. Leslie Neilsen also makes a fine dramatic effort. The film feels oddly like a stage play, with the house being the only real set of the whole feature. And this enclosed feeling works well for the audience to get in touch strictly with the father’s dilemma and emotions. The ending is odd, mostly because of its quiet tone, considering how unlikely it is. The boy just wanders back, is embraced, and the film ends. A satisfying enough resolution because the boy is recovered, but the rest of the mystery is left unsolved. Also, I can’t recall seeing a 1950’s b/w feature done in widescreen before. Usually its shot in 1:1.35. It just appeared strange to me, at first. Hm.
RANSOM (1996)- [4.0] While being an action/suspense thriller update on the previous, tension-filled drama, this remake still possesses enough good acting, dialogue, and story to warrant the same rating as the original. Rene Russo is better than Donna Reed, but Mel Gibson is no match for Glenn Ford. Because this is a Gibson vehicle, the father is turned into a powerhouse, morally upright (even though he is given a “character flaw”) dad who will battle the bad guys with his bloody fists raging. What’s interesting about this story is that it basically fills in the blanks to the original. While the most we ever see of the bad guy in the 50’s version is a shadowy hand smoking a cig, this new one basically becomes the bad guy’s story. I would argue that most of this film is centered around Gary Senise, the bad cop gone kidnapper. There’s some pretty scary stuff in this film too, especially when Gibson opens his email to see the video of his kid handcuffed to the ratty bed. Both this and the original seem too long, and Ron Howard, though doing a good job as director, failed to remove the script’s horribly cheesy fight scene at the end of the flick, where Gibson beats the shit out of the bad guy. It’s a typical Hollywood ending, it serves its purpose, but…its still kind of a cheap trick. (oh, and I thought it was very interesting how the score sounded so similar to the PSYCHO soundtrack. Just food for thought).
BREAKING NEWS- [4.0] Truly remarkable 7 minute opening, with one long take to capture an entire fight sequence: the camera glides around, cranes up and down, all very slowly, curiously, as we see the gangsters planning their getaway, the cops intercepting them, the battle beginning, cops getting shot, and the gangsters fleeing in a stolen police car. How Johnnie To managed to coreograph this sequence so perfectly is a feat unto itself. The rest of the movie isn’t nearly as remarkable, but does hold its own against many big budget Hollywood action films. The gangsters hide out in a huge Hong Kong apartment complex, and the cops, eager to win back their reputation that was tarnished in the earlier battle, decide to put on a show for the cops, instead of going in full force for the arrest. The power of the media theme is blatant, but well done. There are many comical moments, such as when the gangsters prepare a meal with their hostages and then leak video of them eating peacefully onto the internet. The police counter this publicity by ordering expensive lunches for themselves (“We have to show them cops are human too.”) and for the crazed paparazzi. The film is a bit long, and character development is strongest with the antagonists (I really knew nothing about the ‘heroes’), but still a fun, thrilling ride.
THE MISSION (1999)- [4.0]
THE HITCHHIKER’S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY- [3.8]
THE LAST TEMPTATION- [3.9] Very entertaining, well acted, well written, and well directed movie. The big shocker is that it was a MADE FOR TV movie!!!! Yea, stunning. Linda Fiorentino is a knockout and really delivers a great performance as one of the bitchiest women in film (many complained she deserved an Oscar nod, but couldn’t get it because the film was not released theatrically first). She’s far worse than your classic femme fatale: she’s beautiful (looking a lot like Terri Hatcher’s Lois Lane), the best lay of your life, and also the deadliest. She thrives off of fucking with people’s heads. Bill Pullman was also incredibly fun to watch in his role as a drug-dealing doctor. I kinda expected this to be like BODY HEAT, and a lot of it was, except it was much colder, lacking in the character identification and sizzle that the other film had. This film was too cool: cold and impersonal, like the characters. Only complaint is that the Trish mystery/plot-twist was very obvious to me early in the film. But maybe ten years ago it was a bit more shocking/unusual. Also, the ending feels too abrupt and, even considering everything else, perhaps too far fetched. Some great lines: “There’s a black man here to see you. A BLACK man!”, “Don’t be afraid. It’s only a machine,” “I’m hung like a horse”/”Mr Ed, lets see”, and my favorite “I don’t do murder”/”You would if you loved me.”
NAKED- [3.5] Talk about having a bleak outlook on life. Todd Solondz holds nothing compared with this film. Every character is the epitome of selfishness and alienation. The only somewhat likeable character is the security guard, who’s sole purpose in life is to guard an empty space. There’s lots of mythical imagery here, apparently, such as the guardian of space, the waitress who represents Time, the woman with the death tattoo, and then Sebastian and Johnny, who are more like “hell” and ‘more hell’ than heaven/hell. One is upper class, the other lower class, but they both engage in the same mysogonistic, violent outbursts. They enjoy their sick mindgames and brutal behavior. However, Johnny is clearly the protagonist in the story, and we are meant to feel compassion for him, as opposed to the slick smarmy rich asshole Sebastian. But, I thought Johnny was an absolute prig. Sophie was a hysterical mess. Louise was rather ugly and boring. And Sandra was the most annoying figure in the whole film (finish a goddamn sentence, bitch). Some of the dialogue was very good, but there just wasn’t enough of it. For not really saying much about life (other than it sucks!), this movie was pretty long. And maybe it was because I could only catch 2/3 of the dialogue (I’m talking about heavy northcountry accents here), I couldn’t really keep my attention span piqued. The performances were fine, but they seemed a bit theatrical/cartoonish at times (especially Sebastian’s unique choke/churtle/laugh). Overall, not as good as the hype.
INTERIORS- [3.7] Woody channeling Bergman. Now, he’s done this with his other films, Annie Hall, Manhattan, etc, but here he does an exact replica of a Bergman film. Why Woody? I am enamored by Woody’s humor and this film lacks all of that. It seems like Woody did this film in order to be taken seriously. He felt like he should shed his comedy genius in order to be a second-rate Bergman. This fails for me, mostly because I find many of Woody’s classics to be on par with, if not surpassing, of Bergman’s humorless films. Woody manages to take the same themes of alienation and death and subvert them into a comedy that is both more palatable and more relatable. Interiors offers lots of good acting, but was rather slow and boorish moving, which, I must say, is also similar to many Bergman films. Strangely, the characters seemed to lack the richness and motivation of his comedies. They were well defined in many respects, but also too melodramatic. Woody comedies offer rounded personalities, funny and sad. This film revels in its unpleasantness. Mary Beth Hurt stood out the most, and truly shook me with the power of her voice and appearance. Too bad the rest of the characters didn’t draw from the same well.
THE KILLING OF A CHINESE BOOKIE (1978)- [4.0]
ADAM AND STEVE- [2.9] Romantic comedies are bad enough, but trying to make a political one? Yikes. This film tries to infuse modern gay socio-politics into a goofy farcical comedy. True, some scenes are very funny, and even Chris Kattan manages to draw a few chuckles, but many scenes far very very flat, and the attempts at moralizing are out of place. Stereotypes, many of them true, abound, but are not successfully dealt with. Parker Posey is pretty good as a girl who can’t get over not being as Fat as she was 15 years ago. The two main characters, though…I suppose they do a good job, for what the script offers, but…their development is so weak. I bought into their whirlwind romance, sure. But when they all of a sudden break up for…what reason? And then they get back together just as quickly? I know the film wasn’t supposed to be believable, but I would hope for some credible character choices, to at least justify the plot. So-so comedy, but as an example of “gay cinema,” this made me a bit uncomfortable. Maybe that’s good. Or maybe I should see MYSTERIOUS SKIN and see a supposedly excellent gay film. Yea. I’ll do that.
FLESH- [4.0] Wonderful first installment in Paul Morrisey’s trilogy starring Joe Dellesandro. Joe oozes sex in this film, and much has been discussed about making Dellesandro the screen’s first truly sexually objectified male body. His nudity is flaunted about. The character is a whore, a passive man who is had by anyone who desires him. He wants nothing in this film. Sure he turns tricks for cash, but its not really cash he wants. He just gets the cash to appease his wife, but he doesn’t really like her either. Why is he doing anything? He just goes with the flow, floating through life in a malaise. Many people in the audience were turned off by the horrible sound quality, which included a loud POP with every cut, and awkward, fast splicing didn’t help either. But, clocking in at an hour and a half, I thought the film was done splendidly. It didn’t try to be pretentious and artsy. It was just made very cheaply, on-the-fly, and could very well be mistaken for a truly gritty cinema-verite project. The opening is spectacular, just a CU of a sleeping man’s face for about 2 minutes. Then, a sudden cut to reveal, simply and with more than a hint of intended shock-value, the boy’s full on naked backside. Throughout the film we see Joe more intimately than any actor. We see him erect, limp, posing, playing. Its his very nonchalance and lack of self-awareness that makes his constant nudity so fascinating. He seems to be completely unaware of how beautiful his body is. In one scene, he puts up with the rantings of an old man, who offers him a hundred dollars to pose in classic Greek positions for him to photograph and sketch. Joe listens lazily to the man’s lectures on the Greek’s love of the body, and how Body Worship is the only truly important thing in human life. It relates to every aspect of human behavior. Right after, Joe discusses hooking with some kids on the street. He tells him it don’t matter being straight or not straight, its just getting used to whatever you do. Then there is the fabulous scene with Candy Darling and Jackie Curtis, two very funny transvestites. They aren’t your typical witty, arrogant drags. No, they behave the part of two classy, subdued, bored housewives. They sit bored, flipping through a raggedy Hollywood gossip rag, while their stripper friend gives Joe a blowjob a few feet away. She then asks them whether or not she should get boob jobs, and if she should get silicone or a plant extract that some man told her about. Then there is the long silent sequences, both uncomfortable and relaxing, in which a naked Joe plays with his young child. Having a nude, sexy man with a young baby is quite strange enough for American audiences, but the quick jumps, in which the baby looks at a muffin, and then Joe feeds the muffin to the baby are fascinating. They touch on all sorts of issues, mainly what is masculinity and adulthood? What is the human body? Why is joe naked but his son clothed? Is Joe more liberated than the son because he has shed his adult suit skin? The ending, with Joe sleeping alone next to his wife cuddling with her lesbian lover, also touches on issues of male control. This film is such a man’s story, focusing and sympathizing wholly with male problems, and making women dumb/dependent/cunning cunts. What would a female film look like? Would a female be given the chance to make this type of film? Would she want to? What drives men to create certain stories, and women to create different ones? This film is a classic of the underground movement, and should be reborn again for a new analysis.
SHOWGIRLS- [3.9] Could this NC-17 Hollywood flick live up to the ridiculously camp height that surrounds it? If you haven’t seen this gem, let me offer some lines from the script: “I’m erect. Why aren’t you erect?”, “I’m not a whore”, “It must be weird not having somebody cum on you,” “I used to love Doggie Chow too!” and “I have a problem with pussy. I always have, and I'm always gonna.” This movie looks wonderful. Paul Verhoeven is a class-A man, and he has made a dazzling spectacle. Unfortunately (or, in this case, fortunately), the acting is just as horrible and ridiculous as the script. Elizabeth Burkley is wonderfully wretched as a whore who’s dream is not to be a whore but to be, come on, a SHOWGIRL!!! The black dance teacher, James Smith, has to be one of the worst actors put in a big budget film. He says every line with exactly the wrong inflections and with facial expressions right out of a John Waters film. Everything about this film is so deliciously wrong. If this was sold as a serious, suspenseful, sexy film…boy, someone was NOT sober. This has to be the most expensive camp film ever made. From the painfully choreographed elaborate dance sequences to the excessively gaudy costumes and sets, including Zack Carey’s backyard, where giant neon palm trees light up above the swimming pool. Kyle MacLachlan turns in another Lynch performance, only this time real sleezy. He can’t act, but man oh man, he pretends better than anyone I know! Besides having horrible character development, crummy dialogue, a lame 1950’s “STAR IS BORN” plotline infused with 90’s porn-sexiness, along with a ridiculous ending revelation and you have the makings of a fantastically funny film. Too bad the filmmakers and studio didn’t realize the potential of such a classy trash film.