its been a while.
FELLINI’S CASANOVA- [3.7] Donald Sutherland is my new favorite character actor. From his creepy, repressed performance as the pitiful Homer Simpson in DAY OF THE LOCUST to his flamboyant, ridiculously unconventional portrayal of the infamous lover Casanova, Sutherland has been utterly convincing. Even though the man who dubs Sutherland’s voice into Italian does a good job, with very expressive and curiously delivered lines, I would have loved to have heard Sutherland’s interpretation of the dialogue. I think that, combined with his exaggerated and nutty performance, would be quite a feet to behold.
THE CORPORATION- [3.5] Way way overlong doc about the history of the American corporation and, basically, exposing its evil EVIL ways. This film, from the outset, clearly has an agenda. This isn’t a bad thing in and of itself, but it does get bogged down in its own self-righteous preachyness at times (okay, a lot of the time), and this, added with the two hours plus running time make this a rather tedious film to sit through. While offering some keen insight into the history of the corporation, some monumental court cases (such as the one that made the corporation count as a legal human entity), and the global effects of corporations, the film manages to make even a heartless bastard like me question the glories of the capitalist system and wonder how in the world the corporation will ever be stopped. One of my main gripes through the whole film is the graphics. While I understand that talking head docs are boring, and the need for inserts and b-rolls is paramount, the editing felt way too poppy and “hip” (maybe too “green party” neo-liberal) to be really effective. The film felt like it was trying to hard to be a popular film among elite liberals than a socially conscious warning to normal filmgoers. As far as the film’s bias is concerned, a few ill-chosen people speak up for the corporations, but they are more or less ridiculed by themselves and by the interviewers. Also, this film focuses exclusively on the American corporation, giving the impression that it is only America that has shoved this imperialistic greedy behemoth onto the world. This is a sad (intentional?) byproduct, and would be more forgivable if the corporation were given more of a curious examination (what Is a corporation? Why are they so successful? Why do we like them?) than an accusative, almost deflamatory condemnation. I had heard great things about this film, but it left me rather cold (though mildly contemplative about the state of affairs in America).
A STAR IS BORN (1976)- [3.8] Not completely campy, but enough to let a remake like this turn into a uniquely appealing gem. Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson ham it up big time as stars in love, with Kris’s fame falling as Barbra’s steadily rises. The depictions of Arizona (they move into a desert house near Tucson) are quaint and amusing. The most appealing aspect of this movie to me was the camera work, which was distinctly 70s in its looseness and free-flowing movements, coupled with dozens of great zooms. The film also did a very nice job of feeling like half of a concert film, with great footage of the stage acts, and a ridiculously long one-take of barbra’s last song at the end of the film, where she cries and then wipes away her tears and belts out her inspirational rebuke to loneliness (all in about six minutes). Gary Busey is also very good as the realistically slimy manager (never over-playing the role, which establishes him as a really affectionate scoundrel). The scene at the Grammys (where it seems the biggest guest star they could gleam was Tony Orlando!!) is frustratingly hilarious, as we see Kris embarrass himself the way we wish every obnoxious celebrity would do. The movie is a bit long, clocking in at about two and a half hours, but most of the journey is fun and, contrary to its campiness, actually engaging.
LADYBUG, LADYBUG- [3.0] This reminded me a lot like the old Twilight Zone episode where everyone thinks that the BOMB is gonna drop soon, so all these neighbors start panicking, and only one family has a bomb shelter, so there is a lot of fighting about who gets to go in the shelter, how to keep it safe, and lots of arguing among friends. Finally, in the end, they realize that the BOMB isn’t gonna drop, and they all look at each other foolishly and realize their relationships are forever changed. This film had many similarities to that episode (which I feel was a common theme in entertainment in those days- the elitism of the bomb shelter. I seem to recall a HAPPY DAYS episode about it, and then there are all those other Cold War scare films, THE DAY AFTER, et al.). Fortunately, this movie had a lot more cleverness and heart to it. The children’s performances were pretty good, especially considering that it was a youth-ensemble film for the most part. The adults were fine as well, except for William Daniels (Mr Feeny on tv’s BOY MEETS WORLD). His vocal mannerisms are strange enough to be endearing and comical as an older teacher in a playful comedy show, but as a young man in a dramatic film…its just weird, annoying, and distracting (and oddly, reminded me too much of Frank Langella from DIARY OF A MAD HOUSEWIFE, in his inflections and acting style).
HERE (2005) - [4.5] Fred Worden crafted this brilliant, mesmerizing, and unforgettable visual experience that goes beyond standard narrative criticism to revel in the possibilities of the basic concepts of persistence of vision and montage. In one of the most spectacular editing jobs in the whole of avant-garde cinema, Worden masterfully blends footage from Melies’ A TRIP TO THE MOON and Laurence Olivier’s HENRY V. I tried to take apart the edit as I watched the film, but was completely unable to; the compilation created is complex enough to be considered a whole new film, divorced from its originals. The music works exceptionally well to draw the viewer into this epileptic’s nightmare, where it felt less like 24 or 30 frames a second, and more like peering into infinity as it passed by. Eleven minutes of constant energy, and I was never bored. Scientists argue, Horses ride across a battlefield, over and over again; directions change, nausea and confusion inevitably result, and the feeling of impending doom grows exponentially more real. Magnificent cinematic experience.
THE TRIBE- [3.8] Tiffany Schlain wrote and directed this short (about 16 minutes) look at the history of the Jewish people in relation to the history of the Barbie doll. While reveling in the many ways that Jews have been mistreated and persecuted throughout the millennia, Schlain still manages to keep her prideful tribe boasting as entertaining and informative as possible (fakr is the term used to describe the same boasting methods used in classic Arabic poetry). The connection between Jews and Barbie were very interesting and metaphoric, and Schlain did a good job of exploring Barbie’s unnaturally white image and figure, and explaining how Jews feel the need to hide behind images of dominant Barbie culture so as to fit in. Though she makes blanket statements, like the whole history of Jews can be categorized as outsiders, she provides enough informative and graphic punch to make you accept these statements for the time being, but eventually start questioning them once the film finishes. The final slam poem is wonderfully written and performed, but I still got the sense, at the end of all this mess, that all Schlain had accomplished was to boost people’s pride in being Jewish. While the film is an insightful study of one Jew’s perspective on history, I do not know if I can agree with the propagandistic intentionality of the piece.
THANK YOU FOR SMOKING- [3.8] Fun satire about a tobacco lobbyist, excellently played by Aaron Eckhart. The script is witty, the visual jokes work extremely well (Rob Lowe in a kimono in front of a giant glass window), and the characters are actually interesting and sympathetic (esp. the father/son relationship). While the jokes were more scattered than I would like, this defiantly felt like a comedy more than anything. The slight bits of humor, such as Eckhart’s mild changes in facial expressions, worked well, but Adam Brody and Rob Lowe were my absolute favorite parts of the movie, as they nailed the powerful, crazy Hollywood folk. William H. Macy does a fine job, as does Robert Duvall, but those two big names are ultimately forgettable. Maria Bello is fantastic as the alcohol representative in the MOD squad (Merchants of Death). The reenactment of the Dennis Miller show was also handled quite well (i.e., realistically, making it more appealing). The young boy is a fine gifted actor, who plays the straight role very well. Even Katie Holmes isn’t an annoyance, although she still seems way too young to play “mature” adults (I would never believe she were a high class reporter). The moral lessons of this film are a bit lost amid all the sarcasm, but that’s fine by me. Despite all the great parts of this movie, its ultimately a hollow experience, and one that I won’t really carry with me very far.
ANDREI RUBLEV- [2.8] Not much to say. I can’t even think of any scenes to talk about, per se. Its all one big three and a half hour blur in my life. Tarkovsky can suck my dick. I don’t understand why this film starts with a man trying to escape in a balloon. I don’t understand why this film ends with a ten minute montage of close ups of art that Rublev did. Nor why they chose to repeat shots in the already-monotonous montage of the art. I also didn’t understand what the hell the point of this film was. Sigh.
RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD- [3.9] Brains!!!
SLITHER- [3.8] Fun and gross, but not nearly as satisfying as trashier, more true-Troma films. Though this is by James Gunn, the same writer as the Dawn of the Dead remake and Tromio and Juliet, this feels more like a bid for Hollywood than straight-to-video glory. Which is fine, as the effects are still done old school (no CGI shit), making the gore and guts and mutilation all the more satisfying. The acting is nicely done, and the main story of a wife’s love for Bill, her older, uglier, and now alien-infested husband, is pretty interesting and at least successfully carried though to the finish of the picture. The suspense is a little thin, the laughs are pretty frequent, and the chaos feels appropriate. The highlights include the alien insect slithering inside the girl’s mouth in the bathtub, enabling her to see into the mind and memory of the creature, and the scene of the bloated bitch in the shed exploding. The finale is great, though somehow not as satisfying as it should have been. The final moments feel like an homage to The Birds, except instead of wandering into a field of murderous birds, it’s a field of an entire town left dead and mutilated. Great! My only complaint is that this film could be even MORE ridiculous and campy. Though the relationship between the main couple was interesting and well played, it seemed out of place and unnecessary at times, and failed to move the plot forward. Still, a welcome return of the silly gory horror that knows what it wants.
AFTER HOURS- [3.7] Bizarre. The whole time I couldn’t help but think, “Scorsese made this?” Mr. Raging Bull Taxi Driver Goodfellas Casino Aviator Last Temptation of Christ King of Comedy? Hmm. Okay, maybe I can see it. A little bit. The bizarre, hallucinatory film acts as an insomniac’s living nightmare, as Griffin Dunne delivers a solid, wonderfully three-dimensional performance as Paul Hackett, the man who just wants to Wake Up…errr, get home. Rosanna Arquette is the impetus that drives him out of his house one night, to go on a date at her apartment and hopefully get a little ass. While she’s not at home, Linda Fiorentino is, and he is forced to help this artist with her plaster-of-paris statue. Soon, he becomes turned off but Rosanna’s craziness and the possibility that she is a burn victim, and he scrams. Later he finds her dead, but not before losing his last twenty dollars out of a taxi window, leaving him stranded with no way to go home. He runs into Teri Garr in a bar, who develops an unhealthy crush on him, he gets mistaken for a cat burglar, gets hooked up with Catherine O’Hara as a wacko ice cream dealer, and is eventually hauled away by Cheech and Chong, who mistake his plastered body for a real statue, and he accidentally gets dropped outside of his office, that he left the night before. Wonderfully surreal, subtle and funny film, even if its plot was barely there. I might like this better knowing what its about, because going in expecting a Scorsese film will surely lead to disappointment. This is a film that must be watched at night to be appreciated. Oh, and Scorsese is great in his small cameo as a spotlight operator at the punk club.
SOMETHING WILD- [3.4] Enjoyable, though overlong tale of a wild 80’s-style punky chick (Lulu, a wonderfully sexy and energetic Melanie Griffith) who pseudo-kidnaps a more uptight NYC businessman and tries to see how loose he’ll become. The first half of the movie is their fun exploits, from handcuffing him to the bed in a motel, to crashing the car into a different motel’s sign, to buying a used car from John Waters, to introducing the man as Lulu’s husband to her mother and a whole crowd of yuppies at her high school reunion. Then Ray Liotta shows up and things take a nasty dark turn, and all of a sudden it feels like Cape Fear, with some suspense and ridiculous fight scenes. Fortunately, Jonathan Demme doesn’t take everything too somberly, and the second half is filled with some clever gags and twists. Jeff Daniels does a great job at playing the straight man by not succumbing to stereotypes, but by creating a real, three-dimensional man who is exploring a more repressed side to himself, but never goes off the deep end enough to lose his basic mannered self (this restraint from caracature is a nice change from standard Hollywood fare, which could have easily had Daniels turn into a wild punk himself, completely 180 degrees from his previous life without even a blink of the eye). Though Ray Liotta turns in an awesome performance as the intensely twisted, just-out-on-parole boyfriend, I wasn’t prepared for the story shifting so much in the middle of the second act. Demme did such a good job establishing the light hearted nature of the first half, that I thought for sure the rest of the film would just continue as a road picture, showing the picaresque adventures of these two lovers, with the only real action being the arc of their emotions. The Liotta half is steep in plot, which would have worked if the audience had been set up for that, but it seems to come from left field. Not only does it tonally feel awkward, but the pacing changes drastically, and the film itself loses steam by the last act. The strange fight scene in Daniels’ house is predictable enough, but the final coda of the film, which echoes the film’s opening, is a nice touch.
BRICK- [4.0] Fascinating, fun, if a bit cold subversion of film noir. While there are many praiseworthy aspects to consider-cinematography, acting-the script is the standout achievement. Brilliantly written, the dialogue is structured like old Bogart pics, but without standard clichés. Instead, Rian Johnson has created his own linguistic universe, where phrases are inspired by American vernacular, but are also significantly different, seeming far “cooler” than even modern hip-talk. While I can understand many viewer’s complaints that the actors’ snappy delivery makes much of their dialogue unclear, I think this adds to the signature tone of this film. While seemingly played out in the real world (i.e. a San Clemente high school on the weekend), the variant acting, speaking, and visual motifs charge this film with a foreign energy that takes a while to sink into. The muted blue tones work extremely well; if this film had been shot in black and white in order to heighten its nourish-ness, it would have failed because it would seem too derivative and the close parody/homage to those films would be overly apparent. By coming up with a specific color scheme, as well as modern cinematographic approaches (the tight shot of the car whizzing by Levitt’s hand, the whoosh of the camera as a character is punched out), the viewer never feels like the director is simply channeling Dashel Hammond. This is a singular vision, with teenage life brilliantly portrayed as a microcosm of American life. Levitt again astonishes with his intense but ambivalent protagonist. Like MYSTERIOUS SKIN, the audience can’t feel real sympathy for the character, but we understand his essence, like the essence of James Dean or Brando: impenetrable. Yet, it is that lack of sympathy and connection that makes this film so cold and ineffective. The Noir genre has a structure of romance and intrigue, which this film plays with wonderfully and humorously, yet, there is a sense that its not entirely genuine. That the film is too cute for its own good. Bogart and Bacall had some sort of chemistry in their noirs, but Levitt offers little besides unrequited love and angst. Somehow, this doesn’t play, and maybe it shouldn’t. But while watching the film, the audience cares only about the clues to solve the case; the characters mean nothing. Live, die, or never to be seen again, characters are brilliantly written, but in the end they are just constructions that never cease being concepts.
THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE- [3.8] Argento’s first film has a fantastically memorable opening, but it gets steadily less interesting from there. A man gets caught inside a glass entranceway and is forced to watch a woman being murdered. Fortunately, the woman lives, but the man is accused of the crime, since he is the only witness. Investigating further, the man is stalked and almost killed by a Chinese man until he narrowly escapes, in a very tense and entertaining sequence. Also, there is a painting of a man stabbing a woman’s vagina, that was supposedly bought by the first victim of the serial killer, and the American man gets a copy to hang on his wall and obsess over. Although the American is eventually cleared of suspicion, he refuses to leave Italy because he feels as if he is on the verge of solving the case. Then there’s a mildly suspenseful scene where the man’s girlfriend is trapped in her apartment, as the killer hacks away at the door. The girl tries to leave, but all her means are cut off. The girl screams her head off, in typical scream queen fashion, but the killer is too methodical to ever seem really threatening. Another great scene is when the American goes out in the countryside to find the reclusive artist of the graphic painting, and the man ends up being a crazed Russian who eats cats (and which the American unexpectedly chows down on). The bird with the crystal plumage is mentioned once in the movie, and is the source of the scratching on the tape recording of the killer’s voice. Why is it the name of the movie? Probably cuz it sounds cool. The real ending is pretty damn cool, even if the killer is predictably revealed, and even if the killer says nothing at the end, but merely repeats the same high pitched insane laugh over and over. And instead of a grand finale fight, the killer is easily apprehended by the police, and the explanation for the killer’s crimes is revealed (even if it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. And though the lesbian angle isn’t played up-the antique owner mentions that the first victim was a lesbian-it could very well help explain a whole lot, even Argento’s subversive gender themes). I think I’ve learned with this film to give up all hope in understanding the motivations in giallo films, and just go with it. Fun, but not as mindblowing as SUSPIRIA.
THE DEAD ARE ALIVE- [3.9] Not nearly as slick or memorable as an Argento film, but oddly more fun. The acting (and the dubbing) is so atrocious that its hard to imagine that this could have been released as a serious horror film. The plot is beyond convoluted, and the title has almost nothing to do with the story. Etruscan tombs, Freudian mother complexes, young nubile bodies being ground into bloody pulp, and horrific fish-eyed flashbacks. Surprisingly, veteran actor John Marley (Godfather, Faces) plays a pivotal role, but even he sounds as if he can barely deliver the horrible lines given him. The delivery of the dialogue is particularly humorous because it seems as if all the dubbing actors are trying oh so carefully to ar-tic-u-late every syllable of their lines, so they can be understood, making everything sound so wonderfully “off.” The lead actor, Alex Cord, hams it up as a mustachoed, well-built, short-short wearing archaelogist that would put Indiana Jones to shame. He is clearly a pimped out 70s sex machine, but there’s one problem…he’s an alcoholic with amnesia! He has forgotten how he almost killed his old girlfriend years ago in New York (and we see his shrieking reaction in an unexpected flashback, one of the funniest moments in the film, leaving me laughing for long afterwards). Although there are hints that this will be a Zombie film (like the later Fulci Italian ones), it turns out to be a red herring, as the Etruscan tomb has NOTHING to do with the murders. It just happens to be there. The gay dance instructor is wonderfully hammy and flamboyant, rainbow shirt and all, but again, his role in the whole episode is lost on me. The actual killer confesses, reveals why he did everything, but I still don’t understand, except he wanted revenge on his father, John Marley, for beating up his mother when she was shacked up with the chorus boy. But this turned into typical Jack the Ripper-type anger, “all women are whores” so he must do away with all the vaginas in the world. Clichéd excuse, and it makes no real sense, but whatever. This was a charming 70s nostalgic giallo with some suspense, humor, and most of all, entertainment.
THE CORPORATION- [3.5] Way way overlong doc about the history of the American corporation and, basically, exposing its evil EVIL ways. This film, from the outset, clearly has an agenda. This isn’t a bad thing in and of itself, but it does get bogged down in its own self-righteous preachyness at times (okay, a lot of the time), and this, added with the two hours plus running time make this a rather tedious film to sit through. While offering some keen insight into the history of the corporation, some monumental court cases (such as the one that made the corporation count as a legal human entity), and the global effects of corporations, the film manages to make even a heartless bastard like me question the glories of the capitalist system and wonder how in the world the corporation will ever be stopped. One of my main gripes through the whole film is the graphics. While I understand that talking head docs are boring, and the need for inserts and b-rolls is paramount, the editing felt way too poppy and “hip” (maybe too “green party” neo-liberal) to be really effective. The film felt like it was trying to hard to be a popular film among elite liberals than a socially conscious warning to normal filmgoers. As far as the film’s bias is concerned, a few ill-chosen people speak up for the corporations, but they are more or less ridiculed by themselves and by the interviewers. Also, this film focuses exclusively on the American corporation, giving the impression that it is only America that has shoved this imperialistic greedy behemoth onto the world. This is a sad (intentional?) byproduct, and would be more forgivable if the corporation were given more of a curious examination (what Is a corporation? Why are they so successful? Why do we like them?) than an accusative, almost deflamatory condemnation. I had heard great things about this film, but it left me rather cold (though mildly contemplative about the state of affairs in America).
A STAR IS BORN (1976)- [3.8] Not completely campy, but enough to let a remake like this turn into a uniquely appealing gem. Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson ham it up big time as stars in love, with Kris’s fame falling as Barbra’s steadily rises. The depictions of Arizona (they move into a desert house near Tucson) are quaint and amusing. The most appealing aspect of this movie to me was the camera work, which was distinctly 70s in its looseness and free-flowing movements, coupled with dozens of great zooms. The film also did a very nice job of feeling like half of a concert film, with great footage of the stage acts, and a ridiculously long one-take of barbra’s last song at the end of the film, where she cries and then wipes away her tears and belts out her inspirational rebuke to loneliness (all in about six minutes). Gary Busey is also very good as the realistically slimy manager (never over-playing the role, which establishes him as a really affectionate scoundrel). The scene at the Grammys (where it seems the biggest guest star they could gleam was Tony Orlando!!) is frustratingly hilarious, as we see Kris embarrass himself the way we wish every obnoxious celebrity would do. The movie is a bit long, clocking in at about two and a half hours, but most of the journey is fun and, contrary to its campiness, actually engaging.
LADYBUG, LADYBUG- [3.0] This reminded me a lot like the old Twilight Zone episode where everyone thinks that the BOMB is gonna drop soon, so all these neighbors start panicking, and only one family has a bomb shelter, so there is a lot of fighting about who gets to go in the shelter, how to keep it safe, and lots of arguing among friends. Finally, in the end, they realize that the BOMB isn’t gonna drop, and they all look at each other foolishly and realize their relationships are forever changed. This film had many similarities to that episode (which I feel was a common theme in entertainment in those days- the elitism of the bomb shelter. I seem to recall a HAPPY DAYS episode about it, and then there are all those other Cold War scare films, THE DAY AFTER, et al.). Fortunately, this movie had a lot more cleverness and heart to it. The children’s performances were pretty good, especially considering that it was a youth-ensemble film for the most part. The adults were fine as well, except for William Daniels (Mr Feeny on tv’s BOY MEETS WORLD). His vocal mannerisms are strange enough to be endearing and comical as an older teacher in a playful comedy show, but as a young man in a dramatic film…its just weird, annoying, and distracting (and oddly, reminded me too much of Frank Langella from DIARY OF A MAD HOUSEWIFE, in his inflections and acting style).
HERE (2005) - [4.5] Fred Worden crafted this brilliant, mesmerizing, and unforgettable visual experience that goes beyond standard narrative criticism to revel in the possibilities of the basic concepts of persistence of vision and montage. In one of the most spectacular editing jobs in the whole of avant-garde cinema, Worden masterfully blends footage from Melies’ A TRIP TO THE MOON and Laurence Olivier’s HENRY V. I tried to take apart the edit as I watched the film, but was completely unable to; the compilation created is complex enough to be considered a whole new film, divorced from its originals. The music works exceptionally well to draw the viewer into this epileptic’s nightmare, where it felt less like 24 or 30 frames a second, and more like peering into infinity as it passed by. Eleven minutes of constant energy, and I was never bored. Scientists argue, Horses ride across a battlefield, over and over again; directions change, nausea and confusion inevitably result, and the feeling of impending doom grows exponentially more real. Magnificent cinematic experience.
THE TRIBE- [3.8] Tiffany Schlain wrote and directed this short (about 16 minutes) look at the history of the Jewish people in relation to the history of the Barbie doll. While reveling in the many ways that Jews have been mistreated and persecuted throughout the millennia, Schlain still manages to keep her prideful tribe boasting as entertaining and informative as possible (fakr is the term used to describe the same boasting methods used in classic Arabic poetry). The connection between Jews and Barbie were very interesting and metaphoric, and Schlain did a good job of exploring Barbie’s unnaturally white image and figure, and explaining how Jews feel the need to hide behind images of dominant Barbie culture so as to fit in. Though she makes blanket statements, like the whole history of Jews can be categorized as outsiders, she provides enough informative and graphic punch to make you accept these statements for the time being, but eventually start questioning them once the film finishes. The final slam poem is wonderfully written and performed, but I still got the sense, at the end of all this mess, that all Schlain had accomplished was to boost people’s pride in being Jewish. While the film is an insightful study of one Jew’s perspective on history, I do not know if I can agree with the propagandistic intentionality of the piece.
THANK YOU FOR SMOKING- [3.8] Fun satire about a tobacco lobbyist, excellently played by Aaron Eckhart. The script is witty, the visual jokes work extremely well (Rob Lowe in a kimono in front of a giant glass window), and the characters are actually interesting and sympathetic (esp. the father/son relationship). While the jokes were more scattered than I would like, this defiantly felt like a comedy more than anything. The slight bits of humor, such as Eckhart’s mild changes in facial expressions, worked well, but Adam Brody and Rob Lowe were my absolute favorite parts of the movie, as they nailed the powerful, crazy Hollywood folk. William H. Macy does a fine job, as does Robert Duvall, but those two big names are ultimately forgettable. Maria Bello is fantastic as the alcohol representative in the MOD squad (Merchants of Death). The reenactment of the Dennis Miller show was also handled quite well (i.e., realistically, making it more appealing). The young boy is a fine gifted actor, who plays the straight role very well. Even Katie Holmes isn’t an annoyance, although she still seems way too young to play “mature” adults (I would never believe she were a high class reporter). The moral lessons of this film are a bit lost amid all the sarcasm, but that’s fine by me. Despite all the great parts of this movie, its ultimately a hollow experience, and one that I won’t really carry with me very far.
ANDREI RUBLEV- [2.8] Not much to say. I can’t even think of any scenes to talk about, per se. Its all one big three and a half hour blur in my life. Tarkovsky can suck my dick. I don’t understand why this film starts with a man trying to escape in a balloon. I don’t understand why this film ends with a ten minute montage of close ups of art that Rublev did. Nor why they chose to repeat shots in the already-monotonous montage of the art. I also didn’t understand what the hell the point of this film was. Sigh.
RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD- [3.9] Brains!!!
SLITHER- [3.8] Fun and gross, but not nearly as satisfying as trashier, more true-Troma films. Though this is by James Gunn, the same writer as the Dawn of the Dead remake and Tromio and Juliet, this feels more like a bid for Hollywood than straight-to-video glory. Which is fine, as the effects are still done old school (no CGI shit), making the gore and guts and mutilation all the more satisfying. The acting is nicely done, and the main story of a wife’s love for Bill, her older, uglier, and now alien-infested husband, is pretty interesting and at least successfully carried though to the finish of the picture. The suspense is a little thin, the laughs are pretty frequent, and the chaos feels appropriate. The highlights include the alien insect slithering inside the girl’s mouth in the bathtub, enabling her to see into the mind and memory of the creature, and the scene of the bloated bitch in the shed exploding. The finale is great, though somehow not as satisfying as it should have been. The final moments feel like an homage to The Birds, except instead of wandering into a field of murderous birds, it’s a field of an entire town left dead and mutilated. Great! My only complaint is that this film could be even MORE ridiculous and campy. Though the relationship between the main couple was interesting and well played, it seemed out of place and unnecessary at times, and failed to move the plot forward. Still, a welcome return of the silly gory horror that knows what it wants.
AFTER HOURS- [3.7] Bizarre. The whole time I couldn’t help but think, “Scorsese made this?” Mr. Raging Bull Taxi Driver Goodfellas Casino Aviator Last Temptation of Christ King of Comedy? Hmm. Okay, maybe I can see it. A little bit. The bizarre, hallucinatory film acts as an insomniac’s living nightmare, as Griffin Dunne delivers a solid, wonderfully three-dimensional performance as Paul Hackett, the man who just wants to Wake Up…errr, get home. Rosanna Arquette is the impetus that drives him out of his house one night, to go on a date at her apartment and hopefully get a little ass. While she’s not at home, Linda Fiorentino is, and he is forced to help this artist with her plaster-of-paris statue. Soon, he becomes turned off but Rosanna’s craziness and the possibility that she is a burn victim, and he scrams. Later he finds her dead, but not before losing his last twenty dollars out of a taxi window, leaving him stranded with no way to go home. He runs into Teri Garr in a bar, who develops an unhealthy crush on him, he gets mistaken for a cat burglar, gets hooked up with Catherine O’Hara as a wacko ice cream dealer, and is eventually hauled away by Cheech and Chong, who mistake his plastered body for a real statue, and he accidentally gets dropped outside of his office, that he left the night before. Wonderfully surreal, subtle and funny film, even if its plot was barely there. I might like this better knowing what its about, because going in expecting a Scorsese film will surely lead to disappointment. This is a film that must be watched at night to be appreciated. Oh, and Scorsese is great in his small cameo as a spotlight operator at the punk club.
SOMETHING WILD- [3.4] Enjoyable, though overlong tale of a wild 80’s-style punky chick (Lulu, a wonderfully sexy and energetic Melanie Griffith) who pseudo-kidnaps a more uptight NYC businessman and tries to see how loose he’ll become. The first half of the movie is their fun exploits, from handcuffing him to the bed in a motel, to crashing the car into a different motel’s sign, to buying a used car from John Waters, to introducing the man as Lulu’s husband to her mother and a whole crowd of yuppies at her high school reunion. Then Ray Liotta shows up and things take a nasty dark turn, and all of a sudden it feels like Cape Fear, with some suspense and ridiculous fight scenes. Fortunately, Jonathan Demme doesn’t take everything too somberly, and the second half is filled with some clever gags and twists. Jeff Daniels does a great job at playing the straight man by not succumbing to stereotypes, but by creating a real, three-dimensional man who is exploring a more repressed side to himself, but never goes off the deep end enough to lose his basic mannered self (this restraint from caracature is a nice change from standard Hollywood fare, which could have easily had Daniels turn into a wild punk himself, completely 180 degrees from his previous life without even a blink of the eye). Though Ray Liotta turns in an awesome performance as the intensely twisted, just-out-on-parole boyfriend, I wasn’t prepared for the story shifting so much in the middle of the second act. Demme did such a good job establishing the light hearted nature of the first half, that I thought for sure the rest of the film would just continue as a road picture, showing the picaresque adventures of these two lovers, with the only real action being the arc of their emotions. The Liotta half is steep in plot, which would have worked if the audience had been set up for that, but it seems to come from left field. Not only does it tonally feel awkward, but the pacing changes drastically, and the film itself loses steam by the last act. The strange fight scene in Daniels’ house is predictable enough, but the final coda of the film, which echoes the film’s opening, is a nice touch.
BRICK- [4.0] Fascinating, fun, if a bit cold subversion of film noir. While there are many praiseworthy aspects to consider-cinematography, acting-the script is the standout achievement. Brilliantly written, the dialogue is structured like old Bogart pics, but without standard clichés. Instead, Rian Johnson has created his own linguistic universe, where phrases are inspired by American vernacular, but are also significantly different, seeming far “cooler” than even modern hip-talk. While I can understand many viewer’s complaints that the actors’ snappy delivery makes much of their dialogue unclear, I think this adds to the signature tone of this film. While seemingly played out in the real world (i.e. a San Clemente high school on the weekend), the variant acting, speaking, and visual motifs charge this film with a foreign energy that takes a while to sink into. The muted blue tones work extremely well; if this film had been shot in black and white in order to heighten its nourish-ness, it would have failed because it would seem too derivative and the close parody/homage to those films would be overly apparent. By coming up with a specific color scheme, as well as modern cinematographic approaches (the tight shot of the car whizzing by Levitt’s hand, the whoosh of the camera as a character is punched out), the viewer never feels like the director is simply channeling Dashel Hammond. This is a singular vision, with teenage life brilliantly portrayed as a microcosm of American life. Levitt again astonishes with his intense but ambivalent protagonist. Like MYSTERIOUS SKIN, the audience can’t feel real sympathy for the character, but we understand his essence, like the essence of James Dean or Brando: impenetrable. Yet, it is that lack of sympathy and connection that makes this film so cold and ineffective. The Noir genre has a structure of romance and intrigue, which this film plays with wonderfully and humorously, yet, there is a sense that its not entirely genuine. That the film is too cute for its own good. Bogart and Bacall had some sort of chemistry in their noirs, but Levitt offers little besides unrequited love and angst. Somehow, this doesn’t play, and maybe it shouldn’t. But while watching the film, the audience cares only about the clues to solve the case; the characters mean nothing. Live, die, or never to be seen again, characters are brilliantly written, but in the end they are just constructions that never cease being concepts.
THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE- [3.8] Argento’s first film has a fantastically memorable opening, but it gets steadily less interesting from there. A man gets caught inside a glass entranceway and is forced to watch a woman being murdered. Fortunately, the woman lives, but the man is accused of the crime, since he is the only witness. Investigating further, the man is stalked and almost killed by a Chinese man until he narrowly escapes, in a very tense and entertaining sequence. Also, there is a painting of a man stabbing a woman’s vagina, that was supposedly bought by the first victim of the serial killer, and the American man gets a copy to hang on his wall and obsess over. Although the American is eventually cleared of suspicion, he refuses to leave Italy because he feels as if he is on the verge of solving the case. Then there’s a mildly suspenseful scene where the man’s girlfriend is trapped in her apartment, as the killer hacks away at the door. The girl tries to leave, but all her means are cut off. The girl screams her head off, in typical scream queen fashion, but the killer is too methodical to ever seem really threatening. Another great scene is when the American goes out in the countryside to find the reclusive artist of the graphic painting, and the man ends up being a crazed Russian who eats cats (and which the American unexpectedly chows down on). The bird with the crystal plumage is mentioned once in the movie, and is the source of the scratching on the tape recording of the killer’s voice. Why is it the name of the movie? Probably cuz it sounds cool. The real ending is pretty damn cool, even if the killer is predictably revealed, and even if the killer says nothing at the end, but merely repeats the same high pitched insane laugh over and over. And instead of a grand finale fight, the killer is easily apprehended by the police, and the explanation for the killer’s crimes is revealed (even if it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. And though the lesbian angle isn’t played up-the antique owner mentions that the first victim was a lesbian-it could very well help explain a whole lot, even Argento’s subversive gender themes). I think I’ve learned with this film to give up all hope in understanding the motivations in giallo films, and just go with it. Fun, but not as mindblowing as SUSPIRIA.
THE DEAD ARE ALIVE- [3.9] Not nearly as slick or memorable as an Argento film, but oddly more fun. The acting (and the dubbing) is so atrocious that its hard to imagine that this could have been released as a serious horror film. The plot is beyond convoluted, and the title has almost nothing to do with the story. Etruscan tombs, Freudian mother complexes, young nubile bodies being ground into bloody pulp, and horrific fish-eyed flashbacks. Surprisingly, veteran actor John Marley (Godfather, Faces) plays a pivotal role, but even he sounds as if he can barely deliver the horrible lines given him. The delivery of the dialogue is particularly humorous because it seems as if all the dubbing actors are trying oh so carefully to ar-tic-u-late every syllable of their lines, so they can be understood, making everything sound so wonderfully “off.” The lead actor, Alex Cord, hams it up as a mustachoed, well-built, short-short wearing archaelogist that would put Indiana Jones to shame. He is clearly a pimped out 70s sex machine, but there’s one problem…he’s an alcoholic with amnesia! He has forgotten how he almost killed his old girlfriend years ago in New York (and we see his shrieking reaction in an unexpected flashback, one of the funniest moments in the film, leaving me laughing for long afterwards). Although there are hints that this will be a Zombie film (like the later Fulci Italian ones), it turns out to be a red herring, as the Etruscan tomb has NOTHING to do with the murders. It just happens to be there. The gay dance instructor is wonderfully hammy and flamboyant, rainbow shirt and all, but again, his role in the whole episode is lost on me. The actual killer confesses, reveals why he did everything, but I still don’t understand, except he wanted revenge on his father, John Marley, for beating up his mother when she was shacked up with the chorus boy. But this turned into typical Jack the Ripper-type anger, “all women are whores” so he must do away with all the vaginas in the world. Clichéd excuse, and it makes no real sense, but whatever. This was a charming 70s nostalgic giallo with some suspense, humor, and most of all, entertainment.