C.H.U.D.

Seen for the second time in November 2012.

"C.H.U.D." was on cable television during the day time when I was a kid. I must've tried watching it a dozen times during the lazy days of summer vacation. It could never hold my attention though. In the intervening years it's become a sort of iconic cult classic. People bring up the movie, spit out the acronym and giggle. Truth is though, there's nothing particularly special about this movie.

Its merits are as follows: Daniel Stern, a ridiculous pandering explosion at the very end, John Goodman in a bit part, and what appears to me to be some actual serious effort by all involved. The problem is that it's boring. C.H.U.D. bores me in pretty much the exact same way that "Jaws" bores me. These movies have very different reputations, but I think there's some kind of structural similarity.

Frankly, also, I think C.H.U.D. may be too serious. It lacks the humor of the "Toxic Avenger" or the outright incompetence of "Troll II" or the charisma of the Evil Dead films. It could almost be played straight as a studio sci-fi horror release, but for a few amateur moments, like the confrontation between Bosch and the bad guy at the end. This isn't to its credit. I think it's better to be great camp than a poorly done and boring genre flick.

Ultimately it just feels like a bad idea that's been well executed, rather than a good idea that's been well but amateurishly executed (Or like "Troll II," a terrible but strange idea that's been incompetently but earnestly executed.) I do wonder why this is the only film under its director's belt. It doesn't seem poorly directed, and it made money. You would think he'd have the opportunity to keep working. I guess this is too good to be so bad it's good and not funny or thrilling enough to actually be a good movie. Grade B-.

Female Trouble - John Waters

Seen for the first time in November 2012.

I cannot say that I was a fan of “Female Trouble.” It’s noticably weaker than both “Desperate Living,” and “Pink Flamingos.” I don’t think it’s a matter of the same schtick wearing thin upon retread. I think it’s a matter of too much Divine, who admittedly has the best performance, but from whom nonetheless the viewer could use a breather. There’s more of a traditional plot here than “Pink Flamingos,” but it still seems somehow more haphazard and made up as they went along. That was probably a strength in “Pink Flamingos,” which also had stronger set-ups for gross-out and revulsion, but is a weakness here.

I also think there is less joie de vivre in this film than in the films that preceeded and followed it. This is more just a matter of unadulterated bad-actors loudly chewing the scenery. The offensiveness of the other movies is hilarious, but also pointed and commenting. It’s campy, but it achieves the level of artistic. The offensiveness in “Female Trouble” on the other hand is just loud. I feel like anyone could do it. And truth be told, it doesn’t feel like it’s that far off from a lot of forgettable grindhouse of the era, just more self-conscious maybe. Grade C-.

Silver Linings Playbook

Seen in the theater for the first time in November 2012.

At its core, "Silver Linings Playbook" is kind of a shitty romantic comedy. It nonetheless has some very funny jokes. You can kind of picture Adam Sandler playing the lead role, and the film this is most reminiscent of is "Punch Drunk Love," though not as good. It's entertaining as you watch it and the manipulation is effective even if you get tired of Jennifer Lawrence giving lectures on her emotions. Her performance is still good and I love her though. But still your brain knows that deep down this is not a good movie. The phrase to describe it is pandering sentimentality of the worst kind.

It reminds me of the distaste I get when I think of a film like "Little Miss Sunshine" or "Black Snake Moan." What these films have in common in my opinion is the impression that they started as a very good idea, and then got focus grouped into a kind of mawkish nausea. One senses their was once vision here, and that was diluted into some kind of  lowest common denominator blandness. Still, it's easy enough to simply enjoy a movie like this for its charms which are inoffensive enough, but it never quite vanquishes the nagging empty feeling that despite the kooky crazy antics of the two mains and a tired Robert De Niro, this is a mass produced cliche of bland diversion in the romantic-comedy form. We hunger for it to subvert that form, but it never does. Grade C +.

Strange Circus

Seen for the first time in November 2012

I watched "Strange Circus" in a state of hungover exhaustion. It's creepy but not unsettling, and entertaining. My mind was sort of fogged over while watching it, plus the dvd started skipping and the subtitles let out for ab few minutes during the climactic reveal. I'm pretty sure I've got the story, but I don't know what's "real" and what's real. I liked it more or less. It's entertaining, and despite the disturbing content strikes the right tone. Much better than this same director's "Suicide Club." Grade B.

Young Aphrodites

Seen for the first time in November 2012.

“Young Aphrodites” is an art film. It’s based on an old Greek story set about 200 years BC, and as a practical matter is about the sexual discovery of a couple of winsome, androgynous, Greek adolescents. It’s beautifully and artistically shot and with enough skin for some to fairly find disturbing. I’m caught between opposing camps on that score. Let’s just say that I’m hopelessly American. But I’m trying.

At the end of the day, it’s a very evocative and well-shot movie, even if I didn’t particularly enjoy it and don’t really feel the need to see it again. Grade B-.

Throne of Blood - Akira Kurosawa

Seen for the first time in November 2012.

“Throne of Blood” is essentially “Macbeth” directly translated into Japanese and then re-translated into English with subtitles, which probably accounts for why it’s such a good adaptation, naturally losing the archaic language and iambic pentameter of Shakespeare’s original without succumbing to the goofiness that occurs when attempts at an update are made.

There’s an element to the end, that I don’t remember in “Macbeth” that reminds me of “Ozymandias,” namely the notice saying “here lies the ruins of spiderweb castle.” This, in my opinion opinion provides another layer of richness to the film, bringing by implication the same things that “Ozymandias” invokes. Namely, the way time and years erase even the greatest of men. The meaningless in the end of the pursuit of great power and greatness itself, to be ultimately forgotten and have your great monuments lie in ruin.

That may just be me however, and it may be in the original Macbeth as well. I haven’t read it since high school. I must make time to re-read Shakespeare and perhaps even catch some productions, though the thought of watching any actor’s performance of Hamlet fills me with nausea despite the fact that I do hold that play in deep regard. Anyway, how much I liked this due to Kurosawa, and how much I liked it due to Shakespeare, I can’t say. The scene with the arrows at the end is remarkable. Grade A.

Force of Evil

Seen for the first time in November 2012.

“Force of Evil” is a nice crisp film noir. Though it may seem a run-of-the-mill example of the genre at first glance, there is something in the film elevating it to a solid second tier status of film noir, just below the heavyweights like “The Big Sleep,” or “The Postman Always Rings Twice.” This is a very solid film, reminiscent, probably due to the issues of brotherhood, to “On the Waterfront.” They have similar endings even, though for some reason the “On the Waterfront” ending works whereas this one feels hollow and hokey.

It’s not the first good film noir with a bad ending though. Bad endings actually tended to happen as often as they were avoided. And though the whole basic plot of “Force of Evil” from start to finish is more or less discernible early on, it doesn’t stop the movie from commanding your attention. The background characters are as quirky as you’d want and everything is ably performed. I might like John Garfield better in this than in “The Postman Always Rings Twice.” The dialogue and the voice-overs are sharp as well. All in all, other than the ending, there’s no weak aspect of this noir, and plenty of strengths. Grade B+.

Slave Girls From Beyond Infinity

Seen for the first time in November 2012.

“Slave Girls From Beyond Infinity” is exactly the movie one expects from its title and the year of its production (1987). It’s good enough but skip-able as silly, deliberately campy sci-fi, if kind of lazy in execution. It’s also a pretext for depicting scantily clad women. In this aspect, it excels. Grade B.

The Awful Dr Orlof - Jess Franco

Seen for the first time in November 2012.

“The Awful Dr. Orlof” is early Jess Franco, when he was making are by today’s standards respectable b movies, and before he became one of the pioneers of euro-sleaze or developed a reputation as an effort-free hack in some circles and an surrealist, experimental film-maker in others. This is a traditional, old-school, b-movie horror, competently done. It’s kind of boring by today’s standards, assuming one doesn’t have an enthusiasm for 50’s black and white horror. Franco’s later, “The Diabolical Dr. Z” is better, and is evidence for the idea that Franco is a talented director. This is merely evidence that Franco is a capable director who could do more mainstream fare if given the opportunity and inclination. Grade B-.

House of Leaves - Mark Z. Danielewski

Read for the first time in November 2012.

My favorite thing about “House of Leaves” is the conceit, which is extraordinarily clever. An old guy having written a criticism of a supposed documentary about a strange house dies. The writing is discovered by an aspiring tattoo artist who adds his own journalistic thoughts to the proceedings.

One aspect of this that I don’t like is how it can make it difficult for me to level certain criticisms. This gets difficult to talk about, for there are conceits within conceits operating in this novel. But to try, for example, the notion that Zampano’s purported work is a commentary on “The Navidson Project” completely falls apart due to his excessive summarizing of the on-screen events. This is acknowledged within the novel, but even still, it is too much. Second how long does this “Navidson Project” purport to be? 20 hours? 40 hours? It’s obvious that there is no film at all, but that Zampano is merely telling the fictional Navidson story through the use of a creative conceit.

And of course, by saying this, I’m criticizing Zampano, but I don’t know if I’m criticizing Danielewski. We know outright that even within the fictional world that Zampano and Johnny Truant live in, that this film does not exist. Danielewski creates a character who creates a successful but not entirely convincing conceit. I just feel like the whole thing would have worked even better if every element of the conceit within a conceit was believable in every way. If we really could believe that Zampano’s work was in fact the commentary it purports to be.

I don't know if a third person is capable of untangling those preceding two paragraphs. But I give up on it.

Nonetheless, Zampano’s description of what happens in that film is the best part of the book. This is basically a very good Stephen King story, and I think it’s interesting that we care more about this fake family and what happens in this fake story than we do about the purportedly “real” characters, like Johnny Truant and Zampano. And of course this is absurd because they aren’t any more real than the Navidsons just a step removed. I also especially enjoyed reading Johnny Truant’s letters from his mother. Those were a highlight for me.

The structure is something I have some ambivalence about. There are times when I think putting three lines of text on a whole page enhances the experience of reading that novel. It enhances the suspense of some of the most suspenseful moments. Some of the details about crossing things out or words or pages lost to ink splots or whatever enhances a kind of fake authenticity, as well. And I think it also does a good job of reflecting structurally the mental deterioration of both Zampano and Johnny Truant. But it also is annoying at times, especially all of the footnote games around the most boring part of this thing and also, basically all of exploration number five.

I also don’t know how I feel about Johnny Truant as a character. I don’t know that I ever fully bought into him. Except to say, he’s made to be an exceptionally good liar/story-teller and that creates another layer of question for this thing in my mind. Also the portrayal of his mental deterioration was some goddamned good writing in my opinion. But outside of that, he lacked charisma to me, and I don’t know how to take his lack of education on one hand and his sometimes exceptional vocabulary on the other. I definitely feel like the Navidson’s story is the one that draws our affinities and creates suspense.

One other neat trick, I thought was how everyone goes crazy. Zampano says in his work, people who thought about and wrote about the Navidson project developed mental problems. He apparently develops them himself. Johnny Truant starts to read Zampano’s work and writes about it himself. Then we see him go crazy, too. And of course, here we are reading it ourselves, book in hand. Do we take the admonition not to think about it? Do we dare write about it? Shall we start down that spiral staircase or turn back?

It’s a cool trick. This is a pretty cool book. Like I said, it’s like a good Stephen King novel, but with experimental flourishes. I don’t call it a gimmick. But I am curious as to where in terms of writing Danielewski’s passions lie.

The Dictator - Sacha Baron-Cohen

Seen for the first time in November 2012.

I think I liked “The Dictator” more than the consensus of initial reactions. I thought there were many funny moments, despite a good bit of admittedly lazy humor. It was better than “Bruno,” which was more annoying than funny. But I didn’t laugh as much as I laughed at “Borat.” Though I wonder if I would still laugh at “Borat” if I saw it today.

Either way, “Borat” was something uniquely funny upon arrival, not just funnier than most other comedies, but so seemingly different as well that its difficult to rank as a comedy and not just as a funny aberrant form that exists outside of the comedy movie paradigm. Like if I ranked the top 5 movies of the first decade of the twenty first century, I’d tentatively include in some order that I have not determined: “Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle,” “Zoolander,” “Super Troopers,” “Wet Hot American Summer,” “Observe and Report,” or maybe if I could only include half of a movie, I’d find a way to fit in the first third of “Superbad.” “Borat” is as consistently and thoroughly funny as many of these movies, but somehow it is just so different an entity from these movies it would never occur to me to think of it when drawing up that list.

“The Dictator” is a more traditional comedy. And on that score, it succeeds with plenty of laughs. It is, for example, much better than “Don’t Mess With the Zohan,” to which one might draw comparisons. “The Dictator” is unsurprisingly politically lazy and, though I love Anna Faris maybe more than any woman alive, a lot of the humor surrounding her character is hackishly lazy. And yet the repeated jokes of the “are you having a boy or an abortion” vein drew laughs from me. Grade B+.

The Cat O'Nine Tails - Dario Argento

Seen for the first time in November 2012.

Between this and “Suspiria,” I don’t really understand Dario Argento’s outsized reputation. I liked this a lot better than I liked “Suspiria.” This is legitimately riveting and suspenseful. But still, it doesn’t stand out amongst the works of Mario Bava, Lucio Fulci, or Umberto Lenzi in the world of giallo. To its credit, when the mystery is solved, the plot is a bit convoluted but it isn’t the Rube Goldberg machine similar films often end up seeming plotwise. This is a better than average thriller, but I feel like Argento needs to be either grimmer, grimier, or sleazier or else he’s just second-rate Italian Hitchcock. By which I mean, one either needs to be as good as Hitchcock or they need to compensate somehow, cause this is a nice film and all, but it’s no “Vertigo.” Grade B+.

Suicide Club

Seen for the first time in November 2012.

This movie was a little boring and unengaging to me. Toward the end, I began to lean on the fast-forward button a bit, so it would probably be unfair to say its a little non-sensical. Though, I think its more concerned about atmosphere than sense in and of its self. The real drawback is it’s concept of cool is, at this moment in time, probably at its nadir in terms of fashion. Movies should probably not even try to be cool however. Grade C.