Seen for the first time in August 2013.
"Synecdoche, New York" may be the most depressing film I've ever seen. This is because it by and large succeeds at meeting its ambitions ruminating on life and death and loneliness and love. It's big and grand and I love its ambition. Even when it's funny, in its low key way, it's nonetheless kind of sad and miserable, and there's also something kind of funny in its sadness and misery.
It maybe devolves into some kind of platitude toward the end, but nonetheless, it's an enviable powerful movie. Put it alongside Magnolia as big ambitious movies, that risk ponderousness, but succeed with their grand graveness. Grade A.
Monday, August 19, 2013
The Seven Year Itch - Billy Wilder
Seen for the first time in August 2013.
I'm extremely disappointed with this film. You would think Billy Wilder, one of the all time greats, would deliver with one of his better known works. But this really has nothing going for it. Perhaps all that talking to himself the main character does would work on a stage, but it doesn't work in a film. Marilyn Monroe was in some good movies. But she is no reason to watch a movie. Sorry Billy. Grade D.
I'm extremely disappointed with this film. You would think Billy Wilder, one of the all time greats, would deliver with one of his better known works. But this really has nothing going for it. Perhaps all that talking to himself the main character does would work on a stage, but it doesn't work in a film. Marilyn Monroe was in some good movies. But she is no reason to watch a movie. Sorry Billy. Grade D.
We're the Millers
Seen in the theater for the first time in August 2013.
"We're the Millers" is not a good movie. Most of the humor is exceptionally lazy, saved only by solid performances and miraculous line readings. It's not as funny as the third Hangover film, which though incredibly flawed, was nonetheless incredibly funny in parts. I should think that asking a film to be better than the second sequel to a reasonably funny movie is a reasonable hurdle for any movie to clear.
Jason Sudeikis's character has some parallels with Cary Grant's character in the great "His Girl Friday." And yet Cary Grant's character never changed or was redeemed in that movie. He basically stayed the same selfish, self-involved narcissist he was at the beginning of the film. But "His Girl Friday" never asked us to dislike Cary Grant despite all his schemes to get in the way of his ex-wife and her fiance's happiness. So we never needed a moment where Cary Grant apologizes. Instead, Cary Grant wins, because his ex-wife would never be happy living the conventional life with her conventional groom, and she comes to realize this.
I'm not sure that "We're the Millers" really succeeds in getting us to the point where Sudeikis needs to apologize for who he is, but it gives us that redemptive moment anyway. I'm not sure if politically or morally "We're the Millers" is better for bowing to a pandering, conventional sensibility, it might be. But this pandering obeisance to formula certainly makes for inferior art.
But failing to be as good as "His Girl Friday," is no unforgivable sin. This movie was conceived well enough and it was executed well enough. The terrible flaw is that it's extremely poorly written. There is one exception: The character of the daughter was not well conceived, nor was she well executed, by anyone. But ultimately, this film is forgettably mediocre. No that's too generous. I like forgettably mediocre comedies. This film is bad. Grade D.
"We're the Millers" is not a good movie. Most of the humor is exceptionally lazy, saved only by solid performances and miraculous line readings. It's not as funny as the third Hangover film, which though incredibly flawed, was nonetheless incredibly funny in parts. I should think that asking a film to be better than the second sequel to a reasonably funny movie is a reasonable hurdle for any movie to clear.
Jason Sudeikis's character has some parallels with Cary Grant's character in the great "His Girl Friday." And yet Cary Grant's character never changed or was redeemed in that movie. He basically stayed the same selfish, self-involved narcissist he was at the beginning of the film. But "His Girl Friday" never asked us to dislike Cary Grant despite all his schemes to get in the way of his ex-wife and her fiance's happiness. So we never needed a moment where Cary Grant apologizes. Instead, Cary Grant wins, because his ex-wife would never be happy living the conventional life with her conventional groom, and she comes to realize this.
I'm not sure that "We're the Millers" really succeeds in getting us to the point where Sudeikis needs to apologize for who he is, but it gives us that redemptive moment anyway. I'm not sure if politically or morally "We're the Millers" is better for bowing to a pandering, conventional sensibility, it might be. But this pandering obeisance to formula certainly makes for inferior art.
But failing to be as good as "His Girl Friday," is no unforgivable sin. This movie was conceived well enough and it was executed well enough. The terrible flaw is that it's extremely poorly written. There is one exception: The character of the daughter was not well conceived, nor was she well executed, by anyone. But ultimately, this film is forgettably mediocre. No that's too generous. I like forgettably mediocre comedies. This film is bad. Grade D.
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Brick - Rian Johnson
Seen for the sixth time in July 2013.
"Brick" was the best movie released in the first decade of this century and the only other movie that comes close is Larry Clark's "Bully." What does Brick do well? It perfectly emulates the style and atmosphere of classic noir. Shit, it takes the platonic ideal of noir, and emulates that, giving us the witty dialogue, the style, the suspense and atmosphere. It's extremely well cast with only one bad performance coming from the girl from "Lost."
The part that makes it controversial is that its set in modern high school, which misleads the pre-concepted into expecting realism, as if this would be a good movie if it were a realistic high school drama about drugs. I scoff. Like what Havoc? I can't think of any good high school dramas. Can anybody think of one since "American Graffiti"?
But I digress, what makes "Brick" great is that it's a great noir, not a great piece of realistic film-making. "Brick" helps us to understand that noir was never about realism. It was about style, wit, suspense, and atmosphere. It was about an idealized form of masculinity, imperfect but essentially good, doing the best he can using his wits in an undefeatable and essentially corrupt world, and maybe even surviving. This is what Brick is about.
And the high school setting is essential. It is essential to create a stylized world for these characters to inhabit. Even classic noir was staged in a stylized world and not a realistic one, though many of us wouldn't know that these days. Nonetheless the traditional noir setting may be too dated and cliched at this point to produce something truly noteworthy and exceptional. New and fertile worlds must be sought for noir to excel at it's brand of urbane sophistication.
"Brick" uses the high school setting to create this very necessary stylized world where the conventions of noir can successfully be revealed without seeming cliche. And the underlying noir that takes place in this setting is a very very good one. The world of "Brick" is hermetically sealed one, similar to our own, but very much not our own. Like a billion other realistic teen sagas, it's not a very good teen drama. It is however, an exceptionally good piece of film noir, and it deserves its place right alongside Chinatown, and The Maltese Falcon, and The Big Sleep. It's that good. Even accounting for parasitism. It's that good. Grade A.
"Brick" was the best movie released in the first decade of this century and the only other movie that comes close is Larry Clark's "Bully." What does Brick do well? It perfectly emulates the style and atmosphere of classic noir. Shit, it takes the platonic ideal of noir, and emulates that, giving us the witty dialogue, the style, the suspense and atmosphere. It's extremely well cast with only one bad performance coming from the girl from "Lost."
The part that makes it controversial is that its set in modern high school, which misleads the pre-concepted into expecting realism, as if this would be a good movie if it were a realistic high school drama about drugs. I scoff. Like what Havoc? I can't think of any good high school dramas. Can anybody think of one since "American Graffiti"?
But I digress, what makes "Brick" great is that it's a great noir, not a great piece of realistic film-making. "Brick" helps us to understand that noir was never about realism. It was about style, wit, suspense, and atmosphere. It was about an idealized form of masculinity, imperfect but essentially good, doing the best he can using his wits in an undefeatable and essentially corrupt world, and maybe even surviving. This is what Brick is about.
And the high school setting is essential. It is essential to create a stylized world for these characters to inhabit. Even classic noir was staged in a stylized world and not a realistic one, though many of us wouldn't know that these days. Nonetheless the traditional noir setting may be too dated and cliched at this point to produce something truly noteworthy and exceptional. New and fertile worlds must be sought for noir to excel at it's brand of urbane sophistication.
"Brick" uses the high school setting to create this very necessary stylized world where the conventions of noir can successfully be revealed without seeming cliche. And the underlying noir that takes place in this setting is a very very good one. The world of "Brick" is hermetically sealed one, similar to our own, but very much not our own. Like a billion other realistic teen sagas, it's not a very good teen drama. It is however, an exceptionally good piece of film noir, and it deserves its place right alongside Chinatown, and The Maltese Falcon, and The Big Sleep. It's that good. Even accounting for parasitism. It's that good. Grade A.
The Big Sleep - Howard Hawks
Seen for the eighth time in July 2013.
I can usually make sense of "The Big Sleep" for maybe an hour after I watch it and then it becomes a jumbled confusing mess again. But what it lacks in coherence, it more than makes up for in style and atmosphere. I don't believe that Bogart was ever more enjoyable than he is in "The Big Sleep," and Bacall keeps pace in impressive fashion. The labyrinthian machinations and motivations intertwining in this convoluted tale are an asset and the need to make sense of the plot here is the hallmark of monomaniacal.
"The Big Sleep" is to be enjoyed for Bogart's brand of rugged sophistication, gruff and savvy, tough and yet at the same time, discerning. He balances a kind of heroic stoicism with a brash wit. It's a treat to watch him work here, a man's man and yet charming to women too, always a few steps ahead of his adversaries even when he's a step behind. And Bacall is at her best as his foil, given lines to keep pace with Bogart's wit, as the dance of mutual flirtation leads them further and further into this mystery.
The supporting cast is all top-notch as well. And the guy who plays the little guy deserves to be singled out for a great performance of a great minor character. But overall it's the aura of mystery and the cool wit of the writing along with some fantastic performances that makes this film such a dazzling experience. Grade A.
I can usually make sense of "The Big Sleep" for maybe an hour after I watch it and then it becomes a jumbled confusing mess again. But what it lacks in coherence, it more than makes up for in style and atmosphere. I don't believe that Bogart was ever more enjoyable than he is in "The Big Sleep," and Bacall keeps pace in impressive fashion. The labyrinthian machinations and motivations intertwining in this convoluted tale are an asset and the need to make sense of the plot here is the hallmark of monomaniacal.
"The Big Sleep" is to be enjoyed for Bogart's brand of rugged sophistication, gruff and savvy, tough and yet at the same time, discerning. He balances a kind of heroic stoicism with a brash wit. It's a treat to watch him work here, a man's man and yet charming to women too, always a few steps ahead of his adversaries even when he's a step behind. And Bacall is at her best as his foil, given lines to keep pace with Bogart's wit, as the dance of mutual flirtation leads them further and further into this mystery.
The supporting cast is all top-notch as well. And the guy who plays the little guy deserves to be singled out for a great performance of a great minor character. But overall it's the aura of mystery and the cool wit of the writing along with some fantastic performances that makes this film such a dazzling experience. Grade A.
The Awful Truth - Cary Grant
Seen for the second time in July 2013.
Cary Grant's charisma is probably the one thing that separates classic screwball comedy from the insipid fare that passes for romantic comedy for the past 30 or so years. As great as Cary Grant is, he's still an underrated performer. I've heard him compared to George Clooney for example, but Grant towers over his imitators. I've never seen George Clooney pull a pratfall, much less pull a pratfull and still seem as though he's the most charming and sophisticated person on the entire planet. I've seen Cary Grant do that. I saw him do it in "The Awful Truth," which is a great movie, and probably the best of Cary Grant in the screwball era, though "His Girl Friday," isn't edged out easily.
It's interesting to me the snobbery that this film gets away with. Cary Grant and Irene Dunne's characters are both clearly well-educated and well-off and much of the humor in this movie is a result of them snidely turning their noses up at their less well-heeled brethren. Whether it's Bellamy's mid-American rube or the risque act of a working class dancing girl or even Dunne's imitation of such. I'm not sure how this stuff would play in today's political environment. I don't believe that a film of mass appeal made today would get laughs by appealing to an urbane sensibility's disdain for the masses.
"The Awful Truth" gets away with it nonetheless, I'm sure not just by having the carte blanche of being classic Hollywood, but also by being so goddamned relentlessly entertaining. Irene Dunn and Ralph Bellamy are at their best, and Cary Grant gives one of the all time most charismatic performances. Grade A.
Cary Grant's charisma is probably the one thing that separates classic screwball comedy from the insipid fare that passes for romantic comedy for the past 30 or so years. As great as Cary Grant is, he's still an underrated performer. I've heard him compared to George Clooney for example, but Grant towers over his imitators. I've never seen George Clooney pull a pratfall, much less pull a pratfull and still seem as though he's the most charming and sophisticated person on the entire planet. I've seen Cary Grant do that. I saw him do it in "The Awful Truth," which is a great movie, and probably the best of Cary Grant in the screwball era, though "His Girl Friday," isn't edged out easily.
It's interesting to me the snobbery that this film gets away with. Cary Grant and Irene Dunne's characters are both clearly well-educated and well-off and much of the humor in this movie is a result of them snidely turning their noses up at their less well-heeled brethren. Whether it's Bellamy's mid-American rube or the risque act of a working class dancing girl or even Dunne's imitation of such. I'm not sure how this stuff would play in today's political environment. I don't believe that a film of mass appeal made today would get laughs by appealing to an urbane sensibility's disdain for the masses.
"The Awful Truth" gets away with it nonetheless, I'm sure not just by having the carte blanche of being classic Hollywood, but also by being so goddamned relentlessly entertaining. Irene Dunn and Ralph Bellamy are at their best, and Cary Grant gives one of the all time most charismatic performances. Grade A.
Monday, July 29, 2013
The Public Enemy - James Cagney
Seen for the first time in July 2013.
James Cagney may not seem like much of an actor in "The Public Enemy" - his lines sometimes come off as stiff and wooden - but his presence is undeniable. He pops right off the screen and his charisma overwhelms the performances of the rest of the cast, the rest of the film too as a matter of fact, which is a diverting 80 odd minutes but underwhelming when put against the pace of modern gangster fare. It's a probable influence on "A Clockwork Orange" and Cagney is an enjoyably funny scumbag, sort of a proto-Pesci, if you will. Nonetheless, the film is more dusty and cobwebbed than finely aged, though nonetheless entertaining. It certainly illustrates how stars become stars, by virtue of presence and charisma. Cagney has both to spare. Grade B-.
James Cagney may not seem like much of an actor in "The Public Enemy" - his lines sometimes come off as stiff and wooden - but his presence is undeniable. He pops right off the screen and his charisma overwhelms the performances of the rest of the cast, the rest of the film too as a matter of fact, which is a diverting 80 odd minutes but underwhelming when put against the pace of modern gangster fare. It's a probable influence on "A Clockwork Orange" and Cagney is an enjoyably funny scumbag, sort of a proto-Pesci, if you will. Nonetheless, the film is more dusty and cobwebbed than finely aged, though nonetheless entertaining. It certainly illustrates how stars become stars, by virtue of presence and charisma. Cagney has both to spare. Grade B-.
Friday, July 26, 2013
Super
Seen for the second time in July 2013.
If "Super" has a flaw outside of too much schmaltz in its expositional epigraph, it's that during the portion of the movie where Ellen Page plays the kid sidekick, Rainn Wilson doesn't seem as psychopathically unhinged as in the rest of the movie, which is to say it doesn't maintain a tonal consistency, which is also to say it deviates from what it does best. But the takeway is that I don't know that another movie has ever so successfully played a senseless vicious beating with a wrench quite so humorously as this movie did. I'm impressed. This movie was made for my sensibility.
The question is how much of a detriment does Ellen Page create when her character makes Rainn Wilson's seem reasonable and conservative? It confuses things. It causes an inconsistency that aggravates. And frankly "Super" is at its best when Rainn Wilson is at his most psychotic. Nonetheless, what Ellen Page debits here, she at least partially credits by gesturing to pervy sensibilities. Which is all we can ask for. It might even be a fair trade.
In the climax, things get surprisingly dark. And I applaud the bravery of those inclinations. And though the epigraph ends up a little too bittersweet in that irritatingly mid 00's cutely upbeat way, like it's channelling the ghost of "Little Miss Sunshine," overall this film is an impressive blend of offbeat hilarity and genuinely frightening psychopathy. On of the finest comedies of whichever decade 2010 belongs in. Grade A.
If "Super" has a flaw outside of too much schmaltz in its expositional epigraph, it's that during the portion of the movie where Ellen Page plays the kid sidekick, Rainn Wilson doesn't seem as psychopathically unhinged as in the rest of the movie, which is to say it doesn't maintain a tonal consistency, which is also to say it deviates from what it does best. But the takeway is that I don't know that another movie has ever so successfully played a senseless vicious beating with a wrench quite so humorously as this movie did. I'm impressed. This movie was made for my sensibility.
The question is how much of a detriment does Ellen Page create when her character makes Rainn Wilson's seem reasonable and conservative? It confuses things. It causes an inconsistency that aggravates. And frankly "Super" is at its best when Rainn Wilson is at his most psychotic. Nonetheless, what Ellen Page debits here, she at least partially credits by gesturing to pervy sensibilities. Which is all we can ask for. It might even be a fair trade.
In the climax, things get surprisingly dark. And I applaud the bravery of those inclinations. And though the epigraph ends up a little too bittersweet in that irritatingly mid 00's cutely upbeat way, like it's channelling the ghost of "Little Miss Sunshine," overall this film is an impressive blend of offbeat hilarity and genuinely frightening psychopathy. On of the finest comedies of whichever decade 2010 belongs in. Grade A.
Monday, July 22, 2013
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? - Mike Nichols
Seen for the tenth time in July 2013.
I often times cite this as my favorite movie. It's easily in the top ten. I'm surprised by how much I still laugh out loud while watching it. I'm not sure wittier dialogue has ever been filmed. Richard Burton is amazing. Elizabeth Taylor is perfect. And it turns out that's the guy from "Just Shoot Me?" Whoa. I noticed Mike Nichols's camera work this time around, which truly resonates and is good. This is not just a filmed adaption of a great play. Nichols puts thought and effort into how to portray it on the screen, but also has the good sense not to get in the way of the play's vicious wit.
It's a cliche for people to say that every time they watch a movie they get something new out of it. I don't. This movie doesn't need to improve on second viewing. It's just jaw-droppingly good and worth watching and re-watching. It's also a long movie. In the past, I've sometimes found it emotionally exhausting to watch toward the end, but this time through, I enjoyed the crisp entertainment from beginning to end.
I don't know that any other movie has so well succeeded at being at the same time so funny and so mean and so sad and so overwrought and just really really crazy. Pale imitations have come in it's wake, but there are no predecessors. This is sui generis. It's crazy wit will never be matched and it's unflinching cruelty is rarely even attempted. And it does what it does while still managing to be emotionally powerful, in a way, the viewer will at times find exhausting. It's a remarkable achievement. Grade A.
I often times cite this as my favorite movie. It's easily in the top ten. I'm surprised by how much I still laugh out loud while watching it. I'm not sure wittier dialogue has ever been filmed. Richard Burton is amazing. Elizabeth Taylor is perfect. And it turns out that's the guy from "Just Shoot Me?" Whoa. I noticed Mike Nichols's camera work this time around, which truly resonates and is good. This is not just a filmed adaption of a great play. Nichols puts thought and effort into how to portray it on the screen, but also has the good sense not to get in the way of the play's vicious wit.
It's a cliche for people to say that every time they watch a movie they get something new out of it. I don't. This movie doesn't need to improve on second viewing. It's just jaw-droppingly good and worth watching and re-watching. It's also a long movie. In the past, I've sometimes found it emotionally exhausting to watch toward the end, but this time through, I enjoyed the crisp entertainment from beginning to end.
I don't know that any other movie has so well succeeded at being at the same time so funny and so mean and so sad and so overwrought and just really really crazy. Pale imitations have come in it's wake, but there are no predecessors. This is sui generis. It's crazy wit will never be matched and it's unflinching cruelty is rarely even attempted. And it does what it does while still managing to be emotionally powerful, in a way, the viewer will at times find exhausting. It's a remarkable achievement. Grade A.
Monday, July 15, 2013
Thieves' Highway - Jules Dassin
Seen for the first time in July 2013.
While "Thieves Highway" is a good deal better than "They Drive By Night," thus sort of winning the gritty noir about truckers hauling produce sweepstakes, its still lags behind "Rafifi" and "Night and the City" in terms of Jules Dassin's work. Grade B -.
While "Thieves Highway" is a good deal better than "They Drive By Night," thus sort of winning the gritty noir about truckers hauling produce sweepstakes, its still lags behind "Rafifi" and "Night and the City" in terms of Jules Dassin's work. Grade B -.
Sunday, July 14, 2013
The Rules of the Game - Jean Renoir
Seen for the first time in July 2013.
Containing the same warm depth as "La Grande Illusion," (though I'd compare it more to a dusty bottle of a pleasant blended Scotch than an aged Wheated Bourbon), I nonetheless liked "The Rules of the Game" a good deal less than I liked "La Grande Illusion." Not so much because it wasn't a pleasant film with some very nice moments, but probably because I'm unable to regard it with the esteem that consistently places it amongst the very best films ever made. There is a warm humanity infusing it and it is pleasantly diverting, but it does feel like one is being a good boy and eating his vegetables and it leaves me wondering a bit just what am I supposed to be getting out of this. It doesn't feel essential much less canonical. The joys are light and subtle, but not particularly deep. I'm left feeling very self-conscious about assigning it a grade. It's reputation is so big and yet it's impact so small. Honesty ought to prevail. Grade B-.
Containing the same warm depth as "La Grande Illusion," (though I'd compare it more to a dusty bottle of a pleasant blended Scotch than an aged Wheated Bourbon), I nonetheless liked "The Rules of the Game" a good deal less than I liked "La Grande Illusion." Not so much because it wasn't a pleasant film with some very nice moments, but probably because I'm unable to regard it with the esteem that consistently places it amongst the very best films ever made. There is a warm humanity infusing it and it is pleasantly diverting, but it does feel like one is being a good boy and eating his vegetables and it leaves me wondering a bit just what am I supposed to be getting out of this. It doesn't feel essential much less canonical. The joys are light and subtle, but not particularly deep. I'm left feeling very self-conscious about assigning it a grade. It's reputation is so big and yet it's impact so small. Honesty ought to prevail. Grade B-.
Miller's Crossing - The Coen Brothers
Seen for the the tenth time in July 2013.
I went a good decade-long stretch of not watching this movie after having seen it for the first time at some point in the mid-nineties. I had seen it too many times and thought that I didn't think it was that good. Over the last couple of years, however, I've come to realize it is the Coens's masterpiece.
My theory of the movie is basically that Gabriel Byrne's character Tom has an unrequited homosexual love for his boss Leo. This is more or less why he sleeps with Verna, Leo's lover, despite his disregard for her. It is the closest he can come to consummating his love for Leo; by sleeping with the woman that Leo is sleeping with. Tom does not take a single action in this movie that is inconsistent with this motivation, including the instances where Tom acts more like a spurned lover than an intelligent, ruthlessly logical man "playing the angles."
In addition, some overt support for this theory occurs with Leo's exasperated line early in the movie while still arguing over whether or not to turn Turturro's Bernie over to Casper "the kid is as bad a twist." Leo is referring to Tom as a woman with this line and specifically he is referring to Tom's stubborn emotions which arise to him not getting his way. This subtle feminization of Tom is in line in popular understanding with a suggestion of latent homosexuality. Also the final scene between Tom and Leo plays like the end of a romantic relationship more than a professional criminal one, again with Tom playing the part of the spurned woman, and Leo the heartbroken male role.
The great debate surrounding this movie is whether or not Tom has a heart. I am in the camp of seeing Tom as essentially heartless. He's ruthless and intelligent, unswayed by sentiment or notions of ethics but unwaveringly loyal to Leo, wanting to see Leo happy, even after he's determined that they must part ways. And if this is true, it leaves me wondering, after all these years, just why he choses to let Bernie live the first time he is in position to shoot him. After all, his machinations do not depend on Bernie living. In fact, he did not and could not have anticipated being thrust in the role of Bernie's assassin.
So why if he is so ruthless and heartless, does he let Bernie go free. Is it that he has never killed anyone before and has a moment of weakness or are we to believe that this was part of his plan all along or is it simply that he didn't feel as though he needed to kill Bernie and so that was enough for him not to. I do not believe it is due to any attachment he felt toward Bernie's sister Verna who Tom uses and clearly has no real affection for. Tom's motivation in this scene, and it's one of cinema's historically great scenes, can be debated at length. It is itself one of the great enigmas of cinematic history. Turturro's gives what has to be historically one of the best performances by any actor, on par with Dustin Hoffman in Urban Cowboy, in terms of nuance and range. Truly exceptional.
Grade A.
I went a good decade-long stretch of not watching this movie after having seen it for the first time at some point in the mid-nineties. I had seen it too many times and thought that I didn't think it was that good. Over the last couple of years, however, I've come to realize it is the Coens's masterpiece.
My theory of the movie is basically that Gabriel Byrne's character Tom has an unrequited homosexual love for his boss Leo. This is more or less why he sleeps with Verna, Leo's lover, despite his disregard for her. It is the closest he can come to consummating his love for Leo; by sleeping with the woman that Leo is sleeping with. Tom does not take a single action in this movie that is inconsistent with this motivation, including the instances where Tom acts more like a spurned lover than an intelligent, ruthlessly logical man "playing the angles."
In addition, some overt support for this theory occurs with Leo's exasperated line early in the movie while still arguing over whether or not to turn Turturro's Bernie over to Casper "the kid is as bad a twist." Leo is referring to Tom as a woman with this line and specifically he is referring to Tom's stubborn emotions which arise to him not getting his way. This subtle feminization of Tom is in line in popular understanding with a suggestion of latent homosexuality. Also the final scene between Tom and Leo plays like the end of a romantic relationship more than a professional criminal one, again with Tom playing the part of the spurned woman, and Leo the heartbroken male role.
The great debate surrounding this movie is whether or not Tom has a heart. I am in the camp of seeing Tom as essentially heartless. He's ruthless and intelligent, unswayed by sentiment or notions of ethics but unwaveringly loyal to Leo, wanting to see Leo happy, even after he's determined that they must part ways. And if this is true, it leaves me wondering, after all these years, just why he choses to let Bernie live the first time he is in position to shoot him. After all, his machinations do not depend on Bernie living. In fact, he did not and could not have anticipated being thrust in the role of Bernie's assassin.
So why if he is so ruthless and heartless, does he let Bernie go free. Is it that he has never killed anyone before and has a moment of weakness or are we to believe that this was part of his plan all along or is it simply that he didn't feel as though he needed to kill Bernie and so that was enough for him not to. I do not believe it is due to any attachment he felt toward Bernie's sister Verna who Tom uses and clearly has no real affection for. Tom's motivation in this scene, and it's one of cinema's historically great scenes, can be debated at length. It is itself one of the great enigmas of cinematic history. Turturro's gives what has to be historically one of the best performances by any actor, on par with Dustin Hoffman in Urban Cowboy, in terms of nuance and range. Truly exceptional.
Grade A.
Sunday, July 7, 2013
The ABCs of Death
Seen for the first time in July 2013.
A- A woman with a nice ass kills a man lying in bed in comedic fashion.
B-Scary Mexican bedtime story. Good one.
C- ???
D- Good dog fight, but didn't like the end. Kind of a smug surprise.
E- Bugs.
F- Japs are funny and pervy. Silly and weird. I hate flatulence but enjoyed it anyway.
G- meh.
H- Creative. WWII dogs and nazis.
I - Well that was intense and unsettling. In a good way.
J- not bad.
K- do not care for the scatological. not even cutely scatological.
L- fucked up depraved but good. one of the best.
M-pfft
N- funny I guess
O- working backwards there's no surprises and is uncreatively literal
P- grimy and seedy and revels in it though it pretends not to. I like it.
Q- some lighthearted meta. i liked it.
R - bleak and tedious
S - fun fun fun
T- claymation scatological nonsense
U- nice tone, but unmemorable.
V- thrills but a little too full of itself
W- fun as shit. one of my faves.
X- unsettling and hard to watch.
Y- Pretty awesome
Z- this was the fucking best. so many great touches.
Grade B.
Sunday, June 30, 2013
T-Men - Anthony Mann
Seen for the first time in June 2013.
So I've begun to think lately that working my way through older movies has begun to hit a point of vastly diminished returns. Something like "The Big Sleep" is an amazing movie and a great experience and if you see it as a young man, it will have a great impact on you and you'll want to try to recreate that experience. And if it's presented to you as a film noir, you maybe somehow get the idea in your head that since this is representative of film noir, that all film noirs are this good. And so you go through your life watching film noirs and some are really great as well, but you never see another film noir as good as "The Big Sleep." And you never will. Because "The Big Sleep" is the best film noir ever made, and so of course if you want to recommend a film noir to someone to watch to get them into the genre, it's going to be "The Big Sleep," or maybe "Double Indemnity," or whatever or a handful of the second tier greats like "Scarlet Street."
But anyway, you go down this film noir path, watching movie after movie, some better than others, none ever as good as the one that got you into it, and you wake up one day 15 years later after watching a movie like "T-Men" and you wonder if continuing down this avenue is really worth it anymore. You've seen the top tier greats and the second tier greats and now every new classic noir you see is run-of-the-mill tedium. They have all the difficulties of old movies, but none of the transcendence that makes a movie well known sixty years after it appeared. You begin to confess to yourself the shameful thought that you now understand why so many of your peers have such difficulty watching older movies.
A movie like "T-Men" beats you down. It makes you want to give up. It's hokiness, tediously told, dated, and stilted. There's no energy. It's completely lethargic and generic. It should've been a tv movie. But you have to tell yourself not to give in. Not just yet. There are undiscovered diamonds still. But there is a lesson to be learned about the selection process that will help you be more judicious in the future, that will help you learn to avoid duds like "T-Men." We just have to apply that lesson. But also, maybe it would be more rewarding to re-screen past gems at this point than it is to constantly search for new fare.
Grade D.
So I've begun to think lately that working my way through older movies has begun to hit a point of vastly diminished returns. Something like "The Big Sleep" is an amazing movie and a great experience and if you see it as a young man, it will have a great impact on you and you'll want to try to recreate that experience. And if it's presented to you as a film noir, you maybe somehow get the idea in your head that since this is representative of film noir, that all film noirs are this good. And so you go through your life watching film noirs and some are really great as well, but you never see another film noir as good as "The Big Sleep." And you never will. Because "The Big Sleep" is the best film noir ever made, and so of course if you want to recommend a film noir to someone to watch to get them into the genre, it's going to be "The Big Sleep," or maybe "Double Indemnity," or whatever or a handful of the second tier greats like "Scarlet Street."
But anyway, you go down this film noir path, watching movie after movie, some better than others, none ever as good as the one that got you into it, and you wake up one day 15 years later after watching a movie like "T-Men" and you wonder if continuing down this avenue is really worth it anymore. You've seen the top tier greats and the second tier greats and now every new classic noir you see is run-of-the-mill tedium. They have all the difficulties of old movies, but none of the transcendence that makes a movie well known sixty years after it appeared. You begin to confess to yourself the shameful thought that you now understand why so many of your peers have such difficulty watching older movies.
A movie like "T-Men" beats you down. It makes you want to give up. It's hokiness, tediously told, dated, and stilted. There's no energy. It's completely lethargic and generic. It should've been a tv movie. But you have to tell yourself not to give in. Not just yet. There are undiscovered diamonds still. But there is a lesson to be learned about the selection process that will help you be more judicious in the future, that will help you learn to avoid duds like "T-Men." We just have to apply that lesson. But also, maybe it would be more rewarding to re-screen past gems at this point than it is to constantly search for new fare.
Grade D.
Slaughterhouse Five - Kurt Vonnegut
Read for the second time in June 2013.
I read "Slaughterhouse Five" for the first time some ten or fifteen years ago and upon re-reading remembered almost none of it save for the fact that I remembered the concept of Tralfamadorian's seeing in four dimensions in one of Vonnegut's novels. And upon rereading I remembered the part where Vonnegut becomes friend's with his war buddy's wife over their shared disdain for war and over the idea that Vonegut would not glorify war.
Upon rereading, I can understand why I don't remember this. I understand that this is his most noted work, but it feels insignificant to me and I didn't really enjoy reading it. I feel like this is where Vonnegut can be dismissed as Ayn Rand for liberals.
I didn't have this strong of a negative reaction the first time I read it, though I never would've counted it as among my favorite Vonnegut's. I never recommended it to anyone (unlike Cat's Cradle which I long considered my favorite), but I didn't have a negative memory of it either. I just counted it as among the 10 or so Vonnegut's I had read that I really enjoyed.
But the first time I read it, I was younger, and it was during the days of peace and prosperity. Probably during the late Clinton administration or the early W years, pre 9/11. I want to talk about this as much as possible in a way where my own politics are beside the point. Let's just say that in that earlier environment, I was not only unexposed but war was maybe more abstract. Being pro-war or anti-war was neither here nor there. I think the culture had even decided to stop arguing about Vietnam more or less.
And so here I was at this point in time, where I was young and relatively unexposed, and being anti-war or being pro-war or however you want to phrase it was not really a thing. Cultural artifacts that took an opinion on war did not really exist back then. There was no way for their forms and opinions to have solidified into something to be tired of.
And then of course there was 9/11 and the Iraq War and my young adulthood as secular big city hipster type. And you know by 2004, the ironic jokes of "blah blah blah are the real terrorists," or "if you let blank happen, the terrorists will win" went from funny parody to groan-inducing hackdom. And there's been so much goddamned John Stewart and his knock offs in the intervening years and so much joking and commentary about all this whether you agree with it or not, it just all became tired and too much. Whether it's shrill sarcasm and outrage masquerading as humor or it's just run through some kind of abstract machine to where it's silly. Being serious about war in a funny way or not is just something that I don't have patience for in art right now.
Like at one time John Stewart felt like such a breath of fresh air compared what else was on television. And now if I turn him on I really only get that sense of smug, knowing, speaking to the converted, self-conscious wink of sarcasm and I'm tired of it. I've drowned in it over the last decade.
That's an explanation. I mean Vonnegut is such a precursor to this tone we all took for a while, and maybe he doesn't deserve to be rated negatively for it. But I also think he published this in 1968. And I think it would have been a lot braver to publish it in 1965 right? Like I think about that and I think what a safe move. And I know that's sort of crazy. It's always right to take the right stand. And who is anyone to judge anyone, especially me. Nonetheless, all together and at the end of the day, "Slaughterhouse Five," unlike "Siren's of Titan" or "Jailbird" or "Breakfast of Champions," feels a little like "Atlas Shrugged" for liberals. And that probably explains as well why it's his most poplar.
I read "Slaughterhouse Five" for the first time some ten or fifteen years ago and upon re-reading remembered almost none of it save for the fact that I remembered the concept of Tralfamadorian's seeing in four dimensions in one of Vonnegut's novels. And upon rereading I remembered the part where Vonnegut becomes friend's with his war buddy's wife over their shared disdain for war and over the idea that Vonegut would not glorify war.
Upon rereading, I can understand why I don't remember this. I understand that this is his most noted work, but it feels insignificant to me and I didn't really enjoy reading it. I feel like this is where Vonnegut can be dismissed as Ayn Rand for liberals.
I didn't have this strong of a negative reaction the first time I read it, though I never would've counted it as among my favorite Vonnegut's. I never recommended it to anyone (unlike Cat's Cradle which I long considered my favorite), but I didn't have a negative memory of it either. I just counted it as among the 10 or so Vonnegut's I had read that I really enjoyed.
But the first time I read it, I was younger, and it was during the days of peace and prosperity. Probably during the late Clinton administration or the early W years, pre 9/11. I want to talk about this as much as possible in a way where my own politics are beside the point. Let's just say that in that earlier environment, I was not only unexposed but war was maybe more abstract. Being pro-war or anti-war was neither here nor there. I think the culture had even decided to stop arguing about Vietnam more or less.
And so here I was at this point in time, where I was young and relatively unexposed, and being anti-war or being pro-war or however you want to phrase it was not really a thing. Cultural artifacts that took an opinion on war did not really exist back then. There was no way for their forms and opinions to have solidified into something to be tired of.
And then of course there was 9/11 and the Iraq War and my young adulthood as secular big city hipster type. And you know by 2004, the ironic jokes of "blah blah blah are the real terrorists," or "if you let blank happen, the terrorists will win" went from funny parody to groan-inducing hackdom. And there's been so much goddamned John Stewart and his knock offs in the intervening years and so much joking and commentary about all this whether you agree with it or not, it just all became tired and too much. Whether it's shrill sarcasm and outrage masquerading as humor or it's just run through some kind of abstract machine to where it's silly. Being serious about war in a funny way or not is just something that I don't have patience for in art right now.
Like at one time John Stewart felt like such a breath of fresh air compared what else was on television. And now if I turn him on I really only get that sense of smug, knowing, speaking to the converted, self-conscious wink of sarcasm and I'm tired of it. I've drowned in it over the last decade.
That's an explanation. I mean Vonnegut is such a precursor to this tone we all took for a while, and maybe he doesn't deserve to be rated negatively for it. But I also think he published this in 1968. And I think it would have been a lot braver to publish it in 1965 right? Like I think about that and I think what a safe move. And I know that's sort of crazy. It's always right to take the right stand. And who is anyone to judge anyone, especially me. Nonetheless, all together and at the end of the day, "Slaughterhouse Five," unlike "Siren's of Titan" or "Jailbird" or "Breakfast of Champions," feels a little like "Atlas Shrugged" for liberals. And that probably explains as well why it's his most poplar.
Hamlet 2
Seen for the first time in June 2013.
"Hamlet 2" is a likable and lightly entertaining movie. It's funny. The production at the end makes me squirm with embarrassment a little bit. Enough that I couldn't recommend that another person watch it. I don't know why, but I feel like admitting that makes me susceptible to accusations of homophobia. It is pretty funny for most of the movie however. And if you like glee and are really into theater and "funny," "modern," "cute," and "safely offensive" musical numbers then you might really dig this film.
To unpack that last line a little bit, particularly the "safely offensive" part. I just feel like a musical number like "the rock me sexy Jesus" from this film is supposed to appear somehow transgressive in like this really self conscious but also silly and playfully cute way, but it's really just kind of smug to me. I guess the briefest way to describe it would be to say it has a playfully transgressive sensibility that doesn't at all read as transgressive anymore, but as gay. It's fine. It's just not at all my sensibility. It makes me cringe a little bit to be honest. Like it would be embarrassing if anyone thought I thought that number was funny or good in any way.
I guess there's an analog to John Waters at his worst. Like when John Waters is at his best, he's transgressive and fun and it's exhilarating. But sometimes he just gestures weakly at transgression while a very gay, very self-aware sense of humor fills the vaccuum, and this is John Waters at his worst (see "A Dirty Shame"). This movie at it's worst is like John Waters at his most mainstream worst.
At it's best, it's a really funny, under-the-radar, out-of-nowhere comedy marred only by the occasionally corny or contrived set-piece. I think we mostly enjoy watching Coogan's character's struggles. It's occasionally hilarious, never tedious, and only briefly cringeworthy.
Grade B+.
"Hamlet 2" is a likable and lightly entertaining movie. It's funny. The production at the end makes me squirm with embarrassment a little bit. Enough that I couldn't recommend that another person watch it. I don't know why, but I feel like admitting that makes me susceptible to accusations of homophobia. It is pretty funny for most of the movie however. And if you like glee and are really into theater and "funny," "modern," "cute," and "safely offensive" musical numbers then you might really dig this film.
To unpack that last line a little bit, particularly the "safely offensive" part. I just feel like a musical number like "the rock me sexy Jesus" from this film is supposed to appear somehow transgressive in like this really self conscious but also silly and playfully cute way, but it's really just kind of smug to me. I guess the briefest way to describe it would be to say it has a playfully transgressive sensibility that doesn't at all read as transgressive anymore, but as gay. It's fine. It's just not at all my sensibility. It makes me cringe a little bit to be honest. Like it would be embarrassing if anyone thought I thought that number was funny or good in any way.
I guess there's an analog to John Waters at his worst. Like when John Waters is at his best, he's transgressive and fun and it's exhilarating. But sometimes he just gestures weakly at transgression while a very gay, very self-aware sense of humor fills the vaccuum, and this is John Waters at his worst (see "A Dirty Shame"). This movie at it's worst is like John Waters at his most mainstream worst.
At it's best, it's a really funny, under-the-radar, out-of-nowhere comedy marred only by the occasionally corny or contrived set-piece. I think we mostly enjoy watching Coogan's character's struggles. It's occasionally hilarious, never tedious, and only briefly cringeworthy.
Grade B+.
The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934) - Alfred Hitchcock
Seen for the first time in June 2013.
I didn't actually successfully watch this film. I tried to out of curiosity despite my historical failings with Hitchcock's early British films, partially because, lol, someone on the internet said it was better than his 50's remake and because I like Peter Lorre. I'm not a fan of the 50's remake almost solely because of Doris Day singing "que sera sera" which is such a terrible thing in my mind that it clouds my judgement for the rest of the movie for reasons I'm not even sure of. I've never let this sort of thing corrupt my interest in other films of that era so I don't know why I hold such a visceral loathing to this example. Maybe the rest of the film isn't really that strong. I don't know. I can't think of any other Hitchcock greats with this sort of musical disruption though.
Anyway, I feel as though I'm as able to engage with historical film as much as anyone. But for some reason, British Hitchcock is a bridge too far for me. Maybe it's too old and too British. I tried when I was younger, and I still can't, still don't care.
Grade Incomplete.
I didn't actually successfully watch this film. I tried to out of curiosity despite my historical failings with Hitchcock's early British films, partially because, lol, someone on the internet said it was better than his 50's remake and because I like Peter Lorre. I'm not a fan of the 50's remake almost solely because of Doris Day singing "que sera sera" which is such a terrible thing in my mind that it clouds my judgement for the rest of the movie for reasons I'm not even sure of. I've never let this sort of thing corrupt my interest in other films of that era so I don't know why I hold such a visceral loathing to this example. Maybe the rest of the film isn't really that strong. I don't know. I can't think of any other Hitchcock greats with this sort of musical disruption though.
Anyway, I feel as though I'm as able to engage with historical film as much as anyone. But for some reason, British Hitchcock is a bridge too far for me. Maybe it's too old and too British. I tried when I was younger, and I still can't, still don't care.
Grade Incomplete.
Twin Peaks - Mark Frost & David Lynch
Seen for the fifth time in March 2013.
I've watched both seasons of "Twin Peaks" at least once a year since I watched it for the first time in the spring of 2010 on DVD. It deserves many accolades, including "best series finale in television history," and many individual episodes are deserving of consideration for "best episode of any television show ever." And even despite suffering some late season 2 doldrums, it's still a solid contender for "best television show ever." One can find it's influence on future television shows, especially "The X-files," which more and more seems like it was inspired by some aspects of "Twin Peaks," but with some effort at tweaking the premise so that a more long lasting television show could exist successfully.
But "Twin Peaks" was also so much more than the distilled platonic excellence from which shows like "The X-files," or "LOST" or whatever might have been inspired. It was also a great parody of soap opera, with a dozen compelling minor characters that made up the backdrop of an intriguing mundane mystery as well as intriguing supernatural mysteries. Plus, Kyle Machlachlan channeling Cary Grant as one of the most charismatic television leads that I can recall.
Many oppositions do battle in "Twin Peaks." The supernatural vs the mundane. Big city vs small town. Good vs Evil. All of this and yet the show was so weird and quirky and funny on the one hand and serious and at times scary on the other. The name "Twin Peaks," itself is very inspired to me and all of it's implications and connotations do an incredible job of delineating the show's many facets and complexities. For instance, "Twin Peaks" is the name of the small town where the show is set, assumedly this has something to do with two mountains. But also with the phrase "Twin Peaks" we could be talking about a pair of breasts. Or also, we could think of the phrase as another way of saying "second glance," or "another look." Which to me is what the show really excels at doing, giving us a second look or a different perspective on so many mundane facets of life.
But the show has been much discussed and certain conventional wisdoms have congealed around it with which I have few quibbles. I'd just like to conclude with a few observations.
- The show does not go steeply down hill after the solving of the murder in the middle of season two.
Some write off season two altogether, and though the quality slightly but perceptibly dips during the course of the first ten episodes of season 2, it is still a great show at his point. It remains so many episodes after Laura Palmer's murderer is revealed. When the show really goes into steep decline is the episode where Windom Earle actually appears for the first time.
- The show is actually better if you skip episode 12 "The Orchid's Curse."
The first time I watched the show, I inadvertently skipped this episode where Cooper actually conducts a raid on One Eyed Jacks to rescue Audrey Horne and also some weird melodramatic stuff goes down with weirdo Harold Smith. So when I skipped from episode 11 to the denouement of episode 13, I was really taken and thrilled by what I thought was bold and brilliant storytelling, leaving everything that happened in episode 12 to inference. Like you just infer that Harold Smith went nuts and that Cooper rescued Audrey Horne. When I rewatched the series later, and realized that this episode existed I was more than disappointed. Actually watching this stuff happens feels really pointless and like a waste of time compared to the visceral excitement you get from inferring that it happened. Especially as out of nowhere seemingly, episode 13 begins with an anguished Harold Smith freaking out.
- The show probably wouldn't have been better if they left the Laura Palmer murder unsolved.
Lynch often says that the plan was to never solve the Laura Palmer story but let it slip into the background as they focused on other stories. But what stories would those be? Would it be the same Windom Earle story where a poorly cast actor with no charisma plays a sub-Hannibal Lector villain? Do we still get to watch Andy and Dick play with little Nicky? Do Billy Zane and Heather Graham still come along and bore us to death with their unnecessary presences? How much of Nadine do I have to watch in this alternate universe? Of James?
The show's decline is unrelated to solving the Laura Palmer murder. It was just running out of juice. It began asking too much of a character like Andy, who was entertaining in doses, but completely unable to carry a major portion of the program. Nadine's arc just got too silly. James was kind of a hilarious parody of the brooding sensitive teen for a while but instead of following their instincts and writing him out of the show, they just kept playing that one note for less and less reward. Bobby became less and less threatening over time until he became pointless. And once they wrote out Hank Jennings and even Josie, they lost a lot of charisma and many of the other characters began to lose their relevance. For example, scenes in the Double R diner become noticeably less important after Hank is sent back to prison for attempting to murder Leo.
And the point is none of this really has to do with whether or not they solved Laura's murder too early or not. Clearly, it doesn't make sense to solve her murder this early in the series run. It was an unbelievably stupid thing to do in all honesty. But the show was going to decline anyway. What it had going for it was disappearing rapidly.
The real problem with the show is that as it goes on and we begin to focus on Windom Earle, none of the other characters have a reason to exist anymore. They all go from relative shades of ominous or cutthroat or whatever to just plain silly, and almost all of the stories have resolved, from Ben Horne to Bobby to Catherine Martell. Everything they do becomes increasingly contrived and silly while the show focuses on what turned out to be the abominable failure of Windom Earle as lead villain.
- Leo Johnson is a lot less scary in the beginning and a lot more funny when you know how his story progresses.
- James, Donna, and Maddy are from the very beginning the worst aspect of this fine television show. The only way to understand James is not as a character but as a joke, and a decent one at that. Still, his scenes with Donna, and especially the scenes when all three are together are all really really really painful.
- The final episode is so good that's its worth wading through many episodes of dreck to get there.
How's Annie?
Grade A.
I've watched both seasons of "Twin Peaks" at least once a year since I watched it for the first time in the spring of 2010 on DVD. It deserves many accolades, including "best series finale in television history," and many individual episodes are deserving of consideration for "best episode of any television show ever." And even despite suffering some late season 2 doldrums, it's still a solid contender for "best television show ever." One can find it's influence on future television shows, especially "The X-files," which more and more seems like it was inspired by some aspects of "Twin Peaks," but with some effort at tweaking the premise so that a more long lasting television show could exist successfully.
But "Twin Peaks" was also so much more than the distilled platonic excellence from which shows like "The X-files," or "LOST" or whatever might have been inspired. It was also a great parody of soap opera, with a dozen compelling minor characters that made up the backdrop of an intriguing mundane mystery as well as intriguing supernatural mysteries. Plus, Kyle Machlachlan channeling Cary Grant as one of the most charismatic television leads that I can recall.
Many oppositions do battle in "Twin Peaks." The supernatural vs the mundane. Big city vs small town. Good vs Evil. All of this and yet the show was so weird and quirky and funny on the one hand and serious and at times scary on the other. The name "Twin Peaks," itself is very inspired to me and all of it's implications and connotations do an incredible job of delineating the show's many facets and complexities. For instance, "Twin Peaks" is the name of the small town where the show is set, assumedly this has something to do with two mountains. But also with the phrase "Twin Peaks" we could be talking about a pair of breasts. Or also, we could think of the phrase as another way of saying "second glance," or "another look." Which to me is what the show really excels at doing, giving us a second look or a different perspective on so many mundane facets of life.
But the show has been much discussed and certain conventional wisdoms have congealed around it with which I have few quibbles. I'd just like to conclude with a few observations.
- The show does not go steeply down hill after the solving of the murder in the middle of season two.
Some write off season two altogether, and though the quality slightly but perceptibly dips during the course of the first ten episodes of season 2, it is still a great show at his point. It remains so many episodes after Laura Palmer's murderer is revealed. When the show really goes into steep decline is the episode where Windom Earle actually appears for the first time.
- The show is actually better if you skip episode 12 "The Orchid's Curse."
The first time I watched the show, I inadvertently skipped this episode where Cooper actually conducts a raid on One Eyed Jacks to rescue Audrey Horne and also some weird melodramatic stuff goes down with weirdo Harold Smith. So when I skipped from episode 11 to the denouement of episode 13, I was really taken and thrilled by what I thought was bold and brilliant storytelling, leaving everything that happened in episode 12 to inference. Like you just infer that Harold Smith went nuts and that Cooper rescued Audrey Horne. When I rewatched the series later, and realized that this episode existed I was more than disappointed. Actually watching this stuff happens feels really pointless and like a waste of time compared to the visceral excitement you get from inferring that it happened. Especially as out of nowhere seemingly, episode 13 begins with an anguished Harold Smith freaking out.
- The show probably wouldn't have been better if they left the Laura Palmer murder unsolved.
Lynch often says that the plan was to never solve the Laura Palmer story but let it slip into the background as they focused on other stories. But what stories would those be? Would it be the same Windom Earle story where a poorly cast actor with no charisma plays a sub-Hannibal Lector villain? Do we still get to watch Andy and Dick play with little Nicky? Do Billy Zane and Heather Graham still come along and bore us to death with their unnecessary presences? How much of Nadine do I have to watch in this alternate universe? Of James?
The show's decline is unrelated to solving the Laura Palmer murder. It was just running out of juice. It began asking too much of a character like Andy, who was entertaining in doses, but completely unable to carry a major portion of the program. Nadine's arc just got too silly. James was kind of a hilarious parody of the brooding sensitive teen for a while but instead of following their instincts and writing him out of the show, they just kept playing that one note for less and less reward. Bobby became less and less threatening over time until he became pointless. And once they wrote out Hank Jennings and even Josie, they lost a lot of charisma and many of the other characters began to lose their relevance. For example, scenes in the Double R diner become noticeably less important after Hank is sent back to prison for attempting to murder Leo.
And the point is none of this really has to do with whether or not they solved Laura's murder too early or not. Clearly, it doesn't make sense to solve her murder this early in the series run. It was an unbelievably stupid thing to do in all honesty. But the show was going to decline anyway. What it had going for it was disappearing rapidly.
The real problem with the show is that as it goes on and we begin to focus on Windom Earle, none of the other characters have a reason to exist anymore. They all go from relative shades of ominous or cutthroat or whatever to just plain silly, and almost all of the stories have resolved, from Ben Horne to Bobby to Catherine Martell. Everything they do becomes increasingly contrived and silly while the show focuses on what turned out to be the abominable failure of Windom Earle as lead villain.
- Leo Johnson is a lot less scary in the beginning and a lot more funny when you know how his story progresses.
- James, Donna, and Maddy are from the very beginning the worst aspect of this fine television show. The only way to understand James is not as a character but as a joke, and a decent one at that. Still, his scenes with Donna, and especially the scenes when all three are together are all really really really painful.
- The final episode is so good that's its worth wading through many episodes of dreck to get there.
How's Annie?
Grade A.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
The Roaring Twenties - Raoul Walsh
Seen for the first time in June 2013.
"The Roaring Twenties" is a nice sharp prohibition era gangster film. It's positions itself as a retrospective on the twenties a bit and at times comes off like anti-prohibition propaganda. James Cagney gets sucked into the racket and is destroyed by it while rising to the top in between. It zips along nicely. It's almost paced like a modern movie. Much of the dialogue and setups is easily imagined in more modern filmmaking. The only thing that really dates it is the sort of theatric feel inherent in many older movies. Grade B.
"The Roaring Twenties" is a nice sharp prohibition era gangster film. It's positions itself as a retrospective on the twenties a bit and at times comes off like anti-prohibition propaganda. James Cagney gets sucked into the racket and is destroyed by it while rising to the top in between. It zips along nicely. It's almost paced like a modern movie. Much of the dialogue and setups is easily imagined in more modern filmmaking. The only thing that really dates it is the sort of theatric feel inherent in many older movies. Grade B.
Sunday, June 9, 2013
Arrested Development Season 4
Seen for the first time in May 2013.
I count myself among what must be the few enthusiastic fans of the first two seasons of Arrested Development who did not clamor for but who actively rooted against some sort of resurgence of the show. If a film had come a year or two after the show had been cancelled, I would have greeted that news with some excitement, but as the time passed and the prospects of the principals devoting their time to renewing this project dwindled, the more I felt it was in everyone's best interest to let this once fine show rest in hallowed peace.
Season three, for all of its flaws - and there were many, provided a nice neat ending for the show. It was a completed work, in my mind. What could be gained by reanimating it's lovely corpse for one last dance. Why risk a stale aftertaste when we had a completed ouevre we could remember fondly? Why tarnish those fond memories?
Well, of course, there are always reasons. The creator need not justify his creations. As a fan though, I was skeptical. Especially in light of the myriad weaknesses of season 3, where the show saw it's weakest and most contrived plotlines and many of its "jokes" were not in fact jokes, but references to jokes the show had already told. Some fans justified this by claiming to believe it was really clever to constantly reference old jokes. I didn't find it clever. Not anymore clever than the 100th recycling of a proven skit on Saturday Night Live. Some people should have known better. At least in my opinion.
Which is all a roundabout way of saying that this show was never as smart as some of us claimed it was. Certainly it didn't make stuff up as it went along to the extent of a show like "LOST." Some of their best gags are foreshadowed seasons in advance. Even the graffiti on the banana stand in the season one episode where Michael and George Michael rebuild the banana stand says "I'll Get You Bluths - Hello," which foreshadows Annyong's real name, his background, and his role as the mole. And I'm not saying the humor isn't smart in a witty sort of way. But this is a low bar. It was a funny show, and a lot of young kids prone to posturing and overpraise really liked it. I was one of them.
So finally, I get to season four. And it starts off weak. Cinco de quatro is one of the most contrivedly unfunny ideas that has ever presented itself. It's a parody of itself. Does the show get better after a few episodes. Yes. But also, who cares. It's boring and un-engaging. I don't have the interest in breaking down why this is so boring to me. It's not even overly referential, but a lot of the gags aren't that good. "Method One Clinic" and "ANUSTART" are not really clever.
The episodes drag on and on and even attempts at jokes are few and far between as Ron Howard drones on and on. My god who gives a shit about this. There's a whole lot of treading water and it's something a person would just not watch if they had not invested a lot in it at one point in their life. There are laugh out loud moments for sure. Gob shines. He always does. Whereas Buster and Lucille seem like they are trying to rekindle a fire that died years ago. Tobias is hit and miss. And Maeby's story is probably the weakest of them all.
Ultimately, the fourth season of Arrested Development meets expectations by being redundant, superfluous, and unnecessary. It unwraps a neatly tied bow to an unsatisfying result as all reunion shows ever have. But at the same time, it does genuinely leave us with more laughs than we had before. I don't wish to unmake it. I don't wish for my sense of entitlement to become out-sized in relation to what this show has given us. I do wish the laughs the fourth season gave us were as concentrated and hung from as worthwhile story-lines as earlier seasons though. Grade C.
I count myself among what must be the few enthusiastic fans of the first two seasons of Arrested Development who did not clamor for but who actively rooted against some sort of resurgence of the show. If a film had come a year or two after the show had been cancelled, I would have greeted that news with some excitement, but as the time passed and the prospects of the principals devoting their time to renewing this project dwindled, the more I felt it was in everyone's best interest to let this once fine show rest in hallowed peace.
Season three, for all of its flaws - and there were many, provided a nice neat ending for the show. It was a completed work, in my mind. What could be gained by reanimating it's lovely corpse for one last dance. Why risk a stale aftertaste when we had a completed ouevre we could remember fondly? Why tarnish those fond memories?
Well, of course, there are always reasons. The creator need not justify his creations. As a fan though, I was skeptical. Especially in light of the myriad weaknesses of season 3, where the show saw it's weakest and most contrived plotlines and many of its "jokes" were not in fact jokes, but references to jokes the show had already told. Some fans justified this by claiming to believe it was really clever to constantly reference old jokes. I didn't find it clever. Not anymore clever than the 100th recycling of a proven skit on Saturday Night Live. Some people should have known better. At least in my opinion.
Which is all a roundabout way of saying that this show was never as smart as some of us claimed it was. Certainly it didn't make stuff up as it went along to the extent of a show like "LOST." Some of their best gags are foreshadowed seasons in advance. Even the graffiti on the banana stand in the season one episode where Michael and George Michael rebuild the banana stand says "I'll Get You Bluths - Hello," which foreshadows Annyong's real name, his background, and his role as the mole. And I'm not saying the humor isn't smart in a witty sort of way. But this is a low bar. It was a funny show, and a lot of young kids prone to posturing and overpraise really liked it. I was one of them.
So finally, I get to season four. And it starts off weak. Cinco de quatro is one of the most contrivedly unfunny ideas that has ever presented itself. It's a parody of itself. Does the show get better after a few episodes. Yes. But also, who cares. It's boring and un-engaging. I don't have the interest in breaking down why this is so boring to me. It's not even overly referential, but a lot of the gags aren't that good. "Method One Clinic" and "ANUSTART" are not really clever.
The episodes drag on and on and even attempts at jokes are few and far between as Ron Howard drones on and on. My god who gives a shit about this. There's a whole lot of treading water and it's something a person would just not watch if they had not invested a lot in it at one point in their life. There are laugh out loud moments for sure. Gob shines. He always does. Whereas Buster and Lucille seem like they are trying to rekindle a fire that died years ago. Tobias is hit and miss. And Maeby's story is probably the weakest of them all.
Ultimately, the fourth season of Arrested Development meets expectations by being redundant, superfluous, and unnecessary. It unwraps a neatly tied bow to an unsatisfying result as all reunion shows ever have. But at the same time, it does genuinely leave us with more laughs than we had before. I don't wish to unmake it. I don't wish for my sense of entitlement to become out-sized in relation to what this show has given us. I do wish the laughs the fourth season gave us were as concentrated and hung from as worthwhile story-lines as earlier seasons though. Grade C.
Monday, February 25, 2013
Nightmare Alley
Seen for the first time in February 2013.
"Nightmare Alley" is a very good film noir about a scummy, ambitious fellow, unscrupulous by even carney standards. It moves at a brisk pace and never fails to entertain while wallowing in the unseemliness of its protagonist. Takes on a spiritual angle at some point out of nowhere before becoming a kid icarus cautionary tale. Grade A-.
"Nightmare Alley" is a very good film noir about a scummy, ambitious fellow, unscrupulous by even carney standards. It moves at a brisk pace and never fails to entertain while wallowing in the unseemliness of its protagonist. Takes on a spiritual angle at some point out of nowhere before becoming a kid icarus cautionary tale. Grade A-.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
They Drive By Night
Seen for the first time in February 2013.
"They Drive By Night" is what I call a Frankenstein monster of a movie. It seems like a beast stitched together from the dead parts of aborted projects. It begins light and zippy, yet as some kind of bleak Upton Sinclair kind of thing. All kinds of depressing stuff happens to these two Depression era truck drivers where Humphrey Bogart plays second fiddle to George Raft, which doesn't seem quite right, but nonetheless works. The bleakness is leavened by the zippy dialogue and the fact that everyone is constantly smiling and telling jokes and laughing. The movie is fast paced and lightly entertaining and also serious. I almost thought I had stumbled upon an underrated gem, even if I suspected it was close to a formulaic iteration from a genre I am unfamiliar with.
Then it falls apart in the third act, appreciable only on a camp level. Shooting for drama or what not, the film misses our hearts and hits us in the funny bone. Ida Lupino in particular is too much. She overacts the shit out of her role. And what was tightly written sharp dialogue in the movie's first half becomes, in the second half, tedious at best, fatuous at worst, and all too often winkingly mawkish. But honestly, it sort of amazes me that Ida Lupino's career did not nosedive after this role. She is a hilariously bad actress here. Like the actors in "Troll 2" may have learned how to act by watching Ida Lupino's performance in "The Drive By Night." Anne Sheridan on the other hand is saucy, a tough broad who can crack wise with the best of them. Unfortunately, she and Humphrey Bogart disappear in the second half of the movie, as the bad moon of Ida Lupino rises. I liked Troll 2 though, and I enjoy camp. It's just so disappointing when the first half of the movie showed so much promise. Grade B-.
"They Drive By Night" is what I call a Frankenstein monster of a movie. It seems like a beast stitched together from the dead parts of aborted projects. It begins light and zippy, yet as some kind of bleak Upton Sinclair kind of thing. All kinds of depressing stuff happens to these two Depression era truck drivers where Humphrey Bogart plays second fiddle to George Raft, which doesn't seem quite right, but nonetheless works. The bleakness is leavened by the zippy dialogue and the fact that everyone is constantly smiling and telling jokes and laughing. The movie is fast paced and lightly entertaining and also serious. I almost thought I had stumbled upon an underrated gem, even if I suspected it was close to a formulaic iteration from a genre I am unfamiliar with.
Then it falls apart in the third act, appreciable only on a camp level. Shooting for drama or what not, the film misses our hearts and hits us in the funny bone. Ida Lupino in particular is too much. She overacts the shit out of her role. And what was tightly written sharp dialogue in the movie's first half becomes, in the second half, tedious at best, fatuous at worst, and all too often winkingly mawkish. But honestly, it sort of amazes me that Ida Lupino's career did not nosedive after this role. She is a hilariously bad actress here. Like the actors in "Troll 2" may have learned how to act by watching Ida Lupino's performance in "The Drive By Night." Anne Sheridan on the other hand is saucy, a tough broad who can crack wise with the best of them. Unfortunately, she and Humphrey Bogart disappear in the second half of the movie, as the bad moon of Ida Lupino rises. I liked Troll 2 though, and I enjoy camp. It's just so disappointing when the first half of the movie showed so much promise. Grade B-.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Breakfast of Champions - Kurt Vonnegut
Read for the second time in February 2013.
I read "Breakfast of Champions" for the first time about 12 years ago in the midst of a Vonnegut reading frenzy. Elements stuck out for me over the years. In this one, Vonnegut relays one of my favorite aborted stories of his about two yeast cells, consuming sugar and shitting out alcohol, slowly killing themselves in the process. The talk to each other about why they are doing this, neither one with the imagination to realize that they are making champagne. I also remembered the main plot about a mentally ill man coming to believe he was the only person with free will in the universe thanks to a book by Kilgore Trout.
A lot of it, I did not remember at all though. It did not completely hold up for me as among one of Vonnegut's best works. he flaws are more apparent to me now, than they were those many years ago, speed-reading through Vonnegut without digesting. I think things I think are flaws now, I might've thought were strengths back then. Back then I was in awe of Vonnegut's crazy imagination. Now, I think maybe he was a frustrated short story writer, shoehorning aborted ideas into novels where they might not have really fit.
Of course, Vonnegut is still funny. He's still entertaining. His ideas should be read more broadly. I still firmly believe that America would be a better place if more people read and took Vonnegut seriously. In "Breakfast of Champions," which I read in order to take a break from Nietzsche's "Thus Spoke Zararthustra" (which is great but slow going for me), Vonnegut wrestles in his accessible way with materialism (In the Hegelian philosophical sense) and his cheery nihilism finds itself at battle with his humanism.
To Vonnegut, the line between inanimate machines and animate ones is a very thin one. Vonnegut, here, wrestles with the implications that human actions are involuntary responses to chemical reactions. That human beings behave very much like machines. There is also quite a bit of presenting the absurdity of the world we live in by conveying the world we live in as if it were a strange world in a science fiction novel. That is, he is writing in a style of fantastic science fiction, but about the mundane world we live in and recognize, not a fantastic one. At its best it satirizes human folly. At its worst, it's a little bit too cute, and almost as bad as some of the whimsical bullshit that would follow in Vonnegut's wake.
Vonnegut also tries to strike some personal notes in this. I'm not sure the story isn't better without them. I'm not sure the story isn't better without Vonnegut in it either. And certainly, I don't think this book ends on a strong note. Nonetheless, Vonnegut is almost always entertaining and he's almost always interesting as well. "Breakfast of Champions" is no exception, despite some apparent flaws, it is still a work worthy of great admiration.
I read "Breakfast of Champions" for the first time about 12 years ago in the midst of a Vonnegut reading frenzy. Elements stuck out for me over the years. In this one, Vonnegut relays one of my favorite aborted stories of his about two yeast cells, consuming sugar and shitting out alcohol, slowly killing themselves in the process. The talk to each other about why they are doing this, neither one with the imagination to realize that they are making champagne. I also remembered the main plot about a mentally ill man coming to believe he was the only person with free will in the universe thanks to a book by Kilgore Trout.
A lot of it, I did not remember at all though. It did not completely hold up for me as among one of Vonnegut's best works. he flaws are more apparent to me now, than they were those many years ago, speed-reading through Vonnegut without digesting. I think things I think are flaws now, I might've thought were strengths back then. Back then I was in awe of Vonnegut's crazy imagination. Now, I think maybe he was a frustrated short story writer, shoehorning aborted ideas into novels where they might not have really fit.
Of course, Vonnegut is still funny. He's still entertaining. His ideas should be read more broadly. I still firmly believe that America would be a better place if more people read and took Vonnegut seriously. In "Breakfast of Champions," which I read in order to take a break from Nietzsche's "Thus Spoke Zararthustra" (which is great but slow going for me), Vonnegut wrestles in his accessible way with materialism (In the Hegelian philosophical sense) and his cheery nihilism finds itself at battle with his humanism.
To Vonnegut, the line between inanimate machines and animate ones is a very thin one. Vonnegut, here, wrestles with the implications that human actions are involuntary responses to chemical reactions. That human beings behave very much like machines. There is also quite a bit of presenting the absurdity of the world we live in by conveying the world we live in as if it were a strange world in a science fiction novel. That is, he is writing in a style of fantastic science fiction, but about the mundane world we live in and recognize, not a fantastic one. At its best it satirizes human folly. At its worst, it's a little bit too cute, and almost as bad as some of the whimsical bullshit that would follow in Vonnegut's wake.
Vonnegut also tries to strike some personal notes in this. I'm not sure the story isn't better without them. I'm not sure the story isn't better without Vonnegut in it either. And certainly, I don't think this book ends on a strong note. Nonetheless, Vonnegut is almost always entertaining and he's almost always interesting as well. "Breakfast of Champions" is no exception, despite some apparent flaws, it is still a work worthy of great admiration.
Monday, February 4, 2013
The Girl Who Knew Too Much - Mario Bava
Seen for the first time in February 2013.
"The Girl Who Knew Too Much" is a slow moving but nicely shot black and white thriller. Mario Bava would make more entertaining films in his career. This movie is a run of the mill giallo. Not too exciting or suspenseful, and the ending does nothing to justify what feels like a pedestrian movie experience. There is a really nice scene where bullets puncture the wall of a darkened room and light shines through the holes that prefigures an acclaimed scene from the Coens' "Blood Simple." Interesting to think that that particular bit was such an important part of building their early reputation and it was probably borrowed from Bava. But anyway this is the sort of movie which justifies the lazy's reluctance to watch older movies. Grade C+.
"The Girl Who Knew Too Much" is a slow moving but nicely shot black and white thriller. Mario Bava would make more entertaining films in his career. This movie is a run of the mill giallo. Not too exciting or suspenseful, and the ending does nothing to justify what feels like a pedestrian movie experience. There is a really nice scene where bullets puncture the wall of a darkened room and light shines through the holes that prefigures an acclaimed scene from the Coens' "Blood Simple." Interesting to think that that particular bit was such an important part of building their early reputation and it was probably borrowed from Bava. But anyway this is the sort of movie which justifies the lazy's reluctance to watch older movies. Grade C+.
Sunday, February 3, 2013
For Your Consideration - Christopher Guest
Seen for the first time in February 2013.
"For Your Consideration" is one of Guests stronger efforts along with "Best in Show," and a lot better than the middling "A Mighty Wind." It seems a bit mean-spirited at times, especially the plastic surgery joke, but it takes an easy target, i.e. Hollywood, and pokes some light trivial fun at it. Fred Willard is outstandingly funny and so is the ventriloquist weather girl, but the whole ensemble works pretty well. Unlike, "A Mighty Wind" this film has actual laughs. Grade B+.
"For Your Consideration" is one of Guests stronger efforts along with "Best in Show," and a lot better than the middling "A Mighty Wind." It seems a bit mean-spirited at times, especially the plastic surgery joke, but it takes an easy target, i.e. Hollywood, and pokes some light trivial fun at it. Fred Willard is outstandingly funny and so is the ventriloquist weather girl, but the whole ensemble works pretty well. Unlike, "A Mighty Wind" this film has actual laughs. Grade B+.
World's Greatest Dad - Bobcat Goldthwait
Seen for the first time in February 2013.
"World's Greatest Dad," is one of those movies that were it just a little bit different, it would be one of my all time favorite comedies, but that also it's flaws are so significant, that it's not even a near-great comedy, just a pretty good one.
It starts off incredibly strong. Almost all of the laughs in this movie come from the character of Kyle, the son of the main character played by Robin Williams who is a lonely struggling novelist and who otherwise leads a bummed out existence as a high school poetry teacher. Kyle has charisma and hilarious antisocial tendencies which carry the movie. His every utterance and action stand in opposition to certain conformist ideals about how normal people think and behave. He's an obnoxious teenager who loves little more than extreme porn, but his misanthropy has a startling wit that entertains in its shockingness.
Unfortunately the movie kills him off relatively early on, and the film dies with him. Suddenly there's nothing funny left in the movie, just Robin Williams's character sadly exploiting his son's death in moments of human weakness, and tired satire borrowed from "Heathers." Though the indictment of Robin Williams's girlfriend's shallowness and phoniness is brilliant and cutting. On the other hand, when the "gay jock" confides in Robin Williams's character his private emotions, I'm not sure if we are supposed to be laughing at that, and if we are, why? There's a weakness in the film's inability to treat people like genuine people who actually have real feelings (even if they are instigated by fraudulence), rather than completely contemptible and mock-able phonies. This is especially egregious to me when done to high school kids, butterflies in their youth, who will either grow up into good decent people or who maybe won't. But save the vitriol for adults, in my opinion. Satirizing high school kids is like yelling at a kitten. It's fucking stupid. The kids are all right you know?
And then we get to the ending, and it seems they chose to deliver the only ending they could have imagined for this thing. But I wish they were ballsier and went with something more cynical. That would have made for a far better movie in my opinion. Something unexpected. But what this movie is trying to say and be isn't what I want it to say and be at this point, and I can respect that. I can't hate something for not being something that it's not trying to be. I just wish it were. But I get the sense of liberation. That scene is sold well. I just wish this movie was more into delivering cynical laughs than it was in making cheap tired points about phoniness, shallowness, and idiot-spectacle. Grade B.
"World's Greatest Dad," is one of those movies that were it just a little bit different, it would be one of my all time favorite comedies, but that also it's flaws are so significant, that it's not even a near-great comedy, just a pretty good one.
It starts off incredibly strong. Almost all of the laughs in this movie come from the character of Kyle, the son of the main character played by Robin Williams who is a lonely struggling novelist and who otherwise leads a bummed out existence as a high school poetry teacher. Kyle has charisma and hilarious antisocial tendencies which carry the movie. His every utterance and action stand in opposition to certain conformist ideals about how normal people think and behave. He's an obnoxious teenager who loves little more than extreme porn, but his misanthropy has a startling wit that entertains in its shockingness.
Unfortunately the movie kills him off relatively early on, and the film dies with him. Suddenly there's nothing funny left in the movie, just Robin Williams's character sadly exploiting his son's death in moments of human weakness, and tired satire borrowed from "Heathers." Though the indictment of Robin Williams's girlfriend's shallowness and phoniness is brilliant and cutting. On the other hand, when the "gay jock" confides in Robin Williams's character his private emotions, I'm not sure if we are supposed to be laughing at that, and if we are, why? There's a weakness in the film's inability to treat people like genuine people who actually have real feelings (even if they are instigated by fraudulence), rather than completely contemptible and mock-able phonies. This is especially egregious to me when done to high school kids, butterflies in their youth, who will either grow up into good decent people or who maybe won't. But save the vitriol for adults, in my opinion. Satirizing high school kids is like yelling at a kitten. It's fucking stupid. The kids are all right you know?
And then we get to the ending, and it seems they chose to deliver the only ending they could have imagined for this thing. But I wish they were ballsier and went with something more cynical. That would have made for a far better movie in my opinion. Something unexpected. But what this movie is trying to say and be isn't what I want it to say and be at this point, and I can respect that. I can't hate something for not being something that it's not trying to be. I just wish it were. But I get the sense of liberation. That scene is sold well. I just wish this movie was more into delivering cynical laughs than it was in making cheap tired points about phoniness, shallowness, and idiot-spectacle. Grade B.
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Mad Cowgirl
Seen for the first time in February 2013.
I have to confess that I didn't quite finish "Mad Cowgirl." I fast-forwarded through the last 10 minutes and have no idea what happened there. It's not that bad of a movie though. It has potential. You watch it and think that this is somebody's first movie, and that that somebody has a lot of potential to make good movies though they aren't there yet. You also think, the premise of this movie has a lot of potential, but it never really delivers on it.
The biggest problem with this movie is that it has a pretty shitty sense of humor. My very first thought about it was that I wished this movie was more committed to delivering exploitation thrills than it was in trying to be funny. It has a sub-"Requiem For a Dream" artistic sensibility that works for the most part and is really the aspect that allowed me to power through much of the boredom and tedium that I felt for most of the movie before finally giving in after 75-80 minutes. Of particular weakness is the televangelist character, which kind of feels cliche and uninteresting. Also, apparently the film-maker here doesn't know the difference between roman catholicism and evangelical protestantism. It doesn't really matter except for the fact that its sloppy.
For a movie that's supposed to be a twisted thriller, I'd say it's strange enough, but it needs to deliver more thrills. Grade C-.
I have to confess that I didn't quite finish "Mad Cowgirl." I fast-forwarded through the last 10 minutes and have no idea what happened there. It's not that bad of a movie though. It has potential. You watch it and think that this is somebody's first movie, and that that somebody has a lot of potential to make good movies though they aren't there yet. You also think, the premise of this movie has a lot of potential, but it never really delivers on it.
The biggest problem with this movie is that it has a pretty shitty sense of humor. My very first thought about it was that I wished this movie was more committed to delivering exploitation thrills than it was in trying to be funny. It has a sub-"Requiem For a Dream" artistic sensibility that works for the most part and is really the aspect that allowed me to power through much of the boredom and tedium that I felt for most of the movie before finally giving in after 75-80 minutes. Of particular weakness is the televangelist character, which kind of feels cliche and uninteresting. Also, apparently the film-maker here doesn't know the difference between roman catholicism and evangelical protestantism. It doesn't really matter except for the fact that its sloppy.
For a movie that's supposed to be a twisted thriller, I'd say it's strange enough, but it needs to deliver more thrills. Grade C-.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
La Grande Illusion - Jean Renoir
Seen for the first time in January 2013.
Something about watching "La Grande Illusion" reminds me of sipping a fine well-aged wheated bourbon. Now a good youngish wheated bourbon initially tastes of vanilla or caramel sweetness transitioning into a golden lushness mid-palate before a nice long soothing finish with a quiet burn. This is, in and of itself, a very tasty and satisfying way to finish off a ruminative and pensive day. But should you age that same bourbon for 10-15 years in new charred oak barrels, that same sip of bourbon will take on an extra dimension. There's a depth and texture that the younger bourbon lacks.
I'm comparing "La Grande Illusion" to aged bourbon, not because it's an old movie, but because it has that same extra dimension of depth and texture. Something that you didn't even know was lacking in other fine movies, and you're not even completely sure how to explain it. It's not greater complexity, or taste, or seriousness. It's another dimension entirely. It's an emanating warmth that pervades everything and yet is impalpable.
They say it's one of the first prison-break movies ever made. But there is no tension nor suspense surrounding the planned escape nor any thrills in its execution. It's notable and remarkable how amicably the Germans and their French prisoners seem to get a long. There is not an ounce of nationalistic propaganda in this film. It accentuates the similarities between people and their needs and at its most on the nose points out the artificiality of borders themselves. The Germans are not portrayed as barbarians, but with honor and a mutual respect for their prisoners.
While it stars the great Jean Gabin, I'd like to emphasize that Pierre Fresnay as aristocratic Boieldieu was a revelation. He's like the Jean Dujardin of another era. Just incredible amounts of gallic charisma and charm. The ending as well is super charming, showing no personal animosity between the French and Germans, which may be unrealistic in some sense, but admirable for striving toward a greater humanistic truth. Grade A.
Something about watching "La Grande Illusion" reminds me of sipping a fine well-aged wheated bourbon. Now a good youngish wheated bourbon initially tastes of vanilla or caramel sweetness transitioning into a golden lushness mid-palate before a nice long soothing finish with a quiet burn. This is, in and of itself, a very tasty and satisfying way to finish off a ruminative and pensive day. But should you age that same bourbon for 10-15 years in new charred oak barrels, that same sip of bourbon will take on an extra dimension. There's a depth and texture that the younger bourbon lacks.
I'm comparing "La Grande Illusion" to aged bourbon, not because it's an old movie, but because it has that same extra dimension of depth and texture. Something that you didn't even know was lacking in other fine movies, and you're not even completely sure how to explain it. It's not greater complexity, or taste, or seriousness. It's another dimension entirely. It's an emanating warmth that pervades everything and yet is impalpable.
They say it's one of the first prison-break movies ever made. But there is no tension nor suspense surrounding the planned escape nor any thrills in its execution. It's notable and remarkable how amicably the Germans and their French prisoners seem to get a long. There is not an ounce of nationalistic propaganda in this film. It accentuates the similarities between people and their needs and at its most on the nose points out the artificiality of borders themselves. The Germans are not portrayed as barbarians, but with honor and a mutual respect for their prisoners.
While it stars the great Jean Gabin, I'd like to emphasize that Pierre Fresnay as aristocratic Boieldieu was a revelation. He's like the Jean Dujardin of another era. Just incredible amounts of gallic charisma and charm. The ending as well is super charming, showing no personal animosity between the French and Germans, which may be unrealistic in some sense, but admirable for striving toward a greater humanistic truth. Grade A.
In a Lonely Place
Seen for the first time in January 2013.
Though I enjoyed it, I don't think "In a Lonely Place" is actually a very good movie. It's biggest problem is that it's overwritten. But it's also choppy and there's lots of stilted dialogue. On the other hand, this is one of the best performances Bogart ever gave, and the underrated Gloria Grahame matches him every step of the way. I wish they had been a more likable couple though. The "honeymoon" period of their relationship was quite sickening. Watching their googly-eyed lovey-doveyness and public displays of affection made me cringe with embarrassment. It's like hanging out with a friend and his new girlfriend and they don't know how to behave in front of people. Sickening. But then of course that changes and things go in a disturbing direction.
It turns out Bogart's character doesn't just have anger management issues. His rage is palpable and disturbing and quite likely homicidal and very scary. This thing becomes a monster movie and Bogart is the monster and we hope poor Gloria Grahame makes it out okay. It's actually a pretty impressive depiction, for its time, of a controlling abusive relationship. I'm pretty sure there wasn't a short-hand understanding about the dynamics of these relationships at the time. I admire and am impressed with the insight on display, but ultimately, the film is close to a failure as a matter of style. And by the by, that nonsense little poem "I was born when she kissed me..." is pretty much the shittiest attempt at evocative ponderousness I've seen in a movie in a long time. Grade B-.
Though I enjoyed it, I don't think "In a Lonely Place" is actually a very good movie. It's biggest problem is that it's overwritten. But it's also choppy and there's lots of stilted dialogue. On the other hand, this is one of the best performances Bogart ever gave, and the underrated Gloria Grahame matches him every step of the way. I wish they had been a more likable couple though. The "honeymoon" period of their relationship was quite sickening. Watching their googly-eyed lovey-doveyness and public displays of affection made me cringe with embarrassment. It's like hanging out with a friend and his new girlfriend and they don't know how to behave in front of people. Sickening. But then of course that changes and things go in a disturbing direction.
It turns out Bogart's character doesn't just have anger management issues. His rage is palpable and disturbing and quite likely homicidal and very scary. This thing becomes a monster movie and Bogart is the monster and we hope poor Gloria Grahame makes it out okay. It's actually a pretty impressive depiction, for its time, of a controlling abusive relationship. I'm pretty sure there wasn't a short-hand understanding about the dynamics of these relationships at the time. I admire and am impressed with the insight on display, but ultimately, the film is close to a failure as a matter of style. And by the by, that nonsense little poem "I was born when she kissed me..." is pretty much the shittiest attempt at evocative ponderousness I've seen in a movie in a long time. Grade B-.
Eugenie De Sade - Jess Franco
Seen for the first time in January 2013.
"Eugenie de Sade" is Jess Franco at his sleazy, salacious best. This film stands out among Franco's oeuvre as one of the few made with seeming love and care, with scintillating eroticism and surreal villainy. At its most dramatic moments one wants to bust out laughing. It plays like a parody of drama, most reminiscent of certain moments from David Lynch's television show "Twin Peaks", particularly the fake soap opera "Invitation to Love".
But the thing about any Jess Franco film is that you're never quite sure how much you're laughing at it, and how much you're laughing with it. Whether Jess Franco is brilliant or if he's an incompetent hack. Probably he's been both in his career. "Eugenie De Sade" is no exception, but it's definitely among the films a person would cite to argue the man is in fact a brilliant artist. It's an engaging mix of the surreal and silly, dramatic and sleazy, and shows what Franco is capable of when inspired and in full use of his talents and effort.
Not that the movie isn't slow in parts. It's typical 70's exploitation in a lot of ways. The plot is ridiculously bad. The characters are grotesquely thin, and seemingly the whole thing is a weak pretext for making what is basically what would seem like little more than an obscene and creepy little movie in more routine hands. But in Franco's hands, it's a kind of masterpiece. Not a masterpiece for respectable audiences, maybe, but a masterpiece for the rare breed of grimy connoisseur, who looks for and finds art in the unlikely places, including the disreputable ones. Grade A.
"Eugenie de Sade" is Jess Franco at his sleazy, salacious best. This film stands out among Franco's oeuvre as one of the few made with seeming love and care, with scintillating eroticism and surreal villainy. At its most dramatic moments one wants to bust out laughing. It plays like a parody of drama, most reminiscent of certain moments from David Lynch's television show "Twin Peaks", particularly the fake soap opera "Invitation to Love".
But the thing about any Jess Franco film is that you're never quite sure how much you're laughing at it, and how much you're laughing with it. Whether Jess Franco is brilliant or if he's an incompetent hack. Probably he's been both in his career. "Eugenie De Sade" is no exception, but it's definitely among the films a person would cite to argue the man is in fact a brilliant artist. It's an engaging mix of the surreal and silly, dramatic and sleazy, and shows what Franco is capable of when inspired and in full use of his talents and effort.
Not that the movie isn't slow in parts. It's typical 70's exploitation in a lot of ways. The plot is ridiculously bad. The characters are grotesquely thin, and seemingly the whole thing is a weak pretext for making what is basically what would seem like little more than an obscene and creepy little movie in more routine hands. But in Franco's hands, it's a kind of masterpiece. Not a masterpiece for respectable audiences, maybe, but a masterpiece for the rare breed of grimy connoisseur, who looks for and finds art in the unlikely places, including the disreputable ones. Grade A.
Monday, January 28, 2013
The Girl From Monaco
Seen for the first time in January 2013.
For the first hour or so, "The Girl From Monaco" seems like the kind of crappy romantic-comedy that one need not go to France and subtitles for. It's okay as far as that formula goes, with an uptight nebbish lawyer, a sexually available trollop, and a grim body-guard. There is humor present, though maybe not the laugh out loud kind. But as the film goes on, it stops trying to be funny, and we start to notice some interesting parallels between the love triangle in the lawyer's case and the love triangle in the lawyer's life. And so there's only one way this will end up, and it's not funny, but it is interesting. Maybe in the final few moments, the film tries too hard to be evocative. And fails. But it ends up being a pretty good movie that sucks you in with its relatability. Grade B +.
For the first hour or so, "The Girl From Monaco" seems like the kind of crappy romantic-comedy that one need not go to France and subtitles for. It's okay as far as that formula goes, with an uptight nebbish lawyer, a sexually available trollop, and a grim body-guard. There is humor present, though maybe not the laugh out loud kind. But as the film goes on, it stops trying to be funny, and we start to notice some interesting parallels between the love triangle in the lawyer's case and the love triangle in the lawyer's life. And so there's only one way this will end up, and it's not funny, but it is interesting. Maybe in the final few moments, the film tries too hard to be evocative. And fails. But it ends up being a pretty good movie that sucks you in with its relatability. Grade B +.
Macao - Josef Von Sternberg
Seen for the first time in January 2013.
I don't consider myself particularly well-versed in Mitchum, but in "Macao" I can definitely see why he was a star. It's maybe not the best film of his that I've seen, but it's probably the most charismatic Mitchum performance that I've seen. Jane Russell also gives a great performance. Her smile is intoxicating, illuminating a deceptive beauty. She brings a crass sophistication to her tenderly cynical role. Matched with Mitchum's charisma, this seedily glamorous noir is both routine and excellent. Grade A-.
I don't consider myself particularly well-versed in Mitchum, but in "Macao" I can definitely see why he was a star. It's maybe not the best film of his that I've seen, but it's probably the most charismatic Mitchum performance that I've seen. Jane Russell also gives a great performance. Her smile is intoxicating, illuminating a deceptive beauty. She brings a crass sophistication to her tenderly cynical role. Matched with Mitchum's charisma, this seedily glamorous noir is both routine and excellent. Grade A-.
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Violette - Claude Chabrol
Seen for the first time in January 2013.
At first glance "Violette" did not exactly cater to my sensibilities. It seemed at first what I might describe as bourgeois or perhaps middlebrow. But once the crime is committed and the arrests are made, it becomes quite a good movie. The story really is shocking, and Violette, intensely played by Isabella Huppert is an astonishing and memorable character. Chabrol depicts the sensationalism surrounding her trial in all of its humanity-is-little-more-than-apes-flinging-shit-at-each-other ignominy.
And upon her conviction when Violette calls the panel of jurors bastards who disgust her... I don't even know how to react to that. Cause on the one hand, it seems a fair indictment of humanity in general at that point, but on the other hand, there's a fairly sizable plank in her eye. She's a complex character, toward whom we're surprised to feel some sympathy despite her seeming monstrousnes which is on reminiscent of the main character in Camus's "L'etranger."
All said, "Violette," which is based upon a true story was a nicely layered and thoughtful film that told its story and depicted its characters with remarkable grace and subtlety. Grade B.
At first glance "Violette" did not exactly cater to my sensibilities. It seemed at first what I might describe as bourgeois or perhaps middlebrow. But once the crime is committed and the arrests are made, it becomes quite a good movie. The story really is shocking, and Violette, intensely played by Isabella Huppert is an astonishing and memorable character. Chabrol depicts the sensationalism surrounding her trial in all of its humanity-is-little-more-than-apes-flinging-shit-at-each-other ignominy.
And upon her conviction when Violette calls the panel of jurors bastards who disgust her... I don't even know how to react to that. Cause on the one hand, it seems a fair indictment of humanity in general at that point, but on the other hand, there's a fairly sizable plank in her eye. She's a complex character, toward whom we're surprised to feel some sympathy despite her seeming monstrousnes which is on reminiscent of the main character in Camus's "L'etranger."
All said, "Violette," which is based upon a true story was a nicely layered and thoughtful film that told its story and depicted its characters with remarkable grace and subtlety. Grade B.
Friday, January 25, 2013
The Wrong Guy
Seen for the first time in January 2013.
"The Wrong Guy" is a very funny, forgotten little gem of a movie. It starts off kind of slow and slowly turns into a hilarious comic masterpiece. It's a very silly movie about a guy who thinks he's wanted by the police for a murder he didn't commit, but thanks to hidden cameras is known to be innocent. The chief investigator on the case steals the show with his lazy indifference to finding the murderer and use of the investigation to feed his appetite expensive meals, women and entertainment.
Dave Foley gives such a great comedic performance, I'm in hindsight surprised he never became a bigger star and that this movie is relatively unknown. It holds up well with it's contemporaries like "There's Something About Mary," and "Happy Gilmore." Though in terms of humor, it's probably more similar to "Magruber" or one of Will Ferrell's stronger sillier efforts. With a touch of the amateur zaniness of Tim and Eric.
Maybe my favorite bit is the car ride with the "no bullet theory" guy, but this thing is packed with subtle, and clever little jokes as well. Like Foley's delivery of the line "Well I guess Agent uh 10 of that elite thing you were talking about has finally met his match." After watching this, I really can't figure out why Dave Foley isn't as big as Ben Stiller or John C. Reilly. Grade A.
"The Wrong Guy" is a very funny, forgotten little gem of a movie. It starts off kind of slow and slowly turns into a hilarious comic masterpiece. It's a very silly movie about a guy who thinks he's wanted by the police for a murder he didn't commit, but thanks to hidden cameras is known to be innocent. The chief investigator on the case steals the show with his lazy indifference to finding the murderer and use of the investigation to feed his appetite expensive meals, women and entertainment.
Dave Foley gives such a great comedic performance, I'm in hindsight surprised he never became a bigger star and that this movie is relatively unknown. It holds up well with it's contemporaries like "There's Something About Mary," and "Happy Gilmore." Though in terms of humor, it's probably more similar to "Magruber" or one of Will Ferrell's stronger sillier efforts. With a touch of the amateur zaniness of Tim and Eric.
Maybe my favorite bit is the car ride with the "no bullet theory" guy, but this thing is packed with subtle, and clever little jokes as well. Like Foley's delivery of the line "Well I guess Agent uh 10 of that elite thing you were talking about has finally met his match." After watching this, I really can't figure out why Dave Foley isn't as big as Ben Stiller or John C. Reilly. Grade A.
The Two Jakes
Seen for the first time in January 2013.
That a film is not as good as "Chinatown," one of the finest films of the 70's, is not at all a fair criticism to level any film. But by virtue of being its sequel, I probably won't be able to keep myself from spending much of my time explaining why "The Two Jakes" is not as good as "Chinatown." This is despite the fact that I think "The Two Jakes" is a very enjoyable film with many entertaining parts. I would certainly watch it again.
Nonetheless, it's not as good as "Chinatown." First of all, I don't really understand it. I don't understand the plot. The motivations are opaque. It's moody, but we don't really understand why it's moody. And I suppose I could rewatch the scene where Keitel's Jake Berman character actually talks about his motivations and figure things out better, but truthfully I don't really care. Fundamentally the plot of this movie doesn't really make any sense, and whatever the contrived explanation is, it isn't really going to make it make sense. By the way, did Berman's business partner really not know who his wife is? It's easy enough to figure out well before the movie reveals it.
Also, "The Two Jakes" is a little tawdry, a little tacky. Listening to the pleasured moans of a women engaged in sexual congress strikes a dissonant note for example. "Chinatown" was a classy movie. A fine movie. "The Two Jakes" is a base thriller. I like cheap thrills. But you want "The Two Jakes" to be respectful to its heritage. It doesn't quite succeed.
And on the other hand, "The Two Jakes" is portentious. Jake Gittes, and in this movie everyone pronounces his name how it's spelled, is haunted by the past. Characters talk about how you can "never escape" the past and we get serious voice-overs and and a such a serious tone at times. "Chinatown" did not try so hard to be a serious movie. It was before it was anything else, a suspenseful thriller with a particularly great iconic 70's film ending. It didn't have to tell you it was serious, it just was. True to the best of noir's instincts. it featured a flawed protagonist, in an irredeemably corrupt world, who fought that corruption on behalf of one innocent. And who lost, because corruption is inexorable, and the innocent do not survive. Maybe "The Two Jakes" tries to gesture at this sort of thing, but it's not really integrated into the story cohesively and we're back at the fact that all in all this movie doesn't make any sense.
But it entertains nonetheless. And when it isn't being tacky or corny, it can be pretty funny. I don't really get it. I don't get what's going on with Harvey Keitel for example pretty much at all. But Jack Nicholson more or less carries the film with his charisma nonetheless. Grade B.
That a film is not as good as "Chinatown," one of the finest films of the 70's, is not at all a fair criticism to level any film. But by virtue of being its sequel, I probably won't be able to keep myself from spending much of my time explaining why "The Two Jakes" is not as good as "Chinatown." This is despite the fact that I think "The Two Jakes" is a very enjoyable film with many entertaining parts. I would certainly watch it again.
Nonetheless, it's not as good as "Chinatown." First of all, I don't really understand it. I don't understand the plot. The motivations are opaque. It's moody, but we don't really understand why it's moody. And I suppose I could rewatch the scene where Keitel's Jake Berman character actually talks about his motivations and figure things out better, but truthfully I don't really care. Fundamentally the plot of this movie doesn't really make any sense, and whatever the contrived explanation is, it isn't really going to make it make sense. By the way, did Berman's business partner really not know who his wife is? It's easy enough to figure out well before the movie reveals it.
Also, "The Two Jakes" is a little tawdry, a little tacky. Listening to the pleasured moans of a women engaged in sexual congress strikes a dissonant note for example. "Chinatown" was a classy movie. A fine movie. "The Two Jakes" is a base thriller. I like cheap thrills. But you want "The Two Jakes" to be respectful to its heritage. It doesn't quite succeed.
And on the other hand, "The Two Jakes" is portentious. Jake Gittes, and in this movie everyone pronounces his name how it's spelled, is haunted by the past. Characters talk about how you can "never escape" the past and we get serious voice-overs and and a such a serious tone at times. "Chinatown" did not try so hard to be a serious movie. It was before it was anything else, a suspenseful thriller with a particularly great iconic 70's film ending. It didn't have to tell you it was serious, it just was. True to the best of noir's instincts. it featured a flawed protagonist, in an irredeemably corrupt world, who fought that corruption on behalf of one innocent. And who lost, because corruption is inexorable, and the innocent do not survive. Maybe "The Two Jakes" tries to gesture at this sort of thing, but it's not really integrated into the story cohesively and we're back at the fact that all in all this movie doesn't make any sense.
But it entertains nonetheless. And when it isn't being tacky or corny, it can be pretty funny. I don't really get it. I don't get what's going on with Harvey Keitel for example pretty much at all. But Jack Nicholson more or less carries the film with his charisma nonetheless. Grade B.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Nototrious - Alfred Hitchcock
Seen for the first time in January 2013.
"Notorious" is definitely among Hitchcock's very best. It is a flawless movie. It's maybe Hitchcock's best shot movie, and Cary Grant, Ingrid Bergman, and Claude Rains are all amazing in it. It's heartbreaking to watch Grant and Bergman's characters, obviously in love with each other, treat each other shittily throughout the film. I constantly thought to myself that life is too short to be spending time treating people you love in a shitty way. It shares quite a bit with Casablanca, though it's somehow a colder more sterile film. I think the subtlety of the emotions Grant has to play are tough to pull off and he does it ably. But the real strength of the movie is the building of tension and suspense and the final dramatic pay-off. Grade A.
"Notorious" is definitely among Hitchcock's very best. It is a flawless movie. It's maybe Hitchcock's best shot movie, and Cary Grant, Ingrid Bergman, and Claude Rains are all amazing in it. It's heartbreaking to watch Grant and Bergman's characters, obviously in love with each other, treat each other shittily throughout the film. I constantly thought to myself that life is too short to be spending time treating people you love in a shitty way. It shares quite a bit with Casablanca, though it's somehow a colder more sterile film. I think the subtlety of the emotions Grant has to play are tough to pull off and he does it ably. But the real strength of the movie is the building of tension and suspense and the final dramatic pay-off. Grade A.
The Last Seduction
Seen for the second time in January 2013.
The first time I saw the "The Last Seduction" was many years ago, and I didn't really like it that much. I thought the plot was too convoluted, the twists were dumb, and that overall it kind of tried too hard. I also apparently hallucinated a slightly different ending where the protagonist Mike clears his name by using the letter from "Trish" saying she's moving to Beston. That apparently doesn't happen.
I liked the movie a lot more this time around. It's a rather generic 90's noir, which is kind of a tired genre, but generally better than the similarly steamy noirs of the 80's. Noir ran into a lot of problems in the 80's and 90's. It's not just that the genre became tired, but the expectations of nudity and swearing in these movies pretty much ruins them. Everything seems less clever, less smart than the classics. I like steamy and I like swearing probably more than the next guy. But.. how clever would the patter in "The Big Sleep" have been if there wasn't the need for innuendo? And the appeal of noir is basically in its cleverness. Hanging a couple softcore scenes on a rickety plot of corruption, betrayal, and manipulation is a gross abuse of a venerable genre.
Also the style of the original noirs is pretty much obliterated for the sake of making a modern movie. It's as if the film-makers think the defining aspect of noir involves a manipulative femme fatale and a convoluted murder plot, when so much of what made classic noirs good was their style, their lingo, the sense of gritty sophistication. The world of noir was always a contrived one. That world never actually existed. Directors of modern noirs seem to make the mistake of trying to make a noir set in the real world, often to disasterous results. This is probably why most neo-noirs that actually succeed are either period pieces, or cartoons, or else something like "Brick" which has clearly created a self-contained stylized world that has little to do with the world we now live in. The remakes of "The Postman Always Rings Twice" and the "The Big Sleep" are perfect illustrations of the problems with trying to make a good noir today. Where the originals are both great films if a bit mawkish in the Postman's case, the remakes sacrifice stylishness and cleverness for a steamy realness to a pretty dismal result.
But the "The Last Seduction" more or less works despite the pitfalls of the modern noir. The plot barely holds together and suspension of disbelief requires real effort, but not in a seriously flawed way. Bill Pullman is great playing his character to comedic effect. Linda Fiorentino gives a good performance as an incredibly cold-hearted, incredibly manipulative sexpot. The guy who plays the lug does a good job at being a lug too. He's more believable than I had remembered him being, though the small town lens through which we view him is complete nonsense. You find guys like him all over the city. And you find women like Bridget pretty much nowhere. But I guess the provincial view of small towns this film evinces is supposed to suggest some kind of sophistication. But the people who made it weren't sophisticated enough to do it in a truthful way. Grade B.
The first time I saw the "The Last Seduction" was many years ago, and I didn't really like it that much. I thought the plot was too convoluted, the twists were dumb, and that overall it kind of tried too hard. I also apparently hallucinated a slightly different ending where the protagonist Mike clears his name by using the letter from "Trish" saying she's moving to Beston. That apparently doesn't happen.
I liked the movie a lot more this time around. It's a rather generic 90's noir, which is kind of a tired genre, but generally better than the similarly steamy noirs of the 80's. Noir ran into a lot of problems in the 80's and 90's. It's not just that the genre became tired, but the expectations of nudity and swearing in these movies pretty much ruins them. Everything seems less clever, less smart than the classics. I like steamy and I like swearing probably more than the next guy. But.. how clever would the patter in "The Big Sleep" have been if there wasn't the need for innuendo? And the appeal of noir is basically in its cleverness. Hanging a couple softcore scenes on a rickety plot of corruption, betrayal, and manipulation is a gross abuse of a venerable genre.
Also the style of the original noirs is pretty much obliterated for the sake of making a modern movie. It's as if the film-makers think the defining aspect of noir involves a manipulative femme fatale and a convoluted murder plot, when so much of what made classic noirs good was their style, their lingo, the sense of gritty sophistication. The world of noir was always a contrived one. That world never actually existed. Directors of modern noirs seem to make the mistake of trying to make a noir set in the real world, often to disasterous results. This is probably why most neo-noirs that actually succeed are either period pieces, or cartoons, or else something like "Brick" which has clearly created a self-contained stylized world that has little to do with the world we now live in. The remakes of "The Postman Always Rings Twice" and the "The Big Sleep" are perfect illustrations of the problems with trying to make a good noir today. Where the originals are both great films if a bit mawkish in the Postman's case, the remakes sacrifice stylishness and cleverness for a steamy realness to a pretty dismal result.
But the "The Last Seduction" more or less works despite the pitfalls of the modern noir. The plot barely holds together and suspension of disbelief requires real effort, but not in a seriously flawed way. Bill Pullman is great playing his character to comedic effect. Linda Fiorentino gives a good performance as an incredibly cold-hearted, incredibly manipulative sexpot. The guy who plays the lug does a good job at being a lug too. He's more believable than I had remembered him being, though the small town lens through which we view him is complete nonsense. You find guys like him all over the city. And you find women like Bridget pretty much nowhere. But I guess the provincial view of small towns this film evinces is supposed to suggest some kind of sophistication. But the people who made it weren't sophisticated enough to do it in a truthful way. Grade B.
Monday, January 21, 2013
The Devil's Sword
Seen for the first time in January 2013.
"The Devil's Sword" is some kind of 80's Indonesian supernatural kung-fu revenge film featuring a nympomaniacal crocodile queen, plenty of creative decapitations, some great dubbed trash talk and mythical kitschy monsters straight out of a 10 year old's nightmares. It is pretty great, sexy at times but not salacious, and a whole lot of fun.
The action pretty much never lets up as we watch an honorable warrior help an almost equally skilled female kung-fu fighter rescue her husband from the clutches of the evil crocodile queen, whose lusts, unlike the ocean or the sky, are without limit. To do that, they must first retrieve the devil's sword and defeat the evil warriors who also seek it. I fear understating how great the four way battle between the protagonist and the evil warriors, including a witch is. It is in many ways the highlight of the movie.
It is in some ways like if Kill Bill were a low-budget 80's Indonesian film that also had creatures from a 50's sci-fi movie and great dubbing. A wonderful melange of inspired kitsch. Grade A.
"The Devil's Sword" is some kind of 80's Indonesian supernatural kung-fu revenge film featuring a nympomaniacal crocodile queen, plenty of creative decapitations, some great dubbed trash talk and mythical kitschy monsters straight out of a 10 year old's nightmares. It is pretty great, sexy at times but not salacious, and a whole lot of fun.
The action pretty much never lets up as we watch an honorable warrior help an almost equally skilled female kung-fu fighter rescue her husband from the clutches of the evil crocodile queen, whose lusts, unlike the ocean or the sky, are without limit. To do that, they must first retrieve the devil's sword and defeat the evil warriors who also seek it. I fear understating how great the four way battle between the protagonist and the evil warriors, including a witch is. It is in many ways the highlight of the movie.
It is in some ways like if Kill Bill were a low-budget 80's Indonesian film that also had creatures from a 50's sci-fi movie and great dubbing. A wonderful melange of inspired kitsch. Grade A.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Mystics in Bali
Seen for the first time in January 2013.
I've dabbled in these '80s Indonesian horror movies a bit. Stuck my big toe in so to speak. The waters warm, but it leaves me indifferent. I read some other reviews of "Mystics in Bali," a practice I usually avoid. A lot of people are enthusiastic about the weirdness of "Mystics," and yeah sure it's weird, but I'm it's a weirdness that I'm indifferent to. I can easily imagine a person getting their strange cinema kicks from this movie. But, personally, I don't get mine.
I guess part of it is that on paper, it's a weird movie, but it really didn't seem that weird to me while watching it. It's an above average low-budget horror film and that's all it is, at least as far as I can tell. Yes, it's an Indonesian movie directed at a western audience, which gives it a few novelty points I suppose. And there's a cackling witch and amateur special effects of a disembodied head sucking a baby straight out of a woman.And there are characters who appear out of nowhere and deus ex machinas. Admittedly it sounds good on paper. It's just underwhelming in execution.
And it is undeniably an above average low budget horror. Which is good despite the fact that so much low budget horror is completely unwatchable. I think my issue is that it's good, but nothing special, by low budget horror standards, but that it's also not particularly weird by those same standards. Grade B.
I've dabbled in these '80s Indonesian horror movies a bit. Stuck my big toe in so to speak. The waters warm, but it leaves me indifferent. I read some other reviews of "Mystics in Bali," a practice I usually avoid. A lot of people are enthusiastic about the weirdness of "Mystics," and yeah sure it's weird, but I'm it's a weirdness that I'm indifferent to. I can easily imagine a person getting their strange cinema kicks from this movie. But, personally, I don't get mine.
I guess part of it is that on paper, it's a weird movie, but it really didn't seem that weird to me while watching it. It's an above average low-budget horror film and that's all it is, at least as far as I can tell. Yes, it's an Indonesian movie directed at a western audience, which gives it a few novelty points I suppose. And there's a cackling witch and amateur special effects of a disembodied head sucking a baby straight out of a woman.And there are characters who appear out of nowhere and deus ex machinas. Admittedly it sounds good on paper. It's just underwhelming in execution.
And it is undeniably an above average low budget horror. Which is good despite the fact that so much low budget horror is completely unwatchable. I think my issue is that it's good, but nothing special, by low budget horror standards, but that it's also not particularly weird by those same standards. Grade B.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
The Sister of Ursula
Seen for the first time in January 2013.
What "The Sister of Ursula" lacks in originality and pacing, it makes up for in tawdriness. Ultimately this film has a nice twist and builds to a solid climax, but one might never make it there without the sordid sleaze and atmospheric suspense of the first half of this solid if undistinguished giallo. Grade B.
What "The Sister of Ursula" lacks in originality and pacing, it makes up for in tawdriness. Ultimately this film has a nice twist and builds to a solid climax, but one might never make it there without the sordid sleaze and atmospheric suspense of the first half of this solid if undistinguished giallo. Grade B.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
The Girl From Rio - Jess Franco
Seen for the first time in January 2013.
I didn't know that I was going to be watching a Jess Franco film until I saw his name in the opening credits. This changed my expectations considerably, though perhaps it ought not to have, as "The Girl From Rio" is at the conventional end of the Franco spectrum without also being at the positive end of the qualitative spectrum. Though Franco's imprint is subtle, it is still definitely there.
Evidently this is an adaption of a Sax Rohmer story, about a sex-crazed villainess who wants to enslave all men. Like "Barbarella," it's more of a b-movie than any kind of exploitation movie - if we can draw a distinction between the two as a matter of genre than as a matter of production and marketing. Also, like "Barbarella," it's kind of boring.
The qualities that make a Franco film distinctive are somewhat lacking here. It's sensual without being smutty. There's no surrealism, nor any obvious incompetence. A reasonable amount of effort seems to have gone into making it. It is, to put it plainly, a very conventional bad movie that one could easily imagine leaving an audience of tasteful middle class adults bored yet not ashamed. This is not the sort of film that Franco is known for. At his best, he would leave that same audience either scandalized and corrupted or astonished that a movie that bad had ever been made.
Nonetheless, little touches bear the Franco imprint, e.g. awkward dubbed dialogue, an incoherent twist, etc. Franco is a frustrating film-maker. What makes him distinctive is hard to pin down, and his oeuvre is so vast and he's worked in so many different genres and styles with varieties of budgets and seeming effort on his part. A person is probably a lot better off if they dismiss him casually before they find themselves corrupted by one of his gems and find themselves wading in and sifting through more and more of his work in an effort to duplicate that initial experience. Though sometimes one is rewarded by finding another gem. Just not in this case. Grade C.
I didn't know that I was going to be watching a Jess Franco film until I saw his name in the opening credits. This changed my expectations considerably, though perhaps it ought not to have, as "The Girl From Rio" is at the conventional end of the Franco spectrum without also being at the positive end of the qualitative spectrum. Though Franco's imprint is subtle, it is still definitely there.
Evidently this is an adaption of a Sax Rohmer story, about a sex-crazed villainess who wants to enslave all men. Like "Barbarella," it's more of a b-movie than any kind of exploitation movie - if we can draw a distinction between the two as a matter of genre than as a matter of production and marketing. Also, like "Barbarella," it's kind of boring.
The qualities that make a Franco film distinctive are somewhat lacking here. It's sensual without being smutty. There's no surrealism, nor any obvious incompetence. A reasonable amount of effort seems to have gone into making it. It is, to put it plainly, a very conventional bad movie that one could easily imagine leaving an audience of tasteful middle class adults bored yet not ashamed. This is not the sort of film that Franco is known for. At his best, he would leave that same audience either scandalized and corrupted or astonished that a movie that bad had ever been made.
Nonetheless, little touches bear the Franco imprint, e.g. awkward dubbed dialogue, an incoherent twist, etc. Franco is a frustrating film-maker. What makes him distinctive is hard to pin down, and his oeuvre is so vast and he's worked in so many different genres and styles with varieties of budgets and seeming effort on his part. A person is probably a lot better off if they dismiss him casually before they find themselves corrupted by one of his gems and find themselves wading in and sifting through more and more of his work in an effort to duplicate that initial experience. Though sometimes one is rewarded by finding another gem. Just not in this case. Grade C.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Diabolique - Henri-Georges Clouzot
Seen for the first time in January 2013.
"Diabolique" is taut and suspenseful and clearly hugely influential. It takes a minute to get rolling, but once it does the tension and mystery build to a great climax. The idea behind the twist popped through my head a few times, but probably only because I had seen enough movies that aped that twist. A really well done film. Well thought and well executed. Grade A.
"Diabolique" is taut and suspenseful and clearly hugely influential. It takes a minute to get rolling, but once it does the tension and mystery build to a great climax. The idea behind the twist popped through my head a few times, but probably only because I had seen enough movies that aped that twist. A really well done film. Well thought and well executed. Grade A.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
God Bless You Mr. Rosewater - Kurt Vonnegut
Read for the first time in January 2013.
"God Bless You Mr. Rosewater" is one of Vonnegut's weaker efforts. It is still much better than his least works "Timequake" and "Player Piano." The common thread here is a smug self-righteousness that undermines his schtick. Speaking of schtick, it is one of those occasions when you are conscious of an author doing his schtick which is something you usually enjoy, but in this instance actually grates for some reason. My biggest complaint though is the tone of condescension Vonnegut takes toward "the masses." It's also my biggest problem with "Timequake" and "Player Piano."
It's not quite that I find his embrace of socialism and charity either wrong or insincere, but it seems done with a phony admiration that is tired and hackneyed. In today's world you can see right-wingers use the same kind of romance to sell tax-cuts for the very rich and demonize a guy like Vonnegut as not a real American, which was probably true enough in Vonnegut's time too. And this itself is no fault of Vonnegut's. What I object to is the cheapness of the tactic.
The fact that I came to use the word tactic, I think speaks volumes about this work. I don't think I would that word while discussing Vonnegut at his best. A tactic is used by someone with an argument to make. And though I would never say Vonnegut is not making an argument in his works - He is a deeply moral author with something to say about how we should live - I would say that the body of his arguments are not so nakedly evident in his best work.
No Vonnegut's pedanticism is hidden in his best works behind his wild creativity, entertaining characters, and brilliantly funny humor. This work does have its share of entertaining characters and at times the humor is as legitimately funny as anything in literature. But again, there are moments when the Vonnegut schtick grates. And again, it often feels as though Vonnegut is a little too smug about the whole thing. And there's that creepy feeling you get where someone seems to be showing their respect for the "working man," but you get the sense, not exactly that Vonnegut doesn't respect them, but that the respect is misapplied and that there is a fundamental disrespect congruent with the sincere respect. Like he respects the working man, but also knows that he could never be one, and lurking in his mind is the belief that this is so because he is in small but important ways better.
That's the charge at its most naked with minimal dancing around. I hate to put it that baldly, but I try to put plainly what I find off-putting in the tone of Vonnegut's writing at times like these and it is the best I can do. Nonetheless, this is one of those Vonnegut books that should be read like some people read the Bible. The world would be a better place if more people read this book. It's just not among his best.
"God Bless You Mr. Rosewater" is one of Vonnegut's weaker efforts. It is still much better than his least works "Timequake" and "Player Piano." The common thread here is a smug self-righteousness that undermines his schtick. Speaking of schtick, it is one of those occasions when you are conscious of an author doing his schtick which is something you usually enjoy, but in this instance actually grates for some reason. My biggest complaint though is the tone of condescension Vonnegut takes toward "the masses." It's also my biggest problem with "Timequake" and "Player Piano."
It's not quite that I find his embrace of socialism and charity either wrong or insincere, but it seems done with a phony admiration that is tired and hackneyed. In today's world you can see right-wingers use the same kind of romance to sell tax-cuts for the very rich and demonize a guy like Vonnegut as not a real American, which was probably true enough in Vonnegut's time too. And this itself is no fault of Vonnegut's. What I object to is the cheapness of the tactic.
The fact that I came to use the word tactic, I think speaks volumes about this work. I don't think I would that word while discussing Vonnegut at his best. A tactic is used by someone with an argument to make. And though I would never say Vonnegut is not making an argument in his works - He is a deeply moral author with something to say about how we should live - I would say that the body of his arguments are not so nakedly evident in his best work.
No Vonnegut's pedanticism is hidden in his best works behind his wild creativity, entertaining characters, and brilliantly funny humor. This work does have its share of entertaining characters and at times the humor is as legitimately funny as anything in literature. But again, there are moments when the Vonnegut schtick grates. And again, it often feels as though Vonnegut is a little too smug about the whole thing. And there's that creepy feeling you get where someone seems to be showing their respect for the "working man," but you get the sense, not exactly that Vonnegut doesn't respect them, but that the respect is misapplied and that there is a fundamental disrespect congruent with the sincere respect. Like he respects the working man, but also knows that he could never be one, and lurking in his mind is the belief that this is so because he is in small but important ways better.
That's the charge at its most naked with minimal dancing around. I hate to put it that baldly, but I try to put plainly what I find off-putting in the tone of Vonnegut's writing at times like these and it is the best I can do. Nonetheless, this is one of those Vonnegut books that should be read like some people read the Bible. The world would be a better place if more people read this book. It's just not among his best.
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
Seen for the second time in January 2013.
"Kiss Kiss Bang Bang" is a movie that tries too hard. It tries too hard in every conceivable way. It tries too hard to be clever. It tries too hard to be funny. It tries too hard to be cool. And it mostly fails. But I chuckled a few times, and as far as violent and expletive filled suspense thrillers as light entertainment go, this was indeed lightly entertaining.
Some ideas, like the gay private eye, are pretty good if not irritating as often as they are enjoyable. The irritation level on this highly self-conscious movie is fairly high. But it's not a bad movie. It's just very smug and too fond of its own cleverness. It's a very shallow showy cleverness that wields itself like a sledgehammer forcing you to acknowledge how funny it finds itself. It's like meeting some drunk yuppie at a bar faking some foreign accent and saying different variations of the same thing over and over again, winking heavily and nudging you in the ribs each time, until you respond despite the fact that you've been politely trying to ignore him. Maybe it's not clever after all, so much as it's persistent and perversely confident.
Also, to tell the truth, I am not what you would call a fan of Robert Downey Jr. though he's nebbishly good here. I do like Val Kilmer and this is otherwise well cast. But trying to tackle a serious subject like child sexual abuse is sort of a misstep. It comes off more exploitative than serious. I say leave that stuff for the Lifetime movies starring Meredith Baxter Birney of my childhood memories, and leave the light entertainment light. Note to filmmakers, it doesn't make your superficially stylish, sweary, violent fun-times movie "better" if you get "serious" for a moment. It's a cheap trick and it actually makes your movie worse.
And yeah, I guess I watched it for a second time. I realized I had seen it before about 10 minutes into the movie. What can I say, I've spent much of my life drinking heavily and watching movies. So I forgot about this one. In my defense, it's a fairly forgettable movie. Grade B-.
"Kiss Kiss Bang Bang" is a movie that tries too hard. It tries too hard in every conceivable way. It tries too hard to be clever. It tries too hard to be funny. It tries too hard to be cool. And it mostly fails. But I chuckled a few times, and as far as violent and expletive filled suspense thrillers as light entertainment go, this was indeed lightly entertaining.
Some ideas, like the gay private eye, are pretty good if not irritating as often as they are enjoyable. The irritation level on this highly self-conscious movie is fairly high. But it's not a bad movie. It's just very smug and too fond of its own cleverness. It's a very shallow showy cleverness that wields itself like a sledgehammer forcing you to acknowledge how funny it finds itself. It's like meeting some drunk yuppie at a bar faking some foreign accent and saying different variations of the same thing over and over again, winking heavily and nudging you in the ribs each time, until you respond despite the fact that you've been politely trying to ignore him. Maybe it's not clever after all, so much as it's persistent and perversely confident.
Also, to tell the truth, I am not what you would call a fan of Robert Downey Jr. though he's nebbishly good here. I do like Val Kilmer and this is otherwise well cast. But trying to tackle a serious subject like child sexual abuse is sort of a misstep. It comes off more exploitative than serious. I say leave that stuff for the Lifetime movies starring Meredith Baxter Birney of my childhood memories, and leave the light entertainment light. Note to filmmakers, it doesn't make your superficially stylish, sweary, violent fun-times movie "better" if you get "serious" for a moment. It's a cheap trick and it actually makes your movie worse.
And yeah, I guess I watched it for a second time. I realized I had seen it before about 10 minutes into the movie. What can I say, I've spent much of my life drinking heavily and watching movies. So I forgot about this one. In my defense, it's a fairly forgettable movie. Grade B-.
The Dead Zone - David Cronenberg
Seen for the first time in January 2013.
Putting Christopher Walken as the lead role in "The Dead Zone" is some crazy yet brilliant casting. I don't know if it's perfect casting but it's definitely inspired. Walken is so off-putting and it works well with the creepy and ominous atmosphere this film has going for it, but I can't help but wonder how it would play with a different actor.
But this is of no import. "The Dead Zone" is probably the very best adaption of a Stephen King novel bar none, which when faithful tend to err on the side of the boring for long stretches. And which when non-faithful there exists no easily applicable generalization. But suffice it to say Cronenberg delivers a strong movie here. I am not generally fan, but this is a great effort.
The ending in particular is brilliant. First of all, Michael Douglas's final actions are hilarious.And then the overblown pathos of Christopher Walken's final moments is almost camp. But it works. Grade A-.
Putting Christopher Walken as the lead role in "The Dead Zone" is some crazy yet brilliant casting. I don't know if it's perfect casting but it's definitely inspired. Walken is so off-putting and it works well with the creepy and ominous atmosphere this film has going for it, but I can't help but wonder how it would play with a different actor.
But this is of no import. "The Dead Zone" is probably the very best adaption of a Stephen King novel bar none, which when faithful tend to err on the side of the boring for long stretches. And which when non-faithful there exists no easily applicable generalization. But suffice it to say Cronenberg delivers a strong movie here. I am not generally fan, but this is a great effort.
The ending in particular is brilliant. First of all, Michael Douglas's final actions are hilarious.And then the overblown pathos of Christopher Walken's final moments is almost camp. But it works. Grade A-.
Monday, January 7, 2013
Two thousand Maniacs - Herschell Gordon Lewis
Seen for the first time in January 2013.
"Two Thousand Maniacs" is a cartoonish film about the animus of small town southerners toward northerners and is plainly exploitative in nature. It's entertaining enough, but nothing special really. The plot is a contrivance for the display of creative for its time and gory for its time ways of killing people. Toward the end there's a weird little hick Dennis the Menace character with a southern accent who is annoying as anything but in a weird way is a highlight of the movie. Herschell Gordon Lewis made a mistake in not having the protagonists off that kid. It's a mistake I'm confident that a more modern director wouldn't make. It's not a question of clouding our sympathies for the protagonists, but a question of giving the audience what it wants, which is what a movie like this ought to do. You know, Herschell Gordon Lewis was a pioneer of sorts, but who gives a shit. He's made better movies. This one is just okay. Grade B-.
"Two Thousand Maniacs" is a cartoonish film about the animus of small town southerners toward northerners and is plainly exploitative in nature. It's entertaining enough, but nothing special really. The plot is a contrivance for the display of creative for its time and gory for its time ways of killing people. Toward the end there's a weird little hick Dennis the Menace character with a southern accent who is annoying as anything but in a weird way is a highlight of the movie. Herschell Gordon Lewis made a mistake in not having the protagonists off that kid. It's a mistake I'm confident that a more modern director wouldn't make. It's not a question of clouding our sympathies for the protagonists, but a question of giving the audience what it wants, which is what a movie like this ought to do. You know, Herschell Gordon Lewis was a pioneer of sorts, but who gives a shit. He's made better movies. This one is just okay. Grade B-.
Sunday, January 6, 2013
And God Created Woman
Seen for the first time in January 2012.
"And God Created Woman" is a fairly slight movie for the bulk of its duration. We seemingly have a good-hearted trollop, iconically played by Brigitte Bardot, surrounded by wolves, by who's machinations she ends up marrying a likeable and sympathetic guy. But maybe and by "maybe" I mean "obviously," she is in love with her husband's brother who is attracted to her but put off by her wild ways. Husband and wife try their damnedest to make each other happy, but the wolves are circling, and of course she succumbs to temptation.
This is where the movie gets good. The tension builds and she goes into a frenzy of dancing in a pretty good scene toward the end. And the ambiguity of the ending works pretty well. Will she ever make that poor fellow happy or will she just drive him to misery? We don't know, but me, I wish 'em the best. Grade B-.
"And God Created Woman" is a fairly slight movie for the bulk of its duration. We seemingly have a good-hearted trollop, iconically played by Brigitte Bardot, surrounded by wolves, by who's machinations she ends up marrying a likeable and sympathetic guy. But maybe and by "maybe" I mean "obviously," she is in love with her husband's brother who is attracted to her but put off by her wild ways. Husband and wife try their damnedest to make each other happy, but the wolves are circling, and of course she succumbs to temptation.
This is where the movie gets good. The tension builds and she goes into a frenzy of dancing in a pretty good scene toward the end. And the ambiguity of the ending works pretty well. Will she ever make that poor fellow happy or will she just drive him to misery? We don't know, but me, I wish 'em the best. Grade B-.
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Django Unchained - Quentin Tarantino
Seen in the theater for the first time in January 2013.
I thought I would never again utter the words "that might be his best movie" about a new Tarantino movie, but that's exactly what I found myself saying after finishing "Django Unchained." I think the key thing about this movie is the love story. It's something that's really lacking in Tarantino's other movies. This is the fitst time that Tarantino has filmed genuinely moving scenes. The closest he has come before was in "Jackie Brown" (and to some extent "Reservoir Dogs"), but the stakes are so much higher here.
And this is an important point in comparison to "Inglorious Basterds," where the stakes somehow don't feel as high or as real, where Tarantino basically made a stupid cartoon. I nicknamed Tarantino "the master of cartoon violence" after that film and I meant it as a complement. It's quite a thing to be, but it was little more than transferring what's great about "Kill Bill Vol. 1" to WWII and making what felt like a dumb cartoon, where many of Tarantino's signature elements and obsessions grated highly.
Django on the other hand deals with its material in a genuine way. It's hard not to call much of it a cartoon as well, but it nonetheless deals with the subject in a such a serious way that the cartoonish elements work within and in complement to a larger more serious framework. Tarantino gets many little details right as well, and the racial component was surprisingly nuanced in my opinion. Most obviously in the form of Samuel L. Jackson's character, but also even in Django himself, who's willing to sacrifice other slaves in the pursuit of his own goals. A detail Tarantino gets wrong however is when Candie's sister brings Hildy to Schulz's room. This is something a southern lady would have pretended not to know about. But even here, I wonder if Tarantino's version isn't better. Sometimes art must lie to tell bigger truths.
Strangely I was not dazzled by the violence here as I have been by other Tarantino films. Of course the film is incredibly violent, but it doesn't stand out as a dazzling tour de force of violent extravaganza the way the first Kill Bill did upon seeing it in the theater. I feel like, as in Tarantino's first three movies, the story and the film stand up on its own without the incredibly stylish violence.
And yet at the end of the day I am still not 100% convinced it's his best film. It's something I'll have to ruminate on more and frankly, I'll probably have to re-screen it and see how it holds up. It's a long movie, after all, and while I'm still dizzy from the thrills, I can't help but wonder how much bloat is in here. But I'm inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt. This is Tarantino for the first time in a long time wrestling with serious impulses and perhaps biting off more than he can chew. But I think I favor it. If "Kill Bill Vol. 1" is a stunning display of his mastery of cartoon violence and "Inglorious Basterds" is his cartoon treatment of the holocaust, then "Django Unchained" is a perhaps imperfect mix of Tarantino's cartoonishness and seiousness. His first three movies mixed the cartoonishness and seriousness more expertly, but the stakes were also much lower. Grade A.
I thought I would never again utter the words "that might be his best movie" about a new Tarantino movie, but that's exactly what I found myself saying after finishing "Django Unchained." I think the key thing about this movie is the love story. It's something that's really lacking in Tarantino's other movies. This is the fitst time that Tarantino has filmed genuinely moving scenes. The closest he has come before was in "Jackie Brown" (and to some extent "Reservoir Dogs"), but the stakes are so much higher here.
And this is an important point in comparison to "Inglorious Basterds," where the stakes somehow don't feel as high or as real, where Tarantino basically made a stupid cartoon. I nicknamed Tarantino "the master of cartoon violence" after that film and I meant it as a complement. It's quite a thing to be, but it was little more than transferring what's great about "Kill Bill Vol. 1" to WWII and making what felt like a dumb cartoon, where many of Tarantino's signature elements and obsessions grated highly.
Django on the other hand deals with its material in a genuine way. It's hard not to call much of it a cartoon as well, but it nonetheless deals with the subject in a such a serious way that the cartoonish elements work within and in complement to a larger more serious framework. Tarantino gets many little details right as well, and the racial component was surprisingly nuanced in my opinion. Most obviously in the form of Samuel L. Jackson's character, but also even in Django himself, who's willing to sacrifice other slaves in the pursuit of his own goals. A detail Tarantino gets wrong however is when Candie's sister brings Hildy to Schulz's room. This is something a southern lady would have pretended not to know about. But even here, I wonder if Tarantino's version isn't better. Sometimes art must lie to tell bigger truths.
Strangely I was not dazzled by the violence here as I have been by other Tarantino films. Of course the film is incredibly violent, but it doesn't stand out as a dazzling tour de force of violent extravaganza the way the first Kill Bill did upon seeing it in the theater. I feel like, as in Tarantino's first three movies, the story and the film stand up on its own without the incredibly stylish violence.
And yet at the end of the day I am still not 100% convinced it's his best film. It's something I'll have to ruminate on more and frankly, I'll probably have to re-screen it and see how it holds up. It's a long movie, after all, and while I'm still dizzy from the thrills, I can't help but wonder how much bloat is in here. But I'm inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt. This is Tarantino for the first time in a long time wrestling with serious impulses and perhaps biting off more than he can chew. But I think I favor it. If "Kill Bill Vol. 1" is a stunning display of his mastery of cartoon violence and "Inglorious Basterds" is his cartoon treatment of the holocaust, then "Django Unchained" is a perhaps imperfect mix of Tarantino's cartoonishness and seiousness. His first three movies mixed the cartoonishness and seriousness more expertly, but the stakes were also much lower. Grade A.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)