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-.
Monday, February 25, 2013
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-.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)