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.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
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)