Seen for the first time in December 2012.
"Darling" is a very dull movie. Grade D.
Friday, December 28, 2012
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Game of Thrones
Over the past two months, I've watched the first season of "Game of Thrones" on DVD and found it interesting to compare to the source material to which it is largely faithful. Some background: I read the five books that have thus far been written in this saga over this past summer at the suggestion of a woman upon whom I had certain designs. She said they were about "zombies and incest" and I thought that could be good, and I wanted to have something to talk about with her. So I picked up "Game of Thrones" at the bookstore with a certain skepticism upon seeing its cover.
I quickly realized that "Game of Thrones" was actually some kind of Renaissance Fair bullshit that I never would have read on my own. The prose itself is of the fantasy variety that I have difficulty imbibing without triggering a gag reflex. Nonetheless, I couldn't stop reading. Once I got a couple hundred pages in, I told myself I was going to finish the book, but I wasn't going to bother with the others. But then I bought the second one. Of course, by the end of the third one, which is the best of the lot, I was committed to finishing the series. Only to discover that the series hadn't been finished yet.
Despite this avid reading, I nonetheless thought the books were kind of terrible. My main complaints were of course the terrible fantasy prose, but also Martin's creepy sexual fantasies littering the pages. Also, basically, all the Bran chapters are probably what its like to read the Harry Potter books about 12 year old boys doing magic and shit. Basically a huge component of these books just doesn't interest me. Nonetheless, Martin has a talent for plot and the political intrigues especially are quite engaging.
In the end, I decided to watch the television show with some trepidation and rather low expectations. But the television show, it turns out, is really really great. All of Martin's flaws as a writer are gone, leaving only the things that he is good at: plot, intrigue, dialogue, like-able characters. The show is nothing short of awesome.
But let me also give Martin some credit. In hindsight, part of what I didn't enjoy about "Game of Thrones" when I read it had to do with my own assumptions. I assumed that Ned Stark was going to bring justice to the realm or whatever, and later at least that the arc of the story was about justice for the Starks. And so I read with the idea of basically waiting for the vindication of the good guys. And Stark seemed like a like-able enough character that I wanted to read to see this happen. But I expected a sort of typical fantasy story line.
In hindsight, Martin was totally upending my shit and I respect him for it. Ned Stark is actually kind of a boring asshole, and the Lannister's are great villains. We're not going to watch the Lannister's be brought to justice so much as we're going to wallow in their vanity and charismatic cruelty. Also, hats off to Martin for taking the evil ugly dwarf character and making him sympathetic. It's a similarly great move when you think about it.
Watching the show brought a lot of this home for me. While the books aren't really better than I thought they were, Martin is doing something more interesting than I thought he was. At least for the first three books anyway. Nonetheless, the show is a lot better. One of the ways that this is apparent is in the handling of the sex scenes. There are those who think HBO's tittiness is overkill. I disagree. In the books, the sex scenes are all basically creepy and off-putting, their luridness undone by Martin's flaws as a writer barely able to conceal his own erection. On the television show, these scenes are shot by talented film-makers. This makes all the difference.
It's not merely a difference between visual stimuli and the written word as a theoretical matter either. Henry Miller was talented at writing about fucking. And the sex scenes in the original Swedish (never saw the American remake) "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" film were off-putting in a similarly sophomorically lurid way. The rape scene in that, for example, was all about creepy boners, and the revenge scene doesn't justify those creepy boners, especially when the revenge scene itself is all about establishing Lisbeth Salander as a vehicle for fan-boy boners.
Which can bring us to Daenerys Targaryen and the difference between her rape on her wedding night to Khal Drogo in the HBO version and the reluctant seduction as depicted by Martin. I prefer the HBO depiction. It seems more honest to me. I've read commentary, that is convincing enough, that Martin's approach is more interesting and is more effective at illuminating Daenerys's (and it's a shame that no human being could look like the silver haired anime style cartoon character that I had imagined she looked like) character. But I feel more politically comfortable with what HBO chose to do with that wedding night scene. I think writing about the gentle and moist seduction of a just purchased child slave bride is... icky. Depicting it as the rape of a frightened child seems more True to me. But you can't win for losing George. Martin writing that as a rape probably would have grossed me out too.
All in all, I think Martin shouldn't even bother writing more books. I think he should just give HBO an outline for the rest of the saga, if he even need to be involved at all at this point, and let HBO sex it up as they see fit. It'd be better this way.
By the way, Joffrey's petulant, entitled whininess is so much more fun to watch on television than it was to read.
I quickly realized that "Game of Thrones" was actually some kind of Renaissance Fair bullshit that I never would have read on my own. The prose itself is of the fantasy variety that I have difficulty imbibing without triggering a gag reflex. Nonetheless, I couldn't stop reading. Once I got a couple hundred pages in, I told myself I was going to finish the book, but I wasn't going to bother with the others. But then I bought the second one. Of course, by the end of the third one, which is the best of the lot, I was committed to finishing the series. Only to discover that the series hadn't been finished yet.
Despite this avid reading, I nonetheless thought the books were kind of terrible. My main complaints were of course the terrible fantasy prose, but also Martin's creepy sexual fantasies littering the pages. Also, basically, all the Bran chapters are probably what its like to read the Harry Potter books about 12 year old boys doing magic and shit. Basically a huge component of these books just doesn't interest me. Nonetheless, Martin has a talent for plot and the political intrigues especially are quite engaging.
In the end, I decided to watch the television show with some trepidation and rather low expectations. But the television show, it turns out, is really really great. All of Martin's flaws as a writer are gone, leaving only the things that he is good at: plot, intrigue, dialogue, like-able characters. The show is nothing short of awesome.
But let me also give Martin some credit. In hindsight, part of what I didn't enjoy about "Game of Thrones" when I read it had to do with my own assumptions. I assumed that Ned Stark was going to bring justice to the realm or whatever, and later at least that the arc of the story was about justice for the Starks. And so I read with the idea of basically waiting for the vindication of the good guys. And Stark seemed like a like-able enough character that I wanted to read to see this happen. But I expected a sort of typical fantasy story line.
In hindsight, Martin was totally upending my shit and I respect him for it. Ned Stark is actually kind of a boring asshole, and the Lannister's are great villains. We're not going to watch the Lannister's be brought to justice so much as we're going to wallow in their vanity and charismatic cruelty. Also, hats off to Martin for taking the evil ugly dwarf character and making him sympathetic. It's a similarly great move when you think about it.
Watching the show brought a lot of this home for me. While the books aren't really better than I thought they were, Martin is doing something more interesting than I thought he was. At least for the first three books anyway. Nonetheless, the show is a lot better. One of the ways that this is apparent is in the handling of the sex scenes. There are those who think HBO's tittiness is overkill. I disagree. In the books, the sex scenes are all basically creepy and off-putting, their luridness undone by Martin's flaws as a writer barely able to conceal his own erection. On the television show, these scenes are shot by talented film-makers. This makes all the difference.
It's not merely a difference between visual stimuli and the written word as a theoretical matter either. Henry Miller was talented at writing about fucking. And the sex scenes in the original Swedish (never saw the American remake) "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" film were off-putting in a similarly sophomorically lurid way. The rape scene in that, for example, was all about creepy boners, and the revenge scene doesn't justify those creepy boners, especially when the revenge scene itself is all about establishing Lisbeth Salander as a vehicle for fan-boy boners.
Which can bring us to Daenerys Targaryen and the difference between her rape on her wedding night to Khal Drogo in the HBO version and the reluctant seduction as depicted by Martin. I prefer the HBO depiction. It seems more honest to me. I've read commentary, that is convincing enough, that Martin's approach is more interesting and is more effective at illuminating Daenerys's (and it's a shame that no human being could look like the silver haired anime style cartoon character that I had imagined she looked like) character. But I feel more politically comfortable with what HBO chose to do with that wedding night scene. I think writing about the gentle and moist seduction of a just purchased child slave bride is... icky. Depicting it as the rape of a frightened child seems more True to me. But you can't win for losing George. Martin writing that as a rape probably would have grossed me out too.
All in all, I think Martin shouldn't even bother writing more books. I think he should just give HBO an outline for the rest of the saga, if he even need to be involved at all at this point, and let HBO sex it up as they see fit. It'd be better this way.
By the way, Joffrey's petulant, entitled whininess is so much more fun to watch on television than it was to read.
Strangers on a Train - Alfred Hitchcock
Seen for the first time in December 2012.
"Strangers on a Train" is Hitchcock at his best. Tightly plotted and efficient delivery of suspense. Hitchcock working with source material from Patricia Highsmith is an exciting combination, and this totally delivers. Bruno is a great villain, some kind of homosexual socialite with an Oedipal complex, played very well by a creepy Kevin Spacey looking fellow.
The guy who plays Guy, on the other hand, is the worst actor in this. He is at times too staged and theatrical, ultimately delivering a stiff performance of a seemingly constipated character, though ultimately sympathetic and so no real harm done.
There are some nice laughs in here as well. Hitchcock doesn't always leaven things, but when he does he generally succeeds. The only boring part is the tennis game, which was supposed to be suspenseful, but could have been executed better. The scene on the merry-go-round on the other hand is one of the very best scenes in the history of cinema.
Ultimately, this is a perfect Hitchcock. Not as jaw-dropping as the first time you watch the end of "Vertigo," but certainly with more replay value and just as good as "Psycho" or "Rear Window." A tightly plotted thriller with no meandering or waste of any kind, plenty of tension, and a wonderfully creepy antagonist. Also this is historically probably the first film about a famous person and an unhinged fan. Grade A.
"Strangers on a Train" is Hitchcock at his best. Tightly plotted and efficient delivery of suspense. Hitchcock working with source material from Patricia Highsmith is an exciting combination, and this totally delivers. Bruno is a great villain, some kind of homosexual socialite with an Oedipal complex, played very well by a creepy Kevin Spacey looking fellow.
The guy who plays Guy, on the other hand, is the worst actor in this. He is at times too staged and theatrical, ultimately delivering a stiff performance of a seemingly constipated character, though ultimately sympathetic and so no real harm done.
There are some nice laughs in here as well. Hitchcock doesn't always leaven things, but when he does he generally succeeds. The only boring part is the tennis game, which was supposed to be suspenseful, but could have been executed better. The scene on the merry-go-round on the other hand is one of the very best scenes in the history of cinema.
Ultimately, this is a perfect Hitchcock. Not as jaw-dropping as the first time you watch the end of "Vertigo," but certainly with more replay value and just as good as "Psycho" or "Rear Window." A tightly plotted thriller with no meandering or waste of any kind, plenty of tension, and a wonderfully creepy antagonist. Also this is historically probably the first film about a famous person and an unhinged fan. Grade A.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
The Enforcer
Seen for the first time in December 2012.
At first, "The Enforcer" seems like a generic Bogart film and a generic film noir as well. This would be fine as generic noir and generic Bogart are both pretty enjoyable and certainly better than bad noir or stale Bogart. But the off-putting thing is watching these cops in the 1950's who have never heard of a murder referred to as a "contract" or a "hit" by bad guy types. Watching this in what is near to anno domini 2013, this sounds silly. Naive even. Certainly almost insultingly so.
Nevertheless, the film ultimately begins to sizzle. We can see the twist involve the cab-driver's daughter a mile away. Certainly the moment he says "big blue eyes," we cotton on to where this is going. And Bogart playing a recording back at least three times to drive that home, is not only overkill but unbelievable. Also it's really damn strange that someone shoots at this guy Rico through a window, and then as soon as he can he's sticking his head out another window. Like you think that'd shake a man up enough to keep him away from windows for a while.
But the end is so tense. And the whole story comes together in a nice entertaining way. It's not Bogart at his best, but this film is very watchable, and the ending is as tense and suspenseful as any ten minutes in film. Okay, maybe not as tense as the end of "Vertigo." But as tense as any ten minutes in nearly any other film. Grade B+.
At first, "The Enforcer" seems like a generic Bogart film and a generic film noir as well. This would be fine as generic noir and generic Bogart are both pretty enjoyable and certainly better than bad noir or stale Bogart. But the off-putting thing is watching these cops in the 1950's who have never heard of a murder referred to as a "contract" or a "hit" by bad guy types. Watching this in what is near to anno domini 2013, this sounds silly. Naive even. Certainly almost insultingly so.
Nevertheless, the film ultimately begins to sizzle. We can see the twist involve the cab-driver's daughter a mile away. Certainly the moment he says "big blue eyes," we cotton on to where this is going. And Bogart playing a recording back at least three times to drive that home, is not only overkill but unbelievable. Also it's really damn strange that someone shoots at this guy Rico through a window, and then as soon as he can he's sticking his head out another window. Like you think that'd shake a man up enough to keep him away from windows for a while.
But the end is so tense. And the whole story comes together in a nice entertaining way. It's not Bogart at his best, but this film is very watchable, and the ending is as tense and suspenseful as any ten minutes in film. Okay, maybe not as tense as the end of "Vertigo." But as tense as any ten minutes in nearly any other film. Grade B+.
Aaah! Zombies!
Seen for the first time in December 2012.
"Aaah! Zombies!" is almost a good movie. I really like the premise or at least it almost convinces me that this movie was made with a good idea in mind. But it's really uneven in quality. When the pace starts to lag it relies on silliness and a faux campiness to force itself past the plodding dullness. It more or less works though. In the right frame of mind, this is an entertainingly silly movie.
It's also completely forgettable. I've already forgotten how it ends, but for the vague notion that despite some heroic sacrifices there is more or less a happy ending. But I can't even remember if a certain key character survives or not. Don't care either.
I might also like this better if it seemed a little less professionally done. All of the flaws in this movie are in the script, in the sense that not every scene was thought out in a way that makes sense within the larger framework of the picture. This sort of film would work better with the sort of low-fidelity flaws one finds in good indie or schlock cinema.
One final observation I made while watching this film, the word "douchebag" used as an insult is used exclusively by people who are themselves douchebags. This is similar to the word "bama," where a similar principle applies. Other than that, I mostly found the characters in this movie to be more charismatic than not. Grade B-.
"Aaah! Zombies!" is almost a good movie. I really like the premise or at least it almost convinces me that this movie was made with a good idea in mind. But it's really uneven in quality. When the pace starts to lag it relies on silliness and a faux campiness to force itself past the plodding dullness. It more or less works though. In the right frame of mind, this is an entertainingly silly movie.
It's also completely forgettable. I've already forgotten how it ends, but for the vague notion that despite some heroic sacrifices there is more or less a happy ending. But I can't even remember if a certain key character survives or not. Don't care either.
I might also like this better if it seemed a little less professionally done. All of the flaws in this movie are in the script, in the sense that not every scene was thought out in a way that makes sense within the larger framework of the picture. This sort of film would work better with the sort of low-fidelity flaws one finds in good indie or schlock cinema.
One final observation I made while watching this film, the word "douchebag" used as an insult is used exclusively by people who are themselves douchebags. This is similar to the word "bama," where a similar principle applies. Other than that, I mostly found the characters in this movie to be more charismatic than not. Grade B-.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Violent Cop
Seen for the first time in December 2012.
"Violent Cop" moves at a glacial pace, but is nonetheless, very intense. It's like a Japanese Taxi Driver, except about a tough cop who cuts corners and plays a little rough with the criminals. The police officers he is forced to work with are all, to a man, complete jokes and total incompetents. The tough cop finds out one of his colleagues is pushing dope and we mentally prepare ourselves for the violence to come. But the violence builds slowly, and when it comes, it comes with a disturbing bang. Grade B.
"Violent Cop" moves at a glacial pace, but is nonetheless, very intense. It's like a Japanese Taxi Driver, except about a tough cop who cuts corners and plays a little rough with the criminals. The police officers he is forced to work with are all, to a man, complete jokes and total incompetents. The tough cop finds out one of his colleagues is pushing dope and we mentally prepare ourselves for the violence to come. But the violence builds slowly, and when it comes, it comes with a disturbing bang. Grade B.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
The Beyond - Lucio Fulci
Seen for the first time in December 2012.
In 1981, "The Beyond" must have represented a huge advancement in the realm of cinematic gore, or at the very least, an apotheosis; the accomplishment that purveyors of gore had been working toward since the days of Herschell Gordon Lewis in the mid 60's. I'm tempted to say that the gore in "The Beyond" is not gratuitous, but that would be absurd. Of course the gore is gratuitous, but it is also necessary. Gore is the raison d'etre of this film, after all. And a sense of relish and excitement pervades the work. The same sort of excitement that occurs when new ground is being broken.
Beyond the gore, "The Beyond" does everything a horror film is supposed to do. It frightens and startles. It has creepy moments and suspenseful ones. It does not merely depict frightened people being tortured and mutilated creating a backdrop against which we might assume a studied pose. It affects the audience in these traditional horror ways, and the gore complements the film rather than stands in for it, like so many films of the gore-fest and torture porn variety do today.
The gore by today's standards is probably cheap. Certainly filmakers since Fulci with bigger budgets have achieved a higher verisimilitude of human offal. But the gore is as real as it needs to be for the purposes of this film. And its made up for by Fulci's lingering camera which never misses a moment nor cuts away too quickly from any of the violence, producing a movie more unsettling and disturbing than most of today's sadistic magic shows. This movie really is something special. Grade A.
In 1981, "The Beyond" must have represented a huge advancement in the realm of cinematic gore, or at the very least, an apotheosis; the accomplishment that purveyors of gore had been working toward since the days of Herschell Gordon Lewis in the mid 60's. I'm tempted to say that the gore in "The Beyond" is not gratuitous, but that would be absurd. Of course the gore is gratuitous, but it is also necessary. Gore is the raison d'etre of this film, after all. And a sense of relish and excitement pervades the work. The same sort of excitement that occurs when new ground is being broken.
Beyond the gore, "The Beyond" does everything a horror film is supposed to do. It frightens and startles. It has creepy moments and suspenseful ones. It does not merely depict frightened people being tortured and mutilated creating a backdrop against which we might assume a studied pose. It affects the audience in these traditional horror ways, and the gore complements the film rather than stands in for it, like so many films of the gore-fest and torture porn variety do today.
The gore by today's standards is probably cheap. Certainly filmakers since Fulci with bigger budgets have achieved a higher verisimilitude of human offal. But the gore is as real as it needs to be for the purposes of this film. And its made up for by Fulci's lingering camera which never misses a moment nor cuts away too quickly from any of the violence, producing a movie more unsettling and disturbing than most of today's sadistic magic shows. This movie really is something special. Grade A.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)