Rent and see the "unrated" version. This could be the most over-the-top live action film since "Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle." What appeals to me is the extremely extreme toilet humor: it is meant to send the audience into hysterics, rather than challenge cultural mores or push the envelope. That envelope was pushed long ago... What's perhaps not appreciated of Harold and Kumar is their genuine lack of immaturity. Say what? Indeed, they're adults and get themselves into adult situations, albeit bad ones. They also do their best to get themselves out of said situations by their own bootstraps. Harold works for a living, Kumar will, soon, blaze through medical school. Buut for now, it's time to light up... This kind of high-minded, deadpan bathroom humor can trace itself back to Monty Python's Flying Circus. The drug humor is a direct descendant of the best of the Cheech and Chong films (my favorite is "Nice Dreams"). The completely off-the-wall physical comedy is straight out of a Three Stooges playbook. Watching "Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay," last night, I realized that I was watching an NC-17 version of "The Great White North," where the Mackenzie brothers scheme to get free beer but end up getting involved in a nefarious conspiracy... all the time either not really caring or questioning things that look out of the ordinary. Consider their brief stint at Gitmo: when faced with the imminent prospects of a "cockmeat sandwich," Kumar, rather than think his way out of the situation, is genuinely perplexed at the sexuality of the guards. he's not trying to be slick or think his way out of things: he really wants to know - a very funny "how can you think of such things at a time like this" moment. Most of the film is like that and, of course, Neil Patrick Harris' reprise of his "Ubermensch" persona outdoes what he did in 2004.
Reviews
19 Reviews
Next Stop, Greenwich Village
(1976)
"Friends" 1953
22 February 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I saw it yesterday... I liked it, being a part of a "bohemian" writers group in the early 1990s, I got the vibe of the film.
SPOILERS However, for me, the movie had an ugliness that I don't think was intended by the director: The sharing of Sarah's abortion, from the initial decision to the actual work, should've had more "punch" - it's almost as if no one cared, or considered it not a big deal (Sarah does, later, though, but maybe the impact isn't that much).
Suicide. Man, if one of my friends - a best friend - was *that* suicidal, there would be some real action. At the time, the loony bin probably would've been the right place, with a lobotomy, 'natch.
This is a disguised R-rated version of "Friends," though they're younger, more stupid, and yet more grown-up, but, but, aren't there some serious wars going on? I didn't catch that anyone got drafted or that anyone had older siblings who were killed in WWII, etc.
When the movie came out, I was 13 and my parents, both of whom were in their late teens in 1953, expressed no interest in this movie. I don't necessarily know why, but when the Academy Awards show was on, later, I asked what the movie was about, was it about a subway ride? I recall my mother saying "it's about New York City in the 1950's" or something like that.
Worth seeing because the acting on all fronts is really good and it's fun to see Christopher Walken in what is an uncharacteristic role - at least after all these years. Antonio Fargas is really amazing, but I wish the film had gone a bit deeper into his story, or at least developed him some more (like, what does he do for art?). Shelly Winters is superb to the point that her scenes are hard to separate from reality.
SPOILERS However, for me, the movie had an ugliness that I don't think was intended by the director: The sharing of Sarah's abortion, from the initial decision to the actual work, should've had more "punch" - it's almost as if no one cared, or considered it not a big deal (Sarah does, later, though, but maybe the impact isn't that much).
Suicide. Man, if one of my friends - a best friend - was *that* suicidal, there would be some real action. At the time, the loony bin probably would've been the right place, with a lobotomy, 'natch.
This is a disguised R-rated version of "Friends," though they're younger, more stupid, and yet more grown-up, but, but, aren't there some serious wars going on? I didn't catch that anyone got drafted or that anyone had older siblings who were killed in WWII, etc.
When the movie came out, I was 13 and my parents, both of whom were in their late teens in 1953, expressed no interest in this movie. I don't necessarily know why, but when the Academy Awards show was on, later, I asked what the movie was about, was it about a subway ride? I recall my mother saying "it's about New York City in the 1950's" or something like that.
Worth seeing because the acting on all fronts is really good and it's fun to see Christopher Walken in what is an uncharacteristic role - at least after all these years. Antonio Fargas is really amazing, but I wish the film had gone a bit deeper into his story, or at least developed him some more (like, what does he do for art?). Shelly Winters is superb to the point that her scenes are hard to separate from reality.
Lipstick
(1976)
Better than I Imagined
1 February 2009
Warning: Spoilers
***Spoilers*** The general plot of "Lipstick" is typical fare for an episode of "Law and Order: SVU" - and it could be done, just take out the profanity and breasts.
I saw "Lipstick" last night. I remember when it came out, and it being an "R" and me being 13, no way would I see it. My parents, after reading the poor reviews, had no interest in seeing it, either.
So finally, the wife rents it - she'd not seen it either when it was released, but remembered it. Now, the blurb on the DVD envelope read as if this would have been a mediocre Law and Order episode. That, and just recalling the name of the film, there's a picture in my mind's eye of Margaux Hemingway holding a rifle.
Too bad the film was marketed this way because it cheapened the product.
This is a tense, psychological thriller; it's a great courtroom drama; and it's a showcase for great acting. The trial scenes and the pretrial work by Anne Bancroft as the District Attorney (or something - the prosecutor?) haven't been matched by Law and Order - yet. Chris Sarandon proves that he is an amazing actor. I don't know if I've hated an on-screen personality so much.
And what an interesting character: not only does he have a sado-violent side, but he's an experimental musician - at a good time in history (the mid-1970's) as he'd be influenced by Can, Tangerine Dream, UK, Walter (not yet Wendy) Carlos, et al. And he's a tortured artist - so much so that he can't control it, etc., etc.
The ending... Yes, the ending... That mental picture in my head - from some newspaper ad - is about half a second of the ending. This isn't about revenge, it's not about a woman who's had enough or is out for justice herself: it is about a woman who SPONTANEOUSLY does what needs to be done. It's the unexpected spontaneity of the act that takes what could have been a simply "vengence" movie and turns it into something as near=real as it can get. I'd compare the film with "Taxi Driver" though without the seediness (which was necessary to Taxi Driver).
I saw "Lipstick" last night. I remember when it came out, and it being an "R" and me being 13, no way would I see it. My parents, after reading the poor reviews, had no interest in seeing it, either.
So finally, the wife rents it - she'd not seen it either when it was released, but remembered it. Now, the blurb on the DVD envelope read as if this would have been a mediocre Law and Order episode. That, and just recalling the name of the film, there's a picture in my mind's eye of Margaux Hemingway holding a rifle.
Too bad the film was marketed this way because it cheapened the product.
This is a tense, psychological thriller; it's a great courtroom drama; and it's a showcase for great acting. The trial scenes and the pretrial work by Anne Bancroft as the District Attorney (or something - the prosecutor?) haven't been matched by Law and Order - yet. Chris Sarandon proves that he is an amazing actor. I don't know if I've hated an on-screen personality so much.
And what an interesting character: not only does he have a sado-violent side, but he's an experimental musician - at a good time in history (the mid-1970's) as he'd be influenced by Can, Tangerine Dream, UK, Walter (not yet Wendy) Carlos, et al. And he's a tortured artist - so much so that he can't control it, etc., etc.
The ending... Yes, the ending... That mental picture in my head - from some newspaper ad - is about half a second of the ending. This isn't about revenge, it's not about a woman who's had enough or is out for justice herself: it is about a woman who SPONTANEOUSLY does what needs to be done. It's the unexpected spontaneity of the act that takes what could have been a simply "vengence" movie and turns it into something as near=real as it can get. I'd compare the film with "Taxi Driver" though without the seediness (which was necessary to Taxi Driver).
Unforgiven
(1992)
A Good Movie About Bad People Doing Bad Things for Bad Reasons
20 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I finally got around to seeing this after a self-imposed boycott of CE's movies, starting right after Firefox. Unforgiven is a good western and a good movie. I don't see it as "Great," though. But... who am I? No body.
With that out of the way...
With the climax, when Will clearly - and perhaps more in control of who he used to be - states that he will kill any man who shots at him, then the man's family and subsequently will burn down the man's house, the title of my comment flashed through my mind.
None of the characters has any good in them whatsoever. How's the movie start? Rough sex in a whore house. Next scene, violence against a woman consisting of a knife to the face... and so on.
Nevertheless, the film is all about this event and what it drives people - BAD people - to do. BAD people set out to assassinate them boys what cut up that whore - for money, because the whore's friends (also whores) put up the reward.
What makes this a good movie, for me, is that none of the characters show any goodness: they stick to how bad they are, how weak they may be, and how afraid of death, in fact, they are, too. Courage is gained through hard liquor, money is gained through murder for hire. No one apologizes.
What puzzled me was Morgan Freeman's character. Perhaps this is one of the "redeeming" things about this "anti-violence" movie (it is not, no matter what anyone says - it is a move about violent people and the violence of their lives)... See: there is no racial angle at all to the story. Yet the Civil War is not such a distant memory and it's not at all unreasonable that some of the characters would be veterans of either side. A black man in the 1880's, with property, married to an Indian (let's call her that for continuity with the genre) would raise a lot of racist eyebrows - yet this doesn't occur at all and built around Freeman's character is a total color-blindness. It didn't wash with me - not that I want to see racists in film, but maybe it took away from what was otherwise a very real picture.
Again, as an older fan of Clint Eastwood's, I'm glad I saw "Unforgiven" but I see the credit it's been given as hyperbolic: "High Plains Drifter" is superior (and my favorite) - but that's a movie about bad people who did bad things to a good man who came back to do bad things to a bad town for good reasons. And Sergio Leone and Don Seigel both make it into that film - in name - too.
With that out of the way...
With the climax, when Will clearly - and perhaps more in control of who he used to be - states that he will kill any man who shots at him, then the man's family and subsequently will burn down the man's house, the title of my comment flashed through my mind.
None of the characters has any good in them whatsoever. How's the movie start? Rough sex in a whore house. Next scene, violence against a woman consisting of a knife to the face... and so on.
Nevertheless, the film is all about this event and what it drives people - BAD people - to do. BAD people set out to assassinate them boys what cut up that whore - for money, because the whore's friends (also whores) put up the reward.
What makes this a good movie, for me, is that none of the characters show any goodness: they stick to how bad they are, how weak they may be, and how afraid of death, in fact, they are, too. Courage is gained through hard liquor, money is gained through murder for hire. No one apologizes.
What puzzled me was Morgan Freeman's character. Perhaps this is one of the "redeeming" things about this "anti-violence" movie (it is not, no matter what anyone says - it is a move about violent people and the violence of their lives)... See: there is no racial angle at all to the story. Yet the Civil War is not such a distant memory and it's not at all unreasonable that some of the characters would be veterans of either side. A black man in the 1880's, with property, married to an Indian (let's call her that for continuity with the genre) would raise a lot of racist eyebrows - yet this doesn't occur at all and built around Freeman's character is a total color-blindness. It didn't wash with me - not that I want to see racists in film, but maybe it took away from what was otherwise a very real picture.
Again, as an older fan of Clint Eastwood's, I'm glad I saw "Unforgiven" but I see the credit it's been given as hyperbolic: "High Plains Drifter" is superior (and my favorite) - but that's a movie about bad people who did bad things to a good man who came back to do bad things to a bad town for good reasons. And Sergio Leone and Don Seigel both make it into that film - in name - too.
The Miracle Maker
(1999)
Maybe the best of all time...
1 December 2007
I first caught a glimpse of "The Miracle Maker" several years ago while traveling. I only saw about ten minutes, but what an interesting ten minutes. The story was so familiar - probably because it was as straight out of the Bible as it could be.
I didn't even catch the name of the film... Thankfully, I was able to search in IMDb and found it. I rented it last week and, wow, magnificent - especially the "making of..." special feature.
Several key things (my opinion) that put this film above all other Bible epics (and, listen up, Hollywood, a lot of what you adapt to film):
1. The ethnicity of the actors isn't a distraction. That is, they're Semitic for the most part. Charlton Heston, in "In the Arena" expressed some bewilderment regarding his reply to Messala in "Ben Hur," " because I'm a Jew " The bewilderment stemming from the fact that Chuck Heston is a white Anglo/Scot American from the north-midwest. He doesn't look like he's of desert stock in "Ben-Hur," no matter how good he was. Max Von Sydow as Jesus in "The Greatest Story Ever Told," along with other performers like Shelly Winters and Chuck Heston (as John the Baptist), is asking a lot and borderline offensive. (I say "borderline" because the producers of the film weren't trying to offend anyone with a bunch of white people playing Arabs, those were the stars they used, etc.) With the models in "The Miracle Maker," it's not even an issue. Now, sure, everyone's speaking English, and most likely Peter didn't speak like Scotty from Star Trek But why mess up the movie with subtitles? On top of that, the Bible has been published in modern English since the 1500's, and diligently compared, etc., etc.; and the place-names and characters' names are known what I'm saying is that the voices do not distract. 2. Playing it straight. "The Miracle Maker" is right out of the Bible. Jesus performs miracles. He is the Son of God. There's not an inkling of anything trying to explain away a miracle or anything else. The effect I came away with after watching the film was joy at seeing a great, great visualization of what's in the Bible, not, say, reservation or contemplation pertaining to this or that director's interpretation of the Bible. Note, though, a lot is left out but it's tough to do it all in an hour and a half. It takes place off-camera, no? This is a plus, though, as the film would simply be five seconds of this, five seconds of that. Instead, the producers concentrated on what they considered key stories from the Gospels. At any rate, the continuity is good. 3. The resurrected Jesus is powerful, confident, relaxed, and even happy. This is the resurrected Jesus I know. 4. Highlight: Luke 24:25-31 is in the script word-for-word (to my best recollection).
I didn't even catch the name of the film... Thankfully, I was able to search in IMDb and found it. I rented it last week and, wow, magnificent - especially the "making of..." special feature.
Several key things (my opinion) that put this film above all other Bible epics (and, listen up, Hollywood, a lot of what you adapt to film):
1. The ethnicity of the actors isn't a distraction. That is, they're Semitic for the most part. Charlton Heston, in "In the Arena" expressed some bewilderment regarding his reply to Messala in "Ben Hur," " because I'm a Jew " The bewilderment stemming from the fact that Chuck Heston is a white Anglo/Scot American from the north-midwest. He doesn't look like he's of desert stock in "Ben-Hur," no matter how good he was. Max Von Sydow as Jesus in "The Greatest Story Ever Told," along with other performers like Shelly Winters and Chuck Heston (as John the Baptist), is asking a lot and borderline offensive. (I say "borderline" because the producers of the film weren't trying to offend anyone with a bunch of white people playing Arabs, those were the stars they used, etc.) With the models in "The Miracle Maker," it's not even an issue. Now, sure, everyone's speaking English, and most likely Peter didn't speak like Scotty from Star Trek But why mess up the movie with subtitles? On top of that, the Bible has been published in modern English since the 1500's, and diligently compared, etc., etc.; and the place-names and characters' names are known what I'm saying is that the voices do not distract. 2. Playing it straight. "The Miracle Maker" is right out of the Bible. Jesus performs miracles. He is the Son of God. There's not an inkling of anything trying to explain away a miracle or anything else. The effect I came away with after watching the film was joy at seeing a great, great visualization of what's in the Bible, not, say, reservation or contemplation pertaining to this or that director's interpretation of the Bible. Note, though, a lot is left out but it's tough to do it all in an hour and a half. It takes place off-camera, no? This is a plus, though, as the film would simply be five seconds of this, five seconds of that. Instead, the producers concentrated on what they considered key stories from the Gospels. At any rate, the continuity is good. 3. The resurrected Jesus is powerful, confident, relaxed, and even happy. This is the resurrected Jesus I know. 4. Highlight: Luke 24:25-31 is in the script word-for-word (to my best recollection).
Brilliant.
8 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Mix Ratatouille with Frankenstein, take part of the ending from Stranger in a Strange Land...
...and you've got a great story worth telling. Of course, the story centers around a sociopathic mad scientist murderer - and that's the stuff of Hollywood blockbusters, no? Sure, but with the right production team and excellent casting, it's a triumph. The characters, especially Alan Rickman's, are played with intelligence - something that one just doesn't see much of these days. Rickman's portrayal of the father turned detective is the smartest character I've seen in years.
What's truly impressive is that this is a HORROR movie, a rated-R one at that, about a serial murderer with virtually no gore. The nudity isn't gratuitous, tasteless or unnecessary. Nothing distracts from the story, the characters and the fascinating mood created by the lighting, irony, music and careful placement of John Hurt's narration. Every nook and cranny seemed like it belonged in this amazing film that's nearly 2.5 hours long. Sehr Gut!
...and you've got a great story worth telling. Of course, the story centers around a sociopathic mad scientist murderer - and that's the stuff of Hollywood blockbusters, no? Sure, but with the right production team and excellent casting, it's a triumph. The characters, especially Alan Rickman's, are played with intelligence - something that one just doesn't see much of these days. Rickman's portrayal of the father turned detective is the smartest character I've seen in years.
What's truly impressive is that this is a HORROR movie, a rated-R one at that, about a serial murderer with virtually no gore. The nudity isn't gratuitous, tasteless or unnecessary. Nothing distracts from the story, the characters and the fascinating mood created by the lighting, irony, music and careful placement of John Hurt's narration. Every nook and cranny seemed like it belonged in this amazing film that's nearly 2.5 hours long. Sehr Gut!
The Holiday
(2006)
Irritating
6 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Sappy, chick flick, sure... Lotsa plot holes. So how come Camron Diaz is able to drive a Cooper Mini from the cottage when the cabbie balked at driving to the cottage? Don't get it?
The astounding wealth of all the characters was distracting. These folks got bucks, Hollywood bucks!
OK:
Eli Wallach's character's speech bugged me.
The time he recalls when movies and Hollywood somehow weren't all about money and glitz and special effects didn't exist. Variety magazine sure reported box office returns, Hollywood even owned the theaters "back then," etc. And why this guy doesn't think movies had "special effects teams" "back then"? Just because there wasn't any cgi in 1950 or so, doesn't mean special effects "teams" weren't in the picture. Yeah, maybe the writing "back then" was better (was it? Hollywood made crap then and makes crap now!), but... And they had "Hollywood Money" back then, too!
I found myself yelling at the TV screen during this intellectually dishonest speech. Feh!
The astounding wealth of all the characters was distracting. These folks got bucks, Hollywood bucks!
OK:
Eli Wallach's character's speech bugged me.
The time he recalls when movies and Hollywood somehow weren't all about money and glitz and special effects didn't exist. Variety magazine sure reported box office returns, Hollywood even owned the theaters "back then," etc. And why this guy doesn't think movies had "special effects teams" "back then"? Just because there wasn't any cgi in 1950 or so, doesn't mean special effects "teams" weren't in the picture. Yeah, maybe the writing "back then" was better (was it? Hollywood made crap then and makes crap now!), but... And they had "Hollywood Money" back then, too!
I found myself yelling at the TV screen during this intellectually dishonest speech. Feh!
The Viking Sagas
(1995)
Big, powerful men wielding big, powerful swords for cash and prizes (liberty, justice, women, etc.)
14 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This film is GREAT. If you're a viking-phile, you'll love it. Lkewise if you simply appreciate gritty, realistic conflict on rugged scenery.
Basic story: Medieval Iceland's ruling classes are in a bit of an uproar. They're also suffering the transition from warrior culture to a less violent, agrarian lifestyle (that includes fishing). The laws and democracy that rule the land are jeopardized by a possible coup. One man (played superbly by Ralf Moller) - sadly the son of a warrior-turned farmer - is prophesied to restore order. But he can't do it without first being taught the skills of battle by a middle- aged outlaw (played equally superbly by Sven Ole-Thorsen).
Had this film been done in Iclelandic - and kept its original title "The Icelandic Sagas," it would've been shown at art-houses in all the big cities and possibly garnered an academy award for best foreign language film. In English, since all the actors have accents, it might appear as a barbarian free-for-all at first glance. It is nothing of the sort: The attention to costumes, weapons, makeup, dialog all come from the ancient tradition of epic Hollywood film-making.
The acting is excellent. There's nothing tongue-in-cheek about the dialog, so everyone plays their parts seriously. Sven-Ole Thorsen is as if the producers found a time machine and simply went back to film an Icelandic feud between adjacent landowners. Ralf Moller proves himself once again a fine talent. Everyone, of course, remembers Sven and Ralf's performances in "Gladiator," right? Ingibjörg Stefánsdóttir - she, too, comes off as though the producers filmed her from the time machine.
P.S.: It's sad what's said about the new film with Ralf Moeller, "Pathfinder." Apparently the actors playing "vikings" wore horned helmets (come on, already; they didn't in "Erik the Viking," why should they in a "serious" movie?) and shoulder pads. Shoulder pads? Come on! Ralf Moller and Clancy Brown don't need no stinkin' shoulder pads. "The Viking Sagas" wasn't filmed with shoulder pads! Sven-Ole Thorsen and Ralf Moller grew their own! See this film, it is art and well worth whatever you pay to see it.
Basic story: Medieval Iceland's ruling classes are in a bit of an uproar. They're also suffering the transition from warrior culture to a less violent, agrarian lifestyle (that includes fishing). The laws and democracy that rule the land are jeopardized by a possible coup. One man (played superbly by Ralf Moller) - sadly the son of a warrior-turned farmer - is prophesied to restore order. But he can't do it without first being taught the skills of battle by a middle- aged outlaw (played equally superbly by Sven Ole-Thorsen).
Had this film been done in Iclelandic - and kept its original title "The Icelandic Sagas," it would've been shown at art-houses in all the big cities and possibly garnered an academy award for best foreign language film. In English, since all the actors have accents, it might appear as a barbarian free-for-all at first glance. It is nothing of the sort: The attention to costumes, weapons, makeup, dialog all come from the ancient tradition of epic Hollywood film-making.
The acting is excellent. There's nothing tongue-in-cheek about the dialog, so everyone plays their parts seriously. Sven-Ole Thorsen is as if the producers found a time machine and simply went back to film an Icelandic feud between adjacent landowners. Ralf Moller proves himself once again a fine talent. Everyone, of course, remembers Sven and Ralf's performances in "Gladiator," right? Ingibjörg Stefánsdóttir - she, too, comes off as though the producers filmed her from the time machine.
P.S.: It's sad what's said about the new film with Ralf Moeller, "Pathfinder." Apparently the actors playing "vikings" wore horned helmets (come on, already; they didn't in "Erik the Viking," why should they in a "serious" movie?) and shoulder pads. Shoulder pads? Come on! Ralf Moller and Clancy Brown don't need no stinkin' shoulder pads. "The Viking Sagas" wasn't filmed with shoulder pads! Sven-Ole Thorsen and Ralf Moller grew their own! See this film, it is art and well worth whatever you pay to see it.
Khartoum
(1966)
The Hestonionst
24 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Released at the near end of the Golden Age of Heston ("Planet of the Apes" being the final film of said age), this is possibly the most Heston of Heston films.
Heston is BRILLIANT as a tall version of General Gordon. Key points: Gordon makes it clear that he doesn't fear death; the quick scenes of him studying the Bible; his complete understanding of his duties while at war; his understanding of Arab culture (bring gifts to meetings, ritual politeness, etc.). Olivier is excellent as well - and sure does remind one of some dude named Osama. Preparation for a long siege and military engineering works are portrayed with a convincing, gritty precision.
Spoiler: the violence and gore is lacking. Leaving things just out of camera range, or shot from behind, etc., it comes off as too G-rated. "Khartoum" should have had the intensity level of, say, "Waterloo" (rated G, filmed four years later). Examples: if there's a head on a pole, show it: I was not convinced of the Mahdi's outrage/sadness.
Heston is BRILLIANT as a tall version of General Gordon. Key points: Gordon makes it clear that he doesn't fear death; the quick scenes of him studying the Bible; his complete understanding of his duties while at war; his understanding of Arab culture (bring gifts to meetings, ritual politeness, etc.). Olivier is excellent as well - and sure does remind one of some dude named Osama. Preparation for a long siege and military engineering works are portrayed with a convincing, gritty precision.
Spoiler: the violence and gore is lacking. Leaving things just out of camera range, or shot from behind, etc., it comes off as too G-rated. "Khartoum" should have had the intensity level of, say, "Waterloo" (rated G, filmed four years later). Examples: if there's a head on a pole, show it: I was not convinced of the Mahdi's outrage/sadness.
Lady in the Water
(2006)
Immature, Surprisingly Bad
3 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I purposely gave the film a "1" to try and bring down the overall score (had it fewer defenders, I'd give it a "3"). It should not be liked by anyone.
Story: Turns out an ancient Korean fairy tale/bed time story is true and manifests itself in the common recreation area of a suburban US condominium/co-op/apartment house/ hotel'whatever, where there's a small swimming pool. (Lafcadio Hern is spinning in his grave because he wasted his time moving to Japan when he could've studied Oriental ghost stories and such right here in the US of A).
Of course, since the swimming pool is in the US, the "lady," some sort of Queen Nymph called a "Narf" is a pale, anorexic Anglo-German American rather than an exotic, regal Asian. She's being chased by nasty beasts called "scrunts", all of whom are somehow governed by giant monkeys called "tartutics."
Yeah, it's just a movie, but I gotta ask how come these beings don't have Korean-sounding names of things like "wolf made of grass" and such? "Scrunt" sounds too much like something an American school kid would call a classmate. "Narf" sounds like a soft ball one can throw indoors.
OK, the Scrunts are compelled to kill the Narf because it's what they do. Apparently there are rules about killing narfs, though. BUT, there's a scrunt out there that's breaking the rules!
Wow! There's a big wolf made of grass that understands rules! You'd think one could communicate with a being that is able to make a decision... Or you'd be able to kill it...
Acting-wise, direction-wise, technically, the film is competent. The actors are real, even M. Night is believable playing himself. The story, though, comes off as though it was written by a ten-year old, NOT as though it was written by an adult for a ten-year old. There are plot holes that distract too much (how can an out-of-shape handyman hold his breath for more than five minutes? - while engaging in strenuous, underwater activity? And seeing so clearly at night? Etc.). The characters come off as though they are trying too hard to make the audience believe that they're ready to believe what's going on - and how eager they are to get us to agree that, gosh, this really is a Narf and not some paranoid schizophrenic asylum escapee...
M. Night: OK, so you've read Arthur Machen's stories and similar tales of dreamland by others. Since you confess through Bob Balaban's character that there's no originality anymore (so?), why don't you make a movie about gnolls or dholes or something that would give you the opportunity for excellence in telling someone else's story? The writers of supernatural stories circa 1900-1940 are far superior to anything new, so use your directing talents to give us a film of "the Hounds of Tindalos"? You can also make a "kids" movie based on any number of excellent fairy tales from long ago, not some neo-modern junk like "the Lady in the Water."
It really cost more than $10 million to make this? No way! Rental cost to me: about $1. Not worth it.
Story: Turns out an ancient Korean fairy tale/bed time story is true and manifests itself in the common recreation area of a suburban US condominium/co-op/apartment house/ hotel'whatever, where there's a small swimming pool. (Lafcadio Hern is spinning in his grave because he wasted his time moving to Japan when he could've studied Oriental ghost stories and such right here in the US of A).
Of course, since the swimming pool is in the US, the "lady," some sort of Queen Nymph called a "Narf" is a pale, anorexic Anglo-German American rather than an exotic, regal Asian. She's being chased by nasty beasts called "scrunts", all of whom are somehow governed by giant monkeys called "tartutics."
Yeah, it's just a movie, but I gotta ask how come these beings don't have Korean-sounding names of things like "wolf made of grass" and such? "Scrunt" sounds too much like something an American school kid would call a classmate. "Narf" sounds like a soft ball one can throw indoors.
OK, the Scrunts are compelled to kill the Narf because it's what they do. Apparently there are rules about killing narfs, though. BUT, there's a scrunt out there that's breaking the rules!
Wow! There's a big wolf made of grass that understands rules! You'd think one could communicate with a being that is able to make a decision... Or you'd be able to kill it...
Acting-wise, direction-wise, technically, the film is competent. The actors are real, even M. Night is believable playing himself. The story, though, comes off as though it was written by a ten-year old, NOT as though it was written by an adult for a ten-year old. There are plot holes that distract too much (how can an out-of-shape handyman hold his breath for more than five minutes? - while engaging in strenuous, underwater activity? And seeing so clearly at night? Etc.). The characters come off as though they are trying too hard to make the audience believe that they're ready to believe what's going on - and how eager they are to get us to agree that, gosh, this really is a Narf and not some paranoid schizophrenic asylum escapee...
M. Night: OK, so you've read Arthur Machen's stories and similar tales of dreamland by others. Since you confess through Bob Balaban's character that there's no originality anymore (so?), why don't you make a movie about gnolls or dholes or something that would give you the opportunity for excellence in telling someone else's story? The writers of supernatural stories circa 1900-1940 are far superior to anything new, so use your directing talents to give us a film of "the Hounds of Tindalos"? You can also make a "kids" movie based on any number of excellent fairy tales from long ago, not some neo-modern junk like "the Lady in the Water."
It really cost more than $10 million to make this? No way! Rental cost to me: about $1. Not worth it.
The Wicker Man
(2006)
Don't cry over spilled honey...
3 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I just saw it... In New York city, utilizing the Fandango web service (you never know if these things will sell out or not), I paid $12.50 to see this film.
On a scale of $1 to $12.50, the new "The Wicker Man" is somewhere between $1 and $2.50.
HUGE SPOILERS AHEAD.
OK, as a "Wicker Man" purist, at first I didn't want to even know a remake was to be released. Why mess with perfection; what's been done has been done: it's not a play or serial that's meant to be redone. Plus, the only person you could get to replace Christopher Lee would be Christopher Lee. Nevertheless, assuming it's done well, I could see the story translating really well to a U.S. setting, with some old cult, well-isolated, well-insulated, still practicing that Old Time Religion...
Sure it's derivative! What isn't? Well-told, this story always packs a wallop and is solid, horror fun. The original Wicker Man has a disturbing, unresolved, unhappy ending. The story doesn't close (what happens next? who knows?!) and that's it's lasting effect: will Lord Summerisle be sacrificed if the next crop fails as Inspector Howie cries out in hopeless desperation? Good question, but you'll never know because the film is over.
Not this Wicker Man, though.
In general casting terms, OK, Nicholas Cage is good. His character of Edward Malus (ohhh! "Edward" chasing Rowan "Woodward" - nice, and Malus? As in "Malleus Maleficarum?" What a clever touch!) has plenty of attitude but he lacks the religious stick up his ass that Insp. Howie had. That was essential to the story because it established genuine antagonism between Howie and the Summerisle cult. Howie's a Roundhead flunky for all it matters and he's up against the Druid of Druids. Tough luck for the Roundheads... Cage's character, without question a typical, modern American agnostic can only look to cheap, truck-stop self-help books to fight his inner demons and probably could care less what a bunch of hippie, whack-jobs believe in.
Ellen Burstyn. For the sake of argument, I couldn't think of a better choice. She has serious horror movie credibility. And she can take charge of the scene - like her character's supposed to.
Plot holes: OK, so the switch is from crops in general to honey. OK, so the Summersisle cult is really a colony of bees with multiple, fertile queens with an uber-queen at the head (Burstyn). No problem, makes for an interesting story, sort of like a reverse of L. Sprague de Camp's "Rogue Queen." Well, then, why not run with that story? Let's say that Nick Cage is now on the island - get him to replace the old man in charge of shagging the non- menopausal queens! Throw the old guy into the Wicker Man and be done with it!
No, no... We're going to try and match the original movie line-for-line, make-up nuance for make up nuance, costume for costume... and it didn't work. Howie's research made it clear why the folks were in costume. All Cage/Woodward's "research" did was determine that a) the cult aborted most of the males (why? Not good enough? The men hanging around were weaklings - why not explain it some more?), and b) someone conveniently left out a manual on ritual human sacrifice - too easy. I must give credit though: the scene with the aborted male fetuses in jars was disturbing, disturbing at the right "Wicker Man" level, yet the film just didn't run with it. Make Cage burn with right-to-life anger; let's hear the Summersisle girls explain their pre-emptive patricide, give the story some interesting, provocative, controversial dialog. Make the audience uncomfortable - instead, there were regular laughs from the audience.
Why are the women chanting "The drone must die"? Did he finish fertilizing the "colony"? Apparently, he fathered one - but is that enough? Is Willow to be the next queen? Will Rowan then follow in her footsteps? If they're the royal line, don't they need more heirs? We saw multiple pregnant girls? Was it all the old man in the bed's work? Did Cage's character do anything that would distinguish himself a drone other than being a man?
Annoyances: why is a waitress in California talking like some stereotypical "southern" dunce (using "them" instead of "those"? That didn't make sense.
Cheap film: Is the audience so stupid that Cage has to scream "my legs!" so we'll all know that the Queen Bee's minions have broken his legs - off camera? Why not have Sister Summersisle say "bind his legs!" or "break his legs!"? Or similar? And why'd they kill the pilot? That, if any action would bring the entire State of Washington police "swarming" all over the island? They didn't even get rid of the evidence well enough! A flight plan was probably filed! The guy might have a family! There's an oil slick on the water! What about other people who needed use of the plane? There's bound to be an investigation, ladies!
I want my money back part: The epilogue, "six months later" - what the hell? Now the Summersisle cult goes out hunting men? For what? If they'd kept Nick Cage drugged up or gave him some special potion to "keep it up," they'd be saved all the trouble. Double I want my money back: the film is dedicated to Johnny Ramone - who, no doubt is rolling in his grave. I didn't hear any punk rock music in the film...
Four people (two couples) walked out of the movie. One couple left about forty minutes into things (I figured they just didn't get it and were bored). The second couple left after just over an hour - that I didn't get: weren't they interested in how it ended? The theater wasn't crowded, it was an evening show, on a weekend.
On a scale of $1 to $12.50, the new "The Wicker Man" is somewhere between $1 and $2.50.
HUGE SPOILERS AHEAD.
OK, as a "Wicker Man" purist, at first I didn't want to even know a remake was to be released. Why mess with perfection; what's been done has been done: it's not a play or serial that's meant to be redone. Plus, the only person you could get to replace Christopher Lee would be Christopher Lee. Nevertheless, assuming it's done well, I could see the story translating really well to a U.S. setting, with some old cult, well-isolated, well-insulated, still practicing that Old Time Religion...
Sure it's derivative! What isn't? Well-told, this story always packs a wallop and is solid, horror fun. The original Wicker Man has a disturbing, unresolved, unhappy ending. The story doesn't close (what happens next? who knows?!) and that's it's lasting effect: will Lord Summerisle be sacrificed if the next crop fails as Inspector Howie cries out in hopeless desperation? Good question, but you'll never know because the film is over.
Not this Wicker Man, though.
In general casting terms, OK, Nicholas Cage is good. His character of Edward Malus (ohhh! "Edward" chasing Rowan "Woodward" - nice, and Malus? As in "Malleus Maleficarum?" What a clever touch!) has plenty of attitude but he lacks the religious stick up his ass that Insp. Howie had. That was essential to the story because it established genuine antagonism between Howie and the Summerisle cult. Howie's a Roundhead flunky for all it matters and he's up against the Druid of Druids. Tough luck for the Roundheads... Cage's character, without question a typical, modern American agnostic can only look to cheap, truck-stop self-help books to fight his inner demons and probably could care less what a bunch of hippie, whack-jobs believe in.
Ellen Burstyn. For the sake of argument, I couldn't think of a better choice. She has serious horror movie credibility. And she can take charge of the scene - like her character's supposed to.
Plot holes: OK, so the switch is from crops in general to honey. OK, so the Summersisle cult is really a colony of bees with multiple, fertile queens with an uber-queen at the head (Burstyn). No problem, makes for an interesting story, sort of like a reverse of L. Sprague de Camp's "Rogue Queen." Well, then, why not run with that story? Let's say that Nick Cage is now on the island - get him to replace the old man in charge of shagging the non- menopausal queens! Throw the old guy into the Wicker Man and be done with it!
No, no... We're going to try and match the original movie line-for-line, make-up nuance for make up nuance, costume for costume... and it didn't work. Howie's research made it clear why the folks were in costume. All Cage/Woodward's "research" did was determine that a) the cult aborted most of the males (why? Not good enough? The men hanging around were weaklings - why not explain it some more?), and b) someone conveniently left out a manual on ritual human sacrifice - too easy. I must give credit though: the scene with the aborted male fetuses in jars was disturbing, disturbing at the right "Wicker Man" level, yet the film just didn't run with it. Make Cage burn with right-to-life anger; let's hear the Summersisle girls explain their pre-emptive patricide, give the story some interesting, provocative, controversial dialog. Make the audience uncomfortable - instead, there were regular laughs from the audience.
Why are the women chanting "The drone must die"? Did he finish fertilizing the "colony"? Apparently, he fathered one - but is that enough? Is Willow to be the next queen? Will Rowan then follow in her footsteps? If they're the royal line, don't they need more heirs? We saw multiple pregnant girls? Was it all the old man in the bed's work? Did Cage's character do anything that would distinguish himself a drone other than being a man?
Annoyances: why is a waitress in California talking like some stereotypical "southern" dunce (using "them" instead of "those"? That didn't make sense.
Cheap film: Is the audience so stupid that Cage has to scream "my legs!" so we'll all know that the Queen Bee's minions have broken his legs - off camera? Why not have Sister Summersisle say "bind his legs!" or "break his legs!"? Or similar? And why'd they kill the pilot? That, if any action would bring the entire State of Washington police "swarming" all over the island? They didn't even get rid of the evidence well enough! A flight plan was probably filed! The guy might have a family! There's an oil slick on the water! What about other people who needed use of the plane? There's bound to be an investigation, ladies!
I want my money back part: The epilogue, "six months later" - what the hell? Now the Summersisle cult goes out hunting men? For what? If they'd kept Nick Cage drugged up or gave him some special potion to "keep it up," they'd be saved all the trouble. Double I want my money back: the film is dedicated to Johnny Ramone - who, no doubt is rolling in his grave. I didn't hear any punk rock music in the film...
Four people (two couples) walked out of the movie. One couple left about forty minutes into things (I figured they just didn't get it and were bored). The second couple left after just over an hour - that I didn't get: weren't they interested in how it ended? The theater wasn't crowded, it was an evening show, on a weekend.
The Wild Women of Wongo
(1959)
Worth the price...
4 February 2006
Warning: Spoilers
...I bought it for 99 cents. Actually, it's a two-fer, that is, two movies on one 99 cent DVD. The second movie is "The Fat Spy" with Jayne Mansfield and Phyllis Diller. "WWoW" would've been worth the entire 99 cents, though.
WWoW is BAD, yes. But, it's not a waste of your time. The scenery, Florida's Silver Springs, Coral Gardens, and the Wongo-ettes themselves (pleasing to the eye). The men of Goona are pleasing to the eye as well. They have the look of pre-steroid era bodybuilders. The plot is solid: Ape men are besieging Goona. The King of Goona sends his son to request the aid of Wongo! There's a hitch: the women of Goona are NOT pleasant to the eye, while the King's son has never seen such hotties as the women of Wongo! The King of Wongo realizes that Goona will steal the women of Wongo and thus the eternal conflict ignites this amazing film!!!
OK... when "The Fat Spy" kicked in, the first thing I noticed was the poor shape all the "stars" were in. WWoW had all these beach scenes with well-formed, athletic, excited, sensual youths... Fat Spy had all these beach scenes with skinny, malnourished, dumpy, non-toned dweebs.
Bottom line: if you see WWoW on sale for less than a buck, it's worth it for a good 71 minutes of your time!
WWoW is BAD, yes. But, it's not a waste of your time. The scenery, Florida's Silver Springs, Coral Gardens, and the Wongo-ettes themselves (pleasing to the eye). The men of Goona are pleasing to the eye as well. They have the look of pre-steroid era bodybuilders. The plot is solid: Ape men are besieging Goona. The King of Goona sends his son to request the aid of Wongo! There's a hitch: the women of Goona are NOT pleasant to the eye, while the King's son has never seen such hotties as the women of Wongo! The King of Wongo realizes that Goona will steal the women of Wongo and thus the eternal conflict ignites this amazing film!!!
OK... when "The Fat Spy" kicked in, the first thing I noticed was the poor shape all the "stars" were in. WWoW had all these beach scenes with well-formed, athletic, excited, sensual youths... Fat Spy had all these beach scenes with skinny, malnourished, dumpy, non-toned dweebs.
Bottom line: if you see WWoW on sale for less than a buck, it's worth it for a good 71 minutes of your time!
Phantom of the Paradise
(1974)
Belongs in The Unnamable Top-Ten List with "This is Spinal Tap"
19 November 2005
My father wouldn't let me see this in 1974 (I was 11) and I recall him reporting a coworker's opinion that the film should have been rated "R."
So finally, in 2005, I see the film at age 42.
The film is disturbing on a variety of levels. First and foremost, I realized that most of the players are now in their late 50's and 60's. Disturbing, why? Well, because there's a band out there called "the Undead" (Bobby Steele, ex-Misfits) who, turns out, stole (or did he?) his name from Phantom of the Paradise's "the Undeads" Likewise, the Undeads in this film were doing in 1974 what Scandinavian death metal bands _started_ doing in the early 1990's. Furthermore, did the Damned's Dave Vanian rip off the Undead's gimmick?
I felt uneasy realizing that, had I seen the movie when it came out, I probably wouldn't have gotten any of the jokes; I wouldn't have laughed out loud at Beef, the lesbian jokes, the parody of self-important wimpy rockers. And I wouldn't have appreciated the successful composite of Phantom of the Opera, Faust, Picture of Dorian Gray, etc.
The acting is top-notch - the only way "camp" gets laughs. Paul Williams's Swan is the most black-hearted villain I've seen.
The wait was worth it for me on this one.
So finally, in 2005, I see the film at age 42.
The film is disturbing on a variety of levels. First and foremost, I realized that most of the players are now in their late 50's and 60's. Disturbing, why? Well, because there's a band out there called "the Undead" (Bobby Steele, ex-Misfits) who, turns out, stole (or did he?) his name from Phantom of the Paradise's "the Undeads" Likewise, the Undeads in this film were doing in 1974 what Scandinavian death metal bands _started_ doing in the early 1990's. Furthermore, did the Damned's Dave Vanian rip off the Undead's gimmick?
I felt uneasy realizing that, had I seen the movie when it came out, I probably wouldn't have gotten any of the jokes; I wouldn't have laughed out loud at Beef, the lesbian jokes, the parody of self-important wimpy rockers. And I wouldn't have appreciated the successful composite of Phantom of the Opera, Faust, Picture of Dorian Gray, etc.
The acting is top-notch - the only way "camp" gets laughs. Paul Williams's Swan is the most black-hearted villain I've seen.
The wait was worth it for me on this one.
A Dirty Shame
(2004)
It's garbage (minor spoilers)
9 July 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Rented it yesterday for $3.50. Though I didn't feel like I was robbed, I sure felt ripped-off. The whole thing ripping off an R. Crumb comic called "Meatball" IMO. Not enough quality nudity - even in the "NC-17" DVD. I've have liked to have seen Tracy Ullman naked, but alas, no. Sure, there are a couple of laugh-out-loud snippets ("No You're Not, MF!" "I'm a Bear hag") but since the jokes about sex, parodying (the false notion of) rampaging puritanism in the US (folks, Jenna Jameson was featured last month in Forbes for her success in business...), and "pushing the envelope" (it doesn't) are OLD. The appeal of Waters' first films is that they were freakshows. If you're a Marylander with family ties to Baltimore (I am), something like "Pink Flamingos" - with the real Maryland accents (they are distinct) - is even more disturbing and more hypnotic. With the Hollywood people featured in "A Dirty Shame", the edge isn't there. These are stars making lots of money for very little "art"- like David Hasselhoff (wait, he's got ties to Maryland, I think...) sitting on an airplane toilet. Wow! What innovative film-making! Daring! Hold on, scatological humor can only go so far and "Shakes the Clown" does it so much better.
I found the movie boring and stupid. It wasn't shocking at all. Though there's one scene that I thought was truly EVIL and it involved an old many in baby clothes in the same room as a real infant. The scene wasn't funny in the least, it was repulsive. I was reminded of an episode of CSI about an old man who liked to dress as a baby... Instead of screaming, the child mother should've pulled out a .45 and offed the guy.
Totally opposite of Momma and the Eggman in Pink Flamingos...
On that note, the premise of the film appears to be that sex addicts (can there be such a thing?) are just like anybody else - though better: they're not repressed, they're not inhibited, and they're friendly. If that's the case, where is the shock value? Is it supposed to be manifested in the wasted rage of Big Ethel? What's so shocking about a "bear party" if the "bears" are minding their own business - and they aren't in any real danger of being shut down?! No one is rebelling, everyone's mostly minding their own business... Where was the oppressive authority? A loudmouthed dairy store owner no one listened to anyway? Oooooh, danger... And white people from D.C. are squares? Why didn't that couple get with a few "pay days"? More "shocking" movies, more provocative, less stoopid, and better laughs are: "Animal House," "Shakes the Clown," "Crimes of Passion," and "Diary of a Mad Housewife." OK, I'll end on a good note: the interviews in the DVD are worth the price of the rental. You get the history of the avant-gay Baltimore crowd and that's somewhat important in the scheme of American film-making.
I found the movie boring and stupid. It wasn't shocking at all. Though there's one scene that I thought was truly EVIL and it involved an old many in baby clothes in the same room as a real infant. The scene wasn't funny in the least, it was repulsive. I was reminded of an episode of CSI about an old man who liked to dress as a baby... Instead of screaming, the child mother should've pulled out a .45 and offed the guy.
Totally opposite of Momma and the Eggman in Pink Flamingos...
On that note, the premise of the film appears to be that sex addicts (can there be such a thing?) are just like anybody else - though better: they're not repressed, they're not inhibited, and they're friendly. If that's the case, where is the shock value? Is it supposed to be manifested in the wasted rage of Big Ethel? What's so shocking about a "bear party" if the "bears" are minding their own business - and they aren't in any real danger of being shut down?! No one is rebelling, everyone's mostly minding their own business... Where was the oppressive authority? A loudmouthed dairy store owner no one listened to anyway? Oooooh, danger... And white people from D.C. are squares? Why didn't that couple get with a few "pay days"? More "shocking" movies, more provocative, less stoopid, and better laughs are: "Animal House," "Shakes the Clown," "Crimes of Passion," and "Diary of a Mad Housewife." OK, I'll end on a good note: the interviews in the DVD are worth the price of the rental. You get the history of the avant-gay Baltimore crowd and that's somewhat important in the scheme of American film-making.
The Whole Wide World
(1996)
Most Underrated Film of the Last 20 Years, at least
16 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I saw this film at the theater - with, I think five other people. I was the only male human in the crowd, the rest were middle-aged women, no doubt "chick flick" fans. Not what I expected... I had assumed that I'd have to carve a path through the Corsairs before claiming my seat! The smell of death was all around, the floor slippery with the blood of those slain in battle...
Oops, got ahead of myself. I'm a big fan of Robert E. Howard's work, especially Conan (though Solomon Kane is a great character as well). His personal "weirdness" is well-documented, etc., etc. The film pulls no punches about it at all...
This is a film for writers - especially "new" writers who "need" to learn the history of American heroic fiction - because the Weird Tales days represented the pinnacle of that genre. It's also a film for high school English teachers; I'd make it mandatory. The reason is that REH's contributions to the body of American literature is genuinely important. Without his successes (he made money off his writing), I suspect August Derleth wouldn't have been as successful at publishing and thus Ray Bradbury wouldn't have been as successful as he is.
Everyone: watch this film, study this film, seek out Robert E. Howard's books. If you are unfamiliar with the GREAT writing Howard, Lovecraft, Clark Ashton Smith, et al, this film will introduce the early 1930's pulp writer's world to you...
As Robert E. Howard, Vince D'Onfrio gives what I think is his absolute best performance. What he's doing in Law & Order: CI, or whatever supporting roles he gets (MIB, etc.), and his future roles, are never going to be this good. In fact, a lot of them aren't worth bothering with at all (e.g., The Cell).
It's also the only movie with Renee Zellweger worth watching (OK, Jerry Maguire's good). Yeah, hers is the main character, but she's perfectly cast, rather than (hey, I'm entitled to my opinion) the astonishingly successful mis-casting her as a vamp in anything...
MINOR SPOILERS Best scene: we see Robert E. Howard typing out a story - and he's yelling out the action at the typewriter.
Disappointment: H.P. Lovecraft is mentioned in one scene, but I wish they had another scene regarding the letter-writing relationship between HPL and REH, among others.
I wrote to L. Sprague De Camp (who was alive in 1996) about this film (De Camp owned the rights to all things REH and is responsible for REH's being hoisted out of obscurity 40 or so years ago) and about Kull (ugh) - another REH-created film. He sent me back an autographed picture!
Oops, got ahead of myself. I'm a big fan of Robert E. Howard's work, especially Conan (though Solomon Kane is a great character as well). His personal "weirdness" is well-documented, etc., etc. The film pulls no punches about it at all...
This is a film for writers - especially "new" writers who "need" to learn the history of American heroic fiction - because the Weird Tales days represented the pinnacle of that genre. It's also a film for high school English teachers; I'd make it mandatory. The reason is that REH's contributions to the body of American literature is genuinely important. Without his successes (he made money off his writing), I suspect August Derleth wouldn't have been as successful at publishing and thus Ray Bradbury wouldn't have been as successful as he is.
Everyone: watch this film, study this film, seek out Robert E. Howard's books. If you are unfamiliar with the GREAT writing Howard, Lovecraft, Clark Ashton Smith, et al, this film will introduce the early 1930's pulp writer's world to you...
As Robert E. Howard, Vince D'Onfrio gives what I think is his absolute best performance. What he's doing in Law & Order: CI, or whatever supporting roles he gets (MIB, etc.), and his future roles, are never going to be this good. In fact, a lot of them aren't worth bothering with at all (e.g., The Cell).
It's also the only movie with Renee Zellweger worth watching (OK, Jerry Maguire's good). Yeah, hers is the main character, but she's perfectly cast, rather than (hey, I'm entitled to my opinion) the astonishingly successful mis-casting her as a vamp in anything...
MINOR SPOILERS Best scene: we see Robert E. Howard typing out a story - and he's yelling out the action at the typewriter.
Disappointment: H.P. Lovecraft is mentioned in one scene, but I wish they had another scene regarding the letter-writing relationship between HPL and REH, among others.
I wrote to L. Sprague De Camp (who was alive in 1996) about this film (De Camp owned the rights to all things REH and is responsible for REH's being hoisted out of obscurity 40 or so years ago) and about Kull (ugh) - another REH-created film. He sent me back an autographed picture!
Johnny English
(2003)
Has some good moments...
10 April 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I'm a big fan of "Black Adder" yet I hate with a passion "Mr. Bean." This film has elements of both, but seems, at least for me, to be heavy on the former. The plot is completely absurd and completely appropriate.
The slapstick moments don't work too well since Rowan Atkinson isn't an action star (which is why I hate "Mr. Bean'). It's what happens after the action that got the most laughs from me. SPOILER: There is a "sketch" involving Our Hero using truth serum in one weapon and a super muscle relaxer in another. Unfortunately, the weapons are identical. The results are very funny, just not laugh out loud funny.
John English's character is best described as a retarded Inspector Clouseau. Clouseau's superior's lack of confidence - largely undeserved - English more than makes up in near-total incompetence. English is a lot luckier, though.
I am glad I didn't spend $20 (me and my date) to see the movie at the theater. It's not worth it. But it's not too painful a DVD rental, provided you don't pay more than $3.50 for it. See it once.
The slapstick moments don't work too well since Rowan Atkinson isn't an action star (which is why I hate "Mr. Bean'). It's what happens after the action that got the most laughs from me. SPOILER: There is a "sketch" involving Our Hero using truth serum in one weapon and a super muscle relaxer in another. Unfortunately, the weapons are identical. The results are very funny, just not laugh out loud funny.
John English's character is best described as a retarded Inspector Clouseau. Clouseau's superior's lack of confidence - largely undeserved - English more than makes up in near-total incompetence. English is a lot luckier, though.
I am glad I didn't spend $20 (me and my date) to see the movie at the theater. It's not worth it. But it's not too painful a DVD rental, provided you don't pay more than $3.50 for it. See it once.
Dagon
(2001)
la sombra sobre "Inboca..."
11 January 2004
When I first found out about the film version of "Dagon" from an HPL "society" website, my first reaction was "why"? I mean, the story is cool, but it's a lonely, eerie little tale that's 99% mood, 1% action. That is, a typical HPL short, short story. since the film was being screen in Oregon, I didn't feel so bad about missing it and knew one day it'd be available on DVD...
So last night I finally rented the DVD. At the video store, I read the movie's "liner notes" on the back of the DVD box and instantly said to myself, "this is a filmed version of 'The Shadow Over Innsmouth'." Since "Dagon" is a round-about precursor to TSOI, I figured that the movie would somehow tie the two together - that it does, and manages to keep the mood longer than any HPL movie I've seen to-date. Though the producers took liberties with the story, I think changing "Innsmouth" to "In-boca" (ha-ha! neat joke!) and having the inhabitants speaking Spanish, Galacian and A Language That Is Not Of This Earth was a great touch.
However, though I totally agree with a previous poster who mentioned that the ending is excellent, I think the movie misses on a lot of levels, especially the special effects. The "Innsmouth Look" didn't need any CGI, though the "language" - sounded like whales to me, cool! - was good. I also thought the gore wasn't necessary at all, but I appreciate that the "sex" was kept to a minimum. In HPL film adaptations (Re-Animator, From Beyond and even The Dunwich Horror) the sex (Uxia is HOT, don't get me wrong) gets in the way; HPL didn't need it to make great stories, so what's the point in adding it? The music and sound is superior; if you have a good surround system, you'll feel chills down your spine.
Ok, so "Lemuria" - previous attempt at filming part of "The Shadow Over Innsmouth" - is sort of justified; with "Dagon" let's close the film can on trying to film TSOI. I want to see "The Call of Cthulu" done on a big budget and with S.T. Joshi's blessing. And I'd like to see "Dream in the Witch-House" as well. And while you're at it, how about "The Haunter in the Dark."?
So last night I finally rented the DVD. At the video store, I read the movie's "liner notes" on the back of the DVD box and instantly said to myself, "this is a filmed version of 'The Shadow Over Innsmouth'." Since "Dagon" is a round-about precursor to TSOI, I figured that the movie would somehow tie the two together - that it does, and manages to keep the mood longer than any HPL movie I've seen to-date. Though the producers took liberties with the story, I think changing "Innsmouth" to "In-boca" (ha-ha! neat joke!) and having the inhabitants speaking Spanish, Galacian and A Language That Is Not Of This Earth was a great touch.
However, though I totally agree with a previous poster who mentioned that the ending is excellent, I think the movie misses on a lot of levels, especially the special effects. The "Innsmouth Look" didn't need any CGI, though the "language" - sounded like whales to me, cool! - was good. I also thought the gore wasn't necessary at all, but I appreciate that the "sex" was kept to a minimum. In HPL film adaptations (Re-Animator, From Beyond and even The Dunwich Horror) the sex (Uxia is HOT, don't get me wrong) gets in the way; HPL didn't need it to make great stories, so what's the point in adding it? The music and sound is superior; if you have a good surround system, you'll feel chills down your spine.
Ok, so "Lemuria" - previous attempt at filming part of "The Shadow Over Innsmouth" - is sort of justified; with "Dagon" let's close the film can on trying to film TSOI. I want to see "The Call of Cthulu" done on a big budget and with S.T. Joshi's blessing. And I'd like to see "Dream in the Witch-House" as well. And while you're at it, how about "The Haunter in the Dark."?
Boat Trip
(2002)
It's funny (minor spoilers)
23 November 2003
Warning: Spoilers
I rented the "unrated" version on DVD last night. Worth the $3.25 and hour and a half.
"Boat Trip" is a composite of "The Ritz," "Revenge of the Nerds" and "Animal House." As far as the portrayal of gay-ness is concerned, well, if you've seen a New York City Halloween or Gay Pride parade it's pretty familiar. The story is derivative - like every single comedy; and there are ironic twists (like just how does the Swedish women's tanning team end up "shipwrecked" anyway?) deserving of laughs. The film is not anti-gay, but it is honest about gay men - after all: it's THEIR cruise, Cuba and Horatio are the outsiders and do not belong; this is central to the story. Roger Moore is AMAZING, too, as the just-short-of-elderly oldster. He's at perhaps his tongue-in-cheek best in this film.
"Boat Trip" doesn't explain the meaning of life, it doesn't condemn gay men to hell, it doesn't set new standards for anything - it's a funny, risque, R-rated adult comedy.
"Boat Trip" is a composite of "The Ritz," "Revenge of the Nerds" and "Animal House." As far as the portrayal of gay-ness is concerned, well, if you've seen a New York City Halloween or Gay Pride parade it's pretty familiar. The story is derivative - like every single comedy; and there are ironic twists (like just how does the Swedish women's tanning team end up "shipwrecked" anyway?) deserving of laughs. The film is not anti-gay, but it is honest about gay men - after all: it's THEIR cruise, Cuba and Horatio are the outsiders and do not belong; this is central to the story. Roger Moore is AMAZING, too, as the just-short-of-elderly oldster. He's at perhaps his tongue-in-cheek best in this film.
"Boat Trip" doesn't explain the meaning of life, it doesn't condemn gay men to hell, it doesn't set new standards for anything - it's a funny, risque, R-rated adult comedy.
House of 1000 Corpses
(2003)
Pushes the envelope...
31 August 2003
This film pushes the envelope for just how bad a movie can be. Words have not yet been invented to describe how bad "House of 1,000 Corpses" is. I rented the DVD last night and forced myself to sit through it. Visually, it's a Rob Zombie/White Zombie show put to film, which ain't necessarily bad... The acting is good, however, and I laughed at a remark regarding the Manson girls being hot at the beginning, but from there it becomes this, this, this... like I said, words haven't yet been invented... so... Was it worth the $3.25 I paid and the hour and a half I spent watching it? Well, I won't rent it again. Fans of gore, fans with low standards, people who prefer comic books to real books, people who prefer Slipknot to Mozart, you may be amused.
Tell Your Friends