IAmTheMessageCenter Reviews

The Minimalists: Less Is Now (2021)

Less is More

[3/10 · 21 June 2021]

The irony about the less is more movement The Minimalists expound is that it only seems to apply to material objects. What about other extraneous things we don't need? Take, for example, this hour long infomercial whose sole purpose is to promote The Minimalists themselves and their brand. At best, a retread of their first film, at worst, like watching an ad exec bombing at a slam poetry night. This is certainly a waste, of bandwidth, of energy, and most especially, our time which could be better used for more meaningful and fulfilling endeavours (the kind of things they espouse as benefits of minimalizing).

The message is good but we've heard it all before. At this point it's just becoming clutter.

Quintet (1979)

A Rarity - Science Fiction movie done right

[10/10 · 11 December 2004]

I'm going to start this review by saying science fiction movies suck. It's not something I enjoy saying but there are only a handful of good sf movies (2001 and the original Solaris for example). It's really unfortunate because there are so many good sf books but when the genres is translated into the big screen it loses all its intelligence. The movies tend to be formulaic, dull, dumb action hybrids aimed at the adolescent crowd. So it is a rarity to see a good science fiction movie and Quintet is one of these. From the poor ratings on this site I was pretty upset but after I began to read the comments I didn't mind the ratings - after all people admitted that they couldn't understand the movie, that it was too complex, that you had to pay too much attention, etc. This isn't a problem with the movie. It's a problem with the audience. The movie is really not difficult to understand and I honestly wonder about people who find it is. What are they looking for in movies? A couple hours of mindless entertainment perhaps? We live in an era where stupid movies like Gladiator and Cube are considered "intelligent" and "literary". So when there's a movie that's deeper but you actually have to pay attention to it it's shunned.

Quintet is like a lot of the new wave of science fiction that came out of the 60's (I found it especially reminiscent of John Brunner's "The Squares of the City"). Set in an enigmatic future where another Ice Age has occurred it's the story of a game - a game that at one point mirrored life but now, in the city, it has become life that mirrors the game. The protagonist - Essex comes into this city with his wife and becomes involved in this game, not realizing how far the game leads. The game is played by a variety of interesting characters but the most fascinating is Saint Christopher. He just infuses the whole landscape of the snow bound city with his preachings on the desolation of life. The whole atmosphere of the setting just pulls you right into it with it's strange buildings and falling snow. And then there's the ending. An ending of a story is perhaps the most important part, as this is what you leave with, the part you take with you after the story is done - so an ending needs to be good. If done wrong it could ruin the whole story. Luckily Quintet has a great ending. The final, slightly ambiguous scene makes this future world seem even more captivating.

If you're a fan of 60-70's sf (Silverberg, Brunner, Ballard, et al.) or stories revolving around games (Hesse's Magister Ludi or the Glass Bead Game for example) then you should check out Quintet. If you are looking for a movie that you don't have to pay attention to or think about then look somewhere else, Hollywood is full of such movies.

(Note: I find it amusing that movies like Last Year at Marienbad at Naked Lunch which don't make any sense except what each individual decides for themselves get great reviews yet Quintet which does make sense to anyone who actually pays attention and uses a few brain cells gets poor reviews.)

Vampyres (1974)

Standard horror fare

[6/10 · 3 December 2004]

Vampyres is a film about two vampire women luring men into their house, killing them and drinking their blood. That's all the plot really entails. Nothing much happens outside of that. There are 3 other main characters - Ted, John and Harriet - the protagonists I guess you would call them. They wonder about what's going on but never actually do anything about it. None of the characters is given much depth or anything to do. While we can relate to them as being the normal people caught up in strange circumstances, beyond that we only get little hints about their personalities (for example Harriet is a painter, John likes fishing, not much to go on).

As for the Vampires, there isn't much about them other then being vampires. There's a whole psychology of vampires that is interesting -being immortal, having to kill to stay alive, being alienated from the rest of the world and constantly on the run, etc. None of this is brought into the movie. I'm sure a lot of people don't care about those elements but for me having characters of depth elevates a movie above the standard horror conventions.

The movie starts with the two women (Fran & Miriam) being shot and killed by an unknown assailant. Why they are killed and who the murderer is aren't revealed in the movie. When next we meet these women they are vampires. How they became vampires is another question left unsolved. And then there is Ted. When we first meet him he is checking into a hotel. The hotel manager recognizes him and says he's an old customer in which Ted rebukes as he has never been here before. Then upon his first meeting with Fran, Ted says she seems familiar and reminds him of someone. Then there is something about Harriet having a mark on her that made her appearance foreseen by the vampires. Now, if like me, you are expecting these strange factors to be going somewhere you'll be disappointed. These occurrences are completely forgotten in the movie and one wonders why they were even put in. Perhaps too make it seem more deep than it actually is? Needless to say the ending is a major disappointment, rather then providing good conclusions and answers to the story it just ends.

The movie has all those great locations looked for in a horror movie - a castle overgrown with vegetation, a creepy forest, a cemetery, crypts, etc. These settings are the most successful element in the film and I would love to visit where the movie was shot. There is of course storms and dark nights to add effect. Still it could have used with a bit of fog in places - I know that tends to be overdone in horror movies but it does add a lot of atmosphere. And the cinematography isn't good enough to make it as visually stunning as some films (Mario Bava's for example) but it does what it should.

The movie tends to be dubbed as an erotic movie and from the trailer it would seem it's all about sex. There are a few sex scenes, not nearly as much as the trailer would lead you to believe (in fact if you have seen the trailer you've seen pretty much all the sex and nudity). Whether that is a good or bad thing is up to the viewer. On the good side it allows the movie to be a horror movie not just some trashy exploitive sex movie. On the downside since not much happens in the movie one might want some more sex scenes to steam it up. As sex scenes go though, they are OK, not overly erotic or anything. The best thing of course is that they fit into the movie. They aren't just stuck in to make it more sexy. The likening of vampires drinking blood to the pleasures of sex has been done many times but perhaps not so effectively as this film. Men writhing in agony with blood all over them while the women lick it off in a frenzy, while grotesque, has a natural and primal look to it, as if evolution took a strange turn and vampires actually did exist this would probably be what their feedings would look like.

Overall I would give it a 6 out of 10. For those looking for a horror movie with nice atmosphere, blood and sex - Vampyres has it. But outside that there isn't anything that elevates it above standard horror movies.

Fellini Satyricon (1969)

Greed, Debauchery and Decadence

[6/10 · 24 November 2004]

Made in the late 60's this gaudy and grotesque looking film was Fellini's portrayal of the hedonistic and free-wheeling weirdness of the sixties through a mirror of ancient Roman decadence. Based on Petronius' Satyricon, the satirical film follows the exploits of Encolpio across the ancient Roman world. The film is a journey but with no quest or final goal in sight it makes for a meandering film brimming with brutality, gluttony, indulgence and sexuality.

While 8 1/2 is really the only really required viewing of Fellini's films, Satyricon is one of his lesser efforts. After so much critical acclaim, the director seemed able to get away with anything and with Satyricon he did. No plot, no likable characters and improvisational acting made for a film that didn't have much beyond the visual look. The poignant and meaningful moments of his other works were all but eliminated here. Nonetheless, as a brutal examination of excess and personal pleasure above all else, Satyricon is a worthwhile film to watch.

The Horrible Dr. Hichcock (1962)

Creepy but doesn't make sense

[5/10 · 17 August 2004]

This is an average horror movie with some creepy moments and good atmosphere but a shaky plot that will leave the viewer befuddled.

Spoilers

It starts off with Dr Hichcock injecting something into his smiling and willing wife. It's later revealed that it's an anaesthesia that can slow down the heart. Apparently he's a necrophiliac (though, being an old movie that element isn't made too clear) and his wife doesn't have a problem with it (and considering they sleep in separate rooms they are obviously a strange couple). When he injects too much she dies, or so we think. He returns 12 years later with a new wife Cynthia (Barbara Steele) but his first wife is still alive, as the Doctor knows. Why is she still alive? The movie doesn't elaborate. He wants to use Cynthia's blood to return his first wife's beauty (according to the back cover synopses anyway, there was only an obscure reference to this at the end of the movie). Why does he need to use her blood? Why couldn't he just use anyone's blood? He obviously has no problems with killing people so that's not a factor. Plus, he's a doctor and deals with blood and death for a living, why couldn't he just take the blood from one of his patients. It would be much more inconspicuous. But no, he takes some long, haphazard route of leaving for 12 years, getting married again and using Cynthia's blood. There is no reason given for this. And that's the main problem with this movie - It has too many plot holes and unanswered questions. It's easy to get absorbed in the creepy atmosphere but when you're left shaking your head at the end the movie proves more disappointing then appealing. It's too bad really because these problems could have been solved easily. The script is probably the easiest thing to do in a movie and considering this movie was a straight-forward horror there should not be room for such glaring errors. They nailed the directing, set design, costumes, acting and cinematography (somewhat anyway, for the last two) but they fail on the simplest element of the script.

I should note however this is the 76 minute version so perhaps the fault lies in this edited version.

One more thing to add, while I have seen Barbara Steele in a few Fellini films this is the first horror movie I have seen her in and from this movie alone I can understand why she became a horror cult icon.

Summer (2002)

the best movie no one will see

[10/10 · 1 March 2004]

I didn't intend to watch this movie. It was on tv and I just caught it 2 minutes into the film. Funny lines and immediately interesting characters kept me absorbed but the moment they ended up at the pool (one of the main locations in the movie - the meeting place and hang-out spot for the characters) with jazzy electronic music playing on the soundtrack I was hooked. Movies about college grads hanging out and coming to terms with what they are going to do with their lives has been done many times before but I have to say this is the best of the bunch. The situations the characters have to deal with are similar to what most people of that age have to deal with, which makes everyone immediately identifiable. The acting from the young and unknown, yet extremely talented cast is superb, the story and pacing are spot on, never dragging at all and the music is a delight. I can't fault the movie in any area. Phil Price seems to come from the same generation of young film makers who grew up on John Hughes movies (Kevin Smith is another example) and like Smith's characters the characters in the movie even talk about John Hughes movies. Thing is unlike works from Smith, Richard Linklater, et al, this one won't be seen by many people and not fully appreciated. It is really too bad, as this beats them hands down.