TonyDood Reviews

Baby Reindeer (2024)

Brilliant Black Comedy Tries a Little Too Hard

[6/10 · 26 April 2024]

I don't generally watch things without a lot of research first and prefer the entertainment I "consume" (oh brother) to be far off the beaten path of mainstream, yet I was suspicious about this one. The word on the street about this show was intriguing enough I ultimately decided to gamble on it and don't regret it. It's certainly watchable, compelling and thought-provoking (but then, so is a car wreck, which this greatly resembles). But can I be one of the only reviewers to point out it's actually a clever black comedy in the spirit of the wonderful Todd Solondz ("Happiness," "Welcome to the Dollhouse"), "Wrinkle of Sadness" or "Saltburn?"

I can't honestly believe anyone would look at this as anything other than what it is--a compelling, very fictionalized account of some things that probably happened (and, unfortunately, happen a lot) whipped into a lurid, dry-witted entertainment inspired by the success of "Tiger King" and other geek shows (that happen to draw lots of viewers and water-cooler talk), but maybe that's the case? Maybe some really are taking this material seriously?

The clues that reveal this work as dark farce are sprinkled throughout. There are actual, obvious jokes that start the ball rolling of course, but the frumpy dresses and hair styles of the 2 main female characters consitute further clues. The scenes of "Donnie's" cringe-inducing failure as a comedian are actually part of a rich history in entertainment of this sort that has become something of a cliche over the years (and remind one of the similarly narcissist-focused old film "Punchline" starring Tom Hanks, or even the more recent narcissist-focused "Joker" or "I'm Still Here," films with Joaquin Phoenix).

As late as episode 6 there are scenes with the protagonist's ridiculous parents that are laugh-out-loud funny, and clearly intended to be, albeit in a way that defines black humor, something difficult to categorize. Even the notorious "4th episode" getting everyone all worked up (really, it was all that shocking? After we already had things like "The Crowded Room," "The Boys," or the dreadful, straight-forward, rape-fantasy film "Blonde" in 2022?) contains two legitimate laughs: "Don't puke in the cat dish!" and Tom Goodman-Hill's genius, giggle-inducing interprative dance. It's a very European sensibility, this kind of black humor but still...does no one "get" this, really?

It is, of course, the allegedly-truth-based story of a troubled young man who attracts an equally troubled female stalker and, in his quest to find himself, finds a lot more trouble, including the realization he's not so much above his stalker morally as he'd like to think. To the degree that it portrays the ins and outs of stalking, something I have a lot of experience with unfortunately, it overturns a big rock in a big way. One of the (several) problems with the show is that the stalking angle is what draws viewers in and it is, unfortunately, far more compelling than the concerns of our self-absorbed protagonist, who admittedly has a face you can't stop looking at but needs a re-write for his personal journey to be truly compelling.

Had the show kept on track as a stalking story, however, it would merely be an ugly retread of the 80s film version of "Fatal Attraction." The raison d'etre, and the element that has tongues wagging, is undoubtedly how the show sneaks in the protagonist's (or writer's, perhaps) sexual identity conflicts. Alas, the show is not brave enough (and mainstream audiences are still not ready enough) to tackle this material with the same energy the show embraces the wonderful love-hate it has with its limerent, dangerously psychotic female supporting character.

Really, if the show were to follow through on what it clearly wants to be about, it would have continued for a few more episodes and shown "Donnie" facing, and beginning to resolve, his demons in earnest...which might have--gasp--included no longer demonizing the man who abused him (it is a thing that happens, after all, even if it is tough to pull off narratively).

The show is careful to represent the actual abuse as despicably as possible so we're on the side of the victim of the abuse, but any thinking viewer (and the imdb reviews alone, it seems, after a quick perusal) will point out that the information around these scenes, and the aftermath, leave so much out as to render the validity of this being any kind of "truth" negligable. A deeper delve into this strange situation would have been equally riveting considering the way the show encourages a gut-level immediate reaction of revulsion, but may have made more sympathy (or at least understanding) for the lead character possible.

But it's just not where audiences are yet apparently. It's a start anyway.

And herein lies the genius of the show, if it has any: it is NOT based in reality, it is a fiction, an entertainment--even a p!ss-take.

No human on earth could be as hapless and hopeless as our protagonist, and un-self-aware, and end up working the material professionally enough to sell it as a series to Netflix.

Maudlin aspects aside (and another failing of the show is its reliance on extended periods of pathos that become redundent-unto-boredom, like many extended-length series of its kind), the show works as a brilliant satire, wickedly commenting on the place of the "new, castrated male" in society, the "cult of victim" society we live in overall, current pop-psychology methods ("I'm triggered!" "I'm traumatized!") and exploration of the millenial generation that many have accused of being lazy, un-focused, spoiled, over-indulged, emotionally trigger-happy and helpless in the face of even simple conflicts (whether that's valid or not is another story entirely). This show could actually be read as a manifesto used by conservatives to reaffirm all the dangers of liberal/progessive tolerance ("See? See? I told ya that's what would happen!")

I choose to think the work is sincere, but very black-humored, entertainment and very aware of its intended goal meant to "épater les bourgeois" (as entertainment, not reality or crime TV) at which it has succeeded marvelously it seems; I hope that's what this show is actually, in which case I heartily laughed out loud all along the way (something I rarely do)--AT the characters and situations and not with them (which is black humor in a nutshell) and respected it for "going there" and even farther at times.

If, in fact, this was staged as a heartfelt plea for understanding, compassion or exposure of social ills, intending to represent real-life issues in a realistic way, and the uneven tonal shifts, stilted, flat camera work, over-emotive-unto-grotesque acting (and all the close-ups), unpleasant characters and and lack of traditional narrative structures are not intentional, this would be considered merely sensationalist, and inept.

Scarface (1983)

What "Scarface" is Really "About"

[9/10 · 9 November 2023]

I loved "Scarface" when it first came out. I was 17 and it was the first time I went to see an R-rated movie solo. I'd loved DePalma's lurid previous films that I'd seen on cable. His new gangster film didn't interest me, looking to be another in a long line of staid, dreary, humorless "Godfather"-esque movies (which he would actually do later, with the fine, if workman-like "The Untouchables"). But it was a DePalma film, Giorgio Moroder was listed in the soundtrack and one night I was just in the right mood. I loved the film and saw it several times first-run, and have watched it a million times since.

Years later I worked with someone who had been an LA gang member, and he told me he worshipped the film because it represented the American Dream, the story he'd tried to emulate himself, the rise of someone from the dirt to the highest heights.

"And then the fall, where you realize 'Tony Montana' gained nothing, had nothing and was nothing...?" I added, nervously. That part, my co-worker said, was beside the point. Montana had gone down in a "blaze of glory," he said. "If you say so," I said.

"Scarface," the 80s update of the notorious censorship-pushing Howard Hughes film from the 30s, is a long, loud, over-bright, delirious essay in excess, the story of someone who does indeed rise from the mire of his unfortunate origins, attains as much material success as might be deemed humanly possible, thinking it's a worthy goal, and dies in a spray of bullets...screaming, fighting, spitting and cursing all the way. It wasn't what audiences of the day expected and so it wasn't successful at first; it found new life as a cult film over the years and influenced media and culture in surprising ways over time, including being the basis for a popular video game series.

As a kid I marveled at the sight of cartoon people running around, unbound by any sense of morality, basically grown-up brats literally getting away with murder. I laughed frequently at Pacino's over-the-top performance, the trashy-yet-glitzy locales, the aerobics-on-coke soundtrack and of course all the "red, red krovvy" flowing--I was probably in the target audience for a movie like this, and from what I can tell young men trying to figure out how the world works fall under the film's spell regularly even today. But I knew at the time it was all silly and not to be taken seriously. If anything, it was a cautionary tale for someone like me, setting out in life. Michelle Pfeiffer's "Elvira" character puts it best when she states that our protagonists are not winners, they're losers. I didn't want to emulate them, I wanted to actually "win" in the face of what I saw as a series of bad choices made by the characters, choices that inevitably ended in their demise, the ultimate "lose." I enjoyed the film and left smiling because the protagonists all got what they deserved in the end for being such idiots; Montana doesn't go down in a blaze of glory, he ends in a pathetic pool of his own body fluids. Nothing he did in the course of the film amounted to anything that would last, his bravado proved petty and piteous in the face of his own mortality, his ridiculously engorged "little friend" final weapon, like the guns of most young men who wave them around fiercely with threats and animal cries, became a literal substitute for his genital/sexual shortcomings.

DePalma knows all this and presents it quite obviously in terms of the campy tone of the film, which may have been why it failed initially; it's impossible for anyone who has a functioning brain to take any of the events of the film seriously and anyone who does take it seriously has literally missed the point of the film, which is that the world of gangsters presented in the wild swirl of 80s pastels on screen isn't something glorious, it's depressing in its cluelessness, laugh-inducing in its pointlessness. It's low-brow black comedy, not a "credo" for insecure teenagers overloaded with testosterone and looking for their path in life.

Unfortunately it seems the message has been lost on most viewers who adore the film and "gangster" culture has gone mainstream...and it's likely the popularity of "Scarface" among the home-viewing crowd over the decades at least helped, and illiterate, chest-pounding thugs have replaced rational, creative, truly successful thinking persons as heroes in popular media. It's a shame, because, if you're really paying attention, at its heart "Scarface"-turning 40 years old this year--is both a fun, cartoony romp and a mad morality tale that, for some of us anyway, works as sharp satire, reaffirming what we knew all along about what "success" really is. Hint: most of the characters in "Scarface" end up dead or permanently broken by the film's end; the actors who portrayed them went on to perform in other films.

The Munsters (2022)

Only Gen-X'ers Will Get How Clever This Is

[8/10 · 19 October 2023]

As usual, I read a lot of negative/lukewarm online reviews about Rob Zombie's new take on the "Munsters" TV show and so chose to pass when it first came out...I decided to check it out this year and was--as usual--surprised that those reviews didn't line up with my understanding (and enjoyment) of the movie, at all, and I think I know why.

Zombie's "Munsters" is, of course, about the way that Herman Munster came to be, and came into the life of vampire-ish Lilian and her dad, the former besotted wth this new creature, the latter apalled. How this group becomes a family and moves to sunny California is a setup for what would eventually be the show that played in the 60s. The characters are familiar even to non-Munster fans, being based on Universal monster icons. The look of the thing is all lurid colors, over-the-top acting and has a generally cheap TV-movie feel. The laughs are also cheap, the story is episodic and fluffy, and, surprisingly for Zombie, it's all pitched at the level of a family audience (well, kind of).

The reason most people didn't like it, in my humble opinion, is that Zombie made both an homage and tongue-in-cheek satire of a type of entertainmet that is from an era long gone and so the enjoyment of it wouldn't be accessible to anyone who didn't experience it as a kid originally, and the era in question is not actually the 60s, it's the 70s.

Zombie's "Munsters" is a pitch-perfect evocation of the kind of lurid, stupid, over-the-top, has-been-star-studded, Kroft Super Show-style variety specials and special event films that were the staple of TV for anyone watching between about 1969 and 1985. This movie ABSOLUTELY NAILS the cheap, trashy, weird-unto-surreal effect things like "Return to Gilligan's Island," "Paul Lynde's Halloween Special" and even reunion movies of the Addam's and Brady families had on young audiences of the day, and to look at it any other way is to completely miss the point (and the genius of it).

It's so completely dead-on in embracing the kind of dumb laughs Sherwood Schwartz (Gilligan, Bradys) and shows like "Green Acres" always aimed for, which is just simply not a "thing" anymore, while also using current cultural references to reflect the trashy times we currently live in, that it's something like an art film in its own way.

Too high of praise perhaps, but at the least it works as a low-rent "Brady Bunch Movie" like the 2 Brady films from the 90s...it absolutely knows how "stupid" it is, and completely embraces it, defiantly in some cases, because that's how shows played when Zombie and others in my generation were growing up. But I can't imagine anyone who did NOT grow up with that kind of entertainment having any clue what they were seeing with this new Munsters, and so of course they'd find it merely stupid or shallow--at the least, it wouldn't satisfy their expectations for a post-modern, clever, ironic, quippy update of a really dumb show. It is actually incredibly clever, but not in the way viewers looking for irony, fast, "zinger"-style laughs and the kind of "over it" commentary that is the staple of modern times (for better and for worse) would expect. It lands right in the center of the tacky variety show/reunion film of the 70s decade, but if you don't know that reference (let alone appreciate it), you wouldn't get it, and that's unfortunate, because it's kind of brilliant (observe the "Sonny and Cher" homage--again--nobody under 50 could possibly relate to it or get why its so funny...and it is, joyously so).

The other thing that makes it brilliant is that if you know Zombie's work at all, you know he has fangs, and in "Munsters" they're barely concealed. It would be the equal of Russ Meyer directing with a true feminist edge or Quentin Tarantino doing something non-violent and without curse words...is it even possible? One is constantly expecting one of Zombie's "Munsters" to start swearing or suddenly brandish a bloody blade, and yet the worst we get is a harsh rock number from Herman and a couple other things...The Count leering over a magazine that exploits necks the way Playboy theoretically exploits women (although I did see a spoil-sport reviewer suggest that he was actually leering at women offensively in the magazine...you see how people just simply don't GET this...? The joke is not even the leer itself, it's making fun of the leer. But in a literal-minded world like the one we're in today that joke would be lost).

There are subtle, potentially offensive jokes involving race, sex, gender...xenophobia, the old Catskill comic trope is dragged out...but it's never mean-spirited, quite the opposite...but see...that stuff was just par for the course if you were watching TV in the 70s, we were able to openly laugh about everything back then, unlike now...good, bad or indifferent, Zombie absolutely nailed the "trashy 70s special" aesthetic, and while it does suffer from a lot of unfortunate problems (it's too long, the last section is far more interesting than the first 3/4, it does lose the tone its going for now and then and is sometimes just merely bad, not cleverly bad), but overall I found it a startlingly clever, satisfying and fun love letter to a style of entertainment that is long gone and, yeah, probably doesn't make any sense to modern audiences, but was sure fun to see again for someone from that era, particularly when created by someone with a great eye who truly understands how that era worked. And even Sheri Moon did a great job and was fun to watch, and that's saying something, ha ha.

Renfield (2023)

We Don't Deserve Original and Fun Movies

[8/10 · 9 September 2023]

Renfield is fast, smart, funny, attractive to look at, original, well-made and fun. And it was a huge flop.

This is the story of the famous vampire Dracula's wing man (or something) from the epistolary novel by Bram Stoker and portrayed over the years as increasingly berserk in scads of films. Here the character is re-imagined as someone more sane and with a modicum of super-powers who has a crisis of faith and tries vainly to break free from his controlling master, in a journey that parallels the pop-psychology-obsessed world we live in at the time of this writing where victims must find ways to deal with their victimizers, through self-help groups and journeys of self-esteem building, with a subplot about underground crime rings. It is told in a snappy, colorful style with confident direction and charismatic acting, particularly by the charming Nicholas Hoult, fierce and funny Awkwafina and alway-mesmerising Nicholas Cage in a fun turn as Count Drac.

So what went wrong?

It's very simple. We did.

As a film-going body, we failed this film. It's possible the marketing was off--I was not in the least bit interested in another tired exploration of the Dracula story, a triope often used simply for the name recognition. I had no idea this film was such an enjoyable work of FILM first, and that the story, such that it is (there isn't a lot, and that's a good thing) was secondary to the ebullient atmosphere of the film itself.

But I'm not in the prime demographic for movies like this, being older. Reading through the reviews on IMDB for this film is to risk severe nausea. On one side is a simple, brainless, useless kind of exclamatory statement like, "I liked it and thought it was funny!"

On the other side, and far worse, are endless lists of ways the film doesn't fit any acceptable established "genre" and therefore failed at being entertaining.

I say this in all seriousness: I implore anyone reading to contact me and explain to me how we got here, how we now live in a world where people get upset because they "thought it would be another take on The Dracula Mythos and it wasn't," as if that's even a thing? Or, "It's not an effective vampire-kung fu." Or, "It's got too much action to be a proper comedy" (or vice versa). "It's a Nic Cage picture." "It's a Nicholas Hoult film." Or even, "It's trying to be an MCU genre-type pic."

Seriously, because the fate of film lies in your hands, film fans...what is going on here? Let me state for the record, again for anyone reading...there is No Such Thing as a "Film Noir." Filming something in black and white with trench coats, cigarettes, pistols, intrigue and v.o. In the 40s means nothing, it's just something you can do in a film. A label like "film noir" is just a label, and has nothing to do with the film contained in it worth mentioning. A film is not a "musical." It is not an "animation" (a now-common descriptor that sickens me in its lack of grammatical taste...would you call a motion picture a "motion?") A film--this film, to be specific--exists as a "thing" all on its own, "genre" or not. There are no "rules," no "categories." That's what makes it fun, and to lose faith in something because you can't fit it into a shoebox label is absurd. You probably didn't like this movie because you didn't get it, because you were so busy trying to label it.

Renfield is funny, silly--stupid, even--loud, gross, tense, mean, wild, crazy, sexy, clever, even conservative at times...yes, those are labels one can apply. But what on earth is this need to label something as, say, part of a "franchise" and then get upset when the "product" doesn't live up to the rules of that label? The end result of this is a world of generic, stale, unedifying and thoroughly un-entertaining programming where no one laughs, no one smiles, no one is scared or moved, or--most importantly--entertained. "Entertainment" that works like an electronic teat that suckles the brain dead.

Renfield is a great little piece of smart fun that has the ability to engage and amuse despite itself, and this kind of thing must be encouraged if film is to survive beyond a lurching zombie-version of what it used to be.

I'm not personally making films anymore and not in the demographic for this form of entertainment, YOU are. It's in your hands. Will you support startling, original and well-made films like "Renfield" that exist for no other reason than to entertain in a smart, fun way? Or will you line up to eat the same gruel you were fed last week and say, "This week's porridge certainly has less taste than the porridge they fed us a week ago, porridge should have more taste than this"? It's up to you. Enjoy the results. Or maybe, keep an open mind and have some fun with a little nugget like "Renfield" while they still make fun, original films like this, that's what they're there for, and we may not see the like again at this rate.

Siesta (1987)

"Death Dreams"

[7/10 · 2 February 2023]

MAJOR SPOILERS! "Siesta" was part of a wave of independent-budget "art" films that showed up in the 80s, buoyed by the success of VCRs and films like "Blue Velvet" and "9 and 1/2 Weeks," and riding off the era of the 1970s when filmmakers were sometimes given budgets to take chances. This film is something like a smaller "Jacob's Ladder" as directed by David Lynch with softcore producer Zalman King holding the purse strings. But is it any good?

Again, MAJOR SPOILERS: The film's entirety is composed of the last thoughts going on in the mind of a woman who is dying from a skydiving accident. Literally nothing that takes place in the film "really" happens, at least by the director's own account. It's a bit of a "bait and switch," as a casual viewer is unlikely to be able to figure that out from a single viewing, and even repeat viewings allude to the lead character's death as an act of homicide resulting from a jealous rage and a torrid love affair. I'm pretty sure at least part of the ire the film evokes in unhappy or dismissive reviewers who feel compelled to come to IMDB and talk about how much they hated the experience of watching the film is that they were so befuddled by the lack of plot, and it so defied their expectations as to how a film should be constructed and how meaning should be conveyed cinematically, that it resulted in an unpleasant viewing experience. It's a shame, because this is actually a really unique piece of cinema, despite its (many) flaws.

Again, by the director's own admission, the film has a lot of problems and missteps...the plot is deliberately obtuse and misleading, the acting tends to be hyper and cartoonish, scenes go on too long or too short and/or lack motivation. The first-time viewer is repeatedly denied the kinds of clues that would help make sense of a messy chain of events (although a case could be made this is exactly the point--like "Jacob's Ladder" the unease of experiencing a distorted reality is the intended effect). Then the film resorts to exploitation tropes--intense scenes of nudity, sexuality and violence (and occasionally all three at once) to a point that seems hard to justify other than pure shock and titialation on the most base of levels. But, hey, shock works, it gets attetion, always has and always will, there's nothing new under the sun and this film is actually rather tame by the standards of the time of this review.

That being said, the look and atmosphere of the film, including some often-dated but mesmerizing (unforgettable actually) score work, featuring Miles Davis...gorgeous views of crumbling sections of Spain, dream-logic moments that are as pure as moving paintings, berserk cameos by some familiar and unfamiliar faces and, yes, the all-in performance by a young, tan, luminously beautiful Ellen Barkin in and out of her clothes, make this an unforgettable experience that still holds up decades later.

This is an ":art" film, it was meant to evoke a response, even if the response is revulsion, disgust...perhaps even boredom (it is called "Siesta" after all). It does a wonderful job of pointing out the instability of perception, the way the consciousness of the human brain tries to make sense of the stimuli around it even when slipping into an unconscious, or damaged state (like dreams, or the last moments of a life, when the faculties are shutting down...hence a persistent belief in things like "a white light" or "seeing god" as reported by those who have survived near-death experiences, which were ultimately dream-state moments where reality and unconsciousness started to blend).

Based on the merits contained in the film (including a wonderful, out-of-character performance by Jody Foster) and the intent of the director, the answer to the question of whether or not this film is any "good" is a confident "yes." Here's hoping it gets a proper re-release someday, and some more of the recognition it deserves, for what it tried to do as much as what it fails to do.

Mary's Incredible Dream (1976 TV Movie)

They'll Always Drub You For Trying Something Different...

[9/10 · 14 December 2022]

It's easy to beat-up on projects that reek of pretention or hubris for laughs, bad ideas gone awry through ego or the tossing of cash or drug use or simple eccentricity; in fact it's one of my favorite pastimes, reading OR writing about filmed "failures." So why defend "Mary's Incredible Dream?"

Because it's bloody amazing. The world has never seen the like, nor will it again. In the drab post-Christmas days of January 1976 this little kid-and scores of others-sat down in front of the TV to be Entertained. We had already survived the World of Sid and Marty Kroft...I defy anyone to point out anything in "Dream" that is more brash, vulgar, loud or confusing than what Kroft's shows did *every Saturday morning* in their shows. We'd had variety specials...watch even the most conservative episode of "Donny and Marie" from the era and feel your ability to blink diminishing...it's still That Powerfully Camp.

But this was different (and still is). The "Mary" we all thought we knew and loved stepping out as a singer and dancer was one thing...merrily jumping feet-first into a Ken-Russell-in-Lisztomania-mode nightmare-rock-opera television special wasn't something ANYone expected, and that's half the fun.

The special loosely explores Biblical themes (God vs. Satan, Adam and Eve, Noah...there's even-gulp-a nail through a giant hand ala crucifixion). It has singing, dancing, fiddle-playing, wacky costumes, tacky sets. It has the Manhattan Transfer playing demons and Old Scratch himself screaming ridiculously as he's returned to his Hellfire. It's a musical variety TV special for the whole family where they chant, "666 is the number of The Beast!"

It assaults the viewer with a barrage of mis-matched musical cues, none of which last more than a minute or so, replicating what one suspects the effects of being on cocaine are like. It has the visual aesthetic of early-70s Sesame Street mixed with a tub of LSD. In one hour it crams in a complete journey from heaven to hell and back again that rivals Disney's "Night On Bald Mountain" in terms of both redemption and insanity.

Yes, it's "bad." We all know it's "bad," it doesn't bear repeating...but what's so bad about it? That it didn't quite do what it set out to do?

Mary doesn't quite convince as a triple-threat diva, warranting smirks at times (even when I was a kid). It looks as if it was hacked together from random cuts at times, as if neither the performers nor the producers had any idea what was going on. It rambles...some parts go on and on, some are cut short. It meanders...it's impossible to tell what's going on half the time. The music is generally shrill (I don't know which is more grating, Ben Vereen's voice, Doug Kershaw's pre-punk fiddling or Manhattan Transfer's blasts of small, screeching segments of otherwise pleasant tunes). Visually it hardly ever slows down (again, channeling Russell), and the visual effects-innovative for the time perhaps-are headache-inducing, although that actually works in its favor after a couple of strong drinks I've noticed. Perhaps the worst "sin" it commits is taking itself too seriously, even as it, like all 70s variety shows, embraces its camp...it doesn't embrace it in the right way I guess.

So what's the "good?" The haunting image of giant hands as a visual motif was seared into my brain when I was a kid, as was the image of a half-submerged Eiffel Tower. The surreal, yet silly, juxtapositions (Mary as a fallen glamor-girl Eve living in a cave singing a torchy love song is alternately weird, sad and hysterical, Mary singing a call-to-arms for recruiting nubile young men nears Fosse-level sexy fun, her expressionistic version of "I'm Still Here" is heartfelt if, still, kind of embarrassing). The religious "rise and fall" elements really hit me as a kid (well, I was pretty religious as a kid)...yeah, her "Morning Has Broken" is laughable but the song is powerful enough to overcome even Mary's feeble attempt. But I memorized every frame of this as I watched it for some reason and it has influenced my own work in myriad ways; it was different, unexpected, it hits the mark in weird ways here and there and it's hard to forget once you've seen it, in positive and negative ways.

Bottom line...this is a fun watch, whether you watch it with irony or straight. I've watched it dozens of times since I first acquired it years ago, after searching for it for decades. I love this messy thing, and I know others do too, and the only thing that's "incredible" is that there's no way to see a good copy of it (yet). Here's a toast to Mary for trying something new and different, for better and for worse...I'm not a "Mary" fan (and maybe Mary fans who didn't like how it betrayed their shallow image of who Mary was are most of the haters) but I'm sure glad this thing exists.

Snoopy Presents: It's the Small Things, Charlie Brown (2022 TV Special)

Gorgeous, well-intended schmaltz

[3/10 · 16 October 2022]

To criticize a well-intended little animated special that attempts to convey a positive message (I think) and keep the spirit of beloved cartoon characters from another time alive seems akin to kicking a proverbial Beagle, yet I can't help it. This program made me unhappy, so I'm sharing my thoughts for anyone who is interested in a counterpoint to, "Watch it because I just thought it was lovely!"

To begin with, it's truly stunning in a visual sense; for some time now, at least as far back as the Peanuts feature film from 2015, digital technology has given the Peanuts world a vision that is both respectful to the Schulz original and improves it for modern audiences, something one suspects Schulz would have approved of. And certainly, over the years, beginning some time in the mid-to-late 70s, the short specials and films that kept arriving into the 80s began to devolve into less authentic, less intelligent, less subtle, less edgy and generally less fun pablum. "I Want a Dog For Christmas" from 2003 probably came about as close to authentic post-Schulz as one could, but that one lacked story and point and just looked like a really authentic copy, albeit an entertaining and well-made one.

Now there's this; Sally Brown falls in love with a dandelion on the field where the Peanuts kids play baseball and things descend into a tug of war that is so on-the-nose about its message it's cringe-inducing: "What's more important, the tiny pathetic things of nature or the will that we insist on imposing on it all?" Were Schulz alive I suspect he'd have laid the question out, in much more subtle tones, and left it to the audience to decide, while making us laugh and cry all the while...a response that is mature, considering it really isn't all that easy a proposition ultimately: Yes, it's important to pay attention to our frail, evaporating resources; yes, we still have to live and having gotten used to a way of life, it's hard to change. Yes, we need to change, but change isn't easy.

Here we have things I hoped to never encounter in a "Charlie Brown" special...Sally and Charlie growing truly upset with each other as their wills clash, then Sally and Charlie joining hands and walking off into a synthetic sunset with the emotional maturity of adult couples in a Hallmark Christmas movie. The fun of the Peanuts kids was that they ACTED like little adults, not that they actually were...no kid, ever, has or would act like Charlie and Sally do here, and considering kids aren't fully formed creatures they shouldn't be expected to do so. Making things even worse is an annoying and cloying Ben Folds song that I'm happy to say I was finally able to remove from my head.

What's missing are funny jokes, irony, the harsh realities of kid-dom and any sense of moral ambiguity (even the "Christmas" special, which the makers of this were clearly trying to emulate, is vague about HOW exactly the pathetic little tree blossomed--God's love, or the love of the little kids, or both, but it's never stated outright, leaving room for thought...here it's simply "magic," more's the pity.

Worst of all, it's all played dreadfully serious, with Sally presented as a sort of hippie-guru-martyr...the lesson seems to be everyone should ignore their rational instincts and step in line (cough, sorry) follow Sally into her cause of adoring a small weed simply because she believes in it so strongly, not because you've researched the cause yourself and made up your own mind, because if you had you might have realized that the reason weeds have a stigma is not because people are "mean" but because *weeds will inevitably kill other things that you have planted that you also loved.* It would be akin to re-framing the ending of the beloved Christmas special so that the kids rally 'round Charlie at last not because they saw the magic that came to the sad little tree themselves, but because Charlie simply TOLD them that it had bloomed, that it was important, and that they should accept it on his word and be joyful.

Am I the only one who sees this as problematic, I wonder?

Well, again, even though the over-the-top emotionalism, the story-by-committee feel, the lack of sincerity and the agenda-pushing on this one made me grind my teeth, there are far worse messages to convey than what this attempts to do. The score nicely emulates Vince Guaraldi, the overall feel is gentle and pleasant to look at. Unlike the first run of Peanuts cartoons, this wasn't meant for everyone, only people of a certain age or those who find the contents charming and/or valuable. Alas, I am not one of those people...would Sally love the "weed" that is me as much, I wonder?

Thankfully people still return to the original holiday specials it seems; here's hoping when people watch them in the future they actually understand what those shows were saying.

Malibu Horror Story (2023)

Fun little horror film

[4 December 2021]

Saw this at a free screening (but have no connections with anyone connected to the film) so I had no expectations at all which is always helpful.

The first half contained a (fictional) documentary explaining how a crew of young men mysteriously disappeared in the mountains surrounding Malibu. The second half concerned the crew making the documentary running into trouble as they uncover secrets in the cursed mountains that they should have left alone. If it sounds familiar it is--the hat-tip to Blair Witch is obvious as are nods to several other films, including The Exorcist, Poltergeist (1 and 2), Paranormal Activity, The Hangover, Project X and, oddly enough, The Brady Bunch in Hawaii TV movie. There are similarities to the recent no-budget film "Antrum" as well.

I choose to think the director is aware of these similarities (one of the main characters is even named "Josh" and another is named "Jake" Torrance). At any rate, this is a fun, efficient little thriller that doesn't try to be anything more than fun and scary with a little gore, some cool make-up and shock effects and gratuitous use of the "f" word.

The acting is really nice, the cast is good looking and charismatic even if one wishes we could have gotten to know them all a bit better, the direction is clean and the photography is lovely. Nice soundtrack as well.

The first half was probably my favorite--the news/documentary footage in the set-up was remarkably realistic and engaging, the mystery of what happened to the guys was interesting and I liked the found-footage of the guys in the mountains. If the end was (*semi-spoiler here) reduced to a bit of a predictable extended hunt-and-kill through dark cave passages it was certainly spooky enough. Again, the film didn't seem to seek more than to be entertaining and on that score did a fine job, great for streaming if you're in the mood.

Shapes (2021)

Fun little short

[8/10 · 4 December 2021]

Saw this at a free screening with no prep whatsoever as a warm-up to a main feature. It's a testament to how engaging it was that even though people were randomly wandering into the theater, talking full voice and clicking away on their phones as they got settle for the main event I was completely engaged. The summary tells all you need to (or should) know going in, to say much more would spoil the fun. I suspect it would be even more intriguing if you were on something mind-altering. It's well-made, well-acted, the right length and had a fun twist, and that's saying a lot these days, nicely done.

Ghostbusters (1984)

Re-viewing "Ghostbusters"

[10 June 2021]

At the risk of raining on anyone's nostalgia, I recently felt compelled to watch the original "Ghostbusters" film after not having seen it in decades and was struck by how odd the experience seemed in light of modern-day concerns. "Ghostbusters," for anyone new to the planet Earth, is the story, remade into an unsuccessful reboot, of some people who create a spiritual-entity-pest control business, get in over their heads with a demonic overlord and end up saving the world, or at least a major city.

I liked the movie as a kid and was in the prime demographic for it, being young, white, male and a fan of "Star Wars," "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "Poltergeist." "Ghostbusters" is a fun 80s time capsule romp that doesn't seem to exist for any reason other than to entertain and has a great many memorable moments, and I wouldn't suggest that anyone who likes it not watch it, but like many movies past their prime this one seems different watching it today, and it made me think:

1) The "ghosts" are actually demons--this happened in the poltergeist-free "Poltergeist" film too. The ghosts are generally not representatives of dead souls and the final battle is essentially with a demon. It probably would have been too much to portray demons and religious matters in a mainstream, big-budget comedy back then, but that's what the film seems to be about (particularly the scenes with a possessed Sigourney Weaver paying homage to "The Exorcist," which would have made more sense then than it probably would now). It's interesting that a 1984 version of the underworld casts what looks like a spandex-clad female dancer from "Xanadu" as its devil.

2) Speaking of which, women, in the world of "Ghostbusters" are either grouchy receptionists, objects of desire at the mercy of clueless men or neutered hags. The ideal woman is apparently cold, statuesque, well-to-do, does aerobics and is only "released" from the prison of herself by wearing make-up and slinky dresses. It's weird to see "Ripley" as a damsel in distress, to say the least. There are no healthy romances in the world of "Ghostbusters"--the end credits suggest Weaver and Murray end up together but it's apparent it wouldn't last.

3) People of color aren't in prominent roles. It seems Eddie Murphy was supposed to be in the film and one wonders how it might have been different--would he have stolen the show from Murray? Or would he have played another embarrassing caricature? As it stands in the movie it's clear--it's a white, (straight) male world and everyone else is a supporting character. I was there at the time and that wasn't the case in real life, even if it was often the case in the movies. We have plenty of movies that represent "the rest of us" nowadays and it's great that things have leveled off enough that seeing a movie as homogenous as this now feels kind of odd. Oh, and all the smoking--indoors yet--is funny too. The world has truly changed.

3) Science is something only "nerds" are into, and nerds are to make fun of and brush off even if they have the power to use their brains to save the world. In the world of this film, the only thing that matters is one-liners and taking jabs at everyone and everything that one thinks is dumb, which one sees echoes of in today's society (whether "Ghostbusters" is to blame for teaching generations fed on TV this outlook or not is another matter).

4) Bill Murray, once again doing his "anarchist/lovable creep" routine, looks really bored, maybe even irritated most of the movie, and I can't help but think a lot of people confuse actors with the roles they play. Back in the day, every guy I knew wanted to be Murray...getting away with being rude, obnoxious, lazy and stupid, making fun of everything he doesn't understand while indulging in bravado and cynicism to mask his insecurities, preying on women by annoying them until they give in, being a big, paunchy dummy who loves rock and roll and fast women, but always with a punchline at the right moment to distract people from his lack of attractive attributes by disarming them with humor. He isn't particularly witty despite his witticisms; he's the ultimate underachiever and the realization of what people outside the US see as an ugly American: oblivious, entitled, obnoxious, bloated and unable to keep his mouth shut, even when he's shooting himself in the foot. That this character was once considered a hero and someone people tried to emulate, something I never understood even as a teen (and I liked Murray's films) says a lot about where we are these days.

5) Young boomers of the day once doubled over in laughter at the idea that a mythical pop-consumer icon, a symbol representing a false conception of a lost era in the shape of a doughy, fat, monstrous, giant white male, would potentially be society's downfall.

I distinctly remember the sequel to "Ghostbusters" being underwhelming and realizing I had finally, perhaps, grown too old for these kinds of movies. At the least, the sequel didn't have anything like the same bite or charm the original had. I don't know that anyone but people my age care about "Ghostbusters" anymore, or even if they should (even as a new reboot is on the way apparently), but if nothing else, despite being problematic in some ways, the film remains a unique entity, a big-budget comedy that treads a line between humor, horror, science and speculation while dazzling the eye with pretty colors and the mind with intriguing, imaginative ideas. Oh, and Rick Moranis is, as always, wonderful.

The Object of My Affection (1998)

But Which Object Is It...?

[7/10 · 2 April 2021]

This a fascinating, thought-provoking, often troublesome film that has been in my life since it debuted. I was in a relationship similar to the one depicted in the film (sans movie stars, chi-chi East Coast ideals and a few other elements) and was relieved and grateful that there was a big, Hollywood, mainstream film addressing the curiosity of the intimate relationships that can sometimes form between gay men and straight women. That the film turned into something of a clarion call for "wokeness" in its final scenes was a nice plus, I thought. That it was all done in the guise of a dopey 90s sitcom-style romantic comedy probably made it more palatable to mainstream audiences, some of whom may have felt cheated for various reasons by how the film plays out.

I'm not sure if it's just me but the film seems to play differently some 20+ years later. I didn't watch "Friends" and so this was my first encounter with film's two main stars initially. I knew at the time some people were disappointed with this film because the two leads didn't end up together in Perfect 90's Sitcom Land, but I didn't give it a second thought in my situation...wasn't the whole POINT of the movie nestled in the idea that the male lead was gay all along, and isn't it obvious that he would stay gay and not drop everything to be with Jennifer Aniston? To that end, doesn't it sort of demonize the female character and make her seem, if not predatory, obsessive or narcissistic?

Little clues, like the comment of one character that being gay is a choice speak otherwise, as does the focus of the film on Jennifer Aniston's character, who may have been a necessary addition to make the film easier to sell and more palatable to mainstream crowds. I always felt, as a gay man, her character was the "problem" for not understanding the situation better, but once my friendship with some straight women ended and I got some perspective, I saw that it could be read differently if you didn't see it from a gay man's view (and mainstream audiences, by and large, wouldn't have). I wonder, in fact (as some reviewers have pointed out) if this film actually COULD be read from a non-gay perspective as suggesting that these two characters don't end up together because Paul Rudd's character is, essentially, an atagonist...seducing our female hero (who I understand was not as prominent in the book the film is based on), recklessly pursuing his own "hedonistic" needs after promising to be there for someone he has said he "loves," and ultimately not delivering the goods after implying they were available. Whether it's the fault of the screenwrite that the film can be read this way is up for debate. All I can imagine is that it would make for a pretty frustrating experience indeed if anyone went into this thinking "Rachel" and "Mike" were going to end up together, and what an interesting pitch meeting for the film that actually exists that must have been.

I suspect nowadays this film isn't remembered at all let alone discussed and, as happens to most things eventually, it is a product of its time and was probably never meant to stand up to modern scrutiny. The sitcom tone alone is dated and silly, the acting is stilted, the dialog so obvious it makes one cringe...but there's some thought-provoking stuff in there, ideas about gender, race, agesim and family-of-choice that are still being worked out today--that these things were even brought up in such a film from this era is worth mentioning, despite how on-the-nose it can get.

Ultimately, as Roger Ebert and others have pointed out, it's too bad that the moments the film attains with the scenes involving Nigel Hawthorn couldn't have been sustained, but it's a lot to ask of a Hollywood mainstream film, especially at that time--that this movie got made at all is pretty remarkable...if instead of placing a famous female actress at the center of the action it had actually focused on the object of the female character's affection it probably would have been received worse than it actually was for being too marginalized. Thankfully we live in different times now--but maybe this movie helped us get there.

Almost Normal (2005)

Ahead of its Time

[7/10 · 22 March 2021]

This film came at the end of the "gay indie" era that started with Priscilla Queen of the Desert (1994), Philadelphia (1993) and Tales of the City (1993), further aided by the incredible success of Pulp Fiction in 1994. "Gay film" became all the rage for about a decade ("The Birdcage," "Jeffrey," "Broken Hearts Club" and others), morphing eventually into the "woke" cinema era we're in as of this writing, a place where an effort has been made to depict inclusion as the norm. In that way "Almost Normal" was a bit ahead of its time in depicting a character who wants to fit in but never does, proving ultimately no one is "normal" and that the idea of peer normalcy itself is an unsuccessful way to approach things to begin with.

J. Andrew Kreitch is quite believable and charismatic as Brad, a 40-year-old gay man living in 2005 who hasn't resolved everything in himself for whatever reason. Through a literal deus ex machina he goes back to his teen years in 1985 (no surprise, the year "Back to the Future" came out) to find that everyone is gay and being straight is undesirable, and his (male) high school crush is actually in love with him. However, once ensconced Brad finds himself uncontrollably, and uncomfortably (at least at first) attracted to a girl who, in his "real" life, is his pal and sister by marriage to his brother--Julie, played by the talented and attractive Joan Laukner. Eventually Brad learns to fight for what he is, regardless of what that may be, and having done so finds himself back home, like Dorothy returning from her dreamworld of OZ to Kansas (there's even a reference to a dog companion). Having been through his adventures Brad is able to resolve his insecurities and is thus ready to love himself, and another man, completely. The tone of the film resembles a bad 80s sitcom, whether by design or accident, ultimately ending up cheerful and surprisingly complex in its exposition. The turf covered is similar to another indie-gay film from a few years later, "Were the World Mine," in its exploration of the idea of homosexuality as a specific character trait that can be turned on or off as an experiment, an idea that is as old as the hills but worthy of exploring nonetheless. It's too bad director Marc Moody doesn't have any more credits on IMDB; he seems to be a funny guy who made a decent no-budget film and was just getting warmed up.

"Almost Normal," much like the more polished "Were the World Mine," has been almost universally lambasted and I've always been intrigued to understand why. The budget of "Almost Normal" is non-existent, to the point it has the sheen of bad 90s porn...all the more reason to cheer when the film finds the right look and feel and rises above its limits, which it does more often than not. Aside from the principals the acting is sub-par but not any more annoying than the level of acting found in the 80s sitcoms it emulates. The wigs, score, costumes and set designs are cheap and depict cues that are from the disco era 70s, which couldn't be more remote from the mid-80s, a misstep that is unfortunate and confusing for someone who is the age of the film's protagonist (did the director originally write this to be a 90s-to-70s movie one wonders?). There are plot holes galore (if our hero has proof he's from the 2000s, which he does, the movie is basically done, isn't it?) and the logic of the premise fails fairly often. But this isn't that kind of movie. It's charming, ridiculously sincere, determinedly cringe-worthy, occasionally witty and genuinely tries--and succeeds--to entertain...I can't help but root for it, and I think the premise is smart and timely, a "coming out" story for anyone who is bored with the traditional coming out story. It really does spark conversation of what gender is and how it works, and did it at a time when the subject was still fairly new in the public mind of the era.

So why the abject hatred? I sincerely hope it isn't because people read in this film that the protagonist suddenly "turns straight" or "decides" to do so. It does rather play that way if you don't think about it fully. I hope no one objected because the film failed to embrace a gay-only Valhalla, which is completely at odds with the whole point of the narrative. I hope no one took the events of the story literally, as portraying a world in which straight people are "normal" and gay people are doomed to be outsiders looking in, when the movie keeps gently pointing out the flaws in that model and leaning towards the value of a world of inclusion (including a tiny hint of racial inclusion here and there). More than anything I hope people aren't objecting to the idea that a movie that is "supposed to be" about the world of a gay man depicts the sensuality of a man and woman falling in love despite living in a society that objects to their love, as a way to illustrate to anyone who watches the film the often-frustrating, always-complex issues involved in being true to oneself amongst one's sometimes-unsupportive peers and social groups--the message of the whole thing, I suspect.

If any of the above reasons are why this cute, thought-provoking comedy is/was so reviled then we as thinking gay and gay-sympathetic people still have a lot of work to do it seems.

Toys (1992)

How I Love to Hate This Movie!

[6/10 · 9 December 2020]

I've seen this film dozens of times over the years, even though I hate it; it's become an annual Christmas tradition at this point. Why? Certainly the production design is a delight to the eyes, even all these years after the fact, maybe even moreso in a CG-saturated world. Robin Williams' performance has taken on new depth in the wake of his demise; we shall not see his like again. The film contains interesting ideas about war, and war toys, and innocence loss and gained, topics that seem uncomfortably forward-thinking in retrospect (or something). There are some clever set pieces and thought-provoking visual moments, without question.

I detested this film when I first saw it on laser disc around Christmas 1993. I fast-forwarded through the entire end battle scene because I found it so dull. I thought the film was messy, unfocused, icky, indulgent and passionless--cookie-cutter. It was part of a wave of bloated fantasy films from the late 80s and early 90s ("Willow", "Mario Brothers"), some good, some bad. It was marketed as being weird-but-quaint, an appeal to those of us raised with Willy Wonka, with all-star cameos sifted in for good measure. It reeked of commercialism and pre-packaging and I was probably too old for it when I saw it. My younger brother saw it first-run in a theater and could only mutter later, "It isn't what you might think it would be."

It's a poorly made film, without a doubt--the opening and ending scenes seem to have been imported in from another project entirely; the coverage in the opening scenes alone is all over the place, a mish-mosh of angles and under-developed ideas that suggests a Christmas pageant of some kind (the only Christmas reference in the film, entirely superflous as it turns out). Later, while Michael Gambon is touring the toy factory it seems clear second-unit footage of an actual scene of dialog was used (dialog muted), randomly cut in to an already-busy and unconsidered moment. Characters come and go with no purpose, random whims spark and are gone ("This is my noise-making suit" "I really like Yolanda and Steve!"), tonally the film shifts from sentimental childish muck to an out-of-nowhere sex scene to the exploding (murdering) of charming kids' toys. Mr. Gambon is a bad-guy caricature filmed from below so you're forced to look up his nose and deal with his bloated, wide-eyed face at all times. Williams and Cuzack seem to be making up their performances as they go, playing creepy adult children, with the latter really hamming it up in "quirky" mode. Set designs exist for no purpose other than to be "cool" (and they truly are), the music, while wonderful, is shoe-horned in to the film at regular intervals (Tori Amos' "Happy Workers" is particularly cringe-worthy, even though the song itself is neato--it's painfully obvious a choreographer was hired and then had to be put to use somehow). It's difficult to care about the characters and their situations or even know what's going on half the time, and the whole bloody thing just goes on and on, until it finally comes to a sputtering stop, ending with a dreamlike, if inexplicable, credit sequence with a flying elephant statue that blows bubbles.

As I said, I really couldn't stand this movie initially, but I kept thinking about it over the years. At some point (probably when I chanced to watched the film on pain meds some time ago now) I began to get into the movie somehow. My co-workers at the time, who had all been kids when the movie was on cable, loved it, they said. Looking at it now, the film reminds me of another time--the score (including Thomas Dolby? In 1992?) and many of the pop culture nods (like a groan-worthy MTV product-placement moment halfway through) were already old and tired when it came out but represent a specific time of historical arrogance in the US, a time long gone.

After having seen the movie at least once, one doesn't expect any more than what it has to offer in terms of narrative, freeing the viewer from the need for a story and allowing one to peek into another world, a pre-9/11 place where the hubris of Hollywood was at an all-time high. It's like Spielberg's "1941" or "Hook," it's fun to watch people tossing money about and indulging in their artistic whims, even at the cost of the audience's patience (and lack of financial support). I get a little wistful nowadays, thinking of the old concept of the "tentpole" movie and how audiences used to flock to a film just because someone like Williams was in it. "Toys" is a good example of the kind of films that were made once upon a time, for better or worse, and whatever else the movie may be about (I honestly couldn't tell you, after all these years, what it's actually "about") it works as a fairytale on that level alone.

Filmgore (1983 Video)

Dismaying and Fascinating

[20 October 2020]

I was 18 when I first saw this in 1984 and my brother was 12. We rented it on VHS because Elvira was the hostess and because I was a big fan of 80s gore effects (Dick Smith, Rick Baker etc). This film deeply disturbed me at the time and, while I more or less forgot about it eventually, I never forgot the hot summer afternoon my brother and I sat and watched as much of it as we could (I think we finally turned it off after the "Driller Killer" segment, agreeing we'd Seen Enough). This thing popped into my head recently and I decided to check it out again when I saw it online and found it both dismaying and fascinating.

I've seen most of the films on display (and far worse stuff) and agree with other reviewers that these condensed versions might be the best way to view them, if you feel the need to see them at all (with the possible exception of "Texas Chainsaw" and "Driller Killer," which are, by contrast, legitimate films worthy of a closer look). The films in question are a motley lot and the reproductions for this compilation are appropriately muddy and dark, exactly what you'd expect from such sleazy product. The tacky 80s videography of the titles and the presence of a young, luminous Elvira doing her typical rubbish-jokes routine is completely out of step with the humorless material presented and so barely worth a mention.

What sets this one apart is a grisly, unrelenting 5-minute montage, a preview of the films to be covered. It isn't so much that the grue is remarkable...it's nothing true horror fans haven't seen before and is often done with cheaply-produced effects work. It is the simple fact of the onslaught of images that is noteworthy. Whoever put this montage together did a remarkable job of producing something so unrelenting and incomprehensible (and violent) it befuddles the brain. It is the literal equivalent of a car accident, something difficult to look away from even as you wish you could avert your eyes.

The montage begins with an otherwise campy moment from Drive-In Massacre that ends in a long, loving close-up look at the remains of a man slaughtered as he reached out of his car window. From there we are treated to flash-cut moments of all the "good parts" from movies sacred and profane (see the list in the synopsis). Individually, these movies are generally poorly made, slow and laughably cheap. Taken out of context and mixed together at random, the violent death moments from these films, focused on without any build-up of story or dramatic tension and no artistic merit whatsoever, become like a forensic cattle-call of atrocities, a snuff circus geek-show act. This is no "roller-coaster ride," where there is a slow build up and release. In fact, after watching the opening montage in 1984 I came to the conclusion this stuff was, in essence, "gore porn." One can say, "It's all fake, it's only a movie" but after a while, particularly if the filmwork is reasonably effective as the editing is here, the mind doesn't discriminate; we watch as people are repeatedly torn asunder and suffering on screen and we see images of explicit violence hurled at us at a breakneck speed with no motive, no compassion, no plot and no release of tension, and confusion sets in. It's unpleasant and depressing, but it's also marvelously visceral and effective, predating the "torture porn" wave of the 00's by many years.

That there will always be an audience of creeps that get off on this sort of thing is a given; there will always be people looking for "extremes" and nowadays you can find all manner of atrocities online if you are looking for them. That there will be disaffected teens or lonely, de-sensitized souls looking for a quick thrill is also obvious. For my part, I still find the opening montage of this cheap compilation project repulsive, sickening and soul-deadening and I'm glad I feel this way. I wish I'd never seen it, I wish I hadn't seen it a second time some 36 years later and I'm still perplexed thinking about it a day later. That being said, the fact that the montage still works means there's a kind of brilliance there. I just don't want to know much more about it.

The Wave (2019)

Worthy Trip-Fest With More Than Meets the Eye

[8/10 · 7 June 2020]

I found this via a webgroup that discusses offbeat movies and I'm glad I did, I never would have heard of it otherwise, which is a shame, and something that happens a lot in a world where the entertainment market is flooded with content. I'm pretty jaded, and I found this well worth the watch.

Justin Long plays a corporate jerk with a shrewish wife and what appears to be, for all its frills, a pretty dead-end life. On the eve of his cementing a dodgy insurance claim coup, Long's co-worker entices him out for a night of thrills. The two meet a pair of women in a sleazy bar, they end up at a random party and Long ingests an un-named hallucinogen, and spends the rest of the movie tripping out, time-traveling, trying to figure out what's happening, and sorting out his life.

The "trip" scenes are beautiful, veering into "Enter the Void" zone without abandoning the story. The acting by Long, who always seems to be likable, even when playing a jerk, is compelling and believable (especially if you have ever had a bad trip on anything). Donald Faison is charismatic as his eager buddy and the rest of the cast servicable (the film isn't particularly interested in its female characters but at least doesn't abuse them). The music is appropriately eerie and retro. The tone ranges from comedic to freak-out to melancholy, with an interesting twist at the end (albeit not all that new or original). Many of the film's elements have been presented in other works, but when offered up as confidently as this (the film looks incredibly lush for a low budget offering), the overall feel is fresh and compelling.

In all it's a neat, compact ride that offers up everything it promised and more, something to think about after its over. I look forward to seeing more from the director, who has a great eye and delivered a solid little piece of entertainment that held my interest the entire running time, something that I find happening with less frequency every year...

Mother's Day (1980)

A deceptively smart stupid movie...

[8/10 · 9 January 2019]

I've been watching this movie regularly ever since I was a horny, frustrated and slightly repressed teenager in the 80s. I first heard about it in Fangoria magazine and it was notable mainly for having been shot across the way from Camp Crystal Lake (aka Camp Blood). Oddly enough, I've met and made a pal in Adrienne King, even watched Friday the 13th with her in a theater not long ago, but that's another story.

This film is the heartwarming (or heart-burning) story of a sick old lady who lives in the woods and has raised two boys to be sadistic killers, and of the three unfortunate women who are found by them. The women, who bear an uncanny resemblance to Stella Stevens, Sally Field and Mary McDonnell (and there's a Lady Gaga lookalike in the first scene), are one-time college friends celebrating their ritualistic getaway weekend and mistakenly choose a forbidden forest (or so says the demented local shopkeeper) for their retreat. After about a half hour of setup in which we are treated to a scene of a disco party that would be later copied in "Boogie Nights," the introduction of a greasy, worthless boyfriend, a hateful mother, some weird east-coast characters and a flashback wherein a boasting macho man is humilated by being rendered naked in a baseball field to the tune of "I Think We're Alone Now," our three friends, aka "The Rat Pack," are captured by Ike and Addely, the creepy, animalistic sons of our woodland "mother," to ends various, sundry and violent.

There's nothing particularly noteworthy in this scenario; it's a story that has been told often and the film might easily have been just another slasher, or "sadistic men torture women for voyeuristic filmgoers pathetic kicks" picture, but this one is definitely not cut from the same cloth as its 1980s counterparts.

First there is the proliferation of iconic media imagery...the house of "mother" and her two degenerate kids is littered with pop culture trash including a Star Trek poster and a Big Bird alarm clock that, in one odd scene, wakes our hideous heros from slumber in their cartoon-sheeted bunk beds. Second, the acting is generally pretty good, if on the campy side. Mother and the copper-haired slob Ike (who bears a resemblance to Tim Curry from Rocky Horror, and who apparently changed his name to be in this film) are particularly memorable, as are the two surviving girls. The film is nasty, bloody and rough but never forgets movies, even disgusting movies like this one, are meant to be entertaining, and so ladles on the camp at weird moments, making it a dark comedy at times; moments before, and after, a disturbing, unpleasant rape scene (that is nowhere near as graphic as what you see in films nowadays, at the least) there are scenes where you actually find yourself oddly compelled by the charisma of the sick monsters causing all the mayhem. There's the on-going "punk sucks/disco's stupid" argument between the dopey brothers. There's also a weird "mythos" underneath the plot of the film concerning an un-seen malevolence, a bizarre, feral relative named "Queenie" who is spoken of in hushed tones, creating a mesmerizing spook factor to the precedings.

This is a well-made film despite its low-budget trappings; it is well-beyond the low bar set but Lloyd Kaufman and Troma (despite being directed by Kaufman's brother)...the scenes of tension are palpable and at some points unendurable (a scene with a rope cutting into a woman's hands is well-nigh impossible to watch). While the violence is sometimes presented as cartoonish, at other times you are made to care for the victims and their situation, particularly when the surviving women mourn their friend who doesn't survive.

Most noteworthy for me is that for once the female victims, while still technically on-screen for the purpose of being ogled for their beauty (and nudity), fight back. The women that survive (theoretically--the film has an unfortunate surprise ending that cheapens what might have been a sincere victory) make it because they are, in their own words, strong. They defy their attackers, and they (spoiler) defeat them, in ways that feel justified and satisfying for once. Yet the film is also mature enough to point out that even this victory is layered with the inherent abomination of murder, even if it's in retribution, something you don't often find in modern torture porn. Or modern films, period.

I have to hand it to this one...it's rough, raw, dumb, dirty, cartoonish and amateurish, but weirdly entertaining...and much smarter than one would suspect it to be (note things like the motif of the "fake knife in the back"). After 40 years it still has a sick, black heart beating, and there's merit in that. Check it out if you like nasty, but entertaining, old slasher movies.

Crimes of Passion (1984)

She's Still Remains A Mystery...

[9/10 · 14 December 2017]

I have seen "Crimes Of Passion" many times over the years but I think I only just came to understand this movie more fully after watching it in its final edited form again recently. "Crimes Of Passion," for all its (many) flaws, for all its trash and sleaze, for good or ill, is a cinematic work of art that defies convention.

The film is partly the story of a vivacious woman, played by Kathleen Turner, who works in design by day and goes into drag to turns tricks downtown by night. She's pursued by a deranged priest who seems intent on "saving" her, possibly by using perverted sex to kill her. Meanwhile, an "average Joe" family man is tasked with investigating her, and just can't stay away from what turns him on. "Bobby," played by John Laughlin, is involved in a marriage and family that's fizzling and may possibly be the perfect antidote to what ails our confused working girl...if she can survive that is.

What most take away from the film is Ms. Turner's brave, fantastic, uninhibited (mentally as well as physically) performance, the berserk scenes with Anthony Perkins, the neon pinks and blues in the set design, the strange surprise ending and the sardonic tone--with all the sex, violence, the lurid color palette and over-the-top synth score, the plot almost seemed like an afterthought; the movie is like a musical where the sex scenes are the big production numbers.

That being said, what's remarkable is that, along with Spielberg's "Close Encounters" this may have been one of the first films to cause a buzz for being re-edited and successfully re-released later.

The "unrated version" that came out in the 80s was popular, adding an infamous "did Turner really sign on for this?" S+M sequence with a cop, selling the movie as a soft-core porn film. The film seemed trashier (if possible) and less redemptive somehow after watching how far "Joanna Crane" (and Ken Russell, in fact) could descend into violent, sexual excess with such seeming nonchalance.

Flash forward to the 90s and we got "C of P" on laser disc with deleted scenes and audio commentary of Ken Russell being interviewed by Barry Sandler, the screenwriter of the film. Here, we learned that Anthony Perkins' character was not originally a fallen priest, which would have made a profound difference in how the character was perceived. The deleted scenes added another level of explanation to the project somehow. The film already has a number of melodramatic, wooden-acted moments, some that seem straight out of a sad, low-budget TV movie; the deleted scenes presented on the laser disc, including a couples' backyard BBQ and a confrontation between a wife and the woman her husband is seeing behind her back seemed like something you'd find on the Lifetime channel. In fact, these scenes just don't fit at all, at least if you see the film as the Ken Russell phantasmagoria it appeared to be in the original edits in the 80s.

The current home-view version of the film includes more deleted scenes and footage cut into the film that was never in any earlier cuts, at least in the US. None of the new scenes extended the outrageousness of the movie (with the exception of an exceptionally ugly and graphic bit of actual porn footage on a TV monitor), quite the opposite. Taken as a body, if you include all the deleted scenes available (which were surely in the green-lit script?) it would seem that originally the story of the film might have been meant to be played straight, and that the plot was about an average Joe in a crumbling marriage who gets involved with a woman who tricks at night and is pursued by a crazy person.

In the current edit, the "China Blue" scenes that once seemed the raison d'etre of the project comprise a much smaller part of the big picture...it's unlikely (but I have no confirmation) that Mr. Sandler envisioned the garishly-colored, over-sexed diatribe on American sexual mores that Mr. Russell crafted out of the script he had to work with (and Russell had brilliantly done something similar with Chayefsky's "Altered States" just years before). Certainly it's hard to believe anyone but Ms. Turner, directed by Mr. Russell, could have gotten away with the (deliciously) ridiculous action in the "China Blue" scenes. Imagine, for example, someone like "Basic Instinct"-era Sharon Stone playing the part, as directed by Adrian Lynne or something--it just wouldn't work, or be as fun.

And the movie IS fun, or should be, aside from some unfortunate misogyny (no film, EVER, should have the line, "strip...b!tch!" in it). The "final edit" of the film we have now, which may be closer to the intent of the work I suspect Mr. Sandler originally concocted, which exists only when you look at all the deleted scenes and the most recent edit, is still good stuff. It's more realistic, there's a lot more compassion; John Laughlin's trajectory makes more sense, and we find that Annie Potts' best work, and many keys to the "point" of the movie, were left on the cutting room floor to make room for more sex-with-nuns-and-dildos Russell-stuff (but that's not really a complaint). But the original conception of the film may have been a different, less outrageous movie. It seems possible that by editing the film into the shorter cut we saw in the mid-80s we were gifted with another berserk Russellian moving-painting whereas if someone else had directed the movie we might have instead gotten an interesting, but less-than-noteworthy melodrama.

Again, the film is flawed in any form, but its power can't be ignored--the visuals, the editing, the music, Ms. Turner and Mr. Perkins' performances, the unflinching discussion of sexual topics many people even today would run screaming from--all of these things combine to create a piece of film art that shouldn't be left out when discussing the works of Ken Russell specifically, and the place of art films in film history in general.

A Wedding (1978)

Buried Treasure...

[8/10 · 26 November 2017]

"A Wedding" falls under the category of films that have to be experienced more than once to be appreciated, or perhaps even enjoyed. I saw it in the theater when it came out; I was a kid and the movie was billed as a mainstream comedy but far from laughing at what I witnessed I was disturbed by it. Raised on Disney films and related pablum, nothing had prepared me for the black humor, cynicism and nihilism that makes up what is, in my opinion, Robert Altman's most enduring work. It certainly isn't a film I'd recommend to anyone looking for light romantic fare (try "Father Of The Bride" and please, do wake me when it's over). It gets better every time you see it, certainly. The problem might be, as I've heard from non-fans of the films of Ken Russell, for those who didn't enjoy a movie the first time why on earth would they revisit it? I didn't see "A Wedding" again until I was older but when I did the film was on TV and possibly censored (there's a lot PG-rated cursing and some non-sexual but surprisingly lengthy--and superfluous--nudity), making it less of a shock to my then-conservative system. But viewing the film again I began to make sense of what at first appears to be chaos, a film that shows a world stuffed with hateful, base people acting in the worst ways humans can, and presents it for laughs. The same thing would happen when I discovered the films of John Waters some time later. I think a film like "A Wedding" goes down easier at home than in a theater, even more so after repeated viewings, where you can study the movie the way it should be studied, as an "art" film and not a mindless Hollywood comedy.

"A Wedding" is, of course, a record, in real time, of a wedding event where the daughter in a nouveau riche family marries the son from a family with "old" money and just about everything goes awry. Along the way we are introduced to a never-ending cavalcade of family members. One might complain that it's good no guests showed up, it's hard enough to tell who everyone is even after a couple viewings, but I think that's the fun of repeat viewings--untying the tangled knots. I'm reminded of the film "1941" from a few years later; I didn't get that movie either until I realized the "plot" is basically one crash after the next. This is true of "A Wedding" as well; if you try to find a comfortable comedy plot line or look for single characters to follow you will be frustrated...you're much better off just relaxing and enjoying the big, rambunctious ride and allowing it to take you where it will go...you'll be dropped off safely when the ride is over, to be sure.

Roger Ebert, who gave the film a positive review, likened watching the movie to being an invisible guest at the ceremony and after seeing the movie dozens of times I can think of no better description. I also come up short while thinking of another movie that is similar in presentation. Certainly Altman did overlapping dialog before and after this film. I'm no great fan of his work but agree with many that when he hits the mark he hits it well...and when he phones it in it's a whole lotta no fun. Altman was fond of creating over-long movies where the plot revolved around groups of people intermingling with no apparent (at first) goal. Others, like P.T. Anderson, have picked up the mantle of this technique and run with it. But I'm hard-pressed to think of any movie that so effectively sticks you in the center of the "action" (such as it is; very little happens, it's like a filmed play), even when you dearly wish you could run away screaming.

But the real genius of the film to me is the line it walks between humor and horror. On the one hand you have Carol Burnett using her (brilliant) stock tools to illicit the familiar kinds of laughs you'd have found on her variety show at the time; on the other you have her in a truly uncomfortable situation followed by a moment of unflinching, devastating tragedy, where she plays it straight and hints at some of the serious acting work she'd perform in future roles. The cast of mostly-knowns (either then or now) is composed of dignified, familiar actors playing against type as a rogues' gallery of grand grotesques, but the more you examine these strange, mostly unpleasant people the more you (uncomfortably) begin to realize they're pretty much accurate portraits of the people you know (or are).

Finally, the mounting tension of wondering what on earth can possibly go wrong next (culminating in a convulsive fit and an act of infidelity) leaves you on the verge of going numb...but strangely satisfied. Just as in real life, there are no happy endings, there is seldom a satisfying resolution to the conflicts we experience and very little of what happens in the world makes sense. It all just sort of "is." But if you're lucky, you get a filmmaker like Robert Altman to point a camera at it all and help us to gain understanding of the world around us, or at least to laugh at the absurdity of it, even if we're crying at the same time.

"A Wedding" is far from perfect but is also a film I can't recommend enough, that is, at least, to serious lovers of cinema. I'm afraid it would be entirely lost on those expecting merely a "comedy," but there are plenty of those types of films out there--this one is for the rest of us.

The Escort (2015)

Good, but not for obvious reasons

[6/10 · 20 May 2017]

I chose this film while randomly perusing Amazon Prime's lists, a strange new occupation I find a lot of us pursuing of late. I was looking for something in the vein of a Sebastian Gutierrez indie flick. I chose the movie based entirely on the description and poster, something I never do any more as my time is too precious to gamble on a bad movie. I was rewarded with a pleasant, if unremarkable, film that I'd definitely recommend, but for reasons other than the obvious ones. It wasn't bad and had a decent story but that's not what prompted me to write a review about it.

In downtown LA a young woman is earning her keep as a high-priced sexual escort and a young aspiring writer has lost his job and is looking for a good story. He's also addicted to an "instant hookup" app and ends up meeting our lady of the night in a bar when he thinks she's his next match. They form a partnership where he gets his story (about her) in return for watching over her while she deals with unsavory men, and if you can't guess what happens next this is probably the first movie you've ever seen.

I found the first 20 minutes or so enticing; the cast was attractive, the dialog crisp, the acting sit-com level or higher and since it opened with a woman having "specialty" sex and the male lead tramping around, it seemed like a film that was going to have an edge to it. It doesn't, and in fact it ends up being lighter fare, topically, than anything you'd see on prime time TV, but it passed the time. I started checking my phone at the half-hour mark and never really engaged again after that but I didn't turn it off either.

What really sold me on this film, and has kept me thinking about it for days, was the soundtrack. Not since the 80s or 90s can I think of a movie where I was so intrigued by the music playing underneath scenes and transitions, and the way it flavored my experience of this film. I've spent a lot of time in downtown LA and thereabouts and with the great photography and soundtrack the filmmakers really got the "feel" of the area right. It's not as easy a thing to do as one might imagine; making a film that accurately portrays a location isn't as simple as just planting a camera there, you have to get the feel of it right.

I'm also intrigued by films that are focused on sex but don't actually include any sexual content. There are a couple of fully-clothed "humping" scenes in this movie but it's all fairly innocent and unobtrusive. It reminds you that a steamy sex scene with full nudity isn't always necessary to make a point. Films made before the ratings game came into play in the late 60s or so had to rely on technique rather than bared skin to convey sexual tension. Again...how it "feels" rather than simply how rutting looks when you focus a camera on it. It's not a common practice any more and I have no qualms about showing sexuality and nudity, it's just intriguing when it ISN'T shown, especially in a film that is ostensibly about a woman who sells her sexuality for a living.

Lastly, I found it interesting that the movie seems to take place in a world populated mostly by Caucasians. It's not something I really thought about until I saw this movie; the idea that these people dwell downtown but rarely encounter any racial (or gender, for that matter) diversity seems odd. Again, having spent a lot of time in these locations it's unlikely to say the least. It's not a judgment call, I'm wasn't offended, just intrigued...had the film been made 15-20 years ago it wouldn't have even crossed my mind.

Anyway, worth a look, which is actually quite an accomplishment.

The Voices (2014)

A Mean-Spirited Film Desperate To Be Liked...

[29 March 2017]

Amazon Prime has become a great place to find quirky, cult-y movies of varying budgets from different eras, some of which are buried treasures. "The Voices" is definitely quirky as it straddles the line between ghastly horror and campy humor, but doesn't quite a achieve cult status despite how hard it, or director Marjane Satrapi try to please.

The plot concerns goofy and amiable Jerry (played by the likable Ryan Reynolds, who appears to be having more fun than we are) who we find out very quickly has some problems with his mental health. He lives in a day-glo world despite his lowly employment and lives with two animal companions who seem to be able to speak to him in his own voice, but with funny accents. These are the best parts of the film and almost elevate it to the goal it was striving for--had the writer and director been disciplined enough to really explore the interior landscape of a serial killer this might have been a dark, but fun journey into the mind of a psychopath who you find yourself inexplicably rooting for despite his horrendous mis-deeds.

Unfortunately the tone shifts drastically when Jerry starts interacting with the women in his office, and the film becomes a fairly standard "will justice catch up to the killer or not?" would-be suspense film.

The performances, particularly by Gemma Arterton, Anna Kendrick and Jacki Weaver are so good you wish these actors were in another movie (and maybe they thought they were). The scenes with Jerry's foul-mouthed Scottish cat and slow-but-steady Southern dog are brilliant; well shot, funny and creepy all at once. The anti-spetic tone of Jerry's mental state in contrast with the reality we're giving brief glimpses of is chilling and thought-provoking.

Where the film stumbles is the hubris of its creators ignoring years of film and story development and trying, like an enthusiastic new film school student, to see if it's possible to create an entertaining story with a central character who is almost impossible to empathize with. It can be done..."Psycho" is probably the best example, "Citizen Kane" qualifies, "The Last Seduction" ...more recently, anything done by Todd Solondz, although that's just my personal opinion since I like his films...But the truth is, it's very difficult to pull this sort of story off, and questionable as to why anyone would try.

Here we have a film that revels in the mistreatment of women as entertainment; we're shown graphic images of women being cut up and terrorized and there's absolutely no "payoff" other than some smug "wink wink" humor with talking post-mortem heads; the women are barely even grieved let alone considered well-rounded human beings. All of this is shown from the point of view of our pro/an-tagonist, who ultimately can't be considered empathetic if you have any human decency or morals. So you're left with no one to care about, at which point the film becomes a study of psychosis in general; this worked well in David Cronenberg's "Crash" but this film doesn't have the conviction of its anti-morals that one had.

Instead we get a "comedy" that contains close-ups of excrement, graphic depictions of gore, violence against women and what appears to be actual depictions of animals copulating and killing on screen, tee hee. Adding further insult to injury, there's a tasteless, tacked-on "Austin Powers"-ish musical number for the end credits that tries to suggest everything we've seen was all in fun. This kind of sardonic humor worked well in a movie like "All That Jazz," but this film just hasn't earned the right to that kind of well-thought-out cynicism, nor has it played by the rules of its own attempt (and almost success) at creating a sense of madness.

In the end "The Voices" is trying very hard, like the lead character who is in nearly every scene, to get our attention and be liked, any way it can...by being shocking, offensive, derivative, immature, or simply not going away (the movie is over 90 minutes long). Surprisingly, what it did best for me was send me to IMDb about halfway through to start composing a review.

Swiss Army Man (2016)

Learning how to live by hanging with a dead guy...

[7/10 · 23 March 2017]

Imagine the pitch: What if, on the eve of deciding you must take your own life in a remote location, you see a random dead guy washed up on the shore and, through a series of exercises in human physiognomy, including chronic flatulence and tumescence, the corpse (or zombie?) becomes your friend, teaching you how to live a more fulfilling life? Cheers to the studio(s) that funded this fun, clever, gross, touching and very dark comedy/bromance, and here's hoping discerning, intelligent movie audiences can continue to get more quality films that push envelopes the way this one does.

Taking a cue from the old story "Teig O'Kane and the Corpse," "Swiss Army Man" spends much of it's running time creating a relationship between someone at the end of his rope and someone who has passed the end of his rope, as our hero drags and carries around his talking cadaver pal. The conversations that take place between the living character played by Paul Dano and his new, deceased companion played by Daniel Radcliffe, include ruminations on growing up ashamed of your body and bodily functions and how it can translate into a broken sense of ego, destroying your ability to love and be loved. In fact, there's a possibility (spoiler here, perhaps) that all of this is merely a projection played out in the head of our hero. I don't think it is though; the fact that "evidence" is captured on video at the conclusion of this story suggests that the whole thing really was supposed to be taking place in the "real world," which makes the film a kind of dark fairy tale. I'm reminded of Todd Solondz' "Palindromes," which also (successfully) found whimsy in topics that are generally thought of in polite society as being taboo.

There is a lot of whimsy here...Dano's "Hank" exerts a great deal of energy to try to convince Radcliffe's "Manny" (or perhaps himself) of the importance of loving yourself and then others, while utilizing piles of junk to recreate scenes in real life (a cinema, a bus ride) that would make the castaways of Gilligan's Island proud (and the film has many such fun and familiar references to other works). The elaborate set-ups and the clever way this business is filmed reminds one of the work of Michel Gondry (and, unfortunately, sometimes succumbs to the same kind of preciousness Gondry's work suffers from) but is a feast for the eyes.

So too is the work of Radcliffe--what a dream it must be to be able to take on roles like this after the tedium of the Harry Potter films, and you can tell Radcliffe is having a great time. With his gravelly, stroke-victim speaking style and childish questions he creates a character something in-between the child robot in "AI" and Peter Falk. He jumps in with his entire (broken) body and goes places a lot of actors wouldn't have the (literal) guts to go. In fact, much of the enjoyment of the film (if that's what it is) is the focus on the flesh, guts and bones of "Manny's" dead body in all its repulsive, eruptive glory and it's hard to take your eyes off his fascinating, distorted face. David Cronenberg probably wishes he made this one. Dano is also fun to watch and gives a compassionate, touching, near-pathetic performance that veers just on the edge of going too far into child-like slapstick.

The film is far from perfect...the ending drags and one senses the filmmakers spent a great deal of time trying to outsmart today's sharp and literal-minded audiences. I found the ending satisfying but that's because I didn't have any expectations by that point. If the film had ended (spoiler again) in the "real world," it would have been awfully depressing but would probably have been more true to the set up. As it is, the ending fits into the "anything goes" premise set up earlier on.

There's also the "precious/cute" quality, the glorification of vulgar bodily function gags, long stretches that push credibility and a score that sometimes enthralls but often as not irritates. Clearly part of the reason this movie was made was to showcase digital effects but the effects work is sometimes a bit cheap looking (but I'm in the FX industry so maybe more critical).

But overall this is an original, engaging and well-produced piece of cinema that is meant for a specific type of audience. It's likely to irritate people who expected a mainstream comedy (to which I would query, did you watch the trailer? What were you expecting?), people who want Radcliffe to stay Harry Potter and people who are insecure with their sexuality (the film bravely crosses a line into glorification of two men experimenting with each other physically, hinting at necrophilia, as well as focusing on Mr. Radcliffe's bare derriere several times). But for the rest of us, who like films that challenge while entertaining, that offer shocks that exist for more than just shock value and are visually fulfilling, this film is a rare treat. It's free on Amazon right now, if you're at all intrigued, check it out while you can...it's a brisk, zippy little film that, even if you hate it, will probably stick with you, which is more than I can say for any of the endless Harry Potter films.

The Neon Demon (2016)

Shallow and Beautiful

[8/10 · 8 February 2017]

"Neon Demon" isn't for everyone, but it's wonderful all the same.

Set in the high-fashion world of LA (??) "Neon Demon" takes its first cue from "Mulholland Drive," starting as the story of a young, blonde innocent played delightfully by a chameleon-like Elle Fanning who is sometimes innocent beyond belief and other times seductive, wise and deranged beyond her years. She meets a "friend" in Jenna Malone, who gives the film's most interesting performance as a possibly-predatory, possibly insane Lynchian lipstick lesbian and the movie then moves into Brian DePalma-land, filled as it is with ultra-clean, neon lit sets and the ever-pulsing electronic score. The plot follows Fanning's "Jesse" as she moves her way up the ladder of "success" in the cutthroat fashion industry and the malevolent forces that seem to be gathering, either to taint her quality or to, literally, feed on it.

While the plot isn't all that original (people in high-profile creative jobs can be literal cut-throat monsters, Hollywood is a tough town, the price of naivete is destruction) and the film contains some tiresome, unsavory moments of young women being threatened and dominated by men (and one gratuitous scene with a cadaver that would have stopped the show completely if what followed hadn't been equally outrageous) what makes the ride worthwhile are the 80's-inspired set pieces. Project creator "NWR," whose other films I have not yet seen, tips a hat to Kubrick, DePalma, "The Hunger" and "Cat People" (to answer the question many have asked as to why a certain scene of an uninvited animal guest appears in the movie). I imagine that's part of the problem...I don't think a lot people who reviewed this film negatively got the "joke." I chuckled through the entire movie, and I suspect the director wouldn't have minded. My first clue was the use of a Kubrick homage key word...I can't believe any director would put such a bit of business into a film and expect it to be treated seriously...likewise the Lynchian cameo of Keanu Reeves and Allessandro Nivola. The pace, the characters, the over-the-top fashions, the color scheme (I have a color-blind friend who can vouch that people with color blindness prefer a world that looks the way the film is colored) the retro music score and the nods to other psychological thrillers...I was absolutely delighted to find someone had seen and loved the same trashy films I enjoyed in the 80s and 90s and made a film that not only commemorates those tarnished gems but takes them a step further (I had no idea where the film was going to end up and found the ending satisfying as well as repulsive).

This film is not for anyone who has pre-conceptions going in, it's not for those who insist on viewing cinema as an art form of "literalism" ("Cinema Sins," which I actually enjoy), it's not for someone in a hurry, it's not for someone who wants to see a "Syd Field 101"-scripted action story with commonplace character tropes. It's female-centric, the politics are left-of-center and the movie absolutely requires you to surrender yourself to the moment and not be in control. It's probably not terribly deep in intent. It has the lack of narrative discipline of a European art film, it's too long and slow, it succumbs to the visually and mentally repulsive on occasion and doesn't provide easy answers...I'm not even sure the movie is asking any questions. It seems like the sole purpose of the movie, like "Enter The Void," is to generate a sensory response, and there's certainly nothing wrong with that. Would that many mainstream Hollywood films today were better at doing that much.

When this movie came out I read a lot of reviews saying this movie was "bad," that it was a disappointment, that it didn't live up to the potential created by the director's other films. As usual I took the advice of these reviews and missed seeing the thing in a theater before remembering that often as not the movies that people shout are "good" bore me to tears. To re-frame my subject line in a more positive light, if you find yourself liking movies that mainstream viewers don't, this might be one for you to check out.

Wiener-Dog (2016)

A Solondz Film, Not a Dog Lovers' Film

[7/10 · 20 September 2016]

Have you seen the one about the little doggie passed from owner to owner who, in her journeys, shows us some insight into some of the darker--and lighter--shades of humanity along the way? Did you like it? Hate it? Were you irritated by it, or merely bored?

Good, you're still among the living.

I saw a new Solondz film was out and was mildly excited--I was disappointed by his last two; it felt as if he was going the route of a lot of once-popular auteur-esque filmmakers these days--tiny-budgeted direct-to-video personal statements without the boldness and brashness (or budgets) that made the director famous.

An acquaintance told me he'd seen it *in a theater* and he liked Solondz but hadn't heard of "Palindromes" or "Happiness" (????) and was ambivalent about THIS movie. Others were saying it was Solondz's first "feel good" film (perish the vile thought!). Then it showed up as a freebie on Amazon--in fact they were rolling out the red carpet for a filmmaker who had become, basically, un-bankable in our Captain America world (word of Solondz's still having to keep his day job despite his prolific efforts as a director was depressing too). Thank you, Amazon, I've just renewed my Prime account...

Now we have "Wiener-Dog," which both recalls what Solondz fans love about his past works and brings something new to the table. To those who would argue he's merely repeating himself...did you make it to the end, with the lyrical, poetic vision of younger versions of the Ellen Burstyn character...? No, this "Black(comedy) Beauty for the 2010's" is not his strongest work--the short and (mostly) incomplete nature of the stories included prevents us from getting too involved, unlike, say, Aviva's "hero's journey" in "Palindromes" or the scathing and dread-inducing pedophile's story in "Happiness" or the "I was almost there once" shudders "Welcome To The Dollhouse" evokes. But for all that it's a powerful piece of cinema that isn't easily forgotten, happily enrages the conservative and small-minded and, like the best of Solondz, pits an undying optimism and love of beauty against all the darker themes, visions of an unavoidable imperfect humanity and grue. What is a cynic, but a buried optimist, after all? To those who would say the film is "hateful" consider that Solondz has gone on record as saying he loves his characters (even the pedophile in "Happiness"), a very evolved way of looking at things in a world of "I need a bad guy to transfer all my anger and hate to." Solondz's films have the audacity to present a world without gloss and fantasy visions of humans as immortal superheros...and still makes it all entertaining. It's easy enough to love this year's favorite celebrities, beautiful or no--who loves the "little" people, the people with flaws and egos? and there are a lot more of them (us), after all.

To those who object to the perceived mistreatment of an animal, or at least the CG glorification of it in the film's jaw-dropping final moments, it's SUPPOSED to be nasty. Did you see "Jurassic World," "The Force Awakens" or any number of big-ticket action films? (You probably did)...how many un-grieved, senseless deaths happen to unwitting bystanders in those films, one wonders? The tragic accidental death of a revered, humble animal in this film, presented unflinchingly and without fanfare, is more artistic, true and dignified than the horrifying slaughters that happen in movies made for children...but also reflects a bold and absurd "laughing equals crying" sense of humor that is a lot more complicated than the "laugh at every line" sitcom formula most audiences are used to. As a writing teacher told me once, "Sometimes kids need to hear that the 101 Dalmations did NOT survive, and were actually turned into coats after all," because that's as valid--maybe more so--than "they all lived happily ever after." I don't think it's a cynical joke the Nana character names her dog Cancer (and anyway, she could have been referring to the zodiac sign), but it is funny in a cynical way; when we stop laughing at tragedy we're really done for.

Lastly, to the critics who didn't get it (among them the Hollywood Reporter, New Yorker, EW, Travers and Reed--thankfully the reviewer on Ebert's page "got" it, as I think Roger would have), well, professional criticism is on the way out and thankfully movies like this get made, and seen, despite the tired personal rants of reviewers about what they personally don't like, based on their own simple biases. Oh, and the critics also neglect to mention that DeVito and Burstyn in particular give fantastic, noteworthy, touching performances.

Those of us who "got" this film know it was made for us, not all of "you," and are glad movies like this can still get made. The rest of "you" have everything else, and please do go enjoy mainstream, big-budgeted movies and keep Hollywood afloat so stuff like this can sip through the cracks now and then...

Lie Down with Dogs (1995)

A Product Of A Lost Era

[4/10 · 20 July 2013]

"Lie Down With Dogs" probably only exists because it was a product of the mid-90s, and as such has become a bit of a time capsule of an era that is now long gone, for good or ill. In the early 90s entertainment with gay themes began to capture the interests of straight viewers; "Philadelphia," "Priscilla Queen Of The Desert," "The Crying Game" and the PBS mini- series "Tales From The City" were all successful and proved to Hollywood that there was money to be made in "gay cinema." The sole motivating factor in Hollywood is making a buck; suddenly gay meant cash, and there was a flood of gay-themed movies. Most of them were pretty terrible, some of them ("Broken Hearts Club," "Jeffrey," "Billy's Hollywood Screen Kiss," "To Wong Foo") had bigger budgets and tried hard, and sometimes succeeded. The main thing Hollywood created was content: for the first time in history, there was an abundance of gay-themed films that took the subject matter more or less for granted-- these were not stories about perverts, degenerates and losers, the homosexuals of these films were heroes.

Nowadays it's hard to imagine how a film like "Lie Down With Dogs" would get any attention at all. Gay-themed films are the "B-movies" of the day, micro-budgeted without much distribution, but there are scads of them. Most of them are, like "LDWD," fluffy, forgettable and mostly fun, low on budget, acting or story but entertaining enough--like a trashy summer read. "LDWD" in particular shows a time when gay men looked a certain way, acted a certain way and thought certain ways...just listening to the soundtrack is like hearing a time capsule of what the 90s *sounded* like.

I picked this movie up for a dollar out of curiosity recently and found that what the movie is "about" was of little importance--that it isn't about a conflicted gay man trying to come out in a straight world or writhing in shame is the significant thing. That it's a mindless comedy about a young man on the prowl for love makes it no different than thousands of rom-coms made for straight people, which is also significant. There are now dozens of such movies to choose from but that wasn't always the case, and in a weird way makes "LDWD," which is NOT a particularly good film, a bit of a landmark. Also too the fact that the "author" of the film seems to have passed away lends the film a bit of significance, or at least poignancy; all the bubble-headed, insatiable, selfish characters in the film would now be a good deal older as would be the target audience for this film, gay men in 1995. The 90s are gone, the world has changed and "Tommy" and his buddies would have passed the torch to a younger generation of egocentric P-Town tourists by now. It makes the film seem almost sad somehow, in that light. I would be surprised if anyone even remembers this movie at all in another 10 years (or even today), and that's not the end of the world, but as a time capsule of a different era I think it's rather thought-provoking.

Industrial Symphony No. 1: The Dream of the Brokenhearted (1992 TV Movie)

Lynch land

[9 April 2012]

A description of this project can only be, like descriptions of Lynch's other more obtuse works ("Inland Empire," "Lost Highway," "Fire Walk With Me" "Rabbits") a description of "what happens" during the running time, which is more or less a useless venture. Try to describe what you dreamed last night to a friend and watch his eyes glaze over. One would hope that someone watching this video has a vague idea what to expect...you don't go for a viewing of something by Lynch hoping for "Singing In The Rain" at the least.

This project is definitely "out there," and like the other films mentioned is more or less non-narrative, more like a tone poem...what "meaning" there is to be found is probably up to the individual viewer. As I've said before about Lynch, only the dreamer of the dream can really guess accurately what any of it "means" to him, our experience can only be what the artist has filtered through. So what do we have? First and foremost, this recording, culled from two live performances Lynch was apparently commissioned to do, contains some of the wonderful, spooky songs written for and recorded by the ethereal Julee Cruise. The pyrotechnics, flashes of lighting, metal-on-metal surroundings, frustrated sexuality and typically Lynchian sound effects evoke an "industrial" dread that pre-sages Cronenberg's "Crash" a few years later. It is by turns perversely sexual, horrifically surreal, sweetly sentimental and slightly dull, and all within 50 minutes. The possible highlight is a song that plays like a sad lament for a lost era of 50's doo-wop, with two blasé prom-dressed girls and a chorus of vivacious Vegas showgirls.

This is "Lynch-land," and if you like Lynch you'll probably enjoy it, if not you would probably find it pure torture...it looks a bit "90's" by today's standards, it is relentlessly dark and slow at times and I question how much forethought actually went into it (Lynch himself claims it was put together pretty fast) but it is inherently memorable...one is unlikely to forget some of the strong images, or the plaintive sighing of Julee as she floats through the air, the embodiment of an innocent heart broken, but not destroyed.