These have been a looooong time coming. I’ve just been too busy lately to find time to write, so enjoy this rather long entry.
Gangs of New York:
It had been years since I last watched this epic film from Scorsese, so I decided to check it out again. This is one of those films that has sort of been forgotten. It’s never mentioned in the “Best of” lists anymore, no one ever thinks of it whenever they’re talking about Scorsese’s greats, even the wonderful performance by Daniel Day Lewis is barely remembered by most. The reality is, this is an amazing film in terms of set design, characters, costuming, acting, even the story is (mostly) phenomenal. As the old saying goes, however, “It’s the little things that kill”. DeCaprio seems miscast, yet at the same time I can’t think of anyone better to take his place. There’s just something about his performance that doesn’t ring true. Of course Cameron Diaz is way off the mark. Then again, her character seems shoehorned in anyway, adding another level of unnecessary motivation for the protagonist and antagonist to square off. Along this line of thought, a few things seem shoved into the film simply to make the whole thing seem more epic and far-reaching (namely the draft riot sequence, which blocked the audience from getting the big showdown they deserved), but even these things can be swept aside in the big scheme of things. What’s left, however, is simply amazing (see the list above of everything that’s right with this film). It’s just a shame the story aspects couldn’t be stronger, because sadly this one will have to continue to linger in film purgatory.
3.5 / 5 bananas
Alpha Dog:
The marketing campaign for this film made me instantly annoyed by it. They were selling it as a sort of kid noir film, presented in orange hues and stencil fonts to give it a sort of gritty (but falsely so) aesthetic. Throw in that one of the main stars was pop singer Justin Timberlake and I wrote it off as a gimmick film. Well, I’d heard some good word on it via the interweb and figured I’d rent it someday. I finally got a chance to watch this film and was surprised by how effective it is. The characters are interesting and definitely don’t follow the typical stereotypes one might expect for young thugs. To show how effective these characters are, I was constantly pressed with the desire to reach out and slap nearly everyone on the screen. Seriously, the people involved in this story behave in such illogical, stupid, spontaneous ways that you can’t even believe they exist in reality. And then once you find that the film is, in fact, based on a real case of kidnapping and murder, well, you simply lose a little bit of hope for humanity. Real idiots aside, the film is pretty nicely done and I was rather pleasantly surprised.
3.5 / 5 bananas
The Host:
I’d heard this Korean monster movie compared to Ghostbusters, with the idea being that it was a scary film, but laced with moments of comedy. Personally, I’d say it’s closer to a family film laced with slimy, amphibious violence. The premise is that some U.S. military types poured hundreds of gallons of formaldehyde into the Han River (this part of the story is actually true, the event took place in 2000), which pollutes the water, making it a breeding ground for a mutant fish/lizard thing to come creeping out of the depths. In a rather spectacular, broad-daylight attack at a popular beach front, the creature kills many people, but it is also seen carrying off a little girl whose family witnesses her capture. Assuming her dead, they’re surprised to receive a phone call from her cell phone wherein she gives clues to her whereabouts. Soon the whole family gets together to hunt the monster, avoid the government and its strange agenda, and get their little girl back. The film has received quite a bit of praise from critics for its willingness to have a bit of social commentary along with the scares and slime, which I can appreciate, especially as a fan of Romero’s zombie films. However, it sometimes feels like the film’s agenda is a bit too cut and dry, making it less commentary and more preaching. Still, the scares are great, the monster is imaginative, and overall the film is worth checking out.
3 / 5 bananas
The Office (U.S.) – Season 1:
While not technically a movie, it was longer than 2 hours, so I’m going to count it. Let me preface this by saying I own both series (AKA “seasons”) of the original Office from the U.K. So my judgment of this show so far is undeniably influenced by my love for the original. That being said, the UK version’s heart and soul is Ricky Gervais, who is the obnoxious boss at Wernham Hogg, a paper supply company. The US version also has it’s obnoxious boss, here played by 40-year old virgin, Steve Carrell. Notice the distinction there in the phrasing. The thing that made the original series so great was the fact that all of the actors – especially Gervais – weren’t playing a part; they were living their characters. In season 1 of the US version, no one except a handful of people, are living their characters – especially not Carrell. It’s obvious he’s playing a role, that he’s sort of hamming it up for the camera, and that he’s there to say some lines and act goofy. And don’t even get me started on the break-out character Dwight Schrute. He’s this show’s Kramer and he plays it that way. You can’t say that about the UK version. The characters might not all be wholly original, but the actors portray them with a subtlety that isn’t apparent in the US version. I’ve heard season 2 is where the show really hits its stride, so I’m going to give it a shot. But thus far I don’t think I’ll be giving up my UK version anytime soon.
2 / 5 bananas
The Creature From the Black Lagoon:
This was such a cool experience! One of our local art house theatres was showing Black Lagoon in its original 3-D format. I’d never seen a full-length 3-D film, so that already intrigued me, and it being one of my favorite monster movies only sealed the deal. While, yes, the film itself is dated and definitely has that Midnight Movie feel, it’s still a fun monster movie and is incredibly entertaining. And the 3-D was really well done. While I wasn’t reaching out to the screen to touch the fish as they swam by, the depth of vision was pretty impressive and made for a unique, exciting experience.
4 /5 bananas
Flash Gordon:
Oh how I loved this movie when I was a kid. In what some might claim was a knee-jerk reaction to the success of Star Wars, Flash Gordon burst onto the scene, in my opinion, as the anti-Star Wars. Whereas SW took itself fairly seriously, Flash was all-out cheese and it knew it. It was written by one of the writers for the 1960′s Batman TV series, for crying out loud. How on Earth could it be serious? And that’s part of the fun of this film. You go along for the ride. You sit back and relax, taking in the bright, vibrant colors, the pseudo-S&M costumes, the bad special effects, and the glory of it all. It’s just plain fun as a 1930′s serial should be. And the soundtrack doesn’t hurt, either.
3 / 5 bananas
Bad Reputation:
This is a small, low-budget, direct-to-DVD horror film that you’ve never heard of. I probably wouldn’t have heard of it either were one of my friends not an actor in it. However, for a low-budget, direct-to-DVD horror film, I’ve seen a lot worse, so even if my buddy Chris didn’t have a pretty big part in it, I still wouldn’t have been too disappointed to watch it. BR is essentially “Carrie”, which is ok – small horror movies are allowed to wear their influences on their sleeve. This time, though, instead of pig’s blood, the bookish girl who gets suckered in by the popular crowd doesn’t just get embarrassed in front of the whole school, she gets taken advantage of by a group of guys at a party (which Chris played one of these co-conspirators). The girl gets branded a slut and decides to use this newfound reputation to her advantage to exact her revenge on the people who hurt her. It’s pretty by-the-book, but, again, that’s ok. Horror is one of the easiest genres to shoot on a low budget and it’s a great way for young directors to cut their teeth. And if the story is even mildly entertaining (which I think this one is), then it’s a success for most fans of the genre. While I’m not running out to buy the DVD – even though having the opportunity to watch Chris get killed anytime I want is pretty tempting – this is a little horror movie that I found plenty satisfying. If independent horror is your bag, you’ll probably like it, too.
2.5 / 5 bananas
Holy Mountain:
Woah. How do I even begin to describe this one? This is truly an “art film”, where everything is allegory, nothing is tangible, and everything is open to interpretation. While there is something of a narrative, it doesn’t really form until the last 2 reels or so, with much of the beginning of the film being more images and detached scenes that do little more than ask you to see what’s really there. Sometimes translating these images can be difficult, offensive, or downright impossible, but that’s what makes it interesting. Throughout the film, even when it is obtuse, the images are always beautiful. The direction is wonderful with many scenes beginning in a series of jumbled images or actions, but eventually coalescing into a unified form, often striking in its composition. The film deals a lot with religion, spirituality, and society, so obviously some people will be bothered by the statements being made. Therefore I wouldn’t recommend it to just anyone. But if you like your films to be challenging, surreal, beautiful, and open to interpretation, you could do a lot worse.
4 /5 bananas
Perfume: The Story of a Murderer:
I’d heard great things about Perfume, but missed it’s barely-there theatrical run in St. Louis. It sort of fell off my radar for a while until I recently read another great review of it on one of the many film websites I go to, so I decided I’d better put it on my Netflix queue. And let me tell you, I’m glad I did. The film tells the story of an orphan in 18th century France who has an amazing nose. He can smell the individual scents that make up a perfume and can recreate it without any kind of formula to work from, but by simply adding the proper scents in the proper amounts purely based upon his sense of smell. But the key to this young man’s ability is that he doesn’t “see” smell as just a scent, but as the very essence of a thing or person, almost as though he’s peeking into the soul of the object before him. Therefore, when he accidentally kills a young woman whose scent he is admiring, he begins to understand that this essence is a temporary thing and that it can, in fact, be lost. So he sets out on a quest to create the perfect perfume, so he can resurrect this essence of life he smells around him. Unfortunately, the origins for his ingredient smells come from the bodies of young women who, also unfortunately, don’t survive the process of extracting their scent. What’s fascinating about the film is that its protagonist isn’t a deranged serial killer. He’s a man with a passion, with an obsession, to bring beauty into the world. It’s just that to create this perfect scent, some people have to die in the process. Their death is almost a sacrificial honor in his eyes, as they die for the greater good. So while you’re watching, you never really say, “Someone needs to stop this guy.” Instead you’re almost rooting for him to get the scents he needs. As a side note, there’s a great analogy of the film over at metaphilm that posits the film is a depiction of the life of Jesus Christ, showing especial attention to the idea of the Eucharist, the resurrection, and the power of suggestion. Reading it almost makes me want to buy the DVD and watch the film again.
5 /5 bananas
3:10 to Yuma (2007):
Growing up, I didn’t like Westerns. I think I always saw them as too much talk, too little guns shooting. But that’s because I thought they were all supposed to be The Long Ranger, which is sort of like saying that all horror movies should be Ghostbusters (admittedly, that one might not be such a bad idea). So I had this very narrow view of what Westerns were and therefore I didn’t like them. However, I think there was another reason I didn’t really like them at the time and that’s simply that I didn’t have the life experiences to understand them. Just like great horror movies, great Westerns have a moral underpinning that makes them more than just 10-gallon hats, spurs, and silver bullets (which makes them sound more like a wild night on Brokeback Mountain). “High Noon”, “The Wild Bunch”, “The Searchers” (whose moral stance is aging badly), “Rio Bravo”, “The Wild Bunch”, and, one of my personal favorites, “Unforgiven”, all have a definite opinion of right and wrong, even if the shades of each might be a bit gray. If there is any justice, “3:10 to Yuma”, the 2007 remake of a 1957 Western of the same name, will one day be mentioned with these films as a great example of the genre. While some might complain that there are character issues (some say Crowe isn’t bad-ass enough, others say Bale is too self-deprecating) and logic issues (they don’t like the ending), I think they’re trying too hard to make the film realistic. But Westerns don’t have to be realistic. Essentially, the Western is our modern version of a morality play, wherein the message behind the story is more important than the story itself. With this is mind, I love how the film deals with concepts like honor, bravery, and compassion and I look, not past, but through what some claim to be unrealistic and see the message behind it all. A really excellent film.
5 / 5 bananas
Letters From Iwo Jima:
Earlier this year I got around to watching “Flags of Our Fathers”, which was a decent film, but felt lacking. Everyone said that it’s so-called “companion film”, “Letters From Iwo Jima”, was better and now that I’ve seen it, I’d have to agree. Not only are the characters more sympathetic and their stories more engaging, but the film’s overall theme on the futility of war is much stronger than Flags’ mish-mash of themes ranging from bravery, to honor, to justice, to the meaning of truth, to the abuse of power. While Letters’ theme might be more fully-explored in other films that have come before, the novelty of this one is our view from the eyes of those men who were considered our enemies during The Great War. By showing the Japanese position, it really does give us a clearer understanding that these men, just like our boys, were not always there because they wanted to be or felt it was a worthwhile cause to die for. We’re usually given this image of the Japanese soldiers as cruel, heartless, take-no-prisoners bastards, but it’s films like this that remind us they were human, too.
4 / 5 bananas
Children of Men
I decided to revisit this one the other night, the first time I’ve been able since it was released on DVD. I hadn’t seen it since it blew me away in the theatre and more than one friend of mine who had only caught it on DVD was less than impressed, so I went in somewhat hesitant, wondering if the theatre experience was really that influential. While I still really dig this film, I do have to admit that this is a film that has to be seen on the big screen to fully appreciate it. Even on my pretty good-sized TV, some of the background details of this dystopian London were not very clear – and if there’s one thing this film is, is background. It’s not a film about the last pregnant woman on earth. That’s just window dressing and, admittedly, a rather B-movie plot. This film is about the world it takes place in and, more importantly, how damn close it is to the one we currently live in. But when you’re seeing it on a TV, there’s a feeling of scope and immersion that’s lost. You can’t see all the graffiti on the walls that Clive Owen walks past. You can’t make out all of the burning corpses of Mad Cow-infected cattle; on TV they just look like black, smoking hunks of brush. You can’t fully take in the bullet-ridden concrete buildings of the refugee camp. You can’t see all the broken glass in the abandoned elementary school. It simply loses it’s impact on the small screen. In the theatre it was like being in a war zone with the shaky camera movements, the long takes that left you breathless – you couldn’t escape because you were “in” the film. All of that is lost at home. So, bully to director Cuaron for making an excellent film for the cinema, but it’s too bad it might never be fully appreciated in it’s original format again as DVD will probably be the only way most people will ever see this excellent film. That being said, I still loved it, but I think part of that comes from reliving the initial experience.
4.5 / 5 bananas
Posted under
ALL,
Movie Journal
