I'm not exactly sure how to convince anyone to see a Danish film about a teacher accused of sexual impropriety and how that accusation changes his life. It's a tremendous film that makes you constantly think, and, as the person in front of me did, let out a huge sigh of relief when the film was over. You don't realize how much you've been holding your breath until the film actually ends.
Mads Mikkelsen (the bad guy in Casino Royale) plays the teacher in question. When we first see him he's jumping in an ice-cold pond to help a friend out in a variation of a polar bear club. This group of guys have apparently been hanging out for a long time. And that's what the film focuses on - friendships and trust.
As we can all imagine, once an accusation of an adult touching a child makes an appearance, there's no getting away from it. Innocent or not, that stigma stays with you forever. But if you're innocent, what proof do you really have? And who stands by your side in times like this? These are the questions the film asks.
Because the stakes are so high, and there are no real bad guys, everything that plays out is given equal importance. Whether it's a girl asking to walk a dog, or a son casually flirting while buying groceries, each scene is supercharged with tension, because you keep waiting for something else bad to happen.
The acting is uniformly fantastic. The characters are given depth and weight, making you see what everyone is thinking and why. It's a full-on dramatic film that plays out like a thriller. And the ending is truthful, sad, frightening and accurate all at once.
This is not the sort of movie you're watching while eating junk food.
It's one you watch with other people, so you can all be melancholy
together and talk about the movie afterwards. And because of that, it's hard to sell. I'm not even sure if any of what I wrote is convincing enough to see the film. It may not be a "good" time at the movies, but I was captivated, entertained and moved. Sometimes I want those feelings, too.
****
Thursday, August 8, 2013
Sunday, August 4, 2013
Day 609 - The Wages of Fear and The Island of Lost Souls
Whew. It's been a long time since I've written any long form review. I've been writing on the weekends, but nothing I'm ready to put out there yet. But two movies that I've been waiting to watch for many, many years appeared at the Cleveland Cinematheque over the last weekend.
Let me give a little explanation of how my mind sometimes works. Jaws is my second favorite movie of all time. And one of those reasons is Roy Scheider. Because he was in Jaws, he's become one of those actors that I will watch what he's starred in, regardless of quality. And one of the movies that he's the main actor in is William Friedkin's Sorcerer. Years ago, I had read about this film which tells the story of four guys who are hired to drive two trucks filled with nitroglycerin over 300 treacherous miles to help stop a fire. I finally Watched Sorcerer just last year, and it was good. But I've also known for years that Sorcerer is a remake of Henri-Georges Clouzot's The Wages of Fear. I've been meaning to see this film for a long time as well, not merely because it was the original template for Sorcerer, but because I love Clouzot's Diabolique.
The plot between both films is pretty similar, but the execution is different. The Wages of Fear spends the first hour setting up the desolation of place, the poverty of all the people there, the interpersonal relationships between everyone, and the absolute desperation of the men who would volunteer for what is almost a suicide mission, in the hopes that they can get out of their current situation.
The last hour and a half is a tension-filled masterpiece. There's four guys and two trucks. 300 miles to go. Along the way is a road that you have to drive either under 6 MPH or over 40 MPH or else the trucks explode. What happens when one of the trucks starts catching up with the other one on this road? There are roads that you can only get to by backing up on a half built bridge made with shoddy wood. There are boulders in the road that have to be blown up with some of that nitroglycerin. It's insane. And that's not even talking about all the conflicts between the characters, because we've seen all their issues that have been set up and are now being paid off.
Yes, the very last scene of the film is jarring. It's frustrating, because the entire film has been so meticulous up until this point, and yet the last scene feels like it came from a different director. And I'm speaking only in how it's shot. The end result is something I completely understand, because it works with what the character goes through, but the emotional impact is muted because of how it's shot.
But if you want to watch a strong, strong character-driven, suspenseful film, then this is the one for you. ***1/2
And the second film of the night was The Island of Lost Souls. My history of this film goes back to when I was about 7 or 8 years old. I grew up reading everything I could about monster movies - Them!, This Island Earth, Dracula, The Wolf Man, and The Island of Lost Souls (among many, many others). Before videotape, my only access to any of these films were Saturday afternoon screenings presented by SuperHost (Cleveland's awesome movie monster host). And I saw nearly every monster film I had read about. But the one (two, if you count the 1977 version) film that managed to elude me was The Island of Lost Souls.
Based upon the H. G. Wells novel, the movie opens with Edward Parker, the lone survivor of a shipwreck, getting picked up by a ship that is transporting a bunch of animals to a small island owned by the mysterious Dr. Moreau. Moreau is played by Charles Laughton, in one of his first leading roles, and he grabs it with gusto.
There's no suspense in the fact that Moreau is obviously a bad guy. It's not a spoiler to say that he's messing with nature in a very profound way. The true strength of the film is in what lengths will Moreau go to in order to prove his theories. The creatures he's created are both appealing (I'm looking at you Panther Woman) and monstrous (everyone else). The creatures live by three rules - Not to eat meat, not to go on all fours, and not to spill blood. When the rules are broken, chaos rules.
I have waited a long time to see this film. I recently bought it used on blu-ray, figuring I could end this long drought. But, as always, there's nothing like seeing a film on the big screen. And this film met all my childhood expectations. Scenes I've only seen in pictures, lines I've only read in books... it's all the more striking in glorious black and white. ****
Saturday night was both amazing and fulfilling!
Let me give a little explanation of how my mind sometimes works. Jaws is my second favorite movie of all time. And one of those reasons is Roy Scheider. Because he was in Jaws, he's become one of those actors that I will watch what he's starred in, regardless of quality. And one of the movies that he's the main actor in is William Friedkin's Sorcerer. Years ago, I had read about this film which tells the story of four guys who are hired to drive two trucks filled with nitroglycerin over 300 treacherous miles to help stop a fire. I finally Watched Sorcerer just last year, and it was good. But I've also known for years that Sorcerer is a remake of Henri-Georges Clouzot's The Wages of Fear. I've been meaning to see this film for a long time as well, not merely because it was the original template for Sorcerer, but because I love Clouzot's Diabolique.
The plot between both films is pretty similar, but the execution is different. The Wages of Fear spends the first hour setting up the desolation of place, the poverty of all the people there, the interpersonal relationships between everyone, and the absolute desperation of the men who would volunteer for what is almost a suicide mission, in the hopes that they can get out of their current situation.
The last hour and a half is a tension-filled masterpiece. There's four guys and two trucks. 300 miles to go. Along the way is a road that you have to drive either under 6 MPH or over 40 MPH or else the trucks explode. What happens when one of the trucks starts catching up with the other one on this road? There are roads that you can only get to by backing up on a half built bridge made with shoddy wood. There are boulders in the road that have to be blown up with some of that nitroglycerin. It's insane. And that's not even talking about all the conflicts between the characters, because we've seen all their issues that have been set up and are now being paid off.
Yes, the very last scene of the film is jarring. It's frustrating, because the entire film has been so meticulous up until this point, and yet the last scene feels like it came from a different director. And I'm speaking only in how it's shot. The end result is something I completely understand, because it works with what the character goes through, but the emotional impact is muted because of how it's shot.
But if you want to watch a strong, strong character-driven, suspenseful film, then this is the one for you. ***1/2
And the second film of the night was The Island of Lost Souls. My history of this film goes back to when I was about 7 or 8 years old. I grew up reading everything I could about monster movies - Them!, This Island Earth, Dracula, The Wolf Man, and The Island of Lost Souls (among many, many others). Before videotape, my only access to any of these films were Saturday afternoon screenings presented by SuperHost (Cleveland's awesome movie monster host). And I saw nearly every monster film I had read about. But the one (two, if you count the 1977 version) film that managed to elude me was The Island of Lost Souls.
Based upon the H. G. Wells novel, the movie opens with Edward Parker, the lone survivor of a shipwreck, getting picked up by a ship that is transporting a bunch of animals to a small island owned by the mysterious Dr. Moreau. Moreau is played by Charles Laughton, in one of his first leading roles, and he grabs it with gusto.
There's no suspense in the fact that Moreau is obviously a bad guy. It's not a spoiler to say that he's messing with nature in a very profound way. The true strength of the film is in what lengths will Moreau go to in order to prove his theories. The creatures he's created are both appealing (I'm looking at you Panther Woman) and monstrous (everyone else). The creatures live by three rules - Not to eat meat, not to go on all fours, and not to spill blood. When the rules are broken, chaos rules.
I have waited a long time to see this film. I recently bought it used on blu-ray, figuring I could end this long drought. But, as always, there's nothing like seeing a film on the big screen. And this film met all my childhood expectations. Scenes I've only seen in pictures, lines I've only read in books... it's all the more striking in glorious black and white. ****
Saturday night was both amazing and fulfilling!
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Day 480 - Spring Breakers
Spring Breakers
I have real sympathy for anyone who went to see this film thinking they were going to see a normal, linear actiony-comedy movie. Because what Harmony Korine has done is made one of the most expensive experimental art films that has been released in recent years.
The story of four college women (girls) who go "wild" on spring break, get arrested, and then hook up with a gangster rapper is a pretty simple one. But the real film is in the telling of the story. When the film opens we're inundated with the debauchery of spring break. It's both titillating and sad. This is where the girls want to go to? And they can't even afford it. So they turn to robbery. In a normal Hollywood film, this heist would be glamorized to the nth degree. Here it's hidden the first time we see it - we catch glimpses here and there. But when we see it in flashback, it's what it probably would look like in real life - ugly. But Spring Break is the objective, so off they go. Drinking and drugs and promiscuity are the main courses, and eventually it catches up to them, and they're carted off to jail.
At which point it becomes the James Franco show. As the gangster rapper Alien, Franco creates a character that is so hypnotic that any of the films previous faults (like lethargy) are completely forgiven. He is a captivating monster. Every time he appears onscreen or says something you feel like you're in for a treat.
This movie has been advertised on the strength of its leading ladies. For a lot of young 'uns, seeing Selena Gomez or Vanessa Hudgens cavorting in bikinis and waving guns is more than enough to get them to the theater. But their characters are barely even characters. Almost all the girls are interchangeable, with Gomez given at least the tiniest bit of backstory to differentiate herself from the others.
And that may be the point. The less we care about the characters the more the film can just objectify them. As I said, the film is not the most linear of pieces. With time jumps, hand held cameras, and repeated lines the film is less interested in story than it is in style. I may never care what the girls' story is, but I was swept up in their escapades.
I left the theater thinking that about 80 percent of the audience probably hated the film, thinking they were hoodwinked. But that other 20 percent had their minds blown by the fact that they thought they were going to see "girls gone wild with guns" and got something they would never see on their own. And then they had the added attraction of seeing James Franco with enough grill in his mouth to rival that of Lil' John.
Was Harmony Korine playing a joke on us using "innocent" actresses in a movie that glamorizes debauchery and violence? Probably. But it was at least a funny and clever joke.
***
I have real sympathy for anyone who went to see this film thinking they were going to see a normal, linear actiony-comedy movie. Because what Harmony Korine has done is made one of the most expensive experimental art films that has been released in recent years.
The story of four college women (girls) who go "wild" on spring break, get arrested, and then hook up with a gangster rapper is a pretty simple one. But the real film is in the telling of the story. When the film opens we're inundated with the debauchery of spring break. It's both titillating and sad. This is where the girls want to go to? And they can't even afford it. So they turn to robbery. In a normal Hollywood film, this heist would be glamorized to the nth degree. Here it's hidden the first time we see it - we catch glimpses here and there. But when we see it in flashback, it's what it probably would look like in real life - ugly. But Spring Break is the objective, so off they go. Drinking and drugs and promiscuity are the main courses, and eventually it catches up to them, and they're carted off to jail.
At which point it becomes the James Franco show. As the gangster rapper Alien, Franco creates a character that is so hypnotic that any of the films previous faults (like lethargy) are completely forgiven. He is a captivating monster. Every time he appears onscreen or says something you feel like you're in for a treat.
This movie has been advertised on the strength of its leading ladies. For a lot of young 'uns, seeing Selena Gomez or Vanessa Hudgens cavorting in bikinis and waving guns is more than enough to get them to the theater. But their characters are barely even characters. Almost all the girls are interchangeable, with Gomez given at least the tiniest bit of backstory to differentiate herself from the others.
And that may be the point. The less we care about the characters the more the film can just objectify them. As I said, the film is not the most linear of pieces. With time jumps, hand held cameras, and repeated lines the film is less interested in story than it is in style. I may never care what the girls' story is, but I was swept up in their escapades.
I left the theater thinking that about 80 percent of the audience probably hated the film, thinking they were hoodwinked. But that other 20 percent had their minds blown by the fact that they thought they were going to see "girls gone wild with guns" and got something they would never see on their own. And then they had the added attraction of seeing James Franco with enough grill in his mouth to rival that of Lil' John.
Was Harmony Korine playing a joke on us using "innocent" actresses in a movie that glamorizes debauchery and violence? Probably. But it was at least a funny and clever joke.
***
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Day 477 - Horrorhound Weekend
I've been to San Diego Comic-Con, Mid-Ohio Con, C2E2, Cinema Wasteland and previous Horrorhound conventions. I have never waited in line to get into any of those conventions for more than an hour... until this weekend's Horrorhound. And my experience only relates to Friday's show. But I waited outside, to simply get into the convention, for 3 hours. The show opened at 5PM, and Jason (a patient saint) and I finally got inside around 8PM.
I have no problem with the convention itself. I had a great time for the three hours that I spent inside the building. I got (almost) all the autographs I was hoping to get. But that was all I was able to do. I made a quick pass through the vendor rooms, but I really didn't have time to browse. An extra two hours may have been a more profitable two hours for some of those guys.
I expect to wait in line for autographs when I go to a convention. I don't mind waiting for 3 hours to meet someone I really appreciate as an actor, actress, director or writer. But waiting for 6 hours for that same autograph (regardless of the company you're keeping) is too much.
Horrorhound changed venues this time to a larger location. It was a good move. But I have to imagine there were more entrances into the building other than the one (one!) everyone was herded into. Different doors for different ticket holders would have to get people to move through the line quicker (I have to imagine).
Some of the complaints from other people who've attended seem to place the blame on the fans of The Walking Dead. When you have a half dozen actors from one of the most popular shows on television (and it's not a niche show with those ratings), obviously a lot of people are going to want a "piece" of them. But I've read things saying that these attendees aren't true horror fans. Well, you know what? The Walking Dead is a horror show. Zombies, exploding heads, arrows through the eyes, and social commentary... sounds like some of the best horror movies I've seen. And the more people who watch things like this the better it is for all of us. That means more networks are going to try more outrageous shows. Of course some of them are going to be crap, but maybe something just as good or better will come along. But a fan of Norman Reedus has the same right to attend one of these shows as a fan of Sig Haig.
But enough negativity. I had a blast at the convention (once I got in). The three hour wait to get in was alleviated by the fact that I got to hang out with one of my best friends, Jason, and the young lady who was with us. We never got her name, but that was okay. Her conversation made the wait go by a lot faster than it could've. Jason kept nudging me - "get her number." But we both knew that wasn't going to happen since she was married. (But we did get to complain about the fact that some of the women that we've met would seem to be perfect for us, except for the fact that they're already in relationships.)
Once we got in the show we headed downstairs. That's where The Walking Dead cast was, and I wasn't willing to wait in those lines, so it was back upstairs. The first celebrity I got to meet was Robert Patrick (the T1000 from Terminator 2). I work with somebody who used to hang out with him back in the day, so we talked about that. And while I waited in his line, Jason scoped out some of the other rooms. The buddy system was the perfect way to do this.
Diane Franklin was next. And she was really the reason I wanted to attend the show. Better Off Dead is one of the greatest comedies of all time. But as I told her, she has been in three truly memorable films - Better Off Dead, The Last American Virgin (the most shattering comedy you'll see), and TerrorVision (a movie that combines awesomeness and awfulness in one amazing package). I bought the last copy of her autobiography in hardcover, and got a picture with her. But the great thing about getting a picture with her, is that she still has the hat and coat her character wore in Better Off Dead, and she wears the hat while you wear the coat. After Jason took my picture, he pulled out his wallet and paid the 10 bucks for his own picture, because how could you not? She was truly great, and I can't wait to read the book.
But the best person I got to talk to was Daniel Roebuck. Most people know him as the science teacher who blew up on Lost. I was originally going to have him sign by my review of The River's Edge because he's truly terrifying in that film, but once I realized he was in Dudes, one of the coolest movies no one has ever seen, I had to get him to sign by that (3 star) review. Then we had a long conversation about Cavegirl, one of those terrible 80's flicks that I just can't get enough of. We talked for a good chunk of time, and it's one of the reasons why I try and go to these events. Just a nice guy.
And I finished off the show with meeting the director of TerrorVision, Ted Nicolaou, and he told me why Gerrit Graham wasn't on the "Making of TerrorVision." (He was filmed, but the sound was bad so it wasn't used.) And I finally got Bill Mosely (Chop Top from Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2) to sign my review notebook. He seems to be at a lot of these shows, and it was about time that I met him.
So, was it worth it? Heck, yeah! Would I liked to have a chance to look through the dealer rooms? Yeah. But that's the convention's fault. Sorry guys. Not my fault. But, hey, Cinema Wasteland is in 2 weeks.
I have no problem with the convention itself. I had a great time for the three hours that I spent inside the building. I got (almost) all the autographs I was hoping to get. But that was all I was able to do. I made a quick pass through the vendor rooms, but I really didn't have time to browse. An extra two hours may have been a more profitable two hours for some of those guys.
I expect to wait in line for autographs when I go to a convention. I don't mind waiting for 3 hours to meet someone I really appreciate as an actor, actress, director or writer. But waiting for 6 hours for that same autograph (regardless of the company you're keeping) is too much.
Horrorhound changed venues this time to a larger location. It was a good move. But I have to imagine there were more entrances into the building other than the one (one!) everyone was herded into. Different doors for different ticket holders would have to get people to move through the line quicker (I have to imagine).
Some of the complaints from other people who've attended seem to place the blame on the fans of The Walking Dead. When you have a half dozen actors from one of the most popular shows on television (and it's not a niche show with those ratings), obviously a lot of people are going to want a "piece" of them. But I've read things saying that these attendees aren't true horror fans. Well, you know what? The Walking Dead is a horror show. Zombies, exploding heads, arrows through the eyes, and social commentary... sounds like some of the best horror movies I've seen. And the more people who watch things like this the better it is for all of us. That means more networks are going to try more outrageous shows. Of course some of them are going to be crap, but maybe something just as good or better will come along. But a fan of Norman Reedus has the same right to attend one of these shows as a fan of Sig Haig.
But enough negativity. I had a blast at the convention (once I got in). The three hour wait to get in was alleviated by the fact that I got to hang out with one of my best friends, Jason, and the young lady who was with us. We never got her name, but that was okay. Her conversation made the wait go by a lot faster than it could've. Jason kept nudging me - "get her number." But we both knew that wasn't going to happen since she was married. (But we did get to complain about the fact that some of the women that we've met would seem to be perfect for us, except for the fact that they're already in relationships.)
Once we got in the show we headed downstairs. That's where The Walking Dead cast was, and I wasn't willing to wait in those lines, so it was back upstairs. The first celebrity I got to meet was Robert Patrick (the T1000 from Terminator 2). I work with somebody who used to hang out with him back in the day, so we talked about that. And while I waited in his line, Jason scoped out some of the other rooms. The buddy system was the perfect way to do this.
Diane Franklin was next. And she was really the reason I wanted to attend the show. Better Off Dead is one of the greatest comedies of all time. But as I told her, she has been in three truly memorable films - Better Off Dead, The Last American Virgin (the most shattering comedy you'll see), and TerrorVision (a movie that combines awesomeness and awfulness in one amazing package). I bought the last copy of her autobiography in hardcover, and got a picture with her. But the great thing about getting a picture with her, is that she still has the hat and coat her character wore in Better Off Dead, and she wears the hat while you wear the coat. After Jason took my picture, he pulled out his wallet and paid the 10 bucks for his own picture, because how could you not? She was truly great, and I can't wait to read the book.
But the best person I got to talk to was Daniel Roebuck. Most people know him as the science teacher who blew up on Lost. I was originally going to have him sign by my review of The River's Edge because he's truly terrifying in that film, but once I realized he was in Dudes, one of the coolest movies no one has ever seen, I had to get him to sign by that (3 star) review. Then we had a long conversation about Cavegirl, one of those terrible 80's flicks that I just can't get enough of. We talked for a good chunk of time, and it's one of the reasons why I try and go to these events. Just a nice guy.
And I finished off the show with meeting the director of TerrorVision, Ted Nicolaou, and he told me why Gerrit Graham wasn't on the "Making of TerrorVision." (He was filmed, but the sound was bad so it wasn't used.) And I finally got Bill Mosely (Chop Top from Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2) to sign my review notebook. He seems to be at a lot of these shows, and it was about time that I met him.
So, was it worth it? Heck, yeah! Would I liked to have a chance to look through the dealer rooms? Yeah. But that's the convention's fault. Sorry guys. Not my fault. But, hey, Cinema Wasteland is in 2 weeks.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Day 452 - Django Unchained (and Norm Greenbaum)
So, I actually hadn't planned to write anything, but sometimes you just have to. And Django Unchained was as good a movie to write about as anything.
I still remember reading Film Threat back in college, and they had been raving about Quentin Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs for months before it actually came out. Then I got to see it in the theater with my buddy Greg, and when the film was over, we had a discussion about whether or not we thought Harvey Keitel pulled the trigger at the end or not (I thought he did, he thought he didn't). Regardless, I knew after seeing that film, I was more than ready to watch whatever he wanted to make.
The newly Academy Award winning Django Unchained is Tarantino's newest effort. And while it may not be his best, it might be his most fun. It captures the feel of a 70's exploitation film, along with a Robert Altman-esque western vibe (which, is to say, it looks like McCabe and Mrs. Miller), as well as that ever-important (and clever) dialogue that is Tarantino's signature.
Set two years before the Civil War, bounty hunter Dr. King Schultz (portrayed masterfully by Christoph Waltz - in a performance that is as charming as his Inglorious' role was nasty) teams up with Django (Jamie Foxx - clearly enjoying himself) to both collect some bounties and eventually free Django's wife, Broomhilda, from the vile clutches of Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio - having the time of his life). Much bloodshed ensues.
Much has been said about the violence in the film. But you've got to know, going into the film, that it's a Tarantino movie. Caveat emptor. But what seems to be overlooked is that it feels incredibly 70's. The blood gushes out in arterial sprays that have no semblance of realism attached to them. His visual flourishes are a statement as much as his musical cues (which, as always, seem spot on). We're watching Tarantino's filmic reality, and in his world, this is what would happen.
As for the neverending use of the "n" word, there are no apologies. For some of the characters, it's a way to ingratiate themselves with others, for some it's simply because they don't know any other way, and for others it's because they're racist. And those racist ones - yeah, they get what's coming to them. Because the film doesn't seem like it has a racist agenda at all. King Schultz is one of the most progressive characters in the film, and slavery is something that he does not like. Putting a bullet in the chest of a wanted man doesn't make him bat an eyelash. But seeing a black man (or woman) with whip lashes on their back, shakes him to his core. As well it should.
Fun, loud, smart, well-acted, overlong - completely Tarantino. ****
And when I was driving home after the movie, Norm Greenbaum's "Spirit in the Sky" came on the radio. At Christmastime, my uncle asked me what my favorite song was. My reply was "Grey Matter" by Oingo Boingo. And it is, but the incredibly close number two would have to be "Spirit in the Sky." The first time the song really impacted me was during the opening credits of Miami Blues (starring Alec Baldwin and Jennifer Jason Leigh). The credits are the only thing on the screen, and all you hear is the song. It's a great opening, and it immediately sucks you into the film. I remember watching it in the student lounge on a Monday night. (man, that was a long time ago). Years later, I bought the soundtrack to A Perfect World on cassette for a buck because the song was on it, and I could then listen to it in my car whenever I wanted. And after that, I had my buddy Brian make me a CD of my own specially picked songs, and the first one on that CD...duh. It's a great song to sing along to, and it's a great song to drive to. Music is always so subjective, but when a song can conjure up memories or inspire joy, then I think it's worth writing about (or at least listening to).
(Of course, now I want to watch Miami Blues again.)
I still remember reading Film Threat back in college, and they had been raving about Quentin Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs for months before it actually came out. Then I got to see it in the theater with my buddy Greg, and when the film was over, we had a discussion about whether or not we thought Harvey Keitel pulled the trigger at the end or not (I thought he did, he thought he didn't). Regardless, I knew after seeing that film, I was more than ready to watch whatever he wanted to make.
The newly Academy Award winning Django Unchained is Tarantino's newest effort. And while it may not be his best, it might be his most fun. It captures the feel of a 70's exploitation film, along with a Robert Altman-esque western vibe (which, is to say, it looks like McCabe and Mrs. Miller), as well as that ever-important (and clever) dialogue that is Tarantino's signature.
Set two years before the Civil War, bounty hunter Dr. King Schultz (portrayed masterfully by Christoph Waltz - in a performance that is as charming as his Inglorious' role was nasty) teams up with Django (Jamie Foxx - clearly enjoying himself) to both collect some bounties and eventually free Django's wife, Broomhilda, from the vile clutches of Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio - having the time of his life). Much bloodshed ensues.
Much has been said about the violence in the film. But you've got to know, going into the film, that it's a Tarantino movie. Caveat emptor. But what seems to be overlooked is that it feels incredibly 70's. The blood gushes out in arterial sprays that have no semblance of realism attached to them. His visual flourishes are a statement as much as his musical cues (which, as always, seem spot on). We're watching Tarantino's filmic reality, and in his world, this is what would happen.
As for the neverending use of the "n" word, there are no apologies. For some of the characters, it's a way to ingratiate themselves with others, for some it's simply because they don't know any other way, and for others it's because they're racist. And those racist ones - yeah, they get what's coming to them. Because the film doesn't seem like it has a racist agenda at all. King Schultz is one of the most progressive characters in the film, and slavery is something that he does not like. Putting a bullet in the chest of a wanted man doesn't make him bat an eyelash. But seeing a black man (or woman) with whip lashes on their back, shakes him to his core. As well it should.
Fun, loud, smart, well-acted, overlong - completely Tarantino. ****
And when I was driving home after the movie, Norm Greenbaum's "Spirit in the Sky" came on the radio. At Christmastime, my uncle asked me what my favorite song was. My reply was "Grey Matter" by Oingo Boingo. And it is, but the incredibly close number two would have to be "Spirit in the Sky." The first time the song really impacted me was during the opening credits of Miami Blues (starring Alec Baldwin and Jennifer Jason Leigh). The credits are the only thing on the screen, and all you hear is the song. It's a great opening, and it immediately sucks you into the film. I remember watching it in the student lounge on a Monday night. (man, that was a long time ago). Years later, I bought the soundtrack to A Perfect World on cassette for a buck because the song was on it, and I could then listen to it in my car whenever I wanted. And after that, I had my buddy Brian make me a CD of my own specially picked songs, and the first one on that CD...duh. It's a great song to sing along to, and it's a great song to drive to. Music is always so subjective, but when a song can conjure up memories or inspire joy, then I think it's worth writing about (or at least listening to).
(Of course, now I want to watch Miami Blues again.)
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Day 359 - Skyfall
Before reading any further, let me warn you - this is going to be filled with spoilers on the new Bond film, Skyfall, and why I didn't like it. And without further ado...
Apparently I am one of the very few people in the world who didn't care for Skyfall and here's why.
1. It reminded me of Never Say Never Again. Never Say Never Again is the terrible remake of Thunderball starring Sean Connery as Bond, and the whole idea of that film is that Bond is too old to do his job competently. And then he proceeds to save the world making Mr. Bean happy. Skyfall spends the whole film saying Bond is getting too old, when all the while Bond, at least to us, appears to barely have lost a step. It'd be one thing if we see him stumble in the field (as opposed to at the firing range), but we never do. So I could never get behind that central conceit.
2. He lets Severine (Berenice Marlohe) die. Every Bond film has a sacrificial lamb. It's part of the story. But what has happened in every previous film, is that Bond was unable to do anything about their deaths. In Goldfinger, Jill Masterson is killed after Bond is knocked unconscious. In For Your Eyes Only, Ferrara is killed while Bond is fighting off angry hockey players. In each of those instances, Bond can do nothing about those circumstances. In Skyfall, all Bond has to do is stall for about 20 more seconds and Severine (a woman who is acknowledged as a (former) sex slave) would have been rescued. As a woman whose life up to this point can't have been very good, this seems like a cheap and wasteful way to die. And for the more "emotional" Daniel Craig Bond, not another thought is given to her. That to me is poor writing.
3. Kincade - as played by Albert Finney. It's like the film thought that we hadn't seen a character like J.W. Pepper (Live and Let Die) in such a while that it felt it needed to fill that gap. I really dislike him.
4. The "Home Alone" style ending. So Bond has two gadgets - A palm-reading gun, and a tracking chip. And the tracking chip is just something you carry in your pocket? They couldn't have even given him a hidden tracking chip? I mean, he's had one in his shoe (Goldfinger) and radioactive lint (Thunderball), and this tracking chip is the best "Q" can do? However, in this gadget-free Bond film, we get to see explosive light bulbs. I was waiting for Bond to put a hot plate on a doorknob. Give him gadgets! I'm more than willing to suspend my disbelief then. By the end I was just waiting for Ralph Fiennes to get his new title. (And let me tell you, that was, by far, the most telegraphed thing in the film.)
There were a few things I liked. I thought the pre-credits sequence was amazing. Everything I expect from a Bond film. Javier Bardem did a bang-up job the first time you see him, but by the time he's crazily shooting up the courtroom I had lost all sympathy for the character. Daniel Craig is still a great Bond. And I enjoyed the new "Q." But did we really need to see him get his comeuppance in his very first appearance?
Maybe I just don't need to see Bond's origins. I don't care where he came from. I just want to see him be the best secret agent in the world, which is what the first 15 minutes showed me. But the rest of the film didn't.
Apparently I am one of the very few people in the world who didn't care for Skyfall and here's why.
1. It reminded me of Never Say Never Again. Never Say Never Again is the terrible remake of Thunderball starring Sean Connery as Bond, and the whole idea of that film is that Bond is too old to do his job competently. And then he proceeds to save the world making Mr. Bean happy. Skyfall spends the whole film saying Bond is getting too old, when all the while Bond, at least to us, appears to barely have lost a step. It'd be one thing if we see him stumble in the field (as opposed to at the firing range), but we never do. So I could never get behind that central conceit.
2. He lets Severine (Berenice Marlohe) die. Every Bond film has a sacrificial lamb. It's part of the story. But what has happened in every previous film, is that Bond was unable to do anything about their deaths. In Goldfinger, Jill Masterson is killed after Bond is knocked unconscious. In For Your Eyes Only, Ferrara is killed while Bond is fighting off angry hockey players. In each of those instances, Bond can do nothing about those circumstances. In Skyfall, all Bond has to do is stall for about 20 more seconds and Severine (a woman who is acknowledged as a (former) sex slave) would have been rescued. As a woman whose life up to this point can't have been very good, this seems like a cheap and wasteful way to die. And for the more "emotional" Daniel Craig Bond, not another thought is given to her. That to me is poor writing.
3. Kincade - as played by Albert Finney. It's like the film thought that we hadn't seen a character like J.W. Pepper (Live and Let Die) in such a while that it felt it needed to fill that gap. I really dislike him.
4. The "Home Alone" style ending. So Bond has two gadgets - A palm-reading gun, and a tracking chip. And the tracking chip is just something you carry in your pocket? They couldn't have even given him a hidden tracking chip? I mean, he's had one in his shoe (Goldfinger) and radioactive lint (Thunderball), and this tracking chip is the best "Q" can do? However, in this gadget-free Bond film, we get to see explosive light bulbs. I was waiting for Bond to put a hot plate on a doorknob. Give him gadgets! I'm more than willing to suspend my disbelief then. By the end I was just waiting for Ralph Fiennes to get his new title. (And let me tell you, that was, by far, the most telegraphed thing in the film.)
There were a few things I liked. I thought the pre-credits sequence was amazing. Everything I expect from a Bond film. Javier Bardem did a bang-up job the first time you see him, but by the time he's crazily shooting up the courtroom I had lost all sympathy for the character. Daniel Craig is still a great Bond. And I enjoyed the new "Q." But did we really need to see him get his comeuppance in his very first appearance?
Maybe I just don't need to see Bond's origins. I don't care where he came from. I just want to see him be the best secret agent in the world, which is what the first 15 minutes showed me. But the rest of the film didn't.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Day 344 - Marble Cities
Marble Cities is the new play that was created and produced by Cleveland's Theater Ninjas. And while it is a play, it's also an experience, because it's very much an assault on your attention span. This is not a play to go see if you want to sit back and relax. This is one that, from the very first moment, grabs you , and doesn't merely not let you go, but flings you around.
The amount of dialogue that comes at you, while being informative, is almost mind-numbing in its quantity. But that's a lot of why it's there. I don't think the audience is supposed to fully grasp what the characters are saying. I don't think the audience can fully grasp everything that's said.
There are eight characters, and all of them have been given an invitation to attend this gathering - except for one, who may be a moderator or may be something more. But the other seven have been tasked with creating/building a civilization from the ground up. But each of the characters is flawed and while their flaws may make things interesting, they also make their relationship strained at best.
And, really, that's my best guess at what's happening. Explaining the "story" of the play is not what's important. What's important in Marble Cities are ideas. And there are plenty thrown around. If you have a theory as to why we're here, it's given a voice. If you have a theory on social politics, it's here. If you have a theory about nearly anything, it's probably here. Each one of the characters represents a different social class, and each of the characters is given a specific voice. I don't think we're supposed to pick a side, but we're they're to listen, because by listening, it gives credence to what the characters say.
This is a captivating and complicated piece. This is a play, that in order to keep up, you have to be willing to let stuff go. If you dwell too long on any one sentence, you've already missed a half dozen other ideas. If there's any complaint, it's that the play has too much going on. Even half the ideas within are more than enough to sustain a whole play. But who am I to say that something's too ambitious? If anything, at least the actors are uniformly amazing. They give this piece their complete attention. If any of them had given any less than their all, the play would have suffered. But by the end, each of the actors had really imbued each of their characters with realism, intelligence, and sympathy, and that alone makes this worth seeing.
There's one more week's worth of shows - Monday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. I may not be able to explain what's happening, but I definitely think it's worth seeing.
The amount of dialogue that comes at you, while being informative, is almost mind-numbing in its quantity. But that's a lot of why it's there. I don't think the audience is supposed to fully grasp what the characters are saying. I don't think the audience can fully grasp everything that's said.
There are eight characters, and all of them have been given an invitation to attend this gathering - except for one, who may be a moderator or may be something more. But the other seven have been tasked with creating/building a civilization from the ground up. But each of the characters is flawed and while their flaws may make things interesting, they also make their relationship strained at best.
And, really, that's my best guess at what's happening. Explaining the "story" of the play is not what's important. What's important in Marble Cities are ideas. And there are plenty thrown around. If you have a theory as to why we're here, it's given a voice. If you have a theory on social politics, it's here. If you have a theory about nearly anything, it's probably here. Each one of the characters represents a different social class, and each of the characters is given a specific voice. I don't think we're supposed to pick a side, but we're they're to listen, because by listening, it gives credence to what the characters say.
This is a captivating and complicated piece. This is a play, that in order to keep up, you have to be willing to let stuff go. If you dwell too long on any one sentence, you've already missed a half dozen other ideas. If there's any complaint, it's that the play has too much going on. Even half the ideas within are more than enough to sustain a whole play. But who am I to say that something's too ambitious? If anything, at least the actors are uniformly amazing. They give this piece their complete attention. If any of them had given any less than their all, the play would have suffered. But by the end, each of the actors had really imbued each of their characters with realism, intelligence, and sympathy, and that alone makes this worth seeing.
There's one more week's worth of shows - Monday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. I may not be able to explain what's happening, but I definitely think it's worth seeing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)