Saw Zack and Miri Make a Porno, another film from Kevin Smith's "Askewniverse." Since it's Kevin Smith, you know this film is gonna be a bro-y, congenial film, kind of skeazy but fundamentally good-natured. It's the sort of film that might pass out on your couch but would probably also help you move. As you might gather from the title, the film is sexually provocative but, like Shortbus before it, it's very traditional deep down. It missteps with the sexual politics here and there in my opinion, but I'll talk about that later.
So this is a sweet little movie about two people realizing that they love each other, set in the winter hell-land of Pennsylvania. The winter of their smallish town is lushly and gloriously portrayed. The slush and the ice and the whining car engines, ice caked on door-handles and windshields, the hot coffee in thin, cardboard cups that you hope will warm you up but that get cold the instant you step back outside again, the salt stains on everyone's shoes and on the hardwood of every shop. Oh yes, it's all there!!
I really liked the winter and it works well as a metaphor for single life: cold, lonely, and hostile. Of course Zack and Miri get together. Why wouldn't they? Well, for starters because she's way out of his league. He's Seth Rogan, so he's this big sweet teddy bear, but this is the magical pixie dream girl, I think, making all of your wishes come true. Like the porno they make, this is also just wish-fulfillment fantasy.
Also, while I'm being mean, I really really didn't like the gay couple at the beginning. Both are very attractive but (if wikipedia is to be trusted) neither of them is actually gay (maybe there just weren't any gay actors available at the time???) One makes this big deal out of how important it is to indulge Zack's giggling school-boy curiosity and non-questions such as "so, you suck each other's cocks huh?" Later, Zack just quietly marvels to himself "they fight just like real people!" During the credits, the character return to deliver a gross-out monologue about one of their buttholes. Is this supposed to be funny and inclusive or something? Speaking only for myself here but I don't feel very included. I feel a bunch of straight guys put on silly voices and limp wrists and made fun of me and my friends for a while before patting themselves on the back for being broadminded. For being such an otherwise sweet little film, it's a really sour note. Also there's two black characters who have problems of their own but I am on less familiar ground there so I'll leave it to someone else to critique.
So like I said, this a bro-y movie. Part of it's charm is that it's kind of offensive and any oh-so-outraged blog posts are part of that package and that appeal. Under all of the sex jokes and boobies beats a warm and traditional heart, just wanting to see the guy and the girl get together. I enjoyed this movie. I just worry that someone out there will think this is an honest-to-god portrayal of how life works. So long as you're aware that this is just fantasy, there's no harm in it. A sweet, cozy little film.
Nov 27, 2016
Nov 26, 2016
Nightcrawler
Saw Nightcrawler (thanks, John!) It was a very timely film about a complete sociopath who chases down car accidents and robberies to sell footage to news programs. He starts out the film as a copper thief, stripping copper cabling from rail yards and selling it to construction sites. Right near the beginning of the film, a rent-a-cop stops him and the protagonist attacks him and kills him, stealing his watch as he does so. That watch is focused on here and there throughout the rest of the film, a symbol of the swirling madness sublimed just under the surface of the protagonist's creepy smile and rapid-fire jargon of business management and self-help lingo. He's monumentally creepy.
In fact, I think he's too creepy. In their haste to make it obvious to the audience what a freak this guy is, they make him into such a howling horror-show that I don't understand how anyone could stand him for more than a few minutes before running in the opposite direction. Then again, I think I've met people like this, who believe that the secret to wealth and happiness is knowing which arms to twist. I regard them with a deep pity that I think would offend them, but I guess I haven't exactly run away from them.
Anyway, this film is quite timely, combining an update of the American Psycho with a heavy dose of cynicism for mainstream media (although, to be frank, the local operation in the film is supposed to be quite rinky-dink.) I've seen the film referenced many times in the more paranoid reaches of Reddit (although increasingly that's becoming the entirety of Reddit, alas.) I was also impressed with the film's sinister use of the internet and information. At one point the protagonist blackmails a woman into sleeping with him based on information readily available online about her. Chilling and important to remember from time to time: you're being watched.
A very nervy little film. Like American Psycho it's almost a dark comedy. Although I never had the stomach to laugh, the protagonist's business-talk is hilarious and freaky. At one point he forms a company composed only of himself and from then on refers to himself as "we" as in "I've noticed your increased work ethic recently and we think that you have great potential for advancement." It would be hilarious if it weren't so gross.
This is a good film. It's unsettling, darkly funny, ugly, and sleek. It does what it needs to do and left me feeling icky afterwards (although I do feel like the film's bullet missed me because I neither create news nor do I watch it so I'm completely outside of this struggle.) But this is no simple, pat little flick, it wants to hit people and scare them, like a cut-rate news team leading with a story of a double-homicide.
In fact, I think he's too creepy. In their haste to make it obvious to the audience what a freak this guy is, they make him into such a howling horror-show that I don't understand how anyone could stand him for more than a few minutes before running in the opposite direction. Then again, I think I've met people like this, who believe that the secret to wealth and happiness is knowing which arms to twist. I regard them with a deep pity that I think would offend them, but I guess I haven't exactly run away from them.
Anyway, this film is quite timely, combining an update of the American Psycho with a heavy dose of cynicism for mainstream media (although, to be frank, the local operation in the film is supposed to be quite rinky-dink.) I've seen the film referenced many times in the more paranoid reaches of Reddit (although increasingly that's becoming the entirety of Reddit, alas.) I was also impressed with the film's sinister use of the internet and information. At one point the protagonist blackmails a woman into sleeping with him based on information readily available online about her. Chilling and important to remember from time to time: you're being watched.
A very nervy little film. Like American Psycho it's almost a dark comedy. Although I never had the stomach to laugh, the protagonist's business-talk is hilarious and freaky. At one point he forms a company composed only of himself and from then on refers to himself as "we" as in "I've noticed your increased work ethic recently and we think that you have great potential for advancement." It would be hilarious if it weren't so gross.
This is a good film. It's unsettling, darkly funny, ugly, and sleek. It does what it needs to do and left me feeling icky afterwards (although I do feel like the film's bullet missed me because I neither create news nor do I watch it so I'm completely outside of this struggle.) But this is no simple, pat little flick, it wants to hit people and scare them, like a cut-rate news team leading with a story of a double-homicide.
The Faculty
Saw The Faculty, a very 90s sort of update of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. It has a lot more big names than I remember. Elijah Wood is there with his giant blue eyes, and Josh Hartnett plays counterpoint, with his little cat-like eyes. A lot of eye-related attractiveness going on. Anyway, the film is fairly goofy fun. The plot is ludicrous of course, with the 20-something-year-old "teenagers" getting high on caffeine and also caffeine is somehow more dehydrating than salt? Bad science aside, there's a fun sense of the teenagers getting together, falling prey to paranoia and never knowing quite who the enemy is. Good sci fi stuff.
It is fundamentally a dumb and harmless movie, but it's got a lot of (possibly unintentional) creepiness in how the heroes behave. There's something sinister in the eagerness of Josh Hartnett's attractive genius stoner character to go homicidal on his teachers. The songs "School's Out" and "Another Brick in the Wall" feature heavily on the soundtrack. I think the film cynically believes that there's a part of kids that really do want to murder their teachers (one teacher even hamfistedly says "I'm the authority figure here!" before Hartnett mincingly sneers her back into submission.) The parasitic alien makes everyone serene and calm. It's a false calm of course, and the violence of the main characters gives the film some grey shades, but why is it that calm is a sign of external and alien control? I wish I had been told a more comforting lie.
The movie is dumb (and for me nostalgic) fun. It's clearly not a movie with a ton on its mind, which exists only to give kids of the 90s what is cynically assumes they want (teacher-murder) Is that what kids want? It isn't what I wanted. Eh. A miss.
It is fundamentally a dumb and harmless movie, but it's got a lot of (possibly unintentional) creepiness in how the heroes behave. There's something sinister in the eagerness of Josh Hartnett's attractive genius stoner character to go homicidal on his teachers. The songs "School's Out" and "Another Brick in the Wall" feature heavily on the soundtrack. I think the film cynically believes that there's a part of kids that really do want to murder their teachers (one teacher even hamfistedly says "I'm the authority figure here!" before Hartnett mincingly sneers her back into submission.) The parasitic alien makes everyone serene and calm. It's a false calm of course, and the violence of the main characters gives the film some grey shades, but why is it that calm is a sign of external and alien control? I wish I had been told a more comforting lie.
The movie is dumb (and for me nostalgic) fun. It's clearly not a movie with a ton on its mind, which exists only to give kids of the 90s what is cynically assumes they want (teacher-murder) Is that what kids want? It isn't what I wanted. Eh. A miss.
Nov 24, 2016
Not Quite Hollywood: The Wild, Untold Story of Ozploitation!
Saw Not Quite Hollywood: The Wild, Untold Story of Ozploitation!(!!!?!), a documentary about the early days of filmmaking in Australia. Apparently there was a big push for native Australian film on the federal level, resulting in big tax breaks for filmmakers and therefore in a huge number of people making any kind of schlocky film because now it was profitable. Thank heaven because we get some truly crazy, insane, anarchic and fun films as a result.
It turns out I've seen a few of the films they talk about in this documentary. They bring up Turkey Shoot, Mad Max, and The Man from Hong Kong all of which I've seen and didn't particularly like. Don't get me wrong, I do like the fact that these films exist, I'm just not the target audience. Quentin Tarantino is which is why he appears throughout this documentary ("Fan" is listed under his name.) He claims the film are great lurid excesses that make you doubt what you're seeing. Maybe for him but for me I'm not much wowed by the brilliant cruelty toward women or the car-fetishism which so impresses him. I have my own weaknesses of course, just not for blood.
Anyway, the documentary is great fun. It plays rock music at you and covers the screen with Lichtenstein-esque blow-ups of posters and film frames, gobbing the image with GCI blood and collages as aging actors and directors burble excitedly about their films. It's infectious and makes me want to see more of their horrible art. And like I say, I would rather see an ambitious muddle than an expertly crafted remake, so I feel we are not totally opposed, the schlockmeisters and I.
It turns out I've seen a few of the films they talk about in this documentary. They bring up Turkey Shoot, Mad Max, and The Man from Hong Kong all of which I've seen and didn't particularly like. Don't get me wrong, I do like the fact that these films exist, I'm just not the target audience. Quentin Tarantino is which is why he appears throughout this documentary ("Fan" is listed under his name.) He claims the film are great lurid excesses that make you doubt what you're seeing. Maybe for him but for me I'm not much wowed by the brilliant cruelty toward women or the car-fetishism which so impresses him. I have my own weaknesses of course, just not for blood.
Anyway, the documentary is great fun. It plays rock music at you and covers the screen with Lichtenstein-esque blow-ups of posters and film frames, gobbing the image with GCI blood and collages as aging actors and directors burble excitedly about their films. It's infectious and makes me want to see more of their horrible art. And like I say, I would rather see an ambitious muddle than an expertly crafted remake, so I feel we are not totally opposed, the schlockmeisters and I.
White Heat
Saw White Heat, a James Cagney gangster film. If I had to explain to some foreign person what a gangster film was, I would point to this film. Cagney does the gangster thing, the cops pursue him, a mole in his organization sweats and connives. Cagney's gangster gets intense, debilitating migraines and has this weird fixation on his mother, an old, unsmiling battleaxe of a woman.
I assumed Cagney was supposed to be some grotesque monster, that this would be an intense battle of the noble cops vs a grandiose monster, but there really isn't that much tension and horror in the film. Rather, it's very orderly. The gangsters do one reasonable thing, the cops do another. I never got the sense that the gangster was tantalizingly out of reach, or that he was terribly, untouchably omnipotent. The plot is kind of dry fo a film where so many people die.
It's a solid gangster picture, not the greatest I've seen but not the worst either. Free of tension but also fairly free of hysterics, so maybe it's just not catering to my weaknesses. A very 1950s film. Orderly and composed.
I assumed Cagney was supposed to be some grotesque monster, that this would be an intense battle of the noble cops vs a grandiose monster, but there really isn't that much tension and horror in the film. Rather, it's very orderly. The gangsters do one reasonable thing, the cops do another. I never got the sense that the gangster was tantalizingly out of reach, or that he was terribly, untouchably omnipotent. The plot is kind of dry fo a film where so many people die.
It's a solid gangster picture, not the greatest I've seen but not the worst either. Free of tension but also fairly free of hysterics, so maybe it's just not catering to my weaknesses. A very 1950s film. Orderly and composed.
Nov 20, 2016
World's Greatest Dad
Saw World's Greatest Dad, a dark comedy starring Robin Williams. The story follows a frustrated writer (Robin Williams) with a horrible son who only thinks about sex and sneeringly hates everything and every one. Robin's character's life is one of endless, cartoonish humiliation and frustration. He works at a private school where he must always answer for his son's perverted shenanigans. He's "dating" the faculty flirt who adopts a sickening cute-little-girl persona every time she's being mean. "You're not maaaaad are you?" she whines as she breaks another date with Robin. It's Todd Solondz-level grimness.
Anyway, one day Robin finds his son dead from auto-erotic asphyxiation and, to save his face one last time, hoists his pants up and composes a fake suicide note about how no one understood him and how he was so sensitive inside. The note catches the school by storm and the idiot, horn-dog, jerk kid becomes the ideal dream friend of every student in the school. They beg Robin for more of his son's inner-life and, Robin being a frustrated writer, is happy to supply more ghost-written material.
The film is comic but very dark. I didn't know if I could take much more of the human smiley-face Robin Williams being abused mocked and belittled by his son and by life in general. Robin's character has a pathetic, grimy quality to him. There's another teacher who is smarter, hotter, and a better teacher than he is. That teacher's frustration later in the film, as Robin's star rises, is sweet succor to Robin. The satire is acid and well-drawn. I loved hating the vacuous girlfriend and being pettily jealous of the better teacher. When Robin is starting to get praise and recognition, that too is vapid and silly. "Father/Hero" reads the text under his face on an Oprah-like talk-show.
I was sort of worried that we'd start to get a bit Randian. Was the small, pathetic teacher supposed to be the villain (or anti-hero) for cheating his way to the top? This other teacher is clearly better in every way than Robin is and the only way Robin gets the better of him is via an outrageous lie. I felt that either Robin would come clean, triggering an outrage every bit as vacuous as the praise he was receiving, or he would continue this lie forever, falling into phoniness and villainy. I felt the ending of the film let him off very lightly. The film wants to redeem him but doesn't want him to suffer. But he's selfishly tricked the whole (admittedly stupid) town, so why should he get off Scot-free?
I felt the ending was off, but the rest of it is great. Wry and well-observed, full of little hilarious details like Robin snidely observing that The New Yorker is a fine publication he guesses but it isn't a national magazine. A sometimes painful but fun and silly movie. It has some vague motions at moralizing that I don't think really stick, but the rest of the film is good enough, I'll give it a pass. A nice little film.
Anyway, one day Robin finds his son dead from auto-erotic asphyxiation and, to save his face one last time, hoists his pants up and composes a fake suicide note about how no one understood him and how he was so sensitive inside. The note catches the school by storm and the idiot, horn-dog, jerk kid becomes the ideal dream friend of every student in the school. They beg Robin for more of his son's inner-life and, Robin being a frustrated writer, is happy to supply more ghost-written material.
The film is comic but very dark. I didn't know if I could take much more of the human smiley-face Robin Williams being abused mocked and belittled by his son and by life in general. Robin's character has a pathetic, grimy quality to him. There's another teacher who is smarter, hotter, and a better teacher than he is. That teacher's frustration later in the film, as Robin's star rises, is sweet succor to Robin. The satire is acid and well-drawn. I loved hating the vacuous girlfriend and being pettily jealous of the better teacher. When Robin is starting to get praise and recognition, that too is vapid and silly. "Father/Hero" reads the text under his face on an Oprah-like talk-show.
I was sort of worried that we'd start to get a bit Randian. Was the small, pathetic teacher supposed to be the villain (or anti-hero) for cheating his way to the top? This other teacher is clearly better in every way than Robin is and the only way Robin gets the better of him is via an outrageous lie. I felt that either Robin would come clean, triggering an outrage every bit as vacuous as the praise he was receiving, or he would continue this lie forever, falling into phoniness and villainy. I felt the ending of the film let him off very lightly. The film wants to redeem him but doesn't want him to suffer. But he's selfishly tricked the whole (admittedly stupid) town, so why should he get off Scot-free?
I felt the ending was off, but the rest of it is great. Wry and well-observed, full of little hilarious details like Robin snidely observing that The New Yorker is a fine publication he guesses but it isn't a national magazine. A sometimes painful but fun and silly movie. It has some vague motions at moralizing that I don't think really stick, but the rest of the film is good enough, I'll give it a pass. A nice little film.
Nov 13, 2016
The Transporter
Saw The Transporter (thanks, Basil!) It was a very European sort of mix of Fast and Furious and Rambo. The film is clearly the result of a car enthusiast day-dreaming about driving fancy cars, wearing neato watches, and being a super-cool guy who transports various stuff for the mob or something. He listens to classical music and so smart and cool and oh my god wouldn't that be cool!?
Unsurprisingly, I didn't think much of this film. The plot, such as it is, is that this super-cool trucker has to transport a sexy lady who of course he sees all tied up and just can't help but fall in love with her. The treatment of this woman (who is a hacker I guess but also a damsel in distress) is a bit gross but, full disclosure, I did really enjoy the super homo-erotic fight scene midway through the film (the protagonist gets shirtless, greases himself up, and kisses another dude on the mouth) so I guess it's sleazy, but at least it's equal-opportunity sleaze.
Anyway, the film is a wish-fulfillment fantasy for wishes I do not have. A complete miss for me. Very well-made and not at all amateurish, it nevertheless was too blatantly self-indulgent and masturbatory in a way that did not arouse my interest. Next, please.
Unsurprisingly, I didn't think much of this film. The plot, such as it is, is that this super-cool trucker has to transport a sexy lady who of course he sees all tied up and just can't help but fall in love with her. The treatment of this woman (who is a hacker I guess but also a damsel in distress) is a bit gross but, full disclosure, I did really enjoy the super homo-erotic fight scene midway through the film (the protagonist gets shirtless, greases himself up, and kisses another dude on the mouth) so I guess it's sleazy, but at least it's equal-opportunity sleaze.
Anyway, the film is a wish-fulfillment fantasy for wishes I do not have. A complete miss for me. Very well-made and not at all amateurish, it nevertheless was too blatantly self-indulgent and masturbatory in a way that did not arouse my interest. Next, please.
Nov 12, 2016
Rise of the Guardians
Saw Rise of the Guardians, a very whimsical children's film that constructs some elaborate mythology around childhood mythelogical characters, such as the Easter Bunny and Santa. These are the titular Guardians who defend hope and the magic of childhood and whatnot. The protagonist, Jack Frost, is a young boy with the voice of an adult man who is cool in a horribly children's-movie sort of way and who wears a hoodie and guy-liner. It's pretty weird. He's clearly supposed to be a teen heartthrob or something. Anyway, he and the guardians have a cute little adventure saving the world from Pitch Black (which is apparently the real actual name of The (or A) Boogeyman.)
The film is pure escapism. I knew it would be and relished the escape from reality. This film is a bit limp when it comes to plot, but the art design is amazing. I suspect the concept art would be a lot of fun to look at. Clearly a lot of creativity was spent on this film. There's all these little flourishes of world-building that don't go anywhere. For example, they seem to have some kind of semi-religious relationship with the moon that's never explained. It's sort of crypto-pagan but then many holidays are so it's appropriate. Anyway, a good bit of fluff that unfortunately got a bit cringey for me (remember, the protagonist is Cool.) Kids would probably like it.
The film is pure escapism. I knew it would be and relished the escape from reality. This film is a bit limp when it comes to plot, but the art design is amazing. I suspect the concept art would be a lot of fun to look at. Clearly a lot of creativity was spent on this film. There's all these little flourishes of world-building that don't go anywhere. For example, they seem to have some kind of semi-religious relationship with the moon that's never explained. It's sort of crypto-pagan but then many holidays are so it's appropriate. Anyway, a good bit of fluff that unfortunately got a bit cringey for me (remember, the protagonist is Cool.) Kids would probably like it.
Strictly Ballroom
Saw Strictly Ballroom, a film directed by Baz Luhrmann, the guy who directed Moulin Rouge(!) and Romeo + Juliette. This is one was an early film in his career, so he hasn't yet embraced his innate lust for camp in quite the glorious, full-thoated way that Moulin Rouge does. Yet this film is deeply and delightfully campy, focusing on a dancer who is the son of two dancers. He desperately wants to win the big ballroom dance competition but (oh no!) he keeps dancing steps that aren't on the list of official acceptable ballroom dance moves!! His mother screams, his father looks away, ashamed, his dance instructor grows "come one, boy! Show them your ballcraft!" The whole thing is a hoot.
The film is sweet and simple, silly and goofy. It's in no way challenging, just a pure puff-ball of a film. It giddily trips from spectacle to spectacle, doing everything in its power to convince you that ballroom dancing is amazing and exciting. It mostly works because it provides you a snarky out by poking fun at itself often. It doesn't seem to take itself seriously and, for me at least, this gave me permission to just lay back and enjoy myself. It's simplistic and silly in parts, but it knows it. It's also grand and melodramatic at other times, and is just a lot of campy fun.
The film is sweet and simple, silly and goofy. It's in no way challenging, just a pure puff-ball of a film. It giddily trips from spectacle to spectacle, doing everything in its power to convince you that ballroom dancing is amazing and exciting. It mostly works because it provides you a snarky out by poking fun at itself often. It doesn't seem to take itself seriously and, for me at least, this gave me permission to just lay back and enjoy myself. It's simplistic and silly in parts, but it knows it. It's also grand and melodramatic at other times, and is just a lot of campy fun.
Nov 5, 2016
In a Lonely Place
Saw In a Lonely Place, a Bogart picture where Humph plays an embittered screenwriter. He establishes himself as a hero by sticking up for down-and-out actors and by slugging the smug money men. He has a girl around for a few innocent drinks and then, after leaving his apartment, the girl winds up dead. Yes, it's shaping up to be a bog-standard mystery picture. Fortunately, we're saved from the rather rote emergence of the villains and the drug connection and the whatnot of conventional mysteries by the film changing focus to Bogart's romantic relationship and the film pivots and becomes a rather harrowing story of domestic abuse.
The writer is implicated in the crime and even though we viewers know he didn't do it, it starts to seem like the kind of thing he would do. He has explosive tantrums, lavishing her with gifts the next day. I've never experienced domestic abuse (thank heaven) but this rage/guilt/sweetness cycle is textbook as far as I know. By the end, we get into some true 50 super-melodrama, but it's left me fairly rattled.
Bogart's most famous films have him as the hero or anti-hero at worst, but before the Maltese Falcon and Casablanca, he was type-cast as a gangster. It's shocking for me to see him be menacing but boy does he deliver with the tantrums and the rage. At one point he's cradling his girlfriend's head and it looks exactly like he's strangling her. The film cleverly subverts the fist-fight that opens the film. Initially, it establishes him as a hero, but in retrospect is clearly the actions of a man with a short fuse and little self-control. The film strips away the tropes of action and romance films, revealing their hackneyed short-hands to be creepy and ominous. By the end, his small circle of out-of-work friends seem less like a band of true artists and more like the losers table, huddling together for company and turning a blind eye to each other's gaping flaws. A tragic and creepy film.
The writer is implicated in the crime and even though we viewers know he didn't do it, it starts to seem like the kind of thing he would do. He has explosive tantrums, lavishing her with gifts the next day. I've never experienced domestic abuse (thank heaven) but this rage/guilt/sweetness cycle is textbook as far as I know. By the end, we get into some true 50 super-melodrama, but it's left me fairly rattled.
Bogart's most famous films have him as the hero or anti-hero at worst, but before the Maltese Falcon and Casablanca, he was type-cast as a gangster. It's shocking for me to see him be menacing but boy does he deliver with the tantrums and the rage. At one point he's cradling his girlfriend's head and it looks exactly like he's strangling her. The film cleverly subverts the fist-fight that opens the film. Initially, it establishes him as a hero, but in retrospect is clearly the actions of a man with a short fuse and little self-control. The film strips away the tropes of action and romance films, revealing their hackneyed short-hands to be creepy and ominous. By the end, his small circle of out-of-work friends seem less like a band of true artists and more like the losers table, huddling together for company and turning a blind eye to each other's gaping flaws. A tragic and creepy film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)