Horns

Saw Horns (thanks, Basil!) It was a sort of metaphysically inclined mystery about a man whose fiance is killed. Everyone thinks he did it, but he swears he's innocent. One morning he awakes to find horns growing from his head. People kind of non-react to these horns, a doctor flatly proclaiming that he forgets the protagonist has them whenever he looks away. This probably worked a bit better in the film's source material (a Stephen King novel) but this is a minor but necessary misstep. Anyway, people begin asking the protagonist for permission to act on dark impulses and the protagonist finds that people generally follow his directions, so there's clearly some Christian-flavored magic afoot.

The film has a strange sort of attitude towards the magical powers the protagonist gets. The devil, here, is not so much an abstract or even all-powerful being, but more like some kind of super hero with vaguely defined but very limited powers. He's stronger now and can kind of control people's minds but he cannot, for example, stand up to too many punches. I think if I were younger I would be annoyed at this lack of sharp definitions (is he a demon now? Is he under a curse of some kind?) but in my old age I can handle the ambiguity fairly well.

The film is very stylishly shot and decorated, using a northern kind of hipster chic. They live in a logging village but everyone dresses in very clean flannel jackets and sport carefully-cultivated stubble. The outdoorsy, hipsterish look usually signifies honesty and sincerity in a film to me, and it's unusual to see it used here in what is essentially a special-effects-driven film. Early in the film, when we're seeing the Stand By Me-lite of the protagonist and his childhood buddies, it makes more sense.

The film is interesting. The protagonist is unfortunately played by Harry Potter, so it's sometimes jarring to hear his American accent or to see him, red-eyed and self-destructive, gulp down shots of booze. If you can ignore that however, it's a compelling small-town mystery with some neat special effects and supernatural window-dressing.

Megamind

Saw Megamind, the animated super-hero film about the super-villain. It was set against Despicable Me and amidst a whole bunch of super-hero deconstructions (Kick Ass, Super) This film focuses on the titular Megamind who is battling the smarmy Superman-alike, Metro Man. After a particularly lucky break, Megamind actually kills Metro Man and must now live in the existential void that achieving his life's ambition brings. The film stars Will Farrell and is full of lame, dialogue-driven humor which is ace improvisation but kind of limp scripting.

The film was okay. It was mostly forgettable with a few queasy emotional scenes thrown in to remind the viewer of Pixar but, of course, without any of their earned sentiment. The film fails I think because it's simultaneously trying to be genuinely sincere and also a snide in-joke about super heroes. I think it would have been much better if it had abandoned all pretense of moral or emotion and gone straight for dark satire. That would have made me happier anyway.

The Year of Living Dangerously

Saw The Year of Living Dangerously, a knotty film about an Australian reporter who is sent to cover the Communist unrest in Java. There he befriends a dwarf who seems to speak only in dense metaphor and pointed allusions. The dwarf is the truth-teller of this film, bringing up rich, important questions, the most important of which is the simple "what then is to be done?" This question refers to the grotesque misery of the poorest people, but seemingly has no solution. The film is dense and fascinating, juxtaposing the cruel indifferent word-games of the foreign reporters with the living results of competing political philosophies.

Then, midway through the film, the whole thing comes to a screeching halt and the film becomes a romance. The truth-telling dwarf becomes a match-maker and the fascinating political upheaval becomes just so much window-dressing for the oh-so-fascinating rehash of boy meets girl. Within the film itself, there's some interesting defense of this bait-and-switch, with the dwarf admonishing the reporter for putting political games before romance. I sort of suspect that the bait-and-switch might really be in the opposite direction: the romance serving to trick us into a political-minded film rather than the reverse. I was reminded of Chris Marker's Grin Without a Cat, a non-fiction photo-essay about the promises and failures of socialism. Like that film, this one also examines socialist ideals with a bitter and frustrated eye. Unfortunately, the image is obscured by the soft-focus of the romance which is always pointlessly competing for screen-time.

This is an interesting film, dealing with heavy topics in a measured way. Like a Tom Clancy novel however, all of this fascinating geopolitics goes right out the window as soon a the film gets to its main interest. With Clancy that would be car-chase but here's it's the reporter and his best gal caught in the rain! Oh how they giggle as they run through road-blocks, as guards fire machine guns at their gaily speeding car! Such a strange and frustrating film.

Repulsion

Saw Repulsion, a Roman Polanski film in the vein of The Tenant, another film which mines apartment-dwelling for some dry horror. This one is about a woman who is terrified of men. The terror obsesses her. She lapses into fugue states when she so much as comes across a man's shoe in her sister's apartment. The film is fairly slow to start but builds steadily into a close, domestic sort of madness. The film is a thriller. It's well-constructed and full of nice, dense metaphor, such as the cloister across the street and its interminably tolling bell, suggesting both an escape and a harsh censure. It deals fairly directly with one woman's relationship to men, but I think it would be an error to try to draw parallels to modern feminism or gender relations. This woman is emphatically crazy after all.

I thought I spotted some of David Lynch's source material. There's a skinned rabbit that bears a striking resemblance to the baby in Eraserhead. There's also nightmarish dream sequences that have eerie, calm/intense moments that feel Lynchian, although I can't articulate quite why. I guess you'd have to see it.

This film is a fairly staid and slow horror, but it does climax in a satisfying way, provided you can sufficiently get into the protagonist's head.

Jackass: The Movie

Saw Jackass: The Movie. It was surprisingly fun. I'd actually seen the sequel first so I knew what I was getting into. This one is much more inventive although, alas, there's a lot more involvement of innocent bystanders. Most of the involvement goes no further than doing something outlandish in public however, so okay. One of the Jackassians involves his parents, but I feel they're kind of in on the joke fundamentally. They unleash an alligator in their parents house, for example, but afterwards their terrified mother seems more excited than scared.

Anyway, this one is much more dense. The skits that in sequel dragged on and were padded with fatuous, self-congratulatory laughter are here short and snappy, lasting no more than a few minutes before rushing off to something else. I was struck with what a man-dominatrix Johnny Knoxville is. At one point they're actually just playing with an electric-shock-delivering bondage toy. One guy's writhing in pain as his nipples are being electrocuted while Johnny murmurs "You're okay, you're okay, Daddy's got you." Is it meant to be off-putting, or are we seeing the true form of something here? Fun to imagine.

Like I say, this one is pretty fun. There's moments that are fairly depressing but we only need a chuckle and a jump-cut and they're gone. The film toys with the idea of danger but if you look closely, you can believe that the sound effects are goosed, the punches pulled, the reactions hammed. A cute, stupid little movie, like a teenager trying to convince you that he's a pro skater.

After the Thin Man

Saw After the Thin Man (thanks, Anne!) It was a sequel to The Thin Man. The film is now trying, I think, to become a series so we start to see formulas emerging. The final Big Reveal scene, for example, is exactly the same as in the first film (and also, amazingly, features some hysterics from a very young Jimmy Stewart who is already far too sincere for believable hysterics.) Unfortunately, this results in more business with their terrier, Asta, who spends a lot of time jealously guarding his "girlfriend" from another dog. This is kind of grotesque considering that all of the dogs involved are surely neutered.

Anyway, the dog business aside, the protagonists are the same cutesy alcoholics as before, staying up to all hours boozing and wittily discussing the case before seamlessly transitioning into sleepily making breakfast. They're as adorable as ever.

I felt this mystery was more obvious than before. It looks like one character Did It early on but we're already shown before hand that they didn't do it, so there's a sort of strange non-twist when their innocence is revealed. This film allegedly cost more but is a bit inferior to the original product. Worryingly this is known as the best of the sequels so perhaps this is a good place to put the series to rest anyway. Wonderful characters but cracks are beginning to subtly show.

Toys in the Attic (2009)

Saw Toys in the Attic, an animated film about toys having adventures while the humans aren't around in an attic. A teddybear, a wad of gum, and a Marionette named Sir Handsome must save their beloved Mrs Buttercup who has been kidnapped by the denizens of the Land of Evil. It's very whimsical and adorable, althought it plainly owes a huge debt to Jan Svankmajer. Everything is dusty and old, the toys are missing eyes and limbs, paint is flaking off of everything. It's very much like Jan's Alice only of course a bit cuter, and involving less raw meat. Also the marionette gets his pencil-sword out of a box of colored pencils labelled Mephistopheles which I think is a nod to Faust, anther of Jan's films.

The film is a delight. There are a few scary scenes, but nothing horrible. I suspect the creepy old dolls will seem more freaky to parents than to kids, which is maybe why this film isn't very well known. It's an utter delight though. At one point Teddy and Sir Handsome are scaling a dresser, hammering nails into it for foot-holds. They watch as a little ant-like toy walks right up the cliff-face. Soon, pillowcase-clouds are floating by. Presently it rains blue cloth. Just adorable and wonderful. It's not as logical and sensible as say Toy Story, but it's beautiful and great nonetheless. I really liked this one.

Ben Hur

Saw Ben Hur, the biblical epic with the chariot race. I only really knew it for the chariot race and the galley slave scenes ("ramming speed!") but it's much more bible-y than that. Ben Hur is a jewish prince under the thumb of the Romans. The local branch that has displaced him specifically is headed by an old childhood friend who has become evil and possibly gay. This friend betrays his trust in a political move that winds up with Ben having various adventures in the galley and racing chariots all to the backdrop of Jesus's more famous adventures.

Throughout most of the film Ben is consumed and driven by hatred for his friend. Various characters observe that "his hatred has kept him alive." Although he wound up in this situation by sticking to his principals, this alone brings him no peace. The film seems to be examining this line between uncompromisingly enforcing one's own values and giving way to events, accepting them as they cone (or, if you prefer, giving way to the will of God.) On the one hand, his eventual recovery to his former glory brings him no happiness but on the other, without his "hatred" he would presumably have died in the galley. The film seems to want us to root for acceptance and passivity (I guess, on account of Jesus) but I think it's a bit more equivocal than that, letting us untie the knot ourselves.

Anyway, the film clearly cost gobs of money to create. There's crowd scenes that look like they used thousands of extras. The chariot race alone looks like it takes place in a football stadium and that's only one scene. I thought the performances were a tad overwrought, with Charlton Heston grimacing and contorting his body like something out of the silent era. The whole thing is faintly ridiculous but this is a Classic and a Biblical Epic so no laughter allowed please. The film is grand and weighty, I just wish it weren't helmed by Heston's grimacing jaws. Also the portrayal of the Romans comes off as a bit gay to me. Allegedly the old friend was portrayed like an ex-lover and before the chariot race, we have a scene where the gauntlet is thrown down to the Romans. This occurs in a bath house where muscley dudes are being oiled up and rubbed down. I think this is not done for representational reasons and is just sort of subtly done to make audiances feel grossed out and I don't like that at all. It was a good movie though.