Saw I Love You Man, a very cute bromantic comedy. The idea is this dude is getting married but has no male friends. The bride's wine-swilling friends dub this as "weird" and indeed, he does need a best man, so the groom goes off in search of a male friend. This is a premise that is in serious danger of becoming homoerotic (as opposed to homo-just-good-friends-actually,) so the film does its best to defuse the situation by making jokes at the long-suffering protagonist's expense about him looking for a "boy friend" and running into gay people who he has to turn down. By making him likeable and having him suffer under the misunderstandings of other characters, we are forced to understand lest we too become intolerant and cruel. It's a nice device they use.
I don't know first-hand of course, but I understand masculinity is kind of a fragile thing. Men are not allowed to dress or act in certain ways, not allowed to enjoy (or admit to enjoying) certain music or shows, not allowed to drink alcohol that doesn't taste like paint thinner, etc etc. How straight guys become friends and stay friends is beyond me. I feel like they have to thread the needle of publicly liking each other without falling into appearing to love each other. How exhausting. So this film is refreshing. I honestly would have preferred a gay romance, but this is important, I feel, for society as a whole to see (including women, by the way. Society as a whole polices these mores, not just straight men.)
Anyway (now that I've talked about the thing that I actually wanted to talk about which is not this film...) the film itself is a fun, silly romp. The bride is not (as I feared) some shrew or nag, but an almost cartoonishly likeable and affable woman. This film is not really about her, so she's not given a real character. She's the nice girlfriend who, alas, is not a dude-friend. There's also an explicitly gay brother who they include to provide more look-see-this-is-not-gay messaging and who is some kind of socially-acceptable, straight-acting ghoul who oh-so-relatably spurns the advances of other gay men. Bleh. I wish he weren't quite so outrageous. It would have been interesting if he interpreted his brother's friend-hunt as a secret coming-out. The politics would be way trickier but much more provocative.
Jun 25, 2017
Jun 24, 2017
Face/Off
Saw Face/Off, a fairly ridiculous movie by John Woo. It's one of his first Hollywood films and tries to do that Chinese thing of super-shmaltzy melodrama. The opening shows the protagonist, in some kind of filial-love-induced perpetual swoon, at a carnival that is shot entirely in slow motion and soft-focus. It's the happiest happy that has ever happied. Later, disaster strikes and it's the saddest sad that has ever been. The film is is great fun, but it's unclear if it's in on the joke.
The plot is that an FBI agent must find a bomb that a criminal mastermind has hidden in the city but the mastermind is in a coma, so the agent goes to a secret clinic where they transplant the criminal's face onto the FBI agent's face. This is insane but only the first of many insanities, so okay. Later on there's a magnetic-shoed prison and many boffo shootouts. There's kind of a half-hearted and embarrassing theme of identity where in order to infiltrate the gang the FBI agent must become the criminal, in a way, compromising his morals and beating up cops. It's fairly weak however and could be used as evidence that John Woo doesn't have a sense of humor about this film.
Either way though, this is a great bad movie, in the vein of Con Air. Also the criminal (and later face-swapped FBI agent) is played by Nicholas Cage in full-throated crazy-face mode. The FBI agent (later face-swapped criminal) is John Travolta who puts in a game showing although of course he can't hold a candle to Cage. The plot is ridiculous but that's part of the fun. Thank heavens it wasn't some dour meditation on violence and masculinity. It may have been serious but feels more like a send-up to me.
The plot is that an FBI agent must find a bomb that a criminal mastermind has hidden in the city but the mastermind is in a coma, so the agent goes to a secret clinic where they transplant the criminal's face onto the FBI agent's face. This is insane but only the first of many insanities, so okay. Later on there's a magnetic-shoed prison and many boffo shootouts. There's kind of a half-hearted and embarrassing theme of identity where in order to infiltrate the gang the FBI agent must become the criminal, in a way, compromising his morals and beating up cops. It's fairly weak however and could be used as evidence that John Woo doesn't have a sense of humor about this film.
Either way though, this is a great bad movie, in the vein of Con Air. Also the criminal (and later face-swapped FBI agent) is played by Nicholas Cage in full-throated crazy-face mode. The FBI agent (later face-swapped criminal) is John Travolta who puts in a game showing although of course he can't hold a candle to Cage. The plot is ridiculous but that's part of the fun. Thank heavens it wasn't some dour meditation on violence and masculinity. It may have been serious but feels more like a send-up to me.
Jun 17, 2017
Resolution
Saw Resolution, an interesting cross-genre horror film. It's very very light on the scares, opting for slow tension and eerie spookery instead. The idea is that this skinny guy handcuffs his junkie friend to a pipe in his house (ala Black Snake Moan) to detox cold-turkey. They engage in some Judd Apatow-style banter. The junkie, I feel, was written for Seth Rogan or somebody. Anyway, the skinny guy begins finding mysterious video tapes (ala Cache or Sinister) depicting murders, weird video tapes, even creepy email attachments. There's also the junkie friend's dealers and some sinister Native dudes. It quickly becomes apparent that this is not just about the detox.
The film is satisfyingly resolved, but never quite nails down what the monster is. It's a very interesting twist for a film that always seems about to fall into cliche. All of the elements of the film I feel I've seen before. The grainy VHS tapes, the bro-y banter, the mysterious maybe-ghosts-maybe-monsters. I feel like the film started out as a comedy-horror and then went in a post-modern direction once the writer realized he didn't have an ending (ala Adaptation.)
So I feel this was kind of a weak film. It was too wishy-washy for my taste. It goes in an interesting direction in the end but I feel it would have been better if it made a harder choice about what kind of film it was starting out to be. I imagine he writer coming up with fumes and polishing the resultant turd. The movie is not terrible but I feel like everything interesting about it has been done before and better. Sometimes an interesting film can be built out of old parts but, for me, this film didn't do that. It is worth a look though.
The film is satisfyingly resolved, but never quite nails down what the monster is. It's a very interesting twist for a film that always seems about to fall into cliche. All of the elements of the film I feel I've seen before. The grainy VHS tapes, the bro-y banter, the mysterious maybe-ghosts-maybe-monsters. I feel like the film started out as a comedy-horror and then went in a post-modern direction once the writer realized he didn't have an ending (ala Adaptation.)
So I feel this was kind of a weak film. It was too wishy-washy for my taste. It goes in an interesting direction in the end but I feel it would have been better if it made a harder choice about what kind of film it was starting out to be. I imagine he writer coming up with fumes and polishing the resultant turd. The movie is not terrible but I feel like everything interesting about it has been done before and better. Sometimes an interesting film can be built out of old parts but, for me, this film didn't do that. It is worth a look though.
Jun 11, 2017
The Art of the Steal
Saw The Art of the Steal, a documentary about a large and extremely valuable ($25-$40 billion) art collection collected by the childless Dr Albert Barnes. He desired to have the art stay in one place and be used for teaching purposes. The collection contains important and beautiful paintings by every impressionist artist you know of and is apparently capable of moving people to tears. In his will, he stipulated that this work not be moved, sold, or loaned, that it was to stay in his foundation/school forever. This does not happen.
The film emphasizes that this is a school, even using what appears to be a chalkboard to flash up interstitial titles. This collection is meant to guide the gifted few, not to be let open for any idiot to gawk at, or for rich snobs to pose and drink martinis before. The political forces at work begin to dismantle this school however, as leadership changes hands and people die and we become more and more removed from the man Barnes himself.
I have trouble really caring about Barnes' intent for his collection. He seems like an unpleasant man. Why should these great paintings be kept in a private institution? Why not put them in a state museum? Almost everyone interviewed is on the Barnes side of things, wanting the collection to remain in place. They talk about his intent for his own property and, yes that matters, but surely cultural treasures such as these are more important than one man's desires, right? Clearly, I don't see their point of view, however the film still works well as a simple portrayal of a fight against city hall. Barnes' neighbors and a gang of passionate artists defend the collection against a well-organized group of grainy photographs of smiling billionaires.
The protagonists (the artists and neighbors) make their case in a very legalistic way: Barnes wanted his collection preserved - it is being scattered. I admit that when I die, I would like my property to be distributed exactly as my will states, however this man has no surviving family. This is a moving film, but I have a difficult time feeling a lot of sympathy for the ghost of an art-collector. Let the world see the art, even the idiots. Perhaps it will help them in some way?
The film emphasizes that this is a school, even using what appears to be a chalkboard to flash up interstitial titles. This collection is meant to guide the gifted few, not to be let open for any idiot to gawk at, or for rich snobs to pose and drink martinis before. The political forces at work begin to dismantle this school however, as leadership changes hands and people die and we become more and more removed from the man Barnes himself.
I have trouble really caring about Barnes' intent for his collection. He seems like an unpleasant man. Why should these great paintings be kept in a private institution? Why not put them in a state museum? Almost everyone interviewed is on the Barnes side of things, wanting the collection to remain in place. They talk about his intent for his own property and, yes that matters, but surely cultural treasures such as these are more important than one man's desires, right? Clearly, I don't see their point of view, however the film still works well as a simple portrayal of a fight against city hall. Barnes' neighbors and a gang of passionate artists defend the collection against a well-organized group of grainy photographs of smiling billionaires.
The protagonists (the artists and neighbors) make their case in a very legalistic way: Barnes wanted his collection preserved - it is being scattered. I admit that when I die, I would like my property to be distributed exactly as my will states, however this man has no surviving family. This is a moving film, but I have a difficult time feeling a lot of sympathy for the ghost of an art-collector. Let the world see the art, even the idiots. Perhaps it will help them in some way?
Jun 10, 2017
Spartacus
Saw Spartacus, the epic Kubrick film about a Roman slave uprising and, more broadly, about the desire for freedom. This film came out in 1960 but I think it's an early entry in the series of films which deal with the inscrutable male protagonist who lusts for freedom and sincerity. Rollerball is the most obvious example of this that comes to my mind, but I believe Cool Hand Luke, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Last Tango in Paris, and Easy Rider all fall into this category. Those films all came out in the late 60s/early 70s however so this one is a bit ahead of the curve. Anyway, there's an interest in the earthy and sincere. Children and old couples are focussed on. The enthusiastic but ragtag slave army is shown in contrast to the well-paid but organized Empire.
So the antagonists are of course the decadent Roman patricians. The first example of them we see are visiting noblemen and women who request to see the two most handsome slaves fight to the death. This mix of sex and death casts them as vapid but also over-cultured, decadent, in contrast to the sincere protagonist who delights in the simple pleasures of bread and family. The chief antagonist is even suggested to be bisexual, so great is his depravity. This treatment of homosexuality (as a shorthand for moral bankruptcy) sucks of course and I wish directors would stop doing it (so take note, 1960s: you're on notice.)
I feel this film either reflected or predicted a lot of zeitgeist in the 60s. Very early in the film, a voiceover brings up the eventual eradication of slavery thousands of years later (which must come as a relief to these folks) and of course freedom is the central preoccupation of the film. Meanwhile the 60s were a time of great expansion of civil liberties and the US of course models itself off of the great Roman Republics, even incorporating Fasces into its iconography. At one point Spartacus snaps one of these fasces in two, which is pretty pointed symbolism.
The film itself is quite long (~4 hrs) but entertaining and interesting. I had to take a break halfway through but everyone's performance is solid. Kubrick creates these magnificently artificial composed shots that rest a tad uneasily up against all the sincerity-worship, but they are pleasing to the eye nonetheless. A bit of a slog, but overall quite good.
So the antagonists are of course the decadent Roman patricians. The first example of them we see are visiting noblemen and women who request to see the two most handsome slaves fight to the death. This mix of sex and death casts them as vapid but also over-cultured, decadent, in contrast to the sincere protagonist who delights in the simple pleasures of bread and family. The chief antagonist is even suggested to be bisexual, so great is his depravity. This treatment of homosexuality (as a shorthand for moral bankruptcy) sucks of course and I wish directors would stop doing it (so take note, 1960s: you're on notice.)
I feel this film either reflected or predicted a lot of zeitgeist in the 60s. Very early in the film, a voiceover brings up the eventual eradication of slavery thousands of years later (which must come as a relief to these folks) and of course freedom is the central preoccupation of the film. Meanwhile the 60s were a time of great expansion of civil liberties and the US of course models itself off of the great Roman Republics, even incorporating Fasces into its iconography. At one point Spartacus snaps one of these fasces in two, which is pretty pointed symbolism.
The film itself is quite long (~4 hrs) but entertaining and interesting. I had to take a break halfway through but everyone's performance is solid. Kubrick creates these magnificently artificial composed shots that rest a tad uneasily up against all the sincerity-worship, but they are pleasing to the eye nonetheless. A bit of a slog, but overall quite good.
Jun 4, 2017
Liar Liar
Saw Liar Liar, the Jim Carrey film where he plays a lawyer who, because of a moppet-fuelled wish, cannot lie for 24 hours. IT was a sweet sort of film although it annoyed me, alas. I think I've just become too old and cranky and joyless to enjoy Jim Carrey's schtick anymore. He spends most of the film shrieking and flapping his arms and having some kind of intense mental breakdown but the judge will not grant him a continuance (which I guess is a delay in the proceedings.) Surely if a lawyer shows up in court rolling his eyes and gutturally moaning when asked what his case is, the court would wait until another lawyer could be found. In this oddly cruel world however, the case proceeds like normal.
Anyway, when we're not occupied with this exhibition of the failure of mental health services in the US, the film is continuing the story of Jim's relationship with his ex-wife and their son. I have to imagine the relationship was extremely taxing on that poor woman. She's got herself a new boyfriend but he's too nice and kind of lame. So, traditional values triumph by the end of the film and the cycle of abuse continues.
I'm being really mean here but this is the internal dialogue I kept up to amuse myself through the film and to avoid feeling intense embarrassment by proxy. The film is not bad. It's a bit dated (it's treatment of women leaves something to be desired) but keeps the zany musical cues coming and and Jim Carrey delivers on the writhing and shrieking. There's a scene in the post-credits out-takes where one actress jokingly calls him an overactor and Jim reacts with grace, laughing and mugging and saying "Oh no! They're onto me!" I bear no grudges, I just didn't like this film. What can I say? Too old and cranky.
Anyway, when we're not occupied with this exhibition of the failure of mental health services in the US, the film is continuing the story of Jim's relationship with his ex-wife and their son. I have to imagine the relationship was extremely taxing on that poor woman. She's got herself a new boyfriend but he's too nice and kind of lame. So, traditional values triumph by the end of the film and the cycle of abuse continues.
I'm being really mean here but this is the internal dialogue I kept up to amuse myself through the film and to avoid feeling intense embarrassment by proxy. The film is not bad. It's a bit dated (it's treatment of women leaves something to be desired) but keeps the zany musical cues coming and and Jim Carrey delivers on the writhing and shrieking. There's a scene in the post-credits out-takes where one actress jokingly calls him an overactor and Jim reacts with grace, laughing and mugging and saying "Oh no! They're onto me!" I bear no grudges, I just didn't like this film. What can I say? Too old and cranky.
Jun 3, 2017
Samurai Cop
Saw Samurai Cop (thanks, John!) It was a gloriously terrible film about a young renegade cop (the one they call "Samurai") who is drought in to shut down a dangerous gang of Japanese guys. Although the film is called Samurai cop, most of the fight scenes are like that one in Indiana Jones where this guy come brandishing a sword (a katana usually, in this film) and is just shot. The film came out in '89 but has the grainy godawful look of 70s grindhouse schlock. cigarette burns, stressed filmstock and clumsy pacing are everywhere. It's hilarious.
The protagonist is this guy with a pretty nice body and a gigantic wig of long, luxurious hair. He aggressively hits on every woman he comes across and we are treated to sex scenes which linger for minutes on end. The women, of course, are totally into him as well. At one point some woman just grabs his junk and they have a frank discussion about the state of his genitals. The film feels like it's just the plot scenes from a porn flick. I half-suspect there's a dead-serious actually-just-porn version of this film that was filmed alongside this one.
This is clearly a cheaply made film. Several times sound clips are repeated, particularly good shots are looped. The effect is like being in a cheap room that someone tried to spruce up by adding mirrors. Characters eerily refer to future events as though they've already occurred. At one point Samurai Cop is in a film editing studio, prompting all kinds of questions. Are we watching Samurai Cop edit this, his own film?
This is a party film. It requires company while watching. There are many protracted sex scenes however, so proceed with caution, but wow, this is on a whole nother level. There's so many cheap jokes to be made. It's astounding.
The protagonist is this guy with a pretty nice body and a gigantic wig of long, luxurious hair. He aggressively hits on every woman he comes across and we are treated to sex scenes which linger for minutes on end. The women, of course, are totally into him as well. At one point some woman just grabs his junk and they have a frank discussion about the state of his genitals. The film feels like it's just the plot scenes from a porn flick. I half-suspect there's a dead-serious actually-just-porn version of this film that was filmed alongside this one.
This is clearly a cheaply made film. Several times sound clips are repeated, particularly good shots are looped. The effect is like being in a cheap room that someone tried to spruce up by adding mirrors. Characters eerily refer to future events as though they've already occurred. At one point Samurai Cop is in a film editing studio, prompting all kinds of questions. Are we watching Samurai Cop edit this, his own film?
This is a party film. It requires company while watching. There are many protracted sex scenes however, so proceed with caution, but wow, this is on a whole nother level. There's so many cheap jokes to be made. It's astounding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)