Saw Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, an animated film about a teenage boy who is bitten by a radioactive spider and quickly becomes the Spider Man. Due to villainous shenanigans, suddenly his universe sees a huge influx of Spider-people. There's shlubby loser Spiderman, trench coat noir Spiderman, girl Spiderman, and even swine Spiderman.
I saw this film a while ago, so I'm going far back into my memory here, but I remember really liking it. There's a lot of sophisticated visual story-telling. The cartoon animation jerks and stutters, the characters flashing between poses like a comic book collage. There's a breathtaking scene where the teenage Spiderman flings himself into the sky and, the image inverted, it looks like he's falling into the ocean. Just a great scene.
Again, it's been a while since I've seen this, so I really only remember a few scenes. I remember liking it however, so go watch it!
Jul 27, 2020
Man on Fire
Saw Man on Fire, a film where a disgraced Denzel Washington is assigned to be the bodyguard of this adorable little Dakota Fanning in Mexico City where there is a kidnapping happening almost continuously in this hell-city.
Denzel is washed up and drinking a lot but Dakota smiles and grins and giggles her way into his heart and so, like, of course, she gets the shit kidnapped out of her just as Danzel is starting to come out of his funk. Now, Mexico City has a police force, I suppose, but they are evidently as nothing compared to one angry Denzel Washington, so he goes all Taken on the kidnapping cartel and does more to dismantle them in a few days than any wimpy little law and order type could do in a year!
This film is pretty silly. It's a solid action flick but, like a lot of action flicks, has a worrying love for violence as a means to an end and a semi-worship of vigilantism. Of course I want to see Denzel get revenge on these kidnappers, but he's too effective. If only we'd let the cops cut off a few fingers, then we'd really see some results on crime, the film seems to say.
It's also filmed in this very early-2000s way, like a reality TV show intro, full of overexposure and underexposure, the handheld camera wobbling around like the cameraman can barely control it. It's very dated by now and very distracting.
I did enjoy the movie. It's a solid action flick, and well made. I can't criticize the acting or direction, but it has thematic flaws. It's based on an Italian movie of the same name, maybe I'd like that one better?
Denzel is washed up and drinking a lot but Dakota smiles and grins and giggles her way into his heart and so, like, of course, she gets the shit kidnapped out of her just as Danzel is starting to come out of his funk. Now, Mexico City has a police force, I suppose, but they are evidently as nothing compared to one angry Denzel Washington, so he goes all Taken on the kidnapping cartel and does more to dismantle them in a few days than any wimpy little law and order type could do in a year!
This film is pretty silly. It's a solid action flick but, like a lot of action flicks, has a worrying love for violence as a means to an end and a semi-worship of vigilantism. Of course I want to see Denzel get revenge on these kidnappers, but he's too effective. If only we'd let the cops cut off a few fingers, then we'd really see some results on crime, the film seems to say.
It's also filmed in this very early-2000s way, like a reality TV show intro, full of overexposure and underexposure, the handheld camera wobbling around like the cameraman can barely control it. It's very dated by now and very distracting.
I did enjoy the movie. It's a solid action flick, and well made. I can't criticize the acting or direction, but it has thematic flaws. It's based on an Italian movie of the same name, maybe I'd like that one better?
Hearts In Atlantis
Saw Hearts In Atlantis, a film based on a Stephen King novel, but a Stephen King novel not about monsters and such but about kids being sad, so it's a fairly good film. It follows this boy who's being raised by a single mom. He befriends an aging Anthony Hopkins who rents their spare room. Anthony is some kind of fairy godfather who is slightly magical and who tries to help the little boy survive in the world and not succumb to the disadvantages of his life.
The film is nice and touching. There's a few scenes that are very unpleasant to watch, mostly involving the mother, but even though she is a selfish woman, she comes off as more stupid and inept than malicious, like a high school girl who had a baby too soon, not yet outgrown her dreams of Hollywood. Anyway, the film has a big heart.
It's a fairly schmaltzy film, gauzy with old-timey sepia tones and men who wear hats. Anthony Hopkins is kind of irritatingly knowing and prone to quoting books and poems at random, but he's such a solid, unflappable source of warmth in this kid's shitty life that you can't help but love him too.
This film also connects to the Dark Tower book series, King's multi-universe-spanning fantasy series and so I got sucked deeply down a wiki rabbit hole when I was reading up on this film.
The film is nice and touching. There's a few scenes that are very unpleasant to watch, mostly involving the mother, but even though she is a selfish woman, she comes off as more stupid and inept than malicious, like a high school girl who had a baby too soon, not yet outgrown her dreams of Hollywood. Anyway, the film has a big heart.
It's a fairly schmaltzy film, gauzy with old-timey sepia tones and men who wear hats. Anthony Hopkins is kind of irritatingly knowing and prone to quoting books and poems at random, but he's such a solid, unflappable source of warmth in this kid's shitty life that you can't help but love him too.
This film also connects to the Dark Tower book series, King's multi-universe-spanning fantasy series and so I got sucked deeply down a wiki rabbit hole when I was reading up on this film.
Dracula: Pages From A Virgin's Diary
Saw Dracula: Pages From A Virgin's Diary, another film by Guy Madden, the guy who directed The Saddest Music in the World. This is a film of a ballet telling the story of Dracula. The plot hews very close to the original novel, with three suitors and Minah and Lucy and all. There's one strange addition: Lucy's mother is kept on Victorian life-support, in a glass coffin fed with pipes which snake all around the stage. This a very obtrusive addition which I don't know what to make of.
Apart from that, the characters dance about very nicely. Guy Madden does his underexposed thing and makes it look like a strange film from a bygone era. The extreme retro feel of the film nicely compliments the even older story line, making it seem not true to history, but different, strange, parallel-universe-ish. It's an interesting film.
Unfortunately, it is somewhat homework. As with all of these strange films, they're a nice place to visit but by the end you're ready to come back home. I hate to leave this film on such a down note, but it really does drag a bit. It's worth seeing the first 10 minutes or so. Then you can move on.
Apart from that, the characters dance about very nicely. Guy Madden does his underexposed thing and makes it look like a strange film from a bygone era. The extreme retro feel of the film nicely compliments the even older story line, making it seem not true to history, but different, strange, parallel-universe-ish. It's an interesting film.
Unfortunately, it is somewhat homework. As with all of these strange films, they're a nice place to visit but by the end you're ready to come back home. I hate to leave this film on such a down note, but it really does drag a bit. It's worth seeing the first 10 minutes or so. Then you can move on.
Multiple Maniacs
Saw Multiple Maniacs, one of John Water's earlier, more cheaply made films. It starts Divine (naturally) as a woman who runs a murderous circus act. She's bored of merely killing and stealing though and yearns for something more.
There were a couple of times the film surprised me. Divine's church confessions are a sacred ND holy sight to behold and I believe she's truly transformed by her first rosary job. I loved the writing (if it was written) the most. I loved the intricate and endless insults: "I can't stand to think of their putrid little lungs sucking up one more stinking mouthful of oxygen to feed their noxious bodies." One woman, hitting on a man, proclaims that she wants to do "acts" with him. It's so strange! Like someone imagining how criminals talk based on tabloid newspapers!
The film is as you'd expect from John Waters. Lurid and crazy, full of arbitrary and random mentions of murder and criminality. The characters dither about in angry hazes, reeling off those strange insults and hatching eternal, pointless schemes against each other. The whole thing's in good fun but like a drug trip, you're kind of glad when it's over.
There were a couple of times the film surprised me. Divine's church confessions are a sacred ND holy sight to behold and I believe she's truly transformed by her first rosary job. I loved the writing (if it was written) the most. I loved the intricate and endless insults: "I can't stand to think of their putrid little lungs sucking up one more stinking mouthful of oxygen to feed their noxious bodies." One woman, hitting on a man, proclaims that she wants to do "acts" with him. It's so strange! Like someone imagining how criminals talk based on tabloid newspapers!
The film is as you'd expect from John Waters. Lurid and crazy, full of arbitrary and random mentions of murder and criminality. The characters dither about in angry hazes, reeling off those strange insults and hatching eternal, pointless schemes against each other. The whole thing's in good fun but like a drug trip, you're kind of glad when it's over.
Frenzy
Saw Frenzy, a Hitchcock film about a man who starts off fired from a bar. He is a down on his luck ex-army guy who snarls at his incredibly patient ex-wife and who has no money and is generally not a good person. He will be okay, it seems, until his ex is killed and he's the number one suspect.
The true killer is revealed fairly early on in what I felt was a fairly tacky murder/rape sequence. The Hayes code had just lifted and Hitchcock, giddy I suppose with possibility, decided to make a really unpleasant and ugly scene. I didn't like it. Anyway, the killer is revealed early on. Later, there's a very Hitchcockian scene where we watch through the killer's eyes as he desperately tries to cover his tracks and hide a corpse. We feel for him as he struggles. Very Hitchcock.
The film is a little frustrating in parts. It's generally good, but the film really hates assertive women for some reason and I didn't like the main character. It's got some splendid capital-S-Scenes in it though, like the slow continuous take where the camera climbs up some stairs and then slowly, hesitantly, backs back down them.
It's a decent film, despite my carping. There's tension and mystery and expectations that get teased and subverted. It's a typical Hitchcock film and if you've seen his work you'll know what to expect.
The true killer is revealed fairly early on in what I felt was a fairly tacky murder/rape sequence. The Hayes code had just lifted and Hitchcock, giddy I suppose with possibility, decided to make a really unpleasant and ugly scene. I didn't like it. Anyway, the killer is revealed early on. Later, there's a very Hitchcockian scene where we watch through the killer's eyes as he desperately tries to cover his tracks and hide a corpse. We feel for him as he struggles. Very Hitchcock.
The film is a little frustrating in parts. It's generally good, but the film really hates assertive women for some reason and I didn't like the main character. It's got some splendid capital-S-Scenes in it though, like the slow continuous take where the camera climbs up some stairs and then slowly, hesitantly, backs back down them.
It's a decent film, despite my carping. There's tension and mystery and expectations that get teased and subverted. It's a typical Hitchcock film and if you've seen his work you'll know what to expect.
Gremlins 2
Saw Gremlins 2, which was a small personal victory because I was taken to see this film when I was very young. I had to be removed from the theater during the scene were the woman is trapped in the elevator and being grabbed at by many leathery arms. Not, I think, for children.
The film references Chuck Jones cartoons many times, but whereas Chuck Jones is bright and nonthreatening, whereas this is dark, ugly, realistic 80s-style sarcastic humor where the cute thing gets beat up and isn't that funny? The gremlins are mocking caricatures of the human archetypes: the nymphomaniac, the sports fan, the bar fly, the intellectual. They are all screaming, and ugly, and froglike, smoking and wearing sunglasses indoors. Just repulsive.
The film is fairly nuts. There's the famous scene with the Hulkster threatening the gremlins into continuing the film, and many other moments where I was really surprised by what I was seeing. I didn't get really caught up by the film because it is fundamentally mean-spirited, but it's definitely a trip. This film is deeply cynical about human attitudes, with the gremlins mocking and skewering everything in a broad, dumb way. It's fairly fun, but it's like getting drunk: you kind of feel dirty afterwards.
The film references Chuck Jones cartoons many times, but whereas Chuck Jones is bright and nonthreatening, whereas this is dark, ugly, realistic 80s-style sarcastic humor where the cute thing gets beat up and isn't that funny? The gremlins are mocking caricatures of the human archetypes: the nymphomaniac, the sports fan, the bar fly, the intellectual. They are all screaming, and ugly, and froglike, smoking and wearing sunglasses indoors. Just repulsive.
The film is fairly nuts. There's the famous scene with the Hulkster threatening the gremlins into continuing the film, and many other moments where I was really surprised by what I was seeing. I didn't get really caught up by the film because it is fundamentally mean-spirited, but it's definitely a trip. This film is deeply cynical about human attitudes, with the gremlins mocking and skewering everything in a broad, dumb way. It's fairly fun, but it's like getting drunk: you kind of feel dirty afterwards.
Babe: Pig in the City
Saw Babe: Pig in the City, the unneeded sequel to the heartwarming film Babe, about a pig who is so dang polite and likable that he becomes a sheep herder by charming the sheep. In the sequel, we get a strange and bewildering combination of whimsy and despair. The film opens with the kindly Farmer Hogget breaking every bone in his body. Without its farmer, the farm starts sliding into debt, so the farmer's wife takes the pig to the big city.
In the big city, the pig and the farmer's wife are immediately separated. He's stranded in a beautiful hotel that accepts animals. A perpetually singing chorus of cats, dogs in wheelchairs, and an orangutan in a green velvet suit stalk the halls. The hotel is next to a Venetian canal but when Babe looks out the window, he sees the Statue of Liberty, the Sydney opera house, and St Basil's cathedral. It's so overwhelming and magical and beautiful. It really stands out because the rest of the film has starving animals and downing dogs.
The film is everything at once. There's a lot of grim, sensitive stuff, a lot that's clumsy and exactly the kind of horrible kiddy-fare you'd expect, but a lot that's strangely moving. This is not a good film except in snatches. It's got a dark sense of humor and is broad and ugly and dumb-silly and clumsy. There's a moment where the orangutan gives Babe his approval and the soundtrack goes nuts and I was just thinking 'when did we establish that Babe cared about his approval at all?' The ending especially, you need have drunk enough by that point to stomach.
It's a very strange film. Too ineptly and arbitrarily built to be good, but too imaginative and wild to be bad. If you can handle a bad kid's film, it's well worth the watch.
In the big city, the pig and the farmer's wife are immediately separated. He's stranded in a beautiful hotel that accepts animals. A perpetually singing chorus of cats, dogs in wheelchairs, and an orangutan in a green velvet suit stalk the halls. The hotel is next to a Venetian canal but when Babe looks out the window, he sees the Statue of Liberty, the Sydney opera house, and St Basil's cathedral. It's so overwhelming and magical and beautiful. It really stands out because the rest of the film has starving animals and downing dogs.
The film is everything at once. There's a lot of grim, sensitive stuff, a lot that's clumsy and exactly the kind of horrible kiddy-fare you'd expect, but a lot that's strangely moving. This is not a good film except in snatches. It's got a dark sense of humor and is broad and ugly and dumb-silly and clumsy. There's a moment where the orangutan gives Babe his approval and the soundtrack goes nuts and I was just thinking 'when did we establish that Babe cared about his approval at all?' The ending especially, you need have drunk enough by that point to stomach.
It's a very strange film. Too ineptly and arbitrarily built to be good, but too imaginative and wild to be bad. If you can handle a bad kid's film, it's well worth the watch.
Unbreakable
Saw Unbreakable, an M. Night Shyamalan film which I intended to see on a Friday afternoon but, in an unforeseeable twist, I was too busy on Friday and saw it Saturday instead. This was the film he made right after the smash success of The Sixth Sense and is a fairly alright film. It follows a security guard who somehow survives a terrible train crash. He's then contacted by a flamboyant Samuel L. Jackson who keeps pushing the crazy theory that he's a superhero.
The concept is interesting in that it's almost a paranoid delusion come to life. The story is fun and interesting and sporadically beloved on the internet. It's also spawned a few sequels. It's not a bad film, but it has one big weakness: everything is done as seriously as possible.
For the most part this uber-self-seriousness serves the film well. The security guard gazes at the crowds like a gorilla, contemplating his own maybe super powers. For other scenes though, it's ridiculous. There's a scene where he's sitting down to breakfast with his son. He wants to show the son something in the paper, so we get this shot of the son eating, drinking a glass of orange juice. From the corner of the screen, the paper enters the shot, as though gently tapped forward by the scowling security guard. This is hilariously absurd.
So the film is okay. It's a little too self-serious for me, but it's some nice work and a good start to a little series, the final mandatory twist providing the cliffhanger setup for the next film. It's early Shyamalan, long before he went off the deep end, and still worth a look.
The concept is interesting in that it's almost a paranoid delusion come to life. The story is fun and interesting and sporadically beloved on the internet. It's also spawned a few sequels. It's not a bad film, but it has one big weakness: everything is done as seriously as possible.
For the most part this uber-self-seriousness serves the film well. The security guard gazes at the crowds like a gorilla, contemplating his own maybe super powers. For other scenes though, it's ridiculous. There's a scene where he's sitting down to breakfast with his son. He wants to show the son something in the paper, so we get this shot of the son eating, drinking a glass of orange juice. From the corner of the screen, the paper enters the shot, as though gently tapped forward by the scowling security guard. This is hilariously absurd.
So the film is okay. It's a little too self-serious for me, but it's some nice work and a good start to a little series, the final mandatory twist providing the cliffhanger setup for the next film. It's early Shyamalan, long before he went off the deep end, and still worth a look.
Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children
Saw Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children, a film inevitably directed by Tim Burton about a group of magical children who live in a time bubble, an eternal, repeating day in a beautiful welsh island. The film was not that great.
I think Burton kind phoned this one in, Ed Wood style. There's a lot of stuff that's just there. The acting is good but sort of one-note: the fairy godmother woman is always perkily smiling, the mean boy is always sinister and mean. I think Burton was assigned this film because it's title is Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children. Who else was going to direct it? Del Toro?
And so, since he got this film with no effort, he doesn't particularly want it or care about it. Yeah yeah the old-fashioned clothing, the women with tons of eyeliner, and the magical children, but we've done it all before. Where's Johnny Depp? There's only one scene that Burton's heart was clearly in: the scene where a skeleton army attacks. He even makes a cameo there. But the rest of it is very by the numbers.
But I'm being meaner than I mean to be. I like Burton's shtick, even when I suspect it's just left to the actors to direct themselves. His strength has always been kooky imagery, and while there isn't a ton of that here, there's enough to keep me happy. There's a nice climax and all, although there's also some bad child acting. For Burton fans only, a clumsy sort of film.
I think Burton kind phoned this one in, Ed Wood style. There's a lot of stuff that's just there. The acting is good but sort of one-note: the fairy godmother woman is always perkily smiling, the mean boy is always sinister and mean. I think Burton was assigned this film because it's title is Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children. Who else was going to direct it? Del Toro?
And so, since he got this film with no effort, he doesn't particularly want it or care about it. Yeah yeah the old-fashioned clothing, the women with tons of eyeliner, and the magical children, but we've done it all before. Where's Johnny Depp? There's only one scene that Burton's heart was clearly in: the scene where a skeleton army attacks. He even makes a cameo there. But the rest of it is very by the numbers.
But I'm being meaner than I mean to be. I like Burton's shtick, even when I suspect it's just left to the actors to direct themselves. His strength has always been kooky imagery, and while there isn't a ton of that here, there's enough to keep me happy. There's a nice climax and all, although there's also some bad child acting. For Burton fans only, a clumsy sort of film.
Jul 26, 2020
Finding Forrester
Saw Finding Forrester, an inspirational film about a black guy from a shitty part of town (there's a lot of people yelling in his building) who is sent to a prestigious private school (where they wear blazers) on a basketball scholarship. There, he's immediately dismissed by his new teachers as being a hired basketball gun despite him being quite intelligent and sensitive and having read a lot of high-brow contemporary literature. He's also in the process of befriending a reclusive novelist who lives near his school.
The film is mostly about this guy becoming a better novelist under the guidance of this gruff recluse. He attempts to reciprocate as best he can and while it's somewhat of a fiasco, the novelist has a tough enough soul to recognize the value of being pushed a little outside his comfort zone. Their relationship is the main interest of the film.
Outside of the novelist's apartment, the story is more fraught. His literature professor is this stuffy classist/racist who believes the main character is copying his beautiful essays from somewhere. There's a pretty girl who befriends him but she's something of a rebel and the film suggests that this may only be a ploy to upset her father - who is on the school board. So this boy has a golden opportunity if only he's allowed to seize it.
The film is fairly nice. It's uplifting in a prestige-y, Dead Poet's Society kind of way. I kind of wish it were more of a character study, but it's not. It's about the novelist teaching the main character to embrace his gift and the main character teaching the novelist that life doesn't have to be downhill from here. Also the novels hanging about the main character's bedroom would probably make a good reading list!
Horse Girl
Saw Horse Girl, a supernatural psychodrama masquerading as a cute little indie movie about a woman who loves horses. The main character is this withdrawn, polite little woman who works in an arts and crafts store and who loves this TV show which is obviously Supernatural but they didn't have the rights or something. She's got a life of her own, but she seems to have no friends at all and not a ton to look forward to.
Things start to come apart fairly early, when she's discovered in the kitchen staring at the wall in darkness. Her roommate's boyfriend finds her but is told that she sleepwalks. Soon she's waking up in the street, holding a pay phone, and having dreams of alien abductions, seeing people sleeping next to her. Unlike Revolution #9, this film keeps it semi-ambiguous. She recognizes a man from her dreams, for example, but does she only think he's from her dreams?
We follow her as she descends further into madness/into alien doings and we get some wonderful, arresting imagery out of it. A bolt of cloth, pulled out of a door and stretching down the street, like an orange flag. The main woman also puts in a great performance as a mousy little woman pushed by circumstances to defend herself from forces she doesn't understand. And how lovely she is as she screams and carries on!
I enjoyed the film, but thinking about it now, I'm having a hard time remembering anything specific beyond the hysterics and that scene with the cloth. I suppose that's not a good sign, but I did enjoy the imagery and the ambiguity. It's a good movie.
Ladybird
Saw Ladybird, a fairly sweet coming of age film about a girl growing up in Sacramento, California. It's a town that Californian, yes, but not hip or cool and is just a disappointment to the main character girl. She wants something more and she wants to be someone. She's reaching a point in her life where she wants to spread her wings and fly but she's not sure where that motivation is coming from.
Her mother wants her right under her skirts forever. Her father is out of work and won't say it but needs a support system around him. Everyone around her is content to just hang out in Sacramento and/or call it a shithole. Her feelings are more conflicted. Its her home and she loves it, but it's suffocating her and so is her family and so is her life.
Typical of the genre, the film is touching and kind, having huge amounts of affection for everyone even as it skewers them. There are a few folks who come off as bastards (her horrible intellectual boyfriend who is content to just be 'woke' and do nothing, for example.) Her domineering mother comes off rather badly. She's someone who always has a harsh word and though it comes from a place of concern and love, it's wearying for this poor girl to always be frankly told that that dress doesn't look good, or that she'll never get into that college or whatever.
The central struggle of the film is Ladybird wanting more but also wanting to love her small-town family. How can she square wanting something better for herself with also honoring her roots? How can she say this life isn't for me without it being a rejection of her parents' lives? She constantly lies about where she lives, who she knows, what she's done, to make herself more interesting. She believes there's nothing at all interesting about Sacramento and she so desperately wants to be interesting. At the end of the film, at college, some guy asks her where she's from. "Sacramento" she admits. It's a big little moment for her. "Where?" the guy says. "Uh - San Francisco." Two steps forwards, one step back! How fun!
I liked this film, although it's sort of twee and cutesy. It's like a gentler Mean Girls or a less arch Juno. Funny, lovable, often difficult.
Deadpool 1 & 2
Saw Deadpools 1 & 2 - again both very similar films and I watched them back-to-back so they're indistinguishable to me now. They were films in the Marvel canon, involving mutants in general and following the motor-mouthed titular character in specific as he pops off one-liners, 4th wall breakers, and 80s pop culture references.
I enjoyed the movies more or less but I thought his backstory was unintentionally hilarious. Pre-superhero, he's a mercenary who meets-cute (really more meets-quips) this girl and they become fast lovers, having lots of raunchy sex (how subversive!) he falls ill and the only way to cure himself is by be-mutant-ing himself. This messes up his skin and even though he's better now, he can't return to his girlfriend because he's too ugly. That's actually the in-universe reason given. Like, come on man, isn't your connection supposed to be more than skin deep? Don't you still have the quips? It's like Lex Luthor getting mad at superman because he made him bald. Grow up, you children!
Anyway, that bit of silliness aside, the film is a lot of dumb fun. The references go thick and fast and I felt very clever indeed for catching the ones I did (and sulky about the ones I missed.) The villain is annoyingly humor-less, but I guess the stakes have to come from somewhere, right? There's a lot of acute tragedy that's quickly breezed by which adds a sublayer of pathos to things. You get the sense that the motor-mouth is to prevent reality from sinking in and that's kind of poignant.
But a great movie this is not. Like the other Marvel films, it's a well-made, entertaining, somewhat anonymous film. A good way to spend 4 hours, but I honestly can't remember a lot of specifics about the film a few months later. The A-team he assembles in the second movie is great though.
I enjoyed the movies more or less but I thought his backstory was unintentionally hilarious. Pre-superhero, he's a mercenary who meets-cute (really more meets-quips) this girl and they become fast lovers, having lots of raunchy sex (how subversive!) he falls ill and the only way to cure himself is by be-mutant-ing himself. This messes up his skin and even though he's better now, he can't return to his girlfriend because he's too ugly. That's actually the in-universe reason given. Like, come on man, isn't your connection supposed to be more than skin deep? Don't you still have the quips? It's like Lex Luthor getting mad at superman because he made him bald. Grow up, you children!
Anyway, that bit of silliness aside, the film is a lot of dumb fun. The references go thick and fast and I felt very clever indeed for catching the ones I did (and sulky about the ones I missed.) The villain is annoyingly humor-less, but I guess the stakes have to come from somewhere, right? There's a lot of acute tragedy that's quickly breezed by which adds a sublayer of pathos to things. You get the sense that the motor-mouth is to prevent reality from sinking in and that's kind of poignant.
But a great movie this is not. Like the other Marvel films, it's a well-made, entertaining, somewhat anonymous film. A good way to spend 4 hours, but I honestly can't remember a lot of specifics about the film a few months later. The A-team he assembles in the second movie is great though.
Revolution #9
Saw Revolution #9, another film dealing with mental illness, also from 2001. It's about a guy who works at a website review magazine (back before the internet had calcified down to about 5 sites or so) who starts losing his mind, believing spam emails and certain websites are infecting his computer and his subconscious with coded messages. There's no ambiguity about this as is typical for most films about paranoia, this dude definitely needs medication.
The style of the film is much more 90s, with grainy digital film and bright, garish, over-saturated colors. His paranoia is indicated with electronic buzzes and bleeps on the soundtrack and, unlike K-pax, this has plenty of the overworked and underfunded NYC infrastructure on display. This also shows the infuriating state of affairs in the dark ages before everyone had cellphones. Much happens on answering machines and pay phones.
The film is fairly grim. The poor main character starts spiraling, lashing out at random. He has no family for some reason outside of a girlfriend of one year whose family doesn't really know this guy outside of the pain he's causing for their daughter. Her family especially is infuriating. Her brother is this meathead who believes the main character needs some therapeutic punches and her sister wants her to just walk away from this hot mess. On top of this, there's the overworked, non-interventionist public psychiatric systems. The whole thing seems hopeless. Indeed it even ends on a cliffhanger, with Billy Corgan's sneering vocals. Very 90s, very grim.
So this was not a very uplifting film and I have a hard time thinking why anyone would want to see it. It's a downer but not enough of one to change my attitude towards folks with mental issues (be compassionate, but not at the expense of your own sanity) It's not really a call to arms to change something and it's not very fun or stylish. Possibly distinct for never making a mystery out of the main character's delusions but mostly just kind of a downer.
The style of the film is much more 90s, with grainy digital film and bright, garish, over-saturated colors. His paranoia is indicated with electronic buzzes and bleeps on the soundtrack and, unlike K-pax, this has plenty of the overworked and underfunded NYC infrastructure on display. This also shows the infuriating state of affairs in the dark ages before everyone had cellphones. Much happens on answering machines and pay phones.
The film is fairly grim. The poor main character starts spiraling, lashing out at random. He has no family for some reason outside of a girlfriend of one year whose family doesn't really know this guy outside of the pain he's causing for their daughter. Her family especially is infuriating. Her brother is this meathead who believes the main character needs some therapeutic punches and her sister wants her to just walk away from this hot mess. On top of this, there's the overworked, non-interventionist public psychiatric systems. The whole thing seems hopeless. Indeed it even ends on a cliffhanger, with Billy Corgan's sneering vocals. Very 90s, very grim.
So this was not a very uplifting film and I have a hard time thinking why anyone would want to see it. It's a downer but not enough of one to change my attitude towards folks with mental issues (be compassionate, but not at the expense of your own sanity) It's not really a call to arms to change something and it's not very fun or stylish. Possibly distinct for never making a mystery out of the main character's delusions but mostly just kind of a downer.
Ready Player One
Saw Ready Player One. It was set in an alternate universe where the only internet that exists is a VR MMO. Why they don't use text and images I don't know, but whatever. In this internet, there's a series of 80s-themed puzzles that must be solved to get keys to the founder of the internet's stock. This gives controlling power over the internet, okay?
This film is mostly just a 80s nostalgia trip. It's fun watching these plucky teens solve internet mysteries and although it's fairly campy, it never takes itself super seriously, so it's not discordant or anything.
I still have some misgivings about the film's 80s worship however. That era was marked by excess and ego. Greed was good and business was booming. The films depicted rich powerful men as a matter of course. Why would our hero be anything but? Today, 80s nostalgia is a literally conservative past-time, obsessing over ephemera of childhood, always grabbing the most facile entertainment. We're revisiting The Shining, not Kramer Vs Kramer. It's all surface-level engagement. No critique, just worship. Bleh.
Anyway, there are worse things to indulge in than half-remembered childhood pop ephemera. The film is mostly entertaining with a minimum of bad cheese.
This film is mostly just a 80s nostalgia trip. It's fun watching these plucky teens solve internet mysteries and although it's fairly campy, it never takes itself super seriously, so it's not discordant or anything.
I still have some misgivings about the film's 80s worship however. That era was marked by excess and ego. Greed was good and business was booming. The films depicted rich powerful men as a matter of course. Why would our hero be anything but? Today, 80s nostalgia is a literally conservative past-time, obsessing over ephemera of childhood, always grabbing the most facile entertainment. We're revisiting The Shining, not Kramer Vs Kramer. It's all surface-level engagement. No critique, just worship. Bleh.
Anyway, there are worse things to indulge in than half-remembered childhood pop ephemera. The film is mostly entertaining with a minimum of bad cheese.
The Maze Runner
Saw The Maze Runner series. Again, I'll just review them all in one go because I only have a finite amount of time on this earth and, apart from the first one, they run together. So the first film opens in medias res with the main character guy being delivered into a field with a bunch of other teenage guys (about 50 or so I 'd say?) they are in the middle of a maze that shifts around at night and which is haunted by H R Geiger-esque fish/spider monsters. He is soon followed by a girl with a note: "She's the last one. Ever!" Spooky!
All these boys have amnesia and don't know why they're there. There's small-town politics that happen as the boys jockey for power. Thankfully the film progresses before the boys start messing with the poor solitary girl however. So the first film is all about this maze, okay? And the running of it. It's fun to watch them solve this puzzle and make their way out of the maze (uh ... spoiler alert...) There's a lot of teen melodrama which is stupid and some amount of prevaricating before they start with the running, but all of that is quickly over with.
In the subsequent movies, they apparently depart somewhat from the books with less death-puzzles featured and more investigation into what's going on here anyway. There's zombies and evil corporations (called WCKD, because why not) and Mad Max-style warlords. It's all okay. The second movie is the weakest I think and the first is the strongest. I don't care about the merry band of teenagers saving each other, but I do like seeing people solve puzzles.
I didn't think much of this series. It's not bad, just not as fun as The Hunger Games and it's sort of difficult to sympathize with the main characters. There's worse ways to kill 6 and a half hours.
All these boys have amnesia and don't know why they're there. There's small-town politics that happen as the boys jockey for power. Thankfully the film progresses before the boys start messing with the poor solitary girl however. So the first film is all about this maze, okay? And the running of it. It's fun to watch them solve this puzzle and make their way out of the maze (uh ... spoiler alert...) There's a lot of teen melodrama which is stupid and some amount of prevaricating before they start with the running, but all of that is quickly over with.
In the subsequent movies, they apparently depart somewhat from the books with less death-puzzles featured and more investigation into what's going on here anyway. There's zombies and evil corporations (called WCKD, because why not) and Mad Max-style warlords. It's all okay. The second movie is the weakest I think and the first is the strongest. I don't care about the merry band of teenagers saving each other, but I do like seeing people solve puzzles.
I didn't think much of this series. It's not bad, just not as fun as The Hunger Games and it's sort of difficult to sympathize with the main characters. There's worse ways to kill 6 and a half hours.
Precious
Saw Precious, a misery-porn film about a teenaged, fat, black, illiterate girl with a bipolar (or something) mother who clearly only cares about herself and her welfare checks, like a stereotype from the Reagan era. I was very worried that this film would be overly miserable and exploitative. With that setup, how could it not? This was a fairly uplifting film however, but only due to the herculean efforts of one of her teachers.
The film contains a lot of drama which I always enjoy. There's some powerhouse acting from the main character, Precious, and from her mother. I feel it is fairly exploitative, but we're emant to approach this girl with sympathy and I feel the film never overwhelms you with her troubles. Things are introduced singly and leavened with happy times. She goes to an alternative school, but there she gets along with her classmates.
So, this film is basically what you'd expect but not as bad as you might fear. The misery is more or less the point, but we never wallow in it. It leaves us believing that things will get better which, for this film, is a happy ending.
The film contains a lot of drama which I always enjoy. There's some powerhouse acting from the main character, Precious, and from her mother. I feel it is fairly exploitative, but we're emant to approach this girl with sympathy and I feel the film never overwhelms you with her troubles. Things are introduced singly and leavened with happy times. She goes to an alternative school, but there she gets along with her classmates.
So, this film is basically what you'd expect but not as bad as you might fear. The misery is more or less the point, but we never wallow in it. It leaves us believing that things will get better which, for this film, is a happy ending.
Mortal Engines
Saw Mortal Engines, a fairly fun film with too much going on. It takes place post- some kind of apocalypse where cities in Europe have become giant mechanical vehicles, consuming each other like animals to harvest fuel and people. It's a strong concept but after about the first 30 minutes, it's played out. They also introduce air pirates and a lengthy sequence with a zombie robot. There's political shenanigans going on and gobs of world building, but honestly just kill it after the first half. They're great, but you're not missing anything by jumping off at that point.
Apparently this is another one of those movies based on a YA dystopia series. It came out in 2018, somewhat missing the peak days of the early 2010 with Hunger Games and such, but also does lots of world building and quirky character introduction. It's all a little overwhelming.
Like I say, the best thing in this movie is the beginning sequence which I think is featured in the trailer of fucking London bearing down on some small town-truck. That sequence is amazing, imaginative, high camp, perfect! Everything after that is just a slow descent into less interesting imagery and inter-character struggles that are just not that interesting to me.
Not a very good movie, but with an amazing first half hour or so.
Apparently this is another one of those movies based on a YA dystopia series. It came out in 2018, somewhat missing the peak days of the early 2010 with Hunger Games and such, but also does lots of world building and quirky character introduction. It's all a little overwhelming.
Like I say, the best thing in this movie is the beginning sequence which I think is featured in the trailer of fucking London bearing down on some small town-truck. That sequence is amazing, imaginative, high camp, perfect! Everything after that is just a slow descent into less interesting imagery and inter-character struggles that are just not that interesting to me.
Not a very good movie, but with an amazing first half hour or so.
Insomnia
Saw Insomnia, the 2002 film which is apparently a remake of a Norwegian film. It was about a detective dispatched to Alaska to help solve a murder. He's under a cloud of investigation himself however and soon the murderer discovers this and starts playing a cat and mouse game with him, blackmailing and taunting him. On top of all of this, it's the time of year in Alaska where the sun never sets, so he can't even sleep. Many sequences where a gaunt-faced Pacino gazes at a clock.
The film was good. It was a sort of police procedural, so there's a nice sense of progression as they crack the case wider and wider. There's a hunted, ragged feeling about the film as well however. The locals are not happy about the big-city cops coming to solve their crimes and follow the killer's faked clues like guileless kittens.
I saw this film some time ago, so I don't remember a ton about it. As is typical, the original is much darker than the remake, but this film is plenty bleak and dark. My imagination of Alaska is of beautiful, untamed wilderness. This film deals with the reality of living there: the tiny small town vibe, the poverty, the mist and fog and ice and glaring sunlight. It's an interesting mixture of the hostile wilds and the hard-bitten cop.
The film was good. It was a sort of police procedural, so there's a nice sense of progression as they crack the case wider and wider. There's a hunted, ragged feeling about the film as well however. The locals are not happy about the big-city cops coming to solve their crimes and follow the killer's faked clues like guileless kittens.
I saw this film some time ago, so I don't remember a ton about it. As is typical, the original is much darker than the remake, but this film is plenty bleak and dark. My imagination of Alaska is of beautiful, untamed wilderness. This film deals with the reality of living there: the tiny small town vibe, the poverty, the mist and fog and ice and glaring sunlight. It's an interesting mixture of the hostile wilds and the hard-bitten cop.
The Martian
Saw The Martian, the film about Matt Damon stranded on Mars. He's marooned and sort of doomed from the start what with the limited supplies of air, water, and food, but he's just trying to limp along until he can be rescued. It's interesting however it is a bit video-game-y. He turns off the air conditioning and that nets him 5 power units that can be used to hook up another computer. It's interesting to see this poor guy struggle against the inhuman martian landscape.
The film is very throwback-y. The protagonist is actually competent, a real Buck Rogers type. He has limits, but he's tough and smart and capable. On earth, his handlers are also smart, though, capable. Everyone's good at their jobs! There's no disaster incurred by meddlesome suits or infuriating random stupidity. There's an annoying eccentric genius bopping about to make sure we know we're in the 2010s, but that aside this could have been from the 60s. Neat!
The engine of the film is just watching this guy survive. It's like watching a youtube how-to tutorial or something: seeing someone be deliberate and methodical and competent at something totally foreign to you for a while. There are no emotional stakes and the plot doesn't matter. It's sort of like It Follows in terms of it being more just a puzzle that you get to see someone solve.
The film is very throwback-y. The protagonist is actually competent, a real Buck Rogers type. He has limits, but he's tough and smart and capable. On earth, his handlers are also smart, though, capable. Everyone's good at their jobs! There's no disaster incurred by meddlesome suits or infuriating random stupidity. There's an annoying eccentric genius bopping about to make sure we know we're in the 2010s, but that aside this could have been from the 60s. Neat!
The engine of the film is just watching this guy survive. It's like watching a youtube how-to tutorial or something: seeing someone be deliberate and methodical and competent at something totally foreign to you for a while. There are no emotional stakes and the plot doesn't matter. It's sort of like It Follows in terms of it being more just a puzzle that you get to see someone solve.
Black Swan
Saw Black Swan, a psychodrama about a an adorable, pink-clad, cream puff of a woman who is given the role of the White/Black Swan in Swan Lake. She is beset by sabotage from jealous rivals, jilted prima donnas, predatory directors, and her own stage mom. On top of all of this, she is seeing things, remembering things that haven't happened.
The film is great fun, this woman having some kind of breakdown as she comes into her own as an artist, as a person. This film most resembles The Red Slippers, another hallucinogenic film about a dancer who gets too involved and loses herself in the dance. Like that one, this builds to an insane climax during the actual dance itself. It's great frothy fun!
I don't have a lot to say about this film. Figuring out what's going on in a movie is what I like to do and that's the whole point of this movie so to talk about it would be to give the whole game away, but I did like the fragile uber-femininity of this girl who is clearly living out some childhood fantasy of being a pretty ballerina. She seems a little old to be discovering boys, for example, but this speaks to her arrested development, her fragility, which her own burgeoning identity is beginning to explode. Great stuff!
The film is great fun, this woman having some kind of breakdown as she comes into her own as an artist, as a person. This film most resembles The Red Slippers, another hallucinogenic film about a dancer who gets too involved and loses herself in the dance. Like that one, this builds to an insane climax during the actual dance itself. It's great frothy fun!
I don't have a lot to say about this film. Figuring out what's going on in a movie is what I like to do and that's the whole point of this movie so to talk about it would be to give the whole game away, but I did like the fragile uber-femininity of this girl who is clearly living out some childhood fantasy of being a pretty ballerina. She seems a little old to be discovering boys, for example, but this speaks to her arrested development, her fragility, which her own burgeoning identity is beginning to explode. Great stuff!
Hereditary
Saw Hereditary, currently the only other film apart from Midsommar by Ari Aster. This one follows a family dealing with the death of their creepy grandmother. There's also a young daughter who is withdrawn, possibly retarded, and who does creepy shit like cut off the heads of dead pigeons with scissors. The protagonist for most of the film is the family's mother who is a miniatures artist, creating dioramas depicting her difficulties with her mother.
So this is a horror movie. It's intensely creepy. There's no gallons of blood or anything, but a creeping and sharpening sense of doom and disaster. As with Midsommar, tragedy is taken seriously, and the pain of a family tearing itself apart and losing itself to madness is just as much a source of discomfort as the final scenes of naked cultists and decapitation. It makes it feel that much more real and awful.
The film is really good so I don't want to spoil it, however there's a scene where a character wakes up and there's something creepy in the corner of his room. The light is so dim you can barely see it and in theaters apparently you could hear gasps and arms pointing as different people saw it and understanding rippled through the audience. What a dreadful, magical experience!
So this is a horror movie. It's intensely creepy. There's no gallons of blood or anything, but a creeping and sharpening sense of doom and disaster. As with Midsommar, tragedy is taken seriously, and the pain of a family tearing itself apart and losing itself to madness is just as much a source of discomfort as the final scenes of naked cultists and decapitation. It makes it feel that much more real and awful.
The film is really good so I don't want to spoil it, however there's a scene where a character wakes up and there's something creepy in the corner of his room. The light is so dim you can barely see it and in theaters apparently you could hear gasps and arms pointing as different people saw it and understanding rippled through the audience. What a dreadful, magical experience!
The Saddest Music in the World
Saw The Saddest Music in the World, a very strange film that came out in 2003 but was deliberately shot to look like a silent film. It follows a family drama that unfolds in the shadow of a competition run by a beer baroness to find the saddest music in the world. These sad song competitions are held like boxing matches with both bands on stage at the same time, one dirge interrupted by a bell and then the other one started. The winner of each round slides down a slide into a vat of beer. It's so strange.
The beer baroness had her legs amputated after a car crash and now walks about on glass legs containing beer (she hates the feel of wood and plastic.) The most main character I suppose is this dashing cad who is flashy and American (this film takes place in Winnipeg) and is determined to win this competition. There's a lot going on. The glass legs stand out for most original image however.
the film doesn't quite live up to all of its nuttiness. The initial song battles are fun in their absurdity, the juxtaposition of sadness and tragedy with beer slides and color commentators, but the bits following the dashing cad main character are not that interesting. There's supposed to be tension between this wallow in misery and this man who is incapable of regret and worry. He's supposed to be somewhat heroic but he comes off as narcissistic.
With its old-timey look and throwback strangeness, this film is an interesting place to visit but not a place I'd like to live.
The beer baroness had her legs amputated after a car crash and now walks about on glass legs containing beer (she hates the feel of wood and plastic.) The most main character I suppose is this dashing cad who is flashy and American (this film takes place in Winnipeg) and is determined to win this competition. There's a lot going on. The glass legs stand out for most original image however.
the film doesn't quite live up to all of its nuttiness. The initial song battles are fun in their absurdity, the juxtaposition of sadness and tragedy with beer slides and color commentators, but the bits following the dashing cad main character are not that interesting. There's supposed to be tension between this wallow in misery and this man who is incapable of regret and worry. He's supposed to be somewhat heroic but he comes off as narcissistic.
With its old-timey look and throwback strangeness, this film is an interesting place to visit but not a place I'd like to live.
Hairspray (1988)
Saw the 1988 version of Hairspray. It follows an ebullient, fat girl who auditions for a teen dance show. It's like soul train, but with white teens. She is sneered at and insulted for being so fat and self-indulgent, but her winning personality wins the day in the end. There's also a lot of business with race relations.
The film came out in the 80s but is set in the 60s and tackles racial integration. I feel that by the 80s this was a pretty tame target to talk about however so it's not exactly a progressive movie (although I don't really know history that well - maybe it was still a raw subject.)
I was kind of thrown by the main character girl reigning supreme in a cockroach-patterned dress. I feel the film is also mocking her in the end, sarcastically praising her, mean-girl-style. John Waters has an obsession with kitsch and bad taste, but he's more into subversion than deconstruction. He's not trying to normalize or include marginalized folks. He likes to shock and therefore needs something to be other and to be shocking. He's preserving the hierarchy, just flipping it upside down to provoke. He can't showcase his beloved bad taste without admitting that it's bad, you know?
Anyway, the film is fairly fun to watch. We get to see Glenn Milstead (Divine) playing a man for once, although his voice still stays in falsetto (perhaps it's stuck like that?) The rags to riches formula is uplifting to watch, and we get to congratulate ourselves for approving of integration. It's a fun watch.
The film came out in the 80s but is set in the 60s and tackles racial integration. I feel that by the 80s this was a pretty tame target to talk about however so it's not exactly a progressive movie (although I don't really know history that well - maybe it was still a raw subject.)
I was kind of thrown by the main character girl reigning supreme in a cockroach-patterned dress. I feel the film is also mocking her in the end, sarcastically praising her, mean-girl-style. John Waters has an obsession with kitsch and bad taste, but he's more into subversion than deconstruction. He's not trying to normalize or include marginalized folks. He likes to shock and therefore needs something to be other and to be shocking. He's preserving the hierarchy, just flipping it upside down to provoke. He can't showcase his beloved bad taste without admitting that it's bad, you know?
Anyway, the film is fairly fun to watch. We get to see Glenn Milstead (Divine) playing a man for once, although his voice still stays in falsetto (perhaps it's stuck like that?) The rags to riches formula is uplifting to watch, and we get to congratulate ourselves for approving of integration. It's a fun watch.
Snowpiercer
Saw Snowpiercer, a fairly fun and wacky film where the entire world has become an ice planet due to climate change and now the only remnants of humanity live on a perpetually moving train. The lower classes in the back live in harsh conditions and are ruled by the engineer of the train. The film is based on a French comic book and is overstuffed with a sort of dark whimsy.
The film is fairly linear, following one guy who shoots and blasts his way from the lower classes up into the body of the train. This is a social revolution, but the film isn't really that interested in politics, beyond generalities and broad symbolism. Like, yes, the upper classes are privileged and hedonistic and decadent but what else could they be, right?
The film is fairly fun. It's mostly there for this dark whimsy. There's talk of social systems and the necessity for some class to suffer (this coming from the bad guys though, don't worry) but there's also gelatinous protein bars and a kindergarten car and a sushi bar car in there. It's kind of grim for the most part, but also so over the top I have a hard time taking it seriously. It has commentary but at a very high level. Also Tilda Swinton plays a governor of some kind who is so florid it has to been seen. Sensational stuff!
The film is fairly linear, following one guy who shoots and blasts his way from the lower classes up into the body of the train. This is a social revolution, but the film isn't really that interested in politics, beyond generalities and broad symbolism. Like, yes, the upper classes are privileged and hedonistic and decadent but what else could they be, right?
The film is fairly fun. It's mostly there for this dark whimsy. There's talk of social systems and the necessity for some class to suffer (this coming from the bad guys though, don't worry) but there's also gelatinous protein bars and a kindergarten car and a sushi bar car in there. It's kind of grim for the most part, but also so over the top I have a hard time taking it seriously. It has commentary but at a very high level. Also Tilda Swinton plays a governor of some kind who is so florid it has to been seen. Sensational stuff!
Jul 25, 2020
Head
Saw Head (thanks, Lea!) It was a vehicle for the band The Mokees scheduled to run after their TV show was cancelled. The Monkees would start disintegrating the following year, so this film was created at a point where the point was being lost, the bits were getting stale, and everyone was starting to wonder why they were doing this anymore. How appropriate for this film!
The film purposefully makes no sense. The Monkees had been regarded as an artificial, insincere, corporate product, the plastic imitation of the Beatles. They didn't write their own songs or select their own wardrobe (“That’s not even Michael Nesmith’s real hat.”) Here, they lean hard into the artificiality and pointlessness of the film, indicting themselves and the short, indifferent attention span of modern America in the process.
I didn't have to decode this either. They tip their hand basically at the opening of the film, with a chant-y song, gleefully announcing "Hey hey we are the monkees, you know we like to please, a manufactured image, with no philosophies." They sing this after footage plays of someone idly flipping TV channels, seeing the horrors of the Vietnam war juxtaposed with the comforts of a campy Bela Lugosi film. Their only point is that they have no point. No point is not needed. There are too many points jostling for our attention right now, man, who can make sense of it all?
So the film is very surreal. There's moments of genuine delight (such as when a giant Victor Mature pops up over the horizon) but a lot more proto-70s unfocused angst (at one point, they rant against birthday parties. Whatever...) I think at the time (late 60s) there was kind of a rebellion against insincerity going on. People wanted something "real" by which they meant raw, unprocessed, unfiltered, just speak what's on your mind! Most people however don't have a lot to say that is very interesting so they quickly descend into petty complaints. They used drugs to unlock their subconscious but drug trips are not always that interesting, you know.
Anyway, anyway, anyway, this film is nuts. It makes no sense and this sort of wears after a while. I took a long break at the one hour mark myself. It's a movie you should see with other people. It made me think entertaining thoughts about late 60s counter-culture, but I think that might be more me than the movie. I dunno.
The film purposefully makes no sense. The Monkees had been regarded as an artificial, insincere, corporate product, the plastic imitation of the Beatles. They didn't write their own songs or select their own wardrobe (“That’s not even Michael Nesmith’s real hat.”) Here, they lean hard into the artificiality and pointlessness of the film, indicting themselves and the short, indifferent attention span of modern America in the process.
I didn't have to decode this either. They tip their hand basically at the opening of the film, with a chant-y song, gleefully announcing "Hey hey we are the monkees, you know we like to please, a manufactured image, with no philosophies." They sing this after footage plays of someone idly flipping TV channels, seeing the horrors of the Vietnam war juxtaposed with the comforts of a campy Bela Lugosi film. Their only point is that they have no point. No point is not needed. There are too many points jostling for our attention right now, man, who can make sense of it all?
So the film is very surreal. There's moments of genuine delight (such as when a giant Victor Mature pops up over the horizon) but a lot more proto-70s unfocused angst (at one point, they rant against birthday parties. Whatever...) I think at the time (late 60s) there was kind of a rebellion against insincerity going on. People wanted something "real" by which they meant raw, unprocessed, unfiltered, just speak what's on your mind! Most people however don't have a lot to say that is very interesting so they quickly descend into petty complaints. They used drugs to unlock their subconscious but drug trips are not always that interesting, you know.
Anyway, anyway, anyway, this film is nuts. It makes no sense and this sort of wears after a while. I took a long break at the one hour mark myself. It's a movie you should see with other people. It made me think entertaining thoughts about late 60s counter-culture, but I think that might be more me than the movie. I dunno.
Jul 24, 2020
K-Pax
Saw K-Pax, a sort of annoying film about a man who is checked into a psychiatric hospital because he claims to be from the planet K-Pax. Okay, so he's being interrogated by a psychiatrist who like, maybe learns a little something from him, you know? The film is kind of ambiguous about whether this dude is actually an alien or no, but he's definitely kind of a douchebag.
Although this film came out in 2001, I suspect this film was written in the 60s or something because of the way psychiatry is handled: with great respect, with seemingly ample funding, and with hypnosis and age regression used as tools. The K-Paxian man himself is institutionalized after just showing up and being chill and strange in Grand Central which I think is not enough. Maybe it's just the age we live in, but I feel that in order to be realistic, the film should show grim conditions, thin resources, and embattled, indifferent cops. Perhaps 2001 impacted us more than we thought, or perhaps I'm just used to seeing an America that believes itself to be crumbling. As I say, this film seems like it was written in the 60s.
Anyway, this K-paxer is aloof and arch and knowing and says things like "`Take a seat?` What a funny human expression." He is so wise in the ways of astronomy and space travel but he can't fathom why the psychiatrist would be mad about him giving advice to the other patients. "Doctor and patient, what a strange human separation." Yeah, okay Charles Manson, you're sooo wise.
The film is not bad and is probably sort of uplifting but I got very grumpy at the alien guy and would have none of it. My enjoyment was also probably marred by my neighbor and his truly impressive sound system having a birthday party that escalated into a fist fight. Maybe I can get him committed?
PS - hah! And this is a rip-off of a Man Facing Southeast from 1986 (they went to court, according to imdb)
Batman Forever and Batman & Robin
Saw Batman Forever and Batman & Robin at about the same time. They're not distinct enough in my mind that I can meaningfully review them independently. Ill just do them together because otherwise it would be mostly a repeat with a different hasty summary of the plot.
So these are the infamous Joel Schumacher Batmans. Joel was given this film in the wake of the fairly popular and successful Tim Burton films. Those films brought a strange, dark, Charles Addams, German expressionist look to the Bat universe. Joel wanted to do his own thing and decided to embrace the latent homo-eroticism and general camp of the Adam West TV show, much to the annoyance of Batman fans and much to my great interest!
This is not a good film however. There are the bat nipples, yes, and codpieces (pieces cod?) and the Robin is old enough that it's not super creepy to imagine him and Batman smooching, but they are action films in the end, big on spectacle and fight scenes. The films are very gaudy. There's a lot of scenes that are simultaneously so impressive and so tacky. At one point they're climbing up to the Riddler's lair. The pipe they crawl up has lasers forming question marks on the walls, like a rave. It's so gaudy, so campy, so much, and yet for so little.
I didn't hate the movie very much, but I definitely see where the malcontents of the 90s are coming from. Having grown up with the Bruce Timm animated batman, I was left (ahem) cold by the Mr Freeze. Poins Ivy was handled pretty well, but Twoface and the Riddler are totally wrong. The Riddler is gloriously grotesque in his defeat however, looking like the drag performer Christeene:
I also feel like Poison Ivy was handled pretty well too, but it's only in moments and snatches like this that the film pays off. Mostly it's this gaudy spectacle full of plastic and dry ice and looking like it smells like a Halloween costume.
I don't think these films deserve their reputation. They're definitely weak films, and heavily camp-inflected, but they're far from terrible or excruciating. They're bad in a generic way, not a particularly unwatchable way. Eh. They're not good though.
Joker
Saw Joker, the Batman-themed remake of Taxi Driver. The film is a wallow in misery-land, as it follows a pre-super-villain Joker as a standup comic and all-purpose clown as he struggles to survive in the urban decay of Gotham, against some kind of vague mental problems, and against his mother who is losing her mind. As the film progresses and the Joker is dumped on more and more, we all know it's just a matter of time.
This film is a sour sort of thing. Like Taxi Driver and Falling Down, it seems to celebrate the use of violence as a means to combat a cruel and indifferent world. Were not really meant to root for the Joker but, well, he does seem a lot happier when he starts killing people. It's meant to be sinister but if you are a disaffected man, yearning for respect and recognition, and willing to settle for fear and notoriety, the film shows one way to get it. The politics are murky, but it's ominous that this film became quoted and discussed a lot in alt-right circles.
Murky politics aside, the film is quite well done. I loved the physical acting as the main character is becoming The Joker throughout the film. There's a moment where he's just killed someone and he sits back down next to them. He adjusts his lapels, pulls a face at the onlookers, stands up and does a spasmodic little dance, sits back down again. He does all of this in a manic, sarcastic, defiant, arbitrary kind of way. It's so satisfying!
As a total aside: I'm kind of annoyed at how every damn Batman movie has to go through the stations of the Wayne murder. Every time we have to see them go out of a theater and into an alleyway, and yes it was the Mask of Zorro! And that alley was Crime Alley! And the gun shot like this! And the pearls flew every which way like this! And the little boy cried like this! And oh my god we know already, thank you. Tedious. Very minor part of this movie though.
So anyway, this film was very compelling and very nice. A character study of one of the iconic Batman baddies going bad. The film fulfills sinister wishes in what I feel is a sort of irresponsible way, but I can't deny the final terrible revenge is satisfying and well-earned. It's darkly fun just to watch this miserable guy be shat on and humiliated and to think to ourselves "Just you wait. You'll see. You'll all see."
Knives Out
Saw Knives Out, a delightful mystery film about a the death of a an author who writes mostly murder mystery novels. It seems to have been a suicide, but there's no motive. There had been a family reunion the night before and the house is laid out, as one detective puts it, like a clue board. To complicate matters more, the writer had been quite old and many family members had definite designs on his fortune.
The film immediately becomes politically inflected as the protagonist is established to be the live-in nurse of the writer. She's from uncertain but Spanish-speaking background. There's a running gag that the family member can't remember where she comes from ("She's from Cuba", "She's from Portugal", "She's from Paraguay.") The family is a mixture of conservative and progressive folks but they all either side-line her or actively look down on her. In one hilarious scene, one of the family members defends her right to be there and her dignity before absentmindedly handing her a dirty plate to clean up. So callus!
The film is directed by Rian Johnson and there's a little twitter shit-poster character who I think is supposed to be a swipe at the online trolls who thought there was too much femininity in the Star Wars sequels. Hilariously, those same trolls identified this film as being anti-white and while that is absurd, the film is clearly commenting on how white america treats its immigrants and presents itself. Much of the dignity and tradition of the family is just naturally assumed and implied by the writer's money. Later in the film, it's revealed that there's no tradition here at all.
This was a nice cream puff of a movie. It had some nice jokes and some commentary to share on American politics but, since it is a mystery, the rewatchability is probably not that great. Not so clever as to be confusing, it makes you feel clever as you notice that the opening and closing shots are mirrored, and as the plot is unfolded in front of you. So nice!
Parasite
Saw Parasite, the Korean upstairs/downstairs classism drama about a poor family who insinuates themselves into the lives of a rich family. It's an interesting film. I assumed going in that it would be revealed that it was the rich family who were the real parasites and while that argument can be made, it is not explicitly made by the film. The rich family is portrayed as vapid, idle, and undeserving, but they are also vulnerable, naive, and innocent of the harsh realities of poverty. They're not knowingly exploiting anyone.
This film doesn't condemn the rich for being born to the right family, but it also does not condemn the poor family for taking advantage of the rich. The poor family are the protagonists and it's much nicer to see them sleep in servant's quarters than to see them in their cement, underground apartment. The poor family works much harder than the rich family. They oust some hard-working other servants to make room for themselves, but that's capitalism at work: they need money. Although it's unjust, it's not the fault of the rich family that they benefit from this system.
I feel this film most sharply critiques the myth of meritocracy. Due to familial wealth, the rich family wants for nothing. The poor family must work far harder than the rich family for what scraps they can steal while the rich family, who are not evil but merely stupid, live in outrageous luxury. In a more equitable world, perhaps the poor family would achieve success through loans, education, or the merits of their hard work, but by the end of the movie some of them are dead, one is imprisoned, and one dreams impossible dreams of buying the rich family's enormous house.
Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge
Saw Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge. This is the gay Nightmare on Elm Street movie. The protagonist is a new kid in town who has moved into the house of the protagonist girl from the first movie. He starts having nightmares where he is possessed by evil spirit of Freddy Krueger who compels him to murder and do other evil things, such as pick up his gym teacher in a gay bar.
The main character guy has a girl who he's interested in but all of his attempts at flirting with her end in him becoming overcome by him "monstrous" inner nature and rushing off to a male friend's house. The film is very easily read as a gay teen struggling with self-acceptance. There's also some shirtless dudes, which is nice.
I only watched this film because of its notorious gaiety. I wouldn't recommend it unless you're very into that kind of thing. The horror such as it is is fairly limp and the plot is forgettable (again, I'm working from memory here and had to look up the plot details on Wikipedia.) The gay subtext is slightly dated, this being the 1980s and all, and it also ruined the main character actor's career (he was typecast as a gay guy which there are not many roles for even to this day.)
I was hoping for some crazy dream visuals but I really don't recall very much. It's kind of a weird oddity of a horror film - only interesting if you're a series fan or into gay movies from the 80s or something.
Jul 23, 2020
The Talented Mr Ripley
Saw The Talented Mr Ripley, a film that opens on the titular Ripley regretting everything. He is a piano player who happens to be in the right place at the right time. He's mistaken for the friend of a wayward son of some rich family and is sent off to Italy to collect his "friend." In Italy he meets up with the rich son and befriends him and his lovely fiance who are idling their days away on the Italian beaches.
But Tom is not as he seems. He shows off a talent for impersonation, for forgery. He watches the rich son in a polite, but fixated way, creepily fascinated and enraptured. He lies to a rich woman that he runs into that he is the rich son. As the film progresses, this homoerotic subtext is drawn out into light, Tom's feelings for the rich son becoming clear. Tom becomes a sort of covetous changeling: becoming what he desires, personifying it, seeking to replace it with himself.
As Tom's double-life spirals from harmless but inappropriate imposture into outright impersonation and fraud, the film tightens in on him. The world of the rich is a small world and his lies mount higher and higher as he must remember who he is to different people and what lies he last left them with. In a final cruel irony of the film, it is shown that his lies which gained him access to world of the rich have also closed the door on his true happiness.
I liked the film. It's a good, taught, psychodrama. The film is set in the 50s, when to be gay was to live a double-life Tom takes this one step further and uses his skills at imitation and sublimation to gain not only the semblance of a heterosexual life but a comfortable one too. The film is a little too frothy to be really great, I feel. It's going for an ever-more-tense, Hitchcockian mood, or trying for an obsessive, Fincherish vibe, but it never quite gets there. Very interesting nonetheless however and well worth the watch.
Also: this film is based on the Ripley novels by Patricia Highsmith, a bisexual woman who also wrote The Price of Salt by the way. There's another adaptation of this Ripley novel called Purple Noon starring Alain Delon who I think is one of the most beautiful people to have existed. Expect a review of that some day.
Isle of Dogs
Saw Isle of Dogs, a Wes Anderson stop-motion film about an alternate universe Japan where all dogs have been banished to trash island due to the canine flu. The protagonist is a dog who is trying to help a human boy, Atari, to find his missing body-guard dog, Spots. The film is adorable and the dogs are adorably self-serious, as is typical of Wes Anderson.
The film is mostly a romp. The dogs are of course adorable and there's a contingent of humans who are trying to help them out via political machinations. In the Wes Anderson universe everything is tidy and cute, even acts of bravery and selflessness are done in a glib, almost mechanical way. Self-perception is always treated way more seriously than actual actions. It's very satisfying and kind of low-key hilarious.
On last thing: in an early sequence when Spots first meets Atari, Spots keeps repeating "I can hear you." and he's so sincere and so earnest. Ah, my heart!
Speed Racer
Saw Speed Racer, a film by the Wachowski sisters. They were fresh off the sweeping cash roller-coaster that was The Matrix trilogy and I guess decided to indulge themselves in a giant, flashing, video-game-like cartoon of a movie.
Now, this is not a good film. And some films that are not good are merely bad. This one is amazingly bad! Shot with actors mostly floating against a green screen, the backgrounds are filled in with eye-searing primary colors, cars and bushes floating along like an early playstation game. I think all of the characters were composited together and suspect the actors only met each other on the red carpet. At one point, a character is shown putting his hand on another character's shoulder. From how they're standing, I think it just can't be that guy's arm. I drew a diagram look:
Anyway the film is kind of a throwback: Speed is being pressured by corporate bigwigs (such Mr Crazy Arm in the image, above) to throw the race or to just become a pet racer of some kind. But Speed just wants to be free, man, he's just gotta be he. This reminds me of the films from the 70s and their rejection of society's rules (such as: don't be a jerk to waitresses about your chicken salad sandwich)
The visuals are all 90s video games however. Teal, neon pink, blood reds, and searing greens are everywhere. It's all so over the top and excessive. At one point the villains bribe three bounty hunters to take out Speed: a pair of femme fatales who they pay with a velvet bag of diamonds, three soldiers of fortune who they pay with a suitcase full of cash, and a bunch of viking racers who they pay with a trunk full of furs. Earlier in the film, a mob boss fires missiles from his office at a racer and his office is also a truck. Insanity! There's also a monkey called Chim-Chim.
So this film is nuts. It's very much the kind of indulgent mess that someone would make just for themselves, while they still walked on water and could do no wrong. There are a few neat, Matrix-esque fight scenes and I wondered if the villains being all fat-cats and suits may have reflected the Wachowskis themselves rankling at the money men telling them what to do. The film is very fun, pure cheese, and will make your eyes bleed. Highly recommend!
Happy Together
Saw Happy Together, yet another Wong Kar-wai film, this time following the fraught relationship between two men. They travel to Argentina where their car breaks down and they become stranded. One becomes a bouncer at a tango club, the other becomes a male prostitute. They have a falling out over the prostitution, but they're both bound together, the only Chinese men in a strange city.
So Wong's movies are usually very whimsical, containing little colorful flourishes and details that make the world seem like a magical place. This whimsy is balanced by a grounding in life's real struggles. In the last movie I reviewed here, My Blueberry Nights, I felt the scale was tipped too much in the whimsy direction. This is quite the reverse.
The relationship of the central two characters is extremely fraught. Gay folks already have a smaller pool of potential mates than straight folks do and this limit of choices is brought to the extreme here where, in very many ways, these two men are the only ones who understand each other. They are jealous and fight over money, over each other's safety, over cigarettes. At one point the prostitute guy gets his wrists broken by cruel mobsters and the bouncer guy practically imprisons him in their tiny shared apartment. It's very grim, not very whimsical at all.
There's moments of course, where the veil lifts, as when they tango in the bouncer's bar, or when they record each other on cassette tapes, but these moments are fleeting and tinged with despair. I was very disappointed since I was looking forward to seeing a swooning gay romance, but this was cut with too much reality for me. A sad film.
My Blueberry Nights
Saw My Blueberry Nights, a typically spacey and dreamy Wong Kar-wai film. It follows the long-distance romance of a guy who works in a cafe in nyc (?) and a girl who first comes in to eat up the day's leftover pie but ultimately decides to go wandering around America for a while.
The film is full of cutesy indulgences. There's a bowl full of keys in the cafe and the guy (who happens to have a photographic memory) knows the story behind each one. So evocative! So twee! In Wong Kar-wai's best films, this over-cute, dreamy atmosphere is undercut by desperation, loss, broken hearts. Here, we have the low-key drama of long-distance romance and always the possibility that the guy won't get the girl in the end, but the protagonists seem so serene, so untroubled, that the stakes disappear entirely.
The film is not bad, mind you. There are worse ways to spend time than watching two cute star-crossed lovers. It never really achieves the sublime tenderness of Chunking Express or In the Mood For Love. I wonder if this film being in English made it more immediate to me, less mystical. Often the space given to a film by subtitles allows for a bit more of my subjectivity to creep in, to allow me to be a little more generous with my readings and interpretations. Maybe it was just that that was lacking.
So this film is not that amazing, but it's far from bad. It's the sort of slight little film that would surprise and maybe charm you as it popped up on some TV channel, back in the days before the buffet-style TV we have now. A nice, little movie.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009)
Saw The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - this is the original Swedish version, not the Fincher remake (which I have yet to see - Fincher's usually good though!) It follows an investigative journalist and a hacker-woman as they investigate an old cold case. The film starts off establishing the hacker-lady as someone Not To Be Messed With by having her entrap and blackmail her abusive state-appointed guardian. This establishes a sort of theme of women being exploited by powerful men.
The film is a pulpy mystery, involving Nazis and torture, websites and microfiche. The uber-hacker-ness of the girl is undercut a tad by her calling up this disheveled guy to do all the hard bits for her, but I suppose this film isn't about female representation in hackery. Anyway, she kicks plenty of ass herself.
So, I'm writing this from memory and I recall enjoying this film alright but it didn't leave much of an impression on me. It's a sort of typical modern mystery film. The protagonist being a spike-collared goth lady is novel, but apart from that there's the usual slow revelations and smattering of action sequences. Good guys turn out to be bad. Bad guys not so bad. The usual.
It (2017)
Saw the 2017 remake of It. The film is in two parts, following a gang of kids (in the first part) and adults (in the second part) who are battling an evil, reality-bending, shape-shifting demon clown named Pennywise who is killing children in a small New England town.
The film is a nice update to the original. It includes a lot more crazy CGI imagery that the original, new technology allowing ever more spectacle. It also mixes the supernatural horror with more mundane trials. One subplot, involves a poor teenage girl trying to survive life and puberty with her creepy, controlling father. Literal fountains of blood provide some very on-the--nose symbolism.
The first part of the film is very straightforward scary-movie. The film falters a little bit trying to adapt exactly Stephen King's words. A leper, for example, is more pathetic than scary in real life. The second part just throws in the towel and embraces the humor full-bore, undercutting many otherwise scary scenes with one-liners or, in one infamous scene, with Juice Newton's Angel of the Morning. It's a frustrating and immersion-breaking admission that, yes, the idea of a murderous shape-shifting clown is absurd.
There's also been a lot of writing about the scene where a bunch of small-town hicks beat up/murder a gay couple. That's very unpleasant to watch and was initially supposed to kind of set the tone for the kind of town this really is: bucolic on the surface, but only because folks close their ears and turn a blind eye. This sort of small-town denial of reality and compartmentalization is almost a bending of reality in itself.
So okay, the film is good and entertaining, however it makes some very strange choices with regards the humor/horror balance in the second part. The first part is another Stranger Things-enabled nostalgia trip, but there are worse things to kill time with. As I say, a good film in the end. Worth it for the crazy visuals.
Midsommar
Saw Midsommar, a horror film about a group of American college kids, some studying anthropology, who visit a remote Swedish community that keeps to the traditional, pre-medieval, pagan ways and who don't let community members leave and who need visitors for their midsummer festival, far above the arctic circle, where the sun never sets. You see where this is going, right? These college kids are doomed.
The film opens with a lengthy sequence where a girl's family meets with tragedy. Unusually for a horror film, this tragedy is filmed and treated with all of the respect usually reserved for a serious drama about loss. For the first 3/4ths of the movie, you can almost believe that things will be sad but ultimately okay. The college kids do a lot of drugs and those trip sequences are very upsetting but the Swedes are so kindly and welcoming, it's hard to be scared of them. Someone does get their skull caved in with a wooden mallet however, so watch out.
I really liked the incomprehensible, smiling strangeness of the Swedish cultists. They are all nodding heads and smiling faces and broken English. I'm reminded strongly of The Wicker Man (the original, actually good 1973 film that is.) There's this great, teasing sense of will-they-or-won't-they. There are innocent explanations but the rituals seem to be disquietingly focused on simulated murder and the cultists keep trying to separate everyone.
I really liked this film. It's much more psychodrama than horror, although it's not for the squeamish. There's no jump scares and I was able to sleep easily after seeing it, but it's haunting and eerie. The sun glaring as bright as heatstroke and everyone too happy, too manic. One of the strangest and most interesting things the cultists do is imitate the college kids. One of them is freaked out by their rituals and begins screaming and sobbing. All the cultists around her start screaming and wailing as well. It's a strange simultaneous acceptance of and sublimation of the individual. How can you rage against this murderous community when they mourn the death with you? It's an amazing sequence and I wonder if it's drawn from some real life cult?
Anyway, this movie is fascinating and unsettling. Really good work.
Jul 22, 2020
Moonlight
Saw Moonlight. It was really good. Oscar worthy! It's about a black man growing up in Miami, coming to terms with himself and his sexuality. He's raised by a single mother astoundingly played by Naomie Harris who slides into addiction as the film goes on. The film is split into three parts: boyhood adolescence and adulthood. As a child, the other children can sense something gentle about the boy, something different. He's supported by a surprisingly tender drug dealer who is the closest thing to a stable family that he has. There's a heartbreaking scene where the boy comes home and softly asks the dealer "what does faggot mean?" Later on, as a teenager, he must fend for himself and understand himself. A first boyfriend makes things more clear but also more difficult. As an adult, he has become an enforcer in the drug gang, huge, scary, and troubled.
The film has a spacey quality to it, drawing inspiration from Wong Kar-wai's semi-improvised films. Here there's a sadness about the film that gives way to a very menacing ambiguity as the character grows up. It is increasingly unimaginable that he will accept himself and settle down with a husband or a boyfriend. He is almost totally withdrawn and we don't know what lurks beneath that hard exterior. Is he angry or depressed? Stoic or vengeful?
The film is difficult, showing the perspective of a marginalized minority within a marginalized minority. The boy is forced to hide and suppress everything tender or vulnerable about himself in order to survive. We'd like to dream of education, or sports, or the arts giving this boy a way out, a way to be himself, but the situation seems hopeless. He must choose between being true to himself and being around his family, his home. He'd have to be made of steel to make it out unscathed and so steel he becomes.
I was very moved by the movie. It's up my alley of course and I don't know how it would hit a straight audience. There's a profound sense of waste about this movie. This poor boy has had to suffer so much and carry that suffering around with him as an adult as it drives him crazy for no reason. No reason at all.
Gone Baby Gone
Saw Gone Baby Gone. This was some surprise to me since I intended to watch Gone Girl but could not remember the name. I knew Ben Affleck was involved and saw he directed Gone Baby Gone and decided that must be it. You can understand my mistake, surely. So I watched this waiting for a wily wife to be kidnapped and though there's kidnapping in this film and wives, it is not Gone Girl. It's not a bad movie though, so I stuck through it.
So this film is about a husband-wife detective team investigating the abduction of a young girl. The girl's mother seems to know something, there's Drugs involved and ransoms and such. The main character is realistically portrayed as just some jerk who has no authority whatsoever. The cops regard him as a semi-entertaining nuisance and the non-cops regard him with overt suspicion and hostility. I literally cant imagine how being a private investigator works in this modern age. Apparently they use Facebook a lot?
Anyway, the film has a grungy, Harmony Korine-like aesthetic, full of warping clapboard and ragged, toy-strewn lawns. The Affleckian obsession with Boston is here too and that is where this film is emphatically set. It's good fun, don't get me wrong, just very easy to snark on. I more or less enjoyed the movie and enjoyed seeing the mystery unfold, knot by knot. Not bad.
La La Land
Saw La La Land, the film that nearly won the Oscars. It was a nice little musical about following dreams. It was apparently inspired by The Young Girls of Rochefort and other films of Jacques Demy, films which I saw and hated in high school. The things I hated about them then are present here in La La Land: the frivolity, the cutesy musical numbers and bright, mono-colored costumes, but here they're muted. With this film, the frivolity is undercut with the eternal, horrible, herculean struggle to make it in showbiz and I liked that. The movie admits that following your dreams also sort of sucks.
I really liked that there's actually a few scenes where the characters throw in the towel. They fight with each other and one of them gives up the game entirely, saying their sick of making a fool of themselves. The sad reality is that for every person who makes it in Hollywood, in sports, on Broadway, there are hundreds more that had to sadly move back home. It's a surprising, self-aware moment to find in a musical. There are other, more spoiler-y surprises as well near the end. I enjoyed the moments when the music stopped and the real world was gently let in.
So I enjoyed this movie. It still feels a little light, a little vapid, but there's a good soul underneath it, and it's ultimately pretty inspiring and surprising. I dunno Oscar-worthy, but it's definitely good, wholesome fun.
Crimson Peak
Saw Crimson Peak, a Guillermo Del Toro film about a girl who is seduced by Tom Hiddleston (Hiddle-swoggled, I call it) into a crumbling, Gothic mansion on the top of a hill, inhabited by the ghosts of previous wives and Tom's creepy, governess-like sister. Clearly, this girl is in for a hard time.
As with many Del Toro films, the ghosts are not malevolent so much as just inadvertently upsetting. The true villains are the humans. These humans have convoluted plans indeed. There's mad science, bloody clay, secret passions, and poisonings going on. The villains are powerful but only human after all. They don't notice a swiped set of keys, for example, and fall for the girl's in-universe acting.
I was told that the film was not very good at all, so I went in with low expectations which were happily exceeded. So, my experience was a pleasant one. I suspect this is the sort of so-so film that will either disappoint or surprise. So do yourself a favor: go in expecting a whole lotta nothing and be surprised!
Toy Story 4
Saw Toy Story 4, another installment in the adventures of Woody and the gang. This film engages in more world-building, investigating the lives of toys left behind in playgrounds, eternally hanging up as prizes at a carnival, or carefully packed away behind glass in an antique store. Many of the reviews I read of this talked about the Forky character and speculated about the children as gods, creating toy-life where before there was only trash, but I feel this is a theme read on to the film, not inherent in it. Like, the film is not preoccupied with this, so why are you, dear professional critics? Huh?
I think the pro critics were all talking about the theological implications of the toy universe because not a ton happens in this film that's original or surprising. There's no gutsy the-toys-accept-death scene, and we're now in a world where sequels and franchises are often successful, so we don't even have the shock of a good sequel to a kid's film to fall back on. We just sort of do it all one more time. There's a chase scene, some friendly toys who turn sinister, some sinister toys who are "humanized" in the end. There's funny sidekicks and earnest sentiments. It's good, but we've seen it all before.
So, like, okay this didn't dazzle me, but it's not a bad film at all. There's funny sidekicks and earnest sentiments and tears are jerked and all and whatnot. It's a solid Pixar film that will entertain children and adults alike. It's not groundbreaking enough to distract bored reviewers from bringing up irrelevancies, but it's a good movie that will be required viewing for probably a lot of families. Thankfully, it will be a pleasant duty for most.
Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas
Saw Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas, a by-now obscure animated film from Dreamworks. It follows the puckish rapscallion Sinbad as he tries to recover a magical McGuffin (The Book of Peace) from the wispy antagonist Eris. The film is good but forgettable. It came out in the early naughts and features a billowy, loose sort of animation with everything looking like flapping fabric or billowing smoke. It's very pretty however and I liked the designs, especially how Sinbad's pants smoothly transition into his boots (are his pants tucked in?)
This film is fairly forgettable however. I saw it a while ago but I had to re-check the plot to remember what happened. (This is as much an indictment of my own weak memory as it is a criticism of the movie however.) There's a love triangle and nice little logic-puzzle twist ending. The film mostly revolves around whether this Sinbad fella has a heart of gold deep down or if he's just a mean old pirate like he claims himself to be. Of course, since this is a kid's film, the conclusion is kind of foregone.
I dunno. It was a good movie. I remember enjoying it, but not so great a movie that I felt the need to like proselytize for it or anything. It didn't leave me wondering why it wasn't as popular as Disney films, but it didn't leave me wondering about the low-key affection I see for the film online. It's an okay film.
I feel like it suffers a bit from too much unbridled, ambient talent. There's a background cast of pirates, for example, who do not stay in the background. At one point Sinbad is barking out orders and one of the pirates descends on ropes, receives orders, and then reascends like a puppet or a monkey. It's weird and distracting. Who is that guy? What's his story? There isn't enough footage in the film for all the pet characters and details the animators want to pack in. Smacks of unsteady leadership to me.
Jul 21, 2020
The Sapphires
Saw The Sapphires (thanks, Basil!) It was a film about a quartet of aboriginal women who formed a band to entertain the American troops in Vietnam. The film follows the different women through the chaos of the Vietnam war and through the racism they faced along the way. We open, for example, on one of their childhood concerts getting broken up by feds in suits, coming to take the children off to re-education schools. There's also a ton of time given over to a white guy who is their band manager. He is shown in the middle of the movie poster, surrounded by his adoring backup singers actual band.
The film covers interesting subject matter, but never really rises to it. It sort of felt like a Lifetime movie to me or something. There's moments of tension and drama, but they're all sort of flat. They're serviceable but not great. And it's not a bad movie at all, just one that might be, say, shown in a classroom and then never thought about again.
The film is very focused on these four women. Their story brings us into contact with some elements of Australian race relations and into the wider political perspective of America's doings in Vietnam, but we spend way more footage on the drinking problem of one of them, or on the romances of one of the others. The racial and political stuff feels perfunctory, as thought they had to get it out of the way to tell the story. Man, that's like all that I care about!
So not a bad movie, but Lifetime-film-tier. Maybe worth a look if you want an introduction to Australia's treatment of their natives, although I suspect there's probably something better out there for that.
The film covers interesting subject matter, but never really rises to it. It sort of felt like a Lifetime movie to me or something. There's moments of tension and drama, but they're all sort of flat. They're serviceable but not great. And it's not a bad movie at all, just one that might be, say, shown in a classroom and then never thought about again.
The film is very focused on these four women. Their story brings us into contact with some elements of Australian race relations and into the wider political perspective of America's doings in Vietnam, but we spend way more footage on the drinking problem of one of them, or on the romances of one of the others. The racial and political stuff feels perfunctory, as thought they had to get it out of the way to tell the story. Man, that's like all that I care about!
So not a bad movie, but Lifetime-film-tier. Maybe worth a look if you want an introduction to Australia's treatment of their natives, although I suspect there's probably something better out there for that.
Blade Runner 2049
Saw Blade Runner 2049, a scifi film in the Blade Runner series. That series is famous for playing with notions of identity and free will. The conceit is that human-realistic robots exist and can be programmed to be unaware that they are robots and to have false memories. This quickly leads the protagonists into low-level existential dread. How can they be sure that they're human? If they're a robot, how can they be sure of who they are?
This film kicked it up a notch, visuals-wise and plot-wise, introducing a Her-style home AI who is in love with the main character, a main character who knows he's a robot, and glorious, sumptuous visuals of people walking among statues of giant hands and feet, and sitting in islands inside a wooden cave. It's very modern, very stylish.
I liked The film. It had emotional heft and endless philosophy to discuss. I watched some youtube video breaking down the character's relationship to his home AI. Questions of free will combined with romance raise serious questions about consent (albeit, scifi/fantasy questions of consent which we can happily ignore for now.) But this angle didn't even occur to me. I was too caught up in the identity and free will puzzles, to say nothing of the spectacular visuals and plotting, to consider the house AI subplot - that's how just full of stuff this movie is. There's so much of it!
Truth be told though, I have little patience for such philosophical puzzles personally. They're fun to visit but I always get disappointed when these topics come up in casual conversations. Usually one person just starts lecturing and everyone else feels vaguely bored or confused. All well and good to wonder if I have free will, but I still have to decide what to have for dinner tonight, you know? Fortunately for this movie at least, there's also nice visuals, drama, and even a mystery to keep folks like me interested and some philosophical icing on the cake for those who want it!
This film kicked it up a notch, visuals-wise and plot-wise, introducing a Her-style home AI who is in love with the main character, a main character who knows he's a robot, and glorious, sumptuous visuals of people walking among statues of giant hands and feet, and sitting in islands inside a wooden cave. It's very modern, very stylish.
I liked The film. It had emotional heft and endless philosophy to discuss. I watched some youtube video breaking down the character's relationship to his home AI. Questions of free will combined with romance raise serious questions about consent (albeit, scifi/fantasy questions of consent which we can happily ignore for now.) But this angle didn't even occur to me. I was too caught up in the identity and free will puzzles, to say nothing of the spectacular visuals and plotting, to consider the house AI subplot - that's how just full of stuff this movie is. There's so much of it!
Truth be told though, I have little patience for such philosophical puzzles personally. They're fun to visit but I always get disappointed when these topics come up in casual conversations. Usually one person just starts lecturing and everyone else feels vaguely bored or confused. All well and good to wonder if I have free will, but I still have to decide what to have for dinner tonight, you know? Fortunately for this movie at least, there's also nice visuals, drama, and even a mystery to keep folks like me interested and some philosophical icing on the cake for those who want it!
MFKZ
Saw MFKZ, a zany French anime. It was animated by studio 4°C who also created the similarly spectacular Tekkonkinkreet and Mind Game. This film follows a teenager living in some sprawling city on the Mexican border. This teenager is completely black with a gaint, round, 8-ball-like head. His roommate has a flaming skull for a head. One of his good friends is a bat with braces and he has a pet hoard of cockroaches. It's a nutty, nutty film.
As the story progresses, men in black start appearing and chasing the main character, shooting at him. We learn more about his shadowy origin story and the film becomes a 'choose wimpy goodness' vs 'embrace powerful evil' sorts of dilemmas. The main point of the film, of course, is to present you with crazy shit, but that's where the plot goes.
The film is gloriously overstuffed with imagery. Like the Tank Girl comics, there's all of these amazingly great little details to notice that are in themselves irrelevant but as a whole create a rich tapestry, bringing the ghetto to life and making the characters pop. I loved the messiness of it. Not a great film, but definitely entertaining and fast enough to be charming throughout.
As the story progresses, men in black start appearing and chasing the main character, shooting at him. We learn more about his shadowy origin story and the film becomes a 'choose wimpy goodness' vs 'embrace powerful evil' sorts of dilemmas. The main point of the film, of course, is to present you with crazy shit, but that's where the plot goes.
The film is gloriously overstuffed with imagery. Like the Tank Girl comics, there's all of these amazingly great little details to notice that are in themselves irrelevant but as a whole create a rich tapestry, bringing the ghetto to life and making the characters pop. I loved the messiness of it. Not a great film, but definitely entertaining and fast enough to be charming throughout.
Maleficent
Saw Maleficent, one of the early Disney live action remake films, this time telling the story from the point of view of the evil fairy from Sleeping Beauty. It was not as good as one might hope. It starts off strong, in a Stardust-like village that straddles fairly land and human land. It ultimately neuters its strong central protagonist however and ends in Shrek-like sarcasm and self-aware fairy-tale trope manipulation.
I was hoping for something Gaiman-esque, which reinvents the source material and connects it to the wider body of magical/fairy mythology out there and while there are nods in that direction (Maleficent can't touch iron, for example) the whole thing is too cute, and at the same time too serious to really satisfy me. There's a scene where a young Maleficent winsomely plays with animated trolls and sprites, but there's another scene where she screams in horror after being mutilated by a human man. Too cute and yet too real.
The ending especially annoyed me. There's a lunkhead prince who must be dragged around and told what to do by Maleficent which is kind of a big departure from the source material. I mean, Prince Philip was never supposed to be a genius, but he was fighting Maleficent in dragon form as she shouted about the powers of hell, if I recall correctly. She was hardly holding his hand through the trial.
It would have been fun to think that we're seeing the real story which has been perverted by re-telling and propaganda, but this is too different. Such a telling of the true story would have to end in tragedy (the humans did win, ultimately) and this film must be uplifting for some stupid reason.
I was hoping for something Gaiman-esque, which reinvents the source material and connects it to the wider body of magical/fairy mythology out there and while there are nods in that direction (Maleficent can't touch iron, for example) the whole thing is too cute, and at the same time too serious to really satisfy me. There's a scene where a young Maleficent winsomely plays with animated trolls and sprites, but there's another scene where she screams in horror after being mutilated by a human man. Too cute and yet too real.
The ending especially annoyed me. There's a lunkhead prince who must be dragged around and told what to do by Maleficent which is kind of a big departure from the source material. I mean, Prince Philip was never supposed to be a genius, but he was fighting Maleficent in dragon form as she shouted about the powers of hell, if I recall correctly. She was hardly holding his hand through the trial.
It would have been fun to think that we're seeing the real story which has been perverted by re-telling and propaganda, but this is too different. Such a telling of the true story would have to end in tragedy (the humans did win, ultimately) and this film must be uplifting for some stupid reason.
Cruising
Saw Cruising, a film about a cop who goes undercover as a Gay to catch a gay serial killer who was active in the NYC BDSM scene. It's apparently semi-based on a true story and was massively protested at the time it was filmed. In retrospect however, I'm glad it exists. I don't think it's harmful now.
Back in 1980 when this film was made there were precious few gay characters at all. The popular conception of gays was based on Psycho and other such horror films. Gay characters were mostly serial killers, psychopaths and weirdos, pitiable at best and homicidal at worst. This film portrays yet another murderous gay stopped by a virtuous straight, so I understand why it was protested. In the light of modern times however, it also shows the vulnerability of members of a despised lower class. The cops can barely bring themselves to care about the murdered gays who are all attractive, kindly-seeming dudes. It's a frustrating portrait of selective law enforcement (which continues to this day, btw.)
Gay Business aside, the film is a gaillo-style mystery, following sexy murders and using psychobabble to stand in for motives. It unfolds clue by clue, has frustrating chase sequences and some fairly hokey ambiguity about the main character near the end (has he caught the gay??) It's interesting as a time capsule. If it weren't for its reputation and subject, I probably never would have seen it. It's not a bad film, but not a great film either.
Back in 1980 when this film was made there were precious few gay characters at all. The popular conception of gays was based on Psycho and other such horror films. Gay characters were mostly serial killers, psychopaths and weirdos, pitiable at best and homicidal at worst. This film portrays yet another murderous gay stopped by a virtuous straight, so I understand why it was protested. In the light of modern times however, it also shows the vulnerability of members of a despised lower class. The cops can barely bring themselves to care about the murdered gays who are all attractive, kindly-seeming dudes. It's a frustrating portrait of selective law enforcement (which continues to this day, btw.)
Gay Business aside, the film is a gaillo-style mystery, following sexy murders and using psychobabble to stand in for motives. It unfolds clue by clue, has frustrating chase sequences and some fairly hokey ambiguity about the main character near the end (has he caught the gay??) It's interesting as a time capsule. If it weren't for its reputation and subject, I probably never would have seen it. It's not a bad film, but not a great film either.
Dressed to Kill
Saw Dressed to Kill, a Brian De Palma film about a serial killer who is hunting this high-class prostitute who is the only witness to live. It's a somewhat sleazy film in the style of the Italian giallo films - lots of leggy murder victims and the terminology of psychology randomly bandied about to serve as motivation. It's pretty compelling stuff, but if you know anything about psychology or how human beings behave, just be sure to check your brain at the door.
There's a sequence here a boy genius sets up a camera to film people coming out of a building throughout the day. Apparently a young De Palma actually did this at the request of his mom who thought his dad was cheating on her. I feel this anecdote kind of explains De Palma's comfort with some low-level sleaze and porn-like assumption that everyone is down for a good time and probably up to no good. In this film, indeed, a woman is seduced via an elaborate game of hide-and-seek in an art museum. It's sort of sexy but also sort of stilted. I kept thinking of porn and I wasn't sure why.
Anyway, the film is good fun. It's a little slow at parts, like a Colombo episode or something: very deliberately paced and focused on resolving the mystery. In this way it's kind of dated, but it's also very stylish and cool in its 70s-ish way and delivers on the giallo promise of raving schizophrenics and mincing sex maniacs (!!) All in all a fun film, but a little long in the tooth.
There's a sequence here a boy genius sets up a camera to film people coming out of a building throughout the day. Apparently a young De Palma actually did this at the request of his mom who thought his dad was cheating on her. I feel this anecdote kind of explains De Palma's comfort with some low-level sleaze and porn-like assumption that everyone is down for a good time and probably up to no good. In this film, indeed, a woman is seduced via an elaborate game of hide-and-seek in an art museum. It's sort of sexy but also sort of stilted. I kept thinking of porn and I wasn't sure why.
Anyway, the film is good fun. It's a little slow at parts, like a Colombo episode or something: very deliberately paced and focused on resolving the mystery. In this way it's kind of dated, but it's also very stylish and cool in its 70s-ish way and delivers on the giallo promise of raving schizophrenics and mincing sex maniacs (!!) All in all a fun film, but a little long in the tooth.
The Good Dinosaur
Saw The Good Dinosaur, a forgotten Pixar film, apparently plagued with writing and casting problems and then finally released only to be completely overshadowed by the juggernaut that was Inside Out. This film was a decent, low-key, coming of age film set in a dinosaur-universe where the comet never hit and dinosaurs became a dominant form of life. The main dinosaur is this cowardly little brontosaurus (or something) who disappoints his family and seems to be good for nothing. He teams up with a dog-like human child to become something and to overcome his timidity.
The premise of the film is slightly troubling to me, a timid man whose alternative lifestyle definitely puts him in danger of disappointing some theoretical family (not mine however. My family is chill 🙂) The film lets him grow at his own pace however and is kinder than I was expecting. It's episodic, following the main dino-lad as he travels through (I guess) Colorado, meeting rancher T-Rexes and sinister hippy pterodactyls.
I was curious why this film was so ignored and the contemporary reviews I read singled out the setting as being particularly bewildering/unbelievable. They wondered how dinosaurs could talk or become farmers (as the main character's family are.) This strikes me as a really dumb thing to get hung up on. I feel like they took the opening fig-leaf about the comet missing in this universe as licence to go full Neil deGrasse Tyson on the concept. This isn't a documentary though, yeesh. Lighten up!
Anyway, the film is fairly sweet and touching. A bit too intense I think for kids, and maybe too slight for teenagers, but enjoyable as a pretty reassurance that you can take your own time. Maybe good for arrested development types?
The premise of the film is slightly troubling to me, a timid man whose alternative lifestyle definitely puts him in danger of disappointing some theoretical family (not mine however. My family is chill 🙂) The film lets him grow at his own pace however and is kinder than I was expecting. It's episodic, following the main dino-lad as he travels through (I guess) Colorado, meeting rancher T-Rexes and sinister hippy pterodactyls.
I was curious why this film was so ignored and the contemporary reviews I read singled out the setting as being particularly bewildering/unbelievable. They wondered how dinosaurs could talk or become farmers (as the main character's family are.) This strikes me as a really dumb thing to get hung up on. I feel like they took the opening fig-leaf about the comet missing in this universe as licence to go full Neil deGrasse Tyson on the concept. This isn't a documentary though, yeesh. Lighten up!
Anyway, the film is fairly sweet and touching. A bit too intense I think for kids, and maybe too slight for teenagers, but enjoyable as a pretty reassurance that you can take your own time. Maybe good for arrested development types?
Mad Max: Fury Road
Saw Mad Max: Fury Road. It was amazing. I know I'm late to this party, but it was so amazing. The whole thing is packed with spectacular, over-the-top excess. The villain, for example, drives a Cadillac welded to the top of another Cadillac. There's one time where a fleet of muscle cars are driving through the desert headed by a blind man bouncing around on bungee cords, playing heavy metal on a guitar which is also a flamethrower!!! Just amazing, amazing, silly excess. Apparently, and to add to the craziness of this all, all of the cars were actually constructed and worked in the film.
I'm not even a fan of action movies usually, but I just loved this. The film is not a typical action film in many respects. Usually with action movies the main character is this damage-proof meathead who just snarls his way through the film. The character is typically stoic and emotionless which is apparently how Men are. Here, Max has his share of stoicism, but also suffers from PTSD and flashbacks. The women around him are far more capable and even have a viable plan for surviving out in the doomed world of the Mad Max series.
This film well-deserves its reputation as a high-octane, inclusive, fun film. I just loved it!
I'm not even a fan of action movies usually, but I just loved this. The film is not a typical action film in many respects. Usually with action movies the main character is this damage-proof meathead who just snarls his way through the film. The character is typically stoic and emotionless which is apparently how Men are. Here, Max has his share of stoicism, but also suffers from PTSD and flashbacks. The women around him are far more capable and even have a viable plan for surviving out in the doomed world of the Mad Max series.
This film well-deserves its reputation as a high-octane, inclusive, fun film. I just loved it!
Sweeney Todd
Saw Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, a Tim Burton SPOOK-tacular about a barber whose life was destroyed and who is returning to Victorian London to wreck his terrible revenge on those responsible and on people in general. It's very grim and morbid but sort of fun in a self-serious, guys wearing eyeliner kind of way.
I went into this expecting morbidity and grimness and was completely satisfied. I was surprised somewhat by his partner in crime being sort of hesitant and doubtful about Sweeny's murder plans. I expected gleeful murder, but the murder is more self-destructive on Sweeny's part and kind of ... hesitantly enabling on the part of Mrs Lovett (the partner in crime.) Similarly, I enjoyed how violence just solved everything. Murder is a messy business and people keep track of each other well enough that this all has to end in disaster, but Sweeny makes a compelling argument for just doubling down on the murder.
Anyway, the film rises to a great climax that's very gothy and morbid. I'm surprised this film wasn't claymated by Studio Laika. It's very much the sort of film I would have enjoyed in high school. Now, it's like hanging out with an old friend. It's not surprising but not unpleasant either. Familiar.
I went into this expecting morbidity and grimness and was completely satisfied. I was surprised somewhat by his partner in crime being sort of hesitant and doubtful about Sweeny's murder plans. I expected gleeful murder, but the murder is more self-destructive on Sweeny's part and kind of ... hesitantly enabling on the part of Mrs Lovett (the partner in crime.) Similarly, I enjoyed how violence just solved everything. Murder is a messy business and people keep track of each other well enough that this all has to end in disaster, but Sweeny makes a compelling argument for just doubling down on the murder.
Anyway, the film rises to a great climax that's very gothy and morbid. I'm surprised this film wasn't claymated by Studio Laika. It's very much the sort of film I would have enjoyed in high school. Now, it's like hanging out with an old friend. It's not surprising but not unpleasant either. Familiar.
Oz the Great and Powerful
Saw Oz the Great and Powerful, a Disney film about how the great Wizard of Oz came to be the Wizard. It stars this guy who is a huckster of some kind, smilingly seducing women with cheap music boxes and sentimental stories about his grandparents. After gleefully philandering and cheating his way through circus-life, he winds up in Oz where he uses his rapscallionery to save the day (uh... spoiler alert I guess.)
The film's main reason to exist is as a visual-conveying mechanism. The film was shot in 3d and there's scenes of glorious bell-flowers swaying in your face. The visuals are pretty great, but they have this strange, video-game quality to them. Like, in the bell-flower scene, there's nothing behind the flowers. Maybe it's different in 3d, but in 3d, it feels like I'm seeing the out of bounds map in a game, all foggy and flat. The film generally feels that way: lush in the center of the image, but spare around the edges.
Anyway, the plot is there too: there's some business about the witches vying for power and talismans of power and so forth. Like the Oz books, they're mostly world-building for the sake of world-building. They don't pedantically explain everything at least, but then I continue to not care very much who the reigning Wizard might be.
The film cam out in 2013 and feels very different post-2016. The impish conman character is more fun in the abstract, where you can imagine yourself doing those things. It's less fun to see him seize power in a fictional country when there's currently a much-less-fun lying conman running the country in actual real life. I was very annoyed at the main character throughout the film but ignored him for the sake of the scenery which was also a little disappointing.
All in all a disappointing movie for me. I suspect kids would love it since it's colorful and straightforward, but it wasn't as fun as I was hoping, wasn't as creative. It may be a victim of my high expectations, but I didn't like it.
The film's main reason to exist is as a visual-conveying mechanism. The film was shot in 3d and there's scenes of glorious bell-flowers swaying in your face. The visuals are pretty great, but they have this strange, video-game quality to them. Like, in the bell-flower scene, there's nothing behind the flowers. Maybe it's different in 3d, but in 3d, it feels like I'm seeing the out of bounds map in a game, all foggy and flat. The film generally feels that way: lush in the center of the image, but spare around the edges.
Anyway, the plot is there too: there's some business about the witches vying for power and talismans of power and so forth. Like the Oz books, they're mostly world-building for the sake of world-building. They don't pedantically explain everything at least, but then I continue to not care very much who the reigning Wizard might be.
The film cam out in 2013 and feels very different post-2016. The impish conman character is more fun in the abstract, where you can imagine yourself doing those things. It's less fun to see him seize power in a fictional country when there's currently a much-less-fun lying conman running the country in actual real life. I was very annoyed at the main character throughout the film but ignored him for the sake of the scenery which was also a little disappointing.
All in all a disappointing movie for me. I suspect kids would love it since it's colorful and straightforward, but it wasn't as fun as I was hoping, wasn't as creative. It may be a victim of my high expectations, but I didn't like it.
Under the Skin
Saw Under the Skin, another film involving Scarlett Johansson, this time as a mysterious woman driving around in a van in Scotland. She is clearly a hunter of some kind. She picks up men and gives them rides and quizzes them about where they live, if they have family who live nearby, if they have friends who are expecting them or who will notice if they go missing. The film was apparently improvised and these guys are not actors. Some of them seem a little skeezed out, but most are just guilelessly answering her questions and enjoying the attention.
The film is not very forthcoming with explanations, but she's clearly up to no good with her man-hunting and we get weird, impressionistic scenes of her walking in darkness while men sink into inky black at her feet. Eventually, she too begins to wonder what she's doing and why. The film has some explanations at the end that I won't spoil, but it finishes with grand, surreal imagery ala Annihilation or Ex Machina. Serene and terrible otherness shining forth into mundane reality.
The film was fairly upsetting. It's not, like, can't-bear-to-look levels of upsetting or anything, but the sight of this woman is uncomfortable as she hunts men and is hunted by men in turn, dangling herself like a worm on a hook on lonely roadways or seashores or in dance clubs. She seems increasingly confused and alarmed herself and while she seems to be some sort of monster, she is too pretty and confused by her own actions to lose my sympathy. Her flat affect hides cruelty and violence but also a childlike incomprehension. It gets uncomfortable to watch after a while.
The film is interesting. It's fairly slow, doling out surreal sequences between long stretches of man-hunting, but is eerie and disquieting. The film is shot in a digital camera, lofi kind of way, using external shots and found sets. Usually this sort of aesthetic indicates a cute little film about growing up or romance or something, and it's refreshing to see it used to evoke horror and strangeness. An eerie film.
The film is not very forthcoming with explanations, but she's clearly up to no good with her man-hunting and we get weird, impressionistic scenes of her walking in darkness while men sink into inky black at her feet. Eventually, she too begins to wonder what she's doing and why. The film has some explanations at the end that I won't spoil, but it finishes with grand, surreal imagery ala Annihilation or Ex Machina. Serene and terrible otherness shining forth into mundane reality.
The film was fairly upsetting. It's not, like, can't-bear-to-look levels of upsetting or anything, but the sight of this woman is uncomfortable as she hunts men and is hunted by men in turn, dangling herself like a worm on a hook on lonely roadways or seashores or in dance clubs. She seems increasingly confused and alarmed herself and while she seems to be some sort of monster, she is too pretty and confused by her own actions to lose my sympathy. Her flat affect hides cruelty and violence but also a childlike incomprehension. It gets uncomfortable to watch after a while.
The film is interesting. It's fairly slow, doling out surreal sequences between long stretches of man-hunting, but is eerie and disquieting. The film is shot in a digital camera, lofi kind of way, using external shots and found sets. Usually this sort of aesthetic indicates a cute little film about growing up or romance or something, and it's refreshing to see it used to evoke horror and strangeness. An eerie film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)