Movies aren't defined by their soundtracks. The music should always work to enhance the overall feel of the film. The closest I think a movie can come to defying this concept would be in the case of "Pirate Radio." This movie has what I think to be the best soundtrack I may have ever experienced. The sounds of The Kinks, The Who, John Fred and His Playboy Band, Jimi Hendrix, The Turtles...if you don't recognize any of those artists, then this movie is probably not for you.
In the 1960's, one of my favorite decades, the British government worked to ban rock & roll from the radio and possibly throughout the country. The music, they believe, is sinful and encourages people to act immorally. As we know today, that isn't true. The music helped to define a generation and laid the foundation for some of the greatest musicians of all time, including The Beatles (the DVD and poster covers mimic their White Album quite excellently). We hear what they play, listen to the characters discuss their feelings about it, and what the movie works to show us is a group of rebellious 'pirates' who work to broadcast this music 24/7. They would die for the privilege to show people this brilliant 'new' music. Actually, they would think dying for it would be a privilege.
The guys and girl on the boat live out on sea where they broadcast their music. The residents aboard include The Count (Philip Seymour Hoffman, giving one of his trademark brilliant performances), Angus Nutsford (Rhys Darby, a walking punchline), Doctor Dave (Nick Frost, Simon Pegg's sidekick in "Shaun of the Dead" and "Hot Fuzz"), Midnight Mark (Tom Wisdom), Quentin (Bill Nighy, giving amazing acting and nailing every single joke), and later Gavin Canavagh (Rhys Ifans, wonderful), and a whole bunch of others. You may or may not remember every single character later (I sure as hell can't), but I wouldn't call that one of the film's weaknesses. Some others do, but it seems to be the nature of the music to be surrounded by very different, eccentric people.
That's really about it. The movie is hilarious, fun, and truly rocks. The ending is a little muddled, but the final note is one that leaves you feeling great. I can't really imagine a better way to spend your time than to leave a movie with the feeling I left after seeing "Pirate Radio."
Rated R for language, and some sexual content including brief nudity.
Buy it here.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Moulin Rouge! **** out of ****
The first time I watched this, I wasn't in the right frame of mind. The thing I wished I understood was that absolutely nothing in this movie is original by any means- the way in which everything is presented gives it its originality. It reminded me of those pictures that are really a couple hundred individual pictures mashed together to create a giant greater work. When looking at it from a distance, you can't see what is really special about it. You have to look deeply as this is a very deep film as well as the best definition of a "Post-Modern Musical," although no one really seems to know what the hell a "Post-Modern Musical" really is.
This is a hybrid of three brilliant operas filled with only one original song, the touching "Come What May." The rest have been done earlier (ranging from "Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend" to "Like a Virgin"). However, in order to understand the film, you must understand the operas upon which it is based. The first is "La Vie de la Boheme," the opera upon which the musical "Rent" was based. It handles the storyline of a writer falling for a terminally ill woman as well as a couple other minor motifs. "La Traviata" shows us the details of the most important aspect of the movie, love. Love is shown as both an incredibly real feeling and relationship amongst two people but also as naive and childish. Finally, the story of Orpheus is presented (the opera is "Orpheus in the Underworld"). In mythology, Orpheus' wife, Persephone, was kidnapped by Hades and taken into the underworld where Orpheus journeys to rescue her. In the myth, Persephone falls for Hades, leaving Orpheus powerless.
I won't reveal how exactly these three shows merge, but what I can say is that despite the fact that I was convinced I was on an acid trip during the beginning, the characters and situations within the script were very real and very true. I'm not suggesting that some of the movements are possible, I'm simply stating that the feelings they have for one another, the underlying circumstances, and above all, the characterizations were unique and extraordinary, especially in what is thought of as a 'love story.' Sure, there is love in the plotline (according to www.imdb.com, the word 'love' and its derivatives occur 143 times throughout the movie), but what elevates it is the greater concept present.
Opening and closing with the gorgeous 'Nature Boy,' we are taken into a very daring vision of what entertainment can be. It is risky because the song is a classic, and if it's performed or used badly, the desecration will not be misremembered. What this perfect movie-musical shows us is that perhaps nothing is original, but what makes it original and non-cliche is the execution. It is done with such style, grace, and brilliance that when I walked away from it, I had to remember that I was back in my world, not theirs. It is absorbing, goofy, and filled with lessons on competent writing and direction.
The performances are truly remarkable. Ewan McGregor shows us the Nature Boy named Christian as many things but never overly simple. Don't get me wrong- there is a simplicity in his character, but that adds to his charm. This is probably the only time that I believe that a main actor not digging too deeply is a success. McGregor handles the role perfectly.
Nicole Kidman is an actress I have always admired, but what she shows here is something I haven't seen before and probably will never see again because it is so unique. I've watched her perform in comedies, dramas, dramadies, thrillers, horror movies, children's films, bit parts, and through most other means, but no role she's performed is as unique as her Satine. She has wonderful singing chops I never could have imagined, and wherever the director goes, she's there. Normally, this kind of performance would call for a de-glam, but that was not necessary for this film. What makes everything work is her sheer commitment to the project.
I have two favorite parts of the movie. The performance of 'Spectacular Spectacular' was filled with such a goofy sense of humor and took a very familiar melody and placed it in a new context (Surprise! That's what the movie's all about!). However, nothing beats, in my opinion, the suspense, beauty, tragedy, drama, and musicality of their version of 'Roxanne' by The Police. That scene is one for the musical time capsule. I can't even describe the scene to do it justice.
Other accomplishments include taking bad songs and making them great. A fine example of this is the torturous 'I Will Always Love You' from the multiple Razzie-nominated movie, "The Bodyguard." In Whitney Houston's version, she starts at the climax and continues for around four minutes, making it unbearable. In "Moulin Rouge!", it is divided into a duet between Christian and Satine, given room to build, and shown in a way that makes perfect sense.
Above all, this movie is a love-it or hate-it experience, but the literary value, vision, and performances kept everything working for me. It's easy to feel mauled by what's happening onscreen, and this movie is simply not for everyone. It certainly transports you into another world, but whether or not you want to take the journey is up to you. If the first twenty or so minutes don't appeal to you, I advise you to just stick it out. The finale has serious bite.
Rated PG-13 for sexual content.
Buy it here.
This is a hybrid of three brilliant operas filled with only one original song, the touching "Come What May." The rest have been done earlier (ranging from "Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend" to "Like a Virgin"). However, in order to understand the film, you must understand the operas upon which it is based. The first is "La Vie de la Boheme," the opera upon which the musical "Rent" was based. It handles the storyline of a writer falling for a terminally ill woman as well as a couple other minor motifs. "La Traviata" shows us the details of the most important aspect of the movie, love. Love is shown as both an incredibly real feeling and relationship amongst two people but also as naive and childish. Finally, the story of Orpheus is presented (the opera is "Orpheus in the Underworld"). In mythology, Orpheus' wife, Persephone, was kidnapped by Hades and taken into the underworld where Orpheus journeys to rescue her. In the myth, Persephone falls for Hades, leaving Orpheus powerless.
I won't reveal how exactly these three shows merge, but what I can say is that despite the fact that I was convinced I was on an acid trip during the beginning, the characters and situations within the script were very real and very true. I'm not suggesting that some of the movements are possible, I'm simply stating that the feelings they have for one another, the underlying circumstances, and above all, the characterizations were unique and extraordinary, especially in what is thought of as a 'love story.' Sure, there is love in the plotline (according to www.imdb.com, the word 'love' and its derivatives occur 143 times throughout the movie), but what elevates it is the greater concept present.
Opening and closing with the gorgeous 'Nature Boy,' we are taken into a very daring vision of what entertainment can be. It is risky because the song is a classic, and if it's performed or used badly, the desecration will not be misremembered. What this perfect movie-musical shows us is that perhaps nothing is original, but what makes it original and non-cliche is the execution. It is done with such style, grace, and brilliance that when I walked away from it, I had to remember that I was back in my world, not theirs. It is absorbing, goofy, and filled with lessons on competent writing and direction.
The performances are truly remarkable. Ewan McGregor shows us the Nature Boy named Christian as many things but never overly simple. Don't get me wrong- there is a simplicity in his character, but that adds to his charm. This is probably the only time that I believe that a main actor not digging too deeply is a success. McGregor handles the role perfectly.
Nicole Kidman is an actress I have always admired, but what she shows here is something I haven't seen before and probably will never see again because it is so unique. I've watched her perform in comedies, dramas, dramadies, thrillers, horror movies, children's films, bit parts, and through most other means, but no role she's performed is as unique as her Satine. She has wonderful singing chops I never could have imagined, and wherever the director goes, she's there. Normally, this kind of performance would call for a de-glam, but that was not necessary for this film. What makes everything work is her sheer commitment to the project.
I have two favorite parts of the movie. The performance of 'Spectacular Spectacular' was filled with such a goofy sense of humor and took a very familiar melody and placed it in a new context (Surprise! That's what the movie's all about!). However, nothing beats, in my opinion, the suspense, beauty, tragedy, drama, and musicality of their version of 'Roxanne' by The Police. That scene is one for the musical time capsule. I can't even describe the scene to do it justice.
Other accomplishments include taking bad songs and making them great. A fine example of this is the torturous 'I Will Always Love You' from the multiple Razzie-nominated movie, "The Bodyguard." In Whitney Houston's version, she starts at the climax and continues for around four minutes, making it unbearable. In "Moulin Rouge!", it is divided into a duet between Christian and Satine, given room to build, and shown in a way that makes perfect sense.
Above all, this movie is a love-it or hate-it experience, but the literary value, vision, and performances kept everything working for me. It's easy to feel mauled by what's happening onscreen, and this movie is simply not for everyone. It certainly transports you into another world, but whether or not you want to take the journey is up to you. If the first twenty or so minutes don't appeal to you, I advise you to just stick it out. The finale has serious bite.
Rated PG-13 for sexual content.
Buy it here.
A Mighty Heart - ***+ out of ****
While I was watching this movie, I began to doubt my skills to write an effective review of it. I spent around a half an hour just searching for the words to describe what I had seen, but the conclusion I have come to is that what makes this film a heavy step above the norm is the absolute power of Angelina Jolie's acting skill. She never lets the makeup, pregnant belly, or the French accent do the work for her, what she produces is a very difficult embodiment of Mariane Pearl. I long forgot that I was watching a superstar act in an Oscar-worthy role. I mean, let's just admit it; when we see a movie where a megastar with several blockbusters and "Sexiest of the Year" honors under their belt is expected to perform in a role to get awards attention, it usually feels like you're watching a kid wear a suit. This is certainly not the case in "A Mighty Heart," as this performance is one that should not have been overlooked.
Before I distract myself, I'll explain the story. In Pakistan in January of 2002, journalist couple Marianne and Daniel Pearl (Dan Futterman with tremendous screen presence) are visiting on business. Daniel leaves one afternoon to interview Asra Nomani but doesn't return home. If you watched the news during that time, you are aware of his fate. Because he is Jewish and the couple are staying with an Indian woman named Asra (Archie Panjabi, a major find), they believe him to be evil. He is thought of by the abductors to be a CIA spy posing as a journalist because of some communication with the US Government (although he is American), and unfortunately, they are never convinced. The search continues for ten days until it is confirmed that he was murdered by the group.
I would never give away the ending of a movie, but this is an exception. The filmmakers must assume that those attending the film know of Daniel's demise. This doesn't ruin the storytelling but instead enhances it as the search for information continues. It is a tragedy instead of a sob story because of the extreme efforts undertaken by the FBI, Pakistani police, and those living in the house, including Marianne and Asra. They keep a large dry-erase board which is used to show the connections amongst those that fit within the chain.
This will be a very short review for me because most of what I would end up doing is spitting out names and affiliations, and I feel that that would be wasted time. The movie explains all that. The film was Brad Pitt's idea because of the interviews with Mariane broadcast during the time. His production company, PLAN B, helped to make this film, but the screenplay by John Orloff (whose only previous writing credit was "Band of Brothers," two episodes) is based upon Mariane's memoir, 'A Mighty Heart: The Brave Life & Death of my Husband Danny Pearl.' I have not read the memoirs, but I would imagine that the script stayed close to the material as nothing fictional or fantastical seemed to be present. The direction by Michael Winterbottom (British director whose only credit you would most likely recognize is "Tristam Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story") gives the movie a neo-documentary feel, showing us scenes in the beginning that were difficult to decipher whether they were archive footage or re-shot for the film.
Everything about this film works except for a slight narrative lull in the middle. I feel like a hypocrite by praising the realism yet mentioning a somewhat boring part of the story, like they should enhance it for dramatic gain. Every bit of information they give is necessary, and it's handled in such a great manner, but I have to remember one of the main rules of art; "Never, ever bore your audience." For the vast majority of the movie, however, it is suspenseful, fascinating, and filled with subtle drama. Mariane's suffering is never shoved in our faces (as one worker stated after her first interview, "you'd never know it that her husband's been missing for six days."), and the manner in which Angelina Jolie handles this material is brilliant. I believed every line, every second. She already has one Oscar for "Girl, Interrupted" and was nominated later for "Changeling," but this performance should have been more widely recognized. She deserves even more praise.
Rated R for language.
Buy it here.
Before I distract myself, I'll explain the story. In Pakistan in January of 2002, journalist couple Marianne and Daniel Pearl (Dan Futterman with tremendous screen presence) are visiting on business. Daniel leaves one afternoon to interview Asra Nomani but doesn't return home. If you watched the news during that time, you are aware of his fate. Because he is Jewish and the couple are staying with an Indian woman named Asra (Archie Panjabi, a major find), they believe him to be evil. He is thought of by the abductors to be a CIA spy posing as a journalist because of some communication with the US Government (although he is American), and unfortunately, they are never convinced. The search continues for ten days until it is confirmed that he was murdered by the group.
I would never give away the ending of a movie, but this is an exception. The filmmakers must assume that those attending the film know of Daniel's demise. This doesn't ruin the storytelling but instead enhances it as the search for information continues. It is a tragedy instead of a sob story because of the extreme efforts undertaken by the FBI, Pakistani police, and those living in the house, including Marianne and Asra. They keep a large dry-erase board which is used to show the connections amongst those that fit within the chain.
This will be a very short review for me because most of what I would end up doing is spitting out names and affiliations, and I feel that that would be wasted time. The movie explains all that. The film was Brad Pitt's idea because of the interviews with Mariane broadcast during the time. His production company, PLAN B, helped to make this film, but the screenplay by John Orloff (whose only previous writing credit was "Band of Brothers," two episodes) is based upon Mariane's memoir, 'A Mighty Heart: The Brave Life & Death of my Husband Danny Pearl.' I have not read the memoirs, but I would imagine that the script stayed close to the material as nothing fictional or fantastical seemed to be present. The direction by Michael Winterbottom (British director whose only credit you would most likely recognize is "Tristam Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story") gives the movie a neo-documentary feel, showing us scenes in the beginning that were difficult to decipher whether they were archive footage or re-shot for the film.
Everything about this film works except for a slight narrative lull in the middle. I feel like a hypocrite by praising the realism yet mentioning a somewhat boring part of the story, like they should enhance it for dramatic gain. Every bit of information they give is necessary, and it's handled in such a great manner, but I have to remember one of the main rules of art; "Never, ever bore your audience." For the vast majority of the movie, however, it is suspenseful, fascinating, and filled with subtle drama. Mariane's suffering is never shoved in our faces (as one worker stated after her first interview, "you'd never know it that her husband's been missing for six days."), and the manner in which Angelina Jolie handles this material is brilliant. I believed every line, every second. She already has one Oscar for "Girl, Interrupted" and was nominated later for "Changeling," but this performance should have been more widely recognized. She deserves even more praise.
Rated R for language.
Buy it here.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
The Messenger - **** out of ****
"The Messenger" is a film that could have been a really obnoxious tearjerker, but instead we have a very human story with absorbing performances. All of this is highlighted by writer/director Oren Moverman (this is first directorial feature but fifth screenplay by the Israili Army veteran) and co-writer Alessando Camon (second writing credit).
The movie shows Staff Sargent Will Montgomery (Ben Foster in his breakthrough role) who has only three months left in his time in the Army. He receives word that his new assignment will entail working with Captain Tony Stone (Woody Harrelson, rightfully Oscar-nominated here) to alert the Next of Kin that their child, spouse, or sibling was killed in the war. Montgomery never likes this job, but what he discovers he is doing is a vital service of the utmost respect, although the grief-stricken do not always initially see it this way. "There are no satisfied customers," Stone tells Montgomery.
The Staff Sargent is called "a goddamned hero," so since he only has three months left and is experiencing injuries in his leg and eye (as well as the possibility of PTSD), the Army decides to give him an assignment where he won't be killed. They could have put him behind a desk, but he can still walk. He doesn't exactly have social skills any more (not in the way that you see in oh-so-many romantic comedies), and you can see this with the way he handles his first notifications. No, he doesn't say anything damaging or really screw up, but by the expression on his face and several subtle actions you see that he is wounded in more ways than one.
Montgomery has a girl, but if Will had a facebook account (or a computer for that matter), their relationship status would read "It's Complicated with...". Stone has been married three times, twice to the same woman, and all he wants in life is to get laid. Montgomery isn't quite looking for the opposite, but in this time in his life, he could use a friend. No, it's not as cliche or eye-rolling as it sounds. It's never actually stated that he needs a friend, but he never has anyone, male or female, over to his place.
This begins to change when he must notify Olivia Pitterson (Samantha Montgomery, absolutely perfect) of the death of her husband. She has a very unusual reaction to the news. Stone has his own take on what caused the reaction, but Montgomery isn't sold. He inadvertently steps into her life, breaking a rule of the messengers (do not fraternize with the NoK, or Next of Kin). What happens isn't exactly what you'd expect- the movie's too good for that. Instead, we are given something of a gift that is only subtly heartbreaking but enormously hopeful.
Things aren't resolved, catharsis isn't exploited, and we aren't left with a pretty little package, but I couldn't have been more satisfied. This isn't a movie about a war but about the people in it. It doesn't have an Aesop message tied to it, but there is much to learn from this occasionally funny and yet beautifully subdued film.
Rated R for language and some sexual content/nudity.
Buy it here.
The movie shows Staff Sargent Will Montgomery (Ben Foster in his breakthrough role) who has only three months left in his time in the Army. He receives word that his new assignment will entail working with Captain Tony Stone (Woody Harrelson, rightfully Oscar-nominated here) to alert the Next of Kin that their child, spouse, or sibling was killed in the war. Montgomery never likes this job, but what he discovers he is doing is a vital service of the utmost respect, although the grief-stricken do not always initially see it this way. "There are no satisfied customers," Stone tells Montgomery.
The Staff Sargent is called "a goddamned hero," so since he only has three months left and is experiencing injuries in his leg and eye (as well as the possibility of PTSD), the Army decides to give him an assignment where he won't be killed. They could have put him behind a desk, but he can still walk. He doesn't exactly have social skills any more (not in the way that you see in oh-so-many romantic comedies), and you can see this with the way he handles his first notifications. No, he doesn't say anything damaging or really screw up, but by the expression on his face and several subtle actions you see that he is wounded in more ways than one.
Montgomery has a girl, but if Will had a facebook account (or a computer for that matter), their relationship status would read "It's Complicated with...". Stone has been married three times, twice to the same woman, and all he wants in life is to get laid. Montgomery isn't quite looking for the opposite, but in this time in his life, he could use a friend. No, it's not as cliche or eye-rolling as it sounds. It's never actually stated that he needs a friend, but he never has anyone, male or female, over to his place.
This begins to change when he must notify Olivia Pitterson (Samantha Montgomery, absolutely perfect) of the death of her husband. She has a very unusual reaction to the news. Stone has his own take on what caused the reaction, but Montgomery isn't sold. He inadvertently steps into her life, breaking a rule of the messengers (do not fraternize with the NoK, or Next of Kin). What happens isn't exactly what you'd expect- the movie's too good for that. Instead, we are given something of a gift that is only subtly heartbreaking but enormously hopeful.
Things aren't resolved, catharsis isn't exploited, and we aren't left with a pretty little package, but I couldn't have been more satisfied. This isn't a movie about a war but about the people in it. It doesn't have an Aesop message tied to it, but there is much to learn from this occasionally funny and yet beautifully subdued film.
Rated R for language and some sexual content/nudity.
Buy it here.
Monday, June 7, 2010
A Single Man - *** out of ****
"A Single Man" is a very smartly made, risky little film loosely based on the novel of the same name by Christopher Isherwood. The movie is written, directed, and produced by Tom Ford, a former Gucci fashion designer who helped to turn around the company's financial problems. Because the author of the book died in 1986, his original vision is not present, but that is by no means a flaw. Ford has a unique voice in the storytelling, juxtaposing beautiful imagery with excellent acting. What the movie was missing, I can't quite put my finger on, but if you're in the mood for something that isn't exactly mainstream, this may be a ticket worth buying.
Colin Firth is George, a depressed English professor who is still having nightmares from his lover's death, Jim (Matthew Goode from "Match Point," "Watchmen," and "Leap Year"). George is planning to kill himself, but the method he uses is very bizarre yet necessary for the storytelling. He teaches his English course, but instead of discussing the novel of which he assigned, he talks about fear. Fear of nuclear disaster, fear from politicians, fear of just living. A senior named Kenny (Nicholas Holt, working wonders) talks with him after class about how that day was unique. Kenny is obviously hitting on him, wanting to give him some pot to smoke, but George is somewhat reluctant, as he doesn't want to betray Jim, even though he died eight months ago.
George's only friend is the alcoholic Charley (Julianne Moore, absolutely sensational), who still clings to their experimental days in the past. George never exactly tells her about his homosexuality as his defense, but instead it becomes a human relation between the two. She spends her day getting ready to meet him with his bottle of gin, and we flash back to the rainy night when he was informed of Jim's death. The two actors have a certain chemistry that isn't sexual but can easily be mistaken for that. What they share is something much deeper, a friendship. Any more, I've come to realize that having great, loyal friends around is much better than a lover, and George seems to understand this as well. Charley doesn't.
Sure, with most stories, the plot is what keeps everything going, but what Tom Ford offers seems to be brush strokes of events as they fit into George's Friday. You can tell by the style of the movie that you aren't supposed to be absorbed in what's happening but rather how it's happening. The pacing is a little wacky as the movie has moments that border on thriller (certainly after watching the trailer you think that that's what you're in for), but there is no bomb underneath a coffee table in this movie. Instead, you're left to see the world as George sees it with vibrant colors accenting his past with dreary, muted earth tones shadowing the present.
Faces wax and wane in color, moments are slowed down, and there seems to always be an opera happening on the soundtrack. This is a movie that is designed which is certainly something audiences don't see every day. The style borders on over-direction, but what makes it a success is the quality of the performances. Given that this is a first-time writer/director/producer, there really is no way of knowing exactly what the final product will look like, but the entire cast and crew seem to be in the same film, always a good first step.
The literary themes overshadow the human interest part of George's decision to commit suicide, and that is a question that doesn't seem to have a steady answer. Why do people kill themselves? That is something that we cannot know as everyone that has is dead. It wasn't Tom Ford's intention to answer this question, but in feeling so detached from everything due to the style, we cannot get an effective glimpse into this difficult philosophical point. Maybe that's what I was missing here, an answer to an impossible question. Splitting hairs perhaps, I will say that the bottom line is that if you find deeper meaning in literature and want to be challenged, then by all means see "A Single Man."
Rated R for some disturbing images and nudity/sexual content.
Buy it here.
Colin Firth is George, a depressed English professor who is still having nightmares from his lover's death, Jim (Matthew Goode from "Match Point," "Watchmen," and "Leap Year"). George is planning to kill himself, but the method he uses is very bizarre yet necessary for the storytelling. He teaches his English course, but instead of discussing the novel of which he assigned, he talks about fear. Fear of nuclear disaster, fear from politicians, fear of just living. A senior named Kenny (Nicholas Holt, working wonders) talks with him after class about how that day was unique. Kenny is obviously hitting on him, wanting to give him some pot to smoke, but George is somewhat reluctant, as he doesn't want to betray Jim, even though he died eight months ago.
George's only friend is the alcoholic Charley (Julianne Moore, absolutely sensational), who still clings to their experimental days in the past. George never exactly tells her about his homosexuality as his defense, but instead it becomes a human relation between the two. She spends her day getting ready to meet him with his bottle of gin, and we flash back to the rainy night when he was informed of Jim's death. The two actors have a certain chemistry that isn't sexual but can easily be mistaken for that. What they share is something much deeper, a friendship. Any more, I've come to realize that having great, loyal friends around is much better than a lover, and George seems to understand this as well. Charley doesn't.
Sure, with most stories, the plot is what keeps everything going, but what Tom Ford offers seems to be brush strokes of events as they fit into George's Friday. You can tell by the style of the movie that you aren't supposed to be absorbed in what's happening but rather how it's happening. The pacing is a little wacky as the movie has moments that border on thriller (certainly after watching the trailer you think that that's what you're in for), but there is no bomb underneath a coffee table in this movie. Instead, you're left to see the world as George sees it with vibrant colors accenting his past with dreary, muted earth tones shadowing the present.
Faces wax and wane in color, moments are slowed down, and there seems to always be an opera happening on the soundtrack. This is a movie that is designed which is certainly something audiences don't see every day. The style borders on over-direction, but what makes it a success is the quality of the performances. Given that this is a first-time writer/director/producer, there really is no way of knowing exactly what the final product will look like, but the entire cast and crew seem to be in the same film, always a good first step.
The literary themes overshadow the human interest part of George's decision to commit suicide, and that is a question that doesn't seem to have a steady answer. Why do people kill themselves? That is something that we cannot know as everyone that has is dead. It wasn't Tom Ford's intention to answer this question, but in feeling so detached from everything due to the style, we cannot get an effective glimpse into this difficult philosophical point. Maybe that's what I was missing here, an answer to an impossible question. Splitting hairs perhaps, I will say that the bottom line is that if you find deeper meaning in literature and want to be challenged, then by all means see "A Single Man."
Rated R for some disturbing images and nudity/sexual content.
Buy it here.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Jennifer's Body (Unrated Version) - **+ out of ****
Megan Fox plays Jennifer, a hot high-school girl who has a secret; a crappy indie band took her after a local tragedy, and when she returns, she starts acting strange. She vomits some kind of black liquid, she seems to get increasingly unattractive during certain times, and boys start showing up dead. Her best friend, Needy (Amanda Seyfried, a rising star with a killer comedic edge) watches from the outside as tragic events unfold. We open with Needy in an insane asylum, kicking an orderly in the face for no good reason as she tells us what brought her there. If you saw a trailer, you know what happened, but in case you haven't, I won't spoil it. I wish I didn't know before I saw it, but alas, I did. This isn't really worth mentioning as a flaw within the movie (and it didn't have a bearing on my star rating), but it's hard to maintain a sense of mystery when we know all the secrets.
Perhaps Diablo Cody is her own worst enemy. She wrote the excellent, Oscar-winning "Juno," and when I heard about the concept behind "Jennifer's Body," I will admit that I was excited. Some of the best post-Oscar career choices go into projects like these. I mean, Philip Seymour Hoffman went from winning the gold man for "Capote" into being the villain of "Mission: Impossible 3," and now he's proven that he's one of the best actors on the planet. Martin Scorsese directed the documentary on the Rolling Stones, "Shine a Light." I could talk about other choices, but the point remains that almost always, one who wins an Oscar's hardest decision is the project after.
In this, the script really only has some sporadically amusing moments and no really interesting supporting characters. "Juno" won audiences and critics alike because where "Jennifer's Body" failed was where "Juno" soared. The characters were fascinating, and the story was told in a way that made it a very special film. In opening in the insane asylum, we immediately get a sense of dramatic irony which serves as a fault in this particular genre. We know that Needy will most likely survive the carnage that ensues, so any tension where we fear for her life just doesn't work.
What I had hoped for was a somewhat campy horror/comedy. There's some great humor when Jennifer is asked out by an emo-kid ("My dick is bigger than his"), and the general set-up seemed golden, but the final product felt unfinished and in need of some retooling. Mostly what it needs is a single genre focus. We can't be scared by overly bizarre circumstances, and when the movie is imitating it should be parodying. There was an amount of gold that could have made this something of a genre classic, but it felt like a "Juno" nightmare rather than its own move.
All my bitching aside, the movie wasn't all bad. I could go on about how the trailers (which are the fault of the advertising, not the writer/director) seemed to leave absolutely nothing to discover except the final five minutes, but you get my point by now. I simply feel that the movie's biggest weaknesses exist in the script. If you have an idea of what you're getting into and you want to take the trip, you'll probably enjoy yourself. That's really the bottom line here.
I wish I could say more about Megan Fox's skill here and what her potential is, but I've only watched her in this and "Transformers," both movies with bad scripts. If I didn't do some research before I wrote this review, I'd say that the role of Jennifer was written for her, but it wasn't. She shows a certain darkly comedic flair here, and she makes Jennifer a somewhat mysterious character (all spoilers aside). Perhaps if we didn't see her killing the boys as it happened, there would be a great whodunit present. Sure, you can show the gore from those scenes later in flashbacks when Jennifer tells Needy what the hell is going on, but it feels like walking the track before riding on it.
I wish I could say better things about this movie, but I really can't bring myself to. It might be easy to get dissuaded by the fact that Megan Fox was nominated for a Razzie for this, but I don't think it was deserved. If Diablo Cody was nominated (although I don't see any room between "Transformers 2," "Old Dogs," "Twilight: New Moon," "All About Steve," and "G.I. Joe"), I wouldn't fret. Maybe Megan has some deeply felt passion for film that could serve us well in the future. Since she's out of the "Transformers" franchise; I think now's the chance to see.
Note- Is it just me, or was Diablo Cody's dialogue really only suited for "Juno"? Instead of "Cheese and Fries!" it's now closer to "Cheese and Fuckin' Cock Fries!".
Theatrical Version was rated R for sexuality, bloody violence, language and some drug use.
But it here.
Perhaps Diablo Cody is her own worst enemy. She wrote the excellent, Oscar-winning "Juno," and when I heard about the concept behind "Jennifer's Body," I will admit that I was excited. Some of the best post-Oscar career choices go into projects like these. I mean, Philip Seymour Hoffman went from winning the gold man for "Capote" into being the villain of "Mission: Impossible 3," and now he's proven that he's one of the best actors on the planet. Martin Scorsese directed the documentary on the Rolling Stones, "Shine a Light." I could talk about other choices, but the point remains that almost always, one who wins an Oscar's hardest decision is the project after.
In this, the script really only has some sporadically amusing moments and no really interesting supporting characters. "Juno" won audiences and critics alike because where "Jennifer's Body" failed was where "Juno" soared. The characters were fascinating, and the story was told in a way that made it a very special film. In opening in the insane asylum, we immediately get a sense of dramatic irony which serves as a fault in this particular genre. We know that Needy will most likely survive the carnage that ensues, so any tension where we fear for her life just doesn't work.
What I had hoped for was a somewhat campy horror/comedy. There's some great humor when Jennifer is asked out by an emo-kid ("My dick is bigger than his"), and the general set-up seemed golden, but the final product felt unfinished and in need of some retooling. Mostly what it needs is a single genre focus. We can't be scared by overly bizarre circumstances, and when the movie is imitating it should be parodying. There was an amount of gold that could have made this something of a genre classic, but it felt like a "Juno" nightmare rather than its own move.
All my bitching aside, the movie wasn't all bad. I could go on about how the trailers (which are the fault of the advertising, not the writer/director) seemed to leave absolutely nothing to discover except the final five minutes, but you get my point by now. I simply feel that the movie's biggest weaknesses exist in the script. If you have an idea of what you're getting into and you want to take the trip, you'll probably enjoy yourself. That's really the bottom line here.
I wish I could say more about Megan Fox's skill here and what her potential is, but I've only watched her in this and "Transformers," both movies with bad scripts. If I didn't do some research before I wrote this review, I'd say that the role of Jennifer was written for her, but it wasn't. She shows a certain darkly comedic flair here, and she makes Jennifer a somewhat mysterious character (all spoilers aside). Perhaps if we didn't see her killing the boys as it happened, there would be a great whodunit present. Sure, you can show the gore from those scenes later in flashbacks when Jennifer tells Needy what the hell is going on, but it feels like walking the track before riding on it.
I wish I could say better things about this movie, but I really can't bring myself to. It might be easy to get dissuaded by the fact that Megan Fox was nominated for a Razzie for this, but I don't think it was deserved. If Diablo Cody was nominated (although I don't see any room between "Transformers 2," "Old Dogs," "Twilight: New Moon," "All About Steve," and "G.I. Joe"), I wouldn't fret. Maybe Megan has some deeply felt passion for film that could serve us well in the future. Since she's out of the "Transformers" franchise; I think now's the chance to see.
Note- Is it just me, or was Diablo Cody's dialogue really only suited for "Juno"? Instead of "Cheese and Fries!" it's now closer to "Cheese and Fuckin' Cock Fries!".
Theatrical Version was rated R for sexuality, bloody violence, language and some drug use.
But it here.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Das Laben Der Anderen ("The Lives of Others") - **** out of ****
"The Lives of Others" opens in that infamous year, 1984, with title cards informing us of the German Secret Police and their intentions. Their goal is simply put yet knowingly impossible; they want "to know everything." We are informed that they wiretap, phonetap, place some video surveillance, and have some agents listen in on those they deem suspicious. They are in their lives. The surveillance is down to an art- they know when someone is lying, when they're trying to hide information, and they use this knowledge to get what they want.
So far, it seems like the groundwork for a conventional conspiracy thriller, but where the film ultimately succeeds is where most like it go soft. There are no chases, no secret killings, and the one listening in is the main character, not the other way around. It's very easy to make a villain who serves his corrupt organization down to his last breath, but gradually, Hauptmann Gerd Wiesler (the late Ulrich Muehe, playing what many call the role of his life) becomes an unknowing force in their lives. He isn't a double agent, and he's never spoken to those he's monitoring, but despite his extensive training, he feels a strange connection. These people are human, and their beliefs have merit.
This could have been a dreadful film. I try not to think about the choices it didn't make, but what I'm consumed with is writer/director Forian Henckel von Donnersmarck (he's set to direct Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie in next year's "The Tourist"). This is a subtle film with brave choices that never feel out of the ordinary- they're that subtle. It doesn't pull a 180 with genres here, it just serves to tell a story.
The story- Gerd Wiesler is invited to attend playwright Georg Dreyman's new show. Gerd was motivated by some kind of suspicion or more personal reasons (Georg is arrogant, one of the types of people Gerd advises his students about), and like clockwork, his flat is monitored. In the attic above, Gerd listens with large headphones but hears nothing concerning attack on East Germany's socialist government (the real kind of socialism, not the scare tactic used by bullies in America). Thus, Gerd continues to listen, awaiting a whisper of something so they can tear his flat to shreds.
Wiesler isn't your typical character in this context. He is not something you'd find in your stock. I watched and re-watched his face throughout certain scenes, and it was like looking into a blank slate. He was constantly thinking, processing information, but even during certain exchanges, not as much as a smirk escaped his face. He would be impossible to read if it weren't for later developments where we realize just how lonely this character is. It's not maudlin, but again through some scenes where all we do as an audience is simply watch, just like he does.
You probably haven't watched this film and may not even know of its existence, but I strongly recommend finding it for several reasons.
-As mentioned before, Ulrich Muehe passed away after this film's release, and his performance is a brilliant one. Unless you start watching German film, you won't see him again.
-This is the movie that beat the equally brilliant "Pan's Labyrinth" for Best Foreign Language Film at the Oscars. "Pan's Labyrinth" is one of the most widely watched foreign films today, but it seemed as though the Academy didn't want this one to go unnoticed. After all, "Pan" took home three Oscars and was nominated for six. All "Das Laben Der Anderen" was nominated for and took was Best Foreign Language Film.
-It seems as though this will be remade by American studios next year. This is a perfect movie with no need for a remake- see the original before Hollywood ruins it.
We must remember that this movie wasn't made for American audiences otherwise it would have been translated into English, but the gift it gives to us is the same it gives to humanity in general. In the times of The Patriot Act, people unsure of whether or not they're being watched, and general paranoia, Forian Henckel von Donnersmarck gives us hope. Hope that if we continue to live our lives in honesty that nothing will stop us. In the words of a great man, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."
Note- Isn't that strange? We have a period piece without wigs, a queen, and an Oscar for Costume Design.
Rated R for some sexuality/nudity.
But it here.
So far, it seems like the groundwork for a conventional conspiracy thriller, but where the film ultimately succeeds is where most like it go soft. There are no chases, no secret killings, and the one listening in is the main character, not the other way around. It's very easy to make a villain who serves his corrupt organization down to his last breath, but gradually, Hauptmann Gerd Wiesler (the late Ulrich Muehe, playing what many call the role of his life) becomes an unknowing force in their lives. He isn't a double agent, and he's never spoken to those he's monitoring, but despite his extensive training, he feels a strange connection. These people are human, and their beliefs have merit.
This could have been a dreadful film. I try not to think about the choices it didn't make, but what I'm consumed with is writer/director Forian Henckel von Donnersmarck (he's set to direct Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie in next year's "The Tourist"). This is a subtle film with brave choices that never feel out of the ordinary- they're that subtle. It doesn't pull a 180 with genres here, it just serves to tell a story.
The story- Gerd Wiesler is invited to attend playwright Georg Dreyman's new show. Gerd was motivated by some kind of suspicion or more personal reasons (Georg is arrogant, one of the types of people Gerd advises his students about), and like clockwork, his flat is monitored. In the attic above, Gerd listens with large headphones but hears nothing concerning attack on East Germany's socialist government (the real kind of socialism, not the scare tactic used by bullies in America). Thus, Gerd continues to listen, awaiting a whisper of something so they can tear his flat to shreds.
Wiesler isn't your typical character in this context. He is not something you'd find in your stock. I watched and re-watched his face throughout certain scenes, and it was like looking into a blank slate. He was constantly thinking, processing information, but even during certain exchanges, not as much as a smirk escaped his face. He would be impossible to read if it weren't for later developments where we realize just how lonely this character is. It's not maudlin, but again through some scenes where all we do as an audience is simply watch, just like he does.
You probably haven't watched this film and may not even know of its existence, but I strongly recommend finding it for several reasons.
-As mentioned before, Ulrich Muehe passed away after this film's release, and his performance is a brilliant one. Unless you start watching German film, you won't see him again.
-This is the movie that beat the equally brilliant "Pan's Labyrinth" for Best Foreign Language Film at the Oscars. "Pan's Labyrinth" is one of the most widely watched foreign films today, but it seemed as though the Academy didn't want this one to go unnoticed. After all, "Pan" took home three Oscars and was nominated for six. All "Das Laben Der Anderen" was nominated for and took was Best Foreign Language Film.
-It seems as though this will be remade by American studios next year. This is a perfect movie with no need for a remake- see the original before Hollywood ruins it.
We must remember that this movie wasn't made for American audiences otherwise it would have been translated into English, but the gift it gives to us is the same it gives to humanity in general. In the times of The Patriot Act, people unsure of whether or not they're being watched, and general paranoia, Forian Henckel von Donnersmarck gives us hope. Hope that if we continue to live our lives in honesty that nothing will stop us. In the words of a great man, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."
Note- Isn't that strange? We have a period piece without wigs, a queen, and an Oscar for Costume Design.
Rated R for some sexuality/nudity.
But it here.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Horror Movies
To me, true horror comes from the realization that something could truly happen to you or those you love. While it’s much easier to make a film with graphic torture scenes, is there anyone in the world who is actually truly frightened that they’re gonna be abducted, tied to a chair, and have their eyeballs ripped out by some big silly machine while they have to eat a live puppy? Yes, if that was common occurrence, it would be frightening, but who really has the resources, mechanical knowledge, and sadistic power to actually pull off something that overly elaborate and complex? Violence is easy- no one wants to be harmed, but that’s alright on the surface. Horror movies have the potential to be THE genre that can at once comment on human nature by showing us who the enemy truly is, and by forcing us to see that, we’re left with a conclusion which we’ve known all along but refuse to accept.
The films I’m going to mention aren’t all horror films, but some cause me to analyze something deeper than many others through…well, scariness. I almost typed the word “fear,” but that is incorrect. What motivates me isn’t necessarily fear but instead a combination of everything that makes me uneasy. There are certainly many, many more films other than the ones I analyze here that could be categorized as effective scariness and many other horror films I enjoy, but these are the ones most present in my mind tonight.
King Kong- We go to a place we don’t understand and encounter a creature that isn’t too difficult to understand; it’s a big, smelly ape with a big, hairy ass. However, a normal sized ape can be fatal to humans, so it’s quite frightening to think about something that makes what is normal look microscopic in comparison. After battling with this creature that we accept as wrong and a murderer on the basis that we intrude in its homeland and it retaliates, one person, Ann Darrow, accepts the creature as a living thing and doesn’t quite begin a romance with it as much as she sympathizes with its beauty and humanity. The humans’ reaction is to exploit it for material gain, and when the plan backfires, we force the creature to go with its animal instincts and climb the beacon of hope in times of uncertainty (the Empire State Building during the Great Depression) and then we kill it. Am I fearful of a giant ape ripping me out of my dorm room and making me an afternoon snack? No. Am I afraid of people exploiting something for money and fame with tragic results? You bet your ass.
The Mist- this movie was definitely a “love it or hate it” film. It’s easy to dismiss it as an attack on Christianity, but it truly wasn’t. There is something poignant in a film that shows isolation of a group of some strangers, some friends, but mostly acquaintances during a time when they must bond to fight a common enemy but instead form into groups trying to use scare tactics to make everyone else join their side because although there’s no way of knowing, they truly believe what they think to be right. Yes, one character uses religion to “convert” others (not the kind for self-improvement and the betterment of mankind but the kind that makes everyone so afraid that if they do A. they’ll go to hell and must do B. in order to not make God angry so he won’t punish them that they forget that they need to be loving of their fellow man and take time to listen to others and try to understand what they believe), but the way she uses it is what is used commonly in politics. She has no interest in what anyone else besides she believes, and as a point of fact, she despises other people. All of these beliefs aside, the movie was an effective suspense play and an analysis of fear. As a result, the gore didn’t have to be overly elaborate to be scary; it just had to say what it needed to say and instead focus on characters that are far scarier than any alien creature with tentacles. As it was also said in The Host, the creatures were moderately scary, but what will truly make you pessimistic of human nature is everyone’s (the government in The Host’s) reaction to adversity. Disaster movies should take note.
Bug- here is a film that I truly love. Although it’s basically a filmed version of the stageplay, the point remains clear. In one sentence, the movie is an analysis of psychoses that makes you question what is real and what is propaganda by blurring the lines and making everything, regardless of how bizarre, make some sense. Perhaps it’s a little too gory, but I didn’t care (then again, I’m the guy who sat through Inglourious Basterds without as much as a twitch from the scalpings). The violence wasn’t meant to be the scariest part but instead what is scariest is what people would do to each other and themselves when they believe something to be true. The best part of the movie was its reaction on me after it was over. I itched and felt detached from reality.
The Truman Show- if you know nothing about this movie at all, do yourself a huge favor and skip over this paragraph and watch it with fresh eyes. For those of you that have seen this masterwork, you know that like Bug, what makes the film scary is that something elaborate and bizarre could be true. A television company takes something as personal as someone’s life and exploits it. This movie takes it a step farther and has the company actually convince people that this is something that gives hope to the world. Perhaps it does, but at what cost? While life would be simpler if we were able to accept everything we know as fact to be real the movie challenges us to think differently. The studio becomes so paranoid that this man can live the life he wants that they attempt to murder him. Will the executive who creates a situation that almost kills him be put on trial for attempted murder or even reckless endangerment? I think not. They may even give him another Emmy.
Milk- The first time I saw the trailer for this beautiful film, I remembered being completely on edge before Harvey’s address when he received the postcard that the first bullet would enter him when he went up to the podium. What makes the film effective is its sympathetic view not only of its hero but also its villain. While there were those who opposed homosexuality because…well, they were scared of it and didn’t want to accept it in their perfect world, Josh Brolin’s character was driven to murder rather than unfulfilled physical threats was because he didn’t want to accept something within himself he knew to be true. I’m just gonna say it- homosexuality is not a big deal, and I hope people begin to realize this in the current day.
The Thing- I know not many people have seen this movie, so in the interest of maintaining a readable paper, I will not plot spoil except what is necessary. We’ll start with the concept: A shape-shifting creature begins to attack a group of people and discovers that the best way to kill them is to make them kill each other, namely, taking the form of those they know. This belief isn’t original (for other references try reading up on the witchcraft trials or the Red Scare), but never before has it been made this simple yet complex. In the days of the witchcraft trials and Red Scare, all you had to do was accuse someone of being a witch/communist, and they were dead. It was that simple. In The Thing, the thought that the enemy was walking amongst you was actually true. There are dozens of other motifs I could explain, but it’s more fun to discover them on your own.
The Silence of the Lambs- The human mind is a powerful thing. Hannibal Lector is locked in a cell with no way of contacting others, but what made the arrogant character the scariest villain I have and probably will ever see is that he knew that while his body was locked up, his mind wandered the world. He even managed to kill an inmate in another cell because he was disrespectful to Clarice, a woman he didn’t respect at the time. How he kills the inmate who informed Clarice that he could “smell [her] cunt” is unclear (well, he choked to death on his tongue, but how will never be known), but what is known is that the human mind is a powerful thing that will never be fully understood. Hannibal understood it more deeply than most people and used it to punish those who offended him.
The human mind is what will always scare me more than anything else. When people ask why the Saw movies will never keep me up at night and why torture porn has no effect on me, I wish I could explain this elegantly. While it’s simply easy to use physical and emotional pain to get an effect out of people, what has always frightened me is the result when people are forced into a situation to enable their baser instincts. I’m already detecting the belief, “that’s exactly what the Saw movies were about! The Jigsaw made people go into a situation where they were forced to sacrifice some personal part of their being to live!” I must differ. In the first film, yes, a woman was given the option that she could either cut a man’s stomach open or have her head explode, the way that scene was done (and you can tell by the director’s focus on the gore rather than the character) was not scary. The only thing we knew about her was that she was a drug addict. That’s it. Perhaps if she was a mother and upright citizen with a drug problem, that might be scarier, but alas, that kind of writing is quite difficult to pull off. While my thought could have been more effective, it would have taken a complete refocusing of the plot and situations to pull that off. Still, some people were kept up at night with the writing the way it was, but as someone who is attempting to explain himself, this is what I think and what I think isn’t universal and never will be. If the movie was more focused on making me sympathetic to characters rather than appealing to my dislike of being tortured, I would have been scared.
To me, the point of horror isn’t to make you piss your pants, but instead to make you question existence and analyze what would happen given a certain situation. Another one that I realize is either love-it-or-hate-it is The Descent. To me, it showed three levels of horror: loss, isolation, and the unexplainable. By the time the creatures show up, I was already on edge, but what had set up the third act to work for me was that the creatures could or could not have been real. Yeah, they mauled some of the spelunkers, but think about it. You didn’t see them in the beginning, and they didn’t show up until the problems amongst the group of women were made into an issue. In my belief, the creatures represented those problems consuming them and becoming impossible to outrun. I didn’t stay up late worrying about being caved into my room or being mauled by sound-hunters, but what moved me about the movie was the thought that like many other horror films that worked for me, it shows how people react and what their priorities became.
This is totally off-subject, but one of my on-and-off favorite films is Scream. To me, it was what a parody truly should be- it showed you how the genre was supposed to be done while poking fun at the logical fallacies and inevitable formulas present. There were some classic ‘slasher’ scenes present, but it didn’t frighten me other than making me think twice about answering the phone when I’m alone. It was a movie for movie lovers, and I loved it. Like The Descent, there were clear references to other films, but ultimately, it becomes the filmmaker’s movie, not an offspring of the best ideas of others.
If a horror movie is able to move me deeply like the above movies did, then I will be running to the theater to see it, but I’m not above having fun. I feel that a good horror movie should be like a good musical in that, in the end, you don’t feel mauled; you feel energized and ready to move. Certain scenes remain in my mind and occur to me at a time when I don’t think of them. An excellent example of a movie like this was a recent B-horrorfest called Drag Me to Hell. It was a morality play, and although the basic logic of religion tells you that someone can’t just bypass judgment and be shoved into hell, you have to sacrifice some personal belief and go with what the movie tries to say (the part where it’s a morality play changes a lot with the film in that *SPOILER* over the course of three days, this perfectly kind woman does whatever she can to avoid going to hell and warrants an eternity *NO SPOILER*). There were so many scenes I loved, such as the classic slasher showdown in the parking garage when the curse is first placed on her, The Evil Dead gore, and the fact that so much of the movie was really, really, really funny. Why was it funny? Well, that would be because the movie keeps its sense of humor and allows us to remain outsiders and watch the events unfold from an outsider’s perspective. As a result, the movie is stylized, fun, and kind of scary. I will admit it- after seeing the movie, one night, while alone, I heard a sound like the demon’s hooves clicking on the ground outside of my room, and I had to keep the light on for a little while.
The fact that I’m watching the episode of South Park entitled “Pandemic 2: The Startling” reminds me of one last belief I would like to share. Startle horror isn’t scary. Having something suddenly BUMP! jump in front of a camera isn’t scary to me. You jump, but how long does that jump last? The length of the scene. Certainly there are some startle-scares in The Descent, but they worked for me because they kept me absorbed in the scene while the film maintained a much deeper level of horror that couldn’t be summed up in any eye-gouging scene. Horror should, in my belief, not make me necessarily want to vomit (upon reading a spoiler for a film that I cannot remember the name of, I discovered that a killer cages a woman and at one point, force-feeds her a blender-made milkshake of blood, eyeballs, a nose, and other body parts) but instead give me a deeper reaction to the gore. If you’re going to make me sit through something like that, there had better be a damn good reason for it. That movie, I’m sure, had no reason for the gore other than to see what it could get away with.
Everyone’s motivated differently. I was told that Cloverfield was an epic film, but after seeing it, I was totally underwhelmed. There was potential, and its advertising campaign was borderline brilliant, but when I was left with the final result, I was disappointed. I saw stylized startle-horror.
I understand that it might be easy to throw out ways in which I seem to contradict myself, but I know what I like and what I don’t like. I’ve said it before, but my beliefs are not universals. I have a stomach for gore, but I think it should move the plot in some way such as the creature’s attack in The Mist or Hannibal’s escape plan in The Silence of the Lambs instead of forcing me to react to something so I can get a false sense of horror. There are movies that have torture scenes that are amazing films (the nail ripping part of Syriana is something I can’t ever shake), but there is always a purpose to that, I feel. What can I say? I’m always up for being moved above being startled.
The films I’m going to mention aren’t all horror films, but some cause me to analyze something deeper than many others through…well, scariness. I almost typed the word “fear,” but that is incorrect. What motivates me isn’t necessarily fear but instead a combination of everything that makes me uneasy. There are certainly many, many more films other than the ones I analyze here that could be categorized as effective scariness and many other horror films I enjoy, but these are the ones most present in my mind tonight.
King Kong- We go to a place we don’t understand and encounter a creature that isn’t too difficult to understand; it’s a big, smelly ape with a big, hairy ass. However, a normal sized ape can be fatal to humans, so it’s quite frightening to think about something that makes what is normal look microscopic in comparison. After battling with this creature that we accept as wrong and a murderer on the basis that we intrude in its homeland and it retaliates, one person, Ann Darrow, accepts the creature as a living thing and doesn’t quite begin a romance with it as much as she sympathizes with its beauty and humanity. The humans’ reaction is to exploit it for material gain, and when the plan backfires, we force the creature to go with its animal instincts and climb the beacon of hope in times of uncertainty (the Empire State Building during the Great Depression) and then we kill it. Am I fearful of a giant ape ripping me out of my dorm room and making me an afternoon snack? No. Am I afraid of people exploiting something for money and fame with tragic results? You bet your ass.
The Mist- this movie was definitely a “love it or hate it” film. It’s easy to dismiss it as an attack on Christianity, but it truly wasn’t. There is something poignant in a film that shows isolation of a group of some strangers, some friends, but mostly acquaintances during a time when they must bond to fight a common enemy but instead form into groups trying to use scare tactics to make everyone else join their side because although there’s no way of knowing, they truly believe what they think to be right. Yes, one character uses religion to “convert” others (not the kind for self-improvement and the betterment of mankind but the kind that makes everyone so afraid that if they do A. they’ll go to hell and must do B. in order to not make God angry so he won’t punish them that they forget that they need to be loving of their fellow man and take time to listen to others and try to understand what they believe), but the way she uses it is what is used commonly in politics. She has no interest in what anyone else besides she believes, and as a point of fact, she despises other people. All of these beliefs aside, the movie was an effective suspense play and an analysis of fear. As a result, the gore didn’t have to be overly elaborate to be scary; it just had to say what it needed to say and instead focus on characters that are far scarier than any alien creature with tentacles. As it was also said in The Host, the creatures were moderately scary, but what will truly make you pessimistic of human nature is everyone’s (the government in The Host’s) reaction to adversity. Disaster movies should take note.
Bug- here is a film that I truly love. Although it’s basically a filmed version of the stageplay, the point remains clear. In one sentence, the movie is an analysis of psychoses that makes you question what is real and what is propaganda by blurring the lines and making everything, regardless of how bizarre, make some sense. Perhaps it’s a little too gory, but I didn’t care (then again, I’m the guy who sat through Inglourious Basterds without as much as a twitch from the scalpings). The violence wasn’t meant to be the scariest part but instead what is scariest is what people would do to each other and themselves when they believe something to be true. The best part of the movie was its reaction on me after it was over. I itched and felt detached from reality.
The Truman Show- if you know nothing about this movie at all, do yourself a huge favor and skip over this paragraph and watch it with fresh eyes. For those of you that have seen this masterwork, you know that like Bug, what makes the film scary is that something elaborate and bizarre could be true. A television company takes something as personal as someone’s life and exploits it. This movie takes it a step farther and has the company actually convince people that this is something that gives hope to the world. Perhaps it does, but at what cost? While life would be simpler if we were able to accept everything we know as fact to be real the movie challenges us to think differently. The studio becomes so paranoid that this man can live the life he wants that they attempt to murder him. Will the executive who creates a situation that almost kills him be put on trial for attempted murder or even reckless endangerment? I think not. They may even give him another Emmy.
Milk- The first time I saw the trailer for this beautiful film, I remembered being completely on edge before Harvey’s address when he received the postcard that the first bullet would enter him when he went up to the podium. What makes the film effective is its sympathetic view not only of its hero but also its villain. While there were those who opposed homosexuality because…well, they were scared of it and didn’t want to accept it in their perfect world, Josh Brolin’s character was driven to murder rather than unfulfilled physical threats was because he didn’t want to accept something within himself he knew to be true. I’m just gonna say it- homosexuality is not a big deal, and I hope people begin to realize this in the current day.
The Thing- I know not many people have seen this movie, so in the interest of maintaining a readable paper, I will not plot spoil except what is necessary. We’ll start with the concept: A shape-shifting creature begins to attack a group of people and discovers that the best way to kill them is to make them kill each other, namely, taking the form of those they know. This belief isn’t original (for other references try reading up on the witchcraft trials or the Red Scare), but never before has it been made this simple yet complex. In the days of the witchcraft trials and Red Scare, all you had to do was accuse someone of being a witch/communist, and they were dead. It was that simple. In The Thing, the thought that the enemy was walking amongst you was actually true. There are dozens of other motifs I could explain, but it’s more fun to discover them on your own.
The Silence of the Lambs- The human mind is a powerful thing. Hannibal Lector is locked in a cell with no way of contacting others, but what made the arrogant character the scariest villain I have and probably will ever see is that he knew that while his body was locked up, his mind wandered the world. He even managed to kill an inmate in another cell because he was disrespectful to Clarice, a woman he didn’t respect at the time. How he kills the inmate who informed Clarice that he could “smell [her] cunt” is unclear (well, he choked to death on his tongue, but how will never be known), but what is known is that the human mind is a powerful thing that will never be fully understood. Hannibal understood it more deeply than most people and used it to punish those who offended him.
The human mind is what will always scare me more than anything else. When people ask why the Saw movies will never keep me up at night and why torture porn has no effect on me, I wish I could explain this elegantly. While it’s simply easy to use physical and emotional pain to get an effect out of people, what has always frightened me is the result when people are forced into a situation to enable their baser instincts. I’m already detecting the belief, “that’s exactly what the Saw movies were about! The Jigsaw made people go into a situation where they were forced to sacrifice some personal part of their being to live!” I must differ. In the first film, yes, a woman was given the option that she could either cut a man’s stomach open or have her head explode, the way that scene was done (and you can tell by the director’s focus on the gore rather than the character) was not scary. The only thing we knew about her was that she was a drug addict. That’s it. Perhaps if she was a mother and upright citizen with a drug problem, that might be scarier, but alas, that kind of writing is quite difficult to pull off. While my thought could have been more effective, it would have taken a complete refocusing of the plot and situations to pull that off. Still, some people were kept up at night with the writing the way it was, but as someone who is attempting to explain himself, this is what I think and what I think isn’t universal and never will be. If the movie was more focused on making me sympathetic to characters rather than appealing to my dislike of being tortured, I would have been scared.
To me, the point of horror isn’t to make you piss your pants, but instead to make you question existence and analyze what would happen given a certain situation. Another one that I realize is either love-it-or-hate-it is The Descent. To me, it showed three levels of horror: loss, isolation, and the unexplainable. By the time the creatures show up, I was already on edge, but what had set up the third act to work for me was that the creatures could or could not have been real. Yeah, they mauled some of the spelunkers, but think about it. You didn’t see them in the beginning, and they didn’t show up until the problems amongst the group of women were made into an issue. In my belief, the creatures represented those problems consuming them and becoming impossible to outrun. I didn’t stay up late worrying about being caved into my room or being mauled by sound-hunters, but what moved me about the movie was the thought that like many other horror films that worked for me, it shows how people react and what their priorities became.
This is totally off-subject, but one of my on-and-off favorite films is Scream. To me, it was what a parody truly should be- it showed you how the genre was supposed to be done while poking fun at the logical fallacies and inevitable formulas present. There were some classic ‘slasher’ scenes present, but it didn’t frighten me other than making me think twice about answering the phone when I’m alone. It was a movie for movie lovers, and I loved it. Like The Descent, there were clear references to other films, but ultimately, it becomes the filmmaker’s movie, not an offspring of the best ideas of others.
If a horror movie is able to move me deeply like the above movies did, then I will be running to the theater to see it, but I’m not above having fun. I feel that a good horror movie should be like a good musical in that, in the end, you don’t feel mauled; you feel energized and ready to move. Certain scenes remain in my mind and occur to me at a time when I don’t think of them. An excellent example of a movie like this was a recent B-horrorfest called Drag Me to Hell. It was a morality play, and although the basic logic of religion tells you that someone can’t just bypass judgment and be shoved into hell, you have to sacrifice some personal belief and go with what the movie tries to say (the part where it’s a morality play changes a lot with the film in that *SPOILER* over the course of three days, this perfectly kind woman does whatever she can to avoid going to hell and warrants an eternity *NO SPOILER*). There were so many scenes I loved, such as the classic slasher showdown in the parking garage when the curse is first placed on her, The Evil Dead gore, and the fact that so much of the movie was really, really, really funny. Why was it funny? Well, that would be because the movie keeps its sense of humor and allows us to remain outsiders and watch the events unfold from an outsider’s perspective. As a result, the movie is stylized, fun, and kind of scary. I will admit it- after seeing the movie, one night, while alone, I heard a sound like the demon’s hooves clicking on the ground outside of my room, and I had to keep the light on for a little while.
The fact that I’m watching the episode of South Park entitled “Pandemic 2: The Startling” reminds me of one last belief I would like to share. Startle horror isn’t scary. Having something suddenly BUMP! jump in front of a camera isn’t scary to me. You jump, but how long does that jump last? The length of the scene. Certainly there are some startle-scares in The Descent, but they worked for me because they kept me absorbed in the scene while the film maintained a much deeper level of horror that couldn’t be summed up in any eye-gouging scene. Horror should, in my belief, not make me necessarily want to vomit (upon reading a spoiler for a film that I cannot remember the name of, I discovered that a killer cages a woman and at one point, force-feeds her a blender-made milkshake of blood, eyeballs, a nose, and other body parts) but instead give me a deeper reaction to the gore. If you’re going to make me sit through something like that, there had better be a damn good reason for it. That movie, I’m sure, had no reason for the gore other than to see what it could get away with.
Everyone’s motivated differently. I was told that Cloverfield was an epic film, but after seeing it, I was totally underwhelmed. There was potential, and its advertising campaign was borderline brilliant, but when I was left with the final result, I was disappointed. I saw stylized startle-horror.
I understand that it might be easy to throw out ways in which I seem to contradict myself, but I know what I like and what I don’t like. I’ve said it before, but my beliefs are not universals. I have a stomach for gore, but I think it should move the plot in some way such as the creature’s attack in The Mist or Hannibal’s escape plan in The Silence of the Lambs instead of forcing me to react to something so I can get a false sense of horror. There are movies that have torture scenes that are amazing films (the nail ripping part of Syriana is something I can’t ever shake), but there is always a purpose to that, I feel. What can I say? I’m always up for being moved above being startled.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
