Here is where I will keep track of the flicks I've watched. If you see typos or errors, or you really like what I wrote, or maybe you flat out disagree with me. Don't be shy! Lemme know what YOU think.
It starts off with a buzzard hanging around on a pole watching a yellow dog licks his privates. I'm guessing the buzzard is the audience and the dog is Hollywood, something like that.
The movie is not very good in terms of being a believable story; it's more an arty pastiche of moviemaking. As long as you're ok with over the top performances and general craziness, it's entertaining as hell, and a pretty great look at behind the scenes action too. You get to see crane set ups, action sequences outta control and gone wrong, while a helicopters totes a camera are all over the place. Peter O'Toole in his camera crane is like a mad scientist in his robot creation, overseeing his minions, the dues ex machina hand of god, manipulating everyone in order to get his movie in the can.
Truthfully, the story is really silly, it involves a escaped prisoner or guy with a warrant, (Steve Railsback), I forget why this guy was on the run from the law, but he is, and O'Toole takes him in hiding him among his crew, as a replacement for a stunt man who's gone missing. Dude needs a place to duck out from the man, and the director needs to finish his movie....by any means necessary! O'Toole is making an antiwar film but it looks trite, lots of battle scenes, and tragic love storiness, but mostly explosions and scenes needing mucho stunt work. It's a fun watching the stunt work, and there's some good dialogue too. This bit from O'Toole sums up the message of the flick pretty well.
"We're shaking a finger at them Sam, and we shouldn't. If you've anything to say, it's best to slip it in while they're all laughing and crying and jerking off at all the sex and violence. You should do something outrageous!"
It was nominated for 3 Academy Awards: best director, best adapted screenplay, and best actor for Peter O'Toole. It won a Golden Globe for best score.
I liked the movie, and the director says it's about perception, so watch it with an open mind and see what you make of it.
The World of Henry Orient (1964) directed by George Roy Hill
I thought this was going to be a comedy starring Peter Sellers. He's in it, playing a pianist, and he's funny, but he's not the star. It's mostly about 2 young teens following him around after one develops a crush on him. It's a weird film, half wholesome Disneyesque giggly girl bonding, and half Benny Hill G rated sex comedy with one particularly obvious oggling upskirt sequence when the girls are running down the street hopping over fire hydrants and the camera. What??!! Maybe I'm just a prude, but that felt yuck. It's thematically odd, having the adolescent boy craziness and the joys of girl friendship contrasting with the grown up sex comedy. Made me feel uncomfortable some. It's played very lighthearted though, and not much actually happens in the flick aside from girl drama. The scenes of them playing games of pretend and being enthusastic about their stategies following Henry Orient around reminded me of the movies by Mary Kate and Ashley Olson that my neices liked to watch - sweet but kinda tedious too. There was a lot of slapstick in those also.
I really enjoyed Peter Sellers as the buffoonish object of affection. He's pretty hilarious as a lazy pianist obscuring his Brooklyn roots with fake European airs. I could see Sacha Baron Cohen doing this role easily. Anyhow, he's desperate to get married Paula Prentiss back to his apartment to finalize his seduction, but the girls stalking him, keep thwarting these plans.
Angela Lansbury does nasty neglectful adulterous mom very very well, reminiscent of her role in The Manchurian Candidate. She`s a real piece of work. This flick was a miss for me, but I would have liked one that focused on the adulterous affairs of both her and Peter Sellers, seemed a bit riper for material along their plot lines. I prefer my sleazy lasciviousness more risque and I'll pass on the family friendly girlish antics.
Adding to the sleaze factor is the fact that the director seduced one of the girls. According to her post on imdb, Tippy Walker's first love was George Roy Hill. During the filming, he took her aside one day telling her, he was going to teach her how to French kiss. If I was 16, I might be naive enough to find that romantic, but I'm pretty sure most everyone would agree, that's f'd up. I guess the relationship was fairly chaste, but it was a secret and it messed her up. Read her description under whitedogandharriet in this thread.
Another weirdo film from the past. This one a comedy about slavery starring James Garner, (he actually produced it too), and Louis Gossett (no Jr.) as a couple of con men in pre Civil War era American. Gossett is a 4th generation freeman from Chicago who pretends to be a slave, so Garner can sell him, then rescue him. Then they both run off to the next town to pull the scam again.
It's got very bizarre sensibilities, probably because it's 40 years old but I have to admit I found it shocking to hear the n word used so casually. But I think it's mostly because the slavery aspect is played for laughs, and I found it hard to find the humour in it especially considering how hardly ever depicting how very terrible it was.
I kinda liked it though. It was crazy stupid and silly at times, but it mostly took advantage of the situation to establish a few times over, the awful insanity of people being bought and sold and deprived of dignity and freedom because of the colour of their skin.
Makes me think that slavery is the ultimate end of capitalism and libertarianism. Why shouldn't people be commodities? Who are you to deny a person the right to sell themselves to the highest bidder? It's bullshit, but it's in line with their principles.
I got kinda bored with this one. It's too easy to figure out, and you gottta wade through a whole lotta yadayada before you get to the denouement satisfactions.
Ray Milland is defintinely evil, and nasty, greeedy, coldhearted, so I wanted to see him suffer. He's always got the stiff upper lip though, so his suffering isn't that entertaining. It's definitely the devious selfish machinations where he delivers; his duplicitous actions are what'll get you all incensed and rooting for him to get nailed.
Grace Kelly is very gorgeous in this, but she's so bland and helpless too. I felt like her character was being punished too much by the script, though. She's so tortured! So often the damsel in distress is a boring character of function, just there as a beautiful thang to get threatened and rescued. Even though she's put through the wringer, at least she had some complexity beyond just being a victim.
I guess I was expecting this to be more crazy than it was. It's so highly rated, that set me up for something more than what it is - a tightly wound mystery thriller - sorta like a CSI episode. It feels like a play and that makes sense since it was originally a Broadway production by Fredrick Knott, and he adapted the screenplay as well. Maybe I'd have liked it better if I saw it in 3D, like it was originally shot.
One scene made me laugh, one cop is walking off with some evidence: a women's purse. He's got it dangling dainitly on his arm, and as he sets off on his way back to the station, a detective stops him short. "You can't walk around like that, you'll get arrested." And the cop puts the purse inside a satchel to cover up the gender crime. Holy eh? You'll get arrested! This is really true though. At one point in English history, you could be arrested for wearing clothes that didn't define your gender "properly". It's the actual legal reason behind Joan of Arc getting burned at the stake. In hindsight, it makes more sense that Albert Nobbs was so terrified to be outed.
In case you're wondering, the Hitchcock cameo is in BITD school photo of the blackguard Milland.
Japanese anime can be so very good at the sentimental. This one was kinda melancholy too.
Girls will really dig this. The animation is straight up gorgeous, just what you'd expect from a Studio Ghibli production and it's drawn from good source materials since it's based on The Borrowers - a best selling series of children's books by Mary Norton. I loved the books when I was a girl, and seeing this movie I can see why. You've got a plucky girl going on adventures, and she's meeting up with a handsome boy who wants to save her. So you've got appropriate amounts of action and romance pitched to a preteen level. It's a very engaging story for kids, but it's especially gonna hit home and be empowering for the YA girls who are bound to identify with Arrietty. Her secret world is secret not simply because the heart of a young girl is mysterious, yeah to that but more because she's really for real living a secret life. She's a teeny tiny miniature person living with her family inside the walls of a regular person's house. She's just like people though, just small and she's at the age where she's eager to get out from under her parent's thumb and meet up with the big wide world - a little corner of it anyhow. It's fun, and there's magical little people, well they aren't really magical except that they exist, plus there's helpful animals and what all boycrazy girls will appreciate - in spite of obvious complications, sparks still fly between the boy and the girl. Who cares that they come from different worlds and aren't even close to the same size? They speak the language of love. Aw... I ate this up when I was 11, and I still found it sweet as an grown up.
I have a greater appreciation for reality and tragedy now though. I think if I'd watched this when I was a kid I'd have felt really disappointed at the ending.
There are 2 different English language dubs, one for American audiences and one for the UK. The books were written by an English woman, so maybe that's why that happened. Or maybe it's because the producers wanted the broadest possible audience and figured American people wouldn't want to listen to "foreign accents." I heard the American version, and it was pleasant, but I can't help but wonder if the movie would have sounded better in the other dub.
Also, I liked hearing Carol Burnett in a small role as a housekeeper. I could easily picture her animated character as the cleaning lady she did at the close of her variety TV show.
I always dismissed this because I thought it was a sappy romance, mostly because of the super over the top sentimental theme song by Streisand and Marvin Hamlisch - misty water coloured mammaries, gooshing the milk of nostalgia. It's a great song if you can accommodate the melodramatic melancholia - it won the Academy Award for best song - but the movie is better. It's sincerely emotional too, but it's trying way harder to be something meaningful rather than simply emotionally evocative.
It spans a number of interesting periods in American history, and is full of lefty, pinko, pedantic scenes that explain and broadly outline the political stances popular at the time it was made - at least those among the dirty commie cultural arbiters in Hollywood - the peace movement, feminism, social justice etc. Mostly it's done through arguments between Streisand and Redford. She's starts out a poor, but smart kid, working her way through Harvard on an activist/journalist trip, and he's a wannabe writer who's making his bones. He's intrigued by her, and she wants him baaad. She's got a chip on her shoulder over class and has resentment for his pretty boy privilege though, so there's obstacles to their coupling.
I really enjoyed it and I didn't expect that I would. Sydney Pollack is known for making quality flicks though, so I perked up when I saw he was the director. It's still rich white people problems though. Really it's a relationship flick, but it aims higher than the majority of what you'll find in the romance genre. It's steeped in the issues and politics of its time eg. the McCarthy bullshit, and will seem silly and dated in some aspects, but it's a superb document of that era and the viewpoint filter it applies to the immediate past. I totally appreciate when "issues" are addressed in a plot - it makes a story so much more interesting.
Pollack, Streisand, and Redford
Robert Redford reminds me of Brad Pitt so much in the scenes where he's drunk and Streisand takes him home. I thought it was such a sign of the times that she'd take advantage of his inebriated state to seduce him, well actually she just crawled into bed with his passed out form and engaged his automatic hump instincts. Wtf eh? Women's lib was in full force in 1973, but she couldn't directly pursue him because that would be too too slutty I guess.
directed by Robert Duvall (2002) This movie was weird and it made me feel weird too. It's about a hitman who takes up tango dancing and romancing while he's stuck in Buenos Aires waiting on an opportunity to wack a former General. I think Duvall wrote it for Robert De Niro and De Niro wouldn't do it so, Duvall had to step in, because it's like Duvall is doing a De Niro pastiche. It's truly an unwieldy combo of tango dance romantic fluff with a side of improbable hitman drama/action and I think either of the plots probably would have worked better independently. I found the dancing stuff was better developed, but maybe the hitman plot was what got the flick its finding. On a story level, it was hard to buy that it would be difficult to find someone in Argentina who could manage a murder job. And was it just me, or was Duvall taking credit for assassinations down south, saying that Ortega wouldn't still be around if he'd been on the job? The action is pretty good aside from the, yeah this would really happen, snark! aspect though.
Now for the weird... I felt uncomfortable about the relationship he had with the daughter of his girlfriend. He obviously loved the little girl; their relationship was really sweet with him teaching her to dance and the general interactions made me feel aw...but there were also times when I got yucko feelings, like something is wrong here and I was dreading worse to come, saying to Joe, I hope there isn't a child abuse angle Duval's working. I had to question my reaction. Was I twigging to something that wasn't there? He wasn't shown molesting the girl, and not even sure that was implied, but he for sure had terrible boundaries. He talked about how she was better than a daughter, and that he loved her more than the mom? I can't understand ever thinking it would be right to tell a kid that. Oh yeah, btw, your mother? I don't really love her, it's you I love. The feeling is understandable; romantic attachments often wither, but parental ones, not so much. Still, that aspect felt like a real miscue, or that it was alluding to a situation that WAS abusive that wasn't developed properly. Or maybe that was the point? His character was really selfish in all his interactions, totally self serving and it's with people like the hitman, where kids are getting exploited and abused, and generally nobody notices. Or even worse when people do notice somethings up, they just ignore the problem. Somebody else's business! I feel like I'm reading too much into a small part of a character study story; it's just that the stuff with the kid felt OFF and I don't know why, or to what purpose. Probably the shittiness with the little girl was more to do with him being a selfish guy who only operates out of self interest. I mean, a decent guy would never put a child in a position where they could get revenge murdered, let alone lay a heavy trip on them that their mom's partner loves them more than their mom. In any case, I didn't like the development of that subplot, and I thought the hitman was a tool. I guess you'd have to be a tool to be a hitman to begin with though.
Luciana Pedraza, the tango dancer he sparks on, is Duvall's actual wife and she's 42 years younger than him and a professional dancer.
When I found that out, it made me wonder, was this whole flick an ego massage to justify the massive age difference between them? To maybe silence charges of of dirty old man! What? Hey man, who doesn't love dancing? Life IS a dance! And besides, age ain't nothing but a number? Massive age differences don't have to translate as incestous or inappropriate!! On one level, yeah that's true. Of course people should be with who they love. Yet I still feel conflicted, because I really did get squicked feelings from the flick. I have to admit, even if it makes me a judgemental, uncool, not liberal enough moral relativist, I think it's problematic when there are vast discrepancies between partners, whether they be of age, wealth, class, or even level of attractiveness. Yeah, it's simple and silly to want people to have equity in all areas, but on a basic fundamental level, that feels right too. It seems a bit sad to me when people get together, and there are great imbalances between them, because on an inherent sense of fair play, it seems likely someone is giving more. Perhaps that's too literal a way to think of things. Relationships do not operate with balance sheets after all. All told it wasn't super great, but it wasn't super awful either. Some of it made me uncomfortable, but it did make me think about and clarify my position on some important issues, for sure. And the dancing and musics are great. I say, if you're into dancing and gunfights, and don't mind some disjointedness, put this one on and get ready to Taaaango!!
A Woody Allen flick I ain't ever watched! His films never disappoint; even a lesser Woody Allen flick is still entertaining, though I wouldn't categorise this one as lesser. I really liked it. It's about a professor of philosophy, (Gena Rowlands), who's seemingly content with her life. She's writing a book and rents a studio space so she can focus on that. It's adjacent to a psychiatrist/psychoanalyst's office and there's an amplifying vent connecting the two spaces through which she can hear every single word of the very intimate revelations that go on in the sessions. It's after she eavesdrops on another woman's sessions, (Mia Farrow), that cracks begin to develop in the facade she maintains.
It's a great flick. A mid life crisis is ripe fodder, and that it's a woman's made it that much more interesting to me. Juicy, juicy, scenes in this.
The movie is FULL of famous actors, the first thing I thought when I saw her husband was: Hey! That's the robot who tried to kill Ripley! Ian Holm is a cold fish, heartless cardiologist.
Plus it has narration! Flashbacks and dream sequences too. Yay!
The scene where she runs into Sandy Dennis, the best friend of her youth, who drifted away, is amazing. Dennis accuses her of betrayal and Rowlands denies it, but the guilty is pretty obvious, even if subconscious. (This youtube has the whole movie, scene starts 30 mins in.)
Apparently it's very similar to Ingmar Bergman's Wild Strawberries. I haven't seen that yet, but I don't think there's anything wrong with various perspectives on similar themes. Movies are like music. I like hearing different takes on a good song. A story is the same thing. Some people get shitty about the idea of originality and copying ideas, but I think that's bullshit. And besides, Woody Allen has always been forthright about his admiration for Bergman, and how much he's been influenced by his films.
I have to say I was thoroughly entertained by this. I was expecting to be bored, because I was so bored with Emma, but this period piece has lots more stuff going on during the 3 hours plus running time than the slight romantic comedy of relationships found in Emma. Perhaps it's unfair to compare the two, since they are different genres and even different eras, but they are both about the gentry/ruling class, just that NOTHING happens in Emma, except some people get married. I was also expecting to be bored because I'd had this movie for years and years and years, and could never bring myself to watch it, even though it was a Stanley Kubrick flick, and every film I've seen of his has been genius. I'd glace at the spine when looking amongst my collection of VHS for summat to watch, and groan feeling like oh noes, homework time, when I'd consider watching it. It's like reading a classic because you feel like you "should" have. I don't have a VHS collection anymore, so when it came up on one of the movie channels, I jumped on it out of the same old feeling of obligation to watch something I believe that as a self avowed movie nerd, I should have already seen. It's not quite like not having seen The Godfather, Citizen Kane, or Star Wars, but it's in that neighbourhood.
It starts off great, with a duel and quickly moves on to introducing our protagonist, Redmond Barry (Ryan O'Neal), the son of the man who died in the duel. Kubrick wanted Robert Redford for the role, but Redford passed due to scheduling conflicts. Kubrick had to chose from the 10 top US box office draws that year to get financing for the film. O'Neal and Redford were the only ones who came close, both being about the right age and of Irish heritage too. I wonder what it would have been like if Clint Eastwood, or Charles Bronson played the lead. Very different flick I tell you what. Who would Kubrick have cast if he had free rein? Maybe Malcolm Mcdowell would have landed the role. He'd have been more interesting I think. Though O'Neal's opaque quality was a good fit, he's not nearly as nuanced an actor.
The film tracks Barry's progress out of the gentry and his climb towards nobility, through duels and deaths, wars and intrigue. They were mad about duelling back then, duel duel duel, it was the all the rage. There are 3 duels in the flick and they are all crazy. Who the fuck does this stupid shit? Stand in front of each other and shoot for honour. EVERYONE, well every soldier anyhow, because that's how they used to fight wars. Just line up in and shoot each other into oblivion. Reload and do it again. Nutty! It's based on a serialised novel by Thackeray and it's narrated. That's one of my favourite plot forwarding movie devices. I really, really, like narration, not all the time, I just like how it functions, how much it simplifies the story when there's an omniscient device that can delve into character's minds and express their thoughts and motivations. Stuff like that can be extremely hard to convey with just visual action, and too much expository dialogue can be unrealistic as most people don't naturally go around explaining themselves or their actions. I also like movies that have sequences where people read letters.
The movie is really really gorgeous, I'm serious, it looks like master's paintings. Kubrick wanted it to look like Gainsboroughs and it does.
Luscious locations, landscapes, castles, and costumes oh my! At times, the action is framed so statically I felt like I was falling into a painting. Slow sweeping pans and deep zooms suck you right in, or pull you out to a breathtaking splendour. Absolutely incredible cinematography. Kubrick used a wide aperture lens for the candle light scenes and there's such a warm glow to the images. Beautiful, beautiful flick. It won Academy Awards for art direction, cinematography, costume, and music, and distinguished itself with 13 other awards and 11 nominations.
I recognised the caretaker from the Shining. Philip Stone, plays a servant/accountant type.
And I really liked the musics, especially the theme by Handel.
..and this bit of dancing too.
It's a long movie, Kubrick shot for 300 days for the 184 minute runtime but that's not a record. He beat that with Eyes Wide Shut: 15 months, with an unbroken period of 46 weeks, setting a Guinness Record for Longest Constant Movie Shoot.
I didn't mind a single minute. I even went back and rewatched some scenes the next day, and again later. It took me awhile before I felt like I could delete it from the PVR and it pained me some to do that. It's so gorgeous, I'd be willing to watch it again some day, especially in a theatre. It's Martin Scorcese's favourite Kubrick film and I agree. It's awesome.
I wasn't overly impressed with this fakeumentary about a Guy Terrifico, (Matt Murphy) a country rock singer songwriter who vanished in the 70's. It's got some pleasant musics and has interviews with real life stars in the mix. Kris Kristofferson, Ronnie Hawkins, and Merle Haggard are entertaining when they reminisce on their encounters with the disappeared Guy Terrifico.
Teriffico's manager does a lot of talking too, and he's played by Phil Kaufman, the actual manager of Gram Parsons, of all the 70's alt country musicians Guy Teriffico most resembles. It's a spoof that doesn't even have to exaggerate much since musicians, especially the stars in the 70's, were up to ridiculous antics anyhow. It's tongue in cheek fun very similar to Spinal Tap, except that I found that flick was a titchy bit more entertaining. Maybe if I cared more about the scene being portrayed, I'd have liked it more, but as it stands, it was mostly silly and kind of boring. I bet everyone involved had a great time making it though.
I like this show. I watched a few episodes of Glee before I got bored with the high school format. I found it hard to care about the shenanigan trajectories of high school musical kids and their teachers. I have to admit that the asshole gym teacher was pretty hilarious though,
Anyhow, this musical number filled tv show about the development of a new Broadway show based on Marilyn Monroe, so far has got me hooked. It's well done, with a slew of good actors, and it's interesting seeing the work that does into getting a show off the ground. I'll be back for at least the next episode.
I think I made it through to the 4th episode before I lost interest, but that was more to do with me lacking the patience to watch it every week. I think it's a rewarding show that's great for on demand or boxset watching. The drama and intrigue between the different characters is engaging, and the musical numbers I saw were decent too.
I found it hard to care very much about this one. The nuanced relations of class and romance were pretty boring. I think I liked it better as Clueless.
I almost stopped watching this because I couldn't make out the Scottish accents. I kinda wish I'd stopped because it's a dumb story. It's got a nice message and all, with the mom wanting to protect her son, but bleagh, it's so sentimental and doesn't make much sense, at least in a plausible way. It's pretty romantic and has a fairly happy ending, but there were way too many moments where I was scratching my head with, yeah that would happen kinda thoughts. I think it's supposed to be set in the past when cell phones and the internet didn't exist, because the movie would be even less plausible if people didn't have to rely on newspaper ads to communicate. On a story level I could see it satisfying a lot of people, but it wasn't my cup of tea - too sappy. I did like the actors, (Gerard Butler oooo!), but they aren't working with the greatest material.
Also, the fact that the boy was deaf, seemed like a stunt, and I didn't think his deafness was portrayed with realism. The domestic violence issues were more integrated with the story though. It wasn't a terrible film. I think a lot of people will enjoy it, probably Scottish folk, and if you're a fan of Gerard Butler helps, because he's in a lot of scenes. :)
Why aren't movies like this made anymore? I mean what the hell happened to the cool flicks that mythologised people who were actual heroes instead of bullshit superheroes who just fight other imaginary super people? I shouldn't compare biopics to fictional fantasy, but come on, let's get back to admiring the awesome people around us who make an effort to do the right thing, ok?
Woody Guthrie, wasn't a hero in the conventional sense; he was a musician. But he acted heroically when he stood up to an oppressive corporation. He had integrity at a time when people were desperately poor and he wrote songs about that experience. He was part of a grassroots musical revival that honoured regular folk and he was a representative voice for the working class and disenfranchised when the rich would rather that voice be silenced.
I think the scene that sums up his activist mentality best was when he goes to the well to do, charitable, lady's house and asks her if she feels ashamed that she has so very much when so many have so little. It's still a good question to ask. The scene starts around 1:29 - this youtube has the whole flick, but I'd suggest watching a better version to get the full visual effect.
It's a gorgeous film and was nominated for 5 Academy Awards: Best Writing, Best Costume, Best Film Editing and it won for Best Music, and the one it really deserved - Best Cinematography. Seriously it's a great looking flick.
I recognised a bunch of actors in small parts: James Hong as a cook, Brion James as a family man turned back at the California border because he didn't have the $50 bribe to get in, and M. Emmet Walsh as an intolerant vacationer. Walsh's role was reminiscent of the character he played in Raising Arizona.
David Carradine does a good job singing like Woody Guthrie, but the performance I liked best had to be this old timey rendition of Columbus Stockade Blues by Cara Corren and Susan Barnes. On the imdb message board, there's a thread where one of the girls talked about her experience making the film and how she still gets residuals from the film that generally amount to about $28 a year. There was no post production on the song, there was a mic in the ground and that's it. A lovely harmony they gots eh?
This is another one I won't mind checking out again because I didn't write anything about it when I watched it, except these few notes.
Meta movie making from De Palma - an indictment of the viewer, equating the film industry with peeping tom voyeurism and taking pleasure in viewing others.
Another crazy fucking movie. It wasn't hard to figure out what was going on plotwise - that there was a twist, just what the hell kind?
Dude so looks like Bill Maher.
It has some seriously cool shots, like the POV from the grave, and the whole music video scene in the fetish club with Frankie Goes to Hollywood.
Oh my God. What a crazy movie. I feel conflicted about how much I enjoyed this mess. I don't think it could be made today, it's too offensive and ignorant regarding transexuals and mental illness. It's such a lurid flick. I knew I was in for something different when the film started off soft core porno with Angie Dickenson lathering her boobs and snatch up in the shower all lasciviousness while watching a hunky bare chested man shave with a straight razor. It's bizarre slow motion with sugary muzak. BTW who uses a straight razor?!! Suddenly she's being attacked by another man in the shower who also has a straight razor, but that must be a fantasy, because next you see her in bed moaning while being piledrive humped by her husband.
That's all I wrote when I watched this back in February, so I think I'll have to watch it again. Sometime I'll have a De Palma fest and watch everything of his I've never seen and revisit the ones like this, that I liked. Lots of times though, a movie isn't nearly as good when you no longer have part of your brain trying to figure out what the plot is while you're watching.
I remember I kept thinking well this is just mental and preposterous, really similar to Argento in it's incoherency, but that didn't make me want to stop watching - far from it, I wanted to see MORE!
I really like Brian De Palma's flicks. I think he's a nut though. I read recently, that when he was making Carrie, for the final scene where Carrie is unleashing her fury at the school dance, he was told the fire hoses were too dangerous to use on scenes featuring the actors because the water pressure was too strong. I guess he yeah yeah whatevered that, because he did use the hoses, and PJ Soles got pasted in the face. The blast punctured her eardrum, and the pain made her pass out. She was deaf for 6 months.
He's most often compared to Alfred Hitchcock, and I can see that, because aside from the formalist similarities, Hitchcock was an asshole to his actors too.
About the only thing I really was engaged by in this movie was picking out the Vancouver backdrops. The evil lab? That's SFU.
If only the rest of the movie was near as interesting as puzzling out where it could have been shot. I didn't give a fuck about anyone in this. The lead vampire? hunter? I haven't seen the preceding 3 flicks, so I didn't know what was all led up to this one. They explained the back story in the beginning, something about vampires battling werewolves until one guy became both, a hybrid vamp-lycan, and the lady vampire (Kate Beckinsale), who kills werewolves, fell in love with him and started killing bad traitorous vampires instead of just sticking it to the wolfman. blah blah blah. It still didn't make a whole lotta sense. All I got was that somewhere in there was supposed justification for her to hunt down a bunch of folk she needs to kill: wolf people, regular people, vampire people. She kills 'em all. And really grossly, explicitly too. Like hardcore head shots and dropping people out of windows after they've begged for their lives too. NO MERCY! I know I'm supposed to be rooting for her badassery, but I didn't like her and if she'd died I wouldn't have cared. I would have felt good actually, like yeah you deserved that you mercenary bitch. What makes you think you have the right to kill all these folk? They are trying to kill you? An eye for an eye? More like pop allll their eyeballs for trying to pop yours.
That's what's really fucked about this movie. It's stupid to kill people. Whatever, this is magic silliness. right? There are no vampires, or werewolves, but there are video games and it's fun killing mindless others in video games, smashing sprites to oblivion, but does this inhumanity towards humanesque monstrosities translate into a lack of respect for humanity generally? Intuitively, I'd say yes. Yeah killing is the prime directive in many video games and action movies, and sure you aren't seeing "real" people being brutalized and murdered. But you are seeing violence and you're supposed to be enjoying it, and isn't there something fucked up about that? Why am I supposed to think it's okay for one class of people to be destroyed? Why do you want me to root for their complete annihilation? Why does feeding bloodthirsty instincts feel so dirty and backward? I dunno that these questions are reasonable to ask of a cash grab action horror smackdown, but so what, they are still good questions. Bottom line is I felt bored and often disgusted by the excess of violence and pandering to baser instincts that ran rampant all throughout this flick.
This was fambly night at the theatre. Promos are usually packed and this one was no different; there were children everywhere, babies even. At one point, a baby started to cry, and then when another one picked up the whimper, I was a bit worried there would be a chain reaction with the whole theatre erupting with bawling kids, but their moms got them quieted down quickly.
I was sitting next to one guy who was by himself and I don't think he was used to being around kids. A boy was sitting next to him, maybe 8 or 9, and the kid was going in and out to the lobby for snacks or to the bathroom or whatever, just bouncing around like young kids do. He did this back and forth business about 3 times politely excusing himself by the guy, and by the 4th time, old dude was getting huffy and breathing loudly with exasperation. Jeez man, this is a G-rated promo, whaddya expect?
The movie was ok. It lacked tension, but the 3D special effects were really good, and there were some comical bits with Luis Guzmán, the helicopter dad - not that he was a father who hovered around his daughter, (in this case Vanessa Hudgens), he's a for real helicopter pilot. I liked his character best. He was funny and silly, and seemed to be having the most fun. Michael Caine was pretty great too, but he usually is. The Rock? meh, he did his usual stoic, I'm a manly man, yet I have a marshmallow heart too.
It's so not a taxing or complicated flick, but it looks really good, and if you can channel your inner 10 year old, you'll have a really good time getting caught up in the improbable adventure. Even though it's kinda boring for grownups, kids will love it.
And maybe they'll be inspired to read the books by Jules Verne. I really, really, liked them when I was a kid. They're awesome oldtimey SF fun.
Also, while searching for an image for Jules Verne books, I discovered this collaborative mural project. Some gorgeous gorgeous murals to be seen at that link - one of them at Jules Verne Elementary. :)
When I first heard about this movie, I thought it was about a neechi sprinter who done good. It's not though; the Indian in question is a fucking motorcyle, not a fast person. Anthony Hopkins is the motorcycle owner. He plays Burt Munro, a New Zealand gear head who's been working on the same bike for 40 years to make it go fast. His dream is to take it to The Bonneville Speed Trials in the salt lake basin in Utah, so he can see how fast he can push his bike with officials to bear witness.
It's based on a real guy and the simple story is a good mix of underdog/quest/road trip/fish out of water. It's set in the 60's and I really liked the period details. Old cars and that people were accommodating to ole Burt. Joe said it reminded him of a kid's movie where a dog is trying to make his way home and people help him on his journey. And lots of people helped out Burt, he's a likeable old dog for sure. I appreciated Burt's DIY gumption and seeing the earlier days of racing when it was still more in the hands of enthusiastic and passionate hobbyists was refreshing. It's a feel good flick, and while I didn't have any profound revelations or overwhelming feelings about anything while I was watching, I didn't feel like I'd wasted my time with it either. It's got a good message of pursuing your dreams that has universal appeal, and that it's about an old man going for his dream is rather unique too. It's really appetizing for back yard mechanics and man cave Nascar types though.
I wonder if Hopkins felt like he was slumming in this? I've heard that he thinks of movies as a way to pay bills while he really prefers doing theatre work.
I found this to be a completely unnecessary sequel. I didn't need to know what happened to the couple in the first flick. Before Sunrise was a lovely romantic story, showing the spark and birth of a relationship, and I was happy imagining a future where they ended up happily ever after.
Instead there's this business, and remember, movies is business first and art second, mostly always. There must have been enough people saying hey what happened to that couple anyhow? to get this funded right? It's not terrible - it's got some pretty choice scenes and dialogue - but I just didn't care about the evolution of their relationship. I liked seeing Paris, but thats merely the pretty backdrop for the jibberjabber where they do a show and tell of the baggage and compromises they've accumulated through the years. Hohum. Actually, I was surprised how much older Ethan Hawke looked, since I watched the movies back to back. That was probably a mistake because I was satisfied with the first flick, and the sequel negated the good romantic glow that I got after watching their initial love connection. They were poised at the beginning of a beautiful friendship, and learning what happened to them after that wasn't nearly as interesting or compelling as I thought it would be.
It reminded me of Woody Allen, except it wasn't funny.
I think I would have liked a sequel more along the lines of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf. Give me some DRAMA baby! This was kinda boring.
