I know I haven't updated "Film Thoughts" in more then a month. The reasons for this is, I've apperantly ran out of completed Director's Report Cards to post. There are a handful of nearly complete ones, like Mel Brooks or Wes Anderson, or ones that were complete until recently, like Charlie Kaufman and David Fincher. I soon as I see "Bolt" my massive Disney Animated Features report card will be done, so expect that soon. Things have been busy around here and I apologize for my inactivity.
So, in order to past the time the time, I'm see if I can't dig up some film essays/rants I've written over the years and post them.
Thanks for the support, readers.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Friday, October 17, 2008
Director Report Card: Mary Harron (1996-2005)
1. I Shot Andy Warhol
All of Mary Harron’s features seem to revolve around a single, very interesting individual. None of them have a particularly strong narrative but are instead driven by the personality of their lead character. Wither it be the delusional serial killer Patrick Bateman or the good-natured pin-up Bettie Page. Or, in this case, the volatile misanderousist Valerie Solanas.
Miss Solanas was probably a crazy person. But I’ve always had a stern belief that crazy people can say a lot about society that a “sane” person wouldn’t and are often the spring well for our most creative ideals. Solanas, at least as she is portrayed in this film, which is apparently accurate in a lot of respects, proves to be a captivating protagonist. (Or, as it is, perhaps antagonist?) She’s always ranting, screaming, writing, fucking, injuring someone. She is brought to life with conviction by busy character actress Lil Taylor, whose mannerism and speech pattern make a perfect match for her subject.
The small cast is a solid bunch. Jared Harris plays Andy Warhol as a vapid, opportunistic, stand-around who seems to rarely show any genuine opinions about anything and usually appears to be stoned out of his gourd on something. The film takes a very negative view at the Factory scene as image obsessed, drug-addled hacks. All things considered, Warhol actually comes off the best compared to his followers. Stephen Doriff is completely unrecognizable as drag-queen Candy Darling.
I’m not exactly sure of the genre goals of this film, but a great deal of it is very funny. Perhaps its just me, but as the film goes on and Solanas’ beliefs and rants become more delusional and more violent, I found myself laughing more often. It may not go on to become a recognized classic of American independent cinema, but “I Shot Andy Warhol” is captivating throughout and highly entertaining throughout. [Grade: B]
2. American Psycho
I’ve spoke before of films that would not have worked without a certain actor in the lead role, their acting is so pivotal to the success of the picture at large. Christian Bale’s performance here is one of those. Bale is one of the best actors working today and he is astonishing. Perhaps he really gets the character, how much of a dork Patrick Bateman really is. This element as well as several of the psychological twists it takes towards the end gives the film so many layers as a character study.
The film is successful on other levels as well. It’s an obvious, vicious satire on eighties materialism and capitalism. It’s also a hilarious black comedy. I mean, there are several screamingly funny moments in this. People seem to overlook just how funny this movie is at times.
Harron’s direction is solid and her use of color and attention to detail are very important. An excellent supporting cast including Chloë Sevigny, Willem DaFoe, Reese Witherspoon, and Jared Leto gives Bale great support. Probably gory and twisted enough to appease horror fans but the film is ultimately a character study and should be observed as such. [Grade: A]
3. The Notorious Bettie Page
A charming little film. Most of this is due to Gretchen Mol’s portrayal of the title character. Bettie is played as a genuinely good person, not so much naive as just understanding and accepting. Here is someone who doesn’t look at the bondage set-up as something abnormal, just as a scene to do, a little harmless fun. The rest of the cast is solid though I can say any performances really stand out.
Harron makes some interesting directing choices. Her decision to shoot the majority of the film in black and white, while other parts are in bright fifties Technicolor, leads the movie a sort of authenticity, as if the film is less about the time period then it was made in that time period. There is definitely some commentary on the fifties censorship and obscenity laws, though this falls to the background far too much. The FBI investigation angle is purposely played down, it seems. The film is ultimately just about Bettie and what an interesting person she is/was and it definitely succeeds at being as interesting as it’s subject. [Grade: B]
All of Mary Harron’s features seem to revolve around a single, very interesting individual. None of them have a particularly strong narrative but are instead driven by the personality of their lead character. Wither it be the delusional serial killer Patrick Bateman or the good-natured pin-up Bettie Page. Or, in this case, the volatile misanderousist Valerie Solanas.
Miss Solanas was probably a crazy person. But I’ve always had a stern belief that crazy people can say a lot about society that a “sane” person wouldn’t and are often the spring well for our most creative ideals. Solanas, at least as she is portrayed in this film, which is apparently accurate in a lot of respects, proves to be a captivating protagonist. (Or, as it is, perhaps antagonist?) She’s always ranting, screaming, writing, fucking, injuring someone. She is brought to life with conviction by busy character actress Lil Taylor, whose mannerism and speech pattern make a perfect match for her subject.
The small cast is a solid bunch. Jared Harris plays Andy Warhol as a vapid, opportunistic, stand-around who seems to rarely show any genuine opinions about anything and usually appears to be stoned out of his gourd on something. The film takes a very negative view at the Factory scene as image obsessed, drug-addled hacks. All things considered, Warhol actually comes off the best compared to his followers. Stephen Doriff is completely unrecognizable as drag-queen Candy Darling.I’m not exactly sure of the genre goals of this film, but a great deal of it is very funny. Perhaps its just me, but as the film goes on and Solanas’ beliefs and rants become more delusional and more violent, I found myself laughing more often. It may not go on to become a recognized classic of American independent cinema, but “I Shot Andy Warhol” is captivating throughout and highly entertaining throughout. [Grade: B]
2. American PsychoI’ve spoke before of films that would not have worked without a certain actor in the lead role, their acting is so pivotal to the success of the picture at large. Christian Bale’s performance here is one of those. Bale is one of the best actors working today and he is astonishing. Perhaps he really gets the character, how much of a dork Patrick Bateman really is. This element as well as several of the psychological twists it takes towards the end gives the film so many layers as a character study.
The film is successful on other levels as well. It’s an obvious, vicious satire on eighties materialism and capitalism. It’s also a hilarious black comedy. I mean, there are several screamingly funny moments in this. People seem to overlook just how funny this movie is at times.Harron’s direction is solid and her use of color and attention to detail are very important. An excellent supporting cast including Chloë Sevigny, Willem DaFoe, Reese Witherspoon, and Jared Leto gives Bale great support. Probably gory and twisted enough to appease horror fans but the film is ultimately a character study and should be observed as such. [Grade: A]
3. The Notorious Bettie PageA charming little film. Most of this is due to Gretchen Mol’s portrayal of the title character. Bettie is played as a genuinely good person, not so much naive as just understanding and accepting. Here is someone who doesn’t look at the bondage set-up as something abnormal, just as a scene to do, a little harmless fun. The rest of the cast is solid though I can say any performances really stand out.
Harron makes some interesting directing choices. Her decision to shoot the majority of the film in black and white, while other parts are in bright fifties Technicolor, leads the movie a sort of authenticity, as if the film is less about the time period then it was made in that time period. There is definitely some commentary on the fifties censorship and obscenity laws, though this falls to the background far too much. The FBI investigation angle is purposely played down, it seems. The film is ultimately just about Bettie and what an interesting person she is/was and it definitely succeeds at being as interesting as it’s subject. [Grade: B] Thursday, September 18, 2008
Director Report Card: Peter Jackson (2001-2005)
7. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Rings
It’s boring. I’ve never read J. R. R. Tolken and have never been a fan. Sure, when the novels first came out, it was a unique world that had never been heard of before. But by now so much of what was new and exciting back then has been stolen and reused so much that it just isn’t anymore.
The biggest thing I dislike about this film is its lack of a sense of humor. It’s that humor that characterized so much of Jackson’s earlier films and without it, this film lacks the certain energy needed. It’s way, way too serious. And did I mention how incredibly uninteresting the characters are? This film is full of great actors and none of them can transcend the pretentiousness of the original text. Very little of this is Jackson’s fault, granted, as these are all problems I had with the original novels and if he had dared to changed something the geek gods might have rain vengeance down on him.
What is his fault is the ridiculously long run-time. I know there’s a lot of ground to cover, but did this really need to be three hours long? The final battle scene in particular drags and the film takes forever to end. And of course the worst punch line is, that’s not the end! There are still six more hours to sit through before you get any sort of closure!
Still, I’ll give credit where it’s due. The world created here is visually beautiful and probably the best realized universe seen on film in ages. The special effects are particularly flawless. Truthfully, elves and hobbits just aren’t my thing so I can’t really appreciate this film on any other level then the “Wow, that’s pretty!” one. [Grade: C]
It’s boring. I’ve never read J. R. R. Tolken and have never been a fan. Sure, when the novels first came out, it was a unique world that had never been heard of before. But by now so much of what was new and exciting back then has been stolen and reused so much that it just isn’t anymore.
The biggest thing I dislike about this film is its lack of a sense of humor. It’s that humor that characterized so much of Jackson’s earlier films and without it, this film lacks the certain energy needed. It’s way, way too serious. And did I mention how incredibly uninteresting the characters are? This film is full of great actors and none of them can transcend the pretentiousness of the original text. Very little of this is Jackson’s fault, granted, as these are all problems I had with the original novels and if he had dared to changed something the geek gods might have rain vengeance down on him.
What is his fault is the ridiculously long run-time. I know there’s a lot of ground to cover, but did this really need to be three hours long? The final battle scene in particular drags and the film takes forever to end. And of course the worst punch line is, that’s not the end! There are still six more hours to sit through before you get any sort of closure!Still, I’ll give credit where it’s due. The world created here is visually beautiful and probably the best realized universe seen on film in ages. The special effects are particularly flawless. Truthfully, elves and hobbits just aren’t my thing so I can’t really appreciate this film on any other level then the “Wow, that’s pretty!” one. [Grade: C]
8. The Lord of the Rings: The Two TowersThis one is a little better. There are big battles scenes all around and I think that’s why I enjoyed it more then part one. When the characters stop spewing that hopelessly droll fantasy speak at each other and just start stabbing things, the film actually comes close to being fun.
The film is also the debut of Gollem, the only character that is actually interesting in the entire film series. Gollem is totally fascinating and you can’t take your eyes off him when his on screen. The Academy robbed Andy Serkis of an award because of some stupid technicality but it is a wonderful performance that deserved some sort of recognition. The film is still too goddamn long and when Gollem isn’t around and somebody isn’t getting stabbed, I couldn’t care less. But still, it’s definitely a step forward. [Grade: B]
9. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the KingI actually enjoyed this one quite a bit… …probably because I skipped it in theaters and only saw it on DVD, where I could fast-forward through all the boring shit. And I didn’t really miss any of the plot either which proves how bloated these films really are.
The battle scenes are as epic as you’d expect. The ring slowly consuming Frodo is actually entertaining to watch and Gollem still can do no wrong in my eyes. This film also features an honest to God conclusion which makes it all far more satisfying then the other two. (Of course, the film takes frikin’ forever to end, but still, at least it did end.) I actually found myself almost liking Sam and Frodo too, though I would never ever admit it in the presence of some Tolken humping fan boy. [Grade: B]
10. King KongJackson seems to be suffering from Sergio Leone syndrome and can’t seem to make a film less than three hours anymore, so this is a bit longer then it should be and the first act could probably have used some trimming. Still, I much prefer it to anything from the Hairy Feet trilogy.
When watched back-to-back with the original film, it actually proves to be a rather brilliant post-modern treatment of the 1933 classic. Scenes from the original are recreated here as the film-within-the-film and Jackson seems to be saying that much of the original is outdated macho pandering. Which it is, of course, but we love it anyway. And the director obviously loves it too as none of this comes off as really critical. Jackson takes a much more humanistic approach to everything, particularly the characters. Adrian Brody’s Jack Driscoll is an everyman playwright as opposed to the original’s two-fisted hero. Jack Black is great as Carl Denham and isn’t afraid to play up the character’s more bastard-like qualities.
The concept to receive the biggest overhaul is the relationship between Ann Darrows and the big monkey. There actually appears to be, if not a genuine affection between the two, at least a mutual respect. Naomi Watts redeems herself after a bunch of crappy movies and proves that she is indeed a great actress. Andy Serkis makes Kong just as memorable and lovable a character as Gollem was. The Skull Island sequences are exciting and thrilling, the dinosaur stampede being my favorite. The spider pit is pretty squirm inducing as well. And I don’t even think I need to tell you how good the special effects are.The film has a real soul to it, however, that makes it a far more dramatically rounded feature then “Lord of the Rings” was. As Kong scales the Empire State Building and Howard Shore’s score plays, the film pulls back and makes you aware of the inevitable conclusion to all this. You realize that the story is really a heart-breaking tragedy. [Grade: A]
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Director Report Card: Peter Jackson (1994-1996)
4. Heavenly Creatures
Feels like something of a transition from Jackson’s earlier more outrageous films to his slicker Hollywood productions. It maintains a lot of the spirit of his previous productions. There’s certain energy, plucky spirit, and anarchic humor to many of the fantasy sequences. Jackson’s imagination shines during these moments and he forges many unforgettable images.
The film’s short prologue seems to be a sort of warning to the audience to let them know that, despite most of the film feeling like a whimsical story of young friendship and budding sexuality, none of this ends well. There’s a certain darkness underlining much of the lighter proceedings. This prevents any sudden shift in mood because you realize it’s been building up to this all along.
The two lead performances are really wonderful. I wonder how many directors envy Peter Jackson for being the one who discover Kate Winslet. She’s captures the essence of a bubbly, energetic teenage girl right on the edge of a breakdown perfectly. Despite Winslet demanding much of your attention, Melanie Lynskey’s Pauline is at the center of the film. When she stares at you with those eyes, you can feel a real intensity cooking inside the girl. She completely immerses herself in the role. Of course, it’s how the two actresses, playing very different but strangely very similar characters, compliment each other that really makes the film work. The relationship they have feels honest and, dare I say, heart-warming. Proof of how involving the film is, is that at the end I wasn’t thinking, “It’s horrible what they did,” but, “It’s so sad they’ll never see each other again.” [Grade: A]
5. Forgotten Silver (with Costa Botes)
I suppose a lot of the fun of “Forgotten Silver” is ruined by knowing anything about the movie before watching it. The movie is quite a brilliant mockumentary.
It details the career of early film pioneer Colin McKenzie. Rising out of obscurity in New Zealand, McKenzie would go on to make such cinematic advances as motorized film, feature length stories, synchronized sound, close-ups, and color. He would film the first working airplane (not the Wright brothers), an early example of police brutality, before his career climaxed in a epic four-hour rendition of the biblical tale of Salome, that wouldn’t be seen until years after his death in the Spanish Civil War. Peter Jackson himself would accidentally discover much of McKenzie’s work before presenting it to the world, where McKenzie was accepted as a hugely important pioneer of early film, to be held in the same regard as Edison, Melies, and Griffin.
Never heard of Colin McKenzie before? That’s because the whole movie is a fabulous hoax. He never existed and everything here is totally fictional. Even if you didn’t know that going in, there are several clues, such as a preposterous use of digital recovery and the amusing series of misfortunes that prevented McKenzie’s amazing developments from being recognized. Everyone involved, including such recognizable faces as Leonard Maltin, Sam Neil, and Harvey Weinstein, keep straight faces. All of the silent recreations as very well done and fairly convincing. The final Salome feature in particular feels pretty definitely like a real silent film. I also really like the music. Under an hour in length despite the 70 minute running time listed on the DVD (I suppose that includes the excellent “Behind the Bull” featurette included in the special features), “Forgotten Silver” is still a really neat little picture and a good example of Peter Jackson’s range as a filmmaker. [Grade: B]
6. The Frighteners
I suppose we couldn’t expect Jackson’s first studio horror film to meet up with the expectations of his earlier gory projects. Considering those expectations, “The Frighteners” holds up pretty well. The movie’s tone isn’t one hundred percent perfect. Ultimately, it’s a horror-tinged supernatural mystery-adventure with some comedy thrown in.
In the earlier parts of the movie, when Frank Bannister is chatting with his ghost friends, many scenes come off as shrill or too frantic. Generally speaking, the goofy slapstick antics of our spectral pals doesn’t really gel over all. Once they exit the picture, things start to go better. Not to say this section is bad. It’s still pretty decent and the likes of John Astin, Chi McBride, and R. Lee Ermy make the goofy ghost pretty entertaining anyway.
Still, once the set-up is established and we get on with the story, the movie improves dramatically. The second half is excellent. The entire finale in the old hospital is thrilling, exciting perfect popcorn stuff. If the whole movie was like that, “The Frighteners” would be a masterpiece. But, you know, the set-up is necessary.
Michael J. Fox isn’t the kind of leading man you would have thought of for a project like this but he actually does a pretty good job, keeping some of his typical smarmy charm while occasionally going to darker places. Jeffery Combs steals the show in his supporting part as the highly demented FBI agent. He’s hilarious and I’d say its Combs best performance after old Herbert West. Dee Wallace, who is almost unrecognizable in a black wig, has fun playing a villainess for once. Jake Busey is good even if he doesn’t cover any new ground.
Peter Jackson’s direction is quite good. Color is used excellently and the whole movie has a beautiful green, blue drab to it. The score, with its gothic violins, is a good listen and provides a unique tone. Though this is definitely Peter Jackson’s project, you can’t help but wonder how much influence producer Robert Zemeckis held. “The Frighteners” feels a lot like a Zemeckis project at times. Still, it’s a good time. [Grade: B+]
The film’s short prologue seems to be a sort of warning to the audience to let them know that, despite most of the film feeling like a whimsical story of young friendship and budding sexuality, none of this ends well. There’s a certain darkness underlining much of the lighter proceedings. This prevents any sudden shift in mood because you realize it’s been building up to this all along.
The two lead performances are really wonderful. I wonder how many directors envy Peter Jackson for being the one who discover Kate Winslet. She’s captures the essence of a bubbly, energetic teenage girl right on the edge of a breakdown perfectly. Despite Winslet demanding much of your attention, Melanie Lynskey’s Pauline is at the center of the film. When she stares at you with those eyes, you can feel a real intensity cooking inside the girl. She completely immerses herself in the role. Of course, it’s how the two actresses, playing very different but strangely very similar characters, compliment each other that really makes the film work. The relationship they have feels honest and, dare I say, heart-warming. Proof of how involving the film is, is that at the end I wasn’t thinking, “It’s horrible what they did,” but, “It’s so sad they’ll never see each other again.” [Grade: A]
5. Forgotten Silver (with Costa Botes)I suppose a lot of the fun of “Forgotten Silver” is ruined by knowing anything about the movie before watching it. The movie is quite a brilliant mockumentary.
It details the career of early film pioneer Colin McKenzie. Rising out of obscurity in New Zealand, McKenzie would go on to make such cinematic advances as motorized film, feature length stories, synchronized sound, close-ups, and color. He would film the first working airplane (not the Wright brothers), an early example of police brutality, before his career climaxed in a epic four-hour rendition of the biblical tale of Salome, that wouldn’t be seen until years after his death in the Spanish Civil War. Peter Jackson himself would accidentally discover much of McKenzie’s work before presenting it to the world, where McKenzie was accepted as a hugely important pioneer of early film, to be held in the same regard as Edison, Melies, and Griffin.
Never heard of Colin McKenzie before? That’s because the whole movie is a fabulous hoax. He never existed and everything here is totally fictional. Even if you didn’t know that going in, there are several clues, such as a preposterous use of digital recovery and the amusing series of misfortunes that prevented McKenzie’s amazing developments from being recognized. Everyone involved, including such recognizable faces as Leonard Maltin, Sam Neil, and Harvey Weinstein, keep straight faces. All of the silent recreations as very well done and fairly convincing. The final Salome feature in particular feels pretty definitely like a real silent film. I also really like the music. Under an hour in length despite the 70 minute running time listed on the DVD (I suppose that includes the excellent “Behind the Bull” featurette included in the special features), “Forgotten Silver” is still a really neat little picture and a good example of Peter Jackson’s range as a filmmaker. [Grade: B]
6. The FrightenersI suppose we couldn’t expect Jackson’s first studio horror film to meet up with the expectations of his earlier gory projects. Considering those expectations, “The Frighteners” holds up pretty well. The movie’s tone isn’t one hundred percent perfect. Ultimately, it’s a horror-tinged supernatural mystery-adventure with some comedy thrown in.
In the earlier parts of the movie, when Frank Bannister is chatting with his ghost friends, many scenes come off as shrill or too frantic. Generally speaking, the goofy slapstick antics of our spectral pals doesn’t really gel over all. Once they exit the picture, things start to go better. Not to say this section is bad. It’s still pretty decent and the likes of John Astin, Chi McBride, and R. Lee Ermy make the goofy ghost pretty entertaining anyway.
Still, once the set-up is established and we get on with the story, the movie improves dramatically. The second half is excellent. The entire finale in the old hospital is thrilling, exciting perfect popcorn stuff. If the whole movie was like that, “The Frighteners” would be a masterpiece. But, you know, the set-up is necessary.
Michael J. Fox isn’t the kind of leading man you would have thought of for a project like this but he actually does a pretty good job, keeping some of his typical smarmy charm while occasionally going to darker places. Jeffery Combs steals the show in his supporting part as the highly demented FBI agent. He’s hilarious and I’d say its Combs best performance after old Herbert West. Dee Wallace, who is almost unrecognizable in a black wig, has fun playing a villainess for once. Jake Busey is good even if he doesn’t cover any new ground.Peter Jackson’s direction is quite good. Color is used excellently and the whole movie has a beautiful green, blue drab to it. The score, with its gothic violins, is a good listen and provides a unique tone. Though this is definitely Peter Jackson’s project, you can’t help but wonder how much influence producer Robert Zemeckis held. “The Frighteners” feels a lot like a Zemeckis project at times. Still, it’s a good time. [Grade: B+]
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Director Report Card: Peter Jackson (1987-1992)
1. Bad Taste
I didn’t like this one as much as I hoped I would, considering it’s a film right up my alley. It very obviously a low budget, very independent film and I can’t help but feel that hurts the film, even though it really isn’t its fault. For a film of this type, I thought the cast was maybe a little too large as you only get to know two or three characters.
More then anything else, “Bad Taste” is driven by its demented sense of humor. It’s filled with the gross-out humor that characterizes many of Jackson’s early films. Some of it crosses the line from “funny-gross” to just plain gross, but still, this has a generous amount of twisted laughs. When you consider how professional this looks considering it’s budget, it becomes a little impressive. Though I was disappointed, it’s hard to really dislike any film with an exploding sheep in it. [Grade: B-]
2. Meet the Feebles
“Meet the Feebles” is a sick and twisted comedy so sick and twisted that those words don’t really aptly describe it. Jackson tops “Bad Taste” in just about every way as this movie is better made, funnier, and more outrageous.
The general plot is, basically, Muppets acting as deprived as humanly (Muppet-ly?) possible. Sex, rape, drug abuse, gang violence, war violence, S&M, vomiting, binge eating, coprophagia, murder, and full frontal puppet nudity are just some of the acts feature within. And all of it is played for laughs, of course. This very easily could have been a one-joke movie but
somehow it works. The funniest moment in the film is the knife-throwing frog’s drug-induced Vietnam flashback, in which the Americans are portrayed as frogs and the VC are woodchucks. There’s also a “Deer Hunter” style Russian Roulette game. Also deserving of mention is the film’s climax, in which the jilted, suicidal/homicidal hippo diva goes on a machine gun rampage throughout the theater set to the tune of the “Sodomy Song.” If that doesn’t tickle your funny bone then you are obviously not the target audience for this film. [Grade: B+]
3. Dead-Alive
Jackson’s so-called “splatter trilogy” reaches it crescendo with “Dead/Alive” (aka “Braindead”), the film that pretty much defines the “splatstick” subgenre of horror film. The bigger budget shine helps this one a lot and the quality of the special effects are greatly improved from the last two films. The lead performances are actually pretty good and the central romance is nice, too. There’s also some not-so-subtle Freudian subtext that adds some replay value.
Of course, the real reason anyone talks about this film is for the demented comedy and gore. There’s plenty of great gags in this one. The diner party? The zombie baby? The Nazi chemist? The kung-fu ass-kicking-for-the-Lord priest? Yeah. Possibly not as outrageous as “Meet the Feebles” but definitely funnier. And the gore? This film has the label of goriest of all time for a reason. There’s some blood throughout but it’s the climax where the movie really pays off. Seriously, not a second pass without somebody getting dismember or splattered. Words fail to convey the greatness of the last twenty minutes. It’s a gore hound’s wet dream and is just as likely to horrify you as it to cause you falling off the couch laughing. The rest of the public can have their “Lord of the Rings” movie, in my mind, this will always be Peter Jackson’s greatest achievement. [Grade: A]
I didn’t like this one as much as I hoped I would, considering it’s a film right up my alley. It very obviously a low budget, very independent film and I can’t help but feel that hurts the film, even though it really isn’t its fault. For a film of this type, I thought the cast was maybe a little too large as you only get to know two or three characters.
More then anything else, “Bad Taste” is driven by its demented sense of humor. It’s filled with the gross-out humor that characterizes many of Jackson’s early films. Some of it crosses the line from “funny-gross” to just plain gross, but still, this has a generous amount of twisted laughs. When you consider how professional this looks considering it’s budget, it becomes a little impressive. Though I was disappointed, it’s hard to really dislike any film with an exploding sheep in it. [Grade: B-]
2. Meet the Feebles“Meet the Feebles” is a sick and twisted comedy so sick and twisted that those words don’t really aptly describe it. Jackson tops “Bad Taste” in just about every way as this movie is better made, funnier, and more outrageous.
The general plot is, basically, Muppets acting as deprived as humanly (Muppet-ly?) possible. Sex, rape, drug abuse, gang violence, war violence, S&M, vomiting, binge eating, coprophagia, murder, and full frontal puppet nudity are just some of the acts feature within. And all of it is played for laughs, of course. This very easily could have been a one-joke movie but
somehow it works. The funniest moment in the film is the knife-throwing frog’s drug-induced Vietnam flashback, in which the Americans are portrayed as frogs and the VC are woodchucks. There’s also a “Deer Hunter” style Russian Roulette game. Also deserving of mention is the film’s climax, in which the jilted, suicidal/homicidal hippo diva goes on a machine gun rampage throughout the theater set to the tune of the “Sodomy Song.” If that doesn’t tickle your funny bone then you are obviously not the target audience for this film. [Grade: B+]
3. Dead-AliveJackson’s so-called “splatter trilogy” reaches it crescendo with “Dead/Alive” (aka “Braindead”), the film that pretty much defines the “splatstick” subgenre of horror film. The bigger budget shine helps this one a lot and the quality of the special effects are greatly improved from the last two films. The lead performances are actually pretty good and the central romance is nice, too. There’s also some not-so-subtle Freudian subtext that adds some replay value.
Of course, the real reason anyone talks about this film is for the demented comedy and gore. There’s plenty of great gags in this one. The diner party? The zombie baby? The Nazi chemist? The kung-fu ass-kicking-for-the-Lord priest? Yeah. Possibly not as outrageous as “Meet the Feebles” but definitely funnier. And the gore? This film has the label of goriest of all time for a reason. There’s some blood throughout but it’s the climax where the movie really pays off. Seriously, not a second pass without somebody getting dismember or splattered. Words fail to convey the greatness of the last twenty minutes. It’s a gore hound’s wet dream and is just as likely to horrify you as it to cause you falling off the couch laughing. The rest of the public can have their “Lord of the Rings” movie, in my mind, this will always be Peter Jackson’s greatest achievement. [Grade: A] Thursday, August 21, 2008
Director Report Card: Bryan Singer (2000-2006)
4. X-Men
As his past films proved, (especially “The Usual Suspects”) Bryan Singer can do good stuff with ensemble films. And if “X-Men” is nothing else, it is an ensemble film. That the picture’s greatest strength. How the character’s personalities, as well as their superpowers, are understood shortly after meeting them. As soon as we understand those things, the fun stuff, mainly how they interact, can start.
The film spends most of it’s time focusing on the cast and even then some characters are left underdeveloped. The story also takes a back seat and is not as strong as it probably should be which means the experience as a whole is not completely satisfying.
Still, on a superhero movie level, “X-Men” is highly successful. The action sequences are well done, the movie is fun, and many of the characters are a case of actor and material being perfectly matched. (Halle Berry aside, everybody gives a great performance.) [Grade: B+]
5. X2
First off, this sequel improves upon its predecessor by shaping a much stronger story. The tale builds to a nice tension by the end and all the pieces are expertly set up. It maintains the problem of having too many characters and some cast members are underdeveloped or underused. (I’m glad I’m not a Cyclops fan as his part has been reduced significantly.) The movie is smart enough to leave enough room for new characters however, allowing Alan Cummings as Nightcrawler and Brain Cox as General Stryker to shine
in their respective parts.
The action scenes are a step-up too. Magnento’s escape, Nightcrawler’s White House assault, the invasion on the school, and Wolverine’s fight with Lady Deathstrike are all memorable set-pieces. While this film is superior to the first, generally speaking, it lacks that sense of comic book fun and excitement that is really necessary for a project such as this. While it’s not a big issue, I think the film takes itself maybe a little too seriously. Still, “X2” is a great sequel. [Grade: A-]
6. Superman Returns
Visually, this is Bryon Singer's best looking film. His camera dances in and around scenes in a way that I didn't really expect from him. Many of the effects are beautifully done. Not once did I point at an effect and say, "That looks fake." Most notable is the big airplane crash scene, which is just a very well staged, thrilling, and brilliantly paced scene. Kevin Spacey, though a little broad at times, seems to be having a pretty good time playing Lex Luthor. And for a movie that is nearly three hours long, not once did I stop to check the time.
My biggest complaint with this film is the acting from the two leads. Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane never really convinced me. Brandon Routh lacks a certain charm and all the good stuff he does is basically just ripped from Chris Reeve's performance. Because of this their relationship is never quite as emotionally involving as it should be. What really saves the movie, in the end, is that it's just so heartfelt. Singer's love for the character and the material is palpable. The whole thing is just a big fuzzy love-letter to the Christopher Reeve films, and maybe to a lesser degree, the whole idea of comic book heroes. I'm still not sure if that's a good thing, in the long run, as a fresher approach probably would have been better. Yet this is still a highly enjoyable film and great summer blockbuster fare. Now if only they had found a better actor to play Superman. [Grade: A-]
The film spends most of it’s time focusing on the cast and even then some characters are left underdeveloped. The story also takes a back seat and is not as strong as it probably should be which means the experience as a whole is not completely satisfying.Still, on a superhero movie level, “X-Men” is highly successful. The action sequences are well done, the movie is fun, and many of the characters are a case of actor and material being perfectly matched. (Halle Berry aside, everybody gives a great performance.) [Grade: B+]
5. X2First off, this sequel improves upon its predecessor by shaping a much stronger story. The tale builds to a nice tension by the end and all the pieces are expertly set up. It maintains the problem of having too many characters and some cast members are underdeveloped or underused. (I’m glad I’m not a Cyclops fan as his part has been reduced significantly.) The movie is smart enough to leave enough room for new characters however, allowing Alan Cummings as Nightcrawler and Brain Cox as General Stryker to shine
in their respective parts.The action scenes are a step-up too. Magnento’s escape, Nightcrawler’s White House assault, the invasion on the school, and Wolverine’s fight with Lady Deathstrike are all memorable set-pieces. While this film is superior to the first, generally speaking, it lacks that sense of comic book fun and excitement that is really necessary for a project such as this. While it’s not a big issue, I think the film takes itself maybe a little too seriously. Still, “X2” is a great sequel. [Grade: A-]
6. Superman ReturnsVisually, this is Bryon Singer's best looking film. His camera dances in and around scenes in a way that I didn't really expect from him. Many of the effects are beautifully done. Not once did I point at an effect and say, "That looks fake." Most notable is the big airplane crash scene, which is just a very well staged, thrilling, and brilliantly paced scene. Kevin Spacey, though a little broad at times, seems to be having a pretty good time playing Lex Luthor. And for a movie that is nearly three hours long, not once did I stop to check the time.
My biggest complaint with this film is the acting from the two leads. Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane never really convinced me. Brandon Routh lacks a certain charm and all the good stuff he does is basically just ripped from Chris Reeve's performance. Because of this their relationship is never quite as emotionally involving as it should be. What really saves the movie, in the end, is that it's just so heartfelt. Singer's love for the character and the material is palpable. The whole thing is just a big fuzzy love-letter to the Christopher Reeve films, and maybe to a lesser degree, the whole idea of comic book heroes. I'm still not sure if that's a good thing, in the long run, as a fresher approach probably would have been better. Yet this is still a highly enjoyable film and great summer blockbuster fare. Now if only they had found a better actor to play Superman. [Grade: A-] Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Director Report Card: Bryan Singer (1993-1998)
1. Public Access
Certainly an interesting little movie, even if it doesn’t actually do too much with its premise. Not completely unlike Singer’s next film, “Public Access” is a movie that actually spends more time telling you what it’s not about. We are ask to draw our own conclusion; not a bad things at all, but we’re not really given enough to figure much out.
Still, I found plenty to enjoy here. The discussion about small town values is compelling stuff. A lot is done with what was obviously a small budget. Ron Marquette’s lead performance is deceptively deep. Singer’s direction is stylish and colorful with some interesting visual clues and subtexts. “Public Access” is not required viewing, but fans of the director or of smart indies might want to give it a look, if they have nothing else to watch. [Grade: B-]
2. The Usual Suspects
An intricate puzzle box of a movie. The plot is complicated and really demands your attention, but this appears to be a ploy just to drawl you into the movie’s world. Or it could just be to confuse, cause you to over think things (Much like Chazz Palminteri’s character does), so when the twist ending does comes, it hits harder then you’d expected. I’d probably hate the movie for that if the twist wasn’t as awesome as it is.
The movie might be easily dismissed as a one-time pony if it weren’t for the care taken to bring the story to life. Bryan Singer’s direction is cool and smooth, in perfect neo-noir style. There is a great ensemble cast here. All the individual characters are well acted, memorable, likable, and well-rounded. Possibly more important is how well they play off each other. Each character is design to play off the rest of the team in order to produce maximum drama. So while the big twist gets you the first time, it’s the multiple layers that make you come back for seconds. [Grade: A]
3. Apt Pupil
What’s best about this feature is its acting. Ian McKellen, despite an obviously fake German accent, is certainly a fine actor and gives a good performance and Brad Renfro does a good job as well. Their personalities don’t quite clash and click as they should and that causes the film too loose a lot of tension. The character interaction is still entertaining to watch, but the mentor/enemies concept just didn’t seem very rounded to me.
Singer’s direction does manage to produce at least two scenes of actual tension, Renfro’s frenzied bike-ride through the tunnel and the sequence with the homeless man being them. The nature of evil in people is the main theme, something carried over from the original Stephen King novella, and that gives the final product considerable more strength. The way these two people affect each other, how their beliefs contaminate one another, is fascinating and makes up for the noticeable lack of tension. The final act drags a little but I really liked the ending. So, if you go in expecting more of a character study and less of a thriller, you’ll probably be pretty satisfied. [Grade: B+]
Still, I found plenty to enjoy here. The discussion about small town values is compelling stuff. A lot is done with what was obviously a small budget. Ron Marquette’s lead performance is deceptively deep. Singer’s direction is stylish and colorful with some interesting visual clues and subtexts. “Public Access” is not required viewing, but fans of the director or of smart indies might want to give it a look, if they have nothing else to watch. [Grade: B-]
2. The Usual SuspectsAn intricate puzzle box of a movie. The plot is complicated and really demands your attention, but this appears to be a ploy just to drawl you into the movie’s world. Or it could just be to confuse, cause you to over think things (Much like Chazz Palminteri’s character does), so when the twist ending does comes, it hits harder then you’d expected. I’d probably hate the movie for that if the twist wasn’t as awesome as it is.
The movie might be easily dismissed as a one-time pony if it weren’t for the care taken to bring the story to life. Bryan Singer’s direction is cool and smooth, in perfect neo-noir style. There is a great ensemble cast here. All the individual characters are well acted, memorable, likable, and well-rounded. Possibly more important is how well they play off each other. Each character is design to play off the rest of the team in order to produce maximum drama. So while the big twist gets you the first time, it’s the multiple layers that make you come back for seconds. [Grade: A]
3. Apt PupilWhat’s best about this feature is its acting. Ian McKellen, despite an obviously fake German accent, is certainly a fine actor and gives a good performance and Brad Renfro does a good job as well. Their personalities don’t quite clash and click as they should and that causes the film too loose a lot of tension. The character interaction is still entertaining to watch, but the mentor/enemies concept just didn’t seem very rounded to me.
Singer’s direction does manage to produce at least two scenes of actual tension, Renfro’s frenzied bike-ride through the tunnel and the sequence with the homeless man being them. The nature of evil in people is the main theme, something carried over from the original Stephen King novella, and that gives the final product considerable more strength. The way these two people affect each other, how their beliefs contaminate one another, is fascinating and makes up for the noticeable lack of tension. The final act drags a little but I really liked the ending. So, if you go in expecting more of a character study and less of a thriller, you’ll probably be pretty satisfied. [Grade: B+]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
