I love the era pre-PG-13. This is a straight up PG movie...where a weird guy chokes multiple people, one of them...TO DEATH! You know, kids' stuff.
DIRECTOR: Alfred Hitchcock This has to be my most viewed Hitchcock film with the exception of Psycho. I love this movie so much that I'm actually going to have a bit of difficulty writing about it. Right now, I have Bernard Herrmann's score to North by Northwest playing while I write this, which is just confusing up scenes in Strangers on a Train for me, but that's okay. I'm taking my favorite score and putting it over what might be my favorite Hitchcock. I know that Hitchcock rarely wrote completely original stories and Strangers on a Train is another adaptation from a novel. I also know that Raymond Chandler gets credit for this script outside of the fact that Hitchcock hated his script and borderline threw it out. But Strangers on a Train works so well because it has to be the coolest concept out of all of his films. That's kind of saying something. Hitchcock's thriller were often extremely high concept, so when I say that Strangers on a Train is the best concept, I am swearing by it pretty hard. This might be my favorite film from who might be my favorite director. Yet, I acknowledge that it is not perfect. Go, me, for objectivity! I feel like a film snob for picking Strangers on a Train. It's such a hipster choice. It's either Strangers on a Train or Vertigo. The only reason that I give Strangers on a Train more points sometimes is that I watch it more often. For those not in the know, Strangers on a Train relies on a very cool premise. Bruno, a very uncomfortably weird guy, confronts Guy, a semi-pro tennis player, on a train and posits an odd theory: the only way to commit the perfect murder is for two strangers to kill each other's victim. Guy is trying to divorce his wife who is refusing to give him the divorce. Bruno wants his father dead. Guy humors Bruno, thinking that this is all a hypothetical. The only problem is that Bruno goes through with his end of the bargain and demands that Guy does the same. That is nifty. That is a really good premise. My film students still screamed at the screen and said that he should have told the police everything. I agree, but then the movie wouldn't work. Also, there's a suspension of disbelief that someone could read the situation the same way that Guy did. The premise is so brain-breaking. It took me years to find a way to summarize the concept as well as I did above. It's still very confusing in the long run, but at least someone is at least a little enlightened, I hope. With Hitchcock being the Master of Suspense and all, this story just oozes with suspense. With a focus on Guy and the repercussions, the often hidden Bruno comes across as a monster. Every time there is a hint of Bruno on screen, there is an element of the unknown that plays up on fears. It also helps that Bruno is a wild card. He doesn't follow social conventions by any means, but he also considers himself a social chameleon to varying degrees of success. This means that Bruno can and often inserts himself into sequences that would normally be considered safe places for Guy. There's a shot of Guy walking with a policeman and Bruno is just standing at the top of the stairs from a distance, staring at him, There are many stories that have a stalker as the antagonist for a piece, but it doesn't always work. Bruno Anthony might be the most effective stalker villain I've seen in film. There's something genuinely upsetting about Robert Walker's performance. I will admit that there are times when it is over the top, but the movie almost calls for that. The movie opens absolutely brilliantly. When I teach Hitchcock, I talk about how Hitchcock's low angle tracking shot of the lead actors' shoes is more telling than any opening I've seen when it comes to establishing character. Their outfits are so telling and the way they walk has this element of a fatal collision that works remarkably well. Following this shot, having the point of view shot of the train looking at the criss-crossing tracks is absolutely stunning. Bruno often repeats the phrase "criss-cross", which acts as a motif for the film. Having the movie start out with the image of the criss-crossing tracks establishes the tone and the motif so quickly that the movie really just is allowed to start. The characters are given sufficient introduction that any previous content seems unnecessary. As a consequence of this sequence, there is a bit of an exposition dump when it comes to Bruno interviewing Guy. It seems larger than life, but it also is telling of Bruno's obsessive personality. While I hate info dumps, this one really works because Guy is marvelously uncomfortable with Bruno direct characterization, which (probably intentionally) acts as indirect characterization for Bruno himself. I might actually show this sequence for teaching direct and indirect characterization one day because it works remarkably well. There are so many good shots in this movie too. I'm going to get a little bit listy, so I apologize. It's not my favorite way to write, but analyzing each of these scenes for how cool they look might get a little tedious. My favorite shot in the film is at one of the earlier tennis matches. The heads are bouncing back and forth as has been seen in umpteen films involving tennis. What makes this scene unique is the fact that Bruno's head doesn't move. This contrast between spectator and stalker is sublime. I also really dig the call backs to the way that the wife dies. The use of reflection could have looked extremely cheesy. I often groan when there is a reflection in the eye that is very clear, but using the coke bottle glasses as the reflective surface works really really well. In contrast to these moments, there are a few sequences that don' really work for me. I do think that the final tennis match goes on for way too long. Like, it is really long. Hitch loves the suspense sequences, and he usually know when to cut them. I think that the tennis match hits that tipping point and it hits it hard. SPOILER: I also don't like the final effect with the carousel. It gets silly. I'm talking about the layered effect along with the speed up effect. I always have a problem with the speed up effect in old movies, but I'm not going to stop complaining about them any time soon. I also know that Hitch hated both of his endings that he shot. I'm talking about the denouement. I agree with that assessment. But the movie works! It works really well. I have to watch Vertigo for a third time to see if it is still my favorite. But Strangers on a Train might be the most watchable and I'll stand by that one for a while.
0 Comments
Besides the fact that I get distracted by Blade Runner 2049, we discuss both versions of Stephen King's It and Jordan Peele's Get Out.
Stream or download at our new page, literallyanything.net! So many R-Rated entries. What made me think otherwise? Do I think so little of the next generation that I simply have to assume that all of their horror movies have been nerfed? I also really question what makes a horror movie rated what it is? Is it the intended audience? Do adults want to see R-rated movies and do teens want to see PG-13 movies? That can't be right.
DIRECTOR: James Wan It's almost time to do a podcast on these films and I have to review them soon. I'm really falling behind on my reviews. Perhaps I'm watching too many movies and I can't possibly keep up with the reviews in a timely manner, but we'll see how the quality of this review comes out. I have to say that I've been overall impressed with this franchise. There was something within me that really was hesitant about giving these movies their proper due, but I think I was wrong about that in the long run. Between The Conjuring, Annabelle, and The Conjuring 2, I got a good deal of scares. I was less than impressed by Annabelle: Creation, but I shouldn't talk about that until I actually get there. This is one of those rare horror sequels that mostly gets everything right about what made the first movie great without overtly ripping off the first film. There is a bit of tonal safeness going on when it comes to The Conjuring 2 that I wish could be washed away, but I also get that the movie really has to be a follow up to the first film and that would have been a risky move to completely stray from the original format. Instead, James Wan moved the story to England. Admittedly, that was not entirely his call because of the fame of the "real case." (If you didn't read my review of The Conjuring, you must know that I'm extremely skeptical about the validity of these original stories.) I read the Wikipedia article on the incident portrayed in The Conjuring 2 and this involvement is even more dubious than the first movie. Again, this is Wikipedia, but apparently the Warrens had almost nothing to do with this case outside of being told to shove off. But the ghost story is apparently a pretty famous ghost story and I'm sure the producers of the franchise thought it would be a good idea to change the setting to England. I agree, but there is something very Americana about a good ghost story set in America. The England thing, frankly, caught me a little off guard. It was even weirder with the type of house that the film focused on. This was a suburban flat as opposed to the very creepy house of the first film. I liked that, in a way. I complained mostly in my review for the first movie that the haunting element was a bit on the nose with the aesthetic choices, but this movie kind of steers away from it. It's the beats that really hit the same though. It is odd to see a series of films intentionally try to build a cinematic universe. This seems to be a common thread among many of recent big budget reviews. It seems like every production house wants to say that they have what Marvel has and The Conjuring 2 is pretty shameless about the whole thing. The first movie introduced Annabelle, who barely has a role in the first movie except for the overt tease that she is somehow terrifying. That was then followed up with the film Annabelle, which slightly teased the Warrens. We get that. The nun (who actually ends up being one of the main villains in this movie) is intentionally underdeveloped just so she can have her own film. She's teased again in Annabelle: Creation, possibly more shamelessly than the others. I really like cinematic universes when they happen organically. But these movies tend to be really shoehorning them in. I can't help but think of the first Iron Man film with Sam Jackson just teasing the word "Avengers". That was so minor and blew up audiences everywhere. But much of these movies are now devoted to trying to tease future films in the franchise. I know that horror fans are pretty intense, but I also feel that most audiences wouldn't consider themselves necessarily fans of The Conjuring universe, despite the fact that they may actually enjoy the films quite a bit. Does anybody lose their minds when one of these moments is teased? The nun is very creepy, but she should have been able to be more developed in a two-hour-and-fifteen-minute movie. There's very little to this character outside of the look of her being terrifying. There also is a gravitas that is attached to her that seems somewhat unearned. SPOILER: Foreshadowing a character's death and now paying it off seems silly and I don't know if the Nun deserves to have that title of "nemesis" when she really hadn't earned it. One thing about a nemesis, or a cinematic universe for that matter, is that there needs to be a slow build up to give the level of gravitas needed to allow for these desperate moments. The Conjuring movies kind of do things backwards. They promise that a character will be worth the events of the current story and then use prequels to prove that point. I think Age of Ultron had the same problem. By giving moments significance before actually earning them is spending the audience's goodwill like credit. I don't necessarily want to wait two years to find out what The Nun is all about. Yes, she's scary and effectively so, but I have no idea what her rules are, therefore her defeat is anticlimactic. This movie is slightly more disjointed than its predecessor. The very format of these movies is odd. Considering that the Warrens are the protagonists, it is a bit problematic having the characters insert themselves into the story. As part of that, one of the major beats from the first film is repeated. The Warrens have a hard time protecting each other from danger. They are always on the verge on avoiding the narrative completely, which is absurd considering that they are the protagonists. The audience is automatically misled from what will clearly be the A-plot. This isn't that big a deal in the first film, a significantly shorter story. But keeping the Warrens out of the story for as long as they are in this movie seems somewhat painful. Also, making the Warrens the lynch pins of the narrative is weird when it comes to evoking sympathy for the actual victims of the story. The family should be the key focal point. They are the ones being haunted, but it is clear that the story won't actually really begin until the Warrens are somehow involved. While the Nun and the old man really work as antagonists, The Conjuring 2 finally craps out when it shows one of its villains. I've complimented this franchise for breaking the rules about showing the creepy villains, mainly because many visuals can't match the terror that is in our imagination. But The Conjuring 2 kind of messed up with the look of The Crooked Man. The Crooked Man is terribly CG. I've preached how mostly CG villains aren't scary. The build up to the Crooked Man is very impressive, but the actual payoff just looks silly. Add to that the angle that the man is shot in, it just adds to the goofiness. Traditionally, low to high angle shots give the subject a position of power, but it also reveals many of the glaring errors when it came to the digital effects in the film. There is one scene where the Crooked Man bursts through the front door and, considering that the movie has the look a 1970's horror movie, the movie instantly becomes this low budget music video. It really doesn't work. I know it sounds like I'm griping pretty hard, but the movie is pretty entertaining. I don't think it has the same legs as the first film. I would still watch a sequel to this franchise, but there's some wear and tear that need to be addressed before that happens. Unrated because of all of the horribly scandalous stuff in it! This is the Xtreme edition of a film that you've been waiting for. (If you can't tell through my thick typed sarcasm, it's Buster Keaton. This movie is adorably innocent. The worst thing in it is worrying if the actual actor / director is going to die. He doesn't, but I don't know how he didn't die doing these stunts. SPOILER: He doesn't die. Also, there was no MPAA.)
DIRECTOR: Buster Keaton I'm a bad film teacher and an overall bad film person. I suppose that just makes me a bad person in the long run. I started this movie, like, two years ago. It was on Netflix and I was jazzed. My wife was in the rare mood to watch something ancient and I had always wanted to watch Sherlock Jr. I hadn't seen any Buster Keaton at this point and I was ashamed. I should have been better than that, but since I established that I was a bad person, I guess that I shouldn't have been surprised. I watched the first ten minutes and loved loved LOVED it. But I think it was super late night and we started drifting. Either that or we wanted to turn off the TV in front of the kids. Regardless, we never came back to it. It is no long on Netflix so I YouTubed it. Yup, much of YouTube is comprised of really bad prints of great public domain movies. The version I watched had a contemporary soundtrack that made me groan pretty hard. I watched half of it with my class. And then I waited two weeks. Two weeks is inexcusable. But that's where I get my jollies apparently. I then finished it. I will say that an appropriate soundtrack adds or detracts from a movie. Buster Keaton is a genius and a madman, but listening to some of the YouTube soundtrack may have murdered some of my goodwill towards the movie. I watched a chunk of it actually silent and it worked better. So even though I'm writing a review for a film that didn't actually commission that score, I have to acknowledge that wacky music detracts from a film. I think all composers should be aware: putting funny scores over a funny movie makes the movie unfunny. A goofy soundtrack is a mood killer. I don't know how Buster Keaton did it. Maybe what's worse, is that I probably do. Buster Keaton filmed the most insane things that I've ever seen. Between my first attempt at watching Sherlock Jr. and finally completing it, I watched Steamboat Bill Jr. (I don't get the "junior" thing outside of what it tells at face value.) These movies shows a man who makes a living at adding spectacle to his slapstick. While I will always laugh at Chaplin's antics because they are remarkably well choreographed and paced, Keaton acts as the showman for these movies. His comedy is more death-defying. When I say, "I don't know how he did it," I really mean, "I can't believe he did that because he should have died performing that stunts." What makes Keaton a master at what he does is the idea that he times his entire production on risk-taking. In my MPAA bumper, I write about how there is such a heavy danger element to every stunt he takes. I honestly think that I'm about to watch someone die on camera, Faces of Death style. But that doesn't detract from his comedy. These moments are very funny. Keaton understands the balance of suspense and comedy. Chaplin does the same with his comedy, but much of that also balances emotional catharsis. Keaton's character, a variation of Chaplin's tramp, has a more "laugh at" attitude than "laugh with" attitude. This isn't to say that Chaplin's Tramp isn't laughed at, but Chaplin always brings an element of guilt to his mockery. There's a moment where I root for Chaplin, but Keaton narrative is less sympathetic. His flat affect is amusing, but dehumanizing. I think Keaton wants us to feel okay to be a little bit of a bully. That's not to say that Keaton's character should lose his objective. Keaton's character always has the overall win as opposed to Chaplin's occasional losses. With a character like Keaton's, he needs to have the win or else there would be a darkly tragic element to his antics. The ending, SPOILER, in particular has an element of disbelief to it because the choices he makes shouldn't be working. It would simply be a bummer to watch him rejected after the events of the film. As a film guy though, the movie has a bit of resonance. I don't know if I necessarily like the plot as a plot itself, but it does have a love for the medium of cinema. Remember, this is in a time where film, particularly American film, is considered a novelty. We're a little bit past that period, but not by much. Yet, the movie itself seems to be a love letter to the format of film. It's odd that the movie is called Sherlock Jr. because it really doesn't meet the tone of the film. Yeah, I get it. Keaton imagines himself to be a suave detective. But the detective aspect of the narrative really takes a back seat to the entire commentary of film as a whole. The real element of the film is that a regular schlub can daydream that he is a part of something bigger than himself. I suppose that's what film was meant for. We can stop being engulfed in our everyday problems and enter worlds where we are the heroes. We become something bigger than ourselves and that's what makes cinema so appealing. I have to believe that Keaton is actively engaging this part of himself with the making of this film. Yes, the stunts are silly and the narrative of the film within the film is fairly lacking, but it does tie into many conventions that Keaton would have probably admired. I do find it interesting that, even in his reverie, he finds himself to be a flawed character. He is a genius when it comes to the big things, like the billiard ball sequence, but he is still the lovable goofball when it comes to riding the front of the motorcycle. Part of this is to make the character funny. A character who is constantly successful is hard to sympathize with. Keaton is still himself without completely Mary Sue-ing himself. It makes the movie a bit cuter than simply a look at the medium of film, but it works overall. The weird thing about slagging off a movie like this is that it is really hard to be critical of it. Like I mentioned, there's a slightly P.T. Barnum element to the film as a whole. The movie is about spectacle and the narrative is really secondary to the vehicle he uses to tell jokes. The jokes really work, but there's no actual emotional investment in any of the characters. Like many of the silent slapsticks, there is a love interest who lacks any personality whatsoever. Again, she is there to have Buster Keaton bounce ridiculous premises across. These jokes really crush, like the "$4.00" chocolate box. It's funny and it works with the story, but the idea that Keaton is removed from her life through a frame job is such a secondary concept that I haven't seen that kind of dismissal of plot before. I think that's what really stops me from truly falling in love with these stories. I really like Buster Keaton because his movies are very funny and extremely watchable, but part of what draws me into the movie is the emotional investment and I don't know if that's the strongest part of Keaton's films. The other silent slapsticks get that. Heck, even the Marx brothers get that a little bit better than Keaton does. But they also don't go to the lengths he does to pull of his magic tricks. (That's what I was looking for. He does the most dangerous and elaborate magic tricks!) This leaves me in an interesting position as a reviewer because I don't know what to say about him when the dust clears. He's perhaps the most amazing stuntman / comedian that ever existed, but his movies sometimes leave a little depth to be desired. Yes, the beats are there, but I have a hard time sympathizing with his character, unlike Chaplin. Chaplin rips my heart out in each movie and then has me in stitches laughing. Chaplin is about balance vs. Keaton knows how to wow me but little else. I loved this movie, but I'm never going to be in love with this movie. I want to watch all of Keaton's films, but that's because I want to see how far he'll go with everything he does. It's not a bad quest, but I also feel it might leave me a bit empty in the long run. Passed. I love the adorable rating system of the British rating system. It's that certificate that old British movies start with. It's like it won an award or something. A pass / fail award. Regardless, this movie passed!
DIRECTOR: Alfred Hitchcock In my film class, I devote the entire month of October to Hitchcock. These are the things that get you attention from local magazines claiming you are a good teacher. (Okay, no one really knows I do this outside of my actual film students and I'm pretty sure they're only okay with this lesson plan.) As part of this unit, I divide Hitchcock into four eras: the British films, the Selznick era (which I tend not to show a movie from, despite the fact that Rebecca crushes), the Warner films, and the Universal films. Last year, I showed The 39 Steps and the kids hated it. Okay, they didn't hate it, but they were far from impressed. It's hard to find an engaging British Hitchcock film for high school students. I'm not slamming this era at all, but Hitchcock has a very different pace from his American stuff. It had been a while since I had seen The Lady Vanishes, so I gave this one a whirl. It was a mostly successful choice. I can't stand the fact that Flightplan exists. I haven't seen it, but I've seen the trailer far too many times. Flightplan is the same story, but on a plane. (What? You don't remember the very forgettable gem that is Flightplan with Jodie Foster and Sean Bean? You mean that this is something that sticks in my mind for no reason and I'm a bad person? You're right. I should quit this website. It IS far too much work. I should just sleep? Okay.) Hitchcock is an amazing director, but he's also a guy who knows how to pick some high concept projects. I can see Hitchcock sitting in armchairs with just a stack of novels, burning through them in one night. He adapts these books that aren't necessarily famous in themselves (with the exception of Rebecca) and they are all very cool concepts. The Lady Vanishes is another cool concept and the story rides pretty high on its concept. I will say that Mrs. Froy is a bit Macguffin-y, which is appropriate considering that Hitchcock made this movie. As a Macguffin, this is probably where I'm torn the most. The problem that my students had with The 39 Steps is that the Macguffin doesn't really pay off, despite the fact that so much revolved around it. Somehow, The Lady Vanishes shares the very odd premise that The 39 Steps has in the fact that the Macguffin is kind of malarkey, but for some reason it works a bit better in this case. (I still love Mr. Memory.) The kids were weirdly cool with the answer to the mystery of who Mrs. Froy really was. I, however, was not that all into it. Instead, I just liked the movie as a whole. I don't want to make this a grandiose argument about maturity or anything because I don't really think I have a case. But I'm genuinely cool with the Macguffin not being that important sometimes. The Macguffin works, but not in a perfect way. Someone really jammed that puzzle piece in where it really didn't belong. What I like aobut Hitchcock's British era is the detail. Like Green for Danger, there is this very weird comedy and character humor ensconced in a dramatic thriller. This would later carry on into his macabre personality, juxtaposing death to puns or a flat affect. (I'm pretty proud of that previous sentence.) But I love the moments in the story. I suppose this review is going to take into account student reactions to moments because I can't help thinking how other people absorb content we spoon-feed them. The romantic element does seem a bit dated. In light of the #metoo hashtag, Michael Redgrave's performance as Gilbert seems wildly aggressive. Yet, I can't help but find it charming. I know, the woke side of me knows that he should lay off and respect her boundaries. The film fan and the supporter of the narrative realizes it is what makes the characters and the story work. (I really hope I'm not dating the "Me too" hashtag. For people reading this in the future, #metoo refers to women who have been sexually harassed.) Gilbert is a stark contrast to Margaret Lockwood's Iris Henderson and that joining of opposites is what makes their relationship fun. But watching my students react to his advances gave me hope for the future of my students with their attention to the fact that his advances were not alright, but made me sad that they also couldn't enjoy the film from a will they / won't they perspective. I know, I get too political sometimes. The good news is that the students still had a lot of fun with the movie as a whole, so I guess students can allow for some cultural wiggle room and take these moments in stride. But the best bit of the entire film are the two sports fans trying to make the game. (IMDB makes me think that their names are Caldicott and Charters, but I have little info regarding them.) They are there for almost entirely comic relief, but the plot clearly revolves around their obsessive behavior and it becomes humorous. Again, I'm a hypocrite for allowing these characters some leniency. I tend to rip apart movies where coincidence is the only thing that allows a master plan to succeed and this movie really plays that up. (Sorry, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. I will not let you off the hook any time soon.) As dark as the whole story is, the light tone of the film never really makes the movie a bummer. The movie is actually pretty fun throughout and part of that lies in the absurdity of the whole thing. Hitchcock uses archetypes to throw everything at the wall. He even has an evil henchman disguised as a nun who then changes sides in the movie. That's pretty great. I don't know quite why I like The Lady Vanishes so much. The more I think about it, the more I realized that it is a pretty flawed film. I think this movie might just be about achieving a perfect tone. When reading Truffaut's interview with Hitchcock, he mentioned that it was playing in Paris every week to solid out audiences, despite its age. It has a certain something that makes it fun and engaging. It doesn't pay off as tightly as it should, but it is filled with constantly satisfying moments. It's like a constant feeding of endorphins that make the movie worth watching. Every time Iris looks crazy, something happens that cements her back on the case. These movie almost works as a combination of scenes that really play well together and nothing else. But those reveals are always fun, probably no more so than Mrs. Froy's name on glass. Everyone in the room knew that the letters on the window was foreshadowing and everyone was glad when they predicted correctly. It allows for those coincidence moments and the deus ex machina moments to really succeed. The movie requires not only investment in the mystery, but also a sense of forgiveness when Iris receives bonus hints to things she should not be able to discover. It's fun and engaging, if not a little bit flawed. I'll probably watch it again in a few years and think the same thing. Who knows? Maybe a double feature with Flightplan? In our third Halloween episode, we look at the Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror" episodes from Seasons 2-10 with our special guest, Mr. Joe Cordonnier.
Visit our new site: literallyanything.net As part of that, I think I'm going to take down the Literally Anything subpage on this page. I'll still update the mainpage with news of our episodes, but just bookmark our new page. Another R rated one. This one I'm really wondering about. Did Ridley Scott have the same theory I did, that PG-13 movies aren't really taken seriously? Most of this movie is a comfortable PG-13 movie. The language is pretty minimal. While the violence is intense, it is few and far between. There's one scene where Deckard walks in on a girl changing. For half the scene, Scott avoids showing nudity and seems to go out of his way to do so. All of the sudden, it just embraces the nudity (pun not intended) and then she's on screen nekkid. A weird choice.
DIRECTOR: Ridley Scott I have the vibe that the picture I chose above has been cropped to make the aspect ratio more dynamic. I looked up other pictures and those aspect ratios are all off too. I guess I'll just lie to myself and say that it might be accurate. I have an odd relationship to Blade Runner. It really hits a lot of the buttons I have when I'm looking for a genre film. My idols love this this movie. The problem is that the first two times I watched it, I didn't care for it at all. I was bored silly and found it far too pretentious to actually be considered good. But then I got caught up in the hype. The trailers for the sequel looked awesome and I really want to see it. The best thing I could have done to satisfy that itch was to rewatch the first movie, even if it was just to remind myself how I didn't like the movie. But then I watched it and really liked it. All of the story was still there, but something clicked in me that hadn't really seen the light of day before. I think I've changed my mind about Blade Runner. Part of my issue is that I realized that Blade Runner was doing what I wanted genre cinema to do for a while now. Genre fiction is rarely seen as serious or part of the canon because it is always a little bit goofy. Blade Runner is actually a work of science fiction that doesn't see the term "science fiction" as a restriction. The movie is desperately trying to be something worthy and admirable. Why this might not necessarily hit the automatic genius status of 2001: A Space Odyssey or something of that ilk is the look of 1982. Upon initial glance, the film stock looks like it is a bit of a Cannon Film. It is grainy and dirty. There are oodles of films from this era of science fiction that use the dirty future to show off intensity. In many of these cases, the darkly lit world and grainy film stock are meant to cover up weak special effects budgets and overall flaws. However, Blade Runner isn't really doing that. Rather, Scott is applying the film noir mentality over a film that actually has remarkably masterful special effects, especially for the time period. Deckard really is Bogie in The Maltese Falcon. The fine line that Scott had to walk, however, is whether to straight up make a science fiction send up of the film noir or to simply pay homage to the genre through lighting effects. While I am not completely opposed to a sepia-toned Warner production of Blade Runner, I also acknowledge that would add an element of kitsch that wouldn't really vibe with the narrative of the piece. What I also noticed upon this third viewing is that Blade Runner needs to be watched distraction free. The plot itself is deceptively simple, but can get confusing with a distracted audience. There's this whole subplot with J.F. Sebastian that left me flummoxed. I had no idea what his contribution to the main plot with the replicants was. I knew that he worked in genetic engineering, but I couldn't tie how Sebastian was tied to Deckard or how Deckard was able to work the case without a little bit of deus ex machina happening. However, if I was able to move my phone out of reach and I was forced to watch carefully (which I did!), the story makes perfect sense. When I realized that the plot wasn't all that intense, it freed me to examine the philosophy that Phillip K. Dick wove into his original tale Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Dick, like many of the science fiction greats, uses science fiction to comment on larger concepts. The theme of consciousness and the value of life are always present, regardless of how closely one watches the film. However, that frustration over the plot that I had before always got in the way and it annoyed me more than it should have. With that peace of mind, I was able to absorb the themes far better than before. I think the issue that distracted me previously was the absolutely brutal pacing. While Blade Runner could be chalked up as an action / sci-fi movie, the action really is used to continue the plot. Deckard isn't ridiculously violent. The concept implies that this should be a violent film, but Deckard tends to dispatch with the replicants quite quickly. He is cold and calculating, which doesn't fill the film with scenes of glorious violence. In fact, I don't even think that the violence is glorified. It simply happens and Deckard moves on with his life. That makes a boring movie. Maybe when I got older, I got okay with boring. Boring isn't bad. It's just bad if you are expecting a nonstop thrill ride. The world of Blade Runner is darned impressive and I think that it only works in conjunction with the actors. I can't look at Sean Young after knowing that Batman Returns story. (If you don't know this story, Google it. It is bizarre.) But Young does a really solid job. It's Harrison Ford who puzzles me. Ford is a weird guy. He's got this personality like he's better than anything he does with the exception of Indiana Jones. That guy loves Indiana Jones. But this is young Harrison Ford. I honestly thought that he was trying to distance himself from Star Wars as far as doing sci-fi was concerned. I'm really glad that Deckard isn't Han Solo, but he's definitely a bit of Harrison Ford. Ford is charming as heck in everything he does for the most part, and there's one moment that really screams more Ford than Deckard. It's the same scene as the nekkid scene and it really kind of breaks the reality of the character. I know that a blade runner should have some tricks to get by the red tape of an area, but it seems a bit silly with him being a guy looking for peep holes. But the rest of the choices that Deckard presents are fairly cool. I like the hardened detective who just wants to be out of this life. Contrast that to Rutger Hauer, who crushes in this movie. I just realized that every actor in this movie has a dubious reputation. Harrison Ford hates everything he's in. Sean Young is a crazy person. Rutger Hauer is apparently a jerk to everyone. Perhaps it's only Edward James Olmos who seems like a nice guy, but he barely speaks. He does make some pretty rad origami (which I'm not quite sure I get, but it is a cool metaphor I guess...) Regardless, the cast's performance really works for the movie. I can even say that I normally don't like Rutger Hauer, but his performance in this movie is legendary. Blade Runner hasn't really changed my life, but it is the kind of science fiction that I've been clamoring for in a way. It is extremely challenging. While the message of what constitutes life is interesting to me, it doesn't leave me staying up at night. But I like that it is slightly brainbreaky. The replicants in Blade Runner are mostly the bad guys of the film, but they have a darned point. If they wouldn't just murder all willy-nilly using eye gouges and skull crushing, they do have a right to fight for their own survival. Adding the complexity of Sean Young's character and the ambiguous status of Deckard as a replicant creates something to think about. It may not change the world and any contemporary philosophy would have to be heavily grafted on top of this, but it does make me think. That's the purpose of science fiction: we want people to think. It is challenging and I think I like Blade Runner more than I thought I did. Mind you, I really wanted to like Blade Runner, so I'm being a bit of a Pinocchio right now. (Pun intended.) This movie is pretty great. The aesthetics are phenomenal. It pushes philosophy and is challenging when it comes to expectations of science fiction. Now I really want to go see the new one. I just don't know when that is going to happen. R, for language mostly. But the movie does start off with a floating Michael Keaton in his underwear. In fact, there's a lot of Michael Keaton in his whitey tighties. They probably just added the swearing because they couldn't R-rating a movie about a guy who spends a lot of his time just wearing briefs.
DIRECTOR: Alejandro G. Iñárritu See, now I'm in a pickle. If I say I hate this movie, that means I'm lying because I really, really don't. If I say I love this movie, I get categorized as a film snob, but a dumb film snob who thinks he knows when something is artsy when it genuinely isn't. I don't know why I would read IMDB reviews, but this is what I gleaned. A lot of people crap on this movie really hard and I'm genuinely flummoxed. I'm going to go as far as to say that this might be one of my favorite movies of the past decade. The only real problem is the parentheses in the title, which messes with my listing of the title next to the release year. Yeah. That's me. I made the mistake of buying this movie on a crazy Amazon sale (I'm blaming Amazon despite the fact that my wife will be angry at me regardless) when it came out. For some fluke, Amazon had it massively discounted immediately upon release. I had just seen it a month before when I was shotgunning all of the Best Picture nominees and lost my mind over this movie. I loved it so much that I knew I had to own it...but I had just watched it. Say what you will, I needed to give this movie some distance. Also, I'm sure Lauren would have rolled her eyes at me pretty hard had I suggested that I would like to watch the movie we just saw again. Do you know how I know that? It's been three years since I saw this movie and she thought it was silly that I was watching it again. She claimed I just wanted to write a review about it. I did want to write a review about it, but I also wanted to watch it, thank you very much. This movie just hits me in a sweet spot of film that makes me okay to watch it over and over again. I don't think Iñárritu is necessarily the best director (albeit he is very impressive) because I didn't think that The Revenant isn't the movie I needed it to be. (Yes, I made it about me.) However, I do think he has a way with storytelling and experimentation that a lot of contemporary directors may lack. The movie is extremely experimental and people say that's like it is a bad thing. This film takes Rope's invisible cut and tries pushing it into the digital age. Yeah, yeah, it's a little bit of a cheat. Hitchcock couldn't use his film reels to have Michael Keaton fly through Times Square, but I think that he might appreciate that it should be done. The invisible cut throughout a film always impresses me. It might be a little on the nose to use the invisible cut to tell a story about a stage play, but Iñárritu doesn't allow the narrative to simply be a stage play on film. Rather, the camera is a violent character, whipping around and playing. If anything, the camera is afraid to stay still. This has to be a choice. I refuse to believe that I live in a world where someone isn't aware that a stage play is most authentic with a still camera and someone intentionally subverts that concept. I could watch the special features or peruse the Wikipedia article, but I have, like, four more reviews to catch up on. Plus, you know, my actual job. The long cut is usually pretty impressive, but the I've never really seen the long cut work when the chronology is all over the place. Usually, the long cut is used to tell an important, real time element. Rather, by making the long cut in a film that allows time to be more fluid, it only stresses the playfulness of these moments. To add to this, and I really can't explain this, it adds an emotional element to each moment. The film is divided into important scenes, but these scenes have the added feature of being spatially related. This may be a happy accident, but showing how one person's drama is directly physically related to another adds a very bizarre element to the whole thing. The only way that this can really be paid off is with amazing performances and shut up if you don't agree with me on how good these performances are. Honestly, this casting is absolutely perfect. Purr. Fekt. So good. I hear Edward Norton is kind of a jerk. I don't care. He's an amazing actor and I'm floored that I don't see him in more things. (I get it. If people don't want to work with you and whatnot. I don't care. He's that good.) It feels a little bit on the nose to have him play a role where his performance is always dead on, but he's so caustic to every production he signs onto that he destroys the morale. Okay, that's pretty on point. Then there's Michael Keaton, a man famous for playing a famous comic book role and having a hard time making a resurgence. The movie just basks in its own uncomfortableness. (The proper word is "discomfort", but that seemed like a weak choice.) Both of these actors crush, but they have an amazing supporting cast as well. I love Zach Galifianakis when he's not being comedic. I don't know why I usually approve of such things. Bill Murray serious? Genius. Jim Carrey serious? Mostly genius. Galifianakis has some pretty solid acting chops in this and I'm glad he's distancing himself from the Hangover films. (I also hear that he's difficult to work with.) Finally, Emma Stone. I love me some Emma Stone. She's fantastic in everything I've seen of hers and this is no exception. Perhaps her character is a bit of a cliche, but I don't care. She destroys a character that other characters would play safe. She's absolutely fantastic. There's this emotional and metaphysical core to this movie. Watching the movie for its A plot, the tale of a production running into constant frustrations, is great. I love Keaton's arc of a man who fights for artistic integrity despite the fact that the world wants him to fail. This element alone makes it a great film. It almost doesn't need the metaphysical stuff. But the metaphysical stuff is just so great that I can't even contain it. It breaks up what could easily be a My Dinner With Andre style plot ends up being something surreal. It made me straight up grumpy hearing all the complaining about the ambiguous ending. There are even YouTube videos claiming that the end isn't ambiguous. This is one of the better ambiguous endings ever and I want to leave it as such. It is one of those endings that reflects the viewers cynicism and beliefs. Is he imagining all of this or did it really happen? Yes. You decide that and establish what you view about the world. Why do I need that explained? It's not like Castaway where I'm really owed anything. The story didn't depend on it. It is an interpretation of the character. SPOILERY: If you want my two cents, I think it establishes that the world is a little bigger than this play and that his suicide wasn't an actual suicide. He has transcended the stupid moments of his life. Remember, I'm the cynic and that's how I view that ending. But even verbalizing this moment seems to cheapen it. I could also view it the completely other way and see it as one last hallucination before hitting the ground. Both are awesome endings and that's what I care about. I don't need it spelled out. I love this movie so much. I could go on for a while. But it would mostly be gushing about how beautifully it is shot and how much depth there is despite the fact that most people call it superficial. I love watching this movie and I hope to convince my wife to let me watch it again soon. You don't have to like it, but I hope you at least consider watching it without a judgment call attached. Apparently the whole franchise is R. I'm going to give it the same warning as The Conjuring. The movie is definitely very creepy. There's not a ton of gore with the exception of one pretty intense scene at the beginning. If I was the MPAA (and I should be!), I would either go with a very intense PG-13 or a very light R.
DIRECTORS: John R. Leonetti and James Wan I shouldn't like this movie! Doll movies are dumb. Yes, doll horror movies aren't at all scary and I won't even apologize to the Chucky crowd. Every time there is a creepy doll, I just roll my eyes. Like, I'm not scared of clown either, but I at least understand the clown fear. Killer doll movies always make the killer doll less than scary. The idea of a doll walking around just makes me giggle, so I've never been on board these movies. So what changed when it came to Annabelle besides my typical low expectations that got blown away? (I refuse to comment on how low expectations seem to have been tarnishing the objectivity of my reviews lately.) Annabelle did something remarkably smart when it came to the doll movie. It didn't move the doll. I have to repeat that Iow key enjoyed The Conjuring when I thought I wouldn't. What The Conjuring did for me was establish a very cool tone that I see has been carried through to Annabelle. What this franchise seems to be about is taking a very safe trope and adding subtle but important elements to make them fresh. In The Conjuring, it is established that demons that have never had corporeal form are trying to possess the living. In Annabelle, it is firmly established that nothing is formally possessing the doll. SPOILERS: There is this awesome mislead (where Annabelle gets her name) implying that the doll is under control of a murdered cult member. While that cult member still has some kind of tie to the doll (and I'm still not sure exactly what that relationship is), this ties back to the universe that these possessing demons have never really been alive. They are tricksters who play up the haunting element of the story. This is where Annabelle really thrives and falters simultaneously. The doll is a central point for a haunting, but never really is a person itself despite its shape. It continues many of the same beats as The Conjuring, establishing the malevolent torturing of a family. This is awesome because it really worked in the first film. The only issue I'd probably have with that is that it hits too many of the beats of the first film. By making this a ghost story, for all intents and purposes, it does play it pretty safe. The good news is that the template for The Conjuring is a pretty good template. It also avoids the problem with sequels and spin-offs by making the mythology too ridiculous. These are separate demons with separate backstories that are only loosely connected to the Warrens. What makes the movie a little stronger is that the Warrens don't show up. Instead, there is a quick line about a priest getting in touch with them on the coast. That's it. The scares are pretty good in this movie. I was going to post a photo of the demon crawling on the ceiling, ready to attack the protagonist, but I thought it might be a bit too disturbing to be putting up on my Facebook page, let along my Catholic Film Geeks group. (I have no idea who is reading these on that page, but I know that there are some horror fans on that site.) The great thing about the ghost story framework is that there are a lot of different types of scares that can be explored without really stepping on another movie's toes. The basement sequence in this movie was great in that way. Because the movie had moved the ghost story out of the rickety old house from The Conjuring and into an apartment structure, the same kind of demon now has a new obstacle course to work with. The same thing holds true with the follow-up moments to the basement. Mia running up the stairs is absolutely terrifying and the style of "showing the monster" still runs through this one. These monsters are creepy as get out. Like the previous one, the demon is dark, which works because you can look right at it and still not be quite sure what you are seeing. I know that this sounds like a negative, but it really works for the creep factor as a whole. Probably the weakest element for this film is the weak characterization of both protagonists. Mia freezes every time something bad happens. A lot of bad things happen to her and she is far from the Ripley character that I like to see in my horror movies. There are many times that I could imagine yelling in a theater, "Run! Why aren't you running?" Once or twice gets annoying. Many many times is just plain old anger-inducing. A passive protagonist means that the world just happens to this character. The character isn't making choices. If anything, the Annabelle doll kinda sucks at its job if it can't get rid of a character who just stands there staring at it and screaming. Compounding Mia with John is even worse. John, while being a morally supporting husband, often falls into the skeptical doctor archetype. These characters clearly have something messed up going in the house. I am a huge skeptic. I never believe people's "I swear to God" ghost stories. But I also acknowledge that something is going on. Why isn't John ensuring that Mia has companionship when all this stuff with the pregnancy is going on? He's a doctor (resident...sure, but they have money). If Mia is having such a hard time being home alone and is swearing that evil stuff is happening around the house, shouldn't he find someone to help her out with those issues, demonic or not? But the story wouldn't really work. Also, Alfre Woodard's Evelyn doesn't make a lick of sense in this movie. I really like the message that they were trying to get across, but she really shoehorns herself into this young couple's life. I like the idea that Mia needs a friend, but this friend has all of the answers. She is too perfect of a character when it comes to resolving the plot. Also, I don't necessarily believe that choice she makes at the end. Yeah, you could justify it all you want, but I think that there a bunch of different options that aren't explored at the end. I really now have to wonder how many Catholic priests are fully versed in demon possession and exorcisms. I feel like many priests would at least have to do some research before even feeling comfortable discussing it with a parishioner. These things are big deal. Sure, showing a priest uncomfortable and making phone calls may seem like filler, especially in something that is made to maintain tension, but it rings as false. Also, a cop giving a victim crime scene photos because she insists seems really weird. But these are nitpicky points. The movie is way scarier than I thought it could possibly be. I have to give major points to a movie that got me involved despite the fact that I thought I would enjoy its premise. But maybe that's not fair because it avoided the actual premise I signed up for. Regardless, I had a really good time with this and I'm still excited to finish The Conjuring 2. I can't promise I am going to be able to watch Annabelle: Creation because of timing, but we'll see. It is a remote possibility. Remember how all of the other movies starring Freddy, the child killer with knives for hands, were R? Add a guy who murders kids with a machete and, like, snaps them in half. Still very R.
DIRECTOR: Ronny Yu "Just when I thought I was out..." I forgot that I have one more Nightmare movie to review. If you haven't gotten a chance to listen to our breakdown of the complete franchise on Literally Anything, give it a whirl. Just click here to find links for the website, iTunes, and Google Play. I mentioned on the podcast that the word "versus" in the title means the movie is going to be bad. While I'm not the biggest fan of Kramer vs. Kramer or The People v. Larry Flint (I haven't actually seen that one), I think the word "versus" only works when it comes to court cases. You know that song, "Let the Bodies Hit the Floor"? (I don't know if that's actually the title, but the guy screams that a hundred times in that "song.") 2003 was that song's glory year. It was the trailer music for Freddy vs. Jason, and that song oddly gives you everything you need to know about this movie. Listen, people like metal. Heck, normal folks love metal. People I admire love metal. But I also have to say that the majority of people who love that song make me a little uncomfortable. There's something just about being visceral in the whole thing. It has that Faces of Death attitude that screams, "I just want to see this person get ripped up." The premise of the movie, which isn't at all subtle based on the title of this film, is that we take two death machines and have them fight it out. Like its peer, Alien vs. Predator, the human beings are going to get slaughtered in the process. I don't know if the producers of this film have a point system awarded to these characters. While one may physically defeat the other, one of them has more kills? I don't know what the logic is, but this kind of feels like what the MCU is doing, only with horror movies. It's fun to see characters from separate franchises interact. It might be a little more odd to see horror movie monsters do the same thing, but Universal had been doing it for decades before this movie, so who am I to judge? Is it fun seeing Jason and Freddy? Even from a completely superficial perspective, it should be much more fun than it actually is. It's not like the movie isn't trying to make it fun, but it is also really concerned with being as hardcore as it can possibly be. That broey rage tone towards the film really gets in the way of actual storytelling and my knee jerk reaction is to blame Ronny Yu for taking things to the X-Treme. (Honestly, this movie is one step away from having Jason snowboarding while Freddy attends a Slipknot concert pounding a Monster energy drink.) (Pun not intended.) That tone tries to fit as much carnage as it can in as little time as it can muster. I complimented A Nightmare on Elm Street 5 for just throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. This seems like it took that and just went nuts. The Friday the 13th franchise is big on criticizing vice. Freddy had a little bit of that going on in some of the movies in the series, but for the most part, Freddy was an equal opportunity killer. (Shy of the very racist comment he makes in this movie. You can listen to Kumail Nanjiani's bit here.) As I commented that the Nightmare movies just allowed their storytelling methods to get lazier and lazier with dumber examples of foil characters, the Friday the 13th franchise went the same way. But when characters are meant to represent vice and abstract concepts, the subtlety tends to fade after a while. Putting characters who are into vice in an extreme gorefest like Freddy vs. Jason makes it even worse because there isn't time for nuance. Almost every character in this movie is defined by his or her vices, with the exception of the two protagonists. One character is constantly drinking beers. Two characters are big fans of sleeping together. One character is abusive. One character is a fan of plastic surgery. These are the only character traits that they have. I kind of wonder why the protagonists hang out with these characters if all they can do is speak about their own negative traits so much. This is the movie in the franchise that gets weirdly cerebral though. (Trust me, it's not a thinker. It just brings up an ambitious idea.) This is the one where the townsfolk are kidnapping kids and drugging them out of dreaming. They redact Fred Krueger from history, making him powerless. I kind of like this idea in a weird way. I don't know why this plot kept sticking with me as I watched the earlier movies in the franchise. I thought this was the plot to Part 5 or Freddy's Dead, but it apparently was stuck in Freddy vs. Jason. It isn't an awful idea, but does this idea undo the continuity of Freddy's Dead? I know, I'm waxing poetic about something that matters to no one. But I just read last night that Jamie Lee Curtis is coming back to the Halloween franchise because they are undoing all of the sequels to Halloween. I also just found out that SPOILER FOR A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MOVIE Laurie Strode dies in Halloween: Resurrection, the first movie in the franchise I quit. She died in the forgettable one! How is that possible? Anyway, does continuity help or hinder these movies? I'm a big fan of intricate continuity. Sure, it's hard to explain to your friends what happened in the previous movies, but it rewards long time watchers. I think the problem with both the Nightmare and Friday the 13th movies is that the continuity becomes a hot mess. It's odd that movies that just involve killing teenagers has a hard time keeping their narratives straight, but it happened in both of them. I griped about this in the previous entries, but digital effects cripple scary movies. (Pun definitely not intended!) This is the first movie in the franchise that over-relies on digital effects, especially when it comes to blood. I don't know why the use of digital blood is ever an option. It seems like that might be the easiest practical effect out of the group. Perhaps its a cost issue, but there are moments where the movie is straight up a look at 2003 CG. It's worse than seeing a zipper on the monster costume. There's something so jarring about bad digital effects that the movie just gets to be boring. I don't know how this happened, but a high production value horror movie where characters are dying left and right just got to be truly dull. Remember, I kind of enjoy the Friday the 13th movies, so I should have been really jazzed to have a character I like show up for this movie. Nope. I could not have been more bored. In fact, I was so bored by digital scares and stupid tropes that I even questioned if I liked Friday the 13th. (I should watch the first one on Halloween, but I might be burned out on gore for a while. Remember, I have two more entries into The Conjuring franchise to watch this week. *sigh*) Again, if the previous entries are like watching the garage band, the later movies like the reboot and this one are like watching the same band sell out. There's something just completely corporate about these movies. I'm not saying that New Line Cinema was necessarily the voice of underground punk, but golly this movie is (I'm sorry, Ellen, even though I know you aren't reading this) paint-by-numbers. It made a checklist of things that both characters do and just did all of them, SPOILERS FOR THIS MOVIE: Why is there a construction site for a massive skyscraper at Camp Crystal Lake? I get it. Camp Crystal Lake should have been bulldozed ages ago. It's odd that it hadn't happened yet. But there was no hint that someone was building something massive there until the fight scene required it. Dumb. Since I'm being so negative, I will say something that gave me a little smile. Making Jason's mother Jason's internal monologue was fantastic. Mrs. Voorhees was always the most interesting element of the franchise for me. Mrs. Voorhees had to be recast, but the recasting kind of works. I was just happy to see that part of the narrative pop up. I also kind of like the reference to the fact that Jason's weakness is water and Freddy's weakness is fire. It is only slightly paid off, but I dig that it exists. But that brings up something else I should probably mention. These characters have weaknesses, but these weaknesses don't really affect them. In Jason's dream, Freddy just shows him water and he stands still behind it. But Jason is often thrown into water and he just deals. There's the flashback sequence (which is really Jason's nightmare about his young self) that is awesome and is tonally right, but it reaffirms that Jason can't swim. Did old killer Jason take swimming lessons? Just food for thought. I'd love to see Jason Voorhees sign up for a membership at the Y. (I'm a real sketch artist now, Ma!) I don't think I'm shocking anyone by saying a pretty publicly attacked movie is bad. I think it gets worse for me because it was the end of a very long run of bad slasher movies. I hope it didn't put a damper on Halloween, but I think I want to stay away from similar movies for a while. |
Film is great. It can challenge us. It can entertain us. It can puzzle us. It can awaken us.
AuthorMr. H has watched an upsetting amount of movies. They bring him a level of joy that few things have achieved. Archives
March 2024
Categories |