JonB-2 Reviews

Theater of Blood (1973)

Absolutely My Favorite Vincent Price Film of All Time

[10/10 · 13 March 2019]

Price. Rigg. All-star cast. Shakespeare. Black Comedy. A campy 70s London setting. What is not to love here? This is a slasher film with a heart and mind (the former most literally), and it showcases Price at his best. This man can act the hell out of the Bard, and so can Diana. What's great about it, too, is that it will appeal to people on so many levels.

Fan of Shakespeare? See it!

Fan of horror films but know nothing about Shakespeare? See it!

Don't like the horror genre at all? That's okay, this one is different. See it!

Personally, I'm a big fan of Shakespeare because I'm a drama nerd. I also hate horror films with a passion. This is one of my few exceptions, because it elevates what is normally a hateful genre to a place of high art, and reminds us that the depiction of human cruelty in art goes back a long, long, long time -- even farther back than the Bard himself.

Andy Barker, P.I. (2007)

Finally, A Good Andy Richter Vehicle

[8/10 · 11 March 2007]

I've always liked Andy Richter, ever since his days as Conan O'Brien's sidekick on "Late Night". I've wanted to like his previous forays into his own shows, but nothing had really clicked before.

This time, things click, in a quirky, funny series that brings a new twist to film noir conventions. The basic set-up: Andy Barker, a CPA, starts work at his new office. Unbeknownst to him, it was previously occupied by a PI. When a mysterious woman shows up looking for someone to find her dead husband, Barker is reluctant to take on the case -- but given his scarcity of clients and her $4,000 retainer, the offer is too tempting to pass up. When the issue of the husband's tax returns come up, it's the clincher that pulls the CPA into a different line of work.

Thus begins the premise, in which Barker is ably abetted by video store clerk Simon (Tony Hale, "Arrested Development") -- who applies everything he's learned about crime and criminals from movies, with sometimes unintended results.

While it doesn't quite have the subversive depth of a lot of modern half hour comedies, it does have the off-kilter tone of something like the live-action "The Tic" This go-round, Conan O'Brien is co-creator and executive producer, and that may be the secret ingredient that's made this a watchable show. A lot of the gags feel like Late Night bits dropped into the plot, like when Barker advises a client on tax law during a car chase.

There's potential for this series, provided the writers can keep developing the concept, and NBC doesn't give up too soon.

Night Watch (2004)

Khorosho...

[9/10 · 22 August 2006]

What an amazing film -- Eastern European Sensibilities meet Hollywood style Special Effects, and I look forward to the sequel coming out on DVD.

The best description I can give to western audiences of "Night Watch" is "The Matrix" filtered through post-USSR sensibilities. Well worth a viewing, but be sure to grab the original Russian cut DVD if you can, and not the "international" version, which eliminates a lot of subtext. (Hint to Americans: the subtitles are in the third menu item down on the right.) Epic, compelling, moving, never a dull moment. If you want to get your fix of action and art film in the same viewing, then this is a flick for you. And note to folk whose only exposure to Russian film-making is the original "Solaris" -- this is a whole different beastie, with nary a wasted moment. There are no ten-minute POV shots of the Moscow freeways here.

And, oddity for those who get the original DVD -- one of the extra features is a collection of commercial spots for the film's various sponsors. A surprisingly capitalist touch on a Russian DVD, and I could hear Karl Marx spinning in his grave...

The Oh in Ohio (2006)

Almost, But Not Quite...

[6/10 · 3 August 2006]

While entertaining and truly funny, "The Oh in Ohio" never quite hit the mark for me. It was as if the filmmakers came up with a great premise -- sexual dysfunction in women and how it effects those around them -- but then didn't develop it beyond the "a vibrator changed everything" premise.

There are lots of moments in this film to love, and I have to credit the filmmakers for not going for the sappy happy ending we'd normally expect, and instead having Parker Posey's character find fulfillment somewhere that we'd never expect it at all. Still, the ending seemed abrupt, as if the writer said, "Oh. Page 109. Time to type 'the end'," rather than truly working to an earned place. And, through it all, I couldn't help but think that John Waters could have had a field day with this material. In fact, his "A Dirty Shame" sort of trod these waters already, but with a lot more character development and comedy thrown in.

Side note: while casting Danny DeVito may have been a budgeting coup, and while he was quite good in the role, I think having a star name in his part actually hurt the film, because it telegraphed certain things automatically. And I couldn't help but think, "You know, this would have been really interesting with Ron Jeremy in that part..." It'll make for a good DVD rental although, warning -- if you're in a relationship with any kind of sexual problems, avoid this one like the plague, 'cause it'll just stir the pot. Otherwise, it's good for a few laughs but no great insights, because the filmmakers just didn't go far enough once they'd established their premise.

Lonesome Bridge (2005)

Worth Seeking Out

[8/10 · 13 February 2006]

A nice small film that manages to avoid being a stereotypical "gay boy loves straight boy" story, and with a very interesting (and earned) twist at the end. Proof that simple stories with real characters work well, no matter the length.

The performances, camera-work and editing are above average, and unlike many low-budget short films, the music is nicely integrated into the story. Expect more from lead actress Aimee St. Pierre -- she exhibits a sweetness with an edge here reminiscent of Alyson Hannigan; and definitely expect more from producer/director/writer Brian Rowe. If he can do this in twelve minutes, I'd love to see what he can do with a feature.

Eating Out (I) (2004)

Cute and Fun

[7/10 · 3 October 2005]

"Eating Out" is a fun little gay romantic comedy for all persuasions, with sympathetic characters from either side of the street, as it were, and an ending that's unexpected but makes total sense. There are also a couple of nice twists along the way; certain characters acting in unexpected ways but which, again, are completely self-consistent and logical.

However... the entire film is stolen in three scenes by Rebekah Kochan, who is destined to play Jennifer Coolidge's daughter or granddaughter some day -- and I mean that as the highest of compliments. From her first appearance in a "not what it seems" love scene to her last as a jilted and righteously PO'd ex, Ms. Kochan lights up the screen whenever she's on, and steals the film without even trying. Simply put, the camera loves her, and she's that rare combination -- a total sex bomb who can act. (Think Judy Holliday.) It takes a really, really intelligent actress to play a vapid character and make it sympathetic. You'll find yourself wishing that the filmmakers create a spin off all about Tiffani. (Perhaps the best testament to her talent -- as a gay man, I wasn't looking at the boys when she was on screen. I just kept thinking, "Future Diva has arrived...") So... for her performance alone, I can recommend "Eating Out," but as a story with its heart in the right place, but which still manages to have some very erotic moments, you can't go wrong. The male lead performances are also notable, particularly Scott Lunsford and Jim Verraros. When you'd actually want to invite the characters in a film over for dinner and a movie, it's a good sign. When two of the characters in this film do have dinner and a movie... well, you'll just have to watch, but it leads to a nicely complex emotional knot in the middle of a funny sex farce.

And, to the producers -- when is "Tiffani Does Dinner" coming out? You've got yourselves lightning in a bottle there. Don't let her go!

Stalled (2000)

Neither Fish nor Fowl

[4/10 · 18 September 2005]

I agree with other commenters that this film has a serious tone problem, shifting from gross-out comedy to serious drama. Additionally, the way the writer has chosen to structure the story doesn't help. For most of the film, we're not sure who we're rooting for, or whom the movie is about. Is it Wade, the germophobic travelling salesman? Is it Pat the wandering mechanic who seems to have great luck in finding stranded motorists? Is it Pa and Momma and their redneck family? Or is it the trying-to-make-it-big rock band with one of the most unlikeable lead singers ever? The structural problems are a shame, because the actors have a blast with the material, especially the "redneck" characters -- who turn out to be much more than surface stereotype by the end. And if you stick it out to the end, some nice things and touching moments happen. Unfortunately, the last half of the film is not served at all by the first half. While several of those scenes do belong to Wade, the film should have either been only about his character and the southern family, or should have dropped him entirely.

Possibly, the filmmakers had Robert Altman pretensions but Porky's sensibilities. (For the reverse effect, see Robert Altman's O.C. and Stiggs.) The two don't mesh. If you run across this film on the $2 video table, then it's worth grabbing for one of those nights when you're bored. Like I said, the destination is nice. It's just a rough and uneven trip getting there.

The Day of the Locust (1975)

One of the most haunting films of all time

[23 July 2004]

I don't quite understand the comments from the viewers who found this film boring. I've been lucky enough to see it on the big screen several times at revival houses, and each time I was blown away. Day of the Locust is a dark, compelling, amusing, bitter epic that's really more about America itself as filtered through the lens of Hollywood at its first creative height, in the 1930s.

What makes the movie, beyond the writing and direction, is its cast, and many of the supporting actors here create indelible characters. Why Karen Black didn't remain a superstar after this decade is a mystery, especially after this film -- in which she proves that she could act the hell out of a role. And how can you not like a film in which Billy Barty plays a foul-mouthed alcoholic (the first character we meet in the book), Burgess Meredith is a hapless door-to-door salesman, Natalie "Lovey" Shafer is the madam of a high-class whorehouse in San Bernardino, and Donald Sutherland is the repressed Homer ("No Relation") Simpson, an accountant who's so alienated from his own feelings that he's reduced to howling in despair in his own garden. And, in fact, Sutherland's character is involved in one of the film's most harrowing moments, which features a young Jackie Earle Haley as a promising child star of indeterminate gender but infinite obnoxiousness.

Anyway, if you have a chance to catch this film on the big screen, by all means do so, and be sure to add the DVD to your collection -- although, since we're coming up on the 30th anniversary, it's just possible that Paramount Home Video might decide to give it the deluxe treatment it deserves. Frankenheimer, et al, manage to take a brilliant novella by Nathaniel West and turn it into an amazing piece of cinema that will stick with you long after the lights go up. And, as an added bonus, you can just enjoy it as a great story, or delve deeply into the symbolism. This is the kind of film that works both ways, and one that you cannot miss if you consider yourself any kind of film fan at all, at all.

Superfag (2002)

Camp Drag Queens Don't Know How to Edit...

[7 September 2003]

This film has an interesting concept that is dragged out (pun intended) way too long. As is typical of drag-queen films, everything and the kitchen sink is thrown in, probably because the filmmakers felt compelled to include moments for all of their friends and their fabulous outfits.

The core story is fun, though, and Omar Brancato is truly tasty in his role as our hero's love intrerest. (If he's single, I'll take him right now.) He has several great moments of gazing up into the camera with his wonderful puppy dog eyes that will make you fall in love with him instantly. Too bad that the rest of the film just drags on and on and on. Our hero is also a bit bland, but I think that was intended. If only there'd been more nudity on display (i.e., Omar), this could have been a great movie. As it is, it should really only work for guys who are totally tapped into the WeHo scene.

Coming Clean (2002)

Caved by Charlie Vaughn...

[8/10 · 7 September 2003]

On almost every level, this film fails. The script sucks. The choice of how to tell what could have been an interesting story sucks. Most of the acting sucks. Even the sound-sync sucks. But... watch for the guy who plays Sid, the star's assistant. His name is Charlie Vaughn, and he is amazing in this role. While most of the rest of the cast fumfers around on amateur level, Mr. Vaughn shines in a completely realized role. Everyone else involved should be embarrassed -- in a simple change of voice, Mr. Vaughn gives more characterization and history to his small part than all of the leads were capable of in pages and pages of dialogue.

I predict that Charlie Vaughn will be a major star when Hollywood pays attention. Even when he's just playing background, he's amazingly present and right on the nose. Everyone else involved should have paid attention to his work and learned. Bonus points that he's hella-cute.

But... what does it say about a short film when the work of a minor character actor outshines all of the leads? not much for the film itself. But, casting directors pay heed -- there's a star in the making here, even if the rest of the project around him is screaming crap. Book him before someone else does, and you'll earn your place in the CSA hall of fame.

And Your Mother Too (2001)

Simply... Wow

[10/10 · 29 May 2003]

Y tu mamá también is yet another example of fine Mexican cinema that plays like a movie but feels like a novel. (See Amoresperros for another recent example, also starring the amazing, hunky, snacky Gabriel Garcia Bernal). Things are never what they seem as we follow two very horny friends (Bernal and the equally yummy Diego Luna) as they are lured by Luna's sexy older female cousin on a road trip into the poor heart of Mexico -- and into a journey of self-discovery that plays out with erotic heat that builds to a stunning climax and one of the sexiest kisses ever captured on film.

Obliquely, Y tu mamá también deals with many issues, including sexual politics, macho culture, friendship, class warfare, being true to your heart vs. following the herd, and mortality. Along the way, we're treated to a journey that is both loftily literary and basally sexual. Kind of like life itself. The aftermath is neither clean nor pretty, but some motives are revealed and we're left longing for the things that might have been.

Above all, Y tu mamá también is about life and what it means to really live. It makes me look forward to more works from the new Mexican cinema, and particularly from director Alfonso Cuarón.

No Maps for These Territories (2000)

A Profound and Moving Statement About the Human Condition

[22 March 2001]

You don't need to be a fan of William Gibson to get a lot out of "No Maps for These Territories." Taking the simple form of Gibson expounding on a raft of subjects from the backseat of a car en route from Los Angeles to Vancouver, intercut with a breathtaking visual melange to illustrate his points, "Maps" is a good reminder of how truly profound have been the changes in the world in the last few years, as well as what it means to be human -- the only animal that makes maps, after all.

Despite the whole "cyberpunk" label (which he rejects, anyway) Gibson comes across as intelligent, thoughtful and a rather nice person, and he looks at least a good decade and a half younger than his mid-50's baby-boomer age. And his description of his writing process is the most accurate distillation of how creativity works that I've ever heard. There isn't any BS coming from this back seat; Gibson speaks from the heart and it shows.

Oddly enough, it's the hardcore fans who might be the most disappointed in this film. Gibson is almost self-deprecating in talking about his work and his fame. But it's a film that deserves to be seen, and listened to with great attention. It's also done with a stunning style that adds to, rather than distracts from, the content. The film begins with frenetic, quick-cut images, but ends up in a beautiful, elegiac mood as we drive down a fog-shrouded bridge while U2's Bono reads from Gibson's unpublished Memory Palace. The end result is moving, haunting and worth many repeat viewings to take it all in.

Unbreakable (2000)

Shyamalan's Sophomore Slump

[4/10 · 26 November 2000]

Concept & Direction: 10; story and execution: 2. Shyamalan's premise for the film, which is a bit different than what the ads would have you think, is fascinating, and it creates a very compelling, sympathetic and interesting character in Mr. Price (Samuel L. Jackson). However, plot holes and lapses in logic abound and the premise itself doesn't quite fit the dead-serious rendering here. The only thing that keeps it afloat is the stylishness of Shyamalan's direction, although I could have used a lot less of his wandering POV cam.

As with "The Sixth Sense," this film ends with a twist. Unfortunately, unlike "The Sixth Sense," the twist isn't earned, and it betrays our investment to that point. On the other hand, I saw the twist in "The Sixth Sense" coming from a mile away, while I had no clue with "Unbreakable." That either means Shyamalan did a better job with it this time around, or that he slapped it in without justifying it. I think the latter.

It's a shame, because the film does deal with a fascinating issue: the inextricable linkage between good and evil, how one defines the other and how one needs the other to exist. He also does a good job illustrating this theme subtly, without hammering us. Pay particular attention to the occupations of the train wreck victims as they're read off, and also which characters we tend to see in mirrors or reflections and why. On that level, the film works. On a lot of others, it fails. It isn't worth the full price on a Saturday night. Maybe a discount matinee, but you'll do perfectly fine waiting to rent the DVD or video.

Shyamalan shows great promise both as a director and writer, but it feels like this film was rushed in the wake of his "write your own ticket" wave after "The Sixth Sense." If he takes his time with the next one, it could be dynamite. With "Unbreakable," all we get is a wet sparkler.

Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

From the Master, a Master Stroke

[10/10 · 27 July 1999]

If you haven't figured out by the final frames what "Eyes Wide Shut" really means, then you just didn't get this movie. Ironically, in order to get it, you have to keep your eyes (and your mind) wide open. Mr. Kubrick has given us, for his final work, an onion -- an object to be examined, peeled, re-examined and peeled some more. The layers, reverberations, twists, secrets, ironies and more in this film are just incredible.

Did I mention that my initial reaction, as the closing credits rolled, was to just sit there with a dumb grin on my face thinking, "Wow." The nearly three hour experience crept up, until, in the final moments, everything we'd been watching became absolutely clear and the revelation was spine-tingling. It's also the kind of revelation that says this is a movie to see again, then again. I have a feeling that every viewing will reveal more answers -- and raise more questions.

If you're paying careful attention, you will notice the first time through that the film is spattered with clues and indications of what's really going on. Not to give anything away, but what seemed to be a blatant continuity error late in the film was actually a red flag indicating reality. Trusting his audience, Kubrick doesn't bother to explain. If, as an audience member, you trust Kubrick, you won't need it explained to you.

As others have mentioned, "Eyes Wide Shut" most reminded me of "Barry Lyndon," in look and feel -- but, perhaps as a farewell premonition, Kubrick has planted sly references to his other films throughout. Pay close attention and you'll catch little hints of "2001," "Clockwork Orange" and even "Dr. Strangelove" and "The Shining."

Nicole Kidman is amazing, and deserves at least an Oscar Nomination; Tom Cruise also pulls it off, with Kubrick using the actor's shortcomings in his favor. (This is literally true; Kubrick is/was probably the only director who could get away with showing Cruise at his real height -- i.e., shorter than most other people on screen, including his wife, most of the time.) The cinematography is gorgeous. Once again, there's magic here with light and things just look differently than you've ever seen them on film before. That said, though, the lighting isn't just flash -- pay attention to the changes in shooting style between saturated and flat on your first trip through, they are important.

I have a feeling, once I've seen this film a few times, that it actually might squeak up my list and move "2001" and "Clockwork Orange" down a notch. Then again, when Mr. Kubrick died far before his time last March, every other living director (hell, every other dead one, too) moved up a notch in the hierarchy. There just wasn't anyone better than Stanley, and in his swansong, he proved it again more than ever.

South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut (1999)

What an F-ing Excellent Movie

[10/10 · 10 July 1999]

In a nutshell -- this is one of the most politically significant films released this decade, and it's also funny as hell. A lot of people may think that "South Park" is nothing more than fart jokes and foul-mouthed children, but if so, they're missing the point. The point is: at eight years old, all of us really are foul mouthed and into fart jokes, but try to hide it from our parents. It's when the parents act shocked at the behavior that they themselves probably indulged in that the world gets screwed, with possibly apocalyptic results.

From start to finish, "South Park" is an all singing, all dancing riot -- just as musical as the latest Disney crap, but with a point. Make no mistake, this is NOT a Disney film, despite the animation. Best that the grown ups see it before deciding whether to take their kids -- but, again, that's part of the point. The film is rated "R" for a reason, and parental responsibility (or rejection thereof) is a big topic in this story.

I won't try to describe the plot here; suffice it to say that the latest "Terrence & Phillip" movie, "Asses of Fire," causes a bit of controversy in South Park, the parents over-react, and everything takes off from there. Along the way, there are hilarious songs, foul language, a couple of really nasty sight-gags, hypocrisy on parade, several penises, lots of flatulence, celebrity cameos, and an almost constant barage of funny lines that will have you rolling in the aisles -- unless you're a stuck-up puritan who thinks movies like this shouldn't exist -- or you're dead.

Anyway, see this movie. Let me say it again. See this movie. It's a perfect example of how truly good and funny a film can be when the filmmakers listen to their hearts, and not some A-Hole in a suit who's read Syd Field and thinks they know movies. Trey Parker and Matt Stone have made a fortune off of "South Park," and yet don't seem to have sold out at all. Here's hoping that this film leads to a just as raunchy fanchise, and that the viewing audience actually gets the lessons they're trying to teach us.

If not, well, to paraphrase T&P -- "You're f*****." And, the fact that I have to use asterisks is yet another commentary on "South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut." Or, maybe, vice versa...

Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me (1999)

The Sequel that Shagged Us, Baby...

[4/10 · 10 July 1999]

Simply put, this film is a load of crap; a studio rush job, more interested in getting those Virgin Shaglantic/Heinekin product placements set up than in getting an actual script written. The original "Austin Powers" was a sleeper hit because it was actually funny, snuck in small and hit big on video. This film is an overly calcuated mess -- a typical example of "let's do market studies to figure out why the last one worked, then get out the cookie cutters..." and then botch it all, anyway.

I won't even go into describing the plot, because it all makes no sense. (Even "AP I" gave a nod to having a coherent story.) Suffice it to say that the filmmakers set up a time travel device, then ignore era from that point on; parts of this film could take place in 1999 or 1969, but it makes no difference. This is a shame, because they could have really mined the differences between the Swingin' 60s and the Stuckup 90s in two directions (as "AP I" did so wonderfully in one direction); instead, any semblance of character, reality, consistency or the like is sacrificed for a really bad one-liner.

The only high points of the film: there's an extended "They almost said a naughty word but not really" bit near the end that's hilarious -- but it's repeated, and therefore diluted. Beyond that, Verne Troyer is amazing as Mini-Me, turning in a compelling performance without a word (when oh when will Hollywood cast a little person in a "real" role?); Rob Lowe does an amazing Robert Wagner impersonation; Mindy Sterling, as always, is a true gem as Frau Farbissina (and she should be working more in film, dammit) and Seth Green is just, well... yumm-i-luscious (although whoever decided to cover up his great natural red hair with black dye was an idiot). But, if you want to see most of these people giving their best, just rent "AP I."

Anyway, none of the above really matters, because it feels like the film was shot from a bad, rushed first draft, and the principals just didn't give a damn during shooting. They saw a cash cow in the making, but didn't bother to recapture what it was that made the first film so good. Just more proof that there's no secret formula to "formula." It works when you're not trying, but falls apart as soon as everything you do is just another excuse for a bit of product placement...

Fear and Desire (1952)

Even Genius Falters in Youth...

[6/10 · 3 July 1999]

Let me preface this review with one simple statement: Stanley Kubrick is god. I'm a rabid fan, the man could do no wrong, and his death was the greatest loss that film has ever known -- every other director moved up a notch when Stanley went, because Mr. Kubrick was, is and always will be number one...

That said -- it was actually heartening to see "Fear and Desire" and to realize that the film pretty much sucks. In other words, even genius has to be born somewhere, and in his first feature, Mr. Kubrick just didn't have it yet. Pretty much a still "Life" photog at the time, "Fear and Desire" comes across as a pretentious student film, albeit a well shot one. However, this is in the days before Kubrick developed his own style, and so anything eye-catching in this movie is by way of Sergei Eisenstein. At times, the influence is painfully obvious, as in a sequence in which our lead soldiers make a raid on a house held by the enemies -- it might as well be a re-take of "Potemkin," sans the steppes and the lady with the busted glasses. But, the jump cuts, the creation of scene through editing, the visual ellipses is entirely Eisenstein and none at all Kubrick, and the effect is jarring.

Not that there aren't points to recommend in the film. Oddly enough, a very young Paul Mazursky turns in a wonderful performance as a soldier who cracks under the stress of it all, and Kubrick stages what's basically a rape scene under the constraints of 50s censorship, while infusing it with so much eroticism that it's rather uncomfortable. (Side note to Adam Sandler: if you ever chose to go into drama, study Mazursky's role in this film -- it's everything you could be if you give up the "dumb but pure" roles of "Wedding Singer" and "The Water Boy.")

Pluses in the film are that it deals with the subject of war without ever identifying sides -- there's a vague Prussian-ness about the villains, but if you look closely, none of the soldiers are identified by country. Kubrick also pulls off some interesting double casting in which the leads play the "villains," but are not obviously the same people. On the down side, the film opens and closes with possibly the most pretentious voice over narration ever committed to celluloid. There's a BIG IDEA working here, but given that Kubrick was only 24 when he made the film, it's understandable that the Ooh-Aah idea wasn't really as big as he thought it was. (Then, again, making an anti-war movie during the Korean war was probably about as egregious as one could get. I wouldn't know, I wasn't alive in 1953.)

All of this said -- for film students and Kubrick fans, this film is a must-see if you can track it down -- and good luck trying, since Mr. Kubrick wisely killed all availability of the movie. In a lot of ways, it's actually a very encouraging experience to see a genius like Mr. Kubrick churn out absolute crap -- brilliant moments that add up to nothing. Given his career since this film, it just shows that everyone has to start somewhere, and even the (arguably) greatest director in the history of cinema was once just a young schmuck with a camera, film and some actors.

The Mummy (1999)

Universal's Standby Horror Flick, Unwrapped

[8/10 · 19 June 1999]

"The Mummy" is nothing more than a fun ride, that delivers all the chills and thrills as it should. However, it's not an action film for which you need to leave your brain outside; the filmmakers paid attention to the rules, and stick to them. In addition, they finally give us an action heroine who is not reduced to "Screaming bimbo in need of rescue at the end." In fact, it's the female lead, and not the male, who ultimately defeats the big villain, in defiance of all previous film tradition.

The special effects are amazing and seamless, with some see-through mummy effects that work very well, and a quartet of murderous zombies that evoke the memory of Ray Harryhausen, then go him one (or two or three) better.

On top of all that, the acting and casting in this movie is right on the mark -- Fraser, as always, is marvellous, and every minor character has that "Gosh, I know them from somewhere" but yet you don't feeling that is so essential to the genre. (Kevin J. O'Connor is wonderful as a really, really snivelly nasty minor villain who you do and don't want to see get what he deserves -- and he also gives the constant impression of being someone more well known than he is. He seems very familiar and yet (check his credits here) he isn't.

But, anyway -- "The Mummy" is worth seeing just as a real fun ride that goes one better than the original. Probably too intense for the younger kiddies, but a great date movie, if your date finds the assuagement of squeamishness somewhat erotic...

Arnold (1973)

Summer Camp Horror -- or Camp Horror for Summer

[6/10 · 19 June 1999]

"Arnold" is a fun but minor example of the genre of "Mass Murderer impossibly out-psyches all of his victims" films. For better examples, see either of Vincent Price's "Dr. Phibes" movies, or VP's "Theatre of Blood," probably the best crazed killer on the loose but with a theme movie ever made.

But... "Arnold" is sheer fun in the sense of watching a corpse kill off all his heirs solely because he knows them so well. Sure, the methods of killing are ridiculous -- acidic cold cream, a killer suit, a squishing shower, a well placed guillotine -- but the supporting cast is marvellous, the suspense is there, and the "bad guy" wins. Bonus points: Elsa Lancaster, and the dead guy looks a hell of a lot like Jack Cassidy, although he's not.

I'd recommend this film as the second rental on a double feature; something to provide gory nasty thrills, but not quite as gross as whatever first choice nastiness you rented that evening.

Pleasantville (1998)

A film that's not as smart as it thinks it is...

[5/10 · 29 May 1999]

The critics drooled over this one originally, which I should always remember is a big warning sign -- stay away. While the premise is intriguing, it's essentially a high concept, one joke movie. Worse, the filmmakers weren't exactly sure what story they were telling, so the metaphor switches directions a couple of times, lots of attempts at "explaining" only make things more confused, and some of the parallels between what's going on in Pleasantville and real world events (Nazis, race riots, etc.) are so heavy handed they might as well have just run a crawl across the screen: "This is just like when Hitler ordered all books by Jews burnt. Oooh. History..."

It's a shame, because the movie hits on an interesting idea at the very beginning, but it was probably an accident. Mainly, the trip to "Pleasantville" is set up as largely a reaction of Toby Maguire's character to the sucky world of the 90s. (Unfortunately, this concept is utterly trashed by the appearance of Don Knotts as a TV Repairman, a useless character that probably happened because several studio execs were confused. "B-b-but... how does he get into Pleasantville? I don't understand...") Anyway, the world of Pleasantville, under the surface, is really a political correctness freak's wet dream, NOT a version of the 1950s -- but we're led into it from the start knowing that this place is entirely wrong, and that's where all the potential ends.

By far the most annoying aspect of the film, though, is that the filmmakers don't bother to give us the most important scenes. At several points, when we're about to hit an emotional moment that might mean something, bang, we cut away to something else. It's almost like the movie was cut with a stop watch. As a result, it's impossible to care about anyone, because we never get to see the moments that matter to them. (The most heinous examples of this come in the Joan Allen/Jeff Daniels relationship. I think something happens between them, but it's hard to tell.)

I won't even mention that Gary Ross hasn't bothered to think about the rules of the world here. The TV Repairman character is inconsistent -- eager to send people into the place at one moment, outraged that things are changing in another. As another IMDB reviewer pointed out, the reasons for people changing from black and white to color are also inconsistent. At first, it seems like getting laid is the way to colorization, but at the end of the film, we learn that there are other reasons, and are left to wonder why the entire town hadn't turned technicolor a lot sooner.

I don't know why the critics raved. Maybe because nothing blows up and most of the film is in black and white. But, if you want great visual effects that actually have a compelling story attached to them, tune in to a Gatorade commercial. Don't waste your time on Pleasantville, because there's nothing there you haven't seen already -- or can't guess long before it happens.

eXistenZ (1999)

A movie you don't just watch; you get to play, too...

[8/10 · 13 May 1999]

In reading many of the comments on "eXistenZ," I find that the people who don't like it limit their statements to "it was stupid" or "it was dumb" or "it made no sense." In these short reviews, I think they give away why they missed the point and didn't like the film.

I thoroughly enjoyed "eXistenZ," and found myself intellectually (if not emotionally) engaged from the beginning. Maybe it's just prior experience with Cronenberg. His modus operandi is to plant hints right in front of the audience all the way along, but never point them out. It's the audience's job to pay attention, and put the pieces together along the way.

Much has been made of a scene in the film wherein Jude Law eats a rather grotesque lunch, then constructs a gun out of the bones from the meal -- and this scene is exactly how the audience has got to watch the film. Pick through the yucky parts, look at the structure beneath, then construct something meaningful from the pieces. The question of what is reality and what is part of an elaborate video (cranial?) game is constant in the film, from the first frame to the last. To Cronenberg's credit, he refuses to state the answer. Speaking of credits, as with most of Cronenberg's films, even the design of the opening crawl presents the theme of the film. In this case, we are presented with a multi-layered, constantly shifting combination of what seem to be vivid natural rock formations and forests (and which are probably artificial representations) interwoven with barely visible anatomical sketches; in other words, the artificial presented as real, and the real reduced to the artificial, with each piece obscuring and/or highlighting the other. It's a quite remarkable job that far too many people won't pay attention to, because they'll still be yacking and munching their popcorn, waiting for the movie to "start." But, much like the game within the film, it starts before you really think it does...

The only flaws in the film are Cronenberg's signature weaknesses as a writer; lack of development in Act II and an abrupt finale. As with most of his movies ("Videodrome" and "Crash" being the most blatant examples) just when we get to the point that should be the middle of Act II, we suddenly leapfrog to Act III, blast through it in a scene, then hit the finish. You certainly can't say he lets his movies drag, but this foreshortening has left me feeling a little cheated in many of his previous films. I didn't feel as cheated this time, because "eXistenZ" left so many little puzzles and enigmas to consider afterwards -- certainly enough to carry through conversation on the drive home and dinner afterwards. And, to further bolster the well thought-out complexity of the script, these questions all connected back to possible answers, and brought up further questions, that fed back to other answers, and so on.

Finally, I found all of the performances brilliant, especially considering the trick the actors had to face -- they knew when they were playing "real" or "game," but had to portray their own reality without giving it away to us. Jennifer Jason Leigh continues to be one of my favorite actresses, and a true chameleon. She doesn't play a part, she lives it. Also, Jude Law is a real find, displaying a wide range, from vulnerable wimp to hard-edged tough guy. Willem DaFoe and Ian Holm turn up in what are basically cameos, but give their all to these small parts.

In short, "eXistenZ" won't please the multiplex crowd, who only want big, loud commercial films that offer up everything in a nutshell, explained neatly on page 87 by a character who knows too much -- but it's perfect for people who like to let their movies make them think, who try to stay a step ahead, and who don't give up in frustration the instant they don't catch something. It left me looking forward to Cronenberg's next effort.

Barry Lyndon (1975)

"Tom Jones" Done Right...

[10/10 · 28 March 1999]

Hard to imagine that the utterly dreadful 1960s version of "Tom Jones" won Best Picture, while "Barry Lyndon" did not... This film was slammed by the critics when it came out ("Slow!" "Boring!" "Ponderous!") but the critics were wrong...

I didn't see "Barry Lyndon" until a year or so ago, but was fortunate to see it in a theatre, the second half of a double feature with "The Duelist" (another excellent film, by the way.) I mention the circumstances, because... despite BL being 3 hours long, and coming after another movie that ran over two hours, at the intermission point, I found myself thinking, "Intermission? Already? But that could only have been about an hour..."

Add on top of this another detail: I loathe Ryan O'Neal -- yet was compelled by his performance here...

Finally, this little double-feature fest came at the end of a l-o-o-o-ong work day, but I was wide awake and fully alert at the end of "Barry Lyndon."

Why? Because Kubrick managed to stuff every scene with full emotional impact, and there's a dueling scene late in the film that has such excruciating emotional stakes, it's utterly heartrending -- managed, by the way, with the entire thing shot from an apparently passive, far away wide-angle, locked-down camera, at a very leisurely pace. Nod to Kubrick's genius -- he does everything in the scene to alienate the audience from what's happening, and yet we're glued to it, gripping our seats, hoping that what happens won't happen, heaving a collective groan of pain when it does.

And, on top of all that, the entire film was shot only with light sources available within the period it takes place -- i.e., candles, candles, candles, or the sun. It was a bold experiment in the early days of fast film, and it works; moreso than almost any film set in the period, we are there. (The only thing that gets close that I can think of off hand is "Revolution," the underrated Al Pacino venture from the early 80s -- but it derives its "you are there" from historical accuracy and detail.)

Anyway, this is all the long way about of saying that "Barry Lyndon" is worth a second look, and a third -- and definitely a first if you've never seen it. Don't let the length scare you, because the story will grab you so fast, you won't notice. Don't let Ryan O'Neal scare you, because everything unlikeable about him works to the advantage of the story here...

And, finally, for you "Clockwork Orange" fans -- watch carefully, my droogies, because the structure of "Barry Lyndon" mirrors the structure of "A Clockwork Orange" perfectly -- and yet tells us an entirely different tale.

A Clockwork Orange (1971)

A Gen-X Fairytale, several decades early

[10/10 · 28 March 1999]

Oh, my droogies, a horrorshow peek at the old ultraviolence to which our humble near future is heir...

Once again, Kubrick took a novel and adapted it with utter faith to the screen, while simultaneously creating a visual style that was utterly unique. On top of it all, he gives us the character of Alex -- thug, rapist, delinquent, unrepentent little s**t -- and makes us like him, even as he attacks, injures, rapes and kills...

This film (and the novel), you see, really isn't about Alex and his Droogies. It's about us -- our attitudes toward crime and punishment, and our weird ambivalence and denial. We love to claim to want to see justice done, but never make us admit that all we really want is revenge. We can't admit that -- it would just make us the same as the criminals. However, the "Ludovicko technique" seen in the film, the Pavlovian reprogramming of criminals, really would be the ultimate solution to crime. Turning the violent into little clockwork oranges -- objects that look organic on the outside but are mechanical on the inside -- would solve a lot of problems. However, it's a concept that'll never fly. Not because it's cruel to the criminals, altough lipservice is paid to that idea. No -- it's because it denies society the opportunity to smack the doo-doo out of the nasty little thugs. But, see the comments on hypocrisy, above...

And all of this is in the movie implicitly, never explicit. (The high point: when Alex encounters his former gang mates, now "reformed," working as policemen -- and behaving exactly the same as before.)

The formula of crime and punishment is really a perpetuating loop, not a one-way track, but the punishers can never admit to their own criminal behavior. This equation is hiding in the structure of the film, which is a classic fairy tale -- hero journeys outward and passes three obstacles (or gate keepers or trolls or whatever), then journeys back in a diminished state, and encounters the same three whatevers for some instant karma. The concept was the genius of Anthony Burgess, but the faithful execution (pardon the expression) was pure Kubrick...

Final notes: the film is funny, stuffed with little in-jokes (keep your eyes open in the record store for some self-references, as well as a collection of names that actually became bands later) and the use of music and wide-angle lenses has no equal in cinema. The opening shot is one of the more memorable images in film, the closing shot is a subtle "up yours" to Ken Russell, and everything in between will stick with you forever...

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

A Master's Masterwork

[10/10 · 28 March 1999]

In my opinion, simply the greatest motion picture ever made, period. If you haven't seen it, you've never seen cinema. If you haven't seen it on the big screen... well, you haven't seen it. I first saw "2001" at the Cinerama Dome in its first re-release in the early 70s, and it was the movie that made me want to make movies. Every time I've seen it since, it just reconfirms that feeling.

As he always did (the saddest past tense of the Century), Kubrick took a genre and made it his own. What could have been routine science fiction was pure genius in his hands -- and he did it by paying acute attention to reality. No other film that I can think of has had the cojones, for example, to have **silence** in outer space, and the only other film I can think of that didn't get lazy and use "Star Trek Gravity" is "Apollo 13." (One moment in "2001" involves a sort of explosion in a vacuum. It's done in real-time (no Slo-Mo), without sound. In other words, accurately -- and the effect is amazing.)

Comparison: the vastly inferior "2010." Everything Kubrick worked so hard for was thrown out in the sequel. Apparently, in nine years, outer space developed both sound and gravity. (And, Irony department -- in "2001," the US and USSR (remember them?) are not really enemies any more. In "2010," they're on the brink of war. Another indication that Mr. Kubrick was a visionary in more ways than one.)

But, there really aren't words to describe "2001," other than to say that the scope of the story is enormous, the implications thought-provoking -- and every single effect in it (all of which still stand up today) was done without benefit of digital or CGI. Take that, George Lucas...

12 Monkeys (1995)

More Proof That When Kubrick Died, Gilliam Moved to #1...

[9/10 · 14 March 1999]

"12 Monkeys" is one of those films that only improves with repeat viewings, a dense story working on many levels that resonates long after the final frame. The final scenes of the film are absolutely haunting, largely because of what's come before -- entirely Gilliam's doing.

Think about it -- he manages to pull incredible performances from both Bruce Willis and Brad Pitt, using what might be considered their weaknesses as advantages. (Pitt not winning an Oscar for his turn as Jeffey Goines was a crime.) I've heard complaints about Willis being wooden in the film, and about Pitt over-acting. However, on seeing the film over and over, you realize that they were both on-target.

And, the key here is "over and over." From the first frame to the last, Gilliam is creating a coherent whole. Elements that may seem to have been thrown in just for strangeness' sake on first viewing are exactly on target the second time around. Even minor characters step into frame fully developed, to the extent that a line like, "I'm Jones. Insurance," is packed with meaning. On top of it all, and what makes this an even more impressive work, is that Gilliam was absolutely faithful to the script. (I've read the shooting script, and except for one short scene that was deleted, it's what showed up in theatres, word for word and shot for shot.)

You don't have to be a Bruce Willis or Brad Pitt fan to love this movie. All you have to do is give the story a chance, enjoy the style and realize that all the Gilliamisms on display are in service of the story, and not the other way around.

And that, in short, is the true measure of a great director -- which Gilliam is, was and always will be.