The more it does “Speak”, the more powerful it becomes.

DIRECTED BY JESSICA SHARZER. SCREENPLAY BY SHARZER AND ANNIE YOUNG FRISBIE. BASED ON THE NOVEL BY LAURIE HALSE ANDERSON. STARRING KRISTEN STEWART (MELINDA SORDINO), MICHAEL ANGARANO (DAVE PETRAKIS), ROBERT JOHN BURKE (MR. NECK), ERIC LIVELY (ANDY EVANS), ELIZABETH PERKINS (JOYCE SORDINO), D. B. SWEENEY (JACK SORDINO), AND STEVE ZAHN (MR. FREEMAN). ALSO STARRING HALLEE HIRSH, TONY ROSEBORO, AND ALLISON SIKO. DISTRIBUTED BY SHOWTIME NETWORKS, INC. ON JANUARY 20, 2004. PRODUCED IN ENGLISH BY THE UNITED STATES. RUNS 1 HOUR, 32 MINUTES. RATED PG-13 BY THE MPAA, FOR MATURE THEMATIC MATERIAL INVOLVING A TEEN RAPE.

SPEAK WAS WATCHED ON MAY 18, 2013.

“I have never heard a more eloquent silence.” –Speak by Laurie Halse Anderson

On the outside, it’s embracing the clichés of a teen drama ever so obliviously. Our characters are merely Hollywood high schoolers. We have the insecure, bitchy, blonde girls who have nothing better to do than gossip. The annoying kid who we realize is neglected, but we also realize it’s probably because he/she just doesn’t shut up. The guy that doesn’t seem like anything special to the protagonist, but seems cuter to her as the story progresses. The parents who just couldn’t care much less what’s going on in their daughter’s life. But as the story moves on, these one-dimensional caricatures rise up as three-dimensional…well, people, and for that matter, ordinary people.

Speaking of ordinary people, Speak is a lot like 1980′s Ordinary People, and when Speak speaks, it speaks a powerful tale. We begin after the horrifying events that turned an outgoing girl like Melinda Sordino (Kristen Stewart) into the shy girl who, in her buried state, decides to stop speaking and notices a certain beauty that cannot be expressed by words. Melinda was raped the summer before she entered her freshman year. She was at a party, and when she dialed 9-1-1, she was far too shocked to report the incident. When the cops arrived, she was still more traumatized then ever, and she was, thus, labelled a “squealer” by everyone at the party.

Symbolism?

Melinda experiences numerous flashbacks to the incident during the course of the film. Yet she can’t admit to anyone that she was raped, and she’s desperately trying to convince herself that she wasn’t. She decides that she can’t live her life hell-bent on lying to herself and blinding everyone around her from the truth. When her parents notice her grades dropping significantly, they seek help for her. Now Melinda must find a way to rub away her scars, rather than pretend she can’t feel them.

Speak features Kristen Stewart in a tour de force role. In so-called “efforts” such as Twilight and Snow White and the Huntsman, Kristen barely acts. Her monotonous, melancholy facial expressions, rapid-fire verbal delivery, and insomniac build have earned her much negativity in recent years. Yet all this seems to fit in this earlier drama. She makes the role of a disturbed teenager seem easy to portray, and it’s not. She always looks depressed. When she does speak, it’s generally in quick, broken stutters. What makes her twenty-three-year-old self look sleepless, made her thirteen-year-old self look miserable. Even her nervous breakdowns can be difficult to watch, simply because they’re performed well.

Speak isn’t a movie one watches over and over.  Its disappearance into the “TV movie” nomenclature–despite a premiere at the Sundance Film Festival over a year and a half prior–leads me to believe that the movie never got the love it deserves.  As previously mentioned, it does build off sheer caricatures.  But it also builds those into a poignant, gripping slice of life.  I may have teared up near the end, but I was too focused on Melinda to worry over my own matters.

Star Trek Into Darkness

“Party time, excellent”?  Not really.

DIRECTED BY PENELOPE SPHEERIS. SCREENPLAY BY MIKE MYERS, BONNIE TURNER, AND TERRY TURNER. BASED ON MYER’S “WAYNE’S WORLD”. STARRING MYERS (WAYNE CAMPBELL), DANA CARVEY (GARTH ALGAR), ROB LOWE (BENJAMIN KANE), AND TIA CARRERE (CASSANDRA WONG). ALSO STARRING LARA FLYNN BOYLE, MICHAEL DeLUISE, LEE TERGESEN, DAN BELL, SEAN GREGORY SULIVAN, BRIAN DOYLE-MURRAY, COLLEEN CAMP, KURT FULLER, CHRIS FARLEY, FRANK DiLEO, ED O’NEILL, MIKE HAGERTY, FREDERICK COFFIN, DONNA DIXON, IONE SKYE, ROBIN RUZAN, CHARLES NOLAND, CARMEN FILPI, CHAZ HEALY, AND ROBERT PATRICK. FEATURING CAMEOS BY ALICE COOPER, PETE FRIESEN, DEREK SHERINIAN, STEF BURNS, AND JIMMY DeGRASSO. DISTRIBUTED BY PARAMOUNT PICTURES ON FEBRUARY 14, 1992. PRODUCED IN ENGLISH AND CANTONESE BY THE UNITED STATES. RUNS 1 HOUR, 35 MINUTES. RATED PG-13 BY THE MPAA, FOR SEX RELATED DIALOGUE.

WAYNE’S WORLD WAS WATCHED ON MAY 18, 2013.

“That’s what she said!”

Watching Wayne’s World feels like videostalking two twelve-year-olds.  Now I’m not knocking twelve-year-olds (I hope I’m not); I’m just saying this is how they act.  Wayne (Mike Myers) and Garth (Dana Carvey) are two deadbeats living in their parents basement.  They recite corny jokes to each other, chuckle madly at the dumbest possible double entendres, put on stupidly giddy smiles, hit on girls in a way that’s only accurate in their minds, and act much cooler than they have any right to be.  Twelve-year-olds?  Definitely, but in the body of thirtysomethings.  And the plot sounds funny, but when twelve-year-olds joke around–again, no offense if you happen to be one–the value mainly ranges from mildly amusing to not funny to anyone other than themselves.

“I’m just a poor boy, I need no sympathy…”

There is a credited screenwriter for Wayne’s World, and I’m led to wonder how much effort he actually exerted.  Unlike the Saturday Night Live skits in which Wayne and Garth routinely appeared, there is a story here, it’s just not that meaningful.  Also like those shorts, it feels like the whole shebang has been ad libbed by Myers and Carvey.  They’re, like, seriously in character, man.  I mean, the whole time, dude, they’re, like, their characters.  Like, you can’t even tell that guy’s Church Lady, or that guy’s Austin Powers.  Man, they’re awesome.  (Slight exaggeration.)

Watching these two act like complete imbeciles is, at several times, enjoyable.  But this is a movie, not an SNL skit, so you have to react in funny situations to keep the laughs going, not act like an idiot in common situations.  I’ll give the movie credit for making an exception here and there.  It can surprise.  You probably know what scene I’m referring to, and I wouldn’t be surprised if I were to start cracking up the next time I heard Queen’s “Bohemian Rhapsody”.  And I’m glad I finally saw an Alice Cooper cameo that I actually enjoyed, rather than dismissed as “he’s just letting us know he’s still alive.”  But when scenes like these come in small handfuls, I wouldn’t be so immediate in revisiting the film.

Speak

Baz Luhrmann, take your Adderall.

DIRECTED BY BAZ LUHRMANN. WRITTEN BY LUHRMANN, ANDREW BOVELL, AND CRAIG PEARCE. STARRING PAUL MERCURIO (SCOTT HASTINGS), TARA MORICE (FRAN), BILL HUNTER (BARRY FIFE), GIA CARIDES (LIZ HOLT), LAUREN HEWETT (KYLIE HASTINGS), AND ANTONIO VARGAS (RICO). ALSO STARRING PAT THOMSON, PETER WHITFORD, BARRY OTTO, ARMONIA BENEDITO, JOHN HANNAN, KERRY SHRIMPTON, KRIS McQUADE, SONIA KRUGER, TODD McKENNEY, PIP MUSHIN, LEONIE PAGE, STEVE GRACE. DISTRIBUTED BY MIRAMAX FILMS ON FEBRUARY 12, 1993. PRODUCED IN ENGLISH AND SPANISH BY AUSTRALIA. RUNS 1 HOUR, 34 MINUTES. RATED PG BY THE MPAA, FOR MILD LANGUAGE AND SENSUALITY.

STRICTLY BALLROOM WAS WATCHED ON MAY 18, 2013.

“There are no new steps!” –Barry Fife (Bill Hunter)

Director Baz Luhrmann’s films have been rambunctiously different in quality, wildly loopholing around the map as if it were his flashy style. You never know when he’s going to appease a crowd or enrage them; all you know is that, due to his interest in product placement and flamboyant (but, somehow, tame) trailers, he’ll have a crowd to react to him. We didn’t know that Romeo + Juliet would be a complete Baztardization of British literature, but it was. We didn’t expect Moulin Rouge! to be a near-definitive jukebox opera, but it was. We hoped for Australia to be a shorter ode to the outback, but it wasn’t. And no matter how much time we spend praying to whatever deity that Strictly Ballroom is not god-awful, that deity laughs. And he doesn’t stop until Baz is done masochistically torturing us.

I don’t want to spend time reviewing Strictly Ballroom. I don’t want to relive it. I don’t want to compliment it at all. Because I hated it. Fine, the music was decent. I’ll give it that, but if I knew what I was in for, I wouldn’t have gone ahead and pressed play, even on the conditions of these sped-up/slowed-down excerpts Baz has included here. I could be listening to the music while doing something else. Why didn’t I think of that in the first place? Am I that stupid?

Strictly Ballroom wants to put dancing on film. Lovingly. I mean, it’s Hans Christian Anderson’s The Ugly Duckling, except for ballroom dancing. Who doesn’t love The Ugly Duckling? Okay, I’ll be honest, it’s a good story, but if you can connect it to The Ugly Duckling, it’s a flaring cliché. Honestly, it’s an abomination to both dancing and film. There’s virtually nothing cinematic about this movie, other than that it’s filmed with a 35mm camera and has a crew assigned to it. The cast doesn’t know how to act in the least, and the crew goes far over the top with lighting, sound, editing, special effects, and costumes. If you, for whatever reason, are curious about the experience of an epileptic seizure, here’s your chance.

That’s her reaction to him. For my reaction to “Strictly Ballroom”, please Google “A Clockwork Orange Ludovico torture scene.”

Baz Luhrmann co-wrote with two other mostly unfamiliar men, one of whom is his continuing writing collaborator Craig Pearce. Luhrmann is Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in the field of pacing, and yes, it is very frightening indeed. He seems contained one moment. Oh it’s just a fine, simplistic dancing movie. People with Australian accents, talking daintily to one another like fine chums and chaps and the amicable blokes we are and whatnot. (Perhaps an Australian could teach me better slang.) Then, his medication wears off in an instant. We’re watching kangaroos hop across the screen to a cover version of Cyndi Lauper’s “Time After Time”. Except these aren’t kangaroos. These are humans. Moreover, they’re actors claiming to star in a real movie, and getting paid for doing so!

Please try and reason with me as to why this is one of the greatest movies of all time. I’m astonished that critics seem to think so. But at this point, when Rotten Tomatoes reports that “95% of critics liked it,” that statistic means absolutely nothing to me. Because, guess what, 20% of me liked it. That’s a generous twenty for something as simple as the renditions we hear in the audio, especially when I could be listening to it elsewhere.

I know what you’re thinking. You want me to shut up at this point. I should, or else I’ll start directing movies, and my obnoxious, vocal, repetitively flamboyant attitude may transform me into a theoretical “Son of Luhrmann”. As in Son of Dracula, or Son of Frankenstein, but Son of Luhrmann, which is ten times more horrifying. Oh, look at the exit music cutting me off. It appears to fit the occasion quite nicely, and it seems as if spoken by the great Roger Ebert himself:

“I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it.”

STAY TUNED FOR MY “WAYNE’S WORLD” REVIEW @ 4:30

Hey all,

I’ve been playing with the idea of changing my grading scale’s look for a while now, and I’ve finally done it. In all future reviews, it’ll be off to the right, a full display of my grading scale, with the highest full-color grade representing the grade I give it.

For example, the grade off to the left is a solid “B”.

Please let me know if you want me to make any adjustments, i.e. if there needs to be a box around the grade for emphasis, or if the lower values should be blotted out in grey as well.

Thanks, as always.

–APKD

Regards,
“The Cinemaniac”

Enter “Room 237″ and you’ll never see “The Shining” the same way.

DIRECTED BY RODNEY ASCHER. FEATURING BILL BLAKEMORE, GEOFFREY COCKS, JULI KEARNS, JOHN FELL RYAN, AND JAY WEIDNER. ALSO WITH ARCHIVE FOOTAGE FEATURING STANLEY KUBRICK, STEPHEN KING, JACK NICHOLSON, SCATMAN CROTHERS, JOE TURKEL, DANNY LLOYD, BARRY NELSON, PHILIP STONE, KEIR DULLEA, MARTIN POTTER, TOM CRUISE, AND NICOLE KIDMAN. DISTRIBUTED BY IFC FILMS AND IFC MIDNIGHT ON MARCH 29, 2013. PRODUCED IN ENGLISH BY THE UNITED STATES. RUNS 1 HOUR, 42 MINUTES. NOT RATED BY THE MPAA.

ROOM 237 WAS WATCHED ON MAY 11, 2013.

“Remember what Mr. Hallorann said: It’s just like pictures in a book, it isn’t real.” –Danny Lloyd as Danny Torrance (as “Tony”) in The Shining

I’ve seen The Shining twice. With my second viewing, I picked up on one thing that shocked the living hell out of me: a twist ending. It’s not until I watched Room 237, an artful documentary that investigates the film, that I began to see it as a work of genius.

Of course, I understand that Stanley Kubrick is a genius. As mentioned in Room 237 he has a 200 IQ(!). It’s why we can view 2001: A Space Odyssey as such a powerful analogy, engrossing because, although it has a lack of action, this simplicity represents every action since the genesis of humanity. His genius is why A Clockwork Orange can be hilarious when its main character is imposing graphic violence on others, yet whenever he is the subject of this terror, the movie is simply unsettling. Sometimes Kubrick’s genius is too difficult to explain. But with The Shining, it was just too difficult for the average person to analyze.

Many of the analyses in Room 237 could be valid. So long as you found The Shining interesting, it’s undeniable that all points made here are intriguing, even if you don’t believe very many of them in conclusion. Room 237‘s overall thesis is that The Shining was not a horror film in particular, and that it had a greater, underlying meaning (something true, albeit more obvious, with other Kubrick works).

At times, the documentary’s look at Kubrick’s intentions frightened me more than the 1980 work itself, just with its logical explanations of every possible subtlety Kubrick offers. He naturally hides more in his films than any other director. There’s always a bathroom scene in one of his movies, for example, and they always mean something. Remember A Clockwork Orange, when Alex starts “singin’ in the rain”? Oh and there’s the far better example in The Shining, of course, with Jack Nicholson’s “little pigs, little pigs”-turned-”Heere’s Johnny!” ad lib. Or you could go with the accusatory encounter between Jack’s “parallel” (I’m trying not to spoil the 1980 classic for the sinners who have not seen it). Both scenes are set in a restroom, and they are perhaps the most important moments in the film. Yet Kubrick digs deeper.

This investigation explains the differences between the film and the Stephen King novel. King wrote Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson) as having a red car. Kubrick made it yellow and wrote a scene in which the red car had been destroyed in a roadside accident. As if King wasn’t angry enough for the huge destruction his novel had gotten, that very scene was meant to give him a slap in the face. The bigger change to the novel is one that has been well fabled in the film world: that maze scene at the end. Perhaps the scene was foreshadowed from the very beginning as objects, as we were focused on the characters’ interactions instead.

The film looks at The Shining inside out and, literally, forward and backward. There are several theses about what is represented by the hiding of objects across the film. Perhaps The Shining was Kubrick’s use of the horror genre to tell of the Holocaust, which was all over the news when he grew up. Or perhaps it was meant as an analogy about Indian-Americans. It sounds valid to me, having the prior knowledge that Stephen King had originally titled his book The Shine, but it became The Shining upon discovering that the Shine was a tribal name.

The one thing I’m sure about with Room 237 is that it’s thought-provoking. I’ve said way too much about it, but there are countless other points brought up in this study. Who knows what Kubrick was actually intending: he is no longer alive to say so, his family never approved or endorsed the documentary, and the 200 IQ could mean there’s a whole universe living inside his mind. If you are a fan of Kubrick’s The Shining, you may have the same reaction I did. The word “jaw-dropping” is thrown around like a figure of speech, synonymously with “mind-blowing,” as if a movie can’t make one’s jaw drop. But Room 237 was, in quite the literal sense, a jaw-dropping experience.

TOMORROW, ON CINEMANIAC REVIEWS…

Coming Soon: Review No. 500 (an announcement)

“Where did I go right?” Just about everywhere, Mr. Brooks.

DIRECTED BY SUSAN STROMAN. WRITTEN BY MEL BROOKS AND THOMAS MEEHAN. STARRING NATHAN LANE (MAX BIALYSTOCK), MATTHEW BRODERICK (LEOPOLD “LEO” BLOOM), UMA THURMAN (ULLA), AND WILL FERRELL (FRANZ LIEBKIND). ALSO STARRING GARY BEACH, ROGER BART, JON LOVITZ, MICHAEL MCKEAN, DAVID HUDDLESTON, RICHARD KIND, EILEEN ESSELL, DEBRA MONK, ANDREA MARTIN, JOHN BARROWMAN. FEATURING A CAMEO BY BROOKS. DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL STUDIOS ON DECEMBER 16, 2005. PRODUCED IN ENGLISH BY THE UNITED STATES. RUNS 2 HOURS, 14 MINUTES. RATED PG-13 BY THE MPAA, FOR SEXUAL HUMOR AND REFERENCES.

THE PRODUCERS WAS WATCHED ON MAY 11, 2013.

“Springtime for Hitler and Germany
Winter for Poland and France
Springtime for Hitler and Germany
Come on, Germans, go into your dance”
–”Springtime for Hitler”

“That’s it, baby, when you’ve got it, flaunt it! Flaunt it!” The moment Zero Mostel uttered that timeless line in 1968′s The Producers, an update was on the horizon. This was an impressive directorial debut for Mel Brooks, and it’s outrageous black comedy set high standards for the rest of his career. But the film was in 1968, and it clearly needed to be politically incorrect enough to offend any decade.

And here we have 2005′s The Producers, nearly four decades later. This rendition is a movie musical based on a Broadway musical based on Brooks’s own movie about musicals. It’s offensive by any standards, but we’d rather not care. We’re too busy splitting our sides at every outlandishly dark, witty joke this one has in store. I’d go as far as to say that this edition is better than the classic to which it traces its heritage. It’s not directed by Mel Brooks himself, but knowing that he operates as producer, musician, lyricist, and co-writer, there isn’t much surprise.

The Producers reprises a story that is radical in every sense of the word. Max Bialystock (Nathan Lane) is a man who desires money more than anything in the world. He is a theatrical producer with a good amount of money as it is, and yet he “shtupps” every senior woman in the Bronx, on a daily basis, to earn more money. When a somewhat reserved accountant, Leopold “Leo” Bloom (Matthew Broderick), comes to work for this famed man, it becomes apparent that not only does he desire incredulous amounts of money, he is still holding onto a ridiculous amount of cash that he was supposed to use for financing his most recent production–a comedic rendition of Hamlet entitled Funny Boy.

At this point, Leo just doesn’t know Max well enough to realize that he shouldn’t be helping out at all; in fact, he discovers that the two of them (which, of course, means just Max to Max himself) can become rich instantly if they produce a “surefire flop.” They find Franz Liebkind (Will Ferrell), a psychotic man who fanatically worships Adolf Hitler, and purchase the rights to his play, Springtime for Hitler. They find the aptly named Roger de Bris (Gary Beach), an ostentatious, stereotyped gay man who could probably direct the play into the flop that it is, if not worse. They find a Swedish blonde, Ulla (Uma Thurman), who is fit for a “secretary-slash-receptionist” job in every way, except that it’s impossible to understand her accent. And despite all this, the play is a hit, which puts Bialystock and Bloom not only in financial crisis, but also in legal crisis.

The film does have its missteps. An over elongated, rewritten ending can do that. And if it weren’t for the cast, this would be merely a farcical schlock with a little bit of Mel Brooks’s touch. Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick are the perfect “odd couple.” They can act ridiculous in normal situations (instead of the preferred: acting normal in ridiculous situations) and it’s still funny. Their characters are developed from the moment we begin, simply because they know the musical well enough to present its theatricality with chaotic fun. In addition to Susan Stroman, who directed both musical and movie, the entire Producers cast is from the 2001 Broadway musical itself, save for Will Ferrell and Uma Thurman. Even among these flamboyant nutcases, both steal every scene they have–Ferrell for his bizarre, riotous, Nazi-esque behavior; Thurman for her amusing Swedish accent.

I’m not a fan of theater, simply because the flashiness drives me nuts; thus when it comes to mocking theater, you can’t avoid the naturally over-the-top attitude of theater, or else it’s not funny. You could say The Producers hits a satirical bull’s-eye.

“Don’t be stupid, be a smarty, come and join the Nazi party!” –cameo by Mel Brooks

As eternally transfixing as Marsellus Wallace’s luminous suitcase.

WRITTEN AND DIRECTED BY QUENTIN TARANTINO. STORIES BY ROGER AVARY AND TARANTINO. STARRING JOHN TRAVOLTA (VINCENT VEGA), SAMUEL L. JACKSON (JULES WINNFIELD), UMA THURMAN (MIA WALLACE), HARVEY KEITEL (WINSTON “THE WOLF” WOLFE), TIM ROTH (“PUMPKIN”/”RINGO”), AMANDA PLUMMER (YOLANDA/”HONEY BUNNY”), MARIA DE MEDEIROS (FABIENNE), VING RHAMES (MARSELLUS WALLACE), ERIC STOLTZ (LANCE), JODY (ROSANNA ARQUETTE), CHRISTOPHER WALKEN (CAPTAIN KOONS), AND BRUCE WILLIS (BUTCH COOLIDGE). ALSO STARRING PHIL LAMARR, FRANK WHALEY, BURR STEERS, PAUL CALDERÓN, BRONAGH GALLAGHER, MICHAEL GILDEN, SUSAN GRIFFITHS, STEVE BUSCEMI, ANGELA JONES, KATHY GRIFFIN, DUANE WHITAKER, PETER GREENE, STEPHEN HIBBERT, QUENTIN TARANTINO, AND JULIA SWEENEY. DISTRIBUTED BY MIRAMAX FILMS ON OCTOBER 14, 1994. PRODUCED IN ENGLISH BY THE UNITED STATES. RUNS 2 HOURS, 34 MINUTES. RATED R BY THE MPAA, FOR STRONG GRAPHIC VIOLENCE AND DRUG USE, PERVASIVE STRONG LANGUAGE AND SOME SEXUALITY.

PULP FICTION WAS WATCHED ON MAY 10, 2013.

“The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who in the name of charity and good will shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother’s keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord…when I lay my vengeance upon thee.” –Jules Winnfield (Samuel L. Jackson)

Cue up Dick Dale’s “Misirlou”. Or Kool & the Gang’s “Jungle Boogie”. Or Chuck Berry’s “You Never Can Tell”. Writer-drector Quentin Tarantino uses these songs just as he uses every other stylistic element in Pulp Fiction: to add an extra dose of dark, humorous flavor to his quixotic screenplay. Tarantino approaches the project with a simplistic intent of being carefree and fun, and through this, he achieves genius. Pulp Fiction is so carefree, so fun, and so delightfully outrageous, that the urge to play it again is irresistible.

I had the entire movie spoiled for me. I didn’t know it front to back, but I knew how it was going to end and, for the most part, why. And yet Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction still struck me like an unpredictable lightning bolt. Tarantino doesn’t play god with his works, he is god with his works. And as the genius that he is, it’s a harsh understatement to refer to such brilliance as a “comedy” or a “thriller.” He throws both those genres for a wild loop.

Pulp Fiction sets us up with several stories of corruption and, later, redemption. Even if not all at once, these stories have tied together by the end. Essentially, the one connecting the stories is Marsellus Wallace (Ving Rhames), a high-profile mobster in Los Angeles, California. We don’t realize it immediately, but the film’s leading plot focuses around his fabled power: you screw him over, you die; and yet so many of his trusted subordinates are bound to screw him over. He is taking vacation on his own, and he asks Vincent Vega (John Travolta) to take his wife, Mia (Uma Thurman), for a “fun night.” It starts out with dancing, and before she knows it, she’s already overdosed and gone comatose. Marsellus agrees to provide Butch Coolidge (Bruce Willis), a hotheaded boxing champ, with a large amount of money, so long as he can cheat his way out of a match. Instead, he takes the money and refuses his half of the deal.

Pulp Fiction is your ideal “black comedy.” Its depiction of violence marked revolutionary extremities upon its initial release, and that’s not all there is in this landmark look at depravity. But the through-the-eyes view allows us to see through the eyes of the main characters. It’s an incredibly dark movie, but it’s surprisingly lighthearted. The levity John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson add, via their philosophical debates, is absolutely immeasurable. The villains aren’t their characters or Marsellus or Butch or Mia. If anyone, they’re the characters we don’t see very often. The story progresses due to the mess the characters get caught up in with one another. As Samuel might put it, it’s because of “the iniquities of the selfish,” not “the tyranny of evil men.” I’ve said too much already, and I mustn’t spoil any more. It’s impossible not to rock along with Pulp Fiction; you will know the auteur is Tarantino when he lays his genius upon thee.

Jules (Samuel L. Jackson): “English, motherf___er! Do you speak it?!”
Brett (Frank Whaley): “Yes.”
Jules: “Then you know what I’m saying.”
Brett: “Yes.”
Jules: “Describe what Marsellus Wallace looks like.”
Brett: “What…?”
Jules: “Say ‘what’ again! Say! ‘what’! again! I dare you! I double-dare you, motherf___er! Say ‘what’ one more goddamn time!”

TOMORROW, ON CINEMANIAC REVIEWS…

The Producers

Depending on how well you know me, either in person or through the blogosphere, you may be just as shocked as I am that the movie to which I am referring is Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction.

I’ll try and be brief with this post, but I’d like to say that I saw it a week ago and I’m dying to see it again. Hell, I was dying to see it again from the second it was over. I thought I was lost for not having seen it. I don’t mean to offend you if you were sinking in the same boat as me, but I was right.

In fact, I went ahead and bought it shortly after my initial watch.  I know, I know, there’s an inevitable 20th anniversary edition on 2014′s queue; once it is announced, that will be the time (and the ONLY time!) when I’ll auction off the Blu-Ray I have now, and preorder the whole shebang.

Sorry if I’ve made any of you feel old with that whole “20th anniversary” thing.  I guess I just don’t understand how that might feel, since my own “release date” was three years later.

I’m getting terribly sidetracked so, ANYWAY…

My review goes up tomorrow, and although it’s impossible, I hope my writing quality is as outstanding as Tarantino’s.  One of the (many) cool things about Pulp Fiction is that the clocks are always stopped whenever we see them.  The time varies (sometimes noon, sometimes, 8:20, sometimes 10:20, etc.).  But the first of these “clockstoppings” is at noon, so that’s when my review will go up tomorrow (as opposed to 2:00PM).

I should shut up now.

Stay tuned.

“Evil Dead II” – Where cabin fever becomes hemophilia.

DIRECTED BY SAM RAIMI. WRITTEN BY RAIMI AND SCOTT SPIEGEL. STARRING BRUCE CAMPBELL (ASHLEY J. “ASH” WILLIAMS), SARAH BERRY (ANNIE KNOWBY), DAN HICKS (JAKE), KASSIE DEPAIVA (BOBBY JOE), AND RICHARD DOMEIER (PROFESSOR ED GETLEY). ALSO STARRING TED RAIMI, DENISE BIXLER, JOHN PEAKS, AND LOU HANCOCK. DISTRIBUTED BY ROSEBUD RELEASING ON MARCH 13, 1987. PRODUCED IN ENGLISH BY THE UNITED STATES. RUNS 1 HOUR, 24 MINUTES. CURRENTLY DISTRIBUTED UNRATED; PREVIOUSLY RATED R BY THE MPAA.

EVIL DEAD II WAS WATCHED ON MAY 10, 2013.

“You’re goin’ down. Chainsaw.” –Ash (Bruce Campbell)

You know how it’s going to begin. A man makes the big mistake of bringing his girlfriend to a cabin. He doesn’t know it’s the same cabin that killed his friends when he was in college, because the bridge–the single route there–has been refurbished. When he enters, he finds the Necronomicon, the “Book of the Dead” that unleashes spirits when it its recited. Clearly, he doesn’t want to recite it, but there is an audio recitation already loaded in the cassette player. And we know how it’s going to end. (Well, sort of.)

Evil Dead II preserves 90% of its predecessor’s plot, which, contrary to one’s expectations, is a brilliant idea. It’s difficult to follow through your typical sequel, but this one must have been a Herculean task; beyond the story, there’s no job here that we can call simple. 1981′s The Evil Dead was distributed simultaneously to theaters and VHS; it became a hit, regardless, and lives on as a tremendous “cult classic.” The rave it earned in the early ’80s demanded a sequel, and once that project went into production, the film crew became far larger than that of the original. What’s worse, the project was budgeted at $3.6 million, and it had to be as far from a Hollywood flick as possible. It needed to seem like what it was: a follow up to something that five college students made with less than $500,000.

Consider that it takes more effort to look like you did absolutely nothing, than to look like you’ve created a masterpiece. It’s probable that within a matter of six years, Sam Raimi’s natural writing doesn’t look like a mess of clichés and written ad lib, so he has to make it look like that, without making the clichés obvious. And Bruce Campbell’s acting ability has improved, so it’s impossible to not act. But he can’t look like a good actor either, nor can he look like a god-awful actor. He has to act like someone who doesn’t have a clue how to act; someone who spontaneously looks at the camera, someone who accidentally recites his lines with the wrong facial expressions. And none of this can look intentional. Amazingly enough, none of it did.

Although Evil Dead II is a lot of fun, it tends to restrain itself–something its predecessor never would have dreamed of doing. You can tell that there are several great ideas it just isn’t sure about putting onscreen; it’s increasingly self-aware, as well. But I can excuse it for not being the perfect Halloween movie. It has its moments, and they come numerously. Perhaps the most side-splitting scene occurs after Ash tries to shoot his possessed (and dismembered) hand after it has crawled inside a hole in the wall. The result is a hurricane of blood that looks like paint. And as the red paint runs out, you can almost hear these special effects supervisors yelling, “Get some black paint!” There’s several of these scenes in this sequel and, although they don’t pervade the film, they make it well worth watching (so long as you enjoy the outrageously bizarre, gruesome attitude).

TOMORROW, ON CINEMANIAC REVIEWS…

Tomorrow, on Cinemaniac Reviews… (no, this isn’t a typo)

Watch watch “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang” now now.

DIRECTED BY SHANE BLACK. STORY AND SCREENPLAY BY BLACK. STARRING ROBERT DOWNEY JR. (HARRY LOCKHART) AND VAL KILMER (“GAY PERRY” VAN SHRIKE). ALSO STARRING MICHELLE MONAGHAN, CORBIN BERNSEN, DASH MIHOK, ANGELA LINDVALL, ALI HILLIS, LARRY MILLER, ROCKMOND DUNBAR, AND SHANNYN SOSSAMON. DISTRIBUTED ON NOVEMBER 11, 2005 BY WARNER BROS. PRODUCED IN ENGLISH BY THE UNITED STATES. RUNS 1 HOUR, 42 MINUTES. RATED R BY THE MPAA, FOR LANGUAGE, VIOLENCE AND SEXUALITY/NUDITY.

KISS KISS BANG BANG WAS WATCHED ON MAY 5, 2013.

Gay Perry (Val Kilmer): “Look up idiot in the dictionary. You know what you’ll find?”
Harry (Robert Downey Jr.): “A picture of me?”
Gay Perry (Kilmer): “No! The definition of the word ‘idiot’! Which you f###ing are!”

So here we are in L.A. We have Harry (Robert Downey Jr.), a thief who has been mistaken for a method actor and used that to reach a sudden career pinnacle; Harmony (Michelle Monaghan), the femme fatale who wanted to be an actress, but never earned any recognition for her talent; and “Gay Perry” (Val Kilmer), Harry’s own lifelong friend. The plot is a murder mystery, which is anything but simple: over the course of four days, Harry and “Gay Perry” are determined to prove that they didn’t commit a murder, often times “playing detective” according to the pulp novels Harmony reads in her spare time. Sounds bizarre? Let’s just say there’s a severed finger used as a major plot point, and I couldn’t help but think of the severed ear that set Blue Velvet into action.

A great film can melodically separate style and substance. A work of genius can blend the two with dynamic results. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is in the latter camp. While the story darkly satirizes old-fashioned crime capers, it also feels just like them. There’s atmosphere everywhere, and for nearly two hours, we finally have something definitive of unique: an indie movie that echoes the Golden Age of Hollywood. And as if this isn’t enough, the “fourth wall” seems to be composed of drywall; the movie has Robert Downey Jr., so it’s obvious he’d be the one to break it down. Yes, he is a “bad narrator,” in a sense that he often forgets what to mention (and humorously acknowledges this misstep); he tells us to stop complaining about how he’s ending the film on several notes (could the movie, you know, not end?); etc. But he’s not doing this on purpose–writer Shane Black is, and it’s fully original. Nobody’s really written a “bad narration” before, so it makes Downey’s character even more unique and likable.

I had a blast watching Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. The film toys madly with realism, yet at the same time, I can envision myself quoting it on a daily basis. It’s wild, rowdy, violent, hardboiled, dark, and unforgettable. In any politically correct state of mind, it should be flat-out depressing, but god, does Shane Black give it levity. The film is well-written, well-acted, and well-played. That’s to say it’s the perfect crime, it’s the perfect crime about crime, and it’s the only crime we’ve ever needed. Right?

Harry (Robert Downey Jr.): “I peed on the corpse. Can they do, like, ID from that?”
Perry (Val Kilmer): “I’m sorry, you peed on…?”
Harry (Downey): “On the corpse. My question is…”
Perry (Kilmer): “No, my question, I get to go first: Why in pluperfect hell would you pee on a corpse?”
Harry (Downey): “I didn’t intend to! It’s not like I did it for kicks!”

STAY TUNED FOR MY “EVIL DEAD II” REVIEW @4:30!

Drop “Dead” funny meets plain awesome.

WRITTEN AND DIRECTED BY SAM RAIMI. STARRING BRUCE CAMPBELL (ASH), ELLEN SANDWEISS (CHERYL), HAL DELRICH (SCOTTY), BETSY BAKER (LINDA), AND SARAH YORK (SHELLY). DISTRIBUTED BY NEW LINE CINEMA ON APRIL 24, 1983. PRODUCED IN ENGLISH BY THE UNITED STATES. RUNS 1 HOUR, 25 MINUTES. CURRENTLY DISTRIBUTED UNRATED; PREVIOUSLY RATED NC-17 BY THE MPAA, FOR SUBSTANTIAL GRAPHIC HORROR VIOLENCE AND GORE.

THE EVIL DEAD WAS WATCHED ON MAY 4, 2013.

“Join us…” –the voice of the evil force (Sam Raimi)

The Evil Dead is the very moment where drop dead funny meets plain awesome. It only gets better when this moment lasts an hour and a half–and leaves you wanting more. When I think of a top two in my “so bad it’s good” horror flick list, it’s always Troll 2 and Friday the 13th. And no, that list doesn’t change now. I can’t call The Evil Dead “so bad it’s good” because that’s me stating it’s, essentially, a bad movie. The Evil Dead makes both Troll 2 and Friday the 13th look classy. That’s not bad. That’s badass.

Let’s take away the technicalities for a little while. The Evil Dead takes the old “group of friends in a cabin in the woods” storyline and gives it an over-the-top makeover. The results are unforgettable, old-fashioned fun. You thought the blood in Halloween looked like ketchup? It looks like grape jelly here. Did the zombies in George A. Romero’s Night of the Living Dead seem a bit too hokey? You obviously haven’t seen a zombie that has veins drawn in Sharpie marker. Was Jack Nicholson’s “Here’s Johnny!” a bit too disturbingly hilarious in The Shining? It’s likely you’ve already heard of the infamous scene that sets The Evil Dead into action, so I guess that settles that. Yes, it all does sound god awful, but then again, to see is to believe.

A great horror movie could deprive you of your sleep, so that it can have a few hours to linger in your mind and haunt it nonstop. The Evil Dead just might keep you up in order to remind you of all the classic moments it offers. It created a new tolerance of blood and gore for Hollywood (even as a production by college students, not Hollywood auteurs) in the early 1980s; although we’ve seen more gratuitous presentations of gore since then, the B-movie flavor makes it a flick like no other. It’s uninspired, but in a somewhat similar light, so is Mel Brooks. The Evil Dead is campy to no end, but that’s not at all a bad thing when the campfire is an eternal flame.

Postscript: The granted NC-17 rating marks the worst choice from the MPAA since they reissued Psycho with an R rating. Yes, The Evil Dead is graphic, but it’s also clearly fake in every low-budget-ish way. It’s just so easy to come up with titles that present ample graphic violence–with far more realism–and seem to have no problem avoiding the NC-17. Regardless, the film is noted online as having that same NC-17, but all available video copies have been marked “unrated.”

TOMORROW, ON CINEMANIAC REVIEWS…

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (@2:00); Evil Dead II (@4:30)

Good, but “Hurt” oh so badly by its script.

DIRECTED BY KATHRYN BIGELOW. WRITTEN BY MARK BOAL. STARRING JEREMY RENNER (SERGEANT FIRST CLASS WILLIAM JAMES), ANTHONY MACKIE (SERGEANT J. T. SANBORN), BRIAN GERAGHTY (SPECIALIST OWEN ELDRIDGE), CHRISTIAN CAMARGO (LIEUTENANT COLONEL JOHN CAMBRIDGE), EVANGELINE LILLY (CONNIE JAMES), RALPH FIENNES (THE LEADER OF A PRIVATE MILITARY COMPANY UNIT), DAVID MORSE (COLONEL REED), AND GUY PEARCE (STAFF SERGEANT MATTHEW THOMPSON). ALSO STARRING CHRISTOPHER SAYEGH. DISTRIBUTED BY SUMMIT ENTERTAINMENT AND UNIVERSAL STUDIOS ON JUNE 26, 2009. PRODUCED IN ENGLISH BY THE UNITED STATES. RUNS 2 HOURS, 11 MINUTES. RATED R BY THE MPAA, FOR WAR VIOLENCE AND LANGUAGE.

THE HURT LOCKER WAS WATCHED ON MAY 4, 2013.

“The rush of battle is often a potent and lethal addiction, for war is a drug.” –Chris Hedges

The Hurt Locker runs two hours, eleven minutes, and everything from “go” feels like the middle section of a war epic. We open not knowing who these characters are at all, other than U.S. soldiers who have been ordered to Iraq during the War on Terror. We begin with action, and we end with action; certain moments in between are spent developing characters beyond their dialogue. Do I sound like I’m reviewing a James Cameron flick? It’s possible his ex-wife, Kathryn Bigelow, stole a few stylistic ideas while creating this.

But why would she steal from her ex-husband when she so obviously loves this project as something of her very own? The Hurt Locker keeps, reportedly, over 100 times less than what was shot. That’s well over two-hundred hours of different angles, powerful acting, and just two key editors to extract the best of the best, and thus piece it into something just over two hours. The statistic is mind-blowing, and onscreen, it looks great. The dramatization represents a realistic view of war by showing the humanity of every actor, the several hundred points of view, the rigid camera, and the sudden tense feeling we draw in the climactic moments (even if the catharsis is entirely predictable).

But in every man’s interpretation of real life, there is boredom. The Hurt Locker offers a lot of it. As previously suggested, Mark Boal’s writing is sparsely more than a flat line. It’s often mind-numbing, going in clueless to an uneven, tediously paced cluster of characters and action alike. And I liked these characters. I would’ve taken a four-hour movie in a heartbeat, just so long as there was a solid beginning and end to surround the two hours we HAVE seen.

You all know I love puns–the awfuller the better. Here’s a few puns and a half for you, per the plot itself: Some scenes in The Hurt Locker were rather explosive, but by now, they’ve long since diffused in my memory. I wouldn’t say The Hurt Locker was the bomb. I wouldn’t say it bombed, either. To try and guess why this won Best Picture, however, might cause my mind to explode.

TOMORROW, ON CINEMANIAC REVIEWS…

The Evil Dead

“Parental Guidance” not suggested.

DIRECTED BY ANDY FICKMAN. WRITTEN BY LISA ADDARIO AND JOE SYRACUSE. STARRING BILLY CRYSTAL (ARTIE DECKER), BETTE MIDLER (DIANE DECKER), MARISA TOMEI (ALICE SIMMONS), TOM EVERETT SCOTT (PHIL SIMMONS), BAILEE MADISON (HARPER SIMMONS), KYLE HARRISON BREITKOPF (BARKER SIMMONS), AND JOSHUA RUSH (TURNER SIMMONS). ALSO STARRING GEDDE WATANABE, CADE JONES, MAVRICK MORENO, MADISON LINTZ, AND KARAN KENDRICK. FEATURING CAMEOS FROM TONY HAWK AND STEVE LEVY. DISTRIBUTED BY 20TH CENTURY FOX ON DECEMBER 25, 2012. PRODUCED IN ENGLISH BY THE UNITED STATES. RUNS 1 HOUR, 45 MINUTES. RATED PG BY THE MPAA, FOR SOME RUDE HUMOR.

PARENTAL GUIDANCE WAS WATCHED ON MAY 3, 2013.

“My granddaughter’s birth has made me want to create things she will love.” –Billy Crystal

It’s amazing that I could predict how Parental Guidance would end as soon as it had begun.  Actually, scratch that.  If this were a movie that showed a modicum of decency toward a genuine movie lover, then to predict the ending would be impressive.  But it’s just common knowledge here.  Parental Guidance isn’t as far as you can get from original, but aside from a few minor touches, it recycles gags that seem to have gotten old fast.  The film is only as unpredictable as the sight of birds in the early morning.

I’ve been accused of being too generous to movies, but perhaps to Parental Guidance, I just need to be a bit more generous.  Movies like this don’t care about plot or pacing.  They don’t care how suddenly their characters change, because we won’t notice.  Maybe we will, but we won’t care.  Movies like this are the PG equivalent of a standup routine.  You try and “make ‘em laugh.”  Nothing else.  Just a joke.  Another joke.  And another joke.  Maybe a quick gross-out scene right when the under-eight audience is about to fall asleep.  Don’t want the comedy to be too boring.

And that’s exactly the problem with Parental Guidance.  It can’t make us laugh very easily.  You can see where it’s going, for sure.  You know what jokes it’s trying to tell; they just don’t come out right in delivery.  Sure, kids will laugh at this, but there’s several other movies that would treat them to much harder laughs.  The juvenile humor is evened out rather noticeably with Billy Crystal’s “adult humor.”  Fortunately, he steals the better half of his scenes (mind you, he features in a main role).  As for the other half, unfortunately, the writing of Lisa Addario and Joe Syracuse (no, I hadn’t heard of them either) manages to fail even an old-school genius like Crystal.  And unfortunately, there’s no kid who will get his jokes.

Parental Guidance is a substandard family comedy.  You take two parents that don’t look to us like they’d be strict, and apparently they’re Household Hitlers.  They don’t let their kids do anything but what is (hypothetically) good for them.  That includes not meeting their grandparents.  And it’s not until they do meet their grandparents that they realize that they’ve been brainwashed into the rule of their parents, and that their parents realize how totalitarian their rule is.  Seeing from how the movie plays out, you can stop questioning my level of exaggeration.  The movie adopts a great deal of caricature into its namesake.  As you would expect, results are both to success and failure.  But this story is so common.  You could do a two-minute Google search for something that takes the caricature to hilarious extremes.  And I guarantee, you’d find not one, but at least ten to your satisfaction.

Try and “Shut” it out of your memory.

DIRECTED BY MARTIN SCORSESE. SCREENPLAY BY LAETA KALOGRIDIS. BASED ON “SHUTTER ISLAND” BY DENNIS LEHANE. STARRING LEONARDO DICAPRIO (EDWARD “TEDDY” DANIELS), MARK RUFFALO (CHUCK AULE), BEN KINGSLEY (DR. JOHN CAWLEY), MICHELLE WILLIAMS (DOLORES CHANAL), PATRICIA CLARKSON (DR. RACHEL SOLANDO), AND MAX VON SYDOW (DR. JEREMIAH NAEHRING). ALSO STARRING CHRISTOPHER DENHAM, ELIAS KOTEAS, EMILY MORTIMER, JACKIE EARLE HALEY, JILL LARSON, JOHN CARROLL LYNCH, KEN CHEESEMAN, MATTHEW COWLES, ROBIN BARTLETT, RUBY JERINS, AND TED LEVINE. DISTRIBUTED BY PARAMOUNT PICTURES ON FEBRUARY 19, 2010. PRODUCED IN ENGLISH AND GERMAN BY THE UNITED STATES. RUNS 2 HOURS, 18 MINUTES. RATED R BY THE MPAA, FOR DISTURBING VIOLENT CONTENT, LANGUAGE AND SOME NUDITY.

SHUTTER ISLAND WAS WATCHED ON APRIL 28, 2013.

“Which would be worse? To live as a monster, or die as a good man?” –Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio)

I’ll admit that Martin Scorsese’s rendition of Shutter Island fails when compared to Dennis Lehane’s source novel. It’s nothing mind-blowing or remotely unforgettable. Seen as its own work, this is a successfully chilling piece. I’ve always respected Scorsese as one of few directors who can successfully develop a character, regardless of our expectations. He could direct a biopic about Charles Manson and he’d find a way to make us side with the quote-unquote “hero.” Shutter Island gives its hero a unique, somewhat bizarre turn. Let’s just say once we’re submerged in his head, the experience grows much more unsettling.

Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a U.S. Marshal who has traveled to Ashecliffe, a hospital for the criminally insane, on an island at Boston Harbor. The protocol is a part of the investigation for Rachel Solando, a crazed woman who has drowned all three of her children. What unfolds from here on is a psychological tale that studies one paramount question: “Where is the line between sanity and insanity?” It seems obvious to us, but Teddy, in his journey through the asylum, begins to discover that every mental patient thinks of him- or herself as perfectly sane.

Shutter Island is a well acted thriller, set a step ahead by an intriguing protagonist. We know he’s delusional, but we don’t know when he’s experiencing reality, when his hallucinations represent reality, or when he’s just purely delusional. And his delusion could be either because a) he’s insane or b) he’s recently lost his wife and is now experiencing post-traumatic stress. DiCaprio understates his performance incredibly in order to attain the several mysteries that surround his situation.

The picture is incredibly subtle, so much that when we get to the twist ending, it’s perfection: shocking, yet ingeniously sensible. The term “twist ending” has been beaten to a negative connotation; it’s films like this that demand a new word for how sublimely they end. Again, Shutter Island isn’t perfect; a fan of the book (such as yours truly) would expect something with more consistent pacing, as well as the pulp inspiration that was present Lehane’s novel. But if this isn’t a satisfying thriller–dare I say one that echoes the style of Hitchcock himself, with superior results–I’m not sure exactly what it is.

TOMORROW, ON CINEMANIAC REVIEWS…

Parental Guidance

So. Bloody. Boring.

DIRECTED BY NEIL JORDAN. WRITTEN BY ANNE RICE, BASED ON HER NOVEL “INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE”. STARRING TOM CRUISE (LESTAT DE LIONCOURT), BRAD PITT (LOUIS DE POINTE DU LAC), ANTONIO BANDERAS (ARMAND), STEPHEN REA (SANTIAGO), CHRISTIAN SLATER (DANIEL MOLLOY), AND KIRSTEN DUNST (CLAUDIA). ALSO STARRING DOMIZIANA GIORDANO, SARA STOCKBRIDGE, AND THANDIE NEWTON. DISTRIBUTED BY WARNER BROS. ON NOVEMBER 11, 1994. PRODUCED IN ENGLISH BY THE UNITED STATES. RUNS 2 HOURS, 2 MINUTES. RATED R BY THE MPAA, FOR VAMPIRE VIOLENCE AND GORE, AND FOR SEXUALITY.

INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE: THE VAMPIRE CHRONICLES WAS WATCHED ON APRIL 28, 2013.

“Please allow me to introduce myself
I’m a man of wealth and taste
I’ve been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man’s soul and faith…”
–”Sympathy for the Devil” by the Rolling Stones

I can just imagine the casting calls for Interview with the Vampire. Any takers to play a prostitute who has her wrist drained into Tom Cruise’s wine glass? What about a random passerby who has the honor of exsanguination straight into the gullet of Brad Pitt? Et cetera. Et cetera. Et cetera.

Interview with the Vampire is a routine movie that acts as more of a TV miniseries. It seems to have one single intention: to disgust its audience. Sure, there’s a plot, but it’s thin; and as if that isn’t enough, it’s buried beneath a blood drinking here, a blood drinking there. There’s several moments when it gets so mindlessly graphic, you desperately want to turn it off. It manages to disgust quite well. It also manages to amuse, from poor writing, acting, and musical scoring. And believe it or don’t, that’s not all. You can hardly guess these people are vampires until they say so. How is it that a film’s visual department can be so polarized? I think the one thing that kept me awake here was the Victorian, Gothic look. Yet at the same time, the makeup on Brad Pitt’s face is clearly a falsity, and it’s all too obvious that Tom Cruise is wearing a wig.

The plot could have been interesting, but unfortunately, it shot itself in the face with a rifle loaded with cheese. Or corn. Either works. Anyway, we open with a man staring out the window. He looks about twenty-five, but we find out from an interviewer in the room that he’s actually a 200-year-old vampire. Well I’ll be goddamned. The funny thing is, we’re supposed to believe him as much as the interviewer is, despite the implausibility of what he’s claimed. Even after a two-hour rambling about his life as a vampire, though, we’re still convinced he’s Brad Pitt wearing multi-million-dollar makeup. (What a waste of money.)

Interview with the Vampire isn’t a bad movie. It’s amazingly bad. It’s almost as bloody awful as one could get. If it managed to blow my mind in any way, I guess I’m surprised that a film from 1994 can, in fact, be notably cheesier than 1922′s Nosferatu. Now Interview with the Vampire sells itself to us as a drama, not a horror, but I may say, that one statistic is scary.

Postscript: I saw Interview with the Vampire on TV. I, like most others, hate commercials in general, but the commercials in between scenes here were a blessing.

TOMORROW, ON CINEMANIAC REVIEWS…

Shutter Island

It’s difficult not to love “Amour”.

WRITTEN AND DIRECTED BY MICHAEL HANEKE. STARRING JEAN-LOUIS TRINTIGNANT (GEORGES LAURENT), EMMANUELLE RIVA (ANNE LAURENT), AND ISABELLE HUPPERT (EVA LAURENT). ALSO STARRING ALEXANDRE THARAUD, CAROLE FRANCK, DAMIEN JOUILLEROT, DINARA DROUKAROVA, JEAN-MICHEL MONROC, LAURENT CAPELLUTO, RAMÓN AGIRRE, RITA BLANCO, SUZANNE SCHMIDT, WALID AFKIR, AND WILLIAM SHIMELL. DISTRIBUTED BY SONY PICTURES CLASSICS ON DECEMBER 19, 2012. PRODUCED IN FRENCH BY AUSTRIA, FRANCE, AND GERMANY. RUNS 2 HOURS, 7 MINUTES. RATED PG-13 BY THE MPAA, FOR MATURE THEMATIC MATERIAL INCLUDING A DISTURBING ACT, AND FOR BRIEF LANGUAGE.

AMOUR WAS WATCHED ON APRIL 27, 2013.

“Things will go on as they have done up until now. They’ll go from bad to worse. Things will go on, and then one day it will all be over.” –Georges (Jean-Louis Trintignant)

Georges and Anne Laurent are an octogenarian couple living in a Parisian apartment. Both are retired music teachers, and their daughter is abroad. It comes to Georges by surprise one morning when his wife has a silent stroke during breakfast. He tries to live a normal life with her, particularly because she has a fear of being hospitalized, but upon returning from a funeral one night, he discovers that Anne has suffered yet another stroke and is now paralyzed down her right side. Georges is now devoting every moment of his life to taking care of his wife at all costs, but it’s not at all easy. His life has taken a sharp turn from nothing but joy, into a world full of concern, stress, and fear.

Similar to many other films from Austrian director Michael Haneke, it has both visual and audial simplicity as a core technique, and more often than not, it’s used to shocking, suspenseful effect. Simplicity is a beautiful quality. Amour tells a simple story and handles it even more simply: Cinematography is often limited to a few basic shots per scene. Dialogue seems as harmlessly unedited as a casual conversation. A quiet atmosphere is maintained, and as the story progresses, it dissolves from serenity to pure horror.

What’s best rendered in all this is the irony that this is a film about music teachers, yet the closest thing we experience to a soundtrack is a few appearances of “Bagatelles in G minor”. We hear it in the beginning to illustrate the film’s mood, and several times afterward for the same, unsettling effect.

Amour is a film that feels authentic because more than 90% of it is set within the confines of the apartment. Even in a movie theater, it’s difficult not to feel claustrophobic at times. Often times, I would wince as the camera depicted the tiny apartment’s narrow halls or the short distance between the kitchen table and the sink. At other times, you’re as scared as the loving Georges is. There’s a perfect example directly at the midpoint: a nightmare sequence. At the cinema, the scene evoked the sorts of screams you’d expect from a horror movie.

I have to say, I enjoyed the tense build-up that was created in this uneasy atmosphere, even if the “payoff” for the suspense was underworked. Granted, the climactic shock factor was appreciated by many audiences, but to the eyes of this critic, you couldn’t be any more impulsive in trying to subvert an audience’s expectations. But these are merely the climactic scenes, and perhaps the only apparent misstep the film takes. Those moments are redeemed entirely in the ending. The final ten minutes conclude the film with mesmerizing depth and a few creative twists on traditional symbolism. I won’t spoil it, but let’s just say it’s one of the most thought-provoking conclusions since Citizen Kane.

TOMORROW, ON CINEMANIAC REVIEWS…

Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles

The memories, the smiles “The Intouchables” left me with are “intouchable.”

WRITTEN AND DIRECTED BY OLIVIER NAKACHE AND ÉRIC TOLEDANO. STARRING FRANÇOIS CLUZET (PHILIPPE) AND OMAR SY (DRISS). ALSO STARRING ABSA DIALOU TOURE, ALBA GAÏA KRAGHEDE BELLUGI, ANNE LE NY, AUDREY FLEUROT, CHRISTIAN AMERI, CLOTILDE MOLLET, CYRIL MENDY, GRÉGOIRE OESTERMANN, MARIE-LAURE DESCOUREAUX, AND SALIMATA KAMATE. DISTRIBUTED BY THE WEINSTEIN COMPANY ON MAY 25, 2012. PRODUCED IN FRENCH BY FRANCE. RUNS 1 HOUR, 53 MINUTES. RATED R BY THE MPAA, FOR LANGUAGE AND SOME DRUG USE.

THE INTOUCHABLES WAS WATCHED ON APRIL 27, 2013.

“This is not just a job anymore.” –Driss (Omar Sy)

As I try and think back to a better time I’ve had at the movies, I feel like I’m subjecting myself to a mental whipping. I watched France’s The Intouchables at a local film festival in late April; one of the festival’s producers prefaced the film by noting that this was one of several films that ended up under the radar last year. Prior to watching the film, this seemed like an indifferent statement. It happens to so many foreign films, for better or for worse, that I just couldn’t help but feel otherwise. But now, I’m curious what dramatic comedy any American would desire to watch instead.

The Intouchables centers on two characters: Driss (Omar Sy) and Philippe (François Cluzet). Driss is a young, African-American male living in a downtown area of France. His family has always hated him, and one day, his involvement in a robbery loses any respect they had for him and exiles him from his household. He needs a job, and he finds himself on a trial period as a caretaker for the middle-aged Philippe (François Cluzet).

Most would think Philippe couldn’t have chosen anybody worse for the job: others interviewed didn’t exactly care for the job, but at least they could sit through an interview without being utterly rude. It’s barely moments after Driss walks into the mansion that he is basking in the upper-class glory; introducing Philippe to the joys of smoking marijuana; taking vigilante action on neighbors who illegally park in front of the mansion; and insisting that the orchestra stop playing Vivaldi so that he can tune his iPod to Earth, Wind & Fire. And yet what Philippe sees in all of this is a heart that no other caretaker could possibly have.

We’ve met the characters in The Intouchables before. This is an “odd couple” movie that doesn’t break any new ground, except for that in sophistication and charm. It feels genuine when the “odd couple” movies we’re used to aren’t the most lavishly told. The Intouchables relies on light, amusing conversations to tell a story about how two polar opposite men can build an unbreakable (and unpredictable) bond with each other. It’s a rather touching story, yet at the same time, a hilarious one. Yes, it’s formulaic; yes, its characters are slight caricatures; and yes, those are both, in all technicality, “flaws.” But I hate to smack that word down on this film. It doesn’t aim for perfection, but it does aim to be a memorable artwork. And it is, no matter how many “odd couple” flicks you’ve seen.

STAY TUNED FOR MY “AMOUR” REVIEW @4:30!

Deeply poignant.

DIRECTED BY STEVEN SPIELBERG. WRITTEN BY ROBERT RODAT. STARRING TOM HANKS (CAPTAIN JOHN H. MILLER), EDWARD BURNS (PRIVATE FIRST CLASS RICHARD REIBEN), MATT DAMON (PRIVATE FIRST CLASS JAMES FRANCIS RYAN), AND TOM SIZEMORE (TECHNICAL SERGEANT MIKE HORVATH). ALSO STARRING ADAM GOLDBERG, BARRY PEPPER, BRYAN CRANSTON, DALE DYE, DEMETRI GORITSAS, DENNIS FARINA, GIOVANNI RIBISI, HARRISON YOUNG, HARVE PRESNELL, JEREMY DAVIES, JOERG STADLER, KATHLEEN BYRON, LELAND ORSER, MAX MARTINI, NATHAN FILLION, PAUL GIAMATTI, TED DANSON, AND VIN DIESEL. DISTRIBUTED BY DREAMWORKS ON JULY 24, 1998. PRODUCED IN ENGLISH BY THE UNITED STATES. RUNS 2 HOURS, 49 MINUTES. RATED R BY THE MPAA, FOR INTENSE PROLONGED REALISTICALLY GRAPHIC SEQUENCES OF WAR VIOLENCE, AND FOR LANGUAGE.

SAVING PRIVATE RYAN WAS WATCHED ON APRIL 26, 2013.

“Like finding a needle in a stack of needles.” –Captain John H. Miller (Tom Hanks)

Saving Private Ryan is director Steven Spielberg’s followup to 1993′s Schindler’s List. Both are epic dramas that present the tragedies of war, specifically major traumas during World War II. The prior film scoped in on Oskar Schindler, a man who would do anything to liberate the Jews during the Holocaust; he gave his fortune away to the cause and died without a penny of it ever returned to him. Saving Private Ryan, however, wants to differentiate between its hero and its protagonist–two completely different characters.

The film opens with a flashback to June 6, 1944–D-Day, when the beaches at Normandy were stormed. The sequence is an extensive massacre that exceeds twenty minutes, and we are introduced early on to Captain John H. Miller. It’s fitting that he doesn’t stand out, and Tom Hanks–a man who can’t help but stand out in his most minor roles–does an awful good job of tackling the character. It’s representative of later scenes, where we learn his character is only a primary focus. He’s assigned the mission to bring home Private James Francis Ryan (Matt Damon), whose brothers were all killed in action, but all the reason he can gather for completing this task is that he himself can only go home if Private Ryan is home.

Saving Private Ryan is well written. Occasionally, a deus ex machina moment will excuse itself as a plot point, but discount these rarities and the film is a flawless, astonishingly realistic masterpiece. Most of the director’s canon has consisted of works inspired by his childhood. Saving Private Ryan is a clear exception, but it’s difficult to deny the genius that transfers through from his conformities. From films such as Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Jurassic Park, it’s rather obvious that Steven Spielberg is a true genius in technical style. Spielberg’s second-in-command here is none other than his cinematographer, Janusz Kaminski, who has photographed every film of his since the early 1990s. The film, therefore, has the power to be absolutely gorgeous when it wants to, or harshly brutal–”shaky cam” and all–during the rather grotesque combat sequences. Let’s not forget John Williams’s score, or the unique approach to sound mixing.

All this only builds up on the authentic effect of the film. On one note, that’s horrifying, but once you’ve entered the near-three-hour epic, the only way out is to finish.

TOMORROW, ON CINEMANIAC REVIEWS…

The Intouchables (@2:00); Amour (@4:30)

The perfect blend of action and drama.

DIRECTED BY ANDREW DAVIS. SCREENPLAY BY JEB STUART AND DAVID TWOHY. STORY BY TWOHY. BASED ON “THE FUGITIVE” BY ROY HUGGINS. STARRING HARRISON FORD (DR. RICHARD KIMBLE) AND TOMMY LEE JONES (DEPUTY MARSHAL SAMUEL GERARD). ALSO STARRING ANDREAS KATSULAS, DANIEL ROEBUCK, JEROEN KRABBÉ, JOE PANTOLIANO, JOSEPH KOSALA, JULIANNE MOORE, L. SCOTT CALDWELL, RON DEAN, SELA WARD, AND TOM WOOD. DISTRIBUTED BY WARNER BROS. ON AUGUST 6, 1993. PRODUCED IN ENGLISH BY THE UNITED STATES. RUNS 2 HOURS, 10 MINUTES. RATED PG-13 BY THE MPAA, FOR A MURDER AND OTHER ACTION SEQUENCES IN AN ADVENTURE SETTING.

THE FUGITIVE WAS WATCHED ON APRIL 21, 2013.

“I don’t care!” –Samuel Gerard (Tommy Lee Jones)

Harrison Ford is one of the toughest badasses around Hollywood. The majority of action heroes would beg for a stunt double. More often than not, he requests that he do it all himself, regardless of whether smashing his face and limbs against glass will require surgery. Most commonly, it’s been a mere excuse to make a great popcorn flick, but in The Fugitive, he does it all to exhibit his character’s determination.

The Fugitive is fuel for the heart, be it for adrenaline or strong emotion. Ironically enough, its protagonist, Dr. Richard Kimble (Harrison Ford), is a cardiologist. Beyond that, he’s just a man, a good Samaritan. But he’s lost his honor: he has been accused of his wife’s brutal murder. Now he has been dubbed a fugitive, while he actually has set out to find the man who did kill his wife. Kimble is the ideal character to root for, unless you simply couldn’t stand Atticus Finch (To Kill a Mockingbird) or Lester Burnham (American Beauty)–similar characters who go through hell to prove their innocence and devotion.

On the other end is the man chasing him: Deputy Marshal Samuel Gerard (Tommy Lee Jones). It is apparent that his character was written with inspiration from Inspector Javert from Les Misérables; Gerard is the perfect replication, only brought to greater heights by Jones’s tour de force performance. We don’t mind the character at first. He’s just doing his job, right? Yes, but he does it to exemplify his authority, not to support the community. He seems more and more detestable as the story proceeds; it’s almost impossible to notice the moment he has a change of heart.

I truly enjoyed The Fugitive. The film is an adaptation of a 1960s TV series; simply put, I cannot imagine this much depth on television of any age. The film does go a bit over the top with improbability. Our hero barely makes it out of a bus before a train wrecks it; he also jumps a waterfall to avoid being arrested…and survives. But where is plausibility in the action genre? I don’t know about you, but I think if I identify any scene as unforgettable, it’s the climactic scenes. I don’t remember the last time I held my breath for so long.

TOMORROW, ON CINEMANIAC REVIEWS…

Saving Private Ryan

You all know I’m obsessed with The Almighty Fedora, which rests atop my hair follicles for 75% of most every day. I decided I’d let it make its way to my love for movies. You know, Ebert was the guy with the thumbs. I’m the guy with the fedora, perhaps.

Anyway, I’ve recently purchased a MacBook Pro. It’s does things I never thought any computer would do: listen to me, allow me to type freely, run fast, and do anything else it said it would. I’m kidding, of course, but one of my main ideas behind buying the MacBook was to begin a podcast on the Monday slot of Cinemaniac Reviews.

I’ll most likely ramble on (in a sensible way) about things I love/hate about film in general, as well as leave a few questions open for the crowd here. If there’s any input you’d like to make for me, I’d be more than happy to hear it.  Speak now or forever hold your peace.

My one question right now is:
Which do you prefer: audio or video podcast?

Filthy hobbitses, it tricked us into believing we would not enjoy “The Hobbit”! *gollum, gollum*

DIRECTED BY PETER JACKSON. SCREENPLAY BY FRAN WALSH, PHILIPPA BOYENS, JACKSON, AND GUILLERMO DEL TORO. BASED ON “THE HOBBIT, OR THERE AND BACK AGAIN” BY J.R.R. TOLKIEN. STARRING IAN MCKELLEN (GANDALF THE GREY), MARTIN FREEMAN (BILBO BAGGINS), RICHARD ARMITAGE (THORIN OAKENSHIELD), ANDY SERKIS (GOLLUM), AND BENEDICT CUMBERBATCH (THE NECROMANCER). ALSO STARRING BARRY HUMPHRIES, CATE BLANCHETT, CHRISTOPHER LEE, ELIJAH WOOD, GRAHAM MCTAVISH, HUGO WEAVING, IAN HOLM, JAMES NESBITT, KEN STOTT, LEE PACE, MANU BENNETT, AND SYLVESTER MCCOY. DISTRIBUTED BY WARNER BROS. PICTURES ON DECEMBER 14, 2012. PRODUCED IN ENGLISH BY NEW ZEALAND, THE UNITED KINGDOM, AND THE UNITED STATES. RUNS 2 HOURS, 49 MINUTES. RATED PG-13 BY THE MPAA, FOR EXTENDED SEQUENCES OF INTENSE FANTASY ACTION VIOLENCE, AND FRIGHTENING IMAGES.

THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY WAS WATCHED ON APRIL 20, 2013.

“Alive without breath,
As cold as death;
Never thirsty, ever drinking,
All in mail never clinking.”

I am not a Lord of the Rings fan. Yes, I’ve read the Tolkien works and seen each of Peter Jackson’s film transformations. Although I absolutely love the classic world J.R.R. Tolkien created in print, I must say that I find the initial film trilogy overrated. And if there’s one movie that transforms Tolkien’s upbeat magic to the silver screen with majestic attitude, it’s this prequel. You’d have to be blind to deny the grandeur that skyrockets to unbelievable heights. I wish I hadn’t so strongly refused to see it in theaters, come to think of it.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is for The Lord of the Rings, what The Phantom Menace was for Star Wars, what TV’s Bates Motel is for Psycho, et cetera. It’s more childlike than the original story, much less stern, much more colorful. The story is as simple as pitching the original in a past generation. In The Fellowship of the Ring–2001′s opening act to the LOTR trilogy–Frodo Baggins set out on a quest for the One Ring. In An Unexpected Journey, Bilbo Baggins sets out on a quest where he discovers the One Ring.

The movie entertains, but it also drags. Each of the three Lord of the Rings films was based on a book longer than J.R.R. Tolkien’s prelude installment–The Hobbit, or There and Back Again. An Unexpected Journey is based on merely the first third of this work, and it runs almost three hours. You can forget what I said about wishing I’d seen it at the cinema. The tale is exquisite, but it can be overly elaborate. It’s just too easy to get distracted from the story so that you can start wondering when you won’t have to feel so numb in the ass. Whereas long epics such as Titanic completely numbed away my ass at the theater, but I was too involved to notice.

I must applaud the cast for their excellence. The Lord of the Rings has always been cheesy, but in a way that takes a purist approach to high fantasy. We hear an elongated “No!” in these movies and it’s different than hearing Daniel Day-Lewis say it. The vast majority of the cast doesn’t see a limit to having fun with such clichés. Specifically, I applaud Andy Serkis for his vocal work as Gollum. The Hobbit is a mostly forgettable experience, but I don’t think I’ll ever tear away from the famous “riddles” scene. Serkis nailed it in the rare, outstanding role that makes one wish the Oscars honored voice acting.

So here’s a riddle for you:

It minuses but does not subtract.
It is yellow but it does not shine on the act.
It does not speak strictly to one pole,
The many words above it make it whole.

[The answer to the riddle is the letter grade below.]

TOMORROW, ON CINEMANIAC REVIEWS…

The Fugitive

Today is May, the 4th. As in May the Fourth be with you. (Out, damn lisp!)

Star Wars popularized the phrase “May the Force be with you” back in 1977 when it first hit the silver screen. I’d like to say you’re lost if you didn’t know, but unfortunately, I’d be offending too many people. Incidentally, Star Wars celebrates its anniversary exactly three weeks later. See it you must, if already you have not. See it again you must, if already seen it you have.