The Adventures of Robin Hood(1938)

Directed by Michael Curtiz & William Keighley

Starring: Errol Flynn Robin Hood (Sir Robin of Locksley)
Olivia de Havilland Maid Marian
Basil Rathbone Sir Guy of Gisbourne
Claude Rains Prince John
Patric Knowles Will Scarlett
Eugene Pallette Friar Tuck
Alan Hale Little John

This is the finest Robin Hood legend ever committed to film. The only other Robin Hood type that I liked more would have to be Mel Brooks' spoof Men in Tights(note: I have not seen Douglas Fairbanks' Robin Hood{1922}. But I really want too). The first thing that one will notice is the elaborate color pallet. This was the first Warner Bros. feature to be in glorious Technicolor. And boyhowdy is it pretty. The bright colors really create and set the mood/tone of the piece. The color almost becomes a character in the film.

And is this movie chock full of great characters. Firstly, Errol Flynn is born to play this role. Sure the acrobatic/athletic nature of Flynn fit perfectly with the role, but what really strikes me and stays with me is his undeniable joy. Flynn seems to be fit to burst his exuberance is that grand. This makes his performance infinitely watchable. His Robin Hood is brash, daring, dashing, fearless and full of rash bravado:

Sir Guy of Gisbourne: Why, you speak treason!
Robin Hood: Fluently.

and

Sir Guy of Gisbourne: [during duel with Robin] Do you know any prayers, my friend?
Robin Hood: I'll say one for you!

When danger strikes fear never creeps up in Flynn's eyes. He just steals himself for battle. If his performance were all that there was to the movie that would almost be enough. But wait there's more.

Two terrific 'hiss-boo-hiss' villains portrayed with great relish by two terrific actors(Claude Rains and Basil Rathbone) provide Flynn's Hood with more than suitable foils. Ms. de Havilland gives a smart and brave(although not entirely clever) Maid Marian. She may be delegated to damsel in distress but Ms. de Havilland makes her MORE than a damsel in distress. And then there are the Merrymen, Alan Hale(as Little John whom me portrayed in the Douglas Fairbanks' version. Hmmm), Patric Knowles and Eugene Pallete give wonderful support to Flynn. Its like Flynn's joy totally infected the cast. These actors combine to provide one of the best cast/acted films Hollywood produced. Ever.

This group is right up there with Casablanca(1942), Rio Bravo(1959), and Pulp Fiction(1994) as my favorite casts to watch. I can watch these movies again and again for the cast/acting alone. They are that wonderful together.

The action(credit to Curtiz) is fast and fun. Whilst the more delicate moments(credit to Keighley) are handled with grace and poise. Both directors handled their assigned work beautifully.

The Adventures of Robin Hood. One of the greatest(arguably thee greatest) swashbuckling adventures ever. Highly Recommended.

July 27
Evening, Living room TV

-N

Some brief thoughts on Lawrence of Arabia

I think I shall need some more time to really digest what I have just seen. So this is not so much a review as a 'There will be a review in the future.' I feel like I have been hit with a sledge-hammer. This movie did not give me what I expected. Thusly, it is a better film for it. It subverted my expectations in such a way that I left satisfied not pissed[see the final two entries in the Matrix 'trilogy'(yes I realize that is in quotes)]

Thoughts:
- Lawrence as a character is far more complex than talk of this movie led me to believe. In fact the whole affair(the film) is anything but simple.
- The 'capture and torture' scene was... Unsettling. Not in a The Deer Hunter way. More in a Pulp Fiction way. Only less gratuitous.
- This may be the finest epic I have ever seen.

July 28
Morning, Living room TV

-N

*Note: There shall be a full review in this space once I have given the film time to stew. I'm looking at a week here. This way I can rewatch the movie and then fully form my thoughts. I'm sorry but this feature has blown me away.

The Thin Man (1934)

Directed by W.S. Van Dyke
Starring William Powell, Myrna Loy and Maureen O'Sullivan.

"Waiter, will you serve the nuts.(pause)
I mean, will you serve the guests the nuts?"

A rich rather eccentric inventor goes missing. His mistress is killed. The cops think he done it. Some more people turn up dead. Cops still think he done it. His daughter(O'Sullivan), she no think so. Enter Nick & Nora Charles(William Powell and Myrna Loy).

I adore this movie. What I love most is that the movie doesn't really dwell on the mystery, but on the Charles's. They banter, they drink, they banter some more, they drink some more. I don't think there is one scene where Nick Charles isn't drinking something. And looking damn cool in the process.

This movie has more wit and reposte than most "smart, clever" modern comedies. And the movie isn't a comedy. Its not really a mystery either. Its both. Its a comedy(smack). Its a mystery(smack). Its a Comedy and a Mystery! And it works!

What really makes this work is the chemistry between Myrna Loy and William Powell. They play off each other better than Abbott and Costello. Better than Martin and Lewis. Better than all four Marx Brothers(and yes I include Zeppo, think Monkey Business). They work so well together that one totally forgets what the film is about. The film isn't meandering. Quite the opposite. Today's filmmakers could learn a bit about pacing from this piece. Its practically breakneck.

To paraphrase George Segal: They'll come for the murder mystery, they'll stay for Nick & Nora. Not only will you stay but you will want to come back to them for all 5 sequels.

Nora Charles: You know, that sounds like an interesting case. Why don't you take it?
Nick Charles: I haven't the time. I'm much too busy seeing that you don't lose any of the money I married you for.

July 25
Bedroom; Evening

N

The Bourne Supremacy(2004)

Directed by Peter Greengrass
Starring: Matt Damon, Franka Potente, Karl Urban, Joan Allen and Brian Cox

Let me begin by saying this: If you really liked the first one(Bourne Identity) you will probably like the sequel. Now... I sorta liked the first one. Sorta. There was something about it that... Well I just did not connect with. Its a good movie but for some reason I was less than enthused about it.

Now, what do I think of the sequel? I Love This Movie. This movie KICKED ASS. This may be the best movie of the summer. And I am not giving exaggeration. I would love to discuss the finer points of the plot, but anything other than what the trailer shows is a disservice to the film.

The first movie revealed a wizard behind the curtain. This movie dares to show you MORE CURTAIN. That's right folks. There are other, more sinister(usually Russian) people in charge this time. And they bring big guns. Big giant FUCK OFF ones.

In the first one, Bourne said under no uncertain terms that if the CIA came after him ever again he would retaliate. They do. He brings the guns and the car chases. People die, things explode, there is lots of chop-chop karate smash-fu. This movie is worth seeing just to see the Moscow car chase. It almost out does John Frankenheimer's Ronin in terms of car chases. Almost.

There is a lot to say for Peter Greengrass(director). He uses a lot of out of focus, shaky handheld. And for this piece it really works. There is an immediate intimacy that sucks me right in for the ride. Bourne Identity wants to keep you at an arms length. You want to get closer but it doesn't let you. Bourne Supremacy does the opposite. It grabs you, throws you in the car, forces you to ride shotgun, and then a car chase breaks out. With up close gun fire.

July 23
Starplex Theatres; Evening

N

Ju-on: The Grudge (2003)

Director: Takashi Shimizu
Starring: Megumi Okina, Misaki Ito, Misa Uehara, Yui Ichikawa

* * *

Everything I read about this movie said, "Repetitious and baffling. Don't bother," to which I replied, "I saw the mother fucking trailer, man. That's going to be a scary movie." The movie starts off in typical mystery-to-be-solved fashion. We get flash cuts (in grainy black & white, of course) of a violent murder. We get just enough to see and remember faces and to see the blood.

- - -
CUT TO MODERN DAY - WELFARE OFFICE

A woman from the welfare office goes into a client's house, hears noises, investigates. We recognize a face from the prologue, this time paler and bloodier. She screams.

CUT TO BLACK

The couple who live in the home return. For the rest, see above actions.

CUT TO BLACK

And so on in this fashion.

THE END
- - -

Now, in some ways we can say that American films treat the viewer as intellectual dunces. In other ways, we can say that they satisfy urges or curiosities. We would assume in an American film that if there is a prologue, the plot threads from this would be tied up by the end. Ju-On leaves us with nothing. Other than a few scares, we don't know anything about the characters in the prologue. Well, we do get their names at some point in the film, but forget about motives, character development, and reason for their actions. I'd rather not ruin anything, but suffice it to say you'd better make peace right away with any character you meet in the film. Ju-On is not a movie you'll ponder over (unless you're a masochist). It's not a film you'll walk out of sighing satisfactorily. If you are a better person than me, you'd stand up in the theater after it finishes and scream, "That's it? I sat through the same story eight times for it to end like that? Bullshit! Where's the last reel?" Don't forget your torches and pitchforks.

To be fair, Ju-On has some scary images in it, some of the scariest I've seen. At the same time with no real context for them to exist even within the film's narrative, you can just watch the trailer and see the same stuff. Save your money; save your blood pressure.

July 25
Nuart Theater, early afternoon

* * *

D

Zatoichi (2003)

Director: Takeshi Kitano
Starring: Takeshi Kitano, Michiyo Ookusu, Gadarukanaru Taka, Daigorô Tachibana, Yuuko Daike, Tadanobu Asano

* * *

The original Blind Swordsman films had a very set formula similar to the Western formula. Zatoichi, the blind (sidenote: I have for the second time in a row typed 'bling' instead of 'blind'. *sigh* I want to be black so bad) massuer swordsman, comes into a new town, befriends someone who persecuted by the Yakuza who maintain rule using violence and intimidation. He gambles and always wins. He gives someone--usually a beautiful woman--a massage. He kills everybody. He leaves. Takeshi uses this formula to an extent, but he adds several more main characters atypical of the original films and to this re-thinking's detriment. The film's plot meanders, flashes back, and generally takes its time getting on with everything as we have to go into every character's backstory. It's simply unnecessary.

On the other hand, Takeshi brings his ultra-hip style to the samurai genre instead of his typical modern Yakuza genre. The results are shocking, surreal and delightful. There are a few asides in the film that setup the unexpected finale of the film that you only realize are happening after several seconds of screen time. I never expected them the first time I watched the film, and it's a great surprise. There's the blood that Kitano told his CG artist to "look like flowers blossoming across the screen." There's the battle in the rain that takes place when the sun is shining. There's the idiot neighbor. There's the mysterious straw effigy that stands in the fields not as a scarecrow but as a tombstone. There's the matter of cross-dressing. Yeah, the pacing's pretty terrible, but there are so many little things to enjoy along the way that it's worth taking the long way around.

July 23
Arclight Cinemas, late evening

* * *

D

One-Eyed Jacks (1961)

Director: Marlon Brando
Starring: Marlon Brando, Karl Malden, Katy Jurado, Pina Pellicer, Ben Johnson, Slim Pickens

* * *

Once again, he's a by-the-numbers Western, but this one's got Brando. He does a pretty good job directing, too. To get it out of the way: One-Eyed Jacks won an Academy Award for best cinematography. In all earnestness, it must have been a bad year for film visuals and/or a political move. That aside, Jacks is an entertaining film. You've got your typical revenge plot, but the film revolves more around the romance between Brando and Pellicer than around bank robberies and shoot-outs. The back of the case described the film as a psychological Western. That means it's a Western-drama rather than a Western-action. Not a bad little movie. It's Brando being Brando, and that's rarely a bad thing.

July 21
apartment TV, early afternoon

* * *

D

Open Range (2003)

Director: Kevin Costner
Starring: Robert Duvall, Kevin Costner, Annette Bening, Michael Gambon, Michael Jeter, Diego Luna

* * *

Here's a by-the-numbers Western: men on the range, they are wronged by some capitalist, they seek revenge, one's salvation is a woman. Despite all this, there are some great things to find in Open Range. First of all, the script is great. You've got stock characters, but the performances make them fresh. Diego Luna is the kid looking for acceptance with the older men, Boss (Duvall) and Charley (Costner). Duvall is the old cowboy who can't give up the old ways of cowboy-ing and still believes in codes of honor and "making right". Costner is the quiet, competent member of the team with skeletons in his closet. Everything plays out as expected, and it's rather satisfying to watch a movie that makes no bones about what it is and what it's doing. The palette, however, is unlike anything I've ever seen in a Western. It's positively pastoral. Costner also makes great use of the colors of sunrise and sunset. The film is very reminiscent of Howard Hawks' Rio Bravo in its plot structure, but with about half the comedy. If nothing else, it's worth seeing Robert Duvall as the grizzled old man: the ultimate patriarch, the perfect cowboy.

July 21
apartment TV, early afternoon

* * *

D

Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975)

Director: Peter Weir
Starring: Rachel Roberts, Vivean Gray, Helen Morse, Tony Llewellyn-Jones, Anne-Louise Lambert

* * *

"On St. Valentine's Day in 1900 a party of schoolgirls set out to picnic at Hanging Rock. ...Some were never to return."

Picnic at Hanging Rock takes a page from the book of Hitchcock; it infuses familiar events wih ominous overtones. The camera lingers on a heart-shaped cake sliced down the middle. Watches stop precisely at noon. Ants crawl over a slice of cake. These events become portends of darker future events. Again and again we look at Hanging Rock, and the Rock stares back.

Weir allows for plenty of creativity in the reading of Hanging Rock. In my notes alone, I have readings of the Rock ranging from simply The Primal to the unconscious to sentient. I think my final reading has parts of all three.

The film opens with the famous Edgar Allen Poe quotation:

All that we see or seem
Is but a dream within a dream.

Indeed, the film and the characters within obey a logic incongruent with the logic the waking universe obeys. Time stops or is inconsequential. The girls who are lost to the Rock follow some extra-sensory siren call into the heart of its crags. It's clear that something calls to the people who disappear that we aren't privy to, and this is disturbing in ways that are hard to understand explain. Maybe it's the absence of a "why", unapologetically being confronted with the irrational.

Picnic at Hanging Rock obviously draws comparisons with Antonioni works like L'Avventura and Blow-Up where characters literally disappear according to some otherworldly logic, or worse, according to no logic at all. These films offer a vacuum of reason, and, like the universe, we abhor it and must fill it. But Hanging Rock is the abyss and it is staring back.

July 16
apartment TV, early morning

* * *

D

I, Robot (2004)

Director: Alex Proyas
Starring: Will Smith, Bridget Moynahan, Alan Tudyk, James Cromwell, Bruce Greenwood

* * *

I'll be honest: I had lower than low (subterranean, in fact) expectations for this movie. It could have been a toothless man painting a cow for two hours and I would've thought, "Ya know...this is better than I was expecting it to be." To my surprise they went ahead and stuck with the robots, and I'm pretty damn glad. Not only was it not terrible, I actually enjoyed myself. They probably could've gotten a better actress to play the "robot shrink", but she really didn't have to do anything besides say science stuff. I'm sure there was only so much she could do with the material.

Another confession: I'm also kind of a sucker for robot stories. Ironically enough, I hated the movie Robot Stories, but I'm probably the only person on Earth who enjoyed A.I.. I'm down with that Matrix-style pop-philosophy. When I go into an action movie and come out thinking about...well, just thinking at all, I'm pretty glad.

You can tell from the commercials that the film has great visuals in spades. Just watching Sonny (who did NOT MURDER HIM!) speak and move is incredible; his head and body aren't entirely opaque so you can actually see everything that makes him move. It's pretty hot shit.

It's a good thing I, Robot looks incredible because the story doesn't make any sense...at all. You know those movies that have you thinking one way the entire movie and then throw you the curve at the end? This movie's like that except most of the movie you're thinking the story's pretty interesting, and then the end makes you think that the event that triggers everything is absolutely ridiculous. I won't reveal anything, but for those that have seen it: what's so hard about picking up a goddamn phone? Or making a drive to a person's house to have a conversation? You know what I'm talking about.

On an unrelated note, two bottles of beer will apparently be $46.50 in future Chicago. I hope I never live to see the day.

July 17
The Grove, late afternoon

* * *

D

All the President's Men (1976)

Director: Alan J. Pakula
Starring: Dustin Hoffman, Robert Redford, Jack Warden, Martin Balsam, Jason Robards

* * *

All the President's Men is probably one of the best--if not THE best--detective movie I've ever seen. Now, when I think detective films, I think film noir and Bogey. There's a very big difference between film noir movies and detective films, however; film noir doesn't give a damn about solving a mystery. On the other hand, President's is all about the puzzle and how Woodward and Berstein hustle their way into a Pulitzer Prize-winning political scandal story, arguably the biggest politic scandal of the 20th century. I was honestly surprised how little Deep Throat factored into the film. That's the first element of the Watergate story I think of when it comes up. I won't give away what happens in the movie because, frankly, you should already know, and I certainly can do how it happens justice. If you're interested in how two reporters destroyed a nation's absolute trust in the government--rightfully so--and see Jason Robards doing his thing, check it out.

D

Days of Thunder (1990)

Director: Tony Scott
Starring: Tom Cruise, Robert Duvall, Nicole Kidman, Randy Quaid, Cary Elwes

* * *

With Jerry Bruckheimer and Tony Scott on a film, it's a safe bet that the film will be pretty macho...wait...yeah; scratch that. Very macho. And so this is: once again Cruise has a need for speed as he did when the previous film the trio teamed up for, Top Gun; this time he just doesn't say it outloud. Thankfully. I'm not one to shy away from a macho film, generally speaking, and when I see the name Robert Towne in the writing credits I start getting hot flashes. Bob Towne wrote such 70's classics as Bonnie & Clyde (uncredited), The Last Detail, Shampoo, and one of my favorite films: Chinatown. With Days of Thunder, however, I think I started to wane when Tom Cruise and a rival driver drive rental cars at top speed down a public beach and slam into each other--destroying the cars in the process, of course--as they fly along the surf on their way to an important dinner appointment. That...that ruptured my suspension of disbelief right there. That was kind of...dumb. Other than that, it's a somewhat enjoyable--if straight by the book--sports film. You've got "the coach" (Robert Duvall) who seeks redemption for a dark secret in his past. You've got "the underdog/hero" (Tom Cruise) who can do incredible things if he only believed in himself. You've got "the hotshot/antagonist" (Cary Elwes) who always wins but doesn't have the heart that "the underdog/hero" has. Et cetera. It's enjoyable because Tony Scott tends to bring that shit. And bring it he does. It's nobody's best work, but for the popcorn-chomping thrill ride it admits to be, it's pretty fun. I recommend a large popcorn and lots of butter to saturate your brain so you don't think too much.

July 13
apartment TV, evening

* * *

D

Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)

Director: Robert Benton
Starring: Dustin Hoffman, Meryl Streep, Jane Alexander, Justin Henry

* * *

For some reason--perhaps because it won several Academy Awards--Kramer vs. Kramer has been coming up a lot recently in my conversations. Most of the time the reference didn't really make sense to me, but I hadn't seen the film and didn't know that much about the plot of the film. I knew it was about a trial (obviously) and that it was about a custody battle because Sean Penn's character quotes Hoffman's big court speech his own custody batte in I Am Sam, a film that only aspires to be as good as Kramer vs. Kramer. Don't get me wrong: Kramer vs. Kramer probably didn't deserve some of the Oscars it received in 1980 (I'm a little wary of Hoffman winning Best Actor over Peter Sellers for his role in Being There), but the film is very much the kind of movie that would get Oscar nods. It's politically pertinent while remaining a very safe kind of film--it softly critiques the biases of the system, drawing focus away from the general to the specific relationship between Mr. and the former Mrs. Kramer. Compare this to a film that more sharply attacks American politics that was also nominated that year, Apocalypse Now. Compare it to Forrest Gump dominating the 1995 Oscars over the film that has already become a classic and one of the most admired in film history, Pulp Fiction. Gump is safer, and Fiction is simply the one of the (if not the) best American film to come out in the 1990's. As I've implied, Kramer vs. Kramer is a film that you can't help but respect, but a film that doesn't hold up to its hype two and a half decades later like Apocalypse Now.

There is something that occured to my while I watched the film, however, in relation to another film of gender bias and conflict: Oleanna. The tagline of that film ("Whichever side you take, you're wrong.") applies much better to Kramer vs. Kramer.

July 13
apartment TV, mid-afternoon

* * *

D

Tôkyô nagaremono [Tokyo Drifter] (1966)

Directed by: Seijun Suzuki
Starring: Tetsuya Watari, Hideaki Esumi, Ryuji Kita and Chieko Matsubara

If any of you are familar with Seijun Suzuki's work you pretty much know what to expect. This film does not disappoint on that part. For those of you who have no idea what I am talking about I shall explain. In the 1960's Suzuki-san was working for Nikkatsu Corporation making some 40 films in 12 years. On a shoe string budget with 28 days to complete a film(25 for shooting, 3 for editing and post-production) and within genre 'guidelines'. Suzuki-san played very fast and loose and was able to produce some very fine and entertaining work. There is a lot of energy and excitement with a Seijun Suzuki film. And Tokyo Drifter is a fine example.

Tokyo Drifter tells the story of Tetsuya 'Phoenix Tetsu' Hondo(Tetsuya Watari, the loyal henchman of a retired gangster, Kurata(Ryuji Kita). Tetsu and Kurata want to play it straight, but as Godfather III illustrates '...everytime [you] think you are out, they pull [you] back in.' A rival ganglord(Hideaki Esumi) and his goons just wont let them go straight.

Is there lots of killing? You betcha. Vibrant colors and insane 60's kitsch? In spades. Will Tetsu be betrayed by someone he trusts? Bet money. Will the bad-guys use the girl to... you get my point. This is a by the numbers Japanese gangster flick. But, you know what? I couldn't care. I love this movie. You will be wrapped up in the vibrant energy that Suzuki-san brings to the table. The sets, the costuming, the choreographed violence, the style and cunning of Tetsu. All that and more.

This movie is a gem. If you find this movie to your tastes I suggest you also go out and find you a copy of the last great work(at least for sometime) by Seijun Suzuki Branded to Kill. Tokyo Drifter's nutty qualities landed Suzuki-san in some hot water with Nikkatsu Corp. Branded to Kill got him fired and BLACKBALLED for a DECADE!!! This movie is insane. And totally worth your time. Both movies are buy on sight. They are available on DVD from the Criterion Collection.

July 13
Bedroom television, Criterion DVD, afternoon-ish

-N

The Kid Stays in the Picture (2002)

Diretors: Nanette Burstein & Brett Morgen
Starring: Robert Evans & archival footage

* * *

A few years ago, I read a book entitled Easy Riders, Raging Bulls: How the Sex-Drugs-and-Rock 'N' Roll Generation Saved Hollywood, a book filled with gossip, hearsay, and some outrageous quotes from the biggest and brightest of 1970's Hollywood cinema. The book takes quotes completely out of context, adds a fast-paced, multi-threaded narrative, and throws journalistic integrity out the window. In short: it's one of the most entertaining books I've ever read.

One name that kept popping up was Robert Evans, hotshot producer. You can thank Evans for such small successes as Rosemary's Baby, Love Story (where the quotation, "Love means never having to say you're sorry," comes from), The Godfather, Chinatown, and other classics from the Golden Era of Hollywood. This documentary--based on his 1994 autobiography of the same name--is so sleek and entertaining (and narrated by The Kid himself) that you don't even have to care who the bastard is to have a good time watching it. Knowing who he is helps, of course...

Unfortunately, an hour and a half isn't quite enough to get a decent picture of a man's life, especially a man who lived the way Evans lived. I recommend the hell out of this documentary, but I'm going to pick up a copy of that autobiography so I can get more dirt on one of the most fascinating guys ever to work the system. I can't help but think how fitting it is that a film about the entertainment industry followed the first rule but good: it left me wanting more.

July 12
apartment TV, early morning

* * *

D

Infernal Affairs (2002)

Directors: Wai Keung Lau & Siu Fai Mak
Starring: Andy Lau, Tony Leung Chiu Wai, Anthony Wong Chau-Sang, Eric Tsang, Kelly Chen, Sammi Cheng

* * *

This film reminds me a hipper Michael Mann film. You've got your two main guys on either side of the law (or maybe they're on both sides), Andy Lau and Tony Leung doing undercover work. Lau has loyalty to the Triads, but he's infiltrated the police. Tony Leung is an undercover agent who's been in deep cover for ten years in the Triad. Infernal Affairs picks up as both sides discover they've got moles and start to close in on Lau and Leung. Yeah, there's some plot about the Triad making a big drug purchase and the cops trying to stop them, but all that's a McGuffin for a story about the schizophrenic lives of mole agents. To return to the similarities to Michael Mann films: we've got the mutual respect/co-dependency between the law enforcers/breakers (see Mann's Heat); we've got spouses/girlfriends playing prominent roles in the narrative; we've got the city-as-character theme (you get mighty friendly with a particular building in Affairs).

Is it good? It's not bad script-wise, and with guys like Lau and Leung playing to two leads you've got yourself a damn fine movie. In the interest of full disclosure, however, I think Tony Leung is one of the best actors in the world today, and I pretty much like everything I've seen him in. To be fair, the man surrounds himself with great talent--like one of my favorite directors, Wong Kar-Wai. Infernal Affairs made a pretty big splash when it came out, garnering several Hong Kong Academy Award equivalents and two sequels (so far). Hollywood took notice, as they've been doing to the Asian film market in general for the past few years, and is remaking the film using the same title with no release date announced yet. Should you pick it up? Sure, if you can find it. If not, go watch Chungking Express starring Tony Leung and the ultra-adorable Faye Wong doing her Jean Seberg Breathless impression by Wong Kar-Wai. The two films are really dissimilar but hell, if you can't see Leung in one role, see him in a Wong Kar-Wai film.

July 10
computer, early afternoon

* * *

D

The Insider (1999)

Director: Michael Mann
Starring: Al Pacino, Russell Crowe, Christopher Plummer, Diane Venora, Philip Baker Hall

* * *

So Russell Crowe got an Oscar nod for his work in this film, the real stars are Pacino as Lowell Bergman, the man who gets the interviews, and Christopher Plummer whose Mike Wallace is pitch perfect. We all know the story. Crowe's character in the insider of a tobacco company who says on the record that the tobacco companies knew that cigarettes were addictive, and the tobacco companies did everything in their power to prevent this story from getting out. Crowe is certainly no shlub in his role, but he simply cannot compete with Pacino and Plummer. Both play their roles perfectly, and together they are a powerhouse on the screen. The cinematography is something very familiar for those who've seen other Mann works. One plane of focus, and the lights in the background become an abstract palette against which the actors' heads are composed in close-up. The Insider also got an Oscar nod for said cinematography. The Insider--undeservedly so--received no Oscar wins for its behind-the-scenes story about politics, law, and the first amendment. The story is intense, suspenseful and intriguing. If you haven't watched it already (and I may be the only person on Earth to not have seen this one until now) take a look at it. It's a testament to Pacino's acting ability that is still alive and thriving (those interested should take a look at July 2004's issue of the UK's Empire magazine for their "Gods Among Us" series in which Pacino is featured). Crowe may have gotten the nod, but the entire film is brilliantly acted, written, directed and shot. You owe it to yourself both if you're a Michael Mann fan and/or if you plan on seeing Mann's new film Collateral coming out in August.

July 10
computer, early morning

* * *

D

Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004)

Director: Adam McKay
Starring: Will Ferrell, Christina Applegate, Paul Rudd, Steven Carell, David Koechner, Fred Willard

* * *

I was wary walking into the theater for this one. My expectations were high. The trailers looked great. I was a fan of pretty much all of the actors and actresses, but Dodgeball had really fucked it up. I walked in with somewhat high expectation with that one and walked out realizing I should have just watched the trailer again and saved myself some time and money. Anchorman was marketed at the same kind of audience and even included some of the same cast. Hmmmm.

What I saw, however, made me want to wet myself. Luckily I've had complete bladder control for over five years now or I would've. How can you not laugh at a movie so brazenly absurd. There's an animation sequence about Pleasure Land or some such nonsense. The newscast rumble featured in the trailer escalates into absolute chaos with some brilliant use of celebrity cameos. Christina Applegate holds her own with some heavies of improv comedy and does a fantastic job. And who doesn't love a movie that makes fun of everything but makes fun of itself most of all. Going in, know that there is no message. It's basically some of the funniest people in showbiz given a big check and allowed to do whatever they want. I won't (and can't even if I would) describe how funny this film is. It's like the Marx Brothers on crack. Go see it. That's it.

[UPDATE: I forgot to mention that there's a lot of stuff in the trailer that doesn't make it into the movie. Look for some kick ass deleted scenes when the DVD comes out.]

July 9
Arclight Theaters, early evening

* * *

D

The Man on the Train (2002)

Director: Patrice Leconte
Starring: Jean Rochefort, Johnny Hallyday, Isabelle Petit-Jacques

* * *

If you don't like French films, I don't recommend this one. There is a distinct difference between the way an American makes a film and the way French director would, if you aren't aware. One can tell almost immediately after the first dialogue if a French film is going to "go Hollywood" or stay true to its own culture. If the first conversation takes place in a mundane environment (a supermarket, say) and two people discuss the existentialism of a banana or the disgusting bourgeois grapes, it's French. The Man on the Train is a French film, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Littered liberally throughout the film are discussions of poetry, painting and life philosophy. These are the kinds of conversations good friends might have over several years. How about two strangers over the course of a few days? Probably not. The premise of the film isn't that sound if we look at it in terms of reality, but the setup is good enough to let the filmmaker do what he wants to do. What he wants to do is look at two old men who've lived their lives but have been unsatisfied. The crook always wished he could've lived in a mansion and in poshness like his newfound friend. The wealthy retired poetry teacher wishes he'd been a cowboy. The film plays out like a cross between a Western where the stranger comes into town, assimilates, and begins to "set things straight" (a line quoted directly from the film) and Ingmar Bergman's Persona. It's like this except the stranger is looking back on his life, ready to retire and and the personality swaps between the two men have much less gravity than the switch in Persona. Picture Bergman with a sense of humor. The pacing of the film is slow, and I found myself bored during several parts. I'll be damned if I'm not still thinking about it, though. If you're in a contemplative mood, maybe pick this one up and try it on for size.

July 9
apartment TV, early afternoon

* * *

D

X: The Man with the X-Ray Eyes (1963)

Director: Roger Corman
Starring: Ray Milland, Diana Van der Vlis, Harold Stone, John Hoyt, Don Rickles

* * *

When I read Corman's autobiography, I was led to believe that X would be much more avant garde that it, in fact, is. The plot's at once standard, yet intriguing. A scientist concocts a potion. He tries it on a monkey, and it works...until the monkey dies. He decides to try it on himself against the warnings of his peers: "That was just a monkey. I'm a human being!" (words that would normally lead to more animal testing one would think). He tries the potion on himself and everything seems okay until things start to go...wrong.

If you can get past the stupid ass shit this Man of Science does, the particularities of the potion are pretty interesting. The potion allows the user to have x-ray vision, as the title implies. But as the doctor uses the potion more and more, he begins to see deeper and deeper into the world and eventually the universe. Unfortunately the doctor's an imbecile, so it's hard to sympathize with his dumb ass. Interesting premise but a poor execution.

July 9
apartment TV, early morning

* * *

D

Porn Star: The Legend of Ron Jeremy (2001)

Director: Scott J. Gill
Starring: Ron Jeremy, William Margold, Al Goldstein, Al Lewis

* * *

Here's a documentary that follows around Ron Jeremy, that legend in the porn industry, and takes a peak at what his real life is like. The answer is pretty neurotic. The first words out of Jeremy's mouth (at after four in the morning a title tells us) are about his low self-worth and how he's afraid to go home to an empty house. Strangely enough, the man who's got a more than hefty endowment and who numbers his sexual partners as in the 4000s (roughly) means it. That's the thread that weaves the documentary together. We watch as Jeremy goes to every party he's invited to--to make sure that no one has forgotten him mostly. We watch him self-promote to his friends so he can show them--and himself--that people like him. His proudest moment in his career is his appearance in mainstream film Killing Zoe...where he literally appears for only a few seconds before he's shot and killed as an extra. The documentary shows Jeremy as an attention-starved kid who's only dream is to make it into mainstream pictures. The documentary shows that Ron Jeremy--legend in the porn industry--is just a normal, anxiety-filled guy who's yet to reach his dreams.

July 8
computer, late evening

* * *

D

Oldboy (2003)

Director: Chan-wook Park
Starring: Min-sik Choi, Ji-tae Yu, Hye-jeong Kang

* * *

Picture a set-up in the vein of the graphic novel, 100 Bullets: a drunk Korean business man, Oh Daesu, is kidnapped on his daughter's birthday and locked in a dank hotel room for 15 years during which time he becomes a little...off. On the day of his 15th year, he wakes up outside on a rooftop wearing a tailor-made suit and shades with a new haircut. Later, a suspicious homeless man hands him off a cell phone and wallet full of cash. Now the quest begins in earnest. Who is the shadow figure that has willingly created the very force that must destroy him. Why has Oh Daesu been put through such horrors? Why so elaborate?

Even as a character within the narrative, this shadow figure--both Oh Daesu's tormentor and his benefactor--must be self-aware as a character within a narrative. This scenario doesn't happen; like I mentioned before, it's a dramatic setup. Chan-wook Park has created a hermetically sealed world, a fishbowl, that creates and enforces its own rules. That is, this world sets up rules such that there can be only one outcome. By the end of the setup about twenty minutes into the film, we already know how the film must end. We watch to see how it ends. Even Oh Daesu's seemingly random kidnapping was and inevitable event. Here is a world that is pure pre-determinism. The only odd thing is that, while the film and most of the characters are self-aware, Oh Daesu isn't. He thinks it's all real, and yet he follows every rule that he is supposed to follow--unconsciously?--leading us to our pre-determined conclusion. On the other hand, how often is the puppet aware of the strings of a puppetmaster? The film emphasizes its created world--and the world-within-the-world created for Oh Daesu--as one in which we can look, but also one from which the inhabitants can look back at us. Just as the figure has created Oh Daesu's world for his own amusement, so has Park created the figure's world for ours. Like check before checkmate, like dominoes, like a Greek tragedy, all the roles are arranged and the events are clearly laid out. We know the beginning and the end; now we just have to wait for the first domino to tip.

To say that Oldboy is Tarantino-esque in style is not entirely accurate. The film borrows much more from Beat Takeshi's work than from Tarantino's, especially in comedic use of editing. Takeshi will shoot several tableau shots in a sequence with the final shot being the punchline. It's a surprisingly direct way to get a laugh: literally S₁+S₂...+S_X=punchline. An example (though one that doesn't employ all tableau shots) happens in Takeshi's film Boiling Point. Two characters are selling a motorbike to a third rich kid. One kid reports to the other the rich kid's ridiculousness. "He doesn't want to go on a test ride!" "He doesn't want a helmet!" The two chuckle until the kid rides off past them to the road. Hold a few seconds, then cut to a medium shot of the forlorn rich kid sitting on pavement with a bloody nose. Hold. Cut to long shot of a decimated bike and a rear-ended car as the other driver stands examining the damage. Let's also not forget that Takeshi gets a little violent in his own films also. A warning: the film is only moderately violent, but those with fertile imaginations will be cringing a lot watching Oldboy

While Oldboy may not have deserved the Grand Prix at Cannes (I don't know--I haven't seen the runner-up-in-spirit, Wong Kar-Wai's 2046), it's a great film from Korea's New Wave that as funny and exciting as it wants to be (that's a lot). It's a Greek tragedy set in modern day Korea with all the violence and themes that entails, but how many Greek plays have you seen in which the lead character eats a live squid right in front of you?

July 8
computer, mid-day

* * *

D

Thief (1981)

Director: Michael Mann
Starring: James Caan, Tuesday Weld, Willie Nelson, James Belushi, Dennis Farina

* * *

I can't say that I enjoyed this Michael Mann film as much as I've enjoyed, say, Ali or Heat. I can say it takes huge leaps in narrative logic. The heist parts fare well as they are, but it's Caan's dealings with Weld's character that don't make any sense. Her first appearance in the film is when Caan walks up to her and asks if the two of them are going out that night. Affirmitive, and he'll pick her up at eight. Okay, they're dating. Nah. It's his first time going out with her. Because he's two hours late, he physically assaults her, and they go to coffee. And so on. Mann's films demonstrably got better as he got older. Nick will argue my stance on this movie, but I just didn't buy it.

July 7
apartment TV, late night

* * *

D

Battle Royale(2000)

Director: Kinji Fukasaku
Starring: Beat Takeshi, Tatsuya Fujiwara, Aki Maeda, Taro Yamamoto, Masanobu Ando and Chiaki Kuriyama.
Japanese language. English subtitles(if your lucky)

****

Welcome to the most important game of your life. We have kidnapped you, a 9th grader, along with your entire class. You are on a remote island in the Pacific. If you wish to leave the island you may do so... right after you kill your friends. That's right, to get off you must be the last man standing. You may have noticed a silver collar attached to your neck. We will monitor your progress with these handy collars.

Try and take the collar off, and it will explode killing you very painfully. Try and escape off the island and it will explode. If you haven't won in 3 days it will explode and no one will be the winner. Get caught in a danger zone and it will explode. The collar monitors your pulse and position.

You have 3 days to eliminate every single one of your friends. To assist you we have given you a bag. Inside the bag you will find a map of the island, and a weapon. It might be a gun, a knife, or anything. Use these tools well. Also inside is enough food and water to last you 3 days. We will be giving you updates every 6 hours, 4 times a day, as to your classes' progress and the location of new danger zones. You can mark them on your map. Don't get caught in a danger zone.

This is Battle Royale. A work of Japanese brilliance. Based off the book of the same name by Koushun Takami, Battle Royale paints of violent and glorious picture of a near future Japan. This movie is the ultimate reality show. If you took Lord of the Flies, Survivor and gave it machine guns and a kill counter you wouldn't even be close to this movie.

However, if not for the deft acting and tasteful direction this movie would be nothing more than an orgy of violence. Beat Takeshi delivers a very creepy and somewhat moving performance as Kitano, the 9th grade classes former teacher. He is the ringleader to this round of Battle Royale. Imagine him as a sort of sadistic Jeff Probst host in a jogging suit. The only recognizable name (at that time) to American's was Takeshi. This gives the rest of the movie a sort of unnerving reality. We don't know the students from previous work. This allows them to sink into their roles and give the film's realism a harder center.

Kinji Fukasaku, notably known to American audiences for directing the Japanese's half of Tora, Tora, Tora, delivers his final completed work. His camera moves gracefully and never finds a dull moment. In the midst of violent situations Fukasaku is able to find beauty within the forests of the island. A tender scene involving Takeshi students Aki Maeda, Tatsuya Fujiwara and a see-thru umbrella is a strange juxtaposition to sudden and brutal violence. Fujiwara also chooses to score the movie with familiar classical orchestrations, reminding me of Evangelion(an anime, which is equally awesome). I could elaborate but I really think the less I say about this movie the better. You just have to experience it for yourself.

And unfortunately that will be difficult. The Japanese studio, Toei has refused to distribute Battle Royale in North America despite numerous offers from notable North American studios. What's this mean for you? EBay my friend. That's how I received my copy. Or, come over to my casa and we can enjoy 122 minutes of cinema bliss. Highly Recommended.

****

You all saw Kill Bill vol. 1, yes? You remember Go-Go, Lucy Lui's crazy teenage, mace wielding sidekick? Yeah she's in this. And guess what she is wearing? Bruce Lee's yellow jumpsuit, worn in KB vol. 1 by the Bride. Okay now that we've dispensed with the Six-degree's of Quentin Tarantino... Speaking of Tarantino, if not for him Battle Royale would not have been brought to my attention. I like when circular structure shows up in real life.

****
July 5
House, evening

-Nick Vinson

The Contender (a pseudo-conservative slant)

Okay. Full disclosure. I saw this movie in the theatres years ago. Everything that Drew has said is true. The casting is impeccable, the acting superb, and the script fabu. I however left this movie with a bad bad taste in my mouth. Full disclosure part deux: I am not a liberal. I'm not necessarily a Republican but I do lean toward the conservative side. Full disclosure trios: I am in reality a registered libertarian. Who cant get behind the de-criminalization of pot, honestly? Now that that is out of the way, a review(of sorts).

My main beef with this film isn't the political sideline(re: predominantly liberal), or the unnecessary camera moves, or whatever... My main problem is Joan Allen. Specifically, Joan Allen's character. The point of this film is Pres. Jeff Bridges wanting to nominate Joan Allen as his VP. Senator Gary Oldman(a Republican) is on the approval committee and he wants his friend, Virginia Gov. William Petersen, as VP. So naturally Oldman does everything in his power to block Allen's nomination.

The main focus of the film is the conflict between Oldman and the Bridges Administration/Joan Allen. It is at times compelling, intelligent, and superbly acted. However, the crux of the drama is in Allen's character being waylaid with her "past"; sexual misconduct in college that is on tape. The participants on said tape are either Allen or not. Yeah its that Gang Bang scenario Drew mentioned. Now, Allen could simply dismiss said accusations by telling the Approval Committee the truth about her college experience. Instead she goes on for 2 HOURS with a stonewall of "My personal life in College is not for public record." What is this, the 1950's?

In today's political arena, keep in mind this movie came out post-Monica, I think it would be both admirable and wise for a politician put in such a position to be truthful and honest with the press/American people. Because, as in the minds of the people in the film, you are judged in the public eye as guilty until proven innocent.

So, for what seems like forever Joan Allen does a credible job of acting retarded in the face of political suicide. The truth about Allen's 'fling' is finally, and predictably, told to Pres. Bridges at the end. The fact that without said scandal and conflict there would be no movie shows the movie for how weak I thought it to be. Personal politics aside I cannot recommend this movie fully do to the frustratingly weak plot and pace. Buyer beware.

-Nick Vinson

The Contender (2000)

Director: Rod Lurie
Starring: Gary Oldman, Joan Allen, Jeff Bridges, Christian Slater, Sam Elliott, William L. Petersen

* * *

I'm a little upset that the reviews for this movie weren't a little better. Both The New York Times and Salon.com laughed it off as completely unrealistic. I, on the other hand, laugh at Stephen Holden, NYT review, because he's a bit of a pretentious poo and pretty much everyone at Salon because...well pretty much for the same reasons. Salon calls it Capra-esque, and that much might be true. Well, it would be Capra with a gang bang, but the statement still strangely holds true. As far as realism in political fictions, let's take a look here: Dave? Hm, nope. The American President? Nnnope. Nixon, perhaps? We'll slide The Manchurian Candidate in there. How's about The West Wing? I hope you're seeing the pattern. Why in God's name would anyone want to watch a realistic political fiction? We don't have Parliment where our guys sling insults back and forth. Our politics is a little...wooden. Then again, C-SPAN isn't really my thing. As I said before, however, I'm pretty biased in my opinion about the movie. It's got a strong liberal bent (I'm a fan). It was directed by my director's (Danielle's) brother *cough*name drop*cough*. I've got to say, the thing is really wittily written, too. Sure there are some really unnecessary camera moves in there but hey, directors show off. That's kind of what they do. Do I even need to mention the immaculate casting? Gary Oldman is on fi-ya with his portrayal of an American Senator. Whose truly inspired idea was it to cast Sam Elliot as the president's right hand man? And who doesn't want more Christian Slater?

...

Hm. Am I forgetting anything? Probably. Ah well. This is a fluffy, entertaining movie. Enjoy it if you're liberal. Despise it if you're conservative.

July 5
apartment TV, evening

* * *

D

8 Mile (2002)

Director: Curtis Hanson
Starring: Eminem, Kim Basinger, Mekhi Phifer, Brittany Murphy

* * *

This movie was pretty much Saturday Night Fever except with cotton instead of polyester, headphones instead of hair, and Detroit instead of Brooklyn. The two films are otherwise frighteningly similar: both films revolve around the protagonist's ultimate worth being based on some kind of performance, both films' protagonists seem to be the only person in their group of friends that want something more out of their lives and actually act on it, both films even have the sad character that wants nothing more than to be a part of and respected within the group. Sadly enough, of the two movies Fever is the ballsier one. Take a look at the ultimate fates of the aforementioned sad outcasts in the respective groups, as an example. Also, we already know that Eminem's character's life has started to balance out even before the last freestyle contest. If his life is already looking up, why even have the final contest? Icing on the cake? So what? We already know he's going to be okay. I never thought I'd see the day that disco would beat out hip-hop. I suppose it's a consolation prize that Jimmy 'B-Rabbit' Smith, Jr. could beat the living hell out of Tony Manero.

July 6
apartment TV, early morning

* * *

D

The Last Samurai (2003)

Director: Edward Zwick
Starring: Ken Watanabe, Tom Cruise, Masato Harada, Tony Goldwyn, Timothy Spall

* * *

I was expecting something not so great and got something that was better than expected. Go, low expectations! It's certainly a pleasure to watch Cruise and Watanabe when they are together in a scene. It's simply awe-inspiring when they fight together. As usual, Cruise overacts some parts, but it's certainly allowable considering the film is epic in scale. As the critics said: Watanabe is incredible, simultaneously graceful, powerful, delicate and humorous. It certainly doesn't hurt that the film is shot by John Toll of Braveheart fame. Not too bad, Mr. Cruise. Not too bad.

July 5
computer, late afternoon

* * *

D

The Phantom of the Opera (1925)

Director: Rupert Julian
Starring: Lon Chaney, Mary Philbin, Norman Kerry

* * *

Sometimes it's hard to remember how arresting silent cinema can be. The sets are gorgeous, the music perfect. And I think we've all seen the famous unmasking of Chaney's Phantom on the Muppet Babies. That's where I saw it for the first time anyway...

It's dumbfounding how terrifying that revelation is even today, even by a guy who's seen it happen a hundred times. This was the first time I'd seen the movie in entirety, but when Christine unmasks the Phantom I still got the shivers. Maybe they just don't make makeup artists like Chaney anymore. After all, you don't get termed "The Man With 1,000 Faces" for nothing. You get labeled "genius" for nothing. Everybody knows that. If you've got the inclination for watching some fine, engrossing cinema and you're looking for something a little scary to watch. Go out and rent this fucker. Turn out the lights, make some popcorn, crawl under the blanket with your honey, and check this thing out. I don't think I've seen any other version of Phantom in its entirety, but I'd absolutely have to recommend this classic before you go and watch any of the others (assuming you haven't already). It'll give you the heeby-jeebies. Watch for the unmasking, and watch for the especially creepy masquerade where The Phantom shows up as The Red Death. (Thanks, Poe. *wink*)

July 4
apartment TV, late night

* * *

D

Mon Oncle (1958)

Director: Jacques Tati
Starring: Jacques Tati, Jean-Pierre Zola, Adrienne Servantie, Alain Bécourt

* * *

If you go into a Tati movie knowing that there's no overall plot or at least no plot structure, you should be fine. The action revolves around a recurring character in Tati's work (played by Tati himself) named Hulot. I don't know if the guy ever got a first name. The movie doesn't have much dialogue, but the soundtrack is just as important as the picture as far as the gags are concerned. The whole thing is very cartoon-y. Watch Mon Oncle along with Triplets of Belleville and you'll see what I mean (and you'll see how influential Tati was to Belleville's style). To say that Tati doesn't owe an equal debt to cartoons would be unfair to animation though. Overall, Mon Oncle is a light, yet strangely damning, comedy about the absurd reliance of technology in modern, everyday life.

July 4
apartment TV, early evening

* * *

D

The Dead Zone (1983)

Director: David Cronenberg
Starring: Christopher Walken, Brooke Adams, Tom Skerritt, Herbert Lom, Martin Sheen

* * *

Here's an odd movie that blends themes found in Cronenberg's other work--recovery from a traffic accident that results in certain "changes" in the victim (Rabid), a form of telepathy (Scanners)--with a plot that's like The Manchurian Candidate in nature. And, because it's an adaptation from a Stephan King work, it's got a strong moral center, clear rights and wrongs. Walken is impressive (as always) as the school teacher turned clairvoyant, but the entire film is just well cast. While The Dead Zone is rated "R", you don't see the kind of nasty shit you see in The Fly, Scanners or other of Cronenberg's more graphic work. It's also a blast to see Martin Sheen let loose as the absurdly insane as Senate hopeful Greg Stillson. Over the top? In the most glorious way possible.

July 4
apartment TV, early afternoon

* * *

D

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)

Director: Robert Wise
Starring: William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley, and the rest of the gang

* * *

I decided some time ago that I needed to watch Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan. I, surely, was the only nerd in the world not to have watched it. Everyone assured me that I needn't be a Star Trek fan to enjoy the guttural, "Khaaaaaan!" at the end of the film and that, in fact, the entire film was pretty bad-ass. I can say right now that the same is not true for the first film. As cool as it was to make the production titles and credits wait for the overture to finish, I didn't think this leisurely pace would continue for the whole film. Let me lay some times on you:

The trip from Earth to the Enterprise bay takes 4 minutes of screen time with no speech, character development, or plot development.

It takes about 40 minutes into the movie to get the fucking ship out of said bay.

Spock finally arrives and joins the crew nearly an hour into the film.

Essentially it takes just over an hour for the movie to start picking up. After that, leave it to Shatner's syncopated speech to slow things down ("You mean...V'ger is...waitingforits.........Creator,................Mr. Spock?") This is why I favor Star Wars over Trek. Anyway, I needn't have bothered even watching the movie because it doesn't have anything to do with Wrath of Khan, so I hear. I apparently endured that episode stretched to two hours for nothing...

...wait for it...

KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!

July 4
computer, early morning

* * *

D

Naked Lunch (1991)

Director: David Cronenberg
Starring: Peter Weller, Judy Davis, Ian Holm, Julian Sands, Roy Scheider

* * *

I'm not sure how many people have seen MTV's short animated series from about ten years ago called The Maxx, based off Image Comic's book of the same name, but watching Naked Lunch very much reminded me of this series. You've got the hallucinations. You've got a mumbling, unperturbed protagonist. You've got Interzone in Naked Lunch, The Outback in The Maxx. While The Maxx was a bum that believed himself a superhero because he was afraid to look at himself unmasked, Bill Lee creates a system of rules or laws...agencies maybe that operate not parallel to our world as The Outback does. The Interzone operates within this reality creating arbitrary rules and objectives for Lee that he follows without any rational thought. Like the famous line from the book says, though: "Exterminate all rational thought." This kind of setting, the insects, the paranoia all point to what Kafka writes about in "The Metamorphosis", The Trial, etc. and Kafka is actually explicitly referenced early in the film. Whereas Kafka wrote about the alienation that one feels after the Industrial Age, Naked Lunch is about...the same? Junk? Depression? All of these? It's difficult to pinpoint what is real, if anything, in the film, or even if it matters at all. I'm not entirely sure what I've come away with after seeing the film much less what I was intended to walk away with. Hell if I know, but I do know that Peter Weller was absolutely dynamite. At the very least, he's worth watching if you can make yourself sit through the entire thing. I suggest you do.

July 3
computer, late evening

* * *

D

Starsky & Hutch (2004)

Director: Todd Phillips
Starring: Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, Snoop Dogg, Fred Williamson, Vince Vaughn

* * *

When I saw my first preview, I thought the movie was going to de-pants me with hilarity, which raised my expectations. When I talked to people whose opinions I respected who had seen the movie, they said it wasn't that good. This lowered my expectations. This being said, the movie was enjoyable. It's no Old School, Phillips previous effort, but it's worth seeing in a group of friends, mildly under the influence.

July 3
computer, early evening

* * *

D

The Last Wave (1977)

Director: Peter Weir
Starring: Richard Chamberlain, Olivia Hamnett, David Gulpilil, Nandjiwarra Amagula, Frederick Parslow

* * *

The Last Wave is without a doubt the best movie I've seen in a long time. Now the disclaimer: I enjoy the hell out of apocalypse, post-apocalypse, and prophesied-apocalypse movies. Another: since I was a child, I've always had a love for and fascination with water (particularly me playing with it or being in it). Another: as a kid I loved the X-files, UFO shows, specials about the Bermuda Triangle or anything else that was "beyond". The Last Wave is a prophesied-apocalypse film involving heavy rainfall whose secret can only be deciphered by navigation and interpretation of Aboriginal Dreamtime. Batting 1.000 so far. Chamberlain and his co-stars are outstanding. The cinematography is gorgeous. The directing is spot on. The Last Wave is one of those films whose appeal can't be explained by its plot (mostly because the plot is only the surface of what goes on in the film). One literally has to see the movie not to believe it, but to experience it. I won't say much more other than that it's one of the most beautiful and terrifying movies I've ever seen.

I'll close by listing a few of the other films, shows, books, etc. I thought of while watching The Last Wave and that are also worth checking out: The Wicker Man, H. P. Lovecraft's Cthulhu stories or anything about the Ancients, a lot of the "big fucking robot" animes like Neon Genesis Evangelion or RahXephon. These all feature a single journey-person who leaves their normal, civilized life and become some entangled or linked to something pre-civilization force--a religion/spirituality, a spirit, a creature, a big fucking robot, etc. There's an pervasive fear of unleashing said force/being unable to stop it/being invaded by it. The return of this force would inevitably lead to some kind of apocalypse state of the world. This return is usually prophesied (i.e. pre-determined, unstoppable).

July 3
apartment TV, early afternoon

* * *

D

Oleanna (1994)

Director: David Mamet
Starring: William H. Macy, Debra Eisenstadt

* * *

Ya know, sometimes I can take Mamet and sometimes I can't. I enjoyed the hell out of State & Main and The Spanish Prisoner, but I was only somewhat entertained by Heist. It's always easy to tell when you're watching a Mamet movie because of the ultra stylized way the actors deliver the dialogue, but these other movies masked it much better than in Oleanna. That kind of shit might work on stage, but it doesn't translate to film. Mamet obviously wants us to realize that we are not watching a reality; we are watch Drama, a Drama that has Characters. You're going to sit and listen to the glory that is The Writer. Maybe I've been too ingrained with the notion of Fellini's ringmaster that I don't understand the writer's pedestal in theatre. Now, we film people have had intentional rupture before. I'll just go ahead and point to the French New Wave and every school that followed in their footsteps. For me, Oleanna was like a mix between the New Wave (and its drawing attention to the artifice of the medium) and a more naturalistic theatrical film, Richard Linklater's Tape. Instead of using jump cuts or medium specific self-referentiality, he uses the dialogue to prevent the viewer from engaging too closely with the characters in the film. The elements of the film remind me very much of a theory about the movement of atoms and how, if given a machine that could measure this movement of every atom in the universe for an instant, one could determine everything that happened that had happened in the past and everything that will happen in the future. The elements of the film in this case being the two archetype characters and the enclosed setting. After seeing the first plot twist, there's no reason to watch the rest of the film. It's all pre-determination at this point, and once we're given that instant to measure the atoms there's no reason to keep watching. My overall impression is negative because I didn't like feeling like I was observing two insects in a terrarium. I just don't like people--even fictional people--being treated as science projects.

July 3
apartment TV, early morning

* * *

D

Avalon (2001)

Director: Mamoru Oshii
Starring: Malgorzata Foremniak, Wladyslaw Kowalski, Jerzy Gudejko, Dariusz Biskupski, Bartek Swiderski

* * *

When I saw a preview of this film on some Manga Company DVD, I was instantly fascinated with the film's visual style. A friend of mine watched it a while ago, however, and told me not to bother. A while later, and I've bothered. I'm very glad I did. This film reminds me in many ways of Oshii's earlier Ghost in the Shell and of a film by Andrei Tarkovsky called Stalker. The similarities between Avalon and Shell are pretty obvious as you watch the movie. Both are action films that feature a dark haired, detached woman as the lead. Both films ruminate on the distinction between a reality and a virtuality: in Shell between cyborg (A.I.) and human and in Avalon between reality and virtual reality. Obviously Oshii is interested in these places that are in-between such as when artificial intelligence develops autonomy and/or emotion or when a game, Avalon, straddles both virtual and reality. I drew comparisons with Stalker also not just because of the similar aesthetics of the two films--they both have a sort of sepia tone during parts--but also the deliberate pacing, the absence of a great deal of dialogue, and the quest for what is essentially the Holy Grail with respect to either film. If you go into Avalon expecting a fast-paced action film, you'll surely be disappointed. If you going into it expecting an Oshii movie (and are a fan of his work), you'll be delighted with what you get.

July 2
computer, late evening

* * *

D

Autofocus (2002)

Director: Paul Schrader
Starring: Greg Kinnear, Willem Dafoe, Rita Wilson, Maria Bello

* * *

I can't understand how Greg Kinnear stays under the radar of so many critics. He did the better acting job than Nicholson in As Good As It Gets, and Nicholson received as Oscar and Kinnear did not. Not that the Academy always awards on merit...
Regardless, Kinnear has gotten stiffed for roles. For every As Good As It Gets or The Gift or Autofocus, there's a Loser or Stuck on You or Godsend. I just don't understand how he doesn't get more good leading roles like the kind he has on Autofocus, a film about the late Bob Crane's--of "Hogan's Heroes" fame--sexual escapades. The film--like any Schrader work whether he's behind the camera or just behind the script--is fantastic. Starting in bold, "Golly gee!", primary colors, the film opens with Bob Crane at the top of his game with a hit radio show and then landing the lead role in what could be a very controversial sitcom: a comedy set in a Nazi POW camp. The show ends up being a hit, of course, and Bob soars to popularity. What goes up...and the film's happy reds, blues, and greens slowly fade to the maroons, golds and sickly pastels of the washed out look of early color television. Once "Hogan's Heroes" gets cancelled in the film, it's a trip through the Inferno of identity crises, divorce, isolation and unfulfilled sexual obsession. The film balances its light and dark tones well though, and every scene is fascinating to watch as long as you don't mind nudity and tense domestic situations.

Sidenote: this film reminds me a lot of Boogie Nights, except that Bob Crane and John Carpenter (no relation to the director...as far as I know) would be Jack Horner's worst nightmare. When Philip Baker Hall talks about video taking the porn market over from film, this is what he's talking about.

July 2
apartment TV, late afternoon/early evening

* * *

D

Boiling Point (1990)

Director: Takeshi Kitano (Beat Takeshi)
Starring: Yûrei Yanagi, Yuriko Ishida, Gadarukanaru Taka, Bengal, Beat Takeshi

* * *

Here's a film that similar in tone to Takeshi's Brother. It's got the offbeat comedy in Takeshi's Kikujiro with the action of a typical Takeshi cop film or a Woo action film. Boiling Point, however, is first and foremost a comedy, and it's a damn funny comedy at that. The posters for the film are extremely misleading. They prominently feature Takeshi and a gun. Takeshi--and guns for that matter--are only in the film for about twenty minutes or half an hour. The film primarily follows kind of a quiet dorky kid in his late teens or early twenties. For the first 45 minutes of screen time, the plot revolves around the trouble this kid gets into with girls, with his baseball team, with the Yakuza, etc. None of this trouble takes precedence over any other, however, and we mostly just watch the kid's life, and I'll be damned if it isn't some funny shit. Does the quiet kid try to attack a Yakuza member for no good reason? Yep. Does the punkass rich kid learn a bloody lesson...twice? Yep. Is the coach unreasonably aggressive? You betcha. Is Takeshi comic gold everytime he's on screen? Without a doubt. Yeah there's some violence. It's a Takeshi film. Expect there to be something violent in it, even if it's just Takeshi smacking around people who don't deserve it (that, too, happens in this movie). While I would see Violent Cop if given a chance, I would actively seek out Boiling Point. It's just a funny, bloody, good time even if the title is only tenuously tied to the events of the film.

July 1
New Beverly Cinemas, late evening

* * *

D

Violent Cop (1989)

Director: Takeshi Kitano (Beat Takeshi)
Starring: Beat Takeshi, Maiko Kawakami, Makoto Ashikawa, Shirô Sano, Sei Hiraizumi

* * *

There's something I've never really felt comfortable with watching certain Japanese movies. I'll watch for a while keeping in mind that the Japanese cinema is that of flourishes--a cinema that generally values style of substance--and then I'll go refill my drink or use the restroom or something. I'll come back and discover that some character that I didn't think was important at all is dominating the action. Usually this isn't a problem; I'll lean over and ask the person I came with what happened in the time I was gone. The answer is usually something like, "I don't know. I think this guy stole some drugs, and this other guy's making a power play. He found a gun under the chubby dude's pillow. Oh yeah, and like six cops have died." This is a fine explanation because what the characters do and the events that happen in the film don't always stick to what I call "reason" or "reality". I think it has something to do with the way some Japanese directors don't use dramatic emphasis when it would be pretty helpful. There's a section in Violent Cop, for example, when we cut from hanging out with the cops--violent or otherwise--and we watch a drug deal that goes bad. I had no idea who the fuck these guys were, and so I didn't care when one killed the other. So we're back with the cops, and Takeshi and the rookie hook back up with the main squad after a night's drinking. They arrive at the scene of last night's crime, and they're investigating hardcore. Fine, except that they don't investigate any of the other murders in the film, and there are like a bazillion of them. Why this one? Why not. Why is Takeshi's character so violent? Why not. It's a pretty fun movie, if you don't mind that the narrative has very little to do with itself. It's easy to see that this is Takeshi's directorial debut, however, but read the Boiling Point entry on how he does on his second attempt.

July 1
New Beverly Cinemas, evening

* * *

D

Manhunter (1986)

Director: Michael Mann
Starring: William L. Petersen, Joan Allen, Brian Cox, Dennis Farina, Tom Noonan

* * *

I've never really been able to make much heads or tails of the adaptation of Thomas Harris' books. I think what really bothered me was the structure of the films. Now I can understand giving us the point of view of Hannibal Lector (spelled Lecktor in Manhunter) and the POV of the FBI investigator is a given, but I never could understand why we got the point of view of the killer. I can maybe understand it in a Here's What We're Dealing With Here kind of sense, but I don't really care much about that. I'd rather see the effects of the actions and extrapolate for myself what kind of person could do these things. This is what made Se7en such an interesting serial killer movie. In addition to the premise behind the killings being interesting, the film holds off on delivering us the killer all the way until the third act. Even here, as an audience we've already made the picture in our heads, but we get the rug pulled out from under us when we finally get to meet the bastard. I certainly wasn't thinking of Lester Burnham, and me thinks you weren't either. In the Harris films, we're introduced to the killers fairly early on. We're sometimes asked to sympathize with them. Most of all, however, we simply become acclimated to them, and they--at least for me--lose their power to frighten. Manhunter is the same as the rest of them except that Ralph Fiennes makes a better Francis Dolarhyde than Tom Noonan; somehow the character of Will Graham comes off wooden no matter who plays him. Gotta love that dated synth music though. Oh, and Dolarhyde doesn't have the tatoos in Manhunter because he thought it would be over the top. With that in mind, check out how much obvious colored light he uses. Compare it to the way George Romero uses colored light much more effectively--mostly because he's trying to be hokey--in Creepshow (1982). While Manhunter is certainly not the best in the Thomas Harris series, it's certainly not the worst (Hannibal, anyone?).

July 1
apartment TV/computer DVD-ROM, afternoon/late evening

* * *

D

The Duelists (1977)

Director: Ridley Scott
Starring: Keith Carradine, Harvey Keitel

* * *

For a film whose title is plural, we are really only allowed access to D'Hubert (Keith Carradine) in the film. Based on a Joseph Conrad story, The Duellists, like Conrad's Heart of Darkness, follows a battle of wills between two men, these two men being soldiers in Bonaparte's military during the Napoleonic Wars. The film opens in a duel between Keitel's character, Feraud, and a fellow who we soon learn to be the mayor's nephew. An officer enlists D'Hubert to summon Feraud to account his actions to the officer, but D'Hubert himself ends up duelling with Feraud against his will. This sets up a rivalry that lasts thoughout both men's lives. Feraud follows D'Hubert throughout the several campaigns the two fight for Bonaparte and engages D'Hubert in "the gentleman's battle" everytime he catches him. The film details these battles of power and physicality as Feraud obsesses over a need for honor, chasing D'Hubert across the continent and ruining a chance for D'Hubert to simply lead his life. Unfortunately we are never allowed to understand what makes Feraud tick, and D'Hubert's battle for mere survival everytime the men meet is only made interesting by the mutual respect the two men forge for one another over the course of their meetings and battles. Had we been allowed just a little more insight into Keitel's character, the film could have been incredibly gripping. What the film lacks in its characters, however, it more than makes up for in aesthetic beauty. I found myself "recognizing" several shots from my time spent in art museums. The film is absolutely gorgeous.

July 1
apartment TV, morning

* * *

D

Private Parts (1997)

Director: Betty Thomas
Starring: Howard Stern, Robin Quivers, Mary McCormack, Fred Norris

* * *

The most surprising thing about this film is how touching it could be at times. I admit I left the room during 1978 at one point and Stern was a nice, somewhat assertive DJ who carried a drum around with him so he could play Wipeout for his morning listeners and came back in 1980 during which time he somehow became much more like the Howard Stern of modern times. I'm not sure what happened, but his hair grew about a foot during this time. I'm not going to jump to conclusions, but everyone knows that long hair on a man means that Satan himself has possessed him. Regardless, I was amazed how much I was rooting for Stern during the film. Obviously he had creative control of what to show and what to omit from the film, but I do respect Stern's honesty. I'm sure the film tried not to fictionalize any event more so than necessary (except for the scenes with "Pig Vomit" maybe). I don't really like the guy, but I'll be damned if I wasn't behind the bastard the entire film. He's a genuinely charming guy. I'm not sure I understood why the main narrative would break into brief interviews with the cast members. We could extrapolate what they said from the events we actually watched them play in the film (it's important to note that the cast of Stern's radio show played themselves in the film). Another small surprise was the discovery that the film was directed by a woman. For a film about a man whose persona is so chauvinistic, a female director was not my default assumption.

June 30
apartment TV, late evening (~10pm)

* * *

D

Who Is Cletis Tout? (2001)

Director: Chris Ver Wiel
Starring: Christian Slater, Tim Allen, Portia de Rossi

* * *

Well here's a movie that's aimed very directly at cinephiles but succeeds in only being a cutesy heist/mafia/romance film. We've got Christian Slater as our standard charming lead. If it hadn't've been him, the movie would be almost unwatchable. We've got Portia de Rossi as The Girl. There's nothing special about her part as written, and unfortunately Rossi doesn't bring a whole lot to the character. We've got Tim Allen as the quirky, film-loving hitman who quotes lines from famous movies and post-scripts these quotations with the title, year, and occasionally the company of the film in question. He also gives a pretty clear diagram of what the story structure is going to be as he ticks off necessities of a good story, and the film is sure enough happy to oblige in doing exactly these things. This means we know exactly what's going to happen before it actually happens in the narrative, and it also means the film almost explicitly states that it's going to be derivitive. It's structure is that of The Usual Suspects; Tim Allen interviews Christian Slater and almost all of the story proper takes place in flashback as Slater recounts his tale. As anyone who knows me can verify, I'm not a big fan of those films that don't conceal their references well--one of the main reasons I didn't jump for joy after seeing Kill Bill Vol. 1 & 2. Although I have to commend Tout's honesty in its quotations of its films, I also have to condemn it for not trying anything new.

June 30-July 1
apartment TV, late night/early morning

* * *

D

Spiderman 2 (2004)

Director: Sam Raimi
Starring: Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, Alfred Molina

* * *

Ah, what a delightful movie. A character-driven superhero picture. Once again, Marvel delivers with a great script and brilliantly realized translation of comic to screen. It's worked brilliantly before--specifically with X2:X-Men United and Daredevil. I can't say that it worked well in Hulk, but I just think that you need a dork, not an artist, to helm these movies. I don't know about Bryan Singer (X-Men), but Mark Steven Johnson and Raimi are definitely fans of the original comics. That love most certainly shows in their films. Although I went wanting of a little bit more action in the film, the action sequences themselves were fantastic. I wanted the end battle to be a little more epic, but what I got was fine. Once again, J. K. Simmons was fantastic as JJJ.

June 30
Arclight Theaters, afternoon

* * *

D