tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14648784447090171252024-03-14T05:11:53.678-04:00Scott's Film WatchOne man's unabashedly subjective, critical look at various movies (and a few TV series).Scott Hearonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00119613582465607596noreply@blogger.comBlogger535125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1464878444709017125.post-66191259278243290072020-08-25T21:00:00.025-04:002020-08-25T21:00:00.402-04:00Idiot Boxing: Giri/Haji (2019)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://static.tvmaze.com/uploads/images/original_untouched/215/538753.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="571" height="367" src="https://static.tvmaze.com/uploads/images/original_untouched/215/538753.jpg" width="262" /></a></div>Pretty entertaining crime drama/thriller that uses its "East meets West" themes to good effect, though it didn't exactly stick the landing. </div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><i>Giri/Haji </i>("Duty/Shame" in English) is a British production that tells of a Japanese detective in London, attempting to track down his wayward brother. The detective, Kenzo (Takehiro Hira), is on the trail of his brother Yuto (Yosuke Kobozuka) after Yuto potentially sets off a massive war between two <i>yakuza</i> families back in Tokyo. Yuto has long been the charming-but-untamable black sheep of the family, often getting into serious trouble that requires his older brother to bail him out. Continuing this pattern, Kenzo leaves behind more than a little family drama and ostensibly enrolls in a criminology class in London, using the class as a cover for his detective work following Yuto. Several other London locals become involved in Kenzo's case, including the half-Japanese male prostitute Rodney (Will Sharpe), the teacher of the criminology class Detective Donna Clark (Sophia Brown), and several others. As the cat-and-mouse game progresses, tensions and violence continue to mount not just for Kenzo and Yuto, but for anyone in or even close to the large criminal organizations involved.</div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">This show was solid for the most part. The struggle of Kenzo to constantly play big brother and get his younger brother out of scrapes is effective, if not exactly a novel idea. But weaving that eternal, fraternal struggle into a cop/criminal narrative adds an interesting layer to the tale. Beyond that, you have the Japanese brothers and their families dealing with navigating England, the British crime landscape, and its ramifications. This sets up some compelling culture clashes and revelations, especially when every character has some serious personal flaws and demons. The primary conflict, as the title of the show indicates, is Kenzo's sense of duty to his selfish, reckless younger brother and the shame that he feels for continuing to enable him. This conflict can be seen in nearly every other major character in the show, though it never bashes you over the head too hard with the point. </div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">The performances are strong, though I did sense that the two primary Japanese actors Hira and Kobozuka did not have a great grasp of English pronunciation and intonation, leading to a somewhat stilted delivery of their English lines (and they both have a decent amount of English lines). That aside, the actors were all excellent, most notably Will Sharpe as Rodney, the troubled young male prostitute with an attitude and heart. Though less involved in the more sensational crime stories, his was sometimes the most emotional tale, and it added a different type of depth to the show. </div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.refinery29.com/images/8659245.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="800" height="214" src="https://www.refinery29.com/images/8659245.jpg" width="322" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Rodney (front), hanging out in one of his many<br />nighttime haunts. Will Sharpe turns in a great <br />performance as the tough-but-tortured man.</i></td></tr></tbody></table>The show is set apart from other crime dramas thanks to a few things, most of which work. There is certainly a nice amount of levity in the form of cultural misunderstandings and the oft-cynical nature of some of the characters. The British crime boss Abbott, played brilliantly by Charles Creed-Myles, adds a wild, comically charismatic tough guy of the type that you might find in Guy Ritchie's better films or the British gangster movies of the 1970s and '80s. In both the London and Tokyo settings, we get a few amusing characters and moments sprinkled in with the drama and thrills. </div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">The creators of <i>Giri/Haji</i> decided to add a few flourishes that you rarely or never see in such a show. Some work, such as the anime-style, cell-shaded recaps to start each new episode. One or two I found more questionable, such as the interpretive dance performance thrown into the middle of a very intense, dramatic scene. And the show didn't do a great job of offering satisfying conclusions to its several storylines, even if it did fine with most of the main threads. </div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">It seemed as if the story ended, making this a single season mini-series. If that's the case, it did nice work. Were they to do a second season, I don't know that I would go way out of my way to catch it. This one season was solid and entertaining enough, though it didn't completely stick the landing as well as it could have. </div>
Scott Hearonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00119613582465607596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1464878444709017125.post-42922185751074170302020-08-24T21:00:00.017-04:002020-08-24T21:00:15.948-04:00The Raid: Redemption (2011)<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c1/af/92/c1af9209d4534c0302d4465cb02123b1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="320" data-original-width="320" src="https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c1/af/92/c1af9209d4534c0302d4465cb02123b1.jpg" /></a></div>Original Indonesian Title: <i>Serbaut Maut</i><p></p><p>Director: Gareth Evans</p><p>A martial arts/action movie tour-de-force that I finally got around to watching. I can see why it quickly became such a beloved classic among fans of the genre. </p><p>The story isn't terribly complex: in a beaten-down, urban neighborhood in Indonesia, a S.W.A.T. team launches an assault on a building held by a violent, ruthless drug kingpin. The team has to battle its way to the drug lord on the top floor of the blasted concrete structure, fighting through wave after wave of thugs and henchmen armed with guns, knives, and some ferocious martial arts skills. One of the S.W.A.T. members, Rama, is especially adept at both fighting and seeing the larger picture at work, and he becomes one of the very few members of his team to get beyond the first few floors of the death trap building. </p><p><i>The Raid: Redemption</i> goes all out as an action/fighting movie. Although I only just saw it for the first time, I remember hearing about it from a few action-loving friends back around 2012, when it really wasn't shown much in the U.S. Now I can see what they meant. After only about five-minutes of barely-necessary but simply effective "plot" setup, things go totally nuts for Rama and his team. They're getting sniped from nearby buildings, blasted from floors above them, and generally attacked from every angle imaginable. They acquit themselves fairly well and fight back admirably, but the tension and carnage are never more than one minute or one corner away. </p><p>So it's one thing to just pack a movie with action. More importantly is whether the action is visually engaging. The answer for <i>The Raid: Redemption</i> is a definite "Yes!" However, this answer will of course be dependent on how one feels about action scenes. Some people can't get enough well-done fighting and action scenes in movies. Other people - like my wife - immediately tune out the moment a car chase, fistfight, or gunbattle erupt in a movie. I find myself somewhere in the middle on this - I'll remain engaged for a while in an action sequence, as long as it shows some visual and choreographic creativity. But my engagement will usually wear down after a while, if the action overwhelms the emotional or narrative elements of the movie. With <i>The Raid</i>, I did eventually grow less interested in the on-screen mayhem, despite recognizing how extremely well-done all of the action elements were executed. But if you dig intense, well-shot fighting in many forms, then you'll love the action in this movie. There's no "shaky cam" work, and the brutality of the confrontations is palpable at all times.</p><p></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://kaist455.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/smallraid07.jpg?w=640" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="390" data-original-width="588" height="250" src="https://kaist455.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/smallraid07.jpg?w=640" width="376" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>This one key fight scene conveys just some of the intensity<br />of the combat and the rather stark backdrops for much of<br />the action. Still, everything is lit and shot impressively.</i></td></tr></tbody></table>One other thing worth pointing out is the general aesthetic. It may not be for everyone. Even if you're an action movie fan, you have to know that <i>The Raid: Redemption</i> is one of the grungiest, filthiest action flicks you're likely to see. This isn't a super-slick, visually dazzling "Fast and Furious" or Michael Bay movie. These are scuzzy, violent, impoverished criminals trying to brutally kill cops in a dank, grey, dilapidated building that looks like it barely survived a World War II bombing raid. To be clear, the camerawork, costumes, and settings are great; they present a clear vision from the director. But that vision is a gritty hellscape setting in which we get bloody pandemonium for over 90 minutes. <p></p><p>Will I watch this again? Most likely not. I'm not a pure enough action fan to feel the need. However, I'll probably check out the sequel, <i>The Raid 2</i>, as it is also considered a very influential modern action movie. I'll be curious to see what writer/director Gareth Evans was able to do with a bigger budget, though I won't expect there to be much more beyond a similar fireworks show of punching, fighting, and shooting. </p>Scott Hearonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00119613582465607596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1464878444709017125.post-60981920159004257132020-08-21T21:00:00.014-04:002020-08-21T21:00:03.789-04:00In A World...(2013)<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://thecinephiliacs.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/inaworld1.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="348" data-original-width="464" height="278" src="https://thecinephiliacs.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/inaworld1.jpg" width="371" /></a></div>Director: Lake Bell<p></p><p>This was a rewatch, and it was well worth it. Liked this movie when I saw it in the theater back in 2013, and I still like it.</p><p>The movie follows Carol Solomon (Lake Bell), a voice coach and voice actor in Hollywood who is trying to break into a larger role. The daughter of a highly successful movie trailer narrator, Carol faces an uphill battle in the male-dominated, chauvinistic world of movie-trailer voice-overs. A little stroke of luck opens a small door for Carol, which she then parlays into ever-better voice-over gigs, eventually landing a chance to voice the trailer for a massive, blockbuster upcoming movie franchise. However, there is some very stiff competition for the job, including her self-important, chauvinist father. Carol tries to keep her eye on this occupational prize, all while juggling several rough hiccups in her personal and family lives. </p><p><i>In a World...</i> is a really fun look into a part of the movie business that many of us don't ever see and probably never think much about. And it's a world that writer, director, and star Lake Bell, a highly accomplished voice-over artist, knows plenty about. Despite seeming to be a minor, almost inconsequential part of a visual medium, she offers us a look at a cut-throat world filled with massively outsized egos and comically competitive scrambling. Once the dash for the coveted movie voice-over job is on, it's hard not to be invested in Carol's prospects of winning the gig. Unlike many of the "behind the scenes, movies about movies" shows that we've seen over the years, the stakes here are smaller on one level, but they also carry plenty of weight for the authentic characters we get here. In addition to Lake Bell, her father is played by longtime voice-over master Fred Melamed, who brings a ton of comic acting chops to the movie. These two and others help make a "small" world carry some actual weight for the people who dwell in it. </p><p></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://shazza91321.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/in-a-world-lake-bell-and-michaela-watkins.jpg" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="376" data-original-width="640" height="193" src="https://shazza91321.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/in-a-world-lake-bell-and-michaela-watkins.jpg" width="328" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>The voice- and sound-obsessed Carol (left) <br />surreptitiously records her unwitting sister. Plenty<br />of humor in the movie comes from Carol trying<br />to get various recordings for her work.</i></td></tr></tbody></table>More importantly, though, is the humor. While there is some effective drama in the movie, this movie is mostly a comedy, and it is hilarious at times. Whether it's Carol helping star Eva Longoria not sound like "a retarded pirate," her egomaniacal father waxing machismo, or awkward coworkers played by comedians Dmitri Martin, Tig Notaro, and others going about their lives and jobs, the laughs come steadily. I've seen two of Bells' dramedy/rom-coms (the other being the hilarious <i><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/1464878444709017125/5949364610349430939" target="_blank">Man Up</a></i>), and I've been impressed with just how well she balances the humor with the emotion. I'm not much of a rom-com guy, and <i>In a World...</i>isn't strictly a rom-com, but it has some of the elements and executes them extremely well. <p></p><p>I highly recommend this one to anybody who enjoys movies about movies or smart comedies about people trying to break through barriers to flex their talent. </p>Scott Hearonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00119613582465607596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1464878444709017125.post-62006780533143854572020-08-15T17:00:00.231-04:002020-08-15T19:06:09.804-04:00John Wick 3: Parabellum (2019)<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://image.tmdb.org/t/p/original/jeNTqOnux7KSulznSh4UdiDlfmV.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="533" height="403" src="https://image.tmdb.org/t/p/original/jeNTqOnux7KSulznSh4UdiDlfmV.jpg" width="268" /></a></div>Director: Chad Stahelski<p></p><p>Not sure why I didn't review this one when I first saw it in theaters last year, but oh well. This third "chapter" in the John Wick series continues to do what the previous two did - provide slick, exceptionally well-executed, intense action within a visually stunning setting dark mythology. Like it's predecessor, <i>Chapter 2</i>, this one was arguably a bit longer than necessary, but was overall good.</p><p>The previous movie ended with John Wick, assassin extraordinaire, being declared "Excommunicado" by the vast and rules-dominated system of criminals and professional killers, meaning that he is now hunted by hundreds of his fellow killers-for-hire. He is also without the benefit of any legitimate form of sanctuary - something which provided him a great advantage in the past. So alone and seeking a way out of this lethal dilemma, John calls in a couple of very old and very valuable favors, ultimately being granted a meeting with a mysterious, powerful figure (billed only as "The Elder") who seems to hold sway over the immensely powerful criminal organizations that all want John dead. In exchange for safety from the countless killers after him, John agrees to serve him for the rest of his life in addition to killing Winston, longtime friend of Johns' and the manager of the New York Continental Hotel. Almost needless to say, things don't exactly work out the way that The Elder and the other most powerful criminals lords hope, with John and a few friends killing dozens upon dozens of would-be assassins along the way. </p><p>I have to tip my cap to this franchise - it's done a brilliant job of taking a simple, crowd-pleasing idea and executing it with a satisfying amount of style, novelty, and exceptional attention to detail. The first <i>John Wick</i> made its mark in two ways: by bringing an intense, "extended shots" approach to filming action and fight scenes, and setting the story within a novel, dark fantasy world with its own mythology and rules. <i>Chapter 2</i> got deeper into that mythology, and it managed to show that they could offer equally intense fights with novel twists, either through the settings or the methods that the fighters used. <i>Parabellum</i> continues this trend, giving us new, often exotic and dazzling locations and sets, and adding fun wrinkles to the combat. And there's a lot of combat. I know this will be sacrilege to the millions of Wick faithful, but I actually thought there was <i>too</i> much combat. I'll explain later.</p><p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://d1nslcd7m2225b.cloudfront.net/Pictures/2000x2000fit/3/6/9/1302369_johnwickchapter3_4349.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="800" height="263" src="https://d1nslcd7m2225b.cloudfront.net/Pictures/2000x2000fit/3/6/9/1302369_johnwickchapter3_4349.jpg" width="393" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>The sequels in this series have done a great job of giving us<br />new environments, visuals, and companions for John. For<br />example, getting John and Halle Berry strolling through <br />the desert with a pair of attack German shepherds.</i></td></tr></tbody></table>In terms of story, the broad strokes are basically the same as <i>Chapter 2</i>. John seeks to get out of a massive, life-threatening dilemma, but he needs to seek out help to do it. He cashes in a few favors just for the chance at a solution, only to find that he'll have to pledge eternal servitude as a killer to The Elder if he wants to be safe from assassination. There are mysterious, ever-more-powerful characters, and a few new friends whom we meet along the way. And at every turn, John and his few partners cut bloody swaths between where they are and where they're going. In this sense, it's all very much like the latter half of <i>Chapter 2</i>, during which John goes from the offensive to the defensive. The most fascinating part of this is that, as John works his way up the criminal power structure, we continue to get hints at just how powerful - seemingly supernaturally so - those in control of this vast network are. I really enjoy how the story keeps these cards close to the vest. I'm still not sure if it speaks to deft storytelling or a lack of actual substance, but it still works for me. </p><p>The combat and action scenes. Look, they're great. This is by far the major draw to this entire series, and <i>Parabellum</i> keeps the bar exceptionally high, arguably raising it even higher than the previous film. Whether it's on-road pursuits, hand-to-hand fighting, or gunplay, this series continues to dazzle. We've already seen how well the action and fight sequences are choreographed and shot, so that's no surprise. What each new film offers, though, is new environments, weapons, and other props. Yes, it's John Wick killing people by the bundle, but nearly every new fight does something new and different in its dark, brutal way. Just a few examples from <i>Parabellum</i> include a motorcycle pursuit of John on a horse, one of the longest knife-fights you'll ever see, Halle Berry using a pair of bulletproofed attack dogs, and more. Honestly, my Dad and I (we went to see it together in the theater) were as entertained by the over-the-top novelty of the kills as much as anything. </p><p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/dentonrc.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/0/27/027ca01c-c011-5aaf-9198-1359e16182cf/5cdf8a4e86551.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C800" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="800" height="210" src="https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/dentonrc.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/0/27/027ca01c-c011-5aaf-9198-1359e16182cf/5cdf8a4e86551.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C800" width="314" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>This is Zero, John's primary fighting adversary</i><br /><i>in </i>Parabellum.<i> He's actually been my favorite so<br />far, adding some levity to the intense fights.</i></td></tr></tbody></table>For all the mastery and ingenuity of the highly dynamic and kinetic fight sequences, though, I did find that they wore on me after a while. This is a continuation of this entire series for me, actually. The first <i>John Wick</i> clocked in at 101 minutes; <i>Chapter 2</i> expanded to 122 minutes, and <i>Parabellum</i> upped it a bit to 130 minutes. All three have about the same 25 to 30 minutes of "plot," with the rest given over to action. The balance was just right in the first movie for me, but it all grew a bit tiresome at the 90-minute mark in the second and third films. It didn't help that the grande finale fight in <i>Parabellum</i> took place in an environment that looked a lot like the final big fight in <i>Chapter 2</i>, so it already felt a bit familiar. I must say, though, that the actual fight against Zero and his two henchmen was much better than what I found to be a so-so fight against Ares in <i>Chapter 2</i>. The fights are all done brilliantly - it's just that I don't have the unquenchable thirst for action that many viewers might have. </p><p>There's a very interesting possible path that this series may go down - the path of "tearing down the entire system." At this point in the overall story, I'm hoping that we now have the basic framework of the vast, rule-governed network that all of these criminals and killer operate within. John's arc so far suggests that he is ready to break free of it entirely, and he is now in the position where the only way to do so is to destroy it completely. This would be the logical - and extremely fun - path for the future movies to take. I recently heard that the plan is to film both the fourth and fifth movies together, so we can expect at least two more chapters in this "franchise." I'll definitely check them out, even if I'll go in expecting to grow a bit tired of the bloodletting if they go much beyond the hour-and-a-half threshold. </p>Scott Hearonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00119613582465607596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1464878444709017125.post-5769513188065821782020-08-14T21:00:00.001-04:002020-08-14T21:00:00.347-04:00The Devil Wears Prada (2006)<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.awardscircuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/u6QBDGUCOEMRekna95ip2MxplbQ-758x1137.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="533" height="373" src="https://www.awardscircuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/u6QBDGUCOEMRekna95ip2MxplbQ-758x1137.jpg" width="248" /></a></div>Director: David Frankel<p></p><p>Finally sat down with the wife to watch this oft-referred-to film. Not bad, and I can see why it generates a lot of discussion and debate, even nearly 15 years after its release.</p><p>The movie follows Andy Sachs (Anne Hathaway), an aspiring young journalist struggling to land work as a writer in New York City. Looking for any way to get her foot in some kind of door, Andy applies to become an assistant to Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep), the brutally exacting and vicious editor-in-chief of an immensely popular and prestigious fashion magazine. Despite knowing and caring very little about fashion, Andy lands the job, agreeing to be Miranda's assistant for a year, in the hopes of getting a bulletproof recommendation for a job in journalism. After many rough growing pains and adjustment, Andy embraces the world of high fashion, along with the incessant and often boundless demands of her boss, eventually alienating her closest friends. By the end of the tale, Andy has learned Miranda's one great lesson to her: reaching the top of the world of fashion requires a ruthlessness and focus that Andy simply does not have. Still, Miranda helps her land a good job at a New York City newspaper, thus kickstarting her career as a journalist. </p><p>It's not hard to see why this movie is basically like mainlining heroin for anyone remotely concerned with fashion. You have a ton of great actors and beautiful people putting on great performances, nearly all dressed in flawlessly chic outfits, turning in great performances. Even more, these dynamic characters are all about the world of looking striking and powerful through your clothing. In short, if you dig really nice clothes, you'll dig looking at this movie. Of course, the film goes beyond this, digging into the essence of fashion (to an extent) and its greater place in society. This is what makes Andy's character essential. Like many of us, she's a fashion neophyte, so her entry into the world is our entry to the world, and it's handled well enough that even someone like me can find it interesting. </p><p>The greater reason that this movie was and still is so often discussed is the Miranda Priestly character and, to a lesser extent, her relationship with Andy. I see three aspects to Miranda that inspire debate: representing a successful woman in a cutthroat business, her management style, and her estimation of fashion's place in the world. Based on the Lauren Weisberger novel of the same name, <i>The Devil Wears Prada</i> is based on the author's time as an assistant to <i>Vogue</i> magazine editor Anna Wintour, so Weisberger had a first-hand look at a woman who makes it to the top of this very industry. The movie certainly suggests that a woman must be at least as ruthless as a man to reach such heights, even though it doesn't completely dig into this theme. </p><p>The more obvious (and entertaining for many people) element to the movie is how Miranda is a Hall of Fame-level "horrible boss," in that she's brutally demanding of Andy and everyone else around her. Because of her success in the fashion world, all of her employees are constantly on pins and needles, continuously attuned to her every word, movement, and gesture. With very few exceptions (such as Stanley Tucci's character), this all creates a palpable "terrified of Mom" vibe around the entire magazine. Many viewers find this comedic, but I almost always grow irritated when seeing or reading about such characters. My feeling is that anything that forces a person to become such an obsessive, exacting tyrant is unhealthy, and I have a hard time watching it happen, even in fiction. </p><p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://i2.wp.com/metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/andy-and-her-friends-1cf8.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=644%2C421&ssl=1" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="421" data-original-width="644" height="216" src="https://i2.wp.com/metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/andy-and-her-friends-1cf8.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=644%2C421&ssl=1" width="330" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Apparently, countless fans have weighed in on<br />whether Andy's friends are good or horrible. <br />Arguments can be made for both sides, but this<br />actually speaks to a slight lack of depth in the film.</i></td></tr></tbody></table>Then there's the entire backdrop of the world of high fashion. To put it bluntly, I don't really care about it. Yes, I know that it's a multi-billion dollar industry that employs plenty of people. And yes, I do have enough of an eye to know a nice outfit from an unflattering, "casual" outfit. I can also appreciate the amount of talent, skill, and effort that can go into designing and creating clothing. But ultimately, it's mostly superficial luxury to me, and I can only care so much about it. Miranda Priestly's instantly famous "Cerulean" speech seems to be meant as a definitive defense of fashion as some all-encompassing necessity to human life. To me, it's a well-delivered, scathing speech about something that is, in the grand scheme, not all that important. Just because an extremely poised, focused, and intelligent person has made it their entire world doesn't mean that it's essential for <i>the</i> world. This is yet another major theme, like women in highly profitable and competitive businesses, that felt like it could have been explored more deeply and critically but wasn't.</p><p>I did enjoy that Andy ultimately turns her back on the fashion world. It does go some way towards suggesting that one's humanity is more important than pure success, especially conspicuous success. True to its nature, fashion is all about being <i>seen</i> a certain way, regardless of how true it is to the actual person putting it on display. This seems to be the moral of the story, if there is one, and I can get on board with that. </p><p>I'm glad that I finally got around to seeing this one, as it's so often referred to and is one that my wife has seen multiple times and enjoyed. I found it to be a well-made movie that raises some interesting themes. And while it doesn't dig into some of the more difficult questions as much as I might like, I appreciated the messy, grey areas that it included. Good movie, though not one that I'll feel the need to see again any time soon. </p>Scott Hearonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00119613582465607596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1464878444709017125.post-3018423204887732902020-08-12T21:15:00.001-04:002020-08-13T08:28:44.294-04:00The Cabin in the Woods (2011)<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://horrornews.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/The-Cabin-in-the-Woods-2012-movie-Joss-Whedon-Drew-Goddard-5.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="549" height="411" src="https://horrornews.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/The-Cabin-in-the-Woods-2012-movie-Joss-Whedon-Drew-Goddard-5.jpg" width="283" /></a></div> Director: Drew Goddard<p></p><p>I actually own this movie and gave it a rewatch - my fourth viewing of it since it came out. It's still a ton of fun, honoring so many great horror standards with its clever "meta" approach. </p><p>The movie follows five college friends as they take a weekend trip to the secluded, titular cabin in the woods. As they approach, things start to take turns very familiar to anyone who has seen popular and cult horror movies from the 1980s and later: the cabin is a dark and foreboding; there's an eerie basement with a vast assortment of creepy objects; and the overly curious visitors accidentally unleash hellish forces that seek to kill them all. Before the proceedings turn wildly violent, we also get some overt sexuality and dashes of budding romance. Again, very familiar tropes of the horror genre. What is new here is that, outside and above everything happening in and around the cabin, is a vast, bureaucratic organization that is orchestrating the entire thing. Their purpose is to stage the entire group execution, all unknown to the five victims, in order to appease a group of Lovecraftian "old gods" who slumber beneath the earth. These titans of evil and destruction only refrain from annihilating humankind if an annual ritual sacrifice is made in order to appease them.</p><p><i>The Cabin in the Woods</i> is so entertaining, especially for horror fans. I'm not a hardcore horror aficionado by any means, but I've seen most of the standards and classics. I've also enjoyed many of the most frightening and clever films in the genre, like <i>The Shining</i>,<i> </i>the <i>Evil Dead</i> trilogy, and <i>An American Werewolf in London</i>, among many others, multiple times. Like many of the greats, <i>The Cabin in the Woods</i>, written by Joss Whedon, finds a perfect balance between giving you legitimate scares, making you laugh, and dazzling you with its mysterious and layered tale. Yes, the main five characters are loose archetypes of the typical slasher victims: the jock, the whore, the nerd, etc., but Whedon added more depth to them and made them genuinely funny and empathetic. They crack good jokes, and when things start to go horrifyingly haywire, we actually care. </p><p></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://bloody-disgusting.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/The-Cabin-in-the-Woods.jpg" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="531" data-original-width="800" height="214" src="https://bloody-disgusting.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/The-Cabin-in-the-Woods.jpg" width="322" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Our five friends begin to sense something <br />horribly amiss in their weekend getaway cabin.<br />Things only get crazier, on many literal and<br />figurative levels.</i></td></tr></tbody></table>The horror elements hit well. While there isn't anything particularly new to most of the scares, they are effective. Creepy zombies. Jump scares. Gut-wrenching fatalities. Chases through creepy a creepy cabin and the surrounding woods. They're all there, and they're all done well. Beyond that, though, is the larger picture of the powers that are orchestrating everything. The desensitized bureaucrats are really funny in their own ways, but their callousness is quietly more frightening than any of the more immediate, grisly horrors that we get.<p></p><p>The third act of this one is what really puts it over the top, though. Once the grand secret is revealed and the two "survivors" uncover the greater scheme at work, this movie supplies so many fun "Oh shit!" moments in the form of revelations, more creepy horror entities, and straight-up action. To cap it all off, it has the guts to supply a rather dark ending, something which I always appreciate, especially in horror movies. </p><p>Back when I first bought a blu-ray player, <i>The Cabin in the Woods </i>was one of two blu-ray discs that I purchased to break it in. I'm glad I did, as I've gone back to it every few years since, and I'll continue to do so. </p>Scott Hearonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00119613582465607596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1464878444709017125.post-85432767922807673462020-08-11T20:00:00.068-04:002020-08-11T20:00:00.144-04:00The Great White Hype (1996)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://c8.alamy.com/comp/E5NCBW/the-great-white-hype-us-poster-art-from-left-peter-berg-damon-wayans-E5NCBW.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="519" height="365" src="https://c8.alamy.com/comp/E5NCBW/the-great-white-hype-us-poster-art-from-left-peter-berg-damon-wayans-E5NCBW.jpg" width="237" /></a></div>Director: Reginald Hudlin<br />
<br />
Still a vastly underrated satire of the last gasps of boxing as a premier sport in the US.<br />
<br />
Released in 1996 and obviously drawing heavily on the realities of the boxing world at the time, <i>The Great White Hype</i> tells the tale of the attempt to find a challenger to the current undefeated heavyweight champion, James "The Grim Reaper" Roper (Damon Wayans). But the problem is not that legitimate challengers don't exist - it's that the sport is rapidly fading in popularity, resulting in ever-decreasing profits for those who seek to profit from the once-wildly-lucrative industry. Seeking to crack this nut is Reverend Fred Sultan (Samuel L. Jackson), a Don King-like figure who is a shifty, manipulative promoter not above anything it takes to make a huge payday for himself. The grand solution, as he sees it, is to find a modern rarity - a white boxer who can square off against Roper and encourage greater interest through subtle and not-so-subtle race-baiting of the viewing public. The obvious problem, though, is that there isn't a decent white heavyweight fighter anywhere on the scene. The Sultan's solution? Concoct one. The Sultan and his team of sleazy underlings find heavy metal rocker Terry Conklin (Peter Berg), who had once beat the champion Roper when the two were amateurs. The rather dim Conklin hasn't fought in about a decade, but the Sultan convinces him to return to the ring, all the while whipping up a huge marketing campaign around the first black-versus-white heavyweight title bout in ages. <br />
<br />
I hadn't seen this movie since my college days back in the mid- and late-1990s, when I watched it several times and would regularly quote it with my friends. While I would never argue that it's a "great" movie, I'm still somewhat baffled that it's not given more respect as a funny, clever sports satire. I was actually completely unaware of its theatrical release, despite its having several well-known actors like Samuel L. Jackson, Jeff Goldblum, and plenty of others. A little research shows that it wasn't very well received by critics at the time, and still sports very mediocre reviews on any major film ratings site. My only guess is that the R-rating and slightly loose feel to the film may have turned off some viewers. Also, being a satire of a notoriously seedy sports industry, the movie derives a lot of its humor and message from the darker aspects of human nature. There is also a chance that, like me the first time I watched it, viewers didn't know what to make of the ending. For my part, I hadn't picked up on just how satirical the entire story was meant to be, until a friend explained it to me. Once I understood that, the movie actually went considerably up in my estimation.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blacksportsonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Great-White-Hype.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="384" data-original-width="704" height="197" src="https://blacksportsonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Great-White-Hype.jpg" width="360" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>The Sultan hyping up the fight in front of the champ,<br />"The Grim Reaper" Roper. Roper's disdain for his<br />opponent manifests itself as an utter refusal to even<br />train for the fight.</i></td></tr></tbody></table>The greatest strength here is the comedy, on all of its levels. You have plenty of broad humor, often in the form of sharp insults hurled back and forth between the fighters, promoters, and various hangers-on and greedy leeches who populate the world of pro boxing. And there's plenty of great physical humor, too, often in the form of subtle facial expressions or body movements, courtesy of brilliant comic actors like Jackson and Goldblum, but also veteran comedians like Damon Wayans, Jamie Foxx (before he showed us his serious dramatic chops a few years later), Jon Lovitz, and plenty of others. The timing and delivery of everything is spot-on; so much so that my wife, who has no great interest in boxing, was laughing plenty throughout the show. On top of the more obvious comedy is the satire element. Anyone with the slightest sense of the corruption and greed rife in boxing, coming to a fatal crescendo in the 1990s, can see that the movie knew just what to target. Perhaps the greatest fault of the sport is the comic element in <i>The Great White Hype</i> that's easiest to overlook - that of the Marvin Shabazz character. In the movie, Shabazz is presented as a true, legitimate contender to the champion Roper. But just as often happened in boxing in its final waning years, fractures and corruption in and around the sport prevented fans from seeing the actual two best fighters square off against each other. It was a slow, bitter pill for fans and aficionados of boxing to swallow, and it's what ultimately saw the long-popular sport slip so far down in the sports-viewing public's consciousness. By the end of the 1990s, MMA fighting was on the upswing and soon took over boxings coveted place as a wildly popular combat sport.</div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Anyone who enjoys boxing really should give this one a watch, and I would also recommend it to anyone who can appreciate a solid R-rated satire of any form of entertainment. The comedy and acting are enough to give you some good laughs, even if you don't have any great care about boxing. </div>
Scott Hearonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00119613582465607596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1464878444709017125.post-5560499962191213692020-08-09T16:00:00.123-04:002020-08-09T16:00:01.203-04:00Lost Highway (1997)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://resizing.flixster.com/0sigF6isBcYmUDvg9CKo7bCamo8=/206x305/v1.bTsxMTYxNTg1NTtqOzE4NTg0OzEyMDA7NTc5Ozc3Mg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; display: block; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; padding: 1em 0px;"><img border="0" data-original-height="305" data-original-width="206" height="381" src="https://resizing.flixster.com/0sigF6isBcYmUDvg9CKo7bCamo8=/206x305/v1.bTsxMTYxNTg1NTtqOzE4NTg0OzEyMDA7NTc5Ozc3Mg" width="258" /></a></div>Director: David Lynch<br />
<br />
And Lynch gets Lynchier. If you're in the right mood, this is a very good thing.<br />
<br />
This movie follows professional jazz saxophonist Fred Madison (Bill Pullman), who one day receives a mysterious VHS tape from an unknown source. This sets off a sequence of confusing and frightening events that lead to Fred's arrest for murdering his wife Renee (Patricia Arquette), a horrific act which is seemingly caught on tape but of which Fred has no memory. While in prison awaiting a death sentence, Fred inexplicably into a young mechanic, Pete Dayton (Balthazar Getty). A dazed Pete is released by the flummoxed prison warden and returns to his life at an auto repair shop. There, he restarts a relationship with an organized crime boss, the intimidating and brutal "Mr. Eddie" (Robert Loggia). Pete begins an affair with Mr. Eddie's mistress Alice, a platinum blonde lookalike of Renee Madison. At Alice's pleading, Pete begins taking revenge on Mr Eddie and others who Alice claims forced her into the pornography industry. Along the way, Pete transforms back into Fred, who completes the grisly task of killing Mr Eddie and his gangsters.<br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Lost Highway</i> was David Lynch's seventh feature-length film, nearly all of which I've seen (except 1990's <i>Wild at Heart</i>). Of those first six films, I find <i>Lost Highway</i> to be the most distinctively his, featuring nearly all of the traits that film lovers associate with the eccentric filmmaker. There is mystery, murder, beautiful women, and at least one man stuck in the middle of sinister forces. There are also supernatural elements involving swapped personalities, possible doppelgangers, and even suggestions of time travel. In short, it's not a straightforward narrative or story in any traditional way. It's also the most sex-drenched of any of his movies, even the sometimes disturbingly graphic <i><a href="https://scottsfilmwatch.blogspot.com/2020/07/blue-velvet-1986.html" target="_blank">Blue Velvet</a></i>. It can all be a bit much to take, if you're not in the right headspace for it. But if you are, it's a fascinating visual and narrative exploration of many primal, human forces that often seem to underscore Lynch's movies and shows. My attempts to unravel what, exactly, was happening with Fred Madison and his wife (?) had me pondering some deeper, more profound possibilities regarding sex and violence and how they can be intertwined. These are themes explored really well in the David Cronenberg classic <i><a href="https://scottsfilmwatch.blogspot.com/2015/08/gangster-flick-3-pack-history-of.html" target="_blank">A History of Violence</a></i>, but <i>Lost Highway</i> offers us a dark, hallucinatory fantasy version of it. </div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://reelfilm.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/losthighway.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; display: block; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 1em 0px;"><img border="0" data-original-height="276" data-original-width="650" height="178" src="https://reelfilm.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/losthighway.png" width="416" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>This creepy, mysterious figure appears to both Fred and Pete,<br />though his actual nature is unclear. Like most David Lynch <br />works, there's more than a little that's left unsaid, leaving us<br />viewers to fill in the pitch-black blanks.</i></td></tr></tbody></table>As much as any Lynch film, there's a sinister tone and undercurrent running through everything. It's more obvious here due to the visuals and music. Notably more than <i>Blue Velvet</i>, many scenes feature hard angles, deep shadows, and dark costumes and settings. This isn't to say that the movie is devoid of color; more that the vibrant visuals stand out even more in between the many moments and sequences shrouded in the darker elements. On top of this is a soundtrack dominated by hard-hitting, industrial heavy metal music, including genre icons Nine Inch Nails, Marilyn Manson (who has a small role in the movie), and German band Rammstein. For my part, I enjoy this kind of music, so this is an enhancement for me. Others are likely to find it repulsive or grating, though they would have to admit that it certainly fits the mood and themes of the picture. </div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><i>Lost Highway</i> is just a mind-bender. I could probably watch it ten more times, coming up with a new theory each time as to what is happening and why. But rather than find this frustrating, I actually enjoy it. For me, this is a surreal movie in all the right ways. It taps into a dreamlike (or nightmarelike, to be more precise) wavelength that defies simple interpretation, which is what some of the best works of art do. I've been on a monster David Lynch kick lately, having watched every <i><a href="https://scottsfilmwatch.blogspot.com/2020/06/idiot-boxing-twin-peaks-original-two.html" target="_blank">Twin Peaks</a></i> episode and movie, <i><a href="https://scottsfilmwatch.blogspot.com/2020/07/before-i-die-642-eraserhead.html" target="_blank">Eraserhead</a>, Blue Velvet</i>, and now <i>Lost Highway</i>. And I'm still eager to rewatch <i>Mulholland Drive</i> and maybe even see <i>Inland Empire</i>, one of the few of his I haven't watched before. As unusual and challenging as Lynch movies can be, I'm still on board. </div>
Scott Hearonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00119613582465607596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1464878444709017125.post-64015861985522202412020-08-07T20:00:00.037-04:002020-08-07T20:00:00.371-04:00Pee-Wee's Big Adventure (1985)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://assets.website-files.com/5b7ee9ed1bd1a90c738feda2/5ee3c967f503ec7a87c1f276_pee-wee-sbig-adventure-a.jpg" style="clear: right; display: block; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 1em 0px;"><img border="0" data-original-height="688" data-original-width="555" height="282" src="https://assets.website-files.com/5b7ee9ed1bd1a90c738feda2/5ee3c967f503ec7a87c1f276_pee-wee-sbig-adventure-a.jpg" width="227" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>The movie poster tells you nearly <br />everything you need to know: a goofy- <br />looking guy, acting goofy and clinging <br />desperately to his bike. That covers <br />about 90% of this film.</i></td></tr></tbody></table>Director: Tim Burton<br />
<br />
This movie is still an all-time classic of novel, silly, comic magic.<br />
<br />
<i>Pee-Wee's Big Adventure</i> is the story of Pee-Wee (Paul Reubens), a man who wears a gray suit and red bowtie, but who usually acts very much like a child, including all of a 10-year old's joys, tantrums, pettiness, and enthusiasm. He lives in a garishly-decorated house filled with all sorts of toys and amusing contraptions, and his most prized possession is his classic, red and white bicycle - an object with which he has an intense, almost religious bond. When this object of his deepest affection is stolen, Pee-Wee goes on a cross-country odyssey to track down the one thing that means the world to him.<br />
<br />
I must have seen this movie 15 or 20 times within the first year or two after it was released in theaters, back in 1985. Being between the ages of 10 and 12, I was the perfect age to fall in love with this movie, as quirky and silly as it was. Watching and listening to this bizarre, nasally, wildly overconfident fellow with his Peter Pan complex was hilariously hypnotic. Watching it now with my wife, both of us in our forties? Still hilarious, though for some slightly different reasons.<br />
<br />
This was singular director Tim Burton's very first feature movie, and one could make a strong argument that it's still his best (<i>Ed Wood</i> is probably right there, too). We didn't know it at the time, but you could see his fingerprints all over it. The same visual and tonal fingerprints that we would see in <i>Beetlejuice</i>, <i>Edward Scissorhands</i>, his two Batman movies, and every film he's done in the 35 years since the Pee-Wee movie. In <i>Big Adventure</i>, he gets to thrust the manchild title character into the big, wide world, where he comes across all sorts of move archetypes: an escaped convict, a diner waitress with dreams of escaping to France, a motorcycle gang, and all sorts of others. The Pee-Wee character is fairly funny on his own, in his goofy way. But you throw him against other weirdos and outcasts, many of whom take themselves way too seriously? Comedy gold.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cDOYU3f7D-k/Vu66x7rV2RI/AAAAAAAAI-k/jrBTAzaZq1ISuEx-gFeEoWNd_riDUhMmQ/s1600/Peew27.jpg" style="clear: left; display: block; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 1em 0px;"><img border="0" data-original-height="901" data-original-width="1600" height="230" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cDOYU3f7D-k/Vu66x7rV2RI/AAAAAAAAI-k/jrBTAzaZq1ISuEx-gFeEoWNd_riDUhMmQ/w410-h230/Peew27.jpg" width="410" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Pee-Wee and his first on-the-road "partner," Mickey. Every </i><br /><i>exchange between these two is hilarious and memorable,<br />whether it's dialog or physical humor.</i></td></tr></tbody></table>Then there's the comic acting. Paul Reubens struck on the genius idea of the childlike-but-sometimes-risque Pee-Wee character years before the movie, performing him in a successful stage show. His timing, facial expressions, and voice control were outstanding with this strange little guy, right down to every annoyed grunt and high-pitched, staccato laugh. The rest of the movie has a ton of comic acting veterans, too, some familiar and some less so. Whatever the case, under Tim Burton's direction, the humor still hits. No, it's not high art. But the whole thing operates on its own magical wavelength that I don't think has been tapped into since, and maybe never will be again.<br />
<br />
If you don't like straight-up goofy movies, then stay away from this one. But if there's still any part of you that laughs like a crazy person when you see a 9-year old kid put their underwear on their head and start dancing for no good reason, then go back and watch <i>Pee-Wee's Big Adventure</i>. Whether it's the first time or the 50th time, you're going to get some serious laughs. </div>
Scott Hearonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00119613582465607596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1464878444709017125.post-73292436636664115802020-08-05T20:00:00.000-04:002020-08-05T20:00:01.714-04:00Bloodsport (1988)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://media1.myfolio.com/users/NicoleAshford/images/d4qmq6s8ej.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="618" height="320" src="https://media1.myfolio.com/users/NicoleAshford/images/d4qmq6s8ej.jpg" width="247" /></a></div>
Director: Newt Arnold<br />
<br />
A staple of my youth, this is one of the great "good-bad" movies offered during the 1980s and '90s.<br />
<br />
<i>Bloodsport</i> tells the "true story" of mixed martial artist Frank Dux, a U.S. Army officer who took part in the infamous Kumite, an underground fighting competition held in Hong Kong. To honor his recently-deceased martial arts <i>sensei</i>, Senzo Tanaka, Dux enrolls in the Kumite, hoping to fulfill Tanaka's dream for his own son, who had died several years earlier. While evading U.S. government authorities who seek to pull him out of the illegal competition, Dux tears through the competition in the Kumite, including an epic final match against the intimidating and brutal reigning champion, Chong Li.<br />
<br />
<i>Bloodsport</i> is a master class in poor plotting, lame scripting, and a lot of really, <i>really</i> bad acting. The cliches are almost endless, the plot holes baffling, and there are only two actors in the whole movie who actually know how to really act. So why do so many people still enjoy it, including me? Two reasons. The main one is the Kumite itself, and a secondary reason is that the movie accidentally fell into the "so bad it's good" zone that is often the mark of cult movies.<br />
<br />
Let's get into the "bad." This was the very first starting role for Jean Claude Van Damme, the Belgian muscleman and "fighter" who flirted with being the next big action star in the late 1980s and early '90s. Thanks to his good looks, perfectly chiseled physique, and dazzling athleticism, he was the type of movie actor who many young people either wanted to be or to be having sex with. But it was all too clear from his performance in <i>Bloodsport</i> that acting was far from the forte of the "Muscles from Brussels." With a stilted delivery and odd intonation, it could be painful to see or hear him try to emote. He would get a bit better in this area as his career wore on, but only so much. In <i>Bloodsport</i>, it was still extremely rough. And the rest of the cast is almost universally as bad. The only two actors who come off as skilled pros are the ones who most audiences will recognize from other American movies: Donald Gibb (best known as the iconic "Ogre" from the <i>Revenge of the Nerds</i> movies) and a young Forest Whitaker. But even these legitimately capable actors could only do so much with the tepid script they were given. In a stroke of blind luck, though, the rest of the actors are so bad, and the script so cheesy, that much of it comes off as funny. Unintentionally funny, yes, but funny all the same. The combination of dopey dialog, delivered by bad actors in heavy accents results in tons of hilariously quotable moments.<br />
<br />
The plot outside of the Kumite? Forget it. There are more than a few head-scratchers without answers that they're barely worth your time. Why the hell is Senzo Tanaka training his 8-year-old son to take part in a full-contact, underground fighting competition where people are known to have died? Who on earth is this Victor guy who just shows up to "manage" and guide Dux and Jackson? And on it goes. Add to that an uber-cheesy soundtrack and a few laughable "chase scene" segments, and the silliness goes off the charts.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://fogsmoviereviews.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/bloodsport_chong_li.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="180" src="https://fogsmoviereviews.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/bloodsport_chong_li.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Martial arts movie veteran Bolo Yeung, as the frightening<br />Chong Li. He's not a sophisticated character by any means,<br />but he's effective at making you pray that Dux beats him.</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
But the Kumite tournament itself? Still extremely satisfying to watch, I must say. Firstly, it was only on this most recent viewing that I actually appreciated how good the visuals are in this movie. The camerawork, fight choreography, costumes, and lighting are all excellent. The people and colors pop off the screen, giving it an appealing look to it all. And many of the fighters are very distinctive in their looks, fighting styles, and outfits, giving the Kumite an enjoyable video game feel. More than these, though, is the presentation, structure, and unfolding of the tournament itself. For the first half hour or so, it's mostly a mystery, though we've seen some of the fighters preparing. Once the first fight kicks off, though, we can see that the movie's going to put on a good show. Then, the second fight arrives and we get to see Chong Li in action. Played by longtime martial arts movie villain Bolo Yeung, the Chong Li character is one of the most memorable martial arts villains of all time. The ever-glaring, nearly mute Chong Li (he only has four lines in the whole movie) is like an unstoppable force of fighting destruction. A former bodybuilding champion in his native China, actor Yeung has a strikingly massive physique, and he uses it to play Chong Li as an eerily quiet, menacing force whose sole purpose is to destroy his competition on the Kumite mat. Thanks to fun, measured fight choreography and effective camerawork and editing, <i>Bloodsport</i> gives us fight sequences that are still entertaining.<br />
<br />
Does the combat look "real"? Hell no. Unlike more modern fight movies, which often have studied actual mixed martial arts experts and incorporated them into the look and feel of action movies in the last twenty years, <i>Bloodsport</i> is more in line with old school, East Asian kung-fu movies or even pro wrestling. Nobody would actually win a fight trying to pull off the moves seen here. If Frank Dux tried a split-leg, flying roundhouse kick or Chong Li tried a 360-degree backhand against an actual MMA fighter, their clocks would be thoroughly cleaned in about five seconds. Movies like <i>Bloodsport</i> aren't about that. They're more like ballet movies for people who like fantasy violence. Yes, the characters on screen are trying to hurt each other. Badly. But there's a grace, power, and athleticism to the proceedings that can be captivating to watch. <i>Bloodsport</i> gets this part of it so right that it trumps all of the other painfully obvious weaknesses.<br />
<br />
So this movie is still plenty of fun. While I've only ever seen about a half dozen of Van Damme's many movies, <i>Bloodsport</i> is probably still the only one that I can enjoy rewatching. <i>Kickboxer</i> I recall being decent, with some of the same strengths and weaknesses, but without the fun tournament structure of Van Damme's first. </div>
Scott Hearonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00119613582465607596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1464878444709017125.post-33955636056839486992020-08-03T20:00:00.000-04:002020-08-03T20:00:04.381-04:00Idiot Boxing: Black Monday, seasons 1 and 2 (2019-2020)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://resizing.flixster.com/GgC3809obc3H65l3IjRPJY7EQ2E=/206x305/v1.dDs0MDkyNzI7ajsxODQ5OTsxMjAwOzEyNTA7MTg3NQ" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="305" data-original-width="206" src="https://resizing.flixster.com/GgC3809obc3H65l3IjRPJY7EQ2E=/206x305/v1.dDs0MDkyNzI7ajsxODQ5OTsxMjAwOzEyNTA7MTg3NQ" /></a></div>
A raucous comedy in the vein of <i><a href="https://scottsfilmwatch.blogspot.com/2019/08/idiot-boxing-hbo-finales-edition-game.html" target="_blank">Veep</a></i> or <i>In the Thick of It</i>, but set among the jungle that was Wall Street stockbroker firms in the wild era of Reagan's unregulated 1980s. Unfortunately, it eventually suffers from some of the same weaknesses as its main executive producers' other shows and movies.<br />
<br />
Set in the late 1980s mostly on Wall Street in Manhattan, we follow the fictional, wild and rebellious trading firm The Jammer Group, headed up by the brash and bombastic Maurice "Mo" Monroe (Don Cheadle). Exactly a year before the historically brutal stock market crash in October of 1987, Mo and his partner Dawn (Regina Hall) use shady means to hire the fresh-faced, aspiring young broker Blair Pfaff (Andrew Rannells). Pfaff, though a wide-eyed neophyte to the cut-throat world of the New York Stock Exchange, is engaged to the heiress of a massive denim empire which Mo and Dawn hope to acquire. This is just the first in countless underhanded schemes and plots that various greedy parties concoct in order to amass wealth. The first season ends with the market crash of 1987, while the second season follows most of the characters through the following year, as they deal with the massive fallout from the crash. Every step of the way, these financial predators do copious amounts of cocaine and hurl infinite crushing insults at each other.<br />
<br />
I really liked the first season, but the second one flagged a bit for me. Maybe even to the point that I won't bother with any future seasons.<br />
<br />
Anyone who watched <i>Black Monday</i> can't help but think of the Martin Scorsese film <i><a href="https://scottsfilmwatch.blogspot.com/2015/03/retro-trio-take-shelter-2011-wolf-of.html" target="_blank">The Wolf of Wall Street</a></i>, which also depicts much of the same unbridled greed and monstrous behavior of certain NYSE brokerage firms through the 1980s, '90s, and early 2000s. This show very much taps into that same vein, depicting the mad circus that can surround the ravenous pursuit of money. Tonally, the show usually operates on the same wavelength as the brilliant HBO show <i><a href="https://scottsfilmwatch.blogspot.com/2019/08/idiot-boxing-hbo-finales-edition-game.html" target="_blank">Veep</a></i>, and it is clearly at its best when it does. The pop-culture-laced, lightning-quick, and ruthless insults really are the best thing about the show's writing, along with the constant reminders of just how garish tastes and fashion were at the time. As long as your OK with quick, clever jokes that are inappropriate in nearly every way imaginable, then you're bound to get some laughs.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/timeoff-black-monday-lede.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="550" data-original-width="800" height="219" src="https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/timeoff-black-monday-lede.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>The show does a good job early on of depicting the off-the-<br />charts stress and the merciless heckling that goes on within<br />Wall Street trading firms.</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The acting is also great, most obviously from one of my favorites, Don Cheadle. Cheadle has long shown his incredible acting range, and <i>Black Monday</i> utilizes plenty of it. As Mo Monroe, he's usually a fast-talking, charming conman, but he also has moments of gravity. Or at the very least, brilliantly feigned gravity in order to manipulate someone. The muscles he gets to flex most on this show are his comic timing and subtle comic gestures. As with many of his roles, he just commands your attention, even when he's seemingly not "doing" anything in a particular moment or scene. Equally impressive is Regina Hall as his partner, Dawn. I only really knew Hall from seeing her in <i>Girls' Trip</i> last year, but I hope to see her in more as she seems to have that same kind of acting agility that the very best possess. And throughout the show are plenty of other recognizable comic actors, such as Paul Scheer, Ken Marino, Horatio Sanz, and others, all of whom play their roles well.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://tvseriesfinale.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/blackmonday03.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="800" height="213" src="https://tvseriesfinale.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/blackmonday03.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Keith and Mo, backed up by a pair of roller-blading thugs<br />while they negotiate with cocaine dealers in Miami. This was<br />the prelude to one of the several shockingly violent sequences<br />in season two. I didn't find any of them particularly funny.</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
So with these clear strengths, why might I jump ship? Basically, the tone of the show just started getting muddled throughout the second season, mostly by oddly dark or graphically violent little turns. This is something I've felt about several of the other shows and movies associated with partners and executive co-producers Seth Rogan and Evan Goldberg. Whether in the stoner comedy <i>Pineapple Express</i>, the dictator-lampooning <i><a href="https://scottsfilmwatch.blogspot.com/2015/01/new-release-interview-2014.html" target="_blank">The Interview</a></i>, or comic-based fantasy show <i><a href="https://scottsfilmwatch.blogspot.com/2020/05/idiot-boxing-preacher-season-4-2019.html" target="_blank">Preacher</a></i>, these two genuinely funny fellows have often injected shock value into their productions where none was needed. Or at the very least, they've not always gotten the balance or the execution quite right. With <i>Black Monday</i>, the first season was very much like <i>Veep</i>, which always had a perfect sense of itself: never trying to be genuinely dramatic or overly serious in any way. Any only once or twice did I ever feel like the darkness overwhelmed the comedy. In the second season of <i>Black Monday</i>, though, we get a brutally, realistically bloody gunfight in a bank that kills multiple people, we have a horrifically crippled and disfigured rival of Mo slouching and slurring around offices, and some flat-out bizarrely twisted humor centering on incest. I like to think I'm a person who can laugh at a good joke about anything, as long as the joke is actually clever enough. Here, as with other shows of theirs, I think Rogan, Goldberg, and the other producers and writers mistook "shocking" for "funny" a few too many times. And the balance got noticeably worse towards the end of the second season, with more and more off-color and, in my view, unfunny gags.<br />
<br />
If and when the show kicks off a third season next year, I may dip back in, to see if it's righted its course a bit. I hope so, since I enjoy the cast and a decent amount of the writing. But if I tune in and the first episodes offer me suicides and gory tragedies, like the second season did, then I'm out. </div>
Scott Hearonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00119613582465607596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1464878444709017125.post-34161680857485789742020-08-01T16:00:00.000-04:002020-08-01T16:00:06.023-04:00The Social Network (2010)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.goldenglobes.com/sites/default/files/articles/cover_images/2011-the_social_network.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="360" height="320" src="https://www.goldenglobes.com/sites/default/files/articles/cover_images/2011-the_social_network.jpg" width="192" /></a></div>
Director: David Fincher<br />
<br />
Slick dramatization of the construction and meteoric growth of facebook, as told through a focus on its founder, Mark Zuckerberg.<br />
<br />
Rather than a Zuckerberg biopic, this movie covers Zuckerberg's initial conception of some of facebook's foundational elements while a student at Harvard, the months he spent building the site, and the year or so immediately after, when the site grew at a freakishly exponential rate to quickly become a global phenomenon. It also happened to make Zuckerberg, then still barely in his mid-twenties, one of the richest people on the planet. The movie also depicts Zuckerberg as pulling a few semi-shady tricks, such as "borrowing" parts of his original concept from a pair of fellow Harvard students and elbowing out his former friend and initial investor in the site, Eduardo "Wardo" Saverin. Woven throughout the film are moments taking place in law offices, presumably a few years after facebook has exploded into a multibillion-dollar company, where Zuckerberg fends off lawsuits from people who seem to have some case for being owed at least some of Zuckerberg's immense wealth from the site.<br />
<br />
This was actually the second time I watched <i>The Social Network</i>, and I still have some mixed feelings about it. This is true of all "biopic" or "based on real people and events" kinds of films or TV shows to me - one can never really know where reality ends and "artistic license" begins. And frankly, that's always far more palatable when we're dealing with long-dead people, such as the <a href="https://scottsfilmwatch.blogspot.com/2020/07/john-adams-tv-mini-series-2008.html" target="_blank"><i>John Adams</i> mini-series that recently rewatched and reviewed</a>. Not to mention that that show was meticulously researched, based on reams of documentation. <i>The Social Network,</i> on the other hand, is about people who are all still very much alive and barely into middle age. More than that, though, is that there was very clearly some license taken to mold these real people more into more dynamic characters for a dramatic movie, rather than to offer authentic portrayals of them. This "punching up" of people never sits terribly well with me, and I can never shake the notion that many, many people watch such movies and equate it with reality - a very dangerous effect.<br />
<br />
With all that said, I want to give my thoughts of the movie mostly as a dramatization. Yes, it has much larger themes that go well beyond the individuals involved, and those transcend however one might feel about using living people's lives as fodder for a scripted drama. My thoughts on the human-centered elements, though, will stay focused on the narrative and cinematic elements.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f3/27/3d/f3273d489ee9dbb239330dfdbe07c572.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="345" data-original-width="540" height="204" src="https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f3/27/3d/f3273d489ee9dbb239330dfdbe07c572.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>The Winklevoss twins - just two of several people who sue<br />Mark Zuckerberg for one reason or another. While the two<br />seem to have had a case, they are presented as just the sort<br />of entitled, privileged, and popular figures who stoke<br />resentment in the film's version of Zuckerberg.</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<i>The Social Network</i> is a brilliantly done movie, no doubt. Everything about the story construction, pacing, acting, visuals, and sound is really hard to criticize in any way. Right from the jump, the script (written by dialog showman Aaron Sorkin) is off and running at 100 miles per hour, and within a few minutes, we're able to form a pretty strong opinion about the movie's version of Zuckerberg. Thanks to Fincher's tight, masterful direction, there's a buzz around seeing Zuckerberg pull together tidbits from others, meld them with his own ideas, and frantically employ his elite-level computer programming skills to obsessively build something that has changed life and communication as we all know it. There's not a wasted scene in this 2-hour film, with every one of them either advancing the plot or revealing something about the characters. This is unsurprising, given that the director was David Fincher - a man behind many great movies, including <i><a href="https://scottsfilmwatch.blogspot.com/2020/07/fight-club-1999.html" target="_blank">Fight Club</a></i>, <i>Se7en</i>, and <i><a href="https://scottsfilmwatch.blogspot.com/2015/03/newish-releases-gone-girl-2014-horrible.html" target="_blank">Gone Girl</a></i>.<br />
<br />
The dramatic elements are, I must admit, brilliantly crafted. I do want to emphasize that word - "crafted." While these are based on real people and real events, I didn't have to do any research to be pretty sure that the characterizations, words, and specific actions of every one were either exaggerated, massaged, or completely fabricated in the name of drama. I must say, though, that it works really well. Zuckerberg is portrayed as a pretty despicable, insufferably arrogant little man. His general intelligence and genius as a computer programmer are undeniable, but the movie makes it abundantly clear that its version of him is a guy who, shunned by his girlfriend, basically creates facebook in the throes of a petulant, misogynistic hissy fit. There are some glimmers, especially early in the movie, of a person who does have grander ideals about opening up communications to the betterment of humankind, but these aspects of his character are mostly kept on the backburner. For the most part, Zuckerberg is shown as a guy who feels spurned by women, condescended by richer and more popular people, and who is more interested in being right than in truly being loved. It's not exactly novel to dream up the "nerd who holds a grudge against those who overlooked him," but it is an interesting paradox to show that nerd become wildly rich and famous by building a system that is meant to help people open up to one another. And therein lies some of the depth of the movie. Made in 2010, only about five years after facebook's initial launch on a large scale, the world was still only just coming to realize that social networking sites were not exactly the utopias of human connection that many had hoped and believed they were or would be. And now, a solid 15 years after facebook's explosion onto the world scene, the questions it raises only become more imposing.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/hbvKnqJ7aEt3aMsvpKicj73Let8=/0x0:1101x701/1200x800/filters:focal(67x205:243x381)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/53737885/Screen_Shot_2017_03_16_at_11.53.09_AM.0.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="800" height="213" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/hbvKnqJ7aEt3aMsvpKicj73Let8=/0x0:1101x701/1200x800/filters:focal(67x205:243x381)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/53737885/Screen_Shot_2017_03_16_at_11.53.09_AM.0.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Whether through vicious put-downs or just his general<br />demeanor and posture, Eisenberg radiates condescension and<br />impatience during nearly every second of this movie. I'm no<br />great fan of the real Zuckerberg, but it's hard to avoid the<br />opinion that the movie exaggerated just how dislikable he is.</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
While Zuckerberg is portrayed mostly as a dislikable, self-involved villain, there is some complexity to him, the other characters, and their relationships with each other. There are more than a few shades of grey running throughout this film, such as who was really in the right when it came to the intellectual property of facebook. The way it's shown in the movie, Zuckerberg was pretty underhanded with more than a few people. At the same time, you can't help but think that most of the people who sue him are over-reaching a bit and not recognizing how Zuckerberg really was doing all the heavy lifting, in terms of the overall concept and the actual coding of the entire thing. The movie also does a good job of constantly presenting facebook as a conundrum. Almost from the jump, its shallow, addictive nature is presented and shown to be coming from less-than-noble elements of human nature. This theme alone makes the story engaging, and it will continue to do so for as long as social media is part of our lives.<br />
<br />
A final thought on Aaron Sorkin's writing, and it's the same thought that I express regarding screenwriters who are the "dialog wizards" of the movie world. For a while, the three who have always come to my mind have been Sorkin, Tarantino, and Joss Whedon. Such writers are wonderfully clever and have fantastic minds and ears for snappy, catchy, and often hilarious dialog. Film after film, these writers have provided us with endless "quotable quotes" and memorable scenes, almost always from sharp, witty characters of their creation. However, such dialog magic can often threaten to trump the actual story or anything else happening on the screen, resulting in a sense that moments are contrived or manipulated just so a character can deliver a good zinger that the writer was proud of. It can also result in lines that may not sound natural from the mouths of a particular character. I had this feeling during much of <i>The Social Network, </i>with nearly every single character having just the right lightning-quick, whip-smart retort to whatever someone else says. While it makes sense to have a slighted, genius-level intellect like a Mark Zuckerberg have two dozen back-breaking insults loaded in the chamber at any given moment, it feels a bit less authentic coming from the more mundane, "normal" people in the movie. Sorry, but not everyone in the words has a bottomless bag of quips and biting remarks eternally on hand, and it can strain credibility to present such a world. I have a ton of respect for writers like Sorkin, as they come up with so many genuinely great lines. I just wish they were a bit more economical with them, as the overuse of their witty dialog ends up creating an overly polished sound to the proceedings.<br />
<br />
By any standard of a movie in and of itself, <i>The Social Network</i> is great. As a work meant to portray very real, still-living and still-evolving people and events? It can be misleading at best. Either way, it's worth viewing and discussing at least once. </div>
Scott Hearonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00119613582465607596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1464878444709017125.post-34624710527138766662020-07-30T20:00:00.000-04:002020-07-30T20:00:00.353-04:00John Adams, TV mini-series (2008)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://static01.nyt.com/images/2008/03/14/arts/14adam-600.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="330" data-original-width="600" height="176" src="https://static01.nyt.com/images/2008/03/14/arts/14adam-600.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>John and Abigail Adams, during their younger days in the<br />Boston area. There's never any doubt as to just how tough<br />people had to be just to survive in those days. Without some<br />North Face gear and a Costco nearby, most of us probably<br />would have been dead inside a month.</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
A great, dramatic look at one of the less glamorous founding fathers of the United States, looking at some of the seminal moments during the United States' formation and its earliest decades as an independent country.<br />
<br />
Based on the book by best-selling biographer David McCullough, <i>John Adams</i> is a 7-part mini-series that dramatizes the many key actions, momentous occasions, and shifting relationships in the long life of the U.S.'s second president. It was this show that taught me, along with probably millions of other people, just how many critical moments in U.S. history involved Adams in one way or another. It's not always dramatic, often depicting Adams's moments of intense boredom and isolation from more important events. And there are plenty of moments dedicated to his relationships with his wife and children, which can often be slower and more tender. But if you enjoy a sense of an authentic, well-rounded look at an important historical figure, then it's hard not to like this.<br />
<br />
The show is divided into its seven episodes based on fairly distinct periods in the life of John Adams and the country:<br />
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li>His time as a respected lawyer in Boston, before the actual start of the Revolutionary War.</li>
<li>The events that build up to the Founding Fathers deciding to declare Independence from Britain, officially declaring war against the most powerful army in the world. </li>
<li>The Revolutionary War, most of which Adams spent in Europe trying to gain support from potential ally nations such as France and Holland.</li>
<li>After the U.S. defeats the British, Adams is back in the U.S., representing Massachusetts and negotiating with other states' representatives to form the new government.</li>
<li>Adams's eight years as the country's first vice president, serving under George Washington.</li>
<li>Adams's single four-year term as the country's second president.</li>
<li>Adams's twenty-five years of post-presidential "retirement," mostly back on his farm in Massachusetts. </li>
</ol>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://i1.wp.com/us-east-1.linodeobjects.com/gunaxin/2011/07/John-Adams-George-Washington-john-adams-1027603_1280_854.jpg?fit=560%2C374&ssl=1" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="374" data-original-width="560" height="213" src="https://i1.wp.com/us-east-1.linodeobjects.com/gunaxin/2011/07/John-Adams-George-Washington-john-adams-1027603_1280_854.jpg?fit=560%2C374&ssl=1" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>George Washington's inauguration in Philadelphia. David<br />Morse's turn as the country's quiet but beloved first president<br />was just one of the countless great performances throughout<br />this series.</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Across all seven episodes, we see how Adams was a highly principled, honorable man who stuck to his convictions with intense ferocity. Ferocity, in fact, which often repelled colleagues and sometimes even friends and allies. By all accounts, the man had a vicious temper which often cost him greater support. The show does nothing to sugarcoat this part of his nature, often showing his frequent blowups at anyone who spends more than an hour or two with him. This is one of several aspects of the show which set it apart from many other biopics - it makes very clear that, in more than a few ways, the subject was not always easy to like. But this also drives home the fact that his merits were strong enough to overcome them. As disagreeable and pugnacious as the man could be, John Adams's integrity was such that he reached the highest offices in the country. Even modern historians rate his presidency as generally a positive one, despite only being one term.<br />
<br />
All of this is brought to life through amazing film techniques and production values, on every possible level. The acting is impeccable, with Paul Giamatti turning in a masterpiece performance as the stocky, snarling, combative man of rule and law. Playing his wife - noted mind Abigail Adams - was Laura Linney, who exhibits every bit of the intelligence, tenderness, and toughness that the real Mrs. Adams apparently had. And every one of the many supporting actors nailed their roles, from the most famous to the lesser-knowns and unknowns from over two centuries ago. If you know anything about this time period, there's plenty of fun to be had in seeing how founders like Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, and others are depicted, and there's plenty to be learned about those people we don't read much about in our history books in school.<br />
<br />
The writing is incredible. While the show is based on David McCullough's biography, the scripts were all written by Kirk Ellis, who seemed to have a brilliant eye and ear for distilling key moments into efficient scenes, taught with gravity and emotion. My wife, a poet with an especially keen ear for anachronistic language, was extremely impressed by the authentic diction used throughout the show. This was probably due in part to Ellis's drawing from Adams's and others' original notes and correspondences. However it was done, there's a wonderfully genuine, erudite sound to the dialogue that reminds us of just how learned and articulate this country's leading minds were at the time.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://resizing.flixster.com/KUsKBtAwwgdhIouojab_OBEMJ1s=/fit-in/1152x864/v1.dDsyNjQ4NjI7ajsxODQ5ODsxMjAwOzYwMDszMzk" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="339" data-original-width="600" height="180" src="https://resizing.flixster.com/KUsKBtAwwgdhIouojab_OBEMJ1s=/fit-in/1152x864/v1.dDsyNjQ4NjI7ajsxODQ5ODsxMjAwOzYwMDszMzk" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>In the third episode, we're treated to more humorous moments,<br />such as the sore thumb John Adams trying to bully his way<br />through a wildly decadent France. His partner, Ben Franklin<br />(far left) had no such trouble in the libertine country.</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Then there are the visuals. The sets and costumes are amazing. Not in a dazzling way, but rather they looked like they could have been the very real places the events depicted occurred and the very real clothing that these people wore. I can't be sure, be it seems that there was no artificial lighting used at all - only candlelight when necessary, giving an even deeper sense of authenticity to the look and feel of everything. Going a step further, the showrunners decided not to use any type of makeup or cosmetics that didn't actually exist at the time. We see freckles and skin discolorations, badly stained teeth, and frizzy hair aplenty. Some viewers might find this unpleasing to look at, but I enjoyed the almost tangible reality of it.<br />
<br />
The only thing about this entire show that got to me a bit by the final couple of episodes was a minor visual element - that the show uses a ton of closeups. And I don't mean regular closeups. I mean "you can count each scraggly hair in Paul Giamatti's nostrils and ears" kind of closeups. For much of the show's length, this shoulder-to-shoulder proximity works well to convey intimacy, but there was a point where it eventually made me feel a bit claustrophobic.<br />
<br />
This is just a great show, and it always will be. I would love to see the same treatment given to several other key figures in this country's history, or any country's history for that matter. Short of reading a thorough biography of a key historical figure, this is maybe the best example of how to tell such a story in cinema. </div>
Scott Hearonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00119613582465607596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1464878444709017125.post-87832114788965070572020-07-28T20:00:00.000-04:002020-07-28T20:00:11.130-04:00Blue Velvet (1986)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1416/8662/products/blue_velvet_1986_original_film_art_f_1200x.jpg?v=1569302598" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="537" height="320" src="https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1416/8662/products/blue_velvet_1986_original_film_art_f_1200x.jpg?v=1569302598" width="214" /></a></div>
Director: David Lynch<br />
<br />
Pretty riveting, dark neo-<i>noir</i> type film which is the most accessible film I've seen from noted surrealist David Lynch.<br />
<br />
I recall watching this one once before, about 20 years ago, though I had zero recollection of the second half of the movie. This means that I either fell asleep, or that I left the friend's house where we were watching it before it was over. Whatever the case, I'm happy that I finally went back to it.<br />
<br />
The movie follows Jeffrey Beaumont (Kyle MacLachlan), a young man who returns to his cozy American town from college after his father is hospitalized after falling ill. While walking in a field near his neighborhood, Jeffrey makes the grisly discovery of a human ear lying on the ground. He takes the ear to the police, but can't seem to leave it at that. With the help of a police detective's daughter, Sandy (Laura Dern), he employs some amateur sleuthing techniques to dig deeper into the mystery. Before long, he is wrapped up with the sultry lounge singer Dorothy (Isabella Rosalini) and a maniac criminal, Frank (Dennis Hopper). Jeffrey is inexorably pulled into a dark, underground criminal world filled with drugs, violence, and depravity of a level that belies the otherwise peaceful-seeming town.<br />
<br />
<i>Blue Velvet</i> is still pretty hypnotic, even after nearly 35 years, and certain elements almost seem like a practice run for some of what we would see in the original <i>Twin Peaks </i> TV show 4 years later. The most obvious one is the notion of dark, twisted forces lurking beneath the tranquil, All-American, white picket fence veneer of the setting. You have the attractive young couple in Jeffrey and Sandy, who seem to be falling in love, and we see more than a few nods to the idealist view of relationship from American suburbia from the 1950s and early '60s. It doesn't take long, though, before things get weird. Like, really weird. No sooner does Jeffrey sneak into the lounge singer Dorothy's house for some intel on a possible murder than he finds himself in a closet, peeping on her undressing, then seeing her brutally victimized by the unhinged, sexually warped madman, Frank. This dizzying dichotomy of light and dark has long been a part of David Lynch's works, and <i>Blue Velvet</i> was his earliest and probably still his most accessible example of it.<br />
<br />
Then there are the technical merits of <i>Blue Velvet</i>. The movie just looks so good. And I don't mean to say that it's easy or always pleasing to watch. It's not. There are just too many disturbing and violent behaviors going on to say that you "enjoy" watching it. Still, it doesn't take an expert to see that the costumes, lighting, sets, and cinematography are masterfully designed and executed. There's such a rawness to most of the scenes involving Frank that most films won't employ. When Frank is terrorizing then raping Dorothy, there are no edits or camera maneuvers to spare the viewers of just how horrific he is. Similarly, when Jeffrey is basically abducted to the apartment where Dorothy's child is being held captive, there is such a skeevy, dangerous vibe that one can't help but feel like Jeffrey has ended up in some deceptively drab-looking circle of Hell. An easily overlooked part of these disturbing sequences is the lack of music, creating a silence that intensifies the horror. On the flip side, there are other scenes and moments that are very lush and stylized, showing off Lynch's range of techniques.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://static2.srcdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Blue-Velvet-Frank-and-Dorothy.jpg?q=50&fit=crop&w=740&h=370" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="370" data-original-width="740" height="160" src="https://static2.srcdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Blue-Velvet-Frank-and-Dorothy.jpg?q=50&fit=crop&w=740&h=370" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Frank, menacing over a terrified Dorothy. Frank is one of<br />the most frighteningly raw psychotics you'll ever see in film.<br />And Lynch doesn't let you off the hook by stylizing him in<br />any way - he's just a mad dog nutbag, on unflinching display.</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
I always find it hard to explain my feelings on the acting in David Lynch's movies, since there's such a range. There's almost always some campiness to be found in his works, which inherently requires some overacting and scene-chewing from the actors. And sometimes camp filmmakers just put bad actors in their movies, either because they find the amateur acting funny or because they just like the way an actor looks on film, despite a lack of acting ability. I think David Lynch has always done all of these things, and <i>Blue Velvet </i>is no exception. All that said, the four main performers - all rock-solid professionals - are perfect. And there's also a great, smaller turn we get from Dean Stockwell, the bizarre, perverted "ringmaster" at the aforementioned apartment scene (I must admit that this character can accurately be branded as a classic example of homophobia).<br />
<br />
Like every David Lynch movie I've seen, I can only recommend it to people who are ready for something that's more than a little odd, twisted, and challenging in some respects. While the over-arcing story follows your typical crime thriller, the telling is much grittier, bizarre, and in your face than more popular fare in the genre. The best starting place for those who haven't seen Lynch's work is the original <i>Twin Peaks</i> TV show. If the darker elements of that program don't freak you out, check out <i>Blue Velvet</i>. From there, Lynch's work mostly gets darker and more surreal, so it's a logical next step. </div>
Scott Hearonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00119613582465607596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1464878444709017125.post-80704328499632267612020-07-26T16:00:00.000-04:002020-07-26T16:00:03.249-04:00Spaceship Earth (2020)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BYTFkMmMzOWYtZjUzMS00NGU1LWJhZTYtYmU1ZmM3MGE3Zjk0XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTkxNjUyNQ@@._V1_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="540" height="320" src="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BYTFkMmMzOWYtZjUzMS00NGU1LWJhZTYtYmU1ZmM3MGE3Zjk0XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTkxNjUyNQ@@._V1_.jpg" width="216" /></a></div>
Director: Matt Wolf<br />
<br />
A documentary about the then-hyped Biosphere 2 project that ran from 1991 to 1993. It was just OK.<br />
<br />
Those of us born before 1980 or so probably remember the Biosphere 2 project, staged in Arizona in the early 1990s. Seven "biospherian" specialists locked themselves in a large, airtight structure for two years, to see if they could survive in a simulation of what might be a life station used to live on and explore other planets in the future. The biosphere was filled with various terrain types, plants, and even animals, to replicate small-scale versions of Earth's real landforms, structures, and ecosystems. It was billed as an exciting leap forward in scientific discovery - one which would provide invaluable data to future scientists who would be designing life-sustaining environments for space explorers. What Biosphere 2 ended up being, though, was mostly a failure that many ultimately saw as a fraud, conceived and executed in bad faith by a controversial, cult-like figure.<br />
<br />
There was actually the material here for a much more fascinating documentary. In going back to trace the origins of Biosphere 2, some intriguing questions are raised. It mostly went back to a man named John Allen, a charismatic, endlessly energetic man who built a community around himself in the late 1960s. Allen, trained as a machinist in the Army Corps of Engineers and educated in anthropology and business in several places including Stanford, had grand ideas about melding multiple scientific and humanistic disciplines in order to create a better society. This society would bring together scientists, tradesmen, and artists to cooperate in order to build whatever they felt they might need to survive, thrive, and fulfil their survival and creative needs as humans. They set up a commune-like area in New Mexico. They actually built their own large ship that successfully launched from a port off the California coast. They traveled to different cities around the world and constructed buildings as contractors. And all the while, they would engage in free-flowing artistic performances, such as original plays, improvisational activities, primal screaming, interpretive dances, or whatever else they dreamed up. All of this was under the eye of founder John Allen. Early on, they had actually come into contact with famed American architect R. Buckminster Fuller. Fuller had conceived of the concept of a "geodome," in which humans could survive without any contact from the outside world. Allen's group toyed with this over the years, and eventually found the financial backing to bring it to life. Hence, Biosphere 2's construction and the media storm around it in the early 1990s.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.gaycitynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/spaceship-earth-2-466x700.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="700" data-original-width="466" height="320" src="https://www.gaycitynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/spaceship-earth-2-466x700.jpeg" width="213" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>John Allen's "Merry Pranksters"-style<br />group of devotees doing one of their stage<br />productions. This was a rather odd crew<br />of folks who I had far more questions<br />about than the film answered.</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Again, there's a lot of interesting stuff happening here. The problem for me was twofold: First, there were so many unanswered questions about John Allen, his close associates, and their projects that are never fully or clearly answered. The documentary never fully explains exactly where or how the various members of the commune learned their trades, and we don't know where the funding for their various and sometimes-large-scale projects came from in their early years. Then there are just questions about what life was like on a daily basis. I think most people, upon hearing the description of Allen and his group will inevitably think "cult," and the show doesn't do a whole lot of close analysis on this question. It is raised a bit later in the movie, but not with enough rigor in my view. Secondly, there is an overall lack of outside perspectives on everything about Allen, his group, and their projects, including Biosphere 2. The overwhelming number of the views expressed are from Allen, his friends or associates, or the actual experts who became the biospherians. In other words, almost all people whose bias is going to lean heavily towards defending the project and the group behind it. Getting some sober, objective viewpoints from credible people who were critical of the project would have helped balance things out more, as any good documentary should do.<br />
<br />
In a more general sense, I came away from this documentary sort of shrugging my shoulders and almost asking "so what?" By the show's end, it was clear that too many questions were raised about Biosphere 2's scientific legitimacy for it to feel like any massive loss for humans' knowledge. And not enough evidence is presented to contradict the notion that Biosphere 2 was much more than an ego-driven project for Allen and a few wealthy financial backers. In short, while I was curious about several elements covered in the documentary, I'm never given enough information to care all that much about any of them.<br />
<br />
Maybe the simple fact is that the subjects themselves - from Allen to the commune to the Biosphere 2 project itself - just weren't nearly as intriguing as we might be led to believe. But I actually felt that there is probably a more fascinating story to be told; it's just that <i>Spaceship Earth</i> didn't do the best job of telling that story. </div>
Scott Hearonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00119613582465607596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1464878444709017125.post-65403051207082539072020-07-24T20:00:00.000-04:002020-07-24T20:00:11.750-04:00Before I Die #643: BlackKklansman (2018)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://hips.hearstapps.com/digitalspyuk.cdnds.net/18/20/1526660186-blackkklansman-intl.jpg?resize=480:*" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="711" data-original-width="480" height="320" src="https://hips.hearstapps.com/digitalspyuk.cdnds.net/18/20/1526660186-blackkklansman-intl.jpg?resize=480:*" width="216" /></a></div>
Director: Spike Lee<br />
<br />
Well-done and compelling movie on an ever-more relevant and important topic, though maybe a movie that got just a tad more positive acclaim than maybe it earned.<br />
<br />
<i>BlackKklansman</i> is a dramatic adaptation of the incredible, real-life story of Colorado Springs County, Colorado, police detective Ron Stallworth (John David Washington) - the first black member of the force, who joined in the late 1970s. Though initially relegated to the drudgery of clerical work, where he is subject to some nasty racism at the hands of a few colleagues, Stallworth soon proves his merit in an undercover operation to gather intel on a Black Student Union (BSU) meeting in the area, where he was to gauge the tone of the room in response to a speech by a prominent civil right leader. After a promotion, he conceives the idea to gather information on local white supremacist groups, namely the Ku Klux Klan. On a whim, he calls a phone number (actually listed in the phone book), puts on a southern accent, and poses as someone interested in getting involved with the KKK. The receiver of the call buys Stallworth's story and invited him to a meeting. The obvious problem is that Stallworth is unmistakably a black man, so he convinces his captain to bring a couple of partners into the operation. Their captain taps two veteran cops, Flip Zimmerman (Adam Driver) and Jimmy Creek (Michael Buscemi) to work with Stallworth. Flip assumes the physical role of Ron, and he steadily embeds himself within the local cell of the KKK. Meanwhile, the real Ron continues his correspondence over the phone, soon having long talks with none other than David Duke, the Grand Wizard of the Klan, based in Louisiana. Ron and Flip eventually learn of the Klan's plan to make a violent statement by bombing a local Black Students' Union meeting. Ron and Flip have to act quickly to prevent this, all while Ron has been placed on guard duty for none other than David Duke, who is in town to visit the local KKK chapter.<br />
<br />
This is a good movie whose subject matter and import are important enough to outweigh a few of the movie's minor shortcomings in terms of narrative or artistic choices. Though the real Ron Stallworth's story unfolded over 40 years ago, this 2018 film still feels all-too relevant, given the massive Black Lives Matter protests which have erupted in the wake of the brutal killing of George Floyd at the hands of police officers. This has touched off the nasty reminder that virulent racism is still all-too present in this country, and it was even more so back in the early 1970s. While <i>BlackKklansman</i> reportedly takes certain liberties with the story, many of the elements regarding the KKK's racist views and plans to kick-start a race war were all too real. This was still a time and place where the KKK was comfortable enough holding a sizable conference at a hotel, where Klan organizer and leader David Duke railed about the superiority of the white race, feeling confident that such meetings would help swell the Klan's numbers to those of its heyday in the early 20th century. Detective Ron Stallworth not only had to deal with these in a professional manner, but he also had to maintain a level head in the face of open racism in his workplace. The messages about racism are not always subtle in the movie - a hallmark of most Spike Lee films - but their importance can't be refuted. Perhaps the most powerful moments are when Harry Belafonte, himself a longtime civil rights activist, plays an older activist recounting<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://miro.medium.com/max/4096/1*Lvizuup-zFhdS7SEP36t1Q.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="800" height="240" src="https://miro.medium.com/max/4096/1*Lvizuup-zFhdS7SEP36t1Q.jpeg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Flip(left) inspects the KKK membership card that Ron <br />Stallworth (right) has just received in the mail. Actors<br />Adam Driver and John David Washington have solid<br />chemistry and bring these characters to life.</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
There were also some fascinating complexities introduced in the tale. The fact that Stallworth's first assignment is to gain intelligence on "his own people" at the BSU gives you some idea of the tightrope that a black police officer - especially an undercover one - has to walk on a daily basis. This question of betrayal runs through the rest of the picture, and even if Lee gives us perhaps an oversimplified solution to it, the larger questions remain of where a person's loyalties lie: to one's own long-oppressed minority group or to the society as a whole, including the predominant oppressors themselves. The Flip Zimmerman character also offers us a chance to see where a Jewish perspective fits into racism and bigotry. This is an area that the film could probably have delved more deeply, but there is enough of it to illustrate a shared grievance between two groups who have been systematically oppressed for centuries and even millennia.<br />
<br />
There are plenty of production merits to the film, as well. The acting is great by everyone involved, most obviously John David Washington and Adam Driver. The 1970s sets and costumes are all on point, brought out even more by the sharp cinematography. In short, the film is very pleasing to take in, visually, and it should come as no surprise that the soundtrack has plenty of fun late-1970s disco and R&B jams to give a fun vibe during appropriate scenes. These help to accentuate the much tenser scenes when Zimmerman is directly inside the secret meetings and safehouse of the KKK.<br />
<br />
<i>BlackKklansman</i> earned a ton of critical acclaim upon its release in 2018, being nominated for most of the biggest awards for film. For my part, I thought it was a very good movie, but I don't quite put it on par with other worthy Oscar winners or nominees (though 2018 wasn't an especially strong year, so it made sense for that group of nominees). While the story is undoubtedly fascinating, relevant, and told skillfully, there wasn't anything that I found to be especially novel about the movie, outside of Stallworth's story. It's worth seeing, for sure, but I would warn most new viewers not to expect some mind-blowing experience about race relations.</div>
Scott Hearonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00119613582465607596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1464878444709017125.post-76593056267152350882020-07-22T20:00:00.000-04:002020-07-22T20:00:04.147-04:00Idiot Boxing: Sex Education, seasons 1 and 2 (2019-2020)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/14466373_f1024.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="600" height="320" src="https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/14466373_f1024.jpg" width="240" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Left to right: Maeve, Otis, and Eric. The story<br />usually revolves around these three, but many<br />of the other characters are given the spotlight.<br />And this never feels like wasted story time.</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
I've never watched a ton of high school romantic comedy shows or movies, but of the ones that I've seen, <i>Sex Education</i> may be the very best to date.<br />
<br />
To be clear, I'm a pretty typical Northern European-descended male in his mid-forties. I'm not a great fan of "young people" drama or romantic films or TV shows. But while <i>Sex Education</i> is all of those things, I quickly grew to love it and looked forward to watching another episode nearly every night with my wife as we "binged" through the first two seasons.<br />
<br />
The show takes place in a fictional, wondrously beautiful town somewhere in England. We mostly follow Otis Milburn (Asa Butterfield), a 16-year old boy whose divorced mother Jean (Gillian Anderson) is a noted sex therapist. Despite his mother's profession, Otis is concerned about some of his own sexual hangups; however, this doesn't stop him from eventually starting to give out sexual advice to some of his classmates at school, for a fee. This idea is the brainchild of a glaring, standoffish classmate, Maeve (Emma Mackey), who needs the money to support herself due to absentee parents. Highly amused by the entire operation is Otis's best friend, Eric (Ncuti Gatwa), the son of parents who immigrated to England from Africa, and who is openly gay. Otis, Maeve, and Eric quickly discover just how many of their classmates have questions and concerns about their sexual activity (or non-activity, as it were), and just how complicated it can all make everyone's lives and relationships with each other.<br />
<br />
I wish this show, or something very much like it, had existed back when I was in high school.<br />
<br />
<i>Sex Education</i> is an eye-pleasing, well-acted, and well-rounded look at sexuality. Most of it is teen-centric, but the adults are certainly not immune to having their sexual foibles and hangups examined, either. Taking place in a wonderfully picturesque, unnamed, fictional town in England, the show's primary premise is that nearly all teens are either sexually active or want to be, and that very few of them are able to handle the psychological or emotional demands that go along with the physical act of sex. In the show, this is where Otis and his better-than-nothing advisory role comes in. While Otis actually has some decent, thoughtful advice, the idea of an inexperienced virgin doling out tips about sex is inherently funny. But the show's humor goes well beyond Otis's hustle as an amateur sex counselor. The writing is often hilarious all around, involving nearly every other character. It's no surprise that much of the humor is based around sex, but it is hardly ever of the raunchy variety. Rather, it embraces the notion that sex is, essentially, a rather silly and funny act most of the time, and there are a ton of practical-yet-embarrassing questions that we all have about it. Yes, it carries deeper emotional significance at times as well, but the simple mechanics and vulnerability of it all puts people in weird and comical positions, both literally and figuratively. <i>Sex Education</i> has plenty of fun with these facts.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://media.gq-magazine.co.uk/photos/5d13a6859a22c274f7949077/master/w_1920,c_limit/sex-education-01-gq-10jan19_netflix_b.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="800" height="213" src="https://media.gq-magazine.co.uk/photos/5d13a6859a22c274f7949077/master/w_1920,c_limit/sex-education-01-gq-10jan19_netflix_b.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>The main quartet of "rich, mean kids" at the school. Like many<br />of the characters, they don't evoke much sympathy most of the<br />time, but we get to see certain vulnerabilities and insecurities<br />in each and every one of them over the course of the show.</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The acting is top-notch, perhaps most notably with Gillian Anderson, best known to most audiences from her turn as Agent Dana Scully in <i>The X-Files</i> TV show. Her character, Doctor Jean Anderson, initially seems like a self-possessed, progressive person in nearly every way. But it isn't long before we see that she, like everyone else in the show, is flawed in ways that have negative consequences for her and those around her. This is just one area where the show gets its other half right - the dramatic aspects. Though the drama is often of a "high school teen" variety, with breakups, makeups, and the testing of friendships, it often goes beyond simple, romantic tropes. The intelligent, standoffish Maeve is eventually revealed to be dealing with serious family issues and near poverty. Otis's best friend Eric is forced to deal with violent homophobia. And in perhaps the subtlest and most quietly fascinating example, the school headmaster's son Adam - an alpha male bully - is gradually shown to be dealing with as much inner turmoil as anyone else in the school, if not more. Almost every character is, over the course of the first two seasons, shown to have layers that go beyond the familiar teen show archetypes, and many of them have to deal with very serious modern issues around gender and sexual orientation.<br />
<br />
Regarding my statement about wishing a show like <i>Sex Education</i> had existed during my high school years: I have to admit being envious of younger generations in this regard. Our culture has, to a degree, loosened up its attitudes towards these things, which is of immense help to anyone who has questions about sex. And let's face it - nearly every teenager has infinite questions about it, stemming from hormonal overloads that very few teens can manage effectively. I was no exception, and I was constantly in fear of seeming uncool or inexperienced, with nowhere easy to turn. In hindsight, my issues were fairly garden-variety, but the crippling anxiety that most teens have prevented my seeking out any useful knowledge from qualified adults, or even talking about them with friends or family. Had a show like <i>Sex Education</i> existed and been popular, I think plenty of people like me and my friends would have had a medium through which to open up countless constructive conversations.<br />
<br />
A third season has been confirmed, which excited me. I have to think that this show may only have another season left in it, at least with the current cast playing the high schoolers. But it will be great to see most of the main players finish out their senior year and see what other topics the show addresses. Highly recommended, as long as one is comfortable with close looks at sexuality. </div>
Scott Hearonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00119613582465607596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1464878444709017125.post-20722305082457661692020-07-20T20:00:00.000-04:002020-07-22T13:58:41.022-04:00Twin Peaks (2017)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<b>Spoilers Ahead! Fair Warning. </b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.phillymag.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/05/TwinPeaks2017.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="460" data-original-width="800" height="183" src="https://www.phillymag.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/05/TwinPeaks2017.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Director: David Lynch<br />
<br />
It's simple: if you enjoy David Lynch, you'll enjoy this show. If not? This one is highly unlikely to win you over.<br />
<br />
I recently posted <a href="https://scottsfilmwatch.blogspot.com/2020/06/idiot-boxing-twin-peaks-original-two.html" target="_blank">my reviews of the original <i>Twin Peaks</i> show and its prequel movie, <i>Fire Walk with Me</i></a>, as my wife and I worked through them. The original program was canceled after only two seasons and 30 episodes, then left in the ether for well over two decades. Then, lo and behold, it was resurrected by Showtime.<br />
<br />
Sometimes referred to as <i>Twin Peaks: The Return</i>, this long-awaited continuation of the quirky, dark TV series does actually pick up roughly 25 years after the final episode of the original, which aired back in 1991. That final episode ended with a wild ride of surrealistic madness, capped off with buoyant, boy scout FBI Agent Dale Cooper seemingly getting trapped in another realm while an evil doppelganger had taken his place in our world. The 2017 resurrection series jumps ahead in time the same 25 years that had passed between the airing of the two series. In the strange "Red Room" limbo where Cooper was stranded in 1991, he is finally sent back out to reclaim his place in our world. The problem is that the evil version of Cooper has been there, long building and overseeing a criminal enterprise and planning how he will avoid being pulled back into the Red Room. In our world, a series of new, bizarre murders starts to bring back together many of the people in Twin Peaks and within the FBI who had previously known and worked with Cooper, especially dealing with the Laura Palmer murder.<br />
<br />
Unless I wanted that summary to stretch into a 20-page exposition, I had to keep it laughably short and simple. <i>Twin Peaks: The Return</i> consisted of 18 episodes, all between 50 minutes and an hour, and it takes no end of strange, surreal twists, and is told in typically David Lynch, non-linear style. This makes any concise, clear summary all but impossible. At least, not one that conveys the show's distinguishing characteristics. This is a long, all-David Lynch production, and it contains pretty much all of the "Lynchian" elements that one might expect.<br />
<br />
In short, my wife and I enjoyed watching it.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTY0MzY0NDY0NV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMTgwMjkzMjI@._V1_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="800" height="213" src="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTY0MzY0NDY0NV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMTgwMjkzMjI@._V1_.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Andy and Lucy are among the many original characters </i><br />
<i style="font-size: 12.8px;">to return. They're also part of several of the stranger,</i><br />
<i>stilted, and seemingly disconnected scenes and sequences<br />that we get over the course of the 18 episodes.</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
If you ever saw the original show, or a few of Lynch's more surreal films like <i><a href="https://scottsfilmwatch.blogspot.com/2020/07/before-i-die-642-eraserhead.html" target="_blank">Eraserhead</a></i>, <i>Lost Highway</i>, and <i>Mulholland Drive</i>, among others, then you have a sense of what to expect. So many scenes and moments will leave you questioning what, exactly, is going on, especially in terms of the plot. Thanks to shifting perspectives, unclear identities, multiple identities, non-linear narrative, and outright surreality, <i>Twin Peak</i>s<i> </i>is far from a traditional narrative. Sure, it contains more than a few familiar mainstream elements of crime dramas - mysteries surrounding murders, some tense confrontations between hardened criminals, narrow escapes from death - but the precise combination and presentation of them in all uniquely David Lynch. Characters act and speak in strange, often stilted ways. The pacing of many sequences is bafflingly drawn out at times. Many of the odder elements are never clearly explained. Such non-traditional spinning of a story can be enjoyed, tolerated, or rejected. I actually enjoyed much of it, and was able to tolerate the rest. But I also understand why some people would reject the show.<br />
<br />
Probably the most obviously bizarre elements are the supernatural/surreal ones. In <i>Twin Peaks</i>, David Lynch has created his own cosmology - one which we viewers are not meant to completely understand, in my view. It involves industrial machinery, electricity, deep space, atomic science, and several immortal beings that are able to move between alternate dimensions and planes of existence. I won't pretend to understand it all, but I greatly enjoyed the mental exercise of stitching together the images and implications presented in the show. While there are plenty of these supernatural elements to be found through the entire 18-episode series, the most mind-blowing and dazzling episode was Part 8, which is almost completely done in black and white, with sparing dialogue, and is a parade of images and settings which can only be understood as "not of this world." That is, except for some scenes at the beginning of the atomic bomb detonation in 1945, and some bizarre, ash-covered demon-like figures who appear later, in 1956. The rest is a hypnotic, dreamlike tour through alien landscapes and perception-altering imagery. Honestly, watching it was not unlike taking hallucinogenics, and I was transfixed.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/06/26/arts/television/26peaks-recap/26peaks-recap-videoSixteenByNineJumbo1600.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="180" src="https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/06/26/arts/television/26peaks-recap/26peaks-recap-videoSixteenByNineJumbo1600.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>One of the many striking and puzzling images from the<br />markedly surreal eighth episode. Some viewers would be<br />turned off by the strangeness of it, but I was dazzled by the<br />imagery and dreamlike nature of this chapter.</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
But what about the more grounded elements? What about Dale Cooper and the crime stories? This is where, I suspect, some viewers lost their patience with the show, which I can understand. During many of the periods on "our world," David Lynch often chose to draw scenes out to frustrating lengths. A ten-minute sequence of a few people trying to find a key to an apartment. Two full minutes of a guy sweeping up a bar floor. An interminable argument between Audrey and her husband that stretches out, piecemeal, over four or five episodes and ends up going seemingly nowhere. And there are plenty of other examples. For me, these were things that I tolerated, but I totally understand how some people found them infuriating. In my case, I found that they did somewhat fit into the overall off-beat vibe of the entire series. Or at least, they fit just enough that they didn't get on my nerves too much.<br />
<br />
A significant part of the fun here is seeing which characters and actors return from the original show, and what their characters are up to. Amazingly, the overwhelming majority of the original actors were around and signed on for it. Some of them don't show up until much later in the season, and very few of them have any great roles. In fact, almost none of them have any more than maybe 30 minutes of total screen time, across all 18 episodes. I have to think that this was much more about David Lynch just wanting to show faithful fans of the original show that these characters are still around, even if most of them no longer have any real connection to the greater events swirling around Agent Cooper. Whatever the case, my wife and I certainly perked up when seeing an original cast member turn up, however inconsequential their presence may have been.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjA0OTc0Mzk2N15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMTg5MTkzMjI@._V1_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="800" height="213" src="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjA0OTc0Mzk2N15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMTg5MTkzMjI@._V1_.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>The alienness of the Red Room serves as a microcosm for how<br />a viewer might feel while watching this show. Familiar elements<br />mixed in jarring, inexplicable ways can both attract and baffle.</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
I do have to point out something which my wife initially noticed about the entire show, and which is hard to ignore once perceived, and that is the role of women. David Lynch is clearly an artist who has a deep passion for the styles and character archetypes of popular Americana from the 1950s and 1960s. This has long been a huge part of his style: blending those classic, romanticized elements of U.S. culture with the twisted, pitch-dark demons lurking beneath their surface. Unfortunately, he also seems to keep his female characters almost always restricted to the old, limited roles of popular stories from those bygone decades. With very few exceptions, the women in <i>Twin Peaks</i> are either victims, objects of lust, mentally unstable, or various combinations of those three. A few others may only be attractive window dressing, such as Agent Tammy Preston in The Return, who does little more than pose like a model for David Lynch's Gordon Cole character to gaze at from time to time. As our culture changes in its attitudes towards representation here in the 21st century, it becomes harder and harder not to notice such a clear imbalance in gender roles in TV and films like this.<br />
<br />
As implied, this show is a tough one to recommend. I certainly can't suggest that anyone start with this revival of the show, before watching the original. The original program will give you a beginning sense of whether you care for David Lynch's general style or not. More than that, though, I would recommend also seeing one or two of Lynch's relatively more accessible films, like his neo-noir thriller <i>Blue Velvet </i>or even the aforementioned <i>Lost Highway</i>. Those two contain some of the challenging, surreal elements that the director uses more in <i>Twin Peaks: The Return</i>. If you dig those earlier movies, then you'll probably like the resurrection of <i>Twin Peaks</i>. </div>
Scott Hearonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00119613582465607596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1464878444709017125.post-27466181017744259982020-07-18T16:00:00.000-04:002020-07-18T16:00:00.135-04:00A Mighty Wind (2003)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5bb3d7b47a1fbd1f3a2eab48/1542219489552-5ESJTXMZNIJ6A86FLS2A/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kAWzt0GoCOR9y9_f7KU3T0AUqsxRUqqbr1mOJYKfIPR7LoDQ9mXPOjoJoqy81S2I8PaoYXhp6HxIwZIk7-Mi3Tsic-L2IOPH3Dwrhl-Ne3Z2fztFJqLg41TwSZ0I3ZjiAu2XUtydAeQg7Y9vzb-Qx6km_AaHWq01a8yFgqe9oqFs/poster-780.jpg?format=2500w" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="533" height="320" src="https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5bb3d7b47a1fbd1f3a2eab48/1542219489552-5ESJTXMZNIJ6A86FLS2A/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kAWzt0GoCOR9y9_f7KU3T0AUqsxRUqqbr1mOJYKfIPR7LoDQ9mXPOjoJoqy81S2I8PaoYXhp6HxIwZIk7-Mi3Tsic-L2IOPH3Dwrhl-Ne3Z2fztFJqLg41TwSZ0I3ZjiAu2XUtydAeQg7Y9vzb-Qx6km_AaHWq01a8yFgqe9oqFs/poster-780.jpg?format=2500w" width="213" /></a></div>
Director: Christopher Guest<br />
<br />
Really funny mockumentary from arguably the genre's most accomplished practitioner, Christopher Guest.<br />
<br />
<i>A Mighty Wind</i> is a fake, humorous documentary that chronicles the organization and execution of a commemorative reunion of folk musical acts, following the death of an influential producer who had been connected to the performers. Through interviews and Ken Burns-style still photos, bands with names like Mitch and Mickey, The Folksmen, and The New Main Street Singers tell of their own rises to fame during the 1960s, when the form was at its peak and their acts were on top of the popular music world. Not long after their heydays, though, all of the groups broke up, disbanded, or underwent large-scale personnel changes. So they all face the challenge of overcoming past divisions and grudges, in order to put on a reunion performance that isn't an embarrassing farce.<br />
<br />
While I haven't seen all of Christopher Guest's documentaries, I've seen and loved his best-known ones for years. <i>This is Spinal Tap</i> and <i>Best in Show</i> are tough to top, in terms of phony documentary comedies. Still, there are others of his that I'd never seen. My wife and I watched the first 15-odd minutes of his scripted comedy <i>For Your Consideration</i>, but it didn't grab us. We jumped over to <i>A Mighty Wind</i> and found exactly what we were looking for. I don't find it quite as good as <i>Spinal Tap</i> or <i>Best in Show</i>, but it's not far behind.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.pilotonline.com/resizer/V37qEFr2STW14RBfLN7YffJneTg=/1200x0/top/www.trbimg.com/img-5d45f3bf/turbine/vp-article_7f127ee5-3d4c-5f82-bc9c-58e90d135a9c" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="549" data-original-width="800" height="219" src="https://www.pilotonline.com/resizer/V37qEFr2STW14RBfLN7YffJneTg=/1200x0/top/www.trbimg.com/img-5d45f3bf/turbine/vp-article_7f127ee5-3d4c-5f82-bc9c-58e90d135a9c" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>As with most good mockumentaries, moments of awkward-<br />ness are offset by either silliness or, in the case of </i>A Mighty<br />
Wind, <i>sappy earnestness between some of the musicians.<br />Here, Levy and O'Hara crank up the cheese as they practice.</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
I think one's enjoyment of this movie simply comes down to whether you like mockumentaries or not. There's always more than a little improvisation involved here, with the actors all given rough ideas of where a scene needs to end up, but little else in the way of a script. This allows them to more naturally riff and flow with their characters, making everything feel more like an actual, unscripted documentary. In unskilled hands, such an approach can be an unmitigated disaster. Fortunately, though, Christopher Guest and his frequent collaborators are among the grandmasters of improv comedy. The core trio of Guest, Michael McKean, and Harry Shearer have always been together, and they once again make up a musical trio in this movie. Other Guest mainstays fill up the roster: Eugene Levy, Catherine O'Hara, Bob Balaban, Jane Lynch, John Michael Higgins, Parker Posey, and others prove why Guest taps them as often as possible for these projects, as they nail their oddball, disaffected roles with aplomb. I will say that Eugene Levy's take on the quirky, socially inept Mitch Cohen wore on me just a tad, with his strangely high-pitched voice and somewhat forced discomfort, but he still provided laughs. The others were all great, especially the recently-deceased Fred Willard. But viewers who prefer tightly-scripted films may grow frustrated with the "loose" feel of this kind of movie.<br />
<br />
The subject matter of folk musicians was a great choice. While the movie exaggerates the scale of folk music's popularity in the 1960s a tad for comedic effect, the fun part of it is making these popular groups exceedingly corny and sappy, even when singing about intensely dark topics (not unlike some very real folk groups of past and present). I'm fairly sure that the actors did a fair bit of their own playing and singing, but whoever did it was pretty great. As funny as the lyrics are, the actual musicianship is solid, which just makes the hokey words and sentiments that much funnier. It's sort of like having a really good "straight man" off of whom the "funny man" comedian gets their laughs.<br />
<br />
This was a really enjoyable entry into the mockumentary canon. I only which I'd seen it sooner. </div>
Scott Hearonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00119613582465607596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1464878444709017125.post-78207287417703429002020-07-16T20:00:00.000-04:002020-07-16T20:00:00.431-04:00Requiem for a Dream (2000)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1416/8662/products/requiem_for_a_dream_2000_original_film_art_18b6cd81-455e-4f3f-9f4c-20b2cd8a404a_5000x.jpg?v=1585253665" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="566" height="320" src="https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1416/8662/products/requiem_for_a_dream_2000_original_film_art_18b6cd81-455e-4f3f-9f4c-20b2cd8a404a_5000x.jpg?v=1585253665" width="226" /></a></div>
Director: Darren Aronofsky<br />
<br />
Still a disturbing, hypnotic portrayal of addiction in a couple of forms.<br />
<br />
The movie follows four people in Brooklyn - Sara Goldfarb, her son Harry, his girlfriend Marion, and his closest friend Tyrone. Harry, Marion, and Tyrone are all heroin addicts who have plans to become dealers and attain some self-sufficiency; maybe even get rich. Sara is obsessed with getting on television, in particular on a self-help show focused on looking better. To do so, she begins a ruthless regimen of diet pills that results in erratic behavior and a fracturing of her mind. By tale's end, all four people are horribly broken: Sara is in a psychiatric institution after a complete mental breakdown; Harry has had his arm amputated due to an untreated infection from his intravenous drug use; Marion has taken to completely sexually degrading herself for heroin, and Tyrone has landed in prison.<br />
<br />
A simple summary of this story doesn't come close to conveying this film's strengths. This was Darren Aronofsky's second feature-length film, after his brilliant, claustrophobic, black-and-white <i>Pi</i>, about a harried mathematician. With <i>Requiem for a Dream</i>, he took his artistic skills to draw a frantic parallel between addiction to hard drugs and addiction to seemingly innocuous substances like television or diet pills. Unlike most "drug" movies, this one doesn't end with a third-act redemption. The quartet of addicts all hit rock-bottom, at least one of them irrevocably, and that's where the story ends. Even the then-controversial and surprisingly popular <i>Trainspotting</i> - which predated <i>Requiem</i> by a few years - had a more uplifting ending. Aronofsky's film does depict the apparent bliss that addicts feel when they get their fix, be it hard drugs or less obvious means of stimulation, but those euphoric moments are brief and easily forgotten by the film's end.<br />
<br />
This description should make it clear that this is not an "entertaining" film. It's never fun to watch people fall into pits of addiction from which they won't or almost certainly won't save themselves. This is why I've only seen this movie twice - the first time in 2002 and then again 18 years later. It's just tough to stomach in many ways. Still, there is an artistry and skill to its execution that I had to see again, and I'm glad that I did. As hard as it is to watch, I have to admire how the story puts TV and diet pill addiction on the same level as heroin addictions, and arguably has worse consequences for its victim, Sara. And the cinematic techniques used to convey the sense of paranoia, panic, and fevered desperation that Sara experiences are nerve-wrackingly effective. As her mental state deteriorates, Sara's faded little apartment living room soon feels every bit as confining as a sweatbox at a Floridian penitentiary. With equal skill, the masterful editing of the movie's visuals and sound gives a sense of the shifts between sobriety and intoxication of various characters. It's often amazingly hypnotic, just on an aesthetic level.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://i.inews.co.uk/content/uploads/2017/09/283938_full-e1505045643214.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="534" data-original-width="800" height="213" src="https://i.inews.co.uk/content/uploads/2017/09/283938_full-e1505045643214.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Sara chats with her son, Henry, before things start to go<br />gradually off the rails for both of them. Just one part of<br />the grand tragedy is that Henry, himself addicted to heroin,<br />is the only person who later sees the telltale signs of addiction<br />in his mother.</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
There did seem to be a bit of buoyancy missing from the movie, mostly in the first act. Not that it was necessary, or that there needed to be much of it, but I couldn't help wonder if spending just a little more time seeing the characters be happy with one another might not have made their tragedies even more poignant. For the most part, we just see them suffering and fairly tense right from the start, and things only get worse as the story unfolds. Part of this feeling probably comes from the fact that the actors do such excellent work, which should come as no shock when you see the cast: Ellen Burstyn was nominated for a ton of awards for her performance as Sara; Jared Leto and Jennifer Connelly play Harry and Marion, and the surprising but highly capable Marlon Wayans plays Tyrone. These four do such great work that, grim as the tale is, it pulls you along in the hopes that somebody manages to escape their fates.<br />
<br />
I've long been a huge fan of Darren Aronofsky, and I like every one of his films, to one degree or another. While I don't have <i>Requiem for a Dream</i> among my favorites of his (those would be <i><a href="https://scottsfilmwatch.blogspot.com/2017/06/retro-duo-excalibur-1981-fountain-2006.html" target="_blank">The Fountain</a></i> and <i><a href="https://scottsfilmwatch.blogspot.com/2019/02/retro-trio-wrestler-2008-people-vs.html" target="_blank">The Wrestler</a></i>), <i>Requiem for a Dream </i>is an excellent film on a dark subject. If you're one who isn't put off by difficult, and depressing subject matter, then I recommend that you check this one out. </div>
Scott Hearonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00119613582465607596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1464878444709017125.post-13178004592059190592020-07-15T20:00:00.000-04:002020-07-15T20:00:03.122-04:00Boogie Nights (1997)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f3/b4/e7/f3b4e7c5bb71945e66c40c4e4df13e26.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="533" height="320" src="https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f3/b4/e7/f3b4e7c5bb71945e66c40c4e4df13e26.jpg" width="213" /></a></div>
Director: Paul Thomas Anderson<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I think I just unintentionally kicked off a Paul Thomas Anderson retrospective, after being reminded myself of just how great <i>Boogie Nights </i>is. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This was far from a first viewing for me. I'd probably seen <i>Boogie Nights</i> a good five or six times before this, but it had been probably near a decade since my last viewing, and it's been airing on Showtime lately. So before I knew it, I was once again following the rise, fall, and return of fictional porn star Dirk Diggler.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
To summarize the rather epic story: Eddie Adams (Mark Wahlberg) is a young man who lives in Los Angeles and washes dishes in a nightclub, but who has dreams of being a movie star. Eddie isn't particularly bright or talented, acting-wise, but he is endowed with an especially large penis and the ability to "perform" with prodigious frequency. These assets catch the eye of Jack Horner, a successful producer and director of pornographic movies. Eddie is soon whisked into a world of his dreams, with other porn stars who quickly embrace a befriend him, and Eddie soon proves himself highly adept at porn acting. Adopting the stage name Dirk Diggler, he rapidly rises to the top of the profession, such as it is. A few short years after his dizzying, whirlwind ascent, Eddie starts to be corrupted by many of the porn industry's seedier elements. Drug use is rampant among many of his co-stars and the hangers-on of the porn industry. Sexual deviancy, including that of the repugnant and illegal variety, is always on the periphery or looming over the business. And the inner turmoil and interpersonal dysfunction of many of his associates eventually rub the shine off of Eddie's success. Deep into a cocaine habit, Eddie steadily spirals out of control, falling out completely with Jack and having his life hit a pretty nasty rock bottom. After a couple of frightening close calls with death, Eddie throws himself on Jack's mercy, begs for help, and is given a chance to get back on his feet within the industry that made him.<br />
<br />
<i>Boogie Nights</i> is such a surprisingly entertaining movie that it still dazzles me. The description above might suggest a movie that is about nothing more than a sleazy industry, and the rise, fall, and redemption of someone within it. While all of those things are parts of the film, it does far more than that. In the same fashion that Martin Scorsese did with <i><a href="https://scottsfilmwatch.blogspot.com/2012/11/film-90-goodfellas-1990.html" target="_blank">Goodfellas</a></i> and <i>Casino</i>, writer and director Paul Thomas Anderson found and brought to the fore the many human elements in such a tale. Not only that, but he imbued the story with so much humor that it's hard not to find yourself smiling and laughing for the majority of the film. Most of the humor, again not unlike Scorsese gangster pictures, comes from the characters not knowing just how dumb they are and sound. Eddie and his fellow porn stars are nearly all very sweet but also very naive, shallow, and oblivious to their own shortcomings in many ways. Maybe it's Reed Rothchild's blatantly false claims about how much weight he can bench-press, or Buck Swope's endless aping of dead fashions, or Eddie's ear-splitting attempts at a music career. In so many ways, these characters make themselves the butt of jokes, thanks to all of them enabling each other and bubbling themselves off from a greater sense of reality. The clueless bumbling is often hilarious.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.ourgoldenage.com.au/film/hsm-boogie-nights/uC54rlRdLMZ46fnrz5SoVYleNyv.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="474" data-original-width="800" height="189" src="https://www.ourgoldenage.com.au/film/hsm-boogie-nights/uC54rlRdLMZ46fnrz5SoVYleNyv.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Some of Jack's actors and crew. This group likes to think of<br />themselves as a cool, tight-knit family, but they are nearly<br />all unable or unwilling to take a hard look at themselves<br />or the problematic aspects of their business.</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
But it's not the comedy alone that makes this movie so great. It's that Paul Thomas Anderson, as he's done in other films, finds a perfect balance between effective comedy and affecting drama. As comically dopey as many of the characters are in <i>Boogie Nights</i>, many of them actually evoke sympathy from viewers. This is no more obvious than with the protagonist, Eddie. He's clearly not the sharpest tool in the shed, but he's relatively innocent and genuinely sensitive in ways that most of those around him are not, including a mother who viciously puts him down. When things start going south in Eddie's life and career, it is actually sad. Just as sad are the ways in which his friends' and colleagues' lives devolve, as well. The most obvious is his frequent porn co-star, Amber Waves (Julianne Moore), who adopts a maternal tone with the younger porn actors around her, while having her own personal life fall to pieces, thanks in no small part to her wildly irresponsible life choices. When we see her sobbing outside of a courthouse, after rightfully losing a custody hearing, it's obvious that she is a woman in pain. It doesn't alleviate the blame she has earned, but it does humanize her effectively. And there are several other such examples with other characters who are initially easy to dismiss as simply dumb and self-destructive, but whom you eventually see more as real people with deep personal and even psychological problems.<br />
<br />
I don't know if a <i>caveat</i> is necessary for a movie that is more than two decades old, but I should offer one to those who haven't seen the film but are considering watching it: this movie is about the pornographic movie industry. And it doesn't pull too many punches when it comes to sex. While it's not extremely graphic, there is certainly more than a little nudity and even several simulated sex scenes. And it is obviously the background against which the entire story takes place. For those uncomfortable with the sex industry, this movie may be too much to take. However, the film doesn't completely ignore some of the downright immoral and illegal aspects of and people involved with the industry. This gives us a picture that's more complete than just the wild rise and fall of the actors. The character of prime producer and director Jack Horner, portrayed in an Oscar-winning performance by Burt Reynolds, is the clearest example. He does show concern about his actors, to a point. But it's a mistake to see him as some sort of nurturing father-figure, as much as he seems to view himself that way. Ultimately, he's exploiting young people by ignoring their destructive tendencies up to the point that they start biting into his profits. Yes, he gives second chances, enjoys harmony, and wants to make films that have more "story" than your average adult picture. But he also enables his actors' drug habits and self-delusions, never really thinking about whether he is helping them become healthier or not. Some of this is painfully obvious, but much of it is merely implied and easier to miss under the veneer of the "happy family" that we see at the end of the movie.<br />
<br />
I have to mention the cast of this movie. Without getting specific, all you need to do it look at a partial list of the top-billed actors: Burt Reynolds, Julianne Moore, John C. Reilly, Don Cheadle, William H. Macy, and Philip Seymour Hoffman. These are the most prominent (some of them before they were to become even better known for film), but this list gives you some idea of the acting talent present here. It's tough to top, and each and every one of them bring their A-games. This crew could make a bad script with bad direction decent. With <i>Boogie Nights</i>, they made a great script with great direction an all-time great movie.<br />
<br />
I doubt that I'll ever get tired of watching this movie. In nearly every way, it's an exemplary piece of film craft. Watching it again has, I think, sparked a desire to go back and re-watch several of Anderson's other movies, just to revel in just how masterful a filmmaker he is, and <i>Boogie Nights</i> is really where he first proved it. </div>
</div>
Scott Hearonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00119613582465607596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1464878444709017125.post-28349988418310266802020-07-14T20:00:00.000-04:002020-07-14T20:00:00.645-04:00Before I Die #642: Eraserhead<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div>
<i>This was the 642nd film that I've seen out of the 1,222 movies on the "Before You Die" list that I'm gradually working through.</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13479164.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="800" height="240" src="https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13479164.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Director: David Lynch<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
A relentless work of disturbing film art. Enjoyable? No. The work of a master? Unquestionably.<br />
<br />
No summary or synopsis of this movie does it justice, but I'll give you the basic characters and "plot," as much as such a thing is possible. Henry is a rather awkward, lonely man who gets his girlfriend Mary pregnant. Mary has the baby and moves in with Henry, but the baby's incessant crying drives Mary to leave Henry with it for a night. From that point, Henry's mind seems to break, and it becomes more difficult to distinguish Henry's reality from his panicked and lust-fueled delusions.<br />
<br />
Honestly, that's about the best I can do, though one could even debate such a simple explanation of the plot of <i>Eraserhead</i>. There are countless ways to interpret what you're watching here, thanks to a level of surreality that would become a hallmark of director and writer David Lynch. The movie is all in black and white, which already creates a starker tone than a color film. But this movie goes light-years beyond that. With carefully-chosen shooting locations, meticulously-crafted props and sets, and masterful use of light and shadow, this movie brings you into a nightmarish landscape that is a thoroughly-realized world of its own. This may seem an odd thing to say, since a natural reaction to much of <i>Eraserhead</i> is, "What in the hell is going on here?!", probably quickly followed by the question, "How much more of this can I take?" The story of Henry is presented in such a dark, horrific, disorienting manner that it is disturbing, almost from its opening moments. At the very least, it is challenging, with very few aspects that are straightforward or easily interpreted. Just to give a simple idea, the film opens on Henry floating in space; we get closer to a planet superimposed over his head, then enter a building on that planet. In that building is a man pulling various levers. These images are followed by something that seems to be a spermatozoa moving along, eventually entering a pool. We are shortly after seeing Henry go about what passes for "everyday life" in this movie. Right away, we're being asked to put some serious thought into what we are seeing. And the movie never lets up in this regard. Every person, every location, and nearly every image suggests broken people in a broken world, with terror seeping into every fiber of all of it.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/50d144f6e4b05aff8e5b9c8c/1559528271142-FJGKW0L903GVF6RHLYQE/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kMABmXfHFJ1hPhaBVAaleilZw-zPPgdn4jUwVcJE1ZvWQUxwkmyExglNqGp0IvTJZUJFbgE-7XRK3dMEBRBhUpxm4Y-IxuTC8cGfWyPt4yyC86c5TRltwuBp0CXQMbr97CrQGTIyQULqRZCp-obA0zk/what-culture-david-lynch-eraserhead-chicken-dinner.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="600" height="160" src="https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/50d144f6e4b05aff8e5b9c8c/1559528271142-FJGKW0L903GVF6RHLYQE/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kMABmXfHFJ1hPhaBVAaleilZw-zPPgdn4jUwVcJE1ZvWQUxwkmyExglNqGp0IvTJZUJFbgE-7XRK3dMEBRBhUpxm4Y-IxuTC8cGfWyPt4yyC86c5TRltwuBp0CXQMbr97CrQGTIyQULqRZCp-obA0zk/what-culture-david-lynch-eraserhead-chicken-dinner.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Even an ostensibly "normal" scene like sitting around the<br />dinner table is humming with a foreboding sense of<br />eerie alienation and isolation. As weird as these scenes are,<br />they are among the tamer ones in the movie.</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
If this sounds like a difficult viewing experience, it is. In fact, this was my second attempt at watching this. My first attempt - about 15 years ago - was a failure after getting about 40 minutes into it. My brain just wasn't up to the task, even though I had seen and even enjoyed a few of Lynch's later films (which I'll be rewatching and reviewing soon). If you're not ready to see this as a piece of art to be studied - if you're not ready to grapple with multiple disturbing, perplexing images and sequences, then <i>Eraserhead</i> will not be for you. I must say, though, that on this successful viewing, I was fairly compelled. I think I found a better, objective perspective from which to watch a movie like this. This is not a movie to be "enjoyed," in my view. At least, not in the same way that a mainstream action or adventure movie is. Not even in the same way that a drama is. Rather, <i>Eraserhead</i> is a film that you allow to pull you in, in order to ponder over what vision its creator is bringing to life. And I don't think anyone can dispute that David Lynch had a cohesive vision here. Not cohesive in an obvious, narrative way, but cohesive in terms of tone and mood. Once I locked into this, the film became more fascinating. I certainly didn't "understand" all of it. Not even close. But I enjoyed the mental exercise of theorizing what the story and images were representing, and what it was saying about its protagonist.<br />
<br />
This is certainly one of the more challenging, least accessible movies that I've ever seen. I can only recommend it to people who enjoy surrealistic art, and who don't mind dark and disturbing energy flowing through a movie. In the coming weeks, I'll be watching more David Lynch and coming up with an overview of several of his films and TV shows. I'm fairly sure, though, that <i>Eraserhead</i> will reign as his strangest picture. </div>
</div>
Scott Hearonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00119613582465607596noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1464878444709017125.post-66159434811664701482020-07-13T20:00:00.000-04:002020-07-13T20:00:03.826-04:00Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://dyn1.heritagestatic.com/lf?set=path%5B1%2F9%2F5%2F2%2F3%2F19523750%5D&call=url%5Bfile%3Aproduct.chain%5D" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="605" data-original-width="800" height="242" src="https://dyn1.heritagestatic.com/lf?set=path%5B1%2F9%2F5%2F2%2F3%2F19523750%5D&call=url%5Bfile%3Aproduct.chain%5D" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Director: Tony Randel<br />
<br />
This was just not a very good movie.<br />
<br />
About two years ago, I decided to go back and watch the original <i><a href="https://scottsfilmwatch.blogspot.com/2018/02/retro-trio-hellraiser-1987-semi-pro.html" target="_blank">Hellraiser</a></i>, and I found it to be a film with a few clear strengths and a few painfully obvious weaknesses. Its sequel, <i>Hellbound</i>, released a mere 15 months later, shows a tentative grip on the original's merits, but has even more warts than its predecessor.<br />
<br />
The original movie told the tale of the young woman Kirsty, whose stepmother Julia and Julia's former lover Hank had killed her father in order to resurrect Hank and rescue him from a literal hell in which he had trapped himself. It was a grisly tale that ended with Kirsty barely surviving with her life, though she managed to doom Hank and Julia back into the sadomasochistic netherworld from which Hank came. <i>Hellbound</i> continues to follow Kirsty, shortly after the events relayed in <i>Hellraiser</i>, who has been placed in a psychiatric hospital. We soon learn that the hospital is under the care of Doctor Phillip Channard, a psychopath obsessed with the puzzle boxes which Hank had used to open a door to hell. Dr. Channard uses the patients in the hospital to experiment with the boxes, eventually learning how to open one of them and releasing Julia, who is stripped of her skin in the same way that Hank was upon his initial return. Channard allows himself to be taken into Hell by Pinhead and the other horrific Cenobites, with Kristy and another patient, Tiffany, following in order to stop whatever grand plan Channard has. We see the landscape of Hell, learn that Pinhead and the other Cenobites were once themselves humans, and watch Dr. Channard become a new, even more powerful form of Cenobite. Channard kills the other Cenobites in a bid to take over their realm, and even bring its nightmare tortures to our world. Channard is foiled, though, when Kirsty and Tiffany use the puzzle box to destroy Channard's power source, and him with it.<br />
<br />
This sequel was pretty bad. The few strengths it showed were really just lifted from the previous film, and the weaknesses of <i>Hellraiser</i> were mostly here again, a few of them in worse form. As grotesque as the visuals are in the <i>Hellraiser </i>films, one has to admit that creator Clive Barker's concepts and mythology around the Cenobites and Hell are unique and morbidly fascinating. And the neo-goth, sadomasochistic fetish aesthetic was a novel visualization of the entire frightening notion. Combined with the gut-wrenching body horror elements depicted, an iconic horror world was created. These things are the main draw in <i>Hellbound</i>, but they were already created and shown in the previous movie. <i>Hellbound</i>'s greatest contribution to Barker's world is the deepening of the mythology. We learn some key pieces to Pinhead's origins, and we see what their realm actually looks like, and these were fairly compelling. The effects and visuals in the sequel are of the same quality, which is to say quite good, but again this was nothing new. It did seem, though, that the actual cinematography and any set designs <i>not</i> part of the horror sequences were rather drab and cheap.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://miro.medium.com/max/1640/0*95vxZxNIRQ6zlvhg.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="800" height="160" src="https://miro.medium.com/max/1640/0*95vxZxNIRQ6zlvhg.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Here's Channard, undoubtedly trying out one of his awful<br />one-liners. It's like the writers asked, "What if we mix Pinhead<br />with Henny Youngman? That's be pretty scary, right?"</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Nearly every other aspect of the movie I find weak. Like its predecessor, the acting is spotty at best, and sometimes downright bad. This isn't helped by a rather lame script that never really offers good answers to any of the more interesting questions that might come up. I mean, you have a ton of material just sitting there regarding human psychology around pain and arousal, and it is never explored with any sort of depth. The really painful parts, though, are how the film turns its main villain - Dr. Channard - into a lame, Freddy Kruger wannabe. Yes, Pinhead cracked off one or two iconic lines in <i>Hellraiser:</i> "We have such sights to show you," and "Time to play" are all-timers. Well, I guess the filmmakers took that bait and ran with it, because in <i>Hellbound</i>, you have the transformed Channard Cenobite flying around, shredding people left and right, and spouting lame, hokey one-liners in every scene. It's pretty cringe-worthy for a story that has the potential to be truly horrifying in more of a Lovecraftian way, rather than a campy way.<br />
<br />
So my <i>Hellraiser</i> itch is now fully scratched. It may come as a surprise to you that there are ten - that's right, <i>ten</i> - movies in this series so far (I think I knew of four or five of them). After watching the second one, though, I feel absolutely no need to go any further. For fans of dark horror, it's well worth checking out the original. But don't give in to the temptation to watch more. If my experience with <i>Hellbound</i> and the overall reception of the subsequent movies are anything to on, it's best to just leave well enough alone. </div>
Scott Hearonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00119613582465607596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1464878444709017125.post-80191715450401504622020-07-12T16:00:00.000-04:002020-07-13T12:58:09.204-04:00Rocketman (2019)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://img.etimg.com/thumb/msid-68864177,width-1200,height-900,imgsize-1041019,overlay-etpanache/photo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="800" height="240" src="https://img.etimg.com/thumb/msid-68864177,width-1200,height-900,imgsize-1041019,overlay-etpanache/photo.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Director: Dexter Fletcher<br />
<br />
Solid musical biopic covering the first thirty-odd years in the life of massively popular musician Elton John. <i>Rocketman</i> is entertaining and very well crafted, even if it left a few things to be desired. This was part of a little musical kick that my wife and I have been on in the last few weeks - a kick which has included watching <i><a href="https://scottsfilmwatch.blogspot.com/2020/05/purple-rain-1984.html" target="_blank">Purple Rain</a></i> and the 2018 version of <i><a href="https://scottsfilmwatch.blogspot.com/2020/05/a-star-is-born-2018.html" target="_blank">A Star is Born</a>. </i><br />
<br />
For those somehow unaware of the exact origins of the smash hit songs <i>Goodbye, Yellow Brick Road</i>, <i>Tiny Dancer</i>, and a ton of other tunes we all know and can sing the chorus to, this movie is a dramatic, glitzy telling of their performer, Elton John. John, born Reginald Kenneth Dwight, had an emotionally (and often physically) distant father, a rather self-involved mother, and early on exhibited exceptional talent as a pianist. After spending most of his teen years playing in cover bands and as a backup pianist for visiting rock and rhythm and blues bands, Dwight delved into a solo career, adopting the stage name "Elton John." He was soon introduced to aspiring lyricist Bernie Taupin, and the two very quickly proved to be an incomparable songwriting duo. Within two years, the pair had composed two hit songs, and soon Elton was finding himself entering the brighter spotlights of worldwide fame and fortune. However, the prodigious musician and performer still struggled mightily with his own sexual orientation and relationships with other people, being a gay man in a time when it still wasn't very acceptable to be known as a non-heterosexual. Elton's forms of self-therapy included booze and drugs, along with lavish spending sprees on ever-more flamboyant outfits and other material possessions. After a rock bottom moment in the mid-1980s, Elton eventually sorted out most of the serious issues in his life, getting him back on track to having healthier relationships and returning to being a great performer.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/rocketman-teaser-trailer-2.png?w=780" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="519" data-original-width="780" height="212" src="https://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/rocketman-teaser-trailer-2.png?w=780" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Elton John's famously flamboyant outfits often belied<br />the psychological and emotional distress he was experiencing.</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The movie <i>Rocketman</i> covers this period in John's life in fun fashion. I actually wasn't expecting it, but it takes the more traditional musical approach of having song and dance numbers break out, spontaneously, regularly throughout the movie. This has never been my favorite style of musical, as it usually feels inorganic and forced. Still, I grew used to it with <i>Rocketman</i>, as it's a logical representation of a person's whose mind works in musical ways. Also, none of the songs is full-length, always being a one- or two-minute segment of one of John's best-known hits. For me, it also helped that I've always liked the man's music. I've never been a fanatic, but I've enjoyed his songs enough to tap my toes along and even sing or hum a few bars when those familiar sounds kick off at many points in the movie. And the visuals and choreography are as glitzy and dazzling as you would expect from a film about one of the showiest pop musicians of all time.<br />
<br />
The story itself doesn't do anything especially novel with the narrative of fame. A young, bright-eyed, and talented person overcomes difficult beginnings to reach unimagined heights of notoriety. Their personal demons and the trappings of fame lead to self-destructive behavior. They navigate those treacherous waters and come out the other side, a bit more whole. <i>Rocketman</i> sticks to that telling of the story Elton John's first thirty-odd years of life. It is fairly refreshing to see that we live in a time when someone's sexuality can be openly explored, along with the more standard struggles with family life and other personal obstacles. This film does a nice job of not flinching here, or making John out to be some sort of angelic victim.<br />
<br />
One can't help but notice that, while the movie uses plenty of tunes from the Elton John catalog, it is not John's voice that you hear. Perhaps for reasons of sonic integrity, lead actor Taron Egerton does all of his own singing. He does a solid job of it, considering Elton John always had such an amazing and distinct vocal style. Still, it's not Elton John, and it stands out a bit. Egerton does, however, do a great job in terms of his overall performance, hitting the range of emotions required in depicting John as sometimes painfully vulnerable and sometimes brashly confident. The rest of the cast also does great work, especially Jamie Bell, who plays Bernie Taupin.<br />
<br />
<i>Rocketman</i> was good fun. You'll have to look elsewhere if you want an objective, definitive life story of Elton John, but this is an entertaining and often touching look at the making of a 20th-century pop music icon.</div>
Scott Hearonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00119613582465607596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1464878444709017125.post-2185089304594318422020-07-11T16:43:00.001-04:002020-07-13T12:56:17.175-04:00Idiot Boxing: Insecure, season 4 (2020)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://miro.medium.com/max/1080/1*OCuNphx_aKo2YJYS7uA7bA.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="640" height="320" src="https://miro.medium.com/max/1080/1*OCuNphx_aKo2YJYS7uA7bA.jpeg" width="256" /></a></div>
Issa Rae continues to head up a great modern dramedy.<br />
<br />
This season sees Issa continue her attempts to forge a place for herself and figure out exactly what she wants in life - something that plenty of people entering their 30s struggle with. In Issa's case, it takes three main forms. Professionally, she is trying to coordinate a large community event and benefit, including food and entertainment. It forces her to work far more autonomously than ever, which of course has its pros and cons. Swirling around this is her relationship with longtime best friend, Molly, which has grown rockier for a few reasons. In addition, Issa's previous longtime boyfriend Lawrence has returned on the scene, with a very solid job and a new girlfriend - a girlfriend with whom Issa begins working in order to better coordinate her large-scale community event.<br />
<br />
Since its <a href="https://scottsfilmwatch.blogspot.com/2017/01/idiot-boxing-supernatural-season-12.html" target="_blank">first season back in 2016</a>, this has been a must-watch show for my wife and me, and this newest season did nothing to change that. The humor is as sharp and consistent as ever, and the drama is solid enough that even someone like me - who's not big on relationship drama - can get wrapped up in it. As you would hope in the fourth season of a show that started with its main character in their mid- to late twenties, it's less about horrible decisions and more about the struggles that come with their increasing maturity and reevaluation of their relationships with each other. The big rift in this season is between Issa and Molly, triggered by Issa's furtively having Molly's boyfriend Andrew give her a bit of help with her event. This isn't helped by the fact that Molly's relationship with Andrew hits <br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://i2.wp.com/butwhythopodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/7E6C2A61-B3D9-4201-854D-481AC5F0921F.jpeg?resize=735%2C491&ssl=1" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="491" data-original-width="735" height="213" src="https://i2.wp.com/butwhythopodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/7E6C2A61-B3D9-4201-854D-481AC5F0921F.jpeg?resize=735%2C491&ssl=1" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Molly plays an even more prominent role this season, even<br />having an entire episode all to herself. Along with the return<br />of Lawrence, Issa's shifting friendship with Molly is a key<br />component to this fourth season of the show. </i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
some choppy waves, or that Issa has to navigate a strange triangle between her ex and now extremely eligible bachelor Lawrence and Lawrence's girlfriend. Yes, it's drama, but I never felt like anything was overly forced or in the melodrama category.<br />
<br />
The comedy elements of the show? Still completely on point. Yet again, this season highlights Issa Rae's comic skills, and yet again, there are a ton of great supporting characters who bring the fun. The writing hasn't lost its edge, even if the main characters' blunders are a bit more subtle, and their struggles more of an internal nature. And this is where Issa Rae's masterful control of her physical movements, facial expressions, and comic timing shine once again.<br />
<br />
Even though I feel like this show will run its course in one or two more seasons, I'm still completely on board and fully looking forward to the next chapter. </div>
Scott Hearonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00119613582465607596noreply@blogger.com0