Review CX - Per un pugno di dollari

Review 110
A Fistful of Dollars (1964)

Aside from The Good, The Bad, The Weird (which, looking back, probably lacks in the proper formula for a Western), I never used to watch Westerns. It seemed like people had this assumption that you either liked them or you didn't. For whatever reason, I wasn't sure I would enjoy them. Sure, The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly (or Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo) was a classic with one of the most famous soundtracks known culturally from the brilliant Ennio Morricone, but I stayed away, thinking it wasn't my type of film and it'd be best to stay away. I ended up watching The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly way back, but I didn't fully take it in because I still had this idea that Westerns weren't for me... Later on, I watched Once Upon a Time in the West (note all these films are from Sergio Leone) and really saw potential. But it was only recently that my boyfriend discussed the meaning of riding into the sunset, always looking for improvement, that I decided it was time to sit down and watch a Western properly. I wanted to start at the beginning of Sergio Leone's epics (or the first of the Dollars trilogy) - so I started A Fistful of Dollars. It stars Clint Eastwood as the Man with No Name, Gian Maria Volonté as the main antagonist (Holy shit - this is the guy from Investigation of a Citizen Above Suspicion! Never thought I'd see him again), José Calvo (un español! Je pensais qu'il était un italien aussi!), and Marianne Koch. I was excited to check this one out, guys, I really was. But was I satisfied...?

The Man with No Name (referred to as "Joe" for the rest of this article) (Clint Eastwood) happens upon a town and quickly learns from the barman (José Calvo) that he should leave the town - there are two gangs that run the town and few insiders survive, let alone outsiders. However, "Joe" decides to take it upon himself to help the town out by turning the two gangs against each other.

Now, if you know A Fistful of Dollars, then you probably know that the plot is identical to that of 用心棒 or Yojimbo for us non-Japanese-speaking individuals (但是我动汉语,所以我可以董一些字). Apparently, the only difference is that Yojimbo takes places in ancient Japan and features a samurai and A Fistful of Dollars is a Western. But I never actually saw Yojimbo, so I can't hate on the remade plot or make a comparison. Still, I'm sure 黒澤明 (Kurosawa Akira) got it down super well in Yojimbo, along with the ever-wonderful 三船敏郎 (Mifune Toshirō), so kudos to them. Anyway, I'll get around to watching Yojimbo at some point and, when I do, I'll put my two cents in. Whatever the case, I enjoyed the story of A Fistful of Dollars. I mean, it wasn't anything spectacular, but it was cute. And Gian Maria Volonté played a pretty damn evil man, but I like that as he did it well. Clint Eastwood was, well, a bad ass of course and absolutely loveable. There's just something about how a man holds a pistol, smokes a cigar, and wears a poncho.

But seriously, I got a few good laughs in the movie and I thought it was fun. Since I had seen The Good, The Bad, The Ugly, I could definitely tell this preceded as it lacked the visual elements that were refined for the last Dollars trilogy film. It tried some things, but again, it was nothing special in the cinematographic department. That came later. Still, I enjoyed it. The plot kept me, but to me, I've watched these Westerns more for the people than the plot. I really look at how the character goes about things because usually the plot is pretty simple (based on the few that I have seen) - someone wants money, someone wants revenge, a bad guy is the source. You better hope your actors play the parts well or else you get a bland movie with a nothing plot. But Clint Eastwood was real good. I mean, he plays the anti-hero well and was pretty inspiring (made me wish I could fight in such a manner and come out as cool, but maybe that's just me). And again, Gian Maria Volonté was good - I was definitely convinced.

I took the whole film as a kind of little experiment from Sergio Leone, where he was learning the tricks of the trade, figuring out what he wanted. Given the tiny budget, yet rather avid following that came, he definitely got a second, third, nth chance. So the film isn't his best, but I still had fun. Next up - For A Few Dollars More.

Review CIX - How to Get Ahead in Advertising

Review 109
How to Get Ahead in Advertising (1989)

(Image from here featuring Ralph Steadman's crazy art)

I've already talked about how much I loved Withnail and I from Bruce Robinson. However, I always paired this film with How to Get Ahead in Advertising as it came out around the same time (two years after Withnail and I) and also stars Richard E. Grant. The two are not related, but after watching Withnail and I, I always knew I would have to check out How to Get Ahead in Advertising. Years passed and I finally decided to sit down and get a viewing. Somehow it seems fitting after watching whatever that last one was.

Denis Dimbleby Bagley (Richard E. Grant) is an advertising tycoon who is considered one of the best. However, if there's one thing he despises, it's boils. And now he's taken up a job for a pimple cream that is driving him off the edge.

How to Get Ahead in Advertising grew on me (not unlike the boil in the movie). When I watched it, I wasn't really sure how to take it. I mean, Richard E. Grant's performance was over-the-top and the messages were just thrown at you so blatantly. I sat on the fence for a while, but looking back on the film about a week later, I can say I enjoyed it, but it was not a favourite. Why did it take so long for me to decide? We'll get to that.

The movie is a criticism of the advertisement industry and a man who, while thinks he might be able to escape it, is forced back into it quickly. I like that. As Richard E. Grant's character explains at one point, the industry makes you believe what you don't need is what you want, and what you want is what you need. While Denis Bagley originally takes this in stride, he eventually sees the light and decides he's done with his job. Enter the malicious boil, his evil side. The film then gets particularly whacky, which was crazy, but expected from the farce it was. I mean, I didn't mind the whackiness, but I can't say I completely dug it. I guess maybe because I was expecting a different turn, it didn't meet my expectations, but not in the most positive of ways. It seemed like with the introduction of the boil, the film got all rushy and was all over the place. It never really look an easy path, though I remember thinking something similar of Withnail and I. Still, Withnail and I seemed to take it at a better pace than How to Get Ahead in Advertising. Consequently, I prefer Withnail and I.

The film may have been sporadic, but the message was definitely clear - the advertising industry is out to sell, not to help. How much do you really need all these products advertised to you? These diet packages and foods are not necessarily that great for you, but they show you how effective they are at helping you. Still, you could easily lose weight if you put on the proper mindset and did your own research. Or the advertisements that carry a jingle and make you think you need to go somewhere to be happy. Denis Bagley realises he is contributing to this spew of psychological manipulation and decides he's had enough. He could be a typical consumer who makes such an epiphany. However, in the end, Bagley's "bad boil" side comes through and, while now alone and separated from his wife, he doesn't care. The industry does not have room for those with a moral compass, said and done. Now, I won't say all advertising is bad, but there is definitely manipulation that people should be aware of. Psychologists are often hired in order to improve a company's advertising. There are certain tricks that have been established and if they get a product to sell, that's what the company cares about. But if you're aware of what's going on, you're safe. You don't take in the nonsense and you add an adblock on your browser. You don't have to become the all-evil persona of Denis Bagley - you can escape. Having that knowledge should at least put you a step above.

So I agree with the message of the film, great. But I don't like how the film so blatantly tells me its message. I mean, really, what did I expect from such a title. Obviously it would be about the moral standings of advertising, but still. I like a bit more of a puzzle-solver - I like having to think. How to Get Ahead in Advertising gets rid of that. It just straight up says what the advertising industry is doing and then points out what's wrong with it by making the "bad boil" only evil and manipulative. It also just reaffirmed points of view I already followed - it didn't teach me anything new. And again, it just went right up and told me the problem with everything. Thus, I got a sporadic film that got me laughing with Richard E. Grant's comical performance (I love when he pretends to be that woman in the office. I also love the scene where he talks through the box) that lectured me for about 90 minutes about stuff I already knew. It's not bad because at least it's trying to teach people a good message, but you don't really make thinking individuals by just telling them a message - you have to kind of bury it so they can find it themselves. It gives a longer lasting impression. In the end, the only thing that made me enjoy the film was Richard E. Grant's performance (and beauty, hehe) and the message I agreed with. But I can't say it's a film I would watch again because it lacks depth. I prefer it over the stupid crap that is basically an advertisement in itself, but sadly, it ended up just being a rather mediocre film.

Bruce Robinson's How to Get Ahead in Advertising is not a bad piece of cinema, yielding an important take-home message, but its rather shallow story-telling of the matter and rather random and super-fast pacing makes it sub-par in the world of thinking films. Worth a watch for Richard E. Grant and the rather cool special effects.

Review CVIII - Guardians of the Galaxy

Review 108
Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)

I happened upon James Gunn's Guardians of the Galaxy probably around the time it came out in theatres. I was blown away by the rating - how was it so high? I had barely heard of this film - though I never go outside apparently as I would later find out - and here it had this amazing rating. I didn't trust it, so I never checked it out. However, after hearing about even more praise from a reviewer, I asked my boyfriend to sit down with me and watch the blockbuster smash starring Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Vin Diesel, and Bradley Cooper, along with some notable appearances from Glenn Close, Benicio Del Toro, Peter Serafinowicz, and John C. Reilly.

Peter Quill's (Chris Pratt) mother dies from cancer in 1988 and, after running out of the hospital (because that's how we convey our sadness in every film), he's taken in by a group of galactic mercenaries. Twenty-six years later, he finds himself in quite a situation when he steals an orb which may harvest more power than he ever imagined.

Let me summarise this film in one word: shit. Let me summarise it in one sentence: It's another typical, rip-off, money-grabbing, shitty Marvel film pushing the latest social agendas to today's kids and adults. But let's elaborate. I'll be spoiling the film, so you've been warned. First, what do I mean by rip-off? Check out the poster I found. Remind you of anything? Here's a hint. The bad guy in the film is straight-up Darth Maul/Darth Vader. Prison-break scene, kind of like rescuing Princess Leia. I don't even like Star Wars, but I see this, and I've only seen two of the films of the series. The Star Wars series is not the only thing it rips off. It rips off this whole Lord of the Rings idea with the whole orb killing everything it can with the one who possesses the power. And even I know this and I've only seen two Lord of the Rings films. Guardians of the Galaxy doesn't even try to mask this - it's just rip-off after rip-off. They also make a reference to Star Trek too with one of the characters (vulcans and whatever that tattoo guy was), but of course the film makers do this because they know people liked those ideas and so they recycle it in a new film where the masses get everything they want in one film. But c'mon, be creative! This is a film that's getting a super high rating? It has no originality - it just does the same thing as every other galaxy/fantasy film released by Hollywood. Please. Guys.

I didn't know this film was a Marvel film until just before watching it. I think if I would have seen that, I would have realised why the film had such a high rating. Marvel films went from just films watched by the comic-book fans to loved by the adolescent girls on social media. I don't know how it happened, but I think it started with Iron Man and slowly became this huge thing with the Avengers series. The CEOs and film developers saw a way to make money and they're attempting to squeeze out any sequel possible in order to make more money. But I didn't know anything about these guardians. Maybe it was legit, like Howard the Duck (I don't read comic books if you couldn't tell except for the occasional one). I decided to check it out, and excuse me if I'm wrong in my information - I quickly checked out Wikipedia. Basically these "guardians of the galaxy" were part of some Marvel superheros bit back in 1969 that eventually got its own-titled run. But guess what? There was some revamp thing going on in 2008, the same year that Iron Man the movie came out. I don't know if this is just coincidence, but my paranoid side makes me think they saw opportunity in this series, with its male and female protagonists, and brought it back so there would be a reason to make a film later on, assuming the Iron Man/Avengers series came to stardom like they hoped. I'm probably stretching it, but honestly, you never know.

So yeah, this film is unoriginal, it's a typical Marvel film, but is it really that bad? I never saw any of the Iron Man movies, nor any Avengers movies. I started watching Captain America: The Winter Soldier, but I dropped it so fast, I got a little past the running scene at the beginning and that was it. I obviously don't like them. I admit, I went into Guardians of the Galaxy being super biased, but if it would have offered something, anything, I was willing to accept it. Nope. This film stars some asshole main character who I don't care for. He doesn't take his mother's hand and she instantly dies (what a coincidence), so he regrets it for his whole life. He's left unattended where he then proceeds to run outside into a foggy field. Where is this hospital located? Why the fog? Why does everyone leave him alone? His mother just died. You can't get shittier writing than this. But it gets even better when you see how he's some smart-ass adult who sleeps around (of course), but yet has the most amazing talent I've ever seen. Remind me of Iron Man? You betcha. Then the racoon, the wood guy, the girl... Just replace the film with any of the Avengers shit and you're set. You are so set. It's recycled crap, guys! The humour, stupid. The dialogue, crap. The prison system, ridiculous. Men and women in the same prison? How about no. Strong-independent-woman-who-don't-need-no-man-except-when-she-craves-the-D? Check! A poor, educated racoon (unlike the educated owl from The Sword in the Stone), showing how testing on animals is bad? Check. Environment? Groot. Check. It's pushing a bunch of stuff the masses support just to get views. I just... whatever. The colours were drab too. I didn't see anything interesting going on. It was boring for my eyes. The CGI, fine, it was nice, but that doesn't make a film. It just looks like CGI. This is a live-action, not an animated film.

I didn't finish the film - I got an hour in - but I won't finish it. The film is garbage. It doesn't deserve the high rating it got. Maybe it's loyal to the comic books; however, I can only judge it from a watch. And it doesn't even deserve it. Avoid it. And did I mention they're making a sequel? 'Nough said.