Christmas came and went and we're heading toward the new year. It's already 2017, guys. That's crazy. 2016 was a stress-induced, depressing personal journey that I'd rather never relive, but some great things came out this year, so it wasn't a complete waste at least. All I can say is people will try to bring you down, but if you persist in your conquest, you'll make it. May you move forward in your endeavours.
With that said, with the passing of Richard Adams on December 24th, I couldn't not say a word. I didn't follow his work explicitly, but I loved his novel, Watership Down. I also reviewed the movie adaptation, so I figured that I'd review The Plague Dogs, based on his novel of the same name, and directed by Martin Rosen, the same director of Watership Down. With the familiar voice of John Hurt, Christopher Benjamin, and James Bolam. Now, I never read the original source material, so I'm reviewing the film purely on itself. Take that as you will.
Rowf (Christopher Benjamin) and Snitter (John Hurt) are two dogs living in a animal-testing facility, who can only dream of freedom. However, a chance at liberty brings the dogs the new high, until the media catches wind of the whole escape, claiming the dogs may be rabid and carrying the plague.
Guys, if you thought Watership Down was depressing, The Plague Dogs is worse. It was a hard film to watch, especially as a dog lover and animal enthusiast who had worked in an animal lab (almost contradictory, right?). Now, before I continue with this review, I want to be clear: I am not against animal testing one hundred percent. If ever I take a medication, I am fully aware that it was tested on an animal at some point, and if that medication could save my life, I wouldn't deny it or condone it for its animal testing. We live in a world dominated by hierarchy whether we like it or not - in the wild, it's kill or be killed. The same applies to the human race. So for practical purposes, like medication testing (which, honestly, is sometimes experimented on people to an extent), I do not disagree with animal testing.
Now that we have that out of the way - because this isn't a black and white issue in the least - I am against animal testing which serves no purpose. Regulations have been imputed since the making of this movie and Richard Adams' novel, but at the time, it's true - animal testing was kept more of a secret. Animals were tested for the sake of testing with no real valuable data obtained (like shocking a puppy for no other reason than to conclude that "it would hurt", for example). Even if valuable data is obtained, if an animal suffers longer than necessary, than again, I am against it. Now, The Plague Dogs takes on a more global message, but again, recall the stance of animal testing at the time. Watching Rowf's massive phobia of water and seeing Snitter's panic attacks just broke my heart. And honestly, the film doesn't mess around at all - just as in Watership Down, the violence is real. There's one scene in particular with a gun that just scarred me for life (you'll know which one it is) - yeah, I admit I'm a pansy. And just this dogs running away just breaks my heart... But I'm sorry, that's my emotional reaction. I watched this film maybe a year ago, and it still affects me. But I'm a big softy, so take it as you will. The Tod (James Bolam), the fox character, also gives you the feels as he tries to help these hopeless dogs.
The film itself, along with a less certain ending, The Plague Dogs really hits hard. But the animation has that low-budgetness of Watership Down. It's fine, and honestly, thinking back on the film, I remember the story nonetheless. Still, I could see myself reading the book to delve deeper into the story, which really was the highlight of this thing.
If you're an animal lover, The Plague Dogs will be hard to watch. It shows the harshness of the world and the cruel world animals can face, particularly before particular bills were put in place to help out our fellow companions. Really, I can only give you an animal lover perspective, so if you don't care for animals at all, what can I say? I don't know how much you'll enjoy the film. I think it's a worth, but prepare the tissue box - at least, I know I definitely needed it.
With that said, thank you Richard Adams for your charming-yet-hard-hitting stories of animals. From rabbits to dogs, you showed us imaginative escapes from a different view. Rest in peace.
Hey guys, it's been a while. After nearly dying due to school, I'm on my winter break, scrambling for free time in between working and getting all those underlying chores completed. Anyway, let's get on with today's review on Oliver Stone's Wall Street, starring Charlie Sheen, Michael Douglas, Martin Sheen, and Daryl Hannah. It was not exactly what I wanted to watch, but my boyfriend pointed out that it was a "classic" in a sense, so we should check it out. I can't say I could disagree with him, so we decided to check out Wall Street, despite Oliver Stone's shall we say inaccurate political views.
Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen) is a stockbroker, desperately trying to work under Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas), a multi-billionaire playing on Wall Street with great success. After providing inside information about where his father (Martin Sheen) works, Gekko decides to help Bud Fox, who, in his eyes, is an expendable nobody ready to put himself on the line to make it big.
Wall Street has potential. While I accept capitalism as a means in society, philosophically, it falls. The film definitely addresses this, as well as showing that an honest man's work can bring greater joy than the corrupt billionaire with all the money in the world (sounds real commie, eh?). If your aspirations include becoming rich, there's nothing wrong with that, but I also believe that if you lose yourself in getting rich, especially in a let's-make-a-quick-buck kind of way, there's a problem. If, as Bud Fox's dad explains, you start judging a man by the size of his wallet, you're entering capitalism as a philosophy, and it will not provide true happiness, shall we say. Bud Fox's dad works hard for his money, Gekko does not. This is where we see a problem. So Wall Street has a nice little message.
But, and it's a big but: I can't say I liked the acting from our main protagonists, apart from Michael Douglas. Charlie Sheen seemed so straight and bland all the time, except when he visited his dad, whereby the emotional scene was nice, but super rushed (blaming editors and director for that one). Otherwise, I felt like there wasn't much going on whenever he opened his mouth, except that he would deliver lines to keep the plot moving forward. I think Oliver Stone said he was going for this style from him, but I didn't like it. I thought it was a poor choice - I like animated acting, not bored-out-of-their-minds acting. However, the animated acting from Bud Fox's friend there, played by John C. McGinley was so exaggerated... I don't know, honestly.
But by far the worst acting is from Daryl Hannah. She won a Razzie for her acting, and honestly, it is piss-poor. Not to mention her character doesn't seem like the type who would be going after rich men - she studied some shitty liberal shit, and she's not even hot, so why Gekko would have gone for her is beyond me. Every time she spoke, and anytime I saw her shitty choice in contemporary art crap, I was gagging. Why Oliver Stone would have picked her is beyond me - an absolutely lousy choice. I mean, she was fine in Blade Runner, but I guess her placement in this role was bad - or maybe Oliver Stone can't direct actors and actresses for shit.
Overall, Wall Street is a nice little film, criticising the self-made millionaires who made themselves through stocks, not through hard-work, and taking capitalism as a way of life. However, the acting falls short in a film. The humor thrown in from Bud Fox's boss was lame in my opinion as well, but whatever. Basically, the movie is a cute one-watcher which doesn't really stand up to the test of time. Check it out if you're interested, but if you're not, skip it - you aren't missing much.
Halloween 2016 has creeped up on us slowly but surely, and while I am sitting at home, feeling incredibly sick, I nonetheless have some reviews for you. Yes, I made an effort to watch some more Halloween movies before the time was up, so today, I present you with a triple Halloween Feature! Get ready to scream, cry, and laugh for this Halloween edition.
Lisa Nolan (Ruth Bradley), a high-achieving Garda employee, comes to a remote, Irish village off the coast to baby-sit drunk colleague Ciarán O'Shea (Richard Coyle) while his boss is away for two weeks. Tension is high until the local drunk (Lalor Roddy) discovers an alien which, according to British marine biologist, Dr. Adam Smith (Russell Tovey), survives on blood and water. Now the team must help save the town in a journey filled with blood, guts, and lots and lots of alcohol.
I fell on Grabbers from John Wright and Kevin Lehane completely accidentally when I thought the title suited my boyfriend perfectly well. And it actually turned out to be quite a ride! Released the same year as The Cabin in the Woods, the CGI is better and not over-used. It is also way better in plot and silly scariness. I also absolutely loved the characters and mourned those who were lost - how often can you say that about a horror movie? Although that might be more of a North American thing - we watch to see people killed. But anyway, let me tell you that, if you're looking for a pretty funny monster movie, check out Grabbers. I think maybe the love plot fell a bit short (I don't get how our main two love interests actually end up getting it on), but I was still happy with it in the end. Not fancy, but definitely a gem in its own right, check out Grabbers this Halloween season - or any season for that matter!
A group of friends, out to cheer up their recently-divorced friend (Stephen Graham), accidentally wind up in a remote village instead of a party centre. It turns out they get more than they expected when the town turns out to be zombie central, where only women are infected.
I watched Jake West and Dan Schaffer's Doghouse around the time it came back after a recommendation from my sister's boyfriend and remembered liking it, and somehow in this day-and-age of political correctness and SJWs, it seemed more appropriate than ever. Once again, this is a funny one, but it definitely exploits the blood-and-guts of typical zombie movies. If you haven't seen it and you're into zombie movies, check it out - you'll like it. Not to mention the underlying themes of oppressed men in this modern society is pretty accurate - though my boyfriend said it would probably convince more men of MGTOW than anything else. I definitely don't encourage it, but I think Doghouse is right in that you still need to be your own person and that a woman shouldn't mold you to what they want you to be. Regardless of its meaning, you should still check out this movie for its funny situations and awesome gorefest. Let's shake things up this Halloween, shan't we?
A well-renowed Shakespearean actor, Edward Lionheart (Vincent Price), is neglected at an Actor's Choice Award for his lack of diversity, sending him to suicide. However, suddenly the critiques who denied him his award are being murdered in the fashion of Shakespeare, sending the suspicion that perhaps Lionheart is alive after all.
A la The Abominable Dr. Phibes, Vincent Price's takes revenge once again on those he feels have robbed him. And it continues to be as cheesy and funny. Honestly, Theatre of Blood starts off with murder, and, if you knew nothing of the plot, you'd be left in the dark. Explanations only rise as the film continues, which definitely differs from the usual way of story-telling, but the initial confusion wears off as Theatre of Blood continues. I'm pretty sure the movie wasn't taking itself too seriously, but man, it is still as funny, especially with the gang of killer hobos and the windshield-wiper fluid that makes an appearance toward the end (watch the movie, you'll understand). Nonetheless, while you'll get a chuckle out of the film, the deaths are pretty neat and horrific, even if it is kind of cheaply slapped together at times. But it is from 1973, so I won't raise hell on that. This one is kind of different given the different day-and-age of the other two films reviewed, but if you're into classics and don't mind a little Shakespearean acting, you should definitely give Theatre of Blood a watch. Vincent Price was known for his horror stunts, and this one was do not disappoint.
--
And so our triple feature comes to an end. I hope Halloween hasn't already passed where you are, but even if it has, how about some films for All Saints' Day, eh? Until then, happy Halloween and be sure to not overfill on candy! Cue creepy music!
Hey guys! It's been a while, hasn't it? The semester started and my attempts for staying on top of my game have been futile. I haven't even been watching a lot of movies, and when I did, I just didn't have time to write reviews. However, I can recommend The Warriors (with its obviously strong racial message) if you're looking for a funny film and Sicario if you're looking for something awesome. Anyway, I realised Halloween was approaching quickly, so I knew I had to try and get a horror movie in here while I still could. I have a few films lined up, and I'm hoping to write some reviews before Halloween passes, but we'll see given the intense school schedule. Regardless, I'm here today to talk about Drew Goddard's The Cabin in the Woods starring Kristen Connolly, Anna Hutchison, Jesse Williams, Chris Hemsworth, Fran Kranz, Richard Jenkins, and Bradley Whitford. Whew, that's quite a few names - you know we'll be seeing some people dying in this one. Let's review this (popular?) movie!
Five friends head off for the weekend to cabin in the woods (whoa, that was unexpected), hoping to get away from their daily routine. However, it seems that their trip will actually be a murderous rampage for a bigger cause.
Honestly, I'd be surprised if you hadn't heard of this movie - it seems like one of those films you would eventually watch if you watched horror movies. I'm usually not a fan of horror movies - my boyfriend even less - so I raised my eyebrow when he asked to watch this one. The reason? A scene with an elevator and a S.W.A.T. team. Yeah, if you watched the movie, you'll know what I'm talking about. If you haven't, let me actually review this.
The Cabin in the Woods pokes fun at other horror movies with its almost breaking-the-fourth-wall dynamic. You'll be sitting there thinking of a bunch of other horror movies while you watch this one, as early as when you see the cabin itself (The Evil Dead anyone?). For that, it breaks from the generic horror movie plot. However, that doesn't mean it's good and doesn't use stock horror jump scares to get your heart pumping. Honestly, I don't mind a clever jump scare - Insidious was not bad at all in this regard. It had some clever ones. But these typical ones where they're standing there, and it suddenly gets completely quiet, you're sitting there just waiting for the loud sound and sudden jump. It's such a cheap tactic and overly-used that it needs to change. I don't mind one every once in a while, but otherwise, I need an eeriness to the film that stays with me afterward.
I guess you could say the movie tries to do this, but... Okay, this will be a spoiler, so stop reading this paragraph if you actually care enough to want to watch this without spoiling it. All right, so, the movie is basically showing how these men are hired to kill people in a sacrificial way in order to give "blood to the blood god". They have a certain way these people have to die, and they set up the deaths as a horror movie set-up. It's trying to be self-aware, but let me tell you, this organisation is just bullshit. Not to sound like a conspiracy nut to the average Joe out there, but it's Baphomet all over the place. "Gods that used to rule us"? "Blood sacrifice in a gruesome manner"? One of the workers even comments at one point how it used to be easy when they could just throw people into a volcano. Now, all right, whatever, this is nothing new to me, but I was just sitting there wondering what the hell this dynamic of killing all the people in this particular order. I also don't understand why it had to be set up like this. Apparently it's to please the gods, but when they show Japan's failure (which is really hilarious - you'll get a good chuckle), they show a bunch of nine-year-old girls, not the dynamic set-up in the United States. So what the hell? Is it just based on horror movies from each country? Why would the gods care? And even then, why nine-year-old girls and not some guy after a hot chick? And what is with these shitty Gods? A bunch of people die horrifically in the process, but nope, it's not the designated people, so they fail. It's just bullshit. Not to mention the ending... The stoner (Fran Kanz) survives along with the "virgin" (Kristen Connolly), and the two decide they'd rather destroy all of humanity than sacrifice their lives. Which already means they buy into the bullshit story, but yeah, they don't care. They decide one last joint is all they need. And seriously, I would have preferred the stoner NOT giving us all these "premonitions" - why the hell would he guess that everyone is "watching them" and "alternating them". Sigh... The Cabin in the Woods is really just stupid even in its attempts to be above other horror movies. It fails. And the Baphomet/Illuminati bullshit is just bad writing. And let me say as well that the CGI was real cheap. Not good either.
However, you will laugh a few times during the film. When Chris Hemsworth's character dies, my boyfriend had a good laugh. But honestly, I'd rather watch Dead Alive for a comedic horror movie than a mediocre film about everyone being a designated, stock role.
The Cabin in the Woods is not the worst, but its pathetic CGI, bad writing, and annoying ending just make it a meh ride. While there are humorous parts, I'd only check it out if you're not into actual scary movies and want to play something in the background.
I don't know if I'm stretching this with the title of a review, but it nonetheless will get a piece of action here. I was not familiar with the original sketches from the trio at Million Dollar Extreme, and I have not checked them out either, but let me tell you, Million Dollar Extreme Presents: World Peace (short: World Peace) is something. I was going to wait until episode six was released, but unless they decide to throw everything down the drain in that episode, I have a feeling my views will not change.
World Peace is a comedy series of approximately eleven-minutes currently being shown on Adult Swim, a late-night program on Cartoon Network. I don't live in the United States - nor do I watch television - so I would have missed out on this series, but thankfully I managed to catch it on youtube (note: a quick search seems to produce negative results for the episodes at the current moment - I'm sure copyright issues are the culprit). For those of you wondering what it's about, it's a skit show. Given the length, there are usually about three major skits running through the show. As for the type of humour, it's definitely off-the-wall anti-comedy in general, with some sketches honestly not being all that funny, apart from a little joke in the middle of the sketch. C'est en style de The Eric Andre Show, for example, where you sit there awkwardly at times because stuff is just happening and it is just off. I'll admit, it isn't a style that's for everyone - I can't say I always enjoy it - but World Peace goes above and beyond with its political commentary.
Yes, I did say political commentary. I mean, it's damn obvious when you watch an episode, but I think it's important to remember that you should not be disregarding the commentary made in comedies. Monty Python's Flying Circus, while silly at times, still made some pretty strong political comments at times that can maybe be overlooked given the general context of the show. The Meaning of Life I can say for sure had a lot to say - only because I haven't watched the show in its entirety. A drama, when taking on political positions, is taken seriously and can cause a backlash, but comedy can have liberty as it can be taken more lightly. However, I can't say World Peace takes itself lightly at all. Check out the tap water sketch to see what I mean.
The title of the show already speaks volumes given the movements pushed by governments to accept and tolerate everyone, and to bring about world peace, which, given human nature, is a complete fallacy and should already provoke laughter. Check it, I do have a belief to treat people with respect regardless of their origins, but the general population does not. "But shouldn't we try?" Of course - but what the government pushes is not this - it only pushes agendas which are self-destruction to its own people. This is what the show presents. It presents the double-standards, political correctness which plagues Western society. It makes you laugh, but then you have sketches like this one which make you wonder what the hell is going on. Again, I believe in respect among people, but what exists today has taken on a whole new level. I was speaking to a fine arts graduate student the other day, and he complained that in one class, the teacher was analysing a piece of work and saying the author was just a "privileged white woman" with nothing to say. I can't say I didn't feel an anger from that comment - not because I am in that demographic, but because this was exactly the problem minorities had to face in the past. We are not progressing, instead we are just pointing at a different race. My field of study keeps me away from art and critiques from these pieces, so I can't say I face the consequences of it in general, but I'm sure my blood would boil in such a class. It's just a sad story all around when, by attempting to get other voices heard, we shut up others.
I guess I don't really have much else to say about World Peace except expressing how flabbergasted I am that this show was even produced. It's damn raw, pretty funny at times, and has a lot to say about the political climate now. Regardless if you agree or not, sometimes you need to listen to stuff outside of your bubble to keep your views in check, and one hundred percent, World Peace does this. So thank you, Sam Hyde, Nick Rochefort, and Charls Carroll for your sketches, as well as Andrew Ruse who directed and also helped write this.
I would link a promo or something, but I linked you a bunch of sketches, so check those out! Youtube should also have some episodes uploaded somewhere, so be free my minions!
Kiroku Nanbu (高橋英樹) has fallen madly in love with Michiko (浅野順子), without any release for his love. He fears destroying her innocence, and his Catholic prospects stop him from expressing any sexual desire. Consequently, thanatos takes over as his way to alleviate the pressure. With Turtle (川津祐介) taking him under his wing, Kiroku Nanbu claws his way to the top of the machismo social ladder.
If you're familiar with Seijun Suzuki's work, you already know what to expect in terms of violence. However, Fighting Elegy is in black and white, escaping from the beautiful colours presented in Tokyo Drifter (among others), which is unfortunate, I must say. However, if you're new to Seijun Suzuki, let me say that this is one Japanese filmmaker who stands apart. Now, Akira Kurosawa (黒澤明) and Yasujirō Ozu (小津安二郎) are phenomenal directors whose work continues to inspire, but you know when you sit down and watch À bout de souffle (Breathless) for the first time? You remember that feeling of uneasiness and shock that you aren't in normal French cinema? Well, that's Seijun Suzuki's work. He is, in a way, the New Wave of Japanese cinema, taking risks, going nuts. So much so that he basically got fired after Tokyo Drifter came out and the sequel to Fighting Elegy was put into limbo and never completed. Even if you can't really enjoy the weirdness of his films, you can nonetheless appreciate his cinematography and palette choice from his films if nothing else. Plus you got Mr. Cheeks (Jō Shishido (宍戸錠)) from some of his films, which never ceases to make me laugh. No offense, Mr. Shishido - you're still great.
Fighting Elegy does not disappoint in his style, though I would say it is tamer than the two other films I watched from him. The violence is still there - oh yes, is it there - but I find the plot didn't delve into crazy spots like in Branded to Kill. So if you're looking to be introduced to Seijun Suzuki's work, Fighting Elegy is not a bad start. However, I can't say it was my favourite. I got a great laugh from the opening scenes with Kiroku Nanbu's adolescent lust for Michiko, all while fanning over the love birds and missing the innocence of teenagehood, but I kept yelling at Kiroku Nanbu to just pay attention to Michiko as she obviously crushed on him. And the thanatos part really went far. I dunno, with the mace and changing prefecture (is it correct to put it that way?) insanity, I can't really say I dug the whole view on machismo. Our protagonist could have gone to anything else, but instead went to hardcore violence and believed he could still get Michiko from it. Since the source material was from a book, I can't really blame Seijun Suzuki (although apparently he took many liberties with the script), but it still made the plot kind of eh for me. I think Seijun Suzuki's work in hitman/yakuza stories works well, especially when he's given liberty. Fighting Elegy definitely wasn't bad in its plot, but the more it went on, the more I just sat there wondering what the hell was going on - and not because Seijun Suzuki was going topsy-turvy with the plot.
Otherwise, what about cinematography? It had some typical Seijun Suzuki moments, like in the bar, but I must say that his work with colours has really been my absolute favourite, so my bias means I missed out in Fighting Elegy. As well, since I feel like our beloved director was trying to make more of a quote unquote normal film, it didn't have the same level of craziness that I remember from Branded to Kill. But it has also been a while, so I'd have to get back to you on that.
In the end, the film has some Seijun Suzuki flavour, but it lacks his superb yakuza story telling, it isn't super colourful (which he handles so well), and it isn't his most New Wave-y film. Again, if you're looking to slowly dip into the pool of Japanese New Wave, Fighting Elegy is the way to go. If you're a sommelier of Seijun Suzuki, I would say it isn't his best. It's still worth a watch for his take of a school tale ("Chasing girls is a sign of weakness! Break all the rules!"), a good laugh (at least initially), and a freakin' crazy mace, but he's definitely released better. Honestly, though, that mace haunts my nightmares *shudders*
I have reviewed Alain Delon films before, and I've mentioned some of the classics, but I figured it would be fair to review the first film I ever watched him in, Jean-Pierre Melville's Le samouraï (The Samurai for the anglophones in the audience, although the English-known title is the same as the French one, but with a capital on the "s". I'm done). I think my boyfriend was trying to impress me with this film before we started dating, and he definitely did. This is one of three partnerships between Delon and Melville, and trust me when I say that I enjoyed each of those films. I've also checked out other films from Melville, including Bob le Flambeur, and Melville really has it going down. But putting the two together just gives me some of my favourite films ever. Pure eye-candy all around with frigid awesomeness. Le samouraï also stars François Périer, Nathalie Delon, and Cathy Rosier. Let us begin!
Jef Costello (Alain Delon) is a professional hitman, normally known to be superb in his work. However, after killing a night-club owner, a group of witnesses and a persistent head investigator (François Périer) may be enough to overthrow his fake alibis and send him away to prison.
If any of you love French cinema, or super clean, beautiful cinematography, or love Alain Delon/Melville, you've seen this film and don't need any convincing to give it a second watch. For those of you who aren't familiar with any of this, well, you need to have an appreciation for cinematography and crime films in order to enjoy this one. It's truly a film from the sixties, taking its time and showing us the beauty of an image as opposed to focusing on dialogue. Definitely very French as well, which I am biased to, of course. Consequently, this film might not be as accessible to modern viewers as an American film, we'll say, but if you want an initial look into some real class cinema, Le samouraï is the way to go.
Honestly, I guess my review could be longer, but the film is great. I especially love the chiaroscuro feel you get in this film - Melville is not afraid of showing us darkness. The opening shot is just Alain Delon's character lying in bed, smoking, with our focus on his slender, large windows. I mean, that enough to me was a sigh of happiness. Melville's concentration on the film's palette being muted (at least in the beginning) is obvious and soft on the eyes. Otherwise, placements of characters and angles are great. I would expect nothing less. It's not crazy and did anything that particularly had me jumping in my seat, but it was still very pleasurable.
Acting was great. Alain Delon is very quiet and serious in this one, which was great, and François Périer was great, but I really liked the female characters. Nathalie Delon is not very present in the film, but her way of keeping cool and innocence in loving Jef Costello was great. I also liked Cathy Rosier's portrayal as Valérie, the pianist. Again, subtle. Like the palette, no one is screaming and yelling and being outrageous, but I liked her coolness.
What else now but the plot? It's a typical crime plot - nothing really hidden happening here. I remember the first time I watched the film, I was skeptical of the title, but it holds its meaning in the end. But yeah, Le samouraï is not trying anything crazy here. It's a fun movie, but is taken to a new level with the aesthetics of it.
That's all I really have to say about Le samouraï. It's a film that isn't daring to go crazy, but it definitely has a lot of beauty to it. If you like old crime films, check it out. If you like beautiful shots, check it out. If you like a super chill Alain Delon, check it out. And if you're familiar with Melville and never checked this one out, that's a crime itself. Happy viewing!
Psst... Sorry about the roman numeral screw-up. Everything should be in order now.
I remember being super young - maybe something like four or five years old - and my parents somehow accidentally cracked a ceramic plate. After seeing the plate, I made a comment that I felt bad for the plate because it cracked. While my sister would use this as a way to completely embarrass me shortly thereafter and as I got slightly older, it didn't stop me from shedding a tear for the lamp in that Ikea commercial. While I have since moved my feelings of sympathy to actual living persons and animals, I'd like to blame my little childhood sadness on Jerry Rees' The Brave Little Toaster. Starring (err, voice acting) Deanna Oliver, Timothy Stack, Thurl Ravenscroft, Timothy E. Day, and Jon Lovitz, this film is pretty well known. I'm always surprised when I speak to someone my age about it and they seem to know it. However, while I remembered seeing it as a kid, I watched it when I was really young, so my memory was limited to the cottage home. So, why not check it out and see how it stood the test of time?
Toaster (Deanna Oliver), Kirby the vacuum (Thurl Ravenscroft), Lampy (Timothy Stack), and Radio (Jon Lovitz) all try to console Blanky (Timothy E. Day) after it seems like "Master" Rob (Wayne Kaatz), their owner, is abandoning them. Taking a proactive step, they decide to find him in a modern world.
What can I say about The Brave Little Toaster? Well, it definitely is a kid's film, and the animation definitely is kind of slow, but it still has a great message that I approve of. And I won't even hate on them for the animation because it wasn't horrible - it's just interesting to see what low-budget animation looked like in the late eighties as opposed to what can be done now. Pretty awesome. But I digress. The Brave Little Toaster is definitely an experience, let me say. The writers and director and crew really went ahead and made interesting characters. As the director already mentioned in an interview, he did differ from the novella the story was based on and decided to play with character aspects that related to their functionality as appliances. I mean, I thought this was pretty cool because it's obviously visible in the movie as you watch it. It gives you a view that not all is what is seems necessarily.
Since the director is open in his views of the characters, I'll just skip to discussing the overall theme of fighting a throw-away culture. When our heroes finally make it to Rob's home, new modern equipment tell (sing to) them that they are more modern and thus better than they are. However, we know that one, Rob actually wants them as they are "his", and two, Rob doesn't believe in throwing them away just because they're old as they still work well. His girlfriend continuously tells him to buy new equipment and take the modern goods at his parents' house, but he is insistent on using the old. And given our "always need the new equipment" kind of mentality that exists, it's a nice change. Of course I'm not saying to keep your toaster if it's broken, or to never indulge in new appliances, but the fact is, getting rid of stuff just because it's "old" seems like a wasteful mentality to me. I get critiqued on my old cellphone all the time, and while I complain about its battery life, it nonetheless holds up in my requirements. Why would I buy a new one when this one suits my needs just fine? I think the film has an important message on that, even though it isn't necessarily strict on it.
Otherwise, yeah, I don't think I have much else to say. The film can be pretty dark, and the final scene would have gotten a cry out of me had it been extended. The film doesn't have perfect characters, but they (most of them) nonetheless grow as they continue on their adventure. I thought it was endearing. The singing was not my thing, but this seems to be common in films from this age. It's not awful, just eh. Nonetheless, I would totally recommend this for a child, though make sure they don't take it too far like I did growing up. Happy viewing!
Playtime is not my first Jacques Tati film. I watched Mon Oncle probably about two years ago, and I can't say I was a fan. Some parts were funny (like the guy cleaning the streets talking to different people constantly) and the colours going on beautiful, but I thought it was slow and lost on me. Well, in the end, it was lost on me because the message really went over my head. Consequently, while hearing Jacques Tati's name reminded me of silence and little quirky jokes - not a very powerful duo - I agreed to watch Playtime with my boyfriend when he was searching for a comedy. Starring our beloved funnyman and Barbara Dennek, let us examine Tativille.
A group of American, female tourists visit the new, modern Paris in search for the newest craze. Monsieur Hulot (Jacques Tati) befriends one (Barbara Dennek) while attempting to reduce his confusion in this strict, monochromatic city.
The blurb for Playtime is short because there isn't a very strict plot. It's literally following this woman along as she looks around modern Paris, and Monsieur Hulot being confused as hell because everything has been modernised. Everything else that happens just happens as a subsequent way to show what happens in this modern way.
While supposed to be a comedy, the movie instead made me feel very sad. I mean, I recognise the funny parts in it, but the theme was so depressing and always in your face. Starting off we see that the airport is also an office building and a hospital. A pharmacy is a drug store and a bar as well. To be as efficient as possible, single buildings are combined. It takes out the specialisation of a place and makes it general because who wants one thing when they can settle for more? Next the absence of colour makes your eyes hop at any chance to see green or red. You see that all the buildings are the same, all grey and white and black. When Barbara sees a woman selling flowers, she wishes to take a picture, claiming this is "really Paris". She herself is ridiculed when she goes to a party in a green dress. Seeing this droning colour palette makes you feel uncomfortable, or at least, I did. The design of the building is all square and linear with no chance at escaping on a different route.
When it comes to our characters, we see that Monsieur Hulot and Barbara stand out because, again, they move in an organic and flow-y way. Barbara, for example, is constantly straying out of the group, always being called back in. Monsieur Hulot enters a building and loses the man he should be following given the linearity of his movement. He moves around in any which way, throwing off others.
But perhaps the most depressing aspect was the globalisation and hidden French culture. In the beginning of the movie, the group is in a tour bus and get out to look at the Eiffel Tower. However, their guide tells them it is forbidden and moves them to look at the new Paris, slated with rectangular, grey buildings. We catch glimpses of posters beckoning residents to other cities, like London, all with the same grey, rectangular buildings that have plagued Paris. Obviously Tati is showing us that modern aesthetics take away originality from the country only to replace it with something clean that, well, makes you lose sense of where you are. You would never guess Playtime takes place in Paris because it has no distinct features, no distinct buildings. Barbara catches a look at the Eiffel Tower in a reflecting door, and we catch the Eiffel Tower in the distance in a shot with Monsieur Hulot. But the Eiffel Tower is far away - not where Paris is moving. Paris is moving away from beauty, from its routes. Instead, it is moving to a globalist viewpoint.
The globalist warning from Playtime, apart from the posters showing every city, every country looking the same, is the lack of coherent language in the movie. German, English, Japanese, Spanish, and French are mixed in. People expect to be catered to their language preference, without any attempt at speaking French. The European Union was pushing for presence when the film was made, but only formally introduced in 1993. It's eerie how the film communicates this union so well, with Frenchmen claiming throughout the film that they don't understand why the product isn't explained in French. Of course this is language, but given the reduction in prominent French culture, we see this as losing France as a whole. At one point, Monsieur Hulot is with his friend, and his friend searches in his pocket for a franc, implying he has currency from all over the world. Sad, isn't it, knowing that monetary union would take over about thirty-five years later in the country. When Playtime was made, it was warning the audience about the loss of French culture through globalisation and modernisation - now it reminds you that this is the present-day struggle.
While Playtime is sad, it nonetheless offers hope at the end. Modernisation is shown to fall apart at a restaurant, and a carnival is celebrated in the streets when people break away from a linear path. Given recent accomplishments in the United Kingdom, there is hope that nationalistic views can once again take over from international ones; traditionalism is what makes us stand apart. Attempting to mish-mash cultures to get a grey, straight, boring lifestyle does not lead to happiness - it only attempts to put us all in a box.
While the message in the movie is strong, I found it too strong and in my face. I like a bit more subtly in my film, and I feel like this one can be lost of a viewer as the theme is constant. Consequently, while I think Playtime is a great movie, I can see it being completely lost on the average Joe. It's artsy in its approach, so you get nice shots, but if you aren't seeing the message, you won't enjoy this one. But if you read my review, you're a little bit above and might appreciate the movie. Oh, and check out Why Beauty Matters while we're on the subject. It'll make you think. Happy viewing!
After watchingAndrei Tarkovsky's Stalker, I was down for more. I ended up reading Roadside Picnic (which was fun!), and then vowed to watch the perhaps more internationally known Solaris, starring Donatas Banionis (a Lithuanian! And he apparently influenced Vladimir Putin to join the KGB... I don't even know), Jüri Järvet, Natalya Bondarchuk, and the ever-lovely Anatoli Solonitsyn. Well, my boyfriend - who had watched the film previously - was unwilling to subside to my pleas, and thus, I never got around to watching it. Well, until yesterday. So let's sit down and discuss Solaris.
Kris Kelvin (Donatas Banionis) is sent up to a space station near the planet Solaris when communication to the lifeforms on the planet has remained muddled for years. His new colleagues, Dr. Snaut (Jüri Järvet) and Dr. Sartorius (Anatoli Solonitsyn), greet him with the message that his friend and their former colleague, Dr. Gibarian (Sos Sargsyan), has committed suicide. Initially skeptical and fearful of their secrets, Kelvin meets his dead wife of ten years, Hari (Natalya Bondarchuk), on board the ship. Now he must make sense of what is happening on this ship.
My description was pretty shit, but sometimes it's hard to write those little synopses, especially when the beginning plot really doesn't connect to what the film is portraying in the end. Regardless, Solaris is a not-so-mysterious piece about understanding the mind and what is real and what is not, what is human and what is not. Basically taking this thinking entity, this Cogito ergo sum, and making you question whether everything you know and see is really just a figment of your mind. I mean, it's made clear enough in the film when Kelvin sees his dead wife's apparition, knowing she must be dead. It turns out that the intelligence on Solaris, an oceanic planet, takes the crew members' thoughts and past memories and makes a form from them with neutrino bases instead of atoms (don't question the science fiction). The form of Hari we see on the ship asks who she is since she is not Hari, and when her second form dies, she asks who she is now. So we're examining this debate whether or not memories make the person, but anyway, the film explores it in a nicer way than I can explain. And if you're taken any basic psychology class, or philosophy I suppose, you've heard these questions brought up in your class (I know I did).
Though the message was maybe interesting, I cannot recommend Solaris. My boyfriend had commented that he had to watch the movie in three separate sittings because it was long. Bordering on near three hours, this is already a long movie, but he also said Stalker was kind of slow, and I thought that one was fine. But while Stalker was engaging and well-crafted, Solaris was damn slow. I can't really say what section I found too long because really, everything seemed to take its time. It's like, every scene was important in what was shown, but they would drag on way too long. The opening scene with the ex-space pilot (Vladislav Dvorzhetsky) showing us a tape of him explaining what he saw on Solaris could easily have been shown in less time. The walking around, the minor dialogues, easily shortened. I can't think of specific parts since everything ran longer than it should, but in a way that just made the film feel really long. Stalker is just as long as Solaris, but somehow that one did not feel as lengthy.
And while on the subject of Stalker, you definitely see style parallels between the two films, though I prefer the way Stalker was handled. You have the same black-and-white bit existing to show difference between past and present, showing how they blend, but it was not as shocking and revealing as in Stalker. I can't remember anymore what was the other parallel I remarked, but as I told my boyfriend, I feel like Andrei Tarkovsky was attempting his style in Solaris which he mastered seven years later in Stalker (there was The Mirror in between both films, but I have yet to see it, so I dunno). Tarkovsky actually said himself that Solaris was his least favourite film, and based on Stalker, I can see why. I'd have to see his other stuff, but I can definitely say I feel sad that Solaris is better known than Stalker, at least internationally. Stalker is fine, grand piece, and Solaris is trying to find its footing. The pacing is not great, the message not as significant as Stalker (in my opinion), and well, you get less Anatoli Solonitsyn (just joking).
Solaris is not a bad movie, but it definitely falls way shorter than Stalker. The ideas it presents are interesting and gets you thinking and the cinematography is still nice (still love that ending scene in Stalker at the end, though. So beautiful), but its pacing is horrible and compared to its successor, it really could use improvement. Watch it with a movie buff friend, and then check out the masterpiece that is Stalker. Though not in one sitting - that might be really brutal.
Sometimes I think I want to torture myself. Although in reality, I checked out David Ayer's Suicide Squad because I had discussed it with someone and I hated on it from the trailer alone. I really wasn't digging Jared Leto's portrayal of the Joker, but the guy I was talking with said he didn't think the way he approached the Joker was all that bad. I had briefly seen the trailer when it had come out if only because some friends were discussing it, but because it had been so long, perhaps my memory was playing tricks on me. So after listening him to talk about the movie, I decided I would check it out (in piracy), especially since critics had apparently buried it seven feet under causing utmost outrage for the fans when Ghostbusters wasn't slaughtered. *claps hands and rubs them together*
Honestly, I think I got, what, twenty, thirty minutes into the film and dropped it? So I guess this is less reviewing and more just hating, but that's okay. I figure as long as I'm up front, it's all good. From what I saw of Suicide Squad, it was a super stock film. That is, the movie recycled character introductions like we've seen time and time again, reminding me of Snatch. I also thought the whole introduction was shit in how it was executed. Check it out - we begin with I think it was the Animals' rendition of House of the Rising Sun. It seemed so misplaced. We got it as we rush across the water and enter the prison to see Deadbolt (Will Smith) talking shit about his food to the guard. The guard, being the dick every guard is in every Hollywood film, beats the shit out of him. Then it cuts to some song I didn't recognise for our introduction of Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie) strapped to the ceiling of her cell. Now, what? How does she have straps in there? This is a maximum security prison - I don't think you're even allowed shoelaces, especially since this woman is psychotic and maybe will attempt suicide. It was just stupid.
Already I'm raging, but it gets worse. We then get Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) explaining each of the characters. First we start with Deadbolt, also known as Floyd Lawton, who is a mercenary. But he's also the father of a young girl. He is forbidden to see her because he is an ASSASSIN, but they meet in secret. Batman (Ben Affleck) catches the two and, though Deadbolt attempts to shoot Batman, his daughter stops him in the pursuit, telling him to give up. He does, and is captured. Honestly, what a shit backstory. I think it would have made more of a heartfelt story if he would have shot his daughter, and was now living with the consequences. I was waiting for him to shoot her, but instead we get some shitty acting from this daughter and Will Smith looking like this guy who became an assassin for only monetary reasons. I don't even know how his daughter is fine with him being a mercenary. I mean, maybe she isn't since she tells him to give himself up, but she isn't pissed in the least. It's just shit, honestly. It is super sloppy writing with no character development. Deadbolt is the bad guy who is really good. That's all we get from him - and I doubt it changes by the end of the film.
Then we talk about Harley Quinn. I'm just rolling my eyes at this character. She literally exists for sex appeal, and that's it. She also has a shitty story. She was a psychiatrist who was treating the Joker, and she eventually fell in love with him. And let me tell you, the acting when she is Harleen Quinzel is ATROCIOUS. It was on the level of Watchmen. So much so that I almost had a fear the acting would continue down that route. However, once Margot Robbie has to act a super obvious characteristic, she's fine. Anything subtle, anything that requires talent, not so much. So as Harley Quinn, she's fine, but it's so bullshit. So yeah, Harleen Quinzel (Jesus, that name needs to stop) falls in love with the Joker, who asks for a chainsaw. She promptly gives it to him and he busts out of jail, not before "hurting her real bad" with who knows how many volts to the brain, with Harleen Quinzel beckoning him. It was the stupidest shit I had ever seen. We get a shot of the two of them together with Harley Quinn as a stripper/go-go dancer or something. The Joker looks- actually, wait, I'll get to him. Anyway, so they're a duo, with Amanda Waller telling us she is even crazier than the Joker himself. Then Batman attempting to make out with her... "Hey, guys, Harley Quinn is the way we're getting our young male viewers in! Let's get her as nude as possible, and horny, and sexy as possible!" Christ... Just shit all over.
There were other introductions, but honestly, I don't even remember them because, by now, I was out. I know one of them gave themselves up, but that's it. So all I have is the Joker, who we saw multiple times. You know how I said I had hated him in the trailer? Yeah, I hated him more. His metallic teeth reminded me of a gangster with gold inserts, and his appearance in the club with Harley Quinn just destroyed me. He's a hardcore gangster in Suicide Squad, which I really, really did not like. The Joker is a jokester, a prankster. I hate this level of seriousness he ran - it makes no sense. I'm not gonna compare to the one in The Dark Knight because frankly, I can't remember the portrayal there all that well, but I recall him having super dark "humour". The portrayal in Batman was also fine. Here, the Joker is just crazy and freakin' idiotic. Granted, I saw him for two seconds, so I can't really make an accurate description on him, so maybe the jokes come later. However, what I saw was enough to make me really hate him. Honestly, that gangster portrayal crap is just so shit. SO SHIT.
Really, I just hate this overall introduction to the characters and insert to the main plot. I'd rather it be like Snatch where we learn about the characters through a particular scene, not by having another protagonist explain each of them. It makes everything seem rushed and the easiest way to give us a backstory. And it continues with Amanda Waller explaining why these guys are needed, instead of showing us the imminent threat. Why couldn't Suicide Squad start with that threat instead of the pointless sympathy call with Deadbolt, and showing us Harley Quinn? That's the point of using a visual medium to tell a story - so you can show us the scene, not tell us about it. Just shitty writing, honestly.
Finally, the use of old music in these films to get people swinging in the theatre is also driving me up the wall. Yeah, I know they have a separate soundtrack, but Watchmen did this by having old, classic rock songs to get you in or something, and it just keeps happening. Stop. I really can't get no satisfaction with these songs.
I wrote all that from thirty minutes - I could only imagine the whole film. Suicide Squad is so stock and unoriginal with really bad writing. It isn't worth my time, and it certainly shouldn't be worth yours. The only reason you'd see Suicide Squad is because the marketing was massive for this pile of junk, and you think it must be good since you saw five different trailers online. Just... whatever.
I debated writing this review for a couple of reasons. Number one, everyone under the sun has reviewed it, so my measly review really doesn't stand by it. Number two, it didn't get a great rating, unlike Zootopia, which needs to burn in hell and know its place. But nonetheless, I read/heard some reviews saying Paul Fieg's Ghostbusters was just okay and not bad, so I figure I might as well put my two cents in.
Now, before I begin, I did review the old Ghostbusters a while back and said it was just okay and I didn't have much to say, but given the wisdom I have accumulated over four years (cough), I can say that I give Ivan Reitman's Ghostbusters a little more credit now than I did originally. So if you're sitting here saying, "Hey, man, you didn't like the original!" that would be an exaggerated claim and my old review was bad (as are all of them, sigh).
To be honest, I didn't even finish the 2016 rendition. It was so painful and ridiculous and lowbrow that I made it about an hour in and, realising I still had about an hour left, I dropped it. But I still think I can say what I need to say. I know the ending is very "anti-man" with its penis attacking or something, but honestly, the film has it from the beginning. So let's start from the beginning, mmkay?
We start off with Erin Gilbert, played by Kristen Wiig, claiming she has found the formula to connect quantum laws and relativity. I'm glad they chose the easiest possible thing for her to display her "smartness". I'm guessing the whole thing is a joke and she was day-dreaming or something, but whatever. We then find out she wrote a book with her friend, Abby Yates, played by Melissa McCarthy, a while back and her friend had re-published it against her will. And we find out that one of the people reviewing her case for tenure is an evil man who doesn't believe she can accomplish anything. He also criticises her wardrobe. Now, I can only talk from my experience in physics, but I'm guessing it's a pretty universal thing in general. Every teacher I have met in my degree so far has been very, very friendly. They are serious about their work, but trust me when I say that I had bigger run-ins with teachers in psychology than I have in physics. And the one teacher who I met who was flimsy was sexist - toward men. That's right. He was a man who was always encouraging his female students and would disagree and disregard his male students. In particular, I recall a male peer of mine commenting that he had difficulty reading the board, and the teacher told him to move closer if he couldn't see. I, who was sitting the same distance away, defended the student saying it was a bit small, and the teacher, with no argument, said he would write bigger. So really, this brings me to a second point - people in academia aren't going to be sexist in general. You might have the one teacher who makes a comment about women, but university students and professors are some of the most liberal people around. Sure, science, mathematics, engineering, economics fields probably have more conservative students than, say, art students, but I have yet to meet a guy tell me he thought I wasn't as smart as a man. And especially in physics, where most of the guys are slightly socially awkward, they would never say this. Even if they aren't, are you going to hate on a student when they show prospect and possibly answers to your questions? I don't care that this teacher was an older man - he wouldn't be a complete dick. And to add one other thing, he criticises her attire, yet in my experience, I have dressed more professionally than my teachers. Granted, this is Columbia University, but nonetheless, this guy was so passive aggressive about the whole thing, it came off as super feminine. Women say, "No, nevermind," when you ask them what. No? Whatever. We'll have more to say on this.
So then Erin goes to confront Abby about the whole ordeal and we meet Jilian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon), who pissed me off. I know a lot of people were like, "Man, Holtzmann was awesome!" and maybe because all the other characters are so bland, this is why. But she's insane. She's supposed to be an engineer for Christ's sake. If she behaved like that, she would lose her license, point final. It's possible that this is different in the United States, but to me, there is a certain licensing and educational system that goes on to actually be considered an engineer. She has nothing. She's also super catty with Abby about Erin, which made me sit there shaking my head. What are we in, high school? Thanks, movie, for portraying men AND WOMEN in a derogatory way. Honestly, my balls are busted - I've heard everyone talk about the sexism toward men, and it really is disgusting. I hate it. But for the few who say, "These women are empowered and you just hate the film because they're women!" I say, no they are not, and yes, I hate them because they're women. Because they make these women the MOST STEREOTYPICAL SHITS. These are the women I meet on the street and turn away from because they bring my sex down. Honestly, I was going to call Erin the "brainy" woman, but she isn't. She is so emotionally strung and STUPID, I wanted to kill myself. Abby? She and Holtzmann are super catty for no reason. Then when everyone is friends, it's like, "Okay, ghosts are real, we have evidence, so it's okay c:" Why even have that cattiness from the beginning? It was completely useless. Otherwise, really, Abby has nothing going on with her. I really don't get why she is there. Holtzmann is there for laughs, oh whoooa, man, but instead she comes across just as idiotic with setting shit on fire. Jesus H. Christ. So yeah, in the end, they discover ghosts, they STEAL SHIT FROM SOME UNIVERSITY (kleptomaniacs), and they open their "Ghostbusters" centre. They hire some guy, Kevin (Chris Hemsworth) who, while hot, is completely incompetent. I don't get how people said this guy carried some substance because he was not funny. I know the film is trying to be sexist again with men, but it shows just how much of an idiot Erin is. She wants to go with this guy because he is so "dreamy" and it is so awkward to see them together, but maybe they should be showing her actually going for an intelligent man with SUBSTANCE. She is literally behaving like a man going for the sexy bimbo. It's not funny, it's pathetic. Kevin is not hot - he's a you-know-what boy. Women behave on a different scale than men - while having Megan Fox should attract (young) male viewers based on appearance, I don't think women generally go for men just based on looks, especially not a woman who is FREAKIN' APPLYING FOR A TENURE POSITION AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN PHYSICS. People are stupid, but I would hope this woman has standards of some sort. But given divorce rates and freakin' society, I think I'm wrong.
So what else do I have to say? Oh, right, Leslie Jones as Patty Tolan. People beat on her for being stereotypically black, but honestly, she didn't come across as a complete racist dolt in my opinion. Granted, I didn't watch until the end, so maybe it got worse, but from the minimal screen time, she was fine. I don't really have much to comment on. Consider this character lucky for only jumping into the film a short time before I stopped watching.
I pretty much stopped at the part where Bill Murray's character - WHY, BILL MURRAY, WHY - an evil man, gets attacked by a ghost after Erin acts as an irrational woman, and they go to city hall because there's some ominous guy in the back. And the mayor is a man, with a woman by his side. But whatever, I can't say anything about the scene because I stopped watching. I just couldn't take it anymore. The film was less about bustin' ghosts than it was about stupid melodrama and little jokes. The title really should have been changed. I mean, in the original, every character was just pure and existed as they did and busted ghosts. You had Dr. Peter Venkman who was denying ghosts and trying to get the girl, but it was Bill Murray, so it was cool. And Dr. Raymond Stantz (Dan Aykroyd) and Dr. Egon Spengler (Harold Ramis) were cool, man. I liked their duo because they were not complete IDIOTS LIKE FREAKIN' ESTI DE HOLTZMANN... *breathes* And Winston Zeddmore (Ernie Hudson) was fine, man. JUST FINE. ... How did they screw this up so royally? By adding women and making this film an agenda. I watched this film, what, a week ago? And I still feel dirty from trying to watch it. I tried at it alone while trying to finish a birthday gift for someone, and I was so disappointed. This is entertainment? Maybe for a young kid, but I'd tell my kids to watch the original.
Guys, Ghostbusters is shit. The reason it can't be okay is because it holds the title of a classic, a film which actually had humour for all ages. I refuse to take it as, "Well, it was doing its own thing c:" A remake can be different, but this is literally just pure Hollywood regurgitated shit that marketing has tried to give to you as a three-star-Michelin meal. I tried my best not to compare it to the original, but I couldn't. When I remember all the humour I got out of the original, all the cheesy special effects, I can't help but feel so, so disappointed. I hate this feminist angle everything has to take. I hate that they're shitting on themselves and calling it funny. We can't support this shit anymore and call it "empowering". Just because a woman is a protagonist does not mean it has to be about this woman defeating a male society. Why can't we have it as coinciding, living as one?
I have a confession to make: I'm not a big fan of martial arts films. I guess I found the plot device so over-used that I gave up on them before I even gave them a chance. However, my boyfriend has always been a big fan, so I found myself becoming water in his presentations of films. Actually, that's a lie since we stumbled upon 劉家良's 少林三十六房, starring 劉家輝, or Gordon Liu as he's known to English audiences. Yes, he is the master from the KillBill series. Crazy! Anyway, I chose 少林三十六房 because one, it was Mandarin, and two, I had read the film had become a cult classic and earning title of one of the greatest kung-fu films ever. Considering I already know the brilliance of Bruce Lee, I was down to check out a classic that starred someone else. 快点儿! Let's review this baby!
San Te (Gordon Liu) is a prospering student out to destroy the Manchu government's hold on his town. Once his father is killed after a rebellion, he takes his training to the great Shaolin temple. Will his lessons pay off?
少林三十六房 is master cheese indeed and full of typical training montages. Honestly, this is how I like my kung fu films (based on the few I have watched). Ones that try to take themselves too seriously in general throw me off. I like the slight comedy and struggle in a our protagonist! I mean, that is pretty much my review there since the film wasn't spectacular in cinematography or shots or music or character development. I liked the training sequences, especially that one where they have to walk up a scaled pyramid and deliver water had me yelling because of those knives. What the hell, man? But yeah, the majority of the film was training sequence, which was totally expected. But I liked it. I thought it was interesting.
However, given the simplicity of the film, I also had some beef, particularly regarding the pacing. The beginning where they establish the control of the Manchu and the fact that this group is not happy went on for way too long. You just needed to show this kid living in this school, seeing the Manchu being dicks, have his father killed, and bam, he goes to Shaolin. But they spend so much time on this... Now, I wouldn't have a problem, but considering the training is a super important part and the film clocks in at about 115 minutes, it meant the final battle was short as hell. We see San Te gathering friends and comrades, and then he fights the Manchu leader, and then it just skips to show what the 36th chamber is, and the end. It was so rushed that you don't even see the guy fall, though it's implied San Te is victorious. What the hell? I mean, the training is important, but didn't we witness the training so we could see a final fight? Instead, it happens and we don't really get proper closure scene-wise. It was sad to say the least. Would I say the ending ruined the film for me? No, but it was super rushed and makes the film less good than it was. I would recommend the film to a kung fu fan, but I would warn them that the end is kind of meh. And I hate having to add that "but".
I guess that's all I have to say about 少林三十六房 really. It was fun, but the beginning was long for nothing and the ending was short for nothing. Still worth a watch if you're a kung fu buff, especially if you like melty cheese.
Also, that weapon though. Not ingenious. Not ingenious at all.
The trailer sums up each chamber, so if you want a complete "surprise", stop now.
It's funny because I never used to watch westerns, and now it is a genre my boyfriend and I fall on when we want to watch something and can't decide on a film. After having watched Django, I knew I had to check out Enzo Barboni's Lo chiamavano Trinità..., or They Call Me Trinity for us anglophones. It stars the well-known duo Terence Hill and Bud Spencer. With Bud Spencer's recent passing, I figured now was definitely the time to check out the classic. Let's go!
Trinity (Terence Hill) finds himself helping a group of Mormon farmers when he runs into his half-brother, Bambino (Bud Spencer), acting as sheriff in a small town.
That little blurb really is small considering Westerns don't usually have a super complex plot. This one is really just Terence Hill being a goof and Bud Spencer telling everyone to shut it. Having checked out Il mio nome è Nessuno, or My Name is Nobody prior to Trinity, I think this is Terence Hill's spiel in his earlier Westerns. That is, being this handsome man who looks to support the little man and has a super quick draw. Of course I'm making this assumption based on two films, but hey, he's known as Trinity, isn't he? Basically, Trinity is more comedic than Django and The Good, The Bad, The Ugly. You watch Trinity for some pretty hysterical scenarios and cute relationship between him and Bambino. Maybe watching some Mormons get beaten up might have been funny too, if that's your thing.
I think Trinity had some nice cinematographic points in the film. I especially loved when our duo enters the saloon to take on the major's men (I believe it was his men) and you get a nice shot of them from the mirror as we see the happy smile on Trinity's face and the deep frown on Bambino's. My boyfriend pointed out that he loved the colours and palette of the film. I personally loved the outside area where the farmers lived, as well as the wooden texture and framing in the sheriff's office. It definitely had an interesting appeal, although I feel like maybe I didn't give Django the time of day in terms of colours simply because the quality of the version I watched was pretty poor. Guys, watching in 1080p/720p really makes a difference in your viewing experience!
I don't have much else to say about Trinity. I have to say that I definitely prefer an overall darker theme in my Westerns, but I would be lying if I didn't say I didn't dig the relationship between Bambino and Trinity. I also had a good laugh at the beginning of the film as Trinity's demeanour was nothing short of my boyfriend (plus the beans), but let's say the opening scene really establishes the film. Django starts with a coffin, Trinity with a plate of beans. Worth a watch if you're looking for a polygamous relationship with your protagonists.
The Mexican accent always gives me a huge laugh. Also, watch the original in Italian please.
I've been binge watching westerns for some reason, and, well, I decided to check out Sergio Corbucci's Django, starring Franco Nero, Loredana Nusciak, and Ángel Álvarez. Instead of boring you with an intro, let's go ahead with this review. Also, I don't know why I keep finding these wonderful Japanese posters for films, but whatever - accept it!
Django (Franco Nero) carries a coffin with him as he journeys the desert, only to happen upon a young prostitute, Maria (Loredana Nusciak), about to be executed. Saving her only opens a can of worms he hoped to avoid.
What can I say about Django? Guys, it was awesome. It is considered one of the best Westerns out there, and I must say, it deserves that status. Of course we all know the brilliance of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly and the other classics Sergio Leone threw at us, but honestly, Django is brilliant in its own way. I know the film is considered a loose adaptation of 用心棒 or Yojimbo, and as I mentioned in my review of the film, A Fistful of Dollars is basically a rip-off in terms of plot. However, Django really does have an originality to it. The elements of 用心棒 are there with a town being plagued by opposing factions, but otherwise, we actually have story in our protagonist that separates it from our protagonist in the Japanese classic. 用心棒, with its quirky music and jokester antics, made you smile and laugh. I would say A Fistful of Dollars was more serious, but they kept a little bit of hilarity with the grave keeper. However, Django keeps the serious tone throughout the film. The film starts with a man carrying a coffin for Christ's sake and the abuse of a woman. It presents itself completely different in tone. This really sets it apart from the strictly-following-用心棒 A Fistful of Dollars already.
Next, the story itself. As I said, the plot of Django does contain the primary theme of its Japanese counterpart, but it isn't quite the same. Slight spoilers here for the rest of the paragraph, so stop if you want to be completely surprised. Right, so, in the original, Kuwabatake sends the two groups to finish each other off all while getting a reward from them - just as is the case of Joe the stranger in A Fistful of Dollars. However, our protagonist in Django strays from this and instead has actual history with the ex-Confederate military occupants, particularly the leader (Eduardo Fajardo). He also knows the leader (José Bódalo) of the opposing Mexican revolutionaries and helped him out once. Django himself is a Yankee, and so he helps out the Mexicans. He only decides to doublecross them when he wishes to seek a new life with Maria and General Hugo tells him he has to wait until he overthrows the Mexican government. So we see that Django is really just trying to seek revenge on Major Jackson, or at least trying to get over his first love.
Really, in the end, what sets Django sets apart is the humanization of his character. There's a story, there's a man. A lot of westerns deal with this badass who has immense skill and is trying to earn a quick buck. There might be some romantic affiliation, but we never get a fully developed character. Granted, there is some in For a Few Dollars More, but this one is not revenge. Django denies his love because he was hurt once, all while Maria tells him to give up his fantasies to be with her. I dunno, to me, it just showed a vulnerability not present in most other westerns. You feel like Django could lose everything and that not everything goes his way. It was just so great. Positively and utterly fantastic. And I will give a great, huge nod to Franco Nero for catching this because with any less acting, with any less emotion, this character would have been wasted. The glee on his face, the cries of pain, the poker face... Sigh! Just great, absolutely great!
I should also mention that, while Maria is not a huge focus and her character is developed less, she nonetheless has some type of characterisation that pushes her to seek her needs. But given that she wasn't a big focus and her face rarely changed from poker face, Django still stands out as the most developed.
The cinematography was average, not as stupendous as in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, but it nonetheless tells the story. Scenes have nice colours at least, right? As for music, well, the theme is brilliant. Definitely worthy.
My only major complaint with the film actually lies in one scene which, honestly, I wasn't sure if it was placed for fetishistic purposes or what. Basically there's a scene where the prostitutes are arguing over Maria being the source of their troubles, and they start fighting in mud. It went on for way too long - plus they fight like shit. It was pointless and I think they could have easily have taken all that out.
In the end, Django is a no-mercy powerful telling of a man who is stuck in the past and needs to move on. You watch this for that story and to see the brilliance of Franco Nero. Anything less from the man would have produced a mediocre spaghetti western, but his story and portrayal, as well as ballsy violence, really put this film on the high shelf for me. Watch this - you won't regret it!
Oh, and postscript - I checked out the dubbed version as it was the only one available, and it was really, really bad. Please watch the subbed version, even if you aren't a fan of reading. The dub really takes away from the movie and had me laughing at serious moments.
Trailer is the Italian one because that dub DESTROYS ME.
