Review CLXV

Review 165
A Different Take on the Horror Film Genre

Happy All Saints' Day! I was hoping to write a review yesterday, but given that I had an exam this morning, well, that wasn't going to happen. So instead I'm writing today. I mean, Dia de muertos is from October 31st to November 2nd, so we're not all that late, are we? Anyway, I thought I'd write a short review of two other horror films I took the time to watch prior to Halloween. Horror movies are for any time of the year, but if you really want, you can save them for next year. Let's get rolling!

Suspiria (1977)

I was told that Italian horror has a lot of pretentious films and fans. Well, I suppose I can see why, but Dario Argento's Suspiria is still pretty interesting. Not plot-wise and acting, but in the way they do everything else. The avid colours are something out of Tokyo Drifter from Suzuki Seijun, and the music is just as repetitive as in Blue Velvet from David Lynch. But it really works. It makes things different than a typical horror movie, and it's actually pretty cool. I wouldn't say the plot is anything super great - a ballet dancer heads to Germany to study ballet, only to find out the school is headed by a witch cult - or anything super original at this point, but it does make some interesting choices. Is it super scary? It isn't. If you're looking for something similar to John Carpenter's Halloween, you're not going to get that. But if you're looking for something that does stuff really weird - and without the jump scares - definitely check Suspiria out. I'm actually checking out another Dario Argento film now. If it turns out to be good, I'll write an extensive review.

House on Haunted Hill (1959)

Last year for Halloween, I watched a Vincent Price film. Here I am a year later talking about another one. Honestly, William Castle's House on Haunted Hill isn't your typical horror film - it's more a murder mystery in a sense, but it's still damn good with some spooky moments. The movie really ages well, and even if you're not into black and white films, I highly recommend this one. Vincent Price is awesome (as expected), but so is everyone else in the movie. I remember seeing a comment somewhere that this movie was trash, but let me assure you, it isn't. Again, it's slightly different, but it's pretty damn fine.

Well fellers, I guess that's it. Happy (belated) Halloween to you all, but remember, it's never too late to get the spooky chills.

Good night!

Review CLXIV - Sweet, Sweet Lonely Girl

Review 164
Sweet, Sweet Lonely Girl (2016)

Oh jeez, it's been quite a while. Here I thought I hadn't written a review since July, but in fact, it's been since June! While partial blame is definitely on the fact that I haven't been watching all that many movies in general - instead I've been splurging on some anime - I would say it's been more a case of needing to take a break from writing reviews. Some months you really feel in the mood to sit down and write out your thoughts, and other times, you just need an extended hiatus. I can't say I'm feeling cent pour cent back, but knowing it's the month of Halloween, I figured it was time to write a review for a least one thriller this month. Not to mention it's Friday the 13th. If I was really on top of my game, I would have reviewed one of the films in the Friday the 13th franchise, but in all seriousness, I actually really hated the original. Consequently, I never decided to go further into the series, but I digress. Today we're talking about A. D. Calvo's Sweet, Sweet Lonely Girl starring Erin Wilhelmi as Adele, our protagonist; Susan Kellermann as Dora, Adele's aunt; and Quinn Shephard as Beth.

Adele is a quiet girl who keeps to herself. When her mother informs her that her agoraphobic aunt is near death's door and asks that she take of her for financial gain purposes, Adele puts up little resistance. However, her aunt refuses to acknowledge her presence, leading Adele to fall into isolation in a new town where she knows no one... Until she meets Beth.

We'll start with the positive aspects of Sweet, Sweet Lonely Girl. It definitely carries an ominous air throughout the progression of the film, setting up a great atmosphere for a horror movie. As my boyfriend pointed out, the palette of the film is also very consistent - it carries a lot of dark blue, grey, black tones, with the occasional dark red. The colours are very muted, again helping set up that tone. The acting was fine overall, with no falseness from the actors and actresses... And I think that's it for positivity. Everything else was mediocre at best, just bad at worst.

Obviously the biggest complaint would be the writing of the film. It is... bad. I can't say I saw anything completely new in this film, and even though it rips on archetypes, it doesn't do a very good job. First of all, Adele's character is just badly written. She's completely naive to the point of just being not self-aware in the least, and her innocence doesn't make sense. What do I mean by this? Adele basically sees this girl at a bar one day, who we learn is named Beth. From the start, it is obvious that Adele loves this lady. I guess she's never experienced love before, but somehow she thinks it's fine to just stare at Beth for long periods of time even though it is obviously creepy. She initially has this shy look to her whenever she looks at Beth, almost not wanting to make eye contact. Guys, where did this love spawn from? I mean, Quinn Shephard is attractive, yes, but I don't know, I don't get where this infatuation comes from. Anyway, it's just typical hair-flipping action with Adele which was just crap writing. She's innocent and listens to her music and smiles to herself, talking about how much she loves Beth. I dunno, I guess it's equivalent to Myra Hindley when she first met Ian Brady and wrote in her journal about how mature he looked. But instead of just writing this in her journal, Adele portrays all her emotions up front in a conspicuous manner. That's problem number one. When she eventually gets drawn into Beth's evil ways, she has no moral compass whatsoever. She follows her around like a puppet and barely puts up a fight about anything Beth tells her to do. Spoiler - even when Beth tells her to switch her aunt's heart medication for some cheaper "natural" alternative, she doesn't put up a fight. This would make it more interesting, especially with the overall plot (which we will discuss in a minute). They could have made character development, but they didn't. Her aunt dies as a result of this shit, but she doesn't question this shit for even a second. There are easily led people, and then there's badly written characters. I can't talk shit on aunt Dora very much because she barely backs an appearance, so we'll skip her. Next is Beth. Beth is just typical bad girl too. She doesn't bring anything new to the movie, just same old shit I've seen before. I can't say she was as horribly written as Adele, but that could be because Adele gets more screen time than Beth, and I just found Beth boring to be honest.

Second is just general plot. This whole "good-girl-turns-bad" is old. I don't care if the movie had a good atmosphere, the whole time I was watching this, I felt like the script was being read to me. Nothing was subtle. Adele followed Beth because, for the sake of the plot, it had to be done. They didn't try to deviate from the eventual end, instead giving the viewer exactly what they expected from every scene. Adele turns from stupid innocence to stupid blasphemy. The plot is basically in line with The Cabin in the Woods satanist-MKUltra kind of shit. It's freakin' boring and been used before. Beth is attempting to convert Adele to the dark side because she's part of some satanist group. Adele gladly walks into it. This is boring! I want my horror movies to say something! I don't just want some satanist shit which I've seen multiple times before and I will see, I'm sure, again in the future. But no, the plot had to be weak.

From what I read for Sweet, Sweet Lonely Girl, everyone said the film moved through the underbelly slowly, only to abruptly end with the climax. People said not to question the ending, but in reality, that's because they didn't understand it. This is fine because personally, a few years back, I wouldn't have understood it either. But really, I think my satanist clue just lets you guess the ending. Spoiler - yes, her aunt supposedly comes back from the dead to make Adele take her place, but instead, maybe take it as Adele joining her aunt in the MKUltra programming. Even if I didn't understand the ending, it would still be shit. Why? Because it's so fast and horribly shot. Adele does the stupid thing of running into the basement even though she could easily run outside. And anyway, I don't care because Adele never had any morality to begin with. Good for her if she joined this cult - she doesn't care if people die.

I suppose this review is a bit all over the place, so let me sum it up: Sweet, Sweet Lonely Girl attempts at a nice atmosphere, but falls short on everything else. Characters are derivative, plot is unoriginal, and the "mysterious" ending is nothing short of lame. The movie isn't absolutely horrible - if someone put it on and I was there, I wouldn't walk out of the room - but it's not good either. Would I recommend it? No. But if you know someone who is inviting you to watch it, you won't throw up.

Review CLXIII - Wonder Woman

Review 163
Wonder Woman (2017)

It's the end of June, but I had to write a review before the month was up. At the beginning of the month, I went on an unexpected vacation for about two weeks, meeting some new people along the way, and attempting a new language. While the experience was certainly wonderful, my boyfriend and I were also pulled into the movie theatre to watch a movie. What great movie did we get to watch? The film was Patty Jenkins' Wonder Woman starring Gal Gadot and Chris Pike.

Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) receives a photograph from Bruce Wayne containing her and a mysterious group of men dating from World War I. Remembering a time once lost, Diana remembers her old life on Themyscira and how she came to know Steve Trevor by almost complete accident.

I could write a better synopsis, but then maybe this film could have written a better story. Actually, am I even surprised that they didn't? No, I'm not. Some friends of mine and I went to see Alien: Covenant (it's trash, don't watch it) and we saw the trailer for Wonder Woman. Obviously horrible, we made jokes about its release. However, then I was forced to watch it. All two and a half HOURS of it. Okay, before we even get started on plot, what is with super long films? I mean, I've watched Solaris, which bordered on nearly three hours, but that's kind of a joke with Russian stuff, no? Their literature is lengthy and detailed, as well as their films, but I don't understand why a superhero movie needs to be so long when the plot is as simple as "this man is evil because reasons". I mean, you look at the original James Bond film, Dr. No, and it was a little over an hour and a half. It didn't need much else. The latest one (as of this date) is over two hours long. Why? I'm not against long films, but when there's a reason. I don't enjoy dedicating myself to two hour movies when they're shit. And when you're in the cinema, you have no choice because you paid for your ticket.

Okay, so obviously I found Wonder Woman super long, but is that the only problem? No. It was complete stock with typical propaganda littered throughout. I don't really know what you want me to say besides that. Strong independent woman who don't need no man? Minorities everywhere who have been marginalised by the white man? Check and check. Jesus, the number of different races you see throughout the World War I shots. You've got to be kidding me - why are we throwing out accuracy? What does it add? I've had this argument with people before about wanting to watch movies just for fun. But even if you didn't give a shit for the stuff I just said, this film just threw up every typical arc in the history of story writing. Insert conflict, insert love piece, insert funny bit. And this damn film has an amazing review! What the hell, guys!

Honestly, I could say more, but I'm done. I think this clip from The Critic sums up exactly how I feel in general, though in this case, the audience doesn't recognise what is shit and what isn't. Just... I was done with Marvel five thousand movies before.

Review CLXII - High Noon

Review 162
High Noon (1952)

It feels like the sun was setting at 16:00 only a month ago, and suddenly it's almost summer. Okay, granted, the summer solstice is still over a month away, but nonetheless, it's feeling pretty warm where I live, especially around noon time. Yeah? See what I did there? Today we're talking about Fred Zinnemann's High Noon starring Gary Cooper, Grace Kelly, Lloyd Bridges, and Katy Jurado. Let's jump into this review!

Marshall Will Kane (Gary Cooper) has just married Amy Fowler (Grace Kelly), has given in his badge until the new marshall arrives tomorrow, and about to embark on his honeymoon when news spreads that Frank Miller (Ian MacDonald), an outlaw stopped by Kane only to be released after a close-call on execution, is coming back to town. While the town encourages Kane to leave and escape the madman, Kane decides to stay and take care of the man once responsible for bringing the town to near ruin. But the question is, will anyone be willing to help him in his conquest?

Like Sexy Beast, High Noon mostly centres around the pre-fight rather than the fight itself. Kind of interesting that I'm reviewing two similar films one after another... Anyway, this already makes it an interesting piece of cinema again since, well, every cowboy movie is about fighting the bad guys, right? And High Noon definitely makes it interesting.

The reality is, High Noon is a film about a man trying to get others to help him, but no one wants to get their hands dirty. No one wants to die in order to protect their town. Prior to Kane, Hadleyville was overrun by crime and prostitution. He was the one who came in and helped clean up the town, which included sending Frank Miller to hang. However, not everyone was happy about this, particularly the barman and manager of the hotel, who saw healthy profits when the town was run by outlaws. But it's not like the women and family men are all ready to help out Kane. They believe that the bad blood between Miller and Kane will only cause more trouble than is worth and it would be best to wait for the new marshall as opposed to fighting now. Meanwhile, Kane is constantly encouraged to leave and forget about Miller, but he cannot, even with the angry opposition from his new wife. I'd have to say that Katy Jurado's comment sums up the film's message pretty well: "It takes more than broad shoulders to make a man." I guess I could voice my opinion on this issue, but let's just say I agree with this strongly. There's a reason why men will go into high-risk jobs, and the ones who aren't gonna stand up for a country, well, they're gonna make the country fall.

I guess there's not much I have to say about the film without giving it away... I really liked it and thought it did something different. My only beef was that I was surprised that no one was willing to help out Kane, something pretty odd in my opinion, but I also get that the film wanted to give that added suspense. The acting was also great, and it progressed well, with the time of the film following with the time of the arrival of Frank Miller, which was pretty cool, I gotta say.

High Noon is an interesting Western that you should definitely give a try. It isn't all bang bang, but rather, examines the hardship of a man trying to get others to help themselves. It also stars Lee Van Cleef in his first role ever! He doesn't talk at all, but it's okay, I enjoyed seeing him, hehe. Happy viewing, folks!

Review CLXI - Sexy Beast

Review 161
Sexy Beast (2000)

It's been a while guys. Let me tell you, the end of the semester has been hectic. It's still not over, but we're almost there. Consequently, I figured it'd be time to write a review on a film related to fear and stress, Jonathan Glazer's Sexy Beast starring Ray Winstone, Amanda Redman, Cavan Kendall, Julianne White, and Ben Kingsley. Let's dive right in!

While looking over his fine swimming pool in Spain, Gary "Gal" Dove (Ray Winstone) is nearly killed by a giant boulder. Believing his life to have been spared, he soon finds out from his best friend Aitch (Cavan Kendall) that an old friend of theirs from their con days, Don Logan (Ben Kingsley), is coming to visit them in hopes of encouraging Gal to take up a bank heist job. With Gal's and Aitch's wives unhappy with the visit, Gal decides he must overcome his fear and refuse Don's invitation. However, easier said than done with such a man.

Sexy Beast is labelled as a crime film, which I suppose it is. I mean, the plot revolves around a bank heist. However, the movie itself focuses on getting to the robbery rather than the robbery itself. This is what sets it apart.

The main theme of the movie is fear. Before we meet Don, we already get a sense that this is not a man to be messed with. When his name is mentioned at the dinner table after Aitch tells Gal that he called, everyone at the table becomes agitated. DeeDee (Amanda Redman) actively encourages Gal to tell him he's quit the con life, with Gal agreeing that he will. When we first see Don, well, he doesn't necessarily give the most menacing appearance, but it is only when he starts speaking, with his first line complaining about the sun in a rather raunchy way, we know what we're in for. Aitch obviously brown noses with the man before Don tells him to leave with the women. We then hear the whole robbery plan and reasons behind it. However, Gal, true to his word, tells Don that he is done with the con life. Don actively encourages him, telling him he's the best, and confessing his love to Jackie (Julianne White), Aitch's wife, to Gal. Nothing stirs Gal from his decision. Violence ensues as Don tries a different approach, to no avail. After "missing" his flight, Don rushes back to Gal's home, only to reach one of our climaxes of the film. Without spoiling anything, let's just say it convinces Gal to do the job.

But this part of the movie lasts for almost two-thirds. Spoiler: we don't see the robbery until after this. The film really focuses on a man who did jail time and is now trying to live his life out in a villa in Spain with his wife and two friends. And that's what makes this film special. You get the trash-talking, you get the plans for the robbery, you get all that, but instead of that being the focus, it's showing a man trying to not back down and agree to do the heist.

And really, that's the focus. It's this man trying to overcome fear. There is a demented anthropomorphic rabbit that appears every so often, and it symbolises Gal's fear with Don. He's scared Don will kill him or never leave him. But in this case, he's facing his fear and won't back down. I think this even represents how people can have difficulty saying no to tasks at work in fear of being yelled at or cursed. But, in the end, you'll probably walk out fine. I think saying yes to opportunities is fine, but knowing when to say no is equally as important. It's pretty neat.

I won't say that Sexy Beast is a masterpiece by any stretch, but it's damned interesting. It's a different take on a film like Ocean's Eleven and instead focuses on getting the heist together. When you think you've reached one climax, you realise you still have another one. It's pretty cool. If you're looking for something different to watch, but still want a crime type of kick, definitely check this one out. Ray Winstone (I keep saying Flinstone in my head) really does a great job, and Ben Kingsley, well, what can I expect but a great madman? A nice little film.

Review CLX - The Maxx

Review 160
The Maxx (1995)

I've been meaning to write another review, but I always seem to get caught up in something with school. Soon exams will come and summer will return once again. Can't wait! But for now, let's talk about Sam Kieth and Bill Messner-Loebs' The Maxx. A classic MTV-aired series back in the mid-nineties, the show is an adaptation of the comic series created by Sam Kieth back in 1993 continuing until 1998. Now, while I have the comics somewhere on my hard drive, I never got around to reading them. However, I have a reason for this apart from having no time - I didn't grow up watching The Maxx, my boyfriend did. I watched it, what, four years ago about with him, and the meaning flew right over my head. I downloaded the comics as a means to further understand the series (something I will explain after), but when I started reading, my mind was just not there. So I stopped maybe one issue in (there are thirty-five issues)? However, armed with more (basic) psychology knowledge and a greater understanding of symbolism in film, not to mention a sudden hit of nostalgia, I decided to conquer The Maxx once again.

The Maxx (voiced by Michael Haley) is a giant, purple, masked vigilante who switches between reality where he protects a freelance social worker, Julie Winters (voiced by Glynnis Talken), and the Outback, a completely sub-conscious place where he protects the Jungle Queen. Throughout his attempts of protection, serial rapist and murderer Mr. Gone (Barry Stigler) prowls the night after new victims, focusing on his fixation with Julie and her ties to The Maxx.

I think it's important to note straight off the bat that The Maxx is not exactly clear in all it wants to say sometimes. This is partly because the series does not really explain the origins of the characters considering the origin stories started in the comic series after issue eleven, where the television series stopped. So, instead, we get an episode in the middle where Mr. Gone explains the problems of the characters to a doctor, but to us as well. Now, while I did appreciate the extra help, it does piss me off that Mr. Gone reveals a trauma Julie went through in college all nonchalant when it was NEVER BROUGHT UP PREVIOUSLY. And while The Maxx loses his mask at one point, leading Julie to say things had changed, it's never revealed to the audience what he looks like, or what happened. What the hell? I mean, I understand you're following the comics and all, but if some origin was given already in the comics during the release of the series, maybe you should include that! Maybe you can be like Akira or other animated films based on a series of comics/anime which are released before the end is completed and instead provide a different ending. I get not putting anything, but seriously, The Maxx does not provide a lot, leaving you confused and wondering what was real, what was not, who was who, who was what.

Okay, breathe... Now that we have that out of the way, we can discuss the series itself. So the series depicts loneliness, seclusion, Freudian psychology, sexual assault and rape, abandonment, suicide - the right stuff for a first date. The Freudian psychology in The Maxx is, well, maximised, so I'd brush up at least on the understanding of the id, ego, and superego should you have no idea about it since, as the show itself says, "this isn't psychology 101". That - at least, to me - is the extent of the psychology used, which does make me sad considering Freud was a psychopathic idiot, but you know, I don't know what else I'd expect from a Western approach to psychology in an art form. This seems like I'm insulting the creator and show, but in reality, I think they do present the ideas accurately, though using Freudian psychology is probably the easiest psychology they could have gone for... Wow, this is coming off as very catty, so let's restart. The idea of recessing to a more primitive time in your life is another Freudian idea used, but it works well with the series. It helps you understand this jump back to the sub-conscious world, while not acknowledging your concerns. I can't say it's my cup of tea because Freud, but for a college presentation, I think The Maxx would be great for an analysis.

Apart from the Freudian connections, The Maxx takes its turn in discussing feminist propaganda, but looking at both sides. Again, I can't say I was a big fan. The series is very obviously trying to show us the sexism that exists in the world, either through dialogue, or through the actions of our characters. However, it takes on this strong-woman-who-don't-need-no-man ideal of a female most of the time in order to show that women are strong and can take care of themselves. While I do not deny that women are capable of living on their own and all, it's again low-brow and just annoying. I don't care for all this shitty feminist crap, and hearing it in The Maxx made me sad. But - and this is a big but - Julie Winters, given her rape and near-murder - will come out and claim this feminist stuff is crap, at least later in the series. The thing is, given her earlier monologues, I'm not really sure if this is giving another perspective, or showing that her rape made her very bitter and led her to reject these "important" notions of feminism. I don't know, man, and frankly, I don't care. While rape and sexual assault make you aware of your femininity (assuming this happened to a woman) and break down these walls of positive feminism that you built around yourself (at least, this is what I believe), I think that should have been a bigger focus than the arguments over feminism. I know Sara's mom (Sara being the teenage character who comes later) represents this hippy movement about women empowerment, whereas Julie is the modern feminist (second- versus third-wave feminism?), leading to a lot of fights, but I was just waiting for them to move on. But I guess if you're going to discuss rape and sexual assault, you need to discuss feminism. I mean, I'm not saying everything that was said was bad - I mean, rapists will target the skanky and the modestly-dressed - it's true that it doesn't make a difference, but dressing like a whore doesn't exactly help out your situation with getting a certain type of attention. Okay, let's tl;dr this: bottom line, I didn't care for the feminist drivel - I would have preferred sticking to the personal conflicts and mentality changes associated with rape and sexual assault. Feminism will be made a focus in this discussion, but how about you show how feminism is crap?

While I bashed the hell out of The Maxx, I still liked what it did. The changing animation was pertinent to the ideas being conveyed, and for that, it deserves all the stars. And any time feminism was not being explicitly stated, I did enjoy what they did. I hate Freud, and while it was obvious what they were doing, the emotions of the characters were great. I feel like nostalgia keeps me blinded from actually completely hating it, but what can I say? The animation really was great, and it did depict character interactions quite nicely, with a bit of blood and guts.

The Maxx is not complex by any stretch, but if you're looking for an idea of Freudian psychology and an interesting examination of female characters, then give it a watch. I wasn't into the feminist propaganda, and the Freudian psychology was not my interest, but the interesting animation and relationships (and nostalgia) kept me watching. Give it a watch - love it or hate it, it'll have you thinking.

Review CLIX - Paris, Texas

Review 159
Paris, Texas (1984)

Welcome to the month of March! Guys, we're three months into 2017 - that's insane. I remember rolling in the new year, and now we're approaching spring (though the cold temperatures here seem to contradict that). Since it's a Friday evening and I worked today, I figured I'd snuggle up with some nice tea, listen to a poppy rock track, and write a review. The film is Wim Wenders' Paris, Texas starring Harry Dean Stanton, Dean Stockwell, Aurore Clément, Nastassja Kinski, and Hunter Carson. I remember trying to watch Der Himmel über Berlin, or Wings of Desire in English, by Wim Wenders, and I couldn't get into it, but since that film had gotten such high praise, I never forgot the name. I feel like Solaris has prepared for any super long, winding films... Enough of this tangent, let's continue with this review!

Travis Henderson (Harry Dean Stanton) is found wandering through the desert, refusing to speak a word to the doctor who finds him. His brother, Walt (Dean Stockwell), is quickly contacted and picks him up after thinking he was dead over his disappearance four years prior. Returning to Walt's house, Travis is re-united with his son, Hunter, who is now seven years old. However, his wife, who also vanished, leaving Hunter in the care of Walt and his wife (Aurore Clément), is Travis' one desire. With a hint to go by, Travis heads out to find his ex-wife, and Hunter, the mother who left him.

Paris, Texas hits hard - I'm warning you now - but it's pretty grand, at least toward the end. But let's start small. I'll try not to ruin too much of the film, but I can't guarantee I won't give some stuff away, so if you want to go in with a clean slate, read this review later.

Our protagonist, Travis, is a lost soul. At first, I gotta say, I wasn't digging him at all. The whole "not talking" thing got old pretty quickly to me, and I was worried we'd have to deal with a whole film of silence from this guy, but thankfully, Walt gets him to talk maybe twenty minutes in. Then we slowly get a development in his character, which turns out to be pretty depressing. His relationship with his son is strained - obviously - but thankfully, through a heartfelt scene of walking, the two come to an understanding and bond. And it only gets stronger from there. As for other characters, well, Walt does his job - can't say I got much attachment from him. And his wife, Anne, was so touchy-feely with Travis that I was sure Hunter was going to be the illegitimate son of Anne and Travis; however, my boyfriend would only comment that she was "freeeench". That leaves us Jane, but I don't want to talk about her too much since she's at the end. Suffice to say, her character is equally as depressing as Travis.

As for Hunter, well, here I have some beef. There are little scenes which are very endearing, but Wim Wenders liked to project through this character a bit. It's something you find pretty often in films. One example would be Clerks which had Dante and Randolf speaking monologues so cut and paste and unnatural between two people, it was insane. Otherwise, I didn't finish the film, but Vanilla Sky seems to suffer this with Penélope Cruz's character as well, speaking very intellectually to the point it just sounds unnatural. Now, kids are observant and all, but when he would discuss Travis with Anne, claiming all this "ceci n'est pas une pipe", it just sounded too heavy-handed, especially from a seven-year-old. It's too much of a "what's that? Is that the script?" moment. It just ruins the film for me, even if it's proving a good message through it. It makes it seem more like a lecture than a movie, you know?

However, I still liked the movie. One reason is because of its message on multiculturalism and American pride. I seem to be on a roll with these movies, eh? Anyway, just pay attention to the narrative about Paris, Texas (yes, it's a place), and Travis speaking of how his father wanted to make his mom a big "star" from France. It's not shoving it down, but it nonetheless shows how you should be proud of where you come from, regardless of its fanciness, or lack thereof. The other reason is that "final" monologue and beautiful cinematography which just ties everything together. When Wim Wenders does it right, he does it very right.

I guess that's all I have to say about Paris, Texas. It's a bit slow at the beginning, it starts improving in the middle, and it comes full-throttle at the end. I'd give it a watch, but be ready for some pretty depressing moments, especially at the end. Happ- err, sad viewing?

Review CLVIII - Rolling Thunder

Review 158
Rolling Thunder (1977)

Hey guys! Long time no see... I am dead sure I wrote a review for Re-Animator, but apparently I deleted it - or it somehow was deleted. So I'll dedicate this little space to Stuart Gordon's Re-Animator and From Beyond, both starring Jeffrey Combs (he is just great) and Barbara Crampton (her character's stupidity and good looks are what get the film going). They're great films, absolutely hilarious, and both deserve a little spot in your memory.

Today, though, we're going to discuss a more serious film, John Flynn's Rolling Thunder, starring William Devane and Tommy Lee Jones (damn, he was young!). We'll dive straight into this review since I have some work to get done, but I wanted to make sure I had a review in for February.

Major Charles Rane (William Devane) of the US Air Force and Sergeant Johnny Vohden (Tommy Lee Jones) of the US Army are finally returning home after being kept as prisoners of war (POWs) for seven years in Vietnam during their service. Upon returning home, Charles finds out his wife believed he was dead and is engaged to another man - with the hopes of marrying him after a divorce is settled. His son doesn't remember him, feeling closer to his mom's fiancé than to him. His town gives him meaningless gifts, including a box of silver dollars for each day he was a prisoner of war. The only element of his life keeping him together is the promise that he will not lose his son. However, when a burglary leads him to lose his hand and his wife and son dead, Charles will stop at nothing to destroy the men who killed his son.

Guys, I loved this movie. After a couple of attempts at watching some revenge films which just lacked proper revenge (Blue Ruin and The Shooting being the two), Rolling Thunder completely delivered. Let's see why in depth.

The characters in this movie are just great, with great acting. Everything sets up to bring our protagonist to the end of his rope when he returns, but he somehow keeps going. You see the reality that he comes back nearly dead inside after going through such traumatic events in war from an enemy, how all the gifts and recognitions he receives from San Antonio, Texas are completely wasted on him. However, his son is his one will to live. He doesn't hate on Cliff, played by Lawrason Driscoll, for taking his wife from him, but the moment Cliff attempts to buddy-up with his son, he's ready to pounce. I love how the characters don't bullshit on this. Cliff speaks to Charles about the matter, his wife is open to him about what happened the day he returns, his son feels awkward around him, but nonetheless, sees him as his father. However, when the bandits come to steal the silver coins he had received as a gift and shoot his son and wife, you don't get the full glance at his anger until later, and it's done in a clever way with cigarettes (you'll understand once you watch the movie). William Devane plays a great man suffering inside as a post-war veteran, with Lisa Richards as the wife and Jordan Gerler as the son playing their parts well. I also loved the character Linda Forchet, played by Linda Haynes, who is an admirer from afar of the major, but I'll let you watch the film to enjoy her character.

Otherwise, with great characters, we have great plot. As I mentioned briefly, the "no-bullshit" of hiding what is happening from Charles is great. In Brothers, for example, the whole climax comes when Tobey Maguire's character comes back from war after being held as a POW, not knowing that his wife thought he was dead and proceeded to sleep with his brother, played by Jake Gyllenhaal. Everything is a secret until one of his daughters basically calls him shit compared to his brother, leading Tobey Maguire to go insane. It's very Hollywood-ish and bright lights with all the lying and deception until they finally tell him and smashes the house. This doesn't happen in Rolling Thunder. Everyone is straight-forward with what is happening, except Charles keeps his secrets hidden until it blows. I like that. While I liked Brothers when I saw it (when it came out, so take that with a grain of salt since things have changed since then), I didn't like Tobey Maguire's character and I thought the overall ending was crap. It just didn't fit and was way too Hollywood. Rolling Thunder does it closer to home - you really feel the characters. Apart from that, the film just goes about the revenge in an interesting manner, with failed love and... Okay, I'll stop here. I don't want to ruin the rest of the film since that's when everything gets juicy (this is also why I haven't talked about the burglars very much). Just take my word for it that it's pretty good - and yes, Tommy Lee Jones' character does make a (rather important) appearance again.

The reflection of post-Vietnam war America in Rolling Thunder is just great. The examination of the culture of America and the self of Americans are also prominent in the film, something I really appreciated and are what will really make this film last with me. I'd be down to give it another watch in fact, to really let things set in - though granted, I'm writing this review at least two weeks after watching it, so I remember more the feelings than I do the little details. Still, that's what lasts, isn't it?

Rolling Thunder really is a great film. It's heart-wrenching and hard to swallow, but the characters, plot, and revenge just make it one film you shouldn't skip. By the way, if you still aren't convinced, Paul Schrader, one of the writers of the screenplay for Rolling Thunder, also wrote the screenplay for Taxi Driver and Raging Bull. That's what we're getting into guys. Have a good night!

Review CLVII - The Boondock Saints

Review 157
The Boondock Saints (1999)

Happy new year everyone! I wonder when it gets too late to say that. I mean, we're over a week into it already. Since I had (almost) a week off from work, I spent my time going out and relaxing before school started again. It's just a great time all around (please find the sarcasm in my voice). But I digress - we're here to review a film, no? Today we're gonna review Troy Duffy's The Boondock Saints starring Sean Patrick Flanery, Norman Reedus, Willem Dafoe, and David Della Rocco. I mean, I've watched The Boondocks, so I might as well go with the saints of the boondocks, right? ... Yeah, that was a piss-poor joke. On to the review!

After Connor (Sean Patrick Flanery) and Murphy MacManus (Norman Reedus) kill two Russian mobsters in self-defense after a Saint Patrick's brawl, they're hailed as heroes. Soon they take their violent antics to the street to become the unknown vigilantes Boston has always wanted. Meanwhile, FBI Agent Paul Smecker (Willem Dafoe) is on the case to figure out who these new killers are, all while Italian errand boy for the mafia Rocco (David Della Rocco) tries to stay alive.

In Poultrygeist, Ron Jeremy's cameo appearance showed just how shit the film was going to be, but thankfully The Boondock Saints is not bad. It's not a masterpiece by any means, but I had a great amount of fun out of this one. The Boondock Saints keeps it going with a crazed FBI agent along with the funny trio. It's like Death Wish without the strong message and Charles Bronson (I also recommend this movie if you haven't seen it).

I'm not sure I have much else to say about this one, guys. It's quirky, it's funny, but it's got the vigilante, Catholic drive. I really liked the acting from Sean Patrick Flanery and Norman Reedus, and David Della Rocco definitely gave me a good laugh as Rocco. But damn, Willem Dafoe definitely steals the show. I really loved his character and the acting. If all gay men were portrayed like this, I'd be fine with it. His glazed eyes as he relives a crime scene is just great. Sigh... Honestly, I'd re-watch the film just for him. That's not to say the vigilante trio didn't do a great job - they had pretty comical bits themselves - but in my eyes, Willem Dafoe really had me captivated.

So how about the vigilante theme? Death Wish really presented this fantastically, and I remember discussing with my boyfriend about the prominent theme. Having gone through the judicial system personally, as well as having been a true crime fanatic, I think we can all agree that justice isn't always served. Not to mention the regulations put in place in some countries (including mine) which limits self-defensive options, making it impossible to fend for yourself if ever you're in a less-than-ideal situation. Then you have cases where people are condemned for self-defense - I mean, really. In Death Wish, the crime takes place in New York where firearm ownership is extremely difficult. Is it any wonder the city is ridden with crime? Yeah, I'm weighing into the right to bare arms, second amendment of the United States of America. And yes, as a person living outside of the country, and in a country where firearms in the general public are feared upon, I think you should be able to defend yourself with a weapon, including a firearm. Seriously, if I'm packing heat, I don't think people are going to mess with me. People shouldn't be stupid, but if you're in the firearm community, I'm gonna assume that generally you aren't trying to blow yourself up, so you'll follow regulations. Now, obviously the USA is not the only one packing, but since it's such a big debate there, I thought I'd way in.

So how do I feel about vigilantism? One hundred percent there. That's why the second amendment exists in the first place - so the government listens to you, not the other way around. I'm not saying I'd go out and kill a man tomorrow, but let's fight smartly, shall we? Can we agree that some of the people in this film are complete scum? Can we agree that the court is not always going to benefit the right? It's not black and white, no issue is, but we can agree that judgements will be served, however your faith takes it.

Whew, that was a lot of opinionated dribble. Let's wrap this up. The Boondock Saints is a very fun film, filled with violent craziness. Willem Dafoe is awesome. I recommend it whole-heartedly. Have a good night!