An Update

So.

It's been something like three years since I posted anything here. My disappearance hasn't been due to any fact in particular, but I guess you prioritise other hobbies over time.

A lot has happened since the inception of this blog and I have debated just deleting it completely due to privacy reasons. At the same time, I kind of like having it preserved in some form or another. Maybe I'll get back into reviewing since I've certainly watching a bunch of films over the past three years and have some recommendations. It's also fun (and kind of eerie) to see how much my writings and personal view on life have changed since I started.

I know no one came here for a personal rant (no one comes here, I write this for myself), but I guess I owed some explanation to myself at the very least.

Anyway, maybe I'll see you, maybe not.

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!

Review CLVI - The Plague Dogs

Review 156
The Plague Dogs (1982)

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.

Review CLV - Wall Street

Review 155
Wall Street (1987)

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.

Review CLIV - Triple Halloween Feature

Review 154
Triple Halloween Feature

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.

--

Grabbers (2012)

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!

---

Doghouse (2009)

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?

---

Theatre of Blood (1973)

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!

Review CLIII - The Cabin in the Woods

Review 153
The Cabin in the Woods (2012)

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.

Review CLII - Million Dollar Extreme Presents: World Peace

Review 152
Million Dollar Extreme Presents: World Peace (2016)

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!

Review CLI - けんかえれじい

Review 151
Fighting Elegy (1966)

Seijun Suzuki (鈴木清順) entered my life and well, he never left. Having started his filmography with Tokyo Drifter (東京流れ者) and followed with Branded to Kill (殺しの烙印), it was bound to continue. This time, I checked out the forever-violent Fighting Elegy (けんかえれじい) starring Hideki Takahashi (高橋英樹), Junko Asano (浅野順子), and Yûsuke Kawazu (川津祐介).

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*

Review CL - Le samouraï

Review 150
Le samouraï (1967)

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.

Review CXLIX - The Brave Little Toaster

Review 149
The Brave Little Toaster (1987)

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!

Review CXLVIII - Playtime

Review 148
Playtime (1967)

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!