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 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 CVII - Raising Arizona

Review 107
Raising Arizona (1987)

I remember when I watched The Big Lebowski and said I didn't particularly like it. I even reviewed it! Ahh, the days when I didn't really look into the hidden agenda of films. I haven't watched The Big Lebowski since then, but let's just say that review probably isn't as accurate as it should be in its present-day form. But hey, learning about the complexity of their films (including The Big Lebowski which even gives a reason as to why the Dude drinks white Russians) made me interested in watching the Coen brothers' Raising Arizona starring Nicolas Cage (have I gotten your attention now?), Holly Hunter, Trey Wilson, and Randall Cobb.

H.I. McDunnough meets the love of his life, police officer Ed(wina), after getting his mugshot for robbing a convenience store. Several arrests later, the two get married and attempt to start a new life and new family together. However, after releasing Ed is infertile, the two decide that the Arizonas don't need one of the quintuplets they have just had. But could this child really be the solution to their problems?

Raising Arizona was a little quirky. It was funny, though nothing particularly groundbreaking. I was worried this was going to take on a Baby's Day Out feel when we see H.I. trying to choose a baby and they're all getting out. Thankfully, it doesn't take that turn. But the film was still cute and colourful like a, dare I say it, Wes Anderson film. But the way the plot goes about is different, so while it's cute and has these bright colours, it's not exactly a Wes Anderson movie. But the nice cinematography is still present. The Coen brothers really liked giving point-of-view (POV) shots and moving the camera throughout the film. For example, we get the baby's POV while Nicolas Cage coos at it from the window. Another example is when a chase ensues and the camera follows behind the running characters. I liked that. I liked that the Coen brothers got the camera moving and really became part of the action instead of just used to capture the action on screen. So kudos for that!

Now, I didn't do a full-on analysis of the film and, while I read a few perspectives/analyses, I didn't find anything that deconstructed every scene. Nonetheless, we can discuss some common and more obvious aspects. I totally recommend looking for more detailed analyses if you're interested in learning more about the film. And finally, beware, this paragraph will have spoilers. The movie focuses on H.I., a recidivist thief who never actually fills his gun with ammo while he goes to rob convenience stores. This is brought up in the film twice, but make sure to remember that. Right off the bat, H.I. explains that prison life is very "structured, more than what most people care for". Yet, he explains the comradery - a support system - that exists in the prison. Already we can see why H.I. probably continuously goes back to prison. The life is structured and the people support his back. The second time he goes in - the time Ed says he fiancé ran off with another woman - he says he isn't exactly happy to be back, but prison life is just familiar and almost homey. This would explain why he does leave the institution, but always finds his way back. In the second psychological evaluation, the psychologist (or therapist or whatever) tells H.I. he should be getting married and having kids, while the Snoats (John Goodman and William Forsythe) say that sometimes work comes in front of family. And, at least on the surface, this is what the film is discussing. It goes from H.I. having to choose his "career" as a thief and the family life he makes for himself with Ed. He goes through the idea of stealing the baby not because he necessarily wants to, but because Ed wants to. When H.I. explains in voice over that the two "started in" with the child-rearing almost every day, you see H.I. doesn't seem particularly fond with the idea. He tells his wife to calm down. And it's only propogated later when Ed invites friends over and H.I. sees what marriage and children have done for their future. He's scared and has to make a decision - his career or his family? And the way he faces this is by creating his criminal self - Leonard Smalls, played by Randall Cobb. He may be real, but I like to think he's just H.I.'s alter-ego. But I think this is an obvious point given the shared tattoo. Plus that ending - can we really trust H.I. in his telling of the story?

The film just ends up revolving around this family notion and possibly the stigmas families may face. Why is it that Ed and H.I. can't have a single child, but a famous, rich man can? And in fact, he has five. Yet he doesn't know their names... I'm also not sure why Dr. Spock's Baby and Child Care is so prominent in the film. The only thing I can think of is that it pokes fun at these people reading the book since Dr. Spock did mention famously to, "Trust yourself. You know more than you think you do." Yet the characters in the book refer to it as the "instructions". The book ends up basically destroyed in the end, but still there. So maybe the Coen brothers pointed to it as saying that you have to trust yourself in handling a child ("Trust yourself to do the things that only you know best" - thank you, Bob Dylan!)? I'm not sure. I'm sure there are clues laying around to understand why, but I haven't analysed it enough to know. And other things, well, I'd like to leave it up to you to explore (like the baby itself, for example).

While I saw there was a more detailed meaning (the Coen brothers spent months writing the script - no doubt there are some real detailed things going on), I can't say the film's more superficial side was all the best. It was a fun film, with nice little comedy, nice shots, and an interesting way to analyse family, but it was a bit... random. And this was a complaint I think I had with The Big Lebowski if I recall correctly. I don't recall thinking this while watching No Country for Old Men, but even then... I don't know. Maybe that's just their style and, while things might tie in with its more symbolic meaning, the surface is a little too... odd for me to have completely enjoyed it. I would watch the movie again, but it was not a spectacular movie. The Coen brothers have definitely improved. This was their second commercial film together, so they could only go up from where they were. And it did. So while I'd give this one a watch for the little quirkiness it has, don't expect the same level of brilliance they may have shown in other movies. I'd like to take it as a film used to explore script, directing, and camera action.

Was this a messy review? Probably. I'm tired, but I did want to talk about it. So for those who don't like to read too much (why are you here?), Raising Arizona is a nice piece of cinema identifying the ideas around family, but definitely not the best of the Coen brothers' films.

Review XXXII - Withnail & I

Review XXXII
Withnail & I (1987)

I received Bruce Robinson's Withnail and I as a Christmas gift last year after having been obsessed with it for ages. I've decided to make watching this film around the holidays a tradition (we'll see how long that lasts). The film stars Richard E. Grant (first thought is Spice World and Warlock - sorry), Paul McGann (the Eighth Doctor), Richard Griffiths (the Harry Potter franchise), and Ralph Brown. It has become a cult classic over the years, but does it really deserve its status? Let's find it!

The film opens to a man smoking, revealing the date to be 1969. Meet the "& I" character of the story (now often referred to as Marwood), played by Paul McGann, a neurotic and pretty crazy down-on-his-luck unemployed actor. Thankfully he has his good friend Withnail (Richard E. Grant), another down-on-his-luck unemployed actor who has a continuous craving for booze, to accompany him in the misery that is their lives. The two decide to escape the city life by bribing Monty (Richard Griffiths), Withnail's queer (in different ways) uncle, in order to stay in his cottage in the country. Things go astray quickly, but as long as the two have the finest wines known to humanity, they should make it out alive.

The first thing I will comment on is its amazing soundtrack. The first scene where Marwood smokes becomes hauntingly beautiful with the addition of the song A Whiter Shade of Pale performed live by King Curtis. Not to mention there does include Jimi Hendrix's version of All Along the Watchtower, his own song Voodoo Child, and The Beatles While My Guitar Gently Weeps. A little tidbit - this is one of the few films to actually include a Beatles song as the surviving members don't often allow their own version of their songs to be in films. The reason it was allowed in this film? George Harrison was a producer and allowed for it to be played. The other songs included are interesting too, but those were the ones that stuck out the most for me as they were the ones I recognised.

I've always been fascinated with the stories of people's lives, even if they are fictional. Films like these, ones just portraying the chaotic events of an individual and how they survived - I find I really enjoy. I feel it seems really biased for me to just judge the plot thus, but personally, I thought this was a really interesting film. Pain is ubiquitous, and it's interesting to see how each person can take it through the use of cinematography. The film also portrays a world I have never experienced - the sixties, for one, and it being in Britain is another. I get to experience life through one individual's anecdote while watching this film, and it's well done. It's well written, humourous, but not excluding the bittersweet end that will always appear eventually.

The acting was well done as well. I have only one complaint, and I've never been sure if this was just ignored or what. At the end of the film (don't worry, I am not going to reveal anything), Marwood at one point is reading a letter while Withnail laughs. It's obvious Paul McGann is supressing laughter, and while later he does actually laugh, I was never sure if this was deliberate or not... It seems odd that he would be laughing, but then again, given the circumstance, it's quite possible he would laugh. I have no personal experience so I wouldn't know. Anyway, besides that one scene where I've always wondered, the acting was great. Richard E. Grant and Paul McGann do great jobs, and Richard Griffiths really steals the show with his portrayal as Monty.

I'd give the film eight stars on ten. It's interesting if you enjoy just listening to a short story in someone's life, and the actors in the film really give you a feel for each character. I'd recommend it to anyone willing to give this quirky film a try any time of the year.

More holiday spirited films to come! (Hopefully!)

Pirate Bay torrent