Review CXVII - Vampire's Kiss

Review 117
Vampire's Kiss (1988)

I've reviewed one Nicolas Cage movie before, but I decided to pick a good one. This time around, I was hanging out at a friend's, and he was feeling a Cage movie. Of course I got say over the movie to watch, so I chose Robert Bierman's Vampire's Kiss. You probably know it because of this face. Yeah, if a film is only known for a face, that's when you worry.

Peter Loew (Nicolas Cage), a literary agent, suffering from impeding insanity, lives a sleazy lifestyle after work consisting of clubs, drinking, and one night stands. However, when one of his one night stands (Jennifer Beals) turns out to be a vampire, Peter Loew's life takes a turn for the worst.

Before I sound like I defend this movie, let me say I'm not. The film is bad. It's confusing in its narrative, random, poorly written, stupid, lazy... I could go on, but you get the idea. The film is not worth watching. I mean, it's funny, but it's not that funny - it's just more boring and mediocre than anything else. Honestly, balls-to-the-wall honesty, I wouldn't recommend this film except for a select few scenes, my favourite being the entrance to the club nearing the end of Vampire's Kiss. But that's it. As far as Nicolas Cage movies go, there are worse and there are better and there are definitely funnier.

But. But, but, but. Well, it's not a "but", but I like the segue. See, although the film was bad, there was kind of an underlying theme that I can't say I disagreed with. Spoilers. All right, so what do we know about vampires, classic vampires? If you read Dracula, or even if you checked out a classic vampire film, you notice something that happens to the women after they get bitten by the men - they turn a little... sexual. They wear revealing dresses, they seduce men, they seduce many men. Basically, vampires can be taken as these degenerate beings that explore and exploit all types of sexual vices. Now, what kind of behaviour is Peter Loew engaging in? One night stands. Pretty degenerate, eh? What does he encounter with the first one night stand? A bat. A bat, as we know, is what a vampire transforms into. What happens with the second one night stand? She's an actual vampire. Well, shit. That was unexpected. And the first girl actually tries to get a relationship out of Peter, but Peter keeps ditching her for the vampire, casual sex. When he's the vampire, he becomes an asshole and completely beats on Juanita (Maria Conchita Alonso), his secretary. And of course she's the devote the Catholic who he wants to break down, and does eventually after raping her. Finally, in the end, we see that Nicolas Cage decides that to escape his fall, he would need to find actual love. Of course, he's too far gone, so it's too late for that, but still, it's something I can completely agree with. We think that a life of debauchery is typical of youth and necessary to live, but it could very well lead to your downfall. Take any celebrity who died of a drug overdose. Look at the people who sleep around and get a venereal disease because they aren't careful. I also think it's also interesting to note that Nicolas Cage ends up with a white woman at the end of the film... But for the sake of avoiding being called racist, I'll let you check out the film yourself if you're curious (it's still bad, so don't).

That's all I got for you in Vampire's Kiss. I'm also exhausted and have class tomorrow, so I had better go get some shuteye. I wouldn't recommend this film, but I would totally recommend the message... Assuming I got the proper message... Anyway, bye, folks!

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 LXV - Leaving Las Vegas

Review LXV
Leaving Las Vegas (1995)

I've always defended Nicolas Cage when given the chance. Sure, he's been in terrible films, but those films always had a silver lining, and it was that they starred Nicolas Cage. Still, there are many good actors who have appeared in bad films, and I can definitely say that Nicolas Cage has played his part well in a number of films, one being Lord of War and another, where he actually won an Oscar for his performance, called Leaving Las Vegas. People don't seem to ever believe this, so I decided to check the film out; that way, I could actually give an opinion on his performance. The film was directed by Mike Figgis and stars Elisabeth Shue, who was nominated for an Oscar because of this film.

Ben Sanderson (Cage) is an alcoholic. His constant inebriated state has cost him his family - including his wife and son - his friends, and his job. As a result, he decides to literally give up his life in Los Angeles and move to Las Vegas where he will spend the rest of his days drinking. In a drunken state while driving, he nearly runs over Sera (Shue), a prostitute under the wing of an abusive Latvian pimp (Julian Sands). While their first meeting is rather hostile, the two eventually form a relationship. However, Sera is not allowed to ask Ben to lay off the booze, and Ben is not allowed to oppose Sera's choice of work. The awry relationship becomes even more complex when Sera finds herself falling in love with the dead man.

There isn't that much to say about this one as a whole. I can't say I thought the film was particularly filmed super well. There are a lot of slow-motion scenes which I found unnecessary, and it, overall, has a very nineties' feel. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it dates the film a bit. Regardless, though, I really enjoyed this one. The characters, or rather, Sera and Ben, are superb. I thoroughly enjoyed the scenes with both characters, but also those where they were by themselves. They were interesting and well-developed, and even if the plot could sometimes be a tad clichéd, I bought into it. Of course, the performances from both Elisabeth Shue and Nicolas Cage made the characters even better. I thought the chemistry between both of them was perfect, and I was cringing and squealing (yeah...) at every opportunity. Nicolas Cage deserved his Oscar - he acted really well. He took the performance to heart, and man, he did it so well. Elisabeth Shue? I'm sorry you didn't win an Oscar because you were great, too. I cared for Sera and I understood her. That can only be done when great acting is involved. All in all, while the film didn't necessarily contain the best cinematography and the plot could be very Hollywood-ish at times, the characters and acting were phenomenal.

I'd give the film eight stars. It is certainly worth a watch, and not even to just prove that Nicolar Cage can act. No, this film is worth a watch for its real-but-surreal characters. Plus you get Sting singing, so what more could you ask for?

Pirate Bay torrent