Review CX - Per un pugno di dollari

Review 110
A Fistful of Dollars (1964)

Aside from The Good, The Bad, The Weird (which, looking back, probably lacks in the proper formula for a Western), I never used to watch Westerns. It seemed like people had this assumption that you either liked them or you didn't. For whatever reason, I wasn't sure I would enjoy them. Sure, The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly (or Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo) was a classic with one of the most famous soundtracks known culturally from the brilliant Ennio Morricone, but I stayed away, thinking it wasn't my type of film and it'd be best to stay away. I ended up watching The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly way back, but I didn't fully take it in because I still had this idea that Westerns weren't for me... Later on, I watched Once Upon a Time in the West (note all these films are from Sergio Leone) and really saw potential. But it was only recently that my boyfriend discussed the meaning of riding into the sunset, always looking for improvement, that I decided it was time to sit down and watch a Western properly. I wanted to start at the beginning of Sergio Leone's epics (or the first of the Dollars trilogy) - so I started A Fistful of Dollars. It stars Clint Eastwood as the Man with No Name, Gian Maria Volonté as the main antagonist (Holy shit - this is the guy from Investigation of a Citizen Above Suspicion! Never thought I'd see him again), José Calvo (un español! Je pensais qu'il était un italien aussi!), and Marianne Koch. I was excited to check this one out, guys, I really was. But was I satisfied...?

The Man with No Name (referred to as "Joe" for the rest of this article) (Clint Eastwood) happens upon a town and quickly learns from the barman (José Calvo) that he should leave the town - there are two gangs that run the town and few insiders survive, let alone outsiders. However, "Joe" decides to take it upon himself to help the town out by turning the two gangs against each other.

Now, if you know A Fistful of Dollars, then you probably know that the plot is identical to that of 用心棒 or Yojimbo for us non-Japanese-speaking individuals (但是我动汉语,所以我可以董一些字). Apparently, the only difference is that Yojimbo takes places in ancient Japan and features a samurai and A Fistful of Dollars is a Western. But I never actually saw Yojimbo, so I can't hate on the remade plot or make a comparison. Still, I'm sure 黒澤明 (Kurosawa Akira) got it down super well in Yojimbo, along with the ever-wonderful 三船敏郎 (Mifune Toshirō), so kudos to them. Anyway, I'll get around to watching Yojimbo at some point and, when I do, I'll put my two cents in. Whatever the case, I enjoyed the story of A Fistful of Dollars. I mean, it wasn't anything spectacular, but it was cute. And Gian Maria Volonté played a pretty damn evil man, but I like that as he did it well. Clint Eastwood was, well, a bad ass of course and absolutely loveable. There's just something about how a man holds a pistol, smokes a cigar, and wears a poncho.

But seriously, I got a few good laughs in the movie and I thought it was fun. Since I had seen The Good, The Bad, The Ugly, I could definitely tell this preceded as it lacked the visual elements that were refined for the last Dollars trilogy film. It tried some things, but again, it was nothing special in the cinematographic department. That came later. Still, I enjoyed it. The plot kept me, but to me, I've watched these Westerns more for the people than the plot. I really look at how the character goes about things because usually the plot is pretty simple (based on the few that I have seen) - someone wants money, someone wants revenge, a bad guy is the source. You better hope your actors play the parts well or else you get a bland movie with a nothing plot. But Clint Eastwood was real good. I mean, he plays the anti-hero well and was pretty inspiring (made me wish I could fight in such a manner and come out as cool, but maybe that's just me). And again, Gian Maria Volonté was good - I was definitely convinced.

I took the whole film as a kind of little experiment from Sergio Leone, where he was learning the tricks of the trade, figuring out what he wanted. Given the tiny budget, yet rather avid following that came, he definitely got a second, third, nth chance. So the film isn't his best, but I still had fun. Next up - For A Few Dollars More.

Review CIX - How to Get Ahead in Advertising

Review 109
How to Get Ahead in Advertising (1989)

(Image from here featuring Ralph Steadman's crazy art)

I've already talked about how much I loved Withnail and I from Bruce Robinson. However, I always paired this film with How to Get Ahead in Advertising as it came out around the same time (two years after Withnail and I) and also stars Richard E. Grant. The two are not related, but after watching Withnail and I, I always knew I would have to check out How to Get Ahead in Advertising. Years passed and I finally decided to sit down and get a viewing. Somehow it seems fitting after watching whatever that last one was.

Denis Dimbleby Bagley (Richard E. Grant) is an advertising tycoon who is considered one of the best. However, if there's one thing he despises, it's boils. And now he's taken up a job for a pimple cream that is driving him off the edge.

How to Get Ahead in Advertising grew on me (not unlike the boil in the movie). When I watched it, I wasn't really sure how to take it. I mean, Richard E. Grant's performance was over-the-top and the messages were just thrown at you so blatantly. I sat on the fence for a while, but looking back on the film about a week later, I can say I enjoyed it, but it was not a favourite. Why did it take so long for me to decide? We'll get to that.

The movie is a criticism of the advertisement industry and a man who, while thinks he might be able to escape it, is forced back into it quickly. I like that. As Richard E. Grant's character explains at one point, the industry makes you believe what you don't need is what you want, and what you want is what you need. While Denis Bagley originally takes this in stride, he eventually sees the light and decides he's done with his job. Enter the malicious boil, his evil side. The film then gets particularly whacky, which was crazy, but expected from the farce it was. I mean, I didn't mind the whackiness, but I can't say I completely dug it. I guess maybe because I was expecting a different turn, it didn't meet my expectations, but not in the most positive of ways. It seemed like with the introduction of the boil, the film got all rushy and was all over the place. It never really look an easy path, though I remember thinking something similar of Withnail and I. Still, Withnail and I seemed to take it at a better pace than How to Get Ahead in Advertising. Consequently, I prefer Withnail and I.

The film may have been sporadic, but the message was definitely clear - the advertising industry is out to sell, not to help. How much do you really need all these products advertised to you? These diet packages and foods are not necessarily that great for you, but they show you how effective they are at helping you. Still, you could easily lose weight if you put on the proper mindset and did your own research. Or the advertisements that carry a jingle and make you think you need to go somewhere to be happy. Denis Bagley realises he is contributing to this spew of psychological manipulation and decides he's had enough. He could be a typical consumer who makes such an epiphany. However, in the end, Bagley's "bad boil" side comes through and, while now alone and separated from his wife, he doesn't care. The industry does not have room for those with a moral compass, said and done. Now, I won't say all advertising is bad, but there is definitely manipulation that people should be aware of. Psychologists are often hired in order to improve a company's advertising. There are certain tricks that have been established and if they get a product to sell, that's what the company cares about. But if you're aware of what's going on, you're safe. You don't take in the nonsense and you add an adblock on your browser. You don't have to become the all-evil persona of Denis Bagley - you can escape. Having that knowledge should at least put you a step above.

So I agree with the message of the film, great. But I don't like how the film so blatantly tells me its message. I mean, really, what did I expect from such a title. Obviously it would be about the moral standings of advertising, but still. I like a bit more of a puzzle-solver - I like having to think. How to Get Ahead in Advertising gets rid of that. It just straight up says what the advertising industry is doing and then points out what's wrong with it by making the "bad boil" only evil and manipulative. It also just reaffirmed points of view I already followed - it didn't teach me anything new. And again, it just went right up and told me the problem with everything. Thus, I got a sporadic film that got me laughing with Richard E. Grant's comical performance (I love when he pretends to be that woman in the office. I also love the scene where he talks through the box) that lectured me for about 90 minutes about stuff I already knew. It's not bad because at least it's trying to teach people a good message, but you don't really make thinking individuals by just telling them a message - you have to kind of bury it so they can find it themselves. It gives a longer lasting impression. In the end, the only thing that made me enjoy the film was Richard E. Grant's performance (and beauty, hehe) and the message I agreed with. But I can't say it's a film I would watch again because it lacks depth. I prefer it over the stupid crap that is basically an advertisement in itself, but sadly, it ended up just being a rather mediocre film.

Bruce Robinson's How to Get Ahead in Advertising is not a bad piece of cinema, yielding an important take-home message, but its rather shallow story-telling of the matter and rather random and super-fast pacing makes it sub-par in the world of thinking films. Worth a watch for Richard E. Grant and the rather cool special effects.

Review CVIII - Guardians of the Galaxy

Review 108
Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)

I happened upon James Gunn's Guardians of the Galaxy probably around the time it came out in theatres. I was blown away by the rating - how was it so high? I had barely heard of this film - though I never go outside apparently as I would later find out - and here it had this amazing rating. I didn't trust it, so I never checked it out. However, after hearing about even more praise from a reviewer, I asked my boyfriend to sit down with me and watch the blockbuster smash starring Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Vin Diesel, and Bradley Cooper, along with some notable appearances from Glenn Close, Benicio Del Toro, Peter Serafinowicz, and John C. Reilly.

Peter Quill's (Chris Pratt) mother dies from cancer in 1988 and, after running out of the hospital (because that's how we convey our sadness in every film), he's taken in by a group of galactic mercenaries. Twenty-six years later, he finds himself in quite a situation when he steals an orb which may harvest more power than he ever imagined.

Let me summarise this film in one word: shit. Let me summarise it in one sentence: It's another typical, rip-off, money-grabbing, shitty Marvel film pushing the latest social agendas to today's kids and adults. But let's elaborate. I'll be spoiling the film, so you've been warned. First, what do I mean by rip-off? Check out the poster I found. Remind you of anything? Here's a hint. The bad guy in the film is straight-up Darth Maul/Darth Vader. Prison-break scene, kind of like rescuing Princess Leia. I don't even like Star Wars, but I see this, and I've only seen two of the films of the series. The Star Wars series is not the only thing it rips off. It rips off this whole Lord of the Rings idea with the whole orb killing everything it can with the one who possesses the power. And even I know this and I've only seen two Lord of the Rings films. Guardians of the Galaxy doesn't even try to mask this - it's just rip-off after rip-off. They also make a reference to Star Trek too with one of the characters (vulcans and whatever that tattoo guy was), but of course the film makers do this because they know people liked those ideas and so they recycle it in a new film where the masses get everything they want in one film. But c'mon, be creative! This is a film that's getting a super high rating? It has no originality - it just does the same thing as every other galaxy/fantasy film released by Hollywood. Please. Guys.

I didn't know this film was a Marvel film until just before watching it. I think if I would have seen that, I would have realised why the film had such a high rating. Marvel films went from just films watched by the comic-book fans to loved by the adolescent girls on social media. I don't know how it happened, but I think it started with Iron Man and slowly became this huge thing with the Avengers series. The CEOs and film developers saw a way to make money and they're attempting to squeeze out any sequel possible in order to make more money. But I didn't know anything about these guardians. Maybe it was legit, like Howard the Duck (I don't read comic books if you couldn't tell except for the occasional one). I decided to check it out, and excuse me if I'm wrong in my information - I quickly checked out Wikipedia. Basically these "guardians of the galaxy" were part of some Marvel superheros bit back in 1969 that eventually got its own-titled run. But guess what? There was some revamp thing going on in 2008, the same year that Iron Man the movie came out. I don't know if this is just coincidence, but my paranoid side makes me think they saw opportunity in this series, with its male and female protagonists, and brought it back so there would be a reason to make a film later on, assuming the Iron Man/Avengers series came to stardom like they hoped. I'm probably stretching it, but honestly, you never know.

So yeah, this film is unoriginal, it's a typical Marvel film, but is it really that bad? I never saw any of the Iron Man movies, nor any Avengers movies. I started watching Captain America: The Winter Soldier, but I dropped it so fast, I got a little past the running scene at the beginning and that was it. I obviously don't like them. I admit, I went into Guardians of the Galaxy being super biased, but if it would have offered something, anything, I was willing to accept it. Nope. This film stars some asshole main character who I don't care for. He doesn't take his mother's hand and she instantly dies (what a coincidence), so he regrets it for his whole life. He's left unattended where he then proceeds to run outside into a foggy field. Where is this hospital located? Why the fog? Why does everyone leave him alone? His mother just died. You can't get shittier writing than this. But it gets even better when you see how he's some smart-ass adult who sleeps around (of course), but yet has the most amazing talent I've ever seen. Remind me of Iron Man? You betcha. Then the racoon, the wood guy, the girl... Just replace the film with any of the Avengers shit and you're set. You are so set. It's recycled crap, guys! The humour, stupid. The dialogue, crap. The prison system, ridiculous. Men and women in the same prison? How about no. Strong-independent-woman-who-don't-need-no-man-except-when-she-craves-the-D? Check! A poor, educated racoon (unlike the educated owl from The Sword in the Stone), showing how testing on animals is bad? Check. Environment? Groot. Check. It's pushing a bunch of stuff the masses support just to get views. I just... whatever. The colours were drab too. I didn't see anything interesting going on. It was boring for my eyes. The CGI, fine, it was nice, but that doesn't make a film. It just looks like CGI. This is a live-action, not an animated film.

I didn't finish the film - I got an hour in - but I won't finish it. The film is garbage. It doesn't deserve the high rating it got. Maybe it's loyal to the comic books; however, I can only judge it from a watch. And it doesn't even deserve it. Avoid it. And did I mention they're making a sequel? 'Nough said.

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 CVI - Relatos salvajes

Review 106
Wild Tales (2014)

You know when you want to go see a movie in theatres, but you can't find anything worth watching because Hollywood just regurgitates and throws up the same ol' film ideas every year, changing them only slightly to promote the latest craze/politically minded ideas, like homosexuality? Well, I had that problem last week, but thankfully, there's one theatre a little ways away that plays some older films or foreign films that I always check out to see if I can watch a film that day. In this case, I came across Damián Szifrón's Relatos salvajes, or Wild Tales as it is known in English. I hadn't heard of the film before this, but when I saw it had been nominated for an Oscar and a Cannes (awesome!) and was Argentinian (don't ask), I was down. One of the people I went to see the movie with asked if it'd be an Amores perros type of deal, with the stories all connected. It didn't end up like that, but... Anyway, we'll check it out.

I can't exactly make one big summary of the film because there were six separate stories. So how about we talk about each one briefly, yes?

Pasternak
A model boards a plane and begins talking to the man next to her. After coincidentally discovering they know a mutual "acquaintance", things go from lucky to abnormal.

Las ratas (The Rats)
A man walks into a diner. The sole waitress serving him realises he is a loan shark that led to her father committing suicide. However, will she be able to kill him, even though her family was destroyed by his actions?

El más fuerte (The Strongest)
While cruising in the country of Argentina, a man driving a new, luxurious car messes with a hillbilly (tip 10: don't mess with hillbillies), only to lead to a fight of the fittest.

Bombita (Little Bomb)
After getting screwed over by the city's towing company, his wife, and his job, a demolitions expert might just have the solution to his problem.

La propuesta (The Proposal)
A father must decide whether to allow his son to take the fall for killing a pregnant woman in a hit-and-run incident or implement a whole scheme to put the blame on someone else, even if this means spending more money than he would like.

Hasta que la muerte nos separe (Until Death Do Us Part)
Discovering her newly husband's affair wasn't part of the plan, but this bride is ready to make her husband pay in the craziest wedding party of their lives.

So, I guess that just about summarises each story. I was going to go through each story and talk about it, but honestly, it would just be long and probably redundant. Instead, let me say that the film was fun. The prologue, Pasternak, really set up the film well, made you expect the violence, the suspense, the (dark) humour. It was only a continuing roller coaster of emotions throughout the rest of the movie. The stories don't connect like in Amores perros, but it works well. Each story was short enough to not drag on too long, but long enough to really connect and understand the story. It also made the movie seem less than the two hours it was. I remember being surprised at what time it was when we walked out of the theatre just because it felt like I had just started the movie. I think the short-stories-following-a-common-theme idea really works, and I liked this common theme of vengeance (and family?). I'm not surprised this film was nominated, and I'm glad I happened upon it!

Cinematography was great. I mean, there were some shots that were damn creative. Without saying anything, notice the opening of doors in La propuesta and Hasta que la muerte nos separe - it makes for a cool way of giving movement to the characters and the environment. The Argentine outback is also damn beautiful and I liked how El más fuerte showed that off. And, well, Bombita was totally my boyfriend, so we had a good laugh with that one. But I think we all feel like a little vengeance every now and then, no? This film sometimes takes it overboard, but I think if driven to our cracking point, we could all end up doing some pretty crazy things.

The film also looks at Argentine life, I'm sure, but having never been there/knowing few Argentinians, I can't make a comment about it. Still, you can see little bits that make it Argentinian (apart from it being spoken in Spanish with the Argentinian accent), even from a foreigner perspective. But the film is accessible to everyone, and while I'm sure I miss out on the film a bit, it nonetheless is a great piece with great cinematography, great actors, and I'm sure a deeper meaning that I have an idea about, but haven't fully developed. Plus the acting was super legit from Darío Grandinetti to María Marull, from Rita Cortese to Leonardo Sbaraglia, from Ricardo Darín to Érica Rivas, from... You get the idea. Let's say the movie passed my expectations and then some.

If you come across this movie in the theatres and are debating watching it or [insert Hollywood franchise here], watch this. Trust me, it's worth it, and you might actually get a bit more out of it.

Review CV - Lekce Faust

Review 105
Lesson Faust (1994)

It's been difficult finding films to watch lately. Maybe because the weather has been improving (somewhat) and I've been less willing to sit down and watch a film, but I've been slowing down for the month of May. Consequently, I haven't been able to review a film in a little while. However, while attempting to learn some German, I recalled the story of Faust and, consequently, remembered the ever-wonderful Jan Švankmajer had done a version, Lekce Faust, or Lesson Faust. I also haven't reviewed a Švankmajer film in a while (let's just say Alice was terrifying and Conspirators of Pleasure, even more so), so I think it was due time, mmm yes?

Our "Faust" of the story (Petr Čepek) exits the metro when he comes across two men distributing a map with a red marked spot. Ignoring it at first, "Faust" eventually gets curious enough to visit the spot after a supernatural event.

I can't even continue a synopsis because it's really hard to give a serious-sounding explanation of an empty egg inside bread causing a great gust of wind and suddenly our main character being played as if he were a puppet. It's Jan Švankmajer - what do you expect? If you know of the original Faust tale, it won't help much. I watched the film with someone who had seen the 1926 version of Faust, based on the original story from Goethe, and, while some parts were straight from the legend, it really did borrow from some other versions of the story, as well as just Švankmajer's imagination. But I guess you weren't expecting a copy of the Faustus legend since the movie is called Lesson Faust. There's some bit about it just being called Faust, but I like the official English title - it distances it from the original. And I wish I had known this prior to watching the film because I thought it was a version of Faust. Sigh. I guess with having watched Alice, I should have known better.

Now, while the film diverges from the original, that doesn't mean it is bad. Because it isn't. It's a typical Švankmajer film with such creativity I feel absolutely jealous that I don't have such an imagination. The way it goes from a normal plot to a crazy, surreal one is amazing. How "Faust" goes from being one of our characters of our movie to a character in a play being watched by an audience in the film is pretty ingenious. And it does it smoothly, even if it is odd. And really, this is what sells the film. The acting was nothing spectacular, but that's something in Švankmajer's films. You don't really watch it for the acting - you watch it for stop-motion, claymation, the surrealism. Honestly, usually I complain about surrealism because it serves no purpose and is just so cryptic that you don't even understand what's going on. But with Švankmajer's surrealism, you get it. You have to pay attention, but his meanings, his message, is obvious enough that it isn't like the white canvas with the three dots on it at the art show which could mean just about anything. His shorts are obvious in what they're conveying and instead of making you guess, give you the general idea and let you figure it out. And I am so for this, especially since Švankmajer does it so, so well.

Leske Faust is an interesting take on an old legend while combining it with modern life. It can be a bit slow at times and, while the acting is not the best, if you're into surrealism, definitely check it out. And if you haven't heard of Jan Švankmajer, watch a short from him and decide if it's for you. Happy watching!

Review CIV - Deliverance

Review 104
Deliverance (1972)

Pop quiz! Who came up with the idea of "survival of the fittest"? Many of you may be inclined to say Charles Darwin, the man who pushed the idea of evolution and natural selection; however, you would be wrong (though Darwin was still also on this page). This Social Darwinist idea is attributed to Herbert Spencer. He figured that some human beings are superior over others - like those who were Caucasian, rich, and educated - given their genes and, in the end, they will be the ones that stand up tall. Well, then comes along John Boorman's Deliverance which decides to show us how big white man's burden really is. It stars Jon Voight, Burt Reynolds, Ned Beatty, and Ronny Cox.

Lewis Medlock (Burt Reynolds), Ed Gentry (Jon Voight), Bobby Trippe (Ned Beatty), and Drew Ballinger (Ronny Cox) all decide to take a canoe camping trip up by Cahulawassee River in Georgia, United States, which will soon be flooded by a dam being built nearby. However, their trip may turn out to be more than just a weekend getaway. What did happen on the Cahulawassee River?

I debated reviewing this film, buuuuut then I decided why not? The film is relatively well known given one particular scene in the film, so I thought it must be worth a watch, right? Wrong. Burt Reynold's character starts, right off the bat, bringing up this idea that only the strong will survive. Already you know where this film is going. And then we see the hillbillies and we know, without a doubt, what's going on. Because seriously, who trusts hillbillies (I don't know any hillbillies personally, so maybe they're not all that bad, but in horror/thriller films, they're bad)? Honestly, I... don't really have much to say. The film was predictable, where the white guys are all disconnected from nature and carry white man's burden because they're so privileged, but it comes to bite them in the butt (or other things in the butt). But seriously, there's a difference to being naïve about nature and being complete idiots. I'll talk about one scene - the most popular scene of the film. So spoilers for the next paragraph!

Prior to the scene, we see Ed attempting to shoot a deer with a bow-and-arrow, but he can't because he can't see himself killing a living creature. I can't hate on him because I wouldn't want to shoot a deer in any way unless I was starving and had to, though I will say that the acting in this scene was ridiculous. He was shaking like a Parkinson's disease patient. I know they're trying to show his fear, but seriously? We're not daft. Anyway, we see this guy is soft, right? Now the infamous scene. Well, later on, him and Bobby canoe ahead of Lewis and Drew and, while stopping, they come across these two hillbillies. These hillbillies smell the fear on these guys and proceed to harass them until one of them rapes Bobby. Guys, this was ridiculous. Ed, who we know is soft, and Bobby, who, because he's overweight, must be soft, comply to the hillbillies' commands without any resistance. None. Sure, they have a gun, and I'd be scared shitless, but there's one gun. One of them could have tried to do something. There's not even an attempt. Again, I think of myself in that situation, and I'd be scared shitless, but at the same time, I doubt I wouldn't do anything either. I would try and talk my way through. I'd try and fight or something. And if the person I was with didn't try to defend me in any way, I'd be pissed, let me tell you. Especially if it was my friend. And of course Bobby's the one that gets raped. Ed is a title character, so no way we can see him get defiled in that way. The whole scene made me cringe, but just because it was so pathetic. I can't disagree that people have gone soft, but to the point where not one of them does anything? "You can't know how you'd react in a situation." No, you can't, but if something was threatening your life, trust me, you'd fight for it. You definitely wouldn't just gladly pull down your pants to get raped.

Done with spoilers. Anyway, that scene was a major letdown, and it just got worse from there. The whole film just made you hate everyone because really, in a life-or-death situation, I would hope you would try in some way to live. But the stupidities that these guys do... I can't believe it. All the film shows is white man's burden and how his privileges have made him soft. It's complete shit, seriously. I'm not saying I would be able to survive in the wilderness by myself, but what Man has accomplished shouldn't be something that should be pushed aside. We can live in any climate, and we can do it well. I don't agree with destroying the environment and I do believe ecologists should be asked for their opinion when development occurs, but again, this film seems to undermine everything Man has accomplished. And it especially points out the hell hole white man has built himself. But it does in such an obvious manner, such an uncreative and shitty manner, that this film makes me shake my head. Maybe you'll think differently, but I barely followed the final bits of the movie because it was so ridiculous.

Deliverance attempts at this "survival of the fittest" message, but it's just awful. Don't watch this film. It's not worth your time. The only thing that got me through this review was some awesome metal.