Happy Halloween everyone! I know I don't really have that much time to
review movies during the school year, but I try and make an effort to
watch at least a Halloween movie for this time of year. I'm a bit late
this time, but horror movies can be enjoyed any time of the year, am I
right? And today I bring you one that I had heard of before but
completely forgot about it. It is Brian Yuzna's Society.
Bill Whitney (Billy Warlock) should feel like he has it all - born into a rich and loving family, a wonderful girlfriend, living a high class life - but instead he feels like he doesn't quite belong. His parents don't treat him exactly as his sister, his friend keeps warning him against his family, and he has weird... visions. Is Bill just crazy, or is there a disturbing truth about this... society?
The film apparently has special effects done by a well-known man going
by the name of "Screaming Mad George". I don't follow horror movies all that
much, so I had never heard the name before, but it might mean
something to someone out there. For those who know nothing about him
and want to know what I thought of the gore, well, it was... creative.
This is maybe spoiling a little bit, so be warned. You only really get
it at the end, and I found it pretty minimal. I mean, what's there is
good, though it wasn't as bloody as it was gooey, and even the goo
wasn't as exaggerated as I would have liked. What was there was
creative, I'll give it that - there's one cover for the film that demonstrates this - but to say it
was a film for the gore and special effects, no.
What you'll check this movie out for (maybe) is the plot. Society is
like Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut, except with no finesse and
beautiful camera shots. It goes right out and tells you about an upper
class preying on the middle/lower class and claiming they have every
right to. And it adds it in a horror movie style. Also, the acting and
characters in Society are flat as hell - the main guy is just too
typically eighties-sitcom protagonist. And the ending was lame.
Overall, Society has a proper message to deliver, but it fails to do
it well with characters tripping and falling on their faces, gore
that's interesting but lacking, and a vibe way too eighties for my
liking. It's an interesting watch, but only check it out for a little
introduction to Eyes Wide Shut. And to see a face where an ass should
be.
I'm angry and ready to rant, so I decided to watch a film I knew I could complain about. Time for another Harmony Korine movie - this time his latest shit, Spring Breakers, starring James Franco, Selena Gomez, and honestly, a bunch of other names I don't care for.
Honestly, you only need to know one thing about this film, and it straight up says it in the title: spring break. There. That's my plot summary.
Guys, when I reviewed Kids, I pretty much said this film was about drug culture in youth, something I know little about, and I concluded the film was okay. If I said otherwise, sorry, I can't recall. Now, what is this film about? Drug culture in youth. Okay, okay, there is a bit more to it. There's also the party culture, and it focuses more on women (yay, great) than Kids. But basically, Harmony Korine hasn't changed what his films are about. I mean, look, Harmony Korine is not a well-liked director, or so I've seen. Anyone who likes him has not yet been introduced to real pretentious films because his "deep" films are not deep - they're superficial and just garbage. Taking random guys off the street to act in your films doesn't mean they'll be good - it means they'll suck. But I'm just telling you what you already know. Kids wasn't the worst from what I remember, but let me tell you, I'm gonna rip a new one for Spring Breakers. And there is mostly one reason for it: the reviewers.
I debated watching this film. I knew what it was about because this film captures the garbage shit high school/college kids follow now. Dances consist of grinding, meeting with friends means drinking to no end. It's everything I hate about my generation, so I was really on the fence. I was curious, but I wanted to know if the film actually had a message, maybe one of Kids where the cycle of debauchery will continue forever. Plus it had James Franco - I mean, I don't like the guy, but it was still a big name. The only name I recognise from other Harmony Korine films is Chloë Sevigny. Everyone else is some rejected kid. So this film looked higher budget, had bigger names - maybe things had changed? Still, I decided to check out some reviews. Here's what I got:
1. Deep
2. Meaningful
3. The best Harmony Korine film
4. Not good, but got better over time
5. Boring, but worth it
Well, shit, that seems pretty convincing, right? Apart from 3, which could still mean the film was shit, Spring Breakers at least had potential, am I right? I should have remembered the golden rule of reviewers: they don't watch good films, and their top tens include some crappy Marvel film like Guardians of the Galaxy. Of course I'm generalising, but seriously, Spring Breakers was breaking my back and mind... Yeah, that didn't work. It was bad. I was angry. The film was party, party, party for the first half, and then it went to violence I didn't even care about. What is it trying to tell me, that our youth has crazy parties and they are messed up? What I'm getting out of it is that having spring break and going nuts is okay, as long as you let it go. Spoilers: do we support Selena Gomez (called Faith because this film is made for nimwits who did everything spelled out to them) when she leaves? Is it okay that she got drunk and made out with some guys/girls because she didn't rob the chicken place and because she's a practicing Christian? The film points to yes. We sympathise with Faith. I didn't. She's an idiot for following these girls as soon as she finds out they rob a place to go on spring break. Not to mention the guy she follows at her church seems like the shittiest trucker shit I've ever seen. He's not a priest - he's a joke. I feel like Harmony Korine picked him up off the street and told him to pretend to be a priest. The film basically mocks Faith, and while we, the audience, are supposed to sympathise with her, I didn't. She's an idiot. I'm glad she left when the going got tough, but this idea that a "one-time" partier is okay is wrong. It isn't right, it will never be right... Argh. Anyway, the rest of the movie. Was it deep? No. There was only one reviewer who got it right - you can't have your cake and eat it too. The film is trying to tell me that this party culture is bad and will lead to serious consequences, but then it exploits tits like no tomorrow. This is what brought people in - young girls in bikinis and possible nudity. It delivered, and not in a negative way. You could make it evident it happened without showing, but don't worry, Harmony Korine made sure to exploit those breasts and lean, young girls. This is deep? This is a message being delivered? Again, I just... how can a film lecture me about moral standings when it itself is not holding a moral ground on the very subject matter it's lecturing me on? So no. This film is not deep, it's shit.
Meaningful? Same response as the deep idea.
The best Harmony Korine film? It's a step-up because it has a bigger budget, but it's still boring, it's still shit. It's still Harmony Korine.
Not good, but got better over time? Do I look like this film is going to stay with me? Again, I could see some kids going like, "Wow, man. That film was so Harmony Korine. He's so deep, the message is so deep." Please, go watch The Seventh Seal and tell me which one is better. Please, let our generation have an appreciation for good films, not bad ones...
Finally, boring, but worth it. No. Russian films can be long, they can be boring, but that's their cinema. It's how it works. I skipped about after the one hour mark because it was tedious and kept going on and on about how I'm a gangsta and I'm a bad girl and blah blah blah. If a film is boring, don't defend it. It's boring, that's it. It's garbage, it's garbage. That's it! Guys, no.
There's also another point, something about James Franco. Honestly, his character was annoying. I'm glad he was able to piss me off the moment he talked - good job, James Franco (sarcasm)! Don't watch it for him because you'll likely blow your brains out how James Franco's character's brains SHOULD HAVE EXPLODED. Who keeps GUNS FULLY-LOADED AROUND. This guy is the biggest idiot I've ever seen. Eff him. And eff the stupid girls too. You see these girls acting like men, drinking like crazy and having sex like mad? I love it. Thanks, feminism. Thanks.
Spring Breakers should be ignored and never considered. Never watch it. Don't support it. The only reason I didn't waste my time with this piece of shit is because I did an assignment at the same time. Freakin' damn...
P.S. Did you watch the film and are now feeling filthy? Here, some Gregorian chants. You're welcome.
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!
The end of August is fast approaching, and that also means a new school semester is right around the corner. Starting something new this time around, so here's hoping all goes well! What a better way to celebrate than with Alfred Hitchcock's 1948 classic, Rope, starring John Dall, Farley Granger, and James Stewart? The story is based on the events of Leopold and Loeb's killing of an innocent boy after believing they had reached Nietzsche's übermensch status. Let's get a chokehold on this review! (Completely forced, sorry.)
Brandon (John Dall) convinces Philip (Farley Granger) to kill their friend, David (Dick Hogan), as he believes the two have reached a status that puts them above murder. But this isn't enough - Brandon decides, in order to show his superiority, to host a party, inviting David's father, Mr. Kentley (Cedric Hardwicke), David's aunt (Constance Collier), his lover, Janet (Joan Chandler), and the three's old headmaster, Rupert Cadell (James Stewart), who may have more to do with the killing than he realises.
The film consisted of super long shots, each approximately ten minutes each, and that is something I really liked about Rope. I've always thought theatre is probably much more difficult than film if only because there are no second chances, and this film shows that these actors were nothing less than their theatre counterparts. And yes, indeed, the acting was grand. Anyway, back to cinematography... Though the shots were long, they never got boring or made you feel like they were super lengthy. Alfred Hitchcock made the camera move around, follow characters, tell a story on its own without accompanying dialogue... Pretty cool stuff!
I watched the film with a friend, and once it was over, he commented on how gay the protagonists were. I hadn't even picked up on, completely absorbed by the murder it was based on. Plus, to me, poshy characters always came off as a bit more feminine to me, so I wasn't convinced... Until I looked at the facts. It's funny how transparent a film can be once you catch one little hint. I think the biggest thing I noticed was the clue from the closet, an obvious euphemism for being gay. I also recognised the first movement from Trois mouvements perpétuels from Poulenc, and wondered if Poulenc was gay - he was, struggling with his sexuality, similar to the character who speeds along his piece in the film (please listen to a beautiful version of the song here). Honestly, this little extra twist to the film is what made it for me. In my last review, I was déçue by the fact that I hadn't caught a deeper meaning for Dogtooth and, thus, couldn't say I really got the film. Once you really take cinema as an art within an art, you definitely get more for your buck.
Rope is not the best film I've seen, but it's definitely a fun watch with a good introduction to hidden meanings in film. You'll be positively gay after checking this one out.
I'm sorry for vanishing. I've been knitting like a fiend before school starts again, which means I just watch movies and knit and never review them... Anyway, I was working when someone recommended I watch a "really messed up film". The film was Yorgos Lanthimos' Dogtooth. I was excited - this would be the first film from Greece I'd ever seen, but I was skeptical as to how crazy it would really be. Well, we'll explore that.
What if we could hide the dangers of the outside from our children? A mother and father decide to take up the challenge and keep their three children isolated from society until they "lose their canine teeth". Words referring to the outside are changed to perceivable objects in the house or garden, and planes are said to be toys that will fall in the garden. But innocence only prevails for so long...
Okay, yes, the movie is messed up. While every parent wishes to protect their children, you would never imagine that if they were actually able to do it, it would lead to something like this. However, I'm assuming this film has a deeper meaning than just this "keeping children innocent"... My only guess is maybe related to keeping the family so close-knit? Maybe refusing your children to marry only the people you wish for them to marry? Or maybe it has to do with globalisation, that is inevitable, and that Greece can't stay hidden away forever from the American culture? Maybe it is looking at how the new generation has to struggle with keeping up with Greek values and not completely moving to a Western way of thinking? I can't figure it out because I know practically nothing about Greece's affairs, except for the recent public demand of the rejection of the Euro, a particular globalised ideal. Really, I haven't figured it out, so I feel a bit sad because I'm obviously missing out on something important that let this film win the Un Certain Regard prize at the Cannes film festival.
Despite not knowing the hidden message, I thought the film was... okay. I was actually expecting something a bit more beautiful considering the prize it won. The shots were clean and smooth, the palette nice and consistent, but I didn't have the magic of Get Carter for example. That had some nifty camera work, but Dogtooth? Not really. Again, it had a nice palette and real clean shots, but there was nothing that grabbed my eye in terms of shot dynamics.
The plot, well, I thought it was pretty crazy, but the parents were pretty freakin' crazy, man. There's keeping them innocent, but there's being super perverse and messed up about it, which is what this was. I don't know how the father expected the outside girl from security to keep private about everything. I also think he would have been at least a little concerned about his doctor daughter (you'll see who I'm referring to if you checked out the film) doing these crazy things to your son. I think you'd be concerned about the behaviour from your son in relation to a cat. It's not like the mother and father are ignorant - they have lived in the outside world. I know that isn't the point of the film, but seriously, these guys are idiots. I would have been more careful in my approach so my children would be more normal.
Honestly, it's hard to review the movie given that I didn't understand the hidden meaning and was not particularly excited by it. In fact, it makes me a bit sad that the Cannes festival is choosing films like these, probably just because they're daring, violent, and nude. However, Dogtooth is not even a bad example. Dogtooth still takes an interesting idea and plays it out in a way you wouldn't expect. But freakin' La vie d'Adèle, also known as Blue is the Warmest Colour? My boyfriend and I were going to watch it, but we ended up with a copy playing the time at the top. He wanted to show me how bad it was, so he skipped to a random scene. The scene just so happened to be basically a sex scene from a porn movie. I am not even joking. And that shit was long. It probably went on for five minutes, or even ten. This is what is winning a prize? A freakin' porno? Maybe the film has something else going for it, but ten minutes of sex? It made me pretty disappointed, let me tell you. But maybe I'm just conservative like that... ._. Yeah, right.
Dogtooth is not bad, but it really isn't anything special. It had a few funny scenes, and I actually really liked Angeliki Papoulia's performance, but not enough to recommend this one.
I didn't expect this movie to be good, but this movie had haunted me for a while... That makes it sound ominous, but that's not what I mean. I remember a friend many, many years back talked about this movie, and it had been referenced quite a few places. But like Soul Plane, it should have stayed buried... I'm talking about Adam Shankman's A Walk to Remember starring Mandy Moore and Shane West. Now, a quick search shows me that the film was slammed by critics - except Roger Ebert apparently (?!) - but praised by audiences. I decided it was time to break the curse - it was time to watch this movie and see just how bad it was.
Insert typical love teen romance. Insert devote, secluded, isolated Christian follower who's HOT and an angsty, bad ass teenage boy who falls for her. Insert bad ass friends and quirky black character. Insert bad ass friends reject boy when he decides to go with the girl. Insert boy doing everything for this guy while keeping his pants in check. Insert cancer (real cancer, not just the film), what a twist! Insert death. Insert medical school. Insert teenage romance never dies.
Guys... This film... Okay, let me get one thing straight. I'm not a romance type. I liked When Harry Met Sally... for example, but Say Anything... ? No. I mean, a little sub-plot of romance, fine, but... Okay, how about I say I don't like chick flicks? Alain Delon films do not count! I jest, but yeah, chick flicks are my nemesis being of that gender. So really, what was I expecting from A Walk to Remember? Not much, but I was expecting more. Let's go through this, shall we?
The acting. It was bad. No, seriously, it was bad. Shane West was awful. It was just edge the whole way through. Everything was wooden and lacking. Mandy Moore? Not any better. Again, this wooden acting every damn time. How can you get away with this? This was like watching a teenage play, but probably worse. It's almost like Dean Learner's delivery. But here I wanted an act, not someone putting on the truth.
The writing. Now, I can bitch about the acting, but my boyfriend - who got maybe five minutes into the film and was already dying - pointed out a valid point: The dialogue is atrocious. And it is. It was like the writers had never sat down with anyone and talked. Instead, they had them speak perfectly square sentences or just had really awkward phrases. Maybe it's Nicholas Sparks, the writer of whose book this is based on (please never read that), but the screenplay was written by some woman named Karen Janszen. Just look at the other films she's written for. Yeah, we were doomed from the beginning.
The plot. This ties into the writing, but it deserves a separate section. It was bad. I mean, again, what did I expect? I didn't expect anything good, but I'm going to go on a rant here. These damn films play into this idea that women can change men. Shane West's character (Layden I think? ... Oh, Landon) was this bad boy who nearly killed a kid and gets forced into doing some extracurricular activities at school. He happens upon Mandy Moore's character (Sam? Was that her name? ... It was Jamie. Woops) and nearly bites her face off. And then she sings some song at the end of some play and BAM, he falls for her. He abandons his friends, his lifestyle, and devotes (again, this word) his world to this girl. I mean, look, I can't say it's impossible, but this guy buys a STAR for this girl. I mean, shit, c'mon. He doesn't believe in God as she does, and yet we never have a debate. It's never an issue. I don't know - this girl brings up her faith rather frequently. I could see it being a problem, no? I mean, I've had debates even with just friends who had rather strict religious upbringings. I couldn't imagine myself staying wit- okay, sorry, I deviated a little too much. Basically, this guy left all his friends for this girl he's known for two weeks. I can't see this working out. And yet it does. He abandons everything. Even his mom gets a little worried when he decides he wants to go to medical school (we'll get back to this point in a minute). Let's be realistic here - this relationship is doomed and completely unrealistic. But this film plays on this fantasy teenage girls must have that they can form a guy to be exactly what they want. You can't. And it's disgusting if people take advice from these shitty, shitty films. How about a realistic relationship film? How about one where the two accept their differences and love each other? Because as much as there's this notion of "opposites attract", that's in magnetism, not between people.
Now, the plot there with the father and Landon? Garbage. I have never seen such shitty writing. This kid is upset because his father abandoned his family, yet I think it was just a divorce since the father wants to be close to his son. I mean, he's a cardiologist, so I would hope his son would be smarter than this. Although Landon does get into medical school, he's socially inept. Anyway, the only reason he ends up reconciling with his dad because his dad pays for private care for Jamie. I'm out. I'm freakin' OUT.
The way the girl brings up cancer is also really bad. I mean, damn, she reveals it for no apparent reason in an alley. She's apparently known for two years, has stopped treatment, and never even mentioned it to Landon. What a bitch! Wouldn't this be something you would tell someone you love BEFORE you start messing with their emotions? I'm wondering if this cancer plot is just a way of preserving a doomed relationship in the early stages of puppy love. Or maybe it's just bad writing.
The Christian plot was also... awkward. I mean, again, there is never a debate. Landon doesn't believe in God, yet we get these awkward scenes where Jamie brings it up casually and talks about Landon being her angel. Wouldn't you feel uncomfortable if you weren't religious and your significant other started bringing up this stuff? ... I guess it's just me. It really didn't make sense to me to have this part. I guess maybe it's just because it was in the book, but it didn't translate to the screen well at all. But then nothing did.
A Walk to Remember feeds into the teenage girl's dream about romance where you can model your boyfriend to abandon his life for you, all while having cancer and loving Jesus. Let us never speak of this one again.
The slasher genre has never been a particular favourite of mine. While I enjoy a good zombie movie every once in a while, like Dead Alive, Friday the 13th and the like do not appeal to me. But I've gone on this rant before, so there's no need to start again. However, gore films as of recently, circa 2000, have turned into super gore films that aim to just disgust. When I saw that A Serbian Film was considered one of the grossest movie, I checked it out. ... It was bad. I mean, the gore wasn't even that bad - it was just trying to disturb and disgust people with the mix of violence, sexual themes taken waaay too far, and uncomfortableness. This is the desensitisation movies need to pass in order to stand out? Of course I sound all high and mighty, but then I sat down to watch Tom Six's The Human Centipede (First Sequence) with one of my siblings after wanting to see just how bad it was. Go me?
The first installment in the series was not as bad as I thought it would be. And by bad, I mean gory and disgusting. Let me elaborate on that first. I mean, the IV scene was a bit gross, but once the operation is completed, you don't see anything. I wouldn't want to, but it would have made me really see the gore effects. Although I hated Poultrygeist (that review is from a while back, eh?), at least the gore was promising. But in this one... We see an infection, but honestly, it relies more on the idea of the operation than the gore. The idea is good, but I don't know man, I wanted some gore. And I didn't get that. So what do I get? Nothing.
Why don't I get anything? Because the film is also bad in plot, acting, characters... While I thought acting and characters would be lacking, I was hopeful in the plot. But I was pretty meh about the plot from right off the bat. I know horror movies deal with people that keep making obviously bad decisions, but our main characters, the two girls there, really are just beyond stupid. Personal safety and dealing with creepy guys making completely sexual passes... But whatever, fine, horror movie logic. But then the issue I refuse to let pass was that the doctor never explains why he obsesses with this ass-to-mouth business. I laughed with the first scene where he stares down at the picture of the dog creation he made, but then I never get an explanation. The guy is a top-notch surgeon, but that means nothing. The closest I get is when the Japanese guy ironically yells, "You German Nazi bastard!" But that's it. I mean, the doctor guy isn't even that old, so he can't be a Nazi. And that's just some guy yelling out of frustration, so that's no explanation either. It's never accepted nor disproven. Maybe if he was a closeted homosexual who was into rimming... (Gross, I know. Sorry) I would have accepted any excuse - not liked it necessarily, but accepted it - but offering none just didn't work for me. Yes, he's a sadist and messed up, but why the extended gastrointestinal tract? Why that in particular? And this goes beyond wanting to show his talent - this is a sexual thing. Spoiler alert, but when the doctor is climbing the stairs, he seductively licks the blood off of them. Even before that, you just get the sense he's turned on by the whole matter. But nothing is explained, and while that might not impede others, it definitely got me thinking about it the whole film. I mean, even if it was an explanation like Jerry Brudos, that would have been cool.
As you can tell from my nitpicking, I didn't really find the film all that great, so all I'm doing is getting hung up on details. It had a poor rating, but I was hoping I could get a good laugh out of this one. I didn't. While The Human Centipede has made quite a name for itself, I can't say it's anything special. It aims to make you uncomfortable and think you're watching shocking, but it's really not as bad as the idea implies. Skip it.
Oh, and this 100% medically accurate? Are they trying to pull a fast one? I don't even know.
