Review CXXVI - Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead

Review 126
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (1990)

Honestly, but really, truly, I feel like this semester will destroy me. A minimum of four assignments due every week, one or two lab reports due every week, readings, papers, midterms... I guess I should have expected this, but working on top of this means I have basically no time to sit down and just relax. But now it's our week-long break, and I have even more than usual due after I come back. Yay? Well, it still means I can take this day off to finally review a film. I swear, I've been trying all month, since I first watched Precious at the end of January (it was meh. I was really not impressed), and then watched the seasons of The Boondocks (some episodes were pretty grand, but others, just way off. I stopped at the third season, and that one was falling flat on its ass), and then I watched Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead one Friday evening when my boyfriend stopped by. This film stars Tim Roth, Gary Oldman, and Richard Dreyfuss. What the hell? How have I never heard of this film before? Apparently it was a film that brought Gary Oldman's name to light, but seriously, I had never heard of this one. In fact, my boyfriend was the one who proposed we watch it. Where he got it, I don't know. Anyway, in light of my break starting and out of desperation to finally write a review, onward!

Rosencrantz (Oldman) and Guildenstern (Roth) live in a peculiar world - coins always come up heads, no one is sure where they come from, and it seems like destiny is following them very closely. After an acting group happens upon them in the forest, the leading man (Dreyfuss) attempts to explain their predicament through his acts, but Rosencrantz and Guildernstern are doomed to wallow in ignorance until the end.

It's kind of hard to write a synopsis for this film, which was originally a play by Tom Stoppard. Our protagonists are, in fact, minor characters in the play of Hamlet, who, in the end, are killed after Hamlet finds out they are being sent to kill him. To show off my ignorance, I've never seen Hamlet, so I think it might be better if you're well-immersed in the ideas of the play before watching Rosencrantz and Guildernstern, but you'll also know when their appearances are in the play and not since they'll suddenly be transported somewhere and discussing with the main characters of the play. Even if they don't wish to be there, even if they fully planned out what they were going to say prior to the events, they always follow the play in the end. And it drives them mad.

The movie is obviously directing itself toward this idea of fatalism and our powerlessness to do anything about our fate. Richard Dreyfuss' character is the only one who is aware of what will happen in the end, and even asks the two, after they watch the play of Hamlet, whether or not they "recognise this play". He is the omniscient being in our story. But I guess you would expect that from the man in charge of the play, wouldn't you?

So how did I find Rosencrantz and Guildenstern really and truly? Well, I thought it was an interesting idea, and it had its quirky, cute parts - I really loved the relationship between these so-called "friends" - but I can't say it was all that crazy. I found it went on longer than was necessary, to be honest. I think some scenes could have easily been taken out, although I do understand that the film also had to take all the scenes where the two characters showed up in the play. But nonetheless, some scenes went on for way too long. Already, in the beginning, when Rosencrantz keeps flipping coins and coming up with heads, it didn't need to spend a full ten minutes on discussing and flipping the coins. I think the film could have easily started with him flipping, and skipped to him getting to 180 (or whichever number it was he reached), and then Guildenstern simply pointing out that "something was wrong with reality". Instead, they have a huge discussion, with Rosencrantz appearing completely oblivious. Maybe it was to establish character, but it could have been done a lot better. I'm also not sure I got why Rosencrantz kept inventing things with Guildenstern completely ignoring his innovations, even going so far as to destroy them. Maybe it was just a humorous act, but I would like to think there was a deeper meaning... Whatever it was.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead is a cute piece of cinema, but it isn't spectacular. I would like to check out the theatre play because I am curious, and I really must say that the story really takes an interesting turn, but it could have been executed a lot better. Worth a watch? I'd say give it a try, you most likely won't regret it, but whether you ever watch it again is up to you.

Review CXXV - Capitão Falcão

Review 125
Capitão Falcão (2015)

Whew! I've been trying to write a review since I got back to school on the seventh, but between learning about Michelson-Morley's experiment and struggling to open a copper valve (those things are bad!), I've been rushing to send out job applications and attempt to stay on top of things, all while wearing a smile. A film I have long been anticipating finally became available sometime early in January, and my boyfriend, always the enthusiast, snatched it once we finally got a dubbed version. I am obviously talking about João Leitão's Capitão Falcão starring Gonçalo Waddington, David Chan Cordeiro, José Pinto, and Miguel Guilherme. ... You've never heard of it? Yeah, I'm not surprised. Apparently even the film was a box-office bomb in Portugal, but then what did I really expect from this plot:

Capitão Falcão (Gonçalo Waddington), Captain Falcon in English, is the communist-fighting superhero António de Oliveira Salazar, fascist prime minister of Portugal, has hired to protect him and their beloved country from communist, feminist, and all-around anti-patriotic threats. Along with his sidekick Puto Perdiz (David Chan Cordeiro), Partridge Kid in English, Portugal will be kept safe from the ominous threat that is left-winged. He is... Capitão Falcão!

I don't think I've ever encountered such a film, and I think this politically-driven comedy might have been a bit too much for the public. But honestly, guys, it was funny. I have some criticisms, and they're pretty major, but let's compliment the film first. As I said, I don't think I've ever seen such a film talking about fascism without it being labelled as an "f" word. This film really was unique. And it pulled it off. Most of the gags were pretty damn funny, leaving me smirking, and I really loved the subject matter. I loved the scene with the feminists burning their bras, as well as Puto Perdiz having to join Capitão Falcão on a final mission. But by far my favourite scene is the bank one right at the beginning where our heroes are attempting to figure out which guys are the communists. Gearing it close second is the talk Capitão Falcão has with his son about killing his wife first if she finds another lover. I was dying, and I would be down to watch that scene again.

Apart from its funny material, it also jabbed the viewer a bit by not just making fun of Salazar. The film doesn't just diss its fascist period, and I must say, that is pretty shocking and well receiving on my end. That is not to say I agree with a dictator-running state - I live pretty comfortably in my democratic, pretty socialist country - but I also believe fascist countries did implement some pretty logical laws and really did focus on trying to make their country great and respectable. The film points out that Salazar helped to keep Portugal out of World War II, which was definitely advantageous. I can't say I couldn't disagree with its points. Still, the film does poke fun at the reign. Capitão Falcão is patriotic beyond any reason, and at the end of the film, we get a pretty loving embrace. Still, I was impressed that the film didn't just hate on the whole thing.

I nonetheless have criticisms. One, some of the gags would just go on for way too long. For example, the interrogation scene with Capitão Falcão and the communist guy with the beam? That was fine for one joke, but it kept going on and on. Another one was the prison scene when Capitão Falcão is talking to everyone. I liked that one with the kid, but the other ones just made it too long since they barely had anything to say.

The second relates to the first, but still deserves its own category: the film was badly paced. Some scenes were okay, but others would just drag on for too long. Spoilers: Capitão Falcão gets turned into a communist, but he's able to get out of it eventually. But that whole sequence just went on for way too long. Some fighting scenes were way too long as well. Basically, the film could have cut out an extra ten or twenty minutes. This made the film very long toward the end, and I kept waiting to see the final credits. It didn't ruin the film, but instead of wanting to watch the film again, I'd rather get clips of the parts I found funny. And that's definitely not a good thing.

Overall, Capitão Falcão was pretty funny, but it is badly paced. I'd say it's worth at least one watch because it does have funny moments, but it lacks a good pace to give it re-watchablity. Have a good night!

English subtitles can be enabled for this one!

Review CXXIV - Carambolages

Review 124
Carambolages (1963)

Welcome to 2016, guys! Nothing has changed, but I thought I'd start the film off with a- actually, let's not spoil the surprise. This one is a French film from 1963 starring comedy man Louis de Funès called Carambolages, or Carom Shots (a reference to pool balls) in English, directed by Marcel Bluwal. It also stars Jean-Claude Brialy (who apparently starred in a Luis Buñuel film - cool!), Sophie Daumier, and Michel Serrault (La cage aux folles! Aww yeah!). This actually starred some pretty notable people now that I looked into it... Nice!

Paul Martin (Jean-Claude Brialy) is looking to improve his title and get rid of his debt. He works at an advertising company under director general Norbert Charolais, a tyrant and crazy man, is engaged to the daughter of a superior, but is secretly sleeping with his secretary. His dream is to become director general of the company, and with the help of his brilliant schemes, he may just reach the title he's always wanted.

Carambolages is cute. It starts off with a message warning against those who oppose the following film will be impitoyablement destroyed. Of course it's just the announcement for the advertising company, but I was like, "What?" right off the bat. And the moment the video finishes, you can a clear shot of Louis de Funès and his discontentment. Hilarity follows, but in a slightly disorganised manner. We quickly find out about Paul Martin's woes to try and pay off his rising credit. But unlike a normal man, after he finds out that marrying a superior's daughter for money won't work, he decides to try and kill off the head boss. And the boss, in the meantime, is trying to kill off the man who he believes is sleeping with his wife. The film is a whole run around where you're waiting to see who will die, who will live. Probably my favourite part was the woman with the man's voice. I don't really understand what the heck it was about, but it gave me a good laugh.

I actually don't have much to say about this one. I mean, it was goofy, but I missed out on some dialogue given the super fast talking at times. Next time I watch it, I'll check it out with subtitles (and I recommend you do as well!). I feel like there were subtle jokes that I completely missed out at times unfortunately. While Carambolages was not a big favourite of mine, I thought it was a nice change from comedies of a more recent era. This one was dark, but not too dark, and while it had some political messages behind it, it wasn't aiming to shove all sorts of different messages down my throat (or, at least, given that I missed out on some dialogue, I might have missed it). The comedy was genuine and had some nice, cinematic twists at times.

Now I'm sure you're asking why I would even bother to bring this one up since I'm struggling to find something to say. Well, because there is an appearance from someone special right at the very end of the film. That's right - it's Alain Delon! He is never credited, but it was a great appearance nonetheless - one not necessarily expected if you didn't know!

Bottom line, Carambolages is a cute, dark comedy about work culture and trying to get higher in a pyramid. Maybe you get to the top, but remember, there's always someone at the bottom who might be ready to topple you down...

Sorry, only got it in French!

Review CXXIII - Love

Review 123
Love (2015)

Hey guys! I was all ready to rock 'n' roll with a couple of reviews before 2016, but unfortunately, I caught an absolutely awful gastro. Consequently, I only have an unedited review for you guys. I'll be sure to update it in 2016 and provide maybe a few more reviews before I return back to school. Happy New Year until then!

Ahh, 2015 is coming to a close, and I must say, it was a pretty shitty year. I guess I thought continuing my Gaspar Noé saga would be appropriate to thus close the New Year, not to mention he had a new film out this year. This one's called Love and it stars a bunch of random people you have never heard of in your life. Let's get to it!

Remember how much I hated Enter the Void? ... Yeah, I still desperately hate that movie, but Love somehow has less plot and makes less sense than Enter the Void. You'd think Gaspar Noé would up his game and maybe improve over time, but I guess he just gets worse. So why does Love suck such balls? Because it does just that: suck balls. That is, this is a freaking porn movie. An extra long porn movie with an attempt at culture, but it's porn nonetheless. We'll go from beginning to end with this shit fest, so strap in for a spoiler-induced review.

The film starts off with some announcement about putting on your 3D glasses. ... Okay. I'm not sure why this was included on my DVD copy of the movie, but whatever. What's the first scene? A man and woman jacking each other off. Great stuff. We get a full view of the woman, with the guy partially covered by the woman, although we still get a great shot of his dick. This lasts I think about three minutes. Then we cut to the same guy and a woman sleeping in the same bed. An alarm goes off... And then we get shitty, shitty monologue from the guy. This guy has a son, but immediately we're told that he feels "trapped" and a bunch of other shit typical of a guy that got a girl pregnant because he's a douche. Then he checks his voicemail after giving the baby to his mother, the woman he was laying in bed with. "Hello, this is Electra's mom. I haven't heard from her in two months - call me back," the message goes, with the woman possessing a thick French accent. Okay, before we go anywhere, let's point out the obviousness of the name Electra. Hm, that name is pretty uncommon... Could it be a reference to the Electra complex? Seems a bit stretched, but I think maybe it could be that. But don't worry, the obviousness continues when we see Murphy's law pop up and absorb the screen. "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong." Huh! Our protagonist's name is Murphy! I'm sure it's a coincidence, though. *rolls eyes* I love it when films take out any ambiguity from its depths so you walk away from the film without any questions. Well, I do have one: WHY AM I STILL WATCHING THIS?

We find out through a series of flashbacks that Murphy and Electra were going out and were so "madly in love". The two confess that sleeping with a blonde chick would up their relationship, and, oh look, the new neighbour is blonde and conveniently young (jailbait young)! After finding out she's pro-choice (plot anyone?) and enjoys smoking up (idiot anyone?), they invite her over. Ensue a threesome because everyone's a whore. However, one weekend when Electra's gone, Murphy goes over to the chick's house, has sex with her, but the condom breaks. And thus baby nine months later. But apparently Electra gets very angry and breaks up with him! Oh no :(( Electra, no :(( You're not that much of a whore :(( Anyway, so Murphy is furious, and tries to get her back, but it fails of course, and we cut back to present time. The film just jumps around, so I'll just discuss some scenes from here on out about the film that worth mentioning for rage.

Somewhere in the middle of the film - how I made it more than one minute in, I don't know - our lovely protagonist, Murphy, is talking to Electra and some whore at a party. "What is the number one goal in life?" he asks. The whore yells out, "Love!" Satisfied with the answer, Murphy then asks the second goal in life. "Sex!" the whore giggles, ready to pounce on his dee for no fathomable reason. Murphy excitedly agrees. "I want to make a film about sexual love. I've never seen a film like that!" As you can see, Gaspar Noé decided breaking-not-breaking the fourth wall would be a good idea, so we have Murphy basically telling us that this film is new, it's creative, it's grand. But I've also never seen a film focusing solely on decapitating babies, but does that mean it should exist? No. Not all ideas are good ideas, so I'm glad some freaking contemporary film student came out with some idea that hasn't been touched before. We're screwed. Anyway, that girl gets the dee from Murphy in the bathroom (why why why), but Electra finds out immediately as they are super loud about it, and, quite understandably, is super pissed off. Murphy claims she's sleeping with her ex (played by Gaspar Noé - he's damn short compared to Electra), and they argue in a taxi. "Calmez-vous!" the taxi driver tells them (it was bad acting). What follows is two aggressive sex scenes, one of them in a club. I don't know if they're connected, but to me, they're connected. I don't know when he says it, but Murphy claims his dick does not "think" and keeps "screwing things up". Apparently it does, but it doesn't because this guy CONTINUOUSLY CHEATS on his girlfriend and sex follows. Cheating is INEXCUSABLE. But this guy and film treat it as nothing. Sure, Electra gets pissed off, but they have mad sex after that. This girl must have the lowest self-confidence in the world to go back with a guy like this. Then again, she does hard drugs, and her mom finds them in one shot. That is, an IDIOT. And that scene was weird too, but eff it. What is this film?

I skipped through the end because there were too many sex scenes, too much random anger because everyone is an idiot, and too much melodrama from a guy who deserves castration. The film ends with Murphy taking a bath and crying to his baby, telling the baby that, "Life isn't easy :'((" Life isn't easy, but all these problems are brought on by HIMSELF. And then Electra is in the bath, they hug, and then the credits roll.

I missed some things, but I can sum it up: sex, sex, sex, sex, sex, and sex. We even got transvestite sex after Electra decides it would help them or something. I'm surprised there were no horses. And, just like in Enter the Void, we get a 3D penis-in-vagina scene. Great, just what I needed.

What about the acting? As was the case with Enter the Void, Love had absolutely SHIT acting. The acting was complete GARBAGE, except during the sex scenes, but it was actual sex, so I don't see how they could screw (heh) that up. Murphy was shit, Electra was god awful, the blonde chick was shit, Gaspar Noé was shit, every single character that said anything said it in such a robotic way, I felt like cutting my wrists. A film doesn't need the best acting in the world to be a good film, BUT DAMN, IT SHOULD BE VIEWABLE.

Was there anything redeemable about Love? No. It was atrocious. Even the name drives me up the wall. The film was not about love. The film didn't portray a story of love through sex. It was a shitty porno disguised as art so if your mom caught you fapping to it, you could tell her it was an "art" film. But it's not. I saw some reviewers saying there was more to this film than meets the eye. There isn't. Watch a porno and you'll get the same experience. Honestly, why do films like this get MADE? This one was even premiered at the Cannes festival. HOW. It was also produced by the same guy who did La vie d'Adèle. Why am I not surprised?

Sex should be an intimate show of affection, but Love and other films like it ruin every notion we should have about sex. I'm tired of garbage being labelled as "artsy" when it's really just bad. Don't watch it. I am beyond furious with this crap and beyond furious that this film wasn't burned at the reel at its first premier. God DAMN it.

Review CXXII - The Lobster

Review 122
The Lobster (2015)

Christmas is a time for family, for friends... It's a time where we take the time to be with those we love the most and try and think of a meaningful gift for them. So of course I went with Yorgos Lanthimos's The Lobster for the holiday season... Yeah, didn't I review Dogtooth not that long ago and say I didn't really get the film? Well, since The Lobster was an English film and I thought the plot was interesting, I was actually planning on watching it eventually. My boyfriend happened upon it recently, and with my words of encouragement, he was down. Thus, so was I. This one stars Colin Farrell, Rachel Weisz, Ben Whishaw, Angeliki Papoulia (Dogtooth!), and Olivia Colman (whaaaat Hot Fuzz whaaat), among others.

David (Colin Farrell) lives in a society where companionship is a must. After realising he doesn't love his wife, he checks himself into a "love" hotel. In this hotel, you must find love in 45 days, or you are turned into an animal of your choice. Will David find love or turn into his chosen animal, the lobster?

Slight spoilers here. Honestly, the plot sums up only part of the film. It extends to so much more in the two hours it runs. It's like Martyrs in a way, where the film starts as one thing and turns into something else. I mean, I guess the film isn't as different as From Dusk Till Dawn let's say, but anyway, you get it.

The Lobster is a fine piece of cinema. I was a bit worried it would leave me feeling... odd and not sure, as was the case with Dogtooth, but in the end, with the film revolving around a global idea encompassing the world now, as well as the explanations from a particularly observant viewer, I got this one. But let's look into what I got from the movie. Here are maybe bigger spoilers for the movie in terms of plot analysis, so you have been warned. Basically, the film revolves around a more egocentric view of love. The limping man (Ben Whishaw) explains that his distinct characteristic is his limp. His dead wife had what? A limp. The man with the lisp (John C. Reilly) has his defining characteristic - a lisp. There's a woman with a frequent nosebleed (Jessica Barden), and a completely heartless/sadistic woman (Angeliki Papoulia). We never know them beyond this one characteristic. And this is what they search for in their partner. They are self-absorbed individuals who can only love those who are closest to them. The limping man, knowing he will be transformed in a short amount of time, fakes nosebleeds by bashing his head against walls, and ends up being paired up the nosebleed woman. A love based on a lie in order to not be alone - doesn't seem so unlikely, does it? Or at least, it doesn't from my experience. David also attempts to fake being heartless as he claims he has always been attracted to short-haired women and women with accents. However, the lie is quickly noticed after a particularly gruesome scene (akin to Dogtooth's cat scene), though he manages to escape the authorities. This is the way the society is made up, and if your defining characteristic sets you apart from the rest, you are transformed.

However, we have the opposite side of the equation with the loners. The loners, led by Léa Seydoux's character, have completely rejected this culture. They aren't allowed to have partners and must dig a grave and not risk getting the others in trouble. They cannot listen to music other than techno and must do it alone. They conduct missions where they attempt to ruin partners' lives. David joins them after escaping from the hotel. Of course, we see that there is a flaw in their being as well since completely rejecting love isn't a solution. It will only lead to their demise as the only way they can continue is to bring in others. However, David finds love in the group when he meets a woman who is short-sighted (Rachel Weisz) just as he is. They are found out eventually by the leader, and while the leader attempts to break them apart, we see that the two of them break the mold. They make sacrifices for the other, meaning they reject the programmed society they live in, something the leader could not have expected. They are the only ones who have truly found what love is. Of course, the ending is cringe worthy just as Dogtooth was, but it's a happy ending.

So why do I find The Lobster particularly meaningful? Love and marriage are not as they used to be. It is true that we get along best with those who are most similar to us, but we also have to be ready to make sacrifices and accept the differences we possess amongst each other. Nowadays, we are in a more "throw-away" culture where, if we have a problem with a partner, divorce is an option. Divorce is not bad if a partner is particular abusive, or if you are truly unhappy and have made an effort, but so often an effort is not made. It is hard for me to speak since I have never been married, but marriage isn't always easy and it's a learning experience. It seems wrong to me that we have a joining in love, have children in the middle, and then decide it isn't worth it. The Lobster shows this effortlessness with egotistical love. However, The Lobster shows us that the alternative, completely rejecting marriage is not a healthy option either. The movie presents an exaggerated portrayal of the current state of affairs, and it's something I have often discussed with my boyfriend. And thus, The Lobster has hung around with me. Even now, I still feel some heart strings tugging. Might I also say the acting was awkwardly adorable and just wonderful?

The Lobster is definitely unconventional, but totally worth a watch. Maybe not the most Christmas-y, but still worth a watch before the new year rears its ugly head, hehe. Merry Christmas guys!

Review CXXI - Сталкер

Review 121
Stalker (1979)

I'm back, guys! Exams are over, I got two days of rest, and now my crazy work schedule will begin for Christmas! Fun times, eh? I honestly don't mind all that much - anything to get a break from studying every night. Anyway, I'm back (for now), but I haven't had any time to watch any holiday films... I'll try and watch one, though I can't make any guarantees. Instead I'm here to share with you a classic film, a Russian film, that I had the pleasure of watching a few weeks ago right after regular classes finished. I present you Andrei Tarkovsky's Stalker, or Сталкер as it is known in Russian.

The "Zone" is an area forbidden to laypeople after the disappearance of a group of military men. However, the "Stalker" (Aleksandr Kaidanovsky) agrees to take in two curious men, the "Professor" (Nikolai Grinko) and the "Writer" (Anatoli Solonitsyn), who wish to visit the "Room", an area in the "Zone" that apparently grants a selected wish from whoever steps inside it.

I really, really liked this film to start off with. I was told it was long, it was quiet, and it was Russian. But guys, the time didn't seem long at all to me. I felt the two hours and forty minutes were justified and there was never a dull moment. But I'm just gushing over this thing and not reviewing it. Shall we back track a bit?

Stalker was based, very loosely apparently, on a novel titled Roadside Picnic by Arkady and Boris Strugatsky, a novel depicted as one of the greatest science fiction novels ever written (I'm getting this from Wikipedia because I never read the novel, so I can't comment). However, if you've played S.T.A.L.K.E.R. or read/played Metro 2033, you'll start the film and start hmmming it and seeing super close similarities. Indeed, both games refer to stalkers, and even in the novel of Metro 2033, they point out that the word "stalker" is a foreign word to their mouths since it's English (I loved Metro 2033, though the ending was kind of meh). So already, if you really love those games, check out Stalker from 1979. However, it is not exactly the same, so it's probably closer to Roadside Picnic than it is Stalker... I digress! Long story short, I had read Metro 2033 prior to watching Stalker, had enjoyed myself with S.T.A.L.K.E.R., so I was going to like Stalker.

As I said, Stalker is different because it doesn't deal with alien life and creatures birthed through hideous radioactive sewage. While radioactive explosions are a topic of the film, something predating the Chernobyl incident, it also focuses on the journey of man through faith and expectation. I can't say I one hundred percent got the film... I tried reading an analysis of the film, but it went on for so long that I ended up skimming it (reference). I read some shorter ones (here and here), and I basically got the conclusion that Stalker was not a religious piece, a humanitarian piece, a life piece: it was really what the viewer saw in it, with a definite message of keeping faith and harbouring love. This is based on the words of the director. This works throughout the film, but again, the film is long, so there is so much to say about it. I think Andrei Tarkovsky really wanted to raise issues in Russia at the time given that he wasn't happy with the censorship that was occurring at the time. Yet, the ending with the little girl makes you wonder if the whole thing could actually have happened, or if it was just a post-traumatic experience on the "Stalker"'s behalf. ... I really can't offer anything new. Read those articles guys, if you're interested

However, if you aren't the type to really give a shit about meaning, the film will not be lost of you. The reason? The shots are really, really beautiful. The film starts off in a crisp coffee-brown-black-white super contrasting palette that turns into the real world once our protagonists enter the "Zone" (I keep thinking the "void" for some reason). It was jarring, but it worked so well. Honestly, those opening scenes were absolutely beautiful, and it only continued from there. The "Zone" had beautiful, beautiful cinematography as well. I particularly loved the tunnel and the last shot in the "Zone" with the water and stone. If you want a beautiful film, Stalker will not disappoint. It is so, so beautiful. Thank you, Andrei Tarkovsky and Alexander Knyazhinsky!

The 1979 classic really deserves its status. It is long, but honestly, I thought every moment was worth the time. The acting was great (the "Writer" was a beautiful man, hehe, and the wife of the "Stalker" (Alisa Freindlich) was great), the cinematography was astounding (common of classic Russian films ;) ), the story and plot interesting, the meaning, ambiguous yet deep, the film, great. I can't wait to check out Solaris!

Review CXX - They Live

Review 120
They Live (1988)

I've been wanting to write a review for the month of November, but I haven't even watched any movies this whole month. I ended up going on an anime spree (and by spree, I mean I watched three shows, one of which had only seven minute episodes), but I didn't really have much to say. I can sum them all up in three words: Cowboy Bebop is pretty good, Tonari no Seki-kun is pretty cute, and N.H.K. ni Yōkoso! is shit (at first I thought it was great, but halfway in, the show died). So what was I going to do? Finals are coming up and I have to study! But I ended up going out for yoga with my friend Thursday evening, so I had completed all my homework the day before, plus I got home late and wasn't going to start on homework then. Enter movie time. The winner? John Carpenter's They Live starring Roddy Piper, Keith David, and Meg Foster. Awesome.

Nada (Piper) is a construction worker drifting through town, hoping to find work. He does, but in an "aliens-have-taken-over-and-are-keeping-us-in-the-dark" way. With the help of his friend Frank (David), and the mysterious woman Holly Thompson (Foster), Nada is ready to kick some alien butt.

They Live started off rather normally, but turned into a bad-ass John Carpenter after about twenty minutes. Seriously, the moment Nada gets the sunglasses, he starts killing and not giving a hoot. And I'm happy to say I finally know where that bubble gum line comes from now. It's pure, pure John Carpenter. If you like his weird, campy style, you'll love They Live. You will. I was actually expecting a more serious film given the subject matter. It's discussing the current state of affairs with a pretty good metaphor, I must say. I guess I was a little disappointed it wasn't as serious, but I always had a good time with this one. It brings up a true message, but it's still John Carpenter having fun. Thus, unlike the glasses, you can watch this film and not worry about coming down too hard. Great fun.

I... again have nothing else to say about this one. It's funny, it's serious, it's John Carpenter. Happy November, guys!