Frem Here To Awesome Festival
Advertisement

Reel Thoughts

  • Ed Wood, the Quirkiest of Homages

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Ed Wood  (1994)

    Hello out there in Spoutland!  It has been a couple of weeks since my last entry, as I was finishing up that aforementioned school play, which went off as smashingly as it could.  Fame really is gonna' live forever, but I digress.  As it is, I have been sitting on this Netflix movie for I don't know how long, as I was not really afforded the luxury of time to watch it.  Now that the show is done, and the TV season spurts and sputters back to life, it's back to what I enjoy doing best: watching movies.

    I have been looking forward to watching Ed Wood for a long time because it's got a magical mix of ingredients, including direction by Tim Burton (a general favorite), a primary role by dreamy Johnny Depp, and a supporting turn by the fabulous Bill Murray.  Anything else about this film was icing on the cake, so I was eager to give it a looksee.  It didn't really live up to my expectations this time around, however, though I still found it to be an enjoyable and decidedly unique and affectionate tribute to the man deemed the "worst director of all time."

    The titular character (Depp) made what little name he had for himself directing B movies like "Plan 9 from Outer Space."  He was also an unflinching transvestite, drawing comfort from angora sweaters.  He surrounded himself with a variety of misfits, including Bunny Breckinridge (Murray), a gay actor looking for a sex change.  Murray's performance was decidedly the funniest because it was so off his type and reaffirmed for me again how wonderful an actor he is.  Ed Wood also makes an inspirational friendship with aging horror actor Bela Lugosi (Martin Landau).  Landau won the Oscar for his portrayal of Lugosi and for good reason - he steals the entire film.  The pacing and story of Ed Wood leave something to be desired despite the painstakingly cheesy homage to the genre to which Wood devoted himself; I had to watch this film in two halves because I found it a little boring, even though it had the capacity to make me smile.  If it weren't for the occasional appearance of Murray's Bunny and Landau's riveting and charismatic Lugosi, the film would have been a wash for me.

    As it was, Landau crackled with electricity as the man who simultaneously loved and hated his fame as the thespian behind Dracula. His inflections, his expressions, his accent, the journey of the character as an old has-been, addicted to pain killers, finding a spark of life in the low-grade cinema fare of Wood is reason enough to see this film.  He was amazing.

    The rest of the film, despite Landau, can only be chalked up to something akin to cute in my opinion.  The art direction, with all of the purposefully cookie-cutter props and period sets, was by far the most charming technological aspect of the film, and Tim Burton's expertise at visual story lent well to the affection he had for the subject.  I also loved how the film was in black and white and some of the performances of the supporting characters, such as Delores (Sarah Jessica Parker), the less-than-understanding first girlfriend of Eddie's.

    Yet, the film was nothing more than a loosely told biopic, played for laughs.  Fortunately, it never became too cartoony, but I just was not as riveted or laughing as hard as I thought I would.  That's not to say that I didn't enjoy it on some level.  I think the sheer uniqueness of the film gives it credibility, even if it isn't the most entertaining thing I've watched in recent memory.

    Nevertheless, I feel the film deserves a 7.5 (between shaky and very good) for the slow and erratic pacing but otherwise likable qualities.  I don't think it passes my test, though, and I also firmly believe that despite the loving care Burton showed his primary subject, this film is not his masterpiece.  Big Fish is tops for me right now, followed by Sweeney Todd, but Ed Wood is definitely worth the watch, since its message of being true to oneself and one's dreams is contained within a slightly avant-garde and nicely quirky package.  Perfect!  Print it.


  • Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is One Crazy Trip

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Last week's Netflix movie became this week's Netflix movie now that I have been spending time building sets and doing other things for the current high school show I'm directing ("Fame: the Musical"),  I tried watching this film last Sunday night, but I was dead tired after some good hard partying and two days of hard labor, and there was no way I was going to be able to stay awake, much less make sense of the hodgepodge of images forming the backbone of this movie.  The week then escaped from me - at least I have no limit on the time I am able to hold onto these movies.

    Fear and Loathing...might be classified as yet another drug movie, but it's a cut above others in that its quirkyness makes it unique.  It's based on the book with the longer name by Hunter S. Thompson, a descriptive journey into the deeper parts of the highs and lows of hallucinogenic drugs.  Johnny Depp plays Raoul Duke (apparently the alter ego of Thompson), a strung out sportswriter, who with his attorney (Benicio del Toro), take a road trip to Vegas, partying very hard along the way.  They encounter all sorts of people and places in their trips, both physical and pharmacological, seemingly searching for the perfect high rather than some existential or other philosophical meaning, though the movie takes an oddly philosophical turn by its end.

    I liked this movie more than other drug movies because it retained a sense of humor, despite the goal of creating the motion picture equivalents of the most acute sorts of trips.  Johnny Depp and Benicio del Toro give crazy but engaging performances as the junkies in question, and Terry Gilliam's natural sense of the wacky lends very well to the whole visual feast.  More than once, I had flashes of predecessors, like the Beatles' Magical Mystery Tour, and Monty Python's Meaning of Life.  The fact that the movie was set in 1971 and reflected long and hard on 1960s psychidelia, while boasting a killer songtrack that was both geographically and period-accurate, aided those comparisons.

    I didn't like, however, that the movie lacked any cohesive plot.  It was really just one long, strange bender punctuated by absurd situations and visual images representing the potency of the drug of choice.  The film was consistent in its lack of cohesion, though: the beginning, middle, and end were somewhat stream of consciousness, starting lazily and hazily and ending much the same way, reflective of the times and culture but never losing sight of the drug-addled perspective.

    Still, dreamy Johnny's and Benicio's performances were so complete and believable while decidedly crazy-wacky-kooky, that I was engaged in spite of myself and even laughed a few times.  Plus, there are a series of appearances by several stars and celebrities of all types, and it proved to be fun trying to identify who they were.

    I am not sure this certainly weird movie fits into my repertoire of movies I wholeheartedly enjoy.  I like Terry Gilliam's films generally, but this one, no doubt based on its source material, traveled some disturbing roads, despite my open mind and interest in the film.  The subject matter, again, was probably lost on me, but I think I need to rate this film a 7 for being shaky but entertaining, as it did contain some true moments of comedy, even if there wasn't much of a story (which I prefer over a carefully executed though abstract string of visual images).  Also, the film doesn't pass the test.  It's a little too crazy for me, Johnny Depp or no.  It's got some great quotes, though, serious and non-serious.  I might just watch it once more--just to remember the little gems that represent the lessons of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, and relive the few uncomfortable laughs this surreal and trippy movie inspires.


  • Revisiting Star Wars for the AFI Project

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Star Wars  (1977)

    What's the AFI Project, you ask?  For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here: http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx

    Star Wars is on the following AFI lists:

    The Original Top 100 (#15)
    100 Years...100 Heroes and Villains (Han Solo is the #14 hero)
    100 Movie Quotes: (#8 - Various, including Han Solo: "May the Force be with you.")
    25 Film Scores (#1)
    100 Most Inspiring Movies (#39)
    The Revised Top 100 (#13)

    Ok, I'm not going to lie.  Star Wars is one of my three all-time favorite movies (the other two are the Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi).  I still love these films and more than Lord of the Rings (my second favorite three).  I was born shortly after this film's original release; I have not known a life without this movie.  If I've seen The Wizard of Oz 90 bajillion times, I've seen Star Wars 900 bajillion times.  As has most people Generation X and older, and new fans crop up everyday.

    I'm not going to bother summarizing plot here.  That's just doing an injustice to the magic that is Star Wars, made back when George Lucas was a young, ambitious filmmaker and before he became a one-note Sally poster-child of recycled goods and filmmaking mediocrity.  If you have never seen this movie, my jaw is on the floor.  I am agape, aghast, agog!  No movie in film history has influenced the pop culture lexicon and mass merchandising frenzies of today more than Star Wars.  I don't think there is even a question as to why this film pops up on the American Film Institute lists of great American movies.  This is truly one of THE great American movies.  If I had my way, it'd be top 10 at least, but I haven't seen all of the top 10 movies (original or revised), so you don't have to take my word for it (Reading Rainbow....).

    I also think it's a masterpiece.  It's got EVERYTHING, and it's put together well in a fast-paced story that sets the stage for something epically operatic in scope.  Nothing had been seen on screen like it, and I yearn for a widescreen TV just so I can thrill to the opening shot of a star destroyer filling the screen.  It singlehandedly redefined the term "blockbuster."  The soundtrack alone is amazing - which is why John Williams (my hero) gets top honors on the film scores list.  So, Luke Skywalker whines a little about having to go into Tashi station to pick up some power converters.  So, the special effects pre-special edition were a little limited - I mean, they didn't have CGI back then and had to be creative on a conservative budget, since Lucas had to schlepp the movie around until 20th Century Fox finally gave it the green light.  So, Princess Leia has cinnebons on her head, there's a walking carpet, and prissy comic relief robots.  Oh, and because Lucas wrote the screenplay for the first movie, the dialogue is a little more awkward than tin he sequels, when screenwriting was assigned to more capable pencils. 

    Star Wars is still a riproaring good time, and whatever very miniscule flaws it has (it's still a 10 to me), it makes up in the bits of perfection, like casting Alec Guinness as Obi-wan Kenobi, that make it so unique.  Naturally, I own this movie in about five different versions, and I pull one of them out once a year or so just for that comfort/security blanket factor and also to make sure my memorization of the film is still in tact.   I can't convince a stubborn viewer who refuses to watch it "based on the hype" to actually give it a go, but I can say that this is one of the bestest movies in the whole wide world, and anyone who chooses not to watch it is simply missing out.


 


Advertisement