Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

Smooth_J Blog

  • Very "original!"

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

    The title of this review is not necessarily true...a lot of the film feels taken from some of Terry Gilliam's abandoned sketches and crazed idea chains.  However, it is an extremely good film, and a very enjoyable escape into an irrational and horrifying alternate world.

    Films about dreams tend to really get me...the depths of the imagination are completely interesting to me, and seeing them put onto film is just a magical experience.  This film, with the outstanding direction of Jeunet and Caro, achieves this feeling seamlessly.  The movie feels alternately like a bad dream and the type of dream you have after eating something weird right before you go to sleep--not necessarily a nightmare, but it certainly isn't happy, and you just sort of drift through it, taking in the bizarre scenery and the ever changing array of characters.

    The difference between one of these dreams and this film is merely that you actually care what happens to these characters, and it is well-plotted.  Somehow, it manages to garner both feelings...and it makes for a really great movie.

    Ron Perlman seems out of place for a while, but he soon meshes famously with the film as a whole, bringing a good deal of emotion to "One" without overdoing the cheese-factor that could have been eminent with the relationship between him and Miette.  Daniel Emilfork is completely perfect, playing a sort of Frankenstein's monster with the most selfish of intentions for his evils--he wishes for the ability to dream.  This is a strange concept, but it's really interesting to see how they make it play out so well.  Dominique Pinon is also very good, bringing the comic relief of the role of the various clones in the lab.  He is also successfully insane as the "original" scientist of the operation.

    My final concesus is that this is a brilliant film, but I'm also a sucker for anything surreal and abstract.  It's definitely a bizarre, futuristic fairy tale, but it really has a heart somewhere beneath it's outer illusory layers.


  • Zombies...sh*t.

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

    Zombie Strippers  (2008)

    This is one of those movies that is worth watching purely for the enjoyment of watching terrible actors do terrible things in a terribly plotted horror film.  It was probably one of the funniest films I've seen in a while, simply because of the twisted enjoyment you get out of a film that is this awfully bad.  However, it is respectable because at no point does it pretend to want to be taken seriously.  Everybody in the film (except maybe a select few) and obviously everybody working on the film knew that it was God-awful, giving it a sense of irony and hilarity seldom achieved.

    The hard-ass lines uttered by the members of an elite zombie fighting squad are especially awesome, as is the premise that the government is releasing a zombie virus upon its citizens.  It's kind of obnoxious when it attempts to actually be a legit political commentary, but it's really, really funny when it's simply making fun of the premise and how stupid it is.

    This was one of the most enjoyable movies I've seen in a long time.  However, go into it with a sense of humor.  I honestly didn't stop laughing the whole movie.


  • Decently intriguing film

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

    Walker  (1987)

    I noticed no one has said anything about this movie, so I figured I would be the first to say that it is a pretty good film.  It is all in all a commentary on the 1980s Nicaraguan conflict, exploiting the story of a forgotten American "hero" during the time of Manifest Destiny.  What it is really trying to say is that the idea of Manifest Destiny and ultra-patriotism still existed in the United States, especially during the 1970s-80s, when we just couldn't seem to keep our noses out of Central American affairs.  It succeeds on that level, but not too many others.

    The acting is at times pretty corny...Ed Harris successfully portrays William Walker and his many undeveloped personality traits, but even he slips up at times as his performance slips into camp.  Peter Boyle makes a pretty funny cameo as millionaire Cornelius Vanderbilt, the man who funds Walker's campaign in Nicaragua and ultimately sets him up as dictator.

    Some of the scenes are actually really cool, such a scene where Walker walks right down the middle of an apparent massacre in a village, telling his men to press on even though it seems all is lost.  A man asks him what he is doing, to which he replies, "The only thing I know how to do...advance."  A scene in which they burn the town of their dictatorships residence at the end is a little bit drawn out, with probably around 4-6 minutes of burning buildings and depravity of Walker's soldiers (called "Walker's Immortals").  It's one of many scenes that seems forced and just doesn't work...however, for each of these scenes, there is a few that do, which makes the movie an overall accomplishment.

    The film's infamous anachronisms that appear as Walker's dictatorship begins to fall apart actually seem relatively in place in terms of the story.  It is hilarious in most cases, and just puzzling in others.  My personal favorite is the cover of Newsweek, where one of the smaller stories listed on the cover is something about gay priests.  The main cover, however, shows Walker's face, claiming him as an American hero.  This was really just to show the celebrity status someone gains when they conquer and exploit in the name of America.

    While it certainly would not be recommended for the most cynical of human beings, it is an entertaining experiment in politcal satire.  While it often delves into the realm of the hallucinatory and the bizarre, it mostly stays on its main topic, though it is very good at doing both.  Especially in the final sequence, which I thought was the most impressive part of the entire film.


  • Look upon me! I'll show you the life of the mind!

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

    Barton Fink  (1991)

    Naked Lunch  (1991)

    This is one of my new favorites of the Coen Brothers’ films.  Which isn’t really saying much, considering I’ve loved every single one of them that I’ve seen (I have yet to see The Hudsucker Proxy, and Intolerable Cruelty/Ladykillers—not in much of a rush for those).  I found this to delve just as deep into the mind of a writer as Naked Lunch, which also was greatly successful in that aspect.  There are a good amount of similarities to each one—most noticeably the insanity and bizarrity brought about by the writing process, but something that I really noticed was the fact that Judy Davis was in both of them.  And, even more curious, the fact that her characters’ deaths in both films bring about a new life into the writers minds, and helps them to finish their respective pieces.

     

    The film is really meant to be a satire on the process of getting a script approved in Hollywood, though the theme of a writer’s torture is just as apparent.  Michael Lerner’s studio boss is especially hilarious, and his blatant dishonesty and obnoxiousness provide some of the highlights of the film.  Tony Shaloub is characteristically annoying as a producer who is stuck with Fink, trying to his script finished, but that just heightens the effect that the Coens are trying to put forth: That Hollywood sucks, especially for the lowly writers.

     

    The signature Coen’s motifs and symbolism run rampant in this film—the shoes, the hallway, the bible, and most importantly the reference to the writing process as being a hell on earth for any writer.  I found the most interesting performance of the film to be John Mahoney as the alcoholic writer that Barton looks up to, then envies and pities.  His performance is a small one, but I found it to leave a large impact on me even after his scenes were over.  I was sort of hoping he would have more scenes, but his absence was made up for by several other outstanding performances in the film.

     

    The ending sequence in the hotel is especially great.  John Goodman’s satanic character brings everything into that scene, and yet you still have a huge amount of sympathy for this “common man” who’s “not mad at anyone.”  Though you realize that he is really a sort-of anti-Christ, there is no denying the sympathy towards him that you inadvertently feel.  It is a disturbing scene, but very, very powerful…and as Barton leaves this literal Hell, everything about the film comes together; he has now finished his screenplay, and is leaving that God-forsaken place.

     

    I’m still trying to sort out the meaning of the woman in the painting, whom he meets at the end.  My guess is that it just means that he is now free, in the haven that he dreamed of the entire time he was writing.  However, it could be something much simpler that I’m just missing…

     

    Barton Fink, as with Naked Lunch, is an excellent portal into the mind of a writer, and the sufferings they are put through; even though we really shouldn’t have anything to complain about.


  • After a prolonged hiatus, number 2 on my list

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]
    Under discussion:

    Apocalypse Now  (1979)

    This was one of my most difficult decisions…there is an undisputed number 1 spot, which will be revealed when I get to writing something that will successfully pay homage to the film itself, but this spot was tough.  I thought it was clear-cut for a while, but then I recently saw a film that I really wanted to add.  Both films are pretty bleak, pretty disturbing, and pretty strange; and both are definite classics, outstanding films from legendary directors.  So, after much deliberation, here is number 2 and number 2½.

     

    2.  Apocalypse Now I have always been intrigued by this movie.  I saw a good deal of it on AMC when I was about 12 years old, and promptly set to begging my parents to let me go out and buy/rent it.  Finally, after ragging them for the better part of two years, I bought a copy of it.  It completely and utterly blew my mind.

     

    Never had I seen such brilliant film-making.  The viewer is sucked completely into the unstable mind of veteran special-ops agent Willard, on a journey down a savage river that loses all sense of time, reality, and purpose.  He is sent out to kill a man he does not even know; and is meant to learn about through transcripts and letters documenting his rise and fall.  No one knows when this expedition will end—but all seem to know that it will inevitably end in tragedy.

     

    Martin Sheen gives a supremely understated and powerful performance…while it is not exactly a showy role, it is one that was probably extremely difficult to pull off, in that a lot of the film is him sitting on the boat examining documents about Kurtz.  However, he does the job famously.  Robert Duvall is hilarious (yet somewhat unsettling) in his classic and brilliant small role.  His character (Col. Kilgore) is a larger than life character, perfectly representing the bizarre truths about Americans, military types especially; it is pretty self-explanatory what I mean when you look at the fact that they bomb and pillage a Vietnamese town (perfectly edited to Cry of the Valkries) only for the opportunity to see one of Willard’s men, a professional surfer, showcase his talents.  It really illustrates the exploitative nature of the American military, hitting the mark perfectly, just as the rest of the film does in illustrating the chaos and madness of not only the Vietnam war, but war in general.

     

    Say what you want about Marlon Brando’s performance, but I found it to be deeply and strangely unsettling.  This could be because he was facing the same sort of issues at that time in his life; he was becoming increasingly reclusive and separating himself more and more from humanity, believing that he was above everybody else.  This attitude was perfect to portray Kurtz, a man who is trapped by his own insanity.  Some of his monologues are peculiar yet greatly profound.

     

    The beginning and ending sequences are almost entities in themselves when you talk about this film.  Both are trippy, stylish, and edited to awesome music and sounds.  In the beginning, the song is ironically The End by The Doors, in the most perfect sequence of any film I have ever seen.  As the film and Willard descend into madness, this song is chronicling it, as well as the sound of helicopter rotors as the fan spins.  The ending is just beautiful—Kurtz clearly wants Willard to be the one to kill him, before offering him the last temptation by giving him a glimpse of his philosophy.  I still get the chills as Willard rises out of the red water…it’s completely incredible.  As is the entire movie.

     

    2½ .  A Clockwork Orange Now, I only recently saw this movie, but I really just had to include it here up near my top two, since I was really taken aback by its power.  This movie actually has a more personal meaning to me; my mom and dad constantly tell the story of their first date, during which my dad took my mom to see this movie, and my mom dumped him soon following, for the reason that she was so immensely disturbed by it.  I’ve always thought this was hilarious, and I’ve always wanted to see it out of curiosity.

     

    I would have to watch it again to write a full analysis, but it was worth mentioning.  I was especially amazed by the scene by the water where Alex puts his “droogs” back in their place—slow motion imagery melded with music in its finest form.  And this was only one of about a dozen scenes that really stuck out in my mind.  Stanley Kubrick was a total genius.


  • A great surrealist comedy

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

    I believe it is very relevent to mention the main reason why I love Charlie Kaufman's writing so much; and that is because he tends to write his main characters as strange, socially awkward, self-loathing outcasts, which is what makes them so understandable to me.  That being said, I also found Being John Malkovich to be a hilarious and stylish study of the intricacies of the human psyche.

    Not only does the film perfectly portray what it would actually be like to see the world through someone else's eyes (literally), it also subtly questions the role of the human mind and soul, and what seeing something like this might do to one.  Spike Jonze's direction is superb, and I finally see why he received such accolades for the film...I found this to be even more enjoyable than the also superb Adaptation, the other Jonze-Kaufman collaboration.

    John Cusack was surprisingly awesome in the main role, as was Catherine Keener as his seductive business-mate.  John Malkovich is, of course, the man, and convincingly played himself, and John Cusack's character, and Cameron Diaz's character.

    I was extremely surprised at how much I loved this film, but I guess I should have seen it coming, since I typically am most intrigued by absurdist fantasies.  But this one is even better than others.


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<May 2008>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
27282930123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
1234567


Categories
 


Advertisement