Not only is this not Monday, but this isn’t even this week’s batch of reviews! It’s last weeks’. Oops. I know, I know. You don’t have to say it. In the meantime, enjoy these reviews:

(March 13)

——Three Extremes (2004)——

Three masters of Asian horror from three different countries came together to make this film compilation that doesn’t entirely work but certainly has enough elements to it to make it very watchable. The first is Fruit Chan from Hong Kong, the one filmmaker I wasn’t already familiar with. His movie, Dumplings, is about an aging actress who wants to reverse her aging to regain the attention of her drifting husband and is willing to do so by consuming some dumplings made from very questionable materials. The film is very interesting and works, and yet by the end I thought we were missing a whole lot. Interesting that I thought that because disk two is actually a full-length version of Dumplings. I’m very interested to see if the full version of the film erases some of the feelings that I had of the incompleteness of the picture and the abrupt nature of the ending.

Cut, by South Korea’s Chan-Wook Park was the most disappointing of the three films for me. The film seems to just recycle the themes of his other, better, work, most notably OldBoy. This story of a film director taken hostage by a disgruntled film extra is the most visually disturbing of the three films but because of its length it doesn’t really delve properly into the motivations of our characters. Nothing feels properly fleshed out, which in the end hurts the piece.

My favorite segment (and the one most likely to polarize audiences) was Takashi Miike of Japan’s Box. Miike has always been a little out there in left field, and Box is no different. This is a beautiful film though, using exquisite visuals (probably the best of his career) to propel a more subtle sort of storytelling that asks the audience to put a lot of themselves into it. It’s a story of a girl haunted by her past, about jealousy, her sister, an accidental fire. Miike gives you pieces to a larger story and asks you to put them all together. And it works. The nature of short films by necessity needs certain shortcuts to be taken to give you that feeling of having watched a full length film, but in half of the time. Box does that and will haunt you.

(SEE)

(March 14)

——Dave Chappelle’s Block Party (2006)——

In 2004 (before he went crazy) Dave Chappelle decided to throw the coolest block party in the history of block parties and threw it on a street in Brooklyn with the great music video and now film director Michel Gondry behind the camera. The result of which is one of the greatest concert films out there, right up there with The Last Waltz and Stop Making Sense. One of the genius ideas of this film is to jump back and forth in time to show us the best moments of the concert intercut with everything that happened before the concert happened. We not only get to see Chappelle interacting with the acts that are going to perform live for him, but we also get to see Chappelle go to his home town and give out golden tickets to see the show. The joy of the show is only amplified by seeing the joy in these people (most notably some college students and a marching band) as they are given an opportunity to go see something they probably never would have ever been able to see otherwise.

Thus we are given a document of not only the concert itself but of every element of the concert before, during and after. We learn about the performers, the people seeing the show, even the people who are giving up their street and buildings so that they can put on the concert. It’s great documentary. It also helps that the concert kicks a whole lot of ass too.

(MUST SEE)

——Criss Cross (1948)——

Probably one of those most traditional noirs I have in my collection, Criss Cross follows the very noir-ish setup of a man falling in love with the wrong kind of woman, which ultimately leads him towards crime and tragedy. Burt Lancaster comes home after spending several years away to get over his ex-wife. Of course the minute he sets foot back in town he’s searching out his past again and when he finally does find his ex-wife they begin to fall in love all over again. Thing is, she has a tendency to make bad decisions, most notably like the one where she has taken up with a local hood. To cover up that they have actually been having an affair, Lancaster comes up on the spot with the idea that he was actually talking with her about a heist he wanted to pull off with the hood on his armored car. Things go downhill from there.

The opening of the film sets up the relationships and conflicts, moods and tones of the film so deftly and effectively that the rest of the film is a bit of a let down when it flashes back to the start of the story and follows a much more conventional narrative. The movie still pulls you right in to the suspenseful finish though, and is thus definitely worth a look.

(SEE)

——Big Deal on Madonna Street (1958)——

This is a fun, funny movie. Mario Monicelli’s Big Deal on Madonna Street plays off of the conventions of other heist movies, most notably Jules Dassin’s Rififi (which I reviewed last time I decided to post one of these things) except for where in Rififi highly trained professionals pull of the perfect heist, in Big Deal on Madonna Street common street hoods and nobodies blunder their way through one of the worst heists in film history. They aren’t even a real gang or one brought together through their own specialized skills. Essentially they are brought together because the man who thought up the heist was arrested for (poorly) stealing a car and they need to find someone to take the fall for him so he can get back out.

These misfits bumble their way through every aspect of the heist in such a “smack yourself upside the forehead” way that you can’t help but laugh your way through the whole thing. These guys don’t have any skills, nor do they even like each other, but they are all obsessed with pulling off the perfect heist. They couldn’t do any worse a job at it. You should really see this. How often do you see a heist movie where the criminals end up going off to get legitimate jobs at the end?

(MUST SEE)

——The Hills Have Eyes (2006)——

As horror movies go, this one is a pretty ambitious, yet empty effort. (I recently acquired the original: expect a review of it in the future.) It is one of the current crop of modern horror films that plays homage to horror’s golden age in the 70’s, especially towards classics like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and yet fails to truly understand what it was about those movies that worked (I’m reminded of last year’s Chainsaw remake). In the 70’s they were pushing the limits of gore, a limit that seems to have increased by miles in today’s day and age. Therefore the modern crop of horror films is trying to push the limits once more, but in the process are missing what actually made those original horror films great. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (one of my all time favorite movies, btw) is scary not because of the gore, although it does have that, but is scary because of the overwhelming atmosphere of fear and dread it created. There is this unpredictable air to the film where you honestly don’t know how things are going to turn out that only adds to the atmosphere of the film. In some of these modern remakes, like the new Chainsaw and The Hills Have Eyes, we either know how the film is going to end or just don’t care, because the filmmaker doesn’t ever give us time to care, instead feeling it necessary to not waste any time to get right to the good stuff. That unfortunately ruins it.

This isn’t really a bad film, not like the Chainsaw remake anyway, but it won’t do anything for you either. I found it really hard to care about the main characters and also saw a lot of great ideas being employed only halfway. I was instead thinking about another one of the new horror films that actually works, this year’s Hostel, which does work for precisely the same reason that the great 70’s horror films worked. It works because we are immersed in a world before the realities of that world are shaken out from right underneath our feet. Horror only really works when you are personally invested in it.

(MISS)

(March 15)

——The Rules of the Game (1939)——

Jean Renoir’s The Rules of the Game is widely hailed nowadays as one of the undisputed classics of film, put right at the very top with Orson Welles’ similar in scope but much different in the details Citizen Kane. It’s hard for me to know what really to write about this film then, as it is such a classic and so much has been written about it. What do you say, really, other than I should see it a couple more times before I’m really qualified to discuss theory on it. I saw it originally in my freshman year film class, and I remember being much in awe of its deep focus photography (mostly because I was told to be in awe of it). The ending party sequence is amazing to behold in all of its detail, as numerous plots unfold simultaneously and spontaneously in front of your eyes. It’s also quite amusing, at that.

Sequences like that one show you why the film is so well loved, and I think sequences like those at the start of the film before everyone meets in the country show you why they should matter. That first section of the film just never gets off the ground for me. Something about it just doesn’t work. It’s not until later when you see all of the social commentary fireworks go off that you understand why the beginning isn’t as impressive. There’s just not enough going on. Up until we get to the famous hunt sequence everything has just be exposition and set-up. Once we know what everyone’s role in the story is, then, finally, we can reap in the rewards.

(MUST SEE)

(March 16)

——Black Angel (1946)——

I recently went and picked up the Universal film noir DVDs that I neglected to pick up last year and so far, of them, this is definitely one of the most interesting. A beautiful singer is murdered in her apartment. A man is caught in the wrong place and the wrong time and is falsely accused and convicted of murdering her. The film is about his wife, who knows he can’t be guilty and rushes to try to find the real killer before he is executed.

What is really interesting about this film is the contrast between how pure her motives are and how shady them men around her are. It should be noted that her husband cheated on her with the murdered woman and was being blackmailed by her (thus his motive for killing her). The man she initially thinks did it was the woman’s husband, now a miserable drunk. When it is proved he didn’t do it, however, he sobers up and joins her on her quest to find the real killer. Because he’s fallen in love with her, of course.

But that’s not the oddest part of the film. They come to the conclusion that the mob affiliated nightclub owner played by Peter Lorre must be the real killer. So to dig up evidence that he did it they go undercover as a nightclub act. He writes the songs, she sings them. They become quite a sensation and become a hit duo for the club. What’s funny about this is that weeks go by with their success where they don’t actually find any new evidence while the poor woman’s husband’s day of execution draws nearer and nearer.

I won’t spoil the twist ending that had me fooled and works quite well to make this more than just your average noir. I’ll just end by telling you that this one is worth checking out.

(SEE)

(March 17)

——Naked Lunch (1991)——

Regular readers of this column (if you can call it that) have probably noticed a pattern lately of my steady stream of reviews for David Cronenberg films. Every once and a while I discover a truly amazing and weird filmmaker I have never experienced before and then gorge myself on their films. Last year my focus was on a lot of Asian filmmakers like Seijun Suzuki and Takashi Miike. You can find a similar sort of aesthetic of a director marching to the beat of his own drum in Cronenberg’s films. And no other film I’ve seen so far exemplifies that more than this film, Naked Lunch.

Wow, this is a crazy film. I’ll warn you now. It’s not for everyone. But those people who do get into it I think will love it as much as I did. It’s based on William S. Burroughs’ “unfilmable” novel and Cronenberg uses elements from other novels and Burroughs’ own life, plus hallucinatory elements from his own imagination, to fill out the story and make it into something crazy-fun.

Bill Lee (Peter Weller, or as you may know otherwise him, Robocop) is an exterminator whose wife gets him hooked on his own pesticide powder, which causes him to see a giant beetle that tells him to kill his wife and become a spy. He goes from there to the Interzone where anything is possible and no one can be trusted, while he types up reports on his giant talking beetle typewriter, all the while taking all sorts of new and mind tripping new drugs made from bugs. Part of the fun of the film is in trying to figure out what elements in the film are real, and how his hallucinations relate to the real world. The story becomes a sort of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas-type autobiography of Burrough’s exploring what exactly happens to your mind when you become addicted to mind-altering drugs. The movie is a total trip. There are so many unforgettable images that I imagine will stick with me for a long time.

(MUST SEE)

(March 18)

——Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit (2005)——

I honestly feel this is one of the best films of 2005. In a time when computer animation has become all the rage and Disney has shut down its traditional animation division, it is interesting that of the three films nominated for Best Animated Film at the 2005 Oscars, not one was computer animated (Wallace & Gromit won). Truth is that the hand-crafted claymation of Wallace & Gromit has more heart and soul than any recent animated film made outside of Pixar.

The genius of this film comes from the mere simplicity of the premise. Wallace is a simple Englishman inventor of crazy contraptions who loves animals, and even more so, loves cheese. Gromit is his faithful dog/servant, patient with Wallace’s idiosyncrasies always there to pull him out of trouble. The two operate a very successful humane pest removal service for a town obsessed with their veggies, that is until Wallace accidentally creates the “Were-Rabbit” of the title.

Why is this movie so funny? It’s the little details. Like during the credits, when we gently glide past different pictures on Wallace & Gromit’s wall that tell a story of the two getting into a fight and then making up. Or like the detail in the scene when Wallace quickly pulls up an empty box to cover his suddenly naked self, and on the outside of the box it says “May Contain Nuts.” The scene that made me laugh the most, however, is the one where Wallace & Gromit use their bunny-vac to suck numerous rabbits out of their holes in a particularly well inhabited lawn. As the other characters in the scene talk in the foreground we can see the various rabbits in the background become suddenly surprised to find that they are falling backwards into their holes. Every time I see it the gag has me in stitches. If you haven’t seen this one yet go out and rent it.

(MUST SEE)

——Being There (1979)——

I had never heard of this film before reading about it in Ebert’s The Great Movies II, but after having seen it I cannot more heartily recommend this film to all of you. This is brilliant satire at its most witty and funny about how we work as a political and entertainment industry soundbite obsessed culture. The movie is about Chance (Peter Sellers), a mentally retarded middle aged man who has grown up in a household where he was the gardener, constantly watched television, and never left the house. One day the old man dies and Chance is evicted, and he wanders out on the streets until by accident (literally and figuratively) he meets the wife (played by Shirley McLaine) of a rich business man, influential in Washington, who also happens to be dying. Through this man Chance meets the President and through the President becomes famous.

Because Chance is older, impeccably dressed, and speaks in a deliberate tone people misunderstand what he is saying and assume he means something greater than what he actually says. When asked who he is, Chance the gardener is mistaken for Chauncy Gardener. You see, Chance doesn’t know any better and tends to repeat simple phrases and behaviors he’s learned from television. People take him to be profound though. Which is exactly how he becomes famous through the President. By the end of the film several influential men are talking about Chauncy being the next President. This film is frequently both hilarious and heartfelt, and well worth seeing.

(MUST SEE)