C'est Non Un Blog

Well, it’s offical. I’m 22 now. Today should be interesting. Not one of you offered to hang out with me today, but that’s cool though. I understand you have stuff to do. I heard through Ross that Harry said that he would probably hang out with me, but I haven’t gotten in touch with him yet so only time will tell if I actually end up spending my birthday all alone watching DVDs or not. I’ll keep you updated…

——Die Another Day——

(A second look)

(B)

I saw this film originally in the theaters right after it came out and enjoyed it as a step up from the last two films. While the film does have some glaring problems, it still for the most part succeeds, making it the best Bond film since Goldeneye (my personal favorite).

What’s Good: Finally, a story with a little meat on its bones. The whole thing with the megalomaniac trying to take over the world is fine and everything, but it’s been done to death, and frankly it’s been done much better back in the Connery years. Everything since then has been a pale formulaic imitation that never had the same impact as the first time (your Goldfinger’s and Thunderball’s). Goldeneye played on the whole traitor in MI-6, making the story infinity more interesting. Die Another Day has its own nice twist by, for the first time, having Bond captured and tortured, and then having everyone turn their back on him so that he has to turn into a rogue agent. This part of the movie works very well (as opposed to oh, say, License to Kill) and keeps the movie alive even after the stupid conflict diamonds evil millionaire plot starts up.

Also, the series’ winking self-knowledge of itself for its 20th film has the kind of tongue in cheek aspect that’s needed to keep the series alive. Remember, Bond is a product of the Cold War, made popular by JFK. A little recognition of where he came from can go a long way in making the audience accept Bond’s adventures for the twentieth time. Plus there are all sorts of goodies and in-jokes in there for all of us Bond geeks who’ve stayed with the series through every film.

I also enjoy quite a bit of the stunts, especially the car chase on ice, even if they all aren’t perfect, which leads me to–

What’s Bad: Oh man some of the CGI in this movie is bad. The parasol surfing scene looks like it belongs in Ice Age instead of in a film known for its real life stunts. Also the plot does drift into some familiar territory, which is where the bad dialog steps in. I don’t mind the puns when dispatching a foe, but could you keep it to at least two bad puns at the most, and save them for the most gratifying moments please? Also, when are super villains finally going to realize that if you want Bond dead, you’ve got to kill him fast? Austin Powers finally brought the ridiculousness of a “slow dipping mechanism” to light; now can’t we get on to a plot where the super villain tries to kill Bond quickly and he STILL gets away? Frankly that would be a whole lot more impressive to me. This whole “let’s walk away before we actually see the body” nonsense has really got to stop. I mean the man causes so much damage, wouldn’t you want to kill him before he starts blowing shit up? You know if you just hold on to him he’s going to mess everything up. Just shoot the bitch to see what he does.

——The Quiet American——

(A-)

I find it a little difficult to begin reviewing this film, since last spring I read the Graham Greene book for my Vietnam class and the majority of the book is still quite vivid in my mind. The film follows extremely close to the book, and in that respect it makes it hard to separate my feelings for the book when viewing the film, but I will do my best. What is great about the film is how faithfully and closely it follows Graham Greene’s words. Although the book is a little fuzzy in my mind I am pretty sure everything has been followed exactly to the blueprint of the book, and quite a few lines from the film I remembered from the book.

This is where the problem in reviewing the film comes from. Am I too conscious of the book to notice the film’s idiosyncrasies, or, on the other hand, does my enjoyment of the book feed into my enjoyment of the movie? Here’s what I’ve come up with sorting out my thoughts on the film:

I quite enjoyed this film. Whether or not that has something to do with the book I’ll probably never know, but the excellent plot and pacing of the book most definitely had something to do with it. Michael Caine and Brendan Fraser were flawlessly chosen for their roles in this film. Caine effortlessly pulls off the charm and self-loathing of the ever neutral Thomas Fowler while Fraser was perfectly cast as the clueless “I’m doing this for good and I don’t know how wrong it really is” American, Alden Pyle. They both pull out all of the stops to deliver some great performances.

Something was gnawing away at me through the whole thing though, and I’m not totally sure what that was. Maybe it was the missing details from the book that didn’t make it on screen. Maybe it was Phillip Noyce’s direction, which was competent and yet sometimes ill suited for the film. It looked beautiful, but sometimes I felt like the cinematography was too bright and colorful for the tone of the film.

And yet the message of the film is still as powerful as it was back when the book was originally written, way back in the early 50’s before America became officially involved in Vietnam. The epilogue to the film (which obviously wasn’t in the book) really helps prove Greene’s point and shows how much foresight he had into the political situation in Vietnam. He predicted the entire Vietnam conflict way before anyone else, AND he also knew how it was all going to end. Pyle is hopelessly idealistic and doesn’t once see the realities in Vietnam, and Fowler sees everything and yet chooses to ignore it all. The book is a perfect allegory to what really happened, and I think that the greatest strength of the movie really comes from that of the book. I find it interesting that this movie got such a horrible reception when it came out, because it really reflects the realities of now as well as then. Think about it: if someone with power in America had actually read and understood Greene’s book the whole Vietnam conflict could have been prevented, or come out vastly different. But as it is, history just has a way of repeating itself.

——I Had Myself a Predator-thon!——

Predator (1987) — (B) —
Predator 2 (1990) — (B-) —

Ok, since there are only two films in the series –thon is probably not the right suffix to use. But since I don’t really know what else to call it though, the –thon is sticking, dammit!

Anyway, yesterday I visited a Best Buy, saw both Predator movies sitting side by side with $9.99 price stickers on them and thought them just so cute that I had to take them home with me. Twenty bucks for two DVDs? Not a bad price at all. Of course the DVDs have no extras to speak of, including animated menus, (which is odd, because even my VHS copy of Predator has a little “making of” documentary on it) but who cares really? I mean it would be nice to see how they got the Predator’s mandibles to move but otherwise all you really want is the action anyway, right? Since the only silver screen alien cooler than the Predator is the Alien (the two of whom MacFarlane Toys gloriously packaged as a two pack, which I now own making my dream come true) and since I grew up with these movies (I have a worn bootleg copy of Predator 2 that I must have watched a million times when I was 13) I just had to get them at this bargain price.

Who cares about that; what about the movies? Casting choices play a surprisingly big role in the enjoyment of the Predator movies. For instance, not only does the first film star Arnold Schwarzenegger at his hilarious best, but you are also treated to the joys of Jesse “The Body” Ventura (“I ain’t got time to bleed”) and Carl Weathers straight out of his pumped up days playing Apollo Creed. This movie is really a tribute to muscles more than anything else. Every shot seems to be composed to get the most out of the muscle power the director has at his disposal. Arnold arm wrestles, wrestles with the Predator, lifts lots of stuff and does just about anything else you can think about to show off that Mr. Universe body.

The dialog is not too bad in this movie, and the direction is pretty above the normal action movie call of duty, but I still find myself getting bored at times. After everyone dies and it’s just Arnold versus the Predator there is a whole lot of prep work that really isn’t that exciting to watch. That and the fact that the plot is barely there kind of make this movie a drag from time to time. I mean, really, couldn’t the rest of the cast have lived just a little bit longer? Oh well.

Predator 2 has among its own Danny Glover (as the bad ass cop in need of some anger management), Gary Busey (doing his best crazy Busey impression) and, God love him, Bill Paxton (doing his best smarmy sexist asshole, but still a good guy shtick). The dialog is of the atrocious paint by numbers variety, and would be extremely painful to watch if it weren’t for the above-mentioned actors overacting to their heart’s content. If only the other actors could do so much with so little. The direction is nothing special, but every once and a while it stumbles on to a great shot. The whole sequence inside the Predators’ ship is spectacular. If anything, the Predators look even better in this one, in all their “pussy-face” dreadlocks glory. Every once and while though logic flies out the window (like in the scene in the subway: Paxton empties two full clips into the Predator’s chest without the Predator suffering a scratch. That’s interesting considering that the Predator is wearing next to no body armor, and none on its chest. Where the hell are those magic bullets going?)

Even though the second film is definitely a lot crappier than the first, I think I still prefer to watch it. I’d rather have hilariously bad dialog as opposed to no dialog at all. I mean, the best moments of Predator happen whenever Jesse Ventura opens his mouth, and he buys it way too soon. In Predator 2 you have the LA of the future (1997) pictured as a gang ridden hellhole (I know, I know…they got it dead on). There’s nothing better than watching the horrendous acting of the Jamaican and Colombian gang members. It’s worth the ten bucks I paid for it anyhow.

The Dante’s Inferno Test has banished you to the Second Level of Hell!
Here is how you matched up against all the levels:

Take the Dante’s Divine Comedy Inferno Test

MOST ANTICIPATED MOVIE:

Kill Bill: Volume One (Oct. 10) — From the first I heard about this movie, to the amazing trailer, to all I’ve read about it, I’ve wanted to see this movie. Finally it is coming out. Sure, it could suck. I’m not the biggest fan of Jackie Brown. But what’s not to love here? Tarantino + (Honk Kong action flick x buckets of blood) / 25 minute long House of Blue Leaves fight = pure awesomeness. Look at the cast: Uma Thurman, David Carradine, Lucy Lui, Daryl Hannah and Michael Madsen. All I want to know is when is Volume Two coming out?

MOST ANTICIPATED MOVIE THAT COULD BE COOL BUT WILL PROBABLY SUCK:

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (Oct. 17) — I heard all sorts of cool things about the trailer. The buzz has been really positive for it. So I downloaded the trailer. And it is probably one of the creepiest trailers I’ve ever seen. However, I’m still quite suspicious of it. Why? All of the chills that come from the trailer come from allusions to the original film. The best example is the camera flashes that reference the very beginning of the first film. The sound of that sick camera’s mechanical movements brings chills down my spine just thinking about it. But is anything in the actual trailer that scary? The scariest parts involve shots stolen exactly from the first film. Everything else I could see, though, looked horrible. I have no idea what this new plot is about. It looks needlessly confusing. And tame. Everything looks like Hollywood’s idea of what is scary that’s been in every crappy horror movie of the last decade. I don’t know, maybe the movie is just as scary as the trailer, and if so that sounds awesome. But most probably the film is just going to bottom feed on the greatest horror movie ever made and add nothing to it.

MOST ANTICIPATED MOVIES THAT YOU KNEW I WAS GOING TO SEE BEFORE I TOLD YOU:

The Matrix: Revolutions (Nov. 5) — Duh.

Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (Dec. 17) — Double duh.

MOVIE I’VE BEEN WAITING FOR EVER SINCE I READ THE SUMMER MOVIE PREVIEW:

Matchstick Men (Sept. 12) — Have you seen the trailer for this? Nicolas Cage looks like he is coming gracefully off of his awesome performance in Adaptation, instead of falling back into his mid-nineties slump again. I love Sam Rockwell in everything he’s in. Alison Lohman looks like an extremely promising new actress. And Ridley Scott has been hot ever since Gladiator. This could be a really awesome movie.

MOVIES I DIDN’T THINK I’D BE INTO, BUT NOW I KIND OF AM:

Gothika (Oct. 24) — After reading EW’s side article on the director (the love interest in Amelie) this actually sounds like it might have some promise beyond the normal Hollywood psychological thriller junk. I’m excited.

Mystic River (Oct. 8) — I’m not usually first in line for the next Clint Eastwood picture, but the cast list for this sounds awesome, as well as the plot synopsis. Could be quite awesome.

Intolerable Cruelty (Oct. 10) — I always wait until I hear a little more about a Coen brothers’ movie before I jump on board, but this one sounds like it could be really funny.

Big Fish (Nov. 26) — I’m probably the only one who’s not a Tim Burton fan (I only go gaga for Edward Sissorhands, and maybe Ed Wood), and yet the picture in EW of Ewan MacGregor cleaning a fat man with a push broom sold me on this one. Don’t bother yourself trying to figure out why.

MOST LIKELY TO BE THE NEXT GLITTER:

Honey (Nov. 14) — This Jessica Alba story of an underdog dancer spends half its time in EW talking about how it’s NOT the next Glitter. How much you want to be that’s just what they WANT you to think since they are sitting on a From Justin to Kelly size stinker?

BEST USE OF SAMURAI SINCE KUROSAWA:

The Last Samurai (Dec. 5) — The trailer is the coolest of the year. Everything I’ve read about this sounds like some awesome Samurai action is going to go down. I might even be able to forget Tom Cruise is in this.

WORST FACIAL HAIR:

The Alamo (Dec. 25) — Check out the sideburns/soul patch combo on Dennis Quaid. This is probably the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen. The movie might be good though.

BEST SIGN THAT RON HOWARD MIGHT BE A DIRECTOR TO KEEP YOUR EYE ON:

The Missing (Dec. 10) — This Western probably has the best premise of all the new Western projects coming out in the next year. Plus the beautiful Cate Blanchett stars. I’m definitely going to check this one out.

BEST REASON WHY JACK NICHOLSON REMAINS THE GREATEST:

Something’s Gotta Give (Dec. 12) — Have you seen the trailer for this yet? It’s actually pretty damn amusing.

MORE LIKELY TO BE THE NEXT COUNTRY BEARS THAN THE NEXT PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN:

The Haunted Mansion (Nov. 26) — I don’t think I’m very far off here. Watch the trailer and see for yourself.

WORST LOOKING MOVIE:

The Cat in the Hat (Nov. 21) — Just watch the trailer and you’ll know what I’m talking about here.

REASON ONE WHY I’VE LOST ALL RESPECT FOR CUBA GOODING JR.:

The Fighting Temptations (Sept. 19) — A step above Boat Trip, but not by much.

REASON TWO:

Radio (Nov. 21) — He plays a mentally challenged African-American (whose name is RADIO) who befriends a white football coach in the racially charged 1960’s South? Kill me now.

WEIRDEST PLOT SYNOPSIS:

The Human Stain (Sept. 26) — Anthony Hopkins plays a black man? Sign me up.

THE ONE MOVIE THAT MIGHT HAVE A SLIGHT CHANCE OF SAVING BEN AFFLECK’S CAREER:

Paycheck (Dec. 25) — John Woo directs this film based on a cool Philip K. Dick short story. Will this be a Face/Off or a Windtalkers? Will it be a Minority Report or a blip on the radar like Imposter? Will it be, well I can’t think of a good Ben Affleck film, or a Pearl Harbor? John Woo’s and Ben Affleck’s careers hang in the balance, while Philip K. Dick remains as cool as he’s ever been.

——Touch of Evil——

This film is probably one of the most beautifully shot film noirs of all time. The whole thing is like an orgy of wonderful cinematography. Low angle close ups, rich black and white photography, insane tracking shots, perfect compositions, excellent depth of field–Orson Welles uses all of these to construct his surprisingly effective thriller. Don’t get me wrong, this film is a glorified B Movie where the dialog is always two steps behind trying to catch up with the amazing camera work, but Welles’ direction quickly makes you forget about all such things.

After reading all about the opening tracking shot I was intrigued enough to pick up this film, but no matter what you read I don’t think anything could have prepared me for how cool that three and a half minute long shot was. All the camera is doing is following a car down a street, but Welles manipulates this simple premise so much that the whole tone and artistry of the film is revealed to the viewer in one shot. This one shot manages to go from close-ups to long shots and back again with no cutting. The camera swoops behind buildings and into crowds to give you the complete picture of what this rundown town is like. And most interestingly the opening shot, while it kicks off the events of the movie, is actually secondary to the plot of the movie. The movie is not about finding the person who made the car bomb, but about the cover-ups and frame-ups that are revealed from that investigation. Excellent.

This movie must have been extremely influential, because everywhere you turn you can recognize a technique here and there that were used in other later films. For instance, here are two of my favorites:

This suspense thriller feels very Hitchcockian, so much so that at one point I actually thought that Welles was stealing from Psycho. But then I realized Hitchcock was stealing from Touch of Evil. Psycho’s tracking shots, the motel in the middle of nowhere, the weird night clerk of the motel (who you can definitely tell was the basis for Norman Bates), and of course having Janet Leigh as the woman in peril are all very obviously tips of the hat to Touch of Evil. (Psycho came out two years after Touch of Evil.) The directors’ perchance for building up suspense, however, can not be linked to one or the other; I suspect they were both stealing from each other.

Touch of Evil was (I think) the first film to use ambient sounds to make up the soundtrack. Music comes from car radios, pianos, and jukeboxes instead of from some studio source apart from the film world, and when, say, a car drives away the music disappears with it. This obviously was some of the inspiration for George Lucas’ American Graffiti, where the entire premise of the movie was based around a song for each section of the picture, and each song coming from some natural source.

I love the creepy atmosphere of this film. The frequent night shots, the stark shadows, the excellent use of sound, and even the wind blowing in the background helps to elevate the mood of this film to something rarely experienced outside of real life. It’s an eerie mystery where you don’t know who to trust, and the suspense stays all the way to the finish. Although the script could have used a little work, this is still a simply amazing picture, especially when considering that Welles didn’t even want to make it.

(A)

I was going to post two things today, but now it’s late and I’m unusually tired, so you’re going to have to wait.

I just watched Orson Welles’ Touch of Evil, which was quite excellent, and I’ll tell you why tomorrow morning.

Also, I just got my Entertainment Weekly Fall Preview issue, so you know I’m going to comment on that one way or another. I think I’m just going to give a rundown of what I’m looking forward to for everyone.

Otherwise, I have no idea why I felt the need to post. On to bigger and better things tomorrow.

I got my five dollar Pieces DVD in the mail yesterday. I’m so excited. Thanks Ebay!

One thing to note though. Pieces has probably the weirdest tag line to a movie that I’ve ever seen. For those of you who don’t know, it’s a movie about a “chain-saw wielding madman who is roaming a college campus in search of human parts for a ghastly jigsaaw puzzle.” (from the back of the box) The movie is hilariously bad, and I recommend you all see it. Anyway though, the tagline is as follows:

“It’s Exactly What You Think It Is!”

What the hell does that even mean?

I’m now doing probably one of the most depressing things you’ve ever heard:

I’m ordering all of my own birthday presents for my birthday a week from today, which I will be celebrating completely alone since the rest of my family will be busy taking my sister back to college. Completely alone.

If anyone, say, wanted to stop by my house, say, on oh, Monday, August 25th, I would not be opposed to said visit. Or this weekend, that’s cool too. Not that there is any reason you should come up. Would just be nice, is all. Nice, nice, nice.

I had myself another Blockbuster weekend. Enjoy!

——Close Encounters of the Third Kind——

I wasn’t really expecting much when I sat down to watch this movie, since the UFO thing has been pretty much done to death for me and I knew all the key points of the movie (the mashed potatoes “This means something” and the spaceship over the natural monument playing music) before watching it. And yet this movie completely enthralled me from almost the beginning. (I didn’t really like the opening in Mexico, but once you get to Richard Dreyfuss everything is fine.) I really enjoyed the fact that Spielberg pushed all of those great moments to their limits, not cutting scenes down to fit into a time frame or a pacing limitation. Normally the movie moves at a regular pace, but every time a UFO appears it’s almost as if time slows down, letting the impact of what you are seeing really sink in. What could have been silly and cliché becomes sublime somehow, and brings a real honest sense of wonder to those scenes. You’re just a curious as to what it all means as Dreyfuss is. Tension is built up better than in most horror films. The dialog is extremely fun and yet realistic. I found this movie extremely mesmerizing and entertaining. It brought back that UFO fascination I had as a kid almost as if it had never left me.

If there is one thing I could find fault with, it’s the fact that I really wanted to know what the aliens really wanted, or at least see what the inside of the ship looked like. Those are minor quibbles though, completely unrelated to what the film actually accomplishes. This one gets a gold star.

(A)

——Carrie——

Brian De Palma makes an excellent horror film. Sissy Spacek gives an extraordinarily well acted performance. John Travolta…well, let’s leave him out of it. This is probably the best adaptation of a Stephen King book I’ve ever seen, adapted from my favorite Stephen King book. There is just this great symmetry between the blood of Carrie’s period that starts the movie and the pig’s blood at the prom that ends it. The scenes where Carrie’s mom abuses her are more frightening than any sort of telekinesis death she uses later on. There are some real scares and chills in this movie, which I really respect.

There are a few things I would change though. The soundtrack is a little too much. Do we really need a Psycho screech every time Carrie uses her powers? It borders on the ridiculous. Also, a few of the camera tricks De Palma uses are a little over the top. Split-screen–good. Kaleidoscope vision–uh, what? Also sometimes I felt like the movie moved a little too quickly along. I would have liked a few scenes slightly lengthened, just to get to know the characters better. Otherwise it was probably one of the greatest horror movies I’ve seen.

(A-)

——Unforgiven——

While I didn’t go crazy over this movie or anything, I was impressed with what it did: create probably the most realistic Western I’ve ever seen. Instead of being a continuation of the Man with No Name from the Leone films with no actual change to the pattern, here is a character that has a past that actively presses itself upon him at all times. The weight of the past and all of the bad things this guy has done have become a monkey on this guy’s back. He can’t escape the past, and yet because of his wife he wants to change himself into something better. He tries hard to ditch his past but it has a way of always keeping up with him; a sort of purgatory life on earth. He isn’t the typical Western hero. He can’t even get onto his horse right. What kind of cowboy is that? Morgan Freeman has lost his taste for killing. The kid can’t see farther than 50 yards, and when he does kill he quickly regrets it. The sheriff is the bad guy, NOT getting justice for the wronged woman. English Bob, killer gunfighter, gets taken out without even pulling his gun and then all of his accomplishments are shown to be fraudulent. No one really fits into their Western clichés. And that’s what I like about this movie. When Clint finally gets all badass and starts killing people it’s not a stand up and cheer moment, but a sad one, as he’s finally let his new moral outlook go and let down his promise to his wife. The movie doesn’t end with him riding off into the sunset, but into the rainy night. I might not have gone ape shit for this movie, but it’s still a damn good stunning Western.

(A)

——Better Off Dead——

I’m a huge fan of John Cussack. Everything I see him in I like. I love his 80’s movies. Well, I hadn’t seen this one, but I’m glad I rented it (even though I rented it to make my sister happy and didn’t know that she had already seen it. Oops). I love movies where the bizarre is considered normal. There are plenty of moments like that in this movie (I just figured out that the director also worked on Eek! the Cat, one of my favorite cartoons). I found myself quite enamored with this film, because for the most part it was anything but predictable. I also appreciate a movie that can actually make attempted suicide seem funny. While this film isn’t perfect (bad eighties music, bad claymation hamburger sequences that reminded me too much of UHF) I really enjoyed it quite a bit. Where’s my two dollars!

(A-)

——La Femme Nikita——

I was a little disappointed with this one. I hear Luc Besson’s name and I think of cool action sequences. I hear that Luc Besson made a movie about a female assassin, which later gets turned into a popular TV show, and I’m totally there. Unfortunately the final product was nothing like what I was expecting, everything other than Besson’s always dynamic directing being a disappointment. This movie about an assassin has surprisingly little action in it, offering only tiny glimpses of what could have been (the scene where she had to make her first assassination and then escape was pretty cool; the few brief moments where Jean Reno were on screen were awesome). The plot aimlessly meanders all over the place, rarely achieving the emotion impact that it strives for (unlike, say, Leon where the meandering feels very focused on the character arcs of the principles). Nikita is so odd that it is really hard to try to identify with her. You’re never really able to fully get into her head. And the movie ends on quite a whimper. It feels more like the cliffhanger to a TV show than a resolution of conflict (which is probably where the idea for the TV show came from). I didn’t get into this at all. The direction was still really cool, but everything else was blah.

(B)