Saw this in the theater, and somehow failed to see what a stinker it is.
Saw it again on DVD, and the stench was unmistakable.
Even the thing I liked the most, the Saxon war chief and main antagonist, wasn't as good as I remembered him. Good, yes, distinctive, yes... but soaked in cheese.
Everything about the film, from the script to the staging of battle scenes to the score, is false and grandiose rather than dramatic and subtle. But it worked for me the first time, in the theater. I don't recall liking it, particularly, but I do recall looking forward to seeing it again.
Maybe there's a lesson here.
Maybe if you go into a film WANTING to like it, Hollywood grandiosity is like an overly salted and greasy dish... at first, it is filling and satisfying, and it only on reflection that its gross nastiness swells uncomfortably in your stomach.
If the movie made money, it is a good argument for making fast food.
Showing posts with label Fantasy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fantasy. Show all posts
16 May 2005
04 April 2005
SIN CITY
Marv [Mickey Rouark!] and Jackie Boy [Benicio Del Toro] were perfect and adorable characters, and their stories are perfect while they are on-screen.
Visuals are amazing... perfect.
Screenplay was very good. It often went over the top... which is okay, in some ways, because that's where the film wanted to go, but sometimes it went far enough over the top to draw attention to itself in a distracting way.
INCREDIBLES was a perfect movie. SIN CITY was not. And for me, the difference was the degree of love I felt for the characters. I loved everyone in INCREDIBLES. In SIN CITY, some of the characters were caracitures with either too little humanity or painted with too broad a brush to make me love them. In particular, the villains and women need to be lovable in film noir. Jackie Boy and Devon Aoki [Miho] are perfect. The stooges and gnomes and broads are comic, and serviceable as comedy, but they weaken the drama.
Still, to put my negative comments in context, I will probably see this film three times in the theater... the next time for pure visuals, and the third time for re-experiencing the characters, story, and dialog.
Visuals are amazing... perfect.
Screenplay was very good. It often went over the top... which is okay, in some ways, because that's where the film wanted to go, but sometimes it went far enough over the top to draw attention to itself in a distracting way.
INCREDIBLES was a perfect movie. SIN CITY was not. And for me, the difference was the degree of love I felt for the characters. I loved everyone in INCREDIBLES. In SIN CITY, some of the characters were caracitures with either too little humanity or painted with too broad a brush to make me love them. In particular, the villains and women need to be lovable in film noir. Jackie Boy and Devon Aoki [Miho] are perfect. The stooges and gnomes and broads are comic, and serviceable as comedy, but they weaken the drama.
Still, to put my negative comments in context, I will probably see this film three times in the theater... the next time for pure visuals, and the third time for re-experiencing the characters, story, and dialog.
29 March 2005
CRONOS -- A Mangled Travesty
Guillermo Del Toro is the director, and in good odor because HELLBOY is visually splendid and narratively charming. If you haven't seen HELLBOY, stop reading, put it on your netflix queue, and come back here.
I saw the original CRONOS in theatrical release, in its pre-mangled state. It's a Mexican vampire movie. And it is Good. Stylistically, artistically, thematically, and entertainmentically Good.
I have never seen any other Mexican vampire movie, but it is a genre which is generally not associated with the notion of 'good'. Or, perhaps, Mexican vampire movies may be 'good' in the same way that zombie movies can be 'good'. But they should never win Oscars or Cannes Film Festival awards... like CRONOS did.
The theatrical release I saw began with a long, lyrical introduction... a piece which introduces the 16th century alchemist who creates the Cronos [a device for achieving immortality]. In the VHS edition I have, the introduction has been brutally chopped to incoherence. Without the original to compare, I can't be sure, but I think there may also be other cruel chops and slices. About the introduction, there is no doubt... an emotionally compelling and logically charming introduction -- an introduction that simultaneously partially disarms your defenses against the silly supernatural premise and sets the sober, epic tone for the film -- this introduction has been murdered like a dog in the dirt.
So I'm torn... I want to tell you to see the film, because it nonetheless has many charms, but, at the same time, I flinch to contemplate your viewing a bowl of cinematic chowder.
My suffering was somewhat more greatly embittered by viewing four trailers that preceded the film in its VHS version. Each of the four trailers was for an amazingly bad movie, all the more striking for the fact that I had never heard of any of them. How often do you see four trailers for a movie and recognize almost nothing about them? I DID see Hulk Hogan in one -- the only person I recognized - and through imdb.com, discovered the film was 'THUNDER IN PARADISE II. It was a sobering and humbling experience. Seldom do I come face-to-face with the horror films that are bad, yet not fun because they are bad. Films that sap the will to live. The film distributor, Vidmark, shall henceforth dwell in Infamy.
This tragic experience sent me searching to find an untrammeled original version of the film. In the process, I discovered:
Amazon has online versions for Canada, UK, Germany, France, Japan, and China -- but not for Spain or any other Spanish-language country. The original CRONOS did well in Mexico...
"In its native country, the film swept the Ariel de Oro Awards with (Mexico's Oscars), taking the Best picture and First feature prizes as well as Best Director and Screenplay for del Toro; it was also Mexico's official best foreign film entry for the Academy Awards in 1994." [http://www.horrordirectors.com/]
...so I hoped to find an original Spanish version. I abandoned the quest after a short time when I realized I wasn't even sure a Mexican DVD would play in my DVD player[ Damn the Regions!], or whether Mexico or Spain used PAL or NTSC.
I did discover a French two-DVD director's cut set, which I might have sprung for, except it was a Region 2 DVD, AND it looked like the run time was the same as the chain-saw-amended English version I have. CURSES!
Okay. I have calmed down.
A version of CRONOS is available on netflix. It appears to be the chopped version. I will order it to make sure. But it at least is in Spanish, with subtitles, which my horrible VHS is not. and it's widescreen, with director's commentary. So perhaps there is hope.
I like what one netflix reviewer has said: a horror movie that is...
"...sad, haunting and humane--and also humorous in the right places."
It is also unconventional, refreshing, and creepy... not in a shocking way, but in a humane way.
Here also is a link to Robert Ebert's review, which has lots of spoilers, but summarizes well the film's virtues.
I saw the original CRONOS in theatrical release, in its pre-mangled state. It's a Mexican vampire movie. And it is Good. Stylistically, artistically, thematically, and entertainmentically Good.
I have never seen any other Mexican vampire movie, but it is a genre which is generally not associated with the notion of 'good'. Or, perhaps, Mexican vampire movies may be 'good' in the same way that zombie movies can be 'good'. But they should never win Oscars or Cannes Film Festival awards... like CRONOS did.
The theatrical release I saw began with a long, lyrical introduction... a piece which introduces the 16th century alchemist who creates the Cronos [a device for achieving immortality]. In the VHS edition I have, the introduction has been brutally chopped to incoherence. Without the original to compare, I can't be sure, but I think there may also be other cruel chops and slices. About the introduction, there is no doubt... an emotionally compelling and logically charming introduction -- an introduction that simultaneously partially disarms your defenses against the silly supernatural premise and sets the sober, epic tone for the film -- this introduction has been murdered like a dog in the dirt.
So I'm torn... I want to tell you to see the film, because it nonetheless has many charms, but, at the same time, I flinch to contemplate your viewing a bowl of cinematic chowder.
My suffering was somewhat more greatly embittered by viewing four trailers that preceded the film in its VHS version. Each of the four trailers was for an amazingly bad movie, all the more striking for the fact that I had never heard of any of them. How often do you see four trailers for a movie and recognize almost nothing about them? I DID see Hulk Hogan in one -- the only person I recognized - and through imdb.com, discovered the film was 'THUNDER IN PARADISE II. It was a sobering and humbling experience. Seldom do I come face-to-face with the horror films that are bad, yet not fun because they are bad. Films that sap the will to live. The film distributor, Vidmark, shall henceforth dwell in Infamy.
This tragic experience sent me searching to find an untrammeled original version of the film. In the process, I discovered:
Amazon has online versions for Canada, UK, Germany, France, Japan, and China -- but not for Spain or any other Spanish-language country. The original CRONOS did well in Mexico...
"In its native country, the film swept the Ariel de Oro Awards with (Mexico's Oscars), taking the Best picture and First feature prizes as well as Best Director and Screenplay for del Toro; it was also Mexico's official best foreign film entry for the Academy Awards in 1994." [http://www.horrordirectors.com/]
...so I hoped to find an original Spanish version. I abandoned the quest after a short time when I realized I wasn't even sure a Mexican DVD would play in my DVD player[ Damn the Regions!], or whether Mexico or Spain used PAL or NTSC.
I did discover a French two-DVD director's cut set, which I might have sprung for, except it was a Region 2 DVD, AND it looked like the run time was the same as the chain-saw-amended English version I have. CURSES!
Okay. I have calmed down.
A version of CRONOS is available on netflix. It appears to be the chopped version. I will order it to make sure. But it at least is in Spanish, with subtitles, which my horrible VHS is not. and it's widescreen, with director's commentary. So perhaps there is hope.
I like what one netflix reviewer has said: a horror movie that is...
"...sad, haunting and humane--and also humorous in the right places."
It is also unconventional, refreshing, and creepy... not in a shocking way, but in a humane way.
Here also is a link to Robert Ebert's review, which has lots of spoilers, but summarizes well the film's virtues.
28 February 2005
CONSTANTINE
Not as bad as VAN HELSING. Five minutes shorter. And the music was nowhere near as loud or bad.
Not as bad as VAN HELSING, and therefore, less memorable. Less instructive.
Never at any moment a more terrible experience than VAN HELSING. Never any out-of-body overwhelming paroxysms of disbelief that any movie can be so bad.
Never actually entertaining or persuasive. Only for a few minutes, just at the beginning, when the creeping assurance that Very Stupid Things Were Happening was only a low background rumble, did I see something that I thought might be fun or interesting. A guy is hit by a car in a New Way. And then the movie returned to a uniform flow of complete lack of interest.
Not as bad as VAN HELSING, and therefore, less memorable. Less instructive.
Never at any moment a more terrible experience than VAN HELSING. Never any out-of-body overwhelming paroxysms of disbelief that any movie can be so bad.
Never actually entertaining or persuasive. Only for a few minutes, just at the beginning, when the creeping assurance that Very Stupid Things Were Happening was only a low background rumble, did I see something that I thought might be fun or interesting. A guy is hit by a car in a New Way. And then the movie returned to a uniform flow of complete lack of interest.
14 February 2005
RETURN OF THE KING [XTREME VERSION]
Things I'm glad I was spared in the shorter screen version:
1. Clumsy denouement for Wormtongue and Saruman -- particularly the impalement and rotation-on-the-wheel.
2. The Mouth of Sauron as a poster child for bad dentistry.
3. Aragorn's unchivalrous beheading of the Mouth of Sauron.
4. The cumulative debasement of the characters of Sauron's henchmen. They seem silly rather than terrible and evil.
Things that held up well:
1. Frodo, Sam, and Gollum in Mordor [Frodo and Sam's suffering and burden; Sam's unsuccessful attempts to recall the Shire; Gollum's profoundly human monstrosity]
2. Shelob
3. Theoden's death scene [he won't be ashamed in the halls of his fathers]
4. theme of Arwen's forsaking immortality for mortal love
Things I will be forever bitter about:
1. Making Gimli into a clown
2. Making Legolas into a ninja-acrobat
1. Clumsy denouement for Wormtongue and Saruman -- particularly the impalement and rotation-on-the-wheel.
2. The Mouth of Sauron as a poster child for bad dentistry.
3. Aragorn's unchivalrous beheading of the Mouth of Sauron.
4. The cumulative debasement of the characters of Sauron's henchmen. They seem silly rather than terrible and evil.
Things that held up well:
1. Frodo, Sam, and Gollum in Mordor [Frodo and Sam's suffering and burden; Sam's unsuccessful attempts to recall the Shire; Gollum's profoundly human monstrosity]
2. Shelob
3. Theoden's death scene [he won't be ashamed in the halls of his fathers]
4. theme of Arwen's forsaking immortality for mortal love
Things I will be forever bitter about:
1. Making Gimli into a clown
2. Making Legolas into a ninja-acrobat
31 January 2005
THE SWIMMER
Cautiously recommended as a dated but touching tale of Big Romantic Ideas (what Don and I used to call Le Grande Bullshite) and how they play in the real world. See Also A THOUSAND CLOWNS.
This is a small film from 1968, and could almost be a TV movie given its production values. (As interesting side notes, it's the first full score credited to Marvin Hamlisch and the IMDB lists Stanley Pollock as an uncredited Director on one scene.)
THE SWIMMER is based on a John Cheever story of the same name, and was directed by Frank Perry, who a few years earlier did DAVID AND LISA (a film which I believe was well thought of by my sister Sue). Burt Lancaster is the tragic hero, who on a fine Spring morning appears out of nowhere at the home of a neighbor, wearing a pair of swim trunks and a smile. He accepts a drink, gazes into the distance, and observes that there's now a chain of pools forming a metaphorical river all the way to his house. He tells them he's going to swim home, something that may be both an adventure and a form of penance. "That's more walking then swimming," another character tells him later. "Not walking...portaging," he says.
By the time he reaches the headwaters of his Lucinda River (named for his wife), he's not quite the man he was. He expects everyone along the way to be glad of his company. He expects to be remembered, even loved and at the very least forgiven. It doesn't always work out that way.
I remember seeing this film for the first time maybe 30 years ago, on a 12-inch black-and-white Sony TV, probably late at night. I found it then both Deep and Significant. Now I'm not so sure it's either, plus I was shocked, shocked to see that it's actually in color. I think it was bigger in black and white.
This is a small film from 1968, and could almost be a TV movie given its production values. (As interesting side notes, it's the first full score credited to Marvin Hamlisch and the IMDB lists Stanley Pollock as an uncredited Director on one scene.)
THE SWIMMER is based on a John Cheever story of the same name, and was directed by Frank Perry, who a few years earlier did DAVID AND LISA (a film which I believe was well thought of by my sister Sue). Burt Lancaster is the tragic hero, who on a fine Spring morning appears out of nowhere at the home of a neighbor, wearing a pair of swim trunks and a smile. He accepts a drink, gazes into the distance, and observes that there's now a chain of pools forming a metaphorical river all the way to his house. He tells them he's going to swim home, something that may be both an adventure and a form of penance. "That's more walking then swimming," another character tells him later. "Not walking...portaging," he says.
By the time he reaches the headwaters of his Lucinda River (named for his wife), he's not quite the man he was. He expects everyone along the way to be glad of his company. He expects to be remembered, even loved and at the very least forgiven. It doesn't always work out that way.
I remember seeing this film for the first time maybe 30 years ago, on a 12-inch black-and-white Sony TV, probably late at night. I found it then both Deep and Significant. Now I'm not so sure it's either, plus I was shocked, shocked to see that it's actually in color. I think it was bigger in black and white.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)