Peter Jackson's early glories part 1: "Heavenly Creatures"

Peter Jackson is amazing. Yes, "The Frighteners" was a bit of a mess, and I didn't bother watching "King Kong." However, his earliest films were all glorious - "Bad Taste," (a wackjob funfest), "Meet the Feebles" (Muppets go hardcore & porn-y), and "Braindead" ("Evil Dead 2" in New Zealand)... For those who can't appreciate demented movies, the real sign of this man's raw artistry came with his first "serious" piece - 1994's "Heavenly Creatures."

"HC" is the true story of two 1950's teenage girls, Pauline and Juliet, in New Zealand. They were good friends to an unhealthy degree. Their parents, disturbed by their dependence (and horrified they might be gay), decided to separate the two. This resulted in an awful crime. Sorry for the spoiler.

Jackson directed this film perfectly. True stories - especially the ones with real emotions and a body count - are often woefully overplayed by cinema. They take the "Pearl Harbor" route and render their subject worthlessly banal. Or they take the "Cinderella Man" and "Monster" path, villifying historic victims to make the protagonists more sympathetic.

But Peter Jackson and his wife Fran Walsh wrote something that neither disrespected reality nor glamorized their subjects. They wrote (and he directed) something worthy and beautiful. The dialogue and acting are first-rate. The camera operates with the sort of mastery you can see in all of Jackson's work (yes, this includes the three films above).

To my non-eternal shame

2 weeks with a great film on my table, unwatched. I've been busy, and would need arms like Kali to work fast enough. Also, the time hasn't been right. I've been a bit restless after these long days. To anyone reading: have you felt neither "bad" nor "good," but known that it'll be hard to get in the mood for something? Even something you want to do? That's me recently. I'm great at ditching that vibe when I go out - movies at home are different... As a nice aside, Netflix should be making free money off of me - and isn't. The renewal period hit, and they need new info from me. =) So I guess coincidence is working in my favor (again, finally). Honestly, I want to spoil the hell out of this movie. Even if I don't discuss it in depth, there's a lot to point out. This clashes with my desire to lead people to things they haven't seen before. And I want this to be so new for you! In closing, sorry for the unexpected break. I'll be better about this in the future, and that review will be up within two (2) days.

Every once in a while, a quickie is just what you need

I could have titled this, "Movie Review Quickies #1," and will from now on. These movies don't really need the longer reviews I've done before. Also, this is a good way to give more bang for the buck... Hopefully, quality will win out over quantity with no sacrifice of depth. I hope you will be drawn to or away from the eight movies here: "The Nest, "Hopscotch," "The Seven-Ups," "Runaway," "Dreamscape," "Shiver," and "Body Snatchers." I saved Michael Caine's "Get Carter" for last. Some of these are new for me, while some I've seen once or more.

I can only bear to see Mickey Rourke this way

The NestWell-made French action film with the low-key feel of an independent picture. It engaged me immediately and held me for a spell. Ultimately, I didn't like it, though I admit it's well-made. Many will love this, because it executes a lot of violent action nicely and is fairly unique. The dialogue is mediocre, but the characters are carried well by most of the cast. Especially impressive is the horrible crime kingpin who's being transported by the cops - there's a cool and strong undercurrent throughout that suggests that he may be the devil himself. The carnage he incites is certainly one clue, but there's more... It's worth noting that the film takes a creatively-healthy approach to action, even as Hollywood cranks out half-hearted, half-done projects that bring no joy. It also (a) tries to confuse/surprise the audience and (b) expresses many things (character & plot points, etc.) indirectly. I can't really say why it didn't quite work for me.

No trailer, so...

Hopscotch Fairly good 1980 spy comedy, starring Walter Matthau. A newly-retired CIA employee decides to humiliate the world's intelligence agencies - especially his superior, Ned Beatty - with his tell-all memoir. The humor is mostly dry, and works well - they were smart to pair Matthau with Britain's Glenda Jackson. It's weird to see a caper movie where the stakes are so low - like "Ocean's Eleven," the hero is seldom in real peril. There's a weird political sensibility to the film, one that's largely shared by many 70s action pictures. I suppose it's influenced by the Nixon era, which explains why it reminded me of "Three Days of the Condor" and "All the President's Men," but without the tension.

Help me, it sounds like a BDSM ad!

The Seven-Ups I was looking up info on James Caan's "Thief" and found a reference to "The Seven-Ups." It didn't sound like a waste of time. "Underrated," "70s," and "crime film" were used to describe this pic; "of" and "the" were also spotted. I also liked the synopsis... In brief: Thugs pose as cops and ransom crooks back to their mob families, while a new police unit unknowingly circles around both groups. The plot is definitely different - in a good way - but it didn't do much for me.

Trailers - Mostly no, but yes at the movies.

Everyone loves film trailers - when they're not 30 minutes long or riddled with product promotion. I'm no exception. I love the roller-coaster of wincing and smiling that precedes the main show. They come in every flavor: boring, hysterical, exciting, traumatic...

You have choices when the lights dim; you can step into the lobby or sit along for the ride. Yet even bad trailers can make a crowd laugh (the worse, the better). And you only need one great or funny short to save the stint - 15+ minutes of marketing, no less. As such, the whole experience - a big part of the ritual of seeing a movie - usually feels worthwhile.

Maybe the trailer experience only works in the moment, though. On the net, I only search out arthouse/smaller-market pix and foreign film trailers (both the crazy and the non-crazy ones). In the rare moment of channel surfing, tv trailers are to be avoided (save for revered artists like Cronenberg, Blanchett...).

Actually, I can rattle off many reasons to avoid film ads. I just have to think about things that bother me most when I'm safely nestled in stadium seating... A must see is a must see, so no spoilers please. There was no way I'd miss Bale as Nolan's Batman, or Attack of the Clones (if only I'd known). Studios needn't unveil a single "big" moment or surprise for anything I anticipate that much.

In fact, I'd rather they didn't. They should let a really cool scene save a picture that may have deeply-flawed writing, acting, or direction. These moments, if unexpected, may really help people walk away with better feelings about the film.

The Big Dysfunctional 2009 Movie Roundup

My efforts to compile a year-end list were a failure. I decided to look over some numbers. Of the 10 biggest pictures this year, I would only consider seeing 3: Up, Avater, Potter 6 1/2. Of those 3, only one was a must for me (Up). And I still missed all of them.

Even more oddly, through one problem or another, missed most of the movies I really looked forward to this year: Let the Right One In, District 9, Inglorious Basterds, The End of the Line, Drag Me to Hell, Food Inc., Moon, The Brothers Bloom... Bad luck or coordination really sabotaged my movie-going this year. I was in a movie theater less than 20 times for all of 2009. But there are still many things to say, so let's sort out what we do have, ok?

Best New Release (that I actually saw) Coraline. Neil Gaiman's brilliant writing is paired with excellent effects work for a thoroughly-enjoyable fairy tale full of laughter and tension. [this happened before with Mirrormask, but Coraline was better] See my review.

Best Out-of-the-Blue Release Cooking History. It's been ages since I've seen a picture with an actual thesis. This movie features interviews with cooks from various European armies (e.g., Russia, Bosnia, Hungary, France). Among the topics: questions of pride in helping the war effort, guilt over Old World colonialism, moral blindspots, and racism/nationalism. Filmed with more than a bit of humor and style, it was very thought-provoking. Also, the big theater at the Museum of Natural History looks like a place to watch opera. I was lucky to have seen this.

"The Lives of Others": A German peeping tom who isn't perverse.

"The Lives of Others," released in 2006, stole the best foreign film award from "Pan's Labyrinth." Actually, "stole" is wrong - it was "given" the award over "PL," because the Academy isn't nearly as hip as they try to seem.

This Summer, Ben Kingsley will listen to you screwing. "TLOO" is an excellent film. It's acted perfectly, featuring compelling characters, moments, and dialogue; it's beautifully shot, and has a real dearth of flaws. Nothing in this great human drama is diminished because it's in German, that unprettiest of languages. It just wasn't so amazing or so new that it beat Guillermo Del Toro's contribution to "perfect cinema;" nor was "TLoO" a more thoughtful film. I digress.

"The Lives of Others" is about the final spell in the Cold War, and it takes place in the hyper-absurd town of East Germany. An exemplary member of the Stasi is assigned to spy on an artistic couple - only because a superior wants the wife. Having bugged the place, he listens to the struggles, thoughts, and emotions of two people in love. Before long, this meticulous government stooge is captivated by what filters through his headset.

This fine picture is well worth watching. Many films center on one emotion, in relationships and life, as if one feeling predominates a whole experience. Yet here, there is truly effective humor - subtitles or not - even though laughter is hardly the flick's defining sentiment. A serious relationship, and the cascade of feelings involved, is handled deftly. Impressively, it approaches several serious topics without being ham-fisted, shrill, or excessively judgmental.

My favorite aspect is the apparent(?) lead: Wiesler, the Stasi spook. He's sort of a German Ben Kingsley, and he approaches this role with a commitment to being contained. This character, then, neatly matches the themes and style of "TLOO." Like the DDR, he's listening where he shouldn't - but he has compassion.

"The Killer" - John Woo at his height

Oh, John Woo... Western audiences just don't get it. Sure, "Broken Arrow" and "Face/Off" have their fans (myself among them), but most never heard of "Once a Thief," "Hard Boiled," or "A Better Tomorrow." Like Jackie Chan and Jet Li after him, the West didn't know what to do with JW. Hollywood only knew his huge rep, and his strong box office results. Thus, the US got "Hard Target," "Paycheck," "Windtalkers," and "MI:2:the annoying nonsense."

We're talking about an auteur on par with anybody you can name - even if Woo is just an action director. He was reduced to some pricey movies marketed as "Cruise's/Cage's/Affleck's next hit," or (sigh) "Jean Claude's Van Damme's next hit." None of these financial/critical flops were hailed as "John Woo's next film." Watch this, and you'll know who the real star was.

In the end, the Hollywood big-wigs had no more sense than auto-exec fools who just kept manufacturing SUVs. Those dummies fired factory workers when an over-exposed product couldn't keep over-performing with consumers. Likewise, Hollywood gets good people to work on bad projects, then lays the blame on the wrong factors...

So let us look at "The Killer," and a foreign master at the peak of his powers. John Woo was a man operating in the UK's Hong Kong, in the versatile and competitive HK film market. This unique field allowed many artists to flourish and focus on some of the cinematic basics that can largely die a quiet death within the American film industry.

"Color of Night" - Yeah Bruce Willis made a skinemax flick

This 1994 theater release was missed by many, panned by the rest. To my great fortune, cable showed me what I'd likely pass up. This is silly and insane and so much fun! The trailer is here, but no embed, so please enjoy this scene:

 

Cinema's best one-cam two-shot ever. But Bruce is a dull date.

Bruce Willis plays Bill Capa, a New York City shrink ("Hi, Bill!"). His last patient, severely messed-up, jumps out his office window mid-session. He'd just confronted her problems directly, if a little too strongly; as Bill stares down at her body, the blood pooling on the street around her becomes grey.

So in a poetically cruel turn, the psychologist now has a distinct mental problem - he no longer sees the color red. Under such obvious strain, what's a faithless therapist do? He can run off to LA.

Doc Capa bails, flies out to see his best friend, Bob Moore (Scott Bakula). This isn't running away, tho: Bob's also a shrink, and he knows Bill well enough to get through to him. Moore's also gotten quite successful, so hopefully his positivity will rub off, right?

Ingmar Bergman's "The Hour of the Wolf" (about damn time)

[8/12/14 Update: I used to use quotation marks around film titles, and it'll take a long while for me to correct them all. I just fixed the horrible spacing problems in this review and the now-dead video links, but that's all for now...]

Ingmar Bergman's "The Hour of the Wolf" is an uncontested classic. Writing a simple review is impossible. Since I have no desire to be repetitious (or a bore), I give you a brief review, then something like a stripped-down essay.

This movie is about a woman whose husband disappeared. She doesn't claim to know what's become of him. She only recounts the story of what happened to them. You have to be in the right frame of mind for this slow, talky-yet-quiet, and rather absurdist piece. These points aside, I was impressed as almost every minute of the flick is terribly eerie. It looks gorgeous, and has a lot to say (figuratively).

A frighteningly-young Max Von Sydow is the great painter Johan, an artist of some reknown. He takes his pregnant wife out to a small house on a remote island for some solitude and a chance to refresh themselves. He will paint, she will care for him, and they will love each other.

But their stay is not very relaxing. Before the story even begins, some of the locals have been a problem - Johan punched one of them. And his observations of them sound odd, as if Johan were insane or surrounded by unnatural creatures. The movie follows the couple as they grow acquainted with their neighbors, as the artist's personality collapses, and as the couple becomes fractured. As I said, you'll need patience and the right frame of mind to enjoy this, yet its creepiness is quite effective. It's also very human, but in a disturbing way.

Just watch that trailer - this is an absurdist freak-fest. To be honest, it's a bad trailer; between the voiceover's bad monotone and the painful tuneless sound playing throughout, I wouldn't watch this movie. Maybe this was the effect Bergman was going for...

“Haute Tension” (aka “High Tension”) – France gives us something close to Torture-Porn

“High Tension” (2003) was on my radar for a long time. This French horror flick was so universally praised that I was destined to watch it. I can understand fully why it received so much acclaim. Sadly, it brought me no joy.

The plot: a French girl drives with her best friend, bound for her parent's idyllic country home; then everything goes to hell (figuratively).

What does this movie promise? Heavy bouts of ultra-violence, atmosphere, great direction, and a fairly decent premise. It delivers on all these things – particularly the ultra-violence, if that’s what you’re looking for. Parts of this film are very well done; many other important aspects, however, stink.

A Legal Video Guide, aka Hulu versus Cable's Free On Demand versus Everything Else

Trying to keep from pirating tv shows and movies can seem daunting. Worst of all, it's time-consuming - most of us want what we want right now, don't we?

In fact, the many options out there these days make it all relatively simple and do-able. Living with an internet connection and the basic tier of cable service is actually pretty easy. I will go through at least 6 legal ways to "watch your stories" through digital providers, so this will be a segregated entry. My review of an Ingmar Bergman flick will have to wait til next week.

Hulu is a great way to watch tv. It's easy to use, and has a huge selection of shows and movies. It also has a great array of features, like continuous play and embed. You can even email a link that points to a clip whose timing you select yourself.

For movies, Hulu is much better when your computer connects to a larger screen. Their site will force you to watch 3-5 commercials per tv episode and more or less for certain films. Not as much fun, but it's still free, right?

On Piratical Behavior, and Movies That Don't Speak Good Ol' American English

I made sure to view "Ponyo" before it reached the US. A July '08 film in Japan, it reached the States in Aug '09. I even watched it on a 15" monitor, and that bites. Why did U see it like that? In two words: Japanese language.

Every Hayao Miyazaki pic to see an American theatrical release was altered by Disney to bear an English-speaking cast. Discussing "Ponyo" yet again feels unsatisfying, and I'm sorry if it's repetitive. But it highlights my points perfectly...

I love watching foreign films and enjoy reading subtitles. I find it natural, seldom distracting. And, especially for movies that are "less than great," I think the original language and audio make a big difference. If it's not a great work, that extra bit of nuance may help it receive a fair judgment from the viewer.

A decent film can stand as a decent film when you get the added context of subtitles, language differences, and the like. They don't need any changes, nor do great foreign films. Odd Russian, Indian, or Italian sayings are much easier to take when you hear someone say it and then read it on the screen; you know it's something foreign, so you accept it.

"Coraline" - what "Ponyo" should've been

My review of "Ponyo" was pretty clear: I was disappointed, but understood that a great artist like Hayao Miyazaki merits leeway. HM made a pure kid's movie with little story, development, or stakes. My guess is he made a movie for really young children... "Coraline," however, was also released this year, and also billed as a kid's film. It has everything that "Ponyo" lacked.

Our eponymous hero is a smart and willful teen. Her parents are totally absorbed in her father's writing career. Moving to a new town finds Coraline bored and creeped out by her new digs. But the house has a secret room (of course) that leads to a parallel world - one in which everything is slightly wrong. She meets duplicates of her parents, and they recognize her as their child. They're nearly the same, save that these parents dote on Coraline - and their eyes are buttons. For all the kindness and attention she receives, this new world doesn't seem like a nice place to live...