Archive for the ‘pop’ Category

Part Two In A Series

Did we lose them? You sure? Okay, let’s just lie low for a while.

Human Nature

Oh how much I would’ve wanted to like Michel Gondry’s first flick! Oh how easy it should’ve been, given that it’s scripted by Kaufman. Alas, it was not to be.

For some reason the movie just doesn’t cut it. The unmistakable visual flair is there, the eccentric script is in place, the acting isn’t bad, but still the film doesn’t come together. At times it feels a bit contrived (Just a bit? I hear you ask) while still not crossing the border to fantasyland. The ever-present Kaufmanian theme of identity is once again meddled with but with no great results. Maybe the movie lacks one more act, maybe Gondry and Kaufman are fallible. Who knows? Well worth seeing though, only don’t expect miracles.

Oh shit! Blow out the floodlight right now and make a run for it!

Kukushka

Excellent cinematography! Lapland might’ve never looked this good before. The storyline is interesting also, if for nothing more than avoiding the easiest cross-cultural communication breakdown jokes (see Lost in Translation). Prime quality movie making.

It’s the Feds! Get to the car, quickly now or we’re done for, Jake!

Wizard of Oz

Hard to see how this movie could’ve become a gay classic. It’s also very hard to decide whether the production designer was really really into kitch or just very drunk. If you have to see this, just use fast forward – you’ll see the sets and won’t have to suffer any of the dialogue or the acting.

Put the pedal to the medal like your life depended on it now!

Ultimo tango a Parigi

I’m torn. Torn between taking the piss and praising. I mean, Brando’s acting is fabulous, no doubt about it. The cinematography is just stunning, both outdoors (hell, you’d have to be really lousy to make Paris look bad on film) and indoors (what a great crappy apartment). The jazzy score is excellent as well.

But then again… at times the dialogue is just horrible, horrible artsy-fartsy crap. At times the music just comes up for no apparent reason. At times, like pretty much whenever Antoine Doinel appears on-screen, the acting is irritating as hell. And who the fuck thought of the lame-ass ending? (Don’t bother writing in to tell it was Bertolucci himself.)

The sexual explicitness probably doesn’t feel as naughty as it once was, as hardcore porn surrounds us 24/7. But a flawed masterpiece is a masterpiece nevertheless.

Watch out, they got a helicopter! Turn left here, turn left now or we’ll crash!

Butterfly Effect

A flat pancake. A pancake that looks really promising in the oven but implodes under its own weight once you pull it out. That’s what this picture is like.

First things first: Kelso Kutcher does a fine job here, if you can call whatever it is that present generation of stand-ins does acting. The script is pretty clever, but unfortunately fails to deliver anything after the first few punches. All the loose ends are taken care of in a way that insults the viewer’s intelligence, but then again this is standard Hollywood fare, so we really don’t get to complain, do we? Save your euros.

Jake, are you awake? Wake up, Jake! Jake, we have got to make a stand right here, right now!

Wu jian dao

The best new thriller I’ve seen in quite a while. The first half hour is superb and most of the following 90 minutes don’t drag either. The movie’s theme is de facto HK cop stuff, what with mixed loyalties and disguised identities. All the female characters are underdeveloped but that’s the norm in a patriarchate, innit? Looks brilliant as well. All in all, Infernal affairs has deserved its reputation fair and square.

Jake, talk to me. Jake, say something! Jake, don’t you fucking go dying on me, not now you fucker!

The Blob (1988)

I remember reading somewhere that slasher movies’ teenage audiences in the US used to cheer the monsters rather than the would-be protagonists. I certainly recognized the trait in myself whatching this remake. It’s obvious from the word go that most of the cast is going to get butchered, so guessing who lives isn’t really the main source of pleasure, however seeing how the costars get shafted is titillating. The old-school stop-motion animation of the blob is also strangely entertaining at times. Popcorn fodder (though my choice of snacks was tortilla chips, dip sauce and Pepsi Max).

You bastards! You shot at him! Take this and this! Die, you pigs!

Sin noticias de Dios

The best bit of this movie is undoutably the testosterone-dripping walk of Penelope Cruz. Unfortunately that bit, however great is it inself, isn’t enough to buoy this flick. Well, the acting is quite enjoyable overall, but the theme of fighting over a man’s soul never really goes anywhere and besides Kevin Smith already did a fine piece of Catholic nitpicking in Dogma.

Jake, I’m hit! It’s… so… cold…

FADE TO BLACK.

In The Movies

Hey look, somebody’s left a blog here unattended ! I wonder… maybe we could use it to further our sinister goals.

Chik yeung tin sai

Charlie’s Angels from Hong Kong? Not quite, in the good or the bad sense of the phrase. So Close, as it’s known in the West, is a lifeless action piece with a few nice scenes but way too much empty action and, what is worse, empty emotion. Not much to see here in this prolonged one-reel actioner, then.

Yo, Jake! JAKE! Bring the corpse over here!

Chiklo gouyeung

I think one reviewer used the word ’demented’ when referring to Naked Killer. A mighty fine choice, I should say. The story is somewhat Hitchcockian, what with the fake identities and unsolved murders, but the main source of paraphrasing seems to be Basic Instinct.

There are some hilarious action scenes here, but the overall register fluctuates a bit too wildly from softcore (really soft) to gore to double-gun shootouts to flamboyant overacting. Not really recommendable either.

Yeah, you saw off his feet and I’ll do the arms. Noboby’s gonna recognize him afterwards.

Shaft (1971)

Could the theme song ever get old? I doubt it. On the other hand the movie itself hasn’t aged so well. Some of the performances are just plain awful, including Richard Roundtree’s Shaft. The upsides include New York, that looks really shitty in a really gorgeous way. In general Shaft in an enjoyable riff on 70’s cop movies (think Serpico) but might not be strong enough to stand on its own two feet.

Right, now once we put some dirt on his grave the place’ll look good as new.

Ônibus 174

True metropolises can be hell. That’s what a small town boy like thought after Bus 174, a documentary about a bus hijacking in Rio de Janeiro. Unfortunately the movie is way too long and loses much of its force in frequent flashbacks and digressions that, in the end, only serve to underline the social critique and therefore undermine it. Once again cutting down would’ve improved the end result, as in its present form the movie lacks focus.

Did you hear that? Is someone else here? What the fu–

Fog of War

’Second bomb dropped in Nagasaki just for the hell of it’ is how The Onion put it. Robert McNamara doesn’t talk about the Big One but instead sheds light on various other wacky conceptions the Americans have been experimenting with in the 20th century. The man talks with great authority and – so it would seem – honesty, even though there are some subjects he won’t discuss.

Some reviewers have complained about Morris’ flashy visual style. As a seasoned television reporter I know how goddamned hard it can be to figure ways to illustrate interviews, and as such Fog of War works just brilliantly. Yes, it’s eye-catching and somewhat excessive at times but nevertheless fills its purpose just fine. Heartily recommended.

Oh shit, it’s the cops! Make a run for it!

What will happen to the mysterious gravediggers? Will they be caught? Who is the body?

Find out in the next episode of… AHBoSG movie reviews!

Minimalism

Simple ratings for simple minds, or: Why the hell do I have such an enormous backlog?

Don’t waste your time

Rating: €: Black Hole (just plain awful all around), Dead Zone (how can Cronenberg and Walken create such crap?) Flight of the Navigator (KILL ME NOW!), The Frighteners (not silly, not funny, not scary – a mess), Innerspace (the less said the better), La Luna (art or poo?).

Don’t bother, don’t run away either

Rating: € €: Big Fish (pret-taah pic-taahs but where’s the beef?), Get Carter (the 1971 version; grim but a bit too sparse), Good bye, Lenin! (overhyped?), Last Samurai (predictable), Nousukausi (without Summanen they’d have nothing), Play It Again, Sam (too theatrical for a Woody piece), Something’s Gotta Give (Keaton and Nicholson are good but nothing else is), Standing In The Shadows Of Motown (gorgeous music, shame about the documentary), Stand By Me (cf. Last Samurai), Surplus (interesting experiment but nothing more).

Positively recommended

Rating: € € €: Los Amantes del Círculo Polar (a nice mix of fantasy and romance), Arsenic and Old Lace (superb first act), The Big One (Moore’s funny as always), The Eye (plenty of chilly moments), Microcosmos (macro cinematography like never before) Paris, Texas (weirdly unnerving), Rakkaudella, Maire (what a great character study!), School of Rock (predictable but enjoyable), Serpico (quality 70’s police stuff), Village of the Damned (quite a charming oldie scary pic), Wild Bunch (slo-mo blood), Zatôichi (tapdancing and samurais mix surprisingly well after all).

Must see

Rating: € € € €: Aleksis Kiven elämä (talk about rewriting history), Calendar Girls (quite perfect within its genre except for a small slump in the 3rd act), Crumb (how could you not make an interesting documentary when your subject is Robert Crumb himself?), Elephant (chilling), Irreversible (horrible), Jackie Brown (Grier: good, Forster: good, de Niro: his best role since ’95?), Kill Bill vol 1 (better than volume 2…), Kill Bill vol 2 (…still excellent), Koyaanisqatsi (what rhythm, what images, what music!) En kärlekshistoria (I suppose we all agree Roy Andersson is a cinematic genius?), Love Liza (Phil Seymour never fails), Pulp Fiction (do I need to explain this), Reservoir Dogs (weaker than PF, tho’), Shaolin Soccer (never get tired of this), Spellbound (excellent documentary), Les Triplettes de Belleville (best animated feature 2003?), 21 Grams (even better than Amores Perros).

Movies seen thus far this year: 89.

Read more, boyo

I just rearranged our bookshelves so that all the unread books are in one place. The end result is depressing, as it shows what a lazy slob I am when it comes to books I oughta read. That’s 34 titles there alone, some purchased quite a while ago, most still unopened. And that’s not even counting the books from the library. If we count those, the total sum goes up to 73. Depressing.

On the other hand I’m quite happy with the DVD shelves and Tiuku obviously enjoys the bookshelf. So it’s not all doom and gloom.

Post-cyberpunk

Bruce Sterling on whatever happened to cyberpunk?

In a cyberpunk analysis, Frankenstein is ”Humanist” SF. Frankenstein promotes the romantic dictum that there are Some Things Man Was Not Meant to Know. – – In the moral universe of cyberpunk, we already know Things We Were Not Meant To Know. Our grandparents knew these things; Robert Oppenheimer at Los Alamos became the Destroyer of Worlds long before we arrived on the scene. In cyberpunk, the idea that there are sacred limits to human action is simply a delusion. There are no sacred boundaries to protect us from ourselves.

Rucker, Shiner, Sterling, Shirley and Gibson – the Movement’s most fearsome ”gurus,” ear-tagged yet again in Shiner’s worthy article, in front of the N. Y. Times’ bemused millions – are ”cyberpunks” for good and all. – – But the dreaded C-Word will surely be chiselled into our five tombstones. Public disavowals are useless, very likely worse than useless. Even the most sweeping changes in our philosophy of writing, perhaps weird mid-life-crisis conversions to Islam or Santeria, could not erase the tattoo. – – Seen from this perspective, ”cyberpunk” simply means ”anything cyberpunks write.” – – ”Cyberpunk” will not be conclusively ”dead” until the last of us is shovelled under. Demographics suggest that this is likely to take some time.

It’s in the wrong order, stupid

Some critics seem to think that messing with a film’s chronology is a bad idea. Case in point is Ebert’s review of 21 Grams. The question beckons: What is needless tinkering and what is necessary reorganising? After all, even the Hollywood editing aesthetic and the way it represents time isn’t natural as such, just one way of reading that the viewers have come to understand.

The other big question is can you put your money where your mouth is? I’m not suggesting that proper film critics would do it, because they won’t*. However, now that video editing software is ubiquitous and DVDs are everywhere, even the most technologically inept person could easily recut almost any movie. The most famous example of this is the Phantom edit, one dissatisfied fan’s vision of what Star Wars Episode 1 should’ve been like.

My core argument is that one could easily tell if this temporal mangling was necessary by rearranging movies into proper chronological order and comparing the results with the originals. You’ve got Windows Movie Maker, iMovie or Cinelerra installed and you’ve got 21 Grams, Irréversible, Pulp Fiction and Memento on DVD, haven’t you? So why don’t you go do it already?

*: Well, I’d really like to see Mikael Fränti improve upon a sloppily edited movie. And after that could we get peace on Earth? (ramblings courtesy of Jussi)