I saw Aeon Flux and I would see it again in a heartbeat. And again and again.


And again.

It was great. I wrote more about it on the thread called Aeon Flux

Cinderella Man (Howard, 2005, Grade: B+)

OK, OK. Let me admit that I watched this film, thoroughly enjoyed it much better than I expected, and I have no pro-or-con opinions on Ron Howard. Apparently that makes me a fool at best or a supporter of child-prostitute slaves who "work" and/or shop at Walmart at worst.

This film is not a documentary. Raging Bull is far from a documentary. Both movies are probably much better for that fact. The acting in this film is pretty top-notch right down the line. Paul Giamatti will finally get a nom. Both Crowe and Zellweger are very good. Howard's direction is by far his grittiest yet, even if the film is supposed to be an Underdog Story. I understand that some people have problems with performers, directors, movies, etc. After I watched this flick, I checked IMDb, expecting to find some 6.5 rating, but no! Real people think this movie is an 8, even if it didn't make that much money or hasn't really been considered one of the better films of the year. That gives me some hope that pretty good flicks can still be made. I just wonder if pretty good humans will be able to appreciate them.

Not that anybody cares, but my wife just suggested that we go to the Midnight show of King Kong, so I just printed out the tix. I don't plan on writing any reviews until after I wake up, but you might as well plan on me saying something good about it pretty soon.

I actually enjoyed CINDERELLA MAN. That movie is notorious not because of its quality/lack thereoff, but because it tanked at the box office. I noticed that it popped up back in theatres again. While not in the class of RAGING BULL, I too enjoyed CM.

And I hope you realized before you made the commitment to sit through a midnight screeing that KING KONG is a three-hour movie. Can't Peter Jackson make a film that runs under two hours?

quote:

Originally posted by ChrisFromAstoria:
And I hope you realized before you made the commitment to sit through a midnight screeing that KING KONG is a three-hour movie. Can't Peter Jackson make a film that runs under two hours?

Maybe not in this millenium, but all his earlier films were less than two hours.

King Kong (Jackson, 2005, Grade: A)

There seems to be some kind of interpretation battle going on over the new King Kong. I realize that this is nothing new, but I imagine people (including reviewers/critics) are going to have a tough time just letting this film or the upcoming Munich speak for themselves. Some people have their sacred cows and pariahs and when they clash, it sometimes gets dirty.

In the Peter Jackson thread in the Directors section over a year ago, I mentioned that I thought that Jackson would be the right man to remake King Kong and that he would definitely add something previously unseen to the experience. Some people agreed and some vehemently disagreed. Some people think that there's no reason to mess with a classic. It's a kinda "How dare he toy with MY movie" thing, I guess. I suggested that the acting could be improved and the F/X too, especially making Kong himself a more believable character. "Blasphemy!" You don't take all of Willis O'Brien's hard work and run it through a computer!" We will always have the original Kong to love and watch. Nobody's taking anything away from that. But Jackson, while keeping the story set in the Depression, has managed to make a thrilling adventure, a poignant love story, and a commentary on our current age's fixation on all things new and how quickly we get rid of most things we love just to find something newer and "more-exciting".

Most people are familiar with the basic story of fanatical moviemaker Carl Denham (Jack Black) who takes struggling young performer Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts, stunning) from a beautifully-recreated 1932 NYC on board a ship to the mysterious Skull Island in search of something sensational and profitable to film. The third key human in the triangle this time is Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody) who's been turned into a playwright/screenwriter.

Once the trance-induced, bloodthirsty natives kidnap Ann and offer her as a sacrifice to their 25-foot gorilla god Kong, the movie kicks into hyperdrive. Three spectacular scenes involve a herd of stampeding brontosauruses, three T. rexes trying to eat Ann before Kong can save her near a vine-filled cliff, and an attack in a pit by huge bugs and slimy head-suckers. When it calms down, Kong and Ann have a chance to bond and become friends. The quieter scenes are delightfully-played by both Naomi Watts and the terrific Andy Serkis, completely unrecognizable and totally believable as a lonely old ape who hasn't had a companion in ages, if ever.

Eventually Denham and his men get Kong off the island and back to NYC to abase him and show him off for huge financial gain. Of course, it doesn't go as planned, and Kong goes on a rampage, first looking for Ann, and then trying to protect her from everybody shooting at them. The F/X in these scenes are just as magical as those on Skull Island, and the film builds to a powerfully tragic ending with the famous last line cutting Denham and us to the bone with its "honest mendacity".

I thoroughly enjoyed the entire film. I'll admit that they could have chopped at least a half-hour out, and that might please some people, but even the long build-up is full of suspense and wit, and what's a Beauty and the Beast fantasy without some over-the-top moments and outrageous situations? We're talking about giant apes, dinosaurs and honest, caring filmmakers, right? So you already know that it's not supposed to be realistic. But the thing is that most all the emotions and motivations depicted on screen are pretty damned realistic. They are also an homage to the original King Kong and almost every other cinematic fantasy which has grabbed hold of our collective psyche in the last 100 or so years. Plus Kong rivals Philip Seymour Hoffman in Capote as best male performance I've seen this year.

quote:

Originally posted by BinaryVixen:
I saw Aeon Flux and I would see it again in a heartbeat. And again and again.

And again.

Well, if you want to watch this one again, and again and again, you better get to the theatre quickly or buy the DVD because this one is going to disappear from theatres very quickly. The decline in box office from opening week to week two was like 75%.

quote:

Originally posted by mark f:
Syriana (Gaghan, 2005, Grade: B-)

Stephen Gaghan's film about oil and fanatacism (of all kinds) is certainly handsome and well-acted. It just doesn't seem to offer anything revelatory about the Arab world and how the U.S. manipulates the area for its own gain.

So for me, it's a mixed bag. Some good acting and some attempt at examining an important subject, but just too laid back and predictable to completely succeed.

Boy, I have a big disagreement with you here. If not the best film I've seen so far in '05, then it would be on my short list. Certainly it would get my personal nom for Best Picture.

It was a real intelligent film dealing with a topical subject. There was much verisimilitude in the film. I really believed what was depicted on screen could actually happen and I felt it gave some interesting insights on how power works. Lots of well drawn out characters and situations and while confusing in spots, I felt that it was cleverly weaved together. The one shot I'd take at the film was that the sound mix was terrible. I kept missing dialogue.

A real strength of the film were the supporting characters, people like William Hurt as the retired CIA agent, Tim Blake Nelson as a hapless rightwing oil guy, Chris Cooper as the wildcat oil mogul and especially one of my favorite all time character actors, David Clennon as the smarmy Justice Department Attorney.

I had no problems with missing any dialogue in Syriana. It was loud and clear all the time. I just disagree with most everything else, especially as far as it being clever or having well-drawn characters. My grade is still a mild recommendation though.

I took another look at GREMLINS last night after having not seen it since its original theatrical release back in '84. I remember liking this film quite a bit on original viewing and it held up fairly well. It kind of runs out of steam before its running time, but it had a wicked and anarchic sense of humour. That scene where one of the gremlins in exploded in the microwave was tasty and nasty. I was surprised that it received only 2 stars in the "Maltin Film Guide." I felt it had a better rep than that. In fact, the sequel, is rated higher by Maltin, getting a 3 star rating.

I caught BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN yesterday and this flick is as good as its advance billing and does indeed its metacritics' score. It is indeed the "gay cowboy" movie and works on all levels, acting, directing, story, cinematography. I love this time of year as the studios role out their high quality fare hoping to bag Academy Award noms. Mark down Heath Ledger as another candidate for a Best Actor AA nom.

The film being platformed by studios as they expand it wide. Interesting that it is being released (and was funded) by Universal's art house arm, Focus Features, and is being marketed as an art film. And every bit of its $13M shows up on screen. It is amazing that such a low budget film could look so good.

I don't know if I'm going deaf, but my one complaint was again the sound mix. I missed dialogue, especially from Heath Ledger, who gave a real affected (but excellent) performance.

This one is a home run.

I love this time of year!

Last night was double cheesey film feature night at the home of crazed.

First off was Paranoiac, a 1963 Hammer film starring Oliver Reed and Janette Scott. Ollie is a fun psycho trying to drive his sister mad so that he can inherit the family fortune (parents killed in a plane wreck, second brother committs suicide shortly thereafter). While Ollie drinks away his allowance, his sister is attended to at the family manor by her aunt and French nurse. Then suddenly a stranger appears, claiming to be the long-thought-dead brother. It's a routine script but the acting and cinematography make it a better than average psych-drama. I love Hammer films, cheesey or not, and this was a very nice modern piece for them.

Second cheesey flick was a boot dvd copy of It's a Bikini World. One of AIP's better beach movies (I didn't doze off at all). Annette & Frankie are long gone by the time of this 1967 film. Instead we get Deborah Walley and Tommy Kirk. Deborah's a hot beach babe who doesn't dig the muscle cats. So Tommy has to get unhip, don glasses and pretend to be a his own square brother to get Deb on his couch, dig? Guest musical appearances by the Animals, the Gentrys, the Castaways, and the Toys. No Erik Von Zipper in this film, man.

Richard Pryor Live in Concert (Margolis, 1979, Grade: A)

This film is so close enough to perfection that I really don't want to say anything else. The man discusses his childhood, teenage years, movies, kids, drug use, pets, experiences with famous athletes, unique perspectives, politics, etc. It's a one-of-a-kind, uniquely-hilarious thing of beauty. It's also one of the most non-stop, incredibly-acted experiences in the history of humanity.

I caught up with the other cowboy movie, the straight cowboy movie the other day. That would be Tommy Lee Jones' THE THREE BURIALS OF MELQUIADES ESTRADA. It is playing for a week in LA & NYC to qualify for Academy Award consideration and is scheduled to reopen in February after it closes this week. Like BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, there was strong advance buzz on this movie. It won some sort of award(s) at Cannes this year. Basically, the film is a journey in both a literal and figurative sense for Jones & especially Barry Pepper. I don't want to give too much away, but this was another good end-of-year flick.

My only complaint is that the film doesn't look all that hot. I thought it might have been shot on DV, which I say every time I think a film is ugly, but I am pretty sure this was shot on film. The reason I say the film was ugly was that the color palette was kind of bland; it almost had a washed out look.

I just saw sympathy for mr. vengeance, part of the korean trilogy that includes oldboy. It was a bit too violent for my tastes, but there was some good acting and the movie serves well as a commentary on the things the desire for revenge can do to someone. But if I had to recommend a korean revenge movie, I'd definitely pick oldboy instead.

Since I'm stuck in my apartment/neighborhood due to the subway/bus strike I have had to occupy myself watching videos. I missed two films in rep houses yesterday because I couldn't get into Manhattan. Today I watched a film called MERMAIDS on video. It came out in '90 or so and I skipped it during its original theatrical run because it didn't fare so hot with the critics or at least the critics I read at the time, which considered of "The New York Times" and Siskel & Ebert. But Maltin gives this film three stars so I decided to tape it and gave it a shot today and didn't like it at all.

The film didn't really work at all. It essentially was a chick flick that didn't really find its tone -- it ranged from silliness most of the time to tragedy -- one of the daughters -- a very young Christina Ricci -- almost drowns. Cher, who looked weird even them from all the surgery, was the star and Ricci and Winona Ryder, long before her shoplifting jones was known and her career went into freefall, starred. Bob Hoskins was on hand as, believe it or not, Cher's love interest. Not a very good movie. The mediocre Richard Benjamin was the director.

I took a look on video of VALMONT, which was originally released theatrically back in '89. It is the LES LIAISONS DANGEREUSE story. This film has an interesting twist because it and a competing film, DANGEROUS LIAISONS, were based on the same material and came out virtually simultaneously in one of those weird Hollywood coincidences.

If memory serves me correctly VALMONT was not well received by the critics or the critics I read back then before the Internet and metacritics.com existed. On the other hand, DANGEROUS LIAISONS was well received by the critics.

It was kind of surprising how the films fared because VALMONT at the time had the better pedigree because it was directed by the estimated Milos Foreman, who directed classics and award/winners like ONE FLEW OVER THE COOKOO'S NEST and AMEDEUS. DANGEROUS LIAISONS, on the other hand, was directed by the then relatively unknown Stephen Frears.

So, I was always kind of curious about VALMONT and wanted to see how it stacked up to Frears' version. Well, VALMONT was a bit of a dud. It just kind of plods along at a very slow pace and is one of those snooze-inducing period pieces. Sort of like viewing a characters in a wax museum.

One reason why DANGEROUS LIAISONS is a better film than VALMONT is the casting. The actors in the former included Glenn Close, John Malcovich, Michelle Pfeiffer & Uma Thurman. Their counterparts, in the Foreman version, were Annette Bening, Colin Ferth, Meg Tilly & Fairuza Balk. Tilly and Falk were particularly weak, but across the board the actors in DL were much better.

My dvd pick last night was The Island. Well, I enjoyed the eye candy of Scarlett Johansson. I would have rather seen Steve Buscemi play the role Ewan McGregor was given, and vice versa. That would make it more comedic, which would have been a nice change.

Grizzly Man [Herzog & Treadwell, 2005, Grade: B]

OK. As usual, I'm late, but at least I can discuss this now. No, Treadwell doesn't get on-screen directorial credit, but since he's in well over half the film's footage which he, himself, shot, he should have. Yes, Herzog found a fellow madman director in the person of Timothy Treadwell (R.I.P.), but too bad he didn't find him before he and his girlfriend Amie Huguenard (R.I.P.) were eaten by a grizzly bear. That might have been even more insane than this film is.

Treadwell does seem sincere at times, calculating at others. He comes off as an incredibly-insecure, manic-depressive Mr. Rogers in the Grizzly Maze Neighborhood. Obviously, he was a man of contradictions, but his footage of himself and the wildlife is often quite evocative, even though I felt like mauling the hippie if I had to hear him tell one more animal, "I love you."

Herzog's intentions do seem curious. The film is sad, funny, breathtaking, maddening, etc., but most of the survivors who Herzog interviews come off as space cadets who would easily drive someone away from humanity. Although Treadwell may not have known Coroner Franc, the latter comes across as the creepiest character; somebody who might idolize Liberace in The Loved One AND Roger Ebert at his most hand-gesturing. The scene with the wrist watch was unbelievably eye-rolling-worthy. I'm under the impression that Herzog is making fun of these survivors, maybe even by "over-directing" them to "overact", but I guess that's a minor complaint, especially with no evidence and just a gut feeling.

Anyway, if you haven't seen it, you need to. I don't know why it's not eligible as a finalist in the Oscar Docs (anybody find out?), but it's a unique experience which should entertain you, as well as elicit several emotional reactions.

You are spot on regarding GRIZZLY MAN. That doc is terrific and is by far the best of the three docs that Herzog directed that were released commercially in '05. While Treadwell shot most of the footage used, you have to give Herzog credit for putting the film together. That scene where Treadwell said he would look at a bear and see how benign nature was Herzog commented that he looked at the same bear and saw a predator who had no feeling. This film is, I agree, a must see and if I ever get around to putting together an '05 best of list this one will no doubt end up on it.

Meanwhile, I caught Neil Jordan's latest film BREAKFAST ON PLUTO starring the rising star Cillian Murphy (RED EYE, BATMAN BEGINS). I don't know what to make of this film. Murphy plays a transvestite in a very affected performance and it basically is his journey as he tries to find his mother. A very uneven and way overlong film (clocking in at 130 minutes). Neil Jordan is a very mixed bag for me. I loved a couple of his films, THE CRYING GAME (which was ruined for me because I read the review ahead-of-time and when the reviewer said there was a big secret he was sworn not to reveal all I could think of during the film was "what is the secret" and figured out the surprise) and MONA LISA, but the rest of his stuff, some of which is highly regarded, I haven't cared for.

I watched a lot of movies over winter break. I'll try to briefly comment on them.

The Enigma of Kaspar Houser

This film was direct by Warner Herzog. It's about a young man who had lived most of his years in a cellar. He is barely able to walk and talk when he shows up in a village holding a letter. The film is full of beatiful landscapes from the German countryside. It's set in early the early 1800's and it's based on a true story. People are so concerned about explaining him for their own comfort that they miss his inciteful comments on their society. 3.5/4

Menace II Society

The Hughes brothers directed this film about youth violence in the African-American community in Watts. It's very graphic in it's use of language and violence. The film does a good job of portraying the generational gap in that society. The "Hero" Cain lives with his grandparents, who are very religious. They live in different worlds that can't seem to communicate to each other. This movie is a good conversation starter and like "Crash" it can be difficult to watch. 3.25/4

Jesus' Son directed by Alison Maclean, 1999.

Billy Crudup and Samantha Morton star in this dark comedy/drama. Crudup's character is called FH or Fuck Head by his friends. He gets into drugs when Michelle, (Morton) his love interest, introduces him to them. The film revolves around his relationship with Michelle. I won't give anything else away. The only film that I can compare it to is another Crudup film Almost Famous in that they are both coming of age films where characters "fuck it up" or discover something good and through these experiences they grow up. Jack Black has a small, but very funny role in the film. 3.25/4


I have more, but I'm going to take a break.

quote:

Originally posted by Nathan25:

The Enigma of Kaspar Houser

Menace II Society


Jesus' Son directed by Alison Maclean, 1999.

Some interesting choices. I'm a huge fan of Werner Herzog's and enjoyed KASPAR, but don't think that is top-shelp Herzog like FITZCARRALDO & AGUIRRE: WRATH OF GUARD.

I was blown away by MENACE TO SOCIETY and it is far and away the Hughes Brothers' best film. In fact, it is the Hughes Brothers' only good film. They made another 'hood film to follow that had a Vietnam theme called DEAD PRESIDENTS. It was a real dud and I don't quite understand how the selection committee of the NY Film Fest including this one. AMERICAN PIMP was a mediocre documentary on its eponymous title. They tried to step away from 'hood tales with FROM HELL, which starred Johnny Depp and was about Jack the Ripper. I thought it also was a dud.

The Hughes Brothers made MENACE in response to John Singleton's well received BOYZ 'N THE HOOD, which they didn't deem authentic enough and pointed out that Singleton didn't grow up in the 'hood.

Like Singletwon, the Hughes Brothers have proved to be one hit wonders.

I can't say much about JESUS' SON other than the fact that I was underwhelmed, though the film was well received on its original theatrical release. I agree Jack Black was pretty good. A little bit of Jack goes a long way, though. He is much better in smaller roles, like the roles he played in JESUS & HIGH FIDELITY than he is in the current bloated KING KONG.