Because I've seen and continue to see so many movies, I thought I would try rapid, really short reviews of a handful of movies that I have less to say about because realistically, am I really going to get all the films I've seen down in full review form any time soon? Let's try and see how it goes:
Jezebel (1938)- Pre-Scarlett O'Hara Hollywood melodrama. A lot of frilly costumes and grandiose sets, attention to detail being obvious but humanity or real emotion apparently being mistaken for big studio budget. A boring and unnecessary film, sporting a rare miss-fire performance from Bette Davis.
Being John Malkovich (1999)- Clever and showing ingenuity but also a little smug and self-important. The women, Catherine Keener and Cameron Diaz, shine. The men, John Cusack and yes, John Malkovich, are not as interesting. The script is terrific, if a little grating in its self-proclaimed QUARKINESS, but the film itself feels light-weight.
Charade (1963)- A faux-Hitchcock that's just about as good. Audrey Hepburn and Carey Grant are at their delightfully sumptuous best. A cocktail of a movie, fun and eye-catching, yes, not extremely memorable and kind of frilly, but hey, truly enjoyable entertainment.
Child's Play (1988)- Deranged doll terrorizes family. Yeah, I thought this film was going to be better than it was. As it stands, it's an insipid, mindless slice-and-dice of little interest to anyone, albeit a true horror fan of the supposed "classics". Alex Vincent's performance as our young hero was like listening to a cat get dragged across a blackboard. Unpleasant. The film, worst of all, isn't scary, or inversely, bad enough to be truly funny.
Inferno (1980)- Visually stunning but lacking a cohesive or credible story. Only check this one out if you're a fan of Dario Argento's. Dreamy, eye-catching visuals are burdened with grade Z acting and Keith Emerson's grating score. A kind of half sequel to Argento's better Suspiria, check that film out if you're looking for at least a little more meat on your candy colored bone.
Paranormal Activity (2009)- A Blair Witch rip-off that is better paced and yet stilled managed to be un-engaging at times. Often, actually. The performances are not as raw or as genuine as those in The Blair Witch Project, but they're surprisingly naturalistic. The film has some moments worth savoring, but not quite enough to validate the film's need to exist.
Sherlock Holmes (2009)- Robert Downey Jr. has fun in the lead but it's unfortunate how obvious it is that Rachel McAdams and Jude Law try hard to make something interesting out of characters lifeless on the page. The film's mildly entertaining but isn't spectacularly dumb nor terribly smart. So it just kind of sits there. And hey, that isn't real London scenery! That's all CGI!
The Da Vinci Code (2006)- Religious broohaha run amok. Yawn. Hanks's performance is without enthusiasm and the direction is perfunctory and typical. What can I say, I hated this film.
Do these work?
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Harold and Maude
A comedy about suicide and inappropriate relationships! Ok, so it doesn't sound on paper like the beautiful and heart-breakingly poignant film that it is. But "Harold and Maude" truly is a cinematic treasure!
Harold Chasen (Bud Cort) is a deeply troubled young man who is introduced to the audience in the midst of yet another feigned suicide attempt. Mother (Vivian Pickles) walks into the room just as Harold hangs himself. She begins with an exasperated scolding and then carries on a perfectly normal conversation with the suffocating Harold. Dinner plans are questioned as Harold turns increasingly pale. Already, the audience is aware that this is by no means your normal comedy.
Harold's attempts are often and scarily real. When Mrs. Chasen sets Harold up on a date, he has some fun by pretending to light himself on fire. His humor runs morbid and so does the humor of the film's. Harold is obsessed with death, going to the funerals of people he's never met. He drives a hearse and he doesn't have any friends. Then comes along Maude (Ruth Gordon). She's a chatty, quirky old woman who also likes funerals and meets up with Harold during a service. He thinks she's nuts, she thinks he's swell. The term "unlikely pair" does begin rattling in your brain.
Maude is persistent and Harold finds her vivaciousness attractive. She's way beyond his years yet she's more of a free spirit than he could ever hope to be. He comes over for tea and their relationship is initially platonic. But Harold makes that step and comes back to see Maude and what evolves is a relationship that is marked by both love and desire.
Gordon is terrific but it's really Cort who carries the film on his slender shoulders. As the depressive Harold, he taps into a soul so lonely and desperate for love that it stings. The scene in which he tells Maude the reasons behind his attempts is marvelously performed. Vivian Pickles as his cold and selfish mother is also wonderful. That look of sheer exasperation and boredom she has when looking at Harold is completely true to her character.
The script by Colin Higgins is wistfully comic and yet tragic, delving headfirst into the differing age dynamics of the time. The scene in which Mrs. Chasen fills out Harold's dating service form is both funny and sad, communicating the destructive force a parent can have if the child's wishes are ignored. Some of the characterization could use tweaking (as much as I loved Gordon in this film, her character seems to be taken straight out of the manic-pixie-dream-girl handbook) but that's a minor quibble. Higgins cuts right to the heart of the 70's, the kind of aimless indetermination that prompted such teens as Harold to act rashly to finally feel something.
Hal Ashby as director deftly balances biting dark comedy and satire with genuine emotion. The film has been compared to the likes of The Graduate, yet Ashby's direction is a lot less flashy and pronounced. Whereas The Graduate benefited from its stylistic, showy directorial style, Harold and Maude equally benefits from its directorial restraint.
The soundtrack is terrific, Cat Stevens lending the film a necessary buoyancy and reflexiveness. His songs are hopeful without being treacly.
The film concludes with a montage that is carefully orchestrated and emotionally explosive. Harold, baring the inevitable scars of tragedy, finally values what it means to live.
Harold Chasen (Bud Cort) is a deeply troubled young man who is introduced to the audience in the midst of yet another feigned suicide attempt. Mother (Vivian Pickles) walks into the room just as Harold hangs himself. She begins with an exasperated scolding and then carries on a perfectly normal conversation with the suffocating Harold. Dinner plans are questioned as Harold turns increasingly pale. Already, the audience is aware that this is by no means your normal comedy.
Harold's attempts are often and scarily real. When Mrs. Chasen sets Harold up on a date, he has some fun by pretending to light himself on fire. His humor runs morbid and so does the humor of the film's. Harold is obsessed with death, going to the funerals of people he's never met. He drives a hearse and he doesn't have any friends. Then comes along Maude (Ruth Gordon). She's a chatty, quirky old woman who also likes funerals and meets up with Harold during a service. He thinks she's nuts, she thinks he's swell. The term "unlikely pair" does begin rattling in your brain.
Maude is persistent and Harold finds her vivaciousness attractive. She's way beyond his years yet she's more of a free spirit than he could ever hope to be. He comes over for tea and their relationship is initially platonic. But Harold makes that step and comes back to see Maude and what evolves is a relationship that is marked by both love and desire.
Gordon is terrific but it's really Cort who carries the film on his slender shoulders. As the depressive Harold, he taps into a soul so lonely and desperate for love that it stings. The scene in which he tells Maude the reasons behind his attempts is marvelously performed. Vivian Pickles as his cold and selfish mother is also wonderful. That look of sheer exasperation and boredom she has when looking at Harold is completely true to her character.
The script by Colin Higgins is wistfully comic and yet tragic, delving headfirst into the differing age dynamics of the time. The scene in which Mrs. Chasen fills out Harold's dating service form is both funny and sad, communicating the destructive force a parent can have if the child's wishes are ignored. Some of the characterization could use tweaking (as much as I loved Gordon in this film, her character seems to be taken straight out of the manic-pixie-dream-girl handbook) but that's a minor quibble. Higgins cuts right to the heart of the 70's, the kind of aimless indetermination that prompted such teens as Harold to act rashly to finally feel something.
Hal Ashby as director deftly balances biting dark comedy and satire with genuine emotion. The film has been compared to the likes of The Graduate, yet Ashby's direction is a lot less flashy and pronounced. Whereas The Graduate benefited from its stylistic, showy directorial style, Harold and Maude equally benefits from its directorial restraint.
The soundtrack is terrific, Cat Stevens lending the film a necessary buoyancy and reflexiveness. His songs are hopeful without being treacly.
The film concludes with a montage that is carefully orchestrated and emotionally explosive. Harold, baring the inevitable scars of tragedy, finally values what it means to live.
Friday, June 25, 2010
The Worst Oscar Winners...Ever
Ok, because I'm bored by the Scream I review I was currently working on, I've decided to compile this list instead. Yeah, so even though its nowhere near Oscar time, I wanted to compile this list of the worst Oscar decisions ever. Long list, I know, but I trimmed and trimmed until the length was acceptable. You may agree or disagree, these are, anyway, just opinions. The Oscars are known for making some terrific decisions (American Beauty, anyone?) and some really, really bad ones. Today we're going to be celebrating those decisions that have truly made me want to chuck something at the screen in hopes that it will break the television-watcher barrier and knock some sense into those air-headed ninkumpoops. And here we go:
1. Forrest Gump Wins Best Picture
I'm sorry, but yes, I am one of those in the minority that has a deep hatred for this film. No wait, I take that back. The film isn't interesting enough to warrant any true emotions. Forrest Gump is like Oscar-baiting inspirational porn. Tom Hanks wins the Oscar for playing it friendly. Way to go, Academy!
2. Ellen Burstyn doesn't win for Requiem for a Dream
Yeah, you remember that terrific, harrowing, tragic performance of Ellen Burstyn as drug-addicted Sarah Goldfarb? Well, her performance lost to a miniskirt and leopard print (Sorry Julia Roberts, but it had to be said.). It just goes to show, it isn't about who has the best performance. It's who had the sassiest wardrobe.
3. Gladiator wins Best Picture
Gladiator is popcorn flick entertain. Nothing else. Seems that's all voters wanted in 2000. Unfortunately, other great films like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Requiem for a Dream lost out on the chance to nab top prize.
4. Guess Who's coming to Dinner Wins Best Original Screenplay
The film that used an ice-cream metaphor for white-black relations took home the prize for Best Original Screenplay in 1967. Yay! Pro racial acceptance! Hey, wait, that movie wasn't very good. Oh well, we'll give it an award anyway.
5. Crash Wins Best Picture
Racism is bad! Ok, so Crash is actually deeper than the sentiment I've just reduced it to. But not by much. And it beat out Brokeback Mountain, the most moving and heartbreaking romances to be released in years. That damned "we're all connected theme"- It wins Oscars, I tell you, whether the film was that good or not (see Babel).
6. Gwyneth Paltrow Wins for Shakespeare in Love
Not to rag on Gwen, but seriously, come on Academy! Can we try to make decisions next time when we're not on crack? Gwen's performance was fine but Cate Blanchett stole the show with her fiery performance as Queen Elizabeth in Elizabeth.
7. The Prince of Tides gets nominated for Best Picture
I couldn't believe it. That sappy, long-winded movie with scenery of the CVS postcard variety got nominated for top prize. The film was like a bad dream. Maybe the Academy nominated in hopes that then it would go away.
8. Jessica Lange beats out Teri Garr in Tootsie
The sweet, unbelievably nice woman (Jessica Lange) wins an Oscar for being unbelievably nice and pretty. The frustrated, complicated, far more interesting woman (Teri Garr) gets shut out because she's, well, complicated. We're the Academy! We award appearances!
1. Forrest Gump Wins Best Picture
I'm sorry, but yes, I am one of those in the minority that has a deep hatred for this film. No wait, I take that back. The film isn't interesting enough to warrant any true emotions. Forrest Gump is like Oscar-baiting inspirational porn. Tom Hanks wins the Oscar for playing it friendly. Way to go, Academy!
2. Ellen Burstyn doesn't win for Requiem for a Dream
Yeah, you remember that terrific, harrowing, tragic performance of Ellen Burstyn as drug-addicted Sarah Goldfarb? Well, her performance lost to a miniskirt and leopard print (Sorry Julia Roberts, but it had to be said.). It just goes to show, it isn't about who has the best performance. It's who had the sassiest wardrobe.
3. Gladiator wins Best Picture
Gladiator is popcorn flick entertain. Nothing else. Seems that's all voters wanted in 2000. Unfortunately, other great films like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Requiem for a Dream lost out on the chance to nab top prize.
4. Guess Who's coming to Dinner Wins Best Original Screenplay
The film that used an ice-cream metaphor for white-black relations took home the prize for Best Original Screenplay in 1967. Yay! Pro racial acceptance! Hey, wait, that movie wasn't very good. Oh well, we'll give it an award anyway.
5. Crash Wins Best Picture
Racism is bad! Ok, so Crash is actually deeper than the sentiment I've just reduced it to. But not by much. And it beat out Brokeback Mountain, the most moving and heartbreaking romances to be released in years. That damned "we're all connected theme"- It wins Oscars, I tell you, whether the film was that good or not (see Babel).
6. Gwyneth Paltrow Wins for Shakespeare in Love
Not to rag on Gwen, but seriously, come on Academy! Can we try to make decisions next time when we're not on crack? Gwen's performance was fine but Cate Blanchett stole the show with her fiery performance as Queen Elizabeth in Elizabeth.
7. The Prince of Tides gets nominated for Best Picture
I couldn't believe it. That sappy, long-winded movie with scenery of the CVS postcard variety got nominated for top prize. The film was like a bad dream. Maybe the Academy nominated in hopes that then it would go away.
8. Jessica Lange beats out Teri Garr in Tootsie
The sweet, unbelievably nice woman (Jessica Lange) wins an Oscar for being unbelievably nice and pretty. The frustrated, complicated, far more interesting woman (Teri Garr) gets shut out because she's, well, complicated. We're the Academy! We award appearances!
Scream
I wanted to give this film a hug. Sure, it's about a serial killer stalking and slashing teens to ribbons. But hey, who said lovely films could only be about marshmallow clouds and fluffy bunnies?
Scream, directed by Wes Craven, is the slasher flick that the slasher industry needed. By the time of its release, slasher flicks' popularity had gone way done, done in by stupid, mindless factory made products the studios had been pouring out throughout the 80's. Then came Scream, Craven's little horror wake-up call. Written by Kevin Williamson, the guy who penned Dawson's Creek and I Know What You Did Last Summer, Scream seemingly came out of nowhere. And boy did it revolutionize the slasher sub-genre. It's a nifty little comedy about a teen girl being stalked by a masked murderer. Who would of thought such a thing would be good?
The plot concerns Sydney (Neve Campbell), your proto-typical good girl whose all white night gowns and earnest pony tails. When her slightly greasier boyfriend, Billy (Skeet Ulrich), sneaks into her bedroom window for some late-night nookie, she settles on a "PG-13" response. Meaning Billy gets to see her breasts, and ironically, we the audience, do not. Sydney's mom died in a horrible manner, you can tell by the way her friends and colleagues keep subtly half-mentioning it (do they not understand the concept of tact?). We learn that Sydney's mom was brutally raped and murdered, arguably the worst crime up to date until high schooler Casey (Drew Barrymore) and her boyfriend are gutted by our masked assailant. That brings us to the present, as the fictional town of Woodsboro, California attempts to apprehend the killer before they strike again. As you might have guessed, the town isn't terribly successful in its pursuit. It first would appear that Sydney is the apple of the murderer's eye simply because she's virginal. But there appears to be some connection between the murder of her mom and the killer's motivations. Story short: murder ensues.
Surprisingly, Scream is well-written for a slasher flick. This is, in fact, a horror-comedy, one that satirizes slasher flicks while abiding by its conventions. Williamson understands slasher flicks and he exploits their conventionality to terrific effect. When one girl meets up with the killer in the garage, believing him to be her boyfriend, she quips "No, please don't kill me, Mr. Ghostface, I wanna be in the sequel!". The teens in Scream have seen slasher flicks themselves and therefore understand "the rules" involved. One of the rules, which entails never saying "I'll being right back", is hilarious in how dead-on it is. If I could impart one piece of advice to the characters in a horror movie, it would be never to utter that doomed expression. The film's plot, though conventional, twists in interesting ways that both stick to and yet subvert slasher expectations. The film likes the possibility of being the kind of film that it makes fun of and yet also having the knowledge to set it apart.
The dialogue is clever, maybe not to the extent to which others may have hyped it up. Sydney once says "Why can't I be a Meg Ryan movie? Or even a good porno." This line is funny and knowing, successfully creating a kind of comic lining to the film. However, other moments, although smart and perceptive, are possibly a little too obvious and glib, such as "Never say 'who's there?' Don't you watch scary movies? It's a death wish. You might as well come out to investigate a strange noise or something." The line is funny and yet it betrays a weakness within the film: unreality. The film is decidedly unrealistic but its these moments that remind us of the extent to which it is. Its unreality is not necessarily a good thing.
The performances are uniformly fine, with Courtney Cox making a convincing viper-like reporter bitch. David Arquette, as the simple-minded yet big-hearted police deputy Dwight is entertaining and his performance is irresistable in this goofy, man-boy kind of way. Campbell is by no means fantastic but she's given little to work with and what she is given she orchestrates effectively. Mathew Lillard is deliciously stupid and contempt-able in turns as Stuart "Stu" Marcher, the kind of chauvinistic, obnoxious frat boy character that every slasher movie teen group is incomplete without. His performance is infused with enough manic energy to almost make us forgot that he's essentially a character-type taken right out of the slasher flick book of conventions. But it's Jamie Kennedy as the knowing, horror-movie crazy Randy, that really made the movie for me. His performance and character are funny and just so in-joke-y/awesome movie referential. He was kinda terrific.
Is the movie scary, you ask? Surprisingly, yes, for some of it. I will admit, the first 15 minutes or so are terrifying, vicious, and they set the tone for the film almost immediately. Williamson uses the killer-on-the-phone gimmick to effect that rivals 1979's When A Stranger Calls. Drew Barrymore, possibly the biggest star in the movie is killed off in a brutal and horrifying manner, in presumably what is a homage to Psycho. Other moments in the film such as when Sid meets up with the killer in the girls bathroom at school also builds dread appropriately. The ending is just all-out-insane, taking the idea of a slasher climax to the extreme. The scene in which Sid locks herself in a car only to discover the killer has the keys is suspenseful and really showed some ingenuity. Other scenes such as the garage door demise fail to be scary yet they are really playing up the comedy angle anyway. It's hard to find an appropriate balance of laughs and shrieks. Scream is amazingly adept at maintaining this balance.
Craven as director, gives the film flair and deals with the content respectfully. Jokes harkening back to his own previous slasher ventures are funny because you know the director must have found them amusing as well. A throw-away line about the Nightmare on Elm Street sequels sucking is laugh out loud funny if you know anything about horror movies or Craven as a director. His direction has always been relatively polished and that is no less evident here.
Scream perhaps isn't the scariest horror film or funniest comedy you'll ever see. In that regard, its middling entertainment. But Scream is also aware that slasher flicks were only ever middling entertainment to begin with, and so it fits the slasher oeuvre soundly and neatly. A true, blood-splattered gem.
Scream, directed by Wes Craven, is the slasher flick that the slasher industry needed. By the time of its release, slasher flicks' popularity had gone way done, done in by stupid, mindless factory made products the studios had been pouring out throughout the 80's. Then came Scream, Craven's little horror wake-up call. Written by Kevin Williamson, the guy who penned Dawson's Creek and I Know What You Did Last Summer, Scream seemingly came out of nowhere. And boy did it revolutionize the slasher sub-genre. It's a nifty little comedy about a teen girl being stalked by a masked murderer. Who would of thought such a thing would be good?
The plot concerns Sydney (Neve Campbell), your proto-typical good girl whose all white night gowns and earnest pony tails. When her slightly greasier boyfriend, Billy (Skeet Ulrich), sneaks into her bedroom window for some late-night nookie, she settles on a "PG-13" response. Meaning Billy gets to see her breasts, and ironically, we the audience, do not. Sydney's mom died in a horrible manner, you can tell by the way her friends and colleagues keep subtly half-mentioning it (do they not understand the concept of tact?). We learn that Sydney's mom was brutally raped and murdered, arguably the worst crime up to date until high schooler Casey (Drew Barrymore) and her boyfriend are gutted by our masked assailant. That brings us to the present, as the fictional town of Woodsboro, California attempts to apprehend the killer before they strike again. As you might have guessed, the town isn't terribly successful in its pursuit. It first would appear that Sydney is the apple of the murderer's eye simply because she's virginal. But there appears to be some connection between the murder of her mom and the killer's motivations. Story short: murder ensues.
Surprisingly, Scream is well-written for a slasher flick. This is, in fact, a horror-comedy, one that satirizes slasher flicks while abiding by its conventions. Williamson understands slasher flicks and he exploits their conventionality to terrific effect. When one girl meets up with the killer in the garage, believing him to be her boyfriend, she quips "No, please don't kill me, Mr. Ghostface, I wanna be in the sequel!". The teens in Scream have seen slasher flicks themselves and therefore understand "the rules" involved. One of the rules, which entails never saying "I'll being right back", is hilarious in how dead-on it is. If I could impart one piece of advice to the characters in a horror movie, it would be never to utter that doomed expression. The film's plot, though conventional, twists in interesting ways that both stick to and yet subvert slasher expectations. The film likes the possibility of being the kind of film that it makes fun of and yet also having the knowledge to set it apart.
The dialogue is clever, maybe not to the extent to which others may have hyped it up. Sydney once says "Why can't I be a Meg Ryan movie? Or even a good porno." This line is funny and knowing, successfully creating a kind of comic lining to the film. However, other moments, although smart and perceptive, are possibly a little too obvious and glib, such as "Never say 'who's there?' Don't you watch scary movies? It's a death wish. You might as well come out to investigate a strange noise or something." The line is funny and yet it betrays a weakness within the film: unreality. The film is decidedly unrealistic but its these moments that remind us of the extent to which it is. Its unreality is not necessarily a good thing.
The performances are uniformly fine, with Courtney Cox making a convincing viper-like reporter bitch. David Arquette, as the simple-minded yet big-hearted police deputy Dwight is entertaining and his performance is irresistable in this goofy, man-boy kind of way. Campbell is by no means fantastic but she's given little to work with and what she is given she orchestrates effectively. Mathew Lillard is deliciously stupid and contempt-able in turns as Stuart "Stu" Marcher, the kind of chauvinistic, obnoxious frat boy character that every slasher movie teen group is incomplete without. His performance is infused with enough manic energy to almost make us forgot that he's essentially a character-type taken right out of the slasher flick book of conventions. But it's Jamie Kennedy as the knowing, horror-movie crazy Randy, that really made the movie for me. His performance and character are funny and just so in-joke-y/awesome movie referential. He was kinda terrific.
Is the movie scary, you ask? Surprisingly, yes, for some of it. I will admit, the first 15 minutes or so are terrifying, vicious, and they set the tone for the film almost immediately. Williamson uses the killer-on-the-phone gimmick to effect that rivals 1979's When A Stranger Calls. Drew Barrymore, possibly the biggest star in the movie is killed off in a brutal and horrifying manner, in presumably what is a homage to Psycho. Other moments in the film such as when Sid meets up with the killer in the girls bathroom at school also builds dread appropriately. The ending is just all-out-insane, taking the idea of a slasher climax to the extreme. The scene in which Sid locks herself in a car only to discover the killer has the keys is suspenseful and really showed some ingenuity. Other scenes such as the garage door demise fail to be scary yet they are really playing up the comedy angle anyway. It's hard to find an appropriate balance of laughs and shrieks. Scream is amazingly adept at maintaining this balance.
Craven as director, gives the film flair and deals with the content respectfully. Jokes harkening back to his own previous slasher ventures are funny because you know the director must have found them amusing as well. A throw-away line about the Nightmare on Elm Street sequels sucking is laugh out loud funny if you know anything about horror movies or Craven as a director. His direction has always been relatively polished and that is no less evident here.
Scream perhaps isn't the scariest horror film or funniest comedy you'll ever see. In that regard, its middling entertainment. But Scream is also aware that slasher flicks were only ever middling entertainment to begin with, and so it fits the slasher oeuvre soundly and neatly. A true, blood-splattered gem.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Jennifer's Body
Ok, ok, so Diablo Cody’s latest, quipster, pop-culture reference laden endeavor Jennifer’s Body is not all that good. But who said it had to be?
Cody, the woman who penned 2007’s Juno, has become a hipster-icon of sorts. Juno was about a teen girl’s unexpected pregnancy, and the emotional speed bumps along the way (why am I even explaining this film to you, the media wouldn’t let you forget this film if you tried). Jason Reitman’s direction gave the movie flair but it was Cody who gave the movie its heart. The dialogue was pure, unadulterated perfection. Lines such as “I've taken like three pregnancy tests, and I'm forshizz up the spout” still circulate the vocabulary of earnest, Juno-fanatic teens.
A lot of expectation surrounded Jennifer’s Body. A teen horror flick written by Diablo Cody? Megan Fox as a man-eating succubus? It sounded too good to be true. And it is, sort of. The film is not as clever or well written as Juno and not as scary as other teen horror flicks, say Scream. But if you leave your inflated expectations at the door, you might find you like this little, silly horror-comedy romp. I certainly did.
The film stars Amanda Seyfried as Anita “Needy” Lesnicki (an unfortunate nickname if I’ve ever heard one), the geeky best friend to queen bee Jennifer (Megan Fox). They’ve been friends since childhood, or as Needy puts it “Sandbox love never dies.” Needy’s dating the adorably unassuming Chip (Johnny Simons), who cannot understand the bizarre relationship of Needy and Jennifer. One night Jennifer and Needy go out to a local pub to listen to the indie rock band, Low Shoulder, that Jennifer is “stalking”. Needy overhears the band members talking about Jennifer, and she mistakes them for creepy, sex-hungry predators. Not quite. Somehow a fire gets started and Needy and Jennifer narrowly escape. The leader singer of the band, who mysteriously made it out of the bar without a scratch, offers the girls a ride in the band’s creepy van, which Needy later labels “an 89 rapist.” Needy refuses but Jennifer, who appears frighteningly drugged or empty, or a combination of both, joins them.
Needless to say, things don’t get better from here on out. Jennifer shows up at Needy’s house sometime after getting into the band’s van. She’s covered in blood and proceeds to throw up some black substance in a moment so disgusting it borders on being comic. Jennifer abruptly leaves Needy, who is understandably freaked. The next day Jennifer is back at school and seemingly fine. Again, needless to say, something is weird. Well, I’ll just tell you up front: Jennifer has been turned into a succubus, who feeds on men to settle her generous appetite. How’d she turn out that way? Well, indie rock bands, it seems, sacrifice virgins to Satan when they want to get rich. Low Shoulder wasn’t counting on the fact that Jennifer “hasn’t been a virgin since junior high.” Long story short: sacrifice goes awry, and instead of dying, Jennifer is possessed by a very hungry demon.
What does that mean for the male population of their high school? Well, I think you get the picture. What proceeds is a gory, rapid-pace send up of high school, Needy spouting such lines as, “I mean, she’s actually evil. Not high school evil.” The dialogue comes quick, some of it soars and some of it falls flat. One of Cody’s inventions is the use of “jell-o” to mean jealous, something Jennifer calls Needy. It’s an interesting idea but it doesn’t actually sound too great as its being said. Very few lines were as noteworthy as the plethora of quotes found in that other Diablo Cody movie that I’ve now vowed to stop mentioning.
One problem with Jennifer’s Body is that it’s never very scary. I understand the desire to balance the horror with comedy. But that means there has to be some of both. I found myself laughing on numerous occasions. But I was never scared. Even the scene in which Jennifer shows up at Needy’s place unexpectedly failed to be frightening. Dramatic music cues only work so often. I don’t want to spoil the scene but trust me; there isn’t much to spoil. What the film does contain is gore, not abrasively so but enough to please horror aficionados. The film doesn’t shy away either, we see plenty of re-distributed organs lying all over the place. A scene in which Jennifer seduces a thickheaded jock in the forest surrounding their high school is actually very funny. It seems animals of all sorts know when someone is about to get the axe on their territory.
The plusses: Seyfried is great. She makes Needy insecure and confused, she’s sympathetic but is ultimately willing to stick up for herself. Those big eyes opened wide in fear, you also get the impression that this girl is finally able to see what her teen friend has become. It’s a terrible realization, and Seyfried perfectly captures the pain and strength in having to accept this fact. The film is also genuinely funny. One scene, in which Needy and Chip are having sex, received the biggest howls from the audience of any other scene. Needy, seeing visions of the victims of Jennifer, becomes increasingly frightened and Chip mistakes her excitement for sexual pleasure.
The not so good: well, I can’t say that Fox is particularly good. She’s necessarily bitchy and unlikable, but she’s also void of any subtlety or nuance. When Jennifer is meant to betray one moment of insecurity towards the end of the film, Fox’s delivery was flat. However, she accomplishes what the film’s advertising campaign meant to highlight in the first place: sex appeal. Jennifer the character is supposed to be nothing more than a walking, insecure, and bitchy hormone anyway.
Karyn Kusama’s direction is effective, not particularly polished, but not oppressive. What she fails to do is give the movie the necessary baggage. The film does feel slight. You begin to forget many of the scenes that weren’t especially dramatic.
Jennifer’s Body is by no means perfect. But it has moments of charm. The woman-empowerment message gets lost in the muddle of one-liners and Megan Fox body shots, but the film’s aspirations aren’t completely squandered. It’s certainly more enjoyable than spending some actual time in your high school.
Cody, the woman who penned 2007’s Juno, has become a hipster-icon of sorts. Juno was about a teen girl’s unexpected pregnancy, and the emotional speed bumps along the way (why am I even explaining this film to you, the media wouldn’t let you forget this film if you tried). Jason Reitman’s direction gave the movie flair but it was Cody who gave the movie its heart. The dialogue was pure, unadulterated perfection. Lines such as “I've taken like three pregnancy tests, and I'm forshizz up the spout” still circulate the vocabulary of earnest, Juno-fanatic teens.
A lot of expectation surrounded Jennifer’s Body. A teen horror flick written by Diablo Cody? Megan Fox as a man-eating succubus? It sounded too good to be true. And it is, sort of. The film is not as clever or well written as Juno and not as scary as other teen horror flicks, say Scream. But if you leave your inflated expectations at the door, you might find you like this little, silly horror-comedy romp. I certainly did.
The film stars Amanda Seyfried as Anita “Needy” Lesnicki (an unfortunate nickname if I’ve ever heard one), the geeky best friend to queen bee Jennifer (Megan Fox). They’ve been friends since childhood, or as Needy puts it “Sandbox love never dies.” Needy’s dating the adorably unassuming Chip (Johnny Simons), who cannot understand the bizarre relationship of Needy and Jennifer. One night Jennifer and Needy go out to a local pub to listen to the indie rock band, Low Shoulder, that Jennifer is “stalking”. Needy overhears the band members talking about Jennifer, and she mistakes them for creepy, sex-hungry predators. Not quite. Somehow a fire gets started and Needy and Jennifer narrowly escape. The leader singer of the band, who mysteriously made it out of the bar without a scratch, offers the girls a ride in the band’s creepy van, which Needy later labels “an 89 rapist.” Needy refuses but Jennifer, who appears frighteningly drugged or empty, or a combination of both, joins them.
Needless to say, things don’t get better from here on out. Jennifer shows up at Needy’s house sometime after getting into the band’s van. She’s covered in blood and proceeds to throw up some black substance in a moment so disgusting it borders on being comic. Jennifer abruptly leaves Needy, who is understandably freaked. The next day Jennifer is back at school and seemingly fine. Again, needless to say, something is weird. Well, I’ll just tell you up front: Jennifer has been turned into a succubus, who feeds on men to settle her generous appetite. How’d she turn out that way? Well, indie rock bands, it seems, sacrifice virgins to Satan when they want to get rich. Low Shoulder wasn’t counting on the fact that Jennifer “hasn’t been a virgin since junior high.” Long story short: sacrifice goes awry, and instead of dying, Jennifer is possessed by a very hungry demon.
What does that mean for the male population of their high school? Well, I think you get the picture. What proceeds is a gory, rapid-pace send up of high school, Needy spouting such lines as, “I mean, she’s actually evil. Not high school evil.” The dialogue comes quick, some of it soars and some of it falls flat. One of Cody’s inventions is the use of “jell-o” to mean jealous, something Jennifer calls Needy. It’s an interesting idea but it doesn’t actually sound too great as its being said. Very few lines were as noteworthy as the plethora of quotes found in that other Diablo Cody movie that I’ve now vowed to stop mentioning.
One problem with Jennifer’s Body is that it’s never very scary. I understand the desire to balance the horror with comedy. But that means there has to be some of both. I found myself laughing on numerous occasions. But I was never scared. Even the scene in which Jennifer shows up at Needy’s place unexpectedly failed to be frightening. Dramatic music cues only work so often. I don’t want to spoil the scene but trust me; there isn’t much to spoil. What the film does contain is gore, not abrasively so but enough to please horror aficionados. The film doesn’t shy away either, we see plenty of re-distributed organs lying all over the place. A scene in which Jennifer seduces a thickheaded jock in the forest surrounding their high school is actually very funny. It seems animals of all sorts know when someone is about to get the axe on their territory.
The plusses: Seyfried is great. She makes Needy insecure and confused, she’s sympathetic but is ultimately willing to stick up for herself. Those big eyes opened wide in fear, you also get the impression that this girl is finally able to see what her teen friend has become. It’s a terrible realization, and Seyfried perfectly captures the pain and strength in having to accept this fact. The film is also genuinely funny. One scene, in which Needy and Chip are having sex, received the biggest howls from the audience of any other scene. Needy, seeing visions of the victims of Jennifer, becomes increasingly frightened and Chip mistakes her excitement for sexual pleasure.
The not so good: well, I can’t say that Fox is particularly good. She’s necessarily bitchy and unlikable, but she’s also void of any subtlety or nuance. When Jennifer is meant to betray one moment of insecurity towards the end of the film, Fox’s delivery was flat. However, she accomplishes what the film’s advertising campaign meant to highlight in the first place: sex appeal. Jennifer the character is supposed to be nothing more than a walking, insecure, and bitchy hormone anyway.
Karyn Kusama’s direction is effective, not particularly polished, but not oppressive. What she fails to do is give the movie the necessary baggage. The film does feel slight. You begin to forget many of the scenes that weren’t especially dramatic.
Jennifer’s Body is by no means perfect. But it has moments of charm. The woman-empowerment message gets lost in the muddle of one-liners and Megan Fox body shots, but the film’s aspirations aren’t completely squandered. It’s certainly more enjoyable than spending some actual time in your high school.
Cabin Fever
Oh, what high expectations I had! Vintage throwback to 80's horror flicks! Scary and "greusomely funny"! It can't be! Well, yes, I guess that part was right. It can't be. Or at least not for "Cabin Fever", Eli Roth's gruesomely stupid horror flick about a flesh eating virus that rampages as quickly through a group of bone-headed college students as Roth discards various directorial influences. His film would be good if it wasn't so bad.
The students in question are as annoying as you could believe. Our hero is Paul (Rider Strong), that nice guy that horror movies love, the one that loves the bitchy blond girl Karen (Jordan Ladd), that the audience is maybe supposed to think is somehow less shallow than her cohorts. Think again. We have the oversexed couple, Cerina Vincent and Joey Kern, as Mary and Jeff. And then there's James DeBello as Bert, that douche-bag character that tells amusing anedotes about masturbation and shoots squirrels because "they're gay". Our protagonists (I use the word "protagonists" loosely) have rented a cabin in the woods of that kind of backwoods town that only exists in movies anymore. They get there, the couple has sex, the baffoon goes hunting, and the two non-lovebirds dance around each others feelings without coming to any definite conclusions. I'm bored just writing about their escapades.
Well, eventually, the flesh-eating disease has to factor in. Oh yeah, I forgot to tell you: proceeding our introduction to the idiots, we were served a prologue in which a man finds his dog affected by the terrible disease. Unfortunately, this may be one of the best scenes in the movie. It therefore only heightened my interest, which slowly was deflated over the course of the film.
Well, that man gets infected by the disease and catches up with our "protagonists" when Bert accidentally shoots him. The man complains of disease, Bert doesn't listen, doesn't tell friends of incident, man shows up again, "protagonists" don't know what to do, man tries to steal their car to go into town for help with his disease, they don't like that, attack him and car, one of them sets man on fire, he gets pushed into body of water, kids forget about him. Oh no, the man has now infected the water, the water which the kids will be drinking. They don't know what to do. They killed a man! Well, it's not long before Karen contracts the disease and is cast out like a leper by her friends. She's forced into the shed, where she grows increasingly sick. Who's next? Who will survive? Who cares?
Oh and then there is that random rabid dog that shows up who poses further threat for our "protagonists". I don't even remember how this dog came to be. It just kind of appeared like a bad horror flick convention.
So many scenes in "Cabin Fever" are without purpose. Eli Roth's random, unfunny cameo is maybe supposed to be ironic in its complete disconnection to the film. However, it's too brief to be truly funny and yet too long to be truly nonchalant. In short, it disrupts the flow of the film. "Cabin Fever" is the kind of film that will sacrifice all integrity to elicit cheap laughs.
Some of the film is well-directed and well-shot. The opening credits in which we presumably follow skin as it slowly encounters the disease effectively builds dread and apprehension while being visually interesting. Or the scene in which the dog chases an unfortunate victim, Eli makes the shot completely red in tent, a nice touch. His influences run very "The Evil Dead" but he's not a polished enough director to do anything interesting with these references. While "The Evil Dead" was aware of its terrible-ness and exploited it to grandiose, spectacularly B-movie effect, "Cabin Fever" is convinced it can simply be a good movie by being a bad one. Not quite.
The gruesomeness is oppressive, never scary and frankly more annoying. It is a constant reminder of the ways in which this movie could have been better. Never did the movie truly frighten me but maybe made me reconsider my digestion choices before watching certain films.
The random kid yelling "pancakes" might have been funny if I liked this film any more. As it stood, it felt pompous and gratingly in-joke-y. But Roth forget to let the audience in on the joke.
The performances are nothing noteworthy, the characters are presumably made to be so annoying we encourage their demises. Unfortunately, this was the case but only to an extent. I could only pray for their inevitable downfall. But I also prayed for the film's downfall. If I had never been introduced to these characters in the first place, I wouldn't have had to expend the energy to care.
The students in question are as annoying as you could believe. Our hero is Paul (Rider Strong), that nice guy that horror movies love, the one that loves the bitchy blond girl Karen (Jordan Ladd), that the audience is maybe supposed to think is somehow less shallow than her cohorts. Think again. We have the oversexed couple, Cerina Vincent and Joey Kern, as Mary and Jeff. And then there's James DeBello as Bert, that douche-bag character that tells amusing anedotes about masturbation and shoots squirrels because "they're gay". Our protagonists (I use the word "protagonists" loosely) have rented a cabin in the woods of that kind of backwoods town that only exists in movies anymore. They get there, the couple has sex, the baffoon goes hunting, and the two non-lovebirds dance around each others feelings without coming to any definite conclusions. I'm bored just writing about their escapades.
Well, eventually, the flesh-eating disease has to factor in. Oh yeah, I forgot to tell you: proceeding our introduction to the idiots, we were served a prologue in which a man finds his dog affected by the terrible disease. Unfortunately, this may be one of the best scenes in the movie. It therefore only heightened my interest, which slowly was deflated over the course of the film.
Well, that man gets infected by the disease and catches up with our "protagonists" when Bert accidentally shoots him. The man complains of disease, Bert doesn't listen, doesn't tell friends of incident, man shows up again, "protagonists" don't know what to do, man tries to steal their car to go into town for help with his disease, they don't like that, attack him and car, one of them sets man on fire, he gets pushed into body of water, kids forget about him. Oh no, the man has now infected the water, the water which the kids will be drinking. They don't know what to do. They killed a man! Well, it's not long before Karen contracts the disease and is cast out like a leper by her friends. She's forced into the shed, where she grows increasingly sick. Who's next? Who will survive? Who cares?
Oh and then there is that random rabid dog that shows up who poses further threat for our "protagonists". I don't even remember how this dog came to be. It just kind of appeared like a bad horror flick convention.
So many scenes in "Cabin Fever" are without purpose. Eli Roth's random, unfunny cameo is maybe supposed to be ironic in its complete disconnection to the film. However, it's too brief to be truly funny and yet too long to be truly nonchalant. In short, it disrupts the flow of the film. "Cabin Fever" is the kind of film that will sacrifice all integrity to elicit cheap laughs.
Some of the film is well-directed and well-shot. The opening credits in which we presumably follow skin as it slowly encounters the disease effectively builds dread and apprehension while being visually interesting. Or the scene in which the dog chases an unfortunate victim, Eli makes the shot completely red in tent, a nice touch. His influences run very "The Evil Dead" but he's not a polished enough director to do anything interesting with these references. While "The Evil Dead" was aware of its terrible-ness and exploited it to grandiose, spectacularly B-movie effect, "Cabin Fever" is convinced it can simply be a good movie by being a bad one. Not quite.
The gruesomeness is oppressive, never scary and frankly more annoying. It is a constant reminder of the ways in which this movie could have been better. Never did the movie truly frighten me but maybe made me reconsider my digestion choices before watching certain films.
The random kid yelling "pancakes" might have been funny if I liked this film any more. As it stood, it felt pompous and gratingly in-joke-y. But Roth forget to let the audience in on the joke.
The performances are nothing noteworthy, the characters are presumably made to be so annoying we encourage their demises. Unfortunately, this was the case but only to an extent. I could only pray for their inevitable downfall. But I also prayed for the film's downfall. If I had never been introduced to these characters in the first place, I wouldn't have had to expend the energy to care.
April Fool's Day (1986)
Ok, ok, so let's not beat around the bush. "April Fool's Day", directed by Fred Walton, is not always very scary. However, for a slasher flick, you could do worse. Trust me.
Jumping on the holiday horror themed bandwagon, "April Fool's Day" is a small little slasher flick about (surprise!) a group of college students who plan on spending the weekend at an isolated mansion to celebrate Spring Break. How does April Fool's Day figure in? You guessed it. It's the weekend leading up to April Fool's Day. Needless to say, the group's host, Muffy St. John (Deborah Foreman), has some gags planned. When the gang gets to the mansion, after a frightening accident involving a local deckhand, the games begin. Chairs with retractable legs, whoopie cushions, that sort of thing. And oh yeah, murder. But hey, that comes later. First our cast of characters are established as being the best of friends. We have Griffin O'Neal as the token druggie. Ken Olandt and Amy Steel as the handsome, "perceptive" couple that get a first taste of the murderous deeds being committed. Leah Pinsent stars as Nan Youngblood, the mawkish, book-wormy girl whose presence seems totally out-of-place. And oh yeah, Thomas F. Wilson as Arch Cummings, the jokester, horny boy (wait, isn't that an accurate representation of all the males in this movie? oh, never mind.). There are other characters in the film that I'm too lazy to go into detail about, but yeah, there's that couple we get to see having sex. Real important, right?
So, yeah, people start dying. Blah blah blah. They need to figure out who's doing it. Blah blah blah. As you an tell, the plot's not very original or at least until the end. I mean, it was only ever meant to serve the purpose of putting a bunch of horny young-ins in an isolated mansion so murder will inevitably ensue, right?
Well, surprisingly, the performances aren't terrible. Nothing to write home about but really, they didn't make me want to cry. That's always nice. Foreman's performance is a little obvious but hey, being a slasher afficionado for years, and sitting through many terribly slice-and-dicers, I've learned to pick and choose my battles. Foreman is warm when she needs to be, and is appropriately stressed/de-glammed when she needs to be. I appreciate that. Pinsent's absolutely fine. Again, for a film like this, I'm not especially picky. Actually, thankfully, no one was truly horrible enough to warrant a bad mention. Yay!
Ok, now you're wondering, does "April Fool's Day" deliver the goods? Well, it has some nice atmosphere and occasionally some nice suspense. On the murder front, the film is lacking. It's purposeful (damn, I'm trying not to give anything away, I feel like I already have, crap!) but still lacking. The gore quotient is almost nonexistent unless we're counting stab wounds and that sort of thing. However, there really are some nice set ups. A scene in which our "perceptive" couple goes to the attic looking for clues is effectively handled. The dark attic, shadows, a creepy painting. What more could you want! The climax that ensues is both scary and funny. Think of that! Unfortunately, some of the stuff surrounding these scenes aren't terribly engaging. The whole "oh, let me go down the well, that's a good idea, right?" ploy doesn't work on seasoned horror veterans any longer. Other murder scenes like when Arch gets his while searching the woods was just kind of dumb. And because the murder scenes are short and not very expressive, one feels they've been cheated out of a pay off. However, on the plus side, being one who doesn't mind but doesn't especially love gore, the whole less is more idea (or at least concerning the gore content) was pleasing.
The ending is really a reason to see this film. Some may feel cheated, and some will love its twisty-ness. I thought it was both stupid and fun at the same time. I kind of scoffed at its "aha!"-ness but also enjoyed that the film didn't feel the need to play exactly by the book. Ultimately, it may be the ending and the emphasis on build up rather than gore which sets this apart from the glut of 80's slasher flicks.
It's not perfect entertainment but it is entertainment all right. And that's all it ever had to be.
Jumping on the holiday horror themed bandwagon, "April Fool's Day" is a small little slasher flick about (surprise!) a group of college students who plan on spending the weekend at an isolated mansion to celebrate Spring Break. How does April Fool's Day figure in? You guessed it. It's the weekend leading up to April Fool's Day. Needless to say, the group's host, Muffy St. John (Deborah Foreman), has some gags planned. When the gang gets to the mansion, after a frightening accident involving a local deckhand, the games begin. Chairs with retractable legs, whoopie cushions, that sort of thing. And oh yeah, murder. But hey, that comes later. First our cast of characters are established as being the best of friends. We have Griffin O'Neal as the token druggie. Ken Olandt and Amy Steel as the handsome, "perceptive" couple that get a first taste of the murderous deeds being committed. Leah Pinsent stars as Nan Youngblood, the mawkish, book-wormy girl whose presence seems totally out-of-place. And oh yeah, Thomas F. Wilson as Arch Cummings, the jokester, horny boy (wait, isn't that an accurate representation of all the males in this movie? oh, never mind.). There are other characters in the film that I'm too lazy to go into detail about, but yeah, there's that couple we get to see having sex. Real important, right?
So, yeah, people start dying. Blah blah blah. They need to figure out who's doing it. Blah blah blah. As you an tell, the plot's not very original or at least until the end. I mean, it was only ever meant to serve the purpose of putting a bunch of horny young-ins in an isolated mansion so murder will inevitably ensue, right?
Well, surprisingly, the performances aren't terrible. Nothing to write home about but really, they didn't make me want to cry. That's always nice. Foreman's performance is a little obvious but hey, being a slasher afficionado for years, and sitting through many terribly slice-and-dicers, I've learned to pick and choose my battles. Foreman is warm when she needs to be, and is appropriately stressed/de-glammed when she needs to be. I appreciate that. Pinsent's absolutely fine. Again, for a film like this, I'm not especially picky. Actually, thankfully, no one was truly horrible enough to warrant a bad mention. Yay!
Ok, now you're wondering, does "April Fool's Day" deliver the goods? Well, it has some nice atmosphere and occasionally some nice suspense. On the murder front, the film is lacking. It's purposeful (damn, I'm trying not to give anything away, I feel like I already have, crap!) but still lacking. The gore quotient is almost nonexistent unless we're counting stab wounds and that sort of thing. However, there really are some nice set ups. A scene in which our "perceptive" couple goes to the attic looking for clues is effectively handled. The dark attic, shadows, a creepy painting. What more could you want! The climax that ensues is both scary and funny. Think of that! Unfortunately, some of the stuff surrounding these scenes aren't terribly engaging. The whole "oh, let me go down the well, that's a good idea, right?" ploy doesn't work on seasoned horror veterans any longer. Other murder scenes like when Arch gets his while searching the woods was just kind of dumb. And because the murder scenes are short and not very expressive, one feels they've been cheated out of a pay off. However, on the plus side, being one who doesn't mind but doesn't especially love gore, the whole less is more idea (or at least concerning the gore content) was pleasing.
The ending is really a reason to see this film. Some may feel cheated, and some will love its twisty-ness. I thought it was both stupid and fun at the same time. I kind of scoffed at its "aha!"-ness but also enjoyed that the film didn't feel the need to play exactly by the book. Ultimately, it may be the ending and the emphasis on build up rather than gore which sets this apart from the glut of 80's slasher flicks.
It's not perfect entertainment but it is entertainment all right. And that's all it ever had to be.
American Beauty
For my first film reviewed I have chosen "American Beauty". Why? Well, "American Beauty" is most likely my favorite film on the planet. I get giddy thinking about it, I get pretentious when talking about it. Basically, its found a little nest in my heart in which to live. So, needing to be unbiased as a film reviewer, I must try over the course of this review to be level-headed and, yes, unbiased. It's a difficult task. But here I go:
"American Beauty", directed by Sam Mendes, is a terrific film (this isn't bias, this is simply the over-arching point of the review. I swear. Don't look at me that way!). It's funny, sad, disturbing, profound, dark, highly original, and amazingly realized. Written by Alan Ball, the creator of television's wonderful "Six Feet Under", "American Beauty" is a film with so many layers that you'd think it'd turn out to be a mess, a hodgepodge of a film. It doesn't. Instead, it is one of the funniest and most insightful films ever made about suburbia and the dark underbelly that its inhabitants try to ignore.
Kevin Spacey stars as Lester Burnham, a depressed, middle-aged suburban father whose life suddenly spins out of control when he forms a budding attraction to his 16 year-old daughter's best friend Angela (Mena Suvari). His daughter's name is Jane (Thora Birch), who Lester describes as "a pretty typical teenager. Angry, insecure, confused." His wife Carolyn (Annette Bening) is a frighteningly repressed real-estate agent, who equates feeling upset with failure. And Angela is the kind of blond, bitchy cheerleader that you knew in high school and hated. Lester works a dead-end job and his family thinks he's a loser. It was only a matter of time before he cracked. Intertwined with the Burnham's story is that of Ricky Fitts (Wes Bentley), the creepy next-door neighbor who films everything with his video camera and has developed an intense fascination with the sullen Jane. Ricky's father, Col. Fitts (Chris Cooper) is a bigoted, strict military man who is a burden on both his son and his wife, Barbara (Allison Janney). The two stories connect in interesting and surprising ways, and they never feel disjointed or disconnected.
The script is wonderful. As Jane walks towards the car in the morning, Carolyn comments "Jane, honey, are you trying to look unattractive?" to which Jane responds "Yes". Carolyn then quips, "Congratulations. You've succeeded admirably." Such interactions are bitingly funny and yet completely honest and true to life. Ball also shows a thoughtfulness concerning the events that unfold throughout the film. The plot doesn't sound like it should work, but presented here, it plays it out beautifully. The film is also incredibly brave for tackling so many issues, such as repression, sexuality, conformity, beauty, and redemption. I won't lie, I don't mind a pro-tolerance message. But "American Beauty" is so much more than liberal claptrap. It's art imitating life, its a mirror reflecting our own lives, and the elements of our lives which we don't love to admit to (okay, now I'm starting to get really pretentious. And I love that I think it's okay to be pretentious as long as I'm self-aware about it).
The performances are all superb, headed by Spacey's perhaps iconic depiction of Lester Burnham. His sardonic delivery is pitch-perfect and the role seems to fit Spacey like a glove. When Spacey says, "Janie, today I quit my job. And then I told my boss to go fuck himself, and then I blackmailed him for almost sixty thousand dollars. Pass the asparagus.", he finds both the humor and the honesty in this statement. In another actor's hands, this line might have seemed unrealistic and the delivery would most likely border on camp. Spacey balances the sarcasm and the reality, and therefore successfully milks the scene for all it's worth. Annette Bening as the repressed, materialistic Carolyn is also indelible. Although Carolyn is decidedly a caricature, Bening is amazingly adept at tapping into the human emotions behind this woman. The scene in which she breaks down after failing to sell a house is terrifying. Carolyn, afraid of failure, begins to slap herself in an attempt to stop crying. Then she wipes the tears away, recomposes herself, and walks away. Bening thoroughly understands this vital moment and how important it is for the complete comprehension of Carolyn as a character. She doesn't let it get away from her, and we are ultimately allowed to see the human inside of the caricature. Thora Birch's performance is good without being spectacular, she receives some of the weakest writing in the film and hence her performance suffers. Ball gives her little to work with, making the teens that surround her far more interesting. Bentley is terrific as Ricky and Suvari tackles the role of Angela with a fierce determination. It's sad, but by the end of the film, Angela proves to be a more intersting character than Jane. That is not the point the film was trying to make. Cooper is also wonderful in a role that borders on caricature as well. But like Bening, he found the beating heart behind his character.
The direction courtesy of Sam Mendes is truly outstanding work. He gives the film such a unique style and the necessary baggage to make "American Beauty" more than a soap opera for the big screen. Everything about the film is accomplished with such perfection. The list could go on and on. Conrad Hall's gorgeous cinematography, Thomas Newman's hauntingly beautiful score, etc., etc.
Well, I guess I let my love for this film get away from me again. The bad in "American Beauty": some lines do feel forced ("...not some horny geek boy whose going to spray his shorts every time I bring a girlfriend home from school. What a lame-o!") and as stated before, particular characters often border on caricature. However, the viewer hardly notices as they're being entranced by the film's terrific visuals (Angela lying in an ocean of rose petals? Come on? Tell me that didn't stick with you?) and its wonderful performances.
Of the ending, I can only say this: beautiful. For a film that is often cynical and vicious in its dissection of suburbia, the ending is a welcome, heart breaking, and ultimately life-affirming finish that has forever gone down as my favorite movie ending of all time. Ok, yeah, I am obnoxious about how much I love this film. Deal.
"American Beauty", directed by Sam Mendes, is a terrific film (this isn't bias, this is simply the over-arching point of the review. I swear. Don't look at me that way!). It's funny, sad, disturbing, profound, dark, highly original, and amazingly realized. Written by Alan Ball, the creator of television's wonderful "Six Feet Under", "American Beauty" is a film with so many layers that you'd think it'd turn out to be a mess, a hodgepodge of a film. It doesn't. Instead, it is one of the funniest and most insightful films ever made about suburbia and the dark underbelly that its inhabitants try to ignore.
Kevin Spacey stars as Lester Burnham, a depressed, middle-aged suburban father whose life suddenly spins out of control when he forms a budding attraction to his 16 year-old daughter's best friend Angela (Mena Suvari). His daughter's name is Jane (Thora Birch), who Lester describes as "a pretty typical teenager. Angry, insecure, confused." His wife Carolyn (Annette Bening) is a frighteningly repressed real-estate agent, who equates feeling upset with failure. And Angela is the kind of blond, bitchy cheerleader that you knew in high school and hated. Lester works a dead-end job and his family thinks he's a loser. It was only a matter of time before he cracked. Intertwined with the Burnham's story is that of Ricky Fitts (Wes Bentley), the creepy next-door neighbor who films everything with his video camera and has developed an intense fascination with the sullen Jane. Ricky's father, Col. Fitts (Chris Cooper) is a bigoted, strict military man who is a burden on both his son and his wife, Barbara (Allison Janney). The two stories connect in interesting and surprising ways, and they never feel disjointed or disconnected.
The script is wonderful. As Jane walks towards the car in the morning, Carolyn comments "Jane, honey, are you trying to look unattractive?" to which Jane responds "Yes". Carolyn then quips, "Congratulations. You've succeeded admirably." Such interactions are bitingly funny and yet completely honest and true to life. Ball also shows a thoughtfulness concerning the events that unfold throughout the film. The plot doesn't sound like it should work, but presented here, it plays it out beautifully. The film is also incredibly brave for tackling so many issues, such as repression, sexuality, conformity, beauty, and redemption. I won't lie, I don't mind a pro-tolerance message. But "American Beauty" is so much more than liberal claptrap. It's art imitating life, its a mirror reflecting our own lives, and the elements of our lives which we don't love to admit to (okay, now I'm starting to get really pretentious. And I love that I think it's okay to be pretentious as long as I'm self-aware about it).
The performances are all superb, headed by Spacey's perhaps iconic depiction of Lester Burnham. His sardonic delivery is pitch-perfect and the role seems to fit Spacey like a glove. When Spacey says, "Janie, today I quit my job. And then I told my boss to go fuck himself, and then I blackmailed him for almost sixty thousand dollars. Pass the asparagus.", he finds both the humor and the honesty in this statement. In another actor's hands, this line might have seemed unrealistic and the delivery would most likely border on camp. Spacey balances the sarcasm and the reality, and therefore successfully milks the scene for all it's worth. Annette Bening as the repressed, materialistic Carolyn is also indelible. Although Carolyn is decidedly a caricature, Bening is amazingly adept at tapping into the human emotions behind this woman. The scene in which she breaks down after failing to sell a house is terrifying. Carolyn, afraid of failure, begins to slap herself in an attempt to stop crying. Then she wipes the tears away, recomposes herself, and walks away. Bening thoroughly understands this vital moment and how important it is for the complete comprehension of Carolyn as a character. She doesn't let it get away from her, and we are ultimately allowed to see the human inside of the caricature. Thora Birch's performance is good without being spectacular, she receives some of the weakest writing in the film and hence her performance suffers. Ball gives her little to work with, making the teens that surround her far more interesting. Bentley is terrific as Ricky and Suvari tackles the role of Angela with a fierce determination. It's sad, but by the end of the film, Angela proves to be a more intersting character than Jane. That is not the point the film was trying to make. Cooper is also wonderful in a role that borders on caricature as well. But like Bening, he found the beating heart behind his character.
The direction courtesy of Sam Mendes is truly outstanding work. He gives the film such a unique style and the necessary baggage to make "American Beauty" more than a soap opera for the big screen. Everything about the film is accomplished with such perfection. The list could go on and on. Conrad Hall's gorgeous cinematography, Thomas Newman's hauntingly beautiful score, etc., etc.
Well, I guess I let my love for this film get away from me again. The bad in "American Beauty": some lines do feel forced ("...not some horny geek boy whose going to spray his shorts every time I bring a girlfriend home from school. What a lame-o!") and as stated before, particular characters often border on caricature. However, the viewer hardly notices as they're being entranced by the film's terrific visuals (Angela lying in an ocean of rose petals? Come on? Tell me that didn't stick with you?) and its wonderful performances.
Of the ending, I can only say this: beautiful. For a film that is often cynical and vicious in its dissection of suburbia, the ending is a welcome, heart breaking, and ultimately life-affirming finish that has forever gone down as my favorite movie ending of all time. Ok, yeah, I am obnoxious about how much I love this film. Deal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)