| |
The Adventures of Robin Hood ****
USA: Michael Curtiz/William Keighley, 1938
IMDB reference
|
| |
(*) Miami Vice *½
USA: Michael Mann, 2006
(Watched with commentary by Michael Mann)
IMDB reference
|
| |
Miami Vice *½
USA: Michael Mann, 2006
I've never seen the 80s TV series on which this film is based, so I really didn't know what to expect.
All I can say is that I'm glad this was a review copy and thus something I didn't have to pay for, except with the two hours and twenty minutes of my life that I'll never get back. Miami Vice is an incoherent mess, an eyesore and assault on the ears. It's one hundred and forty minutes of Colin Farrell and Jamie Foxx slicking back their hair and/or adjusting their shades as they swagger around various seaside locations with their jaws firmly set and their designer shades glinting in the sunlight. The plot feels like your average 45-minute cop show stretched out to beyond the normal length of a feature film, while the characters are nothing more than mere archetypes who spit out corny dialogue and offer us glaring insights into their tedious and insincere emotions.
Style-wise, the film is all over the place. Mann shot it using a combination of traditional 35mm and 1080p high definition. Some of it looks fine, but the night scenes look absolutely vile, filled with obnoxious amounts of digital noise. Meanwhile, a whole lot of scenes have what can only be described as a motion blur effect, presumably the result of shooting the footage interlaced and then deinterlacing it for the final transfer. Mann used similar techniques on his previous film, Collateral, and they were just as bad there. If this is the future of cinema, I think I'd prefer to remain in the past. Oh, and the camerawork is dreadful, too: I get that Mann wanted to convey a sense of urgency, but when your viewpoint is jittering all of the place, Blair Witch-style, I feel ready to vomit rather than being drawn into the action.
Not recommended.
IMDB reference
|
| |
(*) An American Werewolf in London ****
USA/UK: John Landis, 1981
IMDB reference
|
| |
Masters of Horror: Pelts (TV) **½
USA/Canada: Dario Argento, 2006
It's no secret that I didn't think much of Jenifer, Dario Argento's first episode in the Masters of Horror anthology series. Actually, that's something of an understatement: I thought it was phenomenally bad, dethroning The Phantom of the Opera from its position as the worst thing he'd ever directed. Its problem, for me, was that it could have been directed by anyone - and by that I don't mean that it didn't "look like an Argento film" (whatever that means), which is what the episode's defenders invariably try to twist my words into. Rather, it was the sort of bland, anonymous point-and-shoot affair that any semi-competent director for hire could have pulled off. Basically, if it hadn't said "a film by Dario Argento" at the start, virtually no-one would have paid it a blind bit of notice, making the decision to fly Argento over from Italy to direct it a rather pointless endeavour. Jenifer was more a vehicle for its star/writer Steven Weber than for Argento, making the decision to market the episode around Argento's name rather than Weber's disingenuous at best, downright dishonest at worst.
As such, I was prepared for more of the same with Pelts, his contribution to the show's second season. My expectations were so low that I couldn't possibly have been disappointed, and as such it's perhaps not entirely surprising that Pelts is better than I expected. Certainly, it's still pretty clear that Argento is slumming it, calling "cut" and "action" and picking up a pay-cheque for his efforts, and it's still pretty near the bottom of the barrel as far as his impressive filmography goes, but it's nowhere near as embarrassing as Jenifer. Heavily flawed, sure; ultimately pointless, of course; but this time at least there are a few hints to suggest that a filmmaker with actual talent is behind the lens.
The plot, this time, is somewhat more suited to the tastes of Argento, a vegetarian who has owned several cats and believes we should be doing more to protect the rights of insects. Basically, a poacher (John Saxon, who previously appeared in Argento's classic Tenebre - that's two big names slumming it) and his dimwitted hick son butcher a bunch of raccoons (or "coons", as they call them, in one of the script's less than subtle racism allegories), with an eye to making a tidy profit on what they both agree are the finest pelts ever seen. Junior bashes in Papa's head with a baseball bat, however, prior to mashing his own face in one of the loathsome pair's own gin-traps. Enter Jake (Meat Loaf - yes, Meat Loaf), the furrier to whom the pair intended to sell their goods. Seemingly unconcerned by the two dead bodies in front of him, Jake pockets the pelts and, stricken by their beauty, plots to make the finest coat known to man - with an eye to convincing his favourite lap-dancer, Shanna (Ellen Ewusie), to let him fuck her in the ass (I'm not making this up).
The film's most impressive moments come during the opening titles, which are set against moody shots of the furrier's various pieces of equipment, most of them dripping with blood. Argento certainly lays on the gore thick and fast here, some of it successfully, some of it not. Of the various extended death scenes, the best is that of a seamstress who sews up her own eyes, nostrils and mouth (nearly all of the deaths are self-inflicted). Less impressive is that of a man who tears out his own innards: it's just the same Z-grade schlock peddled by Troma, only with more convincing effects. Likewise, the cinematography, by Attila Szalay (who also shot Jenifer), is highly variable: the scenes in the strip-club are the best, with copious amounts of red, blue and purple back-lighting that at times manages to evoke that of Suspiria, albeit greatly toned down; many of the exteriors, however, look flat and lifeless, with Jake's visit to the poachers' hut looking as bad as Jenifer in terms of lack of imagination. By and large, though, this "film's" look is a massive step up from that of its predecessor.
Script and acting are another story, however. The plot was adapted by first-timer Matt Venne from a short story by F. Paul Wilson. I've not read the source material, but I can't imagine it being particularly inspiring, given that it's essentially just a series of grisly suicides, seemingly stemming from coming into contact with the pelts. As such, you can find the same themes of transferral and infection of the mind that are present in Jenifer if you want to attach an auteurist reading to these episodes - personally, I don't. These are not "Dario Argento films" in the traditional sense, given that he receives no writing credits on them, instead seemingly having picked his favourite from a list of pre-existing screenplays. The performances, meanwhile, verge on embarrassing. Meat Loaf chews the scenery like nothing on earth, screaming, slavering and stomping around with a face that could curdle milk, while even the reliable John Saxon struggles to make anything of his one-dimensional role. The characters are all flat in the extreme, as it happens, and Argento, presumably realising he wasn't going to get anything approaching a decent performance out of Ellen Ewusie, instead has her spend the bulk of her screen-time with her breasts out. Oh, and there's a good old-fashioned gratuitous girl-on-girl sex scene too - the Masters of Horror team presumably think that this sort of thing, in addition to gallons of karo syrup, can be considered "pushing the boundaries", but it all reeks a little of desperation. The two women look so uncomfortable during their sex scene that it's hard not to feel sorry for them.
I don't really have much else to say. It's better than Jenifer, but once again it uses the Argento name to market a generic, poorly-written splatterfest that any number of no-name directors for hire could have pulled off. The Argento of old would have been able to direct this sort of thing blindfolded and with one arm behind his back, but at least there are a handful glimpses of the old spirit, even if they are present here in a greatly dumbed down form. Pelts is ultimately really just a means to an end - apparently it is thanks to his Masters of Horror work that The Third Mother is being made at all. Them's the breaks, I guess, and, as such, I'm willing to accept half-baked Argento if it ultimately leads to some sort of a return to form.
IMDB reference
|
| |
Lovers, Liars and Lunatics ***½
USA: Amber Benson, 2006
If Amber Benson is one thing, it's committed. During the production of Buffy the Vampire Slayer's fifth season, she juggled appearances on that show with work on her own independent project, an offbeat comedy called Chance, on which she served as lead actor, writer, producer and director. The film, shot on video with a budget of $25,000, was decidedly rough around the edges, but ultimately quite charming for all its eccentricities, and showed the multi-faceted Benson's talent for writing quirky yet believable characters.
Fast forward four years, and her second film, on which she returns as star, writer, producer and director, and also adds film editor to her roster of talents, has just been released on DVD, like Chance sold directly through her production company, Benson Entertainment. Exactly how much it cost to make is unclear, but it seems to have been funded, at least partially, through a series of fund-raisers, auctions of personal possessions and of a series of Willow and Tara action figures. From the first film, it's clear that a lot has changed. The source material is now 35mm film, and the camera setups are considerably more ambitious than those of its predecessor. It's not always successful - there are some instances of truly bizarre framing, a handful of shots in which the focus is on something other than the main point of attention, and some rather problematic moments that lack establishing shots, making it difficult to get a feeling for the geography and positions of the various characters - but by and large the film has a slicker, more professional feel than that of Chance. Jakobine Motz's cinematography is functional rather than particularly impressive (the lighting is rather flat), but, with the move from video to film, Benson has abandoned the hand-held, quasi-documentarian format of the previous film in favour of something more controlled. On the aural front, the dialogue recording is sometimes a little ropey, but the orchestral score, which kicks in occasionally but effectively, helps paper over the cracks.
The plot, meanwhile, is enough to sustain the 87-minute running time, but isn't hugely substantial. Essentially, two incompetent robbers break into a suburban household, but quickly find themselves caught up in the neurotic family's own dysfunctional relationships. Benson, this time, although given title billing, takes more of a back seat as far as acting goes, given that this is, for all intents and purposes, an ensemble piece, with eight main roles and a handful of secondary parts. The black humour of Chance, meanwhile, is maintained throughout, although the actors are at times hamstrung by a script that is very talky - Benson's other writing credits are primarily as a novelist, and it shows in what appears to be an intermittent reluctance to show things visually (characters will frequently mutters to themselves phrases like "Fucking bitch!" and "I hate him!", which should be self-evident to even the least attentive viewer.
The film also ends on something of a false note with a conclusion that seems intended partially to be blackly comedic and partially to be shocking: in a sense, the abrupt change of tone results in an ending that seems too dark to be successful given the film's otherwise light-hearted tone.
Despite these problems, though, it's hard not to admire the film for its bare-faced enthusiasm. Yes, it's considerably slicker than Chance and, to some extent, more market-friendly (the narrative is more conventionally linear, there are no monologues to the camera, no guitar-strumming troubadours entering the scene to narrate the plot, and Benson has reigned in her use of the word "cunt"), but it's still an odd and distinctive film with a decidedly hand-made feel to it. I'm not sure exactly how many people are going to end up seeing it, as the $30-33 (depending on whereabouts in the world you're located) price tag, plus the fact that the DVD can only be ordered from the official web site, will put a lot of people off, but it deserves an audience.
IMDB reference
|
| |
|
|
Movies
Welcome to the movie checklist!
This section is an archive listing every movie I've seen from January 1 2005 onwards. Films I have already seen are included and will be marked with a (*), but probably won't be reviewed except under special circumstances. I will be including a rating for each film (in stars, out of 5), and hope to be able to include a brief 1-2 paragraph review of each film, although due to time constraints that won't always be possible.
Archives
Films Viewed This Month
|
|
