Category Archives: Film Review

A Quickie With Lisa Marie: Green Lantern (dir. by Martin Campbell)

Posted on by Lisa Marie Bowman

So, earlier tonight, I was sitting in a dark theater watching the latest super hero film, Green Lantern.  Now, Green Lantern is getting some terrible reviews right now and having seen it, I can understand why.  That said, Green Lantern is not an offensively terrible movie in the way that Priest, The Beaver, or The Conspirator were terrible films.  Instead, Green Lantern’s main problem is that it’s just so freaking forgettable.  To be honest, I found myself forgetting about it while I was watching it.  So, this isn’t going to be an easy review to write.

(This is also why this is a quickie review.  I mean, I’ll make some noise for a few minutes and I’ll try to come up with something halfway neat for the end of it but don’t ask me if I really felt anything.)

Since I realized I was forgetting about the movie even as I was watching it, I decided to use social media to help me out.  Blatantly ignoring the rules (but that’s why you love me, baby), I spent most of the film texting and tweeting.  I’m pretty sure I heard the people sitting behind me whining about it but who cares?  I did what I had to do.

Anyway, checking my texts, I find the following conversation:

Text from LMB (that’s me) to ENB (that’s my sister, Erin): Hey bitch where you at?

ENB to LMB: WTF, bitch?  I’m sitting next to you in the theater.

LMB to ENB: Hi, Erin!  lol. : )

Okay, so that’s not much help but it does tell you just how engaging this film is.  I had the choice of either watching Green Lantern or sending text messages to my sister who was sitting right next to me and I chose to send text messages.

I also resorted to posting a few cryptic messages to twitter, with the hope that they would serve to remind  me of what I was watching.  Here they are:

Tweet #1: About to see Green Lantern. : ) — See, I didn’t start this film out with a bad attitude.  I was looking forward to it.

Tweet #2: Old ppl always take forever buying tickets — What’s up with that?  I would think they would be in a hurry seeing as how they’ve got less time to see a movie than I do.  Just saying.

Tweet #3: We need a super hero named Red Herring — I sent this tweet just 15 minutes into the film but it shows that I had already picked up on the main problem with this film.  There’s a lot going on but it all feels like it’s just been spit out by some script-o-matic sitting hidden behind the Hollywood sign.  It just doesn’t ever really add up to anything beyond a sinking feeling of been there, done that. 

Ryan Reynolds is haunted by flashbacks of his father dying.  Why?  Because Scriptwriting 101 says that the hero has to have some sort of self-doubt to overcome. 

When we first see Ryan Reynolds, he’s lying in bed with a naked blonde.  Who is she?  What happens to her?  Why does Reynolds, at no other point in the film, seem to be the type who would have a one night stand with some anonymous blonde?

Reynolds joins the Green Lantern Corp. when he gets a glowing green ring.  All the other members of the Corp. doubt him because he’s human but then they say that the ring never makes a mistake.  Okay, so if the ring is incapable of making a mistake and the ring chose Reynolds than why is everyone so convinced that Reynolds can’t cut it as the Green Lantern?

Seriously, it’s as if someone just wrote out a list of plot points and some anonymous script doctor just went down the list, checking off everything as he tossed it into the mix.

Plus, I think Red Herring would be a cool super hero.  He could have the power of creating mass distraction and he could be the sidekick of my super heroine alter ego, Lady Verbose.

Tweet #4: Lol, cockpit is a funny word — I believe the exact line that inspired this tweet was something like: “And I still get into a cockpit occasionally.”  It just made me laugh because cockpit is a funny word, largely because it’s a combination of cock and pit.  Anyway, that is honestly the only line of dialogue that I actually remember from the film.  As action and comic book movies tend to live and die on the basis of the quotable one-liner, that’s not a good sign.

Tweet #5: Green Lantern kinda bleh but Ryan Reynolds is mancandy — And you know what?  He is.  Green Lantern may have been forgettable but Ryan Reynolds made a likable hero and he brought some much-needed humor to the role.  To be honest, as I look back at the various Green super hero movies, I can’t help but wonder how much better Green Hornet would have been if it had starred Ryan Reynolds as opposed to Seth Rogen.  (I love you, Seth, but the super hero thing just isn’t for you.)

Also, Peter Sarsgaard did a pretty good job playing a surprisingly sympathetic villain.  Both he and Reynolds deserved a better film. 

Other than Sarsgaard and Reynolds, the cast was pretty forgettable but then again, it’s not like they really had much to work with.  I have to be honest, though, that I am now officially bored with Tim Robbins.  He shows up here playing yet another insensitive rich white guy.  As usual, you don’t really buy him as the character because he’s just too obviously Tim Robbins.

Tweet 6: Lets not go to Camelot. Its a silly place. — I think this was inspired by all the scenes that were set on the home planet of the Green Lantern Corps.  (That’s the group that Reynolds becomes a member of.)  These scenes were obviously meant to inspire awe but they just felt silly.  In the film’s defense, some of the special effects — particularly the evil entity known as Parallax — are impressive but, for almost every impressive special effect, there was another that just fell flat (which is never a good thing for a 3-D film).

Tweet #7: Sinestro is a silly name. — Sinestro, played by Mark Strong, is the leader of the Green Lantern Corp.  And Sinestro is a really silly name.

Tweet #8: Why not just call him Eviltro? — Well, why not?

Scenes I Love: The Montage from The Parallax View

Posted on by Lisa Marie Bowman

In Alan J. Pakula’s 1974 film The Parallax View, Warren Beatty plays a seedy journalist who goes undercover to investigate the links between the mysterious Parallax Corporation and a series of recent political assassinations.  The film is a masterpiece of a paranoia, the type of film that makes you want to check under your bed for listening devices before you go to sleep in the morning.  In the film’s most famous sequence, Beatty — pretending to be a job applicant (read: potential assassin) for the Parallax Corporation — is shown an orientation film that has been designed to test whether or not he’s a suitable applicant.  This film turns out to be a nightmarish montage of rage, insecurity, fear, Oedipal psychosis, and — oddly enough — comic book super heroes.  The montage is shown in its entirety, without once cutting away to show us Beatty’s reaction.  The implication, of course, is that what’s important isn’t how Beatty reacts to the film but how the viewers sitting out in the audience react.

So, at the risk of furthering the conspiracy, here’s that montage.

(By the way, Oswald acted alone.)

Review: La Horde (dir. by Benjamin Rocher and Yannick Dahan)

Posted on by Arleigh

“When the dead come for you, there’s no place left to run.”

Most zombie films tend to be average at best, often falling into outright mediocrity. Because this subgenre is relatively easy to create, many aspiring filmmakers believe they can produce the next standout hit with just an HD camera, a modest budget, and a cast drawn from friends and family. Naturally, this formula has led most zombie movies to occupy the low end of the horror genre in terms of quality. However, every so often, a truly exceptional film emerges. Edgar Wright’s Shaun of the Dead became an instant classic by blending horror with comedy, and Zack Snyder’s remake of Romero’s Dawn of the Dead delivered intense, action-packed thrills.

The 2009 French horror film La Horde—directed by Benjamin Rocher and Yannick Dahan—leans toward Snyder’s style. It strips away societal commentary, opting instead for raw action and relentless gore. This might suggest a mindless movie, but La Horde proves to be as engaging and nihilistic as Snyder’s film, perhaps even more so by its conclusion.

The directors spare no time on exposition, diving straight into the plot. The story follows a group of French police officers—most likely narcotics agents—who plan to take revenge on a Nigerian crime lord responsible for killing one of their own. Their chosen battlefield is a dilapidated high-rise apartment complex in a crime-infested district of Paris. However, their operation quickly unravels when the ambush goes disastrously wrong. What begins as a gritty crime thriller transforms abruptly into an apocalyptic battle for survival, as the police and rival gang members are forced to join forces against a sudden zombie outbreak sweeping through Paris and possibly beyond.

Once the zombies arrive, the film shifts into high gear. The action and gore come fast and furious, skillfully choreographed and unflinching. Secondary characters are swiftly dispatched, leaving only the most capable to fight their way through a tenement overrun by fast, aggressive zombies akin to those in Snyder’s Dawn of the Dead or Boyle’s 28 Days Later. Though some purists might balk at sprinting zombies, they fit perfectly with the film’s frantic pace. Notably, the film does not attempt to explain the outbreak’s origin, leaving audiences as disoriented as the characters, glimpsing only fragmented news reports for context.

The remainder of the film is an intense descent through the building, with the survivors battling floor by floor in search of an exit and safety at a nearby military base. Choosing characters familiar with violence—cops, criminals, and a hardened local survivor—grounds their fierce will to survive in realism. Even the lone resident they encounter brings useful skills born from a violent past.

While La Horde does not offer complex character development, its finely tuned action scenes keep the audience fully engaged, masking the story’s simplicity. By the film’s end, viewers are likely to forgive any flaws, having been thoroughly entertained. A few characters, such as the composed officer Oussme (Jean-Pierre Martins) and the crime lord Markudi (Eriq Ebouaney), achieve extra depth, but most are archetypes serving the survival narrative. Still, this works well given the film’s focus on high-stakes survival.

Though La Horde never secured a major U.S. release, it gained attention on the international genre festival circuit starting in 2010. While it may primarily appeal to zombie and horror aficionados, it also offers plenty for action fans. Its brutal, relentless energy earns it a strong recommendation as an exhilarating experience from start to finish.

A Spawn of 6 More Trailers

Posted on by Lisa Marie Bowman

 

It’s Saturday and that can only mean that it’s time for 6 more deadly trailers in this latest edition of Lisa Marie’s Favorite Grindhouse and Exploitation Trailers.

1) Liz (197?)

Oh my God, I cannot begin to put into words how much I love this trailer.  It is just so shameless and obvious in its intentions and it typifies everything I love about grindhouse advertising.  I’ve never seen Liz or, to be honest, even heard of it before I came across this trailer.  However, just from watching the trailer, I get the feeling about a woman named Liz who has sex.

(By the way, did you know that the name Lisa originally started as a shortened version of the name Elizabeth?  So, this is yet another film that appears to be named after me.  I’m not saying that’s necessarily a good thing since it appears to be about a self-destructive nymphomaniac — yes, yes, I know — but I’m just saying.)

2) God Told Me To (1976)

Directed by Larry Cohen, God Told Me To is one of the best sci-fi/horror/urban thriller hybrids of all time.  Unfortunately, I don’t think this trailer quite does it justice but I’m including it here because this is a rare case where I love the movie more than the trailer.

3) Vigilante Force (1976)

“They were hired to clean up the town … instead, they cleaned it out!”  Actually, I take that back, my favorite line from this trailer is the one about “loving not wisely…but very well indeed.”

4) Mean Johnny Barrows (1976)

This is yet another 1970s Fred Williamson blaxploitation film.  This one not only features Williamson killing a lot of people but Roddy McDowall and Elliot Gould as well!

5) Blastfighter (1985)

From director Lamberto Bava comes this love story between a man and his gun.

6) The Deadly Spawn (1983)

I actually really love this trailer.  It’s got this likable “We got together one weekend and made a cheap sci-fi film” sort of vibe to it.

 

Film Review: Midnight in Paris (dir. by Woody Allen)

Posted on by Lisa Marie Bowman

Woody Allen’s latest film, Midnight in Paris, has an appealing premise behind it. 

Gil (Owen Wilson) is a Hollywood screenwriter who has come to Paris with his shallow fiancée Inez (Rachel McAdams) and her stuffy Republican parents (played by Kurt Fuller and Mimi Kennedy).  Disillusioned with American culture, Gil idealizes the Paris of the 1920s, the Paris that was home to Ernest Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and James Joyce.  However, Inez and her parents are far less impressed with Paris and, as quickly become clear, with Gil himself.  While Inez spends her time with self-important “intellectual” Paul (a bearded Michael Sheen), Gil takes to wandering the streets of Paris at night.

One night, as Gil wanders around Paris, a vintage car approaches out of the shadows and the two well-dressed passengers in the back seat invite Gil to join them.  Gil does so and discovers that he’s been transported back to 1920s Paris.  He meets everyone from Hemingway (Corey Stoll) to Salvador Dali (Adrien Brody) to F. Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald (Tom Hiddleston and Alison Pill).  At the end of the night, Gil finds himself transported back to modern-day Paris.  Soon, Gil finds himself sneaking out at midnight every night so he can escape to the past, where he eventually meets and starts to romance an idealistic model named Adrianna (Marion Cotillard).  While Gil finds himself torn between his modern life and the past that he loves, he also begins to discover that the inhabitants of the 20s feel the same way about their present as he does about his.

The premise of the film itself is likable and one that I think anyone can relate to.  Who doesn’t wish that they could go back in the past and live with all the amazing people who they’ve only read about?  Myself, there are many eras that I often fantasize about finding myself in.  1920s Paris is definitely one of them but I’ve also occasionally dreamed of being in 1950s New York, having a threesome with Kerouac and Cassady or maybe being in Paris during the early days of the French new wave, appearing in movies directed by Rollin, Truffaut and Godard.  Ever since I read Peter Biskind’s Easy Riders and Raging Bulls, there’s been a part of me that wishes so much I could have been out in Hollywood or New York in the 1970s, hanging out on the beach with directors like Martin Scorsese, William Freidkin, Jon Milius, and even Peter Bogdonavich.  (But especially Freidkin, his terrible charisma just radiates from the page.) 

Still, Allen is smart enough as a screenwriter to know that everyone tends to idealizes the past, even those who we now idealize in the present.  Perhaps my favorite part of the film came when Wilson, while in the 1920s, sees a character getting into a horse-drawn carriage so that she can go back to the time that she idealizes as fiercely as he idealizes the 20s.

Midnight in Paris has a lot to recommend it.  Cotillard, despite the fact that she’s played the same idealized French mystery woman about a thousand times, gives a likeable performance and Rachel McAdams is hilariously shallow.  Michael Sheen, as well, makes a perfect stand-in for every pompous, self-important jerk who has ever talked down to you.  On the basis of his cameo appearance here as Dali, Adrien Brody really needs to consider doing more comedy.  He’s a lot more appealing when he’s being funny than when he’s trying to be a leading man.

At the same time, I have to admit that I wanted to like Midnight in Paris more than I actually did.  I like Owen Wilson as both an actor and a writer but he’s a little bit miscast here and the end result is that he occasionally seems like he’s trying too hard.  You just never buy him and McAdams as a couple and, as such, there’s really not much at stake as far as his romance with Cotillard is concerned. 

As well, I found it hard not to be a little bit disappointed with the way Allen presented 1920s Paris.  Though they were all well-cast and acted, Hemingway, the Fitzgeralds, Gertrude Stein (Kathy Bates), and all the rest just fell flat as actual characters.  Gil gets a chance to go into the past and essentially, he discovers that Hemingway was macho, the Fitzgeralds were neurotic and self-destructive, and that Dali didn’t make much sense.  Personally, I would be a bit let down if I got a chance to meet these icons and I discovered that essentially they just acted the exact same way that they acted in various PBS educational programs.

Despite this, Midnight in Paris is still a likable, frequently engaging comedy that works best as a tribute to a legendary and beautiful city that Allen (not to mention myself) obviously loves.  Flaws and all, this movie made me want to visit Paris once again (though Florence and Venice remains my favorite cities of all time) and, for that reason alone, it makes Midnight in Paris a film worth seeing.

Review: Super 8 (dir. by J.J. Abrams)

Posted on by Arleigh

The 1980’s was a special time in my life. It was another phase in my development in loving film. That decade saw many films starring kids and teens in coming-of-age tales both comedic, thrilling, dramatic and poignant. While there were many filmmakers who delved into this genre it was Steve Spielberg who mined it to great effect culminating in his classic boy-meets-alien film, E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial. It’s been almost 30 years since the release of that film and now comes a filmmaker who seem to have grown up idolizing and loving Spielberg films of that era. The year is now 2011 and J.J. Abrams is that filmmaker who dared to pay homage to those very same coming-of-age Spielberg films of the 80’s with his very own simply titled Super 8.

From the very moment the film begins there’s a sense of wonderment as we, the audience, meet young kids who become the central characters of Super 8. The film takes place in the early days of 1979 in the town of Lillian, Ohio as Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney) tries to cope with the death of his mother. His friends keep him busy and dwelling on this tragedy through the Super 8 film they’re making in their spare time after school. These early scenes we begin to see the dynamics of the group as Joe acts as the calming influence on the group’s filmmaker, Charles (Riley Griffiths), the neurotic actor in Martin (Gabriel Basso) and the group’s stuntman/special effects tech in Carey (Ryan Lee). They all meet up at an old train depot where they plan to shoot scenes for their Super 8 zombie film. Into this eclectic group of kids comes in Alice (Elle Fanning) to play the wife to Martin’s detective character in their film.

It’s the scenes between the kids which lifts Super 8 from just being a nostalgic film to one that’s charming and magical. These scenes captures the creativity and youthful energy kids have always had no matter the era and place. These kids don’t act like stereotypes of what Hollywood thinks kids in films should act. There’s still little of the cynical teen dialogue that films nowadays give kids to say to make them seem more mature and worldly. There’s a sense of innocence in how these kids interact with each other. Some have called these scenes as being too on-the-nose nostalgic of Spielberg films of the 80’s. What some might call nostalgic I prefer to call as timeless. I still remember myself behaving with my childhood friends the way these kids did in this film

If Super 8 had just been about these group of kids trying to finish their Super 8 zombie film I conjunction with the dysfunction in the two main leads in Joe and Alice’s home life then Abrams film would’ve been the instant classic some have dubbed it. There’s only one problem with this and that’s the last half hour of the film and the scenes leading up to that involving the train derailment and the arrival of the U.S. Air Force to clean things up. The film begins to take on a split personality as these new elements get introduce to what has been a great coming-of-age story.

It’s these new elements and the final half hour which shows Abrams trying to combine a sweet story of kids and their lives growing up in small-town with an otherworldy and conspiracy tale that seem to come out of left field. By the time the final act of Super 8 arrives it becomes a different film altogether and the transition doesn’t work as well as the filmmakers might have hoped it would. Sure, this final reel has the thrills, explosions and danger, but the tonal shift in the story became so jarring that I had wished that Abrams just made two films instead of one. One film being the coming-of-age story and the other a thrilling sci-fi film.

Despite this I still enjoyed the film and I definitely loved the first two-thirds. The performances by Joel Courtney and Elle Fanning as Joe and Alice became the focal point for the story’s emotional foundation. Elle Fanning’s performance as Alice was one of the best things about Super 8. She nails every scene where she has to show extreme ranges of emotions but at the same time not try to oversell them. There’s a scene in the middle of the film where she begins to recount a personal detail as Joe sits behind her listening. Emotions begin to overwhelm her, but as kids moving towards teenhood are wont to do she tries to hold back the tears just waiting to flow freely and the sobs wanting to escapes. I wouldn’t be surprised if this scene alone had more than a couple people in the audience remembering similar events in their lives and just sobbing along with Alice.

Super 8 has been advertised as this mysterious film that may or may not have aliens but does pay homage to Spielberg and kid films of the 80’s. Abrams’ film definitely delivers on the thrills in the end, but it could’ve been so much more if it just stayed on course with just being about the kids and their magical time together making an amateur Super 8 zombie film in 1979. That would’ve been a film that deserved labels of instant classic.

All in all, Super 8 comes across as one of the more entertaining and magical films of the summer of 2011 if not the entire year. Make sure to stick around as the end credits roll to see the fruits of the kids labor titled simply as “The Case”.

6 Trailers That Will Save The World

Posted on by Lisa Marie Bowman

Welcome to another edition of Lisa Marie’s Favorite Grindhouse and Exploitation trailers.

1) Psychomania (1971)

Also known as the Death Wheelers.  This is one of those trailer that can pretty much speak for itself.  (Though I will point out that co-star George Sanders committed suicide shortly after filming completed.)

2) 10 Violent Women (1982)

Not surprisingly, this movie was directed by Ted V. Mikels.  What makes this trailer memorable (for me) is the blandly cheerful narration.  I don’t know who that is providing the narration but you hear his voice a lot as you explore the world of grindhouse trailers.

3) The Twilight People (1973)

Made in the Philippines (as were many exploitation films in the 60s and 70s — I always expect to hear someone say, “Made in the Philippines — where life is cheap!” whenever I watch one of these trailers), The Twilight People is best remembered for featuring Pam Grier as the Panther Woman.  I love how the trailers for Filipino exploitation films always seem to promise us that we’re in for “blood…blood…and more blood!” like some nightmarish 1950s feminine hygiene film.

4) Cop Killers (1973)

“Do you think we killed niiiiiiine people for nuthin, maaaaan?”  This trailer plays like one of the many “fake” grindhouse trailers that every toadsucker on Youtube is making nowadays.  (And, by the way, that trend is getting increasingly obnoxious as it’s obvious that a lot of these trailers are being made by jerks who have never even seen a genuine grindhouse film.)  However, Cop Killers is a real film and this is a real trailer.  Every time I go down to Half-Price books, I come across the DVD for this movie.  They want $9.00 for it.  And every time, I end up grabbing this DVD, planning on buying it, just to then come across a movie or book that I want more.  So, I haven’t seen Cop Killers yet but I’m sure that eventually, I’ll break down and get it.

5) Convoy Busters (1978)

Feel bad for all those cops getting killed Cop Killers?  Don’t worry, the fraternity of blue meanies got their revenge in plenty of other films, including this 1978 Italian film.  Convoy Busters was directed by Ruggero Deodat0 (of Cannibal Holocaust and House On The Edge of the Park fame) and is also known as Cop on Fire.  (Apparently, it was retitled to take advantage of the international success of Sam Peckinpah’s Convoy.)

6) The Psychic (1977)

This is the (very) American trailer for Lucio Fulci’s Murder To The Tune of Seven Black Notes.  This film is actually one of Fulci’s more subtle and interesting films and, considering that it’s a Fulci film without zombies or a huge amount of gore —  it has a surprisingly large number of fans (including Quentin Tarantino).  At the time of its release, however, it failed at the box office and so hurt Fulci’s reputation that the producers of Zombi 2 were able to hire him cheap whereas previously, they wouldn’t have been able to afford him.  Hence, it can be argued that the success of Zombi 2 was directly the result of the failure of The Psychic.  (That’s what we call the circle of life.)

Quick Review: John Carpenter’s The Thing

Posted on by Leonard Wilson

When I was little, my family used to have this cable service called WHT. I can’t remember what it stood for, but recall that it was a one channel station that would constantly show movies. It was like Starz for anyone who didn’t want to pony up the extra money for actual HBO at the time. Since it was set up at my Grandparents house (where I lived), sometimes we’d all gather around for a Movie Night on Saturdays. This is something my family’s done often during the years, and the current part of my family does this on Sundays now, premiering films we haven’t seen yet.

It was one of these Saturday nights that I first witnessed John Carpenter’s The Thing. I had to go to bed for it, being as young as I was for the film, but with the door open I could hear the music and sounds from my bed. At one point, I climbed out of the top bunk and snuck to the stairs, watching the film in my PJ’s. My family would get pretty engrossed with movies, so they never bothered to glance in my direction. After all, this was the first time any of them were seeing this film, and they all loved the original.

I was doing fine until that Husky’s head split open. If I just kept my mouth shut, I could have seen the whole film. After that, I couldn’t stop screaming, “Omigod! The doggie!!” I was met with cries of “Go to Bed!!” from just about everyone. Even though I climbed back into bed, there was no way I was able to fall asleep. Every gunshot, every yell caused me to bundle myself under my blankets with my eyes wide open.

Since then, The Thing has become a family favorite, a reliable go to film for any time it’s cold or rainy or dark. I even showcased it for my friends in Oregon who hadn’t seen it before and they also had almost the same reaction to that poor dog.

So, what is The Thing?

Other than maybe being John Carpenter’s strongest film (which many will argue, because there’s always a place for Big Trouble in Little China for me), it’s a great example of a work in progress that was just done and put to print. Like Jaws, the film ran into some problems. Special FX member Rob Bottin suffered from exhaustion from working so hard on the film. They had some issues with coming up with the final representation of The Thing that wouldn’t appear too cartoon-like or animatronic. There was even a fire during the taping of a huge effect shot involving a body ripping open because of the chemicals that were put into the latex workup. Even though the movie takes place in Antarctica (which I believe roughly 6 months of night), the film actually has a day and night cycle, having filmed in Juneau, Alaska. On top of that, with all of the money thrown at the film, it pretty much tanked at the box office. As quirky as all those elements are, the movie just works because of both the isolation of the characters, the trust issues that occur as a result of the events, and the claustrophobic space they live in. In some ways, it’s very similar to Ridley Scott’s Alien to me (sans the trust issues), but with much better lighting. The Thing is pretty much a cult classic at this point.

The story of The Thing is boosted if you’ve seen the original The Thing From Another World with the late James Arness, but it’s not a requirement. It starts off with a dog being chased by a helicopter, who manages to reach a Research Outpost in Antarctica, occupied by Twelve members. The crew soon discovers that that things aren’t exactly what they seem, but neither are they. Unlike the original movie, the creature in this film has the ability to absorb and mimic whatever organism comes into contact with (which actually is pretty creepy in its own right, that sense of violation). Trust plays a huge part in the story as the crew fight to save themselves while still trying to keep a close eye on who’s walking among them.

The atmosphere of the film is really augmented by the sound. As old as the film is, the sound quality holds up incredibly well on a surround system. The wind from the snow, bullets ricocheting, the panting of dogs and of course the dripping of blood all sound like someone put a microphone right up to all of them to capture it as best they could. The outpost, as big as it is, actually has a lot of narrow hallways with canisters stacked to the sides in many places, giving the place a cramped feel. Add to that Ennio Morricone’s haunting theme and you’ve got a recipe for horror. I mean, for someone who’s scored fantastic Westerns, one would think that Morricone and a Carpenter film might not gel well, but it really does.

Visually, compared to films today, The Thing is pretty tame for it’s effects, and some (the final rendering of the Thing itself, in particular) can be a little dated, but not so much that you should groan about it. At the time, however, it was considered gory (and I guess when you’re in shock on seeing a dog’s face split open, there’s someone smiling somewhere saying to themselves..”Yeah, that worked right there”).

The Thing marks another John Carpenter / Kurt Russell pairing. Russell’s R.J. MacReady is the figure we follow through the film. It’s through him that we try to make sense of everything going on. In one scene that involves him huddled in a corner with a flamethower and some dynamite, defending himself from his friends, you get the notion that you want to be on that guy’s side. Even if following him means getting blown up to a million pieces, because it really becomes difficult to trust anyone in this film. Paranoia plays a huge role.

The cast is rounded out by a few other notable members. Richard Dysart (L.A. Law, Prophecy) plays Doc Copper, and is actually pretty good here. Keith David (Requiem for a Dream, They Live) plays Childs, who really doesn’t believe in any of that “voodoo bullshit”. Thomas Waites (The Warriors) is Windows, who for me, represents the scared kid of the group. He’s not sure what’s up, he just wants to be away from it. Then, of course, you have Wilford Brimley, who seems to realize the problem but takes measures in his own hands rather telling the others just how bad things could get.

Overall, The Thing is highly recommended. I know there’s a remake in the works, and part of me is a little excited for it, hoping that it’s done well. I can’t imagine the filmmakers today running into half of the issues they had in the original.

The Thing also marks one of the best Director commentaries I’ve heard. If you have a chance to watch the film with the Director track on (which I believe Russell also has a hand in with Carpenter in talking about the film), it’s pretty interesting what they elaborate on. Also noteworthy (and funny) is Rob Bottin’s story on the effect sequence that started a fire.  That’s definitely worth a listen.

What Lisa Marie Watched Last Night: Myra Breckinridge (dir. by Michael Sarne)

Posted on by Lisa Marie Bowman

Last night, as I struggled to get some sleep, I ended up turning on the television to HBO and watching a truly infamous film — 1970’s Myra Breckenridge.  Based on a novel by Gore Vidal (a writer that I generally have little use for), Myra Breckinridge is infamous for being one of two X-rated film released by 20th Century Fox in 1970.  (The other one was Russ Meyer’s Beyond The Valley of the Dolls.)

Why Was I Watching It?

Because I’ve read a lot of books devoted to “the worst films ever made.”  And all of them mention 1970’s Myra Breckinridge as being one of the worst ever made.  And having seen the film, I can say that they’re right.

What’s It About?

Well, that’s a good question.  Okay, there’s a bisexual film critic named Myron Breckinridge (played by an actual film critic named Red Reed).  Myron gets a sex change operation from a pot-smoking doctor played by John Carradine.  “It won’t grow back,” Carradine warns him.

Next thing you know, Myron is Myra and is now being played by Raquel Welch.  Pretending to be Myron’s window, Myra goes to the acting school that is run by Myron’s uncle Buck (John Huston) and ends up falling in love with an acting student (played, pretty badly in her film debut, by Farrah Fawcett).  Unfortunately, Fawcett’s in love with a cowboy from Oklahoma so Myra ends up anally raping the cowboy with a big dildo.

Oh, and a 70 year-old Mae West in the film for some reason.  She plays a talent agent. 

It all sounds a lot more interesting than it actually is.

What Worked?

Nothing.  Just in case I’m not being clear, allow me to clarify: Nothing.  Seriously, this may indeed be the worst movie I have ever actually sat through.  What’s said is that it didn’t even work on a “so-bad-its-good” level.  I love trashy film but Myra Breckinridge isn’t really interesting enough to be trashy.  It’s just an amazingly boring film that thinks it’s about sex. 

I’ve also read some who have claimed that this film, bad as it is, has a certain camp appeal.  And, if you’ve never actually seen a campy film, you might think that Myra Breckinridge is camp.  However, camp is not boring.  Myra Breckinridge is.

Actually, there is one scene that has an odd, “you’ve-got-to-see-this-crap” appeal to it and here it is.  Mae West sings “Hard to Handle.” 

What Doesn’t Work:

The entire freaking film.  Seriously.  I mean, I don’t even know where to begin or what specifically to point out because, if you simply take this film’s failings on a problem-by-problem basis, it creates the false impression that the film is somewhat watchable. 

Okay, here’s a few things that I simply will not be able to live with myself if I don’t take a few moments to be a bitch about:

1) There’s a lot of bad movies that are distinguished by interesting or, at the very least, watchable performances.  It’s as if the actors realize that they’re going to go down with the ship unless they bring something new to the film.  (Meanwhile, so-called great films feature some of the worst performances this side of Avatar…)  Unfortunately, Myra Breckinridge is not one of those films.  The cast alternates beyond going insanely overboard (like John Huston and Rex Reed) to delivering their lines with a dull contempt that seems to be directed as much at us as at themselves (like Raquel Welch.)

By the way, Raquel Welch is actually one of my favorite of the old school film stars.  For me, she’s a bit of a role model, a strong Latina who never felt the need to apologize for being both a sex symbol and an intelligent, succesful woman.  But Welch really does give a pretty bad performance here.  Then again, I would argue that she gives the material exactly the amount of effort it deserves.

2) As bad as the cast is, no one is as terrible as Mae West.  The 70 year-old West came out of retirement to play her role here.  Anyway, it’s hard to understand why she’s in this film.  At one point, when she meets a 6’7 actor, she says she’s only concerned with the seven inches.  Now, imagine this being said by your great-great-great-grandma and you have some idea what it’s like to watch her performance here.

3) This film was made in 1970 and it attempts to be all counter-cultural by having “hippies” wandering around in the background.  As well, we get a lot of hard-hitting political satire.  By that, I mean that various fat men in cowboy hats pop up and complain about “smut” and “nudity” in the movies.  I guess the audience is supposed to go, “Oh my God, they’re talking about movies like this!”  It’s for this reason that I think that Myra Breckinridge is actually secretly meant to be a piece of right-wing propaganda.

4) Finally, for no real reason, clips from old 20th Century Fox films are littered throughout the film, popping up randomly to…well, I was going to say “comment on the action,” but few of them manage to do that.  Basically, it works like this: you see Raquel Welch anally raping a man with a dildo.  And then you see a clip of Stan Laurel for a few seconds.  Then, you’re back to Raquel anally raping the man.  Suddenly, there’s a clip of Claudette Colbert smiling.  Suddenly, Raquel’s back and she’s still anally raping the man.  And by the way, I’m not just making this up so I’ll have an example.  This is what actually happens in the film. 

5) And again, allow me to clarify that this film — which features Raquel Welch using a dildo to anally rape a man — is still one of the most boring things ever made.

6) “Okay,” you’re saying, “if you hated it so much then why did you sit through the entire freaking movie, Lisa?”  I did it because, once I start watching a movie, I can’t stop watching until it ends.  That’s my addiction.  That’s my curse.  That’s a duty that I’ve proudly accepted as a film lover.  And not even Myra Breckenridge is going to keep me from doing my duty.

“Oh my God!  Just like me!” Moments:

Yes, I know that this is where I traditionally offer up some sort of teasingly vague comment about my first year at college or where I admit that I’m scared of dogs, heights, swimming, and the area directly behind the television.  And you would be justified in thinking that a film that claims to celebrate sexual freedom and bisexuality would give me the perfect excuse to be all sorts of TMI.

But you know what?  There were absolutely no “Oh my God!  Just like me!” TMI moments in Myra Breckenridge because there was not one single moment that, in any way, rang true or seemed to possess any sort of insight about…well, about anything.  For an X-rated film that was specifically about sexuality, Myra Breckinridge left me as dry as the Sahara.

So, sorry — for the first time, I can say that I watched something that had absolutely no “OMG!  Just like me!” moments.

Lessons Learned:

I will watch anything.

Review: ‘The Tree of Life’

Posted on by leonth3duke

Once again after a while of not posting anything I’m pocking my head back in with a review for a film that I’m more interested in hearing what others think rather than telling them what I thought. That film being Terrence Malick’s fifth feature film “The Tree of Life”, which received the Palme d’Or at Cannes and has been receiving quite a lot of praise from critics. But is it all warranted? Well of course that is up to the viewer to decide, but here are my thoughts…

“The Tree of Life” is a mystifying and contemplative cinematic experience with a focus on the nature of good and evil, grace versus nature, god and his absence, love, grief, innocence, reconciliation and human existence all observed at times at a cosmic scale but mostly with intimate detail. Though far from containing a conventional narrative, the story within the enigmatic pondering of “The Tree of Life” revolves around Jack O’Brien, first seen as a wary middle aged man in modern times. He awakes one morning after he apparently dreams of his parents on the anniversary of the death of his brother who he loved deeply, a death that still troubles him. As he goes about his day working his corporate job the death of his brother weighs heavily on him. Jack then begins, as he has probably done countless times before, to search for answers to that overburdening question ‘Why? Why do we die and what is the purpose of life’. Questions asked in hopes to better understand his loss and reconcile his grief.

The search for the answer, which inevitably questions god’s existence, starts where one tends to look for something, the beginning. We are quickly transported to the very first moments of the creation of the universe and travel forward through time to the formation of earth, the dawn of living organisms at a microscopic level and eventually complex life forms. Next we get to the real center of the story as we witness the birth and childhood of Jack. All of this story is observed through Jacks memories of living in a small town in Texas during the 50’s. I believe it is very important to consider that these scenes are told through his memory and so contain a dreamlike and visceral atmosphere. We are not watching it play out as a narrative would in any other film, instead we get fragments of his childhood, each an individual memory strung together as they flow through Jack’s mind. The fact that these are memories also helps in understanding the view of his parents and the way in which they represent the sides of grace and nature to such extremes; as in Malick’s “Days of Heaven” one questions whether they are a true representation of the characters or just how Jack remembers them so many years later.

Jessica Chastain plays ‘Mother’, the way of grace, as a free spirited, caring and nurturing guide who teaches love, forgiveness and the enjoyment of life. The dueling force is nature, played incredibly well by Brad Pitt, as the disciplinarian father figure who runs his family with an iron fist in an attempt to instill toughness and a yearning for achieving greatness through any means. Together they reflect the inner workings of the cosmos and have a profound influence on Jack and at times he struggles to find a balance. As he grows he witnesses the harshness of the world around him, experiencing jealousy, lust, death and is often tempted by evil and sinful thoughts. At the same time however these struggles help him to grow and understand life and he comes to express a deep love and fondness for his family, especially his brother, though his mind still questions many things as it does for us all.

As expected with any Malick film the events in Jack’s life are not a direct depiction of reality, and Malick really doesn’t care much about their outcomes or how the story unfolds in a literal sense; instead what matters is making the audience experience these events through the inner mind and consciousness of the characters. As with his other work he relies heavily on voice over narration to convey the intimate thoughts of these characters , but this time they seem to be speaking for us and not just for themselves. All of this is constructed within a very visual backdrop with breathtakingly beautiful imagery utilizing lights, shadows, sounds, CGI, nature and settings with such perfection only a true artist like Malick could achieve giving even the most simple images complex meaning.

Together it is all truly poetry in motion and though it is a term I have used many times before it has never been more fitting. The entire film is unlike any other I have seen, one that will rattle your perspective on the world. Personally, the entire experience challenged me emotionally, mentally and spirituality; I’m not a religious man and I understand the examination of Christian values and Gods part in the story but the spiritualism at play I believe transcended religion or faith and although it looks to god for answers and at times tries to explain his actions, the thematic outcomes are open to so much interpretation that to claim you know the answer would undermine the films intentions. In the end there are no definitive answers; in the bigger picture of things we live but a small moment in time. One of the final scenes depicts what is seen to be ‘heaven’ but not in a literal sense. God does not show his presence, and it isn’t located among the clouds. One does not encounter angels and no answers are given, instead there are only the ones we love as we remember them. Heaven is merely the place within out hearts where we cherish the memories of the past and it is in those memories and through those people we live them with that we find a meaning and a reason to love and live. It is there where one finds true reconciliation, understanding and peace and by films end that is what Jack and the audience get.

“The Tree of Life” will undoubtedly divide the general film going audience. In the showing I attended I saw one couple walk out while at the same time as the final scenes began to play a woman in front of me was in tears. No one will be affected in the same way as others; those with no previous experience with Malick’s work might find the whole thing pretentious, difficult to understand and hard to sit through which is very understandable. Those with a bit of patience and an open mind will bear witness to what might possibly be one of the most ambitious, beautiful and best films in a very long time that will stick with you long after you leave the theater and will be discussed and analyzed for years to come.

For those of you who have seen the film, what were your thoughts and have you seen Malick’s previous work? For those that haven’t see it, do you plan to or did the trailer and whole idea of its structure turn you off?