The movies I really don't like are "normal" movies, Hollywood pap that is boring and goes over the same territory over and over again. I am a sucker for big action sci-fi special effects films, though: I liked Stargate and it's a lousy film, but it's big and fun. I seldom like movies that are supposed to be funny, and really don't enjoy romantic comedy. Like I say elsewhere, I'm a snob.
As much as I like seeing a movie in a big theater, VCRs have been really helpful for making it possible to see older films. Seeing most of what Hitchcock has directed, for example, which would have been impossible without the local video store. I just recently bought a VCR: recommendations for movies to see are most welcome.
There's a great online movie database, one of the best WWW applications I know. I link most of my descriptions into there when I take the time to.
The most amazing thing about Lost Highway is the framing of shots. There are so many scenes that are just so beautiful, careful. Great lighting, too. The pacing is nice, too, especially the first uncomfortable 20 minutes where nothing seems to happen. Other aspects of the film - the plot, the symbolism, well I'm not so sure I like them so much. I wish David Lynch would find something else to make movies about than his obsession with the sexual objectification of innocent young women. His work on this theme is making me increasingly comfortable, which I think is a tribute to his skill as a filmmaker, but it's also kind of creepy. The ad in the Boston Globe chose to quote Janet Maslin saying "luridly erotic". Yep.
Extra points for a fun performance by Robert Loggia, one of my favourite "that guy" actors.
Phoenix's roles in Running on Empty and My Own Private Idaho are very strong, quite a legacy for a young actor. (I've yet to see Stand by Me, a sad omission). I've seen Private Idaho a few times now, and like the film even though I think the narrative is a mess. I'm not normally one for a cult of youth, but van Sant makes it work. Phoenix manages to portray a poignant side of life that is seldom honestly expressed in film.
Watching Running on Empty, though, was the treat for me. Somehow this film had passed me by - people in the 80s wrestling with their conscience from the 60s just didn't seem relevant to me when the movie came out, I guess. Which is a shame, because the movie goes far beyond the typical yuppy guilt story, into coming of age territory I've never seen portrayed so effectively. Phoenix got a Oscar nomination for best supporting actor, an honour he richly deserved.
A special note here, I saw this film on opening weekend in LA, at the Chinese Theater in Hollywood. Walk of Stars, handprints in the sidewalk, the whole bit. If you go to LA make a point of seeing a movie in the main theater of the Chinese - not only do you get an extra dose of movie history, but the theater itself is first rate.
And yes, Macon is graphically violent, quite revoltingly so in some places. And appropriately so, I think: I find cartoon violence to be a more disturbing phenomenon. The troubling part of the movie is that it just lacks a certain coherency, never really comes together to give the impression of accomplishment. It's also got a uselessly pretentious movie-is-a-play thing going. But it has the same lovely Greenaway attention to sets, plenty of references to art, and a nice allegorical treatment of modern society. Definitely worth seeing.
But the special fun for me this time was playing "spot the
hidden homo reference". I was really taken with Addison DeWitt,
both the wonderful character and George Sanders' excellent
performance. (George Sanders, you might remember, was in Village
of the Damned :-). In addition to his general arch wit, there
are all sorts of little clues about DeWitt being gay: his
pursuit of Eve, the way he floats above everyone else, and
especially his showing up at the party with Marilyn Monroe
(playing a bimbo actress) on his arm including a wonderful
comment by her, "that's how you met me ... in passing", rich
with double meaning. Vito Russo (The Celluloid Closet)
also points out various clues that point to Eve being lesbian.
It's interesting to see the codes, subtleties we don't have in
film anymore, for better or worse.
Extra memo: if you're ever in Albuquerque, do not go to the
Coronado theater. I tried two screens: both had lousy sound,
distorted bass. I talked with the manager, he agreed their sound
system sucked and that he went to other theaters to see movies.
Hello?!
Anyway, their work is excellent and unique and well worth
watching. Most of their films were released on video recently in
a two volume collection: now's your chance.
But the fact that I can go on like this implies that I obviously
care about the film. I did enjoy it, and parts of it are quite
inspired. It's worth seeing.
It's biggest failing is its complete simplemindness. I mean come
on, we bombed Cambodia because no one loved Nixon? Give me a
break. Stone loses ten points for yet another pointlessly
homophobic scene, too - I was willing to overlook the
homoconspiracy in JFK, but the vicious and cheap shot at
J. Edgar Hoover in Nixon is pointless, and disturbing. Stone,
with this film he had greatness in his grasp with this film, but
it didn't just slip through his fingers, he missed the grab
entirely.
I'd seen Citizen Kane before, but two things made this viewing
special. First, I saw Hearst Castle this summer, driving up on
my way from Paso Robles to San Francisco. Somehow the film and
the actual castle compound each other, make the legend more
powerful. Second, I finally saw this in a real theater, albeit a
16mm print. This was at the Michigan theater in Ann Arbor,
another nicely restored movie palace - 150 foot ceilings,
Wurlitzer, the whole bit. Made the viewing that much more special.
I wish the whole documentary was as interesting. Frankly, I
thought it came off as unsubtle. The hook (finding Theremin
himself, who had passed into obscurity) was a bit silly. I
really wish they could have tracked down, or built, some of the
other instruments Theremin had built, just to provide some
depth. Still, despite my criticism it's an interesting film; I'm
glad someone took the effort to document Theremin's
achievments.
The script is very good, except for a couple of
touching-character scenes involving poor Keanu. William Gibson
stories are excellent fodder for exciting summer movies. Great
directing and cinematography, and the computer graphics were
some of the best of the genre. (Are they by the same folks who did
Lawnmower Man?)
The VR Internet scenes were pretty convincing. I wish
my life on the net really was that cool.
There is not one, but two web sites dedicated
to promoting this movie. You can buy Johnny Mnemonic products online!
Like, totally cyberpunqd00d. Has anyone gotten the virtual
reality products available at participating Burger Kings?
But that's not being fair: The Sum of Us is a pretty good film.
I'd expected it to be your standard Odd Couple comedy with the added
twist of gay son / embarassing father, but this film goes past just
that. It's the kind of film I'm glad is being made, even if at the
same time I'm not wildly enthusiastic about it. The "talk to the
camera, this is just a play adapted to film" aspect of things
bugged me. Nice performance by
Jack Thompson,
Harry made a better main character than Crowe.
But that's the gay side of the film, only one part of the
movie. Really, the film is about Father Greg (our hero) trying
to reconcile the practical aspects of living in the modern world
with the idealistic requirements of the priesthood. My own
relationship to this subject is a bit strange: I left my
hypocritical Episcopalian church behind when I was about 13, and
only a few years ago realized that there is more to Christianity
than hypocrisy and televised hate. Priest demonstrates the sort of
life long dedication to an ideal I respect immensely.
There was a lot of controversy when this film was released:
why, I don't quite understand. In many ways, Priest is an
updated Confessions of Saint Augustine: is that a
problem? Is the resolution too subversive? I guess it's too much
to see a Holy Priest shagging some guy he met in a bar. It's too
bad that some people weren't able to get beyond that, they've
missed an important film. Or maybe they did get beyond it, were
afraid of the general criticism of the hierarchy of the Catholic
Church. At any rate, if you were thinking of seeing this film,
do. It will even be good on video.
But good film frequently is bleak and depressing: that's what
makes it good for you. Kieslowski is great at expressing a
screenplay: his directing is unobtrusive, but powerful and
communicative. The stories themselves were a bit uninteresting
in my estimation. The one I liked best was number six, which was
later turned into a full length film called
A Short Film about Love. Most of the
stories here are painful: I thought this one did it best. I'm
amazed that these films were produced for television: could you
imagine some US network sponsoring these?
This is a poignant film, sad and beautiful and very solid.
We follow the adventures of two men in Slovakia right after
World War II, first trying to find food, later coping with a
refugee, her baby, and the tides of politics. Superb acting and
directing make this movie work, as does the persuasion
of a story that seems so true. Some interesting jibes at the
communist rule.
The script did a good job of being more than just filling
in time between Parker witticisms. I enjoyed
Jennifer Jason Leigh's
acting as Mrs. Parker, although I couldn't quite figure out what
her accent was trying to be. The rest of the cast was alright, but
somehow not quite big or convincing enough. I blame the director.
I'm getting a bit tired of the cliche "sepia tones == jazz age".
Like everyone told me, Star Trek: Generations is just what I
expected, an obviously nostalgic made-for-TV movie that was
entertaining but not deep. I was very unimpressed with the
special effects: during the saucer crash, we're supposed to
believe that the Enterprise saucer is only 40 feet tall! They
still don't have seatbelts on the starship, but they do have a
new shaky-cam technique to convey "hey, the set is being shaken
up a lot". And then they didn't even use a steadicam during
some of the dialogue shots!
Brent Spiner needs a new agent: the script was
way beneath him. Not a very good movie.
I was suprised that Maurice was such an explicitly gay film. I'd
known it was sort of a gay classic, and I've heard rumours (are
they true?) that Merchant and Ivory have more than just a working
relationship. I guess the image of men kissing on screen is still
uncommon enough that I am suprised when I see it. Good story,
great acting, good cinematography, but overall not as sophisticated
as it could have been.
That being said, I think only one of the three was truly good:
A Friend of Dorothy. The actor for the main character
really pulled it off, seeming earnest and a bit overwhelmed and
cute. The Disco Years was funny, but a bit thin, and
Pool Days did nothing for me, it just lacked too much.
Still, this film is definitely worth seeing if it sounds at all
interesting: it's rare that we get fresh gay cinema.