While the entertainment world grieves over the death of Jack Valenti, I’m saddened to hear the news of the death, at 94, of horror host Sir Graves Ghastly. Sir Graves was a horror host whose show was seen by many in the Midwest.

I grew up in Detroit watching the scaaaaaaaary antics of SG who introduced me to horror classics like Frankenstein, Dracula, the Wolfman and the Creature from the Black Lagoon. His Saturday afternoon show was a must-see for me. I especially loved when he showed a gallery of monster drawings by kids.

Anyway, he will always haunt my memories in a good way.

Scared and sad…
Gore gone.

Sir Graves Ghastly (AKA Lawson Deming)
1913 - 2007

Bookmark to:
     

No Comments »

Noah and his ark are certainly making an impression in modern film. In fact, it seems there is so much Noah business going on that I am surprised Michael Bay isn’t getting on this train, with his 360 degree camera angles and slow motion Ben Affleck. Affleck would make a great Noah. Probably. Maybe. Not.

Evan Almighty, the up-coming sequel to Bruce Almighty because the world clearly needed that, seems to now have some competition brewing. Actually, no it doesn’t. According to The Guardian, Aronofsky has planned on making a film about Noah and his crazy arc for some time. In fact, he even wrote another draft of it when The Fountain fell apart after Brad Pitt left.

Aronofsky says, “Noah was the first person to plant vineyards and drink wine and get drunk. It’s there in the Bible - it was one of the first things he did when he reached land. There was some real survivor’s guilt going on there. He’s a dark, complicated character.”

Noah the Drunk. That sounds like the name of an album by some hip indie rock band. While the excitement for Evan Almighty is non-existent in my world (no matter how funny Steve Carell is elsewhere), I can say I may indeed have some hopes for Aronofsky’s film. He is easily one of my favorite directors and so far, has done no wrong in my world.

Bookmark to:
     

9 Comments »

The dating scene can be real bummer. Especially when you think you finally found that perfect someone and all seems to be going great. Great, that is, until you find out they have the worst taste in movies ever. What if the first time you make it to their house is like 3 months into the relationship, and it’s at this time when you notice they have crap like Boat Trip or Just Like Heaven on their DVD shelf.

That’s not a good thing. Then you just wasted months of your life for something you could have avoided from the get-go. The following is a list of 10 films you can use to avoid such mishaps in the future and help you move on with your life a lot quicker.

10. Terminator 2: Judgment Day (James Cameron, 1991) - Robots. Lasers. Fire. Linda Hamilton in sweatpants. Skulls. Explosions. Robert Patrick running faster than the speed of sound. Eddie Furlong screaming like a little girl. Helicopters. There is something for everyone here.

9. Seven Samurai (Akira Kurosawa, 1954) - Here lies the ultimate test. A three-hour samurai epic, in black and white. If subtitles or black and white annoy them, this will steer them away quickly. You don’t want anyone in your life that doesn’t like this Kurosawa masterpiece.

8. Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song (Melvin Van Peebles, 1971) - If your special someone can handle the first 10 minutes of Melvin Van Peebles’ 1971 classic, you got yourself a keeper.

7. Dr. Strangelove… (Stanley Kubrick, 1964) - Nuclear Bombs, especially in today’s politically challenged climate, are funny. So is George C. Scott. And Peter Sellers.

6. Boogie Nights (Paul Thomas Anderson, 1997) - The minute your date claims that this movie is about porn, you’ll know he or she cares nothing about family.

5. Oldboy (Park Chanwook, 2003) - Sometimes, love will survive through any storm. Or hammer blow. Or teeth-pulling by way of hammer.

4. John Carpenter’s The Thing (John Carpenter, 1982) - If your future spouse doesn’t appreciate the hefty beard Kurt Russell is sporting, or the gore-a-plenty, show them your front door.

3. Audition (Takashi Miike, 1999) - Finally, a movie on this list that actually has something to do with dating… sort of. The last act of this film is the ultimate test of love. I actually don’t even know what that means.

2. Requiem for a Dream (Darren Aronofsky, 2000) - An hour and forty minutes of watching four characters destroy themselves over an over again. What’s not to like?

1. Happiness (Todd Solondz, 1998) - The following immortal father-son exchange is one that the world of cinema will probably never conquer:

(Son) Billy: Would you ever fuck me?

(Dad) Bill: No… I’d jerk off instead.

That wacky Solondz.

So, did your mate squeal or leave the room during any of these viewings? No? Then you have yourself a keeper.

What’s your list?

-M

Bookmark to:
     

4 Comments »

Nothing makes me wish more young black male rap stars took thug movie roles than seeing Ice Cube do family comedies. (Though let’s be honest for one second, LL Cool J does make for a perfect romantic lead, as he was never threatening in the first place, and don’t even get me started on Will Smith.)

Ebert and Roeper have complained about the roles black men have been given/taken for years. Two well-to-do white men sitting in their ivory movie theatres casting criticism down on black guys trying to make a living doesn’t go over well with their targets, however. Even when Cosby criticizes black culture few blacks seem to give his words any credence as he sold out so long ago nobody can even remember when it happened. (I believe it was even before he was a Huxtable. Also, for someone so critical of what blacks are “doing” to their own culture — sometimes rightly so — one would think he would seriously reconsider his decision to smoke cigars. The tobacco industry has been targeting African Americans for years, often with menthol cigarettes, which are actually less healthy than regular smokes.)

I’m one of those white guys who doesn’t have a problem with young black men playing villains. It’s not because I believe they are villains (though if you look at the prison population in the US you’d be hard pressed not to think otherwise), or even because I think they can’t get better roles and should take what they can get. No, it’s because I believe they are playing a role. A white guy can be a villain (and there are plenty of those). A woman can be a villain. A Middle Eastern man with a Hollywood accent can be a villain (see those ‘80s action movies for examples). I’m actually starting to wish more black guys took villainous roles. Here’s why.

When Ice Cube, who was once part of N.W.A., used to be in the news he was a scary character who helped make “Fuck Tha Police” an anthem, and he brought light to a situation many young black men faced (and still do) — police oppression based solely on skin color. Now when he’s mentioned it’s for family-friendly comedies that critics can either hail or condemn. He’s no longer perceived as a “threat” to the status quo, and he is no longer associated with the problems plaguing black America. He has become homogenized, which means he has lost his ability to give voice to a very serious problem. What was once a man recording the pulse of the inner city black youth is now a guy on a Hollywood lot making movies you’d never see Nicholas Cage touch. Ebert, Roeper and Cosby should be proud. The anger of the black male has been emasculated.

Lest anyone think I’m a hypocrite, I have harped on the idea that blacks only play the same stereotypes in films, and I’ve even lamented the fact that they are often seen as villains. I think it’s regrettable that some people can only see them as bad guys, but I also think it can work in their favor and even black culture’s favor, too. After all, it’s far better to have black men portraying what is really going on instead of having them play silly caricatures of humans. (Flavor Flav has cornered the market on that, thank you very much.) If playing a thug in the movies or on CD is the only way to get the point across, then so be it. I support that. If it makes people listen, I definitely support that, too. And if it angers people … go for it.

Blacks still aren’t treated equally in this country (and neither are Native Americans or homosexuals for that matter), and a few asinine movie roles won’t help that situation. In fact, those things only work to hide the problem. (“Look, Ice Cube is have misadventures with children. All is right in the world of Compton now.”) In the past the Black Panthers (armed black men with a political mission) brought their message to the streets. You could not ignore them. Black actors should be doing the same. When they portray a life riddled with violence, drugs and death, they are giving the rest of American culture a chance to peek into the lives of people they’ve only had connections to on “Cops.” Ebert, Roeper and the rest can condemn that all they want. How would they rather those issues be addressed, though? Is Ice Cube going to do it? Maybe he can do a third film called “Are We Incarcerated Yet?” Will Cosby do it? No, but 50 Cent may.

People reap what they sow, and nowhere is this understood more than in black culture. You show me one gangsta who doesn’t know what his fate is because of the life he leads, and I’ll say he’s lying. Here’s the thing, though. That fate, be it jail or death, is something he may not be able to escape anyway because he is a black male, and even if he were doing “the right thing,” our society still views him as a threat … and it’s not because of the movies. It’s because of the news. It’s because of police. It’s because of people’s innate fear of anything that is different.

I don’t know a single white BMW driver who is afraid of being pulled over because of the color of his or her skin. When the day comes that black guys can drive a BMW with the same freedom, then white critics have a valid complaint about black people playing thugs. That day is not here yet, though, so I say keep scaring the isolated, ignorant white people. Maybe they’ll eventually wake up. At the very least we may get a few good movies out of it.

Bookmark to:
     

No Comments »

As a kid, we hardly ever got “good” movies in our town. As a result, I had to live vicariously through Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert. While the two-minute reviews certainly didn’t help my Sesame Street ravaged attention span, I loved seeing the two masters at work.

When I first started watching the show it was called “At the Movies” and it was on channel 9. I didn’t like Ebert, he was mean, Plus, Gene reminded me of a muppet so I sided with him. Also intriguing was the fact that these guys were passionate about film and they were arguing…on T.V.! For reals too! Amazing! I was hooked. While I won’t go so far as to say Siskel and Ebert inspired me to get into film criticism, the show and the guys on the show definitely made me realize films weren’t just loud noisy things you saw in a dark room…with popcorn. Some were good, some were bad.

Over the years Siskel and Ebert became a weekly tradition and I still watch the show today. However, things haven’t been the same since Gene died. I genuinely like Roeper, but the show just isn’t the same. Now that it’s just been Roeper and a cavalcade of guest reviewers, it’s been really tough to watch. Especially since I know my presence on the show as a guest would definitely have been better than John Mellencamps last week. Jesus, that guy liked everything.

But today Roger Ebert has written something! For fans of R.E., awaiting his newest writings is akin to hearing news of a new George Lucas project or a new Christopher Walken role. The even cooler thing is, we got some pictures of Ebert…and he looks surprisingly good, considering all he’s been through.

Perhaps the coolest thing about the new column and accompanying photos are, he’s doing this stuff to promote his “9th Annual Overlooked Film Festival.” Not only is the guy putting himself out there when he should be resting, not only is he posting photos that soulless pricks are dying to make fun of, not only is he still doing one of the coolest film festivals I’ve ever heard of, he’s still in love with movies. That, is bad ass and so is Roger Ebert.

Check out the news and photos of Ebert here:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/355049,cst-nws-ebert24.article

Bookmark to:
     

7 Comments »

Being a pure comic book geek, some recent news just completely gave me a bout of excitement that prompted a giddy squeal, and that was the news that Edward Norton, one of my favorite actors of all time, will be portraying the hulk, in “The Incredible Hulk.”

Now this is just excellent news because I’m naturally attracted to anything Edward Norton does, because he is just one of the greatest actors of all time, and because…

Yes, are you ready for it?

Wait…

Here it comes…

I loved “Hulk.”

You gasp, and you groan, and roll your eyes, but fuck you, I loved “Hulk.” I went to see it in theaters when it opened, and goddamn if I wasn’t enthralled from minute one. Now. now, you Michael Bay and Eli Roth fans, don’t judge me, and don’t take this as an indicator that my opinion on movies are irrelevant. I mean, personally I could care less, but seriously folks, “Hulk” is a great film. and I’ll keep saying it, because I believe it so.

And Avi Arad, you in your infinite idiocy who cheered on “X-Men: The Last Stand,” and both “Fantastic Four” movies are not one to talk. I can’t take you seriously, and hard as you might try, the 2003 movie is still there. And you can start over, you can ignore the previous film, you can change his skin color, but with your guidance I’m frightened to see where this will go.

Though it’s become almost in vogue to declare a pure hatred for “Hulk,” I can accept that. People can have their opinions. But fuck, I love “Hulk.” I own it on DVD, I’ve seen it numerously, and I always tend to find something new from the experience. This new movie from Louis LeTerrier who directed the “Transporter” movies, will almost infinitely seek to turn the hulk into a prop, while the movie will be nothing but a non-stop smash and stomp movie with little story to it.

I predict it in the way of “Hulk” is to Tim Burton’s “Batman” as “The Incredible Hulk” will be to Joel Schumacher’s “Batman.”

Kid friendly, marketable, watered down, and without a story. But then again, Edward Norton is starring so my ass is planted in those seats once it arrives in theaters.

“But Felix, they had killer Dogs! And a giant poodle!”

Understandable. Very understandable. You can argue that, but shit to me it only conveyed the insanity of Nolte’s character and his sheer demented thought process in experimenting on poor animals, and his intent on driving his poor son to the brink of pure rage and insanity.

“But Felix, there was so much dialogue, and very little hulk smashing!”

Not true. Not true. There was plenty of hulk smash, and from what I’ve seen, I’d say there’s an excellent amount of action that isn’t the centerpiece, but acts as a reactionary movement in favor of the story. Bruce Banner’s hulk transformation is his psychoses playing out and this man is coming to grips with his life.

“But Felix, it was so boring!”

I disagree. It’s a fair comment, but I disagree. The hulk is all about psychology and psychoses, and the whole catalyst to the hulk is that his brain is his worst enemy. With his childhood abuse, he repressed his anger, thus the gamma rays somehow linked to his anger creating this manifestation of his repressed emotions and unresolved conflict turning his demons into a green monster. There was bound to be some sense of trying to break down Banner’s life to get down to the reason why the hulk kept appearing. And it’s obvious that there’d be some psychology behind a hulk film.

“But The hulk was nothing but CGI Ang Lee!”

Now there’s a stupid argument. I’m sorry, but Lee had in mind some of the hulk’s movements that he felt no one else could capture, so he put on the suit and performed the moves himself. That’s not only expected, but the hulk was still damn excellent to look at, and he took great pains to fight off helicopters, and tanks, and the whole lot. Andy Serkis played King Kong! Give me a break here.

“But, Nick Nolte’s character just ended up being Absorbing Man? It made no sense!”

Okay, and now Gwen Stacey is alive and possibly will be killed by Venom, and now Sandman is Uncle Ben’s killer, and now Sabretooth is just a goon and not the man with the connection to Wolverine’s past, and now Cyclops is some whiny pussy and not the soldier who constantly tussles with Wolverine, and now the professor is dead, and now Pyro and Iceman are enemies, and now Lana Lang is a cunt, and Clark is a submissive schmuck. Um… what’s your point, again?

Right, the fact he suddenly became Absorbing man. Well, Nolte’s character was a mad man whose own science turned on him and he decided to have it out with sonny boy. Both monsters, manifestations of their demons and alter egos, and they battled it out.

“But Felix, the characters were so boring!”

I disagree again. Jennifer Connelly was a wonderful balance to Banner’s repressed emotions, while Eric Bana was excellent as Bruce Banner, this thin and impish man who rarely ever spoke above an in door voice and was forced to confront his past. Nick Nolte was utterly fantastic as Banner father, a man who broke his son down mentally and challenged his inner being hoping to gain from it, while Josh Lucas was also very good as the antagonist Talbot who sought out to make Bruce’s life a living hell. And of course, there’s Sam Elliot, who was also pitch perfect as Betty’s father.

“But Felix, the direction was so cheesy!”

I loved what Ang Lee tried to do. Though I can see why some may deem the direction very off-putting. Lee tried to make the film a living comic book, something along the lines of “Creepshow” sans the horror, and I loved it! The scrolling split-screens, the blasts of color, the moving comic panels, and the overall tone are just fantastic to look at, still. And I just love what Lee set out to do with this. Even if you didn’t.

“But Hulk no talk! Why Hulk no talk?! It no fair!”

Hulk talked, he said “Betty…” but you have to understand that Lee was more interested in the monster than the human monster. He wanted the human to be completely disassociated with the monster. So when Bruce became Hulk, all essence of the kind gentle man known as Bruce was gone in his fit of rage. The monster took over. Only when speaking did he suddenly regain his humanity. But the hulk we saw was the early version, his silent monster.

“Me no buying it! Me pound you!”

Ah, fuck off.

And what else?

Well, I loved the action sequences, I loved Bruce’s slow deterioration back to the hulk as Betty led him to her, I loved the fight with the dogs, I loved the climax, and hell, I love that we’re not going to see Brendan Fraser as the hulk. That there puts a warm spot in this here heart ‘o mine.

You may call it defending a bad movie, and you have the right to think so. I don’t deny it has its flaws, and I accept that it’s generally despised, but to me I feel like I have to defend this film. The reason for that is because it’s an awfully misunderstood movie. Hell, can you really say it’s worse than “Daredevil,” or “Elektra,” or “Fantastic Four”? Look at the big picture. “Hulk” was a comic book movie for a more adult crowd.

I look forward to “The Incredible Hulk,” and I fully support Edward Norton as I always do. The bastard is just a raw actor who can make a horrible movie slightly better, but at the end of the day, I still love “Hulk.” And I always will. And I insist that it’s just misunderstood and an excellent adult comic book film.

Show some love for the green giant.

Bookmark to:
     

8 Comments »

And so does American Idol.

“Is he writing a blog about Simon Cowell?”

Yes, yes I am. I know some of you fine Threat readers are fans of American Idol. And though I haven’t quite figured out why you (or the millions of other people) actually like and defend the show, I thought I’d address an event that happened on an episode a few days ago. Also, you should know, I didn’t actually watch the episode. I just read about it right here.

Sanjaya Malakar was voted off the show the show the other day. What does that mean to us? Many of us fellow Earthlings had a dream. It all began with a quote from Simon Cowell, infamous (talentless) American Idol judge who entertains millions of fans each week by recycling the same un-funny remarks week after week, proclaiming he would be done with the show and that soon after if Sanjaya actually won. Then the show would probably just end.

In my world, that’s like waking up to a world where racism no longer exists and hunger is no longer a problem.

But why do you hate it so much?

It’s a show dedicated to showcasing lazy future popstars. What’s to like again?

But dude, some of these people can’t sing, it’s so funny! Lol, rofl, and lmao!

If I wanted to hear people who can’t sing, I’d buy a record on the Billboard Top 20. Not to say that everything on the Billboard Charts is lame (yeah, I own a couple Norah Jones records, suck it) but there is enough there to work with as far as the suck department is concerned.

Then this week came. As if there wasn’t enough horrific news going on already, and even with the support of an army of Howard Stern fans, Sanjaya still got the boot. I guess I shouldn’t even call into question how certain American Idol producers confirmed, “Sanjaya will never win.”

Sounds like a rigged game to me, Nurse Ratched.

-M

I would also like to take this time and apologize to the few of you who asked me where my exciting drawings have gone. Truth is, I no longer have a PC, which had the program “Paint” on it. I have Illustrator, I just haven’t figured out how to use it yet. If any of you are masters, feel free to help a brother out.

Bookmark to:
     

7 Comments »

What the fuck happened to Grindhouse? It’s not like people weren’t hungry for horror movies. Disturbia, a barely concealed remake of Rear Window, is #1 at the box office. At the same time Grindhouse isn’t even on the top ten anymore. Is there no justice?

Well, if you think about it for a minute, it becomes kind of obvious. Looking at the 53 million dollar budget given to both Planet Terror and Death Proof gives us the first clue. It’s about 530 times higher than the average film that used to play in those cheap inner-city theatres in the 70’s. So if I take out my calculator and do some purely mercenary sort of profit oriented math, there’s trouble a-brewing. Also, there was a reason those old exploitation films played in cheap theatres instead of having more mainstream releases. Almost no one wanted to see them. The majority were dull, slow, stupid, boring and badly made. Sure, there were a few decent ones; Last House on the Left comes to mind, but most sucked. I’m watching “Eyes Behind The Stars” as I write this and it’s a doozy. I don’t know how strong willed some of you are, but Stars is kicking me around and giving me the dreaded 1-2 punch of awfulness. It’s illogical, badly dubbed and seems to have been edited with a blender. I don’t know, maybe it was a bit better in the original version. The point I’m trying to make here is that if anyone though that the “genre” as a whole was just in need of better marketing to be properly appreciated by most people, then that would qualify as the stupidest fucking thing I ever heard in my life. Sure, they’re cool in theory. They’re cool to talk about. They’re even cool to watch… if you can make fun of the fucking thing with a bunch of people; which is hard to do in public nowadays since most movie theatres patrons tend to frown on someone yelling wisecracks at the screen.

Then there’s the fact that Grindhouse was marketed as two cheesy back-to-back retro films that were purposefully badly made. I can understand the logic behind this move since a similar marketing technique worked for the Kill Bill movies. BUT… there’s a difference and a pretty important one at that. Kill Bill Vol 1 and 2 worked with audiences because despite it being rooted in Kung Fu films it also functioned as a totally mainstream movie. (It’s a hell of a lot more logical and intelligent and believable than similar themed movies like Sleeping With The Enemy, Enough and Double Jeopardy for example.) So the fact that it was Tarantino’s homage to a beloved genre of film really didn’t factor into its popularity. Most people just saw the in-jokes as amusing (if a bit confusing) quirks. They didn’t know who the hell Hattori Hanzo was, they figured Tarantino invented it; same with every other nod. Also, and this will sound stupid, but Kill Bill’s success was due to it being high concept. The story was in the title and could be easily understood by anyone. Woman seeks revenge against man who tried to kill her on her wedding day. She wants to… KILL BILL. It was simple and straightforward. You had a major star as the main character and that instills trust in an audience that the star won’t do something that they won’t like. It was based on the Kung Fu genre and people have good collective memories of it, from Enter the Dragon to The Matrix to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. It’s not purely associated with “bad” movies. These are all little things, but they add up. I’ve always believed that you should never underestimate an audience when making a movie, but that you should ALWAYS underestimate them when trying to sell them the movie. Grindhouse is a terrible title to market. It brings up images of people being thrown in a meat grinder. Your average audience doesn’t like that. It doesn’t like having a somewhat hard to “get” trailer either. What was Planet Terror? An alien invasion movie or a zombie movie? What was Death Proof? A slasher movie? Car chase movie? What? Once you get them in the theatre it isn’t a problem, but it’s convincing them to come that’s the hurdle to jump. One of the mistakes that Tarantino, Rodriguez and the Weinsteins made was to assume that just because they knew what they were talking about in the ads that most people would too. But not everyone’s a movie hipster like you and me, so the ads were confusing. Be honest, forget everything you know about the film and watch the trailer again and try to figure out what the two movies are about just from the information that it gives you. Can you do it? I can’t. Also, it further muddles things to have the trailer define Grindhouse as being: A theatre playing back-to back films exploiting sex, violence and other extreme subject matter. Maybe I blinked or maybe I’m not the best judge, but I saw almost no sex, little non-cartoonish violence and the only person who’d find the subject matter of either of these movies “extreme” is Jack Thompson or Donald Wildmon.

So we’ve established that the trailer was confusing and that it wrongly marketed the film. Okay, but what about word of mouth? Surely the people who went to see it liked it and recommended to their friends? Well, I don’t think it’s that simple, word of mouth tends to work best because of an easily explainable film gimmick. Like how Blair Witch Project was “supposed to be a true story”, or how Hostel is “really gross and sadistic”. Word of mouth needs be shared in simple one sentence schoolyard dialogue. To explain why Grindhouse is cool, you’d have to give a lecture on 70’s exploitation films and they’re influence on modern cinema. It’s too long. It’s too hard to explain. People don’t “get” it. Then there’s the film itself. You need to give a lot of yourself to enjoy a B-movie, and audiences like to turn off their brain (but not their cell phone) when they go to the theatre. Now don’t get me wrong. I totally dug this movie. I thought it was brilliant. But again it’s not my opinion that counts, it’s the frat guys and the jocks and the cheerleaders and everybody else that really don’t know or care what Grindhouse films were. These people are apt to be thrown for a loop by the purposefully hokey film techniques. When the missing reel segments appear they’ll be screaming “WHAT HAPPENED TO THE STORY???” they’ll also be annoyed at the purposefully bad special effects, they’ll be annoyed at Tarantino’s talky segment. They won’t get the fake commercials at all. From what I hear people were leaving the theatre after Planet Terror and not sticking around for Death Proof. Harvey Weinstein said it was because they didn’t get that it was two movies, I think it’s because they’d seen all they wanted to see. It doesn’t mean Grindhouse wasn’t good, it just means that every film “type” has a niche and cheap 70’s exploitation films were relegated to the scary hobo masturbation theatres for a reason. That Planet Terror and Death Proof were vastly improved version of those films didn’t really matter, what matters is that they followed the template too much to be accessible to modern audience and too little to truly satisfy the hardcore fans. I also think that the Weinsteins were nervous about how it was going to do and more or less engineered a self-fulfilling prophecy by screwing around with it’s release date too much. Easter? I mean what the fuck? I think this will have a great life on DVD, but it’s too low brow and purposefully low quality to be worth the ten bucks to go see in theatres for most people. .

Bookmark to:
3 Comments »

I have to admit right off the bat that this blog is too little too late. I would have written it earlier but all that other stuff I was wrapped up in has prevented me to do so. So I’ll do it now, weeks prior to its official DVD release, and hope maybe one or two of you may interested in checking it out.

The film I speak of, of course, is Darren Aronofsky’s terribly under-appreciated The Fountain. A good friend of mine saw it last year at the Toronto Film Festival. Knowing how excited I was to see the first film from Aronofsky in six years, he called me to share the bad news about its apparent “disappointment” across the film universe.

He wasn’t the only one to feel that way either. It seemed that almost everyone on the planet hated this movie. The Fountain was the only movie I actually looked forward to all of last year and people I knew and trusted just kept telling me how disappointing it was.

After a while, I just stopped reading reviews and stories about people “booing” it at screenings. I didn’t care because those are probably the same people who told me that Chicago was a “great movie worthy of Academy Award nominations” or whatever.

So I waited it out. On 11/24/2006, the movie finally opened in my town, and Film Threat’s glorious Vonder Haar posted his review. I read it nervously, as he and I generally share some of the same opinions on films (though I always thought he was way too kind about this film right here), I then became a little concerned. Especially since I was leaving to go to the earliest screening I could find in just a few minutes.

After the credits began to roll, I sat in the theater for a good minute or two, contemplating whether I loved or hated this movie. I pondered over this all of Thanksgiving break. This movie has a guy floating through space in a clear ball while talking to a tree for a good portion of the running time. What’s to love about that?

So I saw it again days later. Some local writers in the area were in the same predicament as me - we kind of like it but needed proof that we weren’t crazy. After it ended the second time, I got so much more out of it. Now, don’t get me wrong, this movie is not a complicated movie to figure out, but there is no set way to intreperate

After it ended, the other two writers and I hung around afterwards and discussed it. An hour or two later, we each concluded that each of us was beginning to love it.

So I saw it again. For a third time. There have only been a few films I saw theatrically three times. Punch-Drunk Love, Return of the King, and 25th Hour. There isn’t any reason why I chose those to see so often than other films, it just sort of happened that way.

That third time, my mind was set. In my world, The Fountain was one of the best films of the year, and the film I thought about the most. I’d rather watch this movie than Babel. I’d rather watch this movie than Little Miss Sunshine. Hell, I’d rather watch this movie than the upcoming Spider Man 3, even though it looks like they actually attempted to make the special effects not look so shitty this go round. But is Sandman another evil scientist? I am not sure I can handle yet another scientist going after our Spidey friend.

“But I digress; you play Sorry, I play Chess.” - Neil Fallon

I put The Fountain in my Top Ten of 2006 at number 4. If I was to make that list today, it’d be number 1. Sure, I am perfectly aware of all of its flaws, but perhaps if it didn’t have such a horrible production nightmare, some of those flaws may have been sorted through. Give it a watch when it comes out on DVD. You’ll probably hate it, as so many others do, but a good few of you may find it as beautiful as I did.

Bookmark to:
     

3 Comments »

As is my usual mode of operation, I showed up at the theatre before it even opened. First in line … if there had been a line. The outside of the theatre was a mess due to renovations, but inside of the theatre made the disaster outside look positively inviting. Discarded soda bottles littered the floor and torn out sections of the wall exposed wood and wiring to any who cared to see. A sign begged patrons to excuse the mess because the theatre owners were adding a couple new screens to the current array. (Hey, when there’s this much crap coming out, you need somewhere to show it.) It was the perfect atmosphere to see “Grindhouse” in.

After emptying my bladder in a bathroom that wouldn’t look too out of place in Baghdad after a truck bomb has gone off, I took a seat in the empty theatre and listened to Green Day being pumped through the house speakers. As the seats began to fill up, I decided to do some people watching while waiting for my friends.

The first man I noticed looked a lot like William H. Macy. He brought along his eleven-year-old son, who seemed quite excited at the prospect of seeing people melting on screen. Gotta admire that.

The next person who caught my eye was Jittery Guy. I go back some ways with Jittery Guy. He was a customer at the comic book store I used to work at, and had the worst taste in comics (anything with Lady Death and any crap horror books). These days he frequents Borders, reading all the horror movie mags. (He also has horrible taste in horror movies. He once asked me if I was going to see “Urban Legend.” I kind of laughed about it, and when I recommended a foreign horror film to him, he looked aghast that I would even suggest such a thing.) Jittery Guy is a little creepy. He’s bald, except for this wild halo of white and black hair that makes him look like he stepped out of an Ed Wood film. He always wears the same tan jacket on a daily basis (no matter the weather), and I have never seen him with a girlfriend (though at “Grindhouse” he was with two women old enough to be his mother, which one of them may have been). As I sat there waiting for the film to begin, I imagined that all his sexual experiences involved hollow, unsatisfying meetings with hookers that ended soon after one ripped him off. (“I’ll make all those slut cows pay,” he says as he stabs his pillow with a steak knife. “You aren’t pink there, there or there!”)

Anyway, Jittery Guy was present, as were two older men behind me trying to be cool by riffing off some facts about the movie we were about to see. To solidify their coolness, one had to approach me when I took my jacket off, exposing a Misfits t-shirt. He wanted to see the shirt, comment on how “killer” it was and then say, “I like the Misfits, too.” I just nodded. I didn’t really care, and I didn’t want to get into a discussion. I am not impressed by such blatant acts that are meant to convey one’s “coolness,” and the people who go out of their way to connect like that usually end up annoying me.

Finally, my friends appeared. Originally it was just going to be myself and Celebrity Watchdog George Anthony Watson taking in the show. We last saw “Hostel” together, and he really didn’t enjoy that film very much. He spent portions of it making weird, sick groaning sounds like some creature out of a H.P. Lovecraft story that would dwell in the dripping darkness of some long forgotten tunnel. The day before we were supposed to see the film he told me that a girl with a meat fetish would be joining us, and at the last minute a mutual co-worker decided that a group of three would be better if it were four. I didn’t care, though. I’m not much into watching films with groups of friends, but I liked all these people, and I was seated on the aisle so that I wouldn’t be caught in any cross conversations.

Let the show begin.

When all was said and done, I was a bit underwhelmed by the whole thing. Quentin Tarantino’s piece was a bit self-indulgent, but was great when it fired on all cylinders. Robert Rodriguez seemed to be having more fun with the entire project, which was to everyone’s benefit, and Eli Roth’s “Thanksgiving” trailer was an Itchy and Scratchy cartoon brought to life. I’m not sure I’d want to see that film if it really existed (it’s kind of one-note), but I’ll be damned if that trailer didn’t have me laughing out loud at its excesses. The audience seemed to love it, too. The mutual co-worker who sat next to me, a man who turns red if you say “penis” in his presence, let out a loud exclamation at the final scene of the trailer (unexpected sodomy can do that to a man). In response, I loudly stated, “That’s just like the dream you told me you had.” I don’t know if he found that funny.

The final verdict? It deserved to be fourth at the box office the opening weekend, though I had no desire to see any of the films that came in ahead of it. And that’s okay. It was a long movie that didn’t get as many showings as the other films, and it was geared toward a bit of a specialized audience. For someone like me, however, a guy who loves exploitation films, it could only be a bit of a letdown. Sure, the special effects were better and the deaths pretty inventive, but a film needs more than that. “Death Proof” had far too much dialogue, which was padding in many exploitation films, but the way it was used here was pure Tarantino (complete with a scene that mirrored “Reservoir Dogs”). “Planet Terror” was more on the mark, but kind of gave the audience an all-knowing wink from time to time. Instead of taking the best elements of the films before it and expanding upon them, “Grindhouse” came across as more of a parody at times, and I wasn’t too fond of that.

Tarantino did it best with the two “Kill Bill” films. He set out to make a revenge film that was an homage to all the films he loved, and he did it perfectly. The story, while taking elements from just about every hallmark grindhouse/exploitation genre in existence, was also its own entity and never tried to mock that which created it. There weren’t any moments that were painfully self-aware, and the dialogue wasn’t nearly as out of place as at least two of the scenes in “Death Proof.” So what happened to Tarantino?

I think Tarantino didn’t have enough time to do the film he wanted. The running time just wouldn’t let him, so he kept in everything he thought was cool and let the chips fall where they may. What you want to see is Kurt Russell. What you get is girls talking about boys. Not good for a movie about a psycho who kills girls with his car.

What Rodriguez got right or wrong is of less concern to me. Not that he doesn’t matter, but I think his career has been a bit spottier than Tarantino’s. His movies are fun to watch, but none stick with me like Tarantino’s.

For all my complaints, though, I’ll still buy the DVD because I’ll want to see everything that was missing from the theatre. I know I’m a fool, but I feel that the trailers alone are worth the price of a DVD. “Werewolf Women of the SS”? I want to see that. “Don’t”? Yep. “Machete”? I heard that’s actually coming out.

The days of the grindhouse are truly over. Every once in a while a film will filter through that will recall those exciting days of exploitation films (“Hostel” is one that I contend did that), but the era is truly a done deal. Movie theatres don’t cater to sleaze anymore. As a society we’ve become too politically correct, too sensitive, and we believe we’ve become too sophisticated. (We haven’t, but we do love our delusions.) If anyone could’ve brought them back, though, it was the people associated with the “Grindhouse” movie. They didn’t, and that was to be expected. Now it’ll be another ten years or so before the current crop of independent directors who love this stuff have earned their keep grunting away in the pits before they’ll get a chance to hit the mainstream theatres. Will it be too late? Yeah, but I’ll be watching anyway.

Bookmark to:
     

3 Comments »