Tonight I watched Walking tall, part II. Let me tell you, having grown up a fan of Hazzard county's good ol' boys (never meanin' no harm), cheering for the cops in a car chase instead of the moonshine runners feels odd, if not downright wrong.
Despite its appearance on many a top however-many list of great or influential or most awesomest films, I'd never seen Alfred Hitchhock's Vertigo.
I'm not entirely certain I missed all that much.
[2009 note: Back in 2005 I had no doubt much more to say about this, as I found the need to start a draft. However I remember more my unimpressed reaction and less of that to which it was a response. I suspect the psychological thrilling implications were lost on me at the time, though nothing I've read or heard in the intervening four years has particularly persuaded me to want to watch it again.]
Look around on the web and you discover many interesting things about Woody Allen's Purple rose of Cairo:
But those are just bits of trivia, facts and hearsay, and easily found ones at that. You'd do far better to actually watch the movie, an eminently enjoyable, whimsical romp through the escapist nature of cinema and the whole movie-going experience.
It's delightful and fun, startlingly so for a movie set against the bleak backdrop of the Great Depression. Having avoided reading anything about the plot before watching it, everything in Purple rose was a surprise for me, and I think I enjoyed it all the more for it. So I won't ruin the plot.
One thing I feel I must point out, however, is that while Woody does not appear in the film, even in a bit role (at least that I could see), Mia Farrow has mastered his nuances and cadences so well that her lines often sound as though he could be delivering them, except that they lack most of his neuroses. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, just something noticeably odd. Mia does a fine job, and Jeff Daniels rises to the challenge of acting with her. Everybody does well, though, especially the ones onscreen.
I can't recommend this film highly enough. Grab some popcorn, if such is your inclination, kick back, and watch a wonderful movie.
* Keaton is of course better known for his portrayals of Batman, which I have also recently re-watched. His first turn in the rubber suit isn't all that bad, despite several telling signs that it is a product of the late 80s (Prince songs prominently figure in several scenes). It seemed to be a decent start for a franchise, if not a bit long on stylization and short on warmth. Unfortunately his return in 1992 was the beginning of the long downward trend of the franchise, with Burton given a freer hand for style and the unfortunate choice of two of the stranger villains, one of whom is as repulsive as he is implausible. Moreover I must wonder about the vehicle choices in the latter film: the police drive Chrysler K-cars (not know for their reliability or horsepower) and the same VW Jettas seem to appear noticeably many times, probably just repositioned and repainted on the tall but claustrophobic street sets.
Attack of the killer tomatoes! has some very amusing bits, including the outrageously hilarious tiny meeting room and the titling of San Francisco footage as "New York"*, but overall, it both tries too hard (naming a reporter Lois so as to allow a Superman joke later) and is lazy (commercial gags about a blind traffic cop and Jesus as a spokesman have no bearing on the plot) at the same time, and it all comes off as too many winks and not enough nostalgia. Attack is supposed to be a parody of and homage to B-movies of the 50s and later that used sparse sets, slapdash writing, stock footage, and creative-but-low-budget effects to try to tell a story in something of an earnest fashion.
I'm not certain it's entirely possible anymore to make a B-movie like that in this post-ironic modern day and age (or is it ironic post-modern?) with pure intentions. All of those black & white clunkers were amateurs trying their best at their one shot at the big screen. The 'stars' of Attack of the killer tomatoes! aren't trying to act on screen; they're trying to be outrageously funny. It doesn't work. Like I said, many a moment is funny, but overall you've gotta love this film to like it.
* Later they show a slide of what might be the Golden Gate bridge, and title it "New York?". This, my friends, is comedy.
I can but wonder why Disney considers 1971's Bedknobs and broomsticks to be a suitable film for children. Having watched it today for the first time since I was a child, I can't say that I appreciate it more now than I did years ago. Based on what I see now, I'm not sure I should have even seen it as a child. Set against a backdrop of World War II, the story weaves in some pretty heavy themes:
All that, and it was rated 'G'. Go figure.
* 'Eglantine Price' seemed such an odd name that I was forced to run some anagrams on it. The most promising ones I found, well, weren't that promising.
Of course, "Eglantine" is merely an anagram of "Inelegant", but is it really that simple?
If I instead use 'Miss Eglantine Price' I also get:
Genitalic primeness, indeed. To think, this movie is for kids!
I forgot to mention one thing about Darkness yesterday; it does have one genuinely creepy shot. Late in the movie, amid a near-montage of running-though-hallways-with-bleeding-walls bits there's a shot of some swings in the kitchen. They do not belong there, as we were shown them at least five other times and we know fairly certain that they are, in fact, out in the backyard. So it's a bit creepy to see them in the kitchen. Well, maybe you just need to see it*.
But that was yesterday. Today I watched another so-called thriller, and even though it wasn't really a better film, I enjoyed it much more. It was Cube 2: Hypercube, the sequel to the underrated low-budget Cube, which I had rather enjoyed when I watched it a couple years ago. Neither movie, despite being described as 'scary', is scary or frightening, and this second one is considerably less gory or creepy than its predecessor.
The major difference between the two could well be the entire production team, director included, that did not return for the second film. That's one way to avoid a sophomore slump, I suppose.
Fresh cast and crew aside, Hypercube is nevertheless still very much a sequel. One of the characters is aware of (if not responsible for) the first cube thing (as seen in the first movie) and provides what little transition is given to explain the increased complexity and strangeness of this second cube thing. He, of course, is dispatched before he can explain anything useful to the rest of the cast. The special effect that does him in is discussed at length in the DVD extras, but I must admit that even after having heard their intentions and re-watched the scene, the filmmakers' intentions and final results are not so obviously well translated as they may think. This is largely irrelevant, as so much of what is happening is not meant to be explained but just survived, so it doesn't really matter or detract from the proceedings. After all, this isn't supposed to be completely explained, since it isn't really supposed to be explainable even inside the movie, though the characters attempt to do just that more than once. To admit inside the movie that the reality of what is happening isn't really possible is either very bold or very cheesy, and I can't decide which.
It's just not something that I want to think about for very long. I enjoyed watching the movie while I was watching it, and wasn't really thinking about the plot holes and sheer stupidity here and there. Suspension of disbelief, I guess they call it.
Back to the differences between this one and the first Cube, though. This one's a lot brighter, as the walls look to be made almost out of light. This time around the CGI budget was greatly increased, and even for the shots that aren't hyperkinetic killer razor cube-things the computer effects are well-integrated into the film so as to not be noticeable. It wasn't until I listened to the commentary that I realized a number of shots could not have been done optically and hadn't thought much of it since they weren't big effects shots. Technically, then, well done.
It gets cheesy at times, and dull at others (never have I seen a more boring zero-gravity love scene) but overall Hypercube is an enjoyable enough movie for people who aren't too interested in thinking about realistic physics for an hour and a half or so. Hardcore fans of the first movie seem to dislike this one, as I've seen on message boards and elsewhere, but for a casual fan like me, it's likable enough.
* By saying "...you just need to see it," I am not actually recommending that you watch this Darkness, even for that one scene. I cannot be held responsible for any harm caused as a result of persons watching said movie.
Attempted disc golf for the first time in far too long. Was one under par over par for the first five holes. Clearly I am out of practice.
read more at my twitter profile
Flickr
see more at my photostream or look at my photo365 profile
Blogroll
Meta