Eureka (1983)

eureka-1983

A typically Roeg-ian mosaic of greed, lust and rivalry that starts off ice-cold before reaching sunburnt-levels of craziness. Really underrated performance from Hackman here. He plays an extremely hateful, angry character. Very characteristic of Hackman’s best roles (Popeye, Harry Caul) but with extra venom and bitterness. Like Daniel Plainview before Daniel Plainview. You’ve also got Rutger Haur fresh off of Blade Runner and getting his dick out for Paul Verhoeven. He’s great. Even better than him is Theresa Russell, Roeg’s muse at the time and also one of my favourite actresses ever. What a beautiful, fierce woman. She bares a lot of flesh here for you perves but her acting is so strong you don’t even notice. I wish some young filmmaker would put her to use, it’s been way too long since I last saw her on the big screen.

As you would expect from Roeg, Eureka is packed with so much strong imagery and memorable, harrowing moments. Just before Hackman finds (literally) an ocean of gold beneath the ice, a strange character blows his own head off and we see all the particles of his brain swirl around in the air, dancing with the snowflakes like diamonds. This early harbinger of death and destruction haunts the rest of the film. Roeg’s experimental cutting is in full force and he rarely lets us forget this image by peppering it into scenes like shock therapy. Later on a character is savagely attacked and burnt alive with a blow-torch and his charred, melting body is strewn with pillow-feathers. Surely one of the most brutal and affecting murders I’ve ever seen. It’s the stuff of nightmares. Hallucinogenic and frenzied in a way only Nicolas Roeg can deliver. Man I’ve wanted to see this for so long. Not many Roeg gaps to fill now. Even his B-sides are fucking great.

Posted in Movies Watched In 2016, Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Good Dinosaur (2015)

the_good_dinosaur_pixar_3-0-0

Not quite on board with the negative reaction this one got. Quite a pleasurable watch with a surrealistic blend of animation. I know many didn’t get along with the disconnect between the hyper-real backgrounds and hyper-unreal dinosaurs but I kinda dug it. A much crueler film than I expected too. Did Lars von Trier write an early draft of this? That poor dino sure gets put through the wringer. Definitely feels like mid-tier Pixar with formulaic plot beats but I’d definitely tip it closer to the good end of the spectrum. The Good Dinosaur isn’t trying to be an all time classic as much as it’s trying to tell a simple little story. I appreciate that simplicity. Kind of embarrassed to admit I found the viewing experience much more enjoyable than Inside Out. There’s even a 60s drug-trip sequence. Watch and learn kiddies!

Posted in Movies Watched In 2016, Reviews | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

batman-vs-superman-ew-pics-3

So Batman has a lot of dreams that look like trailers for movies DC are planning on making. That’s weird. I still can’t get behind a Superman so fucking angsty, desaturated and gritty. What the holy fuck were they thinking when they hired Snyder to tackle Superman? He’s well suited to Batman though. Affleck’s Bruce and Bat scenes are highlights. Really love the Dark Knight Returns design of Bats. The movie suffers from that problem of cramming way too much stuff in without actually finishing a coherent script. The plotting and character motivations in this thing are just ridiculous and brain-numbing. I really don’t understand the shortcomings in that department. It’s unforgivable. The way they totally miss the point of so many key DC characters is insane. Amy Adams is such an amazing actress so why is she playing such a bland, nothing version of Lois Lane? DC and Warner are so behind Marvel at this point and had so much riding on this movie that I genuinely have no idea why they wouldn’t take their time to write a screenplay that made sense and had a legit plot with characters you could fall in love with. Despite having a title as bombastic and ridiculous as Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice they couldn’t even be arsed giving me an epic title card! Instead the words just fade in the same as every other credit. What the fuck? Pet peeve, sure, but that sucker deserved a fucking splash page.

Snyder is actually responsible for some of the film’s better chunks. There are individual frames that look straight out of a comic book and his understanding of the material on that level is good. I just don’t get why he didn’t throw the script back at Goyer and Terrio until it was in good shape. The only real pleasure I got out of Batman v Superman was the fact that…hey I’m watching a movie with fucking Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman in it! Wow. And uh…against all the odds I actually enjoyed Eisenberg’s interpretation of Lex. If he had better lines to work with he could have been even better. Yes he was annoying as fuck and borderline Carrey-as-The Riddler but he was the only thing on screen vaguely unpredictable. That counts for something. Christ, what a fucking mess. Now please DC and Warner, you have the rights to the most famous comic book characters OF ALL TIME, please stop sucking!

Posted in Movies Watched In 2016, Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice (1969)

bob-carol-ted-alice

I only heard of Paul Mazursky last year (when he passed away, sadly) but his body of work seems to have had a subtle influence on many of today’s best filmmakers. I really didn’t know what to expect. He’s like the best kept secret of the movie brat crowd. Altman, Scorsese, Spielberg, Friedkin, Ashby and De Palma all get their fair share of discussion, but how often does Mazursky come up? After seeing Bob & Carol & Ted & AliceI can say: not often enough.

This is a great, great movie. You know how a show like Mad Men can look back on the 60s with hindsight and showcase all the buried sadness, tragedy, melancholy as well as the good stuff? Well Bob & Carol does all that but has the added bonus of actually being made in the 60s. In fact this movie picks up more or less exactly where Mad Men left off. It starts at an Esalen retreat where Bob and Carol gain a newfound emotional honesty with one another. They then return home and share their experiences with Ted and Alice, who are skeptical at first but soon come around to their way of thinking. The film follows the two couples as they undergo new sexual experiences and confront buried tensions in their relationships both together and separately.

The script by Mazursky and Larry Tucker is beautifully, hilariously, painfully observed. So honest and raw yet tender and true. These characters are so charming to spend time with and weirdly relatable. I might not have been around in the 60s but I recognise these characters in my parents and other older people I have known in my lifetime. Something about this film just feels so authentic to me; from the dialogue and the attitudes to something more supernatural like just the sheer vibe it gives off. It’s like time travel. I love it so much.

All four of the lead performances are fantastic. Not only is everybody really good looking and charismatic, but again they just feel right. Natalie Wood and Dyan Cannon, absolute knock-outs just to look at, go way beyond their beauty to expose very human and very flawed attributes of their characters. It’s crazy endearing. The actors here don’t feel like movie stars in as much as they feel like the characters they’re playing. If you told me this was Natalie Wood from Rebel Without a Cause and The Searchers I wouldn’t believe you. They’re very much in keeping with the kind of real and gut-felt performances ushered in by Kazan and Brando that would truly flourish throughout the 70s. Plus, plus, PLUS this movie also stars my ALL TIME FAVOURITE ACTOR FROM THE 70S: Elliott Gould! My god is he the bomb here. My man got an Oscar nom for this role and if it wasn’t for this, the Elliott Gould persona may have never existed. That’s a world I just don’t want to exist in. All hail Elliott Gould.

I was really gobsmacked by this movie. So ahead of its time and modern; the comedy so rooted in character and emotion, it’s an unsung classic that should be as praised and referenced as Annie Hall. The ending is remarkable too. Burt Bacharach singing “What the World Needs Now Is Love” over the four faces of the cast after a failed foursome is an all timer for me. Can’t wait to seek out more of this Mazursky guy. He’s the real deal.

Posted in Movies Watched In 2016, Reviews | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles (1975)

jeandielman-1600x900-c-default

I fell in love with a dead woman because of this film. My first Akerman movie. A grand epic that celebrates the mundane routine of life and everyday womanhood. Provocative in it’s length, form and meaning but so hypnotic and rewarding. Three days in the life of Jeanne Dielman in three hours, twenty minutes. Repetition and slight alterations build tension and danger. Who knew burning potatoes could be a legit plot point? Delphine Seyrig is a queen. She gives a massive performance of tiny moments. She’s a single mother. She’s strong. She’s sexy. She’s an every-woman. Akerman uses David Lean length to tell this woman’s story? Just lovely. She takes her experiments in structuralism and develops them into a true masterwork of world cinema and art. Akerman was only twenty four when she made this movie. Twenty four. After watching Jeanne Dielman I printed a photo out of Akerman from the 70s and framed it on my office wall. I found out she died last October and my heart broke. I will never get to tell her in person how much seeing this movie meant to me. One of the best films I’ve ever seen and slightly life-changing. Incredible. Tu es belle.

Posted in Movies Watched In 2016, Reviews | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Sexually Driven: David Cronenberg’s Crash (1996)

crash1996

Crash turns twenty years old this year. Even today David Cronenberg’s controversial adaptation of JG Ballard’s equally controversial novel feels like an earth-shattering breakthrough in depicting sex in movies. Sex can be weird, kinky, scary, confusing, touching, hilarious, experimental, awkward, arousing etc., etc. It’s pretty bizarre how movies and the media have programmed us to see sex as a shocking and provocative act. Of-course it can be that but for the most part sex is just a natural ingredient of every-day life. We’re much more comfortable seeing an entire planet blown to smithereens in fiction than we are watching a couple have explicit sex. Isn’t that just fucking crazy? I often wonder if we’ll get to a place where that balance shifts and nudity, sensuality and intercourse are more accepted and embraced than mindless violence. If that day comes, then Crash will be seen as a movie wayyyyy ahead of its time. It is a breakthrough in narrative filmmaking that often goes un-recognized but it’s as bold a statement in cinema as anything I’ve seen.

The thing is: no filmmaker alive understands, appreciates and dissects the human body like David Cronenberg. I’ve thought about this director a lot over the past few years (due to many of his works getting lavish special edition treatments on home video) and I’m often inclined to name him the greatest who has ever lived. If just for the fact that he seeks out truths and imperfections so many other filmmakers completely ignore or obscure. He isn’t afraid of the icky or the perverse but his clinical directing style heightens these moments from mere titillation and exploitation. They become enlightening and thrilling. One of the most important close-ups in Crash is of a quivering hand covered in semen. How many other American filmmakers would even dare depict that moment on-screen let alone use it as the culmination of a character’s emotional journey. In 1996 no less! You see, Cronenberg uses the sex scenes in Crash as an alternative to dialogue or loaded glances between actors. The film speaks its own language: it is told through the sex.

Almost everything we know about the characters in Crash we learn from watching them fuck. It’s jarring at first–the film is essentially a string of loosely connected sex-scenes–but as soon as you get past blushing like a prude and pay attention, you realize that all of this has a point. Whoever choreographed these sex-scenes should have been up for some kind of award because even the positions the characters choose tell us something about their mindset. Most of the sex is done from behind and the only sex that happens face-to-face is the sex that means something for them on an emotional level. Working with regular DP Peter Suschitzky, Cronenberg stages many of these scenes in long takes, letting the sex build and unfold in front of us free of cuts. We become voyeurs and, like the characters, we learn to become numb to the nudity and enjoy its deeper significance. These characters love sex, they enjoy exploring their bodies and pushing it into new directions and aren’t ashamed of it. The film isn’t ashamed of it either. Cronenberg never judges these people. We might not relate to their desires but the film never goes out of its way to depict these characters as weird or their lifestyle as wrong. It’s a choice. Crash is an exploration, not a damnation. I love that about it. It’s what I love about Cronenberg’s entire career. His ethos? Weird is the new normal.

No matter how unusual or taboo a topic, Cronenberg always treats it with respect, intelligence and balance. You get a sense that he has as much understanding and sympathy for the diseases in Shivers and Rabid or the body-horror phenomena in The Brood, Scanners, Videodrome and The Fly as he does for the victims who fall afoul of them. The character of Vaughan (Elias Koteas) in Crash definitely has a sinister air about him and is the closest thing the film has to an antagonist but, like Ballard (James Spader and the author of the source material; JG), the film is fascinated by him. As Ballard and his wife Catherine (Deborah Kara Unger) fuck in one scene, she tells him to picture intimate details of Vaughan’s scarred body and asks him if he thinks about “fucking his anus” or if the scars cover his penis. This is dirty talk, yes, but we soon find ourselves wondering the same thing about Vaughan. He infects every scene he isn’t in and his mystique can be overwhelming. Crash was so controversial at the time of release that many forgot to consider the quality and bravery of these performances and Koteas especially is on another level. Granted, it is the showiest role in the ensemble but his silhouette–the dirty overalls, the mangled crash scars covering his pale skin–is the perfect visual embodiment of Crash’s identity.

It’s been a long, long time since I saw Crash before writing this piece and, while I have always considered it a masterpiece, this time around I found its impact even more potent. This might be the first time I’ve revisited it since losing my virginity and I wonder if that has anything to do with it. Maybe having more experience with sex first-hand and understanding how it can be as much a form of communication as well as a physical act made me find greater appreciation for it. Then again, maybe not.

Not only does Crash challenge and provoke you in unconventional ways but it takes the very concept of sex-scenes in cinema and re-configures them to be something more than raunch or unrealistic physical acrobats. They are completely integral to this world, the characters’ lifestyle and the how the story is told. I think Crash failed to catch on with so many people because they just weren’t ready to look past the explicitness and actually think about it’s purpose. The shock-value is there: it’s a movie about people getting aroused by car-crashes, James Spader fucks a wound in Rosanna Arquette’s leg, but the intelligence is there too. As with many Cronenberg movies, it might look and feel like a lot of cold surfaces–even Howard Shore’s sublime score sounds like the aural equivalent of streetlights bouncing off of vehicular steel–but Cronenberg’s scalpel-like dissection eventually draws real blood. The result is a movie that tackles sexuality unlike anything else made before or since (it is also more inclusive than much of today’s sex-themed movies, the distinction between homo and heterosexuality is non-existent.) Even now, twenty years after its release, no other filmmaker has dared to make an English-language equivalent. Crash will scare, educate, arouse you in ways you never thought possible and introduce you to concepts you may find unwholesome (in short: quintessentially Cronenbergian). But isn’t that the purpose of all great art? I hope one day mainstream audiences will catch up and agree.

Posted in Favourite Movies, Movies Watched In 2016, Reviews, Rewatch | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Zardoz (1974)

Zardoz (1974)
Directed by John Boorman
Shown: Sean Connery

John Boorman cashed his Deliverance cheque to make…this? To clarify: that’s not a dig at the Zardoz‘s quality but more a reaction to Boorman’s sheer audacity. After a planned adaptation of Lord of the Rings fell through, Boorman poured all his enthusiasm into an original screenplay built on his own ideas for a science fiction universe. Critics and audiences barely managed to get past the image of Sean Connery in a mankini and the film ended Boorman’s career for a brief period. And yet…Zardoz lives on.

While the film never really works as a whole – the plot and characters never really resonate or connect – the world and design around it all is constantly fascinating. So often do spaceships and laser battles define science fiction movies but Zardoz goes in the opposite direction. Hard ideas, heady concepts and foreign civilizations are what keep Boorman’s film interesting. More Planet of the Apes than Flash Gordon, I have no doubt Zardoz remains a cult touchstone because it showcases a universe unique to itself. Giant floating stone heads, sexy aliens with class issues, detailed diagrams explaining the phenomena of…erections? Oh boy there’s a lot to scratch your head over. I always assumed Boorman was merely a director for hire on Zardoz so my puzzlement became even more complex when I realized he actually originated the project from scratch. Then again, let’s not forget this is the man who directed Point Blank so I maybe shouldn’t be so surprised that he enjoys creating things outside of the box.

The fact people like me are still discovering and talking about Zardoz 40+ years later is a real testament to the power of cult fandom and bold, original filmmaking. In much the same way Tobe Hooper’s Lifeforce has outlived it’s reputation as a big-budget disaster to become a home-video favourite for it’s individualistic/totally fucking bat-shit approach to sci-fi, Zardoz seems to constantly attract and reward new viewers. But where Hooper’s film feels like it was conceived under a haze of green smoke with endless piles of cash and acid tabs, Boorman’s feels like an intellectual’s imagination running wild and has a handmade, personal quality offset by the unconventional rural setting and political undertones. It’s goddamn memorable to say the least.

The oh-so-70s physique of Connery’s exposed bod might get most of the limelight, but Zardoz boasts enough striking images and audacious ideas to warrant it’s everlasting shelf-life. If a one-way ticket to a one-of-a-kind sci-fi universe is enough to pique your interest then Zardoz is the destination for you. It’s not a misunderstood masterpiece by any means but if nothing else, the sheer imagination on show demands respect and attention

Posted in Arrow Films, Movies Watched In 2016, Reviews | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The Last House on Dead End Street (1973)

picture-23

A grotty hellmouth of a movie. Almost hallucinogenic in the way everything just bleeds and blends together. The shoddy sound, the grainy film stock, the grimy nudity and snuff violence – it all stews together into some weird, bargain-bin acid trip. The imagery is nothing unexpected: lot’s of mindless button pushing with girls in black-face getting whipped or tied down and dismembered, it’s all just another day’s work for the underground horror scene.

The mythology surrounding Last House on Dead End Street is reason enough to seek it out. Roger Watkins made the film more or less single-handedly but directed it under the name Victor Janos and used about two dozen other pseudonyms for his other roles. For a long time nobody had any idea who made this movie, who starred in it, where it came from or if it even was a movie! Many even assumed the film’s murder sequences were genuine and probably suspected that the filmmakers fled in fear of prosecution. It must have been a simpler time because, no offense to LHoDES, the special effects are far from being that convincing. Still, as I said it has a certain backyard charm and Watkins’ acting reminds me of Larry Fessenden. Hey, for all I know he is Larry Fessenden. Watkins went out and made a movie…and if you read a lot of my reviews you should know that goes a long way with me.

At a digestible 76 minutes, this isn’t going to leave too much damage on your daily viewing intake and is well worth a watch if just to check off another semi-notorious nasty from the 70s Grindhouse era. The soundtrack is really cool too. Built entirely of library cues sourced from various locations, it’s all distorted electronic throbs and screeching stings. Even library music sounded fucking great back then! Not essential. Not pleasant. But strangely watchable.

Posted in Movies Watched In 2016, Reviews | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Drinking Buddies (2013)

maxresdefault3

While digging through Joe Swanberg’s filmography, I’m trying as best I can to alternate between the early stuff and the modern stuff, availability permitting. I should have seen Drinking Buddies a lot earlier. It’s his breakthrough film in many ways, commercially and creatively. Not only does it boast his strongest cast but it feels like he really figured out all his strengths and put them to good use. Instead of half-baked shock tactics and “rougher the better” production value, here Swanberg puts character front and centre and with actors who can elevate things substantially, the results are, frankly, delightful.

This is the first time I’ve seen Olivia Wilde and remembered her. She’s fucking outstanding in this movie. Her chemistry with Jake Johnson is really infectious and every scene of them goofing off had me hook, line and sinker. The thing I really responded to in Drinking Buddies is how Swanberg, for the most part, lulls us into thinking this is just another “will they/won’t they” adult romance by using tired cliches (the long glances at each other, the loaded silences, the near-kisses) and then totally resists the urge to pay them off. It feels very real and authentic. There are very few contrivances or moments that don’t ring true. Voices get raised and passions run hot but but the actual damage from any argument or wrong decision is minimal. It’s not long before things revert back to the status-quo. Even the ending, which is proudly open-ended, feels exactly as it should be. I don’t think the word “love” is uttered once with any real gravitas. Even in a stripped-back rom-com that’s quite the achievement.

Having seen both Drinking Buddes and Happy Christmas now, it’s clear Swanberg is on quite a roll. I must say I do miss the go-for-broke provocation of his earlier films but he has matured enough now to know when to reign that in or just avoid it all together. Swanberg rarely puts a foot wrong in this movie. The characters and the actors are endlessly watchable and fascinating and the intimacy of the relationships never sours into something distasteful. What a pleasure.

Posted in Movies Watched In 2016, Reviews | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Polytechnique (2009)

polytechnique

I always find pre-Deakins Villenueve quite lacking. Polytechnique is a harrowing idea for a movie and there are a number of sequences which really work. The opening scene, for example, pins you to your seat and with it’s sudden burst of violence and the non-linear narrative is inspired for the most part. Following in the wake of something like Elephant though, it feels like familiar ground and quite pedestrian.

Obviously the event that inspired Polytechnique was it’s own tragedy and heartbreaking in it’s own right, but the approach here is nothing surprising or unique. In fact, I found myself thinking about United 93 while watching this. Like that film, it doesn’t take sides with the victims or the killer and instead presents it all as fact. Villenueve’s compositions and direction aren’t as confident as they are now so it’s fun to see him at a formative stage as a filmmaker. If I saw Polytechnique in 2009 I never would have guessed Villenueve would go on to be responsible for some of my favourite direction in recent years (I just really, really love Sicario guys). A fun film for Villenueve completists to go back to but otherwise quite a mid-tier true story shocker that boasts only occasional promise of real greatness.

Posted in Movies Watched In 2016, Reviews | Tagged , | Leave a comment