529. WALKABOUT (1971)

Running Time: 100 minutes
Directed By: Nicholas Roeg
Written By: Edward Bond, from novel by James Vance Marshall
Main Cast: Jenny Agutter, Luc Roeg, David Gulpilil
Click here to view the trailer

PETA'S LEAST FAVORITE FILM

As is clearly the case, I've saved all of the aborigine - notably David Gulpilil - films for the end of my journey! Why? I have no reason. In all seriousness though, I think I'm starting to suffer from serious didgeridoo overdoses.

Right off the bat, this film is straight up odd and I'll get into why in a little bit. It's director is Nicholas Roeg, whom BOOK doers may remember from his work on Performance and The Man Who Fell to Earth. We start out in an Australian city, where a family (dad, mom, daughter, son) lives in a high rise apartment building, seemingly very contentedly. Actually, that's a lie, as we barely get a glimpse at their life before the shit hits the fan. One day, the father drives the son and daughter out into the middle of nowhere, seemingly for a picnic. When the son goes to play with his toys and the daughter begins to set up the feast, daddy apparently loses his mind and begins shooting at his children. The daughter, perceived to be sixteen-years-old (but played by the nineteen-year-old Agutter) realizes what's happening and gets her much younger brother to safety. Once the kids disappear, the father sets the car on fire and shoots himself. However, now the kids are stranded in the middle of nowhere, with no way to get back to civilization. They wander for a while, eventually finding a fruit tree, which looms over a natural water source and there they wash up, fill their bellies and drink. When they awake the next morning, however, the fruit has all been eaten by birds and the water has dried up into the ground. It is around this time that an aborigine (Gulpilil), on his ritual walkabout, happens upon them and, despite not speaking English, shows them the lay of the land. Yada, yada, yada, more stuff happens, but we're bordering on spoilage here.

SPOILER ALERT!

I'm kind of proud of myself, as the BOOK has really taught me a lot about film and how to notice different filmmaker's, simply by watching their movies and picking up on little characteristics. I kid you not, there was a point in this film where I actually thought of The Man Who Fell to Earth and until I just looked it up, prior to starting the review, I didn't know Walkabout was directed by Roeg. It was that erratic editing and the way Roeg cast a certain light on strange characters (Bowie's Newton and Gulpilil's aborigine) that made me think that perhaps he was the culprit behind Walkabout. And I was right! Honestly, I didn't (and still don't) know what to make of this movie. Despite being straightforward with it's plot, the motivations and the overall feel were just flat out odd. What was with the graphic killings of all the animals? Was all of that really necessary? Why did daddy go berserk? Why did the aborigine go berserk? What was with the end and what was the final answer to the whole film? So many unanswered questions and of course, THE BOOK takes the cop out that "not all questions have answers". I call bullshit.

It was at about the thirty minute mark that I had to take a pause and look up to see if it was okay that Jenny Agutter's skirt was too short. I sigh of relief to realize that she was nineteen when the film was made. I'm sorry, did that just make me sound like a total pervert? Even more pervert thoughts incoming: Did anyone else notice the EXTREME sexual tension between Agutter and Gulpilil's characters? Am I crazy on this one? There was one point where the little boy says something like "why can't he where my shirt" referring to the aborigine, to which Agutter replies, after sneaking a peek at his loin cloth, "it wouldn't fit him". As if to say - "He's clearly a MAN and you're clearly a boy, so don't be ridiculous". In fact, I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in thinking there was serious sexual tension, as THE BOOK even hints that the original source material had the girl and the aborigine engaging in sexual acts.

When it was all said and done, I think I was intrigued enough to, at least, say that I liked it, but turned off enough to say that I can't consider it a favorite or anything. Perhaps after a day or two to digest it, I'll come around, but for now I'd tell you to approach Walkabout with caution and don't go in expecting too much or even expecting answers to what you get. While the plot is pretty straightforward (boy & girl lost in the woods), there's still so much whirling around that is baffling and borderline off putting. The editing is erratic and while this is Roeg's most engaging film since Don't Look Now, I'd put it closer to The Man Who Fell to Earth or Performance on the quality scale, although clearly better than both of those - even if only for the top notch cinematography, which I don't remember previous Roeg movies featuring. Definitely one to keep in the corner of my mind for a few days, perhaps even take a perusing at the IMDB message boards and get some more ideas into the psyche of the movie.

RATING: 6/10  Does anyone else remember this film being discussed on the show Coupling, notably Jenny Agutter's appearance. Man, I loved that show!

MOVIES WATCHED: 984
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 17

October 20, 2015  6:12pm

616. The Man Who Fell to Earth (1976)

Running Time: 138 minutes
Directed By: Nicholas Roeg
Written By: Paul Mayersberg, from the novel by Walter Tevis
Main Cast: David Bowie, Rip Torn, Candy Clark, Buck Henry, Bernie Casey
Click here to view the trailer

PLANET EARTH IS BLUE AND THERE'S NOTHING I CAN DO

Today's objective: Another three movies in the bag, just like last Tuesday. If I can make that little goal, I'll only have six to go before I reach my short term goal of only having 100 movies to go and I'll be ready for TOP 20 list #9. In other news, I'm really starting to dislike Nicholas Roeg, but we'll get into that in a bit. Read on...

So the plot's kind of screwy (much like Performance), but I'll give you my bare bones interpretation and if you want to know more, it's an experience that you'll have to take the leap on for yourself. David Bowie plays an alien, Thomas Jerome Newton, come from a planet that is experiencing a major drought. His planet is like a big desert, which we see in flashbacks and back home, he's a family man, with a wife and two children. He's come to Earth because he's seen pictures of our planet on television and knows there's lots of water to be had. He comes bearing nine basic patents for electronics (cameras mostly), that threaten to bankrupt companies like Kodak. He retains a layer (Henry) who ballparks that Newton could make upwards of $300 million dollars off of his inventions, which are basic items on his home planet, but very advanced technology on Earth, but Newton insists that this isn't enough money - he'll need more. Eventually, it becomes known that Newton is raising money to build a spaceship so that he can transport water back to his home planet and save his family. In addition to the lawyer, Newton also retains Dr. Nathan Bryce (Torn), a college professor who he charges with the task of developing ways of fueling his man made spaceship. Meanwhile, Newton meets up with hotel clerk Mary Lou (Clark) and the two begin a relationship, despite Newton telling her that he's married. Newton keeps the secret that he's an alien a secret from everyone until about the midway mark, where certain people begin to find out and Newton is eventually wanted for testing. That ought to do ya...

Man, what a weirdo Roeg is, right? I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I shouldn't sum up one man's artistic talents by simply writing him off as a weirdo and just because I don't particularly care for him, doesn't mean that others don't find him a creative genius. In fact, I see shades of genius myself and I can't even imagine what people were calling him in the 70s - beyond weirdo, for sure. I wonder how well these films got over upon initial release, as it just seems like the audience at the time wouldn't have been accepting to something like this. A quick check to Wikipedia shows that the film was a "cult" hit, which tells me that most of the regular Joe, movie goers denounced it. But again, there were definite flecks of genius and the imagery on display was quite mind bending, to say the least. Roeg's editing choices continue to frustrate. I'm all for out of whack continuities, but give me a little hint as to what scenes belong where and what the chronology actually is. I was able to grasp the general, bare bones plot, but I feel like there was so much more that went right over my head. Like Bernie Casey's character - what was his deal? I had no idea what he was doing in there or what role he was playing. Also, of course, the film was just too long. Strip away about forty minutes and polish up the editing a bit and this could've really been something special, as it was unique enough and visceral enough to be something worthy of praise. As it is, it was mostly a disappointment.

What's with Roeg's use of rock stars as actors? Although I'll admit that Bowie actually wasn't half bad as an actor and I'd even go so far to say I liked his performance. His look is odd enough that playing an alien was actually spot on. Dig that scene where Bowie actually appears in his true form - lacking a butt crack and genitals. Speaking of scenes, dig that sex scene between Bowie and Candy Clark, where they roll around naked and shoot a gun filled with blanks at each other. Really a terrific scene and got me to thinking about some of the great sex scenes in film history. The one I just mentioned would have to be included, as would the one between Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie from Don't Look Now. Which others? Also, speaking of Bowie, why was Space Oddity not included SOMEWHERE in the movie!? It seems like the perfect song to compliment the character of Newton and it's performed by the film's star. It's about a space man, technically an astronaut, but alien is a type of space man too, right? RIGHT?!

RATING: 5/10  One to watch again probably and '5' is probably being way too generous, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and admit that it's unique enough and odd enough to get at least to the average marker.

MOVIES WATCHED: 893
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 108

January 13, 2015  2:13pm

518. PERFORMANCE (1970)

Running Time: 105 minutes
Directed By: Donald Cammell, Nicholas Roeg
Written By: Donald Cammell
Main Cast: James Fox, Mick Jagger, Anita Pallenberg, Michele Breton, Ann Sidney
Click here to view the trailer

WAIT...WHAT?

Two movies in to my day off, three movie binge and we come to a film starring Mick Jagger, which doesn't have me holding my breath that it'll be any good. Turns out, I'm right and this thing ends up boring me nearly as much as Black God, White Devil - my previous entry. Read on...

While I loved the cinematography in Performance, I had a hard time finding good shots on Google Images and eventually just gave up. However, I did find perhaps the best shot of the film, a neat little trick with a mirror being held by Anita Pallenberg.

After a disagreement with his boss, career criminal Chas (Fox) decides to go on the lam to save his own life, ensuring that his now former associates don't try to rub him out. Chas dyes his hair red (with red paint, as opposed to red hair dye) and overhears a man talking about a groovy basement apartment that's just gone on the market. Chas calls upon the vacant flat and finds that it's being rented by three bohemians: Turner (Jagger) and his two sexy, groupie girlfriends, Pherber (Pallenberg) and Lucy (Breton). At first, Turner doesn't want Chas there (the room is rented to Chas initially by Pherber), but finally caves and agrees to let him stay. The four engage in sexual conduct and soon, Chas' sexuality is drawn into question, as he begins cross dressing. There are hints that, at least parts of this movie are just a 'shroom induced high, but who really knows and in fact, who really cares. Later, even the identities of Turner and Chas come into question - who's who, what's what...yada, yada, yada...

THE BOOK claims that Performance sat on the shelf for two years while the production company decided what to do with it. I wish I had a time machine. I'd go back in time, to one of those days when Performance was sitting in "on the shelf" and make the execs' minds up for them: introduce Performance to the trash can and keep Mick Jagger out of the movies. I'm not against The Rolling Stones and anyone who's read my 1001 Albums... page will know that I really took to my first Stones album last summer ("baby, baby, baby you're out of time") but I'll stick to letting Jagger's big lips sing rock tunes into my ears instead of watching them deliver dialogue on a moving picture. Maybe I'm being too harsh on 'ol Mick, because the problem really wasn't him. It's just that this whole thing seemed like one big excuse to let Pallenberg, Breton and the two boys roll around half naked in a big bed, while nursing a drug induced high. A portrait of 60s life perhaps, which I'm cool with (I love the "make love not war" era, I really do!), it just didn't play out well here. It didn't help that there were times that I couldn't understand the actors' mumbling, sometimes nearing Benicio del Toro in Snatch levels (I'm looking at you James Fox). Despite not being able to understand him, I didn't mind Fox though: he had the look and he had the chops, he kept me interested.

It wasn't all bad, however. Despite hating the nauseatingly, jittery editing, I didn't mind the cinematography and picked out a handful of frames that were beautifully shot. The red paint early on added a splash of color and foreshadowed what would surely be a beautifully shot movie. Other than that, I can always dig a good criminal on the lam story and while this was a poor excuse for one, the character of Chas was a good one, that I'd loved to have seen under better circumstances (or better talent). Otherwise, this is one to take a pass on. I get why it's in THE BOOK - probably as a sort of a time capsule piece, to sort of capture the essence of the 60s: the birth of sex, drugs & rock 'n' roll. I get it, I really do. But that doesn't mean I have to like it and much as I wanted to, as much as I thought I would, I actually disliked it quite immensely. I'll give it a few points for trying to be different, for original cinematography and for representing an era that I wish I could've lived through, otherwise, all other points to be revoked.

RATING: 4/10  Can't go much higher than that and that's a shame. Some will probably really get into this though and more power to you, if so.

MOVIES WATCHED: 888
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 113

January 6, 2015  5:44pm

568. Don't Look Now (1973)

Running Time: 110 minutes
Directed By: Nicholas Roeg
Written By: Allan Scott, Chris Bryant, from story by Daphne Du Maurier
Main Cast: Donald Sutherland, Julie Christie, Hilary Mason, Clelia Matania, Massimo Serato
Click here to view the trailer

SUTHERLAND'S PERM

Is it awful that the thing I MAY remember this movie for is the vicious man perm of Donald Sutherland? I'm sure that's not true, but DAMN, what a head of hair Kiefer's daddy was sporting in this one - worth the price of admission alone. Anyway, the movie is "Don't Look Now"...read on...

When their young daughter dies during a drowning accident, John Baxter (Sutherland), along with his wife Laura (Christie), takes a job in Venice restoring an old church for a somewhat grumpy bishop (Serato). By this time, the pain of losing their daughter (not their only child, as they also have a son who is attending boarding school, back home in England) has somewhat eased. Don't worry, this isn't one of those "we lost our child and now our marriage is falling apart" movies. Anyway, when out to lunch one day, the couple are approached by two elderly women: Wendy (Mason) and the blind, psychic Heather (Matania), the latter of which claims to have seen the Baxter's daughter - Christine - standing beside them at their lunch table, laughing. She claims that the girl was wearing a red, shiny coat, which is the coat that the little girl died in. Laura eats Heather's claims up with a spoon, while John is the hesitant one, who brushes off the ladies' claims. Following that, Laura decides to pay the ladies a visit and hold a seance. During the seance, Heather tells Laura that John is in trouble and that the two must leave Venice right away. Again, John doesn't care and brushes off the blind woman's claims and chalks his wife's crazy ideas up to her being ill. After that, the two receive a call from England, telling them that their son has been in an accident and that one of them needs to come home right away. Laura decides to go, while John stays behind. The next morning, John sees Laura off as she goes to catch a plane home, however, later that day, he spots her with the two old women. The second half of the film deals with John running around the beautiful, yet cryptic streets of Venice looking for Laura.

SPOILER ALERT!

One that I was really looking forward to and one that I really did enjoy, although I have to say, I may not have enjoyed it as much as I thought I would. Could it have been the way I hyped myself up for this one or perhaps the fact that I had to watch it via YouTube (available for purchase on YouTube if anyone else is interested), sitting in an uncomfortable chair, not to mention the quality was kinda crappy. I'll start out with the bad and then we'll segue into the good stuff, deal?

For one thing, the film had a fine plot, yet it didn't seem to have enough material to cover it's entire running time, therefore, there's are some chunks where we're just kind of waiting around until the next bullet point. That may not even be a gripe, because while we're waiting, we're treated to the glorious city scenes of Venice, which is a character in it's own right. And is it just me, or are there some plot holes in this one? Now, again, this may not be a legit gripe, because this is one that really seems to require multiple viewings in order to put together every piece of the puzzle, but I'm pretty sure there are some plot holes. So we're to believe, in order to understand this movie correctly and for it all to make sense, that John Baxter is psychic, yet doesn't know he's psychic, right? Because that's the only explanation as to why he saw Laura on his funeral boat at about the halfway mark and didn't realize that this was actually a premonition of the future - his funeral. But, if that's the case, why doesn't he realize he is in fact psychic when he gets a vision of his daughter drowning - only to be a few moments too late? He SHOULD know that he is psychic, there should be a conversation in there somewhere that goes something like, "Honey, I had a vision of Christine drowning, that's why I ran outside that day". As it is, John is clueless, which is why he is killed, because he's reluctant to accept his gift, as Heather puts it. Again, maybe I'm missing something and that's very possible.

Also, while I'm posing questions, what's up with the police detective? Did anyone else notice that while John is talking to him, he's busy turning one of the sketches of one of the old ladies into the dwarf that later murders John? Also, speaking of the dwarf, why'd it have to be a wicked old dwarf that killed John? I've seen a few posts on the internet, saying that when the red coat turns around and it's revealed that the killer is really an elderly dwarf, they laughed. Now, I didn't laugh at all and in fact I was shocked, however, I can see why someone might laugh, because in hindsight it is kind of silly isn't it? I guess the ugly dwarf kind of gets that extra thrill at the end, so maybe it works. I really don't know what else you could have had under the hood, as it would've had to have been someone short, so that John could think it was his daughter's ghost.

Anyway, that's a bunch of nitpicking and really, this is a fine film and one that I'd easily recommend. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to consider it a horror film, but it definitely has horror undertones and the city of Venice works perfectly to give it that extra cryptic feel. I loved the chemistry between Sutherland and Christie, which may have been cemented by that particularly graphic, yet sensationally edited sex scene between the two - one that got considerable attention and deemed one of the raunchiest of the time. I, for one, thought the two actors did fine jobs and has really opened my eyes to what a great actress Christie really is (coupled with the performance she gave in "McCabe and Mrs. Miller"). I've always been a Sutherland fan and I'm seriously considering hoisting "Klute" to the top of the list and watching it soon. Anyway, check this one out and make your own conclusions & theories and ask your own questions. Hell, bring all of your thoughts here and slap 'em in the comments section and we can all discuss it together. I didn't do a lot research into the explanations or anything, because I kind of like to develop my own ideas, as opposed to reading others and then not being able to get those out of my head. I assure you this is one that will stick with you, at least for a little bit and one that you're probably gonna' want to watch again right after you finish it.

RATING: 7/10  Can't really go higher than that, at least for now, but it's a fine film and I'd say it only fell a little bit short of reaching my expectations. And another one fore  the TOP 20 candidates list.

MOVIES WATCHED: 816
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 185

March 11, 2014  11:10pm