1001 Movies are history. I've watched them and spent time with them all, by writing about them.
Now...the real challenge begins.
I continue watching. I continue rating. I continue building my own list of 1000 films (because who needs that extra 1?)
Long story short, I'm kind of sick of the blog. When I finished the blog, a month and a half ago, the whole idea was that my writings would slow down heavily and I'd finally get a chance to watch what I wanted and not be forced to follow my viewings with coming here and writing about it. I longed for the days when I could finish a film and that film was finished - end of story. However, the opposite seemed to happen. It seemed like when I finished the blog, my writing got more frequent. I committed to writing once every Saturday only, except that post grew into something that was really a pain in the ass to write up. By four weeks in, I was sick of the whole experiment and ready to pack it in. So that's what I did...
So officially, I announce the end of MY WEEK IN FILM. First and foremost, I want to thank Amanda for her three contributions. Amanda was ecstatic about writing for my blog from the word go and I thank her for enthusiasm and her hard work. She was more than cooperative and timely with her writings and while I thanked her via email, last week, I want to formally thank her here. Thank you Amanda.
I also want to thank Film Debate for the opportunity to write for their website. Last week, I was feeling completely burned out by my writing endeavors and decided to contact Film Debate and render my resignation, so to speak. I only wrote one column for them, but it was received well by them and I was proud of that piece, having put a lot of work into it, to ensure that it came across as professional. Film Debate has left the door open for me to return and I thank them for being so understanding.
So where do we go from here?
Probably not far, to be honest. First of all, expect a long hiatus, as I'm just 100% burned out from writing. I still plan to write formal reviews for the 1001 movies that weren't in my edition of THE BOOK, but I also plan to avoid any of those movies for a while, on purpose, so that I can stay away from writing and recharge my batteries. However, if you just can't get enough of my thoughts on film (I doubt there's too many of you out there) then follow me on Letterboxd, as I plan to continue to keep that thing very active - even adding thoughts on most movies I watch.
Call this a goodbye for now, but I'm sure I'll be back. Like I said, I just need to recharge and maybe toss around some ideas on where to take the blog from here. Perhaps a new project will surface? Perhaps...
Running Time: 120 Minutes Directed By: Danny Boyle Written By: Simon Beaufoy, from the novel Q & A by Vikas Swarup Main Cast: Dev Patel, Freida Pinto, Anil Kapoor, Madhur Mittal, Irrfan Khan
Click here to view the trailer
FROM RAGS TO RICHES?
I spent a good ten minutes lying here, trying to think up a good subtitle and dozing off in the process. Now, my mouth hangs agape, my eyes glossy and I'm dead tired. The overtime that I put in, in order to get through the Black Friday chaos may have helped to fatten my paycheck, but it did absolutely nothing for my eyelids. Long story short, I'm still trying to recover, catch up on sleep - whatever needs to be done to regain some energy.
I wrote about Slumdog Millionaire five years ago, during a monthly recap post and proclaimed the fact that this played second fiddle to The Curious Case of Bejamin Button to be "yet another laughable moment in the history of the acclaimed Academy (Awards)". I'm pleased to announce that my opinion of the film, overall, has sweetened - yet, I still stand by that statement.
I really loved Anil Kapoor in this and now really want him to actually host a game show. The whole segment where he tries to feed Jamal an answer via the steam in the bathroom mirror....well, no spoilers here, but it's one of the few great scenes in the film.
The main character of the 2008 Best Picture winner is Jamal Malik, whom we see at different stages in his life. However, in present day, he is a grown man (Patel) competing as a contestant on the game show, Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. When we first encounter Jamal, he is being tortured by police officers for suspicion of cheating at the game - for a poor boy from the slums of Mumbai certainly couldn't genuinely carry the knowledge to answer such tough questions. As he is interrogated by police officials, we learn via flashback the story of Jamal Malik, as he explains how he knew the answer to each question, taking us through his life, generation by generation. The film ever so slowly transforms from being about a guy cheating at a game show to being about a boy in love, as we become aware of Jamal's life long love interest, Latika (played by Pinto when the character is an adult) - the very reason he went on the show to begin with.
I find that the longer I take to write a plot synopsis, the stronger I feel about a particular film. If I feel the need to cram in, even insignificant details, then I must think a lot of the production and not wish to mar it by accidentally omitting crucial facts. If I care little about the plot, characters & developments, then I'm more likely to just give you the highlights and get on with it. Which is the case as it pertains to Slumdog Millionaire - a film that, even after a second viewing, I simply can't get 100% behind. I think the big reason is that the film really has two movies going on at once: one about a "slumdog" possibly cheating to win Who Wants to Be a Milloniare and a second story about the romance that escalates between Jamal & Latika and the turmoil that mounts between Jamal & his brother, Salim (Mittal). When we start to receive the flashbacks, it's for the sole purpose of Jamal proving his innocence. Therefore, if you look at it from a storyline standpoint, there's no reason for us to ever get the romance story that existed between Jamal & Latika. Also, isnt' the whole thing a bit TOO contrived? Am I really to believe that every question that Jamal was asked he has a story about? When I watch game shows like that, usually I JUST know the answer - I don't reminisce like an old man remembering when he could get a Snickers for a quarter.
However, I feel like I talk about contrivances way too much. Movies are meant to bend the rules and stories don't always have to make 100%, flawless sense. Sometimes, as long as it's all feasible, it's enough to go on. This was a decent story and a clever one, to boot. When my wife asked me the other day, "what's it about" and I told her, I remember thinking to asking myself why I hadn't liked this one before, because it just SOUNDS like such a good idea: "A guy is accused of cheating on a game show, so via flashback, he tells how he knew each answer". Hell, just reciting it again makes me want to re-add it to my Netflix queue, get it back and watch it again to make sure I didn't miss something.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I liked this one - but to go so far as to call it a "Best" anything or a "must see" something is a little ridiculous, in my opinion. I think a lot of the problem stems from the fact that Danny Boyle may have been the wrong director for this material. When I think of Boyle, I think drugs, tit shots, techno clubs, punk rock music, mohawks, bloody noses, hooligans, beat up leather jackets and of course, Ewan McGregor. What I don't think is romance and I really think Slumdog could have benefited greatly, at least with me, if it had been handled by someone who would've treated the material with a lot less herky jerkiness in regards to the camera and a little more sentimentality as far as the love story. Obviously, this is merely my opinion, as Slumdog Millionaire won the Best Picture for 2008 and clearly, didn't need anything to be different.
In closing, I think most will really like Slumdog Millionaire and for that reason alone, I can't not recommend it. However, if you find yourself agreeing with my reviews A LOT, then it may be that you and I have very similar tastes and therefore, Slumdog may not be up your alley. I think this was always going to be a tough novel to adapt, as it's really a couple of stories rolled into one giant, complex piece. I think a more down to Earth director could have handled the story a little better, as the talents of Danny Boyle should be saved for the more eclectic & electric films, ones that his style can really add to. As it is, I think Slumdog Millionaire had enough of an edge on it's own, without having Danny Boyle aboard to jazz it up even more with things like his signature editing style. I'm really mixed on this one, because on one hand it's a brilliant idea, yet as I watched it, if failed to really grasp me and make me care like I know I should have been caring. But hey, at least it's not the worst Best Picture of the last ten years (see Birdman and/or Argo).
RATING: 6.5/10 For a Best Picture winner, that's pretty low, but I've seen lower winners of the prestigious prize. That's two viewing for this, so I think I can safely file this one in the mediocre bin.
Well I made it through "hell week" and thanks to post dating a few posts, you got some original content on the blog this week, something you wouldn't have gotten otherwise. It was quite the uneventful week in my movie life, so today's column shouldn't take up too much of your time. I worked a total of forty five hours this week at my job, which won't seem like much to some, but was a whole lot to me. Therefore, only four movies got viewed this past week. Shall we...
MY WEEK IN FILM: NOVEMBER 21 - NOVEMBER 27
PICK OF THE WEEK
PAULINE AT THE BEACH (1983 - Eric Rohmer) 8/10
I'm really coming to love Eric Rohmer. His films are ones that I want to ration out throughout the rest of my life, so that I always have a fresh one ready to see for the first time. There's something about the atmosphere that he creates and the characters that he exposes us to that really appeals to me and it's almost unexplainable.
In Pauline at the Beach, Rohmer's 1983 offering, Marion and her younger cousin Pauline, head to the beach for holiday. Once there, Marion runs into her old friend Pierre, who in turn, introduces the two girls to his acquaintance Henri. Marion and Henri share a lust for one another, which makes Pierre jealous, as he's always had a crush on Marion. Meanwhile, Pauline transforms from a child into an adult before our very eyes, as she observes the grown-ups, their actions, their motivations and their sexual tendencies and develops some of her own. The whole thing turns into a love hexangle (or maybe even heptangle) with many of the characters having an interest in more than one of their fellow vacationers.
This breezed by! I watched the majority of this before going to work on Thursday, save for twenty minutes which I just didn't have time for. It was one of those movies that I was really disappointed that I couldn't finish and when I got home that night the first thing I did, once I got settled in, was to finish it and it was a movie that was very easy to settle back into. Rohmer is quickly becoming a favorite of mine, right up there with the likes of Woody Allen and Hitchcock.
THE REST
REGARDING HENRY (1991 - Mike Nichols) 6/10
Just squeaked this one into '6' territory, as I didn't mind watching this one that much. But seriously, some bits of that score were just cringe worthy - like the most generic, basic score you've ever heard in your life. Plus, I don't really know why, I just do NOT like Harrison Ford. The man gets on my nerves something terrible. That being said, as I was watching this, I was, for some reason, reminded of the movie Frantic (Roman Polanski) and now I really want to see that again. On the other hand, Annette Bening was great here and looked fabulous. Fans of Lost may want to give this a go, as it was penned by series co-creator J.J. Abrams. It's nothing like Lost, but still...
And before I wrap it up about this one, is it really possible for someone to get shot in the ARM and suffer amnesia?! Isn't it sort of a ridiculous concept that you're asking me to believe here? I mean, if the medical stuff really does hold up and makes sense, then fine, I stand corrected - but why not just say that the gunshot wound to the head is what caused his memory loss? Wouldn't that have been an easier pill to force feed your audience? Also, why would you send a man whose basically a forty year old child back to work at a big time law firm and more importantly, why would they want him onboard. And while I'm picking at plot holes, how could a forty something year old man, who can't remember what side of the bed he sleeps on or what a fork is used for, manage to do the paperwork and crack the case on how he cheated to win the case right before his accident? Ugh. Did I really give this movie a '6'?
When I was a lot younger, my brother had this movie on videotape and would rave about it. I'm sure there came a day when he showed it to me, as I remember seeing this one long before I saw anything from George Romero. The film was directed by Tom Savini (who you may remember as "Sex Machine" in From Dusk 'Till Dawn), a Pennsylvania native and actually a native of my neck of the woods. The film itself was actually filmed VERY near where I live, with the farmhouse that the group holes up in being located in Washington, PA, a town we often frequented when I was young when any shopping was to be done. I'm also pretty sure I spotted "Chilly" Billy Cardille there at the end of the movie, another area of Pittsburgh native and a guy who worked for the Channel 11 news for many years, before retirement. I remember him being a pretty integral part of the local drive to raise money for the Jerry Lewis Muscular Dystrophy Telethon - the ones who would cut in, in between Lewis' part, to announce what they were doing in your area. The nickname "Chilly" was due to the fact that he hosted "Chiller Theater" - a late Saturday night broadcast that played horror and sci-fi films. Enough of the "Chilly Billy" history lesson though...
The film is your typical, survivor story, so if you're into those - which with the popularity of The Walking Dead, who isn't - then there's no reason not to like this. I will say too that the lead actress Patricia Tallman does a particularly good job of showing genuine fear and all of her reactions are very believable. A quick check of her IMDB page shows she's still active, showing up on TV series' from time to time, most recently Criminal Minds.
AT HOME FROM NETFLIX
Madigan (1968 - Don Siegel)
Sunshine (2007 - Danny Boyle)
Millions (2004 - Danny Boyle)
Slumdog Millionaire (2008 - Danny Boyle)
POLL OF THE WEEK
Last week, I asked you guys what the BEST BOXING MOVIE OF THE 21st CENTURY was, and your answer was...
Million Dollar Baby
...but only by one vote. Other vote getters were The Fighter (3), Cinderella Man (1) and Ali (1). This week, based on the watching of many John Hughes films recently, I ask you what is the best Hughes' film, that he DID NOT DIRECT. Have fun!
Hello Andrew’s followers! I have been struggling to come up with ideas for this post. James Marsters kept popping into my head. But what else is new? I finally settled on writing about a non List movie that I liked, since I never get to do that. The thought nearly broke my brain. I will not do well after I finish the Book and have no direction. I will be like the guy in The Shawshank Redemption who hangs himself because he can’t adjust to life on the outside. Metaphorically speaking. Let’s start with a comedy. Spy was a damn good movie. Despite the fact that this film has received quite positive reviews, I still feel a little ashamed saying that, hence the inappropriate swearing. Perhaps I am still embarrassed for Melissa McCarthy for some of her recent, more horrendous roles. But if, as a nation, we can all forget about Tammy, we can really start to appreciate this talented actress. McCarthy stars as Susan Cooper, a talented CIA agent who lacks the confidence to attempt fieldwork but is spurned into action after the death of a colleague. The film constantly pokes fun at the gender stereotypes and double standards inherent in the spy genre, and frankly, society. It is quite hilarious, especially if you are familiar with the traditional Bond-esque motifs. So I suppose this does not count as a true guilty pleasure movie, because it is so smartly written. Maybe next week I’ll come up with some hidden pleasure of mine that will really horrify you film buffs. Something with Jennifer Aniston perhaps?
So I've started writing for the film site FilmDebate. It's something I wanted to do to kind of drive in a little more traffic and maybe play with writing some other types of film pieces. The thing is, is that FilmDebate doesn't post reviews of anything not currently playing in theaters. Therefore, I'll be forced to write special interest articles. My first one actually posted this week and is something I hope to turn into a monthly feature. I call it NETFLIX MONTHLY and....well, just click the link below and check it out for yourself. I'd like to think that it's well written, as it's something I took my time with.
GUY 'N' GAL OF THE WEEK
Arielle Dombasle (who starred alongside Amanda Langlet in Pauline at the Beach) was born in 1958 and was just as famous as a singer, as she was as an actress. Pauline at the Beach could just as easily have been called Marion at the Beach, as she nearly stole the show from the film's intended star.
Tony Todd starred in this week's film Night of the Living Dead and played the cool head to Patricia Tallman's screaming nut case. A quick check to IMDB shows that Todd has nearly 200 film & television credits on his resume, with a handful in various stages of development. Glad to see this great actor staying active!
BLOG POST OF THE WEEK
"Where I tell you to GET THE HELL OUT and spread some love to some other, worthy blogs!" Seriously, check out Amanda's movie blog this week, as she's just updated it a few days ago with another informative, entertaining batch of reviews. She's been doing such hard work here, that it's a testament to her that she manages to organize three of her own blogs. Her most recent batch of movie reviews includes Dawn of the Dead, The Deer Hunter, Grease and Days of Heaven - all succinct, funny reviews that deserve your eyes and your comments. Click here to be, once again, redirected to Amanda's 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die page. Throughout the rest of the blog world, you may want to turn your eyes to A FILM A DAY, where author Sonia is taking on a personal goal to watch one movie for every day of the year. This morning, she caught my eye when she posted a review of Take the Money and Run, probably my favorite Woody Allen movie, pre-Interiors. After spending a few minutes perusing her blog, I'm loving the versatility. In the past week, she's reviewed the following films; Take the Money and Run, Jason Goes to Hell, Unexpected (2015), Rebel Without a Cause, Animal Kingdom, Annie (1982) and Madagascar 3. Tell me that's not a wild bunch of flicks. Click the banner below for more from Sonia and A FILM A DAY
--- Expect a full fledged review of Slumdog Millionaire this week and maybe something else, as the goal is to TRY to post two full review per week. I'll see what I can come up with.... Thanks for reading! November 28, 2015 9:30am
Running Time: 116 minutes Directed By: David Cronenberg Written By: David Cronenberg, Norman Snider, from the novel Twins by Bari Wood and Jack Geasland Main Cast: Jeremy Irons, Genevieve Bujold, Heidi von Palleske, Barbara Gordon, Shirley Douglas
Click here to view the trailer
SUDDENLY, I'VE GOT A HANKERIN' FOR SOME DOUBLE MINT GUM!
If you're reading this, it means that it's Thanksgiving morning in the U.S. - so happy Thanksgiving to you Americans. If you're elsewhere in the world - happy Thursday! In reality, it's Sunday evening, as I've taken a liking to post dating my reviews to spread them out throughout the week and so as not to bury anything that has just been posted - namely, my MY WEEK IN FILM post. Anyway, Dead Ringers...
Man, just imagine if surgeons actually did wear red? How much more scary would surgery be!?
For Jeremy Irons, the film meant double duty - as he played twin gynecologists, Beverly and Elliot Mantle - two totally different personalities, who are both a lot loony in their own way. Elliot is the dominant twin - cocky and confident, ready to take on the world, one vagina at a time! Meanwhile, Beverly is his opposite - a shy, submissive sibling who has zero luck with the ladies, yet excels in his field, alongside his twin. While not Siamese twins, the two are basically inseparable, sharing an apartment & a medical practice together, not to mention pretty much everything else - including women. In fact, when actress Claire Niveau (Bujold) comes to their office for an appointment one day, it is Elliot whose eye she catches first, as he seduces her, all the while examining the the cause of her infertility. After getting her heated up, however, Elliot passes her off to Beverly, who sleeps with her and as a result, becomes emotionally attached to her. Basically, the rest of the film is just about Beverly's downfall as he becomes dependent on Claire;s affection and the drugs she introduces him to. He becomes a full blow, prescription drug addict and spirals completely out of control when he becomes convinced that Claire is cheating on him. Meanwhile, Elliot begins to worry about Beverly, as he becomes so dependent on the prescription pain pills that he can no longer function, eventually getting the brothers banned from the hospital where they practice, ruining their medical aspirations.
As much as I hate to, I wanted to start out the review portion of my Dead Ringers article by stating how boring it was. It's a word I don't like to use when describing films I dislike, but on rare occasions I make exceptions. However, I then realized that I didn't need to even consider using that word, because even though I highly disliked Dead Ringers, it was as far from boring as it could get. Allow me to throw some phrases & sentences at you and show you what I mean: "gynecological instruments for operating on mutant women", Genevieve Bujold gnawing at a fatty mass conjoining the Mantle twins, Jeremy Irons playing two completely different characters and nailing both roles while differentiating two separate personalities. These do not sound like the buzz words of a boring movie to me. Confusing movie? Sure. Weird movie? Definitely. But I certainly can't say it was boring. I watched this movie with a sometimes disgusted, sometimes befuddled look on my face and really wanted to be able to make more out of it, but alas, I couldn't.
What was Dead Ringers, but a movie about a socially awkward man falling in love for the first time? I kept waiting for the film to stray away from the love story, of Beverly's infatuation with Claire Niveau and turn into something more, but really it never did and besides the drug addiction angle, the film felt undeveloped, relying on the odd nature of it's director to get it through to the end credits. As if to say, "let's throw some 'mutant gynecological intruments' at them and that'll take their minds off the fact that we really have no story". I mean, sure, I guess you could cry "character development" and argue that the Mantle twins are ripe for dissection, but I never felt like a bond between us and those characters was ever strong enough to merit hinging the whole film upon.
I won't argue the talent of Jeremy Irons, someone who I'm, for the most part, completely unfamiliar with as an actor. A quick peek at his filmography and sure enough, I've only ever seen one other Jeremy Irons picture - the forgettable Reversal of Fortune. This performance made me want to pick out five more Irons' movies from Netflix and dig a little deeper into his body of work. To perfect not one character, but two, is a feat that deserves applauding However, that is kind of his job isn't it - to turn in a good performance? And while I applaud Irons, I wouldn't call his performances so good that I'd want to rearrange my favorite actors list or anything. Call it "really good", but not "blow away good". On the other hand, you've got Genevieve Bujold, who has since fallen off the face of the Earth and for good reason. She was both unpretty and untalented and whomever convinced her to pursue a career as an actress, deceived her.
Dig that tourniquet & surgical clamps sex scene!
Dead Ringers is going to be a "love it or hate it" movie. Fans of Cronenberg and his off the beaten path style will laud the film for it's uniqueness and ideas that challenge the ordinary. However, fans of a more conventional style of filmmaking will probably hate "Ringers" and for good reason. While Irons is good, maybe even great, as the Mantle twins, his performance isn't great enough to make you stop in your tracks and go back to make sure he wasn't robbed of an Oscar. Bujold is as plain as you can be and still be given work in Hollywood and honestly, giving her any work was probably a mistake. The film was too confusing for yours truly, which may be a fault of my own. I was constantly leaning over to ask my wife, "is that Beverly? I thought this was supposed to be Elliot? Who's the one in the red track suit?" While I wanted to like Dead Ringers, I simply didn't and give it my lowest of recommendations.
RATING: 3.5/10 It certainly will make you take notice, but in the end, you'll notice that the notice you took wasn't anything worth noticing. Nuff said.
Running Time: 101 minutes Directed By: Steve McQueen Written By: Steve McQueen, Abi Morgan Main Cast: Michael Fassbender, Carey Mulligan, James Badge Dale, Nicole Beharie, Lucy Walters
Click here to view the trailer
MIGHT AS WELL FACE IT...
Last night, I assumed my usual position - in front of my flat screen, kicked back and in full, movie watching mode - and finally got a chance to check out Steve McQueen's second feature film (of 3 total), Shame. I've actually been wanting to see this one for a long time now, especially after seeing and loving Fassbender in Steve Jobs & Fish Tank and after seeing 12 Years a Slave, as a prerequisite to McQueen's work.
The film is - plain and simple - about a sex addict. The addict is our main character, the addict is portrayed by Michael Fassbender and the addict's name is Brandon. Brandon is a successful, New York City executive, who lives alone in a trendy NYC apartment and who gets around with the ladies, thanks to his good looks and prowess in the sheets. Brandon isn't above paying a prostitute for sex and in fact, one might argue that he prefers it this way - as love and intimacy are not his strong suits. From the get go, it is established that Brandon has a sister - Sissy (Mulligan), whom we first meet via answering machine messages, urging her brother to PICK UP, PICK UP, PICK UP. Brandon ignores the calls - ignoring her on one occasion, in favor of masturbating in front of the computer - and one day he arrives home to hear the stereo in his apartment, turned up full blast. Sissy has arrived, in lieu of waiting for permission to visit. She reveals that she doesn't have a place to live and Brandon agrees to let her have the couch...temporarily. One thing leads to another and about twenty or so minutes of screen time later, Sissy is sleeping with Brandon's boss, David (Dale) - who is also a close, personal friend of Brandon's. Brandon isn't thrilled with the way things have developed, but he ignores it, as he turns his attention to a co-worker of his, whom he has the hots for. The thing is, however, is that Brandon isn't used to having a crush, instead opting for quickies with girls he meets in bars and sex on delivery, via hookers - not to mention constant masturbation and porno perusing. So when he actually makes a connection with the aforementioned co-worker, Marianne (Beharie), he's out of his comfort zone - which becomes evidently clear a little later into the film and certainly into spoiler territory, so I digress, until after the break...
SPOILER ALERT!
In fact, while I call him an addict three times in the first line of the above paragraph, it isn't really made evidently clear that he even is an addict, until very late in the film - something that maybe, even subconsciously, kept me from being blown away by this picture. My point is this: Let's say you go into this film 100% blind - no trailer, no previews, no plot synopsis, no Netflix sleeve to read and see what the movie is about - then at what point do I realize that I'm watching a film about sex addict and not just a film about rich, playboy who likes sex? I mean just filming segments with him handing hundreds to prostitutes & telling them to take their clothes off slowly, doesn't necessarily make the guy an addict, does it? Even the blonde we see him mingle with in the bar and later hitch a ride from and ravage under a bridge, isn't a girl he pursues, but rather, she pursues him. Sure, the constant masturbation was a hint, but was it enough to convince us of the facts of the film? Perhaps it was when we found out his hard drive at work was infested with porn? A definite game changer from just a casual sex lover to someone who has a clear problem. But, perhaps we're supposed to be left in the dark and perhaps, Brandon himself doesn't even know. They say denial is the defining personality trait of an addict and I'm willing to bet that the Brandon character didn't classify himself as someone who didn't have control. I'd say the point in the film where Brandon finally sees the light and where the audience can be clearly convinced that, yes, this guy has an issue, is when he can't get aroused with Marianne. Because at this point, we can discern that he's definitely addicted to sex - no question. If he's just a rich, playboy then there's no reason he can't "get it up" for Marianne. The reason Marianne does nothing for him, is because he isn't aroused by love, intimacy or romance. What he is aroused by is the dirty, the taboo, the forbidden acts. I'd say this is also where Brandon, himself, realizes that he has a problem, sitting alone in a hotel, staring out water, into the skyline - pondering exactly what is up with himself.
From here, we see a bevy of scenes that help us to continue to collect facts about our main character. These scenes work to hammer home any doubts that we were dealing with an addict, as opposed to just a guy who likes sex. When he's denied entrance into a nightclub, he goes across the street to a gay bar and is given oral sex by a man. Following that he has a rousing three way sex bout with two women. At this point, Brandon himself realizes what he is and for a moment, chooses to embrace it. He's almost looking to spite himself here, probably disgusted by his own actions but finally realizing that it's going to take disgusting acts to satisfy his needs, he goes whole hog. Later, a scene of Brandon crying in the rain, could be him realizing the error of his ways and a need to change. We never find out, however, because the film is left open ended. Yes, as irksome as it is, we don't get an ending...but if you read past the spoiler line, I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.
But really, how could you have ended this? You either let the character continue to be an addict, carrying on his destructive ways and send the audience home, probably feeling a bit slimy. The other option is to cure him, send him whistling off to work, with his dick in his pants, a neutered, abstinent, new man, ready to try a relationship with Marianne and that would've just felt too tacked on. So you leave it open ended and you let the audience decide whether they want to feel slimy or coddled. I guess I'm of the opinion that he's not cured. I feel like the temptation would be too great and while a good cry fest in the rain is good for a lot of things, I don't think it's strong enough to cure his problems, unless it was raining saltpeter.
From a technical standpoint, there isn't a lot wrong with Shame. Fassbender is fast becoming a favorite actor of mine, prompting me to add Hunger to my Netflix queue immediately and peruse his filmography to find other gems that have promise. The films main score by Harry Escott is powerful and fits in, calling to mind a desperate man, clutched by something almost demon-like. It calls to mind a group of friends who see a friend drowning, yet just can't save him - except Brandon is a loner, with no real friends, and that makes it even more dire. The main theme (titled "Brandon") makes me feel like there should have been a scene with Brandon just screaming into the heavens, it's that kind of powerful music where you just feel like the pains of the characters need to be exercised to accompany it. Keep your eyes peeled for key scenes, including a beautiful tracking shot of Brandon taking a jog at night, while blaring classical music and another of Carey Mulligan belting out the saddest version of New York, New York you'll ever hear. Speaking of Mulligan, I barely touched on her character, Sissy, who is almost as complex as Brandon, if not moreso...
What is the general consensus regarding her relationship with Brandon? Was there a bit of incest there, in a previous life. There was this quiet, loving awkwardness between them that seemed to suggest so, not to mention the fact that when she first appears, she stands naked in front of him, without even trying to cover up and him, not trying to avert his eyes. There's also a phone message that she leaves him, that says something like "We're not bad, we just come from a bad place", that seems to hint at possible sexual abuse, which could definitely account for Brandon's intimacy issues. Because I'm not a real film critic, I will pose a question though, instead of spending the entire review trying to pretend like I know all the answers. What was the point of her suicide? Did it serve merely as an eye opener for Brandon, to make him realize that there was someone out there who truly DID care about him and whether he wanted real love or not, he was going to get it - even if it was merely sisterly. The crying could be a result of him finally feeling LOVE for the first time in a long time and makes you realize that if he'd been able to maintain an erection for Marianne, then he'd probably have cried for her too. See there...I just answered my own questions. Perhaps a good cry in the rain did cure him, perhaps Sissy slitting her wrists because he refused to reciprocate her love, proved to him that she loved him and that he didn't need the actions of a hooker or a quick jerk to FEEL, he had a perfectly good sister who was willing to substitute his lust with actual, living, breathing emotions.
I will say though, the fact that they prefaced Sissy's suicide with a suicide on the subway was kind of hokey, was it not? That's just me nitpicking though.
RATING: 8/10 I talked so much that I talked Shame from a '7.5' into an '8' and that's always cool when that happens. Definitely one of the most powerful films I've seen in a while and it makes me wonder with THE BOOK felt the need to take it out of THE BOOK.
I'm dubbing the next week "hell week", considering I'm a retail manager and we're heading into the busiest shopping week of the year. I'm dreading it BIG TIME, but it will all be over on Thursday night!
I managed to watch another eight movies this week, but before I get into those, I'll kick this post off with yet another plea to fellow film, television and music bloggers to come forth and let thyself be known! I have so many ideas swirling through my head, as far as what I want MY WEEK IN FILM to become and one of the things I want it to be, is sort of a community bulletin board for fellow bloggers. Feel free to send me an email with a link and a description of what your own blog is all about and I'd be happy to share it with my followers and maybe drive a few extra customers your way.
Also, if you're reading this and you're at all interested in writing your own, weekly column for MY WEEK IN FILM, shoot me an email and we can discuss the particulars.
EMAIL ME AT adduvall84@gmail.com
I'd love to hear from you!
MY WEEK IN FILM: NOVEMBER 14 - NOVEMBER 20
PICK OF THE WEEK
SHAME (2011 - Steve McQueen) 8/10
I actually wrote a full blown review of this one, since it was in a previous edition of the 1001 Movies You Must... BOOK, but I post dated it to upload to the blog on Tuesday night, so as not to be pushed immediately down by the MY WEEK IN FILM post. Therefore, you'll have to wait to read the whole thing, but here's an excerpt...
From a technical standpoint, there isn't a lot wrong with Shame. Fassbender is fast becoming a favorite actor of mine, prompting me to add Hunger to my Netflix queue immediately and peruse his filmography to find other gems that have promise. The films main score by Harry Escott is powerful and fits in, calling to mind a desperate man, clutched by something almost demon-like. It calls to mind a group of friends who see a friend drowning, yet just can't save him - except Brandon is a loner, with no real friends, and that makes it even more dire. The main theme (titled "Brandon") makes me feel like there should have been a scene with Brandon just screaming into the heavens, it's that kind of powerful music where you just feel like the pains of the characters need to be exercised to accompany it. Keep your eyes peeled for key scenes, including a beautiful tracking shot of Brandon taking a jog at night, while blaring classical music and another of Carey Mulligan belting out the saddest version of New York, New York you'll ever hear.
THE REST
JACK (1996 - Francis Ford Coppola) 5.5/10
If you're going to get a grown man to play a child, was there any better choice for the role than Robin Williams? I think not. It's a little bit fun watching Williams onscreen, who looks like he's having a blast up there, joshing with the kids. Is anyone else REALLY shocked to know that Francis Ford Coppola directed this? I kind of was. My wife, Ruth, had been badgering me for MONTHS to watch Jack with her, despite us not having a copy available. It had almost become an inside joke, to the point that I broke down and bought it for her for Christmas. Well...if you know us, then you know we're big on giving early Christmas presents and that's what lead to me seeing this. It's nothing great, really and it's really bittersweet watching Robin Williams and Bill Cosby onscreen and trying to decide whether you should laugh, cry or feel awkward. This one is terribly cliched and Coppola must have been hurtin' for a payday in 1996, to stoop to such mediocrity. Decent movie that provided enough genuine laughs to eek it into average territory, while still being a nothing movie.
Speaking of Coppola, let's take a look at his filmography and see how I stack up against it:
1. The Bellboy and the Playgirls
2. Tonight For Sure
3. Dementia 13
4. You're a Big Boy Now
5. Finnian's Rainbow
6. The Rain People 7. The Godfather 8. The Conversation 9. The Godfather: Part II 10. Apocalypse Now
11. One from the Heart 12. The Outsiders
13. Rumble Fish
14. The Cotton Club
15. Peggy Sue Got Married
16. Gardens of Stone
17. Tucker; The Man and His Dream
18. New York Stories (segment, Life Without Zoe) 19. The Godfather: Part III 20. Dracula 21. Jack
22. The Rainmaker
23. Youth Without Youth
24. Tetro
25. Twixt
**So a total of twenty-five films and I've already seen eight, means this wouldn't be a hard filmography to totally tackle and be able to say I've seen all of Coppola's films. Challenge accepted. **I didn't include a couple of movies that didn't seem to be full fledged parts of his filmography, including Battle Beyond the Sun (re-edited) and The Terror (uncredited).
STOLEN KISSES (1968 - Francois Truffaut) 5.5/10
Pretty boring stuff here, which hurts to say considering I love French films and I really like Jean-Pierre Leaud. I've yet to be intrigued by the Antoine Doinel character and am starting to wonder what all the fuss is about.
INSIDE OUT (2015 - Pete Docter, Ronnie Del Carmen) 8/10
Pixar is the one place where I can pretty much always count on finding a great movie. Bear in mind, I've yet to see Monsters University or Cars 2, but still...
Inside Out made me wish that this actually wasn't a kids film and that we could've taken some more serious routes. The film takes place inside the head of it's main character, Riley - an adolescent who is beginning to go through the normal changes that all teenagers face. When Joy and Sadness are lost, it is up to Fear, Anger and Disgust to control the psyche of Riley, causing her to make the dreaded transformation to moody teenager. As Joy and Sadness try to find their way back into the "headquarters" of Riley's brain, they watch as her childhood is destructed and memories she once held dear are now fading away. This includes her former imaginary friend, Bing Bong (voiced by Richard Kind), who provides us with the saddest moment of the movie and maybe the saddest moment in Pixar history. You'll know it when you see it...
Great, great stuff here and probably the most well thought out Pixar film ever. It's the animated equivalent to Inception...except it's actually GOOD!! I'm not saying it's the best Pixar film (that still goes to the first Toy Story, as far as I'm concerned), but it's the deepest and another really good one.
SOUTHPAW (2015 - Antoine Fuqua) 6/10
Good enough to sneak into '6' territory, but really, I liked this one a lot less than I expected too. I usually really dig Jake Gyllenhaal and boxing movies are almost always good. However, this one was too cliched to amount to anything worth getting excited about. However, the actual boxing scenes were pretty entertaining and the whole movie plays out like one big professional wrestling angle and of course, that's right up my alley.
SIN CITY: A DAME TO KILL FOR (2014 - Frank Miller, Robert Rodriguez) 4.5/10
Someone shoulda' told Miller & Rodriguez that sequels are almost never necessary and usually only help to stink up the aura of a great original. I suffered through this and when it was all said and done, I actually think I liked the first one a little less, as it had the stink of this one swarming around it. It looked the same, that's really about it. Thank you green screen for making that possible, at least. Otherwise, there was almost an entirely different core cast and the faces who did return, weren't needed. I'm a big fan of the Sin City graphic novels, yet I don't remember the one where the ghost of John Hartigan returns. The thing is, is that all three core main characters were killed in the first one, so bringing literally ALL of them back was kind of ridiculous. Hartigan and Marv weren't needed, end of story. I'd have been fine with them adapting A Dame to Kill For, but, from what I remember, they strayed from the source material a bit. I'm almost certain Marv and Manute don't have a brawl and in fact, if I remember correctly, Marv is just a passing character in "Dame". Also, did anyone else burst into laughter when Josh Brolin showed up sporting the same haircut as Clive Owen in the original? It was a laughable moment and silly as hell. In the comic, when Dwight returns, he looks COMPLETELY different. Therefore, why couldn't they have just gotten a completely different actor to finish out the story and spare Brolin that ridiculous wig?
Joseph Gordon Levitt, for his part, was okay I guess, but I'd still have preferred that another one of the source stories been adapted. It really should've been a better, more accurate version of A Dame to Kill For and maybe, Hell and Back. That's it. Forget Bruce Willis, forget Mickey Rourke and forget Josh Brolin. Throw some cash at Clive Owen and wait for his schedule to open up, so that Dwight can, at least, be the same actor. .As it is, I'm surprised Miller signed off on this drivel.
DUTCH (1991 - Peter Faiman) 6.5/10
Guilty pleasure, right here. It's another Thanksgiving film penned by John Hughes (that guy must have LOVED turkey day), except this time he didn't direct. Really, this is just a carbon copy of Planes, Trains & Automobiles, except the leads are played by a man and a kid who don't like each other, instead of two grown men who don't like each other. But hey, I liked it! I'm a fan of Ed O'Neil (despite never having watched Married...with Children) and here, he shows up to work, putting a lot of work into something that flopped big time at the box office. Poor Ed... This is currently streaming on Netflix and is great fodder if you just need something mindless to get you through until the next serious film. Recommended.
AT HOME FROM NETFLIX
Dead Ringers (1988 - David Cronenberg)
Pauline at the Beach (1983 - Eric Rohmer)
Madigan (1968 - Don Siegel)
Sunshine (2007 - Danny Boyle)
Millions (2004 - Danny Boyle)
POLL OF THE WEEK
Last week I asked you guys what your favorite Danny Boyle film was and the answer was Trainspotting, resoundingly, which garnered nearly 50 percent of the votes. Other vote getters included 127 Hours (3), Slumdog Millionaire (2), Shallow Grave (2), 28 Days Later (2) and Steve Jobs (1)
This week's poll is inspired by my watching of Southpaw and I ask you WHAT IS THE BEST BOXING MOVIE OF THE 21st CENTURY. Have fun!
Has anyone seen the new Bond film? Since I am always writing about old films that no one has heard of, I feel like an out of touch parent trying to connect with youngsters. On Sunday I saw Spectre with my two siblings and a cup full of Milk Teeth, which are rather disgustingly delicious British candy. Possible Spoiler Alert Is it ever necessary to give a plot summary of a Bond film? I hope not, because there were quite a few confusing points in this movie. I just read an article that says Pierce Brosnan called Spectre “rather weak.” While this could just be a case of our favorite pretty boy being a jelly bean, I can’t help but agree. Our Bond girl, Dr. Madeline Swann has very little personality. I suppose we feminists are intended to cheer because she didn’t immediately fall into Bond’s arms after he saved her. You know, she waited a day or two. And she also knew how to shoot a gun. So, hurray? Our work is pretty much done. I suppose this film delivers on everything a Bond film should: a beautiful opening song, gorgeous women, and exciting action scenes. Still, just once, I would like to be surprised by something in a Bond movie. I guess the formula makes this an unreasonable request. At least we are left with a good message. Men will always change for you, even if they are trained assassins. Especially if they have slept with thousands of women before you.
MARILYN MANSON - ANTICHRIST SUPERSTAR (1996) Grade: D Best Song: The Beautiful People
Just TOO. FUCKING. LOUD. Even at a meager thirty years old, I just can't do this kind of noise anymore. Now GET OFF MY LAWN!! Still though, The Beautiful People is still a bad ass song and enough to get this one to a solid D, along with other bearable tunes like Tourniquet. PLAYLIST CHOICES: The Beautiful People
Eva Green's first film was Bernardo Bertolucci's 2003 film The Dreamers, which is currently available OnDemand and needs to be watched by me. Otherwise, Green has appeared in such films as Kingdom of Heaven, Casino Royale and Sin City: A Dame to Kill For. You can also catch Eva Green in the Showtime horror drama, Penny Dreadful.
Michael Fassbender has appeared in all three of the films directed by Steve McQueen: Hunger, Shame and 12 Years a Slave.
BLOG POST OF THE WEEK "Where I tell you to GET THE HELL OUT and spread some love to some other, worthy blogs!" This week I urge you to check out FLICK CHICKS, a blog hosted by two, talented women from the U.K. They cover a wide range of topics, which includes film reviews. The beauty part of their blog is that it's hosted by TWO of them, meaning you can sometimes get a difference of opinion and different viewpoints. Check them out by clicking the banner blow.
---
Well wish me luck this week as I manage a grocery department and get mauled by people needing cranberry sauce and Stove Top. Then, on Thursday, all hell breaks loose when I'm forced to participate in the Black Friday Sales-Stravaganza and more mauling pursues. Come on Friday!!
Running Time: 128 minutes Directed By: Francis Ford Coppola Written By: James V. Hart, based on the novel by Bram Stoker Main Cast: Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, Anthony Hopkins, Keanu Reeves, Richard E. Grant
Click here to view the trailer
Note: So this is kinda' weird coming back to this format after saying my final eulogy to the project a couple weeks ago. However, as noted in my finale notes, I intend to set out to watch the rest of the movies that have appeared in other editions of THE BOOK, other than the fifth edition that I was working out of. The thing is though, is that I really had no intention of starting this so soon. It wasn't until I was halfway through Coppola's 1992 adaptation of Dracula that it dawned on me that this was actually a BOOK movie. So...what the heck...let's get down to business. The numbering will continue from 1001, meaning this is 1002 and anything that follows, that is a BOOK review, will have that special numbering sequence...
Seriously though, if you MUST have a plot synopsis, you can click any of the links I just hooked up to and re-read those reviews, because I've told you four times now what this story is about and it's not as if everyone on Earth doesn't already know the story of Dracula anyway. So yeah, it's a new era here in the blog and apparently, I'm a lot sassier! But seriously, it's not necessary for me to go through it again, right? Dracula's the vampire, Harker's the human, Dracula wants Harker's girlfriend/wife, it's a whole, undead love triangle sorta thing...
The first ten minutes of Coppola's 1992 remake of a remake of a remake of Dracula, are pretty B.A. I commented to Ruth right away that this thing LOOKED brilliant and that I was actually excited to revisit this one, as I'd seen it previously - many, MANY years ago, back when I was just a tike. However, my hopes for a blow away movie were quickly dashed as beautiful images turned to mediocre acting from two of the four leads and a tedious story that I've seen way too many times. Like, seriously, if I never see another Dracula adaptation for as long as I live, that will be fine with me. I mean, I really liked Herzog's version that I watched earlier this year and THAT'S something that I'd like to take another look at, but not for a very, very long time. At this point, I could recite the tale of Dracula in my sleep and while Coppola's version does stray where the other movies didn't (werewolf rape, for example), it doesn't stray far enough to make this feel like anything but a rehashing of something we'd seen time and time again.
I will say, however, that this was a far more adult version of Dracula than we'd seen before - or at least that I'D seen before. It worked in a fair amount of nudity and a much more advanced makeup & special effects team, to make for a much scarier version of Dracula that I think we've ever seen. Despite not caring for it, it's hard for me to deny the extreme talent of Gary Oldman and it made me wonder, as I took a quick phone break to look up his filmography, why he never made it bigger - especially post-1992 and post-Dracula, where he easily wins the award for most badass Dracula of them all. I'm pretty sure all the girls watching this got, at least, a little crush when Oldman dawned the top hat and circular, blue sunglasses and set out to woo Winona Ryder. However, Oldman's Count Dracula wasn't just badass, as the actor dawned several faces to give us the most versatile vampire we've ever seen - sometimes a handsome, Johnny Depp looking playboy and other times a straight up monster, a la something from the mind of Greg Nicotero.
Speaking of cast, don't get your hopes too high, as Oldman is easily the best part. Sure, you've got Anthony Hopkins in there too and he's never bad, but you've also got to put up with Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder, both of whom suck the giant meat misile. I mean, is there anyone out there who actually likes Reeves? If so, to each their own and I'm sure you have your reasons, but I just don't see it. I didn't even know he was in the movie and as soon as I heard his voice, I was like "oh shit, not him". Yes...HIM! Ryder looked like a million bucks here, but unfortunately her role required her to open her mouth, which immediately killed all of her charm.
The bottom line is that this is a damn chore to get through, at least it was for me. I found it to be more adult, which was a nice change of pace - but ultimately, it was the same story we'd already seen a half dozen times to similar effect. In fact, I'd call it worse than those other attempts. While this film looked like a Picasso come to life, I still preferred the pale gray colors of Werner Herzog's vision. Where this film gave us the tale in a it's classic form, reintroducing us to classic characters like The Count, Harker and Van Helsing, it won't have the same authentic feel as renting the 1931 Bela Lugosi version, While this film showcased Anthony Hopkins doing a fine job as Dr. Van Helsing, he still didn't quite knock it out of the park like Peter Cushing did in Terrence Fisher's 1958 imagining. In fact, the only two reasons to get behind Coppola's Dracula is 1) Oldman and 2) the cinematography (yet, as I said, I prefer the Herzog version for sheer style) and yet, those two things aren't enough to get past the fact that this sucker drags like death.
RATING: 3.5/10 Wowie zowie. I guess they took it out for good reason then. Man, I was really hoping to like this one too. I'm going through a bit of a Coppola phase right now and I can say with certainty that so far, this is his worst.
