Just a quick note… If anyone is interested, YouTube’s Screening room is showing all three of Sergio Leone’s “Man With No Name” movies for free. – That’s nearly 7 hours of viewing for free!
I highly recommend these movies, as they are three of my favorites, by one of the masters of the Western genre.
Anyway, here’s a link: http://www.youtube.com/ytscreeningroom?feature=pyv
The Brothers Bloom (2009)
Director: Rian Johnson
Starring: Adrian Brody, Mark Ruffalo, and Rachel Wiesz
When I was a kid, I loved the movie The Sting… in fact, I still love that movie. The idea of a big elaborate scheme to steal a large some of money, from an unsuspecting person (who probably has a lot more then what they lost) was always a fun and romantic idea. There’s always one draw bag with movies about Con Artists, and Con Men… the problem, Con can sometimes stand for Con-Fusing.
What I mean is that sometimes, these Cons are so elaborate, that you go “Huh, how’d the do that?” – this wasn’t the case with the aforementioned Paul Newman movie. But it is the case with The Brothers Bloom… this quirky little film about two brothers who make a life out of conning people out of their money, left me a little… well confused. I found myself stopping to think “Now wait, what just happened?” – It was a lot of fast talking, and CONniving, and at some points I couldn’t keep up.
But, the style of the movie and the characters were a lot of fun, (actually I should call them caricatures). Rian Johnson set up a story of true caricatures… and made the Big Con fun. Even if it was a little confusing at times, it was still a fun movie. And of course Rachel Weisz is always fun to look at.
Not to mention that Adrian Broday and Mark Ruffalo, two actors who I would never expected to see in a movie together… are also two actors that I enjoy.
Also a welcoming addition to the movie was Rinko Kikuchi, an actress I am not familiar with… but added an interesting spark, and balance to the brothers. Plus she could blow some shit up…
So, the inevitable Rent, Buy or Never again? I think stylistically the movie was enjoyable (reminiscent of The Fall) and that style is enough to make me want to see this movie again… and the confusion of the storyline would make me say Rent… so that I can figure out some things that I didn’t before.
This movie could possibly be a challenge on an upcoming episode of Cine-Rama… I think it could be a worthwhile discussion. Plus I know my co-hose would enjoy this movie.
Big Fan*
Interview (original Theo Van Gogh film)
Nickelodeon
Dead and Breakfast
Dawn of the Dead – 1985
Fame
Zombieland*
Day of the Dead
The Blob
The Life of Emile Zola
Dawn of the Dead – 2004
Midnite Movie
Where the Wild Things Are*
* in Theatres
Well, for those of you that know me, and know my business partner (and my son) K.W. Cunningham, know that we run a little podcast called Cine-Rama (www.Cine-Rama.com). And WAY back in episode 2, we discussed a movie called There Will Be Blood, directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, and starring Daniel Day-Lewis, and Paul Dano. Blood earned Daniel Day-Lewis a win for best actor, and best cinematography.
Way back in 2007, when KWC and I reviewed this movie, we didn’t look upon it too favorably. And I put it in my “I’ll revisit that some day” category… meaning, maybe it deserves a second viewing to get the full effect.
That day is today… Last night I found There Will Be Blood at Wal-Mart for $5… and in Widescreen. (although it was the movie only, no special features)… And I thought, hell for Five Whole Bucks it’ll be worth it to watch this again.
A lot of the criticism I had for the movie stays true, it was too long, and there were many scenes that I don’t believe pushed the story forward. For example, the scene with Henry, (Daniel’s false brother) may have been essential in demonstrating Daniels hatred and mistrust for the world and the people that inhabit it… it was also a very disjointed scene in the film, it took us too far away from the main focus. And it didn’t do a whole lot for the story… I don’t know maybe I’m wrong, and I’m contradicting myself again. Point being, there were a few scenes that we could have done without, and the story line still would have held up.
Now, with that said, there are a few elements of the film, that didn’t speak to me as much as it did in the second viewing. There was clearly a strong underlying element of atheism in this film, that I’m sad to say I didn’t catch the first time through (although, watching it again i realize that it’s quite evident). Not only was there this overwhelming sense of atheism, but I also found that the characters of Daniel Plainview, and Eli Sunday were the prototypical example of Good vs. Evil… IN FACT, taking it one step further I think that Daniel Plainview is the physical embodiment of the Devil, as show in his ability to kill without remorse, and his lust for profit, and greed.
However, on the opposite end of the spectrum, I don’t believe that Eli Sunday was the physical embodiment of either Jesus Christ or God. I feel as though the character of Eli, is more of a servant for God, such as an Angel. I’m still torn as to the meaning behind Eli and his brother Paul, and I welcome any comments that might lead me to understand that better.
IF I were to attempt to take a stab at the meaning of Paul Sunday, I would say that Paul is the chosen savior (as stated by Daniel at the end of the movie)… and that his brother Eli is keeping him from view, to accelerate his own image. I have also speculated that Paul, is an alter ego of Eli, and that Paul only exists within Eli’s own mind. What I do know, is that Eli is a wolf in sheep’s clothing (As opposed to Daniel who is a wolf in the open)… Either way, I am mostly thinking while typing, and I haven’t formed a strong opinion of Eli Sunday. I wish that they had developed Eli more as a character, and see him grow as we see Daniel grown. I welcome any thoughts and comments…
Before wrapping up this article, I’d like to write a bit about two particular (iconic) scenes in this movie. Two scenes, that are the reason I felt it worthwhile to purchase this movie. The first being Daniel’s baptism… this scene is the first example of the power and ability Daniel Day-Lewis has an actor. In this scene, watch Day-Lewis’ face… starting with him in the church pew, as Eli is asking if there are any sinners in the congregation. You can see the wheels turning inside of Plainview’s mind… and then furthermore, watch Plainview as he is being converted by Eli, his escalation into the realization that he really has abandoned his son. It’s a very powerful, and moving scene that was most definitely a catalyst in Daniel Day-Lewis taking home the Oscar.
The second scene, being the now very iconic “I Drink Your Milkshake” scene… Plainview is woken by Eli in the bowling alley, and he begs Daniel to help him drill for oil. The scene is perfectly played out by the two actors, and it’s a scene that shows the devil winning the battle of good vs. evil. The Devil forces the Angel to admit that there is no god, and that he is truly a false profit… to the point where Eli actually believes the words he is saying, just as Daniel believed the words Eli was saying in his baptism. I particularly love the line that Eli says in this scene… he says that “God did not tell him of the economic collapse” – it’s a powerful line that helps further the theme of atheism… Eli admits out of desperation that he does not have a direct line to God, especially when it comes to issues of money. And he is now forced to beg the Devil for help…
I have followed the work of Paul Thomas Anderson since Boogie Nights, and have always called myself a fan. As I talk about extensively in that original podcast… I didn’t care for this film as much as say Punch Drunk Love or Magnolia, but it is clear that there is some influence by the work of Robert Altman on Anderson, and it is more evident in this film then any of his other films (well, except for maybe Magnolia).. the themes of abandonment and the existence of God, are vehicles that are evident in many of Robert Altman’s films* (and likewise an influence by Ingmar Bergman is present here as well).
So I think the thesis of this essay is that upon second viewing this film; although not a perfect one, is well worth the time it takes to watch it, and study it… particularly the two scenes mentioned above. Paul Thomas Anderson is truly a master of this craft, and I have enjoyed his work for many years… and it’s also worth noting that many of his films are worth a second and third viewing before you can grasp exactly what the films are about. The best example of that is Boogie Nights, a film I hated on the first viewing, but liked (and forgave) on the second viewing.
I’m not sure what Mr. Anderson is working on next, but I hope it’s something just as strong and as impactful as the rest of the films in his body of work.
_________________________________________________________________
*It’s worth noting that I have never been the biggest fan of Robert Altman, but I appreciate his style and thematic elements, and continue to explore his work.
I didn’t want too much time to go by without writing up this review. I took the month of October off to concentrate only on my Month of Horror, so this review had to kind of take a back seat…
The 1937 Best Picture Winner, The Life of Emile Zola… starring Paul Muni as Emile Zola, one of Frances’s most controversial writers. This biopic, follows the life of Zola from his days a poor struggling writer, to his rise as a prominent writers.
Zola spent his life uncovering the truth in the French government, and the French army, among other topics, in a day when there was heavy censorship in place, and articles and books that today would be common place, were outlawed. But despite the rules set in place by the government, Zola continued to put out books that continued to turn heads and cause dispute among the Paris officials.
Zola was eventually tried and imprisoned, for writing an article about a soldier in the French army who was falsely accused of treason. This soldier’s wife asks Zola to help him uncover the truth about her husband.
I watched this movie in two sittings, and it sat on my DVD Player for close to 2 weeks before I got around to watching it. I was curious to see it, because Quentin Tarentino mentioned it in reference to writing Inglorious Basterds. But overall, I didn’t find this film to be as interesting as I had hoped… it didn’t move for the longest time, and Zola’s life moved so quickly jumping from decade to decade, and event to event so fast that I wasn’t entirely sure what was happening.
By the second half of the movie, once the Zola’s trial began, the movie began to make a little more sense… and it became easier to follow. But that’s not saying much… this movie was still a little dry.
Out of all the movies that I’ve watched in the 1930s, I wouldn’t say that it’s the WORST, but I also wouldn’t say it’s the best… what I would say, is that I’m not entirely sure why this movie won for best picture. This was the first biopic to win best picture…
One more movie to go in the 1930s, (Well, technically two more… but I’ve seen Gone With The Wind) 1938’s You Can’t Take it With You.
Ohh Pandora, I met you a year ago, and our relationship has never been better…
You started by playing only Nick Drake, but soon you started adding more music to your playlist, James Taylor, Neil Young, The Beatles…
You have grown into a constant companion, as you shift in and out of genres with ease, just as I get bored… you throw a new genre at me, and I feel refreshed.
As I write this about you, you are in an 80s Girl Band Phase, playing The Go-Gos, Blondie, and Pat Benatar… but next you might move into 80s New Wave, with the Cure, or Echo and the Bunnymen. Then you may put me in a folk or country mood, or a 90s Industrial, or a little classic rock…
But Pandora, it’s not all wonderful and glorious… sometimes you play John Mayer, or Ryan Adams… thumbs down Pandora, thumbs down.
It’s okay though, you’ll make up for it with some Pink Floyd, or you’ll surprise me with something new that I have never heard before. And that’s why I love you Pandora…
Okay, I have to be nice to this movie… I get it, I understand that it is meant to be schlocky, wait… was it meant to be schlocky or was it meant to be sincere and ended up being schlocky. Wait… what does Schlocky mean? Apparently it’s a word derived from Yiddish in reference to poor or inferior. But that’s neither here nor there…
This movie was amazing in it’s B-Movie quality… in fact, I think it’s production value was better then some of the B-Movies I have seen. What I loved best about this movie was the fact that when the blob was creeping around the corners, you could tell how fake the scenery was, but how real the blob was. I looked at some of the extras from the DVD, looking at some of the models used for those scenes, and I have to say it was really quite revolutionary special effects, actually revolutionary isn’t the right word… innovative makes more sense.
I also love the idea that your average person could remake this movie, and it could be as good if not better then the original. But yet they are putting it in the hands of Rob Zombie… go figure. Actually in all honesty, I’m curious to see what Rob Zombie will do with this movie.
The storyline was a little bit thin, it focused very heavily on scenes that didn’t need that much detail, such as the cop lecturing Steve about his backwards drag racing. And it concerned me when at 1 hour and 13 minutes (of a 1 hour 22 minute movie) we hadn’t hit the climax yet.
But like I said, I have to be nice to this movie, because it is actually a really well done movie for something that was probably made on a shoestring budget.
I rounded out my study of George Romero and his Zombies, by watching the third in his Zombie trilogy: Day of the Dead.
This movie, in my opinion was the weirdest, and most creepy of any of the movies in this trilogy. I’m going to classify this Trilogy in two factions, Night of the Living Dead, and then the other two. And my reasoning for that is because Night of the Living Dead is awesome in it’s own right. And there’s no reason to compare these movies to that one.
But, if I had to start comparing, it would make more sense to compare Dawn, and Day… And if I had to pick one, well I’d stick with Dawn of the Dead.
Day of the dead, as I said was the weirdest and most creepy of the three movies… Romero’s Zombies have come a long way since the first movie, and so has Tom Savini’s make up design.
In this movie, we focus on a group of civilian scientists, and a small military operation ordered to protect them… The scientists are granted permission to do tests, and research on these Zombies, hoping that they can find a cure or an answer to what’s happening. And the military operation, who has turned rogue… is forcing them to show progress or they are shutting down the process.
This concept lead to some really cool special effects… most notably, when one of the test zombies is lying on the table dissected, and he gets loose from his bonds, and turns over and all his guts spill out onto the floor. It was graphic, and it was cool… it was clear that there was a much bigger budget for makup and special effects in this movie.
This movie had a very creepy vibe throughout, but something that I thought was particularly creepy… was the first time we see “Frankenstein’s” lab… and you see a living Zombie (who we later find out to be Bub) chained in a dark corner of the lab. For whatever reason, seeing Bub chained in the dark, made this movie all that much more creepy.
I commented to a friend that this movie also had that weird quality to it, the “Gorilla’s In the Mist” storyline, in which Frankenstein attempts to make Bub more civilized, was an interesting concept, but a little weird… it humanized these “monsters.”
Just a note on horror movies… I probably didn’t see my first, true, gory, b-movie, horror movie… until college. They were just not part of our family growing up… and I knew a guy my freshman year of college (my first semester roommate) , who grew up on these movies from the minute he could walk. So for the entire semester we lived together, we watched a ton of horror movies… Dead-Alive, Evil Dead 1&2, Army of Darkness, Phantasm… I got a ton of horror training in a matter of 4 months. And it’s something only now that I’m starting to catch up on. Hence the reason that I never saw Dawn of the Dead, or Day of the Dead until this year.
So I look forward to expanding my base of horror films, and finding out what directors I like and don’t like… I’m far from a horror love or a horror connoisseur. But I’m getting there…
Don’t know what I’m going to watch next, but I might take a break from the Zombies for a bit.
I’d have to give this movie 3 pieces of candy corn… not as good as Dawn of the Dead, but 3 for it’s creepiness.
I guess I have more of a personal attachment to this movie, at least the original version… because when I was 18, my High School in Milwaukee put on Fame for our Spring Play. I had friends who were in it, acting as “the band” in the play… and then the song I Sing the Body Electric (the song that they performed/sang at the graduation in the original movie) was sung/performed at MY graduation. So I guess the original movie, and that song in particular holds important meaning for me.
This movie reimagining/remake, was more of a dud and a flop then I was expecting… I guess I thought that it was going to be a strict remake, but it certainly was not. There were many social and life issues that were either not dealt with at all, or barely touched on in this new version.
Furthermore, the issues that were dealt with, were never completed or resolved. For example, one character lies to his mother who thinks he is at the local public school, when he is actually attending the Performing Arts High School. There is a confrontation about the issue between the boy and his mother, and it ends unresolved as the mother stormed off to go to work. Sophomore year comes around, and we see the boy is still in school… so we assume is mother is okay with it now. Don’t make me assume… show me the result, show me a hug and a happy moment, where she says OK.
And this wasn’t an isolated incident… the main character Jenny, played by Kay Panabaker, is shown to be a timid and reserved girl who wants to be an actress, but her teacher pushes her to break free from her box. Yes, we delve into the love affair she has with her friend Marco, but we never actually see any growth as an actress… did she ever break free from that box? Did she find her niche? I don’t know…
The point is, the characters had stories and issues that were never fully explained in depth… only touched upon briefly. It almost would have been better if they had LESS characters and developed them fully.
And my biggest issue with the movie, is that one character who’s name I can’t recall… had a moment in the film where his ballet teacher told him he will never be able to make a living as a dancer, and he might make a good teacher, and that’s about it. And the kid not only accepted it, but tried to kill himself over it. He never even made an attempt to make it as a dancer. And that bothered me more then anything, the fact that he just gave up, and went back home to Iowa. I think if it were me, I’d give the teacher a big middle finger and tell her I’m going to prove her wrong. And then in 5 years, if she was right… then go home. I don’t know I guess I’m not a dancer, but I feel like the guy gave up too easily…
Anyway, we saw this movie on a discount night for $5, and unfortunately that’s all it was worth… I think that in this day, with the success of High School Musical, and now with the popularity of Glee… someone somewhere thought it might be a good idea to bring this movie back.
So Rent Buy or Never again? This version never again, but I would like to buy the original at some point…
Additional note: The casting of Kelsey Grammer as a piano teacher, Megan Mullaly as a singing teacher, Charles S. Dutton as an acting teacher and Bebe Neuwirth as a dance teacher… well that was the only part of the movie that was done well. Excellent casting choices on all four parts. Not to mention Frasier and Lillith together in the same movie (too bad they didn’t have any scenes together).
I was just commenting on this to someone, and I thought it might be worth sharing…
Some time ago… 2, 3 or 4 years ago… something like that, I read two things on imdb at the same time that piqued my interest.
1) Spike Jonze is developing a live action adaptation of Where the Wild Things Are, using people in puppet suits…
and
2) Wes Anderson was going to make a stop motion animated version of The Fantastic Mr. Fox by Rohl Dahl
When I read both of these, I thought… “Wow, cool… hope it actually happens”
And if I remember correctly, both of those movies were in various forms of production since then.
And now, we are 1 day and 1 month away from seeing both of those movies.
Just a thought worth sharing.
