I remember reading The Invisible Man by H.G. Wells ages ago and being absolutely bored to tears. I'm not sure what I was reading, or perhaps R.C. Sheriff took liberties when he penned the screen adaptation of it, but this movie is awesome. Most of the time I watch old horror films for the sake of having a laugh at the campiness of it all, but like "Frankenstein" this is just solid movie making.
Following the same vein of that monster masterpiece, director James Whale has chosen material focusing on the effects of science misused. Claude Rains ("Casablanca") plays a stranger who appears from a snowstorm in a little English village. Completely bandaged, he sets himself up in a room above a pub where he conducts experiments in secret. It is soon learned by the townsfolk that he is invisible trying to make himself seen once more.
An unforeseen consequence of the drug taken to make him so is that it slowly causes the person to become violently insane. Completely disrobing, the invisible man heads out into the cold after causing mayhem in the village, where he goes on a killing spree.
The film is not as complex as Wales' other work, but though I initially thought it would simply be a showcase for the special effects used, it turns out it is also a really compelling story of madness and betrayal. William Harrigan plays Dr. Kemp, another scientist who is recruited by our specter to help with the experiments. Threatened by death, Kemp employs the help of the local authorities which turns into a massive manhunt, as we watch society slowly coming apart at the seems. One unusual man has the power to affect all of those around him.
The special effects are something really impressive. Wales certainly knows how to use smoke and mirrors to great effect. I found Rains to be far creepier with his bandages, black glasses and his tuft of fake hair, but seeing a cigarette slowly being inhaled and knowing a naked body is the one doing it is also disconcerting. Oftentimes it did not appear that everything was done with wires and I do expect that they were somehow able to find a way actually have invisible people manipulating chairs, glasses and clothes which boggles the mind. I sometimes forget that people were once able to do amazing things without the use of computers.
We really never see Rains, but even behind the gauze, or later when we only hear his voice he still does an impressive job. What we are able to see and hear him do is so expressive that it isn't necessary to see his face. It was a job very well done by the leading man.
What is truly remarkable about this is how well the film has aged. There is nothing forced or tacky about it, and I didn't feel I was watching something antiquated and boring. The deaths were frightening and the invisible man as a person made an impression on me. It is a haunting little film that made me ponder what I would do if I were in his situation (though not mad, obviously). In the end, I determined I would probably steal some beer and watch old horror movies, though unabashedly naked.
3.5/4
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Diabolique (1955)
As I sat watching this film I began asking myself who or what the diabolique, or devil, was. I later learned that the original title was "Les Diaboliques", a simple change, I know, but one which carries with it very different assumptions with regards to this particular material. The title in the singular makes it infinitely more ambiguous--I like it much more, for murkiness is its greatest asset. This is an outstanding piece of cinema, a thriller and mystery whose influence is immediately visible in Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece, "Psycho".
It is a story of a man and the two women in his life, his wife, Christina, and his mistress, Nicole. I called him a man which is a misnomer, for he is far more wolf than human. He is a deplorable, detestable, disgusting mistake of a man who has no money and no social standing, but throws his weight around as though he does. He flaunts his infidelity in front of his wife; it is her fat inheritance that signs Nicole's paycheck, for they both work at a boarding school.
Finally fed up with his monstrous behavior, the two women decide to murder Michel, concocting the perfect alibi to cover their tracks. Of course things never go accordingly to plan and so many errors seem to crop up, but it isn't until the corpse goes missing entirely that Christina and Nicole start to panic.
I had never heard of this movie until a few weeks ago, but having watched it it becomes obvious almost at once the impact that this film has had in the world of suspense. When the boarding school's pool is drained and Michel isn't rotting at the bottom it is as if the world freezes for a moment. The final ten minutes are so tense and so frightening as the idea of ghosts begins to creep its way into the back of our minds that the final image of the bathtub made me physically cringe. Hitchcock couldn't have done what he did without "Diabolique".
This is in every way an exemplary piece of film making. The magnificent story is fleshed out with beautiful dialogue and a set of complex and engaging characters. I wanted very strongly for Michel to die and it was so gratifying when it finally happened. That is a sign of effective material. Both Simone Signoret and Vera Clouzot (Nicole and Christina, respectively) give fine performances. The former is the tough, no-nonsense girl with the connections and know-how who stages the murder. The latter is the frail, pious victim who is finally pushed to her limits.
As the film progresses it becomes an assault on the mind. Henri-Georges Clouzot directs, and fashions something dark, taught and yet quite beautiful. We don't blame the women for what they do and hope for them to succeed even though intellectually we know that to be impossible. Still, we invest so much into the characters that it becomes too hard not to fall victim for Clouzot's ingenious traps.
This is nothing short of the French "Psycho" and a masterpiece in its own right. I am ashamed to say I was ignorance of its existence until now, but I shall herald its name, as should you all.
4/4
It is a story of a man and the two women in his life, his wife, Christina, and his mistress, Nicole. I called him a man which is a misnomer, for he is far more wolf than human. He is a deplorable, detestable, disgusting mistake of a man who has no money and no social standing, but throws his weight around as though he does. He flaunts his infidelity in front of his wife; it is her fat inheritance that signs Nicole's paycheck, for they both work at a boarding school.
Finally fed up with his monstrous behavior, the two women decide to murder Michel, concocting the perfect alibi to cover their tracks. Of course things never go accordingly to plan and so many errors seem to crop up, but it isn't until the corpse goes missing entirely that Christina and Nicole start to panic.
I had never heard of this movie until a few weeks ago, but having watched it it becomes obvious almost at once the impact that this film has had in the world of suspense. When the boarding school's pool is drained and Michel isn't rotting at the bottom it is as if the world freezes for a moment. The final ten minutes are so tense and so frightening as the idea of ghosts begins to creep its way into the back of our minds that the final image of the bathtub made me physically cringe. Hitchcock couldn't have done what he did without "Diabolique".
This is in every way an exemplary piece of film making. The magnificent story is fleshed out with beautiful dialogue and a set of complex and engaging characters. I wanted very strongly for Michel to die and it was so gratifying when it finally happened. That is a sign of effective material. Both Simone Signoret and Vera Clouzot (Nicole and Christina, respectively) give fine performances. The former is the tough, no-nonsense girl with the connections and know-how who stages the murder. The latter is the frail, pious victim who is finally pushed to her limits.
As the film progresses it becomes an assault on the mind. Henri-Georges Clouzot directs, and fashions something dark, taught and yet quite beautiful. We don't blame the women for what they do and hope for them to succeed even though intellectually we know that to be impossible. Still, we invest so much into the characters that it becomes too hard not to fall victim for Clouzot's ingenious traps.
This is nothing short of the French "Psycho" and a masterpiece in its own right. I am ashamed to say I was ignorance of its existence until now, but I shall herald its name, as should you all.
4/4
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Frankenweenie (2012)
Throughout the month I have been reviewing horror films mainly, for why would you not during spooky October? I was so happy to have seen this film for it brings together all of the different elements of many of the monster movies I have watched and synthesized them into one glorious celebration of the bizarre and the campy.
Adapted from his live-action short, Tim Burton has gone back to the basics to do what he does best. His latest project crackles with wit and love as he adapts the classic Frankenstein story into a beautifully rendered stop-motion children's film. Burton flexes all of his strengths by keeping his imaginative visual flair to animation and delving more into the humorous than the macabre.
There is certainly nothing to make this film a modern classic like Henry Selick's "The Nightmare Before Christmas" and many will argue that its charm will come from the homages paid to other, more inventive films, but I say there is nothing wrong with that if the end result is good--which it is. Victor Frankenstein, an elementary school science wiz creates a laboratory to bring his dead dog Sparky back from the grave. Harnessing the powers of lightning and love his best friend is reanimated, much to the horror of his family and neighbors.
The story follows the plot of Frankenstein quite closely, including the burning windmill in the original Boris Karloff film and the romance with a frizzy-haired poodle like the film's sequel. Where "Frankenweenie" diverges from Burton's source material is a science fair and a group of over-zealous kids all out to learn Victor's secrets, leading to monstrous consequences.
These kids are by far the highlight of the film and absolutely hilarious, for Victor's class is made up of a bunch of ghoulish weirdos inspired by all of the classic horror performances which Burton obviously loves so much. The voice acting is superb all around with a terrific cast including Catherine O'Hara, Martin Short, Winona Ryder, and a perfect Martin Landau voicing Victor's eccentric east European science teacher in very likeness of Vincent Price.
I sat in the theatre trying to keep track of all of the films Burton referenced which was where most of the fun I had came from. From his own work I saw "Beetlejuice", "Edward Scissorhands", "Ed Wood", "Vincent" and "Corpse Bride". The list of other works is considerably longer: "Frankenstein", "Dracula" (two versions), "The Mummy", "The Wolf Man", "The Invisible Man", "The Creature from the Black Lagoon", "Godzilla", "The Bride of Frankenstein", "Gremlins", "Poltergeist" and I'm sure considerably more that I have forgotten or didn't recognize. It made the film all the more enjoyable for me, though I think it is a really fun movie in general.
This is a weird little film but one with lots of emotion and characters we want to identify with. It's also a rather creepy little movie, but that's enjoyable in itself. It's black and white with characters all slightly off except Vincent and his parents who are supposed to be the odd characters making the town of New Holland Ed Wood's wet dream, which I have no doubt was Burton's goal. The animation is beautiful, slightly more jittery than other recent stop-motion films which is probably a tribute to Ray Harryhausen.
Themes of the ethics of death may be too mature for younger audiences, but friendship is universally identifiable. "Frankenweenie" won't be remembered for anything more than being a good film, but I had a blast nevertheless, and it's good to see Burton in top form again.
3.5/4
Adapted from his live-action short, Tim Burton has gone back to the basics to do what he does best. His latest project crackles with wit and love as he adapts the classic Frankenstein story into a beautifully rendered stop-motion children's film. Burton flexes all of his strengths by keeping his imaginative visual flair to animation and delving more into the humorous than the macabre.
There is certainly nothing to make this film a modern classic like Henry Selick's "The Nightmare Before Christmas" and many will argue that its charm will come from the homages paid to other, more inventive films, but I say there is nothing wrong with that if the end result is good--which it is. Victor Frankenstein, an elementary school science wiz creates a laboratory to bring his dead dog Sparky back from the grave. Harnessing the powers of lightning and love his best friend is reanimated, much to the horror of his family and neighbors.
The story follows the plot of Frankenstein quite closely, including the burning windmill in the original Boris Karloff film and the romance with a frizzy-haired poodle like the film's sequel. Where "Frankenweenie" diverges from Burton's source material is a science fair and a group of over-zealous kids all out to learn Victor's secrets, leading to monstrous consequences.
These kids are by far the highlight of the film and absolutely hilarious, for Victor's class is made up of a bunch of ghoulish weirdos inspired by all of the classic horror performances which Burton obviously loves so much. The voice acting is superb all around with a terrific cast including Catherine O'Hara, Martin Short, Winona Ryder, and a perfect Martin Landau voicing Victor's eccentric east European science teacher in very likeness of Vincent Price.
I sat in the theatre trying to keep track of all of the films Burton referenced which was where most of the fun I had came from. From his own work I saw "Beetlejuice", "Edward Scissorhands", "Ed Wood", "Vincent" and "Corpse Bride". The list of other works is considerably longer: "Frankenstein", "Dracula" (two versions), "The Mummy", "The Wolf Man", "The Invisible Man", "The Creature from the Black Lagoon", "Godzilla", "The Bride of Frankenstein", "Gremlins", "Poltergeist" and I'm sure considerably more that I have forgotten or didn't recognize. It made the film all the more enjoyable for me, though I think it is a really fun movie in general.
This is a weird little film but one with lots of emotion and characters we want to identify with. It's also a rather creepy little movie, but that's enjoyable in itself. It's black and white with characters all slightly off except Vincent and his parents who are supposed to be the odd characters making the town of New Holland Ed Wood's wet dream, which I have no doubt was Burton's goal. The animation is beautiful, slightly more jittery than other recent stop-motion films which is probably a tribute to Ray Harryhausen.
Themes of the ethics of death may be too mature for younger audiences, but friendship is universally identifiable. "Frankenweenie" won't be remembered for anything more than being a good film, but I had a blast nevertheless, and it's good to see Burton in top form again.
3.5/4
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Dracula (1931)
When I was a little boy I had an extreme fascination with vampires. Of course, this was before the nonsense of Anne Rice and Twilight, not that I would have really been aware of such things. I had a real fascination with the classic image of the vampire--I still do. They are romantic and dark, there is nothing loud or boorish about them; they possess a certain sensibility.
"Nosferatu" was the first of the Vampire films, but it would be Bela Lugosi's classic portrayal of Dracula which would immortalize the image of the monster in cinema, yet to be replaced. His masterful command of the screen, his thick, rolling voice, and above all else his eyes so fully capture the essence of what the vampire is that he transcends a mildly mediocre story to make it one of the screen greats.
Count Dracula, with the help of a real estate agent Renfield, decides to move to London for reasons unexplained. Transylvanian locals warn Renfield that the count is a vampire, but what sort of self-respecting, modern Englishman would believe such backward, central European superstition? The rumors are well-founded, however, and an evil is unleashed onto English streets.
Deaths begin to occur in alarming numbers and it is only when Dr. Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan) enters the picture that the idea of the vampire is entertained and fingers pointed at Dracula. It becomes a race against the sun to stop the count before he is able to turn the lovely Mina into another vampire wife for himself.
What is so wonderful about this film is the way it has harnessed what makes a vampire so chilling. It is not like the wolf man who scares us by a primal fear of beasts, being ripped to shreds and that blood chilling sound of a howl. Lugosi and director Tom Browning fashioned a character that not only seemed half-crazed with those demonic eyes and that stately step, but he is suave and disarming as well.
The entire movie is about the quiet and the shadow, mists and street lamps. A sudden bat is a silent intruder, bringing death with the billow of a cape, not with a snarl and a scream. It works so well because it contains the air of mystery that I think of when I contemplate the old country of Romania.
Beyond Bela, credit for the dramatic atmosphere must be given to the art director and especially to the lighting designer. Rarely have a seen a film do reliant and the use of lighting in setting tone as this one and it is done spectacularly. One has only to examine the way in which the tiny lights shone on Lugosi change the way we perceive him to understand that this film would not be anything of consequence without it.
This is a great film--a classic, as cliched as that word is--and perfect for All Hallow's Eve. Certainly it isn't scary for we are far too numb to violence and gore to be afraid of a death that takes place off screen. But Lugosi's eyes truly are unforgettable, which I think was all he ever wanted. I am absolutely a fan and one of his children of the night.
3.5/4
"Nosferatu" was the first of the Vampire films, but it would be Bela Lugosi's classic portrayal of Dracula which would immortalize the image of the monster in cinema, yet to be replaced. His masterful command of the screen, his thick, rolling voice, and above all else his eyes so fully capture the essence of what the vampire is that he transcends a mildly mediocre story to make it one of the screen greats.
Count Dracula, with the help of a real estate agent Renfield, decides to move to London for reasons unexplained. Transylvanian locals warn Renfield that the count is a vampire, but what sort of self-respecting, modern Englishman would believe such backward, central European superstition? The rumors are well-founded, however, and an evil is unleashed onto English streets.
Deaths begin to occur in alarming numbers and it is only when Dr. Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan) enters the picture that the idea of the vampire is entertained and fingers pointed at Dracula. It becomes a race against the sun to stop the count before he is able to turn the lovely Mina into another vampire wife for himself.
What is so wonderful about this film is the way it has harnessed what makes a vampire so chilling. It is not like the wolf man who scares us by a primal fear of beasts, being ripped to shreds and that blood chilling sound of a howl. Lugosi and director Tom Browning fashioned a character that not only seemed half-crazed with those demonic eyes and that stately step, but he is suave and disarming as well.
The entire movie is about the quiet and the shadow, mists and street lamps. A sudden bat is a silent intruder, bringing death with the billow of a cape, not with a snarl and a scream. It works so well because it contains the air of mystery that I think of when I contemplate the old country of Romania.
Beyond Bela, credit for the dramatic atmosphere must be given to the art director and especially to the lighting designer. Rarely have a seen a film do reliant and the use of lighting in setting tone as this one and it is done spectacularly. One has only to examine the way in which the tiny lights shone on Lugosi change the way we perceive him to understand that this film would not be anything of consequence without it.
This is a great film--a classic, as cliched as that word is--and perfect for All Hallow's Eve. Certainly it isn't scary for we are far too numb to violence and gore to be afraid of a death that takes place off screen. But Lugosi's eyes truly are unforgettable, which I think was all he ever wanted. I am absolutely a fan and one of his children of the night.
3.5/4
Thursday, October 18, 2012
The Mummy (1932)
I've never found mummies to be particularly frightening. The idea of resurrection is a disconcerting idea, but like old fashioned zombies I usually just find them annoying. However, I find Boris Karloff to be insanely creepy and his classic portrayal of sacrilegious Im-Ho-Tep, an ancient Egyptian priest brought back from the dead made me cringe in goosebumpy delight.
In general this story is silly and not especially involving. In 1921, a team of British archaeologists unearth the tomb of this Im-Ho-Tep and the Scroll of Troth. Involving some mysterious mumbo-jumbo regarding an ancient curse and superstitious whatnot a young member of the team inadvertently raises the priest from the dead.
Im-Ho-Tep disappears, but 10 years later reemerges, his body inexplicably reformed. Using his mystic powers he lusts for his dead wife reincarnated in the form of the beautiful Helen Grosvenor (Zita Johann). We know the soul of his late wife is in her through flashback where she wears one of the worst wigs I have ever seen in a film. A small point, but why on God's green earth would the costumer use that wig? Miss Vera West ought to have been fired. Back to the story, the mummy is found out and this troop of renegade archaeologist seek to destroy him by unearthly means.
The special effects are pretty interesting and there are some neat uses of lighting which, particularly when used on Karloff, create a very eerie atmosphere. Really, this film relies mostly on moods rather than genuine scares which it has absolutely zero of. That isn't to say I didn't like it. It doesn't make any sense and the flashback sequence is painfully boring, but it is an endearingly weird film.
I also liked it out of personal interest. Originally a book, it makes reference to the pursuit of science and claims that sometimes there are things better left undiscovered. As a lover of history, I do agree that respect for national artifacts and especially respect for the dead are things which need to be honored. Knowledge is power, but decency is too. Despite the "horror" aspect of the movie I appreciated its message.
Here's a picture of Karloff just because I like it:
He's certainly not as good here as he was as Frankenstein's monster, but how can that not make your skin crawl?
3/4
In general this story is silly and not especially involving. In 1921, a team of British archaeologists unearth the tomb of this Im-Ho-Tep and the Scroll of Troth. Involving some mysterious mumbo-jumbo regarding an ancient curse and superstitious whatnot a young member of the team inadvertently raises the priest from the dead.
Im-Ho-Tep disappears, but 10 years later reemerges, his body inexplicably reformed. Using his mystic powers he lusts for his dead wife reincarnated in the form of the beautiful Helen Grosvenor (Zita Johann). We know the soul of his late wife is in her through flashback where she wears one of the worst wigs I have ever seen in a film. A small point, but why on God's green earth would the costumer use that wig? Miss Vera West ought to have been fired. Back to the story, the mummy is found out and this troop of renegade archaeologist seek to destroy him by unearthly means.
The special effects are pretty interesting and there are some neat uses of lighting which, particularly when used on Karloff, create a very eerie atmosphere. Really, this film relies mostly on moods rather than genuine scares which it has absolutely zero of. That isn't to say I didn't like it. It doesn't make any sense and the flashback sequence is painfully boring, but it is an endearingly weird film.
I also liked it out of personal interest. Originally a book, it makes reference to the pursuit of science and claims that sometimes there are things better left undiscovered. As a lover of history, I do agree that respect for national artifacts and especially respect for the dead are things which need to be honored. Knowledge is power, but decency is too. Despite the "horror" aspect of the movie I appreciated its message.
Here's a picture of Karloff just because I like it:
He's certainly not as good here as he was as Frankenstein's monster, but how can that not make your skin crawl?
3/4
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Ringu (1998)
Urban legends are an odd thing. They are pervasive and last longer than one might expect considering people don't normally give credence to them (though I must say my father had me absolutely convinced that Big Foot roamed the forests of the Issaquah Highlands). Folk lore is as pertinent a thing to study when examining cultural identities as religion on constitutions. Possibly more visible than these other characteristics, lore is fluid and more individual than, say, a language.
"Ringu" plays on these ideas as it brings urban myth to a new landscape--technology. What would later inspire the hit American remake, "The Ring", its Japanese predecessor creates a new legend in the form of a possessed video tape. A mesh of bizarre images culminate with a shot of a well. After watching this your phone will ring and a you will be informed you have seven days left to live. After a week, victims die a horrible and mysterious death, their faces contorted with fear.
Nanako Matsushima plays a journalist named Reiko who is tracing the deaths of four teenagers and who all seem to have watched this one, unobtainable tape. She does find it, watches it, receives her phone call and with the help of her callous ex-husband they try to solve the clues hidden within the images before her impending death.
The days go by quickly and they begin to unravel a plot that I find slightly amusing, somewhat ridiculous (yes I do remember this film is about a possessed VHS tape) and a bit sinister. It draws together what I imagine to be more traditional Japanese superstition and places it in a modern backdrop. The mystery being solved, however, is not all that interesting and though Reiko's time is running out there is none of the tension that should have been in the film. The story they are discovering is too nonsensical and the acting to banal for me to have really cared.
This film is mostly buildup with very little payoff. People will recognize the ghost that finally does appear by the end of the movie and when she does show up it is petrifying in its simplicity. There is no big scare, but it is so intensely creepy that I would have been surprised if there wasn't an American remake. It is saddening to say that it was far too little way too late. Instead of being scared stiff I was just bored stiff.
There is no doubt that this is a very novel idea with enormous potential and that little girl and that well are startling images, but the lack of suspense or intrigue throughout made it less than enjoyable to watch. Without atmosphere what is the point of a horror film? Despite its glaring plot holes, I could not get it out of my head that nobody wants to spend an hour and a half watching an independent, single mother working. There's no fun in that and horror films are all about the fun scares.
1.5/4
"Ringu" plays on these ideas as it brings urban myth to a new landscape--technology. What would later inspire the hit American remake, "The Ring", its Japanese predecessor creates a new legend in the form of a possessed video tape. A mesh of bizarre images culminate with a shot of a well. After watching this your phone will ring and a you will be informed you have seven days left to live. After a week, victims die a horrible and mysterious death, their faces contorted with fear.
Nanako Matsushima plays a journalist named Reiko who is tracing the deaths of four teenagers and who all seem to have watched this one, unobtainable tape. She does find it, watches it, receives her phone call and with the help of her callous ex-husband they try to solve the clues hidden within the images before her impending death.
The days go by quickly and they begin to unravel a plot that I find slightly amusing, somewhat ridiculous (yes I do remember this film is about a possessed VHS tape) and a bit sinister. It draws together what I imagine to be more traditional Japanese superstition and places it in a modern backdrop. The mystery being solved, however, is not all that interesting and though Reiko's time is running out there is none of the tension that should have been in the film. The story they are discovering is too nonsensical and the acting to banal for me to have really cared.
This film is mostly buildup with very little payoff. People will recognize the ghost that finally does appear by the end of the movie and when she does show up it is petrifying in its simplicity. There is no big scare, but it is so intensely creepy that I would have been surprised if there wasn't an American remake. It is saddening to say that it was far too little way too late. Instead of being scared stiff I was just bored stiff.
There is no doubt that this is a very novel idea with enormous potential and that little girl and that well are startling images, but the lack of suspense or intrigue throughout made it less than enjoyable to watch. Without atmosphere what is the point of a horror film? Despite its glaring plot holes, I could not get it out of my head that nobody wants to spend an hour and a half watching an independent, single mother working. There's no fun in that and horror films are all about the fun scares.
1.5/4
Sunday, October 14, 2012
The African Queen (1951)
Most movies you could watch about WWI will focus on the gallantry and the horror of the trenches, of the first aviators and the tanks and the food lines. Many will be exciting, some will be heart breaking, but few will leave you feeling happy when the credits role. I'm not sure it's a triumph or if it's folly that I love the spirit and the joy of "The African Queen", but whatever it is I wouldn't change it for the world.
This is not a story about soldiers, but it is a story for patriots. It is a film about doing one's civic duty and the moral obligations that come from the infringements of human rights and dignity. More than that it is a smashing adventure and a perfect love story shared with my heroes, Katharine Hepburn and Humphrey Bogart who play two very unlikely champions of England and her colonies (Canada did not become part of the commonwealth until 1931 so it isn't proper to use that term. Digression).
Living in the heart of Africa, two siblings fulfill their White Man's Burden and preach the word of God to a tribe of savages until nasty Germans raid and burn the settlement. The locals are captured to be used as puppet soldiers for the Second Reich. Rosie (Hepburn) must then contend with her brother's death, which may have come from disease, but is hinted that his mind was broken from the trauma of their brutality. Alone and despondent, she leaves the tribe with a steamboat captain/mailman (Bogart) and heads for English territory on the African Queen.
Rarely has there been such a fantastic pairing as Hepburn and Bogart playing two of the most funnily mismatched characters. Often remarked as being frigid on screen, Kate excels as the minister's sister. Cold, proper and sheltered, Rosie finds pleasure in nothing more than reading the Good Book with a nice cup of tea. Her foil is the gruff, gin-guzzling Charlie Allnut who has the manners of an unflushed toilet. You can tell Bogart loves his character and the two actors ooze chemistry.
Rosie is sheltered, yes, but she's practical and sharp as a tack. Moreover, she is brave and angry and convinces Mr. Allnut to use his boat to attack a formidable German ship, the Louisa, which is keeping the British from a strategic lake. To reach the boat, however, the two misfits must first traverse an unnavigable river and dodge a German outpost, all the while dealing with each other.
This is one of those movies where all of the pieces create a whole so wonderful that it can be considered nothing but a classic. It's funny, thrilling, beautifully shot and fantastically acted. The story is unusual and compelling, but it is most remarkable that the love story is far more engaging than the adventurous framework of the film. We have basically two actors for most of the film confined to a 30 foot floating set. The dynamics of their characters had to be (and are) rich and interesting enough to shoulder the weight of an entire movie.
The moments I love most are those when Rosie and Charlie exchange little glances and we learn they are growing fond of each other's quirks. Seeing Rosie dumping the gin off the side of the boat or Charlie shaving as a form of unspoken apology are simple ways to make a love story so much better. The best love scenes are those that never say "I love you". That's a paraphrase from a movie I can't remember, but I do recall it was one of the smartest things I've ever heard in a film and it applies here. What makes the love story so damned good is that it feels so organic and just so full of love, even if it doesn't proclaim it.
I have seen this film several times and it never ceases to amaze me how well it has aged. I guess there is just something about a well made movie that can't grow old. When you have a good plot that is executed well there really isn't much room for it to become stale. There is a scene near the end where all hope seems lost as the African Queen gets stuck in desperately thick reeds. I tear up every time I watch it. There must be something especially powerful about the bond these two people form with each other and the bond that I form with them in order to get this way even knowing the scene is coming and its outcome.
This is an impressive movie and one of my favorites. I hope that modern audiences aren't turned off by the Technicolor or the lack of blood. A war film needn't be gritty and bloody in order to be brilliant. Simply relying on the powers of movie magic can create great cinema. I give this my highest recommendation and hope that everyone gets the chance to experience it.
4/4
This is not a story about soldiers, but it is a story for patriots. It is a film about doing one's civic duty and the moral obligations that come from the infringements of human rights and dignity. More than that it is a smashing adventure and a perfect love story shared with my heroes, Katharine Hepburn and Humphrey Bogart who play two very unlikely champions of England and her colonies (Canada did not become part of the commonwealth until 1931 so it isn't proper to use that term. Digression).
Living in the heart of Africa, two siblings fulfill their White Man's Burden and preach the word of God to a tribe of savages until nasty Germans raid and burn the settlement. The locals are captured to be used as puppet soldiers for the Second Reich. Rosie (Hepburn) must then contend with her brother's death, which may have come from disease, but is hinted that his mind was broken from the trauma of their brutality. Alone and despondent, she leaves the tribe with a steamboat captain/mailman (Bogart) and heads for English territory on the African Queen.
Rarely has there been such a fantastic pairing as Hepburn and Bogart playing two of the most funnily mismatched characters. Often remarked as being frigid on screen, Kate excels as the minister's sister. Cold, proper and sheltered, Rosie finds pleasure in nothing more than reading the Good Book with a nice cup of tea. Her foil is the gruff, gin-guzzling Charlie Allnut who has the manners of an unflushed toilet. You can tell Bogart loves his character and the two actors ooze chemistry.
Rosie is sheltered, yes, but she's practical and sharp as a tack. Moreover, she is brave and angry and convinces Mr. Allnut to use his boat to attack a formidable German ship, the Louisa, which is keeping the British from a strategic lake. To reach the boat, however, the two misfits must first traverse an unnavigable river and dodge a German outpost, all the while dealing with each other.
This is one of those movies where all of the pieces create a whole so wonderful that it can be considered nothing but a classic. It's funny, thrilling, beautifully shot and fantastically acted. The story is unusual and compelling, but it is most remarkable that the love story is far more engaging than the adventurous framework of the film. We have basically two actors for most of the film confined to a 30 foot floating set. The dynamics of their characters had to be (and are) rich and interesting enough to shoulder the weight of an entire movie.
The moments I love most are those when Rosie and Charlie exchange little glances and we learn they are growing fond of each other's quirks. Seeing Rosie dumping the gin off the side of the boat or Charlie shaving as a form of unspoken apology are simple ways to make a love story so much better. The best love scenes are those that never say "I love you". That's a paraphrase from a movie I can't remember, but I do recall it was one of the smartest things I've ever heard in a film and it applies here. What makes the love story so damned good is that it feels so organic and just so full of love, even if it doesn't proclaim it.
I have seen this film several times and it never ceases to amaze me how well it has aged. I guess there is just something about a well made movie that can't grow old. When you have a good plot that is executed well there really isn't much room for it to become stale. There is a scene near the end where all hope seems lost as the African Queen gets stuck in desperately thick reeds. I tear up every time I watch it. There must be something especially powerful about the bond these two people form with each other and the bond that I form with them in order to get this way even knowing the scene is coming and its outcome.
This is an impressive movie and one of my favorites. I hope that modern audiences aren't turned off by the Technicolor or the lack of blood. A war film needn't be gritty and bloody in order to be brilliant. Simply relying on the powers of movie magic can create great cinema. I give this my highest recommendation and hope that everyone gets the chance to experience it.
4/4
Friday, October 12, 2012
Audition (1999)
I had best friend named Kayleen. We were young and angsty and pretty twisted little teens. One might have even called us weird, though we were just confused kids who liked confusing things. Emily the Strange, Marilyn Manson, Tim Burton and hating on posers--these were our passions. Once, Kayleen introduced me to a little Japanese film called "Audition". She was always the bigger horror film fan and especially liked the Asian stuff. I had no idea what I was getting myself into, but eight years later images from the film from our giggly little freak night are still fresh in my mind. That's how scary this movie is.
Seven years after the death of his wife, Shigeharu (Ryo Ishibashi) is convinced by his teenage son to remarry. I expect it's a difficult process to be middle-aged and enter the dating scene again, especially when it was death and not divorce that separates you from your spouse. Shigeharu finds it difficult at any rate. But he works as a producer and a coworker gives him the idea to stage an audition for a film so that he might learn about certain girls and finally meet his future wife.
He does, and picks a quiet, beautiful girl with a troubled past. He doesn't tell her his true intentions, but a romance forms organically into something delicate and sweet. Troubling undertones begin to emerge though and soon it becomes clear that this girl is not all that she seems and by far a better actress than this producer expected.
It does take a very long while for the film to get going. You might even find yourself forgetting that it is a horror film as it takes about an hour to get through the setup. It isn't necessarily a bad thing. The first two acts are nice in their own right and would make a sentimental romantic tale of a man trying to cheat love. It is also acerbically witty making it perfectly reasonable to deviate from traditional horror plots.
The third act, however, is explosive and unforgettable. Its graphic intensity makes some moments too horrible to watch. Director Takashi Miike takes girls with daddy issues to a whole new level and makes it very clear that you can't short change the encounters between those you love. Its final 30 minutes are a fantastical set of memories and delusions woven around a nightmarish reality that will leave you white-knuckled. So long has passed since my initial viewing and I still remember quotes verbatim from those final moments.
I don't know if less back story would make this movie better or scarier. What we find at the end might have been cheapened if we weren't completely invested in two sad, lonely souls searching for each other. The final product, though, is gruesome and disturbingly awesome. Watch it and tell me you won't go to sleep hearing "Kiri, kiri, kiri, kiri, kiri!" over and over in your head.
3.5/4
Seven years after the death of his wife, Shigeharu (Ryo Ishibashi) is convinced by his teenage son to remarry. I expect it's a difficult process to be middle-aged and enter the dating scene again, especially when it was death and not divorce that separates you from your spouse. Shigeharu finds it difficult at any rate. But he works as a producer and a coworker gives him the idea to stage an audition for a film so that he might learn about certain girls and finally meet his future wife.
He does, and picks a quiet, beautiful girl with a troubled past. He doesn't tell her his true intentions, but a romance forms organically into something delicate and sweet. Troubling undertones begin to emerge though and soon it becomes clear that this girl is not all that she seems and by far a better actress than this producer expected.
It does take a very long while for the film to get going. You might even find yourself forgetting that it is a horror film as it takes about an hour to get through the setup. It isn't necessarily a bad thing. The first two acts are nice in their own right and would make a sentimental romantic tale of a man trying to cheat love. It is also acerbically witty making it perfectly reasonable to deviate from traditional horror plots.
The third act, however, is explosive and unforgettable. Its graphic intensity makes some moments too horrible to watch. Director Takashi Miike takes girls with daddy issues to a whole new level and makes it very clear that you can't short change the encounters between those you love. Its final 30 minutes are a fantastical set of memories and delusions woven around a nightmarish reality that will leave you white-knuckled. So long has passed since my initial viewing and I still remember quotes verbatim from those final moments.
I don't know if less back story would make this movie better or scarier. What we find at the end might have been cheapened if we weren't completely invested in two sad, lonely souls searching for each other. The final product, though, is gruesome and disturbingly awesome. Watch it and tell me you won't go to sleep hearing "Kiri, kiri, kiri, kiri, kiri!" over and over in your head.
3.5/4
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Them (2006)
In a style not dissimilar to "Halloween" a young French couple living in Romania are terrorized by a group of unknown assailants in the country home. Their reason is reasonless. It is simply a case of senseless violence inflicted on two complete innocents.
The film's credits open with a line stating that the story was based on real events and then we are immediately thrust into the death of a mother and daughter on a deserted stretch of road. It is simply blatant foreshadowing for what is going to come. As I watched the film I reminded myself that what happened was basically true, but it wasn't until the very end that I became conscious of the true gravity of the situation.
Clementine and Lucas emigrated to Romania three months prior to their one fateful evening. He is a writer and she is a French teacher of schoolchildren. Their lives don't seem to be particularly interesting, nor do they seem to be particularly interesting people. On a random night, however, their house is invaded by faceless shadows, invisible in the darkness. With minimal gore and almost unending tension the two must fight for their survival which ends at dawn.
There is little else to say as far as plot is concerned as that is pretty much the extent of the story. The movie completely abandons all conventions of narrative and character development, simply giving us a solid hour of a cat and mouse chase. No back story and almost no resolution is given. The end attempts to be haunting which it almost succeeds at, but instead it left me disappointed. Certainly, what we do learn about the attackers is extremely shocking, especially because it is true, but I couldn't help feeling cheated out of a far more impressive story for this simple scary movie.
If I were the family members of the two victims I certainly would never have consented to allow the story to be dramatized and certainly not in the genre that it was. Clem and Lucas are formless beings given a cliched evening of romance that adds nothing to who they are. After twenty minutes of this we are left with a merciless sequence of jumpy moments and an ending which does nothing to distinguish them.
The film's tactlessness aside, what it did offer was done well. The figures are not frightening once they are seen, but we are left blind to them for most of the movie. It is shot in a big, creepy house in a country which I already associate with bad happenings, and the film relies not so much on what is seen, but what is heard. Industrial noises and animal cries build a sense of dread that is relentless throughout. If anyone is to be praised here, it is the sound editor.
I wanted to like this movie and in some ways I did, but one cannot simply abandon structure, narrative, characters and etiquette and expect to get away with it. With a proper script directors David Moreau and Xavier Palud could do good things, but I still want to give them a slap on the wrist.
1.5/4
The film's credits open with a line stating that the story was based on real events and then we are immediately thrust into the death of a mother and daughter on a deserted stretch of road. It is simply blatant foreshadowing for what is going to come. As I watched the film I reminded myself that what happened was basically true, but it wasn't until the very end that I became conscious of the true gravity of the situation.
Clementine and Lucas emigrated to Romania three months prior to their one fateful evening. He is a writer and she is a French teacher of schoolchildren. Their lives don't seem to be particularly interesting, nor do they seem to be particularly interesting people. On a random night, however, their house is invaded by faceless shadows, invisible in the darkness. With minimal gore and almost unending tension the two must fight for their survival which ends at dawn.
There is little else to say as far as plot is concerned as that is pretty much the extent of the story. The movie completely abandons all conventions of narrative and character development, simply giving us a solid hour of a cat and mouse chase. No back story and almost no resolution is given. The end attempts to be haunting which it almost succeeds at, but instead it left me disappointed. Certainly, what we do learn about the attackers is extremely shocking, especially because it is true, but I couldn't help feeling cheated out of a far more impressive story for this simple scary movie.
If I were the family members of the two victims I certainly would never have consented to allow the story to be dramatized and certainly not in the genre that it was. Clem and Lucas are formless beings given a cliched evening of romance that adds nothing to who they are. After twenty minutes of this we are left with a merciless sequence of jumpy moments and an ending which does nothing to distinguish them.
The film's tactlessness aside, what it did offer was done well. The figures are not frightening once they are seen, but we are left blind to them for most of the movie. It is shot in a big, creepy house in a country which I already associate with bad happenings, and the film relies not so much on what is seen, but what is heard. Industrial noises and animal cries build a sense of dread that is relentless throughout. If anyone is to be praised here, it is the sound editor.
I wanted to like this movie and in some ways I did, but one cannot simply abandon structure, narrative, characters and etiquette and expect to get away with it. With a proper script directors David Moreau and Xavier Palud could do good things, but I still want to give them a slap on the wrist.
1.5/4
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Dumplings (2004)
Aunt Mei cooks dumplings in her apartment. She cooks very special dumplings with very special properties that only very discerning customers want to purchase. She tells us one of these very discerning customers and the audience that the dumpling has been a centerpiece in Chinese cuisine for over 1,400 years. It has been a part of the cultural food fabric of her people--so too, apparently, has cannibalism.
The aging film star, Mrs. Li (Miriam Yeung Chin Wah), lives with her neglectful, unfaithful, egomaniacal husband and suffers severe insecurity. Her fame has all but vanished, her husband has all but left her. She hears of Aunt Mei and her dumplings which are said to have restorative powers, and her vanity compels her to sample them. Indeed, the dumplings reverse age. Aunt Mei is 64 years old, but looks no older than a girl in her late 20's. But the magic of the food comes at a horrible price: the secret ingredient to her recipe is cooked human fetus.
This concept very nearly turned me off from watching the film at all, but I was intrigued to see how this sort of story would play out and was surprised to find that it is a very well-crafted film with strong performances from its two leads. October is a month for horror films; I wouldn't necessarily classify this as "horror" (though it did have one opportunity to place itself there) as much as I would cinema of the grotesque. Still, it may not be horror, but it is horrifying.
Mrs. Li tries Aunt Mei's concoction, and it seems to work on her too. Soon, however, her appetite for the food begins to grow leading to unseen and particularly unsavory consequences. As if the premise weren't disgusting enough, another layer of dreadfulness is mixed in. I won't spoil it, though I will say it is very compelling. Unfortunately, the story did not take us down the incredibly dark path it promises which I found strangely disappointing. I'm not sure how much more nauseating I hoped it would get, but I do know one very big issue was never resolved.
Yeung does a great job as the vainglorious actress fallen to a deed beyond reprehensible. The way she turns from disgusted to a steely resolve as she swallows the aborted babies is seamless and convincing. The performance by Tony Leung Ka Fai as Mei is also very sharp. The black market abortionist has such an easy charm that she almost convinces you that what is happening is no big deal. I found both women compelling.
This is a very odd film, but that needn't be stated. There are lots of movies about what women will do to stay young and beautiful forever, but I don't believe that there are any others who take this approach, nor would I want them to. They say love is only skin deep. Or is it beauty? Is there a difference? After watching this, I'd have to say no, there isn't.
Don't watch while you're eating.
3/4
The aging film star, Mrs. Li (Miriam Yeung Chin Wah), lives with her neglectful, unfaithful, egomaniacal husband and suffers severe insecurity. Her fame has all but vanished, her husband has all but left her. She hears of Aunt Mei and her dumplings which are said to have restorative powers, and her vanity compels her to sample them. Indeed, the dumplings reverse age. Aunt Mei is 64 years old, but looks no older than a girl in her late 20's. But the magic of the food comes at a horrible price: the secret ingredient to her recipe is cooked human fetus.
This concept very nearly turned me off from watching the film at all, but I was intrigued to see how this sort of story would play out and was surprised to find that it is a very well-crafted film with strong performances from its two leads. October is a month for horror films; I wouldn't necessarily classify this as "horror" (though it did have one opportunity to place itself there) as much as I would cinema of the grotesque. Still, it may not be horror, but it is horrifying.
Mrs. Li tries Aunt Mei's concoction, and it seems to work on her too. Soon, however, her appetite for the food begins to grow leading to unseen and particularly unsavory consequences. As if the premise weren't disgusting enough, another layer of dreadfulness is mixed in. I won't spoil it, though I will say it is very compelling. Unfortunately, the story did not take us down the incredibly dark path it promises which I found strangely disappointing. I'm not sure how much more nauseating I hoped it would get, but I do know one very big issue was never resolved.
Yeung does a great job as the vainglorious actress fallen to a deed beyond reprehensible. The way she turns from disgusted to a steely resolve as she swallows the aborted babies is seamless and convincing. The performance by Tony Leung Ka Fai as Mei is also very sharp. The black market abortionist has such an easy charm that she almost convinces you that what is happening is no big deal. I found both women compelling.
This is a very odd film, but that needn't be stated. There are lots of movies about what women will do to stay young and beautiful forever, but I don't believe that there are any others who take this approach, nor would I want them to. They say love is only skin deep. Or is it beauty? Is there a difference? After watching this, I'd have to say no, there isn't.
Don't watch while you're eating.
3/4
Sunday, October 7, 2012
A Tale of Two Sisters (2003)
Five years after the Japanese horror sensation "Ringu" caught the attention of global audiences, South Korean filmmaker Jee-woon Kim created something equally as horrible (in the best sense of the word), but a story a bit more grounded in reality making it all the more frightening. Its premise isn't exactly novel, but this is certainly a piece to chill you to your core.
A family is torn apart following the death of a mother. Two sisters, their father and their new stepmother return to their beautiful, secluded house where they try to cope with a new life and deal with their grief. But demons, new and old, plague the family and the two girls, Soo-mi and Soo-yeon must contend not only with their domineering, abusive stepmother, they must also face spirits haunting their rooms.
Kim has taken the tradition of the classic, Asian ghost story of specter girl in white and brought it to a level to contend with "Ringu". This is an intensely creepy film not simply because of the ghosts that torment the two loving sisters, but also because this is a story of the imbalances of the mind. Soo-mi and Soo-yeon, the eldest and the protector, spent time recovering from the shock of their mother's death in a mental institution. Their imbalances, however, seem paltry when compared to stepmother Eun-joo.
When the horrid reality of the night becomes indistinguishable from the maniacal goings on of the day, the film becomes one continuous nightmare. Reality begins to blur and this psychotic newcomer becomes as awful--if not more--as the contorted woman wrenching herself from the inside of closets and under sinks.
This movie has a complete grasp of the rules of horror film making. It is never about the moments when the slasher or the ghoul jumps out and grabs you, it is all about the moment just before. Here, every moment intended to be psychotic is explosively believable, and every moment of ghostly horror is almost stiflingly tense. I can say that I was genuinely frightened by this film and there were moments when I was afraid to watch. Eli Roth, director of "Hostel", has said that the biggest compliment a horror film director can receive is when an audience member says they couldn't watch the movie. I don't necessarily believe that that applies to him, as he has capitalized on the cinema of torture which is not at all the same kind of film, but the essence of what he says is true, and is certainly the case here.
Su-jeong Lim as See-mi gives an incredibly promising first performance in what I imagine would have been a very exhausting role to play. A mentally unstable teen who is torn between fear, resentment, guilt and pride is no small feat.
The film ends in a confusing way and with content that will shed more light on the story while adding to the depth of her performance, though I am not sure it would pass a second viewing without gigantic plot holes emerging. I figured out its twists early on, but it didn't detract in the slightest from what I was watching. This is a very scary film, but an unusually smart addition to the genre as well.
3/4
A family is torn apart following the death of a mother. Two sisters, their father and their new stepmother return to their beautiful, secluded house where they try to cope with a new life and deal with their grief. But demons, new and old, plague the family and the two girls, Soo-mi and Soo-yeon must contend not only with their domineering, abusive stepmother, they must also face spirits haunting their rooms.
Kim has taken the tradition of the classic, Asian ghost story of specter girl in white and brought it to a level to contend with "Ringu". This is an intensely creepy film not simply because of the ghosts that torment the two loving sisters, but also because this is a story of the imbalances of the mind. Soo-mi and Soo-yeon, the eldest and the protector, spent time recovering from the shock of their mother's death in a mental institution. Their imbalances, however, seem paltry when compared to stepmother Eun-joo.
When the horrid reality of the night becomes indistinguishable from the maniacal goings on of the day, the film becomes one continuous nightmare. Reality begins to blur and this psychotic newcomer becomes as awful--if not more--as the contorted woman wrenching herself from the inside of closets and under sinks.
This movie has a complete grasp of the rules of horror film making. It is never about the moments when the slasher or the ghoul jumps out and grabs you, it is all about the moment just before. Here, every moment intended to be psychotic is explosively believable, and every moment of ghostly horror is almost stiflingly tense. I can say that I was genuinely frightened by this film and there were moments when I was afraid to watch. Eli Roth, director of "Hostel", has said that the biggest compliment a horror film director can receive is when an audience member says they couldn't watch the movie. I don't necessarily believe that that applies to him, as he has capitalized on the cinema of torture which is not at all the same kind of film, but the essence of what he says is true, and is certainly the case here.
Su-jeong Lim as See-mi gives an incredibly promising first performance in what I imagine would have been a very exhausting role to play. A mentally unstable teen who is torn between fear, resentment, guilt and pride is no small feat.
The film ends in a confusing way and with content that will shed more light on the story while adding to the depth of her performance, though I am not sure it would pass a second viewing without gigantic plot holes emerging. I figured out its twists early on, but it didn't detract in the slightest from what I was watching. This is a very scary film, but an unusually smart addition to the genre as well.
3/4
Friday, October 5, 2012
House on Haunted Hill (1959)
What a career Vincent Price made for himself as the king of the horror film. From his extraordinary amalgam of an accent to his pristine mustache to that calm, easy grace, it's no wonder directors liked him as the eccentric master of the macabre. Playing one of his usual roles, Price is a millionaire intent on throwing a "haunted house" party for a seemingly random group of strangers on Haunted Hill. Each person will receive $10,000 at the end of the party. The catch? They must survive the night.
A pilot, a typist, a journalist, a psychiatrist, a member of the family and heir to the house, plus Mr. Loren's fourth wife consist of the guest list. They all share one common attribute: besides none of them really knowing their host, they are all in desperate need of the cash. Locked inside of the fortress of a manor, they must not only endure the ghosts of residents past, but must also contend with their growing hysteria.
There is something so archaically endearing about a good ol' fashioned ghost story, for their is something so primitively frightening about the idea of spirits. All civilizations have their ideas of an afterlife and so many of them center around the thought that our essence--our soul--is something as real and tangible as our flesh. It doesn't take much more than a trick of the mind in a spooky house full of cobwebs and squeaky doors in order to make those apparitions appear.
The film, though mostly a fun little fright fest in an old school kind of way, has a bit more substance to it which I won't go into for fear of spoiling the plot. Watching this, one might think that there really is no story besides the ghost and that this idea of a "party" is nothing more than an impetus to get these random people into one haunted place. Rest assured, there is a plot, though it isn't something that makes a whole lot of sense and as it continues the dots don't really connect. I suppose dots aren't really the issue, however, when we are dealing with giant vats of acid in the wine cellar and blood that drips from an ancient stain.
The film is short, running at barely 75 minutes, but that is still too much time for what we've got. Certain characters don't really play any part of the story, like Julie Mitchum as the columnist and Elisha Cook Jr. as the relation to the dead specters (though he does offer a lot of "spook talk", and even insinuates that the ghosts will come for the audience next! Aaaahhh!). All in all, it's a movie with a lot of screaming and a jab at a story towards the end.
Even still, if you're looking for something to get you into the Halloween spirit and if you're not into gotcha! moments or lots of gore, like I'm not, then maybe this will be something to get you in the mood. There really is nothing like a big, scary house shot in black and white, and who wouldn't be at least a little unnerved by party hosted by Price?
2.5/4
A pilot, a typist, a journalist, a psychiatrist, a member of the family and heir to the house, plus Mr. Loren's fourth wife consist of the guest list. They all share one common attribute: besides none of them really knowing their host, they are all in desperate need of the cash. Locked inside of the fortress of a manor, they must not only endure the ghosts of residents past, but must also contend with their growing hysteria.
There is something so archaically endearing about a good ol' fashioned ghost story, for their is something so primitively frightening about the idea of spirits. All civilizations have their ideas of an afterlife and so many of them center around the thought that our essence--our soul--is something as real and tangible as our flesh. It doesn't take much more than a trick of the mind in a spooky house full of cobwebs and squeaky doors in order to make those apparitions appear.
The film, though mostly a fun little fright fest in an old school kind of way, has a bit more substance to it which I won't go into for fear of spoiling the plot. Watching this, one might think that there really is no story besides the ghost and that this idea of a "party" is nothing more than an impetus to get these random people into one haunted place. Rest assured, there is a plot, though it isn't something that makes a whole lot of sense and as it continues the dots don't really connect. I suppose dots aren't really the issue, however, when we are dealing with giant vats of acid in the wine cellar and blood that drips from an ancient stain.
The film is short, running at barely 75 minutes, but that is still too much time for what we've got. Certain characters don't really play any part of the story, like Julie Mitchum as the columnist and Elisha Cook Jr. as the relation to the dead specters (though he does offer a lot of "spook talk", and even insinuates that the ghosts will come for the audience next! Aaaahhh!). All in all, it's a movie with a lot of screaming and a jab at a story towards the end.
Even still, if you're looking for something to get you into the Halloween spirit and if you're not into gotcha! moments or lots of gore, like I'm not, then maybe this will be something to get you in the mood. There really is nothing like a big, scary house shot in black and white, and who wouldn't be at least a little unnerved by party hosted by Price?
2.5/4
Thursday, October 4, 2012
The Conversation (1974)
I would hope that most of us follow global news, and if that is true then it is probably safe to assume that we know at least a little bit about the Patriot Act, Wikileaks and Julian Assange, not to mention the phone-hacking scandal of Rupert Murdoch. As technology plays a greater role in all of our lives ethical questions begin to emerge about when, where and how the power it gives us can be used. Francis Ford Coppola's subdued thriller tackles these issues and does it nearly 40 years before these questions would reemerge with voracity.
Gene Hackman does amazing work as Harry Caul, an independent wiretapper who must ask himself these questions when he fears a conversation he has recorded might put two people's lives in jeopardy. Harry is almost painfully reclusive. He has friends and a woman he sees from time to time, but his life is an enigma to those closest to him. Extra padlocks, alarms and no phone keep the outside world from entering his life. All he does is listen to people speak, but work is work and he never hears anything.
One tape, however, catches his attention, and the ramifications of it are immense. In broken clips we hear this dialogue he recorded of two people in a public square. They don't say much of anything, talking about Christmas and a homeless man on a park bench. But in their conversation there is something more, something hidden whose repercussions, if they're made known might kill them. When the smooth-talking and dangerous secretary to Harry's employer (Harrison Ford) helps bolster his suspicions Harry takes the tapes and runs.
Coppola has fashioned here something that is both quiet and extremely tense. As Harry puzzles his way through these two mysterious people's lives he must contend with the fact that his own personal well-being is at risk. Not only that, does he remain a morally sound Catholic if he relinquishes the tapes, or is he one if he does not? His soul, then, is also put on the line by a young couple which he has never met.
This film is full of beautifully written and directed scenes about a world unknown to us without the microphones. Our lives feel much smaller when watching this movie as there is no telling who knows that we are watching it. It is a frightening look at the power granted to some when a locked door and private conversation mean nothing anymore. Although I suspect that much of the technology employed in the film was science fiction at the time, there is no doubt in my mind that that it is now reality.
Harry's world is one of false faces and unseen ears. He isolates himself because he has entered a profession of duplicitous people each out for that next great scoop. Money makes the world go round and nobody is off limits in this circle.
There are those of you who will figure out the motives and therefore the ending, but this does not diminish the film's ability to horrify and to absorb. These shadowy figures hover just outside of the light of Harry's knowledge and we are left guessing in the dark with him. This is by far my favorite Coppola film not only because it is such a well-crafted movie, but its acute relevance today is something extraordinary.
4/4
Gene Hackman does amazing work as Harry Caul, an independent wiretapper who must ask himself these questions when he fears a conversation he has recorded might put two people's lives in jeopardy. Harry is almost painfully reclusive. He has friends and a woman he sees from time to time, but his life is an enigma to those closest to him. Extra padlocks, alarms and no phone keep the outside world from entering his life. All he does is listen to people speak, but work is work and he never hears anything.
One tape, however, catches his attention, and the ramifications of it are immense. In broken clips we hear this dialogue he recorded of two people in a public square. They don't say much of anything, talking about Christmas and a homeless man on a park bench. But in their conversation there is something more, something hidden whose repercussions, if they're made known might kill them. When the smooth-talking and dangerous secretary to Harry's employer (Harrison Ford) helps bolster his suspicions Harry takes the tapes and runs.
Coppola has fashioned here something that is both quiet and extremely tense. As Harry puzzles his way through these two mysterious people's lives he must contend with the fact that his own personal well-being is at risk. Not only that, does he remain a morally sound Catholic if he relinquishes the tapes, or is he one if he does not? His soul, then, is also put on the line by a young couple which he has never met.
This film is full of beautifully written and directed scenes about a world unknown to us without the microphones. Our lives feel much smaller when watching this movie as there is no telling who knows that we are watching it. It is a frightening look at the power granted to some when a locked door and private conversation mean nothing anymore. Although I suspect that much of the technology employed in the film was science fiction at the time, there is no doubt in my mind that that it is now reality.
Harry's world is one of false faces and unseen ears. He isolates himself because he has entered a profession of duplicitous people each out for that next great scoop. Money makes the world go round and nobody is off limits in this circle.
There are those of you who will figure out the motives and therefore the ending, but this does not diminish the film's ability to horrify and to absorb. These shadowy figures hover just outside of the light of Harry's knowledge and we are left guessing in the dark with him. This is by far my favorite Coppola film not only because it is such a well-crafted movie, but its acute relevance today is something extraordinary.
4/4
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961)
Is it any wonder that Audrey Hepburn was cast to play the beautiful, airy, impish socialite in the film adaptation of the claim to fame of Truman Capote, the socialite of all socialites? Elegant and whimsical, the slender girl with the doe eyes steals the screen in an otherwise mildly unimpressive film.
She is Holly Golightly, a chatterbox and a mess of a human being with no sense of purpose other than the preservation of family. This is flimsy purpose though, for if it wasn't she would have the sense not to drink her money on the rocks or obviously yet unwittingly get herself mixed up with a mobster named Sally Tomato (any other would be fine, just nobody with the last name "Tomato"). The money she scrapes together isn't anything more than a few hundred dollars and never seems to amount to any more than she had the year before.
Life gives her the possibility for change, however, when a soft spoken and handsome young man moves into the room above hers at her apartment complex. Paul Varjak (George Peppard) is a writer and someone unhappy with a mediocre life. He is level headed and not particularly interesting, but his blue eyes and impressive physique should be enough for any woman to love. Indeed, the one thing both he and the spunky Holly have in common is their line of work. Paul is a writer to be sure, but the books aren't selling he pays his rent through the oldest profession in the world.
Neither of them are exactly prostitutes--more of a gold digger and a boy toy. She goes for the ugly, eccentric millionaires, while he keeps up a long term fling with a rich married cougar. What they do doesn't bring them happiness, but we know loving each other will.
Capote is a man of many, many, many words, but I'm not sure how many of them I particularly want to see acted out before me. I have not read Breakfast at Tiffany's, but I have read In Cold Blood, and judging from that I would have to say that Capote knows how to write exceedingly well. The adaptation of his novella here shows the work of an exceedingly well-connected, flamboyantly gay man who likes to listen to himself talk. I could barely understand what was going on for all of the talking that was being done. Unfortunately, this is a film where people talk incessantly but never say anything.
Hepburn is lovely, but I began to tune her out as I watched as she spoke about anything and everything without interruption. This is not a sign of wit, but rather tedious egotism on Capote's and scriptwriter George Axelrod's part. The loose plot that there is does not appear until the halfway mark and until then we are left with nothing but decadence and a whole lot of fluff.
The film is endearingly quirky throughout as is it's lead, but there is so little substance by way of story that these highly developed characters seem to do nothing at all. I should also make a note of one glaring flaw: Mickey Rooney. Holly's landlord is a Chinese man name Mr. Yunioshi, who is portrayed in one of the most abject displays of racism I have ever seen in a movie. Using massive, crooked fake teeth, scrunching up his face and doing a horrible Chinese (?) accent, Rooney bumbles around the set making a fool of himself in an objectionable and embarrassing way. I might be inclined to give the film a higher ranking if this ugly display wasn't apart of the film.
Even still, it's a classic and if you're a Hepburn fan this isn't one to miss.
2/4
She is Holly Golightly, a chatterbox and a mess of a human being with no sense of purpose other than the preservation of family. This is flimsy purpose though, for if it wasn't she would have the sense not to drink her money on the rocks or obviously yet unwittingly get herself mixed up with a mobster named Sally Tomato (any other would be fine, just nobody with the last name "Tomato"). The money she scrapes together isn't anything more than a few hundred dollars and never seems to amount to any more than she had the year before.
Life gives her the possibility for change, however, when a soft spoken and handsome young man moves into the room above hers at her apartment complex. Paul Varjak (George Peppard) is a writer and someone unhappy with a mediocre life. He is level headed and not particularly interesting, but his blue eyes and impressive physique should be enough for any woman to love. Indeed, the one thing both he and the spunky Holly have in common is their line of work. Paul is a writer to be sure, but the books aren't selling he pays his rent through the oldest profession in the world.
Neither of them are exactly prostitutes--more of a gold digger and a boy toy. She goes for the ugly, eccentric millionaires, while he keeps up a long term fling with a rich married cougar. What they do doesn't bring them happiness, but we know loving each other will.
Capote is a man of many, many, many words, but I'm not sure how many of them I particularly want to see acted out before me. I have not read Breakfast at Tiffany's, but I have read In Cold Blood, and judging from that I would have to say that Capote knows how to write exceedingly well. The adaptation of his novella here shows the work of an exceedingly well-connected, flamboyantly gay man who likes to listen to himself talk. I could barely understand what was going on for all of the talking that was being done. Unfortunately, this is a film where people talk incessantly but never say anything.
Hepburn is lovely, but I began to tune her out as I watched as she spoke about anything and everything without interruption. This is not a sign of wit, but rather tedious egotism on Capote's and scriptwriter George Axelrod's part. The loose plot that there is does not appear until the halfway mark and until then we are left with nothing but decadence and a whole lot of fluff.
The film is endearingly quirky throughout as is it's lead, but there is so little substance by way of story that these highly developed characters seem to do nothing at all. I should also make a note of one glaring flaw: Mickey Rooney. Holly's landlord is a Chinese man name Mr. Yunioshi, who is portrayed in one of the most abject displays of racism I have ever seen in a movie. Using massive, crooked fake teeth, scrunching up his face and doing a horrible Chinese (?) accent, Rooney bumbles around the set making a fool of himself in an objectionable and embarrassing way. I might be inclined to give the film a higher ranking if this ugly display wasn't apart of the film.
Even still, it's a classic and if you're a Hepburn fan this isn't one to miss.
2/4
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)