Even though the film did poorly when it was initially released in 1955, Alfred Hitchcock’s droll black comedy is still the best “What do we do with the body?” move I’ve ever seen. Forget junk like those Weekend at Bernie’s films (which are definitely stealing from this classic) – this one is the real deal and if you’re in the right mood, about as good as it gets. The tale of a bunch of offbeat residents in a tiny, quirky Vermont village who all think they’re responsible for the titular character is consistently amusing, well acted and never grim (considering its subject matter). The casting is prefect all around, but I’d say it’s Shirley MacLaine and a young Jerry Mathers who steal the show, playing a mother and son who are closest to poor Harry, but his demise doesn’t affect them like you think it would.
What with all the hype and such over the Total Recall remake plus a few other upcoming sci-fi flicks hitting theaters this year and next, I figured I’d also get in a recommendation of one of my ancient favorites from a great director. Granted, Alphaville: Une étrange aventure de Lemmy Caution (Alphaville: A Strange Adventure of Lemmy Caution) is going to be a film many younger readers (or those less well versed in cinema) will like or hate outright for its low-tech look and lovely black & white cinematography alone. On the other hand, those viewers willing to dive headfirst into Godard’s film should come up grinning afterwards.
In my own case, I didn’t truly appreciate it until about the third time I saw it. Actually, the movie made me (and still makes me) laugh a lot because it’s so offbeat, but each viewing revealed even more things about it to take away. The whole idea of taking a popular detective from the present day and dropping him into a “futuristic” setting without changing the film noir aesthetic one bit while using real locations around 1965 Paris in unique ways makes for a great film school lesson in minimalism. That said, the film is layered with meaning if you pay attention and maybe have a pot of coffee at the ready if you’re new to this sort of experience. Clever viewers won’t “need a drawing to get the picture” is all I’ll say here…
I won’t even over-detail the plot, as it’s pretty baffling if you try and dive too deep into things and assign meaning and clarity to it all. Basically, super agent Lemmy Caution needs to tackle a three-part objective by putting an end to a super computer overlord controlling a city where not being part of the program is a death sentence. along the way, Caution needs to track down a fellow agent gone missing and kill off the scientist who created the computer. Let’s just say things get REALLY odd, there’s a love interest, an interrogation, a joke-dispensing vending machine, a slow-motion fistfight and a truly weird finale that manages to wrap things up pretty nicely.
I’d also say that next to the brilliance that is Breathless, this is probably the easiest of Godard’s films to get into, so if you’re flipping a coin between this and say, Week-Endand Je vous salue, Marie, well, I’d go with this one first. Tracking down a copy on DVD may be a bit difficult, as The Criterion Collection version is currently out of print. However, if you live in an areas with an indie film store, you may find it there. That is, if there are any of those left. I guess the internet is actually more helpful than it usually is in this case, but don’t go blabbing that you went and pirated this or anything. You never know who’s listening and watching. Then again, you DO know… but let’s not give them any more ammunition to use against you in the future, OK?
I finally got around to watching the Fright Night remake a week or so ago and was pleasantly surprised at how good it was while doing a number of things that made it a lot less campy than the original. Farrell’s performance as an apple (and human) chomping vampire was pretty neat and the rest of the cast did a great job throughout. Granted, the film wasn’t quite flawless, but it certainly kept my attention and didn’t wear out its welcome. Total Recall looks as if it will be along the same lines in terms of outdoing the original, but we’ll see how it holds up under the scrutiny of the folks who like to (over)compare good and bad points.
OK, so I’m not following every drop of news about this new Bond film, but that’s because I’m too busy and I really hate ruining whatever surprises are in store by knowing the entire plot, characters and whatnot. That said, this one looks like it’s going to be the most interesting of the three Daniel Craig films (unless they manage to work in the skydiving Queen from last week’s Olympic ceremony!) on a few levels. November 9 is zooming up like that train at the end of the trailer and I’m happy that the film is looking better and better with each new bunch of clips.
I hadn’t heard of this film until a few days back when someone let me know there would be a long trailer going up this week along with a teaser site. Of course, I reserved judgment on the almost six-minute trailer until I got the chance to see the entire thing, as I still have burning headaches from overexposure to Speed Racer (OK, I caught it twice on cable – once to check it out, the second time to make sure I wasn’t hallucinating) and the last two Matrix movies. Anyway, this amazingly ambitious effects-heavy flick looks like something worth watching a few times just to catch everything, meaning it may do well at the box office, but it will probably do even better as a rental or outright purchase so those who get pulled into it can view it multiple times to catch anything they missed on the first viewing.
I’m gathering Zack Snyder has been listening hard to criticisms leveled against his films and some elements of his directorial style certain vocal fans dislike. Either that or he’s been watching Terence Malick’s exquisitely mind-blowing The Tree of Life one too many times while eating bowl after bowl of Corn Flakes and reading a Ralph Lauren catalog shot by Bruce Weber. Anyway, these new Man of Steel teasers manages to be vague, impressive and inspiring all without coughing up a single spoiler or explosion. That said, I’m hoping the final film has a wee bit more color in it, as this sort of bleached out look in movies is fading fast (har har). With plenty of time to go before the Summer 2013 release, here’s to more revealing and intriguing future trailers that don’t give away a thing while managing to be equally thrilling.
OK, this week’s selection was relegated to a simpler internet search after my usual “secret” selection method (flipping through a big movie encyclopedia or DVD catalog and randomly pointing at a title on whatever page I stopped on) left me with a few too many controversial choices (Targets, Joe and Badlands came up on the first three pages I dropped a finger on) that, while great movies worth seeing, aren’t exactly films I want to go over at this point. So, I’m substituting a favorite “B” movie that’s awful and hilarious with a nice left hook for you sun worshipers out there who can’t seem to catch enough rays.
Hell, it’s been hot enough these past few weeks that I should have added this flick about a month or so ago. Anyway, the plot about a scientist who ends up turning into quite a crispy-faced creature doing no good things to the general populace after radiation exposure is pretty far out there, but you can say that about most 50’s sci-fi and horror flicks. This one works for me because it tries to play as serious and even gets away with it for a bit, but you’ll be smirking along soon enough…
“Any resemblance to real events, to persons dead or living, is not accidental. It is INTENTIONAL.”
Sure, today’s political climate here in the US is damned awful to the point of it better to have the country be run by a pack of brainy hamsters with suitcases, but at least we’re not quite in Costa-Gavras territory (er, well… outside of illegal detentions, torture and secret trials, but hey, let’s skip that for the moment). “Loosely” based on actual events, his 1969 film, Zwas (and still is) a pretty powerful piece of movie history that’s essential viewing for anyone who thinks the political system here has gone too far off the rails. It has (and how, thanks to too many ill-educated, power-mad people allowed to run for, win and hold office without proper vetting), but things aren’t quite as horrific as they were in Greece around 1963. Although the film doesn’t set an exact time or place, that quote above is placed before things get rolling and if you’re a good enough student of history (or can use the Internet properly) it’s easy to figure out that this isn’t just your run of the mill thriller…
So, I’m thirteen films into my 19-flick James Bond 007 marathon (and again, thanks, Encore, but no thanks for running the SAP versions and not the original theatrical formatted flicks, grrrrr) and I’m a bit more disappointed with the middle run of the series than I thought I would be. Nostalgia value aside, seeing all of these films one after another is like getting stabbed to death by an army of ants with really tiny knives. For me, once you get past On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (and realize how good it is), most of the films after it (mostly the Roger Moore era ones) haven’t stood up so well. Sure, Diamonds Are Forever is amusing (to a fault), Live And Let Die makes for a great 9albeit controversial) intro to the Roger Moore era and The Spy Who Loved Me at least tries hard to be ten years younger than it really is. A few of the other Moore films have interesting performances and plot points, but clearly, the series was devolving into campy, self-referential humor at the expense of whatever sensible elements remained.
Yes, I know the four Pierce Brosnan films (which I haven’t seen in a few years, but will get to this week) have great key moments that helped usher in today’s more serious Bond films, so I’m looking forward to seeing them at least once more. That said, the 70’s to 80’s Bond films range from adequate to flat out dumb to trying too hard to be serious before degenerating to the usual plot point of Bind dropping his pants and bedding anything he can before getting conked on the head and delivered to the bad guy’s hideout or some other location where he’ll escape before popping up to surprise the potential world dominating fool and set into motion his usually sightly to highly comical (explosion, falling, impalement, etc.) demise.
Yeesh. OK, that’s it, my childhood gets another kick to the groin. Can we kind of put a halt to some of the more obviously stupid film ideas coming out of Hollywood these days? Look, I liked LEGOs as a kid and as an adult, I can still really enjoy some of the more creative uses for them (I’m talking about art-wise, silly!) as well as a bunch of the better LEGO video games. But really? A movie? Why? Because someone thought since the games are so hip and fresh and whatever and make millions and LEGO still sells well across all ages that somehow, taking the interactivity away from them and forcing people to sit on their asses for two hours and watch whatever the sixteen or so screenwriters (which is probably a low estimate on my part) come up with to make millions want that time and ticket fee back? Ugh. Count me out, but I’ll catch it on cable if I’m sick and can’t get out of bed.
Anyway, go enter the vehicle contest if you like, but If you DO win, remember this nugget of truth: a mere thousand bucks and signing your rights away for eternity is a shitty deal no matter how you slice it. If I’m dead wrong and this flick manages to rake in the bazillions, that one grand winner will be losing out on a nice chunk of change for not getting a better cut of the film’s profits. Oh, and if there’s a LEGO: The Movie: The Video Game, I’m going to be making fun of it daily until WB sends Bane and The Joker after me. Travelers Tales has MUCH better things to be doing with their time, I say…
"DESTROY ALL FANBOYS!" 