Movie Whorehouse

Man Bites Dog

nathantyree — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:02:28 +0000

When I watch a movie I often look for connections. I ask myself: “What other movies (or books) does this remind me of?” When I find these connections, I attempt to discern if they are intentional, or incidental. I also consider if the movie I’m watching was inspired by those that it shares something with, or if it goes the other way around. Man Bites Dog, It Happened in Your Neighborhood is replete with connections. More on those in a bit. Man Bites Dog is a fake documentary. By now we’re mostly sick of the form, at least I’m mostly sick of the form. Fellini invented it. We’ve seen a lot of it. This is Spinal Tap,, The Blair Witch Project, Cannibal Holocaust, and The Ruttles, are just a few of the many films to follow this style. Some are good, some are dreadful, all suffer on repeated viewings. Man Bites Dog manages to keep it fresh, by not taking itself seriously. This, my friends, is satire. Remember that; it’ll come in handy later. So, you ask: what’s the story? Well, the plot is simple. A small film crew with no money, follow serial killer and film his exploits while he murders, rapes, steals, sings, recites bad poetry, and drinks a lot. The Killer, Benoit (Benoit Poelvoorde) serves as a sort of quasi producer to the documentary. He uses his ill gotten gains to buy film for Remy (Remy Belveaux), and Andre (Andre Bonzel). By this point you’ve noticed that the characters share the real names of the actors portraying them. These three are also the real film crew that shot the movie. So, three young film makers are portraying two young film makers and a vicious killer in their film about a documentary. Talk about postmodern structure. As the documentary progresses, the crew is drawn more deeply into Benoit’s crimes. First they begin helping him dispose of bodies. Then they restrain a child so that he can more easily kill the kid. Next the three of them are gang raping a woman, and murdering her husband. You get the idea. It all sounds pretty gruesome. And it is. But (and this is a big but) it’s funny too. We don’t laugh at the victim’s so much, but we do laugh at Benoit. He’s funny. He recites his own terrible poetry ad naseum, he stumbles, he kills post men, and wears their uniforms, he gets beaten up by a post man, he says moronic things, and thinks they are full of deep meaning. He drinks something he likes to call “a dead baby boy” (gin, tonic, and an olive tied to a sugar cube). The film manages to segue directly from abhorrent violence to unexpected humor. Are we being tempted to laugh at serial killers? No. We’re being tempted to laugh at the media. At newscasters, camera men, and photographers who watch terrible events, and film them instead of helping the victims. We’re being tempted to laugh at people who maintain inflated views of themselves. And, we’re being forced to laugh by the tension, and the catharsis that follows. After Benoit unexpectedly shoots a man in the head during Benoit’s birthday party, the camera lingers for just an instance on the blood splattered faces of the other guests, then whip pans to find our hero seated at the table and enjoying a slice of cake. You can’t help laughing at this. It’s just all so impolite. Aside: Writing the above I have realized that the humor in this film doesn’t really come across when described. I suppose you just have to see it to understand. I laughed at the things described above, but rereading that paragraph, I didn’t crack a smile. Oh well. But trust me on this. It is funny. Satire is what we’re discussing here. Man Bites Dog is poking fun at a lot of things simultaneously. Among them: Serial Killer movies, Independent cinema, the media, serial killers, big egos, society, families (dysfunctional and other), and itself. This film could be viewed as self satire. That is, It is a film making fun of a film that makes fun of a film about a serial killer (confusing: I know. Let me try again: Man Bites Dog is making fun of itself by making fun of itself about what it’s making fun of. Still no good. One more try: Man Bites Dog is a satire only of itself (that’s a good start), its satire is aimed at itself, while it portrays a documentary, which could be viewed as satirical (perhaps of itself). Better, but still not perfect, and by the way, is this the longest parenthetical musing you’ve ever seen, or what?) Enough about satire. Earlier I mentioned connections between this movie and others. What, pray tell, was I talking about? Okay, we’ll try to do this quickly. Moments in this film will remind you of The Blair Witch Project. By that, I don’t refer only to the shaky hand held camera work, but also to the structure. A film about a fake film, starring the fake film makers. See. Plus, it’s all presented as a documentary. This film came before Blair Witch, just so you’ll know. Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, like Man Bites Dog follows a serial killer (natch), and shows us his gruesome exploits coldly. Without judgment. Both films share something, although Henry’s attitude is much darker. Next up, Brett Easton Ellis’ book American Psycho (the book, remember, not the film, I have no truck with the film). This movie will remind you of A.P. in a lot of places. In fact, Benoit seems like a low rent Patrick Bateman. Benoit, like Bateman, expounds at length on his favorite subjects. Bateman talks about music and business cards. Benoit about the mating habits of pigeons, and poetry. Both have inflated images of their own importance. Natural Born Killers. This one’s obvious. Camera crew follows killer. Camera crew helps by committing acts of violence. So, how does the film play? Beautifully. It works. It is entertaining, and shocking. It does go on a bit long, but with this structure it must be difficult to find the right pace. I can’t blame the film maker’s for that. The photography is nicely done in black and white. The acting is surprisingly good. I suppose the film makers have largely type cast themselves, which helps them to keep a sense of realism. I like this movie. I think you should like it also. A few words about the criterion Collection DVD: A few extras are worth mentioning. An interview with the film makers is well worth watching. It discusses the process of making the movie, and the furor that the film caused. The disc also includes a short student film made by these same fellows. A trailer is also included. The big deal about this disc: it is the complete, unedited European cut of the film. The U.S. version (which I believe is all that is available on VHS) cuts several minutes of footage. The major cuts involve a gang rape and the murder of a child. These scenes are important within the context of the film. Without them, Benoit would seem more likable, less evil. Cutting these scenes would make this quite the insidious, subversive little film. The MPAA is stupid. I’ve said it before, and it can’t hurt to say it again: The MPAA, in their simple minded meddling, can take a patently adult film that caries a theme we can all understand; then mangle it, change it into something that glorifies violence, then make it available to underage viewers. The MPAA is controlled by morons. Final word: I recommend Man Bites Dog. I suggest the Criterion DVD. Always seek out the director’s cut, as it were. That is all.

- Nathan Tyree

Cemetery Man

nathantyree — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 00:55:35 +0000

Cemetery Man

Reviewed by Nathan Tyree

The “Zombie” genre has been around for quite some time. To be fair, “Zombie” movies are really a sub-genre, of a sub-genre. Horror is the genre, Vampires make up a sub-genre, and what is a zombie but another type of vampire? (maybe it’s the other way around: what is a vampire but a sort of zombie?).

Anyway, the genre really got going with George A. Romero’s Night of the Living Dead. Romero saw the zombies as a metaphor for us, and used the fright film structure to satirize American Society.

Romero took the satire even further with Dawn of the Dead, which pitted consumerist zombies against consumerist survivors in a modern shopping mall.

The Dead Series spawned a third film, Day of the Dead, and the parody Return of the Living Dead, and its sequels.

Dario Argento (who had a connection with Dawn of the Dead) made many low budget, extremely gory zombie flicks in Italy.

Along the way many films have imitated Both Romero and Argento. I contend that movies like Halloween, and Friday the 13th (and their sequels) are members of the zombie community. Think about it, undying, slow moving, implaccable, remorseless killers stagger about and hunt hapless human victims. (I suppose by my logic Jaws also fits, but perhaps that’s taking it a bit far).

So, after all that build up, here’s the first mention of Cemetery Man, the film I’m reviewing.

Cemetery Man is about a grave digger (Rupert Everet, of My Best Friend’s Wedding) who must dispatch the dead, who tend to rise from there graves seven days after being planted. No explanation is given for this phenomenon, nor is one needed.

In the tradition of Zombie movies, the dead are re-killed by a bullet to the head; we would expect no less.

Everet keeps a detached, reserve about him. His reaction to the horror he encounters seems to be annoyance at all the work he has to do. The thought of a bus load of dead children doesn’t shock him, or fill him with sadness, or even rage, it makes him dread all the hard work he will have to do. He is perfectly laconic, and indifferent to human suffering.

He is helped by a mute assistant (Francois Hadji-Lazaro, who was fine in City of Lost Children)

Then things start to change. He falls in love, and this being a zombie movie we can see where it’s going. The moment his love appears we know that she will die, and that he may be forced to deal with the zombie she will become.

However, the film offers the possibility that she doesn’t die, or that she does and the cemetery man loses his mind.

Things are complicated more by the mute assistant falling in love with the severed head of a dead girl (weird, huh? I said most people would hate this movie).

This movie treats the zombie genre like no other film has. Through attitude, and tone it transforms it. Through reaction, it transcends it. It shifts gears more quickly than a NASCAR driver on amphetamine. Like some of the best films of the french New Wave (Shoot the Piano Player, Breathless) it moves effortlessly from funny, to macabre, to sad and back around again.

Whereas Romero made zombies scary, comic, pitiful, and human, this film mostly forgets them. The zombies are much less important than our strange grave digger, and his, at times belated, reactions to them.

Cemetery Man is a strange, distant, cold movie. It inverts a well worn genre, and in the process creates something new and interesting.

Street Fighter

nathantyree — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 01:57:18 +0000

Street Fighter

Reviewed by Nathan Tyree

So: you like martial arts films, eh? You’ve seen all of Bruce Lee’s movies, even Game of Death (which barely has Bruce in it). You’ve never missed a Jackie Chan flick. You think you’ve seen it all. Well, have you seen Street Fighter? If not, then you haven’t even come close to seeing it all. You’ve barely scratched the surface!

What is there to be said about Street Fighter?

The first thing we must clear up, is that we are talking here about the Japanese Martial arts movie starring Sonny Chiba, and not the dreadful Jean-Claude Van Dam movie of the same title. We are also not talking about the cartoons, video games, and pinball machines that carry the same name. All of the above are silly children’s entertainment. The Street Fighter we are interested in is patently adult.

Bruce Lee brought martial arts into the American Mainstream. He became a huge international star, and then suddenly died. After his untimely death, there was a mad rush to find other stars who could fill his shoes. The Bruce Lee clones began pumping out movies at a rapid pace. However, no Asian martial arts actor would attain the same level of success until Jackie Chan. And even Chan would work for years in Hong Kong before he made a real mark in the U.S.

Out of that fervor to find the next big thing in the world of Martial arts movies came something very interesting. Among the garbage, and un-entertaining movies spewed forth, was one very good movie. Street Fighter.

Sonny Chiba plays Terry Sugury. Terry isn’t so much a hero, as simply a super bad a**. He kicks many many butts, and doesn’t seem to care whose butt it is. Terry seems to feel that everyone deserves to get their skull cracked from time to time.

The film opens with Terry pulling off a daring prison break. He was hired to do this job. Who does he break out of prison? It doesn’t matter. This is just the opening scene. The real plot comes later. Terry is hired by a consortium of Yakuza and Mafia to kidnap a rich girl. He does. They wont pay. He goes after them, and protects the princess in the process. Not that he really cares for her. She’s an investment of sorts.

They end up on an oil tanker, where a wounded Terry continues to kick butt, demolishing person after person. Oh yeah, it rains a lot.

Terry is helped by his sidekick, Rat nose. I wont say much about this fellow, except this: Rat nose may be the strangest sidekick in movie history. And that’s even if you disregard his awful name.

I know, that’s not much of a synopsis. But really, there isn’t much of a plot. The plot is like a wire hanger, meant merely to have the action sequences draped over it. It exists merely to provide connection from fight scene to fight scene.

We will notice that Terry’s tough guy: quiet, deadly, seemingly uninterested in how others feel or what they want, driven only by money harkens back to Toshiro Mifune’s character in Yojimbo, and Sanjuro. This character will also remind us of numerous roles played by Lee Marvin and others. Terry is driven by greed. He is one dimensional.

This movie exists for the fight scenes. So, are they any good? Yes. They are amazing. The fight scenes in Street Fighter are unlike anything you have seen before. They are brutal, fast, and wonderfully choreographed. Terry pauses often during fighting, preparing himself for further battle, I suppose. These pauses act as Caesurae, artful pauses that increase tension, create suspense, and keep you interested.

These fight scenes are unlike those we find in Bruce Lee’s films, they are also of a different variety than the ones we have come to know from The Matrices, these scenes are in a category of their own. No other film has really recreated this style.

An interesting thing about these scenes is the way in which we are forced to focus on the outcome of all this fighting. In most Kung Fu movies we see people hit, but we rarely see much blood. We never see the true outcome of such combat. Street Fighter gives us the logical end of the fight. It is dripping with gore. There are times when it is hard to look at all the carnage. This gore fest is what led to the film’s X rating in the United States. Of course, X ratings were handed out like candy in those days. Back then, theaters would actually show films with the dreaded X.

Today the NC-17 (the successor of the X rating) is certain death for a film. This is a sad state of affairs. In the old days patently adult films (not pornography) could be made and marketed to adults. Those days are over. But I digress.

Today’s action films seem watered down, cleaned up, and Disney-fied in comparison to this movie. Even today’s horror films are tame in comparison to the unrelenting gore and violence of Street Fighter. This is a movie to turn weak stomachs. In other words: I love it. There is nothing better than good action, done well.

This movie was followed by several sequels. Among them:

Return of Street Fighter
Sister Street Fighter

and others. I have only seen Return of Street Fighter, so cannot comment on the other films in the series. About Return I will just say that it is not as impressive as the first film. Like many sequels, it seems to lose something.

I recommend this film highly. I would also suggest that anyone interested in martial arts movies check out Bruce Lee’s great films. Also, the early films of Jackie Chan, John Woo’s great crime movies (like Hard Boiled, and The Killer), and of course some of the movies from my favorite genre: samurai films. For those interested in Samurai movies I suggest Yojimbo, and Seven Samurai.

Final thoughts on Street Fighter:

This film is from an era that has passed us by. It is a fine film, and I suggest finding a copy, making some pop corn, grabbing a cold beer, and enjoying it with friends. The DVD (from Platinum Disc Corp) is acceptable. The picture quality is fine, and the sound is okay. There are no special features, which is sad. There is a great Laser disc available, that has much better picture and great sound. If you can find the Laser, I suggest it. If not, the DVD will do. Enjoy the movie!

A note:

Quentin Tarrantino deserves some credit for returning this film to the American consciousness after being forgotten for many years. He wrote direct references to it into his script for True Romance, and then allowed a praiseful quote from him to be printed on the Laser Disc cover for a re-release of the film. I have to thank him for reminding the public that this interesting film exists. So, thanks Quentin!

Rooster

nathantyree — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 00:16:28 +0000

Just so you’ll know what sort of mad man you’re dealing with, let me explain that I spent quite some time trying to find a copy of this movie. I have longed to see Rooster: Spurs of Death for quite some time. Finally, after months of fruitless searching, a friend came through with a pirated copy. Now, so that you don’t think I’m completely insane, let me explain my reasons for wanting to see this film.

Rooster was filmed in my neck of the woods, south-east Kansas (I was being literal when I said woods). That fact alone makes it worth my time. But, I have a bigger reason for wanting to view this film. The star, Gene Bicknell is known to me. We’ve been involved in some of the same community theater productions. I’ve worked for a company that he owns. Gene, for those who don’t live in my neck of the woods, is the worlds largest owner of Pizza Hut franchises. His company, NPC, owns the bulk of the worlds Pizza Huts. He’s a rich fellow, and plays at making movies. I needed to see this one.

Rooster has been described as “the touching story of the bond that forms between father and son, over the sport of cock fighting”. I’m not kidding here. This is really what the film makers had in mind. Where I live, cock fighting is an unfortunate reality. It’s been illegal for years, but it still goes on. I can drive up the highway from my house, and see the fighting roosters chained to their barrel houses. Everybody knows what these birds are being raised for. Nobody does anything about it.

The film opens with a bit of narration telling us about the “long and proud history of cock fighting”. Then we meet Stoke (Gene Bicknell). Stoke is an old “cocker”, about to head out to a big cock fighting derby. His son, Wyatt (Vince Van Patten, who you may have seen in Rock N Roll High school, as well as other real movies) is going with him. Wyatt is going to be involved for the first time.

The film turns into a road movie for a bit, being made up largely of protracted shots of a pick up truck cruising down dirt roads, inter cut with Stoke telling Wyatt outrageous stories of his youth. We are given a sub plot about Stoke’s wife, who may be having an affair with a big city “cocker” named Clure. We are also given a subplot about Chicken, a midget in love with Kink’s daughter. Kink (Jeff Corey, another real actor who has appeared in a variety of films including Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid) is the man in charge of the cock fighting. He spews forth ridiculous dialogue, mostly meant to justify the brutality that makes his living.

Then we arrive. Well, first there’s an interlude at a house of ill-repute (I wanted to say Wh*re house, but the stupid filter thinks wh*re is obscene), then we arrive. Much deception and cheating lead to Stoke attempting to rob everyone at the cock fight and (watch out now, I’m going to give away the store here, so if you don’t want to know how it ends, stop reading here) then Stoke ends up dead. Shot by Chicken. Wyatt wants to finish the robbery, Clure tries to stop him. I lose track of how it came out. I can’t decide if the ending was supposed to have a point or not.

The film uses real footage of cock fighting (they must have filmed those scenes in Oklahoma, where it’s still legal). These sequences are a bit rough to watch. Cock fighting is a barbaric, cruel, and inane pastime. In a real cock fighting arena you would not see the sort of attractive, well heeled men the film portrays. Real cockers tend to be toothless, ignorant, inbred, middle aged men who are sexually excited by cruelty. A large number of them are likely to have spent some time in prison for violent crimes. Often sexually sadistic acts. This only makes sense. Sadism, is sadism. Anyone who enjoys torturing animals will eventually get around to torturing people.

This movie is filled with scenery chewing. The overacting is nearly as difficult to watch as the cock fighting. Between the actors there is enough false melodrama to fill the grand canyon. The direction is bland. This film was shot largely like a cheap made for TV movie. It has no style, and no substance.
The script is preposterous. I’ve heard better dialogue in porn.

The film also suffers from incredible padding. It runs ninety-two minutes. Minus the long shots of the same truck going down the same dirst road, and the endless sequences of a plane landing, taxiing, taking off, landing again, this movie would run about sixty-eight minutes. This film is padded like a Jr High school girl’s bra.

So, even if we ignore the ethical problems this film suffers from (and those problems are legion), it is simply bad. This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. And I saw Cut Throat Island! So I’ve seen really bad movies. The film does contain some unintentional humor. It is ripe for MST3K style lampooning. However, even that could not make it an enjoyable experience.

I cannot recommend this film to anyone. It should be avoided at all cost. But then, you weren’t likely to see it in the first place.

Bloodsucking Freaks

nathantyree — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 00:08:29 +0000

Seeing The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre put me in the mood for some real 70’s gore. So I warmed up the DVD player, and popped in my well worn copy of Blood Sucking Freaks. Here’s what I have to say after seeing this movie again:

First, a little background. In 1975 Joel M. Reed wanted to ,make a low budget S&M flick. He filmed The great Torture Show in SoHo. The film was a flop. Later it was purchased by Troma (of Toxic Avenger fame). Troma trimmed the film, and submitted it to the MPAA. It received an R rating. Troma then shipped the unedited version (that was deserving of an X rating) to theaters with the R attached. the MPAA sued, and won. Then Troma managed to get anti pornography groups to protest theaters showing the film. Troma made a fortune from a film that would have otherwise have vanished into obscurity.

So, what is this inflammatory movie about? Simple, Sardu (Seamus O’Brien) runs a grand Guignol show in SoHo. Along with his partner Ralphus (Louie DeJesus) he tortures and kills women on stage. This is what Sardu does for fun. For money he trades in white slavery, selling women to Arab countries. But, what Sardu longs for is artistic respect and good reviews. Toward that end he kidnaps and tortures a drama critic. He also kidnaps the famed dancer Natasha Denatalie, and forces her to perform in his show. Her boyfriend (a football player, modeled after that guy who did the pantyhose commercials) comes searching for her, and everyone dies a horrible death. Along the way we see dreadful acts of violence (mostly perpetrated against women). A “dentist” played by Ernie Pysher pulls all of a girl’s teeth, so that she wont bite. He then shaves her head, drills a hole in her skull, and sucks out her brains through a straw. Herschel Gordon Lewis would be proud. So would Mel Gibson. The plot is, of course, just a thin string to hang the scenes of gore from. It makes little sense.

This film is photographed like a cheap porn, and has all the finesse of a snuff film. The sets are as cheap as possible. Even Plan 9 From Outer Space had better production design than this turkey.

The acting is preposterous (despite the appearance of real actors like Seamus O’Brien who appeared in real movies like Marathon Man, and had a long career on Broadway). Not a single real emotion is ever shown. Ralphus hamms it up, and the rest of the cast groans through their scenes.

On a side note, Louie DeJesus went on to have a career in porn. Most notably in films like Let My Puppets Come, which may be the most bizarre thing ever put on celluloid.

This film is disgusting in every possible way. It is misogynistic, anti-humanity, and badly made. It does manage some humor, although one cannot be sure if the laughs were meant by the film makers or not. I suppose it could function as lop sided satire, but I can’t tell what it is meant to be satire of.

Really though, Blood Sucking Freaks is misogynistic on a scale that is difficult to comprehend. There is barely a moment in the film that isn’t difficult to watch.

This film is meaningless gore. Actually, it ranks just above The Passion of the Christ. I cannot recommend it. But, I must say that it just possibly doesn’t matter what I think. This movie seems to stand outside criticism. In that way it is a bit like -Pink Flamingos. See it if you must.

Nathan Tyree

Dawn of the Dead

nathantyree — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 00:01:14 +0000

Dawn of the Dead

Reviewed by Nathan Tyree

In 1978 George A. Romero wrote and directed Dawn of the Dead. That film used the outer edifice of the zombie genre to satirize American society, and specifically consumerism. Romero’s zombies were fascinating mirror images of us. Zack Snyder’s new version of that film jettisons the satire in favor of good old fashioned horror. Zombie films have come in many shapes, and forms. From the films of Dario Argento, to the weirdness of Lucio Fulci, to the outrageous (and often funny) films of Sam Raimi (Evil Dead, Evil Dead 2, Army of Darkness). Zombie films can be smart (Night of the Living Dead), or stupid (The Dead Hate the Living), but they are nearly always effective. The new Dawn of the Dead isn’t all that smart, but it is a lot of fun. The bare bones plot is simple enough. For some reason (which is wisely never explained) the dead begin coming back to life and attacking the living. Those they kill quickly become zombies themselves, and set to work making even more zombies. A small band of survivors hides out in a shopping mall, and attempts to wait out the nightmare. Along the way there are obligatory zombie attacks, and internecine strife. Of course they will decide to flee the mall, and that’s when the action will really pick up. The story moves out into the streets, and involves armored buses, and a boat. The action also involves a cute dog. Normally it is a bad sign when the adorable pet shows up, but this dog at least serves a purpose within the plot. This cast handles the material beautifully. Sarah Polley stars as Ana, a nurse who saw her husband killed by a zombie early on. Ving Rhames (of Pulp Fiction fame) plays a tough cop, and Jake Webber is the sort of hyper-intelligent loser movie goers have come to expect. There are great cameos by Tom Savini, and Ken Foree, who were featured in the original film. Foree’s dialogue contains the single best in-joke in recent film history. Ms Polley shows real promise here. Audiences should watch her in the future. She manages to embue what could be a stock character with some real depth. Ving Rhames plays his role mostly in silence, yet comes across well. He is able to elicit more with a gesture or a look than most actors can with a monologue. Rhames is becoming a powerful actor, and will be with us for a long time. Jake Webber (who in my mind will always be the guy who isn’t Tim Roth (don’t ask)) is a gifted actor, and carries his role well. The crew fights zombies, boredom, and each other. To kill time they communicate via signs with Andy, the fellow trapped on the roof of a gun store across the street. It is interesting that Andy becomes a compelling character, despite the fact that we never really see him close up, or hear him speak. The film is short on “cat scares” (this is a good thing). It earns the jumps it gets from the audience. There is some real tension, and quite a bit of suspense as we hope against hope that some of these people will be able to survive. The film’s FX are great. Due to advances in technology, this movie has a more realistic look than Romero’s. There are no blue zombies here. The state of the art FX help to create a realism that lends to the horror. Dawn of the dead also has a great use of music. I was quite pleased to hear the song choices the film makers made. There seems to be something of resurgence in zombie movies these days. What with 28 Days Later doing so well. One wonders if we will soon see a remake of Day of the Dead. I suppose Lucio Fulci would be proud. Although it is no match for Romero’s original masterpiece, Dawn of the Dead (redux) is a great pop culture movie. In the vein of pure entertainment it works as well as one would hope. The film is genuinely frightening. It plays by its own rules, and does not disappoint the audience. While it lacks the intelligence of its progenitor, it functions marvelously as a fright film. This isn’t great art, but judged against other recent films in the genre, it is actually very good. Dawn of the Dead is one of the best American horror films to come along in years. Be sure to sit through the end credits, as more footage is intercut with them. Anyone who loves before the last of the credits flash on screen will miss important information about the denoument. Highly recommended.

21 Grams

nathantyree — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 21:45:50 +0000

21 Grams

Reviewed by Nathan Tyree

Since Citizen Kane film makers have felt free to shatter linear story telling, and arrange their films in the way that they believe will offer the greatest impact. Granted, most films are not non-linear; but recently directors and screenwriters have returned to this exciting method. Films like Pulp Fiction, Following, Memento, Reservoir Dogs, and The English Patient, break the narrative into pieces and dole it out like a mystery. 21 Grams uses this method to great effect. Sean Penn (Dead Man Walking, Sweet and Lowdown, Hurly Burly) stars as a man with a bad heart. He has been placed on the transplant list, but does not expect to survive for long. He receives a heart win a man and his two daughters are run down by a car driven by Benicio Del Toro (The Usual Suspects, Way of the Gun, Traffic). Del Toro is an ex-con who has found religion. Despite his newly found faith, Del Toro has trouble controlling himself. He is obsessive in his belief, just as he was once obsessive in his criminal activity. Naomi Watts (The Ring) plays the widow of the heart donor. Penn’s character seeks her out, and they tumble into a morbid affair, that has more to do with a dead man, than with either of them. 21 Grams is part revenge story, part romance, and all human drama. It is about loss, pain, the hope of redemption, and the futility of life. The director, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, is a master of the form. His earlier film, Amores Perros (which also used a non-linear structure) was difficult, challenging and beautiful. 21 Grams is a worthy successor to that film. The way in which information is doled out slowly in disjointed bits adds to the impact of the film. One is reminded of the cut0up method of story telling (pioneered by William S. Burroughs and Byron Gysin), or of the random ordering of chapters in Naked Lunch (also by Burroughs). Sean Penn delivers one of his three best performances (the other two, by the way, were in this year’s Mystic River, and the now classic At Close Range). Penn may be the finest actor of his generation. He has a depth, and a range that is nearly unrivalled. It is no stretch to list him along such luminaries as Gregory Peck, Marlon Brando, and Robert Deniro. Benicio Del Toro, seems to have appeared from out of nowhere. Ten years ago no one had heard of him. Now he stands as one of the most versatile actors working. He is one of those rare performers that seems to only make good choices, and to not be hampered by ego. He was rightly nominated for an Oscar for his work in this film. Although I agreed with the Academy that Tim Robbins deserved the award this year, I am certain that Del Toro will be back in the running soon. I had not paid much attention to Naomi Watts before this film. I now feel badly for that. Clearly she is a talented and capable actor. She reaches a depth of emotion that is striking, but without veering into the realm of melodrama. It is nearly impossible to strike the proper balance in this territory, but she does. We can, I believe, expect great things from her in the future. The Oscar nomination she got for this film may not be the last one she receives. The film is beautifully photographed. The opening scene is one of the most marvelous images I have seen in years. This is a lovely, and amazing film. Reading back over what I have written I see that I have employed a massive number of superlatives in this essay. Normally I would edit some of them out. However, in this case they all seem absolutely necessary. 21 Grams is one of the best films of the year.

Hello world!

nathantyree — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 21:44:42 +0000

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!