Films Seen - August 2007
[Pre-'96 films not included.]
TAXI 4 (49) (dir., Gerard Krawczyk) Samy Naceri, Frederic Diefenthal, Bernard Farcy Luc Besson is a writer (and director, of course) but also head honcho of his movie factory, rather like Roger Corman at A-I, which is bad because when he makes something like ANGEL-A or THE MESSENGER there's no-one to tell him 'Luc, this is terminally boring', but also good because when he indulges his zany sense of humour there's no-one to say 'Luc, this won't play in Peoria [or French equivalent]' - so e.g. we get a scene where a Belgian suspect is tortured by having a Jacques Brel record deliberately played at the wrong speed (he breaks down and tells them everything), even though the target audience is likely to be unfamiliar both with Jacques Brel and the concept of a record being played at the wrong speed. Haven't actually seen any of the first three TAXIs, but I'm guessing Naceri's character was a lot more central to the plot - here he's almost irrelevant - and he also seems softened, a former wild-man turned favourite uncle. Car-chase action comes a distant second to the shenanigans of bumbling gendarmes, gags ranging from the mildly daring - pot-smoking cops, SCARFACE climax - to the charmingly silly, e.g. taxi goes by so fast it blows all the clothes off a traffic cop. Luc, this makes us look like "The Benny Hill Show"...
EVAN ALMIGHTY (38) (dir., Tom Shadyac) Steve Carell, Morgan Freeman, Lauren Graham, John Goodman I love how entrepreneurial this American God is (if He were a government, He'd be solidly small-government). In BRUCE ALMIGHTY He exhorted followers to "Be the miracle!", in this one He explains that you don't actually get what you pray for, He just gives you an "opportunity" to get it - so e.g. if you pray for courage He'll wreck your life, so you can find the courage within yourself (jesus, God). He also wrecks Steve Carell's life so as to force him to build an Ark, which turns out to be totally unnecessary since the Flood is localised and only affects a small suburban valley in the D.C. area - and though the Ark does save a few people's lives, they're the people who were only there to gawp at the Ark in the first place ("Whatever I do, I do it because I love you," He explains, unconvincingly). Otherwise, a couple of slapstick montages, an amiable Disney-like air, jokes about alpacas and a strange - or not so strange - conflation of 00s God-bothering and 60s hippy values (the kids call Dad "John Lennon" when he grows his Old Testament beard, and the Beatles' "Revolution" plays over the Ark-building). Inoffensive, if a little weird.
GRINDHOUSE (75) [Planet Terror 64, Death Proof 68] (dir., Robert Rodriguez & Quentin Tarantino) Rose McGowan, Freddy Rodriguez, Kurt Russell, Zoe Bell Delightful meta-layer for me, because the Weinsteins' erratic release strategy meant the only way I could see this before the Extended Versions come out (the only way the films are being released in Europe) was to watch a download - which turned out to be the crappiest kind of theatre-cam, with audible audience reactions and the screen intermittently blocked by people getting up to use the bathroom, i.e. exactly like the crappy bootleg videos I grew up watching (but haven't watched in years), thereby giving it exactly the same charge of transgressive nostalgia that grindhouse presumably holds for the filmmakers. That (I assume) is the attraction more than any technical challenge, because it doesn't feel like a 70s artefact in the way that e.g. MOVIE MOVIE set out to recreate the films of the 30s; "Planet Terror" is too deftly (and excitingly) made, with quick use of inserts and some elegant camera moves, and of course "Death Proof" is something else altogether, archetypal Tarantino from the pop-culture references (I'm even seeing Don Siegel's TELEFON in the Robert Frost snippet) to the use of duration. Scholarly treatises may focus on its tension between movie people and 'real' people, Stuntman Mike easily manipulating the first set of girls till he's matched by his own kind, who actually work in movies - which he only claims to do, and I wonder if we're meant to understand he's not in fact a stuntman (the bit where his audience admits they've never heard of the films and shows he mentions seems to imply this) - and who effortlessly play him at his own game; movies form an alternate reality, the second girls more 'real' than the first (they never pretend to be "Barry"), more centred and confident, and of course Zoe Bell (unlike Kurt Russell) really is a stuntperson - yet they're also fantasy figures, which is part of the film's unusual tone. It's not irrelevant because the film exemplifies movie reality, above all in its form as a double-bill, as though recreating the cinematic mores of the 70s could bring back the decade itself; also the two halves play superbly off each other - "Terror" gross and OTT, "Proof" sleek and deceptively casual - also there's the faux trailers and so forth, making for a case of the concept being significantly greater than its (pretty good) parts. Just one caveat: Quentin Tarantino the actor. Dude, why?
[Addendum 1: DEATH PROOF (70), though I don't really like the Extended Version more - indeed, showing the lap-dance seems a really bad idea, weakening the implication that Mike kills out of sexual dysfunction (even beyond the suggestion that something happened to set him off during the lap-dance, there's the suggestion that nothing happened; that for him it's the equivalent of "REEL MISSING"), which is even more intriguing given his - and the movie's - reliance on movie reality. That (i.e. movie reality) really leapt out as the theme on second viewing, esp. when Mike says his death-proof car is "a movie car" - it's like he's borrowing the privileges accorded to movies and movie folk, the nonchalance and arrogance and glamour, the whole air of homo superior, and using them (implicitly) to justify his slaughter of ordinary girls and wannabes like Jungle Julia; but of course he's a fake, and when he comes up against real movie people they instantly peg him for what he is - a lunatic redneck - and destroy him without a second thought. All of which is (even more) interesting because of course that's what Tarantino's been doing all his life, piggybacking on movie reality for his own violent purposes, and if it's established (as the absence of lap-dance helps establish) that Mike is acting - as the girls put it - out of "little dick" syndrome, that speaks volumes for the sensibility of our not-so-humble auteur. Higher rating is really just a function of finally seeing it properly, getting all the dialogue (many lines were inaudible on that crappy download) and grooving on the bifurcated look - first half garish interiors, second half dusty exteriors - especially on the big screen; god knows what the rating would've been had I seen it under these conditions as part of GRINDHOUSE (where I still think it works better). How did I ever turn into such a film buff, growing up with bootlegs and crappy audience-cams? Fight the pirates, Jack Valenti was right, etc.]
[Addendum 2: PLANET TERROR (66), though, as with DEATH PROOF, the slightly higher rating is mostly a function of watching the Extended Version on the big screen. The film's much the same - I'm not sure I could even pinpoint all the stuff that wasn't in the GRINDHOUSE version - but e.g. shots like the shack silhouetted by blazing fires, or Rose McGowan arching her back (so a missile can whiz by beneath her body) in the midst of lurid mayhem, really push the Coolness Factor to 11 in the theatre. Rodriguez also has a knack for acquainting actors with their inner badass, and e.g. the hard-boiled conversations between his namesake Freddy and McGowan attain surprising intensity amid the ironic backdrops (this was also the case in SIN CITY); in many ways his achievement here is just as impressive as Tarantino's - and certainly the contrast between this gross OTT spectacle with its brick-red inferno look and DEATH PROOF, with its hanging-out vibe and unthreatening daylight exteriors, is superbly effective. Bring on that GRINDHOUSE dvd already.]
KLIMT (50) (dir., Raul Ruiz) John Malkovich, Saffron Burrows, Stephen Dillane Plays like 80s arthouse - after the outbreak of post-modernism, before the Asian-led 90s revival - from the copious nudity to the elusive Ideal woman (who might once have been played by Stephane Audran or Ornella Muti) to the mystery man who counsels our hero throughout and turns out (of course) to be a figment of his imagination, to the arch period-drama dialogue and bald exposition of themes, to the rather tired pall hanging over it all. Archaic vs. Modern is one of the themes (Art as aesthetics vs. Art as "useful" service is another), and Klimt is shown as pointedly modern - non-racist, non-theist, intrigued by Science (bacilli in a microscope), constantly changing his style (cue the symbolic medical skeleton composed - like our hero - of various parts from various bodies), enthralled by early movies even as he loses himself in the blurring of reality and fantasy. Only saw the 90-minute version, and maybe it hangs together better in the two-hour Director's Cut - but I doubt it, since its rather sketchy quality is part of its charm. Nudes lounge in mid-air, suspended in swathes of green fabric, a bordello features red-velvet furnishings and whores wearing fake moustaches; Ruiz makes the set revolve briefly as he did in TIME REGAINED (young Marcel in that film also seemed, like Klimt, to embody the lure of Cinema), and the A-then-B-then-C rhythm of biopics is firmly avoided though Ruiz' dreamlike merry-go-round (facts fragmented like the shards of a broken mirror) might be even more of a cliché. Highbrows may want more of the Art, lowbrows can rejoice in the presence of an actress called Irina Wanka.
PREMONITION (42) (dir., Mennan Yapo) Sandra Bullock, Julian McMahon, Nia Long Plot-holes big enough to drive Sandra Bullock, her trailer and most of her entourage through, so blatant I assumed I must've missed something (did I?). How can the little girl cut herself on Tuesday yet have no scars on her face when we first see her on Thursday? Why is Mom so shocked to see the cuts on Saturday when she's (presumably) known about them for days? Why does Grandma think it's child abuse when she's (presumably) been told about the accident? Why, come to that, does the car finally explode when we're told the victim was decapitated? (I assume they're aiming for a 12 MONKEYS ending, where attempts to avoid Fate only end up precipitating it.) Even when it's not being illogical it's still pretty stupid - Bullock sees the consequences of telling the shrink about her precognition, then goes back in Time and does it anyway! - even when it's not being stupid it's still inadequate. It's intriguing that heroine gets in touch with Something Bigger via her condition (though at first I thought it was going to be about trauma, the reluctance to let go of loved ones, which would've been even more intriguing) but her marriage isn't shown as especially unhappy - just a little stale - and what she regains is kind of vague anyway (Love, as per the saccharine prologue); I think it's supposed to be touching when New Improved Sandra makes her husband tell the kids how much he loves them, then - just as grim-faced and solemn - makes the kids tell her husband how much they love him, but in fact she comes across as a crazy lady. She also gets assailed by montages, though Yapo takes it slow and edge-free for the opening 20 minutes - which makes story-sense but is still counter-productive, since most viewers are likely to know the premise and likely to get impatient. Religion angle is puzzling, esp. since the climax is such a cosmic fuck-you anyway.
THE SIMPSONS MOVIE (57) (dir., David Silverman) with the voices of Dan Castellaneta, Julie Kavner, Nancy Cartwright, Yeardley Smith Speaking as someone who's seen maybe three complete episodes of "The Simpsons" (none of them in the last 10 years), can I just say I didn't realise (a) that the show had so much slapstick, if indeed it has, and (b) that Homer had devolved into such an imbecile - I thought he was just an extension of the klutzy sitcom dad, but he's barely even a grown-up when e.g. he dares Bart to climb the TV aerial (cue readers holding "Duh" signs, so I won't say more - except to wonder about the possible link between Pa Simpson's cult status and a Western culture that's grown steadily more immature and infantilized). Speaking as a non-American, can I just say I'm surprised the EPA is considered such a villain (I thought GHOSTBUSTERS was channelling Reaganite anti-environmentalism, but apparently not) - I assume it's beholden to powerful vested interests like all government agencies everywhere, but surely it's the one that occasionally does good work despite itself (no?) rather than being cast at the apex of heartless Republicanism. Speaking as a viewer, can I just say I enjoyed bits and pieces of this movie but it didn't seem to have much consistent vision, e.g. there's one TV joke at the beginning and another halfway through - "To Be Continued" - but no riffing on the film's TV origins in between, unless the Dome is a sly literalization of Springfield's status as a bubble-world (there's also one movie-formalist joke - convenient props obscuring Bart's willy, Austin Powers-style - but not much else, except perhaps the Homer-mouth-cam). Highlights are mostly fringe-gags and throwaways: "Itchy/Hillary '08", "Oatmeal Enthusiast", "Nome Sweet Nome", the Spider-pig song, the gag with the "Wanted" poster - and "An Irritating Truth" would indeed have been a better title for that Al Gore thingy. Speaking of which, the joke isn't that fans turn nasty when the Green Days of the world mention the environment. It's that they cheer along, then go home in their gas-guzzlers.
28 WEEKS LATER (45) (dir., Juan Carlos Fresnadillo) Robert Carlyle, Rose Byrne, Jeremy Renner, Catherine McCormack How long can horror films keep setting up intricate situations then turning into wall-to-wall action-fests? At least this one doesn't have a complex original to betray, like the TCM and DAWN OF THE DEAD remakes, though 28 DAYS LATER had some fascinating layers (working in part as an allegory of the struggle for Britain's soul between Europeanists and Eurosceptics) and this also hits some eye-catching buttons in its opening stages. Anything with a US occupying force and the "reconstruction" of a broken country is bound to have resonance in 2007, and the (excellent) prologue also seems to evoke Europe's greatest fear, civilised (but nervous) bourgeois tasting their good wines in well-appointed homes before being invaded by the Many - immigrants, Islamists, whatever, turning up in overwhelming numbers, possessed by an obscure baffling rage. Then it turns into a fucking chase movie - and not even a good one, excitingly made (if overly fond of shock effects) in the usual spastic style, but wilfully chaotic and stupid in its details. The usual movie implausibilities I can live with - e.g. that no security measures have been taken to monitor an apparent survivor of the plague, esp. one with a massive bite-mark on her shoulder - but how can our heroes be escorting the Golden Child, the kid who holds the key to understanding and curing the virus, and never once mention this salient fact to the soldiers pursuing them? (Half the group are military people, one of them with access to the top brass.) The joke is that the soldiers are more dangerous than the zombies, which was also the joke in 28 DAYS LATER (and also the punchline at the end of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD), but it's wa-a-ay too simplistic to reduce Code Red to "Kill everyone" - maybe when the snipers are shooting into the crowd and it's impossible to tell who's a victim and who's infected (their dilemma as they're forced to kill innocent people makes for a fine, painful set-piece, considerably weakened by the film's decision to plaster music all over it), but why for example would they shoot at our heroes' car? Zombies aren't going to be driving a car, and they certainly won't be trying to escape. Nothing carries any weight, it's all just cheap thrills and booga-booga moments, and the figure of the mother - laden with guilt, appearing in dreams like a bad conscience - is disposed of way too early. Major disappointment.
THE HITCHER (27) (dir., Dave Meyers) Sean Bean, Sophia Bush, Zachary Knighton It's all about the length of the pivotal scene, the slow (or not so slow) roll-out of tension in the car as the passenger reveals his true self. FREEWAY (with the roles reversed) took ages, the 80s original I haven't seen - but this shoddy remake has him in full-blown nutcase mode after about five lines of dialogue, a sure sign of a film with no stomach (or brain) for the skilful stuff, putting its faith not in tension but hysterics, spectacularly stupid redneck cops and at least one scene (pounding rock on the soundtrack as the Hitcher blows up a flotilla of cop cars) that seems to have confused slasher horror with a DIE HARD movie. Funniest part is how they couldn't in good conscience put the "Based on a true story" caption - the hoariest cliché in 00s horror - at the beginning, so instead we get a sober message that "According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, an estimated 42,000 people die on highways every year". Betcha most of them don't get disembowelled by random psychos, though...