Ashley Judd needs to stop. I hereby proclaim that the Ashley Judd thriller (and its imitators) has played itself out and needs to retire.
Sure, I enjoyed Kiss the Girls (1997) when it came out. Heck, I even thought Double Jeopardy (1999) was somewhat entertaining. But now there’s Eye of the Beholder (1999), High Crimes (2002), and Twisted (2004), along with the perhaps-promising Bug (2006), which is being directed by William Friedkin.
While visiting with my folks recently, my dad told me I had to see this great thriller playing on cable, but he couldn’t remember the name. If you know my dad, you know that’s not unusual. He never knows the names of anything, and half the time he sleeps through movies. It’s kind of his thing.
So I vote to watch House of Wax (2005), which looks humorous, but he realizes after five minutes that he has, yep, already seen it. So we turn to Twisted, against my will, and after fifteen minutes, he realizes that, indeed, this was the thriller he had been telling me about. “It’ll blow your mind,” he says.
Not only did it not blow my mind, but it wasn’t even twisted, not in the least. I called the whodunit during the first thirty minutes, even explaining why the killing was done and noting the other murders that had been committed. I even told my dad, who was probably asleep by now, how Judd’s character was knocked out to be able to do it.
In other words, this was a twisted thriller that wasn’t exciting or twisted and left me feeling gypped of two hours. The only thing that was the least bit interesting here was the main character’s penchant for casual sex. Such a thing isn’t really unusual in Hollywood, of course, but it is generally accompanied by some sort of romance or love story. Here, Judd’s character picks up a stranger and then has a kind of masochistic sex with him, and we never see him again. And this isn’t the first time she has done this. We learn that she is trying to find companionship, even following in her mother’s footsteps, but it’s still weird for a heroine to do such things. What happened to the good Ashley of yore?
What the casual sex points out is how everyone in this movie is twisted, which may be the point. The only good character is the one who is supposed to be bad, played by a very bored Andy Garcia. Twisted comes out demonstrating the Calvinist tenet of total depravity. The entire world is twisted, it claims, even the ones we think are good.
Grade for Twisted: 2
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Thursday, May 25, 2006
The Life Hectic with Wes Anderson
I watched Rushmore (1998) one time and fell in love with it. Its characters were smart, engaging, and sincere in an innovative way. The fact that the film was made in Houston right after I moved there made it all the more attractive. Then came The Royal Tennenbaums (2001), and I didn’t love it at first. It was engaging and intriguing, but it didn’t grab me right away, making me dub it One of Those Movies That Has To Be Watched Several Times, like The Big Lebowski (1998). Now comes The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, and I can’t even call it that.
Regarding a film as One of Those Movies That Has To Be Watched Several Times is a type of copout, anyway; I realize that. It’s what you do with movies that are good but not necessarily fully enjoyable the first go-round. Almost all of the Coen brothers films are that way, for example. They’re great on first watching, but they get better with multiple viewings. Then there are movies that are intriguing but not enjoyable at all. Some of the more arty films are this way, especially the really out-there ones like David Lynch’s earliest, Eraserhead (1976). I know they’re interesting, but I don’t want to watch them again, or at least only in an I-can’t-turn-away-from-the-accident stare.
The Life Aquatic is one of these movies, and it may be partly because of my viewing habits that I say this. My wife likes these kinds of movies, so I have to watch them with her, yet she can’t bear to watch more than 45 minutes of a movie in one sitting (she starts feeling like she has to “do something,” which I don’t understand one bit. Like watching a movie isn’t “doing something?” Wait, that’s a sluggard talking…). Watching The Life Aquatic in four sittings really changed the viewing experience, and it pointed out the fact that this is really two different films about the same person.
The first two segments were boring. Nothing happened, and the characters weren’t even compelling enough to make it into a drama. Bill Murray is such a non-plus actor that he appears to bumble through every scene he’s in, and it didn’t work in this movie because the dialogue or situations didn’t make up for it. I wanted to quit watching after the first segment, but my wife wanted to keep going. During these first two segments, I felt as though the movie violated rule number two: a movie must be enjoyable in order to be good. There are different ways to be enjoyable, of course, but this one didn’t have any of them. I wanted to stop and burn it like we did with 13 Going on 30.
But then came the third segment, and all of sudden this drama turned into an action film. Suddenly, the characters were chasing pirates and I was intrigued. The change happened very suddenly, but it was also quite subtle. One moment Bill Murray is tied up and trying to stay alive and the next moment he is wielding a machine gun blowing people away.
And it worked…sort of. The change is purposeful, I know: it demonstrates Steve Zissou’s mid-life crisis and change and he becomes a hero for his son. Where he was a bumbling fool, he is now a rejuvenated man who takes charge. He rescues his crew and destroys the bad guys in the process.
It doesn’t make up for the first two segments, however. Even if it’s purposeful, I still have to enjoy a film. So I rate The Life Aquatic barely fresh.
Grade for The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou: 6
Regarding a film as One of Those Movies That Has To Be Watched Several Times is a type of copout, anyway; I realize that. It’s what you do with movies that are good but not necessarily fully enjoyable the first go-round. Almost all of the Coen brothers films are that way, for example. They’re great on first watching, but they get better with multiple viewings. Then there are movies that are intriguing but not enjoyable at all. Some of the more arty films are this way, especially the really out-there ones like David Lynch’s earliest, Eraserhead (1976). I know they’re interesting, but I don’t want to watch them again, or at least only in an I-can’t-turn-away-from-the-accident stare.
The Life Aquatic is one of these movies, and it may be partly because of my viewing habits that I say this. My wife likes these kinds of movies, so I have to watch them with her, yet she can’t bear to watch more than 45 minutes of a movie in one sitting (she starts feeling like she has to “do something,” which I don’t understand one bit. Like watching a movie isn’t “doing something?” Wait, that’s a sluggard talking…). Watching The Life Aquatic in four sittings really changed the viewing experience, and it pointed out the fact that this is really two different films about the same person.
The first two segments were boring. Nothing happened, and the characters weren’t even compelling enough to make it into a drama. Bill Murray is such a non-plus actor that he appears to bumble through every scene he’s in, and it didn’t work in this movie because the dialogue or situations didn’t make up for it. I wanted to quit watching after the first segment, but my wife wanted to keep going. During these first two segments, I felt as though the movie violated rule number two: a movie must be enjoyable in order to be good. There are different ways to be enjoyable, of course, but this one didn’t have any of them. I wanted to stop and burn it like we did with 13 Going on 30.
But then came the third segment, and all of sudden this drama turned into an action film. Suddenly, the characters were chasing pirates and I was intrigued. The change happened very suddenly, but it was also quite subtle. One moment Bill Murray is tied up and trying to stay alive and the next moment he is wielding a machine gun blowing people away.
And it worked…sort of. The change is purposeful, I know: it demonstrates Steve Zissou’s mid-life crisis and change and he becomes a hero for his son. Where he was a bumbling fool, he is now a rejuvenated man who takes charge. He rescues his crew and destroys the bad guys in the process.
It doesn’t make up for the first two segments, however. Even if it’s purposeful, I still have to enjoy a film. So I rate The Life Aquatic barely fresh.
Grade for The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou: 6
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
The Tensions of Being Zorro
The Mask of Zorro (1998) saw the emergence of Catherine Zeta-Jones and the solidification of Antonio Banderas as American movie stars, and they’re both perfect for their roles. What I find intriguing about these stars is that the two of them now command multi-million dollar salaries, and they gained their status (at least for Zeta-Jones) through a movie that is about--to put it simply--protecting the poor.
Like I say, that is putting it simply, but the main plot of The Mask of Zorro is about the plight of the poor workers who, whether free or slave, are forced to serve the people in power. These people are sometimes literally chained, but they are always metaphorically chained. Zorro is their savior, first by helping to banish Spanish rule and then by preventing the evil men from coming back to subjugate the same people is the name of, not colonialism this time, but a type of industrial capitalism. These poor people’s lives don’t seem to change during any of these powers, either. I guess it doesn’t matter who’s in power, it sucks to be poor.
So in effect, Zorro accomplishes nothing. Sure, he drives the Spanish out of town, but nothing really changes for the people. He tells his wife that he’s done, but all he has really done is, well, driven the Spanish out of town. And that’s before the Spanish ruler comes and burns his palace down, leaving him with nothing. Then it becomes Banderas who has a fortune to live as he pleases, and promises not to fight anymore. Has the plight of the people changed? Probably not. We know Santa Anna promises to take care of them, but he’s too busy waging an expensive war, isn’t he? Besides, all he says is that he will give them some food. Heck, he probably makes them join his army.
The poor Zorro character, however, marries rich and now has his family and fortune to think of. No more worries for him. No more being drunk on the street fighting for booze. He has made it through his hard work and dedication to swordfighting and fighting for people who could not fight themselves. Or at least to his good looks and dancing ability, for those are the things that captivated Zeta-Jones's character.
What would call Zorro today? We would probably brand him a terrorist, but I probably shouldn't say that. It's a movie, after all, and there have to be villans and heroes and never the twain shall meet. Besides, he’s doing good for the people against the conniving capitalists, so it’s all okay.
What a revolutionary movie that doesn’t even seem to have a clue about its own revolutionary tendencies. No one ever mentions the tension between the rich Zorros and the poor people they are supposed to protect. The movie insists that what he does is right, but it’s odd to think that the capitalists are simply being industrious and doing what they need to do in order to make their money. Heck, they are even working to free California from Mexico, which is a good thing, too, right?
Let’s see a tortured hero who sees the conflict between his own riches and the complete lack of the people around him. He lives poor, too, and he serves the people by providing food for them, as well as independence. Independence is necessary, sure, but I would rather have food...
Like I say, that is putting it simply, but the main plot of The Mask of Zorro is about the plight of the poor workers who, whether free or slave, are forced to serve the people in power. These people are sometimes literally chained, but they are always metaphorically chained. Zorro is their savior, first by helping to banish Spanish rule and then by preventing the evil men from coming back to subjugate the same people is the name of, not colonialism this time, but a type of industrial capitalism. These poor people’s lives don’t seem to change during any of these powers, either. I guess it doesn’t matter who’s in power, it sucks to be poor.
So in effect, Zorro accomplishes nothing. Sure, he drives the Spanish out of town, but nothing really changes for the people. He tells his wife that he’s done, but all he has really done is, well, driven the Spanish out of town. And that’s before the Spanish ruler comes and burns his palace down, leaving him with nothing. Then it becomes Banderas who has a fortune to live as he pleases, and promises not to fight anymore. Has the plight of the people changed? Probably not. We know Santa Anna promises to take care of them, but he’s too busy waging an expensive war, isn’t he? Besides, all he says is that he will give them some food. Heck, he probably makes them join his army.
The poor Zorro character, however, marries rich and now has his family and fortune to think of. No more worries for him. No more being drunk on the street fighting for booze. He has made it through his hard work and dedication to swordfighting and fighting for people who could not fight themselves. Or at least to his good looks and dancing ability, for those are the things that captivated Zeta-Jones's character.
What would call Zorro today? We would probably brand him a terrorist, but I probably shouldn't say that. It's a movie, after all, and there have to be villans and heroes and never the twain shall meet. Besides, he’s doing good for the people against the conniving capitalists, so it’s all okay.
What a revolutionary movie that doesn’t even seem to have a clue about its own revolutionary tendencies. No one ever mentions the tension between the rich Zorros and the poor people they are supposed to protect. The movie insists that what he does is right, but it’s odd to think that the capitalists are simply being industrious and doing what they need to do in order to make their money. Heck, they are even working to free California from Mexico, which is a good thing, too, right?
Let’s see a tortured hero who sees the conflict between his own riches and the complete lack of the people around him. He lives poor, too, and he serves the people by providing food for them, as well as independence. Independence is necessary, sure, but I would rather have food...
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Zorro and Childhood
As I have mentioned before, “the heist” is my favorite genre. They’re generally smart and witty, because, well, criminals who can get away with such antics have to be smart and witty.
As a child, however, my favorite genre was the action/adventure film. I loved Indiana Jones and his bumbling swashbuckling. I loved watching every kind of action/adventure film, such as Romancing the Stone, King Solomon’s Mines, Die Hard, Big Trouble in Little China, any Swarzenegger film, and any funny, action-packed hero adventure.
I admit I still have a penchant for this genre, even though my wife seems to despise those films. No, that’s not quite fair. She actually likes them based on their ratio of humor to action. If there’s a lot of humor and not that much action, i.e. killing, then she enjoys them. If it’s really an action movie with a little humor, she doesn’t want it. But this humor/death ratio is especially difficult to quantify, so I tend to play it safe and watch these movies without her.
So I watched The Mask of Zorro (1998) by myself this week, mainly because I was tired after working until 10:00 PM but not quite ready to go to bed (the wife was already in bed, of course). This Zorro film is a return to the action/adventure comedy of yore. There’s lots of yucks and lots of yells, including some tantalizing swordplay for the 12-year-old boys. It reminded me of a movie I would have loved had I seen it in 1985. Heck, I loved it in 2006. It’s all well-done, and it all works.
The problem is that it’s all been done before. Literally. Perhaps I am getting too old for this genre, but that’s not what I’m talking about here. It’s not the “oh, another man in search of revenge who learns from a great master how to defeat the object of his ire…yawn” thing. No way. I love the action and loved this movie, in general. But a lot of it is taken directly from Dumas’s The Count of Monte Cristo. At least half of the plot is borrowed, stolen, shanghaied, as it were, from a nineteenth-century novel.
I won’t divulge too many details here, but if you have seen any of the decent movie versions of The Count of Monte Cristo (and you have tons of versions to choose from), you know what I mean. The half of the plot that is not stolen from Dumas is actually really interesting, but I couldn’t forgive the cheapness of the escape from prison scene, which is taken almost directly from Dumas.
As a whole, I still love this genre, and I wanted to love The Mask of Zorro. But it can’t be rated that high when several of its main plot points are plagiarized.
Grade for The Mask of Zorro: 5
P.S. Next time I will discuss communism and poverty in The Mask of Zorro…If I feel like it, of course.
As a child, however, my favorite genre was the action/adventure film. I loved Indiana Jones and his bumbling swashbuckling. I loved watching every kind of action/adventure film, such as Romancing the Stone, King Solomon’s Mines, Die Hard, Big Trouble in Little China, any Swarzenegger film, and any funny, action-packed hero adventure.
I admit I still have a penchant for this genre, even though my wife seems to despise those films. No, that’s not quite fair. She actually likes them based on their ratio of humor to action. If there’s a lot of humor and not that much action, i.e. killing, then she enjoys them. If it’s really an action movie with a little humor, she doesn’t want it. But this humor/death ratio is especially difficult to quantify, so I tend to play it safe and watch these movies without her.
So I watched The Mask of Zorro (1998) by myself this week, mainly because I was tired after working until 10:00 PM but not quite ready to go to bed (the wife was already in bed, of course). This Zorro film is a return to the action/adventure comedy of yore. There’s lots of yucks and lots of yells, including some tantalizing swordplay for the 12-year-old boys. It reminded me of a movie I would have loved had I seen it in 1985. Heck, I loved it in 2006. It’s all well-done, and it all works.
The problem is that it’s all been done before. Literally. Perhaps I am getting too old for this genre, but that’s not what I’m talking about here. It’s not the “oh, another man in search of revenge who learns from a great master how to defeat the object of his ire…yawn” thing. No way. I love the action and loved this movie, in general. But a lot of it is taken directly from Dumas’s The Count of Monte Cristo. At least half of the plot is borrowed, stolen, shanghaied, as it were, from a nineteenth-century novel.
I won’t divulge too many details here, but if you have seen any of the decent movie versions of The Count of Monte Cristo (and you have tons of versions to choose from), you know what I mean. The half of the plot that is not stolen from Dumas is actually really interesting, but I couldn’t forgive the cheapness of the escape from prison scene, which is taken almost directly from Dumas.
As a whole, I still love this genre, and I wanted to love The Mask of Zorro. But it can’t be rated that high when several of its main plot points are plagiarized.
Grade for The Mask of Zorro: 5
P.S. Next time I will discuss communism and poverty in The Mask of Zorro…If I feel like it, of course.
Monday, May 08, 2006
Faith Renewed!
All is right with the world, for The Skeleton Key has renewed my faith that Hollywood is still churning out stinkers.
The Skeleton Key (2005) is a “thriller/horror” film starring Kate Hudson and Peter Sarsgaard, who sports a terrible southern accent here. I first saw Kate Hudson in Almost Famous, and her mix of naivete and young maturity there made her irresistible. Since then, she has done nothing but crap. How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days was moderately entertaining as far as romantic movies go, but the rest of the Hudson oeuvre has been terrible. The Skeleton Key is no different, and I wonder why the producers decided that she was the best one for the role.
The problem with The Skeleton Key is not the acting, though, which is generally fine. It’s the mix of thriller and horror that just doesn’t work here. The back of the DVD compares the film to The Sixth Sense, and I knew it was going to be bad right then. When a film has to compare itself to some other great movie, it doesn’t have its own thing going for it. What made The Sixth Sense great was not just its originality but its truly horrifying sequences. Sure, there was drama and tenderness, but it was also really freaking scary. The Skeleton Key tries to do the same thing. It builds up the scares throughout the entire movie, making us anticipate that something really terrible is going to happen. Even these anticipatory scenes aren’t scary, though; they’re merely anticipating a scare that, well, never actually comes. The ending, which tries to present itself as a “switch” or “play” in The Sixth Sense vein, doesn’t even work. Here, we do know what’s coming, and it fails to be scary.
That I just can’t handle. The “thriller/horror” dichotomy doesn’t work anymore, and when a horror film isn’t scary, I’m distraught. I love horror films, and I am more scared of them as I get older, with scenes stuck in my head for weeks and years. If a horror film can’t even do that, trash it. The Skeleton Key has absolutely nothing going for it, except a moderately interesting plot. If it can’t scare me, it isn’t worth watching, though. The very title is a metaphor for the entire movie: a weak attempt to make it seem scary without really being scary. The title has something to do with the movie, yes, but it is not the key to it by any means. The producers simply thought it sounded good. Weak, boys, weak.
What I did like about this film is its racial plot. Blacks and whites intermingle here in a way that is different from any other film I have ever seen. The entire idea is only specifically mentioned once, at the end of the movie, but it’s there underneath the entire time, at least if we read the movie backwards, knowing what will happen at the end. Some of the plot takes on strange overtones if we see the characters as their “true” racial selves. Notice I didn’t say “racist,” although there’s some of that. I’m talking about a mixing of races that is truly original. I can’t really say more on this subject without giving away the twist at the end, but this one facet of the film brings it above a zero and makes it, well, not exactly worthwhile, but not a complete waste of time, either.
Grade for The Skeleton Key: 3
The Skeleton Key (2005) is a “thriller/horror” film starring Kate Hudson and Peter Sarsgaard, who sports a terrible southern accent here. I first saw Kate Hudson in Almost Famous, and her mix of naivete and young maturity there made her irresistible. Since then, she has done nothing but crap. How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days was moderately entertaining as far as romantic movies go, but the rest of the Hudson oeuvre has been terrible. The Skeleton Key is no different, and I wonder why the producers decided that she was the best one for the role.
The problem with The Skeleton Key is not the acting, though, which is generally fine. It’s the mix of thriller and horror that just doesn’t work here. The back of the DVD compares the film to The Sixth Sense, and I knew it was going to be bad right then. When a film has to compare itself to some other great movie, it doesn’t have its own thing going for it. What made The Sixth Sense great was not just its originality but its truly horrifying sequences. Sure, there was drama and tenderness, but it was also really freaking scary. The Skeleton Key tries to do the same thing. It builds up the scares throughout the entire movie, making us anticipate that something really terrible is going to happen. Even these anticipatory scenes aren’t scary, though; they’re merely anticipating a scare that, well, never actually comes. The ending, which tries to present itself as a “switch” or “play” in The Sixth Sense vein, doesn’t even work. Here, we do know what’s coming, and it fails to be scary.
That I just can’t handle. The “thriller/horror” dichotomy doesn’t work anymore, and when a horror film isn’t scary, I’m distraught. I love horror films, and I am more scared of them as I get older, with scenes stuck in my head for weeks and years. If a horror film can’t even do that, trash it. The Skeleton Key has absolutely nothing going for it, except a moderately interesting plot. If it can’t scare me, it isn’t worth watching, though. The very title is a metaphor for the entire movie: a weak attempt to make it seem scary without really being scary. The title has something to do with the movie, yes, but it is not the key to it by any means. The producers simply thought it sounded good. Weak, boys, weak.
What I did like about this film is its racial plot. Blacks and whites intermingle here in a way that is different from any other film I have ever seen. The entire idea is only specifically mentioned once, at the end of the movie, but it’s there underneath the entire time, at least if we read the movie backwards, knowing what will happen at the end. Some of the plot takes on strange overtones if we see the characters as their “true” racial selves. Notice I didn’t say “racist,” although there’s some of that. I’m talking about a mixing of races that is truly original. I can’t really say more on this subject without giving away the twist at the end, but this one facet of the film brings it above a zero and makes it, well, not exactly worthwhile, but not a complete waste of time, either.
Grade for The Skeleton Key: 3
Thursday, May 04, 2006
A Dearth of Badness?
What has happened to all of the bad movies? Since I haven’t had a chance to actually watch another movie, I have been reviewing my own reviews to review how I re-viewed several films, and I was astonished by the number of high ratings I have been giving. Heck, it’s been since November 10, 2005 that I gave a rating below a 5, and that five was given to Femme Fatale mainly because of my disappointment with Brian de Palma. What has happened to all of the bad movies? Why are my reviews consistently high?
There are several possible explanations for this phenomenon, so let me go through them:
1. I rate things too highly. There’s something to this one, I admit. If I bother to watch an entire movie or read an entire book, I generally like it, and it’s not until I have time to ponder it that I realize that it’s actually a stinker. I recall one situation when I couldn’t quite condemn Blair Witch Project 2, even after a friend’s goading. I still haven’t gotten over that one. However, I do think I’m willing to call a movie on its own stupidity, at least after some thought. I’m a teacher, after all, and even if I like a student, I know when a thesis is a piece of garbage, and I have to rate it as such. The same goes for movies, and I have given some low grades in the past.
2. Movies are getting better. Hah! I can barely write that without chuckling through my keyboard. Let’s see: R.V., Stick It, Silent Hill, Scary Movie 4, The Sentinel, The Wild, and The Benchwarmers all tell me that #2 just isn’t the case. There are still a lot of bad bad movies being made. And those are just the bad ones in the top 10 grossing movies of the week…
3. I’m more choosy. If numbers 1 and 2 aren’t the case, then this one must be true. With so little time to watch movies these days, I must be more picky in the films I choose to actually watch. My wife requested the Jennifer Garner film 13 Going on 30, and we watched fifteen minutes of it before turning it off and returning it to the library. Life (and time, these days) is just too short. I would much rather watch some great old film or an established modern classic with my precious movie time.
Don’t worry, though. I will go back to reviewing crap soon enough. My work project is about over, so I should be able to settle down into a life of active sloth by working the remote every night. And let’s see what’s on the queue: Garden State, The Legend of Drunken Master, Dr. T and the Women, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, The Mask of Zorro, Ride the High Country, Flightplan, Goldfinger, Layer Cake, Stalag 17, Corpse Bride, Enron, A History of Violence, Collateral, and Sunday Bloody Sunday.
Life will be good.
There are several possible explanations for this phenomenon, so let me go through them:
1. I rate things too highly. There’s something to this one, I admit. If I bother to watch an entire movie or read an entire book, I generally like it, and it’s not until I have time to ponder it that I realize that it’s actually a stinker. I recall one situation when I couldn’t quite condemn Blair Witch Project 2, even after a friend’s goading. I still haven’t gotten over that one. However, I do think I’m willing to call a movie on its own stupidity, at least after some thought. I’m a teacher, after all, and even if I like a student, I know when a thesis is a piece of garbage, and I have to rate it as such. The same goes for movies, and I have given some low grades in the past.
2. Movies are getting better. Hah! I can barely write that without chuckling through my keyboard. Let’s see: R.V., Stick It, Silent Hill, Scary Movie 4, The Sentinel, The Wild, and The Benchwarmers all tell me that #2 just isn’t the case. There are still a lot of bad bad movies being made. And those are just the bad ones in the top 10 grossing movies of the week…
3. I’m more choosy. If numbers 1 and 2 aren’t the case, then this one must be true. With so little time to watch movies these days, I must be more picky in the films I choose to actually watch. My wife requested the Jennifer Garner film 13 Going on 30, and we watched fifteen minutes of it before turning it off and returning it to the library. Life (and time, these days) is just too short. I would much rather watch some great old film or an established modern classic with my precious movie time.
Don’t worry, though. I will go back to reviewing crap soon enough. My work project is about over, so I should be able to settle down into a life of active sloth by working the remote every night. And let’s see what’s on the queue: Garden State, The Legend of Drunken Master, Dr. T and the Women, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, The Mask of Zorro, Ride the High Country, Flightplan, Goldfinger, Layer Cake, Stalag 17, Corpse Bride, Enron, A History of Violence, Collateral, and Sunday Bloody Sunday.
Life will be good.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
A Bunch of Good Ones
Yet another week without much movie watching. Life is sad.
On to The Wild Bunch (1969), Sam Peckinpah’s classic starring William Holden and Ernest Borgnine.
Let me be honest: I don’t like westerns. I have never enjoyed them because they are generally so much like morality tales. After watching The Wild Bunch, however, I now see that Westerns should be divided into two camps: the John Wayne camp on the one side, with its heroes and the white man’s triumph, and the Clint Eastwood camp on the other side, with its anti-heroes and struggles with honor.
I’m sure you know which side I like.
I’ll be honest again: I didn’t mean to get The Wild Bunch. I thought I was requesting The Wild One (1954) with Marlon Brando. I was upset when I got the movie but not after I began watching it. The Wild Bunch is far and away the best western I have ever seen. It’s high praise, yes, but keep in mind that I don’t really like westerns and haven’t seen very many of them. I plan on changing the now by requesting all of the Clint Eastwood westerns, the version of the western I like.
The Wild Bunch is far more than a Western. It takes place right after World War I, so there are a few cars, machine guns, even political maneuverings of the Mexican kind. Its setting sets it apart, first of all: the movie is set at the end of the West itself. There are no more Apaches to kill. Instead, there is a Mexican general name Mapache. The people who terrorize towns can no longer do so because the capitalists have the capital to fight them through any means necessary, which means hiring bounty hunters and getting people out of jail to hunt their old comrades.
Along with the end of the West comes the end of the characters’ way of life. They’re smart and they’re honorable, but they’re also endangered. One cannot be a smart, honorable anti-hero and get away with it anymore. The people in power—whether they be railroad capitalists or Mexican generals—will destroy whatever gets in their way, and that thing in their way seems to be the smart, honorable anti-hero. Forget trying to make their way in the world today, for that way of life has simply ended. What we see here is that the West is now a place of stark contrast, where the poor live in complete poverty and the rich live in absolute splendor. The two only meet when the poor serve the rich.
Besides the setting is the plot itself: aging gunmen flee their way of life in America while being pursued by an old comrade who now works for the railroad. They end up in Mexico, working for a general who is terrorizing the Mexican populations while fighting for power in his region. There is a poor resistance movement that enters the picture, as well, but we can’t expect that these aging gunmen will join them. All they want is to make money and stay alive. One doesn’t do that by joining the resistance.
So everything about this movie, including its scenery, brutish violence, and stark sexuality, set it apart from anything else I have seen before 1970. It’s an amazing story, and I can’t think of any way to make it better. Therefore, it receives my first 10 rating.
Grade for The Wild Bunch: 10
On to The Wild Bunch (1969), Sam Peckinpah’s classic starring William Holden and Ernest Borgnine.
Let me be honest: I don’t like westerns. I have never enjoyed them because they are generally so much like morality tales. After watching The Wild Bunch, however, I now see that Westerns should be divided into two camps: the John Wayne camp on the one side, with its heroes and the white man’s triumph, and the Clint Eastwood camp on the other side, with its anti-heroes and struggles with honor.
I’m sure you know which side I like.
I’ll be honest again: I didn’t mean to get The Wild Bunch. I thought I was requesting The Wild One (1954) with Marlon Brando. I was upset when I got the movie but not after I began watching it. The Wild Bunch is far and away the best western I have ever seen. It’s high praise, yes, but keep in mind that I don’t really like westerns and haven’t seen very many of them. I plan on changing the now by requesting all of the Clint Eastwood westerns, the version of the western I like.
The Wild Bunch is far more than a Western. It takes place right after World War I, so there are a few cars, machine guns, even political maneuverings of the Mexican kind. Its setting sets it apart, first of all: the movie is set at the end of the West itself. There are no more Apaches to kill. Instead, there is a Mexican general name Mapache. The people who terrorize towns can no longer do so because the capitalists have the capital to fight them through any means necessary, which means hiring bounty hunters and getting people out of jail to hunt their old comrades.
Along with the end of the West comes the end of the characters’ way of life. They’re smart and they’re honorable, but they’re also endangered. One cannot be a smart, honorable anti-hero and get away with it anymore. The people in power—whether they be railroad capitalists or Mexican generals—will destroy whatever gets in their way, and that thing in their way seems to be the smart, honorable anti-hero. Forget trying to make their way in the world today, for that way of life has simply ended. What we see here is that the West is now a place of stark contrast, where the poor live in complete poverty and the rich live in absolute splendor. The two only meet when the poor serve the rich.
Besides the setting is the plot itself: aging gunmen flee their way of life in America while being pursued by an old comrade who now works for the railroad. They end up in Mexico, working for a general who is terrorizing the Mexican populations while fighting for power in his region. There is a poor resistance movement that enters the picture, as well, but we can’t expect that these aging gunmen will join them. All they want is to make money and stay alive. One doesn’t do that by joining the resistance.
So everything about this movie, including its scenery, brutish violence, and stark sexuality, set it apart from anything else I have seen before 1970. It’s an amazing story, and I can’t think of any way to make it better. Therefore, it receives my first 10 rating.
Grade for The Wild Bunch: 10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)