Movie #189 Skyline *2010*

This movie doesn't deserve a full review.  That is bad B-movie schlock from hat to cattle.  This movie was made by a pair of brothers who have 62 credits on IMDB as visual artists, and it shows.  The movie does have excellent effects, but they are used so poorly.  An interesting comment in the movie comes early when Donald Faison (playing an self obsessed actor) mentions to Neil Hopkins (playing his squarmy agent) "How are the effects?" to which the response is "They look like shit, but the director loves them!".

The movie is an alien invasion flick.  It is one part Independence Day, one part Cloverfield, one part Skin-emax softcore porn.  The pencil headed Eric Balfour plays an artist or something, it is never clearly explained.  His recently pregnant girlfriend is played by Scottie Thompson.  Brittany Daniel (who can act, she plays the tranny on Always Sunny) is Faison's bitchy girlfriend.  Faison's personal assistant and part time human pin cushion is Crystal Reed.  Have you heard of any of these people?  There is probably a good reason for that.

The final cast member I would like to mention is David Zayas.  Holly crap is he terrible!  He delivers every line like it is the last thing he will ever say.  I can't recall a better example of over acting.  I would love to go on for days talking about how terrible this guy is, but I have a decent movie to review.

Don't get me wrong.  It's not like these actors had ANYTHING to work with.  This is what happens when you let visual artists make a movie.  Everything is only set in place to show off the cool blue lights that fall onto the LA landscape.  In the equally terrible mockumentary "I'm Still Here" with Q. Pheonix, Diddy points out that he hates it when actors think they can make a good album just because they have a cheap recording studio in their basement.  That is what happened here.

Anyway, avoid this movie.  It isn't even so good it's bad good.  I give Skyline ★1/2.

Movie #188 Sympathy for Mr Vengeance *2002*

Chan -wook Park (Director)

What's in a name?  With a title like Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, and knowing that the film is directed by the same Koren director that gave us the wonderful Oldboy, I expected a sick, twisted tale of...well...vengeance.  What I got was a meditative melodrama with small bursts of gore and exploitation.

Sympathy is the first film in Park's "Vengeance Trilogy".  It is the story of a mute boy that attempts to sell his kidney on the black market in attempt to save his sister how has diabetes and needs a kidney replacement.  When that backfires they are forced to abduct the daughter of a former boss.  This also doesn't go as planed and leads to unfortunate circumstances for everyone involved. 

Let me start by talking about what I liked.  The visuals were impressive, but they did seem a little self important or at least a little too"showy".  There were no bad performances, but that is really difficult to judge with such bizarre subject matter and narrative structure.  I suppose I respect the films ambition, even if in my opinion it's execution didn't match.  Unfortunately that is about all the positive things I can say about the movie.

If you haven't noticed I don't watch a ton of abstract, surreal films.  I have trouble connecting with surrealism.  Metaphor I am all over.  Surrealism rarely impresses me.  To me, with surrealism, it is all about execution.   I love the films of David Lynch and you don't get much more surreal than him.  But in his movies he provides enough reality to ground his films then subverts that with his surreal visions.  Even in a movie like Eraserhead, which is totally non-narrative, his execution of whatever story he is trying to tell is so profound that I find myself drawn in.

With Mr Vengeance that allure isn't there.  As the movies opens I thought I was going to be told a story along the lines of last years Mother.  Another Korean film, this one from Joon-ho Bong.  That was an atmospheric tale of mystery and intrigue.  Mr Vengeance's story is so convoluted and sideways that it took me completely out of any momentum that is was building. 

First off, there is no reason for the protagonist to be mute.  It neither hindered nor helped his situation.  A mute character is a wonderful idea that you could apply all sorts of visual and audible techniques to represent his perspective and struggles (Look at The Diving Bell and the Butterfly).  Then there is the story.  Mad props for attempting to tell such a lush and expansive story.  And props for trying to do it in such a creative way.  But the cross cutting and tweaking of the chronology got me totally lost.  I don't want to sound racist here in any way, but the woman playing the mute's sister and the woman playing his girlfriend looked very similar to me and I had trouble distinguishing them a part.  This is only made more difficult when one might be coming back from the dead and interacting with him.


When the violence does take place it is vicious and visceral.  But I didn't feel like the movie had earned it yet.  It wasn't building up to it.  The killing and maiming seemed like it was just there for the shock value.  It's like here is this sweet, quiet Merchant-Ivory production and then BAM, someone starts slicing their own abdomen with a straight razor.  The violence did nothing to advance the story. 

This was a real disappointment for me.  The second film in the trilogy is Oldboy.  A great example of beautiful pictures of terrible horrors all generated from a sick, perverted story.  What makes the story of Oldboy so haunting is that if you allow for a little excess, you can totally see yourself being put into the protagonists place and once you had been pushed off the edge of madness, maybe even acting like him.

I still plan to see the 3rd film, Lady Vengeance.  Let's hope Park leans more towards his 2nd  film than his first.  I give Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance ★★.

Movie #187 The Lady Vanishes *1938*

Margaret Lockwood
Michael Redgrave
Alfred Hitchcock (Director)

Here goes that familiar feeling again.  My resistance to watching a film made before 1950.  Even a film that I know is critically adored and even though I have watched 8 during this project and I have ranked them all 4 stars or higher.  There is something in my brain that attempts to prevent my from putting in the DVD's or pushing the "PLAY" button on my Netfilx Streaming. 

The film that brings this up again is Hitchcock's The Lady Vanishes.  It is the story about a young woman who is helped out on a train by a sweet old lady.  But upon awaking she finds that the woman has not only disappeared, but that no one on the train will admit to having ever seen here.  See begins to think something sinister is happening.  The plot goes as far as to replace the elderly woman with a different woman altogether and the characters on the train act like nothing has changed.  The young woman is helped out on her quest to reveal the truth by a rude, snobbish man she met the night prior at their hotel.

What can I say I was blown away.  I never thought that story telling in the 30's could have been this rich and well constructed.  I complain on this blog all the time about how you can do whatever you want to do on screen if it is in service to the story. 

Hitchcock is called "the master of suspense".  This movies only further proves that, but he goes further.  He is the master of cinematic storytelling.  He really knows the scripts and how he want to convey those words into pictures in a manor that will captivate, intrigue, scare, intimidate, provoke, revolt, seduce and mesmerize.  I get a feeling every time I watch one of his films that I am in good hands.  That I am going to be told a story that might frighten the hell out of me, but that the director is going to be there to hold my hand through it.

This movie open on what is clearly a model.  This was my worst nightmare come true.  I was afraid that the production value was going to be so low that I would not be able to overlook the obvious sets.  Once we got to an interior my phobia's were washed away.  We spend the first act in an overbooked hotel due to an avalanche where most of the major characters are introduced and their back stories are explained in a very natural, organic way.  There is also some great humor in this first act.  humor that I found to be extremely racy for its time.  The second act takes place on the train where the mystery begins and get explored.  The set up and all the back story now comes into play and I was memorized.  The third act comes with a major revelation that was out of the blue, but even tied in more of the elements from the first two acts.

I'd like to take a moment to talk about the use of the camera.  Hitchcock never "got luck" once in his movies.  He puts his camera exactly where he wants it and he uses every frame of every shot to carve some kind of emotion from you.  Again, I was blown away by how effective the framing and shot selection was.  He captures expressions in close up that will still today frighten the crap out of you.  Just an expression, highlighted with just the right light from just the right angle.  No special effects, no CGI, no lavish makeup.  Just a look.

Hitch's films remind me of watching someone sleepwalking.  There isn't any prevalent sense of danger in watching someone sleepwalk,  but there is an uneasy feeling knowing that this person isn't truly in control of their own body.  They are sort of like a zombie.  There is a ghostly aura around a sleepwalking person.  Hitch's films capture that felling.  It is an uneasy feeling that the more you try to keep it from effecting you the more you are sucked in.  It's like quicksand.

I loved this movie.  I give The Lady Vanishes ★★★1/2.

Movie #186 The Law *1959*

Here is a quick 3 Reasons to check out The Law:

Reason 1.  Gina Lollobrigida is as attractive as Sophia Loren and a better actress to boot.

Reason 2.  The drinking game "The Law" played by the natives of this small Italian village.  See if you understand the rules.

Reason 3.  This movie treat objects like women, man.  

I enjoyed this movie from Jules Dassin.  I give The Law ★★★1/2.

Movie #185 The Thing *1982*

I recently bought a book called "1001 Movies to See Before You Die".  I expected to see Fellini and Kubrick on there.  I expected to see silent greats as well as a few contemporary movies that could generate some debate.   I expected to see Citizen Kane and Seven Samurai.  What I didn't expect to see was The Thing.

John Carpenter's The Thing is the story of a team of researchers living in Antarctica.  Their camp is visited by a strange dog from a neighboring team of scientists.  Upon the arrival of this dog strange things start to unfold that leads to tense emotional Mexican Standoffs.

I liked the way this film built tension between the characters.  They were forced to question each other in order to survive.  Not exactly a revolutionary idea, but is was executed in a fresh way that kept my interested.

What didn't keep me interested was the effects.  It is sort of unfair to judge special effects of movies made nearly 30 years ago.  Maybe at the time these looked convincing or "real", but I found them to be stagey and sort of hokey.  The movie didn't seem to be making any commentary on the nature of state of the horror film, so I figured that the effects guy was lacking in skill or budget.

Kurt Russell.  What more do you need to say?  His character in this film is like a hairier version of Snake Pliskin from Escape From New York.  He is a total loner / bad mutha.

Outside of Kurt (and even including Kurt in some scenes) the rest of the cast is pretty stereotypical.  Haggard old doctor, stoner, angry black man, nerd, ect.  But then again, the script didn't give these actor much to work with.  I thought it was very formulaic.  You could have made this film by color in the numbers.

Overall I thought this was a mildly entertaining film with nothing to chew on.  I enjoyed it while I watched it and forgot about it before I went to bed.  I will have to read why this is in my book.  Great, now I am one movie closer to dying and I only enjoyed it about ★★★. 

Movie #184 Network *1976*

Faye Dunaway
William Holden
Peter Finch
Robert Duvall
Ned Beatty
Sidney Lumet (Director)

With the recent passing of Mr. Lumet I decided to re-watch some of his classic films.  I decided to start with Network.  I had seen this years ago and remembered the same scenes that most casual viewers would.  Mainly the "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" scene.  But this movie is so much more than that performance.  I was truly surprised that a movie that I remember being so of it's time was still incredibility relevant today with a few minor modifications.

THROW YOUR TV'S OUT THE WINDOW!  I love the basic theme of this movie.  On the surface level it is a film about the decline of integrity of television news, and TV programing in general (reality television anyone?).  At it's core is a theme as old as storytelling its self.  The inevitable struggle between the blind, instinctive nature of youth vs. the experienced unquestionable old guard.  It is King Lear told through the eyes of Archie Bunker. 

By in large I don't watch TV.  With very few exceptions (Always Sunny, PTI).  I find the medium to be generic, bland pandering.  Afraid to offend or challenging the viewer in fear of loosing its audience.  Which in turn leads to few sponsors and on to fewer profits.  TV is a prostitution of culture.  The viewers are categorized and analyzed in an attempt to determine demographics, only to better pollute their brains with detergent and fast food advertisements.  Network is the first movie that dared to take on such risky politics.

I don't have blinders up to the product placement and mass media that have invaded my beloved cinema.  But the films that I gravitate towards tend not to be mainstream and therefore take more chances.  Films like Network.  One risk the film was not willing to take was the possibility using unknown actors.  This movie is crammed full of top notch talent and it paid off.  This is Dunaway's second best performance behind Bonnie and Clyde.  Peter Finch gives a stellar performance as a televangelist and Messiah.  Robert Duval (America most valuable resource) and William hold up very well also.

This movie reminded me of another TV News movie.  No, not Broadcast News.  Good Night and Good Luck.  Both films deal with censorship and integrity.  Both movies have large casts of well known actors.  Both movies deal with the role TV plays in how people get their news, and the responsibility that comes along with that.  Both are commentaries on society in general and both expose the power struggles between the young and the old.

This is difficult subject matter to handle.  It would have taken a master at his craft to direct this big of a cast with this weighty of subject matter.  This film was meta before meta was meta.  Lumet was just the man for the job.  His pedigree and training on films like 12 Angry Men and Dog Day Afternoon perfectly set him up for a film like this.  Thinking about it, I would have like to have seen what Robert Altman would have done with the same material.  But that can be said for nearly any script.

I enjoyed this movie and I look forward to catching up with more of Lumet's work.  I give Network ★★★★.  This film is available on Netflix Watch Instantly.

Movie #183 All That Jazz *1979*

Roy Scheider - Joe Gideon
Jessica Lange - Angelique
Leland Palmer - Audery Paris
Bob Fosse (Director)

I really enjoyed this moive.  However, I feel like being lazy so here are my 3 Reasons:

Reason 1.  Roy Scheider in sequin jumpers unbuttoned to his navel.

Reason 2.  Fantastic dance/music numbers that really express feeling and emotion.

Reason 3.  The movie is 8 1/2 meets Cabaret.

I give All That Jazz ★★★1/2.