A Woman, A Gun, and a Noodle Shop

2009 remake of the last movie I wrote about

Rating: 15/20

Plot: See Blood Simple right below this movie write-up.

I'm really not sure if this could have worked, actually worked, or never had a chance to work. Regardless, I picked this up because I like titles that have commas in them, saw that Yimou Zhang directed it which probably explained all the colors on the dvd box, noticed that it was a remake of Blood Simple, and instantly fell in love with it. I read about it a bit and obviously watched Blood Simple again before I watched this. I got a little scared after noticing that people don't really seem to like the movie very much. And after a Rawhide-esque title sequence and some amazing swordplay from a flamboyant Persian with a handlebar mustache, I wasn't sure what people could possibly hate about this. The style in the opening scenes was just as flamboyant as the Persian with its phallic cannons, bullet forging, gun twirling, and the ridiculous amount of colors that you'd expect from a Zhang flick. And then there is a jaw-dropping dough-juggling expedition that forced me to hop off the couch, fist-bump like a mo-fo, and then walk next door to pound on my neighbor Carl's door until he woke up so that I could tell him about it. Carl was not amused. This is a gorgeous movie, all those colors and bluer skies than even God could create. The cinematography is stunning, one of the best images being some approaching blue police on horses against a background of orangish-brown cliff. Speaking of those police--there are police "sirens" in this, these twirly things on sticks that make a whirring noise when pushed through the air. Do those actually exist? They struck me as funny. I could have done without all the time-lapse stuff which was a bit overdone, but I could watch slow-motion arrows going through things all day. It was a lot of fun watching this almost immediately after the Coens' version of the story to see some clever parallels--the detective's lighter, a reach for a gun, blood dripping from a hand. There are a lot of differences, too, including one gruesome addition that takes place at the burial site. There are also a couple other characters that didn't factor into the original at all. This doesn't handle the dark comedy nearly as delicately, and there's an almost alarming contrast between the comedy--which here is more slapsticky and goofy--and the drama. The Coens are masters at blending comedy and shocking violence. It doesn't really translate well here. The climax of this one also isn't nearly as elegantly gritty as what we get in Blood Simple although I was amazed at how long this could go without dialogue. Most offensive to a lot of people who didn't care for this remake nearly as much as I did was probably Zhang's attempt to pay homage to the great final shot in Blood Simple. The attempt to duplicate that doesn't work at all; in fact, it's really really stupid. Still, despite this movie's flaws, I think this was an interesting concept that was nearly executed brilliantly, and I'd have a hard time imagining why fans of both Blood Simple and the work of Yimou Zhang wouldn't appreciate it.

Oprah Movie Club Pick for June: V for Vendetta

2006 Britney Spears biopic (you know, the bald thing)

Rating: 17/20 (Rubber Duck: Oops. I forgot to ask him.)

Plot: A clueless guy named Mr. V. just doesn't understand Halloween. Not only does he dress up a week late, but his "tricks" include throwing knives at people and blowing up buildings when he doesn't get an adequate amount of candy. He's too old for Halloween anyway! He meets that stripper from that one movie and tries to impress her with his jukebox and barber skills.

I tried to get Rubber Duck, official June Oprah Movie Club picker, to do the write-up for this one because a) he's a better writer than I am and b) he's smarter and probably has a better understanding of the movie than I do. Unfortunately, he's got better things to do, so you're stuck with me.

I have not read the Alan Moore/David Lloyd comics this is based on. Kent, who wrote about this movie and the comic previously on his own blog, can give some background there.

I tried to take some notes during this movie, but I was worried Rubber Duck would poke fun at me. I wrote down "a vice of Larder" at one point, so apparently notes wouldn't do me much good anyway.

As entertainment, I think this movie is solid stuff. You've got one of the most intriguing and unforgettable characters ever in the titular V. Hugo Weaving doesn't get a chance to act much as V since he's hidden behind a mask the entire movie. It's more like he's doing voice work for an animated movie. It's good voice work though. What's amazing to me is that the mask is so expressive when shot from different angles. There are times when you're watching the Guy Fawkes mask, and it almost seems to change expressions. And I still swear that there are a couple scenes where they add blush to that thing. Portman's as good as she usually is even though she unfortunately kept her clothes on the entire movie. Like Sinead O'Connnor and Britney Spears, she helps prove that bald women can be beautiful. She's run through a range of emotions in an oft-physical role and does a great job. There weren't as many action scenes as I remembered. Some key explosions that felt more artsy-fartsy than Rambo-ish, probably because of the classical music score, and two dazzling fight sequences that remind us the Matrix boys had something to do with this. It's poetic violence and never corny. John Hurt also stands out as Adam Sutler. The story is told vibrantly. It's artistic and stylish. But the beauty of the film is the way it can have so much emotional depth. Unlike the Matrix movies, even the only one that anybody could call any good at all, this one forces you to care about not only the characters but what they stand for. There is a little twist at the end that makes me cringe though.

Thematically, this is a little gummy. It's one of those thickly thematic movies, one that you don't really stop trying to piece together for a few days after you watch it. I like what it has to say about the power of ideas, how they can be dangerous and how they can be our saviors. But the story's packed with messages about faith, about symbols, about fear, about words, and about truth, all hitting home in timeless ways with an ending that I'd describe as cynically optimistic. It's all pretty powerful stuff, and I look forward to hearing what you people have to say about it.

Les Enfants Terribles

1950 drama

Rating: 15/20

Plot: Paul and his older sister Elisabeth are close. Really close. Following a snowball fight accident and the death of their mother, they become recluses, shutting themselves off from society so that they can play bizarre games and argue in the privacy of their own room. When Paul falls in love with the boy who injured him with a snowball and later a girl who looks a lot like that boy, Elisabeth starts to get a little jealous.

I really expected to like this one a lot more than I did. I think it suffers from being seen so close to Troll 2. But with the talent involved (I love both Melville and Cocteau), I had enormously high expectations despite the stylistic differences in their films. In a way, this combines those styles fairly well with Melville's stark and simple narratives and character studies balancing Cocteau's dreamy free-floating surrealism, but I have to admit that I just wasn't all that interested in these siblings while watching this. I was a little bored. Parts of whatever narrative this has float like poetry, but the movie seemed too long and didn't have a single goblin or double-decker bologna sandwich. Sacre bleu!

Ravenous

1999 black comedy

Rating: 16/20

Plot: Cowardly Captain Boyd accidentally becomes a Spanish-American War hero. His general sees right through him and sends the coward to an outpost in the Sierra Nevadas to work with a pair of Indians, a guy with sideburns, a blonde soldier, David Arquette, and a religious guy. One night, a nearly-dead frozen traveller pops up with a disturbing tale of cannibalism. They go to investigate.

Really well-done movie here. Part-darker-than-dark-comedy, part-suspense thriller, part-action, part-Western, part-horror movie, part-myth, Ravenous works on a variety of levels while sneakily becoming a metaphor about America's manifest destiny. I'm not familiar with anything else director Antonia Bird has done. I am surprised this movie was directed by a woman just because it's so, well, gross. Parts of Ravenous are difficult to watch no matter how much fun you think cannibalism is, but it's at least an artistic grossness. Guy Pierce is pretty good, especially during the first 20 or so minutes when the character is created without any dialogue. But Robert Carlyle steals the show as the villain. His rather multi-dimensional character is really cool. The location's beautiful, the Sierra Nevadas creating a texture that helps create a mystery and depth for the story. The music is also really good. Damien Albarn (the guy from Blur and the Gorillaz) and Michael Nyman do the soundtrack, and at times, there's this strange ominous hillbilly vibe going down. The best thing about this movie is that in so perfectly blends genres and manages to remain slyly humorous despite being a movie about cannibalism. There are some fine, subtle comedic moments that make this a lot of fun to watch. There's a fight scene at the end that is a bit too lengthy and ludicrous, but other than that, I can't think of a lot of negative things to say about Ravenous. It's bitchin'!

Zardoz

1974 science fiction thing

Rating: 7/20

Plot: Sometime in the distant future, the people of earth have been divided into two separate societies--savages in red diapers and silk-clad immortals. An exterminator named Zed sneaks into the mouth of the savage's god (Zardoz) and. . . nevermind. This is all pretty stupid.

This movie starts with a giant stone head proclaiming, "The gun is good. The penis is evil." Then, it vomits guns as a bunch of guys with bad facial hair and red diapers run around retrieving them. Then, Sean Connery (a scantily-clad one) winds up inside the head where he points a pistol at naked people in giant ziploc bags. After that, the movie gets really weird. Then, it manages to get weirder. Zardoz has the feel of the brilliant The Holy Mountain, but there is one key difference--it sucks. Sean Connery looks as baffled as I felt as he runs around in his little leather pants and silly hair and giant boots. His appearance in this movie makes me wonder if he lost a bet or something. There's some really nifty imagery in this movie that saves it from being a complete waste of my time. I especially liked when Sean Connery's character winds up in a psychedelic house of mirrors. But this thing seemed endless, completely inept, wonderfully vacuous, and really really silly. Lots of "What the hell?" going on here. I haven't looked this up or anything, but I bet this movie broke a record for actors asking, "You want me to do what?" during the production.

The Circus

1928 comedy

Rating: 17/20 (Emma: 16/20; Abbey: 20/20)

Plot: The Tramp, hungry and broke, waddles onto the grounds of a circus. While checking out the scene, he's mistaken for a pickpocket and chased into the big top by the po-po. The crowd laughs uproariously which inspires the ringleader of the struggling circus to hire him as a clown. He isn't very good at it. He does, however, fall in love with the oft-abused daughter of the circus's owner.

Hmm. I'd always heard this was not a very good movie and that Chaplin himself ignored it completely when writing about his career. My girls and I thought it was hilarious. Lots of great (Keaton-esque) gags--the chase scene, a hall of mirrors, some magic tricks, an irritable horse, a tightrope act, troublesome monkeys, a lazy lion, lots of kicking--and that pathos that's in so many of Chaplin's films. The ending is especially touching although it could be argued that it's very artificial and impossible to buy. If you could only see one silent comedy and have always had a desire to see Charlie Chaplin depantsed by monkeys, this is the flick for you!

One note: When Chaplin's character first meets his love interest, an equestrian, she reveals that she actually is part of the circus. He looks behind him at a poster of a female sword swallower and gets a look in his eyes that suggests he's thinking of something other than swords. It's a cool bit of bawdiness that slipped past. I was really hoping the movie would end with a scene Vincent Gallo could be proud of but was disappointed.

Sawdust and Tinsel

1953 movie

Rating: 17/20

Plot: Darkly almost-comic battle of the sexes within a filthy dilapidated circus. As they pull into a certain town, the ringmaster plans to visit his ex-wife and sons for the first time in three years. Meanwhile, his current love--a Spaniard who rides a horse around and displays bobbing bosoms--sleeps with an actor they met when borrowing clothes from a theater troupe. Problems in their relationship escalate poetically. Nobody lives happily ever after.

Great stuff. It's often amazing what the camera does in this, and although it has a few flaws, this is still a great Bergman flick. A first viewing feels incomplete, but the visuals (especially in an early flashback/dream [?] sequence involving a clown and a naked woman and the thickly tense climactic scenes) are so capable of creating moods. There's a definite and not-very-complex plot, but this still works more as a movie you feel rather than follow. There are strange period details that make this both otherworldly and timeless. Add terrific acting, an interesting score, lighting that even somebody as dumb as me can notice and appreciate, and some close-ups of clowns' faces, and you've got yourself a great movie. Keep in mind, however, that I'm a sucker for circus movies. Usually, they've got both midgets and monkeys just like this one.

Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines or How I Flew from London to Paris in 25 Hour 11 Minutes

1965 comedic adventure

Rating: 14/20

Plot: Birdmen from around the world gather in England for a London-to-Paris flying machine race. Love triangles, duels in hot air balloons, international conflict, and (Oh, snap!) cheating are involved.

Based on a real event? The jokes ain't great and the slapstick doesn't really work either, but the film still has a sort of charm and is really great looking. The colors are fantastic, and the aerial acrobatics are dazzling. It's a fun movie, sort of a live-action Wacky Races, but it does seem to go on and on and on with running gags that aren't funny the first time and definitely don't work the fifth time. Love those airplanes though.