1995 Bond movie
Rating: 15/20
Plot: James Bond tries to save the world from bad people.
This is one I wanted to watch for the score after reading about how Eric Serra, the guy who gave The Fifth Element its cool score, provided a score for the movie that was much maligned. I liked it, especially when it was at its most minimalist, but might agree that it's the type of thing that would probably make most Bond fans uncomfortable. I did like the sneaky touches of the Bond theme used throughout. I also liked the theme song sung by Tina Turner and written by people in U2, those terrorists who put songs on my phone. I've never been sure how I feel about Pierce Brosnan as Bond. He's cool enough, but there's something a little too pretty-boyish about him. The humorous touches in this, for whatever reason, seem a little more natural with him though. Honestly, it doesn't matter to me who plays Bond anyway. The character's got this ability to stay the same regardless who's running around on these convoluted globetrotting missions, sleeping with anything that moves and escaping from situations preposterously. He globetrots in this a bit, and he gets to have fun in a variety of vehicles. We start off with a ridiculous action sequence featuring a motorcycle and a plane. No, actually we start off with a really cool bungee-jumping scene that features this ridiculously awesome overhead shot. Then, it's the scene where 007 and 006 are trying to blow up some Russian shit, a mission which climaxes with the aforementioned motorcycle/plane shenanigans. The best thing about that early scene? A squeaky wheel, a great sound effect in a sequence that is otherwise silent. So good. Anyway, I was talking about vehicles. Brosnan shows off in a car, uses a tank in a chase scene with expected destructive results, and has a little bit of fun on a train. There's also some nutty gadgets showcased in an extended scene with Q, and although some people think those are a little goofy, I always like them, probably because I'm a little goofy. Bond movies are only as strong as their movies, and the collection of baddies in this is solid. The main bad guy, who I won't tell you is 006 because I wouldn't want to spoil anything, adds a little more depth to the conflict. Gottfried John classes things up a bit as platypus-nosed Ourumov. But the real star of the show is Famke Janssen as the fetching Xenia Onatopp, a yummy but ruthless gal seemingly with a violence fetish. Her over-the-top moaning when she's up to no good? Her preferred method of assassination? Let's just say I wouldn't mind being killed by her. There's one scene where she says, "He's going to derail us," and I'm not sure how the line was written, but her delivery and sly little smile, almost like she's aroused by the idea, is just great. It's characters like Onatopp that make you stop worrying about the somewhat-confusing scheme involving the titular weapon. Oh, and the results of one of her jobs--the expression of a deceased Captain Farrell--made me chuckle. Joe Don Baker also pops in to Joe Don Baker things up. All in all, Goldeneye is another solid Bond movie with that color in the title.
Idiocracy
2006 comedy
Rating: 11/20 (Jen: fell asleep)
Plot: Owen Wilson's brother and Minnie Ripperton's kid are used in an Army hibernation experiment for reasons that I don't remember, and after a big scandal, they are forgotten. 500 years later, they awaken and find a society so dumbed-down that they actually seem like geniuses. Owen Wilson's brother becomes part of the president's cabinet and tries to solve an agriculture problem while keeping his eye out for a time machine that will take him back to his time.
This isn't as funny or as consistent as Office Space, a movie that isn't as funny as its fans seem to think it is. This seems to have a following based solely on the fact that it's a Mike Judge joint, but although it's at times almost clever and the 12-year-old inside me (that doesn't sound perverse, does it?) did giggle at the de-evolution of the Fuddruckers franchise and every time the words "ass" or "balls" were mentioned, the whole thing seems like a half-assed execution of a pretty good idea. The special effects are also so poor that they get in the way of the storytelling. And the storytelling isn't great anyway, just there as a backdrops for the jokes really. Gags either don't last long enough or don't have enough ideas (the inaccurate histories of the time machine at the end of the film) or go on too long (the monster truck rehabilitation), and it really seems like Judge and whoever else was involved wrote a first draft and then refused to cut or rewrite anything. This should really be a lot better than it is. Balls.
Bad Movie Club: Cybernator
1991 sci-fi action thriller
Rating: 3/20 (Fred: 9/20; Libby: 5/20; Josh: 4/20; Jeremy: no rating)
Plot: A tough cop with even tougher eyebrows--the titular killer of cyborgs--tries to discover the truth about some sort of cyborg plot to do something.
The Bad Movie Club collective of jockasses are in the middle of a disagreement about whether or not Darth Vader was a cyborg. What do you think?
Here's another Wiseau candidate since Robert Rundle wrote and directed this low-budget embarrassment and wasn't too ashamed to play a character called Ratchet Jaw. I don't know which character that was because other than the character who was supposed to be the most menacing bad guy--an albino with dreadlocks named Captain Hair--the cyborg characters all kind of looked like normal-looking guys with tinfoil on their faces. Captain Hair, by the way, was played by Michael J. Foley. Bad Movie Clubbers have tackled 3 of this guy's 11 movies--Prison Planet (aka Badlanders), Karate Cop (the only Bad Movie Club I missed), and this. And just how menacing is Foley's character? Well, he dies after essentially having his hair pulled if that tells you anything. And sorry for the spoiler, but let's face it--you're not reading this anyway. Foley, despite his appearance (see poster), doesn't really stand out because his performance isn't nearly as bad as everything else that's going on here. And there's a lot of bad going on in this, most notably from Lonnie Schuyler as the Cybernator. The character and "story" give Schuyler a chance to show a wide range of emotions, all which are completely identical, like he's either bewilderingly in pain or painfully bewildered. Comedian Tim Heidecker, the host of my favorite movie review show On Cinema at the Cinema, created a show called Decker in which he plays a Bauer-esque character, poorly. He's brilliantly terrible, and it's the exact kind of terrible that Schuyler is except I'm fairly positive that Schuyler is genuinely trying to give a good performance. I have my doubts that Rundle actually thought he was making a good movie at any point in the movie-making process, but there's no way anybody involved in the production could see what Schuyler's doing at any point and not think, "Oh, shit! There's no chance anybody's going to take this thing seriously!" He's also got the sort of chest hair that makes you wonder how anybody thought it was a good idea to film the guy without a shirt on. Love interest Christina Lucia Peralta-Ramos almost matches him--strained emotional delivery for strained emotional delivery--but she just can't keep up. She plays Blue, a character who seems to have been made a stripper just so the movie can show a woman awkwardly dancing in a thong and pasties. The two get a steamy sex scene as well. I think it was literally steamy although that could have just been some of the excess dry ice used for a ridiculous action sequence that takes place in a parking garage. Peralta-Ramos and her weirdly intriguing face were only in four movies, but one of them (Princess Warrior) looks like future Bad Movie Club material. She plays a character named Bulemia. There's all kinds of hammy acting in this, but a lot of the dialogue is unintelligible or nearly inaudible which is really too bad because the stuff we could hear sounded almost Shakespearean. Ridiculous acting, a story that's barely even there, action sequences that are almost as good as ones that random drunk guys could pull off in their backyard in between WWF matches, costumes and cyborg make-up that looks like the work of a child, and laser special effects that look like they're straight out of the 70's. It's a bad movie goldmine. Oh, and there's a scene featuring a 300-pound stripper if that's your thing.
Muppets Most Wanted
2013 Muppet movie
Rating: 13/20 (Abbey: 15/20; Buster: Miss Piglet/20)
Plot: The titular gang gets mixed up in an elaborate heist plot while on a world tour. Kermit's jailed after being mistaken for a criminal mastermind.
Other than fake-Kermit's voice, I didn't think this was very funny at all. And I hated the songs. And none of the puppetry had that typical Muppet magic. The story felt a little flat and unoriginal. The cameos did nothing for me, and although Gervais was pretty good, Modern Family's Ty Burrell and Tina Fey really weren't. And, of course, there wasn't nearly enough Lew Zealand. Disney owns the Muppets now, and it's hard to see how they're giving Marvel guys and Star Wars guys their own stand-alone movies without doing the same for Muppet characters. Where's my fucking Lew Zealand movie? Seriously, how can anybody not want to know this guy's back story? In fact, I'm going to go ahead and demand this. Disney, if you're reading this (and I know you are because you're constantly Googling yourself), give the people what they want--a Lew Zealand origin story. Throw him into the Star Wars universe if you want. I don't care.
It wasn't just that this wasn't as good as the last Muppets movie. It might not be as good as any other Muppets movie. Maybe I was just in a bad mood when I watched this, but it just seemed to lack the creativity, the liveliness, and the pure fun of my favorite Muppets stuff. It's still the Muppets and therefore worth watching, but it's definitely a disappointment.
Rating: 13/20 (Abbey: 15/20; Buster: Miss Piglet/20)
Plot: The titular gang gets mixed up in an elaborate heist plot while on a world tour. Kermit's jailed after being mistaken for a criminal mastermind.
Other than fake-Kermit's voice, I didn't think this was very funny at all. And I hated the songs. And none of the puppetry had that typical Muppet magic. The story felt a little flat and unoriginal. The cameos did nothing for me, and although Gervais was pretty good, Modern Family's Ty Burrell and Tina Fey really weren't. And, of course, there wasn't nearly enough Lew Zealand. Disney owns the Muppets now, and it's hard to see how they're giving Marvel guys and Star Wars guys their own stand-alone movies without doing the same for Muppet characters. Where's my fucking Lew Zealand movie? Seriously, how can anybody not want to know this guy's back story? In fact, I'm going to go ahead and demand this. Disney, if you're reading this (and I know you are because you're constantly Googling yourself), give the people what they want--a Lew Zealand origin story. Throw him into the Star Wars universe if you want. I don't care.
It wasn't just that this wasn't as good as the last Muppets movie. It might not be as good as any other Muppets movie. Maybe I was just in a bad mood when I watched this, but it just seemed to lack the creativity, the liveliness, and the pure fun of my favorite Muppets stuff. It's still the Muppets and therefore worth watching, but it's definitely a disappointment.
Crocodile Dundee
1986 romantic comedy
Rating: 12/20 (Mark: 10/20; Amy: 12/20)
Plot: A thonged reporter heads to Australia to meet a crocodile--usually, I can't tell the difference between crocodiles and alligators and have always suspected that they're the same animal, but this movie gives that away in the title--hunter and later drags the poor guy to New York.
I wanted to watch this for the first time since 1986 because I'd heard it was nominated for best screenplay, likely on the strength of the "That's not a knife" line. That, a scene where a kangaroo shoots a gun, and what I believe was my first exposure to a thong were the only things I remembered about this movie. Well, all that and the end where the titular lovebird walks on top of New Yorkers to make his way to his babe. This isn't a funny movie, and you know exactly how it's all going to turn out pretty early on. Except for Paul Hogan walking on people. If you saw that one coming, maybe you should also be nominated for an Academy Award for best picture. Hogan's got nearly enough personality to pull this whole thing off, but the first half seems like nothing more than a way for him to showcase his toughness while the second, croc-out-of-water part just wasn't clever or funny.
Rating: 12/20 (Mark: 10/20; Amy: 12/20)
Plot: A thonged reporter heads to Australia to meet a crocodile--usually, I can't tell the difference between crocodiles and alligators and have always suspected that they're the same animal, but this movie gives that away in the title--hunter and later drags the poor guy to New York.
I wanted to watch this for the first time since 1986 because I'd heard it was nominated for best screenplay, likely on the strength of the "That's not a knife" line. That, a scene where a kangaroo shoots a gun, and what I believe was my first exposure to a thong were the only things I remembered about this movie. Well, all that and the end where the titular lovebird walks on top of New Yorkers to make his way to his babe. This isn't a funny movie, and you know exactly how it's all going to turn out pretty early on. Except for Paul Hogan walking on people. If you saw that one coming, maybe you should also be nominated for an Academy Award for best picture. Hogan's got nearly enough personality to pull this whole thing off, but the first half seems like nothing more than a way for him to showcase his toughness while the second, croc-out-of-water part just wasn't clever or funny.
Bad Movie Club: Robowar
1988 Predator rip-off
Rating: 5/20 (Josh: 4/20; Johnny: 5/20; Libby: 2/20; Ryan: no rating; Fred: 3/20)
Plot: A robotic machine stalks some soldiers.
With tits. The robot fighting machine's got tits. This movie is full of walking and explosions, and it somehow comes across as a less-intelligent version of Predator. That's right--I said less intelligent. If Beaks: The Movie had a few too many scenes in slow motion, Robowar's got excessive walking montages. A lot of the movie is seen from the robot's perspective, and we get to hear his garbled and warbled voice a lot. None of us could figure out why the robot kept calling the studs chasing him around "greasy." If you like jungles, there are plenty of shots of people walking around in a jungle. If you like really cool robots and great action scenes, find a different movie to watch that has both of those.
Bad Movie Club: Beaks: The Movie
1987 Italian Birds rip-off
Rating: 6/20 (Josh: 3/20; Libby: 6/20; Ryan: couldn't finish; Jeremy: no rating; Fred: no rating)
Plot: Actually, I think it's supposed to be a sequel to The Birds. Essentially, it's about birds going nuts and killing off human beings with their titular weapons.
The orgasmic terror of a flamingo attack turned out to be a false promise. Director Rene Cardona Jr. liberally borrows ideas from Hitchcock's film, and one could argue that the special effects are actually better. Of course, Hitchcock's movie didn't have anything as great as this:
A beak did that. Hitchcock also wasn't guilty of going completely crazy with slow motion effects. I'm pretty sure that if every slow-motion scene in this movie was in normal speed, this entire movie would have been about 18 minutes long. There's almost no characterization in this which, I suppose, makes it really easy to kill off these people. I believe there was some sort of environmental theme in this like in Birdemic: Shock and Terror, but I couldn't pay attention to any of that because I was distracted by all the birds.
Rating: 6/20 (Josh: 3/20; Libby: 6/20; Ryan: couldn't finish; Jeremy: no rating; Fred: no rating)
Plot: Actually, I think it's supposed to be a sequel to The Birds. Essentially, it's about birds going nuts and killing off human beings with their titular weapons.
The orgasmic terror of a flamingo attack turned out to be a false promise. Director Rene Cardona Jr. liberally borrows ideas from Hitchcock's film, and one could argue that the special effects are actually better. Of course, Hitchcock's movie didn't have anything as great as this:
A beak did that. Hitchcock also wasn't guilty of going completely crazy with slow motion effects. I'm pretty sure that if every slow-motion scene in this movie was in normal speed, this entire movie would have been about 18 minutes long. There's almost no characterization in this which, I suppose, makes it really easy to kill off these people. I believe there was some sort of environmental theme in this like in Birdemic: Shock and Terror, but I couldn't pay attention to any of that because I was distracted by all the birds.
Far and Away
1992 snooze fest
Rating: 10/20 (Emma: 14/20)
Plot: Immigrants dream of owning land in Oklahoma because they've never been to Oklahoma.
Emma had to watch a movie that had to do with American history, ignored my recommendations, and settled on this. Apparently, she didn't realize that this is one of the few Nicole Kidman movies where she doesn't get naked, and that's unfortunate because I've always liked seeing Nicole Kidman naked. I imagine this movie is about as historically accurate as something this plush and glossy, and like Titanic with its boiling down of a tragic event to a single love story with a bunch of special effects, this takes the immigrants' struggle to live the American dream and boils it down to a love story between a tiny gay man and the star of BMX Bandits, a weird and plastic goddess. There's such a lack of substance to this thing, just two hours and twenty minutes of bloated banality. You aren't really given any reason to care about the characters you're supposed to root for, and you barely remember that the other characters are in the movie, even when they're on the screen. This might not be bad enough for me to be able to use a clever "Stay far and away from this one, people," but it's definitely forgettable. I can't believe I've seen this twice.
Bad Movie Club: Eegah
1962 caveman movie
Rating: 2/20 (Fred: 6/20; Josh: 5/20; Libby: fell asleep)
Plot: Caveman!
I already wrote about this movie right here but love it enough as a bad movie to watch it a second time. That, and we just had to do something in honor of Richard Kiel after his death. Arch Hall Sr., the guy who was responsible for both Arch Hall Jr. and The Nasty Rabbit (another movie we enjoyed), was the man behind this madness. It's got that certain something special that makes it the type of bad movie that stands out from the others. A highly-recommended classic!
New York Movie Fest: The Daytrippers
1996 independent comedy
Rating: 14/20
Plot: A woman finds a love letter from her husband to an unknown woman and drags her family from Long Island to the city to find out what's going on.
This is from Greg Mottola, the guy behind Superbad and three Arrested Development episodes. I'd say more about it, but I don't remember it.
Noah
2014 Biblical epic
Rating: 14/20
Plot: It's exactly like the story of Noah according to the book of Genesis except with a lot more rock giants and a surlier titular Bible hero.
As a spiritual guy who doesn't quite believe in a literal interpretation of the Good Book, I had no problems with the storytelling. Well, except that it was all a little boring. The Watchers? Sure, I thought, "What the fuck are these giant rock things?" just like every Christian who saw this movie, maybe minus the fuck. Glowing snake skins, a scaly fox thing, a flower growing magically-quickly, Eden seeds, Ray Winstone sneaking onto the ark. Those things were all more annoying than the giant rock creatures. I didn't mind them at all except for the too-obvious computer effects. But Noah building that giant boat by himself? Come on. These rock dudes are a perfectly reasonable representation of divine intervention, aren't they? The performers' inflections made this seem like something made for the Lord of the Rings or 300 crowd. I hate those sort-of humorless voices, but I have no idea how I'd rather hear these characters talk. Russell Crowe is just the sort of burly distraction you'd expect him to be in something like this. He's great when he's just staring and definitely pulls off surliness. There's one great scene where the camera pulls back from a shot of Crowe's face half in darkness while screams from outside the ark are audible. I liked how this was a story of man's obsession with saving the world but not necessarily with saving humanity. It added an intense edge that makes this character and his story different than you'd expect. Some of this looks really good, especially the creation storytelling scene with computer effects gone awry. Of course, if I had to see Cain killing Abel one more time, I was going to club somebody to death myself. I also liked a cool dream sequence and any scene where there were sudden splashes of color in the mostly-spare and ground-colored world. Some time-lapse stuff that made the ark-building I was really looking forward to go by really quickly was also pretty cool. Of course, there's the whole Ray Winstone subplot and a superfluous Methuselah that drag this down a little, and it does get a little boring. And I don't know about you, but I really was disappointed in the lack of a giant animal orgy at the end of this. I kept hanging in there, knowing that this would end in an explosion of animal jism and a naked Russell Crowe, but it never happened. If you were planning on watching this only to see CGI-animals doing it, go ahead and pass.
Bad Movie Club: Vampire Cop
1990 vampire cop movie
Rating: 3/20 (Josh: 3/20; Jeremy: 3/20; Fred: 3/20)
Plot: I think it's pretty self explanatory, isn't it?
"It's show time!"
If you've not seen this movie (and you probably haven't), then that line means nothing. If you're seen it, your balls just tingled. Vampire Cop is probably worth watching just for the gratuitous nudity. But if gratuitous nudity isn't enough for you, you've got the following to keep you entertained:
--a bitchin' original song called "Slow Kill"
--the faces that Vampire Cop Lucas (played absurdly by Ed Cannon) makes
--the one shot used over an over again of the titular hero's (anti-hero?) silhouette in the misty darkness
--an inexplicable and confusing ending that I won't spoil here because I didn't understand it enough to spoil it
--the accent that actor Terence Jenkins gives his villain, a guy that is apparently supposed to be German
--the stunning performance and sideburns of Phil Newman who played a character we just called Knife Guy
--gratuitous nudity
--R.J. McKay's wacky performance as "Raymond," the character who shouts out that "It's show time!" line and for some reason always has a snack in every scene he's in
--another character (I don't know the actor's name unfortunately) who we just called "Bathtub Guy" because he spent the entire movie taking a bath. That is not an exaggeration.
--Bathtub Guy's death scene--absolutely incredible
With no-budget effects, clueless storytelling, and terrible acting, this manages to be pretty special. We're on a ridiculous streak with Bad Movie Club right now.
R.I.P., Bathtub Guy
The Time Machine
1960 science fiction classic
Rating: 16/20
Plot: A scientist climbs into a sleigh with a giant spinning plate behind it and travels into the distant future to discover that (God damn!) the maniacs blew it up.
I want to see a movie detailing what happens to that man who Rod Taylor fashions out of a cigar and sends away in a miniature time machine. Where's that cigar go? What are his adventures? Somebody needs to get on this immediately.
George Pal's creativity shines through a story that's a little stuffy at times. Floating clocks getting a little Twilight Zone-y in the opening credits followed by the bombast of the title screen music; the time travel scene graphics with the shot of the time-lapsed sky and flowers and stop-motion snails and candles; later rock erosion that is a quaint enough effect to be completely magical or a decomposing Morlock. I love early-60's special effects so much. Later, there's painted backdrops, something I always enjoy seeing in movies, and some goofy nuclear blast models in a scene that completely ignores science in a way that you just have to admire. That Morlock cave is a classic sci-fi set, almost like something that they borrowed from the people responsible for the Batman television show. The Morlocks themselves look pretty cool as well, at least when they're shown in shadows or at a distance. Taylor gets a chance to show off fisticuffs not befitting a scientist during that Morlock scene. Fisticuffs and whip fights, the only thing missing being some onomatopoeic word splashes! I wondered if anybody famous played a Morlock and was surprised to see that there wasn't a single Morlock credited which makes you wonder if Morlocks are actually real. It wouldn't surprise me since this was also the movie that convinced me that Sebastian Cabot was real. Speaking of Cabot--have you ever heard his version of Dylan's "It Ain't Me Babe"? That's definitely real:
But I digress. Morlocks: probably not real, but I don't think we can 100% rule it out.
My favorite scene in the movie is when Taylor's using his time machine for the first time and watching a mannequin being repeatedly undressed and redressed while pervily fondling the handle of his time machine. "Hmm," he says, "I wonder how far they'll permit this to go?" Well, George Pal and company almost permitted this to take a left on Masturbation Avenue during that scene. Later on, Taylor gets an eyeful of his first bikini, and I'm surprised he didn't whip out his time machine key and start stroking the thing immediately. I like what this says about the future although humanity should definitely reconsider the haircuts, especially the male's haircuts. And probably their names. Love this dialogue though:
H.G.: What's your name?
Future Girl: Weena.
H.G.: Weena?
The future is, according to 1960's The Time Machine at least, got unexpected Morlock action and the completely expected silver jumpsuits and monorail. Why did everybody envision monorails in the future? But anyway, I like what this says about where humanity is heading, ideas that are probably dismally prescient. Watching Taylor sweep his hands through disintegrating books and getting just as angry as Charlton Heston at the end of Apes might be the most depressing scene in any science fiction movie this whimsical.
Of course, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the titular invention itself. I really like it even though it's about the dopiest time machine a person could imagine. Well, other than maybe a police box that is bigger on the inside than it is the outside. But seriously, this thing's pretty cool:
At the end of the movie [Spoiler alert!], the character has returned to the future and taken three books with him. The question's asked: "Which three books would you have taken?" It's a good one to consider. Which three would you take?
New York City Movie Fest: Men in Black
1997 comedic sci-fi
Rating: 14/20
Plot: The Fresh Prince teams up with a surly veteran of the titular organization which specializes in extraterrestrial shenanigans and immediately is thrown into a situation where he has to save the earth from being blown to pieces by irate aliens.
I'm surprised at how clever this very well-dressed B-movie is, especially since it starts with an almost inexcusable alien pun. But "Looks like you've got some entrails on you, pal" hooks you before a great swoop toward Tommy Lee who is cooler than cool in this. I'm not sure that I like Will Smith here or if I ever like him at all. He's full of personality, of course, but that really only goes so far. A lot of the humor in this is predictable, but there are enough surprises in this to make you forget about all of those. The funniest stuff is with Vincent D'Onofrio's Edgar, from a country over-alled prick to a guy who looks like his "flesh was hanging off his bones." Great special effects with D'Onofrio, but a lot of it's the general shape he puts himself in and his movements. It's a great performance even without all the special effects. Rip Torn and David Cross also make appearances, and Verne Troyer is also apparently in this. You know, before he got big. I could probably do without the superfluous subplot featuring Tommy Lee and his former love. Anyway, this movie sometimes stretches things a little too thin but is mostly fun enough to be worth anybody's time.
New York City Movie Fest: The Fisher King
1991 romantic comedy
Rating: 16/20
Plot: A jerky former shock jock, following a violent crime that was at least partially based on the influence of his words, befriends a homeless man in search of the Holy Grail. When it turns out that the homeless man's life was affected by the crime, the DJ tries to help him put his life back together and avoid some scary red knight guy who's riding around Central Park.
Here's a confession that I don't believe I've ever made on this blog: I didn't like Jeff Bridges at all when this movie came out, and it was almost entirely because of the way his hair looked in it. I didn't really know him though. I knew he was the dude (no pun intended) in Tron which was a little redeeming, and I liked Thunderbolt and Lightfoot as a kid but didn't recognize him as Lightfoot. I don't think I liked him in Starman or King Kong either. For a long time, I just thought he was that guy with dick hair who was in Tron for some reason. I still don't like his hair--that fucking ponytail or that fucking bang he always has to brush away--and that scarf he wears? Come on! Of course, the dude's (pun intended this time) won me over, and I think he plays a dick with a heart well here, having one-sided conversations with a Pinocchio doll or trolling stuffy women with lines like, "It's kind of a big titty spread cheeky kind of thing." His voice is perfect for radio, by the way, and I like how Jack's shot in the opening scene in the radio studio where shadows make it look like a jail cell and a camera looking at him from above and stretching to a top that probably isn't there foreshadows a lonely and gray existence. There's another shot with Bridges in a sea of yellow taxis, just so many visuals that trap the character on the screen. Gilliam's sets here aren't nearly as fantastical as they are in his more cartoonish movies, but he uses them well. Parry's boiler room is a perfectly cluttered set, and a usually murky park and a sometimes ritzy and sometimes decaying New York also look great. New York in The Fisher King is a dreamy gray place with constantly swirling pieces of litter, the occasional random little person, a pair of dancers, and loads of lunatics. It paints the city as a place inhabited by nearly all lunatics. I love the lunatics and hobos in this thing, especially John (William Preston) with his mad scream, the "Sell! Sell! Buy!" guy who that Cramer Mad Money guy obviously got his shtick from, a woman screaming about whatever in a hospital lobby, and the effeminate cabaret singer played by the insanely-talented Michael Jeter who was Sesame Street's Mr. Noodle. He gets one scene that's great because it's quirky and one other scene that's great because it's great and he's great. And of course there's good ol' Tom Waits talking about how we're heading for social anarchy when people start pissing on bookstores. He's such a great storyteller, even when they're not his words. There are all kinds of great movie lunatics bouncing off each other in this Gilliam clunk yard, and then there's obviously Robin Williams in what might be my favorite role of his as Parry. I think the thing about Robin Williams is that whatever he was doing, you just kind of had to believe him. He's brilliant here, possibly flashing his schlong in the shadows (unless my mind, like it often does, was just filling in gaps and discussing bowel movements that border on the mystical. His crazy seems natural, a comedic spin on unhinged, and Williams dances on the screen even when he's not dancing. But there is a scene where there actually is dancing, right there in Grand Central Station in front of Tom Waits, and for whatever reason, that eruption of dance and the shot where Parry spots his girl hits hard and really hit hard this latest time I watched the movie.
Creamer vs. Creamer--you got to love those porn titles. And was that Steve Buscemi perusing titles in the back room?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


.jpg)




.jpg)






.jpg)



