Shaun of the Dead (2004)

shaun of the dead poster

Editors Note: I don’t know what I was thinking with this review. I’ve since watched Shaun of the Dead many, many times and I absolutely love it. I don’t know why I didn’t find this movie funny the first time, I now think it is hilarious. Oh well, you live you learn.

I’m the type of person who doesn’t read movie reviews before I watch the film. I don’t seek out trailers online or read the latest dish on upcoming releases. I prefer to go into a film with a clean slate, knowing as little as possible about the film before I see it. I find the moviegoing experience more enjoyable when I have fewer preconceived conceptions about the movie I’m about to watch. That being said, I love to read reviews and seek out trivia about movies that I have already seen. I enjoy reading other people’s thoughts and ideas about a movie and comparing them to my own.

Since living in France I have completely been out of the entertainment loop. We don’t have a TV and it is rare that we go to a new movie. I do visit a few websites to keep up with the news and hear bits and pieces of the movies that are coming and out and generating some buzz. Shaun of the Dead is a film that I have been hearing buzz about for several months. I refused to read any reviews or really research any aspect of the movie, but I couldn’t help but hear bits and pieces of good things about it. Primarily that it was a funny zombie spoof. Being a fan of the zombie genre, when the chance came up to borrow the DVD, I didn’t hesitate to take it.

The plot is the pretty standard zombie plot. Some type of radiation/virus wreaks havoc on the earth re-animating the dead into brainless, homicidal maniacs. The movie does a good job of spoofing many of the conventions of the genre. The title character, Shaun, (Simon Pegg) is so stuck in his humdrum existence it takes him a couple of days to realize that his city has been attacked by zombies. He has a dead-end job, his girlfriend just broke up with him, and his flatmates are constantly fighting. Despite there being several zombies eating human flesh around him and the constant media blitz, it literally takes a zombie in his backyard for Shaun to notice. There are a number of truly funny scenes that mimic many of the classic zombie cliches.

Here, the zombies walk in the classic, slow-motion, brain-dead way. They are mockingly slow. In one scene Sean and his friend, Ed (Nick Frost), throw a large crate full of junk at two zombies, then have time to run for a crate of records and argue which records are crappy enough to launch. The entire time the zombies are slowly walking toward them to devour Shaun and his friend. Other scenes have one zombie being beaten with pool sticks repeatedly to little or no effect. Time and time again there are little digs at the genre conventions while still lovingly following them.

A quick perusal of IMDB’s list of trivia for this film will show plenty of references to nearly every zombie film imaginable. I consider myself a fan of zombie films, but these guys must be nuts about them. They’ve set up multiple scenes that are an exact homage to older films. They’ve lifted lines right out of the classics of the genre. I must say that while reading the list I became more impressed with what the filmmakers created with this picture, but while watching it most of the references went over my head. As I said, I like zombie movies. They’re gory, violent, bloody, and often hilarious (intentional or otherwise). I have seen more than my fair share of good and awful zombie flicks. Yet here, most of the references were naught caught by me. I can’t exactly fault a film for referencing so many other films, yet I have to wonder who but the diehard zombie fanatic caught them.

My biggest complaint about the film is that it is too comedic, without being funny enough. What I mean by that is that the production is made like a comedy. The actors play their parts as if they are in a comedy and not the horrible zombie-addled situation that is scripted. Sure, there are a few moments of anguished screaming and fear, but those are over acted and far between. The story is truly frightening, the dead came to life and are devouring the city. This is not a light-hearted romp. Though often quite funny, zombie films play the situation straight. I felt let down that everyone was playing the situation for gags and not allowing the comedy to be more organic, or to flow out of the conventions of the genre itself. In the end, I didn’t find the movie funny enough for all that.

It was played for humor all the way through, yet I wasn’t laughing nearly enough. Some of this comes from not getting all the “in” jokes. Some of this is also, likely enough, because it is a British comedy at heart. There are a number of bits that seem to play better for the British sensibilities than my American in France’s heart. There were several moments that I could see the joke play out and “get” it, but it wasn’t enough to really make me laugh. This is not to say the movie isn’t funny. Because it is, often hilarious even. It’s just that the tone of the film was of great comedy, and the buzz I had heard matched this. Yet while watching it, I didn’t find it as funny as expected.

While thinking about this review I began to wonder how I would make a zombie spoof better. It wouldn’t be right to go the Zucker brother’s way. I got over that type of comedy in junior high, and the genre (well the horror genre which zombie movies are a sub-genre of) has been spoofed in this way enough (see Scary Movie). Slap stick spoofs were perfected by Sam Raimi in the Evil Dead series. In the end I decided that what the filmmakers were trying to do with this film is exactly the way to do it. I just think they missed the mark a little. I think I was partially disappointed because the genre itself has produced enough unintentional humor. Zombie movies are so often insanely bad, they are great fun. It is difficult to spoof a convention when the convention itself is so awful it seems a spoof unto itself. Likewise, some of the conventions such as the ineptness and slow walk of the zombies have been revamped by the likes of Danny Boyle. Instead, here, I would have preferred a darker, bloodier movie. I don’t believe this would have hurt the comedy. The references and homages could have stayed in tact and comedy could come out of horrific situations.

Shaun of the Dead is a fine movie. It spoofs a genre of film that is dear to my heart, yet remains firmly a fan of the genre. It references so many of the classics and non-classics of the genre that you’ll need an encyclopedic knowledge of zombies to catch them all. It is truly funny and makes a great party movie. Where it fails, it fails as a zombie movie. It is made for jokes and not scares, and there it falls a little flat for a good spoof. But certainly worth the price of the rental.

Meditations on the Grateful Dead circa 10/09/77

1977 is not the greatest year for Grateful Dead concerts. 10/09/77 is not the Dead’s finest night, it is not even their best from 1977 or their best night from October. “The Music Never Stopped” is a good song. It is not a Great Song.

But what the band does to it this night is what the Dead could do to just about any song. They make it Great. It begins no better than any number of versions they played throughout the years. All cylinders are popping right on time. Bob sings with his usual gusto.

The verses and chorus sound good, but it is after the last chorus that things really get going. At 3:24 the music begins to break down. The song’s structure is shed. Garcia plays like two snakes intertwined, dancing through each other. Bob follows his trail, throwing loopy, curved rhythms. Lesh hops along behind on bass like a kid on a pogo stick. The drummers keep their pace. Garcia speeds up the race moving his fingers like a jackrabbit on acid.

The pace quickens, and all melody and structure are thrown away, for a moment there is no longer a song, hardly what anyone would call music, but it is magic. An exciting pulsing beast. Garcia’s snakes eat each other and explode into something new. Phil thump thump thumps into the highest reaches of the atmosphere. Bob is no longer playing anything like rhythm unless it is the rhythm of some cosmic god. This lasts for two or three minutes, then without warning every musician, as if on cue, bangs back into the beat. I, wearing my headset at full volume, tense up as if a bomb has been dropped.

I begin to open my mouth half expecting to sing along with the next verse or the chorus. The boys seem to expect this too, playing the melody outright for a moment before realizing there is nothing left to sing. There are no more verses, the chorus has been sung. Garcia takes that cue to soar to the heavens again. The rest of the band continues to hammer out what remains of the song. The melody is there in the backbeat. Phil has it in his bass, the drummers pound it out on the skins, and even Bob is back into the rhythm. But Garcia, sensing the cosmos around him wants nothing to do with the conventions of song. He skates, dances, and weaves through a new song.

Something the audience, as cosmically charged as Dead audiences get, must understand. It is Garcia taking us along for the ride, headed to outer space and salvation, held back only by the melody and rhythm of that song. No longer dancing, Garcia charges ahead to break free. Faster, faster, louder he plays. Like a rocket flaring to break through the atmosphere, but at last, the gravity of the song still being played pulls him down. The band senses their victory and as if toying with Garcia breaks out of the mold of the song and begins the fast beat of the end. A crescendo of noise followed by the crash of a song ended.

No, 1977 was not the greatest year for live Dead. December was not the greatest month in 1977 and October 9 was not the Dead’s greatest night of October. “The Music Never Stopped” is not the Dead’s finest song. Yet in this year, this night, and on this song the Grateful Dead created magic. Just like they did for 30 years over different years, different months, and different songs.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)

the man who knew too much poster

I suppose if you were to pick anyone to remake the classic Alfred Hitchcock film The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934), Hitchock himself would not a bad choice. And that is just what the master of suspense did in 1956. In fact, this version feels more like an extended, director’s cut than a remake. The story is essentially the same. Ben (James Stewart) and Jo MacKenna (Doris Day) are vacationing in French Morocco with their son (Christopher Olson). They are quickly caught up in international intrigue and must try to stop an unknown diplomat’s assassination to keep their son from being harmed.

While the original stays mainly indoors keeping its action to a few set pieces. In this new version Hitchcock thrills in taking his characters and the audience, to wild, colorful places around the world. It begins in Northern Africa and here we see many lovely shots of the countryside. The action moves to London where there are numerous shots inside enormous, gorgeous buildings like the Royal Albert Hall.

The opening credit sequence is beautifully done. Hitchcock shoots a half orchestra playing the opening music. It takes a few moments to realize that the typical orchestrated number you are hearing over the credits is visibly being played by real people in the picture. This inventive bit is promptly ruined by an uninteresting title card played over the cymbalist.

I own the original 1934 version and recently watched it. Many debates are raging over the internet on which version is superior. Frankly, I find both versions to be lacking. The original was paced quicker but suffered from several jolts in the plot which created some confusion and no sympathy for the protagonists. The newer version tries to help this out by giving us long and unmoving scenes in which the protagonists try to stretch out their characters.

Jimmy Stewart does a marvelous job as usual, but Dorris Day is annoying in nearly every scene. She is pretty and plays the part of a normal, cheerful American girl, but she grits my teeth while she’s on the screen. Maybe I’m just not a fan. In a scene towards the end she sings “Que Sera Sera” and to my ears, it sounds like she’s howling the number. One could argue that she is singing loudly for a plot purpose, but I would say it would serve the movie better if it was pretty and not harsh. In an interesting bit of trivia, Ms. Day apparently didn’t like the song to the point of nearly refusing to record it. It turned out to be her biggest hit, and won the Oscar that year.

There is an ingenious bit of filmmaking in the latter 3/4ths of the movie filmed in the Royal Albert Hall. There are some 12 minutes when not a word of dialogue is spoken and the only sound heard is the music played by the orchestra. It is a beautifully crafted scene that builds tension like a bullet.

Several plot elements make me ill at ease. The Scotland Yard seems terribly inept. We are made to believe that these detectives are willing to allow the MacKennas to run around the streets of London trying to solve the crime by themselves even though Mr. MacKenna knows important details about the assassination of an important diplomat. Why would an assassin use a small pistol to kill the diplomat from a long distance? After the assassination attempt, why is everyone allowed to run free? There are other questions and inaptitude that go unanswered except to allow a movie to tie up loose ends quickly and move the plot along.

Hitchcock was a master at manipulating audiences. He is in fine form throughout this movie quickly moving the viewer through the scenery with a good bit of humor and suspense. This is not a bad movie by any stretch. There is a great deal to enjoy as a carefree audience member and for anyone interested in the craft and art of film. However, it is far from Hitchcock’s greatest film, and I find its flaws to be more disappointing considering the masterful hands that created it.

A Hard Days Night (1964)

a hard days night poster

I started watching Alien on Monday to follow through with my alphabetical watching, but have been delayed in completing it. Instead, I have a review of the Beatles’ first film A Hard Day’s Night.

Critiquing this film as a piece of cinema, and not as a collection of Beatles tunes is a difficult task. Richard Lester creates some truly beautiful black-and-white images. Though sometimes the camera can’t seem to find its focus. And the images were obviously taken on a helicopter as the boys play in the grass outside the television studio shake wildly and distract from the fun being had. The boys, though essentially playing themselves, still play it a little stiff as if they are not sure how, exactly, to be themselves. The jokes, for the most part, are still funny, and what little plot there is, still works to give a glimpse into what it was like to be a band on the verge of universal stardom.

To take the movie without the songs is well beyond the point, though. The movie is essentially a market ploy to get the songs heard via different media. One might not be so forgiving if the songs were not any good, but the music shines throughout. The title song that starts the movie off starts with that struuuum that is instantly recognizable and jumps out and smacks you in the face. That is followed by what is arguably the Beatles’ best tunes. When you add in such songs as “I Should Have Known Better”, “Tell Me Why”, “I’m Happy Just to Dance with You”, the simple, sweet “If I Fell” and the sing-along favorite “Can’t Buy Me Love” to the soundtrack then you have a musical that is just shy of remarkable.

The movie was released just before the Beatles came to America and appeared on Ed Sullivan which brought on the madness known as Beatlemania. By this time they were extremely popular as can be seen in the crowd’s reaction while the boys sings on the television show. It is still shocking to see images of teenage girls screaming, crying, and shaking in a manner previously only known to the Pentecostal religion. The soundtrack periodically allows the girls screaming to take over the music allowing us to glimpse what it must have been like to be there. No wonder the boys gave up playing live shortly thereafter.

A Hard Days Night is an excellent glimpse of the Beatles on the cusp of World Stardom. This was before the summer of love, drugs, and the sitar where the Beatles were just trying to be the best band in the world and writing songs that made them so. It is a joy to see them cutting up and being their goofy, hilarious selves. I dare you not to sing and dance along as you watch it.

Army of Darkness (1992)

army of darkness poster

Those of you looking closely at my list of DVDs will notice there are a couple of movies before Army of Darkness. But on a Sunday night, you watch what your wife wants to watch. Especially when it’s part of the Evil Dead series and not a silly romantic comedy.

Army of Darkness is the third (and so far final) movie in the Evil Dead Series. Before director Sam Raimi went legits with a series of critically acclaimed dramas and the Spiderman Trilogy, he was a low-budget horror genius. Army of Darkness begins right where Evil Dead II ended, with Bruce Campbell trapped in medieval times to battle the deadites once again.

The trilogy began with Evil Dead as a pretty straight horror movie. A group of people discover a book of the dead and unleash gore-filled horror upon themselves in a remote cabin. Evil Dead II basically re-tells the same story with a different cast (except for the ever-present Bruce Campbell), a bigger budget, and plenty of slapstick. The second movie is by far my favorite in the series. It keeps the ghoulish gore while adding hilarious physical comedy and some classic one-liners. Army of Darkness furthers this tradition by adding even more slap-stick and one-liners while removing almost all of the gore.

What little plot there is goes something like this: Stranded in the middle ages Bruce Campbell is at first captured by a small army, is mistaken for a member of a rival army. Bruce quickly uses his “boomstick” to gain clout with his captors and is sent on a quest to recover the Necronomicon which will both send Bruce back to his own time and save the army from evil. Bruce being Bruce he gets the book and unleashes an army of the dead. There are two endings released for this movie. One happier ending was released in US theatres and another sequel set up unhappy ending seen in a theatrical cut in the UK and on many US DVD versions.

Raimi once again does a nice job creating a mix of horror movie homages (which range from Jason and the Argonauts to Gulliver’s Travels) with the slapstick of the Three Stooges. Unfortunately, the comic elements seem to take over this picture leaving the horror end of it as more of a backdrop. It feels more like a Zucker brother’s movie more than a horror film. Most of the evil dead are formed as skeletons that crumble when destroyed rather than burst into a mess of blood and guts as they did in the first two movies. This may seem to be an absurd complaint, but as a fan of gory movies, I felt disappointed with that choice.

The cinematography is actually quite well done throughout most of the picture. My DVD copy is quite beautiful in scenes. Especially the exterior shots around the windmill. The use of color and lighting is well above par for most horror films. The pre-CGI special effects affect the quality of the print in several areas, but they still hold up as goofy Raimi effects. I kept thinking the picture was too pretty for what was actually taking place on screen.

Bruce Campbell once again does a nice job of making Ash come to life. He delivers his lines with the comic timing of a comedian while still delivering enough pain to make his albeit over-the-top beatings believable. The rest of the cast is hardly memorable as characters or for their acting.

Army of Darkness still makes a nice end to the trilogy. In a way it makes a nice bookend to Evil Dead’s pure gore horror with the single middle book being a mix between bloody gore and slapstick comedy.

Blue Velvet (1986)

blue velvet poster

Blue Velvet comes from my collection of Chinese bootlegs. My sister Bethany and her husband Brian are teaching English in China. Apparently, you can purchase a wide assortment of DVDs there very cheaply. So I supply them with big lists of movies I’d like and when they come home they bring me a big stack. There are never any special features on the DVDs, but the picture is usually good and for $1 a piece, that’s all I need.

Blue Velvet is dark, scary, freaky, and really good. Which is how you could describe most of David Lynch’s films. His films are often filled with symbolism and it is easy to finish one of his films and have no real idea of what actually happened. They usually take two or three viewings, and a little research to get a good idea of what the movie is actually trying to convey.

Blue Velvet has a simple plot that can generally be understood at a basic level upon first viewing, but there is plenty of symbolism and deeper meaning to make it “enjoyable” for further viewing. I put enjoyable in quotation marks because for many watching it is not an enjoyable experience. It is a movie deep-seated in horror, with scenes that make you crawl under the covers and lock the doors. For the cinephile, it is a pleasure to watch a lurid piece of cinema with enough depth to require multiple viewings. For the weekend movie watcher, it is probably too much to stomach.

The film starts with an idyllic, picturesque small town. It’s a town where every day has blue skies, manicured lawns, pretty flowers, and quiet, simple people. Lynch fills the screen with gorgeous pictures straight out of fifties television shows. But this is a David Lynch movie and the pretty pictures don’t last long. Soon enough a nice old man who is watering his lawn falls down near death. The camera pans down past the convulsing man and deep into the grass. Digging into the earth until the camera is dark with freshly wet dirt and grotesque bugs. The idyllic town is only pretty on the surface. Underneath the top layer of goodness lies a darker, seedier town hidden from the eyes of most of its citizens.

The plot of the film revolves around Kyle MacLachlan and Laura Dern delving deeper and deeper into the darker side of the small town. MacLachlan finds a dismembered ear on his walk home from the hospital one afternoon. Finding such a macabre item in his hometown sparks a quest to discover whose head the ear could belong to and why it was removed. He involves the good girl Laura Dern in his quest and they sink into darker waters. To tell more of the plot is to give away too much. I’ll just say that it is not for the weak of heart.

Dennis Hopper plays one of cinema’s creepiest villains to date. His psychosis is even more terrifying in that it is so real. Here is no Freddy Krueger, or even a Hannibal Lector. This is not some crazed psychopath lurking in the corner. Sure he is psychotic and maniacal, but versions of him can be found almost nightly in any major city newspaper. He is not a homicidal maniac, but a violent, evil man made even more so by his addiction to unnamed drugs.

Isabella Rossellini plays Dorothy Valens with such beauty and sadness it breaks your heart as it squirms your stomach. Her character has taken such horrible abuse over her life she has come to like and enjoy it. Mixed with heavy amounts of masochism her performance is remarkable.

There were several times while watching this with my wife, Amy that she said she couldn’t keep watching it. After the credits rolled she said she would never watch it again. I suspect this is the sentiments of many viewers after watching Blue Velvet. But if you can stomach the violence, masochism, and overall creepiness there is a lot of pure cinema to study.

A Hole in the Head (1959)

a hole in the head poster

I received A Hole in the Head for my birthday in a Frank Sinatra double pack with the original Manchurian Candidate. I had put off watching it because it did not seem like a movie I would particularly enjoy. But in my quest to watch and review all of my movies, I had no choice but to put it in the player. Of course, the fact that my wife wanted to watch it prompted me a little further even to the point of watching it out of alphabetical order.

Frank Capra is the great godfather of sentimental movies. Many of these are deservedly hailed by fans and critics. From Mr. Smith Goes to Washington to It’s a Wonderful Life and Arsenic and Old Lace Capra made movies about the little guys fighting the system and coming out on top. These movies are sentimental enough to be dubbed “Capracorn” by critics but are handled with masterful hands that rise above the schmaltz created by so many others. Besides little guys, he also flooded his movies with eccentric characters standing out in a world full of normal folk. Sadly, A Hole in the Head tries to mix both of these Capra types and fails on both accounts.

The film is the second to last picture ever made by Capra and was the beginning of an attempted comeback, as he’d taken a break from making Hollywood pictures. But instead of a comeback, this film serves only to remind us of what Capra used to be. Frank Sinatra plays a down-on-his-luck big dreamer who is about to be evicted from his hotel business in Miami, Florida. He calls up his brother, Edward G Robinson, and sister-in-law Thelma Ritter for help pretending his son is sick. Robinson and his wife quickly head down from New York to see what’s going on. Hilarity and sentimentality ensue. Swinging Sinatra butts heads with button-down Robinson until a quick ending and easy solution is found.

The performances of the stars are fine. At this point in their careers, Sinatra and Robinson are essentially playing themselves. Although Sinatra is more up and coming to the declining Robinson. There are some good jokes and the simple story is fair enough as it is. Capra fills Sinatra’s hotel with an odd collection of eccentrics that seem to have no other purpose but to fill up some time and tell a few jokes. The ending of the movie seems tied on and creates changes to some characters without any real provocation. The cheese factor is high even for a Capra film and it’s not subdued by any superb performances. The drama is not elevated above the schlock you would see in a made-for-TV movie.

The stand out of the film is Sinatra and his son singing the classic “High Hopes”. Being a fan of Sinatra more as a singer than an actor this amusing break in the middle of the picture helped keep my hopes up for a decent picture. Those hopes were not shattered, nor were they completely fulfilled. For beginners of “Capracorn” you should pick out some of his earlier, superior films. But for a lonely night in need of some corny sentiment, this is some fluffy candy that just might fill.

About Schmidt (2002)

about schmidt movie poster

Alexander Payne’s 2002 film, About Schmidt, is just as much the transformation of its star Jack Nicholson as it is the transformation of the character Jack plays “Warren Schmidt.” Here Nicholson is no longer the swaggering, smart-alecked, tough guy we have seen throughout his long, illustrious career but a quiet, shell of a nice guy trying to understand his life after retirement. Nicholson does such an amazing job portraying this loser of a character one wonders why he hasn’t been playing this type all along.

The movie begins with the retirement of Warren Schmidt. He is a typical Midwestern “good guy” who is retiring as an executive from an insurance company. Schmidt is an everyman schlub. He has worked hard to have a “normal” life. He has a good job, a good wife, and a nice daughter. Yet upon retiring, the death of a loved one, and his daughter’s imminent marriage Schmidt must take a harder look at his life. In doing so he comes to realize there isn’t much to it, really. The bulk of the movie centers on Schmidt traveling to Colorado to try to stop his daughter from marrying a redneck boob.

There are numerous perfect spoofs of Midwestern living. From Schmidt’s life to his retirement plans of living in a trailer, the details of a typical Midwestern life are just about perfect. While on the road, Schmidt stops at numerous Interstate museums that are so banal it is hilarious. Once he arrives in Colorado the characterizations of the fiancee and his family are both hilarious and frighteningly real.

Dermot Mulroney plays the mullet-wearing, salesman fiancee, and Kathy Bates plays the still living in the 60’s time of free love soon-to-be mother-in-law. The family dinner before the wedding is reminiscent of real life, mixing hilarity and sadness with the eye of an artist. The actual wedding is so dead on perfect that I believe I have actually attended that very ceremony. From the off-key singing of the schmaltzy “Longer” to the self-written vows (I will love you every day, and when I say day I mean all 24 hours, and when I say hours I mean…) the ceremony is hilarious in its real-life cheeseball hokeyness and yet manages to remain as sweet.

This is what makes the film so memorable. While it pokes fun and satirizes everyday Midwestern life it is full of rich glowing love for that very life. Schmidt is a normal schmuck who has lived his life by the rules. While at the end of his life he begins to regret that simple life, I don’t believe the film is suggesting that this type of life is meaningless. Just the opposite, in fact, I believe it is showing all of us, every day schmucks, that living a normal life can be glorious in its own way when we help those around us.

Saw (2004)

saw movie poster

I knew very little about Saw before I watched it yesterday. It came out during the time I was too busy moving out of my house and preparing to leave for France to pay much attention to upcoming movies. In France, I heard a little buzz on the internet about it being a very captivating and scary thriller. I tried not to pay much more attention than that because there is nothing worse than learning too much about a scary movie before you go see it.

Yesterday, while Amy (who doesn’t like horror movies)was out all day in class, I took my chance and sat down to watch it. Upon first viewing, I thought it was a really top-notch piece of horror (well all except that ending.) First-time director James Wan does an excellent job creating a dark, creepy mood. The set pieces are continually dirty and slimy looking, which is perfect for the setting. The story is intriguing enough to keep you from paying too much attention to the subpar acting and the numerous plot holes. It’s the kind of movie that kept me still for an hour after seeing it and thinking it over. And there lies the problem. After putting some thought into what I had just seen the movie crumbled.

But first, a little more on what is right about the film. The opening sequence is one of the more imaginatively openings I have seen in a long time. The movie opens in a rat hole of a bathroom buried deep in some long deserted public building. The two main characters, Cary Elwes and Leigh Whannel are on opposite sides of the room shackled by the ankles with a short chain connected to rusty pipes. They have no recollection of how they got there, or why. Oh, and there is a dead guy with his head blown off laying in the middle of the floor. I won’t give any other plot details away than this, but the remainder of the film centers on those two characters trying to find a way to get out of the room while playing a vicious game with a mad serial killer.

The design of the killer is also done quite imaginatively. Throughout the movie, we get brief glimpses into several other victims and the games they had to play. The killer’s design and the games he creates are quite frightening and original. Unfortunately, they are also quite implausible. There is no conceivable way that the killer could create his deadly games in the places he does without being noticed and eventually caught. I’m all for suspension of disbelief, but I believe a portion of the horror in this film is meant to be that this kind of sick killer could be quite real. He is not Jason, Freddy, or Mike Myers, but a more realistic psychopath. As such his killings are so complicated as to make them absurd.

There are several similarities to the superior piece of cinema Seven (1995). Both films are set in the seedier areas of a large city. The cinematography is both dark and moody. And both feature a moralistic serial killer who creates inventive and complicated murders. Yet where Seven succeeded in making a classic thriller all the way through, Saw fails about 3/4ths of the way in. The easier part of a horror/thriller is devising an original killer. Where the plot gets difficult is finding a resolution of why he is killing and how he is caught. Saw tries to be original by first giving the viewer a cliche fake ending, only to give a real surprise ending later. I wasn’t amused.

In order to fill out the plot and, I suppose, take up some time. The filmmakers create some characters that have no use. Danny Glover’s subplot adds to the ‘whodunnit’ aspects to a movie that doesn’t need to be a ‘whodunnit.’ Detective mysteries, cop shows, and murder plots create tension by giving various clues to who the villain could be. In a horror/thrill such as Saw, there is no need for the audience to figure out who it could be. We only need to be thrilled by the murderer and grasp with the victims for escape.

You never expect the acting to be brilliant in a small-budget horror film, and this film won’t surprise you in that area. Cary Elwes was a surpise to see in such a film. Though I know he has done similar fare I will always remember him for his role in The Princess Bride (1987). He doesn’t add much to the film in acting. He is also almost too pretty for the role. It seems as if the filmmakers recognized this because as the movie rolled on his makeup got more and more dirty and grotesque.

Overall Saw creates an unusual situation that is thrilling enough in the first viewing. However, after a truly good beginning the movie sinks into implausible and isn’t smart enough to figure out how to end itself.

Frida (2002) and Seven Brides For Seven Brothers (1954)

movie posters

We recently borrowed Seven Brides for Seven Brothers and Frida from some friends. While completely different movies I don’t have enough on either of them for full reviews so I’m bunching them up in the same post.

Seven Brides for Seven Brothers is a pretty by-the-books MGM musical. It is based on a book entitled The Sobbin’ Women which is in turn based on a Roman story titled The Rape of the Sabine Women. Which, like the title implies is about the kidnapping and rape of several young women who eventually come to ‘love’ their captors. How someone decided to make a musical out of this one wonders.

The movie is very sexist. The oldest brother, Adam (Howard Keel), sets out at the beginning of the movie to find a wife. He doesn’t do this because he is lonesome, or loveless, or in need of company. No, he seeks a wife because he lives in the mountains with six brothers and they need someone to cook for them and clean up after them. Even his method of finding a wife is pretty awful. He comes to town to shop for various goods and reckons to add a wife to that list. The remainder of the story focuses on the wife he finds, named Millie (Jane Powell), and how she manages to turn the brothers into refined gentlemen. The original story figures in with a kidnapping plot designed to win the hearts of potential brides for the remaining single brothers.

Sexist plot aside Seven Brides really does sparkle as a gem in the musical hat of MGM. This can be mainly attributed to some fine songs by Johnny Mercer (including the hillbilly charm of “Bless Your Beautiful Hide”) and some incredible choreography by Michael Kid. The ‘Barn Raising’ scene is worth the price of the ticket alone. Add to that the subtle beauty of ‘Lonesome Polecat’ and you have a winner.

I have personal memories of this film being watched in a dormitory lobby in college. Some bubbly friends of mine insisted that we had to watch it immediately after finding I had never seen it. They proceeded to quote most of the lines, sing every song, and practically dance along with every scene. They did so with such energy that I was swept along as well, hardly paying attention to the jokes or the plot. Upon viewing it again I couldn’t help but remember that enthusiasm, but this time I was unable to miss the bothersome plot. In the end, one must realize the time and place this movie came from without overlooking what is a pretty disturbing bit of plotting. The songs and the movements will most assuredly win most of the skeptics over though.

When Frida was released into theatres I had absolutely no desire to see it. I’m not a fan of Salma Hayek, biopics in general, and biopics about artists especially. Add to that my zero knowledge about the artist Frida herself and the movie’s fate was sealed into never being seen by the likes of me. However, my general lack of new movies here in France and being able to borrow them from a friend for free helped me to reconsider watching it. When I realized it was directed by Julie Taymor who also directed a marvelously beautiful version of Titus then I was actually excited by it (almost).

Like Titus, Frida is an amazingly visual movie. Taymor, who is known mainly for her Broadway adaptation of the Lion King, has an artist’s eye for visual flair. She has found a way to take something as static as a painting and made it alive. Throughout the film, she recreates several of Frida’s works and makes them a part of the action. It’s impossible to explain on paper (or cyberspace) but what she creates is something pure magic.

I can’t say how accurately Frida is portrayed in this movie. The picture we get is of a rather flawed woman who lived with a great deal of suffering. Her suffering comes in both physical ways (stemming from an accident early in life) and emotionally (from a cheating husband and her own mistakes). Yet it is this suffering that creates such remarkable art. Taymor manages to create an interesting and moving story within her excellent images.

Both Salma Hayek and Alfred Molina pull out excellent performances. I was especially impressed with Molina portraying the very flawed and yet sympathetic Diego. I had pretty much written this actor off after playing Doc Oc in the highly overrated Spider-man 2. But here he shows a real sensitivity to his character. Don’t be fooled by the billing of this film. The cover of the DVD would have you believe that Ed Norton, Antonio Banderas, Ashley Judd, and Geoffrey Rush all star in it. In fact, with the exception of Geoffrey Rush, all of them have, what amounts to cameos in the picture. Rush is in the movie a bit more, but I wouldn’t call even that a starring role.

Though neither Seven Brides or Frida are perfect films. Both of them win you over with sheer energy and charm.