Sequels: Clerks II and Road House 2: Last Call

Sequels.

Sometimes they work and sometimes they do not. Recently, I ran across examples of both in the same evening. In the course of ONE EVENING, I watched both Clerks II and Road House 2: Last Call.

Actually, let's say I "watched" Clerks II and "subjected myself to" Road House 2.

Perhaps I should define for you what I think makes a good sequel, and explain why these two films do/do not qualify.

1. A good sequel is a rational extension of the original film. In this case, CII is a continuation of the lives of the characters from the first film. RH2 takes place in an entirely different place, with different people, and an almost entirely unrelated plot. There IS a bar, and there ARE some bad guys, but that's about as far as the resemblance goes. With the exception of a few mentions of Dalton and how he's the father of the main character in RH2 (as well as a few admittedly funny "I thought you'd be taller" jokes) this movie had absolutely nothing to do with Road House. In fact, it feels like it was written as a separate film and then adjusted to satisfy some studio suit. According to IMDB, this was originally meant to star Patrick Swayze reprising the role of Dalton, but he backed out (likely because the damn thing was so obviously bad) and it lingered in development hell until 2006, when it was changed to accommodate a new actor.

2. A good sequel will generally include the majority of the original actors/actresses. Unless the first film was an ungodly trauma to film, or unless the stars have have become SO HUGE that doing a sequel is beneath them, they should want to come back and do a sequel, even if a lot of time has gone by. Obviously, you don't want exactly the same cast--new cast members keep things fresh, as Rosario Dawson and Trevor Fehrman do in Clerks II--but the audience wants to see familiar faces. The Ocean's 11 franchise is an example of a group that did well with consistently adding new blood while still managing to bring back the original cast. A sequel without a single member of the original cast spells very serious trouble. That means they either waited too long or it was soooo bad that no one wanted to get near it.

3. A good sequel will acknowledge he time that has passed between the original film and the sequel. In CII, the whole idea is that time has passed and Dante and Randal have reached a point in their lives where things have to change. The gap between the events of the first and second film are explained as the natural passing of people's lives. The crux of the characters' problems have to do with that time passage. RH2 definitely takes place after Road House--theoretically about three decades later, since Dalton did not have a son (he barely had a girlfriend) in the first film and now his son is about thirty and working for the DEA. There are references to Dalton and his death, but the events of the first film are not even mentioned--they just took the name and referenced it once or twice. Not very creative, frankly.

4. A good sequel brings something new to the table without losing sight of what made the original so likeable in the first place. Kevin Smith has done a good job with this in CII. The things that made Clerks so great were the relationship between Dante and Randal, the conversations they had both with each other and with the people who surrounded them, the pop culture references, and the pure grade A raunch. He's done all that in Clerks II, and has also added some new elements. The familiar has been effectively combined with the new in a way that--IMO--is both comforting and intriguing. RH2 feels as though they've used all the same pieces that were combined to create Road House, but somehow they don't fit together quite the same. The older mentor, the girl in distress who is secretly connected to the villain, the crazy villain who likes to smash things, the final showdown (right down to the car that hurtles up to the bad guys minus driver)--they're all there, but somehow they feel forced. It wouldn't have been a particularly bad movie on its own, but it suffered from comparisons to the original.

Basically, what I am trying to say here is simple:

A. Road House 2: Last Call was an abomination that never should have been made, or at least should not have pretended it had anything at all to do with Road House. They could have called it Bar Brawl: Guns, Drugs, and Pelicans or DEA on Airboats or Punching and Explosions in the Bayou and it would have been the same film without all the undue expectations. Plus, as much as I enjoyed Jake Busey's performance as the villain (and God knows I do enjoy Jake Busey and his giant, terrifying Busey teeth), the acting was nothing special, leaving the whole thing just on this side of blaaaaah.

B. Clerks II was everything I wanted it to be. If you liked Clerks, and if you like Kevin Smith's films in general, you will probably enjoy Clerks II. However, if you DON'T like Kevin Smith's movies, don't bother seeing this one. To try and convince an anti-Smith person to like it would be a tremendous waste of time because it is so very him. The subject matter is raunchy, the language is appalling, and it consists of a LOT of time spent watching people stand around a fast food restaurant and talk to one another. Dante is still a whiny baby, but I loved Randal just as much or more than I ever did. There were some great conversations and quoteable moments, and I also really really liked the scene in the prison, because I think it illustrated well the relationship between the two main characters.  Rosario did well as the love interest, and the dance scene was a pleasant surprise. It was also wonderful to see Jay and Silent Bob one more time. (I will say that although I find Jason Mewes a sexy beast, the 'Goodbye Horses' bit was a little disturbing. I suppose it's more funny if you realize going into it that this is something he does to Kevin Smith randomly on a regular basis.) I guess I just loved the movie, but I'm kind of a fan girl. Take that as you will.

Maybe someday I will favor you all with my opinions on the second Boondock Saints film and why it sucks and I think Ghostbusters 2 is my favorite. Do any of you have thoughts on sequels?

I pity the fog!: The A-Team and The Fog

So I thought it might be nice to take a break from my never-ending onslaught of book reviews to talk about some movies I watched recently. Yes, I know, it's just yet more "What did the Caustic Critic think about things?" but since this is a blog, and therefore nearly the pinnacle of self-involvement anyway...I figured it would be okay.

Last weekend was gross and wet for the most part, so I had plenty of time to sit on my butt and watch movies. I FINALLY got to two of the three Netflix movies that have been sitting on the TV table for about a month (whimpering "Watch us! Watch us!" as they collected dust).

First off, I watched the new film version of The A-Team. I figured it would be right up my alley, seeing as I love movies that are made up almost entirely of wisecracks and inexplicable explosions. Mind you, I've only ever watched about 3/4 of one original A-Team episode, so I wasn't really bringing in any prior baggage. But I had some questions:

• Liam Neeson, what are you doing in this film? Were you so deranged by grief at the loss of your wife that you accepted this without looking at it closely? Did you just need something sort of mindless to do as a version of a vacation? Because you are a very very good actor, and you were WASTED here.
• Why is Hollywood trying to sell me Bradley Cooper as a "hot guy"? I know he's kind of funny, and I thought The Hangover was an okay movie, but this guy is NOT Brad Pitt, nor will he ever BE Brad Pitt. He looks like an emu, all right? (If you don't believe me, google it. You'll understand soon enough.)
• Jessica Biel: see #2 re: Bradley Cooper, and replace "Brad Pitt" with some Hollywood star like Sandra Bullock or Angelina Jolie or...anyone who has more than one facial expression, really.
• Why wasn't the crazy guy crazier? The guy who played the crazy guy in the TV show packed more crazy into the 30 minutes I saw than this guy put into the whole movie. I was very disappointed at the lack of sock puppets.

To be fair, here are an equal number of things I enjoyed:

• I know it is totally stupid and not real and physically impossible, but that bit where they parachute out of the sky in a tank while shooting down drones was pretty awesome. Also the big explosions at the end were cool.
• The bumbling bad guys were kind of funny. Actually, there were quite a few funny bits.
• Even though he clearly did not belong in the movie, Liam Neeson of course did an excellent job.
• The plot made at least a minimum of sense. It wasn't one of those films where you can't even follow because the whole thing is so convoluted and dumb.

So in conclusion, I wouldn't exactly recommend The A-Team, but it's not a complete waste of time.

The other movie I watched was John Carpenter's 1980 version of The Fog. Now THAT was a surprisingly good film. It's amazing how many scares you can get out of fog and things moving that shouldn't. The set up was great, the acting was very good--particularly Hal Holbrook and Adrienne Barbeau. The plot was perfectly reasonable and made sense in the context. The people behaved in realistic ways for the most part, though as an audience member you find yourself yelling at them to pool their knowledge, since if the three or four people who each partly figured out what was going on got together, they'd have it solved in no time. Another great thing about this movie is that the cinematography is really impressive. The way the movie is shot contributes a lot to the tone and the way the whole thing feels. I haven't seen the 2005 remake, and I suspect that it won't be nearly as good...they'll overuse the CGI and fuck the whole thing up, I bet. Anyway, if you haven't seen The Fog, you should, particularly if you like scary movies but don't like gore.

A True Blood Post: Because I am Possibly the Biggest Dork Alive

Unfortunately, neither The Boyfriend nor Starbucks Queen are even the slightest bit interested in True Blood, and most of the people I know who are have either only read the books or only seen the show or are behind on the show because they're watching it on DVD or whatever. Therefore, I am spewing out all my opinions here because I can't keep them to myself any longer.

Reasons the Books are Better than the Show:

1. Sookie is a lot less annoying when you can't hear her. I like Anna Paquin, and think she mostly does an okay job with the character (though this season the writing for her has been weak at best) but sometimes she has a voice like a dental drill. Particularly when she is shrieking "BEEEEEEEEEELL!" every 38 seconds.

2. In the books, Alcide is a hottie and he and Sookie have crazy chemistry. On the show he has all the personality of a garden hose, and he and Sookie seem to barely like one another. He's been underused this season, but I'm not exactly sad, because the actor playing him is a significant disappointment.

3. The books are a little more focused than the show, allowing the Sookie character to be more important. They're told from her point of view, so reader can find her character more sympathetic.

4. The fairy Claudine is more awesome and interesting and involved and less "Whoo, I'm mysterious and pointy-faced in my fuzzy-filtered Stevie Nicks world!" Her character personality-wise is much more similar in the books to what Maryanne was last season. In the books, Claudine is an active and vital force for good out in the world rather than the twinkly, whimpering doom-whisperer she's been thus far on the show.

5. There is a lot less Arlene in the books. I find Arlene and her storyline sort of annoying this season, though I think the actress is doing the best she can with the little she's been given. She's a shrill character, and I wish she'd been improved instead of turned into a whiny stereotype and easy doorway for witchcraft to enter the show.

6. Calvin Norris is an interesting and complicated character, instead of a deranged meth head who shouldn't have even showed up until season 4. I was extremely disappointed at how he's been used in the show, since his character in the books is another option for Sookie--a slightly more "normal" guy who wants to give her a more "normal" life. I mean, aside from being a panther, obviously.

7. Bubba! I know why they can't use him on the show, but I do miss him.

Reasons the Show is Better Than the Books:

1. Lafayette doesn't die! In the books, he's a throwaway character who gets murdered at the end of book one. In the show, he is just a huge bowl of awesome and Nelsan Ellis should get an award or a big check or something. He's an effeminate-looking gay tough guy, who has a lot of great lines, and I'm happy that he finally has someone to appreciate him, though I'm not sure I like where this Jesus thing is going.

2. Jason is a better character. In the books he's kind of a selfish jerk, whereas in the show he is sometimes self-involved, but sweet...though not very bright. Often, watching Jason try to puzzle out what's going on around him and figure out what the appropriate response should be is the funniest part of the episode. I am admittedly rather unimpressed with him and his whole wannabe-cop, dating the meth-girl story line this season. He's a much better brother than he is in the books, though, and I have liked his interactions with Sookie.

3. Although this season the side characters have gotten a little out of control, in the past I have enjoyed how some of the very minor book characters have developed their own lives and personalities and story lines. Terry Bellefleur is a great example of this--he's mentioned in the books in passing, but I have liked his character and become invested in what happens to him (frankly, his relationship with Arlene and falling out with Sam has me very concerned at the moment). Sam is another character that is not nearly as important in the books as he is in the show. It's interesting to see him have his own life, though I could have happily done without his creepy white-trash family. (Also, the dude who plays him is adorable and apparently not shy about getting naked a lot.)

4. Jessica! She's a completely new invention from Alan Ball, and she's great -- a young vampire, a counterpoint to Bill, Eric, Pam, and all the other vamps we know who are centuries old. She's a modern girl trying to figure out how to behave and where her place in the world might be. The interactions between her and Bill (her unwilling surrogate dad, who--we're led to believe--is nicer to her than her real dad ever was), her and Sookie (both a surrogate mom and an older sister, helping Jessica see how a nice--but not stiflingly sheltered--girl behaves), her and Hoyt (one of the cutest relationships on the show), and her and Pam (who shows her how a BAD girl behaves) are all great and show different sides of familiar characters.

5. As many have been mentioning this season, Dennis O'Hare's Russell Edgington has been campy fun all the way around. Although his storyline is very different than it was in the books, he's been a delight to watch in every episode. He's another person who deserves an award or a large check (particularly since I think his character doesn't have much longer to live.)

Things That are Ties:

1. Tara in the books is a minor side character who is not very interesting. I really liked her character in Season One, but she all of season two and most of season three weeping around. I miss when she was feisty. I did enjoy her recent conversation with Sam, but she seriously needs to stop getting all the "victim" stories.

2. Sam's brother, a recent addition, could go either way. I'm not sure if the show is better because he's in it or the books are better because he's not. Although I like that he's kind of scrappy, and his crush on Jessica is kind of cute, he can be a pain-in-the-ass for no reason. Like, okay, you are uneducated and have daddy issues and mommy issues and class issues. Stop treating Sam like trash and let him help you out, pitbull face.

3. The Queen is not interesting to me in the books or the show. She is just dull and mostly used as a plot point rather than a real character.

4. I'd really like to see Sookie's friendship with Pam develop as it does in the books, but so far, Kristen Bauer has done a great job being icy and sarcastic and yet deeply attached to her maker on the show.

5. Eric is awesome no matter where he is. I really don't know how he could be improved. Then again, I am a sucker for a saucy viking.

Any other thoughts?

Cannonball Read 2 #39: The Princess Bride by William Goldman

I think most people are probably more familiar with the film version of The Princess Bride, starring Robin Wright and Cary Elwes (before the fathead got him). The book is--well, let's just say they cut a lot out for the movie, and that was probably a good thing.

The basic premise is that Goldman is abridging The Princess Bride from a longer version written by S. Morgenstern. This device results in pages of explanations of things that were "cut out" and why the book is abridged as it is. There are also three introductions in the version I read (the 30th anniversary edition) which go into more detail of the alleged abridging process. Of course, this is all a complete fiction, and it seemed rather unnecessary to me. I would have been perfectly happy to just have the story of Westley, Buttercup, Inigo, and Fezzik. In fact, the one thing I like more about the book than the movie was that Inigo and Fezzik had more to do, since they're my favorite characters. For those who don't know, the basic story is that of a beautiful princess and her one true love; they have to overcome a variety of obstacles with the help of a varied cast of characters in order to escape the clutches of the evil prince.

On the whole it's an okay book, but I don't think you really gain anything from the book that you don't get from the movie.

Cannonball Read 2 #5: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams

I was a little daunted by this book at first. The Hitchhiker's Guide is so well known and loved that I was a bit put off--I tend to avoid things that are very popular (that's why it took me 4 years to pick up a Harry Potter book and why it's likely I will NEVER read anything from the Twilight saga...well, the popularity and the fact that they sound fucking stupid...another discussion for another time.) Also, I enjoyed the movie a lot (I think I was one of the few people that did) and thought maybe that would ruin the book for me.

For those who don't know, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is the story of Arthur Dent, an ordinary British man who discovers not only is his house being bull-dozed to make way for an expressway, but the entire EARTH is being destroyed (for an interstellar expressway, of course.) He is, at the very last moment, saved by his friend Ford Prefect, who turns out to be from another planet--sent to Earth to do research for the Guide. Arthur and Ford have a series of adventures, meeting up Trillian (a lovely girl) and Zaphod Beeblebrox, president of the galaxy and idiot extraordinaire. They fly off in a stolen spaceship, trying to discover the secret to life itself.

The book is highly entertaining, in particular the "explanatory asides" were side-splitting. My problems with it are mostly the same problems I have with the Dark Tower series: The book can't really stand on its own. Nothing is resolved, there is no real ending--it is quite obviously part of a series, and until I get my hands on the next book, it's like reading half a book. There are also some points where the quirkiness borders on annoying, but Adams manages to reign it in just in time.

On the whole, I liked this a lot, and would recommend it. The copy I have was put out in conjunction with the movie, and has some very interesting interviews with the writer, producers, and actors in the film, giving a new perspective on the process of making the movie and how they each saw their individual roles. Quite interesting.

Cannonball Read #49 - 51: The Lord of the Rings Trilogy by J.R.R. Tolkien

I am not typically a big fan of fantasy books. I mean, I enjoy them when they happen across my path, but I don't tend to seek them out. This particular set of books I bought on a whim--the three books were being sold in a box set used for about $3. I figured I might as well read them--I greatly enjoyed two of the three movies, and these are my father's favorite books as well. It turned out I was surprised how much I enjoyed these.

The first book, Fellowship of the Ring, starts out very slowly. I was disheartened at first, not sure that I'd be able to slog through the whole thing if it all was as dull as the first few chapters. Luckily, once we got past all the descriptions of Hobbit social structure and Hobbit landscapes, the story began to pick up. Admittedly, nothing of real note actually HAPPENED until nearly 3/4 of the way through, but once the Hobbits got on the road and truly began their adventure, I got sucked in. By the time the Fellowship forms and sets out from the elven palaces at Rivendell, I couldn't put the book down. The second book, The Two Towers, was even better. There was more adventure, more battles, more characters. I loved the Riders of Rohan, and greatly enjoyed the battle of the Ents. There was a lot going on in that book, and it's definitely the best of the three. The third book, Return of the King, was good, but definitely became slightly tiresome as things wound down. Also, the last third of it is "historical footnotes" about the lineage of the kings of Gondor and such (not very thrilling reading.) On the whole, I thought these were great, and will likely read at least the first two again at some point.

Reasons the Books are Better Than the Films:

1. Frodo is significantly less whiny and annoying. Even though I like Elijah Wood and though Sean Astin was perfectly cast as Samwise Gamgee, I tend to fast-forward through the Sam/Frodo parts in The Two Towers movie because I find "fuckin' Frodo" unbearably irritating.

2. Arwen only appears, like, twice. I don't think she even has any lines in the books. She is certainly not having some wild horse chase. Since I hated her character in the film too, I was happy to not run across her much.

3. All of my random and picky questions were answered. I.e. If the 9 rings of power turned the kings of men into Ringwraiths, what happened with the Elves' and Dwarves' rings? (Answer: The Elves were too strong to be corrupted. Half of the Dwarves' rings were taken back by Sauron and the other half were lost.) Or why is Gimli the only Dwarf in the story? Where are all the dwarves? (Answer: Dwarves and Elves don't get along. Also, the dwarves live on the opposite end of Middle-Earth from where all the action takes place.) All those nagging little things that bothered me from the movie were neatly fixed.

4. The poetry is quite beautiful. There are many different poems throughout the stories, usually songs or legends the characters relate, often "translating" from other languages. For obvious reasons, most are left out of the movie.

5. Tom Bombadil. If you don't know, you're just missing out.

Reasons The Film is Better Than the Book:

1. Viggo Mortensen is pretty.

2. Sir Ian McKellan is just too freaking awesome.

3. Some scenes of excitement are added for effect. There are also dialogues that add to the story.

4. Viggo Mortensen is really pretty.

"Screws fall out all the time. The world's an imperfect place.": RIP John Hughes

I wish I had something profound to say about the passing of John Hughes. I tried writing something about how The Breakfast Club changed my life--about the character of Brian Johnson made me feel like someone out there actually understood what my life was about at the time: the nerdiness, the loneliness, the clubs, and the unbearable parental pressure to succeed and be the best. But it's hard to come up with something that will make sense to anyone but me. I can maybe explain why I loved it, but there's no way for me to make you FEEL the way I FEEL. I loved that movie. I wore out two VHS copies in the span of about five years--there were periods in my life when I watched that movie nearly every day, sometimes twice on weekends. I loved each and every character (it cemented my love for vulnerable bad boys, which also changed my life, though perhaps not for the better on that count.) I could recite nearly every single line of dialogue along with the film. Even though I was 14 and it was 1995, the feelings and situations applied to me and my life despite being written more than a decade before.

Although I also have deep affection for many of Hughes's other works, particularly Ferris Bueller's Day Off and Sixteen Candles, The Breakfast Club was my very very favorite movie from age 14 - 19, and is still among my top-ten all-time faves. I can't believe that Hughes is gone and there will never be another entry from Shermer Illinois. (Hopefully--death to anyone who considers remaking any of his legendary films...the last thing the world needs is S1xt66n Candlez starring Hannah Montana and Zac Efron with a Jonas brother playing Farmer Ted)

Thank you, John Hughes.
Thank you for Anthony Michael Hall in every role he played for you.
Thank you for "Danke Shoen" and "Twist and Shout".
Thank you for Robert Downey Jr. with a bra on his head.
Thank you for Long Duk Dong.
Thank you for Jake Ryan.
Thank you for some of John Candy's best and most heartwarming work.
Thank you for understanding teenage girls.
Thank you for Cameron's father's car.
Thank you for the last ten minutes of Home Alone, which makes my father giggle like a schoolgirl.
Thank you for the flaming marshmallow on Mr. Wilson's forehead.
Thank you for making my family's Christmas seem not so deranged.
Thank you (sort of) for John Bender.
Thank you for the brain, the athlete, the basketcase, the princess, and the criminal.
Thank you for making being a teenager not suck quite so badly, for letting me know I wasn't the only one.

RIP

Jesus Christ Superstar: Do you think you're who they say you are?

I watched Jesus Christ Superstar the other night, and I have to tell you--despite my adamant avoidance of organized religion--it actually made me want to pick up a Bible and read some of it. (Unfortunately, it turns out neither The Boyfriend nor I own one, so I had to let that desire pass.)

As a movie, it's cinematically interesting, though very obviously 70s. The idea of "framing" the production with the travelling theater troupe instead of trying to go for period realism was very smart and makes it easier to accept the costuming and set choices and enjoy the music and acting. (After all, if you spend the whole movie wondering to yourself why Judas is wearing bedazzled, fringed bellbottoms, you are probably going to miss out on the real point of the thing.) Also, I think the very minimalist set design simplifies a production that--being a rock opera with no breaks and no real "dialogue"--could quickly become overwhelming.

The performances from all the actors were great. Not only could they all rock out, but there was real ACTING going on. Ted Neely as Jesus and Carl Anderson as Judas were particularly excellent. It is not easy to do "projecting emotion" and "shrieking melodically in falsetto" at the same time, and the two of them pull it off.

My favorite thing about this movie has got to be the music. With a collaboration between such musical giants as Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice, you can probably put pretty good odds on getting something amazing, but for a project as large and complicated as this, I have to tip my hat to them. As I said before, there is NO real dialogue. Everyone sings, and one song fades into another, only to circle around and return at the opportune moment. The music, once again, is very 70s, but it's still quite powerful. This is music that I intend to purchase for my iPod.

The other thing I liked was how much the movie made me think about Jesus--not Jesus the religious figure, but Jesus the guy. I mean, how totally stressful must it be to be Jesus? Everybody wants something from you--the Jewish leaders/Pharisees want you to shut up, the people want you to be louder, your apostles and followers want leadership and guidance and information, everybody wants to be healed or fixed or prayed for--"Heal me! Raise my dead child! Feed me!", and then you've got God who is telling you you have to die for these people. Neely plays Jesus as someone who desperately wants to be everything to everyone, but he's in over his head and knows that things will not end well for him. He's the first cinematic Jesus I've seen with a temper--he's not just a meek sweetheart, the scene where he throws the moneychangers out of the temple is Jesus-in-full-on-rage-mode. He's not afraid, precisely, but he seems to kind of wish he had other options.

The other interesting thing about this movie is the way Judas is presented. Growing up in the protestant church, we didn't get into Judas much. Mostly "Judas betrayed Jesus for 3o pieces of silver." Nothing much was said about who he was or why he did what he did. Basically, he was always depicted as a shady, shitty guy who turned Jesus in for money. In Jesus Christ; Superstar, Judas starts as Jesus's best friend and closest ally. However, Judas is worried about the "Jesus Movement" and afraid that Jesus is going to get them all killed by the Romans for riling up the political waters with his teachings, instead of just helping the downtrodden, which is what they started out doing. Their differences are more political than anything else--Jesus is the rising outsider superstar with the grassroots support, and Judas is afraid the established order (the Romans and the Pharisees) is going to retaliate unless Jesus cools it. But Jesus of course does not really give a shit one way or another about the established order, because after all, he's on another path completely. Judas ends up turning in Jesus--in his mind--to save him from falling victim to his own hype, not realizing he was playing into the Pharisees' hands, nor understand how quickly the mob could turn from adoration to violence.

One of the best parts in the movie is Judas's slowly dawning understanding of what he's done--and the fact that Jesus knew all along and let him do it anyway. Jesus knew very well how everything would turn out--that Juda's actions would lead to the cross, of how the guilt of what he'd done would eat away at Judas--but he just let it play out as he knew it must. Judas's realization of how he's been used and what his future holds is heartwrenching.

Rock operas are clearly not for everyone, and there are one or two songs that go on a bit too long or have a bit too much shrieking, but on the whole it's an interesting movie, particularly for those who are maybe a little jaded on religion. I recommend it.

Just pay the man already: Rent

I tried to watch Rent the other day. I know I'm supposed to like it because it's about the freedom and struggle of the artistic life and blah blah blah, but I have to admit that...I hated it. I mean hated it so much I couldn't even finish watching it. I found myself sympathizing with the villain, who just wanted to clean up the neighborhood and build a nice studio. While all the main characters were whining about paying the rent, I was sitting there thinking "Well, if you can't afford to pay rent on your really shitty apartment, maybe you should stop strumming your guitar and go get a job at Kinko's or something!" I thought most of the characters (except for Angel and Tom Collins) were more annoying than charmingly bohemian. Seriously, Maureen and her "performance art"? Give me a break! And although I liked the music, a lot of the songs went on waaaaaaaaay too long. I mean, how many choruses of "No Day but Today" did we really need? I was really surprised, because I know a lot of people who swear by this show, but I was totally unimpressed. Maybe it would be better on the stage? Or maybe I'm getting old and my Republican side is showing.


Bonus: I also watched Howl's Moving Castle which was pretty good for a kids' movie. I think I may have read the book when I was a child, because it seemed very familiar. The voice acting was pretty good (I didn't even think TOO much about Christian Bale being the voice behind Howl...though his voice IS awfully sexy) although the actress who played the lead as a young girl could have been better. The animation and backgrounds were extremely well-done, as I've come to expect from Japanese anime-type movies. All in all, it was certainly a movie I'd recommend for children (not very young children, but maybe in the 8 - 11 range?), and it's not unpleasant to watch as an adult, either.

I have Mysterious Skin from Netflix right now. I just have to find a time when The Boyfriend isn't home to watch it, since crazy male street hustlers are not really his bag.

The Warriors

The Warriors: For a cult film from 1979, this didn't feel nearly as dated as it should have. I'm guessing that could be because it's almost more of a fantasy than it is a "realistic" film. Part of that comes from the intro likening the story to a Greek epic, and also the use of what look like rotoscoped "comic" panels to transition between scenes. Basically, it's about this gang in New York called the Warriors who go to this big gang meeting way down in the Bronx, and after something unexpected happens, have to make their way all the way back to their home turf of Coney Island, dodging and fighting both other gangs and the cops. Each of the gangs in the movie have these wild costumes and identities, the most interesting being the Baseball Furies (whom I assume come from the part of the Bronx that's home to the baseball field.) They're these guys wearing baseball uniforms with this crazy sort of Kiss-type make-up who fight with baseball bats (using them sort of like samurai swords) and don't speak, adding to the comic-ness of the film. The acting is surprisingly good, considering that pretty much no one in it had ever been in a movie before. If I had to compare it to something, I think I'd say it's a little bit like O Brother Where Art Thou? surprisingly. I mean, there's these guys on this journey, and there's distractions and fights, and they split off, and some get lost and some get killed, and you're sitting there pulling for them to make it. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and suggest that you film nerds check it out, since it's apparently a cult classic with some pretty nifty cinematic moments to it. The making-of on the DVD is also fascinating--they talk a lot about shooting on location in New York at night, and about the difficulties of dealing with the ACTUAL gangs who inhabited the area. As a sort of odd sidenote, the way I first heard about this movie was that the video game was recently released (only, you know, 27 years later) and X-Play really liked it.

"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them!" - Thoughts on Tarantino

"I don't care how crazy they are--psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them." - Seth Gecko
You know, I've tried really hard to like Quentin Tarantino movies, but I just can't do it. They're all full of maddening pop culture references and blood geysers and self-referential crap. So far I've seen 'Pulp Fiction,' 'True Romance,' 'Kill Bill (1 & 2),' and 'From Dusk Til Dawn.' People keep telling me I have to see the other one--'Reservoir Dogs'?--but I'm thinking I'll pass.
The only one I like is 'True Romance,' and I think I like that one because Tarantino neither directed nor acted in it.
It's sort of the way I feel about Kevin Costner. I didn't mind him so much when he was just an actor. I mean, 'Dances With Wolves' was okay. It's when he started being actor/director/producer/dancing girl Costner that it became a problem.
Or maybe the reason I don't like Tarantino's films is that (with the exception of Alabama and Clarence in 'TR') most of the characters are tremendously unlikable. I always feel that they're not "real" people--just characters waiting with heady anticipation to say their lines and upstage everyone else with just how crude and hilaaaaaaarious they can be. Or to cut someone's arm off. Whichever.
Frankly, if I want pop-culture riddled dialogue, toilet humor, and deranged violence, I'll just watch Kevin Smith's 'Dogma.' It's about a hundred times better.

To Brokeback or Not to Brokeback...

So I'm still debating about whether I'm going to go see 'Brokeback Mountain' or not.
On the one hand, I want to be supportive of innovative, original, genre-twisting, stupid-Christian-fundie-riling cinema.
On the other hand, I hate going to see movies that have had too much hype. I just end up feeling like a lemming.
On one hand, I don't want to see it because I KNOW it ends badly (there's no other possible way for it to end, really) and it's going to make me all teary and weepy and pathetic.
On the other hand, the near irresistable and drool-inducing siren song of most probably naked Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger, who are probably worth a few tears and feeling a bit like a lemming.
Decisions, decisions.

Woe Is Banky: Chasing Amy

Watched Chasing Amy today. Despite great performances from the leads and some fantastic comedic moments, I didn't like it. It depressed me. Ending = sad. And while I figure I was supposed to feel sorry for Holden because he lost the love of his life, oh poor guy, or maybe for Alyssa because Holden treated her like shit. Instead, the character I found myself sympathizing with most was Banky. I mean, he's got this great thing going, he and his best friend for 20 years--they live together, they work together, they hang out together--they're happy. Then along comes this woman and fucks everything up. They end up not even being friends, really. And okay, he was kind of a jerk in his attempts to get rid of her, but it's not like he was making shit up or anything. He was merely notifying Holden of facts that were more or less public record. And while maybe he was a little out of line, he did bring up some valid points about her possible agenda--and only then when his closest friend began trying to change him. Kevin Smith has a real hard-on for the whole "Best Friend vs. Girlfriend" storyline. It's kind of an interesting study. Oh, if only I had his drive and his gift for dialogue and characterization...Kevin Smith is SO my idol. And now I have seen ALL his movies, and count myself a true aficienado.

How Did I Get Talked Into This?: Vampiros Lesbos

"Vampiros Lesbos" = tragically terrible 1970s movie about lesbian vampires (obviously.) No graphic sex, but an excessive amout of naked women writhing and moaning. Did I mention it was all in German?

"He's cute...you know, for a crazed killer...": American Psycho

Watched 'American Psycho' with Evil Puppetmaster. While I wouldn't necessarily call it "brilliant" I thought it was very good, and not as unsuccessful as Evil Puppetmaster argued. It was a nice satire on yuppie culture. And I personally found Patrick Bateman kind of loveable in that "unpleasant yuppie/psychotic killer" sort of way. It helps, I suppose, that I'd probably pay to watch Christian Bale sit on a box and breathe. However, watching him murder Jared Leto with a really really shiny ax was probably the high point of my day. Psycho killer, yes, but he has GREAT skin and an unerring fashion sense. Is that an equal trade-off? Some would say yes.

The Freeway Movies

In the past two days, I watched Freeway and Freeway 2: Confessions of a Trick Baby. Freeway is a pretty good movie, I guess. It's well-made and has a lot of famous people in it. Also, seeing Brooke Shields with her brains splattered all over the place definitely gave me a little thrill. However, for pure entertainment value, I must agree with Prancing Prince that Freeway 2 wins. It has a lot of blood and vomiting and violence and female masterbation and lesbian sex and a really really scary nun. (All the ingredients for a great movie, of course.) Nevertheless, after seeing it, I am no longer going to let you mock my movie choices anymore, Prancing Prince, because it is a tragically bad film. It falls into that category inhabited by things like Army of Darkness. (Not that I don't LIKE Army of Darkness, but you can't tell me it's a "good" piece of cinema.)

I don't even know what do say here...: Fire Walk With Me

Spent the morning sleeping, and the afternoon watching Fire Walk With Me. I know, I know, I should have watched the show first, but the DVD just seemed to jump off the shelf at me. It's a FUCKED UP piece of film. I didn't get it. There were more loose ends then there were tied ends, everyone was a complete psycho, and I was so annoyed by Laura Palmer I couldn't WAIT for someone to kill her. Also, Chris Isaak disappeared (without any explanation) about twenty minutes into it, and Kiefer Sutherland left for Portland, never to be heard from again. They--as well as Bobby the drug dealer--were my favorite characters. Kyle MacLaughlan was creepy. Most of the other characters were completely unnecessary. Also the random white horse and gratuitous monkey. I'd still like to see the shows sometime--since they were on TV, perhaps they make a smidgen more sense.