Thursday, October 7, 2010
#245. The Fifth Cord (AKA Giornata nera per l'ariete) (1971)
There are two very striking things about the (relatively) minor Giallo The Fifth Cord:
1. The cinematography. This film is absolutely gorgeous. To be honest, I remember very little about the plot. It was basically a by-the-numbers whodunit that (like most other Giallos) follows a detective on the path of a gloved serial killer. Sounds like you've seen this before in the genre? You have. But you haven't seen one that is shot this well. This movie gives Argento and Bava a run for their money when it comes to the images on the screen. Each scene is beautifully framed and the subdued color scheme is simply ravishing. The camera movements and angles/placements are impeccable. I can't even reasonably describe it with words. It has to be seen to be understood. Think Antonioni meets De Palma meets early Coen Brothers. It's that good.
So after I saw it I thought to myself, "Wow, that movie looks a lot better than it is. How did this happen?" Well it turns out that the cinematographer is none other than Vittorio Storaro! You might be familiar with him. He photographed Apocalypse Now and The Last Emperor (he won Oscars for both). He's a bona fide master that, in this case, happened to be picked up at the beginning of his career. It's true that he shot Argento's Bird with the Crystal Plumage right before this, but his work in The Fifth Cord is even better. Maybe the director, Luigi Bazzoni, has something to do with the film's great look, but I doubt it. He never really did anything this great before or after. Storaro steals the show.
2. The women. The other aspect of the movie that I can't forget is the incredible display of beautiful women. Each one is simply gorgeous. Not only that, but being that the film was shot in Italy in 1971, the styles they wear are amazing. If you could scoop any one of the girls in this film out of the screen and bring them to a party with you today (without even changing their clothes or hairstyle), you would be the ultimate envy of all your friends. Today's best "hot" actresses have nothing on the women here. Trust me.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
#246. Tommy Boy (1995)
I'll admit it, I'm a sucker for Tommy Boy. I honestly think it's a great comedy. It's easily Chris Farley and David Spade's greatest work.
Tommy Boy is a quintessential example of one of the many successful low-brow farces that came out in the mid to late nineties. These movies (Tommy Boy, Billy Madison, There's Something About Mary, etc.), in my opinion all share a common design that really took the movie world by storm during this period. All of these farces weren't afraid to focus on unintellectual humor that both children/teens and adults could enjoy. Before these movies, "low-brow" films were either strictly made with kid humor (think Spaceballs) or adult humor (think Raw). It was very rare to see a movie unapologetically combine humor for both age brackets. You could argue that Mel Brooks or team ZAZ made films for both, but their farces were so based in a non-reality world that the humor becomes cartoonish. This movement was so influential that, without these films, awesome shows like It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia and Eastbound and Down wouldn't exist.
There's something genius about Tommy Boy. Farley and Spade were a dynamic team. Farley's delivery is always bigger than life and effective, but the real key in making it work is Spade. He is the rare example of the straight man whose role isn't solely tempering the main comics jokes. Spade has many comedic moments of his own. He is willing to play it straight when necessary, but also gets to dabble in ridiculousness at other points. On top of this, it seems that Farley and Spade genuinely like each other throughout.
It's too bad that the movie doesn't get the reverence it deserves. People like to dismiss it (even though most people who have seen it will admit it is funny and have viewed it many times). To make matters worse, even Spade himself was willing to tarnish sacred areas (not to mention the death of Farley) by spoofing one of the film's scenes in a recent DirecTV ad.
If you haven't watched the movie in a while, give it another chance. I dare you not to laugh.
Tommy Boy is a quintessential example of one of the many successful low-brow farces that came out in the mid to late nineties. These movies (Tommy Boy, Billy Madison, There's Something About Mary, etc.), in my opinion all share a common design that really took the movie world by storm during this period. All of these farces weren't afraid to focus on unintellectual humor that both children/teens and adults could enjoy. Before these movies, "low-brow" films were either strictly made with kid humor (think Spaceballs) or adult humor (think Raw). It was very rare to see a movie unapologetically combine humor for both age brackets. You could argue that Mel Brooks or team ZAZ made films for both, but their farces were so based in a non-reality world that the humor becomes cartoonish. This movement was so influential that, without these films, awesome shows like It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia and Eastbound and Down wouldn't exist.
There's something genius about Tommy Boy. Farley and Spade were a dynamic team. Farley's delivery is always bigger than life and effective, but the real key in making it work is Spade. He is the rare example of the straight man whose role isn't solely tempering the main comics jokes. Spade has many comedic moments of his own. He is willing to play it straight when necessary, but also gets to dabble in ridiculousness at other points. On top of this, it seems that Farley and Spade genuinely like each other throughout.
It's too bad that the movie doesn't get the reverence it deserves. People like to dismiss it (even though most people who have seen it will admit it is funny and have viewed it many times). To make matters worse, even Spade himself was willing to tarnish sacred areas (not to mention the death of Farley) by spoofing one of the film's scenes in a recent DirecTV ad.
If you haven't watched the movie in a while, give it another chance. I dare you not to laugh.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
#247. Magic (1978)
Alright. First things first. Check out this trailer:
Now that's a trailer! In my humble opinion, Magic has the best trailer ever created. Hand's down. I can't even imagine what it must have been like to be a ten year old kid watching this trailer on television in the late seventies. It must have been terrifying! It still creeps me out to this day. Even if this movie was crap (which it's not) I still would have put Magic on my top 250 list just because I think this trailer is so effective. It's pure genius.
Anyway, on to the film itself. Magic comes from a great pedigree of talent. It was directed by Richard Attenborough, who also directed Ghandi; and it was written by William Goldman, who also wrote Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Impressive, right? Not only that, but it stars Anthony Hopkins, Ann-Margret, and (one of my all time favorites) Burgess Meredith. The star power is firmly in place.
So, the question is: Does Magic deliver? Absolutely. This may be a little know gem (I'm always surprised at how few people have heard of this movie), but it is a well crafted little psychological horror-thriller. I say little, because that's what it is. This is not a movie of huge scope. It is really only the story of one man battling some serious personal demons. But what the movie lacks in scope, it more than makes up for in tone.
The story is creepy as hell. If you're like me, the sight of ventriloquist dummies give you the heebie-jeebies. The dummy in this story, Fats, is one scary dude. And unlike most killer doll movies, the dolls owner, Anthony Hopkins, is equally freaky and unhinged. It really keeps you guessing.
Now I don't want to give too much away but let's just say this movie doesn't dive too deep into ridiculousness; which makes the story unsettling. It really sticks with you. Now that I've written this I want to watch it again right now. If only I owned it...
Now that's a trailer! In my humble opinion, Magic has the best trailer ever created. Hand's down. I can't even imagine what it must have been like to be a ten year old kid watching this trailer on television in the late seventies. It must have been terrifying! It still creeps me out to this day. Even if this movie was crap (which it's not) I still would have put Magic on my top 250 list just because I think this trailer is so effective. It's pure genius.
Anyway, on to the film itself. Magic comes from a great pedigree of talent. It was directed by Richard Attenborough, who also directed Ghandi; and it was written by William Goldman, who also wrote Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Impressive, right? Not only that, but it stars Anthony Hopkins, Ann-Margret, and (one of my all time favorites) Burgess Meredith. The star power is firmly in place.
So, the question is: Does Magic deliver? Absolutely. This may be a little know gem (I'm always surprised at how few people have heard of this movie), but it is a well crafted little psychological horror-thriller. I say little, because that's what it is. This is not a movie of huge scope. It is really only the story of one man battling some serious personal demons. But what the movie lacks in scope, it more than makes up for in tone.
The story is creepy as hell. If you're like me, the sight of ventriloquist dummies give you the heebie-jeebies. The dummy in this story, Fats, is one scary dude. And unlike most killer doll movies, the dolls owner, Anthony Hopkins, is equally freaky and unhinged. It really keeps you guessing.
Now I don't want to give too much away but let's just say this movie doesn't dive too deep into ridiculousness; which makes the story unsettling. It really sticks with you. Now that I've written this I want to watch it again right now. If only I owned it...
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
#248. Bloodsport (1988)
Bloodsport is one of the best martial arts flicks ever made. Yep, you read that right. It rules. Why, you may ask, would I make such a bold exclamation about a 1980's Van Damme movie? Well I'll give you some facts.
Fact One: Bloodsport is incredibly watchable. Think about it. How many times have you seen this film? My wager is more than once (probably more than twice). I'll put it to you this way: If you are channel surfing and come across Bloodsport, you no doubt stop what you're doing and watch. Bloodsport has this quality about it. I think I've seen this movie at least ten times and seven or eight of these times was me just going through channels and then parking on the Kumite-driven action vehicle. I never can resist.
Fact Two: Bloodsport incorporates a bunch of martial arts styles. Think about the vast array of fighters, and their varying fighting techniques. Frank Dux and company really run the gamut. From the monkey fighting African guy to the bar brawling Ray Jackson to the British Kickboxer to the huge Sumo-looking dude; Bloodsport has it all. It's this variety that keeps the movie intense and appealing. With this in mind, I always thought that Bloodsport would translate into an awesome video game. Think about it. There would be a bunch of colorful fighters with varying techniques from all over the globe meeting to fight in the ultimate full contact tournament, a tournament that actually exists. It would be like Street Fighter II with a point! I'd play it.
Fact Three: This is Jean-Claude Van Damme's best leading role. Forget about the recent JCVD. In this movie Jean-Claude really shines. He has a young hunger about him and he has a relaxed swagger that's totally likable. And let's not forget about his facial expressions. Yeah, the expressions may be overkill but they totally rule. It's part of the intensity of the film!
So check out Bloodsport (as if you haven't already). It's got tons of action, one of the best movie villains of the eighties, Ogre from Revenge of the Nerds (huge bonus points), and a great simple story.
Fact One: Bloodsport is incredibly watchable. Think about it. How many times have you seen this film? My wager is more than once (probably more than twice). I'll put it to you this way: If you are channel surfing and come across Bloodsport, you no doubt stop what you're doing and watch. Bloodsport has this quality about it. I think I've seen this movie at least ten times and seven or eight of these times was me just going through channels and then parking on the Kumite-driven action vehicle. I never can resist.
Fact Two: Bloodsport incorporates a bunch of martial arts styles. Think about the vast array of fighters, and their varying fighting techniques. Frank Dux and company really run the gamut. From the monkey fighting African guy to the bar brawling Ray Jackson to the British Kickboxer to the huge Sumo-looking dude; Bloodsport has it all. It's this variety that keeps the movie intense and appealing. With this in mind, I always thought that Bloodsport would translate into an awesome video game. Think about it. There would be a bunch of colorful fighters with varying techniques from all over the globe meeting to fight in the ultimate full contact tournament, a tournament that actually exists. It would be like Street Fighter II with a point! I'd play it.
Fact Three: This is Jean-Claude Van Damme's best leading role. Forget about the recent JCVD. In this movie Jean-Claude really shines. He has a young hunger about him and he has a relaxed swagger that's totally likable. And let's not forget about his facial expressions. Yeah, the expressions may be overkill but they totally rule. It's part of the intensity of the film!
So check out Bloodsport (as if you haven't already). It's got tons of action, one of the best movie villains of the eighties, Ogre from Revenge of the Nerds (huge bonus points), and a great simple story.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
#249. Dig! (2004)
I'm usually really hard on documentaries (there will probably be only 3 or 4 on this list). The reason is as follows: As long as the filmmaker has an interesting subject, people will automatically say that the movie is completely great. In the world of documentaries, viewers seem to be willing to allow for lackluster film-making as long as the story that it's portraying is engrossing.
Not me. I like my movies to be well made. I want to be wowed by the artistry of the film itself, and it seems that most documentaries (save for the ones made by Errol Morris) forget about this.
Okay, now that I've said this, let me retract everything I just said. Dig!, directed by Ondi Timoner, has no flashy filmic aspects at all, but I still can't get enough of it. I must have watched this movie ten times, and every time I find something new because the story is so engrossing. It is a film whose strength lies solely in the utter craziness of the plot, yet that is totally enough.
The movie, for those of you who haven't seen it, follows the varying careers of two psychedelic-revivalist bands during the late 1990's: The Brian Jonestown Massacre and the Dandy Warhols. As it progresses we witness the success of the Dandys juxtaposed to the complete implosion of the BJM. These paths could not be scripted any better. As the Dandys find success, they seem to sell themselves out more and more. Meanwhile, as the BJM fall deeper and deeper into despair their manifesto seems to become more and more valid.
I can't stress this enough. At the start of the movie, I actually liked the Dandys early songs; they seemed to have a real urgency about them. Yet, by the end of the film I was cringing (and you will too) at how lame the music had become. The opposite holds true for the BJM. When I first saw the film, I was sure I was going to hate the BJM (I had heard too much about their onstage antics and I was over it). Yet as Dig! progresses I couldn't help but love the tunes. It's truly amazing watching Anton Newcombe develop more and more as a musician, while disintegrate more and more as a member of society.
Dig! is great. It tells a story plainly and you are glued to the screen. Add the bunch of wild fringe personalities (Joel Gion, Matt Hollywood, Zia McCabe) and you are in for a truly great ride. It really doesn't matter that there is no fancy camera-work or editing.
Not me. I like my movies to be well made. I want to be wowed by the artistry of the film itself, and it seems that most documentaries (save for the ones made by Errol Morris) forget about this.
Okay, now that I've said this, let me retract everything I just said. Dig!, directed by Ondi Timoner, has no flashy filmic aspects at all, but I still can't get enough of it. I must have watched this movie ten times, and every time I find something new because the story is so engrossing. It is a film whose strength lies solely in the utter craziness of the plot, yet that is totally enough.
The movie, for those of you who haven't seen it, follows the varying careers of two psychedelic-revivalist bands during the late 1990's: The Brian Jonestown Massacre and the Dandy Warhols. As it progresses we witness the success of the Dandys juxtaposed to the complete implosion of the BJM. These paths could not be scripted any better. As the Dandys find success, they seem to sell themselves out more and more. Meanwhile, as the BJM fall deeper and deeper into despair their manifesto seems to become more and more valid.
I can't stress this enough. At the start of the movie, I actually liked the Dandys early songs; they seemed to have a real urgency about them. Yet, by the end of the film I was cringing (and you will too) at how lame the music had become. The opposite holds true for the BJM. When I first saw the film, I was sure I was going to hate the BJM (I had heard too much about their onstage antics and I was over it). Yet as Dig! progresses I couldn't help but love the tunes. It's truly amazing watching Anton Newcombe develop more and more as a musician, while disintegrate more and more as a member of society.
Dig! is great. It tells a story plainly and you are glued to the screen. Add the bunch of wild fringe personalities (Joel Gion, Matt Hollywood, Zia McCabe) and you are in for a truly great ride. It really doesn't matter that there is no fancy camera-work or editing.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
#250. Black Book (AKA Zwartboek) (2006)
I thought I would kick this list off with the most recent work of one of my all-time favorite directors, Paul Verhoeven. It wouldn't be a good list unless I started out with a bang, right?
Anyhow, in 2007, I was able to see both Ang Lee's Lust Caution and Verhoeven's Black Book during the same week. I was surprised at how close the premises of both films mirrored each other. Both spy thrillers tell the story of of a woman in World War Two who infiltrate Axis enemies in order to, not only help the Allies, but also to protect themselves. Their lives take dangerous turns and both women find themselves emotionally deep, sometimes not knowing which way is up.
Yet, in my opinion, this is where the similarities end. Lee's film was lauded as a delicate character study (and maybe it is, I just found it boring) while Verhoeven's picture was described as over-the-top and in-your-face blatant. And that's just the way I like it. Verhoeven's direction is colorful and bold. The brutal story takes audacious twists and turns that are sometimes disgusting and hard to watch. The action is ferocious.
And let me not forget to mention the lead, Carice van Houten. She owns this movie. Not only is she painfully beautiful, but she is willing to go places a lesser actress would decline. Yes, there is the nudity (which I admit is awesome) but there is also allowing herself to be humiliated and objectified.
So please, check out Black Book. There is honestly something for everyone. Action, drama, romance, intrigue, music... you name it. And best of all, it has the over-the-top stamp that makes Paul Verhoeven movies great.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)