Reviews

Let me qualify these remarks by saying I am definitely a "Fanboy" (though a pretty old one), so I am not unbiased. On the other hand, I don't think Eps II and III were very good. But I'll have to review them on their own sometime.

I liked "The Clone Wars" quite a lot, though I don't know how plausible it is for Anakin to have a padawan. But it was fun and light-hearted, unlike the bummer-fest that Ep III turned out to be (I know, it's the nature of the story, but SW is supposed to be fun!). I just wish it had been a little longer. At about 100 minutes, I think they could have put in a little more (maybe another subplot).

Critics have been complaining about the quality of the animation. I don't think it is bad, though it's definitely not the best. As I was watching it I realized that it kind of looked like a cutscene from a video game.

In the end, this movie has the elements that I need from Star Wars: a pretty good story (that's actually well-paced (not non-stop action, but not boring in any of the slower parts)); fun action sequences; and lightsaber battles! If you were bummed out by Ep III, you will be pleasantly surprised by The Clone Wars.

First of all the only reason I watched this movie all the way through was because it was short (about 90 min with commercials, on AMC). If it had been any longer, I wouldn't have bothered.

This movie is bad in so many ways, it's hard to know where to begin. The script is awful. The acting is bad, even for a B movie. The pacing is REALLY slow, especially in the first twenty minutes or so. The stupid banter of the girlfriend complaining that she doesn't get enough attention from her scientist boyfriend seems to be padding out this non-existent story.

That's really my biggest complaint: NO STORY! A story requires a beginning, middle and an end. But once the "scientist" (Agar) turns into the blackened Thing (from Fantastic Four), there are no further developments; he simply runs around like an idiot. This movie has an ending about as bad as "Jurassic Park," where everyone just runs away. Here, the Agar character is just killed.

This movie is not even enjoyable on a "guilty pleasure" Ed Wood type of level. I don't understand how this ever got released by a studio. Don't they usually demand re-shoots on something this bad? Film students ought to be required to see Hand of Death, as a lesson in how not to make a movie: Don't start filming without a finished script, and make sure to tell a whole story! And don't pad out the first act with stupid banter -- just get on with the story!

If you're not a film student, don't waste your time with this one. If you want really good B movies, look at the works of Val Lewton. The original "Cat People" is atmospheric and excellently noir-ish, and "The Curse of the Cat People" is a fantasy disguised as a horror film, and is magical and poetic. And "Bedlam" is a downright classic about the famous insane asylum in England. Check those out if you want to be entertained and touched, not this piece of drek, which left me wondering why I bothered. The best thing to say about Hand of Death is that it's short.

I saw Clerks II, and was blown away (mostly with laughter). Then they showed Clerks. on TV (uncut, on that channel with the Secret Stash), so I had to check it out, not having seen it for several years. I was surprised that it wasn't as funny as I remembered it. It was good, and funny in parts, but more episodic and somewhat uneven in pacing. A good first film.

Clerks II, to K Smith's credit, is a much more polished film. The funny parts are really funny (many laugh out loud lines and incidents), the serious parts are serious when they should be, and even funny sometimes too! And as a confirmed Star Wars geek, as well as a somewhat lesser LOTR geek (I prefer the books to the movies), I can never get enough of geeks warring with each other.

But the main reason II is a better movie than the original, is the story. Clerks was more of a "day in the life" type story, so no life-changing events took place, and hence there was no satisfying conclusion. II, on the other hand, though it takes place on one day (or two?), depicts major changes in Dante's life (and by extension in Randal's life too). The realistic events ground the humor, making us care for these outrageous characters in a way that the first movie never did.

Kevin Smith should be truly proud of this movie. He has grown as a filmmaker, and it shows here. And Jay and Silent Bob are great here too, I have to say -- in fact, they almost steal the show, with the Silence of the Lambs song bits (I still don't know what that song is! -- but I will never hear it without thinking first of Lambs, and second of Clerks II).

And that's how a movie sequel can be better than the original. Too bad Kevin Smith didn't direct Revenge of the Sith . . . .

P.S. Rosario Dawson is really hot.

I just thought I'd add a few words about this great movie. First of all, it is great, and I hope you reading this will side with the large number of positive reviews and see this movie. The few people who didn't like it must be pinheads (or short attention span types)!

*** Spoiler Alert *** This movie is not new, so I don't feel shy about discussing some spoiler type info.

Louis Cyphre = Lucifer; this should be easy, and tipped me right at the beginning the first time I saw the movie. But I still wasn't sure until the scene a little later where Mr. Cyphre says that in some cultures, the egg is the symbol of the soul. He then proceeds to eat the egg (hard boiled), in a creepy shot. He eats souls! At this point I said to one of the guys I was seeing the movie with "he's the devil!"

To those who may be confused by the details of the soul-switching scenario, and why the devil took so long to come after Harry Angel/Johnny Favorite: the ceremony they performed back at the beginning of WWII was to give up Harry Angel's soul in substitution for Johnny Favorite's, thus cheating the devil. Then Johnny was going to take on Harry Angel's life and escape the devil indefinitely. But then Johnny was shipped off to war, got a head wound and amnesia, and ended up really thinking he was Harry Angel (okay, I'm a little unclear on this bit, but I haven't seen the movie in a couple of years). So what it comes down to is, Harry Angel is really Johnny Favorite, even though he doesn't know it. And since he is, and his soul belongs to the devil, Lucifer can command him to commit murders, even without his conscious knowledge! This is how Johnny/Harry killed the blues musician, and the astrologer/former girlfriend, and the old addict doctor without even knowing it! And you realize then that the Lisa Bonet character is really his own daughter! One of the only movies I've seen where incest is part of a movie yet not the main point of it.

This movie is just beautifully shot as well. See it in widescreen if you can, Alan Parker always has great shots that deserve it. I remember a shot of a spiral staircase at one point that was just beautiful. And I will never again see a fan in a movie (an electric fan) without thinking of this movie. That's another clue: every time you see a shot of a fan, and the blades start moving, the devil is in the room! It starts right at the beginning, when Angel first meets with Mr Cyphre. It's winter time, but fans are going! (On a side note: isn't it appropriate that the devil has a French name? Given current political feelings, I mean; of course, I'm biased -- an Anglophile -- so I don't like those weasely Frogs to begin with.)

There is so much to recommend this movie that it's hard to pick things: from the humorous touches ("Do you know what today is? It's Wednesday -- it's anything can happen day!" I never was a Mouseketeer, but it's a great reference to the period.) (Also funny: "I got a thing about chickens."); to the great music -- that haunting song, which seems so real, like it was a real song from a crooner of the '40's, as well as the real blues featured in the movie; even the end credit sequence is great, with the elevator cutting back and forth with the credits -- an elevator going straight to hell! The movie also shows a creepy movie version of New Orleans which could seem cliche to some, but is so well done, and fits so well with the period of the movie -- reminds me of another great one, "Southern Comfort," where there's this whole community of Cajuns living in the bayou, just oblivious to the outside world.

I also love movies that blow up the illusion that the past was better than the present. Every culture tries to promulgate that, but it is just resistance to change. The '50's was no happy time, people were just a lot more deluded than they are now.

This is a great movie to watch, a great movie to listen to (I eventually bought the soundtrack), and one with a great story. Alan Parker is one of the sort of underground geniuses of filmmaking. He directed Pink Floyd's The Wall, too. Another great movie of his is "The Road to Wellville," not a mystery, but another period piece, this time about the 19th century (and how squalid it could be), and the exploits of Kellogg, the guy who founded the cereal company. See that one too (it's a lot funnier than "Angel Heart," and stars Matthew Broderick, Bridget Fonda, Anthony Hopkins and Dana Carvey in another overlooked movie. Perhaps not as "great" as "Angel Heart," but still really good)!

The thing I find most odd about the many comments about this movie (other than many of them being so recently made), is that they all miss the humor of "Eraserhead"! Jack Nance's Henry Spencer is the perfect schmuck, a guy whom nothing goes right for. And in David Lynch's world, that is a very dangerous thing to be! Here are listed a few of the humorous moments or incidents in the movie . . . .

(SPOILER WARNING)

The scene with Nancy X's parents is almost all humor (until the menstruating chicken at the end, that is), from Henry's approach (when he's scared by a barking dog), to the yelling of Mrs. X at her husband ("Bill!), to the conversation ("What do you do?" "Oh, I'm on vacation."), to the accusation and Mary's reaction ("They're not even sure it is a baby!").

The "Erasherhead" scene: this dream sequence is part disturbing, part humorous. It gives me the biggest laugh of the movie, when the kid goes to the "eraser factory" or whatever it is, and the guy at the counter starts pushing that buzzer -- over and over and over! Slam! the door opens and that big guy comes in, points his finger and bellows "OKAY, PAUL!!!!" I still laugh when I think of that moment.

The suitcase under the bed: when Mary leaves Henry, she tries to get her suitcase from under the bed, and has to yank for about 30 seconds before she gets it to come free. Her pathetic frustration is really funny, as is Henry's reaction to her jerking the bed around.

The seduction: "Where's your wife?" asks the woman from across the hall. "I'm not sure. I think she went back to her parents again." The ultimate schmuck can't even keep track of his wife (though I think this part is another of Henry's dreams)!

The sleeping with the new wife scene: her eye squeaks when she rubs it, and she hogs the bed. "Move over. Move OVER!"

These are the most humorous parts of the movie to me. Admittedly, the Lady in the Radiator, and the baby-thing, are disturbing and dark parts of the movie; the last scenes especially, with the baby-thing being stabbed and then mutating into a giant grotesquerie are the nightmare side of this dream. But don't forget the humor!

I must confess that I am a total David Lynch fan. My favorite thing to say when talking about him is: "David Lynch is the greatest living American filmmaker." I would say the greatest in the world, (living), but I don't see enough foreign movies to accurately judge if there's anyone better somewhere else. "Eraserhead," with its slow pacing (a style, or trademark, he would finally return to in "Lost Highway" and "Mulholland DR"), use of dreams and darkness, and emphasis on the dark corners of our existence, is the first of many masterpieces from David Lynch.

Final note: I don't know if there is a DVD of this movie, but I have a laserdisc of it (a Japanese import), which is the best way to see this movie, as many of the darkest scenes (especially the one which seems to have been shot in almost total darkness, where Henry rubs at a piece of lint on his robe or pajamas) have poor contrast quality when seen on videotape. So look for that laserdisc if you are a Lynch fan (and get a laserdisc player, obviously, since there probably isn't a DVD of this movie -- though the Japanese might have made one; they seem to be the only ones who really realize, in a large way, what a genius David Lynch is).

*** Spoiler Warning ***

This is one of my favorite movies, and I won't bother putting up a summary of it, as many of the other comments describe it well. Here are a few thoughts about why I think it's a great movie, sadly overlooked. (Is there even a DVD of it?)

The ending: I disagree with one of the other commenters, who didn't like the ending. I think "Into the Night" has one of the best endings I've ever seen in a movie. The whole point of Diane being gone was, he finally got to sleep! Then he wakes up and she's gone, but she comes back. "Can I get a ride to the airport?" And they just smile. Cue B.B. King. Not sappy, yet upbeat. You sense that this is the beginning of a new life for both. I'd like to see a sequel, showing what happens next.

The tone: Ed Oakin is a perfect American schmuck. A guy who can't figure out that his wife is cheating on him until he comes home and sees it. He knows something is wrong (besides the wife cheating) but can't figure out what. This lends itself to humor as well as angst, and this movie, with Goldblum's excellent eye-rubbing performance, treads that fine line like a cat on a windowsill. This is really the most important aspect of the film; the American quandary: we have everything materially, but know that something is missing, but are too shallow or self-absorbed or busy or whatever to figure out what it is.

The acting: there are a lot of good cameos in this movie, and not just by directors. Every part is well done, especially Goldblum and Pfeiffer. One example: Oakin asks how she knows she can trust him. Diane replies: "Because I know men." Then Goldblum changes his facial expression. That is it, but it's perfect, one of my favorite moments in a movie. See it to see how that moment works, I can't explain it verbally.

The cameos: From Landis himself, to Jonathan Demme, Jim Henson, even Paul Mazursky and Roger Vadim (the guy who directed "Barbarella"), this movie is filled with famous people whose movies you've watched, yet you don't know what they look like. Read the credits at the end to make sure you catch them all. This isn't a reason to watch the movie by itself, but if you love movies, you'll love the added treat of seeing some of these people. (I almost forgot -- the waitress at the "Stars" diner is also a director, I think she did "Johnny Dangerously," but I can't remember her name!)