Change Your Image
triggerhappyguy
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Parents (1989)
A vegetarian kid goes to bed, hungry.
I liked this film, but I'm honestly torn between the aspects I liked and the obvious flaws. This film couldn't decide what it wanted to be. A dark comedy, a satire, a surrealist film, a thriller? In some ways, the film is a blend of all of these genres, but it sparsely executes any aspects of those genres effectively.
There's not enough laughs for it to be a dark comedy. There's a scene in particular where a character is getting stabbed, whilst a '50s pop song plays. The delivery of the scene is like a thriller, yet the use of the song makes it feel like a comedy. I feel like an opportunity for some great dark comedy was missed (think Shaun of the Dead, with the use of the Queen song). The nods to '50s pop culture are cute at best. There's some suspense near the end, but we already know from the start that the parents are cannibals - so why was there a "big reveal" scene? The dream sequences are fun, but never really amount to much. It seems like the dreams were only added to make the audience think the lead character had a wild imagination, so that the "big reveal" scene would be even more shocking. Again, it's not really a secret that the parents are cannibals... the poster gives it away! The directing by Bob Balaban was quite good. Some fun takes, and great set up shots. Going back to the flaws though, it really feels like the director had a plethora of creative ideas, and wanted to fit them all in to one film. There's a a recurring theme of the colour red throughout... but then there's also a theme of the colour green... then both seem abandoned when the nearing the finale. It's like the director wanted to throw in some symbolism, or deep meaning, but then forgot about it due to focusing on another idea. It's sad, because I think Balaban is a creative director, and he went on to director a legit underrated cult classic - "My Boyfriend's Back". This film was more like a "my first cult film" than a true classic.
The acting was great by all involved, especially Randy Quaid. The soundtrack was generally good, with the use of some '50s songs. The placement of the score was hit or miss though.
Despite the flaws, there's something charming about the film. Maybe it's the '50s setting, or the surreal aspects, interesting direction, or even a surprisingly good performance from Randy Quaid. Whatever it is, this film has all the makings of a cult film... however, this is more like a cult not-so-classic.
Suburbia (1983)
A bunch of punks make some friends.
Let me start off by saying that this film had a lot of potential. The last 20 minutes of the film was terrific! The end of the film was exciting, tense, and I really rooted for the seemingly misunderstood bunch of misfits. It's a shame, because the rest of the film they annoyed the hell out of me. Don't get me wrong, nearly every character in this film was dislikable - from the aforementioned punks to the neighbourhood folk who have it out for them. The only nice person in the film was the police officer (Don Allen). I'm not saying every film should have a pleasant character in it, but considering the ending of the film, it just made it harder to root for the main characters.
I thought this film would be about a group of punks who aren't accepted because they're different... I've been in the same situation myself when I was younger. However, the punks just go around being stealing food from people's houses, spray painting shops, degrading a women at a gig, and just generally being dicks to everyone. As I said, there were other characters in the film that were dislikable, but they were secondary characters. The punks were the main focus throughout, but the film didn't even manage to successfully create lovable anti-heroes out of them.
One of the main problems of this film is that it has that Roger Corman stink about it. Sure, it's low budget, but it had some Corman trademarks thrown in there such as: bad day-for-night shots, terrible acting, and painfully long padding scenes. Did we really need 5 full songs being performed in the film? I like all the bands featured, but it just became a chore to sit through... if I wanted to watch a live gig I'd go to a club, or check the Internet. I was surprised the infamous Corman castle didn't make an appearance! Granted, the blame can't be dumped on Corman, seeing as it was Penelope Spheeris in the director's chair. Spheeris is a hit-or-miss director: when she's in the zone, she can create a great film, but this was not one of them. Although her involvement does explain the bad acting, as she knew a lot of kids and bands in the punk scene after making a great documentary about the L.A. music scene. I can understand wanting to use unknowns in a film a film to make it feel authentic, but the acting was painfully bad! The turning point of the film is when the punks lose a friend, and it really hits them hard. They begin to realise they're not infallible. The characters started to feel human... they weren't trying to being tough, or raise hell. They just wanted to mourn a friend, something we can all relate to at some point. Because of their previous actions, and a little sprinkling of prejudice, the punks aren't wanted at the funeral. At this point, it's understandable, as they've been complete tools to everyone. When the punks make one last revolt at the end of the film, it becomes clear what's going to happen. Nevertheless, the ending hits hard. Good stuff.
I can't recommend this. If you're interested in the punk movement, there's plenty of better films you could watch. I'd start with the closest link to this film; Spheeris' previous film, The Decline of Western Civilization.
The Human Behavior Experiments (2006)
Humans behave. Results may vary.
The subject matter of this documentary appealed to me. At college, and university, I studied all of the experiments mentioned. I was interested in finding out more information on the experiments. Perhaps that's where my problem with this documentary stems from, as I was left quite disappointed after watching it.
The documentary presents the information in a watered down manner. I didn't expect there to be any jargon used, but I thought the coverage of each experiment could been more thorough. The documentary felt more like a sensationalized documentary, with dramatic re-enactments - grainy footage and all! One scene in particular had me chuckling; a man talking about dialling 911, with a cut back to re-enactment footage of a phone being dialled. Why? What did that add? I wish the information could have been delivered with a serious tone. Instead, it felt like one of the lesser "killer of the week" documentary shows on the Crime channel. Is that horror movie strings I hear in the soundtrack? Bleh.
They interviewed very few experts, although it was nice to see a few of the original Psychologists involved with the original experiments. I just struggle to see how showing us a few minutes of some students talking about an experiment really adds to the viewer's enjoyment. It's almost like we were being told that "in case you don't get it... what happened was bad". Shouldn't it be up to the viewer to draw their own conclusions from the results of the experiments? The whole basis of the show was to present a series of infamous social experiments from the past, then ineptly linking said experiment to a more modern act of social horrors. I think there is merit in hypothesising the reasons behind behaviour we find puzzling, or shocking, and having these experiments to back up the argument. This documentary, however, failed at presenting a good juxtaposition between the experiments and similar occurrences that followed. The handling of the comparison felt clumsy, and I really think they glossed over a lot of interesting points.
If you're going in to this documentary without much knowledge of the social behaviour experiments covered, I'd definitely recommend you give it a watch. If you're already familiar with some of the more notorious experiments, then you're not going to gain much from watching this.
To Live and Die in L.A. (1985)
Willem Dafoe makes some art.
What is everyone smoking? I went in with high hopes and was let down by this awful film. Is it just nostalgia talking? I don't see why this is so beloved by film fans.
I see labels like "groundbreaking", "cliche free", "gritty", "a different take on ___". It's NONE of those things! It's full of some of the biggest cop clichés of all time - and I know for a fact they didn't stem from this film. For example, 10 minutes in, one of the cops says "I'm too old for this s**t" - then he gets shot TWO DAYS FROM RETIREMENT! I almost fell out of my chair laughing at how ludicrous it was. It was like a parody of a cop film.
Then there's the whole "the brooding cop doesn't want a new partner, but is forced to get along with him anyway". The lead isn't an anti-hero cop, he's just incompetent. He and his partner fall asleep at a stake out! He lets the guy he has in custody go see a "daughter" in hospital, not even checking with the hospital if she's related and knows the guy. Then he lets the criminal get away by taking his cuffs off in a hospital lift, and then getting the crap kicked out of him. RIDICULOUS!
I know this film is from the '80s, but this is beyond your average '80s campy cheese factor. Numerous posing with one leg on a chair, with crotch in full view - tight jeans begging for mercy. Naked/half naked guys everywhere. It's not a big deal, it was just kind of laughable when all these guys are being macho with each other... then they're naked in a dressing room together, going about their business. The terrible soundtrack doesn't help. The main guy tries to act tough, but just comes off looking like a tool. Who wears a leather jacket without a shirt underneath? Plus, the main character is called Dick Chance. Yeah.
The directing is hit and miss. Sometimes there's interesting shots, or techniques - I particularly liked the POV shot when the main guy is chasing after a criminal. The majority of the time though, the film has abrupt cuts which are jarring, but it not in an artistic, or meaningful way. It's just annoying, and feels like an amateur is behind the camera.
It took three days for me to watch all of it. It was painfully bad. The only saving grace was the great acting from Dafoe and Turturro, but even they couldn't save this mess. Sorry for the long-winded post, but I felt passionate about this and want to make sure if anyone is on the fence about this - please, AVOID! If you want to watch a decent anti-hero cop film, I'd suggest watching Bad Lieutenant [1992], which is what I watched after this to cleanse myself after watching the prior trash. Bad Lieutenant does everything that this film wanted to do, but did it right - and went balls to the wall with it.
Arena: The Strange Case of Yukio Mishima (1985)
An author finds out that the sword is mightier than the pen.
I was really curious to find out more about Yukio Mishima. I read a little about him before watching this documentary and I was very keen to see some more information on his life and impact on Japanese culture.
Sadly, this was a very dry documentary about an otherwise interesting man. Mishima was obviously a very interesting and convoluted man, but this documentary fell flat when it came to presenting snippets of his life. John Hurt, who is usually great at narrating documentaries of this irk, seemed like he was on autopilot. He almost put me to sleep.
I think a great documentary needs to leave you with a feeling of wanting to know more about the subject. The documentary achieved this, but not in a positive way. Whilst I felt I learned some things about Mishima, I was left feeling like a had to do a lot of research to truly understand him and his views. Perhaps it's because he was a complex man, but I feel that the documentary did a poor job at exposing me to him and his life.
Recommended if you want to see some archive footage of the man himself, otherwise you could probably find out more about him from your own research.