Change Your Image
tangietangerine
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Srpski film (2010)
Milestone for controversial filmmaking
I've always been one to avoid controversial films or any film that has some kind of graphic and gratuitous violence (except for Tarantino films, which have always been dear to me). But once I started getting to know some other kinds of works, such as Gaspar Noe's, Lars Von Trier, Pasolini, John Waters. And I must say, it was John Waters who made me start to slightly appreciate controversial films. Anyway, after various experiences, I decided I was ready to watch A Serbian Film, which in my mind had always been THE milestone for controversial films.
I had the expected reaction to it, all the blood, the violence (and the misogyny!), the pornographic gore and unimaginable horror...but I must say, the worst thing still remains the psychological terror we are put through during the movie. Not only the terror the characters experience, committing collective suicide at the end, but also the terror that will forever inhabit us for having watched those scenes, as well as in Milos' mind, seeing what kinds of cruelty and sickness we are humanly capable of.
I've read about the movie and how many people say it is about the political background in Serbia. I've even read a native saying that he thinks this is the only true Serbian film he's ever seen, how it stays true to what happened, in a metaphorical way, to the people of Serbia, because they know how it feels to be unable to erase things that you've done, or worse, things that other made you do. It definitely isn't a movie I would recommend to people, it's a movie you have to discover by yourself and allow yourself the desire and curiosity to watch it, because it certainly is an unique experience, and those who enjoy psychologically intense and gore films will be satisfied not only by the creative plot but also by the astonishing filmmaking.
Full Metal Jacket (1987)
"The duality of man. The Jungian thing, sir"
I'll start by saying I was never exactly fond of war movies, and so my judgment would be prejudiced, but seeing that this is not only a "war movie", I guess I'll go on. By 1987, we had already seen great anti-war films, such as Platoon and Apocalypse Now, and Full Metal Jacket may be put in the same category most of the time, but that only shows how Kubrick was once again misunderstood. Not that there's anything wrong about making a statement through a film, especially when the subject is war, but I think what this movie shows us is how things can't be really that black on white all the time.
Matthew Modine's character, Private Joker, represents perfectly what the movie has to say, in my opinion, which is to show how people are often confronted with so many different impulses and conflicts that go a long way beyond whichever moral principles a society can convey. It's the duality of man, "that Junguian concept", expressed by Joker to explain the bitter irony in his combination of a peace symbol button and the "Born to Kill" engraved on his helmet. It'd be very much simpler to just state that war is wrong for this and that reasons, that we all know, but to show the other side of it renders a much richer analysis.
Joker might have thought that the Drill Instructor was an asshole and pitied Private Pyle, but it's clear that he also took pleasure in being one of the best of the squad and not being in Leonard's shoes. We are led to believe he is a "good" character, as opposed to figures like the drill instructor, but in the end, he is the one who ends up shooting the Vietnamese girl and then returns home with his mind clear, thinking of nothing but a well-awaited homecoming lay. Private Pyle and the girl shooter are nothing but war casualties now. To me, that's the genius thing about Full Metal Jacket, it gives you the feeling of being a politically correct war movie, but I think it hits a much more subconscious nerve when it refuses to state anything but things as they really are.
Natural Born Killers (1994)
I guess I was born, naturally born, born bad
I was introduced to this film without much previous knowledge on Oliver Stone's filmmaking. When I watched it for the first time, I had no idea he was known for his controversial themes and points of view. Knowing what I know now, I would say this story written by Quentin Tarantino fits like a glove. This movie reeks of experimental innovations and mind-blowing statements. But I don't think it's simply a contemplative artistic film; it's also a very sarcastic and frantic portrait of the 20th century American society. A society that glorifies violence at the same time that it sets the moral rules as to who deserves to live and who doesn't.
Stone couldn't have casted better actors suited to the role than Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis. Their performance is the heart and soul of the movie, seeing their great chemistry together on-screen and ability to convey such intensity to their characters, which at times leads us to think they really might be Mickey & Mallory in real life, or something like it – Robert Downey Jr. and Tommy Lee Jones are great too. The perfect example for Lewis' performance is the scene where McClusky introduces her to Scagnetti: "you know her, you love her, you cannot f*cking live without her
Mallory Knox." And then she comes running blood-eyed and bangs her head straight against the door, a shot that injured both cameramen who attempted to do it. I only wish Juliette appeared on the cover of the movie, it was not only long ago I realized she can be seen on the reflection of Woody Harrelson's glasses. I know that Mickey is the one who gives the philosophic dimension to the discussion proposed by the movie, but Mallory is as important as he is; to me, she is the utter personification of insane raw and sexual power and aggression and the fact that she is a woman just makes it even greater ("How sexy am I now?!").
One of my favorite parts of the movie are the ironic sitcom scenes, which can also be seen as a commentary on our society's sick way to deal with pain and how trivialized it has all become, literally a freak show. I also love the way they interposed all sorts of images, from actual war footages to a cartoon version of Mickey and Mallory, a fascinating representation of the last century's culture and how it is all fed to us through an insane explosion of images, colors and subliminal messages, much like is shown in the movie. Other remarkable moments are Mickey's interview conducted by the hilarious Wayne Gale, where Stone succeeds in proving his point, and the scenes shot inside the prison where chaos rises. I cannot imagine what it must have been like, to have shot inside an actual prison and everything, but it certainly enhanced the performances and the reality of it all.
Wild at Heart (1990)
This whole world is wild at heart and weird on top
This movie is another fine voyage into David Lynch's fantastic world. Although it's not one of my favorites, I can enjoy some of the same unmistakable aspects present in other of his films; a rupture from reality, constantly giving place to oneiric experiences, where the strangeness and the humor that comes with it hit us full force. Scenes like Sailor and Lula dancing at the nightclub, where Sailor suddenly stops the party to "prove his love to his girl" and then finishes off with a powerful song by "E", are simply hilarious. Also, quotes like "this is a snakeskin jacket, and for me it's a symbol of my individuality and my belief in personal freedom" set the tone to the movie. Besides the comedic side, there's also an interesting take at the love story between Sail' and Lula, involving Lula's growing up and having to overcome her childish anxieties, such as the maternal power, which to me, is what the story is really about. The constant parallel made between their story and Wizard of Oz's proves that point, in which Lula's mother would take the place of the Wicked Witch of the West. We follow Laura's character as she slowly escapes from her mother's control to experience her womanhood and become rather independent, but there always seems to be something evil on the verge of happening, to prevent Lula from experiencing a full grown-up life beside Sail', like there was always something preventing Dorothy from getting back to Kansas. I think both Nicolas Cage and Laura Dern's performances were great, and also bold, for that matter. One little thing I noticed after repeated viewings is the way Laura smokes her cigarettes. I'm not sure if it was intentional or something personal (I suppose the latter), but if you pay enough attention (and they are ALWAYS smoking), you can see she never takes a full drag or inhales the smoke, only sort of pretends to do so. Details like this are fun to notice after you've watched a movie quite a few times, and when it's a Lynch film, there are always hidden treasures.
Out of the Blue (1980)
Into the Black
This was my second experience watching a movie directed by Dennis Hopper and I must say I can compare it to the feeling I got while watching Easy Rider for the first time. Much like Easy Rider, Out of the Blue is an exercise on freedom, rebellion and the destruction of idols, with a rather bitter ending. There are substantial differences between the two though, especially regarding the directing; Easy Rider was ground-breaking technique for Hollywood in the 60's and exquisite filmmaking, while Out of the Blue at times gets lost in the way, but both are great just the same.
I simply loved the story, not only for personal reasons, but also because it's a rare thing to see a female protagonist depicted like this, in such a real and hypocrisy-free manner, Linda Manz definitely did a great job. A story of troubled teenage years (which aren't?), exploring the character's family relations and the desperate escape from reality, in which the rock'n'roll and punk rock idols play a capital role. We've all heard that story one too many times, but not very often through a girl's eyes and in such depth and rawness. Needless to say the soundtrack is equally great.
It's clear to see that Hopper wasn't sober throughout the movie, and perhaps that even enhances his performance and directing in this case, who knows. All I know is that one's choice to portray certain characters and stories say a lot about that one, the same it says about the viewers who appreciate it. Anyway, although I quite enjoyed the movie, I was a little disappointed at the ending, which was much too over-the-top and felt like a careless shot in the dark. I'm usually one for the ambiguous endings and trips inside the characters' subconscious minds, but only when it's coherent to the tone of the movie so far, and this was not the case. It was literally an "out of the blue and into the black" ending. Coming to think of it, maybe other ending would have seemed too soft, and I respect filmmakers that have the guts to go all the way, so there you have it.
River's Edge (1986)
Rare gem from the 80's
This movie was a fine unexpected surprise, I wasn't betting too much on it, since I had never heard of it (I stumbled upon the title casually, while watching a Dennis Hopper interview about Blue Velvet), but coming to think of it, why shouldn't anyone bet on it? It's got a great cast and an interesting plot. Unfortunately, I think today it files under the lost gems of the 80's label, but lucky are the ones who can dig it.
If you look in the surface, it's a crime story with an interesting outlook on youth, including some (always welcome) weirdness by Crispin Glover and the late Dennis Hopper. But, after reflecting some more about it, it struck me that it's in fact a story about coping with death. We have a group of high school friends who are suddenly put against this insane situation, where one of them kills his girlfriend and starts bragging about it in school. What we see developing on screen afterwards are the effects that this scene, their friend's naked dead body near the river's edge, has on each one of them.
After the first reaction, which can't be anything else but shock, each one of them deals with it in a different way, be it keeping quiet about it, telling the police but later regretting it, or even going into a sort of crazy breakdown – which is what Crispin Glover's character goes through, creating a fantasy in his mind that he has to save and help his friend escape no matter what. On the other hand, we have Dennis Hopper's character, Feck, who seems to be the only one who has been in touch with a death situation very similar before, and we can see where it's taken him. He is forced to face a situation like that again and, in his own way, too, will have to learn how to cope with death. Later on, we find out that Feck ended up killing John , because he couldn't accept his reasons for killing his girlfriend, which were different than Feck's, who killed his own because he loved her. The fascinating thing about this scene is that it shows that, the same way people react differently to the death of their loved ones and to death in general, people also kill for different reasons, and those reasons might as well not connect at all.
A Woman Under the Influence (1974)
"Mabel is not crazy, she's unusual"
After watching this, I can say I am literally fascinated by John Cassavete's films. Although this is only my second experience with his directing, I can say I love the sense of reality and humanity he transmits through his characters. The first film I watched was "Shadows", where the movements of the camera give us the sensation of witnessing a real life story, and although the summary said it was about interracial relations, I thought it was really a film about people, simply.
A Woman Under the Influence is not very different, for that matter. It's a film about something that happens every day, and it might even have happened to one of us, to someone we know. It's a film about incomprehension, in this case there is a "reason" for it (though it shouldn't be), Mabel has a psychotic personality structure - using the right Freudian term – but that kind of failure of communication might as well have happened to someone who is not psychotic, who is just a normal housewife, and I'm sure it has happened. Gena Rowland's performance is absolutely spectacular in what is certainly one of the best female roles in the history of cinema.
I think we should begin from the common point, which is acknowledging that, having a psychotic personality organization does not necessarily mean you are mentally ill and cannot have a family and live a normal life. The neurotic organization was always socially accepted, and I guess it wouldn't be crazy to say it's a part of pop culture, having become popularized through countless characters, such as Woody Allen's. The problem with the psychotic is that, the only cases we hear of are those in which the person is involved in some sort of breakdown, and yes, it is likely that it will happen at some point, but it doesn't mean they have to be institutionalized. Mabel was an example of a well-adapted psychotic personality, I don't remember if it's shown whether she takes some sort of medication or not, but she supposedly had a family to back her over and was fine at home.
What happens is that this family fails to understand her needs and simply refuses to listen to her. I'm not saying she was 100% happy as a housewife or that some kind of external and medical help isn't needed in some cases, but the episode that made Mabel's husband decide to commit her was far too ordinary to be taken so seriously. It shows total incomprehension from the husband and everyone else involved. Most of the time I thought Mabel was the sanest person in the movie, no kidding. Of course, these events take place in the 70's, when it was much more common for families to simply have their loved ones committed and be excused from all responsibility, placing the sickness only in the person who was supposed to be taken care of and loved in a moment of crisis.
I didn't really understand the ending, though. Throughout the entire movie, we see Mabel struggling to have her voice heard and not being considered by her family, something that is shown especially in the dinner scene. Later on, Mabel and her husband have a final discussion where things seem to be just like they were before she went to the asylum, or even worse, and then the ending shows them reconciling. I thought it was too unreal for them to end fine after a physical fight and a suicide attempt. I wonder if John Cassavetes didn't want to go all the way or if he really took the previous events for granted and decided to have a lukewarm ending. One way or the other, I thought it was a great film.
Sans toit ni loi (1985)
Sans Toit Ni Loi
I was rather interested in Agnes Varda's work, seeing that she is one of the few female directors who are still remembered to this day. I was not disappointed as I witnessed this beautiful documented portrait of a free soul. The fact that Mona is a woman is a crucial point to the movie – and it is remarked by mostly all of the characters - as it affects every circumstance involving her journey, but the feeling that sticks is that she is, firstly, a free soul who "came from the sea". The original French title is much more meaningful, saying "without roof or law".
It appears that she never could conform to the rules set by society, especially those set for women, and so she decided to walk. It is never revealed her exact reasons to have abandoned her previous life neither anything substantial about her past, but it's interesting to notice how even to one of the persons she encounters along the way, who was once a walker himself, she seems too wild. He, as a good philosopher, tells her she has no ideological base to her lifestyle, which ends up serving a system she claims to despise. But she simply turns her head and goes on walking.
We follow her journey as she encounters several different people and affects their life in a different manner. It's a sensitive plot, but Mona's life is not romanticized, and from the first scene we know it's going to be a difficult story to watch. I find it amazing that every aspect of her life is shown with equal veracity, without any moralizing subtext. It's a piece of reality, and we are reminded of that at all times, and so she encounters a bitter end, and we are left wondering why it seems to be reserved to those who have the courage to subvert from society somehow.
Velvet Goldmine (1998)
All mysteries are just more needles in the camel's eye
This film is definitely one of my favorites among the ones who pay some kind of homage to rock'n'roll history. That opening scene with Jack Fairy's childhood and then the credits rolling to the sound of Needle In the Camel's Eye is one of the best and most exciting things I've ever seen. I guess I could say I love everything about it, how can you not love a cast like that? They're all wonderful and so believable in their performances, especially Jonathan Rhys Meyers and Ewan McGregor, who had very physical roles, but pulled it off just fine – I thought McGregor was especially brilliant in this, performing the songs live and jumping and throwing himself around, a certain Mr. Osterberg would be proud.
The story is an obvious portrait of David Bowie's relationship to Iggy Pop and Lou Reed in the 70's (adding a little mixture of Kurt Cobain, why not?), a decade I imagine was unique to rock'n'roll, filled with exciting new music, rebellion and social changes, but it's also a story about discoveries and growing up, represented by Christian Bale's character ("That's me, dad, that's me!"). It's not an unknown feeling to us all, coming across a circumstance where we have to revisit years past, and the memories of what we once were may sound strange. Along with the glitter and the glam rock comes the melancholia of being a part of a movement that is already in decadence, because all great things must burn fast and come to an end. Besides, what other movie presents us with a more delightful sight than that of Ewan McGregor and Christian Bale loving each other beneath a glitter rain brought on by a UFO? Words are unnecessary after that.
Memento (2000)
Remember Sammy Jankis
Christopher Nolan's Memento is a great exercise for our concentration and perceptions while watching a film, also, a proof of his geniality. I only wish we had more films like this among "mainstream" cinema, not only huge budget action flicks. This film is one of a kind, one that actually makes you think outside the box, even after it's over, producing waves that go a long way. It's also that kind of movie that, every time you watch it, there's something new to discover. The great special thing about it is the reversed order of events, meant to make us feel as disoriented as Leonard. We are dared to put the pieces together and try to make some sense out of that fragmented story, but easy answers are never given.
As always happens to great movies like this, lots of theories surround what is supposed to be the "truth". But, similar to real life, there simply isn't one and only truth, there are points of view, and our own choices. As for Lenny's story, we have some facts (but even facts can turn into memories, if we dig deep enough), and what was once taken as a central belief can be twisted upside down.
To me, one of the great things about it is the final monologue, showing how much of what we tell ourselves can be a most conventional lie. We lie to ourselves not only for our own benefit over others, but especially in order to survive. To survive a truth that is so much greater than us that it contains the power to annihilate our existence. And if we believe what Teddy says to Lenny in the final (but first) scene, we may have a lot figured out about what Lenny is all about. I chose to believe that interpretation, but of course, the discussion is never over. Doubts always remain, and in a story as rich as this, anything is possible.
Female Trouble (1974)
"The world of the heterosexual is a sick and boring life!"
This was not my first introduction to John Waters' controversial films. Besides watching his more "clean" works, I had previously watched Pink Flamingos, after a period of gathering courage to do so. I had the expected reaction to it, I was disgusted and shocked as I watched him and his Dreamlanders succeed in the task of making the filthiest film ever. I actually quite enjoyed some of the humour - I recall especially the scene where Divine and Crackers try to contaminate the Marble residence, by spitting and rubbing onto the furniture. I hated the incident involving the chicken, though, but oh well.
I thought Female Trouble was going to go the same way as Pink Flamingos, filth-wise, but it doesn't (almost), and I think this is John Waters' best film featuring Divine & co. It made me appreciate and understand more the purpose behind it all. If one watches Pink Flamingos without any previous knowledge of the type of movie it is, and what it stands for, one will be simply shocked and tend to never want to hear about it again (although it will forever be marked in one's mind's eye). Watching Female Trouble, I was able to come to terms with the nonsense jokes and the visual glorification of the grotesque. To me, it doesn't just serve as a comedic vehicle, it's also a genius way to defy society and whatever it's thought to be morally acceptable - for all we know, "cleanliness is next to godliness".
And can any film be more subversive and profane in its ideology and ironic portrait of human beings? One of the most iconic quotes is Edith Massey's: "I worry that you'll work in an office, have children, celebrate wedding anniversaries. The world of the heterosexual is a sick and boring life!". Needless to say Divine is absolutely wonderful in this, the rise and fall of a once typical troubled teenager who ends up getting caught in the twisted desires of others, ending up in a sort of maniac narcissistic frenzy. And questions such as the cult of image, beauty and fame at all costs are all presented to us in a hilarious way.
Anyway, I'm glad I got to discover this different kind of filmmaking, which is often dismissed for its graphic content, rather than being taken lightly as an interesting critique of American society and a fine exercise of trashy/nonsense humour.
Blue Velvet (1986)
A candy-colored clown they call the sandman
It's hard for me to choose my personal favorite among Lynch's films, but Blue Velvet surely holds a special place inside my heart. Not only because it's a beautiful movie that never ceases to amaze me and whomever I may watch it with, but also because it was my entrance door to the fantastic world of Mr. Lynch - very much like the ear Jeffrey finds, which opens a portal to all of the sub sequential events, something he never thought would happen in his suburban life.
As of interpretations on the "meaning" of the story and certain views presented, I believe Lynch is very wise to state that the audience should come up with a meaning to all of that by themselves. I particularly love movies that will leave me wondering about what I've just watched, so I have to trust my own perceptions and thoughts on the story, because eventually, people will somehow take a movie they love personally. Not that I wouldn't care if someday Lynch came along and said this movie was about "this or that", after all, ideas have sources, but even though, I never would be able to shake off my personal view on the movie, as anyone else wouldn't either. It may not seem so, but a movie affects us very personally, on an unconscious level, even.
That's one of the keys to Blue Velvet's plot, in my opinion. Lynch is known to work with our innermost fantasies and reveries, and the colors he uses, the nuances and subtleties left open in certain scenes, everything works in the sense of leading us to doubt our own senses - for example, the red curtain moving in Dorothy's apartment - it is never revealed to us if she and Jeffrey were really alone at that moment, but does the answer actually matter? Lynch already succeed in instigating and shaking our balances on what reality is concerned. Also, there's a genius reflection on our humanly impulses of watching - voyeurism - and to be watched, something close to exhibitionism. It's easy to empathize with Kyle's character, the attraction to mystery and transgressive acts are common to us all, as well as the secret observation of someone else's intimacy, to which the movie-watching is a prototype.
Apart from all the great performances featured, Dennis Hopper's interpretation of Frank is by far, the most fascinating. No matter how many times I watch it, his intensity and rawness always amaze me, and leave me wanting to know more about the character; his past, his motivations. The first time we meet him, there's no doubt about his mental instability, and all of the following scenes seem to testify to that. In later viewings, though, it struck me that besides being dangerous, the gas inhalation to reach euphoria and his unsettling Oedipus complex, he's also a man in love. Yes, it may be considered a sick and aggressive love by our society standards, but it is, nevertheless, love. What else would explain his emotional reactions to the songs (both Blue Velvet and In Dreams)? One more thing, I absolutely love Laura Dern, and in this movie she conveys the perfect American dream girl - pretty, tender, slightly witty and malleable - a very interesting counterpoint to Dorothy Vallen's more sexual, assertive and mature persona. Jeffrey is seduced by both sides, but in the end, he chooses to be with the robins. As the camera zooms out of the severed ear at the end, we are told that the nightmare is over, the moments where our unconscious urges could be disclosed is over, and once again, we take a peek at the maggots breeding under the well mowed lawn, only this time, the insect is being crushed by the bird.
Take Shelter (2011)
Interesting view on mental illness
I was really excited when I heard of this movie, I only heard good things about the director, plus, I'm a great Michael Shannon fan and will watch basically anything he's in. I thought it was a very well written story, a compelling plot, some suspense and an interesting point of view on mental illness. Can't say I liked the ending, though, I think it controverted everything that was built throughout the movie.
I had a feeling the ending was leaning towards that way, of all of Curtis' ideas coming true, but I kept watching and hoping the director wouldn't do that to us. I would be okay with that idea if his paranoia was indeed focused on the coming of the storm, but it clearly was not. Taking on a more psychological approach, which I choose to believe the movie is about, I would say his mental illness was starting off from some kind of repression and dissatisfaction over his suburban life (nothing ground-breaking to that explanation, but oh well), plus, an inheritance from his mother. This is all supported by his nightmares, so frightening and real, all of them showing some kind of catastrophe that would ruin his placid family life. I thought the movie was going to end in that scene where he has to open the shelter door, it wouldn't be the best ending, that's for sure, but it would be better because it would mean he was ready to start dealing with his fears.
That is why I disliked the ending, because it seemed like everything was reduced to some kind of simplistic, almost religious explanation. I am aware of the director's commentaries on that scene being a metaphor or a dream, although there are various clues that say otherwise. Even if it is so, it's not the best ending, seeing that it doesn't leave you wondering what you've just watched (like Kubrick used to do so well), only feeling betrayed and confused. Anyway, I figure it's the best ending the director could come up with, I couldn't have thought any better than that, so I'll just say it doesn't invalidate the whole picture. It's still an awesome movie, with a terrific performance by Michael Shannon, and I look forward to checking some other Jeff Nichols film.
3 Women (1977)
I wonder what it's like to be twins;
I'm still discovering Robert Altman's films, and after a few deceptions (not so much because those I watched were bad movies, but because I had high expectations), this one was a nice surprise. It's a movie that could only have been made in the 70's, it's one of a kind. From the few popular movies Shelley Duvall has been in, this is one of her finest. I couldn't help but smile when she says "What's the matter, haven't you ever seen twins?". Sissy Spacek is easier to catch on screen, she's also great in this.
As of the amazing performances, we're introduced to a dreamy like California scenery, there's nothing unusual about those two words in the same sentence, but the atmosphere is almost ethereal, from the pastel colors to the apathetic people all around. I kept thinking if they did that just to spite Millie or because they simply wouldn't bother to listen to anyone. Millie's situation is so anguishing, it's really similar to one of those dreams where we talk and talk but people don't seem to notice, like we're ghosts. I know the character wasn't near being pleasant, but I felt sorry for her frustrated social efforts just the same.
I had no idea what the film was actually about when I started watching it, and as Pinky's obsession with Millie developed, I figured it was going to be a very well plotted drama, or something like it. That it is, but it's something else, too. If we pay attention, from the start, there's a strange feeling lurking about, like something's not entirely right...or real. It's no coincidence that Pinky's real name is Mildred, which is also short for Millie (also, Willie...), and both women seem to enter some sort of fusion, there's something that ties them together. Besides, there's another woman, of enigmatic behavior, her importance is revealed further along. For now, all we know is that she paints those exotic printings inside the pool. As of Pinky's accident, which might as well be related to those paintings, she suffers a drastic change of heart, now she IS Millie.
It's not revealed to us whether her accident caused her some kind of neurological damage or the beginning of some kind of mental illness...but I'm not so fond of these realistic explanations, not coming from a movie like this. Especially because it wouldn't explain that last scene, where the three women appear to have reached some sort of weird organization, featuring different generations...perhaps they're supposed to be one? I'm not sure of the meaning for the metaphor, all I know is that it's a very intriguing movie, giving us a lot to think about at the end, and it sure is an interesting story about what the experience of being a woman means.
Nymphomaniac: Vol. II (2013)
The Gun
I liked this volume of Nymphomaniac best, since the first one seems to get lost in tiresome artistic efforts. This one gets down to business, no pun intended. People can say anything about Lars Von Trier, but they have to admit he can hold his views very well, he's not afraid of telling a story and having to slowly deconstruct all of our ideals in order to do so, and that's one quality I can admire in filmmakers. It doesn't necessarily mean I have to agree to every view supported by the movie and/or characters. I guess that's one of the reasons why people are so bothered by this movie (besides dealing with the most controversial matter of all time), for example, you don't have to be into S&M to actually enjoy this movie, as it doesn't necessarily mean you're a "pervert" if you like it, that'd be a bad case of poor judgment.
I think Lars makes a very clear point in showing us this is not "only a movie", the sceneries are meant to be artificial (similar to Dogville/Manderlay), and some interpositions like the "3+5"...everything is done on purpose so that we never forget what we're dealing with here.
Anyway, what I really liked about this movie is how it goes a long way just to show us a different side of humanity, a side who's not supposed to have any side at all, says society. Even if it is shocking to see Joe admitting that she is indeed a so-called "nymphomaniac" and she loves herself just like that, or watching her bring down society's need for moralization in that great hypocrisy monologue...and especially the scene where she gives a bj to the pedophile because she felt somehow they were alike. I was slightly shocked by all of these scenes, the latter, for sure. But I think it's so great when someone comes along (nevermind Lars' public persona) and tries to show other forms of existence, we may not want to see it, but it's there, crawling in the gutters of morality and the civilized society.
Another great question portrayed is brought by Seligman, and I was glad it was brought up as it bothered me throughout the entire film. How Joe's (what an ironic name, too) behavior would be treated if she was a man? Because what we have to consider in matters like this is if that behavior is causing pain to the person in question, and what people saw in Joe was a woman threatening the social order of gender. By saying this, I'm not saying there aren't any men who are judged, in some level, by a sex addiction, although it's surely seen differently. And, of course, solely for being a woman, her burden was heavier, she was even more guilty of having abandoned her family to pursue new forms of pleasure, and she "got what she deserved" in the end. About the end, I confess I was a little puzzled as to what Lars really was trying to tell us by Seligman's behavior, if anything. I got the feeling it was another irony...after building such a strong argument against society and the human condition itself, I couldn't see how Joe and Seligman would end up redeemed.
Being John Malkovich (1999)
"I have seen a world that NO man should see!"
My second viewing of this film revealed a depth I had not noticed in the first time around. The movie officially is filed under the comedy label, and it certainly does seem so, if we remember the scene where Malkovich enters his own portal or the dark bits of humor regarding Schwartz unfortunate life, but it actually goes a long way over to explore the obscurities of one's subconscious mind. I've been a long time fan of Charlie Kaufman's fantastic creativity and talent to put together the most fantastic and strange stories. He had me at Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and it's hard not to remember Joel & Clementine looking for a safe place to hide from the "eraser guys", as we watch people come and go in and out of John Malkovich's mind and its layers. That Kaufman picked him to be the protagonist is curious, as he's not a particular Hollywood A-List and one could even say, very random...but I guess that is part of the bittersweet humor of the story, too.
Cameron Diaz was barely recognizable, and I think it's great that so many good actors are a part of this, I guess it's a script - and an opportunity to do something different, that only comes along every now and then. At times, the humor exceeds the "tragic but funny" line and becomes just tragic, like the memories we find visiting Malkovich's mind or the scene where Schwartz ties up Lotte and keeps her in the cage in order to be with Maxine. Everyone seems to be unhappy with their place in life and trying desperately to move on, but in the move they end up being hurt and mislead by each other...funny thing is that John Malkovich's head should be the catalyst for them to do so.
I confess I'm not very fond of the "alien" masterminding subplot behind the portal's origin, because it's just too weird! But what in this movie isn't? I guess that was better than the portal remaining unexplained, so I try to pass it over and look at the innovative project it is.
Eyes Wide Shut (1999)
Fidelio
Kubrick's last film couldn't have gone by without a fair share of critical backlash and general controversy, similar to what happened to mostly all of his movies. Also, similar to other movies of his, is the feeling of doubt and suspicion we feel after it's over. Like the final scene in "2001: A Space Odyssey", we're not quite sure what the hell we've just watched, but we're certainly left intrigued with many different perspectives and the need to reflect about the meaning of all that. Because with Kubrick, and anyone who is/once was an assiduous viewer of his films would agree, nothing is incidental. It seems that every little thing is in its determined little place to make the wheel spin, so to speak.
There are a number of conspiracy theories revolving around Eyes Wide Shut (like there was with The Shining and 2001, etc.), which we'll never be able to confirm or discard completely. But it's nevertheless interesting because it only shows how much we're affected by how he manipulates us throughout the story. Leaving the conspiratorial bit out for a while, what is left is an ambiguous story seen from Tom Cruise's character point of view...what in his nocturnal adventures were real? what's real? just because things happened inside one's head, it doesn't mean they weren't real, does it? His mind plays perverse tricks with him. From the point when his wife, in a provocative monologue, dangles the possibility of cheating on him, just about everything he comes across has an undertone that relates to that matter. And it's so subtle, from the bunch of bullies who question his "manhood" in the streets, to the unexpected encounter with the Russian guy's daughter, it all seems to echo what's going on inside his mind. Would his wife really betray him if she was given the chance? would he be able to do the same? In the middle of all this, he comes across some sort of bizarre ritual, both sacred and profane, and even though he's wearing the same costume and behaving like the others, he fails to blend in and people soon notice he should not be there. Did those people also realize he didn't have what it takes to be a part of the "cult"? in other words, to have sex with a stranger and to desire to do so.
It's hard to talk about this scene and not mention what a beautiful piece of film it is. I guess it's one of the times where Kubrick succeed best in creating a perfect mood that completely immerses us. All of the elements work, the atmosphere created by the score, the costumes (especially the one who nods to Bill from up the balcony) and the general feeling of strangeness, as we've entered another dimension apart from our world, apart from Bill's repressed middle-class life.
One part which was left unanswered to me was the next scene, when he comes home and Nicole Kidman's character mysteriously has had a nightmare very similar to what he just went through. It could be some sort of subconscious transmission, almost psychic, but there's just something about it that doesn't fit. Later on, Bill's friend tries to clear all this mystery to him, saying there was nothing to it, it was all an act, fake, meant to scare him away. But who would do such a thing? Picking up the pieces, for a few moments I even believed Alice could be involved in the farce...because of the nightmare's timing, and the mask found on the bed beside her.
This is just a tiny little analysis compared to the whole richness of the movie, but it's where it got me thinking. And I'm sure that's what Kubrick wanted in the first place. It's not so fun when an explanation is thrust upon us, like a game of questions and answers, because there is so much more to a story and a character than a filmmaker would be able to synthesize in one last scene. That is one of the reasons why I hold Stanley Kubrick's films so dear, because the genius of him is to never give easy way outs or shortcuts, and to turn each one of his movies into a vast universe where anything is possible.
Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958)
Tennessee Williams
There's a certain feel and boldness to this story that makes us simply sure we're talking about another wonderful work by Tennessee Williams. When I started watching the film, I had no idea it was based on his play, later on when I found out, it made total sense. He always seems to treat taboo questions in a very open and artistic manner (in a similar way to "A Streetcar Named Desire"). This one deals with a very strong patriarch figure inside the family, "Big Daddy" Pollitt, it's not only a pet name, it's also an indicative of his size and place inside the family tree. And he is a hard-headed figure, who imposes his opinions no matter what, a question of obeying the law.
The main affected by this tyranny seems to be Paul Newman's character, Brick Pollitt. We meet him as a recovering alcoholic and ex-football player, in a most iconic scene beside Elizabeth Taylor. From the first moment we learn he has some kind of animosity towards his perfectly beautiful wife, the sexual undertones are present at all times. It's instigating, why shouldn't any perfectly normal and handsome husband feel sexually attracted to his perfectly beautiful wife? Hence the genius name of the movie, she feels like a cat on a hot tin roof. Those questions are soon brought to us through Big Daddy's (and the rest of the family) interference in their relationship. The scenes where he and Brick discuss over the motives for his bitterness over life are simply amazing. There's a mixture of sexual frustration, paternal repression, and some level of homosexual affection going on. There's also Big Daddy's health condition, he seems to be ill and his prognosis not so good. Brick in a way wishes him to die, at times it seems like that's the only way he could ever grab domain of his own life again.
Although waved to us, full answers are never given (especially the nature of Brick's relationship with his late friend, plus Maggie's involvement in it), because we only have access to a small fraction of that family's feuds, when the (never harmonious) system is already in decadence. The end features an interesting turn of events, the father and son conflict finds some kind of relief, perhaps in the light of nostalgia and death approaching. And so does Brick's relationship with Maggie, the cat, the last scene boasts with lust as we watch their reconciliation as Paul Newman delivers the line: "Maggie, we're through with lies and liars in this house. Lock the door."
Reservoir Dogs (1992)
Stuck in the middle with you
Tarantino is one of my favorite directors, and he couldn't have landed a more powerful debut film than Reservoir Dogs. It must have been really exciting to see, in 1992, this new wonderful kind of filmmaking arise. The great thing about his movies is that they're always so fresh, so authentic. I've heard some people say he does nothing but plagiarize from the classics, I couldn't disagree more. Besides paying homage to his favorite movies and directors, he ends up subverting whatever contemporary notions we may have of movie-making, and creating something new out of it. He simply blows our mind with a totally unexpected script, characters, dialog and plot twists.
By the way, his bloody plot twists are the best (so are his long and genius dialogs). Like he answered as to why his movies always feature a great amount of graphic violence: "because it's so much fun!" Tarantino succeeds in casting nothing but a pack of great actors, something else to prove the quality of his work. Tim Roth gives one of the best monologue performances I've ever seen. Everyone else is just great, be it separate or together. One of the best moments is the initial scene, with that discussion over the meaning of "Like a Virgin", or the discussion about the assigned color names, just typical Tarantino. Also, the unexpected ending, I doubt people were accustomed to see that much blood in Hollywood flicks, maybe not since the 70's exploitations.
And if we pay enough attention, there's a "classical" feel to it, be it from the special "team" of con men put together to rob the jewelry store, or by Pam Grier being brought on during a conversation - and, of course, there's "K-Billy's Super Sounds of the 70's" radio we hear occasionally throughout the film. I'm always glad for the musical discoveries QT provides us in all of his movies. With Reservoir Dogs it's not different, one of the most iconic scenes is the one where Mr. Blonde tortures an unfortunate cop to the sound of "Stuck In The Middle With You."
The Shining (1997)
Come down here and take your medicine!
I'm a huge fan of Stephen King's novel, it definitely makes the list of my top favorite books, so I was delighted to watch another adaptation, this time with a fair amount of similarities to it. It couldn't be different, seeing that King himself was involved with the script, and it kind of gives the feeling he's answering back to Kubrick: "this is how I imagined my creation to be." I rated it high because it's so much like the novel, and although I absolutely love Kubrick's version, it's also very fulfilling to a fan when the book is adapted the way you want it! Although I rate it highly, I'm aware of its problems. For one, the thing that got on my nerves (all the time) was Courtland Mead's acting. His nasal and annoying voice, his mouth constantly hanging open, his mop top hair, besides, he's too old to be anything like the character in the novel, but that's the least. Danny Torrance is supposed to be a likable character, and to me he is adorable in his 5 year-old naive wisdom and braveness. I didn't get any of it in the mini series, and Danny is basically the main character, without him, it just doesn't work. I wonder why King and etc. chose this boy.
Apart from that, Steven Weber is one of the main reasons I liked it so much. I know about his sitcom past, but his work in this saves it from being a total disaster. I'd say his perfect John Doe quality is what made me think of him as the next best thing to the "actual" Jack Torrance. Rebecca DeMornay gives an average performance, I'm sure she is exactly how Stephen King thought Wendy in his head, but if it was any other blonde actress playing her part, it wouldn't have made any difference to me. I was happy with the feature of almost all of the scenes from the novel, especially the (in)famous one-liner: "Come down here and take your medicine!".
Budget limitations and the length tend to turn people off. This is the problem with Stephen King's movie adaptations, because certain aspects of his writing are not meant to be watched, only imagined. It's the case of the hedge animals (or the Wendigo in Pet Sematary, I was glad they decided to let it out), they're important to the story, but the terrible special effects just made me cringe. Also, I was OK about that additional epilogue of Danny graduating, but why the "kissing kissing, that's what I've been missing" bit?. It's so cheesy, and it seems it doesn't serve any other purpose than adding some cheap sentimentalism to Jack-Danny's relationship, when it doesn't need any. In my opinion, Jack was redeemed when he stayed in and fought the hotel as hard as he could, and that was what saved his family. Anyway, I guess it comes with the job, you have to have some kind of explicit emotional undertone in order to make it likable for general audiences. Not all of it is made of die-hard fans of the novel like me, ha.
Equus (1977)
At least I galloped - when did you?
Watching this film was truly like seeing one of Freud's cases brought to life, as I'm sure they wouldn't deny the inspiration. It also succeeds in giving us a sense of reality, it feels like real pain, real angst...especially if we take a look at Richard Burton's initial monologue, lines delivered so intensely. The sorrow in his eyes repeating his tormenting questions to us, which will never be answered. Even though patients may be "cured" and go on with their lives, that element of mystery will always remain...but why did it happen like this? what are the odds that something like this ever afflict a boy in such a wild manner?
Peter Firth is great as well, at times his acting (and his physical traits) reminded me of Malcolm McDowell in A Clockwork Orange. I would say playing Alan Strang's part was as bold as playing Alex DeLarge, given its exposition and demanding surrender to the part. The movie gives us a detective task, which is to take all of those fragments of Alan's life and dare to put it together, to make some sense. Lots of speculations cross our minds, is his obsession with horses the product of sexual repression? of the ultra-religious aspects of his primary relations? both? we are left unanswered, as we watch Dr. Dysart be put to test against Alan's provocations.
That is also an interesting example of how a doctor-patient relationship can develop. It was a challenge the doctor wasn't expecting to face, after so many years of easy practice...he found out that a real relationship with a patient is made of two ways.
Nosferatu - Phantom der Nacht (1979)
Time is an abyss
I was surprisingly blown away by this rather artistic and deeply obscure outtake on Bram Stoker's masterpiece. Being new to Herzog's films, i wasn't sure as of what to expect. I have watched some other Dracula/Nosferatu adaptations, but none of them can top this one. the best word one could use to describe it is "beautiful". from the impeccable art direction and photography, the way it was shot, the make-up department (and any other technical aspects, you name it), to the haunting quality of the sceneries and that soundtrack! Herzog couldn't have picked a better band than Popol Vuh to create such an atmosphere of restlessness and growing tension.
Adding to that, what a great performance by Klaus Kinski, i was literally terrified on those scenes inside the Count's castle, which is hard to say for any so proclaimed horror movie these days. I liked the more melancholic approach to Nosferatu on this one, as opposed to the almost megalomaniac portrayal of other versions.
And, if you're not satisfied, there's even some humor poured on top of it! The scene by the end, where the town officers engage on a discussion of whether or not it would make sense to arrest Van Helsing, seen that almost the whole of the population of the town is dead, so there wouldn't be anyone to guard the cell, it's simply hilarious in an obscure and unexpected way.
Finally, i think this was a truly great film and it's still relevant to this day, perhaps the most relevant when the topic is Bram Stoker's creation. Besides, it was my initiation on Werner Herzog's films, which was very instigating and it certainly has me looking forward to watching other works of his.
Eraserhead (1977)
In heaven, everything is fine
I have seen almost every movie Lynch has ever directed, and Eraserhead really stands out from the rest, although my favorite remains Mulholland Drive. As a first film, it stands out because it shows what a promising career he had ahead, similar to when Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs was out in 1992. Anyway, i'd say it's a very authentic and bold movie, overall. From the sceneries - the window blocked by a brick wall and the apocalyptic vibe - the eerie ways the characters seem to move inside that universe, to its surrealistic roots, i never came across anything else quite like it. It all appears to happen inside a nightmare, but whose nightmare is it, ours or Jack Nance's? Hard to tell, when some of the imagery makes us physically uncomfortable. Particularly, to me, that scene with the "Radiator Lady" singing, and the squashing of the mutant babies - even thinking about it makes me cringe. It's a hard movie to watch, not advised to sunny days, but are any of Lynch's films? Finishing it, i felt just like i had awoken from a nasty nightmare, only it was one i had put myself under voluntarily! Anyway, i admire filmmakers who can set up an atmosphere, and who manage to connect with the audience somehow, i'd imagine it's not an easy task, but it's one David Lynch can pull off alright.
Five Easy Pieces (1970)
A life you don't approve
Only in a second time viewing this film it hit me how wonderful it is. I've only just began to cherish these old gems from the 70's, the innovations brought by the new Hollywood must've been a fresh gust of wind. Both Jack Nicholson and Bob Rafelson were a huge part of it, and this movie might as well be one of the lot's finest. The great thing about the movie is Nicholson's character, Bobby Eroica Dupea, and how well constructed and complex his actions are. We may spend the entire movie hating the guts out of him, for his sexist and generally annoying behavior towards everyone else, but later on we realize that that cynic attitude serves as a protection cover for his true inner conflicts. We learn that through a magnificent delivered monologue of Bobby addressing his father, which is the pinnacle of a beautifully written script. Karen Black is also great as Nicholson's hysterical but sweet girlfriend. And how can i not mention the diner scene? or Palm Apodaca and her friend, with their quirky cleanliness obsession and general disgust over modern society. Bobby certainly saw both of them as weirdos, eventually dumping them, but all i could think of during those car scenes was how they were alike, outcasts. To me, what really stands out are the contradictions and opposite sides shown to Bobby's situation, it seems he's always in crossroads, questioning himself, where do i belong? it's clear he doesn't belong with the "pompous celibates", but neither does he seem to belong with Rayette. What probably started as a refusal of his bourgeois life only for the sake of rebelling against his father apparently turned into something grander, and irreversible, for that matter. The last scene proves us that, it's so anguishing to see him completely abandoning his girlfriend, his belongings and especially his identity, but anything not to face the bad things. Heading into another auspicious beginning, perhaps?
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
Meet me in Montauk
This is probably my favorite movie ever, so obviously i only have good things to say about it. it's gotten to the point where i look at people who say they dislike it with a disbelief expression on my face. With the exception of cases where the person really disliked it for reasons whatsoever, i would say one big turn-off for the first time viewer is the complexity of the movie, the various changes (space/time-wise) and levels through which the story leads us. Here's one tip: try to follow Clem's hair colors, they are basically the greatest element of orientation for us. Of course, only after a number of viewings you're going to realize that, no point trying to rush things. By the way, for people who like puzzling characters and story lines, this is a handful, every time you watch it, there's something new to discover. And, speaking of the characters..to me, Joel and Clementine are already featured on the list of one of the best couples ever to hit the screen. They're like water and oil, and yet, they're the perfect yin and yang for each other, cliché and true. Clementine is often labeled as a so-called "Manic Pixie Dream Girl", but i don't agree at all. I won't go into detail of the meaning of the term, but Clementine is so special and unique that i don't think she is fit for any labels, quoting Joel: "I think if there's a truly seductive quality about Clementine, it's that her personality promises to take you out of the mundane". Kate Winslet gives the best performance of her career, so far. Jim Carrey, too, is nothing short of spectacular, he is surprisingly comfortable in the role of an introverted and shy man, defying all judgments we may have made of his dramatic talent. And yes, throughout the entire movie, we basically only see Joel's mental representation of Clementine, based on the memories they had together...but, even so, who's to say she's not real? Besides all the wonderfulness fore-mentioned, the plot deals with lots of intriguing questions, which are relevant to anyone who's ever been in any kind of relationship (hence my disbelief look when people tell me they didn't like it!). I think the main idea for the story (let me just take a moment to say how i find Charlie Kaufman a genius, and this partnership with Michel Gondry even more), has always been present in people's subconscious, the possibility to alter time and reality somehow, by erasing unpleasant memories, who wouldn't at least consider it? The great thing about the movie, what makes it so real and true, is that we learn that the sentence "blessed are the forgetful, for they get the better even of their blunders", can be questioned. This is what Joel finds out, but we can't shake off the feeling that it's something he (and all of us) knew all along.