Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of Senility

I know I am late to the Indiana Jones/Crystal Skull party and a review almost a MONTH later is pretty irrelevant but it’s my party and I’ll blog if I want to.

So why did I put off seeing this movie? For starters, I knew…I just KNEW that it was going to be a profound disappointment. So I waited. And waited. And when I could wait no longer, I saw it.

And it was…“National Treasure”. Think about it. Replace Harrison Ford with Nicolas Cage, Shia LaBeouf with that snarky side-kick who also played the mentally challenged boy in “Gigli”. Swap Karen Allen with that kind of dull blonde lady whose name escapes me and then pretend El Dorado is hidden somewhere in the midwest. It’s “National effing Treasure”. IT IS!

indiana jones IV

Of course, I LOVED the “National Treasure” movies. But let’s be honest. They aren’t…shall we say…GOOD. They are profoundly silly. Interestingly, critics were calling them the “Indiana Jones” revival. In this case, the student has become the master and the master has regressed. They took their 25 year old franchise and turned it into a “National Treasure” fan film. The biggest problem with this is that Harrison Ford is no Nicolas Cage.

indyDon’t get me wrong. Harrison Ford…or at least Indiana Jones (and Space Indy, Han Solo) were my first childhood crush(es). I’m fairly certain that his characters affected, at least physically, the type of man I am attracted to as an adult: Scruffy looking (who’s scruffy lookin’?!) fellows with a perpetual 5:00 shadow, glistening with sweat and a bit of chest hair poking out the top of an unkempt dress shirt. A dry wit and a bit of an ego don’t hurt either. Especially if they can save your ass from Nazis or voodoo and sweep you off your feet. Ah…Venice.

In contrast, while I adore the acting of Nicolas Cage, I don’t find him or any of his characters the least bit attractive. Sure, “Wild at Heart’s”, Sailor Ripley is romantic as hell, but he’s already losing quite a bit of hair at such a young tender age. And his snake skin jacket may be a symbol of his individuality and belief in person freedom but…it’s a jacket made of SNAKE SKIN. Tell me…was it a CORN snake?

So the problem with Indy 4 is that Indy/Ford (at this point they are interchangeable) is just TOO DAMN SERIOUS to pull off the cartoonish feat of surviving a nuclear blast at ground zero by hiding inside a fridge while the gophers from Caddy Shack snicker in the distance. The monkey and giant ant shenanigans and even reluctantly gripping a CG snake to get pulled out of quicksand by the Fonz…those things are for a different sort of actor and a different sort of movie. NOT for Henry Jones Jr. He is supposed to be the STRAIGHT MAN. The only jokes he make should either occur during or result in a fist fight.

I suppose I’m not surprised though. My heart was already broken by the Films That Shall Not Be Named. I knew that George Lucas had lost all his marbles. I hoped that Spielberg would reign him in. But he’s not so great anymore either. It makes sense. As you age, your perspective shifts. You become detached and you can no longer relate to the young. You can’t understand what they want and you don’t really CARE what they want either. You have earned the right to do what you feel because you have been around the block, damnit! What this scene needs is a few more hilarious animals. CAN WE GET SOME MORE MONKEYS IN HERE PLEASE?!

Their treasure wasn’t gold. It was gophers. Gophers were their treasure.

June 17, 2008
Categories: Filmpinions . Tags: . Author: Baxter . Comments: 1 Comment

SIFF Review: Camille

There is a certain target audience for a movie like “Camille”. It is the story of a simple southern girl named Camille (Sienna Miller) who convinces a reluctant petty thief named Silias (James Franco) to marry her. They take off on a honeymoon road trip to Niagara Falls, but, along the way, there is a accident. Luckily, it is a MAGICAL accident, and Camille winds up becoming the most beeyootiful zombie that evar unlived.

Given the zombie element to this love story, you might thing the target audience is more Fangoria than Fairy Tale But you would be, as I was, sorely mistaken. As someone who ordinarily steers as clear as possible from overly sentimental Hallmark crap like “Maid of Honor”, it takes a quirky element to get me to watch anything baring the “romantic comedy” label. For example, a machine that erases memories, or, say, a woman who comes back from the dead. However, the writer of this fluffy little torture piece squandered every opportunity to make an original film. At his point, I’m pretty convinced that he stole the idea from someone else but then had no idea how to properly execute it.

For those of you who loved “Runaway Bride” or think Sienna Miller is just SOOO pretty, this movie is definitely for you. Never mind if you “can’t watch scary movies” or “think zombies are gross”. Trust me. There “gore” in this thing is strictly PG. The presumably dead Camille only grows more radiant as the film wears on. Wouldn’t Silias’ falling for Camille been more romantic if she’d been losing appendages and turning green? And no, a little broken finger under a glove or a tiny bloodless bullet wound doesn’t count. Also, that bitch really needs to stop taking her ring off on moving motorcycles and over open drains.

What could have been a cool embalming scene becomes a boring, soft-lit sponge bath. All the potential hilarity of a rotting living dead girl is simply…missing. Don’t even get me started on the dialog. Let’s just say there’s plenty of people believing in other people and true love prevailing and junk.

siennamiller
Leave a beautiful corpse.

By the way, what the hell is UP with David Carradine? Is he senile in real life? His role as a rambling mystical circus cowboy doesn’t make any sense. Surely somewhere they are making an updated film version of Kung Fu starring Will Farrell or Vince Vaughn. Give the poor man a cameo. He is clearly hurting for work.

As for me, I’m going to watch a well-executed undead love story to try and wipe this experience from my memory.

May 29, 2008
Categories: Filmpinions . Tags: . Author: Baxter . Comments: Leave a comment

SIFF REVIEW: My Effortless Brilliance

The phrase “You either love [something/someone] or hate [something/someone]” is not only overused, it is often used erroneously. There are very few things which can actually universally inspire such extreme emotions. Nonetheless, I have heard people say that about the star of “My Effortless Brilliance”, musician, author and former Stranger film critic, Sean Nelson. It’s true that he does inspire intense loathing from people, mostly in his film critic incarnation (it’s a tough business to have opinions), and intense love from people, also from his writing and his having fronted a popular 90’s rock band. But I, for one, find his work…enjoyable. That is a pretty moderate emotion as far as good feelings are concerned. It’s tough to admit that I appreciate the work of Sean Nelson. It’s so cool, you see, to LOATHE. That said, if you ARE taking up residence in Bunk 5 of Camp Naysayer, you will not, in the slightest, enjoy “My Effortless Brilliance”. If you summer anywhere else, you will probably have a pretty great time watching it.

With all the films made in the Northwest, and even many films made in Canada but “set” in Seattle, it baffles me that there are so few true “love letters” to the state. It’s truly a marvelous place to live. So much culture in the city of Seattle and so much beauty inside and out of it. Washington state is utterly breathtaking and full of interesting stories. So why aren’t there more filmmakers depicting that? Why do we only get fluffy romantic comedies? Or heavy-handed political dramas? Or shocking true stories? Where is the every day slice of life? I’ll tell you where. It’s in “My Effortless Brilliance”.

Using a sparse cast and crew and mostly improvised dialog, director Lynn Shelton (“We Go Way Back”) adeptly utilizes the Cinéma Vérité style to tell the story of a lonely, narcissist author named Eric (Nelson) and his attempt to repair a broken bond with an old friend, Dylan (Basil Harris). Eric’s efforts bring this soft city boy to Eastern Washington where Dylan has taken up a sparse existence running a small paper and living in a cabin in the woods. Eric surprises Dylan with a visit “on his way” back from a reading and, thanks to beer, ends up staying a couple of days.

myeffortlessbrilliance

There is much natural humor in this uneasy fish-out-of-water story. When Dylan’s neighbor, Jim (Calvin Reader), rides up on horseback with a shotgun in his lap, talking earnestly of loose cougars, Eric realizes just how far from the city he is. He is unable to assist in the chopping of wood. He cannot even make the coffee. He can only crack-wise about the books in Dylan’s cabin (“Spiders…and Their Kin”) and watch helplessly from the porch. He is a man who is used to getting by on his charm alone. But his charm has long worn off on Dylan, and Jim is clearly a man who is rarely amused. It is up to alcohol (indubitably) and a preposterous situation to remind Eric and Dylan of the rapport they once shared.

Ironically, it is a tricky thing to make improvisation seem natural. But the cast pull it off remarkably, never over-expositing or over-emoting. Along with the shaky-cam and occasional out-of-focus shots, we are (sometimes literally) peeking through the window into a realistic complex human relationship. This fabricated tale feels more genuine than any reality TV show.

By the way, Sean Nelson would like you to know that his uses of the word “literally”, both correct and incorrect, were entirely intentional.

May 27, 2008
Categories: Filmpinions, Seattle . Tags: . Author: Baxter . Comments: Leave a comment

Forgetting Jason Segel’s Penis

I finally saw Forgetting Sarah Marshall. Despite being in a rather fowl mood at the time, I thought it was cute. That’s really saying something about a film’s cuteness.

Pros: Jason Segel is an empathetic romantic comedy male lead. He’s very good at making pathetic seem cute which shows diversity since, in Freaks and Geeks, he made cute seem pathetic. (e.g. when he serenaded Lindsay with Styx’s “Lady”). I liked the humanity that Kristin Bell brought to what could have been an otherwise one-dimensional harpy character. I also, for the first time in my life, found Mila Kunis to be adorable.

Cons: The British pop star character was kind of over-the-top for a while. His music video early on was way too silly for a story that was otherwise set in (a Hollywood sort of) reality. Eventually, he branched out but I was already a bit sick of him by then. Also, Jonah Hill needs to pull it back just a little. I’m sorry to keep hating on Jonah Hill. He has potential. But right now he’s just…too much. Superbad would have suffered greatly if he had been “acting” alongside someone other than the subtle genius, Michael Cera.

jasonsegelRe: The Nudity: There was a LOT of hype about Jason Segel’s penis. It was the first and last thing anyone said about the movie. The way it was described, I expected a close up on the penis for much of the film’s opening. I expected the penis to have a monologue. It didn’t. Yes, he was naked, but I’m pretty sure the total screen time for Segel Jr. was under 30 seconds. What’s wrong with America? We see boobs in movies ALL THE TIME. What’s more, it takes a big man to allow his penis to become the butt of a joke. But it was a short joke and in no way the focus of the film. Please, let’s not make such a big deal out of it, lest we discourage other men from exposing themselves on film. I hope Mr. Segel has started a trend (perhaps trailblazed by Will Ferrell’s ass). That’s the world I someday want to live in.

May 16, 2008
Categories: Filmpinions . . Author: Baxter . Comments: 1 Comment

Capitalizing on Our Childhoods: Part 48(!)

…And now they’re making a 21 Jump Street movie.

OMG stop it! Just stop it!

21 Jump Street was one of my favorite TV shows as a child. For a while, when asked what I wanted to be when I grew up, I would respond that I wanted to work for Jump Street. That’s right. Lil Baxter wanted to be a professional narc. Blame it on Johnny Depp’s sexy double denim look.

johnnydeppThis is one of those shows that does not stand the test of time at all. It is incredibly cheesy and heavily influenced by the Nancy Reagan era. Come to think of it, it’s a lot like Walker: Texas Ranger in its profound use of hyperbole. But with hotter, younger folk.

Since Jonah Hill is producing, I’m sure he will cast himself in the Peter DeLuise role. Maybe it’s because he stole my more talented friend’s career, but Jonah Hill kind of bugs me. Not unlike the way in which I am bugged by a movie version of 21 Jump Street!

May 14, 2008
Categories: Filmpinions . . Author: Baxter . Comments: Leave a comment

Capitalizing on Our Childhoods: Part 47

Variety has reported that the guy who made that animated movie about Little Red Riding Hood will be taking the reins on a live action version of Fraggle Rock.
What do you want to bet that Jack Black will be somehow involved? Perhaps as Junior, the Gorg Prince? Actually, when I think about potential casting for this film, all I can think of are Apatow alums.

Ooh! I smell a geeky hypothetical casting session coming on!! Continue reading →

May 14, 2008
Categories: Filmpinions . . Author: Baxter . Comments: 1 Comment

Mamet vs. Mamet: A Revelation

I’d always had mixed feelings about David Mamet’s work. Some of his films are far too preachy and all the characters’ voices blend together into one long expletive. Others are quiet meditations on a subject with underpinnings of truth about life in general. It wasn’t until I read his book, “Bambi vs. Godzilla”, that I really understood what was going on in Mametville.

The book is basically an existential rumination on filmmaking. I can easily picture it as the cornerstone of a film school theory class. It’s funny, thoughtful, clever and honest. Just like the best of Mamet. But what really struck me was the voice of the writing. I’d heard it somewhere before…And then it hit me.

My favorite Mamet film, and one of the best films about filmmaking period is State and Main. It’s considered the least “Mamety” of his films. It feels toned down. I think it’s due in large part to having found a cast that perfectly grasps the tone of his dialog. In particular, he found the great Philip Seymour Hoffman. Hoffman is downright adorable in the role Joseph Turner White; an earnest playwright turned screenwriter who is frustrated by having to rework his script. The film is called “The Old Mill” but the crew, having been run out of the previous location thanks to the errant actions of their leading man (Alec Baldwin basically playing himself) now must complete production in a town which does not have an old mill. This is the film industry exposed, forsaking story for drama and dollar signs. White doesn’t want to lose the heart of the story. The director doesn’t care what happens so long as the producer is happy. In short, White is Mamet is why Mamet prefers to direct his own films.

stateandmainTurner White is also a gentle, soft spoke, thoughtful man. He is charming and morally upright. He falls for a like-minded local girl (the quintessential Mamet actress Rebecca Pidgeon who, by happy coincidence, is married to Mamet). She is a fan of his plays and attempts to help him find his new story without selling out. They both have an old-timey manner of speaking which shows that they are cut from the same cloth. There is not an expletive uttered between them. They are clearly meant for each other.

State and Main could have just as easily been called Mamet in Love. And when one reads “Bambi vs. Godzilla”, one hears Joseph Turner White.

But the true revelation occurred when I watched Mamet’s new film Redbelt, starring Chiwetel Ejiofor. Ejiofor is another incredibly gifted actor. Like Hoffman, he can convey a rainbow of emotions with a simple look. His deep, dark eyes are pools of insight. In Redbelt he plays Mike Terry, a teacher of Brazilian Jui Jitsu who lives by a very strict moral code. But he sees only truth and justice which allows him to be taken by evil men. Like Joseph Turner White, he speaks softly, earnestly and without profanity. The profanity is reserved for the bad people. People like Tim Allen’s spoiled aging Hollywood star and Joe Mantegna’s corrupt producer (tell us how you really feel about producers, Dave). They drop the F-Bombs like Nagasaki. And that is your clue to the Mametverse. As a viewer you know they are nefarious the minute they open their mouths. Swearing is the mark of corruption. Mamet has injected a natural spoiler into his scripts. The good people control their speech and their volume. They choose their words carefully. They speak like David Mamet.

For most people, Mamet is a love-him-or-loathe-him kind of guy. I have always been on the fence. I don’t care for Glengarry Glen Ross’. But I adore State and Main and I similarly took to “Bambi vs. Godzilla” and Redbelt. They always say you should write what you know. Now that I’ve cracked the Mamet code, I can safely say that he is at his best when he’s just being himself.

May 9, 2008
Categories: Filmpinions, The Printernet . Tags: . Author: Baxter . Comments: 1 Comment

Harold and Kumar Escape the Sophomore Slump

On my way to see “Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay”, I tried to get into the same head space I was in when I saw the first one. You see, I wasn’t always a member of the Harold and Kumar congregation. When the first one opened in theaters, I was not interested.

“From the creators of ‘Dude, Where’s My Car…’ ” they said.

“Keep it,” I replied.

But then I started hearing murmurs from people I respected telling me that it was actually pretty funny.

“But…it’s a stoner comedy,” I argued. “Remember “Half Baked”? That starred frickin’ Dave Chapelle and it was still a disaster. Besides “Death to Smoochy”, it’s Jon Stewart’s favorite bad-career-move punch line.”

All that aside, I am usually willing to start any movie that I can procure for free from the library. And that, my friends, is how “Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle” ended up in my DVD player.

I sat stone-faced during the opening credits. Arms crossed, I dared the movie to draw even a snicker out of me. And then…it did. By the time the cheetah showed up, I had to admit I was having a pretty good time. When Kumar and Roldy sang at the top of their lungs along to Wilson Phillips, I came to terms with my new found love. I immediately watched the movie again with commentary.

Sequels are rarely a good idea and I wasn’t in the mood to get my heart broken but I was exited to hang out with my favorite odd couple again.

The movie opens with the two heading to Amsterdam to find Roldy’s new girlfriend, Maria. Kumar, true to Id-laden form, decides to smuggle some weed onto the plane. To Amsterdam. Panic ensues when the already on-edge passengers mistake the boNG for a boMB, resulting in Kumar and his “accomplice” being shuffled off to the titular Cuban prison.

Unlike getting to White Castle, escaping from Guantanamo Bay is, apparently, pretty easy. Their challenge this time around is making their way to Texas to find the one man who can exonerate them; an acquaintance with government ties who just happens to be the fiancé of Kumar’s lost love. On the way they are pursued by an overzealous and naive FBI agent (the brilliant Rob Corddry) and must also contend with the KKK. And as an early promotional poster suggested, Neil Patrick Harris is back as the sex-crazed, drug-addled…Neil Patrick Harris.

haroldandkumarI was apprehensive that this would be the worst part of the movie. The reason the NPH gag worked so well in the first film was because we didn’t see it coming.

“What’s the deal with Neil Patrick Harris?” Roldy asked after their initial run-in. “Why is he so horny?”

Why indeed. But it turns out there is more funny to be gleaned from the NPH persona. No spoilers here but rest assured, the unicorn pays off. Plus Neil Patrick Harris really has that character nailed.

Another highlight concerns a flashback to college where we learn that Kumar wasn’t always so fancy-free and Roldy wasn’t always so Old Navy. Granted, these are moments for the already converted. Many of you are probably still thinking, “But the first one looked so dumb. Did we really need two of these? I’d rather see what is currently in the works for that delightful Dax Shepard.”

WHY THE H & K MOVIES WORK:
Yes there are gross-out jokes and plenty o’ Porky’s-esque nudity. Sure the film opens with a joke about crapping. I agree that prison rape humor is played out. But in this context it works because Harold and Kumar are unique protagonists. Not because they’re Asian leads, although that is tragically unusual. Nay, they are unique because they are completely accessible. I gleefully followed their quest to go to White Castle amidst persecution from bullies and awkward encounters with the opposite sex because I know those guys. I have been those guys (albeit a female version). They may be above average in the looks department, but they also have job stress and pressure from their parents. They get into some wacky adventures, some of which might seem pretty contrived, but in the end they want the same things we all want: Love, tasty food and the service of justice. The “stoner comedy” is still an unfortunate genre, but Harold and Kumar rise above it because it’s not a movie about smoking weed. Not really. It’s about being a citizen of 21st Century America. And it’s hilarious.

May 1, 2008
Categories: Filmpinions . Tags: . Author: Baxter . Comments: 2 Comments

Don’t Be Scared of Scarecrow Video

X-Posted from 98105.net.

It’s true. It can be a bit intimidating to rent videos at Scarecrow Video, whatwith their two stories of rare and imported DVDs on top of all the usual fare. More intimidating still is the staff that actually has to take a test as part of their employment application. Perhaps it is passing this trial that gives some of the staff a bit of an ego.
I will always remember my experience when attempting to rent the Monkees movie…

As a general rule, I dislike asking staff in shops for help, so I first looked for it myself in the music section next to the Monkees TV show. It was not there. I slunk downstairs and located an employee. I knew what the movie was called, but I felt weird asking if they had “Head”, so I opted for what I deemed to be a less risqué, more informational method of inquiry.

“Do you have the Monkees movie?”

The man behind the counter scoffed (yes, scoffed). “You mean “Head”?”

“Yeeees.”

Without hesitation or the aid of the store’s database, he responded “That would be in the Bob Rafelson section.”

We blinked at each other for a couple of seconds and then I headed to the directors’ section.

Now, I am a bit of a movie geek myself so I was familiar with Rafelson, who also directed “Five Easy Pieces” and “The Postman Always Rings Twice”. But forgive me if I didn’t think the man warranted his own section in a video store. This particular employee did not forgive me.

This experience is certainly not typical at Scarecrow. Most of the employees are helpful and enthusiastic. But there are enough encounters like this to give myself and others I’ve spoken to pause when they want to rent a silly Hollywood movie like, say, “Hot Rod”. If you don’t have a specific film in mind, however, or you have a very specific RARE movie in mind, the folks at Scarecrow (mostly) can and will be more than happy to help you out.

Check out their blog for recommendations, news about new releases and sale announcements.

5030 Roosevelt Way NE 98105
(206) 524-8554
www.scarecrow.com

Do you have a Scarecrow horror/help story? Tell it in the comments!

April 16, 2008
Categories: 98105.net, Filmpinions, Seattle . . Author: Baxter . Comments: 2 Comments

Funny Games: A Critical Essay on a 1/2 Dimentional Film

Austrian filmmaker, Michael Haneke, sure thinks a lot of his “ideas”. He has come to the conclusion that people have not only become desensitized to violence, but that we crave it in our cinema. And that makes us jerks. Jerks who must be punished. By him.

The punishment comes in the form of Funny Games, a film deemed so important by the filmmaker, that he made it twice: First in 1997 in his native country and then again in 2008, shot for shot and in English, because he knows that many Americans would miss an Austrian film. Well, it turns out most Americans will miss the film in English. I am among the unhappy few.

It begins with Ann, George and George Jr. Farber, an uninteresting yuppie family, driving to their vacation home. They are immediately unlikeable but that's OK because torture is on the horizon. What you don't know is that it will be you, the audience, who is tortured.

The Farbers arrive at their home and proceed to settle in. Ann (Naomi Watts) sets about cooking dinner while the Georges (Tim Roth, lacking the deliciousness of his bad guy characters, and wide-eyed child Devon Gearhart) work on their boat. Of course they have a boat.

After an excruciatingly long period of watching the family “be real”, a young man dressed in white arrives at the door asking to borrow some eggs. (The white outfit is no doubt meant to invoke A Clockwork Orange, one of many superior films with a similar message.) He “accidentally” drops them and then asks for some more. It slowly dawns on Ann that she isn't in control of the situation and she begrudgingly complies in order to get him to leave. Eventually, he does, but of course later returns with his companion played by the once cherubic Michael Pitt. (Does anyone besides me remember him as the sweet, fawning Henry on Dawson's Creek?!) Soon, but not nearly soon enough, the would-be Droogs make it clear that they are there eff up some white suburban azz.

Here's where things get interesting. Or at least they would have in the hands of a thoughtful auteur. But Haneke would have none of this, how do you say, story and character. “You want torture?” he implicitly asks. “Ooh, yes please!” say my $9. “Well, here's your torture! It will all happen off camera under the ruse that the audience's brain naturally draws more horrific conclusions, but really it's because I am prudish and lack imagination, as proven by the fact that I made a film whose sole purpose is to reprimand people who like violent movies.”


Oh, Henry!

This isn't an interpretation of a subtle film either. He says as much in interviews, but moreover, has his characters say it. Directly to the audience. Michael Pitt's antagonistic Paul (or Jerry or Butthead as he sometimes refers to himself…GET IT??!!) continuously breaks the fourth wall, asking if we've had enough or who we will bet on as the victor. George asks Paul why they are doing this and Paul jokingly delivers a series of cliche excuses for his companion's motives including sexual and classicist frustration and a history of abuse. You see, they are just two evil sons of bitches getting off on hurting people. George replies that he “gets it”, as if to anticipate the audience's response to this transparent sermon. But Paul just laughs. “He gets it. That's awesome,” he cackles. It is the voice of Haneke himself condescending to the people who were foolish enough to buy a ticket. At the halfway mark, you definitely “get it”, but the movie is far from over. Haneke will continue to drive his point home for another hour. It isn't clever and it doesn't make me feel guilty for wanting to see a horror movie. It just makes me wish that I could break Haneke's knee with a golf club.

Haneck's torture of the audience doesn't stop with preachy speeches and the elimination of compelling characters and creative bloodshed. He also draws out every single action and shot to an agonizing length. The worst case of this occurs during the “eye of the storm” in which the boys leave Ann and George to their false sense of security. The audience, having seen movies before, knows that they will be back. But they don't come back until after, in a mostly still shot, George struggles to sit up despite a broken leg and Ann hobbles around the living room and kitchen in her underwear attempting to cut her bindings. Next she helps him (without any help from he with one unbroken leg) into the kitchen where they take turns blow drying a cell phone battery. I don't know how long this scene is. Maybe 20 minutes. It feels longer. But all of this non-action happens in real time. We are relieved when the boys finally come back to finish the job. Of course, that takes forever too.

Michael Haneke is wrong about his audience, anyway. Most of us don't go to violent movies because we are violent people. We enjoy them as a way to relieve aggression without actually hurting people. A Clockwork Orange, Natural Born Killers and The Devil's Rejects have messages about society but they work, in addition to being superior scripts, because there is something satisfying about watching engaging characters kill and/or die in unusual ways. I don't seek out real life violence. Hell, I'm a vegetarian. I know the difference between fiction and reality. But Haneke's smug polemic doesn't just fail because he is wrong, it also fails because he made a bad film. Twice. Perhaps he will now dedicate his life to remaking the film in every language. Perhaps too, he will eventually make a version that doesn't suck.

X-Posted from The Reel

March 20, 2008
Categories: Filmpinions . . Author: Baxter . Comments: 10 Comments

« Previous Page — Previous page Next page — Next Page »