Even after many viewings on home video, The Little Mermaid is still enjoyable to watch every time. All of the pieces come together to make the film a masterpiece.
Aahhh. A film that gives me an great opportunity to return to a completely Kaplanesque review.
I'd start by calling this film pretentious, but then someone would argue that it's not (although I get the feeling that there are some people who don't think any pretentious films have ever been made ), but pretentious would be too nice a thing to say about this film in such a Kaplanesque review. So instead, I'll just mention how amatuerish most of this thing is. I know Godard didn't use trained monkeys to film it, cause it would have looked much better if he had.
Now, despite the tone of this review, I have to say, that near the end, when she's talking to the old man, the dialogue was actually not half bad. It kind of reminded me of some of the dialogue in The Picture of Dorian Gray (the book, not the film). However, in Dorian Gray, we get great dialogue wrapped around a great interesting story. In this case, it's just a meandering story about a bitch who leaves her husband and kid, becomes a whore, and apparently dies for some reason that is never made even remotely clear, not that I gave a damn by that point.
The saddest thing about this movie, is it may be the best Godard film I've yet seen.
"Movies should be like amusement parks. People should go to them to have fun." - Billy Wilder
10/12/06: THE SERPENT AND THE RAINBOW (Wes Craven, 1988) **1/2
I had intended to watch this one after I WALKED WITH A ZOMBIE (1943), given its similar voodoo backdrop; however, I could only manage to follow THE GHOST SHIP (1943) with it – and that’s because the latter doesn’t have an accompanying Audio Commentary on Warners’ DVD edition!
It’s an intriguing film with some very striking imagery – particularly during the numerous hallucinations which afflict lead Bill Pullman (the most incredible was the snake darting out of a corpse’s mouth!) – but which is rather too unpleasant in detail to be easily enjoyed. The cast also highlights Cathy Tyson (star of MONA LISA [1986]) as the Haitian doctor who helps – and falls for – Pullman, Paul Winfield as a local mystic, the always welcome Michael Gough (as Pullman’s boss back in the U.S. – who ends up witnessing, with the former, a rather effective dinner-table possession by the wife of their mutual employer!), Brent Jennings (as a specialized drug dealer) and, particularly, Zakes Mokae as the truly evil figure of authority who crushes down all opposition with brutal methods (but also resorting to the supernatural if this proves especially persistent!).
Still, the zombies here end up being something of a cheat – but, given the film’s supposed basis in reality, I guess that’s understandable. Then again, there’s an effects-laden climax (including an amusing bit in which the Paul Winfield character tears off his own head and throws it at Pullman!) which is not a little far-fetched; the utterly convincing location work does, however, bring to life the dire political situation of Haiti at the time. Unfortunately, footage of cockfighting was censored for the U.K. version – and, in fact, there are no such scenes in the Region 2 DVD I watched!
Apparently, Wade Davis (the author of the book on which the film was based) had higher aspirations for his story, as his ideal choice of director was Peter Weir – with Mel Gibson as the star!! This is surely among the best (of the admittedly little I’ve watched) of Craven’s work; however, I’ll be making amends with another title I rented – THE PEOPLE UNDER THE STAIRS (1991) – and should be receiving the R1 2-Disc Set of THE HILLS HAVE EYES (1977; purchased as part of a Halloween Horror Sale at Deep Discount DVD) in the coming weeks…
10/12/06: FRIDAY THE 13TH PART 2 (Steve Miner, 1981) BOMB
I’ve only ever watched the first and last films in this neverending series of slashers – FRIDAY THE 13TH (1980) and FREDDY VS. JASON (2003); neither was any good, and this second instalment is, if anything, even worse! Following the stupid misadventures of a number of fun-loving teens for 90 minutes would test anyone’s patience – and, with that in mind, I decided to watch this a day earlier and leave PART III for Friday the 13th itself (which is actually the only reason I lowered myself to renting such outright trash!)…
While there’s plenty of violence (a couple making out in a bedroom are speared right through – directly ripping off not just Mario Bava’s giallo TWITCH OF THE DEATH NERVE [1971] but the original FRIDAY itself!), this is mostly relegated to the second half: we have to suffer first through a long-winded prologue (reprising virtually the entire climax of the first film) and oodles of exposition in order to pigeon-hole each and every one of the teens (but, then, a few of them get lost in the shuffle – the irritating geek, for instance, never returns from the night on the town!), plus make perfectly clear (unless it may go above some particularly feeble-minded audience member’s head) the fact that their camp is situated next to the infamous “Camp Blood” (Brrrr!). Still, the unseen murderer (outside of the last shot, that is) device grows tired pretty quickly (where’s the iconic figure of Jason wearing an ice hockey mask, anyway?!), as does the plot contrivance of isolating individual members of the cast – thus marking them all too obviously as the next victim (at least, a couple of the girls are attractive and even get to shed their clothes)!
I guess you can all elicit from this negative review that the slasher subgenre, in my estimation, is about the lowest point in the horror spectrum!
10/13/06: THE PEOPLE UNDER THE STAIRS (Wes Craven, 1991) **1/2
This isn’t a horror film per se but rather a macabre black comedy, and it also ends up not really being about the titlular ‘creatures’. There are bravura performances from Everett McGill and Wendy Robie, however. It’s unusual in having a black kid as hero (with the film playing almost like a demented version of HOME ALONE [1990]!); Ving Rhames also makes an impression as a smart-alec ‘brother’.
The script has things to say about poverty and parenthood but it all kind of gets sidetracked by the action and thrills. It’s less significant, therefore, than a somber film like THE SERPENT AND THE RAINBOW (1988) but also more entertaining. There’s even a touch of surrealism when McGill emerges dressed in leather and studs from head to toe and starts blowing holes in the house’s walls with a shotgun because one of the ‘creatures’ has escaped from the cellar – and there are also a couple of good lines: “If you thought he was white, you should see the sucker now!” (in reference to a pal of Rhames who, apparently, has died of fright) and the boy telling A.J. Langer (the manic couple’s cloistered teenage ‘daughter’) “Your father is one sick mother…actually, your mother is one sick mother, too!”
Ultimately, the film can be seen perhaps as Craven’s take on ‘old dark house’ chillers; incidentally, this viewing was preceded by THE CURSE OF THE CAT PEOPLE (1944) – which also revolves, in part, around this same theme!
10/13/06: FRIDAY THE 13TH PART III (Steve Miner, 1982) *1/2
This one’s only marginally superior to PART 2 – and that’s mainly due to its extensive use of the 3-D effect; other than that, the situation is as before: numerous obnoxious teenagers (including a couple of dope-smokers and an obese prankster) go to camp and are stalked – for no reason – by Jason (a motorcycle gang whom the campers fall foul of also end up among the victims). At least, we get a couple of inventive deaths (accentuated by 3-D): the harpoon through the eye and the squashed head – the latter leading to a hilarious moment as an eye spurts out at the camera! The first fifteen minutes of the film are actually wasted on yet another reprise of the climax from the previous entry – followed by an endless and irrelevant murder set-piece! This film also answered a question I had put up in my review of its predecessor, in connection with Jason’s mask. Despite my obvious Iack of enthusiasm for this type of film, I went ahead and rented the next two installments in the FRIDAY saga – and should be gradually rounding off the whole series by Halloween. Yawn…
If you know who Max Linder is, I'm impressed. A major influence on Chaplin, Keaton, the Marx Brothers and others, and one of the most popular silent comedians around the world (except for in the U.S., which is probably why you've never heard of him). Twelve years before the classic mirror scene in Duck Soup, here it is in this film.
This film is, for me, on par with lesser Chaplin, which means it's good, but nothing I need to see again. Still, I'm very happy to have seen it once. I don't know if any of Linder's other films rise to a higher level since this is the only one I've seen, though I doubt it. Still an important historical figure in film, who should at least be much better known than he is.
"Movies should be like amusement parks. People should go to them to have fun." - Billy Wilder
Boy, maybe I just turned my brain off during Storytelling, but I don't see anything on the screen except a writer/director being indulgent. There's nothing in either of these two stories to latch onto, that's funny or particularly revealing about anything in particular. Instead, Solondz seems to coast on his former success with Happiness and Welcome to the Dollhouse to get enough critics and art-type people on board with the exercise in pointlessness he puts on the screen here.
The first story (Fiction) is the tale about a girl (Vi) who decides to proposition a professor and Pulitzer Prize winer for sex, perhaps because her cerebal palsay boyfriend had been destroyed mercilessly in their creative writing class...and then maybe not. Maybe she just wants a sexual encounter where she feels something...maybe she just wants to sweat during sex...and then maybe not. Her story is just a half hour long and doesn't have anything of any interest to say. We never do find out why she is going after this sexual encounter. We don't even know why this one is called "Fiction", except, of course, the reference to the writing class. But even that is tenuous at best.
Which leaves us with the "Non-Fiction" story, centering on a conservative Republican family who suffers one problem (one son has no idea what he wants to do with his life and has no interest in taking the SAT) to another (another son is paralyzed in football practice). This ones title is a bit easier to understand; this family is the center of a documentary. But, again, you have to ask yourself: what exactly is Solondz trying to say? That under the microscope of a camera or inquisitor everything becomes fractured and torn apart? That life should be cherished no matter what the circumstances? That you have to live, take risks and do different things lest you wind up as a shoe salesman with no hope of a future?
Simply, I don't get any of this. I don't know why someone would finance it. I don't know why these actors would sign on to it. I don't know why some people adore this film. I don't see any redeeming feature in it. It's just utterly pointless.
