Plato Shrimp

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



9/30/2024 4:18 pm  #1021


Re: Recently Seen



For whatever reason, I failed to get to this one during last year's award-season.  The film is about as good as its reputation would expect.  Great writing, and Alexander Payne has a soft, naturalistic touch with his staging which fosters some excellent performances, well-earned Oscars noms for Paul Giamatti and Da'Vine Joy Randolph.  I was a bit less impressed with Dominic Sessa, and the film slightly slides into the maudlin during the back half when the story requires Sessa to carry the weight.  It doesn't much matter, because this is really Giamatti's vehicle at heart, and he's reliably, even stubbornly, impeccable.

8/10




Here's a film that seemed to disappear immediately, which doesn't make a lot of sense, considering the pedigree, until you see the film and figure it out.  The script is shit, but even that may have been excusable had the film been in the least bit funny, but it's not, being drafted through at least four credited writers and doctored by hack comedians like Jeff Ross and Jim Norton.  It's a shame, especially considering how many true legends may have to have this listed as their swan song - Charles Grodin, Richard Belzer, Cloris Leachman, Gilbert Gottfried.  Clearly there were favors and lots of good will wasted, but maybe this explains why De Niro showed up in Joker - he must have owed somebody some serious money.  And like Joker, it's hilarious how anyone thought that Scorsese could be the least bit interested in directing this thing.

4/10
 


 

10/07/2024 3:46 pm  #1022


Re: Recently Seen



I could easily place this in the Horror thread, but I'll use this instead given the film's prestige sheen.

This is one of the great films of the year, probably the best horror film, definitely the best comedy.  It's a fairly simple fable about the toxicity in our commercial "beauty" industry.  The initial joke is the film's title, as the film is concerned strictly on the superficial.  And although this beauty industry is still run by scabs like Dennis Quaid (unexpectedly hilarious), there's plenty of residual toxicity to go around among its female consumers.  Criticisms about the film's lack of subtlety have clearly missed the point.  Like Megalopolis, subtlety has no currency here.  (Is 'Elisabeth Sparkle' a less ridiculous name than 'Wow Platinum'?)

Ultimately, the film rests not on the tale itself but in its tactile dedication to its sensual subject.  Sometimes "body horror" can be a jumbled, imprecise phrase for all manner of garish things, but this film respects its ideal, focusing on the truly carnal, in aspects of both food and sex, on textures of flesh which arouse the twins of eros/thanatos and lust/disgust.

As 'execution dependent' as the film is, everything that works about it happens to be a spoiler.  All I'll say is that it is a film well worth watching blind, and that as such it well exceeded my hopeful expectations. 

9/10


     Thread Starter
 

10/12/2024 5:16 pm  #1023


Re: Recently Seen



Am I a glutton for punishment?  Are my standards too high for a studio production's ability at reconstruction?  Do I possibly believe that all of this stuff about "spiritual truth" is just kind of a weasely way to excuse revisionism, chronic inconsistency and shameless myth-fellating?

Lest we be confused, let's be clear about the function of this motion picture.  It is not intended as a stand-alone entertainment.  It is an indulgent accessory for the larger 50th anniversery festivities of SNL this year.  The film acts more like an extended advertisement for the upcoming 50th anniversery special, already being touted as the hottest ticket in town.  It would be curious to see who and how extensive was the cooperation and consent of the various individuals being portrayed in this film, but we all know that among those still living, none of them are going to be willing to object lest they lose their invitations to that event.  (It's the same reason why SNL vets will clench their smiles and assure us that SNL is just as good today as it ever was - because that's the only way to stay on Lorne Michaels' good side.)

Those who are no longer living perhaps fared the worst.  Johnny Carson and Jim Henson are shown in the least charitable light.  Apparently John Belushi was completely devoid of electricity or charisma whenever he was off camera.  Or even the not-quite-dead Chevy Chase.  I assume that the insertion of the completely fictitious Milton Berle scene only served the purpose of putting Chase in his place for modern audiences.  But I could really get lost in the weeds by pointing out all of the very very many demonstrable fictions in the film, but the larger question is simply "why?", or for what purpose are these inserted fictions supposed to dramatically serve?  And the answer is none at all.  Instead, what is being served is the lowest-common-denomination of SNL myth. 

Rosie Shuster, who does finally receive some recognition after years of relative obscurity, is still relegated to moral support rather than as a creative writer.  One of the most persistent SNL myths is that the show was a boys club, dominated by macho male egos, and this myth can really only be believed if one downplays and ignores the contributions of all of the female talent on the show.  So while it's nice to finally see Rosie Shuster - at all - the other women writers, Anne Beatts and Marilyn Suzanne-Miller, are largely absent.  Meanwhile, the female performers spend much of the film running around like it's a sleepover.  To compensate, the film tries a couple of feeble attempts at commentary, inserting a rehearsal for a sketch from a future episode (the reverse-objectification of construction workers) which confuses Dan Aykroyd's character reaction to Aykroyd's actual feelings.  And finally, also a mere matter of fact, Rosie Schuster did use the name "Michaels" in the credits of the first show.  Not that it's a big deal, except the film's decision to make it one, but it's a strangely dishonest way to try to make its point.

Other notable omissions: the significant writer, Tom Schiller, is completely absent, even as a cameo (maybe he refused to even allow his likeness to be a part of this endeavor).  Richard Belzer was the audience warm-up guy and background extra for this episode, and this could have made a pretty amusing cameo.  George Coe, an unofficial member of the cast, had nearly more airtime than anyone other than Chase in this episode, but is absent here.  And just as a side note...I understand that there's limits to how much exact likeness should be factored into casting, but Kaia Gerber, a brown-eyed brunette, doesn't look a thing like Chase's girlfriend (and also unoffcial cast member) Jacqueline Carlin, a blue-eyed sandy blonde.  I mean, no offence, it isn't like Gerber's performance was so irreplaceably impressive.

Should I have to apologize for bothering to watch the actual show?  Is Lorne Michaels about a year or two away from going full-Lucas and using A.I. CGI to completely rewrite these early episodes?  I understand that to most people, many of these problems sound very petty.  But that's exactly the problem!  The sheer pettiness of these factual alterations are what make them so endlessly irritating.  There's very little excuse for why the Columbia studio production department couldn't have handled these details, so instead what it suggests is an indifference bordering on neglect if not contempt.  Here's an example, again small and petty.  The (classic!) opening of the first episode - the surreally irreverent "wolverine" sketch - had a blue-grey paint-on-plaster wall with little cracks and some greenish coloration to show that this was probably in a rundown tenement building.  It's a simple thing, and I think most SNL fans could easily envision it off-hand.  But the film version, for whatever reason, decides to use a yellow-gold floral wallpaper instead.  Again, bear with me.  "Why!?!?"  That's all I'm asking.  Do you expect me to believe that the Columbia studio prop room was out of paint and plaster, and only had some floral wallpaper left in stock?  Or!  Dare I suggest that this was more due to the laziness of the reconstruction effort?  A condescending belief that the audience won't care, and I'm sure many of the casual ones won't.  But SNL fans?  I think they might?  Maybe that's why they've been fans for 50 fucking years?  Again, exactly who is this movie for?

But I'll go one deeper, and you'll have to excuse me.  I think the most insulting "detail" in the film is with the portrayal of Billy Preston's back-up band.  Now it's already debatable how much Jon Batiste looks like Billy Preston anyway, but I'm more than willing to let that slide.  I would agree that this would fall into asinine nitpicking.  However, it's a little fucked up that none of the other band members look a anything like their real-life counterparts.  Like, not even close, like they obviously didn't bother to try.  They couldn't even use that Columbia studio prop department money to get some vintage wardrobe and wigs?  How much extra would this have cost?  You paid for a silicone prosthetic penis (in a velvet-lined case, according to JK SImmons) for a character who wasn't even there that night!  Are you're telling me you couldn't get a blonde-leather jumpsuit for the guitarist?  But they did put a hat on the drummer.  You know who didn't have a hat on?  Ollie E. Fucking Brown, the legendary session drummer who played behind Billy Preston that night.  You think this is a small background detail?  Watch the clip.  The camera cuts to Brown multiple times during the performance, partially because he had a very distinct and somewhat flamboyant style of drumming.  Here's the problem - I don't think Jason Reitman has ever watched this show.  And his nepo-trustfund-ass definitely doesn't give a fuck who Ollie E. Brown is.  Like I said, neglect bording on contempt.  These assholes are probably snickering at Billy Preston's band just like they snickered at the Muppets.

Anyway, these cunts.  I guess some of the casts' impersonations were pretty good, probably Dylan O'Brien's Aykroyd and Lamorne Morris' Garrett were the standouts.  Willem Dafoe is a highlight as a viperous executive (David Tebet, who I understand was not at all like this and likely is another dead guy being taken advantage of here).  Gabriel LaBelle will probably get an honorary Oscar nomination, because even Hollywood execs are trying to get those 50th anniversery special tickets.  Ultimately though, all of the karaoke cosplay aside, there's the inescable truth that there's a very good reason why all of these original cast performers and writers are comedy legends.....and you're not.

6/10
 


     Thread Starter
 

10/15/2024 8:02 pm  #1024


Re: Recently Seen

Continuing the rewatch write-ups, some recents...




Frank Perry is one of the unsung voices of New Hollywood.  These days he's better known as Katy's uncle than for any of his films, even though several of them (The Swimmer, Play It As It Lays, Rancho Deluxe) are borderline classics.  This one is also among those, one of the era's subgenre of feminist "housewife ennui" (ie, Rachel Rachel, Wanda, Rain People, That Cold Day in the Park, Season of the Witch, Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, etc.)  This film garnered an Oscar nom for Carrie Snodgrass in the lead, which would be her only role of note before she ironically retired to become Neil Young's housewife.  The film also has a couple of interesting roles by actors playing against type - Richard Benjamin as an arrogant tyrant (the contrast with his usual nice guy nebbish makes this more humorous than it probably should be), and Frank Langella playing way too skinny to be sexy (he comes off more like Anthony Perkins).

8/10




Speaking of Frank Perry's Play It As It Lays, this is the other great film to feature Anthony Perkins and Tuesday Weld, but it is quite a different film.  Supposedly more of a thriller, director Noel Black infuses it with countercultural humor.  Perkins is fresh out of the "institution", trying to get his footing as an adult in real-life, only to be tempted by his elaborate fantasies.  He ends up picking up a high school cheerleader (Weld) by spinning an exciting tale of imaginary espionage which we assume that Weld is too naive to see through.  It seems that she also has her own need for compulsive excitement.  What starts as a twisted take on the Bonnie & Clyde formula turns into something much more interesting and unique, but still very much of the late-'60s era.

8/10




This is a late-New Hollywood film which baffingly continues to go unmentioned by cineastes.  It really needs a rediscovery and reappraisal.  Richard Donner is more known for his blockbusters, but here he takes on a small, gritty film (while recuperating from getting fired from Superman II) about a San Franscico neighborhood bar which caters to the local subsidized housing for the handicapped.  Shot by Laszlo Kovacs, the film retains an urban working-class veneer that's so typical of many New Hollywood films, as well as a dramatic realism in the performances among its ensemble of misfits.  The wraparound cultural signifier is basketball, and the home team is Frisco's Golden State Warriors (then the epitome of underdog teams - again, how times have changed), and a young David Morse (who's excellent) is a prospective player who only needs a leg operation to qualify for the big time.  In addition to lead John Savage and Morse, Diana Scarwid is strong as an everywoman waitress, someone unaccustomed to male attention suddenly finding herself torn between the two men.

Perhaps more of a comment on how times have changed, I think it's amusing, and not at all accurate, that the biggest criticisms of this film at the time is its supposed "sappiness" (which from its description one could see as a potential liability), but in fact compared to the typical Oscar-bate these days, the film looks downright stoic to me.  The film certainly doesn't shy away from "the feels" at times, but I find they are well-earned, and John Savage's main role as a man suffering from the neurological damage of a botched suicide attempt is quite a bit more human and respectable than many examples of crip-face that have been more richly awarded by critics and trophies since.  And unlike so many of the more pandering types of Oscar-bate, I find Inside Moves to be a deeply affecting motion picture.

9/10
 


     Thread Starter
 

10/16/2024 7:57 am  #1025


Re: Recently Seen

I saw Pretty Poison a few months ago and was pretty good. Was in the Hollywood Goes Mad series on the Criterion channel, along with another even better movie I'd never heard of: Lilith, starring Warren Beatty.

I need to check out Inside Moves at some point. Sounds up my alley. As soon as I'm done watching terrible 50's B-movies as some kind of punishment for some crimes from a past life, or something.
 

 

10/16/2024 8:00 am  #1026


Re: Recently Seen

I still have absolutely no interest in the Saturday Night movie, no matter how many hats are missing. I don't think I've liked anything by Reitman. I don't like the idea of the film, not so much because of the concept, but because of what they will end probably feel forced  to do with the limitaitons of the concept. And while I know no body is likely to do a worse job of imitating Belushi than Michael Chiklis, that performance was so bad I never want to see another actor play that guy again. It may even be a reason I don't even particularly like the real deal, all of that Chiklis soft-shoe mugging.

 

10/16/2024 8:46 am  #1027


Re: Recently Seen

Yeah, Pretty Poison is pretty good. The only other thing I’ve seen from Noel Black is Private School, which is pretty bad, although Phoebe Cates has her charms.


I am not above abusing mod powers for my own amusement.
 

10/16/2024 8:53 pm  #1028


Re: Recently Seen

crumbsroom wrote:

Lilith, starring Warren Beatty.

It's hard to compare enough to say which is "better", but Lilith is one of those fascinating films on the cusp of the sexual revolution, at a time when psychosexual themes were just becoming explicit in American films, same year as the unfortunately misunderstood Marnie.  Also a terrific early role for Gene Hackman.

crumbsroom wrote:

And while I know no body is likely to do a worse job of imitating Belushi than Michael Chiklis, that performance was so bad I never want to see another actor play that guy again.

I wouldn't place the blame on this Matt Wood, who at least looks the part well enough, because he simply isn't really given anything to do.  According to this timeline, Belushi spent the enitre 90 minutes before the show in a nearly catatonic brood, only occasionally rousing to fight Chevy Chase (which never happened) or to steal cocaine (occasionally happened).  The only highlight afforded is to allow him to partially re-enact one of his Weekend Update bits from season 2 - which is a pattern the film plays with a lot.  (We also see a preview of season 4's Julia Child, presumably for the sole reason that Reitman wanted a scene with a lot of blood).

So your prior concern is more apt, in that the film is quite dishonest and loose with the facts and chronology as it suits Reitman's whims.  And even if one were to overlook that, in service of capturing the real-time energy of the backstage tensions, well, it's barely more than a Birdman rip in that regard either.

I have been on the lookout for some feedback from the original cast and crew, but (unsurprisingly, as my write-up points out) there's mostly been silence.  Vulture posted tweets from two, Aykroyd and Newman, which were very positive, but I'm still taking a grain of salt.  Aykroyd can be happy - he comes off the best in the film after all.  (All the girls want to fuck him.)  Newman said it was an "honor" to be portrayed by a "brilliant" actress.  For what?  Both scenes?  And then more cryptically (which means quite obviously), Cory Michael Smith related that he can confirm that Chevy Chase has seen the film, but declined to reveal what Chase's thoughts were.  I can imagine.


     Thread Starter
 

11/04/2024 5:19 am  #1029


Re: Recently Seen


.

 

11/05/2024 1:11 am  #1030


Re: Recently Seen

Loved it. 

     I never expected to even find out the title of that movie with the silly giant bird puppet that munches on model airplanes, let alone enjoy it. But The Giant Claw really is fun. The first 20 minutes even fooled me into thinking it might turn out to be a respectable production, hokey practical effects notwithstanding. It seemed to be going for a Howard Hawks kind of style, with lots of tracking shots, smart editing and reasonably believable dialogue. But just when I began to think I might actually have an above–average B monster movie on my hands, the second act took a glorious nosedive into the heart of Ed Wood Jr territory. Jeff Morrow and Mara Corday are plenty fun to watch, but Act II is signaled by the glorious entrance of Morris Ankrum doing one of his classic Curtis Goatheart precursors, and the laughs really start rolling. Finally we get everything we’ve come to expect from good 50’s schlock horror: absurd decisions, a superstitious peasant, a scientist shoveling copious earfuls of exposition in a mock German accent, 1950s–style heroic sexual assault, excessive narration, stock footage, pilots under–acting their fiery deaths over radios, and of course plenty of men in uniforms staring at screens. We even get stock footage of cattle! “Pull the strings!” 
     
     By the third act the film seems to shift again and give the impression it’s actually making fun of itself, with lines like “I sure hope this isn’t some kind of crackpot wild goose chase!” This is the good kind of schlock, not the boring kind. The pace mostly maintains momentum (with the exception of Herr Schnurrbart’s 5–minute laboratory lullaby). Even the bits of stock footage are edited such that they almost blend in with the rest of the film. 

     But The Giant Claw would not be half the movie that it is without the star of the show, and the hideous winged creature gets plenty of screen time. We’ve likely all seen clips of this memorable thing, a ridiculous abomination of a marionette that chomps on model airplanes and is sculpted in a style that, laughable as it is, does kinda start to look scary after a while, in a Killer Klowns sort of way. Crumpled, fleshy, grotesque, with exaggerated features… things comically obvious as props that somehow manage to convey menace all the same, being too preposterous for reality but well–suited for nightmares. I don’t care if its teeth are made of socks, I wouldn’t want to dangle helplessly from a parachute in front of it. It makes a pretty scary noise, too something like a mutant towhee, and it can flare its nostrils as it mugs for the camera, which is always a leg–up in the most–lovable kaiju competition.

     Don't get me wrong; this is not a scary movie. It's a hilarious movie. If you’re in the mood for some engaging “so bad it’s good” fare, The Giant Claw deserves a watch. And at 74 minutes, it’s not much of a gamble. 

 

11/08/2024 4:25 pm  #1031


Re: Recently Seen




Well, that was dumb.  Even little four-year-old Jinnistan was wise to bail on this crap halfway through, before we get a glimpse of "The Devil" in a performance which may have been the primary inspiration for Nicolas Cage in Longlegs.  Even Andrew Prine seems more hacky than usual.  About the only surprise is that, contrary to my assumption of this being some kind of Amityville ripoff, this film was actually released well over a year prior.  Instead, this stands alongside such dreck as The Sentinel as among the more embarrassing wide-release pseudo-theological horror films of the '70s.  It does serve a useful example for why the later Prince of Darkness was so head-and-shoulders above this standard.

5/10




This isn't a very good movie, and in hindsight it shouldn't be surprising that it got lost in the bin of somewhat anonymous late '80s VHS LA cop crime dramas, complete with that ubiquitous post-Lethal Weapon soundtrack of ambient blues guitar and pan flutes.  Good cops on the edge, corrupt elites, the DEA is just a pain in the ass, and a turncoat surprise villain that you can identify as soon as you see him on screen.  What we're left with is the joy of watching a crackerjack cast of professional character actors slumming through the formula like champs boxing below their weight.  Except for Jeff Fahey.  This is pretty much his weight class.

6/10
 


     Thread Starter
 

11/08/2024 9:04 pm  #1032


Re: Recently Seen

Rampop II wrote:


.

I've definitely seen this. I like everything, so I probably liked this too.

 

11/10/2024 4:42 pm  #1033


Re: Recently Seen




There's several under-the-radar but excellent crime thrillers on Prime, from One False Move to The Limey to The Assassination Bureau, all of which are worth watching, or rewatching if you've seen them once upon a time.

But my pick for a rewatch was Stephen Frears' The Hit, a mean, no-nonsense drama with tough guys John Hurt, Terence Stamp and Tim Roth on a road trip through Spain, to deliver turned-informer Stamp over to the crime organization he sold out.  Along the way they pick up an unsuspecting hooker (Laura del Sol) who becomes a liability but whom the men can't quite bring themselves to dispense with.  A sleeper on release, this film gained cult status on home video and cable, and for a while it was on regular rotation on the old (and long-mourned) IFC channel.

8.5/10
 


     Thread Starter
 

11/11/2024 6:19 pm  #1034


Re: Recently Seen

Is 'Neo-Noirvember' a thing?  Should it be?




A couple more films that I haven't revisited in some 20-25 years, some early '90s criminal road movies.  One False Move, an original script from then still unknown Billy Bob Thornton, has Billy Bob and partner "Pluto" (an alarmingly placid Michael Beach) on the run with stolen cash and cocaine, while Thornton's girl (Cynda Williams) has ulterior plans to detour to a small town in Arkansas to see "my people".  Bill Paxton (in arguably his finest performance) is the small town sheriff, eager by the big city L.A. detectives, who arrive after learning of this detour, to finally have some big city excitement in his small town life.

The film is so well-made that it doesn't seem to have aged a day since its 30+ year release.  It's a taut thriller with excellent performances from everyone involved, smartly written with compelling contingency plotting and realistic dialogue which doesn't insult its Black or Southern communities.  In other words, a study of this film should tell you everything that the more recent Taylor Sheridan movies get wrong about all of the above.  It also helps to have a well-timed ending, which is poignant without being prolonged or preachy.

8.5/10




In contrast, this film, despite being a year younger, looks extremely dated to its early '90s aesthetics, courtesy perhaps of being made by a music video director.  And the story also isn't particularly well written, either in plotting or its themes.  The plot is a standard escalation of killers on the run, and the film doesn't bother with any mystery, showing the killers' hand at the outset.  As far as exploring the complicity of the audience, this is much less interesting that something like Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, and as commentary on the vicarious fascination of serial killers, it packs little of the punch of next year's Natural Born Killers.  Indeed, about the only draw which still keeps the film relevant after all of these years is a legitimately strong performance from Brad Pitt, at the time determined to play against his 'pretty boy' type, as well as Pitt's then irl girlfriend Juliette Lewis, who rather is playing pretty much in type of her Cape Fear character, had that character been seduced and abused by the "Big Bad Wolf".  Their couple keeps the film engaging through all of the contrivances.  The "normie" couple, on the other hand, I guess do a good job of playing naive and helpless.  David Duchovny gets the most out his puppy-dog thing, while Michelle Forbes is icy and guarded.  The film is still a very minor work of its era.

7/10
 


     Thread Starter
 

11/11/2024 11:50 pm  #1035


Re: Recently Seen

I think most people slot in some neonoirs along with the classics this month.

I've been mixing the noir selection on the Criterion Channel with some private detective pornos. Will likely continue in this vein for the rest of the month.
 


I am not above abusing mod powers for my own amusement.
 

11/12/2024 12:27 am  #1036


Re: Recently Seen

Rock wrote:

I think most people slot in some neonoirs along with the classics this month.

Ah, so it is a thing.  Get some noir on.

Rock wrote:

I've been mixing the noir selection on the Criterion Channel with some private detective pornos. Will likely continue in this vein for the rest of the month.

As long as you can keep it up.


     Thread Starter
 

11/18/2024 9:50 pm  #1037


Re: Recently Seen



Peter Strickland has made a series of films which master the genre conventions of the giallo without quite seeming to be conventional horror films.  Perhaps Berberian is closest, since it actually uses a fictitious horror film as its central subject, but in his other films, they play out more like vaguely warped surreal fairy tales, ominous in tone but more perverse than terrifying.  This tale involves a mysterious red dress, sold by an even more mysterious department store, which seems to wreck havoc on the lives of the unfortunate women who wear it, or maybe even want it.  The slightly unsettling psychedelic tone is aided immensely by a soundtrack from Stereolab's Tim Gane.

8/10




The prolific Francois Ozon presents this noirish farce, a pastiche comedy which recalls his terrific 8 Women from 2002.  Set in 1935, it features a couple of unwitting femme fatales - Nadia Tereszkiewicz as a dollish struggling actress, and Rebecca Marder as her roommate and stronger-headed (and gay-coded) lawyer - who find themselves catapulted by an inadvertent murder into fame and fortune, only for grande dame Isabelle Huppert to show up to fling chaos onto their fire.

The film is very charming and lively, mimicking less noir and more screwball as it proceeds, thanks mostly to the irresistibly effervescent actresses themselves.  (Ozon has long been France's best director for actresses, again, see 8 Women.)  The film has been described as "feminist", due to its focus on its women, but in fact the film proves quite subversive, rather than critical, of these gender roles of the era, as well as of the femme fatale trope itself.  Also special praise to a couple of very funny supporting roles from the inept investigator (Fabrice Luchini) and his suffering clerk (Oliver Broche).

8/10
 


     Thread Starter
 

11/20/2024 12:22 am  #1038


Re: Recently Seen



This is a film that's perennially been on my watchlist for years now.  No doubt its cult status is well deserved.  It makes sense to learn that the script was already nearly a decade old, because the subject of Cold War anxiety had already started to wane by 1989 (shortly before the fall of the Berlin Wall), and in so many ways this film feels more in sync with the earlier '80s, which may also be due to the film's evident budget constraints.  And it's also a crucial bit of context that the film is determinedly independent, although the major studios wanted the film (and to change the ending), writer/director Steve De Jarnatt stuck by his guns and made it himself.  As a result, the film had a stunted release and was a box office failure, only slowly gaining an audience over the years.  Unfortunately, De Jarnatt wouldn't make another film after this, so this, in addition to his earlier Cherry 2000 (another cult indie from the late '80s), remains his legacy.

The film involves a nearly real-time enactment of an early morning hour in L.A. before an imminent nuclear attack, with Anthony Edwards - randomly receiving an eerie anonymous tip-off - trying to get himself and his girlfriend (Mare Winningham) to a clandistine flight to Antartica for safety.  And despite the obvious budgets limitations, the film does manage some pretty exciting spectacle in the last third.  The larger problems with the film lie in certain plausibility and logistics issues.  Taken at face value, a lot of the film is pretty ridiculous.  In some cases, this can be a boon - like a detour through an aerobics studio - where the batshittiness adds to the fevered adrenaline rush.  It is '80s L.A. after all.  Obviously the many fans of this film are forgiving of these flaws, and the film is, if nothing else, a very singular and audacious film of its time.

8/10




Another indie cult film from the '80s, this involves the sole survivor of a airline crash who begins to experience some strange phenomenon including possible stalkers.  The film has been compared to things such as Carnival of Souls and Final Destination, and the influence on It Follows (those stalkers) is quite clear.  This is also another film which appears to have had a very small budget, an apparently amateur cast (the impressive lead actress, Anita Skinner, seems to have done little else) and subsequently a very small release leading to another slow growth of cult appreciation.  Despite the small budget and amateur aspects, the film is a very effective thriller, and worthy of its cult status.  Writer/director Thom Eberhardt would be more successful with his follow-up, the similarly inventive Night of the Comet.

8/10
 


     Thread Starter
 

11/20/2024 12:51 am  #1039


Re: Recently Seen

I’m a fan of both Miracle Mile and In Fabric. I think Strickland normally struggles with structuring his narratives but the episodic structure here makes it more or less a non-issue.


I am not above abusing mod powers for my own amusement.
 

12/03/2024 7:54 pm  #1040


Re: Recently Seen




When I first read the brief synopsis of this film, otherwise unaware of anything about it, I thought it sounded really silly and passed right over it.  Recently, I saw where Guy Maddin was a big fan, so I gave it a peek, and I thought, "Oh, I see" and decided to give it a go.  The film is still really really silly.  But, eh, more silly the better!

8.5/10




So with that being said, I realized that the micro-budget creative team behind Beavers had also previously made this film, which had popped up a lot on my horror recommends during October (I tend to largely ignore more recent films with faux-vintage posters), and was hopeful for more of the same.  This film is a lot cruder, with somehow an even smaller budget ($7000, reportedly), and a whole lot sillier, in mostly less interesting ways.  But if you can get in sync with its vibe and rhythm, it has plenty of similar charms.

7.5/10


These film are made by a team of filmmakers from Wisconsin, Mike Cheslik and Ryland Tews, writng and directing themselves with the latter being the featured lead actor in both films.  It's hard not to applaud their enthusiasm and resourcefulness.  Both films are defined by a cartoonish humor and stylistic panache, channeling everything from '50s low-budget sci-fi to silent cinema (the Guy Maddin influence is spot-on) to Karel Zeman's more manic surrealism.  But maybe more than that, straight-up Loony Toons.  Beavers especially plays like an extended Roadrunner riff, if the Coyote was a fur-trapper instead.  A very happy discovery.
 


     Thread Starter
 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum