Archive for January, 2010

Legion: When the Apocalypse Comes, at Least This Movie Will Be Destroyed, Too.

Posted in Review with tags , , , , , on January 30, 2010 by Jared Parmenter

Legion
Not only is Legion by far the worst movie of the budding new year, it is the most morally reprehensible film of the decade, and quite possibly of my lifetime. Was I the only one expecting the filmmakers to subvert expectations and make a film about shooting Angels with guns somewhat conscientious by the end?
Continue reading

Jack goes Boating

Posted in Festival/Event, Review with tags , , , , on January 29, 2010 by Timothy Parfitt

So last night I went to this “sundance USA*” screening, for Jack goes Boating, this really mediocre movie directed by Philip Seymour Hoffman.  He wears a stupid wool cap for the first hour of the movie, only to reveal dreadlocks?  I guess it was a comedy.  The film follows two friends, both chaffeurs, as one finds a new romance, while the other watches his longterm relationship fall apart.  Hoffman said afterwards that him and his theatre company pals were doing it as a play, but everyone said the play was “cinematic” so they adapted it into a movie… Continue reading

Catch-up: What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962)

Posted in Catch-up with tags , , , , , , on January 29, 2010 by sdoob

 

Why I had never heard of What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? before last week, I don’t know.  But I loved it.  

Baby Jane is one of those rare films that feels fragile.  It could have so easily been an embarrassment for everyone involved – especially Bette Davis, but for the studio and director Robert Aldrich, as well. Like with Davis’ character, Baby Jane Hudson, it is sad to watch someone who believes in herself (or himself) be terrible at what they do.  However, the movie succeeds beautifully! only to blow it in the second half.  But it’s still worth watching, definitely.    Continue reading

Catch-up: Moon (2009)

Posted in Catch-up with tags , , , , on January 27, 2010 by Timothy Parfitt

Circumstances are limiting me to short sentences.  Moon is great.  It is directed by David Bowie’s son, but deserves attention based on its own merits.  Sam Rockwell isn’t even annoying as Sam Bell, the isolated astronaut spending 3 years supervising the collection of solar energy by robots on the moon.  It asks big, cosmic questions.

Sloppy Thirds: thoughts on Inglourious Basterds

Posted in Ruminations and Dedications with tags , , , on January 26, 2010 by Timothy Parfitt

There were two main reasons I avoided seeing Inglourious Basterds initially.  The first was that the film (along with Valkyrie*) seemed to belong to a recent batch of World War II movies whose historical accuracy was beyond suspect.  Hollywood has always bent people and events to its advantage, but usually in easily decodable ways.  Now we have nazi-scalping Jews and Tom Cruise valiantly trying to dethrone Hitler from within the SS.  Even as entertainment, don’t these films indirectly benefit the causes of historical revisionism?  The second reason… Continue reading

New Classic: Look Who’s Talking

Posted in New Classic with tags , , on January 26, 2010 by sdoob

First of all, don’t buy this at Wal-Mart.  It sucks.  The colors look like shit. 

Now, I’ll tell you why I love this movie: 

A.  It’s the only movie I’ve ever liked Travolta in, except when I was in denial about Pulp Fiction

B.  The soundtrack rocks me every time.

C. Kirstie Alley is a babe.  Especially in her aerobics outfit.  Continue reading

New Classic: Jacob’s Ladder

Posted in New Classic with tags on January 22, 2010 by hgish

Jacob’s Ladder, directed by Adrian Lyne and released in 1990, is a remarkable movie.  To classify it specifically as a horror film is to oversimplify, for Jacob’s Ladder fucks with notions of genre as much as it fucks with the minds of its viewers.  Indeed, the film might be best classified as a complex horror-drama, as its story is one of self-discovery and personal growth in the face of excessive mental and physical trauma.  In fact, I’ve encountered no other film that deals with the Vietnam War so abstractly, and yet so fully asks (or forces) the viewer to consider the aftereffects of gratuitous, perhaps pointless, armed conflict.  Continue reading