Furious on Film 04.12.06: Issue 38
Posted by Arnold Furious on 04.12.2006
Virgins, Satan, the KKK, French people and corrupt cops. Clicky clicky.
The aim of this ongoing column was simple. I've been watching films for a long, long time but along the way I've somehow found myself watching some absolute crap on a regular basis. I've seen every episode of A Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th and Halloween. Is there any real need for that? Should I have seen Catwoman? Broken Lizard's Club Dread? Independence Day? I'm appalled at my own decisions. So I'm now on a crusade to try and be more adult about my film watching. It's time to spread my wings and watch a wider range of films. The biggest problem I've encountered when taking on this challenge is my choices of viewing material aren't always at the level I'd hope for. There are times when I abandon my high and mighty campaign and instead watch whatever my brain decides I need. This can happen at any time but I'll still try to keep up a turnover of films that are challenging in some way.
Back with the 38 facts this week. In 38 the patron saint of Scotland St Andrew died. As did Caligula's sister Drusilla (wondering how many Buffy/Angel fans read that and went "oh, that's where it comes from"). Also Apion headed a deputation to Caligula to complain about the Jews in Alexandria. Can't say I blame him. Stachys the Apostle became the second patriarch of Constantinople. It's important to know these things. Cinematically the film '38 was made in 1987 by Wolfgang Gluck. It was subtitled "Vienna Before the Fall". The 38th Grammy Awards took place in 1996. The host of this gala event was known lesbian Ellen DeGeneres. Yeah, that did a lot for her career didn't it? There's a film called "Thirty Eight", which was made in 2005 in Australia. Beyond that I know very little about it. 38 is also the number of missions, simulated, that Lieutenant Gorman had been on in Aliens. I love that one. The only film character I can remember being 38 years old was Abdul Elijah (Brent Jennings) in Red Heat.
I've been a bit slack with my film watching this week thanks to a sudden addiction to the first series of Lost. I was kind of biding my time in terms of getting into one of TV's hottest shows but after renting the first disc of the first series I find myself hooked. 8 episodes in so far and I'm already pretty attached to Charlie, Sawyer and Locke. Episodes 9-12 are winging their way to me as I type this. The big problem with Lost is I can see them jumping the shark and keeping the show going for too long. Still they do some very innovative stuff and the background bits on the characters have been excellent showing how they became what they are. Locke's "Walkabout" episode in particular. It's weird but I tend to only get into one TV series at any one time and I've spent the past 5 years hooked on 24.
Warning could well contain minor spoilers throughout. Films are rated on a ***** scale. This week we have
40 Year Old Virgin, Prince of Darkness, Birth of a Nation, Manon Des Sources, Dark Blue
The 40 Year Old Virgin (2005)
EXPECTATIONS Directed by Judd Apatow. This is his movie debut after working in TV particularly on the Larry Sanders show. The real star here is Steve Carell, star of the American Office, who wrote a large chunk of the screenplay and leads the cast. It's really his first big chance to shine in a comedy lead after some strong support performances in Bruce Almighty and in particular Anchorman. He's lined up for, and currently filming, Evan Almighty where he gets the lead role and also a host of other films based on his sudden popularity. The female lead here is Catherine Keener who made a bit of a splash last year with Capote. This is a chance to show her range. But then she's been around for a while now.
PLOT Andy (Carell) is a virgin. Nothing wrong with that but he's also 40. A revelation to his work colleagues that causes them to group together and offer various bits and bobs of advice in an attempt to get Andy laid. Despite their expert guidance Andy ends up falling in love with Trish (Keener) who runs a store over the road from his place of work. The pressure mounts somewhat when he discovers that Trish is a single mother and they embark on a course of 20 "sexless" dates.
OPINION The main comparison is with Wedding Crashers due to the comparatively close release dates. They were the two big romantic comedies of 2005. I enjoyed Wedding Crashers a great deal. Generally if you laugh at a comedy then it worked. I laughed at Wedding Crashers. But while Wedding Crashers had the irritating and schmaltzy Owen Wilson, 40 Year Old Virgin merely has Paul Rudd occasionally slipping into melancholy. The screen time eaten up by self loathing is kept to a minimum. This, is a good thing. Not only that but as well as retaining the laughs 40 Year Old Virgin also has a more genuine feel. Andy feels like a real person. So does Trish. There's no overboard and bizarre acting to get cheap laughs. All the laughs are either borrowed from classics or just come about from great banter between some of the leads (I'm thinking Rudd & Seth Rogen's "You know how I know you're gay" conversation). In particular I was impressed with the borrowing from Swingers where Rogen tells Andy to be like "David Caruso in the movie Jade" when approaching a girl. "I know exactly what you mean" replies Andy to my amusement. And then there's Gerry Bednob who plays aging Pakistani sales assistant Mooj. His rambling at Andy about how life isn't all about sex is just brilliant. By the time he'd gotten around to talking about "butthole pleasures" I was in bits. But the very best part of the 40 Year Old Virgin is that it doesn't go the cheap route. There are so many potential gross-out laughs but they rarely come close ("then a condom exploded over my balls" an exception) and instead make a very real film. The whole scenario of the guys hanging out at the bar and the way their talk to each other is tremendously realistic and it's a mature way of making a film that could have been a string of gags with no plot attached. Even the really silly gags like the morning wood are handled, pardon the choice of words, in a mature sense. It's essentially the same gag as Jim Carrey's in Me, Myself and Irene but delivered with less silliness. There's more of a sense of realism and that's what makes the odd over the top gag THAT much funnier. "That billboard had two sides and they both hurt" for example as the biggest pratfall in the film gets a really big laugh because there are so few small pratfalls. To cut a long ramble short, I really enjoyed the 40 Year Old Virgin and it's eminently quotable.
BEST BIT Andy's chest waxing session where he starts profusely cursing out the Asian woman who's doing it.
RATING - ****1/2. Consistently funny and with a minimum of schmaltz in the final act, which could have gotten soppy. The use of improvisation is impressive and can be see in detail on the extra features on the DVD, which shows how much impromptu funny stuff got dumped especially in a very extended "you know how I know you're gay" scene. It's a breakout performance for Steve Carell who's traditionally been seen as a bit part character comedy actor. He showed in 40 Year Old Virgin that he could carry a story on his own and make the audience care. Chances are we'll see him be very busy over the next 5 years.
Prince of Darkness (1987)
EXPECTATIONS John Carpenter has always been one of my favoured directors thanks to some films that I watched growing up from him like Dark Star, Halloween, Assault on Precinct 13, The Fog, Escape from New York, The Thing and Big Trouble in Little China. And those were just the ones before Prince of Darkness. Recently Carpenter has gone off the boil somewhat with turkeys like Escape from LA, Vampires and Ghosts of Mars. The latter dipping happily into negative stars and is one of the biggest pieces of crap I've ever had the misfortune to see. Thankfully this film is from Carpenter's glory years and second to last film he made in the 80's; the last being They Live starring Roddy Piper. It's a strong cast too headed up by Donald Pleasance, Victor Wong (Egg Shen in Big Trouble/the old man in the Golden Child/Walter in Tremors), Dennis Dun (also from Big Trouble) and starring Jameson Parker in his career highlight.
PLOT Satan is held captive in a church run by Father Loomis (Pleasance possibly playing the same character as in Halloween although far more likely just named after him). He brings in a research team headed up by Professor Birack (Wong) in an attempt to uncover the secrets behind the evil and find a way to stop it. Meanwhile there's a budding romance between Brian Marsh (Parker) and Catherine Danforth (Lisa Blount) who are both students of Birack. The team run into all sorts of problems when trying to figure out what to do with the evil they encounter causing many of them to try and run for it only to discover the church surrounded by angry vagrants who don't seem to be in control of themselves. The best part of this; the leader of this group is Alice Cooper. Yeah, I marked out like fuck for that one.
OPINION The start of Prince of Darkness is heavily bogged down with philosophy and religious beliefs and stuff like that in an attempt to make the film appear a lot deeper than it is. The philosophy is very dense and is only there to set up some of the more ludicrous storyline turns later in the film. It also makes me hate the lead characters, especially Parker's Brian, because they're pretentious twats. There's also the underlying theme of people from the future broadcasting into the dreams of those in the church using a tachyon pulse, or something else similar that sounds like it dropped out of Star Trek, slowly revealing what happens at the church in the future and generally trying to hint at ways to stop it. The eventual reveal towards the end of the film is truly the most disturbing aspect of what is otherwise a rather mediocre outing. For Carpenter in particular it's disappointing. The script has way too much complexity for what is essentially a horror movie where the cast get picked off one at a time. I found myself frequently switching off during the lengthy debates over parallel universes and the containment of evil. Although all this material is absolutely essential when it comes to explaining the ridiculous ending with the mirrors. The whole religious mythology debate that rages amongst those involved in the film would suggest that Prince of Darkness doesn't adhere to any kind of religious doctrine but instead makes up it's own as it goes along. The idea of some sort of "Anti-God" is conjured up as a premise for the most evil force imaginable. Keeping Satan prisoner in what appears to be an oil drum is the part that I find ridiculous. Of course Carpenter gets around some of the more ludicrous plot points with some genuinely terrific moments of horror. The closing scene is perhaps the most frightening fashion in which a film has ever concluded and left me quite shook up for a few minutes. Had he been able to maintain the dream sequence tension throughout the film rather than using minor gore and green liquid than it could have been a classic. As it stands it's just merely ok.
BEST BIT The closing dream sequence. Is it a dream? Is it a vision of the future? Did they cause this vision to occur with their actions? Or did they merely delay the inevitable? Will his fingers go through the mirror or stop on it? It's great stuff and it's made all the better with the cut away so none of these questions are answered. Unless you have a really inquisitive mind.
RATING - ***. It's a solid if unspectacular horror effort from Carpenter. It doesn't have the tension of The Thing or the jumps of Halloween so it'll never go down as one of Carpenter's best. The ending makes it more memorable with people still debating the meaning of it to this very day. That has to count for something. Well played again Mr Carpenter. Shame about Ghosts of Mars.
Birth of a Nation (1915)
EXPECTATIONS DW Griffith was one of the premier film makers at the turn of the century. His pioneering work in film paved the way for film makers that followed his inspirational lead. Unfortunately he was from the south and his early films, especially this one, are seen as racist and therefore get ignored critically as a result. The star here was Lillian Gish who went on a lengthy career lasting until her retirement due to ill health in the late 80's. She eventually passed away in 1993. She was quite the looker in her younger days.
PLOT An extensive history of the foundations that built modern America stemming from civil unrest prior to the American Civil War to the Reconstruction of the South after the war and the formation, and unfortunate, glorification of the Ku Klux Klan.
OPINION To just ignore the achievements of DW Griffith because he was a racist, although he didn't even realise, would be unfair. Just because the, at times, ridiculous and insulting subject matter of Birth of a Nation is on display doesn't mean there isn't anything that film historians can take from it. Yes, at times you'll cringe at just how racist Birth of a Nation is. The white actors in black up look stupid and some of the concepts of blacks as evil, animalistic, cowardly and easily misguided seem highly unfair. In particular the descriptions of Silas Lynch, a mulatto leader of the black people, who gets a lustful glint in his eye every time he sees Lillian Gish. Or elected black representatives eating and drinking with their feet on the tables while laws are passed. Yes, Birth of a Nation is a racist film. But it's also the first film to have a sense of epic about it. It was the first film to run over 100 minutes. Griffith spent a whopping, astronomical figure of $110,000 on Birth of a Nation. A figure he would eclipse a few years later when he made Intolerance in an attempt to make amends for his mistakes here. Griffith directed 13 single reel films on the civil war before embarking upon this undertaking. His epic film features several lavish outdoor battle scenes, which considering it was 1915, are quite spectacular. Also several outdoor set pieces around the family plantation look terrific for their age. The plot is somewhat hard to deal with though. It shows two families, the powerful Northern family the Stoneman's from Washington. And their Southern cousins the Cameron's. Griffith's intent seemed to be to show the similarities between North & South prior to the civil war by showing these two families interacting. Then the tragedy of them meeting on the field of battle. Although the battle scenes are largely shown from a distance and the lack of sound hurts the effect of the horror there are times when it's easy to get caught up in the moment. However as soon as the war section of the film is done and "the little Colonel" Ben Cameron has returned home we quickly descend into madness as Griffith spins a web of half truths regarding the fallout from the civil war. To be fair to Griffith he probably knew no better and his portrayal of Negroes was merely in line with what he'd been taught by an equally racist and ignorant family he grew up with. To look upon this vision from a more modern time makes it look foolish and offensive. At the time opinion was far more divided although the film was still banned for it's racial overtones in several major cities with high percentages of ethnic populous such as Los Angeles. If you ignore the subject matter the actual filming techniques are very impressive although not flawless. Several times there are revealing mistakes as the scenes move from daytime to night time depending on what part of the town the camera is in. Perhaps the worst crime of Birth of a Nation isn't the racism within it but the fact that every character becomes paper thin in the second half of the film. The writing is exceptionally bad and for all its technological strides the negatives are too great. It's probably worth seeing once just to say you've seen it but ultimately Birth of a Nation is not so much a disappointment but a disaster. It ended up wrecking Griffith's reputation as the foremost director in cinema and history looks back on him in rather unpleasant fashion as a result. I'm not prepared to turn on him based on this one ill educated piece but rather check out Intolerance as well. Hopefully that will less bloated and badly written as well as less racist.
BEST BIT The re-enactment of Abraham Lincoln's assassination. Back and to the left, back and to the left wait, that was something else.
RATING - **. Maybe worth a look in for historical reasons what with the historical forward movement of film techniques this film boasts or if you're a racist. Otherwise avoid.
Manon des sources (1986)
EXPECTATIONS I watched the first part of Manon des sources a few months back for Furious on Film (Jean de Florette *** - FoF #27). I wasn't kind on it and to be fair it felt like the first half of a longer film. Manon would be the completion of said film. The good part of this being that I already have an attachment to several of the characters from Jean de Florette. The addition of the beautiful Emmanuelle Beart merely adds to my enjoyment of the film before it even begins.
PLOT Manon (Beart), Jean de Florette's daughter from the first film, is now grown up and still living in the area as a goat herder. Cesar (Yves Montand) and Ugolin (Daniel Auteuil) have taken over the land from Jean and have been making a lucrative business out of it for over a decade. She discovers that the Soubeyran's conned her family in the first film and a chance accident gives her an opportunity to gain revenge on both of them and the town that turned a blind eye to her father's perils.
OPINION Manon des sources is a significant step up from Jean de Florette. The characters we got to know in the first film are already in place for the plot to flow freely. This means there's no time wasted on long and repetitive scenes. Cesar and Ugolin are their usual devious selves but now Ugolin has developed a crush on Manon and Cesar realises how much Manon looks like Florette, the mother of Jean and also his lover in his youth. Manon herself is more interested in the charismatic and pure school teacher. Ugolin can't deal with that and there's the general set up for the interplay between the characters. Yves Montand is fantastic in this film. If anything he's so good in this film it almost redeems Jean de Florette. While in the first film he was solid support for a bizarre performance from Gerard Depardieu he's now got the screen time to shine. Also Auteuil gets more time to expand on his character and show some more of the heart that he had in Jean de Florette. Unfortunately for Ugolin the more pure soul that Manon is, she can see right through his act like she did when she was a child but now she has the power to make her own decisions. It's with this sort of character development that Manon ties into the first film. As we witness these three characters move forward together and deal with the problems that life presents them. They all have choices apart from Montand's Cesar. He HAD choices but now his time is gone. So he's left to reminisce about his failings in the past. In particular those surrounding his love for Florette. That becomes a key part of the plot and creates some genuinely touching moments. Like, without giving too much away, his trip to the church during the wedding. Plus the back-story added in tells of how he got his limp, which is a nice touch as is the use of the eldest cast member Yvonne Gamy as the aging Delphine explaining some crucial plot twists via the medium of monologue.
BEST BIT Emmanuelle Beart dancing around naked playing the harmonica! Yes, please. I like the use of the harmonica in particular as it ties in to Jean who played it in the first film but the nudity is very welcome.
RATING - ****. A huge improvement over the first film with the characters improving and actually forcing me to think more about the first film than I did at the time, which is impressive. Yves Montand is awesome here giving a huge performance of remarkable scope. Beart is far better in the protagonist role than Gerard Depardieu in the first film and, as expected, Manon des sources is a superior film as a result. I would recommend viewing Jean de Florette first even though I didn't particularly like that as a stand alone film. When the two films come together then magic happens.
Dark Blue (2002)
EXPECTATIONS I'm a huge fan of LA Confidential. I'm convinced it got screwed at the Oscars by Titanic when Curtis Hanson had produced the vastly superior film in every respect with towering acting performances and a tremendous script. Most of the quality in the script came from the source material, a novel, by James Ellroy. LA Confidential made me a fan of Ellroy and his work, not to mention making an assortment of stars including Guy Pierce and Russell Crowe. It's a surprise to me that a movie based on Ellroy's work could actually sneak by me 4 years ago without so much as a whimper. That's the biggest problem Dark Blue had, it didn't do squat the box office but part of the problem was that you have to spend money to make money. Dark Blue was originally planned as a period piece but budget constraints of $15M meant that the story had to be updated and set against the 1991 LA riots. David Ayer was brought in to make the changes for the screen. Ayer doesn't have the best track record with Fast and the Furious, Training Day and SWAT. Ellroy was apparently disgusted with the changes and hates this film. Director is Ron Shelton. I actually like Ron. He did Tin Cup, White Men Can't Jump and Bull Durham. Then he sort of fell off the radar in the late 90's before returning with this and a year later Hollywood Homicide. The latter was worse but did more box office because it had Harrison Ford. Although, to be fair, it had a budget of $75M and lost most of that taking $30M at the US box office.
PLOT Eldon Perry (Kurt Russell) is a corrupt cop trying to navigate his way around a tempestuous Los Angeles during the Rodney King trial. He also has a young partner Bobby Keough (Scott Speedman) who is terrified of gun play. Perry answers to his boss Jack Van Meter (Brendan Gleason on terrific form) who is even more corrupt and will do anything to keep his two scumbag snitches Orchard (Kurupt) and Sidwell (Dash Mihok) on the street so they can continue robbing safes for him. This all goes wrong when Orchard & Sidwell screw up a hit on the Jack O' Hearts convenience store. They kill four people, which results in Perry & Keough taking the case so Van Meter can steer them away from the actual criminals. But Bobby's conscience is getting the better of him and Arthur Holland (Ving Rhames) is breathing down their necks in an attempt to clean up the department. Not quite as dense as LA Confidential but on it is way there.
OPINION Dark Blue comes up a little bit short. The conversion from its original period setting to 1991 somewhat stunts the otherwise solid cast. Originally it was penned as being set during the Watts riots in the 60's but the budget got cut so there goes the dream of a period piece. The lack of funding then makes Dark Blue look a little cheap. The $15M seems to have stretched quite well what with them having to recreate the LA riots on a shoestring but ultimately the movie needed more money. Because the studio didn't see a return they got screwed and the film took $9M at the box office, which is the real shame in all of this. Several of the performances are top drawer. Speedman isn't up to Guy Pierce standards but he certainly carries his weight as a nervous rookie cop scared of doing the wrong thing. Or the right thing. Or anything. The more world weary Kurt Russell delivers a patchy performance. Occasionally he's terrific and some of the time he's not very good at all. All those forced swear words didn't seem to suit him and frankly they didn't need to be in the script. Meanwhile Brendan Gleason happily acts him off the screen becoming a figure of corruption in a very sinister and real fashion. Ving Rhames completes the heavy hitters in the line up and it's a real pity there weren't more scenes between him and Gleason like the elevator scene where Gleason talks about boats for ages before Rhames just cuts him down with; "I don't like boats. And I don't like you". A big problem with Dark Blue is it has much of the same dynamic as Training Day and Kurt Russell just can't measure up to the stunning wild-eyed performance from Denzel Washington just a year before. The adaptation of Ellroy's work leaves a lot to be desired. The basic plot is very strong but the little finishing measures, the final coat of paint on the film, doesn't cut it. Ayers doesn't seem attached to his characters nor can he define them compared to those in Training Day. Having no real distinction between Russell and Washington despite their characters essentially being very, very different but sharing a few similar things. For me the lazy script conversion tanked the film before it even began. Saying that it's a shame that Dark Blue didn't reach a wider audience because it's not bad at all. But Training Day is significantly better thanks to Denzel Washington's turn.
BEST BIT The Jack O' Hearts robbery. Orchard fails to open a safe while the store is still open leaving Sidwell to gun down multiple customers in cold blood. The brutal slaying of the Korean woman behind the counter by Orchard as he enters isn't quite on a par with O-Dog's similar crime in Menace II Society but it's simple cold blooded approach is terrifying. No argument just BANG. And she's dead.
RATING - ***. Dark Blue could have been an excellent film if 1) James Ellroy had been allowed to finish the script and that script had been the one filmed 2) the studio had put a budget to this allowing it to remain a period piece 3) the studio had actually backed the film when it came out. All the pieces are there otherwise. The direction is reasonable but the film comes off as too cheap too many times. Gleason and Rhames are terrific and Speedman isn't bad in what should have been a breakout picture for him.
ELSEWHERE
Steve Vicious has his TV wrap thing going on. Here's a plug from Furious to Vicious. 411 sure is an angry place.
Cris Murphy has the Warped News once again. Just to add to the voting I'd like Charisma Carpenter as Wonderwoman. I think Kate Beckinsale is hot but overexposed. Time to let someone else take a big role.
Sirois! has Batman Returns analysis in Anatomy of a Scene. Great scene as well. It was the one I most enjoyed in Batman Returns with the possible exception of Michelle Pfeiffer flipping across the road and just stopping before saying "meow".
Csonka with world champs who never were. Plug for the Consigliere of the 411 family. I think Snuka would have been a great world champion if he could have kept his shit together.
British Bulldogs video recap by yours truly. More WCW on the way for anyone who was interested. I've done all the way up to and including Clash 24.
NEXT I'll be looking at Michael Bay's latest blow shit up flick The Island to see if he's worthy of doing the live action version of Transformers: The Movie.
